LCS Price Gives Navy Pause

LCS Price Gives Navy Pause

At last week’s Navy League expo, Lockheed Martin’s Paul Lemmo told DoD Buzz he thinks the decision on which of the two Littoral Combat Ship offerings will win the Navy’s down select this summer, his company’s steel mono-hull or General Dynamics’ all aluminum trimaran, is an easy one.

Lockheed Martin’s steel mono-hull LCS can be built in most any shipyard and, more importantly, it can put in for repairs at many more dry-docks than can GD’s trimaran. How many more? There are roughly 10 dry-docks in the Norfolk area, Lemmo said, only two of which could fit the trimaran. Lockheed’s mono-hull fits in all of them. That ease of maintenance will result in lower LCS lifecycle costs, Lemmo says.

The issue of LCS lifecycle costs is a hot one. GD contends that the Navy’s down select criteria doesn’t sufficiently emphasize lifecycle costs. GD says its trimaran will burn much less fuel than Lockheed’s LCS-1 mono-hull over the life of the ships.


At the request of Sen. Jeff Sessions R-Ala, who supports the GD design, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) examined LCS-1 lifecycle costs and how projected fuel usage will impact those costs. CBO found that LCS-1 fuel costs would be largely insignificant. Fuel costs would account for somewhere between 8 and 18 percent of total costs; whereas the ship’s price tag accounts for up to 66 percent of total costs.

Lockheed’s Lemmo said they’ve been able to bring down LCS-3 production costs about 30 percent compared to LCS-1. LCS-3 is over 40 percent complete and on track for a 2012 delivery. He said much of the work on LCS-1 was done at pier side, versus while it was still on land, a far costlier way to build a ship. Most of the pre-outfitting on LCS-3 will be done on land.

While the two builders argue over competing costs, the cost that is causing the Navy staff heartache is the ship’s price tag. CBO estimates that once the Navy selects a single design, ship costs will come down to about $550 million. Of course that doesn’t include the cost for the mission modules.

As CRS naval analyst Ron O’Rourke points out in a new report on the LCS program, $550 million is a heck of a lot more than the initial cost estimate of $220 million. At $220 million a copy, the Navy’s planned buy of 55 of these “inexpensive” ships made some sense. Now things may be changing.

Navy sources tell DoD Buzz that there is a lot of dissatisfaction on the Navy staff with the LCS. “It’s sucking up money better spent on a real warship,” said one source. It’s way over-engineered for the missions it will conduct, such as counternarcotics and counter-piracy, said another. Those same sources said they’re hearing not altogether encouraging things about progress with the LCS mission modules, particularly the mine sweeping and the anti-submarine warfare modules.

From what we’re hearing, there’s a good chance the final number may end up being much lower.

Join the Conversation

Overpriced, undermanned, under armed, and they will be out-gunned by a small group of Iranian speedboats. These things won’t be able to operate unless they have air cover or an escort.

These ships are the next PUEBLO-incident-in-waiting.

Build more DDG 51s. These ships can defend themselves. The LCS, either model, can not. Why put crews in harms way if the ship can’t fight?

Good Afternoon Camp,

The French can do better then that a 1,200 Corvette size ship designed for the anti-pyracy mission for $39 million US, delivered in 18 months.

Scrap just one LCS and have 20 of these puppies and in a year and a half to boot, and be they can be killing pyrates while GD is still checking the wording of the contract and looking for loop holes for change orders.

That was a neat trick the Russian did, setting ten pyrates lose in their own boat and it disappears in an hour all ten dead. Boy, attaching that timed explosive charge under the pyrates skiff when the pyrates weren’t looking, then releasing them them w/o their GPS and other gear and weapons was a good trick, ha, ha a good one Ivan. The US SEALS might try this sometime.

Oh by the way the last quoted price of the LCS according to an article by the USNI was $785 million. The price will come down, ha, ha.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

I know virtually nothing about naval ships but figured Byron was wrong. Quick research revealed the French originally built seventeen A69 “Aviso” corvettes most likely in the 70’s based on a Portugese design. Eight of those ships were decommissioned or sold around the turn of the century and the remaining nine will be stripped of heavy weapons and converted to oceanic patrol ships. Does not look like it could land any kind of major helicopter on its deck. Doubt it would cost anywhere near $39 million to build today. 6000 ton FREMM multipurpose frigates have replaced the old french corvettes.

What an absurd boat. Why can’t the Navy just buy one of the advanced small frigates now being acquired by navies in France and Spain? Surely those boats are vastly more capable (and vastly cheaper) than LCS. Its just insane to spend this kind of money on a steel raft with a 5 inch gun. Why not just re-commission a Fletcher class destroyer? At least it would carry torpedoes.

Read some of the CBO report and coincidentally saw LCS-2 while attending my Navy nephew’s wedding last week. Looks virtually as big as the Aegis cruiser it was parked next to and has a huge helicopter deck. Has a 45 knot top speed compared to Byron’s 24 knot french corvette.

The latter would easily support MH-60s carrying SEALS, HH-60s, a V-22, or an MH-47E. It could act as a FARP for other helicopters operating off larger ships. LCS-1 would also excel at disembarking unmanned surface vessels. Suppose you could fly Apaches or OH-58D off either as well which would negate any need for NLOS-LS or similar missiles immediately.

Put LCS off Taiwan or in the Straits of Hormuz and thwart speedboats and amphibious assaults with cruisers, destroyers, and aircraft carrier F-35s providing air defense and air cover.

By flight 1A these boats will be gunned up enough to fill the gap the Perry class left. I dont think being under gunned will be an issue for long. Theres enough cargo room to jam whatever they want in there.

On the GD website I came across the multi-role combatant. A slightly modified hull, it had the spy-1f, 32 vls cells, 8 harpoon tubes, a triple torpedo tube on either side, and two ciws. The only other alteration was the shrinking of the hangar a bit and a couple of knots off the top speed. This vessel looks a lot more like what is needed than the current iteration. I would only install one CIWS along with two CROWS and replace the harpoons with 8–16 more vls cells. In the literature it mentions that the vessels can still carry the modules developed for the lcs. Sounds perfect to me.

Good Evening Cole,

Good to see you back Cole, knowing that your research is, as usual wanting, I will give you a little more information. The ships have yet to be built, they will be constructed in the DCNS shipyard, 90 meters/295 ft. long, crew 30, range 8K nautical miles at 21 knots/24 MPH, will have a helicopter pad but no hanger. Cost 30 million euro or $39 million US. The ship will be built for the anti-pyracy mission.

You know Cole chasing Pyrates around in $2.8 billion DD 51’s, with a crew between 275 –325, we don’t need another USS Cole that cost a quarter billion to repair and get back to the fleet or what is likely to be $1 billion LCS’s, even if they can due 45 Knot’s, it just doesn’t make a lot of sense.

A 295 ft. $39 million gunboat with a crew of 30 to chase 10 meter skiffs with out boards around the India Ocean makes a lot more sense. Effective weapons platforms need not be expensive and over spec’ed to do the job. I agree, yes most this helicopter pad will not be able to land an MV/CV-22 won’t be able to land on it’s pad, or the MH-47E, so what.

This sounds like the Little Cheap Ship that Sec. Gates has been asking for. But for US ship yards cheap is $785 million. As far as the Taiwan Straight goes, a little mission creep there I think.

How’s the Doc. doing?

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

The reason an LCS is preferable to a typical corvette or frigate can be summed up in one word: SPEED. I helped build LCS-1 in Marinette and it can go quite a bit faster than the 45kts listed as it’s top speed. Also, most of the cost over runs were from four major problems: 1) the Navy changing things in mid stream meaning that many things had to be ripped out and redone; 2) the design agent Gibbs & Cox are simply incompetent and unwilling to work as part of a team; 3) Lockheed Martin were told long ago to “stick to airplanes because they were walking clusterf*cks as ship builders” and that remains true to this day, between LMCO’s arrogant attitude and unwillingness to listen to real shipbuilders and their management constantly lying and making promises to the Navy that they were told could not be kept it was a recipe for cost overrun disaster; 4) Marinette Marine ship yard is out-moded and in bad need of technological upgrades and the management likes it that way and does all it can to keep the manufacturing process as labor intensive as possible.

John: At one point the Perrys had a 40-round Mk13 Standard MR launcher (with Harpoon capability IIRC), the 76mm OTO gun, a Phalanx, 6 torpedo tubes, and two LAMPS helicopters. The LCS has a long, LONG way to go to equal that. The General Dynamics Multi-mission varient would be a nice replacement if it weren’t for the fact they’d manage to make it as expensive as a Burke.

Finally found the link claiming $39 million…18 months from now.…checks in the mail like A-400M, JSF, and I guess the first round of LCS. At 21 knots your pyrates and drug-runners will be laughing as they pull away from the french slowpoke.

Did you see that LCS-2 is the first Navy vessel equipped with SeaRAM anti-ship missiles married to Phoenix radars? I think the ship parked next to LCS-2 was a DDG-51…not a Ticonderoga as I implied earlier. That would explain the near identical lengths of 142 meters and 127 meters.

While you search look up “Broke, Buy a Few Warships, France tells Greece.” There, learn how Greece is being pressured to buy 6 FREMM frigates at a cost of $3.38 billion which seems to work out to around $550+ million each. Kind of calls into question the $39 million hypothetical future figure for a similar 90 meter vessel doesn’t it.

TY for the heads up.

Byron, one correction: SeaRAM to take out anti-ship missiles. Give me a headstart as I know Navy is your specialty.

No, I don’t think Taiwan is mission creep as the LCS is intended to fight small surface vessels, subs, and to support helicopters in doing both and special ops.

BTW, Doc-to-be is fine, thanks. She was at the wedding too, and likewise endured F/A-18E/F noise with the rest of us. I will never complain about helicopter noise again and can’t help but wonder what $700,000+ rented beach houses will be worth under F-35C noise.

Your welcome. If there is anything else you would like to know or if you have any questions about how the LMCO LCS project was actually run, just ask.

For defense purposes, perhaps buying cheap S.Korean Corvettes armed with missiles will solve this problems. They build good corvettes

Modular platforms suck flat out — the more you swap the worse they get. It is better to have a multifunctional craft than a mission specific one because you never know what you will run into. A 100 to 125 ft version of the ECHO class PT boats of WWII would be ideal, 4 to 6 could be carried an deployed from an amphib acting as mother ship in an area. There are numerous ocean going yachts today that exceed 45 knots, We could buy a number of hulls with only main deck and pilot house — gun them up — install a towed array sonar — and should be able to do it for less than 10 mil each with most of the cost being weapons. Otherwise I would also go with the VISBY over the LCS.

BOOMER , after reading all this I tend to agree with you … almost. It seems to me that the existing 10 PC’s were desiogned to do a lot of what the LCS is supposed to do; half the size, almost as fast, already proven. We should build more of them (like the Center for Naval Analysis recommended). A few upgrades in the design and we’re on the go. Sorry to the folks that suggest out sourcing … buy American or don’t spend my money.

OldSquid I fully believe in supporting AMERICA that is why I refer mostly to Sweeden and Germany on ship purchases because they have on more than one occasion built naval craft in our Gulf shipyards employing Americans, at least this way even though the profits will go overseas a lot of American families will have an income, possibly even longer since the Visby is so much cheaper than a GD or Lockheed LCS. I would not buy from france, turkey, russia, malaysia, or singapore even though they also make suitable platforms for far less than a LCS.

Good Morning Folks,

Hi Cole. Chasing Pyrates is no rocket science, want more speed put in bigger diesels. Since the anti-pyracy mission is mostly convoy escort duty with 10–17 Knot Container ships and bulk carriers a speed of 24 knots is enough.

Most likely the primary weapon will be the very good French 40mm CTAS, other options might include the US TOW-W which already is off the shelf programed for maritime use and the US GAU-12 25mm gun system and for the odd helicopter that might get involved the US Stinger is more then capable.

These ships don’t need Large Cal. Naval Guns, ASW, or BMD or even a robust SAM capacity. These are specialized vessels designed to do limited operations. They should be enough to do the job at minimal risk of resources and to crews.

If one is bothered by French manufacturing there are other countries that have a good history of building the 12 to 15 hundred ton Corvette size hulls. Any place in the UK, Germany, Sweden, South Korea and don’t count out Brazil.

I don’t know where you going to find a $700 K Beach House. Houses around here crossed the $1 million threshold in the last Century. Jet noise come with the property, the don’t fall out of the sky over neighborhoods to often. Earthquakes are more or less a daily affair, you get use to them, just don’t put knick-nacks to close to the edge of a shelf or get upset when picture on the wall move around, a small piece of foam two way tape on the bottom edge will keep them straight if it really bothers someone that much.

Boomer. Sorry but the plywood Navy was a WW II thing. The PT boat served it purpose in the South Pacific and to a more limited extent in the Mediterranean. A longer version of the PT oat was tried but it appears that with the technology of the times structurally a wood boat of that weight with the speed they wanted was limited to about 80 feet. The PT’s from there conception were mostly a stop gap measure till more Destroyers could be made, by mid 1944 there era was over.

The PT did prove very adaptable. With it torpedo tubes removed and a 40mm Bofars, added the PT proved to be an excellent close in off shore fire support platform as the US Army move up through the Vanuatu, Solomom and New Guinea Island chains toward the Philippines.

What may I ask do you have against the Higgins boat? Boomer. If you are interested there are a couple of excellent books printed by the GPO during the 1960’s, you remember JFK and all that on the PT Boats, out there. You can find them used on the net for a couple of bucks, often postage is more then the book.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Byron, if we took the stance of the Russians, “they were fine when we released them” .…
Or put a tracker on them and trace them back to the mother ship and use the pirate boats for phalanx target practice.

As usual ‚after 20 years Navy it never ceases to amaze me how they can never get it right. Always trying to pack 10# in a 5# bag . This system will not do what it supposedly started out to do for millions more than the original concept called for.

I dont have anything against the higgins, toured them at the Ma museum a couple of years back. Never said they had to be plywood either — I actualy mentioned purchasing a modern seagoing fast yacht as a base and modify it from there, The Danes build one that is 38m and does 50kts they build for a lot of folks, There is one in Moraco that is 118 m and does 70kts for 24 million which would be reduced considering we would only want the main structure and driveline. We have a couple here in the US as well. With a couple of bushmasters some twin 50’s some MK46 torpedos a towed array and some TOW and stingers they would be much more than capable of handling pirates and could buy a fleet of them for the cost of a couple of LCS ships. There are a number of commercial boats out there that could easily be modified to perform these ops at a large savings and do the job better. You just need a good hull and a couple of gas turbine diesel combo engines to get the speed, and mount a bunch of helo weapons to it (ASW and ANTI TANK/PERSONNEL) operate from a mother ship as I suggested and travel in pairs to support each other.

Again, we drift off into the world of the possible versus the practical. GD’s (actually, Australia’s) trimaran will be a maintenance nightmare! Just because we can doesn’t mean we should. Or is the trimaran just a Pentagon strawman so the Navy can pick the more classic looking warship? Just like they did with the Lockheed Martin Joint Strike Fighter (F-35), which looked more like the F-22 classic fighter jet, versus the Boeing ugly duckling with its under the mouth scoop intake but which might have been more maintainable with its single wing concept that would have been a money saver. And it’ll only cost us taxpayers a few billion dollars to play this shell game.

Good Afternoon Cole,

You just want to see blood on the water. “They were fine when we released them…” works for me. It’s like the old logic problem, “…if a Pyrate skiff blows up 300 miles from land in the open ocean and nobody hears or sees it, did it make any noise?”

If the US would had these 10 Pyrates, after feeding them, giving them new clothes and personal hygiene items they would have taken them to with in sight of land, given them fuel, water and Islamic approved rations and vouchers for food an lodging ashore till there mother ship could come and pick them up.

The Russian sent a message to the Pyrates, Don’t mess with us, now we have to wait and see if Western Union delivered it.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

To the Russians: Two thumbs up.

I’m impressed with the Russian project 20380 Steregushchy class corvettes,
well-rounded in their armament, even if the electronics may be sub-standard by western comparisons.
As to the over-budget, poorly-armed LCS,
with the loss of the NLOS-LS/Netfires missiles from the Surface Warfare Modules, they now are nothing more than over-glorified Coast Guard cutters in all but name.
When LCS was still a CAD pipedream (computer concept),
I believed the USN would’ve been further to license-produce the Spanish F100 Alvaro de Bazan Multi-Purpose Frigate (http://​www​.naval​-technology​.com/​p​r​o​j​e​c​t​s​/​f​1​00/ ) as a suitable Perry replacement: Aegis equipped and with ample armament, they appear to be far more capable than any Perry has been modified into, and at the time (several years ago) was the same price that the LCS is at now.
Granted of course, US shipyards would’ve license-produced gold-plated versions of the ships, riddled with problems they would’ve blamed on the Spanish design rather than any US faults.
The F100s would’ve been perfect compliments to the Burkes, and Aegis can be upgraded to perform as an ABM system: quite impressive in a frigate-sized hull.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement