US Navy News and updates

[Musashi_kenshin]

Which version if a T26 is to considered?

I caveat by saying I don't think there's a high chance of the Type 26 being selected, but if it did happen not the Royal Navy version, as I expect the USN would feel the radar wasn't ambitious enough. So either Hunter, or River with more VLS cells - maybe River, as it's already full of US systems.

 

[StobieWan]

At this point, USN ship procurement is starting to resemble the output from a thought exercise along the lines of "You have been appointed to manage the Navy for Elbonia, but are secretly working for their enemies. What steps do you take to ensure, while remaining unsuspected, no meaningful progress is made in sustaining the Navy?"

It doesn't really matter what design is selected unfortunately, as the issue seems to be consistent throughout - they keep cutting steel while trying to finalise a constantly revised design.

This is a total disaster for a navy which desperately needs to grow mass in the face of an anticipated conflict in the Pacific.

Can this be fixed ? Not in the yard and not at the design process - there's something institutionally wrong with USN procurement of ships and that needs to be tackled.

Constellation should have been a fairly safe bet, the design was mature and did the job the USN said they wanted it to do. If they select another design, without some serious inward reflection, I predict a repeat performance.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

Constellation should have been a fairly safe bet, the design was mature and did the job the USN said they wanted it to do. If they select another design, without some serious inward reflection, I predict a repeat performance.

I agree that if they keep fiddling with the design again, it will be awful. The only thing I can say is that FREMM was going to need amending. But why they were still trying to finalise the design I don't know.

Again, I'm not even suggesting that the Type 26 is a likely replacement, but it is large and already has a variant heavily decked out in US goodies.

 

[swerve]

The troubled Constellation class has been cancelled with the 2 boats under construction to be completed. A new ship to be announced.

It seems the capability creep has caught up and killed it. I feel like they should just announce a cruiser program and be done with it, rather than add cruiser capability to a frigate sized hull.

https://news.usni.org/2025/11/25/navy-cancels-constellation-class-frigate-program-considering-new-small-surface-combatants

Not really surprising. They either picked the wrong ship, or couldn't resist specifications creep. The whole thing has certainly been grossly mismanaged. Either redesign before building, or build as it stands.

The question is, can they avoid making the same mistakes again? There seem to be major institutional problems in the USN at the moment.

 

[Systems Adict]

You beat me to it.

Well maybe offer them Hunter?

Constellation-class Frigate Program Cancelled, U.S. Navy Looking for Faster Procurement of Alternatives - Naval News

Secretary of the Navy John Phelan announced a "strategic shift" away from the Constellation-class frigate program this week shifting the fleet towards viable alternatives that can be built faster and cheaper.

www.navalnews.com

When the Constellation class was 1st announced Type 26 was NEVER considered, as it "Was not a proven in-service design". The sad thing in all of this is that FREMM would have given the US what they were looking for if they HAD stopped there & taken what they had ordered & literally changed things, bit by bit as the normally do, during service upgrades & refits.

Instead, we have ships that were tendered between 2018 & 2020, orders placed in 2020 & here we are 7 years on in 2025 with ships that will still effectively take at least 3 years to make it to sea for trials & commissioning.

Warships are not cars on a dealership lot, or heavy duty tools from the shelves of your nearest walmart ! They take time, the design needs to be discussed, finessed & agreed before you start cutting steel, as it can take a long time to get parts. THAT is why it makes sense to dove-tail into an already established programme.

The US need to look at what Norway has done with Type 26.

They negotiated a way in to an active production line, have likely agreed to take a 'build-to-print' design, but rather than tweak it by ADDING things (to change it), have probably suggested NOT taking things / leaving spaces empty, but keeping the dimensions of a compartment / cable runs / HVAC, with the intent that THEY can retrofit the equipment that THEY want, once the ship is theirs.

Examining the 'Global Combat Ship' design, for the x4 variants, the one that most closely resembles a US warship is the probably the River Class for Canada. Hunter is a close 2nd, but I think that there's likely to be too much different to make it viable.

As for the Navantia F110 series from Spain, or the Mogami's from Japan, again I think that there will be too much 'different', that the US would want to 'tamper' with them..

Yup, if the US want to build ships 'faster', they should really look at Canada.

But if they do, how will Trump fair with US ships being built in a Foreign Country ???

 

[hauritz]

Should make the free world very concerned that the US seems to have lost the ability to build ships. First the failure to lift the build rate of the Virginia and now the inability to even get a ship onto a slipway. All this on top you have the problems around the LCS and Zumwalt destroyers.

Meanwhile China continues to grind out ships at a rate that is almost unimaginable for the Americans.

The Canadian version of the Type 26 looks like it would fit in nicely with the rest of the USN fleet with practically no modifications ... just saying.

 

[John Fedup]

Yup, if the US want to build ships 'faster', they should really look at Canada.

But if they do, how will Trump fair with US ships being built in a Foreign Country ???

Built in Canada isn't an option of course but the River design could be licensed by a US yard. Given the USN's record lately, probably another cancelled C-F would be the outcome.

 

[Volkodav]

When the Constellation class was 1st announced Type 26 was NEVER considered, as it "Was not a proven in-service design". The sad thing in all of this is that FREMM would have given the US what they were looking for if they HAD stopped there & taken what they had ordered & literally changed things, bit by bit as the normally do, during service upgrades & refits.

Instead, we have ships that were tendered between 2018 & 2020, orders placed in 2020 & here we are 7 years on in 2025 with ships that will still effectively take at least 3 years to make it to sea for trials & commissioning.

Warships are not cars on a dealership lot, or heavy duty tools from the shelves of your nearest walmart ! They take time, the design needs to be discussed, finessed & agreed before you start cutting steel, as it can take a long time to get parts. THAT is why it makes sense to dove-tail into an already established programme.

The US need to look at what Norway has done with Type 26.

They negotiated a way in to an active production line, have likely agreed to take a 'build-to-print' design, but rather than tweak it by ADDING things (to change it), have probably suggested NOT taking things / leaving spaces empty, but keeping the dimensions of a compartment / cable runs / HVAC, with the intent that THEY can retrofit the equipment that THEY want, once the ship is theirs.

Examining the 'Global Combat Ship' design, for the x4 variants, the one that most closely resembles a US warship is the probably the River Class for Canada. Hunter is a close 2nd, but I think that there's likely to be too much different to make it viable.

As for the Navantia F110 series from Spain, or the Mogami's from Japan, again I think that there will be too much 'different', that the US would want to 'tamper' with them..

Yup, if the US want to build ships 'faster', they should really look at Canada.

But if they do, how will Trump fair with US ships being built in a Foreign Country ???

Then there is the whole "fallacy of the existing design" ethos. Basically you reach the point, very rapidly, and in particular if you haven't been continually evolving and improving the design, that a new platform is the most efficient and effective way to proceed.

Even buying a slot in an existing production run and fitting your own systems later has issues. Australia's Perth Class DDGs are an example, as are the Hobart's. Both are effective and capable platforms, but not long I to service required massive, expensive upgrades to deliver the level of capability an alternative design provided as built, along with greater flexibility for further upgrades.

 

[StobieWan]

So, looking into the cancellation announcement, the intention is to pivot away from complex and over engineered ships to simple, smaller combatants.

I literally do not believe that the USN is capable of ordering and building such a thing.

This is just a new rabbit hole to explore.

Maybe I'm wrong and they'll order a simple and easy to construct design in numbers. But I really don't think so.

 

[crest]

I'm just putting it out there can we call this the cancellation class now?

On a serious note if the goal is as stated to increase production why not just build the ships to original specs or as said buy/lease production rights from Canada for a stop gate well going with a new design. But critically a conservative one? The idea pumping more funds into a as yet unanswered question of what isn't going to speed up production. Design phase alone will take at least a year.

That is unless there just going to scrap the friget idea all together.

 

[Ananda]

looking into the cancellation announcement, the intention is to pivot away from complex and over engineered ships to simple, smaller combatants.

Why I see another LCS saga comming ? They want simple, they want less complex, they wany relative smaller but also want to have potent growth potential for weapons growth. That's why I put PPA Evo potential as option.

 

[SolarisKenzo]

I feel like USN ready to replace a disaster of their own (constellation) with another disaster.

How come that France and Italy can operate and export ships (building them in half the time compared to the US) and also be extremely satisfied??
European FREMM program is at 22 units in service, 2 being built and 4 options.
The last FREMM built (F599IT) was launched in less than 3 years from the first steel cutting ceremony (while 2 other ships were simultaneously being constructed).

The US navy needs to get things sorted, they have been building BURKEs for almost 40 years now and every other project was either an economical disaster ( Virginia class, Ford class) or a complete failure on all fronts (freedom class, zumwalt class, LCS...)

 

[John Fedup]

I feel like USN ready to replace a disaster of their own (constellation) with another disaster.

How come that France and Italy can operate and export ships (building them in half the time compared to the US) and also be extremely satisfied??
European FREMM program is at 22 units in service, 2 being built and 4 options.
The last FREMM built (F599IT) was launched in less than 3 years from the first steel cutting ceremony (while 2 other ships were simultaneously being constructed).

The US navy needs to get things sorted, they have been building BURKEs for almost 40 years now and every other project was either an economical disaster ( Virginia class, Ford class) or a complete failure on all fronts (freedom class, zumwalt class, LCS...)

You could make a case the Ford class is an economic failure but given all the new technologies it introduces, time will tell so judgement should happen after the orders are completed. Virginia boats are a success and the larger block V SSNs are really semi SSGNs. Nuclear ships are expensive. As for the other programs you mention, I prefer to label them as C-Fs.

 

[StobieWan]

Why I see another LCS saga comming ? They want simple, they want less complex, they wany relative smaller but also want to have potent growth potential for weapons growth. That's why I put PPA Evo potential as option.

That's *exactly* what I was thinking - this is just the start of an enormous cluster-flop of another program where no-one can point to what they want, and they're still moving stuff around while steel is cut.

Frankly, if they'd just built something like type 31 way back in the LCS selection process, they'd have had 50 in the fleet, with plenty of growth margin and everyone would have been more or less happy on any given day.

 

[StobieWan]

I feel like USN ready to replace a disaster of their own (constellation) with another disaster.

How come that France and Italy can operate and export ships (building them in half the time compared to the US) and also be extremely satisfied??
European FREMM program is at 22 units in service, 2 being built and 4 options.
The last FREMM built (F599IT) was launched in less than 3 years from the first steel cutting ceremony (while 2 other ships were simultaneously being constructed).

The US navy needs to get things sorted, they have been building BURKEs for almost 40 years now and every other project was either an economical disaster ( Virginia class, Ford class) or a complete failure on all fronts (freedom class, zumwalt class, LCS...)

I actually think Virginia is the exemplar - the USN curtailed the Seawolf class as it was hugely expensive and have replaced it with what appears to be a more economic unit which runs to schedule on build and on budget. The rest, not so much. The Ford, way too much risk accepted in one hit - as some have pointed out, why not take a carrier already in fleet and fit EMALS, replacing say, the waist cats, try it out and see how it goes?

 

[Systems Adict]

Why I see another LCS saga coming ? They want simple, they want less complex, they wany relative smaller but also want to have potent growth potential for weapons growth. That's why I put PPA Evo potential as option.

Unfortunately, the US is OBSESSED with AEGIS, as the Industrial Military Complex say it's the best thing since sliced bread !

Embedded in the US shipbuild ethos are also factors around certification / qualification & a logic whereby a supplier simply produces 'an upgrade' & then fights the corner to introduce it without much apparent consideration around weight / space / power requirements.

The necessity to 'change things' is at the heart of the failure leading to the cancellation of the Constellation class. A European design, accepted by more than a few, but the US had to change 85% of it. SOME change around qualification / certification / product standards are inevitable when one country builds a warship based on another countries design (Type 26 / Global Combat ship is a prime example, as each country whose ordered the design has made some sort of change).

It is time that the US went back to basics & LOOKED at some of their historical manufacturing masterpieces - For instance the B-17 bomber.

Designed with a purpose, built in batches, component parts & sections manufactured at disparte sites across the US, then transported & assembled on massive production lines. 300 bombers a month, modifications designed, then integrated at component part / section level, then slotted in, like changing a tyre or a light bulb. (Have a watch at this - 35 mins long The plane that scared the Luftwaffe)

SA

 

[Terran]

This far there is no evidence of a FFG-X(II) the Navy is likely to do an in house review of its needs well the two still on order Constellation class boats are under construction.
The FREMM and the other offerings never really sealed the deal for what the USN was asking for. In Europe FREMM is an ASW Frigate What the USN was asking for was more of a Guided missile Destroyer light. Something that comes in at a displacement short of the Burke class with lots of VLS and Aegis that could stop gap until DDG-X IOC. Allowing the Navy more hulls to retire the Block I Burke.
This necessitated the changes between FREMM and Constellation including a significantly a longer heavier hull and more powerful propulsion/power generation system, and then the completely different weapons and sensors of the superstructure.
Ergo it’s likely any of the alternatives that were offered as part of the FFG-X would have hit similar snags. Really the Navy wanted a clean sheet Heavy Frigate/Light Destroyer but they didn’t want to have to design a new hull form. Yet they didn’t have a choice. The result was supposed to be a frigate at half the cost of the Burke with similar capabilities.

Moving Forward…
In the Event of a FFG-X redux The driving question will be that of what aspect is front and center. If the mission of the Burke Supplement than it’s going to push one set of high end capabilities resulting in another expensive Heavy frigate. Given the years since the Constellation class contract it’s likely that said FFG-X(II) would have a newer set of offerings to choose from like type 26. I am not sure how well Mitsubishi would do in partnering for such a project. Hanwha Ocean on the other hand is clearly trying to get its Philadelphia yard back into Navy production.

However that’s not necessarily the only route this could go. If the Navy deems that Cost and Flexibility as the driver. With a want to replace the LCS and expand the fleet. That would look very different. Potential bids include Exolved LCS classes like the LM MMSC. A frigate in the more traditional weight class with Aegis lite capabilities.

 

[crest]

Just a good recap of the u.s shipbuilding cancelations

 

[Ananda]

is time that the US went back to basics & LOOKED at some of their historical manufacturing masterpieces - For instance the B-17 bomber.

I believe they don't have to go back that long, they have project for relatively smaller size combatants for Navy but easy to produce in fast way. It is called Oliver Hazard Perry class. Why the constellation failed to embodied OHP principles is beyond me.

Add:

https://x.com/SECNAV/status/1993406826520756327?s=09

Navy Secretary clearly say pace is important, emphasis on rebuilding naval shipbuilding base. That's I believe why OHP being choose as platform at late Cold War era. Not saying it is has to be base on 21st century OHP, but more the base thinkin and design.

 

[swerve]

This far there is no evidence of a FFG-X(II) the Navy is likely to do an in house review of its needs well the two still on order Constellation class boats are under construction.
The FREMM and the other offerings never really sealed the deal for what the USN was asking for. In Europe FREMM is an ASW Frigate What the USN was asking for was more of a Guided missile Destroyer light. Something that comes in at a displacement short of the Burke class with lots of VLS and Aegis that could stop gap until DDG-X IOC. Allowing the Navy more hulls to retire the Block I Burke.
This necessitated the changes between FREMM and Constellation including a significantly a longer heavier hull and more powerful propulsion/power generation system, and then the completely different weapons and sensors of the superstructure.
Ergo it’s likely any of the alternatives that were offered as part of the FFG-X would have hit similar snags. Really the Navy wanted a clean sheet Heavy Frigate/Light Destroyer but they didn’t want to have to design a new hull form. Yet they didn’t have a choice. The result was supposed to be a frigate at half the cost of the Burke with similar capabilities.

Moving Forward…
In the Event of a FFG-X redux The driving question will be that of what aspect is front and center. If the mission of the Burke Supplement than it’s going to push one set of high end capabilities resulting in another expensive Heavy frigate. Given the years since the Constellation class contract it’s likely that said FFG-X(II) would have a newer set of offerings to choose from like type 26. I am not sure how well Mitsubishi would do in partnering for such a project. Hanwha Ocean on the other hand is clearly trying to get its Philadelphia yard back into Navy production.

However that’s not necessarily the only route this could go. If the Navy deems that Cost and Flexibility as the driver. With a want to replace the LCS and expand the fleet. That would look very different. Potential bids include Exolved LCS classes like the LM MMSC. A frigate in the more traditional weight class with Aegis lite capabilities.

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.