Report to Congress on U.S. Navy Ship Names

June 18, 2019 7:03 AM • Updated: June 18, 2019 10:29 AM

• using.org

The following is the June 10, 2019 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 (SSBN-826) 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.

• The Navy has not yet announced a naming rule for its planned new class of FFG(X) frigates, the first of which the Navy wants to procure in FY2021. Previous classes of U.S. Navy frigates, like Navy destroyers, were generally named for naval leaders and heroes.

• 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 are being named for people who fought for civil rights and human rights.

• Expeditionary Fast Transports (EPFs) are being named for small U.S. cities.

• Expeditionary Transport Docks (ESDs) and Expeditionary Sea Bases (ESBs) are being named for famous names or places of historical significance to U.S. Marines.

• Navajo (TATS-6) class towing, salvage, and rescue ships are being named for prominent Native Americans or Native American tribes.

Since 1974, at least 21 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 May 6, 2019, when the Navy announced that it was naming the destroyer DDG-51 for former Senator Sam Nunn.

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.

VIDEO: Newest Littoral Combat Ship Christened Saturday

By: Ben Werner

June 17, 2019 10:31 AM

• USNI.org

LCS 21 (Minneapolis-Saint Paul) Christening and Launch on June 15, 2019. Lockheed Martin photo.

The Navy christened its newest Freedom-variant littoral combat ship, Minneapolis-Saint Paul (LCS-21) at a ceremony in Marinette, Wis., on Saturday.

Deputy Under Secretary of the Navy Jodi Greene is the ship’s sponsor christened the ship by breaking a bottle of sparkling wine across the bow. When Minneapolis-Saint Paul joins the fleet, the ship will be homeported in Mayport, Fla, according to the Navy.

“The christening of the future USS Minneapolis-Saint Paul marks an important step toward this great ship’s entry into the fleet,” Secretary of the Navy Richard V. Spencer said in a statement.

LCS-21 is the 11th Freedom-variant LCS and the 21st in the class. Lockheed Martin is the prime contractor building the Freedom-variant at the Marinette Marine shipyard in Marinette. General Dynamics designed the Independence-variant, but Austal USA builds it at its shipyard in Mobil, Ala.

The Navy has bought 35 LCS and is unlikely to increase the number of LCS in the fleet. In Fiscal Year 2020, the Navy intends to focus on another small surface combatant program, the future frigate (FFG(X)), according to a recent Congressional Research Service report.

House, Senate Defense Bills Tough on Littoral Combat Ship Programs

By: Ben Werner

USNI.org

June 13, 2019 7:51 PM

Freedom-class LCS St. Louis (LCS-19), left, in Marinette, Wisc., on Dec. 15, 2018, as Billings (LCS-15) is under construction and preparing for commissioning. US Navy Photo

The Navy is ready to sunset littoral combat ship production and three of four congressional defense committees appear happy to oblige through restrictive policies and funding authorizations.

Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) members included language prohibiting the use of funds to extend the LCS program except in a couple of specific and short-term instances, in their version of the Fiscal Year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act, released Wednesday.

As for the existing LCS fleet, the White House FY 2020 budget asked for $388.1 million for mission modules. However, the House Appropriations Committee authorized $327 million, cutting the amount of money for the LCS mine countermeasures and common mission module equipment packages.

After a 21-hour marathon markup session Wednesday and Thursday, the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) approved its version of the FY 2020 NDAA, which included much steeper cuts to several of the Navy’s LCS funding requests.

HASC reduced the Navy’s FY 2020 budget request of $51.6 million for LCS common mission module equipment to an authorized $33.2 million for this program. House appropriators authorized $38.7 million for this program.

The HASC also slashed the Navy’s requested $197.1 million for LCS mine countermeasures modules (MCM) in FY 2020. Instead, the HASC authorized $77.1 million, or just less than 40 percent of the Navy’s MCM module request. House appropriators authorized $163.6 million for the program.

The SASC included language approving the purchase of a more LCS, “If it is necessary to maintain a full and open competition for the guided missile Frigate (FFG(X)) with a single source award in Fiscal Year 2020,” as stated in the Senate version of FY 2020 NDAA.

In FY 2020, the Navy wants to shift to buying the new FFG(X) frigate. Four shipbuilding teams are competing for the contract, but the Navy and lawmakers are aware if the frigate program hits a delay, keeping the LCS production line running for a short time could help keep frigate costs down, according to a Congressional Research Service report released last week.

Meanwhile, the HASC approved a requirement for the Navy to study the prospect of buying a version of the Coast Guard’s Fast Response Cutter, submitted by Rep. Donald Norcross (D-N.J.). chair of the tactical air and land forces subcommittee.

The idea is for the Navy to consider basing these smaller patrol vessels in Bahrain where they would operate in the littoral waters of the Persian Gulf. The U.S. Coast Guard is already planning to base four fast response cutters in Bahrain, to replace the aging Island-class patrol boats the service currently has patrolling the Persian Gulf.

One of the stated missions of the LCS is to forward deploy overseas with plans to base the ships in Singapore and the Middle East. However, the Navy has so far been reluctant to send LCS out on deployments. No LCS deployments occurred in FY 2018 and the three LCS deployments in 2019 are expected to happen in the fall, Navy officials previously stated. The Navy has not stated the deployment destinations for the three LCS scheduled to depart from San Diego and Mayport, Fla.

Report to Congress on Navy Shipbuilding, Force Structure

June 12, 2019 8:20 AM

• USNI.org

The following is the June 10, 2019 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.

On December 15, 2016, the Navy released a force-structure goal that calls for achieving and maintaining a fleet of 355 ships of certain types and numbers. The 355-ship force-level goal is the result of a Force Structure Assessment (FSA) conducted by the Navy in 2016. The Navy states that a new FSA is now underway as the successor to the 2016 FSA. This new FSA, Navy officials state, is to be completed by the end of 2019. Navy officials have suggested in their public remarks that this new FSA could change the 355-ship figure, the planned mix of ships, or both.

Some observers, viewing statements by Navy officials, believe the new FSA in particular might shift the Navy’s surface force to a more distributed architecture that includes a reduced proportion of large surface combatants (i.e., cruisers and destroyers), an increased proportion of small surface combatants (i.e., frigates and LCSs), and a newly created third tier of unmanned surface vehicles (USVs). Some observers believe the new FSA might also change the Navy’s undersea force to a more distributed architecture that includes, in addition to attack submarines (SSNs) and bottom-based sensors, a new element of extra-large unmanned underwater vehicles (XLUUVs), which might be thought of as unmanned submarines.

The Navy’s proposed FY2020 budget requests funding for the procurement of 12 new ships, including one Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) class aircraft carrier, three Virginia-class attack submarines, three DDG-51 class Aegis destroyers, one FFG(X) frigate, two John Lewis (TAO-205) class oilers, and two TATS towing, salvage, and rescue ships. The Navy’s FY2020 five-year (FY2020-FY2024) shipbuilding plan includes 55 new ships, or an average of 11 new ships per year.

The Navy’s FY2020 30-year (FY2020-FY2049) shipbuilding plan includes 304 ships, or an average of about 10 per year. If the FY2020 30-year shipbuilding plan is implemented, the Navy projects that it will achieve a total of 355 ships by FY2034. This is about 20 years sooner than projected under the Navy’s FY2019 30-year shipbuilding plan—an acceleration primarily due to a decision announced by the Navy in April 2018, after the FY2019 plan was submitted, to increase the service lives of all DDG-51 destroyers to 45 years. Although the Navy projects that the fleet will reach a total of 355 ships in FY2034, the Navy in that year and subsequent years will not match the composition called for in the FY2016 FSA.

One issue for Congress is whether the new FSA that the Navy is conducting will change the 355-ship force-level objective established by the 2016 FSA and, if so, in what ways. Another oversight issue for Congress concerns the prospective affordability of the Navy’s 30-year shipbuilding plan. Decisions that Congress makes regarding Navy force structure and shipbuilding plans can substantially affect Navy capabilities and funding requirements and the U.S. shipbuilding industrial base.

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

May 30, 2019 9:27 AM

• usni.org

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

The FFG(X) program is a Navy program to build a class of 20 guided-missile frigates (FFGs). The Navy wants to procure the first FFG(X) in FY2020, the next 18 at a rate of two per year in FY2021-FY2029, and the 20th in FY2030. The Navy’s proposed FY2020 budget requests $1,281.2 million for the procurement of the first FFG(X). The Navy’s FY2020 budget submission shows that subsequent ships in the class are estimated by the Navy to cost roughly $900 million each in then-year dollars.

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. At least four industry teams are reportedly competing for the FFG(X) program. Two of the teams are reportedly proposing to build their FFG(X) designs at the two shipyards that have been building Littoral Combat Ships (LCSs) for the Navy—Austal USA of Mobile, AL, and Fincantieri/Marinette Marine (F/MM) of Marinette, WI. The other two teams are reportedly proposing to build their FFG(X) designs at General Dynamics/Bath Iron Works, of Bath, ME, and Huntington Ingalls Industries/Ingalls Shipbuilding of Pascagoula, MS.

On May 28, 2019, it was reported that a fifth industry team that had been interested in the FFG(X) program had informed the Navy on May 23, 2019, that it had decided to not submit a bid for the program. This fifth industry team, like one of the other four, reportedly had proposed building its FFG(X) design at F/MM.

The Navy plans to announce the outcome of the FFG(X) competition in July 2020.

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

• whether to approve, reject, or modify the Navy’s FY2020 funding request for the program;

• whether the Navy has appropriately defined the cost, capabilities, and growth margin of the FFG(X);

• the Navy’s intent to use a parent-design approach for the FFG(X) program rather than develop an entirely new (i.e., clean-sheet) design for the ship;

• cost, schedule, and technical risk in the FFG(X) program;

• whether any additional LCSs should be procured in FY2020 as a hedge against potential delays in the FFG(X) program;

• the potential industrial-base impacts of the FFG(X) for shipyards and supplier firms;

• whether to build FFG(X)s at a single shipyard, as the Navy’s baseline plan calls for, or at two or three shipyards; and

• the potential impact on required numbers of FFG(X)s of a possible change in the Navy’s surface force architecture.

Lockheed Martin Won’t Submit Freedom LCS Design for FFG(X) Contest

By: Sam LaGrone

May 28, 2019 5:46 PM • Updated: May 28, 2019 7:09 PM

• USNI.org

Lockheed Martin FFG(X) design. Lockheed Martin Image

Lockheed Martin won’t submit a bid to compete in the design of the Navy’s next-generation guided-missile (FFG(X)) frigate competition, company officials told USNI News on Tuesday.

The company elected to focus on its involvement developing the frigate combat system and other systems rather than forward its Freedom-class LCS design for the detailed design and construction contract Naval Sea Systems Command plans to issue this summer, Joe DePietro, Lockheed Martin vice president of small combatants and ship systems, told USNI News.

“We reviewed the entire program and obviously, given some of the stuff that has already happened that is outside of the contract for the program – that includes the designation of our combat management system, COMBATSS 21, derived off of Aegis; we have the Mk-41 vertical launch system; the processing for our anti-submarine warfare area; advanced [electronic warfare] and platform integration,” he said.
“As we evaluated all of those different areas, we determined not to pursue, as a prime contractor, the FFG(X) detailed design and construction.”

The company informed the Navy on May 23 it would not join the other bidders for the hull design, two sources familiar with the notification told USNI News.

While the design passed two Navy reviews, the company told the service it felt the Freedom design would be stretched too far to accommodate all the capabilities required, one source told USNI News.

Last year, Lockheed was one of five contractors awarded a $15-million initial design contract to refine an existing ship design for the 20-ship class of guided-missile frigates. The company was set to base its frigate design on the Freedom-class LCS design.

Huntington Ingalls Industries, Austal USA, Lockheed Martin, Fincantieri Marine and General Dynamics Bath Iron Works were similar contracts in 2018 to refine their own frigate parent designs.

Lockheed Martin, if it had won the business, would have intended to build the frigate at the Fincantieri Marine-owned Marinette Marine shipyard in Wisconsin. Likewise, Fincantieri is set to build its FFG(X), based on its Italian Fregata europea multi-missione (FREMM) design at the same yard.

Lockheed Martin partnered with Marinette Marine to build the Gibbs & Cox-designed Freedom-class LCS. In 2004, the Navy awarded the team a contract to build USS Freedom (LCS-1) and USS Fort Worth (LCS-3).

In 2009, Marinette was bought by Fincantieri. The relationship between the yard and Lockheed Martin has been tense at times over last decade, as Fincantieri moved to modernize the yard while the Freedom class was still under construction.

While Lockheed is moving away from leading a frigate team, the company will be heavily involved with whoever wins. The FFG(X)’s COMBATSS-21 Combat Management System will be derived from the company’s Aegis Combat System, and Lockheed Martin makes the ship’s vertical launch system.

Still, including four multi-mission surface combatants (MMSC) planned for the Royal Saudi Navy, Lockheed will have produced 20 hulls derived from an Italian superyacht.

“We’re still committed to shipbuilding with our different roles, whether it be as the ship construction prime on LCS and MMSC or as a systems integrator, combat systems or even as a product provider as we do with machinery controls and other areas,” DePietro said.

The Navy plans to issue a final detailed design and construction FFG(X) RFP with the final contract to be awarded in 2020.

USS Wichita (LCS-13) conducts acceptance trials on Lake Michigan on July 11, 2018. Lockheed Martin Photo

Bills; Differences In Topline Amounts

Bills; Differences In Topline Amounts

By: Ben Werner

May 24, 2019 1:16 PM

• usni.org

CAPITOL HILL – Lawmakers in both the Senate and House of Representatives released Fiscal Year 2020 defense spending plans this week, focusing on increasing the Pentagon’s technological superiority to near-peer competitors.

The Senate Armed Services Committee marked up and passed its FY 2020 National Defense Authorization Act, which gives the authority to spend money on programs and activities. Separately, the House Appropriations Committee marked up its defense subcommittee’s FY 2020 defense spending bill, which provides the actual dollars to spend. Both committees are awaiting their counterparts on the other side of the Hill to take up their own versions of the defense authorization and defense spending bills.

“In an increasingly dangerous world, Congress must show strong, decisive leadership to preserve peace through strength and protect freedom-loving Americans. This year’s National Defense Authorization Act keeps us on the course started last year—continuing implementation of the National Defense Strategy, restoring our combat advantage and supporting our warfighters,” Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement released by the committee.

However, the SASC and HAC approached 2020 spending differently, setting the stage for a series of negotiations in the coming months.

The most noticeable difference appears to be the SASC and HAC budget starting points – the Senate is more generous, authorizing an FY 2020 DoD base budget of $642.5, while the House appropriations committee approved an FY 2020 $622.1 billion in DoD base funding.

The White House FY 2020 Defense budget request released in March included a base budget request of $544.5 billion to adhere to the Budget Control Act of 2011 spending caps that remain in place. However, the White House proposal relies heavily on tapping into the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) fund to add $165 billion to the DoD budget. In comparison, for the current FY 2019, Congress appropriated a total of $68.8 billion in OCO funding.

Both the Senate and House rejected the White House’s to use OCO funding to pay for DoD activities typically covered by the base budget request. The Senate authorized $75.9 billion in OCO funding, while House appropriators approved $68.1 billion in OCO funding. Without a budget deal, the Pentagon will be forced to live with the smaller $544.5 million base budget.

“I applaud the chairman’s decision to move funds from the administration’s OCO request to the base for a more realistic, sustainable expenditure plan,” Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), the committee’s ranking member, said during a media briefing Thursday.

Truman Refueling

Both the Senate and House agreed to spend close to $17 million in FY 2020 to support the earliest planning for the refueling of USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75). When the DoD FY 2020 budget request was released, the Navy planned to skip refueling Truman and retire the carrier early, in a bid to save money and focus on building the Ford-class carriers and pursuing future technologies like unmanned surface vessels. However, following a backlash in both the Senate and House, the White House changed course last month. The plan now is to refuel Truman, Vice President Mike Pence announced during a visit to the ship in April.

Shipbuilding

The SASC and HAC differ slightly with spending money on shipbuilding. The Senate authorizes $24.1 billion to fund 12 battle force ships, but the House appropriates $21.7 billion for building 11 ships. The difference is the Senate authorizes the purchase of a third Virginia-class submarine, in line with the Navy’s request, while the House approves funding for two Virginia-class submarines while including some advance procurement dollars to purchase the third Virginia-class sub in the future.

Both the SASC and HAC bills include three Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers; one frigate; two towing, salvage and rescue ships; two John Lewis-class oilers; and the Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine.

The third Virginia-class submarine was inserted in addition to the original 10-sub block buy plan to help fill a looming gap in submarine inventory. The Navy currently has 51 attack submarines but has a goal of fielding 66.

Aircraft

The SASC authorized the purchase of 94 F-35 Lighting II Joint Strike Fighters, while the HAC appropriated for 90. The four additional fighters in the Senate bill are for variants used by the Navy and Marine Corps – two more F-35Bs, the short take-off, vertical landing variant used by the Marine Corps, and two more F-35C fighters designed for aircraft carrier launches and recoveries and used by the Navy and Marine Corps.

Both the Senate and House bills prohibit the sale of F-35 fighters to Turkey if the country moves forward with its plan to purchase a Russian-made S-400 Triumf anti-aircraft system. The Pentagon has already started researching ways to replace Turkish firms currently supplying parts to the F-35 program if the Turkish government purchases the Russian anti-aircraft system.

The HAC is funding 12 V-22 tiltrotor aircraft, while the SASC would allow the purchase of 10. Both bills include money for four E-2D Advanced Hawkeye aircraft and six VH-92A Presidential Helicopters, all of which is in line with the Navy’s request.

End Strength

Both bills support the Navy’s and Marine Corps’ requested FY 2020 end strength levels of 340,000 active duty Navy personnel and 186,200 active duty Marines. Both bills also include a 3.1-percent raise for all active duty military personnel.

Boatswain’s Mate Seaman Dwayne Guthrie sands a bust of Harry S. Truman on the officers’ quarter deck aboard the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75) on Dec. 3, 2018. US Navy photo.

A crane moves the lower stern into place on the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier John F. Kennedy (CVN 79) at Huntington Ingalls Shipbuilding in Newport News, Va. on June 22, 2017. US Navy Photo

A F-35C Lightning II, attached to Commander, Joint Strike Fighter Wing, the “Argonauts” of Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 147, completes a flight overhead Eglin Air Force Base in Fort Walton Beach, Fla., Feb. 1, 2019. US Navy photo.

Recruits from Division 304 prepare to march at Recruit Training Command. US Navy Photo

Shipbuilders Studying Adding More Punch to Littoral Combat Ships

By: Sam LaGrone

May 21, 2019 10:07 AM

• usni.org

Freedom-class LCS St. Louis (LCS-19), left, in Marinette, Wisc., on Dec. 15, 2018, as Billings (LCS-15) is under construction and preparing for commissioning. US Navy Photo

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. – Littoral Combat Ship builders are researching how to cram in additional lethal power into the existing Freedom- and Independence-variant ships.

Lockheed Martin and Austal USA are each conducting a two-phase look at how to upgrade the original LCS hulls, Joe DePietro, Lockheed Martin vice president of small combatants and ship systems, told USNI News earlier this month. The move came from a call in 2017 from Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson to backfit more capabilities onto the LCS.

“What they did is, underneath our class design services contract that we already have, they issued a technical instruction, where we were awarded roughly $2 million to go start the work on Phase 1 to develop the packages that would be for the installation and integration of those systems,” he said.

Those systems include Raytheon and Kongsberg’s anti-ship Naval Strike Missile, the Nulka MK 53 Decoy Launching System (DLS), the SLQ-32(V)6 Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program (SEWIP) system, and a modification to the ship’s fire control system for its 57mm guns.

The work also includes a look into a possible upgrade of the ship’s TRS-3D combat radar.

“They haven’t made a final decision on what they would want to do on radar upgrades,” DePietro said, noting that Lockheed Martin’s LCS-17 and beyond are already set to use a solid-state version of the radar, the TRS-4D.
“And then the Austal USA ship has the [SAAB] Sea Giraffe radar, which has also gone into a solid-state version. So they’re having us look into those two options as well as, you know, future technologies which could include other rotating solid-state arrays.”

Additionally, Lockheed is installing the Component-Based Total-Ship System – 21st Century (COMBATSS-21) combat system, derived from the Aegis Combat System common source library, on the Austal-built Independence-variant ships to create a common training and logistics infrastructure for both variants.

The Navy is set to review the upgrade plans this month, ahead of a planned draft request for proposal, DePietro said.

The second phase of upgrades could include backfits of laser weapons and the installation of an eight-cell Mk-41 Vertical Launch System on the Freedom variant, or newly developed single-cell Mk-41 launchers throughout the ship.

In addition to the lethality upgrades, Lockheed is studying using the LCS platform as a mothership for the Navy’s planned fleet of unmanned surface vehicles.

“We’re trying to study that under our own investment while the Navy looks at these. To really try to offer, what’s the right capability for the right price for the LCSs so they’re relevant tomorrow, today, et cetera,” DePietro said.

USS Independence (LCS-2) sails in the eastern Pacific on Feb. 27, 2019. US Navy PhotoA spokesman for Austal USA declined to comment on the company’s work on the Independence variant when reached by USNI News.

Littoral Combat Ship Report to Congress

May 20, 2019 5:16 PM

• USNI.org

The following is the May 17, 2019 Congressional Research Service report, Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program: Background and Issues for Congress.

From the report

The Navy began procuring a small surface combatant called the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) in FY2005, and a total of 35 LCSs have been procured through FY2019, including three in FY2019. The total of 35 LCSs is three more than the 32 the Navy says are required under its 355-ship force-level goal. The Navy wants FY2019 to be the final year of LCS procurement, and it has not requested the procurement of any additional LCSs in its FY2020 budget submission.

The Navy wants to shift procurement of small surface combatants in FY2020 to a new frigate called the FFG(X). The Navy’s proposed FY2020 budget requests funding for the procurement of the first FFG(X). Five industry teams are currently competing for the FFG(X) program. Two of these teams are offering designs for the FFG(X) that are modified versions of the two LCS designs that the Navy has procured in prior years. The other three industry teams are offering designs for the FFG(X) that are based on other existing ship designs. One of these three other industry teams is proposing to build its design at one of the LCS shipyards. The Navy plans to announce the outcome of the FFG(X) competition in the fourth quarter of FY2020. The FFG(X) program is covered in detail in another CRS report.

The Navy’s 355-ship force-level goal is the result of a Force Structure Analysis (FSA) that the Navy conducted in 2016. The 2016 FSA established a force-level goal for a 355-ship Navy with 52 small surface combatants, including 32 LCSs and 20 frigates. The Navy conducts a new or updated FSA every few years, and is currently conducting a new FSA that is scheduled to be completed by the end of 2019. Navy officials have stated that this new FSA will likely not reduce the required number of small surface combatants, and might increase it. Navy officials have also suggested that the Navy in coming years may shift to a new fleet architecture that will include, among other thing, a larger proportion of small surface combatants.

The LCS is a relatively inexpensive surface combatant equipped with modular mission packages. The LCS program includes two very different LCS designs. One, called the LCS-1 or Freedom-class design, was developed by an industry team led by Lockheed. The other, called the LCS-2 or Independence-class design, was developed by an industry team that was then led by General Dynamics. LCS procurement has been divided more or less evenly between the two designs. The LCS-1 design is built at the Marinette Marine shipyard at Marinette, WI, with Lockheed as the prime contractor. The LCS-2 design 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.

A current issue for Congress is whether to procure any LCSs in FY2020, and if so, how many. Opponents could argue that the total number of LCSs procured in prior years exceeds the Navy’s stated requirement, and that adding funding to the Navy’s FY2020 shipbuilding account for procuring one or more additional LCSs could reduce FY2020 funding for other Navy programs. Supporters could argue that procuring additional LCSs in FY2020 could provide a hedge against delays in the FFG(X) program and help the Navy achieve its small surface combatant force-level goal more quickly. Another issue for Congress concerns future workloads and employment levels at the two LCS shipyards if one or both of these yards are not involved in building FFG(X)s.

Navy Conducts First LCS Advanced Training with Pair of Ships; Larger Event Planned this Summer

By: Megan Eckstein

May 6, 2019 10:12 AM

• USNI.org

Lt. Ryan Griffith acts as the tactical action officer as Cmdr. Edward Rosso, commanding officer of the Independence variant littoral combat ship USS Montgomery (LCS 8), observes operations during a surface warfare scenario aboard the ship. Montgomery is underway in the eastern Pacific conducting the first-ever LCS surface warfare advanced tactical training (SWATT) event hosted by the Naval Surface and Mine Warfighting Development Center (SMWDC). US Navy photo.

The Navy conducted its first advanced tactical training event with the Littoral Combat Ship, ahead of USS Montgomery’s (LCS-8) deployment to the Pacific later this year.

Montgomery’s training event was a smaller version of the Surface Warfare Advanced Tactical Training (SWATT) events that cruisers and destroyers (CRU/DES) and amphibious ships go through ahead of their deployments. Montgomery conducted its five-day at-sea training with just one other LCS and a replenishment oiler, Lt. Cmdr. Nick VanWagoner, the lead planner for the LCS SWATT and a surface warfare/anti-submarine warfare (SuW/ASW) warfare tactics instructor (WTI), told USNI News.

The next two LCS crews to deploy, however, will be included in a larger cru/des SWATT event this summer, as the Naval Surface and Mine Warfighting Development Center (SMWDC) learns more about the capabilities and limitations of the LCS and how to ensure the crews are trained for both solo and larger formation operations.

“What the demand signal was for USS Montgomery was really no different than what it is for our cru/des ships that deploy in strike groups or our amphibious ships that deploy in amphibious ready groups. The intent was to prepare that ship for when she deploys, no matter how the fleet commander chooses to employ her, to effectively integrate and operate with other ships, platforms and warfare commanders,” VanWagoner told USNI News.

When Montgomery deploys in the coming months, it will be different than other surface ships in the fleet: it will have a minimally manned crew of about 70 or so sailors, compared to about 350 on destroyers; it will have just a surface warfare mission package onboard compared to the multi-mission cruisers and destroyers; and its Blue Crew, which went through the recent SWATT event, will rotate with a Gold Crew every four to six months to keep the ship hull forward for about 16 months at a time.

VanWagoner said the first LCS SWATT sought to address some of those issues, including what a small crew size meant for the endurance of the ship during high-tempo operations and the ability to execute one event while planning ahead for the next mission.

“LCS has different endurance capabilities than a ship that’s manned with 350 sailors. And so the crew of that ship has to deliberately plan around those capabilities to ensure that they can meet mission. That was one of our focus areas actually during the advanced tactical training we provided – when the ship’s crew was faced with conducting a number of fairly complex tactical scenarios back-to-back, ensuring they were executing their PBED (plan, brief, execute, debrief) process underway and being ready to execute the following event. It was something that we had to be deliberate about, but it didn’t hamper our operations at sea,” he said.

“[The LCS’s] man, train and equip process is a little bit different than what we use for cru/des or amphibious ships today, and there was some learning from our perspective on the planning process to ensure that as we scheduled events or as we were designing exercises that we accounted for some of those differences,” he added.
“But at the end of the day they ended up not being very significant. We learned a lot about what the ship’s combat system’s capabilities are and are excited to see her deploy in support of tasking.”

Whereas cruisers and destroyers are expected to conduct offensive and defensive missions on the surface, in the air and under the sea, the LCS will only carry one mission package at a time, with Montgomery deploying with just a surface warfare mission package. Still, VanWagoner said SMWDC wanted to test the ship’s abilities to defend itself in other domains, particularly in anti-air warfare.

The LCS’s capabilities are limited compared to a destroyer, he said, and “that’s going to color its ability to conduct sustained regional air defense. But we designed exercises to ensure that, should they need to, they could integrate into a fleet air defense construct and execute point defense procedures to protect themselves while deployed.”

During Montgomery’s five days at sea, the LCS worked with Surface Division 11 staff embarked aboard USS Independence (LCS-2). Under the current LCS fleet organization, Independence primarily serves as a test ship, and the division staff oversees one training ship and three deployable ships focused on surface warfare.

The Surface Division 11 staff took tactical control of Montgomery during one part of the exercise and also filled the role of warfare commander for part of the exercise, to simulate how Montgomery might be asked to fall under another organization once in theater. Montgomery had Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron (HSC) 23 embarked with its MH-60S helicopters, as well as the MQ-8 Fire Scout.

Additionally, the crew got to conduct life-fire events with the crew-served weapon and the mission package’s 30mm gun. As a capstone event, the crew used the SeaRAM missile defense system and defeated the threat in the first salvo, VanWagoner said.

“All of the live-fire events were very successful, expended a bunch of ammunition, employed their weapon systems against threats that we presented to them during the exercises.”

Montgomery also conducted a refueling at sea with USNS Rappahannock (T-AO-204) towards the end of the SWATT, VanWagoner said.

“Other ships, platforms, the [composite warfare commander] construct – all of that is very important to SMWDC’s methodology as we receive ships out of the basic phase and prepare them for fleet integration,” he said.

This summer, two LCS crews – the first deploying crew of USS Gabrielle Giffords (LCS-10) and the Gold Crew of Montgomery embarked aboard training ship USS Jackson (LCS-6) – will conduct a SWATT with a carrier strike group’s surface ships “and see how those (LCSs) do operating in a little bit more complex CWC construct and operations at sea,” VanWagoner said.

Ahead of that larger event, he noted, “some of our focus is going to be on preparing the warfare commanders and ensuring that they understand capabilities and limitations of these platforms that they have to employ.”

Asked what the SWATT training demand signal hinted at for what to expect from the first LCS deployment abroad since the LCS fleet was reorganized, VanWagoner said, “I can’t anticipate fleet commander tasking for that platform when she’s in theater. We intended and were successful in providing training that allowed her to be capable and flexible to meet many taskings. But what we observed embarked on USS Montgomery was a capable platform and a very capable crew that is going to be successful in executing a wide number of missions.”

A member of the visit, board, search and seizure team boards the Independence variant littoral combat ship USS Montgomery (LCS 8) during a training exercise aboard the ship on April 21, 2019. US Navy photo.

Machinist’s Mate 2nd Class William P. Snoots, Gunner’s Mate 2nd Class John Eric Faulkner and Gunner’s Mate 1st Class Nicholas Rios practice detaining a non-compliant crew member during a visit, board, search and seizure exercise aboard the Independence variant littoral combat ship USS Montgomery (LCS 8) on April 21, 2019. US Navy photo.