Navy Refining How Data Analytics Could Predict Ship Maintenance Needs

By: Ben Werner

June 24, 2019 12:39 PM • Updated: June 25, 2019 2:58 PM

Hull Maintenance Technician 1st Class Patrick Zembol, from Romeo, Mich., welds a stanchion in the weld shop aboard the Navy’s forward-deployed aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76). US Navy Photo

The post was updated to include correct terminology.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Extending the lifespans of existing ships using data-driven maintenance efforts is the best strategy for achieving a 355- ship navy, said the Naval Sea Systems Command chief engineer.

The key to maintaining ships and enabling the Navy to extend their lifespans is data analytics, Rear Adm. Lorin Selby, the chief engineer and deputy commander of ship design, integration and naval engineering at NAVSEA, said Thursday at the American Society of Naval Engineers’ annual Technology, Systems & Ship symposium.

“I have ships with a number of sensors on them, measuring things like reduction gears, shafting components, turbines, generators, water jets, air conditioning plants, high packs, a number of components, and we’re actually pulling data off those ships, in data acquisition systems,” Selby said.

At the Naval Surface Warfare Center Philadelphia Division, Selby’s team is analyzing data gleaned from smaller ship component operations to determine how often such components need servicing, oil changes, filter changes, other maintenance actions and replacement. The process is called condition-based maintenance plus (CBM+), and Selby wants CBM to drive improvements in maintaining ships.

“That’s one of the things we’re doing to get after utilizing the technology we have today to operate the ships we have today more efficiently and more effectively,” Selby said.

The Navy has dabbled with CBM for years. A 2008 Department of Defense Conditions Based Maintenance Plus guidebook mentions NAVSEA efforts. However, two years ago at the ASNE TSS symposium, NAVSEA Commander Vice Adm. Tom Moore told USNI News that the Navy’s use of CBM had perhaps gone too far and was disrupting the shipyards’ ability to plan for large maintenance jobs properly.

During previous attempts at incorporating CBM, there was a thought that, if major efforts like refurbishing tanks were only done when needed, rather than on a predetermined timetable, the Navy could avoid spending time and money on work ahead of need. However, that also meant that shipyards wouldn’t have a clear work package before a ship showed up at the pier, adding uncertainty and, ultimately, more time and cost into the maintenance availability.

This time around, Selby sees condition-based maintenance as a way to address smaller maintenance items in such a way that data analysis points a ship crew to components that are experiencing minor performance issues or otherwise showing signs they are about to fail before the failure actually occurs.

This summer, a pilot program using enterprise remote monitoring will occur on an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, he said. Data collected will be sent for analysis, and operators will learn how to use the data to understand how their systems are performing and if maintenance or repairs are needed.

Selby wants to have a system of apps the Navy can use to collect data from ship components, analyze the data, share it with operators and schedule work. He wants to hold a competition for app developers to create apps the Navy will test for use in the fleet.

Describing his vision, Selby said, “the systems that will be monitoring, say the turbine; it will tell the operators when a work procedure has to be performed and it will also then tap into the work package side of the house and generate a work package that gets sent to the ship, to the work center, to do the work. And if there’s a part involved, it will be able to pull a part from the supply system.”

Testing is occurring now, but Selby concedes there are some obstacles the Navy has to overcome before large-scale deployment. The Navy is struggling with how to transmit data securely, something Selby discussed during an earlier session at the symposium. The data also has to be secured.

“The performance of any given asset is something we want to hold close. So I think what you have to do is you have to architect this from kind of the get-go with that kind of security mindset in mind,” Selby said. “You can harvest that data and you could potentially discover vulnerabilities, so you have to protect that. That’s part of my project: as I do this, we’re bringing that security aspect into the program.”

Extending the lifespan of the Navy’s current fleet is essential if the Navy is going to grow to 355-ships, Moore said during his keynote address after Selby spoke Thursday. The Navy, military planners at the Pentagon, the White House and lawmakers are all anxious to reach 355 ships as soon as possible because Moore said current forces are stretched too thin.

“We in the Navy, we don’t have enough forces to go everywhere we need to go, and we have a pretty fragile mix of ships, so that when we miss an availability coming out on time, or we don’t build something to the schedule they’re supposed to build to, there are real-world consequences to that,” Moore said.

The true determining factor of whether a ship’s lifespan can be extended, Moore said, is the platform’s flexibility. The Arleigh Burke-class is the Navy’s workhorse today because, during the past 30 years, the Navy has successfully updated its operating systems. Moving forward, Moore said extending the life of the ships in this class means back-fitting many of the older Flight I and Flight II with a scaled-back version of the AN/SPY-6(V) Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) to keep these ships relevant to current and future mission needs.

“If you’re willing to do the maintenance on the ships, from a hull and mechanical perspective, you absolutely can keep them longer,” Moore said. “The issue is really not can you keep them 50 years; the issue is can they maintain combat relevance. If they can maintain combat relevance, we know we can keep them longer.”

Shipbuilding Industry Struggles to Recruit And Retain Workforce

By: Otto Kreisher

June 21, 2019 3:14 PM

William Mahan, a Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance Facility worker from Puyallup, Washington, grinds a bulkhead on Aug. 04, 2017. US Navy Photo

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The shipbuilding and repair industry is facing increasing challenges from an aging workforce, lack of stability in the contract workload and a problem convincing young Americans that shipyard work is essential and well-paying, industry officials said.

The search for new shipyard workers must overcome the constant pressure for high school graduates to go to college, as well as the lack of experience in today’s youth in the kinds of skills the industry needs, a panel of shipyard officials and engineers told the American Society of Naval Engineers’ annual Technology, Systems & Ship symposium on Thursday.

Todd Hooks, general manager of BAE Systems Ship Repair yard in Jacksonville, Fla., said the average age of his workers is 55 and that his skilled managers are retiring. Workflow fluctuations at the yard only aggravate his hiring and retention. In recent years, Hooks had 2,200 workers coming through the gates, then months later was down to 1,500 workers, and then staffing needs would go back up as demand from the Navy fluctuated.

“We can’t have that. … We need a stable workforce,” Hooks said. The challenge of getting and keeping trained workers will only get harder as future ships and their combat systems grow more advanced and therefore need different skills to maintain and modernize them, he added.

The policy of many high schools not welcoming industry recruiters hampers their ability to attract new workers, he said. High schools, he added, are more interested in getting every student into college, although less than one-third attend, Hooks said. The industry has the problem of getting the message out that the shipyards provide good-paying jobs. Then, when they get new workers, the industry has trouble keeping them because many do not come back after they are laid off during a drop in workload, he said.

William Crow, president of the Virginia Ship Repair Association, said the Norfolk-based institute is attacking the need for skilled workers with the support of its 286 member companies and financial support from the state of Virginia and the federal government. Illustrating the importance of the industry, Crow said there were 43,000 employees in the Norfolk shipyards, contributing $6.4 billion to the state’s economy and earning an average of $81,531 a year.

“The problem is lack of stability of the workload,” he said.

Extreme workload cycles at the yards don’t help with recruiting and retaining, said Crow, a retired surface warfare officer. He didn’t want “to throw rocks at the Navy,” but he noted the swings in Navy funding for repair and upgrades run counter to the Navy’s goal of expanding the fleet. Crow said he learned early in his career the Navy can’t build its way into a 355-ship fleet but must maintain the ships it has.

The association offers “a very wide range of training” in the classroom and online. In 2017, it trained 1,075 workers. With a grant from Newport News Shipbuilding, the area’s biggest employer, the association recently added a Marine Trade Training Program that is providing low-level skills that allow students to get entry-level jobs in the yards, he said.

Retired Vice Adm. David Architzel, chairman of the Maritime Industrial Base Ecosystem Institute, said his group formed to take a more in-depth look at the problem of getting workers into the shipyards and is evaluating the kind of workers needed in the future.

The industry needs more support nationally, similar to what is offered by Virginia and the Norfolk area, the panel members agreed. They want to see increased efforts to spread the message that ship repair is an essential and well-paying career.

5189611.jpg

Navy Issues Final RFP for FFG(X) Next-Generation Frigate

By: Megan Eckstein

June 20, 2019 6:37 PM • Updated: June 20, 2019 7:25 PM

FFG(X) contenders

The Navy released the final request for proposals for its next guided-missile frigate (FFG(X)) today, outlining the program that will get the U.S. Navy into the business of operating high-end small combatants. 

The service is counting on the new frigate to help the fleet operate in a distributed manner in a contested maritime environment. To that end, the final solicitation for bids for the FFG(X) program highlights a particular interest in what industry can offer in range; margins for weight, cooling, electrical and arrangeable deck area, to allow the ship to bring in new technologies as they develop; acoustic signature management; undersea surveillance; and over-the-horizon capabilities.

After previous iterations of the frigate were ditched as the Navy’s view of what capability it wanted evolved, the current FFG(X) effort sought to bring in industry early to ensure that requirements were in line with what technologies were currently feasible at the right price point. Those ongoing discussions led the Navy to settle on a ship that would have at least 32 vertical launching system (VLS) cells, an Aegis-based combat system, the Cooperative Engagement Capability datalink so the frigate could share targeting data with other ships and aircraft, and advanced anti-submarine warfare and electronic warfare systems.

The service announced earlier this year the frigate would include as government-furnished equipment:

  • A fixed-face Raytheon Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar (EASR) that will serve as the primary air search radar.

  • At least 32 Mark 41 Vertical Launch System cells that could field Standard Missile 2 Block IIICs or RIM-162 Evolved SeaSparrow Missiles (ESSM) and a planned vertically launched anti-submarine warfare weapon.

  • COMBATSS-21 Combat Management System based on the Aegis Combat System.

  • Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) datalink that would allow the frigate to share targeting information with other ships and aircraft.

  • Space, weight and cooling for 8 to 16 Over-the-Horizon Anti-Ship Cruise Missiles

  • An aviation detachment that includes an MH-60R Seahawk helicopter and an MQ-8C Firescout Unmanned Aerial Vehicle.

  • AN/SQQ-89(V)15 Surface Ship Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) Combat System

  • AN/SQS-62 Variable Depth Sonar.

  • SLQ-32(V)6 Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program (SEWIP) Block 2 electronic warfare suite with allowances to include SEWIP Block 3 Lite in the future.

  • Space, weight and cooling reservation for a 150-kilowatt laser.

Further highlighting the focus on allowing the ships to be upgraded as technology evolves, the solicitation asks that bids include a “description of the flexibility in the design to accommodate efficient warfare systems upgrades by explaining equipment removal and upgrade paths with an emphasis on avoiding hull cuts or the need for dry docking,” as well as provisions for upgrading hull-mounted and towed undersea warfare sensors.

Five industry teams have been involved in early design maturation efforts, which both helped industry refine their plans to be more in line with what the Navy wanted, and allowed the Navy to refine its idea of how much this new class might cost.

Earlier this year, USNI News reported that costs were coming down as a result of the design maturation contracts.

“$950 (million) was the threshold; $800 million is the objective,” frigate program manager with Program Executive Office Unmanned and Small Combatants Regan Campbell said in January at the Surface Navy Association symposium.
“We started closer to the $950; we are trending to very close to the $800 now. We have taken some very significant costs out,” she said of the second through 10th ship of the class. The Navy intends to buy at least 20 frigates, though the first contract will only cover the first 10. After the first contract, the Navy could continue with the same builder or re-compete the program to potentially bring in a second builder, if it wanted to accelerate frigate production to keep in line with its drive to reach a 355-ship fleet and leadership acknowledgement that it will need more small combatants and fewer high-end destroyers going forward.

After the release of today’s final RFP, interested bidders will have until Aug. 22 to submit their technical proposals to the Navy and until Sept. 26 to submit their pricing proposal. A winner will be selected in Fiscal Year 2020 to build the frigate.

Of the five companies that participated in the design maturation phase, four are expected to submit bids to the RFP. Austal USA, who builds the Independence-variant Littoral Combat Ship; Fincantieri Marine, which builds the Italian FREMM multipurpose frigate; General Dynamics Bath Iron Works, who will partner with Spanish F100-builder Navantia; and Ingalls Shipbuilding, who has declined to discuss its design, all worked with the Navy to take their existing parent designs and mature them to become in line with the Navy’s vision for its guided-missile frigate. Lockheed Martin, which builds the Freedom-variant LCS, was part of that effort as well but announced it would not continue on with the frigate competition.

Despite the earlier design work that the Navy funded, the frigate competition is open to any bidder who has a parent design to base the frigate offering on.

Proposed Government Furnished Equipment for FFG(X)

Proposed Government Furnished Equipment for FFG(X)

Navy: Next Large Surface Combatant Will Look A Lot Like Zumwalt

By: Ben Werner

June 19, 2019 10:32 AM • Updated: June 21, 2019 3:13 PM

Destroyer Zumwalt (DDG-1000) transits the Atlantic Ocean during acceptance trials with the Navy’s Board of Inspection and Survey (INSURV). US Navy Photo

This post has been updated with a clarification comment from ASNE’s Richard White.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Navy’s next large surface combatant will probably look more like the futuristic Zumwalt class of guided-missile destroyers than fleet’s current workhorse class of Arleigh Burke destroyers, the program executive officer said.

Navy and industry designers are talking about increased payloads, increased computing and increased design flexibility when considering the possible capabilities of the fleet’s next large surface combatant, Rear Adm. William Galinis, the Navy’s program executive officer for ships, said during the American Society of Naval Engineers’ annual Technology, Systems & Ship symposium on Tuesday. Designers also have to consider that the Navy now plans to operate in an increasingly contested environment, which means taking into account how adversaries will see the new ship class on radars.

“The signature aspect of it, what does that do to the shaping of deckhouse hull form. I will tell you, not to predispose anything, but I think in the end, you know, it’s probably going to look a lot more like a DDG-1000 than a DDG-51 if I had to say so,” Galinis said. “But there’s still a lot of work to kind of go do in that area.”

Galinis was speaking during the opening keynote address at the 2019 TSS conference. Rear Adm. Lorin Selby, the Navy’s chief engineer and deputy commander for ship design at Naval Sea Systems Command, joined Galinis during the keynote.

The Navy had planned to buy the first of its new class of large surface combatant in 2023, but Galinis said the Navy has since pushed back the start date. USNI News first reported the Navy now is looking at awarding a contract in Fiscal Year 2025. The current Arleigh Burke-class multi-year contract expires in 2022.

By pushing back the production timeline, Galinis said the Navy can refine its requirements now and incorporate feedback from industry and current programs to help improve the ship design and control costs.

As an example, Galinis said the Navy continues learning from the DDG-1000 program. The Navy is applying a lot of acquisition and production lessons learned from the Zumwalt class experience to the Columbia-class submarine program, Galinis said.

“When you start thinking about large surface combatant, that’s going to be a key element of that acquisition strategy,” Galinis said.

At the same time, the current emphasis on developing new ships is increasing the demand for ship design expertise, Selby said. He wants to establish a constant design workflow so the Navy doesn’t lose talent during the years between ship major designs.

“There’s a lot of design work across the enterprise,” Selby said. “We really have to work hard to build that talent base back up.”

When introducing Galinis and Selby, retired Navy Capt. Richard White, the TSS 2019 committee chair, said Secretary of the Navy Richard V. Spencer had requested that conference attendees not ask questions about aircraft carriers.

During his keynote address highlighting recent advances naval ship design, Galinis merely said, “the one new design over the last couple of years is obviously the Ford-class carrier, but we’re not going to talk a lot about that over the next couple of days.”

During the second day of TSS 2019, White provided clarification to his previous comments regarding the discussion of aircraft carriers. When planning this year’s conference, the decision was made to focus on surface ships. There was no direction from the Navy regarding asking about aircraft carriers.
“I did not receive any direction from the Secretary of the Navy,” White said.

171026-N-TU910-135.jpg

Report to Congress on U.S. Navy Ship Names

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

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.

48068565331_f2784bd585_k.jpg

VIDEO: Newest Littoral Combat Ship Christened Saturday

By: Ben Werner

June 17, 2019 10:31 AM

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.

1000w_q95-15.jpg

Report to Congress on Navy Shipbuilding, Force Structure

June 12, 2019 8:20 AM

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.

181215-N-N0101-113.jpg

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

May 30, 2019 9:27 AM

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.

1200px-Oliver_Hazard_Perry-class_frigates_underway_in_1982.JPEG

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

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

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