Home » Naval » House Oks Split LCS Buy

House Oks Split LCS Buy

By John Reed Thursday, December 16th, 2010 1:57 pm
Posted in Naval

The House yesterday formally approved a measure giving the Navy permission to buy both classes of Littoral Combat Ship. This comes the same week Navy leadership made its case before the Senate Armed Services committee, asking for permission to buy the Freedom and Independence class ships before the end of the month.

While the House was expected to ok the move, the Senate is less of a solid bet; one Hill source called the Senate’s intentions on the matter “very unclear.” During this week’s Senate hearing John McCain, R-Ariz., repeatedly slammed the program, calling it and embarrassment, and asked fellow lawmakers to study the issue for several more months. However, committee chairman, Carl Levin, D-Mich., came out in favor of the split buy along with committee member Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine also appeared receptive to the last minute deal.

Navy officials insist that they must act before the end of the month in order to lock in the two-class deal for 20 ships. Otherwise, they will move ahead with the original plan to choose a winner between LCS-makers Lockheed Martin and Austal USA.

Join the Conversation

	Marcase December 16th, 2010 at 2:30 pm This must be one of the weirdest defence deals ever. Buying two ships claiming it will be cheaper than choosing one clear winner; what’s the use of a fair competition anymore? LCS was long touted as a clear “winner takes (nearly) all” competition, to keep operating costs low. Now two ship crews must be trained (which won’t be interchangeable much) and two seperate log support lines must be set and maintained for ships that will do roughly the same mission — and those will be done with basically the same modular mission shelters at that. Weird.
	Jay December 16th, 2010 at 2:40 pm By buying both types of the LCS the NAVY will get the best of both worlds and they will have great diversity and also by the time all ten of each are built they will have a wealth of knowledge on what works best and can modify or buy a better alternative down the road. Look at it as a long term R&D project.
	Aurora December 16th, 2010 at 2:47 pm Doubling down on a monumental mistake. Under armed, under manned, and over priced. Way to go, Navy!
	Drake1 December 16th, 2010 at 3:01 pm Hopefully, the Senate will have some sense.
	the Dude December 16th, 2010 at 3:02 pm they claimed a winner take all competition to get both prices at rock bottom, with intent to buy both ships.
	DerbyTims December 16th, 2010 at 4:09 pm Did any of the Air Force Acquisition Weenies from the Tanker RFP that never ends get a cross service assignment to LCS?
	guest December 16th, 2010 at 4:16 pm The trimaran hull form has such superior seaworthiness that the Freedom class is basically a pork barrel project for democrat controlled michigan. They waste money on this and yet they still want to stop building the F22…
	Oblat December 16th, 2010 at 4:30 pm You gotta love the logic of buying two failures and somehow getting a success. >Look at it as a long term R&D project. What sort of R&D project is that you plan to buy 70 ships. This is just retarded.
	Aurora December 16th, 2010 at 5:52 pm Its built in Wisconsin by Marinette, but it does traverse parts of Lake Michigan on its way to the Atlantic.
	Aurora December 16th, 2010 at 5:52 pm I can’t share that hope.…
	Aurora December 16th, 2010 at 5:53 pm The multi-billion dollar question of the day! I asked myself the same thing.
	Mr Guest December 16th, 2010 at 7:11 pm From what I here, the Trimarian is a piece of garbage. Cracks in the hull & doors that won’t open & close.
	Cole December 16th, 2010 at 7:13 pm Negatory on the original plan to buy just one. As late as May 2009, Sean Stackley was saying the Navy would buy two and it was not until Sept 2009 that it changed to one version according to the Wikipedia timeline and he emphasized at the time that the two designs had complementary features. Somehow the Navy manages to operate Los Angeles, Seawolf, Virginia, and Ohio (nuke and non-nuke) class subs. Don’t see much difference and the two types clearly have different strengths. We also man separate current minelayers and FFGs. What;s the difference, except this will carry as many helicopters as one and a lot more than the other.
	keeper December 16th, 2010 at 8:12 pm Curious as to what is the “best” of either class ship… The armor? The range? The 2 installed weapons? The overworked and undermanned crews? The estimated price? A modern FFG cost is similar in cost and outclasses these 2 designs in every aspect but top speed and crew competancy. The inherent design flaws ruin every decently thought out idea i have seen on how these could be useful. I want the fleet numbers to rise as much as anyone but not at the price of this floating comprimise.
	guest December 16th, 2010 at 8:31 pm Yeah I hear the door for the little boat in the back doesn’t work right. Guess they should pick the other design? Oh wait, the superstructure is so big in relation to the monohull it has a tendency to roll excessively…
	Hawk December 16th, 2010 at 8:49 pm I could be mistaken but it appears as though.… “Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine also appeared receptive to the last minute deal” …might have an ax to grind with this one that has nothing to do with the welfare of our ocean fighting force. “The Navy’s second littoral combat ship, an aluminum trimaran built by a contractor team helmed by General Dynamics, has been taking trips to sea and back from its shipyard at Mobile, Ala., as engineers have tested many of its engines and systems. “ eg Sessions “During the build-up to full power testing, we experienced a leak in the port gas turbine shaft seal, which we’re now troubleshooting in order to determine the best course for corrective action,.” GD’s Bath Iron Works Shipyard eg Collins Jobs, jobs, jobs Tonight the House of Representatives gave long-awaited approval to continue LCS ship construction at Marinette Marine. In November, the U.S. Navy decided to split the LCS contract between Marinette Marine and Austal USA instead of selecting one company. This required the Navy to seek Congressional approval of the new language.
	Hawk December 16th, 2010 at 8:55 pm Again.… The Navy contradicts itself with the return to two ships. Refer to: “Defense News” Will LCS Changes Fix Problems? By christopher p. cavas Published: 21 September 2009 The U.S. Navy’s moves last week to build only one Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) design and impose a new competitive structure on the program eliminated several glaring weaknesses in the long-troubled acquisition program. The Art of the Deal on this one would have to make Donald Trump proud. No wonder Senator John is frothing at the mouth. I guess a Boat School alum would like to see a Navy that can meet the mission of warfighting rather than political clap trap. That’s why he couldn’t be president … poor guy wants to get it right!
	Drake1 December 16th, 2010 at 9:17 pm Isn’t that at the heart of their sub buidling problem? Too many diiferent classes of subs?
	Cole December 16th, 2010 at 9:37 pm Or is the real problem not enough U.S. facilities and expertise to build combat ships? Does anyone seriously believe a different U.S. built solution would be cheaper and sufficiently timely to maintain a 300 ship fleet? The FFGs are cracking and cannot be upgraded economically. Fast Frigade as near as I can tell from the CSBA study have five crews of 215 sailors to keep one ship forward deployed. That totals to 1075. Even if LCS increases to a 90 man crew, using the four crews for three ships to have one forward deployed (outlined in CSBA study pg 33) would use only 360 sailors. That means 3 ships could be forward deployed for around the same manpower to support one FFG forward deployed.
	Oblat December 16th, 2010 at 9:47 pm That is exactly why we need to buy both, the other design cant be sailed outside the harbor but but it’s doors work. Put them together you have “a Special Synergy !”. It’s the well known effect of putting two retarded kids together to get a maths genius. McCain is right the whole program is an embarrassment. Where is Bill to claim it’s wonderful ?
	pickettjr December 16th, 2010 at 11:15 pm The USS Navy No longer operates no Nuke Subs, and Hasn’t for some time. But I do agree with the fact that we should buy both classes simple on the principal of each will have its own advantages and disadvantages, and as always we need a modular military that has many capabilities.
	retired462 December 17th, 2010 at 1:32 am It is getting so bad in the military now, that the generals/admirals are nothing more than politicians-in-uniform!
	Drake1 December 17th, 2010 at 3:27 am They don’t have the budget for that. Some say they should have subs that can do multiple missions to save money.
	guest December 17th, 2010 at 5:13 am HA! if thats true they should just put the choice of LCS on a ballot measure and let the voters decide for them what they can’t truthfully do themselves!
	Guest December 17th, 2010 at 6:02 am Hmm, at least a leaky seal can be fixed…
	guest December 17th, 2010 at 6:06 am If anything, at this stage you support the superior hull form, as those are costly and expensive to evolve.
	momomimamo December 17th, 2010 at 6:18 am happy new year
	Cole December 17th, 2010 at 7:48 am Agree about each ship having advantages/disadvantages. As for Ohio class, I was talking about nuke missile vs. cruise missile/SOF versions. Austal also builds Joint High Speed Vessel so it would help to create more aluminum expertise in Mobile. And those ships would seem less vulnerable to magnetic mines.;) To answer Drake below, I’ve got no Navy background, but it seems pretty obvious that you don’t do much littoral work with a sub taller than the draft of LCS (folks seem to be grounding subs as of late), can’t launch a rigid hull boat to chase pirates, drug-runners, or board a commercial ship to enforce a blockade, and can’t launch helicopters…and cost $2 billion each and have their own challenges.
	Jay December 17th, 2010 at 9:30 am Apparently many of you don’t like chance and think all naval ships should be armed to the teeth, same comments that were put out about the PTs of WWII. I don’t think we will ever see another major naval battle again as Aircraft Carriers have made that an unreal possibility along with the subs. Hit and Run tactics with unruly nations like Somalia and others will be the game of the day. These ships will be developmental tools as to how we fight that type of engagement. Helo Gunships and surface to surface missiles along with hunter/killer missiles and torpedoes will be the weapons of the future. Of course the new small drones, both in the air and on or under the water too. It’s a new world just like the video games that the future NAVY plays today.
	Josh December 17th, 2010 at 11:48 am I hope you’re just being sarcastic… if not this is one of the most absurd comments I’ve read yet on this subject.
	Josh December 17th, 2010 at 11:49 am So I’m guessing from this, and your previous comment, that you don’t actually have any real experience but, in fact, have all your knowledge from Tom Clancy books and video games.
	Navyair December 17th, 2010 at 2:45 pm Interesting. The Navy swore it wanted no more aluminum superstructures due to fire hazard and melting with missile hits, yet here we go again. How about building the tri-maran with the Kevlar armor already in place, rather than retrofiting it?
	Bobby Ferguson December 17th, 2010 at 2:59 pm I rode a Destroyer Escort (later, a Frigate) back in the early 70s. I have also riden LCS 1. I had much more confidence on Freedom, both in terms of seaworthiness and warfighting capability. In time, you will forget that the mission packages weren’t ready day one, just like you have forgotten about LAMPS (please, please come back!), and my all time favorite weapon that made sense, ASROC (sending a nuclear device one mile downrange before detonating it never did make sense to me — I mean, I’m still gonna die!). Give LCS a chance. You will be proud.
	Aurora December 17th, 2010 at 5:52 pm ASROC had a little more range than 1 mile; I’ve seen it “lobbed out” considerably further. Most of the war shots had the torpedo warhead, not the nuke. Give me a DDG 51 any day.
	Aurora December 17th, 2010 at 5:53 pm Jay, I prefer my Navy armed to the teeth. Thanks for asking.
	Guest December 17th, 2010 at 7:23 pm The fire hazard is supposed to be mitigated by a sophisticated fire suppression system. Also you are not allowed to smoke cigarettes on board ;)
	STemplar December 17th, 2010 at 7:35 pm Decent concept, but price has to come down and the modules have to work. That’s the rub with this program always, things aren’t working and they tripled? in cost.
	Jason December 18th, 2010 at 7:37 am you clearly are confused.…you might want to check you sources.…the Trimaran is by far the superior ship…its not even close.…go ask the other guys why he had to put butt cheeks on the back of his ship.…and why his engines continously fail.…and why his fuel consumption is twice that of the Trimarans.…trust me the list goes on and on..
	TMB December 18th, 2010 at 11:06 am “The best of both worlds” not to mention the WORST of both worlds.
	Roland December 18th, 2010 at 2:07 pm Let’s try both and add DDG-1000 in the mix say 100 ships total for the first order.
	Byron Skinner December 18th, 2010 at 3:38 pm Good Morning Folks, I don’t see what all the complaining is about the deal was made and sealed on November 4th. The only thing really in doubt is how many LCS’s will be bought. Currently the hard number is 55, but the Navy is looking for 70. Of course there is the issue of price. The Navy doesn’t know how much the LCS will cost but don’t let that bother you. I was doing some research for another project on the “Kidd” class destroyers that are long gone so we should know how much the cost, we don’t. The contract price of the Kidds was $500 million, the final costs is somewhere between $725 million to $875 million a hull. Thirty years after the last Kidd was decommissioned the Navy still hasn’t a clue of what they cost. This seems to be rather typical of post WW II Naval weapons programs. Other then being a floating landing platform for two helicopters, I can’t see much use in todays operating environment for this craft and feat that we are buying another Stryker, MV-22 or F-22. The LCS is not intended to be a blue water craft with a 21 day at sea sustainment and a range of 4.300 nm at 17 knots. The single aluminum hull says that we are dealing with a ship that has to remain below 45deg either North or South. Of the three mission modular packages so far announced Surface warfare, anti submarine and counter mine warfare only the counter mine seems to be something that other platforms are currently doing and doing it better. The zone that the LCS is designed to operate in the “green” or 200 nm from baseline is usually the area that the USCG owns. The drug enforcement in the Caribbean and the Pacific coast is being done by a CG/USH effort using mostly aging FFG’s Perry Class. The use of the $700 million LCS would seem to be wasteful as well as over kill as would be the counter mine mission. Both of these jobs are being done world wide by hulls that cost in the $50 million/500–1,500 hull range. Both in area of defensive and offensive fire power the LCS seem to be lacking with a single 57mm Gun and a half dozen or so .50 cal. M2HB’s As my grandmother use to say it “…seems to light for heavy work and heavy for light work”. With the demise of overseas basing and the use of tenders deploying the LCS would seem to be limited. Of missions that need at this time to be done like convoy escort (to light) and law enforcement anti Pyracy (to heavy and expensive to risk) the LCS just doesn’t seem to be a decent fit. Lets hope that the USN can find something for the very expensive LCS’s to do that will justify their high cost and the sacrifices in other more usable platforms that the Navy really does need. ALLONS, Byron Skinner
	freefallingbomb December 18th, 2010 at 5:44 pm To the poster Byron Skinner You wrote: “Lets hope that the USN can find something for the very expensive LCS’s to do that will justify their high cost and the sacrifices in other more usable platforms that the Navy really does need.” WHAAT ??! In marketing there are 1) programmed buying decisions, 2) impulsive buying decisions, but how on Earth do you call THIS ?
	Oblat December 19th, 2010 at 4:39 am In other navy news, with the repeal of DADT today — straight men everywhere can finally serve openly in the Navy.
	Byron Skinner December 19th, 2010 at 1:34 pm Good Morning Folks, A rather interesting idea that is floating around since a US/RPC Naval conference in Newport in 2007. Thousand Ship Navy-Global Military Partnership. The LCS would fit logically into this idea. With out going into this is the byproduct of the United Nations Convention of the Laws of The Sea of 1982–1983. (UNCLOS) The US has signed but not ratified this treaty, China has done both but with several caveats. This is the law beyond the 12 mile limit and includes the 200nm from baseline of the EEZ or the Contiguous Zone. The effort of the TSN-GMP involved several issues SOLC (Sea Line of Communication), anti Pyracy, MSAR (Maritime Search and Rescue), HE (Humanitarian Assistance) , DR (Disaster Relief) Environmental Law and, Fisheries Law etc. The formation of this extra Naval force is just in it’s embyro stage but hold great promise for imporveing communications and military relationship between the USN and the PLA (OKAN)
	onoriode December 19th, 2010 at 2:58 pm Dear command supervisor, Sir please reply me about the money i ask the army to help and support me with cash. Sir please i want to visite the u.s.goarmy command i want to see them learn more about their benefit,help and support.my lovely command please help and support me with money .Sir please finence my account no,02030680050895 with united bank for africa plc sir help and support on my dod error. from your, sincerely, sgt –major unuajohwofia onoriode
	onoriode December 19th, 2010 at 3:00 pm Dear command supervisor, Sir please reply me about the money i ask the army to help and support me with cash. Sir please i want to visite the u.s.goarmy command i want to see them learn more about their benefit,help and support.my lovely command please help and support me with money .Sir please finence my account no,02030680050895 with united bank for africa plc sir help and support on my dod error. from your, sincerely, sgt –major unuajohwofia onoriode
	onoriode December 20th, 2010 at 3:32 pm Dear command supervisor, Sir apply for error on my activate comment.Sir please i want command invitation so i can see my lovely army command. from your, sincerely, E9 –unuajohwofia onoriode

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

DoD Buzz

House Oks Split LCS Buy

Join the Conversation

Recent Comments