Report to Congress on U.S. Navy Frigate (FFG(X)) Program

USNI.org with Full Report

August 16, 2018 7:26 AM • Updated: August 16, 2018 9:11 AM

The following is the July 31, 2018 Congressional Research Service report, Navy Frigate (FFG(X)) Program: Background and Issues for Congress.

From the report:

The Navy in 2017 initiated a new program, called the FFG(X) program, to build a class of 20 guided-missile frigates (FFGs). The Navy wants to procure the first FFG(X) in FY2020, the second in FY2021, and the remaining 18 at a rate of two per year in FY2022-FY2030. The Navy’s proposed FY2019 budget requests $134.8 million in research and development funding for the program.

Although the Navy has not yet determined the design of the FFG(X), given the capabilities that the Navy’s wants the FFG(X) to have, the ship will likely be larger in terms of displacement, more heavily armed, and more expensive to procure than the Navy’s Littoral Combat Ships (LCSs). The Navy envisages developing no new technologies or systems for the FFG(X)—the ship is to use systems and technologies that already exist or are already being developed for use in other programs.

The Navy’s desire to procure the first FFG(X) in FY2020 does not allow enough time to develop a completely new design (i.e., a clean-sheet design) for the FFG(X). Consequently, the Navy intends to build the FFG(X) to a modified version of an existing ship design—an approach called the parent-design approach. The parent design could be a U.S. ship design or a foreign ship design. The Navy intends to conduct a full and open competition to select the builder of the FFG(X). Consistent with U.S. law, the ship is to be built in a U.S. shipyard, even if it is based on a foreign design. Multiple industry teams are reportedly competing for the program. Given the currently envisaged procurement rate of two ships per year, the Navy envisages using a single builder to build the ships.

The FFG(X) program presents several potential oversight issues for Congress, including the following:

• whether to approve, reject, or modify the Navy’s FY2019 funding request for the program;
• whether the Navy has accurately identified the capability gaps and mission needs to be addressed by the program;
• whether procuring a new class of FFGs is the best or most promising general approach for addressing the identified capability gaps and mission needs;
• whether the Navy has chosen the appropriate amount of growth margin to incorporate into the FFG(X) design;
• the Navy’s intent to use a parent-design approach for the program rather than develop an entirely new (i.e., clean-sheet) design for the ship;
• the Navy’s plan to end procurement of LCSs in FY2019 and shift to procurement of FFG(X)s starting in FY2020;
• whether the initiation of the FFG(X) program has any implications for required numbers or capabilities of U.S. Navy cruisers and destroyers.

The Future USS Cooperstown Gets a Keel

A welder authenticates the keel of LCS 23, the future USS Cooperstown, by welding the initials of keel authenticator Ellen R. Tillapaugh, Mayor of the Village of Cooperstown, New York. The Keel Laying is the formal recognition of the start of the ship's module construction process.The Lockheed Martin-led industry team officially laid the keel yesterday.

CONTRIBUTORS IEN Staff

MARINETTE, Wis. -- The Lockheed Martin-led industry team officially laid the keel for the U.S. Navy's 23rd Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), the future USS Cooperstown, in a ceremony held yesterday at Fincantieri Marinette Marine in Marinette, Wisconsin.

Ellen R. Tillapaugh, Mayor of the Village of Cooperstown, New York, completed the time-honored tradition and authenticated the keel by welding her initials onto a steel plate that will be placed in the ship.

"It is a tremendous honor to authenticate the keel for the future USS Cooperstown," Tillapaugh said. "Ships and their crews have a special bond with their namesake, and I know the village of Cooperstown will proudly support this ship throughout her construction, and when she is commissioned and enters the Navy fleet."

The Lockheed Martin and Fincantieri Marinette Marine team is currently in full-rate production of the Freedom-variant of the LCS, and has delivered five ships to the U.S. Navy to date. The future USS Cooperstown is one of eight ships in various stages of construction at Fincantieri Marinette Marine.

"We are proud to build another proven warship that allows our Navy to carry out their missions around the world," said Joe DePietro, Lockheed Martin vice president of small combatants and ship systems. "We look forward to working with the U.S. Navy to continue building and delivering highly capable and adaptable Freedom-variant Littoral Combat Ships to the fleet."

LCS 23 will be the first vessel named for Cooperstown. Her name honors the veterans who are members of the National Baseball Hall of Fame located in the namesake city. These 64 men served in conflicts ranging from the Civil War through the Korean War.

Lockheed Martin's Freedom-variant LCS is highly maneuverable, lethal and adaptable. Originally designed to support focused missions such as mine warfare, anti-submarine warfare and surface warfare, the team continues to evolve capabilities based on rigorous Navy operational testing; sailor feedback and multiple successful fleet deployments. The Freedom-variant LCS integrates new technology and capability to affordably support current and future mission capability from deep water to the littorals.

Report to Congress on U.S. Navy Ship Naming Conventions

USNI.org with Full Report

August 14, 2018 11:39 AM

The following is the Aug. 2, 2018 Congressional Research Service report, Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress.

From the report:

Names for Navy ships traditionally have been chosen and announced by the Secretary of the Navy, under the direction of the President and in accordance with rules prescribed by Congress. Rules for giving certain types of names to certain types of Navy ships have evolved over time. There have been exceptions to the Navy’s ship-naming rules, particularly for the purpose of naming a ship for a person when the rule for that type of ship would have called for it to be named for something else. Some observers have perceived a breakdown in, or corruption of, the rules for naming Navy ships.

On July 13, 2012, the Navy submitted to Congress a 73-page report on the Navy’s policies and practices for naming ships.

For ship types now being procured for the Navy, or recently procured for the Navy, naming rules can be summarized as follows:

• The first Ohio replacement ballistic missile submarine (SBNX) has been named Columbia in honor of the District of Columbia, but the Navy has not stated what the naming rule for these ships will be.
• Virginia (SSN-774) class attack submarines are being named for states.
• Aircraft carriers are generally named for past U.S. Presidents. Of the past 14, 10 were named for past U.S. Presidents, and 2 for Members of Congress.
• Destroyers are being named for deceased members of the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard, including Secretaries of the Navy.
• Littoral Combat Ships (LCSs) are being named for regionally important U.S. cities and communities.
• Amphibious assault ships are being named for important battles in which U.S. Marines played a prominent part, and for famous earlier U.S. Navy ships that were not named for battles.
• San Antonio (LPD-17) class amphibious ships are being named for major U.S. cities and communities, and cities and communities attacked on September 11, 2001.
• John Lewis (TAO-205) class oilers, previously known as TAO(X)s, are being named for people who fought for civil rights and human rights.
• Lewis and Clark (TAKE-1) class cargo and ammunition ships were named for famous American explorers, trailblazers, and pioneers.
• Expeditionary Fast Transports (EPFs), previously called Joint High-Speed Vessels (JHSVs), are being named for small U.S. cities.
• Expeditionary Transport Docks (ESDs) and Expeditionary Sea Bases (ESBs), previously called Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) ships and Afloat Forward Staging Bases (AFSBs), respectively, are being named for famous names or places of historical significance to U.S. Marines.

Since 1974, at least 20 U.S. military ships have been named for persons who were living at the time the name was announced. The most recent instance occurred on July 11, 2018, when the Navy announced that it was expanding the name of the destroyer John. S. McCain (DDG-56), originally named for Admiral John S. McCain (1884-1945) and Admiral John S. McCain, Jr. (1911-1981), to also include Senator John S. McCain III.

Members of the public are sometimes interested in having Navy ships named for their own states or cities, for older U.S. Navy ships (particularly those on which they or their relatives served), for battles in which they or their relatives participated, or for people they admire.

Congress has long maintained an interest in how Navy ships are named, and has influenced the naming of certain Navy ships. The Navy suggests that congressional offices wishing to express support for proposals to name a Navy ship for a specific person, place, or thing contact the office of the Secretary of the Navy to make their support known. Congress may also pass legislation relating to ship names. Measures passed by Congress in recent years regarding Navy ship names have all been sense-of-the-Congress provisions.

LCS 18 Completes Acceptance Trials

MarineLink August 6, 2018

Charleston (LCS 18) will be the third Independence-variant LCS Austal delivers to the U.S. Navy in 2018, (Photo: Austal)

Charleston (LCS 18), the ninth Independence-variant Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) constructed by shipbuilder Austal USA, completed acceptance trials in mid-July, marking the final significant milestone before the ship's delivery to the U.S. Navy.

The at-sea acceptance trials, which involved the execution of intense comprehensive tests by the Austal-led industry team while underway in the Gulf of Mexico, demonstrated to the Navy the successful operation of the ship’s major systems and equipment.

LCS 18 will be the third Independence-variant LCS Austal delivers to the Navy in 2018. “By the end of the year, we will have delivered three LCS to the Navy, including LCS 18 – no small accomplishment and a direct result of the hard work and dedication of Austal’s incredible shipbuilding team, the exceptional teamwork with all of our suppliers, and the support of our local, state and federal legislators,” said Austal USA President, Craig Perciavalle.

The LCS class consists of two variants, the Freedom variant and the Independence variant, designed and built by two industry teams. The Freedom variant team is led by Lockheed Martin (for the odd-numbered hulls). The Independence variant team is led by Austal USA, the American branch of operations for Australian shipbuilder Austal, (for LCS 6 and the subsequent even-numbered hulls).

Seven Austal-built Independence-variant LCS are homeported at the San Diego Navy Base. “I was very excited to hear about the great things our ships are doing for the fleet during my recent trip to San Diego, and was even more excited to hear about the Navy’s future plans,” Perciavalle said. “As we continue to grow to a 355 ship Navy, I am confident these small surface combatants will continue to contribute to the distributed lethality of our nation’s global force structure.”

Austal's multibillion LCS program is at full rate production in Mobile, Ala. and is continuing its momentum with several ships currently under construction, including Charleston. Cincinnati (LCS 20) has launched and is preparing for trials. Final assembly is well underway on Kansas City (LCS 22) and Oakland (LCS 24). Modules for the future USS Mobile (LCS 26) are under construction in the module manufacturing facility and construction on Savannah (LCS 28) commenced mid-July.

FY 2019 Defense Authorization Bill Passed by House

By: Ben Werner

USNI.org

July 26, 2018 3:20 PM

USS Minnesota (SSN-783) under construction at Newport News Shipbuilding in 2012. US Navy Photo

The Navy and Marine Corps policies and priorities for next year passed an important hurdle Thursday when the House of Representatives approved the fiscal year 2019 National Defense Authorization Act.

The bill authorizes spending on various programs intended to counteract what’s considered increasingly aggressive actions taken by both China and Russia.

“This conference report takes a major step toward rebuilding our military, reforming the Pentagon, and better preparing this nation for the national security challenges of today and tomorrow,” Rep. Mac Thornberry, (R-Texas), said in a statement. “The bill takes actions directly related to the aggressive behavior of Russia and China.”

Among the many programs included in the NDAA, the bill authorizes 13 battle force ships for the Navy that include: two Virginia-class submarines, three Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers, three Littoral Combat Ships, two oilers, and one expeditionary sea base and one towing, salvage and rescue ship.

Looking to the future, the bill requires the Block-V Virginia-class submarine contract, currently being negotiated by the Navy and General Dynamics Electric Boat, to include price options that would add two submarines to the Pentagon’s planned purchase of 10 subs. The bill also authorizes $3.2 billion to pay for development and design work of the Columbia-class submarine and authorizes for an additional Ford-class aircraft carrier, allowing the Navy to make a two-carrier buy.

Adding submarines to the NDAA was championed by Rep. Joe Courtney, (D-Conn.), ranking member of the House Armed Services seapower and projection forces subcommittee. Electric Boat is based inside his district.

“Over the last year, my committee has heard the relentless drumbeat of anxiety and concern about the looming shortfall in our attack submarine fleet. Without timely action by Congress, the Trump administration, and the Navy, the fleet will fall to just 42 submarines within the next decade,” Courtney said in a statement. “At that reduced capacity, our military commanders will be left without the undersea capabilities they have made clear that they desperately need. While the president’s budget request this year only planned on building ten submarines in the next contract, Navy officials have made it clear that the capacity exists to build more than that over the next five years.

In terms of policy, the NDAA includes several reforms to the Navy’s surface warfare community, in the wake of last summer’s two deadly collisions involving guided-missile destroyers and commercial shipping vessels at sea. Crew training and limiting the length of time ships can remain forward deployed are among the reforms the NDAA directs the Navy to institute.

The NDAA, named for ailing Sen. John S. McCain (R-Ariz.), chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, had recently emerged from a conference committee where differences between House and Senate versions of the bill were ironed out. Senate approval is still pending, and if passed, the NDAA needs the President’s signature before the policies and priorities become law.

However, even if fully approved by the President and both chambers of Congress, the Pentagon will still need another bill to pass to fully implement the NDAA’s authorizations. A separate spending bill still needs to be passed, something Thornberry addressed in his statement applauding House approval of the NDAA.

“Much of the advantage that these measures give our military will be lost, however, if Congress fails to follow the NDAA with an appropriations bill that is both adequate and on time,” Thornberry’s statement said. “This is the earliest the House has acted on an NDAA in many years. There is no reason that Congress should not be able to take up and pass the defense spending bill before the end of the fiscal year so that Congress can keep faith with our troops and fully fund the military when we return in September.”

Report to Congress on Navy Shipbuilding and Force Structure

July 24, 2018 9:21 AM

 USNI.org (full report) via fas.org

The following is the July 6, 2018 Congressional Research Service report, Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress.

From the Report:

The current and planned size and composition of the Navy, the rate of Navy ship procurement, and the prospective affordability of the Navy’s shipbuilding plans have been oversight matters for the congressional defense committees for many years. The Navy’s FY2019 budget submission includes proposed increases in shipbuilding rates that are intended as initial steps for increasing the size of the Navy toward a goal of a fleet with 355 ships of certain types and numbers.

The Navy’s proposed FY2019 budget requests funding for the procurement of 10 new ships, including two Virginia-class attack submarines, three DDG-51 class Aegis destroyers, one Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), two John Lewis (TAO-205) class oilers, one Expeditionary Sea Base ship (ESB), and one TATS towing, salvage, and rescue ship. The total of 10 new ships is one more than the 9 that the Navy requested in its amended FY2018 budget submission, 3 less than the 13 battle force ships that were funded in the FY2018 DOD appropriations act, and 3 more than the 7 that were projected for FY2019 in the Navy’s FY2018 budget submission. The three added ships include one DDG-51 class destroyer, one TAO-205 class oiler, and one ESB.

The Navy’s FY2019 five-year (FY2019-FY2023) shipbuilding plan includes 54 new ships, or an average of 10.8 new ships per year. The total of 54 new ships is 12 more than the 42 that were included in the Navy’s FY2018 five-year (FY2018-FY2022) shipbuilding plan, and 11 more than the 43 that the Navy says were included in the five-year period FY2019-FY2023 under the Navy’s FY2018 budget submission. (The FY2023 column was not visible to Congress in the Navy’s FY2018 budget submission.) The 11 ships that have been added to the five-year period FY2019-FY2023, the Navy says, are four DDG-51 class destroyers, three TAO-205 class oilers, two ESBs, one TATS, and one TAGOS ocean surveillance ship.

The Navy’s FY2019 30-year (FY2019-FY2048) shipbuilding plan includes 301 new ships, or an average of about 10 per year. The total of 301 ships is 47 more than the 254 that were included in the Navy’s FY2017 30-year (FY2017-FY2046) shipbuilding plan. (The Navy did not submit an FY2018 30-year shipbuilding plan.)

The Navy’s goal for achieving and maintaining a fleet of 355 ships, released in December 2016, is 47 ships higher than the Navy’s previous force-level goal of 308 ships. The force level of 355 ships is a goal to be attained in the future; the actual size of the Navy in recent years has generally been between 270 and 290 ships. Section 1025 of the FY2018 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 2810/P.L. 115-91 of December 12, 2017) states in part: “It shall be the policy of the United States to have available, as soon as practicable, not fewer than 355 battle force ships, comprised of the optimal mix of platforms, with funding subject to the availability of appropriations or other funds.”

Although the 355-ship force-level goal is 47 ships higher than the previous 308-ship force-level goal, achieving and maintaining the 355-ship fleet within 30 years would require adding more than 47 ships to the Navy’s previous (FY2017) 30-year shipbuilding plan, in part because that plan did not include enough ships to fully achieve all elements of the 308-ship force-level goal. CRS estimated in 2017 that 57 to 67 ships would need to be added to the Navy’s FY2017 30-year shipbuilding plan to achieve the Navy’s 355-ship fleet and maintain it through the end of the 30-year period (i.e., through FY2046), unless the Navy extends the service lives of existing ships beyond currently planned figures and/or reactivates recently retired ships. Similarly, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated in 2017 that 73 to 77 ships would need to be added to a CBO-created notional version of the Navy’s FY2018 30-year (FY2018-FY2047) shipbuilding plan to achieve the Navy’s 355-ship fleet and maintain it not only through the end of the 30-year period (i.e., through FY2047), but another 10 years beyond the end of the 30-year period (i.e., through FY2057), unless the Navy extends the service lives of existing ships beyond currently planned figures and/or reactivates recently retired ships.

Consistent with these CRS and CBO estimates, the Navy projects that the 47 additional ships included in the Navy’s FY2019 30-year shipbuilding plan would not be enough the achieve a 355-ship fleet during the 30-year period. The Navy projects that if the FY2019 30-year shipbuilding plan were implemented, the fleet would peak at 342 ships in FY2039 and FY2041, and then drop to 335 ships by the end of the 30-year period. The Navy projects that under the FY2019 30-year shipbuilding plan, a 355-ship fleet would not be attained until the 2050s (and the aircraft carrier force-level goal within the 355-ship goal would not be attained until the 2060s). Consistent with CRS and CBO estimates from 2017, the Navy estimates that adding another 20 to 25 ships to the earlier years of the Navy’s FY2019 30-year shipbuilding plan (and thus procuring a total of 321 to 326 ships in the 30-year plan, or 67 to 72 ships more than the 254 included in the FY2017 30-year plan) could accelerate the attainment of a 355-ship fleet to about 2036 or 2037.

Wisconsin Shipyards Awarded Nearly $2 Million in Grants

MarineLink July 19, 2018

(File photo: Bay Shipbuilding)

Wisconsin shipyards Bay Shipbuilding and Fraser Shipyards have been awarded nearly $2 million in 2018 Small Shipyard Grants from the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), U.S. Senator Tammy Baldwin today.

The Small Shipyard Grant Program helps small shipyards, like Bay Shipbuilding in Sturgeon Bay and Fraser Shipyards in Superior, repair and modernize equipment, and train workers.

“In Wisconsin, and across America, small shipyards are considered the lifeblood of the maritime economy. I am proud to have secured these critical investments to support our Made in Wisconsin economy and a workforce that is second to none,” said Senator Baldwin, a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee and longtime supporter of the Small Shipyard Grant Program. “These grants will allow Bay Shipbuilding and Fraser Shipyards to expand opportunities for employees, invest in capital improvements and remain competitive in the global maritime industry.”

“Bay Shipbuilding is thrilled to receive a Small Shipyard Grant that will allow us to be more efficient and offer the most competitive services possible. We thank Senator Baldwin for her commitment to shipyards and for helping secure this investment as we continue to do our part in sustaining the Great Lakes fleet and Jones Act shipbuilding industry for our customers,” said Francesco Valente, President and CEO of Bay Shipbuilding.

“Fraser Shipyards is very pleased to be receiving a MARAD grant. We are particularly pleased with Senator Baldwin‘s leadership and support of the maritime industry and our Wisconsin business. We look forward to the productivity gains we will garner with the new materials handling equipment,” said James Farkas, President and Chief Operating Officer of Fraser Shipyards.

President Trump’s proposed Fiscal Year 2019 budget would have eliminated the program. Senator Baldwin led the Senate Appropriations Committee in rejecting that budget and including $20 million for the Small Shipyard Grant Program in the FY19 THUD Senate Appropriations bill.

Last year, Senators Baldwin and Bill Cassidy (R-LA) introduced the Small Shipyards and Maritime Communities Act to reauthorize the Small Shipyard Grant Program through 2020. The bipartisan legislation was signed into law as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018.

Lockheed Martin Awarded Long Lead Contract for Saudi Frigates

By: Ben Werner

USNI.org

July 19, 2018 11:41 AM

Artist’s concept of a Lockheed Martin Multi-Mission Surface Combatant. US Navy

Lockheed Martin Corp. was awarded a $450 million contract modification for long-lead-time material and design work for the construction of four new frigates for the Royal Saudi Arabian Navy, part of the kingdom’s multi-billion dollar shipbuilding plan.

This new contract modifies a November deal, where Lockheed Martin was awarded a $22.74 million contract to adapt the design of its Freedom-class Littoral Combat Ship into a more heavily armed frigate concept for use by the Saudi Arabian navy. USNI News has previously reported the frigate concept will not include the LCS modular mission functions, but does bulk up its armaments.

“The Multi-Mission Surface Combatant is a lethal and highly maneuverable surface combatant capable of littoral and open ocean operation,” according to the Department of Defense contract notice.

The Lockheed Martin contract is part of the Foreign Military Sales program run by the Department of Defense, which serves as an intermediary between contractors and foreign governments.

These new frigates are intended to be the core of the long-anticipated Saudi Naval Expansion Program II, a plan in the works for more than a decade to upgrade the kingdom’s Eastern Fleet. Ultimately, USNI News understands Saudi Arabia plans to spend up to $20 billion on new ships, with approximately $6 billion earmarked for the frigate program built by Lockheed Martin.

Saudi Arabia has also recently inked a roughly $2 billion deal to build out more of its upgraded fleet, according to media reports. Saudi Arabia is buying five Avante 2200 corvettes from Spanish shipbuilder Navantia, according to a story reported by Paris-based Navy Recognition. Construction is set to start this year and Saudi Arabia expects to accept delivery of its last ship in 2022.

The corvettes will be built in Spain. Lockheed Martin builds the Freedom-class LCS variants at the Fincantieri Marinette Marine Corporation shipyard in Marinette, Wisc., but the company has not yet specified where the Saudi Arabian frigates would be built.

LCS Anti-Submarine Warfare Mission Package Meets Two Test Milestones

By: Ben Werner

USNI.org

July 17, 2018 5:17 PM

USS Freedom (LCS-1) and USS Independence (LCS-2)

The littoral combat ship anti-submarine warfare (ASW) mission package met two important testing milestones earlier this month, Naval Sea System Command (NAVSEA) announced this week.

The ASW mission package successfully completed a 10-day pier side test of the Dual-mode ARray Transmitter (DART) Mission System. During the test, LCS sailors operated the DART mission system at the Florida Atlantic University Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute’s waterside test complex, according to a NAVSEA statement.

The second milestone, which occurred after the DART Mission System test, involved a full-power, in water test of the Raytheon-developed active array at the Navy’s Seneca Lake Sonar Test Facility in Dresden, NY. This was the first time the array was tested in open water, which allows research and development teams to better understand how the system will perform once deployed, according to the NAVSEA statement.

The DART system uses a variable-depth sonar, that instead of working from a fixed point on a ship’s hull, can ride in the sea and dip under the water’s surface to hear what’s happening at different depths, according to Raytheon. In May 2017, the Navy awarded Raytheon a $27.9 million contract to develop the sub-hunting capability. If the Navy is happy with the results, the contract includes an option for full production worth up to $300 million.  The Navy has been working on developing a new LCS anti-submarine warfare mission package since 2015, when an initial design was considered too heavy.

“The Seneca Lake Test was a huge step forward for the DART System and the ASW Mission Package as a whole. This revolutionary technology is critical to countering the rising submarine threats worldwide,” Capt. Ted Zobel, LCS Mission Module program manager, said in a statement.

The follow-up Dockside-2 test is planned for the fall, when three new Raytheon-developed mission modules will be added to the DART system, according to a Navy statement. This testing is scheduled to occur at the Atlantic Undersea Test and Evaluation Center in early 2019, according to the NAVSEA statement.

The Navy doesn’t intend on buying all mission packages for each LCS, Zobel said earlier this year during a House Armed Services Committee hearing. Instead, LCS’s will be divided into groups, and will swap out packages as needed. As of now, Zobel said during the hearing, the Navy intends to purchase 10 ASW mission packages. In written testimony, Navy officials expected the achieve initial operational capability of the ASW mission packages during Fiscal Year 2019

Future Ships Classes Will Need Hands-On Trainers Like LCS, DDG-1000 Systems

By: Megan Eckstein

USNI.org

July 17, 2018 1:51 PM

Lt. Caroline Stanton, an instructor at the Littoral Combat Ship Training Facility aboard Naval Station Mayport, teaches Sailors how to simulate navigating an LCS as part of a tour for the annual Reserve Leadership Symposium hosted by Littoral Combat Ship Squadron (LCSRON) 2 on Jan. 26, 2018. US Navy photo.

Future classes of surface ships ought to come with advanced training systems that allow maintenance sailors to practice hands-on troubleshooting, much like the trainers for the Littoral Combat Ship and the DDG-1000, the Program Executive Officer for Ships said last week.

Rear Adm. William Galinis said at a Navy League breakfast event that the Navy’s training of sailors, and maintenance sailors in particular, has changed over the years. Going forward, he said, it would be important to promote hands-on learning over computer-based learning for certain types of personnel.

Galinis described a recent trip to Naval Station Great Lakes with Commander of Surface Forces Vice Adm. Richard Brown and Director of Surface Warfare (OPNAV N96) Rear Adm. Rob Boxall as part of a Surface Warfare Officer School Board of Visitors event.

“This particular session was on engineering training. … I’ll go back now to [retired Vice Adm. Phillip Balisle’s] report that came out in the [2010] timeframe – and he listed a number of very specific items in terms of things that kind of atrophied over time in terms of maintaining the readiness of our surface fleet, and training was one of them. And at that point the Surface Warfare Officer School Command really embarked on a path to improve the training. And where we had kind of gotten away from a lot of the schoolhouse, hands-on type training and moved to the computer-based training that you love or hate, depending on where you sit, we realized that that wasn’t the best way to probably train some of our sailors … especially when it comes to the maintenance, the troubleshooting, the repair aspect we ask our sailors to do, particularly the engineering trades.”

Galinis later told USNI News, on new ships, “one of the things that we’ve really kind of come to understand is that, especially for sailors that are maintainers that troubleshoot and repair those systems, you really need a little bit more advanced training than just a computer-based training course or reading a tech manual of some sort. That’s where that hands-on training really comes into play. So shore-based training, and we’ve really leveraged that.”

Galinis noted that the Surface Training Systems Program Office (PMS 339) manages trainers for new ship classes, including the LCS and Zumwalt-class destroyer (DDG-1000). For future classes of ships, he said, that organization would be involved early on and “I think that [type of trainer] will be a key component of any training strategy going forward for a new class of ship.”

The admiral added that other decisions, such as using existing hull forms for new purposes – like using the San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock (LPD-17) as the basis of the LX(R) dock landing ship replacement, now called LPD Flight II – would also contribute to improved training because mature training pipelines could be leveraged instead of having to start from scratch.

“Where we had put new training courses and new training opportunities for sailors on the LPD-class ship, those are easily transferable to the Flight II,” Galinis said.