LCS and other Littoral Warfare vessels

[buglerbilly]

GD May Break Up LCS Team

U.S. Navy's Acquisition Rules Force Changes

By christopher p. cavas

Published: 11 January 2010

The partnership between General Dynamics and Austal USA that has produced one of the two contenders for the U.S. Navy's Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) is preparing to break up - a reaction to the Navy's increased push for multiple layers of competition in the program.

The move is expected to position GD to build further LCS ships in one of its own shipyards, regardless of the outcome when, later this year, the Navy chooses between the GD LCS design and one from a Lockheed Martin-led team.

GD, through its Bath Iron Works subsidiary, is the prime contractor on the LCS bid, allied with shipbuilder Austal USA in Mobile, Ala. The partnership, formed to compete for the 2004 LCS program, saw Bath, with more than a century of experience building naval ships, overseeing relative newcomer Austal USA, a subsidiary of Australia's Austal shipbuilding company. GD's LCS proposal is based on an all-aluminum commercial ferry design from Austal.

All along, GD has planned to expand LCS construction to one of its own shipyards - Bath's yard in Maine or the National Steel and Shipbuilding Company (NASSCO) facility in San Diego - whenever LCS production ramped up. The Navy had planned to buy unspecified numbers of each team's LCS, but in September the service changed its acquisition strategy to a single-design downselect - a decision expected to come in late spring or early summer.

But with the single-design switch, the Navy also now wants a second-supplier shipyard that can't be associated with the primary builder. That would mean that, should the Navy choose GD's LCS, the company's shipyards would be excluded from bidding to become the second shipyard. As a result, GD and Austal USA are prepared to split up their partnership.

No final decisions have been made, as the companies are waiting to see the Navy's latest Request for Proposals (RfP), expected to be released in mid-January. The RfP already has been delayed several weeks to allow the Navy to react to industry responses from a preliminary RfP issued last fall.

It is not clear what effect the shipyard breakup would have on GD's Advanced Information Systems (AIS) division, which designed the combat system for the ships.

Officials from General Dynamics, Austal USA and the Navy declined to comment on the story, citing its speculative or preliminary nature.

A Beautiful Friendship

The looming breakup of the GD-Austal USA partnership is coming, ironically, with relations between the two companies at a high point. Tensions were strained beginning with the October 2005 contract award of the partnership's first LCS, the Independence. Bath officials, experienced at building large steel warships such as the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, chafed at the methods used by Austal, a company specializing in all-aluminum ship construction. The LCS program also was Austal's first experience with the U.S. Navy as a customer, while GD has long been one of the Navy's top ship suppliers. Construction of the Independence experienced numerous problems - including program and first-of-class problems that also plagued Lockheed's Freedom under construction at Marinette Marine in Wisconsin - but also issues associated with Austal's inexperience.

But Austal USA has made a number of fundamental changes, turning over its top management, building an entirely new manufacturing facility and winning the contract to build as many as 10 high-speed ferries for the U.S. Army and Navy. Navy officials have been pleased with what they've seen at Mobile, and so far, production of the partnership's second LCS is proceeding much more smoothly.

GD initially envisioned Bath as the second LCS facility, since the yard, which has specialized since 1993 in building Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, needed future work, both because the Burke production run was coming to an end and because the planned number of follow-on Zumwalt DDG 1000-class destroyers declined in recent years. But in 2008, when the Navy capped the number of Zumwalts at three, the service also decided to reopen the Burke line, and it now appears there will be plenty of Burkes or similar follow-on designs to bid on.


New Role for NASSCO?

That development shifted the case of the GD yard with perhaps the greatest need for new contracts to NASSCO, which next month will deliver to the Navy the ninth T-AKE dry cargo ship. But only five more T-AKEs remain to build, and this year the company will wrap up construction of five Jones Act commercial tankers. The southern California yard has made a number of infrastructure improvements, taken over more land transferred from the Navy and forged what is regarded as a strong management team. Since the 1960s, the yard has built auxiliary ships for the Navy and in the 1970s built most of the Newport-class LST landing ships. It has never built surface combatants.

Sources said no internal decisions have been made at GD about focusing the next round of LCS construction at NASSCO or Bath.

Austal USA is working to finish up the Independence. The LCS was delivered to the Navy last month and will be commissioned Jan. 16 at Mobile. ■

[buglerbilly]

Inside LCS 2

Aluminum Glitters Within 2nd Variant

By christopher p. cavas

Published: 11 January 2010

MOBILE, Ala. - Inside and out, the new USS Independence is like few other warships ever put into service by the U.S. Navy. The severe angles of the unpainted aluminum trimaran give way inside to a spacious interior covered by aluminum-foil-like fire protection cladding - which gives one the sense of being surrounded by a foil burrito wrapper.

The relatively few interior working spaces in the pyramidal superstructure are connected by wide passageways and stairwells - not ladders - reflecting the design's origin as a commercial ferry. Unusual for a naval ship, some stairwells even turn corners, as in a landlocked building.

The vast flight deck that tops the after third of this 417-foot-long ship is almost 90 feet wide and is the biggest ever fitted to a surface combatant. The large hangar features two roller doors, has great interior height and is able to house two H-60 helicopters. On the starboard side of the hangar, a vehicle elevator leads down to the mission bay, the ship's primary payload area.

The mission bay is one of the key features of the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) concept, which envisions a ship able to move at speeds of more than 45 knots that can take on extra equipment tailored to specific missions such as anti-surface or anti-submarine warfare, all packaged into mission modules. The Independence design, adapted by General Dynamics Bath Iron Works from a high-speed commercial ferry design from the Australian firm Austal, features a hull described variously as a three-hull trimaran or a monohull supported by outriggers. Either way, the configuration has never before been used for a U.S. warship.

The mission bay is about the width of six highway traffic lanes, split into thirds fore-and-aft by steel supports. The space would seem to have no trouble simultaneously housing two of the planned mission modules.

During a Jan. 4 visit to the Independence, shipyard workers from Austal USA swarmed the ship, even though the Navy took delivery Dec. 18 and the commissioning ceremony is to take place here Jan. 16. Rear Adm. James Murdoch, the Navy's LCS program manager, acknowledged work will continue past the commissioning date, including, for example, work on the stern doors at the rear of the mission bay and on the overhead cradle system that will be used to launch and recover waterborne vehicles.

"Those will be tested in the future, after sailaway from the yard," Murdoch said.

Although the Independence began initial sea trials in early July and has been underway numerous times - at speeds up to 46 knots - those voyages were crewed by civilian mariners hired by shipbuilder Austal USA. The ship's two Navy crews - Blue and Gold - are eager to take the ship to sea, said Cmdr. Curt Renshaw, commanding officer of the Blue Crew. But much of the ship's equipment still needs to be certified for operation, he said, and sailors will then need to be qualified. That means the ship likely won't get underway manned by a Navy crew until late February or more likely March.

The Navy was keeping a tight lid on visits to the ship but relaxed those rules after the ship's delivery. A small group of reporters was among the first media to get a good look inside the ship.

The wide bridge area on the O4 level is surrounded on three sides by large windows more akin to a cruise liner than a gray warship. The ship control stations are in the center, up close to the glass: side-by-side seats and consoles for use by the officer of the deck and the readiness control coordinator or junior officer of the deck. The two watchstanders can use either left or right seats according to preference. Each has a multifunction joystick that is also the ship's helm.

Between the two positions are controls for the two gas turbines and two diesels that each power a steerable water jet. A fifth control operates a drop-down azimuthing bow thruster.

Sitting between the two and behind them is a third seat for a tactical awareness coordinator - essentially, Renshaw said, a third set of hands on the bridge who can handle a variety of duties. The commanding officer has his seat in the traditional forward starboard corner location.

The area behind the control positions is filled by Interior Communications Center No. 1 (ICC1), a combat information center-like set of consoles complemented by a similar ICC2 below on the O1 level. Although the ICCs have interchangeable functionality, ICC1 on the bridge will be used primarily for ship-related functions such as self-defense, navigation and the engineering watch, while ICC2 will be dedicated for use by the mission module detachments. A curtain can close off ICC1 from the bridge watch.

The ICCs also function as the ship's central damage control and machinery control centers, and the ship's internal computer network allows laptop control from dozens of drops throughout the vessel. With the right access codes, for example, any laptop connected to the network can control the ship, including engineering and navigation functions.

No exterior bridge wings are provided; as a high-speed ship, the Independence is meant to be handled from inside. Toward the rear of each side of the bridge, there is a large roll-down window from which a sailor can stick his head out to peer forward or aft or down to the water. A set of halyards leads to a bar just outside the window, and an aluminum flag bag for signal flags lies just inside. Forward, all anchor- and line-handling arrangements are inside the bow.

The narrow bow forward of the bridge - not meant to be regularly accessed while the ship is underway - features an enclosure for the future Non-Line-of-Sight surface-to-surface missile battery and, ahead of that, an automatic 57mm gun mount. Forward of the gun, the deck drops off precipitously to the prow, which is not visible from the bridge. Video cameras on the bow and around the ship give the watch a topside view.

Two machinery rooms in the central hull each contain a General Electric LM 2500 gas turbine and MTU 8000 diesel. The outer hulls carry little gear and are mostly void space, Renshaw said. Two damage control stations are provided, both on the port side at each end of the mission bay. A small boat deck on the port quarter carries one rigid-hull inflatable boat.

The mess deck and wardroom share a common galley, and individual berths - though not the staterooms - are large and roomy, big enough for a sailor to sit up, stretch his arms and work on a fold-down tray table that can hold a laptop. The big, double-high racks are designed to give way to triple-highs should the need arise to increase berthing space.

On sailaway, the Independence is expected to head to Norfolk, Va., for more tests and trials before eventually going westward to its future homeport of San Diego, Calif.

There are many similarities and dissimilarities between the GD's Independence design and that of the first LCS, Freedom, from Lockheed Martin. Sometime this spring or summer, the Navy will choose one of the designs as the basis for 51 more LCS ships. ■

[buglerbilly]

Mission Packages Key to LCS Capabilities

(Source: US Navy; issued Jan. 13, 2010

MOBILE, Ala. --- The littoral combat ship (LCS) is revolutionary in its use of modularity and open-architecture to ensure it is able to adapt to the ever-changing threat environment.

"LCS has some core capabilities, but it is largely self-defensive," said Capt. Michael Good, program manager, LCS Mission Modules. "The embarkable mission package augments the sea-frame and gives LCS offensive capabilities in three focused mission areas: mine countermeasures, anti-submarine warfare and surface warfare."

"We're more versatile," said Lt. Cmdr. James Schmitt, the pilot of an MH-60S helicopter that arrived aboard Pre-Commissioning Unit Independence (LCS 2) Jan. 12. "It is part of the master plan to incorporate more capabilities into fewer platforms." Schmitt said the helicopter is specifically designed for the mine countermeasures mission, but it is still able to support other needs the ship may have.

The MH-60S, from Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama City Division, along with mine countermeasure equipment from LCS Mine Countermeasures (MCM) Detachment 1, represents a mission package that can be assembled to meet the specific and changing demands of the maritime strategy.

Mineman 1st Class Ricardo Contreras, who served on a mine countermeasures ship and is now as part of the LCS MCM detachment, was impressed with the improvements.

"Since the mission module allows us to be on an LCS, we can go where we need to go a lot quicker and the unmanned vehicles allow us to reduce the risk necessary to accomplish the mission."

LCS is a fast, agile, mission-focused ship that demonstrates the latest in naval warfighting technology. The ship is specifically designed to defeat "anti-access" threats in shallow, coastal water regions, including fast surface craft, quiet diesel submarines, and mines. To meet the combatant commander's increased demand for mission-tailored forces packages, LCS features an interchangeable modular design that allows the ship to be reconfigured to meet mission requirements.

Independence will be commissioned Jan. 16 in Mobile, Ala. Following commissioning, Independence will conduct further testing and evaluation before eventually heading toward its homeport in San Diego.

-ends-

[geof]

These are positive reports, how do theye compare against one's for' Freedom'...???
So will we be running a book for the winner :-)...??

[buglerbilly]

Austal combat ship joins US Navy

January 18, 2010 - 9:39AM

Austal Ltd's high-speed trimaran Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) has joined the US Navy as the ship builder expects a request by early next month for the next phase of the program.

The USS Independence was commissioned at a ceremony near Austal's facility near Mobile, Alabama, on Sunday, the Perth-based ship-builder said in a statement on Monday.

Austal also said it expected to receive proposal requests from the US Navy early next month for the next phase of the LCS program, with the contract expected to be awarded by the end of the US 2010 fiscal year in September.

The US Navy has said it intends to award a contract for up to 10 LCS vessels, with two ships in fiscal 2010 and options through to 2014.

The US Defense budget includes $US1.38 billion ($A1.5 billion) to buy two vessels in 2010 and a cost cap of $US480 million for additional ships. The LCS fleet is expected to eventually reach 55.

Austal, which gets about 50 per cent of the sale of each ship, is the vessel designer and builder on the General Dynamics consortium, one of two teams bidding for the LCS program.

The 127 metre USS Independence will serve as a fast and agile ship designed for operation in near-shore environments to defeat "asymmetric" threats such as mines, quiet diesel submarines and fast surface craft.

It can travel 4,300 miles at 18 knots, has three weapon zones and has a flight deck larger than any surface combatant ships other than aircraft carriers. It has a maximum speed of more than 45 knots.

"USS Independence is a new generation of combat ship," Austal chief executive Bob Browning said in the statement.

"This technological leap in naval warfare will deliver significant advantages, not only in terms of increased capability, but also through vastly reduced operating costs over the life of the vessel."

Construction is under way on the second Littoral Combat ship, Coronado, expected to be delivered in 2012.

Austal USA also is building the first joint high speed vessel, Fortitude.

Austal will build up to 10 of the 103 metre ships by 2013, each for the US Navy and Army.

© 2010 AAP

[buglerbilly]

CNO Speaks at LCS 2 Commissioning in Mobile

(Source: US Navy; issued January 16, 2010)

MOBILE, Ala. --- Chief of naval operations (CNO) helped welcome the newest Littoral Combat Ship USS Independence (LCS 2) to the fleet at its commissioning ceremony in Mobile, Ala., Jan. 16.

CNO, Adm. Gary Roughead, spoke at the ceremony about the mission capabilities and the role USS Independence will have helping the Navy continue to be a global force for good.

"LCS will have the capability…to secure the littoral regions upon which communities rely on for food, transportation and for their well-being," said Roughead, "and to protect critical chokepoints in the global supply chain, to launch unmanned air, underwater and surface vehicles that will keep our trade at sea and our men and women ashore safe from harm."

Roughead went on to point out the impact this new class of ship will have on future naval operations.

"What this ship class will do, because of its modular capabilities, its speed, its shallow draft …will take the banner of American independence to the seas and shores of every continent and ensure the freedom and security of the seas upon which all nations rely," said Roughead.

CNO recognized the Sailors of the blue and gold crews aboard Independence who brought her to life, saying the commissioning could never have happened had it not been for their hard work and commitment.

"There are no two crews who are more important to this ship in its lifetime than yours. The standards that you set, the tone you will create will be with this ship forever." said Roughead.

Independence is the first LCS Independence Class vessel and is the second LCS ship to be commissioned, following USS Freedom (LCS 1). The new naval ship's design is to produce a highly technological and capable vessel, while promoting increased accuracy of maritime strategy operating close to shore.

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

UPDATE 3-US Navy releases final terms for coastal warships

Tue Jan 26, 2010 6:50pm EST

* Bids said due March 29
* Companies studying the rules
* Analyst concerned about program affordability

By Andrea Shalal-Esa WASHINGTON, Jan 26 (Reuters) -

The U.S. Navy released the final terms for a multibillion-dollar competition between General Dynamics Corp (GD.N) and Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) to design a new class of fast shallow-water warships. Industry executives said on Tuesday they received the final request for proposals for the Littoral Combat Ship program and will study the document before finalizing bids for a contract valued at more than $5 billion through 2014.

The Navy set a March 29 deadline for bids, said one source familiar with the document who was not authorized to speak publicly about the matter. The Navy, which expects to buy 55 of the new ships overall, said only that the document was released to industry on Tuesday and that proposals were due in March.

Top Navy officials are pressing for a quick contract award, possibly by June or July. The competition will decide whether the Navy proceeds with a steel monohull design built by Lockheed and Wisconsin-based shipyard Marinette Marine, or an aluminum three-hulled design built by General Dynamics and its Australian partner, Austal Ltd (ASB.AX).

The Navy plans to award a winner-take-all contract for two ships in fiscal-year 2010, plus options on eight more ships through 2014. The contract will also include separate combat systems for five additional ships to be built by a second source after a separate competition in fiscal 2012. Regardless of which design wins, the Navy says the new class of warships will dramatically shift the way the Navy operates, featuring Interchangeable mission packages to hunt for mines, fight pirates or other enemies in small boats, track enemy submarines, or provide disaster relief. The U.S. Navy initially planned to buy ships from both
teams and had already ordered two ships of each design, but officials decided last September to pick just one design to save money in the longer term.

Ronald O'Rourke of the Congressional Research Service told lawmakers last week the Navy's reported 30-year shipbuilding plan raised questions about affordability of the LCS program. The ships are subject to a congressional cost cap of $480 million per ship, but the Navy's reported plan shows a cost of close to $600 million for each ship, O'Rourke said. He said the plan also showed the Navy buying just two of the new ships a year starting in fiscal-year 2018, after it brings in a second shipyard to build them, which suggested the Navy could eventually settle on just one shipyard after all.

Maintaining production of four LCS ships a year would wind up the 55-ship program in fiscal-year 2023, in line with Navy statements about the urgency of getting the LCS ships into the fleet to close gaps in its capabilities.

Lawmakers have also raised concerns that the Navy's acquisition strategy does not factor in the longer-term fuel, construction and other costs of operating the new ships. The Navy has said both ship designs meet its requirements and the competition will be decided largely on procurement cost. Lockheed's first LCS ship, Freedom, will be deployed two Years ahead of schedule.

Lockheed said it was "acutely aware of the Navy's emphasis on affordability" and already cut labor costs on its second ship by 30 percent under a fixed-price contract that was on cost and on schedule. "We anticipate improving on that in the future," said a spokeswoman for the company. General Dynamics cited the successful commissioning of its first ship, Independence, on Jan. 16, and said it had begun work on its second LCS ship. General Dynamics spokesman Jim DeMartini said the company would be analyzing the final request for proposals over the next weeks.

"Given the nature of the competition, we won't be commenting until the proposals are wrapped up," he said.

(Reporting by Andrea Shalal-Esa; Editing by Steve Orlofsky,
Phil Berlowitz and Matthew Lewis)

[buglerbilly]

Center for Surface Combat Systems Provides Training to Support Navy's Newest Ship

(Source: US Navy; issued Jan. 26, 2010)

PENSACOLA, Fla. --- Six years of training program development came to fruition when the second ship in the revolutionary Littoral Combat Ship class, USS Independence (LCS 2) was commissioned in Mobile, Ala., Jan. 16.

The Center for Surface Combat Systems (CSCS), part of the Naval Education and Training Command (NETC), played a significant role in the ship's development by leading the LCS Program training plan that will enable the ship's crew to conduct global operations in support of the Maritime Strategy.

A 419-foot aluminum trimaran, Independence is the first of its design in the surface fleet. The ship is part of an innovative manning construct that reduces crew size, demanding each Sailor maintain high levels of proficiency in multiple fields. Although about the same physical size as a traditional Navy frigate with a crew of 200, the Independence is staffed by a crew of only 40 Sailors that can be augmented by detachment specialists for specific missions.

"LCS is the future of our surface Navy," said Vice Adm. D. C. Curtis, commander, Naval Surface Forces. "This program will complement the strengths of larger warships. LCS will be a deterrent of green and brown water threats; the flexibility, versatility, and smart design of Independence make it well suited for joint operations."

"The development of LCS training to enable the ship's capabilities has truly been a cross-enterprise project," said Capt. Stephen Hampton, the second of two CSCS commanding officers to oversee the LCS training project. "Capt. Roger 'Rick' Easton, who I relieved, was the first. He and our CSCS team laid the groundwork for the new LCS training construct, definitions, requirements, and training pipelines. My challenge has been to take the foundation that Capt. Easton laid, and refine those training requirements, as well as introduce system-centric procedures that can be measured with qualification metrics, measures, and standards. It was critical to identify training systems that support a continuum across the range of required maintenance, operations, and employment skills and abilities so that our Sailors are prepared to fight and win."

To ensure LCS Sailors are well-prepared to operate their revolutionary platforms, an LCS training pipeline was developed to teach fundamental systems knowledge. The pipeline is already proving effective for the crew of USS Freedom (LCS 1), scheduled to deploy next month a full two years ahead of schedule. LCS systems training commenced for Independence's rotational blue and gold crews in 2005.

Since the inception of training, CSCS learning sites have provided operations, combat, and weapon systems training totaling more than 2,900 training days to Independence crewmembers. This equates to more than one-fourth of all the training received by Independence crewmembers.

A Train-to-Qualify (T2Q) process was defined that connects the initial LCS training model to Personnel Qualification Standards (PQS). T2Q is a new concept for the surface force that shifts qualification training from the ship to shore training, meaning that LCS Sailors report aboard ready to stand their watch and execute assigned duties.

"LCS 2 PQS is different from PQS on traditional ships, by removing subjectivity," said Hampton. "It employs Objective Measures, Metrics and Standards (OMMS) that require trainee performance to be measured against specific criteria and specific procedure. OMMS ensures that each trainee achieves a common standard that results in the LCS commanding officers and fleet leadership having confidence in the abilities of the new personnel they receive."

The LCS Shore-Based Training Facility (SBTF), a simulator operated by CSCS, is the final step in the LCS Train to Qualify process. Robert Shifflet, director of training at facility, and his team of nine instructors administer LCS Capstone Training.

"The training is unique," said Shifflet. "The simulator is designed to look and feel like an LCS ship's bridge while maneuvering at sea. It integrates synthetic radar scenarios with a corresponding video display that creates a very life-like tactical training environment for Integrated Command Center (ICC) and bridge watchstanders.

"The fully integrated training is the first of its kind in surface warfare," added Shifflet. "It is unique in that it delivers bridge and ICC coordinated command and control procedures for platform, system, and people employment."

"The LCS class training structure, training system approach, and training process, particularly the development of high fidelity SBTFs in the Fleet Concentrate Areas (FCAs) similar to that of the aviator and submarine community, is a postitive step forward for the surface force," added Hampton. "In the future, as the training matures, LCS Sailors will be ready to operate and employ LCS systems against a more realistic set of scenarios; perhaps better than any other class in surface ship history."

-ends

[Riđđu]

Kazakhstan looks to buy Korean ships



The Kazakh Navy Capt. Zhanzakov Zhandarbek is expected to discuss possible plans for importing more patrol ships from South Korea during his visit here this week, according to military sources.

Seoul has yet to describe the exact nature of the ships, as negotiations are ongoing, but officials close to the matter said they would be "high-speed" patrol ships similar to the new Yoon Young-ha class.

The official agreement is likely to be signed when Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev visits Seoul in April.

This is not the first time that South Korea has exported ships to the Central Asian country.

In March 2006, Seoul sold three retired patrol ships of the Chamsuri class to Kazakhstan.

The ships were decommissioned in December 2004 after operating in South Korean waters for over two decades.

This time, the Kazakh government is reportedly seeking to acquire the latest Yoon Young-ha class.

The ships were commissioned in December as the Navy's first high-speed patrol vessel equipped with an integrated combat system.

The 440-ton Yoon Young-ha class, officially called the Guided-missile Patrol Boat Killer, is the first patrol ship of over 400 tons equipped with guided missiles.

The ship's combat system is an indigenous one capable of simultaneously detecting up to 100 aerial and surface targets. It can also engage multiple targets simultaneously, according to the Agency for Defense Development, Yoon Young-ha's developer.

The latest patrol boats are to gradually replace the current Chamsuri ships. They were named after Lt. Commander Yoon Young-ha who was killed along with five others in a 2002 naval clash with North Korea in the West Sea.

Zhandarbek, who is here for a five-day visit, will be meeting with his South Korean counterpart Adm. Chung Ok-keun and a number of other military officials.

(jemmie@heraldm.com)

By Kim Ji-hyun

[buglerbilly]

LCS RfP: Cost Will Be Chief Factor

By christopher p. cavas

Published: 28 Jan 2010 19:08

The Request for Proposal (RfP) issued Jan. 26 by the U.S. Navy for the next round of bids for Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) details factors that will guide the choice later this year of a design basis for Flight 0+.

Navy officials have indicated that cost will be the foremost determining factor in their choice between a Lockheed Martin design and one from rival General Dynamics. But the RfP makes it clear a number of other criteria will be considered - chiefly technical and management factors.

Unclassified portions of the RfP were made public Jan. 28, posted on the Navy Electronic Commerce Online (NECO) Web site.

The RfP lists three primary bid items for the contract: a basic seaframe, or ship; selected ship systems equipment, consisting of weapons, sensors, computers and the ship's combat system; and the systems to handle the integration and testing of the ship's systems and equipment.

At stake is an award this year for 10 ships, including selected ship systems - two ships per year through 2014. A follow-on competition is scheduled for 2012, when a second shipyard will be chosen to build five ships over three years. A second source also will be chosen in 2012 to supply select ship systems.

Technical and management factors listed by the RfP are, in order of preference: affordability and production approach; management; technical data package adequacy, and rights in technical data and computer software; design change impact; past performance; and life-cycle cost reduction initiatives.

The guidelines also caution bidders to provide realistic price data.

"Experience in Navy programs indicates that a contract awarded to a contractor submitting an unrealistic price proposal … may cause problems for the Navy as well as the contractor during contract performance," the RfP reads in part.

The LCS program became a poster child for cost growth in Navy shipbuilding after the $220 million ships contracted for by the Navy in 2004 more than tripled in cost. The inability of either contractor to meet a congressional cost cap of $480 million for each of the new ships led the service in September to drop plans to buy both variants. Instead, the Navy took up a new plan to buy only one design, hoping to find economies in standardization and quantity orders.

The RfP lists technical management as "approximately equal in importance" to price and cost as the chief factors in determining a winner. However, it cautioned, "the importance of overall evaluated price/cost as an evaluation factor will increase with the degree of equality in technical/management between competing proposals."

[Grey Havoc]

Not a bad looking boat.


Kazakhstan looks to buy Korean ships



The Kazakh Navy Capt. Zhanzakov Zhandarbek is expected to discuss possible plans for importing more patrol ships from South Korea during his visit here this week, according to military sources.

Seoul has yet to describe the exact nature of the ships, as negotiations are ongoing, but officials close to the matter said they would be "high-speed" patrol ships similar to the new Yoon Young-ha class.

The official agreement is likely to be signed when Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev visits Seoul in April.

This is not the first time that South Korea has exported ships to the Central Asian country.

In March 2006, Seoul sold three retired patrol ships of the Chamsuri class to Kazakhstan.

The ships were decommissioned in December 2004 after operating in South Korean waters for over two decades.

This time, the Kazakh government is reportedly seeking to acquire the latest Yoon Young-ha class.

The ships were commissioned in December as the Navy's first high-speed patrol vessel equipped with an integrated combat system.

The 440-ton Yoon Young-ha class, officially called the Guided-missile Patrol Boat Killer, is the first patrol ship of over 400 tons equipped with guided missiles.

The ship's combat system is an indigenous one capable of simultaneously detecting up to 100 aerial and surface targets. It can also engage multiple targets simultaneously, according to the Agency for Defense Development, Yoon Young-ha's developer.

The latest patrol boats are to gradually replace the current Chamsuri ships. They were named after Lt. Commander Yoon Young-ha who was killed along with five others in a 2002 naval clash with North Korea in the West Sea.

Zhandarbek, who is here for a five-day visit, will be meeting with his South Korean counterpart Adm. Chung Ok-keun and a number of other military officials.

(jemmie@heraldm.com)

By Kim Ji-hyun

[buglerbilly]

The first Littoral Combat Ship, USS Freedom, sails from Mayport, Florida, on her maiden deployment, approximately two years ahead of schedule. (US Navy photo)

Nation's First Littoral Combat Ship Departs For Maiden Deployment

(Source: Lockheed Martin; issued February 16, 2010)

MAYPORT, Fla. --- The nation's first Littoral Combat Ship, USS Freedom (LCS 1), departed from Naval Station Mayport, FL, today for its maiden deployment, approximately two years ahead of schedule.

The agile 378-foot USS Freedom, designed and built by a Lockheed Martin-led industry team, will deploy to the Southern Command area of responsibility.

"We congratulate the USS Freedom and her crew on their maiden deployment as this new class of Littoral Combat Ships begins to fulfill important global security missions," said Lockheed Martin Chairman and CEO Bob Stevens.

"Her quality and proven performance enabled Freedom's deployment two years ahead of schedule, a significant accomplishment in naval shipbuilding. As we compete to build additional ships for the U.S. Navy, the Lockheed Martin team remains focused on delivering an affordable surface combatant with the flexibility to provide security close to shore and on the open seas."

USS Freedom (LCS 1) is the first of 55 the Navy plans for a new class of ships designed to operate in coastal waters. The ship's capabilities have been demonstrated since delivered to the U.S. Navy in 2008. Freedom has sailed more than 10,000 nm, successfully completed sea trials and demonstrated performance of combat, communications and other critical systems.

Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin is a global security company that employs about 140,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services. The Corporation reported 2009 sales of $45.2 billion.

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

Freedom Gets Underway For Maiden Deployment

(Source: U.S Navy; issued February 17, 2010)

MAYPORT, Fla. --- The Navy's first littoral combat ship, USS Freedom (LCS 1), left Naval Station Mayport Feb. 16 for her maiden operational deployment to the U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) and U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM) areas of focus.

During the independent deployment, Freedom will participate in counter-illicit trafficking (CIT) operations off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of Central and South America and the Caribbean Sea. A U.S. Coast Guard Law Enforcement Detachment (LEDET) is embarked aboard Freedom to facilitate CIT operations.

In addition, Freedom is scheduled to make theater security cooperation (TSC) port visits in Colombia, Mexico and Panama.

Rear Adm. Vic Guillory, commander, U.S. Naval Forces Southern Command and U.S. 4th Fleet, made a point to personally send off the crew of Freedom, commenting that their sacrifice and hard work in preparing the ship to deploy early is in itself worth recognizing.

"We are very excited about what LCS brings to the operational mission – not only its inherent capabilities – its sprint speed, modularity, and tremendous amount of automation…but its new tailored surface warfare mission package as well as its airborne use of force capabilities and the LEDET, will be key enablers to the CIT and TSC mission with our partner nation navies," said Guillory.

In addition to the Coast Guard LEDET, embarked aboard Freedom are Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron (HSC) 22, Detachment 2, based in Norfolk, Va., and the first tailored LCS Surface Warfare Mission Package (SUW MP), based in San Diego.

"The Freedom Gold, Aviation Detachment and our Mission Package Sailors have been working hard to see Freedom deploy and join the fleet as an operational unit," said Cmdr. Randy Garner, commanding officer of Freedom's Gold Crew. "It is a privilege to work with the quality Sailors in this program, and we are excited at the opportunities we will have in the 4th Fleet region to show off Freedom's unique capabilities."

Freedom, the first ship of the revolutionary LCS program, is a fast, agile, mission-focused ship that demonstrates the latest in naval warfighting technology. The LCS is specifically designed to defeat "anti-access" threats in shallow, coastal water regions, including quiet diesel submarines, fast surface craft and mines.

Freedom's TSC activities during the deployment will center on working closely with partner nation civil and maritime forces, building upon already strong relations and interoperability and enhancing maritime security in the region.

Freedom's deployment will conclude when she arrives at her new homeport of San Diego this spring.

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

Northrop Considers Bid for U.S. Navy's LCS

By christopher p. cavas, Defense News

Published: 4 Mar 2010 05:17

Northrop Grumman is examining both competing Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) designs with an eye to possibly bidding as a second-source shipyard to build the small, fast warships for the U.S. Navy, the company's top shipbuilder said Wednesday.

"We're interested, we're looking at both programs," Mike Petters, head of Northrop Grumman shipbuilding, told Congress towards the end of a shipbuilding hearing before the House Armed Services seapower subcommittee. "We are doing evaluations of our fit on either program," he said.

The statement was thought to be the first time Northrop has publicly expressed interest in returning to the LCS program as a shipbuilder since the company lost out in the early stages of the competition. A different sector of Northrop manages the integration of the program's mission packages.

Northrop already builds more different kinds of ships for the Navy than any other shipbuilder, including all of the service's aircraft carriers and amphibious ships, half its submarines and about half of its surface warships.

Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics are competing for the LCS downselect, expected to take place early this summer. At stake is an initial award for 10 ships. Another competition - the one being considered by Northrop - will be held for a second-source supplier to build a batch of five ships.

Four ships already have been built or are under construction. The plans are to buy a 55-ship LCS force.

Petters and David Heebner, head of General Dynamics' shipyards, appeared together before the seapower subcommittee. The executives each said that the current Navy shipbuilding plan does not have enough ships to sustain the six shipyards run by Northrop and GD.

A case in point, each executive said, is the DDG 51 destroyer program in which both companies take part. The program, which has been in place for more than 20 years, saw each company gaining ever-increasing efficiencies in building the ships. But a restart of the program might not see those same efficiencies, the shipbuilders warned.

"I don't know how the Navy expects us to maintain two competitive yards," Heebner said. "Let us compete for the ships," rather than share in the construction.

"There's not sufficient volume in the [shipbuilding] plan today to have a healthy competition," Petters said. "If the expectation is we can achieve what we did before, I would agree with my compatriot that volume is not sufficient to warrant that."

[buglerbilly]

CSBA Released A New Report: Littoral Combat Ship: An Examination of Its Possible Concepts of Operations

(Source: Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments; issued March 3, 2010)

The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) has just released a new report Littoral Combat Ship: An Examination of Its Possible Concepts of Operations by Martin Murphy.

The report considers the most effective uses of the Littoral Combat Ships and offers possible inputs on the ships’ projected missions, ways in which they could be employed, their distinguishing characteristics and additional missions could they accomplish with certain modifications.

“Despite some conceptual work by various Navy organizations such as Third Fleet and Navy Warfare Development Command (NWDC), there is rather little understanding of what these ships may, or should, be able to do once they are out in the Fleet in numbers. While much will no doubt be learned from future operational testing, evaluation, and experimentation, prior to undertaking these activities it is useful to consider what concepts of operation may best leverage the LCS’s capabilities,” said CSBA President Andrew Krepinevich.

According to the report’s author Martin Murphy, Senior Fellow at CSBA, “the LCS can undertake many of the missions that have often been assigned to frigates in the past but it can potentially do more than frigates can. However, the ship’s potential and its operational parameters will only be understood once the ship been tested and evaluated by the fleet. The intention of this report is to make a helpful contribution to this process.”

Click here for the full report (84 pages in PDF format) on the CSBA website.

http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/PubLibrary/R.20100303.Littoral_Combat_Sh/R.20100303.Littoral_Combat_Sh.pdf

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

Austal to act as prime contractor for US ships

The West Australian

March 5, 2010, 8:24 am

Dennis Griggs / Photos by Dennis Griggs ©

WA shipbuilder Austal has changed its partnership arrangement with Bath Iron Works, a subsidiary of General Dynamics, in its bid to build 10 US Navy Littoral Combat Ships.

Austal said the companies had agreed to revoke their current teaming arrangements in a "strategic decision" that would allow Austal USA to act as prime contractor in the upcoming bid.

BIW will continue as prime contractor on the second LCS ship, which is under construction at Austal's US shipyard and due for completion in 2012.

A contract for two of the vessels, with options for another eight, is expected to be awarded by the end of financial year 2009-10.

Austal said the US Navy had an additional contract for five vessels to be awarded in financial year 2011-12 would not be given to the same contractor as the 10-ship contract, which would allow BIW to potentially bid for it.

General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems would continue as the systems integrator as a sub contractor, Austal said.

At 8.25am Austal shares were flat at $2.40.

[buglerbilly]

Full report including statements..........

GD and Austal Split Up To Bid on LCS

By christopher p. cavas

Published: 4 Mar 2010 20:38

Shipbuilding partners Austal USA and General Dynamics have agreed to revoke their teaming arrangement on the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program - a move that positions Austal to bid as a prime contractor on this year's bid for 10 LCS ships for the U.S. Navy, and allows GD to go after another five ships to be awarded in 2012.


Austal USA and General Dynamics delivered the LCS Independence to the U.S. Navy in December 2009. (Dennis Griggs / General Dynamics)

"We are now acting as prime going forward on the LCS program," Austal president Joseph Rella told Defense News March 4.

The announcement was first made through the ASX Australian Securities Exchange Friday morning Australian time. Austal USA's parent company, Austal, is headquartered in Henderson, Western Australia.

The move - first reported in January to be in the works - is a direct response to a new acquisition strategy announced by Navy officials last September. Navy acquisition chief Sean Stackley, in a bid to increase competitive elements in the LCS program, declared the Navy would choose between a steel-hull design offered by Lockheed Martin and an aluminum trimaran from the GD/Austal USA team. An initial award to one shipyard of two ships with options for eight more is to be followed in two years by a five-ship award to a second-source shipyard. The new hitch - the second shipyard could have no affiliation with the first.

That set the stage for the GD/Austal split, since GD all along has wanted to build LCS ships in its Bath, Maine, shipyard. Recently, the company has been considering LCS construction at its National Steel and Shipbuilding Company (NASSCO) yard in San Diego, which needs orders for new ships. But the Navy's new rules would prohibit GD's yards from building LCS ships should the service choose the trimaran design and the partnership continue.

The split positions either Bath Iron Works or NASSCO to bid on the five-ship offering in 2012.

General Dynamics has no intention of bidding on the 10-ship award to be issued this year, said spokesman Jim DeMartini.

Both companies will continue their original relationship with GD as prime contractor to complete the Coronado (LCS 4), the second LCS being produced by the partners. The team's first ship, Independence (LCS 2), was delivered to the Navy in December.

GD's Advanced Information Systems (AIS) division will continue as a team partner and become a subcontractor to Austal to handle systems integration.

Austal, Coming of Age

The split is seen as a further coming-of-age development for Austal USA, established in 1999 at Mobile, Ala. The company has built several aluminum ships for commercial customers and won a competition in 2008 to build the Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV) for both the U.S. Army and Navy. Those ships are being constructed in a new, state-of-the-art facility in Mobile that can be doubled in size should the company win further orders.

"We feel that being awarded the prime on the Joint High-Speed Vessel was a significant statement by the Navy that we are able to be prime on major acquisition programs," Rella said. "The fact that the Navy has stated that any member of the team on either bidder would be suitable as a prime contractor further affirms Austal's position as a mature and stable shipbuilder ready to take on a U.S. naval combatant."

The relationship between Austal, experienced at building high-speed aluminum ships for commercial customers, and GD's Bath Iron Works, one of the U.S. Navy's oldest and most experienced shipbuilders, has not always been comfortable, but both companies have stressed in recent months that those difference have largely been worked out.

"The reason this happened was not because of a falling-out," Rella said.

"The word 'revoke' has a negative connotation, but [the relationship] was anything but that," he said. "We had a very symbiotic relationship where we also learned from GD/BIW, and GD/AIS for that matter. And we feel that our commercial derivatives have shown BIW that there are efficiencies associated with commercial shipbuilding that can be applied to U.S. naval construction."

David Heebner, head of GD's three shipyards, did not reveal the new relationship while speaking with a reporter Wednesday evening after he appeared before Congress; he characterized the relationship between GD and Austal as "terrific."

"I think if you talk to them, you talk to us, you'd get either one of us to say we've had a terrific relationship," Heebner said. "We've learned from them, they've learned from us in the process. We've certainly helped them in the context of building warships, which is not really where they came from.

"I know we did something good together. So we'll have this marriage between us and Austal for a very long time because we did something good together," Heebner said.

As to whether Bath or NASSCO would build the LCS, Heebner said, "I have multiple shipyards within General Dynamics capable of building either one of those ships."

Appearing before Congress with Heebner, Mike Petters, Northrop Grumman's top shipbuilding executive, confirmed Wednesday that Northrop, which is not now involved as a shipbuilder in the LCS program, is considering bidding in the 2012 competition, regardless of which design is chosen.

"That demonstrates there is nothing exotic, nothing to prevent other shipyards from building our variant of the LCS," Rella said in reaction to that news. "It demonstrates that the industrial capability exists for a robust competition for a second-source shipbuilder."

Final bids in the LCS competition are expected to be delivered to the Navy by April 12. The service will announce its decision in late spring or early summer, Stackley said.

Ultimately the Navy plans to build a 55-ship LCS fleet, although the service projects to buy more than 60 of the ships over the next 30 years, including replacements for the earliest ships. ■

Full Text: General Dynamics Statement On Its LCS Team Realignment

The Navy's decision to modify its Littoral Combat Ship acquisition strategy prompted examination of the GD LCS Team's original business construct which established General Dynamics Bath Iron Works, as prime contractor, and Austal USA as the General Dynamics LCS Team's shipbuilder. Primary objectives were to determine how best to support the Navy's procurement plan while simultaneously maximizing the probability of a successful outcome for General Dynamics and Austal USA.

A mutual decision to terminate the original business arrangement between Bath Iron Works and Austal USA for the ships being procured under the Navy's current LCS solicitation was reached. This agreement enables Austal USA to respond to the Navy's current solicitation as the prime contractor for the high speed aluminum trimaran platform, with General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems continuing its role as systems integrator, while preserving Bath Iron Works' opportunity to compete in FY 12 under the Navy's current acquisition plan, to become the second source for future Littoral Combat Ships.

Under its current contract for construction of Coronado (LCS 4), Bath Iron Works will continue its role as prime contractor through delivery of that ship in 2012.

General Dynamics remains fully confident in the capability of the trimaran platform and its highly flexible core mission systems. This decision fully supports the Navy's acquisition objectives, provides for effective competition for the FY 10 ships and is in the best interests of General Dynamics.

Full Text: Austal Announcment On Its LCS Team Realignment

Austal USA and Bath Iron Works (BIW) have agreed to revoke their current teaming arrangement. This strategic decision allows Austal USA to act as Prime Contractor in the upcoming bid for 10 US Navy Littoral Combat Ships (LCS).

The US Navy is expected to award the contract for two LCSs, including options for an additional eight vessels, by the end of US FY10. In the event that Austal USA is awarded the FY10 contract, potentially worth up to US$4.8 billion, it will continue to act as Prime Contractor for future LCS bids.

General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems, which is currently the systems integrator in the program, will now subcontract to Austal USA, as it currently does in the Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV) program, providing open architecture systems that deliver better, faster and more affordable capability.

In reaction to Austal's decision to act as prime contractor for its future in the LCS program, Joe Rella, Austal USA President and Chief Operating Officer, commented, "Working with BIW, whom we hold in the highest regard as one of the best surface naval shipbuilders in the world, has enabled us to achieve a level of maturity and experience to be a Prime Shipbuilder of US Naval Combatants, and we are ready to take on this new leadership role in the LCS program."

The U.S. Navy has also determined that an additional five-ship contract, to be awarded in FY12, shall not be awarded to the same contractor as the 10-ship contract. Therefore, revoking the current agreement will allow BIW to bid as the second source LCS shipbuilder.

BIW will continue to act as Prime Contractor for Austal's second LCS, Coronado (LCS 4), which is currently under construction at Austal USA and due for completion in 2012.

The Austal-designed and built Littoral Combat Ship, USS Independence (LCS 2), officially joined the operating forces of the United States Navy at an historic commissioning ceremony held near Austal's Mobile, Alabama facility on January 18, 2010. The 127-meter all-aluminium vessel is capable of being outfitted with reconfigurable payloads (Mission Packages) which can be changed quickly to support mine countermeasure, anti-submarine and surface warfare missions. The lightweight and fuel efficient vessel has a maximum speed of more than 45 knots.

As Prime contractor, Austal was awarded the construction contract for the first 103-meter Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV), the US Department of Defense's next generation multi-use platform, in November 2008, with options for nine additional vessels expected to be exercised between FY09 and FY13. Austal received authorization from the Navy to start construction on JHSV 1 in December 2009 after completing the rigorous design in a 12-month period. On January 28, 2010, Austal was instructed by the Navy to move forward with the construction contract for the second and third JHSVs, as part of a total 10-ship program potentially worth over US$1.6 billion. Austal is teamed with General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems who will design, integrate, and test the ship's electronic systems, including an Open Architecture Computing Infrastructure, internal and external communications, electronic navigation, aviation, and armament systems.

[buglerbilly]

Containers, Motherships and Multimission Modules

Boxes as the U.S. Navy's New Vision?

By CMDR. GREG PARKER

Published: 8 March 2010

Last month, the Navy's first Littoral Combat Ship, USS Freedom, began its inaugural deployment to the Caribbean Sea and South America. Designed to address the Navy's capability gap in the "green water" near the world's land masses, or littorals, the LCS represents a change in naval design philosophy from mission-specific ships to a multi-function concept that has begun to pervade the service from top to bottom.

With its interchangeable modules - large boxes resembling rail cars tailored for specialized missions ranging from minehunting to reconnaissance - the LCS is a Swiss Army knife by design. But how this emerging multimission ethic comes together with broader, coherent formulations of naval doctrine, policy and even tactics is unclear.

While the LCS was designed from the ground up in a plug-and-play fashion, the multimission ethic has infected the larger Navy as well. Indeed, Robert Work, Navy undersecretary and spokesman for the service's most recent 30-year shipbuilding plan, has described all of the Navy's ships, from the LCS to the aircraft carriers, as boxes or capability containers able to individually deploy and act as motherships for wider congregations of vessels and aircraft, manned and unmanned.

The new, descriptive vocabulary carries hints of industry and the information age. It is scalable and tailorable to the environment; the ships aggregate, disaggregate and perform distributed operations. There is little of the chest-beating, "wooden ships and iron men" philosophical core of naval heritage here. It is more about networking than naval gunfire, more about sea bases than sinking battleships.

If John Paul Jones were alive today, he would indeed proclaim, "I have not yet begun to creatively adapt."

It is unclear yet whether Alfred Thayer Mahan, the Navy's 19th-century high priest of seapower, is rolling over in his grave. Noticeably absent in the boxes concept, after all, is talk of Mahanian capital ship battles and blue-water sea control.

What is clear is that the Navy is using the multimission mantra to address two existential issues. The first is relevance. Overshadowed by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Navy continues to argue the importance of the world's littoral regions and maritime strategy in general, especially in the context of a rising, resource-hungry China.

The second issue is one of capacity. Hampered both by the 1990s drawdown in defense funds and a striking inability to control shipbuilding costs in the last decade, the Navy operates with an inventory of approximately 285 ships, well below the 600-ship target of the 1980s and a mere shadow of the 6,700 ships it had when World War II ended.

Indeed, the LCS itself is as notorious for its cost overruns - from a planned $220 million per ship to approximately $600 million at last count - as it is famous for its new design. That's a big problem: Quantity, after all, has a quality all its own.

But if a multifunction ship mitigates the concern about quantity, the broader vision of how these boxes might work together in a new and distinct fashion has not been laid out. Somewhere in the gray area between grand maritime strategy and shipbuilding lies an emerging concept of how the Navy organizes itself and how it views itself as a fleet on the seas, especially for the low end of conflict, the uninspiring realm of piracy, drug trafficking, maritime security and disaster response.

The Navy is addressing the high end of conflict, more conventional warfare involving a near peer, with its fledgling Air-Sea Battle Doctrine, a joint effort with the Air Force. There is, however, no comparable Littoral Battle Doctrine. Naval tradition dies hard, and the Navy still deploys the majority of its assets in large, concentrated strike groups centered around major capital ships such as aircraft carriers and amphibious assault ships.

The boxes concept suggests something different is afoot, something borrowing from years of obsession with net-centric warfare. It suggests the LCS is not just an overpriced frigate, as its critics have claimed, but the harbinger of a new, modular vision for 21st-century seapower. It suggests that all these floating boxes are somehow more than just a sum of their parts.

The Freedom itself, ostensibly deploying two years earlier than planned because of "urgent combatant commander needs," is headed to the warm waters of U.S. Southern Command. Perhaps its maiden deployment is as much about publicity as it is about war fighting.

But behind all the gala fanfare lies something more fundamental that bears watching. Like the proverbial iceberg, the emerging boxes concept has only just begun to breach the surface. It may be something profound, and it may be something only passing. Whatever it is, the Navy would do well to substitute solid doctrine and detailed vision for hints, allusions and the rare quote from an interview.

Without it, the boxes concept risks remaining perpetually adrift. ■

Cmdr. Greg Parker is a U.S. Navy federal executive fellow with the 21st Century Defense Initiative, Foreign Policy. at the Brookings Institution, Washington.

[buglerbilly]

Small Boats Menace Littorals

Mar 12, 2010



By David Eshel
Tel Aviv

Regional battles and asymmetric warfare are pushing naval conflicts to the littorals, where a range of tactics that rely as much on numbers for success as firepower are evolving to threaten capital ships. Key to these tactics are small boats, which have a history of successful deployment in hit-and-run attacks against materially superior adversaries. A combination of swarming tactics, where small boats converge rapidly for hit-and-run attacks, coupled with the limited maneuverability of large vessels in littoral waters, increases the danger that small and marginally equipped naval forces pose to large targets.

Swarming tactics require light boats that rapidly coalesce to attack an enemy from multiple directions, then swiftly disperse before being countered by heavy fire.

Iran for one has practiced naval swarming for years. During the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s, the Revolutionary Guard Corps (RGC) used swarming tactics against Iraq. Iranian naval forces have lately adopted dispersed harassing assaults, but this could change if Iran decides to block shipping in the strategic Strait of Hormuz.

The RGC operates at least 1,000 speedboats. Some are in the MIG-S-1800 class (56 ft. long, 15 ft. wide and displacing 22 tons), built by Iranian Maritime Industries Group. These are armed with weapons ranging from 12.7-mm. machine guns to 23-mm. automatic cannons and unguided rocket launchers. Boghammar fast-attack craft, manufactured in Sweden but modified by the RCG, include the monohull RL-118 and RL-130-4A types (42 ft. long., 8.7-ft. beam, 2.2-ton displacement), which have a variety of weapons including large-caliber recoilless rifles, unguided rockets, rocket-propelled grenades and heavy machine guns. A new version, probably modified by the local marine industry and displayed in parades, is equipped for special operations and light-strike missions, and has broad weapon configurations including 107-mm. multiple rocket launchers on the bridge.

Between 2007 and 2008, Peykaap torpedo boats (53 ft. long, 12-ft. beam, 13.7-ton displacement) were mounting two launchers for the Kowsar antiship missile (ASM), an Iranian-modified copy of the Chinese TL-10. These boats are referred to as Tir-class IPS-16 and Peykaap II vessels. Another version of the Tir class is the larger ISP-18 (69 ft. long, 19-ft. beam, 28-ton displacement), which has a third motor and 533-mm. (21-in.) torpedo tubes. Iran has reportedly equipped Tir-class boats with Noor ASMs, Iranian copies of the Chinese C-802, a weapon that damaged the Israeli Saar-5-class missile corvette Hanit off Beirut in 2006 during the Second Lebanon War.

Maritime suicide attacks have been relatively effective, and Iran might use small boats to launch such attacks on tankers in a campaign to close the Strait of Hormuz. RGC planners have doubtless studied the USS Cole incident of October 2000, when a suicide attack launched from a 15-ft. boat killed 17 sailors and almost sank the vessel in Aden.

One region where swarming and suicide attacks threaten shipping is the Indian Ocean. The Sea Tigers are the naval force of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in Sri Lanka. They conduct attacks using small boats in swarming formations and suicide missions.

Milan Vego, a professor at the Joint Military Operations Dept. of the U.S. Naval War College, advocates new tactics for Western navies operating in shallow waters. He has written in various articles that the U.S. Navy is traditionally opposed to operating small surface combatants in peacetime, and warns that a force of the new Littoral Combat Ships, upon entering service in the next decade, would not significantly improve combat capabilities in littoral warfare.

Vego says littoral waters are ideal for fast-attack craft armed with antiship cruise missiles, torpedoes and guns. The Navy’s smallest surface combatants comprise only eight lightly armed (2 X 25-mm. guns and two machine guns), 355-ton Cyclone-class patrol craft.

Change may be afloat: The Navy continues to experiment with the highly maneuverable, 45-ton M80 Stiletto, built in 2005 by M Ship Co. of San Diego. The 88-ft.-long composite vessel has an M-shaped hull that provides a fast, stable platform for missions (DTI November/December 2005, p. 14). A flight deck launches and retrieves unmanned aerial vehicles, and a rear ramp can recover 36-ft. rigid-hull inflatable boats or autonomous underwater vehicles.

Photo: US Navy

[Milne Bay]

[QUOTE=buglerbilly;1532]Small Boats Menace Littorals

Mar 12, 2010



One region where swarming and suicide attacks threaten shipping is the Indian Ocean. The Sea Tigers are the naval force of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in Sri Lanka. They conduct attacks using small boats in swarming formations and suicide missions.

Ummm ..........

[buglerbilly]

Yup I reckon this was written a while ago..........................

[Gubler, A.]

[B][I][COLOR="navy"]Shipbuilding partners Austal USA and General Dynamics have agreed to revoke their teaming arrangement on the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program - a move that positions Austal to bid as a prime contractor on this year's bid for 10 LCS ships for the U.S. Navy, and allows GD to go after another five ships to be awarded in 2012.

Pretty strong indicator they think they'll get LCS downselect if they are splitting the partnership to offer contracting competition for the USN.

The Austal LCS design has a few competitors running scared... MEKO are going to unviel their similar trimaran design the "T-450X" in a few weeks.

[Unicorn]

Word I have heard is that the USN has been quietly astonished by the capabilities that the Independence has brought to the table, including sea keeping, maneuverability and helm / throttle responsiveness.

One area that is a key point in Independence's favour is that mammoth flight deck, which allows the ability to operate an Osprey from a surface combatant, something not possible from anything smaller than a large amphib or carrier.

I can see why some manufacturers would see the capability as a threat.

I wonder, if Independence gets up, if we would see some navies taking a second look at Austal's Multi Role Vessel which uses some of the same capabilities in a smaller and more affordable platform?

[buglerbilly]

Marinette Marine Facility Expansion to Enhance Lockheed Martin's Littoral Combat Ship Program

(Source: Lockheed Martin; issued March 15, 2010)

MARINETTE, Wis. --- Marinette Marine Corporation, a member of the Lockheed Martin -led Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) industry team, recently broke ground for an expansion to nearly double the size of its main indoor ship construction building -- an investment to support the construction of the U.S. Navy's LCS.

The expansion will provide enough indoor space to simultaneously house two complete LCS hulls and parts for two additional ships. The building enhancements also allow greater use of Marinette Marine's proven modular construction process, which will enable the Lockheed Martin team to construct LCS more cost effectively.

The ground-breaking is the latest in a recent series of investments made by the shipyard's parent company, Fincantieri, as part of its five-year, $100 million plan to modernize its U.S. shipbuilding operations and support the LCS program. In 2009, Marinette Marine installed higher-capacity overhead cranes, plasma-cutting tables and pipe-bending machines to increase efficiency and capacity. In 2008, Lockheed Martin also became a minority partner in the shipyard, while continuing to share its project management and lean manufacturing techniques to meet the LCS program's cost and schedule goals.

"This is a terrific investment by Fincantieri and represents the commitment they're willing to make to continue quality shipbuilding at Marinette Marine," said Senator Herb Kohl of Wisconsin. "It's an investment in the men and women employed there, in the community that is so supportive of this company, and in their ability to give the Navy a well-built LCS at a competitive price."

"This groundbreaking represents a significant milestone in the transformation of Marinette Marine to the premier mid-tier shipyard in the United States," said Giuseppe Bono, Fincantieri's chief executive officer. "The building expansion will allow us to fully complete a large ship such as LCS completely indoors at an even higher degree of completion and quality."

Marinette Marine constructed and launched the nation's first LCS, USS Freedom. Commissioned by the U.S. Navy in 2008, USS Freedom was deployed two years ahead of schedule and recently completed three successful drug interdictions. The shipyard is also constructing the Navy's third LCS, Fort Worth (LCS 3).

"Fort Worth is on cost and on schedule, with 90 percent of its modules under construction and more than 30 percent of the ship complete," said Dan Schultz, vice president and general manager of Lockheed Martin's Ship and Aviation Systems business. "The improvements underway at Marinette Marine increase the team's capacity in meeting the U.S. Navy's need for an affordable, survivable LCS. We've already seen a 30 percent reduction in labor cost from our first ship."

"With investments from Fincantieri and a strong partnership with the state, Marinette Marine continues to move forward as a world leader in high-quality ship building," said Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle. "The recent launch of the USS Freedom is a testament to the hard work and ingenuity of the Marinette Marine Corporation workforce. With this groundbreaking Marinette Marine will become even more competitive, and create more jobs in this community."

Designed to operate in littoral waters, the Lockheed Martin-led team's LCS features semi-planing steel monohull that provides the Navy with a survivable, fast, and agile shallow-draft warship that maximizes mission flexibility and accessibility. With a proven open architecture networked, combat-management system common to other surface combatants in U.S. and international navies, the Lockheed Martin team's LCS provides unprecedented levels of reliability and interoperability with global maritime forces.

Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin is a global security company that employs about 140,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services. The Corporation reported 2009 sales of $45.2 billion.

-ends-

[Riđđu]

Finnish MoD is about to sign a contract to study surface combatant aluminium structure design with USA and Germany. Plan is to eventually buy multi-role vessels to replace the current minelayers and one FAC(M) squadron.

My question is: why aluminium hulls?

Scroll down to see English text of the agreement, somebody let the government lawyers out:
http://217.71.145.20/TRIPviewer/show.asp?tunniste=HE+12/2010&base=erhe&palvelin=www.eduskunta.fi&f=WORD

[Weasel]

Finnish MoD is about to sign a contract to study surface combatant aluminium structure design with USA and Germany. Plan is to eventually buy multi-role vessels to replace the current minelayers and one FAC(M) squadron.

My question is: why aluminium hulls?

Scroll down to see English text of the agreement, somebody let the government lawyers out:
http://217.71.145.20/TRIPviewer/show.asp?tunniste=HE+12/2010&base=erhe&palvelin=www.eduskunta.fi&f=WORD

A good answer to that is that the spot price for Aluminum fell through the floor in June of 2009 from about 3500 USD to 1500 USD per ton. The price has come back up since then, but now is the time to buy stock for future builds.

just my 2c worth.

Think about it. I jumped up and down till I was blue in the face that USN needed to buy up Aluminum NOW to drastically reduce the cost of any future Aluminum new builds. They didn't do it. Can you imagine what impact that 1/2 priced Aluminum would have had on the cost blowout of the USS Independence?

lol

cheers

w

[Milne Bay]

From my understanding aluminium gives a designer a much larger hull form and much more usable space than a steel vessel of similar displacement.
I believe that the Armidale class and the Fremantle class were of similar displacement 270/220 tonnes, Yet the performance and capability differences are significant.
http://www.defence.gov.au/news/NAVYNEWS/EDITIONS/4808/images/03-armidale%20freo.jpg

[Riđđu]

I just thought that "cost effective surface combatant aluminium structure design" was an oxymoron. Especially if you want to design and/or build it yourself.

[Weasel]

I just thought that "cost effective surface combatant aluminium structure design" was an oxymoron. Especially if you want to design and/or build it yourself.
It depends on the capabilit you are looking for. If Aluminum is a requirement to ensure a certain capability, then the materials required are available at their lowest price for quite some time. Hence the need to buy up billet stock of that commodity while the price is low. Unfortunately most government offices are not geared to do this, as say if you decide Aluminum is not required down the road? Simple, right? you jsut sell your billeted stock and probably do so at a profit. Well now you have a government body engaged in trading and normally there are rules and restrictions on that.

It would require a coordination between Defense and other agencies that are allowed to engage in trading. Good luck with that.

cheers

w

[buglerbilly]

Navy Combat Ship Earns High Marks on Maiden Voyage

(Source: US Navy; issued March 22, 2010)

WASHINGTON --- A month into a maiden voyage that has seen a trio of drug-smuggling attempts thwarted, the commander aboard the Navy’s first littoral combat ship today described the vessel’s performance to date as “exceptional.”

Now floating off the coast of Colombia, the USS Freedom received high marks from Navy Cmdr. Randy Gardner, who delivered an assessment to reporters today from aboard the ship via telephone.

“The performance of the ship so far has been exceptional,” he said of the Freedom, which set sail Feb. 16 from Mayport, Fla. “We are learning a lot about what Freedom can do well.”

Freedom and its crew grabbed headlines in recent weeks after interdicting three vessels transporting illicit drugs through the western Caribbean. Military officials say the ship’s speed, which at roughly 46 miles per hour is significantly faster than U.S. frigates that max out just below 30 miles per hour, is responsible for much of its counternarcotics success.

In its most recent interdiction, the Freedom disrupted a high-speed ship known as a “go-fast” vessel and recovered more than 2 tons of cocaine that officials said was bound for the United States.

After detecting the suspected drug vessel March 11, the Freedom launched a high-speed pursuit and deployed a separate team of sailors and Coast Guardsmen aboard rigid inflatable boats to intercept it. Smugglers aboard the fleeing vessel began dumping its cargo into the southern Caribbean Sea.

The Navy-Coast Guard response team recovered 72 bales of cocaine weighing a total of 4,680 pounds from the water after being jettisoned from the vessel that was on a “stereotypical route” pursued by drug traffickers with U.S.-bound narcotics, Gardner said.

During its first two successful drug seizures in the Caribbean -- on Feb. 22 and March 3 -- Freedom seized one “go-fast” vessel, five suspects and more than 3,700 pounds of cocaine.

In addition to counternarcotics operations, the Freedom made its first shore leave in Cartagena, Colombia, Gardner said. The Freedom also played host to top defense officials from Colombia who toured the ship while it was docked in Cartagena.

The Freedom, which is deploying about two and a half years before the first littoral combat ship was expected to be operational, is bound for Panama and Mexico before it’s set to return to its home port in San Diego in late April. After undergoing about a month of routine maintenance, the ship then will carry out operations in Canada, followed by an exercise in the Pacific Ocean, military officials said.

The Freedom, along with the USS Independence, is at the vanguard of a Navy littoral combat ship fleet that is expected to grow to about 55 vessels by 2035, officials said.

-ends-

[Riđđu]

It depends on the capabilit you are looking for.

Well, one design requirement is that the vessel has to sail in ice (because they want to replace both missile boats and minelayers with a single hull type). And all old aluminium and aluminium-composite Finnish missile boats have experienced fatigue problems in rough seas. Based on that I just don´t understand how bigger aluminium hull can be cost effective, but I´m just a taxpayer.

[Weasel]

Well, one design requirement is that the vessel has to sail in ice (because they want to replace both missile boats and minelayers with a single hull type). And all old aluminium and aluminium-composite Finnish missile boats have experienced fatigue problems in rough seas. Based on that I just don´t understand how bigger aluminium hull can be cost effective, but I´m just a taxpayer.
And you didn't read the next sentence, eh?
"...
If Aluminum is a requirement to ensure a certain capability, then the materials required are available at their lowest price for quite some time.
..."
I agree---Ice and Aluminum do not mix unless you create a new alloy (which is feasible) and/or design to handle the thermal loads associated with cold water operations by an Aluminum hull.

:D... I wouldn't be stepping on it.

cheers

w

[buglerbilly]

Independence Begins Maiden Voyage

(Source: US Navy; issued March 26, 2010)

MOBILE, Ala. --- The Navy's newest littoral combat ship, USS Independence (LCS 2), sailed away from Mobile, Ala. for the first time March 26.

The milestone marks the commencement of initial testing and evaluation of the aluminum vessel.

"We are excited to set sail, and remain grateful for the incredible support offered by the city of Mobile in helping us reach this milestone," said Cmdr. Curt Renshaw, Independence Blue Crew commanding officer. "This transit will allow us to gain valuable operational experience and is another large step toward bringing our unique and versatile capabilities to the fleet."

Independence's maiden voyage will include stops in Key West and Mayport, Fla., before pulling into Naval Station Norfolk, Va. for additional testing and specialized crew training.

"This is an exciting time for all of us," said Fire Controlman 1st Class Jeffry Gibson. "To be a part of bringing the Navy's newest, most advanced ship to the Fleet is something we all take a great deal of pride in."

The Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) is a fast, agile, mission-focused ship that demonstrates the latest in naval technology. The ship is specifically designed to defeat "anti-access" threats in shallow, coastal water regions, including surface craft, diesel submarines and mines. LCS features an interchangeable modular design that allows the ship to be reconfigured to meet mission requirements.

Independence, the Navy's second LCS ship and the first Independence-Class LCS, was commissioned Jan. 16 in Mobile, Ala. It spans 419 feet, has a displacement of 2,800 metric tons and can operate in water less than 20 feet deep. Propelled by four water jets, along with two diesel and two gas turbine engines, Independence is capable of speeds in excess of 45 knots and boasts a range of over 3,500 nautical miles.

Independence will be home-ported in San Diego.

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

Aboard the USS Independence

Posted by Paul McLeary at 3/31/2010 9:53 AM CDT



Aboard the USS Independence -- It doesn't really look like anything you've ever seen, and while its's capabilities are still far form proven--or even fully understood, even by the Navy--I have to admit that walking up the dock to the brand new Littoral Combat Ship USS Independence this morning in Key West, Florida, was a pretty cool experience.

Since the ship is still very much a work in progress—with some systems remaining unfinished and the crew still training up on how everything will work—Captain Curt Renshaw joked that “we’re like the Death Star” since that famous vessel wasn’t fully operational, either. Speaking to a small group of reporters on the ship's flight deck before getting underway, Renshaw said that the plans for the next two days are to take it “from zero to ten” knots as quickly as it can go for dynamic response testing, drop anchor for the first time, conduct air defense testing, “crash back” deceleration, and for the first time putting one of its fast boats in the water while at sea.



The ship only has about 20 days at sea under its belt so far, and aboard on this leg of its voyage are about 40 sailors, including 13 from the Gold Crew. At this point, Renshaw said, “we’re at risk mitigation,” and the purpose of the training exercises on this trip are to start training crew to “get tactical.”

USS Independence this morning in Key West, Fl. (Pics: Paul McLeary)

[buglerbilly]

The comments in the remarks section from certain individuals are amazing in their stupidity................


The gun is really unstealthy as is today...

Compared to what else in the USN?


Flight deck is a big plus, her mission deck a bigger one. I'm just wondering if the mission deck isn't too large. For (JHSV-like) transport roles it's a nice to have feature, but mostly it will house mission modules; but would those really need such a huge mission/vehicle deck?

Another dumbshit comment about too much space in a warship, the bain of Naval forces since time in memorial............."damn it sir, you have too much room to expand and modernise facilities"...........yeah right!

[Deks]

Indeed. :)

[buglerbilly]

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

More From the Littoral Combat Ship

Posted by Paul McLeary at 4/5/2010 7:13 AM CDT



Aboard the USS Independence-- With a crew of just 40 sailors, everyone aboard the Littoral Combat Ship Independence -- the General Dynamics and Austal-made LCS, bidding against Lockheed Martin's USS Freedom for the ultimate Navy contract -- is expected to wear multiple hats.

Lieutenant Phil Garrow, the ship’s Main Propulsion Assistant, said last week while the ship was underway from Key West to Mayport that “everyone had to go to school to get out of their comfort zone,” of performing a few very specialized tasks prior to being able to staff the ship. Standing on the bridge of the ship, Garrow pointed to one of his engineers, who he described as his “resident expert on the MTU engines,” explaining that he in addition to that, “he gave me my flu shot this year. He’s also one of our range masters for gunnery, he’s one of our SAR [search and rescue] swimmers—every one of us had to go to a lot of force protection schools that I’d never gone to before. Me being the engineering officer, I’m also the auxiliaries officer, electrical officer, main propulsion system and the damage control assistant…the learning curve was significant.”



Petty Officer 2nd Class Katrina Williams agreed, saying that “rank has no privilege here. If my XO goes out and does sweepers, then everyone does sweepers.”



It was a refrain heard time and during the two days between Key West and Mayport, and the sailors aborad--all of whom volunteered for the assignment--were genuinely excited to finally be out at sea and putting the ship through its paces. “In some ways we’ve invented nothing, in some ways we’ve invented everything,” Captain Renshaw said at one point when talking about how the ship is different from other ships he has served on. “It’s almost like nothing, one for one, translates.” (One thing the Captain has invented is bringing several Roombas--robot vacuum cleaners--aboard to clean the carpeted bridge, so sailors wouldn't have to.)



Since the crew is so small, and each crewmember performs multiple tasks, “the concentration level has to be higher” Renshaw said. “Everyone has greater responsibility" on the LCS Operations Specialist (OS1) Willie Smith told ARES one day on the ship's mess deck. "We’re laying the groundwork as we go.”

(Pics by Paul McLeary)

[buglerbilly]

LCS 2's civilian brother under-going sea-trials in Cockburn Sound yesterday................

[Gubler, A.]

LCS 2's civilian brother under-going sea-trials in Cockburn Sound yesterday................

This is the boat AUSTAL built on spec. Do they have a buyer yet? If not BPC should lease it... for ferrying unauthorised arrivals.

[Unicorn]

This is the boat AUSTAL built on spec. Do they have a buyer yet? If not BPC should lease it... for ferrying unauthorised arrivals.

They have Triton for that, probably less capability but probably less operational costs as well, particularly fuel.

[Gubler, A.]

They have Triton for that, probably less capability but probably less operational costs as well, particularly fuel.

Triton is for supporting patrol boats at sea against illegal fisherman and doesn't have the size to ferry the larger numbers found in many people smuggling boats. Which is why RAN ships (LPAs) and the Oceanic Viking have been used for this mission. Considering the complexity of the ferry and interception mission more than one hull is needed and it is much better to be an actual ferry rather than our primary Southern Ocean patrol vessel. What's happening to the fisheries around HMI during the peak Summer season while our patrol capability is tied up in port in Indonesia? Something like the 127m AUSTAL trimaran has the size to carry larger groups of unauthorised (100-200+) as well as a significant maritime resuce capability.

[buglerbilly]

This is the boat AUSTAL built on spec. Do they have a buyer yet? If not BPC should lease it... for ferrying unauthorised arrivals.

They have a number of people eager to get it and negotiations are on-going with possibly 2-3 most likely to result in a contract, expect a result by June? There are another two of the same model very likely to be placed as confirmed contracts before they start.

[buglerbilly]

Triton is for supporting patrol boats at sea against illegal fisherman and doesn't have the size to ferry the larger numbers found in many people smuggling boats. Which is why RAN ships (LPAs) and the Oceanic Viking have been used for this mission. Considering the complexity of the ferry and interception mission more than one hull is needed and it is much better to be an actual ferry rather than our primary Southern Ocean patrol vessel. What's happening to the fisheries around HMI during the peak Summer season while our patrol capability is tied up in port in Indonesia? Something like the 127m AUSTAL trimaran has the size to carry larger groups of unauthorised (100-200+) as well as a significant maritime resuce capability.

I agree with that. You could also potentially give Triton back and buy-in MRV x 3 in addition, SLAP MY FACE FOR THINKING OF THE OBVIOUS!

[buglerbilly]

LCS seaframes not yet proven to work with mission watercraft

By Sam LaGrone

07 April 2010

Neither of the rival seaframe designs developed for the US Navy's embattled Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) programme is fully proven to launch and recover the unmanned vehicles intrinsic to two of the programme's three modular mission packages, according to the US Government Accountability Office (GAO).

In its annual defence acquisition report, published on 31 March, the watchdog body also warned that the design of Lockheed Martin's steel monohull USS Freedom (LCS 1) may not meet the navy's damage stability standards, and that General Dynamics' aluminium trimaran USS Independence (LCS 2) had suffered corrosion problems in its waterjets and diesel engine intakes.

While unmanned vehicle launch and recovery is essential to the completion of LCS mine-countermeasure and anti-submarine warfare missions, the GAO report stated that neither seaframe has undergone significant testing with the semi-submersible Remote Multi-Mission Vehicle (RMMV).

LCS 1 is designed to launch and recover offboard vehicles via a stern door and ramp at the ship's waterline. Since mid-February, Freedom has deployed rigid-hull inflatable boats regularly as part of its current US Southern Command Deployment. LCS 2 employs a twin-boom crane to lower vehicles into the water from a stern door several metres above the waterline.

196 of 460 words
Copyright © IHS (Global) Limited, 2010

[Unicorn]

Aren't both of them on sea trials and shake down?

Isn't it a bit premature to be asking for unmanned vehicle operations?

[buglerbilly]

YES it is, approx 6 months too early..............

[buglerbilly]

Independence On Its Maiden Voyage

By christopher p. cavas and COLIN KELLY

Published: 8 Apr 2010 15:12

The USS Independence (LCS 2), second of the U.S. Navy's new littoral combat ships, is on its maiden voyage, making its way from Mobile, Ala., to the fleet base at Norfolk, Va., Defense News was on board for three days, beginning March 31 at Key West, Fla., where we checked out some of the ship's systems and experienced speeds up to 44 knots. Here's a selection of views from that trip.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4574198&c=AME&s=SEA

(You need to look at the linked page to see the images)

[buglerbilly]

LCS 2 at Sea: 'Let's Mess With It'

By christopher p. cavas

Published: 12 Apr 2010 12:52

ABOARD USS INDEPENDENCE (LCS 2) - Boatswain's Mate 2nd Class Trina Williams eased off on the brake handwheel holding USS Independence's anchor tight to the littoral combat ship's long, narrow snout of a bow. Snaking from the windlass in the enclosed foc'sle of the ship, the steel cable smoothly paid out to lower the anchor into the warm Caribbean Sea. Then, just as smoothly, engines hauled on the cable to return the anchor snugly into its fitting.

"That was the first time we let go the anchor and set the anchor," commanding officer Cmdr. Curt Renshaw later noted. "When we left Key West this morning, that was only the third time we'd gotten underway."

In a boat drill later that day, the crew lowered and recovered the ship's 5-meter boat - another first for LCS 2.

"There are a lot of little victories like that, but they add up," Renshaw said.

While the first littoral combat ship (LCS), Lockheed Martin's USS Freedom, is in the eastern Pacific carrying out its first operational cruise, the General Dynamics-developed Independence is at the very beginning of its Navy life. Although commissioned in mid-January, finishing work and crew training kept the ship pierside at its builder's yard at Austal USA in Mobile, Ala., for most of the past three months, and the ship's crew only had one overnight underway period before shoving off from Mobile for good on March 26.

As with any new ship, the crew is getting used to their new charge. The challenge is a bit higher with the Independence - the Navy's first aluminum-hulled trimaran warship. Even before testing out the numerous facets of the LCS concept, the crew is discovering how to operate the ship's many unique features.

"It'll blow your mind," Williams said to some visitors as they prepared to step aboard.

A click of a mouse starts the ship's diesel and gas turbine engines. An automatic ship control station can, if desired, drive the ship through an entire voyage. The officer of the deck (OOD) has the conn, steering with a joystick from a bridge that harkens back to a science fiction television show of decades past.

"We definitely have a 1960s-era Star Trek-type bridge," said Lt. Phil Garrow, the ship's main propulsion assistant. The OOD and the junior officer of the deck (JOOD) sit side by side at identical consoles, not unlike Chekhov and Sulu piloting the starship Enterprise.

And while a traditional captain's chair is provided on the starboard side of the bridge, Renshaw often likes to sit in the center chair just behind the bridge watch.

"It's because of Captain Kirk, of course!" smiled Renshaw.

Garrow noted that the presence of an engineering officer on the bridge would be unexpected on any other ship.

"It's unusual for engineers to get a bridge watch, and especially to assist with navigation," Garrow said. Yet he had served that morning as JOOD for the Key West departure - a first for him.

The ship's small, 40-sailor crew is called upon to take on many roles, and keeping folks from becoming burned out and exhausted is a major focus of Renshaw, commander of the ship's Blue Crew.

"Fatigue for us is very important," Renshaw said. "We try to maintain a regular schedule." The ship's port and starboard watches are trying out scheduling variations in an attempt to find what works best.

Despite that, Garrow observed that "the work load is excessive. There are lots of people working overtime here."

Gaining Experience

About 13 members of the ship's Gold crew were aboard for the transit from Mobile to Norfolk, Va. As in some other classes of ship, each LCS has two complete 40-member crews who alternate in manning the ship and training ashore.

Also on board were a couple dozen additional riders - engineers and officials from various Navy activities monitoring the performance of items such as engines and radars, and a number of civilian technicians for on-board trouble-shooting.

Many of the extra riders were housed in two large "berthing modules" - 12-person, 40-foot shipping containers outfitted with steel-frame bunk beds - stored in the commodious mission bay, an 11,000-cubic-meter enclosed area that in many ways is an LCS's main armament.

A number of those extra riders could be found in Interior Communications Center 1 - similar to a combat information center on most warships - at the rear of the bridge. Able to be curtained off from the rest of bridge, ICC1 is dedicated to monitoring the LCS's machinery, watching the ship's sensors and manning the weapons.

A similar ICC2 is located two decks below and a bit aft, just forward of the mission bay, and is intended for use by an embarked mission module detachment that will operate the various elements that make up each mission module. Current modules are being developed for mine warfare, anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare, and a special maritime interception module has been created for the Freedom's current deployment.

The mission bay takes up about 60 percent of the ship's length. Most of the crew's living and working spaces occupy a pyramidal structure ahead of the mission bay, known as the citadel.

LCS ships are optimized for very high speed, and, like the Freedom, the Independence excelled at turning in a smooth ride while cutting the waves at 40 knots and better. In calm seas, the ship touched a high of 44 knots on this trip and, on the bridge at least, the ride was as smooth and even as if the speed were 30 or 18 knots - the only clues to the speed, besides engine indicators, being the spray visible out the windows at the back of the bridge, or the rooster tail in the ship's wake, visible on video cameras pointed aft.

Cameras, in fact, are key to operating a ship that not only has a small crew but also numerous spaces, particularly topside, that are off-limits when hitting high speeds.

The ship, for example, has no bridge wings. Rather, a large roll-down window is provided on each side at the back of the bridge. Video cameras are intended to monitor what's happening, even when the ship is getting underway or trying to tie up at a pier.

But as the ship got underway from Key West on March 31, and later when it tied up at Naval Station Mayport, Fla., on April 2, officers strained to thrust themselves as far out the windows as they could in an effort to gauge the ship's relationship to shore. Even then, it was a limited view.

"I'd like to have more television cameras around the ship," Renshaw said in an understatement.

Maneuvering a 419-foot-long, 104-foot-wide ship in tight spaces is difficult under any circumstance, and Renshaw's situation was slightly more acute because the drop-down bow thruster intended to make tight ship handling easier is inoperative and will be until the ship goes into drydock this summer.

The crew also is working to get more experience with the ship's sophisticated ride control system, a computerized arrangement that coordinates two sets of underwater stabilizers, high-speed rudders, the ship's waterjets and other fittings to compensate for a trimaran's tendency to roll, and the snout-nosed ship's desire to pitch forward and aft.

Every evolution at this early stage in the ship's life is a learning experience. After a series of calibration exercises to match power output with ship performance, the OOD at one point asked for permission to try out the forward trim tabs to bring the bow down a bit and reduce pitching while improving speed.

"Yeah, let's mess with it," Renshaw agreed.

It was hard for visitors to tell if the ride control system was fully operational, but - at lower speeds, at least - Independence had a pretty quick roll, even in calm seas, rolling about 5 degrees to each side in about four seconds, pitching as well.

One feature of the ship's control system got a definite thumbs-down from the bridge watch. Asked whether they liked driving the ship using joysticks rather than a traditional ship's wheel, four watch standers gave an emphatic "no!" LCS Features Waiting While the crew gets used to basic ship operation, tryouts of some of the Independence's major LCS features will have to wait.

Operational testing of the large stern doors at the back of the mission bay, and of the new, twin-boom expendable crane system intended to lower and raise small boats and unmanned vehicles to the water, is incomplete. Those items, according to Naval Sea Systems Command, "have been secured and placed in a temporary lay-up state and remain under the control of the shipbuilding team." Neither system is needed "to support the ship's immediate program," according to NAVSEA.

More testing and evaluation awaits the Independence in the near future. Another shipyard period, dubbed a Post Delivery Availability, is scheduled for May to August in Norfolk, during which a number of outstanding issues will be addressed. After that, the work to turn the new ship into an effective combatant will begin in earnest.

The Navy's LCS command now "is focused more on LCS 1," Renshaw admitted. "But our turn is coming."

[buglerbilly]

Lockheed Martin Submits Littoral Combat Ship Proposal to U.S. Navy

(Source: Lockheed Martin; issued April 12, 2010)

WASHINGTON --- The Lockheed Martin-led industry team submitted its proposal for the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) fiscal year 2010-2014 contract to the U.S. Navy today.

Lockheed Martin is one of two industry teams competing for the contract. The Navy will award the winning team a fixed-price incentive fee contract to provide up to 10 ships as well as combat systems for five additional ships. Two of the 10 ships would be acquired in fiscal 2010 and the rest via options through fiscal 2014.

"We are offering the U.S. Navy a low-risk, affordable design that has already proven itself essential to the expanding challenges faced by our Sailors," said Lockheed Martin Chairman and CEO Bob Stevens. "Lockheed Martin is committed to continuing our strong performance to ensure delivery of an affordable class of LCS ships for our nation."

The Navy awarded the Lockheed Martin team a fixed-price incentive fee contract in March 2009 to build the Navy's third LCS. LCS 3, the Navy's future USS Fort Worth, is being built in Marinette, WI, with all of the ship's modules currently under construction and nearly 40 percent of the ship complete.

Lockheed Martin's first LCS, USS Freedom, was delivered to the Navy in 2008. In February, it began its maiden deployment approximately two years ahead of schedule. Since then, the ship has conducted a series of drug interdictions in which the crew seized more than five tons of cocaine.

Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin is a global security company that employs about 140,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services. The Corporation reported 2009 sales of $45.2 billion.

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

Navy's Newest Littoral Combat Ship Arrives in Norfolk Today

(Source: U.S Navy; issued April 14, 2010)

NORFOLK, Va. --- Littoral combat ship USS Independence (LCS 2) arrives at Naval Station Norfolk April 14, ending her maiden voyage.

The Navy's newest littoral combat ship, Independence sailed away from the Austal USA shipyards in Mobile, Ala., March. 26.

This milestone marks the completion of initial testing and evaluation of the innovative aluminum trimaran vessel, the first of its kind in the Naval Surface Force.

"This transit will allow us to gain valuable operational experience and is another large step toward bringing our unique and versatile capabilities to the fleet," said Cmdr. Curt Renshaw, Independence Blue Crew commanding officer

Independence's maiden voyage began with a port visit to Key West, Fla., where the crew gave tours to many local groups and was able to enjoy liberty for the first time outside of Mobile, Ala.

Independence's next stop was Naval Station Mayport, Fla., which was the first time that the ship moored in the company of other naval vessels. During the ship's stay at Mayport, the Littoral Combat Ship Class Squadron led aviation training for both rotational crews in preparation for their final certification to embark aircraft due later this month. Practice rounds for the new SEARAM weapon system were also loaded aboard the ship. Independence is the first Navy ship to be armed with the SEARAM.

Operations at sea during this maiden voyage have consisted of continued testing on the ship's capabilities and limitations, and the ship reached several milestones. Independence deployed and recovered its five-meter rigid-hull inflatable boat, as well as anchored at sea, for the first time outside of the shipyard. The crew also conducted extensive training with the SEARAM weapon system.

Independence will depart Naval Station Norfolk April 17 for Port Everglades, Fla., to participate in Fleet Week.

-ends-

[geof]

Please excuse my ignorance regarding this, but the interior shots of the Independence show a lot of what can only be described as aluminium foil. I take it this is some sort of fire insulation and is used in modern ships as opposed to asbestos.. ?

[Riđđu]

Please excuse my ignorance regarding this, but the interior shots of the Independence show a lot of what can only be described as aluminium foil. I take it this is some sort of fire insulation and is used in modern ships as opposed to asbestos.. ?

I reckon what we see in those pictures is probably some sort of insulation blanket or mineral wool mat rather than kitchen foil.

[Deks]

Yep, it's fire retardent - some people from another forum were talking about it a few weeks ago.

[buglerbilly]

Report: Fuel Factors Less Than Price For LCS

By CHRISTOPHER P. CAVAS

Published: 28 Apr 2010 18:45

Fuel costs for the U.S. Navy's new Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) are calculated by a new Congressional report to be about 11 percent of total life-cycle costs - far less than the 64 percent figure represented by the price to buy the ship.

The relative insignificance of the fuel figure to the purchase price is at odds with claims by Alabama's Senate delegation that the Navy should give more weight to fuel efficiency in its pending choice of which LCS to buy. Navy officials have repeatedly said that the selection, expected sometime this summer, will be based largely on purchase price rather than lifecycle costs.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., asked the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to study the effect of fuel costs and other factors on lifecycle costs. Sessions is supporting the aluminum-hulled trimaran LCS design built by Austal USA in Mobile, Ala. That ship is competing with a Lockheed Martin LCS built in Wisconsin.

Sessions and his Senate colleague, Richard Shelby, R-Ala., have repeatedly said the Austal USA ship is more fuel-efficient than the Lockheed ship, particularly at higher speeds.

Actual figures have yet to be gathered for both designs, for while the first Lockheed ship, USS Freedom (LCS 1), has been in service for over a year, the first Austal USA ship, USS Independence (LCS 2), only left her builder's yard a month ago and has yet to demonstrate a full range of operations.

The CBO based its analysis on several earlier classes of Navy ships and used Navy data for the new ships. The study was conducted by Eric Labs and Derek Trunkey.

The study, sent to Sessions on April 28, looked at three overall operating profiles for LCS 1 - low-fuel, where the ship operates most of the time at low speeds, running at 30 knots or more only about 3 percent of the time; moderate-fuel, where high-speed operations take place about 5 percent of the time; and high-fuel, where the ship spends about a fifth of its time at 30 knots or more.

Labs and Trunkey considered that the moderate-fuel ship is "the most likely of the three scenarios."

CBO concluded that, as a percentage of life-cycle costs, fuel costs made up 8 percent of the low-fuel ship, 11 percent for the moderate-fuel ship, and 18 percent of the high-fuel ship.

Comparatively, procurement cost for the low-fuel ship made up 66 percent of the life-cycle cost, 64 percent for the moderate-fuel ship and 58 percent of the high-fuel ship.

Undaunted, Sessions released a statement April 28 that read in part, "Based on the information released today, it is apparent to me that the Navy's calculation of lifecycle costs for the Littoral Combat Ship significantly undervalues the cost of fuel over the operating life of the vessel. This is a fundamental error in the Navy's evaluation criteria, and a failure to correct it could call into question the Navy's final selection in this important procurement program."

Sessions added that, "a failure to properly weigh fuel consumption … would disadvantage the more fuel-efficient ship, an unacceptable mistake given the impact that fuel consumption has on military operations, and the Navy's repeated call for energy efficient vessels."

"Given that the LCS program will make up nearly 20 percent of the Navy's fleet over the next 25 years, even small savings in fuel should be valued," Sessions added. "The report released by CBO today confirms my concerns."

[buglerbilly]

Life-Cycle Costs of Selected Navy Ships (excerpt)


(Source: Congressional Budget Office; issued April 28, 2010)

More detail on this CBO report plus link............

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has analyzed the impact of operation and support (O&S) and other types of costs on the total life-cycle costs of four classes of Navy ships. The analysis—which aims to provide context for assessing the costs of the new littoral combat ship (LCS)—focuses on the following ship programs:

-- MCM-1 Avenger class mine countermeasures ships,
-- FFG-7 Oliver Hazard Perry class guided missile frigates,
-- DDG-51 Flight IIA Arleigh Burke class guided missile destroyers, and
-- CG-47 Ticonderoga class guided missile cruisers.

CBO chose those four classes because they have been in the fleet for decades, data for them are readily available, and they all conduct at least one mission that the LCS is also expected to perform. Using the Department of Defense’s (DoD’s) definitions of cost categories, CBO calculated costs over the life of each type of ship in the following six categories:

-- Research and development,
-- Procurement,
-- Personnel,
-- Fuel,
-- Other operations and support, and
-- Disposal.

The resulting total life-cycle cost is smaller than the total ownership cost of a ship, which would also include indirect personnel costs (such as for recruiting, training, and medical support) and long-term infrastructure costs (for changes in bases, housing, and other infrastructure associated with a large-scale change in the size of the Navy). CBO does not have a reliable method to estimate those additional costs, however, so it limited its analysis to a ship’s life-cycle cost.

CBO’s analysis indicates that O&S costs—for personnel, fuel, and other items— make up 49 percent to 56 percent of the life-cycle costs of the four types of ships listed above (see Table 1). Personnel is the largest single element of O&S costs.

For a small vessel with a relatively large crew, such as the MCM-1 class mine countermeasures ship, personnel costs represent 38 percent of the ship’s life-cycle cost, compared with 29 percent for a CG-47 class cruiser, which is seven times bigger but has only four times as large a crew. Fuel costs account for a much smaller share of the life-cycle cost: 8 percent to 11 percent in the case of the frigate, destroyer, and cruiser. For the mine countermeasures ship, fuel costs make up only 1 percent of the life-cycle cost, largely because that ship travels at very slow speeds during mine-clearing operations.

Procurement costs account for most of the rest of those four ships’ life-cycle costs, ranging from 43 percent to 50 percent. Disposal costs for destroyers and cruisers have averaged a little less than $1 million per ship. In the case of FFG-7 frigates, the Navy has often sold retired ships or given them away to other countries. The Navy has not disposed of MCM-1 ships yet. But when it removed 12 MHC-51 coastal mine hunters, which are similar to the MCM-1s, from the fleet several years ago, it sold one and gave three to other nations. (The remaining eight are awaiting disposal.) (end of excerpt)

Click here for the full report (8 pages in PDF format) on the CBO website.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/114xx/doc11431/04-28-SessionsLetter.pdf

-ends-

[Deks]

I must admit I almost favor the Canadian way of procurement costing - calculating the total through life costs and awarding the contract based on that. Makes the whole process that much more transperant, too.

[SteveJH]

I must admit I almost favor the Canadian way of procurement costing - calculating the total through life costs and awarding the contract based on that. Makes the whole process that much more transperant, too.

Only as long as they go life cycle costs/years in service. Otherwise you get sticker shock.

[Gubler, A.]

Total life cycle costs are calculated by any procurement body worth its letterhead but are not necessarily the best thing to make public. Classic case in point being the Howard Government’s $6 billion program for the Super Hornets. The aircraft only cost half that but because they factored in 10 years operating costs and provided the whole thing to the RAAF on top of legacy operating budgets the apparent cost of the aircraft was inflated 100%.

Since most new procurements replace like with like much of the operating cost is already within the budget. It’s when a new system adds or subtracts from operating costs, personnel costs, etc that it is important to notice the difference. So sure if Tank X is going to cost 10% less than Tank Y but will cost 20% more in life cycle costs it’s not a good deal. But that is pretty standard cost accounting for most customers these days: public and private.

[buglerbilly]

LCS 1 Vs. 2: Both Meet the Requirements, But Similarities End There

By CHRISTOPHER P. CAVAS

Published: 3 May 2010 15:00

The two ships vying to become the prototype for a new U.S. Navy fleet of Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) have, according to top Navy officials, virtually the same combat capability. "Both ships meet the requirements" has been a mantra for officials testifying to Congress and speaking to the media.

But the Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics teams have fielded ships that take very different approaches to fulfilling the basic LCS requirements for a fast, smallish ship able to provide basic combatant services while taking on specialized equipment to carry out focused missions.

The most obvious differences - such as the single steel hull and aluminum superstructure of Lockheed's vessel versus the GD all-aluminum trimaran - are well known. But of dozens of distinctions large and small, it is not always clear that one is superior.

Choosing between features often could come down to a matter of taste, or even culture. A surface warrior who grew up on Aegis ships, for example, might prefer the single combat information center (CIC) and combat system of Lockheed's LCS 1, which in some ways harkens back to its bigger brother systems on Aegis cruisers and destroyers.

Sailors who aren't so wedded to Aegis concepts might feel more comfortable with the two-CIC layout of GD's LCS 2, where one installation supports the ship and another setup two decks below handles the mission detachment's needs.

When the Navy chooses one design this summer to serve as the basis for at least 51 more ships, the decision will be made largely on price.

Neither the Navy nor the industry teams have revealed the prices being offered, but it is clear there is much more to choose from than simply the procurement cost.

We have had the good fortune to have ridden both ships, albeit in the early stages of their careers, and even from a nonoperator standpoint, a number of differences can be noted.

Here is a selection of comparisons between the two ships based on observation. One key caveat - these are prototype ships in every way, in design, concept and operation, and whichever design prevails, future ships can be expected to be further developed and modernized.

Mission Bay

1: LCS 1 has three mission bay areas totaling 6,400 square feet, the smallest of which is really more of a storage room. The main operational bays are a wet bay, or "waterborne mission zone," with openings to the sea on the starboard quarter and through the stern doors; and a dry bay, dubbed a "reconfigurable space." A bulkhead with roller doors is placed between the bays, enabling darkened waterborne operations in one while repairs can take place in the other.

2: The design's outstanding feature is a single, very large, 15,200-square-foot mission bay, able to store at least two complete mission modules and possibly more, depending on the configuration. The space is about 80 feet wide (six car lanes), reflecting the ship's origin as a commercial vehicle ferry. The space is not fitted with fire doors and cannot be closed off into sections. The greater height of the bay over the waterline provides for a drier environment.

Flight Deck

1: Features a 5,200-square-foot flight deck, bigger than any other surface combatant now in service. The deck is about 19 feet above water - more likely to get wet with sea spray.

2: Its 7,300-square-foot flight deck is considerably bigger than LCS 1.

With a height above the waterline of 36 feet, the deck should be relatively dry.

Cargo Handling

1: An overhead transfer system based on a commercial container handling system is installed. It is fitted with a stern ramp so that waterborne craft can leave and enter the ship directly. The stern ramp was used by an embarked 11-meter rigid hull inflatable boat on the recent deployment, and at least one captured drug runner was brought aboard using the ramp. The side door system features an overhead, extendable gantry to raise and lower watercraft.

2: Uses a cargo container mobile transport by Mobicon to move equipment around the mission bay. Stern door opens high over the water and features a twin-boom expandable crane (TBEC). The side door is a vehicle ramp, hinged on the bottom. A single hydraulic system powers the stern doors, side ramp, TBEC crane and a crane in the hangar.

Hangar

1: Although it's the smaller ship, LCS 1 has the bigger hangar, at 4,680 square feet.

2: Smaller than LCS 1, at 3,500 square feet.

Damage Control

1: Fitted with three damage control repair stations, all on the second deck. Firefighting equipment fitted throughout the ship. Fire cladding hidden behind bulkhead panels.

2: Fitted with two damage control repair stations, both on the port side, at the forward and back ends of the mission bay; seven DC lockers are placed throughout the ship. Exposed fire cladding throughout the ship, called Superwool, seems less than robust. Most of the cladding is attached to bulkheads with long nails, some of which were loose.

Engines

The ships have similar engineering control systems. Although both ships were first said to have very cramped machinery spaces, they felt no more cramped than on a number of other ships.

1: Features two Rolls-Royce MT-30 gas turbines, larger than most GTs fitted in the fleet, and two diesels.

2: Fitted with two General Electric LM2500 gas turbines - the fleet standard - and four diesels. The machinery spaces take up most of the lower center hull.

Speed

Seems to be about equal - about 46 knots in ideal conditions with a light load.

Ride Both ships were exceptionally smooth at high speed (44 to 46 knots) in ideal sea conditions at light load. Both rolled and pitched at lower speeds (18 knots and lower) and need active fin stabilization.

1: Digs in its bow in tight turns at high speeds. There were problems early in its delivery voyage with water getting into the anchor hawsepipe, which will be redesigned.

2: The automated ship-handling system needed calibration to avoid cavitation when shifting speeds.

Command and Control

1: Fitted with a standard CIC, dubbed a Mission Control Center, amidships and below decks. The CIC had underused space with room to grow, but more equipment could turn it into a cramped space.

2: Has an unusual two-CIC configuration. Interior Communication Center (ICC) 1, focused on ship operations, is installed at the rear of the pilothouse, separable from the bridge by a curtain. A mission-centered ICC 2 is placed two decks down and aft from the bridge, just forward of the mission bay. The split approach could create command-and-control problems, particularly in determining the proper station at all times for the commanding officer.

Combat Suite and Network

Both ships feature a local area computer network allowing laptop connections throughout the ship.

1: The Lockheed Martin COMBATSS-21 combat system features about 60 percent commonality with Aegis systems, including software.

2: The system built by General Dynamics' Advanced Information Systems features mostly USN-unique systems Bridge and Navigation Both bridges feature similar triangular, three-position layouts with interchangeable navigation stations at the front. The ships have similar ship control and autopilot systems, and both helms use a joystick. Both bridges feature very large windows and in general have excellent visibility forward.

1: The three watch positions are officer of the deck (OOD), junior officer of the deck (JOOD) and the engineering watch. The triangular piece of steel in the center of the bridge windows is a visual impediment and will be modified with a more slender post.

2: The three watch positions are OOD, JOOD and a tactical awareness coordinator. A major difference is the placement of ICC1 at the rear of the pilothouse. The engineering watch, by a readiness control officer, is maintained in ICC1. Because there are no bridge wings, signal halyards are accessible via a large roll-down window at the back of either side of the pilothouse, which includes a steel-cabinet flag bag.

The very narrow bow, which drops down forward of the 57mm bow gun, is not visible from the bridge.

Shiphandling

1: Has no bow thruster - an impediment when moving through the Welland Canal in Canada on the ship's delivery voyage but, according to the crew, not a problem in general, where the water jets provide better steering ability than a standard screw-and-rudder configuration.

Traditional bridge wings are fitted with ship controls.

2: Has enclosed line-handling areas fore and aft. Has no bridge wings a real problem when docking or undocking in tight areas; installing more cameras will help but probably not cure the urge to stick one's head out to see what is happening. The wide 104-foot beam is a navigational challenge in tight harbors and makes nesting more difficult. Fitted with a drop-down forward auxiliary propulsion unit, which was inoperative on its first voyage.

Habitability

All staterooms in both ships have their own head and shower. Both have an appreciably larger number of heads throughout, particularly near work stations.

1: Larger staterooms throughout. The largest eight-man enlisted space could easily accommodate more sailors.

2: Smaller staterooms with less room to expand the number of crew berths.

Miscellaneous

Both designs depend heavily on multiple video camera installations throughout the ship - a key feature in a minimally manned configuration.

Because of their high speed, both ships are intended to be operated with fewer personnel topside.

1: Generally feels more spacious and has generous room below decks with wider passageways. Several visitors who have been to sea aboard both ships said LCS 1 "feels more like a Navy ship," with more familiar fittings and layout.

2: Despite the vast mission bay and flight deck, LCS 2 feels tighter inside, with most crew living and work spaces placed in a pyramidal citadel under the bridge. Seems to have lesser room for growth. The quick-response boat deck aft is cramped.

[buglerbilly]

LCS Freedom Heads for 5-Day Dry Dock Repairs

By PHILIP EWING

Published: 4 May 2010 16:44

The littoral combat ship Freedom, built by defense giant Lockheed Martin, is due to enter a shipyard owned by LCS rival General Dynamics this weekend so engineers can repair a problem with one of the Freedom's water jets, U.S. Navy officials said May 4.

Freedom's Blue Crew - which re-took the ship upon its arrival in San Diego last month - discovered a problem with its outer starboard waterjet, said Lt Cmdr. Chris Servello, a spokesman for Naval Surface Forces. So the ship is being taken to a dry dock at San Diego's Nassco shipyard, owned by the company that hopes its own ship design, the aluminum trimaran Independence, will win the Navy's LCS competition this summer.

Navy officials in Washington have taken pains to protect what they have said are "proprietary" qualities of the two LCS designs; they didn't even release the costs of the third and fourth LCS vessels for months after their contracts were awarded because officials said that information was sensitive. Servello said he could not comment on whether there would be any safeguards during Freedom's time in dry dock to preserve the integrity of the LCS competition, or whether such measures were necessary. He referred questions about the competition to Naval Sea Systems Command.

Because Freedom and Independence are now both commissioned warships, they technically no longer belong to their respective builders.

Engineers aren't sure what the problem is with Freedom's waterjet, but it will not affect the ship's spring schedule, Servello said, and it didn't make trouble during the ship's "trial deployment" that took it from Florida to San Diego. Servello said a replacement part is on its way from contractor Kamewa, owned by the British engine concern Rolls-Royce.

Freedom will be in dry dock for about five days. After its yard period, the ship is to sail to the northern Pacific for the Canadian Fleet Review, and then to Hawaiian waters for the annual Rim of the Pacific exercise.

[buglerbilly]

LCS-2 Makes Waves

May 6, 2010



By Paul McLeary

USS Independence

NOT a single mention of AUSTAL and THEY designed the warship not GD...........

I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm’s way,” reads the quote from the larger-than-life father of the U.S. Navy, John Paul Jones, which is posted above a stairway leading to the mess deck on the USS Independence.

On a clear, calm day in late March, on only the ship’s fifth full day at sea, the crew saw how fast the Navy’s second Littoral Combat Ship (LCS-2), designed by General Dynamics, could go. In the blue waters far off Florida during its maiden voyage from Key West to Mayport, Fla., Capt. Curt Renshaw ordered the ship to make a full stop. The Independence rocked idly for several minutes before Renshaw ordered the crew to crank it up to its maximum speed—a blistering 43 kt.—which was reached in less than 2 min. Not bad for a 2,100-ton, 418-ft. ship. The acceleration was remarkably smooth—the only way those on the ship’s bridge could tell that the Navy’s newest warship was rapidly increasing speed was by the spray kicked up by the aluminum trimaran.

The two-day trip to Mayport was a succession of firsts. Standing on the flight deck while the ship was docked at Key West, the commander was eager to get underway, mentioning that the plans for the trip were to do some dynamic response testing, drop anchor for the first time, conduct air-defense testing, “crash back” deceleration, and for the first time put one of its fast boats in the water while at sea—which the crew did while moving at 5 kt. The new experiences were capped by the 43-kt. sprint and a series of 30-kt., 30-deg. turns that were executed flawlessly. Renshaw said the trip was all about “little victories like that, but they add up.”

While these tests were firsts for the Independence, the ship is following its older cousin, the Lockheed Martin-designed USS Freedom (LCS-1) to sea. Freedom had been at sea for over a month before Independence saw her maiden voyage, and by mid-April, had already made four drug busts while operating in U.S. Southern Command’s area of operations, seizing 5 tons of cocaine.

The monohulled Freedom has a more traditional design than the trimaran configuration of Independence, which is based on the hull design of a high-speed commercial ferry.

Freedom and Independence are competing in a high-stakes competition to determine which design is best suited for the Navy’s LCS fleet. The Navy plans to award the winning design a fixed-price contract for up to 10 ships in July. Two of the 10 awards will be finalized by September, with the rest to be made through Fiscal 2014.

Eventually, the Navy plans to buy 55 LCS in a huge shift from its focus on blue-water ships to vessels that are adept at operating close to shore, performing special forces insertions, minesweeping, surveillance, counter-piracy and antisubmarine operations.

But with a crew of about 40—and room to berth 75—who are expected to be proficient in all of these tasks, the question is whether the LCS can live up to the high expectations that the Navy has laid out for it. More importantly, with a goal of 55 ships, some wonder if enough crew can be trained to perform all of these tasks.

“Has the Navy thought through those issues with sufficient clarity?” wonders naval analyst Martin Murphy. “The answer I think is a resounding no.” Murphy says he finds it difficult to conceive how the Navy can efficiently swap out a ship “from being a countermine-warfare ship to an antisubmarine-warfare ship. There is no evidence that the Navy has thought this through clearly. What happens when you have to do this forward-deployed? The logistic problems are a bit of a nightmare.”

In discussions with crewmembers on the Independence, DTI learned firsthand about the amount of training it takes for one person to wear multiple hats. The men and women onboard—volunteers, and highly experienced sailors all—were enthusiastic about their work, but also candid about how long it took them to get where they are now.

Lt. Phil Garrow, the main propulsion assistant, says “everyone had to go to school to get out of their comfort zone” of performing a few specialized tasks prior to being able to staff the ship. “The workload is excessive, frankly,” he adds. “Every person is a fireman, every person is a bosun’s mate.” With such a small crew, “when you take that pyramid of a standard ship and cut all the guys off the bottom, that means you have a lot of extremely highly trained people doing things that they wouldn’t normally do.”

Standing on the bridge, Garrow points to one of his engineers, who he describes as his “resident expert on the MTU engines.” In addition to that, “he gave me my flu shot this year. He’s also one of our range masters for gunnery and one of our SAR (search and rescue) swimmers. Every one of us had to go to a lot of force-protection schools that I’d never gone to before. I am the engineering officer, and also the auxiliaries officer, electrical officer, main propulsion system and damage-control assistant. The learning curve was significant.”

Petty Officer 2nd Class Katrina Williams agrees, saying “rank has no privilege here. If my XO goes out and does sweepers, everyone does sweepers.” Since each crewmember is responsible for multiple tasks, “the concentration level has to be higher,” Renshaw says. “Everyone has greater responsibility” than on previous assignments, Operations Specialist Willie Smith explains on the mess deck. “We’re laying the groundwork as we go.”

Since the ship is very much a work in progress—with some systems remaining unfinished and the crew still learning how everything will work—Renshaw jokes that “we’re like the Death Star” in Star Wars, since that famous vessel wasn’t fully operational, either.

The ship only has about 20 days at sea under its belt so far, and at this point, Renshaw says, “we’re at risk mitigation,” and the purpose of the training exercises on this trip are to start training the crew to “get tactical.”

But all of these firsts can have a downside, and it was obvious that the LCS-2 still needs a lot of work before it is operational. The crew has yet to use the side ramp or stern doors, which will launch manned and unmanned craft at sea, thus punching the much-hyped special operations ticket that the ship is touted as holding. Just to the left of the stern door, in the mission bay, sits a small, makeshift laboratory where a team tests the oil and fuel several times a day. Normally, this team is given its own lab to work in, but word on the ship was that General Dynamics failed to assign them a space, and then was forced to bolt several tables and trays to the floor of the mission bay so the team could do its work. And then there is the issue with rolling and pitching. Even in calm seas, like those found off the coast of Florida, the ship experiences significant pitch and roll, only steadying once it picks up speed.

But the crew loves the capabilities that the ship promises. In the buildup to launching the vessel, Renshaw says “we tried to adhere to naval traditions and standards, but at the same time this ship is the first ship that embodies 21st-century technology. This ship wasn’t even conceived officially until 2002,” so much of what it does is new.

“In some ways we’ve invented nothing, in some ways we’ve invented everything,” Renshaw says at one point when talking about how the ship differs from other Navy vessels. “It’s almost like nothing translates one for one. You have to take everything we do in the Navy, every process, and in some cases nothing is the same—you really have to adapt your process.”

For now, those processes will be adapted in port, where the Independence will sit from May through August while the crew and contractors pore over the information collected on their brief float, and add more tweaks to a design that might not even be chosen by the Navy.

[Deks]

weird, I've read most of that before. I think the only thing I hadn't heard was in the first paragraphs - full stop to full speed in less than 2 minutes. is that fast?

[buglerbilly]

full stop to full speed in less than 2 minutes. is that fast?

Greased Lightening............:1010

[buglerbilly]

Independence Begins Industrial Post-Delivery Availability

(Source: U.S Navy; issued May 7, 2010)

WASHINGTON --- USS Independence (LCS 2) began its first industrial post-delivery availability (IPDA) at the BAE Ship Repair Yard in Norfolk, Va., May 6. The IPDA is a planned event in the ship's post-delivery period.

During the availability, Independence will implement launch recovery and handling system improvements and complete installation of commercial broadband satellite program systems. USS Freedom (LCS 1) underwent a similar shipyard period in 2009.

"We are working quickly and efficiently to prepare this ship for operational tasking," said Rear Adm. Jim Murdoch, littoral combat ship (LCS) program manager for the Navy's Program Executive Office (PEO) Ships. "Just like her sister ship USS Freedom, LCS 2 is going to bring an incredible capability to the Navy, and we're committed to making sure the ship is fully prepared for everything it may be called upon to do."

Prior to the availability, Independence completed structural test firing (STF) exercises. The STF exercise was held to test the ship's weapon systems to ensure they operate as installed and integrated with the hull structure. During the tests, Independence successfully tested its 57mm guns, SeaRAM missiles and identification friend-or-foe system

Following the completion of the IPDA in August 2010, USS Independence will continue conducting post-delivery tests and trials designed to further test the ship's systems and familiarize the crew with the unique hull form and operating concept.

LCS is a new breed of U.S. Navy warship with versatile warfighting capabilities, capable of open-ocean operation but optimized for littoral, or coastal, missions. Operational experience and analyses indicate that potential adversaries will employ asymmetric means to deny U.S. and allied forces access into critical coastal regions, such as strategic chokepoints and vital economic sea lanes. LCS is specifically designed to defeat such "anti-access" threats, which include fast surface craft, quiet diesel submarines and various types of mines.

As one of the Defense Department's largest acquisition organizations, PEO Ships is responsible for executing the development and procurement of all major surface combatants, amphibious ships, special mission and support ships and special warfare craft. Currently, the majority of shipbuilding programs managed by PEO Ships are benefiting from serial production efficiencies, which are critical to delivering ships on cost and schedule.

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

Lockheed's Next Littoral Combat Ship "40% Complete"

Posted by Paul McLeary at 5/10/2010 12:36 PM CDT


(USS Freedom, Pic: USN)

When the USS Freedom (LCS 1)—Lockheed Martin’s submission in the competition for the U.S. Navy’s lucrative Littoral Combat Ship contract—was put in the water, the vessel was only about 60 percent complete. By time the company’s second vessel of the same class (USS Fort Worth or LCS 3) hits the water in 2012, it will be about 85 percent complete Lockheed’s Paul Lemmo, told ARES at the Navy League show last week. Lemmo said that LCS 3 is currently about 40 percent complete at the Marinette Marine Shipyard in Marinette, Wisconsin, and is on cost and on schedule.

“We’ve been able to bring down the cost” on the production of LCS 3 over LCS 1, he added, “though the learning curve, and high levels of pre-outfitting, etc…LCS 1 had a lot of concurrency in it, we were still finishing the design while we were building the ship—that doesn’t allow you to get all the equipment in the ship before you launch,” which then drives up the price of outfitting the ship while it is in the water.

Let’s not forget, however, that back in 2004 the Navy said that the cost of each LCS should be about $220 million—and as of 2009, the Freedom’s price tag had ballooned to $637 million and the Independence, or LCS 2, eventually came in at over $700 million.

[buglerbilly]

Israeli Navy Wants Stealth Corvettes

May 18, 2010



By David Eshel

Israel wants to acquire two corvettes that would permit missions beyond the Mediterranean and extend its fleet air defense capabilities. The navy was planning to purchase a variant of Lockheed Martin’s Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), but after an evaluation decided the vessel was too costly.

The navy is now interested in the Meko A-100 multimission corvette, built by Blohm and Voss, part of Germany’s Thyssen-Krupp Marine Systems (TKMS) Group. For such a vessel to outperform the current Eilat class, Israel will probably opt for the latest stealth version known as the Meko CSL, which can be adapted to meet Israeli requirements for versatility, sensors and deck space. The CSL corvette is a modular vessel that can be rapidly configured for different missions.

Israel’s navy has been focused on defending the nation’s coastline and strategic shipping routes in the Mediterranean. Since Iran became the main supplier of weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, intercepting arms-smuggling routes has redirected the mission of Israel’s naval forces to the Red Sea and Indian Ocean. Israel’s reach in these areas was demonstrated by the recent transit of a Dolphin-class submarine and Saar 5 corvettes through the Suez Canal, en route to temporary deployments in the Red Sea.

The Meko CSL is 108 meters (354 ft.) long, with a beam of 21 meters and full-load displacement of 2,750 metric tons. Propulsion is by a combined diesel-and-gas/water-jet system that reaches 40 kt. Cruising range at 15 kt. is 3,500 nm., and endurance is 21 days. The vessel can put to sea with a crew of 75.

Armed with the Barak 8 extended-range air-defense system from Israel Aerospace Industries, the two CSLs are expected to become the world’s first air-defense corvettes. This will give the Israeli surface fleet independent air cover for the first time, enabling ships to deploy farther from home. With a large deck surface and conformal mast, the new vessel can be equipped with more missiles than the current Saar 5 and, importantly, its superstructure can mount Elta’s MF-Star radar. This 360-deg. phased-array radar supports simultaneous surface search operations and multiple antiaircraft, antimissile and surface-attack weapons. The vessel will also carry antisubmarine weapons and a helicopter. As with all Israeli purchases, an important issue is the integration of locally designed and produced electronic systems. The navy uses the Elbit/Elisra Aqua Marine integrated electronic support measures/electronic countermeasures warfare suite on its Saar 5 corvettes. It is expected that the Meko will include the latest advanced electronic warfare systems.

Another advantage of the vessel would be accommodating the navy’s robotic systems. The ship could become a support platform for unmanned aerial vehicles, unmanned surface vessels and unmanned underwater vehicles, since it would have adequate deck space and launch and retrieval capabilities.

A major advantage of the Meko CSL design is stealth. By employing technologies developed for the latest German warships and Sweden’s Visby-class stealth corvettes, Meko designers reduced the ship’s infrared signature by 75% through elimination of the conventional uptakes. Exhaust gases are ducted through a horizontal system, cooled by sea water and expelled underwater. Smooth hull-plating and concealed deck equipment are other stealth enhancements from the Visby class. Other features include a water-jet propulsion system that reduces the wake, the use of composite (nonmagnetic) structures and advanced sensors. Research on the Visby-class vessels began in the 1990s by Swedish ship designer Kockums, now part of TKMS.

Israel regards its German shipbuilders as reliable suppliers. The Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werf of Kiel and Nordseewerke of Emden have delivered three Dolphin-class submarines to the navy, and two more are under construction. Each new sub reportedly includes an additional 10-meter section for installation of an air-independent propulsion system, which enables the vessel to remain submerged for several weeks.

Israel’s submarines are believed to be equipped with underwater-launched cruise missiles capable of striking land targets at long range. With such capability, Israel could possess a potential second strike option in a nuclear confrontation with Iran.

Should all go according to plan with its modernization program, the navy would become Israel’s second strategic arm after the air force.

Credit: Lockheed Martin

[buglerbilly]

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

The USS Independence at Sea

Posted by Bettina Chavanne at 5/18/2010 11:54 PM CDT

DTI editor Paul McLeary took a ride aboard the U.S. Navy's second Littoral Combat Ship, the General Dynamics-built USS Independence. His report on that trip was the cover of DTI's May issue. Here's a video of part of his journey.

[buglerbilly]

Raytheon's SeaRAM Completes Blast Test Vehicle Launches

(Source: Raytheon Company; issued May 24, 2010)

TUCSON, Ariz. --- Raytheon Company's SeaRAM Anti-ship Missile Defense System completed two blast test vehicle launches aboard the USS Independence (LCS 2).

Designed to validate the structural integrity of both the weapon system and the ship, the launches clear the way for SeaRAM's live-fire testing on LCS 2 later this year.

"SeaRAM met all test objectives and demonstrated the system's critical at-sea firing capabilities," said Al Steichen, Raytheon's SeaRAM program manager. "SeaRAM is fully integrated with the Independence's combat management system and will provide a proven, highly lethal self-defense capability."

SeaRAM is a low-cost spiral development of Raytheon's combat-proven Phalanx Block 1B radar and Rolling Airframe Missile, the latter produced jointly by Raytheon and RAMSYS of Germany. Intended to enlarge a ship's self-defense keep-out range against anti-ship missiles and fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft, SeaRAM replaces Phalanx's M61A1 20 mm gun with an 11-round RAM launcher.

"SeaRAM's self-contained defense capability leverages Phalanx's reliable multispectral sensors and weapon control capability with the demonstrated lethality of RAM," said Steichen. "It marks the beginning of the next generation of close-in weapon systems."

Raytheon Company, with 2009 sales of $25 billion, is a technology and innovation leader specializing in defense, homeland security and other government markets throughout the world. With headquarters in Waltham, Mass., Raytheon employs 75,000 people worldwide.

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

LCS To Miss Canadian Centennial

By CHRISTOPHER P. CAVAS

Published: 7 Jun 2010 17:23

The Littoral Combat Ship USS Freedom will miss the Canadian Navy's 100th birthday party next week and instead spend more time preparing for a major fleet exercise, the U.S. Navy announced Monday.

(U.S. Navy) Other U.S. Navy ships scheduled to attend, including the aircraft carrier Ronald Reagan and cruiser Chosin, will still take part in the International Fleet Review scheduled for June 9-14 at Victoria, British Columbia.

The Freedom has been at San Diego since finishing up her maiden deployment April 23. A number of minor problems cropped up during her cruise, including, according to Naval Surface Forces, minor leaks "in both the port and starboard splitter gear lube oil coolers."

Additionally, "cracks and minor structural damage was discovered in one of the centerline fuel tanks," the Navy said.

The ship was drydocked in late April for an earlier problem at NASSCO's shipyard in San Diego. The latest repairs and inspections were completed over the weekend, said Lt. Cmdr. Chris Servello, a Navy spokesman in San Diego.

Freedom will carry out postrepair shakedown cruising off the southern California coast this week, and is scheduled to head out in mid-June for Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, and the bi-annual Rim of the Pacific exercises.

The exact causes of the ship's problems are under review, Servello said, and lessons learned will be passed on to "the LCS program office and shipyard so that these types of issues may be corrected or avoided in the future."

The fleet review will take place off the Canadian Navy's Pacific base at Esquimalt. In addition to visitors from the United States, naval ships from Australia, France, Japan and New Zealand are expected to attend.

A similar review is scheduled at Canada's Atlantic base at Halifax, Nova Scotia, for June 28 to July 2.

[buglerbilly]

Lockheed Martin Team Reaches 50 Percent Completion in Construction of Nation's Third Littoral Combat Ship

(Source: Lockheed Martin; issued June 15, 2010)

MARINETTE, Wis. --- The Lockheed Martin-led industry team recently accomplished a key milestone by reaching the 50-percent completion mark in the construction of the nation's third Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). LCS 3, named Fort Worth, is on track for delivery to the U.S. Navy in 2012.

Fort Worth is being built by Marinette Marine Corporation and is scheduled to be launched later this year. All of the ship's major equipment has been installed and 100 percent of its modules are under construction.

"Lockheed Martin and its teammates have demonstrated strong performance in constructing LCS 3," said Joe North, Lockheed Martin LCS program manager. "We are on schedule and on cost under a fixed-price contract. This performance proves our ability to deliver a low-risk solution that will meet the Navy's need for a class of affordable and survivable warships."

Marinette Marine constructed and launched the nation's first LCS, USS Freedom. USS Freedom's capabilities have been demonstrated since its commissioning in 2008. The ship has been operational for 18 months and successfully completed its first deployment in April. Throughout the deployment, the crew completed four drug interdictions, in which more than five tons of cocaine were seized in the U.S. Southern and U.S. Pacific Command areas of responsibility.

In addition to Marinette Marine Corporation, a Fincantieri company, the Lockheed Martin-led team for LCS 3 includes naval architect Gibbs & Cox as well as best-of-industry domestic and international companies. In late 2009 and early 2010, the team installed Fort Worth's main propulsion equipment, including the 16-cylinder diesel engines, produced by Fairbanks-Morse, as well as two Rolls-Royce MT30 gas turbines.

Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin is a global security company that employs about 136,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services. The corporation reported 2009 sales of $45.2 billion.

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

LCS-1 headed to RIMPAC.

via US Navy.



USS Freedom Departs San Diego for RIMPACBy Lt. Ed Early, USS Freedom Public Affairs SAN DIEGO (NNS) -- The Navy's first Littoral Combat Ship, USS Freedom (LCS 1), departed Naval Base San Diego today to participate in Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) 2010, the world's largest maritime exercise.

During this year's RIMPAC, the 22nd in the biennial exercise series, Freedom will operate in and around the Hawaiian Islands with air, land, and maritime forces from 13 other nations.

"RIMPAC is a tremendous opportunity to build upon and to refine Freedom's known surface warfare and maritime security capabilities and to break new ground in LCS employment," said Cmdr. Kris Doyle, commanding officer of Freedom's Blue Crew. "We have several 'first-of' events scheduled, ranging from air defense to anti-submarine to fire support exercises. Every day, we will be stretching ourselves to learn more about what LCS brings to the fleet and how we integrate in a multinational environment."

Freedom recently arrived in San Diego at the conclusion of a historic maiden deployment to the U.S. 3rd and 4th Fleet areas of responsibility. During deployment, the ship conducted counter-illicit trafficking (CIT) operations, making four successful seizures that yielded more than five tons of cocaine, two "go fast" drug vessels, and nine suspected smugglers taken into custody. In addition to independent operations, Freedom successfully integrated with the USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70) Carrier Strike Group for a re-fueling at sea, high-speed operations, surface gunnery events, and Visit, Board, Search, and Seizure evolutions. The ship also completed three theater security cooperation port visits to Cartagena, Colombia; Panama City, Panama; and Manzanillo, Mexico.

The first ship of the revolutionary LCS program, Freedom is a fast, agile, and maneuverable ship designed to compliment the Navy's larger multi-mission surface combatants in select mission areas, including combating submarines, mines, and fast-attack craft threats in the littorals.

Embarked aboard Freedom for RIMPAC are Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron (HSC) 22, Detachment 2, based in Norfolk, Va., and the first tailored LCS Surface Warfare Mission Package (SUW MP), based in San Diego.

[buglerbilly]

LCS 1 Demonstrates Its Potential At RIMPAC Exercises

(Source: Lexington Institute; issued July 29, 2010)

(© Lexington Institute; reproduced by permission)

Every two years, the United States organizes and hosts the Rim of the Pacific Exercise (RIMPAC). This is the world’s largest maritime exercise, this year involving some 32 ships, 5 submarines, more than 170 aircraft and 20,000 personnel. Participating countries include Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, France, Indonesia, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Peru, Singapore and Thailand. It is a clear and powerful demonstration of the value of collaborative defense efforts in the Pacific region.

While RIMPAC has been going on since 1971, this year is notable for, among other things, the first appearance at one of the biennial events of the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). USS Freedom, LCS 1, is demonstrating the characteristics that will make the planned fleet of LCS a vital element of the U.S. Navy for decades to come.

The value of the LCS comes from the inherent capabilities of the vessel, its shallow draft and high speed and from its adaptability. A defining feature of the LCS is its ability to deploy modular force packages tailored to specific missions. In this instance, USS Freedom was outfitted for an interdiction mission. It was equipped with the LCS Surface Warfare Mission Package and embarked Maritime Expeditionary Security Squadron (MAREXSECRON) 2 and Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron (HSC) 22. LCS 1 and its onboard units conducted simulated boarding exercises and even participated in the sinking of a target ship.

Both LCS 1 and LCS 2, the USS Independence, will open up new opportunities for naval collaboration between the U.S. and its allies, particularly in the Pacific region. Its modular design will allow the LCS to rapidly switch between the currently planned set of surface warfare, ASW and mine countermeasure missions. Clearly, the inherent flexibility of the LCS design will allow for other combinations of capabilities to be deployed, such as air and missile defense, shore bombardment, humanitarian assistance and air and sea surveillance.

Equally important, both LCS variants offer the potential to equip foreign navies. In the past, U.S. Navy ships have been too expensive and even too capable for all but the richest and most sophisticated foreign navies to procure. LCS will be relatively less expensive and possesses the virtue of an open architecture that will enable foreign navies to customize the ship to meet their needs. There is a tremendous value also to foreign navies operating the same platforms and weapons systems as the U.S. Navy.

RIMPAC 2010 is a demonstration both of the power of collaborative defense efforts and a clear reminder of the central role the United States, in general, and the U.S. Navy, in particular, play in maintaining the peace and stability of the Pacific region. As defense budgets tighten both for the U.S. and many friendly nations, collaboration in regional security will only grow more important. So too will the ability of the United States to provide its friends and allies with the military equipment they need to defend themselves and help secure regional peace.

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

First Gun Mission Module Installed Aboard LCS 2

(Source: US Navy; issued Aug. 5, 2010)

WASHINGTON --- The Navy installed the second gun mission module (GMM) aboard USS Independence (LCS 2) July 28 in Norfolk, Va.

The GMM is an integral part of Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Surface Warfare (SUW) Mission Package used for counter-piracy, maritime interdiction and security missions. GMM consists of two MK 46 turret mounted, axis-stabilized, 30mm chain gun systems that can fire up to 200 rounds per minute.

Following installation, integration and end-to-end testing was conducted. "The GMM breaks the paradigm of traditional fixed weapons that require permanent installation into the ship," said Capt. John Ailes, program manager for Program Executive Office Littoral and Mine Warfare's (PEO LMW) LCS Mission Modules program office (PMS 420). "Traditional weapon system installations require the ship to be alongside the pier for an extended upgrade/repair period to accomplish any significant weapon system upgrades/repairs.

Ailes also said the SUW GMM can be upgraded separately from the ship and the updated GMM can then be installed quickly, greatly improving operational tempo.

He added that reverse flexibility of the system is also true, with the GMM capable of being removed and embarked on another LCS platform, reducing the need to procure two GMMs for each platform. The GMM is procured to warfighting requirements and not quantities of ships.

The LCS SUW Mission Package team, lead by Cmdr. William Guarini, PMS 420, installed the GMM on LCS 2.

GMM was the first module of the SUW Mission Package rolled out in July 2008, and consists of an MK44, Mod 2, 30mm automatic chain gun secured in an MK 46 turret. The gun can be fired in single, 5-round bursts and unlimited length bursts. Each GMM has a magazine capacity of more than 800 rounds and fires U.S. Navy 30 X 173mm ammunition. The weapon system is designed to counter small boat threats.

The first Engineering Development Model (EMD) was subsequently installed on LCS 1 and used during Freedom's recent deployment to the U.S. Southern Command's Area of Operations where LCS 1 successfully conducted narcotics trafficking interdiction missions.

Freedom also conducted testing of the GMM recently during the annual Rim of the Pacific Exercise near the Hawaiian Islands.

The team also installed the first EDM of the launcher for the Surface-to-Surface Missile Module (SSMM) in the forward centerline weapon zone. LCS 2 is built with a center-line weapon zone and port and starboard weapon zones. Current planning for SUW employment has the 30mm GMM carried in the port and starboard weapon zones and the SSMM carried in the centerline weapon zone.

The SUW MP team consisted of Sailors from LCS Mission Package Detachment 2, government engineers from the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren, the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Port Hueneme and Northrop Grumman Corporation.

An affiliated program executive office of Naval Sea Systems Command, PEO LMW designs, delivers and maintains systems, equipment and weapons needed by the warfighter to dominate the littoral battle space, and provides the warfighter assured access.

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

Duty Aboard the Littoral Combat Ship: ‘Grueling but Manageable’

September 2010 edition, National Defense magazine

By Grace V. Jean

ABOARD THE USS FREEDOM, SAILING IN THE PACIFIC — The Navy will soon decide which version of the Littoral Combat Ship it will buy. Selecting the ship model, however, is only the beginning of what could be a long, arduous adjustment for sailors who will be serving aboard these new vessels.

Since it was conceived more than a decade ago, the LCS has survived a convoluted acquisition process and now appears to be on track to join the fleet. But these challenges pale in comparison to what it will take for sailors to make the transition from 200-crew frigates to an LCS that will be run by a crew of just 40.

“People ask me, ‘Is 40 the right number?’” says Cmdr. Kris Doyle, commanding officer of the USS Freedom’s Blue Crew. The Freedom is one of two competing designs. Following its maiden deployment earlier this year to South America and the Eastern Pacific, it has been at sea now for several months testing “operational concepts” for how the vessel could be used in the future.

Whether a crew of 40 can do the work of 200 so far is hard to say, Doyle says in an interview during a recent exercise off the Hawaiian island of Oahu. “My job here with the ship is to push everything to its limit, whether it’s the teams, my sailors, the processes, to see what works and what doesn’t.”

The lean crew demands that sailors perform multiple jobs. Everybody on board pitches in, whether it’s washing dining trays or any number of security-related duties. The payoff is that there are more opportunities for upward mobility than is usually the norm.

Designed to sail in close-to-shore waters, the 3,000-ton LCS is technologically unlike anything sailors have experienced before. But it remains to be seen whether advanced technology can make up for actual hands on deck.

“When we started this, we knew we had to learn more than one job. We knew we would have to be multi-talented. But I don’t think any of us had any idea how much we were going to have to know and learn and stretch ourselves to be able to get this ship to operate,” says Doyle, who has been with the LCS program since 2005. She served as the crew’s executive officer through Freedom’s build and commissioning process and became commanding officer in March 2009.

The Freedom, made by Lockheed Martin Corp., is a steel monohull. Its competitor is an aluminum catamaran made by General Dynamics Corp. The Navy already has agreed to buy two of each, but the rising cost of the ships meant that only one design could be purchased in large quantities. The winner will receive a contract for 10 ships. The loser goes home, but may have another opportunity to compete in five years.

The crew operating Freedom was instructed to not talk about the competition. But ask them about the ship and they will spout plenty of praise and little criticism. Despite feeling overworked, they remain fiercely dedicated to the LCS concept, says Doyle. “They just keep pressing forward.”

Most of the crew has completed tours aboard traditional surface combatants, such as frigates, cruisers and amphibious ships.

LCS follows the submarine force’s model for crewing. Just as submarines are staffed by blue and gold teams that swap out at sea every few months, the LCS rotates blue and gold crews every four months.

In addition to the 40-sailor crews, there are 15 operators that run special mission equipment and 23 sailors with the aviation detachment. During the biennial Rim of the Pacific exercise, Freedom deployed with Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron 22, Detachment 2, based in Norfolk, Va.

LCS sailors are “extremely proud of our way of doing business,” says Cmdr. Jim Edwards, who was executive officer for Freedom’s Blue Crew prior to becoming skipper in August. “We’re all cross-trained,” he tells reporters in the wardroom.

The LCS has been compared to watercraft, or jet skis on steroids, for the way its two speedy prototype designs handle in the water. USS Freedom sailors have come up with another moniker: a “mini-amphib” for the way she can launch a speed boat into the water from her stern ramp just as amphibious ships can launch landing craft from their well decks. It is one of the features that distinguishes Freedom from its trimaran competitor.

The ship turns in less than half the distance that a typical surface combatant would, Edwards points out. Operators could make the ship do donuts if they wanted, he adds with a chuckle.
Freedom usually transits on the two diesel engines, but when the ship has to sprint, sailors light its two gas turbine engines. “That’s when you can really move,” says Edwards, who has been on the ship since April 2009. When Freedom exceeds 40 knots, she kicks up a 30-foot high rooster tail that fans out behind her, he says. Edwards recalled witnessing the ship hitting 48 knots and speeding ahead of a wave. “It really looked like it was surfing down the wave. It was probably the coolest thing I’ve ever done on a ship,” he says.

“We don’t have big fuel tanks though, so while we’re very efficient, we can’t go far,” says Edwards, who last month took command of Blue Crew and sailed Freedom back to her home port of San Diego.

Space is a precious commodity. While certain areas of the hull are more spacious compared to larger classes — the flight deck, the reconfigurable mission zones, the staterooms that permit sit-up berthing — other parts are more confined.

When asked what he would improve about the ship, Petty Officer 1st Class Brad Vincent, an engineman, commented that the engine room is tight.

In the back of the hangar sits a large freezer that was brought on board to support the extra sailors embarked for the exercise. “This actually helps us have more food on board, so we’re not doing a lot of vertical replenishments and alongside connected-replenishments,” said Petty Officer 1st Class Naomi Jackson, culinary specialist.

The crew works in three six-hour shifts. Sailors stand watch at their assigned stations for six hours and then have the next 12 hours off. But the caveat is that the ship conducts many missions that require more sailors than just one shift’s worth of watch standers, Doyle says.

To launch a helicopter, the ship’s combat systems officer, Lt. Cmdr. Earl Timmons, donned one of the red safety vests to be part of the fire team standing watch on the flight deck during take off. On any other surface combatant, an officer ordinarily would not have to participate because there is a dedicated fire team for the job, he tells National Defense. But because he had just finished standing first watch monitoring the ship’s communications and weapons systems, he had to answer the flight quarters call. When sailors end their shift, they often have to hang around to fill in other positions, such as helping with helicopter launches or resupply duties.

Sailors only end up with about six hours of rest a day. “We try not to impinge upon those six hours. But sometimes we have to,” Doyle says. Emergencies, such as fire or flooding, require all hands on deck. Pulling in and out of port also involves the entire crew.

Timmons says he only has four to six hours of sleep every 24 to 48 hours. The work cycle on board is grueling but manageable, he says. He believes that LCS is the future of the Navy.

Jackson, one of three cooks on board, agrees. “It’s a lot of work, but it’s paid off,” she says. When she first arrived, Jackson was a third class petty officer but discovered that she could move up the ranks quickly. Her primary job is to prepare meals for the crew. But she also serves as a signalman during on-board replenishments when the ship pulls alongside an oiler for fuel. She’s a line handler whenever the ship launches one of its rigid-hull inflatable boats, and she is prepared to assist the doctor when they encounter any mass casualty scenario.

Nowhere is the reduced manning concept more evident than in the ship’s combat information center. The Freedom crew calls it their mission control center — a darkened room filled with computer consoles and screens displaying sensor images and video feeds. Aboard other ships, almost two-dozen sailors would man the center. Here, there are three watch standers. Along the perimeter of the space, additional work stations for the mission package teams sit vacant for the moment.

With fewer sailors to do the job, the downsized crew receives a lot of help from computers that automatically monitor parts of the ship.

“We’re still finding the balance on automation and how to build networks,” says Doyle.
When it’s time to load up on fuel, the officer of the deck engages the autopilot to maintain a course 160 feet from the oiler. On other naval combatants, steering the ship involves a complicated process not unlike the children’s game of telephone. Navigational commands proceed through a chain of officers, from the captain or executive officer to the safety officer and the helmsman, before they reach the hands that turn the ship, Doyle explains.

“We’ve taken a lot of the human element out of it,” she says. “We don’t want to take every human element out, but the more people you put in the chain, the more likely you’ll get human error.”

Vincent, who maintains the diesel engines and gas turbines, concurs that automation provides a big help to the crew.

“It’s been a challenge to learn, but once you learn automated systems, it makes life a lot easier,” he says.

To become an LCS crewmember, sailors must pass a lengthy training program ashore.

It took combat systems officer Timmons 22 months to train for LCS. As an ensign, he spent eight months training to go aboard his first ship, a cruiser. He had one months’ worth of training for his second ship. For LCS, he spent several months alone learning the ship’s COMBATTS-21 system, which is based upon the Navy’s Aegis combat system.

When crews finish a rotation, they have two weeks to recover before they’re back in the training center sharpening their skills for their next deployment.

Blue Crew was scheduled to turn over the ship to Gold Crew last month.

“I’m no longer surprised by what the U.S. Navy sailor can do. Every day, I’m amazed,” says Doyle.

[buglerbilly]

Austal, LockMar Nose to Nose For LCS

By Colin Clark Monday, August 23rd, 2010 4:49 pm

Those of us who hoped for an LCS contract announcement during the dolrdrums of late August must sigh and twiddle our thumbs for a bit.

The two bids are apparently so close that the Navy has come back to the two companies and asked for more information. Although the Navy has repeatedly told the world the award for the Littoral Combat Ship would be made this summer it now looks as if it will be made sometime before the beginning of 2011, according to a service statement,” Cmdr. Victor Chen said in a statement.

We hear the Austal ship is somewhat less expensive. But Lockheed’s ship is reputedly more survivable, always an tremendously important consideration for U.S. Navy ships. [We picked the photo of the Lockheed ship at random. Don’t read anything into it.]

Keenly aware of pressure from Congress and industrial supporters for a contract announcement, Chen’s statement says that the Navy “is proceeding with the LCS source selection diligently, thoroughly, and consistently with its source-selection plan and applicable law and regulations. The Navy is taking the time necessary to carefully review and analyze the competing proposals.” And he can’t say much more about it. Indeed, Chen wrote, the service’s “duty to protect the integrity of the source-selection process, as well as the confidentiality of the information submitted by the offerors, significantly limits our ability to provide additional details about the ongoing competitive procurement at this time.

This contract will be for 10 ships. Whoever wins this one can’t bid in 2012 for the second tranche of five ships. A total of 51 ships will be bought, according to Navy plans.

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/08/23/austal-lockmar-nose-to-nose-for-lcs/#ixzz0xTzplooB

[buglerbilly]

More on this..........

U.S. Navy Puts Off LCS Decision

By CHRISTOPHER P. CAVAS

Published: 23 Aug 2010 14:16

The long-awaited decision on which Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) design to buy will take a bit longer, the U.S. Navy said Aug. 23 - and that means the announcement of a choice might wait until just before year's end.


The Freedom (LCS 1), bottom, was commissioned by the U.S. Navy in Nov. 2008, while the Independence (LCS 2), top, is aiming to be delivered to the Navy by the end of this year. (U.S. Navy)

Navy leaders have repeatedly assured Congress, industry and the media that a decision would be made before the end of summer. Although the vacation period generally ends with Labor Day, meteorological summer ends on Sept. 23, the first day of fall, and some observers had thought the decision might be announced between when Congress returns from its summer recess on Sept. 13 and Sept. 23.

But the Navy, in a statement released Monday afternoon, announced it will request Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs) "soon" from competing firms Lockheed Martin and Austal USA.


"The Navy anticipates that FPRs will be received in September 2010, and will require that these revised offers remain valid for 90 days," the service said in its statement.

Cmdr. Victor Chen, a spokesman for the service's acquisition department, could not give a specific date for the FPRs to be turned in. If the responses are received by Sept. 30, the service would then presumably have until Dec. 30 to announce its decision.

The LCS program has gone through a long and at times torturous process since the decision was announced in 2004 to build competing designs from Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics. For a time, the Navy planned to put both designs into production, but in September 2009, Sean Stackley, the Navy's top weapon buyer, restructured the program and announced only one type would be built.

At stake are at least 51 ships. The service already has bought two ships from each competing team, and the Navy wants a force of 55 LCSs. When complete, the LCS fleet will number about one-sixth of the entire U.S. fleet.

GD and its shipbuilder, Austal USA, split up earlier this year for the purposes of bidding on the current contract, which will involve the design selection and the award of construction contracts for 10 ships. Another award for five ships will come in 2012, when, according to the Navy's rules, the winning shipyard can't be associated with the 2010 contract. GD, which would like to build LCS ships in one of its shipyards, was forced to split from Austal in order to bid on the 2012 contract.

The Navy's announcement of its decision to request more information from the bidders was not entirely unexpected. Democrats in Congress protested mightily after the Aug. 9 announcement by Defense Secretary Robert Gates that he would close the Joint Forces Command near Norfolk, Va., as an efficiency move. That meant that more than 6,000 jobs will be leaving Suffolk County, and Democrats, particularly those in close races, raised a mighty hue and cry in protest. As a result, further announcements that could affect job losses might be expected to be put off.

The full Navy statement reads:


"The Navy is proceeding with the LCS source selection diligently, thoroughly, and consistently with its source-selection plan and applicable law and regulations. The Navy is taking the time necessary to carefully review and analyze the competing proposals.

"To this end, the Navy is currently engaged in discussions with offerors and will request Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs) from them soon. The Navy anticipates that FPRs will be received in September 2010, and will require that these revised offers remain valid for 90 days. The Navy intends to make a contract award as expeditiously as practicable, consistent with its source selection plan, but in any event prior to the expiration of such offers.

"We understand there is keen public interest in this competition, but our duty to protect the integrity of the source-selection process, as well as the confidentiality of the information submitted by the offerors, significantly limits our ability to provide additional details about the ongoing competitive procurement at this time."

[buglerbilly]

LockMar Outpaces Austal on LCS

By Colin Clark Sunday, August 29th, 2010 9:30 pm

Lockheed Martin, with just a five-week head start, has completed 60 percent of LCS 3, compared to Austal, whose LCS 4 is only 26 percent complete.

We hear Lockheed recently attached the bow to the rest of the ship. Given how close the competition is between Lockheed and the Amero-Australian shipbuilder, the bigger company’s ability to produce ships with greater speed and fewer delays might raises questions in the minds of U.S. Navy officials about Austal’s ability to regularly deliver ships.

Lockheed Martin is building a more conventional single-hulled steel ship in contrast to Austal’s innovative aluminum-hulled trimaran. We hear that the Navy is finding it difficult to find enough aluminum welders to repair the Austal ships and that the company may be facing technical challenges with the welding. We asked General Dynamics, which remains prime for LCS4 although Austal builds the ships, if they would still be able to finish their ship on time given that they are only 26 percent complete so far, and we did not receive a reply.

In a briefing for investors, Austal disclosed the percentage of work done on LCS 4. For those who check out the briefing bear in mind that, although it says the ship won’t be finished until “late 2012,” that’s not what it seems to mean. We thought the company was much further behind but a company spokesman said the paper was produced for investors and that it refers to Austal’s “fiscal operating year which runs from July through June.” So the ship is still on track for delivery in June 2012.

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/08/29/lockmar-outpaces-austal-on-lcs/#ixzz0y5aeh6Su

[buglerbilly]

GAO: Early LCS Deployment Hurt The Program

By PHILIP EWING

Published: 31 Aug 2010 16:53

This year's "early deployment" of the littoral combat ship Freedom, praised by commanders as proof of the ships' potential, actually hurt the overall progress of the full LCS program, according to a congressional report issued Tuesday, which also found that LCS will not help the Navy hunt submarines as well as originally advertised.


Freedom's extended homeport change from Norfolk, Va., to San Diego, and its participation in this year's Rim of the Pacific exercises, meant the ship was not available to test the interchangeable “mission modules” that are key to the LCS concept, (U.S. Navy)

Freedom's extended homeport change from Norfolk, Va., to San Diego, and its participation in this year's Rim of the Pacific exercises, meant the ship was not available to test the interchangeable "mission modules" that are key to the LCS concept, according to the report by the Government Accountability Office, and that caused delays.

"Mission package delays have also disrupted program test schedules - a situation exacerbated by decisions to deploy initial ships early, which limit their availability for operational testing," the report said. "In addition, these delays could disrupt program plans for simultaneously acquiring seaframes and mission packages. Until mission package performance is proven, the Navy risks investing in a fleet of ships that does not deliver promised capability."

And even as Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead has said that the Navy must put a new priority on what has been called the "lost art" of anti-submarine warfare, GAO found that sub-hunting systems planned for LCS "do not contribute significantly to the anti-submarine warfare mission."

The latest details and costs of the LCS anti-sub mission module are classified.

Investigators also found that the Navy continues to struggle with technical problems aboard its first two ships, even as work continues on its third and fourth, putting the service and its shipbuilders in the potentially awkward situation of needing to change designs, redo work or make other late alterations to LCS 3 and 4, when that would be most costly.

"Addressing these technical issues has required the Navy to implement design changes at the same time LCS 3 and LCS 4 are being built," the report said. "Incorporating changes during this phase may disrupt the optimal construction sequence for these ships, requiring additional labor hours beyond current forecasts. Together, these challenges may hinder the ability of shipbuilders to apply lessons learned to follow on ships and could undermine anticipated benefits from recent capital investments in the LCS shipyards."

That's what happened with the first two ships, which had their designs changed well along into construction earlier this decade. Still, so far the costs for LCS 3, the Freedom-class steel and aluminum monohull Fort Worth; and LCS 4, the Independence-class aluminum trimaran Coronado, have together grown less than 8 percent, GAO found. By comparison, costs for Freedom grew almost 150 percent and grew for Independence almost 137 percent.

As it has before, GAO also faulted the Navy for charging ahead with the LCS program even though it hasn't finished what GAO considers a full or complete analysis.

The Navy announced last week that it will miss its deadline to select a winning design for a batch of ten ships - although officials initially hoped to do the deal by the "end of the summer," they have now given themselves until Dec. 30 at the latest to make the decision.

---

For full coverage of the GAO report, pick up next week's Navy Times.

[buglerbilly]

More on the background of this..............

LCS Mission Modules Not Working As Intended



The lack of working Mission modules was always going to be the Achilles Heel of this programme. The simulation where they have to return to Diego Gracia to change Mission modules is a nonsense in my opinion, they'd be far more likely to be changing them in any one of a number of Gulf yards...............

A recent Pentagon war game that ran the Navy’s new Littoral Combat Ship through simulated combat in the Gulf didn’t unfold quite as expected, according to participants. The LCS is custom built with the Gulf combat environment in mind: narrow and congested waters, a wide range of low-end threats from sea mines and swarms of fast attack craft to higher-end air-breathing submarines.

The key to the LCS performing as the Swiss Army knife of the battle fleet is the ship’s interchangeable mission modules. While the “plug-and-fight” mission modules sound like a good idea by providing a range of flexibility within a single hull, the simulated Gulf exercises revealed some real-world shortcomings with the LCS concept.

The war game featured the trouble-making Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps navy sending out swarms of fast-attack craft to muck it up with a half dozen LCSs. The LCSs, equipped with the surface warfare mission module which includes the ship’s integral 57mm cannon, a pair of 30mm rapid fire cannons, vertically launched missiles and armed helicopters, were able to beat back the Iranian small boat attack.

Seeing their small boat swarm shot-up, the Iranians dispatched a bunch of small, air-breathing submarines to attack the LCS flotilla. The LCSs were forced to steam down to Diego Garcia to switch out the surface warfare modules with the anti-submarine warfare packages. That scenario repeated itself every time the Iranians changed up their attack and wrong-footed the LCS flotilla.

Beyond the conceptual challenges revealed by simulations, it now appears that the LCS mission modules themselves are in real trouble. The tenacious watchdogs at the Government Accountability Office tell lawmakers that the mission modules aren’t working, face serious delays and that work on the anti-submarine warfare package has been suspended: “Recent testing of mission package systems has yielded less than desirable results. To date, most LCS mission systems have not demonstrated the ability to provide required capabilities.”

The surface warfare package remains unproven, GAO says, in part because of the Army’s recent decision to cancel the Non-Line-of-Sight Launch System, which was to provide long-range strike for the LCS. The Navy is looking into alternative missile systems, the report says. There have also been problems with the mechanism designed to launch 11-meter rigid inflatable boats off the stern of the LCS. One Navy source told Defense Tech that it takes more than 45 minutes to launch a RIB boat off an LCS.

GAO said LCS testing remains in its “infancy,” with the first operational testing of a ship outfitted with a “partial” mission package pushed to 2013. A key part from the GAO report:


“Challenges developing and procuring mission packages have delayed the timely fielding of promised capabilities, limiting the ships’ utility to the fleet during initial deployments. Until these challenges are resolved, it will be difficult for the Navy to align seaframe purchases with mission package procurements and execute planned tests. Key mine countermeasures and surface warfare systems have encountered technical issues that have delayed their development and fielding.

Further, Navy analysis of LCS anti-submarine warfare systems found these capabilities did not contribute significantly to the anti-submarine warfare mission. These challenges have led to procurement delays for all three mission packages. For instance, key elements of the surface warfare package remain in development, requiring the Navy to deploy a less robust capability on LCS 1.

Mission package delays have also disrupted program test schedules—a situation exacerbated by decisions to deploy initial ships early, which limit their availability for operational testing. In addition, these delays could disrupt program plans for simultaneously acquiring seaframes and mission packages. Until mission package performance is proven, the Navy risks investing in a fleet of ships that does not deliver promised capability.”

– Greg Grant

Read more: http://defensetech.org/2010/09/01/lcs-mission-modules-not-working-as-intended/#more-8853#ixzz0yIdGoZai
Defense.org

[buglerbilly]

Littoral Combat Ship: It’s The Mission Packages, Stupid

(Source: Lexington Institute; issued September 7, 2010)

(© Lexington Institute; reproduced by permission)

Statement of the blitheringly obvious in my opinion..............

One might argue that the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program has had more than its fair share of challenges. First there was the difficulty of carrying along two very different ship designs, one by a Lockheed Martin-led team (LCS 1 and 3) and another by a General Dynamics led team (LCS 2 and 4). Then there was the effort to qualify two relatively small commercial shipyards to build vessels to Navy standards. Finally, there was the “sticker shock” caused by rising costs and the repeated program slippages.

More recently, the Navy seemed to have the LCS program under control. LCS 1 and 2 have been to sea, demonstrating some remarkable capabilities. LCS 1 also participated in a drug interdiction operation and in the RIMPAC 2010 international naval exercises. LCS 3 and 4 are being built.

While the planned down-select to one ship type and an initial contract for ten LCSs has been delayed for unknown reasons, the Navy is still expected to make an award soon. The planned buy of 55 LCSs is vital to attainment of the goal of a 316 ship Navy.

One of the unique features of the LCS concept is that the ships are designed to deploy different mission packages that can be exchanged as circumstances dictate. The LCS provides a sea frame, basic power and ship handling systems, crew quarters and the interfaces to support the mission modules.

The mission packages are built around a set of mission modules or sets of mission-specific systems packaged into 20-foot shipping containers or modules. As planned, the mission packages can include additional unmanned aerial, surface and subsurface vehicles.

While the shipbuilding program appears to be over the proverbial hump, the same cannot be said for the mission packages. This is serious because the mission packages are critical to the viability of the LCS as a military vessel; without them, the LCS is nothing more than a big speed boat.

Yet, the three initial mission packages for anti-surface, anti-submarine and mine countermeasures are all experiencing difficulties. Development of the highly-classified anti-submarine warfare mission package essentially has been halted. Progress on the surface warfare mission package has been slowed by problems with the unmanned surface vessel and the cancellation of the Non-Line-of-Sight Launch System which was intended to provide a high volume, precision-guided rocket capability for the LCS.

A recent Government Accountability Office study of the LCS program pointed out that “until mission packages are proven, the Navy risks investing in a fleet of warships that does not deliver promised capability.”

Even the one mission module that has been relatively successful, that for mine countermeasures, has experienced technical challenges to some of the integrated mission systems. Current testing is being conducted with a subset of the nine planned mission systems. But there are reports that the Navy is considering eliminating some of the mission systems in a misplaced attempt to save a few dollars.

Understanding the importance of the LCS, the Navy responded to initial problems with the basic ships or sea frames with the necessary attention, expertise and resources. The same effort must now be devoted to the development of working mission packages. This also includes developing the desired unmanned systems, particularly for subsurface operations. It makes no sense to buy ships and have nothing to place on them.

The Navy needs to remember, to borrow the Clinton-era campaign slogan, that it is the mission packages, stupid.

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

Towards Becoming Europe’s Most Modern Navy

(Source: Norwegian Ministry of Defence; issued Sept. 15, 2010)


Storm, the first of six Skjold Class missile-armed, stealthy fast patrol boats has finally been commissioned into the Norwegian Navy. (Norwegian Navy photo)

“This is a big and important day for Norway as a coastal nation. We have much to defend, and with HNoMS Storm and the Skjold Class we are better equipped than ever before,” says State Secretary Roger Ingebrigtsen who was attending the naming ceremony of HNoMS Storm.

The ceremony took place on September 9 at Umoe Mandal. Chair of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, Ine Marie Eriksen Søreide, was godmother.

Important vessels for Norway

HNoMS Storm is the first of a total of six Skjold Class missile-armed, stealthy fast patrol boats (FPB). Also known as a Fast Reaction Craft, this is a modern, technically advanced naval vessel capable of playing an important role in upholding Norwegian sovereignty and undertaking crisis management missions in both Norwegian and international waters.

The vessels are powerfully armed, have long endurance and are highly capable of dealing with challenging conditions at sea. The main armament of the Skjold Class will consist of the Norwegian-produced Naval Strike Missile. The vessels have attracted considerable interest world-wide.

“Norway’s territorial waters cover a very large area and we need naval vessels to uphold our rights and fulfil our obligations at sea. The Skjold Class embodies the very latest technology and has a natural place on Norway’s defence forces. These FPBs are, we believe, the world’s fastest naval vessels. They will make a significant contribution in relation to maintaining a naval presence in the High North,” a highly satisfied State Secretary points out.

The FPBs are also capable of undertaking search and rescue missions and the protection of Norwegian assets on the continental shelf. They are also equipped to enable them to take part in international operations.

Delayed delivery

Delivery of the vessels has been delayed, mainly due to engine problems. “Naturally this is not ideal. I would, however, like to emphasise that we are satisfied that the technical problems have now been solved. The most important thing for us is that we can now bring these vessels into service,” says Roger Ingebrigtsen.

“We are aware that the shipbuilders, Umoe Mandal, have reduced the scale of their activities now that these vessels will soon have been completed. In connection with the Government’s package of support measures for the shipbuilding industry, a number of initiatives have been launched to support future working at Umoe Mandal.

“It is in the Norwegian navy’s interests to have more countries as users of Skjold Class FPBs and we will therefore be giving priority to Umoe Mandal where the use of market support resources is concerned. Furthermore, the decision has been taken to keep maintenance of the Skjold Class, other than that carried out by the Navy itself, within Norwegian industry,” says the State Secretary in conclusion.

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

Final LCS Bids Are In

By CHRISTOPHER P. CAVAS

Published: 15 Sep 2010 11:52

Both industry teams contending to build the next Littoral Combat Ships submitted their "final proposals" Sept. 15, and are now awaiting a decision in the U.S. Navy's premier shipbuilding competition.


The USS Independence (LCS 2), representing the design from LCS contender Austal USA, at Norfolk, Va., in late August. Austal is competing with Lockheed Martin to build more LCS ships. (CHRISTOPHER P. CAVAS / STAFF)

Navy leaders said for months they expected a decision on the LCS program to be announced over the summer, but that deadline is all but gone, and the service's announcement Aug. 23 that it would seek Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs) for the bids means a selection might not be revealed until shortly before Christmas. A stipulation of the FPRs was that they would remain valid for 90 days. With today's submission, that means the offers are good until about mid-December.

Lockheed Martin and Austal USA are competing to have their design selected as the basis for at least 51 more LCS ships. Along with the design selection, the Navy also will award contracts for a batch of 10 ships to be ordered between 2010 and 2014.

The LCS program has suffered a seemingly endless series of delays, cost growth revelations and course changes since its inception more than a decade ago, when it was conceived as a fast-track effort. Both industry teams have delivered one ship and are building another, but further orders are awaiting the Navy's design selection.

Congress also is growing frustrated with the delays. Just yesterday, the Defense Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee, in its mark-up of the 2011 defense bill, cut $615 million for one LCS ship from the Navy's budget request for two ships in 2011, citing delays in the program and the unlikelihood that two ships could be ordered in 2011.

[buglerbilly]

LCS-1 is reported as having engine problems..........see more here......

Engine Problem Strikes LCS 1

By CHRISTOPHER P. CAVAS

Published: 23 Sep 2010 20:55

A high-speed gas turbine engine on board the U.S. Navy's first Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) broke earlier this month and will need to be replaced, but officials don't expect the mishap to affect the ship's testing schedule...................

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4787997&c=AME&s=SEA

[buglerbilly]

CRS: Congress Could Consider LCS Alternatives

Sep 24, 2010

By Michael Fabey



They have problems getting the Mission Modules into service (or even working) and one of the major weapon elements, Netfires, has been rejected by the Army leaving the Navy to pick up the tab IF they want to proceed with it..........the vessel costs and problems are insignificant by comparison..........NOT looking good for LCS in my opinion AND they need alternatives for the VLS.........:doh

As Congress decides whether to follow the proposed U.S. Navy procurement plan for the service’s Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), lawmakers may want to look at whether the service should change its acquisition strategy or even if the Navy has provided enough time to review the proposed program, according to the Congressional Research Service (CRS).

The Navy wants to field a force of 55 LCS, with a Fiscal 2011-2015 shipbuilding plan procuring 17 LCS during those years. The Navy’s proposed Fiscal 2011 budget requests $1.2 billion in procurement funding for two LCS that the Navy wants to procure in the year starting Oct. 1, as well as $278.4 million in advance procurement funding for 11 LCS that the Navy wants to procure between Fiscal 2012-2014.

Part of the procurement plan includes settling on a winning hull design — there are two being considered from teams led by Lockheed Martin (building at Marinette Marine in Wisconsin), and General Dynamics (at Austal USA shipyards in Alabama). “The Navy is working hard to award Austal or competitor Lockheed Martin a production contract by the end of the year,” Lexington Institute defense analyst Loren Thompson says in a recently released briefing paper.

“A variety of alternatives can be generated by changing one or more elements of the Navy’s proposed strategy,” CRS notes. One alternative would be a strategy that would keep both LCS designs in production, at least for now. Such a strategy might involve the following:

• The use of enhanced block-buy contracts to continue producing both LCS designs, to maintain stability to shipyards and suppliers;

• The use of profit-related-to-offer (PRO) bidding between the builders of the two LCS designs, so as to generate competitive pressure between them and restrain LCS production costs;

• Designing a new LCS combat system that would have a high degree of commonality with one or more existing Navy surface ship combat systems and be provided as government-furnished equipment for use on both LCS designs – an idea that was considered by the Navy at an earlier point in the program.

Congress also may want more time to better review the Navy LCS acquisition strategy. When the Navy detailed its new LCS procurement strategy last fall, the service “put Congress in the position of being asked to approve a major proposal for the LCS program – a proposal that would determine the basic shape of the acquisition strategy for the program for many years into the future – with little or no opportunity for formal congressional review and consideration through hearings and committee markup activities,” CRS says. This abbreviated schedule “would be a potential oversight issue for Congress for any large weapon acquisition program.”

Photo credit: Paul McLeary

[buglerbilly]

Littoral Combat Ship Competition Rife with Rumors

(Source: Lexington Institute; issued Oct. 20, 2010)

(© Lexington Institute; reproduced by permission)

The Navy's close-lipped effort to pick a winning design for the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program is generating more rumors than Lindsay Lohan's love-life. Maybe it's the approaching mid-term elections or maybe it's the lack of official information about how the selection process is progressing, but interested parties seem to be working overtime to formulate fanciful conspiracy theories about what's going on.

The competition pits two second-tier shipyards teamed with giant defense contractors against each other for the right to produce dozens of unconventional warships that are the only new class of surface combatants to survive recent course changes by the Navy's leadership. Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead has strongly endorsed the small, fast vessel designed for combating shallow-water threats, while curtailing the bigger Zumwalt class of next-generation destroyers and killing a future missile-defense cruiser outright.

The LCS should come in handy when Roughead gets to his next assignment in the Pacific, but first the Navy has to decide which of two designs it wants. The design being pitched by Marinette Marine of Wisconsin and Lockheed Martin looks like a smaller version of a traditional steel surface combatant, but it's much faster. The design being pitched by Australian-based Austal for construction in its Alabama shipyard -- using General Dynamics electronics -- looks like nothing that U.S. sailors have ever seen before. It's basically an aluminum trimaran.

Both designs are highly innovative, relying on automation and easy reconfigurability to hold down personnel and hardware costs. But because one design would be built in Alabama and the other in Wisconsin, the program lends itself all too readily to political rumor-mongering. One rumor has the White House intervening to force a split buy of both designs on the Navy. Another rumor has the White House trying to delay announcement of a winner until after the election. Both rumors are almost certainly wrong, but they show how thousands of jobs and votes can hang on who gets to build arcane weapons systems.

The nightmare that keeps Austal executives awake at night is that Navy evaluators will pick the "safe" design -- a fast but fairly conventional steel vessel backed by the nation's biggest defense contractor. The nightmare that keeps Marinette Marine executives awake is the possibility Austal might try to even up the odds by bidding a price too aggressive for Marinette to match. Marinette and partner Lockheed Martin have been in the business for a long time, and therefore have detailed metrics that drive their bidding behavior. Austal is an upstart with almost no relevant track record, so its bidding process is a mystery.

Since the Navy isn't talking, observers are free to postulate any theory they want as to what is going on. Only one thing is certain: regardless of who wins, there's sure to be a protest by the loser.

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

LCS Mine Countermeasure Mission Package Completes Phase III Testing

(Source: Naval Sea Systems Command; issued October 21, 2010)

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. --- The Navy completed Phase III end-to-end testing of the littoral combat ship (LCS) mine countermeasure mission package off the coast of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., Oct. 2, fully assessing unmanned vehicle operations and verifying vehicle speeds, turns and sensor deployment and retrieval capabilities.

The tests, conducted at the South Florida Open Measurement Facility, were conducted by Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC) Panama City for the Navy's Program Executive Office for Littoral and Mine Warfare (PEO LMW).

"Phase III is the culmination of the end-to-end testing. It gives us confidence that we will be ready for development testing on board USS Independence (LCS 2) in 2011," said Capt. John W. Ailes, PEO LMW's program manager for LCS mission modules.

For testing purposes and due to the operational schedule of the two delivered LCSs, the mission package was embarked aboard the Office of Naval Research vessel Seafighter, which acted as a surrogate for the LCS platform. Using Seafighter, mine countermeasure detachment Sailors were able to operate and test the mission module equipment systems at sea.

The test included full detect-to-engage scenarios, off-board vehicle tactics development, evaluation of tactical operation and maintenance procedures and evaluation of progress toward meeting key performance parameters.

The LCS Mission Modules Program successfully executed the first two phases of end-to-end testing in September 2008 and September 2009, respectively. Phase I focused on constructing mock-ups of USS Freedom (LCS 1) and LCS 2 mission bay areas to conduct system interface checks, handling, and load-out of support containers and mine countermeasure systems. Phase II testing focused on validating the ability of the Mission Package Computing Environment to establish connectivity through the Multi-Vehicle Communications System and enable operations of surface and sub-surface off-board vehicles.

PEO LMW is an affiliated Program Executive Office of the Naval Sea Systems Command, which designs, delivers and maintains the systems, equipment and weapons needed by the warfighter to dominate the littoral battle space and provide the assured access to the warfighter.

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

U.S. Navy Conducts COBRA System Flight Test from Fire Scout UAV


An MQ-8A Fire Scout prepares to land aboard USS Nashville.

AN/DVS-1 COBRA System to Provide Littoral Areas Reconnaissance

08:24 GMT, October 25, 2010 YUMA PROVING GROUND, Ariz. | The Navy successfully conducted the first flight test of the Coastal Battlefield Reconnaissance and Analysis (COBRA) Block I system at Yuma Proving Ground, Ariz., October 13, testing the system's performance on the Fire Scout vertical take-off unmanned aerial vehicle.

The AN/DVS-1 COBRA system allows the MQ-8B Fire Scout to conduct unmanned aerial reconnaissance in littoral areas, detecting minefields and obstacles to prepare for amphibious assaults. Incrementally development, the Block I upgrade was designed to specifically address the beach zone and inland areas.

"COBRA will provide valuable minefield, obstacle, and bathymetry information to the warfighter and amphibious task groups, information which is critical to amphibious assault planning," said Capt. John Hardison, deputy program manager for Mine Warfare Programs. "Successful completion of these tests is a significant leap forward in delivering this capability."

The Fire Scout, equipped with COBRA, conducted integration testing and flew for approximately 2 1/2 hours. Several successful tracks were completed in both pre-planned and operator-controlled modes and the systems conducted simulated missions. Take-off and landing went without incident, and the system completed all test scenarios.

With the successful completion of the first COBRA flight on Fire Scout, the system moves closer to delivery and deployment. The COBRA Block I system will enter low-rate initial production under a Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) Phase III contract. Under this contract, the first production unit is scheduled for delivery to the fleet in fiscal year 2012.

An affiliated program executive office of the Naval Sea Systems Command, PEO LMW designs, delivers and maintains systems, equipment and weapons needed by the warfighter to dominate the littoral battle space, and provides assured access to the warfighter.

-----
Program Executive Office
Littoral and Mine Warfare Public Affairs Office

[buglerbilly]

U.S. Navy Asks Congress To Buy Both LCS Designs

By CHRISTOPHER P. CAVAS

Published: 3 Nov 2010 18:05

Rival teams from Lockheed Martin and Austal USA have been waiting all year to see which of their designs would be chosen for the U.S. Navy's Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) competition. Now, if the Navy gets permission from the lame-duck Congress, the winner could be: both.


Rather than selecting one team to build 10 ships, the U.S. Navy will instead award construction contracts to both Lockheed Martin and Austal USA. (U.S. Navy)

At stake had been an award to the winner for 10 LCS hulls. But the Navy, convinced that the competition has driven down the cost for the ships, is asking Congress for permission to award each team contracts for 10 ships, for a total of 20 new LCS hulls.

"We're engaging with key committee members, their staff and industry on whether awarding a 10-ship block buy to each team merits congressional authorization," Capt. Cate Mueller, a spokeswoman for the Navy's acquisition department, said Nov. 3.........edited..............

.............. Both LCS designs have supporters and detractors. While both of the new ships have numerous problems - situations common to most prototypes - Lockheed's steel-hull, aluminum superstructure version is seen as an efficient, capable and handy platform, while the large flight deck and spacious mission bay of Austal USA's all-aluminum trimaran appeals to many mission planners. Planners for years have seen the designs as mutually supportive - one of the reasons that the Navy, until the fall of 2009, planned to buy both types.

Read more: http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4997988&c=AME&s=SEA

[Deks]

It's an interesting call. Politically it works though as the article mentions it brings in issues with respect to the two designs lack of commonality.

Still, sounds like different elements of the navy and it's users wanted different designs, so perhaps it's worthwhile.

[buglerbilly]

More details on this from Reuters..................

UPDATE 3-U.S. Navy seeks to buy warships from both bidders

Wed Nov 3, 2010 7:44pm EDT

* Navy move seen as good news for all parties

* Company executives notified on Wednesday

* Navy plans to buy 55 coastal warships over time (Recasts with Navy statement; adds Alabama senator)

By Andrea Shalal-Esa

WASHINGTON, Nov 3 (Reuters) - The U.S. Navy said it is in talks with lawmakers and industry about buying 10 new warships from each Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) and Australia's Austal (ASB.AX) instead of buying just 10 ships from one company, a move that would expand the U.S. naval fleet faster.

Navy spokesman Commander Danny Hernandez, confirming reports by sources familiar with the plan, said the new approach would help stabilize the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program and the shipbuilding industrial base, while also expanding prospects for sales to foreign countries.

He said the Navy would proceed with its current plan to buy a single design of the new ships if Congress or industry were unwilling to support the new approach, adding: "Either approach will ensure the Navy procures affordably priced ships."

Sources familiar with the matter said the Navy decided to change course given lower-than-expected pricing in the competing bids for the new warships. They said the new approach would give the Navy more bang for its buck and help avert any time-consuming contract protests by the losing bidder.

The Navy ultimately plans to buy 55 of the new modular warships that will operate close to shore, a key part of its drive to expand the naval fleet to at least 313 ships.

The current plan to buy 10 ships from one bidder, plus computer systems for five more to be built by a second shipyard, had been valued at well over $5 billion. The sources said the Navy now believed it could buy 20 ships for the price it had expected to pay for those 15 ships.

MOVE SEEN AS GOOD NEWS

"This is good news for all the parties involved," said Loren Thompson with the Virginia-based Lexington Institute.

"Both of the contractors are going to get the 10 ships they were competing for and the Navy is going to get its future warships much faster and at a much lower price."

Lockheed is offering a more traditional steel monohull design, while the U.S. unit of Austal, teamed with General Dynamics Corp (GD.N), is offering an aluminum trimaran.

The Navy has been pressing both companies to trim any fat from their proposals, coming back again and again for additional concessions on the cost of the new fast warships, but company executives were not formally informed about the new plan to buy both ships until Wednesday, the sources said.

"The pricing is so good that they think they can build 20 ships," said one source familiar with the decision.

Lockheed and Austal both submitted bids based on the Navy's request for 10 ships and computer systems for five more. Now the Navy wants to skip buying the five combat packages, using the money to buy 20 ships instead, the sources said.

It was not immediately clear if the companies would seek to revise their bids as a result of the changed strategy, but Thompson expected both companies to welcome the new plan given the dearth of other big shipbuilding projects in coming years.

INITIAL REACTION POSITIVE

Senator Richard Shelby, a Republican from Alabama, home to Austal's shipyard, underscored the importance of the new warship to the Navy, and said the contract would result in creation of nearly 2,000 new jobs in his state.

He remained concerned whether the new plan would increase the overall cost of the program and hoped to get more details from the Navy in coming days.

Lockheed said it was aware of the Navy's discussions with Congress and would review the details once it received them.

Austal had no immediate comment.

Analysts said the Navy move would help both companies by ensuring orders for at least five years at a time when other contracts are being cut or delayed. Lockheed shares closed 71 cents lower at $70.93, while Austal shares were set to open at A$2.60, up 4.4 percent from Tuesday's close.

The new ships are designed to execute a variety of missions and can be reconfigured within a day to fight pirates or sweep for mines or look for submarines.

The ships were initially slated to cost just $220 million each, but costs have more than doubled in the early phase of the program, raising concerns about whether the Navy would be able to buy all 55 ships over time.

One source said the companies were able to offer substantially better prices in this competition, given that the Navy planned to buy 10 ships over a five-year period.

The changed approach may reflect fears of a protest from the loser that could require a rematch. A successful Boeing Co (BA.N)> protest in a marathon U.S. Air Force effort to buy refueling planes, for instance, prompted a new competition with EADS (EAD.PA) for a potential $50 billion contract.

Maren Leed, a former assistant to the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the Navy may also be trying to avert possible cuts amid growing pressure to cut government spending after big Republican gains in Tuesday's election.

The Navy's thinking may well be that "anything that's on the books but for which they're not yet bending steel could be at risk," said Leed, now at the private Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

Admiral Jonathan Greenert, vice chief of naval operations, told reporters on Monday he hoped a contract could be signed before the end of the year. He said the Navy was pleased with the performance of both the Lockheed and Austal designs.

(Additional reporting by Jim Wolf; editing by Andre Grenon and Bernard Orr)

[buglerbilly]

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

What Will the New Littoral Combat Ships Cost?

Posted by Paul McLeary at 11/4/2010 12:20 PM CDT

With the news this morning that the Navy wants to split the buy for twenty new Littoral Combat Ships through 2015—ten from Lockheed Martin and ten from Austal and General Dynamics—it’s instructive to take a quick look at how we got to such an odd moment in a long and odd acquisition process.

Originally slated to cost $220 million per ship when the program was launched in 2002, the first two ships out of the dock had blown that number apart by time they hit the water. In documents that accompanied the 2010 Navy budget request, it was learned that the Lockheed-built ship, the USS Freedom, wound up clocking in at $637 million, while the General Dynamics/Austal-built USS Independence came in at $704 million. Shocking perhaps, but hardly surprising given the confusion that has marked the program from the beginning, which included cancellation of the LCS 3 and 4 builds in 2007, followed by a quick reversal. An angry Congress got into the game by slapping a cost cap of $480 million per ship beginning this year, a figure the Navy has admitted neither company could meet. While Lockheed is currently reporting that LCS 3 is more than 60% complete, General Dynamics/Austal continues work in silence. A spokesman for the team told DTI that it will have no comment on the LCS 4 build at Austal USA shipyards in Alabama before the Navy issues its contract award.

Lockheed Martin recently spoke with DTI about the ongoing build for the LCS 3, the USS Fort Worth, at the Marinette Marine shipyard in Marinette, Wis., but would not comment on the cost of the vessel. About all the company would say is that the ship is essentially the same as LCS 1, with only minor adjustments in components such as the anchor mechanism and the size of the bridge windows.

A Navy spokesperson, Cpt. Cate Mueller, tells DTI that the Navy won’t discuss the cost of future builds since it still has ongoing solicitation for the down-select option. Mueller did add however, that “Congress has mandated a cost cap for each LCS at $480M, although there are provisions for waivers to that as well.” The Navy is saying that its new plans call for each team to build one ship each in 2010, one each in 2011, and then two per year each from 2012 through 2015.

[buglerbilly]

Last call on this matter..............

Everyone Wins in Navy Warship Bait and Switch

By David Axe November 4, 2010 | 8:35 am



The results are in for the decade-long contest to build as many as 55 near-shore Littoral Combat Ships for the U.S. Navy. And the winner is … everybody! Instead of picking between designs from number-one arms-maker Lockheed Martin (pictured) and upstart rival Austal, now the Navy says it will buy copies of the speedy, roomy LCS from both companies, simultaneously — pending Congressional approval, of course. The move is the best sign in years that the Navy is serious about growing the fleet from today’s 280 ships to at least 313.

If the plan announced on Wednesday goes ahead, the Navy will buy an initial 10 LCS each from Lockheed and Austal between now and 2015, to add to the four LCS — two from each firm — already paid for. Cost details are still under wraps, but it appears the Navy scored a good deal on fixed-price contracts with both companies. Certainly, the 20 new ships will cost less than the roughly $600 million it cost to build each of the lead ships. Just last month, Joint Chiefs Chair Adm. Mike Mullen warned that LCS’ future hinged on price. “If LCS is unable to contain itself … then I don’t think it has much of a future,” Mullen said.

In that sense, the Navy apparently pulled a bait-and-switch on Lockheed and Austal. By pitting the two companies against each other and threatening to kill the program all-together without big savings, the Navy ensured it got the lowest possible price on both designs. Then the sea service went and locked those competitive prices into fixed-cost contracts for both companies. That ensures maximum production rates and sustains two shipyards at a time when many shipbuilders are struggling.

There are just two downsides, according to Raymond Pritchett. “Such low bids raise serious concerns whether one or both contractors bid unrealistically low prices.” Also, the two classes of LCS have separate computer systems, potentially raising certain overhead costs compared to a single-class force.

Still, the clever buying tactic means more new ships, faster. And that gives the Navy a real shot at finally reversing the slow shrinking of the U.S. fleet. The previous plan was to base all LCS in San Diego. Now the Navy is reportedly considering a second LCS base in Mayport, Florida, currently home to a rapidly decommissioning force of Cold War frigates. Each base would host just one class of LCS, thereby simplifying training and maintenance.

Besides the Navy, the Marines are another big winner in the new LCS strategy. The Corps has begun experimenting with a new “raid” concept that depends on the LCS and another, similar vessel. Instead of deploying entire battalions from big, old-school assault ships, under the raid construct companies of Marines could travel in many platoon-size groups aboard widely-scattered LCS. That would allow the same overall number of Marines to cover a wider swath of coastline. Now with more shore-hugging ships to transport them, Marine raiders could figure heavily in future operations.

Photo: Lockheed Martin

[buglerbilly]

The Dutch edition of an LCS, their Holland Class sort of a cross between an OPV and a Light Frigate.........very lightly armed but big for an OPV.............The video is in Dutch but has a nice animation of this class in it



Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

Friesland, Romania

Posted by Nicholas Fiorenza at 11/5/2010 12:58 AM CDT

The Friesland, the third Ocean Going Patrol Vessel (OPV) of the Holland class, was launched this morning at Damen Shipyards in Galati, Romania. Further work will be done on the Friesland in a dock on the Danube, after which the patrol vessel will go to the Netherlands.


Netherlands Ministry of Defense photo

The other three OPVs are the Holland, Zeeland, and Groningen. Together with the Friesland, they are being built by Damen Schelde Naval Shipbuilding in the Netherlands and Romania and will replace the M-frigates.

At the beginning of the week, a naval detachment was established to man the Zeeland. OPV crews will number 50 personnel.

With a displacement of 3,750 tons, a speed of 21.5 knots and a length of 108 meters, the OPV is designed to be a small, flexible patrol ship for missions such as counter-piracy, counter-narcotics and coast guard missions off the coast of the Netherlands and its Caribbean territories.

[buglerbilly]

Northrop Grumman to Start Production of Littoral Combat Ship Mission Packages

(Source: Northrop Grumman; issued Nov. 4, 2010)

BETHPAGE, N.Y. --- The U.S. Navy has awarded Northrop Grumman Corporation a $29 million contract to put Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Mission Packages into production. The company will deliver three mission module packages -- one for mine countermeasures and two for surface warfare missions -- under this contract.

The production site will be announced in the near future. Delivery of the first surface warfare package is scheduled for early 2012; the other two packages will be delivered later that year. The Navy will accept the completed packages at its Mission Package Support Facility in Port Hueneme, Calif.

"The Navy set high standards of performance for us as their Mission Package Integrator, and we met or exceeded their standards and milestones," said Dan Chang, vice president, Northrop Grumman Maritime and Tactical Systems. "I have no doubt it was our performance that gave the Navy confidence that we'd perform as well on the production contract."

The current, initial mission packages were designed by the Navy's Warfare Centers in Panama City, Fla., Dahlgren, Va., and San Diego, where they were also built. Northrop Grumman has been the Naval Sea Systems Command's mission package integrator, now responsible for ensuring that all mission package designs were made ready for production.

Each mission package is a unique group of modules, or subsystems. The mine countermeasures package, for example, comprises a range of mine hunting systems, such as the Airborne Laser Mine Detection System, the Remote Minehunting System and the Fire Scout vertical takeoff unmanned air vehicle. These are packaged in standard ISO shipping containers.

The premise of the Littoral Combat Ship and its mission packages is that, as situations around the world arise, a ship can be rapidly adapted to its new assignment. Should a new mission be tasked, the ship can proceed to the port where mission packages are staged, off load its current package and replace it with the appropriate one in just a few days.

"The Navy's concept of mission modularity, that is, making one LCS capable of meeting many different missions, combines flexibility to respond to diverse threats with long-term cost savings," said Marc DeBlasio, Northrop Grumman's Mission Package Integrator program director. "Mission modularity addresses the demand on the military to reduce cost. Mission package-capable ships minimize the number of different ships -- and their logistics and crew requirements -- needed by the Navy to meet their diverse, worldwide commitments."

It is expected that, over time, packages for other missions will be designed and produced.

Northrop Grumman Corporation is a leading global security company whose 120,000 employees provide innovative systems, products, and solutions in aerospace, electronics, information systems, shipbuilding and technical services to government and commercial customers worldwide.

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

Lower LCS Costs Could Lead To Split Purchase

Nov 17, 2010

By Michael Fabey

With Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) construction costs under greater control, the Navy is again thinking about splitting the fleet purchase between the contractor teams.

“The Navy wants to split its buy of Littoral Combat Ships between a steel monohull developed by Lockheed Martin and the Marinette shipyard, and an aluminum trimaran developed by the Austal shipbuilding company of Australia,” said Lexington Institute defense analyst Loren Thompson.

The Navy had considered splitting up the business for some of the first ships before, but higher costs forced it to reconsider those plans.

“This acquisition strategy returns the Navy to where it was two years ago, before the high cost on initial ships in the class led it to doubt the affordability of buying both versions of the vessel,” Thompson said.

Under the initial acquisition plan, the Navy bundled together the two LCSs funded in Fiscal 2009—LCSs 3 and 4—with the three LCSs to be requested for Fiscal 2010 into a single, five-ship solicitation, a recent Congressional Research Service (CRS) report noted.

The Navy said each LCS industry team would be awarded a contract for one of the Fiscal 2009 ships, and that the prices that the two teams bid for both the Fiscal 2009 ships and the Fiscal 2010 ships would determine the allocation of the three Fiscal 2010 ships, with the winning team getting two of the Fiscal 2010 ships and the other team getting one Fiscal 2010 ship.

“This strategy was intended to use the carrot of the third Fiscal 2010 ship to generate bidding pressure on the two industry teams for both the Fiscal 2009 ships and the Fiscal 2010 ships,” the CRS report said.

But spiraling ship construction costs have forced the Navy to retreat from its early acquisition plans.

“The Navy originally spoke of building LCS sea frames for about $220 million each in constant Fiscal 2005 dollars,” the CRS said, adding, “Estimated LCS sea frame unit procurement costs have since more than doubled.”

The Fiscal 2011 budget estimates the procurement costs of LCS sea frames to be procured between Fiscal 2011 and Fiscal 2015 at roughly $600 million each in then-year dollars.

The Navy substantially restructured the LCS program in 2007 in response to significant cost growth and delays in constructing the first LCS sea frames, the CRS noted.

Instead of splitting up some of the later ship buys, the service intended to downselect to either the Lockheed design or the Austal one supported by a team lead by General Dynamics.

The service has implemented a cost cap and, Thompson said, now feels comfortable it can afford a split buy.

“The unit cost of warships typically falls after the early vessels in a class are built,” he said.

The Navy wants to deploy a fleet of 55 LCS ships, whose shallower draft, the CRS notes, permits them to operate in certain coastal waters and visit certain ports that are not accessible to Navy cruisers and destroyers.

[buglerbilly]

Navy to Christen Littoral Combat Ship Fort Worth

(Source: Naval Air Systems Command; issued December 1, 2010)

WASHINGTON --- The Navy will christen littoral combat ship (LCS) Fort Worth Dec. 4, during a 10 a.m. CST ceremony at Marinette Marine Corp. shipyard in Marinette, Wis. The ship's name recognizes the city of Fort Worth, Texas.

For more than 150 years, the patriotic citizens of Fort Worth have supported the Navy and the men and women in uniform. Home to Ranger outposts, training facilities, aviation depots and defense manufacturing, Fort Worth has answered the call whenever the nation needed it.

Former Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England will deliver the principal address at the ceremony. Rep. Kay Granger of Texas will serve as the ship's sponsor. The ceremony will be highlighted by Granger breaking a bottle of champagne across the bow to formally christen the ship, which is a time-honored Navy tradition.

Designated LCS 3, Fort Worth is an innovative combatant designed to operate quickly in shallow water environments to counter challenging threats in coastal regions, specifically mines, submarines and fast-surface craft. It is capable of speeds in excess of 40 knots and can operate in water less than 20 feet deep. Fort Worth will address a critical capabilities gap in the littorals. Carrying out the Navy's mission, it will serve to enhance maritime security by deterring hostility in troubled waters, maintaining a forward presence and by its ability to project power and maintain sea control.

A fast, agile and high-technology surface combatant, Fort Worth will be a platform for the launch and recovery of manned and unmanned vehicles. To meet increased demand for mission-tailored packages, its modular design will support interchangeable mission packages, allowing the ship to be reconfigured for antisubmarine warfare, mine countermeasures or surface warfare missions on an as-needed basis. The LCS will be able to swap out mission packages pierside in a matter of days, adapting as the tactical situation demands. The modular approach also allows us to incorporate new or improved systems into the fleet as advanced technologies mature, providing flexibility and evolving capability. These ships will also feature an advanced networking capability to share tactical information with other Navy aircraft, ships, submarines and joint units.

Fort Worth will be manned by two rotational crews, Blue and Gold, similar to the rotational crews assigned to Trident submarines. These core crews will be augmented by one of the three types of mission package crews as well as an aviation detachment. The prospective commanding officer of the Blue crew is Cmdr. James R. Blankenship, from Ironton, Ohio. The prospective commanding officer of the Gold crew is Cmdr. Warren E. Cupps, from Fort Worth. Upon being commissioned in the future, Fort Worth will be homeported in San Diego, Calif.

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

Lockheed Martin-Led Industry Team Launches Nation's Third Littoral Combat Ship

(Source: Lockheed Martin; issued December 4, 2010)


The future USS Fort Worth, the third Littoral Combat Ship and the second built by Lockheed Martin, is launched at the Marinette Marine shipyard. (US Navy photo)

MARINETTE, Wis. --- The Lockheed Martin-led industry team today launched the nation's third Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), Fort Worth, at the Marinette Marine shipyard.

The 389-foot Fort Worth was launched into the Menominee River. Just prior to its launch, the ship's sponsor, Congresswoman Kay Granger of Texas, christened Fort Worth with the traditional smashing of a champagne bottle across the ship's bow.

"It is an incredibly rewarding experience to see Fort Worth launch into the water -- on time and on budget," said Orlando Carvalho, president of Lockheed Martin's Mission Systems and Sensors business. "The team's strong performance and hard work in bringing Fort Worth to this point illustrates our ability to meet the Navy's need for a class of affordable, multi-mission combatants."

"Serving as the USS Fort Worth's sponsor is one of the proudest moments in my career," Congresswoman Granger said. "This is just the beginning of a commitment I am making with everyone in Fort Worth to all those who will sail on the ship over the course of her life. The enthusiastic residents of our fine city and I have pledged to take great care of this magnificent ship and its crew. With 'Grit and Tenacity' we will once again demonstrate our community's key principles of service and patriotism."

In March 2009, the U.S. Navy awarded the Lockheed Martin-led industry team a contract to construct Fort Worth. Only 20 months later, the ship is 80 percent complete. Now formally christened and launched, Fort Worth will continue to undergo outfitting and testing at Marinette Marine before delivery to the Navy in 2012.

Prior to constructing Fort Worth, the Lockheed Martin-led team designed and constructed USS Freedom (LCS 1), which was deployed in February and is now based in its homeport of San Diego, Calif. USS Freedom was christened in 2006 and delivered to the Navy in 2008.

In addition to Marinette Marine Corporation, a Fincantieri company, the Lockheed Martin-led industry team for Fort Worth includes naval architect Gibbs & Cox as well as best-of-industry domestic and international companies.

Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin is a global security company that employs about 133,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services. The Corporation's 2009 sales from continuing operations were $44 billion.

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

Navy's Proposed Dual Award Acquisition Strategy for the Littoral Combat Ship Program

(Source: Government Accountability Office; issued Dec. 8, 2010)

Successful business cases for shipbuilding programs require balance between the concept selected to satisfy warfighter needs and the resources--technologies, design knowledge, funding, time, and management capacity--needed to transform that concept into a product. Without a sound business case, program execution will be hampered, regardless of the contracting strategy.

The LCS, given its stage of maturity and its unique mission, design, and operational concept, still faces design and construction risks. As with the Navy's estimate of savings, most of these risks appear to be inherent to the program, regardless of which acquisition strategy is followed.

Navy officials believe that experience to date on the program, coupled with fixed price contracts and a sufficient budget for ship changes, mitigates this risk. However, much work and demonstration remains for LCS, and other shipbuilding programs have had difficulty at this stage.

On the other hand, a second ship design and source provided under the dual award strategy could provide the Navy an additional hedge against risk, should one design prove problematic. Mission equipment packages are common to both ships and would pose the same execution risks, apart from integration.

Under both the existing down-select strategy and the proposed dual award strategy, the Navy plans to award fixed-price incentive contracts for new seaframes. This type of contract provides for adjusting profit and establishing the final contract price by application of a formula based on the relationship of total final negotiated cost to total target cost.

The final price is subject to a price ceiling, negotiated at the outset. Navy officials expressed confidence that their cost estimate supporting the dual award provides details on the costs to operate and support both designs.

However, since little actual LCS operating and support data are available to date, the Navy's estimates for these costs are currently based on data from other ships and could change as actual cost data become more available.

These estimates are also based on new operational concepts for personnel, training, and maintenance that have not been fully developed, tested, and implemented. For example, the Navy has not yet implemented a comprehensive training plan, and it is possible that the plan could cost more or less than the training costs currently accounted for by the Navy.

The Navy's request to double its current 10-ship authorization to 20 ships--at a time when the mine countermeasures, surface warfare, and antisubmarine warfare mission packages continue to face significant developmental challenges--highlights the Navy's risk of investing in a fleet of ships that has not yet demonstrated its promised capability.

As big a concern has to be what happens if Netfires does not get acquired for the USN? A factor that seems highly likely not to happen, the acquisition that is............

Absent significant capability within its mission packages, seaframe functionality is largely constrained to self-defense as opposed to mission-related tasks.

Click here for the full report (16 pages in PDF format) on the GAO website.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11249r.pdf

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

Cost Implications of the Navy's Plans for Acquiring Littoral Combat Ships (excerpt)

(Source: Congressional Budget Office; issued Dec. 10, 2010)

(…/…) The Navy is planning to acquire a fleet of 55 littoral combat ships (LCSs), which are designed to counter submarines, mines, and small surface craft in the world’s coastal regions. Two of those ships have already been built, one each of two types: a semiplaning steel monohull built jointly by Lockheed Martin and Marinette Marine in Wisconsin and an all-aluminum trimaran built by Austal in Alabama.

The Navy also has two more ships (one of each type) under construction. The remaining 51 ships would be purchased from 2010 through 2031.

In response to your request, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analyzed the cost implications of the Navy’s existing plan for acquiring new LCSs and a new plan that it is currently proposing:

-- Existing “Down-Select” Plan: In September 2009, the Navy asked the two builders to submit fixed-price-plus-incentive bids to build 10 ships, 2 per year from 2010 to 2014, beginning with funds appropriated for 2010. The Navy planned to select one of the two versions of the LCS, awarding a contract for those 10 ships to the winning bidder, and then, through another competition, to introduce a second yard to build 5 more ships of that same design from 2012 to 2014. In 2015, the Navy would purchase 4 more ships; the acquisition strategy for those vessels has not been specified. A total of 19 ships of one design would be purchased by 2015. Any shipyard could bid in that second competition except the winner of the contract for the first 10 ships.

-- Proposed “Dual-Award” Plan: In November of this year, the Navy proposed to accept the fixed-price-plus-incentive bids from both teams, purchasing 10 of each type of LCS (a total of 20 ships) by 2015, beginning with funds appropriated for fiscal year 2010.

According to the Navy, the bid prices received under the existing down-select plan were lower than expected, which would allow the service, under the dual-award plan, to purchase 20 ships from 2010 through 2015 for less than it had expected to pay for 19. (The total number of LCSs ultimately purchased would be the same under both plans.) CBO has estimated the cost for the LCS program between 2010 and 2015 under both plans, using its standard cost-estimating model.

By CBO’s estimates, either plan would cost substantially more than the Navy’s current estimates—but CBO did not have enough information to incorporate in its estimates the bids from both contractors for the 10-ship contract.

CBO’s analysis suggests the following conclusions:

-- Whether one considers the Navy’s estimates or CBO’s, under either plan, costs for the first 19 ships are likely to be less than the amounts included in the Navy’s 2011 budget proposal and the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP).

-- CBO’s estimates show per-ship construction costs that are about the same for the two plans, but those estimates do not take into account the actual bids that have been received.

Adopting the dual-award plan might yield savings in construction costs, both from avoiding the need for a new contractor to develop the infrastructure and expertise to build a new kind of ship and from the possibility that bids now are lower than they would be in a subsequent competition, when the economic environment would probably be different.

-- Operating and maintaining two types of ships would probably be more expensive, however. The Navy has stated that the differences in costs are small (and more than offset by procurement savings), but there is considerable uncertainty about how to estimate those differences because the Navy does not yet have much experience in operating such ships. In addition, if the Navy later decided to use a common combat system for all LCSs (rather than the different ones that would initially be installed on the two different types of vessels), the costs for developing, procuring, and installing that system could be significant. (end of excerpt)

Click here for the full letter report (7 pages in PDF format) on the CBO website.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12007/12-09_McCain_Letter_Final.pdf

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

Lawmakers Grill Navy On New LCS Plan
Dec 14, 2010

By Michael Fabey fabeyships@aol.com
WASHINGTON



New Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) proposals have cut per-ship costs by a third or more of what the finished vessels have cost the U.S. Navy so far, according to figures provided to lawmakers Dec. 14 by Sean Stackley, assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development and acquisition.

The proposed average costs for the LCS ships are running between $440 million and $460 million per vessel, Stackley testified during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing in Washington.

Because of the lower costs, the Navy is asking lawmakers to approve a new funding plan for the ship for a dual-award block buy for the contractors instead of a downselect to one shipbuilder between teams led by Lockheed Martin and Austal Shipyards.

But Senate lawmakers, led by Ranking Member John McCain (R-Ariz), said they felt uncomfortable with the request because the Navy has not released any specific proposal figures and the service is — again — making such a proposal change after the Senate has already reviewed the service’s budget plan.

“We’ve seen this movie before,” McCain said. “The Navy has come to us and said, ‘Gee, we’ve got this solved.’”

The Navy says it can’t release exact figures yet because the proposals are still bid-sensitive. Without the figures, though, experts say the Navy either could be saving as much as $700 million with the new proposal or facing cost increases as high as $2 billion.

Congressional Research Service Navy analyst Ronald O’Rourke testified that the Navy had come to the Senate in similar circumstances to promote rapid acquisition for the LCS program and again in 2009 to recommend the downselect plan the service now wants to abandon.

“I cannot think of another shipbuilding program that has had so may changes proposed late in the process,” O’Rourke said.

Despite the changes, McCain said, program costs escalated, leading to cancellations and an overall restructuring. About six years and $8 billion into the program, the Navy only has two ships, two partially completed ships and a raft of cancellations, he said. “The story of this ship makes me ashamed and embarrassed,” McCain said

McCain, O’Rourke and other Navy program procurement experts said it might be better to delay acting on the new Navy proposal and awarding contracts for another month or two to allow CRS and the Congressional Budget Office time to review.

Such a delay, Stackley said, could hurt whatever savings the Navy could realize from the proposals. “These proposals start to come apart,” he said. The contractors’ deals with their vendors start to fray with delays, he said, and there also are concerns over layoffs and hiring freezes.

Further, Stackley said, both the Navy and contractors have a much better handle on costs and programmatic development than they had previously. “This program has done a complete turn-around,” he told the committee.

Thanks to lessons-learned from previous ships — and due also to Congressional guidance — contractors and the Navy have been able to cut costs to the point that the Navy can now make the current proposal, Stackley and other service officials testified.

[buglerbilly]

Littoral Combat Ship Miracle Bids Likely To Be Accepted By Congress

(Source: Lexington Institute; issued December 15, 2010)

(© Lexington Institute; reproduced by permission)

Recent testimony by senior officials of the Department of the Navy before the Senate Appropriations Committee reveal the source of their new-found enthusiasm for buying both variants of the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS).

Apparently both bidders, Lockheed Martin and Austal, came in with bids one-third lower than the price being charged for the initial set of four vessels. At $440-460 million a copy for the sea frame, the opportunity to acquire a mixed fleet of LCS is almost irresistible. Moreover, these “miracle bids” do not reflect further cost savings that could result as both builders move up the learning curve, take advantage of a multi-year procurement contract to reduce supplier costs and refine their cost estimating methodologies. The Navy’s experience with cost reduction in the Virginia-class submarine program, a collaborative effort by General Dynamics’ Electric Boat and Northrop Grumman’s Newport News shipyards, is illustrative of possible savings once production is underway.

If the new acquisition strategy is approved both bidders will be challenged to make good on their promises. This may be particularly difficult for Austal which no longer has the level of support from General Dynamic (GD) that existed when the two were partners on their construction of the first LCS. Unquestionably, Lockheed Martin will be working closely with Marinette Marine, the Wisconsin shipyards, to ensure both quality and cost controls.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that considerable risks remain in the LCS program. A recent GAO review of the LCS programs noted that the Navy believes that experience to date on the program, coupled with fixed price contracts and a sufficient budget for ship changes, mitigates this risk. This same study went on to point out that a second ship design and source provided under the dual award strategy could provide the Navy an additional hedge against risk.

In their testimony, senior Navy leaders discussed the evolution of the program and their overall level of confidence. They perceive the risks noted by the GAO as manageable. Sean Stackley, assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development and acquisition, declared that “this program has done a complete turn-around.”

Building both variants of the LCS opens up new possibilities for further design modifications to one or both to meet specific mission requirements. Allies in the Persian Gulf have been looking seriously at the Lockheed Martin design as a potential missile defense ship. The addition of a more powerful gun and long-range missile launchers could turn the Austral/GD design into a “gunship” to support amphibious operations.

The explosion of research and development in the area of unmanned systems also will create new options for both LCS designs.

-ends-

[Unicorn]

"If the new acquisition strategy is approved both bidders will be challenged to make good on their promises. This may be particularly difficult for Austal which no longer has the level of support from General Dynamic (GD) that existed when the two were partners on their construction of the first LCS"

I would think that was an advantage for Austal, given that they get back to what they do, which is build boats cost-effectively, without the vast bloat and committee-driven process warriors of GD sticking their oar in.

Unicorn

[buglerbilly]

First Phase of LCS Mine Countermeasure Mission Package Testing Concludes

(Source: US Naval Air Systems Command; issued December 16, 2010)

NORFOLK --- The Navy successfully completed the first phase of shipboard mine countermeasure mission package (MCM MP) testing on USS Independence (LCS 2) Dec. 10, enabling the service to progress toward developmental testing in 2011.

Comprehensive testing on Independence included the installation and removal of all the mission modules and systems, including removable mission equipment.

"I am extremely pleased with the outcome of this event," said Capt. John Ailes, littoral combat ship (LCS) mission modules program manager. "The successful integration of the full MCM mission package on USS Independence gives us great confidence as we enter developmental testing."

The MCM MP first phase testing demonstrated the full mission cycle from reconfiguration of the MH-60S Sea Hawk helicopter from vertical replenishment to the mission package with Organic Airborne Mine Countermeasures equipment; removal of that equipment from support containers; handling to the MH-60S and back, including installation, built-in testing and tow-cable maintenance.

The MCM MP reconfiguration demonstrated system movement from stowage positions, built-in testing and return to stowage. Combat system connectivity and launch and recovery antenna communication link performance, in and out of the mission bay, were also demonstrated. Initial operating capability for the MCM MP is scheduled for 2013.

LCSs are fast, agile and networked surface combatants optimized for operating in the littorals to assure access for joint forces. The primary missions for the LCS includes countering littoral mine threats, diesel submarine threats and surface threats such as small surface craft attacks. The underlying strength of these ships lies in the ability to quickly reconfigure the ship with specific equipment tailored to its current mission. The three current options are the mine countermeasures, anti-submarine warfare or surface warfare mission package.

These mission packages provide a modular, focused capability to combatant commanders. A mission package consists of mission modules, mission crew detachments and support aircraft. Mission modules combine mission systems (vehicles, sensors and weapons) and support equipment that install into a LCS using standard interfaces.

Program Executive Office Littoral and Mine Warfare, an affiliated program executive office of Naval Sea Systems Command, designs, delivers and maintains the systems, equipment and weapons needed by the warfighter to dominate the littoral battle space and provide the warfighter assured access to coastal areas

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

"If the new acquisition strategy is approved both bidders will be challenged to make good on their promises. This may be particularly difficult for Austal which no longer has the level of support from General Dynamic (GD) that existed when the two were partners on their construction of the first LCS"

I would think that was an advantage for Austal, given that they get back to what they do, which is build boats cost-effectively, without the vast bloat and committee-driven process warriors of GD sticking their oar in.

Unicorn

Exactly, I agree that GD's absence is a benefit not a detriment as what is now required is a builder with proven Series production ability which is exactly Austal's cup-of-tea............

[buglerbilly]

Oman Corvette Heads to Sea for the First Time

(Source: BAE Systems; issued December 20, 2010)

PORTSMOUTH, United Kingdom --- Al Shamikh, the first of three ships being built by BAE Systems for the Royal Navy of Oman (RNO), has embarked on her first sea trials in the Solent.

Departing from the Company’s Portsmouth facility, a combined BAE Systems and RNO crew is putting the ship through her paces, undertaking extensive platform testing for speed, propulsion and manoeuvrability in the first demonstration of the ship’s capability at sea.

Scott Jamieson, International Programmes Director at BAE Systems’ Surface Ships division, said: “As first in class, Al Shamikh’s trials mark a pivotal stage in the programme. It highlights the significant progress that has been made and clearly demonstrates the effective close working relationship we have developed with the Royal Navy of Oman and our continued commitment to deliver enhanced naval capability to our customer.”

The corvette is a flexible and highly efficient platform, equipped to defend against both surface and air threats. Al Shamikh will be used to protect Omani territorial waters, conducting coastal patrols in peacetime, with the ability to conduct search and rescue, as well as disaster relief, while providing a highly sophisticated ocean going capability for use in deterrent operations during times of tension.

Al Shamikh is part of the Project Khareef contract, secured in 2007, for the design and build of three 99 metre corvettes for the RNO. Highlighting the company’s continued commitment to providing through-life support and services to its customers, the contract also includes training for RNO personnel, as well as an initial logistics support package for the ships.

Following Al Shamikh’s initial sea trials, she will return to Portsmouth before undergoing further integration and testing, with weapons trials set to take place in the New Year. The first of class is expected to be handed over to the RNO in 2011, following which the crew will undergo the UK Royal Navy's Flag Officer Sea Training before the ship sails to Oman for warm weather trials. Al Rahmani, the second ship in the class, was launched in July 2010 and will undertake sea trials in 2011, whilst the third ship, Al Rasikh, will be launched in March 2011.

BAE Systems is a global defence, security and aerospace company with approximately 107,000 employees worldwide. The Company delivers a full range of products and services for air, land and naval forces, as well as advanced electronics, security, information technology solutions and customer support services. In 2009 BAE Systems reported sales of £22.4 billion (US$ 36.2 billion).

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

Austal shares jump 11% on US Navy pact

December 22, 2010 - 1:11PM

Shares in Austal jumped as much as 10.62 per cent rose after the shipbuilder said its littoral combat ship contract with the US Navy was progressing, following the scrapping of a US omnibus spending bill that contained the LCS award plan.

Austal shares were up 28 cents, or 8.75 per cent, at $3.48 in afternoon trade after reaching a high of $3.54 earlier in the session.

The company said the US Congress had approved the US Navy's requested amendment to the procurement approach for the LCS contract, pursuant to which 10 vessels each would be awarded to Austal and Lockheed Martin.

"Congress' decision remains subject to ratification by President Obama, which is expected later today," Austal said in a statement.

"Austal will continue to work with the navy over the course of the next week as they implement this authorisation to confirm an award to Austal."

Morningstar Equities Research said various twists and turns in the LCS contract-approval process created a degree of short-term uncertainty for Austal.

"If it is finally awarded the LCS contract, this would be a major step up for the company," Morningstar said.

AAP

[buglerbilly]

Austal USA wins US Navy contract

December 30, 2010 - 11:13AM

Shipbuilder Austal will share a combat ship contract with Lockheed Martin, the US Navy says.

The Perth-headquartered Austal and Lockheed will each build 10 littoral combat ships to be delivered between now and 2015, the US Navy said in a statement.

Austal was up 2 cents, or 0.57 per cent, at $3.50.

Advertisement: Story continues below "The average cost of both variants including government-furnished equipment and margin for potential cost growth across the five-year period is $US440 million ($A433.31 million) per ship," the US Navy said.

"Under these contracts, both shipbuilders will also deliver a technical data package as part of the dual award, allowing the government a wide range of viable alternatives for effective future competition."

Austal said the company would immediately start work on a $US140 million ($A137.87 million) facility expansion and workforce development.

"Construction of the first LCS vessel will commence in early 2012 and is scheduled for delivery in 2015," Austal said in a statement.

The warship would be built at Austal's shipyard in Mobile, Alabama and result in the company more than doubling its workforce to 3,800 employees, it said.

"This contract has firmly established Austal as an international defence shipbuilder, is a strong vote of confidence in Austal's aluminium trimaran LCS design, and also reflects the strength and capability of our USA operations and highly-skilled workforce," Austal chairman John Rothwell said.

The US Navy said the value of the ship construction portion of the two contracts was $US3.62 billion ($A3.56 billion) for Lockheed Martin and $US3.52 billion ($A3.47 billion) for Austal.

Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus said the contracts represented a "unique and valuable opportunity to lock in the benefits of competition and provide needed ships to our fleet in a timely and extraordinarily cost effective manner".

AAP

[Weasel]

Does anyone recognize the saying "kick that can down the road"? On the other hand multiple platforms reduces operational risk, even though it is more expensive to maintain.

cheers

w

[buglerbilly]

It's all irrelevant IF they don't get the damn mission modules sorted..........and they still don't have a viable replacement for Netfires.........

[buglerbilly]

USN, Lockheed: Foreign LCS Sales Could Lower Costs

By John Reed Monday, January 3rd, 2011 3:50 pm

Now that the U.S. Navy has decided to buy both classes of Littoral Combat Ship, the sea service and Lockheed Martin have begun to eye international sales as a way of further reducing the costs of the once-troubled program.

“Since the LCS program began, we’ve believed this was a ship of a size and of the cost that many international navies would be interested in,” said Paul Lemmo, vice president of Lockheed’s mission systems and sensors division during a Dec. 29 teleconference.

He then pointed out that the Saudi Arabian navy “has expressed interest” in buying an LCS type vessel and that Israel had at one point eyed Lockheed’s version of the ship.

“I think those are two signs that this will be an attractive platform for the international market,” said Lemmo.

Most importantly, “any construction here in the U.S. for foreign navies will hopefully reap benefits for the U.S. Navy in terms of cost savings for their ships.”.......................EDITED.............. .....

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/01/03/usn-lockheed-foreign-lcs-sales-could-lower-costs/#ixzz1A1HxJufz

[buglerbilly]

General Dynamics to Deliver Open Architecture-based Combat Systems for 10 Littoral Combat Ships

(Source: General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems; issued January 3, 2011)

FAIRFAX, Va. --- General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems has been awarded a contract by Austal USA to be the Platform Systems Engineering Agent (PSEA) of the Independence-class Littoral Combat Ships (LCS). The initial contract award is for one ship, with nine additional ships in the following five years. The work on the initial contract will be performed through 2014. General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems is a business unit of General Dynamics.

As the PSEA, General Dynamics is responsible for the design, integration and testing of the ship's combat and seaframe control systems. The General Dynamics combat and seaframe control systems are based on an open architecture computing infrastructure, known as OPEN CI. It ensures the most innovative and affordable solutions are incorporated into the systems in rapid, affordable spiral development cycles. The seamless integration of these solutions dramatically lowers acquisition and lifecycle costs while addressing the Navy's evolving and dynamic mission requirements.

"We will continue to deliver an affordable, flexible combat capability that meets the Navy's vision for open architecture and helps ensure that Navy warfighters have the most capable and advanced systems available," said Lou Von Thaer, president, General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems.

OPEN CI provides a highly flexible information technology backbone that allows "plug and play" integration for the ship's systems and its mission modules, which are interchangeable packages of specialized equipment that allow the Navy to quickly reconfigure the ship for changing mission requirements. The system meets Navy open architecture requirements, it strictly adheres to published industry standards and facilitates the integration of best-in-class commercially available products.

"General Dynamics developed a flexible and non-proprietary approach to systems integration that provides the Navy with increased capability at a lower cost," said Mike Tweed-Kent, vice president and general manager of General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems Mission Integration Systems division. "Our team of engineers took an innovative approach to meet the Navy's requirements using leading edge technologies, such as any-display-anywhere systems, to reduce manpower and to rapidly deliver new and more powerful capabilities to the fleet. This approach has proven itself on the USS Independence and we will continue to bring new innovations to bear throughout the lifecycle of the Littoral Combat Ship program."

This contract could create more than 500 additional jobs with General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems in Pittsfield, Mass., as well as in Mobile, Ala., Virginia, North Carolina, New Jersey and California. Additionally, this work will continue to support more than 450 LCS suppliers across the country, including 97 located in Massachusetts.

Tweed-Kent added, "On behalf of General Dynamics, we thank our employees and our teammates – BAE Systems, General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products, L-3 Communications, Northrop Grumman and Sensis Corporation – for their contributions to this award."

General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems is a provider of end-to-end intelligence and cyber solutions and mission systems integration to customers in the defense, intelligence and homeland security communities.

General Dynamics, headquartered in Falls Church, Va., employs approximately 90,000 people worldwide. The company is a market leader in business aviation; land and expeditionary combat systems, armaments and munitions; shipbuilding and marine systems; and information systems and technologies.

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

Navy’s New Warship: Bargain, Death Trap, or Both?

By David Axe January 4, 2011 | 10:35 am



After years of botched contracts and cost overruns, the Navy has finally signed contracts to buy a bunch of its speedy, near-shore Littoral Combat Ships — at a per-copy price nearly a third cheaper than expected. But hold the Champagne. The cost-cutting that made the LCS so affordable might also doom the ships to watery graves in future conflicts. “We have a warship design that is not expected to fight and survive in the very environment in which it was produced to do so,” one critic at the U.S. Naval Institute blog claims, describing the LCS as “poorly-armed” and “poorly-protected” for dangerous, crowded coastal waters.

When the LCS deals were announced last week, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus crowed that they would “provide needed ships to our fleet in a timely and extraordinarily cost effective manner.” Instead of picking one shipbuilder, the Navy tapped rival firms Austal and Lockheed Martin to build 10 LCS apiece through 2015, each using their own distinct design. The cost per ship? Just $450 million, at least $200 million below the cost of each of the four prototypes.

But to get those low, low price, the ships will be built to commercial, rather than military, structural standards — meaning they’re lighter and less blast- and fire-resistant. Indeed, the Navy does not even have plans to subject the LCS to traditional blast-testing, “due to the damage that would be sustained by the ship,” the Congressional Research Service points out.

The LCS also optimizes speed over weaponry. Lockheed’s version has what Operations Officer Tony Hyde, from USS Freedom (the first Lockheed prototype), described as “the largest marine gas turbines in the world — essentially the engines of a 777 jetliner.” The turbines’ 100,000 horsepower can propel the LCS at up to 50 knots, compared to 30 for most warships. But that high speed “will eat through a fuel supply in half a day,” the USNI critic scoffs.

Former Freedom commanding officer Don Gabrielson said in 2008 that high speed could help the LCS respond better to pirate attacks and assaults by small boats such as those used by Iran. But an extra 20 knots aren’t likely to make much difference if someone’s shooting supersonic anti-ship missiles at you, whereas extra armor plating just might.

So is the LCS a tremendous bargain for a cash-strapped Navy, or an underweight death-trap for its crew? The answer could be both, with caveats. Eric Wertheim, an independent naval analyst and author of the authoritative Combat Fleets of the World, tells Danger Room that all shipbuilding plans must take into account “political considerations, economic considerations, military considerations [and] industrial considerations.” In other words, a ship isn’t just a ship. It’s also a jobs program, an industrial subsidy and a number on a treaty document.

“As much as it seems like a simple decision of which ship is the best, politicians and military leaders are frequently forced to look at long term implications for things like the health of the shipbuilding base,” Wertheim points out. “For example, what would happen if we don’t share work, would one of the shipyards have to close? And is that a good decision in terms of long-range national security?”

To be sure, locking in 20 ships at just $450 million apiece — compared to around $2 billion for a new Arleigh Burke-class destroyer — will keep two shipyards in business and help the Navy reverse the slow decline of its current 280-strong fleet. This at a time when the Navy is not involved in at-sea combat, and instead spends much of its time chasing pirates and smugglers. For these “other-than-war” tasks, speed and sheer numbers of vessels both matter.

Also, the Navy already has more than enough high-end, military-grade warships for any potential future showdown with, say, China. This force includes some 90 cruisers, destroyers and soon-to-debut stealth battleships: the most powerful surface fleet in the history of the world, by far, and one that’s massive overkill in anything short of World War III. But after retiring many of its minesweepers, patrol boats and frigates, what the Navy doesn’t have is enough low-end warships for all the mundane work of a busy, globally-deployed military. The LCS can help correct that imbalance.

Plus, there are emerging technologies that, when combined with the LCS, might revolutionize the way the Navy fights. The LCS includes a huge hangar bay for carrying Marines, manned helicopters, aerial drones and surface-skimming robots. One oceangoing robot on the drawing board — a quiet, sonar-equipped sub-chaser — alone has the potential to deter China’s fast-growing, carrier-threatening submarine fleet. If this bot ever makes it into service aboard the LCS, critics might forget they once hated the cheap, lightweight near-shore warship.

Photo: Austal

[Unicorn]

Sound's like the same carping from the same critics who decried the Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates.

They wanted Spruance class destroyers and anything less was a 'failure'.

Funny how that failure outlasted the Spruance.

[JimWH]

That the OHP have outlasted the Spruances hasn't stopped those same critics from crying into their beers over it. But I agree the criticism does seem remarkably similar.
I think the really big problem is that too many of the critics see the LCSs and see it as a frigate. Judged as a frigate it's not a hugely successful design compromise. It's a role re-configurable, globally deployable, high-speed MCM/OPV/littoral sub hunter, and they might be a success in those roles.

[buglerbilly]

Navy Close to Choosing Griffin Missile for LCS

By John Reed Tuesday, January 11th, 2011 6:34 pm



The U.S. Navy is moving towards selecting Raytheon’s Griffin missile as the replacement for the cancelled Non-Line of Sight missile on its Littoral Combat Ships, according to the director of the service’s surface warfare division.

After evaluating its options for replacing one of the key parts of the LCS’ surface warfare mission systems for six months, the surface warfare division settled on the Griffin due to the fact that it can hit targets at acceptable ranges for less money than the NLOS system, said Rear Adm. Frank Pandolfe today during a speech at a Surface Navy Association convention in Arlington, Va.

The Griffin — with its launchers pictured above mounted on a Humvee — will also be cheaper to install on the LCS than the larger NLOS system, according to Pandolfe.

Top Navy brass must now sign off on Pandolfe’s recommendation to buy the Griffin.

The service is hoping to field a short-range version of the weapon around mid-decade followed by a longer-range version of it a couple of years later, according to a chart he showed during his speech. The missile, which uses parts of the Javelin anti-tank and AIM-9X Sidewinder air-to-air missiles, was originally designed as a replacement for the Hellfire antitank missile used by UAVs. It’s equipped with a 13 pound warhead and semi-active laser seeker.

This comes a little more than a week after the Navy moved to buy 10 each of the Freedom and Independence class LCSs over the next five years. The sea service says this move will save $2.9 billion over the original plan to buy 19 of one class of LCS in the same time period.

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/01/11/navy-close-to-choosing-griffin-missile-for-lcs/#ixzz1Arr1pto2

[Deks]

The service is hoping to field a short-range version of the weapon around mid-decade followed by a longer-range version of it a couple of years later, according to a chart he showed during his speech.

Considering the range of the Javelin is about 2km - and one can assume the short range variant has a similar range - for a laser guided missile in that weight class they'd be better off going with something like Spike-LR, and not just because it already exists ;)

[Milne Bay]

Considering the range of the Javelin is about 2km - and one can assume the short range variant has a similar range - for a laser guided missile in that weight class they'd be better off going with something like Spike-LR, and not just because it already exists ;)

Yes, Griffin is an odd choice unless it is to have a much extended range.
NLOS was meant to have a range of 40km.
Puzzled
MB

[Gubler, A.]

Considering the range of the Javelin is about 2km - and one can assume the short range variant has a similar range - for a laser guided missile in that weight class they'd be better off going with something like Spike-LR, and not just because it already exists ;)

If the rocket motor is from the AIM-9 there is no way this is going to be shooting to ranges as low as 2km. Try >20km. The seeker head is from the Javelin for locating targets.

[Gubler, A.]

Having had a look at the Raytheon webpage for the Griffin its clear the rocket motor is not as well endowed with propellant as on the AIM-9X. However it is fired in a lofted trajectory like an artillery shell and glides to impact. This gives it much greater range than a direct fire rocket like the Javelin. The PAM missile from NLOS-LS had a motor about the same size as a Hellfire yet had four times the range. This was because of the lofted trajectory. I would expect the ground launched Griffin would have a range of 10-15km with lofted trajectory. An extended range version with wings could double this range. It’s a very interesting weapon with A and B versions for launch from rails or out the back of a lowered ramp from a tac airlifter. Six kilos of HE would take out any swarm boat, ruin the top hamper of a patrol boat and make a mess of the bridge of a ship.

[buglerbilly]

Rolls-Royce to Power Ten Littoral Combat Ships for the U.S Navy

(Source: Rolls-Royce plc; issued January 16, 2011)

Rolls-Royce, the global power systems company, will supply gas turbines and waterjets for ten of the U.S. Navy’s Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) – the Group’s largest ever marine naval surface ship contract.

Designed to operate in combat zones close to the shore (littoral waters), each LCS will be equipped with two Rolls-Royce MT30 gas turbines powering four large waterjets, enabling the vessels to reach speeds in excess of 40 knots. At 36 megawatts, the MT30 is the world’s most powerful marine gas turbine. Combining this power with Rolls-Royce waterjets makes the LCS highly manoeuvrable, able to operate in shallow waters and to stop and accelerate quickly.

Rolls-Royce is already supplying propulsion equipment on the first two Lockheed Martin vessels and today’s announcement extends this with one firm order and options for a further nine ships of the same design.

Andrew Marsh, Rolls-Royce, President - Naval said: “We are delighted that the Lockheed Martin design has been selected for an additional ten vessels in the LCS programme. We have worked closely with Lockheed Martin and other partners throughout the design, build and sea trials of the first vessel, USS Freedom, and are making good progress on the second ship, Fort Worth, which is more than 80 percent complete and remains on cost and on schedule.”

“The Rolls-Royce equipment, including the MT30 gas turbines and waterjets, combine to give an effective and efficient propulsion system perfectly suited for these innovative, highly-manoeuvrable, state-of-the-art ships.”

The MT30 is derived from Rolls-Royce aero engine technology, building on over 45 million hours of operating experience and reliability. It also has the highest power density of any marine gas turbine - a key factor in naval propulsion where delivering a high power output in a compact space is essential. The MT30 is the latest development of Rolls-Royce marine gas turbines, and has also been selected for the UK Royal Navy’s new Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers and the U.S. Navy’s DDG-1000 Zumwalt class destroyer programme.

The waterjets are among the largest produced by Rolls-Royce and can pump water at a combined rate of 25,000 gallons per second – enough to fill an Olympic style swimming pool in 25 seconds.

In addition to gas turbines and waterjets, a significant range of Rolls-Royce equipment is specified in the Lockheed Martin design, including shaftlines, bearings and propulsion system software.

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

BAE Systems to Build Gun Systems for U.S. Navy Littoral Combat Ships

(Source: BAE Systems; issued January 20, 2011)

ARLINGTON, Virginia --- As the country's leading naval guns producer, BAE Systems will provide the primary gun systems on 10 U.S. Navy Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) to be built by the Lockheed Martin-led team. BAE Systems will equip the 10 ships with 57 millimeter Mk 110 gun systems.

"We're very happy to be part of the LCS program," said Gary Slack, president of BAE Systems U.S. Combat Systems. "We look forward to furnishing these dynamic new ships with the absolute best in naval gun technology."

BAE Systems will also provide a digital fire control system that allows the Mk 110 to accurately fire automatic salvos of the highly lethal 57-mm Mk 295 ammunition at a firing rate of 220 rounds per minute and a range of up to nine miles.

"BAE Systems' 57mm gun brings a new level of versatility against an ever-expanding range of threats, thereby matching the multi-mission requirements of the LCS program," said Mike Smith, managing director of weapons programs for BAE Systems. "We pooled the best technologies from sources around the world in order to create the most advanced weapon system of its kind."

The 6-mode programmable 57-mm Mk 295, pre-fragmented and proximity-fused (3P) ammunition allows the system to perform against either an aerial, surface or ground threat without requiring multiple round types. Sailors can switch from warning to live fire to engage a target in seconds, and the servo-controlled electro hydraulic gun laying subsystems provide robust endurance and extreme pointing accuracy, even in high sea-state conditions.

The system requires minimal manpower for operation and maintenance, and affords a high availability due to a redundant architecture design, built-in test functions, ready component access, and onboard tools and spares.

Work on the contract will take place at BAE Systems' facilities in Louisville, Kentucky; Minneapolis, Minnesota; and in Karlskoga, Sweden. Production of the gun systems is expected to run through calendar year 2017.

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

Christening of the First SWATH@A&R Patrol Vessel

(Source: Abeking & Rasmussen; issued Jan. 20, 2011)



The first SWATH@A&R-type Patrol Boat worldwide was christened today at Abeking & Rasmussen Shipyard in Lemwerder. Mrs. Nellija Kleinberga, Mayor of the Latvian town Skrunda, dropped the bottle of champagne onto the bow and named the vessel “SKRUNDA”.

“SKRUNDA” is the first vessel of a series of five well proven 25m SWATH@A&R design of Abeking & Rasmussen. In co-operation with Riga Shipyard, the vessels are being built in Riga and Lemwerder.

The new vessels feature a modular mission bay at the fore ship. By fitting appropriate mission payloads, such as a diving module or a MCM module, the capabilities of the vessels can be enhanced flexibly.

The decision for the SWATH concept was made in order to benefit from the extraordinary seaworthiness. Offering calm movements in high seastate, superior to 3 – 4 times larger ships, “SKRUNDA” is still a compact vessel with small machinery, low fuel consumption and a small crew.

This combination offers a high availability at low life-cycle costs. Up to 8 crew can stay for one week at sea even under adverse weather conditions to fulfil the main tasks for the new vessels, Patrol and Surveillance of the territorial waters and in the exclusive economical zone as well as participation in international assignments.

Since the fendering of the pilot boats will be retained, the 25m SWATH@A&R Patrol Boats will be ideal for all types of boarding operations.

This delivery continues the SWATH@A&R success story, as it is already the 12th vessel of the SWATH@A&R construction. Since 1999 several vessels with lengths of 25m, 40m, 50m and 60m as Pilot Vessels, as a privately-owned motor yacht or service vessel for offshore windfarms, are in service worldwide.

-ends-

Full model of the same vessel for Latvia...................

[buglerbilly]

Pentagon Identifies LCS Improvement Needs

Jan 24, 2011

By Michael Fabey

While the U.S. Navy moves forward with its dual-block-buy plan to acquire its new fleets of Littoral Combat Ships (LCS), both versions of the vessel require substantial improvements, according to the Pentagon’s Director of Operational Testing and Evaluation (DOT&E).

Critical ship control systems for LCS 1—built by Lockheed Martin and shipbuilder Marinette—“have performed well in testing,” the DOT&E notes in its report, released earlier this month. “However, several systems required for self-defense and mission package support have demonstrated early reliability problems.”

Further, the report says, “The ship does not have sufficient installed berthing to accommodate the nominal crew complement, nor is the installed refrigerated food storage capacity sufficient to meet the prescribed provision endurance.”

LCS 2

As for LCS 2—built by General Dynamics Bath Iron Works and shipbuilder Austal USA—the DOT&E notes that the ship was found to be incomplete during acceptance trials. “Several spaces and critical systems were incomplete and had not been accepted by the government,” the DOT&E says. “Spaces and systems that were accepted had various levels of documented material deferrals.”

The Navy says it needs a second acceptance trial, which is tentatively scheduled for early 2011.

Overall, “LCS is not expected to be survivable in terms of maintaining a mission capability in a hostile combat environment,” the report says. The DOT&E says its assessment “is based primarily on a review of the LCS design requirements.”

Analysts note that the littorals represent exactly the kind of “hostile combat environment” in which the LCS is likely to be deployed.

The service designated LCS a Survivability Level 1 ship, the DOT&E notes. “Consequently, its design is not required to include survivability features necessary to conduct sustained operations in a combat environment.”

Meanwhile, “The results of early live fire testing using modeling and simulation, while not conclusive, have raised concerns about the effects weapons will have on the crew and critical equipment,” the DOT&E reported.

Additional live fire testing and analysis is needed to fully assess the survivability of the LCS class, the report says.

Vulnerability

To address the vulnerability implications of building ships with aluminum structure to commercial standards—which is relevant to both ship designs, the DOT&E says—several surrogate tests are planned for LCS, including a fire-induced structural collapse test of a multi-compartment aluminum structure, an internal blast test of a multi-compartment aluminum structure, and an underwater explosion-induced inelastic whipping test of a surrogate ship.

[buglerbilly]

EADS North America's TRS-3D Radar Selected Again for U.S. Navy's Littoral Combat Ship

(Source: EADS North America; issued February 1, 2011)

ARLINGTON, VA --- EADS North America has received a contract from Lockheed Martin to supply its TRS-3D radar for the U.S. Navy's Littoral Combat Ship. As part of a recent Department of Defense award, Lockheed Martin will construct up to 10 Littoral Combat Ships through 2015. Under the terms of its contract, EADS North America will deliver the first radar unit to Lockheed Martin for installation in 2012.

The TRS-3D is a standard naval multimode surface and air surveillance and target acquisition radar. Designed for the complex littoral environment, it provides excellent performance over both land and water, minimizing clutter interference in order to more effectively detect multiple surface and air targets simultaneously. Supported by its highly flexible design, the TRS-3D radar integrates with a variety of shipboard systems and C4ISR suites to provide surveillance, weapon fire control and helicopter detection and guidance.

"The TRS-3D is the perfect radar for light combatants operating in littoral waters," said Sean O'Keefe, CEO of EADS North America. "It can perform multiple functions without adding unnecessary weight, making it suitable for a wide range of U.S. Navy and Coast Guard missions."

EADS North America already has delivered two TRS-3D radars to Lockheed Martin for the first and third Littoral Combat Ships, USS Freedom and Fort Worth. USS Freedom completed its maiden deployment in 2010, which included the successful interception of drug vessels in the Caribbean. Installation of the radar on the Fort Worth will take place in April at the Marinette Marine Shipyard in Marinette, Wis.

As the Navy's newest class of warship, the agile Littoral Combat Ship is designed specifically for a variety of missions in coastal waters that are often too shallow for larger ships. The ship will primarily be tasked with countering threats from submarines, surface vessels, and mines, as well as anti-piracy and humanitarian missions.

In addition to the U.S. Navy's fleet, EADS North America also is providing the TRS-3D radar to the U.S. Coast Guard for its fleet of National Security Cutters, of which three are in operation and two more are in the process of integration.

EADS North America is the North American operation of EADS, a global leader in aerospace, defense and related services. As a leader in all sectors of defense and homeland security, EADS North America and its parent company, EADS, contribute over $11 billion to the U.S. economy annually and support more than 200,000 American jobs through its network of suppliers and services. Operating in 17 states, EADS North America offers a broad array of advanced solutions to its customers in the commercial, homeland security, aerospace and defense markets.

EADS is a global leader in aerospace, defense and related services. In 2009, the Group -- comprising Airbus, Astrium, Cassidian and Eurocopter -- generated revenues of EUR 42.8 billion and employed a workforce of more than 119,000.

-ends-

[Gubler, A.]

Here is a story with key figures about the Griffin missile:

Raytheon’s Griffin Block IIB Is the Navy’s Choice for LCS

Written by: Capt. Edward H. Lundquist, U.S. Navy (Ret.) on January 21, 2011
http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/raytheons-griffin-block-iib-is-the-navys-choice-for-lcs/

The U.S. Navy may have found a replacement for the cancelled NLOS (Non Line-of-Sight) missile system for its littoral combat ship.

Rear Adm. Frank Pandolfe, director for Surface Warfare (N86), stated his intention to recommend to his superiors that the Navy should move ahead to replace NLOS, intended for the LCS anti-surface warfare (ASUW) mission package, with Raytheon’s Griffin missile.

Pandolfe made the announcement at the 2011 Surface Navy Association Symposium in Arlington, Va., last week.

In addition to its self-defense capability with a 57 mm gun and Rolling Airframe Missiles, LCS is a reconfigurable focused-mission combatant that can carry mission packages for one of its three missions of anti-submarine warfare, mine warfare, and ASUW. The LCS ASUW mission package also has 30 mm guns. In the ASUW mission, LCS will operate MH-60 helicopters with Hellfire missiles and the MQ-8 Fire Scout vertical takeoff unmanned aerial vehicle (VTUAV). The Fire Scout can provide surveillance and serve as a data link, and can also acquire targets and provide laser designation.

The NLOS system used the Precision Attack Missile (PAM). By comparison, PAM was 7 inches in diameter, where the smaller Griffin missile is 5 inches in diameter. The current version is the Block IIB, but Raytheon will be offering an extended range (ER) version. The Block IIB range is 5 to 8 kilometers, but the ER version will be about 22 nautical miles. The ER version is a foot longer than the Block II, but still shorter than the PAM.

The current configuration uses GPS to “get it in the bucket,” and semi-active laser targeting for the terminal phase. The ER version will feature a dual-mode IR and laser seeker.

Griffin has 40 percent commonality with other systems, including the FGM-148 Javelin and the AIM-9X Sidewinder. It was developed for use on UAVs. Instead of the 100-pound Hellfire missile’s 20-pound high-explosive warhead, the Griffin missile is smaller, at around 45 pounds, and carries a 13-pound warhead. A Predator UAV can carry up to three Griffins for every Hellfire.

NLOS was a promising system. However, the Navy was partnered with the Army to buy the system, and was going to take 1,000 missiles to the Army’s 10,000. When the Army pulled out of the program, the Navy found itself with a much higher unit cost than it could afford.

There currently is no contract in place for Griffin, nor has the service issued an RFP for an NLOS replacement.

The NLOS installation of LCS included three launchers. The Griffin installation could fit inside that same footprint, or be mounted in some other way as yet to be determined.

An analysis of alternatives looked at over 50 existing and upcoming candidates to replace the NLOS.

“The Navy believes Griffin is the best bet,” an industry source said.

Griffin has operated with the Marine Corps’ Harvest Hawk (Hercules Airborne Weapons Kit) KC-130, USAF MC-130W Dragon Spear, Army OH-58 Kiowa helicopters and from vehicles.

[buglerbilly]

Northrop Grumman Announces Team to Outfit Littoral Combat Ship Mission Package Containers, Site to Install Modules

(Source: Northrop Grumman; issued February 14, 2011)

BETHPAGE, N.Y. --- Northrop Grumman Corporation will support assembly of the U.S. Navy's Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) mission packages at Naval Base Ventura County, Port Hueneme, Calif. It also has rounded out its team of subcontractors to support the production effort.

The company recently announced the award of the first low-rate initial production (LRIP) contract, a $29 million award for three mission module packages – one mine countermeasures and two surface warfare packages. Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems is responsible for management of production and all production-related engineering of the mission packages.

"Our CEO recently told the Center for Strategic and International Studies that the defense industrial base will be called upon to find needed solutions at a time of tremendous pressure on the nation's defense investments," said Dan Chang, Northrop Grumman vice president of Maritime and Tactical Systems. "The Navy's Littoral Combat Ship concept is one Navy response to that call. It maximizes our nation's warfighting capabilities while ultimately minimizing budgetary impact. To help ensure their success, we put together a production team that will maximize the Navy's investment in this concept."

The mission module supplier team comprises: Earl Industries, Portsmouth, Va., which will build the TEU (Twenty-foot Equivalent Unit) containers and be responsible for mission module electrical systems; Excelco, Silver Creek, N.Y., responsible for the Remote Multi-Mission Vehicle (RMMV) capture spine; Granite State, Manchester, N.H., which will manufacture RMMV cradles; Smith Brothers, Shelby Township, Mich., which will produce the maintenance stand assemblies mission module hardware; and, Teledyne Brown, Huntsville, Ala., for the gun mission modules.

The end items from each of those companies will be shipped to Port Hueneme, where a Northrop Grumman-Navy team will complete the assembly of each package.

The first of the LRIP mission packages will be delivered in 2012 from the Mission Package Support Facility in Port Hueneme. Northrop Grumman will reach an initial production plateau of four packages per year – two each of the surface warfare and mine countermeasures mission packages – in 2014.

A separate set of suppliers produce the various weapon, sensor and other mission systems contained within each package.

Each of the current packages was designed by U.S. Navy laboratories. Northrop Grumman has been the Navy's mission package integrator during the development of the packages and will continue in that role. The company also installs the Mission Package Computing Environment in each Littoral Combat Ship and manages the Mission Package Support Facility for the Navy.

Northrop Grumman Corporation is a leading global security company whose 120,000 employees provide innovative systems, products, and solutions in aerospace, electronics, information systems, shipbuilding and technical services to government and commercial customers worldwide.

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

Northrop Grumman Fire Scout Completes First Unmanned Test Flights on Littoral Combat Ship

(Source: Northrop Grumman; issued February 24, 2011)

SAN DIEGO --- The Northrop Grumman Corporation--built MQ-8B Fire Scout vertical takeoff and landing tactical unmanned aerial vehicle (VTUAV) achieved a significant development milestone in November when it flew its first test flights from the U.S. Navy's littoral combat ship, USS Freedom (LCS-1).

The Navy conducted the activity, known as dynamic interface (DI) testing, off the coast of southern California to verify Fire Scout control systems have been integrated on the ship properly. DI testing started Nov. 13 and concluded Nov. 24.

"This was a great opportunity to witness the pairing of the LCS with Fire Scout because it represents what the Navy will use for future littoral security missions," said George Vardoulakis, vice president for tactical unmanned systems for Northrop Grumman's Aerospace Systems sector. "We used the opportunity to demonstrate system performance capabilities with the ship, maintenance crew and other key logistical support functions."

Northrop Grumman is the Navy's Fire Scout prime contractor. A team of nine company engineers and air vehicle operators were on the ship to conduct DI testing with the Freedom's crew.

During DI testing, Fire Scout conducted a series of shipboard takeoffs and landings from various approaches. The testing also included subjecting the system to various wind directions and ship speeds. This process validated installation of equipment on the Freedom for future operations. It also allowed the team to identify any enhancements that can be made to improve use of Fire Scout systems on the LCS.

Fire Scout is intended to be a key intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance asset in LCS mission packages for mine countermeasures, anti-submarine and surface warfare. These mission packages allow an LCS to rapidly adapt to new assignments. Northrop Grumman is the prime contractor for LCS mission packages.

With the successful DI testing, the Navy is closer to fully incorporating the VTUAV into LCS operations. Additional DI testing will be conducted on the USS Independence (LCS-2) next year.

The USS Freedom is the fourth ship and the third ship class from which Fire Scout has flown. Previous flight operations have been conducted from the USS Nashville (LPD-13), the USS McInerney (FFG-8) and USS Halyburton (FFG-40).

Northrop Grumman Corporation is a leading global security company whose 120,000 employees provide innovative systems, products, and solutions in aerospace, electronics, information systems, shipbuilding and technical services to government and commercial customers worldwide.

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

Gowind OPV hull assembly completed on schedule


DCNS-built OPV Gowind completes hull assembly. (Photo: DCNS)

11:04 GMT, March 15, 2011 Lorient | DCNS has completed the hull of the first Gowind offshore patrol vessel on schedule. The forward and aft halves were mated late last week at the Group’s Lorient shipyard. Attention is now focused on the next major milestone, namely the launching later this spring. This is the first of a new family of OPV/corvettes optimised for maritime surveillance and a wide range of coast guard and naval missions.

Last week DCNS crews welded together the ship’s forward and aft halves, the final step in hull assembly.

Systems integration is proceeding on schedule. Two other important tasks – the installation of the shaftlines between the prime movers and the propellers and bow-to-stern network cabling – are already at an advanced stage. In April, painters will begin painting the ship’s hull. All work on this, the first OPV ever built by DCNS is on schedule for launching later this spring.

DCNS-funded construction, then on loan to the Navy

Success in the highly competitive corvette/OPV market hinges on DCNS’s capacity to improve its overall performance. The Group is using the Gowind programme to improve its design and production methods from A to Z. The ship is being built in a dedicated assembly hall at DCNS’s Lorient shipyard. A dedicated, multidisciplinary, multiskilled team of volunteers has been given ample freedom to apply new work methods. This innovative approach will ensure that the ship is completed in the record time of just under 20 months from first cut to delivery in late 2011.

On completion, the ship will be made available to the French Navy for three years with a view to achieving ‘sea proven’ and ‘operations qualified’ seals of approval attested by a world-class navy, thereby giving DCNS two key arguments when promoting the Gowind family on the international market.

The Navy will be able to demonstrate the Gowind’s relevance and operational worth for current and emerging missions from area surveillance to anti-piracy, counter-terrorism, fisheries policing, drug interdiction, environmental protection, humanitarian aid, search & rescue and maritime safety & security.

With a length overall of 87 metres, the Gowind will offer three weeks’ blue-water endurance, a range of 8,000 nautical miles and a top speed of 21 knots. The design includes full provision for an organic helicopter and UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) as well as reduced crewing by a complement of 30 and accommodation for 30 passengers.

Innovations and capabilities of special interest to ship-based naval, commando and coast guard forces include a panoramic bridge offering 360° visibility, a single enclosed mast offering 360° sensor visibility, covert deployment of fast commando boats in less than 5 minutes and full provision for unmanned aerial and surface vehicles (UAVs and USVs). The Gowind family also benefits from DCNS’s vast experience in IT and command information systems. Gowind OPV/corvettes can be readily tailored for extended area surveillance and, when working in conjunction with shore-based control centres and other networked ships, the automatic detection of suspicious behaviour by ships and other craft.

[buglerbilly]

U.S. Navy Orders Two More Littoral Combat Ships

By CHRISTOPHER P. CAVAS

Published: 17 Mar 2011 20:35

The U.S. Navy's Littoral Combat Ship program continued its shift into series production with the announcement March 17 that two more ships have been ordered.


Lockheed Martin and Austal USA each received new contracts March 17 to build an LCS ship. Lockheed's third ship, the Fort Worth, was launched in December at Marinette, Wisc. (Navy via Lockheed Martin)

The announcement follows by less than three months the previous award of two ships on Dec. 29.

Under the new contracts, Lockheed Martin received a $376.6 million contract modification to build the yet-to-be-named LCS 7. Based on the steel-hull design of LCS 1, the ship will be built at Fincantieri's Marinette Marine in Marinette, Wis. The work is expected to be completed by April 2016.

Austal USA's deal is for $368.6 million for LCS 8. Austal builds its LCS 2-class all-aluminum ships at Mobile, Ala., and work on that contract is expected to be completed by October 2015.

The contract awarded Dec. 29 to Lockheed for LCS 5 was for $437 million, while Austal's LCS 6 contract was for $432 million.

The contracts are far below the congressional cost cap of $480 million for LCS ships. Sean Stackley, the Navy's top acquisition official, said at the time of the December contract award that the average per-ship target price for Lockheed ships is $362 million, with a goal of $352 million for each Austal ship.

Congress on Dec. 21 approved the Navy's request to buy more ships of each design, shifting from the earlier plan to choose a single type. The Dec. 29 contracts to each shipbuilding team were for one ship, paid for with 2010 funds, with options for nine more. The March contracts are the first options to be exercised, and are funded under the 2011 continuing resolutions, which continue programs that were in effect the previous year.

Fort Worth (LCS 3) was launched Dec. 4 at the Marinette shipyard. Austal plans to launch the Coronado (LCS 4) this year.

Freedom (LCS 1), commissioned in November 2008 as the first Lockheed LCS, is at its home port of San Diego undergoing an overhaul, according to the Navy. The Independence (LCS 2), the first of Austal's breed, was commissioned in January 2010 and is undergoing tests and trials at Mayport, Fla.

The Navy intends to field a total fleet of 55 LCS ships.

[buglerbilly]

Cracks Turn Up in U.S. Navy's First LCS

By CHRISTOPHER P. CAVAS

Published: 18 Mar 2011 16:06

A 6-inch crack in the hull of the littoral combat ship USS Freedom caused the ship to abort sea-keeping trials in mid-February and return to its homeport of San Diego for repairs, the U.S. Navy confirmed March 18.

The crack, about three and a half feet below the waterline in a weld seam between two steel plates in the hull, allowed water to enter a void space in the ship, according to Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA). Flooding was contained, however, and the vessel sailed about 800 miles to San Diego to begin repairs.

NAVSEA and Lockheed Martin, the ship's prime contractor, are reviewing the ship's design, construction drawings and welding procedures to determine what caused the hull crack. It is not yet clear, NAVSEA said, whether the problem is due to a design flaw or faulty construction techniques.

"Lockheed Martin is working closely with the Navy to confirm the root cause and have made all necessary repairs to the ship," Lockheed spokeswoman Kimberly Martinez said in a March 18 e-mail. "We are also supporting the Navy in additional testing along the hull to confirm this crack was an isolated anomaly."

The hull crack was first reported March 18 by Bloomberg News.

The crack appeared while the ship was performing heavy-weather sea trials off the northern California coast, said Cmdr. Jason Salata of Naval Surface Forces in San Diego.

A watch was kept on the space throughout the ship's return to San Diego, and the problem did not restrict the ship's maneuverability or speed, NAVSEA said.

The horizontal crack measured just over 6 inches on the outside of the ship, and was about 3 inches long on the inside. It was amidships, at a point where the hull turns sharply inward.

Repairs to the hull were completed March 12 at San Diego after a cofferdam was built and installed around the crack. The hull repairs were made while the ship was undergoing a scheduled repair period.

A separate issue regarding hull cracks in the aluminum superstructure was dealt with during the repair period, NAVSEA said.

"Several small cracks" appeared aboard the ship last fall, NAVSEA said in a statement, correlating to predicted high-stress areas in the superstructure. Those areas had been "instrumented" before that time to detect problems, and "cracks were identified within the welds, indicating lack of fusion or weld defects."

Changes already have been made in the ship's design to correct the superstructure stress, metal fatigue and cracking, NAVSEA said, and many of those changes are being done in the current repair period.

USS Fort Worth (LCS 3), the next ship being built to the LCS 1 design, "had detail changes incorporated which mitigate these high stress areas," NAVSEA said.

[Unicorn]

Ooops.

.

[JKM Mk2]

I got a couple of questions regarding the LCS.

On photos of Iindependence between the gun and superstructure there is a large square area that is sometimes shown roped-off. Is this space for a VLS? Freedom does not have such an area.

Also regarding Fire Scout. How many will be carried and will it be carried in addition to two SH-60s or replacing one of the helos?

Cheers
JKM

[buglerbilly]

Yup that was the space assigned to the NETFIRES VLS.............no one is exactly sure what is going to replace the now-defunct weapons system?

On USS Freedom the VLS is in front of the rear RAM launcher ahead of the Heli-hangar proper, the white squares on this rear view.............



Better shot on this much larger view rear three quarters............



On the helo versus Fire Scout query, I would have thought it would be difficult to have more than 2 x SH-60's and Fire Scouts not least cos the latter doesn't have folding blades as far as I am aware.............hence in my opinion, you'd have 1 x FS plus 1 x SH-60 but not much else...................the Trimaran has greater capacity in my view.

[JKM Mk2]

Thanks Bug

JKM

[buglerbilly]

Navy Names Littoral Combat Ships Milwaukee and Detroit

(Source: U.S Department of Defense; issued March 18, 2011)

Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus announced today that the next two Freedom-class Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) to be built in Wisconsin will be named the USS Milwaukee and the USS Detroit.

These two ships are part of a dual block buy of LCS class ships announced by Mabus in December 2010. By procuring both versions of the LCS – Lockheed Martin’s semiplaning monohull and General Dynamic’s aluminum trimaran – the Navy can stabilize the LCS program and the industrial base with an award of 20 ships; increase ship procurement rate to support operational requirements; sustain competition through the program; and enhance foreign military sales opportunities. Both designs meet the Navy’s LCS requirement. However, the diversity provided by two designs provides operational flexibility.

Milwaukee and Detroit will be designed to defeat growing littoral threats and provide access and dominance in the coastal waters. A fast, agile surface combatant, the LCS provides the required war fighting capabilities and operational flexibility to execute focused missions close to the shore such as mine warfare, anti-submarine warfare and surface warfare.

The Milwaukee and Detroit will be 378 feet in length, have a waterline beam of 57 feet, displace approximately 3,000 tons, and will make speed in excess of 40 knots.

Construction of Milwaukee and Detroit will be by a Lockheed Martin led industry team in Marinette, Wis.
The selection of Milwaukee, designated LCS 5, honors the city’s citizens and their continued support to our nation’s military. Milwaukee has been a city of national pride since its official founding in 1846. This makes the sixth ship to bear the city’s name.

The selection of Detroit, designated LCS 7, honors the citizens of the Motor City and their ongoing patriotic spirit and military support. Detroit is a major port city on the Detroit River in the state of Michigan. It was founded on July 24, 1701. Detroit is the seventh ship to bear the city’s name. (ends)

U.S. Navy Awards Lockheed Martin $376 Million to Construct Nation's Next Littoral Combat Ship

(Source: Lockheed Martin; issued March 18, 2011)

WASHINGTON --- The U.S. Navy has awarded a Lockheed Martin-led industry team $376 million to construct the nation's seventh Littoral Combat Ship (LCS).

The fixed-price-incentive-fee contract provides funding for the second of 10 ships the Navy awarded to the Lockheed Martin team in December 2010. The contracts for the remaining eight ships will be awarded through 2015. Marinette Marine Corporation, a Fincantieri company, will construct the ships in Marinette, Wis., and naval architect Gibbs & Cox will provide engineering and design support.

"As the Lockheed Martin team constructs this next ship, we will remain focused on performance and cost," said Joe North, vice president of Lockheed Martin's Littoral Ship Systems business. "The Navy's 10-ship award provides stability to this program, allowing industry to more efficiently meet the customer's need for an affordable, multi-mission surface combatant."

The Lockheed Martin industry team designed and constructed the nation's first LCS, USS Freedom. USS Freedom was commissioned in 2008 and has sailed more than 50,000 nautical miles. Based at its homeport of San Diego, Calif., the ship completed a highly successful maiden deployment in 2010 and is now fully integrated into the fleet.

LCS 3, the Navy's future USS Fort Worth and Lockheed Martin's second LCS, is more than 85 percent complete and was christened and launched in December 2010 – a milestone reached just 20 months after contract award. The program remains on schedule and on budget for delivery to the Navy in 2012.

Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin is a global security company that employs about 132,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services. The Corporation's 2010 sales from continuing operations were $45.8 billion.

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

US Navy Awards Austal LCS 8 Construction Contract

(Source: Austal; issued March 24, 2011)

The U.S. Navy has announced a fixed price incentive contract for the construction of a fourth 127-metre trimaran Independence-Class Littoral Combat Ship (LCS 8) valued at USD$368.6 million.

This is the second ship awarded under Austal’s recently announced U.S. Navy contract for construction of up to an additional 10 Littoral Combat Ships to be appropriated in the following five years, with a total value in excess of USD$3.5 billion. Once commissioned, these 10 ships will join the Austal-built USS Independence (LCS 2) which was commissioned in January 2010.

Austal Chief Executive Officer, Andrew Bellamy, commented “The award of this ship allows us to continue the build-up of our workforce, and reinforces the Navy’s need for these vital ships.”

This 10-ship contract will require Austal to more than double its U.S. workforce to approximately 3,800 employees in order to fulfill the contracts currently awarded.

Construction of LCS 8 will commence in January 2012 at Austal’s shipyard in Mobile, Alabama, where work is also underway on the following U.S. Navy and U.S. Army ships:
-- Coronado (LCS 4), scheduled for launch in mid 2011;
-- Spearhead (Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV) 1), scheduled for launch in mid 2011 and delivery in December 2011; and
-- Vigilant (JHSV 2), scheduled for launch in late 2011 and delivery in mid 2012.

Over the course of the next 12 months, Austal will commence the construction of LCS 6, the first vessel awarded under the LCS 10 ship block buy contract, and JHSVs 3, 4 and 5.

For the LCS and JHSV programs, Austal is teamed with General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems, a business unit of General Dynamics. General Dynamics is the ship systems integrator, responsible for the design, integration and testing of the ship’s mission systems.

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

Welding Flaw Led To Crack in LCS-1 Hull

By John Reed Monday, April 11th, 2011 5:44 pm



A manufacturing issue, not a design flaw, led to a six-inch crack along a weld seam on the hull of Littoral Combat Ship, USS Freedom, during heavy weather trials in February, Navy officials said today.

“We’re still reviewing the design for weld improvements, as far as the analysis of [what led to the crack] we’ve completed the analysis and are in the process of working through the release of that information,” said Capt. Jeff Riedel, the Navy’s LCS program manager during a briefing at the Navy League’s annual Sea, Air Space conference held just outside of Washington DC. “Both Lockheed and the Navy are going through their final review that should be available in the next couple of weeks.”

He went on to say that ship’s design wasn’t at fault, but instead, a weak weld-job led to the cracks.

“The design is adequate, how I build it is a different story,” said Riedel. “If I was able to weld it as it was designed to be welded, it wouldn’t have been an issue. The real issue was, getting access to that area to be able to do the weld.”

He added that beginning with LCS-3, welders are able to more easily reach the spot on the ship where the crack occurred, allowing them to lay an extra thick weld.

Other cracks were discovered in known stress points in the ship’s superstructure that computer modeling predicted might be the location of cracks during rough seas, according to Riedel. These cracks have led to design tweaks in subsequent ships of the class.

“We modeled the superstructure and we found that we had areas that were high stress areas, so we would expect, potentially, a crack to occur in that high-stress area,” said Riedel. “So we instrumented the superstructure and we used that instrumentation to validate the model and in fact, we’re now using that to better the design…for LCS-3 and following we’ve gone back and changed the design so we can reduce those stress areas.”

Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said later in the day that all lead ships of a class have “issues” and noted that the crack hasn’t delayed sea trials for the ship.

“Things happen on every lead ship, what you do is learn how to avoid it on the following ships, which we have done,” said Mabus during a press briefing at the conference.

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/04/11/welding-flaw-led-to-crack-in-lcs-1-hull/#ixzz1JGXTYGdk

[buglerbilly]

LCS Creates Opportunities For Radar Makers

Apr 13, 2011

By Michael Fabey



With a different coastal mission, the U.S. Navy’s new Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) fleet needed a set of radars with requirements much different than those developed domestically over the years. To fulfill this need, the Navy and prime contractors for the new ships turned to international radars that had already been developed for littoral missions in other parts of the globe, opening markets for international companies.

The use of international radars has also created a need for partnerships between those companies and domestic businesses to capture the U.S. military contracts.

“They didn’t have the radar they needed in the U.S. inventory,” says Erik Smith, general manager for defense and security systems at Sensis, a radar systems company located in East Syracuse, N.Y.

Sensis is now the U.S. representative for Saab Electronic Defense Systems, which has developed and deployed the sea-based version of its agile multi-beam radar to meet the requirements for the Independence-version LCS offered by the contracting team led by Austal USA of Mobile, Ala.

The other team, led by Lockheed Martin, tapped EADS North America’s TRS-3D radar for its LCS ships.

Founded in 1985 by former radar experts at GE Aerospace, Sensis specializes in radar and surveillance systems, with primary focus on civil aviation and defense.

The company has spent much of its military history as a radar contractor for the U.S. Marine Corps and is now looking to expand its reach into the other services.

The Saab partnership offers Sensis the opportunity to become a bigger player in the naval market, especially with the growing need for littoral intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, as is promised with the LCS, Smith says. “Around the world, ship-based littoral surveillance is a growing mission,” he says. And the partnership helps Saab grow its U.S. defense footprint too.

The Sensis-Saab radar purports to accurately detect small, agile targets at high altitudes; rocket, artillery and mortar targets; as well as small, highly maneuverable surface targets in severe clutter — just the kind of threats seen in coastal environments where the LCS is designed to deploy.

The radar offers air and surface surveillance and tracking, target identification for weapon systems and high-resolution splash spotting. “This radar has been proven to work on global naval platforms for years,” Smith says.

Through its partnership with Saab, Sensis is able to provide the Navy with U.S.-based access to the radar equipment, software and all associated radar system intellectual property. In addition, Sensis provides all U.S.-specific adaptations as needed by the Navy and any test and integration services.

Photo: Paul McLeary

[buglerbilly]

BAE Systems to Provide Communications and Gun Systems for Austal-built U.S. Navy Littoral Combat Ships

(Source: BAE Systems; issued April 13, 2011)

ARLINGTON, Va. --- BAE Systems will provide the external communications and primary gun systems for the 10 U.S. Navy Independence variant Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) to be built by an Austal USA-led team. BAE Systems is a subcontractor to General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems for external communications and a supplier to General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products for the gun systems. The LCS fleet will be a new generation of high-speed Navy warships designed to carry out a range of operations in shallow waters close to shore.

-- Communications Systems: As an industry leader in systems development and integration, BAE Systems will design, install, integrate and test various communications systems for the 10 ships. These include radio and antenna systems, baseband switching systems and associated cabinets, and other types of specialized equipment and hardware.

The company will support the Austal-led team on this work as a subcontractor to General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems. Earlier this year, General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems was awarded a contract from Austal to be the Platform Systems Engineering Agent for the ships. Since 2004, BAE Systems has been a major partner with General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems for communications systems on the first two Littoral Combat Ships: the USS Independence (LCS 2) and Coronado (LCS 4).

“This is a great opportunity to continue our LCS partnership with General Dynamics,” said Richard Anderson, vice president and general manager of integrated technical solutions at BAE Systems. “These critical communications systems will support the U.S. Navy and its mission for years to come.”

This work will be conducted at BAE Systems’ facility in California, Maryland and at Austal USA in Mobile, Alabama.

-- Gun Systems: As the country’s leading producer of naval guns, BAE Systems will provide the 10 Austal LCS with 57-millimeter Mk 110 gun systems. The 57-mm gun provides the Navy with a new level of versatility against an ever-expanding range of threats, matching the multi-mission requirements of the LCS program. General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems along with General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products will install and integrate the gun systems.

“By leveraging technologies from around the world, we’ve created the most advanced weapons system of its kind,” said Mike Smith, managing director of weapons programs for BAE Systems. “We look forward to being part of the dynamic LCS program and furnishing the ships with the absolute best in naval gun technology.”

The 6-mode 57-mm Mk 295 programmable, pre-fragmented and proximity-fused (3P) ammunition allows the system to perform against an aerial, surface or ground threat without requiring multiple round types. Sailors can switch from warning to live fire to engage a target in seconds, and the servo-controlled electro hydraulic gun laying subsystems provide robust endurance and extreme pointing accuracy, even in high sea-state conditions.

This work will be conducted at BAE Systems’ facilities in Louisville, Kentucky, Minneapolis, Minnesota, and in Karlskoga, Sweden. Production of the gun systems is expected to run through calendar year 2017.

BAE Systems announced in January that it will also build and install the primary gun systems on 10 Lockheed Martin-built Littoral Combat Ships.

-ends-

[JKM Mk2]

I'm assuming the (Austral) LCS type of ship is the most logical replacemrnt for the RAN's Anzac class. What do people think will be a fit-out for an RAN LCS type ship?
I think this was discussed previously but many systems and requirements have changed over time.
Personally I'm not totally convinced of the LCS role in a relatively small navy like the RAN -should it replace multi-task frigates or shopuld it be considered as a Patrol Boat replacement?

Also, if the decide to go that direction, does Oz need something in between the AWD and the LCS? If so what should it be?

Cheers
JKM

[Tim]

I'm assuming the (Austral) LCS type of ship is the most logical replacemrnt for the RAN's Anzac class. What do people think will be a fit-out for an RAN LCS type ship?
I think this was discussed previously but many systems and requirements have changed over time.
Personally I'm not totally convinced of the LCS role in a relatively small navy like the RAN -should it replace multi-task frigates or shopuld it be considered as a Patrol Boat replacement?

Also, if the decide to go that direction, does Oz need something in between the AWD and the LCS? If so what should it be?

Cheers
JKM

I don't know that the LCS design will be in the running at all for the ANZAC replacement mate - at the moment "ANZAC II" looks like it'll be bigger than the previous class, with a comprehensive ASW package, long range land attack capability, and "an ability to embark and support a combination of naval combat helicopters and maritime unmanned aerial vehicles". It's sounding like it'll be a big bugger indeed (I've heard talk of 5000-7000 tons, and the Department of Defence's page on the project, SEA 5000, specifies that the ships will be larger than the ANZACs).

I don't know where you'd fit the LCS into the RAN but not as a replacement for major surface combatants. It's also much, much bigger than the current patrol boats, and I imagine the cost would be substantially higher too... I think I'd rather the Navy put any additional funds into the acquisitions already underway, but that's just my view and I don't know a great deal about naval issues. I'm sure the RAN could find a use for them, but I don't know if the new capability would be worth the cost particularly when so many other projects are underway.

[buglerbilly]

Potentially this program could see both MRV and LCS adopted, potentially.................


The Offshore Combatant Vessel (OCV) is a planned multipurpose small warship class for the Royal Australian Navy (RAN). Through the use of modular mission packages, the ships will be capable of operating in multiple roles, primarily border patrol, mine warfare, and hydrographic survey. Procurement plans for the class, designated SEA 1180, call for 20 vessels, which could displace up to 2,000 tonnes. These ships will replace four separate ship classes in active service, totalling 26 vessels.

I'd like to see a mix of MRV and LCS adopted as a Border Protection/Littorals basis for para-military tasking predominantly, taking over from, and replacing, the Armidale assets currently in-service. I'd associate this with greatly expanded use of UAV's including rotor versions...........one manned helo and the rest UAV sounds right to me.

Weapons would be the 57mm cannon currently installed on LCS with MRV's prime gun potentially lighter (25-40mm?) associated with RWS 25mm cannon and .50cal M3 HMG's. LCS would carry a light missile system, preferably a VLS, possibly ESSM...............cost would be a driving factor here, there "may" be something cheaper (VLS MICA?)

(Should the Threat Scenario to the North look like changing, then as long as the VLS is based on full length cells (most not necessarily all) then adopting a far longer-range SAM such as SM-2/3/4 may be possible. I'd suggest that AEGIS would not necessarily be a requirement as long as a suitable 3D radar could be provided and we have our own developments along those lines.)

I'm not particularly keen on RAM for anti-air/anti-missile...........

Thales UK’s Lightweight Multirole Missile (LMM) would be the armament for the helo along with .50cals. An expanded, boostered, version could also provide light SSM capability especially of use countering Swarm attacks/assaults by small vessels, its part of Thales long-term expansion plans for the initial air-only LMM.

Along with the UAV's, both MRV and LCS could easily operate UUV's for both mine-hunting (current use) and ASW (potential future use).

All of this would be primarily aimed at Coastal and Northern Waters operations.

Southern Ocean ops require something totally different and the Norwegian/Danish-designed Offshore Supply/Diving vessel basis seen in use in a very limited fashion currently, could be expanded to a larger class of 4-6 with limited, small gun armament, no missile in a fitted for but not with fashion and adapted UAV and helo............I suspect a ROV would meet the UUV aspect as I don't see mine warfare ever becoming a prime aspect for Southern Ocean tasking. The ROV use would be primarily survey and exploration.

My 2cents worth for fantasy land.............

[JKM Mk2]

Thanks Tim & Bug

Your imput is interesting and would give the ADF a good balance if they do go down those lines.

Cheers
JKM

[buglerbilly]

Lockheed, Austal’s Littoral Ships to Cost At Least $37 Billion (excerpt)

(Source: Bloomberg news; published April 20, 2011)

WASHINGTON --- The U.S. Navy program to develop and build 55 vessels for close-to-shore operations will cost at least $37.4 billion -- not including equipment required for a full range of missions, according to new Pentagon figures.

Development of the Littoral Combat Ship is estimated at $3.5 billion and construction of the fleet at $33.7 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars, according to the estimate disclosed April 15 in an annual Selected Acquisition Report to Congress. Another $236 million is included for construction of facilities to support the ships.

Prior to the April 15 report and summary, the Navy published only a development cost estimate. Pentagon officials April 8 approved moving the program into the engineering and manufacturing phase -- an act that requires a formal estimate of the procurement costs.

Two teams led by Lockheed Martin Corp. and Austal Ltd. are designing and building respective LCS versions. The first two vessels have been commissioned into the Navy. Six others are under contract.

The 37-page report estimates the ships will cost about $535 million apiece in fiscal 2010 dollars. It estimates future-year costs of as much as $636 million in inflation-adjusted dollars.

Those estimates are for ship construction only and don’t include money for as many as 64 so-called mission modules -- interchangeable systems on each vessel for mine-hunting, anti- submarine missions and surface warfare against small boats, according to the report obtained by Bloomberg News.

Total Cost Unknown

“More than nine years after the program was first announced and six years after the start of the sea frame procurement, there is still no official Pentagon estimate for the total cost of the LCS program,” said Ronald O’Rourke, a naval analyst with the non-partisan Congressional Research Service.

“I’m not sure how many other Defense Department weapon procurement programs of comparable size have proceeded for that long into the procurement phase without an official estimate of total cost,” he said in an e-mail.

The mission modules are being developed as a separate program, and there isn’t yet a procurement cost estimate, the report to Congress said. (end of excerpt)

Click here for the full story, on the Bloomberg website.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-19/lockheed-austal-s-littoral-ships-to-cost-at-least-37-billion.html

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

New LCS Executive Office To Be Created

By CHRISTOPHER P. CAVAS

Published: 4 May 2011 12:54

The offices that manage the U.S. Navy's littoral combat ship (LCS) program are to be combined under one executive, according to a Navy official, bringing together the ship and mission module development efforts for one of the service's largest ship construction programs.

Since its inception in 2002, the LCS effort has been split in two - one office to develop the ship, or sea frame, and another office to oversee development of the complex mission modules that are unique to the LCS concept.

Now, with two ships in service, two more under construction and more under contract, increased focus is being placed on how the ships are used and supported in the fleet. Those aspects will also be included under a new program executive officer LCS (PEO LCS).

Sean Stackley, the Navy's top acquisition official, discussed the changes Wednesday morning during an all-hands call at the Washington Navy Yard, the Navy official, speaking on background, confirmed. Stackley reportedly stressed that the changes do not reflect any program performance issues, but rather are a result of increased momentum coming from recent LCS construction contract awards and integration of the ships into the fleet.

There are no plans to eliminate any jobs as a result of the reorganization, Stackley reportedly said.

The program offices are all established under the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA). While a detailed announcement is expected soon, the reorganization would reportedly include the following offices: Remote Minehunting System (PMS 403); LCS Mission Modules (PMS 420); and Mine Warfare (PMS 495) - all now organized under the PEO for Littoral and Mine Warfare.

From the PEO Ships side, the offices of Unmanned Maritime Systems (PMS 406) and Littoral Combat Ship program (PMS 501) would be included.

[buglerbilly]

Lockheed Martin Team Lights Off Diesel Generators Onboard Nation's Third Littoral Combat Ship

(Source: Lockheed Martin; issued May 16, 2011)

MARINETTE, Wis. --- A Lockheed-led industry team reached a key milestone with the "light off" of the ship service diesel generators onboard the nation's third Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), Fort Worth.

The generator light off signifies the ship is ready to run on its own power and this milestone included the successful light off of the ship's four 750-kilowatt Fincantieri Isotta Fraschini diesel generators. Fort Worth will undergo a series of light offs in coming months in preparation for sea trials, scheduled for later this year. During this time, the Lockheed Martin team will continue its dock-side testing of the ship's systems at Marinette Marine. Fort Worth will be delivered to the U.S. Navy in 2012.

"The generator light off is an important milestone in preparing Fort Worth to complete testing and set sail, bringing us one step closer to delivering the Navy its next ship in this class," said Joe North, vice president of Lockheed Martin's Littoral Ship Systems business. "Throughout this process, the team has remained focused on building on our experience while remaining on schedule and on budget."

The Lockheed Martin industry team designed and constructed the nation's first LCS, USS Freedom, which has sailed more than 50,000 nautical miles and demonstrated its capabilities since its commissioning in 2008. Based in its homeport of San Diego, Calif., the ship completed a highly successful maiden deployment in 2010 and is now fully integrated into the fleet.

In addition to Marinette Marine Corporation, a Fincantieri company, the Lockheed Martin-led team for LCS 3 includes naval architect Gibbs & Cox as well as best-of-industry domestic and international companies.

Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin is a global security company that employs about 126,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services. The Corporation's 2010 sales from continuing operations were $45.8 billion.

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

A heavy duty LCS for foreign navies. Maybe.

By Philip Ewing Tuesday, May 24th, 2011 5:10 pm



Lockheed Martin says its second littoral combat ship, the USS Fort Worth, is 87 percent complete. It’ll start work on its third and fourth ships over the coming year. The U.S. Navy wants at least 55 LCSes. From the defense contractor’s standpoint, Lockheed’s return to shipbuilding looks like a success: It is moving toward steady production of a stable design and will likely be able to book many hundreds of millions of dollars over the life of the program. (Lockheed’s first LCS, the Freedom, didn’t go so smoothly, and it cost much, much more than initially advertised.)

From the Navy’s standpoint, the LCS concept may not look so good anymore, given the murky prospects for the interchangeable mission equipment the sea service is counting on. But commanders at least seem satisfied that the ships work, and Lockheed officials would like to take that and translate it into a version for international navies. The ship that Lockheed could sell to the navy of Saudi Arabia or another foreign client might have many more features and weapons than the ones flying the Stars and Stripes.

Bob Riche, Lockheed’s vice president for seaframe sea-based missile defense, said the company has looked at designing an LCS like the Fort Worth equipped with the Aegis system, including a SPY-1F radar and sets of vertical launch tubes for SM-2, SM-3, Evolved Sea Sparrow or other missiles. (Neither version of the standard U.S. LCS has any of that stuff.) Riche acknowledged that the additional sensors and weapons would require a lot more power, which would probably mean the Aegis-equipped LCS couldn’t shred the ocean at 45 knots like its American counterpart. But a Saudi or other navy wanting a small air and missile defense frigate might not need the high sprint speed that U.S. Navy asked for. And the international LCS probably would not be able to accept the various mission modules built for the American one.

Although Stevens and Paul Lemmo, Lockheed’s vice president of business development, both said the company was interested in foreign military sales on LCS, they also both acknowledged it would be years before it happens — if it ever does. Meanwhile the best way to entice foreign interest is for Lockheed and the U.S. Navy to keep on time and on budget with the Fort Worth and its siblings,

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/05/24/a-heavy-duty-lcs-for-foreign-navies-maybe/#ixzz1NKDJumii
DoDBuzz.com

[buglerbilly]

Close-to-Shore Ship: Far Off Budget

(Source: The Project On Government Oversight; issued June 7, 2011)

Contractor low-balling and misplaced confidence in defense procurement estimates have found another victim: the Littoral (close to shore) Combat Ship (LCS). The FY 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) passed by the House grants more than $2 billion requested by the Navy for the LCS. This includes approximately $1.8 billion for the building of four new LCSs and $286 million for research and development.

On December 9, 2010, POGO wrote a letter to the Senate Armed Services Committee opposing the Navy’s plan to change its LCS acquisition strategy without providing time for meaningful congressional consideration. Originally, two distinct LCS designs were created—one by a team led by Lockheed Martin and the other by a General Dynamics-led team.

In this “down-select strategy,” adopted in 2009, these two teams would vie to create the optimal LCS design and then, with one optimal design in hand, another bidding competition would be held to build 19 more ships. The new acquisition strategy, however, awards the two different LCS design teams a ten-ship contract each, and effectively blocks out all other shipbuilders from competing to build the LCS.

This strategy was adopted in spite of the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO’s) finding that it would ultimately cost $740 million more than the down-select plan.

A Congressional Research Service (CRS) report also noted that “Managing the construction of two very different LCS designs could place increased demands on overall Navy program management capacities…factors that might increase the chances of program-management challenges in the LCS program or of the Navy not detecting in a timely manner construction-quality problems that might occur in one or both LCS designs.”

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL33741.pdf

But those aren’t the only drawbacks to the new plan: It is also highly doubtful that LCS funding for fiscal year 2012 will actually lead to the building of all four ships. Originally, the Navy estimated that each ship would cost $220 million. Just five years later, the Navy expects each ship to cost more than double this amount, and just last year the Navy spent more than a billion dollars on the procurement of just two Littoral Combat Ships.

In fact, no LCS has been built for less than $500 million. The CBO estimates that these four ships, built under the dual award plan, will cost a total of $2.29 billion ($572.5 million per ship), or more than $400 million more than has been budgeted.

Yet, the House acquiesced to the Navy’s faulty LCS cost projections and continues to be low-balled by defense contractors that lock in immense procurement efforts with artificially low initial bids.

The Senate should not be similarly duped when it authorizes funding for the LCS.

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

New Combat Ship Battling Corrosion

(Source: Project On Government Oversight; issued June 17, 2011)

According to a forthcoming Bloomberg News article by David Lerman and Tony Capaccio, the Navy has discovered corrosion problems in the General Dynamics-Austal variant of the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), which was commissioned less than two years ago.

The "aggressive" corrosion was found in the propulsion areas of USS Independence. To permanently repair the corrosion the ship will have to be dry-docked and have its water-jet propulsion system removed, according to a written statement the Navy provided to congressional appropriations committees and Bloomberg News.

This is simply phenomenal considering that the ship completed its maiden voyage in April 2010, just fourteen months ago. This is, however, in line with the LCS programs' history of problems and comes on the heels of major cost overruns, which we documented just two weeks ago.

This will likely add to development costs that have already increased 287 percent from baseline estimates, and may add to annual operating costs, already over $36 million per ship, if such aggressive corrosion cannot be prevented.

The timing of this revelation is prescient given that the Senate Armed Services Committee's markup of the FY 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, released today, gives the Pentagon $32.1 million to address "the DoD Corrosion Prevention and Control shortfall in funding requirements." The Pentagon estimates that funding in this area yields an estimated 57:1 return on investment by reducing the costs for repairs and replacements of corroded systems and parts.

Hopefully, the LCS program enjoys a similar return on investment and our close-to-shore ships spend more of their days protecting U.S. interests, not dry-docked.

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

Builder Blames Navy as Brand-New Warship Disintegrates

By David Axe June 23, 2011 | 11:00 am



There is something not being said here...........galvanic corrosion is so well known nowadays as to be of minor concern and its not like either party has no experience..........too bizarre!

The Navy’s newest warship is slowly disappearing, one molecule at a time.

This isn’t a sequel to the 1984 sci-fi flick The Philadelphia Experiment, in which a Navy destroyer-escort vanishes through a time portal in Pennsylvania only to reappear in Nevada, 40 years later.

No, this time the disintegration is real. And so is the resulting tension between the Navy and the disappearing warship’s upstart builder.

The afflicted vessel is USS Independence, the second in the sailing branch’s fleet of fast, reconfigurable Littoral Combat Ships. Eventually, these ships are supposed to be the workhorses” of tomorrow’s Navy.

As Bloomberg reported, the Navy has discovered “aggressive” corrosion around Independence’s engines. The problem is so bad that the barely year-old ship will have to be laid up in a San Diego drydock so workers can replace whole chunks of her hull.

In contrast to the first LCS, the steel-hulled USS Freedom, Independence is made mostly of aluminum. And that’s one root of the ship’s ailment.

Corrosion is a $23-billion-a-year problem in the equipment-heavy U.S. military. But Independence’s decay isn’t a case of mere oxidation, which can usually be prevented by careful maintenance and cleaning. No, the 418-foot-long warship is dissolving due to one whopper of a design flaw.

There are technical terms for this kind of disintegration. Austal USA, Independence’s Alabama-based builder, calls it “galvanic corrosion.” Civilian scientists know it as “electrolysis.” It’s what occurs when “two dissimilar metals, after being in electrical contact with one another, corrode at different rates,” Austal explained in a statement.

“That suggests to me the metal is completely gone, not rusted,” naval analyst Raymond Pritchett wrote of Independence’s problem.

Independence’s corrosion is concentrated in her water jets — shipboard versions of airplane engines — where steel “impeller housings” come in contact with the surrounding aluminum structure. Electrical charges possibly originating in the ship’s combat systems apparently sparked the electrolysis.

It’s not clear why Austal and the Navy didn’t see this coming. Austal has built hundreds of aluminum ferries for civilian customers. The Navy, for its part, has operated mixed aluminum-and-steel warships in the past.

But Independence — the Navy’s first triple-hull combatant — could be a special case for both the builder and the operator. For all Austal’s chops building civilian ferries, the Australian company is new to the warship business. Austal set up shop near Mobile in 1999. Today, the shipyard has contracts to build 10 LCS, plus several catamaran transports for the Navy.

From the Navy’s point of view, Independence and the other Littoral Combat Ships are unique. As in, uniquely cheap. Each vessel is supposed to cost just $400 million, compared to more than a billion bucks for a larger, all-steel Arleigh Burke-class destroyer.

Lots of things — major weapons, for one — have been left off the LCS in order to keep the price down. The list of deleted items includes something called a “Cathodic Protection System,” which is designed to prevent electrolysis.

Independence will get the protection system installed at the first opportunity, and future LCSs will include it from the beginning, according to Pritchett.

But instead of simply filing the corrosion issue under “lessons learned,” Austal seems determined to blame its customer. “Galvanic corrosion has not been a factor on any Austal-built and fully maintained vessel,” Austal stressed, implying that Independence hasn’t been “fully maintained” by a negligent Navy.

That’s an, ahem, interesting approach to customer relations for America’s newest warship-builder.

And things could get worse, as more LCSs enter the fleet. “I suspect there will be other public problems revealed over time that will require relatively simple, albeit costly, solutions,” Pritchett wrote. Will Austal also blame the Navy the next time a glitch appears in the ships it builds?

Photo: Navy

[buglerbilly]

Lockheed Martin Demonstrates Unmanned Vehicle Control Technology Aboard Littoral Combat Ship Test Vehicle

(Source: Lockheed Martin; issued June 27, 2011)

CHERRY HILL, NJ --- Lockheed Martin Advanced Technology Laboratories (ATL) successfully demonstrated its SUMMIT technology aboard a Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) surrogate at the Naval Surface Warfare Center in Panama City, Fla.

The Supervision of Unmanned Mission Management by Interactive Teams (SUMMIT) program allows operators sitting at a single console to access services across all of the ground-control stations. Unlike traditional vehicle-centric methods, where one operator works on one console for a specific task, this mission-centric method allows a single operator at a single console to work on many different tasks. This approach maximizes the productivity of the LCS Mission Package's manning by allowing operators to work on multiple systems simultaneously.

The Office of Naval Research (ONR) sponsored the event as part of its Organic Mine Countermeasures Future Naval Capability Demonstration. During the demonstration, sailors from LCS Mine Warfare Detachment performed multiple simulated mine hunting and mine sweeping missions in St. Andrews Bay and the Gulf of Mexico using a mixture of live and simulated unmanned surface vehicles and remote minehunting systems. During the exercise, one sailor said SUMMIT was "making our job easier." Another said their mission would be "impossible to do without it."

ATL developed and evaluated SUMMIT as part of a $4.7 million, two-phase contract awarded by ONR in 2008. Although developed as part of the LCS Mine Countermeasures mission package, SUMMIT has the potential to expand into other mission packages and platforms.

Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin is a global security company that employs about 126,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services. The Corporation's 2010 sales from continuing operations were $45.8 billion.

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

U.S. Navy Rebuffs LCS Program Charges

By CHRISTOPHER P. CAVAS

Published: 7 Jul 2011 21:35

Declaring that the U.S. Navy "is confident that we are on a path of success" in the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program, Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus on July 7 rebuffed calls by a member of the House Armed Services Committee to review and assess the entire LCS program.


Corrosion problems discovered on the USS Independence have renewed concerns about the Littoral Combat Ship program. (MC2 Justan Williams / U.S. Navy)

"We at Navy have faced and overcome the program's past cost and schedule challenges," Mabus wrote in his letter to Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif.

The letter was a quick response to Hunter's missive to Mabus sent earlier this week. Copies of each of the letters were obtained by Defense News.

Hunter, reacting to reports earlier this year of problems with both LCS designs, charged that the Navy, "instead of enacting proper oversight of this program and development of the ship design … was concerned with appeasing Congress and what has been referred to in Congressional hearings as 'industrial base stabilization.' "

The result, Hunter wrote, was a "toxic environment where the Navy needed to contract to build more ships at a faster rate despite major technical design flaws."

Congress, Hunter added, "was just as complicit in this failed program" when, late last year, it approved the Navy's plan to buy both LCS designs instead of just one, despite risks identified by the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

Hunter called on the Navy "to immediately conduct a formal review of the entire LCS program, provide an assessment of the technical design flaws of the current fleet and determine the best way forward to include the possibility of rebidding this contract so that the program can be put back on a fiscally responsible path to procurement."

The LCS program has had a long, complex and often troubled development history since its inception in 2003. Sharply criticized from many quarters, it is nevertheless routinely cited by Navy leaders for its promise of providing new and more flexible warfighting capabilities while at the same time becoming a mainstay of the future 313-ship fleet. Two LCS types - one based on the Lockheed Martin-developed USS Freedom (LCS 1), the other on the General Dynamics/Austal USA USS Independence (LCS 2) - are being built and fielded.

One ship of each type is in service and more are building. By the end of the decade, the Navy plans to buy a 55-ship LCS fleet of both types.

Freedom and Independence have each suffered a series of teething problems. Superstructure cracks appeared in Freedom soon after the ship's 2008 completion, and in March a weld seam opened up while the ship was at sea, causing minor flooding.

More recently, reports have surfaced of corrosion problems on the water jets and water intakes on Independence. Hunter cited those problems on both ships in his letter to Mabus.

But Mabus, while acknowledging the problems, declared that neither of the events "can be attributed to out of sequence work or the lack of a stable design. Both LCS 1 and LCS 2 are first-of-class ships that have not completed all their test and trials."

New types of ships often have developmental problems, Mabus wrote.

"It is not uncommon for the Navy to discover and correct technical issues encountered on first-of-class ships during the post-delivery and trial period. In fact, this is one of the main reasons for the test and trial period," Mabus said in the letter.

"These issues are being repaired and corrected on both LCS 1 and LCS 2 and changes to the designs have been implemented for follow-on ships."

The hull crack in Freedom, Mabus wrote, was due to a weld defect, "a workmanship issue." The superstructure cracks were predicted and design changes have been made to later ships to lower the stresses in the superstructure, he wrote, and Freedom will undergo modifications later this year.

The corrosion issues on Independence, he said, "have been attributed to a design approach undertaken by General Dynamics and Austal USA that proved not as effective as anticipated."

An "interim repair" has been prepared for the ship, Mabus wrote, and a permanent fix will be installed next year during a scheduled maintenance period. A cathodic protection system will be installed on the next ship in the class and is included in the design for subsequent ships, he added.

Mabus noted the service recently established a new program executive office for the LCS program, combining the management and oversight of both the ship development effort and that of the complex mission modules that give the ships their primary warfighting capabilities.

"We are confident that cost and development risks have been retired with the construction experienced obtained [on] the first four ships," Mabus declared, noting the use of fixed-price contracts for current and future ships, as well as efforts to improve production quality and efficiency at both LCS shipyards.

"Rebidding the LCS contracts at this point would undoubtedly increase the cost and delivery time of future LCS platforms," Mabus concluded.

[buglerbilly]

LCS is on ‘path to success,’ SecNav says

By Philip Ewing Friday, July 8th, 2011 9:53 am



The littoral combat ship program is just encountering some early-in-the-class teething problems, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus says, but overall the Navy is headed in the right direction and it would be too complicated and costly to change course now. That’s according to a report this week by the dean of America’s shiperati, Christopher P. Cavas, quoting a letter Mabus sent to California Rep. Duncan Hunter, a San Diego-area Republican who asked Mabus to “review” LCS after reports of the ships’ ongoing problems.

Wrote Cavas:


Hunter, reacting to reports earlier this year of problems with both LCS designs, charged that the Navy, “instead of enacting proper oversight of this program and development of the ship design … was concerned with appeasing Congress and what has been referred to in Congressional hearings as ‘industrial base stabilization.’ ” The result, Hunter wrote, was a “toxic environment where the Navy needed to contract to build more ships at a faster rate despite major technical design flaws.”

Congress, Hunter added, “was just as complicit in this failed program” when, late last year, it approved the Navy’s plan to buy both LCS designs instead of just one, despite risks identified by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). Hunter called on the Navy “to immediately conduct a formal review of the entire LCS program, provide an assessment of the technical design flaws of the current fleet and determine the best way forward to include the possibility of rebidding this contract so that the program can be put back on a fiscally responsible path to procurement.”

No dice, said Mabus. Navy engineers have learned a lot about what caused the problems on the littoral combat ships Freedom and Independence, he said, and future copies will incorporate those lessons — but it would cause too many problems to make these kinds of major changes to the program. And here’s something else: Although officials with manufacturer Austal have said the Navy is to blame for the corrosion problems that have sidelined the Independence, Mabus says those issues in fact “have been attributed to a design approach undertaken by General Dynamics and Austal USA that proved not as effective as anticipated.”

Continued Cavas:


An “interim repair” has been prepared for the ship, Mabus wrote, and a permanent fix will be installed next year during a scheduled maintenance period. A cathodic protection system will be installed on the next ship in the class and is included in the design for subsequent ships, he added.

Ultimately, they’re both right: Mabus is correct that it would be very expensive and complicated for the Navy to try anything else but going forward with its LCS strategy. And Duncan is right that the Navy’s main goal last year was to placate Congress by giving it a plan in which literally everyone won: The Navy bought both LCSes, protecting both shipyards, and got them cheaper than it ever could’ve imagined. The Navy saw a scenario in which LCS became the next Air Force tanker, and it was willing to do anything to avoid that fate.

Still, for all its past enthusiasm, the service seems to have no sense of urgency for LCS anymore. A few years ago, officials kept saying they needed LCS “yesterday,” and they made much of the Freedom’s homeport change from Florida to California, which was billed as an “early deployment” that showed the maturity of the program. And yet it’ll be years before the Navy has anything like complete sets of the mission equipment that LCS needs to function. What’s more, neither the Freedom nor the Independence has actually done any real Navy missions – probably in part because of the problems both ships have encountered. Where once the Navy wanted to push LCS out into the world to go fight pirates, or visit all those shallow-water ports only it can enter, the service seems to have resigned itself to waiting.

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/07/08/lcs-is-on-path-to-success-secnav-says/#ixzz1RZ7ZBf8e
DoDBuzz.com

[buglerbilly]

Navy Establishes Program Executive Office for Littoral Combat Ships

(Source: US Navy; issued July 12, 2011)

WASHINGTON (NNS) -- The Navy established the Program Executive Office, Littoral Combat Ships (PEO LCS), during a ceremony at Washington Navy Yard, July 11.

"The littoral combat ship is a critical shipbuilding program and demands the very best skill and effort from government and industry teams," said Asst. Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development and Acquisition) Sean J. Stackley in a memo establishing the new PEO. "To ensure that we deliver this program to the fleet successfully, I am establishing a new Program Executive Office, Littoral Combat Ships that will align several program offices into one consolidated PEO, focused entirely on achieving that result. This action takes efforts that are currently managed across multiple organizations, and integrates design and development and tests, trials and evaluations under one roof. PEO LCS will have authority across all aspects of the program."

Led by Rear Adm. James Murdoch, the new PEO provides a single program executive responsible for acquiring and maintaining the littoral mission capabilities of the LCS class from start to finish, beginning with procurement, and ending with fleet employment and sustainment.

"I am excited by the challenge of leading this historic effort to provide the Navy with new and highly capable warships equipped with extraordinary aviation features, large payload capacities and flexible environments for future missions - all contained within a fast, stable and efficient seaframe to support the Navy's needs today and tomorrow," said Murdoch.

E. Anne Sandel has been named as the executive director.

Acquisition and maintenance of the sea-frame and mission modules were previously overseen by two different PEOs - PEO Ships and PEO Littoral and Mine Warfare (PEO LMW), respectively. With the creation of PEO LCS, PEO LMW has been disestablished and resident LCS program functions have been transitioned to the new PEO. Non-LCS program functions from PEO LMW have been realigned within Naval Sea Systems Command and existing PEOs.

LCS and its mission modules have been developed under a different strategy for shipbuilding using modular capability, minimal manning and new sustainment concepts. That strategy and the unique aspects of LCS lend themselves to a PEO structure that takes into account the complexity of a system-of-systems approach. Realignment to co-locate the shipbuilding and mission modules programs, together with fleet introduction, is designed to optimize program communication and increased programmatic synergy.

The new PEO LCS will include the following Program Offices: LCS (PMS 501), Remote Minehunting System (PMS 403), Unmanned Maritime Systems (PMS 406), LCS Mission Modules (PMS 420), Mine Warfare (PMS 495), and essential fleet introduction program and functional offices, such as test and evaluation and aviation integration.

The LCS is an entirely new breed of U.S. Navy warship. A fast, agile, and networked surface combatant, LCS's modular, focused-mission design will provide combatant commanders the required warfighting capabilities and operational flexibility to ensure maritime dominance and access for the joint force. LCS will operate with focused-mission packages that deploy manned and unmanned vehicles to execute missions as assigned by combatant commanders.

LCS will also perform special operations forces support, high-speed transit, maritime interdiction operations, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, and anti-terrorism/force protection. While complementing capabilities of the Navy's larger multi-mission surface combatants, LCS will also be networked to share tactical information with other Navy aircraft, ships, submarines, and joint units.

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

Senators Question LCS Certifications

By CHRISTOPHER P. CAVAS

Published: 13 Jul 2011 20:00

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., long has been a critic of the U.S. Navy's Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program. In Senate hearings last December and this spring, he lambasted Navy leaders for a series of problems with the LCS and decried the pressure put on Congress late last year to permit the Navy to change course and buy both, rather than only one, of the LCS variants.


Sen. John McCain, left, R-Ariz., has again lashed out at the U.S. Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship program, challenging a corrosion problem that has plagued Independence (LCS 2) in a July 12 letter to the Pentagon’s top weapons buyer, Ashton Carter. (Staff file photos)

And McCain is leading a new assault on the program in a letter sent to Ashton Carter, the Pentagon's top weapons buyer. The July 12 letter, on U.S. Senate letterhead, is co-signed by three Republicans and three Democrats, and asks for more information on the corrosion problem that has plagued the second LCS, the aluminum-hulled Independence.

Perhaps more significant, however, is that the letter opens up a newer area of concern and questions several Pentagon procedures that allowed the LCS program to move forward.

McCain was joined in the effort by five colleagues on the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) - Republicans Scott Brown of Massachusetts and Rob Portman of Ohio, and Democrats Mark Begich of Alaska, Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Jim Webb of Virginia - and Republican Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.

"It is highly unfortunate that we first learned about the discovery of significant corrosion on the Independence, and obtained your letter about your decision to waive certain certifications," after the SASC marked up its 2012 defense bill, the senators wrote to Carter.

"Needless to say, it is absolutely vital for the committee to have in a timely fashion all information material to its deliberating the Department of Defense's funding requests."

The senators gave Carter until July 25 to respond to the letter, "to assist in our further deliberation of the act by the full Senate."

In its June 21 markup of the 2012 defense authorization bill, the committee approved the Navy's request for four LCS ships, part of a proposed 20-ship block buy announced in December.

The July 12 letter questions and asks for further information on several moves by the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) to allow the program to move ahead.

Specifically, the senators:

■ Question an April 7 OSD certification to move the LCS to Milestone B, or the engineering manufacturing and development phase of the program. OSD waived several requirements of the certification - a move prompting concerns from the senators that specific reasons for the waivers were not provided.

■ Ask why OSD allowed the program to use Navy acquisition cost estimates, rather than those developed by Pentagon's Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) group, as required by law under Title 10 of the U.S. Code. "Please provide a full explanation of the CAPE's position, the analysis the CAPE relied on to support its position, and why you chose to use the Navy's cost estimates rather than the CAPE's," the senators wrote.

■ Ask for an explanation as to why OSD granted a waiver of the need to certify program tradeoffs late in the program, rather than earlier in the development of the LCS.

■ Ask Carter to indicate when he "will be prepared to certify to those provisions that you recently waived," and provide a business case analysis for the certifications and wavers.

■ And ask how, in light of the corrosion problems on Independence, the LCS program "will ensure reliability and minimize major cost growth in operations and sustainment costs" in accordance with a March directive from defense under secretary Frank Kendall requiring all Pentagon programs to do so.

The senators also ask Carter to provide detailed information on the corrosion issue discovered on elements of the waterjet system on Independence. The Navy already has been fielding answers on the issue, which involves a failed alternative to more standard efforts to provide cathodic protection against corrosion and rust in underwater areas where two or more kinds of metal are used. A more conventional fix has been designed into subsequent units of the class, the Navy said, and modifications will be made to Independence to deal with the issue.

The letter also asks Carter to respond to a charge by Andrew Bellamy, chief executive of Austal - the Australian parent company of Independence builder Austal USA - that poor maintenance by the Navy, rather than faulty craftsmanship by the shipyard, is likely to be the cause of the aggressive corrosion on the ship. Bellamy also was reported as saying, according to the letter, that any corrosion on Independence would be the fault of the operator or maintainer and not the builder. The senators ask the Navy to describe how it plans to address the problem, if poor operational maintenance is "at least part of the cause."

The letter from the seven senators comes shortly after a similar, but less detailed, missive from Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif. In a letter dated July 1, Hunter cited concerns about the corrosion and other problems, along with the LCS program's oft-reported cost growth, and asked the Navy to conduct "a formal review of the entire LCS program."

The Navy, in a July 7 response to Hunter, declared it was aware of the problems Hunter cited, had fixes already in hand or applied, and was satisfied that the program now is on a satisfactory track.

[tiddles]

Navy Tests LCS Minesweeping System
Panama City, Fla. - The Navy announced the successful completion of shore-based and at-sea integrated system tests on the prototype Unmanned Influence Sweep System, July 20, at the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Division, in Panama City, Fla.

Designed for the LCS as part of the mine countermeasures mission package, the system provides unmanned mine sweeping capability that keeps warfighters out of the mine field. The system consists of an unmanned surface craft that carries and tows the minesweeping payload.

Related Research on ASDReports.com:
Shipbuilding and repairing: Industry Cluster Report

The test, known as Phase 1 Sweep Operational Checkout, consisted of confirming that the new sweep system can be deployed and retrieved from a surface craft and that it tows properly. The test was the first use of the prototype Sweep Power Subsystem which includes magnetic and acoustic sweep systems. The first phase of testing was completed on July 1. Phase II is currently ongoing.

"The first day of testing was executed flawlessly. The team performed very well and the system operated as expected. The data gathered during this first phase of testing will provide key performance parameters and establish benchmarks for the remainder of the test event," said Stephen Olson, Unmanned Maritime Systems assistant program manager for UISS System Integration and Test.

This summer's test program includes a full signature test and full mission profile where the entire UISS system will be tested in a series of integrated systems tests planned to demonstrate minesweeping capability in preparation for littoral combat ship mission package integration.

"This is another important step in our efforts to deliver evolutionary technology to the fleet," said Rear Adm. Jim Murdoch, program executive officer for Littoral Combat Ships.

An affiliated program executive office of Naval Sea Systems Command, PEO LCS provides a single program executive responsible for delivering the Littoral Combat Ships to include seaframe, mission modules, mission systems, fleet introduction, and life cycle maintenance and sustainment.


Read more: http://www.asdnews.com/news/37027/Navy_Tests_LCS_Minesweeping_System.htm#ixzz1Spqh3C F2

[buglerbilly]

Corrosion Issue Won't Sink LCS: Top DoD Buyer

By CHRISTOPHER P. CAVAS

Published: 2 Aug 2011 18:50

The U.S. Navy takes corrosion issues affecting its new Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) "very seriously," Pentagon acquisition chief Ashton Carter told Congress on Aug. 2, but the service believes that the widely-reported problems "in no way threaten the viability of this ship class, and the cost of the Navy's mitigation measures is affordable."

Carter was responding to a July 12 letter from a group of seven senators, including longtime LCS critic Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., that asked several pointed questions about corrosion issues on the ships and questioned the Pentagon's certification process of the LCS program.

Two LCS designs are being built for the Navy - the Freedom (LCS 1) class from prime contractor Lockheed Martin, and the Independence (LCS 2) class from General Dynamics and Austal USA. The first ships of each class are now in service and more are under construction from both teams. Altogether, the Navy plans to buy 55 LCS ships.

Carter - who has been nominated by the White House to become the next deputy defense secretary - defended his decision last year to use Navy rather than Pentagon cost figures for the ships, pointing out that the offers from both competitors came in under the military's cost projections.

"To do otherwise," Carter wrote, "would suggest to the shipbuilders that the government would be willing to pay more for ships in the future than is reflected in the contracts just awarded."

Carter described some of the issues affecting the water jet system on the Independence, which has been found to be suffering from galvanic corrosion. The situation, he wrote, is found on all ships when different metals are adjacent to each other in salt water. The original designer's approach to the problem on the Independence was found to be faulty, and is being changed, he explained.

The cost to repair and fix the Independence is about $3.2 million, Carter wrote, and a new protective system to be built in to subsequent ships will cost about $250,000 per ship.

The original July 12 letter to Carter was signed by senators Mark Begich, D-Alaska, Scott Brown, R-Mass., McCain, Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., Rob Portman, R-Ohio and Jim Webb, D-Va. - all members of the Senate Armed Services Committee - and Tom Coburn, R-Okla.

[buglerbilly]

How the Navy’s Warship of the Future Ran Aground

By David Axe August 3, 2011 | 7:00 am



With an enormous splash and cheers from spectators, the 378-foot-long vessel Freedom slid sideways into the Menominee River in Wisconsin. It was Sept. 23, 2006, and the U.S. Navy had just launched its first brand-new warship class in nearly 20 years.

Freedom also represented a new strategy. Where previous warships had been tailored for open-ocean warfare using guns, missiles and torpedoes, Freedom — the first so-called Littoral Combat Ship, or LCS — was designed for a new kind of coastal combat. It was smaller, more maneuverable. And instead of relying on sheer firepower, it carried few of its own weapons. Instead, it would function as a mothership for super-sophisticated robots that would do most of the ship’s fighting.

Freedom was also cheaper than older ships: just $600 million, compared to more than $1 billion for most other vessels. The Navy hoped to buy as many as 55 LCSs for around $40 billion, reversing the U.S. fleet’s steady numerical decline that began in the late 1980s.

There was so much promise invested in one “small” ship. “It comes none too soon,” Adm. Mike Mullen, then chief of naval operations, said of Freedom’s arrival, “because there are tough challenges out there that only she can handle.”

But the fanfare and Mullen’s optimism masked deep problems in the LCS program. Freedom was years late and $400 million over its original cost estimate. None of its robotic systems was ready for combat. Five years later, they still weren’t ready, preventing Freedom from undertaking any real-world missions more serious than a Caribbean drug hunt.

Meanwhile, mechanical and structural problems festered inside the ship, the symptoms of a rushed design process. In 2010 and 2011, Freedom and a sister vessel would both suffer serious maintenance failures within months of each other.

The LCS’ biggest problem, however, was conceptual. Five years and billions of dollars into the LCS program, the Navy still hadn’t figured out what the coastal combatant was really for. Today, the sailing branch is no closer to an answer. “Apart from the Navy’s inability to properly forecast how fast these ships could be built, fielded and paid for, there is a similar tone-deafness to how they will be employed,” ace naval journalist Christopher Cavas wrote.

What is the Littoral Combat Ship? Is it a heavily armed brawler meant to wade into bloody coastal battles and sacrifice itself while taking out multiple enemy missile boats? Is it a mine-clearer? A sub-hunter? A low-cost patroller ideal for slowly stalking pirates, drug runners and weapons smugglers and training alongside allied navies?

Is it a small, fast amphibious ship for slipping teams of Marines, Navy SEALs and river troops into an enemy’s coastline? Is it an ultrahigh-tech mothership for carrying diving, sea-skimming and flying robots? Is it an affordable version of the Navy’s large destroyers, meant for the export market? Is it the flagship of an industrial scheme designed to revamp American shipbuilding?

The answer is … all of these things. And none of them. The LCS has attributes suited to each of the above tasks. The problem is, some of these attributes cancel each other out — and the Navy lacks the clarity and discipline to decide which missions the LCS should keep, and which should be assigned to other ships.

The confusion over the LCS’ roles has gone on so long it has created a bizarre feedback loop, with the Navy, its shipbuilders, the Pentagon and America’s regional commanders each developing plans and technologies for the LCS based on conflicting assumptions. The result is a warship theoretically capable of almost anything, and increasingly optimized for nothing.

“The Navy risks investing in a fleet of ships that does not deliver its promised capability,” warned Ronald O’Rourke from the Congressional Research Service. But O’Rourke is being altogether too kind: The LCS is already failing to deliver, today. And the damage to the Navy, and to U.S. national security, could last for decades.



The Single-Serving Warship

How did the Navy get to this point? The answer is a complicated one, involving: a pair of very persuasive Navy strategists, a domineering “transformation”-obsessed secretary of defense and a Navy chief eager to please him, and some unforgiving mathematics.

It all started more than 10 years ago.

In the late 1990s, the Navy realized it had a problem. Its 9,000-ton cruisers and destroyers, inherited from the Cold War, were great for open-ocean warfare against the Soviets. But the same ships were considered too vulnerable to safely operate in the shallow, crowded, chaotic coastal waters — aka, the “littorals” — that were fast becoming the next naval battleground.

Here, dangers might include gun-armed speedboats, missile-firing fast-attack craft, small submarines and sea mines, plus antiship missiles and aircraft launched from land.

When the U.S. Navy first looked at the threat, it decided that bigger was better for near-shore waters, because a bigger ship can absorb more missile hits. So for its new coastal warship, in 2000 the Navy selected the so-called DD-21, a 15,000-ton behemoth.

Two Navy strategists, on the other hand, were thinking small. Retired Capt. Wayne Hughes, a professor at the Naval Postgraduate School, had been refining a new theory of naval warfare that favored large numbers of small, specialized vessels. At the same time, Vice Adm. Art Cebrowski, head of the Naval War College, had begun testing a similar small-ship concept for near-shore warfare he called “Streetfighter.”

The term soon became synonymous with a 1,000-ton, heavily armed ship costing just $90 million in 2001 dollars. “These smaller, more single-purpose warships are the capital ships of a 21st-century fleet,” Hughes said.

But a warship of just 1,000 tons’ displacement would be too small to survive a direct hit, so Cebrowski and Hughes said it should be disposable — and could be, because it’s so cheap. “We must expect [the small ships] to suffer wounds, some of them fatal,” Cebrowski said. After taking damage, the Streetfighter’s crew would abandon ship — making it, in essence, a “single-serving” warship.

And that was a problem for the mainstream Navy. “The Navy does not and has never built expendable ships,” analyst Raymond Pritchett later pointed out. Some critics began calling the Streetfighter the “ship designed to lose.” As of mid 2000, “the official Navy response was to opt out, and then ignore, this critically important debate,” explained Bob Work, then an analyst with Washington’s Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

Then in July of that year, Adm. Vernon Clark assumed leadership of the Navy, and six months later Donald Rumsfeld arrived at the Pentagon for what would be a tumultuous five-year term as secretary of defense. For Cebrowski and Hughes and their small, expendable warship, everything changed.

Or did it?



Full Speed Ahead … to Where?

Rumsfeld (pictured above with Clark on the right) swept into the Pentagon in early 2001 promising “transformation.” “We have to … take risks and try new things,” he said at a conference organized by Cebrowski. That included adopting the “lean” practices of the business world, doing the same jobs with fewer people.

To Rumsfeld, the gigantic DD-21 destroyer represented the old-fashioned approach to warfare. Small ships with small crews — that was the future to Rumsfeld. In October 2001, Rumsfeld assigned Cebrowski to head the Pentagon’s new Office of Force Transformation. A few days after that, Clark canceled DD-21 and replaced it with a “family” of ships that included the LCS.

It’s possible, Work wrote, that Clark “reluctantly accepted the LCS only after it was clear that Secretary Rumsfeld expected the Navy to pursue the program.”

It’s also likely that Clark was at least partially motivated by industrial and budgetary concerns. One of his major initiatives as chief of naval operations was to expand the then-300-strong fleet to around 375 vessels, reversing its 20-year numerical decline.

The problem was, the Navy was and still is getting only $15 billion or so per year for new ships. With most vessels costing more than a billion bucks each, before LCS the Navy could afford only around nine ships a year, and sometimes as few as four — too few to grow the fleet. “I think 14 ships per year are necessary,” Congressman Edward Schrock (R-Virginia) a Navy booster, told a trade magazine in early 2003.

The Navy expected each LCS to cost just $220 million. That would allow the sea branch to buy five LCSs per year, boosting maximum annual ship production to Schrock’s goal of 14. It could be that Clark saw the LCS as the only way to grow the fleet, fast.

In 2003, Clark declared the LCS his “most transformational effort and my number-one budget priority.” The Navy would design and build the ships with “lightning speed,” said Rear Adm. Charles Hamilton. In the span of just three years, the Navy had changed course 180 degrees on small warships.

Inasmuch as Hughes and Cebrowski were right about small ships, the Navy’s fast attitude adjustment was admirable. The problem was that the new LCS effort was mostly attitude.

For all Cebrowski’s and Hughes’ passion about small-ship theory, and Clark’s and Rumsfeld’s determination to build the diminutive vessels, no one had clearly defined exactly what a small warship should look like, and what it should and shouldn’t do. On at least one key point — expendability — the strategists and the mainstream Navy were totally at odds.

No one had taken the time to clarify the LCS requirements and reconcile that important difference. A Navy official shocked some members of Congress in 2003 when he told them that “rigorous analysis” of the LCS concept came after the Navy had already committed to the program and its (then) $15-billion price tag.

The only thing everyone agreed on was that the LCS would sail close to shore. But no one specified how close “close” really was. One mile? Twenty-five miles?

As theorists, Hughes and Cebrowski never had to be specific. Rumsfeld, for his part, was notorious for ignoring the nitty-gritty details of running the military. Clark tried his best to keep his boss happy and grow the fleet.

“As a result, the Navy’s leadership was forced to test out arguments for the new ship on the fly,” Work recalled. “Sometimes the LCS was labeled transformational because of its high speed … other times it was because the ship was designed to defeat ‘asymmetric’ littoral threats.” On still other occasions, the Navy chose to emphasize LCS’ supposed “transformational impact on the American shipbuilding industry.”

“The constantly changing rationale for the new ship helped to confuse both the Navy’s internal and external audiences,” Work concluded.

In short, the circumstances of the LCS’ genesis were a perfect recipe for a shipbuilding fiasco.



Creeping Requirements

The Pentagon has a term to describe its own tendency to add more and more missions and equipment to a weapons system in development — “often to the point of absurdity,” former Defense Secretary Robert Gates lamented. “Requirements creep” can render a new weapon too complex and expensive for practical use.

With no clear vision for LCS, requirements creep happened fast. What might have been a small, cheap and simple coastal warship soon became big, expensive, complicated … and not necessarily suitable for shallow waters.

In the months after Clark committed the Navy to purchasing at least 55 LCSs, an LCS Task Force formed to decide on the ship’s design and missions.

Their starting point: LCS would not be expendable. It had to be tough enough — meaning big enough — to absorb combat damage and still limp home.

Already, LCS was growing in size well beyond what Cebrowski and Hughes imagined. It wouldn’t be long before the Navy’s new “small” ship got even bigger. Just one thing about the vessel would remain scaled-down: its crew. While destroyers sail with at least 300 people, each LCS would carry just 75. Automation and out-sourced maintenance would, in theory, compensate for fewer hands.

The task force assigned six different missions to LCS, including sub- and mine-hunting, combat against small boats, intelligence gathering, the transportation of Special Forces and peacetime drug and piracy patrols — all in shallow water. The near-shore vessel would be big enough to sail across the Pacific on its own and carry at least one helicopter.

None of these missions was new for the Navy, but each was — and is — being performed by a different type of ship. Sub hunting and defense against small boats are the purview of large frigates and destroyers and their helicopters. Mine hunters are tiny and slow, better to avoid setting off mines. Intelligence ships are unobtrusive.

Special Forces transports are basically souped-up speedboats bristling with guns. Cheap-to-operate frigates handle most drug patrols. Destroyers and amphibious ships, capable of carrying lots of small boats and boarding crews, track pirates.

In trying to replace all these ships with just one new vessel, the LCS Task Force realized it had a problem. It was impossible. A destroyer is not a mine hunter is not a transport. The task force’s initial recommendation was that the LCS actually encompass three totally different ships, working as a team — the largest of which would weigh in at around 3,000 tons.



Plug and Play

Since the Navy was only willing to build one ship, it should be the big one, the task force advised. The group believed that “through modularity, organic combat power and use of unmanned systems, this corvette could cover the range of missions identified,” analysts Duncan Long and Stuart Johnson wrote (.pdf) in a 2007 study.

“Modularity” meant leaving enough open space in each LCS for sets of weapons and sensors, each optimized for a particular task. “It’s going to be ‘plug and play,” Rep. Schrock crowed.

Module-swapping should take just a day, the Navy said. And to allow the LCS to switch modules in some friendly port then return to combat quickly, the ship would need to be faster than previous vessels: at least 40 knots, 10 knots faster than a destroyer. Never mind that the speed meant terrible fuel efficiency.

The unmanned vehicles the task force envisioned would come with the modules. A planned antisubmarine module would include a pair of sonar-equipped robotic boats plus a robotic minisub and a Fire Scout robo-chopper. A mine-hunting module would feature a mine-detecting, submersible drone.

As the Navy prepared to award the first LCS construction contracts in 2004, none of the modules even existed outside laboratories. Without them, the LCS was little more than an overpriced car ferry or an ugly yacht, with only a single gun and 11 self-defense missiles to justify the label “warship.”

As it happened, the two prototype LCS “seaframe” designs the Navy selected for a planned “sail-off” were, in fact, a ferry (from General Dynamics and Austal) and a yacht (built by Lockheed Martin).

That’s right. As if the LCS program weren’t convoluted enough — now the Navy was planning to build two entirely different types of ships, both allegedly ready for the same missions.

At the time, the Navy expected to select a single design and contractor and quickly build three LCSs over five years before bumping production up to five LCSs per year. In parallel, the Navy would also build 90 mission modules. Each ship would cost just $220 million and each module $150 million, the Navy insisted.

Three years after LCS sprang half-formed from the strategists’ theories, Rumsfeld’s corporate philosophy and Clark’s kowtowing, the Navy’s thinking for the vessel amounted to: Build something, anything, fast and cheap. Any problems encountered along the way would be fixed with the modules and robots.

The plan was, in a word, ambitious — which was not what Cebrowski and Hughes had in mind when they argued for the Navy to add smaller, simpler, cheaper ships. In the course of just four years, the Navy fought, embraced, and then completely corrupted the small-ship philosophy. Instead of compact, brute-simple coastal brawlers, it would get over-inflated, gas-guzzling, gutless ships dependent on ultrahigh-tech gizmos. Every degree of uncertainty regarding the basic LCS concept added another degree of complexity to the still-unbuilt robots and modules.

Even if the Navy’s 2004 LCS plan had gone off without a hitch, it would have produced vessels unrecognizable to most practitioners of coastal warfare. As it happened, the LCS program went completely, and predictably, off the rails.



Frankenstein’s Warship

The cost per ship more than doubled. To the Congressional Budget Office, this came as no surprise. CBO pointed out that, since the late 1970s, new Navy surface combatants have tended to cost “$250 million per thousand tons” in 2009 dollars. Following that rule, Cebrowski’s target of $90 million for a 1,000-ton Streetfighter in 2001 was optimistic, and the Navy’s goal of $220 million for a 3,000-ton LCS was delusional.

Rising costs caused a panic in Congress and the Pentagon. Through 2008, lawmakers and Navy officials canceled five LCS production contracts, delaying seaframe production by several years. Introduction of the first fully ready module got bumped back even farther, to 2017, and module production numbers shrank by a third. Now there’d be only slightly more modules than ships, essentially forcing each LCS to stick to one mission.

Plus, the modules themselves lost capability. A 25-mile-range boat-killing missile, part of the anti–surface-warfare module, failed tests, so the Navy canned it and substituted a cheaper missile with a mere five-mile range.

The main robot for the mine-hunting module also failed tests.

The sub-hunting module — “an Erector kit of bad ideas,” according to one blogger — was in the worst shape of all. “The planned systems do not contribute significantly to the anti-submarine-warfare mission,” the Government Accountability Office reported.

With every delay to the seaframes and the modules, the synchronization between the two broke down, resulting in vessels without weapons, and weapons development increasingly divorced from real-world conditions.

The LCS was a Frankenstein’s monster of incompatible ambitions even before the hulls and modules began their inexorable drift apart. By mid-2011, the Navy had two LCSs in service — one each from Lockheed and Austal. Neither had deployed on any serious overseas missions, in part because both had serious mechanical problems resulting from their rushed production and crews that were too small for routine maintenance.

But that didn’t stop a grab bag of entities from devising competing plans for the LCS’ use. In the absence of clear missions and realistic capabilities, LCS became everything to everyone, as long as no one thought too hard about anything.



A Ship in Search of a Purpose

The ideas and experiments began to take on an air of comedy.

Cmdr. Don Gabrielson, Freedom’s first skipper, spoke of using the ship to literally run circles around Somali pirates, sinking their boats with Freedom’s gigantic wake (see the video above). The comment was meant to highlight the LCS’ ability to thwart pirate raids without killing anybody, but it also highlighted the LCS’ relative lack of armament — and the mutated capabilities of a large ship designed for high speed. The LCS has a boat-tipping wake because it sprints at 40 knots, an attribute that’s otherwise mostly useless.

And especially useless if you’re sailing with a carrier strike group that tops out at 30 knots, which is exactly what Pacific Command assigned Freedom to do during one ill-conceived 2010 exercise.

Cruising the open ocean also made a mockery of the “littoral” in LCS’ name, and drew a sharp rebuke from Adm. John Harvey, Fleet Forces Command boss. “It was designed, built and manned to specific littoral missions and is not meant to run with a carrier strike group in blue water for an extensive period of time,” Harvey told Congress about the LCS.

Pacific Command heeded Harvey’s words. This summer, the command announced plans to base two LCSs at a new facility in Singapore. That would allow LCS easy access to the South China Sea, a sort of naval “Thunderdome,” teeming with small, fast, heavily armed warships belonging to China and Taiwan. LCS’ high speed might help it compete with China’s Houbei-class missile boats, but only if LCS gets some real weapons, fast.

Which is something Lockheed and Austal are both hard at work on — except not for the American LCS. Instead, the shipbuilders are both scrambling to install radars and surface-to-air missiles in order to compete for a potentially $20 billion Saudi warship deal. A Saudi LCS would be the most heavily armed version of the vessel, by far.

But that’s not at all how Capt. Jerry Hendrix, a widely read Navy strategist, sees the LCS evolving. Hendrix said the LCS should stick to hunting mines for his proposed “Influence Squadron,” a new Navy combat organization meant to deliver advisers and humanitarian aid to needy coastal nations. Nothing in Hendrix’s scheme requires the LCS to be particularly fast or well-armed.

The Thunderdome vs. humanitarians debate is more than just some obscure debate over naval policy. It shows that, after a decade of poor planning and weak leadership, no one knows what to do with this ship.



Bad Timing

The Pentagon is no stranger to botched weapons development. The military canceled programs worth $46 billion in just the last decade.

But the LCS is special (though not unique), for it is the major product of an effort to expand the Navy during a time when sustained budgets made it just barely possible to do so.

The opportunity to cancel LCS came and went three years ago. Clark had retired. So had Clark’s successor. Rumsfeld had been fired. The new chief of naval operations was Adm. Gary Roughead, a man with a reputation for shipbuilding discipline. His new boss was Secretary of Defense Bob Gates, a mostly clear-headed manager with no appetite for Rumsfeld’s “transformation” nonsense.

Roughhead and Gates vowed to get shipbuilding under control. And they apparently succeeded. Under their combined watch from late 2007 to mid-2011, Navy shipbuilding gradually “turned around,” Pritchett wrote, “from the lowest point in over a century of four ships a year to an average of 9.75 ships per year.”

But LCS accounts for most of the shipbuilding boost — and only because the Navy ditched its plan to pick one LCS design, and instead bought, in parallel, both the formerly competing LCS designs from Lockheed and Austal. That “split buy” saved money in the short run, but could result in higher operating costs down the road.

Worse, LCS is still years away from actually performing front-line missions. In a sense, LCS artificially inflates the apparent size of the fleet. In 2016, LCS will account for nearly a third of America’s surface combatants, but still won’t have combat-ready modules — meaning there are few dangerous missions it’ll be able to handle.

The chance Gates and Roughead had to restore shipbuilding rates will not recur anytime soon. President Barack Obama and Congress are talking about defense cuts totaling at least $400 billion over the next decade. Meanwhile, the Navy admitted that its existing ships are rusting away due to poor maintenance, increasing downward pressure on the size of the fleet. The maintenance crisis is partly a result of Clark’s and Rumsfeld’s efforts to reduce the size of ship’s crews, an initiative that heavily informed LCS’ design and bodes poorly for each ship’s lifespan.

If 10 years ago Clark and Rumsfeld had taken Hughes and Cebrowski’s admittedly vague vision and turned it into a useful coastal warship, the Navy would be in much better shape. The sea service would have possessed an effective, affordable vessel design at just the moment when a real shipbuilding Navy chief — Roughead — arrived on the scene. Roughead could have accelerated production of that ship, and today Hendrix and Pacific Command would be experimenting with a tough, useful, little warship, rather than struggling to shove the misshapen LCS into a bunch of different conceptual boxes.

Instead, we have the LCS, the “wrong ship at the wrong time,” to quote retired Navy Cmdr. John Patch. “It is clear that the Littoral Combat Ship program cannot live up to expectations,” Patch wrote in January. “Yet the surface Navy still badly needs low-end ships.”

It’s a need the Navy cannot now meet, thanks to the overwrought, underthought LCS and its human enablers. So we might as well learn to do without.

Photos and video: Creative Commons, Navy, David Axe, Austal

[McFriday]

What is it going to take to make an asset out of the 20 hulls the USN must now incorporate and not just write off the $$$ spent already?

The universal bagging [not referring to Axe's article] of the LCS isn't going to make the contracts let go away and cancelling them would cause too many political problems wouldn't it?

Can they just cancel or put aside the module concept for the primary mission, a deeply flawed idea [IMO] dependent on too many logistical variables and ascertain which hull type best suits certain mission sets and optimize a fixed, primary mission set accordingly using known tech?

I don't necessarily mean sole tasking for each sub-type just installing a primary mission package using known [proven] tech for either ASW, Mines, littoral combat etc , improving general viability, for example in Bug's post #142 every hull can be better armed in such a way as to be reasonably flexible at a reasonable cost.

I'm not optimistic enough to think that the huge defence companies involved would want to immediately provide useful sonar, radar, ecm, ew, ciws systems of proven design actually available off the shelf as opposed to billions more in researching containers but what could they do if given no other choice?

By adopting a strategy based on mixed flotillas of individually [main mission] optimised LCS [instead of dashing back to Singapore as in LockMart's CG scenario] be a more timely and economic proposition than waiting for 'modules' which may work at future time?

Historically the 'Scrap Iron Flotilla' comes to mind as less than optimal ships used valiantly proving the value of a "jack of all trades and master of none" in the flexible space of the littorals.

Sorry if the above isn't as concise as I'd like it to be but constant interruptions from the last preschooler make a cohesive train of thought impossible at this time. LOL

Cheers,
Mac

[buglerbilly]

Of Facebook, frigates and the littoral combat ship

By Philip Ewing Thursday, August 4th, 2011 6:39 pm

The Navy’s littoral combat ship program has not gone the way its planners hoped. Everybody’s talking about it again this week: The fleet originally was supposed to have a dozen or more ships by now, but it actually only has two – neither of which is available for tasking. It was supposed to have a trove of wonder-gear for the ships to take aboard, including weapons for surface battles and remote sensors for hunting mines and submarines – that it doesn’t have. And on and on and on.

But you can’t judge a major defense program just by its first few years, Galrahn argued in a post Thursday. Citing the Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates, which had design issues and growing pains of their own, Galrahn points out that they went on to give three decades of hard service, enduring mines, Exocet missiles and endless miles of crashing ocean transits.

He summed it all up this way:

The Navy, with a ship class that they knew required a redesign as early as 1976, built FFG-7 and fifty more just like it anyway — and to this very day the Oliver Hazard Perry class serves in several Navies worldwide including the US Navy conducting the roles and missions in low intensity environments the ship was originally designed for. Last week on July 29th the Navy retired USS Doyle (FFG 39) after completing over 27 years of service in the US Navy. Despite all of the early, very serious program and cost problems with the Oliver Hazard Perry class and despite the very serious criticism those who knew about the problems heaped onto the program, is anyone today ready to say the Navy made a mistake building the ships of the Oliver Hazard Perry class?

Not me — the early history of a shipbuilding program does not tell the story of a ship class.

You could apply this lesson to many ships, aircraft or systems that we now consider classics – there was never a golden age of Pentagon acquisitions; a lot of things in the arsenal began with problems or took awhile to find their way. That doesn’t excuse when things don’t go right in our era today, but it’s the reality.

But there are a few other things worth remembering: Even though they were never used this way, the frigates were originally intended to take on a familiar naval role: high-seas escorts in the North Atlantic. The Navy had a mission, it wrote what we now call “requirements,” and then it built a ship. And despite the figs’ problems, they were ships everyone understood; navies have had vessels called “frigates” for hundreds of years – in our modern sense, they’re bigger and more heavily armed than corvettes, but less so than destroyers. Got it.

With its “littoral combat ship,” however – and despite its name, a third of its capability is not for use in the littorals, but rather out in deep water, hunting submarines – the Navy came up with something new. LCS, in fact, was the product of an “analytical virgin birth,” in the memorable phrase of shipbuilding expert Ronald O’Rourke, of the Congressional Research Service. Why’d the fleet need it? What “capability gap” justified it? Ah, don’t worry, Navy officials said, we’re already locked in – what’s important now is to get these things into the fleet and see how commanders use them.

“With regard to the Littoral Combat Ship, the LCS, I believe it is critical that we, Navy, adapt to the LCS, and we do not force the LCS and her crews to adapt to an institutional fleet model,” said Adm. John Harvey, head of Fleet Forces Command, to Congress last year. In the face of a historic defense build-down, he and other admirals want to treat a multi-billion dollar shipbuilding program like Mark Zuckerberg in “The Social Network” at the dawn of Facebook: “We don’t even know what it is yet!”

And as an example for LCS, the Perry-class frigates have as much going against them as they do in their favor. They’re mostly irrelevant in today’s battlespace; they lost their ‘one-armed bandit’ SM-1 missile launchers years ago, although the Navy tried to preserve a little of their dignity by preserving the “G” in “FFG.” The ships don’t have the same advanced sensors and communications gear as newer warships. Frigate crews refer to themselves as “the ghetto Navy.” For much of the past decade, the frigates have taken mostly make-work missions, visiting third-world ports so their crews can train local sailors how to fix outboard motors, or carrying Coast Guard detachments on counter-narcotics patrols in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific.

It’s all very stylish in the context of “soft power” – in a crisis, as the Navy likes to say, you can surge ships, but you can’t surge trust, so it’s worthwhile for sailors to build relationships with their counterparts. But does the fleet take these missions because they’re important, or does it take them because it has ships that can’t do anything else? And as a side question, are missions in which frigate sailors give stuffed animals to children what’s contributing the surface Navy’s self-described “unsustainable optempo?”

This is what happens when you build a platform – or in the case of the figs, have one that you choose not to keep operationally relevant — and let it dictate its own use. How much does America’s national security benefit from the USS Samuel B. Roberts’ visit to Dar Es Salaam? If commanders had another Aegis destroyer or cruiser, or even a fully functioning LCS instead of this frigate, would they still send it on this kind of mission? Maybe, but they’d also have more options on the assignments it could take.

If the Navy brass valued what the frigates do now, it would have designed another frigate – a ship without LCS’ modular equipment, with a sea-keeping hull, a normal-sized crew, longer legs and standard speed. Some analysts have argued for years that the Navy should buy a version of the Coast Guard’s national security cutter for just this reason – you’ve read here about Huntington Ingalls Industries’ concept for its gray-hulled “Patrol Frigate.” You better believe Ingalls would make the Navy a heckuva deal if the admiralty even sniffed in this direction, but it hasn’t. The Navy doesn’t want another frigate — it wants LCS, whatever LCS is.

So what does it all mean? Galrahn’s right: Maybe just because a program has growing pains, they shouldn’t condemn it for all eternity – after all the blood and treasure the Marines spent on their MV-22 Osprey, now they love that thing. But given America’s descent into pauperdom, it also might prove risky to spend the time and money building something without a clear vision of how you’ll use it, with the hope that somebody, someday will figure it out.

What do you think?

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/08/04/of-facebook-frigates-and-the-littoral-combat-ship/#ixzz1U7AauADC
DoDBuzz.com

[buglerbilly]

Construction Begins on Future USS Jackson

(Source: US Navy; issued Aug. 4, 2011)

MOBILE, Ala. --- The Navy authorized the first cutting of aluminum for the sixth Littoral Combat Ship, the future USS Jackson (LCS 6), at Austal's Modular Manufacturing facility in Mobile, Ala., Aug. 1.

The "first cut" is a significant ship construction milestone, signifying the ship's progression from design drawings to the beginning of a tangible form.

"The Littoral Combat Ship is a key part of our future fleet and demands the very best skill and effort from government and industry teams," said Program Executive Officer for Littoral Combat Ships (PEO LCS) Rear Adm. James Murdoch. "The commencement of production of LCS 6 marks another significant milestone in the program, and demonstrates the efficiency benefits of our 'block buy' arrangements with the ship builders. These fixed-price contracts ensure cost efficiency in the program and best value for the taxpayer."

The LCS is an entirely new breed of U.S. Navy warship. A fast, agile, and networked surface combatant, LCS's modular, focused-mission design will provide combatant commanders the required warfighting capabilities and operational flexibility to ensure maritime dominance and access for the joint force. LCS will operate with focused-mission packages that deploy manned and unmanned vehicles to execute missions as assigned by combatant commanders.

PEO LCS, established July 11 and an affiliated program executive office of Naval Sea Systems Command, provides a single program executive responsible for acquiring and maintaining the littoral mission capabilities of the littoral combat ship class, beginning with procurement, and ending with fleet employment and sustainment.

PEO LCS designs, delivers and maintains the systems, equipment and weapons necessary for the littoral combat ship warfighter to dominate the littoral battle space and provide U. S. forces with assured access to coastal areas.

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

LCSs Sail Through Trials, Tackle Challenges

By CHRISTOPHER P. CAVAS

Published: 7 Aug 2011 12:55

Launching and recovering small boats. Checking performance in high sea states. Testing firing procedures. Measuring fuel use to find the best speeds to operate the ships. Comparing simulated training with the real thing. Figuring out whether 40 people really can operate a state-of-the-art small combat ship. Fixing what doesn't work.


The U.S. Navy's Littoral Combat Ships, including the Freedom, are being tested as the program is debated in Washington. (U.S. Navy)

That's just the beginning of the list of what the crews of the U.S. Navy's new Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) have been up to over the past year or so. While the program's future continues to be debated in Washington, the Navy and its industrial partners are testing out the first two ships and their complex mission modules. Problems are identified and addressed, and if need be, fixes are made on the in-service ships and design changes drawn up for follow-on ships.

"All designs evolve," said Joe North, the director of Lockheed Martin's LCS program. "Nobody gets everything right the first time around."

In general, however, the Navy seems pleased with its first two LCSs, the Freedom (LCS 1), delivered by a contractor team headed by Lockheed Martin, and the Independence (LCS 2), from a General Dynamics-Austal USA effort.

"It's a good program, in good shape," Adm. Jonathan Greenert, soon to be the new chief of naval operations, said July 28. "Now we need to refine it."

A myriad of items and procedures need to be tested, validated, certified. The ships are filled with new fittings - a situation doubled because there are two unique LCS classes. Each ship introduces a new combat system, has a different propulsion plant, features different mission bay handling systems. New maintenance and support schemes are in place to help the tiny, 40-person core crews keep the ships running.

And tests and trials continue for a variety of vehicles and systems for the mission packages that are the LCS' reason for being.

The development and training efforts are being directed from Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) in Washington, and the LCS Squadron in San Diego. NAVSEA oversees design and development of the ships, their systems and the mission modules, while the LCSRon is in charge of training and fleet support.

LCS 1

The Freedom, first of the breed, is in a San Diego drydock undergoing a $20 million, four-month overhaul, or "availability." Fixes for several problems are being made on the ship, which will run final contract trials this fall.

A new impressed current cathodic protection (ICCP) system is being fitted to the ship's four water jet tunnels to fix a corrosion problem that caused "minor pitting" in the tunnels, North said. Zinc anodes that were intended to prevent the corrosion problem are being removed, having deteriorated. The same modifications have been made to the Fort Worth (LCS 3) and future ships of the LCS 1 class.

"The ICCP will fix this from ever occurring again," North declared.

Capt. Robert Randall, commodore of the LCSRon in San Diego, said a new coating system will be applied to the water jet intake tunnels.

North noted that the Freedom did not suffer from corrosion on the water jet intakes, a problem that has been widely reported on the Independence, but the original fittings were labor-intensive and expensive. A new design built into the Fort Worth was chosen - a modification, he added, that saved "hundreds of hours" on installation costs.

Another fix will be made to the anchor fitting on the starboard bow. The original design allowed water to come into the anchor compartment when the ship ran at high speeds, causing corrosion. The anchor will be moved to the foredeck, with a new windlass based on the Navy's existing destroyer design.

While in drydock, the ship's hull is being cleaned. The Navy's decision to leave the aluminum superstructure unpainted has not changed, although Lockheed and the Navy are looking at ways to possibly "age" the aluminum.

The metal takes about eight years to fully oxidize, North explained, and will in time change to a dark gray color. No decision has yet been made.

The compressors that provide air to start the ship's gas turbines are being changed. The original compressors had reliability problems, and units similar to those used on the Navy's DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers have been installed beginning with LCS 3.

"We expect performance to be a hundred times better than what we saw," North said.

Another change incorporated into LCS 3 will be the addition of 43 metric tons of fuel to expand the ship's range. The Freedom might also get that change in an upcoming yard period.

A new type of water jet will be fitted to the ships beginning with LCS 5, North said, with a more efficient axial flow version of the Ka-Me-Wa water jets.

Changes also will be made on the Freedom to the seals on the aviation hangar's door to eliminate water leaks, and a new mezzanine to store helicopter gear is being built into the forward hangar.

Several changes have been made to the mission bay areas - the heart of the LCS. After the original handling system contractor filed for bankruptcy, a new vendor, Oldenburg, was contracted earlier this year to build the overhead cranes, launching systems, elevators and hatches.

"We overcomplicated" the original system, North admitted. "We probably got a little too complicated in how we thought we needed to do it, with special servo unloaders and stuff like that."

The new system, he said, simplifies the motor designs and controls. The overhead rail system remains, but it is being modified to permit continuous transfer between wet and dry mission bay zones.

The side door that was originally intended to allow the big Remote Minehunting Vehicle (RMV) to be launched and recovered will be smaller starting with LCS 5, North said - a change made because the Navy changed the specifications for the RMV. Since the vehicle now will be moved only through the aft doors, a smaller and lighter side door can be fitted.

One repair that won't be made on LCS 1 will be to the launch ramp in the stern, which was bowed after the big 11-meter rigid hull inflatable boat (RHIB) was stowed on it - contrary, North said, to the manufacturer's specs. Properly operated, the boat should be moved off the ramp for storage.

The ramp is "something we're going to live with" on the Freedom, North said.

But the seal between the ramp and the bottom of the stern doors is being changed. Lockheed and the Navy tried three different seal designs and found them all unsatisfactory.

"We had the whole thing redesigned for Three, and it's a backfit on One," North said.

The Navy is continuing to look for ways to reduce corrosion from the salt environment in the wet mission zone.

"We found that we had equipment mounted in that space that had corrosive material to it. It starts to rust, you've got to worry about it," North explained.

Changes already made or under consideration include moving various items out of the zone, switching to nonrusting composites, and the use of different coatings. The Naval Surface Warfare Center is examining several alternatives.

Permanent repairs to a 6-inch hull crack also will be made to the Freedom while in dry dock.

The Navy and Lockheed said the problem is not with the design, but is a workmanship issue in a particularly difficult area of the hull, in a chine area where different angles come together.

The rest of the chine area on the ship was X-rayed, North said, and no further problems were found.

Lockheed and its Marinette shipyard in Wisconsin have changed the way that area on the ship is built, he said.

"They said it was difficult. Now I know what it is, now we're going to do it different," North added.

The Freedom's aluminum superstructure also suffers from cracks, a condition predicted before the ship was finished in 2008.

At least 14 areas have been found with cracks, North said, and most of those were repaired before the current yard period - "none that we're worried about or are going to limit her in her operation," he said.

Changes have been made in the Fort Worth, North added, that should alleviate the problem.

The ballast tanks added to the Freedom's stern to improve the way the ship sits in the water are built into the hull starting with LCS 3.

"The door arrangement on those has been pushed back," said Capt. Jeff Reidel, NAVSEA's LCS program manager. "It's given some additional room in the bay."

More equipment might be added to the stern area, including a lightweight torpedo decoy system similar to the widely used Nixie system, and a towed variable depth sonar (VDS).

A VDS competition for the anti-submarine warfare module is expected to be take place beginning next year, said Capt. John Ailes, the Mission Module program manager for NAVSEA, with a down-select expected in 2014.

Another change that could be made to the ships is the removal of the fin stabilization system, which could eliminate as much as 28 tons of equipment. Sea tests will determine whether the fins stay or go, North and Reidel said.

Topside, the extra-high frequency satellite antennas originally fitted on LCS 1 have been replaced by super high frequency units, bringing the LCS 1 class into commonality with the LCS 2 design.

One of the more visible changes beginning with LCS 3 is the use of a smaller centerline post in the bridge windows. The wide, triangular metal in the middle of the Freedom's bridge was found to be a distraction. While the post is still necessary for structural reasons, it's been reduced on the Fort Worth and subsequent ships.

After some sea time, a 60-day maintenance period for the Freedom is scheduled to begin Jan. 30 at San Diego, NAVSEA said.

The Fort Worth (LCS 3), launched at Marinette in December, is expected to begin dock trials before the end of August, North said. Builder's sea trials are expected to take place in September on Lake Michigan, with Navy acceptance trials scheduled for November.

Lockheed and Marinette are shooting to deliver the ship in February, North said - six months ahead of the August 2012 contract date. Construction of the Milwaukee (LCS 5) is expected to begin in late summer, he added.

LCS 2

Less information is available on changes made to the Independence. Neither Austal USA, builder of the ship and the prime contractor for the third ship on, nor General Dynamics, which oversaw the first two ships of the LCS 2 class, responded to persistent requests to provide an expert to discuss the ship's current state.

The Navy, in general, also has not matched its public relations efforts on LCS 1 with similar news about the Independence, which has been operating out of the relatively obscure base at Mayport, Fla.

Reidel and Ailes, however, noted the ship has been conducting trials with the RMV and has fully demonstrated its mission bay handling systems, including the twin-boom extensible crane (TBEC) that launches and recovers vehicles out the stern.

"From a mission perspective on LCS 2, the platform has been completed, signed off, sold and operating," Reidel said. "The doors have been tested and operating. All the emergency recovery systems and the reliability fixes have been done and are operating."

The TBEC has been tested at sea, he said. "We were a little bit behind where we wanted to be, but we're in a situation right now where it's full steam ahead. Launch, handling and recovery will no longer hold up our integration testing with the mission packages."

The internal computer networks on both ships are "pretty stable," Reidel said. "The only area [where] we've made changes is some software in the combat systems side. From a network perspective, we've made no changes. Both systems are operating well."

At least for now, one change requested by the crew of the Independence will not be made - the installation of bridge wings to make it easier to navigate the ship in tight spaces.

"It's something we're looking at," Reidel acknowledged. Stealth concerns are not an issue, he explained, since there is no radar cross-section design requirement.

"It's a weight issue," he said, along with concerns about other impacts on the design.

Overall, Reidel said, the LCS effort is in good shape.

"I think that at this point, the program has put itself on pretty stable grounds," he observed.

Later this year, the Independence will shift to Panama City, Fla., to test mine warfare components. Before the end of the year, it is planned to sail through the Panama Canal to transfer to San Diego.

Austal USA is expected to launch the Coronado sometime this year, and began construction of the Jackson in early August.

[buglerbilly]

US Navy exercise proves critical fleet mine countermeasures

August 16, 2011

The US Navy announced the successful launch and recovery of the Remote Multi-Mission Vehicle (RMMV) carrying the Raytheon-developed AN/AQS-20A minehunting sonar. The launch and recovery was the first demonstration of the unmanned, remotely-operated RMMV deployed from the USS Independence (LCS 2) while underway.

AN/AQS-20A is a critical element of the US Navy's mine countermeasure capability and the only minehunting sonar sensor developed, tested and certified for RMMV deployment. AN/AQS-20A is the most advanced mine warfare sensor to be deployed from multiple search platforms.

"This exercise has proven the capabilities of both the RMMV and AQS-20A, testing both stability and performance in an operational environment," said Steve Lose, US Navy program manager for Unmanned Maritime Vehicles (PMS 403). "The advancements of the AN/AQS-20A bring our minehunting capabilities to the next level; and with the adaptability of the system for both helicopter and RMMV deployment, we extend our ability to effectively and efficiently ensure the safety of the fleet."

Raytheon provides both the AN/AQS-20A and the AN/ASQ-235 Airborne Mine Neutralization System (AMNS), which are two of the components in the mine countermeasure mission package for the Littoral Combat Ship class. Supporting mine-clearing operations in both deep-ocean and littoral waters, AN/AQS-20A detects, localizes and identifies bottom, close-tethered and volume mines, and AMNS re-acquires and neutralizes mines found by AN/AQS-20A.

Considered critical components of the Navy's organic mine countermeasure arsenal, the advanced technologies of these systems deliver a comprehensive, end-to-end solution - detect to neutralize - enabling the Navy to safely and effectively execute its mission with reduced risk to its ships and crews.

AN/AQS-20A has been successfully integrated into both the MH-60S and the MH-53E airborne mine countermeasures helicopters. In addition, the AMNS has been successfully integrated into the MH-60S helicopter. AN/AQS-20A has been effectively operated from the AN/WLD-1 Remote Minehunting System, and now successfully deployed from LCS 2.

The AN/AQS-20A system is towed undersea to scan the water in front and to the sides of the vehicle as well as below for anti-shipping mines. The system uses sonar and electro-optical sensors to provide high-resolution images of mines and mine-like objects as well as high-precision location information.

AMNS is deployed from the MH-60S multi-mission helicopter to locate and destroy underwater anti-shipping mines previously detected by the AN/AQS-20A mine hunting sonar. The system consists of a helicopter-based control console as well as a launch and handling system equipped with four unmanned Archerfish(TM) neutralizer vehicles that destroy mines via remote control from the operator in the helicopter.

Developmental and operational testing of the AN/AQS-20A and AMNS began in 2002. Deliveries under current contracts continue, with 15 AN/AQS-20A and five AMNS systems delivered to date.

Source: Raytheon

[buglerbilly]

Lockheed Martin Team Begins Construction of Nation's Next Littoral Combat Ship

(Source: Lockheed Martin; issued August 22, 2011)

MARINETTE, Wis. --- A Lockheed Martin-led industry team has begun construction on the nation's fifth Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) at Marinette Marine. The team plans to deliver LCS 5, the future USS Milwaukee, to the U.S. Navy in 2014.

The industry team recently received approval for full production of LCS 5 after finishing a successful review with the Navy that demonstrated the team's ability to begin construction based on production readiness criteria including design completion, staffing and material readiness.

LCS 5 is the first of 10 Freedom-variant ships awarded to Lockheed Martin by the Navy in December 2010. Marinette Marine Corporation, a Fincantieri company, will construct the 10 ships in Marinette, Wis., and naval architect Gibbs & Cox will provide engineering and design support. The industry team's supplier base includes more than 700 companies in 43 states, and the program could generate as many as 16,000 jobs nationwide at its peak in 2014.

"We have successfully worked our way down the learning curve on the Freedom variant, allowing us to establish and meet cost and schedule goals as demonstrated on LCS 3," said Joe North, vice president of littoral ship systems at Lockheed Martin's Mission Systems & Sensors business. "We expect to continue to improve on our performance with LCS 5 and beyond."

The Lockheed Martin industry team designed and constructed the nation's first LCS, USS Freedom. Since its commissioning in 2008, USS Freedom has sailed more than 55,000 nautical miles and demonstrated its capabilities. Based in its homeport of San Diego, Calif., the ship completed a highly successful maiden deployment in 2010 and is now fully integrated into the fleet.

LCS 3, which is Lockheed Martin's second LCS and the Navy's future USS Fort Worth, was christened and launched in December 2010. As the second ship of the LCS class, Freedom variant, LCS 3 benefitted from USS Freedom's early delivery through sea crew's operational feedback. This resulted in improved production efficiencies and increased affordability initiatives incorporated into follow-on ships. The ship remains on track for delivery to the Navy in 2012.

Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin is a global security company that employs about 126,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services. The Corporation's 2010 sales from continuing operations were $45.8 billion.

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

Littoral Combat Ship Form Notes Deficiencies, Non-Compliances with USS Freedom

(Source: Project On Government Oversight; issued Oct. 7, 2011)

In September 2008, the Navy signed a form and took ownership of the first Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), the USS Freedom, from prime contractor Lockheed Martin. According to the Pentagon office of the director of test and evaluation (DOT&E), the LCS "is designed to operate in the shallow waters of the littorals where larger ships cannot maneuver as well."

The contractor is typically required to provide the government with a "material inspection and receiving report," or DD 250 form, according to DoD regulation. When the Department of Defense (DoD) accepts delivery of goods or services under contract, it signs the DD250.

As explained in a document on the Defense Contract Management Agency’s website, this form “is a multipurpose report used as: 1) “Acceptance of equipment/data by the Government (i.e. title transferred to the Government),” 2) “The Contractor's invoice for payment,” 3) “A packing list for shipping and receiving” and 4) “Evidence of Government Quality inspection.”

But just because the government accepts a good or service—for instance, a several hundred million dollar ship—that doesn’t mean the government thinks it’s completely satisfactory. According to the DCMA document:

Situations arise when a product is to be accepted, (i.e. to meet a ship deployment), with known deficiencies (deficiencies may be: missing assets (hardware/software, unperformed tests, etc)) that the Contractor will correct within a specific time frame.

“In these cases,” the document notes, “the DD 250 shall be annotated with the deficiencies: listing the deficiencies, and when/ how the Contractor will make the corrections.”

The USS Freedom was one of these cases, according to this week’s FOIA Friday document, the LCS DD-250 form. When the first LCS was accepted, it had a slew of systems that were not inspected in its first acceptance trial in August 2008. These systems were slated to be assessed a second acceptance trial in 2009.

And deficiencies were found with some of the USS Freedom’s systems at the time of acceptance in 2008. For example, several topside systems (that are exposed to the elements), such as the Dorna Gun Fire Control System and Air Search Radar System. The RAM Guided Missile Launcher had non-compliances associated with it, indicating it might have problems under certain environmental conditions.

It is unclear what the current situation is regarding these non-compliances noted in late 2008, three years ago. POGO will be reaching out to Lockheed and the Navy to find out. The DOT&E annual report for fiscal year 2010 (released early this year) states that the “LCS 1 critical ship control systems essential to support the crew have performed well in testing; however, several systems required for self-defense and mission package support have demonstrated early reliability problems.”

Whatever the case is with the USS Freedom, the government should remain haunted by its experience with the Coast Guard’s Deepwater program. In that program, the Coast Guard accepted delivery of ships built by a team led by a Lockheed Martin-Northrop Grumman partnership. But the Coast Guard accepted ships with a wide array of deficiencies that should not have been accepted. Disclosures by Lockheed engineer and whistleblower Michael DeKort blew open the issue in a YouTube video.

Among the many issues raised by DeKort at a House hearing on the Coast Guard’s Deepwater program, DeKort noted the failure to fix non-compliances and the failure to call out non-compliances in DD 250s.

The Department of Homeland Security Inspector General “states that the Coast Guard did not know the boats were non-compliant until July of 2005, one and a half years after the first 123 was delivered,” DeKort said. “The report also states that none of these problems were fixed, not on any of the delivered boats. That, along with this issue not being called out in the DD-250 acceptance documents, supports my supposition that Lockheed Martin purposefully withheld this information from the Coast Guard.”

POGO also received, through FOIA, a DD 250 cover sheet dated December 2009 for the second LCS, the USS Independence. But, unlike the DD 250 for the USS Freedom, there were no attachments associated with that DD 250 for the USS Independence.

This may be part of the reason why: the Navy, as of the end of last year, had not accepted all of the systems associated with the USS Independence built by a contractor team led by General Dynamics.

“LCS 2 completed part one of Acceptance Trials and deferred several events to a second Acceptance Trial in early 2011,” according to the fiscal year 2010 Pentagon annual test report. “The ship was found to be incomplete; several systems and spaces have not been accepted by the government.”

Click here for the “Littoral Combat Ship DD-250 Materials Inspection and Receiving Report,” (77 pages in PDF format) on the POGO website.

http://www.pogo.org/resources/national-security/littoral-combat-ship-dd-250-materials-inspection-and-receiving-report.html

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

Navy To Arm LCS With New Missile System

By Carlo Munoz

Published: October 20, 2011



Washington: The Navy's newest warship now has a new missile system to go with it.

The Navy will deploy the Raytheon-built Griffin missile system on board its growing fleet of Littoral Combat Ships, Rear Adm. James Murdoch, program executive officer for LCS, said today.

An unmodified version of the short-range, surface-to-air missile will be installed onto LCS-1, the USS Freedom. Modification work on the Lockheed Martin-built ship's missile launchers is now underway, so it will be able to fire the Griffin, Murdoch said.

The Griffin missile system will be part of the anti-surface warfare mission module being built for both the Lockheed steel-hulled vessels and Austal's aluminum-hulled ships.

The first mission modules will be installed on the LCS ship by fiscal year 2014, but those modules will not include the Griffin, according to Murdoch. The mission modules that include the Griffin system won't go to sea until later, he added. The first module with the Griffin missile will be installed on the USS Freedom.

The other mission packages currently in the works for LCS will cover anti-submarine and anti-mine warfare.

The Griffin will replace the now-canceled Non-Line of Sight Launch missile system that Navy officials initially planned to put onto the LCS.

The Navy teamed up with the Army on NLOS-LS acquisition, with the Army planning to field a version of the missile on their fleet of tactical vehicles. Earlier this year, the ground service was forced to cancel the weapon due to rising costs associated with its development.

That prompted a Navy-led study study on potential NLOS-LS replacements, which led to selection of the Griffin missile system for the LCS. Murdoch did admit the Griffin missile lacks many of capabilities that NLOS had, especially against long-range targets. To try and close those gaps, Murdoch said the Navy plans a competition for a follow-on missile to the Griffin by the end of this year. That follow-on missile will be designed to hit targets "beyond the horizon," Murdoch said.

[Jezza]

so whats wrong with current systems??? Searam

[buglerbilly]

Different systems mate.....SEARAM is the dinky little shit look-alike PHALANX mount at the back and is an anti-air system..................GRIFFIN is surface to surface system, primarily ship-to-shore but not only.............GRIFFIN is a derivative of the original system derived from an air-to-ground missile system for helo's and UAV's...........I presume they are now developing Griffin as a VLS missile system, which makes sense?

[buglerbilly]

U.S. Navy Seeks To Improve On LCS Designs

Oct 21, 2011

By Michael Fabey



Both variants of the U.S. Navy’s new Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) are proving their worth, says Rear Adm. James Murdoch, LCS program executive officer, but there’s room for improvement.

“We’re confident we’ve got good designs,” Murdoch said during an Oct. 19 briefing with reporters. “The lead ships are pretty good.”

That said, “They’re small ships with a lot of propulsion plant in them,” Murdoch says. “There are good opportunities to make them more maintainable.” The Navy hopes to do that partly by leveraging more of the data captured by the vast array of sensors on the lightly manned and highly automated ships.

“We’ve done a good job fixing problems we saw in the first two ships,” he says.

Water-jet propulsion systems drive corrosion concerns on both ship types. What the Navy has sought, according to Murdoch, was a “more robust design in shaft seals.”

He also has been paying particular attention to the ships’ waterborne mission area, “the heart of the operations’ package.”

For example, with LCS-1, built by a team lead by Lockheed Martin, the stern doors open and a ramp comes down with “waves washing in and out,” he says, inviting salt-water corrosion. When operations are done and the doors close, he says, what’s needed is a “tight seal and a dry space.”

Another improvement the Navy would like is the ability to deploy longer boats than the 5-meter vessels slated for LCS ships, he says. But the service has to always be concerned with weight — every pound added cuts into ship speed. “Either you want a ship to go 40 knots or you don’t,” Murdoch says.

LCS-1 is just about done with its first shakedown availability. The biggest challenge, Murdoch says, was to finish the shakedown work so quickly after the program’s budget appropriations came so late. “We had a lot of work that needed to be done and we needed to fit it in a short period of time.”

LCS-2, built by the Austal USA team, is going through development testing now. “I put too many building hours in LCS-2,” Murdoch says. The hours are being reduced on LCS-4 through “better modular construction techniques.”

Sea trials scheduled this week for LCS-3 were delayed because of gale force winds. With LCS-3, the Navy is seeing more fuel capacity thanks to changes in underwater hull design. The ship has better buoyancy and performance.

While the Navy still plans to use Raytheon’s Griffin missile to replace the canceled Non-Line of Sight (NLOS) missile for surface warfare in initial LCS increments, Murdoch says he wants a better system for the second increment, which the Navy hopes to get next year.

“Increment 1 does not have quite the range, the capability NLOS has,” Murdoch says. “It does not have over-the-horizon range. You need to be laser-designated.”

By lowering the current standards, though, the Navy can deploy the first increment more quickly to battle swarm-boat threats.

Photo: Austal

[buglerbilly]

Marines, SOF May Get A Piece Of LCS

By Carlo Munoz

Published: October 21, 2011



Washington: It's only a matter of time before Marines and special operations forces get their piece of the Navy's newest combat vessel.

Mission packages built just for the Marines and special forces will be on the Littoral Combat Ship within the next few years, Rear Adm. James Murdoch, program executive officer for LCS, said yesterday.

To date, there is no standing program of record to build either mission package. But Murdoch "is pretty confident that this is something that [the Navy] is going to end up doing."

There are already three mission packages in the works for the LCS, focusing on surface warfare, anti-mine and anti-submarine operations. The Navy is also pushing forward with with a new missile system for the surface warfare module.

The addition of the Marine Corps and special operations packages will bring the total number of LCS mission modules to five.

The Navy touts LCS as the do-anything, pick-up-truck for the fleet. The possible addition of these two mission packages falls in line with that strategy, according to Murdoch.

That kind of flexibility on the ship has drawn its fair share of critics.

Opponents claim the Navy is losing focus on what kind of ship it wants the LCS to be. The possible addition of two more mission packages might, they would argue, only add to that confusion. Building two new modules could also put the ship at risk of "requirements creep," where the program gets so loaded down with requirements it becomes unaffordable.

Even new Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert is questioning the Navy's LCS strategy and whether it needs to be changed.

Mudoch admitted that "there is that potential" for requirements creep, saying the Navy's approach on LCS "isn't going to sell well around this town," referring to decision makers on Capitol Hill and elsewhere inside the Beltway.

But the service will not "shrink from the fact that we do offer . . . the capability to address new threats" via the multimission approach being taken with the LCS, "as long as it fits in the envelope" of what the ship is designed to handle.

[Chunder]

That's something that will be pretty interesting - Marines and what capability they can put on the LCS.

[buglerbilly]

Nation's Third Littoral Combat Ship Successfully Completes Builder's Trials

(Source: Lockheed Martin; issued Oct. 24, 2011)

MARINETTE, Wis. --- A Lockheed Martin-led industry team completed Builder's Sea Trials for Fort Worth, the nation's third Littoral Combat Ship.

The trials – a coordinated effort between the U.S. Navy and the Lockheed Martin team including Marinette Marine Corporation (MMC) – were conducted in the waters of Green Bay and Lake Michigan. They included operational testing of the vessel's propulsion, communications, navigation and mission systems, as well as all support systems.

"Successful completion of Builder's Sea Trials means we are on track for the Navy's Acceptance Trials, putting us a big step closer to getting the Navy the ships it needs," said Joe North, vice president of littoral ship systems for Lockheed Martin's Mission Systems and Sensors business. "We support the Navy's effort to grow their fleet affordably and effectively."

The rigorous trial period included maneuverability tests; high-speed runs; power and navigation system checks; rescue boat launch and recovery; and tracking exercises, as well as other ship and system evaluations.

Following the successful completion of Builder's Sea Trials, Fort Worth returned to MMC to prepare for Acceptance Trials. LCS 3 will be delivered to the Navy next year and its home port will be San Diego, Calif.

Fort Worth, the second Freedom variant ship in the LCS program, was christened in December 2010. It is more than 96 percent complete and remains on cost and on schedule. LCS 3 is being constructed with 30 percent fewer production hours as a result of lessons learned from designing and building LCS 1, USS Freedom.

The team began construction on LCS 5, the future USS Milwaukee, in August.

Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin is a global security company that employs about 126,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services. The Corporation's 2010 sales from continuing operations were $45.8 billion.

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

Keel Laid for Future USS Milwaukee

(Source: Naval Sea Systems Command; issued October 27, 2011)

MARINETTE, Wis. --- Workers at the Marinette Marine Corp. shipyard in Marinette, Wis. authenticated the keel for LCS 5, the future USS Milwaukee, during a ceremony Oct. 27, recognizing the beginning of the ship's construction.

"Starting construction on the fifth ship of the class is a significant step in the life of the program," said Rear Adm. Jim Murdoch, program executive officer for Littoral Combat Ships. "We've learned a number of key lessons from the construction of LCS 1 and 3 which will improve production of these vital fleet assets. We're committed to controlling shipbuilding costs and delivering these ships on time and within budget."

LCS is a new breed of U.S. Navy warship, capable of open-ocean operation but optimized for littoral, or coastal, missions. The Navy remains committed to a 55 ship LCS program and is leveraging competition, fixed-price contracting and serial production to reduce construction duration and costs.

Milwaukee is expected to deliver to the fleet in 2014. The ship will join USS Freedom (LCS 1), commissioned in 2008; USS Independence (LCS 2), commissioned in 2009, and the future USS Fort Worth and USS Coronado, both under construction.

The ship, named in honor of the Wisconsin city, will be 417 feet in length and capable of reaching speeds in excess of 40 knots.

PEO LCS, an affiliated Program Executive Office of Naval Sea Systems Command, provides a single Program Executive responsible for acquiring and sustaining mission capabilities of the littoral combat ship class, beginning with procurement, and ending with fleet employment and sustainment. The combined capability of LCS and LCS mission systems is designed to dominate the littoral battle space and provide U.S. forces with assured access to coastal areas. (ends)

Lockheed Martin Team Lays Keel on Nation's Fifth Littoral Combat Ship, the Future USS Milwaukee

(Source: Lockheed Martin; issued October 27, 2011)

MARINETTE, Wis. --- A Lockheed Martin led industry team held a keel-laying ceremony at Marinette Marine's shipyard for the future USS Milwaukee, the U.S. Navy's fifth Littoral Combat Ship (LCS).

The term, lay the keel, in shipbuilding language, means the beginning of a significant undertaking, which is the start of the module erection process that reflects the ship coming to life. Modern warships are now largely built in a series of pre-fabricated, complete hull sections rather than a single keel, so the actual start of the shipbuilding process is now considered to be when the first sheet of steel is cut. It is often marked with a ceremonial event.

"It's a great honor to participate in this event for the future USS Milwaukee," said Herb Kohl, senior Senator for the State of Wisconsin. "The keel laying ceremony is a great milestone for the LCS program, which is so vital to our military and to the people of Wisconsin and our economy. We're proud of our state's long history in shipbuilding and our contribution to the nation's naval defense."

During the ceremony, Senator Kohl authenticated the keel by having his signature welded into it. He was assisted by Executive Director of the Navy's Program Executive Office – Littoral Combat Ships Anne Sandel and Marinette Marine Corporation's Director of LCS programs, Jim LaCosse.

"We are committed to providing the Navy with littoral combat ships affordably and on time," said Joe North, vice president of littoral ship systems at Lockheed Martin's Mission Systems & Sensors business. "LCS 5's construction will benefit from production of the first and second Freedom-variant ships as we continue to drive cost out of the program."

The Navy's naming of the future USS Milwaukee continues the practice of designating LCSs after mid-sized American cities, small towns and communities.

The Lockheed Martin-led LCS team includes ship builder Marinette Marine Corporation, a Fincantieri company, naval architect Gibbs & Cox, as well as domestic and international teammates.

Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin is a global security company that employs about 126,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services. The Corporation's 2010 sales from continuing operations were $45.8 billion.

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

The Navy’s LCS missile woes

By Philip Ewing Monday, November 7th, 2011 9:17 am



The Navy’s littoral combat ships were supposed to bring the era of missile warfare into its next generation. It was the perfect scheme: The Navy would sit back and relax while the Army did all the work developing its planned Non Line Of Sight missiles, a “box of rockets” that soldiers — and later, sailors — could use to bring precise and overwhelming force against tomorrow’s hard-to-find-but-easy-to-kill bad guys.

In the computer-animated “simulations” of yesteryear, a helicopter or cargo plane drops off an NLOS crate for a team of Army special operators deep in Indian Country. Let’s say the soldiers spot some bad guys fleeing in a pickup truck. No time to call in the dumb ol’ Air Force for CAS — instead, the soldiers push some buttons and launch a missile from their own crate, which sweeps down to deliver righteous punishment. Our guys stay under cover and they’re free to continue maneuvering forward and bringing the pain, either with additional NLOS strikes or their own weapons.

The Navy saw this brief and its eyes bugged out — just imagine what a small, precise missile could do for the LCS. Its human-sized dimensions meant it could ride up high on the ships’ aluminum superstructures, hit targets tracked by their Fire Scout unmanned helicopters, and most importantly, keep the LCS well away from knife-fight engagements with potential suicide craft. So in the Navy’s computer-animated NLOS simulation, an LCS used a missile to kill a man on a jet-ski. That is not a joke.

But of course NLOS went away – the Army couldn’t make it work and it was too expensive. That meant the LCS’ most potent weapon disappeared before the first ships even fully entered service, and since then, the brass has been scrambling to try to figure out what to do. This brings us to Monday’s post by our phriend Phib, which quotes a report saying that the Navy is already planning to replace its interim replacement for NLOS:


Even in its original forms of 60 then 45 NLOS missiles, the ASUW package was lame and fraught with technology risk. So much non-mitigated technology risk, that when NLOS predictably could not make it off the PPT slide — we defaulted to the even more than suboptimal Griffin missile that we discussed back in JAN of this year.Over at PEO LCS — or whatever they are calling themselves this FY — RDML James A. Murdoch and his band of merry folks are doing the best they can with the bucket of goo they inherited .. but this is just sad.

The program executive office for the Littoral Combat Ship has already identified capabilities that could replace the Griffin missile that will be utilized by the ship’s surface warfare mission package, and a competition will begin this fiscal year, Rear Adm. James Murdoch, head of the PEO, said here recently.

This is good news, really. Griffin is unquestionably unsatisfactory, but it is all that we have.

Griffin-B’s surface-launched range is less than 1/6th of the Raytheon NLOS-LS PAM’s planned 25 mile range, so replacing NLOS-LS with Griffin comes at a cost. This severe cut in reach, coupled with the warhead’s small size, will sharply limit the Littoral Combat Ship’s already-restricted ranged engagement options. Griffins would be suitable for engaging enemy speedboats, but cannot function as naval fire support for ground forces, or do much damage to full-size enemy vessels – most of which will pack large anti-ship missiles with a 50+ mile reach.

Let me help you with the math with that 13-lb warhead.. 1/6th of 25nm is 4.17nm. Let that soak in. Target 2nm inland … close shore … some goober pulls a 57mm AZP S-60 out from behind the goat shed .. etc, etc, etc … I guess we could just use that awesome speed to run away from a threat. That has such a wonderful pedigree in the Navy.

LCS advocates in the Navy would jump in here and say, now look, the whole point of this is that it’s a different kind of warship. Yes, it can’t get into a slugfest with a Sovremenny — but it was never built to do so. LCS is supposed to show up two days before the strike group and be sure the waters of interest are clear of mines, submarines and villains in small boats.

The problem, of course, is that this explanation — like the Marines’ insistance that their former Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle didn’t need protection against IED because, well, it would just never drive where there were IEDs, OK? — sounds embarrassingly rigid. “LCS doesn’t need a heavier main battery because it will never get into serious combat — we’ve CC’d all potential enemies on this doctrine so they’ll know to play by the rules just in case.”

Murdoch’s new missile could present the Navy with an opportunity to address this. Now all he has to do is get it funded, get it built and field it in large numbers. Easy, right?

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/11/07/the-navys-lcs-missile-problem/#ixzz1d4lKOaJi
DoDBuzz.com

[buglerbilly]

U.S. Navy Awards General Dynamics $87 Million for Unmanned Underwater Mine Countermeasure Vehicle

(Source: General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems; issued November 9, 2011)

FAIRFAX, Va. --- The U.S. Navy's Naval Sea Systems Command has awarded General Dynamics Advanced Informational Systems a contract to design and build the Surface Mine Countermeasure Unmanned Underwater Vehicle (SMCM UUV) system. The system will initially be a part of the Littoral Combat Ship Mine Warfare mission package.

The contract has a maximum potential value of $86.7 million for one Engineering Development Model (EDM) and five low-rate initial production systems if all options are exercised. General Dynamics Advanced Informational Systems is a business unit of General Dynamics.

The SMCM UUV system will allow Navy commanders and sailors to reliably detect and identify mines in high-clutter underwater environments in a single pass, including mines that are suspended in the ocean, resting on the sea floor or buried. Additionally, it will gather environmental data that can provide intelligence support for other mine warfare systems.

"General Dynamics continues to deliver affordable, flexible solutions that meet the Navy's vision for open architecture," said Lou Von Thaer, president of General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems. "Commanders and sailors will now have the most capable and advanced system available to detect, avoid and defeat mine threats."

General Dynamics will use an open systems architecture approach to ensure the SMCM UUV will have the flexibility to be integrated into missions on Littoral Combat Ships, as well as other ship types. The Navy's evolving and dynamic mission requirements call for a design that allows "plug and play" integration for ship's systems and mission modules. These interchangeable packages of specialized equipment allow the Navy to quickly reconfigure a ship for changing mission requirements.

General Dynamics plans to hire 10 new employees to support this contract. The development and manufacturing will be done in Greensboro, N.C., Fairfax, Va., Quincy, Mass., Braintree, Mass., and Panama City, Fla.

The General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems team includes Bluefin Robotics, Quincy, Mass.; Ultra Electronics Ocean Systems, Braintree, Mass.; and Oceaneering International, Houston, TX.

The program office for this contract is the Unmanned Maritime Systems Program Office (PMS 406), one of six program offices within the Navy's Program Executive Office, Littoral Combat Ship (PEO LCS).

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

LCS Independence To Remain In Florida, For Now

By CHRISTOPHER P. CAVAS

Published: 21 Dec 2011 16:55

All of the U.S. Navy's new Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) are to be homeported at San Diego, where most of the shoreside support for the new type of ship is concentrated. The first LCS, Freedom, has been based there since spring 2010, and the second ship, the USS Independence, was to have made its way west by now.


The littoral combat ship USS Independence, seen here at Naval Air Station Pensacola, Fla., has been carrying out a series of equipment tests in the Gulf of Mexico. (Ensign Caleb White / U.S. Navy)

But the Independence is still in Florida, splitting its time between the Atlantic coast base at Mayport and the Naval Surface Warfare Center along the Gulf Coast Panhandle in Panama City.

The ship has been carrying out an extensive series of tests and trials of gear associated with the mine warfare mission module, and more work remains to be done before heading west. As a result, the move to San Diego likely won't happen until at least March.

A chief factor, Rear Adm. Jim Murdoch, head of the LCS effort at the Naval Sea Systems Command, said Dec. 21, was "my desire to make sure we got through a very comprehensive developmental test for the mission package."

Murdoch emphasized the delay was not due to any problem with the ship itself.

Panama City, Murdoch said, "is where the warfare experts are." And for mine warfare, he noted, "the bottom type is understood."

Other factors included a recent crew turnover - the ship swaps Blue-Gold crews about every four months - and the passage last week of a defense appropriations bill for fiscal 2012.

"We're gratified that Congress has passed an appropriation bill," Murdoch said. "That allows us to work much more efficiently. Now the schedule starts to clear up for us very nicely."

The Gold crew that just took over the ship will complete developmental testing in Florida, Murdoch said, then take the ship through the Panama Canal to southern California.

The waterfront there, however, won't be seeing the ship routinely pull in and out of port for awhile. Soon after arriving, the ship will enter dry dock for an extensive post-shakedown availability overhaul, expected to take several months.

[buglerbilly]

Report: High cost prompts Israel to reject LCS

By Philip Ewing Wednesday, December 28th, 2011 8:13 am



I didn't think they've been interested for a number of months now?

Foreign military customers have always been one of the key goals of the Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship program, but at least one potential operator has already backed out, according to reports.

Israel had been looking at buying two littoral combat ships, according to a Jerusalem Post story this week, but their high cost means they’re no longer in the running. Here was the newspaper’s matter-of-fact account:


Due to budgetary constraints, the Navy has scrapped plans to purchase two next-generation missile ships and is instead looking to increase its fleet with smaller vessels. The Navy had originally decided to purchase the US Navy’s littoral combat ship, under development by defense contractor Lockheed Martin, but backed away from the deal after the price soared.

It then looked into buying designs from Germany’s Blohm+Voss and having the vessels built by Israel Shipyards – a privately owned company based in Haifa that already builds the navy’s smaller Shaldag patrol boats – but a senior IDF officer involved in procurement plans said that a budget for that plan was also lacking.

Instead, the Navy is now looking to order two new Sa’ar 4.5-class missile corvettes and to finance the deal by retiring two of its Sa’ar 4-class ships.

The U.S. Navy has a specific niche for LCS, but it also has its legacy fleet of cruisers and destroyers, so it doesn’t need the ships to be heavily armed combatants. But an LCS with Aegis, anti-ship missiles and other potential refinements has almost always been part of the contractors’ sales pitch, and the Israelis and Saudis both are said to have flirted with the idea of buying them.

Today, however, those notions seem dead in the water. The Israelis apparently don’t want to play and the Saudis, meanwhile, are talking about buying no-kidding Arleigh Burke-class destroyers.

There may be a silver lining for Lockheed, Austal and the U.S. Navy, however — despite admirals’ onetime admonitions that “they needed LCS yesterday,” the service and its vendors are taking their time putting together the ships, crews and mission equipment. When it’s all functioning operationally, doing deployments and proving itself worthy of the Global Force For Good, potential foreign customers on the sidelines might then want to join the LCS club.

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/12/28/report-high-cost-prompts-israel-to-reject-lcs/#ixzz1hz66r9DH
DoDBuzz.com

[buglerbilly]

SNA: LM’s LCS enters its ‘cookie cutter’ phase

By Philip Ewing Tuesday, January 10th, 2012 12:22 pm



There are a lot of unknowns and unanswered questions about the Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship, but Lockheed Martin company officials effectively put up their hands Tuesday and said “Hey — not our problem, guys.”

The leaders did not use those words, of course, but they were eager to make clear that from Lockheed’s perspective as the builder of the Freedom class, everything is going smoothly. The first LCS soon will finally and formally join the fleet. Lockheed’s second ship, the USS Fort Worth, is doing its early sea trials. Its third ship, the Milwaukee, has 17 of its 46 construction modules under construction. Its fourth ship, the Detroit, has three of 46 under construction.

(The ships are built in blocks, like giant Lego sets, then side-launched into the Menominee River.)

Lockheed vice president George Barton expects the Navy to award two more hulls this year, and then right on through until it completes its first batch of 10 ships. Austal USA, down in Mobile, Ala., has a contract to build a parallel run of its aluminum Independence-class design.

But Lockheed can’t speak for Austal and it can’t speak for the Navy. It can’t speak for the other contractors whose products are part of the ships’ interchangeable mission equipment. All it’s focused on, officials said, is getting into the sweet spot of serial production that was always supposed to be a key advantage for LCS, driving out as much cost and time as possible on subsequent hulls.

Starting with LCS 5, the Milwaukee, the design for the class is “done, locked and stable,” said Lockheed’s VP for ships, Joe North. So the design changes that plagued the Freedom as it was being built should theoretically be a thing of the past. “From 5 on … these ships are cookie cutter,” North said. Lockheed hopes the shipyard in Marinette, Wisc., should be able to get into a rhythm and just start cranking them out, increasing the company’s margin with each saved dollar and each day less than the ship before.

One key difference between the Freedom and its successors is the corrosion resistance build into the ships’ “waterborne mission zone,” the stern compartment where sailors launch and recover boats and their trademark maritime robots. North said based on the Navy’s experience with standing water and rust in the Freedom, the subsequent ships will have better coatings and other improvements to help crews fight rust.

The other, larger issues remain, of course: LCS remains a heavy fuel user, especially at high speeds. It still does not have a long-term surface-to-surface missile with which to defend itself or support troops ashore. Its mission modules may or may not materialized as planned. The Navy still needs to scale up the small, experienced crewing it has used on the early ships to a full fleet scale. The ships still need to do a no-kidding deployment somewhere.

But from Lockheed’s perspective, the program is getting into a sweet spot, and it clearly wants to keep that going for as long as it can. If the Navy can keep its ambitions for 55 or more LCSes through the big crunch, Lockheed’s early heartache on the ships may wind up paying off handsomely.

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/01/10/sna-lms-lcs-enters-its-cookie-cutter-phase/#ixzz1j6mGAE1N
DoDBuzz.com

[buglerbilly]

SNA: The Navy’s next LCS dilemma

By Philip Ewing Tuesday, January 10th, 2012 3:52 pm



The Navy absolutely, positively, no-kidding must make its littoral combat ship program work, two of its top surface warfare leaders said Tuesday, because the stakes couldn’t be any higher for the future of the service.

And yet in the very same speeches, the same leaders acknowledged the Navy’s thorny, ongoing problems with the very skills and principles that the service needs to reach its LCS goals.

Rear Adm. Thomas Rowden, the Navy’s brand-new boss of requirements for surface warfare, said one of its most important abilities was to show “American flags on halyards” atop Navy warships. The planned program of 55 LCS ships will let commanders show the flag more often in more places, he argued, and that will only get more important further into the 21st century.

“That means aggressively fielding the LCS fleet in order to meet our vital war-fighting gaps and forward-deploy additional American flags on LCS halyards,” Rowden said. “We must we must bring LCS into the fleet. We must control cost and build them in numbers.”

Not only could LCSes compose as much as half of the future surface force, making the program critical based on numbers alone, the smaller ships’ value in alliances only raises the stakes, Rowden said.

“LCS will be ships with which our partners will be comfortable operating … We have a number of ships that are simply overwhelming to friends and potential friends,” – as in, the blue water Cold War-era fleet. “LCS allows us the flexibility to begin working with friends, partner nations and potential friends on their terms – in the end, their terms must be considered if we’re to work with them.”

In other words, the navies of Vietnam or the Philippines might not be able to play when the U.S. Navy shows up with a 95,000-ton nuclear-powered aircraft and an armada of Aegis escorts. But if the American brass sends a few 3,700-ton littoral combat ships, the locals might feel that’s more their speed.

Rowden could feel the crowd of surface warfare officers, many of whom are Aegis Mafiosi, sit up in their chairs.

“There’ll always be a requirement for ships suited to intense phases,” he said – as in, full-scale war. “But we must have ships that can be adapted as the future transitions into the present.”

Fair enough – and it’s rare these days to hear any top officer volunteer an enthusiastic defense of LCS, given the beating it has taken in Congress and elsewhere. But the Navy has to get a lot right in order to realize Rowden’s vision, and it’s not just an acquisition exercise. The service also has to be able to figure out how to produce expert sailors at the scale it needs to field two crews per hull.

Surface Force Commander Vice Adm. Richard Hunt made it clear that the fleet still has a long way to go before its sailors begin arriving at their ships with the levels of skill they’ll need to keep them running for as long as the Navy hopes. Hunt said the Surface Force is standing up yet more new schools for sailors and officers, and trying to impose yet more rigor into executive officer and commander officer training – on top of what has been a historic effort over the past few years.

Today’s Surface Force is on the upside of a pendulum swing, back from an era in which the Navy tried to cut costs everywhere it could as it tried to “run like a business” under the authority of MBA admirals. That meant fewer sailors on ships, trained less thoroughly than their predecessors and getting less funding, maintenance and fewer spare parts.

The Navy brought it off for a few years, but when it began to hit bottom – at times literally, as when the cruiser USS Port Royal ran aground off Hawaii – it had to begin undoing its cutbacks with more people and better training.

So LCS was born of an era that created not just a novel acquisition approach – a “modular” ship developed apart from its main weapons and mission equipment – but a novel personnel approach, too. The Navy wanted to field two small crews of senior, highly trained sailors for each LCS. They would share the ship, taking alternate deployments, and there would be no time or ability to accommodate junior newcomers. Everybody had to be ready on arrival.

In effect, one of the Navy’s metaphorical hands didn’t know what the other was doing: At the same time service officials were scaling back training, they were fielding a ship that depended on senior, highly trained sailors in order to function. Hunt became the latest top leader to promise he was committed to getting back to the core onetime principles, and Rowden made clear he thought the Navy had no choice.

“It is disheartening when a [sailor] with 12 years experience comes up and says, ‘Sir, it’s broke — the stability’s not very good and I can’t trust the picture,’” Rowden said. The crews of today and tomorrow both must get better at operating, repairing and “owning” their equipment, he argued.

This necessity, combined with the entirely separate acquisition challenges for pursing LCS through the coming build-down, could wind up being the Navy’s biggest problem for at least the next decade.

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/01/10/sna-the-navys-next-lcs-dilemma/#ixzz1j6mq98t4
DoDBuzz.com

[buglerbilly]

Navy Sees LCS As Key To Partner Nation Building

By Carlo Munoz

Published: January 10, 2012



WASHINGTON: The Navy has long touted the Littoral Combat Ship's multimission abilities to support U.S. forces. But the next-generation warship will also be key role in supporting America's allies across the globe.

The Navy is pursuing an "aggressive fielding" strategy to get the LCS into the fleet, Rear Adm. Thomas Rowden, director of the service's surface warfare division, said today. Getting the LCS to sea faster gives Navy planners the ability to push U.S. warships further forward into regions like the Western Pacific, Rowden said during a speech at the Surface Navy Association-sponsored symposium in Arlington today. Extending American naval presence in places like the South China Sea and the Persian Gulf falls in line with the White House's new national security strategy. It also puts the Navy in a perfect position to make important friends in some very dangerous places, Rowden pointed out.

The adaptability and multimission capability of the LCS makes it the perfect ally-building ship for U.S. forces, the surface warfare chief said. The LCS, is "less overwhelming to our friends and potential friends" than other U.S. warships in the fleet, Rowden added. Keeping that type of profile is critical to many potential U.S. allies. Many countries who want to with with U.S. forces may also be wary of the signal an American destroyer or aircraft carrier would sent to regional allies and adversaries alike.

The ship makes just enough of an impression of an American presence within a host country, but not so much as to cause a backlash against that country, Rowden explained. It lets international allies forge stronger ties with the U.S. military, but lets them do it "on their terms" he added. So far the st