NSC Frigate Commonality

Do you remember the main selling point of the Constellation, as originally stated?  It was to use an existing (parent) ship design with absolutely minimal modifications so that commonality would be high, thereby keeping costs low and schedules short.  Instead, the Navy heaped on so many changes that commonality dropped from 85% to 15% at the time of cancellation.  We saw what happened to cost and schedule, as a result.
 
For the National Security Cutter (NSC) frigate, the Navy’s main goal is to get AMERICAN hulls in the water as quickly as possible without worrying about lethality or combat effectiveness.  Setting aside the absurdity of the lack of lethality and combat effectiveness, the only way hulls can hit the water quickly and cheaply is to maintain maximum commonality with the parent NSC design.  Of course, the greater the commonality, the less the firepower and lethality … but, I digress.
 
Unfortunately, we’ve already seen many changes to the parent design.  The forward superstructure is being modified, stern platforms added, weapons changed, electronic warfare added, sensors added, presumably a new combat software system, etc. and those are only the changes we know about and only the external, visible changes.  Each of the listed changes requires modifications to the internal structure, ducting, cabling, bulkheads, layout, runs, utilities, etc.  Changes have a cascading effect far beyond the main change.  Further, the NSC is not built to Navy standards so, presumably, like the Constellation, the Navy will make significant internal structural changes for increased survivability just as was done to Constellation.  My slightly educated guess is that the commonality is already down to around 50% and it’s only going to get worse as the design progresses.  The Navy will continue to make changes.  They can’t help themselves.  It’s who they are and what they do.
 
Affordable and fast production?  I think cheap has already left town and quick is buying a bus ticket out as we speak. 

Where’s the Lethality?

Having failed so many times, the Navy’s primary shipbuilding criteria is no longer lethality (if it ever was in modern times) but the [incorrectly] perceived need to get hulls – any hulls – in the water as quickly as possible to stop the criticisms and fend off Congressional anger.  As Naval News website notes about the new frigate program,
 

… speed [of production] is now the primary factor driving the program.[1]

Speed of production.  Not firepower, not stealth, not lethality, not operational usefulness or anything else one might think would be of importance … just the speed with which hulls can be put in the water.  Why not just buy combat canoes?  We can get them in the water quickly.
 
The new Frigate’s armament will consist of a 57mm main cannon and a RAM launcher with 21 Rolling Airframe Missiles.  A payload space will be constructed (so much for no changes to the parent design!) at the stern of the ship capable of carrying 16 Naval Strike Missiles, 48 Hellfires, or other containerized weapons or modules.[1]
 
50-65 ships will be built …  So, we’re committing to a large production run before the first design is even finalized.  Does sound identical to the LCS?
 
The horrifying concern is that this level of armament relegates this vessel to the level of a patrol boat (and not a particularly impressive one at that!) and yet it will make up something like a third of our combat fleet.  Absorb that for a moment.  A third of the combat fleet will be patrol boats.  Add in the Navy’s desire for all manner of unmanned vessels and we’re looking at half or more of the fleet being nearly devoid of serious combat capability. 
 
Sure, the Navy will talk about future upgrades but when has that ever actually happened?  Ask the LCS how those future module upgrades that we were promised are coming along.
 
If I were China, I’d bankroll this program for the United States just to ensure we field a fleet of non-lethal ships!
 
 
____________________________________

 
[1]Naval News website, “New U.S Navy Frigate: FF(X) Program Specs Revealed”, Ethan Gossrow, 16-Jan-2026,
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2026/01/new-u-s-navy-frigate-ffx-program-specs-revealed/

NSC Frigate Delusions

The degree of delusion and fantasy associated with this NSC frigate concept is already stunning and does not bode well for the program.  Let’s check out a few of the notable delusions and fantasies.
 
What is most important about the new frigate design?  We all know it is lethality in support of a focused Concept of Operations (CONOPS), presumably ASW-centric.  However, is that the most important thing about the NSC frigate in the Navy’s view?  Well, here’s their take on it.
 

The new frigate design will focus on American designs and American yards, [Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Daryl Caudle] Caudle said.
 
“Other countries will always prioritize their own fleets, not us, ships that depend on foreign industry,” he said. “That’s why this is an American design backed by American workers, American suppliers and an established logistics and maintenance network. So wherever the ship sails, when the American flag goes into port, it does so with American industry firmly behind it.”[1][emphasis added]

Wow!  Caudle’s last two sentences use the word, “American”, five times.  Apparently, as far as he’s concerned, the NSC frigate’s main and most important characteristic is not firepower, focused mission, CONOPS, cost, or anything else.  The most important characteristic is that it’s “American”!  Got burned by the foreign FREMM design, did ya there Adm. Caudle?  Not gonna make that mistake again, are ya, huh?  Everything about this is gonna be “American”, by God!  Nope, no overreaction, there!  Lurching from one extreme to another is definitely the way to go! 
 
Just out of curiosity, if this American approach doesn’t work out and we’ve already tried, and ruled out, foreign designs, what does that leave for the next attempt?  An extra-planetary Martian design?  But, I digress …
 
So, what is the guiding philosophy for the construction of this NSC-frigate?
 

… Jason Potter, who is performing the duties of Assistant Secretary of the Navy for research, development and acquisition (RDA), said the service would base the new frigate on an existing design with minimal design changes.[1]

Wait a minute … Isn’t that word for word the guiding principal behind the Constellation’s parent design concept?  Yeah, and we saw how that worked out.  What’s the likelihood that the Navy learns a lesson and leaves the design alone and doesn’t make a host of changes?  This is pure delusion!
 
Where does an NSC-frigate fit into the Navy’s force structure?
 

“The design [with] little adaptation will meet the CNO’s requirements for a small surface combatant,” [Caudle] said. “The current [battle force] requirement is 73, of which we’re meeting less than a third.[1]

Whoa, there admiral.  You think we have around two dozen small surface combatants now?  Are you counting the LCS as a small surface combatant?  The operative word is combatant and the LCS has no useful combat capabilities so you’re deluding yourself.  If you have a requirement for 73 small surface combatants, you’re short 73.
 
What’s the situation on manning for this ship?
 

The design will have accommodations for about 140 sailors.[1]

Have we finally admitted that the LCS idea of a crew of six highly cross-trained sailors plus a parrot cross-trained as a dog isn’t sufficient?  As a point of reference, the Zumwalt is over 600 ft long and 16,000 tons with a crew of 147.  Now, we’re going to build a frigate that’s 400 ft long and 4,600 tons with a crew of 140??!  One of those two ships is incorrectly manned.  Can you figure out which one it is, admiral?
 
What will the NSC-frigate do for us?
 

… this platform would help take the load off of our destroyers so they could focus on some of the higher-end missions,” a second senior official told USNI News.[1]

There it is again.  The ever-present, mythical “free up ships for higher end missions” justification.  Of course, no one has yet come up with an example of what a higher end mission is that the Burkes would be freed up for.  But, I digress …
 
Well, there may be some problems already visible with this NSC-frigate concept but I am, at least, comforted by SecNav’s strongly implied assurance that change orders will come only over his dead body, as documented in the previous post.  Ominously, though, there’s this,
 

One of the few changes the Navy intends to make to the NSC design is to construct a platform above the open boat deck for containerized mission packages …[1]

A platform to hold containerized packages on the order of 40,000 lbs!  That’s a hefty platform! 
 
So, it’s not even a formal program yet and, despite SecNav’s proclamation, we’re already making changes – changes that will affect the ship’s designed weight margins, weight allowances, stability, total weight, sea keeping and handling, etc.  Inevitably, those changes will require other changes in propulsion, ballasting, fore/aft freeboard, internal structure, etc.  There’s no such thing as an isolated change in ship design.
 
Well, at least the change is to enable a modular mission package approach.  That worked so well on the LCS that even I can’t argue against it.  Modular is clearly the way to go. … right?
 

Those containers could do a host of missions. That’s a core element of the future force design.[1]

That is some Class A delusion, there!
 
Well, at least the entire modular modification will be the only change, right?
 

Based on the FREMM design in service with the French and Italian navies, the Constellation class design required modifications to meet U.S. Navy survivability standards.[1]

Uh … say, there SecNav … are you aware that the NSC design does NOT fully meet Navy standards?  So, either we build a sub-standard vessel for Navy service or we make more changes to the Constellation NSC-frigate to meet Navy standards. 
 
Will the NSC-frigate be armed similar to the Constellation?
 

The initial FF(X) hull will be largely unmodified from the systems found on the NSC, officials told USNI News.[1]

The NSC’s entire weapons fit is 1x 57 mm gun and a CIWS.  That’s it.  That’s all.  If the NSC-frigate is going to be “largely unmodified from the systems found on the NSC”, that will be one extremely lightly armed ship, bordering on unarmed.  If we add VLS, torpedoes, anti-ship missile racks, RAM/SeaRAM, etc., that will necessitate extensive … um … what are those called when you change the design? … oh, yeah … change orders.  You know, the things SecNav implied would not happen and that he would have to personally approve.  I’m guessing he’s going to be doing a LOT of approving despite his little sound bite.  Added weapons will require internal structural changes, expanded magazines, ammo hoists, modified power and utility runs, etc.  Hmm … weight, weight margins, stability …
 
Fortunately, industry sees no problems.
 

… Chris Kastner, HII’s president and CEO, said in a statement. “Speed matters, and the NSC ship design is stable and producible and will lead to predictable schedules.[1]

I guess Mr. Kastner is unaware of all the changes the Navy is already planning to make to the NSC.  Can you say, “goodbye cost, goodbye schedule”?
 
Well, there you have it – a broad assortment of fantasy and delusion before the program has even gotten off the ground.  I can’t foresee any problems, whatsoever.
 
 
 
_______________________________

 
[1]USNI News website, “SECNAV: New Frigate will be Based on National Security Cutter, First FF(X) to be Built at Ingalls”, Sam LaGrone, 19-Dec-2025,
https://news.usni.org/2025/12/19/secnav-new-frigate-will-be-based-on-national-security-cutter-first-ffx-to-be-built-at-ingalls

NSC Patrol Boat

I applauded the Navy’s decision to terminate the Constellation program and still do.  I also, initially, viewed the decision to build a NSC-frigate as a poor choice but one that had some slight potential to produce a useful vessel if certain constraints and discipline could be applied such as a rigorous CONOPS and an obsessive fixation on a single mission, presumably ASW.. 
 
Sadly, the program is already doomed. The vessel will, apparently, have almost no weapons or useful sensors and no mission focus, whatsoever.
 
The initial NSC “frigate” will have 1x 57mm gun and 1x RAM mount.[1]  That’s it for weapons.  Nothing else.  That’s not a frigate.  That’s barely even a patrol boat and is hideously oversized, overpriced, and overmanned for that level of firepower.
 
The initial NSC “frigate” will NOT have a 5” gun, VLS, anti-ship missiles, strike missiles, ASW sonar, towed array, anti-submarine torpedoes, or CIWS.[2]  What it doesn’t have is far more impressive than what it does have.
 
Looking at the equipment list (or lack thereof) one can’t help but wonder, in stunned disbelief, what the purpose of the ship is?  What is the mission?  It barely qualifies as a patrol boat.  What is the Navy going to do with it?
 
It sounds like we’re just going to be building Coast Guard cutters and not even good ones.
 
I know the Navy is incapable of learning lessons but after decades of hitting themselves in the head with a hammer wouldn’t you think they’d at least stop just to make the pain go away?  I guess not.  They’ve just picked up a new hammer and immediately started whacking themselves in the head again. 
 
Enjoy the pain, Navy!  What a bunch of morons.  Good work, SecDef, SecNav, and CNO!

 
 
_______________________________

  
[1]The War Zone website, “Navy’s New Frigate Will Not Have A Vertical Launch System For Missiles”, Joseph Trevithick & Howard Altman, 22-Dec-2025,
https://www.twz.com/sea/navys-new-frigate-will-not-have-vertical-launch-systems-for-missiles
 
[2]USNI News website, “SECNAV: New Frigate will be Based on National Security Cutter, First FF(X) to be Built at Ingalls”, Sam LaGrone, 19-Dec-2025,
https://news.usni.org/2025/12/19/secnav-new-frigate-will-be-based-on-national-security-cutter-first-ffx-to-be-built-at-ingalls