radiosilence
jints
The price as of now is around 100 mil. I believe one of the two prototypes is being used by special forces.
The US Navy LCS May Have Died Today
- Thread starter Galrahn
- Start date
LCS vs. JHSV what for?
The total programmatic cost for the first (Army) JHSV is $220 million !!! The cost for the HSV WestPac Express used as a transport only for US Marines was about $45 mil in then year dollars. A better comparison might be to the newer Austal trimarans? But in the end why does the USN need a small trans-oceanic transport of limited lift capablity for inter-theater sealift missions? Somebody in senior USN management ought to answer that one pls?!!
Don't get me wrong I am a true believer in HSVs as tactical sealift platforms for maneuver warfare. BUT the JHSV as currently spec'd is NOT that~ and the LCS while bigger and longer range does NOT have sealift as a function.
Can you tell I am sealift proponent?
The total programmatic cost for the first (Army) JHSV is $220 million !!! The cost for the HSV WestPac Express used as a transport only for US Marines was about $45 mil in then year dollars. A better comparison might be to the newer Austal trimarans? But in the end why does the USN need a small trans-oceanic transport of limited lift capablity for inter-theater sealift missions? Somebody in senior USN management ought to answer that one pls?!!
Don't get me wrong I am a true believer in HSVs as tactical sealift platforms for maneuver warfare. BUT the JHSV as currently spec'd is NOT that~ and the LCS while bigger and longer range does NOT have sealift as a function.
Can you tell I am sealift proponent?
JHSV specs vs. LCS
In typical Navy (& Army) fashion, the NAVSEA project office added bells and whistles to the JHSV specs. To be precise, they took an LSV type ship and overlaid a set of HSV rqmts. To make matters worse they picked HSV specs at the high end of the spectrum (see below comment). Nine pages just to list the standards - does that give you an idea? But most importantly NAVSEA (with the Army's input as it is a joint project now) requires a small ship which can self-deploy at high speeds trans-oceanic. That drives up the size. And they required a ship with a flight deck and large elevator which can discharge alongside. That certainly makes it much more specialized.
Based on my experience with WPE, I think that the Navy, not Army, should buy and exsting design ROPAX i.e. roll-on/roll-off and passenger HSV. There are literaly a dozen possibilities. The ship's range, cargo lift, and accomodation should be perform inside theater i.e. tactical sealift for maneuver ops. WPE by way of reference carries about 900 troops and 300 tons of tactical vehicles/helos. HSVs a little larger are available now.
In typical Navy (& Army) fashion, the NAVSEA project office added bells and whistles to the JHSV specs. To be precise, they took an LSV type ship and overlaid a set of HSV rqmts. To make matters worse they picked HSV specs at the high end of the spectrum (see below comment). Nine pages just to list the standards - does that give you an idea? But most importantly NAVSEA (with the Army's input as it is a joint project now) requires a small ship which can self-deploy at high speeds trans-oceanic. That drives up the size. And they required a ship with a flight deck and large elevator which can discharge alongside. That certainly makes it much more specialized.
Based on my experience with WPE, I think that the Navy, not Army, should buy and exsting design ROPAX i.e. roll-on/roll-off and passenger HSV. There are literaly a dozen possibilities. The ship's range, cargo lift, and accomodation should be perform inside theater i.e. tactical sealift for maneuver ops. WPE by way of reference carries about 900 troops and 300 tons of tactical vehicles/helos. HSVs a little larger are available now.
Last edited:
radiosilence
jints
Navy seeks fixed price on General Dynamics' ship
WASHINGTON, Sept 21 (Reuters) - The U.S. Navy has asked General Dynamics Corp (GD.N: Quote, Profile, Research) to switch to a fixed-price contract for its shore-hugging Littoral Combat Ships or risk losing at least part of the deal, a Navy spokesman said on Friday.
The Navy asked General Dynamics to restructure the deal in a letter dated Wednesday due to cost growth ranging from 50 percent to 75 percent on the company's lead ship, according to Lt. Cmdr. John Schofield.
General Dynamics cannot start work on its second LCS ship until a deal is reached to set a ceiling on the construction price, the Navy said. (Reporting by Kristin Roberts)
http://uk.reuters.com/article/tnBasicIndustries-SP/idUKWAT00812620070921?feedType=RSS&feedName=tnBasicIndustries-SP
WASHINGTON, Sept 21 (Reuters) - The U.S. Navy has asked General Dynamics Corp (GD.N: Quote, Profile, Research) to switch to a fixed-price contract for its shore-hugging Littoral Combat Ships or risk losing at least part of the deal, a Navy spokesman said on Friday.
The Navy asked General Dynamics to restructure the deal in a letter dated Wednesday due to cost growth ranging from 50 percent to 75 percent on the company's lead ship, according to Lt. Cmdr. John Schofield.
General Dynamics cannot start work on its second LCS ship until a deal is reached to set a ceiling on the construction price, the Navy said. (Reporting by Kristin Roberts)
http://uk.reuters.com/article/tnBasicIndustries-SP/idUKWAT00812620070921?feedType=RSS&feedName=tnBasicIndustries-SP
No wonder the LCS program might be in trouble.
LCS contract changes
Since the Congress has "unfunded" the second version of each LCS, the existing contract type had to change. Since each company is only building one, fixed price seems to make sense? IF you assume that both GD and LM have got costs under control - which may be a leap of faith?
Or this may just be necessary for NAVSEA to do a termination for convience with GD as opposed to the terminaton for default with LM?
Since the Congress has "unfunded" the second version of each LCS, the existing contract type had to change. Since each company is only building one, fixed price seems to make sense? IF you assume that both GD and LM have got costs under control - which may be a leap of faith?
Or this may just be necessary for NAVSEA to do a termination for convience with GD as opposed to the terminaton for default with LM?
radiosilence
jints
Doubt it.
Kuwait is currently having two diver support ships / small gunboats being built in the US (with weapons from Germany), and is financing those via FMS money. Probably referring to that.
radiosilence
jints
It was reported last year that the Saudis were interested in GD's version of the LCS. Might the Kuwaitis go for the same ship?
Don't really see the "size requirement" in Kuwait.
Their two "large" units are a Lürssen FPB57 (57m FAC with Exocet/76mm), modernized in 2003, and one Lürssen TNC45 (45m FAC with Exocet/76mm), modernized sometime recently too.
They also still have their eight (?) Um Al Maradim FACs (42m FAC with Sea Skua/40mm), built a few years ago.
In 2005, Kuwait expressed some interest in acquiring new corvettes from Lürssen (to replace above Lürssen FACs?). These corvettes, however, would probably more in the "classic" 500-600 ton range, similar to the Turkish Kılıç I/II class designed by Lürssen.
Iirc, the same year there was a FMS announcement for 12 Mk-V FPBs from the US, intended as high-speed interceptors to be armed with German 27mm guns.
Actually, he could also refer to this FMS sale of Mk-V craft. That one's worth around $175m.
I believe the Israelis were interested in the mono-hulll LCS back when the cost was something reasonable~ That would be the LM-Marinette-Fincanterini design. So why not just go directly to the original desisgner and get a ship without all the USN bells&whistles for a lot less money? After the USN has paid alot in overhead for design development to LM!
F-15 Eagle
New Member
Man that sucks!
The Navy says it needs 313 ships for the 21st Century and this is a major setback for the Navy. The fleet has declined from 600 ships in the 1980's to just 276 today. The fleet can't drop anymore and if anything it must increase. A U.S. senator (I can't remember his name) says they should have 350 ships to maintain their Navel dominance.:coffee
The Navy says it needs 313 ships for the 21st Century and this is a major setback for the Navy. The fleet has declined from 600 ships in the 1980's to just 276 today. The fleet can't drop anymore and if anything it must increase. A U.S. senator (I can't remember his name) says they should have 350 ships to maintain their Navel dominance.:coffeeeconomically speaking, it's really not feasible considering the slow pace of the US economic growth these days + the cost of shipbuilding in America. Let's face it, people talk about the PLAN growth, but there is no way you can grow like that unless you can build a 054A for $200 mil or a Type 22 for $25 mill. The cost of building LCS, DDX and CVN-78 just continues to escalate. I know this would never happen, but if they really want to stay on schedule, get the South Korean shipyards to build the ships for them.Man that sucks!
F-15 Eagle
New Member
I would not say its not feasible, it can be done its just no one has the will to do it because its cost a little bit of money.
You know I have seen several very good & imaginative warship designs come out of SKorean and Japanese shipyards recently. But I have not seen any advance marine vessels from them? Aussies and Europeans seem to be ahead of the power curve in that area.
The problem always comes when NAVSEA tries to translate new technology into their own contract spec gibberish! I have reviewed the JHSV spec and it a jumble of junk rqmts!
One has to wonder why not?:
Use the LCS-Isreali design approach for next LCS design, and put all the module transport/tactical sealift functions into a revised JHSV?
The problem always comes when NAVSEA tries to translate new technology into their own contract spec gibberish! I have reviewed the JHSV spec and it a jumble of junk rqmts!
One has to wonder why not?:
Use the LCS-Isreali design approach for next LCS design, and put all the module transport/tactical sealift functions into a revised JHSV?
The obvious solution might be to put the Israeli LCS kit onto the more successful Austal / GD trimaran design, and have Austal produce it ASAP. I would hope to avoid having GD's hands on the project, which would otherwise pretty much guarantee cost blowouts! These ships shouldn't cost much over $500m in full rate production, so a rate of six ships per year shouldn't be too unreasonable, with an annual cost of c.$3bn. This would mean that eight years production would allow 48 ships to be produced, allowing all the OHPs to be retired. It would also allow the Arleigh Burkes to be shifted over to other duties that are more suited to its capabilities.
It the US really needs a 300+ ship Navy, then much as in the '80s, some shortcuts need to be taken. This means you need to get as many cheap ships into service as possible, to work alongside the fancy expensive ships. Buying a 'cheap' LCS with proper weaponry (i.e. ESSM, Harpoon etc) might not be as glamorous as a 25,000 ton nuclear powered cruiser, but for the price of one of those ships, you could probably get a dozen of these ships! I would aim for an in service force of 10 CVNs (11 total, with one in refit), 10 (11) LHAs, 60 (66) Arleigh Burkes (instead of the DDX), 60 (66) Littoral Combat Ships, and a load of subs.
Just as an aside, in terms of subs, I would look very seriously at developing a very small electrical output, possibly liquid metal, nuclear reactor. This would then be 'plugged' into a fairly small submarine like the Aussie Collins class. If this can have a good enough output, and not be too big, then it would allow for a much cheaper nuclear sub, to replace the old LA class. Unless something like this is done, the sub force will drop below the necessary threshold for current contingency ops, and eventually below the threshold for day-to-day ops. These subs would be designed to have a good enough top speed, and good combat systems, but not the massive costs of the Virginia class. It could be a nice shortcut to Tango-Bravo - add in the photonics masts, and carry some Mk54 lightweight torpedoes, and you've got an excellent sub!
It the US really needs a 300+ ship Navy, then much as in the '80s, some shortcuts need to be taken. This means you need to get as many cheap ships into service as possible, to work alongside the fancy expensive ships. Buying a 'cheap' LCS with proper weaponry (i.e. ESSM, Harpoon etc) might not be as glamorous as a 25,000 ton nuclear powered cruiser, but for the price of one of those ships, you could probably get a dozen of these ships! I would aim for an in service force of 10 CVNs (11 total, with one in refit), 10 (11) LHAs, 60 (66) Arleigh Burkes (instead of the DDX), 60 (66) Littoral Combat Ships, and a load of subs.
Just as an aside, in terms of subs, I would look very seriously at developing a very small electrical output, possibly liquid metal, nuclear reactor. This would then be 'plugged' into a fairly small submarine like the Aussie Collins class. If this can have a good enough output, and not be too big, then it would allow for a much cheaper nuclear sub, to replace the old LA class. Unless something like this is done, the sub force will drop below the necessary threshold for current contingency ops, and eventually below the threshold for day-to-day ops. These subs would be designed to have a good enough top speed, and good combat systems, but not the massive costs of the Virginia class. It could be a nice shortcut to Tango-Bravo - add in the photonics masts, and carry some Mk54 lightweight torpedoes, and you've got an excellent sub!
Sorry Lawman it is not that easy. First off the mission systems for an Israeli LCS are still under consideration, secondly those type systems are pretty much hull specific. Goto LM-LCS website and read up on the weapons adds they are considering. They are not packages like the mission modules. More importantly Israel has a weapons systems industry which can bring engineering and hardware to the table. Something LM needs badly!
While I like the Austal trimaran for some LCS missions, I think the fast monnohull is better for others. In either case it has been a steep learning curve for both Navy and LCS contractors.
As to force sizing, the Navy has reclama the LCS cuts. I strongly believe the Navy needs on copy of each hull design to learn what their attributes are. The Navy badly needs low end corvettes/frigates and more mid-sized Burkes. But I don't know if that is what they are going to get?
You can send your ideas about total force to your local congressional type just as CNOs have been doing for years with about the same results. Them folks on the hill are only interested in their "backyard shipyards"!!!
While I like the Austal trimaran for some LCS missions, I think the fast monnohull is better for others. In either case it has been a steep learning curve for both Navy and LCS contractors.
As to force sizing, the Navy has reclama the LCS cuts. I strongly believe the Navy needs on copy of each hull design to learn what their attributes are. The Navy badly needs low end corvettes/frigates and more mid-sized Burkes. But I don't know if that is what they are going to get?
You can send your ideas about total force to your local congressional type just as CNOs have been doing for years with about the same results. Them folks on the hill are only interested in their "backyard shipyards"!!!
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
A few things to consider for a future sub design. IIRC the Virginia-class SSN was commissioned as Los Angeles/688-class replacements following cancellation of the Seawolf after three boats. It was intended to take some of the lessons and techniques developed for or from the Seawolf, without the massive cost per vessel of the Seawolf.
As to the USN making use of a liquid metal reactor, I do not see that happening. As I understand it (not an engineer but have a little knowledge of the subject) the pumps need to keep running to circulate the liquid metal, otherwise the reactor goes critical. If the pumps fail/get damaged/etc no more boat. Other types (like water-cooled) have other mechanisms to maintain some cooling/control over the reactor in the event of a failure in the circulating system. Personally I would be interested to see what potential benefits vs. cost a He-3 cooled reactor would have aboard a sub.
On another note, some of the sig management developments work best on larger boats, the Collins is large for a SSK but still smaller than many SSN. So by deploying a smaller SSN, it potentially will be easier to detect than something like a Seawolf or Virginia.
-Cheers
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Agreed, any future/further discussion of USN subs or subs in general should likely have its own thread. I just added that one comment in as a point of clarification on the 313 ship fleet, which LCS was to be a component of.
-Cheers