US Navy News and updates

[Todjaeger]

Saudi Arabia's First LCS-Based Frigate Launches at Fincantieri

The first vessel of the Royal Saudi Naval Forces (RSNF) new multi-mission combat ship Tuwaiq Class was this week launched into the water at the Lockh...

maritime-executive.com

U.S. shipyard launches first MMSC frigate HMS Saud for Saudi Arabia in Wisconsin

Saudi Arabia’s first MMSC frigate HMS King Saud was launched in Wisconsin by Fincantieri, advancing outfitting and trials under the $11.25B Tuwaiq Project.

www.armyrecognition.com

It is ready, it is cried out Made in USA, and moreover it is a Frigate. If they want 2028 USA design being launch, this is what more likely available.

Umm... No. Or rather, not "no," but more like, "Hell No!"

Remember that this vessel is based upon the Freedom-class LCS. Had the USN really wanted more LCS vessels, rather than conventional frigates like the FFG(X) was intended to delivery, the US could have ordered them. I tend to think that often US decision makers get entirely too caught up in concepts which they believe will be revolutionary or transformational, rather than continue to have concepts evolve.

If people remember back to the early 2000's when Stryker brigades were being formed, the idea had been that smaller and lighter Stryker vehicles could be used for rapid attacks and advances and that heavy armour like the M1 Abrams were not needed, since the greater speed and mobility of the Stryker vehicles would negate the need for so much armour protection. The LCS programme itself was in some ways quite similar but the requirements rapidly caused the vessels to have to expand from perhaps large patrol boat size into frigate-sized vessels.

As I recall it, the LCS programme was to more or less deliver replacements for the USN's OHP frigates, whilst the Constellation-class frigates ordered for the FFG(X) programme were ordered to delivery capabilities that it turned out LCS could not. Going back to a design which was already determined to really not be what the USN needs... I tend to believe the USN would be better off taking the plans for the OHP and then re-do them to fit modern kit and capabilities first.

 

[koxinga]

Apparently the NSC will form the basis of the new FF(X) according to NAVSEC as reported in DefenseNews.

"The first hull of the future FF(X) class, which will be based on the U.S. Coast Guard’s Legend-class National Security Cutter design, is expected to hit the water in 2028 as a more nimble companion to the Navy’s larger warships."

It might turn out that the flight I of the FF(X) will be essentially unmodified or minimally modified NSCs in order to get the hulls in the water by 2028. This would then allow time for the changes to the design to be made in preparation for the flight II. The changes would likely include VDS tail, AAW missle system(s), upgraded flight deck/hangar/magazine to cater for MH-60R plus other changes.

The first two ships will essentially be the same CG NSC painted in hazegray.

Whether the VLS will be included is to be seen/determined. The 4923 design does cater for it. If it does, it will be more than what the LCS offers. (Not in the current renders though, which shows no VLS and a 57mm) If not, it will be no more than what the LCS can do, just on a more reliable hull. Almost the same set of equipment (AN/SPS-77(V)3, SeaRam, NSM, likely similar EW).

The 2028 dateline... sounds more to meet the closing of the Trump administration, much like how they want to time NASA's moon landings to 2028.

 

[Ananda]

Remember that this vessel is based upon the Freedom-class LCS. Had the USN really wanted more LCS vessels, rather than conventional frigates like the FFG(X) was intended to delivery, the US could have ordered them. I tend to think that often US decision makers get entirely too caught up in concepts which they believe will be revolutionary or transformational, rather than continue to have concepts evolve.

I Agree with your assesment, why want to go with design base on something that not really build on the purpose. However my post more to ponders on question of 2028 date line for new Frigates to be launch.

So with 2028 time line, what choice they have asside using modified LCS or Modified Coast Guard Cutter. I just sense despite all LCS short comming, using LCS as base is better then using CG Cutter design as base.

 

[Wombat000]

So, initially it appears to be a large grey constabulary OPV?

 

[Todjaeger]

I Agree with your assesment, why want to go with design base on something that not really build on the purpose. However my post more to ponders on question of 2028 date line for new Frigates to be launch.

So with 2028 time line, what choice they have asside using modified LCS or Modified Coast Guard Cutter. I just sense despite all LCS short comming, using LCS as base is better then using CG Cutter design as base.

From my POV, using anything based off one of the LCS designs would be starting off heading in the wrong direction before first metal is even cut. The LCS hullforms and propulsion systems were designed to enable the vessels to reach very high speeds for rapid transits (under the right conditions at least) but between the compromises to reach such capabilities, as well as having a design with the potential for open ocean crossings, the entire design is compromised in terms of what is fitted, as well as what can be fitted. The design itself might have adequate volume to fit additional systems, but IIRC there are some rather sharp limits in terms of DWT available. If one wanted to fit a CMS, sensor and armament package appropriate for a frigate rather than a patrol boat, as well as any gen sets and environmental controls needed, there are not really much in the way of margins to do so. Sure, it might be possible to redesign and replace the propulsion systems and fuel bunkerage to free up additional displacement, but by moving large masses around a ship design, one would likely impact the overall buoyancy and trim of a vessel. This likely could be overcome during various design phases, but the more redesign work required, the more the start of construction would get delayed. If the plan is to have the lead ship in the water by 2028, that leaves up to three years to get everything done, from design work, ordering long-lead items, and all of construction. Selecting a design which the USN has already found to be inadequate/inappropriate, then ordering major design changes which could easily take over a year complete, would likely leave too little time for the lead ship to be in the water by the end of 2028.

As for basing something off the Legend-class cutter, the situation IMO becomes a bit different. Size-wise, a Legend-class and a Freedom-class are comparable in terms of length and beam (127 m v. 115 m, and 16 m v. 17.5 m), though the draught is 6.9 m v. 3.9 m, is is the displacement where things really start to look differently, with a Legend-class cutter having ~1,200 tonnes greater displacement and the design itself was developed to include options for expanding the weapons, sensor and combat systems. Changing a conventional monohull design around which already had space and weight allocated to fit additional systems and capabilities, as well as a larger displacement margin available to fit such systems is IMO likely going to be easier than trying to get frigate systems into monohull design intended to reach high speeds.

 

[koxinga]

Well then, it is indeed just the CG design painted hazegrey and sticking the missiles at the back and exchanging the Phalanx for a SeaRam.

Navy’s New Frigate Will Not Have A Vertical Launch System For Missiles

FF(X) will initially have the same armament installed as the Littoral Combat Ships, relying on uncrewed platforms and modular payloads for expanded capability.

www.twz.com

 

[koxinga]

Self aggrandisement has reached a whole new level. The graphics looks like a kid being let loose to draw his laser powered fantasy warship.

The contrast between funding a proper frigate versus spending money on big fancy hardware couldn't be more apparent

“The US Navy will lead the design of these ships along with me because I’m a very aesthetic person,” Trump said.

https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/Press-Releases/display-pressreleases/Article/4366856/president-trump-announces-new-battleship/

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2025/12/trump-announces-nuclear-armed-battleships-for-the-u-s-navy/

 

[Ananda]

https://x.com/i/status/2003229804431090044

The White House X shown more on this Battleship concept.



Well no wonder their FF(X) concept will be less then even the initial design. No Mk-41 VLS for Frigate as more VLS coming to Battleship.

 

[koxinga]

The most important armament right here.

There are speculative armaments being quoted based on those pictures but in short it is a Zumwalt hull stuffed with VLS, guns and lasers.

Probably subjected to further revisions and hopefully they have better sense not to do a 30k ton waste of money..

 

[Ananda]

2 already authorised, of first batch of 10. Trump envision 20 to 25 of this battleship. Something that not even USN WW2 build that number. So they will accompany Ford Class carrier, and seems beef up current CAG. Trump claim it is what he plan from his 1st term.

Another Zumwalt program. Zumwalt stop with 3, maybe this one stop with 2 ? Either way seems they plan 10 for every 10 of Ford Class CVN. So it will be the largest carrier escort.

China Type 55 already larger then Ticonderoga, perhaps that's put in mind for larger one that China can build.

 

[K.I.]

Self aggrandisement has reached a whole new level. The graphics looks like a kid being let loose to draw his laser powered fantasy warship.

The contrast between funding a proper frigate versus spending money on big fancy hardware couldn't be more apparent

https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/Press-Releases/display-pressreleases/Article/4366856/president-trump-announces-new-battleship/

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2025/12/trump-announces-nuclear-armed-battleships-for-the-u-s-navy/

Rebirth of the CGX?

 

[Ananda]

They will cost more then Ford CVN on that specs, well maybe similar ball park. Rail Gun ? I thought USN already move on from that. Perhaps Trump wants Japan RnD in this one.

 

[Todjaeger]

Despite what the USN might have released about a new BBG design, I tend to think it will never actually get built. The current administration will end in three years and one month. I deem it unlikely that the US could have a brand new design built in that sort of timespan, particularly given how large each vessel is supposed to be (likely limited facilities suitable for building such large vessels). This is also ignoring the likely need for multiple design phases to actually have something created which could be built.

Likely more importantly and even more problematic, would be to secure the funding from Congress necessary to develop a new battleship design and then get it built. It is distinctly possible that control over budgeting could be lost in just over a year from now.

 

[Wombat000]

If only someone could’ve seen something like this happening.

 

[SammyC]

I can just see the alternative names and memes piling up for this ship already.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

View attachment 54072View attachment 54073

They will cost more then Ford CVN on that specs, well maybe similar ball park. Rail Gun ? I thought USN already move on from that. Perhaps Trump wants Japan RnD in this one.

VLS count wise this is a Ticonderoga successor (128 vs 122).
Just 2-3 times as heavy.
Increasing in weight and size introduces economy of scale for power availability. A spare 20% power on a 10k ton ship is very different from a 20% spare power on a 30k ton one.
Lasers, HVP are necessary. The former for softer effects and magazine depth against rogue or low volume elements. A so called low end to not waste high end stuff.
Requires very high power, especially vs barraging elements. As technology progresses these 300kW ones will have to be replaced with 1MW ones, and so forth.

The HVP is just a leap from conventional guns to permit longer range interception. Necessary to restore the gun's effectiveness against hypersonics, and to make some improvement to conventional intercept capability without increasing in gun size. Power generation and storage were always the issue. Apparently not anymore.
Also not wasting a large and expensive missile on land attack is a huge boost in endurance.

CPS missiles are depicted outside the Mk41 VLS. I assume because that kinematic performance requires a beefy booster.

Lots of room probably needed for scary levels of computational power. For its own sensors and links, and also for things it'll inevitably deploy.

I actually think this is a very down to earth design, not looking for the bells and whistles like Zumwalt. Worst case and the HVP doesn't work and you just add CPS missiles.

It's a shame the FFGX didn't work and they're buying something crippled. It should allow larger surface combatants to refocus. This is very much a duo that needs to work in sync, not really 2 separate programs. I hope the new FFX will turn out better than currently depicted.

 

[StingrayOZ]

850 crew?
2 x 5" guns?
35,000t?
25 of them?
V-22 Flight and Hangar?
28 VLS? (according to the typo on the official image).

I can't imagine the USN is happy about this. Crewing this would be more difficult than re-activating the Iowas. It seems to have issues with firing arcs, and layout. I am not sure how polished this mock up is.

• V-22 flight deck makes sense, It could do delivery, lilly pad etc, and it wouldn't be that bigger impost, Type 26 can chinook.. If it can hangar 2 Seahawks I guess ok.
• 2x5".. Well at least they are OTS. I think 1 x 5" and 2x76mm or 56mm would be more useful particularly against threats. I'm not sure they will fit where they have been placed. I could understand two mounts able to take 2 x 5" or 1 x 5" and 1 x rail gun, or 2 x rail gun.
• I don't understand why the missile load out isn't decisively larger, particularly for large missiles.
• Drone launch and recovery?
• 25? So one of these for every 2-3 burkes? Crewing wise this will make up what, a 1/3 of the entire USN?

A cruise replacement is needed. But I'm not sure this is it.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

28 VLS? (according to the typo on the official image).

850 crew?

Possibly excessive.

I don't understand why the missile load out isn't decisively larger, particularly for large missiles.

12 CPS sounds about ok to me especially if we consider that over time they could perhaps downsize them and fit more in less dedicated areas like you can do with the Mk70, or drone barges etc.

Drone launch and recovery?

Ironically if they kept the LCS and let it escort, it could provide an impressive well deck. The FFX is a downgrade in that aspect as well.

25? So one of these for every 2-3 burkes? Crewing wise this will make up what, a 1/3 of the entire USN?

Currently there are 7 Ticos according to Wikipedia. I don't see this as a DDG replacement, even if it spiritually came out of the DDGX program.

 

[Todjaeger]

Increasing in weight and size introduces economy of scale for power availability. A spare 20% power on a 10k ton ship is very different from a 20% spare power on a 30k ton one.

This is a facepalmingly inaccurate statement to make. The displacement of a vessel does not determine how much power it generates, what the hotel load of the vessel is, what the full/non-hotel load demands are, or what if any spare generation capacity there is. Yes, aboard a larger vessel with greater displacement there may be more gen sets fitted, depending on what other demands there are for space and displacement to fit ship's systems. However, a larger vessel is not automatically going to have 'extra' power simply due to being larger.

The power generation capabilities of the Zumwalt-class DDG and a Freedom-class LCS very directly and easily illustrate this, since the two vessels with drastically different displacements have very similar gen sets. Both vessels have a pair of RR MT30 gas turbines with the Zumwalt-class also has a pair of RR turbine generators whilst the Freedom-class appears to generate slightly more power via a pair of diesel engines in addition to the gas turbines.

The end result? The Freedom-class LCS seems to have max power generation slightly greater (~7 MW) than the Zumwalt-class has which is nearly 5x greater in terms of displacement and therefore showing that the size of a vessel does not dictate how much power it generates.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

This is a facepalmingly inaccurate statement to make. The displacement of a vessel does not determine how much power it generates, what the hotel load of the vessel is, what the full/non-hotel load demands are, or what if any spare generation capacity there is. Yes, aboard a larger vessel with greater displacement there may be more gen sets fitted, depending on what other demands there are for space and displacement to fit ship's systems. However, a larger vessel is not automatically going to have 'extra' power simply due to being larger.

The power generation capabilities of the Zumwalt-class DDG and a Freedom-class LCS very directly and easily illustrate this, since the two vessels with drastically different displacements have very similar gen sets. Both vessels have a pair of RR MT30 gas turbines with the Zumwalt-class also has a pair of RR turbine generators whilst the Freedom-class appears to generate slightly more power via a pair of diesel engines in addition to the gas turbines.

The end result? The Freedom-class LCS seems to have max power generation slightly greater (~7 MW) than the Zumwalt-class has which is nearly 5x greater in terms of displacement and therefore showing that the size of a vessel does not dictate how much power it generates.

More room = you can install more power. Yes, anecdotes. But then, there's a very real demand to install power-hungry systems on the Trumpy CG right off the bat.
You don't need to throw palms at your face. Just understand what's written.