tim52

While I'm certainly no expert I thought that the use of aluminum in the construction of warships was a bad idea. Remember what happened to HMS Sheffield when hit with an exocet.

__________________
It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it.

Robert E. Lee

SierraM

al.com: Everything Alabama

Delivery of Austal's LCS next summer
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
By SEAN REILLY
Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- Once scheduled for delivery this October, a littoral combat ship under construction at Austal USA's shipyard in Mobile is now scheduled to arrive late next summer, a top Navy official told the House Armed Services Seapower and Expeditionary Forces Subcommittee on Tuesday.

In her testimony, Deputy Assistant Navy Secretary Allison Stiller volunteered no details on the reason for the delay, and subcommittee members did not ask. The ship, designed for anti-mine warfare and other operations in shallow coastal waters, is about 53 percent complete, she said.

"I just think it's a lot more complex ship than we ever envisioned when we laid it out," Rear Admiral Barry McCullough, who also testified at the hearing, said in a brief interview afterward.
Advertisement

Austal, which employs more than 1,000 people at its Mobile yard, is building the ship as part of a team led by General Dynamics Corp. In a phone interview, Jim DeMartini, a spokesman for the Virginia-based defense con-

tractor, offered a slightly different date, saying that the company anticipates delivery next June.

"Why it's moved out there is a combination of any number of things, but all those have been worked with the Navy and schedules adjusted," DeMartini said.

The vessel under construction is the first of two prototypes that Austal is slated to build, with preliminary work on the second already under way, DeMartini said.

The General Dynamics/Austal group is competing against a separate team headed by Maryland-based Lockheed Martin Corp. which is producing its own LCS prototype built to a different seaframe design.

The Navy, which ultimately wants to build 55 of the ships, had planned to choose one of the two designs in 2010 as the basis for future orders. Stiller on Tuesday, however, did not rule out using both designs "if the operational evaluation concludes the need for both."

Like other naval shipbuilding initiatives, the LCS program has turned out to be far more expensive than first budgeted. While the seaframes were supposed to cost about $250 million in inflation-adjusted dollars, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office now says the first General Dynamics/Austal and Lockheed Martin prototypes will cost about $630 million each.

Included in that figure are outfitting costs and other expenses not covered in the Navy's estimate, along with one-time expenses because the ships will be the first in a new class, said Eric Labs, a CBO analyst.

But the Navy's estimate "was never realistic to start with," Labs said. The Navy has also had to face design and construction problems that will probably affect the Austal LCS, he said.

Both McCullough and DeMartini declined comment on the CBO estimate, saying they did not know what went into that number. Navy officials have declined to give their current projected price tag for the first Austal LCS, disclosing only that it is 50 percent to 75 percent above the original $223 million contract price, depending on the basis of comparison.

Future LCS buys will cost about $450 million each, not counting mission modules, the CBO estimates.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does anybody have any idea why the GD version is taking so long to get built?

Is this directly related to a desire to keep costs low? Does a slower building pace lead to lower cost?

SierraM

Looks like we might see an LCS with some teeth after all.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Information Dissemination: US Offers AEGIS, JDAM, and Upgrades to Saudi Arabia - UPDATED

Sunday, July 29, 2007
US Offers AEGIS, JDAM, and Upgrades to Saudi Arabia - UPDATED

According to the New York Times, the Bush administration will make a large offer a large arms deal to Saudi Arabia this week when Gates and Rice tour the region. This has been in the works awhile, first reported in December of 2005 when Saudi Arabia expressed interest in the LCS, and then again in September of 2006 when the Saudi's apparently decided the General Dynamics option was what they were looking for.

LCS interest to date has mostly been from Saudi Arabia and Israel, although there are others. Many are watching both the LCS and FREMM programs to weigh the differences and capabilities before choosing a small combatant.

The Arms deal offer in regards to Saudi Arabia appears to be related to the US stepping up its larger strategy in the region. From the NYT article:

The proposed package of advanced weaponry for Saudi Arabia, which includes advanced satellite-guided bombs, upgrades to its fighters and new naval vessels, has made Israel and some of its supporters in Congress nervous. Senior officials who described the package on Friday said they believed that the administration had resolved those concerns, in part by promising Israel $30.4 billion in military aid over the next decade, a significant increase over what Israel has received in the past 10 years.


After the NYT article, the US did offer a 30 billion dollar defense aid package for Israel over the next 10 years, a 25% increase. It is noteworthy the US-Israel deal appears done, while the US is only offering this option to Saudi Arabia.

The deal with Saudi Arabia would include upgrades for their existing F-15 fleet, adds the JDAM to their arsenal (something Israel wasn't happy about until they got more money), and if what I am hearing is true, offers an AEGIS version of the General Dynamics Multi-Mission Combatant (GDMMC) to Saudi Arabia. The defensenews article linked above is close, but the actual LCS version being offered is slightly better than the one listed back in 2006. The GDMMC fact sheet describes the platform as:

The General Dynamics Multi-Mission Combatant (GDMMC) is a flexible, shallow-draft, high-speed ship capable of conducting all simultaneous missions required by today’s global naval forces.

Principal Characteristics:
LOA: 127.6m
Beam: 31.6m
Draft: 4.4m
Displacement Full Load: 3120MT
Max. Speed (Light Load): >40 knots
Range: Cruise @16 knots: 4,500 nm
Sprint @ 36 knots: 1,500 nm
Mission Bay: 1,100 sqm (11,800 sqft)
Flight Deck: 1,030 sqm (11,100 sqft)
Accommodation: 110 personnel

Armament Options Include:
32 Missile Vertical Launch System
1 57mm Gun (Forward)
8 Harpoon Missiles
2 Close-in Weapons systems
6 ASW Torpedoes

Propulsion and Electrical:
Gas Turbines (2)
Diesels (2)
Waterjets (4) and Retractable Azi Thruster
Diesel Generators (4)


I have inquired to several shipbuilders asking if in fact this GDMMC version would support AEGIS and maintain the listed capabilities, and to a man each response has been yes. They point out the GD LCS is built on the fast ferry design, and catamaran's inherently have a greater potential for payload than the LM LCS version ever did. With the weight of the SPY-1F and the trade for module space for much better weapon systems, the GDMMC comes in around 400 tons heavier at top displacement, is claimed to have considerably less mission module space, is claimed to be a lot more difficult to handle in high sea states (in relation to the USN LCS version), and has a lower top speed than the US Navy LCS-2 / LCS-4 design.

H/T Springboard


Update: Inserted the word "claimed" and added some detail in the last paragraph. MattReloaded of Warships1 forum asked where i got these figures, and admittedly since I am not an engineer, I made inquiries to determine the differences between the USN LCS and MMC LCS which I used in this post.

SierraM

070807-N-3642E-240 MOBILE, Ala. (Aug. 7, 2007) - Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV) the Honorable Dr. Donald C. Winter, thanks and encourages the shipfitters at Austal Shipyards during a visit to the yard to get a first hand look at the quality of work being done on the Navy's second Littoral Combat Ship. Austal is one of three yards that has been contracted to build the littoral combat ship. U.S. Navy photo by Chief Mass Communication Specialist Shawn P. Eklund (RELEASED)

Attached Images

	070807-N-3642E-165.jpg (934.3 KB, 145 views)
	070807-N-3642E-180.jpg (906.4 KB, 132 views)
	web_070807-N-3642E-042.jpg (66.4 KB, 124 views)
	web_070807-N-3642E-062.jpg (66.7 KB, 124 views)

SierraM

http://www.gdlcs.com/images/LCS2-Nightshot.jpg

Construction of the first General Dynamics LCS, Independence, is close to completion at the Austal USA yard in Mobile, Alabama. This photo was taken in late January 2008, and shows the ship with its forward gun mounted and the bridge structure largely complete.

Sea Toby

You want ocean escorts, but since the Cold War ended, there hasn't been a need to buy or have ocean escorts any more. There aren't any large force of enemy submarines. This world has grown up, the UN seems to be working well.

The US Navy has never considered ocean escorts, frigates front line warships. The US prefers to have cruisers and destroyers escorting their carrier battle groups, urgent replenishment groups, and their amphibious force groups.

The US Navy have found their former frigates wanting. They are either over armed and/or too deep in draught for coastal duties. We have also found our minehunters wanting, one must use a cargo ship to move them half way around the world. We want a ship which can carry Marines and SEALS, their small vehicles around to scout the enemy and engage the drug cartels and be capable of doing mine hunting and ocean escorting too as a secondary concern. Therefore, the LCS.

The US Navy has plenty of cruisers and destroyers carrying much more surface to air missiles than frigates, not to mention Harpoon and Tomahawks, much less 127-mm guns. Do ASW ships in the middle of an ocean escorting commercial cargo ships need them against stray aircraft and missiles. All that is warranted for LCS are self defensive missile systems, including Vulcan Phalanx CIWS and RAM. Plus a gun large enough to take on patrol ships.

Contracts for the second ships of both have been awarded lately. It should be interesting which ships will win the big order.

Frankly, I like the Lockheed ship the USS Freedom with its deep vee hull form.
Littoral combat ship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here is a link to Austal's multi-purpose ship similar to the Independent LCS. Play the video.
Multi-Role Vessel - Austal

__________________
http://homepage.mac.com/donclark/.Public/waglogo.gif

Sea Toby

The Sheffield was Type 42, all steel construction. I think you are thinking of the Type 21 HMS Ardent and HMS Antelope, which had aluminum superstructures. With ships of such size, they can be one hit wonders.

Notice this video of a frigate, all steel, sinking from one submarine's torpedo.

YouTube - Sinking of HMAS Torrens

SierraM

General Dynamics Littoral Combat Ship Team Launches Independence (LCS 2)

BATH, Maine: The General Dynamics LCS Team completed launching its first Littoral Combat Ship, Independence (LCS 2) from the Austal USA shipyard in Mobile, Ala. on April 28, 2008. The ship, an innovative high-speed trimaran, is moored at Austal's facility where final outfitting, testing and system activation will proceed in the coming months in preparation for sea trials later this year.

Austal Unveils New Warship - Navy Austal Ship Independence Lcs Browning Littoral Combat Ship

http://www.generaldynamics.com/prod_...mage_HiRes.jpg



The GD LCS Team's first Littoral Combat Ship, Independence (LCS 2) is moored at Austal USA, Mobile, Alabama and will complete outfitting, test and system activation activities in preparation for sea trials later this year. (April 28, 2008)









Independence (LCS 2) rolls out via rail transfer system from the Austal USA building site onto floating drydock in the Mobile River. (April 26, 2008)

Dreadnought

Good shots!

__________________
Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

SierraM

I wish I took the pictures myself. Then I'd actually be able to see it in person.

I got most of the pics off this blog.

instapinch.com » Blog Archive » PCU “USS Independence”, LCS 2

Sea Toby

Does anybody have any idea why the GD version is taking so long to get built?

Is this directly related to a desire to keep costs low? Does a slower building pace lead to lower cost?[/quote]

The Lockheed Martin LCS was purchased a year earlier. The Northrup Grumman ship had more infrastructure expenses at the start. Actually a slower building pace increases the cost, manual labor is priced by the hour.
While the US Navy wants the LCS, they no longer wish to build only an ocean escort, many in Congress would rather buying an ocean escort similar to the Coast Guard's new Bertholf, more like a frigate. She is over budget too, but her price is expected to come down further than either Freedom or Independence littoral combat ships.

Dreadnought

I must say I do like that design (GD) much more then the prior design. I just hope that bow holds up but I do like it.

Falkenberg

The Lockheed Martin LCS was purchased a year earlier. The Northrup Grumman ship had more infrastructure expenses at the start. Actually a slower building pace increases the cost, manual labor is priced by the hour.
While the US Navy wants the LCS, they no longer wish to build only an ocean escort, many in Congress would rather buying an ocean escort similar to the Coast Guard's new Bertholf, more like a frigate. She is over budget too, but her price is expected to come down further than either Freedom or Independence littoral combat ships.[/quote]

prototypes frequently cost more than units later on in a class-- you have a lot of things you have to go back and re-do or work out, or redesign entirely (eg. the fire-suppression system, for which a whole ship's worth of pipe had to be reordered). The first Burkes, Perrys, and Spruances all had glitches to them that were ironed out by the later units, and you wind up (theoretically at least) with economies of scale.

In this case, the all-up cost for the Lockheed Martin ship is expected to be pretty much double what the contract was originally let for, and I think that's given many people on the hill and in uniform a case of sticker shock. Part of the problem, haven spoken to people who have worked on the project, is that the Navy kept coming back with design changes on things that had already been assembled.

I like the LCS as an idea.... I would hate to see the fleet stuck with a lousy ship though, or to have to make do with nothing at all.

jtl310

I have to say this is an exciting moment in shipbuilding design and innovation. I guess in the coming year we will see just how capable she is and see how well she holds up

But you have to admit that is an intimidating design especially from the front! something out of a sic-fi movie!

Dreadnought

Personally I am hoping that they follow the color scheme when her first conceptual designs came out.

Judging by the date she should be getting ready for her sea trials but I have not read any updates through the normal channels. I would very much like to see how good she handles on her high end run and what her tactical diameter really is at high speed since she is meant for the littorials.