US Navy News and updates

[FormerDirtDart]

Until the USN issues an actual RFI no one really knows what they are looking for out of a new "Golden Frigate" program.
I believe it is entirely likely the USN does not, at this time, know what they want.

At best i see an RFI for a new frigate/small surface combatant (or whatever the hell they’re going to call it) around the 3rd qtr of FY 2026,

Then another year before the actual program solicitation.

Then another year before design is selected

Then another year before design finalization.

I think everyone sees where I'm going with this, 2030s before first hull floats

 

[Terran]

If they'll accept something that's building, then there's always this -Miecznik

Hullform has been in service for years. 2020s version of the hull has been modified, I think in ways that bring it closer to USN standards. Several building right now, & more on order. 32 Mk 41 VLS. Other countries are building variants with other weapons, sensors, & CMS. The Indonesian one has 64 VLS, but the Turkish Midlas instead of Mk41. That & the Polish version have a hull-mounted sonar, but that's optional: the RN's version doesn't have one, so the design work on modifying the hull to remove it has already been done.

There are better ASW frigates, but if what's wanted is a GP frigate smaller & cheaper than an Arleigh Burke, with an AAW emphasis, this should be worth a look - as long as the USN doesn't overload it.

Or the Spanish F110 frigate. US radar & some US weapons, & Aegis. Mk41 VLS, but only 16.

First problem is has to be a U.S. build. With a high degree of U.S. Systems. The Constellation ended up needing an 85% redesign because it was so foreign. I see people saying that the U.S. should buy a foreign design even foreign build all the time however doing so would make sustainably a nightmare. U.S. shipping industry is already suffering due to decades of economic decline and BRAC. Buying a foreign build would open the door for more foreign buys weakening it more. Farther it needs to be repair and upgrade by the U.S. we’ll also having commonality with existing U.S. systems. That pretty much rules out Miecznik unless it undergoes a similar process to what doomed the Constellation. They had to redesign the FREMM to Constellation with an 85% redesign.
The VLS is important but the Aegis is the critical here. Tha ability for the FFG-X to “talk” to and interoperable with the other Naval systems of the USN. If the USN was to procure from the BAE line it would be River class based. It’s the closest to a U.S. military standard in systems the least amount of changes derived from the Type 26 hull. However getting the tooling and production is years of work and it would still require the standard processes of bidding.

The F110 was basically what was offered on FFG-X bidding and it lost.

Besides the mission comes into question. The Aim is Aegis ship light. A vessel that can stop gap between the retirements of the early block Burke and build out of Block III Burke/DDG-X class. In the next decade those early Burkes are going to begin retirement and they will do so faster than new block III can roll into commission. If 16 VLS is considered enough fine than that would mean the USN is more interested in getting hulls than Capability. In which case we have an F15EX situation. The easiest solution Something that already is in production and can be adapted to the job. Lockheed Martin Multi Mission Small Combatant derived from Freedom class already in production for Saudi Arabia and Greece. It’s a reduced capacity although LM did pitch a more capable version for FFG-X and it comes from the same yard.
ironic if what is in essence LCS 2.0 saves the day.

no matter what happens 2030 clocks before anything hits water.

 

[crest]

First problem is has to be a U.S. build. With a high degree of U.S. Systems. The Constellation ended up needing an 85% redesign because it was so foreign. I see people saying that the U.S. should buy a foreign design even foreign build all the time however doing so would make sustainably a nightmare. U.S. shipping industry is already suffering due to decades of economic decline and BRAC. Buying a foreign build would open the door for more foreign buys weakening it more. Farther it needs to be repair and upgrade by the U.S. we’ll also having commonality with existing U.S. systems. That pretty much rules out Miecznik unless it undergoes a similar process to what doomed the Constellation. They had to redesign the FREMM to Constellation with an 85% redesign.
The VLS is important but the Aegis is the critical here. Tha ability for the FFG-X to “talk” to and interoperable with the other Naval systems of the USN. If the USN was to procure from the BAE line it would be River class based. It’s the closest to a U.S. military standard in systems the least amount of changes derived from the Type 26 hull. However getting the tooling and production is years of work and it would still require the standard processes of bidding.

The F110 was basically what was offered on FFG-X bidding and it lost.

Besides the mission comes into question. The Aim is Aegis ship light. A vessel that can stop gap between the retirements of the early block Burke and build out of Block III Burke/DDG-X class. In the next decade those early Burkes are going to begin retirement and they will do so faster than new block III can roll into commission. If 16 VLS is considered enough fine than that would mean the USN is more interested in getting hulls than Capability. In which case we have an F15EX situation. The easiest solution Something that already is in production and can be adapted to the job. Lockheed Martin Multi Mission Small Combatant derived from Freedom class already in production for Saudi Arabia and Greece. It’s a reduced capacity although LM did pitch a more capable version for FFG-X and it comes from the same yard.
ironic if what is in essence LCS 2.0 saves the day.

no matter what happens 2030 clocks before anything hits water.

Does the small combatant line use the same propulsion? As far as I understand the reliability of that system is a significant problom, and the fix for the gear that breaks is extremely expensive and time consuming to do. The burk is a front line package in its capabilities, it would be a huge gamble for the navy to risk not only a inferior replacement (that can be done) but a unreliable one? The risk to ccv grouping in my opinion is to great for reliability to be a issue in its composition.

 

[Terran]

LCS 19 USS St Louis implemented a redesigned combining gear to correct that problem. The expense was retrofit of older ships.
From LCS 19 on all Freedom class builds have the revised transmission MMSC construction and design is after LCS19.

The older Burke class ships start retiring in FY31. They are the least capable of the fleet and the most troublesome. 2036 12 of the Burke Block 1 ships that are or have received a SLEP retire.

Constellation class was never a replacement for the Burkes they are/were to be a supplement a means to try and build out more hulls.
The Block III Burkes and DDG-150( presumptive) are the true replacements and expansion of the fleet.
Yet the lead time, docks and price bottlenecks the production not even mentioning how the DDG-X is still a paper product. Mean they are slow.
The main issue for an FFG X(II) wether it be based off type 31 Arrow 140, Type 26 River, Mogami , F110, Hanwha Ocean 4300 or a new design is time. It takes time for the Department of the Boat people to put together the RFI, the companies time to put together the submission, the NavSea to review, down select bid and then contract, the ship yard to tool up train up clear a dry dock and both the navy and yard to go through the finalized design for production.
Recently both the USN and USCG have shown how this process isn’t working as fast or smoothly as desired with ships being designed as they are being built.
it’s like trying to assemble a Lego set but designing and 3D printing each piece one at a time as you go.
Constellation class is 3 years behind schedule. PCU Constellation was supposed to be delivered to the Navy this coming Financial Year. She is now projected for delivery in FY 2029. The second Ship of the class the humorous & aptly named Congress hasn’t even been laid yet. The Constellation class has been in the works for nearly eight years now with its keel laid 5 years ago. The existing rate of new Burkes delivery means that rather than expanding the Fleet the Fleet is going to decline or at best stagnate.

The Chances of getting a new full FFG-X even off a proven hull form with an existing high degree of American components into production before 2034 is almost Zero even if the revised RFI was dropped in early January 2026. Tool up design and build take to long. Procurement off a foreign yard build isn’t realistic short of Divine Intervention. Even then mercy of that yard’s availably.

MMSC is a step down in capacity. The existing model only sports 8 VLS cells though LM pitched a 32 cell variant for FFG back in 2014. Questionable on combat resiliency. An active production line with potential for delivering circa mid 2030s. Low risk, high American content fairly deep training infrastructure. “The Devil you know.”

 

[crest]

LCS 19 USS St Louis implemented a redesigned combining gear to correct that problem. The expense was retrofit of older ships.
From LCS 19 on all Freedom class builds have the revised transmission MMSC construction and design is after LCS19.

The older Burke class ships start retiring in FY31. They are the least capable of the fleet and the most troublesome. 2036 12 of the Burke Block 1 ships that are or have received a SLEP retire.

Constellation class was never a replacement for the Burkes they are/were to be a supplement a means to try and build out more hulls.
The Block III Burkes and DDG-150( presumptive) are the true replacements and expansion of the fleet.
Yet the lead time, docks and price bottlenecks the production not even mentioning how the DDG-X is still a paper product. Mean they are slow.
The main issue for an FFG X(II) wether it be based off type 31 Arrow 140, Type 26 River, Mogami , F110, Hanwha Ocean 4300 or a new design is time. It takes time for the Department of the Boat people to put together the RFI, the companies time to put together the submission, the NavSea to review, down select bid and then contract, the ship yard to tool up train up clear a dry dock and both the navy and yard to go through the finalized design for production.
Recently both the USN and USCG have shown how this process isn’t working as fast or smoothly as desired with ships being designed as they are being built.
it’s like trying to assemble a Lego set but designing and 3D printing each piece one at a time as you go.
Constellation class is 3 years behind schedule. PCU Constellation was supposed to be delivered to the Navy this coming Financial Year. She is now projected for delivery in FY 2029. The second Ship of the class the humorous & aptly named Congress hasn’t even been laid yet. The Constellation class has been in the works for nearly eight years now with its keel laid 5 years ago. The existing rate of new Burkes delivery means that rather than expanding the Fleet the Fleet is going to decline or at best stagnate.

The Chances of getting a new full FFG-X even off a proven hull form with an existing high degree of American components into production before 2034 is almost Zero even if the revised RFI was dropped in early January 2026. Tool up design and build take to long. Procurement off a foreign yard build isn’t realistic short of Divine Intervention. Even then mercy of that yard’s availably.

MMSC is a step down in capacity. The existing model only sports 8 VLS cells though LM pitched a 32 cell variant for FFG back in 2014. Questionable on combat resiliency. An active production line with potential for delivering circa mid 2030s. Low risk, high American content fairly deep training infrastructure. “The Devil you know.”

Thanks for the info. I didn't know the redesign was considered reliability succseful at least not yet perhaps I missed it but I thought there was still pretty big restrictions on how to use the class at least in the terms of being in any way a substitution for a burk.

You are also correct that the constitlation was never ment to replace the burk I never ment that it was the case. Mearly that it was the situation due to the factors you mentioned.

I could see the freedom class perhaps filling some of the duties of the constitlation in a no other options available senecio, I'm not sold that it can scale up further then that tho. It may be the case the navy is going to have to accept less presence for a time something that might not be a bad idea tbh. There is alot of overworked ships out there it's not just construction that is a issue matince is getting to be not just backlogged but increasingly expensive and time consuming

 

[koxinga]

The Chances of getting a new full FFG-X even off a proven hull form with an existing high degree of American components into production before 2034 is almost Zero even if the revised RFI was dropped in early January 2026. Tool up design and build take to long. Procurement off a foreign yard build isn’t realistic short of Divine Intervention. Even then mercy of that yard’s availably.

Infrastructure aside, LCS (bespoke, US specific design), Constellation (off-the-shelf, customized) programs failed.

In the case of the Constellation, if the argument was because it needed NAVSEA specific mods to align to USN survivability requirements along with a host of other changes or perhaps USN actually wanted a more GP type as opposed to ASW focus, then it seems to suggest more fundmental issues such:

(1) making an incorrect choice of platform from the get go for whatever reasons
(2) poor/under-estimation of the extent of changes needed to make it work, and
(3) inability to manage scope creep/gold plating, as well as costs.

There are good reasons to assume these reasons are inherent and pervasive in the system, since the Ticonderoga-class cruisers modernization was the same level of clusterfuck.

It doesn't inspire much confidence for a reboot, and putting on my tinfoil hat, I would think the system rewards this behaviour.

 

[Mark_Evans]

Or just build to print Mogamis, or the USCG OPC or Legend with revised armament and sensors (for which they are already scoped) or T31 or….If they are serious about speed of construction they need to go for an effectively unmodified existing design and accept the limitations that brings, which might include approaches with which the USN is not completely happy but which work for others.

I like the idea of building the upgraded Mogami with what Australia is doing with the weapon fitout. How would that go for US Navy needs? Especially with its reduced crewing needs.
It would also mean a lot of Mogami floating around the Pacific over the next decade.

 

[Volkodav]

If they want an existing design with AEGIS the options are F100, F110 and Hunter. If they want high end ASW as well the only option is Hunter.

If they leave out AEGIS and prioritise ASW the options increase, if they are happy with a GP frigate, there are a large number of options, including indigenous options.

 

[koxinga]

I like the idea of building the upgraded Mogami with what Australia is doing with the weapon fitout. How would that go for US Navy needs? Especially with its reduced crewing needs.
It would also mean a lot of Mogami floating around the Pacific over the next decade.

Unlikely. Mogamis were designed with a very light crew and high degree of automation. Damage control is run remotely, via the CIC if I understand correctly. NAVSEA requirements is to have a separate, independent damage control center for example. There also won't be enough people to run the DC operations if it follows USN doctrine.

There is a reason why there are suggestions for Hunters/Type 26 as these are the closest.

 

[Mark_Evans]

Unlikely. Mogamis were designed with a very light crew and high degree of automation. Damage control is run remotely, via the CIC if I understand correctly. NAVSEA requirements is to have a separate, independent damage control center for example. There also won't be enough people to run the DC operations if it follows USN doctrine.

There is a reason why there are suggestions for Hunters/Type 26 as these are the closest.

I understand there is the ability to have extra crew on board. If that is a damage control team...?

 

[SammyC]

I'm thinking the Hunter would be too expensive and too long to build. This is supposed to be a low cost ship that is quick to smash out and can do GP duties with a bent towards ASW. None of the T26 derivatives align with this. Remember they are complaining about a ship that costs $1.5B.

A ship like the upgraded Mogami, costing around the US$1B would fit the USN needs in most categories (much the same weapons fit as the Constellation, pretty reasonable ASW), but I think it would be somewhat heretical to Navsea. I can see their minds exploding on the different approach to damage control and automation.

The Americans are struggling for people, just as much as Australia. A low crewed ship might be just what they need (perhaps not what they want). Maybe its time for a forced change in doctrine

The Americans might need to accept a partial oversea supply chain, or progressively onshore it over time. I'm sure MHI would love to set up an American division, especially for 50 ships.

While Mogami is not Aegis, it is an LM system (rebadged as MHI), so it is already semi Americanised and would be integratable with anything they wanted.

 

[Systems Adict]

If the USN was to procure from the BAE line it would be River class based. It’s the closest to a U.S. military standard in systems the least amount of changes derived from the Type 26 hull. However getting the tooling and production is years of work and it would still require the standard processes of bidding.

The problem with the US navy, is well, the US Navy & its insistence on EVERYTHING has to be 'Americanised' (AKA compatible with NAVSEA & AEGIS)

I'm not disputing that the combat systems 'package' that is AEGIS works well & achieves what it was designed to do, but for it to keep pace / have the latest equipment 'integrated', usually equates to a 3 month shore-side mini-refit. as the baseline technology & architecture is now getting on for 50 years old !

Most modern combat systems are software based, with equipment interfaces being lines of code, using emulator style technology (like playing retro games from the 80's & 90's on your PC or phone). AEGIS is still a wired system (equipment 'A' still has to be physically connected by cables & meet numerous other 'onerous' requirements around redundancy / cooling, etc.). THIS design takes time to work thru, has to be planned

Based on the BAE GCS, the Canadian River class design is already circa '85% different' from the Type 26 design, so its design does bring it CLOSER to US specs over the likes of Hunter.

However, looking around COULD the US take the Mono-Hull LCS, make it from STEEL & do some minor modifications to that design to make it a little wider / deeper draught / a little longer & use systems that they already have / could pull from the current LCS fleet & integrate them ?
THIS OPTION might make more sense, as it would cut down on the long-lead time for some components ?? Something to think about...

& Finally...
With shipbuilding, UNLESS you've added in specific elements to the design that require special tooling, it is pretty much get plate steel of different thicknesses & grades / stiffening (I & T Beams) then start cutting & start welding, following the drawings

Having watched enough programmes on the Discovery channel about US shipyards, they DO make a lot of 'components', that can either be bought commercially, or can be produced 'differently', meaning no need for NEW foundries & forges for casting & producing products. The ones they have would suffice.

 

[spoz]

I think you are describing Aegis baselines earlier than 7. I believe that the later versions are much more open.

The Freedom class LCS already has a steel hull. If you were to seek to make the superstructure from steel, and I have no idea why you would, it would be likely to cause stability issues.

Any lengthening or adding breadth requires considerable redesign.

 

[Systems Adict]

The Freedom class LCS already has a steel hull. If you were to seek to make the superstructure from steel, and I have no idea why you would, it would be likely to cause stability issues.
Any lengthening or adding breadth requires considerable redesign.

However, the US is looking at Frigates, so LESS fire power / leaner / smaller ships, so the LCS mono-hull could be an ideal starting point.
I do get & appreciate what you're saying, but the the thing is, the US could look at that design NOW, DO the work & then produce it, in shorter order than picking up their pen & starting from scratch, or 'buying' ANOTHER design from someone else.

I am sure that IF they wanted to pick up the BAE GCS & add in a '10 m plug', they could have an AMAZING destroyer platform. I have a memory that that was something that was offered to the AUS navy, when the started the whole 'we wanna build our fleet' discussions back in 2022 ?

 

[Terran]

The problem with the US navy, is well, the US Navy & its insistence on EVERYTHING has to be 'Americanised' (AKA compatible with NAVSEA & AEGIS)

Thing that should be said on this is it’s not just the Navy and NAVSEA it’s the U.S. Congress. It’s law. It’s also as I have pointed out logical. It’s logical as the USN Burke class and Carriers as well as Airwing all plug into Aegis or the Aegis derived Combatss 21. Adoption of a system that doesn’t would make no sense.
Farther the USN planned for 20 of the Constellation class That’s more than the number of FREMM in commission across 3 other Navies. Long game had it gone full production based on existing plans only the French would have had more FREMM vs Constellation. Americanization makes a lot of sense when the U.S. plans to be potentially the largest single buyer. Also it’s not unusual in fact a lot of other countries who are running Frigate programs for much smaller planned fleets make extensive modifications too. The Canadian River class is only planned for 15 yet as you just pointed out it’s a substantial modification. The Australians only order 6 of their Hunter class and made a substantial redesign too.

Next what is planned for the Constellation class is Combatss 21 an Aegis derived system. Aegis isn’t frozen it’s constantly evolving. The Radar system that was planned for the Constellation class is the AN/SPY 6(v)3 radar, a brand new system that was developed off the Ford and Burke III classes.