LCS-1: More reasons to worry about Fincantieri

As the PCU Fort Worth, LCS-3, prepares for a Dec 4 launch-date, I am increasingly concerned about Fincantieri’s “Italianate” management of the Marinette Shipyard. I suspect the LCS-1 team underbid.

Aside from Fincantieri’s foreign ownership, overall low level of investment in their US yards and the disparity between Fincantieri’s U.S.-based workers and their Italian counterparts, I am also worried about Fincantieri’s ability to deliver on their promises and the low-ball planning metrics they have used to allocate funds for recapitalizing Marinette (which, you remember, was bought by Fincantieri for a scandalously low price of $120 million USD–in an all cash deal!).

It’s all stuff that, I hope, Marinette’s Washington, DC-based and Lockheed-trained leader, Fred Moosally, has addressed.

But I doubt it.

First, let’s look at the impending launch. The LCS-3 will be side-launched–which basically means, “we’re taking a very expensive piece of equipment, hucking it into the river….and hoping nothing goes wrong!” It’s all visually exciting (don’t miss the launch if you can make it) but also fraught with risks.

Back in 2009, Fincantieri executive Pier Amato Costa was so worried about side-launching, he told Defense News that some of their $40 million-dollar investment in Marinette would go towards eliminating the side-launches–starting with LCS-3:

“At Marinette, we aim to stop using the side launch method of launching new vessels, where the vessel is effectively dropped in the water,” said Costa.

“Instead, we want to move them from Marinette on a barge to Bay Shipbuilding at Sturgeon Bay for a launch in a floodable dock.”

Costa said the switch would save money and protect the vessel from the risk of damage incurred in lateral launches. “We would like to launch the second LCS like this,” he said.

But, hey, that does not appear to be happening. But hey, for the American shipyards, why do today what can be put off until tomorrow, right?

The other thing I worry about is that Fincantieri’s much-hyped investment in Marinette was crafted to support a one-ship per year delivery schedule/metric–not a two-hull per year delivery goal. So…how does Marinette intend to meet the Navy’s goal of delivering two ships a year when, well, the executives planned for half that:

Fincantieri managers have made their recommendations based on a future delivery schedule of one vessel a year. With each vessel requiring 24 months of work, the yard must be able to work on two vessels simultaneously.

This just says to me that there’s some overhead here that isn’t accounted for in the LCS-1 bid. And if the money isn’t coming from Fincantieri to make these investments, then, well, I think they’ll just kinda pop up in the LCS-1 bill at a later date.

Don’t get me wrong, I’d rather see the Navy get two LCS squadrons than a contested down-select. But that is what I suspect will happen. It’s no secret that I believe that the Austal model has greater potential utility in the contested seas ahead, and that fact, combined with Austal’s industrial strength, Austal’s committed, on-site management, and Austal’s deep JHSV order book combine to make Austal either the overall winner, or at worst, winner of a contested re-select. I reiterate my call that Austal will win this.

But, that said, I’m an optimist. And if it comes down to it, I’d be glad to see a two different flavors of LCS at sea. The real test here is how these things work in squadrons, and we’ll only see that when we, uh, have ’em to experiment with. But…I’d really rather Marinette start getting into the SSK business.

Anyway, with that, let’s get a-building! And then let’s start talking about the Coast Guard’s OPV–the more I see of that, the more I like it!

(And let’s have our indefateigable commenter Ken Adams put something nice about the LCS-1 together for the front page–even with all my LCS-1 bashing, he kept his cool and kept me honest, so it’s only right to let him have a star turn out here on the main page!)

Tagged as: Austal, Congress, General Dynamics, LCS, LCS-1, LCS-2, Littoral Combat Ship, Marinette Marine, Procurement, shipbuilding