USN selects Fincantieri / FREMM for next-generation frigate.

Here's a couple of other articles which Google turns up:

According to these it will be fitted with:
  • A Mk110 57mm main gun
  • 32x Mk41 VLS
  • Up to 16x NSM anti-ship missiles
  • A RAM close in weapon system
  • the future AN/SPY-6(V)3 radar by Raytheon
  • baseline 10 Aegis combat management system.
 
It’s a FREMM Jim, but not as we know it.

Major internal US led redesign and @ 400 tonnes of extra steel in the hull and structure to toughen it up.
 

Trans-sane

LE
Book Reviewer
Doesn't the substantial internal redesign and increased bracing rather undermine the advantages of choosing a "mature and in-service" design?
 
The US version won’t be as quick going backwards as the French/Italian version.
 
Doesn't the substantial internal redesign and increased bracing rather undermine the advantages of choosing a "mature and in-service" design?
To a degree. But - it does shut down a lot of the concept-type designs, where someones just put a graduate and some whizzy CGI on the job for a couple of months.

There will be a well-developed (and US-compatible) propulsion and electrical generation system among other things. The hullform performance (resistance, seakeeping, manoeuvring) will be known, so can get cracking with ordering main machinery etc.

They'll probably end up having ABS re-Class various parts of the design, vice RINA (the Italian Class society), so doing any local increase in structure won't be particularly onerous.

The USN were looking for a relatively small and cheap frigate design to get them past the loss of the FFG7 and the disappointment of LCS. T26 is too big and specialised for that requirement.
 
To a degree. But - it does shut down a lot of the concept-type designs, where someones just put a graduate and some whizzy CGI on the job for a couple of months.

There will be a well-developed (and US-compatible) propulsion and electrical generation system among other things. The hullform performance (resistance, seakeeping, manoeuvring) will be known, so can get cracking with ordering main machinery etc.

They'll probably end up having ABS re-Class various parts of the design, vice RINA (the Italian Class society), so doing any local increase in structure won't be particularly onerous.

The USN were looking for a relatively small and cheap frigate design to get them past the loss of the FFG7 and the disappointment of LCS. T26 is too big and specialised for that requirement.
LM2500's and MTU diesels - known USN quantities.
 
To a degree. But - it does shut down a lot of the concept-type designs, where someones just put a graduate and some whizzy CGI on the job for a couple of months. (...)
This is exactly the stated reason why Canada limited frigate proposals to existing designs, to filter out the ones that existed only as PowerPoint proposals. The filter however was written specifically to ensure the T-26 was included, as that was perceived as the preferred design from the beginning, provided a reasonable deal could be struck. One of the losing bidders has of course sued to try to get the T-26 excluded on the technicality that it wasn't in the water at the time.

Rather interestingly, Fincanteiri had walked out in a huff before the Canadian competition closed. They claimed that Canada was going to be sorry for not re-writing the rules around their offer, as they said they were going to win the American competition and we were backing the wrong horse (they claimed the field was tilted in favour of the T-26). They appeared to have been a massive pain to deal with and were constantly leaking negative stories to a friendly (to them) reporter in the press.
 
This is exactly the stated reason why Canada limited frigate proposals to existing designs, to filter out the ones that existed only as PowerPoint proposals. The filter however was written specifically to ensure the T-26 was included, as that was perceived as the preferred design from the beginning, provided a reasonable deal could be struck. One of the losing bidders has of course sued to try to get the T-26 excluded on the technicality that it wasn't in the water at the time.

Rather interestingly, Fincanteiri had walked out in a huff before the Canadian competition closed. They claimed that Canada was going to be sorry for not re-writing the rules around their offer, as they said they were going to win the American competition and we were backing the wrong horse (they claimed the field was tilted in favour of the T-26). They appeared to have been a massive pain to deal with and were constantly leaking negative stories to a friendly (to them) reporter in the press.
They have form in this regard - or maybe just the gentleman in question - although the bits highlighted do suggest they had a point overall.

Good luck to them. The cruise market is going to take a big hit, so the Italian part of the operation will need all the help it can get.
 
This is exactly the stated reason why Canada limited frigate proposals to existing designs, to filter out the ones that existed only as PowerPoint proposals. The filter however was written specifically to ensure the T-26 was included, as that was perceived as the preferred design from the beginning, provided a reasonable deal could be struck. One of the losing bidders has of course sued to try to get the T-26 excluded on the technicality that it wasn't in the water at the time.

Rather interestingly, Fincanteiri had walked out in a huff before the Canadian competition closed. They claimed that Canada was going to be sorry for not re-writing the rules around their offer, as they said they were going to win the American competition and we were backing the wrong horse (they claimed the field was tilted in favour of the T-26). They appeared to have been a massive pain to deal with and were constantly leaking negative stories to a friendly (to them) reporter in the press.
They have form in this regard - or maybe just the gentleman in question - although the bits highlighted do suggest they had a point overall.

Good luck to them. The cruise market is going to take a big hit, so the Italian part of the operation will need all the help it can get.
 
They have form in this regard - or maybe just the gentleman in question - although the bits highlighted do suggest they had a point overall.

Good luck to them. The cruise market is going to take a big hit, so the Italian part of the operation will need all the help it can get.
The T26 was perceived as the ship preferred by the RCN, as that was seen as the best of what was on offer. This was probably due to the RCN's history as being heavily oriented towards anti-submarine warfare, where the T26 was seen as the premier design in that category (although some RCN elements seem to have other leanings these days). However, the DND don't get to make the decisions on major purchases on their own. There are purchasing procedures to go through which require an objective evaluation on technical, financial, and industrial grounds, and several other ministries get involved (PWGSC and Industry). All of the competitors had a fair chance.

Most of the alternatives were not originally designed as primarily ASW vessels. Canada wanted most of our new frigates as ASW platforms, and the T-26 presented less design risk than the others in that respect, even though it wasn't technically in the water yet. The RCN have expressed a lot of confidence in the designers and the people managing things on the RN end of it. There was a heavy emphasis on not having to do any major redesign to adapt the ship for Canadian needs.

And this brings it back around to where the US are with their own ships. As I understand it, once you start doing enough redesigning of the ship you are no longer dealing with an off the shelf item. Costs and delays start escalating beyond the original plans.

The US on the other hand seem to have an irresistible urge to tinker with a design as different factions try to pull the project in different directions. It will be interesting to see how much this project morphs into something far different and far more expensive than intended. Fincantieri are doubtless already rubbing their hands in anticipation of the add-ons they will be able to sell.

One other thing that I would anticipate is demands from other shipbuilders and their political representatives for the work to be spread around to other yards.
 
This could prove to be a double edged ‘win’ for the FREMM consortium.

back when they were touting the design to us, Z sent people over to tyre kick it, the comment of one 3 ringer was was ‘nice ships, but I wouldn’t want to go to war in one’.

now, there is a market for a proper butch mid range Frigate, and FREMM as is isn’t it, but if the Americans have made a good job of putting FREMM through the gym and given it the Charles Atlas workout, the Americans could have an export winner on their hands.
Add in US military aid to grease the export wheels to friends - and ‘As used by the USN’ is a good export sales point.
 

Mattb

LE
Does the USN understand the need for adequate cocktail party space ?

View attachment 470195
The RN does not hold cocktail parties.

We have capability demonstrations, where we invite local dignitaries and other VIPs aboard to show them features of the vessel, such as how large the hangar is. And serve them cocktails.

It's completely different.
 
The T26 was perceived as the ship preferred by the RCN, as that was seen as the best of what was on offer. This was probably due to the RCN's history as being heavily oriented towards anti-submarine warfare, where the T26 was seen as the premier design in that category (although some RCN elements seem to have other leanings these days). However, the DND don't get to make the decisions on major purchases on their own. There are purchasing procedures to go through which require an objective evaluation on technical, financial, and industrial grounds, and several other ministries get involved (PWGSC and Industry). All of the competitors had a fair chance.

Most of the alternatives were not originally designed as primarily ASW vessels. Canada wanted most of our new frigates as ASW platforms, and the T-26 presented less design risk than the others in that respect, even though it wasn't technically in the water yet. The RCN have expressed a lot of confidence in the designers and the people managing things on the RN end of it. There was a heavy emphasis on not having to do any major redesign to adapt the ship for Canadian needs.

And this brings it back around to where the US are with their own ships. As I understand it, once you start doing enough redesigning of the ship you are no longer dealing with an off the shelf item. Costs and delays start escalating beyond the original plans.

The US on the other hand seem to have an irresistible urge to tinker with a design as different factions try to pull the project in different directions. It will be interesting to see how much this project morphs into something far different and far more expensive than intended. Fincantieri are doubtless already rubbing their hands in anticipation of the add-ons they will be able to sell.

One other thing that I would anticipate is demands from other shipbuilders and their political representatives for the work to be spread around to other yards.
Of course all the other ministries get involved. There isn't a navy in the western world that says "want that one" and gets its way.

Canuckian T26 will be different in detail to RN or RAN ships, in compartment details, systems and individual equipment items. I'd be astonished if the RCN ships were identical to RN. It won't be off the shelf and neither will be the US ones.

What will be essentially the same is the hull design (more than simply hullform) and main propulsion/ generation.

That's another reason why the US went with FREMM, because many of its major equipments are US or IT licensed facsimiles.
 

Latest Threads

Top