Posts tagged as:

LCS-2

The current global crop of “conventional” frigates (which I loosely define as a multi-purpose combatant of somewhere in the vicinity of 2,000-4,500 tons), has reached something of a developmental dead end. These ships cannot be improved–or, in the case of foreign models, brought into compliance with U.S. Navy standards and then improved–without a huge investment–An […]

{ 28 comments }

So, last week the Small Surface Combatant Task Force announced a call for ideas on a small future surface combatant, complete with substantial pricing and production information and–if a boat-load of pricing and production data wasn’t enough–operational concepts as to how the ship will fit and fight with the fleet. Goodness. Where does one sign […]

{ 7 comments }

If the Navy is going to spend time thinking about new frigates or pondering “up-gunning” the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), then America should also be thinking about developing a low-mix, austere DDG-51. Look, if the U.S. Navy is looking for a low-end Destroyer, then why not use the excellent high-end DDG-51 as a starting point? […]

{ 35 comments }

The LCS and DDG-1000 are both very different, and yet, they are also very similar–each sports controversial non-traditional hull-forms, minimal crews, no bridge wings, non-traditional hull materials, as-yet undeveloped hi-tech weapons and cost-growth. And while the LCS gets kicked around for these qualities/faults/weaknesses, the DDG-1000 always gets a pass. Every time. It’s amazing. Even with something […]

{ 14 comments }

More LCS-1 Troubles: 6-inch Hull Crack, Leak…

by Craig Hooper on March 18, 2011

Bloomberg’s Tony Capaccio discovered something that is not supposed to happen to a new ship–particularly a new ship that has buoyancy issues: During a heavy-weather ocean trial on the USS Freedom in mid-February, he said, sailors discovered a six-inch horizontal hull crack below the waterline that leaked five gallons an hour. Inside the hull the […]

{ 12 comments }

In Press: the LCS Contracts are awarded…

by Craig Hooper on December 29, 2010

…and Austal got the lowest per-unit award? Interesting. When all 10 ships of each block buy are awarded, the value of the ship construction portion of the two contracts would be $3,620,625,192 for Lockheed Martin Corp., and $3,518,156,851 for Austal USA. The average cost of both variants including government-furnished equipment and margin for potential cost […]

{ 2 comments }

Yesterday I got to chat with the Mobile Press-Register’s indefatigable reporter Dan Murtaugh about Congressman Gene Taylor’s (D-MS) change of heart about the LCS program. Frankly, I am delighted–Congressman Taylor, as an outgoing Congressman and confirmed LCS foe, had no real reason to promote the program. If he had done nothing, and allowed the Navy […]

{ 2 comments }

LCS-1: More reasons to worry about Fincantieri

by Craig Hooper on November 30, 2010

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, […]

{ 16 comments }

If Congress acts upon the dual-buy or, if not, the Navy just ends up approving a down-select to build LCS-1 Freedom-class boats (perish the thought!), Italian managers will be in charge of a major U.S. naval shipbuilding program. You see, though most cialis buy people know that Marinette Marine is owned by the Italian company […]

{ 4 comments }

Shipyards, Tea Leaves and the LCS: Austal is gonna win

by Craig Hooper on November 19, 2010

As the Navy works to cajole a lame-duck Congress into approving the Navy’s proposal to build 10 variants of each LCS model, it is interesting–and potentially educational–to observe the shipbuilders who have skin in this fight–the recently divorced General Dynamics/Austal team, and the Marinette/Lockheed team. Marinette Marine:  Puttin’ on a show! In Wisconsin, Marinette, after […]

{ 17 comments }