The US Navy LCS May Have Died Today

[Galrahn]

It looks like the LCS died today. The US Senate finalized its defense bill for 2008 and the results appear ultimately fatal to the LCS. Things could still change, but considering the House Bill has even less money for the LCS in FY08, it is unlikely the combined bill will add more money.

The results?

LCS-4 was canceled.
LCS-5 appears funded for FY08
LCS-6 appears unfunded for FY08
LCS-7 appears unfunded for FY08

I have a hard time believing the LCS will survive this long term, despite the rosy smiles the US Navy may give for a few months. An analysis of alternatives is due out in November, and so far the only thing it is reported to recommend is the 25,000 ton CBGN version of the CG(X). However, I expect to see an alternative to the LCS, in some form.

Questions. What effect would the cancellation have on Austal? How much of their business is weighted on the success of the US Navy LCS program?

Finally, does anyone know if Kockums has any partnerships with any US shipbuilders that could mass produce the Visby? That last is just wishful thinking, but you never know.

 

[AegisFC]

I expected LCS to die after Rummy left, I just expected it to be cancelled some time next year.

 

[radiosilence]

Senate panel cuts 1 of 3 LCS ships, backs FCS

By William Matthews - Staff writer
Posted : Wednesday Sep 12, 2007 19:43:56 EDT

The Senate subcommittee that oversees the U.S. military budget eliminated one of the Navy’s Littoral Combat Ships on Tuesday, leaving the program with just two ships.

Each remaining vessel is a different design, and the subcommittee said it expects the Navy to pick one as the winner in a contest between Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics to build as many as 55 ships for the Navy.

Each remaining vessel is a different design, and the subcommittee said it expects the Navy to pick one as the winner in a contest between Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics to build as many as 55 ships for the Navy....

navytimes

55 LCS for the navy?

 

[tphuang]

It looks like the LCS died today. The US Senate finalized its defense bill for 2008 and the results appear ultimately fatal to the LCS. Things could still change, but considering the House Bill has even less money for the LCS in FY08, it is unlikely the combined bill will add more money.

The results?

LCS-4 was canceled.
LCS-5 appears funded for FY08
LCS-6 appears unfunded for FY08
LCS-7 appears unfunded for FY08

I have a hard time believing the LCS will survive this long term, despite the rosy smiles the US Navy may give for a few months. An analysis of alternatives is due out in November, and so far the only thing it is reported to recommend is the 25,000 ton CBGN version of the CG(X). However, I expect to see an alternative to the LCS, in some form.

Questions. What effect would the cancellation have on Austal? How much of their business is weighted on the success of the US Navy LCS program?

Finally, does anyone know if Kockums has any partnerships with any US shipbuilders that could mass produce the Visby? That last is just wishful thinking, but you never know.

btw Galarhn, a great analysis with LCS and DDG-1000. Really interesting piece for me to read over.

it's interesting, why doesn't USN go something that contains less technology and requirement, but will have less risks (over budget/time) and making changes as they go? I like the PLAN model much better. small incremental steps.

 

[Tasman]

... why doesn't USN go something that contains less technology and requirement, but will have less risks (over budget/time) and making changes as they go? I like the PLAN model much better. small incremental steps.

I think that "small incremental steps" fairly accurately describes the model used successfully for half a century by the RN during its heyday (Dreadnought was an exception) and also, up until recently, by the USN. I have always thought that it is in the best interests of the leading naval power not to initiate new concepts that may render existing ships obsolete as doing so will give other powers a chance to catch up.

Tas

 

[Galrahn]

I agree completely Tasman.

I wrote about exactly that a few weeks back, and also used the Royal Navy as the example.

 

[Tasman]

I agree completely Tasman.

I wrote about exactly that a few weeks back, and also used the Royal Navy as the example.

I just had a quick look at your article in your blogspot. Looks like I should have said "used successfully for a century by the RN" rather than "used successfully for half a century".

Tas

 

[B.Smitty]

Finally, does anyone know if Kockums has any partnerships with any US shipbuilders that could mass produce the Visby? That last is just wishful thinking, but you never know.

Can any US shipbuilder handle a composite hull that large?

At one point I was in favor of Visby for at least part of the LCS mission, but it doesn't seem like a good bargain now. IIRC, the Swedes are paying somewhere around $187 million each for them. That doesn't seem like a very good deal for a 600 ton ship.

 

[kato]

Finally, does anyone know if Kockums has any partnerships with any US shipbuilders that could mass produce the Visby? That last is just wishful thinking, but you never know.

There is a strategic partnership with Northrop-Grumman Ship Systems about Visby technology for export/US bidding, since 2002.

The scope of this partnership was "deepened" in 2004, now affecting designs other than Visby as well (in order to tender to the USCG Deepwater FRC project).

 

[barra]

Doesn't look dead, 55 ships is a substantial order in anyones language.

In another favor for the Army, the Senate subcommittee keeps alive the armed reconnaissance helicopter by allocating $242.3 million for 16 helicopters. The House voted to cut all funds for buying helicopters, but allowed research and development to continue.

On other matters, is the ARH they are talking about the Comanche. I thought that project was dead and buried?

Hooroo

 

[Aussie Digger]

Doesn't look dead, 55 ships is a substantial order in anyones language.



On other matters, is the ARH they are talking about the Comanche. I thought that project was dead and buried?

Hooroo

Not exactly, it's a follow-on for the Kiowa Warrior based on the Bell 412.

See here for more:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...rmed-reconnaissance-helicopter-updated-02421/

 

[barra]

Thanks for that AD. I thought Comanche was long gone, the ARH looks like a capable enough machine though. Still it lacks a dirty great cannon like our Tigers.

Cheers

 

[Galrahn]

Doesn't look dead, 55 ships is a substantial order in anyones language.

55 ships was thenumber of LCS's included in the 313-ship plan the Navy released in 2005-2006 time frame. That plan hasn't exactly been executed well, and there is a lot of speculation it won't make it past the next year.

With no alternative to the LCS it may yet survive, but alternatives have a way of popping up quickly, the LCS was originally such an alternative that popped up quickly in FY02. In FY08 two will have already been built and delivered, so it doesn't take much time to change course.

 

[harryriedl]

55 ships was thenumber of LCS's included in the 313-ship plan the Navy released in 2005-2006 time frame. That plan hasn't exactly been executed well, and there is a lot of speculation it won't make it past the next year.

With no alternative to the LCS it may yet survive, but alternatives have a way of popping up quickly, the LCS was originally such an alternative that popped up quickly in FY02. In FY08 two will have already been built and delivered, so it doesn't take much time to change course.

any idea what will happen to the OHP [those sad emasculated OHP] if the LCS is dead. they will presumably be in service a lot long with just a Gun and a helo

 

[Galrahn]

any idea what will happen to the OHP [those sad emasculated OHP] if the LCS is dead. they will presumably be in service a lot long with just a Gun and a helo

I assume the Navy will hold on to them as long as they affordably can until the OHPs are retired, with or without replacement.

FY08 is evidence in another regard too though, just because 2 LCS will not be built, Congress will still build more ships. In this case more funding for a 2nd virginia class, the possibility of funding for a 10th lpd-17, and more T-AKEs.

Considering the US Navy needs more submarines, amphibious ships, and logistics in general, and it funds the Ford class carrier which has the indications of being a major success story in the future, even without the LCS I see FY08 as a good year for the Navy.

 

[harryriedl]

I assume the Navy will hold on to them as long as they affordably can until the OHPs are retired, with or without replacement.

FY08 is evidence in another regard too though, just because 2 LCS will not be built, Congress will still build more ships. In this case more funding for a 2nd virginia class, the possibility of funding for a 10th lpd-17, and more T-AKEs.

Considering the US Navy needs more submarines, amphibious ships, and logistics in general, and it funds the Ford class carrier which has the indications of being a major success story in the future, even without the LCS I see FY08 as a good year for the Navy.

are the fords still based off the Nimitz hull i was wondering because i thought that i read dispite the new wizz bang tecs its still based off the Nimitz hull. the next class of ships will be compleatly new hull and everything.

can the USN dispence with OHP or eqiverlents compleatly [50+ Burks are they enough for all the patroling and escorting?] and arn't they a bit expencive for protecting oil feilds in iraq.

 

[leesea]

The LCS is NOT dead, merely delayed!

I don't think all this doom and gloom is warranted. Regardless of the Navy's inept attempt to contract for new technology ships, the need still exists for a large corvette-sized ship to complement the larger DDs & DDX etc. There is also a dire need for a large production run of ships of this size. The Perry FFGs are wearing out.

I think the bill reported out of conference will set the course, and it will be for the Navy to buy one LCS hull design in moderate quantities at a reasonable price.

Austal will not be hurt by this. They continue to deliver HSVs regularly. Both from Australia and US shipyards. IF they are not selected as final LCS builder, they will just turn to commercial shipbuilding in the US as they will then have the production facilities to build larger vessels. I have to check to see if Austal Austraila has expanded again.

NGSS has not built a successful composite hull yet and if Kockums was smart they would get a new US partner! NGSS may offer a design to USCG for FRC-A, BUT I highly doubt Adm Allen will buy from them. Besides the USCG is well on its way to buying the FRC-B (non-composite) design.

A more interesting dialogue to watch is IF the USN & USCG can merge their rqmts for LCS and OPC into one hull. Now that would be a very interesting shipbuilding arrangement indeed!

 

[Galrahn]

A more interesting dialogue to watch is IF the USN & USCG can merge their rqmts for LCS and OPC into one hull. Now that would be a very interesting shipbuilding arrangement indeed!

There is evidence this is very possible, insidedefense ran a story about this the other day.

 

[leesea]

Yes that is the most recent article I've seen about merging USN&USCG ship programs, but it is still a lot of talk. I think the USCG is wary of NAVSEA ship acqusitions since the last icebreaker did not go so well. And having been involved in about a dozen NAVSEA ship procuements I would warn any "customer" to be very suspect! Especially when it comes to new tecnology ships. For instance, the current JHSV is a way over-spec RFP and too expensive per hull project IMHO! P.S. I worked on WestPac Express charter first time around.

 

[B.Smitty]

How much are we looking at for the JHSV? And what would be a reasonable price?