FFG(X) versus FREMM

[lordroel]

New Diagram Details How The Navy’s Frigate Will Differ From Its Italian Parent’s Design

Some facts about the FFG(X) and FREMM:



Infographic showing the “primary differences between the FFG 62 Class [design] and the FREMM Parent design:”

[1bigrich]

Oct 8, 2021 18:13:31 GMT lordroel said:

New Diagram Details How The Navy’s Frigate Will Differ From Its Italian Parent’s Design

Some facts about the FFG(X) and FREMM:



Infographic showing the “primary differences between the FFG 62 Class [design] and the FREMM Parent design:”

Great image, thanks for sharing

One of the big criticisms of the FFG-7 class was as 'low end' combatants, they had little margin for growth. Even the ROCN, with ambitious plans for an FFG-7 based larger (Aegis?) frigate, found the base design too limited (Hence the very late completion of Tin Dan as she was built to the original design from material gather for the larger project).

Building a margin for growth into a lower end combatant is smart, shows foresight previously lacking an ensures the class will have long, useful service lives.

Most of the differences in fit I would attribute to the owning navies own preferences, though as I recall, Stuart Slade once said the wine was better on the MM FREMMS over the MN (to which I said Macron should resign in shame!)

My brief thoughts,

[oscssw]

Oct 10, 2021 14:03:44 GMT 1bigrich said:

Oct 8, 2021 18:13:31 GMT lordroel said:

New Diagram Details How The Navy’s Frigate Will Differ From Its Italian Parent’s Design

Some facts about the FFG(X) and FREMM:


Infographic showing the “primary differences between the FFG 62 Class [design] and the FREMM Parent design:”

Great image, thanks for sharing

One of the big criticisms of the FFG-7 class was as 'low end' combatants, they had little margin for growth. Even the ROCN, with ambitious plans for an FFG-7 based larger (Aegis?) frigate, found the base design too limited (Hence the very late completion of Tin Dan as she was built to the original design from material gather for the larger project).

Building a margin for growth into a lower end combatant is smart, shows foresight previously lacking an ensures the class will have long, useful service lives.

Most of the differences in fit I would attribute to the owning navies own preferences, though as I recall, Stuart Slade once said the wine was better on the MM FREMMS over the MN (to which I said Macron should resign in shame!)

My brief thoughts,

Damn good points The Rock and 1BigRich.  Having served aboard a late, 453 ft "Long Hull" (Flight III) FFG, I can attest they were very cramped ships. Because the good old Nav crammed so much into these hulls, even with the additional 8 feet the "accommodations" really sucked. The Long Hulls, like mine, shoe horned the Naval Tactical Data System, LAMPS MK III helicopters with RAST (Recovery Assist Securing and Traversing) system (AKA Beartrap) hauldown , and the Tactical Towed Array System (TACTAS).  These really increased our  combat capability far beyond the Short Hull Flights I and II but we crew paid the price.  Even the "Sacred" Goat Locker, was not too much better than that in the Gearing FRAM 1 I served aboard.   We had about 15 officers and 190 Chiefs and enlisted, plus a two LAMPS MK III Det of roughly six officer pilots and 15 enlisted Airedales.  That gave us about 226 crammed into that hull. 

We even had sailors sleeping on folding cots in work spaces to avoid Hot Bunking when the Air Det was embarked.  The Galley and heads were strained greatly.  In that kind of situation you really had to come down hard, even more than standard USN practice which was very, very high to begin with, on cleanliness of both bodies and spaces to keep the crew healthy.  I bet the recruiters did not tell the kids about that aspect of the "Navy Adventure"!

Don't get me wrong; that ship was as good as any I ever served aboard and a lot better than most.  I take great pride and have very fond memories as SCOC of the "Mighty Crom", my last ship before transferring to CivLant. 

[1bigrich]

Jan 17, 2023 6:44:01 GMT oscssw said:

Damn good points The Rock and 1BigRich.  Having served aboard a late, 453 ft "Long Hull" (Flight III) FFG, I can attest they were very cramped ships. Because the good old Nav crammed so much into these hulls, even with the additional 8 feet the "accommodations" really sucked. The Long Hulls, like mine, shoe horned the Naval Tactical Data System, LAMPS MK III helicopters with RAST (Recovery Assist Securing and Traversing) system (AKA Beartrap) hauldown , and the Tactical Towed Array System (TACTAS).  These really increased our  combat capability far beyond the Short Hull Flights I and II but we crew paid the price.  Even the "Sacred" Goat Locker, was not too much better than that in the Gearing FRAM 1 I served aboard.   We had about 15 officers and 190 Chiefs and enlisted, plus a two LAMPS MK III Det of roughly six officer pilots and 15 enlisted Airedales.  That gave us about 226 crammed into that hull. 

We even had sailors sleeping on folding cots in work spaces to avoid Hot Bunking when the Air Det was embarked.  The Galley and heads were strained greatly.  In that kind of situation you really had to come down hard, even more than standard USN practice which was very, very high to begin with, on cleanliness of both bodies and spaces to keep the crew healthy.  I bet the recruiters did not tell the kids about that aspect of the "Navy Adventure"!

Don't get me wrong; that ship was as good as any I ever served aboard and a lot better than most.  I take great pride and have very fond memories as SCOC of the "Mighty Crom", my last ship before transferring to CivLant. 

Thanks for that, Senior Chief.   It's always great to hear the 'first-hand' perspective!   I had no idea the surface navy was (is) hot bunking that recently....

Regards,