U.S. military programs at risk for cuts!

tphuang

Super Moderator
So to you, Sea_Toby the LCS seems a sensible addition to the fleet, even at a total end cost for the Independence of 660 million $ and for Freedom of 631 million $? The price for further ships will of course drop, but I really wonder like HK if it reaches the 460 mill. $ per Ship as fast as the administrations plans.
depends on what dollar. Considering the inflation we are likely to see with all this money printing they are doing, 460 million USD in a couple of years may be much less than it is right now. And the other issue is with the kind of debt they are running, it's anyone's guess what the administration will do.

btw, saying that it is a glorified minehunter that has no AD past 10 km isn't really a great sales pitch for LCS.

As for bang for the buck, that depends what you are comparing to. For the same cost for building one LCS (let's just say 600 million), China can build:
40 Type 022 FACs
or
3 054As
or
1 052D with money to spare.
 

Sea Toby

New Member
As long as we maintain enough ships similar to the good destroyer Bainbridge we'll manage. Oh, by the way, anchors aweigh Billy B. You made all of us and your namesake proud.
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
btw, saying that it is a glorified minehunter that has no AD past 10 km isn't really a great sales pitch for LCS.

As for bang for the buck, that depends what you are comparing to. For the same cost for building one LCS (let's just say 600 million), China can build:
40 Type 022 FACs
or
3 054As
or
1 052D with money to spare.
tphuang, I see the USN as having it's unique needs (given their current blue water naval capabilities) and the LCS design as their strategic response via ship specification. If they wanted to build cheap, a US shipyard is not the place to go. Further, if they wanted the same air defence capabilities in this class of ship, the USN might as well build more destroyers.

The USN is trying to innovate and IMHO, the LCS is much more than a glorified minehunter. But I do get your point that that the LCS is expensive for a vessel of this size class. :D
 
Last edited:

Sea Toby

New Member
The US Navy will use their carriers, cruisers, and destroyers for operations on the front line, and use the LCSs for ocean escorting of convoys across an ocean. However, under the air umbrella of carriers, cruisers, and destroyers LCSs will be used in littoral areas close to the shore. The LCSs aren't being deployed individually, they will be part of a fleet.
 

Ozzy Blizzard

New Member
The US Navy will use their carriers, cruisers, and destroyers for operations on the front line, and use the LCSs for ocean escorting of convoys across an ocean. However, under the air umbrella of carriers, cruisers, and destroyers LCSs will be used in littoral areas close to the shore. The LCSs aren't being deployed individually, they will be part of a fleet.
Although without DDG-1000's they aren't going to have the same level of AAW in the littorals, SPY-1D cant handle the littorals in the same manner as SPY-3. Might be a sticky issue for a relatively AAW deficient LCS. .
 

Sea Toby

New Member
Any thoughts on this version of the lockheed martin LCS

Surface Combat Ship

Seems like when all that empty space is utilized the ship can pack a lot of fire power for its size.
Yes, it does look good, with ESSM and harpoons. More than likely though it will cost nearly the same as LCS. The problem is the US Navy has already built too many destroyers with similar weapon systems. We are only building more Burkes because the next cruiser design isn't ready.

What is needed right now is to build open ocean escorts to replace the frigates with something a bit more capable in other missions. Our minehunters we have now are showing their age, and are incapable of steaming across the oceans. In other words they weren't designed for six months deployments.

What I am worried about is that for every extra Burke is built, we will end up with one less cruiser.
 

luca28

New Member
After the VH-71 termination – What’s next?

06:27 GMT, June 11, 2009, defpro.com | On January 23, 2009, President Obama stated that the VH-71 presidential helicopter programme was “an example of the procurement process gone amok.” In fact, the VH-71 programme has experienced significant schedule delays. US Defense Secretary Robert Gates said April 6 that the programme has fallen six years behind schedule and runs the risk of not delivering the requested capability. He recommended the president to terminate the programme which has seen already more than $3 billion invested to cover the R&D and production costs of the first phase.

As a result, Ashton Carter, the DOD acquisition executive, issued an internal DOD memorandum directing that the VH-71 programme be cancelled on May 15, 2009. The Navy announced a stop-work order and a termination of the programme on June 1.

Since the termination of the VH-71 programme, which had the aim to provide 23 new helicopters replacing the 19 aging VH-3D and VH-60N rotorcraft used to transport the president, the US Congress has now to approve the Administration’s proposal and initiate a successor programme.

According to a report by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) released on June 5, CRS is exploring the costs of alternatives to canceling the VH-71 presidential helicopter programme. In this report the CRS stated that continuing with the VH-71 programme in more or less the current form would result in acquisition costs of $13 billion or more, including sunk costs on the VH-71 programme of more than $3 billion bill, thus taxpayers would have to pay about $10 billion.

Since its beginning, the programme was divided into Increment I and Increment II helicopters. The Increment I meet some but not all the operational requirements as stated in the VH-71 Operational Requirements Document which was approved by the DOD In December 2003. It was intended that the Increment I enter service first as near-term replacements while Increment II which meet all the requirements in the ORD, were to enter service later.

An alternative proposed by the CRS would see 18 Increment I aircraft procured while Increment II would be cancelled. Including the five pilot production Increment I aircraft, this would make a total fleet of 23 presidential helicopters. Terminating the Increment II would save $3.6 billion leaving less than $6.4 billion to taxpayers, the report stated. Another option could see 14 rather than 18 additional Increment I aircraft procured saving another hundreds of millions of dollars.

This estimate of both proposals, however, does not include the costs of keeping the 19 existing presidential helicopters in operation until they are replaced by the new aircraft.

Alternatively the 19 existing presidential helicopters could be upgraded and their service lives extended. Such an upgrade could cost $4.4 billion according to US Navy estimates. According to the CRS an upgrade could extend the service life of the VH-60Ns from 10 000 to 12 000 flight hours and thus provide another 6.9 years in operation. The VH-3Ds would have their service lives extended from 14 000 hours to 16 000 hours, providing another 6.7 years of operation. However, the 19 existing aircraft would not meet many of the operational requirements in the VH-71 ORD.

Be this as it may, due to the advanced age and technological limitations of the current fleet, a new fleet of presidential helicopters are still necessary. The proposed live extension of the current fleet of presidential helicopters, which are already 35 years old, would just postpone the date for a new programme which still will be needed. The US Congress has now to find out if a total termination of the programme would be even more costly than completing the current program under one of the above mentioned option.

Lockheed Martin Systems Integration-Owego is the prime contractor and systems integrator for the VH-71 programme with overall responsibility for the programme and aircraft system. AgustaWestland, the principal subcontractor, has responsibility for the basic air vehicle design, production build, and basic air vehicle support functions.
Source: defence.professionals | defpro.com
 
Top