By Mikaȅl Perron, 2 May 2026
The cancellation of the Constellation-class frigate should be reconsidered by the US government. The proposed FF(x) frigate based on the Legend-class Security Cutter actually is a Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) weapon package with added reliability, range and good sea keeping attributes but that is far from being enough to make it a high-intensity fighting ship. The USN means to utilise mission packages on the stern section and to operate them with autonomous systems but all of those do not exist at the moment. We can all think of the different mission packages developed for the LCS that took forever to materialize or never did at all. What the USN is lacking, and what the Constellation-class should have been from the beginning, is an ASW/escort frigate and not a mini-Arleigh Burke ship.
The best anti-submarine warfare (ASW) assets of the USN are of course its SSN fleet but they do not possess enough of them. The shipyards are struggling to deliver them on time and the situation is aggravated by the AUKUS commitment that will see some Virginia-class boats transferred to Australia. While the Legend-class is not designed to be a quiet submarine hunter, the Constellation-class is based on the FREMM design which is optimized for such a task. The French FREMM won the USN ‘hook ‘em’ award four times between 2020 and 2026, demonstrating the quality of the design as a top-of-the-line ASW asset. There will be a need to choose where the SSN are employed so when the latter are not available, a frigate with core ASW built-in capabilities will be more than necessary.
Beside ASW capabilities, it has been demonstrated over the course of the last few years that escort vessels will be in great demand. We might just think of the missile attacks in the Red Sea or the blocking of the Strait of Hormuz to realize that escort vessels are essential to keep maritime traffic flowing. In time of conflict every sea line of communication (SLOC) is a potential area where large-scale attacks could be staged on the commercial fleets of this world. In case of conflict, we might need to organise convoys to keep the flow of goods. In case of conflict with a major adversary, there would be a need to escort the Military Sealift Command ships in order to keep the fighting fleet going and you don’t want to use a Burke-class for that.
The USN now needs a lot of new ships to be built quickly and the answer they found is the FF(X) program. Huntington shipyard will probably be able to start the building of these ships pretty quickly but another yard building another set of ships would bring up hull numbers more rapidly. The fleet would be much better off with a mix fleet of 30 or so FF(X) and 30 or so FFG-62 frigates. The Fincantieri Marine Group Shipyard was gearing up to deliver up to 20 FFG-62 ships to the USN but the ever-changing requirements, the design modifications and the excessive added capabilities torpedoed the project. In order to make these ship much more affordable and easier to build, a Flight II should be built from the third ship on.
This Flight II configuration would drop the SPY-6 radar and Aegis combat system. It would use a common Combat Management System with the FF(x) using the SPS-77 radar and common mast configuration. The 32 strike length MK41 VLS cells would be replaced by 32 tactical length cells being filled exclusively with quad pack ESSM and vertical launched ASROC (VLA) missiles. In theory would could fill the cells with up to 128 ESSM or up to 32 VLA but a load of 64-96 ESSM and 8-16 VLA would probably be a standard load. Two MK38 mod 4 gun could also be added on top of the hangar just aft of the NSM launchers in order to improve close-in and asymmetric threat defence. These few modifications have the potential to greatly reduce the price and the building times of the Constellation-class frigates, giving them their rightful place in the USN. A lot of investment went into training the work force, to equip the yard and acquire the necessary material to build the FFG-62 frigates. Lessons are being learned during the construction of the first two ships. To move to a simplified Flight II Constellation-class would probably prove to be a wise investment for the USN but the actual US administration will likely not consider such a move out of pride.
As for Canada, there is definitely a lesson to be learned here. In order for them to be successful, we should carefully plan the future Continental Defence Corvettes so they don’t become mini River-class destroyers. We should pick the right capabilities so that they are effective but the ships should remain relatively cheap, easy to build and affordable to operate.
Image: A graphic included in a 2024 Government Accountability Office report shows the Constellation class silhouette overlaid on the Italian FREMM that served as the starting point of the design. Credit: Government Accountability Office and US Navy
9 thoughts on “A Case for a Constellation-class Flight II”
How about ‘no’. Constellation, as designed, cannot keep up with a CSG. Backing out EASR won’t fix the weight problem, as much of the weight came from structural changes to meet NAVSEA survivability. Switching to Tactical Length Mk-41 means changing USN logistics so now two sizes of cannister are needed, and again doesn’t really fix the weight problem.
If FF(X) can’t go to the Bab al Mandeb, then your proposed version of Connie can’t either. Not with SPS-77 and ESSMs, so what would really be gained, here? A containerized ASW system can be dropped on the back end of an FF(X) for not huge money. There’s no need for Connie. Let her rest in peace.
A Connie flight II will never happen but about those few points… First, CSG don’t go that often to flank speed. They do it to take position for flight operations and when they need to reposition. But close protection of the carrier will always be the job of an AEGIS equipped ship. Long transit are done at a more reasonable speed. Otherwise it would dry up the fuel tank of the escort ships.
Getting rid of SPY-6 and AEGIS while achieving a small weight reduction and lower the center of mass is more about lowering the cost of production and speeding it up. It also reduce power consumption and cooling requirements.
For the VLS canister, I was under the impression that the VLA & ESSM canister were just shorter and that they could fit both the Tactical and Strike length MK41 but worst case scenario they would just keep the original ones if it improves the logistic.
As far as I know the combination of SPS-77 with ESSM, RAM launcher, 57mm gun and EW suite is more than enough to get such a frigate into contested waters. SPS-77 should be able to find and track targets and exploit the ESSM range of 50 kilometers.
As for the ASW system, we know that the ASW mission module destined for the LCS never materialized! Also, none of the envisioned unmanned ASW system exist or got tested so far. You can add a containerized system to the stern of an FF(x) but they were never designed to be acoustically quiet like the FREMM was. The FF(X) is better off with some MK70 payload modules filled with TLAM.
The Constellation-class is not the best solution but I don’t believe that the FF(x) is either.
How’s this? Come up with a list of reasonable requirements. Pick the systems and design a ship to fit these systems. If you want them fast and relatively cheap outsource to a overseas yard and build lots of them. No design changes.
Wow, I like that! It is fun when a post gets the conversation going. Yes with reasonable requirements and a ship designed around state-of-the-art but proven systems, it would be a hit. In the spirit of the Arctic Security Cutter program (ASC), they could have Korean or Japanese shipyard quickly get into building such a class of ship while gearing up to built some domestically increasing the pace of delivery so they would build as few as possible of the useless FF(x). Another option could be to build such frigates entirely offshore while improving on the SSNs, DDGs and CVNs building process in order to later move on to DDG(x) or BBG(x) and so on.
Many of your suggested changes to the Constellation-class 2.0 might well prove beneficial from an operational standpoint.
However, as you point out, “The USN now needs a lot of new ships to be built quickly…”, and I would argue that making the number of design changes you propose would seemingly return the USN to what ultimately scuppered the Constellation-class 1.0 – too many design changes.
Even with today’s AI-assisted design methods, the old adage that ‘steel is cheap and air is free’ still remains dubious today. Making many modifications to a warship design adds construction complexity and thus increased production costs and schedule delays. Design changes, even seemingly modest ones, usually result in major follow-on effects.
Hello, I agree on that. The proposition is about removing some the overly ambitious design changes to the original FREMM in order to make it cheaper and quicker to build but yes; a design change is still a design change no matter how we put it. Ted Barnes’ proposal makes more sense than overly modifying an existing design like they did!
How’s this. Buy the River-class Destroyer (BAE Type 26-Mini AB III) ASW design from Lockheed Martin/Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) as is, and build as many as you need (say, 25-30 to start). They could then all be built in US Shipyards with help from the governments of Canada, United Kingdom and Australia. The RCD is just getting started at Irving Shipyards with UK/AU already well on their way so, the design is pretty much set. If you wanted to up-scale the design (future-proofing) for more fire-power, the BAE “swap-out” option to ditch the Multi-Mission Bay (MMB) for 64 MK 41 VLS Midships and 4 x 4 trainable NSM cells would also be available (32 MK 41 VLS cells fwd) for a total of 96 missile silos (again more future-proofing-Batch II/III…. etc). Make a competition of it between US and Canadian/British/Australian shipyards. The point is, the BAE Type 26 design MMF/Destroyer has already been proven (at least 32 UK/AU/CA+ others) Multi-Mission Frigates/Destroyers and would totally be built in US shipyards. Why waste more money and try to re-invent the wheel again with another failed Constellation-class Flt II design? The point is…. the more you build this ‘common design’ in the US, the cheaper the ships would become (perhaps $$ US Billions less than what Canada, United Kingdom and Australia could ever build them for. Let’s all start working together as good, close allies and friends for a change! In my opinion anyway.
What could any of the three main Canadian shipyards contribute to this idea? Nothing, I would argue. If there was any surplus capacity, the RCN would surely claim it in order to accelerate the RCD build. Perhaps South Korea could help, but not Canada.
Hello Barnacle Bill. The Australian Hunter, British BAE Type 26 Glasgow and River-class Destroyer Class (RCD) designs are pretty much set now from their perspective dockyards, are on their way, and in various stages of production. The only thing the United States has to do is choose at least one of these ASW/Destroyer Multi-Mission Frigate/Destroyer common designs, buy the design from at least one of these ‘friendly states’ and get started building them in two or three or even four of their own shipyards tomorrow. It doesn’t have to be the RCD per se (although I believe the RCD Batch I design is the best of the lot for ASW purposes). South Korea may also be able to help the USN if the US shipyards were unable to keep up. Yes, the RCN will be too busy trying to build 15 of their own RCDs from Lockheed Martin (LM)/RCN let alone an American MMF/Destroyer. But at least the USN would have a proven design from an allied country ready to help if required. The point is, this ASW MMF/Destroyer hull design is ready to go now for the USN and can be future-proofed for the USN’s own requirements. All three + countries have their own pros & cons but this proven basic concept is already there. Don’t waste valuable time & USD $$ on a failed Connie Flt II, but get the best from all worlds!!