An artist’s rendering of the proposed FF(X) frigate. US Navy image
A US Naval Institute report confirms that the new US Navy frigate will be based on the National Security Cutter.
Following last month’s truncation of the Constellation-class frigate program at Fincantieri Marinette Marine, the Navy selected HII’s Ingalls Shipbuilding’s 4,000-ton design cutter to base the new FF(X) program on, Phelan said in the video posted on “X.”
“We will deliver on a wartime footing, and we will unleash the American industrial base to do it, competition, accountability and real output steel in the water,” Phelan said. “To deliver its speed and scale, I have directed the acquisition of a new frigate class based on HII’s Legend-class National Security Cutter design, a proven American-built ship that has been protecting U.S. interests at home and abroad.”
A Defense News report indicates an intention to ultimately have at least two yards building this class.
“Phelan added that the new class will be acquired using a lead shipyard, with a competitive follow-on strategy for multi-yard construction.”
The USNI report was less specific,
“We will initially sole-source the lead ship to Ingalls, but we will move to competition as soon as possible,” a senior official told USNI News.
21 round Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) launcher. Image credit Darkone via Wikipedia.
Looking at the artist rendering of the FF(X), I see what appear to be launchers for up to eight Naval Strike missiles on the fantail and a 21 round Rolling Airframe Missile launcher.
Perhaps surprisingly, there are apparently no VLS missile launch tubes on the foc’sle. I also note that the term FF(X) is being used rather than FFG(X) which would indicate a combatant with a significant anti-air capability.
The USNI report indicates the ships will be built with no organic ASW capability,
“… things that are more intrusive to install, like anti-submarine warfare equipment, would be something we would look to do in the future.”
They will have a space on the fantail for containerized mission modules,
“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, the officials said…The Navy is developing more containerized packages that can be swapped from ship to ship…“Those containers could do a host of missions. That’s a core element of the future force design.”
A rendering of the FF(X) design as seen from the top down. USN capture
I hope this means we will see a containerized towed array that we can use on cutters.
Disappointed I don’t see provision for 30mm Mk38 Mod4, ESSM or vertical launch ASROC. Hopefully the Mk58 very light weight torpedo hard kill torpedo countermeasure will be included with NIXIE.
A full on rush to build these in quantity might mean the Coast Guard could get a few in the new Navy configuration in lieu of a third phase of OPCs.
Chuck Hill's CG Blog 
chuck,
I believe they are adding VLS 16-cell Mk 41 Vertical Launch System (VLS) amidships for up to 64 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles (ESSM, quad-packed), Anti-Submarine Rockets (ASROC), and Long-Range Anti-Ship Missiles (LRASM).
The War Zone has an excellent article on the ship and specifically states its primary mission is anti-surface warfare and they have a vertical view artist rendering which suggests 16 NSMs will be carried.
https://www.twz.com/sea/this-will-be-the-navys-new-ffx-frigate
Firstly, the full render shows 16 NSM, which is the same fit as the Connies. As to the VLS, there’s not really a lot of reason to put that massive protrusion on the bow if they’re not planning on fitting a VLS. Previous renders showed this ship with a significant protrusion when VLS was installed, and this was just for tactical length, which the USN does not prefer. The protrusion was likely added to provide the space to insert Strike Length VLS without significant redesign of the hull. As to the light guns, I wouldn’t expect that level of detail on a press release. Wait until detail info comes out, probably in the new year.
That the superstructure has been extended forward might be to cover strike length VLS but I would have expected the artist rendering to show the covers on the launchers if that were the case.
Then there is the fact the primary mission is anti-surface and they are not adding ASW systems. They are explicitly not thinking of engaging the Chinese with these ships.
You’re right that the render doesn’t have the hatches shown. As an industry person, I have some theories about that.
Ingalls has a large chunk of material for the uncompleted 11th NSC. The SecNav has promised a ship by 2028. Item 1 gets Phelan to Item 2.
How do we get there? The mods shown in the render don’t touch the main part of the ship (which is what killed Connie). I’d guess that changing the fantail to add the sixteen NSM is roughly six months of CAD work. The NSCs have been taking on average 18 months from cutting steel to launch. That gives them a grand total of 2 years, which lines up nicely with 2028.
The SecNav and CNO did say that they would add ASW later, and HII did plan a pathway to add King Clip and a towed array in already existing void spaces. A Coastguard Officer also indicated that there is in fact a VLS-shaped empty spot behind the gun, so the ‘space’ is there for a lot of these things.
If I’m SecNav and my boss (SecWar) wants a fast win to get American shipbuilding going, I’d do the following:
By doing it this way, the SecNav makes the President and SecWar happy, gets people to stop complaining that there is no plan, and gets Congress happy because Marinette is still working.
It’s not the BEST plan, but it’s the best plan we’re likely to get. As far as fighting China, my proposed Flight 2 would do about as well as a Perry would’ve done against the Russians back in the day.
I believe the US Navy is looking at the PF 4923 which has the same lines and linage as the NCS but packs a punch for ASW and ASUW with local area defense. It’s armed with the MK 41VLS for 16 cells that are quadpacked for SM-2, ESSM, VLS ASROC, LRASM. It would have either Harpoon or NSM in the stern along with Torpedo launchers and a 76 mm gun. For Self Defense, it would come with SeaRam. Have the ability to carry 1 MH-6R and a UAV drone.
See my above response to Chuck as to what I think is happening. For what it’s worth, I don’t think the 76mm gun or LRASM are going to happen. This boat is going to be limited to 16 Mk41 VLS. It’s going to need to be mission-focused for that to work. A Knox Class Frigate from waaay back in the day carried 8 ASROC and 8 Sea Sparrow as its weapon loadout. This will be a bit better with the ability to quad-pack ESSM, so 16-32 sea-sparrow. The question you have to ask is: Does adding LRASM or SM2 give me anything that I need to do convoy escort and ASW?
I think the Navy’s biggest failing here was in trying to use Connie to fill the giant gaping hole that the Ticos left with their retirement by larding it up with VLS cells. I really think they should think about doing a cruiser-type ship, even if it’s small numbers.
The ugly reality is that we foolishly let the Ticos expire with no direct replacement and are currently letting the Ohio SSGNs retire without a direct replacement. The Block V and VI Virginia’s can kinda’ do the job the Ohios did without having too many eggs in one basket, but the Connies were never going to replace over 2000 VLS cells.
I would say, keep the 57 mm Gun along with the 16 Mk41 VLS cell for ESSM and ASROC at flight 1’s.
The LRASM and SM2 would come in at flight 2 where we can build upon the NCS design.
What we need right now is to get the flight 1’s out and I am thinking we keep the 57 mm gun, 16 cell VLS with ESSM and VLS ASROC. Put the Harpoon or Naval Strike missile in the stern and also bolt on Hellfire missile for Anti drone defense.
I think at some point some successor to the Constellation will have to be built as sort of a ‘medium’ ship, with the Burke replacement going ‘large’. That ship would be able to carry the loadout you’re suggesting. As I was saying to Chuck, these ships will be closer in role to what the Perry class were. They’re going to top-out in weight very quickly. I wouldn’t quite call them a stop-gap, because I think they can give us decades of good service, but I don’t think we’ll be able to put that much firepower on them.
Realistically speaking, what ought to be done is that once we have ‘enough’ of these to do sea-control, the USN ought to start a clean-sheet design to do that mid-range ship. That ship would definitely have to have 48 VLS plus the adjunct weapons you were suggesting. I just don’t think there’s weight margin in the NSC to do what you’re suggesting.
I say, if we got out the 57 mm gun, 16 cell VLS with ESSM and VLS ASROC. Along with Harpoon or Naval Strike missile and your standard Torpedo loadout. We would have a viable NSC based frigate for ASUW that’s similar to the La Fayette-class frigate, FDI, Kang Ding-class frigate and the Formidable-class frigate. The PF4923 would be a direct linage replacement for the Perry’s that we can get decades of service out of them.
To me the choice of the 21 round launcher rather than the 11 round SeaRAM launcher is because they don’t also have ESSM or Standard to extend the magazine depth.
I think you are right, fitting a VLS ahead of the bridge will likely be quite intrusive. Even a Tactical length VLS is more than 1 deck high so it would intrude into the hull even if the hatches are on an extended 01 deck.
I would prefer a VLS. An escort without ASW capability is of limited use. The Chinese are unlikely to repeat Japan’s WW2 failure of leaving the logistics vessels alone.
Doing numbers brutally these vessels are the only escort logistics’ vessels and impressed commercial vessels are gong to get.
This is just speculation from the released renderings but it looks like they are building up a platform just aft of the 57mm.
There is speculation this will be used to house strike-length VLS without requiring additional deck penetration.
I also think that the 2028 delivery might only be possible because of the work already done on NSC#11 which will become FF(X)#1.
They indicate they intend to make progressive improvements.
Right now they are not trying to make the best frigate, just one that is good enough.
When I started thinking about what would be the minimum you would need for escorting logistics ships across most of the Pacific–but not through the highly contested parts without some AAW augmentation, I figured towed array, MH-60, and RAM launcher. Assuming we get a containerized towed array, this will qualify.
Meanwhile it can do counter piracy off the Horne of Africa, provide close escort in the Red Sea, and drug interdiction.
But that raises a question, why not just give at least some of them to the Coast Guard.
Also why not improve the installed equipment on the NSCs to match the new ships.
So here is my take.
Constellation wasn’t outright killed off because it is the emergency plan.
So Navy looks at NSC and realizes they have that partial #11 and that works to get a FF working. Use that hull with minimal mods to get a win, then lean on the designers to tell them how to backfit the hull sonar and VLS into the void spaces to make NSC+ into a 4921 during the first major refurb period.
Eventually, Constellation gets in the water and by all accounts is a solid design. The minute ship 1 is proven solid, they get a big production contract to continue production for something like 20.
My guess is once Block 3 DDG production is finished, the DDG production will end to allow resources to build FF/NSC and FFG in rapid numbers to give the fleet some meat in a hurry.
Wow! I missed this one. Take a day away and things happen.
The NSC are fantastic ships and the frigate concept has been out there for a long time. But this patrol frigate cannot fill the hole left by Constellation. She isn’t designed for that sort of work. And patrol tasks are already the USCG bread and butter. Compare with PLAN Type 054.
Keep saying but the ship the USN should have looked is the Danish Iver Huitfeldt. Big. Robust. Simple. Built around USN weapons. You could build some of the Absalon variant to increase helicopter numbers at sea for the outer screen.
USN should have looked at the Spurance hull as a basis for a frigate. A diesel electric version would have been an easy build. You already know Mk41 fits. But no the mighty USN decides to take an establish design and turn it into nothing like that design………
And then there is the Spanish F100…………………..
No. The NSC will never be a Constellation. It’s too small for that.
That doesn’t mean it can’t be useful though. If costs and gold-plating can be kept in check, maybe enough of them can be built to make a difference.
The Navy badly needs to get this right.
As others have said, if the Navy can get these into serial, multi-yard production, the Coast Guard can benefit from that.
The US Navy grew way too dependent on Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, known as DDGs. These ships rule the fleet. Each packs 96 vertical launch system cells, or VLS. That lets them fire missiles for air defense, sub hunting, and surface fights. Navy leaders pushed this setup hard. They made almost every new hull a VLS shooter. No room left for simple escorts.
Back in the 1990s, Burkes started as top fighters. Over 70 now serve or build. They cost $2 billion each. Fleet needs numbers too. Older Perry frigates retired by 2020. Nothing cheap replaced them. Navy chased multi-role ships instead.
Then came the frigate plan. Leaders dreamed of cheap hulls for patrols and sub hunts. But they went further. They jammed in 32 VLS cells per frigate. Added Aegis-like radars. Turned them into mini-Burkes. Costs jumped. Constellation-class first ship, launched in 2022, faces big delays. Delivery slips to 2029. Price tag hits $1.3 billion each.
Mission creep did it. Frigates lost their simple role. Now they chase DDG tricks. Fleet stays small. China builds 20 warships a year. US adds just a few. Shortages hit hard. No quick escorts mean Burkes burn out on drug runs. Subs lurk unchecked. This fix made the hole bigger. Navy pays the price.
The US Navy can fix its NSC frigate program one way only. Top leaders must step in hard. SECNAV, the Secretary of the Navy, SECWAR, and CNO, the Chief of Naval Operations, need final control. They must build the toughest barrier around NAVSEA. That’s Naval Sea Systems Command, the group that handles ship designs.
No design tweak happens without their personal sign-off. Each one must review and approve it themselves. No approval? No change at all. This stops NAVSEA from making shifts that delay ships or raise costs. Past Navy projects show what happens without such checks. Changes pile up. Budgets balloon. Deadlines slip.
Leaders enforce this with clear rules. SECNAV demands all NAVSEA requests hit his desk by 5 p.m. every Friday. Miss that cutoff, and the request dies. No exceptions. This tight timeline forces focus. It kills weekend debates or slow reviews. Quick yes or no keeps the program on track.
Readers might ask why go this far. Navy history proves it works. Strong top-down say has saved other builds from chaos. Without it, NAVSEA’s ideas run wild. Firewalls like this protect the final ship design. They ensure the NSC frigate meets real fleet needs. Fast. Tough. Ready for threats.
The US Coast Guard canceled its National Security Cutter program. That opens a clear path to build frigates fast for the Navy fleet. Take those hulls already in progress. Add small changes to arm them right.
Start with a Quad pack 16-cell Vertical Launch System. Load it with ESSM missiles for air defense. Pack in ASROC rockets too. They hunt subs from afar. Fit four NSM missiles in the stern. These pack a punch against ships. Add a MK 32 launcher for heavyweight torpedoes. It fires Mk 54 fish at enemy subs.
Keep the 57 MM main deck gun as is for Anti Surface and Anti drone threats. Along with Naval Gun fire support for Marines Ashore.
Bolt on a variable depth towed array sonar. It dips deep to track quiet subs. Pair it with hull-mounted sonar up front. This combo spots threats close and far.
Top it with the Saab Sea Giraffe AMB radar. It scans air and surface targets sharp. Link it all via Link 16. That ties the ship to Arleigh Burke destroyers. They share data in real time.
Leave the NSC hull form alone. Keep the propulsion system as built. No big redesigns. Just plug and play these upgrades.
This rush job delivers the frigate we need now. China pumps out Type 054A frigates at two per year. They have over 50 in service already. We have zero frigates today. Their ships patrol the Pacific. They grab key spots we once held. Breakfast, lunch, dinner—they take it all. Our delay with the Constellation class drags on. Yards face steel shortages and labor gaps. This NSC fix skips those woes. It uses proven cutters from proven builders. Get ships to sea by 2028. Beat China at their own speed game.
@Nicky, from what I see, there is no intention to add any VLS or torpedo tubes for MK54 ASW torpedoes.
No one sees the 57mm as a naval gunfire support weapons for the marines.
This is a start. Not perfect, but neither was the Flight I Burke DDGs. I’m pleased that there will apparently be 2 hangars and 2 H-60s or an H-60 plus drones. Also pleased at the 16 NSM and PRAYING that they add at least 16 if not 32 VLS for quad-packed ESSM.
I’m sure they will upgrade the CMS to COMBATSS-21, and I’m praying that they upgrade the SQS-26C as it is older technology – not that they have any torpedo tubes on board right now!
Again, not perfect, but good enough, which is what we need NOW.
They can probably fit ADL ESSM launchers on that rear weapons decks.
A mix of ESSM and NSM wouldn’t be a bad thing.
A 16 Cell VLS that’s Quad packed with ESSM and VLS ASROC would be the best idea in the world for the NSC frigate. It would give the NSC frigate the ability to attack subs and surface threats. While leaving the Burke for Area defense, Ballistic missile defense and strike missions.
This USNI blog post reports for the flight 1’s the boat desk will be plated over to mount Mk70 containerised launchers https://news.usni.org/2025/12/19/secnav-new-frigate-will-be-based-on-national-security-cutter-first-ffx-to-be-built-at-ingalls
The reshaping of the forward face of the superstructure may be in order to make more space available. It may also be designed to make the ship more stealthy since the cutter bridge face is a huge flat vertical surface that is perfect for reflecting radio waves.
As built the cutters have a space designed to take Mk56 VLS that penetrate the foc’sle deck.
So far there is no evidence that the Navy version will have VLS and the FF(X) designation suggests there is no intention to include VLS.
I am hoping they may have added another boat davit to replace the loss of the boat handling space at the stern.
It looks like the intention is to replace the boat handling arrangement on the stern completely with a flat deck for ASCMs and containerized mission modules.
If the Coast Guard were to use the Navy version of the NSC, they would need at least two boats.
The NSCs have only one davit. It is on the starboard side.
I have looked at the various artist representations and on one there was a Davit on the port side but on another there was none.
I think the Coast Guard ought to push for some share of the FF(X)s and they should all have a second davit on the port side.
You are probably right but the Navy has made reference to future upgrades in additional flights of ships.
Exactly what and when has not been disclosed except for one comment saying ASW will be added later.
Just my opinion but as long as reasonable choices are made, spiral development can be a good way to approach this.
It worked for the Burkes and for the Virginias.
They key word here is “reasonable”.
I am all in favor of spiral development. Frankly I would happily see the 57mm replaced by VLS as long as the ships had at least a 30mm.
If the French can build a medium sized frigate. Then how TF is it so god damn hard for the US Navy to take the USCG’s legend class cutters and upgun them to FDI Frigate standard. Heck, I would use the FDI as a template on how we should upgun the Legend class cutters.
https://www.navylookout.com/in-focus-the-fdi-frances-mid-size-frigate/
How will this be any better than the Littoral Combat Ships (LCS)? This NSC-based FF(X) design is armed almost exactly the same as the Independence Class Littoral Combat Ships. The LCS added a VLS system for 24 Hellfire missiles, although the Independence Class have only an 11-cell SeaRAM (the Freedom class has the 21-cell RAM) and only 8 Naval Strike Missiles. I know everyone hates the LCS because of all of its early problems, but now that the LCS finally got all those bugs ironed out (didn’t they?), it’s faster and cheaper than the NSC. There’s also the Austal Frigate design version of the Independence Class LCS, which can feature an optional 16-cell Mk 41 VLS, and for anti-submarine warfare, a variable depth sonar is planned as well as a towed array with its handling system.
But I’ve heard the LCS are too noisy for ASW, is that true? And do the LCS ships still have bugs that weren’t fixed? It just seems strange to go with a frigate design that’s arguably less capable than the LCS. Maybe the LCS is more fragile, as the Independence Class is aluminum, but the Independence Class has a lot more room to add MK41 VLS missiles than the Legend Class NSC has.
The big advantage the NSC has range and endurance. That they can do 22 knots on diesels without using the gas turbines is important. The Independence class LCS are very sensitive to weight increases.