The US Navy has formally cancelled the bulk of its Constellation-class frigate programme, ending plans for a 20-ship fleet and confirming that only the first two vessels already under construction will be completed.
The decision, reported in updated Navy documentation and noted in the programme’s history, draws a line under one of the service’s most ambitious surface-combatant projects of the past decade.
The Constellation class, derived from the Italian FREMM design and selected in 2020 under the FFG(X) competition, was intended to replace the troubled Littoral Combat Ships with a more survivable, multi-mission frigate equipped with Aegis Baseline 10, the SPY-6 radar, a 32-cell Mk 41 vertical launch system, towed sonar arrays and over-the-horizon strike missiles.
The lead ship, Constellation (FFG-62), has been under construction since 2024 at Fincantieri Marinette Marine in Wisconsin, with a second ship, Congress (FFG-63), following.
Fleet plans originally envisioned up to 20 ships. That ambition collapsed in November 2025, when the programme was cancelled with four ships on order still not yet started and 18 of the planned 20 struck from the future fleet structure. The first two hulls will be finished, but no further frigates will be built.
The cancellation follows years of rising cost estimates, schedule pressure, design integration challenges and persistent concern over industrial-base capacity. Early budget submissions indicated the first ship would cost around USD 1.28 billion, with follow-on hulls expected between USD 850 and 950 million. Instead, the programme absorbed delays and escalating expenses that undermined confidence in its long-term viability.
Given all the changes the USN were making to the FREMM design even after they had started cutting steel for the first hull, its not surprising that the project went off the rails. Question is now, what next? The USN have made a balls up of the Zumwalt, the two LCS’s and now the Constellation class, and are struggling with their sub building/sustaining. So where to next as the Burkes and Tico’s keep ageing?
Apparently Trumpy wants battleships… 🤣
… and Royal Yachts and Imperial Galleys trimmed in gold.
Ticos are almost all gone
But their and the Burke replacement DDG(X) is still to come, plenty more chances for the USN to make another disaster.
They could opt for type 26 instead , just a thought
The original plan was for the new frigate to have 85% commonality with the original FREMM design. That had dropped to a mere 15% with all the changes and bolt ons. The USN wanted a budget frigate with Arleigh Burke capabilities.
They need Adm Rickover 2.0 to kick a$$. The USN’s multiple program C-Fs illustrate this. Mind you, 50% of America thinks Jesus will sort things so no worries!
Another chance for the Type 26 to get picked.
Unfortunately I doubt it, as the USN would just repeat the process of taking a perfectly good frigate design, and bloating it during the ‘Americanisation’ process.
Indeed, they would want many more vertical launch cells for a start. Fact is the USN have always been suspicious of Frigates and what with their determination to re design the wheel while any new design for their ship builders has been near disaster for years. Geez even updating long built designs causes them no end of problems. It seems that they have an inability I fear reluctance to change from what they see as proven designs even if they are 30 to 40 years old and prefer to iterate and build upon what they know, which to a degree has some merit but makes it incredibly difficult in mind, intent and skills to break away when required. I fear they will truly find out the hard way that innate problem and complacency if they ever have to combat the Chinese in the Thirties. Only so far you can push even a good design or expect personnel to cover for it. Not only that but even if quality can be maintained those expensive higher end destroyers get overworked and doing jobs well short of their true competency so too thinly spread. We have seen in recent years just how knackered some of their destroyers have looked on long assignments.
Yes, essentially they’ll end up trying to reinvent the Arleigh-Burke. Congress tried to prevent this by stipulating they had to take an off-the-shelf frigate design that was already in service. But even here they then tried to morph ithe FREMM into a cheap AB clone…
The former USN Arleigh-Burke captain quoted on CNN shows the inherent prejudice against frigates.
The future USN, 3 Zumwalts, 2 Constellations, and a lot of decades old maxed-out, cramped, ABs… 🤦🏻♂️
We are living witnesses to the decline and fall of the American empire.
I would have thought that USN frigates would have just focus on anti-sub warfare, and maybe aquire additional CAMM box launchers, to allow it”s only 32 cell Mk.41 to fire longer range stuff?
Nope, the USN require far higher standards of damage resilience in its major surface combatants than any other navy. This was a major issue with the Constellations – an extra 500 tonnes of steel had to be added to bring the hull up to the minimal acceptable US construction standards
The major issue seems to be they started work before finalising their design, and given their track record on delivery for surface combatants, maybe some honest questions need to be asked?
Is the USNs damage control standards really that much higher, or is it just the shear amount of changes they made? The constellation is 7m longer and has 16 more VLS cells than the Italian FREMM, that adds a lot of weight. Going from a single panel rotating radar to a fixed 3 panel radar must come with weight penalties as well.
Not really.
USN DC isn’t that different to RN standards.
As others have said making the ship longer and adding more VLS is most of where the 500t came from.
TBH FREMM wasn’t the most sensible baseline choice given what USN’s needs were and the total inability to not fiddle with the design. Maybe USN should sbcntract norway to purchase their next frigate class they – uniquely – realised that it was best not to fiddle!
I thought the FREMM was a pretty good choice at the time. It’s the USN’s inability to accept the fact that Flight 1 of anything isn’t going to meet their needs because they don’t actually know what their needs are. What they seem to understand at the moment is cruiser-like and they have fallen into the hammer anti-pattern.
They’d be better off taking ten ships of an 80% solution (or even a 60% solution) then iterating on a second flight. This cancellation just ramps up the pressure after the two LCS and Zumwalt failures. Each failure makes the next attempt harder and increases the tendency to try to make the next one perfect (ie. more fiddling). What they need to do is take anything and no matter what they think really, trumpet it as a great success. Then iterate.
FREMM built as 100% FREMM would be an excellent choice.
The problem is that they want/need to americanise everything onboard and super spec it.
That would be the issue with T26 that it is at the very edge of weight margins in the AUS form.
I totally agree they just need to build some ‘good enough’ ships – a bit like RN has done with T31 and get used to spiral upgrades that are constrained by reality.
The other issue that nobody talks about is that USN still uses very large crews by RN standards and packing all of those people in takes space and resources in itself.
Spot on, the same fate would have befallen T-26, its margin for adding weight was always quite limited and the Australians pushed it to the limit even with the increased beam. Radar installation alone would have been very demanding to say the least and it’s hardly a cheap design to start with. Its reputation would have seriously suffered if the US had got hold.
Where are you getting that the T26 doesn’t have much in the way of margin for upgrades? One of the reasons they ended up so large was future-proofing.
If it’s because of the problems the Aussies had, remember they were trying to include BMD-capable radar, cannister launchers, and extra VLS as add-ons. At full load, the RAN version is apparently going to displace 800t more than the baseline ship, the vast bulk of which is high up in the superstructure.
Callum – i think the Type 26 weight growth margin was stated on NavyLookout from memory ,it is very modest,something like 440 tonnes.
To quote a former Boss who went and kicked the tyres when the RN was looking for a cheap FFG of the FREMM…
‘Nice ships, but I wouldn’t want to go to war in one’
The reason the USN retain large crews is DC and firefighting – things they take hugely seriously.
Unlike the RN, they don’t fantasize a lean crew can do either effectively.
I hope the standards aren’t that different considering the shocking damage we have seen on US destroyers over the years, not least from a suicide boat. Hopefully we will never have to find out.
Let us hope so.
But hope is not a strategy…..
Compare an OHP with the similar sized but glass jawed T42.
The USN build really tough ships able to take massive damage and keep on keeping on.
The T42 had it’s issues for sure but if you put the USS Stark in the same circumstances as HMS Sheffield with the same hit low amidships in a war. I’m not sure it would have survived either. The Stark survived it’s encounter with an Exocet thanks to one not going off and the other ending up in the crew compartment. A friendly port not far away either for repair.
It may require resilliance and DC but it doesn’t get it. I have worked and trained with crews on RN and USN ships, FF, DD and Cruisers and Amphibs.
The RN is streets ahead in DC and fire fighting. Compartmentalisation in the RN is far better on T23/T45 than on ABs. The fire fighting equipment and training is better in the RN.
The ABs are a 40year old design and it shows in the machinery spaces… Very T42 like.
I think that the Aussie version would be a good fit for them but they will just mess it up as they seem to think that they are the only people interested in damage control.
They would also need more power as they like 35kn to keep up with their CVNs.
Meanwhile in China !
🔨🔩🪛🔧🏗️⛴️
YES!!
original plan was to have 85% commonality with Fremm, because Navy wanted a proven design and avoid mishaps of local design like LCS and Zumwalt
in the end they changed 85% of the Fremm design to make Constellation. A redesign that is still not finalized to this day and yet they started producing 2 hulls. The false good idea of concurrency keeps popping up its ugly head.
I think the responsibility of US navy program management is probably the reason of the failure.
They failed to conceive the Zumwalt, the LCS and now they buy a design and fail to include their indigeneous content, which is far from an unsurmontable task, especially with European engineering support. They also failed to meet deadlines of submarines for Australia with a proven design. It seams that their internal organisation is broken.
I know nowaday we say the concept of the west does not exist anymore due to diverging security agenda, but still, it hearts to see our partner, competitor and friend as such a low point. To much lawyers, to many KPIs, to many validation instances and management strates and way to few engineering seems to be straws that broke the camel’s back.
Where are the chief designers and factory responsibles? I don’t know. But I am quite sure we will find easily the accountant, lawyers, quality, specifiers and many other minor players in the organization, acting as if they were important.
I think the responsibility of US navy program management is probably the reason of the failure.
They failed to conceive the Zumwalt, the LCS and now they buy a design and fail to include their indigeneous content, which is far from an unsurmontable task, especially with European engineering support. They also failed to meet deadlines of submarines for Australia with a proven design. It seams that their internal organisation is broken.
I know nowaday we say the concept of the west does not exist anymore due to diverging security agenda, but still, it hearts to see our partner, competitor and friend as such a low point. To much lawyers, to many KPIs, to many validation instances and management strates and way to few engineering seems to be straws that broke the camel’s back.
Where are the chief designers and factory responsibles? I don’t know. But I am quite sure we will find easily the accountant, lawyers, quality, specifiers and many other minor players in the organization, acting as if they were important.
Bugger me the USN seem to actually want to be utterly dominated by the PLAN.. I actually cannot underline enough what a disaster this is for the USN. They are now face a future where they may not be able to even consider contesting in the western pacific against the PLAN.. when you are talking about a martime conflict numbers matter and HMS Massive means nothing.
The duel problem of the destruction of US shipbuilding capabilities as will as the DODs inability to order and procure warships is digging the USN in a trench it may not be able to climb out of… essentially when faced by an enemy that is essentially fanatical about Maritime domination, shipbuilding capabilities and is the most successful procure of warships we have seen since the end of the Cold War… the U.S. war college was the institution that names Xi as the greatest navalist leader now and one of the greatest of the modern age.
The U.S. surface fleet is now essentially dependent on the Arleigh Burke programme and essentially that is what the USN would have to fight with in the 2030.. lets look at the surface fleets of 2035
USN
45 Arleigh burks between 30-40 years old ( ships at the end of their lives)
15 Arleigh burks between 20-29 years old ( old ships)
12 Arleigh burks between 10-20 years old ( the ships commissioned from 2015 to 2025j
9 Arleigh burks between 5-10 years old ( the ships now building or fitting out by 2030
10 Arleigh burks up to 5 years old ( this is a maximum estimate) there are an extra five that have been funded but they are not commissioning to well after 2035.
So major surface warships that’s 50 antiques and 31 newer ships ( up to 20 years old) add on the 3 white elephants and 2 frigates. That is 86..
By 2035 china is likely to have around 150-160+ frigates, destroyers and cruisers.. almost all will be ships less than 15 years old..probably about 60-70 destroyers, 60-70 frigates and 16-26 cruisers..
The U.S. needs to desperately gets its arse in gear and churn out OK frigates like it’s going to war against 2-1 odds ( because it is)… it actually needs a plan to commission about 40-50 extra surface combatants by 2035 ( above its present plan) .. then it needs a further plan to manage its future Burke crisis it’s built for 3035-2040 in which half its Burke fleet will face decommissioning at the same time…
At the moment its plan for the 2030s seems to be holding onto the fact it was the most powerful navy in the world…
I agree. Historically, battles between large, cruder forces and smaller, elite forces tend to result in victory to the larger side. It’s not universal, but Vietnam and Korea spring to mind, along with multiple powerful countries being defeated eventually by insurgents and guerillas.
Yes and this is essentially true of naval conflict… essentially that vastness of oceans and the multipoint nature of naval conflict means that you need many many resources…to cover each point.. it’s no point protecting the end of a 10,000km sealane if you cannot protect the entire sea lane.
Also a U.S. admiral made a very good point, quality in naval forces is a function of quantity.. if you don’t have quantity your quality will inevitably decline.. you need lots of ships to allow deployments and exercises in which your crews and officers become good at their jobs, your shipbuilding industry can only innovate and improve if it’s building lots of ships… as pointed out the RN did not become the best navy with the most high quality crews and officers the 19C by being small it became the best crewed and officered navy by the very function of being the largest allowing it to dominate control and practice…
Just as HMG remove the bulk of the MCMVs and the 3 River B1s which allow experience for Lts and LtCommanders or whatever rank before moving onto the main Escort fleet and capital ships.
Where do they develop seafaring experience from? Answers on a postcard from politicians!
Yes the small ship issue is just as important as the major surface combatant.. from 1997 the plan was for the RN to have a force of 10-20 smaller surface combatant’s covering patrol, constabulary and mine warfare.. essentially the rivers two should have been a design that could do patrol of EEZ and cart around the mine warfare autonomous capabilities and we should have knocked out 10-20 of them.
The problem with the RN is it got all enamoured with studying autonomous capabilities in minewarfare and patrol but forget to order the ships that would cart the capabilities around.. act as a control and maintenance hub.. but also protect the capabilities from sub kinetic attack and deniable kinetic attack.. essentially it sort of forget autonomous vessels are great for sub kinetics.. but are also massively vulnerable to the same… sorry your drone was a navigation hazard.. we had to retrieve it.. would you like to buy it back as salvage..or sorry we accidentally ran over your drone..whoops ( and let’s be honest Russia managed to “accidentally” runinto a manned tanker full of USAF jet fuel.. so they are going to plow drones under for a pass time if they can).
I know nothing about their thinking so could easily be wrong, but do they feel a sense of protection as they do still have the dominant aircraft carrier force in the world? Does this permit them to think that all other ships are less important so no need to worry?
They would be wrong to do so, but perhaps that may explain why they allowed this to happen maybe?
There are a couple of things around the carriers that can possibly give them a false sense of superiority when considering a long peer maritime conflict with china..
1) china is building up its own carrier force..and by 3035 there is likely to be closer to parity..if you look at Chinese plans they are planning to have a fleet of 6 large CATOBAR carriers for 2035.. there is little to reason to doubt that… when the CCP say they are building something it gets built ( Simply put.. failure comply tends to lead to a charge of corruption and the penalty is up to and including life imprisonment, Death and confiscation of all assets… CEOs in china don’t argue the toss with the CCP… but the CCP also reward with lots of contracts, interest free loans and profit.. it’s the communist mega stick linked with the capitalist carrot.. do and get wealth, fail and die in a prison)… so the first as we know it is a 3 catapult 80-85,000 ton carrier.. the second ( type 4) is we know a 4 catapult carrier and likely 100,000 tons, the speculation is will it be nuclear or not.. but it’s to be in commission for 2030.. they will at that point probably serial production the further 4 carriers ( china can serial produce 1 a year probably) for the 6.. they have also just commissioned the type 46, this is officially a 45-50,000 amphibian, but it’s also got a EMALS catapult and can it’s seem carry the J-35 ( fifth generation lighter strike fighter.. essentially a fifth generation version of the f18).. it’s likely they will produce at least 4 of these.. probably 8 as china can easily knock out 1 of these a year ( they knocked out the type 75 amphibious vessel at one a year ).. finally they have been building a set of drone carriers.. these are about 20,000 and seem to be set up to carry protector size drones .. finally they have their two STOBAR carriers.. which are a threat unless you have a carrier to counter them. So china by 2035 may have
6 CATOBAR carriers 80-100,000 tons
4-8 light hybrid carrier/amphibs vessels.. 40,000-45,0000 tons
2 STOBAR carriers at 60,000 tons
2-10 drone carriers at around 20,000 tons
So by 2035 the US is not going to have the massive carrier advantage… it will still have an advantage 11 100,000 carriers and 10 40-50,000 ton amphibious vessels that thanks to the F35b can become sea control carriers.. but it’s not going to be huge.. closer to peer. All I can say is thank goodness for the F35b because without that aircraft it’s likely china would have a greater number of carriers than the US ( many many people are profoundly ignorant of just what the F35b will mean to the geo strategic balance in the 2030s as it gives the US 10 more carriers, Europe 4-5 more carriers , Japan 2 and even Australia the chance of 2).
But the biggest issue the US faces is strategic isolation.. what was an advantage in ww1 and ww2 may be its downfall in a future sino US war… because essentially china has the high ground.. the core battlefield for control of the western pacific and so control of the indopacific region is the first island chain.. that is china’s back door.. it’s under its land air cover, it’s under its conventional ballistic and cruise missile coverage.. its within range of its regional attrition navy ( china has two whole navies.. one blue water and another regional attrition navy) .. which adds an extra 80-100 corvettes, 50-50 electric boats etc.. to it’s already huge blue water navy.. this means for the USN to even consider contesting the first island chain it must focus all its carrier forces to support that one battle.. its cannot hope to contest with less than 6 carrier battle groups.. if it does this china can then release its carrier forces into the second island chain, eastern pacific and Indian Ocean ( even the Atlantic ).. and the USN would have nothing to appose it.. essentially china could strangle the US.. so to prevent that the US will needs its carrier forces dispersed and contending with the Chinese carrier forces.. at which point it cannot stop china gain sea control of the first island chain and essentially wining that part of the sino Chinese war.. once china has domination of the first island chain strangled Taiwan into submission.. the U.S. has for all intents and purposes lost.. the fight may go on and on for years until both sides collapse into strategic exhaustion.. but china will have what it wanted..
So in short the possible future Battle of Taiwan will be America’s Battle of Midway.
This is where at 24 combatant RN actually starts to look pretty significant at around 30% of USN strength and a 30 ship RN is actually a massive contribution at 35% of USN strength.
Obvs I am now waiting for the chorus of RN ships are useless. A ship that exists and works is a lot more use than a drawing or an idea. A a good big ship like T31 that can be uparmed is exactly what needs to be knocked out to get surface strength back up – OK with a medium end tail and a few other bits like VLS. UK shipyards are actually now building 18 frigates [13 x T26 and 5 x T31], if you include the Norwegian ones, which is very sizeable.
T23 are very good designs, well armed, but with one flaw …you guessed it …. short hull life. If the hulls were designed for ~30 years use we may not be in crisis we find ourselves in today.
T45 excellent radar / AA, flawed power systems and let down by FFBNW , they should have had a full complement of weapons fitted at commission. Instead they had to serve for years until they got Harpoons, and only now are some getting the Seaceptor capability upgrade.
IMHO the OPVs we have are a waste of time for a fighting navy. Give them to the coast guard.
A lot of other navies have corvettes that are not much bigger than our OPVs , but totally outgun them.
“…A lot of other navies have corvettes that are not much bigger than our OPVs , but totally outgun them…”
Like the USN’s LCS’s Freedom class, heavily armed, with plenty of life in them. Maybe the RN could buy some O.T.S. purchase?
In reality I ship that has been worked up and is in commission and has plenty of space and extra stability ( like the 31s) can be upgraded in next to no time.. if you wanted to stick 24 more camms on it or NSM you could do it in months.. even a thin line TAS is not that difficult…. Pop a patrol frigate configured T31 into a yard and you can turn it into a sharp end ASuW/GP combatant in a few months… building a whole new extra frigate 5 years.. the maths is simple we should be churning out basic configuration T31s until the fleet hits 32 and keep it at 32.. 6 hight end AAW 8 hight end ASW 18 T31s that can be configured as needed by the RN depending on threat assessments ( as needed the RN could upgrade some to increased AAW, some ASuW, some a bit of ASW some as basic patrol.. the 21c version of the type 12 frigate)…
24 is really the start for the UK.. if we can get to 30 escorts with 2 large carriers, 3 squadrons on their decks and our 7 SSNs.. there nobody who could say the UK was anything other than a major player and the backbone of European global power.
That was really the idea of the PODS concept. Quite austere initial fit that could be quickly plug’n’play augmented.
I agree just build out T31+ with the VLS in it. But avoid gold plating it with 5” guns and fandangos.
Hugo will pop along shortly to say we can’t crew them. You and I both agreed, in the past that, if there was an appropriate recruitment plan it could be managed.
Yep if you have the ships you can crew them.. it may take some time and a good plan but you can crew.. you cannot no matter the plan just pop out ships you don’t .. ( unless your china with over half the worlds shipbuilding capacity at your fingertips)… some people also tend to forget that you actually want more ships than full crews..because a crew in extreme only needs a few weeks rest to be ready if they are worn to the bone.. a ship needs 6 months in a drydock… you can run a frigate fleet of 9 ships on 6 full crews and a couple of maintenance crews.. we could have kept Bulwark in a ready state with only a small maintenance crew…
Not too sure about Bulwark as you need to turn over the engines and that requires a team with 11kV tickets.
True but I would imagine as long as your simply turning over the engines you could pay a civilian contractor to do that.. or if you want to take advantage of reserve forces you could have essentially reserve crews for ships sitting in low readiness .. I’m sure there would be plenty of retired navy bods who would happily play reserve maintenance crew for ships sitting at 3-6 months readiness.
Deep preservation and dehumidify. They learnt a lot from deep storing albion especially when trying to recommision the HV. I was due to join albion in 2014 for that debacle but decided being a civvy and earning tax free was the better option😁
They learned a lot and nothing above all else – nobody mothballs 11kV IEP for years. I wonder why?
That’s what they learnt! HV doesn’t like not being on.
I wonder what the reason is behind this, as I don’t buy it’s cost reasons. Any potential saving from the cancellation is going to be blown away by the cost of building 2 and then canceling the program, and the all the costs connected with starting again.
I am actually wondering if they are going to do something unheard of before and buy a cheap frigate from aboard.. .. then focus everything they have on Burke production.. if they are starting to take a sino US conflict seriously they know the trajectory is against them.. an utter focus on knocking out burkes at home and buying a shedload of cheapo frigates from South Korea, Japan and Europe as soon as possible would make strategic sense… but I think there is a chance the U.S. has simply lost itself and is living in an illusion that past power will protect you from future peers.
No chance, a combo of trumps mantra being buy american and usual congress obsession with foreign = ant-american, ally or not.
Unless Russia is offering to build them, that based on this adminstration isn’t as stupid as it really should be.
Did you read the report that the U.S. special envoy was actually briefing the Russian team on how to influence the president..essentially he is a Russian agent.
Nope missed that, but it’s clear Russia had claws into policiticans all over the world.
Would really like the government to launch a proper investigation into it in UK polictics,.to reverse May’s order not to investigate it.
Spot on. We really need to do this.
The U.S would have to wait for at least 10 years for a russian frigate to be built for them!
And then there are the additional tugs…
Sadly true..
Trouble is Trump still thinks it is, he seriously thinks all US weapons are supreme or is totally delusion, strong elements of both I think. Trouble is the shipyards (the worst examples perhaps of this delusional exceptionalism) have an arrogance and entitlement that has led to complacency and stagnation that is only being shown for what it is because suddenly it has aa competitor that has built up its capabilities to match or exceed even a flexible, innovative and nimble US construction sector. It hasn’t been that for decades and when you have amateurs and fantasists in charge of the political desision making like Trump and Hegseth I fear the competent military men must be getting very, very concerned as well as in a state of shock trying to handle this new state of affairs where they know being numerically superior is no longer remotely realistic and even quality is no longer the certainty it once was. Its anti submarine capability is especially under pressure.
You don’t need an ASW frigate if you are withdrawing from NATO.
Submarines are a thing everywhere you still need an ASW frigate NATO or not.
I’m pretty sure ASW frigates work in the Pacific where there are plenty of Chinese and Russian submarines…
Yep.
China has no plans to develop a submarine fleet.
But OTOH the USN has fooked up the building of those as well.
China would just love the US to not have ASW frigates.. just at the point it’s serial produced the type 93B ( in the process of knocking out about 12) has started production of the type 95 ( a likely peer SSN).. china has about 24 nuclear submarine construction bays and is building another likely 12.. its moving to a capacity to launch up to 8 nuclear submarines a year moving forward.. adding that to its about 50-60 electric submarine fleet.. yep china would love the USN to contest the western pacific without a surface ASW fleet.. it would be interesting.
Hmm, “interesting.” Another example of that fine British tradition – understatement! Nice one mate 🙂
It would be a slaughter.
Your assessment of how the USN might fair in a carrier battle with China is chilling enough, but if you apply your SSN assessment above into the equation as well as no dedicated ASW surface vessels in the USN and the Americans are looking at a very serious over match against them, hence my comment about it being a slaughter if the USN attempted to contest the inner island chain. Taiwan’s time as an independent nation has may 10 years left to run…
The thing is the USN would need to pull every escort it has into the Pacific Fleet in the next 5 to 10 years just to stand a chance of contesting the second island chain and even then would likely take losses which it would struggle to replenish unless it can sort out its ship building situation ASAP.
So in 10 years time Taiwan will be reunited with China one way or another. Hopefully, the US will not contest the change and will realise it’s situation and respond.
I don’t think China will stop at the first or second island chain, she has an agenda to take revenge for the 200 years of shame as she sees it and you can bet we are on their list. So I believe that eNATO having seen the USN pull much of its escort capability to the Pacific will need to respond to the threat from Russia and the likelihood of Chinese Navy vessels operating close to Europe along side Russia’s rebuilt(?) navy. China already send warships to exercise with the Russian fleet and I would think that would likely increase. Russia and China have also demonstrated that it is possible to open the North East Passage along Russia’s Arctic coastline during the summer months and move merchant ships escorted by Russian Icebreakers. I believe China is building its own icebreakers that could easily be used to escort carriers and escorts along the North East Passage if needed… China after all plays the long game.
We should remember that China calls central Russia the northern resource area and Australia the southern resource area. Two very obvious indications of how they see the world. Russia is now definitely second fiddle to China in the CRINK Axis but its nuclear capability will likely ensure China treats it with due respect, for now. That doesn’t mean China will not leverage it’s industrial support for Russia to gain increasing access and influence over Russia’s resources and geographic position e.g. access to bases in the Kola Inlet. China is coming for us, they have effectively said as much many times.
The only bright spot for the West is that Europe is responding to the invasion of Ukraine. Xi must be really p****d off with Putin for stirring Europe into a response even if it is patchy.
For the UK the only bright spot is those 13 frigates we are building. They give us a ship building capability that is as good as any in Europe at the moment. Other potential high spots are Tempest and AUKUS SSN both of which are tied into Pacific Rim countries – those partners might be at risk from China sooner than we think and they are still years away from fruition.
I just hope our politicians wake up in time… or at least are having sleepless nights.
Cheers CR
Yeah not like the Chinese have any is it.🤡
The plan was to have all the Constellation-class frigates based at Everett NS on the Pacific North Coast of USA.
I’m shocked! They should get Canada to build them some River class.
Canada building those at a snails pace
I’ll rephrase that. They should pay Canada royalties on the blueprints and build them in the US.
Right now even a half dozen Canadian spec T-26 would be an serious asset for them.
Have to swaĺlow some humble pie though…..
Yes, essentially 1 River Class produced every 1.5 years. The RCN must be applying maximum pressure on DnD with Irving.
This is Irving milking a cow for 25 years. The RCN needs all these ships in the next 10 years.
China: builds carriers and frigates.
US: stops building frigates.
UK: people were building ships?
This is yet another example of the shambolic procurement by the DOD. The consolidation of defence suppliers has reduced effective competition leaving projects like F35 too big to fail and entirely controlled by LM.
The US is now reliant on very old designs for key roles
* M1Abrams, Bradley
* F15, F16, F18. B52
* Arleigh Burke
Replacement designs have failed or been curtailed/ cancelled time and again- Comanche, Booker, Zumwalt, LCS and now Constellation. Worryingly, things seem to be getting worse.
Indeed Trump had better not have to test his ‘best in World’ mindless trope much beyond Venezuela.
Oh dear. Very sad, my condolences to the USN.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
This isn’t good news for global security but might open the door for a British design…and dare I say it…a British build for the USN.
Because the UK is building things so fast?
The first T-26 will be what, 12 years from steel cut to entering service? The entire west is broken.
It’s not about the speed we are currently building at, it’s what we could build at.
It’s behind schedule. If it could be built faster, it would be.
To my point, look at how many trades Babcock has had to import to build the T-31.
Americans and Brits would rather sit at home and watch some telly
To be fair this followed a politically generated stagnation in the capacity, that stopped investment (ie ship hall at Bae) loss of skills, some undoubted demoralisation (esp with the Scottish Nats efforts) which no doubt infiltrated the minds of anyone thinking about a career in the industry or even staying in the business. It’s not like, thanks to engineering not being given real prestige or priority here in Britain that it deserves over the past 40 odd years (thx in no small part to Thatcher). It’s been a big re-building project at every level that takes many, many years and training the apprentices alone is no over-night job. The next 5 years will be the real test I suspect of the potential to improve matters.
More money=built faster
BAE were limited in how many employees they could have because the various governments refused to give them more budget in-year. USN budgets completely reverse that, the only limitation would be how quickly BAE can train welders.
People cost money, which is the thing UK defence is always short on.
5-6 years to build a Frigate (steel cut to commission) seems reasonable.
If that timescale had been expedited HMS Glasgow would have been in service 2 years ago.
Being first in class or stating ‘it more complex’ are no excuses for slow procurement, as all preceding types had a ‘First in Class’ too.
…and larger numbers. The priority until recently was keeping builds ticking over.
Given the military might of the USN, and the US generally, I’m unmoved. More concerned with the Royal Navy.
Hi M8, I think we all need to worry about the state of the USN and their once mighty, all singing, all dancing, technically superior and mass produced MIC Products. It’s a busted flush, very few projects ever get delivered and suck the budget up for no gain.
The USN and industry is incapable of producing sufficient Submarines, Surface warships or Carriers to replace the legacy Cold War assets.
Their AFV are all Cold War Legacy products, nearly every replacement has been so Gold plated that buying them in quantity is so expensive that they get cancelled (Abram’s, Bradley, M109 to name just a few).
Same for Airforce they are stuck with A10, F15, F16, F18, B52, KC135, C5 as the majority, their replacements are only affordable in small numbers !
They are unwilling to admit the truth which is that the US Corporate MIC Objective is no longer to make money by producing weapon systems, it’s to make money on its share valuations based on projects that get cancelled.
Which is why we have the odd scenario that Japan, S Korea and most of NATO operate equipment that is either equal or more modern than the US.
If you want to know a scary fact right now Europe has nearly as many Surface Warships, Submarines, Aircraft on order / in build than the US does.
Hi mate. Quite a list. So they’re scewed as well, to cut a long story short. The new kit they do have still dwarfs others bar China surely? I’d not write them off.
To be fair mate, a lot of that list is replicated in our own inability/refusal to replace our own kit, and not Cold War legacy either.
So we’re all doomed, or western hegemony is. When will Starmer wake up and smell the coffee? Or maybe he has!
And I like Chinese food, at least the fake western variety! Russian isn’t so pleasant though.
Your last paragraph is certainly an eye opener. The US though has the political will to use its military, which I doubt we di, and certainly not ENATO as a collective whole?
Enough vodka in your borscht and you just won’t care. Zazdoróvye!
Nostrovia!
Trouble is the only real competitive military power it is going to have to confront IS China. Computer war games this past decade in the US military have shown a strong likelihood of disaster should they confront China over Taiwan. Even if that was too negative it won’t be in 5 years and by the thirties China could threaten US hegemony in much of the Pacific the true threat level will be influenced by the quality of the personnel and experience but technologically I expect China to have a serious edge in a decade at most.
As for the willingness and political will to fight not sure where that confidence comes from, under this regime it only has the will to threaten or at most take on minnows at some distance. Trump is pretty much surrendering Taiwan already in body language and if he thinks unpopularity is rife now body bags would destroy what support the MAGA base is giving him even now. Killing foreigners is fine as long as it doesn’t involve US casualties, it’s one of the few unbroken policies he can still cling to even if much is smoke and mirrors. The US may be amongst the least willing in the West indeed to actually fight where it counts.
To be honest however fucked up the RN is it main geostrategic enemies are even more of a mess.. the Russian surface fleet really should have been razor blades a decade ago.. it’s got 4 SSNs that would give Asutes a run for their money.. in really the RN would drive the Russians northern fleet into its bastion under land air cover and the would to the naval version of stare at each other across the trenches.. with the odd cruise missiles being thrown at each others sensitive bits… it’s the PLAN that is the worry any that is a navy the US needs to manage and as it’s going now it’s going now by 2035 it’s going to be fighting at a 2-1 disadvantage..
The PLAN thanks the USN/Trump for helping them gain the edge! The USA is approaching UK levels of failure to deliver much needed replacements in time.
OT I see Ajax continues to be a nightmare after we’d been told everything was finally ironed out.
Let them Build T26/T31 under licence.
But then they will “Americanise” them as well, screw up and cancel and just build more Burkes.
The Japanese Mogamis are an excellent design but they had to produce a Mk2 smartish for it to be world class.
Well many in Congress some years back were urging the DofD to consider getting the Japanese or South Koreans to emergency build for the US destroyers and frigates, not only to build up numbers but because many thought their designs were rather better. Nothing seems to have improve matters since.
No speculation on the replacements? My guess is a South Korean or Japanese ship as Trump has been hounding them to help build the USN.
If you want fast, the choice is either China or South Korea. South Korea might be the obvious choice, but the recent anti-imigrant raid on a South Korean company put a bad taste in their mouth. As one of the reasons Constellation is late is the lack of skilled workers, they’d need to do the same thing as that company that got raided. Possibly in a more time consuming but 1000% legal way. Still need to see how many actually dare go there. Oh, obviously China is a no go.
One good thing about Japan and South Korea is that they have a lot of common systems with the USN. A lot more than FREMM at least.
Well interesting point. It was Hyundai Motor Industries who ICE stupidly offended by arresting their personnel and the US is now begging them to return and not halt all that (mostly imaginary mind) investment. Who is the biggest shipbuilders including military vessels in the World, it’s Hyundai Heavy Industries. Now they are these days separate entities but yes the negativity to the US will be pretty much re-united there no doubt. Especially as these Companies once pretty much ran the Country and still retain enormous influence. Don’t know if the boss is called Bubba mind that might ease the apology.
What does the USN currently use for there ASW role?
A magnet on a string apparently if one of their subs isn’t around.
As I understand it the Aegis command system is designed to work with other AESA radars, not just the AN/SPY range?
Offer them home build of Type 26 with Aegis command and control and all Mk41 cells.
Some commonality with UK, Canada and Norway in th Atlantic theatre and the Aussies, Canadians in the Pacific.
Isn’t that just the Hunter class?
My 2 cents is replace them with either the Japanese Mogamis that Australia are buying or the Type 31. Leaning towards Mogami just because it already has fixed aray radar and CRAM launcher USN prefers (as opposed to the 40mm that the T31 sports, though I imagine it wouldn’t be TOO much to modify these features onto the design, I have little faith that nothing else would change….). If I were in charge I would do EXACTLY as the Ausies are doing it, build the first few in Japan while the US yards train how to build them. Also DON’T tinker with the design until block 2! Of course this is just my dreams….
The Polish development of Arrowhead 140 has flat face radars I think.
This is probably a good time to give some congratulation to the UK, who have 2 classes of frigate in the water fitting out now and have kick started production lines and built workforces from scratch over the last decade. That’s an achievement. I’m aware of the CEO of Babcock’s T31 programme saying he was aiming for 31 of them… new customer perhaps? Been great to see it bear fruit via the UKDJ.
Australia has realised the frigate mix wasn’t quite what we will require (more AAW needed??), after greatly redesigning the T26 as the Hunter class, so we’ve reduced that from 9 to 6 of the big ASW frigates, and lucked into ordering the Mogami, the first two which have been inserted into the Japanese build.
I wonder if Australia buying the two Constellations when finished might be applicable to our needs? Aegis, US weapons systems, US control systems, a bit of range, the extra survivability?
Me, if I was the USN I’d grit my teeth and complete 10 of them anyway, so much pre-production design and work has been done.
Oh yeah BAE did present an AAW version of the T26/Hunter to the RAN with 96 cells if I recall, the basic design for this does exist.
They could try the UK T26 A/S & MP frigate, but they couldn’t contemplate an external source for Navy platforms!
The UK could very well help the USN out here. If their aversion to foreign built warships was overcome the UKPLC could rapidly build the USN some stock frigates. They need type 31 and type 26s not a mini Arleigh Burke which is what the Constitution class morphed into.
It’s fairly damning on the USN and Ministry of War that they can’t take a successful ASW optimised frigate design and not utterly mess it up with ordering Gucci kit to be added to it.
The UK is bad but the US department of defence really stuffed this up so badly it makes Ajax look like a successful programme.
The USN hasn’t delivered any successful surface warships programmes since Arleigh Burke. Zumalt class was a fiasco, Constitution class a fiasco and now they want large optionally manned warships equipped with their equivalent of PODS in large numbers asap. USN looking at conflict with China and wants mass, the problem is in any conflict China can and will out build the USA and so can tolerate attrition a lot better.
If the US gets into a conflict with China-Russia axis they will need every frigate they can get their hands on. The US navy is hoping to switch resources and construction personnel to optionally manned larger drone ships armed with containerised PODS equipped with gun, missile, drones.
They have a requirement for at least 50 such vessels before 2030 whether that’s viable or not remains to be seen. Seemingly US shipbuilding is in a quagmire of under capacity, excessive costs and lack of skilled workforce.
The T26 is a high quality highly spec’d frigate which although built as an anti-submarine platform can actually perform a number of maritime activities. They would cost around £1B each. The T31 frigates are a far more basic, general purpose ship, but still have anti-air missile & gun systems and are around £250M each. So, depending on US naval requirements, either may be suitable. Note that both are highly adaptable depending on customer requirements & price.
An uopdated F-100 class would have been ideal since it is packed with US weapons and sensors