US Navy Chief: We Will Lay Out Clear Plan for Littoral Combat Ship

LCS already in the topic of disagreement on their combattant capabilities between the Navy people and the congress. It's an amazing thing that they both can talk a same frequency, agree to disagree and fight to the edge for betterment of the NAvy. Of Course end of the day, there will be only one party benefit from this: the naval system contractor.
I really hope that this similar environment could happen in Malaysia. We want our politician have a sound knowledge of security, naval operation, military requirement, its important and its latest technology. And they can fight together with the user, Royal Malaysia Navy to get an appropriate budget from the treasury. Too much to ask? We are lucky if they can spell LCS in full sentence.




The ship that was to revolutionize surface warfare has been controversial since its inception 12 years ago. But the firestorm over the littoral combat ship might have been avoided had the Navy better explained the rationale for the ship and answered critics' questions more clearly, said Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan W. Greenert.

"There are still questions" about the future of LCS, Greenert told reporters May 21. Among them is how the Navy will address testers' concerns that the ship is too lightly armed and susceptible to enemy attacks. Former Deputy Defense Secretary Christine Fox called LCS a "niche platform" that can only operate in "permissive" environments. 

Greenert said those are valid questions that Navy leaders have not answered as comprehensively as they should have. "We probably should have been more clear. Now we will be," he said.

Growing doubts about LCS led Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to truncate the program from the Navy's original goal of 52 ships down to 32. Hagel has asked the Navy to rethink how it might build a future small surface combatant and to evaluate more “capable and lethal” alternatives to the LCS.

Greenert insisted that it was the Navy's plan all along to upgrade the ship over time and improve its survivability, but that the concept was not communicated properly. 

"I don't think we made any mistakes per se, but I think we could have been more clear on our intention for taking the sea frame and evolving it through the life of the ship," he said. Greenert noted that some of the Navy's most successful ship classes grew in fits and starts, not unlike LCS. The Oliver Hazard Perry class frigate had four flights, he said, using the Navy term for technology updates. The Spruance-class destroyers went through two flights and the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers had four.

"We never really articulated formally or discussed the feasibility of having flights" in the LCS program, nor has the Navy explained "how we intended to upgrade it for survivability," said Greenert.

That issue was at the center of Hagel's decision to stall the program. He has asked the Navy to explain how the LCS will evolve, said Greenert.

There are currently two LCS variants — the Freedom-class monohull built by Lockheed Martin and the Independence-class trimaran made by Austal. Both were built to be outfitted with "mission modules" of weapons, unmanned underwater vehicles and other equipment for surface warfare, mine countermeasures or anti-submarine warfare.

"This is a very transformational concept," said Greenert. "As with any first of class ship and aircraft, complications emerge."

Why the ship ended up being the subject of relentless criticism is not anyone's fault in particular, said Greenert, who declined to point fingers. "I don't want to be judgmental." 

Within the Navy, leaders had become complacent and comfortable that the program was on track, he suggested. With Hagel's review, the service has a fresh opportunity to make its case for a future small surface combatant and ensure it is funded in the 2016 budget, Greenert said.

One of the reasons why the Navy did poorly at selling LCS within the Defense Department and to Congress, he said, was turnover and difficulties managing changes that were made over the years to ship designs and to procurement strategies. "People change offices. It was very difficult to keep up, I think." Now, he added, "We've reached a node where people are saying we need to take a deep breath and take another look at this."

Greenert and Navy Secretary Ray Mabus in March created a small surface combatant task force to study LCS alternatives. Led by John Burrow, executive director of the Marine Corps Systems Command, the group isevaluating industry proposals and by July 31 will recommend which ideas merit further consideration.

“If we go to a new design, it has to be mature,” Greenert said. “If something is compelling, but would take more time, we'll relay that to the secretary.”

Cost also will be major concern. The rising price of LCS — from initial estimates of $220 million per ship to more than $700 million — nearly sank the program in its earlier days. If a new ship is deemed unaffordable, the Navy might consider upgrading existing LCS vessels with offensive and defensive weapons and sensors.

Congress, meanwhile, is becoming increasingly skeptical. The House Armed Services Committee approved cuts that would leave the program with insufficient funds to procure three LCS in fiscal year 2015. “Deferring additional ships into fiscal year 2016 would compound the already significant challenges the Navy faces in funding the shipbuilding account in a fiscally constrained environment while increasing overall costs to the Navy and increasing risk to the industrial base, including sub-tier suppliers,” the Obama administration said in a statement.

Photo Credit: Navy

Article from: National Defence 

5/21/2014

By Sandra I. Erwin

The Critic:

The problem with the US Navy LCS-class is...WHAT does it DO? 

* It has no sonar, and thus has no torpedo tubes---it has no ASW outside of the HH-60R helicopter 
* It has no anti-ship missiles or heavy missiles 
* It has limited anti-air missiles (SeaRAM isn't really SAM, it's CIWS Anti-missile missile) 
* It has no mine-sweeping equipment 
* It's 57mm gun is proven not to be able to hole a steel-sided warship as a Canadian wargame exercise proved (and caught on film) 
* The press says its 30mm autocannons in the ASuW mission package has been proven to be unstable when the ship moves at speed...it cannot lock and fire at 40kts. 
* It has no ASW or AA module suites whatsoever 
* It has no spy sensors or ECM suite 
* It has no missiles that can reach beyond 5KM (those on the HH-60R don't count). 

So, sure, there's harsh criticism at the LCS because so far it's been shown to sail with the USN flag and be helpful in chasing down Go-Fast drug boats in the Gulf.  Other than that, it assumes the role of the USCG NSC and is thus armed as such.  It's a ship, yes, new hull, but basically WHAT does it DO?  Shrug, it's a light fast gunboat, basically.  Sure, it's better armed than an Avenger-class minesweeper, but no one has called the LCS a minesweeper yet.

Look up the capability of a Perry class frigate.  It had an air defense missile system, a capability to fire Harpoon missiles, a larger gun, torpedo tubes as well as a helicopter capability.  It had a significant ASW sensor suite.  The LCS has none of these except the helicopter.  So to argue that the LCS was intended to replace the Perry class frigate, given the list of deficiencies that Peter noted, is to say that the Navy has traded something for virtually nothing. As far as mine sweeping, the current LCS does not have a capability - it, like the other modules is only forthcoming.  There are 13 mine countermeasures ships listed in the fleet.  They can actually sweep mines.  To argue that we needed 52 LCSs for mine countermeasures seems to be a misplaced sense of priorities. 

As for Greenert's argument that classes of surface combatants have  evolved and added capabilities over that evolution is true. However, the critical difference is that a Flight 0 Arleigh Burke destroyer, while not having a flight deck, had a capable air defense system, long range anti-ship missile system, CIWS, a ASW sensor suite and a Tomahawk launching capability.  It was a flexible, lethal vessel that only added more capability as it evolved.  In contrast, the LCS can do almost nothing except chase drug runners, pirates and purportedly defend against swarms of small high speed lightly armed    attackers - clearing out Iranian Guard speedboats in the Straits of Hormuz has been mentioned as a unique capability.  If that is all that the LCS can do as currently configured, then we have spent a great deal of money to buy a very limited mission set. 

US Navy awards LCS construction contract modification to Lockheed

I personally love to read how their navy have a say in equipment selection, how the system should put in place to compliment USNAVY operational requirement.
And how latest of art  system technology should integrate to do what at their best.

Really hope our Royal Malaysian Navy will come to this stage , free to select their ships and have all the guts to tell the politician to fuck off.


11 March 2014 - Naval Technology.com

The US Navy has awarded a $698.9m contract modification to a Lockheed Martin-led industry team for construction of the seventh and eighth littoral combat ships (LCS).

Under the contract modification, the Lockheed Martin-led team will construct a Freedom variant of the LCS ships including Indianapolis (LCS 17) and LCS 19, yet to be named.

For each ship, the three contract line items cover basic seaframe construction, selected ship systems integration and test, and selected ship systems equipment.

"USS Little Rock (LCS 9), USS Sioux City (LCS 11) and USS Wichita (LCS 13) are all in various stages of construction, whereas USS Billings (LCS 15) will start construction this year."

USS Milwaukee (LCS 5), the first ship on the 2010 contract, is undergoing trials and will be delivered to the US Navy in 2015, while the future USS Detroit (LCS 7) is expected to be launched later this year.

USS Little Rock (LCS 9), USS Sioux City (LCS 11) and USS Wichita (LCS 13) are all in various stages of construction, whereas USS Billings (LCS 15) will start construction this year.

Lockheed Martin mission systems and training business littoral ship systems vice-president Joe North said: "We'll continue to build best-in-class, cost-effective ships for the Navy, supporting its need to defeat littoral threats and provide maritime access in critical waterways."

Scheduled for completion by August 2018, work under the contract will be carried out in Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Washington, Florida, New Jersey, Minnesota and various other locations.

---

Image: The US Navy's second Freedom-class LCS operates off the coast of San Diego. Photo: courtesy of US Navy.

US Navy’s LCS 4 completes combat systems light off test

The US Navy's second Independence-class Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Coronado has completed combat systems light off test, marking a significant milestone in the operational readiness of the ship's advanced computer, weapons and sensor systems.

During the off test, Austal demonstrated the 57mm gun's ability to target another ship from the bridge of the LCS, paving its entry into the formal combat systems test and certification process cycle.

The navy awarded a $3.5bn contract to Austal to build and deliver an additional ten LCSs to join USS Independence (LCS 2), which was commissioned in January 2010.

Designated as LCS 4, the automated and networked surface combatant vessel is currently undergoing final outfitting and activation at Austal's facility before preparing to perform sea trials.

The 127m-long, high-speed, highly manoeuvrable combat ship has a full-load displacement of 2,637t, an operational range of 4,300nm and can cruise at a speed of 40knots.

The LCS programme aims to fill the critical, urgent operational combat requirements gaps currently in the navy for defeating littoral threats and provide access and dominance in coastal waters.

“The automated and networked surface combatant vessel is currently undergoing final outfitting and activation at Austal's facility before preparing to perform sea trials."

Designed to support launch and recovery operations of manned and unmanned vehicles, the ships can execute mine warfare, anti-submarine warfare and surface warfare missions and also support countering piracy and drug-trafficking in shallow coastal waters and providing humanitarian relief.

The US Navy intends to procure a total of 55 LCSs for multi-mission support to establish and maintain its dominance in the littorals and sea lanes of communication choke points around the world.

Austal is building the Independence-class aluminum trimaran LCSs, while Lockheed Martin is constructing the Freedom-class semi-planing monohull ships.

General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems has teamed up with Austal to serve as the ship systems integrator for the LCS programme and is responsible for the design, integration and testing of the ship's electronic systems including the combat system, networks, and seaframe control.

Image: The second Independence variant of the Littoral Combat Ship, Coronado. 

Photo: courtesy of Austal.

US NAVY LCS : Integration with Gun SYstem not succesful

The Navy adopted a concurrent design-build strategy for the first two LCS seaframes, which has proven unsuccessful. Contributing challenges included the implementation of new design guidelines, delays in major equipment deliveries, and an unwavering focus on achieving schedule and performance goals. These events drove low levels of outfitting, out-of-sequence work, and rework-all of which increased construction costs. Also, incomplete designs during construction led to weight increases for both seaframes. According to the Navy, this weight growth contributed to a higher than desired center of gravity on LCS 1 that degraded the stability of the seaframe. In fact, an inclining experiment performed during acceptance trials showed LCS 1 may not meet Navy stability requirements for the damaged ship condition. The Navy is taking steps to remove weight and implement stability improvements for LCS 1, while also incorporating design changes for future seaframes.

In March 2009 the Government Accountability Office found that Fifteen of 19 critical technologies for the two seaframe designs were fully mature, and 2 technologies are approaching maturity. The overhead launch and retrieval system in the LCS 1 design and the aluminum structure in the LCS 2 design are immature. The Navy identified the watercraft launch and recovery concept as a major risk to both seaframe designs. This capability is essential to complete the LCS anti-submarine warfare and mine countermeasures missions. According to the Navy, industry watercraft launch and recovery designs are unproven.

To mitigate risk, the Navy is conducting launch and recovery modeling and simulation, model basin testing, and experimentation and is encouraging the seaframe industry teams to adopt similar approaches. Final integration of mission package vehicles with each seaframe will not occur until post-delivery test and trials-planned first for LCS 1 in 2010 using the mine countermeasures mission package. Any problems detected could require redesign and costly rework, which could delay the introduction of LCS to the fleet.

The Navy assesses LCS design stability by monitoring changes to requirements documents, execution of engineering change proposals, and the completion of contract deliverables related to drawings, ship specifications, and independent certification of the design. Construction is monitored using earned value management and through evaluation of manufacturing hours spent on rework, deficiencies detected and corrected, and the number of test procedures performed.

As part of LCS 1 acceptance trials, the Navy's Board of Inspection and Survey (INSURV) identified 21 critical "starred" deficiencies and recommended the Chief of Naval Operations authorize delivery of LCS 1 after correction or waiver of these deficiencies. According to Navy officials, only 9 of these deficiencies were corrected prior to delivery. Navy officials report that transiting the ship away from Marinette, Wisconsin, prior to the winter freeze was a higher priority than timely correction of starred deficiencies. The Navy intends to correct remaining deficiencies during planned post-delivery maintenance availabilities. The Navy plans to hold an INSURV review of LCS 2 upon completion of construction and builder's trials for that seaframe. Navy officials report that the earned value management systems in each of the LCS shipyards do not meet Defense Contract Management Agency requirements for validation. Thus, the cost and schedule data reported by the prime contractors cannot be considered fully reliable by the Navy when evaluating contractor cost proposals or negotiating for construction of follow-on ships.

The Navy stated the LCS program is delivering vital capabilities to the fleet and will be a critical component of the Navy. It noted that LCS 1 was delivered September 18, 2008-6 years and 1 day after the LCS program was established. In fiscal year 2009, the program will deliver a second ship of a completely different design. According to the Navy, while the initial cost and schedule objectives were overaggressive - and necessitated a concurrent design and construction plan - they provided the tension and urgency for these achievements, and lessons learned will be applied to future shipbuilding programs. In August 2008, INSURV evaluated LCS 1 and found it to be "capable, well-built, and inspection-ready." The Navy stated it is leveraging lessons learned from LCS 1 and LCS 2 to ensure future ship awards provide the right mix of capability and affordability.

Operation of the MCM, SUW, and ASW packages on the LCS requires a total of 25 critical technologies, including 13 sensors, 5 weapons, and 7 vehicles. Of these technologies, 17 are currently mature and 8 are nearing maturity.

The first of 24 MCM packages was delivered in September 2007 and included 7 of 10 planned mission systems. Four systems are not yet mature; two of these are struggling to reach full maturity. Officials note the Organic Airborne and Surface Influence Sweep is being redesigned to address corrosion issues and the Rapid Airborne Mine Clearance System requires design changes to perform in all environmental conditions. An airborne mine countermeasures system was decertified and its tow cable is being redesigned following the results of testing with the helicopter. The Navy also decertified the Remote Minehunting System during testing in 2007 due to reliability issues, and, according to officials, results of a recent operational assessment are pending. The Navy now plans to deliver the third and fourth mission packages in fiscal year 2011 and has delayed delivery of the baseline package until fiscal year 2012.

The first of 24 SUW packages was delivered in July 2008 and included 1 of 2 planned mission systems. The SUW package includes the fully mature 30mm gun and a variant of the Army's Non-Line-of-Sight (NLOS) system (missile and launcher), which is nearing maturity. The first package consisted of two gun engineering development models, without the NLOS launcher or missiles. The NLOS design for LCS has not yet been validated. Integration of the gun with LCS is not complete. A design review for the gun module is scheduled for October 2009. Delivery of a baseline package has been delayed to fiscal year 2013.

The first of 16 ASW packages was delivered in September 2008 and included 4 of 10 planned mission systems. Three systems remain immature including the Unmanned Surface Vehicle's Dipping Sonar, the Remotely Towed Array and the Remotely Towed Array Source. Failure to develop these technologies as expected could increase reliance on the MH-60R helicopter. The Navy has delayed delivery of a second ASW package until fiscal year 2011, and delayed baseline capability from fiscal year 2011 to 2013.

The development cost of the LCS packages has increased by more than $300 million, or 64 percent since last year. Procurement costs have decreased for MCM, in part because the delivery of the more expensive baseline capability has been delayed. Reductions in fiscal year 2008 and 2009 budget requests have slowed mission package procurement to account for continuing delays in seaframe acquisition. The explanatory statement accompanying DOD Appropriation Act for Fiscal Year 2009 Congress asked the Navy to develop a plan for fielding the MCM capability independent of LCS.

The program office indicates all packages are currently scheduled to undergo operational assessments with both LCS seaframe designs, beginning in June 2010. According to program officials, in September 2008, the Navy conducted a shore based integration exercise using simulated seaframe mission bays. Officials note this activity accelerated MCM mission package integration with both seaframes and reinforced previous crew training.

Program officials noted that changes to the program between the 2008 and 2009 president's budgets resulted in an apparent increased development cost. Costs for the SUW package bought in fiscal year 2009 were realigned from procurement to development to support technical and operational evaluations. In addition, data provided to GAO for last year's assessment did not include costs of common equipment that was subsequently distributed among the MCM and ASW packages. The program office acknowledges technical maturity challenges for some mission systems and is working closely with mission system program offices to resolve any issues. The program office is leading a coordinated test approach to prove mission package capabilities and suitability for fleet delivery. The program office also provided technical comments that were incorporated as appropriate.

by globalsecurity.org

LCS US NAVY: Littoral Combat Ship Mission Package Integration Contract Awarded to Northrop Grumman

Navy NewsStand

Story Number: NNS060109-07
Release Date: 1/9/2006 3:31:00 PM

From Program Executive Office, Littoral and Mine Warfare

WASHINGTON (NNS) -- The Navy has awarded a 10-year, cost plus award fee/award term contract with a potential dollar figure of $159 million to Northrop Grumman Systems Corp., Bethpage, N.Y. Jan. 4, for the mission package integrator (MPI) for the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Mission Modules program, strengthening the production team that will deliver the first mission packages in Fiscal Year (FY) '07. The FY '06 portion of the contract award is $4,477,824.

The integrator's role is to work closely with the government's Mission Package Integration Laboratory at the Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama City, Fla., to produce and deliver capabilities according to the technical architectures developed by the LCS Mission Modules Program Office (PMS 420).

"The MPI contract is a significant step forward in our effort to deliver modular, plug-and-fight capability for the fleet," said Capt. Walt Wright, Mission Modules Program manager. "Together with industry we will produce integrated packages of mission systems-for Mine Warfare (MIW), Anti-submarine Warfare (ASW) and Surface Warfare (SUW)-that will go to sea aboard LCS."

The Navy has defined the role of the mission package integrator as a system-engineering partner responsible for bringing the systems and technologies of the mission modules together under the integration and interface requirements established by PMS 420 and the LCS program office. The integrator also will act as a conduit for technology to be harnessed and incorporated into the LCS's seaframe and mission module architectures.

PMS 420 packages a variety of technologies, many of which are produced by other program offices and delivered as elements of a particular mission module.

"We are bringing together the best available technologies from a variety of programs to meet the focused mission requirements of the LCS program," Wright noted.

For example, the MIW module brings together several systems developed by the Mine Warfare program office (PMS 495). The MIW module includes the AN/WLD-1 Remote Minehunting System; the AN/AQS-20A Sonar Mine Detecting Set; the Organic Airborne Surface Influence Sweep; the Airborne Laser Mine Detection System; and the Airborne Mine Neutralization System, among other systems.

At the heart of the ASW module is the Advanced Deployable System (ADS), which is developed by the Maritime Surveillance Systems program office (PMS 485). The ADS is a bottom array that may be deployed from LCS at high speed, providing high-quality acoustic surveillance data. Additionally, the ASW module includes acoustic sensors such as a multifunction towed array, and a remote towed active source, along with other detection systems and weapons designed for use aboard the MH-60R helicopter and unmanned surface vessels.

The SUW module includes weapons such as a 30mm cannon (the same as is used in the Mine Warfare program offices Rapid Airborne Mine Clearance System, and the U.S. Marine Corps' Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle), and a version of the U.S. Army's Non-Line of Sight - Precision Attack Munition missile system

How They did it 2 : Sea Fighter (FSF 1) Fast Sea Frame Littoral Surface Craft-Experimental LSC(X)

Sea Fighter (FSF 1) is a test platform for concepts and technologies planned for use in the Littoral Combat Ship and is manned with a joint Navy and Coast Guard crew of only 26 personnel. The Littoral Surface Craft-Experimental LSC(X) was developed by the Office of Naval Research and christened Sea Fighter (FSF 1) on 5 February 2005. This high speed aluminum catamaran will test a variety of technologies that will allow the Navy to operate in littoral waters. Following approximately two months of trials, Sea Fighter was delivered at the end of April 2005. Operational control then was assumed by the Navy's Third Fleet with the ship operating out of its homeport of San Diego, CA.

Sea Fighter is a multi-mission test vessel designed as a proof-of-concept for numerous warfighting capabilities. Sea Fighter might prove useful enough to be the model for a new class of coastal combat ships. It is able to operate in both blue and littoral waters using either dual gas turbine engines for speed or dual diesel engines for efficient cruising. The vessel is extremely fast, with a top speed of 50-plus knots an hour. Even in rough seas (with up to 7-foot waves), the ship can do about 40-plus knots an hour. The ship has a number of capabilities such as a boat dock and a flight deck large enough for two helicopters. The ship can be easily reconfigured using interchangeable mission modules. As such, helicopters can land and launch on its deck and smaller water craft can be carried and launched from its stern

Sea Fighter is being used to evaluate the hydrodynamic performance, structural behavior, mission flexibility, and propulsion system efficiency of high speed vessels. Sea Fighter's mission flexibility will be demonstrated through interchangeable "mission modules" (standard twenty foot containers) housed in Sea Fighter's large Mission Bay. The Mission Bay is capable of housing twelve containers, permitting the vessel to be quickly reconfigured to support a variety of potential missions, including battle force protection, mine counter-measures, anti-submarine warfare, amphibious assault support and humanitarian support. A multi-purpose Stern Ramp allows Sea Fighter to launch and recover manned and unmanned surface and sub-surface vehicles up to the size of an 11 meter Rigid-Hull Inflatable Boat (RHIB). Sea Fighter will be able to simultaneously operate two MH-60S helicopters from its flight deck.

Sea Fighter will also provide a platform for the evaluation of minimum manning concepts on future naval surface ships. A base crew of 26 (Navy and U.S. Coast Guard) personnel will be responsible for all operations and basic maintenance, requiring a significant shift in the normal levels of manning currently used to accomplish various missions and tasks. Sea Fighter also will be among the first U.S. Navy ships to employ "paperless" navigation through the use of the Sperry Marine Electronic Charting and Display Information System (ECDIS) and Voyage Management System (VMS). Typically, the ship will operate with just three watchstanders and one roving patrol to monitor and configure engineering systems. This reduced manning will be supported by a level of automation and sophisticated monitoring of systems and equipment previously absent on U.S. Navy ships.

After completion of the contract design, shipyard competition, and design review in March 2003, the keel for the 262 foot-long Sea Fighter was laid in June 2003 and the 950 ton (light ship displacement) ship was launched in launched in February of 2005. After a brief period of operational evaluation and crew certification, Sea Fighter will conduct exercises in support of risk reduction for the Navy's Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) as an "LCS surrogate." Following the exercises, Sea Fighter may be upgraded with weapons and additional electronic equipment. Ultimately, Sea Fighter may be commissioned as an operational Navy ship.

The development of computational tools used for high-speed sealift, HSSL, ships requires specific data for validation. These HSSL design tools specifically address the vessel's performance and loading, including the ships behavior during wave slam events. Because very little, if any, full-scale data of this type exists, research work was obtained full-scale qualitative and quantitative wave slamming data of the Sea Fighter (FSF-1), a high-speed multihull vessel developed by the Office of Naval Research. This data included measurement of the ambient environmental conditions, the incident waves impacting the ship, ship motions, and visual documentation of the free-surface/wave field surrounding the ship during slamming events. The rough water trial took place April 18-21, 2006 and several wave slams were documented.

The Sea Fighter was built as an experiment by Nichols Bros. Boat Builders in Freeland, Washington, under contract to Titan Corporation, a subsidiary of L-3 Communications. It was ordered in 2003 and launched in 2005, 29 months from concept to a ship in the water. In 2008, the Sea Fighter was renamed the FSF-1 and commissioned for Navy duty for a total cost between $180 and $220 million.

The success of this effort can be attributed to a lack of hard requirements. The ship was intended as a research project to test design limits; it included an innovative seaframe, communications systems, and weapons configurations. The requirements document "fit on less than one page" and the designers utilized full commercial practices. The ship was commissioned under commercial American Bureau of Shipbuilding classification rules; military certification was not a factor until the ship was deployed.

The purpose of this program was to provide incentives and guidance for subsequent procurements-specifically, the LCS program. The effort demonstrated a wide range of innovative capabilities, including the previously unexplored feasibility of the aluminum hull trimaran design of the LCS2.

Solicitation N61331-10-R-0001 was for a contractor to provide the crew required to operate and maintain the FSF-1 during systems test and experimentation and during transit between ports. The Government anticipated an approximate award date of March 2010. The initial period of performance shall be from award through 12 MONTHS, thereafter, with four award terms. Each award term period, which, if awarded, extends the period of performance by 12 months. The contractor shall provide all operations, maintenance, engineering, and programmatic support required to operate and maintain the SEA FIGHTER as an experimental vessel in support of advanced technology demonstrations and Research Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) efforts. The contractor shall provide project-specific engineering, technical services, fabrication, and material procurement support as required based on specific RDT&E and advanced technology demonstration requirements taking place aboard the SEA FIGHTER.

This effort shall include, but is not limited to the following: provide engineering, maritime, and technical services to support the installation, test, inspection, checkout, maintenance, and repair of propulsion, navigation, communication, and auxiliary equipment (hereafter "equipment") for the High Speed Naval Craft SEA FIGHTER (FSF 1) Class ship. Operate the ship pier-side, at-anchor, and at-sea under its own power. Provide crew services for the Rigid Hull Inflatable Boat (RHIB) and life boat. Haul the RHIB, life boat and/other craft in and out of the water as required to support operations and maintenance. Install, checkout, test, maintain and un-install equipment/components for ship operations. Prepare, document, and conduct shipboard operations and safety training for engineering, planning, installation, and test and evaluation (T&E) personnel. Coordinate and document SEA FIGHTER specific, NSWC PCD operations processes, such as, Hurricane Evacuation Plans. Maintain configuration management plans for required SEA FIGHTER documentation. Provide food and beverage service functions for at-sea operations and special requirements, as required. Provide galley services for at-sea operations, as required.

Ship Type	wave-piercing catamaran.
Name	SEA FIGHTER (FSF 1)
Propulsion	Two GE LM2500 Gas Turbine Engines; two MTU 16V 595 TE 90 Propulsion Diesels; four Rolls-Royce 125SII Waterjets.
Length	262 feet (79.9 meters) overall
	240 feet (73 meters) at waterline
Beam	72 feet (22 meters)
Draft	11.5 feet (3.5 meters)
Full Displacement	1600 tons
Light Displacement	940-950 tons
Dead Weight	640 tons
Hull Material	All aluminum hull
Speed	50+ knots
Range	in excess of 4,000 nm @ 20+ knots
Crew	26 (Navy and Coast Guard)
Homeport	San Diego, CA
Award Date	02/25/2003
Keel Date	06/05/2003
Launch Date	02/05/2005
Delivery Date	05/31/2005
Commission Date	not in commission
Build Number	S-144
Builder	Titan Corporation, San Diego, CA at building yard of Nichols Brothers Boat Builders, Freeland, WA.
Builders	Nichols Brothers Boat Builders, 5400 South Cameron Rd, Freeland, WA 98249, USA
Designers	BMT Nigel Gee and Associates Ltd, Shamrock Quay, Southampton, SO14 5QL, UK
Class	American Bureau of Shipping (ABS)
Classification	A1 HSC Naval Craft OE AMS ACCU R2-S
Call Sign	WDC4562
MMSI No	367026670
EPIRB	ADCE 0217D142401
Flag Administration	NAVSEA 05D4
Anchoring & Mooring Equipment Number	633
Equipment Numeral	U17
Regulatory Body	IMO HSC 2000 Cargo Vessel

  

by globalsecurity.org

How they do thing: Focused-Mission High Speed Ship Concept Studies [FMHSS]

Focused-Mission High Speed Ship Concept Studies [FMHSS]

The Navy went out with a recent Request for Proposal to obtain industry concepts for a High Speed Ship. The Navy would review the concepts for possible applicability to the Littoral Combat Ship. With this in mind, the contract was not for LCS, rather studies that would further refine the Navy's requirements and knowledge of technology options for the proposed Littoral Combat Ship and other future ship classes.

On 8 November 2002, six companies were each awarded a firm-fixed-price contract worth $500,000 for the performance of focused-mission ship concept studies intended to explore a range of approaches in an overall effort to define future ship requirements. These studies would further refine the Navy's requirements and knowledge of technology options for the proposed Littoral Combat Ship and other future ship classes. This was a part of the Naval services tranformation into the 21st Century and a part of the foundation for future warships. The focused-mission ship to be studied was envisioned to be a networked, agile, stealthy surface combatant capable of defeating anti-access and asymmetric threats in the littorals. Its primary missions would be prosecution of small boats, mine-countermeasures, and littoral anti-submarine warfare.

The companies, Bath Iron Works Corp, Bath, Maine, Gibbs & Cox, Inc, Arlington, Virginia, John J. McMullen Associates, Inc, Alexandria, Virginia, Lockheed Martin, Naval Electronics & Surveillance Systems - Marine System, Baltimore, Maryland, Northrop Grumman - Ship Systems, Pascagoula, Mississippi, and Textron Systems, Marine & Land Operations, New Orleans, Louisiana, each performed a 90-day ship concept study to research innovative concepts for a focused-mission, high-speed ship. These contracts were awarded following a full and open competition, during which eighteen offers were received.

The General Dynamics team was led by Bath Iron Works, and included leading US and international defense contractors. Team members are The Boeing Company, Austal, USA, of Mobile, Alabama, British Aerospace Corporation (BAE), Maritime Applied Physics Corporation, CAE Marine Systems and five other General Dynamics business units. The team developed an integrated system that delivered significantly enhanced capabilities to naval, joint and coalition forces operating within the littorals. In defining system design characteristics, the team addressed FMHSS integration with FORCEnet, the information network into which the Navy planned integrate sensors, decision aids and weapons, as well as other joint and coalition information networks. The spectrum of technologies to be evaluated by the team would include all forms of remotely deployed and operated vehicles, distributed sensors, modular payloads, weapons, communications, command and control and automation systems as well as advanced propulsion technologies and hull construction materials.

The team had chosen to base its FMHSS hull design on advanced Trimaran hull form technology. Results of recent Office of Naval Research sponsored high-speed Trimaran studies completed by Bath Iron Works would be coupled with an existing Trimaran design available through Austal, USA, to create a highly automated ship capable of speeds in excess of 50 knots. This ship would have significantly lighter displacement than the Navy's FFG-7 Oliver Hazard Perry Class of frigates designed and built at Bath Iron Works and would be capable of extended independent operations with a crew of just 25-30. The advanced Trimaran design offers outstanding efficiency and performance in all sea conditions, endurance and reliability for sustained independent operations and a high degree of flexibility/adaptability to meet evolving military requirements through open architecture and modular configuration. The system was expected to enable advanced operational concepts such as those employing high speed, enhanced maneuver, distributed forces and reduced signatures as well as the ability to efficiently embark from a broad array of aircraft, amphibious, land and marine vehicles.

On 22 October 2002, the Northrop Grumman Corporation announced that it had signed a cooperative agreement with Kockums AB and its parent company, Howaldtswerke Deutsche Werft AG (HDW), under which Kockums would join a team assembled by Northrop Grumman's Ship Systems sector to compete for the US Navy's Focused Mission Vessel Study. This study was expected to result in the development and construction of a Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), one element of the DD(X) family of surface combatants planned for construction by the Navy during the next quarter century.

The cooperative agreement between Northrop Grumman, Kockums and HDW covers business opportunities for the design, development, construction and sale of Visby-class ships and/or derivative technology to the US government for the LCS and other US programs, and for sales to friendly international governments through the Foreign Military Sales program. Northrop Grumman plans to use the Visby as the baseline for development of Ship Systems' proposal for the Navy's LCS program. Combining the proven hull and composite technology developed by Kockums with Northrop Grumman's composite and overall ship integration experience would allow the Navy to rely upon a proven, full-service shipbuilder, with access to state-of-the-art fielded technology, for the LCS program.

In April 2003, at the US Navy League's Sea Air Space Exposition Team LCS, the Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems and John J. Mullen Associates Inc. partnership, unveiled their Littoral Combat Ship design based on Norway's Skjold class patrol boat. Raytheon was the prime contractor and was responsible for the systems architecture and ships systems integration. JJMA was heading up the naval engineering and ship design competencies. UMOE was working on the hull design and manufacturing processes. Goodrich heads up the composite design and fabrication and Atlantic Marine, Inc. was the shipyard.

Also at Sea Air Space Exposition 2003, Lockheed Martin LCS Team unveiled Sea Blade, an Advanced Semi-Planing Seaframe, for the Navy's Littoral Combat Ship program.

Textron Systems and EDO Combat Systems (also at the Navy League's Expo) submitted a ship design, the Hybrid Catamaran Air Cushion (HCAC), that uses Textron Marine & Lands considerable experience with air-supported craft, such as the LCAC. The ship design also had the ability to operate as a catamaran, in which mode it was able to sustain a cruise speed of 18-20 knots.

Preliminary Design

On 10 February 2003 the Navy announced that it would soon issue a formal request for proposals to build the LCS. The Navy said that it would award 3 contracts worth $10 million each, some time in July 2003, for a preliminary design concept. The US Navy plans included a first flight of two ships to be begin construction in 2005 and 2006 and for the follow-on flights to begin construction by 2008.

On 17 July 2003 the Navy announced that General Dynamics (including Bath Iron Works, Bath, Maine, and Lockheed Martin Naval Electronics & Surveillance Systems), Surface Systems, Washington, DC, and Raytheon Company, Integrated Defense Systems, Portsmouth, Rhode Island, were each being awarded a contract for the performance of Flight 0 littoral combat ship (LCS) preliminary design. Each contractor was to perform a seven-month preliminary design effort to refine its proposed littoral combat ship concept.

A 2003 analysis by David D. Rudko noted that the Navy has stated the Littoral Combat Ship must incorporate endurance, speed, payload capacity, sea-keeping, shallow-draft and mission reconfigurability into a small ship design. However, constraints in current ship design technology make this desired combination of design characteristics in small ships difficult to realize at any cost. Speed, displacement, and significant wave height all result in considerable increases in fuel consumption, and as a result, severely limit Littoral Combat Ship endurance. When operating in a significant wave height of six feet, regardless of the amount of fuel carried, the maximum endurance achieved for a wave-piercing catamaran Littoral Combat Ship outfitted with all modular mission packages is less than seven days. Especially noteworthy is that when restricted to a fuel reserve of 50% and a fuel carrying capacity of Day tanks, the maximum achieved endurance is only 4.8 hours when operating at a maximum speed of 48 knots. The Littoral Combat Ship can achieve high speeds; however, this can only be accomplished at the expense of range and payload capacity. The requirement for the Littoral Combat Ship to go fast (forty-eight knots) requires a seaframe with heavy propulsion systems. The weight of the seaframe, required shipboard systems (weapons, sensors, command and control, and self-defense) and modular mission packages accounts for 84% of the full displacement, and as a result, substantially limits total fuel carrying capacity. Since initial mission profiles required the high-speed capability at most five percent of the time, the end result is a Littoral Combat Ship that has very little endurance and a high-speed capability it will rarely use. Refueling, and potentially rearming, will require the Littoral Combat Ship to leave littoral waters and transit to Combat Logistics Force ships operating outside the littorals for replenishment. Given the low endurance of the Littoral Combat Ship, its time on station is seriously compromised.

An assessment of maritime security and piracy in Asia

According to statistic below the threat of piracy is not being dealt with adequately enough, with 24% indicating that preparation, investment and
implementation is poor in this area. While one fifth of respondents do think a good job is being done, it’s clear that this is not enough.
 24% -Poor
54% - OK
21% - Good
1% - Excellent

Threats to maritime safety
What is the key threat to maritime safety globally?

The piracy threat is the most significant threat facing global navies, border security patrols and commercial sea traffic according to 71% of respondents.

Not one Navy, Coast Guard or Air Force in Asia is content with their maritime security and anti-piracy capabilities. Each one is considering bolstering their fleets by acquiring new platforms and equipment to counter the rising threat of piracy and other illicit activities in Asian waters.

The Regional Cooperation Agreement on Combating Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships in Asia (ReCAAP) – a body established to promote and enhance government-to-government cooperation against piracy and armed robbery in Asia – released a report detailing 73 incidents of piracy and armed robbery in Asian waters during the first half of 2014. The majority (55) of these incidents were classified as armed robbery against ships while the rest (18) were incidents of piracy. It has led Vietnam National Shipping Lines (Vinalines) to circulate a warning to its partners in the region to remain vigilant about the rising maritime security threats in the region, and particularly in Southeast Asia.

Unlike piracy off the Somali coast and in the Gulf of Guinea – where hostages are held for ransom – pirates in Asia typically steal cargo and often target oil tankers. The International Maritime Bureau’s (IBM) Piracy Reporting Centre (PRC) noted in its July report that small tanker hijackings in Southeast Asia where petroleum and diesel were targeted by pirates was on the increase.

The PRC in fact said the data was “sparking fears of a new trend in pirate attacks in the area.”

Pottengal Mukundan, IMB Director, said that the “recent increase in the number of successful hijackings is a cause for concern.” He called them “serious attacks” but said they have so far only targeted small coastal tankers.

“We advise these vessels to maintain strict anti-piracy measures in these waters, and to report all attacks and suspicious approaches by small craft,” said Mukundan.

In June the Malaysian Navy fought off a piracy attempt on a tanker in the South China Sea with support from the Indonesian and Singaporean navies.

“The Malaysian Navy quickly dispatched a patrol boat and managed to intercept the tanker. Pirates managed to escape before the arrival of the naval boat,” the International Maritime Bureau said in a report.

Following the close collaboration between Indonesian, Malaysian and Singaporean forces during this counter-piracy operation, it’s clear this model needs to be expanded on a wider basis. A similar level of transnational, inter-agency and government-to-government cooperation is now needed to understand and mitigate the growing threat of piracy in Asia. Earlier this year the United Nations identified Southeast Asia as the world’s new hub for piracy after international efforts off the coast of Somalia have resulted in a dramatic decline in incidents. As seen with the recent success in Africa, Asian navies, coast guards and other maritime agencies must take advantage of all opportunities that allow for greater collaboration and understanding on common threats.

Navies and coastguards all over Asia are now looking to bolster their defence capabilities as a result of many factors, only one of which is piracy.

APAC acquisition plans in the maritime domain 

In 2014, the Singapore Armed Forces will focus on RPV procurement and four E-2C Hawkeyes are currently transitioning to G550 CAEWs. Over the next decade the SAF will purchase tactical UAVs, A330 Multi Role tanker transport aircrafts, littoral mission vessels and Type 2158G submarines. In addition, the Singapore Navy is procuring UAVs to support maritime operations and the Singapore Air Force recently confirmed the fleet expansion to at least 32 F-15SGs.

The Indonesian Navy has confirmed that its Klewang-class stealth patrol ship programme has resumed after being suspended following a fire during sea trials in 2012. Problems with the hull are believed to have been addressed and Indonesia is now looking at a fleet of at least four of the Klewang-class stealth patrol ships. Armed with a Bofors 40 Mk4 naval gun and Saab’s electronic support measure (ESM) system, the new vessels are designed for counter-piracy operations and other maritime threats.

Following the disappearance of flight MH370, the Royal Malaysian Navy is prioritising procurement for land and aerial assets and phase 2 of Malaysia’s $2.8 billion second generation patrol vessels project (SGVP) is currently underway. Work has also begun on the littoral combat vessels (LCS) programme. The plan to acquire 6-12 maritime patrol aircraft is at a cost of up to $300 million is in the pipeline while the RMN is also setting aside up to $750 million for new early warning aircraft with powerful radar.

The Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency (MMEA) is buying mid-range radars in 2014 and looking at various air assets and platforms including fixed-wing and rotary wing unmanned aircraft systems (UAS).

Further afield, in an interview with Defence IQ last year, Rear Admiral Cecil R Chen, Vice Commandant for Administration of the Philippine Coast Guard (PCG), said that “improving maritime patrol capability is a priority for the PCG agenda because it tends to have strategic contribution to the current economic and security priority initiatives of the Government and marine resource management to all three operations.” As a result, the PCG is actively acquiring Multi Role Response Vessels, fast patrol boats, an offshore patrol vessel as well as platforms for use during disaster relief and emergency response operations such as rubber boats, rigid hulled inflatable boats and aluminium-hulled rescue boats.

Signalling further tensions in the Asia-Pacific region, Japan’s Ministry of Defence has requested a 2.4% increase in its annual budget. The 2015 budget will total ¥4.9 trillion ($47.25 billion) following the approval of Japan’s new national security strategy, which above all calls for better air and maritime surveillance.

In a budget request document, Japan’s MoD stated that the regional security environment has recently become more tense, citing China’s increasing activities in Japan’s vicinity as well as North Korea’s missile launches.

With Japan’s decision to bolster its defence forces, many Western defence and private maritime security companies (PMSCs) are seeing revived fortunes in the Far East and its nascent market for anti-piracy solutions. In August, Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin held a joint press conference in Tokyo to champion the RQ-4 Global Hawk and E-2D Advanced Hawkeye surveillance planes as potential additions to the Japanese Air Self Defence Force.

Japan has stated that its main priority is to increase its intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities following threats against its sovereign territory from China and North Korea. “China’s lack of transparency in its broad and rapid military modernisation as well as rapid expansion and intensification of maritime activities,” as it is put in the budget request document.

Japan is seeking to acquire four P-1 fixed-wing patrol aircraft at a cost of ¥ 77.3 billion ($12.6 billion) to improve its detection/discrimination capabilities, information processing capabilities, and attack capabilities compared to its existing P-3C fixed-wing patrol aircraft.

The MoD said it was also considering introducing HALE-UAVs that would contribute to strengthening its wide-area persistent ISR capability.

Contributor:  Andrew Elwell 
Posted:  08/29/2014  12:00:00 AM EDT in defence IQ