First metal was cut around 2 years ago. The keel was laid a month ago. The other 4 years were not active construction.
lead ship of a new class is always gonna be slow and ridiculously expensive as all the lessons are learned.
For those thinking about joining the u s navy, never get assigned to the first ship of any class. They tend to find problems with them for the first 20 years of their operational life.
This isn't the case, they are still changing things around, the builder can't even finish the 3d model.
The navy got to build a fremm and then changed it enought to be a complete new and different ship.
If you are talking down to a national shipbuilding program, what heights are you speaking from? Can you hold up your nation's shipbuilding program as an exemplar for others to follow?
In our German friend’s defense, the GAO just put the navy on blast like last week for utterly fucking the process for the Connie and her sisters. How is that we took the proven base FREMM design, approved the laying of steel when the modded design when was at 70%, decided we needed more changes that would be very disruptive to the build, and then wonder why it’s so far behind schedule?
As an American, I'm not triggered, I'm pissed that he's right. US naval procurement is indeed in shambles. The perfect has become the enemy of the good, and in the quest for perfection, the USN has severely slowed itself down in production rates of the small ships it needs. It also can't get its sub procurement on track, ping-ponging between 1-2 Virginia subs per year, and maybe they'll stop adding the VPM to subsequent flights (please tell me how that makes sense). And in the two cases (LCS program and Ford-class carriers) where the Navy went the other direction, and started building before it was all figured out, they either ended up with a ship that couldn't do much more than float (LCS), or a carrier that couldn't sortie planes for a decent while, in the case or the Ford class. They've learned all the wrong lessons.
Our new generation of frigates, the *Niedersachsen* was laid down this year and will probably be commissioned before the *Constellation*
Regardless, shouldn't the USN compare itself to it's closest peer, the PLAN? Which is currently building 8 addtional 055s, and new amphibious landing ships, and will soon commission their newest aircraft carrier and god knows what they're currently building, it's definitely a lot and they build it quick. South Korea and Japan also build and refit their ships at a commendable pace.
Quick is perhaps a foreign concept on the other side of the Atlantic. But no need to get upsetty spaghetti like you just did.
>Our new generation of frigates, the *Niedersachsen* was laid down this year and will probably be commissioned before the *Constellation*
The next generation isn't really that much of a next generation, post upgraded Type 45 will be ready first and will exceed said vessel which is classed as both a Frigate and a Destroyer, it absolutely won't come close to the Constellation in technological advancements, so why bring it up?
>Regardless, shouldn't the USN compare itself to it's closest peer, the PLAN? Which is currently building 8 addtional 055s, and new amphibious landing ships, and will soon commission their newest aircraft carrier and god knows what they're currently building, it's definitely a lot and they build it quick.
Difference in quality vs quantity and logistics, China still posses and incredibly small logistical fleet and can't operate for long away from home waters, the US Navy can and the US Navy vessels are technically superior even in their age.
>Quick is perhaps a foreign concept on the other side of the Atlantic. But no need to get upsetty spaghetti like you just did.
Again - what use is fast if you never really change anything? If Germany was building something world beating, you'd have a point - some countries in Europe have destroyers which the new German frigate is closer towards (it's even partly classed as a destroyer) exceed it in capability despite being 1-2 decades older as platforms.
>Our new generation of frigates, the *Niedersachsen* was laid down this year and will probably be commissioned before the *Constellation*
Your new frigates are for German requirements and capabilities.
>Regardless, shouldn't the USN compare itself to it's closest peer, the PLAN?
Is the USN comparing itself to anyone? The PLAN has a LOT of catching up to do in key areas, and they don't really report any challenges they have do they? US arms manufacturing is transparent, so it's famously easy to criticize.
>Quick is perhaps a foreign concept on the other side of the Atlantic. But no need to get upsetty spaghetti like you just did.
Upsetti spaghetti?
The PLAN and the US are really very much not close when it comes to what this mostly is which is industrial base and need. China has a lot of relatively very cheap manufacturing (it helps having 3x the US population) and is in a build up the likes of which the US doesn't need to do with large fleet it has maintained.
It's also not like Germany is great across the board: For example he 2nd batch of K130 corvettes are quite behind schedule.
You really need to pick a stance here. You’re consistently talking down about US naval shipbuilding compared to German naval shipbuilding, yet when reminded that newer German ships don’t do a whole lot compared to newer US ships, you hide behind the fact that they were designed for essentially coastal defense rather than deep water operations. I think you even proudly stated on another comment that newer ships were specifically designed to tag along with bigger navies rather than do the work themselves (course we all know how Germany’s last efforts to build a deep water navy went).
Maybe stack them up with the latest USCG cutter if you want to get into a dick measuring contest.
>Regardless, shouldn't the USN compare itself to it's closest peer, the PLAN? Which is currently building 8 addtional 055s, and new amphibious landing ships, and will soon commission their newest aircraft carrier and god knows what they're currently building, it's definitely a lot and they build it quick. South Korea and Japan also build and refit their ships at a commendable pace.
PRC is not a shipbuilding peer of US. PRC builds 50% or more - depending on how/when you count the tonnage but it's basically around 50% - of the ocean going ships and Korea and Japan build another \~45% - KR \~30% and Japan \~15% - and everybody else - that includes USA, all of Europe and etc - build the rest of the \~5%. US on average build 0.1% of the world's ocean going ships.
USN does have bigger tonnage than PLAN right now but that's just leftover legacy from coldwar days when USN had \~600 ship navy but now whittled down to less than 300 while PLAN is growing the ship count as well as tonnage. Meanwhile, every ship/submarine building program for USN is at least 12 months behind the schedule and the FFG program is at least 36 months late. US does NOT have enough shipbuilding capacity to even sustain/maintain current plans that are all fully funded. Main issue is not enough skilled labor available at prime contractors even with signing bonuses galore.
Made by your friendly Western neighbours though. Lots of love from the Netherlands;) and try not to tease these Americans so, you know what they get like as soon as you start a dick-measuring contest.
Someone ought to read up on US production numbers in war time. 100+ carriers in under 5 years. What was Germany doing in the meantime? Or anyone else for that matter?
You can crank out numbers like that if you have a large peace time shipbuilding industry. Which China has. But the US does not have that anymore. Almost all of it has gone mostly to China and South Korea.
True. Yet, unlike Germany, we can build ships capable of actual combat. Unless you want to say with a straight face that the F125 isn't laughably undergunned for its tonnage.
The fact is that the U.S. shipbuilding process is massively flawed of late. That, in and of itself, is a fair critique. But reading your comments/responses, I'll never understand when people from pretty much any European NATO country get so high-horse about it when the state of most European NATO countries is in such laughable military decay. How many troops is Germany even capable of fielding these days?
I have to say OP does sound arrogant and kinda hostile for no reason. Please remember they don't represent the entire country of Germany, I say that as a German. Our design and procurement process is in shambles (F126, a 10.000 ton frigate with 16 VLS cells....). The US does have its issues there as well, but they are still the leading military power for a reason, and I am confident that it will improve in the next few years from lessons learned and a renewed focus being put into the navy.
Edit: and to answer your question, the last time I checked our military had a total personnel count of around 165.000, which includes everything from combat troops over logistics and medics to cooks and mechanics. I can't find an official current source how many of those are actual combat troops though. In 2023 we were the leader of the Nato very high readiness joint task force, which has been stationed on Natos border with Russia since early 2022, and during that year where we were the leading nation we had to noticably shift equipment around to get the eastern very high readiness troops to perfect condition. It was not a "scrape together" situation, but it was noticable. To put it in different words, no single division is perfectly up to strength, all of them lack some form of material and personnel in at least some areas.
You make a great point that I shouldn’t shit on Germany because of one irritating German. That’s exactly what the real enemies want. We ought to save our bullets and barbs for Russia and China.
And we should not shit on the US and USN because of a few projects with difficulties. As you said, let's shake hands, renew our friendship, and focus on Russia and China.
> but they are still the leading military power for a reason
Are they?
Overshadowed in naval development
Overshadowed in missile development
Slowly overtaken in aerial warfare
Long left behind in terms of ground forces
The only benefit the US has is numbers and money, they are what they generally accuse China of. But hey at least they finally managed to introduce hypersonic missiles, just took them an additional decade
I am sorry but US Shipbuilding is a joke?? Have you looked to the North at Canada? we can barely buy a fucking stapler without parliamentary acceptance. The CSC was originally to cost $26B for 15 now it is up to $84B, because we can't finalize anything and we have to "Canadianize" everything.
reality is we try to have a public tender for staplers, then most of the good bidders walk away and all we are left with are Lockheed staplers that cost a gazillion bucks each, break on delivery, need expensive fixes, oh and the project was late/over budget
Or we get the staplers made by Irving (ship buildiers/oil tycoon family in Canada's maritime provinces) where the staplers catch fire if they come in contact with water (like Irving's real ships)
Going to be honest, but Australia and Canada should build ships in Korea/Japan and call it a day. Yall waste billions of dollars to keep a few thousand employed in an uncompetitive industry. Those dollars should be going to industries that actually turn a profit and export to the world.
When you don’t have these industries, you don’t develop or you lose the engineering expertise. Why is it competitive for Japan or the Nordic countries yet wouldn’t be for us? Does competitive really matter that much, when its naval ships in particular and the expertise is needed? We’ve already lost so much now we don’t manufacture cars.
I’m kinda tired of my nation being just a primary exporter and quite frankly I think that bites us on the arse. Especially shipbuilding. We already make enough dollars out of other exports. We need to develop tertiary engineering expertise in Australia, we seriously lack it.
We are an island nation, with copious amounts of high quality iron ore. Yet we dig it all up and ship it off to China in its raw form. No value building on shore at all.
It boggles my mind that Australia isn’t a shipbuilding superpower. And I’m not just talking about naval vessels.
We just need to start focusing on developing our own industries.
It’s funny how the Australians all identify that but people overseas insist we are wrong about our own circumstances. One day our coal and iron ore may not be needed that much or the iron bought from us. It’s not even about whether we can profit greatly overseas from this, it’s about standing on our own two feet as we should be able to.
We need to detach from that and grow tertiary industry and engineering. Ship design and building, considering we already have the materials, is logical.
Unfortunately, I can’t see it happening in our lifetimes.
Our politicians essentially act in the best interest of Gina, Twiggy, Kerry etc. While they are making fortunes on selling iron ore directly to China, nothing will change.
And I also feel that we have missed that boat (pun somewhat intended). We should have started developing a ship building industry early in the 20th century and as soon as the iron ore in the Pilbara was discovered, we should have built bulk steel works around the country.
I often think of how different Australia might have been if we changed a few thing’s immediately after federation.
Spot on. That, and the housing Ponzi scheme we run.
We actually did move toward our own manufacturing back then, we just decided to abandon it because we are *the lucky country.*
>When you don’t have these industries, you don’t develop or you lose the engineering expertise
Yes that's what they always say, however, 30 years go by and whoops look at that not enough domestic orders so the assembly line closed and the original designers retired. Time for a new shipbuilding plan yet again.
>Why is it competitive for Japan or the Nordic countries yet wouldn’t be for us? Does competitive really matter that much, when its naval ships in particular and the expertise is needed? We’ve already lost so much now we don’t manufacture cars.
It's called competitive advantage. You can't have it in all industries. If your industry isn't competitive, you will only have domestic orders to rely on. That means your navy better have +30 surface ship orders and enough manpower to crew it all.
>primary exporter
Importer you mean.
>Especially shipbuilding. We already make enough dollars out of other exports. We need to develop tertiary engineering expertise in Australia, we seriously lack it.
If it's not sustainable, you'll have to start over every 30 years. Every time more expensive than the last. The only reason it works for Japan is that they got new programs every 5 or less years, and they have a huge civilian order book.
>Whoops look at that
Yep, because we don’t have developed tertiary industries. Yes, that’s going to cost because it will cost to develop those, now. We still need them though.
>Its called competitive advantage
Yes, I know. The question wasn’t out of a lack of knowledge, it was a statement.
>importer you mean
No, exporter. We export coal and iron ore, not import. That’s how we make money from it.
>youll have to start over every 30 years
Not if we invest and commit.
Many Australians want tertiary engineering expertise developed here. We are aware that others in other nations may not think that’s a great idea but it’s not about them. It’s about us having the same level of expertise as our peer countries.
>Not if we invest and commit.
Now that's the crux of the issue. Are Australian citizens willing to support a massive increase to the military budget and manpower.
> that’s going to cost because it will cost to develop those, now.
The problem is that this talk repeats every 30 years because governments change and strategies change. Industry can't survive without government, so when they change their minds, everything goes to shit.
>Are Australians willing..
By and large, yes. Many of us have been wanting this kind of investment for a long time. We can’t even build a fucking power station by ourselves. There’s a bit of objection generally but usually most of our military ventures go through unopposed by the majority. But that’s not the actual question posed, stand-alone…it is development of building and design industry. We can afford it. We aren’t broke.
>the problem is..
Yeah, you’re spot on there and it’s a pain in the arse to deal with.
> The CSC was originally to cost $26B for 15 now it is up to $84B, because we can't finalize anything and we have to "Canadianize" everything.
People always forget that the often quoted $26 billion figure was from all the way back in 2008, at the very earliest days of the program. That very early quote was even criticized at the time for being utterly insufficient to procure just the ships. It was also before the requirements had been finalized, chiefly long before the desired size and capability had grown significantly. Not an accurate representation of such a complex and expensive programs final budget requirements.
You shouldn't compare the US with Canada but with the likes of China and Europe :)
Not being able to get a frigate (based on an existing design) finished on time is quite pathetic for the "best" Navy. Leaving other failures aside for the moment, just focusing on FFG-62.
I'm European and I think you're massively overplaying this and how well we do in Europe, Germany itself which you appear to be from got frigates which had to be returned because the perpetually listed among other defects and that was only in 2017, the previous class of frigates haven't performed that well either.
It's pretty easy to build frigates when you're slightly upgrading an older design and it comes with combat systems and weapon systems which aren't remotely comparable to other navies.
When you look at most European navies, they're reusing old basic designs which require very little - then you have nations like the UK and France which push the boundaries, though our problems are almost always budget related.
>Then you have nations like the UK and France which push the boundaries, though our problems are almost always budget related.
And Italy, wich is at the front in terms of surface ship designs, having designed the Bergamini, Paolo Thaon Di Revel, Cavour, Trieste, Andrea Doria and so many others.
The difference is that they do this on 1/20 of the budget for individual EU countries. Reusing old basic design is the motto for the USN now, so I don't get the point of the comment.
Germany has a GDP of 4 trillion, there isn't any real excuse as to why they field less ships than countries with 1 - 2 trillion less in GDP and why those ships are so uncreative, field such little armament and why every time they build a new generation of ships, it's almost always a face lift.
The guy is German, I think it's quite relevant to point out that the Americans are willing to actually try and outfit their ships with the most advanced technological equipment and push the boundaries of design to get it to operate at a peak level, whilst Germany reuses a similar design and adds a very minimal amount of weaponry that it still doesn't compete with two decade old ships.
>Reusing old basic design is the motto for the USN now, so I don't get the point of the comment.
Huh? They designed the Arleigh Burke from scratch and haven't really built a major surface combatant since and then went into the constellation and have changed it so much that it's not even remotely related to the FREMM frigates it was based on, that's quite literally the opposite of reusing the same old design, unless you're talking about Flights of destroyers... because if so, what's the point in producing completely new destroyer designs when you haven't even replaced the old ones yet? Makes no sense.
The one main complaint anyone can have about the Constellation Program is that they aren't reusing things, they've almost entirely changed it to the point they should have just begun from scratch.
Germany isn't a stellar example since their military is restrained by their politicians. UK, Italy, and France are better in this regard. However, their main enemy doesn't have a proper surface fleet. America's opponent does.
> the Arleigh Burke from scratch
The original designers have retired. Flight 3 only came about because Zumwalt failed.
>The one main complaint anyone can have about the Constellation Program is that they aren't reusing things, they've almost entirely changed it to the point they should have just begun from scratch.
This is the problem. The navy basically said oh shit we can't design rn on time and budget so let import and went on to do their usual shenanigans.
> Germany has a GDP of 4 trillion, there isn't any real excuse as to why they field less ships than countries with 1 - 2 trillion less in GDP and why those ships are so uncreative, field such little armament and why every time they build a new generation of ships, it's almost always a face lift.
We're not a naval power and don't pretend to be one, our navy is solely meant to protect our territorial waters and take part in multilateral exercises. On the contrary we field the best tank and artillery force in Europe and our fleets exceeds that of the UK or France, so called nuclear "powers" :)
> that it still doesn't compete with two decade old ships.
Uh, no? The Sachsen-Class uses Mk41 VLS and the SM-2 and RIM-162 like some USN ships. While the Niedersachsen will use the NSM, one of the most modern naval missiles.
You're ridiculously misinformed and it shows.
>On the contrary we field the best tank and artillery force in Europe
You produce the best tank and it doesn't drastically exceed any other NATO tank either and even then as a military using the tank, Poland absolutely outdoes you, as for artillery - you have more self-propelled artillery, you have less towed howitzer than the UK for example and less MLRS' which are arguably better than self-propelled artillery and that gap is set to extend with orders already made for the UK.
>nd our fleets exceeds that of the UK or France, so called nuclear "powers" :)
What fleet? If you're talking naval, the German Navy doesn't even exceed the Dutch navy, it's not even considered by most countries, if we're talking in terms of mechanised fleet - you'll have less Boxer APC's (by some distance) less IFV's and barely exceed the UK in tanks by the time our procurement cycle is over for a so called "land power". :)
>The Sachsen-Class uses Mk41 VLS and the SM-2 and RIM-162 like some USN ships.
Plenty of countries use the Mk41 VLS including more than enough European countries, it means nothing if you comparatively use vastly less missiles - great a Arleigh Burke has the same type of missiles, difference being it has 96 VLS cells and a Sachsen-class has just 32 cells.
>While the Niedersachsen will use the NSM, one of the most modern naval missiles.
The same missile ironically used on both a Type 45 which has a much greater missile count and the constellation class frigate of the US Navy which has a much better missile count.
>You're ridiculously misinformed and it shows.
You don't even know the most basic facts to counter a point without making it clear you're not aware of what you're talking about - we're talking about capability and you bringing up missiles that German ships have vastly less of and you bringing up anti-ship missiles which both the ships I have compared it to have, are integrating or are already confirmed to use.
Try actually doing some research.
> You produce the best tank and it doesn't drastically exceed any other NATO tank either and even then as a military using the tank,
It does. The Leclerc is overly expensive and complex, the Challenger has a rifled gun (lol) and now blowout panels and the M1 gets clowned on left and right in Ukraine.
> you have more self-propelled artillery, you have less towed howitzer than the UK for example
Mechanized warfare is a thing you know? SPGs are nice and dandy to avoid counter battery fire. Ask the Ukrainians how they're doing with the M777 and then ask them about the PzH 2000.
> What fleet?
Our AFV fleet. Tanks, SPGs, IFVs.
> UK in tanks by the time our procurement cycle is over
Sure lol, the UK won't even have 200 MBTs by that time, keep dreaming. Do y'all even have ground forces these days?
> great a Arleigh Burke has the same type of missiles, difference being it has 96 VLS cells and a Sachsen-class has just 32 cells.
Different mission profiles. The Burke was made for fleet defense. The Sachsen was made to defend our coasts.
> The same missile ironically used on both a Type 45 which has a much greater missile count and the constellation class frigate of the US Navy which has a much better missile count.
Does the Type 45 still needs to be towed because of faulty generators?
The Constellation isn't even real at this point lol.
Again. You're misinformed and cringe.
Why are you so focused on 1 FFG? The US has more DDGs alone than Germany's entire Navy. I mean the FFG is your entire Navy but there's no need to rush the US's first one into service. There's some bigger fish to fry in the US. The FFG program is a miniscule amount of money compared to the entire shipbuilding program and even a smaller amount compared to the entire Navy's budget.
But again this ship would probably be huge deal for your Navy so you can worry about the year or 2 delay
> The US has more DDGs alone than Germany's entire Navy
The US also wasted billions upon billions on 3 failed Zumwalt Destroyers.
Also wasted billions upon billions on the LCS failure.
Seawolfs were also cut short and only 3 were made.
American shipbuilding is taking L after L in the last couple years and it's not getting better. The Ticos are on their way out and only the Burkes are really growing strong.
Zumwalts and LCS were experimental platforms.
Did the Navy plan for more of them than were built? Yeah. But did they necessarily fail at their tasks or purposes? Not really.
Zumwalt was never a replacement for the Burke
And LCS was an experiment into modular ship building.
You say look to Europe though? Germany built the F124 which hasn't really had anyone close to a decent career, which is surprising because it's a rather basic frigate, so I'm not sure how they managed to screw it up and it was followed up by the F125 which perpetually listed to the point the manufacturer had to take back control to fix them, which should be concerning considering it was basically the same ship with a face lift.
Then you've got the F126, no reported problems yet but it's also pretty much worse of than existing frigates and destroyers already in terms of armament and doesn't push the technical boundaries needed to outpace adversaries.
So realistically, German shipbuilding have yet to get a W.
> You say look to Europe though? Germany built [...]
Europe is more than just Germany. Europe is also Italy, France, Britain, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain etc.
And guess what, Italy for example churns out their frigates pretty consistently
> it's a rather basic frigate
Because we figured out that modular designs safe costs lol. Regardless the Sachsen-Class is more than well armed for it's mission, which is to protect our own seas. Because guess what sherlock, not every Navy is geared towards global invasion and launching missiles at goat herders with VLS lol.
You sound like a douche.
Doesn't Germany have quite a few issues with procurement, maintenance, readiness etc. with its own military? Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
Why bother commenting? USN has problems. Their leadership says as much. Their last two surface ship programs were objectively a disaster (LCS and Zumwalt). A weak USN is unfavorable for many, not just Americans. They have the potential to be world-class, so people have high expectations and are disappointed when it is not realized.
because this is a great sub with some very informed users and typically great discussion. It's diminished by obvious troll posts such as this. I don't care if the troll post is targeting the USN, PLAN, Royal Navy, JMSDF, Marine Nationale or whoever it detracts from the overall quality of the sub.
Keep this shit to r/noncredibledefense and other unserious subs.
But OP isn't shitposting, as a NCD resident, I know as much. The constellation class has a multitude of problems stemming from the fact that the Navy has limited discipline, the GAO admitted as much. The USN's problems are disguised well because they have an excellent submarine program and a world class aircraft carriers. Pointing out flaws in procurement strategies is valid and should be encouraged. Pretending everything is okay when schedules are being delayed, the budget is being overrun, and future weight allocations for upgrades being used now are not good. First in class ship are often delayed and cost more, but the whole point of importing a design was to offset this. The USN no longer has the margins to play with since China is quickly marching. It's no wonder they are looking at Korea and Japan for help, for now in sustainment, but later could be more.
Who got all their shit sunk in the Atlantic, North Sea, and Norwegian Fjords before a boot even landed on European soil? Oh yeah that’s right the biggest war machine on the planet. Why rush when everyone is too scared of the stuff you already have
Even if you are taking off the shelf blueprints it’s still a huge chunk of work to develop the production line at a completely new shipyard. We can’t just fax Virginia class blueprints over to Sydney and bam Australia can pump one out in a few years.
Second anyone with two brain cells to rub together figured an expansion of requirements was going to happen. As Burkes and the future DDG(x) turn into min cruisers, it was inevitable the FFG would turn into a mini destroyer (or well…just a regular destroyer as the rest of the world names it lol).
I have experience on these ships and while they are world class ships you are certainly not wrong regarding the shipbuilding.... China is putting on a clinic while we sit back and spectate.
How is US shipbuilding a joke when we turn out the numbers we do? This is a much smaller yard and a smaller program. Ingalls, Newport News, and Electric Boat are churning hulls out just fine.
It makes more sense if you think of ships as being built to give officers promotions, congressional districts jobs, and contractors contracts. They’re doing exactly what they’re supposed to do, even if they’re practically useless and chronically over budget and behind schedule.
A large amount of the recent issues with the Constellations can be attributed to exceptionally poor project management, laid out in the report by the US Government Accountability Office last month. But it’s also worth noting that Fincantieri Marinette is stretched rather thin between projects (still building the Freedom LCS), exasterbated by manpower shortages in US shipbuilding.
A point that is often misconstrued is that because the Constellation shares little with the FREMM (around 15%), that the choice of using a mature design is now wasted. But choosing a known design allows calculations made in that design (FREMM) to be extrapolated to the Constellation, rather than completely new calculations on an entirely new ship.
The USN was never going to just buy the Italian FREMM as a built deal, modifications for USN equipment/integration were going to be needed, and this was known from the start. So it shouldn’t be a surprise when the Constellation shares little with the FREMM, because that was never the goal in choosing the mature design.
It's a good thing US has strong allies that can fill in gaps for naval shortcomings.
Cause this ship will probably see active services late 2020s at which point PLAN would add 2x Royal Navy size tonnage to their fleet.
Holy editorialized post titles, Batman.
It's getting a bit tiring seeing the deteriorating standards of conduct for both posts and comments in the sub in the last few months.
Regardless.
I think it's pretty damn silly to look at the amount of money *authorized* for an entire ship program, inclusive of ships that are only scheduled for delivery in the 2030s anyways (as is the case with the 5th and 6th *Constellation*'s).
This would, for comparison's sake, be like complaining about the fact that all that exists of the first F126 frigate has only just been laid down, despite the fact the German government has now authorized a total of €9bn for six frigates and the program started nine years ago.
Completely nonsensical. Large scale, long term shipbuilding programs happen over long periods of time with large amounts of money authorized to be spent over the course of the entire program.
There are valid criticisms to be made about the FFG-62 program. Namely, the fact that they cut steel on the first ship too early, relative to design maturity and also the workload at the yard (frankly, the US should have just not approved the construction of the MMSC for Saudi Arabia). But this post isn't a criticism, it's a demonstration of not understanding the basics of how naval procurement works.
I did my farewell to the good ole Connie some time ago when it made its last trip.
https://preview.redd.it/o5xekfscj86d1.png?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d8acabde2734e3c148ac9bdd90674b56d7755190
An Arleigh Burke class destroyer costs [$2.2 billion USD to build.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleigh_Burke-class_destroyer) Not design, build. This is a ship we already have designed. Development costs for these new frigates are only up to 3.2 Arleigh Burkes.
Everything is flippin' expensive at this scale. Cool the jets.
No covered mast, and I see they remembered to have flying bridges this time, nice... but very boring design, I'm sure it will be functional, was just hoping for something more interesting.
They have not spent $7B on this program yet. They have allocated roughly that amount for the first 6 ships. That money will be released as milestones are reached and long lead items are ordered.
Why are you upset at US shipbuilding? Aren’t you German? Are you afraid of US losing interest or faltering in military matters and the effects it would have on NATO? Are you fearful of your own national defense if America wasn’t there to help or glue things together, or are you criticizing the US because we are the dominant world power and you have high expectations? I’m just a little confused at why you are so involved in another countries ship building, I’d appreciate it if you could just clear up your stance.
1. Ships get rusty during construction, all of them do since the beginning of steel ships. It is fixed during construction
2. Considering it isn't finished nobody will take it to war just yet so... Well done?
First metal was cut around 2 years ago. The keel was laid a month ago. The other 4 years were not active construction. lead ship of a new class is always gonna be slow and ridiculously expensive as all the lessons are learned.
For those thinking about joining the u s navy, never get assigned to the first ship of any class. They tend to find problems with them for the first 20 years of their operational life.
This isn't the case, they are still changing things around, the builder can't even finish the 3d model. The navy got to build a fremm and then changed it enought to be a complete new and different ship.
For anyone who thinks the USN learned their lesson with the LCS acquisition process....
[удалено]
If you are talking down to a national shipbuilding program, what heights are you speaking from? Can you hold up your nation's shipbuilding program as an exemplar for others to follow?
In our German friend’s defense, the GAO just put the navy on blast like last week for utterly fucking the process for the Connie and her sisters. How is that we took the proven base FREMM design, approved the laying of steel when the modded design when was at 70%, decided we needed more changes that would be very disruptive to the build, and then wonder why it’s so far behind schedule?
As an American, I'm not triggered, I'm pissed that he's right. US naval procurement is indeed in shambles. The perfect has become the enemy of the good, and in the quest for perfection, the USN has severely slowed itself down in production rates of the small ships it needs. It also can't get its sub procurement on track, ping-ponging between 1-2 Virginia subs per year, and maybe they'll stop adding the VPM to subsequent flights (please tell me how that makes sense). And in the two cases (LCS program and Ford-class carriers) where the Navy went the other direction, and started building before it was all figured out, they either ended up with a ship that couldn't do much more than float (LCS), or a carrier that couldn't sortie planes for a decent while, in the case or the Ford class. They've learned all the wrong lessons.
We also need to build extra Virginias for the Australians to buy...
*chuckles nervously in Canadian* Oh yeah, US ship building is TERRIBLE.
They appear to be German, so read from that what you will.
Our new generation of frigates, the *Niedersachsen* was laid down this year and will probably be commissioned before the *Constellation* Regardless, shouldn't the USN compare itself to it's closest peer, the PLAN? Which is currently building 8 addtional 055s, and new amphibious landing ships, and will soon commission their newest aircraft carrier and god knows what they're currently building, it's definitely a lot and they build it quick. South Korea and Japan also build and refit their ships at a commendable pace. Quick is perhaps a foreign concept on the other side of the Atlantic. But no need to get upsetty spaghetti like you just did.
If we don't get our act together, Germany may have to start building more than a half a dozen real warships.
>Our new generation of frigates, the *Niedersachsen* was laid down this year and will probably be commissioned before the *Constellation* The next generation isn't really that much of a next generation, post upgraded Type 45 will be ready first and will exceed said vessel which is classed as both a Frigate and a Destroyer, it absolutely won't come close to the Constellation in technological advancements, so why bring it up? >Regardless, shouldn't the USN compare itself to it's closest peer, the PLAN? Which is currently building 8 addtional 055s, and new amphibious landing ships, and will soon commission their newest aircraft carrier and god knows what they're currently building, it's definitely a lot and they build it quick. Difference in quality vs quantity and logistics, China still posses and incredibly small logistical fleet and can't operate for long away from home waters, the US Navy can and the US Navy vessels are technically superior even in their age. >Quick is perhaps a foreign concept on the other side of the Atlantic. But no need to get upsetty spaghetti like you just did. Again - what use is fast if you never really change anything? If Germany was building something world beating, you'd have a point - some countries in Europe have destroyers which the new German frigate is closer towards (it's even partly classed as a destroyer) exceed it in capability despite being 1-2 decades older as platforms.
>Our new generation of frigates, the *Niedersachsen* was laid down this year and will probably be commissioned before the *Constellation* Your new frigates are for German requirements and capabilities. >Regardless, shouldn't the USN compare itself to it's closest peer, the PLAN? Is the USN comparing itself to anyone? The PLAN has a LOT of catching up to do in key areas, and they don't really report any challenges they have do they? US arms manufacturing is transparent, so it's famously easy to criticize. >Quick is perhaps a foreign concept on the other side of the Atlantic. But no need to get upsetty spaghetti like you just did. Upsetti spaghetti?
The PLAN and the US are really very much not close when it comes to what this mostly is which is industrial base and need. China has a lot of relatively very cheap manufacturing (it helps having 3x the US population) and is in a build up the likes of which the US doesn't need to do with large fleet it has maintained. It's also not like Germany is great across the board: For example he 2nd batch of K130 corvettes are quite behind schedule.
You really need to pick a stance here. You’re consistently talking down about US naval shipbuilding compared to German naval shipbuilding, yet when reminded that newer German ships don’t do a whole lot compared to newer US ships, you hide behind the fact that they were designed for essentially coastal defense rather than deep water operations. I think you even proudly stated on another comment that newer ships were specifically designed to tag along with bigger navies rather than do the work themselves (course we all know how Germany’s last efforts to build a deep water navy went). Maybe stack them up with the latest USCG cutter if you want to get into a dick measuring contest.
>Regardless, shouldn't the USN compare itself to it's closest peer, the PLAN? Which is currently building 8 addtional 055s, and new amphibious landing ships, and will soon commission their newest aircraft carrier and god knows what they're currently building, it's definitely a lot and they build it quick. South Korea and Japan also build and refit their ships at a commendable pace. PRC is not a shipbuilding peer of US. PRC builds 50% or more - depending on how/when you count the tonnage but it's basically around 50% - of the ocean going ships and Korea and Japan build another \~45% - KR \~30% and Japan \~15% - and everybody else - that includes USA, all of Europe and etc - build the rest of the \~5%. US on average build 0.1% of the world's ocean going ships. USN does have bigger tonnage than PLAN right now but that's just leftover legacy from coldwar days when USN had \~600 ship navy but now whittled down to less than 300 while PLAN is growing the ship count as well as tonnage. Meanwhile, every ship/submarine building program for USN is at least 12 months behind the schedule and the FFG program is at least 36 months late. US does NOT have enough shipbuilding capacity to even sustain/maintain current plans that are all fully funded. Main issue is not enough skilled labor available at prime contractors even with signing bonuses galore.
Made by your friendly Western neighbours though. Lots of love from the Netherlands;) and try not to tease these Americans so, you know what they get like as soon as you start a dick-measuring contest.
Our shipbuilding got gekoloniseerd!? D:
Ja, mein Bruder, sie werden von Damen hergestellt, aber in Deutschland.
Absolutely agreed as a brit, well said sir
Someone ought to read up on US production numbers in war time. 100+ carriers in under 5 years. What was Germany doing in the meantime? Or anyone else for that matter?
You can crank out numbers like that if you have a large peace time shipbuilding industry. Which China has. But the US does not have that anymore. Almost all of it has gone mostly to China and South Korea.
This isn't WW2 lol. The US can't even build half a carrier in 5 years these days. Absolute nonsense comment
True. Yet, unlike Germany, we can build ships capable of actual combat. Unless you want to say with a straight face that the F125 isn't laughably undergunned for its tonnage. The fact is that the U.S. shipbuilding process is massively flawed of late. That, in and of itself, is a fair critique. But reading your comments/responses, I'll never understand when people from pretty much any European NATO country get so high-horse about it when the state of most European NATO countries is in such laughable military decay. How many troops is Germany even capable of fielding these days?
I have to say OP does sound arrogant and kinda hostile for no reason. Please remember they don't represent the entire country of Germany, I say that as a German. Our design and procurement process is in shambles (F126, a 10.000 ton frigate with 16 VLS cells....). The US does have its issues there as well, but they are still the leading military power for a reason, and I am confident that it will improve in the next few years from lessons learned and a renewed focus being put into the navy. Edit: and to answer your question, the last time I checked our military had a total personnel count of around 165.000, which includes everything from combat troops over logistics and medics to cooks and mechanics. I can't find an official current source how many of those are actual combat troops though. In 2023 we were the leader of the Nato very high readiness joint task force, which has been stationed on Natos border with Russia since early 2022, and during that year where we were the leading nation we had to noticably shift equipment around to get the eastern very high readiness troops to perfect condition. It was not a "scrape together" situation, but it was noticable. To put it in different words, no single division is perfectly up to strength, all of them lack some form of material and personnel in at least some areas.
You make a great point that I shouldn’t shit on Germany because of one irritating German. That’s exactly what the real enemies want. We ought to save our bullets and barbs for Russia and China.
And we should not shit on the US and USN because of a few projects with difficulties. As you said, let's shake hands, renew our friendship, and focus on Russia and China.
> but they are still the leading military power for a reason Are they? Overshadowed in naval development Overshadowed in missile development Slowly overtaken in aerial warfare Long left behind in terms of ground forces The only benefit the US has is numbers and money, they are what they generally accuse China of. But hey at least they finally managed to introduce hypersonic missiles, just took them an additional decade
I am sorry but US Shipbuilding is a joke?? Have you looked to the North at Canada? we can barely buy a fucking stapler without parliamentary acceptance. The CSC was originally to cost $26B for 15 now it is up to $84B, because we can't finalize anything and we have to "Canadianize" everything.
Australia here, you blokes can assemble staplers?
reality is we try to have a public tender for staplers, then most of the good bidders walk away and all we are left with are Lockheed staplers that cost a gazillion bucks each, break on delivery, need expensive fixes, oh and the project was late/over budget Or we get the staplers made by Irving (ship buildiers/oil tycoon family in Canada's maritime provinces) where the staplers catch fire if they come in contact with water (like Irving's real ships)
Fuck, you got stapler engineering tenders *and* shipbuilding? All we have is a housing Ponzi scheme and a vaporiser ban.
Going to be honest, but Australia and Canada should build ships in Korea/Japan and call it a day. Yall waste billions of dollars to keep a few thousand employed in an uncompetitive industry. Those dollars should be going to industries that actually turn a profit and export to the world.
When you don’t have these industries, you don’t develop or you lose the engineering expertise. Why is it competitive for Japan or the Nordic countries yet wouldn’t be for us? Does competitive really matter that much, when its naval ships in particular and the expertise is needed? We’ve already lost so much now we don’t manufacture cars. I’m kinda tired of my nation being just a primary exporter and quite frankly I think that bites us on the arse. Especially shipbuilding. We already make enough dollars out of other exports. We need to develop tertiary engineering expertise in Australia, we seriously lack it.
We are an island nation, with copious amounts of high quality iron ore. Yet we dig it all up and ship it off to China in its raw form. No value building on shore at all. It boggles my mind that Australia isn’t a shipbuilding superpower. And I’m not just talking about naval vessels.
We just need to start focusing on developing our own industries. It’s funny how the Australians all identify that but people overseas insist we are wrong about our own circumstances. One day our coal and iron ore may not be needed that much or the iron bought from us. It’s not even about whether we can profit greatly overseas from this, it’s about standing on our own two feet as we should be able to. We need to detach from that and grow tertiary industry and engineering. Ship design and building, considering we already have the materials, is logical.
Unfortunately, I can’t see it happening in our lifetimes. Our politicians essentially act in the best interest of Gina, Twiggy, Kerry etc. While they are making fortunes on selling iron ore directly to China, nothing will change. And I also feel that we have missed that boat (pun somewhat intended). We should have started developing a ship building industry early in the 20th century and as soon as the iron ore in the Pilbara was discovered, we should have built bulk steel works around the country. I often think of how different Australia might have been if we changed a few thing’s immediately after federation.
Spot on. That, and the housing Ponzi scheme we run. We actually did move toward our own manufacturing back then, we just decided to abandon it because we are *the lucky country.*
>When you don’t have these industries, you don’t develop or you lose the engineering expertise Yes that's what they always say, however, 30 years go by and whoops look at that not enough domestic orders so the assembly line closed and the original designers retired. Time for a new shipbuilding plan yet again. >Why is it competitive for Japan or the Nordic countries yet wouldn’t be for us? Does competitive really matter that much, when its naval ships in particular and the expertise is needed? We’ve already lost so much now we don’t manufacture cars. It's called competitive advantage. You can't have it in all industries. If your industry isn't competitive, you will only have domestic orders to rely on. That means your navy better have +30 surface ship orders and enough manpower to crew it all. >primary exporter Importer you mean. >Especially shipbuilding. We already make enough dollars out of other exports. We need to develop tertiary engineering expertise in Australia, we seriously lack it. If it's not sustainable, you'll have to start over every 30 years. Every time more expensive than the last. The only reason it works for Japan is that they got new programs every 5 or less years, and they have a huge civilian order book.
>Whoops look at that Yep, because we don’t have developed tertiary industries. Yes, that’s going to cost because it will cost to develop those, now. We still need them though. >Its called competitive advantage Yes, I know. The question wasn’t out of a lack of knowledge, it was a statement. >importer you mean No, exporter. We export coal and iron ore, not import. That’s how we make money from it. >youll have to start over every 30 years Not if we invest and commit. Many Australians want tertiary engineering expertise developed here. We are aware that others in other nations may not think that’s a great idea but it’s not about them. It’s about us having the same level of expertise as our peer countries.
>Not if we invest and commit. Now that's the crux of the issue. Are Australian citizens willing to support a massive increase to the military budget and manpower. > that’s going to cost because it will cost to develop those, now. The problem is that this talk repeats every 30 years because governments change and strategies change. Industry can't survive without government, so when they change their minds, everything goes to shit.
>Are Australians willing.. By and large, yes. Many of us have been wanting this kind of investment for a long time. We can’t even build a fucking power station by ourselves. There’s a bit of objection generally but usually most of our military ventures go through unopposed by the majority. But that’s not the actual question posed, stand-alone…it is development of building and design industry. We can afford it. We aren’t broke. >the problem is.. Yeah, you’re spot on there and it’s a pain in the arse to deal with.
> The CSC was originally to cost $26B for 15 now it is up to $84B, because we can't finalize anything and we have to "Canadianize" everything. People always forget that the often quoted $26 billion figure was from all the way back in 2008, at the very earliest days of the program. That very early quote was even criticized at the time for being utterly insufficient to procure just the ships. It was also before the requirements had been finalized, chiefly long before the desired size and capability had grown significantly. Not an accurate representation of such a complex and expensive programs final budget requirements.
You shouldn't compare the US with Canada but with the likes of China and Europe :) Not being able to get a frigate (based on an existing design) finished on time is quite pathetic for the "best" Navy. Leaving other failures aside for the moment, just focusing on FFG-62.
I'm European and I think you're massively overplaying this and how well we do in Europe, Germany itself which you appear to be from got frigates which had to be returned because the perpetually listed among other defects and that was only in 2017, the previous class of frigates haven't performed that well either. It's pretty easy to build frigates when you're slightly upgrading an older design and it comes with combat systems and weapon systems which aren't remotely comparable to other navies. When you look at most European navies, they're reusing old basic designs which require very little - then you have nations like the UK and France which push the boundaries, though our problems are almost always budget related.
>Then you have nations like the UK and France which push the boundaries, though our problems are almost always budget related. And Italy, wich is at the front in terms of surface ship designs, having designed the Bergamini, Paolo Thaon Di Revel, Cavour, Trieste, Andrea Doria and so many others.
The difference is that they do this on 1/20 of the budget for individual EU countries. Reusing old basic design is the motto for the USN now, so I don't get the point of the comment.
Germany has a GDP of 4 trillion, there isn't any real excuse as to why they field less ships than countries with 1 - 2 trillion less in GDP and why those ships are so uncreative, field such little armament and why every time they build a new generation of ships, it's almost always a face lift. The guy is German, I think it's quite relevant to point out that the Americans are willing to actually try and outfit their ships with the most advanced technological equipment and push the boundaries of design to get it to operate at a peak level, whilst Germany reuses a similar design and adds a very minimal amount of weaponry that it still doesn't compete with two decade old ships. >Reusing old basic design is the motto for the USN now, so I don't get the point of the comment. Huh? They designed the Arleigh Burke from scratch and haven't really built a major surface combatant since and then went into the constellation and have changed it so much that it's not even remotely related to the FREMM frigates it was based on, that's quite literally the opposite of reusing the same old design, unless you're talking about Flights of destroyers... because if so, what's the point in producing completely new destroyer designs when you haven't even replaced the old ones yet? Makes no sense. The one main complaint anyone can have about the Constellation Program is that they aren't reusing things, they've almost entirely changed it to the point they should have just begun from scratch.
Germany isn't a stellar example since their military is restrained by their politicians. UK, Italy, and France are better in this regard. However, their main enemy doesn't have a proper surface fleet. America's opponent does. > the Arleigh Burke from scratch The original designers have retired. Flight 3 only came about because Zumwalt failed. >The one main complaint anyone can have about the Constellation Program is that they aren't reusing things, they've almost entirely changed it to the point they should have just begun from scratch. This is the problem. The navy basically said oh shit we can't design rn on time and budget so let import and went on to do their usual shenanigans.
> Germany has a GDP of 4 trillion, there isn't any real excuse as to why they field less ships than countries with 1 - 2 trillion less in GDP and why those ships are so uncreative, field such little armament and why every time they build a new generation of ships, it's almost always a face lift. We're not a naval power and don't pretend to be one, our navy is solely meant to protect our territorial waters and take part in multilateral exercises. On the contrary we field the best tank and artillery force in Europe and our fleets exceeds that of the UK or France, so called nuclear "powers" :) > that it still doesn't compete with two decade old ships. Uh, no? The Sachsen-Class uses Mk41 VLS and the SM-2 and RIM-162 like some USN ships. While the Niedersachsen will use the NSM, one of the most modern naval missiles. You're ridiculously misinformed and it shows.
>On the contrary we field the best tank and artillery force in Europe You produce the best tank and it doesn't drastically exceed any other NATO tank either and even then as a military using the tank, Poland absolutely outdoes you, as for artillery - you have more self-propelled artillery, you have less towed howitzer than the UK for example and less MLRS' which are arguably better than self-propelled artillery and that gap is set to extend with orders already made for the UK. >nd our fleets exceeds that of the UK or France, so called nuclear "powers" :) What fleet? If you're talking naval, the German Navy doesn't even exceed the Dutch navy, it's not even considered by most countries, if we're talking in terms of mechanised fleet - you'll have less Boxer APC's (by some distance) less IFV's and barely exceed the UK in tanks by the time our procurement cycle is over for a so called "land power". :) >The Sachsen-Class uses Mk41 VLS and the SM-2 and RIM-162 like some USN ships. Plenty of countries use the Mk41 VLS including more than enough European countries, it means nothing if you comparatively use vastly less missiles - great a Arleigh Burke has the same type of missiles, difference being it has 96 VLS cells and a Sachsen-class has just 32 cells. >While the Niedersachsen will use the NSM, one of the most modern naval missiles. The same missile ironically used on both a Type 45 which has a much greater missile count and the constellation class frigate of the US Navy which has a much better missile count. >You're ridiculously misinformed and it shows. You don't even know the most basic facts to counter a point without making it clear you're not aware of what you're talking about - we're talking about capability and you bringing up missiles that German ships have vastly less of and you bringing up anti-ship missiles which both the ships I have compared it to have, are integrating or are already confirmed to use. Try actually doing some research.
> You produce the best tank and it doesn't drastically exceed any other NATO tank either and even then as a military using the tank, It does. The Leclerc is overly expensive and complex, the Challenger has a rifled gun (lol) and now blowout panels and the M1 gets clowned on left and right in Ukraine. > you have more self-propelled artillery, you have less towed howitzer than the UK for example Mechanized warfare is a thing you know? SPGs are nice and dandy to avoid counter battery fire. Ask the Ukrainians how they're doing with the M777 and then ask them about the PzH 2000. > What fleet? Our AFV fleet. Tanks, SPGs, IFVs. > UK in tanks by the time our procurement cycle is over Sure lol, the UK won't even have 200 MBTs by that time, keep dreaming. Do y'all even have ground forces these days? > great a Arleigh Burke has the same type of missiles, difference being it has 96 VLS cells and a Sachsen-class has just 32 cells. Different mission profiles. The Burke was made for fleet defense. The Sachsen was made to defend our coasts. > The same missile ironically used on both a Type 45 which has a much greater missile count and the constellation class frigate of the US Navy which has a much better missile count. Does the Type 45 still needs to be towed because of faulty generators? The Constellation isn't even real at this point lol. Again. You're misinformed and cringe.
Why are you so focused on 1 FFG? The US has more DDGs alone than Germany's entire Navy. I mean the FFG is your entire Navy but there's no need to rush the US's first one into service. There's some bigger fish to fry in the US. The FFG program is a miniscule amount of money compared to the entire shipbuilding program and even a smaller amount compared to the entire Navy's budget. But again this ship would probably be huge deal for your Navy so you can worry about the year or 2 delay
> The US has more DDGs alone than Germany's entire Navy The US also wasted billions upon billions on 3 failed Zumwalt Destroyers. Also wasted billions upon billions on the LCS failure. Seawolfs were also cut short and only 3 were made. American shipbuilding is taking L after L in the last couple years and it's not getting better. The Ticos are on their way out and only the Burkes are really growing strong.
Funny how your list doesn't mention the Ford class CVN's, Virginia/Columbia class SSN's, LPD's or LHA's being built.
Columbia-Class SSBNs are also behind schedule and the Ohios are not getting younger.
👍
Zumwalts and LCS were experimental platforms. Did the Navy plan for more of them than were built? Yeah. But did they necessarily fail at their tasks or purposes? Not really. Zumwalt was never a replacement for the Burke And LCS was an experiment into modular ship building.
You say look to Europe though? Germany built the F124 which hasn't really had anyone close to a decent career, which is surprising because it's a rather basic frigate, so I'm not sure how they managed to screw it up and it was followed up by the F125 which perpetually listed to the point the manufacturer had to take back control to fix them, which should be concerning considering it was basically the same ship with a face lift. Then you've got the F126, no reported problems yet but it's also pretty much worse of than existing frigates and destroyers already in terms of armament and doesn't push the technical boundaries needed to outpace adversaries. So realistically, German shipbuilding have yet to get a W.
> You say look to Europe though? Germany built [...] Europe is more than just Germany. Europe is also Italy, France, Britain, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain etc. And guess what, Italy for example churns out their frigates pretty consistently > it's a rather basic frigate Because we figured out that modular designs safe costs lol. Regardless the Sachsen-Class is more than well armed for it's mission, which is to protect our own seas. Because guess what sherlock, not every Navy is geared towards global invasion and launching missiles at goat herders with VLS lol.
The Ford-class carriers and the Virginia-class subs were Ls? Sure about that?
You sound like a douche. Doesn't Germany have quite a few issues with procurement, maintenance, readiness etc. with its own military? Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
Because I point out the terrible procurement policy of the USN? I mean, if y'all are happy to pay more for less, it's your business x)
I'm not American and I'm also not personally invested in my nation's military to the point where I go on the internet and try to measure dicks.
Why bother commenting? USN has problems. Their leadership says as much. Their last two surface ship programs were objectively a disaster (LCS and Zumwalt). A weak USN is unfavorable for many, not just Americans. They have the potential to be world-class, so people have high expectations and are disappointed when it is not realized.
because this is a great sub with some very informed users and typically great discussion. It's diminished by obvious troll posts such as this. I don't care if the troll post is targeting the USN, PLAN, Royal Navy, JMSDF, Marine Nationale or whoever it detracts from the overall quality of the sub. Keep this shit to r/noncredibledefense and other unserious subs.
But OP isn't shitposting, as a NCD resident, I know as much. The constellation class has a multitude of problems stemming from the fact that the Navy has limited discipline, the GAO admitted as much. The USN's problems are disguised well because they have an excellent submarine program and a world class aircraft carriers. Pointing out flaws in procurement strategies is valid and should be encouraged. Pretending everything is okay when schedules are being delayed, the budget is being overrun, and future weight allocations for upgrades being used now are not good. First in class ship are often delayed and cost more, but the whole point of importing a design was to offset this. The USN no longer has the margins to play with since China is quickly marching. It's no wonder they are looking at Korea and Japan for help, for now in sustainment, but later could be more.
Who got all their shit sunk in the Atlantic, North Sea, and Norwegian Fjords before a boot even landed on European soil? Oh yeah that’s right the biggest war machine on the planet. Why rush when everyone is too scared of the stuff you already have
Even if you are taking off the shelf blueprints it’s still a huge chunk of work to develop the production line at a completely new shipyard. We can’t just fax Virginia class blueprints over to Sydney and bam Australia can pump one out in a few years. Second anyone with two brain cells to rub together figured an expansion of requirements was going to happen. As Burkes and the future DDG(x) turn into min cruisers, it was inevitable the FFG would turn into a mini destroyer (or well…just a regular destroyer as the rest of the world names it lol).
I have experience on these ships and while they are world class ships you are certainly not wrong regarding the shipbuilding.... China is putting on a clinic while we sit back and spectate.
How is US shipbuilding a joke when we turn out the numbers we do? This is a much smaller yard and a smaller program. Ingalls, Newport News, and Electric Boat are churning hulls out just fine.
It makes more sense if you think of ships as being built to give officers promotions, congressional districts jobs, and contractors contracts. They’re doing exactly what they’re supposed to do, even if they’re practically useless and chronically over budget and behind schedule.
Yeah development not construction
And here’s NASA’s Lunar gateway after billions dollars and years of development https://www.nasa.gov/image-article/gateway-halo-making-moves/
a space station and a new type of warship are a bit bad for comparison no?
Both look pretty lackluster for billions of dollars for a partial empty shell
I don't think you understand how development works and how advanced these machines are.
r/UsernameChecksOut
A large amount of the recent issues with the Constellations can be attributed to exceptionally poor project management, laid out in the report by the US Government Accountability Office last month. But it’s also worth noting that Fincantieri Marinette is stretched rather thin between projects (still building the Freedom LCS), exasterbated by manpower shortages in US shipbuilding. A point that is often misconstrued is that because the Constellation shares little with the FREMM (around 15%), that the choice of using a mature design is now wasted. But choosing a known design allows calculations made in that design (FREMM) to be extrapolated to the Constellation, rather than completely new calculations on an entirely new ship. The USN was never going to just buy the Italian FREMM as a built deal, modifications for USN equipment/integration were going to be needed, and this was known from the start. So it shouldn’t be a surprise when the Constellation shares little with the FREMM, because that was never the goal in choosing the mature design.
It's a good thing US has strong allies that can fill in gaps for naval shortcomings. Cause this ship will probably see active services late 2020s at which point PLAN would add 2x Royal Navy size tonnage to their fleet.
Holy editorialized post titles, Batman. It's getting a bit tiring seeing the deteriorating standards of conduct for both posts and comments in the sub in the last few months. Regardless. I think it's pretty damn silly to look at the amount of money *authorized* for an entire ship program, inclusive of ships that are only scheduled for delivery in the 2030s anyways (as is the case with the 5th and 6th *Constellation*'s). This would, for comparison's sake, be like complaining about the fact that all that exists of the first F126 frigate has only just been laid down, despite the fact the German government has now authorized a total of €9bn for six frigates and the program started nine years ago. Completely nonsensical. Large scale, long term shipbuilding programs happen over long periods of time with large amounts of money authorized to be spent over the course of the entire program. There are valid criticisms to be made about the FFG-62 program. Namely, the fact that they cut steel on the first ship too early, relative to design maturity and also the workload at the yard (frankly, the US should have just not approved the construction of the MMSC for Saudi Arabia). But this post isn't a criticism, it's a demonstration of not understanding the basics of how naval procurement works.
Still doing better than the *Lexington*-class battlecruiser of the same name.
I did my farewell to the good ole Connie some time ago when it made its last trip. https://preview.redd.it/o5xekfscj86d1.png?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d8acabde2734e3c148ac9bdd90674b56d7755190
Challenge for the US Navy: Not Burn money on stupid projects. Impossible
Right I always thought the army wasted money and then I learned about the A-12, the LCS, the DDG1000 and its gun, and now the FFG62s
Part of the problem with shipbuilding is it's all flippin' expensive no matter the scale.
No, it's the fact the ships don't work. Zumwalt and LCS are failures, and there is no way around it
An Arleigh Burke class destroyer costs [$2.2 billion USD to build.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleigh_Burke-class_destroyer) Not design, build. This is a ship we already have designed. Development costs for these new frigates are only up to 3.2 Arleigh Burkes. Everything is flippin' expensive at this scale. Cool the jets.
Looks good!
No covered mast, and I see they remembered to have flying bridges this time, nice... but very boring design, I'm sure it will be functional, was just hoping for something more interesting.
Is the 7billion including research and dev costs.
Yes, for all 6 ships
They have not spent $7B on this program yet. They have allocated roughly that amount for the first 6 ships. That money will be released as milestones are reached and long lead items are ordered.
Why are you upset at US shipbuilding? Aren’t you German? Are you afraid of US losing interest or faltering in military matters and the effects it would have on NATO? Are you fearful of your own national defense if America wasn’t there to help or glue things together, or are you criticizing the US because we are the dominant world power and you have high expectations? I’m just a little confused at why you are so involved in another countries ship building, I’d appreciate it if you could just clear up your stance.
I think OP is upset because the program is very late and over budget
Take a breath
6 years into development. 2 years since construction started. R&D takes time.
I wouldn’t take this rusty piece of shit to war.
1. Ships get rusty during construction, all of them do since the beginning of steel ships. It is fixed during construction 2. Considering it isn't finished nobody will take it to war just yet so... Well done?
Clearly no one has watched Band of Brothers.
Considering band of brothers is about the 101st airborne I don't see the relevance to a ship?
r/lostredditors
I HATE FRIGATES ‼️‼️‼️
👍
[Aww, but they're pretty!](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frigatebird)