The Congressional Research Service (CRS) has published the report “Navy Constellation (FFG-62) Class Frigate Program: Background and Issues for Congress” on the progress of the US Navy’s 20 Constellation class frigate (Updated August 10, 2021) (https://crsreports.congress.gov R44972).
The report refers to the prehistory and current progress of the program. However, in the section “Required Capabilities and Growth Margin” pages 17-19, the question is asked “If the Navy has properly defined the required capabilities and the growth margin of the FFG-62”? The issues raised are:
1. If the Navy has at its disposal a comprehensive analysis of the capability gap that FFG-62 frigates will be required to fill.
2. What is the appropriate number of Mk.41VLS (Vertical Launch System) that these ships must have and if possible.
Photo by the website https”//en.wikipedia.org
According to the current design, these FFG-62 ships will have 32 cells (Mk.41VLS), while arguments are made in favor of and against those who are in favor of increasing the cells from 32 to 48.
Arguments in favor of placing the 48 cells
- FFG-62 frigates have 75% of the displacement and half the cost of an “Arleigh Burke” -Destroyer, but only 1/3 of their cells (Arleigh Burke has 96 cells).
- The need for ships with a large combat load, but without a significant increase in unit cost to be able to cope with the large number of Chinese surface ships.
- The withdrawal of 22 “Ticonderoga” class cruisers, which incorporate 122 cells, will create a gap of 2684 cells (Mk.41VLS). The 20 FFG-62 frigates with 32 cells are 640 cells (Mk.41VLS) in total and cover the gap left by the “Ticonderoga” cruisers by only 23.85% = (640/2684) *100. The increase of cells to 48 yields 960 =20*48 cells in total covering 35.77% of the cells lost with the withdrawal of “Ticonderoga”.
Photo by the website www.wikipedia.org
Arguments against the placement of the 48 cells
- The US Navy has assessed the potential threats and selected the number of 32 cells as sufficient.
- Ships will have Rolling Airframe Missile systems.
- Large surface UAV ships with a large missile combat load will be used.
- The US Navy information note dated 14/05/2019:
“The increase from 32 to 48 cells (Mk.41VLS) requires an increase in the length of the ships, a slight increase in the width and displacement of the full load by 200 tons. These require redesign of the ship, reassessment of its stability, analysis of tilt and adjustment of the ship’s ergonomics to accommodate the additional 16 cells, with the cost increasing to approximately $16-$24m per ship “.
Based on the above arguments, we should add that the cost of $16-$24m per ship is only for the redesign of the ship. 20*$24m = $480m the maximum cost for the total of 20 FFG-62. Additional costs are the missiles that will have to fill the additional 12 cells (32 => 48).
If 12 SM-2 and 16 ESSM are used in addition to the already existing cargo of the ship, approximately additional $100m is required per ship where for the 20 FFG-62 the total cost is $2b.
In addition, the marginal increase of the crew per ship should be considered, with the total bill going up a lot for each ship and in all the ships, putting second thoughts on whether they should proceed with the placement of all of them, when the total additional costs can be directed to the financing of other also useful weapons systems.
On the scales of the decision should be considered the additional costs with the increased capabilities that these additional Mk.41VLS cell placements will provide.
