Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
PSA
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 3/24/2009 11:30:20 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/24/2009 11:33:39 AM EDT by capnrob97]




The long-delayed order for a third Littoral Combat Ship came through March 23 when the U. S. Navy and Lockheed Martin agreed on a construction contract.




























LCS 3 WILL be built at Marinette Marine Corp., in Marinette, Wis., which is where the LCS Freedom (LCS 1), shown above, was constructed. (U.S. Navy)




The ship, to be named Fort Worth (LCS 3), will be built at Marinette Marine Corp., in Marinette, Wis., and delivered to the Navy in December 2012.




The contract award comes after protracted negotiations between Lockheed and the Navy on a fixed-price incentive fee contract. The Navy did not disclose the amount of the contract award, citing the competitive nature of the contract award.




Congress has imposed a $460 million-per-ship cost cap on the LCS program, but the cost cap is not to take affect until the next budget.




Lockheed is in competition with General Dynamics to build the LCS. GD remains in negotiation with the Navy over a construction contract for the Coronado (LCS 4).




Only two LCS ships have been built thus far. The Freedom (LCS 1), from Lockheed, was commissioned in November and is at Norfolk, Va.; construction of GD's Independence (LCS 2) is continuing, with the ship expected to be delivered to the Navy this fall.




The troubled LCS program has experienced a spiraling series of cost overruns that have more than doubled the original $220 million-per-ship price tag for the new type of warship. The Navy revealed the cost growth at the beginning of 2007, and in April and October of that year canceled construction contracts with Lockheed and GD, respectively, for the second LCS ship from each of those companies. The Navy tried to renegotiate each of those second-ship contracts, ordered in 2006, to more favorable terms, which the shipbuilders were unable to meet.




The contract award announced March 23 uses funds appropriated in fiscal 2009, although the contract re-uses the hull number of the 2006 ship. Such a practice is unusual, in that the hull number is also considered an account identification number for bookkeeping purposes.




Revised acquisition costs for each of the first two ships have yet to be revealed by the Navy, and discussion of the new contract costs for LCS 3 and LCS 4 won't be revealed until after the next round of contract awards, to be conducted for the fiscal 2010 ships, according to a Navy spokesman.




"The amounts will be released when the fiscal 2010 competition is over," said Lt. Cmdr. Victor Chen, a spokesman for the Navy's acquisition team.




The Navy plans to ask for three more LCS ships in the 2010 budget request, with two ships going to the competitor offering the best terms.




All the new LCS ships are referred to by the Navy as "Flight 0+" ships, with minor modifications over the initial, Flight 0, ships.




A total of 55 LCS ships are to be procured by the Navy, which is leaving open the option to continue to build both designs or only one type.








 

 
Link Posted: 3/24/2009 12:43:40 PM EDT
For some odd reason I thought I read Clittoral Combat ship.  
Link Posted: 3/24/2009 12:45:45 PM EDT
The real comical tragedy about these littoral ships is that they have no f'ing well decks for the LCACs or the AAV/AAAVs! I guess the Marines will be swimming to shore with gear in tow...
Link Posted: 3/24/2009 1:49:49 PM EDT
Great idea, poorly executed.  Other then the LPD17 class of ship the largest money sump in history.
Link Posted: 3/24/2009 1:54:12 PM EDT
Originally Posted By phlii:
The real comical tragedy about these littoral ships is that they have no f'ing well decks for the LCACs or the AAV/AAAVs! I guess the Marines will be swimming to shore with gear in tow...

LCS is essentially a Frigate, not an LHD or LPD.

Link Posted: 3/24/2009 1:56:52 PM EDT
Originally Posted By rcsguns:
For some odd reason I thought I read Clittoral Combat ship.  


I hear that ship is hard to find.  Then again, most men aren't really looking that hard.

Link Posted: 3/24/2009 1:57:52 PM EDT
In war games, these ships absolutely crushed a Chinese attack (using a future, stronger Chinese navy) verses our current, larger and more venerable ships.

I'm an LMT stockholder, for the record. Remember, new tech = cost over runs...but gives us the best hardware in the world, Period.
Link Posted: 3/24/2009 1:59:30 PM EDT
Originally Posted By phlii:
The real comical tragedy about these littoral ships is that they have no f'ing well decks for the LCACs or the AAV/AAAVs! I guess the Marines will be swimming to shore with gear in tow...


Their role isn't to carry LCACs.

They can transport small boats through their stern ramp.
Link Posted: 3/24/2009 2:12:19 PM EDT
Originally Posted By phlii:
The real comical tragedy about these littoral ships is that they have no f'ing well decks for the LCACs or the AAV/AAAVs! I guess the Marines will be swimming to shore with gear in tow...


Plus no catapults and it doesn't submerge

Link Posted: 3/24/2009 2:13:38 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SevenMMmag:
Originally Posted By phlii:
The real comical tragedy about these littoral ships is that they have no f'ing well decks for the LCACs or the AAV/AAAVs! I guess the Marines will be swimming to shore with gear in tow...


Their role isn't to carry LCACs.

They can transport small boats through their stern ramp.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/ms2/images/LCS1Sternpic-sm.jpg


That's the problem.  As ships like the USS Tarawa (LHAs) are decommissioned, there is nothing on order or in development of which I am aware to replace them.  The Marines may not be able to fulfill their amphibious role  of getting men and material to shore without ships that can launch amphibious craft.  And no, there aren't enough helicopters/Ospreys to do this, either.  If someone knows better please let me know.

Link Posted: 3/24/2009 2:18:59 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ftldrben:
In war games, these ships absolutely crushed a Chinese attack (using a future, stronger Chinese navy) verses our current, larger and more venerable ships.

I'm an LMT stockholder, for the record. Remember, new tech = cost over runs...but gives us the best hardware in the world, Period.



They are armed with a 57mm gun and a self defence RAM launcher, I would be interested to a link as to how the 'crushed' a PLAN  attack.

Link Posted: 3/24/2009 2:20:17 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ftldrben:
In war games, these ships absolutely crushed a Chinese attack (using a future, stronger Chinese navy) verses our current, larger and more venerable ships.


Do tell.  What exercise / war game?
Link Posted: 3/24/2009 2:24:00 PM EDT
Originally Posted By phlii:
The real comical tragedy about these littoral ships is that they have no f'ing well decks for the LCACs or the AAV/AAAVs! I guess the Marines will be swimming to shore with gear in tow...


Their job is not to land marines.
Link Posted: 3/24/2009 2:24:41 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ftldrben:
In war games, these ships absolutely crushed a Chinese attack (using a future, stronger Chinese navy) verses our current, larger and more venerable ships.

I'm an LMT stockholder, for the record. Remember, new tech = cost over runs...but gives us the best hardware in the world, Period.




If that's true then the wargame was rigged.
Link Posted: 3/24/2009 2:26:57 PM EDT
Originally Posted By phlii:
Originally Posted By SevenMMmag:
Originally Posted By phlii:
The real comical tragedy about these littoral ships is that they have no f'ing well decks for the LCACs or the AAV/AAAVs! I guess the Marines will be swimming to shore with gear in tow...


Their role isn't to carry LCACs.

They can transport small boats through their stern ramp.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/ms2/images/LCS1Sternpic-sm.jpg


That's the problem.  As ships like the USS Tarawa (LHAs) are decommissioned, there is nothing on order or in development of which I am aware to replace them.  The Marines may not be able to fulfill their amphibious role  of getting men and material to shore without ships that can launch amphibious craft.  And no, there aren't enough helicopters/Ospreys to do this, either.  If someone knows better please let me know.



Umm, have you heard of LHD-8 or LHA-R?
http://peos.crane.navy.mil/LHD8/default.htm
http://peos.crane.navy.mil/LHA6/default.htm

The real problem will be Congress trying to cut the LPD-17 class down to less than 9 ships. IMO, we need at least 12, and preferably more.
Link Posted: 3/24/2009 2:31:36 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/24/2009 2:34:47 PM EDT by phlii]
Originally Posted By dport:
Originally Posted By phlii:
Originally Posted By SevenMMmag:
Originally Posted By phlii:
The real comical tragedy about these littoral ships is that they have no f'ing well decks for the LCACs or the AAV/AAAVs! I guess the Marines will be swimming to shore with gear in tow...


Their role isn't to carry LCACs.

They can transport small boats through their stern ramp.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/ms2/images/LCS1Sternpic-sm.jpg


That's the problem.  As ships like the USS Tarawa (LHAs) are decommissioned, there is nothing on order or in development of which I am aware to replace them.  The Marines may not be able to fulfill their amphibious role  of getting men and material to shore without ships that can launch amphibious craft.  And no, there aren't enough helicopters/Ospreys to do this, either.  If someone knows better please let me know.



Umm, have you heard of LHD-8 or LHA-R?
http://peos.crane.navy.mil/LHD8/default.htm
http://peos.crane.navy.mil/LHA6/default.htm

The real problem will be Congress trying to cut the LPD-17 class down to less than 9 ships. IMO, we need at least 12, and preferably more.


My mistake, I confused the LCSs with the LPDs, which, as you pointed out, are not going to be ordered in the quantity needed.  If I'm not mistaken, I don't think the final number of LHD-8s and LHA-Rs has been established, either.
Link Posted: 3/24/2009 2:38:04 PM EDT
GREAT, HELPS THE LOCAL ECONOMY
Link Posted: 3/24/2009 2:39:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/24/2009 2:40:55 PM EDT by hellbound]
Originally Posted By H46Driver:
Originally Posted By ftldrben:
In war games, these ships absolutely crushed a Chinese attack (using a future, stronger Chinese navy) verses our current, larger and more venerable ships.


Do tell.  What exercise / war game?


LCS1 went from Marinette to Norfolk... she hasn't even gone through sea trials yet let alone participated in an actual exercise... so i am curious as well... LCS is not a surface combatant as compared to the DDG/CG classes... it's primary role will probably be VBSS...

her armaments are:
RAM
M110 (57mm)
SRBOC
M2
MK46 (30mm)

ETA:

Congress is probably going to cut back on the LPD's after the USS new orleans poor performance..
Link Posted: 3/24/2009 2:39:29 PM EDT
Why are they being built in Wisconsin?
Link Posted: 3/24/2009 2:40:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/24/2009 2:41:47 PM EDT by capnrob97]





Originally Posted By 96Ag:



Why are they being built in Wisconsin?



Why not?


 



They take a long journey through the Great Lakes and channels, etc, I believe to get to the ocean.
Link Posted: 3/24/2009 2:44:37 PM EDT
My understanding is that LM's team will build future LCSs elsewhere. That may not take hold for LCS-3, however.

In reality, and unfortunately, much of this ship was already paid for. There are long lead times for materials, which means a lot of material was ordered and paid for while LCS-1 was still in its initial building stages.

Damn shame too. A waste of good money if you ask me.



Link Posted: 3/24/2009 2:46:25 PM EDT
The LCS is the poster child of a program that needs to be radically restructured, we aren't going to get anywhere near 313 ships unless the LCS program can be brought back something close to it's initially advertised cost.

Perhaps we should consider outsourcing the hull production to Korea or Finland as suggested by Aviation Week...
LCS-Made in Korea?
Link Posted: 3/24/2009 2:49:55 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Armed_Scientist:
The LCS is the poster child of a program that needs to be radically restructured, we aren't going to get anywhere near 313 ships unless the LCS program can be brought back something close to it's initially advertised cost.

Perhaps we should consider outsourcing the hull production to Korea or Finland as suggested by Aviation Week...
LCS-Made in Korea?


The problem goes much deeper. The USN spent how much money getting LCS's "sea frame" to comply with USN damage control standards? Just how much damage control are they planning on doing with a crew of 75 (including air det and mission det)? If history is a guide the initial hit will take out between 15 and 40 people initially. How long do they think the remaining people on board will be able to combat the damage? It should have been built true to the Streetfighter concept. Make them cheap as possible, because they are one-hit wonders.
Link Posted: 3/24/2009 2:57:24 PM EDT
Originally Posted By dport:
Originally Posted By Armed_Scientist:
The LCS is the poster child of a program that needs to be radically restructured, we aren't going to get anywhere near 313 ships unless the LCS program can be brought back something close to it's initially advertised cost.

Perhaps we should consider outsourcing the hull production to Korea or Finland as suggested by Aviation Week...
LCS-Made in Korea?


The problem goes much deeper. The USN spent how much money getting LCS's "sea frame" to comply with USN damage control standards? Just how much damage control are they planning on doing with a crew of 75 (including air det and mission det)? If history is a guide the initial hit will take out between 15 and 40 people initially. How long do they think the remaining people on board will be able to combat the damage? It should have been built true to the Streetfighter concept. Make them cheap as possible, because they are one-hit wonders.


I'm curious, at what point did the LCS program veer away from the initial concept for the LCS. FSF-1 under budget and ahead of schedule?

Actually speaking of procurement, I'm curious what your opinion is of the Navy's choice to scuttle the Zumwalt class in favor of restarting DDG-51 production. I've sort of suspected that a modernized DDG-51 hull would end up being as expensive as continued DDG-1000 production by the time the yards are ramped up. There was a post on information dissemination about a letter sent by the sent to Defense Secretary Gates.
Link to Information Dissemination
Link Posted: 3/24/2009 3:00:29 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Armed_Scientist:
Originally Posted By dport:
Originally Posted By Armed_Scientist:
The LCS is the poster child of a program that needs to be radically restructured, we aren't going to get anywhere near 313 ships unless the LCS program can be brought back something close to it's initially advertised cost.

Perhaps we should consider outsourcing the hull production to Korea or Finland as suggested by Aviation Week...
LCS-Made in Korea?


The problem goes much deeper. The USN spent how much money getting LCS's "sea frame" to comply with USN damage control standards? Just how much damage control are they planning on doing with a crew of 75 (including air det and mission det)? If history is a guide the initial hit will take out between 15 and 40 people initially. How long do they think the remaining people on board will be able to combat the damage? It should have been built true to the Streetfighter concept. Make them cheap as possible, because they are one-hit wonders.


I'm curious, at what point did the LCS program veer away from the initial concept for the LCS. FSF-1 under budget and ahead of schedule?

Actually speaking of procurement, I'm curious what your opinion is of the Navy's choice to scuttle the Zumwalt class in favor of restarting DDG-51 production. I've sort of suspected that a modernized DDG-51 hull would end up being as expensive as continued DDG-1000 production by the time the yards are ramped up. There was a post on information dissemination about a letter sent by the sent to Defense Secretary Gates.
Link to Information Dissemination


i support that idea 100%

the burke's are the most capable ships in the fleet... and ACB12 is going to further enhance that capability... if you could have 2-3 burkes with AEGIS and BMD capabilities vs a single DDG1000 with some fancy low profile antennas and an extra gun, which would you pick?
Link Posted: 3/24/2009 3:05:07 PM EDT
Originally Posted By hellbound:
Originally Posted By Armed_Scientist:
Originally Posted By dport:
Originally Posted By Armed_Scientist:
The LCS is the poster child of a program that needs to be radically restructured, we aren't going to get anywhere near 313 ships unless the LCS program can be brought back something close to it's initially advertised cost.

Perhaps we should consider outsourcing the hull production to Korea or Finland as suggested by Aviation Week...
LCS-Made in Korea?


The problem goes much deeper. The USN spent how much money getting LCS's "sea frame" to comply with USN damage control standards? Just how much damage control are they planning on doing with a crew of 75 (including air det and mission det)? If history is a guide the initial hit will take out between 15 and 40 people initially. How long do they think the remaining people on board will be able to combat the damage? It should have been built true to the Streetfighter concept. Make them cheap as possible, because they are one-hit wonders.


I'm curious, at what point did the LCS program veer away from the initial concept for the LCS. FSF-1 under budget and ahead of schedule?

Actually speaking of procurement, I'm curious what your opinion is of the Navy's choice to scuttle the Zumwalt class in favor of restarting DDG-51 production. I've sort of suspected that a modernized DDG-51 hull would end up being as expensive as continued DDG-1000 production by the time the yards are ramped up. There was a post on information dissemination about a letter sent by the sent to Defense Secretary Gates.
Link to Information Dissemination


i support that idea 100%

the burke's are the most capable ships in the fleet... and ACB12 is going to further enhance that capability... if you could have 2-3 burkes with AEGIS and BMD capabilities vs a single DDG1000 with some fancy low profile antennas and an extra gun, which would you pick?


The point I was driving at was that it's not going to be two or three Burkes for the cost of one Zumwalt, by the time the line is restarted and the hull modernized I sincerely doubt that the DDG-51 stretch will be significantly cheaper the the DDG-1000. Wouldn't it be easier to pull the gun and add VLS cells for BMD to the Zumwalt then it would be to restart and redesign the DDG-51 hull form? (actually asking)
Link Posted: 3/24/2009 3:07:28 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Armed_Scientist:
Originally Posted By dport:
Originally Posted By Armed_Scientist:
The LCS is the poster child of a program that needs to be radically restructured, we aren't going to get anywhere near 313 ships unless the LCS program can be brought back something close to it's initially advertised cost.

Perhaps we should consider outsourcing the hull production to Korea or Finland as suggested by Aviation Week...
LCS-Made in Korea?


The problem goes much deeper. The USN spent how much money getting LCS's "sea frame" to comply with USN damage control standards? Just how much damage control are they planning on doing with a crew of 75 (including air det and mission det)? If history is a guide the initial hit will take out between 15 and 40 people initially. How long do they think the remaining people on board will be able to combat the damage? It should have been built true to the Streetfighter concept. Make them cheap as possible, because they are one-hit wonders.


I'm curious, at what point did the LCS program veer away from the initial concept for the LCS. FSF-1 under budget and ahead of schedule?

Actually speaking of procurement, I'm curious what your opinion is of the Navy's choice to scuttle the Zumwalt class in favor of restarting DDG-51 production. I've sort of suspected that a modernized DDG-51 hull would end up being as expensive as continued DDG-1000 production by the time the yards are ramped up. There was a post on information dissemination about a letter sent by the sent to Defense Secretary Gates.
Link to Information Dissemination


FSF-1 was nothing but Congressional pork. It was never really part of LCS. When the Navy was force-fed FSF-1, Big Navy decided to call it a concept demonstrator or some such.

If I were to build LCS I would do the following:
Build "mother ships," probably using the LPD-17 as the host. If I did so, I would put ESSM in VLS tubes for some protection.
Build M80 Stilettos, or something similar with specialized mission packages already in them. A 30mm or 25mm and Netfires for the SUW version. For the USW version I'd pack it with a dipping sonar and probably some sonobuoys and perhaps some sort of over the side torpedo tube. The MIW version would carry an UUV of some sort. All would use the mothership or other surface combatants for air support, except for some sort of small UAS. Not sure how feasible  Scan Eagle would be, but that would be my first choice.
Link Posted: 3/24/2009 3:10:32 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Armed_Scientist:

The point I was driving at was that it's not going to be two or three Burkes for the cost of one Zumwalt, by the time the line is restarted and the hull modernized I sincerely doubt that the DDG-51 stretch will be significantly cheaper the the DDG-1000. Wouldn't it be easier to pull the gun and add VLS cells for BMD to the Zumwalt then it would be to restart and redesign the DDG-51 hull form? (actually asking)


Right now new BURKEs are going for $888million. I don't think you're going to get DDG-1000 for much less than $2.75 billion, ever. And that doesn't include BMD. You'd have to start BMD development almost from scratch.

I won't even get into the argument that DDG-1000's design is fundamentally flawed. Too big. Too few people.
Link Posted: 3/24/2009 3:11:30 PM EDT
Originally Posted By rcsguns:
For some odd reason I thought I read Clittoral Combat ship.  


Link Posted: 3/24/2009 3:19:51 PM EDT
Originally Posted By capnrob97:

Originally Posted By 96Ag:
Why are they being built in Wisconsin?

Why not?  

They take a long journey through the Great Lakes and channels, etc, I believe to get to the ocean.


Didn't know that could be done. Interesting.
Link Posted: 3/24/2009 3:36:55 PM EDT



Originally Posted By 96Ag:



Originally Posted By capnrob97:




Originally Posted By 96Ag:

Why are they being built in Wisconsin?


Why not?  



They take a long journey through the Great Lakes and channels, etc, I believe to get to the ocean.




Didn't know that could be done. Interesting.


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2008/11/mil-081126-nns01.htm
Link Posted: 3/24/2009 3:41:06 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/24/2009 3:43:09 PM EDT by Windjammer223]
Originally Posted By 96Ag:
Originally Posted By capnrob97:

Originally Posted By 96Ag:
Why are they being built in Wisconsin?

Why not?  

They take a long journey through the Great Lakes and channels, etc, I believe to get to the ocean.


Didn't know that could be done. Interesting.
   
Sea going ships go all over the Great Lakes. During the shipping season. (not during winter). During WW II they built subs and other warships.  See http://www.boatnerd.com/ for more info. WJ
Marine yards busy, but needs more work

3/23 - Marinette, Wisc. - Several showers of sparks fall from the hull of the seagoing tug Dublin Sea to the concrete floor of the massive building surrounding the beefy vessel.

Early last week, workers at Marinette Marine Corp. in Marinette moved around various structures of the vessel, some carrying coiled hoses and grinding tools, others standing beside the hull, their forms outlined in the neon blue flash of welders.

The tug, which is being built for K-Sea Transportation, makes up a portion of the ongoing work at the yard that is gearing for the anticipated construction of another Littoral Combat Ship for the U.S. Navy.

While final details of the contract between the Navy and the project's prime contractor, Lockheed Martin, are still being finalized, construction of the ship is expected to take place at Marinette. That development is providing funding to head off layoffs later this month and next month.

"We are actually building modules for the 2009 (Littoral Combat) ship," said Richard McCreary, Marinette Marine Corp.'s president, chief executive officer and general manager. "With LCS, we can maintain the employment levels we have today — both salaried and hourly — going forward," McCreary said. "We are going to need to bring in one more program of some size before we are able to recall the 170 (workers) and get back to our previous full employment."

He said Marinette Marine has about 170 production workers on layoff.

McCreary said they are working to secure several projects, including an arctic research vessel and other commercial and governmental work. Those moves, if successful, could support and restore employment levels at the company.

"If we have the (Littoral Combat Ship) contract in hand shortly, it averts the need for any more layoffs all the way through 2010," he said. "Then we add in another program and things start to recover from where were last summer."

Marinette Marine, which has worked on securing another contact for 2009 for more than a year, delivered the first-of-class Littoral Combat Ship USS Freedom to the Navy at the end of 2008.

McCreary said they submitted four or five prices to the Navy to bring the price of the vessel to the Navy's price point while still meeting performance requirements on the pending ship, designated LCS 3.

"I don't think we would have gotten a 2009 LCS if we had not worked with the Navy to meet their price target," he said. "We've done some scientifically good things to bring the cost down."

The price has not been disclosed. Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics have produced competing designs of vessels of the LCS program.

The letters LCS on banners and other signs, along with photos and models of the ship, are displayed at numerous spots around the yard. LCS-related items sit along photos and other memorabilia of vessels Marinette Marine has produced.

The recent movement on the 2009 LCS project, to be named the USS Fort Worth, is one more step in what has been an eventful few months for Marinette Marine and Bay Shipbuilding Co. in Sturgeon Bay.

The sale of Marinette Marine, Bay Shipbuilding in Sturgeon Bay and a smaller ship repair yard in Cleveland, Ohio, was closed late last year. All three businesses are now owned by Italian shipbuilder Fincantieri, a dedicated shipbuilding company.

A facility dedicated to building medium response boats for the Coast Guard also opened in Green Bay last fall.

The Manitowoc Co. was the previous owner of the operations.

The president and chief executive officer of Fincantieri North America, Upinder Kamal, said the company purchased the yards as part of a long-term strategic investment that could see as much as $100 million reinvested in the facilities.

"We do plan to make substantial investments," he said. "This is by no means a short-term-financial-return type of investment. This is a long-term strategic investment to not only improve these shipyards, but to provide quality ships at a lower cost to … customers."

The LCS is one of the key contracts the company has been pursuing, but Kamal said they are also interested in expanding work at the yards for both the domestic and international markets.

Bob Herre, who heads up the Fincantieri Marine Group based out of Green Bay, said ownership by Fincantieri allows the possibility of tapping into export markets thanks to its established reputation and global network.

"By virtue of association with Fincantieri, we're able to tap into markets outside the United States that may be ready to buy whereas our normal internal markets aren't yet ready to buy," he said, while talking about the current global economic picture. "The good news is it gives us a broader base market to look at. Before we would not have had that insight."

Kamal said the company is pursuing possible work for the Indian Navy and Coast Guard and the company has determined that work will go to Wisconsin facilities if it is secured. They have left open other future possibilities as well.

"Who knows? Maybe even smaller cruise ships down the line," he said.

McCreary said Marinette Marine is finishing delivery of a barge/floating pier system for the U.S. Navy, working on the K-Sea Transportation tug and they are seeking additional work in both the military and commercial markets.

Production of medium response boats for the Coast Guard is also ramping up at the Aluminum Center of Excellence in Green Bay and at a Seattle partner company.

He noted funding for additional LCS' in 2010 has not yet been finalized, and they are still waiting for finalization of the 2009 contract. At peak, including contractors, Marinette Marine had around 1,200 employees.

"As we look forward at some of these programs … it has a very significant effect through both Northeast Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan," McCreary said. "I'm very confident we're going to get this (2009 LCS) contract done shortly."

.
Link Posted: 3/24/2009 4:08:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/24/2009 4:09:22 PM EDT by mcooper]
I guess I'm with dport...gee I need to read up on this series.

Why doesn't this thing have any surface to surface missiles or is the rolling airframe missile capable of that?
Link Posted: 3/24/2009 4:40:02 PM EDT
Originally Posted By dport:
Originally Posted By Armed_Scientist:

The point I was driving at was that it's not going to be two or three Burkes for the cost of one Zumwalt, by the time the line is restarted and the hull modernized I sincerely doubt that the DDG-51 stretch will be significantly cheaper the the DDG-1000. Wouldn't it be easier to pull the gun and add VLS cells for BMD to the Zumwalt then it would be to restart and redesign the DDG-51 hull form? (actually asking)


Right now new BURKEs are going for $888million. I don't think you're going to get DDG-1000 for much less than $2.75 billion, ever. And that doesn't include BMD. You'd have to start BMD development almost from scratch.

I won't even get into the argument that DDG-1000's design is fundamentally flawed. Too big. Too few people.


this is correct.

I can't go into too much detail, but i have had my hands in the development of the computing infrastructure as well as recovery and multi element and test of every baseline from 6P3 up to ACB12...

the ACB12 hardware is COTS
the ACB12 programs are a refinement of existing programs... the development time is like 4 years from conception to integration and delivery to the ship

now i am a lowly information assurance engineer... doing security work on all of the above ships, LCS, deepwater, DDG1000, and primarily our land based test sites..
Link Posted: 3/24/2009 4:47:40 PM EDT
If such a thing were possible, you should see the US Navy's Conjectural Combat Ships. God forbid you should run afoul of one of 'em while reading a book, or polishing leather, or combing your hair, or worst of all just woolgathering on lookout!

Aye, there ye go, Ivan. Nod off just the once, and ye'll feel the force of Uncle Sam's Conjectural Navy!!!!!!
Link Posted: 3/24/2009 5:07:29 PM EDT
The LCS is like a little yapper dog.  It's too small to put up much of a fight against just about any real threat.  Like DPort says...one hit and it's time to man the lifeboats.

The DDG 1000 is an expensive big ugly dog with no teeth and no mission.  Hell, when I was working on it about ten years ago in the DD-21/DD(X) days, writing the TEMP and then later working on the AN/SPY-3 MFR, I thought it was a turkey.  Time and mods to the basic design have made that even more so.  I was shocked when the Navy told us that the two 155mm main guns were only going to have a single mission, that of Naval Surface Fire Support (The old NGFS) and would fire only the special long range round.  I vividly remember voicing my objections and questioning the silliness of that decision.  Why not be able to employ those big guns against hostile surface units?  Why not employ them against aircraft?  The world has a shitload of 155mm ammo...of varying types.  Why in hell restrict your guns to only the very pricey "smart" rounds?

Other issues:  With no signal halyards or skivvy wavers, how would visual comms be done?  EMCON is a wonderful thing when used properly.  Who would do sweepers?  

Anyway...pooches...both of them and I think both will be dead in a very short time.  Obama and the socialists in congress have to come up with a boatload of $$$ to pay for all of the new social welfare programs around the world so pricey programs like these ships, the F-22 and some of the missile defense programs are doomed.

And DON'T jack the thread with a tangential discussion of the F-22!
Link Posted: 3/24/2009 5:13:06 PM EDT
Originally Posted By LWilde:


The DDG 1000 is an expensive big ugly dog with no teeth and no mission.

But the radar is nice. Doesn't make sense on a ship designed to provide fire support, but it's nice.

 I was shocked when the Navy told us that the two 155mm main guns were only going to have a single mission, that of Naval Surface Fire Support (The old NGFS) and would fire only the special long range round.  I vividly remember voicing my objections and questioning the silliness of that decision.  Why not be able to employ those big guns against hostile surface units?  Why not employ them against aircraft?  The world has a shitload of 155mm ammo...of varying types.  Why in hell restrict your guns to only the very pricey "smart" rounds?

You weren't the only one. An LT friend of mine told me about that and I was stunned. So was he.


Link Posted: 3/24/2009 8:13:56 PM EDT
Originally Posted By dport:
Originally Posted By LWilde:


The DDG 1000 is an expensive big ugly dog with no teeth and no mission.

But the radar is nice. Doesn't make sense on a ship designed to provide fire support, but it's nice.

 I was shocked when the Navy told us that the two 155mm main guns were only going to have a single mission, that of Naval Surface Fire Support (The old NGFS) and would fire only the special long range round.  I vividly remember voicing my objections and questioning the silliness of that decision.  Why not be able to employ those big guns against hostile surface units?  Why not employ them against aircraft?  The world has a shitload of 155mm ammo...of varying types.  Why in hell restrict your guns to only the very pricey "smart" rounds?

You weren't the only one. An LT friend of mine told me about that and I was stunned. So was he.




the low profile antennas on DDG1000 are nice, and a lot of the network stuff internal to the ship is really cool...

i don't understand why the Navy is still hung up on NGFS, even the DDG's have NGFS mode for the MK45... it's like um dear USN, we carry TLAMs, it's cool guys, if we need strike capability we have a carrier full of F18's and a compliment of tomahawks, not to mention SM-2 is SUW capable...

it's silly

the DDG1000 as a proof of concept, futuristic, space age badass EXPENSIVE as all hell "posturing" device is pretty awesome... to show the world, hey look assholes, we have a destroyer whose power plant could power a fucking rail gun is definitely badass... the ship as a whole... not so much...

"smart" gun rounds are ridiculous, look at the ERGMs, they are really awesome

LCS is actually a neat ship having spent the past week on it...
it has a very small crew and a lot of COTS gear, it is similar in a lot of ways to the Coast Guard NSCs (deepwater)...
talking with the crew they are convinced that most of their missions will be VBSS type stuff...

compared to the USS Elrod (FFG-55) sitting right next to it, LCS looks like a rowboat...
but as far as armament is concerned the LCS is pretty much on par... the TRS-3D radar and RAM is much nicer than the MK92 setup...
Link Posted: 3/24/2009 8:21:21 PM EDT
Originally Posted By rcsguns:
For some odd reason I thought I read Clittoral Combat ship.  


Me too. I think I may need glasses.
Link Posted: 3/25/2009 7:54:48 AM EDT
Originally Posted By dport:
Originally Posted By Armed_Scientist:
The LCS is the poster child of a program that needs to be radically restructured, we aren't going to get anywhere near 313 ships unless the LCS program can be brought back something close to it's initially advertised cost.

Perhaps we should consider outsourcing the hull production to Korea or Finland as suggested by Aviation Week...
LCS-Made in Korea?


The problem goes much deeper. The USN spent how much money getting LCS's "sea frame" to comply with USN damage control standards? Just how much damage control are they planning on doing with a crew of 75 (including air det and mission det)? If history is a guide the initial hit will take out between 15 and 40 people initially. How long do they think the remaining people on board will be able to combat the damage? It should have been built true to the Streetfighter concept. Make them cheap as possible, because they are one-hit wonders.


The Bean Counters seem to be incapable of understanding that damage control/firefighting uses up people at a frightening rate through simple exhaustion.  Ours are just as bad and it's going to end in tears.

Part of the problem is they look at a merchant ship and say things like  'Hmmm… 21 crew and they can fight big fires… who needs all those people on a Naval vessel'.
What they fail to note is that if we had a main machinery space fire it's 'FIRE! FIRE! FIRE! Fire in the engine room, evacuate the engine room' then button up and hit the CO2 drench system… If it still works after you've vented, fine, if it don't… call a tug. Not really an option for a warship.
Link Posted: 3/25/2009 8:01:09 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/25/2009 8:24:11 AM EDT by vito113]
Originally Posted By LWilde:
The LCS is like a little yapper dog.  It's too small to put up much of a fight against just about any real threat.  Like DPort says...one hit and it's time to man the lifeboats.!


Corvette's, and lets be honest here, LCS in it's current form is nothing but a Corvette, are beloved of mickey mouse navies but have to date been avoided by grown up navies for the simple reason - They're small and lightly armed enough to be worth taking a pop at, but not big enough and well armed enough to be able to take a hit and fight back.

LCS at the end of the day carries less anti surface 'punch' than a 500 ton el cheapo Combattante Class FAC and that's not a clever thing for a major surface unit. Daft thing is, they are working on an 'improved' LCS for the Israeli Navy that does have some serious capability.
Link Posted: 3/25/2009 8:07:17 AM EDT

Good, it is needed.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Link Posted: 3/25/2009 8:14:49 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/25/2009 8:16:31 AM EDT by Spade]
Originally Posted By hellbound:
Originally Posted By H46Driver:
Originally Posted By ftldrben:
In war games, these ships absolutely crushed a Chinese attack (using a future, stronger Chinese navy) verses our current, larger and more venerable ships.


Do tell.  What exercise / war game?


LCS1 went from Marinette to Norfolk... she hasn't even gone through sea trials yet let alone participated in an actual exercise... so i am curious as well... LCS is not a surface combatant as compared to the DDG/CG classes... it's primary role will probably be VBSS...

her armaments are:
RAM
M110 (57mm)
SRBOC
M2
MK46 (30mm)

ETA:

Congress is probably going to cut back on the LPD's after the USS new orleans poor performance..



You forgot NLOS, but that's part of the SUW Mission Module and not organic.

Agreeing with Vito that the Israeli LCS concept is the only one worth a damn and the only one that's really armed. It looks really really nice. Harpoon, VLS, more guns, Mk32 tubes, etc.
Link Posted: 3/25/2009 8:49:17 AM EDT
Originally Posted By vito113:
Originally Posted By LWilde:
The LCS is like a little yapper dog.  It's too small to put up much of a fight against just about any real threat.  Like DPort says...one hit and it's time to man the lifeboats.!


Corvette's, and lets be honest here, LCS in it's current form is nothing but a Corvette, are beloved of mickey mouse navies but have to date been avoided by grown up navies for the simple reason - They're small and lightly armed enough to be worth taking a pop at, but not big enough and well armed enough to be able to take a hit and fight back.

LCS at the end of the day carries less anti surface 'punch' than a 500 ton el cheapo Combattante Class FAC and that's not a clever thing for a major surface unit. Daft thing is, they are working on an 'improved' LCS for the Israeli Navy that does have some serious capability.


The Isreali LCS models look like what we really need.

You wedge a 8 or 16 cell Mk41 launcher in there (For ESSM primarily, ASROC & TLAM if you go to 16 cells) and you've got some real capability.  Right now, they're really depending on the AEGIS ships to cover them from Air threats... At least until they get within RAM range, which is just too close.
Link Posted: 3/25/2009 8:54:49 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/25/2009 9:03:16 AM EDT by mcooper]
Heck, the Swede's Skjold fast attack craft packs more punch ship to ship than our LCS, and it goes 60 knots!  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgiGG_UEAG0&feature=related http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skjold_class_patrol_boat

It's got a 76mm cannon, 8 ship to ship missiles, and some sort of swede SAM setup (I think we would want a US system instead for air defense).   It is 47 meters, is 274 tons and has a 1meter draft.   Granted it is still a one hit kill (more so than our LCS I would think).   But this thing could kill one of our LCS's I would think.

Of course it can't house much if any extra crew nor would it be able to stay deployed without re-supply as long (compared to LCS), but you can land a helo on the thing.
Link Posted: 3/25/2009 6:26:25 PM EDT
Originally Posted By hellbound:
Originally Posted By dport:
Originally Posted By LWilde:


The DDG 1000 is an expensive big ugly dog with no teeth and no mission.

But the radar is nice. Doesn't make sense on a ship designed to provide fire support, but it's nice.

 I was shocked when the Navy told us that the two 155mm main guns were only going to have a single mission, that of Naval Surface Fire Support (The old NGFS) and would fire only the special long range round.  I vividly remember voicing my objections and questioning the silliness of that decision.  Why not be able to employ those big guns against hostile surface units?  Why not employ them against aircraft?  The world has a shitload of 155mm ammo...of varying types.  Why in hell restrict your guns to only the very pricey "smart" rounds?

You weren't the only one. An LT friend of mine told me about that and I was stunned. So was he.




the low profile antennas on DDG1000 are nice, and a lot of the network stuff internal to the ship is really cool...

i don't understand why the Navy is still hung up on NGFS, even the DDG's have NGFS mode for the MK45... it's like um dear USN, we carry TLAMs, it's cool guys, if we need strike capability we have a carrier full of F18's and a compliment of tomahawks, not to mention SM-2 is SUW capable...

it's silly

the DDG1000 as a proof of concept, futuristic, space age badass EXPENSIVE as all hell "posturing" device is pretty awesome... to show the world, hey look assholes, we have a destroyer whose power plant could power a fucking rail gun is definitely badass... the ship as a whole... not so much...

"smart" gun rounds are ridiculous, look at the ERGMs, they are really awesome

LCS is actually a neat ship having spent the past week on it...
it has a very small crew and a lot of COTS gear, it is similar in a lot of ways to the Coast Guard NSCs (deepwater)...
talking with the crew they are convinced that most of their missions will be VBSS type stuff...

compared to the USS Elrod (FFG-55) sitting right next to it, LCS looks like a rowboat...
but as far as armament is concerned the LCS is pretty much on par... the TRS-3D radar and RAM is much nicer than the MK92 setup...


The LCS is a neat little ship...that would be best suited for a mission like fisheries patrol.  It won't do well in a shooting war.  History is a hard taskmaster.  No small combatant has ever been very successful.  President Jefferson tried it with little gunboats and learned a hard lesson.  PT boats, for all their coolness and cocky attitude and brave crews, were not very successful in WW II.  The small patrol craft, the PCs were less than great and served to relieve the destroyers and escorts from the onerous and boring ASW mission in protected US and Caribbean waters during the war.  The hydrofoils proved to be incredible waste of money in the latter part of the cold war.  The FFGs were notoriously weak in combat systems and they carry SM-1 and Harpoon.  The Spru cans were likewise weak sisters...but in both cases, that's all we could afford at the time.  As we later proved with the Aegis CGs, we really could bulk up the Spru hulls with a lot more "stuff".

Size really does matter, for with size comes more capability.

The DDG 1000 is a damn expensive "proof of concept".  It was doomed from the start.  For the first time EVER in ship acquisition of a new class, no less than EIGHT totally new systems...new acquisition technical projects, were added to the mix.  ALL were required to meet the requirements defined in the TEMP and in the original ORD.  The success of the ship depends on them all working and sadly some have proven to be a bridge too far.

Then the Navy started shrinking the ship.  Then they decided that the mission of NSFS was pretty much passe...and now what?

Then they fiddled around with the radar suite...and changed the long range part from one type to a totally different type...with added costs of course.

Then they severely reduced the size of the distributed magazine, thus reducing the overall combat effectiveness and firepower.

The list goes on and on and the cost keeps going up and up.

It is a turkey.  Eventually, most or all of the kewl science projects will find good application in our combatants...but now isn't the time to spend the piggy bank on either of these ships.

Oh...and to answer your question about the relative merits of guns vs. T-Hawks...?  Both have a mission and both can be very effective, depending on the location and type of the targets.  Remember this too...when all of the missiles are gone, the guns will still be there.
Link Posted: 3/25/2009 6:49:40 PM EDT
1-2 of those are coming to Guam. We'll see how well they fly in Super Typhoons. The Active Duty military are boneheads when it comes to ships and typhoons on Guam. The old civil service guys would slam down the navy active duty with their plans on preparing ships for super typhoons and tie the ships down to survive the storms....problem is all those old goats retired so now the Navy enlisted/officers will be making the calls to lose their ships and they will lose ships.

I look forward to diving onto one of these Littorals once it becomes a bay dive site or I'll get a lucrative job cutting one up with torches to get it off the island after it washes ashore and broken in half from a storm.

Then again there's a 50/50 chance Japan may refuse to fund the military build up and Marine move to Guam.....all they need is 2/3rds vote to support it in just one house in their legislature and everyone is sweating bullets because it might just not happen. Japan is broke.
Link Posted: 4/23/2009 9:22:37 AM EDT
Originally Posted By capnrob97:

Originally Posted By 96Ag:
Why are they being built in Wisconsin?

Why not?  

They take a long journey through the Great Lakes and channels, etc, I believe to get to the ocean.



First, because there is no support structure in place for a crew of a Navy ship. Everything, became a distance support issue, things that can normally be rectified through contacting a nearby command for help is not an option in a place like Menominee or Marinette! Other service branches were not so supportive and/or conduct business in a different manner which caused personnel and logistical problems. No bases or barracks translates into hotel life for a crew, not good.



Link Posted: 4/23/2009 10:20:43 AM EDT
Why name a ship after a city in an ex-US state?
Link Posted: 4/23/2009 10:22:39 AM EDT
Originally Posted By FireControlman:
Originally Posted By capnrob97:

Originally Posted By 96Ag:
Why are they being built in Wisconsin?

Why not?  

They take a long journey through the Great Lakes and channels, etc, I believe to get to the ocean.



First, because there is no support structure in place for a crew of a Navy ship. Everything, became a distance support issue, things that can normally be rectified through contacting a nearby command for help is not an option in a place like Menominee or Marinette! Other service branches were not so supportive and/or conduct business in a different manner which caused personnel and logistical problems. No bases or barracks translates into hotel life for a crew, not good.





Well maybe Wisconsin needs some of that USN basing pork besides just VA and CA getting it then, eh?
Link Posted: 5/2/2009 4:37:45 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DarkNite:
Originally Posted By FireControlman:
Originally Posted By capnrob97:

Originally Posted By 96Ag:
Why are they being built in Wisconsin?

Why not?  

They take a long journey through the Great Lakes and channels, etc, I believe to get to the ocean.



First, because there is no support structure in place for a crew of a Navy ship. Everything, became a distance support issue, things that can normally be rectified through contacting a nearby command for help is not an option in a place like Menominee or Marinette! Other service branches were not so supportive and/or conduct business in a different manner which caused personnel and logistical problems. No bases or barracks translates into hotel life for a crew, not good.





Well maybe Wisconsin needs some of that USN basing pork besides just VA and CA getting it then, eh?


So it seems, at least the beer is cheap, but I will not eat another pastie.

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top