Austal, LockMar Nose to Nose For LCS

Austal, LockMar Nose to Nose For LCS

Those of us who hoped for an LCS contract announcement during the dolrdrums of late August must sigh and twiddle our thumbs for a bit.

The two bids are apparently so close that the Navy has come back to the two companies and asked for more information. Although the Navy has repeatedly told the world the award for the Littoral Combat Ship would be made this summer it now looks as if it will be made sometime before the beginning of 2011, according to a service statement,” Cmdr. Victor Chen said in a statement.

We hear the Austal ship is somewhat less expensive. But Lockheed’s ship is reputedly more survivable, always an tremendously important consideration for U.S. Navy ships. [We picked the photo of the Lockheed ship at random. Don’t read anything into it.]


Keenly aware of pressure from Congress and industrial supporters for a contract announcement, Chen’s statement says that the Navy “is proceeding with the LCS source selection diligently, thoroughly, and consistently with its source-selection plan and applicable law and regulations.  The Navy is taking the time necessary to carefully review and analyze the competing proposals.” And he can’t say much more about it. Indeed, Chen wrote, the service’s “duty to protect the integrity of the source-selection process, as well as the confidentiality of the information submitted by the offerors, significantly limits our ability to provide additional details about the ongoing competitive procurement at this time.

This contract will be for 10 ships. Whoever wins this one can’t bid in 2012 for the second tranche of five ships. A total of 51 ships will be bought, according to Navy plans.

Join the Conversation

These ships look to be effective drug interdiction vessels or could augment the USCG on some missions, but are a complete waste of money and resources for Blue Water. PUEBLO PART TWO arriving.…

Both designs have really strong and complementary points. Just wish they had stuck with the original plan of building both versions to exploit the strengths of each.…as they should with KC-X. Instead, we always end up in a red vs. blue state winner-take-all situation. We can spend billions in short-term bank and state employee bail-outs but won’t spring for a few extra billion for near permanent manufacturing that CANNOT BE OUTSOURCED in its entirety because it is defense-related. Sounds like the ultimate acceptable protectionism to me.

BTW, can anyone explain why you could not park an MLRS on the helicopter deck and have a better solution than dead NLOS-LS? The movement might be a problem, but not perhaps for the GPS rocket version? The Joint Air-Ground Missile could have “sea” added to it as well for small fast boats given its 16 km range.

Aurora, picture these beasts in the Straits of Malacca. Sounds like the perfect counter to carrier-targeters when their oil gets cut-off. Also picture it escorting Joint High Speed Vessels from Guam or Marcus or Wake island carrying Marines and Army equipment. These ships are worth the wait.

Cole — backblast from the MLRS/HiMARS launcher is an issue. An alternate launcher would be an option, but to inlude a reloading mechanism and rocket magazine would make it unpractical — or so I’m told.

GMLRS/ATACMS would also require really good RSTA, and it would outgrow the “littoral” mission.

I’m still expecting the “batch 2″ LCS to be more like the LCS-I with SPY-1F and VLS.

I really loved the NLOS-LS, and am sorry to see it go — the chance that the USN will continue is moot imho.

Great. Pick between two speedboat chasers that cost hundreds of millions of dollars to pad the # of ships in the US Navy. The chicomms will have them for lunch and must be laughing at their luck of having a fellow Maoist I. The white house.

Cole, the operating environments you note are relatively benign and in the case of the SOM, friendly air power is close by. Unfortunately I picture these “corvettes” in the Persian Gulf, surrounded by suicide boats. They are so under gunned and under manned that it would be a risk to our sailors lives to send them in a high threat environment without air cover or “adult supervision”, i.e., a DDG 51 standing by. If they can’t operate independently, then they should be assigned to the USCG interdicting drug runners and enforcing the 200 mile EEZ, chasing away errant fishing trawlers.

Unfortunately, with the size of the fleet decreasing and demands on the fleet remaining constant, some commander may have no alternative but to send one of these things into a high risk environment.

No one thought PUEBLO would result in the national humiliation that it did. Can you imagine the Iranians triumphantly displaying a captured LCS in Bandar Abbas? It would rock the government. I’m old enough to remember both the PUEBLO incident and the Iranian hostage crisis and neither Lyndon Johnson or Jimmy Carter didn’t have to contend with the 24 hour news cycle.

These ships simply don’t deliver a sufficient ROI given their massive cost and low potential. I would NOT want any family member of mine serving on one, not do I want to see any other American’s son or daughter put at risk on one of these things.

One of the sorriest things Ive seen the NAVY watse money on in a long time — the things are too big,and under gunned for littoral combat roles. This was the whole reason they stopped the Cyclone class (which is better armed) because they were too big for true littoral at half the size. They are way too under gunned to fill in for a destroyer. The only way to get any real use out of them other than just giving them to the Coast Guard would be to install Tomahawk box launchers and deck mounted torpedo tubes, yank the fwd deck gun off and dropp on a PALADIN or ABRAMS turrent and reclass them to a destroyer escort. The reason the NAVY refuses to build what the littoral warriors ask for (SEALS & SPECWAR Combat Crews) is because 05’s & 06“s want to command big boats, O3’s and enlisted command the smaller ones and the brass is only concerned with thier own.

I’m old enough to remember Pueblo…barely.;) But the South Korean corvette only lost 47 of 104 sailors. A LCS would have even fewer aboard and its own potential source of CASEVAC …and better nearby defenses. Don’t want to sound cold but Army and Marine troops lose those quantities every month…the Navy maybe once every few decades. If you must have a tripwire.…

When they get costs down to $400+ million in mass production, you will be able to buy all 51 more for the price of one carrier and its aircraft…with less personnel for all 55 than a single carrier. They can be in more places than a carrier group and provide picket counter sub and mine ops, as well as attack and lift helicopter, and special ops support at a fraction of the cost of a Virginia class sub.

Marcase, if they can withstand MV-22 and F-35 blast you would think the deck could handle MLRS. And don’t they have elevators to the deck?

I got to agree with Boomer about it being a waste of money.

If the Navy is going to build a ship of this size for littoral combat, I think it should have the firepower to match it. The 155 on the DDG-1000 and having a CWIS as a primary would weapon would help out. The CWIS could be used to destroy artillery rounds that are aimed at the Marines and others who are in shore. The 155 would be used as counterbattery for in shore support. These weapons would be in addition to all the normal defensive weapon systems

A platform in search of a mission…

Really cool ships and I’d really like to spend a bit of time on one (as long as it’s not named something like “Murtha”) but I am having trouble coming up with a threat environment I’d want to send one into without a lot of support.

It seems to be over-priced and under-gunned and I suspect that $2 million or so dollars worth of speedboats with appropriate weapons mounted could kill off $500 million or so dollars worth of our ship… Seems like a bad bargain.

Your not too far off — look up the MK5 SOC, used by NAVY SPECWAR, its an 80′ ft boat that has this thing beat all to heck in a fire fight.

woops… BAD IDEA to consider using AUSTAL. It’s not smart to use tax money to build up a foreign ship industry, because that will make our domestic industry weaker and we will be dependent on the foreign sources in the future.

I still find it hard to believe that Lockheed Martin is in the ship building business now.

They are part of GD and built in Alabama, As long as it is built here employing US citizens I can live with it even if I dont like it.

Cole, fatalities–as heartbreaking as they are–couldn’t come close to the spectacle of captured American sailors paraded daily through the streets of Teheran for the benefit of the world’s media–most of whom would be absolutely gleeful.

Its not even close.

The LCS’ are a disaster in waiting.

Aurora, the USS Pueblo was an intelligence ship with a total of two .50 cal, low in the water, with a top speed of 12.7 knots. Now picture the high in the water LCS going 45 knots…and turning…with plenty of early warning of threats from friends, more on board weapons, HELICOPTERS with weapons, and F-35s and Aegis not far off.

It’s a different era and different capability. Think too many get hung up on the “littoral” name. That definition will change now that big ships must stay 60nm off shore…which makes it curious that EFV is designed to go just 25nm in the water. Think the Chinese won’t target LHA and LPD with ASBM? This thing can stay out in deeper water during higher threats and dash in at night for missions. In peacetime it will have bad guys wondering if SOF are being dropped off…as opposed to a sub that is so subtle that it provides no deterrent…but is still there for those applications.

Marcase — I don’t think backblast from MLRS launcher will remain an issue. Several suppression devices using seawater are in developement.

Aurora — “under gunned and under manned” I think not. These ships are based on adaptability and will have modular weapons & inferfaces (I have heard this may include the newer railguns and anti-missile laser systems; as for anti-sub weapons I dont know). These ships are smart and require a lot less of a sailor’s attention to subsystems. A sailor will effectively be able to control systems more efficiently. The LM vessel is “more survivable” because it can be upgraded and outfitted for any likely threat, so deciding what weapons to put on it in this phase is very premature.

“We hear the Austal ship is somewhat less expensive.”. No, it’s because Austal is Australian. They pioneered the use of high-speed catamaran that can support a heavy equipments and cargo. US Navy/USMC and US Army fielded this after the Timor Independence fiasco.

“But Lockheed’s ship is reputedly more survivable” No offense but did any Lockheed ship ever survive an attack?

Non-American company will never be allowed to win any multi-million defense contract. Just ask EADS. :)

OMG.

LCS has not been designed for Blue Water.
Green and Brown water only.
Smaller, cheaper, faster, flexible multi-mission combatant!

Cole, there are far too many demands on watch standers on large crews during a 6 month deployment, let along a small (tiny) crew going “port and starboard”. These people would be exhausted. Additionally, a lone LCS, regardless of the toys and goodies it contains, could be taken out by enough suicide boats if it is operating independently and without air cover and escorts.

If they can’t operate without air cover and escorts, then they are unfit to go into harms way.

They are a disaster in waiting.

The knowledge gained benefits a foreign industry and is transferred out and we pay for it.

That has been going on for decades with us turning over ships and aircraft to foreign countries — one would think that we learned our lesson after thr french shared all the technology of the old Boomer we sold sold them with the russians. That brought the ruskies and others way up in sub tecnology. They did the same with aircraft. Other countries we sold or gave ships and aircraft to also are now outbuilding and selling the US with improved versions of our old gear. Like I said I dont like it — but at least they are building them here with american employees.

Modular weapons is the stupidist thing ever devised — already a big issue on other so called modualr platforms. A combat ship should be ready for anything thrown at it, what are they gonna do say “hold up I’m not equipped for a fight like that right now, wait here I’ll be right back.” Think off all the transit and inport time these ships will have compared to actual station time having to go back and forth for reconfiguration. STUPID _ STUPID _ STUPID! It should have full time heavy guns — anti ship rocket — anti air rockets — torpedos — anti submarine capabilities — anti mine capabilities — anti missile capabilities and able to deploy and support SPECWAR, and it should hav this capability 24/7 X 365.

But it failed in all those aspects completely — not much faster than a dd or ff, not much smaller either — cost more — cant operate in green or brown due to its size, but they forgot that was an issue already identified with the 150′ ft cyclone class.

As great as you might think Aussies really are..we need to keep the American defense industry in American hands. We’ve already exported enough civilian jobs out to India.

Has this platform even seen an overseas deployment yet? Seems like a waste of money considering the weapons systems in development these days…and what does this platform have over an Arleigh Burke class — savings? Just like the Cyclone..it looks pretty and fast but do we really need a littoral command ship?

That’s right, tell it like it is: We, the real, patriotic Americans, don’t export any jobs abroad, NOT A SINGLE PENNY !
We do need every possible Aussie however to fight our wars and to die for our oil, and to station some listening stations for our global espionage network “Echelon” in their Outback. Sometimes they don’t remember why, then we have to remind them again of our “very special relationship” !

Yep, that’s us, the glorious United States!

Hee hee…

nh-1 — You ought to do a little more research. If the Austal / General Dynamics ship wins it will be built at Austal USA’s facility in Mobile Alabama. If the Marinette Marine / Lockheed Martin ship wins it will be built in Wisonsin so both designs will be U.S. built. Moreover it’s not even like you can say giving it to Marinette Marine will keep all the profit in the U.S. as Marinette is owned by Fincantieri of Italy.
Frankly as an Aussie I am a little miffed at the disdain for giving work to an Australian owned firm (and by the way quite a significant % of outstanding shares are owned by U.S. institutions). Our nations have fought side by side in every major conflict since World War 1 (I don’t count Panama and Grenada as major conflicts). Hell we even instituted conscription during Vietnam to support the war effort!

Has the Coast Guard considered signing onto the LCS bandwagon as a replacement for their Deepwater fiasco?

*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