Quote: "Therefore, I am really curious how they want built ships faster..."

First the "basic facts" version:

https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2025/09/16/south-korean-manufacturers-outline-plans-to-bolster-us-shipbuilding/

Then, the more detailed (and slightly more political, unfortunately) version:

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-south-korean-shipbuilders-will-invest-billions-into-us-industry-2025-10

It appears we don't even use automated welding? Looks from this like we're about to get it!...

So, this will help. Secondly, we are changing WHAT we build. We plan smaller, simpler ships (to replace the frigates.) We are probably also considering offering the work to civilian yards. Ships which do not require all our "military spec" features can be built by them. This is "World War II 101." We mobilized civilian industry (and got things like "Kaiser's coffins," but numbers win wars. A large chunk of this is expected to be unmanned or "minimally manned" this time around, so casualties will be more to equipment.)

To address the wider subject being discussed here...

Andy is talking "Large Surface Combatants," while you are more addressing "Small Surface Combatants." The current force structure includes both. Burkes are the large combatants. Frigates (and LCS) are the small combatants. Loss of frigates "has no bearing" on the Burke program. It is an entirely different category of warship. We already plan to keep building Burkes until a new large combatant design replacement is put into production. (And that replacement will NOT be cheaper. See my above.)

To replace the now aborted small combatant, we plan to build small unmanned ships, and small manned control ships. There is good reason to believe these can be produced both cheaper and more quickly and plentifully.

The key to this is understanding our force structure. Since WWII, our structure has been the carrier battle group. Ships like Burkes are built to escort carriers...screen them and defend them from threats in all domains...on, above, under the sea. These are classed as Large Surface Combatants. Frigates have traditionally been used since WWII as screens for amphibious forces (and merchant convoys in wartime) and for "detached duties." They are Small Surface Combatants (despite Constellation being Spruance-sized.) During the Cold War, a shortage of large combatants found frigates also used in carrier screens. Not their purpose.

After the Cold War, we tried to reorganize. Cruisers were to continue the carrier group screening function. Destroyers were also for carrier group screening, but now also expected to operate more inshore in support of amphibious operations, and on detatched duties. (Zumwalts.) Frigates were pretty much done away with by the USN. We tried some export designs which nobody wanted. We planned none for ourselves, and the Perry class went away without replacement.

Zumwalts were seen as too large and needlessly expensive to be used inshore, and this gave birth to the LCS program, presented as a cheaper alternative to Zumwalts. That ended the Zumwalts. The planned cruisers were better optimised for the carrier screen role, and the LCS would work inshore cheaper. The whole Zumwalt concept was unnecessary. The new cruisers, though, were obscenely expensive. It was decided that more Burkes--themselves optimized as carrier screeners--would be the better route. Certainly more affordable. Then, the LCS did not work out exactly as planned.

So, our current force structure is the "wreckage" left from all this. We have carriers with Burkes as their screeners. And we have the LCS. We still need a modern Burke replacement. And we need small combatants. So, we went for a frigate. The nature of the modern situation finds this structure no longer suitable, however. Carrier screening requirements have not changed too much, though we now want our large screening ships to also be able to launch hypersonics at shore targets. Our carrier groups will most likely be employed against a lot of shore targets in any conflict with China. Small combatant requirements are now different, however, due to new technologies. Aerial drones can now give an "ordinary surface ship" most of the benefits of seaborne air power, enabling operations independent of the carrier groups (which will still be needed for heavy strikes.) The new force structure under consideration for about the past decade projects a widely distributed network of small manned ships accompanied by their own network of unmanned ships. This covers more sea area, and disperses firepower. If not the manned control ships themselves, their accompanying unmanned ships will have either VLS or containerized VLS, loaded with all manner of missiles. We killed the frigate (small combatant, general purpose escort) and it strongly looks like we are going to go for the new small combatants we've been studying instead.

Force structure determines what role a ship is intended for. That then governs what gets built. If you do not understand the overall force structure, and how it is intended to be employed, you will not comprehend how or why we have any given ship design.

Burkes are general purpose carrier escorts. That is what they were designed as, and how they serve. We currently are considering the new DDGX as their replacement. However, with this new reorganization, one article I saw tells me we might have our eyes on still another idea. Unless/until their replacement shows up, we will indeed keep building Burkes. However, the small combatant picture is now formally altered. We both want and need more of them, but we don't want "traditional frigates" like the Constellations which are "redundant" general purpose escorts. We want "something new."