By Open Chronicle Newsdesk with agencies
The U.S. Navy is studying three foreign frigate designs as possible candidates for future service, a move that could mark a major departure from traditional American naval procurement as Washington looks for ways to expand the fleet more quickly.
The three designs reportedly under review are Japan’s Mogami class, South Korea’s Chungnam class, and Turkey’s Istanbul class.
The study follows a broader push by the Trump administration to explore foreign designed warships as a way to accelerate fleet growth while the United States attempts to rebuild its own constrained shipbuilding base.
The idea remains politically controversial. Members of Congress from both parties have objected to the possibility of buying warships constructed overseas, arguing that naval expansion should instead be used to strengthen American shipyards and employment.
Even so, the fact that the Navy is formally studying operational foreign designs shows how serious the pressure has become.
Why the Navy is looking abroad
The Navy’s interest is directly connected to a wider directive on rebuilding the fleet and the national shipbuilding industrial base.
President Donald Trump’s August memorandum called for a competitive acquisition approach for new surface combatants capable of performing anti submarine warfare, surface warfare and convoy escort missions.
The plan also addresses support vessels, including replenishment tankers and roll on, roll off ships.
One option reportedly being considered would involve building as many as two initial ships in foreign yards before shifting production to the United States.
The administration describes this approach as the Finland Model.
The concept derives from a U.S. Coast Guard icebreaker arrangement under which initial construction uses foreign industrial expertise while later work migrates into American shipyards.
For Navy frigates, the same principle could theoretically provide ships faster while transferring technology, investment and experience into the U.S. industrial base.
The Navy badly needs frigates
The interest in foreign ships also reflects a longstanding structural problem in the surface fleet.
The United States has not operated a traditional frigate since the last Oliver Hazard Perry class ship left service in 2015.
The Navy expected the Freedom and Independence class Littoral Combat Ships to assume many of the resulting missions.
That did not happen as planned.
The LCS programme suffered years of mechanical, design and operational problems, and the ships never fully achieved the broad capability originally expected of them.
The Navy subsequently launched the FFG(X) programme, which produced the Constellation class.
That effort also collapsed.
Constellation became a warning
The Constellation class was based on the proven Franco Italian FREMM frigate.
The expectation was that the Navy would make relatively modest changes to an established design and thereby reduce technical and programme risk.
Instead, the American derivative evolved dramatically.
By the end, it reportedly retained only around 15 percent design commonality with its European parent design.
The resulting weight growth, redesign work and schedule problems undermined the very reason for selecting an existing frigate in the first place.
The programme was eventually cancelled.
That experience now hangs over any discussion of adopting foreign ships.
If the Navy selects Mogami, Chungnam, Istanbul or another foreign design, one of the most important requirements will be resisting the temptation to extensively redesign it for American service.
A new FF(X) programme is already underway
The Navy has since launched another frigate effort, again known as FF(X).
Current plans call for ships derived from the U.S. Coast Guard’s Legend class National Security Cutter.
The goal is to get the first vessel into the water by 2028.
But the initial ships will reportedly lack a traditional Vertical Launch System, or VLS, raising questions about their usefulness in high intensity combat against advanced missile threats.
That leaves the Navy with a difficult balancing problem.
It wants relatively inexpensive ships suitable for convoy escort, anti submarine operations and lower intensity missions.
At the same time, those ships need enough weapons and sensors to survive in increasingly dangerous environments.
This is where the three foreign designs become particularly interesting.
Japan’s Mogami class
The Mogami class is perhaps the most internationally prominent of the three candidates.
Japan designed the frigate as a modern multi mission warship capable of anti air, anti surface, anti submarine and mine warfare operations.
The baseline Mogami is approximately 436 feet long and displaces around 5,500 metric tons.
Its design incorporates reduced radar signature features and a highly integrated superstructure.
The ship uses combined diesel and gas propulsion, allowing efficient cruising while retaining the ability to generate greater speed when required.
Its sensor suite includes an active electronically scanned array radar and an integrated UNICORN mast housing multiple communications and electronic systems.
The combat information centre is also unusually modern, reflecting Japan’s emphasis on automation and reduced crew requirements.
Mogami brings broad mission capability
The baseline armament includes a five inch main gun, SeaRAM close defence system and Type 17 anti ship missiles.
Later ships in the class also receive a 16 cell Mk 41 Vertical Launch System.
Those cells can accommodate weapons including Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles, with four ESSMs capable of being packed into a single Mk 41 cell.
The ship also supports a Seahawk helicopter and can deploy unmanned surface and underwater vehicles from its stern.
That mine warfare and unmanned systems capability makes Mogami particularly versatile.
Japan has also developed an enlarged derivative displacing around 6,200 tons with a 32 cell VLS, improved radar and updated mission systems.
Australia has already selected that enlarged version for its future frigate programme.
For Washington, operating a ship also used by Japan and Australia could create significant logistical advantages across the Indo Pacific.
South Korea’s Chungnam class
South Korea’s Chungnam class, also known as FFX III or FFG III, is another modern multi role frigate.
The first ship entered South Korean service in 2024.
At approximately 423 feet long and 4,300 tons fully loaded, the class sits between the larger Mogami and smaller Istanbul designs.
The frigate uses combined diesel electric or gas propulsion, providing efficient cruising and potentially reducing maintenance requirements.
Its most visually distinctive feature is an integrated mast incorporating four fixed face AESA radar arrays.
That configuration gives the ship strong air surveillance capability while reducing reliance on mechanically rotating sensors.
Chungnam offers strong anti submarine capability
The ship carries a 16 cell Korean vertical launch system.
Weapons can include K SAAM surface to air missiles, Haeseong anti ship missiles and Red Shark vertically launched anti submarine weapons.
Other armament includes a five inch gun, torpedo tubes and a 30mm close in weapon system.
A flight deck and hangar support a helicopter.
South Korea currently plans six ships in the class.
A particularly important factor for Washington is the rapidly growing industrial presence of South Korean shipbuilders inside the United States.
Hanwha acquired Philadelphia’s Philly Shipyard in 2024 and has continued expanding its U.S. ambitions.
South Korean firms therefore offer something beyond an existing frigate design: they could potentially provide capital, technology and manufacturing experience to struggling American yards.
Turkey’s Istanbul class
The third candidate is Turkey’s Istanbul class, also known as the Istif or I class.
Developed under Turkey’s MILGEM national warship programme, it is substantially smaller than the Japanese and South Korean alternatives.
The ship is approximately 372 feet long and displaces around 3,000 tons fully loaded.
Like the Mogami, it uses combined diesel and gas propulsion.
The lead ship, TCG Istanbul, entered Turkish service in 2024.
Despite its smaller size, the design carries a significant weapons load.
Istanbul’s evolving missile architecture
The lead ship uses a 16 cell MiDLAS Vertical Launch System developed in Turkey.
Initial configurations were associated primarily with Hisar surface to air missiles.
The second ship, TCG Izmir, has reportedly been fitted with a longer cell version of MiDLAS capable of supporting larger weapons.
Potential options include Siper air defence missiles, Atmaca anti ship missiles and Gezgin land attack cruise missiles.
The ship also carries deck mounted Atmaca anti ship missiles, a 76mm main gun, a 35mm Gokdeniz close defence system, torpedo tubes and remote weapon stations.
Its integrated mast includes an AESA radar and electronic warfare systems, while the stern accommodates a Seahawk sized helicopter.
Turkey plans eight ships for its own navy, and Indonesia has also ordered Istanbul class frigates.
Three very different choices
The three ships therefore offer significantly different approaches.
Mogami is the largest and arguably the most ambitious, combining low observable shaping, advanced automation, strong multi mission capability and growing allied adoption.
Chungnam offers a mature South Korean industrial ecosystem, a strong radar and anti submarine warfare package, and increasingly important connections to American shipbuilding.
Istanbul is smaller and potentially cheaper, while still providing a significant missile and sensor package.
The final choice, if any of them proceeds, would depend on more than combat capability.
Production speed, cost, shipyard availability, crew requirements, U.S. weapons compatibility and the extent of design changes required would all be decisive.
Congress remains a major obstacle
Even if the Navy identifies a preferred ship, it may not be legally able to proceed.
U.S. law currently requires a national security waiver to procure foreign built naval vessels.
Congress is now considering measures that could make that process even more difficult.
A Senate draft of the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act would reportedly remove the waiver authority entirely.
House lawmakers have separately moved to prohibit spending on foreign built warships.
Opposition crosses party lines, particularly among representatives from states with major naval shipyards.
Their argument is straightforward: sending naval construction overseas could weaken the very American industrial base Washington says it wants to rebuild.
The Finland Model is intended to answer critics
The administration argues that the Finland Model offers a compromise.
Initial ships could be built abroad where production lines already exist, giving the fleet faster access to new vessels.
Foreign companies would then be required to invest heavily in U.S. facilities, transfer technology and hire American workers before later ships were constructed domestically.
The White House argues that current U.S. shipbuilding backlogs are too severe to rely exclusively on existing domestic yards.
Several major naval programmes are already behind schedule, while workforce shortages and infrastructure limitations continue to affect productivity.
The fundamental question is whether American shipyards could expand quickly enough to absorb additional frigate production after the initial foreign built vessels.
China changes the urgency
Behind the entire debate is China.
The gap between Chinese and American commercial and naval shipbuilding capacity has become one of Washington’s most serious strategic industrial concerns.
China possesses dramatically greater shipbuilding output than the United States and continues expanding the People’s Liberation Army Navy.
American officials increasingly worry that even if individual U.S. ships remain technologically superior, Washington could struggle to replace losses or expand the fleet quickly during a prolonged conflict.
This makes production capacity itself a strategic capability.
Foreign allied shipyards therefore offer Washington something it currently lacks at home: established production lines capable of building modern surface combatants at greater speed.
Avoiding another Constellation
Whatever path the Navy chooses, the Constellation experience provides the clearest warning.
Buying an established foreign design only works if it remains largely established.
Attempting to replace sensors, weapons, internal layouts, propulsion systems and other major components can rapidly transform a supposedly low-risk acquisition into an entirely new shipbuilding programme.
The Navy has publicly stressed that it wants to avoid repeating that mistake.
The most effective route may therefore involve accepting more foreign equipment and design choices than the service historically would have tolerated.
That could prove culturally and politically difficult, but it may be necessary if speed is genuinely the priority.
A decision expected later this year
The current Navy study is expected to conclude in November.
That does not guarantee a competition, much less the purchase of any foreign designed frigate.
Congressional opposition could still prevent the idea from advancing.
Yet the inclusion of Mogami, Chungnam and Istanbul indicates that the Navy is now seriously examining alternatives that only a few years ago would have seemed highly unconventional.
The strategic logic is becoming harder to ignore.
The fleet needs more surface combatants. Domestic shipbuilding capacity remains constrained. China is building warships at a pace the United States cannot currently match.
That leaves Washington with a difficult choice between protecting traditional procurement practices and obtaining capable ships quickly enough to meet an increasingly urgent strategic requirement.
The answer may determine whether foreign designed frigates become a temporary bridge to rebuilding American shipbuilding or the beginning of a much deeper transformation in how the U.S. Navy acquires its future fleet.