Memos to Shipyards from Navy Leadership

November 20, 2020 10:11 AM

USNI.org

The following are a pair of November memos from Navy acquisition chief James Geurts and Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Gilday to the U.S. shipbuilders. 

MEMORANDUM FOR AMERICA’S SHIP BUILDERS, MAINTAINERS, AND SUPPLIERS
Nov. 3, 2020

SUBJECT: Thank you and Keep Them Sailing Keeping the US Navy’s ships operating non-stop around the globe has been a hallmark of the United States Navy and its shipyards since the beginning of our great nation. The onset of the COVID pandemic this year, during a period of high operational demand on our Navy, required an unprecedented level of dedication, mission focus, and resiliency from our entire shipbuilding and ship maintenance enterprise and YOU DELIVERED!

Over the last several months, I had the privilege to visit many of you in our Public and Private shipyards. I have seen the pride with which you work every day in support of the fleet, and witnessed your sacrifice in accomplishing the mission during this challenging period. Seeing, first-hand, the COVID safety precautions in place to protect the workforce and processes that have evolved to ensure the work and delivery of ships and submarines continues during COVID, is inspiring and truly appreciated. If America could see what I have witnessed, they would be grateful for your resiliency and productivity to keep the equipment flowing to our military’ s deployed women and men.

As we enter another period of increased COVID challenge across the Nation, we must continue to maintain the highest levels of safety and vigilance in all of our. shipyards. Doing so will continue to support our Sailors and Marines as they operate at high operational tempo around the world to protect our freedom. They are counting on you, as am I, to not let your guard down and let COVID negatively impact our ability to support the fleet.

The Department of the Navy is only as strong as the women and men operating in our shipyards around the country and the world to keep our forces equipped and ready. THANK YOU to the entire team and all those that support the construction, repair and supply efforts to ensure warfighting readiness for our Navy and Marine Corps.

James F. Geurts

November 18, 2020
MEMORANDUM FOR AMERICA’S SHIP BUILDERS, MAINTAINERS, AND SUPPLIERS 
SUBJECT: My Profound Thanks 

Over the past year, I have had the opportunity to visit with many of you and have seen first-hand the work you are doing to assist our Navy in building the most ready and lethal fleet in the world. Without a doubt, shipbuilding and maintenance are the backbone of our Navy. And each and every one of you has played an important role to help us adapt, change, and re-think how to keep readiness levels high during COVID.
From entrances at the gate to chow lines, and from the deck plates to front offices, you are operating workforce levels at approximately 90 percent in both public and private shipyards amidst this pandemic. And together – even during COVID – we have made real improvements in getting our ships out of the yards on schedule. 

Your innovation and dedication to keeping maintenance and production lines on track is greatly appreciated, as is your commitment to readiness, which is critical for us to sustain our Fleet both today and in the future. Simply put, you can’t get to the fight if you don’t have ships to sail there. 

Thank you again for your continued support to our Navy and our Nation! And to the entire workforce who are responsible for helping us generate warfighting readiness, you have my profound thanks.

M.M. Gilday
Admiral, U.S. Navy

Fincantieri Marinette Marine launches USS Marinette LCS 25 Freedom-class littoral combat ship for US Navy

Naval News November 2020 Navy Forces Maritime Defense Industry

POSTED ON SUNDAY, 01 NOVEMBER 2020 19:54

According to a video published on October 31, 2020, the USS Marinette LCS 25 Freedom-class littoral combat ship has been launched on October 31, 2020, at Fincantieri Marinette Marine (FMM). The side launch of the USS Marinette will be one of the last side launches at FMM. As part of building larger frigate ships, the shipyard is transitioning to a shiplift system.
Follow Navy Recognition on Google News at this link

The launching of USS Marinette Freedom-class littoral combat ship at Fincantieri Marinette Marine on October 31, 2020. (Picture source Lockheed Martin)

The USS Marinette LCS 25 is a Freedom-class littoral combat ship for the United States Navy. Marinette Marine was awarded the contract to build the ship on 31 March 2016 at their shipyard in Marinette, Wisconsin.

In March 2019, Lockheed Martin has announced that the construction of the LCS 25 began. She is the first U.S. Navy ship to bear the name Marinette, and is named to recognize the town's significant contributions to Navy shipbuilding. Fincantieri Marinette Marine began operations in 1942 to provide U.S. ships for World War II. Marinette is the birthplace of Lockheed Martin's Freedom-variant LCS, which Lockheed Martin and Fincantieri Marinette Marine have partnered to produce for more than 16 years.

The LCS class consists of two variants, the Freedom variant and the Independence variant, designed and built by two industry teams. This ship is being built by an industry team led by Lockheed Martin at Fincantieri Marinette Marine. The Lockheed Martin-led team builds the odd-numbered hulls. The Independence-variant team is led by Austal USA, in Mobile, Alabama, (for LCS 6 and subsequent even-numbered hulls).

LCS is a highly maneuverable, lethal and adaptable ship designed to support focused mine countermeasures, anti-submarine warfare and surface warfare missions. The Freedom-variant LCS integrates new technology and capability to affordably support current and future mission capability from deep water to the littorals.

The design of Freedom-class is based on a semi-planing steel monohull with an aluminum superstructure. She has a length of 377 ft (115 m), and displaces 3,500 metric tons (3,400 long tons). The design also incorporates a large, reconfigurable seaframe to allow rapidly interchangeable mission modules, a flight deck with integrated helicopter launch, recovery and handling system, and the capability to launch and recover boats (manned and unmanned) from both the stern and side.

The Freedom-class is powered by two Rolls-Royce MT30 36MW gas turbines and two Colt-Pielstick 16PA6B 6.8 MW (9,100 hp) diesel engines and 4 Rolls-Royce waterjets. She can reach a top speed of 47 knots (87 km/h; 54 mph) with a maximum cruising range 3,500 nmi (6,500 km; 4,000 mi) at 18 knots (33 km/h; 21 mph).

The Freedom-class is armed with one BAE Systems Mk 110 57 mm naval gun, one Mk 49 launcher with 21 × RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Surface-to-Air Missiles, four .50 in (12.7 mm) machine guns, two 30 mm Mk44 Bushmaster II guns, eight RGM-184A Naval Strike Missiles, 24 AGM-114L Hellfire missiles and one Lockheed Martin 150 kw High Energy Laser.

Nov. 2 (UPI) -- The U.S. Navy's latest littoral combat ship was launched at the Fincantieri Marinette Marine shipyard in Wisconsin, the Naval Sea Systems Command announced.

LCS 25, the future Freedom-class ship USS Marinette and named in honor of the city where it was built, was launched in the Menominee River on Saturday after a ceremony reduced by the COVID-19 pandemic. It slid into the water using the side launch system, one of the last planned side launches at the shipyard, which is transitioning to a shiplift system in anticipation of building larger frigates.

The shipyard was awarded the contract to build the vessel in 2016. The keel was laid in 2019. The ship will undergo acceptance trials before it is officially received by the Navy.

The littoral combat ship class consists of the Freedom variant and Independence variant. Lockheed Martin leads the production of the Freedom variant. The new ship is the Navy's 13th Freedom-variant ship. Currently, 11 LCSs of both variants are under construction, the Naval Sea Systems Command said in a statement.

The littoral combat ship is regarded as highly maneuverable, lethal and adaptable, a high speed, agile, shallow draft, mission-focused vessel suitable for shallow water and ocean-going assignments useful in mine countermeasures, anti-submarine and surface warfare missions.

Thrustmaster to Equip US Navy’s First Constellation-class Frigate

MarineLink October 29, 2020

An artist rendering of the guided-missile frigate FFG(X). The new small surface combatant will have multi-mission capability to conduct air warfare, anti-submarine warfare, surface warfare, electronic warfare and information operations. (U.S. Navy graphic)

Thrustmaster of Texas, Inc. said it has been awarded a contract from Fincantieri Marinette Marine (FMM) for the design, development and manufacture of the auxiliary propulsion unit (APU) on the U.S. Navy’s future guided missile frigate (FFG 62). Thrustmaster will be supplying the complete APU package consisting of the 1MW retractable azimuthing thruster, controls, prime mover electric motor, variable frequency drive and steering and retraction power unit. The APU package will be designed and built to MIL-STD-901E Grade-A shock qualification.

Thrustmaster’s made in America auxiliary propulsion unit is designed and manufactured at Thrustmaster’s Houston facility. The new contract provides long term job stability for Thrustmaster’s 130 employees and the selection represents a strong reinvestment in and commitment to the American industrial manufacturing base by the U.S. Navy and Fincantieri Marinette Marine.

The FFG 62 program is the second U.S. Navy vessel class to be outfitted with Thrustmaster’s APU technology. The LCS Independence variant vessels are equipped with an 850 HP APU. The ability to operate the vessel at slow speed while providing extreme maneuverability and the enormous fuel savings that the Thrustmaster APU have delivered to the LCS Independence variant vessels will be a great complement to the FFG 62 program, although its primary function is to provide a back-up means of propulsion in the event of failure of the main propulsion system.

The new Constellation Class frigates will be built by Fincantieri Marinette Marine, with the first ship scheduled for delivery in 2026. In April the Navy awarded a $795 million contract to the Marinette, Wis. shipbuilder for the design and production of one base ship plus nine option vessels, as well as post-delivery availability support, engineering and class services, crew familiarization, training equipment and provisioned item orders, which would be worth $5.5 billion if exercised.

As the next generation of small surface combatants Constellation Class frigates will contribute to meeting the Navy's goal of 355 battle force ships. With the ability to operate independently or as part of a strike group, it will deliver an Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar (EASR), Mk 41 Vertical Launching System, and Baseline 10 (BL 10) Aegis Combat System capabilities. The ships lethality, survivability and improved capability will provide fleet commanders multiple options while supporting the National Defense Strategy across the full range of military operations.

Thrustmaster of Texas

Report to Congress on Constellation-class Frigate Program (FFG-62)

October 29, 2020 10:30 AM

• USNI.org

The following is the Oct. 28, 2020 Congressional Research Service report, Navy Constellation (FFG-62) Class Frigate (Previously FFG[X]) Program: Background and Issues for Congress

From the report

The Constellation (FFG-62) class frigate program, previously known as the FFG(X) program, is a Navy program to build a class of 20 guided-missile frigates (FFGs). Congress funded the procurement of the first FFG-62 class ship in FY2020 at a cost of $1,281.2 million (i.e., about $1.3 billion). The Navy’s proposed FY2021 budget requests $1,053.1 million (i.e., about $1.1 billion) for the procurement of the second FFG-62 class ship. The Navy estimates that subsequent ships in the class will cost roughly $940 million each in then-year dollars.

Four industry teams were competing for the FFG-62 program. On April 30, 2020, the Navy announced that it had awarded the FFG-62 contract to the team led by Fincantieri/Marinette Marine (F/MM) of Marinette, WI. F/MM was awarded a fixed-price incentive (firm target) contract for Detail Design and Construction (DD&C) for up to 10 ships in the program—the lead ship plus nine option ships.

The other three industry teams reportedly competing for the program were led by Austal USA of Mobile, AL; General Dynamics/Bath Iron Works (GD/BIW) of Bath, ME; and Huntington Ingalls Industries/Ingalls Shipbuilding (HII/Ingalls) of Pascagoula, MS.

Under the DD&C contact awarded to F/MM, Navy has the option of recompeting the FFG-62 program after the lead ship (if none of the nine option ships are exercised), after the 10th ship (if all nine of the option ships are exercised), or somewhere in between (if some but not all of the nine option ships are exercised).

All four competing industry teams were required to submit bids based on an existing ship design—an approach called the parent-design approach. F/MM’s design is based on an Italian frigate design called the FREMM (Fregata Europea Multi-Missione).

As part of its action on the Navy’s FY2020 budget, Congress passed two legislative provisions relating to U.S. content requirements for certain components of each FFG-62 class ship.

The FFG-62 program presents several potential oversight issues for Congress, including the following:

• the accuracy of the Navy’s estimated unit procurement cost for the FFG-62 class ship, particularly when compared to the known unit procurement costs of other recent U.S. surface combatants;

• the potential impact of the COVID-19 (coronavirus) situation on the execution of U.S. military shipbuilding programs, including the FGFG(X) program;

• whether to fund the procurement in FY2021 of one FFG-62 class ship (the Navy’s request), no FFG-62, or two FFG-62s;

• whether to build FFG-62s at a single shipyard at any one time (the Navy’s baseline plan), or at two or three shipyards;

• whether the Navy has appropriately defined the required capabilities and growth margin of the FFG-62.

• whether to take any further legislative action regarding U.S. content requirements for FFG-62s;

• technical risk in the FFG-62 program;

• the potential industrial-base impacts of the FFG-62 program for shipyards and supplier firms in the context of other Navy and Coast Guard shipbuilding programs.

SECNAV Braithwaite Calls for Light Carrier, ‘Joint Strike Frigate’ ; Sounds Alarm Over Chinese Naval Expansion

By: Sam LaGrone

October 28, 2020 7:08 PM

USNI.org

Secretary of the Navy Kenneth Braithwaite speaks with U.S. sailors and Marines while visiting HMS Queen Elizabeth at sea off the coast of Flamborough, United Kingdom on Oct. 1, 2020. UK Royal Navy Photo

Navy Secretary Kenneth Braithwaite made a full-throated call for U.S. naval expansion, citing the growing Chinese Navy as the prime driver of the need for a larger fleet.

He said that while the U.S. was fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, Beijing was focused on quietly building its influence with an emphasis on naval forces.

“We then got caught in a war in the Middle East and that took our attention. We took our eyes off the ball, especially in the Navy,” Braithwaite said, speaking at an event at the U.S. Navy Memorial SITREP speaker series.
“We moved into littoral warfare looking for a role for the United States Navy and we forgot about our commitments in deep water and so we’re behind and we’ve got to catch up and we’ve got to catch up fast.”

He offered some additional details on the Pentagon’s Battle Force 2045 plan for the Navy’s future fleet beyond what Defense Secretary Mark Esper sketched out earlier this month. The plan, still on hold by the Office of Management and Budget, calls for a fleet of 500 ships that will include building up to 70 to 80 nuclear attack submarines and anywhere from eight to 11 aircraft carriers.

Braithwaite said that the Navy was set to build additional Constellation-class guided-missile frigates (FFG-62) beyond the 20 the service is slated to purchase.

“We’re looking to build 60 to 70 small surface combatants,” he said.
“These are highly capable, sophisticated weapons platforms, projecting sea power around the globe.”

The last fleet plan in 2016 called for a force of about 50 small surface combatants. Braithwaite also suggested the Navy could use the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter model to export the frigate design abroad.

“I have a concept in my head is if we created a Joint Strike Fighter that we could share with NATO allies. Why can’t we create a Joint Strike Frigate? Why can’t we take that same platform and offer it to our allies and partners around the world?,” he said.

Additionally, he suggested creating up to six light aircraft carriers that could be used as a platform for unmanned aircraft.

“We won the battle of Atlantic on the backs of CVL light carriers that were able to give us [anti-submarine warfare] advantage over the U-boat threat. When you look, and you think about the threat that emanates from the Atlantic today, it’s a little different,” he said.
“The submarine capability of Russia has gotten more challenging, more concerning. Maybe there’s a way that we can shift and perhaps take some of those strike groups and put them where the threat is.”

Additional Battle Force 2045 specifics, like the number of large guided-missile combatants and the mix of unmanned vessels, are still unknown.

In terms of the ultimate cost of the additional ships, Braithwaite said he had found $48 billion in the Navy budget as an extension of the so-called Navy night court savings drive mounted by former acting Navy Secretary Thomas Modly. Modly set out with the goal to find $40 billion over five years.

Esper said he would push to increase the Navy’s budget if the service could find savings.

“You show me, and I’ll match you two for one or one for one. I mean, literally, he put his money on the table to match mine. Man, I jumped on that like a bee on a pile of honey,” Braithwaite said.

He didn’t outline specifics of the savings, but indicated he was able to find a 10 to 15 percent reduction in operational costs across several sectors in the Navy.

“How much is freedom worth to you?” he said in response to a question from Navy Memorial chief executive retired Rear Adm. Frank Thorpe about the cost. “How do we not afford it? We’re going to have to make some tough choices.”

LCS: The USA’s Littoral Combat Ships

Oct 07, 2020 04:56 UTC by Defense Industry Daily staff

October 7/20: USS Cooperstown Lockheed Martin won a $12.1 million contract modification  to exercise an option for post-delivery support for the Littoral Combat Ship USS Cooperstown (LCS 23). The USS Cooperstown is a Freedom Class LCS. The Freedom class is a class of small multi-purpose vessels. The Freedom class has a reconfigurable seaframe, that can be fitted with interchangeable mission modules. Most upgrades can be performed ashore and installed later into the ship. It allows to keep the ship on deployment for the maximum time. Work will take place in Wisconsin, Virginia, New Jersey, California and Washington DC.

Exploit simplicity, numbers, the pace of technology development in electronics and robotics, and fast reconfiguration. That was the US Navy’s idea for the low-end backbone of its future surface combatant fleet. Inspired by successful experiments like Denmark’s Standard Flex ships, the US Navy’s $35+ billion “Littoral Combat Ship” program was intended to create a new generation of affordable surface combatants that could operate in dangerous shallow and near-shore environments, while remaining affordable and capable throughout their lifetimes.

It hasn’t worked that way. In practice, the Navy hasn’t been able to reconcile what they wanted with the capabilities needed to perform primary naval missions, or with what could be delivered for the sums available. The LCS program has changed its fundamental acquisition plan 4 times since 2005, and canceled contracts with both competing teams during this period, without escaping any of its fundamental issues. Now, the program looks set to end early. This public-access FOCUS article offer a wealth of research material, alongside looks at the LCS program’s designs, industry teams procurement plans, military controversies, budgets and contracts.

LCS: Concept & Needs

LCS: Concept & Needs

LCS-I missions
(click to view full)

Ultimately, the US Navy is trying to replace 56 vessels: 30 FFG-7 Oliver Hazard Perry Class  frigates, 14 MCM Avenger Class  mine countermeasures vessels, and 12 MHC-51 Osprey Class  coastal mine hunters.

The LCS requirement has been identified as part of a broader surface combatant force transformation strategy, which recognizes that many future threats are spawning in regions with shallow seas, where the ability to operate near-shore and even in rivers will be vital for mission success.

That requires the ability to counter growing “asymmetric” threats like coastal mines, quiet diesel submarines, global piracy, and terrorists on small fast attack boats. It also requires intelligence gathering and scouting, some ground combat support capabilities, and the ability to act as a local command node, sharing tactical information with other Navy aircraft, ships, submarines, and joint units.

At the same time, however, the US Navy needs ships that can act as low-end fillers in other traditional fleet roles, and operate in the presence of missile-armed enemy vessels and/or aerial threats.

Given the diversity of possible missions in the shallow-water and near-shore littoral zones, and the potential threats from forces on land, any ship designed for these tasks must be both versatile and stealthy. History also suggests that they need to be able to take a punch. Meanwhile, the reality of ships that are expected to remain in service for over 30 years gives rise to a need for electronic longevity. As the saga of the USA’s cost-effective but short-lived FFG-7 frigates proved, “future-proofing” and upgradeability for key systems, electronics, and weapons will be critical if these small surface combatants are to remain useful throughout their mechanical lives.

While a ship’s hull and design makes a number of its performance parameters difficult to change, the Americans believed they may have a solution that lets them upgrade sensors and key systems. Denmark’s Standard Flex 300 corvettes  pioneered a revolutionary approach of swappable mission modules, based on ISO containers. In contrast to the traditional approach, which is to cram a wide-ranging set of bolted-in compromise equipment into fixed installations, “flex ships” can radically changes the ships’ capabilities, by swapping in a full breadth of equipment focused on a particular need.

Swappable modules also give the Navy new options over time. One option is technology-based, via spiral development that focuses on rapid insertions of new equipment. This creates a long series of slight improvements in the mission modules, and hence the ship’s capabilities. Over time, the cumulative effect can be very significant. The 2nd benefit is cost-related, since upgrades require far less work and cost to install when mission technologies evolve. The 3rd benefit is risk-related. The ability to do low-cost, spiral upgrades encourages frequent “refreshes” that remain within the existing state of the art, rather than periodic upgrade programs that must stretch what’s possible, in order to handle expected developments over the next 25 years.

LCS: Designs & Teams

There are currently 2 different LCS designs being produced and procured as part of the competition.

LCS-1 Freedom Class Monohull

Team Lockheed Martin’s LCS-1 Freedom Class offers a proven high-speed semi-planing monohull, based on Fincantieri designs that have set trans-Atlantic speed records. The design will use the firm’s COMBATSS-21 combat system as the fighting electronic heart of the ship, has shock-hardened the engine systems, and uses a combination of a steel hull and aluminum superstructure. USS Freedom has faced persistent reports of weight and stability issues, however, which required additional bolt-on buoyancy fittings at its stern.

Team Lockheed LCS
(click to view full)

The ships have a smaller flight deck than the Independence Class at 5,200 square feet, but a larger 4,680 square foot helicopter hangar. The Freedom Class’ LCS mission bay is the biggest difference – it’s under half the size, at 6,500 square feet. On the other hand, its RAM missile launcher is the 21-round Mk.49, and if the ships need weapon upgrades, export designs stemming from the Freedom Class mount full strike-length Mk.41 vertical launch cells. These can handle any vertically-launched system in the fleet, including SM-3 anti-ballistic missile interceptors, and Tomahawk long-range precision attack missiles.

Lockheed’s core team includes various Lockheed divisions, plus naval architects Gibbs & Cox of Arlington, VA; shipbuilder Bollinger Shipyards of Lockport, LA; and shipbuilder Marinette Marine of Marinette, WI. Niche providers and related partnerships include:

• Angle Incorporated

• Argon ST (threat detection systems)

• Blohm + Voss

• Data Links Solutions

• DRS Technologies

• EADS (TRS-3D radar)

• Fairbanks Morse (Colt-Pielstick PA6B-STC diesel engines)

• Fincantieri (diesel generators)

• Izar (now Navantia)

• L-3 Communications

• MAAG Gear AG

• MacTaggart Scott

• Raytheon

• Rolls Royce (MT30 gas turbines, shaftlines, bearings, software, Kamewa waterjets)

• Sensytech

• Sperry

• Terma

• Unidynamics

• United Defense, now BAE Systems

LCS-2 Independence Class Trimaran

USS Independence
(click to view full)

The LCS-2 Independence Class offers a futuristic but practical high-speed trimaran, based on Austal designs and experience with vessels like the US Marines’ Westpac Express high-speed transport, and the Army and Navy’s TSV/HSV ships. It offers an especially large flight deck (7,300 square feet) and internal mission volume (15,200 square feet mission bay) for its size, with a 3,500 square foot helicopter hangar. The hull is aluminum, but the trimaran design offers additional stability options, and may help the ship survive side hits.

The Independence Class will carry a General Dynamics designed combat system, and standard LCS weapon fittings. The RAM defensive missile launcher sacrifices some size, but the 11-round SeaRAM is a self-contained unit with its own radar. If the LCS should require a full suite of naval weapons in future, export designs based on the this class tout “tactical-length” vertical launch cells that are limited to shorter weapons like RIM-162 ESSM and SM-2 air defense missiles, and VL-ASROC anti-submarine missiles.

Not anymore…

The initial teaming arrangement was led by General Dynamics Bath Iron Works shipbuilder as prime integrator, with Austal of Mobile, AL (a subsidiary of Austal Ships of Australia) as the main design partner and ship-building site. That alliance was broken by the requirements of the 2010 RFP, which demanded a 2nd builder for the designs that was unaffiliated with the first.

Austal is now the sole prime contractor for the LCS-2 Independence Class design. GD subsidiaries remain heavily involved, including General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products Division in Burlington, VT; General Dynamics Electric Boat Division in Groton, CT; General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems in Fairfax, VA; and General Dynamics Canada in Ottawa, Ontario. Other key participants include:

• Boeing in Seattle, WA

• BAE Systems in Rockville, MD

• L3 Communications Marine Systems in Leesburg, VA

• Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems in Baltimore, MD

• Maritime Applied Physics Corporation in Baltimore, MD

• GE (LM 2500 gas turbines)

• MTU (8000 Series diesel engines)

• Saab (AN/SPS-77v1 Sea Giraffe AMB  radar)

• Wartsila (water jets )

LCS = Standard Equipment + Mission Packages…

At 115 – 127 meters in length and 2,800 – 3,100 tons of displacement, the USA’s competing LCS ship designs are almost the size of Britain’s Type 23 frigates. They might well be classified as frigates, were it not for their shallow water design and employment. For whatever reason, high speed has also been identified as an important ship characteristic. As such, both the GD/Austal trimaran and Lockheed’s racing-derived monohull offer potential top speeds of 40-50 knots over short distances.

No matter which mission modules are loaded, the ship will carry a BAE Systems Mk.110 57mm naval gun with a firing rate of up to 220 rounds/minute, and Mk.295 ammunition that works against aerial, surface or ground threats. The ship will also carry .50 caliber (12.7mm) machine guns, plus defensive systems including automated chaff/flare dispensers and a launcher for Raytheon’s RIM-116 RAMRolling Airframe Missile. RAM is designed to handle anti-ship missiles, aircraft, UAVs, helicopters, and even small boats, but its range of just 9 km/ 5 nm will only protect its own ship. Unlike larger missiles such as the RIM-162 ESSM, RAM systems cannot perform fleet defense.

LCS ships will also rely on their onboard MH-60 helicopters and/or MQ-8B Fire Scout helicopter UAVs, plus other robotic vehicles including a variety of Unmanned Underwater Vessels (UUV) and Unmanned Surface Vessels (USV). The terms have changed over time, but the US Navy has downgraded the term “mission modules” to mean individual components plus their support equipment. Integrated packages of weapons, sensors, robotic vehicles, and manned platforms that can be switched in and out depending on the ship’s mission are now called “mission packages.” They include all task-related mission modules, onboard aircraft, and their corresponding crew detachments.

The ships’ first and most important mission package is not officially listed. It consists of a small but very cross-trained crew. LCSs were intended to operate with a core crew of 40 (now 50) sailors, plus a mission module detachment of 15 and an aviation detachment of 25. Each ship has a Blue crew and a Gold crew, which will shift to 3 crews over time that can deploy in 4-month rotations.

There are concerns that this is a design weakness, leaving the LCS crew at the edge of its capabilities to just run the ship, with insufficient on-board maintenance capabilities, and too little left over for contingencies such as boarding and search, damage control, illnesses, etc. USS Freedom’s addition of 10 more bunks before her 1st Asian deployment indicates that the US Navy may be about to concede this point, but even with 50, performance wasn’t great.

Beyond the human element, the LCS program will initially draw upon packages for Mine Warfare (MCM: 24 planned), Anti-submarine Warfare (ASW: 16 planned) and Surface Warfare (SUW: 24 planned). The LCS Mission Modules Program Office (PMS 420) packages a variety of technologies to these ends, many of which are produced by other program offices and delivered as elements of a particular mission module. Costs per module have gone down over time, but that hasn’t been from any genius in planning and fielding. Rather, it results from a high program failure rate of individual components, and their replacement in the program by less expensive items:

The LCS Program

In 2009, the CBO estimated LCS shipbuilding costs at around $30.2 billion, with a fleet average of 1.2 mission modules per ship (TL. 66) bought separately at about $100 million per module. As of 2012, the split had changed a bit, but the overall total was around $39 billion. This contrasts with the original hope of $22 billion total costs for 55 ships and 165 mission modules, at $400 million per ship ($220M construction + (3 x $60M) mission module options).

The US Navy’s current shipbuilding plan envisions building 32 littoral combat ships and 64 mission modules until about 2040. Technically, only 45 LCS ships would count toward Navy fleet totals. Because these ships are assumed to have a service life of 25 years, the 10 or fewer ships bought from 2036 – 2040 would be replacements for the original ships of class. Even so, that number of LCS ships is likely to make up 20% of the Navy or more. The US Navy has already sagged to under 300 ships, and unless major changes in course lie ahead for its budget or its chosen designs, the total number of ships will sink farther.

Acquisition Structure

In July 2011, the Navy created PEO LCS to oversee the program, headed by Rear Adm. James A. Murdoch. Ship construction supervision was removed from PEO Ships, while mission module supervision was removed from PEO Littoral and Mine Warfare (PEO LMW), which was dissolved. It wasn’t the first big change in the program – and may not be the last.

It’s normal for programs to change elements like numbers ordered, but not to change the entire buy strategy. The Littoral Combat Ship program has shifted its entire buy strategy several times during its short lifetime – a sorry sequence of orders, budgets not spent, contract cancellations, etc. documented in Appendix A.

The last buy strategy has lasted long enough for a multi-ship contract. After buying 4 ships and taking bids under their 2009 revised strategy, the US Navy went to Congress and asked for permission to accept both 10-ship bids, buying 20 ships for a total advertised price that was about the same as the estimates for the 15 ships they had wanted. The GAO and CBO both have doubts about those estimates, in part because the Navy is still changing the designs; but the contracts were issued at the end of December 2010. Each contractor would get 1 initial ship order, then 9 more options, with the ship purchases spread across FY 2010-2011 (1 per year for each contractor); then FY 2012-2015 inclusive (2 per year for each contractor). Cost overruns will be shared 50/50 between the government and contractor, up to a set cost cap.

Budgets

By the end of FY 2013, the program is expected to be at about a quarter of total procurement, in units ordered and dollars spent.

LCS: Ship Roster

Team Lockheed, Freedom Class

• LCS 1, USS Freedom. Commissioned Nov 8/08.

• LCS 3, USS Fort Worth. Commissioned Sept 22/12.

• LCS 5, Milwaukee

• LCS 7, Detroit

• LCS 9, Little Rock

• LCS 11, Sioux City

• LCS 13, Wichita

• LCS 15, Billings

Team Austal, Independence Class

• LCS 2, USS Independence. Commissioned Jan 16/10.

• LCS 4, USS Coronado. Commissioned April 5/14.

• LCS 6, Jackson

• LCS 8, Montgomery

• LCS 10, Gabrielle Giffords

• LCS 12, Omaha

• LCS 14, Machester

• LCS 16, Tulsa

LCS: Export Potential

Once one steps beyond small patrol craft, growing capabilities have made frigate-sized vessels the most common naval export around the globe. With many nations confronting challenges in the world’s littorals, which include the globe’s most important shipping choke points, one would expect some interest in the Littoral Combat Ship beyond the USA. A Dec 11/06 Austal release claimed 26 potential buyers worldwide for the ship and its companion equipment, “with two near-term contenders and four others that have expressed active interest.”

There are 2 interesting aspects to LCS export bids. One is their equipment, which is radically different from the US Navy’s set.

Lockheed Martin’s international Multi-Mission Combat Ship (MMCS) version, which attracted some interest from Israel before cost issues intervened, has a variety of configurations from OPV/corvette to large frigate size. Upgraded radars range from CEAFAR active-array radars on smaller ships, to the option of Lockheed’s SPY-1F for the largest variant. Fixed weapons include torpedo tubes and 8 Harpoon missiles, though some exhibit models have used 12 Kongsberg NSMs. Concept diagrams also show between 4-48 VLS cells, some of which are full strike-length size.

General Dynamics’ trimaran adds an upgraded radar (SPY-1F in diagrams), torpedo tubes, and 16 tactical-length vertical launch (VLS) cells.Among other payloads, those cells could hold VL-ASROC anti-submarine missiles to extend anti-submarine reach, or quad-packed RIM-162 ESSM anti-air missilesfor area air defense. Exhibited models have also displayed up to 16 NSM anti-ship missiles.

Turkish MEKO 200
(click to view full)

The other aspect worth noting is the Littoral Combat Ship’s failure to close any export sales over 7+ years. At present, both LCS designs have received preliminary export inquiries, but Israel and Thailand are the only cases where it has gone farther than that.

Israel did step up in July 2008, and confirmed its request for an LCS-I based on Team Lockheed’s design. Israel’s variant was very different from LCS 1 Freedom, however; it featured a fixed set of weaponry rather than full mission module spaces, and its proposed SPY-1 AEGIS or MF-STAR radar and weapons array and made it far more capable in critical roles like air defense and ship to ship warfare. As noted above, similar changes have been a common theme among international LCS offerings, but an estimated ship cost of over $700 million eventually pushed Israel to rethink its plans. That country is now pursuing cheaper options based on Blohm + Voss’ MEKO family of corvettes and frigates, or South Korean designs. The Freedom Class also lost the Thai competition.

Saudi Arabia has reportedly expressed interest in a fixed armament version of the General Dynamics/Austal design. That interest was reiterated in 2010, but they’re also evaluating Lockheed Martin’s design for the Arabian/Persian Gulf fleet. In 2011, it emerged that the Saudis might skip an LCS buy altogether, in exchange for a much more heavily-armed, versatile, and expensive option: the USA’s DDG-51 Arleigh Burke Class multi-role destroyers, with ballistic missile defense capability.

Meanwhile, designs like the German MEKO family, the multi-role Franco-Italian FREMM, the modular-construction Dutch Sigma class, and even refurbished 1980s-era NATO frigates continue to find buyers around the world.