Progressing targets on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emission reduction urge the Netherlands Ministry of Defense (NL MoD) to reduce GHG emissions, without sacrificing striking power. The Royal Netherlands Navy (RNLN) is investigating the replacement of the Air Defense and Command Frigate (LCF) between 2030 and 2040 by a Large Surface Combatant. As it will be impossible to achieve substantial reduction of GHG emissions through energy-saving technologies, sustainable fuels need to be implemented in the design. In this paper, a literature review is presented to establish possible directions for the strategy to migrate future naval combatants from current fossil fuels to future sustainable fuels. We examined the effect of short- and long-carbon chain sustainable fuels, sustainable methanol and sustainable diesel, respectively, on the replacement Large Surface Combatant; specifically their advantages, disadvantages, production routes, future production cost estimates and availability to give an understanding which pathways can help the NL MoD to achieve their stated GHG emissions reduction goals. Moreover, we present three different design concepts with respect to fuel composition and propulsion configuration on which the impact of the established fuels is qualitatively examined. Firstly, operating on methanol has a significant impact on the design of a large surface combatant: the endurance of the ship is more than halved or the tank capacity has to be increased by 700 to 900 m3 ; the ship might need a longer machinery space to allow for more propulsion engines to compensate for the increased power requirement and unavailability of gas turbines on methanol; and required auxiliary and safety systems add further volume area to the engine room. Secondly, sustainable diesel is a drop-in fuel, which makes blending of sustainable diesel with fossil diesel possible in the existing infrastructure allowing a gradual transfer from fossil diesel to sustainable diesel. However, the production is less efficient in a well-to-wake approach and the cost of Bio-diesel and E-diesel is 5% to 30% more expensive with a mean estimated additional cost of 6 C/GJ compared to methanol. Finally, navies could consider a two-fuel strategy: sail on methanol during operations with limited autonomy, typically in peace time, and operate on diesel during operations with high autonomy, during war time operations. In this case the design needs to include both diesel and methanol fuel systems and additional space for methanol safety measures. In order to more exactly quantify the impact of methanol on the design, a concept design iteration is required, which is identified as research for future work.@en