Littoral Combat Ships (LCS)


dtulsa

Junior Member
I guess the most important word in your post is
"unfunded"
because I heard they hadn't have the money for Palau Jun 28, 2017
Yep that's what I was reading it seems like a good place to set up logistics sites provided they can get the money to them from what I read it really isn't that much and the Senate denied it not the house Senate also looking into cutting off base housing that would really hurt the married service people Badly
 

dtulsa

Junior Member
Yep that's what I was reading it seems like a good place to set up logistics sites provided they can get the money to them from what I read it really isn't that much and the Senate denied it not the house Senate also looking into cutting off base housing that would really hurt the married service people Badly
Actually it was denied in the house no mention of it in the Senate
 

Jura

General
Yep that's what I was reading it seems like a good place to set up logistics sites
"seems like a good place to set logistic sites" while referring to the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
... that would be an understatement if ever there was one

provided they can get the money to them ...
gosh first they need to pay Palau
(before whatever "unfunded request" US Military fantasy you found could happen)
or the Chinese come there, as I already reposted above Today at 9:47 AM (and you didn't seem to get)

in other words: they spend one bil (or more) per year on the LCS PORK but may loose the whole archipelago by not paying now EDIT 123.9m
 
Last edited:

dtulsa

Junior Member
"seems like a good place to set logistic sites" while referring to the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
... that would be an understatement if ever there was one

gosh first they need to pay Palau
(before whatever "unfunded request" US Military fantasy you found could happen)
or the Chinese come there, as I already reposted above Today at 9:47 AM (and you didn't seem to get)

in other words: they spend one bil (or more) per year on the LCS PORK but may loose the whole archipelago by not paying now EDIT 123.9m
I'm with ya in this one just liked it was all related in a way seen the Coronado docked in Vietnam now wouldn't that be a good site for storage also kinda ironic as all these bases and countries at one time or another cost a lot of US lives to take or defend history is strange at times
 

dtulsa

Junior Member
"seems like a good place to set logistic sites" while referring to the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
... that would be an understatement if ever there was one

gosh first they need to pay Palau
(before whatever "unfunded request" US Military fantasy you found could happen)
or the Chinese come there, as I already reposted above Today at 9:47 AM (and you didn't seem to get)

in other words: they spend one bil (or more) per year on the LCS PORK but may loose the whole archipelago by not paying now EDIT 123.9m
I think they will get the money it's too important not to but we shall see
 

Jura

General
Jul 1, 2017
yeah, my view from the middle of Europe is now the White House got involved in this PORK which the LCS Program has been; ...
... details emerging:

"On May 23, the U.S. Navy rolled out its 2018 budget request that included one littoral combat ship, or LCS. The logic was that since Congress had given the Navy three in fiscal year 2017, an additional one would keep both builders — Wisconsin-based Marinette Marine and Alabama-based Austal USA — afloat.

But inside the White House, alarm bells went off in some sectors. Peter Navarro, the head of U.S. President Donald Trump’s trade and industrial policy office, was looking at information indicating one ship could trigger layoffs at both shipyards. Those concerns were shared by senior Trump aides Rick Dearborn and Stephen Miller — both old hands of long-time Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions — and together they lobbied and prevailed upon Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney to add a second ship to the request."

Life support: The Navy's struggle to define a LCS bare minimum
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Over two days in May, a bizarre scene played out in Washington involving the U.S. Navy’s controversial littoral combat ship program and the fiscal year 2018 budget request.

On May 23, the U.S. Navy rolled out its 2018 budget request that included one littoral combat ship, or LCS. The logic was that since Congress had given the Navy three in fiscal year 2017, an additional one would keep both builders — Wisconsin-based Marinette Marine and Alabama-based Austal USA — afloat.

But inside the White House, alarm bells went off in some sectors. Peter Navarro, the head of U.S. President Donald Trump’s trade and industrial policy office, was looking at information indicating one ship could trigger layoffs at both shipyards. Those concerns were shared by senior Trump aides Rick Dearborn and Stephen Miller — both old hands of long-time Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions — and together they lobbied and prevailed upon Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney to add a second ship to the request.

The White House estimated that one ship in 2018 could trigger more than 1,000 layoffs between Marinette and Austal — not a good look for an administration that rode a populist wave into office months earlier on a message of preserving and growing the manufacturing and industrial sectors, and who flipped Wisconsin red for the first time since 1984.

Concerns were mounting that continuing a tepid buying strategy could even lead to the closure of one or both shipyards ahead of the Navy’s planned shift from LCS to a new, more deadly frigate by the end of 2020.

“Maintaining the industrial base was really the sole consideration,” said a source familiar with the White House deliberations.

On the morning of May 24, acting Navy Secretary Sean Stackley testified to the Senate defense appropriations subcommittee that the Navy was asking for the one LCS as the “minimum sustaining” amount to keep the shipyards viable. But by that afternoon, acting Assistant Secretary of the Navy Research, Development and Acquisition Allison Stiller testified to the House Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee that the administration supported a second LCS.

“We desire to transition to the frigate as soon as possible. However, the administration recognizes the criticality of our industrial base and supports funding a second LCS in FY-18,” Stiller testified.

Defense watchers and experts were dumbfounded by the quick course reversal in just 24 hours. The strange back-and-forth over the troubled ship class highlighted the current reality of the program. Interviews with more than a dozen Navy, industry and government officials and a Defense News review of hours of public testimony reveal a ship-buying program caught between the Navy’s shifting requirements, politics and the realities of a strained industrial base — all of which has combined to create an insurmountable inertia that is keeping the program alive even as the Navy desperately tries to change directions.

‘The Navy doesn’t want them’

The littoral combat ship’s budget season got off to a rough start.

After shepherding a revised 2017 budget through Congress, the Trump administration prepared to roll out its FY18 budget three weeks later. On May 4, Mulvaney went on the conservative Hew Hewitt radio show and talked ship building.

Hewitt told Mulvaney he was unhappy that Trump’s 2017 budget didn’t have extra money for shipbuilding, which set Mulvaney off on the LCS.

“There’s a discussion right now on whether or not we add some additional littoral combat ships. … And there’s a really healthy and positive debate on that. Here’s one of the issues: the Navy doesn’t want them.”

Hewitt, a long-time LCS critic, went on to ask Mulvaney if the shipbuilders could repurpose the yards to build more lethal frigates. Mulvaney answered that it would take time and that whole build-up to the administration’s goal of 350 ships would be a challenge due to a lack of capacity in the industrial base.

But Mulvaney’s assertion that the Navy didn’t want the ships was catnip for LCS critics on Capitol Hill, who pounced on it and the rapid reversal of the Navy's initial budget request support for just one LCS. During the House Armed Services Committee markup of the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act, Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass., cited Mulvaney’s comment while he introduced an amendment to strip one of the three LCS HASC intended to authorize. Moulton’s amendment, which intended to redirect funding to munitions shortfalls, ultimately failed after HASC Chairman Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, spoke out against it. In doing so, Thornberry said the savings generated by continuing the lines ultimately saved money.

"I'm … convinced the Navy is moving from the LCS towards the frigate,” Thornberry said. “They believe they can do that smoother and better by continuing the LCS line, and it is a matter of economics. If you can do it, ... avoid the ups and downs of industrial production cost [and] ultimately save the taxpayers more money.”

Keeping the yards running is as much about national defense as it is about Congress’ parochial concerns, said Eric Wertheim, a naval analyst and author and editor of the U.S. Naval Institute's "Guide to Combat Fleets of the World."

“You can’t negate the value of the shipbuilding industry; it’s a core element of our national defense infrastructure,” Wertheim said. “From the top level — Congress, the secretary of the Navy — they are looking at more than just the most efficient way to buy any individual ship. When you look at the shipyards as part of the national defense infrastructure, you want to keep those skills alive.

“There is a reason we don’t just outsource our shipbuilding to the cheapest bidder overseas: We really have to maintain a very deep capability and have shipyards fully engaged.”

Furthermore, several Navy and government officials pointed to the long-term benefit to the Navy of having more than just two companies, General Dynamics and Huntington Ingalls, building Navy ships.

“Yes, we want the frigate as soon as possible, but when we get there, we want as much competition as possible,” said a Navy official who spoke on background. “If one or both of those shipyards were to go under, the process would be a lot less competitive for future vessels.”

Navy officials have testified that the shrinking industrial base, including the shipbuilders and the litany of subcontractors and vendors, is a significant concern. In 2015, Stackley testified before Congress that some of the shipyards were just a contract away from going under.

“We have eight shipyards currently building U.S. Navy ships. And of those eight shipyards, about half of them are a single contract away from being what I would call ‘not viable,’" Stackley told the Senate Armed Services Committee. "In other words, the workload drops below the point at which the shipyard can sustain the investment that it needs to be competitive and the loss of skilled labor that comes with the breakage of a contract.”
goes on below due to size limit
 

Jura

General
continuation of the post right above:
'We went to sleep'

Underpinning all the concerns about LCS from its critics both in and outside of the Navy has been the rising threat from China and Russia.

When the Navy launched the program in the early 2000s, it was preparing for more low-end missions such as counter-drug, counter-terror and counter-piracy missions that don’t require multibillion-dollar warships. The program was envisioned as a way to address a broad scope of mission by making it modular — given the ship the ability to convert from a submarine hunter to a mine sweeper or light frigate.

The program was never envisioned for a world with a rising China and resurgent Russia posing a significant threat to the Navy that it thought died with the Cold War, said a retired senior naval officer closely familiar with the program who spoke on background. That caused the Navy to want to push for a more lethal frigate. It also caused the Navy to try and figure out what its going to do with the nearly 30 ships it has in the fleet or under contract now, the source said.

“We went to sleep after the Cold War, and when we woke up we found we had two near-peer competitors who were trying to kick our ass,” the officer said. “Against China, Russia, hell, even Yemen as we saw last year: The thing has to be able to defend itself. They are going to put more armor on it, better electronic warfare systems to make it harder for missiles to seek; they’re giving it the ability to shoot down super-sonic missiles. They have to bring it up to a level where it's survivable.”

In the meantime, the Navy has maintained that it needs at least 52 small surface combatants, ultimately made up mostly of littoral combat ships, to do security cooperation exercises with allies and the low-end missions the LCS was purchased for in the first place, said Bryan Clark, a retired submariner and analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

Having the LCS in the fleet would allow the Navy to work through deferred maintenance on its larger surface combatants.

“The Navy needs these ships for security cooperation missions,” Clark said. “You want to talk about the readiness crisis; they keep deploying cruisers and destroyers to do missions that could easily be handled by a ship with less capability. These are the ships that you'd really want for that.”
source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Jura

General
where do I start here ... I've read
Base Notice: RFI: FFG(X) - US Navy Guided Missile Frigate Replacement Program -
N0002418R2300
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

already twice; I also read (but not twice LOL) the following articles (I don't repost the texts as I don't know if anybody cares about what's going on):

Frigate competition wide open: Navy specs reveal major design shift
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Navy Releases Details of New FFG(X) Guided-Missile Frigate Program in Request to Industry
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Exclusive interview: The Navy's surface warfare director talks frigate requirements
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


I'm going to add my thoughts later
 

Jura

General
Today at 1:14 PM
where do I start here ... I've read
Base Notice: RFI: FFG(X) - US Navy Guided Missile Frigate Replacement Program -
N0002418R2300
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

already twice; I also read (but not twice LOL) the following articles (I don't repost the texts as I don't know if anybody cares about what's going on):

Frigate competition wide open: Navy specs reveal major design shift
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Navy Releases Details of New FFG(X) Guided-Missile Frigate Program in Request to Industry
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Exclusive interview: The Navy's surface warfare director talks frigate requirements
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


I'm going to add my thoughts later
but later noticed in Internet several analyses/"analyses" emerged, so without reading them now, I'll just repeat the politically-correct points from the Facebook discussion with 'dtulsa' here (LOL thanks man):

first of all
"The U.S. Navy's requirement is for 52 small-surface combatants, the bulk of which will be LCS." (the quotes here come from either article I linked above Today at 1:14 PM)
which means they'll keep building the LCS PORK Jul 1, 2017

also most important:
"We want this to be part of the high/low mix."
the first time I've heard this from USN (until now everything, including dysfunctional LCSs, was "front end")

then, there's a puzzling radar part:
"So on this ship we are looking at something more like a three-by-three, so four six-foot-by-six foot arrays."

[one of the requirements]: Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar (EASR) 3 face fixed array (3x3x3
Radar Modular Assembly)

why puzzling? because "Concepts of employment for this type of ship will include integrated operations with area air defense capable destroyers and cruisers as well as independent operations while connected and contributing to the fleet tactical grid."

it's related to the really vague part
Self Defense Launcher Capability
To increase the FFG(X) self-defense, the Navy is particularly interested in understanding the trade space surrounding the addition of Launcher Capability (to support Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile Block 2 and/or Standard Missile-2 Active missiles). Solutions should describe the launcher type, cell
quantities the proposed design could accommodate, and if able to be cost effectively integrated include considerations for strike length variants to maximize weapons flexibility. The Navy is also interested in the potential space, weight, and volume the launcher represents that can be included in the FFG(X) design as well as how many cells could be accommodated if design changes were pursued along with understanding the capability trades and cost impacts of those changes. Any innovative approach vendors may have in providing a Launch System or increasing capacity by making design trades across FFG(X) requirements will also be considered.
finally the USN appears to have dropped the nonsensical 'saving over the lifetime by reduced manning' claim:
"200 personnel crew max" between "Key FFG(X) Threshold Attributes"
but who knows

finally the USN appears to have dropped the excessive speed (good just for fanbois) requirement:
"28 kts at 80% MCR" between "Key FFG(X) Threshold Attributes"

the range should enable to sail between Hawaii and California without refueling, something an LCS couldn't Apr 29, 2015
from DOT&E FY2014 Annual Report
p. 200 (6 out of 10 in the PDF available as
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
):
During operational testing, LCS 3 did not demonstrate that it could achieve the Navy requirement for fuel endurance (operating range) at the prescribed transit speed or at sprint speed.
...
Based on fuel consumption data collected during the test, the ship’s operating range at 14.4 knots is estimated to be approximately 1,961 nautical miles (Navy requirement: 3,500 nautical miles at 14 knots)
etc., my question is
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
just had issues during that particular test, or it's more general?

EDIT
now I checked at
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

San Diego -- Honolulu Distance 2275 nautical miles
 

Top