The U.S. Navy is making progress modernizing the firstLittoral Combat Ship to deploy by upgrading its systems, adding new software and integrating new equipment, service officials said.
The USS Freedom, or LCS 1, has entered a three-to-four-month dry dock maintenance period wherein it will receive a series of wide-ranging upgrades and repairs, according to Capt. Scott Pratt, Program Manager for Fleet Introduction and Sustainment, LCS.
Some of the activities will include new servers, computer networks and updated software along with improved equipment such as a new sea water cooling system, air compressor and communications antenna, among other things, Pratt told Military.com in an interview.
“There are 34 alterations being done on the ship as part of this maintenance availability,” he said. “These changes are comprised of things that will increase reliability.”
The USS Freedom made by Lockheed Martin Corp. is also getting outfitted with the same medium pressure air compressor that’s now on the USS Fort Worth, or LCS 3, currently deployed in the Pacific theater.
“The air compressors are used to start the diesel engines and they also provide ship service air throughout the ship,” Pratt said.
During its initial deployment in 2013, the USS Freedom experienced a wide range of technical and reliability issues, resulting in a series of short and longer-term fixes. In fact, some of the fixes were immediately put in place during construction and development of follow-on LCS ships such as LCS 3, LCS 5 and others.
For instance, while on its deployment, the Freedom experienced a temporary power outage while on route to Guam in the summer of 2013. The ship also experienced problems with a corroded cable and a faulty air compressor. In addition, the ship experienced problems with its ship service diesel generators, or SSDGs, service officials explained.
During its deployment the USS Freedom traveled to Singapore and conducted missions in the South China Sea.
Now, along with improvements to the ship’s air compressor, other adjustments during the maintenance period for the USS Freedom include work on the sea water cooling system and communications antenna.
“We are making some improvements in the sea water cooling system and providing a second satellite communications antenna,” Pratt said. “We had some communications problems on her last deployment. She (LCS 1) experienced a number of blocking problems where the one antenna could not see the satellite.”
With two satellite antennas, LCS 1 will now be like the remaining fleet of LCS ships, which all have two as well.
Improvements to the sea water cooling system are also being done in response to problems the ship experienced on its first deployment.
“The flow of seawater through the cooler was too high so we are making some changes to the sea water system so that the sea water coolers do not wear out, Pratt said.
The USS Freedom is slated for its second deployment during the latter half of 2016, he said.
Prior to the current 90-day maintenance availability, the Navy has implemented a series of fixes and improvements to the USS Freedom as a result of the reliability problems on its first deployment.
One such change resulted in what’s called an anchor windlass replacement, Navy officials said.
“To prevent water ingestion in the anchor windlass room, the existing anchor winch, hydraulic unit and mooring capstan were replaced with a single electric capstan (chain) winch on the main deck. In addition, the existing towing chain was replaced with a lighter chain,” Navy spokesman Dale Eng said in November 2013 as the Freedom was finishing up its first deployment.
Also, to improve corrosion protection, the ship’s Impressed Current Cathodic Protection system was modified by adding protections to the water jet inlet tunnel; Cathodic Protection is a technique used to control or minimize the corrosion of a metal surface. This change, designed to improve reliability and maintainability, was put into effect on LCS 3, LCS 5 and follow on ships, Eng said.
Other changes put into effect starting on LCS 3 include the lengthening of the stern transom and the integration of the buoyancy tanks into the stern of the hull. The transom stern is the bottom tip of the surface of the stern that approximates the waterline, Navy officials said.
The ship’s water jets were modified as well, changing from a mixed flow design to an axial flow in order to reduce air pockets and improve efficiency. With an axial flow, water is pushed in a direction parallel to the shaft of the impeller, a type of propeller.
The end result of implementation of the axial flow water jets is improved operation efficiency with reduced maintenance intervals, Eng said.
Also on the Freedom variant of the LCS, engineers have moved to a significantly less complex gas turbine electric start system on LCS 5, in order to reduce costs and lower ship weight, he added.
So far, four LCS ships have been delivered to the Navy and two more are slated to arrive this summer. After that, two more are planned for delivery this coming winter. Also, there are a total of 19 LCS ships under contract which have yet to be delivered, Navy officials said.
Comment from reader
However, these repairs cannot fix the underlying foundational problems.
Links on this very site led to the Navy's own Inspector General's review of LCS (both classes), which declared that these boats weren't likely to survive the missions its commanders would probably assign them. Adm. Jonathan Greenert admitted in an interview with Breaking Defense that the Littoral Combat Ship was never designed to venture into the littorals to engage in combat (I was stunned - you can't make this stuff up!). To extrapolate mathematically, we are left with the following:
LCS - L - C = S
Result: the US taxpayers are paying more money for an "S" (ship) than our allies are paying for a full-blown, high-end FFG (a slightly unfair characterization - but read on!).
As if that wasn't bad enough, it was recently admitted by the LCS program office (according to Defense Industry Daily), that no LCS variant meets even the US Navy's lowest survivability standard (Level 1), despite one of the reasons for the staggering cost increases included a modification to the LCS to meet the Level 1 standard while it was still on the slipways (in construction). Yet now, we find out that simply isn't true - and the modified variants (SSC/FF) won't meet the standard either (according to a recent report by DOT&E).
While these LCS/SSC/FF aren't defenseless, they are little more than fodder for a real naval opponent. At least if they'd built them to the Level 2 standard (the same standard used for fleet oilers, and the OHP class) to take some real weaponry if need be (or simply leave room for expansion should the going get tough - which would be a reasonable design decision) with a common set of tough, versatile, sea-frames we'd all be better off.
Links on this very site led to the Navy's own Inspector General's review of LCS (both classes), which declared that these boats weren't likely to survive the missions its commanders would probably assign them. Adm. Jonathan Greenert admitted in an interview with Breaking Defense that the Littoral Combat Ship was never designed to venture into the littorals to engage in combat (I was stunned - you can't make this stuff up!). To extrapolate mathematically, we are left with the following:
LCS - L - C = S
Result: the US taxpayers are paying more money for an "S" (ship) than our allies are paying for a full-blown, high-end FFG (a slightly unfair characterization - but read on!).
As if that wasn't bad enough, it was recently admitted by the LCS program office (according to Defense Industry Daily), that no LCS variant meets even the US Navy's lowest survivability standard (Level 1), despite one of the reasons for the staggering cost increases included a modification to the LCS to meet the Level 1 standard while it was still on the slipways (in construction). Yet now, we find out that simply isn't true - and the modified variants (SSC/FF) won't meet the standard either (according to a recent report by DOT&E).
While these LCS/SSC/FF aren't defenseless, they are little more than fodder for a real naval opponent. At least if they'd built them to the Level 2 standard (the same standard used for fleet oilers, and the OHP class) to take some real weaponry if need be (or simply leave room for expansion should the going get tough - which would be a reasonable design decision) with a common set of tough, versatile, sea-frames we'd all be better off.
andrian
The LCS was never meant to be a major naval warship. It's meant to do light duty, and free up the heavy duty warships
Having said that, it's size and cost means that it will always be compared to a similarly sized ship and found wanting. It has some defense, but not much.
I guess it's like comparing one soldier who is armed with a 9 mm handgun (the LCS), who is facing another soldier who is armed with a handgun, automatic assault rifle, grenades (the enemy frigate/destroyer).
So to me, the LCS should be given a long range weapon to act as a deterrant. Even the equivalent of a bolt action rifle would make him less of an inviting target.
The solution is simple. Tack on 2 to 4 Naval Strike Missiles. Minimal weight, successfully tested last year, readily available.
Of course, the US military seems more driven by politics and diverting funds to military contractors these days, than any actual logical decisions.
Having said that, it's size and cost means that it will always be compared to a similarly sized ship and found wanting. It has some defense, but not much.
I guess it's like comparing one soldier who is armed with a 9 mm handgun (the LCS), who is facing another soldier who is armed with a handgun, automatic assault rifle, grenades (the enemy frigate/destroyer).
So to me, the LCS should be given a long range weapon to act as a deterrant. Even the equivalent of a bolt action rifle would make him less of an inviting target.
The solution is simple. Tack on 2 to 4 Naval Strike Missiles. Minimal weight, successfully tested last year, readily available.
Of course, the US military seems more driven by politics and diverting funds to military contractors these days, than any actual logical decisions.
No comments:
Post a Comment