Navys

Though there are currently no aircraft carriers in the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) region, the Navy’s top admiral said he would seek alternatives to extending the deployment of the USS Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group (CSG) for any potential operation against Iran. The strike group, which most recently took part in the Operation Absolute Resolve mission to capture Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro, is currently in the U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) region. It has been away from home since leaving its homeport of Norfolk on June 24, 2025. Extending deployments has a cascading effect on the ability to maintain ships and on the lives of the sailors who operate them.

Adm. Daryl Caudle, the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), discussed the status of Ford and her escorts with a small group of reporters, including from The War Zone, today at the Surface Navy Association’s annual symposium.

“I think the Ford, from its capability perspective, would be an invaluable option for any military thing the president wants to do,” Caudle explained. “But if it requires an extension, it’s going to get some push back from the CNO. And I will see if there is something else I can do.”

Caudle did not provide specific options, but emphasized that there is a price to be paid for the strike group after being away from homeport for more than 200 days under often intense conditions.

As for what is in the CENTCOM area of operations today, six U.S. Navy warships including three Arleigh Burke class destroyers, USS McFaul, USS Mitscher and USS Roosevelt are present, as well as three Littoral Combat Ships, the USS Tulsa, USS Santa Barbara and USS Canberra. This is a much smaller array of vessels than what was present during the war between Israel and Iran in June. If a carrier is requested, the USS Abraham Lincoln and its strike group would be the one that would likely respond.

Lincoln is currently operating in the South China Sea. There are no other carriers on cruise at the moment. But it’s also worth noting that a carrier is not a prerequisite for dealing with contingencies or even offensive operations in the region. The U.S. can fold in other resources to help make up for the naval presence gap. Where it may be felt most is in missile and drone defense, especially considering multiple Aegis-equipped surface combatants were tasked with defending Israel during the war. This was in addition to the need to defend U.S. and other allies’ facilities in the region.

As for the Ford, its strike group left Norfolk for a “regularly scheduled deployment” to the Mediterranean 11 days before the start of the 12-Day War between Israel and Iran and two days before the U.S. Operation Midnight Hammer attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Last October, the strike group was ordered by President Donald Trump to move to the SOUTHCOM region in response to the growing tensions with Venezuela, which you can read more about here. Arleigh Burke class destroyers USS Winston S. Churchill, USS Bainbridge and USS Mahan remain on station with the Ford to continue operations under Operation Southern Spear, the effort to counter drug trafficking in the region and maintain pressure on Venezuela.

“The fact that the Ford is currently operating in the Southern Command’s area of operations is fine with me,” Caudle posited. “It is the extensions that bother.”

“I am a big non-fan of extensions, and because they do have significant impact,” Caudle explained. “Number one, I’m a sailors-first CNO. People want to have some type of certainty that they’re going to do a seven-month deployment.”

“When it goes past that, that disrupts lives,” Caudle added. “It disrupts things like funerals that were planned, marriages that were planned, okay, babies that were planned, you know, so the human element of extension, I’m not a big fan of obviously.”

Beyond affecting people, extensions also have a detrimental impact on the ships.

“To the financial and readiness aspects, we have maintenance agreements and contracts that have been made with yards that are going to repair the ships that are in that strike group, including the carrier itself,” Caudle explained. “And so when those are tied to a specific time, the yard is expecting it to be there. All that is highly disruptive.”

Extending the deployment of the Ford and its carrier group would also add stress “to the workforce, to the balance on that yard, and to how we actually conduct that maintenance, even more so if it goes into the next fiscal year,” Caudle said. “The financial aspects of an extension can be quite disruptive when we burn the ships hotter – more than planned. That does have detrimental effects on the work package.”

“So now, when the ship comes back, we expected the ship to be in this level of state in which it was used during that seven-month deployment, when it goes eight, nine-plus months, those critical components that we weren’t expecting to repair are now on the table,” Caudle pointed out. “The work package grows, so that’s disruptive.”

Yesterday, the Navy highlighted concerns about how heavy work loads interfere with one aspect of ship maintenance, rust, but there is a much larger scope of work that needs to be done to keep a carrier strike group operational.

Extending ships’ cruises repeatedly can cause cascading effects that deeply impact the future readiness of the force. This can result in critical power projection capabilities not being available in the future. It’s very much a steal from Peter to pay Paul kind of scenario.

You can read all about these issues and how they can manifest across the fleet in this past special feature of ours.

The constant presence needed in the Red Sea, and multiple other contingencies in the Middle East over the last few years, have also taken their toll on the fleet.

Though on a voyage approaching an eighth month, the Ford strike group’s current deployment is still far shorter than the one undertaken by the USS Nimitz strike group in 2020. Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, the Nimitz embarked what would become a 341-day deployment, returning home in March 2021. It marked the longest such deployment since the Vietnam War, Navy Times noted.

Regardless of any concerns about what it would mean to the ships and crews of the Ford CSG, Caudle said they will be ready for whatever mission Trump orders.

“I like to tell people the Navy can be anywhere in two weeks,” Caudle proffered. “We are, by our very nature, mobile, expeditionary, quick response option available. And so if the president needs options in the Middle East, you know, we can go build out what that looks like for him. And with the right planning and coordination with the, you know, the respective combatant commanders the Navy will be ready to provide options.”

Contact the author: howard@thewarzone.com

The U.S. Navy has confirmed to TWZ that the armament package for its first “flight” of its new FF(X) frigates will not include a built-in Vertical Launch System (VLS). There had been widespread questions about whether the ships would include a VLS array after renderings were released with no such feature readily apparent.

A lack of any type of VLS on the FF(X) design is a glaring omission that can only raise questions about the operational utility and flexibility of the ships. At the same time, the new frigates will be able to carry modular payloads, including containerized missile launchers, on their sterns. The Navy also has an explicit plan to employ the FF(X)s as “motherships” for uncrewed surface vessels (USV), likely offering a distributed arsenal, as well as additional sensors, for the frigates to leverage during operations.

The Navy announced its plan to acquire a fleet of new FF(X) frigates last Friday, which followed the cancellation of the abortive Constellation class program earlier in the month. The service previously confirmed that the FF(X)s will be based on the Legend class National Security Cutter (NSC), which Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII) first developed for the U.S. Coast Guard.

“The initial flight of FF(X) will have a 57mm gun, 2 x 30mm guns, a Mk 49 Rolling Airframe Missile [launcher], various countermeasures, and a flight deck from which to launch helicopters and unmanned systems. Aft of the flight deck, there will be a flexible weapons system, which can accommodate containerized payloads (Counter-UAS, other missiles),” a Navy spokesperson told TWZ today. “Much like the successful DDG-51 [Arleigh Burke class destroyer] program, we are building this in flights. The frigate will be upgraded over successive flights to evolve and has the space reservations needed to improve capability over time.”

“The goal is to get [FF(X)] hulls in the water ASAP,” another Navy official told TWZ. “Minimal design changes will be incorporated into the first flight so that we can get hulls into the water as soon as possible.”

“The [FF(X)] design changes are in the process of being finalized and we are confident that our extensive experience and collaboration with the U.S. Navy will lead to a successful approval process,” a HII spokesperson also told us. “Specific and targeted changes will be implemented to meet unique mission requirements. The process will be similar to a baseline upgrade on the DDG program, which has been successfully used to introduce new capabilities multiple times over the class’ history. Design work is ongoing and we understand the Navy’s intent is to minimize changes in order to expedite procurement.”

As we mentioned in our initial reporting on FF(X), the size of the Mk 41 VLS array on the previously planned Constellation class frigates was a hot topic of debate. Questions had been raised whether the 32-cell VLSs on those ships would be sufficient to meet their expected operational taskings, as you can read about more in this past TWZ feature.

Overall, the Mk 41 VLS requirement was central to the FFG(X) program that led to the Constellation class design. This was viewed as a key element of righting the wrongs of the Navy’s chronically underperforming Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program. The Independence class and Freedom class LCSs both lack a VLS array. In addition, it’s worth remembering here that HII’s losing FFG(X) bid was notably a Patrol Frigate concept derived from the National Security Cutter that featured a VLS. The company had also pitched other VLS-equipped Patrol Frigate variations to the Navy before then, as seen in the video below.

Patrol Frigate Variants – Information Video

Integrating a VLS into future flights of FF(X) frigates is certainly an option, but one that could be complex and costly if the design is not configured to accommodate one to begin with. As TWZ previously highlighted, the FF(X) configuration, as it has been seen so far, has a significantly redesigned main superstructure compared to the Coast Guard’s Legend class and previous Patrol Frigate concepts. This includes a prominent ‘shelf’ that extends forward into the space on the bow utilized for VLSs on previously seen Patriot Frigate configurations. With what we know now, that extension seems more likely to be utilized in the future as a mounting place for some type of point defense system, possibly even a laser directed energy weapon. It’s possible it could be adapted to accommodate a small VLS array in the future, as well. The lack of an integrated VLS could explain the lack of a more advanced radar in the renderings of the FF(X) that have been shown so far.

Installing missile launchers on the FF(X)’s fantail would give the ships a boost in firepower in the absence of an integrated VLS array. Renderings so far have shown what look to be launchers for up to 16 Naval Strike Missiles (NSM) installed in that position. NSM is an anti-ship cruise missile with secondary land-attack capability that the Navy has already integrated onto a portion of its LCSs and at least one Arleigh Burke class destroyer, and that the Marine Corps is fielding now in a ground-based configuration. There also looks to be space there for a least one containerized Mk 70 Payload Delivery Systems (PDS), another capability the Navy is already acquiring. Each Mk 70 contains a four-cell launcher derived from the Mk 41 VLS, and similarly capable of firing a variety of weapons, including SM-6 multi-purpose missiles and Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles. FF(X)s could also leverage sensors on larger crewed warships for targeting purposes when operating as part of a surface action group.

“The FF(X) will be designed to command groups of unmanned vessels, acting as a sort of ‘mothership,’ providing the commander tailored force packages based upon the weapons and sensors fielded on those unmanned craft,” a Navy spokesperson also told TWZ today.

In this way, an FF(X) could still call upon a deeper and more flexible array of weapon options without having to have a VLS integrated directly onto the ship. The uncrewed platforms would also be able to operate across a much broader area than any single crewed frigate and present a different risk calculus for operating in higher-risk environments. All of this would expand the overall reach of the combined force and present targeting challenges for opponents. But there are also substantial development and operational risks with this kind of arrangement. As it sits, this kind of autonomous vessel and manned vessel teaming is still in development. Operationally, leaving the ship without, or with very limited, area defense capability is at odds with many future threat scenarios.

The Navy is already separately pursuing a family of larger uncrewed surface vessels (USV) able to carry an array of containerized payloads to bolster the capability and operational capacity of its crewed surface fleets as part of a program called Modular Surface Attack Craft (MASC), which you can read more about here.

Even with all this in mind, the lack of a VLS still raises significant questions about the FF(X) plans, especially about the ability of the ships to operate more independently. This has been a key issue for the Navy’s existing LCS fleets, and one that the Constellation class was supposed to help address.

Omitting a VLS capable of at least employing Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles (ESSM) imposes particular limitations on the ship’s ability to defend itself against aerial threats. Navy experiences during recent operations in and around the Red Sea have served to put a notable spotlight on the ever-growing dangers posed by anti-ship missiles and drones, which would be far more severe in any future high-end fight in the Pacific. All of this also means FF(X)s will not be able to provide area defense for convoy operations without a modular containerized payload, and that would only offer a very limited supply of munitions compared to a highly efficient VLS array.

The Navy is also clearly focused on just trying to get more hulls into service as quickly as it reasonably can. The service has major operational demands for more surface warships, in general, and now has an additional gap to fill following the collapse of the Constellation class program. The goal is for the FF(X) to be launched in 2028.

“We will start as soon as a funding contract and material are available,” the HII spokesperson told TWZ today. “We are confident in our ability to launch the first ship into the water in 2028, then conduct final outfitting, systems activation, and testing before delivering to the Fleet.”

HII also plans to leverage materials already acquired under the Coast Guard’s Legend class National Security Cutter program to help accelerate work on the first FF(X) hull. The current timeline for that ship to enter operational service remains unknown.

Overall, just how aggressively the Navy is moving to get these new frigates into the fleet as fast and cheaply as possible is now clear with today’s news. While expanded variants in the future with VLS arrays and more exquisite combat systems seem like a real possibility, when it comes to installed armament, America’s next frigate is set to be just as lightly armed as the LCS that came before it.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The U.S. Navy has confirmed its decision to acquire a new FF(X) frigate with a design based on the U.S. Coast Guard’s Legend class National Security Cutter, though there are immediate questions about its expected configuration. The new warships, the first of which is set to be launched in 2028, are intended to fill the gap left by the cancellation of the abortive Constellation class frigate program. As TWZ just recently explored in detail, axing Constellation, itself intended to help make up for the chronically underperforming Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program, had highlighted a concerning hole in the service’s future force structure plans.

The Navy had previously announced its intention to acquire a new class of frigates, but had only said they would be based on an unspecified American design. Breaking Defense had reported last week that the Legend class National Security Cutter, developed by Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII), was the design in question, citing anonymous sources.

Secretary of the Navy John Phelan announced the decision to cancel the Constellation class program at the end of November. The Navy had awarded the first contract for what had been expected to be a fleet of at least 10 of those frigates, based on the existing Franco-Italian FREMM design, in 2020. With the idea that only relatively minor changes would be necessary in the Americanized version, and that this would help keep the program on track, the original goal was to see the future USS Constellation delivered in 2026. However, extensive Navy-directed design changes resulted in an almost completely different vessel with only 15 percent commonality with its European ‘parent,’ and the delivery schedule had slipped to 2029 at the earliest.

Now, “to deliver at 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,” Secretary Phelan said in a video announcement today. “The President [Donald Trump] and SECWAR [Secretary of War Pete Hegseth] have signed off on this as part of the Golden fleet. Our goal is clear: launch the first hull in the water in 2028.”

“We look forward to supporting the Navy on this critical program,” Chris Kastner, President and CEO of HII, also said in a statement in a company press release. “Speed matters, and the NSC ship design is stable and producible and will lead to predictable schedules. I have great confidence in the Ingalls team to execute this program, and in our ongoing efforts with our partners to successfully expand the U.S. shipbuilding industrial base to meet the Navy’s needs.”

In terms of the future frigates themselves, “the FF(X) is a highly adaptable vessel. While its primary mission will be surface warfare, its ability to carry modular payloads and command unmanned systems enables it to execute a broad spectrum of operations, making it ready for the challenges of the modern maritime environment,” according to a Navy release. “Small surface combatants have always been essential to the fleet, handling a wide range of missions where a large warship isn’t required. The FF(X) will continue this vital role, and will take on more routine operations, enhancing the fleet’s operational flexibility, adaptability, and mission readiness.”

The Navy has not yet released more specific details about FF(X)’s expected capabilities, but has shown renders of the design. USNI News has also published an additional Navy rendering of the design, seen at the top of this story. What is seen is notably distinct in various ways from Patrol Frigate concepts derived from the National Security Cutter that HII has previously proposed to the Navy, including in the FFG(X) competition that led to the Constellation class. In particular, a very prominent ‘shelf’ has been added to the bottom of the front end of the main superstructure.

Where a Vertical Launch System (VLS) array might be found is an immediate question. This is something that one would expect to be a key feature on any future Navy frigate. Past HII Patrol Frigate concepts have included VLS arrays of varying sizes between the main superstructure and the turreted gun on the bow, as can be seen in the video below.

Patrol Frigate Variants – Information Video

However, the FF(X) design, as it has been shown so far, does not have a VLS clearly installed in its bow, and the new shelf cuts into the space used in previous Patrol Frigate concepts for this purpose. With this in mind, it is possible that a VLS array will be, or at least could be, installed directly in the expanded forward superstructure. This design change would presumably make it easier to fit a larger VLS array into the existing Legend class hull configuration, as below deck alterations to accommodate it would be reduced, especially if longer strike-length cells are not planned.

The shelf could also serve as a pedestal for other weapon systems, such as a laser directed energy weapon or some other form of point defense system, but this seems far less likely given the other features of the design.

The VLS requirement was a particularly hot topic of discussion around the FFG(X) effort that led to the Constellation class. After work began on those ships, there continued to be questions about whether their 32-cell VLSs were sufficient for meeting their expected mission requirements, as you can read more about in this past TWZ feature.

The FF(X) renderings do clearly show angled deck launchers for missiles at the stern end of the ship, but what they are intended to be filled with is unknown. What is depicted does align with launchers for 16 Naval Strike Missiles (NSM), an anti-ship cruise missile with secondary land-attack capability that the Navy has already been integrating onto some of LCSs, and has been exploring as an option for arming other ships. The U.S. Marine Corps is also fielding a ground-based NSM system.

The ship’s only other clearly visible weapon systems are a Mk 49 launcher for RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM), for close-in defense, and what appears to be the same 57mm gun in a turret on the bow that is found on the Coast Guard’s Legend class configuration. Whether this has anything to do with the FF(X) nomenclature for the new frigate effort, which notably lacks the “G” reflecting naval vessel designs explicitly intended to carry guided missiles, is unknown.

The FF(X)’s main mast configuration, as depicted in the rendering, also looks largely unchanged from the existing Legend class design. It does appear to feature a Saab AN/SPS-77 Sea Giraffe medium-range multi-mode surveillance radar that is not found on the Coast Guard’s cutters. A much larger AN/SPY-6(V)3 Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar (EASR), coupled with a derivative of the Aegis combat system, had been set to be a key feature on the Constellation class frigates. More significantly expanded sensor suites were also a feature in past HII Patrol Frigate concepts.

The explicit mention of modular payloads in the Navy’s release raises additional questions. One of the most significant areas where the LCS program has failed to deliver has been in the promise of its modular mission modules. These were supposed to allow the ships to rapidly shift from one mission set to another. As it stands now, the Navy’s Independence and Freedom class LCSs are deployed with largely fixed configurations. It is also worth noting that modular payloads for the FF(X) could refer to containerized systems, such as the Mk 70 Payload Delivery System, which contained a four-cell missile launcher derived from the Mk 41 VLS. There is space on the fantail of the FF(X) design, behind the box launchers, that could be used for a containerized payload.

The Navy has otherwise made clear that it expects the new frigate design to allow for the integration of new and improved capabilities and functionality down the line.

“The frigate will follow the same proven approach we’ve used with the Arleigh Burke destroyers, building it smart from the start, then upgrading it in steps over time, as the threat and technology evolve,” Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Daryl Caudle also said in today’s video announcement.

Arleigh Burke class destroyers, also sometimes referred to as DDG-51 class ships, are the primary workhorse of the Navy’s current surface fleets, something that looks unlikely to change for decades to come. The service has now begun fielding the Flight III subvariant, which features significantly improved capabilities. There are a number of major upgrade programs underway for existing versions, as well. At the same time, it is worth noting that Navy officials have been warning for years that the underlying design is ‘maxed out’ from a structural perspective, as well as when it comes to meeting the needs of increasingly power-hungry mission systems.

Any major physical modifications to the initial FF(X) design, such as the installation of a larger VLS or a new mast for a larger and/or more capable radar array, could be complex and costly. The Navy has its own history with large-scale upgrade programs becoming expensive boondoggles, with previous work on its Ticonderoga class cruisers having become a particular case study in what not to do.

The Navy has shared details about its acquisition strategy for the new frigates, which it clearly hopes will help avoid some of the issues that befell the Constellation program. The service also plans to eventually competitively award contracts for additional hulls to multiple shipyards. This is in line with broader trends across the Navy and the rest of the U.S. military to be better about obtaining and retaining key intellectual property rights for major weapon system programs to prevent being locked into a particular vendor.

“We will acquire these ships using a lead yard and competitive follow-on strategy for multi-yard construction,” according to Secretary Phelan in today’s video. “Shipyards will be measured against one outcome, delivering combat power to the fleet as fast as possible.”

“Leveraging a complete design and production baseline approach will allow the Navy and shipbuilders to reduce costs, schedule, and technical risk,” Adm. Caudle added. “We know this frigate design works. We know it operates with the fleet, and most importantly, we know how to build it now.”

The new frigate program is also being presented as a way to help bolster domestic U.S. shipbuilding capacity. America’s shipbuilding industry has contracted to a very worrying degree over the past few decades, especially in contrast to China’s heavy investment in the opposite direction, as you can read more about here.

“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,” per Secretary Phelan.

Comments from Navy officials today also seem clearly intended to head off questions about why the service is not considering any of the wide array of capable frigate designs that allies and partners have in active production now. This is something TWZ explicitly touched on in our recent piece on the Navy’s future frigate outlook.

“We’ve also been clear-eyed about what happens in conflict. Other countries will always prioritize their own fleets, not us, ships that depend on foreign industry,” Adm. Caudle said in the video released today. “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.”

National Security Cutter – Ingalls Shipbuilding

What is not in question is the Navy’s need for more capable small surface combatants, and more of them overall, especially given the underperformance of the LCS program. In particular, the new frigates will offer a way to free up Arleigh Burke destroyers for more pressing taskings, as well as reduce operational strain on the destroyers overall.

“Recent operations from the Red Sea to the Caribbean make the requirement undeniable,” Adm. Caudle stressed in the video today. “Our small surface combatant inventory is a third of what we need. We need more capable blue water, small combatants to close the gap and keep our DDGs focused on the high-end fight.”

With what happened to the Constellation class program, one can expect the new FF(X) effort to be subjected to a particular significant degree of scrutiny, including from Congress. With the official plan now declared to be to leverage the Legend class National Security Cutter design already in Coast Guard service, more specific details may begin to emerge.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com