Littoral Combat Ships (LCS)

Originally Posted by tphuang

read some comments by gf0012-aust on WAB, it doesn't appear that cost is the only issue here. But I don't think we can get the whole picture of why it was cancelled until much later.

gf0012-aust posted something on this subject?? Gee..I can't wait to read that!..(scarcasm)..Could you post a link? Thanks!

Originally Posted by Jeff Head

They are very different. LCS 2 and 4 by GD are trimaran designs. Lockheeds design is a shallow draft, high speed, semi-planing monohull design...which has a more traditional looking hull. The first post on this thread shows the different designs.

I think what he meant was if there's a difference bewteen LCS-1 and -3, the two LM designs.
If the LCS finally replaces the OHPs in the fleet, we might probably see even more than 55 vessels. But it will take some time IMO, since the Perrys will stay in service for some time. Is there already a timetable to decomission them?

Now with LCS-3 cancaled, will the USN still completely evaluate both designs or go with GD before a full assesment?

Bad news for the USS Freedom, a fire on board. Reason still unknown and under investigation. Burned around one hour under deck. Two persons treated for smoke inhalation, but already released.

http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jn...0427_1_n.shtml

A fire broke out on board the US Navy's (USN's) Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) USS Freedom on 25 April, burning for about an hour and causing damage to "multiple spaces" on the starboard side of the ship, according to prime contractor Lockheed Martin.
Its spokesperson Diana Massing told Jane's that so far the extent of the damage to the area is unknown and is still being assessed.
The fire was sparked in an area below deck undergoing scheduled construction, where workers were using welding equipment. The exact cause of the fire, however, is under investigation by Lockheed Martin, shipbuilders Marinette Marine and the USN.
Meanwhile, two shipyard workers were treated in a local hospital for smoke inhalation but were released within 24 hours, and there were no other injuries, said Massing.

At least now we know the Russian is not the only one with fire safety issues at their shipyards.

Originally Posted by Schumacher

At least now we know the Russian is not the only one with fire safety issues at their shipyards.

Fire is a constant danger on board all ships no matter who they belong to. If you had ever served a single day on board any ship in any navy in the world you would know this to be true.

When a USN ship is in the shipyard "hot work" is constantly on going. There by incresing the possiblity of fire. It is a dangerous enviorment.

Originally Posted by bd popeye

Fire is a constant danger on board all ships no matter who they belong to. If you had ever served a single day on board any ship in any navy in the world you would know this to be true.

When a USN ship is in the shipyard "hot work" is constantly on going. There by incresing the possiblity of fire. It is a dangerous enviorment.

I know that Popeye. No need to get defensive. Was referring to the fire on the Sov built by Russia for PLAN some time ago. That incident was, unfairly I think, used by many to poke fun at the Russians.

Originally Posted by Schumacher

I know that Popeye. No need to get defensive. Was referring to the fire on the Sov built by Russia for PLAN some time ago. That incident was, unfairly I think, used by many to poke fun at the Russians.

Thanks for that explanation...

Shipyards are dangerous places. Long ago(1961) when the USS Constellation CVA-64 was under construction in Brooklyn NY a horrific fire killed 50 ship yard workers;

http://navysite.de/cvn/cv64.htm

December 19, 1960 New York Naval Shipyard, Brooklyn, N.Y. The construction of the carrier was nearly 90% completed and in the hangar bay there was a tank with 502 gallons of fuel inside. A forklift collided with that tank and the fuel ran out and flew into a lower deck where some workers were welding. A fire started and the flames quickly grew up because of all the wooden materials stored in the hangar bay and on the flight deck. Moments later a huge flame and a dark cloud of smoke could be seen above the carrier.

An example for the density of the smoke was that a standard breathing apparatus can be used for approx. 45 minutes, but aboard the CONSTELLATION they could only be used for 20 minutes. Almost the whole hangar bay was burning. The efforts to extinguish the fire using the existing fire-fighting equipment were not successful and so the Brooklyn fire department was called for assistence.

The fire was mainly extinguished with water and 15.000 tons of this water got into the carrier.

At the time of the accident, a total of 4200 people worked aboard the carrier and so the fire deptartment had not only to extinguish the fire but also to rescue the people.

All in all it took twelve hours to extinguish the fire. 50 people were killed and hundreds were injured and the ship was heavily damaged.

The carrier was scheduled to be commissioned in early 1961 but because of the fire and the resulting damage, the commissioning ceremony had to be postponed to October 27, 1961.

By the way, during one year in the Naval Shipyard, there were 42 fires aboard USS CONSTELLATION

just found this today while browsing through the news
I find 500 million+ a little excessive for LCS considering that FREMM (which is larger) is less than that I think.

By Geoff Fein

The Navy yesterday acknowledged that it will request raising the
congressional cost cap on the fifth and sixth Littoral Combat Ships
(LCS), raising the end cost of the vessels to $460 million each,
according to a Navy official.
"Due to program cost growth, the Navy sought a change in the
cost cap to appropriately reflect the restructured program and
projected ship end cost," Delores Etter, the Navy's acquisition chief,
told Defense Daily.
In the FY '06 National Defense Authorization Act, lawmakers had
placed a $220 million cost cap on the fifth and sixth LCS for each
seaframe.
"The Navy is requesting a $460 million per ship end cost (in FY
'08 dollars). This represents a 55 percent increase in seaframe cost.
The $460 million would now include other program costs typically
considered in end cost," she added.
The new end cost figure does not include the cost of the mission
modules. Adding the mission modules into the cost would push LCS-5 and
-6 above $500 million. According to the Navy, the average price for the
three mission modules--mine warfare, anti-submarine warfare and surface
warfare--is about $63 million (Defense Daily, March 20, 2006).
End cost is composed of basic construction cost, plans, change
orders, electronics/government furnished equipment, and other (program
management, technical support, certification and test) costs, Etter
said.
"This adjustment would reflect updated cost estimates for ship
end cost that include: incorporation of lessons learned from lead ship
contract execution; a more refined cost estimate of the required
changes to the designs; and a higher allowance for program management
costs to provide for the additional government oversight that was
recommended as a result of the Navy's root cause analysis of the LCS-1
cost growth," she added.
The current cost cap limits the fifth and sixth ships of the LCS
class to $220 million (in FY '05 dollars) for each seaframe, adjusted
for specific factors such as inflation, outfitting post-delivery costs,
legal adjustments and the insertion of certain types of new technology,
Etter said.
"This target was considered by the Navy as the basic
construction cost of the seaframe and did not include other program
costs typically considered in end cost," she added.
Typically, the Navy uses end cost when discussing the price of
ships, such as DDG-1000, CVN-21 and CG(X), Allison Stiller, deputy
assistant secretary of the Navy, ships, told Defense Daily in a
separate interview.
"They are all end cost, so we want to be consistent," she said.
Stiller said using just the construction cost when discussing
LCS made it confusing.
But why didn't the Navy stick to using the end cost as it does
with other ships? Etter said it was because the target cost of the
seaframe did not include other program costs.
"At the commencement of the program, the Navy established a cost
benchmark of $220 million (in FY '05 dollars) per ship for basic
construction cost. The Navy aggressively applied this target to make
cost-as-independent-variable trade-offs to develop a program that could
produce two seaframe variants to meet [affordability] requirements.
This target was considered by the Navy as the basic construction cost
(BCC) of the seaframe and did not include other program costs typically
considered in end cost," Etter said. "The Navy recently updated the
total program cost estimates based on an independent cost estimate,
available return cost data, and a more detailed assessment of program
costs."
Lockheed Martin [LMT] is leading a team made up of Marinette
Marine [MTW] and Bollinger Shipyard. The team's first ship, USS Freedom
(LCS-1), is being built in Wisconsin. It is about 80 percent complete,
Stiller said.
Lockheed Martin is building a semi-plaining mono hull design. In
January, the Navy announced that Freedom was registering considerable
cost overruns. In response to concerns with the program, the Navy
issued a 90-day stop work order on Jan. 12 to enable it and Lockheed
Martin to conduct investigations into the cost growth.
In March the Navy detailed a new acquisition plan for LCS that
included reprogramming $519 million for two ships in FY '07. Those
funds would be used to offset some of the cost growth on the first four
LCS.
The Navy also sought to change the contract terms with Lockheed
Martin, moving from a cost-plus contract to a fixed price incentive
(FPI) contract.
Additionally, Navy Secretary Donald Winter said the Navy would
cut its procurement numbers for fiscal years 2008 and 2009 and hold a
full and open competition for the remainder of the LCS-class buy in FY
'10. The Navy wants 55 LCS (Defense Daily, March 16).
The Navy has since trimmed its FY '08 procurement from three to
two and its FY '09 procurement from six to three.
In March, Winter told reporters that Lockheed Martin would have
until April 12 to agree to the new contract terms. If the company
failed to agree, the Navy would terminate Lockheed Martin's second LCS
effort, LCS-3.
On April 12, 90 days after the stop work order was issued, the
Navy cancelled LCS-3 (Defense Daily, April 13). Lockheed Martin and the
Navy are now negotiating the terms of the termination order, which
includes how much material was purchased in advance for construction of
LCS-3 (Defense Daily, April 25).
The two sides are negotiating over the disposition of
approximately 22 long-lead time material items worth in excess of $70
million, according to a Navy official (Defense Daily, April 25).
"We have to be totally settled and wrapped up a year from when
we announced the termination," Stiller said Tuesday. "It's a pretty
disciplined process."
General Dynamics [GD] is also leading an effort to build a LCS
based on a trimaran hull. The company is partnered with Austal USA and
is building the USS Independence (LCS-2) at Austal's Mobile, Ala.,
facility. General Dynamics was awarded a contract for LCS-4 in late
2006, and will also build that ship in Alabama.
According to the Navy, General Dynamics said its first ship is
56 percent complete as of this week.
The Navy says it is closely watching General Dynamics' effort
and should its ship experience comparable cost overruns, the service
would seek to get General Dynamics to sign a new FPI contract, Winter
said (Defense Daily, March 16).
General Dynamics still has some ways to go before it reaches the
point where Lockheed Martin's cost overruns first surfaced, Stiller
said.
"Lockheed Martin's cost increases first cropped up [when] they
were right around 70 percent [complete]," she said.
Lockheed Martin is building the lead ship of the class. The Navy
and the company have been on schedule for delivery of Freedom in FY
'08. However, a recent fire onboard the ship could delay the delivery
date.
Stiller said the delivery schedule remains on track at the
moment, but that could change.
"With the fire, I am sure there will be some schedule
implications, but we just haven't sorted that out yet," she said. "I
don't want to speculate because we don't know impact of the fire."

It appears that LCS is well underway..I have not seen any new pictures of LCS 1

MOBILE, Ala. (Aug. 7, 2007) - Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV), the Honorable Dr. Donald C. Winter, is guided onto the aluminum hull of the pre-commissioned ship Independence (LCS 2) during a tour of Austal Shipyards. Austal is one of three shipyards that has been contracted to build the littoral combat ship. The SECNAV toured the shipyard to further his understanding of the challenges facing the U.S. shipbuilding industry. U.S. Navy photo by Chief Mass Communication Specialist Shawn P. Eklund (RELEASED)

It seems that LCS-4 has now been canceled as well, due to cost overruns.
This will leave the USN with only one seaframe per design to test. Not good news at all. Since now all the tests would have to be done with half the number of hulls, will that mean further significant delays in the introduction of the LCS?
The Perrys are getting old and the USN isn't getting a capability it really needs.

Now I'm really curious how they will proceed. The LCS is becoming very expensive for it's class. With other designs being cheaper and also capable, I wonder if the navy will perhaps downscale the requirements.
Especiallly since the LCS has no capability for greater defence, it has to rely on the also very expensive and troubled DD(X) / CG(X) concepts in the future.

It seems that LCS-4 has now been canceled as well, due to cost overruns.
This will leave the USN with only one seaframe per design to test. Not good news at all. Since now all the tests would have to be done with half the number of hulls, will that mean further significant delays in the introduction of the LCS?

This whole program may be in jeporday of being cancelled. It's a dang shame. But above all a real embarrasment for the USN...

I never did like the two hull idea. The USN should have started with one and stuck with it....

We will have to wait and see what happens...

Originally Posted by bd popeye

This whole program may be in jeporday of being cancelled. It's a dang shame. But above all a real embarrasment for the USN...

I never did like the two hull idea. The USN should have started with one and stuck with it....

We will have to wait and see what happens...

I've really wondered about the whole LCS program since the Lockheed contract ran into such problems that the Navy cancelled that one.

I have to admit, I found the catamaran hull intiguing for all the (paper) capability is gave such a small ship (boat, really), especially two helos; I mean you don't even have that on many destroyers or even cruisers. But I was concerned about the short operational range of LCS, never mind the obvious implications of serious battle damge for a catamaran hull.

Still, I'd like to see LCS succeed, but it's not looking good now. Besides, LCS should be called what is really is, a corvette, and not an acronym.

Originally Posted by Norfolk

I've really wondered about the whole LCS program since the Lockheed contract ran into such problems that the Navy cancelled that one.

I have to admit, I found the catamaran hull intiguing for all the (paper) capability is gave such a small ship (boat, really), especially two helos; I mean you don't even have that on many destroyers or even cruisers. But I was concerned about the short operational range of LCS, never mind the obvious implications of serious battle damge for a catamaran hull.

Still, I'd like to see LCS succeed, but it's not looking good now. Besides, LCS should be called what is really is, a corvette, and not an acronym.

well, I think the problem is just that there was too many requirements got added to it. And also cost overrun seems to be an issue prevalent in all the services.

Seeing the LCS costs, I'm shocked people on Chinese bbs are actually complaining about the $25 million tag of 022s.

Originally Posted by FuManChu

Hey, at least your government actually takes military spending seriously. Ours just sees it as something that can be cut to fund bone-idle sods who do nothing for the country.

I tell you what, let's reverse positions. We can have 12 Type-45s, CVF and new frigates - you can have your surface fleet slashed in half, with no DDX, no new carriers, etc. How do you feel? That's how we feel right now.

by your government, do you mean the United Kingdom parliment???