US Navy Told to cut Littoral Combat Ship buy From 52 to 40, Downselect to one Design in FY2019

The US Navy's fight to buy 52 variants of its littoral combat ship (LCS) from two shipbuilders may have taken a fatal blow this week after the secretary of defense directed the service to cap its buy at 40 ships and pick only one supplier. The directive also orders the Navy to buy only one ship annually over the next four years, down from three per year.

Defense Secretary Ash Carter, in a Dec. 14 memo to Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, told the Navy to "reduce the planned LCS/FF procurement from 52 to 40, creating a 1-1-1-1-2 profile, for eight fewer ships in the FYDP, and then downselect to one variant by FY 2019."

FF is a Navy designation for frigate. Beginning with LCS 33, the Navy is planning to build a more heavily-armed LCS variant with the FF designation — the result of a 2014 directive from then-Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to produce a more powerful ship.

The "1-1-1-1-2" profile would provide for one ship each year in 2017-2020 and two ships in 2021, the end of the current future years defense plan (FYDP).

Carter, in the Dec. 14 memo, directs the Navy to reallocate savings from the LCS/FF cuts to buy more F/A-18 and F-35 aircraft, more SM-6 surface-to-air missiles, and support Virginia Payload Module (VPM) development for future Virginia-class submarines. The VPM is an extra hull section that would be built into Block V submarines and mount four large vertical payload tubes.

The directive to cut the LCS comes in the face of strenuous Navy objections. The service has argued that building a ship takes much longer than ordering a new aircraft or missile.

link.

US Navy Purchases 2 Independence Class, 1 Freedom Class LCS in 2015

The Navy on Tuesday awarded Austal USA $691 million for two Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) and Lockheed Martin $441 million for one LCS and advance procurement funding for a second ship next year.

With its shipbuilding budget under pressure, the Navy last February broke from its four-a-year procurement strategy. Whereas both contractors had been producing two LCSs a year under a 20-ship, dual-yard block buy meant to stretch from Fiscal Years 2010 to 2015, the last LCS in the block buy would be deferred to FY 2016. Two more LCSs outside the block buy would be contracted in FY 2016, bringing the total to six over two years and leaving the Navy to decide how to allot those ships most efficiently.

Navy spokesman Chris Johnson told USNI News that as the Navy worked through how to allocate the three FY 2015 ships, “the Navy and industry have consulted on schedules, performance to date and related matters. Through the negotiations with both industry teams, the Navy determined that the most cost-effective option was to fund Austal USA two FY 2015 ships, and Lockheed Martin one FY 2015 ship plus advance procurement for one FY 2016 ship.”

USNI News understands that the Navy reviewed both Austal’s and Lockheed Martin’s shipyard schedules since 2010 to project how a change in production rate would affect future delivery schedules. The Navy found no appreciable difference between the two yards, meaning the decision came down to cost and not schedule.

Under the contract, Austal’s Mobile, Ala., yard will build the yet-to-be-named LCS-22 and 24, and Lockheed Martin subcontractor Marinette Marine in Marinette, Wisc., will build LCS-21. LCS-23 will be the FY 2016 Lockheed Martin ship, Johnson said.

link.

Saudis Want LCS With Aegis, VLS

The long-sought-after deal to upgrade and replace Saudi Arabia's Eastern Fleet has taken a major step forward, sources said, with the January delivery of a letter of request (LoR) to the US detailing Saudi wishes.

Rear Adm. Jim Shannon, head of the US Navy International Program Office, reportedly obtained the LoR during a visit to Saudi Arabia. The letter marks a major step forward after years of talks and negotiations with the Saudis, who have also strongly considered French proposals to replace their fleet.

The French hold the preponderance of contracts in support of the Saudi's western, or Red Sea, fleet. France and the US are considered the primary contenders for the Eastern Fleet contract, said to be worth as much as $16 billion or higher.

Several sources said the Saudi LoR did not list specific ship designs, but rather gave general guidelines. Among the highlights are:

• Four 3,500-ton frigate-like warships, armed with vertical launch systems (VLS), capable of anti-air warfare and speeds of 35 knots

• 12 1,150-ton corvette-like warships

• 24 or so smaller patrol craft

The deal would include MH-60R helicopters to operate from the frigates, along with support and training.

One condition is the shipbuilder would be the prime contractor.

The US Navy is reportedly working to define details of the LoR, including what air radar the Saudis want to fulfill the anti-air requirement. Sources said that while no specific radar is listed in the LoR, the only system that fits the requirement is the SPY-1F lightweight Aegis system from Lockheed Martin.

SPY-1F is fitted only to Norway's Fridtjof Nansen-class frigates. All other Aegis warships — US cruisers and destroyers, foreign ships including those from Spain, Korea, Japan and Australia — carry the heavier SPY-1D antenna. While there is a high degree of commonality between the two versions, the 1F features smaller antennas and less power, resulting in shorter range.

Lockheed Martin and Austal USA have offered versions of their littoral combat ships fitted with VLS and phased-array radars, including the SPY-1F, both for export and most recently for the US Navy's Small Surface Combatant (SSC) competition conducted in 2014. In the end, the US Navy chose to forego Aegis and VLS on its SSCs, now designated as frigates.

Other than the LCS/SSC/frigate designs, there are no other US projects that would fit the 3,500-ton parameters of the Saudi frigate.

link.

If I were the SecDef, I'd have the Saudis pay for development costs of the LCS with the real firepower of a frigate and then just add the minor improvements, relatively speaking, the US Navy needs.  Use those to replace the LCS with the minor upgrades that currently planned after the first 20 LCS.  Then they actually will be FF or really FFGs and worthy successors to the Oliver Hazard Perry frigates.

The Argument the LCS Classes are Really Frigates

The die is cast and the U.S. Navy has made its big bet – the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS)-Next is going to be an uparmed and uparmored version of the current vessels that the service has redesignated as an FF, or fast frigate.

"These are not ‘L' class ships," Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said last month during his keynote address at the Surface Navy Association (SNA) National Symposium. "When I hear ‘L,’ I think amphib. I spend a good bit of my time explaining what ‘littoral’ is." It is a good time, he says, to re-establish Navy tradition for naming ships properly. "It’s a frigate. We’re going to call it one."

Of course calling it one won’t make it one. Many doubt the idea that that the modified LCS will live up to the true definition of a frigate. But perhaps it's about time to give the Navy a chance to prove out its case. The service brass says it has the ships it wants and everyone can argue over the next few years whether the decision is a good one, but the truth is that only time will tell whether the gamble will be worth it. Indeed, with the new Navy focus on “distributive lethality,” where every ship will be armed up as much as possible, it’s difficult and perhaps impossible now to foresee how the new FFs will fare in the future force structure.

Having said that, it’s also time to clear up a few things about LCS performance thus far that factored into the Navy’s LCS-FF decision.

link.

Its an FFL, bit an FF.  (corvette, not a frigate)