LockMar Outpaces Austal on LCS

LockMar Outpaces Austal on LCS

Lockheed Martin, with just a five-week head start, has completed 60 percent of LCS 3, compared to Austal, whose LCS 4  is only 26 percent complete.

We hear Lockheed recently attached the bow to the rest of the ship. Given how close the competition is between Lockheed and the Amero-Australian shipbuilder, the bigger company’s ability to produce ships with greater speed and fewer delays might raises questions in the minds of U.S. Navy officials about Austal’s ability to regularly deliver ships.

Lockheed Martin is building a more conventional single-hulled steel ship in contrast to Austal’s innovative aluminum-hulled trimaran. We hear that the Navy is finding it difficult to find enough aluminum welders to repair the Austal ships and that the company may be facing technical challenges with the welding. We asked General Dynamics, which remains prime for LCS4 although Austal builds the ships, if they would still be able to finish their ship on time given that they are only 26 percent complete so far, and we did not receive a reply.


In a briefing for investors, Austal disclosed the percentage of work done on LCS 4. For those who check out the briefing bear in mind that, although it says the ship won’t be finished until “late 2012,” that’s not what it seems to mean. We thought the company was much further behind but a company spokesman said the paper was produced for investors and that it refers to Austal’s “fiscal operating year which runs from July through June.” So the ship is still on track for delivery in June 2012.

Join the Conversation

America needs a strong Navy. Unfortunately, resources wasted on the Littoral Combat Gyp, don’t contribute anything of value.

If there is no financial incentive for a faster pace of build, why would they advance production faster than that needed to meet the scheduled delivery?

5 weeks is not insignificant. Besides, shouldn’t the most important factor be which ship performs better, especially if you are only talking a matter of weeks. If Austals ship is better but takes 6–8 weeks longer, who cares, when the ship could be in service for at least 10 years.

Lockheed Martin’s LCS modular design has allowed the company to convert a 5-week lead into a 34-percent completion advantage as General Dynamics will not be able to catch up in 6–8 weeks time. Lockheed’s LCS3, the USS Fort Worth will most likely be completed on time and budget as well as being operational 6–10 months ahead of GD’s LCS4; but in an era of shrinking budgets, it’s still up to the US Department of Defense and US Navy on which ship design will be accepted and be given a 10-ship contract.

Bad idea to rely on other countries for production of goods such as these. Just look at what happened to Boeing for moving the production of their dreamliner to all over the world, they are having major problems and set backs because of it.

Thought it was being manufactured in the USA by Austal USA?? The design is foreign (OMG!) as is the LM product. I suppose Boeing (787, 747–8) and LM (JSF) have got all those nasty foreigners (read customers) to blame for their products running several years late. yeah right!

The conventional bow construction of lockheeds design is easier to produce whereas the trimaran hull of GD’s design requires more percision. The trimaran is also faster and more stable than the conventional as well as better manuverability during high speed. I would like to see the money going to a 100% American company but you cant count out GD yet, they have been building boats a lot longer and generaly make schedule ahaead or on time. But I would still rather see this money being spent on a CG _ DD _ FFG or a bunch of MK5 SOC’s than this pig.

GD/Austal’s ship IS in fact better. It has superior range at cruise, superior high-speed stability, superior usable volume in its mission bay, and a vastly larger aviation deck. LCS-1 had to have extra flotation welded on to meet the Navy’s reserve buoyancy targets.

I’d also add that needing more Aluminum welders is not a bad thing. increasing the number of Aluminum welders in the USN and US shipbuilding/repair industry is a good thing going forward.

Gotta remember as well that part of the LCS mission is clearing mines which is not something I would want to do on a steel hull ship considering magnetic mines are still widely used by a lot of countries. SO it appears that since it is no longer self sustaining, shallow and restricted water operational, or able to give fire support to inland troops, that it also no longer needs to conduct mine sweeping missions either. So what is it gonna do other than cost money and tie up pier space?????

Helo Pilots would chose : ?? No doubt about the answer here: LCS-2 has a helo deck that is over TWICE as wide as LCS-1 deck. And, even more important: the LCS-2 flight deck is located almost exactly twice as high above the seas !

No doubt that Helo Pilots would be safer and able to land and launch much faster on LCS-2. If essentially all your sensors, weapons, mine countermeasures, etc. as based upon launching and recovering lots of things that can fly, then you need the enormous flight deck of LCS-2 vice the tiny, wet, sea sprayed, LCS-1 flight deck.

Pictures are worth 1000 words:
http://​www​.navy​.mil/​m​a​n​a​g​e​m​e​n​t​/​p​h​o​t​o​d​b​/​p​h​o​t​o​s​/​100
http://​www​.navy​.mil/​m​a​n​a​g​e​m​e​n​t​/​p​h​o​t​o​d​b​/​p​h​o​t​o​s​/​100

Let the Helo Pilots decide which LCS should be constructed.

An article devoid of of any fact checking. LM benefitted from long lead items already prepositioned after the initial cancellation of LCS-2 and a contract award way earlier than Austal. For Austal to be this far in the build schedule is a credit to the shipyard.

Please don’t just regurgitate LM spin.

Dag nabbit.… I thought news reporters were supposed to be unbiased! Did you ask MM if they’ve figured out their weight problems yet? At least the Austal boat doesn’t need 5000 gallon water-wings.

I suspect that Lockheed/Martin is in a hurry because of the problems with Freedom. They may be hoping the Navy will delay selection long enough so that they have a chance to demonstrate they have solved their problems. Rumors that the navy may change some of the design requirement, like top speed, and crew size could also give they hope for more time.

Polaris,

Thanks for the details. Do you have any documents to back this up? If so, please feel free to beat me over the head with them at colin.clark@monster.com. Cheers, Colin

LCS-2 has no chance. The ship wallows badly in any type of bad seas & the crew vomits all over the ship. Not to mention the cracking aluminum.

Where is LCS 2?? I haven’t heard anything in the news about it tracking drug runners and seizing over 5 tons of narcotics, or how about joining the Navy in Rim of the Pacific Exercise (RIMPAC) 2010. You all talk about Freedom’s problems but no one mentions that the navy is using it where LCS 2 sits. I will say one thing, that huge flight deck will be great when the unproven trimaran hull starts cracking. Here is another picture worth a thousand words (http://​www​.lmlcsteam​.com/​s​s​p​_​d​i​r​e​c​t​o​r​/​a​l​b​u​m​s​/​a​l​b​u​m​-​2​6​/​l​g​/​1​0​0​4​0​7​-​N​-​0​8​0​8​V​-​2​5​3​.​jpg) a working ship

you are comparing apples and oranges in that lcs-1 was started almost 2 years ahead of lcs-2. that’s why this entire down select “competition” is flawed. OPTEVFOR has completed its eval of lcs-1 and she had done all her missile and gun qual tests and she has “deployed” for a few weeks as she transitted from Mayport Florida to her homeport in San Diego. Don’t forget that lcs-1 has spent many, many months undergoing overhauls in 3 different shipyards while lcs-2 has completed only her sole yard overhaul which was a regular post shakedown avail psa. apples and oranges, Nick .

It seems were comparing apples to oranges as someone else noted. L-M’s 5 week head-start on a conventionally hulled ship as opposed to Austel who are using a much more complicated trimaran design. It seems disingenuous to make such a comparison at this time.I will wait and let the ‘tale of the tape’ decide which is the better ship. One thing I would like to know is does the Austel design allow for the launching of small craft like a RHIB from the cavities of the tri-hull. It would seem like an advantageous ability to launch/dock from the relative shelter of the cavities.

Lcs-2 has no chance. Not stable in bad seas.

I don’t know where you are getting your information , but lcs 1 only started a few months before lcs 2 and one of the things the navy is looking for is a company that is capable of putting out 10 ships in a fast time frame so go ahead and take you time austal you call a major overhaul a 5 day dry dock, what is that compared to lcs 2’s 60 day dry dock

a.) It is not so much when the contract is awarded but when the contract documentation is in place. Does anyone know how much time difference there was between the two ships in that regard?

b.) “We hear that the Navy is finding it difficult to find enough aluminum welders to repair the Austal ships and that the company may be facing technical challenges with the welding.” Is the Navy not looking hard enough? Has the Navy ever heard of training? Seriously, there is not much difference between welding the two materials. It is a matter of training which since there has not been this many aluminum ships then why would anyone train for it? But if the Navy is “having trouble” finding welders to repair the Austal ships, then where will it “find” the welders to repair the aluminum topside on 55 LM ships???? This issue is a double-edge sword and should be dropped in light of more substantial issues on cost and performance.

Just a reminder, lcs 1 also had a long IPDA, too. It’s typical for first of class ships.

Not being argumentative here: how do you know it has seakeeping issues?

Sign me up —I’ll weld whatever they need!

In the GAO’s latest report, they tell us what we already know; the LCS program is a failure.

Lockheed should recieve credit for being in perfect sync with the Navy side — they are both building a junk Destroyer. Let’s see what a 1965 vintage magnetic mine does to that steel hull.

The HMS Sheffield was an aluminum hulled destroyer that burned brightly during the Falklands War, so using aluminum causes concern to begin with since it easily burns. The new destroyers are built with steel since it doesn’t burn. The use of aluminum indicates weight is prime consideration and not survivability. The LCS is an expendable asset, so build it as cheaply as possible should be the US Navy’s approach. Neither the LCS-1 or LCS-2 are cheap, that makes them expensive expendable targets.

The aluminum didn’t burn. You are perpetuating a false conclusion.

You can download SSC-452 ALUMINUM STRUCTURE DESIGN AND FABRICATION GUIDE from
http colon slash slash www dot shipstructure dot org slash pdf slash 452 dot pdf

From SSC-452 section 2.1.4 “Properties at Elevated Temperatures” on page 2–4, “There is a common misconception that aluminum will burn in a shipboard fire. However, because it will melt at about 1,100F (600C) structure involved in a fire will apparently disappear (reappearing in puddles of melted and resolidified metal) giving the appearance of having burned.”

It wasn’t the aluminum that burned.

.

Below is the link to SSC-452 ALUMINUM STRUCTURE DESIGN AND FABRICATION GUIDE
http://​www​.shipstructure​.org/​p​d​f​/​4​5​2​.​pdf

I didn’t realize that links could be posted here, thought anti-spam measures would prevent that.

Thank you ‚JTR, Interesting read.

Lockheed is ahead because they continued funding long lead materials ordered under their first (cancelled) LCS contract. This is a total BS story. Come on DoD Buzz.… do your homework!

I used to fly helicopters and I can tell you that a deck twice the height off the seas pitches more. The higher the deck the more the pitch.

Also, Trimarans are more stable. They do not pitch as much and being lower reduces pitch that much more.

I would much rather land on the smaller, lower, more stable platform.

Don’t believe everything you read. Consider that LCS-2 Independence hull form is based on a sucessful ferry design, that would not have been successful if passengers had suffered seasickness from excessive pitch and roll.

As an austal employee who works on the lcs this is my opinion.Yes the lcs is a difficult design to build but what new technology isn’t .LM’s lcs is ahead of schedule but its a more conventional design making it easier to build.Give austal some credit were doing a pretty good job and were further along then you think .I see the boat every day.

*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

AdChoices | Become a fan on and follow us on
© 2013 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.