I saw GARBALDI in Mayport as a boy. The Italians have a strong maritime tradition, and their ships are built around the theater they expect to operate in. Long term Naval buys including spares and training need to be part of the baseline.
Their Fremm and PPA are top notch and the fact that each is headed toward a beefed up flight II. I also like the Centauro II for the Marines should they ever see a need for their own mobile protected firepower.
The PPA suffers a bit from fitted for but not with, but after refit they'll have 4 in full configuration and three in light plus configuration. They need to build the other 9 and resist the urge to build European patrol corvettes.
The British admit it's a good thing Mussolini didn't have any oil, or the North African/Mediterranean campaigns would not have gone as good as they did.
There is a strong reluctance on the part of the military to name names for those who fail. We have some good people in the system now, but change is so slow. China might wonder if we are playing a dis/misinformation game due to our incredible ineptness.
There is always an apples to oranges comparison to be made there. Their own ships are decent for the Euro gear they have to equip them with. Our gear was going to require a different ship. The rest is politics.
Not quite. The intent was to build the FREMM pretty much as is, learn the changes we needed to make on future builds. Make as few changes as possible, only absolutely critical changes. Not make all the changes we wanted as the ship was being built. The objective was to deploy a hull in the water ASAP for our Navy, rather than building the first one to meet all U.S. Navy specifications.
That was a story, never the intent. The RFP equipment changes dictated the redesign and the length and weight changes were known prior to the contract award. The generator set change was known prior to the contract award. One could assume the motor and propeller changes were also known, especially given the buy American mandate. After the award Congress added Tomahawk and SM-6 integration which would add more cost and weight.
Exactly. We don't have time or dollars to waste on building a lets see if it works ship. We are not converting the Langley to prove a concept. We need hulls, that work, in the water yesterday. We know the FREMM (as originally designed), the Mogami class and the The Daegu-class frigates work. We have no idea that the Constellation, which is now, essentially a new design, will work. We didn't know the LCS would work yet we keep building hulls for nonexistent, unproven tech that never materialized, the Zumwalt- we built the ship before we proved the tech was affordable.
Even the Ford, we built that without proving the tech. When the Navy went to angled flight decks and steam catapults it converted an existing hull first to prove the concept, they did not build a new ship from the keel up.
Just wait, we are not done. Instead of us buying the Japanese ShinMaywa US-2, we will reinvent the wheel.
Here's why it's considered the best:
Designed for the role: The US-2 was specifically developed for the JMSDF as a replacement for its aging US-1A fleet and is optimized for air-sea rescue (ASR) missions.
Exceptional STOL Capabilities: The aircraft is known for its impressive short takeoff and landing capabilities, both on land and water, according to Simple Flying. This is crucial for operating in diverse environments and for rescue missions in challenging locations.
Rough Sea Handling: The US-2 can land and take off in rough seas with wave heights up to 3 meters (10 feet).
Advanced Technology: It incorporates modern features like boundary layer control technology for enhanced STOL and stall suppression, a pressurized cabin, and a glass cockpit.
Versatility: While its primary role is SAR, the US-2 is designed for other potential uses, such as firefighting (with the ability to carry 15 tonnes of water), and it can also carry passengers or stretchers.
Operational History: The US-2 has a proven track record, with JMSDF US-2s having recorded more than 1,000 rescues at sea.
In short, the ShinMaywa US-2's combination of design, technology, and performance makes it the best current Japanese float plane for the Navy's requirements, particularly for search and rescue operations.
That was G&C and Lockheed. The first Freedom had launched before the Fincantieri MMC deal was even announced. It was commissioned before the deal had closed.
It was sold by the US Navy has having an 85% compatibility with existing FREMM builds to save costs. That has been whittled own to 15% with the resulting 50% cost increase and 3 years delay. This design as we build nonsense was major part of the problems with LCS, Zumwalt and yes, the Ford.
Instead of going to the builder withe set design and proven tech NAVSEA, and their inability to learn from past mistakes, keeps repeating them.
The 85% myth only came into the press once the program started facing delays and cost escalation. Find it mentioned in press before the contract award for me and you get a sticker. Look at the ship shown at contract award. where on earth could they find 85% commonality at that time. You can prove the myth false on a napkin.
Then why say it is a FREMM design at all? In reality they are building a completely new design. According Navy Constellation (FFG-62) Class Frigate
Program: Background and Issues for Congress
Updated December 19, 2024
"FFG-62s are to be built to a modified version of an existing ship design—an approach, called the parent-design approach, that can reduce design time, design cost, and cost, schedule, and technical risk in building the ship."
The Navy has taken a good parent-design, a ship with no stabilty issues etc. and increased the length by over 20 feet, and increased the weight by at least 500 tons, which according to the GAO ‘Unplanned Weight Growth’ Could Limit Service Life" The Navy's possible solution is too reduce the speed."
According to the GAO May 2024 report to the Report to the Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives titled
NAVY FRIGATE Unstable Design Has Stalled Construction and Compromised
Delivery Schedules.
Over at least 2 decades, the Navy’s Constellation class Guided Missile Frigate program plans to acquire and deliver up to 20 frigates—multi-mission, small surface combatant warships—at a combined cost of over $22 billion. To reduce technical risk, the Navy and its shipbuilder modified an existing design to incorporate Navy specifications and weapon systems. However, the Navy's decision to begin construction before the design was complete is inconsistent with leading ship design practices and jeopardized this approach. Further, design instability has caused weight growth. The figure shows the frigate’s 3D design—a component of design stability—as incomplete over 1 year after construction began.
Remember this was supposed to be a "Parent-design" and of note in the report the navy was planning on sticking two unproven systems into the hull {the propulsion and machinery control systems} LCS anybody?
The GAO report continues:
The frigate is using many mission systems already proven on Navy ships.
However, the Navy has yet to demonstrate two systems—the propulsion and machinery control systems. A planned update to the frigate test plan—combined with the opportunity afforded by schedule delays—could offer the Navy the chance to conduct land-based testing of these two unproven systems. This testing would reduce the risk of discovering issues after the ship is at sea. The frigate is using a traditional, linear development approach for design and construction. The Navy has historically experienced schedule delays, cost growth, or both in prior shipbuilding programs using this approach.
GAO report continues "beyond the Navy’s previously estimated delay of about 20 months. This total estimated 36-month delay corresponds with shipbuilder delivery of the lead frigate in 2029—nearly 7 years after construction start." SEVEN YEARS TO BUILD A FRIGATE allegedly based on a proven "parent-design". Japan showed they could build a Mogami class frigate in 18months
Great article. Even during World War II, Italy had some well-built and capable naval assets. Italy also produced some of the best ocean liners before and following the war.
Concerning Italy's financial contribution to NATO, friends tell me that the revived bridge to Sicily will be pitched as a strategic necessity.
The air force was quite good until about 1938. The Spanish Civil and the little Ethiopian foray essentially bankrupted the country. It put them about 4 years behind in fighter development and a decade with their bombers. The corps of experienced pilots was also pretty much gone by mid-'42.
Then of course my favorite Italian politician's airplane the Breda Lince.
Great post. My only question is, what is the state of the Italian Coast Guard, which should also have a signficant role in patrolling seas in and around the Italian Peninsula and supplementing the Navy's role in North Africa.
Trudeau-ism (both pere and fils) means Canada cares little about it's own defense, and stays under the Bald Eagle's talons while tweaking his feathers.
Belgium and Luxembourg sitting at around 1.25%...what? They got overrun and occupied in a few days in WWI and WWII and pretty much sat those wars out waiting for rescue. They have been grifting since April 1949. Time to part ways with the grifters or send in Vito to break bones.
They seem to have a slightly different division of work as the OPVs and larger are in the actual navy for the most part. Their Coast Guard starts at about our FRC sized ship, a little bigger.
It should be mentioned that Italy has Navy Law which specifies that (and what) ships need to be paid for, built and maintained to grow a navy. Remarkable, but - a long-term legalistic way of things.
I should mention US has a constitutional requirement to Maintain a Navy. And only raise an Army. Yet since Goldwater-Nicols & then Clinton the Army has run things
I’ve long figured Italy (surely France would participate, too, right??) would be the core of a NATO air-naval force that made sure Russia’s Mediterranean flotilla led a short but exciting life in a war.
P-8s are good, but I’d also put money into MQ-4s. Quite possibly without the SIGINT package (which is very expensive). The radar on that beast is a formidable asset.
There’s something bigger…NATO can be broadly broken up into front-line states facing Russia (former Warsaw Pact, plus Finland, Sweden, and Germany), and the rear area powers (U.S./UK, especially, but Italy also). The latter should focus on providing air power and seapower to the alliance.
Served two tours in Italy, first was a national tour (CTF-63/COMNAVSURFMED) second a NATO tour with NAVSOUTH--which was the remnant of CINCMED, now under a (part time) Italian 4 star, but most of the staff were UK. Got to appreciate the Italian Navy quite a bit--very professional, but in a more laid back way than we were. Excellent ships.
My take was that the Italian politics were so chaotic that getting any kind of sustained defense commitment out of the government was a minor miracle. It is helpful to remember that there are really three Italys: Rome/Florence. The industrial North, and the South. Of course Sicily is an exception almost everything. Those three have radically different ideas about where resources are to be allocated and who gets to decide that allocation. Overlay that with a score or more of political parties and you can appreciate the problem.
There is also that most Italians have primary allegiance to theit family, second to their village or neighborhood and only lastly to the nation. This makes getting a unified anything agreed upon problematical.
I saw GARBALDI in Mayport as a boy. The Italians have a strong maritime tradition, and their ships are built around the theater they expect to operate in. Long term Naval buys including spares and training need to be part of the baseline.
An excellent plan. I have a bridge at Messina to sell you instead. :-(
It'll cost you $15.5 billion.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/italy-approves-15-5-billion-for-worlds-longest-suspension-bridge-from-mainland-to-sicily
Aren't they trying to call this defense spending.
Their Fremm and PPA are top notch and the fact that each is headed toward a beefed up flight II. I also like the Centauro II for the Marines should they ever see a need for their own mobile protected firepower.
The PPA suffers a bit from fitted for but not with, but after refit they'll have 4 in full configuration and three in light plus configuration. They need to build the other 9 and resist the urge to build European patrol corvettes.
They can teach the Brits a thing or two about designing a Navy.
The British admit it's a good thing Mussolini didn't have any oil, or the North African/Mediterranean campaigns would not have gone as good as they did.
and it's a great thing the Brits had Adm Cunningham
He had oil in Libya but didn't know it., as oil was discovered in the 1950s. Given oil, Italy might have owned the Med.
They could also teach us.
They tried and we proved we are incapable of learning.
SEE Wisconsin.
Sadly. And we keep the same people in power.
Yes because we are sadist who enjoy self inflicted shotgun wounds.
There is a strong reluctance on the part of the military to name names for those who fail. We have some good people in the system now, but change is so slow. China might wonder if we are playing a dis/misinformation game due to our incredible ineptness.
Some days I am confident we are. At least in a few instances.
There is always an apples to oranges comparison to be made there. Their own ships are decent for the Euro gear they have to equip them with. Our gear was going to require a different ship. The rest is politics.
Not quite. The intent was to build the FREMM pretty much as is, learn the changes we needed to make on future builds. Make as few changes as possible, only absolutely critical changes. Not make all the changes we wanted as the ship was being built. The objective was to deploy a hull in the water ASAP for our Navy, rather than building the first one to meet all U.S. Navy specifications.
That was a story, never the intent. The RFP equipment changes dictated the redesign and the length and weight changes were known prior to the contract award. The generator set change was known prior to the contract award. One could assume the motor and propeller changes were also known, especially given the buy American mandate. After the award Congress added Tomahawk and SM-6 integration which would add more cost and weight.
Yes, that was the story I read. As of now, it is 3 years overdue, and at least a 50% increase.
Exactly. We don't have time or dollars to waste on building a lets see if it works ship. We are not converting the Langley to prove a concept. We need hulls, that work, in the water yesterday. We know the FREMM (as originally designed), the Mogami class and the The Daegu-class frigates work. We have no idea that the Constellation, which is now, essentially a new design, will work. We didn't know the LCS would work yet we keep building hulls for nonexistent, unproven tech that never materialized, the Zumwalt- we built the ship before we proved the tech was affordable.
Even the Ford, we built that without proving the tech. When the Navy went to angled flight decks and steam catapults it converted an existing hull first to prove the concept, they did not build a new ship from the keel up.
Just wait, we are not done. Instead of us buying the Japanese ShinMaywa US-2, we will reinvent the wheel.
Here's why it's considered the best:
Designed for the role: The US-2 was specifically developed for the JMSDF as a replacement for its aging US-1A fleet and is optimized for air-sea rescue (ASR) missions.
Exceptional STOL Capabilities: The aircraft is known for its impressive short takeoff and landing capabilities, both on land and water, according to Simple Flying. This is crucial for operating in diverse environments and for rescue missions in challenging locations.
Rough Sea Handling: The US-2 can land and take off in rough seas with wave heights up to 3 meters (10 feet).
Advanced Technology: It incorporates modern features like boundary layer control technology for enhanced STOL and stall suppression, a pressurized cabin, and a glass cockpit.
Versatility: While its primary role is SAR, the US-2 is designed for other potential uses, such as firefighting (with the ability to carry 15 tonnes of water), and it can also carry passengers or stretchers.
Operational History: The US-2 has a proven track record, with JMSDF US-2s having recorded more than 1,000 rescues at sea.
In short, the ShinMaywa US-2's combination of design, technology, and performance makes it the best current Japanese float plane for the Navy's requirements, particularly for search and rescue operations.
https://www.seaforces.org/marint/Japan-Maritime-Self-Defense-Force/AIRCRAFT/ShinMaywa-US-2.htm
Sorry but they also tried to help with the Little Crappy Ship which was full of US Crap instead of Euro Crap.
That was G&C and Lockheed. The first Freedom had launched before the Fincantieri MMC deal was even announced. It was commissioned before the deal had closed.
It was sold by the US Navy has having an 85% compatibility with existing FREMM builds to save costs. That has been whittled own to 15% with the resulting 50% cost increase and 3 years delay. This design as we build nonsense was major part of the problems with LCS, Zumwalt and yes, the Ford.
Instead of going to the builder withe set design and proven tech NAVSEA, and their inability to learn from past mistakes, keeps repeating them.
The 85% myth only came into the press once the program started facing delays and cost escalation. Find it mentioned in press before the contract award for me and you get a sticker. Look at the ship shown at contract award. where on earth could they find 85% commonality at that time. You can prove the myth false on a napkin.
Then why say it is a FREMM design at all? In reality they are building a completely new design. According Navy Constellation (FFG-62) Class Frigate
Program: Background and Issues for Congress
Updated December 19, 2024
"FFG-62s are to be built to a modified version of an existing ship design—an approach, called the parent-design approach, that can reduce design time, design cost, and cost, schedule, and technical risk in building the ship."
The Navy has taken a good parent-design, a ship with no stabilty issues etc. and increased the length by over 20 feet, and increased the weight by at least 500 tons, which according to the GAO ‘Unplanned Weight Growth’ Could Limit Service Life" The Navy's possible solution is too reduce the speed."
According to the GAO May 2024 report to the Report to the Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives titled
NAVY FRIGATE Unstable Design Has Stalled Construction and Compromised
Delivery Schedules.
Over at least 2 decades, the Navy’s Constellation class Guided Missile Frigate program plans to acquire and deliver up to 20 frigates—multi-mission, small surface combatant warships—at a combined cost of over $22 billion. To reduce technical risk, the Navy and its shipbuilder modified an existing design to incorporate Navy specifications and weapon systems. However, the Navy's decision to begin construction before the design was complete is inconsistent with leading ship design practices and jeopardized this approach. Further, design instability has caused weight growth. The figure shows the frigate’s 3D design—a component of design stability—as incomplete over 1 year after construction began.
Remember this was supposed to be a "Parent-design" and of note in the report the navy was planning on sticking two unproven systems into the hull {the propulsion and machinery control systems} LCS anybody?
The GAO report continues:
The frigate is using many mission systems already proven on Navy ships.
However, the Navy has yet to demonstrate two systems—the propulsion and machinery control systems. A planned update to the frigate test plan—combined with the opportunity afforded by schedule delays—could offer the Navy the chance to conduct land-based testing of these two unproven systems. This testing would reduce the risk of discovering issues after the ship is at sea. The frigate is using a traditional, linear development approach for design and construction. The Navy has historically experienced schedule delays, cost growth, or both in prior shipbuilding programs using this approach.
GAO report continues "beyond the Navy’s previously estimated delay of about 20 months. This total estimated 36-month delay corresponds with shipbuilder delivery of the lead frigate in 2029—nearly 7 years after construction start." SEVEN YEARS TO BUILD A FRIGATE allegedly based on a proven "parent-design". Japan showed they could build a Mogami class frigate in 18months
According to the Congressional Research Service and USN
this are some of the changes made to the Parent-design
LOA increased form 47.44ft to 496.06ft
LBP 434.71ft to 462.67ft
Beam On Waterline 55.77ft to 59.38ft
Lightship Displacement 5524 metric tons increased to 6112mt
Full Load Displacement 6890mt to 7480mt.
Hope they can teach the Brits how to maintain one.
Great article. Even during World War II, Italy had some well-built and capable naval assets. Italy also produced some of the best ocean liners before and following the war.
Concerning Italy's financial contribution to NATO, friends tell me that the revived bridge to Sicily will be pitched as a strategic necessity.
Yep. The Italian army was badly equipped, badly led, and badly organized, but everyone respected their air force and navy.
The air force was quite good until about 1938. The Spanish Civil and the little Ethiopian foray essentially bankrupted the country. It put them about 4 years behind in fighter development and a decade with their bombers. The corps of experienced pilots was also pretty much gone by mid-'42.
Then of course my favorite Italian politician's airplane the Breda Lince.
https://youtu.be/icK_p2GFDB0?si=W9FriQa3leUZDAid
The Greeks put up a good fight against Mussolini, too.
Probably so the Mafia can get their merchandise to the mainland (old XO of mine was CO of Sigonella during this boondoggle): https://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/07/12/italian-police-raided-navy-commissary-because-exchange-closed.html?amp
We will be seeing a-lot of interesting strategic “NATO” projects coming out of the EU. The accounting gimmicks to get to 5% will be laughable.
How about some SOSUS in Sicily?
Great post. My only question is, what is the state of the Italian Coast Guard, which should also have a signficant role in patrolling seas in and around the Italian Peninsula and supplementing the Navy's role in North Africa.
Slightly different roles where the navy has a lot of patrol ships. That said, its still a little thin looking compared to our own.
Everyone’s except West Taiwans Coast Guard is thin compared to USCG.
Hell USCG has a larger air force than most NATO members.
California has a larger air force than some NATO members.
Can we talk about where Canada lies on this grid? Ye gods. I knew it was bad, but this is absurd.
Trudeau-ism (both pere and fils) means Canada cares little about it's own defense, and stays under the Bald Eagle's talons while tweaking his feathers.
A country that cannot defend its claims is not sovereign.
Yes. I am merely pointing out what has happened over the prior 6 decades.
Why? I wouldn’t expect a State to be on it.
Even the most left wing states muster more effective National Guards than the Canadians.
Good Afternoon CDR Salamander!
NATO has a good chance in Italy vs Brussels.
Italy should contribute the five (5) percent of Gross Domestic Product.
Pay to Play!
No excuses on what they can or cannot afford.
Set the tariff at 30% for wine, cheese, designer clothing, accessories and furniture imported into the USA.
Italy has a fantastic coastline!
Italy has a Rail Road to its neighbors in the North.
Italy is a Roman Catholic Country with an American Pontiff.
Americans like Italy and vice-versa.
Italy manufactures good products!
Good Job CDR Salamander for Eyes on Italy!
I’ve been to Greece, the Greek Islands, Vienna, Spain, Gibraltar and Portugal.
Italy has superb seamanship!
Let Italy decide what they want to make for the NATO Alliance. Regards, Nurse Jane
Belgium and Luxembourg sitting at around 1.25%...what? They got overrun and occupied in a few days in WWI and WWII and pretty much sat those wars out waiting for rescue. They have been grifting since April 1949. Time to part ways with the grifters or send in Vito to break bones.
Belgians did put up a fight in WWI. May have saved Paris.
And not just a Navy. They need a Coast Guard as well at the very least to attempt the flow of migrants from North Africa.
Sì! Ma Bruxelles…
They seem to have a slightly different division of work as the OPVs and larger are in the actual navy for the most part. Their Coast Guard starts at about our FRC sized ship, a little bigger.
It should be mentioned that Italy has Navy Law which specifies that (and what) ships need to be paid for, built and maintained to grow a navy. Remarkable, but - a long-term legalistic way of things.
I should mention US has a constitutional requirement to Maintain a Navy. And only raise an Army. Yet since Goldwater-Nicols & then Clinton the Army has run things
I’ve long figured Italy (surely France would participate, too, right??) would be the core of a NATO air-naval force that made sure Russia’s Mediterranean flotilla led a short but exciting life in a war.
All one submarine with tug escort these days.
P-8s are good, but I’d also put money into MQ-4s. Quite possibly without the SIGINT package (which is very expensive). The radar on that beast is a formidable asset.
There’s something bigger…NATO can be broadly broken up into front-line states facing Russia (former Warsaw Pact, plus Finland, Sweden, and Germany), and the rear area powers (U.S./UK, especially, but Italy also). The latter should focus on providing air power and seapower to the alliance.
NATO is a mutual defense pact with responsibilities beyond Europe.
When the CCP attacks the US they better be prepared to sent troops.
Served two tours in Italy, first was a national tour (CTF-63/COMNAVSURFMED) second a NATO tour with NAVSOUTH--which was the remnant of CINCMED, now under a (part time) Italian 4 star, but most of the staff were UK. Got to appreciate the Italian Navy quite a bit--very professional, but in a more laid back way than we were. Excellent ships.
My take was that the Italian politics were so chaotic that getting any kind of sustained defense commitment out of the government was a minor miracle. It is helpful to remember that there are really three Italys: Rome/Florence. The industrial North, and the South. Of course Sicily is an exception almost everything. Those three have radically different ideas about where resources are to be allocated and who gets to decide that allocation. Overlay that with a score or more of political parties and you can appreciate the problem.
There is also that most Italians have primary allegiance to theit family, second to their village or neighborhood and only lastly to the nation. This makes getting a unified anything agreed upon problematical.
Even with all that they have been able to do some remarkable things with their MIC.