The frigate USS Constellation (FFG-62) and its problems

FFG(X) / Constellation-class ship design

The US Navy plans to build a large series of advanced Constellation-class frigates in the future, and the lead ship was laid down last year. However, the new project has encountered various difficulties already at the development stage. The current construction is also not going smoothly, which is why the customer and contractor have to adjust their plans.

Under development

In July 2017, the US Navy announced plans to develop and build a new series of frigates. They were intended to replace the unsuccessful "littoral ships" of the LCS family. At the same time, applications were accepted for participation in the competitive development of the frigate. At that time, the project received the working designation FFG(X).

The competition received six applications from American and foreign companies. At the customer's request, all proposed projects were based on existing types of ships, produced in series and in service with various countries.

In April 2020, the US Navy announced the winner of the FFG(X) program. It was a frigate design proposed by Fincantieri Marinette Marine, the US arm of the Italian company. The design was based on the FREMM platform and had a number of features that took into account US Navy requirements. The company was awarded a $795 million contract to continue the design and prepare for construction of the ships.

The work took about a year to complete. Based on the results, in May 2021, Fincantieri received an order to build the lead frigate of the new type. This ship was valued at $554 million. It was planned to be laid down in the foreseeable future and completed in the middle of the decade.

The prospective frigate was named Constellation, in honor of one of the first US warships. Accordingly, the project was renamed from FFG(X) to Constellation-class.

The US Navy currently plans to build up to 20 new frigates. One of them is already under construction and should be in service in a few years. There are also contracts for the construction of five more ships, but these orders are in the preparatory stage. The construction of the remaining pennants remains a matter of an uncertain future.

FFG(X) model 2020 appearance

The Constellation's Difficulties

According to known data, the assembly of the structures of the future frigate USS Constellation (FFG-62) began in mid-2022. However, the first difficulties arose already at this stage. In the spring of 2024, specialized American publications reported that the FMM enterprise lacked qualified personnel. For this reason, construction will last 2-3 years longer than originally planned.

The lead frigate of the new type was laid down on April 12, 2024. Currently, FMM continues to assemble the main structures of the ship and install various systems and mechanisms. Construction is being carried out on the slipway, and even the approximate launch date remains unknown. According to the latest reports, construction is only 10% complete.

According to the original plans, valid at the time of signing the contract, the ship USS Constellation (FFG-62) was to be delivered to the customer in 2026. Now, the lead frigate is expected to be delivered in 2029, unless new issues arise that could affect the timing of the work.

The following orders are still in various stages of preparation. FMM is not yet ready to lay the keel and begin full-scale construction work. This may be due to the failures that occurred with the lead ship. The customer and contractor may postpone their construction until a later date, when the main problems of USS Constellation (FFG-62) are resolved.

Regardless of the exact laying date, all serial frigates of the new type will be able to enter the Navy no earlier than the beginning of the thirties. Moreover, considering the required number of ships and the possible pace of their construction, it can be expected that work on the entire series will stretch out for at least the next 10-15 years.

Technical features

In order to simplify, speed up and reduce the cost of all work, the frigate Constellation was developed on the basis of the FREMM project. At the same time, at the request of the American customer, part of the hull and superstructure structures were redesigned, the power plant, weapons and electronic equipment were changed.

The resulting Constellation-class frigate is a ship of traditional appearance. It is based on a hull of classical lines, on which there is a superstructure with a bridge in the bow and a hangar in the stern. The total length of such a ship should exceed 150 m, and the width - about 20 m. The full displacement will exceed 7 thousand tons.

The new type frigates will receive a main power plant based on diesel generators, electric motors and gas turbine engines. The main sources of energy will be four Rolls-Royce MTU 20V 4000 M53B diesel generators. Two high-power INDAR electric motors will be responsible for movement at economic speed. Two General Electric LM2500+G4 gas turbine engines are also provided. Depending on the required speed, electric motors or a combination of electric and gas turbine traction should be used.

The ship will be able to reach a speed of at least 26 knots. The cruising range will be 6000 nautical miles. The ship's autonomy will be determined by the food supplies for the crew.

The frigates will be equipped with the latest Baseline 10 version of the Aegis combat information and control system. The main means of surveillance will be the AN/SPY-6(V)3 multifunctional radar. The ship will also receive fire control locators, hydroacoustic systems, etc. It is envisaged to use modern electronic warfare systems, including jamming stations and devices for firing special ammunition.

The Constellation project envisages equipping the ship with a universal vertical launch system Mk 41 with 32 cells. This will allow the use of a wide range of rocket weapons to attack ground, air and underwater targets. It also provides for installations for 16 anti-ship missiles in transport and launch containers and a RIM-116 anti-aircraft system with 21 cells. Barrel weapons will be represented by one 57-mm M110 installation and a set of various machine guns.

The frigate will carry aviation group. A large hangar is envisaged to accommodate a helicopter of the MH-60 type. UAVs of various types will also be used, launched from the aft takeoff pad.

Sources of problems

Thus, the FFG(X) program faces various difficulties and problems at all stages of implementation. All these factors have already led to a serious delay from the initial schedule and at this stage create the basis for negative forecasts for the future. In general, the list of problems of the program is well known.

In the early stages of the FFG(X) project, after the contract with FMM was signed, it was assumed that the new frigate would be as similar as possible to the existing FREMM ship. The degree of unification was to exceed 80%. However, due to the high requirements of the US Navy, the original project had to be significantly modified. As a result, the unification of FREMM and Constellation now does not exceed 20%.

Italian frigate Carlo Bergamini F590 type FREMM

In essence, we are talking about a completely new ship, which only partially uses the developments and solutions of the existing project. Because of this, the design and construction are more complex and expensive than planned several years ago.

It is also necessary to take into account the general complexity of preparing for the production of new-type ships and the inherent difficulties of assembling the lead pennant. Shipbuilders and related companies have to master new designs, implement technologies, etc.

Last spring, it was reported that the contractor was facing a shortage of specialists. This factor has already pushed the program's schedule forward by three years, and there is no guarantee that the situation will not worsen in the future.

A direct consequence of organizational and technical problems is the growth of the cost of work. There are already concerns that the final price of the lead frigate USS Constellation (FFG-62), taking into account the development costs, will exceed $ 1 billion. Accordingly, the costs of building the next ships will change, and with them the total cost of the large program.

All of this means that over the next few years, the Navy will have to find ways to make new ships cheaper or try to secure additional funding. An alternative is to scale back construction plans. All three scenarios have their downsides, and the Pentagon faces a tough choice.

Generational change

It should be recalled that the emergence of the FFG(X) program was largely due to the failure of the previous LCS project. Multipurpose littoral ships did not live up to expectations - they did not show sufficient characteristics, did not have all the necessary capabilities, and were also excessively expensive. They were eventually abandoned in favor of the promising frigate.

The FFG(X)/Constellation program is also facing various problems and is going beyond the desired time and financial framework. Whether it will be possible to achieve the required result this time within an acceptable time frame and at an acceptable price is a big question. So far, there is every reason to doubt the possibility of a quick and painless change of generations of such combat ships.

Comments

[solar]

Another American mistake. After Zamvolt and the littoral ships, they should have had a dose of common sense. The frigate has an unclear purpose. Instead of a normal gun, it has a 57 mm pop gun, you can't use it in landing operations. You can't use it in anti-submarine warfare either, it doesn't have anti-submarine torpedoes. They didn't install anti-submarine torpedoes on a billion-dollar ship! The air defense capabilities are limited to 32 cells, and this is on a ship with a displacement of 6700 tons. But there is an expensive radar and an even more expensive Aegis, so there is an obvious imbalance between the means of detection and control and the means of destruction.
A separate question - why did they take FREMM as a basis? The French and Italians have only a few destroyer-class ships, they are forced to make frigates quite expensive. But the Americans do not have such a problem. They have more than enough Arleigh Berks to solve serious problems. They need a cheap multi-purpose mass frigate with a relatively small crew, with sufficient seaworthiness, capable of supporting the landing of troops or groups performing special point operations, providing air defense, anti-submarine warfare, combating UAVs, performing patrol functions to carry out tasks in low-intensity conflicts - such as, for example, in the situation with Somali pirates or the Houthis now or in the case of possible limited clashes with the Iranians at sea. And both the Danes and the French have examples of such ships in Europe. But for some reason they chose FREMM, and even worsened it, despite the fact that the price has increased significantly.

[Alexey RA]

Quote from solar

They need a cheap, multi-purpose, mass-produced frigate with a relatively small crew, with sufficient seaworthiness, capable of supporting landing forces or groups carrying out special point operations, providing air defense, anti-submarine warfare, countering UAVs, and performing patrol functions to carry out tasks in low-intensity conflicts.

So, in the current conditions, with such TTT, we get "Constellation".
You remember the results of the work on the new generation of littoral ships - in the end it turned out that for survival even near the shores of third world countries, taking into account the spread of SCRCs, AEGIS is needed. Or the cover of littoral ships with a ship with AEGIS, which devalues ​​the LCS concept of "a ship of low-intensity conflicts for the release of EM URO".
Well, then AEGIS pulled the displacement along with it (like “Polynom” in our country) ), and the desire to fit into the budget - deterioration of performance characteristics or the rejection of a number of systems.

[solar]

You remember the results of the work on the new generation of littoralniks - in the end it turned out that for survival even on the shores of third world countries, taking into account the spread of the SCRC, AEGIS is needed.

The Europeans are doing the same things, but without the expensive Aegis. It is simply not needed for low-intensity conflicts. And if it has a place on the expensive Arleigh Burke, then it is not needed on cheap frigates in addition to destroyers.

Well, then AEGIS pulled the displacement along with it

Their displacement was just set - they took a ready-made frigate as a basis.

[Alexey RA]

Quote from solar

The Europeans are doing the same things, but without the expensive Aegis. It's simply not needed for low-intensity conflicts.

So the Yankees simply don’t have another combat information and control system tailored to their weapons and detection and communication systems.

Quote from solar

And if there is a place for it on the expensive Arleigh Burke, then on cheap frigates in addition to destroyers - they are not even close to being needed.

So cheap additions were OHPs. And "Constellations" in the TTT were registered as squadron frigates, with one of their main tasks being defined as escorting aircraft carriers. Not as OHPs.can be used if necessary", namely "be included in the escort team on a regular basis and have the opportunity to work fully in the group"Well, the inclusion of AUG in the structure again pulled AEGIS along with it.

Quote from solar

Their displacement was just set - they took a ready-made frigate as a basis.

Yeah... and then they gave him a "mini-Burke" task. Guess who won the argument. maintaining displacement against a set of weapons with a combat information and control system to perform the main tasks according to the TTT?

[solar]

In principle, the littoral and Zamvolt also had big problems starting from the stage of determining the purpose and functions of the ships. And now - instead of a cheap universal frigate, in order not to drive expensive Arleigh Berks to secondary tasks, they decided to create a vague appendage to them. Well, there was no problem to install anti-submarine torpedoes that were cheap in the overall price. With such "concepts" the beginning of the end of the littoral and Zamvolt began. I am sure - now we are seeing the same thing.

[Andrey_i_K]

Did the Yankees have low intensity with the Houthis?

[SovAr238A]

Quote from solar

But there is an expensive radar and an even more expensive Aegis - there is an obvious imbalance between detection and control means and means of destruction.

I don't agree with these conclusions at all.
No modern US Navy warship is a warship without Aegis.
Otherwise, it will not be able to be integrated into a single combat system.
Will not have 100% interaction and mutual control with existing Destroyers.

Quote from solar

You can't use it in ASW either, it doesn't have anti-submarine torpedoes. They didn't install anti-submarine torpedoes on a billion dollar ship!

Why does it need anti-submarine torpedoes if it has an anti-submarine helicopter on board, and for self-defense it has the luxurious AN/SLQ-61.

Quote from solar

Another American mistake. After Zamvolt and the littoral ships, they should have had a dose of common sense. A frigate of unclear purpose. Instead of a normal gun, a 57 mm pop gun, you won't use it in landing operations. ... capable of supporting landing troops or groups carrying out special point operations, providing air defense, anti-submarine warfare, combating UAVs, performing patrol functions to carry out tasks in low-intensity conflicts - such as in the situation with Somali pirates or the Husids ....

Your main problem is that you have drawn for yourself an image of a comprehensively developed ship, having Soviet thoughts in your head.
And you don't understand Americans at all.
Their concept of using frigates.

From the word in general.
That's when the understanding that the nearest landing operation in the Pacific Ocean is approximately 4000 miles away will firmly take root in your head... And the same amount in the Atlantic.
Why the hell do they need "landing operations" on a frigate????

For the Americans, with their vast oceans, frigates are patrol ships.
They will perfectly provide both anti-submarine warfare (they have helicopters, electronic warfare, and 2 types of sonar) and air defense, which is really needed to defend a section of the sea/coast in the ocean 4-5 thousand miles from the nearest enemy.
The Americans are network-centric. They will never have one ship left alone. If necessary, it will be assisted by aviation, basic aviation. And they will cover the submarine. They are like that

UAVs in the Ocean? This is already the invention of Grandpa Chernomor. As is the fight against the Houthis, Iranians, etc.
Don't teach Americans how to live in their America, they do it much better than you, because you interfere in things you don't understand.

[solar]

Don't teach Americans how to live in their America, they do it much better than you, because you interfere in things you don't understand.

Looking at the littoral ships and Zumvolt, I understand how modern Americans "understand" this. The decision about Arleigh Burke and Oliver Perry was made by completely different people. And now - one failed project after another.

No modern US Navy warship is a warship without Aegis.

Others do just fine without Aegis to solve network-centric problems.

Otherwise, it will not be able to be integrated into a single combat system.
Will not have 100% interaction and mutual control with existing Destroyers.

The Americans have plenty of tasks that don't require "100% interaction and mutual control". Frigates should complement destroyers. And for this, Aegis is definitely not needed in version 10, Link16 - yes, it is. Aegis primarily allows you to realize the capabilities of a specific ship. And this frigate was given Aegis, but they forgot to give it capabilities.

And you don't understand Americans at all.
Their concept of using frigates.

Those Americans who invented littoral combat ships and are now inventing this misunderstanding, having managed to worsen and increase the cost of the already existing, proven FREMM - no one understands them.

That's when the understanding that the nearest landing operation in the Pacific Ocean is approximately 4000 miles away will firmly take root in your head... And the same amount in the Atlantic.
Why the hell do they need "landing operations" on a frigate????

Are you not aware of the existence of a whole fleet of landing ships in the US Navy? And the expensive Arleigh Burkes, not cheap frigates, will be used to support the landing operations, hiding their SM-3s away.

For the Americans, with their vast oceans, frigates are patrol ships.
They will provide excellent anti-submarine warfare (they have helicopters, electronic warfare, and 2 types of sonar)

How will they provide it if they don't have anti-submarine weapons on board? And how will electronic warfare help them against submarines? And how will sonar help if there is nothing to shoot with? A helicopter doesn't take off in a minute, you can get a torpedo while they are preparing for takeoff.

Air defense is the kind that is really needed to defend a section of the sea/coast in the ocean 4-5 thousand miles from the nearest enemy.

An elementary task is to ensure shipping in the Red Sea, to fight the Houthis. Now we are forced to use a whole fleet with huge crews (and with decent salaries for each) and expensive missiles against cheap drones. Although an inexpensive frigate, built wisely, would be enough.

The Americans are network-centric. They will never have one ship left alone. If necessary, it will be assisted by aviation, basic aviation. And they will cover the submarine. They are like that

They don't count money, that's just the way they are. Where a couple of inexpensive frigates are enough, they'll bring in an AUG, which is what we're seeing now.

UAVs in the Ocean? This is already the invention of Grandpa Chernomor. As is the fight against the Houthis, Iranians, etc.

I don't know what kind of grandfather you have, but these are the tasks that the American fleet is currently performing. But there haven't been any battles in the ocean for a long time.

[Alex777]

Quote from solar

Looking at the littoral ships and the Zumvolt, I understand how modern Americans "get" this.

Why Zumwalt "didn't go" has been said more than a lot.
In my opinion, cutting the radar complex for the sake of economy has finally finished off the concept of the ubership. Although, in the original version, it could fire at a virtually unlimited number of targets.
And without the Zumwalts, the entire concept of using littorals collapsed.

[solar]

Both the Zamvolt and the littorals were distinguished by a completely ill-conceived concept, an inflated level of innovation and disgusting implementation. As they came up with in the Young Technicians' Circle, and even in the circle they could have done it more thoughtfully. A classic example of "how to do it expensively and badly." No one interfered with preliminary testing, testing of equipment. For example, replace the bow UVP on the Arleigh Burkes with a new type, develop missiles for them, and then install them on the new ships. But nothing of the sort. The new ships were overflowing with untested technologies. It is not surprising that they turned out to be a failure. Now they have gone down the same path. The frigates have abandoned anti-submarine weapons in principle! Despite the fact that this is the primary task of the frigate - anti-submarine defense. The new frigates are absolutely unbalanced, there is a clear bias towards control means to the detriment of weapons. As the hero of Nicholas Cage said in one of the films, "The city is full of idiots who have nowhere to put their money!" Those who are forced to count money, like the Dutch, make much more balanced and efficient ships.

[Alex777]

Quote from solar

Frigates have abandoned anti-submarine weapons in principle!
The new frigates are completely unbalanced...

What prevents us from placing PLURs in the Mk-41? Nothing.
The remaining cells are sufficient for 64 ESSM.
For your own defense, this is a very good option.
As anti-ship missiles and "on the ground" NSM are quite good.
There are also anti-torpedoes. And VI provides
Reliable use of weapons in a storm. Voila.

Quote from solar

The same Dutch make much more balanced and efficient ships.

The Dutch don't have to travel across the ocean all the time.

[solar]

What prevents the Mk-41 from being equipped with PLURs?

That they were not deployed. No one prevented them from deploying compact, light and relatively cheap anti-submarine torpedoes. But they were not deployed either. And logically, they should have deployed both - they are in service. At the very least - anti-submarine torpedoes as cheaper, lighter and simpler.

There are also anti-torpedoes.

What kind of traps are these? The Americans don't have any of those in their arsenal. Or are you referring to Nixie traps?

And VI provides...

I don't quite understand what VI is?

The remaining cells are sufficient for 64 ESSM.

And this is another stupidity. Short compact self-defense cells are suitable for the ESSM. No one doubts that they or similar ones will be in the arsenal. It would have been easier to install separate short cells for missiles of this type, freeing up "long" full-size cells for other types of missiles. Simple and obvious solutions are not for the authors of this "miracle". They managed to worsen even the initial FREMM project - the artillery is much worse, there are no means of destroying ASW at all. And this is on a frigate, for which this is the main task!
Logic? Common sense? No, never heard of it...

[Alex777]

Quote from solar

Quote: Alex777

What prevents the Mk-41 from being equipped with PLURs?

The fact that they weren't posted.

The ships will be equipped with an AN/SPY-3 6D radar with an active phased array antenna with digital scanning. The Mk.41 vertical launch system with 32 cells is designed for the SM-2 and RIM-162 ESSM family of anti-aircraft missiles, as well as for ASROC anti-submarine missiles.

https://flotprom.ru/2024/%D0%A1%D1%88%D0%B062/

[solar]

The Americans themselves don't know about this, they don't read flotprom.ru

Armaments
32 Mark 41 VLS cells with:
BGM-109 Tomahawk Cruise Missile[13]
Possibly RIM-162 ESSM Block 2 and / or RIM-174 Standard ERAM missiles
Planned RIM-66 Standard SM-2 Block 3C
16 × canister-launched over-the-horizon anti-ship weapons (likely Naval Strike Missile)
RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile launched from Mk 49 Guided Missile Launching System (21 cell)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constellation-class_frigate

[Alex777]

Quote from solar

wikipedia

This is, of course, the most authoritative source.

[solar]

A casually written phrase in flotprom.ru in a three-line note is, of course, a more significant source.

Weapon systems of Constellation-class frigates
The frigate will be installed with a Mk 41 vertical launch system (VLS) for launching surface-to-air missiles such as for Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) Block 2 and Standard Missile (SM)-2.

It will also be armed with an MK 110 57mm gun and canister launched over-the-horizon missiles and anti-ship missiles.

Will this do?
https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/constellation-class-guided-missile-frigates/?cf-view

[Alex777]

Quote from solar

naval-technology.com

This source will be more serious.
But I still sincerely doubt that there are no ASW missiles on Constellation. It's very strange.
I still keep in touch with many of my acquaintances there. And the degradation of all spheres of production and education in the States is no secret to me.
It is not for nothing that Trump is trying to bring manufacturing back to the States at any cost.

[solar]

The problem is not the ability to install missiles, much less anti-submarine torpedoes, on a frigate. They exist and are mounted quite autonomously. The problem is in the strange concepts that are born in the heads of those responsible based on the principle of "What else can I come up with?" Arleigh Burke and the OHP were made by solid pragmatists, and they were made as pragmatically as possible. And now this has been taken up by inventors with large funding, divorced from reality, which is why we get ships that are "neither a candle to God nor a poker to the devil", they spend huge amounts of money on combat information and control systems and radars, to the detriment of weapons. The Europeans, who have much less money, are forced to make normal ships, every euro counts for them, they try to spend them as efficiently as possible - like the Spanish or the Dutch.

[Alex777]

Quote from solar

The problem is in the strange concepts that are born in the minds of those responsible

Quote: Alex777

What prevents us from placing PLURs in the Mk-41? Nothing.
The remaining cells are sufficient for 64 ESSM.
For your own defense, this is a very good option.
As anti-ship missiles and "on the ground" NSM are quite good.
And VI (displacement) ensures reliable
use of weapons in a storm.

In my opinion, the ship is quite balanced.
I can't imagine how they managed to lose the PTZ.
In NATO, 2x3 324 mm is standard and everywhere.
But the main problems arose in the conversion
project of the European ship to the American
standards that are more demanding in terms of
the body and systems, as far as I know about the topic.
As a result, a lot had to be redone.
How they didn't think of this in advance is beyond me.

[solar]

It is poorly balanced. Expensive combat information and control system and radar do not get along well with the symbolic 32 UVP cells and imitation of a 57 mm cannon in the absence of means of destruction of anti-submarine warfare, except for a helicopter. It seems that it was "balanced" by the same people who composed the littoral ships and are now writing them off. Balanced - this is the Spanish Alvaro de Bazan or the Dutch "De Zeven Provincien", these are balanced ships.

[Alex777]

Quote from solar

It's somehow poorly balanced.

I still think that the frigate has anti-submarine missiles.
They didn't mention it in the adverts. This happens too.

Quote from solar

symbolic 32 cells of the UVP

At first, there were only 16 UKSKs in Gorshkov.
In addition, 16 NSM is a low-cost alternative to 16 UVP.

Quote from solar

Balanced - this is the Spanish Alvaro de Bazan or the Dutch "De Zeven Provincien"

How many air defense missiles do the Spaniards and the Dutch have for 50 km? How many anti-ship missiles?
NSM in the next fashion promises 500 km. And they work on the ground. And inexpensive.

So, in the end, all disputes are a matter of taste.

[solar]

I still think that the frigate has anti-submarine missiles.
They didn't mention it in the adverts. This happens too.

There are none. There is only the possibility of installation in the future.

How many air defense missiles do the Spaniards and the Dutch have at 50 km?

The Dutch De Zeven Provinciën class, for example, has 40 VPU cells - 32 cells for SM-2 (160 km range), 8 cells for 32 ESSM missiles (4 per cell) (50 km range).
The Spanish Alvaro de Bazan has 48 standard VPU cells with different loads, for example.

32 × Standard SM-2MR Block IIIA
64 × RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (4 per cell)

And the Spaniard is noticeably smaller than this new American miracle, and he has Aegis as a combat information and control system.
Danish frigate Iver Huitfeldt class
32 VPU cells for long-range SM-2 and separate cells for 24-48 medium-range ESSM missiles with the same displacement as the American.
The Spaniard has 127mm guns + 2*20mm auxiliary guns.
The Dutchman has 127 mm+2*30 Goalkeeper.
The Dane has 2*76 mm (already planned to replace with 127 mm + 35 mm) plus 35 mm with programmable detonation of shells already installed.
The American has a 57 mm gun. That's all.
PKR - Spanish 8 pcs, Danish - up to 16 pcs, Dutch 8 pcs, American 16 pcs.
Everyone has one helicopter, everyone except the American has 2*2 anti-submarine torpedoes.

[solar]

The Dutch don't have to travel across the ocean all the time.

The Dutch and American frigates have almost the same displacement and cruising range. And the Dutchman is even faster.

[Alexey RA]

In order to simplify, speed up and reduce the cost of all work, the frigate Constellation was developed on the basis of the FREMM project. At the same time, at the request of the American customer, part of the hull and superstructure structures were redesigned, the power plant, weapons and electronic equipment were changed.

It's about like in order to simplify, speed up and reduce the cost of all work, the new American car was developed on the basis of the Fiat Panda, but the Customer demanded to replace the engine, transmission, electronics and change the shape of the body and interior. The result was the Cadillac.

[SovAr238A]

Quote: Alexey RA

It's about like in order to simplify, speed up and reduce the cost of all work, the new American car was developed on the basis of the Fiat Panda, but the Customer demanded to replace the engine, transmission, electronics and change the shape of the body and interior. The result was the Cadillac.

Your example is abstract,
But in the world of cars, there is a real example exactly like this.
Fiat 500x - and its platform brother Jeep Renegade!

[Alexey RA]

Quote: SovAr238A

But in the world of cars, there is a real example exactly like this.
Fiat 500x - and its platform brother Jeep Renegade!

The example is a bit irrelevant. Here, Fiat first developed a unified platform, initially tailored for a wide range of engines. And then it itself began to make two cars at once on it at one plant - 500X and Renegade - including in the configuration only what the platform was originally designed for.
And the "Constellation" is an attempt by a purely American plant to take the smallest Fiat platform (SCCS Small), something like the Fiat Grande Punto, and hang on to it foreign components and mechanisms that were not originally intended, in order to get at the end not even a Renegade, but a Ram Rampage.

[solar]

Despite the fact that there was a ready platform for their concept - these are Spanish frigates of the Alvaro de Bazan type, mini Arleigh Burkes, the design, armament, equipment are as close as possible to American destroyers. That's the case - two-thirds of the capabilities for half the price of the Arleigh Burke, according to which the Arleigh Burke was built to replace the Ticanderogs (and in terms of price - it is even cheaper than half). It was only necessary to install modern versions of the radar and Aegis, replace the Harpoons with NSM. But for some reason, FREMM won the competition, I can imagine how the Spaniards, who also participated in this competition, were stunned.

[ZAV69]

They weren't shocked, they were thinking where they had made a mistake with the door when they brought in the bribe, or how much they had made a mistake with the amount of the bribe.

[Alexey RA]

Quote from solar

Despite the fact that there was a ready-made platform for their concept - these are the Spanish frigates of the Alvaro de Bazan type, mini Arleigh Burke, the design, armament, equipment are as close as possible to American destroyers.

Wow... I forgot about the Spaniards!
Indeed, it is a European FR with American filling, where there is everything that the USN requires: AEGIS - yes, Mark 41 - yes, "Harpoons" - yes, 324-mm TA - yes, SH-60 helicopter - yes. There is no need to even change the propulsion plant: the gas turbine engines are American, the diesel engines are Spanish Cat.
One problem is the speed. For the work as part of the AUG escort, as specified in the TTT, 28 knots is not enough.

[solar]

The new frigate has even less.

Speed ​​in excess of 26 kn

Moreover, the Spaniards have 48 VPU cells and a human 127 mm cannon.

[Yuliy]

aegis vaseline 10 made me happy :)))

[hostel]

Видимо, большую роль играют амбиции вмс США . Можно было повторить испанский Альваро Де Бассан, но хотелки перевесили разум. В итоге конский ценник. Что касается нехватки рабочей силы, то это закономерный итог развития страны юристов и прочей обслуги.