As American navalists continue to wait for the final decision on the FFG(X) selection, it is useful to review the July 31, 2018 Congressional Research Service report on FFG(X);

Although the Navy has not yet determined the design of the FFG(X), given the capabilities that the Navy’s wants the FFG(X) to have, the ship will likely be larger in terms of displacement, more heavily armed, and more expensive to procure than the Navy’s Littoral Combat Ships (LCSs). The Navy envisages developing no new technologies or systems for the FFG(X)—the ship is to use systems and technologies that already exist or are already being developed for use in other programs.

The Navy’s desire to procure the first FFG(X) in FY2020 does not allow enough time to develop a completely new design (i.e., a clean-sheet design) for the FFG(X). Consequently, the Navy intends to build the FFG(X) to a modified version of an existing ship design—an approach called the parent-design approach. The parent design could be a U.S. ship design or a foreign ship design. The Navy intends to conduct a full and open competition to select the builder of the FFG(X). Consistent with U.S. law, the ship is to be built in a U.S. shipyard, even if it is based on a foreign design. Multiple industry teams are reportedly competing for the program. Given the currently envisaged procurement rate of two ships per year, the Navy envisages using a single builder to build the ships.

As we’ve argued here before, the existing and proven FREMM option has the best risk/capability ratio of all the options.

One of the stronger pushbacks you hear when FREMM is mentioned is that it is a “foreign design.” That argument does not work too well, at least with this blogger. Our allies build our designs all the time. If, due to our own poor program management, we find ourselves in the situation where we need the best design to meet a certain set of requirements in a short period of time – why not consider a foreign design?

The Franco-Italian FREMM may not be designed here, but it can be built here. In the larger scheme of things, the air side of the house already does this. The latest example was announced last week;

Almost two decades after the U.S. Air Force started trying to replace the Vietnam-era helicopters that patrol missile fields and stand by to evacuate senior officials, the service announced Monday that it has placed an initial order of MH-139 helicopters with the team of Boeing and Italian defense firm Leonardo.

Today’s contract awards $375 million for the first four MH-139s, the first batch of what is slated to be a $2.38 billion, 84-aircraft program. The deal is structured as a firm fixed-price contract, meaning that the company, not the government, would be on the hook for cost overruns.

Air Force officials said the program was initially estimated to cost $4.1 billion. “Strong competition drove down costs for the program, resulting in $1.7 billion in savings to the taxpayer,” Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson said in a statement.

That is not a small program. When it comes to the FFG(X) selection, we should stop considering the “not designed here” objection, we should pick the platform that best fills a capability gap we inflicted on ourselves.

A little humility wouldn’t be a bad tonic for the larger body either.