Ship Clips

A compilation of articles concerning the Shipbuilding Industry

From the Congressional Shipbuilding Caucus

May 2014

Navy Pushes Congress On Fleet Modernization

(WASHINGTON TIMES 19 MAY 14) ... Maggie Ybarra

CNO: Bottom Line In Budget Debate Is ‘We Need Ships’

(SEAPOWER 21 MAY 14) ... Otto Kreisher

Up-Gunned LCSs, Coast Guard’s Cutter Among Ideas Proposed For Navy’s Small Surface Combatant

(DEFENSE DAILY 22 MAY 14) ... Mike McCarthy

First-Of-Its-Kind Ship Arrives At Mayport, Catamaran-Style Spearhead Looks Like Floating Warehouse

(FLORIDA TIMES-UNION 28 MAY 14) ... Clifford Davis

NAVSEA Commander: Downward Budget, Upward Demand Pose Challenge To Sustainment

(SEAPOWER 29 MAY 14) ... Richard R. Burgess

NAVSEA: Affordability Prompted Second Look At LX(R)

(U.S. NAVAL INSTITUTE NEWS 29 MAY 14) ... Sam LaGrone

Navy Pushes Congress On Fleet Modernization

(WASHINGTON TIMES 19 MAY 14) ... Maggie Ybarra

The Navy is pushing back against a House Republican’s effort to quash the modernization of its missile cruiser fleet, essentially saying the benefits of the plan outweigh congressional concerns that the fleet will be diminished during the upgrades.

The planned improvements require the Navy to pull 11 of its 22 guided-missile cruisers and three other ships equipped with aircraft landing pads out of the water for mechanical and electrical upgrades so that their life span can be extended for more than 30 years.

But Rep. J. Randy Forbes, chairman of the House Armed Services seapower and projection forces subcommittee, argues that the 10-year phased modernization plan will leave the Pentagon with less military muscle to flex in the Pacific Ocean.

Mr. Forbes, Virginia Republican, amended the fiscal year 2015 defense authorization bill to deny the Navy the authority to pull more than two of the ships out of service for repairs.

“My amendment to the annual defense policy bill keeps these ships in service and assures that they receive their full service life,” Mr. Forbes said. “Keeping these ships in active service is essential as our Navy continues to shrink and the demand for their capabilities, like missile defense, grows.”

The Navy is fighting back.

In a white paper obtained by The Washington Times, officials said the service “does not support the proposed language.” They note that the plan on the table would add 137 “ship years” to the U.S. fleet while saving $2.2 billion in operating and maintenance costs over the span of six years.

The pushback attracted the support of Rep. Adam Smith of Washington, ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, who will be offering an amendment to reinstate the original modernization plan. The move comes as the full House is preparing to debate the version that contains Mr. Forbes‘ amendment and members of the Senate Armed Services Committee are set to mark up their version of the bill.

SEE ALSO: He KNEW! Obama told of Veterans Affairs health care debacle as far back as 2008

The Navy in the past has expressed a preference to decommission the ships entirely but was thwarted by congressional lawmakers who have prevented them from being taken out of service.

Retired Vice Adm. Peter Daly, CEO of the U.S. Naval Institute, a nonprofit think tank that specializes in defense and security issues, said the Navy is pushing back now against the legislative language because the service “is stuck between a rock and a hard place.”

He noted that the Navy has concluded the ships have significant structural issues, and if they couldn’t decommission them outright officials had at least hoped to save money by temporarily taking them out of service for the upgrades.

A Navy official said the modernization plan was seen as a “thoughtful approach” to retaining the cruisers.

Should Mr. Forbes‘ language remain in the bill and be embraced by the Obama administration, then the Navy would have to find another way to save money while maintaining ships it sees as problematic, Adm. Daly said.

Consequentially, the service could be forced to cut corners in other areas where it cannot afford to cut corners, Adm. Daly said.

“We’ve been here before where people don’t want to let go of force structure and they don’t want to get the money to keep it and do it right,” he said.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/19/navy-pushes-congress-on-fleet-modernization/

CNO: Bottom Line In Budget Debate Is ‘We Need Ships’

(SEAPOWER 21 MAY 14) ... Otto Kreisher

WASHINGTON – With Congress showing little interest so far in letting the Navy make the changes it has requested in the fleet to stay within the expected budget, the Navy’s top officer said May 21 that if the lawmakers provide the money to operate and maintain those ships, “that’s not a bad thing.”

“In the past, when Congress has deferred on, or refused, our request to retire ships, they provided operating money. If they do that, we’re kind of ahead,” said ADM Jonathan W. Greenert, the chief of naval operations (CNO).

“We need ships. This is all a fiscal issue. This is not a great idea,” Greenert said about the Navy’s proposal to put 11 Ticonderoga-class cruisers in a deferred maintenance program while awaiting modernization, and possibly retiring the aircraft carrier George Washington rather than putting it through a multibillion nuclear refueling and updating.

In a breakfast session with the Defense Writers Group, Greenert discussed the evolving budget situation, the debate over the future of the littoral combat ship (LCS) program, the viability of the aircraft carrier in face of emerging threats and the Navy’s relationship with the Chinese and Russian fleets.

The admiral said that he was “pretty comfortable” that with the fiscal resources the Navy was allowed for fiscal year 2015, “the budget we submitted is as balanced as we can get it. ... We stand by that as we go through markup.”

So far, the House Armed Services Committee has approved a defense authorization that would block the Navy’s plan to take the 11 cruisers out of service until they could be fed into the modernization and midlife maintenance program as the necessary funds are available, and to defer a decision on whether to refuel or retire George Washington. The bill, which is being debated on the House floor this week, also added funds to start construction of an LPD 17 amphibious ship the Navy did not ask for and buy five EA-18G electronic warfare jets the Navy wanted but could not afford.

The Senate Armed Services Committee is still crafting its authorization, with most of the details still secret.

Greenert conceded that the deferred modernization of the cruisers “was not something we want to do, but something we felt we were compelled to do.” If Congress decides to block that and provides “the money to continue operating those ships, that’s not a bad thing.”

On the carrier, the Navy said it did not have the money to set George Washington up for refueling and wanted to delay the decision until it knew how much money it would have next year, when the carrier is due to return from Japan.

If Congress would signal that the money would be available in fiscal 2016, Greenert said he could build the new budget to include that.

But Greenert told Congress earlier this year he would need $7 billion over the next five years to keep George Washington and its carrier air wing.

The admiral indicated he would be pleased if the initial funds the House would provide for the 12th LPD 17 meant the Navy could incrementally fund it, as it does big-deck amphibs and carriers.

“There is a need for those amphibious ships,” he said.

Asked about Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel’s order to curtail the planned buy of LCSs and present a plan for a possible different small surface combatant, Greenert said the Navy apparently did not do a good job in explaining its plans to evolve the LCS “seaframe” through different versions, or “flights,” as it has done with most other surface warships, to make it more survivable and more applicable to emerging operational requirements.

But he warned that if the decision were to go to a new design “that has to be pretty mature,” because it takes a lot of time and money to develop and build a new type ship. And, he said, an entirely new ship “would need another training and maintenance system. No thanks! I already have too much of that.”

Greenert disputed the idea that evolving threats, such as China’s DF-21D maneuverable ballistic missile – the so-called “carrier killer” – would make U.S. carriers irrelevant in the future. But he said the Navy would have to improve its electronic warfare capability, integrate other weapon systems and develop a carrier air wing around the EF-18G, the F-35C with extended range standoff weapons and unmanned strike aircraft.

The admiral, who is heading to Asia this weekend, said relations between the U.S. and Chinese navies have improved, with new agreements intended to avoid conflicts at sea. But he was concerned about fallout from the recent Justice Department indictments of Chinese military hackers for stealing American industrial secrets.

Greenert also said that contact with Russian navy ships at sea have been “professional.”

http://www.seapowermagazine.org/stories/20140521-cno.html

Up-Gunned LCSs, Coast Guard’s Cutter Among Ideas Proposed For Navy’s Small Surface Combatant

(DEFENSE DAILY 22 MAY 14) ... Mike McCarthy

Modified Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) with more firepower and a design based on the U.S. Coast Guard’s National Security Cutter were among the concepts passed along to the Navy on Thursday as the service seeks information intended to guide its requirements for a small surface combatant.

Lockheed Martin and Austal USA, firms that provide separate variants of the LCS to the Navy, submitted a response by Thursday’s deadline to the requests for information (RFIs). They included improved versions of the LCS variants. General Dynamics’ Bath Iron Works yard also responded to the request but publicly revealed little detail, while Huntington Ingalls Industries said it offered the National Security Cutter by adding “robust capabilities.”

The Navy last month asked industry to offer input on how the service could move forward with a small surface combatant after Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel earlier this year scaled back the planned buys of the LCSs from 52 to 32 and instructed the Navy to look at alternate designs.

In the RFIs the Navy was seeking ideas based on existing or mature ship designs, including modifications to the LCS to make it more survivable and possibly carry more firepower. The Navy issued two RFIs, one that covers ship design and a second that covers possible systems, such as for combat, and their integration into the vessel.

The Navy allowed a relatively short amount of time for industry to respond because the service is due to come up with a plan for the small surface combatant by the end of July, leaving enough time to plan for the fiscal 2016 budget cycle.

Lockheed Martin is the prime contractor for the LCS Freedom variant along with partner Marinette Marine. Austal USA builds the Independence variant, which contains onboard computing and other systems provided by General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems. Bath Iron Works would not comment on the specifics of its response to the RFI.

“I can confirm that General Dynamics Bath Iron Works submitted a response to the RFI,” said Jim DeMartini, a spokesman for Bath Iron Works, which currently builds two classes of Navy destroyers. “We are not providing further details.”

Lockheed Martin said its response leverages the investment already made in the Freedoms, and that its design is adaptable for upgrades and can be scaled to a larger ship. Joe North, vice president of Lockheed Martin littoral ship systems, said the options outlined also include surface-to-surface missiles, launchers and improved radar while keeping the ship unit cost below $700 million.

“The Lockheed Martin-led team’s Freedom-class LCS is an upgradable, revolutionary surface combatant that has proven its capabilities, and has been the basis for several mature designs that the team already developed for consideration by navies worldwide,” North said.

Terry O’Brien, vice president of business development and external affairs at Austal USA, said the company submitted a response to the Navy’s RFIs that is an improved version of Independence for anti-submarine warfare, including a towed sonar array and torpedoes. It would also add the vertically launched anti-submarine rocket (ASROC), and a “tremendous” aviation capability to support the MH-60 helicopter. The improvement to the surface capability includes a 76 mm gun as well as remotely operated smaller ones, a vertically launched surface-to-air missile as well as improved radar fire-and-engage capability.

Bill Glenn, a spokeswoman for Huntington Ingalls Industries, said its Ingalls Shipbuilding yard proposed a hull based on the National Security Cutter the firm is building for the U.S. Coast Guard. He called it a “high performance, proven hull and propulsion system that is a lethal, survivable and affordable design for the small surface combatant.”

“Adding robust capabilities to a hull form that does not require additional modifications provides a ship that can be introduced to the fleet quickly and affordably with very low risk,” he said.

The Independence and Freedom variants of the LCS utilize a modular design to accommodate swappable mission packages for surface warfare, anti-submarine warfare and mine countermeasures. They have limited air defense capability, and are dependent on larger vessels like cruisers and destroyers for protection from significant air threats.

The Navy has 24 Littoral Combat Ships either delivered or under contract, evenly split between the Lockheed Martin monohull variant and Austal USA’s trimaran vessel. The ships have faced harsh criticism, particularly on Capitol Hill, over questions about their ability to survive in future combat environments. Hagel expressed similar sentiment when he announced he was – for the time being – reducing the buys to 32.

John Burrow, the executive director of Marine Corps Systems Command heading the Navy’s task force leading the review for the small surface combatant due for completion by July 31, told reporters in April the Navy wants to see a broad range of responses to the RFIs. The RFIs will give “us a better idea … of what is technically feasible in the timeframes that we are talking about, and … give our team a good idea of what the risks are and to understand the cost associated with the systems and concepts they are going to be providing to us,” Burrow said.

The main capabilities the task force is looking at are air, surface and undersea warfare along with mine countermeasures, as well as speed, range and endurance, Burrow said.

http://www.defensedaily.com/up-gunned-lcss-coast-guards-cutter-among-ideas-proposed-for-navys-small-surface-combatant/

First-Of-Its-Kind Ship Arrives At Mayport, Catamaran-Style Spearhead Looks Like Floating Warehouse

Vessel crewed by civilians heads to Central, South America for training, testing

(FLORIDA TIMES-UNION 28 MAY 14) ... Clifford Davis

A first-of-its kind ship arrived at Mayport Naval Station on Friday and it certainly stood out.

The USNS Spearhead (JHSV-1) looked a little like the ugly duckling on a pier full of swans.

The catamaran-style Spearhead has an aluminum hull and superstructure that, from the side, gives it the appearance of a floating warehouse.

However, the military isn’t concerned with looks — it needs performance.

The Navy is betting that the Joint High Speed Vessel, with a top speed of more than 40 knots and 1,200-nautical-mile range, can be their workhorse of the future.

The first step to proving its worth brought it to Mayport where it will leave Thursday on the second half of its maiden voyage to Central and South America.

The Spearhead was in Mayport to take on supplies and its Navy command crew before departing for Operation Martillo.

The ship will visit Belize, Guatemala, Honduras and Colombia. At each country, the ship will disembark military personnel for six to eight weeks to train and assist those nations’ militaries.

The Spearhead is a Navy Sea Lift vessel and is operated by a 25-man civilian crew, something the Navy is hoping will save some money in the long run.

“In the current fiscal environment, 4th Fleet is exploring innovative, cost-effective solutions that can address the capability gaps caused by budget cuts,” Cmdr. Kathleen Kesler said.

So far, the new ships’ construction has been on time and budget.

Though the ship’s primary mission is to get troops and equipment from point A to point B quickly, the captain said, they will also be learning what else the ship may be capable of doing.

“We’re going to be pushing that quite a bit and seeing what else we can do with this vessel,” said Capt. Sam Hancock, the Navy mission commander for the trip.

Testing will involve surveillance capabilities including small, unmanned aerial vehicles and a tethered balloon that will conduct detection and radar missions.

The trip is a first for Hancock as well.

“I’ve never been on an aluminum hulled ship “under way” before,” he said. “But that cuts down the weight for speed.”

He said the material also gives the ship a different roll in the water than the destroyers to which he’s accustomed.

“When you’re out at sea on a traditional ship, you know if it rolls one way it’ll roll back and your body gets used to that,” he said. “This will be a little different.”

Though the Navy believes the ships will require escort vessels in volatile areas, the Spearhead will be making this trip alone.

The only defensive weapons it carries is an expeditionary security team and four mounts for machine guns, either .50 calibers or 240s that fire a 7.62 round.

Hancock didn’t seem worried.

“No, not really,” he said. “For where we’re going, that’s not an issue.

“With the [security team], if there is a threat I don’t have offensive capability but I do have close-in defense.”

http://members.jacksonville.com/news/metro/2014-05-28/story/first-its-kind-ship-arrives-mayport

NAVSEA Commander: Downward Budget, Upward Demand Pose Challenge To Sustainment

(SEAPOWER 29 MAY 14) ... Richard R. Burgess

ARLINGTON, Va. – The Navy’s custodian of its ships and many of their systems faces a continuous challenge of executing programs in an ever-constricting budget environment, all the while trying to meet the demands of a heavily scheduled fleet.

VADM William H. Hilarides, speaking to reporters May 29 from his temporary headquarters at Buzzard Point in Washington, said the Navy is “still recovering from years of not taking care of our ships,” referring to deferred maintenance over the course of the last decade and more of war.

Hilarides specifically mentioned submarines, a type in which he served several tours.

“I’m not doing a good job of delivering submarines [from maintenance availabilities] on time,” he said.

Hilarides praised the actions of his predecessor, VADM Kevin M. McCoy, for reversing the declining maintenance trend and beginning a new period of restoration of the fleet. Such initiatives take two years to enact, from initial budgeting to execution, he said.

One major effort that is helping is the partial reversal of the Optimal Manning initiatives, in which the Navy tried to exact savings by reducing the size of ship crews, but resulted in ships being undermanned for maintenance and personnel not gaining experience and training in maintenance.

The Navy “went a little too far. We’ve reversed a good portion of that,” Hilarides said, noting that Sailors become experts – and happier Sailors – by “working on their own equipment.”

Sailors also are becoming expert technicians by assignment to the intermediate maintenance activities within the Regional Maintenance Centers, and are gaining skills that yield “second- and third-order effects” for the fleet.

“Rebuilding is going to take 15 years,” he said.

Hilarides described the U.S. Navy as a “technically excellent navy,” noting that in order to achieve one, “you must take risks.”

He said that technical excellence is expensive, and that, for a notional example, sometimes a 90-percent solution that saves 20 percent of the cost is the right way to execute a solution. He used the term “judiciousness” to describe achieving the right balance of technology excellence and cost.

In a budget downswing, Hilarides is trying to foster a culture of affordability that will be sustained even after an upturn begins.

While acknowledging its troubles, Hilarides defended the littoral combat ship (LCS) program and attributed some of its problems as a matter of perception, with the Navy failing to communicate clearly on its program. He said the first two LCSs, funded with research and development dollars, were intended as engineering and manufacturing development ships, designed to demonstrate the concept and prove the technology. The first deployment, completed last year, did what it was intended to do, creating lessons to be incorporated in later hulls.

“It [USS Freedom] did a good job,” he said.

The LCS will be a much better ship for the roles currently performed by the mine countermeasures ships and coastal patrol ships, he said, while its potential to replace frigates is their traditional roles is more of a question and will be addressed by the future small combatant.

Addressing the proposed LX(R) to replace the dock landing ships, Hilarides said the discussion currently is at the technical excellence versus judiciousness balance point.

“It’s probably the best ship design discussion we’ve had for a very long time inside the government,” he said. “We’re going to get the requirement right before we start design.”

Hilarides said an LPD 17 variant “is not off the table” but an LPD 17 variant that is “built exactly like the current LPD 17 is unaffordable in the context of the ship we need to replace.”

The Navy’s 2015 budget plan to place the 11 youngest cruisers in a reduced status and modernize them over time to replace the 11 oldest cruisers, opposed by some congressman, is a viable way to sustain a cruiser fleet, Hilarides said, and needed to provide the Sailors required to increase the size of the crews of other ships up to improve maintenance.

He also pointed out that if all cruisers are retained in active service, and without any relief for the budget topline, the Navy will be unable to afford to build a replacement for them, in large part because the Ohio Replacement ballistic-missile submarine program will be consuming a large part of the shipbuilding funds from the mid-2020s to mid-2030s at the same time the cruiser development would be need to be under way.

“The clever part of it [the Navy’s cruiser plan], from my point of view, is that that period … after they come out of phased modernization is when the shipbuilding budget will be most challenged by the Ohio Replacement,” he said. “So we probably won’t build a cruiser during that period. [This plan] takes those 11 [cruisers], puts them in that gap, and gives us time to take our time and judiciously build the follow-on surface capability. … Ultimately, I think the Congress will see that is a good plan.”

http://www.seapowermagazine.org/stories/20140529-navsea.html

NAVSEA: Affordability Prompted Second Look At LX(R)

(U.S. NAVAL INSTITUTE NEWS 29 MAY 14) ... Sam LaGrone