Palm-Sized 3D-Printed Part Represents Leap Forward In Shipbuilding

By: Ben Werner and Megan Eckstein
USNI.org

October 12, 2018 3:45 PM

The Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75) conducts flight operations in the Atlantic Ocean on Sept. 18, 2018. US Navy photo.

A new drain strainer orifice installed on a USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75) steam line fits in the palm of a hand, but its significance to future shipbuilding is enormous.

Created on a 3D printer by Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII) Newport News Shipbuilding, the relatively small part is designed to maintain steam pressure when removing condensation from a line by preventing steam from escaping. However, the process to manufacture this part is a leap in shipbuilding likened by engineers to the 1930s and 1940s, when modern welding processes quickly replaced rivets in joining steel plates on ship hulls.

“This is a watershed moment in our digital transformation, as well as a significant step forward in naval and marine engineering,” Charles Southall, the vice president of engineering and design at Newport News Shipbuilding, said in a statement. “We are committed to partnering with the Navy to ensure that collectively, we are investing in every opportunity to improve and advance the way we design and build great ships for the Navy.”

Newport News Shipbuilding, which builds the U.S. Navy’s nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and submarines, is optimistic about the future of 3D printing. If 3D-printed parts can pass Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) standards, the hope is using the process, also called additive manufacturing, will both speed up the time to complete orders and cut down on production costs, HII officials told USNI News.

The idea of using 3D printing to manufacture metal parts came from John Ralls, a senior engineer at Newport News Shipbuilding, Southall said in a video posted to the HII website. Ralls started exploring 3D printing for shipbuilding about six years ago, he said in the video.

“If you asked me ten years ago, would I be working on taking powderized metal and lasers to make a part in three-dimensional shapes, I don’t think I could have envisioned that at all,” Ralls said.

HII describes the 3D printing process approved by NAVSEA as “a highly digitized process that deposits metal powder, layer by layer, to create three-dimensional marine alloy parts that potentially replace castings or other fabricated parts, such as valves, housings, and brackets.”

The Navy also hopes 3D-printed parts will prove to be a way to supply the fleet quicker, cheaper and more efficiently. The particular drain strainer orifice installed on Truman will be monitored for a year to evaluate how well the part performs in a real-world working environment, according to a NAVSEA statement.

“This install marks a significant advancement in the Navy’s ability to make parts on demand and combine NAVSEA’s strategic goal of on-time delivery of ships and submarines while maintaining a culture of affordability,” Rear Adm. Lorin Selby, the NAVSEA Chief Engineer and Deputy Commander for Ship Design, Integration, and Naval Engineering, said in a statement.

Meanwhile, the Navy in the process of understanding how to safely apply additive manufacturing technologies in more ways, including as part of the supply chain for aircraft carriers at sea.

“Specifications will establish a path for NAVSEA and industry to follow when designing, manufacturing and installing AM (additive manufacturing) components shipboard and will streamline the approval process,” Justin Rettaliata, the Technical Warrant Holder for Additive Manufacturing with NAVSEA, said in a statement.

Two recent additive manufacturing efforts led the former in-service carrier program manager at the Program Executive Office for Carriers to decide the Navy should install a 3D printing lab aboard USS George Washington (CVN-73) during its ongoing mid-life refueling and complex overhaul.

Capt. John Markowicz, who until this summer served as the in-service carrier program manager, told USNI News in a May interview that the Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock Division had worked to understand how a 3D printer would operate at sea, on a structure constantly in motion.

Meanwhile, the chief engineer aboard USS John C. Stennis (CVN-74) was already experimenting with how to use 3D printing as a way to shorten the supply chain for the ship’s industrial maintenance, Markowicz said.

In August, Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Chung-Hoon (DDG-93) needed to replace a bolt from a hangar bay door roller assembly. Cmdr. Kenneth Holland, the chief engineer aboard Stennis, offered to make a replacement bolt for Chung-Hoon, which was part of the Stennis Carrier Strike Group.

“The printers are being used right now to resolve issues while they’re small problems,” Holland said in a statement released shortly after the event. “It’s used to help manufacture parts that you can generally only get if you buy the higher assembly.”

Holland and his team aboard Stennis have made replacement knobs for communications gear and other small components, according to the Navy. Currently, small manufacturing jobs are the most likely jobs 3D printing can accomplish at sea, Markowicz said during his May interview with USNI News.

More work has to be done for the Navy to understand what standards required for different kinds of parts and the limitations of 3D printing. When it comes to parts for critical systems, Markowicz said shipboard labs might never be approved to create such items as parts of steam propulsion systems. A shipboard facility doesn’t have the means to test and certify parts like a shipyard facility.

However, Markowicz said a shipboard lab could print something like a pump shaft with plastic or Teflon first, test fit it on the ship, and then re-print the piece with metal for actual use on the ship

An additive manufacturing machine at Huntington Ingalls Industries shipyard in Newport News, Va. HII Photo

Drain strainer orifice created by a 3D printer at Huntington Ingalls Industries Newport News Shipbuilding. Huntington Ingalls Industries photo.

New Pentagon Report Points to Problems in the U.S. Shipbuilding Industrial Base

By: Ben Werner

USNI.org

October 5, 2018 7:14 PM

A unit for the future aircraft carrier John F. Kennedy (CVN-79) rests on the assembly platen at Newport News Shipbuilding, Va. US Navy Photo

The U.S. shipbuilding industry has contracted during the past two decades and is indicative of the financial pressures squeezing the entire defense industrial base, according to an unclassified version of a new Pentagon report released on Friday.

Since 2000, the report said the entire defense industrial base lost more than 20,500 U.S.-based manufacturing firms. As these firms closed, the work they once performed was sent overseas, creating a situation where “A surprising level of foreign dependence on competitor nations exists.”

Companies involved in manufacturing shipbuilding components were among the hardest hit by a shifting global marketplace during the past 20 years, the report states. Across the shipbuilding sector, manufacturers and suppliers have left the industry, limiting competition. In some cases, the Navy is forced to rely on a single and sole source supplier for critical components.

“These companies struggle to survive and lack the resources needed to invest in innovative technology,” the report states. “Expanding the number of companies involved in Navy shipbuilding is important to maintaining a healthy industrial base that can fulfill the 355-ship fleet and support the Navy’s long-range shipbuilding plan.”

The Navy currently has only one firm manufacturing and refurbishing shafts used by both surface ships and submarines. Having only one source for shafts hampers the Navy’s ability to both build and refurbish ships. Meanwhile, the report said because only one employer exists, technical schools have stopped training students to operate the type of aged equipment used by the firm.

“If the forge is not modernized, the facility may exit the market, causing disruptions to multiple Navy programs,” the report states.

The total number of shipbuilding workers has also decreased, and the report predicts will continue shrinking. This contraction will become direr because as the number of jobs decreases, fewer new workers will enter fields critical to shipbuilding, such as ship-fitting, welding, and casting.

“While we have not had time to study the administration’s industrial base report in detail, what we have seen of the report validates many of our own concerns about the health of the base. We will continue to study the report and we look forward to working closely with the Department of Defense to address critical areas of risk,” Beci Brenton, a spokeswoman for Huntington Ingalls Industries, said in a statement to USNI News.

“Assessing and Strengthening the Manufacturing and Defense Industrial Base and Supply Chain Resiliency of the United States, ”was created by an interagency task force led by the Department of Defense Office of Industrial Policy. An unclassified version of the report released Friday lists several factors facing the defense industrial base, including uncertain government spending, foreign competition, a shrinking domestic industrial workforce and a decline in critical markets and suppliers.

“The shipbuilding sector illustrates how a decline in U.S. manufacturing, coupled with budget sequestration, impacts the industrial base,” the report states.

Overall, manufacturing jobs in the U.S. have steadily disappeared. On January 1, 1980, there were about 19.3 million manufacturing workers in the U.S., According to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics. By January 1, 2018, the number of manufacturing workers in the U.S. had shrunk by 35 percent to 12.6 million.

Investing in machine tools, which are power-driven machines that shape and form metal, are cited by the report as an example of where U.S. firms have lagged behind international competitors in reinvesting in their plants.

“Critical to creating modern defense and non-defense products, machine tools impact the entire supply chain and multiple sectors,” the report states.

But today, the machine tool production in the U.S. is worth $4.6 billion, far less than the $24.7 billion spent by Chinese firms.

The problems facing the defense industrial base today, though, are hardly new.

• A 1985 GAO report stated, “Concerns about the ability of the industrial base to meet defense requirements is not new but has been exacerbated by the prospects of defense-spending increases totaling some $1.9 trillion over the next five years and possible perturbations caused by an improving economy. Adding to the concern is the transition from short-duration scenarios of war to those in which probable conflicts are of indefinite duration, anywhere in the world.”

• A 1988 GAO report warned a dependence on foreign-made component-parts in the short term could provide cheaper high-quality parts, overtime relying on overseas contracts could weaken U.S. companies and evolve into a vulnerability. Citing a Pentagon study, this report stated, “The Under Secretary’s report stated that (1) DOD does not know the extent to which foreign sourced parts and components are incorporated in the systems it acquires and (2) in a national emergency, the consequences of extensive dependence on foreign sources could be extreme.”

• A 1993 GAO report took a dim view of the Pentagon’s plan to rely on the defense industrial base to adjust to what was then an anticipated period of declining defense spending. “DOD has taken the position that free market forces generally will guide the restructuring of the defense industrial base. We believe that this is not a realistic strategy for ensuring that government decisions and industry adjustments will result in the industrial and technological capabilities needed to meet future national security requirements,” the 1993 GAO report states.

As for reversing declines in defense industrial base production, stable funding tops the list of suggestions. Increasing the amount of U.S.-manufactured military equipment sold overseas will help expand the demand for products made by many of the smaller manufacturers.

Heritage Report: Aging Navy Fleet Complicates Tradeoff Between Buying New Ships, Fixing Old Ones

By: Megan Eckstein

USNI.org

October 4, 2018 6:37 PM

Ships assigned to the Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group and the Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group transit the Atlantic Ocean in formation while conducting dual-carrier sustainment operations on Aug. 30, 2018. US Navy Photo

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Heritage Foundation released its fifth annual Index of U.S. Military Strength that stated the armed services are too small, too old and not ready enough to support a credible two-war battle force.

“The deterrent value is certainly being compromised” by these factors, Dakota Wood, senior research fellow for defense programs at Heritage and lead editor of the index, said at a Thursday morning rollout event.

For the Navy specifically, the index highlights the need to grow the fleet and boost its readiness – but it also demonstrates how the age of many of today’s ships will complicate that effort.

For instance, 10 ship classes have an average ship age that is more than halfway through the ship’s expected service life, and two of those are more than 75 percent through their expected service life: the Avenger-class mine countermeasure ships and the Los Angeles-class attack submarines. Just five ship classes are below that 50-percent service life mark.

Another way of looking at the fleet’s age is that half the ships are more than 20 years old. These older ships bring with them increased maintenance challenges and higher costs to keep ready – a fact made clear by ongoing struggles to get aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69) out of maintenance and back to the fleet.

With a force that skews towards older ships, the Navy can expect a hefty bill in the coming decades to simply replace these ships on a one-for-one basis, let alone grow the force.

The Navy has plans to grow to a 355-ship fleet. The timeline for reaching that figure was accelerated due to a class-wide service life extension for all Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, but ultimately that just delays a dip in the fleet once those DDGs eventually decommission.

The Heritage Foundation, though, recommends a 400-ship Navy to support a two-war capability – which the Pentagon had years ago endorsed but later revised to being able to fight one war and deter aggression in a second theater.

The index assesses that, to fight and win two major contingencies, the Navy would need to provide 13 carrier strike groups and 12 expeditionary strike groups simultaneously, based on historical data of forces used during major wars and contingencies. To keep that sized force forward, with follow-on forces training at home and ships being maintained ahead of rotating forward, the Navy would need 400 ships. The service has 284 deployable battle force ships, according to new counting rules, which is 29 percent short of the 400-ship figure.

Overall the index rates the Navy as “marginal” in strength – the middle rating, essentially a 3 out of 5. Navy capability and readiness also scored a marginal rating. Capacity, though, is rated as weak, or a 2 out of 5.

Wood said during the index rollout that quantity is a major factor when he looks at the strength of the military as a deterrent force: the Navy needs to sufficient numbers “to commit a force, and have uncommitted capability either for reinforcement or to have time and resources available for training and competency.”

Extending the life of the destroyers, for example, does help boost the numbers, but he cautioned against relying on that too much.

“Do I continue to extend the life of a legacy platform to the point where the maintenance cost are eating my budget up and it’s not really giving me relevant, credible combat power with the unfolding of newer battlefields, with the ability of the enemy to bring fires against me?” he told USNI News during a question and answer session.
“And yet, you still need this numbers issue. So if the Navy is really hampered by lack of ships, how do I get more ship hulls into the water? Well, I have steel right here tied to the pier. So I think in the prioritization within that decision (to extend the DDG service life), they said the need for hulls at the moment outweighs the need to stop those kinds of modernization efforts and apply that money to some future ship that maybe hasn’t even been designed yet.”

He noted that uncertainty about the future may be part of the issue for the Navy today. Numerous studies have suggested that a potential war in the Pacific, for example, would require capabilities and ship classes the Navy does not have today, such as a corvette, a frigate, a light carrier and other ideas. Wood said the Navy needs to come to a decision on whether a fight within the enemy’s threat ring would be fought with power concentrated on large ships, like an aircraft carrier, or with a flotilla of smaller patrol craft and small combatants; and if an amphibious assault would require large amphibious assault ships with large well decks, or “something else.”

“Nobody knows what the something else is, so I’m very reluctant, as a service, to let go of something that I currently have and I have utility for given today’s challenges, in the hope that I’m going to be able to grab onto something that’s not even off the design books,” he said.

Austal USA, Lockheed Martin Awarded FY 2018 Littoral Combat Ship Hulls

By: Sam LaGrone

USNI.org

September 18, 2018 7:00 PM

Two Independence-class Littoral Combat Ships. US Navy Photo

Austal USA and Lockheed Martin were awarded contract modifications to build the Navy’s Fiscal Year 2018 batch of Littoral Combat Ships, the Pentagon announced on Tuesday.

“The three LCSs being awarded today are the future LCS-29, LCS-32 and LCS-34,” according to a Naval Sea Systems Command statement provided to USNI News on Tuesday.
“LCS 29 will be built at Fincantieri Marinette Marine in Marinette, Wis. LCS-32 and LCS-34 will be built at Austal USA in Mobile, Ala.”

Congress approved $1.8 billion for the two Austal-built Independence-class hulls and the one Lockheed Martin Freedom-class hull.

The Navy initially only asked for a single LCS in its FY 2018 budget request but settled on two after shifting funds from other sources including delaying the purchase of a nuclear reactor for an aircraft carrier overhaul.

Congress eventually bumped the LCS hull number to three as part of a $23.8 billion shipbuilding budget in the FY 2018 Omnibus spending bill.

The number of hulls the Navy awards per year has been a point of contention between the yards, Congress and the service.

Austal and Lockheed are optimized to build two ships per year but can bump that number down to one and a half without suffering a major loss in productivity, NAVSEA officials have said.

“It’s like building a house. You have guys who do the foundation, and you have guys that’ll hang the drywall. So if you don’t have ships coming in for the guys who do the foundation, then those guys have to go find other work. So it’s not only the timing and the number of the ships but it’s the sequencing of work that provides the efficiency,” Program Executive Officer Littoral Combat Ships Rear Adm. John Neagley told USNI News last year.
“The shipyards invested to do two ships a year on six-month centers, and so about one-and-a-half is an efficient build for me. Below that, we can certainly build ships, but I would expect to see impact to schedule and cost.”

Tuesday’s award puts the service on track for its stated goal of 32 hulls for the LCS program ahead of its transition to the next-generation frigate (FFG(X)) in FY 2020. However, the proposed mini-bus spending bill pending in Congress funds three more LCS hulls.

The littoral combat ship USS Freedom (LCS 1) transits the Pacific Ocean after departing Naval Base San Diego July 9, to participate in the Rim of the Pacific 2016. US Navy Photo

Top Gun: Maverick Will Likely Feature F-35C Joint Strike Fighters

By: Megan Eckstein

August 27, 2018 9:11 PM

USNI.org

An F-35C Lightning II assigned to Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 101 is positioned on the bow catapults of the Nimitz-Class aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) March 17, 2018, in the Atlantic Ocean. US Navy photo

Hollywood’s latest take on naval aviation, Top Gun: Maverick, will likely pair the Navy’s new Lockheed Martin F-35C Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters alongside older Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, in the sequel to the 1986 blockbuster.

A film crew from Paramount Pictures was aboard aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) the same time the Navy began launching F-35C jets off the ship interchangeably with F/A-18E-F Super Hornets as an integrated air wing.

With six F-35Cs operating aboard Lincoln since Aug. 20th, USNI News understands, the film crew almost certainly got an up-close look at the Navy’s newest fighters – operating alongside the Super Hornets, the EA-18G Growlers, the E-2 Hawkeye and the C-2 Greyhound.

Asked what role the new jets may play in the movie, Michael Singer, vice president of marketing and publicity for Jerry Bruckheimer Films and Television, told USNI News “we are not providing any details about the production at this time.”

The Navy was limited in what it could reveal about the filming aboard Lincoln or the sea service’s role in the upcoming movie, expected to hit theaters July 12, 2019.

Navy spokesman Lt. Seth Clarke told USNI News that the level of support the Navy will provide is still being worked out, but “I can tell you that U.S. naval aviators will be flying in this movie.”

He added that Lincoln specifically was chosen for filming because “the ship’s schedule was ideal based on the needs of Paramount films at this time. Additionally, the film crew presence incurred no additional costs, logistics or burden to the U.S. Navy.” Lincoln was due to be at sea to conduct carrier qualifications for pilots in Carrier Air Wing 7.

Several other media outlets reported on Aug. 22 that the Paramount camera crew was onboard the Norfolk-based Nimitz-class aircraft carrier, but the details of the F-35C operations aboard the same ship were not released until Monday.

On May 30, Top Gun star Tom Cruise tweeted a photo of him in a flight suit, holding his signature “Maverick” helmet and looking at a Super Hornet in the background, with the text “feel the need” and the hashtag #Day1. The presence of the Super Hornet in that first glimpse of the movie fueled speculation about whether Maverick would come back as a Super Hornet pilot, and whether the new F35Cs would make it into the film at all.

The day after Cruise’s tweet, film crews for Top Gun: Maverick spent two days filming at Naval Air Station North Island in San Diego, Navy spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Dan Day told USNI News.

“Film crews from Paramount Pictures have filmed scenes aboard Naval Air Station North Island in Coronado, California, in May and aboard USS Abraham Lincoln in August during CVW-7 carrier qualifications. Paramount and the Navy are working together to schedule ongoing production coordination at various additional locations, including several Navy bases,” Day said in a statement.
“The Navy supported the filming at North Island and aboard Abraham Lincoln per provisional Production Assistance Agreements signed by Paramount and the Department of Defense, and all future filming will be supported under the terms of a full, signed Production Assistance Agreement that will govern Navy support of the remainder of the production.”

Day added that “our priority will always be warfighting and training combat-ready naval aviation forces that are prepared to win in combat, as well as training the next generation of naval aviators. That being said, we believe we can support the film and simultaneously achieve training objectives. Paramount Pictures will reimburse the Navy for any costs incurred for flying sequences which do not meet training objectives.”

In both the May shoot and last week aboard Lincoln, no actors were present.

For the Navy, the film represents another opportunity to show off naval aviation to the masses.

“The original film was an iconic production that exposed millions of Americans to the professionalism and lethality of Naval Aviators. It also goes without saying TOPGUN was a powerful recruiting aid – inspiring many to ‘Fly Navy,’ and it also boosted pride in Naval Aviation,” Cmdr. Ron Flanders, spokesman for the commander of Naval Air Forces, told USNI News.
“We have agreed to support the sequel because we believe it will once again give Americans a front-row seat to observe the aerial mastery of naval aviators and also will demonstrate the core values of honor, courage and commitment the U.S. Navy demonstrates every day.”

Though Paramount Pictures is remaining mum about the sequel, some details have emerged. Last week news outlets reported that Tom Cruise will be joined by Jon Hamm, Ed Harris, Jennifer Connelly as a single-mom bar owner and female lead, Miles Teller as Lt. j.g. Nick “Goose” Bradshaw’s son and Top Gun student, Glen Powell, and Monica Barbaro as a female pilot. Val Kilmer will also be returning to reprise his role as Tom “Iceman” Kazansky.

Seaman Lance Gilinksy stands lookout watch on the fantail of the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) while an F-35C Lightning II, from the “Rough Raiders” of Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 125 approaches on Dec. 8, 2017. US Navy Photo

Navy Accepts Delivery of Freedom-Variant LCSs Sioux City, Wichita

By: Megan Eckstein

August 24, 2018 12:54 PM

USNI.org

The future Wichita (LCS-13) conducts acceptance trials on July 11, 2018. Lockheed Martin photo.

The Navy accepted delivery of two Freedom-class Littoral Combat Ships on Wednesday, as Lockheed Martin and the Marinette Marine shipyard turned over custody of the future Sioux City (LCS-11) and Wichita (LCS-13).

The two ships are the 14th and 15th LCSs total to be delivered to the Navy, and the sixth and seventh Freedom-variant ship. Under the fleet’s LCS homeporting model, both will head to Mayport, Fla., to serve in LCS Squadron (LCSRON) 2. Sioux City will serve as the final of four surface warfare-focused LCSs, and Wichita will serve as the first mine countermeasures-focused ship.

“The future USS Sioux City is a welcome addition to the East Coast Surface Warfare Division. Both her Blue and Gold crews are ready to put this ship though her paces and prepare the ship to deploy,” LCSRON-2 commander Capt. Shawn Johnston said in a Navy statement.
“The future USS Wichita is the first East Coast Mine Warfare Division ship. She will have a chance to test some of the latest and greatest mine warfare systems after she completes her remaining combat systems trials.”

Before heading to Mayport, both ships will be commissioned later this year – Sioux City in Annapolis, Md., and Wichita in Jacksonville, Fla. According to a Lockheed Martin news release, Sioux City will be the first combat ship ever commissioned at the Naval Academy.

“The future USS Sioux City is a remarkable ship which will bring tremendous capability to the Fleet. I am excited to join with her crew and celebrate her upcoming commissioning at the home of the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis,” LCS program manager Capt. Mike Taylor said in the Navy news release.
“Today also marks a significant milestone in the life of the future USS Wichita, an exceptional ship which will conduct operations around the globe. I look forward to seeing Wichita join her sister ships this winter.”

With a production line intended to deliver ships about every six months, it is unusual to have two LCSs deliver on the same day. Sioux City didn’t complete its acceptance trials until late May, a major delay due to both weather and mechanical issues, retired Navy Rear Adm. Frank Thorp, chairman of the USS Sioux City Commissioning Committee, told the Sioux City Journal.

“As they upgrade, they continue to find challenges. It takes longer than expected. The Navy, when it comes to bringing a ship to life, is overoptimistic,” Thorp told the newspaper. The article added that “Thorp said sea trials near a Wisconsin shipyard on Lake Michigan planned for last fall were not done before the lake froze over. Those trials now are tentatively scheduled to begin in May, following the lake’s anticipated thaw in April. Mechanical problems identified during trials will then be repaired before Navy personnel take the ship to sea for acceptance trials. Once those trials are completed and the Navy accepts the ship, it will sail through the Great Lakes to Norfolk, Virginia, for final preparations before arriving at Annapolis for commissioning.”

In total, Lockheed Martin’s LCS delivery schedule is running an average of 11 months late, Bloomberg News reported in December 2017.

Lockheed Martin and Fincantieri Marinette Marine have seven LCSs in various stage of production at the Wisconsin shipyard, according to the Navy news release. The future Billings (LCS-15) is preparing for trials in spring 2019. The future Indianapolis (LCS-17) was christened and launched in April. The future St. Louis (LCS-19) is scheduled for christening and launch this fall. The future Minneapolis-Saint Paul (LCS-21) is preparing for launch and christening in spring of 2019. The future Cooperstown (LCS-23) had its keel laid earlier this month and is undergoing construction in the shipyard’s erection bays. The future Marinette (LCS-25) started fabrication in February, while the future Nantucket (LCS-27) is scheduled to begin fabrication in the fall.

The future Sioux City (LCS-11) conducts acceptance trials on May 23, 2018. Lockheed Martin photo.

Report to Congress on Littoral Combat Ship Program

August 23, 2018 6:49 AM

USNI.org

The following is the Aug 16, 2018 Congressional Research Service report, Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program: Background and Issues for Congress.

From the Report:

The Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) is a relatively inexpensive surface combatant equipped with modular mission packages. Navy plans call for procuring a total of 32 LCSs. The first LCS was procured in FY2005, and the Navy’s proposed FY2018 budget requested the procurement of the 30th and 31st LCSs. As part of its action on the Navy’s proposed FY2018 budget, Congress procured three LCSs—one more than the two that were requested. Thus, a total of 32 LCSs have been procured through FY2018.

The Navy’s proposed FY2019 budget, which was submitted to Congress before Congress finalized action on the Navy’s FY2018 budget, requests $646.2 million for the procurement of one LCS. If Congress had procured two LCSs in FY2018, as requested by the Navy, the LCS requested for procurement in FY2019 would have been the 32nd LCS. With the procurement of three LCSs in FY2018, the LCS requested for procurement in FY2019 would be the 33rd LCS.

The Navy’s plan for achieving and maintaining a 355-ship fleet includes a goal for achieving and maintaining a force of 52 small surface combatants (SSCs). The Navy’s plan for achieving that goal is to procure 32 LCSs, and then procure 20 new frigates, called FFG(X)s, with the first FFG(X) to be procured in FY2020. Multiple industry teams are now competing for the FFG(X) program. The design of the FFG(X) is to be based on either an LCS design or a different existing hull design. The FFG(X) program is covered in another CRS report.

The LCS program includes two very different LCS designs. One was developed by an industry team led by Lockheed; the other was developed by an industry team that was then led by General Dynamics. LCS procurement has been divided evenly between the two designs. The design developed by the Lockheed-led team is built at the Marinette Marine shipyard at Marinette, WI, with Lockheed as the prime contractor; the design developed by the team that was led by General Dynamics is built at the Austal USA shipyard at Mobile, AL, with Austal USA as the prime contractor.

The LCS program has been controversial over the years due to past cost growth, design and construction issues with the first LCSs, concerns over the survivability of LCSs (i.e., their ability to withstand battle damage), concerns over whether LCSs are sufficiently armed and would be able to perform their stated missions effectively, and concerns over the development and testing of the modular mission packages for LCSs. The Navy’s execution of the program has been a matter of congressional oversight attention for several years. Issues for Congress for the LCS program for FY2019 include the following:

• the number of LCSs to procure in FY2019;
• the Navy’s proposal to procure a final LCS in FY2019 and then shift to procurement of FFG(X)s starting in FY2020;
• a July 2018 Department of Defense (DOD) Inspector General (IG) report regarding IOC dates for LCS mine countermeasures (MCM) mission package systems;
• survivability, lethality, technical risk, and test and evaluation issues relating to LCSs and their mission packages; and
• LCS deployments in 2018.

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.