US Navy News and updates

Zhaow · Jul 18, 2012

Twain said:
What would the cost be for an NSC with ESSM, Sea Ram, Harpoon, and a sonar suite?

If you look at the sail away price tag for the LCS at $700 Million a copy vs estimated $400 Million per NSC frigate. You would think that people would jump at the NSC frigate option because it is in production and you can add off the shelf ready to go weapons like ASEA Radar, ESSM in MK-41 VLS, Sea Ram, Harpoons, Torpedoes and a towed array sonar suite. I think the NSC is an attractive option as a Patrol frigate and it dose have the Sea legs that the LCS so much lacks. Just to give an example, the USC Coast Guard Cutter Bertholf (WMSL-750) was able to make the trip across the pacific ocean with making a pit stop in Hawaii. I'll bet you how many oilers will the LCS need before it makes it to Singapore. Also, the NSC has the sea legs to survive a trip to the Bearing sea and I highly doubt the LCS can make the trip to the bearing sea and back without having to smell puke all over the ship.

here's more on the debate
Information Dissemination: The End of the Beginning for LCS

Galrahn · Jul 18, 2012

Zhaow said:
If you look at the sail away price tag for the LCS at $700 Million a copy vs estimated $400 Million per NSC frigate. You would think that people would jump at the NSC frigate option because it is in production and you can add off the shelf ready to go weapons like ASEA Radar, ESSM in MK-41 VLS, Sea Ram, Harpoons, Torpedoes and a towed array sonar suite. I think the NSC is an attractive option as a Patrol frigate and it dose have the Sea legs that the LCS so much lacks. Just to give an example, the USC Coast Guard Cutter Bertholf (WMSL-750) was able to make the trip across the pacific ocean with making a pit stop in Hawaii. I'll bet you how many oilers will the LCS need before it makes it to Singapore. Also, the NSC has the sea legs to survive a trip to the Bearing sea and I highly doubt the LCS can make the trip to the bearing sea and back without having to smell puke all over the ship.

here's more on the debate
Information Dissemination: The End of the Beginning for LCS

Accordingly to CBO's Eric Labs, you've got your numbers backward. With one module the LCS will run around $550 million per unit, while a Navy ship based on the NSC design would be more than $750 million each.

Those fixed contracts for 10 of each LCS type were really good bargains for the US Navy. Sean Stackley really did a great job with that.

Belesari · Jul 18, 2012

Bonza said:
I take exception to it because moderators expect users to think before they post. This is expected of you the same as anyone else. Suggesting another user misunderstood your point when you completely contradicted yourself is what gets me bent out of shape.

OK now i understand. When i said he didnt understand it was ment that he didnt understand because either he didnt get it or i wasnt clear in what i said. I ment no disrespect to him and MENT it was my fault for not being clear.

Twain · Jul 18, 2012

Galrahn said:
Accordingly to CBO's Eric Labs, you've got your numbers backward. With one module the LCS will run around $550 million per unit, while a Navy ship based on the NSC design would be more than $750 million each.

Those fixed contracts for 10 of each LCS type were really good bargains for the US Navy. Sean Stackley really did a great job with that.

Even using those numbers, you still need a mothership. I can easily imagine those costing at least $50 million per LCS and probably more. Then you need an escort for the mothership a job the LCS is not well suited for, (a multirole frigate is much better suited to this task). Since the USN will have no frigates in the future, what other choice is there than a multi-billion dollar DDG? More costs there. And the total crew is now up to 96. 76 plus the 20 just added

So even if we use the baseline number of $550 million, you still only get a single mission ship that only has an endurance of a max of 14 days, has short ranged weapons vs (call it) $900 million for a well rounded frigate that has an endurance of up to 60 days and is multirole.

JMO but they should just build 10-12 of these, outfit them all for MCM then move on to something with some endurance and multirole capability. It would cost more per ship but the ships would be much more useful.

Zhaow · Jul 18, 2012

Galrahn said:
Accordingly to CBO's Eric Labs, you've got your numbers backward. With one module the LCS will run around $550 million per unit, while a Navy ship based on the NSC design would be more than $750 million each.

Those fixed contracts for 10 of each LCS type were really good bargains for the US Navy. Sean Stackley really did a great job with that.

So are you willing to pay for the new oilers for the LCS instead of getting the NSC and using them as a Frigate

[Mod edit: Various members of the Mod Team have issued you a number official warnings across a number of threads. Further various senior members and members of the Mod Team have tried to steer the conversation back on track in this thread but you continue to hold fast to your fortress of mistaken beliefs. The quality of your posts is falling below a sensible threshold and even the blog owner, whom you are quoting as a source is telling you, that you are wrong.

The Mod Team has issued you a 3 month ban and if you don't change your attitude in this period, don't bother coming back.]

Belesari · Jul 18, 2012

Galrahn said:
Accordingly to CBO's Eric Labs, you've got your numbers backward. With one module the LCS will run around $550 million per unit, while a Navy ship based on the NSC design would be more than $750 million each.

Those fixed contracts for 10 of each LCS type were really good bargains for the US Navy. Sean Stackley really did a great job with that.

Do you know where the cracks on the NSC are being found and what is the cause? I do wonder if its design or quality control problems. The LCS has been design i believe.

If they were to get the NSC derived frigate going and get it in shape there is still the problem of armaments and systems. These ships dont need to fight carrier battlegroups. Harpoon, 57mm or better RAM etc.

The problem is:

How to get armament, range, and systems up while keeping cost, crew and maintanence cost low.

And that seems to be the problem. Remember every system and weapon added means more crew.

And im exhausted so good night.

StobieWan · Jul 19, 2012

Twain said:
I don't think the NSC is a lot more expensive than the LCS and when they finally get a working module installed in the LCS it will be more expensive than the NSC

Last price I found quoted on an NSC for a single copy was $537m vs something like $350m ish for an LCS, although that was without "government furnished equipment".

You'd have to rework the NSC design quite a bit to meet the requirements for LCS - I'm not seeing an advantage and am a bit surprised the NSC keeps coming up as a "cheaper" alternative.

Belesari · Jul 19, 2012

StobieWan said:
Last price I found quoted on an NSC for a single copy was $537m vs something like $350m ish for an LCS, although that was without "government furnished equipment".

You'd have to rework the NSC design quite a bit to meet the requirements for LCS - I'm not seeing an advantage and am a bit surprised the NSC keeps coming up as a "cheaper" alternative.

Yea i think the first two were 700 mil or more but as things have calmed down the design has been more stable the prices have gone down. I think the LCS-1 line is now around 370mil or so and LCS-2 line is over 400mil like 450 or so.

Twain · Jul 19, 2012

StobieWan said:
Last price I found quoted on an NSC for a single copy was $537m vs something like $350m ish for an LCS, although that was without "government furnished equipment".

You'd have to rework the NSC design quite a bit to meet the requirements for LCS - I'm not seeing an advantage and am a bit surprised the NSC keeps coming up as a "cheaper" alternative.

Well the cost is a big question since there are several numbers out there, per galrahn

So... for the Lockheed Martin version of the Littoral Combat Ship, we are talking about $357.5M + $19.9M advanced prior year + $98,875,158.75 for a final total cost of $475,375,158.75 per ship in FY12 dollars.

For the Austal version of the Littoral Combat Ship, we are talking about $345.8M + $19.9M advanced prior year + $98,875,158.75 for a final total cost of $464,575,158.75 per ship in FY12 dollars.

Information Dissemination: More Littoral Combat Ships

Then the CBO report

In the 2012 FYDP, the Navy estimated the average cost of the LCS at about $450 million per ship, reflecting asubstantial savings over the $600 million that it had esti-mated under the 2011 FYDP.

[ame="http://www.scribd.com/doc/79481601/An-Analysis-of-the-Navy-s-Fiscal-Year-2012-Shipbuilding-Plan-CBO-June-2011"]An Analysis of the Navy's Fiscal Year 2012 Shipbuilding Plan - CBO June 2011[/ame]

Unless I am reading this wrong, that cost represents the contract costs with the builders and not the module costs. Module costs are at best a rough estimate at this time but they seem to be running $100 million each. Then as I said in my later post, there is the mothership problem. The navy is planning purpose built motherships for the LCS. If that is a requirement to keep these ships at sea, and it appears it is since the LCS only has an endurance of 14 days or less, that cost ought to be included too.

Then there are other things that should be added in, like the replacement for the griffin missile. If it ever materializes.

Costs to modify the ship for the larger crew.

Even if those $450ish estimates include costs for a single module and you don't include the cost of a mothership, that is still a lot of money for a single mission ship with little endurance when compared to a mutli-role frigate that HII claims an endurance of 60 days.

StobieWan · Jul 19, 2012

Twain said:
Well the cost is a big question since there are several numbers out there, per galrahn

Information Dissemination: More Littoral Combat Ships

Then the CBO report

An Analysis of the Navy's Fiscal Year 2012 Shipbuilding Plan - CBO June 2011

Unless I am reading this wrong, that cost represents the contract costs with the builders and not the module costs. Module costs are at best a rough estimate at this time but they seem to be running $100 million each. Then as I said in my later post, there is the mothership problem. The navy is planning purpose built motherships for the LCS. If that is a requirement to keep these ships at sea, and it appears it is since the LCS only has an endurance of 14 days or less, that cost ought to be included too.

Then there are other things that should be added in, like the replacement for the griffin missile. If it ever materializes.

Costs to modify the ship for the larger crew.

Even if those $450ish estimates include costs for a single module and you don't include the cost of a mothership, that is still a lot of money for a single mission ship with little endurance when compared to a mutli-role frigate that HII claims an endurance of 60 days.

NSC is running at $480m a pop

Coast Guard Stakes Its Future on National Security Cutters

That's about 20m more than LCS as is, and that's before you rebuild it as a frigate. Don't get me wrong, the NSC looks a capable ship and she's about the size and price of a decent frigate - just without much of the weapons and sensors.

My point is, yes LCS is expensive. So is NSC. So are the San Antonios. Everything the US builds is comparatively expensive. You want cheaper, get them built in Korean yards.

That's not acceptable and I'm not seriously suggesting that actually happen but it's a fair appraisal of the situation. Chuck a few tens of billions at reworking the design and any savings you expect to arrive at will have been swallowed up.

AegisFC · Jul 19, 2012

Belesari said:
Yea i think the first two were 700 mil or more but as things have calmed down the design has been more stable the prices have gone down. I think the LCS-1 line is now around 370mil or so and LCS-2 line is over 400mil like 450 or so.

The first two were so high partially because the USN changed its mind on several things in the middle of construction and a lot of work had to be redone.

Belesari said:
Do you know where the cracks on the NSC are being found and what is the cause? I do wonder if its design or quality control problems. The LCS has been design i believe.

The Perries, Tico's, Sprucans, the various nuclear cruisers and other ships going way back, all have aluminum cracking problems. It is an issue when you are dealing with aluminum on something that floats.
The way it was explained to me by a yard bird with 25 years experience is that aluminum isn't as "plastic" as steel, when it is stressed it stays stressed and no one can accurately model the stresses in all sea states or even cruising around. So they make educated guesses and bracing becomes a standard SHIPALT as time goes on. A good chunk of the Tico modernization is bracing for the super structure. The Perries also have a lot of extra bracing.

Belesari · Jul 19, 2012

Yea OK i've had the same things explained to me. I had thought we had learned the lesson with the Tico's but i guess not.

I actucally talked to some of the guys who build the LCS-1 class. They are quite proud of their work on the follow on and they have said the same thing about the navy and its constant changes to the design early on.

AegisFC said:
The first two were so high partially because the USN changed its mind on several things in the middle of construction and a lot of work had to be redone.

The Perries, Tico's, Sprucans, the various nuclear cruisers and other ships going way back, all have aluminum cracking problems. It is an issue when you are dealing with aluminum on something that floats.
The way it was explained to me by a yard bird with 25 years experience is that aluminum isn't as "plastic" as steel, when it is stressed it stays stressed and no one can accurately model the stresses in all sea states or even cruising around. So they make educated guesses and bracing becomes a standard SHIPALT as time goes on. A good chunk of the Tico modernization is bracing for the super structure. The Perries also have a lot of extra bracing.

StingrayOZ · Jul 19, 2012

Belesari said:
I actucally talked to some of the guys who build the LCS-1 class. They are quite proud of their work on the follow on and they have said the same thing about the navy and its constant changes to the design early on.

Well the LCS is a bit of an experimental project. A bit of R&D. Im not sure that running with the two ships was such a good idea as it continues to double your costs and the two ships are so similar in function and compromises.

The US is not simply building two ships. They are developing the concept of LCS. Both ships have had lots of changes to their design as they have progressed.

LCS-2 highlights that even these days there are issues working with Aluminium. Wasn't it put into the water with no (or very little) galvanic protection at all? With the stainless steel aluminium and sea water doing nasty things? Perhaps developing an all aluminium ship will be a learning experience? If the whole ship is made of the stuff you shouldn't really be going around welding in more bracing every few months. If its done right the material won't become fatigued in the first place.

Belesari · Jul 20, 2012

StingrayOZ said:
Well the LCS is a bit of an experimental project. A bit of R&D. Im not sure that running with the two ships was such a good idea as it continues to double your costs and the two ships are so similar in function and compromises.

The US is not simply building two ships. They are developing the concept of LCS. Both ships have had lots of changes to their design as they have progressed.

LCS-2 highlights that even these days there are issues working with Aluminium. Wasn't it put into the water with no (or very little) galvanic protection at all? With the stainless steel aluminium and sea water doing nasty things? Perhaps developing an all aluminium ship will be a learning experience? If the whole ship is made of the stuff you shouldn't really be going around welding in more bracing every few months. If its done right the material won't become fatigued in the first place.

Yea i think part of the problem was the belief that developing a who class or two whole classes of ships on the fly was a good idea in the first place. I actucally think the two class design makes more sense as one class is better in area's the other isnt.

And yes the independence set sail with no galvanic protection. Again another decission based on saving weight. Building ships out of aluminum is still a problem. It still doesnt flex and bend the way a steel ship would which creates more stress.

AegisFC · Jul 20, 2012

I've heard different stories about why cathodic protection wasn't included in the Independance. The one I've been hearing the most though is that it wasn't included because the contract specifically didn't specify it. Even though Lockheed did include it.

I've ran into products from those kind of contractors before. I used to work on a tape drive system that when they first delivered it to the Navy it was not supplied with tech pubs. It was customary to provide tech pubs with the product, these guys didn't on the grounds that the pubs were not specified in the contract and if the Navy wanted them they must sign a contract for the pubs.

StobieWan · Jul 21, 2012

AegisFC said:
I've heard different stories about why cathodic protection wasn't included in the Independance. The one I've been hearing the most though is that it wasn't included because the contract specifically didn't specify it. Even though Lockheed did include it.

I've ran into products from those kind of contractors before. I used to work on a tape drive system that when they first delivered it to the Navy it was not supplied with tech pubs. It was customary to provide tech pubs with the product, these guys didn't on the grounds that the pubs were not specified in the contract and if the Navy wanted them they must sign a contract for the pubs.

I've heard the same thing about the Indy - and the argument is that to some extent, if it's not specified, technically, you'd be inflating costs. It's very much a key requirement so I'm a big baffled as to why it wasn't set out as part a boiler plate chunk of the contract.

Volkodav · Jul 21, 2012

AegisFC said:
I've heard different stories about why cathodic protection wasn't included in the Independance. The one I've been hearing the most though is that it wasn't included because the contract specifically didn't specify it. Even though Lockheed did include it.

I've ran into products from those kind of contractors before. I used to work on a tape drive system that when they first delivered it to the Navy it was not supplied with tech pubs. It was customary to provide tech pubs with the product, these guys didn't on the grounds that the pubs were not specified in the contract and if the Navy wanted them they must sign a contract for the pubs.

Don't know about the reasons behind the cathodic protection decission but I do know the ABS blokes on the LCS project were not impressed with Bolingers, one even refered to them as crooks. The suggestion was they deliberately brought work forward to satisfy contractural milestones while descoping prerequisite tasks that had to be conducted later entailing extra costs and delays, or leaving them incomplete. Good design bad partner.

AegisFC · Jul 23, 2012

The cause of the fire a few months back on the USS Miami was discovered to be arson.

Arrest made in $400 million USS Miami blaze | SeacoastOnline.com

colay · Jul 24, 2012

AegisFC said:
The cause of the fire a few months back on the USS Miami was discovered to be arson.

Arrest made in $400 million USS Miami blaze | SeacoastOnline.com

So it was a guy having problems with his girl friend and wanting to get off work early? Incredible.. nice to know though that the suspect vacuum cleaner has apparently been exonerated.

Twain · Jul 24, 2012

StobieWan said:
NSC is running at $480m a pop

Coast Guard Stakes Its Future on National Security Cutters

That's about 20m more than LCS as is, and that's before you rebuild it as a frigate. Don't get me wrong, the NSC looks a capable ship and she's about the size and price of a decent frigate - just without much of the weapons and sensors.

My point is, yes LCS is expensive. So is NSC. So are the San Antonios. Everything the US builds is comparatively expensive. You want cheaper, get them built in Korean yards.

That's not acceptable and I'm not seriously suggesting that actually happen but it's a fair appraisal of the situation. Chuck a few tens of billions at reworking the design and any savings you expect to arrive at will have been swallowed up.

Sorry it took me a bit to get back to this but real life intervened. Anyway, I don't disagree with most of what you said there except the last part. I'm just not convinced that in the long run the LCS would be any cheaper, especially when you take into account that it is now virtually a single mission ship.

So here's what we are looking at

LCS $450 million
One module estimated at $100 million
Replacement for the griffin missile ?????
One dedicated mothership for every 6-8 LCS', If that is an LPD, that is another $1.4 billion, divided by 6-8 is another $200 million each

Suddenly we are talking about roughly $800 million each for a single mission ship with an endurance of 14 days or less.

Then look at the possible patrol frigate, HII is proposing using the NSC and adding sea ram, ESSM, harpoons, torpedo launchers, bow mounted dome and possibly a towed array sonar. As you point out there will be development costs but HII has already done some of the preliminary design work as they are hoping to get some export orders (tough sell but they are going to try) With that ship, you get a multirole frigate that has an endurance of up to 60 days. In terms for bang for your dollar this looks like a much better purchase.

Patrol Frigate

Considering that the navy has taken delivery of or placed orders for 22 LCS' with total orders possibly reaching 55 ships, I just think the costs and risks are too great. The total development costs of the LCS still aren't even known until they at least come up with working modules and a replacement for the griffin missile (at minimum). Then there are the some unanswered questions, The navy says they have no need for a frigate, so just what are they going to use for escort missions? a multibillion dollar DDG? The need for escorts isn't going away.

Just to make one thing clear, I am not so much for buying the HII patrol frigate as I am in favor of buying any good multirole frigate. I think the idea of building 20-30 frigates and then building corvettes explained here is much better

Lastly I have a question, is there any mission that the LCS can perform much better than a frigate and are there any missions a frigate can't perform that the LCS can. I'm not trying to be snide here, this is a serious question.

US Navy News and updates

New Member

Defense Professional

New Member

Active Member

New Member

New Member

Super Moderator

New Member

Active Member

Super Moderator

Super Moderator

New Member

Super Moderator

New Member

Super Moderator

Super Moderator

The Bunker Group

Super Moderator

New Member

Active Member