US Navy Asks Shipbuilders: Can You Build Us a Warship for Just $100 Million?
Introducing a $100 million (really small) aircraft carrier
As a matter of fact, this is exactly what the Navy is considering doing as part of its Light Amphibious Warship project, first referenced earlier this year.
As reported by USNI News last month, the Navy and Marine Corps are working with "about six industry teams" to design and build a 200-foot to 400-foot long amphibious warship, displacing anywhere from 1,000 to 8,000 tons. (For comparison, Ford class aircraft carriers are more than 1,100 feet long and displace 100,000 tons, while smaller America-class "mini aircraft carriers" are more than 800 feet long and displace 45,000 tons.)
The Light Amphibious Warship, or LAW, is therefore being envisioned as a much smaller ship -- but this is commensurate to its task. As part of its new "distributed maritime operations" strategy, the Navy wants LAW to carry small units of Marines to capture small islands, launch attacks on enemy naval forces from those islands, and then quickly scoot off to different islands to launch still more attacks before the enemy can respond.
The USN budgeting to build small aircraft carriers called LAW at USD 100 million each.
Compare this to our LCS which works out to about RM 2 billion each should it eventually get built. RM 2 billion is USD 500 million each LCS. That would have been 30 LAW vessels for the RMN. We would have been a deep and blue water navy!
In comparison the 4 LMS built in China works out to USD 250 million each which is still expensive but the contract went through BHIC. I think the actual build cost would have been very much less but there again what else is new.
The idea of building naval vessels locally is to save cost and for technology transfer. We are achieving neither.
When BHIC reported lack of talent as one of the reason the failure of LCS build by them, we are wondering if can't the talents be seconded from other galaxies around us?
Talents can be sourced....but will political leadership allows it instead of siphoning money from the projects...we need servant leaders; not self-serving leaders...
And when the Patriot BG Raji trying to put the blames to the user (RMN) for changing the equipment and specification , the previous chief is not happy with the statement. Here some of the respond to the Patriot statement:
1. Usually shipbuilding starts by formulating complete documentation approved by the customer (TLDM) especially the Contract Building Specifications (CBS), Ship Work Breakdown Structure (SWBS), Inspection, Test & Trials Procedures & Protocols in addition to some other documents such as some categories design drawings . All this is customized by the ship equipment outfit designed e.g machineries, weapons and sensors and many more. If all the documentation is ready and ready to go, or has gone half-way, then there is a change in equipment outfit then many complications arise revamping the affected documents and redesign and reworks. Usually, when all the documentation is completed the construction work becomes smooth, in short in the order of Equipment manufacture by OEM, Eqpt FAT / PDI, Eqpt delivery, Eqpt setting-to-work (STW), Eqpt Installation, Eqpt Installation Test, Eqpt HAT, Eqpt Integration, Eqpt / System Integration Test (SIT), Eqpt SAT and Eqpt Final Acceptance Test & Eqpt Commissioning. In analyzing the LCS construction delay, Patriot, as an outsider not privy to these chain of shipbuilding procedures need to be careful in making sweeping statement with regards to the Project and resulting in free-for-all unfounded public comments. Only the RMN Project Team and it's counterpart BNS Project Management Team know the true problems,
2. I was called upon to respond to President Patriot's press release. I do not agree with the statement "Request for change of Weapon system and equipment by TLDM halfway into design and construction was the main contributory factor for the project delay." If true, it did not happen during my time as a PTL. I never asked for a weapon system change after the project started. But I once disputed the selection of Exocet and VL Mica as SSM (Surface to Surface Missile) and SAM (Surface to Air Missile) systems by the Ministry of Finance at the beginning of the system selection phase for this project again. Both systems chosen by the Ministry of Finance are not only considered inferior and outdated, but more expensive than those proposed by the RMN. TLDM has chosen NSM for SSM, and ESSM for SAM. The election by the Ministry of Finance has clearly turned its back on the election and the TLDM proposal. Missile Exocet has been converted to NSM missile but VL Mica is still maintained. For your information, NSM is the SSM system chosen by the US Navy for their new ship project, while the current VL Mica System is considered obsolete! For your information, all documents regarding this matter are stored in duplicate in a special file and archived. I have met 4 times with the PM at that time to raise the TLDM's disagreement in the selection of the two systems since the beginning of the project, not halfway into design and construction
From the PVTLDM brainstorming
