Defense`s Feeds

Austal Team
Trimaran LCS Design
(click to enlarge)

Exploit simplicity, numbers, the pace of technology development in electronics and robotics, and fast reconfiguration. That was the US Navy’s idea for the low-end backbone of its future surface combatant fleet. Inspired by successful experiments like Denmark’s Standard Flex ships, the US Navy’s $35+ billion “Littoral Combat Ship” program was intended to create a new generation of affordable surface combatants that could operate in dangerous shallow and near-shore environments, while remaining affordable and capable throughout their lifetimes.

It hasn’t worked that way. In practice, the Navy hasn’t been able to reconcile what they wanted with the capabilities needed to perform primary naval missions, or with what could be delivered for the sums available. The LCS program has changed its fundamental acquisition plan 4 times since 2005, and canceled contracts with both competing teams during this period, without escaping any of its fundamental issues. Now, the program looks set to end early. This public-access FOCUS article offer a wealth of research material, alongside looks at the LCS program’s designs, industry teams procurement plans, military controversies, budgets and contracts.

LCS: Concept & Needs

LCS-I missions
(click to view full)

Ultimately, the US Navy is trying to replace 56 vessels: 30 FFG-7 Oliver Hazard Perry Class frigates, 14 MCM Avenger Class mine countermeasures vessels, and 12 MHC-51 Osprey Class coastal mine hunters.

The LCS requirement has been identified as part of a broader surface combatant force transformation strategy, which recognizes that many future threats are spawning in regions with shallow seas, where the ability to operate near-shore and even in rivers will be vital for mission success.

That requires the ability to counter growing “asymmetric” threats like coastal mines, quiet diesel submarines, global piracy, and terrorists on small fast attack boats. It also requires intelligence gathering and scouting, some ground combat support capabilities, and the ability to act as a local command node, sharing tactical information with other Navy aircraft, ships, submarines, and joint units.

At the same time, however, the US Navy needs ships that can act as low-end fillers in other traditional fleet roles, and operate in the presence of missile-armed enemy vessels and/or aerial threats.

Given the diversity of possible missions in the shallow-water and near-shore littoral zones, and the potential threats from forces on land, any ship designed for these tasks must be both versatile and stealthy. History also suggests that they need to be able to take a punch. Meanwhile, the reality of ships that are expected to remain in service for over 30 years gives rise to a need for electronic longevity. As the saga of the USA’s cost-effective but short-lived FFG-7 frigates proved, “future-proofing” and upgradeability for key systems, electronics, and weapons will be critical if these small surface combatants are to remain useful throughout their mechanical lives.

While a ship’s hull and design makes a number of its performance parameters difficult to change, the Americans believed they may have a solution that lets them upgrade sensors and key systems. Denmark’s Standard Flex 300 corvettes pioneered a revolutionary approach of swappable mission modules, based on ISO containers. In contrast to the traditional approach, which is to cram a wide-ranging set of bolted-in compromise equipment into fixed installations, “flex ships” can radically changes the ships’ capabilities, by swapping in a full breadth of equipment focused on a particular need.

Swappable modules also give the Navy new options over time. One option is technology-based, via spiral development that focuses on rapid insertions of new equipment. This creates a long series of slight improvements in the mission modules, and hence the ship’s capabilities. Over time, the cumulative effect can be very significant. The 2nd benefit is cost-related, since upgrades require far less work and cost to install when mission technologies evolve. The 3rd benefit is risk-related. The ability to do low-cost, spiral upgrades encourages frequent “refreshes” that remain within the existing state of the art, rather than periodic upgrade programs that must stretch what’s possible, in order to handle expected developments over the next 25 years.

LCS: Designs & Teams

There are currently 2 different LCS designs being produced and procured as part of the competition.

LCS-1 Freedom Class Monohull

Team Lockheed Martin’s LCS-1 Freedom Class offers a proven high-speed semi-planing monohull, based on Fincantieri designs that have set trans-Atlantic speed records. The design will use the firm’s COMBATSS-21 combat system as the fighting electronic heart of the ship, has shock-hardened the engine systems, and uses a combination of a steel hull and aluminum superstructure. USS Freedom has faced persistent reports of weight and stability issues, however, which required additional bolt-on buoyancy fittings at its stern.

Team Lockheed LCS
(click to view full)

The ships have a smaller flight deck than the Independence Class at 5,200 square feet, but a larger 4,680 square foot helicopter hangar. The Freedom Class’ LCS mission bay is the biggest difference – it’s under half the size, at 6,500 square feet. On the other hand, its RAM missile launcher is the 21-round Mk.49, and if the ships need weapon upgrades, export designs stemming from the Freedom Class mount full strike-length Mk.41 vertical launch cells. These can handle any vertically-launched system in the fleet, including SM-3 anti-ballistic missile interceptors, and Tomahawk long-range precision attack missiles.

Lockheed’s core team includes various Lockheed divisions, plus naval architects Gibbs & Cox of Arlington, VA; shipbuilder Bollinger Shipyards of Lockport, LA; and shipbuilder Marinette Marine of Marinette, WI. Niche providers and related partnerships include:

• Angle Incorporated
  
• Argon ST (threat detection systems)
  
• Blohm + Voss
  
• Data Links Solutions
  
• DRS Technologies
  
• EADS (TRS-3D radar)
  
• Fairbanks Morse (Colt-Pielstick PA6B-STC diesel engines)
  
• Fincantieri (diesel generators)
  
• Izar (now Navantia)
  
• L-3 Communications
  
• MAAG Gear AG
  
• MacTaggart Scott
  
• Raytheon
  
• Rolls Royce (MT30 gas turbines, shaftlines, bearings, software, Kamewa waterjets)
  
• Sensytech
  
• Sperry
  
• Terma
  
• Unidynamics
  
• United Defense, now BAE Systems

LCS-2 Independence Class Trimaran

USS Independence
(click to view full)

The LCS-2 Independence Class offers a futuristic but practical high-speed trimaran, based on Austal designs and experience with vessels like the US Marines’ Westpac Express high-speed transport, and the Army and Navy’s TSV/HSV ships. It offers an especially large flight deck (7,300 square feet) and internal mission volume (15,200 square feet mission bay) for its size, with a 3,500 square foot helicopter hangar. The hull is aluminum, but the trimaran design offers additional stability options, and may help the ship survive side hits.

The Independence Class will carry a General Dynamics designed combat system, and standard LCS weapon fittings. The RAM defensive missile launcher sacrifices some size, but the 11-round SeaRAM is a self-contained unit with its own radar. If the LCS should require a full suite of naval weapons in future, export designs based on the this class tout “tactical-length” vertical launch cells that are limited to shorter weapons like RIM-162 ESSM and SM-2 air defense missiles, and VL-ASROC anti-submarine missiles.

Not anymore…

The initial teaming arrangement was led by General Dynamics Bath Iron Works shipbuilder as prime integrator, with Austal of Mobile, AL (a subsidiary of Austal Ships of Australia) as the main design partner and ship-building site. That alliance was broken by the requirements of the 2010 RFP, which demanded a 2nd builder for the designs that was unaffiliated with the first.

Austal is now the sole prime contractor for the LCS-2 Independence Class design. GD subsidiaries remain heavily involved, including General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products Division in Burlington, VT; General Dynamics Electric Boat Division in Groton, CT; General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems in Fairfax, VA; and General Dynamics Canada in Ottawa, Ontario. Other key participants include:

• Boeing in Seattle, WA
  
• BAE Systems in Rockville, MD
  
• L3 Communications Marine Systems in Leesburg, VA
  
• Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems in Baltimore, MD
  
• Maritime Applied Physics Corporation in Baltimore, MD
  
• GE (LM 2500 gas turbines)
  
• MTU (8000 Series diesel engines)
  
• Saab (AN/SPS-77v1 Sea Giraffe AMB radar)
  
• Wartsila (water jets)

LCS = Standard Equipment + Mission Packages…

LCS Flight 0 Basics
(click to view full)

At 115 – 127 meters in length and 2,800 – 3,100 tons of displacement, the USA’s competing LCS ship designs are almost the size of Britain’s Type 23 frigates. They might well be classified as frigates, were it not for their shallow water design and employment. For whatever reason, high speed has also been identified as an important ship characteristic. As such, both the GD/Austal trimaran and Lockheed’s racing-derived monohull offer potential top speeds of 40-50 knots over short distances.

No matter which mission modules are loaded, the ship will carry a BAE Systems Mk.110 57mm naval gun with a firing rate of up to 220 rounds/minute, and Mk.295 ammunition that works against aerial, surface or ground threats. The ship will also carry .50 caliber (12.7mm) machine guns, plus defensive systems including automated chaff/flare dispensers and a launcher for Raytheon’s RIM-116 RAM Rolling Airframe Missile. RAM is designed to handle anti-ship missiles, aircraft, UAVs, helicopters, and even small boats, but its range of just 9 km/ 5 nm will only protect its own ship. Unlike larger missiles such as the RIM-162 ESSM, RAM systems cannot perform fleet defense.

LCS ships will also rely on their onboard MH-60 helicopters and/or MQ-8B Fire Scout helicopter UAVs, plus other robotic vehicles including a variety of Unmanned Underwater Vessels (UUV) and Unmanned Surface Vessels (USV). The terms have changed over time, but the US Navy has downgraded the term “mission modules” to mean individual components plus their support equipment. Integrated packages of weapons, sensors, robotic vehicles, and manned platforms that can be switched in and out depending on the ship’s mission are now called “mission packages.” They include all task-related mission modules, onboard aircraft, and their corresponding crew detachments.

The ships’ first and most important mission package is not officially listed. It consists of a small but very cross-trained crew. LCSs were intended to operate with a core crew of 40 (now 50) sailors, plus a mission module detachment of 15 and an aviation detachment of 25. Each ship has a Blue crew and a Gold crew, which will shift to 3 crews over time that can deploy in 4-month rotations.

There are concerns that this is a design weakness, leaving the LCS crew at the edge of its capabilities to just run the ship, with insufficient on-board maintenance capabilities, and too little left over for contingencies such as boarding and search, damage control, illnesses, etc. USS Freedom’s addition of 10 more bunks before her 1st Asian deployment indicates that the US Navy may be about to concede this point, but even with 50, performance wasn’t great.

Beyond the human element, the LCS program will initially draw upon packages for Mine Warfare (MCM: 24 planned), Anti-submarine Warfare (ASW: 16 planned) and Surface Warfare (SUW: 24 planned). The LCS Mission Modules Program Office (PMS 420) packages a variety of technologies to these ends, many of which are produced by other program offices and delivered as elements of a particular mission module. Costs per module have gone down over time, but that hasn’t been from any genius in planning and fielding. Rather, it results from a high program failure rate of individual components, and their replacement in the program by less expensive items:

The following DID articles offer in-depth coverage of current and proposed Mission Packages:

• It’s All in the Package: the Littoral Combat Ship’s Mission Modules. Covers the full set of mission packages.

• LCS & MH-60S Mine Counter-Measures Continue Development. MCM is the most complex module, and receives a dedicated article.

LCS: Controversies & Cautions

Into battle
(click to view full)

The cost and size of LCS ships are now comparable to other countries’ high-end naval frigates. As the US Navy’s primary low-end vessels in the future fleet, they will be expected to perform many of the same roles. The cargo hold’s size has created some challenges in fitting all of the required equipment into the mission modules, without compromising high-end performance at the modules’ particular tasks. Even so, LCS ships can be expected to perform the mine countermeasures role very well, and the frigates’ traditional anti-submarine role reasonably well, thanks to their helicopters, array of robots, and rapidly upgradeable systems.

Other traditional roles for frigate-sized vessels are more controversial. The biggest controversy surrounds the ships’ one severe inflexibility: their weapons fit.

Present LCS designs don’t even carry torpedo tubes, or vertical-launch systems (VLS) that could accommodate present and future attack and/or defensive missiles. Even with the Surface Warfare module installed, LCS ships will carry a very light armament set for a major naval vessel: a 57-mm Mk 110 naval gun system; RIM-116 SeaRAM short range defensive missiles; 30mm cannons that would replace very short range Griffin missile launchers if installed; 12.7mm machine guns; plus any missiles or 70mm rockets carried by its accompanying helicopters (up to 2 H-60 slots or up to 4 MQ-8B Fire Scout UAV slots).

That armament is closer to a support vessel than a naval surface combatant, and larger high-speed support designs like the JHSV would offer far more mission module space for reconfigurable specialty support ships. Naval analyst Raymond Pritchett has pithily described the current compromise as:

“…3000 ton speedboat chasers with the endurance of a Swedish corvette, the weapon payload of a German logistics ship, and the cargo hold of a small North Korean arms smuggler.”

LCS-I components
(click to view full)

The LCS weapons array also compares unfavorably with comparable-sized frigates that can perform the full array of anti-submarine, fleet air defense, and naval combat roles. The new Franco-Italian FREMM Class, or even Britain’s much older Type 23/Duke Class, outclass it considerably as multi-role ships. So do smaller corvettes like Israel’s US-built, $260 million Sa’ar 5 Eilat Class, and Sweden’s ultra-stealthy Visby Class. Even the tiny Danish Flyvefisken Class, whose swappable “flex ship” modules helped pave the way for the LCS idea, has a Mk 48 vertical launch system that can handle medium-range air defense missiles, and mounts launchers for Harpoon anti-ship missiles.

LCS’ lack of weaponry may not matter against small boats like the “Boghammers,” fielded by the Iranians during their late-1980s guerrilla warfare at sea against the US Navy in the Persian Gulf. Unfortunately, many nations field 90’+ Fast Attack Craft equipped with anti-ship missiles. Despite being 1/3 the LCS’ length and 1/5 of its displacement or less, their employment would create a threat that could attack an LCS from beyond its range of reasonable retaliation, with weapons that the LCS’ may not be able to stop or survive.

It’s telling that brochures for the International LCS versions offered by each team feature a major radar capability boost via the small SPY-1F AEGIS system or other radar upgrade, and are armed with torpedo tubes, anti-ship missiles and vertical-launch system (VLS) cells.

USS Stark, 1987
(click to view full)

Meanwhile, survivability has become an issue on 3 fronts. One is the slim margins created by a very small crew, leaving little margin for tasks like damage control if automated systems are damaged or fail. The other issues involve questions of shock/survivability testing, and of aluminum structures. The original concept for LCS was a ship whose damage resistance could save the crew, but not the ship, in the event if a significant strike. That was upgraded slightly to potentially saving the crew and the ship, but not continuing to fight while doing so. As the Exocet missile strikes on the HMS Sheffield (sank) and USS Stark (survived, barely) proved, even steel warships designed to keep fighting after a strike may find it challenging to meet their design specifications. Navy revelations that the LCS ships would not meet even Level I standards, let alone the OPNAVINST 9070.1 Level II standard of the frigates they’ll replace, has caused some consternation.

So, too, has the use of aluminum in ships exposed to hostile fire. The LCS-1 Freedom Class uses an aluminum superstructure, while the LCS-2 Independence Class is primarily an aluminum design. While both ships have had to certify to the same fire-proofing standards asked of other ships, aluminum conducts heat very well, and melts or deforms easily. If the ancillary fire-fighting systems, resistant coatings, etc. fail, or cannot handle a given situation at sea, structural integrity problems and secondary fires could become fatal concerns very quickly.

The emerging scenario in the USA is a cost for the base ships that continues to hover around $400-500 million each, plus weapons, electronics, and mission modules that bring the price per fully-equipped ship to $450-600 million, even under the proposed new fixed-price contract. That’s no longer a cheap $220 million corvette class price tag. Instead, it’s a price tag that places the USA’s LCS at the mid-to-upper end of the international market for full multi-role frigate designs. Even as overall American procurement trends make LCS ships the most common form of US naval power.

In that environment, unfavorable comparisons are inevitable. A versatile surveillance and special forces insertion ship whose flexibility doesn’t extend to the light armament that’s its weakest point, and isn’t able to deal with anything beyond token naval or air opposition, won’t meet expectations. Worse, it could cause the collapse of the Navy’s envisaged “high-low” force structure if the DDG-1000 destroyers and CG (X) cruisers are priced out of the water, and built in small numbers.

That domino has already fallen, as DDG-1000/ DD (X), production has been capped at just 3 ships, and CG (X) was canceled entirely in the FY 2011 budget. As Vice-Admiral Mustin (ret.) and Vice-Admiral Katz (ret.) put it in a 2003 USNI Proceedings article:

“Because the Navy has invested heavily in land-attack capabilities such as the Advanced Gun System and land-attack missiles in DD (X), there is no requirement for [the Littoral Combat Ship] to have this capability. Similarly, LCS does not require an antiair capability beyond self-defense because DD (X) and CG (X) will provide area air defense. Thus, if either DD (X) or CG (X) does not occur in the numbers required and on time, the Navy will face two options: leave LCS as is, and accept the risk inherent in employment of this ship in a threat environment beyond what it can handle (which is what it did with the FFG-7); or “grow” LCS to give it the necessary capabilities that originally were intended to reside off board in DD (X) and CG (X). Neither option is acceptable.”

Especially if the low end has grown to a cost level that makes it equivalent to other countries’ major surface combatants, while falling short on key capabilities that will be required in the absence of higher-end ships.

The LCS Program

In 2009, the CBO estimated LCS shipbuilding costs at around $30.2 billion, with a fleet average of 1.2 mission modules per ship (TL. 66) bought separately at about $100 million per module. As of 2012, the split had changed a bit, but the overall total was around $39 billion. This contrasts with the original hope of $22 billion total costs for 55 ships and 165 mission modules, at $400 million per ship ($220M construction + (3 x $60M) mission module options).

The US Navy’s current shipbuilding plan envisions building 32 littoral combat ships and 64 mission modules until about 2040. Technically, only 45 LCS ships would count toward Navy fleet totals. Because these ships are assumed to have a service life of 25 years, the 10 or fewer ships bought from 2036 – 2040 would be replacements for the original ships of class. Even so, that number of LCS ships is likely to make up 20% of the Navy or more. The US Navy has already sagged to under 300 ships, and unless major changes in course lie ahead for its budget or its chosen designs, the total number of ships will sink farther.

Acquisition Structure

In July 2011, the Navy created PEO LCS to oversee the program, headed by Rear Adm. James A. Murdoch. Ship construction supervision was removed from PEO Ships, while mission module supervision was removed from PEO Littoral and Mine Warfare (PEO LMW), which was dissolved. It wasn’t the first big change in the program – and may not be the last.

It’s normal for programs to change elements like numbers ordered, but not to change the entire buy strategy. The Littoral Combat Ship program has shifted its entire buy strategy several times during its short lifetime – a sorry sequence of orders, budgets not spent, contract cancellations, etc. documented in Appendix A.

The last buy strategy has lasted long enough for a multi-ship contract. After buying 4 ships and taking bids under their 2009 revised strategy, the US Navy went to Congress and asked for permission to accept both 10-ship bids, buying 20 ships for a total advertised price that was about the same as the estimates for the 15 ships they had wanted. The GAO and CBO both have doubts about those estimates, in part because the Navy is still changing the designs; but the contracts were issued at the end of December 2010. Each contractor would get 1 initial ship order, then 9 more options, with the ship purchases spread across FY 2010-2011 (1 per year for each contractor); then FY 2012-2015 inclusive (2 per year for each contractor). Cost overruns will be shared 50/50 between the government and contractor, up to a set cost cap.

Budgets

By the end of FY 2013, the program is expected to be at about a quarter of total procurement, in units ordered and dollars spent.

LCS: Ship Roster Team Lockheed, Freedom Class

• LCS 1, USS Freedom. Commissioned Nov 8/08.
  
• LCS 3, USS Fort Worth. Commissioned Sept 22/12.
  
• LCS 5, Milwaukee
  
• LCS 7, Detroit
  
• LCS 9, Little Rock
  
• LCS 11, Sioux City
  
• LCS 13, Wichita
  
• LCS 15, Billings

Team Austal, Independence Class

• LCS 2, USS Independence. Commissioned Jan 16/10.
  
• LCS 4, USS Coronado. Commissioned April 5/14.
  
• LCS 6, Jackson
  
• LCS 8, Montgomery
  
• LCS 10, Gabrielle Giffords
  
• LCS 12, Omaha
  
• LCS 14, Machester
  
• LCS 16, Tulsa

LCS: Export Potential

MMCS
(click to view full)

Once one steps beyond small patrol craft, growing capabilities have made frigate-sized vessels the most common naval export around the globe. With many nations confronting challenges in the world’s littorals, which include the globe’s most important shipping choke points, one would expect some interest in the Littoral Combat Ship beyond the USA. A Dec 11/06 Austal release claimed 26 potential buyers worldwide for the ship and its companion equipment, “with two near-term contenders and four others that have expressed active interest.”

There are 2 interesting aspects to LCS export bids. One is their equipment, which is radically different from the US Navy’s set.

Lockheed Martin’s international Multi-Mission Combat Ship (MMCS) version, which attracted some interest from Israel before cost issues intervened, has a variety of configurations from OPV/corvette to large frigate size. Upgraded radars range from CEAFAR active-array radars on smaller ships, to the option of Lockheed’s SPY-1F for the largest variant. Fixed weapons include torpedo tubes and 8 Harpoon missiles, though some exhibit models have used 12 Kongsberg NSMs. Concept diagrams also show between 4-48 VLS cells, some of which are full strike-length size.

General Dynamics’ trimaran adds an upgraded radar (SPY-1F in diagrams), torpedo tubes, and 16 tactical-length vertical launch (VLS) cells.Among other payloads, those cells could hold VL-ASROC anti-submarine missiles to extend anti-submarine reach, or quad-packed RIM-162 ESSM anti-air missiles for area air defense. Exhibited models have also displayed up to 16 NSM anti-ship missiles.

Turkish MEKO 200
(click to view full)

The other aspect worth noting is the Littoral Combat Ship’s failure to close any export sales over 7+ years. At present, both LCS designs have received preliminary export inquiries, but Israel and Thailand are the only cases where it has gone farther than that.

Israel did step up in July 2008, and confirmed its request for an LCS-I based on Team Lockheed’s design. Israel’s variant was very different from LCS 1 Freedom, however; it featured a fixed set of weaponry rather than full mission module spaces, and its proposed SPY-1 AEGIS or MF-STAR radar and weapons array and made it far more capable in critical roles like air defense and ship to ship warfare. As noted above, similar changes have been a common theme among international LCS offerings, but an estimated ship cost of over $700 million eventually pushed Israel to rethink its plans. That country is now pursuing cheaper options based on Blohm + Voss’ MEKO family of corvettes and frigates, or South Korean designs. The Freedom Class also lost the Thai competition.

Saudi Arabia has reportedly expressed interest in a fixed armament version of the General Dynamics/Austal design. That interest was reiterated in 2010, but they’re also evaluating Lockheed Martin’s design for the Arabian/Persian Gulf fleet. In 2011, it emerged that the Saudis might skip an LCS buy altogether, in exchange for a much more heavily-armed, versatile, and expensive option: the USA’s DDG-51 Arleigh Burke Class multi-role destroyers, with ballistic missile defense capability.

Meanwhile, designs like the German MEKO family, the multi-role Franco-Italian FREMM, the modular-construction Dutch Sigma class, and even refurbished 1980s-era NATO frigates continue to find buyers around the world.

LCS: Ship Contracts & Key Events

This section covers the core LCS program. Mission Packages are discussed in-depth in “It’s All in the Package: the Littoral Combat Ship’s Mission Modules“; and the complex mine countermeasures package gets its own in-depth treatment in “LCS & MH-60S Mine Counter-Measures Continue Development“.

Unless otherwise noted, all contracts are issued by the USA’s Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, DC.

FY 2016 – 2018

 

LCS 4 & JHSV

June 15/18: Sustained support Q.E.D Systems is being awarded a contract in support of the Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) class. Valued at $15 million the cost-plus-incentive fee, cost-plus-fixed fee, cost-only contract allows for the procurement of long lead time material in support of the LCS class ships’ maintenance and sustainment availabilities. The $35 billion LCS program is the Navy’s idea for the low-end backbone of its future surface combatant fleet. At 115 – 127 meters in length and 2,800 – 3,100 tons of displacement the US LCS is almost the size of Britain’s Type 23 frigates. LCSs can be reconfigured with a variety of mission modules. In addition, the vessels are armed with a 57mm naval gun, .50 caliber machine guns, plus defensive systems including automated chaff/flare dispensers and a launcher for Raytheon’s RIM-116 RAM, which allows the ship to intercept anti-ship missiles, aircraft, UAVs, helicopters, and even small boats. This contract includes options which, if exercised, would bring the cumulative value of this contract to $237 million. Work will be performed in San Diego, California and Virginia Beach, Virginia, and is expected to be completed by June 2019.

March 20/18: Mission modules Northrop Grumman will deliver services in support of littoral combat ship (LCS) mission modules for the US Navy. Valued at $46.7 million, the contract modification was announced by the Pentagon last Wednesday, March 15, and tasks Northrop with providing engineering, technical and sustainment services for the Navy’s littoral combat ship mission modules—which are designed for naval operations against asymmetric threats and anti-access obstacles in littorals near the coastline. Work will take place Bethpage, New York, San Diego, California, and several other US locations with contract completion scheduled for March 2019.

February 5/18: USS Omaha-Commissioning The newest Independence-variant littoral combat ship (LCS), USS Omaha, was commissioned into service on Saturday, February 3, at the Broadway pier in San Diego. As the 11th LCS to enter the fleet and the sixth of the Independence-variant design to enter service, attendees at the ceremony include former Navy SEAL officer and Medal of Honor recipient Bob Kerrey—who also served in the US Senate and as governor of Nebraska—Warren Buffett’s daughter, Susie Buffett—who served as the vessel’s sponsor, as well as San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer. The LCS-class consists of the Freedom-variant, made by Lockheed Martin, and the Independence-variant, made by Austal USA.

January 24/18: USS Little Rock-“Littoraly” Stuck! The US Navy’s latest Freedom-class littoral combat ship (LCS), USS Little Rock, has found itself caught in the ice in Montreal, Canada. Recent cold fronts from the Arctic has caused record cold temperatures throughout December and January, with ice forming faster than normal in the Seaway. Little Rock, which was commissioned in Buffalo, New York on December 16, with significant snowfall already falling, and the plan was to then transit the Seaway to reach the Atlantic Ocean, before continuing on to Mayport, Florida. Now, its is likely the vessel will be stuck in Montreal until the ice thaws in March, with the crew to continue to focus on training, readiness and certifications.

November 9/17: The US Navy has awarded a $22.4 million contract to BAE Systems to exercise options for post-shakedown availabilities (PSA) for the USS Little Rock and USS Sioux City littoral combat ships (LCS). Work will be carried out onboard USS Little Rock LCS-9 and USS Sioux City LCS-11 Freedom-class littoral combat ships at BAE’s facility in Jacksonville, Fla., with completion scheduled for February 2019. PSA activities are usually carried out to correct deficiencies found during the shakedown cruise or to accomplish other authorised improvements.

October 09/17: Austral USA, the Mobile, Alabama-based subsidiary of the Australian shipbuilder has been awarded a $584.2 million modification to a previously awarded US Navy contract for the construction of a littoral combat ship (LCS). Under the terms of the deal, the firm will perform and oversee all necessary design, planning, construction and test and trials activities in support of delivery of the vessel to the Navy, with a scheduled completion date set for October 2023. Work will primarily take place at Mobile, Alabama, but also at several other east coast locations. The Navy expects to release a competitive solicitation(s) for additional LCS class ships in future years, and therefore the specific contract award amount for these ships is considered source selection sensitive information and for the time being, will not be made public.

September 28/17: Shipbuilder Fincantieri Marinette Marine has delivered the future USS Little Rock, a Freedom variant Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), to the US Navy. The Little Rock—completed last summer and is expected to be commissioned into service in December—is the Navy’s 11th LCS and the fifth Freedom variant delivered to and accepted by the service. Speaking on addition Freedom-class LCS vessels under construction, Fincantieri added that the future USS Sioux City will enter into trials soon, the future USS Wichita was christened and launched in September of last year and is conducting system testing in the Menominee River, and the future USS Billings was launched in July and is to begin trials next year.

September 04/17: Future Littoral Combat Ship USS Little Rock (LCS 9) has completed its acceptance trials, attaining the highest score of the five Freedom-class LCS vessels completed to date. During the five-day trial, it completed a full-power run along with all associated steering and maneuvering events and also surface and air self-defense detect-to-engage exercises, as well as demonstrating the performance of the ship’s propulsion plant, auxiliary systems and the ship’s handling. Manufacturers Lockheed Martin and Fincantieri Marinette Marine are now preparing Little Rock for delivery to the Navy in the coming weeks.

August 29/17: In a littoral combat ship (LCS) first, the US Navy successfully used a UAV to provide over-the-horizon targeting information and damage assessment for a missile that was launched from an LCS vessel. The ship in question, the Independence-class LCS USS Colorado, was participating in exercises off the coast of Guam when it fired a RGM-84D Harpoon Block 1C missile that successfully struck a surface target at significant distance beyond the ship’s visual range. During the exercise, a Northrop Grumman MQ-8B Fire Scout drone and a Lockheed Martin MH-60S Seahawk helicopter, both part of Coronado’s rotary-wing air detachment, provided targeting support for the Harpoon missile. The aircraft used radar, electro-optical systems and other sensors to locate the target, pass targeting information back to the ship via data link to refine the firing solution, monitor and assess the missile, and then carry out damage assessment on the target.

August 23/17: An industry team led by Lockheed Martin has successfully completed builder’s trials of the future Freedom-class Littoral Combat Ship USS Little Rock. Conducted on Lake Michigan, LCS 9 Little Rock went through a series of tests and evaluations of its primary systems and propulsion, including reaching flank speeds of over 40 knots. Four Freedom-class LCS vessels have been delivered to the Navy by Lockheed, with the Little Rock and eight others in various stages of production. They will serve alongside the larger Independence-class LCS produced by Austal USA.

July 6/17: The US Navy has christened its latest Freedom-class littoral combat ship the USS Billings during a ceremony in Marinette, Wis. Built by Lockheed Martin, Freedom-class LCS is the smaller of the two variants of the LCS, the other being the Independence-class constructed by Austral USA. It has a top speed of over 40 miles per hour and carries a variety of light guns, short-ranged missiles and anti-submarine torpedoes. Each LCS is outfitted with a single mission package made up of mission modules containing warfighting systems and support equipment.

May 25/17: The US Navy has awarded Raytheon a $14.7 million contract for maintenance and support of the AN/AQS-20 sonar mine detection system. Under the agreement, the company will work to improve the system’s performance and sustainability with work to include hardware and software upgrades, technology development, engineering and spare parts. Options available in the contract could bring the total value of the program to $77.1 million. The AN/AQS-20 towed mine hunting and identification array is deployed on the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS).

March 9/17: The US Navy completed the test-firing of a surface to surface missile module (SSMM) from littoral combat ship USS Detroit. This marks the first time that such a system was fired from an LCS platform as well as the first time such a platform utilized a vertical lift launch. By giving LCS vessels an SSMM package, the Navy will be able to engage the increasing threats posed from small boats by giving them an added lethality.

September 14/16: A US Navy announcement for an overhaul of the troubled Littoral Combat Ship program will include turning the first four ships into test vessels. The change comes after the naval branch announced an engineering stand-down for LCS crews following an August 29 engineering casualty on the USS Coronado. Under Thursday’s plan, the Freedom, Independence, Fort Worth and Coronado will become single-crewed testing ships that could be deployed as fleet assets on a limited basis, the Navy said.

December 4/15: Experts from navies, academia and industry met in Tokyo this week to discuss the unique challenges of operating in the littoral or coastal environment. The Littoral OP Tech East conference is the first of its kind to be held in Asia, and looks at fostering increased innovation and creation of solutions to both new and old problems. Speakers stressed the importance of the development of new war-fighting concepts and increased operational capabilities of fleets. The meeting comes at a time when the US navy and its allies are looking to incorporate wider capabilities for all ships in its fleets and the rolling out of the new Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) class warship throughout various theatres.

December 1/15: The US Navy has released the remaining $279 million funding to Lockheed Martin for the next freedom-variant Littoral Combat Ship. The funds will allow for the completion of the USS Cooperstown, the 29th LCS warship in service, and follows the $79 million granted by congress in March towards the construction. The announcement comes shortly after the commissioning of the USS Milwaukee last week.

November 24/15: The US Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship Class (LCS) program is picking up speed as two more of the ships were launched over the last few days. November 20 saw the USS Omaha enter the water in Mobile, Alabama and the USS Milwawkee was commissioned the following day by the Mayor of Milwawkee. There are now five LCS class ships operational and they are being completed at an average of four per year. It is hoped that by 2018, 38 of the ships will have undergone construction in only 13 years and will be operating in shallow and coastal waters throughout the world.

October 27/15: The Navy’s Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) will reportedly be equipped with over-the-horizon missiles for their next deployment, with the specific model not yet determined. With the Brookings Institution rightly pointing out that the LCS do not currently possess the power-projection capabilities recently demonstrated by Russia’s Caspian Sea fleet, the USN is likely looking to bolt-on additional muscle to the fleet following the cancellation of the Non-Line-of-Sight (NLOS) missile in April 2010. With the USS Coronado and USS Freedom scheduled for deployment next year, a Request for Proposals is expected by the end of this year.

October 21/15: The US State Department has approved the sale of up to four Littoral Combat Ship-based Multi Mission Surface Combatant Ships to Saudi Arabia, with these based on the Lockheed Martin Freedom-class LCS, as opposed to the Austal Independence-class. If lawmakers agree to the sale, a Foreign Military Sales contract can be drafted, with this likely to be signed early next year. The deal – potentially worth $11.25 billion – forms part of the Kingdom’s Eastern Fleet Modernization program.

October 20/15: The Navy has accepted delivery of the sixth Littoral Combat Ship (LCS 5), the future USS Milwaukee. The Freedom-class vessel is the third of eight to be manufactured by Lockheed Martin, with the ship now scheduled for commissioning on 21 November. The USS Milwaukee will be homeported in San Diego with the rest of the LCS fleet.

FY 2015

LCS 7 & 8 christened; New TRS-4D radar for Freedom Class after LCS 15.

September 17/15: The Saudis are reportedly set to choose Lockheed Martin’s Littoral Combat Ship for the country’s Arabian Gulf-based frigate modernisation program, with a deal thought to be announced by the end of the year. The company is one of two teams constructing LCS for the US Navy. The Saudis have previously requested the ability for their LCS vessels to launch Standard Missile-2 (SM-2) air defense missiles but are thought to have dropped previous plans to procure the Aegis combat system owing to cost.

August 27/15: Austal is enjoying the start of the sweet spot of its $3.5 LCS contract, showing record profits and anticipating additional efficiencies as it starts to knock out the remaining 9 LCS ships.

August 18/15: The Littoral Combat Ship USS Coronado (LCS-4) has successfully conducted live-fire testing using the ship’s surface warfare mission module, firing the ship’s Mark 46 30mm cannon and Mark 110 57 mm gun, hitting surface targets off the West Coast. The BAE Systems Mk 110 gun equips the Navy’s LCS fleet as standard, with the Mark 46 forming part of the surface warfare (SuW) module.

July 21/15: Lockheed Martin has launched the ninth Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), the Freedom-class USS Little Rock (LCS 9). Austal christened LCS 8 (the USS Montgomery) in November 2014, with LCS 9 the fifth of eight LCS timetabled for construction by Lockheed Martin. The ship will now undergo testing and equipment fitting before being delivered to the Navy later this year.

Sources: US Navy Moving Forward With LCS | USNI News.

July 9/15: Littoral Combat Ship 6 (USS Jackson) has completed acceptance trials with the US Navy in the Gulf of Mexico. LCS 6 is the third Independence-class to be built by Austal, which shares the construction of the LCS program with Lockheed Martin under a $3.5 billion ten-ship block buy awarded in December 2010. The company laid the keel for the fourteenth LCS (USS Manchester) in late June this year, having already delivered two Independence-class vessels.

July 1/15: Austal has laid the keel of the fourteenth Littoral Combat Ship in Alabama, with the future ship destined to become the USS Manchester. Austal shares the construction of the LCS program with Lockheed Martin under a $3.5 billion ten-ship block buy awarded in December 2010.

Feb 23/15: USS Omaha keel laid, sixth in Independence class.
Austal USA laid the keel for the USS Omaha (LCS 12), the latest and sixth littoral combat ship in the Independence class.

Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel appears to have shied away from making any drastic dedision with the future of the LCS, by choosing to base 20 future Small Surface Combatants… based on “modified LCS hull designs.” The use of the plural form implies that there is no down-select to just one of the 2 LCS designs. By omission, mine warfare seems out, since modular requirements are maintained solely for capabilities against surface ships and submarines.

Predictably the SSCs will have to be both more survivable and better armed, since these points are among the weaknesses most often pointed out by LCS detractors. The list of goodies to achieve that:

• over-the-horizon surface-to-surface missiles
  
• air defense sensor and weapon upgrades
  
• 1 advanced electronic warfare system
  
• advanced decoys
  
• 1 towed array system for submarine detection and torpedo defense
  
• 2 25mm guns
  
• 1 armed helicopter equipped with Hellfire missiles and MK-54 torpedoes
  
• 1 unmanned FireScout helicopter for surveillance, reconnaissance, and targeting

The armed helicopter and rotorcraft are not new, and 25mm guns are not going to make much of a difference except against the smallest threats. The rest is getting SSCs closer to how LCS has been pitched to export prospects, and to what even smaller ships pack in foreign fleets. Beyond that, the Navy still has to pin down many specifics, discuss crew size, or explain how they will contain costs.

Nov 17/14: CSBA Paper. The non-partisan CSBA releases “Commanding the Seas: A Plan to Reinvigorate U.S. Navy Surface Warfare.” Their recommendations are wide ranging, including a major shift in US Navy weapons configurations toward higher capacity medium-range air defenses. That would take place in order to free up VLS cells for long-range offensive surface attack, anti-submarine, and air-denial weapons.

The paper believes that LCS ships should be forward based abroad, given their limited range and low ability to maintain themselves at sea. Their mission packages should also be disentangled from the LCS platform, creating “independent, stand-alone capability sets that could be carried on a wide range of ships in the National Fleet.” Beyond that, the SSC/ LCS could take advantage of LCS’ higher power generation to mount anti-aircraft rail guns and/or lasers, hosting RIM-162 ESSM air defense missiles, and distributing offensive attack capabilities via their VLS cells.

The paper recommends that the Navy pick 1 existing LCS design to convert to the SSC, adding a vertical launch system and retrofitting VLS to some of the Flight 0 ships as well. The problems come down to capability and cost. At minimum, an SSC derived from the LCS would need to carry the ASW mission package full-time, and incorporate longer-range missile capabilities via a vertical launch system. The reality is that the cost is inevitably higher than the $515 million for an LCS with the ASW package, but the Navy isn’t planning for any increase as it plans for 20 SSC ships. This is so even though the FFG-7 Oliver Hazard Perry Class, which was developed in the 1980s as a similar sort of budget frigate platform, would cost $774 million in adjusted modern dollars. Conclusion? The Navy won’t get 20 SSCs, which is one more reason to retrofit VLS cells on Flight 0 LCS ships. Sources: CSBA, “Commanding the Seas: A Plan to Reinvigorate U.S. Navy Surface Warfare” (incl. full PDF) | USNI, “CSBA Recommends New Course for U.S. Navy Surface Forces”.

Nov 8/14: LCS 8 christened. The US Navy christens the Independence Class LCS 8 Montgomery, in a ceremony at Austal USA’s Mobile, AL shipyard. The ship was launched in August 2014, and is making preparations for trials and delivery in late summer 2015. Austal adds that:

“Jackson (LCS 6) is preparing for sea trials in early 2015. Final assembly is well underway Austal USA’s Bay 5 on Gabrielle Giffords (LCS 10) and in Bay 4 on Omaha (LCS 12). Modules for Manchester (LCS 14) and Tulsa (LCS 16) are under construction in Austal USA’s Module Manufacturing Facility.”

Sources: Austal, “USS Montgomery (LCS 8) Christened: Second Independence-variant LCS christened this year”.

Oct 28/14: LCS-1 sensors. Airbus North America announces that Freedom Class ships will have a new and improved radar, beginning with LCS 17. Instead of the current TRS-3D, they’ll be equipped with the more powerful and flexible TRS-4D naval radar, a rotating version of the Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) fixed panel GaN radar that equips Germany’s forthcoming F125 Class expeditionary frigates.

AESA radars offers a 2x-3x range or resolution boost compared to PESA technologies, and GaN circuits offer further improvements to a radar’s power to performance ratio. Flexibility comes from programming that can segment and shift all of its individual T/R modules in order to steer beams, offer near-simultaneous modes, actively illuminate multiple targets, etc. What it doesn’t offer yet, is the Saab Sea Giraffe AMB’s ability to backtrack incoming artillery and rocket fire to its origin point.

There’s talk of moving to a single LCS radar, and maybe even a single combat system for the entire class. The TRS-3D was seen as being a step behind the LCS-2 Independence Class’ Sea Giraffe AMB, which can also backtrack incoming artillery to its origin point. The TRS-4D counters with superior overall performance, and strengthens EADS as a contender against the USMC’s TPS-80 G/ATOR, Saab’s Sea Giraffe 4A AESA, etc. It also improves Team Lockheed’s overall radar/ combat system position, which is already strong because of its interface commonalities with Aegis. Sources: Airbus North America, “New Radars Provided by Airbus Defense and Space, Inc., to Support Improved Survivability for the Freedom Variant Littoral Combat Ships”.

Oct 18/14: LCS 7 christened. The US Navy christens and side-launches trhe Freedom Class LCS 7 Detroit, in a ceremony at Marinette Marine Shipyard, WI. We’re trying to resist the temptation to make a crack about ceremonially burning down the mission module area, but we can’t resist. On the other hand, the city of Detroit hasn’t given up. A ship could do worse.

Detroit will continue to undergo outfitting and testing at Marinette until her expected delivery to the Navy in late 2015. Sources: US Navy, “Navy Christens, Launches Future USS Detroit” | LMCO, “Lockheed Martin-Led Team Launches Future USS Detroit”.

Oct 14/14: LCS-2 Support. Austal USA, LLC in Mobile, AL receives an $8.4 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract modification to a previously awarded contract to exercise an option for Core LCS-2 Independence Class Services. They’ll assess engineering and production challenges, evaluate costs and schedule risks for engineering change proposals, and keep up class baseline documentation. All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2014 US Navy shipbuilding budgets.

Work will be performed in Mobile, AL (60%), and Pittsfield, MA (40%), and work is expected to be complete in October 2015 (N00024-11-C-2301).

Oct 12/14: 57mm gun. The US Navy has removed BAE’s Mk.110 57mm naval gun from their DDG-1000 Zumwalt Class ships. The reported reason was that the 30mm Mk.46 RWS did better against key target types like small boats than the Mk.110 or notional 76mm guns. That’s more than slightly surprising to some observers, who note that a 30mm cannon is only lethal within about a mile – but the Navy is saying that they were equally surprised. Program Manager Capt. Jim Downey is quoted saying that:

“They were significantly over-modeled on the lethality…. The results of the actual live test-fire data was that the round was not as effective as modeled…. it gets into the range of the threat – the approach of the threat, what the make-up of the threat is and how it would maneuver, how it would fire against our ship. There is a whole series of parameters that are very specific on what the threat is and how you take it out through a layer of defenses…. not what we expected to see.”

Downey categorically denies that the Mk.110’s 10+ ton weight difference was an issue, and also confirmed that his program’s findings haven’t been shared with other NAVSEA entities like PEO LCS, let alone the Coast Guard who uses the gun on some cutters. The Navy is working on creating those mechanisms, but they don’t exist yet. Defense News, “Experts Question US Navy’s Decision To Swap Out DDG 1000’s Secondary Gun”.

Oct 9/14: LCS 7. Lockheed Martin Corp. in Baltimore, MD receives a $10.9 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract modification, exercising an option for LCS 7 Detroit’s post-delivery support. This is normal, and involves deferred design changes that have been identified during the construction period, before the post-delivery test and trials. $500,000 in (FY 2011?) US Navy shipbuilding budgets is committed immediately.

Work will be performed in Marinette, WI (57%); Hampton, VA (14%); Moorestown, NJ (11%); San Diego, CA (11%); and Washington, DC (7%), and is expected to be complete by October 2016 (N00024-11-C-2300).

Oct 9/14: LCS 8. Austal USA in Mobile, AL receives a $10.9 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract modification, exercising an option for LCS 8 Montgomery’s post-delivery support. This is normal, and involves deferred design changes that have been identified during the construction period, before the post-delivery test and trials. $500,000 in FY 2011 US Navy shipbuilding budgets is committed immediately.

Work will be performed in Mobile, AL (70%); Pittsfield, MA (20%); and San Diego, CA (10%), and is expected to be complete by October 2016 (N00024-11-C-2301).

FY 2014

Orders for ships 17-20; Congress wimps out on oversight, but then USN wants to stop at 32 ships; USN finally wakes up to the importance of “combat” with the SSC frigate idea, but is it too late? BIW wins multi-year support contract for both types; LCS 5 & 6 launched; Mayport, FL to host 6 Freedom Class ships; Poor performance on LCS 1 deployment to Singapore; Naval Strike Missile test from LCS 4; Could rail guns and lasers save the day?; LCS lifecycle costs are high; Weight margins are a huge problem for LCS, and so is under-manning.

Ch-ch-changes…

Sept 25/14: GAO on lead ships. The GAO issues a report saying that the Navy technically stayed within acquisition regulations in its acceptance of the 2 lead ships, thanks to cost-reimbursement contractual clauses. But extensive use of waivers to expedite LCS 1 and LCS 2 trials and acceptance, and for a variety of short-term concerns, led to a lot of additional time and money spent later on. That discussion may seem somewhat moot a decade after the initial contract awards, but consequences are felt to this day:

“Even as of August 2014, the combat management system continued to face significant limitations, which has restricted its use during fleet operations.”

Separately, the April 17 SAR report, obtained 2 months later through the Freedom of Information Act, shows the Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) for LCS 2 is now set for August 2015, followed by Initial Operational Capability (IOC) 1 month later. According to the Navy, that delay trickled down from delayed completion of the Mine Countermeasures Mission Package’s (MCM MP) own IOT&E. Despite all of the delays, the first 2 ships in the class still don’t look very capable. Sources: GAO-14-827, “Navy Complied with Regulations in Accepting Two Lead Ships, but Quality Problems Persisted after Delivery” | CRS, “Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program: Background and Issues for Congress” [Aug 4/14 update, PDF] | SAR [PDF].

LCS + NSM

Sept 23/14: Weapons. The US Navy confirms a successful live fire test of Kongsberg’s Naval Strike Missile from USS Coronado [LCS 4], via a launcher mounted on the flight deck.

NSM is a full-range, stealthy sub-sonic missile that delivers both anti-ship and land attack capability. Its presence would instantly turn the SuW module into something other than a joke, but the Navy is noncommittal about issuing a requirement that would lead to NSM integration with the existing LCS fleet. What is certain, is that a missile of this nature will be required as part of any SSC frigate derivatives. Sources: US Navy, “Navy Successfully Tests Norwegian Missile from LCS 4” | Kongsberg, “Successful test firing of KONGSBERG’S Naval Strike Missile from US Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship” | USNI, “Norwegian Missile Test On Littoral Combat Ship Successful.”

Sept 9/14: SSeCret. A classified briefing for the House Armed Services Committee about the findings of the small surface combatant task force is postponed at the last minute, with a new date yet to be rescheduled. A Navy spokesperson tells USNI that all they’re willing to talk about at this point is their thought process. The report itself was submitted internally on July 31, but the Navy does not want to talk about its content before budget negotiations with the Pentagon. If the past is any indication, the Navy will keep Congress in the dark as long as possible. Ronald O’Rourke notes in his CRS report, about the aborted 2009-10 downselect:

“…this was the third time in the history of the LCS program that the Navy presented Congress with an important choice about the future of the LCS program late in the congressional budget-review cycle, after Congress had completed its spring budget-review hearings and some of its committee markups.”

If the Navy wants ships in this category before the end of the decade, some sort of LCS 2.0 seems a much more realistic option rather than a brand new design – short of buying an off-the-shelf design abroad. So much for Secretary Hagel’s call that “all options are on the table” – and the core reason is the US Navy’s history of added costs and slow execution for ship designs that they haven’t fielded before. Source: USNI, “HASC Cancels LCS Replacement Briefing Over Lack of Information.”

Aug 22/14: Support. General Dynamics Bath Iron Works in Bath, ME receives an initial $9.8 million cost-plus-award-fee contract to provide planning yard services in support of both variants of in-service Littoral Combat Ships. Bath Iron Works will be the single planning yard, providing engineering, planning, ship configuration, material and logistics support to maintain and modernize both variants of the LCS class, managing the scheduling of all planned, continuous, and emergent maintenance, and associated maintenance periods that involve multiple private and public organizations. $6.2 million in FY 2014 US Navy O&M budgets are committed immediately, and options could bring the contract’s cumulative value to $100.4 million.

Work will be performed in Bath, ME and is expected to be complete by August 2015. This contract was competitively procured via FBO.gov with 3 offers received. US NAVSEA in Washington, DC manages the contract (N00024-14-C-4313).

Dual-class Planning Yard services

Aug 22/14: Support. CACI Technologies, Inc. in Chantilly, VA is being awarded a $25.1 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for professional support services in support of Program Executive Office LCS. Services include professional services in the areas of: program management and acquisition support, technical and engineering support, business and financial management support and logistics support. $15 million is committed immediately from various budgets, and this contract includes options which could bring its cumulative value to $44 million.

Work will be performed in Washington, DC (90%); Norfolk, VA (4%); San Diego, CA (2%); Panama City, FL (2%); Newport, RI (1%); and Monterey, CA (1%), and is expected to be complete by February 2015. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1) as implemented in FAR 6.302-1. US NAVSEA in Washington, DC manages the contract (N00024-14-C-6307).

Aug 7/14: Basing. Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus announces that Naval Station Mayport, FL, will be receiving 6 Freedom Class Littoral Combat Ships: LCS 9 Little Rock, LCS 11 Sioux City, LCS 13 Wichita, LCS Billings, LCS 17 Indianapolis, and LCS 19. NS Mayport, which recently lost its frigates, will pick up about 900 Sailors and support personnel. Sources: Maritime Executive, “Six Navy LCS’ Find Homeport”.

July 31/14: LCS-1 Support. Rolls Royce Marine North America in Walpole, MA receives a $9 million firm-fixed-price repair order for the repair of 1 MT-30 gas turbine engine for the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Freedom variant, including re-assembly into the LCS configuration, and pass-off testing to validate performance. All funding is committed immediately, using FY 2014 US Navy O&M budgets.

Work will be performed in Bristol, UK and is expected to be complete by February 2016. The order was not competitively procured in accordance with 10 USC. 2304(c)(1), by US NAVSEA in Washington, DC (N00104-09-G-A755).

LCS testing plan
(click to view full)

July 30/14: GAO Report. The US GAO releases another LCS-related report, which looks at the program as a whole but has a greater emphasis on the class’ weight issues. Both initial ships have inadequate weight margins, and the LCS-2 Independence Class will stay that way even after the design is stabilized for LCS 6, with just 31.3 tons to spare (3,156.7 tons of 3,188.0 Naval Architectural Limit) instead of 50. The LCS-1 Freedom Class does better, with 67.3 tons to spare by LCS 5 (3,482.7 tons of 3,550.0 NAL). GAO recommends changes to contractor weight reporting, whose lack of centralized tracking has contributed to surprise weight problems.

Low margins are problematic, because they harden the 105-ton limit for mission packages, and limit or inflate the cost of weapon upgrades, extra crew, or other changes needed to make the ship relevant throughout its life. Accepting the penalty of going overweight, on the other hand, would hurt ship speed, handling, range, and service life. USS Freedom is itself overweight, and she illustrated this problem during the Singapore deployment. Her gas turbines had to remain switched off most of the time to conserve fuel, giving this “fast” ship such slow transit speeds that it was “hard for LCS to easily or efficiently get around the [7th fleet’s large Pacific] theater”.

To make matters worse, there’s already a call for extra weight. It will take another 10-20 tons, and a pervasive ship redesign, to address the under-crewed fatigue demonstrated during LCS 1’s Singapore deployment. That was present even though the crew recruited contractor technical representatives for routine ship tasks, during a peacetime operation. The Navy’s response is that they don’t intend to change the number of people on board, and they’re also compromising the ship’s mission capability in other ways:

“Navy weight estimates for increment 4 of the MCM mission package, however, do not reflect all the systems being acquired for that package. Space and weight constraints have required the Navy to modify how it intends to outfit increment 4 of the MCM mission package. Although the Navy plans to acquire all the systems planned for that increment, space and weight limitations will not allow LCS seaframes to carry all of these systems at one time. According to LCS program officials, MCM mission commanders will have either (1) the Unmanned Influence Sweep System and the unmanned surface vehicle that tows it, or (2) the minehunting Surface Mine Countermeasures Unmanned Undersea Vehicle—called Knifefish—available—but not both systems. As a result, LCS seaframes outfitted with the increment 4 MCM package may have decreased minesweeping or mine detection capability.”

The final argument has to do with the RFP to continue production after LCS 24. GAO recommends no approval for additional ships or even an RFP until both seaframes have deployed to “a forward overseas location” like Singapore (not scheduled for the Independence Class until 2017); completed rough water, ship shock, and total ship survivability testing; and completed initial operational test and evaluation of the SUW mission package on the Freedom variant and the MCM mission package on the Independence variant. The Navy, as usual, wants to keep production going regardless, setting continued production and savings now vs. the risk of major RFP amendments and delays, expensive refits later, or flawed ships on the front lines. Sources: GAO-14-749, “Littoral Combat Ship: Additional Testing and Improved Weight Management Needed Prior to Further Investments.”

July 26/14: Force structure. The US Navy has a problem. Its 11 remaining FFG-7 Oliver Hazard Perry Class frigates have largely been disarmed, but they’re still underway on missions more often than many other fleet ships. When the frigates are all retired by FY 2015, the US Navy will only have 8 LCS ships, with no real anti-submarine capability beyond a helicopter, and an unproven ability to sustain existing missions like longer-term counter-drug operations or carrier escort.

CSBA analyst Cmdr. Bryan Clark (ret.) sees the US Navy falling back on cargo vessels, the Mobile Landing Platform ship, and JHSV transport catamarans to pick up some of the slack. Even so, anti-submarine work will devolve to its high-end destroyer fleet, and recent issues with sustained operations during LCS-1 Freedom’s initial trials are not encouraging. Sources: Gannett’s Navy Times, “Retiring frigates may leave some missions unfilled”.

July 24/14: Weapons. The US Navy confirms that USS Coronado [LCS-4] is scheduled to test-launch Kongsberg’s stealthy, 13-foot Naval Strike Missile (NSM) at the Point Mugu, CA test range. NAVSEA says this isn’t about any specific requirement, it’s just a one-off event to test the Independence Class’ ability to handle more advanced weapons, and “provide insights into the weapon’s stated capabilities of increased range, survivability and lethality.”

It’s possible that NSM could fit into the LCS SuW mission module at some future date, with the LCS using UAVs etc. to close the kill chain at range. Amazingly, the US Navy is still wondering whether it should confine itself to weapons that work only within the ship’s unaided detection range, despite the fact that 500-ton Fast Attack Craft fielded by other countries carry full-range anti-ship missiles.

The Independence Class’ too-small weight margin may seem to be a problem for heavy weapons, but the “Surface Warfare” module is so vestigal that there’s plenty of weight margin in the mission package’s 105-ton weight limit. The anti-submarine module is also pretty basic, and it will be interesting to see if the class can handle an ASW/SuW fleet scout loadout.

On a related note, the NSM is a candidate to eventually replace the sea-skimming, radar-guided RGM-84 Harpoon missiles abord US Navy ships, and a full range anti-ship and surface attack missile will be critical to the USA’s Small Surface combatant frigate program (q.v. April 7-8/14). Since the Navy’s approach makes it hard for anything other than an adapted LCS to succeed, this test has significant long-term implications for the Independence Class. Sources: Gannett’s Navy Times, “LCS to conduct test of Norwegian missile”.

July 17/14: SAC Budget. The Senate Appropriations Committee approves a $489.6 billion base FY 2015 budget, plus $59.7 billion in supplemental funding. It includes the LCS, but they aren’t pleased in the shift from 4 ships to 3, and the planned extension of block-buy pricing into FY 2016. They also note the program cut to 32 and the untested performance of the mission modules:

“Given the testing concerns raised by GAO and the Department’s current strategic pause on the LCS program, the Committee finds it prudent to also slow the procurement of LCS mission modules. Therefore, the Committee recommends a total reduction of $71,314,000 to the fiscal year 2015 budget request for LCS mission modules and related components.”

See also DID, “FY15 US Defense Budget Finally Complete with War Funding”.

Life-cycle costs
(click to view full)

July 8/14: GAO Report. After USS Freedom returned to San Diego from its mission in Asia, nearly every LCS stakeholder – including the operational commander of the ship in Singapore (Commander, Destroyer Squadron Seven) and each of the USS Freedom crews – produced lessons-learned summaries. Mostly, we’ve learned that the Freedom Class has some critical problems in real-world 7th Fleet operations, and that its operating costs will approach destroyers with 3x its tonnage.

Bluntly, the ship’s crew of 50 still couldn’t cope, even in peacetime, testing nothing of substance beyond RHIB boats, and with onboard defense contractor support reps drafted into jobs they weren’t supposed to be doing. Crews averaged 6 hours sleep while underway, instead of the Navy’s recommended 8.

The “good” news is that USS Freedom spent 58% of its time in port, vs. a 20% average for other fleet ships. Mechanical issues were part of that, with 55 total mission days lost that cut short 2 exercises and removed 2 planned operations. It might have been worse, but failure-prone medium-pressure air compressors were constantly monitored by sensors and replaced before they could fail.

On the costs front, the number of shore personnel to support the ship has more than tripled from 271 in the 2011 estimate to 862. An updated life-cycle cost estimate is expected in fall 2014, but GAO estimates place them at $79 million ($64M ships + $15M mission modules) per ship per year, vs. $24M for a minehunter, $54M for a frigate, and $88M for a DDG-51 Ballistic Missile Defense destroyer. Additional overseas deployment-related cost data is likely to raise LCS costs, but deployment schedules mean that we probably won’t have good data for both variants until well after 2017. Sources: GAO-14-447, “Deployment of USS Freedom Revealed Risks in Implementing Operational Concepts and Uncertain Costs” | USNI, “Document: GAO Report on USS Freedom Deployment”.

June 13/14: LCS 4. General Dynamics Bath Iron Works in Bath, ME receives $11.7 million cost-plus-award-fee modification to the previously awarded order to provide engineering and management efforts in support of USS Coronado’s [LCS 4] post-shakedown availability work, to fix the last set of things from INSURV testing. The ship was commissioned on April 5/14.

$5 million in FY 2014 ship conversion budgets is committed immediately. Work will be performed in San Diego, CA, and is expected to be complete by December 2014. The US Navy’s Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Conversion, and Repair in Bath, Maine manages the contract (N00024-13-G-2316, #0001).

May 12/14: MQ-8 MUT. USS Freedom [LCS 1] operates an MH-60R Seahawk helicopter and MQ-8B Fire Scout VTUAV together off the coast of San Diego, CA for VBSS (visit, board, search & seizure) exercises. Flying them together doesn’t seem like much, but operating safely in the same space as a manned helicopter is something that needs to be worked out very thoroughly before it can be used operationally.

June 13/14: LCS 4. General Dynamics Bath Iron Works in Bath, ME receives $11.7 million cost-plus-award-fee modification to the previously awarded order to provide engineering and management efforts in support of USS Coronado’s [LCS 4] post-shakedown availability work, to fix the last set of things from INSURV testing. The ship was commissioned on April 5/14.

$5 million in FY 2014 ship conversion budgets is committed immediately. Work will be performed in San Diego, CA, and is expected to be complete by December 2014. The US Navy’s Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Conversion, and Repair in Bath, Maine manages the contract (N00024-13-G-2316, #0001).

May 12/14: MQ-8 MUT. USS Freedom [LCS 1] operates an MH-60R Seahawk helicopter and MQ-8B Fire Scout VTUAV together off the coast of San Diego, CA for VBSS (visit, board, search & seizure) exercises. Flying them together doesn’t seem like much, but operating safely in the same space as a manned helicopter is something that needs to be worked out very thoroughly before it can be used operationally.

Fire Scouts can maintain longer surveillance over a target or area of interest, but these helicopter UAVs lack the total firepower and/or troop capacity of an MH-60R or MH-60S. Sources: NGC, “Northrop Grumman, US Navy Conduct Successful Simultaneous Manned, Unmanned Helicopter Flight Tests Aboard the Littoral Combat Ship”.

May 6/14: Cyber-security. US Fleet Cyber Command head Vice Admiral Jan Tighe says that the Navy is working to close the cyber-security gaps identified in the 2013 DOT&E report (q.v. Jan 28/14). The Navy has teams considering “what do they need to do to change, and/or replace” on Freedom Class (and presumably Independence Class) ships, in order to close gaps and create the communications systems needed to transmit critical data to the shore-based support facilities LCS ships are so dependent upon. Sources: Bloomberg, “Cyberdefenses for Littoral Combat Ship Getting Retooled”.

April 30/14: Politics. It looks like LCS support is well and truly slipping. The House Seapower subcommittee version of the FY 2015 defense spending bill would cut planned Navy buys from 3 ships to 2, plus advance procurement funding for 2 in FY 2016, while prioritizing submarines and aircraft carriers. Worse:

“A source familiar with the subcommittee’s deliberations noted there had been a “real effort to zero out the LCS request,” based on perceptions of a flawed program and the need to eliminate some spending.”

20+ ships into a program is a bit late for such realizations, but the reality of not enough money is beginning to force choices that Congress didn’t really have to face before. Sources: Defense News, “House markup cuts one LCS, supports 11 carriers” | Subcommittee markup [PDF] | Full committee NDAA.

April 22/14: Support. General Dynamics Bath Iron Works in Bath, ME receives an unfinalized $28.7 million contract for Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) class design services. This includes class baseline design services, class documentation services, class engineering studies and interim support services.

All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2013 shipbuilding and FY 2014 RDT&E budgets. Work will be performed in Bath, ME (54%); Pittsfield, MA (45%); and Mobile, AL (1%), and is expected to be complete by May 2015. US NAVSEA in Washington, DC manages the contract (N00024-09-C-2302).

April 17/14: SAR. The Pentagon finally releases its Dec 31/13 Selected Acquisitions Report, which includes LCS.

“Program costs decreased $11,332.1 million (-33.4%) from $33,955.5 million to $22,623.4 million, due primarily to a quantity decrease of 20 ships from 52 to 32. The Department of Defense has determined that no new contract negotiations beyond 32 Flight 0+ LCS ships will go forward. The Navy has been directed to complete a study to support the future procurement of “a capable and lethal small surface combatant.” The Navy has also been directed to submit “alternative proposals to procure a capable and lethal small surface combatant,” and the study should consider options for “a completely new design, existing ship designs (including LCS), and a modified LCS.” This SAR reflects the initial estimate of a 32-ship LCS program. The results of the study, to be completed in time to inform the FY 2016 President’s Budget, will determine the configuration of the ships (future flight of LCS or different small surface combatant) that will fulfill the small surface combatant requirement.”

Program cut cuts costs

April 9/14: SSCTF RFI. The US Navy issues a very non-specific Request for Information #N00024-14-R-2306, in the hopes that responses will inform its SSCTF (Small Surface Combatant Task Force). Basically, they’re looking at specifications and cost drivers for existing designs, but they don’t specify what range they’re looking in:

“The Navy is interested in the shipbuilding industry perspective on mature ship designs and concept designs that have the capability and lethality generally consistent with a small surface combatant. Systems and sub-system information will be the subject of the second RFI. The Navy is also interested in market information on system and sub-system level approaches to providing small surface combatant combat capabilities including hull, mechanical and electrical systems; weapon and sensor systems; command, control, communications, computers and intelligence networks; electronic warfare systems; signature reduction technologies; and mission module concepts for consideration in future small surface combatants including modified LCSs.”

Sources: FBO.gov, “Intent to Issue Requests for Information (RFI) for Market Information Pertinent to the Navy’s Future Small Surface Combatant”.

RFI for frigate replacement

April 9/14: Weapons. The US Navy confirms that they have picked the AGM-114L Hellfire Longbow radar-guided missile as the SUW Package’s initial missile. Lockheed Martin’s Hellfire wouldn’t have any more range than Raytheon’s Griffin (~3.5 nmi), but the radar seeker allows the ship’s radar to perform targeting, while allowing salvos of multiple fire-and-forget missiles against incoming swarms. In contrast, the Griffin’s laser designation must target one boat at a time, from a position that’s almost certain to have a more restricted field of view than the ship’s main radar.

Lockheed Martin says that the missile has had 3 successful test firings in vertical launch mode, and there are plans to test-fire the missile from LCS itself in 2014, using a new vertical launcher. Navy AGM-114L missiles would be drawn from existing US Army stocks, which will have shelf life expiry issues anyway. That’s one reason the Army intends to begin buying JAGM laser/radar guided Hellfire derivatives around FY 2017. Sources: DoD Buzz, “Navy Adds Hellfire Missiles to LCS” | USNI News, “Navy Axes Griffin Missile In Favor of Longbow Hellfire for LCS”.

April 7-8/14: Weapons. With the USA considering its options for 20 frigates, Finmeccanica is proposing the OTO Melara 76mm Super Rapid gun as an upgrade to existing and future LCS/ASSC ships. Already in service with 56 navies, the water-cooled gun can maintain high rates of fire, while extending naval gun range. Specialty options include GPS-guided Vulcano super long-range shells for naval fire support out to 22 nmi, or the optional STRALES system that adds a radar to the gun mount, and uses DART radar-guided shells for surface warfare and air defense. The bad news is that the US Navy isn’t sure that it will fit on the LCS-2 Independence Class’ narrow hull (q.v. CRS report, Feb 25/14).

Meanwhile, Kongsberg is presenting scale models of armed Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) at the Sea-Air-Space 2014 Exposition, fitted with their stealthy new Naval Strike Missile. The Freedom Class gets 12 NSMs in 2 recessed modules above the helicopter hangar, while the trimaran Independence Class ends up with 18 missiles in 2 recessed launchers just behind the bridge, and another in the hull behind the naval gun.

Those loadouts would make the ships formidable surface combatants. If they control multiple UAVs for surveillance and targeting, their strike role actually starts to look like an aircraft carrier with 1-launch aircraft, and this configuration wouldn’t require ship radar upgrades. That could even position them for the post-2019 Surface Warfare Module upgrade within the existing fleet. On the other hand, a real frigate-type ship will need other weapons, which means 8 or more Mk.41 vertical launch cells that can carry VL-ASROC anti-submarine rockets, longer range air defense missiles like quad-packed RIM-162 ESSMs, etc. Unless the air defense missiles have independent guidance, like MBDA’s Sea Ceptor or Raytheon’s future ESSM Block 2, a frigate-class radar and combat system will also be necessary. Sources: DoD Buzz, “Finmeccanica Proposes 76mm Gun for LCS” | Naval Recognition, “Sea-Air-Space 2014 Show Daily News – Kongsberg NSM”.

April 5/14: LCS 4. USS Coronado is commissioned at North Island Naval Air Station, in Coronado, CA next to San Diego. This ship is 6 months late, but shows quality improvements over LCS 2. Which you’d certainly hope would be the case, compared to a first-in-class ship. Sources: UT San Diego, “USS Coronado commissioned”.

LCS 4 commissioned

April 4/14: Manning. Breaking Defense published the results of an unreleased study re: LCS 1’s Singapore deployment:

“[LCS sailors] averaged about six hours of sleep per day, 255 below the Navy’s eight-hour standard, and key personnel such as engineers got even less. That’s in spite of

• extensive reliance on contractors both aboard and ashore, with a “rigid” schedule of monthly returns to Singapore that restricted how far from port the LCS could sail;
  
• the decision to increase Freedom‘s core crew by 25 percent, from 40 to 50 — the maximum the ship can accommodate without a “significant” redesign; and
  
• the 19-sailor “mission module” crew, who are supposed to operate LCS’s weapons, helicopters, and small boats, pitching in daily to help the core crew run the ship’s basic systems.

The core crew’s engineering department in particular told GAO they had no idea how they’d keep the ship going without help from the mission module’s engineers. But…. while the entire 19-sailor anti-surface module crew has skills useful in running the ship itself, the MCM crew has only four sailors who could help, and the ASW module only one. That means an LCS outfitted to hunt mines or subs would effectively be 15 to 18 sailors short – about 20 to 25 percent.”

The Navy says they’re testing engineering modifications and new approaches. But then, that’s what they’ve always said about this issue. Sources: Breaking Defense, “Sleepless In Singapore: LCS Is Undermanned & Overworked, Says GAO”.

Manning still a problem

April 2/14: Testing. Austal USA in Mobile, AL receives a $6.7 million contract modification to build a live fire test module in support of the Navy’s LCS-2 Independence variant LCS survivability testing program. It certainly took the Navy long enough to get this going.

All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2013 RDT&E budgets. Work will be performed in Mobile, AL, and is expected to be complete by March 2015. Fiscal 2013 research, development, test and evaluation funding in the amount of $6,726,406 will be obligated at the time of award and will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The USN Supervisor of Shipbuilding Gulf Coast in Pascagoula, MS manages the contracts (N00024-11-C-2301). See also Austal, “Austal Awarded Contract For Survivability Testing On LCS”.

March 31/14: GAO Report. The US GAO tables its “Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs“. Which is actually a review for 2013, plus time to compile and publish. The LCS has 16/18 key technologies listed as mature, the 2 exceptions being LCS-1 mission bay overhead launch and retrieval system and the LCS-2 aluminum structure. Design changes include a stronger stern ramp for LCS-1 ships, and bridge wings and a 7m RHIB boat for LCS-2 ships. The report adds:

“LCS 1 completed a ten-month deployment to the western pacific in December 2013 where it operated out of Singapore. During this deployment it encountered two significant engineering issues that significantly curtailed its ability to get underway: the lubrication cooling system ruptured and the ship service diesel engine generator had reliability issues. In addition to these engineering issues, LCS 1 had a number of combat system and other material failures; including radar underperformance and the combat system unexpectedly rebooting during operations.”

March 4-11/14: FY15 Budget. The USAF and USN unveil their preliminary budget request briefings, and slowly release numbers over the next week. LCS procurement drops from 4 ships to 3 in FY15, but then it actually rises from 2 to 3 per year in FY16, FY17, and FY18, and overall budgets rise too. That would close out Hagel’s 32-ship limit. The Navy’s presentation also shows 2 LCS ships beyond that, however, in FY19. A note indicates that this is “Pending FY16 decision.”

The obvious resolution of the Navy presentation’s discrepant data would involve an initial advanced small surface combatant award. The Pentagon’s noises about “alternative proposals to procure a capable and lethal small surface combatant, consistent with the capabilities of a frigate” have dominated outside discussions ever since Hagel’s Feb 24/15 briefing. The extent of the required changes make it difficult to understand how they could move forward under current acquisition regulations, without creating a new program. On the other hand, detailed budget documents show a Navy that intends to continue LCS as a program beyond the 32 ships. Sources: USN, PB15 Press Briefing [PDF].

March 10/14: FY 2014. US NAVSEA in Washington, DC issues the FY14 orders for 4 Littoral Combat Ships. Ships 17-20 will cost a total of $1.383 billion:

Lockheed Martin in Baltimore, MD receives $698.9 million for LCS 17 & 19, including basic seaframe construction, selected ship systems integration and test, and some onboard systems like engines and radars that aren’t bought under independent contracts.

All funds are committed immediately, using Navy FY14 shipbuilding budgets. Work will be performed in Marinette, WI (56%), Walpole, MA (14%), Washington, DC (12%), Oldsmar, FL (4%), Beloit, WI (3%), Moorestown, NJ (2%), Minneapolis, MN (2%), and various locations of less than 1% each (7%), and is expected to be complete by June 2018 (N00024-11-C-2300).

Austal USA in Mobile, AL receives $683.7 million for LCS 18 & 20, including basic seaframe construction, selected ship systems integration and test, and some onboard systems like engines and radars that aren’t bought under independent contracts.

All funds are committed immediately, using Navy FY14 shipbuilding budgets. Work will be performed in Mobile, AL (51%), Pittsfield, MA (13%), Cincinnati, OH (4%), Baltimore, MD (2%), Burlington, VT (2%), New Orleans, LA (2%), and various locations of less than 2% each (26%), and is expected to be complete by June 2018 (N00024-11-C-2301).

FY15: 4 ships

March 10/14: LCS-FFG. Ever since Hagel’s late February announcement, his mention of a Small Surface Combatant/ frigate as a follow-on after LCS #32 has dominated discussion. Recall: “I’ve directed the Navy to consider a completely new design, existing ship designs, and a modified LCS.” His memo to Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus specifies that “These assessments should consider survivability, performance, sustainment cost, materiel readiness, lethality and growth potential…”

CNO Adm. Greenert now says he will disband the LCS Council, which still seems to have work to do in terms of getting the ships ready to deploy and work with the fleet, in favor of a group that will study the Navy’s Small Surface Combatant options.

Early indications are that it won’t be much of a study. SecNav Mabus has already compared the task to successive flight/block modifications of previous ship classes, while continuing a strained relationship with the truth by dismissing license-built foreign designs as: “Well, number one, I don’t think any foreign design is up to our — our standards.” That’s patently ridiculous, and indicates either a lack of the most basic grasp of this field, or willful dishonesty. Breaking Defense is quite correct in adding that many off-the-shelf foreign designs would be far superior – though they miss Navantia’s serving 5,300t Nansen Class ASW frigate, which already comes with Lockheed’s SPY-1F radar and AEGIS combat system, and uses the Mk-41 VLS. Norway paid Navantia $480 million per ship (NOK 21 billion for 5, on June 23/00).

Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute argues that the design has to be an LCS derivative for a different reason – the Navy doesn’t have a decade to hold the competition, design a new vessel, and get it produced. That kind of wait would push the future frigate’s funding right into the buzz-saw of SSBN-X and F-35B/C buys. Which is true.

On the other hand, neither LCS model has a fully-armed derivative in even detail design form, and both LCS contenders have potential issues that will require added testing if the ships’ size grows. Meanwhile, Northrop Grumman is proposing a frigate variant of the USCG’s Bertholf Class cutter. It would be interesting to compare development and certification times for a lengthened LCS with different weight distribution and new systems, vs. NGC’s model. Or vs. a close Nansen Class derivative built by Bath Iron Works. Sources: Breaking Defense, “LCS Lives! Mabus, Hamre Argue Littoral Combat Ship Will Survive Cuts” | Defense News, “CNO: Group Will Study New LCS Designs” | Forbes, “Navy Has Few Options If Littoral Combat Ship Falters”.

Feb 28/14: Support. US NAVSEA in Washington, DC exercises a pair of options to perform post-delivery planning, and implementation of deferred design changes, on the Freedom Class ship Milwaukee [LCS 5] and the Independence Class ship Jackson [LCS 6].

Lockheed Martin in Baltimore, MD receives $10.8 million for LCS 5. All funds are committed immediately, using USN FY10 shipbuilding budgets. Work will be performed in Marinette, WI (57%); Hampton, VA (14%); Moorestown, NJ (11%); San Diego, CA (11%); and Washington, DC (7%), and is expected to be complete by October 2015 (N00024-11-C-2300).

Austal USA in Mobile, A receives $7.1 million for LCS 6. All funds are committed immediately, using USN FY10 shipbuilding budgets. Work will be performed in Mobile, AL (70%); Pittsfield, MA (20%); and San Diego, CA (10%) and is expected to be complete by September 2015 (N00024-11-C-2301).

Feb 25/14: CRS Report. The US Congressional Research Service revises their Background and Issues for Congress report. While the report includes useful information about the program’s history, and details some of the current problems with both seaframes, its timing means that the basis for the Pentagon’s move to stop at 32 LCS ships is a focus. CRS raises the concern that the same ‘field first, analyze missions and design next, justify in retrospect’ philosophy may be applied to the follow-on frigate. Is a frigate the best option for meeting the described need? They do admit that:

“Countering improved Chinese maritime military forces will involve procuring ships (such as destroyers and attack submarines) that are oriented toward ballistic missile defense, anti-ship cruise missile defense, countering larger surface ships, and countering submarines that are operating far from shore as well as in littoral waters.48 The LCS is not optimized for most of these missions.”

The report’s pricing for mission packages is useful; according to an Aug 26/13 Navy document, the common equipment for all sets is $14.9 million, the MCM Package is $97.7 million (TL $112.6M), the “SUW” Package is $32.6 million (TL $47.4M), the future ASW Package is $20.9 million (TL $35.8M). Given that key mission packages like ASW aren’t even close to being fielded yet, and that some aspects like waterjet propulsion are ill-suited to the ASW mission, it’s hard to see the basis for saying:

“When assessed in terms of ability to perform the LCS program’s three primary missions [Mines, Small boats, and Submarines in shallow waters], the LCS fares well in terms of weaponry and other ship features in comparisons with frigate and corvette designs operated by other navies.”

Sources: US CRS, “Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program: Background and Issues for Congress”.

Mission Module costs

Feb 24/14: Backing away? The announcement isn’t a surprise (q.v. Jan 6/14), but there’s less to Chuck Hagel’s FY 2015 pre-budget briefing on the LCS than meets the eye:

“Regarding the Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship, I am concerned that the Navy is relying too heavily on the LCS to achieve its long-term goals for ship numbers. Therefore, no new contract negotiations beyond 32 ships will go forward. With this decision, the LCS line will continue beyond our five-year budget plan with no interruptions.

The LCS was designed to perform certain missions – such as mine sweeping and anti-submarine warfare – in a relatively permissive environment. But we need to closely examine whether the LCS has the protection and firepower to survive against a more advanced military adversary and emerging new technologies, especially in the Asia Pacific. If we were to build out the LCS program to 52 ships, as previously planned, it would represent one-sixth of our future 300-ship Navy. Given continued fiscal constraints, we must direct shipbuilding resources toward platforms that can operate in every region and along the full spectrum of conflict.

Additionally, at my direction, the Navy will submit alternative proposals to procure a capable and lethal small surface combatant, consistent with the capabilities of a frigate. I’ve directed the Navy to consider a completely new design, existing ship designs, and a modified LCS. These proposals are due to me later this year in time to inform next year’s budget submission.”

Consideration of these questions is a decade overdue, but there’s only 1 takeaway here that really means anything: “the LCS line will continue beyond our five-year budget plan with no interruptions”. They haven’t actually terminated the program, and they can negotiate for up to 8 ships beyond the current block buy that ends in FY15, and follow-on comments from Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus show that he overwhelmingly favors modifying LCS for the Small Surface Combatant. This is so despite likely issues with effective anti-submarine warfare due to waterjet noise, low damage tolerance, and comparative cost vs. proven frigates once upgrades to the radar, combat system, and weapons are added. Sources: US DoD, “Remarks By Secretary Of Defense Chuck Hagel FY 2015 Budget Preview Pentagon Press Briefing Room Monday, February 24, 2014” | Bloomberg, “Hagel Expands on Reservations’ About Littoral Combat Ship”.

Semi-commitment to stop at 32, follow-on “capable small surface combatant” proposed

Feb 21/14: Support. Lockheed Martin in Baltimore, MD receives a $23.6 million contract modification for LCS fleet support.

All funds are committed immediately, using Navy FY14 O&M dollars. Work will be performed in San Diego, CA and is expected to be complete by September 2014. The USN’s Southwest Regional Maintenance Center in San Diego, CA manages the contract (N00024-12-G-4329).

Jan 23/14: Sub-contractors. L-3 Corp. Systems West, Salt Lake City, Utah, is being awarded a $17.6 million indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract modification for supplies and services associated with Littoral Combat Ship configurations of the Hawklink Tactical Common Data Link (TCDL) Surface Terminal Equipment, and with Vortex Mini-TCDL Shipset components. While Hawklink is most closely associated with the MH-60R Seahawk helicopter, these supplies and services are in support of the Fire Scout MQ-8B/8C.

Funds will be committed as needed. Work will be performed in Salt Lake City, UT (90%), Point Mugu, CA (5%), and the Patuxent River Naval Air Station, MD, (5%), and is expected to be complete in December 2014. US Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity (N00019-13-D-0001).

Jan 19/14: New deal? Defense News is reporting that the Navy and Pentagon have come to an uneasy compromise of sorts re: LCS. The program would be put on probation, but ship buys would continue to a total of 26-28, which would be until FY 2017 or so. Before any more ships could be bought, the ship would need to pass evaluation by the Pentagon’s independent DOT&E testing office, which has been critical of the ship.

This new proposal gives existing shipbuilders and supporters more time to prove that the ship can meet its base claims and specifications. It also gives them more time to lobby. A passed FY 2015 budget that stopped buys at 32 becomes hard to overturn, even though production would continue for several years, because the Navy would begin filling future budgets with other programs instead. An open-ended “we dare you to stop us later” agreement has a very different dynamic.

Note, too, that DOT&E’s mandate doesn’t include re-evaluating the ship concept, which is coming under more fire these days. All they can do is state whether the ship meets the Navy’s specifications and can perform its assigned missions, which is a different judgment than the one that Pentagon’s leadership was implicitly making. Sources: Defense News, “Navy, Pentagon battle over LCS future”.

Jan 13/14: Aviation Week looks at the LCS program, and reports that the crew size will rise to 50 core crew on both ships. That still wasn’t really enough during USS Freedom’s recent deployment (q.v. Nov 12/13). Beyond that, the article quotes Vice Adm. Thomas Copeman, commander of the Naval Surface Force and U.S. Pacific Naval Surface Force. Amazingly, the Navy has finally concluded that reducing crew sizes first, then hoping for technological innovation, is a bad approach.

Copeman adds that combat power is indeed one of LCS’ requirements, as he distinguishes between routine operations and combat operations. It may have “my complete attention,” but naval analyst Norman Polmar points out that the design process sacrificed the Navy’s flexibility regarding this defining characteristic of a warship. You can’t shoot attention at the enemy, though technological improvements may create new options in a decade or more (q.v. Jan 10/14). Polmar is also dismayed at the delays for mission modules that address long-standing naval challenges: “If the modules were something exotic, like nuclear lasers, I’d understand.” In fairness, they are trying to address standard challenges in non-standard ways.

We’ll add that combat options do exist for LCS, but retrofitting designed-out features is expensive. They’d need to cut into the decks to install a MK41 vertical launch system, then code and test major changes to the combat system so it could handle advanced weapons like the RIM-162 Evolved SeaSparrow. In practice, that means they’d either (a) stick to a narrow range of weapon improvements that are largely self-contained, and require minimal integration, at the possible cost of fleet commonality – vid. MBDA’s Sea Ceptor missile; (b) pick just one LCS class to have real combat capability, and make changes to it; or (c) spend more to implement radar and combat system commonality across both classes, as part of a full weapons upgrade. Sources: Aviation Week: NavWeek, “Skimming the Surface.”

Jan 6/14: To 32. A Pentagon memo from acting deputy defense secretary Christine Fox recommends that the LCS program slash total numbers by 20 ships, from 52 – 32. Looks like the Navy “won” the internal battle, which could have decided to terminate the program at just 24 (q.v. Sept 3/13). That would leave just 8 ships to be bought after the current multi-year buy contract ends in FY 2016, and options reportedly include speeding up production, or running a follow-on buy that might pick just 1 type.

Even at 32 ships, the program will have bought over 80% of its ships before the end of operational testing.

It’s important to note that this isn’t set in stone yet. The 2015 budget proposal will contain the final plan, but that document will be delayed to late February or March. Then it has to pass through Congress. Meanwhile, leaked copies of the Pentagon’s DOT&E test reports are expected to be critical of both LCS ship types, and of the Mine Counter-Measures package in particular. Sources: Bloomberg, “Pentagon Said to Order Cutting Littoral Ships by 20” | Bloomberg, “Navy Littoral Ship Reliability in Doubt, Tester Says” | ABC2 WBAY Wisconson, “Marinette Marine Monitors Pentagon Recommendations” | Alabama,com, “Navy will reportedly cut littoral combat ship order by 20” | U-T San Diego, “Navy’s littoral ships to be slashed?”.

Jan 16/14: The US Navy has come up with its own designation for the Sea Giraffe radar that equips LCS-2 Independence Class ships: AN/SPS-77(V)1. It’s adapted for US operations by Saab Defense and Security USA Sensor Systems in Syracuse, NY, who also handles installation, testing, and maintenance.

So far, the radar has been installed on 3 Independence Class ships, with 5 more radars in production. Sources: Saab, Jan 16/14 release.

Jan 10/14: LCS 1 & 3. Lockheed Martin in Baltimore, MD receives a maximum $13.2 million cost-plus award fee contracting modification, finalizing LCS 1 and 3 planning yard support efforts for Freedom Class LCS ships, esp. USS Freedom and USS Fort Worth. That means vendor training and crew familiarization; trainer support; availability advanced planning; long lead time material planning and procurement; material warehousing; logistics product updates; and class sustainment management.

One thing we’re noticing is that over the last couple of years, similar support contracts seem to cost more for the Freedom Class than they do for the Independence Class (q.v. Dec 23/13, March 15/13, Dec 20/12).

All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2014 O&M budgets. Work will be performed in Washington, DC, and is expected to be complete by September 2014. US NAVSEA in Washington, DC manages the contract (N00024-12-G-4329, 0017).

Naval laser trials

Jan 10/14: LCS EM Weapons module? The current US Navy program manager for DDG 51 acquisition, Capt. Mark Vandroff, says that the service has begun to look at the requirements for a “DDG-51 Flight IV” destroyer, which wouldn’t begin service until the 2030s. Rail guns and lasers are part of the early conversation, and it isn’t just because they’re cool:

“Some of the thinking involves senior leaders talking about getting on the other side of the cost curve. Right now if someone shoots a missile at us, we shoot a missile back at them. The missile we shoot at them cost about as much, if not more, than the missile that got shot at us. They are burning money and we are burning money to defend ourselves…. The down side is this kind of technology does not exist today and even if it does, you have to look at what kind of maritime platform could you put it on and what that would look like. When that technology starts to get close to mature, then you will see the Navy start to figure out what it has to do in order to field that technology.”

This could be the opportunity LCS has been looking for. Converting DDG 51 ships to hybrid-electric drive would be a minimum requirement to host these weapons, but the redesign could become very expensive, and even that may not be enough. HII is touting their LPD-17 Flight II amphibious assault hull as a future air and missile defense cruiser platform,. It has enough power generation capacity, but that’s a $2.5+ billion proposition. Looking downscale, Littoral Combat Ships have plenty of onboard power, plus accessible free space for capacitors etc. Switching the 57mm forward gun for a railgun, and adding laser weapons for air and surface defense, would give an LCS with the “EM weapons” package unique Naval Fire Support and air-defense roles within the fleet. LCS-2 ships might even have enough room remaining to add other mission package capabilities. As Vandroff says, we’ll know more as the technology becomes mature. Sources: Military.com, “Future Destroyers Likely to Fire Lasers, Rail Guns”.

Dec 23/13: Support. US NAVSEA issues a pair of options for LCS core class services. Those include engineering and design services, as well as efforts to reduce LCS acquisition and lifecycle costs.

Lockheed Martin Corp. in Baltimore, MD receives a $23.3 million contract modification, with $12.1 million in FY 2013 shipbuilding funds committed immediately. Work will be performed in Moorestown, NJ (36%), Hampton, VA (30%), Washington, DC (23%), and Marinette, WI (11%), and is expected to be complete by December 2014 (N00024-11-C-2300).

Austal USA LLC in Mobile, AL receives a $14.1 million contract modification, with $4 million in FY 2013 shipbuilding and R&D funds committed immediately. Work will be performed in Mobile, AL (72%) and Pittsfield, MA (28%), and is expected to be complete by December 2014 (N00024-11-C-2301).

Dec 23/13: LCS 2 & 4. General Dynamics Bath Iron Works in Bath, ME receives a $7.7 million cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order for LCS-2 and LCS-4 Planning Yard Services, as they prepare for in-service sustainment. These services will include: vendor training and crew familiarization; in-service engineering support; trainer support; availability advanced planning; long lead time material planning and procurement; material warehousing; logistics product updates; and class sustainment management.

$1 million is committed immediately, using FY 2014 O&M funds. Work will be performed in Bath, Maine, and is expected to be completed by Dec 21/14 (N00024-12-G-4330).

Dec 18/13: LCS 5 launch. Marinette Marine christens and launches LCS 5 Milwaukee from its Marinette, WI shipyard. This is the Lockheed Martin team’s 1st ship under the 2010 block buy. Unlike LCS 6, this one slides into the river in a traditional manner. Sources: USN, “Future USS Milwaukee (LCS 5) Christened and Launched, Marks Production Milestone” | Lockheed Martin, “Lockheed Martin-Led Team Launches Future USS Milwaukee”.

Dec 14/13: LCS 6 launch. Jackson is launched at Austal’s shipyard in Mobile, AL. This is Austal’s 1st ship under the 2010 block buy, and the 1st ship built in the shipyard’s new 59,000-square-foot Bay 5 assembly hall.

Launches have become more complex these days. Instead of just sliding down a ramp, the 1,600t assembly was lifted almost 3 feet in the air by Berard Transportation’s self-propelled modular transporters (SPMTs), and moved about 400 feet onto an adjacent moored deck barge. The barge was towed a half mile down river to BAE Systems’ Southeast Shipyard for transfer to BAE’s floating Drydock Alabama. Launch happens when Alabama submerges, floating Jackson free. The ship will undergo final outfitting and activation at Austal’s shipyard.

Dec 13/13: Demands, but no teeth. The House FY 2014 defense bill has some key provisions in Section 124 re: the LCS program, and the Senate is unlikely to mess with them. It doesn’t matter, since the there are no real penalties for non-compliance.

The bill demands a review from the Pentagon’s JROC saying that they’ve looked at existing and required capabilities; think the current capabilities development document remains valid given performance, and will produce an adequate ship; and confirm that capability production documents exist for each ship type, and will exist for each mission module before operational testing begins. The odds of the JROC saying “we were wrong to give our go-ahead, this is a complete mess, LCS fails” are basically zero.

Beyond that, the bill demands a report from the CNO, and also from the Pentagon’s far more skeptical Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, within 60 days of the FY 2014 defense budget becoming law. That report will looks at the LCS’ concept of operations, which the Navy admits is sketchy now. It will also look at the ships’ ability to meet the Navy’s core strategy; compare the combat capabilities of the mission modules against the FFG-7 frigate and Osprey Class minehunting ships LCS would replace; assess LCS’ expected survivability in combat, given threats in the near-shore environment; offer an overview of test progress and plans; and look at maintenance, manning and support issues for the class, with special attention paid to failures so far.

Fine. So, what if the reports aren’t produced, or the results are negative? The GAO Report (q.v. July 22/13) recommended dropping to minimum sustaining rate production for ships, and halting module buys. So, what did the House do? Nothing. They said that FY 2014 monies couldn’t be used to buy items for LCS 25-26, until the bill’s conditions were met. For reference, FY 2014 is about ships #17-20, and the entire multi-year contract ends at #24. Sources: House FY 2014 NDAA [PDF] | Breaking Defense, “Congress Targets Littoral Combat Ship Survivability In NDAA” | USNI News, “More Littoral Combat Ship Oversight Unlikely to Affect 2015 Block Buy”.

Dec 2/13: Support. Austal USA LLC in Mobile, AL receives an $8.3 million contract modification, exercising option for Independence Class core class services. They’ll assess engineering and production challenges, and evaluate the cost and schedule risks from new efforts to reduce LCS acquisition and lifecycle costs.

All funds are committed immediately from FY 2013 shipbuilding budgets. Work will be performed in Mobile, AL (60%), and Pittsfield, MA (40%), and is expected to be complete by November 2014 (N00024-11-C-2301).

Nov 20/13: Saudi Arabia. The Saudi Naval Expansion Program II will shape the Kingdom’s next set of buys, and discussions have ranged from American LCS frigates, to full-size DDG-51 Aegis destroyers capable of ballistic missile defense. They could turn to options like Spain’s Navantia (F100 family), if they wish to buy Aegis ships from a source other than the USA. The Saudis are also evaluating France’s new FREMM frigates, which could offer missile defense capabilities of their own, and share some commonalities with their existing Al-Riyadh Class.

October statements by Saudi intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan may have said that the kingdom was hoping to make a major shift away from the United States, but Lockheed Martin continues to pursue discussions. The Royal Saudi Navy’s core currently consists of French Al-Riyadh (Lafayette) and Al-Madinah Class frigates at the high end, and older US-built Badr Class corvettes and Al-Sadiq Class patrol boats at the low end. Sources: Reuters, “Lockheed sees more clarity on Saudi naval buy in next months” | UAE’s The National, “Challenges in the Middle East for US defence companies“.

Nov 16/13: LCS 1. USS Freedom leaves Singapore’s Changi Naval Base, which she had been using as a logistics and maintenance hub. Those kinds of bases are key to the LCS concept, because the crew design and load-out of the ship have most maintenance and almost all repairs performed in port, with very little capability on board ship. The Navy adds that:

“Prior to getting underway, Freedom accomplished repairs to the feedback cable in the port steerable waterjet which delayed her participation in exercise Cooperation Afloat Readiness and Training (CARAT) Brunei. All wajerjets are now functioning normally, and Freedom still expects to conduct a brief port visit in Brunei as part of the exercise.”

Since arriving in Singapore April 18, Freedom has participated in the International Maritime Defence Exhibition (IMDEX), 2 CARAT exercises with Malaysia and Singapore, and the multinational SECAT exercise. CARAT Brunei will undoubtedly be counted in future USN releases, even though the ship was actually prevented from taking substantive part. Sources: “USS Freedom (LCS 1) Gets Underway From Singapore For Final Time”.

Nov 12/13: Shock and Awwww. The Wall Street Journal reports that LCS 1’s maintenance problems in Singapore were a shock to Navy leadership:

“When Navy leaders were given an expedited assessment on the ship’s performance last week, they found the scope of those problems to be “a little stunning,” says Rear Adm. Tom Rowden, the Navy’s director of surface warfare.”…. In war games last year, the Freedom seemed to struggle with multiple tasks and appeared overwhelmed, says Petty Officer Manuel Navarro, a combat leader aboard the USS Sampson, a 500-foot destroyer that took part in the exercises. “From a combat perspective, from what I can see, they did horribly,” he says.”

The ships’ heavy dependence on pierside maintenance is a new concept for the Navy, and the key question is whether this is the sort of normal teething problem associated with that newness, or an illustration of a flawed concept that hasn’t been used for good reasons. The same question arises re: ship manning, which may not have been enough even with 10 extra core sailors on board.

As the Navy ponders these issues, pressure is growing to cut the LCS buy from the original plan of 55 to 32 or even 24 ships (q.v. Sept 3/13). That would probably be achieved by taking GAO’s advice, and dropping orders to the minimum sustainable level. A 32-ship program would still end very early, with last orders in 2022 or so. Sources: Wall Street Journal, “Navy Ship Plan Faces Pentagon Budget Cutters” | Newsmax, “Navy’s Problem-Plagued Ship of Future Facing Cutbacks”.

Nov 11/13: LCS 1. More problems, just before a planned naval exercise in Brunei. USS Freedom had issues with feedback in the portside steerable waterjet, which needed additional repairs. This comes shortly after the starboard steerable water-jet hydraulic system had been contaminated with seawater and required extra maintenance. Sources: Russia Today, “Glitch-ridden US advanced warship pier-side ahead of Singapore drills”.

LCS 1: CARAT Brunei

FY 2013

$1.38 billion for LCS 13-16; Program cut to 50 ships; Undersecretary Robert Work’s overview of the program is followed by 2 negative Navy reports, as capability controversies continue; GAO program report; DOT&E report on LCS issues; Keel laying for LCS 8 & 9; USS Freedom deploys to Singapore, with difficulties; New Freedom Class waterjets solve a problem – and add to one?; Export loss in Thailand.

To Singapore
click for video

Sept 3/13: Ship cuts? With over $50 billion in cuts coming, the Office of the Secretary of Defense’s ALT POM reportedly proposed to end LCS buys with the current contract, at just 24 ships. The Navy is pushing to buy at least 32.

On the other hand, OSD is reportedly insisting that the Navy place a top priority on fielding the mine countermeasures (MCM) module, in light of challenges around the Strait of Hormuz and elsewhere. One would think this would have been obvious years ago. Sources: Defenseworld, “U.S. To Limit Littoral Combat Ship Purchase”.

Aug 12/13: Support. Small business qualifier Manufacturing Techniques Inc. in Kilmarnock, VA receives a $32.7 million indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract with cost-plus-fixed-fee completion and firm-fixed-price delivery orders. It’s a support contract involving battle management systems, Dragon Spear (SOCOM’s MC-130W aircraft), and Littoral Combat Ship programs. They’ll provide help with rapid prototype development, hardware fabrication, hardware and software for prototype or prototype pre-production units and kits.

Just $68,263 in FY 2012 funds are committed immediately. Work will be performed in Kilmarnock, VA, and is expected to be complete by August 2018. This was competitively procured via FBO.gov, with 2 offers received by the US Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren Division in Dahlgren, VA (N00178-13-D-1022).

Aug 12/13: LCS 2. General Dynamics Bath Iron Works in Bath, ME receives a $9 million cost-plus-award-fee order to provide material and labor for USS Independence’s post-shakedown availability (LCS 2 PSA Phase 2). Efforts will include program management, production supervision, temporary protection services and transportation services.

$6.9 million in FY 2012 – 2013 funding is committed immediately, and $2.3 million in FY 2013 funding will expire by Sept 30/13. Work will be performed in San Diego, CA and is expected to be complete by December 2013. The Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Conversion, and Repair in Bath, ME manages the contract (N00024-13-G-2316).

LCS & Mission modules
2012-2019
(click to view full)

July 25/13: HASC Seapower hearing. The House Armed Services Committee’s Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces holds hearings in the wake of the GAO’s report. It makes for interesting viewing in places but that’s mostly in the prepared statements. GAO explains that they aren’t advocating cancellation, but unless Congress steps in now, they’ll find themselves unable to exercise any influence on the program. The Navy repeats the party line that everyone loves the LCS, and all problems will be fine.

The real takeaway is that the basic format for Congressional hearings is broken and next to useless if a program is in trouble. At 3-5 minutes per member present, it’s impossible to ask more than 1 substantive question, or offer the kind of consistent questioning and follow-up required to even establish key facts. That’s a perfect environment for evasive or meaningless answers, secure in the knowledge that they can’t be examined in any depth. Which is exactly what happens. Watch for yourself. Sources: HASC Seapower, Acquisition and Development Challenges Associated with the Littoral Combat Ship (Video Part 1 and Part 2) | GAO Testimony Transcript.

July 22/13: GAO Report. The US GAO releases GAO-13-530, “Significant Investments in the Littoral Combat Ship Continue Amid Substantial Unknowns about Capabilities, Use, and Cost”. The entire report is a long chronicle of the Littoral Combat Ship program’s history of falling short and of unresolved issues, side-by-side with warnings concerning a program that will have bought 24 ships, started a second multi-year contract in FY 2016, and bought 31 mission packages before full operational testing is done.

That “could lead to the Navy risking taxpayer investments of over $40 billion in 2010 dollars in systems that may not provide the expected – and yet to be fully defined – militarily useful capability.” This timing also strips outside bodies of meaningful oversight and influence, while buying equal numbers of ships even if a specific type is better for certain missions. As the GAO notes:

“…the former Under Secretary of the Navy and others have posited that the Freedom variant may be better suited to the Middle East region and the SUW mission given its maneuverability [DID: the TERN UAV’s restriction to LCS-2 would change even that advantage], while the Independence variant may be better suited to the western Pacific region and the ASW and MCM missions given its longer range and larger helicopter deck.”

This is just a small slice of the issues with the LCS program. One issue that was accepted in the original LCS vision is its need to stay close to a deployed group when in medium to high threat environments. That restriction isn’t shared by similarly-expensive ships, and creates an added burden on task groups. Nor is this the only issue:

“…since LCS has only a self-defense anti-air warfare capability, it will require protection from a [DID: likely missile defense capable] cruiser or destroyer in more advanced anti-air warfare environments, which reduces the LCS’s ability to operate independently and occupies the time of more capable surface combatants that might be better employed elsewhere”…. [There are] classified concerns with the capability or planned capability and employment of the SUW, MCM, and ASW mission packages…. Elements of the LCS business case, including its cost, the time needed to develop and field the system, and its anticipated capabilities have degraded over time. There are also significant unknowns related to key LCS operations and support concepts that could affect the cost of the program and soundness of the business case…. Some of these questions, discussed in table 5, are likely to have impacts on the ongoing LCS acquisition, including what seaframe variant should be purchased and how the ships will actually be operated and supported… .At the Milestone B decision for the seaframe program, the Navy estimated O&S costs to account for 62% of the program’s life-cycle cost estimate, or $87 billion of $124 billion in total ownership costs through fiscal year 2057.[20] The Navy’s point estimate for the LCS seaframe program total life-cycle cost estimate was at the 10% confidence level, meaning that there is a 90% chance that the costs could be different – and likely higher based on the data – than the point estimate [the spread is between $108 – 170 billion in then-year dollars].”

They recommend that Congress appropriate LCS funding under the existing contract, but with conditions attached to complete LCS technical and design studies, assess changes, and offer an analysis of what they want to change for greater commonality, before the money is freed. GAO also recommends shifting to minimum sustaining production for mission modules (now) and ships (LCS 25-), until and unless the Navy has produced a new independent cost estimate and a new validated capabilities document, and received a full rate production decision. Sources: GAO-13-530, || See also detailed report coverage re: sub-systems for LCS mission packages and the Mine Counter-Measures package in particular.

GAO study cites multiple program issues, recommends program slowdown & conditions

July 11/13: The US Navy offers its latest update on the LCS program, via its official blog. There are a number of specific details re: the doings of LCS 1-3, but overall, it boils down to: “All is well. Really.” Sources: USN Navy Live, “LCS: Latest Update”.

July 20/13: LCS 1. USS Freedom limps back into port in Singapore after an overheated diesel generator took out propulsion during a helicopter VERTREP with USNS Ceasar Chavez [T-AKE 14]. The ship’s overall power stayed on, and the supply run was completed, but it had to pull out of planned Cooperation Afloat Readiness and Training (CARAT) exercises with the Singaporean Navy.

Exhaust leaks in the turbochargers on 2 generators will require turbocharger replacement, and the generators will require further troubleshooting in Singapore. The ship has had similar problems before on its trip – see March 19-29/13, May 21/13 entries. Just another successful deployment. Defense News | Reuters.

LCS 1: Shutdown off Singapore

July 19/13: LCS 2. General Dynamics Bath Iron Works in Bath, ME receives a sole-source $7.5 million cost-plus-award-fee contract modification, to provide engineering and management services in support of USS Independence’s post-shakedown availability. All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2013 RDT&E budgets; $602,083 will expire on Sept 30/13.

Work will be performed in Bath, ME (55%), and San Diego, CA (45%), and is expected to be complete by March 2014. The USN Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Conversion, and Repair in Bath, Maine manages the contract (N00024-09-G-2301, ER09).

June 27/13: LCS 9. The official keel-laying ceremony for the future USS Little Rock is held at Marinette Marine Corp. in Marinette, WI. Lockheed Martin.

June 26/13: LCS 8. The official keel-laying ceremony for the future USS Montgomery is held at Austal’s yard in Mobile, AL. Given modern ship-building methods, 36 of the 37 modules for the ship are already under construction. Austal.

June 6/13: Naming. The Secretary of the Navy names the next 2 LCS ships.

The Freedom Class LCS 15 Billings is named after the city in Montana. The Independence Class LCS 16 Tulsa is named after the city in Oklahoma. US DoD.

May 24/13: SAR. The Pentagon finally releases its Dec 31/12 Selected Acquisitions Report [PDF].

“Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) – Program costs decreased $3,485.0 million (-9.3%) from $37,440.5 million to $33,955.5 million, due primarily to the decision to purchase 3 fewer ships resulting in a quantity decrease from 53 to 50 ships (-$2,945.7 million) and associated schedule and estimating allocations (+$150.0 million). Additional decreases were attributable to the application of new outyear escalation indices ($-1,050.6 million), realignment of LCS in the 30-year shipbuilding plan in FY 2019 to FY 2034 (-$519.8 million), and adjustments to the seaframe requirements estimate in FY 2012 to FY 2018 (-$406.3 million). These decreases were partially offset by the application of revised escalation indices (+1,216.4 million) and pricing changes for trainer and battle spare requirements (+$90.6 million).”

So, let’s see if we have this straight. Cost escalation indices during the budgeting period add over $1.2 billion, which seems to be a common theme among many SAR reports this period. Then, as soon as we leave the budgeting period, something magically changes and the program will save over $1 billion due to the same indices. That seems preposterous, and doesn’t fit any trends we’re aware of, but we’re open to a convincing explanation. If someone out there has one, we’ll print it.

SAR – Fewer ships & implausible accounting

May 22/13: User Interfaces matter. Respected Navy blog Information Dissemination takes note of a FY 2014 markup in the budget, and explains why rationalization to a single radar and combat system will likely leave both Saab and GDC4S out in the cold. From “House FY14 Mark“:

“Saab North America has a problem. They supposedly have this really great radar…. the problem is the radar is tied to the combat system on the Austal variant of the LCS, and that combat system has a fatal flaw typical of software development in government. The UI is terrible…. The surface warfare community has a user interface into the combat system that is standard across the entire AEGIS line of warships. The Freedom class version has a combat system that uses a very similar interface…. Instead of making the combat system user interface look and feel like every other combat system in the fleet at the User Interface level, the LCS-2 combat system insists their user interface is better.

….AEGIS is government owned. These folks who complain about Lockheed Martin’s monopoly in the Navy on the combat system are given chance after chance to compete, but they fail every time because no matter how good the technology is under the covers – and sometimes it is really fantastic – they lose to Lockheed Martin because they refuse to imitate the user experience of AEGIS that every sailor in the Navy is comfortable with. As an IT guy who develops enterprise systems for government, I laugh when observing a classic mistake contractors do far too often, and all I can say is these companies get exactly what they deserve when they get nothing. It isn’t the Saab North American radar. That radar might be legitimately great, but it doesn’t matter at all. The real problem is the software folks who insist their way of doing user interfaces for the US Navy is better than the way everyone in the US Navy does it. That’s just stupid!”

User Interfaces matter!

May 21/13: LCS 1. More problems push the ship pierside again in Singapore, as ship’s force inspection reveals rust on 2 of the reduction gear casings. The suggestion is that the oil has formed emulsions and lost some of its lubricating quality, as a result of maintenance that wasn’t performed quickly enough after the late April reduction gear seawater cooler failure. Sources: Information Dissemination, “Camo Gray and Never Underway”.

LCS 1

May 7/13: USN Report. Bloomberg gets its hands on a March 9/12 confidential draft report prepared for CNO Adm. Greenert by Rear Adm. Samuel Perez. This document is separate from USN Commander of Surface Forces Vice-Adm. Copeman’s “Vision for a 2025 Surface Fleet”, which recommended a full set of weapon for LCS (q.v. March 18/13 entry). Perez’ report is broader, but his conclusions are similar: serious gaps between ship capabilities and the missions the Navy will need LCS to execute. Key areas of concern include:

Manning: “The minimal-manning level and subsequent fatigue result in significant operational and safety impacts, with notable degradation of crew readiness, performance levels and quality of life.” USS Freedom has since added 20 more berthings for its initial deployment, bringing total crew to 100 (40 core + 25 aviation + 15 mission package + 20).

Armament: Perez shares Copeman’s reservations about the LCS’ armament, and points out that Iran alone has 67 Fast Attack Craft that carry anti-ship missiles with a range of over 5 miles. Any one of them can strike LCS ships without direct retaliation, and deliver disabling hits.

CONOPS: He also cites the lack of a clear LCS concept of operations, and notes that getting all of the right people and equipment on station to swap a mission module can take several weeks, instead of the advertised 96 hours. As a result, the concept “no longer has the tactical utility envisioned by the original designers.”

Navigation: Finally, Perez points out that the Independence Class trimaran’s width “may be a navigational challenge in narrow waterways and tight harbors,” though Bloomberg’s account doesn’t quantify that in any way.

The disturbing thing about these reports isn’t their conclusions. It’s the fact that these conclusions have been obvious for years, and have been pointed out for years, while US Navy leadership pretended that everything was fine. That’s still the Navy’s M.O., and CNO Greenert dismissed questions by saying that “study is over a year old – we’ve done a lot since then”. Which doesn’t address what they’ve done to change the conclusions of the study. In a number of critical areas, the answer is “nothing” or “not much.” Perez Report Executive Summary [PDF] | Bloomberg | The Hill | Military.com | USNI, “Perez Report: Many in LCS Program Have Forgotten Key Fundamentals”.

Perez Report

May 2/13: New waterjets for LCS-1 class. LCS 5 Miwaukee will be the first Freedom Class ship to try out a set of 4 new waterjets. The technology was developed by Rolls-Royce Naval Marine in Walpole, MA, in collaboration with the Office of Naval Research (ONR) and the Naval Surface Warfare Center’s Carderock Division. The joint project under ONR’s Future Naval Capabilities program began in 2007, and the April delivery to Marinette Marine marked its successful completion. The waterjets will be made in the United States, with primary manufacturing at Rolls-Royce facilities in Walpole, MA and Pascagoula, MS.

The new 22MW Axial-Flow Waterjet Mk-1 can reportedly move nearly 500,00 gallons of seawater per minute, providing more thrust per unit than the current commercial waterjets. Researchers believe the smaller, more efficient waterjets will help the LCS avoid excessive maintenance costs and ship component damage associated with cavitation. On the other hand, Information Dissemination points out an issue:

“Waterjets are incredibly loud, as in they can be so loud that a ship with waterjets is probably going to significantly reduce the effectiveness of a bow sonar…. there is no bow mounted sonar [on LCS] and waterjets is why there never will be…. ONR is going to deliver super waterjets, which may increase the speed of LCS a knot or two, who knows. Here is the problem though – waterjets are still loud like a rock concert, and one of the primary missions of the LCS is to hunt littoral submarines.

When will this program start being about mission and stop being about features?”

Sources: USN, “New Waterjets Could Propel LCS to Greater Speeds” | Rolls Royce, Feb 21/12 release. | Information Dissemination, “More Speed!”

April 25/13: Support. CACI Technologies Inc. in Chantilly, VA receives a $20.1 million contract modification for professional support services in support of PEO LCS (Program Executive Office Littoral Combat Ships). They’ll help with program management and acquisition support, technical and engineering support, business and financial management support, and logistics support.

Work will be performed in Washington DC (89.9%); Norfolk, VA (4.2%); San Diego, CA (2.2%); Panama City, FL (1.8%); Newport, RI (1.3%); and Monterey, CA (0.6%), and is expected to be complete by October 2013. Just $362,308 are being committed immediately, and $181,334 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/13. US Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, DC manages the contract (N00024-13-C-6322).

April 21/13: Thailand. Lockheed Martin’s MMCS Freedom Class derivative loses the competition, as the Royal Thai Navy picks South Korea’s Daewoo Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering. DSME won with their DW 3000H proposal, which builds on experience gained with ROKN projects like the FFX Incheon Class frigates. Bangkok Post.

Loss in Thailand

April 15/13: General Dynamics’ Bath Iron Works in Bath, ME receives a $12.6 million contract modification, exercising Independence Class Design Services for LCS 6 and following ships. Work includes baseline design services, class documentation services, class engineering studies, cost estimating support, LCS ship transition, and a liaison role for ship construction and post delivery.

Work will be performed in Bath, Maine (52%); Pittsfield, MA (47%); and Mobile, AL (1%), and is expected to be complete by June 2014. It’s completely funded by the FY 2012 Shipbuilding and Conversion budget (N00024-09-C-2302).

April 12/13: LCS 3. As Coronado was conducting a full-power demonstration and running at high speed when insulation on the starboard diesel exhaust first smoldered, then ignited. The fire was reportedly “extinguished immediately.” All fires at sea are serious, but this one was pretty minor. The question is whether it happens again during full-speed trials. KPBS.

Minor fire

April 12/13: Naming. 2 LCS ships are among the 7 named by Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus, who actually stuck to class naming conventions this time instead of veering into political partisanship.

The Freedom Class LCS 13 Wichita is named in honor of Kansas’ largest city, while the Independence Class LCS 14 Manchester is named for one of New Hampshire’s industrial centers. Pentagon.

April 8/13: Arming LCS. Austal VP Craig Hooper says it’s quite possible to arm the LCS-2 Independence Class with effective anti-ship weapons and vertical launch cells, which isn’t exactly a surprise since that has been in Austal brochures:

“You want Harpoon? I can give you eight to 16. You want VLS, 75mm gun? OK we can do it…. but is that the right path? If we hand over all the available margin on LCS to legacy weapons… do we risk losing the opportunity to exploit the changes that are coming in the war at sea?”

As with all things, there is a balance point. It isn’t at all obvious why a quad Harpoon launcher topside, or a 76mm gun with the ability to launch long-range shells, or an 8-cell VLS, must precludes mission module space in a class that has a lot of it. USN Director of Surface Warfare Rear Admiral Thomas Rowden doesn’t see an armament problem at all, even in the current undergunned state, saying “I’m the keeper of the keys for requirements. And I am here to tell you that LCS meets the requirements.”

A more thoughtful response comes from Bryan McGrath at ID, who notes that the last US Navy surface ship built to fire anti-ship missiles was USS Porter [DDG 78], the last Arleigh Burke Flight I destroyer. Every Flight II/IIA destroyer all the way up to DDG 116 has omitted those launchers, and every FFG-7 Oliver Hazard Perry Class frigate in USN service has removed theirs. Meanwhile, fleets like China’s have invested heavily in anti-ship missiles that work at longer and longer ranges, and routinely mount them on ships as small as corvettes. As DDG-51 Flight I destroyers have to retire due to age, the disparity will just get worse, and LCS is a contributor to the “out-sticked” problem rather than a solution. Military.com | Information Dissemination.

April 5/13: Review? Military.com reports that US Navy leaders plan to discuss the LCS and its fit in the future fleet at the Navy League’s Sea Air Space Symposium on April 8th. Word is that they’re considering a program review.

April 1/13: LCS 3. Lockheed Martin Mission System and Training in Baltimore, MD receives a $17 million cost-plus-award-fee order for USS Fort Worth’s post-shakedown work, including renewed post-repair trials. The ship was commissioned on Sept 22/12. This is in addition to the $12.7 million contract for post-shakedown planning (q.v. Oct 25/12).

Work will be performed in San Diego, CA, and is expected to be complete by July 2013. The full amount is committed immediately, using FY 2006, 2012, and 2013 Shipbuilding and Conversion funding. The USN Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Conversion, and Repair in Bath, ME manages the contract (N00024-12-G-2317).

March 29/13: YGBKM. There’s a lot poor reporting out there on defense issues, and we don’t always call it out, but sometimes the standards are so poor that it’s necessary. Former ballet dancer Allison Barrie’s FOX News “reporting” on LCS’ Pacific arrival is in that category. Where to begin? MH-60 helicopters can’t carry heavyweight torpedoes, or key mine clearance equipment. The mine warfare module touted in the article isn’t ready, and the surface warfare mission module is only effective against motorboats. And what does “Should a battle erupt, Freedom can act as a hub to tie together sea, air and land assets” even mean?

The article paints a picture of a ship that can perform a number of specialized missions at a high level, right now – and almost none of it is true. A dash of skepticism and about 15 minutes of Google searching would have revealed the many and serious holes in this piece, especially given recent coverage in several major media outlets. Unfortunately, no-one at FOX seems to have put in the time or oversight. Falling below even the New York Times’ standards on defense issues should be a source of shame. FOX News | “Someone Help Allison Please“.

March 28/13: GAO Report. The US GAO tables its “Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs“. Which is actually a review for 2012, plus time to compile and publish. GAO designates 16/19 critical LCS technologies as mature, and the 3 omissions are either minor differences (Freedom Class retrieval system) or unsatisfiable any time soon. If a 30-year ABS certification somehow fails to satisfy the 20 year operational hull life requirement, the only solution seems to be “wait 20 years and ask us again in 2032.”

For the Freedom Class, GAO says that the cracking problem “occurred either in high stress areas or were due to poor workmanship.” They’ve been repaired. The ship has also had corrosion problems in the mission zone due to a poor stern door seal, and class design changes were made in response to both issues. They do seem to be finding quite a few issues in this design, but LCS 5 & 7 accomplished production readiness and integrated baseline reviews. LCS 5 is listed as 53% complete, and LCS 7 is listed as 37% complete.

Austal’s Independence Class, “will now [add] a corrosion protection system similar to [the Freedom Class] to mitigate the corrosion and will backfit it on existing hulls.” That’s an unusual item to casually omit from 1 LCS class, but whatever. LCS 4 has experienced construction delays to summer 2013, but the program office says that these issues are resolved now. LCS 6 & 8 accomplished production readiness and integrated baseline reviews: LCS 6 is listed as 49% complete, and LCS 8 is listed as 24% complete.

In October 2012, the Navy rescinded their requirement to conduct a Milestone C/ Low Rate Production LCS review. That means there will be 24 ships under contract before there’s a systematic review to support a production decision, in FY 2019.

March 19-29/13: LCS 1. USS Freedom has now had 3 power outages during the ship’s transit from Pearl Harbor, HI to Guam. This isn’t the 1st time, vid. April 23/12 entry.

On this trip, Aviation Week reports that the 10-12 minute March 16th outage may have been caused by water getting into an SSDG diesel generator’s exhaust system. March 20th saw an 11 minute outage that was also supposedly related to an SSDG problem, and March 21st was the 3rd outage. The ship eventually makes it to Guam on March 29th, and the crew was able to work through the issues themselves, but loss of power is a serious problem if it doesn’t happen at a convenient time. Aviation Week | Marianas Variety || US Navy | Guam PDN.

LCS 1 loses power

March 19/13: 30mm Mk46s. General Dynamics Land Systems Inc. in Woodbridge, VA receives a $25.7 million contract option for eight 30mm MK46 MOD 2 gun turrets, including associated spares and shore based parts. It covers 2 gun weapon systems for the LPD 17 class, and 6 more to equip LCS 5, 6, and 7. The guns are part of the “surface warfare” mission package.

Work will be performed in Woodbridge, VA (43%); Tallahassee, FL (20%); Lima, OH (14%); Westminster, MD (11%); Sterling Heights, MI (10%); Scranton, PA (2%), and is expected to be completed by November 2014. All funding is committed immediately (N00024-10-C-5438).

March 18/13: USN Memo – Up-gun LCS. USNI reports that USN Commander of Surface Forces Vice Adm. Tom Copeman has proposed changes to the Navy’s LCS strategy. In late 2012, he reportedly submitted the classified memo “Vision for the 2025 Surface Fleet,” which calls for an “up-gunned, multimission variant” of a single LCS class going forward. Some observers have interpreted this as halving the 55 ship LCS buy, but that doesn’t necessarily follow. It’s perfectly possible to buy the same number of ships, with just 1 go-forward design.

With respect to the multi-mission requirement, both LCS classes have been promoted abroad with proper weapon fit-outs and upgraded sensors. A number of radar fit-outs would be possible, but the ship designs would have 2 important differences. Lockheed Martin’s Freedom Class has less mission module space to give, but could host strike-length Mk.41 vertical launch cells that can launch Tomahawk cruise missiles and the largest SM-x family air and missile defense hardware. Austal’s Independence Class could retain much more mission module space after installing serious weapons, but would be restricted to tactical-length cells that would still be big enough for RIM-162 ESSM air defense missiles, and for VL-ASROC anti-submarine rockets.

There is some precedent. Undersecretary Bob Work’s draft assessment of the LCS program (vid Jan 29/13) explicitly cites the old Spruance Class destroyers. Later versions added a 61-cell VLS battery and 8 Harpoon anti-ship missiles, while subtracting a dedicated ASROC launcher and keeping its pair of 5-inch guns, 2 Mk15 Phalanx 20mm CIWS defenses, and RIM-7 Sea Sparrow air defense missiles. The likely radar and combat system changes would make LCS re-configuration more substantial, but even a tiny 8-cell VLS and provision for anti-ship missiles would significantly change the LCS’ tactical capabilities. USNI | Bloomberg | Defense News.

Copeman Report

March 15/13: Support. Lockheed Martin MS2 in Baltimore, MD received a $32.8 million contract modification for Freedom Class service efforts and special studies, analyses and reviews. “Lockheed Martin will assess engineering and production challenges and evaluate the cost and schedule risks from affordability efforts to reduce LCS acquisition and lifecycle costs.”

All funds will come from US Navy FY 2012 Shipbuilding and Conversion, and are committed immediately. Work will be performed in Hampton, VA (32%); Marinette, WI (27%); Moorestown, N.J. (22%), and Washington, DC (19%), and is expected to be complete by March 2014. US Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, DC manages the contract (N00024-11-C-2300).

March 15/13: Support. Austal USA LLC in Mobile, AL received a $20 million contract modification for Independence Class service efforts and special studies, analyses and reviews. “Austal USA… will assess engineering and production challenges and evaluate the cost and schedule risks from affordability efforts to reduce LCS acquisition and lifecycle costs.”

All funds will come from US Navy FY 2012 Shipbuilding and Conversion, and are committed immediately. Work will be performed in Mobile, AL (72%) and Pittsfield, MA (28%), and is expected to complete by March 2014. US Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, DC manages the contract (N00024-11-C-2301).

March 4/13: 2 Freedom Class. Lockheed Martin MS2 in Baltimore, MD receives $696.6 million to build 2 FY 2013 Littoral Combat Ships. Note that this doesn’t include the mission modules needed to make the ships useful, or weapons provided as government-furnished equipment.

Work will be performed in Marinette, WI (56%); Walpole, MA (14%); Washington, DC (12%); Oldsmar, FL (4%); Beloit, WI (3%); Moorestown, NJ (2%); Minneapolis, MI (2%) and various locations of less than 1% each totaling 7%, and is expected to be complete by July 2018 (N00024-11-C-2300). See also Lockheed Martin.

March 4/13: 2 Independence Class. Austal USA in Mobile, AL receives $681.7 million for 2 FY 2013 Littoral Combat Ships. Note that this doesn’t include the mission modules needed to make the ships useful, or weapons provided as government-furnished equipment.

Work will be performed in Mobile, AL (51%); Pittsfield, MA (13%); Cincinnati, Ohio (4%); Baltimore, MD (2%); Burlington, VT (2%); New Orleans, LA (2%) and various locations of less than 2% each totaling 26%. Work is expected to be complete by June 2018 (N00024-11-C-2301). See also GDLCS site.

4 LCS ships: 2 of each class

March 4/13: LCS 4. General Dynamics Bath Iron Works in Bath, ME receives a $12.3 million contract modification, exercising an option for post-delivery support of LCS 4, the Independence Class ship USS Coronado. Bath Iron Works will perform the planning and implementation of deferred design changes identified during the construction period, which are necessary to support Coronado’s sail-away and follow-on post-delivery test and trials.

Work will be performed in Mobile, AL (76%); Bath, ME (18%); and Pittsfield, MA (6%), and is expected to be complete by February 2014. The full amounts are committed immediately, using FY 2009 Shipbuilding and Conversion funds (N00024-09-C-2302).

March 1/13: Deployment. USS Freedom [LCS-1] leaves San Diego to deploy to Singapore and Southeast Asia for about 8 months. It’s the ship’s first regular deployment, though it has been sent on active missions in the Caribbean during its training and post-shakedown phases. USN All Hands, incl. video.

1st official operational deployment

Feb 8/13: LCS 2. General Dynamics Bath Iron Works in Bath, ME receives a $6.9 million cost-plus award fee contract modification. They’ll provide engineering, management, advance planning and design work to support post shakedown work on LCS 2, the first-of-class USS Independence. Efforts will include program management, advance planning, engineering, design, material kitting, liaison and scheduling (see also May 21/12’s $7 million entry).

Work will be performed in Bath, ME (90%) and Pittsfield, MA (10%), and is expected to be complete by April 2013. All funds are committed, using FY 2013 RDT&E funding. The US Navy’s Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Conversion, and Repair in Bath, ME manages this contract (N00024-09-G-2301).

Jan 30/13: Thai competition. IHS Jane’s reports that Thailand is talking about buying 3 Chinese Type 054 Jiangkai-II frigates from Hudong-Zhonghua Shipbuilding, plus technology transfer to enable maintenance, repair, and overhaul and to locally produce unspecified components under licence. Thailand already operates some Chinese-built ships, and its 2 Nareusan Class frigates boast the very unusual feature of having American & European systems and weapons on board.

They see the Chinese ships as an option that could fit their total $1 billion budget, but Lockheed Martin has confirmed that they’re competing, too, with a variant of the Freedom Class LCS. Further competition can be expected from European manufacturers like TKMS (MEKO), Damen Schelde (SIGMA), and possibly DCNS (Gowind); and South Korea (FFX Incheon Class) adds a new international option in this category.

Jan 29/13: Work in progress. Undersecretary of the Navy, Robert O. Work offers a working paper draft of an in-depth report entitled “The Littoral Combat Ship: How We Got Here, and Why”. It’s soon withdrawn from the US Naval War College Site, as he works to incorporate feedback into the final edit. It is accurately characterized as

“…the most thorough, honest, and detailed forensic outline of how LCS came pierside…. one-stop-shopping for anyone who would like to know the significant decision points in the process.”

Work is an LCS supporter. His outline is honest, but his conclusions are debatable. A fuller recounting and analysis is deserving of its own separate piece. DID awaits the final report, but offers this link to this interim document in the meantime. Commander Salamander naval blog | Scribd copy of the draft.

Undersec Report draft

Jan 22/13: Industrial. Austal announces a strategic partnership with Sembcorp Marine subsidiary Sembawang Shipyard Pte. Ltd., in Singapore. “Austal and Sembawang Shipyard will together provide rapid, high quality support specifically tailored to the US Navy’s fleet of Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) and Joint High Speed Vessels (JHSV), both of which are expected to operate in the region.”

True, though the first example will be a Lockheed Martin ship.

Jan 17/13: DOT&E testing. The Pentagon releases the FY 2012 Annual Report from its Office of the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E). The LCS is included, and so are its Mission Modules/ Pakages. It does not paint a hopeful picture, demonstrating very serious mission package deficiencies that could and should have been addressed years ago. With respect to the ships themselves:

Freedom Class: During sea trials following post-shakedown availability, the ship developed a shaft seal leak and took 6 weeks to repair, but was graded as fit for service during special INSURV trials in May 2012. LCS 3 has made some design changes, and isn’t reporting any of the serious hull cracks found on USS Freedom. Final design isn’t expected to sail until LCS 5 Milwaukee.

Independence Class: Getting a system to combat corrosion (see Aug 12/11 and earlier), and an Impressed Current Cathodic Protection system is planned for the water jet tunnels on LCS 4. The Navy also continues to work through problems associated with the Twin Boom Extensible Crane on LCS 2. Final design isn’t expected to sail until LCS 6 Jackson.

General: LCS has problems fighting while maneuvering. “Ship operations at high speeds cause vibrations that make accurate use of the 57 mm gun very difficult.” Overall, “LCS is not expected to be survivable in that it is not expected to maintain mission capability after taking a significant hit in a hostile combat environment.” Crewing levels continue to worsen this vulnerability, while impairing capability:

“Crew size can limit the mission capabilities of the ship. Core crew size provides little flexibility to support more than one operation at a time; unplanned manning losses and corrective maintenance further exacerbate the problem. The Navy is reviewing manning levels and installing 20 additional bunks in LCS 1 for flexibility during its deployment [DID: vid. July 2/12 entry], but is not changing the final manning levels.”

LCS has been given class-specific survivability designations, rather than using the Navy’s general Level 1, Level 2, etc. LCS LVL 1 is an orderly abandon ship. LCS LVL 2 allows the ship to limp out of the area, while operating communications and small caliber weapons. LCS LVL 3 includes some remaining mission capability. The USN will conduct Total Ship Survivability Trials on LCS 3 and 4, but won’t conduct shock trials until the final LCS 5 & 6 designs sail. DOT&E | WIRED.

DOT&E 2012 report

Jan 10/13: Program update. Rear Admiral Thomas Rowden offers an update covering the LCS program and its mission modules.

USS Freedom is preparing for her Asian deployment, and LCS 3 USS Fort Worth is preparing to undergo a Post Delivery Test and Trials period. USS Independence is testing the Mine Counter-Measure module, and LCS 4 Coronado is under construction and slated for summer 2013 delivery.

On the mission module front, they’re now referred to as “mission packages.” The vestigal Surface Warfare MP is scheduled for Initial Operating Capability (IOC) in FY 2014. USS Independence [LCS 2] has demonstrated successful launch and recovery of offboard vehicles for the Mine Counter Measures MP, which is also slated for IOC in 2014. The ASW MP is working on “[i]ntegration of the launch and recovery system into the hull, and won’t reach IOC until FY 2016. USN’s Navy Live blog.

Jan 10/13: PEO support. CACI Technologies Inc. in Chantilly, VA receives a $20.6 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract to support PEO Littoral Combat Ships. All funds are committed immediately, but $4.4 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/13.

Work will be performed in Washington ,DC (89.9%); Norfolk, VA (4.2%); San Diego, CA (2.2%); Panama City, FL (1.8%); Newport, RI (1.3%); and Monterey, CA (0.6%), and is expected to be complete by April 2013. This contract was not competitively procured, per the sole-source allowances in 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1), as implemented in FAR 6.302-1 (N00024-13-C-6322).

Dec 26/12: LCS 1 fixes. Aviation Week reports that the US Navy has made a number of fixes to problems identified in their May report (q.v. April 23/12 entry), after vehemently denying that accounts of those problems were true.

Fixes include augmentation of the ship’s anti-corrosion system, complete repainting of the main machinery room and piping that had not been previously painted, non-destructive testing of piping that was then reviewed by the the American Bureau of Shipping, and changes to weld procedures and Non-Destructive Testing procedures on LCS-3 and subsequent Freedom Class ships. Fixes to the RIX air compressors don’t appear to have been effective, based on “ship sources.” They may be replaced with Sauer products. Program officials also supposedly redesigned the Isotta Fraschini ship’s service diesel engines (SSDGs) that have been causing power problems – but subsequent events indicate that it hasn’t fixed the problems. Maybe Finmeccanica shouldn’t have been given such carte blanche by Lockheed Martin to specify its own products.

Dec 26/12: Support. General Dynamics Bath Iron Works in Bath, ME receives $13.5 million for planning yard services to support LCS-2 and LCS-4, the first Independence Class ships. Services will include: vendor training and crew familiarization; in-service engineering support; trainer support; availability maintenance advanced planning; long lead time material planning and procurement; material warehousing; logistics product updates; and the class sustainment management.

Work will be performed in Bath, ME, and is expected to be complete by September 2013. $9.4 million is committed immediately, and will expire at the end of the current fiscal year on Sept 30/13 (N00024-12-G-4330).

Dec 20/12: Support. Lockheed Martin MS2 in Baltimore, MD receives a $12.1 million contract modification, exercising an option for Freedom Class Littoral Combat Ship core class services. All contract funds are committed immediately.

Work will be performed in Moorestown, NJ (36%), Hampton, VA (30%), Washington, DC (23%), and Marinette, WI (11%), and is expected to be complete by December 2013 (N00024-11-C-2300).

Dec 20/12: Support. Austal USA LLC in Mobile, AL receives an $8.1 million contract modification, exercising an option for Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) core class services. They’ll assess engineering and production challenges, and evaluate the cost and schedule risks of affordability changes to reduce LCS acquisition and lifecycle costs. All contract funds are committed immediately.

Work will be performed in Mobile, AL (51%) and Pittsfield, MA (49%), and is expected to be complete by December 2013 (N00024-11-C-2301).

Oct 25/12: LCS 3. Lockheed Martin MS2 in Baltimore, MD receives a $12.7 million cost-plus-award-fee order to provide engineering and management services for advance planning and design to support of LCS-3 Forth Worth’s post-shakedown availability.

Work will be performed in San Diego, CA, and is expected to be complete by July 2013. The USN supervisor of shipbuilding, conversion, and repair in Bath, ME manages the contract (N00024-12-G-2317).

Oct 5/12: Controversy. USMC Lt. Col. John Sayen pens an LCS article for TIME’s Battleland that minces few words, while comparing LCS to specific foreign ship classes:

“The Navy’s new Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) is not only staggeringly overpriced and chronically unreliable but – even if it were to work perfectly – cannot match the combat power of similar sized foreign warships costing only a fraction as much…. About the only threat the LCS might handle is the “swarms” of Iranian machinegun and RPG-carrying speedboats in the Persian Gulf…. When asked why the LCS has sacrificed so much for speed, Navy spokesmen tend to become vague.”

The US Navy fires back in short order, saying that:

“…the LCS was never designed to protect other ships or to support troops ashore. That’s not its job. Its job is to protect the sea base and high value naval units from swarming boats, hunt down and sink diesel submarines, and clear mines in littoral waters.”

Some of their other shots miss, but they’re right about a few things. In terms of major points, shipbuilding is to naval vessel standards, not commercial standards as Sayen claimed, a change that cost the Navy a good chunk of money on initial ships. That argument ducks the issue of lower survivability standards, however, which are a legitimate point of debate. The Navy’s contention re: superiority to 1980s-era FFG-7 frigates that have had all major weapons removed in a bit disingenuous, and it would be useful to understand the basis for their claims of superiority over much smaller and cheaper 1990s-era Osprey Class minesweepers. TIME Battleland | USN’s Navy Live blog | Military.com.

Sept 28/12: Support. Lockheed Martin MS2 in Washington, DC receives an $8.5 million contract modification, finalizing the contract for Freedom Class FY 2013 engineering support services. Work includes technical library services, logistics and technical data and documentation, quality management services in preparing of test and inspection requirements, quality assurance inspection, collecting and analyzing test data, and otherwise working to standardize the class’ follow-on availability periods.

Work will be performed in San Diego, CA, and is expected to be complete by September 2013. All funds expire on Sept 30/12, at the end of FY 2012. The USN’s Southwest Regional Maintenance Center in San Diego, CA manages the contract (N00024-12-G-4329).

FY 2012

$1.4 billion for LCS 9-12; Freedom Class breakdowns & questions – but program looks “unstoppable”; Navy establishes LCS Council to get it ready for deployment to Singapore; LCS 10-12 named; LCS 4 launched; LCS 5 keel laid; 20 New berths for Freedom Class; Cost is #1 now.

LCS 4 launch
(click to view full)

Sept 28/12: Support. Lockheed Martin MS2 in Washington, DC wins a $7.5 million modification, as part of finalizing the contract for Freedom Class FY 2013 engineering support services.

All funds expire on Sept 30/12, at the end of FY 2012. Work will be performed in San Diego, CA, and is expected to complete by September 2013. The USN’s Southwest Regional Maintenance Center in San Diego, CA manages the contract (N00024-12-G-4329).

Sept 28/12: Support. General Dynamics Bath Iron Works in Bath, ME receives a $7 million modification, finalizing the contract for LCS Independence Class FY 2013 engineering support services. Work includes technical library services, logistics and technical data and documentation, quality management services in preparing of test and inspection requirements, quality assurance inspection, collecting and analyzing test data, and otherwise working to standardize the class’ follow-on availability periods.

All funds expire on Sept 30/12, at the end of FY 2012. Work will be performed in San Diego, CA. The USN’s Southwest Regional Maintenance Center in San Diego, CA manages the contract (N00024-12-G-4330).

Sept 22/12: LCS 3. The Freedom Class ship USS Fort Worth is commissioned at the Port of Galveston, TX, and is officially placed in service. US Navy.

LCS 3 commissioned

Aug 22/12: LCS Council. The US Navy convenes an “LCS Council” of high-ranking officers, in order to ensure that the LCS is ready to deploy to Singapore in 2013, per its commitments, and that the USN is ready to support it properly. “Addressing the challenges identified by [preparatory USN] studies necessitates” this high-level group, in order to drive fixes in multiple places across the Navy.

It’s filled with brass: Vice Adm. Rick Hunt, director of the Navy Staff, as its chairman, and the following senior officers also on board: Vice Adm. Mark Skinner, Principal Military Deputy to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition; Vice Adm. Tom Copeman, commander, Naval Surface Forces; and Vice Adm. Kevin McCoy, commander, Naval Sea Systems Command. The Plan of Action and Milestones are due no later than Jan 31/13. USN Memo [PDF] | POGO.

Aug 16/12: “Directional instability”. POGO and Aviation Week find documents that detail problems keeping LCS 1 on a straight course. While ships do need some directional instability to maneuver well, but “a source close to the LCS program told POGO that the directional instability affected the crew’s ability to operate the Lockheed ship.”

Worse, the problem occurred just before the Navy went to Congress, asking for permission to buy both ship types. The documents show the Navy instructing people to either not talk about this problem, or minimize it. POGO.

June 1/12: LCS to Singapore. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta tells the 11th Annual Shangri-La Dialogue on security that “American littoral combat ships will be berthing in Singapore.” Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey goes on to detail the specifics a couple of days later, saying that there will be 4 LCS ships committed to Singapore for 6-10 month rotations, and will make port calls throughout the region. Pentagon | Pentagon follow-on.

Singapore chosen for deployments

May 31/12: Support. General Dynamics Bath Iron Works in Bath, ME receives a $12.5 million cost-plus-fixed fee contract modification for LCS Independence Class design services. They’ll provide class baseline design services, class documentation services, class engineering studies, cost estimating support, LCS ship transition work, interim support services, and liaison for ship construction and post delivery with the class design agent for even-numbered ships from LCS 6 Jackson onward. This modification includes an option, which could bring its cumulative value of this modification to $25.1 million.

Work will be performed in Bath, ME (54%), Pittsfield, MA (45%), and Mobile, AL (1%). Work is expected to be complete by June 2014 (N00024-09-C-2302).

May 31/12: LCS 2. General Dynamics Bath Iron Works, Bath, ME receives a $7 million cost-plus-award-fee contract modification to provide engineering and management services for advance planning and design in support of LCS-2 USS Independence’s post-shakedown availability. Efforts will include program management, advance planning, engineering, design, material kitting, liaison, and scheduling.

Work will be performed in Bath, ME, and is expected to be complete by February 2013. This contract was not competitively procured by the USN’s Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Conversion, and Repair in Bath, ME (N00024-09-G-2301).

POGO Presentation
click for video

May 11/12: Push for GAO. House Armed Services Committee member Rep. Jackie Speier [D-CA] is leading a push to have the Congressional GAO audit office to review the LCS program. Rep. Duncan Hunter [R-CA] is also active in submitting LCS-related amendments that are critical of the Navy and its lack of disclosure. Speier says that:

“…serious flaws…. threaten the operational capabilities of the ship…. it’s disturbing that the Navy would accept a ship that fails to meet the basic requirements for a tugboat. The future of the fleet is corroding before our eyes.”

See: Maritime Executive | AOL Defense | The Hill.

April 23/12: POGO – cancel LCS-1 Class. The POGO NGO releases a series of Navy documents showing problems with the LCS-1 Freedom Class, which:

“…has been plagued by flawed designs and failed equipment since being commissioned, has at least 17 known cracks, and has repeatedly been beset by engine-related failures…. during those two outings: several vital components on the ship failed including, at some point in both trips, each of the four engines. In addition, there were shaft seal failures during the last trip,[22] which led to flooding. Additional new material… shows that the ship appears to have even more serious problems with critical ship-wide systems, including rampant corrosion and flooding….. The Navy has not been forthcoming with information about all of these problems.”

Aviation Week picks up on these allegations, and relates “extensive corrosion and manufacturing issues more recent and serious than anything the Pentagon or prime contractor Lockheed Martin has publicly acknowledged thus far,” including flaws in vital piping systems that are leaking. Their report is based on a guided tour of the ship in dry dock, as well as “sources intimately familiar with Freedom’s design, repairs and operations.” To make things worse, the ship has issues with underway speed. In moderate-severe Sea State 7 conditions, it’s no greater than 20 knots, with prohibitions against driving into head seas. Even in moderate Sea State 5 conditions, LCS 1 is restricted to 20 knots into head seas. POGO goes on to recommend that the USN adopt just 1 variant of the LCS, and further recommends canceling Lockheed Martin’s Freedom Class variant. POGO | Aviation Week | USNI Blog | Commander Salamander blog | U-T San Diego | POGO vs. the USN, side by side comparison.

Widespread issues with LCS 1

July 2/12: 20 more berths. Defense News reports that the Navy is acknowledging the obvious, and adding 20 more berths to USS Freedom. They’re not adding any more space, of course, but they will add 2 officer berths, 2 petty officer berths, and 16 enlisted berths. No decision has been made yet about USS Independence.

LCSs were intended to operate with a core crew of 40 sailors, plus a mission module detachment of 15 and an aviation detachment of 25. Each ship has a pair of 40-person crews (Blue and Gold), which will shift to 3 crews over time that can deploy in 4-month rotations. In order to use the additional berths, the manning plan also has to change.

Other LCS 1 Freedom Class upgrades will reportedly involve an Aqueous Film-Forming Foam system, improvements to stern ramp fender stanchions, removal of its retractable bitts; and more fire suppression sprinklers, tank level indicators, and pipe hangers. Those sorts of changes aren’t unusual for a ship at this stage.

May 22-24/12: Despite the PREINSURV report of May 7/12, The Special Trial takes place anyway with an overall good assessment. Because the Freedom was on the pier for repairs, its crew had spent too little time on it prior to the inspection, which explains some of the hiccups.

These repairs have addressed some problems like hull cracks (see April 11/11 entry) but other vexing issues remain unsolved since they have been spotted in 2008, such as water intrusion up the hawse pipe and through the aft stern doors. Navy Times.

May 7/12: A PRESINSURV report recommends not to proceed with a scheduled Special Trial, as they have found the crew unprepared with the inspection and unfamiliar with their ship. At least they had a positive attitude. It should be noted that a pre-inspection is supposed to find issues, in order to get all ducks in a row before the real deal. Gannett’s Navy Times | Information Dissemination has the verbatim memo.

April 8/12: Program unstoppable? The New York Times writes an article about the Littoral Combat Ship: “The Next War: Smaller Navy Ship Has a Rocky Past and Key Support.” The money paragraph:

“Analysts say an important factor driving the Navy and Congress is that the vessels the ships are meant to replace – frigates and minesweepers – are aging, and that there is little else in the pipeline. The combat ship is seen as too far along in production to be killed now. [Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-CA says] It’s one of those things that once the snowball goes down the hill, it just keeps rolling…. There’s no way I’m going to stop it.”

See: New York Times | DoD Buzz.

March 16/12: 4 x FY 2012 ships. The US Navy issues 2 major contracts for FY 2012 LCS ships. A $715 million contract modification to Lockheed Martin Corporation will build LCS 9 Little Rock and LCS 11 Sioux City at Marinette Marine Corporation in Marinette, WI. A $691.6 million contract modification to Austal USA will build LCS 10 Gabrielle Giffords and LCS 12 Omaha in Mobile, AL. Amounts are based on the competitive, LCS dual block buy contracts (vid. Dec 29/10), and factor in approved FY 2010-11 change orders to the designs. Note that these contracts cover just the base sea frames, and installation of separately-purchased “government furnished equipment” like weapons, etc. Mission modules in particular must be noted as an expensive “extra.”

At present, USS Freedom [LCS 1, Fr] is undergoing serious repairs at its homeport in San Diego, CA. USS Independence [LCS 2, In] is currently undergoing test and trials in Mayport, FL. Fort Worth [LCS 3, Fr] is under construction and planned to deliver in June 2012, and Coronado [LCS 4, In] is expected to deliver in early 2013. Milwaukee [LCS 5, Fr] and Jackson [LCS 6, In] are in the early stages of construction. Detroit [LCS 7, Fr] and Montgomery [LCS 8, In] are in pre-production stages. US Navy.

4 ships: 2 of each class

March 14/12: US NAVSEA issues a pair of contracts for a year of “special studies, analyses, review and Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) class services… [to] assess engineering and production challenges and evaluate the cost and schedule risks from affordability efforts to reduce LCS acquisition and lifecycle costs.” Work will last until March 2013.

The award disparity between the Freedom (Lockheed) and Independence (Austal) classes is interesting, and calls to mind the AvWeek report that suggested the need for a fundamental redesign (Jan 30/12). Maritime Memos’ Tim Colton wonders what the heck the government is thinking with the whole award. “…[T]hese are fixed-price contracts: the contractors should be doing everything they can to reduce costs and schedule at their own expense.” Which is true, but lifecycle costs are a bigger fraction, and are entirely the Navy’s problem unless there’s a contract to address them. Of course, not picking 40+ knot speeds as a key requirement would have done a lot to reduce operating costs and boost range – but it’s too late for the Navy to do that now.

Lockheed Martin Corp in Baltimore, MD receives a $33.6 million option (N00024-11-C-2300), with work to be performed in Hampton, VA (32%); Marinette, WI (27%); Moorestown, NJ (22%); and Washington, DC (19%).

Austal USA in Mobile, AL receives a $19.7 million option (N00024-11-C-2301), with work to be performed in Mobile, AL (72%) and Pittsfield, MA (28%).

March 1/12: LCS 1. Gannett’s Navy Times:

“Barely a month after leaving dockyard hands, the Freedom, first of the Navy’s new Littoral Combat Ships (LCS), is back [for a 6 week] dry dock in San Diego, this time to fix a broken shaft seal that caused minor flooding on board the ship [on Feb 1/12]… engineers from the Naval Sea Systems Command and Lockheed Martin… will pull the propeller shaft and examine the shaft and its seals to determine why and how the newly-installed seal broke. Repairs for the Freedom are covered under an Initial Support Plan contract with Lockheed-Martin…”

LCS 1 breakdown

Feb 15/12: LCS 11 & 12 named. US Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus names the next 2 Littoral Combat Ships. He keeps politics out of this naming set, naming the Freedom Class ship LCS 11 Sioux City, and the Independence Class ship LCS 12 Omaha. US Navy | Washington Times.

Feb 10/12: LCS 10 named. US Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus can’t seem to keep politics out of his ship names. He names LCS 10 after shot Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords [D-AZ], even though the naming convention for LCS ships has been cities. He did the same for Rep. John Murtha [D-PA] in the San Antonio Class LPDs.

Mabus’ politicized ship naming choices have drawn fire, to the point of sponsored bills and amendments that would add congressional oversight to SecNav’s traditional prerogative. Traditionally, there has been some level of politics in the process, but it has generally involved choices that had acceptance on both sides of the aisle. The Giffords naming would qualify, but coming after Mabus’ other choices, it’s raising the heat rather than dissipating it. US DoD | Austal.

Jan 30/12: Freedom Class a lemon? Aviation Week reports that after being given copies of Aviation Week Intelligence Network (AWIN) briefings the findings of Navy and industry reports, the set of defense analysts it probed believe that the Freedom Class may need to be fundamentally redesigned.

“The analysts also call for an investigation into how the ship was accepted in such – in their view – questionable shape…”

Jan 27/12: PM removed. LCS program manager Capt. Jeffrey Riedel is reassigned out of the program by LCS Program Executive Officer Rear Adm. James Murdoch, pending an investigation into allegations of “improper conduct.” Edward Foster will serve as the acting program manager until the investigation is complete, but even if the allegations are proven false, the report says that Riedel won’t be returning. Gannett’s Navy Times.

LCS PM removed

Jan 14/12: LCS 4 launch. LCS 4 is christened Coronado, after the California city near San Diego. Note that she is not yet USS Coronado. US Navy.

Dec 19/11: Support. Lockheed Martin in Baltimore, MD receives an $11.9 million contract modification, exercising an option for core Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) class services until December 2012. They’ll assess engineering, and provide baseline and configuration management services during construction, post-delivery, test and trials for the Freedom Class.

Work will be performed in Hampton, VA (20%); Virginia Beach, VA (20%); Washington, DC (15%); Marinette, WI (13%); Moorestown, NJ (12%); Baltimore, MD (10%); Manassas, VA (7%); and Arlington, VA (3%). Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, DC, is the contracting activity (N00024-11-C-2300).

Dec 19/11: Support. Austal USA in Mobile, AL receives an $11.9 million contract modification, exercising an option for core Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) class services until December 2012. They’ll assess engineering, and provide baseline and configuration management services during construction, post-delivery, test and trials for the Independence Class.

Work will be performed in Mobile, AL (30%); Pittsfield, MA (30%); Malvern, PA (20%); Newport News, VA (13%); and various locations of less than 2% each, totaling 7% (N00024-11-C-2301).

Dec 19/11: LCS 3. Lockheed Martin in Baltimore, MD receives a $15.2 million contract modification, exercising an option for LCS 3 (future USS Fort Worth) post-delivery support. Lockheed Martin will perform the planning and implementation of deferred design changes that have been identified during the construction period, and are deemed necessary to support Fort Worth’s sailaway and follow-on post delivery test and trials.

Work will be performed in Moorestown, NJ (39%); Marinette, Wis. (34%); Hampton, VA (18%); and Washington, DC (9%). Work is expected to be completed by December 2012. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, DC, is the contracting activity (N00024-09-C-2303).

Dec 16/11: Philippines deployment? Discussions continue re: deployment of LCS ships to Singapore (vid. Dec 4/10), and reports suggest that the Philippines is also involved in discussions with the USA. The moves are said to be part of a broader US strategy to “pivot” its military focus toward the Pacific, and away from Europe. Reuters.

Nov 7/11: New LCS Office. Inside the Navy reports [subscription] that PEO-LCS has created an office dedicated to introducing the new ships to the fleet. It will be responsible for coordinating logistics, training, mission package support and ship sustainment. That sort of thing has been done before elsewhere in the Navy and US Military Sealift Command, but it’s new to the LCS following the July 11/11 merger of the ship and mission module PEOs.

Nov 2/11: LCS 5 keel. Team Lockheed Martin holds the official keel-laying ceremony for LCS 5 Milwaukee, their 3rd Freedom Class ship. Lockheed Martin.

LCS induction office

Oct 24/11: LCS 3. Lockheed Martin announces that LCS 3 Fort Worth has passed builder’s trials, and returned to Marinette Marine on Lake Michigan to prepare for Navy acceptance trials.

Oct 20/11: Cost is #1. LCS PEO Rear Adm. James Murdoch tells reporters that cost is now the overriding priority for the program, which means avoiding any changes unless there’s no choice. The flip side is that all of the 2 classes’ current weaknesses end up more or less frozen as is.

The mission modules will continue to evolve. He says that the Navy is still trying to reduce the Independence Class’ [LCS-2] preparation time to employ some of its mine-clearing mission package, so it can meet the Navy requirement to clear a (classified) area in a (classified) amount of time of a (classified) number of mines. They’re also taking steps to replace the anti-submarine USVs with simpler towed sonar arrays, which can be run at speed. Aviation Week.

FY 2011

Program shifts to dual-buy; Program SAR to $37.48 billion; LCS 5-8 bought; PEO LCS created; USS Independence corrosion issues; USS Freedom cracking issues; LCS 5-9 named; Marinette opens new facility; Saudi interest?; Official reports.

Named.
(click for cutaway)

Sept 20/11: Sub-contractors. Saab and its American subsidiary Saab Sensis Corp. announce the official Sea Giraffe contract from General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems, who is the Independence Class’ platform system engineering agent. Saab’s Sea Giraffe has always been the planned radar for the LCS-2 Independence Class, and has been ordered for the first 2 ships; this just makes it official for all ships under the new contract.

The 3-D Sea Giraffe AMB is used for aerial scans, water surface scans, and weapon guidance. Land-based counterparts can even back-track incoming rockets and ballistic projectiles to their firing point, and Saab confirms reports that the naval radar can do so as well. Saab Sensis manages the US technical baseline for Sea Giraffe AMB. They will provide US based program management hardware and software adaptations, system integration, testing, and total life-cycle support to in support of the radars on Austal’s LCS design.

Sept 8/11: LCS 2. USS Independence [LCS-2] arrives in St. Petersburg, FL. The question is now how the Navy will use it. GAO reports contend that USS Freedom’s previous deployment may have set the whole program back, by removing the ship’s use as a test bed for LCS mission modules. DoD Buzz discusses what they think we know:

“We can presume the ship’s corrosion issues are resolved since it was given the green light to leave Naval Station Mayport, Fla., and that it’s seaworthy because it made the trip around the state, and that it’s handling flight operations now – the ship stood into Tampa Bay with an MH-60 helicopter on its flight deck…”

Aug 29/11: Exports? Aviation Week quotes Lockheed MS2 VP of littoral ship systems, Joe North, who says that over 21 countries have expressed interest in their LCS design. He’s the first to admit that interest does not always equate to a budget, and the article notes that Chinese frigate designs are becoming thinkable alternatives to buying a ship like the Freedom Class.

Aug 22/11: LCS 5 begins. Lockheed Martin announces the start of construction on LCS 5 Milwaukee, at Marinette Marine. The ship is due for delivery to the U.S. Navy in 2014, and is the 1st of 10 Freedom Class ships awarded to Lockheed Martin under the December 2010 Navy contract.

Meanwhile, LCS 3 Fort Worth remains on track for delivery in 2012.

Aug 5/11: Freedom Class changes. Aviation Week’s “U.S. Navy Studies And Improves LCS-1” describes the post-shakedown process, which includes design and procedure changes that are incorporated into the class. Previous hull cracking issues aren’t on USS Freedom’s PSA list, but magazine modifications and a mooring configuration change are.

Aug 2/11: Corrosion. Prospective Deputy SecDef Ashton Carter sends a written response to the bipartisan Senate letter of July 13/11. It says that USS Independence’s galvanic corrosion problem was a design flaw, which is being changed at a cost of $3.2 million, plus about $250,000 for each future ship of class. An Impressed Current Cathodic Protection System and “additional sacrificial protection design” will be applied to USS Independence during its Post Shakedown Availability, and on future ships of class prior to delivery. With respect to the damage:

“…the complex geometry of the water jet assemblies and tunnels made sufficient insulation of the aluminum hull from the steel water jet assembly difficult… corrosion on LCS 2 is concentrated in small areas in the water jet tunnels and water jet cone assemblies… transition area between the two.”

That doesn’t sound like “aggressive” corrosion, which raises questions. The original design approach apparently did include cathodic protection in the waterjets, alongside coatings and insulation, but it wasn’t enough, and some of the insulation wasn’t installed properly. The system was also designed to commercial principles, which emphasize regular repair of corrosion, but the Navy is looking for a more permanent fix.

With respect to the LCS program’s cost estimates, Carter says the Navy’s figures were based on actual offers received, so he decided that was the best program estimate to use. Full Carter letter [PDF] | Defense News. See also July 13/11, June 20-22/11, and June 17/11 entries.

Independence Class corrosion issue

Aug 1/11: LCS 6 begins. The Navy authorizes the first cutting of aluminum for the Independence Class ship LCS 6 Jackson at Austal’s Modular Manufacturing facility in Mobile, AL. US Navy.

July 27/11: Rep. Duncan D. Hunter [R-CA-52] and Rob Wittman [R-VA-1] ask the GAO to update its 2010 audit of the LCS program. Full Letter [PDF].

July 22/11: LCS 2. General Dynamics – Bath Iron Works in Bath, ME receives a $10 million cost-plus-award-fee contract modification to provide engineering and management services for advance planning and design in support of the post shakedown availability for USS Independence [LCS 2]. While Austal is the builder and contract owner, GD-BIW began the LCS competition as their bid partner, and would likely have served as the “2nd shipyard” for the trimaran design, if the Navy had pursued that requirement.

Work will be performed in Bath, ME (72%); Pittsfield, MA (20%); and Mobile, AL (8%). Work is expected to be completed by February 2013. The Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Conversion, and Repair in Bath, Maine manages this contract (N00024-09-G-2301).

July 15/11: LCS 9 named. Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus announces that the next Freedom Class ship, LCS 9, will be named USS Little Rock, in honor of Arkansas’ capital city.

The previous USS Little Rock began life as a Cleveland Class light cruiser after World War II [CL-92], and was one of 6 to be converted to a Galveston Class guided missile cruiser later on [CLG/CG-4]. She was decommissioned in 1976, and now sits in Buffalo, NY as a museum ship. US Navy.

July 13/11: Corrosion. A bipartisan group of 7 U.S. Senators sends a formal letter to the Pentagon’s Ashton Carter, asking for explanations about LCS certifications that had been waived by the Navy. Waived items included survivability-related certifications, an area that’s a known weakness for the type. Senators Webb [D-VA, former Secretary of the Navy], Begich [D-AK], McCaskill [D-MO], McCain [R-AZ], Brown [R-MA], Coburn [R-OK], and Portman [R-OH] question:

• An April 7/11 Office of the Secretary of Defense certification to move the LCS to Milestone B, while waiving several requirements, with no explanation of why.
  
• The use of Navy acquisition cost estimates, instead of those from the Pentagon’s Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) group.
  
• A waiver of the need to certify program tradeoffs, granted late in the program
  
• How the LCS program “will ensure reliability and minimize major cost growth in operations and sustainment costs” in light of LCS-2’s corrosion issue; they also want detailed information about the problem, and a response to the Austal CEO’s public statement.

See: Full text of letter | Gannett’s Navy Times.

July 11/11: PEO LCS Created. The US Navy formally establishes Program Executive Office, Littoral Combat Ships (PEO LCS), during a ceremony at Washington Navy Yard, in order to oversee the program. Ship construction supervision is removed fro PEO Ships, while mission module supervision is removed from PEO Littoral and Mine Warfare (PEO LMW), which is dissolved.

Per predictions made in May, Rear Adm. James A. Murdoch is placed in charge of the office, which is designed to bring all elements of the troubled program together under one roof. US Navy | Information Dissemination (May 2011) was not enthusiastic.

July 5/11: US Navy:

“The littoral combat ship USS Freedom (LCS 1) is undergoing $1.8 million in maintenance while in dry dock at BAE Systems San Diego Ship Repair. Freedom is scheduled to undock September 19, 2011.”

The accompanying picture clearly shows the single helicopter hangar, as well as the 2 boxy stern bustles, aka. “water wings,” which added at a late stage to address the type’s reserve buoyancy issues.

June 20-22/11: Corrosion. June 20-22/11: After USS Independence corrosion reports hit Austal’s share price, a company release addresses the issue. It notes the complete lack of such problems on all of Austal’s commercial and military ships to date, and suggests that the US Navy may have failed to follow basic procedures. Note that Westpac Express is a leased vessel, maintained by Austal:

“…having built over 220 aluminum vessels for defence forces and commercial clients around the world… galvanic corrosion has not been a factor on any Austal built and fully maintained vessel, and our technical experts are eager to support any request to identify root causes… The Westpac Express… has shuttled U.S. Marines throughout the Pacific Basin continuously for ten years, with a 99.7% availability over that period.

Austal has a well-developed methodology for the management of galvanic corrosion, which it has deployed globally… If selected to provide post-delivery support for the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Class Services program, it is a straight forward process for Austal engineers… deploy temporary sacrificial anodes every time the vessel is moored, and ensure that high-voltage maintenance equipment is properly grounded before use aboard ship.”

Reports that the US Navy’s temporary fix involves installing a cathodic protection system aboard USS Independence do tend to suggest several major lapses: in specifications and acceptance (US Navy), by the Design Agent (Austal), and by the contract prime (GD Bath Iron works). Information Dissemination has a different take, and thinks there are grounds for believing that Austal’s JHSV ships, which may not have a cathodic protection system either, could also be at risk:

“In the case of LCS-2, the problem was apparently accelerated by stray currents in the hull from the electrical distribution system problems the ship has been having since it was turned over to the Navy. LCS-4 doesn’t have [a cathodic protection system] either, but apparently CPS is part of the lessons learned process and was included in the fixed-price contracts for Austal versions of the LCS beginning with LCS-6. LCS-2 will have the CPS installed at the next drydock period, while Austal has said a CPS will be added to LCS-4 before the ship is turned over to the Navy. The question everyone seems to be asking is whether the JHSV could suffer the same issue… I’d be curious to know if Westpac Express has a CPS installed, or some other form of prevention is used at all.”

See: Austal release | Alabama Press-Register | Information Dissemination | WIRED Danger Room.

June 17/11: Corrosion. The US Navy has told Congressional appropriations committees that “aggressive” corrosion was found in the propulsion areas of USS Independence, which rely on Wartsila waterjets. The ship has been given temporary repairs, but permanent repairs will require dry-docking and removal of the water-jet propulsion system. The strong Australian dollar has hurt Austal’s commercial exports, so this blow to its defense business has added impetus. Bloomberg | Alabama Press-Register | Sydney Morning Herald.

Corrosion in new ships isn’t unheard of, though it’s never a good sign. Norway’s Fridtjof Nansen Class AEGIS frigates had this problem, for instance. The Independence Class runs some risks that are specific to its all-aluminum construction, however, as key subsystems with different metals create risks of galvanic corrosion. Interestingly, the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) NGO notes that:

“The Senate Armed Services Committee’s markup of the FY 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, released today, gives the Pentagon $32.1 million to address “the DoD Corrosion Prevention and Control shortfall in funding requirements.” The Pentagon estimates that funding in this area yields an estimated 57:1 return on investment by reducing the costs for repairs and replacements of corroded systems and parts.”

June 16/11: WLD-1 launch testing. The US Navy Program Executive Office for Littoral and Mine Warfare (PEO LMW) announces the successful first time launch and recovery of the WLD-1 Remote Multi-Mission Vehicle (RMMV) semi-submerged USV from USS Independence [LCS 2], while underway near Panama, FL. The vehicle went through 5 successful cycles of deployment, towed operations and recovery, while also testing things like vehicle stability in the wake zone and remote operation.

In active use, the RMMV will tow the AN/AQS-20A sonar, and the entire Remote Minehunting System is scheduled for further testing in summer 2011 as part of the LCS MIW mine warfare module’s core AMCM system. This test matters to the LCS program for other reasons as well. The effectiveness of LCS rear launch and recovery systems has been a concern for both designs. US NAVSEA.

June 15/11: Saudi Arabia. Defense News reports that Saudi Arabia may be shifting their focus away from a fully armed variant of the Littoral Combat Ship, carrying the smaller AN/SPY-1F radar and AEGIS combat system. In its place, they received May 2011 briefings concerning DDG-51 Arleigh Burke Class destroyers displacing about 3 times the tonnage, with ballistic missile defense capability upgrades. The cost trade-off would be about 4-6 modified LCS ships, in exchange for about 2 DDG-51 Flight IIA BMD ships.

The unspoken threat here is, of course, Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs. The unspoken concern is the security of a top-level defense technology, which is critical to defending the USA and its allies, in Saudi hands.

To date, the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke class has never been exported per se, though their AEGIS combat system and accompanying AN/SPY-1D radars have. Another possible option for Saudi Arabia would be used US Navy DDG-51 Flight I ships, upgraded with AEGIS BMD. That would allow the Saudis to field more ships for the same money, if an agreement was reached. The costs would lie in questions about hull life and length of service, and the Flight Is’ lack of a helicopter hangar. Helicopters have been shown to be essential defenses against speedboat threats, of the kind that Iran fields in the Persian/Arabian Gulf. Defense News | Information Dissemination.

June 4/11: LCS to Singapore. In a speech made at this year’s Shangri-La Dialogue, US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates disclosed US plans to deploy new littoral combat ships (LCS) to Singapore. US Navy ships routinely stop in Singapore, but these would be the first US Navy ships permanently deployed there. SecDef Gates speech transcript | East Asia Forum.

June 2/11: Sub-contractors. Taber Extrusions LLC announces contracts to supply extruded aluminum products for JHSV 3 Fortitude, and LCS 6 Jackson, from its facilities in Russellville, AR and Gulfport, MS. Some structural extrusions for both ships will also be manufactured by Taber and supplied to Austal through a contract with O’Neal Steel Corp.

Taber has an 8,600 ton extrusion press with a rectangular container and billet configuration. The firm says that compared with smaller presses and round containers, their tool gives superior metal flow patterns with much tighter tolerances for flatness, straightness and twist; and better assurance of critical thickness dimensions. The resulting wide multi-void extrusions are friction stir welded into panels, and tight tolerances improve productivity while reducing downstream scrap. When finished, they make up some of the ship’s decking, superstructure and bulkheads.

April 15/11: LCS SAR. The Pentagon’s Selected Acquisitions Report ending Dec 30/10 include the LCS program:

“Procurement and construction cost estimates for LCS have been incorporated into the SAR following approval of Milestone B (entry into Engineering and Manufacturing Development) on April 8, 2011. Previous reports were limited to development costs… Since the December 2009 SAR, development costs increased $1,080.4 million (+3.0 percent) from $36,358.4 million to $37,438.8 million, due primarily to fully funding the required planning and execution of the post-Milestone B program, to include the requirements for developmental/operational testing and live fire test and evaluation (+$822.0 million). There are also increases to complete shipboard trainers (+$189.3 million) and post delivery efforts for LCS-1 and LCS-2 (+$60.9 million).”

Costs rising

April 11/11: Cracking. DoD Buzz relays US Navy LCS program manager Capt. Jeff Riedel’s words, from a briefing at the US Navy League’s annual Sea, Air Space conference. He says it isn’t a design issue – or is it?:

“Both Lockheed and the Navy are going through their final review that should be available in the next couple of weeks… The design is adequate, how I build it is a different story… If I was able to weld it as it was designed to be welded, it wouldn’t have been an issue. The real issue was, getting access to that area to be able to do the weld… We modeled the superstructure and we found that we had areas that were high stress areas, so we would expect, potentially, a crack to occur in that high-stress area… So we instrumented the superstructure and we used that instrumentation to validate the model and in fact, we’re now using that to better the design… for LCS-3 and following we’ve gone back and changed the design so we can reduce those stress areas.”

Beginning with LCS-3, Riedel says that the spot on the ship where the crack occurred was made easier for welders to reach, allowing them to lay an extra thick weld.

March 25/11: LCS 6 & 8 named. US Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus announces that the Freedom Class LCS 6 will be named the USS Jackson, after Mississippi’s state capitol, and LCS 8 will be named the USS Montgomery, after Alabama’s state capitol. US DoD

March 18/11: Freedom, cracked. US NAVSEA reveals that Team Lockheed’s LCS-1 Freedom has already experienced a 6-inch outside/ 3-inch inside horizontal hull crack, located below the waterline in the steel hull, during a heavy weather ocean trial. It leaked 5 gallons an hour, and originated in a weld seam between steel plates. The ship returned to port in San Diego at 8 knots, avoiding rough seas, and the crack was patched with a cofferdam by March 12/11. NAVSEA is reviewing the class’ design, construction drawings and welding procedures.

In response to questions, NAVSEA spokesman Christopher Johnson emailed Bloomberg to add that welding “defects” also showed up as smaller cracks in the welds of USS Freedom’s aluminum superstructure during 2010 sea trials. Changes apparently already have been made in the ship’s design to correct the superstructure stress.

Discussions with people who have been involved in shipbuilding produced a range of reactions, but the fact that the larger crack was found in the steel hull, not the aluminum superstructure, is significant. Aluminum is a tricky material for ships, precisely because of its tendency to crack. One sailor recalled being able to see daylight from inside a level 2 office in the USS Newport LST (now Mexico’s ARM Papaloapan), thanks to cracks at the welds in its aluminum superstructure. Steel is supposed to be less troublesome that way. The overall tenor was that cracks typically first appear near the areas that ‘want to move’ as the ship flexes, but are overly restrained from doing so. That is said to make cracks more of a design issue, and less of a welding issue, though poor welding or poor steel quality can cause problems. One question asked was about expansion joints, which allow the middle part of the ship that gets the most bending to be able to give up those forces in the rubber expansion joint. Many older frigates have an expansion joint at the middle of the ship, for instance, and if this was eliminated in the LCS design, that would more strongly suggest a design issue. Bloomberg (note that USS Independence, referenced as having better welds, is in fact Austal’s ship) | Defense News | Fort Worth Star Telegram | Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel Online.

LCS 1 cracks

March 18/11: LCS 5 & 7 named. US Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus announces that the next 2 Freedom Class ships built by Lockheed Martin will be named the USS Milwaukee [LCS 5] and the USS Detroit [LCS 7]. LCS 3 Fort Worth is said to be about 85% complete at the moment, and on schedule for 2012 delivery. LCS 5 Milwaukee will begin construction in the summer of 2011, while LCS 7 Detroit isn’t expected to begin construction until May 2012.

The last ship named USS Detroit was a Sacramento Class fast support ship, T-AOE-4. It was decommissioned in 2005. The last ship named USS Milwaukee was T-AOR-2, a Wichita Class oiler that was decommissioned in 1994. US Navy | Alabama Press Register | Detroit Free Press | Australia’s Herald Sun (Victoria/ Melbourne) | Green Bay Press-Gazette | West Australia Business News.

March 17/11: 4 ships in FY 2011. The budget calls for 1 ship from each contractor. Note, however, that these awards don’t include the purchase of Government Furnished Equipment on board, or of the mission module needed to make the ships operational.

Lockheed Martin Corp. in Baltimore, MD receives a $376.6 million contract modification for 1 Freedom Class ship, LCS 7 Detroit. Work will be performed in Marinette, WI (56%); Walpole, MA (14%); Washington, DC (12%); Oldsmar, FL (4%); Beloit, WI (3%); Moorestown, NJ (2%); Minneapolis, MN (2%); and various locations of less than 1% each, totaling 7%. Work is expected to be complete by April 2016 (N00024-11-C-2300).

Marinette Marine Co.’s President, Richard McCreary, says the firm expects to recall all 110 laid off employees by the summer, and add about 40 employees per month in August & September 2011.

Austal USA in Mobile, AL receives a $368.6 million contract modification for 1 Independence Class ship, LCS 8. Work will be performed in Mobile, AL (51%); Pittsfield, MA (13%); Cincinnati, OH (4%); Baltimore, MD (2%); Burlington, VT (2%); New Orleans, LA (2%); and various locations of less than 2% each, totaling 26%. Work is expected to be complete by October 2015 (N00024-11-C-2301). See also Austal | Lockheed Martin | Aviation Week | defpro | Philadelphia Inquirer | Upper Michigan Source.

FY 2011 order: LCS-7 & LCS-8

March 15/11: Support. Contracts to the 2 shipbuilders for Littoral Combat Ship class services, funding efforts to “assess engineering and production challenges and evaluate the cost and schedule risks from affordability efforts to reduce LCS acquisition and lifecycle costs.”

Lockheed Martin Corp. in Baltimore, MD receives $34.1 million contract modification. Work will be performed in Hampton, VA (31%); Marinette, WI (25%); Washington, DC (24%); and Moorestown, NJ (20%); and is expected to be complete by March 2012 (N00024-11-C-2300).

Austal USA in Mobile, AL receives a $19.7 million contract modification. Work will be performed in Mobile, AL (83%), and Pittsfield, MA (17%); and is expected to be complete by March 2012 (N00024-11-C-2301).

March 8/11: Controversy. The Senate Armed Services Committee holds hearings regarding the Navy’s FY 2012 Navy budget and longer-term plan. SecNav Ray Mabus outlines the Navy’s view of the approved multi-year buy strategy.

“With an average cost of $440 million per ship, and with the cost reductions we have seen demonstrated on LCS 3 and 4, the Navy will save taxpayers approximately $1.9 billion in FY12-FY16. More importantly, the fact that prices were so dramatically reduced from the initial bids in 2009 will allow us to save an additional $1 billion – for a total of $2.9 billion – through the dual award of a ten-ship contract to each bidder.”

On the other hand, ranking member Sen. McCain continues to express concerns re: the LCS acquisition plan, though the multi-ship buy has been approved:

“As you probably know, I continue to think the Navy made a big mistake in going forward with a dual-source strategy on the LCS program. I believe that the true lifecycle costs of buying and sustaining both ships will be considerably more than what the Navy told us. I do not believe it is wise for Congress to authorize what amounts to a ‘bulk buy’ on a program without proving that its key aspects will work as intended and that its sustainability costs are reasonable. In the case of LCS, the Navy could not tell Congress what its plans are for the two different combat systems for the two designs; and, the combined capability of the mission packages with the sea-frames, which gives the ships combat power, remains unproven. I am concerned that the costs of operating and sustaining both variants will eventually require moving to a single combat system or going to a common propulsion and mechanical system. If that is where affordability concerns drive the Navy, why are we buying two versions of this ship?”

See: SASC Hearings record | Sen. Levin (chair) floor statement | Sen. McCain floor statement.

March 7/11: Industrial. Fincantieri subsidiary Marinette Marine Corporation breaks ground for a new panel-line fabrication building to support construction of the U.S. Navy’s Freedom-class LCS. It will use more automation, improve raw material storage, and cut the distance ship modules have to travel during construction. It’s part of a 5-year, $100 million modernization plan by the shipyard’s new parent company, and builds on 2009 improvements that included higher-capacity overhead cranes, plasma-cutting tables and pipe-bending machines.

In addition to this groundbreaking, Marinette Marine also marked the opening of its professional center and the completion of a project to expand its main indoor ship construction building. This expansion project nearly doubles the building’s size, creating enough space to house 2 complete LCS hulls and parts for 2 additional ships. The firm’s counterpart, Austal, has also been investing in major facility improvements at its Gulf Coast shipyard. Marinette Marine [PDF] | Lockheed Martin.

Feb 1/11: Sub-contractors. EADS North America announces a contract from Lockheed Martin to supply its TRS-3D radar for up to 10 Freedom Class Littoral Combat Ships through 2015. Under the terms of its contract, EADS North America will deliver the 1st radar unit to Lockheed Martin for installation in 2012.

Within the US armed forces, the TRS-3D also serves aboard the Coast Guard’s new frigate-sized National Security Cutters. Austal’s Independence Class trimarans use Saab’s Sea Giraffe AMB radar instead.

Jan 17/10: Sub-contractors. Fairbanks Morse announces a contract from Lockheed Martin for 2 of its 17,000 bhp Colt-Pielstick 16-cylinder PA6B STC diesel engines, to power the Freedom Class LCS 5 ordered in December 2010. The engines will be manufactured and tested at the company’s facility in Beloit, WI, in accordance with American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) Naval Vessel Rules.

Price is not disclosed. If the entire set of 10 ships is ordered, the firm would provide 20 diesel engines.

It may be presumed that Austal is busy working on contracts with its engine suppliers as well: GE (LM2500 turbines) and MTU (800 series diesel).

Jan 17/10: Sub-contractors. Rolls Royce Marine announces an immediate contract from Lockheed Martin for 2 more of its 36MW MT30 gas turbines, as part of a larger contract to equip up to 10 Freedom Class ships.

The MT30 is derived from the firm’s Trent engines that outfit large passenger jets. In the US Navy, the MT30 also serves on the forthcoming fleet of 3 DDG-1000 Zumwalt Class destroyers. Each LCS-1 Freedom Class ship takes 2 turbines, so the total order would be 20 if all 10 Freedom Class ships are ordered. Price is not disclosed, and the release adds that:

“In addition to gas turbines and waterjets, a significant range of Rolls-Royce equipment is specified in the Lockheed Martin design, including shaftlines, bearings and propulsion system software.”

They have not been trouble-free, however: see esp. Sept 29/10 entry.

Build ’em both!
(click to view full)

Dec 30/10: Dual Buy. Now that the provisional spending authority is approved along with the Navy’s revised dual-buy plan, the Navy issues 2010-2015 block buy contracts to Austal and to Lockheed Martin. The contract includes options for up to 9 additional vessels in the following 5 years, plus post delivery support, additional crew and shore support, special studies, class services, class standard equipment support, economic order quantity equipment. These contracts were competitively procured via the Federal Business Opportunities website, with 2 offers received.

Freedom class monohulls: Lockheed Martin Corp. in Baltimore, MD receives a fixed-price-incentive contract (vid. Dec 8/10 entry) for $491.6 million: $436.9 million for a Freedom class ship, and $54.7 million for technical data package, core class services, provisioned items orders, ordering, a not-to-exceed line item for non-recurring engineering, and data items. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year, except FY 2010 RDT&E funds.

Fincantieri’s Marinette Marine Corporation will build the ships, and naval architect Gibbs & Cox will provide engineering and design support. Work will be performed in Marinette, WI (56%); Walpole, MA (14%); Washington, DC (12%); Oldsmar, FL (4%); Beloit, WI (3%); Moorestown, NJ (2%); Minneapolis, MI (2%); and various locations of less than 1 percent (7%). Work is expected to be complete by August 2015.

If all 10 Freedom class ships are bought, the given cumulative value is $4.07 billion. If the Navy exercises options according to the previous procurement approach instead, and looks in 2012 for a 2nd source to build 5 more ships, the contract could rise to $4.571 billion, including selected ship systems equipment for a 2nd source builder and selected ship system integration and test for a 2nd source (N00024-11-C-2300).

Independence class trimarans: Austal USA, LLC in Mobile, AL receives a fixed-price-incentive contract (vid. Dec 8/10 entry) for $465.5 million: $432.1 million to build an Independence class LCS, plus $33.4 million for technical data package, core class services, provisioned items orders, ordering, a not-to-exceed line item for non-recurring engineering, and data items. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year, except FY 2010 RDT&E funds.

This brings Austal’s total order book to A$ 1.3 billion; the same shipyard is also building the US Navy’s JHSV fast-transport catamarans. Austal is beginning LCS-related preparation work beyond its investments to date, including a $140 million facility expansion and workforce development program over the next 12 months, which will more than double Austal’s workforce to 3,800 employees. Construction of the first LCS vessel will begin in early 2012, and it’s currently scheduled for delivery by June 2015. Work will be performed in Mobile, AL (50%); Pittsfield, MA (17%); Cincinnati, OH (3%); Baltimore, MD (2%); Burlington, VT (2%); New Orleans, LA (2%); and various locations of less than 2 percent each (24%).

If all 10 Independence class ships are bought, the given cumulative value is $3.786 billion. If the Navy exercises options according to the previous procurement approach instead, and looks in 2012 for a 2nd source to build 5 more ships, including selected ship systems equipment for a 2nd source and selected ship system integration and test for a 2nd source, the contract could rise to $4.386 billion (N00024-11-C-2301).

Note that these prices do not reflect the additional cost of Government Furnished Equipment, including all weapons, mission modules, etc. Those additional costs can be expected to be comfortably over $100 million per ship. See also US Navy | Austal | Lockheed Martin | Defense Tech.

Dual buy contract for up to 20 ships

Dec 22/10: Budgets. The US Senate passes H.R. 6523, the House’s Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011. Having passed in identical form in both the House and Senate, it was introduced to the President to be signed on Dec 29/10. US Senate [PDF]. See also Aviation Week debate coverage | Sen. McCain’s [R-AZ] floor statement, against inclusion of the LCS.

Dec 21/10: Budgets. The US house of Representatives’ “lame duck” session of outgoing Congresspeople passes a new continuing resolution proposed by Senate Democrats to keep the government running through early 2011. The only arms-program-specific language in the legislation says that: “Subject to the availability of appropriations, the Secretary of the Navy may award a contract or contracts for up to 20 Littoral Combat Ships”.

On the other hand, the funding will not extend through the end of the fiscal year on Sept 30/11, as the incoming House and Senate will have full opportunity to pass their own budget. Gannett’s Navy Times.

Dec 14/10: GAO Report. The US Senate Armed Services Committee holds hearings regarding the proposed LCS program change. Reuters | See esp. the US GAO testimony: “Defense Acquisitions: Realizing Savings under Different Littoral Combat Ship Acquisition Strategies Depends on Successful Management of Risks,” which generally echoes their Dec 8/10 report.

Dec 13/10: Competition. Lockheed Martin and Austal extend their bid price offers to Dec 30/11, to allow extra time to finalize contracts at current prices. That’s necessary for 2 reasons. One is the funding uncertainty and turmoil created by continuing resolutions, as the 112th Congress tries to clean up the budgetless mess left by the last Congress. The other, related issue is that the latest LCS acquisition plan hasn’t been approved by Congress yet. Ranking Senate Armed Services Committee member Sen. John McCain [R-AZ] continues to oppose approval of that new acquisition plan, pending clarity on combat effectiveness and long-term costs. Green Bay Press Gazette.

Dec 10/10: CBO Report. The US Congressional Budget Office releases its report on the proposed program change: “Cost Implications of the Navy’s Plans for Acquiring Littoral Combat Ships” [PDF]. The CBO often has different cost estimates than the US Navy – and CBO’s higher estimates have a history of being right. In this case, however, they acknowledge that they’re handicapped by not seeing the shipyard bids.

They see the central issues as twofold. One is future operating and maintenance costs, which the GAO has also flagged as a serious issue. Maintaining 2 types is both a plus and a minus. That could really help the fleet if one design performs better, and right bow, data is limited. n the other hand, it also means additional spares, maintenance and training infrastructure, which may have to be duplicated on both coasts depending on deployment plans.

The other issue is the hardwired central combat systems, which are said to cost about $70 million per ship. They’re a topic of special attention in the report, as they’re different for the 2 ship designs. On the other hand, aligning them to allow common upgrades and maintenance would result in high retrofit costs down the road. Some estimates place the cost between $910 million – $1.8 billion. See also subsequent coverage of the combat system issue by Aviation Week | Gannett’s Navy Times.

Dec 8/10: GAO report on buy strategy. The US GAO releases its report – “Navy’s Proposed Dual Award Acquisition Strategy for the Littoral Combat Ship Program.” They still see the program as risky, and the risks are inherent in the design, concept, and execution, not the procurement strategy. The Navy doesn’t really understand operating and maintenance costs for the designs yet, which creates a big budget risk, though building both ships may hedge against the risks that one design turns out to be poor in this or other areas. Most significantly, the GAO points to a chronic and serious problem that has destroyed cost estimates for previous ship classes:

“In an effort to address technical issues on the first two ships, the Navy has implemented design changes for… LCS 3 and LCS 4… [that are] not yet complete. These changes are significant and have affected the configuration of several major ship systems including propulsion, communications, electrical, and navigation. In addition, launch, handling, and recovery systems for both designs are still being refined… contract modifications will need to be negotiated and priced. According to the Navy, it estimates funding requirements for these change orders to total 5 percent for all future follow-on ships produced… In addition, Navy officials stated that the seaframe solicitation includes a provision that agreed to design changes are “not to exceed” $12 million – a feature that Navy officials state will bound government cost risk due to design changes. Pending full identification and resolution of deficiencies affecting the lead ships, the Navy’s ability to stay within its budgeted limits remains to be seen.”

While the US Navy says that designs for LCS 3 & 4 are stable as built, the GAO points out that this is because key changes have been deferred until post-delivery. As testing reveals other issues, the amount of deferred work for follow-on ships “can reasonably be expected to grow.” See also Bloomberg.

Dec 6/10: LCS-2. USS Independence (LCS 2) arrives at BAE Systems Ship Repair in Norfolk, VA to begin its first industrial post-delivery availability. During the availability, the ship will complete the installation of needed components not installed during construction. US Navy.

Dec 4/10: LCS 3 launched. The 2nd Freedom-class LCS, USS Fort Worth (LCS 3), is launched at the Marinette Marine shipyard, on the Menominee River. Lockheed Martin | Argon ST [PDF].

Nov 4/10: LCS Plan #5. The US Navy looks over the bids, and applies to Congress to change the procurement strategy one more time. The bids appear to be low enough that the Navy thinks it can order 20 ships total (10 from each builder), and bulk up the fleet sooner, for the amount it had budgeted to field 15 ships using a 10 + 5 split.

Congress must take action to authorize the proposed 2 block buys by mid-December 2010, or the Navy is likely to end up with its default approach of awarding one 10-ship contract. US Navy | Aviation Week | James Hasik | Reuters.

5th plan the charm?

Oct 26/10: Saudi Arabia. Lockheed Martin MS2 President Orlando Carvalho confirms that his company has supplied price and availability information on its version of the littoral combat ship (LCS) to Saudi Arabia, which is looking to buy 8 modern frigate-sized warships. Lockheed is proposing a very different LCS, configured as a frigate equipped with AN/SPY-1F radars, an AEGIS combat system, and set equipment instead of mission modules.

It remains understood the Saudi authorities are waiting to see which LCS version the U.S. Navy chooses, but the ship’s capabilities might be well suited to the Arabian/Persian Gulf’s shallow waters. At Euronaval 2010, a French official reportedly said that France is hoping to sell between 4-6 FREMM frigates for the Saudis’ western (Red Sea and Indian Ocean) fleet, while the LCS was seen as likely for the eastern (Gulf) fleet. Defense News | Shephard Group | Tactical Report.

Oct 14/10: CRS Report. The Congressional Research Service issues its updated report: “Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program: Background, Issues, and Options for Congress” [PDF]. It offers details concerning the program’s history and current plans. Key issues examined include:

• Whether Congress had adequate time to review the latest procurement strategy in 2010
  
• Whether the Navy’s new plan gives it enough time to really evaluate how the initial ships of class perform
  
• Whether the price-focused RFP properly balances sticker price against life-cycle operation and support (O&S) costs and ship capability
  
• What happens if the Navy picks a winner, and the winner can’t deliver to cost?
  
• How does the Navy plan to evolve the winning ship’s combat system to a configuration that has greater commonality with one or more existing Navy surface ship combat systems?
  
• What are the Navy’s longer-term plans regarding the 2 “orphan” ships from the LCS class that isn’t picked?
  
• What potential alternatives are there to the Navy’s new acquisition strategy? CRS cites block buys of both types, Profit Related to Offer bidding, and having the Navy buy the combat system separately.
  
• In light of the cost growth, is the LCS program still cost-effective? What is the LCS sea frame unit procurement cost above which the Navy would no longer consider the LCS program cost-effective?

Other concerns include survivability, and CRS quotes the December 2009 report from the Pentagon’s Director of Operational Test and Evaluation:

“LCS was designated by the Navy as a Level I survivability combatant ship, but neither design is expected to achieve the degree of shock hardening as required by the CDD [Capabilities Development Document]… Only a few selected subsystems will be shock hardened… Accordingly, the full, traditional rigor of Navy-mandated ship shock trials is not achievable, due to the damage that would be sustained by the ship… The LCS LFT&E [Live Fire Test and Evaluation] program has been hampered by the Navy’s lack of credible modeling and simulation tools for assessing the vulnerabilities of ships constructed to primarily commercial standards (American Bureau of Shipping Naval Vessel Rules and High Speed Naval Craft Code), particularly aluminum and non-traditional hull forms. Legacy LFT&E models were not developed for these non-traditional factors, nor have they been accredited for such use. These knowledge gaps undermine the credibility of the modeling and simulation, and increase the amount of surrogate testing required for an adequate LFT&E program. The LCS is not expected to be survivable in a hostile combat environment as evidenced by the limited shock hardened design and results of full scale testing of representative hull structures completed in December 2006.”

See the US Naval Institute blog’s take on the report as well, with a particular focus on survivability and the lessons of littoral naval combat. One excerpt from the full report discusses an important procedural point:

“The Navy had earlier planned to make the down select decision and award the contract to build the 10 LCSs sometime this past summer, but the decision was delayed and reportedly will now occur within 90 days of September 15 – the date by which the two industry teams were told by the Navy to submit new proposal revisions. On this basis, it would appear that the decision could be announced as late as December 14. On October 12, 2010, it was reported that a Defense Acquisition Board (DAB) review meeting on the LCS program that was scheduled for October 29 has been postponed to a later date that has not been set. The Navy states that it cannot announce its down select decision and award a contract to the winner until after the DAB meeting occurs.”

FY 2010

RFP released, but decision delayed; Clarity on LCS 3-4 costs; LCS “not survivable in a hostile combat environment”; LCS concept fails in Persian Gulf war game; USS Freedom [LCS 1] deploys with US Coast Guard aboard; USS Independence [LCS 2] commissioned; LCS 1’s MT30 engine problems; Austal/GD team splits; Official reports.

MT30 turbine
(click to view full)

Sept 29/10: MT30 improvements. Rolls-Royce Naval Marine, Inc. in Walpole, MA received a $9.8 million cost-plus fixed-fee, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract for “engineering and technical services on the Rolls-Royce gas turbine engine product improvement program. This contract is being awarded to research potential improvements to Rolls Royce gas turbine engines. Delivery Order 0001 will be issued on the same day of contract award with initial contract funding in the amount of $800,000.”

Work will be performed in Walpole, MA (70%), and Indianapolis, IN (30%), and is expected to be complete by September 2015. $800,000 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, which is Sept 30/10. This contract was not competitively procured by the Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock Division, Ship Systems Engineering Station in Philadelphia, PA (N65540-09-D-0016).

DID has not tied this contract directly to the LCS program yet, but a search through US Navy ship types didn’t reveal any ships using Rolls Royce gas turbines, except LCS 1.

Sept 23/10: MT30 problems. Gannett’s Navy Times reports that USS Freedom [LCS 1] shut down its gas turbine engines on Sept 12/10, while operating off southern California. The Rolls-Royce MT30 gas turbines had “high vibration indications” in the starboard engine, and the ship returned to port using its diesel engines. Subsequent examination showed that turbine blading had broken off, damaging the turbine.

Lockheed Martin’s monohull design uses MT30 engines, instead of GE’s less powerful LM2500 which is used in the Austal trimarans, and in most current US Navy surface combatants. The US Navy will conduct USS Freedom’s engine changeout in Port Hueneme, CA, which is seen as being similar to the likely locations in which a deployed LCS would have to do this sort of operation. The Navy has scheduled a week’s time for the complete procedure.

LCS-1 engine issues

Sept 15/10: Bids in. Final bids for the latest incarnation of the Littoral Combat Ship contract are in from Lockheed Martin and Austal USA. Lockheed Martin | Defense News.

Sept 14/10: Politics. The Senate defense appropriations subcommittee votes to fund just 1 Littoral Combat Ship in FY 2011, instead of 2. That’s a long way from being the final word on the matter, but chairman Sen. Daniel Inouye [D-HI] reportedly says that:

“…two ships funded in 2010 have not yet been contracted. Under the new plan, the Navy would seek to award four ships to a single contractor in the coming year. There is virtually no way that the winning contractor would be able to begin construction of four ships in 2011.” Funding for one ship in 2011 “is more than adequate,” he said. And it saves $615 million.”

See: Gannett’s Navy Times | Information Dissemination.

Sept 14/10: Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia may be interested in the LCS as part of its rumored $60 billion weapons package. Despite previous focus on Austal’s trimaran design, a Washington Post report says that:

“The official said the Saudis continue to have internal discussions about those purchases and are watching to see the outcome of a competition to build a new Littoral Combat Ship.”

Sept 9/10: LCS a Lemon? In a piece called “Red Flags Everywhere,” influential naval blog Information Dissemination, which has generally been mildly supportive of the program, says:

“There isn’t just one thing wrong with the Littoral Combat Ship program – every thing is wrong with this program. There are so many red flags waiving frantically in the face of Congress, the Navy, and any casual observer in regards to the Littoral Combat Ship I feel like I am standing roadside in Beijing during a Party propaganda parade… The Littoral Combat Ship has traded survivability, armor, endurance, weapon payloads, cost efficiency, and reduced operational capabilities across the board for the advantage of speed. What is this advantage of speed that makes the trade off worth it? What is 40 knots giving the Navy’s new small combatant that 28 knots can’t?”

The piece comes in response to a generally supportive Lexington Institute piece:

“More recently, the Navy seemed to have the LCS program under control… Understanding the importance of the LCS, the Navy responded to initial problems with the basic ships or sea frames with the necessary attention, expertise and resources. The same effort must now be devoted to the development of working mission packages. This also includes developing the desired unmanned systems, particularly for subsurface operations.”

Sept 1/10: War Game Fail. Defense Tech reports:

“A recent Pentagon war game that ran the Navy’s new Littoral Combat Ship through simulated combat in the Gulf didn’t unfold quite as expected, according to participants… The war game featured the trouble-making Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps navy… Seeing their small boat swarm shot-up, the Iranians dispatched a bunch of small, air-breathing submarines to attack the LCS flotilla. The LCSs were forced to steam down to Diego Garcia to switch out the surface warfare modules with the anti-submarine warfare packages. That scenario repeated itself every time the Iranians changed up their attack and wrong-footed the LCS flotilla [due to the long change-out times].”

Designing the mission modules to be swappable by helicopter, and having medium-lift helicopters in the Navy with higher lift capacity then the planned H-60 models, might alleviate that problem. Neither approach has been taken.

LCS fails in war game

Aug 31/10: GAO Report. US GAO report #GAO-10-523 on the LCS program sees problems. “Defense Acquisitions: Navy’s Ability to Overcome Challenges Facing the Littoral Combat Ship Will Determine Eventual Capabilities.” Key excerpts:

“The Navy plans to invest over $25 billion through fiscal year 2035 to acquire LCS. However, recurring cost growth and schedule delays have jeopardized the Navy’s ability to deliver promised LCS capabilities… technical issues with the first two seaframes have yet to be fully resolved… Challenges developing mission packages have delayed the timely fielding of promised capabilities, limiting the ships’ utility to the fleet during initial deployments… Key mine countermeasures and surface warfare systems encountered problems in operational and other testing that delayed their fielding…”

With respect to the ships themselves:

“The Navy has required LCS seaframes to meet Level 1 survivability standards. Ships built to Level 1 are expected to operate in the least severe environment, away from the area where a carrier group is operating or the general war-at-sea region… Current ships in the fleet built to the Level 1 standard include material support ships, mine-warfare vessels, and patrol combatants.”

“…In our work on shipbuilding best practices, we found that achieving design stability before start of fabrication is a key step… Addressing [LCS 1 and 2] technical issues has required the Navy to implement design changes at the same time LCS 3 and LCS 4 are being built… Our analysis of the procurement section of the LCS total ownership cost baseline found the estimate lacks several characteristics essential to a high-quality cost estimate.”

See also the LCS Ancillaries: Mission Module & Weapon Contracts & Key Events section for additional excerpts related to those areas, and “MH-60S Airborne Mine Counter-Measures Continues Development” for in-depth reports on the mine warfare mission module components. See also: Aviation Week | Information Dissemination on the larger cultural issues this report speaks to.

Aug 29/10: LCS 3s. DoD Buzz reports that “Lockheed Martin, with just a five-week head start, has completed 60 percent of LCS 3, compared to Austal, whose LCS 4 is only 26 percent complete.” Why is that? It’s partly because Lockheed Martin reused work done on the original LCS 3 contract, which was canceled mid-stride. Lockheed Martin MS2 business development director Paul Lemmo:

“Lemmo also pointed out that Lockheed Martin has kept parts and materials left over from the previously terminated LCS-3. The Navy originally terminated Lockheed Martin’s second LCS in April 2007… [but] the company decided to continue manufacturing about 50 to 55 systems all the way to their completion… “Those systems have been in storage either at the manufacturer or at some of our facilities and they will be brought to bear on the ship,” [Lemmo] said. “The value of that material is about at least half of the total value of the material on the ship. Half the material needed for Fort Worth was already purchased. Generically a lot of it is long-lead propulsion machinery–the engine, the gas turbines, diesels, gears, water jets, shafting, those kinds of things…what was on order.”

See: DoD Buzz | Defense Daily.

Aug 23/10: Selection delayed. The US Navy delays its final selection for the new Littoral Combat Ship contract. The decision appears to have been pushed back to Dec 30/10, but the exact date in unclear. Defense News.

April 12/10: Competition. Lockheed Martin announces that its industry team has submitted its proposal for the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) fiscal year 2010-2014 contract to the U.S. Navy today. The Navy will award the winning team a fixed-price incentive fee contract to provide up to 10 ships with combat systems, as well as combat systems for 5 additional ships, to be built at a second shipyard.

April 1/10: LCS SAR. The Pentagon releases its April 2010 Selected Acquisitions Report, covering major program changes up to December 2009. One of the changes involves the Littoral Combat Ship, while another involves an ancillary system and is covered in that section. For the LCS “seaframe” itself:

“Program costs [DID: for the initial development effort] increased $883.9 million (+31.0%) from $2,848.6 million to $3,732.5 million, due to additional development and support for the mission package test program, seaframe testing, and crew training (+$241.5 million). There were also increases for the procurement of additional mission packages (+$183.6 million), a revised estimate for development, planning, and execution of Flight 0 and Flight 0+ (+$157.2 million), a revised estimate for seaframe pricing due to cost growth (+$131.5 million), changes to mission module development and phasing (+$77.8 million), additional funding for a technical data package (+$59.8 million), and the re-phasing of work due to a change in the schedule for Flight 0 (+$44.8 million).”

Cost increases

March 31/10: LCS 2. Aviation Week Ares describes the current state of USS Independence [LCS 2]. At this point, its captain says that she’s still in the pre-tactical risk mitigation stage. The crew is becoming familiar with the ship, and performing basic tasks like air defense testing, fast acceleration and deceleration, putting fast boats in the water while at sea, etc.

March 30/10: GAO Report. The US GAO issues report #GAO-10-388SP, its 2010 Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs.

With respect to the Littoral Combat Ship, the report places the program far below the desired level of technology and manufacturing knowledge for a program at this stage. Compared to its 2004 baseline, which was itself about 150% of original cost-per unit estimates, LCS R&D costs have increased by 169.2% of baseline. Procurement cost for the initial capability ships is up by a stunning 505.3%, total program cost for initial fielding has risen 285.9%, and acquisition cycle time rose 139% over the original baseline. The report also flags LCS weight increases that have led to LCS 1 stability issues due to a higher center of gravity, and mission modules that are only partially capable.

Mission Module findings are detailed in the Ancillaries section, but the key takeaway is that they’re not ready for effective service yet – and the ship’s chosen missile armament could become a serious problem.

March 22/10: Support. Lockheed Martin Maritime Systems & Sensors in Baltimore, MD receives a $14.1 million modification to a previously awarded contract (N00024-09-C-2303) to provide engineering, program, and technical support for LCS class ships. This includes class baseline design services, class configuration management services, class documentation services, ship interim support, ship systems development, and other technical and engineering analyses.

Work will be performed in Norfolk, VA (41%), Moorestown, NJ (16%), Baltimore, MD (15%), Marinette, WI (14%), Washington, DC (8%), Arlington, VA (6%), and is expected to be complete by December 2010.

March 20/10: Costs. Inside the Navy:

“The Navy does not ask competing Littoral Combat Ship builders Austal USA and Lockheed Martin to arrive at an exact dollar figure for how much each bidder’s ship will cost over its lifespan in the current request for proposals for what will be the winning LCS design, sources told Inside the Navy last week. Yet, the sea service wants the competitors to “qualitatively: explain how they will manage “total ownership costs” in the future…”

March 16/10: Cracking. Reuters reports on a recent US Navy SBIR research solicitation, aimed at more quickly and cheaply diagnosing cracking in aluminum ship structures. From US Navy SBIR N10A-T041: “Fracture Evaluation and Design Tool for Welded Aluminum Ship Structures Subjected to Impulsive Dynamic Loading” :

“A new analysis tool combined with an experimental validation protocol is needed to accurately characterize the dynamic response and fracture behavior of welded aluminum ship structures subjected to extreme loading events. The goal of this effort is to develop an explicit dynamic failure prediction toolkit for fracture assessment of welded thin-walled aluminum structures. To efficiently characterize a large size ship structure, innovative modeling techniques using fractured shell elements are needed along with a mesh independent crack insertion and propagation capability. In addition to innovative crack simulation in a shell structure, advanced constitutive models have to be implemented in the toolkit to capture the rate dependence and anisotropy in strength, plastic flow and ductility. Developing and demonstrating novel damage simulation and fracture prediction methods has significant potential impact on design and operation of current and future Navy welded aluminum, ship structural systems.”

US Navy Commander Victor Chen reiterated the Navy’s confidence in the JHSV and LCS ships; the JHSV catamaran is aluminum construction, as is the LCS-2 Independence Class, and the LCS-1 Freedom Class uses an aluminum superstructure on a steel hull. He adds that:

“We already have a level of confidence in how to work with aluminum. The Office of Naval Research is trying to expand the knowledge base and build on what we already know.”

March 16/10: Drug busts. On her initial deployment to the Caribbean, the US Navy highlights USS Freedom’s [LCS 1] conduct of drug busts. The fast boats were intercepted with help from Freedom’s embarked MH-60S helicopter – a capability that is not unique to the LCS, by any means. Aviation Week Ares.

March 13/10: Industrial. New Fincantieri subsidiary Marinette Marine Corporation in Marinette, WI breaks ground on an expansion that will nearly double the size of its main indoor ship construction building. The expansion will provide enough indoor space to simultaneously house 2 complete LCS hulls and parts for 2 additional ships. It will also allow greater use of more efficient modular construction processes. The expansion is part of parent company Fincantieri’s 5-year, $100 million plan to modernize its U.S. shipbuilding operations and support the LCS program. Green Bay Gazette | MarineLog.

March 4/10: Austal & GD break up. Defense News reports that shipbuilding partners Austal USA and General Dynamics have agreed to revoke their teaming arrangement on the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program: “We are now acting as prime going forward on the LCS program,” Austal president Joseph Rella told Defense News March 4.

The positions partner General Dynamics to bid on the 2nd set of 5 ships under the current procurement plan, if the LCS-2 Independence trimaran design wins. Competing with a rival prime bid is unrealistic for General Dynamics at this point, given the investments that would be required in aluminum-related manufacturing facilities and techniques. General Dynamics has confirmed that it does not intend to bid on the initial 10-ship competition, though the firms will continue their joint relationship when building the Coronado [LCS 4]. GD Advanced Information Systems will continue beyond that as an Austal team partner, and subcontractor for systems integration.

Austal & GD end partnership

LCS 1 & LHD 6
(click to view full)

March 3/10: CSBA Report. The USA’s non-partisan Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment puts out a paper: “Littoral Combat Ship: An Examination of its Possible Concepts of Operation” [PDF]. While the report is generally positive about the LCS, and even offers several operational scenarios that use the ship’s capabilities, it does raise a few issues. Crew size is one, but the other relate to the standard trio of speed, armament, and sustainability:

“The disadvantage is that speed requires great power. By choosing speed the Navy has consciously chosen to accept lower carrying capacity and endurance. The impact on endurance is illustrated by the fact LCS’s cruising range of around 4,000 nautical miles (nm) at 20kts reduces to 1,500 nm at 45kts. This compares to an endurance of around 12,000 nm at 9kts for the US Coast Guard’s Legend- class National Security Cutter. Consequently, any mission that requires extensive use of speed will significantly limit the ship’s unrefueled time on station. Restrictions on payload and fuel capacity (including aviation fuel) mean that the LCS will require considerable logistical support for the provisioning of fuel, ammunition, perishable foods and other consumables. The Navy will almost certainly need to give greater thought to how the LCS can be supported when operating at distance from base areas.

…While taking due account of the fact that none of these nations operate carriers or long-range strike forces, the ability of the LCS to defend itself when compared to similar ships designed to undertake similar tasks appears to be limited, especially against air attack, regardless of which mission package is carried… The ship currently lacks a torpedo detection capability. The Navy is now taking urgent steps to rectify this worrisome omission… consideration needs to be given to providing a “mother ship” or tender in support able to resupply not only fuel but also other consumables, such as ammunition, perishables and spare parts, and provide medical treatment and workshop facilities. The LCS is designed to be self-sustaining for between fourteen and twenty-one days but in circumstances when it is operating at high speed this could conceivably drop to as little as four days. Workshop access may be particularly important because, as part of the drive to restrict crew size, much of the maintenance generally conducted by a ship’s crew has, in the case of the LCS, been transferred ashore.”

…NWDC laid equal stress on “frequently conducted” or “continuous” missions including SOF support, maritime interception operations/ SLOC(Sea Lines of Communication) patrol, and logistics. It pointed out that in the 29-year period prior to 1999, 60 percent of all naval missions were of this type… The implication of these statements is that the primary use of the LCS is increasingly considered to be as a naval constabulary vessel (which all naval vessels are to a degree) that is also able to undertake most naval diplomacy tasks and selected missions at the middle and lower ends of naval war fighting.”

Note that many of the scenarios to illustrate the ships’ usefulness depend on sustained high-speed operations, against the backdrop of a US Navy that is already short on oilers. Another involves escorts through the Persian Gulf, against fast attack craft armed with anti-ship missiles whose range the LCS cannot match, and whose strikes the LCS is ill-equipped to survive.

March 3/10: Fuel & Range. Inside the Navy publishes data about the relative fuel efficiency of the 2 LCS contenders (Source). There’s a significant difference, with implications for both operating costs and range, but the Navy proposes to treat them as equivalent, vid. Feb 25/10 entry:

“The General Dynamics variant of the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) uses less fuel per hour during higher rates of speed than the Lockheed Martin vessel, according to a Navy document. The one-page LCS Consumption Curves shows that both ships use about the same amount of fuel, or barrels, per hour between zero and 16 knots. At five knots, the General Dynamics aluminum trimaran uses 3.2 barrels per hour versus 3.9 for Lockheed Martin’s semi-planing monohull [DID: +21%]. At 14 knots, the General Dynamics ship uses 11.3 barrels per hour while the Lockheed Martin ship uses 12.7 [DID: +12.4%]. At 16 knots, the Lockheed Martin ship uses 18.4 barrels per hour while the General Dynamics ship uses 15.5 [DID: +18.7%], according to the document. At 30 knots, the General Dynamics trimaran burns through 62.7 barrels per hour, while the Lockheed Martin monohull uses 102.9 barrels per hour [DID: +64.1%] … At 40 knots, the Lockheed Martin ship burns through 138 barrels per hour while the General Dynamics ship uses 105.7 barrels per hour [DID: + 30.5%].”

The LCS-1 Freedom Class’ weight issues could change these figures, especially when fully loaded. The LCS-2 Independence Class also has greater fuel capacity.

Feb 25/10: Competition. US Sen. Sessions [R-AL] questions criteria for Littoral Combat Ship RFP, pointing out the RFP’s cost as sole determinant approach, despite capability differences. The Navy responds that they consider both ships to be equivalent, and says that the ships will spend a low percentage of their time at high speeds. AL.com | YouTube video | Gannett’s Navy Times article.

Feb 19/10: LCS 3. Lockheed Martin spokeswoman Kim Martinez says that the Fort Worth [LCS 3] “is being assessed to preclude the same tank design,” and may be modified to avoid the need for USS Freedom’s bolt-on rear “water wings.” Gannett’s Navy Times blog Scoop Deck adds:

“Neither LockMart nor the Navy will say the original LCS 1 design included too little reserve buoyancy, but Martinez stressed that Freedom “meets all the Navy’s requirements, including for reserve buoyancy.” So does that mean the Navy discovered problems with its own requirements after accepting delivery of the Freedom? “That’s a question best answered by the Navy,” Martinez said.”

Feb 16/10: Freedom Class change. Gannett’s Navy Times’ blog “Scoop Deck” notes an interesting change to USS Freedom [LCS 1]:

“There is one big change, however: In a yard period late last year, Freedom acquired two large oblong metal boxes on its transom, on either side of the stern gate its crew uses to launch and recover boats. The sailors call these “buoyancy tanks,” although they look almost like a baby’s water wings for the pool… Do water wings added after the fact mean the Freedom – and Lockheed Martin’s design for the LCS 1-class – suffered from too little reserve buoyancy? “I can’t really talk much more about that,” [Gold Crew skipper, Commander Randy] Garner said.”

Feb 2/10: GAO Report. The US Congress’ GAO submits official report GAO-10-257: “Littoral Combat Ship: Actions Needed to Improve Operating Cost Estimates and Mitigate Risks in Implementing New Concepts.” Key excerpts:

“GAO’s analysis of the Navy’s 2009 estimates showed that the [LCS] operating and support costs for seaframes and mission packages could total $84 billion (in constant fiscal year 2009 dollars) through about 2050 [divided $64.1B seaframes, $20.8B packages]. However, the Navy did not follow some best practices for developing an estimate… The costs to operate and support a weapon system can total 70 percent of a system’s costs… With a decision pending in 2010 on which seaframe to buy for the remainder of the program, decision makers could lack critical information to assess the full costs of the alternatives. The Navy has made progress in developing operational concepts for LCS, but faces risks in implementing its new concepts for personnel, training, and maintenance that are necessitated by the small crew size… an average of 484 days of training is required before reporting to a [LCS] crew, significantly more than for comparable positions on other surface ships. Moreover, the Navy’s maintenance concept relies heavily on distance support, with little maintenance performed on ship. The Navy acknowledges that there are risks in implementing its new concepts… If the Navy cannot implement its concepts as envisioned, it may face operational limitations, have to reengineer its operational concepts, or have to alter the ship design. Many of the concepts will remain unproven until 2013 or later, when the Navy will have committed to building almost half the class… Navy officials from two divisions within the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations – the Surface Warfare Division and the Assessments Division – said they were unaware of any analysis supporting the total planned quantities for either the surface warfare package or its maritime security module. Also, Navy officials said that the Navy has not performed a force structure analysis on the antisubmarine package because the contents are under development.”

GAO’s core recommendation, among several:

“To improve decision making, we are recommending that the Navy conduct a risk assessment and consider the results before committing to buy LCS ships in order to link procurement with evidence that the Navy is progressing in its ability to implement its new operational concepts.”

Jan 27/10: RFP. The US Navy releases the revised Littoral Combat Ship RFP. See Sept 16/09 and Jan 11/10 entries; the winner will receive contracts for 10 ships over the next 5 years, and another competition will be held in 2012 for a 2nd shipyard. The 2nd shipyard will build 5 ships of the same design over 3 years, but can’t be associated with the winning shipyard. FedBizOpps Solicitation #N0002410R2301:

“For the requirements synopsized herein, the LCS team members are the only sources, with the requisite knowledge of LCS design, construction, systems, and extensive knowledge of, and experience with, mission module interface requirements to efficiently and effectively construct these additional follow-on ships within the required construction period, and perform the associated services. The requirement contemplated is for up to ten (10) ships with two (2) ships in Fiscal Year 2010 and for two (2) ships per year in Fiscal Years 2011 through 2014; up to five (5) additional Select Ship Systems to be provide to a Second Source in FY12; integration of up to five (5) sets of Select Ship Systems for a Second Source in FY12. The contract will be awarded through a limited competition pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1), only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements. Companies interested in subcontracting opportunities should contact the LCS teams directly.”

The RfP lists 3 primary bid items (basic seaframe/ ship; combat & non-combat equipment; and the systems to handle the integration and testing. Technical and management factors in order of preference are: affordability and production approach; management; technical data package adequacy, and rights in technical data and computer software; design change impact; past performance; and life-cycle cost reduction initiatives. Navy statements strongly indicate, however, that this will almost exclusively be a cost-driven competition. Defense News | Gannett’s Navy Times.

Revised RFP issued

Jan 20/10: No LVL 1 Survivability. Reuters offers conclusions from the Pentagon’s director of Operational Test and Evaluation. They include the failure of either design to meet Level I survivability criteria except among some sub-sections, and that neither ship could be expected to “be survivable in a hostile combat environment.”

Lockheed Martin’s Freedom Class monohulls had problems in early air target tracking tests, which revealed deficiencies in the TRS-3D radar’s power supply and reliability, and serious problems with the combat system. The report added that the ship could face stability problems when fully loaded. Lockheed Martin spokeswoman Jen Allen claims that stability is no longer a problem for this class, and Reuters reports that the Navy plans to install external tanks to effectively lengthen the ship’s stern, and increase its buoyancy.

General Dynamics/ Austal’s Independence Class trimaran had its builders trials delayed due to reported leaks at the gas turbine shaft seals, and more testing identified deficiencies in the main propulsion diesel engines. Reuters

Jan 16/10: LCS 2. The trimaran USS Independence [LCS 2] is commissioned. Austal | Gannett’s Navy Times.

USS Independence

Jan 11/10: Partnership break-up? Defense News reports that General Dynamics and Austal are set to break up their LCS partnership, which has GD Bath Iron Works as the prime contractor but most of the structural shipbuilding work done by Austal in Mobile, AL. Under the new procurement rules, the US Navy will require a second-supplier shipyard for the winning design, that can’t be associated with the primary builder. Before they take any final actions, however, the GD/Austal team is waiting to see the Navy’s latest RFP, which is a bit behind schedule but is still expected in January 2010.

General Dynamics had reportedly seen Bath Iron Works as the logical shipbuilding facility to take on shipbuilding work if their team’s trimaran design won, but there is some speculation that this may shift to T-AKE shipbuilder GD NASSCO in California, instead.

LCS 2 christening
(click to view full)

Dec 18/09: LCS 2 delivered. The General Dynamics Littoral Combat Ship Team delivers Independence [LCS 2] to the US Navy. USN Commanding Officer Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Conversion and Repair Captain Dean Krestos officially accepted custody of Independence in Mobile, AL, where the ship will remain before its commissioning as USS Independence on Jan 16/10. That date will mark the first time a US Navy ship has been commissioned in Mobile since 1945. The ship will then prepare for its next set of trials, in the summer of 2010. US Navy | GD release.

Dec 17/09: LCS 4 keel. A brief keel laying ceremony is held in Mobile at Austal USA’s Assembly Bay 4 to record completion of the first major construction milestone for Coronado [LCS 4]. As one might expect, the centerpiece of the ceremony was the ship’s keel module, a large outfitted section of the aluminum center hull. GD release.

Dec 12/09: Coast Guard on USS Freedom. Gannett’s Navy Times reports that USS Freedom [LCS 1] will have US Coast Guard VBSS teams on board when it ventures into the Caribbean:

“The littoral combat ship Freedom is to take aboard a Coast Guard law enforcement detachment for part of its trial deployment early next year, Navy officials said, with the Coasties substituting for part of the Navy boarding team added to the LCS crew. Freedom is taking 20 sailors in two visit, board, search and seizure teams…”

Dec 3/09: Order clarity. The US Navy finally releases the cost data for recent Littoral Combat Ship contracts. Note that the cost of a fully-outfitted ship would add about $100 million for the installed mission module, in addition to other “government furnished equipment”. As such, actual costs to field operational ships are likely to end up above $600 million:

“As a result of the Navy’s change in acquisition strategy for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program, the Navy can now release the pricing… The total value of the LCS 3 contract, awarded to Lockheed Martin Corporation on March 23, was $470,854,144 which includes ship construction, non-recurring construction and additional engineering effort, configuration management services, additional crew and shore support, special studies and post delivery support.

The total value of the LCS 4 contract, awarded to General Dynamics – Bath Iron Works on May 1, was $433,686,769 which includes ship construction, non-recurring construction and additional engineering effort, configuration management services, additional crew and shore support, special studies and post delivery support.

The contract values do not include government costs which include government furnished equipment, change orders, and program management support costs. The contract values do not include the cost of continuation work and material used from the terminated original contract options for LCS 3 and 4. The value of the continuation work and material from the terminated LCS 3 was $78 million for Lockheed Martin Corporation and $114 million from the terminated LCS 4 for General Dynamics/Bath Iron Works.”

FY 2009 costs

Nov 13-21/09: LCS 1. USS Freedom [LCS 1] also conducts independent ship deployment training and certification at sea, operating with ships from the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower [CVN 69] Carrier Strike Group during their Composite Training Unit Exercise (COMPTUEX). That was part of the Maritime Security Surge certification for the ship’s Gold Crew, which will deploy aboard Freedom in early 2010 to U.S. Southern Command.

Nov 19/09: Testing. The US Navy announces that LCS 2 Independence has successfully completed acceptance trials, after completing a series of graded in-port and underway demonstrations for the Navy’s Board of Inspection and Survey (INSURV).

Acceptance trials are the last significant milestone before delivery of the ship to the Navy. Ship delivery is expected to occur with the ship’s commissioning as USS Independence on Jan 16/09 in Mobile, AL.

Oct 18/09: Testing. LCS 2 Independence successfully completes builder’s trials in the Gulf of Mexico. The trials included more than 50 demonstration events in preparation for final inspection by the Navy, including stable flight deck performance and ship control in Beaufort Sea State 5 conditions, sustained speeds of 44 knots, tests of the ship’s open architecture OPEN CI electronic backbone, and detection and engagement of a simulated cruise missile fire by an small jet aircraft. Austal release | GD release | Gannett’s Navy Times.

Oct 14/09: USS Freedom to deploy. The Navy announces the decision to deploy the USS Freedom [LCS 1] in early 2010 to the Southern Command and Pacific Command areas ahead of her originally scheduled 2012 maiden deployment (see also June 9/09 entry). Military.com says that:

“In evaluating options for deploying the Freedom earlier than originally scheduled, the Navy took into consideration several key factors including combat systems testing, shakedown of the ship systems and overseas sustainment with a new concept of operations and crew training. To facilitate the early deployment, the Navy adjusted the Freedom testing schedule, prioritized testing events needed for deployment and deferred others not required for the missions envisioned during this deployment.”

FY 2009

Another program shift; LCS 3 & 4 ordered, again, but we won’t tell you how much; LCS 4 named; LCS 2 launched; Naval Fire Support module?

LCS 2, builder’s trials
(click to view full)

Sept 16/09: LCS Plan #4. The Pentagon reiterates its commitment to 55 LCS ships, but changes the LCS program’s acquisition structure, again. There will be no Phase II for the FY 2009 buy. Instead, selection of the final design would occur in FY 2010, before operational trials of both ships could take place. Both industry teams would submit proposals under a new solicitation. The winner would receive a 10-ship contract running from FY 2010-2014, and provide the combat systems for their 10 ships, plus 5 more. They would also deliver a technical data package, allowing the Navy to open a “build to print” competition for a second builder of the chosen design, beginning in FY 2012. That “build to print” order would be for up to 5 more ships.

This timeline would not give the Navy enough time to fully evaluate the ships relative merits before it makes its selection, essentially removing the entire rationale for building 2 types of Flight 0 ships. It would also leave the ships’ overall operational utility an open question.

Colton Company’s Maritime Memos adds that the envisioned structure may face challenges, depending on which design wins. It sees Team Lockheed’s steel hull as biddable to Northrop Grumman Pascagoula, GD Bath Iron Works, and GD NASSCO, plus VT Halter Marine; and possibly Todd, Bollinger in a break-away bid, or anyone who buys Bender in liquidation. The GD Bath Iron Works/Austal aluminum-hull design requires a more specialized set of skills, however, and those ships are too wide to be built on the Great Lakes and shipped out through the seaway. Colton believes a shipbuilder would have to invest in a new yard, or partner with an established aluminum boatbuilder, such as Swiftships or megayacht builder, such as Trinity Yachts. Colton adds:

“In essence, there might not be any credible competition for a second-source contract. Since almost everyone now agrees that the Austal design is clearly superior to the Marinette design, this could give the Navy a new problem.”

It could certainly give the Austal/GD team a new problem. US DoD | The Hill magazine | Alabama Press-Register | Associated Press | Reuters | Information Dissemination op-ed: “The LCS is Still a Mess.”

Acquisition plan #4

July 30/09: Politics. At the House Armed Services Seapower and Expeditionary Forces Subcommittee’s “Hearing on Efforts to Improve Shipbuilding Effectiveness,” Chair Gene Taylor [D-MS] states in his opening remarks that:

“The LCS program is still a disaster, there is no way to sugar coat it, the program is still a disaster. Those first vessels were constructed in the most inefficient manner possible, just like my house construction analogy, and now we are being told by both the contractors that the cost of these ships really is in excess of a half a billion dollars. I am not sure the Congress is willing to go forward with that program unless significant progress is made on cost control, and I do mean significant.

With the challenges being faced by all the Services in trying to reset from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan the Navy cannot count on additional funding for ship construction. We all need to figure how to rebuild our Fleet with the procurement dollars available. To do that all costs must come under control. Hard decisions need to be made. Soon.”

June 15/09: Inside the Navy, Vol. 22, No. 23:

“The House Armed Services seapower and expeditionary forces subcommittee has proposed to restructure the congressionally mandated $460 million cost cap for the Littoral Combat Ship to solely include the price of each vessel [DID: and not its weapons, radars, and “mission equipment”], but if shipbuilders cannot meet the cost cap, lawmakers would require the Navy to rebid the ship.”

June 10/09: Testing. Austal announces “light off” of LCS 2 Independence’s 4 propulsion engines: 2 GE LM2500 22,000kW gas turbines, and 2 MTU 20V 8000 M71 9,100kW diesels. The light off followed fuel loading and testing of all 4 generators.

Activation and testing of the combat and other systems onboard Independence is continuing at Austal’s US facility in Mobile, AL. The beginning of sea trials is expected within a few weeks.

June 9/09: The Military Officers’ Association of America’s “Inside the Headquarters” blog says that the US Navy is thinking of deploying the LCS early:

“According to a source at Lockheed Martin, the Navy wants the USS Freedom (LCS 1) to deploy soon and well ahead of schedule. Apparently the chief of naval operations himself, Adm. Gary Roughead, has called for the move. Currently, the Freedom is not scheduled to deploy until 2012.”

The Somali coast would be the most likely destination. Efforts to move endangered weapons programs to the front lines, in order to secure a program’s future, have a long history in the US military.

June 9/09: Support. Alion Science and Technology Corp. in Washington, DC received an $8.6 million modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-09-F-B008) for support to the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program office. This will include program planning and management, business and financial management planning and execution, systems engineering, test and evaluation engineering, life cycle engineering and support, logistics and operation support, configuration and data management engineering, and combat systems development.

Work will be performed in Washington, DC, and is expected to be complete by September 2009.

June 1/09: Costs. Gannett’s Navy Times reports that based on FY 2010 budget justification documents, the price to build, outfit and deliver Team Lockheed’s USS Freedom [LCS 1] now is $637 million, up from last year’s estimate of $631 million. The price tag for the GD/Austal ship Independence [LCS 2], however, rose from $636 million to $704 million. Most of the cost growth on the LCS 2 is listed under Basic Construction Cost.

LCS 1, builder’s trials
(click to view full)

May 22/09: Testing. The USS Freedom wasn’t able to perform a number of key Navy acceptance tests on Lake Michigan, where she was built. A 2nd round of INSURV testing was required, and the US Navy PEO Ships release states that:

“There were no major safety issues or operational restrictions determined during the trial, although the ship must complete a number of scheduled system certifications before it can conduct unrestricted operations.”

INSURV inspectors noted that since the August 2008 lake trials, the ship has made improvements to its propulsion plant, machinery control system, communication systems, and information systems. The new salt water tests allowed inspectors to check the ship’s cathodic protection, degaussing, and reverse osmosis system. Ocean conditions let them test surveillance and identification systems at a sufficient distance from land without border issues. And stepping out of a lake used for drinking water let them demonstrate the ship’s fire suppression and waste discharge systems. Other major systems and features demonstrated for INSURV this time included aviation support, small boat launch handling and recovery, fin stabilizers, in addition to the full-power run.

May 15/09: LCS for NFS? Aviation Week reports that US Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway is working with his Navy counterpart, Adm. Gary Roughead, to expand the concept of using the LCS as a naval fire support option for Marine landings.

Conway is quoted as discussing “a box of rockets” as the Marnes’ preferred option, which would seem to indicate the LCS surface warfare module’s planned NLOS-LS/NETFIRES “missile in a box” system. On the other hand, the report adds that:

“The services are still examining storage and elevator capacity aboard LCS, and Conway said “we don’t have [the] box we need.”

May 1/09: LCS 4. “US Navy Sinks LCS-4 Construction” chronicled the crash of the original program’s acquisition plan, and cancellation of the 2nd ships from each manufacturing team. Now, General Dynamics Bath Iron Works in Bath, ME has received a FY 2009 contract to build the USS Coronado [LCS 4]. The contract includes construction, class design services, configuration management services, additional crew and shore support, special studies and post delivery support. Phase II could involve up to 3 more LCS Flight 0+ Class ships.

What the US Navy will not do, is reveal those terms of Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics’ contracts, even though the original excuse that the Navy was in negotiations with General Dynamics for its part of the 2-phase buy no longer applies. The Navy simply says that “the award amount is considered source selection information (see FAR 2.101 and 3.104) and will not be made public at this time.” The LCS program’s cost overruns have been significant contributors to the program’s political troubles, and it certainly is convenient not to have to discuss that any more. One source of inference is that the award represents the 2nd half of the 2-vessel, $1.02 billion FY 2009 budget appropriation for the LCS program, but past LCS contracts and budgets have had little predictive value with respect to final outlays.

Austal had remained optimistic regarding the LCS program, but recently laid off 62 employees in Mobile, AL, due to slower work in the commercial ferry sector. There is no word yet on whether they will be rehired as a result of this contract. Work will be performed in Mobile, AL (50%); Bath, ME (17%); Pittsfield, MA (14%); California, MD (1%); Baltimore, MD (1%); Leesburg, VA (1%); Burlington, VT (1%); Ottawa, Ontario, Canada (2%); and various locations of less than 1% each totaling 13%. Work is expected to be complete by June 2012 (N00024-09-C-2302).

Meanwhile, sea trials of Austal’s first LCS, the 127m Independence [LCS 2], are scheduled for mid-2009, with delivery expected later in the year. Austal | General Dynamics | Mobile, AL Press-Register | Mobile, AL Press-Register re: layoffs.

LCS 4 ordered, again

April 6/09: Budgets. Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates announces his FY 2010 budget recommendations, which include 3 LCS ships. Despite issues with the program, and concern about the ship’s combat capabilities, Gates reiterates the goal of eventually buying 55 of these $500+ million specialty support ships. The announcement bolstered confidence at Austal, which had been watching the budget deliberations closely.

March 23/09: LCS 3. US NAVSEA awards Lockheed Martin Maritime Systems & Sensors in Baltimore, MD an undisclosed sum for “LCS FY09 Flight 0+ ship construction, class design services, configuration management services, additional crew and shore support, special studies and post delivery support.”

The Navy cancelled Lockheed Martin’s original LCS-3 contract in 2007, but new negotiations reportedly arrived at an acceptable arrangement for a fixed-price contract with incentives. The Fort Worth’s [LCS-3] price tag is reported to be in the $500 million range, which would represent a price drop relative to LCS-1.

NAVSEA is still negotiating with General Dynamics for LCS-4, so the award amount is classified source selection information under Federal Acquisition Regulations 2.101 and 3.104. Under the Navy’s FY 09/10 strategy (see Oct 17/08 entry), the Navy will attempt to buy 2 LCS ships in FY 2009, with option for up to 3 ships in 2010. Earlier acquisition strategies had focused on FY 2010 as the down-select date; that is still possible, but the Navy reportedly has the option of choosing another split for the FY 2010 buy.

Work will be performed in Marinette, WI (63%); Moorestown, NJ (12%); Washington, DC (11%); Clearwater, FL (4%); Baltimore, MD (4%); Arlington, VA (3%); Brunswick, GA (2%); and Eagan, MN (1%), and is expected to be complete by December 2012 (N00024-09-C-2303). See also: Reuters report.

LCS 3 ordered, again

March 12/09: LCS 4 named. US Secretary of the Navy Donald Winter announces that LCS 4 will be named USS Coronado. A 4th LCS ship had not been ordered yet when the announcement was made, though some funds had been allocated in the FY 2009 budget for 2 ships. The Navy’s release has a picture of the GD/Austal trimaran design next to the announcement, but the announcement does not confirm that type as LCS 4.

Coronado, near San Diego, CA is home to Naval Air Base North Island (NASNI) and Naval Amphibious Base (NAB), Coronado, and has been home to the Navy since 1917. Coronado hosts 2 aircraft carriers, the west coast’s major SEAL special forces facility, and over 120 tenant commands between the 2 bases. US Navy.

March 11/09: Politics. Bill Sweetman of Aviation Week reports that one logical corollary of a “build to [blue]print” approach is that foreign shipyards might become eligible to compete for LCS construction:

“[Taylor] also noted to the conference that he’s visited other shipyards – Hyundai in Korea, Maersk in Finland – and concluded that “our yards have to get up to their [DID: highly automated] standards.” So if LCS goes to open bidding, would those shipyards be eligible to bid? “Traditionally the House has preferred to build our weapons domestically,” Taylor said, “but we’ve had a hard time getting it past Senator McCain. If I had my way I’d limit it to American shipbuilders. But I often don’t get my way.”

That statement can fairly be described as cryptic. Sweetman’s conjecture re: foreign construction is unlikely, for a variety of political reasons. Government funding for shipyard improvements, meanwhile, did not appear in the “stimulus” bill, and would be most likely to be funneled to the larger military shipyards if it was granted.

March 10/09: Politics. MarineLog reports that the Littoral Combat Ship program receives another bi-partisan rough ride at the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces. Chairman Gene Taylor [D-MS]:

“When I look at the plan from just two years ago, we should by now have at least 4 ships delivered, 3 more nearing completion from a fiscal year 2008 authorization, 6 under contract from a fiscal year 2009 authorization, and today we should be discussing the authorization of 6 more ships for fiscal year 2010. That would be a total of 19 ships. So instead of having 13 delivered or under contract with another 6 in this year’s budget, we have one ship delivered that will likely tip the scales well above two and a half times the original estimate and one ship that might finish this summer, with similar if not higher cost growth… Everyone should understand that the current situation of these vessels costing in excess of a half billion dollars cannot continue… There are too many other needs and too little resources to pour money into the program that was designed to be affordable.”

With respect to Taylor’s desire for a “build to print” approach, the answer appears to be that the government owns the rights to the ship’s physical design, but integration of all the sub-systems like the radar, Mk110 naval gun etc. is another matter. Rep. Todd Akin [R-MO] was critical of the Navy’s acquisition strategy, from the repeated changes over the last 2 years to the current strategy’s sustainability:

“We cannot reasonably expect the industry teams to make the investments in facilities and designs for affordability we demand, if we cannot articulate what we want to buy. Further, we cannot reasonably expect the taxpayers to continue to fund ships that we cannot definitively say we want… We need to be very cautious about increasing capacity for which the Navy lacks the volume to support… We must ensure that we are not creating two additional shipyards that rely on a sole customer for support. The strategy for building LCS at mid-tier yards was explicitly to avoid this phenomenon, since these yards had commercial work. Now, we hear that these yards may have turned away commercial work and are considering capital investments with the intent of constructing LCS only.”

See: MarineLog | Information Dissemination.

March 6/09: New LCS 3 named. US Secretary of the Navy Donald C. Winter announces 6 that the LCS 3 will be named USS Fort Worth. A 3rd LCS ship had not been ordered yet when the announcement was made, though some funds had been allocated in the FY 2009 budget for 2 ships.

The Navy says that the announcement continues the practice of naming the agile LCS vessels after American midsized cities, small towns and communities. Fort Worth, TX, near Dallas, is an especially important hub of aerospace manufacturing, but a number of other defense-related activities go on there. US Navy.

March 2/09: Industrial. Lockheed Martin Maritime Systems & Sensors in Baltimore, MD received a modification to a previously awarded contract (N00024-03-C-2311) for “LCS program continuation efforts necessary to preserve production capability at its industry team shipyard facility.” Work is expected to be complete by April 2009, and will be performed in Marinette, WI (56%); Moorestown, NJ (13%); Clearwater, FL (11%); Brunswick, GA (10%); Washington, DC (8%) and Baltimore, MD (2%) under contract (N00024-03-C-2311).

Lockheed Martin has already delivered USS Freedom [LCS 1] to the Navy, and the Navy’s prior cancellation of LCS 3 has left that shipyard with a work gap. General Dynamics and Austal, meanwhile, continue to build LCS 2 Independence at their Gulf Coast shipyard. This award must be at least $5 million, or the Navy would not have announced it at all, but no figure was given. With respect to this award, the US Navy cites this justification for its lack of transparency:

“As this award represents efforts integrally related to Phase I of a competitive two-phased acquisition approach to procure FY09/FY10 LCS, with Phase II including potential award of up to three additional LCS Flight 0+ Class ships, the award amount is considered source selection information (see FAR 2.101 and 3.104) and will not be made public at this time.”

That translates as “we’re still negotiating with Lockheed Martin and with General Dynamics for fixed-price awards, and are appropriating these funds to buy advance materials and avoid layoffs at Marinette.”

Feb 24/09: Politics. Senators McCain and Levin, who have authored legislation to reform the US military’s procurement system, single out the LCS program in their comments. CNN:

“Levin said the ships are “way beyond” their projected construction time of two years, and the program has grown from a cost per ship of about $220 million to more than $500 million, according to a November report from the Congressional Research Service. “We can’t have a ship that’s a small ship that’s supposed to be built in two years run completely out of control to double or triple or quadruple its original cost estimates,” McCain said.”

Jan 28/09: LCS 2. General Dynamics Bath Iron Works in Bath, ME received a $37.75 million basic ordering agreement for Post-Shakedown Availability (PSA) of the USS Independence [LCS-2]. Work will include the ship’s PSA efforts, testing, and materials, from program management to advance planning, engineering, material kitting, liaison, scheduling and participation in PSA planning conferences and design reviews, preparation of documentation as required by the Contract Data Requirement List, and required fixes.

Work will be performed in San Diego, CA (53%); Norfolk, VA (24%); and Mobile, AL (23%), and is expected to be complete by December 2012. This contract was not competitively procured (N00024-09-G-2301).

Dec 29/08: NVR cert. The American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) in Houston, TX is a congressionally recognized agent of the government, and certification to set standards is one of their services. They receive a $55 million cost no fee, indefinite-delivery/ indefinitely-quantity contract to provide for ship classification and classification-related services using Naval Vessel Rules (NVR), which form the core of the certification process for surface ships bought by US NAVSEA.

New construction contracts require the ships to be designed and constructed in accordance with ABS Rules for Building and Classing Naval Vessels, and other referenced ABS Rules and Guides as necessary to comply with the designated class notations. Readers of this brief will recall that the switch to NVR rules during LCS construction was one of the key factors that inflated the costs of the first ships, and raised costs across the board for the class. On the other hand, ships built to NVR standards can be expected to survive damage better than comparable non-NVR ships.

Approximately 46% of ABS’ services will be performed in support of new DDG ships in Bath, ME (GD-BIW); Pascagoula, MS; and Gulf Port, MS (NG-SS) and approximately 46% in support of future LCS new construction ships in locations to be determined. The remaining 8% of services will be performed in Norfolk, VA; San Diego, CA; and various worldwide points as specified in task orders to be issued. Work is expected to be completed by December 2013. This contract was not competitively procured by the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) in Washington, DC (N00024-09-D-4208)

Dec 17/08: Weight. Information Dissemination relays an Inside the Navy report hat covers ongoing platform issues in “LCS Weight Issue Revisited“. From Inside the Navy:

“In October, Navy spokesman Lt. Clay Doss confirmed that initial tests by the Navy were showing the vessel to be six percent overweight, but maintained that it was not cause for concern… “There’s stuff on board that I don’t think we need,” Gabrielson said. “There’s some pretty big things on board that I think we could live without.”

Nov 8/08: LCS 1. LCS 1 Freedom is commissioned during a 10 a.m. EST ceremony at Veterans Park in Milwaukee, WI. Upon completion of the ceremony, she becomes USS Freedom. US Navy PEO Ships advance notice | USS Freedom Comissioning Committee.

USS Freedom

Oct 31/08: Lockheed Martin Maritime Systems & Sensors in Baltimore, MD received a $37.5 million Basic Ordering Agreement for Post-Shakedown Availability (PSA) on the Littoral Combat Ship, USS Freedom [LCS-1]. The orders to be issued will encompass services include, but are not limited to program management, advance planning, engineering, material kitting, liaison, scheduling and participation in PSA planning conferences and design reviews, and preparation of documentation as required by the Contract Data Requirement List. The orders will also encompass material and labor to perform the PSA for LCS 1, all testing, including post repair trials required to verify the accuracy and completion of all shipyard industrial work, non-standard equipment when approved, and technical manuals for non-standard equipment.

Work will be performed in San Diego, CA (53%) and Norfolk, VA (47%), and is expected to be completed by January 2011. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured by the Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, D.C. (N00024-09-G-2300).

Oct 24/08: The Freedom [LCS 1] sails away from the Marinette Marine Corp. shipyard in Marinette, WI, en route to Duluth, MN for a four-day port visit beginning Oct. 27. This will be the first leg in the ship’s voyage of commissioning and transit to Norfolk, VA, where she will undergo fleet testing and evaluation away from the Great Lakes’ ice buildups. Maritime Reporter and Engineering News.

Oct 17/08: LCS Plan #3. The NY Times’ International Herald Tribune reports that the U.S. Navy has canceled plans to buy a 3rd new combat ship in FY 2008 from either Lockheed Martin Corp. or General Dynamics Corp., citing budget shortfalls. The article adds that:

“The Navy now plans to award one ship to each contractor under the fiscal 2009 budget, and hold a competition for another three vessels with funding in fiscal 2010 to keep competitive pressure between the two companies. Each of the 2009 contracts will come with options for future ships. However, the Navy said it will evaluate pricing of the fiscal 2010 ships before making a decision, and envisions awarding two ships to a winning contractor and one ship to a losing bidder, the same as its original plan.”

Acquisition plan #3

Oct 4/08: LCS 2 christened. The Austal/General Dynamics ship LCS 2 Independence is christened in a ceremony at Austal’s Mobile, AL shipyard. US Navy PEO Ships release | Austal release.

FY 2008

No ships this year; LCS 2 launched; LCS-4 canceled; Cost growth continues; Israeli request.

Team GD LCS Concept
(click to view full)

September 2008: The US Navy has the appropriated funds to build an additional LCS ship, but decides not to issue that contract. Source.

No FY 2008 ship

Sept 30/08: Infrastructure. R. A. Burch Construction Co., Inc. in Ramona, CA received $6.5 million for a firm-fixed-price task order under a previously award multiple award construction contract. They will be responsible for upgrading Building 57 for the new Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) squadron administrative headquarters at Naval Base San Diego. The task order also contains one option, which if exercised would increase cumulative task order value to $8.7 million.

Work will be performed in San Diego, CA, and is expected to be complete by April 2010. Contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, and 3 proposals were received for this task order by the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest in San Diego, CA (N62473-08-D-8607, #0005).

Sept 18/08: LCS 1 delivered. The Lockheed Martin-led LCS team delivers LCS 1 Freedom to the U.S. Navy. The delivery milestone marks the Navy’s preliminary acceptance of LCS 1.

Sept 4/08: CSBA Cool to LCS Concept. WIRED Danger Room’s post “Navy Already Shifting Away from Shallow Waters?” forwards an analysis by Bob Work, naval analyst at the respected, nonpartisan CSBA think tank in Washington. He sees the same pressures that turned the Navy against the DDG-1000 Zumwalt Class destroyer program impinging on the future of the Littoral Combat Ship:

“The maritime area over which a strong coastal power can now influence with multidimensional, combined-arms naval reconnaissance-strike complexes is expanding. The combination of space-based sensors, over-the-horizon radars, maritime [Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance], patrol and strike aircraft, nuclear and [Air-Independent Propulsion] submarines armed with wake-homing torpedoes and anti-ship cruise missiles, and now anti-ship ballistic missiles, poses severe threats to any surface ship. Under these circumstances, the Navy has to improve its ability to fight from range, in the open ocean.”

July 31/08: CRS report. In testimony before the US House Armed Services Committee’s Seapower and Expeditionary Forces subcommittee, Dr. Eric Labs of the Congressional Budget Office discusses the LCS program to date [PDF]:

“The Navy’s 2009 shipbuilding plan envisions building 55 littoral combat ships between 2005 and 2019. Because those ships are assumed to have a service life of 25 years, the Navy would need to begin procuring their replacements in 2032… The Navy expects to buy 64 mission modules for the 55-ship program.

…Originally, each sea frame was expected to cost about $260 million (in 2009 dollars, or $220 million in 2005 dollars). The Navy’s 2009 budget would allow the purchase of 18 LCSs during the 2009-2013 period, at an average cost of about $450 million per sea frame. That is 11 fewer than the 2008 plan envisioned… In the 2009 budget, the Navy estimates the cost of LCS-1 at $631 million and LCS-2 at $636 million… using the lead ship of the FFG-7 Oliver Hazard Perry class frigate as an analogy… The first FFG-7 cost about $670 million to build (in 2009 dollars), or about $250 million per thousand tons, including combat systems. Applying that metric to the LCS program suggests that the lead ships would cost about $600 million apiece, including the cost of one mission module… CBO estimates that the first two LCSs could cost about $700 million each, including outfitting and postdelivery costs… As of April 27, 2008, LCS-1 was 87% complete and LCS-2 was 72% complete. So, additional cost growth is possible…”

July 30/08: What happened to LCS? Naval Technology’s article “Littoral Combat Ship Runs Aground” offers a look at the program workings and assumptions that have led the program to its current state. In brief, it states that:

“Distilling the story yields the following guide to botching development projects in five steps […];

1. Make the goal as difficult as possible
2. Impose a management style ideally suited for commoditised products
3. When sourcing, be penny-wise and pound-foolish
4. Design and build simultaneously
5. When you’re in a hole, keep digging

[…] Perhaps the moral of the LCS story is this: the US can produce better ships, or produce ships better – but it can’t do both at the same time.”

July 28/08: Testing. LCS 1 Freedom begins builder’s trials on Lake Michigan. US Navy release | Reuters Aug 12/08 follow-up.

July 15/08: Israel request. The contracts with Lockheed Martin et. al. could be worth up to $1.9 billion for 4 ships, and would be the first LCS export sale. The design will be very different from the American Freedom Class LCS, however; mission modules will be replaced with vertical launch systems and fixed weapons, and the ship will sport an AEGIS radar system.

The Israelis eventually decide that the costs are prohibitive, and begin looking elsewhere. As of 2013, they still don’t have a contract for new ships, though they are upgrading the Sa’ar 5 Eilat Class to a Sa’ar 5.5 configuration in the meantime. See “A Littoral Combat Frigate For Israel” for details.

Israel request

April 28/08: LCS 2 launched. Austal USA’s Mobile, AL shipyard launches LCS 2 Independence. The ship will be moored alongside the Austal USA facility for activation and testing of combat and other onboard systems is completed. Sea trials are expected to commence in late 2008. Austal release.

April 7/08: LCS SAR. Cost growth for the LCS program lands it on the Pentagon’s Selected Acquisition Reports for this period:

“Program costs increased $909.7 million (+46.9 percent) from $1,938.9 million to $2,848.6 million, due primarily to a revised estimate in Seaframe pricing that reflects substantial cost growth and post delivery work (+$496.1 million) and a revised estimate for Mission Module development and phasing due to maturation of the definition of the Mission Modules (+$271.2 million). Costs also increased due to a lengthening of the Flight 0 schedule to incorporate additional effort (+$71.3 million), a revised estimate for program development of Flight 0 and Flight 0+ planning and execution (+$42.3 million), and additional scope for Mission Module development (+$40.7 million).”

Costs rising

March 14/08: Controversy. The odds don’t look good for the US Navy’s FY 2009 request of 2 Littoral Combat Ships. The house Armed Services Committee’s Seapower & Expeditionary Forces subcommittee took testimony regarding that request, and the LCS request came under fire from both sides of the aisle. See “US Navy’s 313-Ship Plan Under Fire in Congress” for full links etc. Chairman Rep. Gene Taylor [D-MS], a strong proponent of more naval shipbuilding:

“So, instead of being asked to fund programs that are building ships on time and at projected cost, we are asked to fund programs which are not… [the LCS] will go into the textbooks to train future acquisition officials how not to run a program. The LCS will be at least twice as expensive as advertised, it has taken twice as long to build the lead ships, neither vessel has been underway on its own power, and the Navy cancelled two contract options last year, which were already funded, because of cost overruns.

Yet this year we are asked to authorize two more ships – why? What has changed between then and now that indicates that this program is in any way ready to build more ships? We have been told the answer to this question is that there is an ’emergent need’ for these ships in the fleet. If that is true why did the Navy cancel two of the ships? At some point we must stop throwing money at this program until the Navy can prove that at least one of the ships can get to sea and do its mission.”

Ranking minority member Roscoe Bartlett [R-MD] was equally skeptical:

“And how much risk are we buying down if we procure two more Littoral Combat Ships, the year after we cancelled two, and the year in which the Navy plans to conduct an operational evaluation and possible downselect of LCS-1 and 2? Even if there is no downselect, the Navy has stated that there will be design changes made to the Flight One ships. So the two we buy now will be different than the remaining 50. Is that worth it, if those funds could keep a stable program like LPD-17 alive?”

Feb 4/08: Costs. FY 2009 budget documents released by the Navy give the expected final cost for its LCS-1 and LCS-2 ships: $631 million and $636 million, respectively. First-of-class ships usually cost more – but recall that prescient July 24/07 estimate of $630 million from the Congressional Budget Office.

Nov 1/07: LCS-4. The US Navy cancels construction of LCS-4 by the General Dynamics/Austal team, leaving its LCS acquisition strategy adrift amidst deep proposed funding cuts from Congress in the FY 2008 budget. There was also the minor problem of a second contractor who refused to accept a “deal” that let the Navy make any number of design changes, while the contractor was solely responsible for costs, and would pay for overruns above the proposed fixed-price contract.

The Navy eventually decides to revise its entire approach, and use planned FY 2007-2008 procurement funds to get LCS 1 & 2 built, rather than buying additional ships.

LCS-4 order canceled

Oct 11/07: Israel. Jane’s Defence Weekly reports that the Israeli Navy “has launched a second study regarding the potential acquisition of the United States Navy’s (USN’s) Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) focused on Lockheed Martin’s semi-planing monohull design known as LCS-I (Israel). “That design appears to be the most suitable for our needs,” a senior IN source told Jane’s…”

See “An LCS For Israel?” for full coverage.

FY 2007

LCS-3 cancelled, LCS-4 ordered but iffy over cost growth; LCS Program Manager dismissed; LCS 2 inspection issues; ALCOA weight reduction work; Official reports.

GD: Helicopter space
(click to view full)

Sept 27/07: Sub-contractors. Small business qualifier ALCOA Inc. in Alcoa Center, PA received an $8.3 million indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity, cost-plus-fixed-fee completion contract to provide engineering services in support of the re-design of existing aluminum structures to improve performance and survivability of the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) via weight reduction of selected assemblies or components. Work will be performed in Alcoa Center, PA (84%); Johnstown, PA (11%); Columbus, OH (3%); and various shipyards (2%), and is expected to be complete in September 2010. Contract funds in the amount of $3.7 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The contract was not competitively procured by the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division, West Bethesda, Md., is the contracting activity (N00167-07-D-0010).

This contract will fund the Alcoa Collaborative Design Approach (ACDA), a phased program approach in which the following tasks will be applied to the LCS: selection of candidate assemblies and components; development of conceptual designs and down selection of design concepts; evaluation of design concepts and final selection; development and evaluation of prototypes; and ship integration. The components for improvement may include hull sections, doors/hatches, load floors, foundations, large apertures or similar structures.

Alcoa has considerable expertise in this area, having worked closely with Lockheed Martin on a very similar effort re: the F-35B Lightning II STOVL fighter.

Still, one wonders why, exactly, this has become a priority for the LCS program? The Dec 17/08 entry suggests that weight reduction was the goal.

Sept 24/07: LCS 2 issues. Newhouse News Service reports that “Navy inspectors have documented numerous problems with construction of a next-generation vessel known as the littoral combat ship, or LCS, according to government records obtained under the federal Freedom of Information Act.” They are referring specifically to the General Dynamics/ Austal ships, and proceed to detail these issues in “Navy Inspectors Find Numerous Problems With Ship Project.”

Some of these items are “normal” issues that inspectors exist to catch, others are less so. Note, especially the time frames of the issues raised, as many date from 2006 and predate subsequent reports.

Sept 21/07: LCS 4? Gannett’s Navy Times reports that the US Navy and General Dynamics are expected to meet next week to discuss the LCS program:

“GD spokesman Kendall Pease confirmed the Navy had asked for the meeting but provided no further details, other than to say a specific date had not been set. Other sources, however, said the meeting was to discuss slowing construction on LCS 4, the second ship GD is building at its Austal USA shipyard in Mobile, Ala.”

The Navy was forced to reimburse Team Lockheed for a number of expenses after canceling LCS-3, and they are reportedly trying to restructure the deal with the GD/Austal team to avoid paying those costs in the event that LCS-4 is canceled. If the parties cannot agree, the Navy could always choose to cancel LCS-4 on those grounds, and pay the minor reimbursement fees that would be involved at this early stage. The downside is that a second cancellation decision would leave the entire LCS program in tatters, either turning it into a 1-ship each “sail off” competition, or throwing the entire program back to the drawing board.

Aug 8/07: Cost growth. US Navy acquisition chief Dolores Etter said in an interview with Reuters that General Dynamics is about 54% done with its first ship [LCS-2], which is due to be delivered in mid-2008. She also stated that “We … continue to see challenges with the program and with each platform, specifically with the propulsion system on LCS-1 and systems integration on LCS-2.”

With respect to the GD/Austal team’s effort to rein in costs, she said that “We do have points at which our concern will go up. You can’t predict what will happen, but things are moving forward in a good direction” in terms of the firm’s efforts to rein in costs.

Meanwhile, Reuters adds that US Navy officials have asked lawmakers to approve a 55% increase in a cost cap for the 5th and 6th LCS ships, to $460 million. They also said costs for the first Lockheed ship and GD’s LCS-2 could be up to 75% higher than expected. Reuters article: “US Navy sees progress on General Dynamics LCS ship.”

July 24/07: CBO Report. In a statement before the US House Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces, Congressional Budget Office representatives testify that [PDF format]:

“Experience had suggested that cost growth was likely to occur in the LCS program. In particular, historical cost-weight relationships – using the lead ship of the Oliver Hazard Perry class of frigates (FFG-7) as an analogy – indicated that the Navy’s original cost target for the LCS was optimistic. The first FFG-7, including its combat systems, cost a total of about $650 million (in 2008 dollars) to build, or about $235 million per thousand tons. Applying that per-ton estimate to the LCS program suggests that the lead ships would cost about $575 million apiece, including the cost of one mission module (to make them comparable to the FFG-7). In this case, looking at cost-weight relationships produced an estimate less than the apparent cost of the first two LCSs but substantially greater than the Navy’s original estimate.

As of this writing, the Navy has not publicly released an estimate for the LCS program that incorporates the most recent cost growth, other than its request to raise the cost caps for the fifth and sixth ships. CBO estimates that with that growth included, the first two LCSs would cost about $630 million each, excluding mission modules but including outfitting, postdelivery, and various nonrecurring costs associated with the first ships of the class. As the program advances, with a settled design and higher annual rates of production, the average cost per ship is likely to decline. Excluding mission modules, the 55 LCSs in the Navy’s plan would cost an average of $450 million each, CBO estimates.”

DID background: The FFG-7 frigates are still widely touted as a successful example of cost containment. The Oliver Hazard Perry Class met their budget and performance targets and served successfully. The USS Stark even survived a hit from an Iraqi Exocet missile while patrolling the Gulf during the Iran-Iraq war. The ships paid a price in lower capability and lack of space for capability growth, however, and many were sold to other countries or retired early because upgrading them was too difficult. That experience was one of the inspirations for the LCS’ open-architecture, mission modules approach.

Mach 14/07: LCS 3 canceled. Full DID coverage, as Navy Cancels Team Lockheed’s LCS 3, warns General Dynamics. The Navy explains that they couldn’t reach agreement on a new contract. Lockheed Martin expressed “disappointment,” and says: “We believe that our proposal was fully consistent with the Secretary’s stated desire to bring the benefits of increased competition to shipbuilding while holding the Navy’s industrial partners accountable for cost performance within their control”. Note especially those last 3 words, given the role played by Navy specification shifts in that cost growth.

LCS-3 contract canceled

Mach 14/07: LCS program plan #2. Based on a comprehensive two-month review of the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) acquisition program, Secretary of the Navy Donald C. Winter announced that he is prepared to lift a previously issued stop work order for construction of Lockheed Martin’s LCS 3 – under a renegotiated contract.

The new decision will also affect the General Dynamics/ Austal team. Under the restructured Littoral Combat Ship program plan, the Navy will recommend deferral of FY 2007 LCS procurement, and use those funds to complete the construction of LCS 1-4 by the Lockheed and General Dynamics teams. This effectively cancels an expected order for the 5th and 6th ships.

This is part of a wider package of efforts aimed at controlling program costs… before those costs raise comparisons, questions, and dilemmas that begin to control the program. For full coverage, see “Cost Growth Leads to Stop-Work on Team Lockheed LCS-3 Construction (updated)“.

Revised acquisition plan

Feb 28/07: Costs. Reports surface that the General Dynamics/ Austal LCS design is also expected to face cost overruns, although the scope of the increases is not yet clear. Navy acquisition chief Delores Etter had said the first General Dynamics LCS ship would cost $350 million or more, but Lt. Cmdr. John Schofield, Etter’s spokesman, said in an e-mail that:

“Etter mistakenly characterized the cost of LCS 2 to be $350 million or more. The estimated cost range of LCS 1 is $350 million-$375 million, as previously testified. That estimate is based on the best information to date. There is insufficient information to know precisely the final cost range of LCS 2… Although we anticipate some cost growth, it is premature to discuss specific numbers as they are unavailable at this time.”

Etter described Team Lockheed’s LCS-1 Freedom as 75-80% complete, and the GD/Austal team’s LCS-2 Independence as about 33% complete. Reuters report | Defense News report (March 20/07).

Jan 29/07: Personnel. Capt. Donald Babcock, the Navy’s LCS program manager, is relieved of his duties by Rear Adm. Charles Hamilton – who is also being reassigned.

LCS PM dismissed

Jan 12/07: Stop Work on LCS 3. “The Navy issued a stop work order Jan. 12 to Lockheed Martin Corp. Maritime Systems & Sensors unit, Moorestown, N.J., for the construction of the third Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). This stop work order will take effect immediately, and is for a period of 90 days. The stop work order was issued because of significant cost increases currently being experienced with the construction of LCS-1 and LCS-3, under construction by Lockheed Martin…”

The US Navy says they are “working closely with the contractor to identify the root cause of the costs growth… [and] reviewing the overall acquisition strategy for the LCS program…” At this point, the GD/Austal team’s trimaran design and build-out of LCS 2&4 are unaffected. See full DID coverage with all updates, not to mention the Lexington institute’s predictive December 2006 report “Modularity, the Littoral Combat Ship and the Future of The United States Navy.”

Dec 8/06: LCS 4 order. General Dynamics Bath Iron Works in Bath, ME receives a $208.1 million cost-plus-incentive-fee/ award-fee modification under previously awarded contract N00024-03-C-2310, exercising an option for construction of the 4th Flight 0 Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) and the second by the GD-Austal team. Work will be performed in Mobile, AL (55%); Pittsfield, MA (24%); and Bath, ME (21%), and is expected to be complete by August 2009.

The associated General Dynamics release trumpets its trimaran design as having “one of the largest usable payload volumes per ton of ship displacement of any U.S. Navy surface combatant afloat,” and notes its ability to carry even the CH-53 medium-heavy transport helicopter if the mission requires it.

Austal’s associated release discusses potential US Navy plans that could include an extended buy of the Flight 0 version ships, and adds that its workforce in Mobile is slated to grow to 1,200 by the end of 2007.

LCS 4 ordered

Oct 17/06: The FY 2007 defense budget is signed. LCS funding is not cut, but remains at $520.67 million

FY 2002 – 2006

Preliminary work with Norway’s Skjold, Lockheed’s Sea SLICE; Preliminary design contracts to 3; Down-select to 2 contenders; LCS 1 ordered & launched; Freedom Class named; LCS 2 ordered & keel laid; Independence Class named.

LCS 1 Freedom christening
(click to view full)

Sept 23/06: LCS 1 launch. The US Navy christens and launches LCS 1 Freedom, the nation’s first littoral combat ship, at the Marinette Marine shipyard in Wisconsin. The ship will continue to undergo outfitting and testing at Marinette Marine; it will be commissioned in 2007 and eventually homeported in San Diego, CA. The ship’s sponsor is Birgit Smith, wife of the late Medal of Honor recipient U.S. Army Sgt. 1st Class Paul Ray Smith.

July 26/06: CRS report. The US Congressional Research Service releases its report “Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS): Background and Issues for Congress.” Meanwhile, as negotiations in Congress go forward, The House-reported version of the FY2007 defense appropriations bill (H.R. 5631) recommends approval of this request. The Senate reported version recommends a 2-ship cut by funding just one LCS in FY 2007, and rescinding funding for 1 of the 3 LCSs procured in FY 2006.

June 26/06: LCS 3. Lockheed Martin Maritime Systems & Sensors in Moorestown, NJ receives a $197.6 million cost-plus-incentive-fee/ award-fee modification under a previously awarded contract, exercising an option for construction of one Flight 0 monohull Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). Work will be performed in Lockport, LA (63%); Moorestown, NJ (36%); and Arlington, VA (1%), and is expected to be complete by January 2009. See corporate release.

LCS 3 order

April 13/06: Israel. Israel is considering Lockheed’s Littoral Combat Ship design. Specifically, they’re considering Lockheed’s monohull design as a potential replacement for their Saar Class corvettes and missile boats. A funded initial study is underway to assess feasibility, and integration with Israeli systems and weapons is critical.

April 4/06: Independence Class. Secretary of the Navy Donald C. Winter has named LCS 2, the first Flight 0 ship of the General Dynamics/Austal trimaran design. She will be the USS Independence. This Navy release notes the backgrounds of other ships who have borne that name. It’s all part of a speech on the future of Navy shipbuilding.

LCS-2 Independence Class

Jan 19/06: LCS 2 keel. GD/Austal Lays Keel for LCS 2. Austal USA hosts a traditional US Navy keel-laying ceremony to signify the start of construction on the first Flight 0 General Dynamics/Austal LCS trimaran. The keel laying follows on the heels of the official November 17, 2005 opening of Austal USA’s ship construction facility in Mobile, AL. See also General Dynamics team lead press release.

Dec 2/05: The U.S. Navy announced that USS Freedom [LCS 1] will be homeported at Naval Station San Diego, CA when it enters service. The ship is expected to be delivered to the Navy in December 2006, and arrive in San Diego in early 2007. See US Navy release.

Oct 7/05: LCS 2. The 1st GD-Austal Flight 0 LCS gets the go-ahead, as General Dynamics Bath Iron Works in Bath, ME received a $223.3 million cost-plus-award-fee/ incentive-fee modification to exercise an option under contract N00024-03-C-2310 for detail design and construction of one Flight 0 Littoral Combat Ship (LCS).

Work will be performed in Mobile, AL (50%) – note that this represents Austal’s component, and is the company’s largest-ever individual contract. Work will also be performed in Pittsfield, MA (33%); Bath, ME (15%); and Baltimore, MD (2%), and is expected to be complete by October 2007. This award is one of the potential options described in the May 27/04 contract award.

LCS 2 order

Skjold Class
(click to view larger)

June 2/05: LCS 1 keel. Lockheed Lays Keel for LCS 1, USS Freedom. This is the first Flight 0 ship of Team Lockheed’s design, and the ceremony was attended by numerous dignitaries. This event is related the Dec 15, 2004 shipbuilding contract, of course.

May 9/05: Freedom Class. Secretary of the Navy Gordon England has named LCS 1, the first Flight 0 ship of Team Lockheed’s design. She will be the USS Freedom. See DefenseLINK release.

LCS-1 Freedom Class

April 11/05: Bath Iron Works prepares for construction. Bath Iron Works in Bath, ME receives a $16 million cost-plus-fixed-fee option to previously awarded contract N00024-03-C-2310 for the advance procurement of required Long Lead Material for the first “Flight Zero” models of General Dynamics’ trimaran Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) design. The contract award for Long Lead Material includes a description of the items to be procured, the supplier, the required ordering date, supplier lead-time, in-yard need date and a breakout by month of the dollar amounts required. Work is expected to be complete in September 2005.

Dec 15/04: LCS 1 ordered. Lockheed Martin Corp. Maritime Systems & Sensors in Moorestown, NJ received a $188.2 million cost-plus award-fee/ incentive-fee option to contract N00024-03-C-2311 for detail design and construction of the first Flight 0 Littoral Combat Ship (LCS).

Work will be performed in Moorestown, NJ (38%); Marinette, WI (57%); and Arlington, VA (5%), and is expected to be complete by December 2006. This is one of the potential options described in the May 27, 2004 contract award. US Navy.

LCS 1 order

June 6/04: LCS 1 design. Lockheed unveils latest version of its LCS design.

May 27/04: Downselect and Initial Contracts. Lockheed Martin Corp. Maritime Systems & Sensors in Moorestown, NJ, and General Dynamics Bath Iron Works in Bath, ME received cost-plus-award-fee contract modifications to previously awarded contracts for final system design, with options for detail design and construction of up to 2 Flight 0 Littoral Combat Ships (LCS).

Lockheed Martin receives a $46.5 million contract modification for a 7-month final system design, which could go as high as $423.4 million if options for detail design and construction of up to two LCS Flight 0 ships are exercized. Work on the final system design is expected to be complete by December 2004. See corporate release for further details re: Team Lockheed’s design & objectives.

General Dynamics receives a $78.8 million cost-plus-award-fee contract modification to N00024-03-C-2310 for a 16-month final system design. The award could go as high as $536 million if options for detail design and construction of up to two LCS Flight 0 ships are exercised ($536,020,688 including all options). Work on the final system design is expected to be complete by September 2005. Corporate release for further information re: the GD team’s design goals.

Raytheon’s team is eliminated.

Final system design finalist contracts

Visby Corvette
(click to view full)

July 17/03: Preliminary Designs. The following 3 companies out of 6 offers won firm-fixed-price contracts for Flight 0 Littoral Combat Ship Preliminary Design:

General Dynamics Bath Iron Works in Bath, ME (N00024-03-C-2310 – $8.9 million)

Lockheed Martin Naval Electronics & Surveillance Systems, Surface Systems in Washington, DC (N00024-03-C-2311 – $10 million)

Raytheon Company Integrated Defense Systems in Portsmouth, RI (N00024-03-C-2312 – $10 million).

Each contractor will perform a preliminary design effort to refine its proposed Littoral Combat Ship concept. Work is expected to be complete in February 2004. The 3 losing teams include Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, Gibbs and Cox (who would join the Lockheed team), John J McMullen Associates, and Textron Systems Marine & Land Operations.

The biggest surprise is the absence of Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, who was working from an already-proven littoral corvette design by Sweden’s Kockums AB, and its German parent Howaldtswerke Deutsche Werft AG. Kockums designed and is building Sweden’s Visby Class littoral warfare corvettes, and Northrop Grumman planned to use the stealthy carbon fiber mono-hull as the baseline for its LCS program.

Preliminary design contracts

May 21/03: Lockheed Martin holds an Industry Day to solicit potential members for its LCS team. Its base design concept is then known as “Sea Blade.”

March 4/03: Lockheed lays foundation for LCS team. Lockheed Martin, naval architects Gibbs & Cox, Bollinger Shipyards and shipbuilders Marinette Marine formally partner on the LCS program. The Lockheed release contains details of their respective areas of responsibility and past work.

September 2002: Skjold. US Navy finishes studying Norway’s Skjold (“Shield”) Class air cushion catamaran littoral fast patrol boats. The ship completed a 13-month deployment in the USA, allowing the US Navy to study the Skjold class concept and shape thinking about the LCS idea. The ship participated in a series of naval exercises and a number of tests with US Navy research establishments NAVSEA and the Office of Naval Research.

March 25/02: Sea SLICE. Lockheed’s Sea SLICE X-vessel participates in naval exercise. The vessel participated as a littoral warfare combatant, and tested a number of weapons including the 35mm “Millenium Gun,” NETFIRES missiles, and a simulated torpedo strike. The Lockheed release contains more information about Sea SLICE and the tested weapons, as does this GlobalSecurity.org Sea SLICE profile.

Appendix A: LCS’ Yo-Yoing Budgets & Program Structures

LCS 1, final construction
(click to view full)

In July 2011, the Navy created PEO LCS to oversee the program, headed by Rear Adm. James A. Murdoch. Ship construction supervision was removed for PEO Ships, while mission module supervision was removed from PEO Littoral and Mine Warfare (PEO LMW), which was dissolved. It wasn’t the first big change in the program – and may not be the last. Indeed, in August 2012 the Chief of Naval Operations added a council tasked to come up with a plan.

It is normal for programs to change elements like numbers ordered, but not to change the entire buy strategy. Unfortunately, that’s exactly what the LCS program has done. Several times.

Early plans for much cheaper ships would have built them from 2005 – 2019, but the extent of the program’s timeline and budgetary issues can be inferred from the current production timeline: 2011-2040.

How the US Navy arrived at that plan is a very tangled, but very instructive, story of goals not met, budgets changed or not spent, and an acquisition plan that has now been changed several times.

The LCS program’s budget mess has reflected their yo-yoing underlying program structure. LCS budgets are not even suitable for inclusion as a table, because the program’s structure has changed repeatedly. For several of those years, program turmoil was so great that it prevented budgeted funds from being spent. As such, each year’s budget can only be understood in light of the program’s shifting plans.

Plan #1: 13 ships. Under the original vision, Team Lockheed and the General Dynamics/Austal consortium would each produce a number of fully operational, competing Flight 0 ships. The idea was that experience with these ships is the best teacher and evaluator, ensuring that the Navy selects the right winning team for the overall program. It would also begin an immediate expansion of the US Navy’s falling numbers, since all of the Flight 0 ships would be available after the testing phase was complete. The design approach for the winning team’s second generation Flight 1 LCS ships would be flexible, and was envisioned as changing somewhat in light of the experience gained with the Flight 0 designs. Initially, 4 Flight 0 ships and 9 Flight 1 ships were contemplated, along with a purchase of various mission modules.

In FY 2005, Congress approved the Navy’s plan to fund the construction of the first 2 competing LCS sea frames, funded LCS-1, required LCS-2 to be built to a different design when funded in FY 2006, and added other basic stipulations.

The FY 2006 budget was $1.054 billion ($470.3M procurement, $584.1M RDT&E). The Navy had initially asked for LCS-2, but shipbuilding supporters in Congress funded LCS 2-4. As the program progressed, however, new Navy shipbuilding standards, and other shifts in specifications, caused LCS ship prices to rise sharply. As ship costs doubled, and then continued to rise, political scrutiny grew. In response, legislators inserted an adjusted $220 million cost cap on LCS 5-6, and made that buy and any others contingent on Navy certification of a stable LCS design.

Plan #1a: The FY 2007 budget was $926.6 million ($597.2M for ships & mission modules, $329.4M RDT&E). Congress funded LCS-5 and LCS-6. Austal’s Dec 11/06 press release even implied that more early-build ships might enter US Navy plans:

“Recent Navy reports have speculated on an expanded acquisition strategy, from 4 to a possible 17, for the Flight 0 fleet of LCSs that also includes an alternate monohull ship design. Commenting in September, Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development, and Acquisition), Dr Delores Etter, told Reuters, ‘The U.S. Navy hopes to finalize its acquisition strategy for a new class of shore-hugging combat ships by mid-December [2006].’ “

Plan #2: Bailing out. In March 2007, however, the US Navy canceled Team Lockheed’s LCS-3 due to cost growth. In November 2007 (technically, FY 2008), the General Dynamics/ Austal LCS-4 joined it. A Navy policy of requesting fixed-price contracts, coupled with specifications and designs they could keep changing at will, created a gap too large for negotiations to bridge. Contracts for LCS 5 & 6 were never issued.

Under the Navy’s revised approach, planned FY 2007-2008 procurements would be channeled into getting LCS 1 & 2 built, rather than buying additional ships. Instead of buying 3 more LCS ships in 2008, and then ramping up to 6 ships per year in 2009 – 2012, amended procurement plans proposed to buy 1 ship in 2008 and 2 ships in 2009. Under that Plan B, the 2 consortia would compete for orders, with 2 ships contracted to the winning builder and 1 for the loser. A down-select to 1 design would take place in 2010.

The FY 2008 request was set at $1.208 billion ($990.8M for 3 ships + 2 mission modules, $217.5M RDT&E); but the Navy’s cancelations and revised procurement strategy led to $337.1 million in funding for a single LCS – a contract the Navy never issued. Meanwhile, Congress had raised the per-ship cost cap to $460 million, and required fixed-price-type contracts for LCS ships bought from here on.

Where to now?
(click for cutaway)

Plan #3: Fog of war. The FY 2009 request was $920 million, for 2 LCS ships. The final 2009 defense bill increased that funding to $1 billion. Once again, however, the Navy’s LCS procurement plan changed. Now, it planned to buy 2 LCS ships in 2009, with an option for Phase II that could involve up to 3 more LCS Flight 0+ Class ships on the same terms in 2010. Those Phase II ships would likely be split between the contractors, but could be issued for just 1 design.

Congress added some relief by delaying the implementation of the LCS cost cap to FY2010, but contract negotiations must have been interesting. Neither manufacturing team had demonstrated the ability to deliver an LCS ship for $500 million, and the Navy was insisting on fixed-price contracts that transfer all risk to the shipbuilders. Both contracts (LCS-3 and LCS-4) were eventually signed in 2009, but the Navy decided that their terms needed to be kept secret.

That seems likely leave just 2 Flight 0 LCS ships in the water before the revised LCS program was supposed to pick one final design. Or not. Under terms that remained unclear.

Additional reports added even more uncertainty. First came reports that that final selection might even feature a design competition that would be separate from the build competition, which means the ship’s design team may not be the final builders. That kind of competition is called “build to print,” in which the government buys the blueprints and then contracts for construction separately. Of course, handing a new ship design to a firm that hasn’t built it before carries cost-inflation risks of its own. The question is whether the potential threat of switching suppliers creates enough added incentives to keep costs down, in order to justify the increased time, overhead, and added program risk inherent in running 2 serial competitions instead of 1.

The FY 2010 budget requested $1.877 billion ($1.38 billion for 3 more ships, $136.7M for mission modules, plus $360.5M RDT&E which includes $75.5 million to cover cost growth on LCS 1-2). The program ended up with $1.579 billion: $1,157 million for all procurement of 2 ships and mission modules, and $422.0 million for RDT&E.

Plan #4: 10 + 5. In September 2009, while the House and Senate were working on reconciling their FY 2010 defense bills, another major change to the program’s structure was announced. There would be no Phase II for the FY 2009 buy. Instead, selection of the final design would occur in FY 2010, before operational trials of both ships could take place. Both industry teams would submit proposals under a new solicitation. The winner would receive a 10-ship contract running from FY 2010-2014, and provide the combat systems for their 10 ships, plus 5 more. They would also deliver a technical data package, allowing the Navy to open a “build to print” competition for a second builder of the chosen design, beginning in FY 2012. That “build to print” order would be for up to 5 more ships.

Assuming that this program would remain intact, the FY 2011 request was for $1.819 billion with RDT&E would be $226.3 million, while $1.592 billion for procurement would fund 2 ships ($1.2 billion), advance orders for FY 2012-14 major hull and propulsion components ($280 million), and mission modules (remainder, about $112 million).

Plan #5: Dual-build 20. Naturally, the proposed procurement approach changed again. Upon examining the bids, the US Navy went to Congress and asked for permission to accept both 10-ship bids, buying 20 ships for an advertised price that was about the same as the estimates for the 15 they had wanted. The GAO and CBO both have doubts about those estimates, in part because the Navy is still changing the designs; but the contracts are underway. For better or for worse, the Navy finally has an approach that is actually buying ships.

The Navy’s FY 2011-15 plan called for 17 ships total in a 2, 3, 4, 4, and 4 sequence, though that may rise to 20 ships. The Navy’s longer-range shipbuilding plans would buy 3 LCS hulls per year from FY 2016-19, dropping to 2 per year from FY 2020-24, then dropping again to a 1-2-1-2 pattern for FY 2025-33. The program would finish up at 2 per year from FY 2034-40.

Because these ships are assumed to have a service life of 25 years, the 10 ships bought from 2036 – 2040 would be replacements for the original ships of class.

Unless, of course, the entire acquisition plan changes again. The graph below shows how estimates of the total program cost have fluctuated as the Navy changed its procurement structure, again and again:

FY12 Forecast: US Navy Comptroller
No such data released in May 2009 document

The projected costs and cost/unit, include outfitting and post delivery costs, which explains why they’re above the widely-used Total Obligational Authority (TOA) numbers. At more than $1.3 billion over the life of the program, these extra costs are hardly pocket change

Additional Readings & Sources

Readers with corrections, comments, or information to contribute are encouraged to contact DID’s Founding Editor, Joe Katzman. We understand the industry – you will only be publicly recognized if you tell us that it’s OK to do so.

The Littoral Combat Ships: Basic Program & Ship Background

• U.S. Navy LCS site

• FedBizOpps.GOV (Jan 27/10, #N0002410R2301) – 19–Fiscal Year 2010 through 2014 Littoral Combat Ship Construction. RFP for the current build cycle.

• Naval-Technology.com – Littoral Combat Ship LCS High-Speed Surface Ship

• GlobalSecurity.org – Littoral Combat Ship.

• Information Dissemination (July 10/07) – The US Navy’s PF-109 “Patrol Frigate” Program. Which led to the FFG-7 Oliver Hazard Perry Class frigates, as the low end of US surface combatant force structure during the 1970s and 1980s. Says the LCS program isn’t imitating the FFG-7’s successes. Then again, compare this contention with the CBO’s July 24/07 testimony, which compared the first-of-class ships of each type in FY 2008 dollars, and found that LCS was cheaper.

• NDIA’s National Defense Magazine (March 2010) – Builders of the Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship Pull Out All the Stops. Offers a good side-by-side comparison of the 2 ship types.

• DID (March 19/07) – Cost Growth Puts the Brakes on the USA’s Littoral Combat Ship Program. And causes both cancellation of Team Lockheed’s LCS 3, and a revised LCS program plan. Not to mention a continued threat to the overall program, if costs remain near $400 million while weapon capabilities remain so limited and inflexible.

• International Hydrofoil Society (Sept 23/04) – NAVSEA Presentation re: Littoral Combat Ship Program [PDF format]. Includes visuals and information related to mission modules, program structure & timelines, and the two competing teams.

• DefenseLINK (May 28/04) – Special Department of Defense Briefing re: Littoral Combat Ship Program. Good discussion of the program as a whole and procurement approach, as well as how the modules were envisioned to work.

• US Naval Institute, Proceedings magazine (February 2003) – All Ahead Flank for LCS. But note esp. Vice-Adm. Mustin & Katz’ warnings about the possibility of a failed “high-low” force mix. By 2013, that warning had come true.

 

LCS 1 Freedom Class Monohull & Major Unique Items

• Lockheed Martin – LCS Team. LCS mini-site.

• Lockheed Martin – Littoral Combat Ship. The LCS-1 Freedom Class.

• Rolls Royce – MT30 Marine gas turbine engine.

• EADS Cassidian – TRS-3D/ 16-ES. Main radar.

• Airbus Defense & Space – TRS-4D. AESA GaN radar with dramatic performance improvements, will be installed on LCS 17 and later.

• Lockheed Martin – [LCS] Systems

 

LCS 2 Independence Class Trimaran & Major Unique Items

• General Dynamics/ Austal – LCS mini-site.

• Austal – Littoral Combat Ship. The LCS-2 Independence Class. There’s also a team site, but parts of that aren’t current.

• Austal – Advanced Seaframes for Littoral Security [PDF].

• GE Aviation – Model LM2500. Gas turbines.

• Saab – Sea Giraffe AMB 3D Naval Surveillance Radar. Saab has touted a Sea Giraffe 4X AESA radar with about 3x-4x performance, but there’s no announcement of a swap-in yet.

• General Dynamics AIS – Open CI. Covers electronics in general. The combat system is derived from Thales’ popular TACTICOS.

 

LCS Exports

• GDLCS – Multi-Mission Combatant. See also their more detailed international variant brochure [PDF], dating from when they were teamed up with Austal.

• Lockheed Martin – Multi-Mission Combat Ship. LCS for export, but with real weapons and an improved radar. Comes in varying sizes: 85m (corvette), 118m (light frigate, like LCS), and 150m (full frigate). See also their older LCS-Israel brochure [PDF, 4.27 MB], offering a design that removes the Mk110 gun while adding a 30mm gun system like the Typhoon, Harpoon missiles, Barak anti-air missiles, and strike-length Mk41 vertical launch cells.

• DID Spotlight – A Littoral Combat Frigate for Israel? The Israelis wanted a very different approach. No mission modules. Full fleet defense capabilities, including vertical launch cells and a SPY-1F AEGIS radar. Anti-ship missiles, and torpedo tubes. Problem was, the ship was too expensive for them.

• Aviation Week Ares (Oct 18/08) – Lockheed Martin Pushes Export LCS. With a long list of offered and potential changes to armament, layout, and even propulsion. Market demand in the rest of the world appears to be delivering some design verdicts.

 

Official Reports

• USN Undersecretary Robert Work (DRAFT was January 2013) – The Littoral Combat Ship: How We Got Here, and Why. Scribd copy of the early draft.

• GAO (Sept 25/14, #GAO-14-827) – Navy Complied with Regulations in Accepting Two Lead Ships, but Quality Problems Persisted after Delivery.

• GAO (July 30/14, #GAO-14-749) – Littoral Combat Ship: Additional Testing and Improved Weight Management Needed Prior to Further Investments.

• GAO (July 8/14, #GAO-14-447) Deployment of USS Freedom Revealed Risks in Implementing Operational Concepts and Uncertain Costs.

• SAR report (April 17/14) – SAR [PDF]. Deals with readiness, incl. notable combat system limitations.

• Breaking Defense (April 4/14) – Sleepless In Singapore: LCS Is Undermanned & Overworked, Says GAO. Unpublished report on USS Freedom’s Singapore deployment – see July 8/14 for official release.

• US Congressional Research Service (Feb 25/14 update, #RL33741) – Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program: Background, Oversight Issues, and Options for Congress. Latest update is Aug 4/14, which focuses on the FY15 procurement cut and follow-on frigate.

• House Armed Service Seapower hearings (July 25/13) – Acquisition and Development Challenges Associated with the Littoral Combat Ship, Part 1 and Part 2 [Video]. See also GAO testimony transcript.

• US GAO (July 22/13) – Significant Investments in the Littoral Combat Ship Continue Amid Substantial Unknowns about Capabilities, Use, and Cost.

• USN OPNAV (July 2013 release) – “Perez Report”, Executive Summary [PDF].

• DOTE – FY2011 Report: LCS [PDF].

• US Congressional Budget Office (Dec 10/10) – Cost Implications of the Navy’s Plans for Acquiring Littoral Combat Ships [PDF].

• US GAO (#GAO-11-277T, Dec 14/10) – Defense Acquisitions: Realizing Savings under Different Littoral Combat Ship Acquisition Strategies Depends on Successful Management of Risks.

• US GAO (#GAO-11-249R, Dec 8/10) – Navy’s Proposed Dual Award Acquisition Strategy for the Littoral Combat Ship Program.

• US GAO (#GAO-10-523, Aug 31/10) – Defense Acquisitions: Navy’s Ability to Overcome Challenges Facing the Littoral Combat Ship Will Determine Eventual Capabilities.

• Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment (March 3/10) – Littoral Combat Ship: An Examination of its Possible Concepts of Operation” [PDF]. CSBA is one of Washington’s most respected think tanks, and lives up to its non-partisan billing.

• US GAO (#GAO-10-257, Feb 2/10): “Littoral Combat Ship: Actions Needed to Improve Operating Cost Estimates and Mitigate Risks in Implementing New Concepts.”

• Information Disemination (Jan 11/10) – Streetfighter 2010: The New Navy Fighting Machine. See also full study GoogleDoc. NNFM is an ONA funded study in which 9 members of the Naval Postgraduate School faculty attempted to develop a force structure that reflected the vision in the USA’s “A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower,” by building an illustrative fleet on paper.

• US Naval Postgraduate School, John P. Baggett Thesis (March 8/08) – http://web.archive.org/web/20131216222432/http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA479828 [PDF].

• US GAO (#GAO-08-13, Oct 12/07) – Report to the US House Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces: Overcoming Challenges Key to Capitalizing on Mine Countermeasures Capabilities” [PDF]

• US House Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces (July 24/07) – Congressional Budget Office, Statement of J. Michael Gilmore, Assistant Director for National Security and Eric J. Labs, Senior Analyst: The Navy’s 2008 Shipbuilding Plan and Key Ship Programs [PDF format]

• US GAO (#GAO-07-943T, July 24/07) – Realistic Business Cases Needed to Execute Navy Shipbuilding Programs.

• US GAO (#GAO-07-406SP, March 30/07) – Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs. LCS is one, and this study is an annual release. Here is the March 30/06 version.

• US GAO (#GAO-06-587T March 30/06) – Defense Acquisitions: Challenges Associated with the Navy’s Long-Range Shipbuilding Plans

 

LCS Program: Analysis

• Naval Technology – Littoral Combat Ship Runs Aground.” Offers a look at the program workings and assumptions that have led the program to its current state. Written in July 2008.

• Harold Lee Wise – Inside the Danger Zone: the US Military in the Persian Gulf, 1987-1988. An excellent book that outlines the kind of situation LCS was supposedly built for. Unfortunately, gaps in the required mine warfare capabilities, low damage tolerance, and station/support capacities leave doubts concerning the LCS’ ability to handle the same situation with as much success as the less expensive cobbled-together solutions used at the time; esp. the very successful converted barge Hercules.

• G2mil – Diesel Electric Corvettes. Highly critical of the LCS program. Core of the criticism: “The LCS is the size of modern frigate and bigger than destroyers of World War II, yet has the armament of a patrol boat in order to accommodate the mysterious ultra high-speed requirement… The US Navy should scrap the current LCS plan in favor of slower, smaller, and more capable DE [diesel-electric] corvettes based on the Visby class corvette design and supported by tenders [vid. Yellowstone Class AD-41]”

• Information Dissemination – Evolving towards a 21st Century Surface Action Group. He suggests a set (LPD/LSD Mothership + DDG-51 + T-AKE + 2 frigates/ 4 corvettes + 2 LCS as support for the flotilla) derived in part from some of the principles laid down by Sir Julian Corbett. “Ultimately, I do not see the LCS as is capable of meeting the requirements the Navy is demanding from it. The LCS is too expensive to buy the number of littoral ships needed to dominate that battlespace. The LCS is too big to be risked in the littorals during wartime, not to mention having survivability problems if thought of or treated as a warship. The LCS is too small to deploy the number of unmanned vehicles necessary to be effective, and cannot repair those systems when they break. That does not make the LCS a poor addition to the flotilla, rather it would be a smart addition, if utilized in a way that supported a credible approach to littoral warfare.”

• James Hasik (Nov 15/13) – Lasers will save us all. If they ever work. They would certainly help LCS, but the power levels needed for wide-area defense are prohibitive.

• Wall Street Journal (Nov 12/13) – Navy Ship Plan Faces Pentagon Budget Cutters [subscription req’d]. The performance report from Singapore was “a little stunning” to Navy leaders – and not in a good way. Meanwhile, pressure grows to cap the buy at 32 ships. Or even 24.

• USNI Proceedings magazine (Sept 2013) – Cede No Water: Strategy, Littorals and Flotillas [subscription req’d]. “The problem with the current discussion is that it mostly revolves around ship characteristics, with little or no thought given to the strategic issues involved…” Makes a good case for a similar but different force, based on naval history.

• Information Dissemination (June 10/13) – The Littoral Combat Ship: Give it time. AS GAO later notes, however, the procurement program is structured so that by the time you give it time, tens of billions are already sunk costs and the ships are built.

• Canadian Naval Review (Winter 2013, Vol.8 #4) – The Costs of 21st Century Shipbuilding: Lessons for Canada from the Littoral Combat Ship Program [PDF]

• WIRED Danger Room (Jan 4/11) – Navy’s New Warship: Bargain, Death Trap or Both?

• US Naval Institute blog (Jan 2/11) – The LCS is not expected to be survivable in a hostile combat environment… Also discusses the lessons of past naval littoral combats.

• Gannett’s Navy Times (Dec 19/10) – Analysis: Navy mum on multiple LCS system issues. Refers to the combat systems.

• James Hasik (Dec 10/10) – Is buying two types of littoral combat ship good for the US Navy?

• Defense Tech (Sept 27/10) – Is LCS Dying a Slow Death?

• Information Dissemination (Sept 9/10) – Red Flags Everywhere”

• Information Dissemination (Sept 3/10) – What the GAO LCS Report Reveals. In his opinion, systemic and serious cultural problems in the Navy.

• Lexington Institute (Sept 7/10) – Littoral Combat Ship: It’s The Mission Packages, Stupid:

• Reuters (Jan 20/10) – Early tests show Lockheed LCS problems-report. The Pentagon’s testing reports say that neither LCS design will meet requirements for survivability in a combat environment. The report also details other class issues.

• Defense News (Jan 17/10) – Failing the Littoral Challenge: LCS Capabilities, Cost Miss the Boat. By Charles W. Robinson. “To counter these limitations, we urge testing of a littoral mission unit (LMU) by activating a military transport, the Cape Mendocino, which, with minor modifications, could transport four or more Street Fighters to areas of threat. This vessel would also serve as their mother ship.”

• Defense News (Jan 8/10) – Aluminum Glitters Inside 2nd Littoral Combat Ship Variant. Chris Cavas takes a tour.

• US Naval Institute’s Proceedings Magazine (September 2009) – No Need for High Speed. Contends that over-emphasis on speed has gravely damaged the LCS’ ability to carry out several necessary missions.

• Information Dissemination (Sept 29/09) – The Day the LCS Was Promoted to Warship With AEGIS ships sliding toward missile defense roles, but naval action groups needing protection, the current LCS leaves the US Navy with no in-between options that ca pick up the slack.

• Information Dissemination (July 17/09) – May 10th, 2019: Missing Nelsons Cruisers. Scenario illustrates the hole in US Navy force planning.

• Mobile, AL Press-Register (April 15/09) – LCS could be a pirate’s nightmare. But the article adds appropriate caveats.

• WIRED Danger Room (Nov 9/08) – Rosy Future for Navy’s Troubled Shoreline Fighters? Based on conversations with CSBA’s Bob Work.

• Armed Forces Journal – Think Small (see also noticarionnaval’s blog post). “A force of the new Littoral Combat Ships (LCS), when they enter service in the next decade, will not significantly increase the Navy’s capabilities in conducting littoral warfare. This bad situation can be changed by building or acquiring a force composed of multipurpose corvettes and missile combat craft.”

• Information Dissemination (Sept 13/07) – Littoral Combat Ship: 2 + 2 +3 – 4 = 2 plus 1.

• National Defense magazine (August 2007) – Littoral combat ship could slip behind schedule as price tag nears $500 million. “As Congress battles over the Defense Department’s budget, lawmakers have signaled their displeasure at LCS cost overruns and delays. The number of littoral combat ships that policymakers allow the sea service to buy in 2008 could portend whether the program uprights itself in the next few years, say analysts.”

• Lexington Institute (Nov 28/06) – Modularity, the Littoral Combat Ship and the Future of The United States Navy [PDF]. Washington think-tank offers an in-depth look at the LCS as the Navy’s most transformational program, and the key program challenges that must be overcome in order for it to be successful.

• National Defense magazine (August 2007) – Littoral Combat Ship Troubles: Opportunity for Small Boat Companies? “The Navy’s really trying to think, ‘do we need a vessel in between the LCS and the riverine,’ and I think in the end, they’re going to say, yes they do,” says Robert Work, senior naval analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.” The Stiletto experimental ships are cited as one likely gap-filler.

• DID (April 12/06) – The Lion in Winter: Gove

Latest updates: 3rd squadron stands up in the south.

Indian Heron UAV
(click to view larger)

In November 2005, media reports claimed that India was set to purchase some 50 Heron MALE (Medium Altitude, Long Endurance) UAVs from Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) in a deal worth $220 million. They would be put to use carrying out reconnaissance missions on India’s mountainous borders with China and Pakistan, and along India’s long coastal waters. India was said to have been close to sealing the deal in 2004, but it was postponed due to the change in governments in New Delhi.

The Heron’s performance during the December 2004 tsunami apparently clinched the deal. Its performance since, and Chinese aggression on the Indian border, has green-lighted a follow-on contract.

The Herons

Heron, multi-sensor
(click to view full)

India already had about 12 Heron-1 drones before the 2005 sale, and they played a crucial part in search and rescue operations following the Indian Ocean tsunami in December 2004. IAI Searcher tactical UAVs and and their high-end Heron UAV counterparts were used to locate trapped survivors and missing bodies near the Andaman and Nicobar islands, relaying clear live feed photographs while in flight, and allowing immediate response as soon as survivors or victims were identified on screen.

The Heron UAV is reportedly capable of flying for over 24 hours at a time at altitudes around 32,000 feet. IAI lists flight time as >40 hours, and says that it has demonstrated 52 hours of continuous flight. It has a maximum range of about 3,000 km and can carry a maximum payload weighing 250 kg/ 550 lbs. As a large MALE (Medium Altitude, Long Endurance) UAV, it’s built to carry multiple payloads at a time for a variety of missions. Choices include electro-optical and thermal surveillance equipment, SAR radars for ground surveillance, maritime patrol radars and sensors, signals and other intelligence collection antennas and equipment, laser designators, and even radio relays.

India doesn’t discuss its UAV payloads, but reports have its Searcher IIs equipped with the standard day/night surveillance turret, while the Herons are similar to Israel’s maritime patrol configuration, with an Elta Systems radar and a stabilized Tamam surveillance and targeting turret.

A subsequent Heron-2 or Heron-TP variant is larger, with a bigger 1,200 hp Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A turboprop to power it. Typical mission payload rises to 1,000 kg, which can be carried to around 45,000 feet, and the UAV has a maximum flight time of over 36 hours in favorable conditions.

India and Israel are not alone in being impressed by the Heron’s capabilities. As of 2011, leased Herons or Heron variants are operating in Afghanistan on behalf of the Australian, Canadian, French, and German armed forces; and have participated in demonstrations involving US SOUTHCOM and its Latin American partners. Subsequent years have also seen confirmed or rumored export sales to Brazil’s federal police, Ecuador’s navy, Singapore’s armed forces, and Turkey.

Contracts & Key Events

Israeli Heron-TP
(click to view full)

June 15/18: Deal finalized Germany’s parliament has now approved a deal to lease Heron TP UAV’s from Israel. The approval puts an end to a long-running series of debates and protests. Last year a German court rejected a protest against the Heron-TP selection by rival bidder General Atomics Aeronautical Systems. Additionally, many politicians opposed the idea of acquiring a UAV that could potentially be armed. The Heron TP is reportedly capable of flying for over 35 hours at a time at altitudes around 45.000 feet. It has a maximum range of about 3,000 km and can carry a maximum payload weighing 2204 lbs. As a large MALE (Medium Altitude, Long Endurance) UAV, it’s built to carry multiple payloads at a time for a variety of missions. Choices include electro-optical and thermal surveillance equipment, SAR radars for ground surveillance, maritime patrol radars and sensors, signals and other intelligence collection antennas and equipment, laser designators, and even radio relays. The deal is valued at $1.17 billion and allows the German army to carry out long endurance intelligence-gathering missions.

April 10/18: Lease signing imminent Germany is reportedly close to signing a deal that will lease five Heron TP unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) from Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI). Contracts for the $1.2 billion agreement are expected to be signed in the coming weeks, with the period of lease running for nine years. Airbus will also cooperate on the program and will use the skills learned to help develop a Euro-Drone with France, Spain, Germany, and Italy. The Heron deal had been initially planned to be wrap up by the end last year but was derailed at the last minute due to opposition from the Social Democratic Party. Since then, a German election, hung parliament, and subsequent horse-trading for a new coalition has broken the Heron deadlock—with a new coalition agreement signed between Chancellor Angela Merkel’s ruling CDU/CSU Party and the Social Democrats paving the way for smooth approval of the contract.

June 9/17: Heron TP UAVs leased to the German military by Airbus will be operated from an Israeli air base. It is also believed that German crew will be trained at the site. Deliveries of Heron TP systems for use by the German military will commence late next year and will go towards supporting international operations involving German personnel prior to the availability of a European-developed medium-altitude, long-endurance UAV from around 2025. The deal has been initially held up after a protest by General Atomics.

June 2/17: A German court has ruled against US weapons manufacturer General Atomics after the firm posted a legal challenge against Germany’s plans to lease armed drones from Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI). GA, along with Switzerland’s RUAG lost out to provide the Predator B UAV to the German military after Berlin chose to lease the Heron TP UAV in a deal estimated to be worth $652 million. On taking the deal to court, GA stated that they did so “to ensure that this procurement is conducted as a fair and open competition; thereby ensuring that the German Ministry of Defense procures the most technologically superior and cost efficient solution.” Berlin’s decision to lease Herons instead of buying Predators comes as an interim measure until the EU has developed its own drone. Germany, France, Italy and Spain plan to jointly develop a drone by 2025.

October 19/16: Having joined the Missile Technology Control Regime this summer, India is forging ahead with plans to purchase Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) Heron TP UAV. While Israel is not a member of the regime, which aims to restrict the proliferation of missile technology, it has agreed to export its strategic weapon systems only to member countries. While New Delhi has operated the Heron 1 and smaller Israeli UAVs, the Heron TP UAV has a 40h endurance, maximum take-off weight of 5,300kg (11,685lb), and carries a typical mission payload of 1,000kg.

September 14/15 The Indian government has approved the purchase of ten armed UAVs from Israel Aerospace Industries, following a fast-tracking of the program by the Modi administration. The $400 million acquisition will see ten IAI Heron TP drones join other Israeli designs operated by the Indian Air Force, with Harpy loitering munitions, Searcher ISR aircraft and unarmed Heron-1 aircraft already seeing service. The country is also pursuing an indigenous UAV development program known as the Rustom 2. India has been the world’s largest importer of drones over the last thirty years, with IAI officials reportedly in talks with the Indian Defence Ministry over a possible joint production of the new UAVs. India is also planning to allocate significant funds to train increasing numbers of operators to use its expanding UAV fleet.

May 5/15: With 22.5% of all UAV imports over the 1985-2014 period, India has topped the list of unmanned aerial systems importers. The principle beneficiary of India’s UAV spending has been Israel, particularly the IAI Heron and Searcher variants.

Dec 29/13: +15. India’s Cabinet Committee on Security headed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has reportedly approved an INR 12 billion (about $300 million) budget to buy another 15 Heron UAVs and associated equipment from Israel, and upgrade the existing fleet for improved communications.

The move would give India 40+ Herons, which is a respectable fleet. India’s massive border length, and the number of neighbors it needs to keep an eye on, mean that it really needs more than this. The new UAVs are reportedly slated for the Chinese and Pakistan borders, whereas the existing 3 squadrons seem to be more focused on India’s eastern and western seaboards. Sources: Times of India, “Govt clears proposal for buying 15 UAVs from Israel” | Israel’s Arutz Sheva, “India to Buy 15 Drones from Israel” | (Anti-India) Kashmir News Service, “Indian govt clears proposal for buying 15 Israeli UAVs”.

Sept 8/13: Shift east. India shifts some of its Heron UAVs to the 4,057 km Line of Actual Control between India and China. The Searcher Mk.II UAVs suffer from endurance restrictions and high altitude performance shortfalls, so the IAF wants to replace them all with Herons in that area. As the UK’s Daily Mail reports:

“Though unrelated, this development comes just a day after the furore over the contents of a report filed by Shyam Saran, chairperson of the National Security Advisory Board (NSAB), indicating a loss of almost 640 sq km of Indian territory in eastern Ladakh to China…. the army will soon issue a formal communication about the [UAV] proposal, which came directly from the ground formations posted along the LAC…”

Sources: UK Daily Mail, “India sends Heron drones to LAC to boost surveillance efforts”.

April 11/12: 3rd Squadron. India’s Navy commissions a 3rd UAV squadron of IAI Searcher tactical UAVs and IAI Heron long-endurance UAVs, in order to step-up surveillance in the Gulf of Mannar, Palk Strait and Palk Bay. INAS 344 will be operated from INS Parundu, the naval air station in Uchipuli, Tamil Nadu, in southern India. It will be controlled by Eastern Naval Command

INAS 344 joins the western INAS 343 naval UAV squadron in Porbandar, Gujarat and the original INAS 342 eastern squadron at Kochi in Kerala. sUAS News.

March 31/11: Flight International:

“India’s navy has operational requirements for additional unmanned air vehicles made by Israel Aerospace Industries, sources say, with these to potentially include improved Heron or Heron-TP systems carrying maritime sensor payloads. Evaluations using some systems have already been carried out, they add.”

Jan 21/11: 2nd Squadron. The Indian Navy stands up INAS 343 (the “Frontier Formidables”) at Porbandar, Gujarat, near the Pakistani border. Gujarat has the longest coastline of any Indian state.

This is India’s 2nd Heron/Searcher UAV squadron; INAS 342 has been operational since 2006. Flight International | India Defence | MarineBuzz.

Aug 2/09: Reports that the deal has been approved:

“The Indian Army is going in for two more “troops” (six to eight birds each) of advanced Heron UAVs from Israel for Rs 1,118 crore [DID: then about $230 million], after getting the nod from the Defence Acquisitions Council headed by defence minister A. K. Antony.”

Times of India | SatNews.

India: 12-16 Herons

Hunter

Nov 4/05: Reports of the sale. In analyzing the Heron sale, Stratfor notes that:

“The purchase will allow India to better protect its long borders and to pave the way for the planned 2007 acquisition of Israeli Phalcon radar — all while seeking to convince Pakistan that the security balance between the two countries will not shift further in New Delhi’s favor. Pakistan, however, is unlikely to be placated, and will endeavor to counter the Indian acquisition… Despite the negative resonance this deal will have in Islamabad, the Herons will strengthen New Delhi’s ability to deny access to jihadists crossing into India from Pakistan by enhancing India’s border surveillance capabilities.”

Meanwhile, the Pakistani Daily Times newspaper has sources who claim that the Indian Army is also making inquiries about the Hunter UAV, a smaller IAI aircraft that is also in service with the US Army. RQ-5A Hunter UAVs have logged substantial flight time in Iraq, and demonstrated their ability to drop small precision munitions like the Viper Strike. Pakistan’s Daily Times | India Defence | Stratfor

Additional Readings:

• IAI – Heron Family. Range for the Heron-1 is given as 350 km, but since the drone flies at well over 100 km/h, and can stay up for far, far more than just 3.5 hours, that makes no sense. A 24 hour flight at 125 km/h is 3,000 km, the figure used in this article.

• Defense Update – Heron TP (Eitan)

• IAI – Searcher Mk.III

News & Views

• DID – Canada, Australia Contract for Heron UAVs

• DID – France’s Harfang/ SIDM IUAV Program. Based on Heron-TP.

• DID – Germany Leases IAI’s Herons for Afghanistan

• DID – Israeli Manufacturers’ Turkish UAV Contract. Herons. Ran into trouble due to Turkish subcontractors, leading to delays that were covered by rent-a-UAV services from a 3rd Israeli firm, Aeronautics DS.

• India Strategic (November 2013) – Unmanned Aerial Systems: The Game Changer

• India Strategic (February 2012) – Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) Indian Perspective

• DID (Sept 13/05) – Israel Places $50M Order for Heron MALE UAVs.

FRES-SV PMRS
(click to view full)

Many of Britain’s army vehicles are old and worn, and the necessities of hard service on the battlefield are only accelerating that wear. The multi-billion pound “Future Rapid Effects System” (FRES) aims to recapitalize the core of Britain’s armored vehicle fleet over the next decade or more.

The best one can say is that FRES has gone far better than America’s comparable and canceled “Future Combat System.” That doesn’t mean the rise has been smooth. FRES was spawned by the UK’s withdrawal from the German-Dutch-UK Boxer MRAV modular wheeled APC program, in order to develop a more deployable vehicle that fit Britain’s exact requirements. Those initial requirements were challenging, however, and experience in Iraq and Afghanistan led to decisions that changed an already-late program. So, too, have subsequent budgetary crises…

FRES: The Program Program Goals

CVR (T) Scimitar
(click to view full)

The UK Ministry of Defense’s FRES Integration Project Team described it this way:

“FRES will be the central pillar of a capable and highly deployable medium force which will be able to project power rapidly world-wide, complementing our existing heavy and light forces. The key drivers are the need for a rapid effect land capability, the ability to meet a wide number of operational roles, maximum interoperability with other UK forces and our allies, and addressing the obsolescence of existing vehicles. It is a challenging project, faced with the conundrum of balancing capability, affordability and early delivery.”

The roles FRES-Utility and FRES-Scout vehicles will undertake, and the number of vehicles to be bought, were determined by initial Assessment Phase studies. FRES is expected to provide Britain’s future medium-weight armored vehicles, and may replace current British armored vehicles such as the CVR (T) Scimitar/ Sabre/ Sultan/ Striker light tanks (1,255 vehicles), FV 430 family tracked Armored Personnel Carriers (1,492), and Saxon wheeled APCs (622) in the Army’s inventory.

The original plan for the FRES fleet involved as many as 3,000-3,500 vehicles, including as many as 2,000 wheeled Utility APCs. It began as the largest ever British Army program, with an expected cost of around GBP 16 billion for purchases, and through-life costs of about GBP 60 billion.

Subsequent plans under Britain’s budget-driven Army 2020 plan look set to slash those numbers drastically. Britain’s MoD won’t just how drastically, but a total buy of just several hundred is a likely outcome.

Program History

The first European Defense Agency head, Britain’s Nick Witney, may have made “reducing the number of national infantry fighting vehicles from 22 to 12” one of the EU’s Top 5 defense priorities – but his own government initially followed a very different script. FRES came to the fore after Britain pulled out of the MRAV “Boxer” Infantry Fighting Vehicle> project, which Germany and The Netherlands are still pursuing.

Technology Demonstrator Programme (TDP) contracts began the cycle in February 2005, and ran to late 2007. Their goal was in order to assess of what was possible, but changing battlefield requirements also elbowed their way into the process. MoD objectives for the vehicles solidified somewhat over this period, and included 4 main areas:

• Survivability via armor and other self-protection systems; experience in Iraq and Afghanistan has influenced this requirement, and changed it somewhat.

• Deployability by the A400M aircraft, which has a 35-tonne capacity. The original target vehicle weight of 17 tons, which would be deployable in the RAF’s C-130J Hercules, was abandoned; expected vehicle weight shifted to 20-27 tonnes (22-30 tons), and is likely to reach 30 tonnes/ 33 tons for FRES-UV. FRES-SV can carry up to 42t, but getting there would involve adding new equipment that could be removed for transport, or developing new variants.

• Networked-enabled capability via digital communication technology.

• Through-life upgrade potential throughout its anticipated 30 year service life.

Jane’s characterized FRES as a transformational system for the British armed forces, and the UK initially adopted a “Systems House” approach to its development, instead of having the military run it directly. The similarly-tasked U.S. Future Combat Systems program was also led and managed by Boeing and SAIC as Lead Systems Integrators, rather than by a military office. Under these systems, military reviews play a role at various pre-decided stage gates, and the military also plays an ongoing advisory role regarding changing requirements and capabilities, but a contractor is responsible for moving the program ahead and making key decisions, without the same level of red tape found in government programs. Under the UK’s approach, a Systems House who was “independent of product or manufacturing capability” led the initial Assessment Phase (iAP). Atkins played that role, which evaluated Britain’s options and issued technology development program (TDP) contracts. iAP lasted until 2008, when the Ministry of Defence itself stepped forward to declare finalists, conduct trials, and begin declaring its winners.

In total, 9 TDP contracts were issued, many of which are discussed in more detail in the Appendices. The FRES Technology Demonstrator Programs included:

• Stowage & Capacity (placed Feb/05, complete May/06) – DSTL, the Defence science and technology laboratory
  
• Hard Kill Defensive Aid System (placed May/05, completion due Dec/06) – Akers Krutbruk
  
• Chassis Concept TDP1: AHED (placed Aug/05, due Feb 07) – General Dynamics UK
  
• Chassis Concept TDP2: SEP (placed Dec/05, due Feb/07) – BAE Systems Haaglunds
  
• Electronic Architecture TDP 1 (placed Aug/05, due March/07) – Lockheed Martin UK
  
• Electronic Architecture TDP 2 (placed Aug/05, due March/07) – Thales
  
• Electric Armour TDP (placed Dec/05, due June/07) – Lockheed Martin / Insys
  
• Integrated Survivability (placed Dec/05, due Nov/06) – Thales UK
  
• Gap Crossing (placed Dec/05, due Oct/07) – BAE Systems

There can be… none?
(click to view full)

Boeing and Thales UK won the competition to play a similar role as the system-of-systems integrator (SOSI) during the FRES program’s production phase.

In the end, however, changes on the battlefield and criticism over the pace of FRES led the UK MoD to reach for more of an off-the-shelf vehicle solution. Neither of the vehicles involved in the TDP efforts was among the 3 finalists announced in June 2007, all of whom participated in the ministry’s FRES-UV ‘trials of truth’ in late 2007.

The FRES-UV winner wasn’t announced until May 2008, when General Dynamics’ Piranha-V beat France’s VBCI and the German-Dutch Boxer MRAV program that had been FRES’ origin. Negotiations subsequently stalled, however, and FRES-U/Medium Armor is now on the backburner indefinitely.

The program’s focus is now squarely on the FRES-SV Specialist Vehicle family. It includes the FRES Scout SV, the turretless Protected Mobility Recce Support base variant for Ambulance, Command, and Engineer Recce roles, the Recovery SV model, and the Repair SV model. Instead of replacing Britain’s Warrior IFVs in the armored infantry battalions, Scout SV vehicles will initially serve alongside them in the armored cavalry niche. Britain’s Warriors are getting upgrades, but they’l have to retire around 2030. What happens after that isn’t clear yet.

Phase 1: FRES-SV

GD’s pitch: Part 1

The FRES integration and build contract remained up for grabs, and expected contenders included BAE Systems, General Dynamics UK, and Lockheed Martin UK. The FRES-SV reconnaissance version was also up for grabs, and was tied to a companion program a program to modernize Britain’s Warrior light IFVs.

General Dynamics UK eventually won FRES-SV, beating an upgraded model of BAE’s popular CV90 family with an ASCOD-2 variant of the infantry fighting vehicle (IFV) that serves in Austria and Spain. Modifications included a drive train designed to last the 30-year life of the vehicle, and the ability to support up to 42 tonnes/ 46.3 tons – a weight that would place FRES-SV at the low end for main battle tanks. A signed development contract followed in June 2010.

Variants will include Protected Mobility Recce Support (PMRS SV), a turretless variant that will be used for the Ambulance, Command, and Engineer Recce roles. Turretless Repair SV and Recovery SV variants are also planned, but their roles are so different that they become their own individual designs. The turreted Scout SV will be the most produced variant.

GD’s Pitch: Part 2

The turret’s novel design and impressive performance make it a key component for Scout SV. Indeed, the government mandated the use of BAE/Nexter’s 40mm CTAS gun system for both FRES-SV and Warrior WCSP. The core of its uniqueness resides in the “caseless telescoped” ammunition: the projectile is encased inside a cylinder, with the propellant packed around it instead of behind it. That cuts round length by about 50%, and improves space efficiency by about 33% for a given level of performance, which mitigates the natural space penalties that accompany a larger 40mm gun. Telescoped ammunition also allowed CTAI to replace the normal breech arrangement with a static ammunition feeder that feeds into a novel rotating breech, via a hollow trunion. That allows a more maintainable feeder that cuts the number of parts by over 50%, and can be located farther forward out of the crew’s way.

Best of all, the 1 kg HE (high-explosive) round has 3 times the hitting power of the Warrior’s previous 30mm Rarden shell, and its high explosive air burst (HEAB) capability allows detonation in mid-air at precise ranges. That’s very useful for firing into urban strongpoints, or over enemies hiding behind outside cover.

GD UK’s FRES-SV turret delivery team has a goal of 75% British content, and includes:

• Rheinmetall Land Systems (turret structure, cannon mounting structure, CT40 integration)
  
• Lockheed Martin UK Ampthill (fire control and training, turret integration authority)
  
• Curtiss Wright (turret drives and stabilization control)
  
• Defence Support Group (assembly integration and test)
  
• Meggitt (ammunition handling system)
  
• Moog (slip ring)
  
• Ultra Electronics (power management)

FRES-SV: Plans

SV: initial options
(click to view full)

The FRES SV requirement originally involved up to 3 “blocks” of up to 1,300 Reconnaissance, Medium Armour, and Manoeuvre Support vehicles, and a wide variety of potential variants. As of August 2009, the plan was down to 1,238:

• Recce Block 1: 589 Scout, Repair, Recovery, and Protected Mobility variants. Seen as the highest priority.
  
• Recce Block 2: up to 141 vehicles
  
• Recce Block 3: up to 280 vehicles
  
• Medium Armour: up to 193 vehicles
  
• Manoeuvre Support: up to 35 vehicles

The current Army 2020 plan looks set to cut those totals significantly, with FRES-SV vehicles equipping just 1 armored cavalry regiment within each of 3 armored infantry brigades. FRES-UV numbers also look set to take a cut, equipping only each of the 3 brigades’ Heavy Protected Mobility battalion.

At the same time, the in-service date for FRES has slipped from 2009, and is now no earlier than 2015 for FRES-SV. FRES-UV remains without a contract, or a planned in-service date. A 2008 UK Parliamentary report conveyed the Atkins system house’s doubts that FRES vehicles would be operational in any significant numbers before 2017. That was seen as shocking when they said it – but it may prove to be optimistic.

FRES: Contracts & Key Events 2012 – 2018

CT40 gun qualified; FRES-SV
PMRS variant moving ahead; How secure is FRES-SV funding.

GD on SVs

June 15/18: Ajax trials The British Army’s new Ajax armored fighting vehicle (AFV) is currently undergoing field trials, before the first variants are delivered to operational units early in 2019. The Ajax is part of the multi-billion pound “Future Rapid Effects System” (FRES) program. FRES aims to recapitalize the core of Britain’s armored vehicle fleet over the next decade or more. Ajax vehicles are developed upon a highly-adaptable and capable Common Base Platform, maximizing commonality in mobility, electronic architecture and survivability. Each Ajax platform variant has extensive capabilities, including acoustic detectors, a laser warning system, a local situational awareness system, an electronic countermeasure system, a route marking system, an advanced electronic architecture and a high-performance power pack. Ajax will be the medium weight core of the British Army’s deployable Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance (ISTAR) capability. It enables the soldier to be at the point of collection of accurate all-weather commander information within a network-enabled digitized platform. The current trials are the final phase of a series of evaluations to approve the vehicle for land warfare operations before it enters full service with the British Army.

September 19/17: General Dynamics Land Systems UK has commenced live firing trials for its AJAX armored vehicle program. The trials are being held in West Wales, Great Britain, and will last for approximately five months, starting with static firing positions against immobile point targets and gradually progressing to a moving vehicle engaging moving targets. It is armed with the CT 40 autocannon and a coaxial 7.62mm chain gun for lighter targets. Used by both the UK and French armed forces, the CT 40 ustilizes a type of telescoping 40mm ammunition designed to take up less space and reduce the necessary size of the gun. It can fire armor-piercing discarding sabot and high-explosive airburst ammunition out to an effective range of 2500 meters. It has a maximum rate of fire of up to 200 rounds per minute.

Sept 13/14: Industrial. Defense News reports that there’s a problem with the cost of assembling the FRES-SV vehicles in Britain, when compared to lower costs for vehicles from GD Santa Barbara Sistemas in Spain. That’s a problem for many reasons, not least of which is the fact that General Dynamics’ industrial proposals in Britain were reportedly a key element in their contract win (q.v. March 15/10). To make matters worse, the FRES-SV decision also led to closures at BAE that included their Newcastle armored vehicle plant in 2012 (q.v. May 31/12).

So much for promises that 80% of ASCOD SV’s full rate production and 70% of its total supply chain will be based in the UK, securing or creating “over 10,600 jobs.” The original plan was to build 100 vehicles entirely at GD Santa Barbara Sistemas, in order to efficiently reach Initial Operational Capability. After that, the Spanish plant would provide hulls only, with the remainder of assembly and manufacturing taking place at Britain’s state-owned Defence Support Group (DSG).

The whole thing begins to look like a very poor policy decision if DSG is very inefficient by comparison, or even a bait-and-switch. The government has asked General Dynamics to go over the figures again, but one could be forgiven for wondering what leverage the government actually has at this point. If the additional costs of DSG-built vehicles are too high, the size of the FRES-SV program would leave the government with a very unpleasant decision to make. Sources: Defense News, “British MoD Reconsiders Assembling Scout in UK”.

Dunne in FRES-SV PMRS
(click to view full)

Sept 3/14: FRES-SV. The UK Ministry of Defence orders 589 FRES Scout-SV tracked vehicles, in 6 variants, to be delivered between 2017 – 2024. General Dynamics UK will also provide initial in-service support and training under the GBP 3.5 billion ($6 billion) contract.

The vehicles will be delivered in 6 variants. The UK MoD double-counts Engineer Reconnaissance, and omits the base turreted vehicle and the touted Ambulance variant. Correcting for those faults, one possibility looks to known variants promoted by General Dynamics, and lists:

• Scout-SV base. Only variant with a full 40mm turret.
  
• Turretless PMRS SV (Protected Mobility Reconnaissance Support) – incl. Ambulance role, and Engineering Reconnaissance carrying specialist engineering equipment and personnel.
  
• Command and Control – derived from PMRS.
  
• Reconnaissance – derived from PMRS, role includes targeting and fire control.
  
• Repair SV – turretless, with crane.
  
• Recovery SV – turretless, with winch and dozer blade.

The announcement is made on the eve of NATO’s Wales Summit, while Russian forces are fighting semi-openly in eastern Ukraine. It’s meant to underscore the fact that Britain is the only major NATO member other than the USA who is meeting the 2% of GDP target for defense spending, and Britain presses more allies to follow Poland’s example and commit to more defense spending. Sources: GD UK, “General Dynamics UK awarded £3.5 billion to deliver 589 SCOUT SV platforms to the British Army” | BBC, “NATO summit: £3.5bn armoured vehicle deal to be signed”.

FRES-SV: 589 vehicles in 6 variants

June 25/14: FRES-UV. The British Army will conduct renewed 8-month trials of a heavily-modified VBCI, as a follow-on to the The Lancaster House agreement (q.v. Nov 2/10) regarding the 2 countries’ defense industries. Activities will begin before the end of 2014 at France’s Canjeurs military base, before moving to Mourmelon. VBCI’s export version has some important changes:

“Speaking to IHS Jane’s at Eurosatory 2014 in Paris, Philip Dunne, UK Minister for Defence Equipment, Support, and Technology, said the VBCI had fallen down on three elements in the original competition: accessibility to the vehicle’s powerpack, the vehicle’s armour protection levels, and its growth potential…. “VBCI has undergone a significant upgrade”, he added…. [Nexter’s] new export variant of the VBCI…. included the ability to remove the vehicle’s powerpack in the field (a British but not a French requirement), and an improved suspension and transmission to increase the VBCI’s maximum weight from 29 tonnes to 32 tonnes – meeting the British need for growth potential and improved protection…. Other improvements include fourth-axle steering, a repositioned fuel tank, upgraded cooling and engine performance, and small hull reconfigurations to increase the vehicle’s internal volume.”

The bad news? Under the revised “Army 2020” plan, FRES UV has dropped from initial estimates of around 2,000 vehicles to just 1 Heavy Protected Mobility (HPM) battalion in each of 3 mechanized brigades. There’s no firm date for that buy, either, as relatively new 6-wheeled Mastiff v-hulled vehicles already occupy the HPM role. Sources: DID, “VBCI: France’s Wheeled APC” | IHS Jane’s Defence Weekly, “British Army to trial VBCI”.

June 16/14: Weapons. The WSCP’s 40mm Cased Telescoped Armament System has achieved qualification certification from the UK and France for the 40mm cannon and 2 tracer round types: APFSDS armor piercing and TP full target practice rounds.

CT40 qualification certification allows manned firing demonstration phases to begin for Britain’s FRES-Scout and WCSP programs, and for the French DGA’s EBRC wheeled light tank program. The program will work to certify the other initial ammunition types (A3B anti-aerial airburst, Point detonating and Airburst general purpose tracer rounds, and a low-cost reduced range TPPR-T training round) over the next 2 years, in time for the first delivery of the UK’s series production vehicles. The French EBRC program is expected to start full development in 2015. Sources: CTAI, “CTA International achieves Anglo-French qualification for the 40mm Cased Telescoped Cannon and Ammunition”.

April 28/14: PMRS CDR. The UK Ministry of Defence passes FRES-SV’s turretless Protected Mobility Recce Support (PMRS) base platform through the Base Platform Critical Design Review (CDR). The review covered mine and ballistic survivability; human factors design; PMRS system architecture; its sub-systems, such as the running gear, suspension, auto controls and propulsion; and PMRS specific design interfaces, including for the vehicle’s electronic architecture, C4I equipment, towing and storage.

Note that when the demonstration contract was signed (q.v. July 1/10), full trials of the prototype vehicle were expected to begin no later than 2013. They’re a bit behind.

PMRS is the 1st variant-specific CDR for the SCOUT-SV program, and it will produce a turretless vehicle carrying 2 crew and just 4 soldiers. Variants will be used for Ambulance, Command, and Engineer Reece roles. Delivery of the first PMRS variant pre-production prototype is expected in 2014, following PMRS’ overarching CDR. The Scout SV infantry fighting vehicle, Recovery SV, and Repair SV will follow later. Sources: GD-UK, “General Dynamics UK completes Base Platform Critical Design Review for Specialist Vehicle variant”.

Feb 13/14: NAO Report. Britain’s National Audit Office releases their 2013 Major Projects Report, as well as their review of Britain’s 2013-2023 Equipment Plan. With respect to FRES Specialist Vehicles, the number of vehicles planned is redacted. The NAO report adds:

“It should be noted that Specialist Vehicles does not have a single Main Gate Approval. The size of the programme, together with previous lessons learned in other programmes, determined that a two stage Main Gate approach should be used; Main Gate 1 for entry into Demonstration for Recce Block 1 and Common Base Platform only, with a second Main Gate (2) for entry into production, the latter being the major investment decision. Later approvals (in effect sub- Main Gates) will approve Demonstration and Manufacture of the remaining Protected Mobility Recce Support roles and any future needs.”

Jan 29/14: Parliamentary Report. The House of Commons Defence Committee publishes a report regarding Britain’s fuzzy “Army 2020” plans. Key excerpts:

“We are surprised that such a radical change to the Army’s structure, reflecting a reduction of 12,000 personnel from that announced in SDSR 2010, was not discussed at the National Security Council (NSC)…. As well as setting out the proposed new structure for the Army, the plan announced there would be 17 fewer major units in the Army with a reduction of 23 units from the Order of Battle[51] in total by disbanding and merging several units….

We note that the Secretary of State for Defence accepts that Army 2020 was designed to fit a financial envelope. We are concerned that this consideration took primacy over the country’s abilities to respond to the threats, risks and uncertainties contained in the National Security Strategy. We were also concerned to hear that it was the Ministry of Defence’s Permanent Secretary who told the Chief of the General Staff the future size of the Army under the Army 2020 plan. We call on the MoD to explain the apparent lack of consultation and involvement of the Chief of the General Staff in the decision-making process that has affected his Service so fundamentally….

In its response to this Report, we recommend that the MoD provide us with an assessment of how the Army 2020 plans will affect the “Fighting Power” of the Army providing comparable assessments of both current fighting power and projected fighting power following the completion of the Army 2020 plans.”

Sources: UK Parliament, “Defence Committee – Ninth Report
Future Army 2020“.

Jan 13/14: -SV plans. Britain’s MoD endorses an update to the FRES-SV Acquisition Strategy. The turretless Protected Mobility Recce Support vehicle variant will be used with minor sub-system changes for the Ambulance, Command, and Engineer Recce roles. Further studies have been contracted to assess requirements for the turreted Scout SV, and the Repair and Recovery variants. Sources: NAO Major Projects Report 2013.

Sept 10/13: -SV Testing. The lead contractor for FRES-SV touts testing efforts to date:

“Since [DSEI 2011], General Dynamics UK has been putting its Mobile Test Rig (MTR) – the precursor to a prototype Specialist Vehicle (SV) – through an extensive series of trials…. The MTR is similar in design to the Protected Mobility Recce Support (PMRS) variant of SV, which itself is capable of carrying a crew of two and up to four dismountable troops.

The MTR began its tests [in June 2012]…. To date, the MTR has undertaken… cold weather and Operational and Tactical (O&T) mobility trials… over 1,800km. The O&T trials demonstrated the vehicles ability to withstand extreme lower temperatures and to meet the demanding mobility requirements of the SV programme, during which the MTR towed a total of 92 tonnes train weight over 300km. The next phase of trialling will be the grueling Accelerated Life Testing (ALT) schedule…. On completion of the ALT activities, MTR will have covered over 10,000km and will have provided crucial reliability and performance data to inform the design and manufacture of the six demonstration phase prototype SV platforms.”

Sources: GD-UK, “General Dynamics UK unveils Specialist Vehicle Mobile Test Rig at DSEI 2013”.

July 2013: Army 2020. The British MoD clarifies its reduced force structure plan under Army 2020. British armored forces will see an especial cut, with 3 mechanized brigades and 16 Air Assault Brigade in the “Reaction Force,” while the “Adaptable Force” would include 7 infantry brigades as its combat force.

The initial 2012 document (q.v. May 26/12) made it clear that FRES-SV would only have a role in the armored cavalry regiments. Each mechanized brigade has just 1 of those, which pairs FRES-SV and Challenger tanks. The rest of the brigade includes 1 full Challenger tank regiment, 2 armored infantry battalions with Warrior IFVs, and a Heavy Protected Mobility battalion with blast-resistant Mastiff vehicles. The HPM battalion might be outfitted with FRES-UV wheeled armored vehicles later on, but neither type of FRES armored vehicle was listed for the “Adaptable Force,” which will supposedly rely on standard wheeled patrol vehicles.

This structure seems to represent a drastic cut to the overall FRES program, but Britain’s government and ministry are avoiding those kinds of details. Sources: UK MoD, “Transforming The British Army: An Update – July 2013” and “Transforming The British Army, July 2012”.

June 19/12: Weapons. At the Eurosatory 2012 show, French operators give the Javelin anti-tank missile high marks for performance in Afghanistan, and the Javelin JV is in talks with 2 French firms to integrate Javelin with the BAE/Nexter CT40 turret. Nexter is the first firm, of course.

At the same time, Panhard General Defense is working with Lockheed Martin UK to develop its Sphinx medium 6×6 wheeled armored vehicle concept for France’s EBRC light tank competition. Lockheed Martin UK expects to leverage its turret work from the British FRES-SV and WCSP programs for EBRC, and the Javelin missile is already a mainstay in British service. Which means that any Javelin integration work performed for the French market could eventually filter back to those British armored programs. Sources: Army Recognition, “Lockheed Martin at Eurosatory 2012”.

May 31/12: Industrial. BAE closes its main armored vehicle production facility at Newcastle-on-Tyne.

“BAE said the proposal to close the Newcastle site at the end of 2013 followed a business review which concluded that there was no prospect of new UK armoured vehicle manufacturing work once production of the Terrier ends next year.”

Sources: Daily Mail, “Tank builder shuts after 165 years because of slump in orders” | Mirror, “Tanks and goodnight: Historic defence factory to close with loss of hundreds of jobs”.

May 26/12: FRES-SV delay? Defense News quotes unnamed British sources, who say that the new Army 2020 plan is likely to extend FRES SV’s GBP 500 million pound demonstration phase, cut the total number of planned vehicles, and delay operational introduction to 2020 or beyond. Excerpt:

“The MoD has never publicly acknowledged the expected in-service date for the Scout vehicle, although Army officers at last year’s DSEi exhibition in London said it was 2015…. A MoD spokeswoman said: …The funding for the [GBP 5.5 billion] vehicle pipeline, which also includes the Warrior Capability Sustainment Program, a [FRES] utility vehicle and improvements to Challenger 2, will be prioritized, according to the Army’s requirements. In the case of Scout, production numbers and delivery dates will be confirmed at Main Gate…”

Sources: UK MoD – Transforming The British Army, July 2012″ [PDF] | Defense News, “U.K. May Delay Major Vehicle Buy”.

May 14/12: Politics. The UK MoD confirms in its Planning Round 2012 (PR12) announcement that GBP 5.5 billion in funding is available for its future Armoured Fighting Vehicle (AFV) pipeline, which includes the FRES-Specialist Vehicle program. GD-UK is predictably pleased:

“We welcome the announcement by the Secretary of State for Defence confirming that the SV programme is secure in the MoD’s future AFV pipeline and core programme of committed funding,” commented Dr. Sandy Wilson, president and managing director of General Dynamics UK…. A recent audit study by Ernst & Young concluded that the SV programme would generate total economic output of over [GBP] 9.8 billion, with a corresponding Gross Value Added1 (GVA) of [GBP] 4.7 billion over the life of the programme. To this end, General Dynamics UK recently invested £12 million in state of the art facilities in Wales, establishing a Centre of Excellence for Land Systems…”

Sources: GD-UK, “UK MoD confirms commitment to Specialist Vehicle programme in Armoured Fighting Vehicle pipeline”.

2010 – 2011

GD’s ASCOD 2 is preferred base design for FRES-SV; Sub-contractors picked; FRES-SV survives SDSR review; Testing contract for novel CT40 gun system.

ASCOD-2 Scout
(click to view full)

May 4/11: Sub-contractors. Curtiss-Wright Corporation announces a contract from Lockheed Martin to provide the Scout reconnaissance vehicle’s servo system for weapon stabilization.

The demonstration phase contract has an option for production deliveries, and continues through December 2013. Curtiss-Wright will design, develop and manufacture the turret drive servo system at their Motion Control facility in Neuhausen, Switzerland.

March 23/11: Industrial. Lockheed Martin UK announces 60 new jobs at their Ampthill site, now that they have secured a contract to deliver the turret for the new FRES SV.

March 6/12: Sub-contractors. ViaSat Inc. is picked by General Dynamics UK Ltd. to design and develop the on-board encrypted data storage systems for FRES-SV, scheduled to begin trials with the British Army in January 2013.

ViaSat has developed the only hardware based data encryption technology approved by Britain’s CESG for the protection of Top Secret data at rest. The system also includes purge controls to delete data encryption keys. Overall, its EDS systems will allow FRES-SV vehicles to securely capture, analyze, store, and share over 6 TB of intelligence data. The Specialist Vehicle Encryption and Purge Solution will be modular, able to be switched out as needed, and more easily upgraded over the vehicle’s lifetime. ViaSat.

Jan 17/11: Political. IHS Jane’s reports that:

“The biggest hit for the British Army in the Government’s economy package falls on what had been known as the Future Rapid Effect System (FRES) programme, focused on delivering medium weight armour. Already long-delayed and effectively in abeyance, the programme has now seen army officers drop bids for funding to build both the medium armour [DID: FRES-U] and manoeuvre support FRES variants from the service’s 2011 spending and planning round (PR11) pitch…. “

Being left out of PR11 isn’t a death sentence in and of itself, but the more time FRES variants spend as a lower-priority item, the lower their long-term fielding odds become. Other programs expected to be on the “unfunded” list for PR11 include UOR electronic countermeasures for use against IED land mines, bringing satellite communication equipment into the core force, fielding blast-resistant Wolfhound/ Husky/ Coyote supply vehicles across the wider army, new chemical/biological/radiological/nuclear protective equipment; arming Watchkeeper MK450B UAVs, and funding ongoing improvements to the Bowman communication system beyond 2015.

Dec 2/10: Sub-contractors. Lockheed Martin UK announces that General Dynamics UK has issued a contract to deliver 3 turrets for the FRES Scout reconnaissance vehicle, to be used in the Demonstration Phase Integration and Test efforts.

As previous entries indicate, Lockheed Martin has been working on this for some time. Some of that happened during the bid phase. Other work was covered by UK MoD advance funding ahead of a full contract agreement with prime contractor General Dynamics UK, in order to ensure that the FRES-SV Demonstration Phase schedule remained fully on track. While contract negotiations continue between General Dynamics UK and the UK MoD, Lockheed Martin UK is also in negotiations with its suppliers, in order to finalize industrial arrangements for the turret.

Nov 2/10: UK-France. The “UK-France Summit 2010 Declaration on Defence and Security Co-operation” includes the intent to create “a Combined Joint Expeditionary Force suitable for a wide range of scenarios, up to and including high intensity operations.”

The VBCI may have lost the original FRES-UV competition (q.v. May 8/08), but GD’s Piranha V couldn’t hold on to its win (q.v. Dev 11/08). A combined JEF would benefit from armored vehicle commonality, if Nexter can fix the flaws that cause it to lose in 2008.

UK-France defense MoU

Oct 19/10: SDSR. Britain releases its Strategic Defence and Security Review. Heavy units take the brunt of land cuts, with Challenger tank forces cut by 40%, and AS90 Braveheart self-propelled artillery by 33%. FRES escapes obvious cuts, but the government does not give firm fleet size guidance. It says only that the future force will include:

“…a new range of medium weight armoured vehicles, including Terrier engineer vehicles and the Scout reconnaissance vehicles and in due course the Future Rapid Effects System Utility Vehicle (FRES UV) which will be the core of the Army’s armoured manoeuvre fleet;”

SDSR

July 1/10: A Conservative/Liberal Democrat alliance has become Britain’s government, and their comprehensive defense review isn’t done yet; even so, a major FRES-SV contract is signed by the UK MoD and General Dynamics UK. The GBP 500 million (about $760 million) contract covers FRES-SV’s demonstration phase. The firm will design and deliver 7 prototypes for the ASCOD-2 Scout reconnaissance vehicle, supporting variants built on the ASCOD SV Common Base Platform, and associated training equipment. The Common Base Platform can support variants such as the base Infantry Fighting/ Scout vehicle, a turretless Armored Personnel Carrier, Ambulance, Bridge-Laying, Command, Assault Gun/ Fire Support, Repair, and Recovery, as desired.

The trials of the prototype vehicles are expected to begin with the Army no later than 2013. If and when the demonstration phase is successful, the program can advance to the Manufacture Phase. UK MoD | General Dynamics UK.

FRES-SV Demonstration Phase

June 24/10: Sub-contractors. General Dynamics UK unveils its Scout SV turret for ASCOD SV at Britain’s Defence Vehicle Dynamics 2010 exhibition. The turret is designed around the CT40 Cased Telescoped Cannon System, which was successfully integrated and fired by turret provider Lockheed Martin UK Ampthill at the beginning of 2010. Over 75% of turret-related work will be done in the UK.

The ASCOD SV turret has a turret-ring diameter of 1.7m, which is wider than older vehicles such as the Warrior. The hull is also designed to accommodate a 2.1m turret ring, which would offer the ability to carry a 105mm or 120mm gun in order to field a fire support variant (the CV90 family has already fielded and tested the CV90-120). ASCOD SV’s turret design places the main ammunition feed under-armor, but outside the turret crew compartment. This gives soldiers in the turret more room, even wearing full body armour and future wearable systems, and offers room for additional systems (probably power) to be added inside. General Dynamics UK.

March 22/10: -SV preferred bidder. The UK Ministry of Defence announces that General Dynamics UK is the preferred bidder for FRES-SV, but doesn’t specify the amount. News reports describe a potential GBP 1 billion (about $1.5 billion) contract to provide 580 vehicles in both the Scout variant and the Common Base Platform for other specialty roles like recovery, command and control, etc. Note that Preferred Bidder status is not a contract yet – GD UK had the exact same status for FRES-U, but couldn’t come to an agreement and ended up losing the contract.

The base ASCOD design for FRES-SV is a collaboration between 2 General Dynamics subsidiaries: Santa Barbara Sistemas in Spain, and Steyr Daimler Pusch in Austria. Earlier versions of the ASCOD serve with the Spanish and Austrian militaries, where they are known as the Pizarro and Ulan, respectively. General Dynamics says that their FRES ASCOD-2 design can grow up to 42 tonnes thanks to its drive train – almost the weight of a Russian T-72 main battle tank, and heavier than BAE’s CV90. The firm adds that 80% of ASCOD SV’s full rate production and 70% of its total supply chain will be based in the UK, securing or creating over 10,600 jobs for British workers at headquarters in South Wales, and other regions. General Dynamics UK has sub-contracted Lockheed Martin UK INSYS to produce the Scout variant’s CTAS-based 40mm turret, and will transfer full rate production of the entire ASCOD SV program to DSG in Donnington.

The deal is not wholly out of the woods yet, however. The opposition Conservative Party is criticizing the awards just before a general election, whose aftermath is certain to feature a broad strategic review. The party says that existing programs will be assessed on 5 criteria: affordability, capability, adaptability, exportability and interoperability. UK MoD | General Dynamics UK | UK’s Daily Telegraph | UK’s The Guardian | UK’s The Independent | AP | Defense News.

ASCOD-2 picked for FRES-SV

March 15/10: -SV Competition. BAE Systems announces plans to save and create a total of 800 jobs (400 layoffs canceled, 400 jobs added) at its Newcastle manufacturing site, shifting away from its initial plans to build the base CV90 platform on the current manufacturing line in Sweden, and then fit it out and finish it in the UK. The move comes in response to a March 13/10 report in the Financial Times the British government is ready to award the FRES-SV contract to General Dynamics.

Media reports say that BAE was initially told it was in the “box seat” to win the order, after spending GBP 50 million and 5 years designing a CV90 variant that it believes to be technically superior to its competition, a General Dynamics ASCOD variant. Reports now indicate that the General Dynamics proposal had a more attractive industrial component. Defence Management | Defense News | IBTimes | Reuters | London Telegraph.

Feb 26/10: -SV Competition. Jane’s reports that the FRES-SV industrial programs have become an issue in the competition. General Dynamics UK reportedly said it expects to safeguard or create more than 10,500 jobs in 8 regions of the UK, if its ASCOD vehicle wins. This presumably includes jobs at component suppliers, and possibly economic multiplier effects.

At the same time, BAE Systems had warned that its UK military land vehicle concerns will become a “dwindling support services business” should the group fail to be selected to meet the UK FRES-SV and the Warrior Capability Sustainment Plan. In other words, significant layoffs.

Feb 25/10: -SV Competition. The MoD’s Investment Approvals Board (IAB) meets, with discussions including the GBP 1 billion Warrior Capability Sustainment Program upgrades to Britain’s Warrior IFVs, and MoD Defence Equipment & Support’s recommendation in the FRES-SV competition. Jane’s report | PURCON | Defense News re: IAB’s agenda.

Feb 22/10: Weapons. BAE Systems announces that they’re starting to build a GBP 4.5 million Turret Test Rig (TTR) for the FRES Scout and Warrior upgrade programs. The rig is closely modeled on BAE Systems’ Mission Equipment Vibration Table (MEVT) in Minneapolis, built for the US Future Combat Systems program. Indeed, systems modeling and analysis manager Vince Whelan relocated from Minneapolis.

The TTR is designed to take a turret through a 20-year life-span in 12-18 months by subjecting it to “shake, rattle and roll” tests under extremes of temperature. Electronic components in particular tend to dislike vibration, but the life of an armored vehicle makes a lot of vibration inevitable. Testing must be done, but field testing is inefficient and expensive. Hence the development of facilities like TTR/MEVT.

Feb 8/10: Weapons. The CTA International (CTAI) joint venture between BAE Systems and France’s Nexter signs a GBP 11 million contract with the French and British ministries of defence, in order to fund qualification of their 40mmm CTCA caseless cannon system. CT40 qualification will begin in early 2011, including freezing, baking, humidity, “shake, rattle and roll” trials, etc. The UK and France have already signed a Government to Government Technical Arrangement for a jointly-funded qualification program, which will require around 15,000 rounds.

The final ammunition requirements will be defined once the prime contractors are announced in the next few weeks. Nexter has secured an ammunition supply contract from the French government, while BAE Systems Global Combat Systems – Munitions (GCSM), recently submitted a proposal to produce that 40mm ammunition through Britain’s existing MASS munitions supply contract.

While the system has been passed for manned firing and considerable data has already been collected, these trials will formally pass the system for use by the British and French armies. CTCA will be used in the Warrior Capability Sustainment Programme (WCSP), the FRES Scout reconnaissance vehicle for the British Army and in the French Army’s future reconnaissance vehicle. In Britain, however, the WCSP/FRES turrets and the FRES Scout chassis will be selected through competition. BAE Systems release.

CT40 testing

2008 – 2009

GD’s Piranha V wins FRES-U, until FRES-UV is shelved; Boeing & Thales sign integrator contracts; FRES-SV competition bids are in.

CV90, urban camo
(click to view full)

Nov 5/09: -SV Competition. General Dynamics UK announces that its FRES-SV bid is in, and cites the design’s weight and growth potential. Its ASCOD SV will use Lockheed Martin UK INSYS as its turret designer and provider.

Nov 1/09: -SV Competition. A BAE release adds more details about their bid for the initial GBP 2 million “Recce Block 1” FRES-SV phase, including information about expected production. The chassis will be built at the company’s existing production line at Ornskoldsvik, Sweden, using parts from a number of UK suppliers. The Scout turret and UK mission fit will be built in the UK, and integrated onto the chassis in the UK.

According to the release, BAE’s demonstrator vehicle has already begun mobility trials at Millbrook proving ground, and fired its weapon system at the Shoeburyness range.

Sept 9/09: -SV Competition. BAE unveils its FRES-SV Scout demonstrator at DESi 2009. It’s based on a lowered CV90 chassis, with upgraded electronics and the requisite stabilized CTAS 40mm turret.

CTAS will form the foundation for the FRES Scout and the Warrior Capability Sustainment Programme (WCSP), and its 40mm high explosive round has more than 3x the explosive power of the 30mm Rarden that equips the current Warrior vehicles. Testing is underway. The WSCP and FRES-SV turrets will be somewhat different, but will be based on a common gun and electronic architecture. Defence Management.

July 9/09: -SV Competition. The UK Ministry of Defence has announced that it will extend FRES-SV’s draft Invitation to Tender to BAE Systems Global Combat Systems, and to General Dynamics UK. Their competing models are intended to provide reconnaissance and reconnaissance support vehicles to replace the British Army’s existing CVR (T) Scimitar and Spartan vehicles. The final Invitation to Tender is expected to be issued later in July 2009, following this initial assessment phase.

BAE has at least 2 main choices for FRES-SV. Reports to date indicate that it is likely to offer its tracked SEP/Thor modular vehicle, a new design whose wheeled model could easily become the back-door choice for FRES-U/MA – if the tracked variant wins FRES-SV, and if subsequent negotiations go well. The other option is its popular CV90 series, which is already combat tested and in service with several countries. It offers a more proven solution, a wide array of developed variants, and allied interoperability benefits, at the price of having less cross-over potential.

General Dynamics is offering an upgraded ASCOD 2 IFV. This joint project of General Dynamics’ subsidiaries Santa Barbara Sistemas and Steyr-Daimler-Puch has been fielded by Spain (as the Pizarro IFV) and Austria (as the Ulan IFV); several specialty variants are already in service.

Dec 15/08: Industrial. Bloomberg News quotes BAE spokesman Mike Sweeny as saying that BAE will review the future of its UK Land Systems unit following the UK MoD’s FRES decision. BAE had lost 2 critical opportunities to participate in FRES so far, and had pinned its hopes on becoming the manufacturing contractor for the modified FRES- Utility Piranha V design. When talks collapsed between General Dynamics MOWAG and the UK over ownership of the vehicles’ intellectual property, and placed the FRES-UV vehicle on the back-burner, that opportunity evaporated.

BAE is also competing for the FRES-SV scout vehicle, offering its Thor/SEP vehicle which comes in wheeled and tracked variants. The SEP is designed by BAE’s Hagglunds unit in Sweden, however, and would not enter service until 2013 at the earliest.

In November 2008, BAE Land Systems said it would cut as many as 200 jobs because production work has dwindled to the Pinzgauer armored truck and Terrier general support engineer vehicle, plus an unspecified project for a Middle Eastern client. Upgrade and integration work on systems like the AS90 mobile howitzer, FV430 Mk3 Bulldog APC, Warrior IFV, and others wasn’t deemed sufficient. BAE has now said that it said it can’t rule out further plant closures and job cuts in Britain.

SEP, tracked
(click to view full)

Dec 11/08: FRES-UV shelved. The UK Ministry of Defense announces a sweeping set of changes to a number of procurement programs. FRES is the most seriously affected, as GD MOWAG’s refusal to transfer its newest Piranha-V vehicle’s full intellectual property to the UK MoD ownership scuttles the deal. The firm’s preferred bidder status for FRES-Utility is revoked. At the same time, the SoSI integrator position is removed from the program.

The government also concludes that conditions in Afghanistan, which have not been kind to very similar wheeled vehicles, place a higher priority on the FRES-SV, which is very likely to be a tracked offering. UK Defence Secretary John Hutton:

“We have concluded that, in the context of current operations, and bearing in mind the considerable recent investment in protected mobility, the highest priority should now be accorded to delivering the Warrior Capability Sustainment Programme and the FRES Scout vehicle as quickly as possible. Against that background, we have decided to restructure the FRES programme, giving priority to FRES Scout over the FRES Utility Vehicle.”

Hutton admits that this move will delay the FRES program, again. A government looking to move FRES out of the way of other needs would see that as a positive feature. UK MoD | Bloomberg.

SoSI removed, FRES-UV shelved, FRES-SV prioritized

Nov 3/08: FRES-UV. The Financial Times of London writes:

“Six months after selecting General Dynamics [MOWAG] to provide the design for the first variant of the new vehicles, the MoD has been unable to agree final contractual terms with the US group [DID: GD MOWAG is in Switzerland]…. the two parties have been unable to agree certain elements of the final contract. The protracted negotiations have also delayed the competition for the vehicle integrator, the job of assembling the vehicle, fitting it out and making sure it can work with all the other high-tech systems in the forces. BAE Systems, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin and Finmeccanica are all in the running for the role.”

The article reports that the UK MoD is revisiting the acquisition process, and that elements of FRES could be delayed as a result of the impasse.

Oct 16/08: Lockheed Martin UK announces an study contract from Atkins, the FRES program’s system house. The study will work to help the UK MoD refine the FRES-SV scout vehicle’s user and systems requirements, cost estimates and schedule to delivery, with a particular focus on integrating the FRES mission systems into a combat-effective, affordable and low-risk Scout turret concept. The work will also build upon the FRES Electronic Architecture Technology Demonstrator Programme (EATDP) that Lockheed Martin UK and its teammates delivered for MoD through Atkins in 2007.

Lockheed Martin’s principal sub-contractors will be SciSys and Ultra Electronics. Lockheed Martin UK release.

FRES-U:
Piranha-V concept
(click to view full)

May 8/08: FRES-UV. General Dynamics UK’s Piranha-V wins Britain’s FRES-Utility competition, beating Nexter’s VBCI and the ARTEC consortium’s Boxer MRAV. General Dynamics employs prople around the UK, including 1,000 in South Wales at Oakdale and Newbridge.

As noted below, even this win is still a development contract of sorts. Subject to satisfactory completion of the package of work on risk reduction, General Dynamics UK Limited and its team will develop the new Piranha-V 8×8 wheeled armored personnel carrier as the British Army’s FRES Utility Vehicle. The company will now enter negotiations with the MoD to determine the scope of development work required. A spokesman for the MoD said the risk-reduction phase was “aimed at increasing confidence in the maturity of the vehicle design across performance, cost and time issues.” At present, there is no schedule for this next phase; that will be one of the items negotiated. UK MoD release | General Dynamics UK release | Defense News | iCWales news site report | Forbes report.

FRES-UV picks Piranha V

March 11/08: Not Off-the-Shelf. The House of Commons issues its 2007-08 defence equipment report. With respect to FRES, the report describes the MoD’s go-forward approach – which is not about an off-the-shelf purchase:

“We note that the FRES Utility Vehicle design which has been recommended is a “developmental vehicle” and that the MoD considers that this is the best option as it can be upgraded and its capability increased over time. We also note that the MoD considers that acquiring an “off-the-shelf” vehicle would not provide scope for increasing capability and would have a very limited life. While we recognise that these are strong arguments for acquiring a developmental vehicle for the FRES Utility Vehicle, such an option is also likely to involve higher costs and increased risks to the in-service date because of unforeseen problems during the further development. If the recommended design is approved, the MoD needs to ensure that it identifies the key risks on the programme and how these are to be managed.”

Read: “Britain Releases Defence Equipment 2008 Report” for more information and links.

Feb 6/08: SoSI. Boeing and Thales announce that their System of System Integrators contract (see Oct 5/07) has been signed by the UK MoD. The initial 6-month contract is valued at GBP 4 million (about $8 million). It gets the process started, and defines the framework for the firm’s ongoing role in the subsequent phases of the FRES program. Boeing release | Thales Group release.

Integrator contracts

2006 – 2007

Initial study contracts; System integrator finalists & FRES-UV finalists picked, but program delayed.

Boxer MRAV:
in from the cold
(click to view full)

Nov 29/07: Delayed. Bob Ainsworth, the UK’s Minister of State for Armed Forces, announces a slight delay:

“The Future Rapid Effect System (FRES) has a vital role to play in the future of the British Army. We stated that we would announce the outcome of the utility vehicle design trials by the end of November. I am delighted to announce today that these trials have been successfully completed on schedule, and that a recommendation has been produced based on technical design considerations. Further work with all three possible providers will be undertaken over the next few weeks in order to clarify the commercial implications of their proposals. Following this, a definitive announcement will be made on the preferred design to be taken through the remainder of assessment phase of this part of the FRES programme.”

Nov 22/07: Competition. With the stakes growing after 2 losses in the FRES competition, BAE Systems unveils its bid team for the FRES integration and build contract: BAE Land Systems, BAE Insyte, SAIC, QinetiQ, SELEX S&AS, GE Aviation, and Cranfield University.

Nov 6/07: Competition. A Defense News report reads the tea leaves and believes the French VBCI has an edge in the FRES competition. Meanwhile, assessment-phase contracts have been awarded in the tracked FRES-Recon for BAE Systems’ CV90 (not SEP) and General Dynamics UK’s ASCOD for scout, indirect fire control, ground-based surveillance and other roles.

They quote BAE Systems Land Systems Managing Director Andrew Davies as saying that BAE, who has been eliminated from the FRES-Utility finals and Systems of Systems contracts, “must win the last piece of the FRES utility program – the integration-and-build contract – or consider shutting the Newcastle plant.”

Oct 5/07: SoSI. The UK MoD announces that Thales UK and Boeing’s Defence UK subsidiary have been selected as the preferred bidders for the role of System of Systems Integrator (SOSI) for the Future Rapid Effect System (FRES) program. The SOSI team is supposed to act as an independent, honest broker between industry and the MoD to co-ordinate FRES procurement, providing service elements including: systems of systems engineering and integration; alliance development and management; development of the MoD’s SOSI competence; through-life capability management; and through-life technology management.

The selection represents the second important loss for BAE in the FRES program, the first blow being the elimination of its SEP wheeled/tracked vehicle family from the finalists’ roster.

The MoD announcement also mentions their appointment of the legal firm Herbert Smith to provide the FRES team with intellectual property, commercial and legal advice. Their role is to ensure that the Intellectual Property, Design Authority, and systems architecture for FRES will reside in the UK, per the government’s Defence Industrial Strategy. UK MoD release | Thales release | Boeing release.

Sept 13/07: Competition. Jane’s reports from DESi 2007 that General Dynamics UK is making an offer its competitors won’t be able to match:

“General Dynamics UK has confirmed that…. there is a potential export market for up to 2,000 Piranha Vs (8×8) over a 10-year period. These would all be supplied from the UK production line, because the UK would have a complete technology transfer package, as well as the full intellectual property rights as stipulated by the UK Ministry of Defence.”

Boxer modular concept
(click to view full)

June 14/07: Politics. Stung by criticism that the MoD has wasted years in order to select off-the-shelf vehicles that may not be survivable enough, Minister for Defence Equipment and Support Lord Drayson fires back in a public forum:

“Yes, the Boxer was a programme the MoD pulled out of when it was known as the MRAV programme. We took that decision in 2002 in light of the requirement at the time. We have since reviewed the FRES requirement in light of recent operational experience in Iraq and Afghanistan. Force protection in theatre now has a higher priority than strategic deployability – I don’t think anyone would argue with that view. When the situation changes our procurement process must be capable of responding to that change….. Iâ€m not going to go into the details of the protection FRES will have in a public forum…. But to suggest that we are ignoring the threats we face in Iraq and Afghanistan today when we set the requirement for our future vehicles is wrong. And the idea that taking into account the full range of threats FRES will be less well protected than the patrol vehicles you list (such as the Mastiff) is also wrong. Finally, let’s all be clear that FRES is neither a protected patrol vehicle nor a replacement for Warrior….”

Given Canada’s poor experiences with wheeled vehicles in Afghanistan, and the Stryker’s emerging difficulties against new IED land mines in Iraq, this may become a recurring subject.

VBCI
(click to view full)

June 8/07: FRES-UV Finalists. Britain’s MoD announces the FRES finalists. Surprisingly, the SEP vehicles don’t make that list, nor do other test platforms. All of the finalists are wheeled: General Dynamics MOWAG’s Piranha V, Nexter (formerly Giat’s) VBCI – and the KMW-ARTEC Boxer, which program Britain abandoned several years ago in order to pursue FRES.

The vehicles will go on to the “trials of truth,” and the MoD says the outcome of the trials will be announced by the end of November 2007. At that point, “one or more utility vehicle designs will go forward for detailed assessment.” UK MoD release | Nexter release | Nexter DESi PDF brochure | KMW release.

FRES-UV finalists

June 5/07: SoSI. The UK MoD recently announced its intention to form a Ministry of Defence/ Industry Alliance for FRES. A key role in this Alliance is that of the System of Systems Integrator. Thales UK and Boeing Defence UK have now announced that they will jointly bid for the SOSI role. Thales UK will be the lead firm in the partnership.

If selected, Thales and Boeing would be partnered with the MoD to deliver a timely and coherent through-life capability to the British Army that would include both the vehicles and long-term support services, while meeting UK industrial goals under the Defence Industrial Strategy and retaining key intellectual property rights for the MoD. Thales UK touts its “excellent understanding of the Armored Fighting Vehicle domain,” systems integration skils, and “in-depth understanding of UK doctrine and concepts.” Boeing touts its “proven experience and expertise in successfully executing system-of-systems integration programs” (it’s one of the SOSI-type leads for the USA’s Future Combat Systems, with SAIC), and “world-class program management… and supply chain management skill.” Boeing release | Thales UK release.

March 19/07: Competition. BAE Hagglunds announced that its new SEP 8×8 modular vehicle system is now ready for the UK Ministry of Defence’s upcoming trials for FRES Utility Vehicles.

Feb 21/07: Report. The UK’s Parliamentary Defence Committee published its Seventh Report of Session 2006-07: The Army’s requirement for armoured vehicles: the FRES programme, HC 159 [PDF] | Committee release: “Make Up Your Mind On Army’s Armoured Vehicles, Defence Committee Tells MoD.” The report is highly critical of the UK MoD’s multiple plans over the years to replace Britain’s medium armor, expresses concern over weight requirements/ air transportability, lack of joint cooperation with any other country, a potential lack of soldier input, and expresses doubts that FRES vehicles can be fielded before 2017.

The UK MoD’s reply asserts that risk reduction requires the current pace, and alludes to the fact that past Parliamentary complaints re: the MoD have involved excessive risk and project overruns.

For a summary of February events, including links to and excerpts from these publications, see the DID article “Britain’s FRES Program has a Full February.”

Feb 19/07: Jane’s Defence Weekly reports that BAE Systems Hagglunds has completed the first of two new 8×8 Integrated Demonstrator armored fighting vehicles on schedule. These SEP-based vehicles were developed using company funding, in close co-operation with BAE Systems Land Systems of the UK. As noted above, BAE is competing against a General Dynamics UK vehicle to meet the British Army’s Future Rapid Effect System (FRES) Utility Vehicle (UV) requirement.

BAE MGV-T

Feb 12/07: Competition. Following the endorsement of the FRES Acquisition Strategy and the publication of the EOI for the Utility Vehicle competitions, the latest FRES requirements documents are now being made available in order to keep industry informed as the requirements mature prior to final release later [in 2007]. See MoD bulletin.

Jan 26/07: Competition. Jane’s Defence Weekly reports that The UK Defence Procurement Agency (DPA) has begun seeking expressions of interest from companies for the delivery of the FRES-UV (Utility Vehicles) phase. The DPA release to industry, via the Defence Contracts Bulletin (DCB) on January 25th, offers an invitation to tender (ITT) for both the vehicle integrator and design packages of the UV programme. The move will end FRES’ initial assessment phase as it begins a transition toward acquisition.

July 31/06: Study contract. The FRES programme is part way through its initial assessment phase (iAP). One of the key objectives is to confirm the requirements for the FRES Initial Operating Capability (IOC) utility variants and enshrine these in an appropriate System Requirements document (SRD). The IOC Variant SRD (V-SRD) will not be finalised until the end of the iAP, but Atkins is “keen to ensure that industry has the opportunity to have sight of and influence the nature of the SRD well in advance of its finalisation.” As such, an initial draft release is available to industry for information and comment. See full release for details.

Initial study contracts

July 17/06: Industrial. Boeing announces that it is expanding its presence in the UK with the establishment of a new facility in Bristol, England, to support its growing defense business activities. The new facility is part of Boeing Defence UK, Ltd. and will support Boeing’s efforts on the Future Rapid Effect System (FRES) program.

Jan 4/06: TD contracts. Thales UK, teamed with Boeing, was selected to lead the Integrated Survivability (IS) programme. “Integrated survivability” is a combination of vehicle design (stealth, shape, layout), sensors, armor, and active defensive systems inside and out. In this case, it also includes something called “electric armor.” Sources: UK MoD | DID coverage all received contracts in this area.

Initial study contracts

Appendix 1 – The British Army’s Armored Vehicle Fleet, late 2006 Vehicle Fleet Size Role Challenger 2 385 Main battle tank AS 90 Braveheart 146 Self-propelled 155mm artillery Warrior 793 Infantry fighting vehicle CVR [1] 1255 Variety of roles FV430 series 1492 Roles include APC, recovery and repair vehicle, mortar carrier and radar
vehicle Saxon 622 wheeled armored personnel carrier (APC) Fuchs 11 Recon, incl. NBC BvS10 Viking 108 Amphibious armoured all-terrain vehicle Striker 48 Overwatch and anti-armour guided weapon Spartan 478 Engineer reconnaissance vehicle Challenger Armored Repair and Recovery Vehicle (CHARRV) 81 Heavy Repair & Recovery (R2) vehicle Chieftain AVRE/AVLB/ARRV 119 Engineer recovery vehicles Combat Engineer Tractor (CET) 73 Clear obstacles, dig gun pits, prepare barriers and tow vehicles Shielder 30 Creates anti-tank barriers Hippo 4 Beach armoured recovery vehicle [1] = Spartan, Scimitar, Samson, Samaritan and Sultan are all variants of the Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked)
Source: UK MoD, via Defense Committee Feb 2007 Report “The Army’s requirement for armoured vehicles: the FRES programme, HC 159”. Since that date, the army has placed orders for additional BvS10 vikings to act as UAV transports/launchers, 248 Mastiff mine-resistant vehicles, 130 Supacat MWMIK light recon vehicles, and 400 more FV430 Mk3 “Bulldog” builds/upgrades.

A New Procurement Approach: The System House Challenges

FV432 mortar carrier

The crucial Systems House contract was placed with Atkins on Nov 16/04. Could Atkins cut the fat, successfully slim down the procurement process, and deliver the promised results?

In some ways, it’s hard to determine, because battlefield needs and other pressures ended up taking the entire competition in a very different direction. The broad aims of the Assessment Phase were:

• To further define the FRES capability required given the military operational concepts that underpin the concept, and develop a series of affordable options for meeting the FRES requirement.

• To develop optimum procurement and support strategies for future phases in order to present a robust case at the point of go/no-go decision.

• To manage technology and supplier risk to acceptable levels.

FV430 Mk3, Iraq
(click to view full)

In the UK, some of these goals were certainly achieved. The FRES program has been criticized in Parliament for its delays, but the combination of very new technologies to evaluate and changing requirements on the customer end could hardly have produced anything else. In the USA, the capabilities and effects based (vs. specifications based), system integrator led FCS process has run into difficulties on the very points noted above, plus a couple of areas that are unique to the American program’s vast breadth.

In both cases, however, the countries involved are attempting to sidestep the disconnected and slow processes associated with developing each weapon in the system as an individual military-run project with detailed specifications at all stages. Given that conventional military design and procurement programs can take anywhere from 8-20 years on average, the speed of technology’s advance has made compressing this process something of a necessity.

These kinds of attempts are definitely an industry trend in Western countries. Whether FCS and FRES succeed or fail, procurement structure experiments will continue to be tried around the world as advanced armies embark on “military transformation” projects that tax both existing technology limits and military procurement systems’ ability to deliver.

FRES: Key Challenges for the Contractors

BOWMAN
(click to view full)

The contractors face two key challenges in designing the FRES. One has to do with its electronic architecture, an extremely important facet of any vehicle built with network-centric warfare in mind. The other challenge has to do with balancing the more conventional variables of weight, protection, and firepower in light of modern anti-armor threats that range from increasingly sophisticated anti-tank rockets to IED land mines.

Electronic Architecture Technology Demonstrator Programme (EA TDP) contracts are currently underway for the FRES system. Britain’s Ministry of Defense wrote that:

“The programme, which will last around 18 months, will define a scalable open architecture that may be a candidate electronic architecture solution at the core of the FRES fleet.”

In other words, it is possible that none of the presented electronic architecture solutions will be adopted. The challenging requirements may help to explain why.

The EA TDP solution must look at how FRES could be integrated within the MOD’s network enabled communications system providing enhanced Command and Control, Communications and Intelligence, local situational awareness via integrated sensors plus image and data handling, target acquisition and precision engagement, survivability and mobility. The Electronic Architecture must therefore integrate with the new General Dynamics UK-led BOWMAN communications system and the Bowman Combat Infrastructure and Platform Battlefield Information Systems Application (BCIP) program, providing seamless communications with all combat, combat support and combat service support systems. A sophisticated Health & Usage Monitoring System (HUMS) for the weapons systems is also envisioned, helping to reduce the logistical footprint, increase availability and ensure that the whole life cost for the FRES system is tightly controlled.

As if that wasn’t enough, mission-specific reconfiguration and the ability to grow the electronic system’s capabilities by incremental acquisition are also important target criteria.

Given the extent of these wished-for capabilities, it’s possible that re-prioritization of these electronics requirements will occur down the road.

On the physical side, advanced militaries are finding that their expensive systems need to be amortized over a long service life. In response, they’re beginning to plan for this. Meanwhile, demands for longer service life usually work to drive initial program costs even higher. The US Marines’ Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) are looked at addressing this issue through steps like different hardware architectures, but the need to remain compliant with standard off-the-shelf commodity components became an issue. Given that long service life is likely to remain a budgetary necessity, more experiments are sure to follow.

Challenger 2
(click to view full)

With respect to vehicle design, the British Ministry of Defence notes:

“The FRES requirement sets demanding targets including limits to weight and size to allow rapid deployment by air, while at the same time calling for the delivery of military effect and survivability in excess of that currently available from vehicles of this class. FRES will also seek to minimise the logistic footprint and through life support costs.”

In other words, they want something that can be flown in by their C-130J-30 stretched Hercules transports, but it has to be able to survive mine/IED, artillery, RPG, missile, and 25-30mm cannon attacks more effectively than existing modern vehicles like the British Warrior light tank, the U.S. Stryker family, et. al. Oh, and they’d also like a hybrid powered vehicle, rather than diesel or gas.

This, too, is a very challenging set of capabilities to deliver.

Finally, there have been some comments re: having FRES vehicles replace the Challenger 2 main battle tanks when those go out of service. The lessons of urban warfare encounters from the Global War on Terror have made that something of a fantasy, barring some major technology breakthroughs in lightweight armor protection (ACAVP isn’t it yet, and may never be).

In the end, these capabilities proved too challenging to deliver. The weight limits were lifted, the vehicles’ role shifted back to medium armor, and the engine/drive systems are likely to be far more conventional.

Appendix 4 – FRES Experiments: Electronic Architecture TDPs

In Britain’s “Anti-US” Procurement Policies – and the Future Dynamics of Global Procurement, DID looked at one example of political blowback from European defense integration efforts, and highlighted the importance of C4SI platforms to procurement decisions. One of the authors we used as an example was Dr. Richard North, who wrote, inter alia, The end of independence: The implications of the “Future Rapid Effects System” for an independent UK defence policy. He believed that C$SI decisions were forcing Britain toward a European platform.

In September 2005, FRES Systems House integrator Atkins placed two Electronic Architecture Technology Demonstrator Programme (EA TDP) contracts with teams led by Lockheed Martin (UK) Ltd, and Thales UK, plus one contract for vehicle chassis design with General Dynamics UK. Amounts were not disclosed.

For the electronic architecture TDP, placing 2 concurrent contracts was pitched as a better way to address program risks across the huge range of technologies and potential solutions. This may or may not be so; what is clear is the priority being placed on this aspect of the FRES program.

Gary Balthrop is Lockheed Martin’s FRES program director. He leads a FRES EA TDP effort that also includes UK companies Ultra Electronics, Smiths Aerospace, SciSys, PA Consulting and Cranfield University (Team ISIS).

The Thales UK Team includes BAE Systems and QinetiQ, and will be based at the Thales UK site in Staines.

Thales UK proposes to demonstrate the EA by integrating it into a candidate vehicle chassis, and simulation techniques will be widely employed as well through the use of System Integration Laboratories (SIL). This use of simulation is expected to save both time and money and allow for more rigorous de-risking. The Thales UK Team will also be undertaking a competitive selection of suppliers for the sub-systems and work packages that comprise the EA TDP, providing industry opportunities but also introducing potential schedule issues.

At this point, the project is clearly in early stages and it’s difficult to make strong predictions re: the direction of technical compatibility beyond integration with General Dynamics UK-led BOWMAN. The U.S. JTRS program, whose software-defined electronics would allow fast reconfiguration and addition of any communications waveform, is currently in trouble and doesn’t exist as a strong bridging option.

What is clear is that Dr. North’s expressed fears were not realized, and corporations with very strong American ties are participating at all levels in the critical electronic architecture definition process. The overall competition, however, has swerved sharply for reasons that have little to do with electronics. It will be interesting to see what emerges.

Appendix 5 – FRES Experiments: Vehicle-Related TDPs

AHED Cutaway
(click to view full)

Meanwhile, the FRES Chassis Concept (CC) Technology Demonstration Program (TDP) is an 18-month effort to demonstrate the readiness of in-hub electric-drive engine, its ability to meet the FRES platform requirements, and the integration of a third party Electronic Architecture (EA) into the chassis. It’s also an opportunity for the teams to demonstrate their ability to work with SH Atkins, in order to help them meet both the program timeline and the information requirements for main gate go/no-go approval.

Hybrid power architectures are valued for a number of reasons. Lower fuel costs and fuel logistics loads, of course. The potential for lower lifetime maintenance via fewer moving parts, which could mean smaller spares inventories as well if reliability is good. Finally, there’s an important combat-related reason: stealth. While the U.S. Army’s new Stryker vehicle family doesn’t use hybrid engines, other modifications make them significantly quieter than the rival M113 or M2 Bradley APCs. As DID has reported, Stryker Brigade soldiers who served in Iraq considered this an important tactical advantage, and any armored vehicle with a hybrid engine and wheels or rubber band tracks would be quieter still. Indeed, some experimental projects report noise levels comparable to civilian vehicles. A hybrid engine would also reduce FRES’ thermal profile for infrared detection, no small benefit given the proliferaton of thermal sights on today’s battlefields.

The key question for the program to answer is whether the technology is sufficiently powerful and mature to be trusted in an armored vehicle of this size.

Notwithstanding Dr. Richard North’s contention that Rheinmetall DeTec was in the pole position, Atkins awarded the chassis concept project to General Dynamics UK Ltd., in partnership with General Dynamics Land Systems USA. Note that General Dynamics Land Systems was also selected by the USA’s Future Combat Systems (FCS) lead system integrators, forming an integrated design team with BAE Land Systems to create a similar class of FCS manned ground vehicles.

General Dynamics’ Advanced Hybrid Electric Drive (AHED) 8×8 vehicle will provide one baseline from which to evaluate the integration challenges and potential benefits of transformational technologies for the Future Rapid Effect System program. Its interchangeable modular in-hub electric drive, and hybrid power architecture, are intended to dramatically reduce the vehicles’ fuel logistics footprint. It is also hoped to reduce whole life cost of ownership, including costs associated with unique components, large repair part inventories, and training for both operators and maintenance personnel. The AHED vehicle already has over 4,200 km of road and cross-country testing, and General Dynamics intends to conduct over 4,500 km of additional reliability testing for the FRES CC TDP.

The General Dynamics UK FRES industry team comprises General Dynamics UK Limited (project lead), and General Dynamics Land Systems in Sterling Heights, MI, USA.

SEP: tracked, or wheeled
(click to view full)

A second option was pursued via a January 2006 award to BAE Systems for its own chassis concept technology Demontration program (TDP). It will build on work done on the Swedish SEP program by BAE Hagglunds. SEP is a family of modular vehicles, utilizing emerging technologies like hybrid drives and allowing different role modules to be configured on either a wheeled or tracked chassis. The purpose of the TDP is to examine the ability of the electric drive system developed for SEP to meet the requirements of some or all of the envisaged FRES roles.

The BAE Systems Chassis TDP effort will be led from facilities in the UK in close co-operation with BAE Systems colleagues in Sweden, and will be focused primarily on reducing risk to allow a successful transition to the next phase.

BAE also received a “Gap Crossing” TDP for combat bridge-laying.

Additional Readings Background: FRES Program

• British Army – Armoured Fighting Vehicles. Has sub-pages for the Combat and Reconnaissance vehicles FRES is slated to replace.

• General Dynamics UK – Armoured Fighting Vehicles (AFV). See also their Scout SV microsite, and note that Piranha IV manufacturer MOWAG is a General Dynamics subsidiary.

• Atkins (to July 2013) – FRES: News & Events. They maintained an archive of all FRES-related news releases from Atkins, The UK Ministry of Defence, and all companies involved in the project during the Initial Assessment Phase. Snapshot ends July 2007.

Background: Existing Platforms

• Wikipedia – Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked). FRES-SV will partly replace these.

• Wikipedia – Warrior tracked armoured vehicle. FRES-SV will be complementary to the Warrior’s modernization program.

• General Dynamics UK – Bowman – Command Battlespace Management (Land) (CBM(L))

Background: FRES Competitors FRES-SV

• Army Technology – ASCOD (Pizarro / Ulan) Tracked Armoured Fighting Vehicles, Spain. Base design for FRES-SV.

• Army Technology – CV90 Tracked Armoured Combat Vehicles, Sweden.

• Anthony G williams – Light AFV guns and the WFLIP and FRES Scout projects.

FRES-U

• ARTEC Boxer official site.

• Army Technology – Boxer MRAV Wheeled Multi-Role Armoured Vehicle, Europe

• Army Technology – Piranha V Wheeled 8×8 Utility Vehicle, United Kingdom. Picked as the winner, before FRES-UV was shelved.

• Army Technology – SEP Modular Armoured Tactical System Wheeled and Tracked Vehicles, Sweden.

• DID – Sweden Cancels SEP APC Program – But BAE Does Not. Initially, anyway. After losing in Britain and Sweden, it was eventually put aside.

• Army Technology – VBCI Wheeled Infantry Fighting Vehicle, France

News & Views

• UK Parliament (Jan 29/14) – Defence Committee – Ninth Report
  

Future Army 2020. See also Written submissions.

• UK MoD (July 2013) – Transforming The British Army: An Update – July 2013. Refers to proposed Army 2020 changes. No apparent change to FRES’ future.

• UK MoD – Transforming The British Army, July 2012. Refers to proposed Army 2020 changes. Its initial outlines seem to envision a minor role for FRES, and a far smaller number of vehicles bought.

• CASR (November 2009) – The British Equivalent of the Close Combat Vehicle – FRES SV – Sees a Demonstrator Model Produced & Main Gun Type Chosen.

• UK Defence Committee (May 11/07) – The Army’s requirement for armoured vehicles: the FRES programme: update: Government Response to the Committee’s Seventh Report of Session 2006-07.

• Battlespace Magazine (July/Aug 2005) – FRES/Medium Force – It’s All In The Numbers. It notes that Britain’s wheeled Saxon APCs are the vehicles that must be replaced as soon as possible, but depending on FRES costs-per-vehicle the financial numbers could force interim solutions and/or additional life-extension programs for existing vehicles like the Warrior CVR (T) and FV 430 family. The article also makes note of ITAR and technology transfer issues with FRES.

• Jane’s Land Forces (Aug 27/03) – Future Rapid Effect System leads British forces’ transformation.

tag: fresvehicles, fresapc

Americas

• The Defense Logistics Agency is procuring support systems for US military aviators. A $49 million fixed-price contract sees for the production of oxygen delivery systems and their spare parts by Pacific Consolidated Inc. Pacific Consolidated manufactures state-of-the-art portable liquid oxygen plants that are used on aircraft carriers and as Aviation Ground Equipment to provide pilot Aviator Breathing Oxygen. Oxygen delivery systems provide fighter pilots with breathable air and provide a function called partial-pressure breathing for G (PPG), which pushes high-pressure air into the lungs during high-g maneuvers, which increases g tolerance. The system provides pilots with sufficient oxygen to prevent hypoxia symptoms. Oxygen delivery systems are deployed on a variety of military aircraft including the F-35, the F-16 and F/A-18. Work will be performed at the company’s location in Riverside, California and is expected to be completed by June 2023. Receiving customers are Army, Navy, Marine Corps and federal civilian agencies.

• BAE Systems San Diego Ship Repair is being awarded a $18.9 million contract in support of the Navy’s LPD 27 amphibious transport dock ship. BAE system will work towards the accomplishment of the post shakedown availability for the vessel. It will provide efforts including program management, planning, engineering, design, liaison, scheduling, labor and procurement of incidental material in support of the USS Portland. The USS Portland was commissioned on April 21st and is a San Antonio class amphibious assault support vessel. Its mission is to embark, transport, land, and support elements of a US Marine Corps Landing Force. It is designed to operate the Marines’ MV-22 Osprey, hovercrafts and amphibious armored personnel carriers. The Portland and its sister ships will operate as part of larger Amphibious Task Forces (ATFs) in conjunction with a full set of airpowers, additional assault ships, and air and sub-surface defense vessels. San Antonio Class vessels are potential command ships for US and joint task forces and could make excellent UAV hosts and controllers. All work will be performed in San Diego, California, and is expected to be completed by July 2019.

Middle East & Africa

• Israel Aerospace Industries and Czech defense contractor Aero Vodochody are partnering to make a late bid for the US Air Force’s OA-X close air support program. Their pitch is an advanced version of the combat proven L-159. The USAF has already invited Textron Aviation and Sierra Nevada/Embraer to take part in an evaluation exercise this summer with their Beechcraft AT-6 and A-29 Super Tucano, respectively. The two companies will equip the L-159 jet trainer with fourth-generation avionics and several weapons integration systems. If chosen to produce the roughly 350 aircraft, both companies could open up a production line and supply chain for the jet within the continental US.

Europe

• Estonia is again opting for the Mistral short range air defense missile. The $59 million deal between the Eastern-European nation and the French missile manufacturer MBDA also includes man portable surface to air missiles, training missiles, simulators and testing and maintenance equipment. Under the terms of the contract, Estonia will continue acquiring Mistral SHORAD missiles in their latest generation which provide increased accuracy and longer service life than missiles of previous generations. The fully autonomous ‘fire and forget’ Mistral 2 missile is equipped with a two-stage solid propellant rocket motor and carries a 3kg high-explosive warhead loaded with tungsten ball projectiles. Guidance is by passive infrared homing using an indium arsenide detector array operating in the three to five-micron waveband. Compared to any other low-level air defense missile, Mistral is more reliable and successful. It has a success rate of 93%. The current contract also includes options for additional missiles up to the amount of $117 million, with the first deliveries to expected by 2020.

• Jane’s reports that Finnish arms manufacturer Patria is currently testing its latest version of its wheeled armored personnel carrier (APC). The Patria AMV is in serial production and more than 1,400 vehicles have been ordered. It has been selected by Croatia, Finland, Poland, Slovenia, South Africa, United Arab Emirates and Slovakia. The AMV product family uses the same hull platform fitted with the turrets and mission systems for each of the variants, including an armored personnel carrier, infantry fighting vehicle. The new 6×6 APC can be fitted with a broad range of weapons including a 120mm turreted mortar system or a protected weapon station armed with a .50 machine gun (MG), in addition a 5.56 mm or 7.62 mm MG can be pintle mounted on the roof of the rear troop compartment. The hull is all-welded steel armor with an appliqué modular armor package that can provide protection against mines and IEDs.

Asia-Pacific

• India has requested the purchase of six AH-64E Apache helicopters. The possible US foreign military sale is valued at $930 million. The AH-64E Guardian Block III (AB3) is the helicopter’s next big step forward by incorporating 26 key new-technology insertions. If the deal goes through India would receive the newest Block III helicopters and up to 180 AGM-114L-3 Hellfire Longbow missiles, 90 AGM-114R-3 Hellfire II missiles, 200 Stinger Block I-92H missiles and other equipment ranging from fire control radars to ammunition. The prime contractors will be Lockheed Martin, General Electric, and Raytheon. This proposed sale would strengthen the US-Indian strategic relationship and to improve the security of an important partner in a region that is currently highly contested.

Today’s Video

• Israeli defense contractor Rafael unveils some of its newest military equipment and technology at Eurosatory 2018.

LPD-17 cutaway
(click to view full)

LPD-17 San Antonio class amphibious assault support vessels are just entering service with the US Navy, and 11 ships of this class are eventually slated to replace up to 41 previous ships. Much like their smaller predecessors, their mission is to embark, transport, land, and support elements of a US Marine Corps Landing Force. The difference is found in these ships’ size, their cost, and the capabilities and technologies used to perform those missions. Among other additions, this new ship is designed to operate the Marines’ new MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft, alongside the standard well decks for hovercraft and amphibious armored personnel carriers.

While its design incorporates notable advances, the number of serious issues encountered in this ship class have been much higher than usual, and more extensive. The New Orleans shipyard to which most of this contract was assigned appears to be part of the problem. Initial ships have been criticized, often, for sub-standard workmanship, and it took 2 1/2 years after the initial ship of class was delivered before any of them could be sent on an operational cruise. Whereupon the USS San Antonio promptly found itself laid up Bahrain, due to oil leaks. It hasn’t been the only ship of its class hurt by serious mechanical issues. Meanwhile, costs are almost twice the originally promised amounts, reaching over $1.6 billion per ship – 2 to 3 times as much as many foreign LPDs like the Rotterdam Class, and more than 10 times as much as Singapore’s 6,600 ton Endurance Class LPD. This article covers the LPD-17 San Antonio Class program, including its technologies, its problems, and ongoing contracts and events.

LPD-17 San Antonio Class: Capabilities and Features Roles and Innovations

LPD-17 Class & ATF
(click to view full)

The LPD-17 Class featured both an innovative development process, and 21st century features that optimize them for a number of roles. These range from an assault ship that carries and sustains Marine Expeditionary Units, to use as a US Navy command node, the ability to play the lead roles in disaster relief operations, etc.

The ships will operate as part of larger Amphibious Task Forces (ATFs) in conjunction with a full set of airpower, additional assault ships, and air and sub-surface defense vessels. They can also be parceled out as the keystones of smaller three-ship Amphibious Ready Groups (ARGs)/ Expeditionary Strike Groups (ESGs). At minimum, they can operate independently in low-threat scenarios during “split-ARG” operations, helping the group cover multiple areas of responsibility and respond to more than one contingency simultaneously.

A total of 11 ships of this class are slated to assume the functional duties of up to 41 previous ships, including the USA’s older LSD-36 USS Anchorage class dock landing ships (all decommissioned as of 2004, LSD-36 and LSD-38 transferred to Taiwan) and its LPD-4 USS Austin Class ships (12 built and serving, LPD 14 Trenton now India’s INS Jalashva). The San Antonio class ships may also replace 2 classes of ships currently mothballed and held in reserve status under the Amphibious Lift Enhancement Program (ALEP): the LST-1179 Newport class tank landing ships, and LKA-113 Charleston class amphibious cargo ships.

MV-22 Osprey

The San Antonio Class will also serve in a number of roles beyond combat.

While LPD-17 vessels will have their own helicopter contingent for patrols and transport operations, their large deck also makes them useful inshore “lilly pads” that can quickly refuel and turn around rotary aircraft from elsewhere in order to keep them on station longer. The ships are also designed to function as casualty receiving and treatment vessels, with 24 beds and two operating rooms. With communications capabilities that surpass most US and foreign vessels,

San Antonio Class vessels are potential command ships for US and joint task forces, and should make excellent UAV hosts and/or controllers.

Their 72,000 gallon per day reverse-osmosis water production certainly improves onboard creature comforts. It also allows the ship to operate in a critical lifesaving role in the wake of natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina or the 2005 Asian tsunami, when fresh water is often the most urgent and difficult requirement.

Yet the ships’ combat role remains top-of-mind, and reminders of their purpose are deeply embedded in the names – and in some cases, the very fabric – of these ships. The USS New York [LPD 21] incorporated bow steel cast from salvaged remains of the World Trade Center. Later vessels in its class include USS Arlington [LPD 24], named after the section of the Pentagon that was also hit by an airliner on September 11. USS Somerset [LPD 25] is named in memory of United Flight 93, whose passengers’ heroic struggles with al-Qaeda hijackers crashed the plane in a Somerset County, PA field instead of the intended targets of the Capitol building or White House.

Basic Specifications

Specs More Fun Facts

• The US Navy has taken a tip from the cruise ship industry, and relied on heavy automation to bring down crew size. That frees up more space for troops, but these systems’ performance and resilience have become an issue.

• The ship auxiliary systems are all electric, including electric heating and water heaters, 7 big York air-conditioning units (which will be appreciated by many troops), and a 72,000 gallon per day reverse osmosis water-generating plant.

• A new high-power “low-drag” propeller hub design provides improved propeller efficiency, and helps them power the ship to speeds above 20 knots.

• Within the ship, passageways are 25-30% wider than previous LPDs so combat-loaded Marines can move in full gear inside the skin of the ship just as if they were topside.

• Those L-shaped berthing spaces have an extra 1-2 feet of headroom, enough for sailors and Marines to sit up in their racks. Personal storage space in all the berthing areas has gone up by 40%, compared to past LPDs.

• The ships are also designed from the outset to accommodate the modern reality of mixed-gender sailors and Marines.

• Food service has been modeled for maximum efficiency on both ends via simulation and task/traffic flow analysis that aim to keep both chow line waits and food production humming along.

• San Antonio Class ships also feature amenities such as a ship services mall to ease long deployments, a fitness center, and learning resource center/electronic classroom enabled by the ship’s improved bandwidth and computing capabilities.

Self-Defense & Survivability: Options & Issues

AN/SPS-48E on LPD 17

In order to survive both their missions and the need for upgrades during their long service lives, LPD-17 ships have incorporated significant advances in ship self-defense, survivability, and C4I systems. The question is whether they will be enough, given the ships’ size and cost.

Step 1 involves making detection and lock-on harder. The San Antonio Class was intended to have a significantly reduced radar cross section signature (1/100th of the LSD-41 Class). Indeed, the San Antonio Class works to minimize its signature across a number of spectra. It optimizes radar cross-section by streamlining topside layout, and incorporating reduced radar signature technologies and design. Relevant design features include a boat valley instead of a boat deck, removable coverings over the rescue boat and fueling at sea stations, and accommodation ladders that fold into the ship’s hull. Meanwhile, the advanced composite-enclosed mast/sensors, which cover the ship’s SPS-48E and SPQ-9B radars and its communications antennas, give the ship its distinctive profile. In the end LPD-17 designs do have a smaller signature than the ship classes that preceded them, but a July 2007 article in the San Antonio Express-News points out that the ship’s radar signature won’t be reduced as much as planned, compromising its survivability in near-shore regions.

A minor consolation of the class’ stealth design is that there are fewer edges and seams to collect rust, and corrosion-resistant paint and composite building materials were expected to reduce future maintenance and painting costs. Unfortunately, serious construction flaws in several ships of class are quickly piling up maintenance costs in other, unexpected areas.

RIM-116 RAM Launch

Step 2 is active defense. The class will use Raytheon’s SSDS combat system, which will control and partially automate a set of air, surface, and navigation radars, as well as electronic countermeasures systems, towed torpedo decoys, missile decoy systems, and air defense that will include the short-range RAM missile system. That single layer of active protection has been highlighted as a weakness in Pentagon reports, which state that the ship’s radar and defensive systems can’t defend the ship reliably against the most advanced anti-ship missile threats. That may prompt the Navy to add bolt-on launchers for the medium-range RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow missiles that equip many advanced NATO warships. For close-in defense, the LPD-17 class will use the MK46 stabilized 30mm autocannon with advanced sensors, as well as traditional .50 caliber machine guns mounted about the ship.

Step 3 involves the ability take a punch and keep fighting. The ship’s design worked to optimize the separation of redundant vital systems, and possesses a diverse suite of fire-fighting options. Fiber-optic wiring throughout the ship is designed for high-bandwidth SWAN (Shipboard Wide Area Network) applications, and features long-term upgradeability, redundancy, and durability. It will also help the automated ship control systems manage ship systems, and quickly make changes in the event of damage. It is also used as part of an advanced lighting system that improves visual stealth, lowers power requirements, and makes it easy to switch the entire ship to specified lighting modes.

Unfortunately, these features have not lived up to their promise. Pentagon reports cite reliability and effectiveness issues with the Engineering Control System (ECS), the electrical distribution system, and the SWAN, saying that they may magnify the effects of a crisis, instead of helping the crew save the ship.

Other shipboard vulnerability upgrades include improved fragmentation and nuclear blast protection, and a shock-hardened structure with upgraded whipping resistance and structural connections.

Overall, Pentagon reports rate the class as more survivable than previous LPDs, but question whether they are survivable enough for the modern environment. This reflects the horns of their basic design dilemma. If a ship is made very large, it offers peacetime efficiencies and better capability per ton, but its cost will rise to a level that pushes it toward the addition of advanced radars, defensive systems, etc. These additions improve the odds that one’s ship won’t be lost and destroy the entire naval mission, but they also drive each ship’s price even higher.

The other classic approach to this problem is to build more but smaller ships, which tends to add costs by using more raw materials and building more hulls. On the other hand, cost per ship drops sharply – foreign LPDs tend to be somewhere between 1/3 to 1/10 the price of an LPD-17. With more hulls in the water, the loss of one ship is less likely to destroy an entire mission, and less expensive defensive systems can be used.

LPD-17 San Antonio Class: Program, Budgets & Timelines

Full flight deck view
(click to view full)

The original December 1996 US Navy contract was awarded to an industrial alliance led by Northrop Grumman Ship Systems (formerly Litton Avondale, now Huntington Ingalls Industries), with General Dynamics Bath Iron Works, Raytheon Electronic Systems and Intergraph Corporation, to design and construct the first of an anticipated 12 ships under the Navy’s LPD-17 program.

Avondale was supposed to build 8 of these ships, while Bath Iron Works would build 4 ships. In June 2002, however, a revised Memorandum of Understanding was signed with Northrop Grumman and Bath Iron Works. Northrop Grumman would be responsible for the construction of all LPD-17 San Antonio Class vessels, but they would trade construction of 4 of the USA $1.5 billion DDG-51 Arleigh Burke Class destroyers to Bath Iron Works.

LPD-17 production, originally authorized for 11 or 12 vessels as functional replacements for 41 1960s-era ships, dropped to just 9 as cost spirals took their toll, and was eventually forced back up to 11 with extra spending. 2013 Navy budget documents show an average cost per ship of over $1.6 billion through all vessels, which offers the unusual phenomenon of no reduction in cost vs. the first ship of class.

According to official Pentagon budget documents, recent funding for the LPD-17 class has included:

San Antonio Class budgets, 2002-2012
(click to view full)

Excel
download

Even by 2002, Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation (RDT&E) was mostly complete for this class, and the vast majority of funds spent under the program have been focused on building ships. Note that requests for a given year generally include both funds to finish building a ship, and funds for long lead-time items like engines, “government-furnished equipment” that isn’t bought by the shipbuilder, and other items that must be ordered early so construction of the next ship can start on time.

FY 2010 funding would technically buy 0 ships; it finishes LPD 26, and buys long lead time items for LPD 27. FY 2011 funding was the bare minimum, and the LPD 27 order hung on passing a FY 2012 budget. The final shipbuilding contract was placed in July 2012.

Timelines

Current and planned ships in this class, and key milestones include:

San Antonio Class LPDs – Timelines
(click to view full)

For some ships still in progress, we’ve noted discrepancies between announced or estimated dates earlier in a contract, and completion dates for key milestones. For ships that are already in service, noticing the time lapses between key stages for an individual ship, and in the progression of ships through a given stage, provides its own indication of problems that have arisen. The effect of August 2005’s Class 5 Hurricane Katrina can certainly be seen in several of the ship timelines above. So, too, can the effect of manufacturing quality problems.

Flight II: What’s Next

LPD Flight II changes
(click to view full)

The LPD-17s aren’t quite done production yet, but unless the shipyard receives new orders, that time is coming soon. HII’s response has been to look ahead, and look beyond amphibious ships.

An LX(R) competition looks to replace existing LSD-41/49 amphibious ships with up to 10 new amphibious support vessels, in the unlikely event that programs like the F-35 and SSBN(X) don’t gut US Navy procurement. The stated goal is 10 ships, with the 1st ship delivered between 2018 – 2022. HII’s response is the LPD Flight II, which keeps the same basic hull, but carries fewer Marines, holds less cargo, and removes a number of elements that add costs. Their stated target is a 30% cost reduction; unfortunately, that still makes their 23,000t design about twice as expensive as a foreign 17,000t LPD like the Dutch Johann De Witt. The benefits of using a mature production line and many common elements are real, but a $1.1 billion price tag per ship simply may not be affordable amidst hugely expensive programs and fiscal crises.

Fortunately for Huntington Ingalls, they didn’t stop there. Once they had stripped the LPD-17 design down and removed the hangar and some superstructure, they realized that they had a platform for other roles as well.

Joint Command and Control. The US Navy currently operates 4 dedicated command ships, all of which are over 30 years old. At some point soon, the Navy must either replace them of forego them. The LPD Flight IIs begin with advanced communication suites, and contain all the space one might require to house and run a full theater command. HII would have some decisions to make about organic on-board helicopter capability, but otherwise, most of the modifications would involve internal layouts and wiring. The big question remains the same: could this be done more cheaply by using another platform?

Hospital Ship. The USNS Comfort and USNS Mercy are converted oil supertankers, originally launched in 1975 and 1976. The San Antonio Class has an internal hospital with 24 beds; in contrast, the USA’s hospital ships can hold and care for up to 1,000 patients, complete with a full pharmacy, advanced tools like radiology, optometry, testing lab, etc. The LPD Flight II is far smaller than these 65,000t+ behemoths, but it does have a good deal of internal space that could be put to good use, and that capacity may be more than adequate for most deployments. Innovative approaches could even modify the Flight II’s enhanced deck space to stack containerized TransHospital systems, for medical satellite deployments ashore.

USNS Mercy actually sat pierside from 1991 – 2004, whereas a platform that could operate at lower cost would be easier and more tempting to deploy. If the Navy can get beyond its steeper acquisition cost.

LPD Flight II for BMD?
click for video

Ballistic Missile Defense. This seems like the most radical change, but it isn’t if you think of the ship as specialized for this air and space defense role. A Flight II BMD ship would remove the well deck, in favor of a deck elevator that leads down to a helicopter hangar. It would also add a superstructure with the 21′ AMDR-S radar that the Navy considers ideal for ballistic missile defense, but which current destroyers cannot carry. The AEGIS BMD combat system would be installed, and the space cleared by the removal of most LPD-17 Class superstructure would be used to mount vertical launch cells around the edges. Notional designs show a nearly-ridiculous 288 Mk.41 VLS cells, or they could cut the number of cells and improve survivability by switching to the same Mk.57 PVLS on board the DDG-1000 Zumwalt Class battlecruisers.

Effectively, a FLT II BMD aerospace warfare cruiser would create a more potent air and missile defense platform than current American destroyers, at a similar cost, in exchange for less versatility. US Navy 2009 estimates pegged a similar arsenal ship concept at around $2.55 billion, which still seems about right as a starting point. The Flight II BMD design would be more costly than existing LPD-17s, or existing DDG-51 Flight IIA BMD destroyers (around $1.8 – 2 billion). It might be cheaper than the $2.5 – 3 billion estimates rumored for DDG-51 Flight III destroyers, but it would have limited versatility. It has enough VLS cells to act as an air defense ship, but it would lack the speed required to perform the “plane guard” role for carriers on calm days. It’s possible to load some cells with VL-ASROC anti-submarine missiles, and deploy an MH-60R helicopter from the under-deck hangar, but the ship itself wouldn’t have the systems needed to detect and track submarines. It would be a very effective arsenal ship for land attack with cruise missiles, but other ships and submarines can do the same thing, without putting such high-end BMD capability at risk.

That might be an acceptable trade, depending on the Navy’s commitment to leadership of American missile defense efforts. With discussions regarding DDG 51 Flight IV focusing on power-hungry rail guns and lasers, the Flight II’s power generation capabilities could give them a unique defensive niche. On the other hand, Flight II BMD ships would probably have to be paid for by sacrificing DDG-51 destroyers. The class’ lead shipyard Bath Iron Works needs those destroyers to remain a major shipbuilding concern, which means HII would be cannibalizing its own DDG-51 production.

LPD-17 Program: Performance Problems

(click to view full)

The LPD-17 program has done some things well. Reduced operational costs and an improved capability to incorporate technological advances over its 40-year service life were essential design objectives for LPD 17. In working to accomplish these objectives, the design team incorporated hundreds of suggestions and recommendations from more than 1,000 sailors and Marines in the “Design for Ownership” process. Simulation and modeling were used heavily, and virtual crews drawn from other areas of the US Navy took “virtual tours” of the design zones of the ship via a 3D model at initial reviews, at 50% design reviews, and at 90% design reviews. Cargo functions received particular attention.

Meanwhile, the entire project alliance worked together at the same location along with the project sponsor, in order to maximize communication. Those efforts show through in many aspects of the ships’ design.

Unfortunately, the LPD-17 Class has experienced a number of long-running problems, particularly those ships built at the Avondale shipyard near New Orleans.

Financial. Overall, the class’ financial and budgetary performance has been a long-running failure. The LPD 17 San Antonio was initially budgeted at $954 million, but ended with a final price tag of about $1.76 billion. The LPD 18 New Orleans was budgeted at $762 million, but finished at a similar cost to LPD 17.

Northrop Grumman isn’t solely to blame for these overruns. The need to tear down and rebuild completed sections of the LPD 17 San Antonio was a major cause of its cost increases, while workforce attrition rates as high as 35% annually led to its construction delays. According to San Antonio Express-News, a less obvious but equally consequential source of trouble was a computer design program dubbed 3D CAD, which was touted for its ability to give 3-dimensional views, but was not up to the task of designing an entire ship.

What’s far more disturbing is the fact that these massive cost increases over the original $800 million projections have continued throughout the class’ lifetime. Indeed, they showed no improvement at all. That’s never supposed to happen, but FY 2013 budget documents show an average $1.6 billion cost over the full 11 ships.

Workmanship. The 2nd performance failure has involved ship quality. Northrop Grumman delivered the 1st ship, USS San Antonio [LPD 17], in the summer of 2005, but difficulties with her INSURV inspections and acceptance sea trials forced a delay of almost 3 years before her 1st mission, which featured a major mechanical breakdown. A similar fate befell the USS New Orleans [LPD 18], and those delays are clearly visible in the timelines, above.

In contrast, USS Mesa Verde [LPD 19], which was built at Northrop Grumman’s Ingalls yard in Mississippi instead of its Avondale yard near New Orleans, performed well in sea trials, and has been reliable in service.

Unfortunately, that wasn’t the end of the class’ problems. In 2010 a number of ships of class, especially the Avondale-built ships, discovered very serious problems that took them out of service for difficult repairs. They included USS San Antonio [LPD 17], USS New Orleans [LPD 18], USS Green Bay [LPD 20], and USS New York [LPD 21].

Once again, the bright spot was USS Mesa Verde, built at the Ingalls yard in Pascagoula, MS, which moved to substitute for USS San Antonio on a recent deployment.

Governments have generally ignored this shipyard quality problem. A $50 million grant from the state of Louisiana did help Northrop Grumman modernize production at Avondale, and another $98.6 million in federal funding has also filtered down to local NGSS shipyards in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Nevertheless, scathing Navy inspector general reviews that detailed shoddy construction and basic workmanship problems at Avondale are cause for legitimate concern in areas that will not be fixed by modernization alone.

Eventually, Northrop Grumman spun off its shipbuilding units as Huntington Ingalls Industries, and moved to close the Avondale, LA shipyard. That may finally resolve the issue – after more than $15 billion had been spent on a supposed cornerstone of the future amphibious fleet.

DID will continue to spotlight this issue, in “LPD-17 Reliability Issues Surface Again.”

The Vicious Cycle

The San Antonio class’ problems fit into a larger set of trends. The Navy and Congress make life very difficult for American military shipbuilders, who also operate in ways that come back to bite them. Key challenges include yo-yoing political budget projections and military requirements. That problem leads to “binge and purge” hiring cycles, impairs shipyard effectiveness, and ultimately raises costs, while lowering quality. The growing costs of US Navy ships then feed back into this phenomenon, as budgets and projections break, and require drastic changes to fix.

On the contractor side, lowball initial prices, followed by cost increases once projects begin, leads to inevitable build reductions part-way through. Which means fewer ships per dollar, as R&D dollars are amortized over fewer ships. The Pentagon is often a collaborator in these games, assuring lawmakers of the initial contract’s reasonableness long after outside reports question their realism. Such approaches may ensure shipyard work in the near term, but they also feed into yo-yoing federal budgets, as cost growth makes it impossible for the Pentagon to fund all of the programs it has started.

Poor accountability and oversight can compound these issues, and has, but good oversight alone won’t remove them.

Ultimately, the US Navy loses the most. These escalating requirements and costs mean fewer ships overall. While the resulting fleet may be more capable, the number of contingencies it can cover, and the setbacks that it can safely absorb, drop. Even as the entire process shrinks a US industrial base that no longer builds many civilian vessels, and so has little resiliency.

It’s a vicious cycle – one that is damaging American global power.

LPD-17 San Antonio Class: Contracts & Key Events (1996-Present)

Unless otherwise noted, all contracts were issued by the US Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) in Washington, DC.

FY 2015 – 2018

 

LPD Flight II
click for video

June 14/18: Shakedown BAE Systems San Diego Ship Repair is being awarded a $18.9 million contract in support of the Navy’s LPD 27 amphibious transport dock ship. BAE system will work towards the accomplishment of the post shakedown availability for the vessel. It will provide efforts including program management, planning, engineering, design, liaison, scheduling, labor and procurement of incidental material in support of the USS Portland. The USS Portland was commissioned on April 21st and is a San Antonio class amphibious assault support vessel. Its mission is to embark, transport, land, and support elements of a US Marine Corps Landing Force. It is designed to operate the Marines’ MV-22 Osprey, hovercrafts and amphibious armored personnel carriers. The Portland and its sister ships will operate as part of larger Amphibious Task Forces (ATFs) in conjunction with a full set of airpowers, additional assault ships, and air and sub-surface defense vessels. San Antonio Class vessels are potential command ships for US and joint task forces and could make excellent UAV hosts and controllers. All work will be performed in San Diego, California, and is expected to be completed by July 2019.

February 20/18: Contracts-LPD-29 Huntington Ingalls received Friday, February 16, a $1.43 billion US Navy contract for the procurement of the detail design and construction of landing platform dock 29—the latest addition to the service’s San Antonio-class amphibious transport docks. Work will take place mostly in Pascagoula, Mississippi, but also in Crozet, Virginia, Beloit, Wisconsin, New Orleans, Louisiana, with other efforts to take place across the continental United States. Contract completion is scheduled for July 2023.

November 27/17: Contracts BAE Systems has been awarded a $8.7 million US Navy contract modification to complete the fitting out availability process for the USS Portland (LPD-27) and for continued efforts associated with the post shakedown availability for the USS John P. Murtha (LPD-26). Work on the San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock ships will take place at BAE’s San Diego facility in California with work on the USS John P. Murtha scheduled to be completed by February 2018, followed by the USS Portland in October 2018.

August 24/17: A Huntington Ingalls-built Amphibious Transport Dock vessel has completed sea trails in the Gulf of Mexico. The future USS Portland will be the US Navy’s 11th San Antonio-class when it is commissioned into service next spring. During the trails, conducted by the Navy’s Board of Inspection and Survey and completed last Friday, the vessel underwent dockside checks and demonstrations of major systems while at sea. Included in the testing was the ship’s main propulsion engineering and ship control systems, combat and communications systems, damage control, food service and crew support. The crew also underwent a full power run, steering, boat handling and anchoring on the ship, before returning to to Huntington Ingalls’ shipyard in Pascagoula, Mississippi. The Navy will take possession of the ship this fall.

July 7/17: Future US Navy amphibious transport dock, the USS Portland, has successfully completed Builder’s Trials and has returned to its shipyard in Mississippi. The Huntington Ingalls-built vessel will now be prepared for Acceptance Trials, where the Navy’s Board of Inspection and Survey will formally assess the ship’s capabilities. The Portland will be the 11th ship of the LPD 17 San Antonio-class to join the Navy fleet next year. It will be home ported in San Diego, Calif., and will deploy combat and support US Marine Expeditionary Units and brigades.

July 6/17: Huntington Ingalls has received a $218 million contract modification for advance construction activities on the San Antonio-class LPD 29 amphibious transport dock ship. Under the agreement, the firm will provide long-lead time manufacturing materials and construction in support of the program, running until February 2018. Work will be carried out at Pascagoula, Miss., Beloit, Wash., and at other sites across the United States.

January 15/16: The US Navy’s San Antonio class warships may be fitted with missile defense radars and lasers according the a spokesperson for Huntington Ingalls. Discussions are apparently ongoing to have the system installed on LPD vessels as they have ample available space to store and create the energy necessary to run the radar and weapons. Such an addition would greatly increase the defensive capabilities of the amphibious transport ship, and certainly fits in line with the Navy’s future plans to make all their vessels more well rounded and capable of operating defensively and offensively.

December 8/15: The US Navy has awarded Huntington Ingalls $200 million to build the next amphibious transport dock (LPD) warship. The advanced procurement contract will fund the final of twelve of the San Antonio class ships to be commissioned by the Navy. The vessels are to be used by both the Navy and Marine Corps and are to be utilized for the embarking and landing of Marines and their supplies as well as supporting them across a variety of operational tasks. The John P. Murtha San Antonio class LPD was launched in March and was the programs most cost effective and advanced to date.

Oct 20/14: LX-R. It hasn’t exactly been a secret that the US Navy has wanted LPD-17 Flight II as its replacement for existing LSD-41/49 ships (q.v. July 25-28/14, Dec 6/13, April 9/13). Now Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus has signed an internal memo recommending the use of LPD-17 Flight II ships to replace existing LSD-41/49 ships, rather than rebuilding existing LSDs with changes or opening competition to other designs. The cost?

Start with an estimate of $2.02 billion for LPD 28, which is higher than the original LPD-17’s final figure, in order to keep the production line going until LX(R). The Navy believes themselves to be about $1 billion short in terms of securing that funding. Regardless of what happens with LPD 28, the estimate is $1.64 billion in construction costs for the lead LX(R) Flight II ship, and $1.4 million for the next 10 planned hulls. Plus any funds required to do further design work that fixes existing LPD-17 issues.

Even assuming a multiyear procurement block buy that cuts costs over 10%, it’s hard to see that as affordable, especially in light of the USA’s expected fiscal situation and the demands of other programs. The next major step for the program is the Q2 FY2015 Milestone A review to settle the final outline, then a JROC review in Q1 2016. Purchases would begin in FY 2020, with delivery of the 1st ship expected in FY 2025. Sources: Inside Defense, “Senior Navy Officials Tell Mabus LPD-17 Variant Is Best Option For LX(R)” and “Mabus Signs Decision Memo: LPD-17 Variant Preferred Platform For LX(R)” | USNI, “Memo: Hull Based on San Antonio Design is Navy’s Preferred Option for Next Generation Amphib”.

FY 2014

LPD 24 & 25 commissioned; Testing reports still negative; Lots of pressure to use Flight II for LX(R) – but can the Navy afford it?

LPD 25 trials
click for video

July 25-28/14: LX-R. The Navy and Marines have finished the LX(R) program’s in-depth Analysis Of Alternatives (AOA) v2.0. Rebuilding a modernized or enlarged version of the current LSD-49 Whidbey Island Class isn’t on the table for some reason. Instead, they’re focused on either a budget-killing LPD-17 Flight II (q.v. Dec 6/13), a license-built foreign design that may have trouble with higher USN survivability requirements, a clean sheet design that would be risky and potentially expensive, or some combination of JHSVs, MLP ships, and others that wouldn’t really duplicate what the LSDs do.

The Us Navy is reportedly aiming for about 11-ship class that will average about $1.43 billion per hull once they’re in production, or almost $16 billion in production costs alone. First, this figure is also substantially more than many other countries have paid for comparable ships. In many cases, it’s twice as much. One wonders where the Navy expects to find this money, given other major programs like aircraft carriers, submarines, the F-35B/C, growing healthcare costs, etc.. All at the same time as demographics start really stressing social programs, and a shaky fiscal posture for the USA as a whole.

Unsurprisingly, some high-level officials think the AoA could wind up having a v4.0 before all is said and done. Or maybe it’s time for a major break with NAVSEA tradition: a serious examination of each requirement’s defensibility, in light of the AoA. There are some signs that the Navy is asking more questions than usual this time. Sources: Breaking Defense, “‘$1 Billion-Plus Short’: Amphib Add Isn’t Enough, So Navy Wants To Repurpose It” | USNI, “Cost Continues To Drive Quest For Next Amphib”.

July 17-25/14: Political. The Senate Appropriations Committee approves a $489.6 billion base FY 2015 budget, plus $59.7 billion in supplemental funding. It includes $800 million to begin funding what would become LPD 28, to fulfill section 123 of S. 2410. Even with $243 million added from FY 2013, the Navy would only have a bit more than half of the monies required, and the SAC is also mindful of the industrial agreement with Northrop Grumman (now HII) and GD Bath Iron Works (q.v. June 8/14):

“While Congress is not a party to this agreement, the Committee directs the Navy to submit a report to the congressional defense committees no later than March 1, 2015, on the Navy’s options and potential courses of action to fulfill the requirements of the SWAP 1 agreement preceding or concurrent with when LPD 28 is placed under contract.”

The House hasn’t voted any money, and the Navy is less enthused. For starters, Sean Stackley makes it clear that they won’t issue an LPD 28 contract until all of the required funds have been appropriated. He adds that the Navy is more interested in funding the RCOH refueling of CVN 73 USS George Washington, and in other amphibious ship programs. Sources: US Senate Committee on Appropriations, “Committee Approves FY 2015 Department of Defense Appropriations Bill – Report: Department of Defense” | Breaking Defense, “‘$1 Billion-Plus Short’: Amphib Add Isn’t Enough, So Navy Wants To Repurpose It”.

June 8/14: Industrial. The Navy, HII, GD-BIW and Congress are all entangled in a ship allocation controversy, as a result of a 2002 MoU that shifted work on 3 LPD-17 ships to Northrop Grumman (now HII), in return for corresponding destroyer awards to GD Bath Iron Works.

Everything was fine until Congress began placing funding in the proposed FY 2015 budget budget for a 12th LPD 28 ship (q.v. May 23/14). If that goes ahead, does HII have to take away one of its destroyers under the current multi-year contract, and give it to GD-BIW? Bath Iron Works says absolutely, yes, and we consider that legally binding. HII says that GD-BIW winning construction of DDG 116 as an extra ship, via competitive bid, satisfies the terms as their 4th extra destroyer. The Navy says “we didn’t want LPD 28, leave us alone.” The lawyers say “job security!” Sources: Defense News, “Fallout From 12th LPD: Fine Print in Old Deal Could Cost Yard a Destroyer”.

May 23/14: Politics. The Senate Armed Services Committee has completed the mark-up of the annual defense bill, which passed by a 25-1 vote. The section relevant to the LPD-17s is explained this way:

“Provides authority for the Secretary of the Navy to use unobligated funds from underperforming programs to transfer up to $650 million for the acquisition of a 12th ship of the USS San Antonio – class of amphibious ships. Acquisition of this ship would enable the Marine Corps to better support the Asia – Pacific defense strategy. Provides permissive authority to incrementally fund LPD-28.”

Sources: US Senate Armed Services Committee, “Senate Committee on Armed Services Completes Markup of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015”.

April 4/14: LPD 24. USS Arlington is commissioned by the US Navy in Philadelphia, PA. During the ceremony and follow-on tours, the ship’s 684-foot flight deck boasted a Marine MV-22 Osprey, UH-1 Huey, AH-1 Cobra and CH-53 Sea Stallion.

The name honors the first responders and the 184 victims who died when American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon on Sept 11/01. The ship’s sponsor is Joyce Rumsfeld, the wife of then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who was in the building when the plane hit. Donald Rumsfeld initially went to the crash scene and offered some assistance, before heading back into the building by 10:00 am. Sources: Wikipedia, “United Airlines Flight 93” | US Navy, “In Emotional Ceremony, USS Arlington Joins the Fleet”.

USS Arlington

March 1/14: LPD 25. USS Somerset is commissioned by the US Navy in Philadelphia, PA.

The name honors United Flight 93, whose passengers won the battle for control of their 757 jetliner on Sept 11/01, albeit at the cost of all of their lives. It crashed in Somerset County, PA. It was reportedly headed for Congress or the White House. Sources: US Navy’s Navy Live Blog, “USS Somerset Commissioning Ceremony” | South Jersey Times, “USS Somerset sets sail down Delaware River after Philadelphia commissioning”.

USS Somerset

Jan 28/14: DOT&E Testing Report. The Pentagon releases the FY 2013 Annual Report from its Office of the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E). The short version re: the LPD-17s:

“The Navy is working to correct deficiencies identified during IOT&E that led DOT&E to assess the ship not operationally effective, not operationally suitable, and not survivable in a hostile environment. However, correction of a number of these deficiencies has not yet been verified by follow-on operational testing and some deficiencies have not been corrected [including issues from Shock Trial Reports].”

DOT&E says that some critical systems have been improved, but “the Navy has not yet demonstrated the Command, Control, Communications, Computers, and Intelligence capabilities needed to support LPD-17 when performing amphibious assault operations,” and the Shipboard Wide Area Network continues to attract scrutiny. they also maintain an interest in “reliability problems with amphibious support equipment and propulsion equipment,” “integration problems with self-defense in multiple warfare areas,” and want demonstrations of improvements re: performance issues created by the AN/APS-48Es radar mast shroud.

Reliability is also an ongoing issue, and DOT&E wants measurements for the ships as a whole, while flagging the gun systems, Magnetic Signature Control System, and SSDS Mk 2-based combat system.

Dec 6/13: LX-R. The US Navy and Marine Corps are working with HII and GD’s NASSCO to understand what’s driving costs for the proposed LX(R) follow-on amphibious ships, after the March 12/13 approval of LX(R) as a pre-major defense acquisition program. The first ship wouldn’t be ordered until FY 2019, and wouldn’t arrive until FY 2025.

CBO and Navy reports of $1.4 – 1.6 billion per ship have to be alarming. First, that’s almost as much as the 27,000 ton LPD-17s, which are already far over budget, to produce a 16,000 ton ship. Second, other countries are building similar 16,000 ton LSD/LPD ships for a bit more than a quarter of that amount. It’s well and good to jaw about a $15.4 billion, 11-ship program for medium size amphibious ships, but its future looks bleak if you project demographic effects, and overlay the other shipbuilding programs that will be underway and competing for limited funds.

The LX(R) alternatives being explored reportedly include resuming production of the LSD-41/49 ships, a modified San Antonio-class LPD-17 ship per HII’s “Flight II” pitch, a wholly new ship design, and an assessment of foreign-designed dock landing ships. Using cheaper commercial components, including propulsion systems, is also a possibility. Sources: Inside Defence, “Eying New Amphibious Ship, Navy Conducts LX(R) Affordability ‘Deep Dive'” | DoD Buzz, “Navy Considers Commercial Technology for New Amphib”.

Dec 6/13: LPD 21 moves. It’s December – time for New Yorkers to head to Florida! USS New York [LPD 21] continues this tradition, as she changes her home port from NNS Norfolk, VA to NNS Mayport, FL.

The entire 3-ship Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group (ARG) will eventually be based there, as a replacement for the decomMSioned FFG-7 Class frigates USS Underwood and USS Klakring. USS Iwo Jima [LHD-7] and USS Fort McHenry [LSD-45] are slated to join USS New York in 2014. Sources: USN, “USS New York Changes Homeport to Naval Station Mayport”.

Dec 6/13: Huntington Ingalls Industries in Pascagoula, MS receives a $39.1 million modification for LPD-17 life cycle engineering and support services: planning, repairs, spares, upgrade work, etc.

Work will be performed in Pascagoula, MS, and is expected to be complete by December 2014 (N00024-10-C-2203).

Nov 27/13: Support. Raytheon IDS in San Diego, CA receives a $32.4 million contract modification to deliver ongoing engineering and support services for LPD 17 class integrated shipboard electronic systems. the Pentagon’s descriptive hairball includes:

“…lifecycle engineering and support services, including post-delivery planning, logistics and engineering, homeport technical support, integrated product data environment, data maintenance, equipment management, systems integration and design engineering, software support, research engineering, obsolescence management (both technical and logistics), material readiness support, emergent repair planning, training and logistics support; Planning Yard support of integrated electronic systems, including fleet modernization planning, ship alteration development and installation, material management, configuration data management, research engineering, logistics documentation, and other logistics and executing activity coordination, and management; performance-based logistics support, including providing sustaining engineering and obsolescence management support for unique LPD 17 class integrated shipboard electronic systems.”

$6.2 million is committed immediately, and the award uses a hodgepodge of Navy budget lines: FY 2005, 2012, and 2014 shipbuilding and conversion; and FY 2014 operations and maintenance. $1.8 million will expire on Sept 30/14 (N00024-10-C-2205).

Nov 20/13: LPD 25. General Dynamics NASSCO in San Diego, CA receives a $12.1 million contract modification, exercising the option for Somerset’s [LPD 25] fitting-out availability. The ship hasn’t been commissioned yet.

$730,431 is committed immediately, and $215,383 will expire on Sept 30/14. Work will be performed in San Diego, CA, and is expected to be complete by December 2014. This contract was competitively procured, with 4 proposals received (N00024-12-C-2400).

Nov 15/13: LPD 17. General Dynamics NASSCO-Earl Industries, Portsmouth, VA receives an $11.4 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract for the USS San Antonio [LPD 17] phased maintenance availability. They’ll conduct miscellaneous structural and mechanical repairs. All funds are committed immediately, and will expire on Sept 30/14.

Work will be performed in Norfolk, VA, and is expected to be complete by May 2014. This contract was competitively procured via Navy Electronic Commerce Online, with 3 offers received by the Norfolk Ship Support Activity in Norfolk, VA (N50054-14-C-1401).

Oct 18/13: LPD 25 delivered. Somerset is formally handed over to the US Navy at the Avondale shipyard. Sources: HII, Oct 18/13 release.

FY 2013

LDP 24. Weapons.

LPD 23 & LPD 24
(click to view full)

Sept 20/13: LPD 25. Somerset returns from successful US Navy acceptance sea trials. Sources: HII, Oct 10/13 release.

Aug 19/13: LPD 25. Somerset returns from 3 days of builder’s trials in the Gulf of Mexico. Sources: HII release, Aug 19/13.

May 4/13: LPD 23 commissioned. The US Navy commissions LPD 23 as USS Anchorage, in her namesake city of Anchorage, AK. Her home port will be San Diego, CA. US Navy.

USS Anchorage

April 12/13: Naming. The last San Antonio Class ship is among the 7 named by Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus, who actually stuck to class naming conventions this time instead of veering into political partisanship.

LPD 27 will become USS Portland, becoming the 3rd ship in the fleet’s history to beat that name. CA-33 was a World War II heavy cruiser, named after Portland, ME. LSD-37 was also an amphibious assault ship, which was decommissioned shortly after Operation Iraqi Freedom began. It was named for Portland, ME and Portland, OR. LPD-27 is named after Portland, OR. Pentagon | Oregon Live.

April 9/13: LX(R)? USMC Commandant Gen. James Amos publicly recommends that the Navy replace its 16,360 ton LSD-41 Whidbey Island Class ships with a San Antonio Class derivative, provided it can be made affordable. The question is whether HII’s stripped-down LPD Flight II proposal drives enough costs out of the base platform to make sense. $1.5 billion per ship won’t cut it for LSD replacement, and even HII’s touted 30% savings of $1 billion for a 23,165t ship would be about double the cost of capable foreign LSDs like the 17,000t Rotterdam/JDW Class.

The Navy is currently conducting an Analysis of Alternatives for its notional 10-ship LS(X), which aims to deliver its first ships to the Navy between 2018 – 2022. It’s called LX(R) because they may want configurability for a wider range of missions than the existing LSDs. The AoA is due in September 2013. Sources: DoD Buzz, “Amos: Replace LSD amphib fleet with LPDs” | Defense News, “Different Missions Might Await New USN Amphib” | USNI News, “Second Act for San Antonio?”.

April 9/13: UAV test. Insitu Inc. announces a successful 1st maritime flight for the RQ-21A UAV from LPD 19, the USS Mesa Verde. The RQ-21A is based on Insitu’s Integrator platform, and was picked as the USMC’s small UAV back in July 2010.

The flight comes after 3 months of land-based development testing and operational assessment, and the RQ-21A’s outstanding endurance for its size will make it an important part of the San Antonio Class’ onboard equipment.

April 6/13: LPD 24 commissioned. USS Arlington is commissioned at Naval Station Norfolk, VA. US Navy Live blog.

Dec 14/12: Weapons. Raytheon in Tucson, AZ receives a $12.3 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for 4 refurbished and upgraded Rolling Airframe Missile MK 49 Mod 3 guided-missile launch systems and associated hardware. these 21-missile launch packs will equip LPD 27 John P. Murtha (2 systems), and the Freedom Class ships LCS 9 and LCS 11 (1 each). All funds are committed on award, and there are options for 4 additional launch systems.

At the time of award, a $5.5 million option is also exercised for 2 remanufactured MK 49 launch packs, with Mod 3 updates and associated hardware. They’ll equip the Freedom Class ships LCS 13 and LCS 15.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ, and is expected to be complete by December 2015. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2304c1 (N00024-11-C-5448).

Dec 7/12: Support. Huntington Ingalls Industries in Pascagoula, MS receives a $54.5 million contract modification, to exercising the 3rd of 4 options associated with the Feb 16/10 award. HII will perform Life Cycle Engineering and support services on San Antonio Class ships, with $12.9 million obligated at contract award. The total value of this contract is now $157.9 million.

Work will be performed in Pascagoula, MS, and is expected to be complete by December 2013 (N00024-10-C-2203). See also HII.

Dec 7/12: LPD 24 delivered. Huntington Ingalls Industries delivers LPD 24 Arlington to the U.S. Navy. HII.

Dec 3/12: LPD 24. BAE Systems Norfolk Ship Repair in Norfolk, VA receives an $11.1 million contract, exercising options for the USS Arlington’s fitting-out and post shakedown work.

Work will be performed in Norfolk, VA (90.53%), and Chesapeake, VA (9.47%), and is expected to be complete by May 2013. Contract funds in the amount of $2.8 million will be obligated at time of award. This contract was competitively procured via FedBizOpps, with 4 proposals received (N00024-10-C-2204).

Nov 27/12: Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems in San Diego, CA receives a $41.9 million modification, exercising Option Year 4 for LPD-17 class Integrated Shipboard Electronic Systems life cycle engineering and support services. Last year, it was $40 million.

Work will be performed in San Diego, CA (98%) and Norfolk, VA (2%), and is expected to be complete by December 2013. $7.3 million is committed on the contract’s award, and $703,893 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/13. US Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, DC manages the contract (N00024-10-C-2205).

Nov 5/12: LPD 24 trials. LPD 24 Arlington successfully completes US Navy INSURV acceptance trials. She is now set to be commissioned in Spring 2013. HII.

FY 2012

LPD 21 to 23.

Osprey onto LPD 21
(click to view full)

Sept 17/12: LPD 23 delivered. HII delivers the amphibious transport dock ship Anchorage [LPD 23] to the US Navy. HII.

Aug 24/12: LPD 24. LPD 24 Arlington returns from successful builder’s sea trials in the Gulf of Mexico. The real key is US Navy sea trials, which are next. HII.

Aug 1/12: Bolted. A new issue involving improperly installed bolts has emerged in the latest ships built by the Avondale shipyard near New Orleans. The Navy’s acceptance of LPD 23 Anchorage is now delayed, and LPD 25 Somerset is also affected.

An Ingalls inspector discovered the issue, which could lead engine mountings to shear under sudden shock, or loosen enough over time to set up damaging vibrations in the ship’s propulsion systems. Fitted bolts that don’t meet the ultra-tight tolerances for engine mountings are being replaced, and the Navy is also checking the 520 applicable bolts on every other Avondale-built ship. The problem is apparently confined to the Avondale shipyard, which has been the source of so many previous problems with the class. Ingalls-built ships from the Mississippi shipyard are unaffected. Gannett’s Navy Times.

More workmanship problems

July 28/12: LPD 25 christened. Nearly 1,800 guests attend the christening of LPD 25 Somerset, at HII’s company’s Avondale shipyard near New Orleans. LPD 25 is named to honor the courage of the passengers and crew members of United Airlines Flight 93, who fought the hijackers and brought their plane down near Shanksville in Somerset County, PA. US Navy | HII.

July 27/12: LPD 27 ordered. Huntington Ingalls Inc. in Pascagoula, MS receives the main order contract for LPD 27: a sole-source $1.514 billion fixed-price-incentive contract modification. When added to previous long-lead item orders, the shipbuilding cost is $1.8 billion, with key “government furnished equipment” like weapons on top of that.

Work will be performed in Pascagoula, MS (82%), Crozet, VA (4%), Beloit, WI (2%), and New Orleans, LA (1%), with other efforts performed at various sites throughout the United States (11%). Work is expected to be complete by June 2017 (N00024-06-C-2222). See also HII release.

LPD 27 main order

June 25/12: LPD 23 completes INSURV. HII announces that LPD 23 Anchorage has returned to her Avondale, LA shipyard, after successfully passing 3 days of Navy trials in the Gulf of Mexico. Delivery to the US Navy is set for Q3 (summer) FY 2012.

May 21/12: LPD 23 trials. LPD 23 Anchorage returns to Avondale, LA from successful builder’s trials in the Gulf of Mexico. The ship will now prepare for acceptance sea trials by the U.S. Navy’s Board of Inspection and Survey (INSURV), in preparation for delivery later in 2012. HII.

May 19/12: USS San Diego. The US Navy commissions LPD 22 into the 3rd Fleet as USS San Diego, based in San Diego. US Navy.

USS San Diego

May 15/12: LPD 27 lead-in. Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. in Pascagoula, MS receives a maximum $133.8 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract modification for advance buys of LPD 27 long-lead-time materials and pre-construction activities. HII confirms that this is their 5th long-lead materials contract for LPD 27. This brings total long-lead contracts for this ship, from all contractors, to $419.6 million.

Work will be performed in Pascagoula, MS, and is expected to complete by June 2017 (N00024-06-C-2222).

April 13/12: LPD 19. Small business qualifier MarineTec, a joint venture between Marine Hydraulics International, Inc., and Tecnico Corp. in Norfolk, VA, wins a $10 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract for USS Mesa Verde’s [LPD 19] phased maintenance availability (PMA). They’ll perform miscellaneous structural, mechanical, and electrical repairs, and the contract runs until September 2012. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11.

This contract was competitively procured via the Norfolk Ship Support Activity’s solicitation website, with 4 proposals solicited and 3 offers received (N50054-12-C-1203).

March 27/12: LPD 21 deploys. The Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group (IWO ARG) and 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit (24 MEU) depart for deployment from Norfolk and Camp Lejeune, NC, headed to the Mediterranean and Persian Gulf/ Indian Ocean areas.

The IWO JIMA ARG/24 MEU includes the amphibious assault ships USS Iwo Jima [LHD 7], USS New York [LPD 21], and USS Gunston Hall [LSD 44]; and is manned by Battalion Landing Team, 1st Battalion, 2nd Marine Regiment (BLT 1/2); Aviation Combat Element, Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 261 (Reinforced); and Combat Logistics Battalion 24. USS New York.

March 19/12: General Dynamics NASSCO in San Diego, CA receives a $29.3 million contract modification for post shakedown work on USS San Diego [LPD 22] and fitting-out work on USS Anchorage [LPD 23]. Work will include program management, planning, engineering, design, liaison, scheduling, labor, and procurement of incidental material.

Work will be performed in San Diego, CA and is expected to be complete by December 2014. US Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, DC, is the contracting activity (N00024-12-C-2400). See also Oct 7/11 entry.

March 14/12: LPD 22 captain relieved. Rear Adm. Gerard Hueber, commander of Expeditionary Strike Group 3, relieves Cmdr. Jon Haydel as captain of the “Pre-Commissioning Unit San Diego,” 1 day before it was due to leave its Pascagoula, MS shipyard for San Diego. Haydel was reportedly well-liked, and the Navy did not disclose the reasons. He was reassigned to Commander, Naval Surface Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet headquarters, pending an investigation into the “personal misconduct” allegations. Stars and Stripes.

March 1/12: LP 27 lead-in. Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems in San Diego, CA wins a $55.1 million contract modification, exercising the option for LPD 27’s integrated shipboard electronics. That’s actually a long list of items, including the engineering control system; magnetic signature control system; ship control system; navigation data distribution system; shipboard wide area network; wireless portable communication system; integrated voice communication system; sensors; Marine Corps support equipment; and AN/SPS-73 surface search radar.

Work will be performed in San Diego, CA, and is expected to be complete by February 2018 (N00024-11-C-2404).

Feb 23/12: LPD 27 lead-in. Huntington Ingalls, Inc. in Pascagoula, MS receives a not-to-exceed $70 million cost-plus-fixed-fee modification for advance procurement of long-lead-time materials in support of LPD 27. Work will be performed in Pascagoula, MS, and is expected to be complete by April 2012 (N00024-06-C-2222). This pushes announced LPD 27 long-lead contracts to $230.8 million.

HII notes that this is the 4th advance procurement contract for LPD 27 since October 2010, adding that these contracts are used for items like main engines, diesel generators, electrical switchboards, deck equipment and fire extinguishing systems. If they’re not ready in advance, they won’t be on hand when HII needs them, which would delay the build.

Dec 20/11: LPD 22 delivered. The US Navy takes delivery of LPD 22 San Diego. The crew will move aboard the ship on Jan 4/11 to begin the certification process, before a short Caribbean sail in mid-March 2012, followed by passage through Panama and then a sail up to San Diego for commissioning in May 2012.

The ship will be homeported in San Diego, alongside USS New Orleans [LPD 18] and USS Green Bay [LPD 20]. Mississippi Press-News.

Dec 6/11: Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems in San Diego, CA receives a $60.4 million contract modification to make and test LPD 26’s Integrated Shipboard Electronics, with an option for LPD 27 that would raise it to $111.3 million. Work will be performed in San Diego, CA, and is expected to be complete by February 2017 (N00024-11-C-2404).

Nov 22/11: Huntington Ingalls, Inc. in Pascagoula, MS received a $51.3 million contract modification, to provide life cycle engineering and support services for LPD-17 San Antonio Class integrated shipboard electronic systems. Work will be performed in Pascagoula, MS, and is expected to be complete by December 2012. $104,981 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/12 (N00024-10-C-2203).

Nov 22/11: Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems in San Diego, CA receives a $40 million contract modification, exercising an option to continue providing life cycle engineering and support services for LPD-17 San Antonio Class integrated shipboard electronic systems.

Work will be performed in San Diego, CA (98%), and Norfolk, VA (2%), and is expected to be complete by December 2012. $719,252 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/12 (N00024-10-C-2205).

Nov 18/11: LPD 22 passes INSURV. The US Navy’s future USS San Diego [LPD 22] completes US Navy INSURV acceptance trials. Delivery to the Navy is slated for mid-December 2011. HII.

Oct 7/11: Defense News reports that LPD 22 San Diego was damaged in late September 2011, during builder’s sea trials. A relief valve was installed backwards, causing part of the ship’s ballast system to overpressurize and damage 3 ballast tanks. The ballast tanks are used to lower the ship in the water, in order to flood its well decks.

Despite this mishap, the ballasting and de-ballasting tests were completed successfully, and Navy INSURV acceptance trials are expected to take place in November 2011.

Oct 7/11: General Dynamics NASSCO in San Diego, CA receives a $37.4 million cost-plus-fee contract for USS San Diego’s final fitting-out work, which could rise to $134.5 million if all options are exercised. That’s an unusually large figure.

Work will be performed in San Diego, CA, and is expected to be complete by December 2014. This contract was competitively procured via FBO.gov, with 2 offers received (N00024-12-C-2400).

FY 2011

Testing troubles. HII spinoff. NSSA suspended.

LPD 24 Arlington launch
(click to view full)

Sept 7/11: BAE Systems San Diego Ship Repair in San Diego, CA receives a $12.1 million contract modification for the USS Green Bay’s [LPD 20] FY 2011 phased maintenance availability (PMA). PMAs provide for an extensive renovation and modernization of an LPD class ship, including alterations and repairs as well as inspection and testing to all ships systems and components ensuring safe and dependable operation of the ship. the Pentagon says that it won’t require a dry-docking.

Work will be performed in San Diego, CA, and is expected to be complete by May 2012. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11. The US Navy’s Southwest Regional Maintenance Center in San Diego, CA manages the contract (N00024-10-C-4407).

July 13/11: LPD 20 XO relieved. Gannett’s Navy Times reports that USS Green Bay’s Executive Officer was relieved of duty by the Commodore of Amphibious Squadron 1 “after an investigation substantiated allegations of personal misconduct”. The ship is on deployment in the Persian Gulf, and Jones is being reassigned to temporary duties in San Diego with Expeditionary Strike Group 3.

The report also confirms LPD 20’s 1st mission, which began in February 2011.

July 12/11: LPD 27 long-lead. Huntington Ingalls, Inc. in Pascagoula, MS receives a maximum $98.8 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract modification for advance procurement of long-lead-time materials in support of LPD 27, the 11th ship of the LPD class. This pushes LPD 27 long-lead contracts to $160.8 million, and HII notes that the category covers “main engines and diesel generators and other equipment, including electrical switchboards, deck equipment and fire extinguishing systems.”

Work will be performed in Pascagoula, MS, and is expected to be complete by January 2012 (N00024-06-C-2222). See also HII release, Oct 20/10 entry.

May 25/11: LPD 26 begins. The official start of fabrication on LPD 26 signifies that 100 tons of steel have been cut and fabricated, using Ingalls’ robotic plasma arc cutting machines. Huntington Ingalls says that the next milestone will be the ship’s keel laying, scheduled for the first quarter of 2012. LPD 26 is scheduled to be launched in Q3 of 2014, and delivered to the Navy in Q4 of 2015.

With respect to other ships, LPD 22 San Diego will undergo sea trials later in 2011; LPD 23 Anchorage is currently 82% complete, and is expected to be delivered in Q2 2012. LPD 25 Somerset is more than 50% complete, and will be launched “in 2012.” HII.

May 6/11: Maintenance termination. NAVSEA announces that it has terminated Earl Industries, LLC’s multi-ship, multi-option (MSMO) maintenance contract for the San Antonio Class. The move comes in response to:

“…Navy findings of improper work performed and concern regarding Earl Industries’ quality assurance program and the company’s ability to control the quality and documentation of work it performs. Those concerns were triggered by the number and severity of corrective action reports issued… “The company’s performance on this contract was not in keeping with the type of quality work the Navy expects from our industry partners,” said NAVSEA Commander Vice Adm. Kevin McCoy. “These failures are unacceptable, and we have lost confidence in Earl’s ability to continue successfully performing this same type of work… under the MSMO contract.”

It’s the most severe option – a complete termination of all work in process by the Norfolk, VA contractor, as well as all options for future scheduled and unscheduled maintenance work on the class over a 5-year period. In place of Earl’s contract, the Navy plans to compete scheduled Chief of Naval Operations availability and all necessary Emergent Maintenance/ Continuous Maintenance work for the San Antonio-class ships homeported in Norfolk, among all eligible contractors in the Norfolk area.

The Virginia Pilot’s “Earl Industries’ $75M Navy contract: What went wrong?” has a pertinent examination, which notes that Earl won the contract, despite having a higher bid, on the basis of Navy evaluations of “exceptional” performance on past contracts. The firm retains maintenance contracts involving the USN’s carriers.

April 20/11: USN suspends NSSA’s warrant. The US Navy announces that it has suspended the oversight authority of its Norfolk Ship Support Activity, at Norfolk Naval Station, VA, which is responsible for supervising maintenance work done by private companies on Navy surface ships in the mid-Atlantic region. Investigations are also underway concerning specific repairs to the USS San Antonio [LPD-17].

By suspending the command’s oversight authority – formally known as its “technical warrant” – the Navy essentially said it no longer trusts it to make sure work by contractors is being done properly. The issue is reportedly that the government can’t tell, based on required reports, what work was done and what wasn’t.

Thomas J. Murphy, who had been the command’s civilian executive director since 2004, was replaced in March 2011, and sources outside the Navy said several other officials at the command were also removed. Virginian Pilot | Information Dissemination | UPI.

NSSA suspended

April 1/11: LPD 26 contract. Northrop Grumman spinoff Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. in Pascagoula, MS receives a $1.496 billion fixed-price-incentive contract modification for all detail design and construction of LPD 26. That ship is the future USS John P. Murtha, unless the name is changed during a subsequent administration.

Work will be performed in Pascagoula, MS (82%); Crozet, VA (4%); Beloit, WI (2%); and New Orleans, LA (1%). Other efforts will be performed at various sites throughout the United States (11%). Work is expected to be complete by February 2016. The contract was not competitively procured (N00024-06-C-2222).

LPD 26 main order

March 31/11: HII Spinoff. Northrop Grumman completes the $6.7 billion spinoff of its shipbuilding sector, which begins trading as Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. [NYSE:HII] Bloomberg.

From NGC to HII

March 26/11: LPD 24 christened. Northrop Grumman Corporation’s shipbuilding sector, with the U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps participating, christens LPD 24 as Arlington, in memory of those who lost their lives during the 9/11 attacks on the Pentagon. NGC.

March 8/11: US Senate Armed Services Committee hearings get a spotlight on the LPD-17 program, as ranking member Sen. John McCain [R-AZ] says in his opening statement:

“From the first ship in this class, this program has displayed major problems in terms of safety, engineering, and the quality of workmanship. Those problems have been so widespread that they give rise to concern about a broader readiness problem afflicting our surface fleet. I am gratified by the leadership of the Atlantic Fleet Commander Admiral Harvey in starting to turn these problems around. But, I am perplexed by how we got to this point. And, as to the LPD-17 class of ships, how (with five delivered and four under construction) we have been left with a class of ships that, according to the Pentagon’s chief tester is ‘not effective, suitable and not survivable in combat.’ In addition to addressing this point, I would also like our witnesses to also address what I see as an overall downward trend in maintenance funding – with the negative impact falling more heavily on the Navy’s surface combatants than on carriers and submarines.”

See: Sen. McCain statement | Hearings Transcripts, etc. | Hearings video [Flash 10].

Feb 12/11: LPD 23 launch. LPD 23 is launched into the Mississippi River. She is about 78% complete, and some new pre-launch installations include items like mechanical completion of the anchor windlass hydraulic system. US Navy.

Building LPD 23 Anchorage
(click to view full)

Dec 12/10: The Washington DC area Sun Gazette reports that LPD 24 Arlington is tentatively scheduled for christening on March 26/10, and is now expected to be commissioned into service as USS Arlington in “mid-2012” after trials.

Nov 30/10: NAVEA issues a pair of contracts for “LPD 17 class integrated shipboard electronic systems.” Services will include planning yard support of integrated electronic systems, including fleet modernization program planning, plus: post-delivery planning, logistics and engineering, homeport technical support, integrated product data environment, data maintenance, equipment management, systems integration and design engineering, software support, research engineering, obsolescence management (both technical and logistics), material readiness support, emergent repair planning, training and logistics support, ship alteration development and installation, material management, configuration data management, research engineering, logistics documentation, and other coordination, and management. The contractors will also provide performance-based logistics support, including obsolescence management support for out-of-production electronics, for “unique LPD 17-class integrated shipboard electronic systems.”

Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc. in Pascagoula, MS receives a $43.7 million contract modification. It’s the 1st of 4 annual options associated with the contract referenced in the Feb 16/10 entry, which could grow to $249.4 million. Work will be performed in Pascagoula, MS, and is expected to be complete by December 2011; but $109,947 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11 (N00024-10-C-2203). See also NGC release.

Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems in San Diego, CA received a $38 million contract modification. Work will be performed in San Diego, CA (98%), and Norfolk, VA (2%), and is expected to be complete by December 2011; but $1,134,760 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11 (N00024-10-C-2205).

Nov 23/10: LPD 24 launched. Northrop Grumman’s Pascagoula, MS shipyard launches Arlington [LPD 24]. The ship launches at 77% complete, and upgrades over previous ships-of-class include a new water purification system, and a new operating system for the ship’s computing environment. Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding’s LPD 17 program manager, Doug Lounsberry, says that: “This ship was the most complete LPD to date at time of launch and the schedule was also the shortest time from keel laying to launch.” If that has resulted in lower build costs, however, the budgets don’t indicate it.

Arlington is named for the county in which the Pentagon is located, as a memorial to the heroes and victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The ship’s christening is tentatively scheduled for spring of 2011. US Navy | Northrop Grumman.

Oct 29/10: LPD 26 long-lead. Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems in San Diego, CA receives a $7.1 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for the long-lead-time materials in support of LPD 26’s integrated shipboard electronics.

Work will be performed in San Diego, CA, and is expected to be complete by March 2012. This contract was not competitively procured, since Raytheon is set as the contractor responsible for that aspect of the ships (N00024-11-C-2404).

Oct 29/10: USN Command Failure. Based on the Bloomberg report, the naval blog Information Dissemination looks at the DOT&E reports from 2006-2009, and matches them with command histories. The results are enlightening, and the op-ed point following those report excerpts is apt:

“There are clearly issues here that raise serious questions of specific industry companies as to why they have been unable to meet requirements. There are also serious questions for the Navy though, starting with why the recommendations made by DOT&E have gone ignored for several years in a row through at least December of 2009… LPD-17 class features networks with single points of failure that appear to be perpetually unreliable, new weapon systems that don’t meet requirements, and unreliable communication and information exchange equipment – all of which piles on top of the incredible number of HM&E problems identified as a result of poor construction and shipyard practices that have had most the class sidelined.

…Admiral Harvey took over Fleet Forces Command in July of 2009, and if you look over the CRS report by Ronald O’Rourke (PDF) that lists the history of construction problems from pages 17-45 (28 pages!), 10 of those pages disclose problems identified and reported over the 15 month time period since ADM Harvey took over responsibility at Fleet Forces Command… from June 2005 until July of 2009 – 49 months – very few of the major problems that are class-wide and often discussed today were apparently identified, or reported. Why did everyone have to wait for Admiral Harvey to assume command of Fleet Forces Command… Why was ADM Jonathan Greenert, who was in charge Fleet Forces Command from September 2007 to July 2009, unable to uncover any of these issues?

…As a reward for ADM Greenert’s apparent ignorance (or intentional concealment) regarding the depth of the LPD-17 class problems – he was promoted to the Vice Chief of Naval Operations. I would also think there are plenty of questions for VADM Kevin McCoy who was the Chief Engineer in NAVSEA from 2005-2008 until he became commander of NAVSEA in June of 2008 – because all of the problems with LPD-17 took place while VADM McCoy was part of the leadership in NAVSEA over the last 5 years.

Problems with the LPD-17 class are similar to problems seen in other classes of ships built and maintained over the last several years, and these are problems that leadership at the time did not address and have gone on to cost the Navy billions to resolve. Noteworthy, as a reward for their work (and the problems listed in the Balisle Report is basically the resume of failure at Fleet Forces Command under ADM Greenert btw), the current CNO promoted these folks and the Senate approved those promotions… Screw up as a leader at sea – You’re Fired! Cost the country billions while leading ashore – You’re Promoted! That is my definition of a leadership culture that selectively applies accountability.”

Naval command failure

FY 2009 DOT&E report
(click to read)

Oct 28/10: Survivability, quality questioned by Pentagon. Bloomberg News reports on a classified report sent to Congress in June 2010, outlining Pentagon testing that found serious issues with the LPD-17 San Antonio Class’ ability to survive combat situations. Their report is based on an unclassified summary of that report, and an email response from Michael Gilmore, the Pentagon’s director of operational test and evaluation, who described the ships as “not effective, suitable and not survivable in a combat situation.” The core of those reports is that the ships continue to experience widespread, persistent engineering problems, and couldn’t continue to operate reliably after being hit by enemy fire, in part because of the engineering problems mentioned. From the Pentagon’s DOT&E FY 2009 Annual Report:

“Chronic reliability problems associated with critical ship systems across the spectrum of mission areas reduces overall ship suitability and jeopardizes mission accomplishment… Emerging results from [Navy] trials indicate the ships could not demonstrate the required levels of survivability, largely because of critical ship system failures after weapons effects.”

“…Reliability problems related to well deck ramps, ventilation, bridge crane, and Cargo Ammunition Magazine (CAM) elevators… [and] Engineering Control System (ECS), including frequent failures and high false alarm rates, and the electrical distribution system, including unexplained loss of service generators and the uncommanded opening of breakers… The Navy’s Board of Inspection and Survey (INSURV) identified similar deficiencies in identical areas (propulsion, auxiliaries, electrical, damage control, deck) during both acceptance and final contract trials across all four of the first ships of the class. Catastrophic casualties recorded prior to the Full Ship Shock Trial in LPD-19 and during LPD-17’s deployment revealed serious fabrication and production deficiencies in the main lube oil service system. The ship is capable of supporting [C4I] requirements in an ESG environment; however, reliability problems with the SWAN(Shipborne Wide Area Network) and the Interior Voice Communications System degrade command and control and are single points of failure during operations.

The LPD-17 exhibited difficulty defending itself against several widely proliferated threats, primarily due to… Persistent SSDS Mk 2-based [DID: link added] system engineering deficiencies… The ship’s RAM system provided the only hard kill capability, preventing layered air defense [DID: in fairness, the ships were designed this way]… Problems associated with SPS-48E and SPQ-9B radar performance against certain Anti-Ship Cruise Missile attack profiles [DID: also a known design limitation]… Degraded situational awareness due to Mk 46 [30mm remotely-operated] Gun Weapon System console configuration… The survivability of the San Antonio class ships appear to be improved over the LPD class ships they will replace. However, problems encountered with critical systems during testing (particularly with the electrical distribution, chilled water, SWAN, and ECS) and difficulty recovering mission capability may offset some of the survivability improvements and have highlighted serious reliability shortcomings.”

Northrop Grumman is the prime contractor and SPQ-9 radar provider, while Raytheon provides some of the items mentioned above, such as the SSDS combat system, shipboard network, etc. ITT makes the SPS-48E radar. The report comes as various firms are considering buying all or part of Northrop Grumman’s shipbuilding business. Pentagon DOT&E FY 2009 [PDF] | Bloomberg | DoD Buzz | Reuters.

Testing troubles

Oct 20/10: LPD 27 long-lead. Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc. in Pascagoula, MS receives a $62 million cost-plus-fixed-fee not-to-exceed contract modification, to buy long lead time materials for LPD 27. Work will be performed in Pascagoula, MS, and is expected to be complete by August 2014 (N00024-06-C-2222).

Oct 18/10: BAE Systems San Diego Ship Repair in San Diego, CA receives an $11.1 million contract modification for the USS New Orleans’ [LPD 18] FY 2011 phased maintenance availability. Work will be performed in San Diego, CA, and is expected to be complete by March 2011. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11. The Us Navy’s Southwest Regional Maintenance Center in San Diego, CA manages this contract.

Oct 15/10: LPD 19 switch-in. U.S. Fleet Force Command (USFF) Commander Adm. John C. Harvey Jr. announces that USS Mesa Verde [LPD 19] will replace USS San Antonio [LPD 17] in the USS Bataan’s [LHD 5] Amphibious Ready Group (ARG) in the summer of 2011. Mesa Verde, which was built in Mississippi instead of the San Antonio Class’ primary yard at Avondale near New Orleans, returned from a 7-month deployment to the Persian Gulf in August 2010, and wasn’t expected to deploy again until late 2012.

San Antonio is currently scheduled to conduct comprehensive crew certification and sea trials in early spring 2011, but Adm. Harvey would only say that: “San Antonio will deploy when it is operationally sound and ready to go.” The ship’s overhaul at Norfolk was expected to take about 4-5 months and cost $5 million, but bolts in the foundations of the diesel engines and the main reduction gears were improperly installed at the shipyard. That created vibrations in the drive train that could have completely destroyed the propulsion system over time, and repairs are now expected to take about 11 months and at least $39 million, possibly more. USFF | Defense News.

Oct 3/10: Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding loads 100,000 gallons of fuel aboard the San Diego [LPD 22]. That step requires that all of the machinery spaces are prepared and ready, and helps flush the fuel system ahead of the upcoming generator light off in November 2010.

San Diego was christened in June 2010, and is scheduled for sea trials in Q2 2011. NGC.

FY 2010

Flawed construction. Avondale shipyard closed.

LPD-17: Welcome to Norfolk…
(click to view full)

July 29/10: Flaws. Gannett’s Navy Times reports on testimony before the House Armed Service Committee’s readiness panel, indicating unique problems with USS Green Bay’s [LPD 20] steering system. That’s in addition to other problems generic to the class involving metal shavings polluting the lube oil systems and damaging the engines.

Like her sister ships San Antonio, New Orleans, and New York, all of which have experienced major post-delivery problems on top of their cost overruns, USS Green Bay was also built at the Avondale shipyard near New Orleans. Read “LPD-17 Reliability Issues Surface Again” for more.

July 13/10: Closing Avondale. Northrop Grumman Corporation announces plans to consolidate its Gulf Coast shipbuilding operations in Pascagoula, MS, and try to sell its entire shipbuilding business. Its Avondale, LA shipyard will close by 2013, transferring all LPD-related work. With the hysteria surrounding Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath a thing of the past, and a new emphasis on financial performance in the firm’s boardroom, these moves become politically possible at both the corporate and national levels.

“The consolidation of Gulf Coast ship construction is the next step in the company’s efforts to improve performance and efficiency at its Gulf Coast shipyards… Since [early 2008] Gulf Coast organization and leadership, operating systems, program execution, risk management, engineering, and quality have been the focus of intense improvement efforts. Consolidating new ship construction on the Gulf Coast in one shipyard will position Shipbuilding to achieve additional performance improvement and efficiency over the long term. Ship construction at Avondale will wind down in 2013. Future LPD-class ships will be built in a single production line at the company’s Pascagoula, Miss. facility. The company anticipates some opportunities in Pascagoula for Avondale shipbuilders who wish to relocate.

…the company expects higher costs to complete ships currently under construction in Avondale due to anticipated reductions in productivity and, as a result, is increasing the estimates to complete LPDs 23 and 25 by approximately $210 million. Of this amount $113 million will be recognized as a one-time, pre-tax cumulative charge to Shipbuilding’s second quarter 2010 operating income. The balance will be recognized as lower margin in future periods, principally on the LPD 25. The company also anticipates that it will incur substantial restructuring and facilities shutdown-related costs including, but not limited to, severance, relocation expense, and asset write-downs. These costs are expected to be allowable expenses under government accounting standards and recoverable in future years under the company’s contracts. The company estimates that these restructuring costs will be more than offset by future savings expected to be generated by the consolidation.”

Closing Avondale, LA shipyard

June 30/10: Flaws. Gannett’s Navy Times offers excerpts from a US Navy report, which indicated continued problems with basic workmanship aboard the Navy’s billion-dollar San Antonio Class ships:

“Inadequate government oversight during the construction process failed to prevent or identify as a problem the lack of cleanliness and quality assurance that resulted in contamination of closed systems,” said the Navy report, [dated May 20th but] released Thursday. “Material challenges with this ship and other ships of the class continue to negatively impact fleet operations. Failures in the acquisition process, maintenance, training and execution of shipboard programs all share in the responsibility for these engineering casualties… [With its automated systems] not functioning as designed, the ship was unable to effectively operate and maintain the engineering plant.”

The problems reported in January 2010 were traced to contaminated lube oil systems that were damaging their main engines, and USS San Antonio [LPD-17] and USS New York [LPD 21] remain affected, with San Antonio expected to be in dry dock until late 2010 as engineers attempt to repair a bent crankshaft.

Flawed construction

June 12/10: LPD 22 launched. San Diego [LPD 22] is christened. That ceremony formally gives the ship its designated name, but she does not become USS San Diego until later. Biloxi-Gulport Sun-Herald | Mississippi Press | LA Times.

June 2/10: General Dynamics Land Systems, Inc. in Woodbridge, VA receives a $22.3 million firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed fee contract for the MK46 MOD 2 gun weapon systems (GWS) and associated hardware, spares and services. There are several Mk46s in the US Navy, but this one is a 30mm enclosed turret packing a Mk44 Bushmaster chain gun and advanced sights. The turret is operated from a console inside the LPD-17 San Antonio Class amphibious ships, and the Littoral Combat Ship’s surface warfare package. This contract covers both naval platforms.

Work will be performed in Woodbridge, VA (69%); Tallahassee, FL (12%); Lima, OH (12%); Westminster, MD (4%); Scranton, PA (2%); and Sterling Heights, MI (1%). Work is expected to be complete by May 2013. $812,412 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/10. This contract was not competitively procured by US Naval Sea Systems Command, in Washington, DC (N00024-10-C-5438).

LPD-22 launch
(click to read)

May 7/10: LPD 22 launched. The future USS San Diego [LPD 22] is launched from Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding’s Ingalls shipyard in Pascagoula, MS. US Navy.

April 30/10: LPD 26 long-lead. Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc. in Pascagoula, MS receives an $184 million cost plus fixed-fee advance procurement contract modification that will provide long lead materials for LPD 26. Equipment bought under this contract includes main engines and diesel generators and other equipment including electrical switchboards, deck equipment and fire extinguishing systems, and the contract is expected to be complete by August 2012 (N00024-06-C-2222). Northrop Grumman release.

This is the second advance procurement contract for LPD 26, totaling $397.8 million; see also June 23/09.

April 14/10: USS John P. Murtha?!? The Navy announces the proposed name for LPD 26. Gannett’s Navy Times:

“Navy Secretary Ray Mabus notified Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead that he had selected “John P. Murtha” for the previously unnamed LPD 26. It’s the latest example of the Navy breaking a convention for naming its warships; the previous ships in the San Antonio class have been named for American cities.

Capt. Beci Brenton, a spokeswoman for Mabus, who is traveling on the West Coast, said she had no comment on the memo… [which] appeared to reflect both [Murtha’s] support in Congress for more of the gators and his service in the Marine Corps… But Murtha might also prove to be a controversial pick: He was accused of ethics violations several times over the course of his career and he caused outrage among Marines in 2005 when he accused troops of 3rd Battalion, 1st Marines, of “killing innocent people” in a shooting in Haditha, Iraq.”

As of April 14/10, 6 of the Marine defendants had their cases dropped, 1 was found not guilty, and SSgt. Wuterich, the last defendant, is scheduled to stand trial Sept 13/10.

April 13/10: BAE Systems Norfolk Ship Repair in Norfolk, VA won a $29.6 million cost-plus-award-fee contract for post shakedown availability of LPD 21, the USS New York. PSAs fix last-minute issues that are found on the initial shakedown cruise, after a ship’s commissioning. BAE will perform program management, planning, engineering, design, liaison, scheduling, labor, and procurement of incidental material required.

Work will be performed in Norfolk, VA (91%), and Chesapeake, VA (9%), and is expected to be complete by July 2010. Contract funds in the amount of $5,000 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured via the Federal Business Opportunities Web site, with 4 proposals received (N00024-10-C-2204).

Marines Help Evaluate
click to play video

April 1/10: SAR to 11 ships. The Pentagon releases its April 2010 Selected Acquisitions Report, covering major program changes up to December 2009. The LPD-17 program qualifies:

“Program costs increased $4,417.5 million (+31.0%) from $14,241.7 million to $18,659.2 million, due primarily to a quantity increase of two ships from 9 to 11 ships (+$2,075.5 million) and associated schedule, estimating, and other allocations[1] (+$1,291.7 million), and additional full funding and outfitting and post delivery increases associated with the quantity increase (+$484.2 million). Costs also increased due to the addition of cost to complete funding for ships 22 through 25 (+$239.0 million), Hurricane Katrina supplemental funding for ships 20 through 24 (+$192.7 million), and special transfer authority and outfitting and post delivery requirements for ships 21 through 25 (+$132.0 million).”

More ships

Feb 16/10: Northrop Grumman announces that it received a $41.3 million cost-plus-fixed fee contract for Life Cycle Engineering and Support (LCE&S) services on the LPD 17 Class Amphibious Transport Dock Ship Program. If all options are exercised, the contract has a potential value of $249.4 million.

Under the contract (N00024-10-C-2203), Northrop Grumman will provide the following services: post-delivery planning and engineering, systems integration and engineering support, research engineering, material support, fleet modernization program planning, supply chain management, maintenance and training for certain LPD 17-class shipboard systems. Work will be performed in Pascagoula, MS, and is expected to be complete by December 2010. This is a follow-on contract to one awarded in 2005 (see Feb 11/05 entry), and beyond this year, there are 4 more option years that could increase its total value.

Jan 22/10: Flaws. Following the problems with USS New York, Gannett’s Navy Times reports that:

“Inspectors are rechecking every pipe weld aboard every ship built in the last several years at Avondale, La., or Pascagoula, Miss., including destroyers and small- and big-deck amphibs, after discovering so many problems that all pipe welders and Navy inspectors at both yards had to be decertified and then recertified to work on ships… The disbarring and reapplication took place last summer, when some of the problems were first discovered… A major question was how or why NavSea’s inspectors approved work that subsequent Navy inspections later found inadequate… Inspectors are looking at the entire San Antonio class of amphibious transport docks to determine what has caused systemic lube-oil problems in multiple ships, as well as damage to engine bearings that recently sidelined the newest ship, New York.”

Most LPD-17 class ships have been built at Avondale, near New Orleans, LA – a shipyard that has has demonstrated extensive workmanship problems throughout the program. USS Mesa Verde [LPD 19], which was built at Ingalls shipyard in Pascagoula, is currently at sea, inspected, and will continue its mission to Haiti and the Middle East. USS New York [LPD 21] is dealing with lube oil and engine problems, and a bowed crankshaft that will need to be replaced in an unprecedented procedure. Northrop will pay for work on USS New York, which is still under warranty. Any problems found in other ships will be subject to negotiation.

Flawed construction

Jan 8/10: Major breakdown. The US Navy announces that a week long, at-sea examination following USS New York’s commissioning has discovered the “premature failure” of bearings associated with the ship’s Colt-Pielstick main propulsion diesel engines. After the damage was found, the ship returned to Naval Station Norfolk under its own power.

The USS New York was built in Northrop Grumman’s Avondale shipyard in Louisiana near New Orleans, as opposed to the Ingalls shipyard in Mississippi. The failed components are under warranty, and will be repaired. It’s currently unclear how long the repairs will take, however, how serious the failures are, or whether the problems affect other ships in the San Antonio class. Virginia-Pilot | Hampton Roads WTKR.

LPD 21 breaks down

Dec 11/09: LPD 23 keel. Keel-laying ceremony for LPD 23 Somerset. USN PEO Ships.

Nov 7/09: LPD 21 commissioned. The US Navy commissions LPD 21 as USS New York, at a ceremony in New York City. The ship arrived in New York on Oct 2/09 and hosted Mayor Bloomberg for the sail-in, after leaving its homeport of Naval Station Norfolk, VA on Oct 29/09. It contains over 7 tons of steel salvaged from the destroyed World Trade Center. US Navy on NYC arrival | US Navy on commissioning.

USS New York

Nov 2/09: Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems in San Diego, CA receives an $8.7 million cost-plus-fixed-fee sole-source contract covering life cycle engineering and support (LCE&S) services for LPD 17 Class integrated shipboard electronic systems. This contract includes options which could bring the cumulative value of this contract to $197.1 million.

Work will be performed in San Diego, CA (95%); Chula Vista, CA (3%); and Norfolk, VA (2%), and the base period is expected to be complete by December 2009 (N00024-10-C-2205).

FY 2009

LPD 17 repairs. LPD 21.

LPD-21, sea trials
(click to read)

July 23/09: LPD 21 passes INSURV. LPD 21 New York returns to its Avondale shipyard in New Orleans July 23 flying 3 brooms, signifying a successful sweep of its U.S. Navy Acceptance Trials. The ship demonstrated a variety of systems including main propulsion including a full power run, engineering and ship control systems, combat systems including self defense detect-to-engage exercises, damage control, food service and crew support. During the tests, its ballast system for flooding the ship’s well deck test setting a new LPD ship record for time to ballast down. Northrop Grumman release.

July 2/09: Northrop Grumman Corporation announces that the New York [LPD 21] successfully accomplished its builder’s sea trials this week in the Gulf of Mexico.

LPD 21 is under construction at the company’s Avondale facility in Louisiana. The ship is especially notable for the fact that its bow stem contains 7.5 tons of steel recovered from the World Trade Center following the terrorist attacks of Sept 11/01. NGC release | NGC video.

June 23/09: LPD 26 long-lead. Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc. in Pascagoula, MS receives a $213.8 million contract modification for long lead time materials (LLTM) in support of LPD 26, the 10th San Antonio class ship. The award covers early procurement or manufacture, inspection, test, storage and maintenance of these items, which include main engines and diesel generators. A contract for the detail design and construction of LPD 26 is anticipated in mid-2010. Work will be performed in Pascagoula, MS and is expected to be complete by December 2013.

See also Dec 19/08 entry, and the accompanying NGC release for this contract. The total cost of announced LPD 26 long-lead materials contracts so far is $223.8 million.

May 12/09: LPD 18 fixed. USS New Orleans [LPD 18] prepares to return to sea after completing dry dock repairs at the Arab Shipbuilding and Repair Yard (ASRY) Shipyard dry dock in Bahrain. US Navy photo release.

April 14/09: BAE Systems San Diego Ship Repair in San Diego, CA received a $24.7 million modification to a previously awarded contract (N00024-07-C-2200) for LPD 20 Green Bay’s post shakedown availability tasks, and acceleration of fleet required ship alterations. Work will include:

“…completion of government responsible deficiencies; correction of LPD 19 [Mesa Verde] shock trial related deficiencies, class pipe hangers deficiencies, and FCT trials cards; and the acceleration of fleet required ship alterations such as upgrades to the SWAN GiGE (Gigabit Ethernet) Upgrades, MK46 [30m RWS] Gun System Upgrade, HF-SAR, SSEE Inc E, Joint Biological Point Detection System (JBPDS) and SLQ-32 [ship electronic countermeasures system] ICAD.”

Work will be performed in San Diego, CA, and is expected to be completed by Jan. 2010. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity.

April 6/09: LPD 27 postponed. US Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates announces his FY 2010 budget recommendations. They include postponement of LPD 27 funding to build the 11th ship of class.

March 20/09: LPD 18 collision. A collision between the USS Hartford [SSN 768] and the USS New Orleans [LPD-18] in the Strait of Hormuz, slightly injures 15 sailors. Both vessels are able to proceed under their own power after the incident, although the New Orleans suffered a ruptured fuel tank, releasing 25,000 gallons of diesel fuel into the strait. US Navy | US Navy repairs photo.

Dec 19/08: Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, Inc. in Pascagoula, MS received a $10 million firm-fixed-price contract modification to a previously awarded contract, in order to buy long lead-time materials for LPD 26. Work will be performed in Pascagoula, MS, and is expected to be complete by December 2010 (N00024-06-C-2222).

Dec 4/08: Northrop Grumman Ship Systems in New Orleans, LA received a $16.8 million modification to a previously awarded contract (N00024-05-C-2217) for Life Cycle Engineering and Support services on the LPD 17 Class Amphibious Transport Dock Ship Program.

Work will be performed in Pascagoula, MS (60%) and New Orleans, LA (40%); the contract period will end the end of the fiscal year on Sept 30/09, but contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year.

Oct 31/08: Major breakdown. The USS San Antonio [LPD 17] is forced into to a Bahraini shipyard for at least 2 weeks of repairs. On Oct 9th and 17th, leaks were discovered in the pipes that deliver lubricating oil to the ship’s 4 diesel engines. The fault is classified as hazardous, because the leaks drip flammable oil into open spaces. When the ship pulled in, it was greeted by a large team of 30-40 engineers, pipefitters and welders flown to Bahrain from the U.S.

It is rare to find such serious faults in a new ship. Many analysts, including former 3-star rear admiral Rep. Joe Sestak [D-PA], see the problems as further evidence of systemic workmanship flaws.

Oct 22/08: Raytheon announces that the U.S. Navy has exercised the 3rd of 3 one-year options, paying Raytheon up to $23 million for San Antonio Class life cycle engineering and support. The original contract was issued in 2005.

Raytheon’s work on the LPD 17 program is performed at the Expeditionary Warfare Center in San Diego, CA; the Seapower Capability Center in Portsmouth, RI; and by Raytheon Technical Services Company in New Orleans, LA and San Diego, CA. Raytheon release.

FY 2007 – 2008

Initial Operating Capability. First deployment. LPD 18 to 20.

LPD-22 construction
(click to view full)

Aug 28/08: A mission, at last. The USS San Antonio [LPD 17] becomes the first ship of class to deploy on a mission, over 2 1/2 years after the ship was commissioned into service.

The ship will be part of the USS Iwo Jima’s [LHD-7] Expeditionary Strike Group, and is en route to the 5th Fleet (CENTCOM area/ Middle East) and 6th Fleet’s (Mediterranean) areas of responsibility. The Iwo Jima ESG also includes the dock-landing ship USS Carter Hall [LSD 50], the guided-missile cruiser USS Vella Gulf [CG 72], the guided-missile destroyers USS Ramage [DDG 61] and USS Roosevelt [DDG 80], and the Improved Los Angles Class fast attack submarine USS Hartford [SSN 768]. US Navy.

1st mission for the class

Aug 1/08: LPD 20 passes INSURV. Green Bay [LPD 20] passes its sea trials and INSURV inspection, clearing the way for the Navy to accept her.

During the Navy’s Board of Inspection and Survey (INSURV) Acceptance Trials, LPD 20 successfully demonstrated a variety of systems including main propulsion, engineering and ship control systems including the Shipboard Wide Area Network, combat systems, damage control, food service and crew support. Among the highlights of the trial, Green Bay successfully completed a full power run, self-defense detect-to-engage exercises, ballasting, deballasting, and steering and anchor handling demonstrations. US Navy | Raytheon.

May 8/08: Raytheon announces a $32 million contract to develop and integrate the total ship electronics systems for LPD 25, the 9th ship of the U.S. Navy’s LPD 17 class. Under the contract, awarded by Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Raytheon continues its role as the total ship electronics systems integrator for all ships of this class. Raytheon IDS will provide the Shipboard Wide Area Network, integrated product data environment, total ship information management, and integrated ship electronics architecture.

May 23/08: CRS on LPD-17s. The US Congressional Research Service releases an updated version of “Navy LPD-17 Amphibious Ship Procurement: Background, Issues, and Options for Congress” [PDF]. See also Information Dissemination’s excerpts at “Thinking LSD (X) and Motherships“.

May 5/08: IOC for LPD-17s. MarineLink reports that The LPD 17 class has reached Initial Operating Capability. The USS San Antonio is reportedly on track to deploy with the USS Iwo Jima [LHD 7] Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG) later in 2008.

IOC

March 1/08: LPD 21 launch. The US Navy christens and launches LPD 21 New York at Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding in New Orleans, LA. The ship is named New York in honor of the state, the city and the victims of Sept 11/01. A unique characteristic of the ship is the use of 7.5 tons of steel salvaged from the World Trade Center wreckage that was incorporated into the construction process. The steel was melted and formed to make the bow stem of the ship. US Navy | DefenseLINK.

Dec 21/07: LPD 25 order. Northrop Grumman Ship Systems Inc. in Pascagoula, MS received a $1 billion fixed-price incentive modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-06-C-2222), to finish design and begin construction of the 9th LPD 17 Class Amphibious Transport Dock ship [LPD 25 Somerset]. The contract includes design and engineering efforts, material procurement, testing and quality assurance required to support ship construction, initial spares and technical documentation loadout, plus management efforts – including subcontract and risk management – during the entire period of construction and testing.

Coupled with the advance procurement contract funded for LPD 25 (q.v. Nov 6/06 entry) total contracts for the ship to date are valued at more than $1.2 billion. Work will be performed in New Orleans, LA (85%) and Pascagoula, MS (15%), and is expected to be complete by November 2011. NGC release.

LPD 25 main order

Dec 15/07: LPD 19 commissioned. LPD-19 is commissioned as the USS Mesa Verde. She will ultimately join the fleet in its home port of Norfolk, VA.

LPD 19 is named for the Mesa Verde National park in Southwestern Colorado. Congress established Mesa Verde, meaning “green plateau,” as the first cultural park in the national parks system in 1906 to preserve the notable cliff dwellings of the ancestral Pueblo culture dating back 13 centuries ago. Northrop Grumman release | US Navy release.

USS Mesa Verde

Dec 15/07: The crew of the USS New Orleans [LPD 18] executes the ship class’ first amphibious launch and recovery of the USMC’s new expeditionary fighting vehicle (EFV). US Navy release.

Dec 7/07: LPD 19 Mesa Verde receives LCAC certification. The ship has already received a newly modernized hovercraft [LCAC 39], which has been through the service life extension program upgrades. See US Navy story.

Nov 26-30/07: LPD 17 passes INSURV. An INSURV (Board of Inspection and Survey) underway material inspection examines San Antonio for the 3rd time, and finds her fit for sustained combat service in the Fleet. US Navy | MarineLink.

Mesa Verde, trials
(click to view full)

Sept 28/07: Raytheon Co. in San Diego, CA received a $27.1 million cost-plus-award-fee modification under previously awarded contract (N00024-06-C-2207) to exercise an option for Life Cycle Engineering and Support (LCE&S) services on select electronic systems for the LPD 17 Class Amphibious Transport Dock Ship Program.

Work will be performed in San Diego, CA and is expected to be complete by September 2008. Raytheon release.

Sept 28/07: Northrop Grumman Ship Systems in New Orleans, LA received a $13 million cost-plus-award-fee modification under previously awarded contract (N00024-05-C-2217) to exercise an option for Life Cycle Engineering and Support (LCE&S) services on the LPD 17 Class Amphibious Transport Dock Ship Program.

Work will be performed in Pascagoula, MS (60%) and New Orleans, LA (40%), and is expected to be complete by September 2008.

Sept 20/07: LPD 19 passes INSURV. Northrop Grumman announces that its 3rd San Antonio Class ship, the Mesa Verde [LPD 19], has successfully completed its acceptance trials for the U.S. Navy. The ship will be delivered later in September 2007, and is scheduled to be commissioned as USS Mesa Verde in Panama City, Fla. on Dec 15/07. Northrop Grumman gave no further specifics, noting only that “the ship performed well”; U.S. Navy Cmdr. Shawn Lobree, LPD 19’s prospective commanding officer, said that the ship “passed all major testing events.” Northrop Grumman release.

Aug 13-16/07: LPD 19. Mesa Verde [LPD 19] successfully completes builder’s trials in the Gulf of Mexico, in a collaborative effort involving the U.S. Navy and Northrop Grumman. The ship’s compartments were 100% complete, and all systems and certifications were completed and tested 100% to pre-trial requirements. Testing was performed on the ship’s main propulsion, communications, steering, navigational, radar and other systems. Other exercises included anchor handling, flight operations, compartment air balancing, and ballasting/de-ballasting of the well deck that launches amphibious landing craft.

Note that unlike her predecessors, Mesa Verde was built at the Pascagoula, MS shipyard, rather than at Avondale near New Orleans. Next month, the U.S. Navy’s Board of Inspection and Survey (INSURV) team will conduct acceptance trials aboard LPD 19, which will involve more rounds of extensive testing of the ship’s major systems. Northrop Grumman release.

June 30/07: Flaws. The Virginia Pilot runs another article about LPD 17’s test failures and program issues. An excerpt:

“Secretary of the Navy Donald Winter criticized shipbuilder Northrop Grumman Ship Systems for substandard work and, in a letter last week, questioned the future of amphibious and destroyer ship programs under contract with the company. “By taking delivery of incomplete ships with serious quality problems, the Fleet has suffered unacceptable delays in obtaining deployable assets,” Winter wrote to Ronald Sugar, Northrop Grumman’s chief executive officer.

Two years after accepting the San Antonio, “the Navy still does not have a mission capable LPD ship,” Winter wrote… In March 2006, chief of naval operations Adm. Mike Mullen also attacked Northrop Grumman over its work quality. The average cost per ship has risen 50 percent over original estimates, according to the Navy… The worst problems were in the propulsion, auxiliary and aviation systems. Nearly two-thirds of those serious problems were discovered during an earlier inspection, reported as fixed, but still existed during the later check.

The second ship in the amphibious class, the New Orleans, has fewer problems but was still incomplete when accepted by the Navy, Winter wrote to Northrop Grumman. The company’s “inefficiency and mismanagement of LPD 17 put the Navy in an untenable position,” according to Winter.

He has assigned a deputy to perform quarterly reviews on the shipyard and all ships under contract with Northrop Grumman.”

April 14/07: Flaws. The Virginia Pilot reports that LPD-17 continues to have reliability and workmanship issues, with major failings in 3/17 tests and no ability to be sea-tested during a five-day inspection period because one of its two steering systems completely failed. See The Virginia Pilot report | full DID coverage, incl. June 30 follow-up.

Flawed construction

April 9/07: SAR Increases. The Pentagon releases its April 2007 Selected Acquisition Report, and the LPD-17 Class is one of the systems covered. Program costs increased by $1,107.4 million (+8.9%) from $12,486.6 million to $13,594.0 million, due primarily to the addition of Hurricane Katrina Supplemental funding (+$1,155.4 million).

Cost jump

LPD 18 New Orleans
(click to view full)

March 10/07: LPD 18 commissioned. USS New Orleans is commissioned at a ceremony in New Orleans. The ship’s sponsor is Carolyn Shelton, wife of Gen. Henry H. Shelton, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. See USN release | Northrop Grumman release. As of December 2007, the ship has yet to be assigned to an operational mission.

USS New Orleans

Feb 27/07: BAE Systems in San Diego, CA received an $11.3 million cost-plus-award-fee contract for accomplishment of the Fitting-Out Availability (FOA) for the Amphibious Transport Dock Ship New Orleans [LPD 18]. The contract includes performance of specified work items inclusive of tests and post repair sea trials. Work will be performed in San Diego, CA and is expected to be complete by July 2007; contract funds in the amount of $1.2 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The contract was competitively procured and posted on Federal Business Opportunities website, with 3 offers received (N00024-07-C-2200).

Nov 6/06: LPD 24 ordered, LPD 25 long-lead. Northrop Grumman Ship Systems in New Orleans, LA received a $1.45 billion modification under previously awarded contract N00024-06-C-2222 to exercise two fixed-price incentive options for construction of the 8th LPD 17 Class amphibious transport dock ship [LPD 24 Arlington], with long lead time materials and associated labor for the 9th ship of the LPD 17 Class, LPD 25.

In addition to ship production, this effort will include procurement of long lead material and also inspection, testing, storing and maintaining the long lead material. The contractor will perform material sourcing, material ordering, vendor interface and material quality assurance. The contractor will also provide management efforts, including subcontract and risk management. Work will be performed in Pascagoula, MS (90%) and New Orleans, LA (10%), and is expected to be complete by March 2011. See also Northrop Grumman’s press release.

LPD 24 main order

Dec 22/06: LPD 18 delivery. Northrop Grumman representatives and Navy officials signed documents officially transferring custody of the LPD 18 New Orleans at the company’s New Orleans facility. The ship is scheduled to be commissioned in March 2007. See Northrop Grumman release.

FY 2005 – 2006

LPD 17 commissioned.

LPD-17 commissioning
(click for full size)

Sept 29/06: Raytheon Co. in San Diego, CA received a $26.7 million cost-plus award fee modification under previously awarded contract N00024-06-C-2207, exercising an option for Life Cycle Engineering and Support (LCE&S) services on select electronic systems for the LPD-17 Class as ships are delivered and commissioned. Under this contract, Raytheon will establish integrated support services for sustainment of the complete shipboard mission systems suite that the company delivers to this class of ships. Raytheon is the prime contractor for life cycle engineering and support for electronic systems on the LPD-17 Class; see this article’s June 27/06 contract entry. Work will be performed in San Diego, CA and is expected to be complete by September 2007. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., issued the contract. See Raytheon’s October 18 press release.

Sept 29/06: Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, New Orleans, LA received a $13.3 million cost-plus award fee modification under previously awarded contract (N00024-05-C-2217) to exercise an option for continued Life Cycle Engineering and Support (LCE&S) services on the LPD-17 Class. Services include: post delivery planning and engineering, homeport technical support, Class Integrated Product Data Environment (IPDE), data maintenance and equipment management, systems integration and engineering support, research engineering, obsolescence management, material readiness team operations, emergent repair provisions (including warranty enforcement), training and logistics support. Support services include: Fleet Modernization Program planning, ship alteration development and installation, material management, operating cycle integration, availability planning, configuration data management, research engineering, logistics documentation, and other logistics and executing activity coordination, and management of all related data within the Class IPDE. LPD 17 Class Engineering: engineering, logistics, and technical studies of shipbuilding requirements and design change development. Work will be performed in New Orleans, LA, and is expected to be complete by September 2007. The Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, DC issued the contract.

July 15/06: LPD 20 christened. Christening ceremony for LPD 20 Green Bay at Northrop Grumman Ship Systems’ Avondale operations in New Orleans, LA. As one might imagine, the famous Green Bay Packers American football team featured prominently in the ceremonies.

June 27/06: Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems is subcontracted by Northrop Grumman Ship Systems to provide the electronic systems and integration for the next 3 ships in the LPD-17 class: USS San Diego [LPD 22], USS Anchorage, and USS Arlington [LPD 24]. Work also includes the shipboard wide area network, voice and video systems, et. al. The $218 million subcontract extends Raytheon’s role as the ship electronic systems integrator for the class. See Raytheon release.

June 1/06: LPD 22 & 23 ordered. Northrop Grumman Ship Systems Avondale Operations in New Orleans, LA received $2.49 billion fixed-price incentive contract for construction of two LPD-17 Class amphibious transport dock ships (LPD 22 San Diego and LPD 23 Anchorage), with long lead time materials and associated labor for a third (LPD 24 Arlington). In addition to ship production, this effort will include procurement of long lead material and also inspection, testing, storing and maintaining long lead material. The contractor will perform material sourcing, material ordering, vendor interface and material quality assurance. In addition, the contractor will provide the management efforts including subcontract and risk management. Work will be performed in Pascagoula, MS and New Orleans, LA, and is expected to be complete by October 2011 (N00024-06-C-2222). See also N-G corporate release, also Navy PEO ships release.

LPD 22 & 23 main orders

Jan 27/06: Norfolk Shipbuilding and Drydock Corp. in Norfolk, VA received a $6.8 million cost-plus-award-fee modification under previously awarded contract (N00024-05-C-2224) to exercise an option for the Post-Shakedown Availability (PSA) of the Amphibious Transport Dock Ship USS San Antonio [LPD 17]. The contract is for services and material for total fitting-out availability (FOA) and PSA efforts for LPD 17. Specific efforts include: engineering and management, labor and procurement of material to correct government responsible deficiencies and accomplish system upgrades; perform specified FOA/PSA work items inclusive of tests and post repair sea trials; task additional man-hours and material in order to complete emergent repairs. Work will be performed in Norfolk, VA and is expected to be complete by April 2007.

Jan 11/06: LPD 17 commissioned. The ship becomes USS San Antonio.

USS San Antonio

Nov 1/05: Raytheon Co. in San Diego, CA received a $19.2 million cost-plus award fee contract for Life Cycle Engineering and Support (LCE&S) services on select electronic systems for the LPD-17 Class Amphibious Transport Dock Ship Program. Work will be performed at San Diego, CA, and is expected to be complete by September 2006. Contract funds in the amount of $250,000, will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The contract was not competitively procured. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington Navy Yard, D.C. issued the contract. (N00024-06-C-2207)

Oct 18/05: LPD 22 & 23 long-lead. Northrop Grumman Ship Systems Avondale Operations in New Orleans, LA received a $50.7 million modification to previously awarded contract N00024-01-C-2224. It covers additional long lead-time materials in support of two Amphibious Transport Dock Ships, LPD 22 San Diego and LPD 23 Anchorage. The contractor will procure long lead material necessary to prepare for construction of LPD 22 and LPD 23. The effort will include not only procurement but also inspection, testing, storing and maintaining long-lead material. Contractor will perform material sourcing, material ordering, vendor interface and material quality assurance. Limited advance construction activities for LPD 22 San Diego are also included. Work will be performed in New Orleans, LA (88%) and Pascagoula, MS (12%), and is expected to be complete by January 2010.

Sept 30/05: Northrop Grumman Ship Systems Avondale Operations in New Orleans, LA received a $22.4 million cost-plus-award-fee modification under previously awarded contract (N00024-05-C-2217). It exercises an option for life cycle engineering and support services on the LPD-17 Class Amphibious Transport Dock Ship Program. Work will be performed in New Orleans, LA (80%) and San Diego, CA (20%), and is expected to be complete by September 2006.

Aug 30/05: Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Corp., Norfolk, VA, received a $5.2 million cost-plus-award-fee contract for the Fitting-Out Availability (FOA) of the Amphibious Transport Dock Ship LPD 17 San Antonio. The contract will provide services and material for the total FOA and Post Shakedown Availability (PSA) efforts for LPD 17. Specific efforts include: engineering and management in support of the FOA/PSA; labor and procurement of material to correct government responsible deficiencies and accomplish system upgrades; performance of specified FOA/PSA work items, including tests and post repair sea trials; task additional manhours and material to complete emergent repairs. Work will be performed in Norfolk, VA, and is expected to be complete by February 2006. This contract was competitively procured and advertised via the Internet, with three proposals received (N00024-05-C-2224).

April 19/05: Raytheon Co. Integrated Defense Systems’ (Raytheon IDS) role as a mission systems integrator for the LPD-17 San Antonio Class of amphibious warfare ships took another step forward, thanks to a $12.5 million subcontract from lead integrator Northrop-Grumman. Raytheon IDS will “provide performance-based logistics and establish integrated support services for sustainment of the complete shipboard mission systems suite” that the company delivers to this class of ships. Raytheon is also creating battle management systems for the Navy’s new DD (X) destroyer and CVN-21 future aircraft carriers. This will provide all three classes of vessel with a common system, improving coordination among different types of ships in the U.S. fleet. See DID coverage.

Feb 11/05: Northrop Grumman Ship Systems Avondale Operations in New Orleans, LA received a $26.9 million cost-plus-award-fee contract for LPD-17 Class Amphibious Transport Dock Ship Program Life-Cycle Engineering and Support (LCE&S) services. The LPD 17-class life-cycle engineering and support contract, worth $26.9 million, combines the expertise of shipbuilder Northrop Grumman and electronic-systems integrator Raytheon to manage critical life-cycle cost/performance ship-class drivers such as technology upgrades, software support and ship-systems integration by managing ship-class hardware and software as a single entity.

Services will include: post delivery planning and engineering, homeport technical support, Class Integrated Product Data Environment, data maintenance and equipment management, systems integration and engineering support, research engineering, obsolescence management, material readiness team operations, emergent repair provisions, and training and logistics support. Work will be performed at Pascagoula, MS (58%) and New Orleans, LA (42%), and is expected to be complete by September 2005. This contract was not competitively awarded (N00024-05-C-2217). See corporate release.

LPD 17, Dockside

Jan 15/05: LPD 19 christened. Christening ceremony for LPD 19 Mesa Verde at Northrop Grumman Ship Systems’ Ingalls Operations in Pascagoula, MS.

Dec 23/04: LPD 22 & 23 long-lead. Northrop Grumman Ship Systems Avondale Operations in New Orleans, LA received a $165.1 million maximum-priced modification to existing letter contract (N00024-01-C-2224) for to procure additional long lead-time materials necessary to prepare for construction of two Amphibious Transport Dock Ships, LPD 22 San Diego and LPD 23 Anchorage. The effort will include inspection, testing, storing and maintaining long lead material. The contractor will perform material sourcing, material ordering, vendor interface and material quality assurance. In addition, contractor will provide subcontracting and risk management. Work will be performed in New Orleans, LA, and is expected to be complete by December 2008.

Dec 11/04: LPD 18 launched. New Orleans [LPD 18] launched. Note that this does not mean the ship is finished, and indeed the ship was not yet ready to leave the New Orleans yard when Hurricane Katrina slammed into the Gulf Coast in 2005.

Nov 19/04: LPD 19 launched Mesa Verde [LPD 19] is launched, at Ingalls shipyard in Pascagoula, MS.

FY 2004 and Earlier

First orders.

From WTC to LPD-21
(click to view full)

Sept 10/04: LPD 21 keel. Keel-laying ceremony for the New York [LPD 21]. The ship will include steel in the bow section cast from salvaged portions of the World Trade Center in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

Aug 17/04: LPD 23 long-lead. Northrop Grumman Ship Systems Avondale Operations in New Orleans, LA received a $107,121,910 letter-contract modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-01-C-2224) for additional long lead time materials necessary to support build preparation for the Amphibious Transport Dock Ship LPD 23 Anchorage. The effort shall include not only procurement but also inspection, testing, storing and maintaining the long lead material. The contractor will perform material sourcing, material ordering, vendor interface and material quality assurance, and will provide the management efforts including subcontract and risk management. Work will be performed in New Orleans, LA, and is expected to complete by December 2008.

May 26/04: LPD 22 long-lead. Northrop Grumman Ship Systems Avondale Operations in New Orleans, LA received a $100,414,220 modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-01-C-2224) for long lead material and associated effort for LPD 22 San Diego. Work will be performed in Avondale, LA, and is expected to be complete by October 2008.

Nov 25/03: LPD 21 ordered. Northrop Grumman Ship Systems Avondale Operations in New Orleans, LA received an $816.6 million cost-plus-incentive/award-fee contract for the detailed design and construction of the LPD 21 New York. Included under this effort are provisioning spares, design engineering services, research and development for future product improvement and the creation of a sustained engineering environment for the ship wide area network.

LPD 21 will become USS New York, and steel from the destroyed World Trade Center has been saved for its construction. It will be melted down, and included in her bow.

Work will be performed in Avondale, LA (87%); Pascagoula, MS (12%); and Gulfport, MS (1%), and is expected to be complete by August 2007. The contract was not competitively procured (N00024-04-C-2204).

LPD 21 main order

Aug 11/03: Keel-laying ceremony for the Green Bay [LPD 20]

Feb 25/03: Keel-laying ceremony for the Mesa Verde [LPD 19].

Oct 14/02: Keel-laying ceremony for the New Orleans [LPD 18].

July 30/02: LPD 21 long-lead. Northrop Grumman Ship Systems Avondale Operations in New Orleans, LA received a $171.05 million modification to previously awarded letter contract (N00024-01-C-2224) for long-lead time materials for the New York [LPD 21]. Work will be performed in Avondale, LA and is to be complete by February 2003.

March 28/01: Litton Avondale Industries, Inc., Shipyards Division, New Orleans, LA, received an $11.3 million modification to previously awarded cost-plus-fixed-fee contract (N00024-97-C-2202) for 159,065 man-hours of engineering services in support of the LPD 17 Program. The contractor will provide product engineering, logistical analysis, and technical studies to support the LPD-17 Class ships. Services will be provided to support the integrated product data environment, engineering change analysis, life cycle support planning, and total ownership cost reduction efforts. This contract contains four options, which if exercised, will bring the total cumulative value of this contract to $41.6 million. Work will be performed in New Orleans, LA, and is expected to be complete by March 2005.

July 19/01: LPD 21 & 22 long-lead. Northrop Grumman Ship Systems Avondale Operations in New Orleans, LA received a $113.2 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for advance procurement long lead time material in support of amphibious transport ships New York [LPD 21] and San Diego [LPD 22]. The effort shall include procurement, inspection, testing, storing and maintaining long lead material. The contractor will perform material sourcing, material ordering, vendor interface and material quality assurance. Work will be performed in New Orleans, LA (50%), and Bath, ME (50%), and is expected to be complete in October 2002. This contract was not competitively procured (N00024-01-C-2224).

LPD-17 construction.
(click to view full)

May 30/00: LPD 20 ordered. Litton-Avondale Industries, Inc. in New Orleans, LA, received a $477.7 million cost-plus-incentive-fee option for the construction of the Green Bay [LPD 20], the fourth LPD-17 Class amphibious transport dock ship. Work will be performed in New Orleans, LA (83%); San Diego, CA (12.2%); Waynesboro, VA (4.6%); and Bath, ME (.2%), and is expected to be complete by December 2004. This contract was not competitively procured (N00024-97-C-2202).

LPD 20 main order

Feb 15/00: LPD 19 ordered. Avondale Industries, Inc. in New Orleans, LA received a $491.9 million cost-plus-incentive fee option to previously awarded contract N00024-97-C-2202 to exercise an option for the construction of the LPD 19 Mesa Verde. Work will be performed in Bath, ME (85%); San Diego, CA (9%); Waynesboro, VA (4%) and places yet to be determined (2%), and is expected to be complete by March 2005.

LPD 19 main order

April 28/99: AlliedSignal Technical Services Corp., Columbia, Md., received an estimated $5.9 million indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, cost-plus-fixed-fee, delivery order contract to provide systems engineering and integration support services including design, development, integration, installation, test and evaluation, certification, maintenance, modification and logistics support on a wide variety of electronic equipment, systems, and subsystems. These systems are communication systems installed on LPD 17 San Antonio, CVN 76 Ronald Reagan, and TADC (X) & JCC (X) class ships. Work will be performed in Charleston, SC and is expected to be complete by April 2000. The contract contains options, which, if exercised, will bring the cumulative value of the contract to $30 million. This contract was competitively procured with 107 proposals solicited and 3 offers received by the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Charleston in Charleston, SC (N65236-99-D-3813).

Dec 18/98: LPD 18 ordered. Avondale Industries, Inc. in New Orleans, LA received a $312.8 million modification to previously awarded contract, exercising an option for the construction of the LPD 18 New Orleans. Given the ship’s total cost this is just an initial payment, on top of previous orders for long lead-time, early construction items like engines etc.

Work will be performed in New Orleans, LA and is expected to be complete by February 2004. The Naval Sea Systems Command in Arlington, VA issued the contract (N00024-97-C-2202).

LPD 18 main order

Dec 4/98: Raytheon Systems Co., Naval and Maritime Systems Div. in San Diego, CA received a $22.5 million cost-plus-award-fee letter contract for three ship self-defense systems (SSDS) for MK 2 equipment shipsets in support of CVN 76 Ronald Reagan, LPD 17 San Antonio, and LPD 18 New Orleans. The SSDS implements an evolutionary development of improved ship self-defense capabilities against high-speed, low-flying, anti-ship cruise missiles for selected non-AEGIS ships including the US Navy’s new Nimitz Class carriers (CVN 76 USS Ronald Reagan and CVN 77 USS George H.W. Bush). SSDS will be an integration of all the ship’s self-defence systems including sensors, weapons, radars and electronic warfare, data links, the ship’s Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) with the rest of the fleet, and the Shipboard Wide Area Network (SWAN) which is a fiber-optic ship wide area computer network including both classified and unclassified components.

Work will be performed in San Diego, CA (90%), and Portsmouth, RI (10%), and is expected to be complete in February 2000. This contract was not competitively procured. The Naval Sea Systems Command in Arlington, VA issued the contract (N00024-99-C-5108).

Aug 4/98: Avondale Industries, Inc. in New Orleans, LA received a $9.7 million modification to previously awarded contract for research, development, test and evaluation of new technologies potentially applicable to the LPD-17 Class ship. This modification will cover the exploration of various emerging innovative production processes, shipboard automation techniques, and system design concepts with emphasis on reducing maintenance, manning, and radar cross section and improving structural design concepts, electronics integration and habitability.

Work will be performed in Bath, Maine (38%), San Diego, CA (32%), and New Orleans, LA (30%), and is expected to be complete in July 1999. The Naval Sea Systems Command in Arlington, VA issued the contract (N00024-97-C-2202).

Oct 2/97: TRW, Information Services Div. (ISD), Fairfax, VA received a $11.6 million modification to a previously awarded contract N00024-91-C-6456 to provide for technical and management services to support PMS 377, Amphibious Warfare Program Office and PMS 317 LPD-17 Amphibious Transport Docking Ship Program Office. This contract contains options which, if exercised, would bring the cumulative value of this contract to $24.8 million.

Work will be performed in Fairfax, VA (62%); Arlington, VA (22%); Alexandria, VA (5.5%); Chantilly, VA (4%); McLean, VA (3.5%); Severna Park, Md. (2%); and Fredricksburg, VA (1%), and is expected to be complete March 1998. This modification combines purchases for the US Navy (99%), and the Government of Japan (1%) under the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) Program. The Naval Sea Systems Command in Arlington, VA issued the contract.

Dec 17/96: LPD 17 ordered. Avondale Industries, Incorporated in Avondale, LA received a $641.4 million cost-plus-award-fee contract for detail design, integration and construction of the LPD 17 Amphibious Transport Dock Ship, with options for construction of LPD 18 and LPD 19. Teaming with Avondale on this contract are General Dynamics/Bath Iron Works, Hughes Aircraft Company, and Intergraph Corporation. Bath Iron Works will participate in the detail design and will construct the LPD 19. This contract includes options which, if exercised, would bring the cumulative value of the entire contract to $1,526,134,594. It actually ends up costing more than that for just the 1st ship.

Work will be performed in Avondale, LA (48%); Bath, Maine (32%); Fullerton, CA (16%); and Waynesboro, VA (4%). The expected delivery of LPD 17 is 67 months after contract award (June/July 2001). This contract was competitively procured with full and open competition and two offers were received. The Naval Sea Systems Command in Arlington, VA issued the contract (N00024-97-C-2202).

LPD 17 main order

Additional Readings & Sources LPD-17 Class Ship Background

• US Navy PMS 317 – San Antonio Class: 21st Century Amphibious Assault Ships. Lots of interesting development information, note that snapshot is from 2005.

• Us Navy Fact File – Amphibious Transport Dock – LPD

• HII Ingalls Shipbuilding – LPD

• HII – LPD Flight II. A stripped-down version that aims to cost less, and serve as a common base platform for everything from LSD amphibious ship replacement, to a hospital ship, to ballistic missile defense.

• Naval Technology – LPD 17 (San Antonio Class) Landing Platform Dock, USA.

• Federation of American Scientists – LPD-17 San Antonio-class.

• US Navy – USS San Antonio [LPD 17]. Official web site.

• US Navy – USS New Orleans [LPD 18]. Official web site.

• US Navy – USS Mesa Verde [LPD 19]. Official web site.

• US Navy – USS Green Bay [LPD 20]. Official web site.

• US Navy – USS New York [LPD 21]. Official web site.

• US Navy – USS San Diego [LPD 22]. Official web site.

• US Navy – USS Anchorage [LPD 23]. Official web site.

• NavSource Online: Amphibious Photo Archive – LPD-17 San Antonio. Also has detail data, but it isn’t accurate.

Background: LPD-17 Ancillaries & Issues

• DID – LPD-17 Reliability Issues Surface Again. And again. Serious issues have now affected LPD 17, 18, 20, and 21 – all built at Avondale shipyard near New Orleans.

• DID – RAM (Rolling Airframe Missile) Systems: Contracts & Events.

• GlobalSecurity.org – AN/SPS-48 Radar.

• US Navy All Hands Magazine (November 2006, pp.14-21) – Smart Design [PDF]. Talks about some of the interior features.

• US Navy Research Lab (2002) – LPD-17 Ship Protection. Good description of various measures undertaken.

Official Reports

• US Congressional Research Service (updated May 23/08) – Navy LPD-17 Amphibious Ship Procurement: Background, Issues, and Options for Congress. Note the dramatic decline in naval troop carriage/ support goals from 1980 – 2008: from 66,252 troops in 1980, steadily declining to 23,016 in 2008.

• US GAO (July 14/07, #GAO-07-943T) – Defense Acquisitions: Realistic Business Cases Needed to Execute Navy Shipbuilding Programs. Specifically addresses ongoing issues with LPD-17 construction and quality.

• US GAO (March 30/06, #GAO-06-587T) – Defense Acquisitions: Challenges Associated with the Navy’s Long-Range Shipbuilding Plans.

News and Views

• CDR Salamander’s LPD-17 archive. A naval milblogger has been tracking the LPD-17 program for a couple of years. Archive includes INSURV reports from public sources and even back-channel sources. Not a professional industry publication, but interesting in its own way and has some informative material.

• CDR Salamander (Nov 29/10) – LPD-17: How much to change out a diesel again? Chart and records show a shipyard that simply is not performing.

• TIME Magazine (Nov 12/09) – The Navy’s Floating Fiasco.

• Information Dissemination (May 15/08) – Thinking LSD (X) and Motherships. Most interesting for its tracing of shifting/declining US Navy ship buying plans, in order to meet an unchanged goal of transporting 2 Marine Expeditionary Brigades.

• Virginia Pilot (June 30/07) – Navy ship $840 million over budget and still unfinished.

• Virginia Pilot (April 14/07) – New Navy ship San Antonio found to be rife with flaws. Reports on a 2007 test that couldn’t even be completed.

• San Antonio Express-News (Dec 22/05) – Ship has drained off an ocean of money [dead link].

• Navy Times (Dec 19/05) – Smoother Sailing for San Antonio; after being battered by Hurricane Katrina, the ship is finally ready to join the fleet.

• DID (Oct 19/05) – Long-Lead Materials Bill for 2 San Antonio Class Ships Rises to $536.6M.

• DID (Sept 1/05) – LPD 17 USS San Antonio in Fitting Out Stage.

• San Antonio Express-News (July 31/05) – Assault ship never had smooth sailing. Details problems with the LPD-17 Class, and specifically with the construction of the LPD 17 USS San Antonio.

• DID (July 27/05) – $9.8M to Upgrade & Maintain 2 Naval Radar Systems.

• San Antonio Express-News (July 22/05) – Report on USS San Antonio (transcript re: acceptance trials). Accompanies the same-day article “Report paints USS San Antonio as lemon.”

• The Times of London (May 22/05) – Warship built out of Twin Towers wreckage. Refers to the USS New York [LPD 21].

• DID (April 21/05) – Raytheon Gets $12.5M S.I. Subcontract for LPD-17 Ships.

• DID (March 18/05) – Cost Overruns, Budget Uncertainties Hurting USN and Contractors. Documented some of the problems with LPD 17 and LPD 18, as well as more general issues faced by US naval contractors.

• New Orleans Times-Picayune (March 16/05) – Budget Broken on Navy Vessels [link dead].

Giraffe AMB radar
(click to view full)

In recent years, the Baltic States have made efforts to implement short-range air defense programs, though to date these have mostly been efforts to defend vital targets within their countries as opposed to any effort at national air defense. While Latvia and Lithuania opted for Sweden’s unjammable laser-guided RBS-70, Estonia went in a different direction.

After narrowing the competition to Raytheon’s FIM-92 Stinger and MBDA’s Mistral, the Estonian government announced the winner of a 1 billion Kroon (currently about $84.5 million) contract on Feb 28/07 for Mistral missiles, networked via Saab’s Giraffe 3D radars. Now the first systems are being delivered, and a Finnish decision will also help deliver complementary long-range radars to Estonia.

Estonia’s New Systems

SAF Mistral firing post
(click to view full)

The winners were MBDA and Saab, who will deliver Mistral man-portable anti-aircraft missiles, linked to coordination posts and Saab’s Giraffe AMB radars. The delivered system will be fully NATO-compatible by using NATO data links such as Link 11B and LLAPI, integrated by Saab Microwave Systems.

MBDA data gives Mistral a maximum range of about 6.5km, and a maximum intercept altitude of 3km, making it a A VSHORAD (Very SHOrt Range Air Defense) system. Estonia brings the number of countries who have bought Mistral to 27; the missile is also packaged for use by ground vehicles (Atlas, Albi), ships (Sadral, Simbad) and helicopters (Atam). MBDA is jointly owned by BAE Systems (37.5%), EADS (37.5%) and Finmeccanica (25%).

Estonia’s 1st Infantry Brigade will receive the systems in accordance with the 2005 “National Military Strategy” [RTF format] and 2004-2006 Defence budget [Excel format] in order to defend the brigade against air attack in Estonia and/or during NATO missions. See also this summary of Estonia’s security policy & memberships.

MBDA France and Saab AB will deliver their products to the Ministry of Defence over the next 2 years. In an unusual move for Estonia, which is often touted as a classic success story for free-market policies, the government is also requiring equivalent EEK 1 billion industrial/ research offset contracts from the winners. See government release [English version] | Saab release.

Updates

Ground Master, mobile
(click to view full)

June 14/18: Purchase again Estonia is again opting for the Mistral short range air defense missile. The $59 million deal between the Eastern-European nation and the French missile manufacturer MBDA also includes man portable surface to air missiles, training missiles, simulators and testing and maintenance equipment. Under the terms of the contract, Estonia will continue acquiring Mistral SHORAD missiles in their latest generation which provide increased accuracy and longer service life than missiles of previous generations. The fully autonomous ‘fire and forget’ Mistral 2 missile is equipped with a two-stage solid propellant rocket motor and carries a 3kg high-explosive warhead loaded with tungsten ball projectiles. Guidance is by passive infrared homing using an indium arsenide detector array operating in the three to five-micron waveband. Compared to any other low-level air defense missile, Mistral is more reliable and successful. It has a success rate of 93%. The current contract also includes options for additional missiles up to the amount of $117 million, with the first deliveries to expected by 2020.

March 26/13: GM400. An official ceremony is held on Muhu island in Estonia to mark the entry into service of Estonia’s first Ground Master 400 long-range air defense radar system. The GM 400 is designed for both fixed site operation under a radome at Muhu base, and for rapid deployment in the field on a Sisu truck.

This GM 400 will be connected to NATO’s wider battle networks, and can be interconnected with all the other air defense radars deployed across Europe.

May 5/09: GM400. ThalesRaytheon Systems announces a EUR 200 million ($265 million equivalent) contract to deliver radars and upgrades to Finland, and provide Estonia with long-range air defense radars that can cue their SHORAD defenses.

ThalesRaytheon will deliver 12 Ground Master 403 radar systems to Finland, and exercise an option to work with Finnish vehicle-maker Sisu to deliver another 2 systems for Estonia. The S/I/J band Ground Master 403 radars have a surveillance range of about 440km/ 273 miles, and are designed for deployment in remote areas and hostile climates. Mounting them on Sisu trucks will make them fully mobile.

This will be the largest order so far for the Ground Master family, which has already been purchased by France, Malaysia and Slovenia.

Aug 14/08: SHORAD. The Estonian Ministry of Defence confirms that the new SHORAD systems arrived in Tallinn in the end of July 2008. The first consignment included firing equipment, Mistral training missiles, simulators and testing and maintenance equipment. The spare parts kit was also delivered in July, in a separate shipment.

Air Defence Battalion officers and NCO training will begin in September 2008, organized by MBDA and SAAB instructors. The first training cycle will be taking place at Tapa Air Defence Battalion and the second in France. The next weapon system consignment is expected to arrive in the beginning of 2009.

AH-64 in Afghanistan
(click to view full)

The AH-64 Apache will remain the US Army’s primary armed helicopter for several more decades, thanks to the collapse of the RAH-66 Comanche program, and the retirement sans replacement of the US Army’s Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter (ARH). Apaches also serve with a number of American allies, some of whom have already expressed interest in upgrading or expanding their fleets.

The AH-64E Guardian Block III (AB3) is the helicopter’s next big step forward. It incorporates 26 key new-technology insertions that cover flight performance, maintenance costs, sensors & electronics, and even the ability to control UAVs as part of manned-unmanned teaming (MUT). In July 2006, Boeing and U.S. Army officials signed the initial development contract for Block III upgrades to the current and future Apache fleet, via a virtual signing ceremony. By November 2011, the 1st production helicopter had been delivered. So… how many helicopters will be modified under the AH-64 Block III program, what do these modifications include, how is the program structured, and what has been happening since that 2006 award? The short answer is: a lot, including export interest and sales.

The AH-64 Apache Program: Sunset, Sunrise Executive Summary

The AH-64E/ Block III has gone from its 2006 development contract to full production, with no major deficiencies noted in testing. By the end of 2014, all Apache helicopters rolling out of Mesa will be AH-64Es. Features like full UAV control are keeping this 1980s airframe at the leading edge of technology, and interest has been brisk.

The AH-64A/D Apache has become a dominant attack helicopter around the globe, in service abroad with Britain, Egypt, Greece, Israel, Japan, Kuwait, the Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, and the UAE. All are strong candidates for AH-64E upgrades at some point, and some have already placed formal export requests.

Work at the Mesa, AZ manufacturing facility has been running steadily since the AH-64 program’s inception in the early 1980s, but a large share has involved less expensive refurbishment and upgrades. The Block III program continues that tradition, and most AH-64Es will be remanufactured. Countries who buy the AH-64 for the first time, or expand their fleets, will receive new-build helicopters.

There is a market for that. In recent decades, Boeing’s AH-64 Apache has eclipsed Bell Helicopters’ AH-1 in the market Bell founded, and has dealt likewise with new competitors like Eurocopter’s Tiger, AgustaWestland’s A/T129, and Russia’s Mi-28/ Ka-52. Russia’s Mi-24/25 family, which also dates back to the 1980s, is the only platform with similar customer reach, but their customer pools don’t overlap much.

The AH-64E/ Block III has been ordered by the USA (701 planned), Indonesia (8) South Korea (36), Saudi Arabia (up to 70), and Taiwan (30).

Formal DSCA export requests without any confirmed orders yet include India (22 new), Qatar (24), and the UAE (60), with more expected to follow.

AB3 Program

Excel
download

The US Army aims to perform Block III/ AH-64E upgrades to all of the current Block I and II Apaches, their 68 wartime loss replacements, and recently-built AH-64 Extended Block II/+ helicopters. War replacement helicopters bought after FY 2012 will be new-build AH-64Es.

According to Boeing, Low-Rate Initial production involved 2 lots, and totaled 51 helicopters. LRIP Lot 1 was for 8 helicopters. LRIP Lot 2 was divided up into 3 tranches of 16, 19, and 8 helicopters. The Lot 3 contract was delayed so long that Lots 3-4 began Full Rate Production in 2014.

The original plan involved the AH-64’s 2nd re-manufacture program at around $16 million per helicopter. That isn’t cheap, but it’s much cheaper than a new-build AH-64E’s price tag of $40 million or so. The Army still needed new-build production of 56 helicopters, however, in order to reach the program goal of 690.

International AH-64E sales are expected to be a combination of re-manufacture and new-build orders, depending on whether the countries in question already field AH-64s, and how large they want their fleet to be. To date export customers include Taiwan (30 new-build) and South Korea (36 new-build), and Saudi Arabia has begin placing orders. Formal DSCA requests have been made for up to 183 more by India (22 new), Indonesia (8 new), Qatar (24 new), Saudi Arabia (70, most new) and the UAE (60, incl. 30 new).

The AH-64E Apache Guardian

(click for video)

The AH-64E Apache Guardian incorporates 26 new technologies designed to enhance the aircraft’s capabilities.

Flight performance: One set of advances are tied to helicopter’s flight performance. They include enhanced -701D engines with improved digital electronic control (DEC); upgraded drive systems including a split-torque face gear transmission, which increases power throughput by more than 20% (to 3,400 shp) without taking up more room; and a new composite rotor blade. The new composite rotor blades, which successfully completed flight testing in May 2004, work with the improved engines to increase the Apache’s cruise speed, climb rate and payload.

Overall, the front-line payoff is a higher hover ceiling altitude, at greater gross weight, on a 95F-degree day. That’s very useful in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. The new avionics will also help, by allowing the new Block III helicopters to fly in clouds and inclement weather that would have grounded earlier models. Pilots in pre-training noticed the additional power very quickly, and pilots on the front lines found that they could now keep up with CH-47F Chinook heavy transport helicopters on escort missions.

Sensor performance: Block III upgrades are designed to extend the Apache’s sensor range in all domains, and may eventually be paired with new extended range weapons like the planned JAGM Block 1.

The mast-mounted radome that defines the current Apache AH-64D Longbow houses the AN/APG-78 Longbow fire control radar. Its millimeter-wave sensing improves performance under poor visibility conditions, and is less sensitive to ground clutter. The short wavelength also allows a very narrow beam-width, which is more resistant to countermeasures as it’s trying to guide the helicopter’s missiles to their targets. Block III will extend that radar’s range, or give commanders the option of trading it for an Unmanned Aerial Systems Tactical Common Data Link Assembly (UTA) that’s mounted in the same place on the mast.

UAV Synergy: The UTA will provide advanced “Level IV MUM” control of UAVs’ flight, payloads, and even laser designators from inside the helicopter, while streaming their sensor feeds back to the Apache’s displays. That level of control is causing a rewrite of existing tactics, techniques and procedures. U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command capability manager Col. John Lynch offers one example of what can be done when UAV sensor and flight control is added:

“For example, with the Block III Apache you might have a UAS that’s overhead looking down into urban canyons; with Manned-Unmanned Teaming you have the ability to designate targets and you can see what is in the area where you are going to operate.”

That would have been very relevant to operations in Iraq, before the USA’s destruction of Iranian intelligence networks in that country neutralized the shoulder-fired missile threat.

Electronics & displays: Behind those sensors, AH-64D Block IIIs will add open systems architecture electronics to create more standardization and “switchability,” embedded diagnostic sensors to improve maintenance, extended range sensing, wideband network communications for high-bandwidth networking, Link 16 for shared awareness, and high capacity data fusion computers to merge off- and on-board sensor imagery into a single shared picture of the battlefield.

Other electronic systems will be added over time, and will take advantage of the new electronics architecture. A new and improved IHADSS helmet display is one example. The prototype Ground Fire Acquisition System, (GFAS) is another, and will soon undergo a “user evaluation” in theater. GFAS cameras and infrared sensors detect the muzzle flash from ground fire, classify the firing weapon, and move the information through an Aircraft Gateway Processor into the cockpit. Pilots immediately see the enemy icon on their display screen, integrated with Blue Force Tracking maps. GFAS is expected to find its way into the entire US Apache fleet, but the Block III’s open architecture electronics and convenient rebuild status will make it an attractive destination for early installs.

Upgraded versions of the AN/ARC-231 Skyfire system will form the core of its initial radio capability. SATCOM (Satellite Communications) and Link-16 will supplement those capabilities, improving the helicopter’s ability to receive or share data. New AMF JTRS radios won’t become part of the AH-64E’s communications system until the SALT terminal is added; a full production decision is expected in 2016.

Changes in Production Lots 4-6 will include better embedded diagnostics, APG-78 Longbow radar improvements to add range and over-water capability; and STT Link-16 to share the same view of enemy and friendly units with participating fighters, ships, air defense systems, etc. A Cognitive Decision Aiding System (CDAS) is a cumbersome name for a usegful system, designed “to help the pilot and the crew with some of those tasks that tend to get a little cumbersome at times.”

Contracts and Key Events

Unless otherwise noted, the Army Aviation and Missile Command at Redstone Arsenal, AL manages these contracts. Note that Longbow LLC is a joint venture between Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman.

FY 2016 – 2018

Taiwan’s Apache fleet Rusting; First AH-64E destined for South Korea.

AH-64E & Mi-35P
(click to view full)

June 14/18: India requests FMS India has requested the purchase of six AH-64E Apache helicopters. The possible US foreign military sale is valued at $930 million. The AH-64E Guardian Block III (AB3) is the helicopter’s next big step forward by incorporating 26 key new-technology insertions. If the deal goes through India would receive the newest Block III helicopters and up to 180 AGM-114L-3 Hellfire Longbow missiles, 90 AGM-114R-3 Hellfire II missiles, 200 Stinger Block I-92H missiles and other equipment ranging from fire control radars to ammunition. The prime contractors will be Lockheed Martin, General Electric, and Raytheon. This proposed sale would strengthen the US-Indian strategic relationship and to improve the security of an important partner in a region that is currently highly contested.

June 8/18: Indonesia support Boeing has outlined its industrial collaboration engagement with Indonesia as part of its foreign military sale contract to supply the nation with eight AH-64E Apache Guardian attack helicopters. The AH-64E Guardian Block III incorporates 26 key new-technology insertions that cover flight performance, maintenance costs, sensors & electronics, and even the ability to control UAVs as part of manned-unmanned teaming (MUT). The contract includes supporting the Indonesian Army with technical reach-back support, spares and repairs. The helicopter purchase also includes the training of Indonesian Army maintenance personnel training provided by Boeing and the US Army. Boeing is currently in negotiations with the Indonesian aerospace firm PT Dirgantara, which is looking to play a role in supporting the Apaches in operation with the Army by providing spare parts and maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) services. Indonesia will use the helicopters to defend its borders, conduct counterterrorism and counter-piracy operations, and control the free flow of shipping through the strategic Straits of Malacca.

April 23/18: Army deliveries halted! Quality control issues at Boeing has caused the US Army to halt deliveries of AH-64E Apache helicopters to the service. The issue in question involves a strap pack nut on the main rotor that is corroding in coastal environments. According to Brig. Gen. Thomas Todd, program executive officer for Army aviation, the nut in question holds very large bolts that subsequently hold the rotor blades on the helicopter and is therefore determined to be a critical safety item. While Boeing had already commenced redesign efforts of the bolt in the second half of 2017, the Army decided in February to not accept Echo models of the Apache, adding in March that it would stop taking receipt of helicopters permanently until the company began fielding a new and improved, acceptable strap pack nut. Todd added that Boeing had been working at a “very thorough but expeditious pace over the last six months.” “We are in testing as we speak.” In addition to the Army, the Apaches latest model has found customers in the government’s ofIndia, Indonesia, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, South Korea and Taiwan.

February 27/18: FMS-India The Indian government has issued a Letter of Request (LoR) to the US government for six additional AH-64E Apache helicopters. Funding for the purchase had been cleared in August 2017 as an option to a 2015 contract for 22 Apache helicopters and 15 CH-47 Chinook heavy-lift helicopters for its air force, however, the LoR officially kicks off the formal foreign military sales request with this batch of helicopters destined for the Indian Army. The first of the choppers are expected to be delivered in 2019 and will replace the mainly Russian-made platforms currently in its inventory.

February 22/18: FMS-Upgrade/Remanufacture A Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) statement released Tuesday announced the US State Department’s clearance of the possible foreign military sale in support of the upgrade/remanufacture of AH-64D Block II Apache Attack Helicopters to the AH-64E configuration for the Royal Netherlands Air Force. Worth and estimated $1.191 billion, the package will see 28 Apaches under the deal, as well as 51 T700-GE-701C engines to T700-GE-701D, 17 new AN/APG-78 Fire Control Radar and subcomponents, 28 AN/ASQ-170 Modernized Target Acquisition and Designation Sights, twenty-eight AN/APR-48B Modernized Radar Frequency 70 Embedded Global Positioning System/Inertial Navigation Systems, plus associated training support and equipment. Boeing and Lockheed Martin have been listed as the contract’s principal contractors.

January 26/18: Contracts-Helmets EFW—a subsidiary of Israeli defense electronics specialist, Elbit Systems—has received a $12.6 million Department of Defense (DoD) firm, fixed-price contract to provide Apache Aviator Integrated Helmets (AAIH) and associated spare parts for the US Army. Worn by pilots of AH-64 Apache helicopters, the helmet boasts a heads-up display that delivers targeting information and infrared imaging to the helmet display. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of January 31, 2022. In July 2017, it was announced that Gentex Corp. would upgrade the AAIH, with contract completion expected for June 2022.

January 23/18: Taiwan-Operational Units Following a series of rigorous operational testing and evaluation, the Taiwanese Army’s 601st Brigade is expected to enter its second AH-64E Apache unit into service later this year, an anonymous officer has told local media. Based on the island’s north-western Taoyuan district, the command’s 601st Brigade has been training personnel and upgrading its equipment since 2013, with the first Apache unit formally commissioned in June 2017 under the Second Apache Combat Squadron. 30 E-model Apaches were delivered to the 601st Brigade between November 2013 and October 2014, however, one was lost in a crash during a training flight in April 2014.

December 20/17: FMS-Deliveries Indonesia has received the first of eight ordered AH-64E Apache Guardian attack helicopters, with the rotorcraft touching down in Semarang on the island of Java in a USAF C-17A Globemaster III airlifter on Monday. The $1.42 billion sale also includes associated equipment and spares that included the Northrop Grumman AN/APG-78 Longbow Fire Control Radar and 140 Lockheed Martin AGM-114R3 anti-tank missiles, and will help Jakarta “defend its borders, conduct counterterrorism and counter-piracy operations, and control the free flow of shipping through the strategic Straits of Malacca,” according to the 2012 foreign military sales (FMS) request. The Apache’s manufacturer Boeing is also continuing to market its CH-47 Chinook heavy lift helicopter to Indonesia, with meetings conducted last week between Indonesian Defence Minister Ryamizard Ryacudu and Boeing Defence and Space’s regional director and vice president for Indonesia and Malaysia, Yeong Tae Pak over future defense procurement cooperation. As well as discussing an offset program that will boost Indonesia’s domestic defense industry,Pak extolled the virtues of the Chinook as a multi-mission platform capable of roles ranging from special forces support to disaster relief.

November 15/17: Testing AH-64E Apache Guardian helicopters from South Korea participated in their first live-firing of AGM-114 Hellfire air-to-surface missiles during exercises on Monday. Located at a range off the western coastal city of Gunsan, all helicopters completed a 60Km flight before launching their munitions from different distances and in different manners so that pilots can better familiarize themselves with the missile, and all Hellfires made their target. Four additional Apaches also joined the exercise as command and back-up planes. Seoul has been operating 36 E-model Apaches since January of this year, with US Force Korea also operating 48 Apaches on the peninsula.

November 14/17: Deployment The latest version of the Apache, the AH-64E, has been deployed to Europe for the first time. A total of 24 E-model Apaches have made their way to Germany as the 1st Air Cavalry Brigade, with the Army’s 1st Cavalry Division out of Fort Hood, Texas, and have relieved the 10th Combat Aviation Brigade, with the Army’s 10th Mountain Division out of Fort Drum, NY, which has been training with about 20 countries for nine months as part of Operation Atlantic Resolve—Washington’s commitment to countering Russian aggression in Eastern and Northern Europe by training allies and holding joint multi-national exercises. The 1st ACB will now spend the next nine months based at at Illesheim Army Airbase, Germany and will be the only US Army unit in Europe with the upgraded helicopter.

November 2/17: The US Army has awarded a production contract to L3 Technologies for its Manned/Unmanned Teaming-eXpanded Capabilities (MUMT-X) program for AH-64 Apache attack helicopters. Valued at $97 million, L3 2ill provide Apache MUMT-X above-rotor Unmanned Aerial System Receive technology solutions to support MUMT operations and air-to-air-to-ground line-of-sight data links—a more robust, lighter and less expensive system than the original Unmanned Aircraft System control system currently used. Work will be under taken by L3’s division, L3 CS-West, specialists in high-performance networks.

June 28/17: Raytheon have tested a high energy laser system installed on a AH-64 attack helicopter. The test at the White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, saw the helicopter go airborne with the system before successfully engaging several targets, including a tank. The system saw Raytheon pair a variant of the Multi-Spectral Targeting System, an advanced electro-optical infrared sensor, with a laser. The MTS provided targeting information, situational awareness and beam control. The demonstration marks the first time that a fully integrated laser system successfully engaged and fired on a target from a rotary-wing aircraft over a wide variety of flight regimes, altitudes and air speeds.

June 27/17: Taiwan has declared the first of its AH-64E helicopters operational in line with plans to establish two squadrons by the end of the year. 30 models were ordered by Taipei back in 2008 at a cost of $2.5 billion. The first squadron will initially serve as a reserve unit while the second will be established first as its pilots, equipment and training have already met the ministry’s standards during a series of tests. Each squadron will be given separate insignia and gear to signify its role in independent operations.

May 24/17: The Indian government is likely to approve an Army plan to to buy 11 AH-64 attack helicopters. A previous batch of 22 Apaches had been ordered for the Air Force in 2015, but an initial procurement designated for the Army had been rejected by the previous government. The additional helicopters will now be purchased out of an optional clause in the original 2015 deal through the US Foreign Military Sales program.

March 19/17: Boeing and the US Army have signed a five-year $3.4 billion contract that will see the company provide Apache helicopters to both the US Army and the government of Saudi Arabia, marking the first multi-year agreement for the helicopter’s “E” variant . Under the deal, Riyadh will receive 24 brand new Apache Guardians while the Army will receive 244 remanufactured aircraft, with work expected to be completed by June 30, 2022. Saudi Arabia’s procurement of Apaches is part of an effort to build a 156-strong rotary-wing force and they have so far procured 36 helicopters in the last two years.

October 5/16: Lockheed Martin is to upgrade a target acquisition and vision sensor aboard US Army AH-64E Apache helicopters. The upgrade to the Modernized Target Acquisition Designation Sight/Pilot Night Vision Sensor, or M-TADS/PNVS on the AH-64E was commissioned by the Army under a $49 million contract. Lockheed said that under the award it will produce an additional 42 Modernized Day Sensor Assembly upgrade kits and spares for the US Army as part of Lot 1 production at two of its facilities in Florida.

July 15/16: Boeing and MBDA have conducted successful life-fire testing of the Brimstone missile on the AH-64E attack helicopter. Funded by the UK MoD, the nine month integration project saw both companies collaborate on a leased AH-64E from the Pentagon. The weapon’s Semi-Active Laser (SAL), Dual Mode SAL/millimetric wave (mmW) and fully autonomous mmW guidance modes were tested while the helicopter was hovering, moving and maneuvering/banking.

June 9/16: Boeing has been awarded a $667 million US Army contract to supply 24 AH-64E Apache helicopters to Qatar. Included in the deal are 1 Longbow crew trainer, ground support equipment, and Thales radios. The deal comes ahead of a planned five-year multi-year contract, which Boeing is hoping to sign in fiscal year 2017. The manufacturer is working with the US Army to accelerate the agreement of such a deal, which would cover the production of 275 aircraft – plus options to ramp up to 450 to support potential export deals – between then and FY2022.

June 1/16: It’s been reported that the British government is set to buy 50 AH-64E Apaches off-the-shelf from Boeing in a deal expected to be worth $2.9 billion. The announcement confirming the sale is expected to be made at the Royal International Air Tattoo or Farnborough air show in July. This will disappoint Leonardo-Finmeccanica who hoped to instead land the contract producing the helicopters at its Agusta-Westland plant in Yeovil, Somerset.

May 31/16: The United States Special Operations Command (SOCOM) intends to mount a laser weapon on an AH-64 Apache attack helicopter, with feasibility tests to commence this summer. According to Col. John Vannoy, the Program Executive Officer Rotary Wing Programs, much of the information regarding the test “will be internal,” however the office envisions using the laser weapon to destroy vehicles or generators as opposed to sending in a missile that could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. An expansion of the program could also see the weapon mounted on the MH-60 Black Hawk.

May 20/16: An AH-64 attack helicopter taking part in an exercise at the National Training Center in the Mojave Desert was forced to land after a soldier from Joint Base Lewis-McChord damaged the rotor-craft with live rounds. According to reports, the soldier in question was role playing as OPFOR and his rifle had a blank-fire adapter which was blown off by the first live round. While the OPFOR is usually not issued live rounds, the soldier apparently used a live magazine issued from his home station and scored 5-7 hits on the Apache.

April 26/16: Boeing’s AH-64 Apache attack helicopters are the most likely selection to be made by Poland in an acquisition that could cost up to $1.6 billion. The helicopters will go to the country’s Air Force as part of a widespread military modernization started by the previous government, known as the Kruk program. Under the previous administration, some $33.6 billion was to be spent on new hardware by 2022; however, Defence Minister Antoni Macierewicz recently said the program was underfunded, with at least $61.1 billion needed to carry out the required reforms.

April 11/16: Boeing will provide another 117 AH-64E re-manufactured Apache helicopters to the US Army. The contract will earn the company $922.6 million with work estimated to be completed by May 31, 2018. It follows the announcement in March by the DoD that the Army had awarded a contract of nearly $185 million for an undisclosed number of the heavily armored attack helicopters.

March 22/16: AH-64 Apache helicopters are likely to receive a turret upgrade next year, which could save the Army up to $500 million in operations and life-cycle costs. Lockheed Martin began developing a High Reliability Turret for the Modernized Target Acquisition Designation Sight/Pilot Night Vision Sensor (M-TADS/PNVS) as part of a contract awarded in 2014, and currently expects to receive an engineering change proposal approval around the fourth quarter of 2017 that will allow them to start low-rate procurement. The new turrets will allow for increased slew rates as well as smaller, more affordable line-replaceable modules.

conduct a 1 year feasibility study to see the possibility of integrating its dual-mode Brimstone air-to-surface missile onto the AH-64E Guardian attack helicopter for the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD). Live test-firing of the system is expected to take place in third quarter of this year. The testing is expected to be low risk, as the UK-specific AH1 configuration already operates the Lockheed Martin AGM-114 Hellfire as its main air-to-surface missile. The main portion of the work will involve modifying the fire control software.

December 29/15: Lockheed Martin is to provide AH-64 modernized sensor assemblies for the government of Qatar. The foreign military sales contract worth $130.6 million is to be completed by March 2019. The Gulf Emirate purchased 24 AH-64D APACHE Block III LONGBOW Attack Helicopters in 2014 in a deal worth $3 billion as part of a massive modernization of its helicopter fleet, giving them multi-mission attack capabilities.

December 18/15: Lockheed Martin has been awarded a $215.7 billion foreign military sale contract to provide Modernized Target Acquisition Designation/Pilot Night Vision Systems (M-TAG/PNVS) for Apache helicopters to India. Work is to be completed by December 31, 2021. The contract follows the September purchase of fifteen Chinook and twenty-two Apache choppers by India, in a deal worth $2.5 billion. The Apache will be India’s first pure attack helicopter in service. The Russian made Mi 35, which has been in operation for years and is soon to be retired, was an assault chopper designed to carry troops into heavily defended areas.

December 15/15: Prosecutors in Greece have brought fresh corruption charges against a businessman and a former high-ranking Greek Defense Ministry official over the purchase of 12 Ah-64 attack helicopters in 2003. Both men are being charged with breach of faith over the contract which amounted to $650 million. Several other former ministry officials are also under investigation. The charges come amid Greece’s attempts to cut down on state corruption and clientism which many blame for the cause of the severity of its economic crash in 2008.

November 11/15: Boeing is reportedly eyeing an Egyptian order for additional AH-64 Apache attack helicopters next year, with other potential deals also covering support services to the country’s existing Apache fleet. Egypt received ten AH-64D Apaches in December 2014, following the lifting of a delivery freeze imposed by the US after the country’s military seized power in July 2013. In May 2009 the Egyptian government requested twelve of the helicopters.

November 4/15: Boeing has rolled-out the first AH-64E Apache attack helicopter destined for service with South Korea. Deliveries to the country are scheduled for the first half of 2016, with the helicopters first undergoing testing with the US Army. The South Korean Defense Acquisition Procurement Administration (DAPA) signed a $1.6 billion Foreign Military Sales contract with the US in April 2013 for 36 of the helicopters. Taiwan recently saw problems with the country’s AH-64Es rusting in the tropical climate.

October 29/15: Taiwan’s AH-64E Apache fleet is reportedly rusting in the country’s tropical climate. The helicopters are now mostly grounded, with manufacturer Boeing investigating oxidation in the rear gearbox responsible for taking out nine of the 29 Apaches in service. A lack of spare parts has also grounded a further twelve, with the country’s Ministry of National Defense notifying the US of the issue in March.

FY 2015

Iraq lets its option lapse; UAV testing goes well; M-LRFD modules being upgraded.

September 30/15: India.Following Cabinet Committee of Security approval earlier this month, India’s Defence Ministry has signed a $3.1 billion contract with Boeing for Apache and Chinook helicopters. The 22 AH-64E Apache attack helicopters and 15 CH-47F Chinook transport helicopters are slated for delivery between 2018 and 2019, with Boeing agreeing to a 30% offset clause in a contract split into a Direct Commercial Sale (DCS) for the airframes and a Foreign Military Sales (FMS) contract for weapons, training and sensors. The deal’s signature comes two days before the expiration of a price agreed in 2013, with Boeing granting an extension to this price in July.

September 8/15: Lockheed is upgrading laser targeting on the AH-64E Apaches, upgrading the M-LRFD modules. The work will cost $21.7 million.

May 1/15: Boeing has been handed a $247.1 million support contract by the Army for Apache and Chinook airframe and weapons system overhaul, repair and recapitalization. The work is expected to run to 2019.

March 18/15: Dutch shove Apache peg into ISTAR hole.
The Netherlands has been experimenting. The Royal Netherland Air Forces has been using “modifications and operational techniques” to convert their fleet of AH-64 Apache helicopters from their traditional ground-attack and CAS roles to a more ISTAR-oriented platform. Details of exactly what these special changes are remain to be seen.

Feb 23/15: Governors gripe about plan to take Apaches from Reserve units. As was predicted, the governors, through their collective lobby group, are
complaining about the Army plan to move National Guard Apaches over to active service Army units. The argument focuses on the fact that Apaches have been used for domestic emergency management (lightly). Governors’ influence on congressional delegations should not be underestimated.

Feb 13/15: More support.Lockheed wins an $82 million contract for AH-64 Apache sustainment; the third and last possible exercising of one-year optional extensions of the original $111 million contract.

Oct 31/14: Support. Boeing in Mesa, AZ receives an unfinalized $121.2 million firm fixed-price, contract, covering performance based logistics for AH-64D/E components services and supplies. $90.9 million is committed immediately, using FY 2014 Army budgets.

Work will be performed in Mesa, AZ, with an estimated completion date of Oct 31/15. Bids were solicited via the Internet, with 1 offer received (W58RGZ-15-C-0017).

Oct 19/14: Taiwan. Taiwan receives the last 6 helicopters, completing delivery of the 30 it ordered under the TWD 59.31 billion ($1.95 billion) contract. It now has 29 available for service, after an April 2014 crash-landing on a residential roof. For full coverage, see DID, “Taiwan’s Force Modernization: The American Side”.

Taiwan deliveries done

Oct 14/14: Maritime upgrade. Apache program manager Col. Jeff Hager says that the Army intends to upgrade the AH-64E’s Longbow radar, “to pick up things in a littoral (shallow water) environment and detect small ships in the water.” The changes would be part of Lot 6 enhancements, and testing of this feature is planned for 2017.

Some use of Apaches is already underway (q.v. July 19/14) in the USA’s own semi-shift to the Pacific theater, and there’s also ample precedent in Britain’s use of AH-64Ds from helicopter carriers during Libyan operations. Not to mention likely demand from new customers like Indonesia and Qatar, whose land-based responsibilities have an intrinsic maritime component.

Meanwhile, American forces are going to run into a difficult problem: the USMC is short of amphibious ships to train its own AH-1 Super Cobra attack helicopters, let alone Army AH-64Es. Sources: AIN, “Maritime Mode Radar Planned for Army’s AH-64E Apache” | DoD Buzz, “Army Configures Apaches for Sea Duty” | Flightglobal, “US Army details combat experience with AH-64E” | IHS Jane’s Defence Weekly, “AUSA 2014: US Army preps Apaches for sea-basing”.

Oct 14/14: Qatar. Lockheed Martin announces a $90.6 million foreign military sale contract to provide M-TADS/PNVS surveillance and targeting turrets to the Qatar Emiri Air Force. Qatar will be one of the first international customers to receive M-TADS/PNVS systems equipped with the new Modernized Laser Range Finder Designator, which is reportedly 2x as reliable and can be replaced on the flight line.

Qatar marks the M-TADS/PNVS system’s 14th international customer, as the QEAF prepare to receive their AH-64Es (q.v. July 14/14, March 27/14). This sensor sale is structured as an option under the U.S. Army’s Production Lot 9 contract, awarded in May 2014. It extends production in Orlando and Ocala, FL, through 2017. To date, Lockheed Martin has delivered more than 1,250 M-TADS/PNVS systems and spares to the U.S. Army and international customers since 2005. Sources: LMCO, “Lockheed Martin Receives $90 Million Contract for Qatar Apache Targeting and Pilotage Systems”.

Oct 13/14: AH-64 Next? The ATEC, LLC (Advanced Turbine Engine Company), LLC joint venture between Honeywell International, Inc. and Pratt & Whitney has successfully completed testing as part of the Advanced Affordable Turbine Engine (AATE) Science and Technology program (q.v. Oct 21/13).

ATEC intends to offer the HPW3000 as a replacement engine for UH-60 Black Hawk and AH-64 Apache helicopters. They’re still touting the target $1 billion in fleet savings over the new engines’ life cycle, along with performance improvements. Their competition is GE’s GE3000, and the question is AATE’s Improved Turbine Engine Program (ITEP) successor will become a real program. If not, at least research into the state-of-the-art has been advanced. Sources: Pratt & whitney, “ATEC Completes Second Test, Achieves Key Milestone on New Helicopter Engine”.

Oct 12/14: Iraq. Iraq may have declined its opportunity to buy AH-64s (q.v. Oct 1/14), but they’re playing a key role anyway:

“The top U.S. military officer [Gen. Martin Dempsey] says the U.S. called in Apache helicopters to prevent Iraqi forces from being overrun by Islamic State militants in a recent fight near Baghdad’s airport.”

AH-64E Apache Guardians are conducting operations with the aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush [CVN 77]. Sources: Defense News, “Dempsey: U.S. used Apache helos near Baghdad”.

Oct 1/14: Testing. Redstone Arsenal offers an update into AH-64E UAV tests, which have included full control over both RQ-7B Shadow and MQ-1C Gray Eagle UAVs.

PEO Aviation’s Unmanned Aircraft Systems Project Office interoperability lead, Doug Wolfe, adds that the same kinds of technology are leading to a One System Remote Video Terminal (OSRVT) that can control UAV payloads to point where soldiers on the ground want to look, instead of just receiving data. Sources: Redstone Rocket, “Unmanned aircraft soar with new capabilities for Apache”.

Oct 1/14: Iraq. The US Army confirms that Iraq has let its opportunity to buy AH-64D/E helicopters lapse, but the US Department of State says that nothing has been formally canceled. Who is right? The Army is right that there is a time limit to DSCA request’s, and Iraq’s (q.v. Jan 27/14) has expired. The State Department could still end up being correct, if Iraq renews its interest before the pricing changes for the items it’s interested in. If prices do change, the whole process needs to start over with another DSCA export request. Meanwhile:

“The collapse of the proposed sale was confirmed to IHS Jane’s by the US Army on 24 September. A statement by the army said: “The request from Iraq for 24 Apaches was approved by Congress. The Iraqis never accepted the offer and it expired in August…. it appears that Iraq’s latest attempt to secure an Apache sale may have been superseded by the order and start of delivery of attack helicopters from Russia…. as well as already fielding the two Russian types (more of which may now be acquired to compensate for the loss of the Apaches), the Iraqi Army also has 24 armed Bell 407 JetRanger, 20 Airbus EC635, and six Aerospatiale Gazelle helicopters in its inventory for light attack and reconnaissance duties.”

The article adds that once Egypt receives its 10 held-up AH-46Ds, all further Apache builds will be AH-64E Guardians. Sources: IHS Jane’s Defence Weekly, “Iraq passes on Apache buy” | Defense News, “Apache Sale to Iraq Thrown Into Doubt Because of Iraqi Inaction” | RIA Novosti, “Iraq Gets Third Batch of Russian Mi-35M Helicopters: Arms Think Tank”.

FY 2014

Orders: USA, Qatar; DSCA requests: Iraq; Competitions: India, Poland; SAR shows program cost increase; IOC reached; USN qualification; Crash in Taiwan; US shift to National Guard triggers controversy; Request for AH-64s as OH-58D combat loss replacements blocked; AH-64E deploys to Afghanistan; AATE program to research better engines; US Army retires OH-58D armed scouts, will use AH-64Es in scout and attack roles now.

To Afghanistan

Sept 29/14: Army/NG debate. The Adjutant-General of the Arizona National Guard, Maj. Gen. Michael T. McGuire, pens an article about the proposed shift of all 192 National Guard AH-64 Apaches into the active-duty Army (q.v. Jan 14/14). Needless to say, he isn’t happy.

For one, he sees the removal of war-fighting capability as a slippery slope. The Guard is meant to fight, he says, and they need the tools to fight alongside regular Army formations. On a cost basis, it’s also true that the same equipment in Army National Guard units does cost less to run and maintain.

The second issue is Constitutional, and has to do with the balance envisioned between the federal government and the states. Even assuming the argument that the US Constitution still exists in meaningful form, arguments about the role of the colonial militia will need more depth than this article provides. Sources: National Guard Association of the US, “Apache helicopter debate fraught with veiled consequences”.

Sept 29/14: Weapons. ATK in Plymouth, MN receives a $36.8 million firm-fixed-price, requirements contract for M230 30mm chain guns and 32 types of spare parts, for use with the Apache helicopter. Work location and funding will be determined with each order, and the contract period extends to Sept 28/17. Army Contracting Command – Tank and Automotive, Warren, MI manages the contract (W56HZV-14-D-0148).

Sept 26/14: HMDs. Elbit USA in Fort Worth, TX receives a $12.7 million firm-fixed-price contract modification, exercising Option #1 for 300 Apache Aviator Integrated Helmets, which are the key part of the IHADSS-21 system.

Work will be performed over a 2-year period and will be conducted at Elbit Systems’ facility in Fort Worth, TX. US Army Contracting Command in Redstone Arsenal, AL manages the contract (W58RGZ-12-C-0164, PO 0010). See also Elbit systems, “Elbit Systems of America Awarded $12.7 Million Modification Contract, to Provide Additional Apache Aviator Integrated Helmets to the US Army”.

Sept 23/14: Politics. The House Defense Appropriations subcommittee rejects the Pentagon’s request to shift as much as $1.5 billion in “Overseas Contingency Operations” budgets to buy 8 new F-35A/B fighters and 21 AH-64Es. These kinds of shifts require the approval of 4 (!) Congressional committees to go through, so that’s that.

The shifts aimed to replace lost AV-8B Harrier and F-15 fighters, and OH-58D Kiowa Warrior armed scout helicopters, but the subcommittee chair Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen [R-NJ] pushed back against OCO being used to “backfill budgetary shortfalls in acquisition programs that have only tenuous links to the fight in Afghanistan and other current operations…” The Kiowa losses in particular were known to Army planners when they made their January 2014 decisions to retire that fleet wholesale (q.v. Jan 14/14). Sources: Stars and Stripes, “Lawmakers reject Pentagon using war funds on F-35s, Apaches”.

Sept 15/14: +7. Boeing in Mesa, AZ receives a $130 million fixed-price incentive, full rate production contract modification to build 7 new AH-64E helicopters and add appropriate government-furnished equipment. This unfinalized total raises the total contract from $1.1564 billion to $1.2864 billion, and it could rise higher once the contract is finalized. $19.2 million in FY 2013 and FY 2014 funds are committed immediately.

Work will be performed in Mesa, AZ with an estimated completion date of March 31/17 (W58RGZ-12-C-0055, PO 0013).

7 AH-64Es

Aug 29/14: India. The new BJP government’s Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) makes a number of key moves, beginning with cancellation of the 197-helicopter Light Utility Helicopter competition. At the same time, however, DAC effectively cleared the purchase of 15 CH-47F Chinook heavy-lift and 22 AH-64E Apache Guardian attack helicopters, by approving Boeing’s industrial offset proposals. Contracts will follow at some point, as India needs both platforms. Sources: Defense News, “India Cancels $1 Billion Light Helicopter Tender” | Financial Express, “Make in India kicks off with defence deals” | Indian Express, “Centre scraps light utility helicopter tender, opens it to Indian players” | NDTV, “Modi Government Drops Rs 6000-Crore Foreign Chopper Plan, Wants ‘Made in India'”.

Aug 20/14: Indonesia. The Indonesian Ministry of Defence says that they’re prepping a memorandum of understanding (MoU) to cover the handling and security of data and communications received by their new AH-64Es (q.v. Sep 21/12, Aug 26/13, Jan 24/14), which are scheduled to begin arriving by 2015. Sources: IHS Jane’s Defence Industry, “Indonesia and US to sign Apache MoU”.

July 19/14: Naval quals. AH-64E Apache Guardians from the 25th Infantry Division’s 25th Combat Aviation Brigade conduct deck landing qualifications aboard USS Peleliu [LHA 5] off the coast of Hawaii during RIMPAC 2014. This is the 1st deck qualification for the AH-64E model, though the AH-64D has done so. The ability to deploy from ship sharply changes deployment possibilities in the Pacific, providing lilly-pad options as an alternative to partial disassembly and carriage inside of large aircraft like the C-5 and C-17.

“Four of the [8] Apaches are scheduled to push further into the Pacific for the Pacific Pathways exercise. The other four aircraft are scheduled to conduct training at the Pohakuloa Training Area in Hawaii prior to returning to Fort Carson [Colorado] in mid August.”

Sources: Pentagon DVIDS, “Apache Guardians perform first deck landing qualifications”.

July 14/14: Qatar. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel hosts Qatar’s Minister of State for Defense Affairs Hamad bin Ali al-Attiyah at the Pentagon, where they sign formal letters of offer and acceptance worth around $11 billion for AH-64E Apache helicopters (q.v. March 27/14 – $2.4 billion for 24), Patriot PAC-3 air and missile defense systems, and FGM-148 Javelin Block 1 anti-tank missiles. Sources: Pentagon, “U.S., Qatar Sign Letters on $11 Billion in Helicopters, Defense Systems”.

July 9/14: Poland. Poland has launched a EUR 1.4 billion tender to upgrade its attack helicopter fleet, which currently consists of 29 Russian Mi-24D/Ws. Submissions for the research phase of market analysis and technical requirements are welcome until Aug 1/14. Read: “Quote the Raven: Poland’s Attack Helicopter Competition” for full coverage.

July 2/14: Iraq. The US State Department is reportedly pushing to sell 4,000 more Hellfire missiles to Iraq. That volume doesn’t make sense for a tiny fleet of AC-208B prop planes carrying 2 missiles each, and a few IA-407 armed scout helicopters; it effectively assumes an AH-64E sale (q.v. Jan 27/14), which doesn’t have a contract yet. The sale would be in addition to the 500 Hellfires from that DSCA request, creating a very large reserve stockpile. One so large that unless deliveries were staggered, it could buffer the effect of any US sanctions if the Iraqi government misused its firepower against broad civilian populations.

It does eventually become a DSCA export request – read “Iraq Wants Hellfires – Lots and Lots of Them“.

June 25/14: Upgrades. Apache PEO Col. Hager discusses pending Lot 4 enhancements:

“…includes the fitting of external crash-worthy fuel tanks and software improvements to the aircraft’s missions systems…. “The Link 16 enables the Apache to receive information from the command-and-control platforms, such as the [Airborne Early Warning and Control System] AWACS and [Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System] JSTARS, and enables it to share this data with all the other services, making it more efficient at locating and prosecuting targets…”

E-3 AWACS and E-8 JSTARS are good intermediaries for sharing data with UAVs outside the Apache’s own radius of UTA control. Link-16 would also let AH-64Es receive information from fighter jets performing close support duties, or send it to those in the vicinity. That’s a big and significant change. With respect to changes already visible in the AH-64E:

“While previously medical evacuation Boeing CH-47 Chinook helicopters had had to fly slower than they were capable of so as not to outpace their Apache escorts, the AH-64E is able to match the Chinook for speed and altitude in Afghanistan. In addition, the AH-64E’s improved sustainability means that it is being flown at a higher rate of operations that AH-64Ds in theatre.”

Sources: IHS Jane’s International Defence Review , “US Army to begin operational trials of AH-64E Lot 4 enhancements”.

April 27/14: Iraq. Reports arise that Iraq has begun to use AH-64Ds (q.v. Jan 27/14), striking 8 tanker trucks in Wadi Suwab, Syria. Iraqi Interior Ministry spokesman Brig. Gen. Saad Maan said that the strike killed at least 8 people, adding that there was no coordination with the Syrian regime. On the other hand, there’s reasons to believe the reports were bogus:

“Maan did not identify the Iraqi helicopters, but photographs of the attacks suggested that they included the AH-64 Apache attack helicopter. In early 2014, the United States said it was sending five Apaches to Baghdad.”

We’ve seen airstrike videos where a fast-moving object could look like an AH-64, but they were Mi-35s when the video was stopped and examined with an informed eye. Iraq has had Russian Mi-35M “Hind” attack helicopters since December 2013, and too many journalists would be hard-pressed to know the difference. Sources: World Tribune, “Iraqi helicopters strike Al Qaida ISIL convoy in Syrian territory”.

April 25/14: Crash. During a training exercise, a Taiwanese AH-64E crash-lands on the roof of a low-rise residential building in Taoyuan county. The Helicopter is a complete wreck, but the pilots suffer only minor injuries, and no residents are hurt. Guys, that’s not what we were supposed to be training today. Subsequent investigations determine that:

“The investigation report shows that the primary causes of the accident were the combination factors of human errors and environment,” Maj. Gen. Huang Kuo-ming told reporters.

The environment refers to fast descending clouds, which disoriented the pilots while they were flying at a low altitude. Still, they should have checked the instruments to maintain adequate height. Taiwan has received 18 of their 30 helicopters, though they only have 17 now. Sources: The Daily Mail, “How did they get out alive? Lucky escape for pilots of Apache attack helicopter after it crashes into a housing block in Taiwan” | South China Morning Post, “Two Taiwan pilots injured as Apache chopper crashes into building” | Defense News follow-on, “Pilots Blamed for Taiwan Apache Crash”.

Taiwan crash

April 24/14: FY15. Boeing in Mesa, AZ receives a $103.8 million firm-fixed-price contract for AH-64E Production Lot 5 long-lead items. All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2014 budgets.

The estimated completion date is Dec 31/14. Bids were solicited via the Internet, with one received. Work will be performed in Mesa, AZ. US Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal, Ala., is the contracting activity (W58RGZ-14-C-0018).

April 17/14: SAR. The Pentagon releases its Dec 31/13 Selected Acquisitions Report. It includes:

AH-64E Apache Remanufacture – Program costs increased $1,321.2 million (+9.5%) from $13,760.2 million to $15,081.4 million, due primarily to higher labor and material costs for embedded diagnostics, Link 16, and full provisions for an external fuel system (+$1,870.0 million). These increases were partially offset by lower support costs for transportability kits, helmets, radar frequency interferometer, more efficient engine procurement, and reduced crashworthy external fuel tanks (-$865.5 million).

In then-year dollars that include inflation etc., the current SAR pegs the entire program at $17.72 billion: $15.081 billion for 639 remanufactured AH-64Es, and $2.639 billion for 63 new-build AH-64Es – up from the previous 55. Note that in the past 3 years since the program split in two, then-year cost for the remanufacture program has increased 26.8%. The retirement of the entire OH-58D Kiowa Warrior armed scout fleet without replacement (q.v. Jan 14/14) makes it more plausible that the AH-64E program will actually achieve its production goals, but the US government’s deeply shaky fiscal situation makes nothing certain.

AB3A costs rise

April 8/14: to Afghanistan. The AH-64E Model Apache Guardian makes its debut at Kandahar Airfield, Afghanistan. The 16th Combat Aviation Brigade reassembled its flight, electronic and weapons systems on site. Sources: YouTube, “AH 64E Apache Guardian Arrives in Afghanistan”.

March 31/14: GAO Report. The US GAO tables its “Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs“. Which is actually a review for 2013, plus time to compile and publish. The AH-64E isn’t mentioned directly, but its communications will eventually receive an upgrade under the AMF JTRS program. That was actually supposed to happen years ago, but the equipment just wasn’t ready.

As an interim solution, AH-64Es will fly with a Small Tactical Terminal (STT) that runs Link 16, for shared awareness with allied planes and defensive systems (q.v. Aug 28/13). The next step will be the Small Airborne Link 16 Terminal (SALT):

“…SALT is designed to be a 2-channel radio capable of running the Link 16 waveform and the Soldier Radio Waveform (SRW). The program plans to introduce production hardware into the Apache AH-64E assembly line in fiscal year 2016…. The Army plans to release the SALT request for proposals in the second quarter of fiscal year 2014 and a full rate production decision is scheduled for fiscal year 2016.”

March 27/14: Qatar. The Gulf Emirate orders 24 AH-64Es, at a reported purchase price of around $2.4 billion. It’s just one part of a $23 billion weapon shopping spree announced at DIMDEX 2014 in Doha, Qatar. No word yet re: their delivery schedule. The formal contract is signed on July 14/14.

Other buys include 22 NH90 medium utility (12) and naval (10) helicopters, air defense and anti-tank missiles, fast attack boats, 2 A330 aerial refueling planes, and 3 E-737 AWACS aircraft. Sources: Al Defaiya, “Qatar Announces Big Defense Deals at DIMDEX 2014” | Arabian Aerospace, “Qatar in $23bn arms order including Apache and NH90 helicopters” | Gulf Times, “Qatar, US sign defence deals worth $11.2bn” | Reuters, “Qatar buys helicopters, missiles in $23 billion arms deals”.

Qatar: 24

March 4-11/14: FY15 Budget. The US military slowly files its budget documents, detailing planned spending from FY 2014 – 2019. The planned removal of the OH-58D Kiowa Warriors from the Army’s fleet has resulted in a big speedup of AH-64 purchases, though the FY 2015 order looks like a cut until the wartime supplemental request is known; based on Apache PMO approval, it will be another 10 (TL 35), a drop of 13 helicopters vs. previous plans. Changes are reflected in the programs and budget graphs, above.

The Apache Remanufacturing Program is all that’s left, and most budget figures through 2019 assume savings associated with a 2017 – 2021 Multi-Year contract, with production assumed to last through FY 2025. They do add that:

“The FY16 AP does not support a Multi-Year contract; however, the Army will adjust FY16 AP [Aircraft Procured] in future budget submissions. The quantities of remanufacture aircraft the Apache PMO approves are FY13, 37; FY14, 35; (based upon 16 Feb 2014 contract negotiation); and FY17, 74. The corresponding AP for all years would need to be adjusted in future budget submissions.”

March 4/14: FY13 – FY14. Boeing in Mesa, AZ receives a $1.156 billion contract modification covering Full Rate Production of 72 remanufactured AH-64Es, 10 new AH-64Es, updates to 5 crew trainers, and full refurbishment of 1 more crew trainer; plus integrated logistics support, peculiar ground support equipment, initial spares, over and above work, and engineering studies.

There have been some advance buys (q.v. Oct 2/12, Jan 3/13, Sept 24/13), but it has taken a while to negotiate these Lot 3 and Lot 4 contracts.

$874.4 million is committed immediately, using a combination of FY 2013 ($380 million) and FY 2014 ($494.3 million) budgets. Work will be performed in Mesa, AZ, and the estimated completion date is June 30/16. US Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal, AL, is the contracting activity (W58RGZ-12-C-0055, PO 0007).

82 AH-64Es

Jan 27/14: Iraq. The US DSCA announces Iraq’s formal export request to buy 24 AH-64E Apache attack helicopters and associated items, in a 3-part request with an estimated cost of up to $6.25 billion. Iraq is facing a regrown insurgency in Sunni areas, which has been strengthened by additional battlefield experience gained in Syria. Even so, this announcement immediately attracts opposition in Congress, where Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki’s divisive and Shi’ite sectarian approach has left him short of support. A number of senators, most prominently Sen. Menendez [D-NJ], are opposed to releasing the helicopters for sale, believing that they would be used against Iraqi civilian populations.

#1: AH-64E Longbow Guardian sale.

• 24 new AH-64E helicopters with AN/APR-48 Modernized Radar Frequency Interferometers, AN/APX-117 Identification Friend-or-Foe Transponders, Embedded Global Positioning Systems with Inertial Navigation with Multi Mode Receiver, MXF-4027 UHF/VHF Radios, and 30mm Automatic Chain Guns.
  
• 56 T700-GE-701D Engines.
  
• 27 AN/ASQ-170 Modernized Target Acquisition and Designation Sights and 27 AN/AAR-11 Modernized Pilot Night Vision Sensors; together, they make up the “Arrowhead” system.
  
• 12 AN/APG-78 Fire Control Radars with Radar Electronics Unit (LONGBOW component), which mount on top of the helicopter rotor.
  
• 28 AN/AAR-57(V)7 Common Missile Warning Systems.
  
• 28 AN/AVR-2B Laser Detecting Sets.
  
• 28 AN/APR-39A(V)4 or APR-39C(V)2 Radar Signal Detecting Sets.
  
• 28 AN/ALQ-136A(V)5 Radar Jammers.
  
• 52 AN/AVS-6 Night vision goggles.
  
• 90 Apache Aviator Integrated Helmets.
  
• 60 M299 HELLFIRE Missile Launchers.
  
• 480 AGM-114R HELLFIRE Missiles.
  
• An unnamed number of 2.75 in Hydra Rockets and 30mm rounds.
  
• Site surveys, design and construction.
  
• Aircraft Ground Power Units, spare and repair parts, support equipment, publications and technical data, personnel training and training equipment, and US government and contractor engineering, technical, and support services.

If a contract is approved and negotiated, Iraq will need 3 US government and 2 contractor representatives in Iraq to support delivery and initial familiarization. That would be followed by a 12-person Technical Assistance Team (1 military, 11 contractors) for about 3 years. Prime contractors will be:

• Boeing Company in Mesa, AZ (AH-64)
  
• Lockheed Martin Corporation in Orlando, FL and MS2 in Owego, NY (Hellfires, Arrowhead)
  
• General Electric Company in Cincinnati, OH (Engines)
  
• Longbow Limited Liability Corporation in Orlando, FL (Joint venture, Longbow radar)
  
• Raytheon Corporation in Tucson, AZ

The estimated cost is up to $4.8 billion. That’s very expensive, but note the implicit inclusion of base construction in the request, and the long-term Technical Assistance team whose ongoing security and provisioning also has to be paid for by the Iraqi government these days.

#2: AH-64D Rental. The 2nd component involves support for a more temporary lease of 6 American AH-64Ds as an interim measure, plus associated items and extensive support. That effort could cost up to $1.37 billion, and includes:

• 3 spare T-700-GE-701D engines
  
• 2 spare Embedded Global Positioning System Inertial Navigation System (EGI)
  
• 3 Arrowhead AN/ASQ-170 Modernized Target Acquisition and Designation Sight (MTADS)/ AN/AAQ-11 Modernized Pilot Night Vision Sensors (PNVS)
  
• 8 AN/AAR-57 Common Missile Warning Systems
  
• 6 AN/AVR-2A/B Laser Warning Detectors
  
• 6 AN/APR-39A(V)4 Radar Warning Systems with training Universal Data Modems (UDM)
  
• M206 Infrared Countermeasure flares, and M211/ M212 Advanced Infrared Countermeasure Munitions (AIRCM) flares
  
• 12 M261 2.75 inch Rocket Launchers
  
• 14 HELLFIRE M299 Launchers
  
• 152 AGM-114 K-A HELLFIRE Missiles
  
• Plus Internal Auxiliary Fuel Systems (IAFS), Aviator’s Night Vision Goggles, Aviation MSion Planning System, training ammunition, helmets, transportation, spare and repair parts, support equipment, publications and technical data, personnel training and training equipment, and site surveys.
  
• 1 US Government and 67 contractor representatives to provide support.

Key contractors for this effort include Boeing Company in Mesa, AZ; Lockheed Martin Corporation in Orlando, FL; GE in Cincinnati, OH; and Robertson Fuel Systems, LLC in Tempe, AZ.

More Hellfire Missiles. The 3rd component involves up to $82 million for 500 of Lockheed Martin’s AGM-114K/R Hellfire Missiles, Hellfire Missile conversion, blast fragmentation sleeves and installation kits, containers, transportation, spare and repair parts, support equipment, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical documentation, and additional US government and contractor support. Iraq already operates Hellfire missiles on its fixed-wing AC-208B Combat Caravans, but it will need more to equip an attack helicopter fleet.

When all Hellfire requests made this day are put together, they total 152 AGM-114 K-As, and up to 980 of the newest AGM-114Rs. Sources: DSCA #13-18, “Iraq – AH-64E APACHE LONGBOW Attack Helicopters” | DSCA #13-29, “Iraq – Support for APACHE Lease” | DSCA #13-78, “Iraq – AGM -114K/R Hellfire Missiles”.

DSCA: Iraq (24 AH-64Es + 6 rental AH-64Ds + Hellfires)

Jan 24/14: Indonesia. Army Chief of Staff General Budiman says that AH-64Es will arrive in Indonesia between 2015 – 2017, and they will be piloted by the Army. While the Aug 26/13 reports focused on $500 million for the deal, Budiman places it at $600 million when pilot and maintenance training is included. Bases are being prepared, but the main base will be in Berau, the northernmost district of East Kalimantan.

Sadly, the article is provably wrong about other things. The AH-64 can’t carry any anti-radar missiles, for instance, or AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles either. Sources: Antara News, “Indonesian military to have Apache combat helicopters”.

OH-58D over Tal Afar
(click to view full)

Jan 14/14: No ARH. The OH-58 fleet will be retired, without a successor. Instead of 15 Combat Aviation Brigades, the Army is likely to drop to 10-13. On the other hand, the odds of actually fielding the full AH-64E program just rose sharply.

US Army Aviation Center of Excellence commander Maj. Gen. Kevin W. Mangum finally discusses the Army’s 2010 ARH Analysis of Alternatives, which recommended a mix of AH-64Es and UAVs to take on the Army’s scout helicopter role. So, why did the Army keep pushing for a new Armed Aerial Scout? Magnum says they didn’t have enough money to buy enough AH-64s. What changed? A smaller Army doesn’t need as many. The current leadership has decided that 698 AH-64Es, who will be able to control the planned fleets of unarmed RQ-7B Shadow and armed MQ-1C Gray Eagle UAVs from the air, will provide an “80% solution.”

The AH-64D to AH-64E upgrades will be funded by avoiding Kiowa modernization or replacement, and the Army also axed 15 military specialties that were unique to the OH-58D. Some rebalancing will need to move more UH-60s to the National Guard, where they can offer useful capabilities during natural disasters etc., while shifting AH-64s to the active-duty force. Gen. Magnum adds that investment of all kinds is going to be slim:

“I tell youngsters who are in the Basic Officer Leader Course that when some of you retire from the Army in 20, we still will not have finished fielding the UH-60M and AH-64E. That’s how far we’ve pushed these programs.”

Especially with AH-64s and UH-60s costing a good deal more to fuel and maintain than Kiowas. The question is whether the sequester’s recent rollback will create pushback on Capitol Hill, if National Guard drawdowns affect local bases. If so, will that pushback be enough? The Army does seem determined to do this. Sources: US Army, “Army aviation flying smarter into fiscal squeeze” | Alabama.com, “Army planning to scrap OH-58 Kiowa Warriors helicopter fleet: Reports” | Jackson Sun, “National Guard: Tennessee could lose 30 OH-58D helicopters, including at Jackson flight facility, under proposed Army plan” | The Motley Fool, “The U.S. Army Is About to Make a Huge Mistake”.

Apaches only: End of the OH-58D scout helicopters

Nov 21/13: IOC. The AH-64E reaches Initial Operational Capability on schedule, spearheaded by the 1-229th Attack Reconnaissance Battalion at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA. The 1-229th flew more than 670 hours over the last month, with an average operational tempo of 27 hours per airframe per month. Sources: US Army, “Army Achieves Initial Operating Capability with the AH-64E Apache”.

AH-64E IOC

Nov 4/13: Taiwan. Taiwan’s first 6 AH-64E attack helicopters have been re-assembled in Taiwan’s Kaohsiung Harbor, after arriving by ship. The US reportedly asked Taiwan’s military authorities not to reveal the AH-64E’s cockpit layout or configuration in its Nov 7/13 public display. Unfortunately, that request comes about a week after revelations that Taiwanese officers sold key information about Taiwan’s brand-new E-2 Hawkeye 2000 AEW&C planes to the Chinese.

The AH-64Es will become operational in April 2014, with Guiren Air Force Base in Tainan serving as a training and basing focal point. More than 60 Taiwanese pilots and maintenance personnel returned to Taiwan in August 2013, after completed 20 months of training in the USA that will let them act as instructors. Still, there were limits, which echoed circumstances surrounding the delivery of Taiwan’s AH-1W Cobras over a decade ago:

“While Taiwanese pilots and maintenance personnel managed to get a full understanding of the aircraft software and hardware, the pilots were unable to obtain training in certain special flight skills. The Taiwanese trainees were asked to leave the classroom or training site whenever the American instructors were giving lectures on certain critical courses or special flight maneuvers, the officials said.”

They’ll have to figure those out on their own. A 2nd batch of Apache helicopters is scheduled for delivery to Taiwan in late December 2013, and 3 more batches of 6 will complete deliveries by the end of 2014. Sources: Focus Taiwan, “Taiwan takes delivery of first Apache choppers” | Focus Taiwan, “Talk of the Day — AH-64E Apache choppers debut in Taiwan” | Flight International, “Taiwan receives first batch of AH-64E Apaches” | Focus Taiwan, “Apache choppers to bolster Taiwan’s combat capability: expert”.

Taiwan: AH-64Es arrive

HPW3000 promo
click for video

Oct 21/13: AH-64 Next? The US government’s Advanced Affordable Turbine Engine program (AATE) program begins to show public results, with PW/Honeywell’s ATEC joint venture touting its HPW3000’s performance in early tests. Their competitor is GE’s GE3000.

Within the Army, the application of these technologies will fall under AATE’s follow-on Improved Turbine Engine Program (ITEP). Its goal is a 3,000 shp turboshaft that also delivers AATE’s desired 25% better fuel efficiency, 20% longer engine life, and 35% maintenance cost improvements. All in a package that could act as a drop-in replacement for the AH-64E’s current T700-GE-701D, which delivers 2,000 shp. Assuming they can deliver, AH-64 on-station time could rise by an hour or so, or see range extensions and better altitude limits. As an alternative, the helicopter could carry about 3,300 more pounds of payload under better conditions. If the companies could deliver on the reliability goals as well, the combined value of those maintenance and longevity improvements for the UH-60 and AH-64 fleets could add up to $1 billion over the engines’ life cycle. Sources: Pratt & Whitney release, Oct 21/13 | Aviation Week, “Teams Test More Powerful Engines For U.S. Army Helicopters” | ATEC JV site | ATEC HPW3000 infographic [PDF] | GE3000 page.

FY 2013

Orders: USA, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Taiwan; AH-64E “Guardian”; SAR shows program cost increase; US new-build program effectively terminated; Link 16 purchases begin; AH-64E vulnerable to hackers.

Refurb, Step 1
(click to view full)

Sept 24/13: Lot 3-4. Boeing in Mesa, AZ receives a $52.4 million firm-fixed-price contract to procure an estimated 48 AH-64Es under Lot 3 remanufacture, Lot 3 new build, and Lot 4 remanufacture. Obviously, this is just an initial payment.

Work will be performed in Mesa, AZ, with funding from FY 2013 “other authority” funds. This contract was a competitive acquisition via the web, but with 1 bid received (W58RGZ-12-C-0055).

Sept 9/13: South Korea. The Longbow LLC joint venture in Orlando, FL receives a $51.1 million firm-fixed-price contract for 6 Longbow fire control radars, plus associated parts, spares and support. It’s part of Korea’s 36-helicopter buy, which has already seen orders for 36 helicopters, their engines, MTADS-PNVS surveillance and targeting turrets, and now a limited number of Longbow radars. Total announced so far: $1.236 billion, out of a $1.6 billion budget.

The Republic of Korea is the Longbow radar’s 10th international customer, and production under their order is scheduled through 2016. Work will be performed in Orlando, FL; Ocala, FL; and Baltimore, MD. US Army Contracting Command, Aviation at Redstone Arsenal, AL acts as South Korea’s agent (W58RGZ-13-C-0105). Sources: Pentagon | NGC & Lockheed releases, Sept 12/13.

Sept 9/13: Training. Boeing in St. Louis, MO receives a $14.4 million firm-fixed-price, contract for 4 Longbow crew trainers.

Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO, using FY 2011 “other authorization” funds. This contract was done as a competitive acquisition via the web, but just 1 bid was received (W58RGZ-13-C-0086).

Aug 30/13: RDT&E. Boeing receives a $22.7 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract modification for continued AH-64E development and demonstration. Work will be performed in Mesa, AZ (W58RGZ-05-C-0001, PO 0059).

Aug 28/13: Link 16/STT. Following successful AH-64E flight tests, the Army has decided to pursue a sole source contract with ViaSat for their Small Tactical Terminal (STT). The 16-pound KOR-24A STT provides simultaneous communication, voice or data, using Link 16 and the Soldier Radio Waveform (SRW).

Link 16 securely shares locations of identified friendly and enemy forces, so that all equipped units see what any one unit can see, and vice-versa. Knowing that there’s an enemy anti-aircraft unit in place before you fly over the next hill is a big plus. Sources: ViaSat, Aug 28/13 release | ViaSat STT.

Aug 26/13: Indonesia. US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, in a meeting with his Indonesian counterpart Purnomo Yusgiantoro, confirms that the US agrees to Indonesia’s request for 8 Apache helos (q.v. Sep 21/12 entry). The deal is valued at about $500 million, far lower than the $1.4 billion cost in last year’s DSCA request, suggesting it does not cover armament. Different contracts are subsequently announced to provide AGM-114 Hellfire missiles to customers that include Indonesia.

Some human rights groups fear the helicopters will be used to crack down on separatists, and are concerned by the sale of such machines to a military with a recent past of human rights abuses. US DoD | Jakarta Globe, “US to Sell Indonesia 8 Apache Helicopters” | Asia Times, “US sparks Indonesia arms sales concern” | Australia’s ASPI, “Why does Indonesia need Apache gunships?”

Indonesia: 8

Aug 23/13: South Korea. Boeing in Mesa, AZ receives a firm-fixed price, option eligible, multi-year contract from South Korea, with a cumulative maximum value of $904.4 million for 36 new AH-64E Apache Helicopters. This contract includes initial support, spares and 1 Longbow crew trainer.

Work will be performed in Mesa, AZ, with the US Army Contracting Command, Aviation in Redstone Arsenal, AL managing the contract as South Korea’s FMS agent (W58RGZ-13-C-0106). Total so far: $1.185 billion, out of a $1.6 billion budget.

South Korea: 36

Aug 21/13: South Korea. General Electric Aviation in Lynn, MA receives a firm-fixed price, no option contract with a cumulative maximum value of $57.5 million for 72 production T700-GE-701D engines, extended warranties, and four spares and support packages. They’ll be used on South Korea’s 36 new AH-64Es, and represent the 2nd purchase of long-lead items by that country.

Work will be performed in Lynn, MA, and will be managed by the US Army Contracting Command – Aviation in Redstone Arsenal, AL manages the contract on behalf of their ROK client (SPRTA1-12-G-0006). This is the 2nd Pentagon release that refers to a sole-source item as a “competitive acquisition with 3 bids solicited and 3 received”. We can only conclude that they mean the South Korea’s attack helicopter competition generally.

Aug 8/13: Taiwan. Boeing in Mesa, AZ receives a $92.3 million firm-fixed-price contract modification, as part of Taiwan’s AH-64E buy and associated support. The Pentagon says that this brings the cumulative total face value of this contract to $716.7 million. The original DSCA request, including 30 helicopters, weapons and 6 years of support, had a maximum of $2.532 billion (q.v. Oct 3/08)

FY 2009 procurement funds are being used, which was the year Taiwan placed the order. US Army Contracting Command in Redstone Arsenal, AL acts as Taiwan’s agent (W58RGZ-09-C-0147, PO 0025).

Aug 1/13: Longbow LLC, Orlando, FL receives a $6.8 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for services to support Low Rate Initial Production of the Radar Electronics Unit and UAS Tactical Common Data Link Assembly, bringing the cumulative total face value of this contract to $182.3 million. FY 2012 Procurement funds were used by US Army Contracting Command at Redstone Arsenal, AL (W58RGZ-10-C-0005, PO 0035).

Aug 1/13: South Korea. Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control in Orlando, FL receives a maximum $223.3 million contract to buy M-TADS/PNVS systems for South Korea (q.v. April 17/13). Lockheed Martin later confirms that this is the 1st announced contract in their 36-machine AH-64E order, covering 36 Arrowhead systems and spares, with production and delivery extending through 2018. Electronics assembly will take place at the Ocala, FL facility, with final assembly performed in Orlando, FL.

South Korea becomes the system’s 12th international customer. Oddly, the Pentagon release says that 3 bids were solicited, with 3 bids received. The system only has 1 manufacturer, and it would be very expensive to integrate a different system on the AH-64. US Army Contracting Command in Redstone Arsenal, AL acts as South Korea’s agent (W58RGZ-13-C-0104). Lockheed Martin.

June 7/13: Saudi. Longbow LLC in Orlando, FL receives a $39 million firm-fixed-price, foreign-military-sales (FMS) contract modification from Saudi Arabia, buying an undeclared number of AH-64 mast mounted assemblies; the fire control radars that go inside them; and related support equipment.

The Pentagon says that the cumulative total face value of this contract is $333.3 million, but it’s a FY 2006 contract that far predates Saudi AH-64E buys. Based on DID’s tracking of announced contracts, the Saudis have now committed $339 million to their AH-64E buy so far, using several contracts. US Army Contracting Command at Redstone Arsenal, AL acts as Saudi Arabia’s agent for this FMS sale (W58RGZ-06-C-0134, PO 0042).

May 24/12: SAR. The Pentagon finally releases its Dec 31/12 Selected Acquisitions Report [PDF]. The AH-64E programs feature prominently, with overall program costs rising by more than $2 billion, vs. the previous figures as reported by the GAO in March:

“AH-64E Apache Remanufacture – Program costs increased $1,791.9 million (+15.0%) from $11,968.3 million to $13,760.2 million, due primarily to reflect a revised Independent Cost Estimate (ICE) by CAPE [DID: Pentagon Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation team] in support of Full Rate Production (FRP) approval in September 2012 (+$1,339.5M). There were additional increases for other support (+$347.8 million) and initial spares (+$151.0 million) to reflect the approved CAPE FRP ICE.”

See April 10/13 entry to explain our lack of faith that future US Army new-build orders will ever materialize. Officially, however:

“AH-64E Apache New Build – Program costs increased $328.7 million (+15.3%) from $2,155.8 million to $2,484.5 million, due primarily to a stretch-out of the procurement buy profile (+$260.0 million). Since Milestone C in September 2010, 46 of the 56 AH-64E New Build aircraft have been shifted outside the Future Year Defense Program to higher priority programs. There were additional increases for other support (+$78.5 million) and initial spares (+$26.6 million) to reflect a revised Independent Cost Estimate by Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) in support of full rate production approval in March 2013. These increases were partially offset by a quantity decrease of 2 Overseas Contingency Operations-funded aircraft [DID: lost helo replacements] from 58 to 56 aircraft (- $111.2 million) and associated schedule and estimating allocations ($+46.3 million).”

SAR – program costs rise

May 22/13: Saudi. Boeing in Mesa, AZ receives a $69.2 million firm-fixed-price, foreign-military-sales contract modification for Saudi Arabia’s Apache Block III aircraft and associated parts and services. The US Army reports the total cumulative value of this contract so far as $259.4 million; when other known Saudi contracts are added, contract value to date is somewhere between $296-300 million. Given Saudi AH-64E export requests for up to 60 helicopters, and known helicopter prices, this is just a drop in the bucket.

US Army Contracting Command in Redstone Arsenal, AL manages the contract on behalf of its Saudi client (W58RGZ-12-C-0089, PO 0008).

May 22/13: Saudi. Boeing in Mesa, AZ receives a $14.3 million firm-fixed-price, foreign-military-sales contract modification for Saudi Arabia’s Apache Block III aircraft and associated parts and services. The US Army reports the total cumulative value of this contract so far as $35.2 million. US Army Contracting Command in Redstone Arsenal, AL manages the contract on behalf of its Saudi client (W58RGZ-12-C-0113, PO 0003).

April 17/13: South Korea picks AH-64E. South Korea announces that the AH-64E Guardian has beaten the AH-1Z Viper and T-129 ATAK helicopters for a 1.8 trillion won ($1.6 billion), 36-machine order to replace their existing fleet of AH-1S Cobra attack helicopters. The ROK hopes to have the helicopters between 2016 and 2018. The Apaches are useful for countering heavy armor formations, and might have an important role against artillery in Korea, but the Korea Herald offers another interesting possibility: a duel between fast moving aerial and land opponents:

“In Goampo, Hwanghae Province, the North has built a unit to house some 60 hovercrafts whose infiltrations operations could be countered by the attack helicopters. The communist state is known to have some 130 hovercrafts that can travel through mudflats into the border islands at a speed of 100 kilometers per hour.”

The attack helicopter decision had been due in October 2012, but was put on hold until after the elections. The AH-1Z would have represented continuity with the existing fleet, and was the subject of a September 2012 DSCA export request. The Italo-Turkish T-129 would have been a reciprocal deal with a major arms export customer. A DAPA official is quoted as saying that the AH-64E’s superior target acquisition capability, power, and weapons load gave it the edge, and so South Korea will begin the acquisition process. The weapons load issue is debatable, but the Apache is certainly much more heavily armored than its counterparts, and its combination of modernized optics and MMW radar or UAV control does give it an edge in target acquisition.

The ROK is a bit behind on approvals and other concrete arrangements for the AH-64E, but KAI’s existing position as a major AH-64E subcontractor will help a bit. US Army | Korea Herald | Reuters.

South Korea picks AH-64E

April 12/13: Rotors. Boeing in Mesa, AZ receives a $36.6 firm-fixed-price contract modification, buying composite main rotor blades and associated support equipment for the Block III configuration. The performance enhancing composite blades are part of the AH-64E’s efficiency changes. The award uses FY 2012 procurement contract funds (W58RGZ-10-G-0006, 0013).

April 10/13: FY 2014 Budget. The President releases a proposed budget at last, the latest in modern memory. The Senate and House were already working on budgets in his absence, but the Pentagon’s submission is actually important to proceedings going forward. See ongoing DID coverage.

The AH-64E submission marks a big shift. Previous 2014 procurement plans involved 48 machines: 10 new-build helicopters ($475.2 million) and 38 remanufactured ($618.8 million) machines, for a total of $1.094 billion. The new plan involves 42 remanufactured helicopter and no new machines, for a total of just $759.4 million and an overall drop of 30.59%. The Pentagon didn’t even deliver its war supplemental budget, so those numbers could rise. The program as a whole has dropped from the still-official 634 helicopters to 628, but there are still a limited number of airframes to work with. Adding AB3-R Apaches now means subtracting them later, which may be attractive if the Army sees even more problems in future years.

This is a long term shift, because the AB3B new-build program has essentially been terminated. Foreign buyers can still get them, and the US Army’s official fiction is that the remaining 45 new-build helicopters of their 55-helicopter goal will be bought after 2018, creating 683 AH-64Es for $15.33 billion. Anyone who believes that plan is asked to email us, in order to receive the attractive terms of our toll bridge investment opportunity near Brooklyn.

The reality? AH-64E is now a 638 helicopter program, worth $12.53 billion.

Major program shift: de facto termination for AB3 New-build

March 15/13: Support. Boeing in Mesa, AZ receives a $7.2 million firm-fixed-price contract modification, exercising an option for AH-64E contractor logistics support. Work will be performed in Mesa, AZ with an estimated completion date of Nov 30/14. One bid was solicited, with 1 bid received (W58RGZ-09-C-0161).

March 5/13: SDD. Boeing in Mesa, AZ receives a $41.1 million cost-plus-fixed-fee modification that adds to the AH-64 Apache Block III’s SDD contract.

Work will be performed in Mesa, AZ with an estimated completion date of Sept 30/14. The original bid was solicited through the Internet, with 1 bid received (W58RGZ-05-C-0001).

Jan 9/13: Guardian. The US Army shares that the designation for the AH-64E Apache is “Guardian,” written/ referenced as “AH-64E Apache Guardian.”

The AH-64D was known as the AH-64D Apache Longbow, due to its radar mast that provides fire and forget operation when using AGM-114L Hellfire Longbow missiles with millimeter-wave guidance. US Army.

“Guardian”

Jan 17/13: DOT&E testing. The Pentagon releases the FY 2012 Annual Report from its Office of the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E). The AH-64E is included, and the news is almost all good. It’s operationally effective, and better than its predecessors. It’s also operationally suitable, surpassing reliability thresholds with statistical confidence and meeting all current maintainability requirements. Survivability is at least as good as the AH-64D, and increased power margins also do their bit to improve flight safety.

Now, the lone piece of bad news: The AH-64E is vulnerable to computer network attack. An Army threat computer network operations team conducted limited penetration testing against the Blue Force Tracker, the Aviation Mission Planning System, and aircraft maintenance ports. Threat team activities were limited to computer network scanning (passive and active) while the AB3 aircraft were on the ground, but they were successful in gaining access to AB3 systems.

Jan 9/13: Lot 4-6 Enhancements. US Army Apache program manager Col. Jeff Hager talks to Flight International about the AH-64E.

Boeing has delivered 28 of 51 low-rate initial production AH-64Es so far, and will start full-rate production in 2013. Changes in Production Lots 4-6 will include better embedded diagnostics, APG-78 Longbow radar improvements to add range and over-water capability; and Link-16 to share the same view of enemy and friendly units with participating fighters, ships, air defense systems, etc. A Cognitive Decision Aiding System (CDAS), is a cumbersome name, for a system designed “to help the pilot and the crew with some of those tasks that tend to get a little cumbersome at times.” Flight International.

Jan 3/13: Taiwan? Boeing in Mesa, AZ receives a $71 million firm-fixed-price contract modification “to procure Apache AH-64D helicopters in support of Foreign Military Sales.” We asked for further details to clarify which customer, but neither Boeing nor the US military will provide those any longer, except through Freedom of Information Act requests. The contract number does match Taiwan’s 30-helicopter order, and the USA seems to be using a different contract number for them, but that conclusion isn’t 100% certain.

Work will be performed in Mesa, AZ with an estimated completion date of Oct 31/17. One bid was solicited, with 1 bid received (W58RGZ-09-C-0147).

Jan 3/13: Boeing in Mesa, AZ receives a $39.6 million firm-fixed-price contract modification. Boeing tells us that this is additional advance procurement funding for the US Army.

Work will be performed in Mesa, AZ with an estimated completion date of Sept 30/13. One bid was solicited, with 1 bid received (W58RGZ-12-C-0055).

Jan 3/13: FMS. Boeing in Mesa, AZ receives an $18.4 million firm-fixed-price contract modification “to procure Apache Block III Aircraft in support of Foreign Military Sales.” We asked for further details to clarify which customer, but neither Boeing nor the US military will provide those any longer, except through Freedom of Information Act requests.

Work will be performed in Mesa, AZ with an estimated completion date of April 30/13. The bid was solicited through the Internet, with 1 bid received (W58RGZ-12-C-0089).

Nov 1/12: Taiwan? Boeing receives a $66.1 million firm-fixed-price contract modification “to procure Apache Block III aircraft and related support.” We asked about this contract, which turns out to be a Foreign Military Sale order, even though it wasn’t announced as such. Neither Boeing nor the US military will provide those any longer, except through Freedom of Information Act requests. The contract number does match Taiwan’s 30-helicopter order, and the USA seems to be using a different contract number for them, but that conclusion isn’t 100% certain.

Work will be performed in Mesa, AZ with an estimated completion date of Oct 31/17. One bid was solicited, with one bid received (W58RGZ-09-C-0147).

Oct 24/12: AH-64E. The US Army formally renames the AH-64D Block III the “AH-64E,” in accordance with a USAF memo received in September. It also formally announces the program’s full-rate production decision, which the Defense Acquisition Board granted in August 2012.

As part of that decision, the AH-64E becomes an ACAT C program with oversight from the Army (Heidi Shyu), instead of an ACAT D program with oversight from the US Department of Defense.AOL Defense.

AH-64E, FRP

Oct 2/12: ? Boeing in Mesa, AZ receives a $69.7 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for “Apache Block III aircraft.” Boeing could not provide additional details by the time of publication.

Work will be performed in Mesa, AZ with an estimated completion date of Feb 28/13. The bid was solicited through the Internet, with 1 bid received (W58RGZ-12-C-0055).

FY 2012

RDT&E funding; Taiwan orders; Indonesia & Qatar requests; UTA mast controls MQ-1C UAV; Alone in India.

KAI’s new fuselage
(click to view full)

Sept 21/12: Indonesia. The US DSCA announces [PDF] Indonesia’s official request for AH-64D Block III Apache helicopters, ancillary equipment, and weapons. The DSCA says that: “Indonesia will use these APACHE helicopters to defend its borders, conduct counterterrorism and counter-piracy operations, and control the free flow of shipping through the Strait of Malacca.”

The proposed cost is very, very high – up to $1.42 billion for 8 new-build helicopters plus initial support, or about $177.5 million for each operational, fully-equipped helicopter. By comparison, India’s similar DSCA request involved up to $1.4 billion for 22 machines and equipment. The request is somewhat controversial in Indonesia, where the chairman of the House of Representatives Commission overseeing defense and foreign affairs has said that heavy-lift CH-47 Chinook helicopters would be far more helpful. He isn’t against the Apaches per se, just believes that Chinooks would make a bigger difference to one of the military’s main roles, which is distributing relief supplies after natural disasters. He’s right, but that isn’t what they asked for; instead, it’s:

• 8 AH-64D Apache Longbow Block III attack helicopters
  
• 19 T-700-GE-701D Engines (16 installed and 3 spares)
  
• 9 “Arrowhead” MTADS/PNVS night vision and targeting turrets
  
• 24 Integrated Helmet and Display Sight Systems (IHDSS-21), which allow pilots to target missiles by moving their gaze.
  
• 4 AN/APG-78 Longbow Fire Control Radars (FCR) with Radar Electronics Units
  
• 4 AN/APR-48A Radar Frequency Interferometers
  
• 10 AAR-57v3/5 Common Missile Warning Systems (CMWS), with a 5th Sensor and the Improved Countermeasure Dispenser
  
• 10 AN/AVR-2B Laser Detecting Sets
  
• 10 AN/APR-39Av4 Radar Signal Detecting Sets
  
• Identification Friend or Foe transponders
  
• 32 M299A1 Hellfire Missile Launchers
  
• 140 Hellfire AGM-114R3 “universal warhead” missiles
  
• M230 30mm guns and ammunition
  
• Plus helicopter transportation to Indonesia, communication equipment, tools and test equipment, training devices, simulators, generators, associated wheeled vehicles, spare and repair parts, support equipment, personnel training and training equipment, and US government and contractor support services.

Many of the items above are produced by sub-contractors like ATK, BAE, Northrop Grumman, et. al., but the prime contractors will be:

• Boeing in Mesa, AZ (Helicopter)
  
• Lockheed Martin Corporation in Orlando, FL (Hellfire missiles & launchers)
  
• General Electric Company in Cincinnati, OH (Engines)
  
• Lockheed Martin Millimeter Technology in Owego, NY (Longbow radars)
  
• Longbow Limited Liability Corporation in Orlando, Florida (Longbow radars)

Implementation of this proposed sale may require 5 U.S. contractor representatives and 3 U.S. Government representatives in country, full-time, for equipment checkout, fielding, and technical support.

DSCA: Indonesia request (8)

Sept 6/12: Support. Longbow LLC in Orlando, FL receives a $39 million firm-fixed-price contract to support the helicopter’s Radar Electronic Unit and Unmanned Aerial System Tactical Common Data Link Assembly.

Work will be performed in Orlando, FL until Aug 31/13. One bid was solicited, with 1 bid received by US Army Contracting Command at Redstone Arsenal, AL (W58RGZ-12-C-0049).

Aug 28/12: Support. Boeing in Mesa, AZ receives a $17.7 million firm-fixed-price contract “for the procurement of Apache Block III aircraft and related support.”

Work will be performed in Mesa, with an estimated completion date of Dec 31/15. One bid was solicited, with 1 bid received (W58RGZ-12-C-0113).

Aug 21/12: India. The Times of India quotes a Ministry of defence official, who says that:

“It’s just a matter of time before the contract is inked for the Apaches after final commercial negotiations. Most of the hurdles have been cleared.”

It’s hard to tell whether that means anything. In India, “just a matter of time” can easily be measured in years. Meanwhile, Boeing and Russia will be competing for another Indian contract, pitting Boeing’s CH-47F heavy-lift helicopter against the even larger Mi-26.

July 13/12: Support. An $84.6 million firm-fixed-price contract covers production and support services for the Apache Block III aircraft. Work will be performed in Mesa, AZ with an estimated completion date of Jan 31/13. One bid was solicited, with 1 bid received (W58RGZ-12-C-0055).

July 12/12: Sub-contractors. Boeing announces that they’ve received the first 10 new Block III fuselages from long-time supplier Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI). This milestone paves the way for delivery of the 1st new-build Apache Block III in 2013.

Boeing is a huge customer for KAI, who supplies parts for commercial jets, F-15s, A-10 wings, etc. KAI have been delivering AH-64 fuselages for over a decade from their facility in Sacheon, South Korea, and the Republic of Korea has expressed some interest in buying new AH-64D Block III helicopters of their own (vid. Sept 24/08 entry).

July 12/12: Qatar wants 24. The US DSCA announces Qatar’s official request to buy 24 AH-64D Block III helicopters, plus associated equipment, support, and weapons, including Hellfire anti-tank and Stinger air-to-air missiles. The total estimated cost, if a contract is signed, is up to $3.13 billion for all requests. The main request includes 24 Block III attack helicopters, which would more than replace its existing 14 SA342 Gazelle light armed scouts.

Read “Qatar: The Emir’s New Helicopters” for full coverage.

DSCA: Qatar request (24)

May 29/12: Taiwan. Boeing in Mesa, AZ receives a $97.3 million firm-fixed-price contract modification “of an existing contract to procure Block III Apache AH-64D attack helicopters in support of Foreign Military Sales.” Which means Taiwan. Work will be performed in Mesa, AZ, with an estimated completion date of Dec 30/17. One bid was solicited, with 1 bid received by the U.S. Army Contracting Command in Redstone Arsenal, AL (W58RGZ-09-C-0147).

The contract number does match Taiwan’s 30-helicopter order, and the USA seems to be using a different contract number for them, but that conclusion isn’t 100% certain. If it is Taiwan, it brings total ROC Apache Block III contracts to $624.5 million so far, of the maximum $2.532 billion noted in the October 2008 DSCA request. If air-launched Stinger missiles are included, on the grounds that they were part of Taiwan’s request, the total so far rises to $683.8 million.

May 6/12: LRIP-2B. Boeing in Mesa, AZ receives a $486.4 million firm-fixed-price contract for “AH-64D Apache Block III low rate initial production and related support.” This appears to be the FY 2012 base order, per plans to buy 19 more Block IIIs as the 2nd tranche of LRIP Lot 2.

Work will be performed in Mesa, AZ, with an estimated completion date of Nov 30/14. The original bid was solicited through the Internet, with 1 bid received by US Army Contracting Command in Redstone Arsenal, AL (W58RGZ-09-C-0161).

LRIP Lot 2B

May 6/12: Taiwan. A $171.8 million firm-fixed-price contract “for the procurement of Apache Block III aircraft and related services in support of Foreign Military Sales.” The Pentagon does not mention which country, but conversations with industry sources indicate that this is almost certainly for Taiwan’s 30-helicopter order.

Work will be performed in Mesa, AZ, with an estimated completion date of Dec 30/14. One bid was solicited, with 1 bid received. The U.S. Army Contracting Command in Redstone Arsenal, AL acts as Taiwan’s agent (W58RGZ-12-C-0089).

April 3/12: IOT&E. The AH-64 Apache Block III is finishing up its Initial Operational Test and Evaluation at Fort Irwin, CA, and has performed “extremely well.” Col. Shane Openshaw, US Army project manager, Apache Attack Helicopters, is confident that the new variant will be ready to deploy in 2013, even as new technologies like UTA and GFAS begin their own journey into the fleet.

The Army has taken delivery of 10 Block IIIs so far. US Army.

IOT&E done

March 16/12: RDT&E. Boeing in Mesa, AZ receives a $187 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract, to fund Apache Block III development, integration and testing. Work will be performed in Mesa, AZ, with an estimated completion date of July 31/14. One bid was solicited, with one bid received (W58RGZ-05-C-0001).

Jan 17/12: DOT&E testing. The Pentagon releases the FY 2011 Annual Report from its Office of the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E). Most performance levels looked good as of Sept 30/11, after 1,587 developmental flight test hours, and the new helicopter got good marks for supportability, but formal IOT&E is scheduled for April 2012.

The helicopter meets all thresholds, except for 99% performance in Hover Out of Ground Effect. The new radar met or exceeded 37/44 specification thresholds, and even for the other 7, performance was at or above the existing AH-64D radar. Remaining improvements are mostly focused on 3 key sensors: the IHADSS helmet-mounted display, the MTADS “Arrowhead” sensor turret, and UAV interoperability:

“…the program redesigned the IHADSS helmet to improve its fit and functionality, and has made software corrections to make it easier to adjust radio squelch, provide feedback to the pilot while changing radio frequencies, simplify UAS linkup procedures, and achieve compliance with interoperability standard… M-TADS video vibrates excessively during certain flight regimes. Subsequent testing revealed that the cause of the vibration was the natural frequency of the TADS Electronics Display and Control overlays with the main rotor frequency. The Army is exploring options to correct the problem.”

January 2012: India. India Strategic quotes Raytheon’s Business Development Manager for missile systems Brad Barnard, who says that Raytheon’s FIM-92F Block 1 Stinger ATAS helicopter-mounter anti-aircraft missiles could also be made available for other Indian helicopters, beyond the requested AH-64D Block III buy (vid. Oct 25/11, Dec 27/10).

Missile candidates would include India’s HAL Dhruv helicopters, and HAL’s LCH scout and light attack helicopter.

UTA: UAV mast-er
(click to view full)

Dec 30/11: Mast sensors for Taiwan & US. Longbow Limited Liability Corp. in Orlando, FL receives an announced $64.3 million firm-fixed-price contract modification, but Longbow LLC pegs its actual value at $181 million, with options to extend performance past 2015, to 2017.

It’s said to include 15 Longbow Block III mast-mounted Fire Control Radar assemblies for Taiwan’s AH-64Ds, marking the Block III version’s 1st export order.

For the US Army, the order includes 14 Block III Radar Electronics Units, which are smaller than their predecessors, and offer lower weight, maintenance and power requirements. The Army is also buying 14 Unmanned Aerial System Tactical Common Data Link Assembly (UTA) systems and spares, which provide a 2-way, high-bandwidth data link that lets the helicopter crew control nearby UAV flight paths, sensors and lasers at long ranges, while receiving high-quality imagery from the UAVs on the helicopters’ own displays.

Work will be performed in Orlando, FL, with an estimated completion date of Sept 30/15. One bid was solicited, with 1 bid received by US Army Contracting Command in Redstone Arsenal, AL manages the contract, including its work as Taiwan’s FMS agent (W58RGZ-10-C-0005). Lockheed Martin | Northrop Grumman.

Dec 30/11: Training. The US Army discusses AH-64D Block III improvements, as the 1st Attack Reconnaissance Battalion, 1st Aviation Regiment, Combat Aviation Brigade, 1st Infantry Division prepares to be the 1st unit in the Army to field a force with only AH-64D Block III machines.

The differences are extensive enough that existing 1-1 pilots are getting a 3-week course at Boeing’s Mesa, AZ facility, including 28 hours of academics, 24 hours in the new simulator, and 8.5 hours flying in the Block III helicopter. Maintenance test pilots get an additional 22 hours of academics and 3 additional hours in the aircraft.

Dec 7/11: Taiwan contract. Boeing in Mesa, AZ received a $141.3 million firm-fixed-price contract for “services in support of 30 Apache AH-64D attack helicopters for Taiwan.” This appears to confirm the report in the June 10/11 entry.

Work will be performed in Mesa, AZ, with an estimated completion date of Dec 30/17. One bid was solicited, with one bid received by the U.S. Army Contracting Command in Redstone Arsenal, AL, who is acting as Taiwan’s agent (W58RGZ-09-C-0147).

Taiwan’s 30 begin

Dec 7/11: Boeing in Mesa, AZ receives a $7.5 million firm-fixed-price contract for “logistics support services for the AH-64D Apache low rate initial production.” DID is checking, but believes that only Block III is back at the LRIP phase.

Work will be performed in Mesa, AZ, with an estimated completion date of Feb 28/14. One bid was solicited, with one bid received (W58RGZ-09-C-0161).

Nov 9/11: UAV Mast-a. An AH-64D Apache Block III helicopter fitted with the Unmanned Aerial Systems Tactical Common Data Link Assembly (UTA) atop its mast has controlled the payload and flight of an MQ-1C Grey Eagle UAV while both are in flight. This marks the 1st time an unmanned vehicle has been controlled from the cockpit of an Apache helicopter.

Lockheed Martin says that the test program proved the UTA’s design, adding that: “All goals of this phase of UTA testing were completed with 100 percent success.”

UAV level IV control

Nov 2/11: 1st handover. Boeing hands the 1st of 51 Low-Rate Initial Production AH-64D Apache Block IIIs over to the U.S. Army at a ceremony in Mesa, AZ. Boeing.

1st delivery

Oct 25/11: Alone in India. Reports surface that Russia’s Mi-28N Night Hunter has lost the competition for India’s proposed buy of 22 attack helicopters (vid. Dec 27/10 entry). Unnamed sources say that it fell short in 20 technical areas, and that the AH-64D displayed better maneuverability, multi-role capability, and capacity to accept upgrades.

That will be bad news for MBDA & Diehl, as well; their new PARS 3/TRIGAT LR anti-tank missile was reportedly going to be the Mi-28N’s counterpart to Lockheed Martin’s AGM-114 Hellfire missile family on the Apache. The question now is whether the Indian military’s recommendation will be accepted and approved, then turned into a contract. That often takes a long time in India. Economic Times of India | Russia’s Pravda | RIA Novosti | Monsters & Critics | The Hindu re: PARS 3.

FY 2011

Program split into remanufactured & new; Low Rate Initial Production approved; LRIP-1 & 2 orders; Taiwan deal; Requests from India, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE.

AH-64Ds, Afghanistan
(click to view full)

Aug 30/11: LRIP-1. A $16 million firm-fixed-price contract modification to buy support for AH-64D Apache Block III Low Rate Initial Production, Lot 1A and 1B. Work will be performed in Mesa, AZ, with an estimated completion date of Feb 28/14. One bid was solicited, with 1 bid received (W58RGZ-09-C-0161).

July 25/11: LRIP-2. Boeing in Mesa, AZ receives a $189.2 million firm-fixed-price contract modification of an existing contract to provide “16 AH-64D Apache aircraft and related support.” Discussions with Boeing explain the award in detail as unfinalized contracts for Block III Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) Lot 2A production and spares/ ground support/ logistics support; increased Advanced Procurement Funding for LRIP Lot 2B production and spares/ ground support/ logistics support/ training devices, and LRIP Lot 2C production and spares.

Work will be performed in Mesa, AZ, with an estimated completion date of Feb 28/14. One bid was solicited, with one bid received (W58RGZ-09-C-0161).

LRIP Lot 2 base

June 10/11: Taiwan deal? Reports surface that Taiwan has signed a contract for 30 AH-64D Apache Longbow Block III attack helicopters under its Sky Eagle program, making it the type’s 1st export customer. US Army AH-64 project manager Col. Shane Openshaw is quoted as the source for the news, and says that Taiwan’s first new-build helicopter will enter the production line in October 2011 as the very 1st new-build Block III, with deliveries expected in 2012-2013. The signing is consistent with April 2011 reports, but no branch of the US government, or Boeing, has made any public announcement yet; and there have been no media reports in Taiwan. On the other hand, subsequent entries strongly suggest a contract.

Per earlier contracts & requests, Taiwanese AH-64s will include Hellfire Longbow fire-and-forget light strike missiles and Stinger anti-aircraft missiles among its weapon options. In exercises, helicopters have proven to be very challenging opponents for fixed-wing aircraft, and the growing aerial imbalance over the China Strait makes some form of aerial engagement capability a necessity for any Taiwanese attack helicopter. The Dec 3/08 DSCA entry set a maximum estimated price of $2.532 billion for 30 helicopters, all associated equipment and initial support, and requested stocks of Stinger and Hellfire Longbow missiles.

Boeing’ VP attack helicopter programs, David Koopersmith, told Shephard’s Rotorhub that the first 3 remanufactured Block IIIs were on the line, and they still expect to deliver the 1st production remanufactured Block III helicopter to the US Army in October 2011. Once the remaining AH-64D Block II line converts over, Koopersmith believes that Boeing could deliver 7-8 Block III helicopters per month on the 2 lines at Mesa, AZ. The Rotorhub report expects the US Army to eventually request 786 AH-64D Block IIIs, 96 above the current program plan of 690. Flight International | Rotorhub | Asian Skies blog.

April 15/11: SAR split. The Pentagon’s Selected Acquisitions Report ending Dec 30/10 includes a small change, for reporting purposes:

“The AB3 (Apache Block III) program was divided into two separate programs (AB3A Remanufacture and AB3B New Build).”

Looking at the accompanying tables [PDF], that brings the program from its 2010 figure of $9.371 billion for 658 helicopters (602 rebuild, 56 new), to $FY10 12.582 billion for 690 helicopters (639 rebuild, 57 new). The AB3 Remanufacture program cost has increased 43.9%, a jump of 28.3% per helicopter to about FY10$ 11.74 – 16.36 million each for PAUC (Program Acquisition Unit Cost, includes amortized R&D). On the other hand, the AB3 New-Build line has actually seen costs drop 8.3%, from $FY10 41.2 – 37.84 million PAUC, despite adding 1 helicopter.

SAR – the program splits

April 12/11: Taiwan. Defense News reports that representatives from the U.S. government and Boeing will arrive in Taipei in May 2011, to wrap up the AH-64 Block III Foreign Military Sale deal. Author Wendell Minnick.

March 16/11: UTA. Longbow, LLC in Orlando, FL received a $10 million firm-fixed-price contract for radar electronics units and unmanned aerial system tactical common data link assembly units, in support of the Apache Block III helicopter fire control radar. This equipment set helps the helicopter work with unmanned drones. The Block III’s desired “Level IV” control means the Apache pilots see what the UAV sees, and can control a UAV to do anything except launch itself, or land itself. Boeing has equipped the Block IIIs with basic systems for UAV control in anticipation of the day when the battlefield procedures and software, are deemed ready.

Work will be performed in Orlando, Fla., with an estimated completion date of Sept. 30, 2015. One bid was solicited with one bid received. The U.S. Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal, Ala., is the contracting activity (W58RGZ-10-C-0005).

Dec 27/10: India. India’s attack helicopter competition. The US DSCA announces [PDF] India’s formal request to approve Boeing’s AH-64D Block III attack helicopter for sale, as part of that country’s multinational attack helicopter competition, to supplement and eventually replace India’s existing fleet of 32 Mi-24/35 helicopters. If the Boeing-U.S. Army proposal wins, the Government of India will request a possible sale of 22 AH-64D Block III attack helicopters under Direct Commercial Sale terms, plus up to:

• 50 T700-GE-701D engines.
  
• 23 “Arrowhead” Modernized TADS/PVNS sensor & targeting turrets
  
• 12 AN/APG-78 Fire Control Radars. Used in the AH-64’s “top hat” above the rotors.
  
• 12 AN/APR-48A Radar Frequency Interferometers. Actually a defensive system; detects and classifies enemy radar emissions. Of course, that information can be used to attack those air defense systems.
  
• 812 AGM-114L-3 Hellfire Longbow missiles. These use APG-78’s millimeter-wave radar guidance.
  
• 542 AGM-114R-3 Hellfire II missiles. The new “Romeo” missiles use semi-active laser guidance, and carry a triple-threat warhead that can deal armor-destroying, blast, and fragmentation effects.
  
• 245 FIM-92 Stinger Block I-92H missiles. A variant of the shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missile for use on helicopters.
  
• Rockets (presumably 70mm), training and dummy missiles, 30mm ammunition for the Mk44 chain gun.
  
• Transponders, simulators, GPS/inertial navigation systems, communication equipment, spare and repair parts; tools and test equipment, support equipment, repair and return support, personnel training and training equipment; publications and technical documentation, and other forms of U.S. Government and contractor support.

The estimated cost of these items, excluding the helicopters, is up to $1.4 billion. The prime contractors will be GE in Cincinnati Ohio (engines); Lockheed Martin Corporation in Orlando, FL and Mission Systems and Sensors in Owego, NY (APR-48, Arrowhead, Hellfire missiles); Longbow Limited Liability Corporation joint venture in Orlando, FL (Radar); and Raytheon Company in Tucson, AZ (Stinger missiles). Implementation of this proposed sale would require the assignment of 1 U.S. Government and 7 contractor representatives to India for one week to conduct a detailed discussion of the various aspects of the hybrid program with Government of India representatives.

India’s competition has also attracted interest from AgustaWestland (A-129i/T-129 Mongoose), EADS Eurocopter (EC665 Tiger) and Russia (Mi-28 NE Havoc). A previous attempt to buy the 22 attack helicopters also featured interest from Bell Helicopter (AH-1Z Viper), before both Bell and Boeing quit that competition. The 2 American companies had quit because India was insisting on Direct Commercial Sale type procedures, but their offerings required at least some Foreign Military Sale procedures under US law. India ended up canceling the initial competition in 2009, when only Eurocopter was left bidding at the end, but they issued another RFP in early 2010. As is true for other Indian buys of this scale, industrial offsets worth at least 30% of the contract’s value will be required.

DSCA: India request (22)

Nov 8/10: UAE request. The US Defense Security Cooperation Agency announces [PDF] a formal request for 60 AH-64D Block III Apache Longbow attack helicopters. Of the 60, 30 will be re-manufactured AH-64D Block IIs, while the other 30 will be new-build helicopters. The total contract set could run as high as $5 billion, and could include:

• 30 re-manufactured & upgraded AH-64D Block II lot 10s. These have already been upgraded once, from AH-64A status to AH-64D Block II.
  
• 30 new-build AH-64D Block III Apache helicopters
  
• 120 T700-GE-701D engines. At 2 per helicopter, this is an exact buy.
  
• 76 “Arrowhead” Modernized Target Acquisition and Designation Sight/Modernized Pilot Night Vision Sensors
  
• 30mm automatic weapons
  
• 70 AN/APG-78 Fire Control Radars with Radar Electronics Units,
  
• 70 AN/ALQ-144Av3 Infrared Jammers,
  
• 70 AN/APR-39Av4 Radar Signal Detecting Sets,
  
• 70 AN/ALQ-136v5 Radar Jammers
  
• 70 AAR-57v3/5 Common Missile Warning Systems
  
• Plus improved counter measure dispensers, communication and support equipment, improved helmet display sight systems (IHADSS), trainer upgrades, spare and repair parts, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, and other forms of U.S. Government and contractor support.

The prime contractors will be The Boeing Company in Mesa, AZ and Lockheed Martin Corporation in Orlando, FL. Implementation of this proposed sale may require the assignment of additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to the UAE, but that isn’t defined yet. U.S. Government and contractor representatives will also participate in program management and technical reviews for one-week intervals, twice semi-annually. Finally, this note from the DSCA was interesting. The UAE does have troops in Afghanistan, where AH-64s are always in demand:

“The UAE is currently deployed in support of U.S. regional operations, and plans to provide future deployment support.”

DSCA: UAE request (60)

Oct 25/10: LRIP-1 order. Boeing announces a $247 million contract to begin Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) for the U.S. Army’s AH-64D Apache Block III helicopter. The Oct 22/10 LRIP Lot 1 contract covers production of 8 AH-64D Block IIIs. The helicopters will be assembled, flight tested and delivered from the Boeing Global Strike facility in Mesa, AZ, and first delivery is scheduled for October 2011. Boeing | Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

LRIP Lot 1

Oct 20/10: Saudi request. Saudi Arabia submits official weapons export requests for up to 70 AH-64D Block III helicopters: 10 for the Royal Guard, 24 for the Army, and 36 for the National Guard. Some of these helicopters would have the Longbow mast mounted sights, and mounted weapons will include laser-guided rockets as well as AGM-114R Hellfire II missiles.

DSCA: Saudi request (70)

Oct 7/10: LRIP clearance. A Pentagon Milestone C Acquisition Decision Memorandum authorizes the AH-64D Block III program to enter the LRIP phase to produce 51 aircraft, and the current Army acquisition objective is for 690 helicopters across LRIP and Full Rate Production. Source.

Milestone C

FY 2008 – 2010

Taiwan request; South Korean interest; 1st prototype flight; 1st test aircraft flight; Limited User Test done; Howard Hughes Award.

Block-III testing
(click to view full)

Jan 13/10: Sub-contractors. Boeing announces that Science Engineering Services Inc. (SES) is joining its Block II industry team. SES will receive U.S. Army Apache helicopters at the SES West Aviation and Integration Facility near Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, AL. They will be disassembled, inspected and repaired as necessary, then components and airframes will be shipped to Boeing in Mesa, AZ, for integration into the AH-64D Apache Block III.

The program will create approximately 70 new positions for aviation and avionics mechanics, structural installers, and aviation quality inspectors within SES.

Nov 23/09: Testing Boeing completes the 1st flight of its AH-64D Apache Block III program structures test aircraft in Mesa, AZ. The tests demonstrate flight characteristics and handling maneuvers, and test technologies including the composite main rotor blade, composite horizontal stabilator, and -701D engines with enhanced digital electronic control. The aircraft also features a split-torque face gear transmission that increases power throughput by more than 20%, without taking up more room.

The Army and Boeing continue to work toward an anticipated US Department of Defense Milestone C decision in April 2010, which would begin production. Boeing release.

November 2009: Block III LUT. Boeing’s AH-64D Apache Block III program avionics test aircraft completes the Army’s Limited User Test according to schedule. Source.

LUT

June 2008: Testing. Boeing completes the first flight of the AH-64D Apache Block III program’s avionics test helicopter ahead of schedule, at the Yuma Proving Ground, AZ. Source.

Dec 3/08: Sub-contractors. Presagis, a Canadian firm which specializes in providing commercial-off-the shelf (COTS) modeling, simulation and embedded display graphics software, announced that Boeing has selected their Lyra image generator to support the development of the next-generation Apache helicopter simulator. Boeing will use Lyra in its new Block III Apache Engineering Development Simulator (EDS), the virtual simulation of the Apache weapon system. Ottawa Citizen – Defence Watch.

Oct 2/08: Taiwan request. Taiwan’s official request [PDF] is placed for 30 AH-64D Apache Longbow Block III attack helicopters and associated equipment. The estimated purchase price is $2.532 billion. Taiwan currently fields AH-1W Cobras in this role, and the AH-64D beat Bell’s AH-1Z Viper on the grounds that it was battle proven, while the AH-1Z remains developmental.

The helicopters will be ordered with 30 Modernized Target Acquisition Designation Sight/Pilot Night Vision Sensor (MTADS/PNVS “Arrowhead“), 17 AN/APG-78 Fire Control Radars and AN/APR-48 Radar Frequency Interferometer (FCR/RFI), 69 T700-GE-701D Turbine Engines. Composite horizontal stabilators, crew and maintenance trainers, depot maintenance, all necessary support equipment, tools and test equipment, integration and checkout, spares and repair parts, training and training equipment, and other forms of support.

The request also includes applicable weapons: 173 FIM-92F Stinger Block I Air-to-Air Missiles, 35 Stinger air-air missile Captive Flight Trainers with live guidance systems but no rocket motors, 1,000 AGM-114L Longbow Hellfire anti-tank missiles that can use the APG-78 and their own radar’s millimeter-wave guidance for “fire and forget” capability, and 66 M299 Hellfire missile launchers.

Taiwan has requested industrial offsets, which will be defined in direct negotiations with the contractor(s). Implementation of this proposed sale will require the assignment of 2 U.S. Government personnel for a period of 6 years to provide intensive coordination, monitoring, and technical assistance. In addition, 6 contractor representatives will be in country serving as Contractor Field Service Representatives for a period of 5 years, with the possibility of a 5-year extension. The principal contractors will be:

• The Boeing Company in Mesa, AZ and St Louis, MO (AH-64)
  
• General Electric in Lynn, MA (Engines)
  
• Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control in Orlando, FL (Longbow Hellfires, M299, Arrowheads)
  
• Lockheed Martin Systems Integration in Owego, NY
  
• Northrop Grumman Corporation in Baltimore, MD (Longbow Hellfires)
  
• Raytheon Company in Tucson, AZ (Stinger missiles)
  
• Inter-Coastal Electronics in Mesa, AZ
  
• BAE Systems in Rockville, MD

DSCA: Taiwan request (30)

Sept 14/08: South Korea. South Korea’s Yonhap News reports that the USA has offered to sell 36 used Apache attack helicopters to South Korea at less than 60% of the out-of-factory price, with upgrades to Block III status plus include a new frame and engines, resetting their life span to 10,000 flight hours.

The deal, if signed, is expected to be worth around $811 million. Its size is causing hesitation in Korea, which needs to replace its aging fleet of 500MD Defender helicopters and has backed off of its previous plans for an indigenous attack helicopter program. Politics is an uncertain game, and dates are rarely dependable. A government decision was expected by the end of 2008, but remained unmade as 2012 began. Seoul Times article | DID coverage: “US Army Apaches for Auction?”

July 11/08: 1st flight. The Boeing Company and assembled guests celebrate the first flight of the AH-64D Apache Block III helicopter in Mesa, AZ. The aircraft was flown by two Apache-rated aviators: U.S. Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Richard Cody, and Army experimental test pilot (Chief Warrant Officer 5) Rucie Moore.

Actually the demonstration flight on this day was the second flight. As one might expect given the passenger involved, a U.S. Army soldier and a Boeing teammate initially flew this Block III prototype aircraft over the Arizona desert on June 27/08 in preparation for this day’s ceremony. Boeing’s release states that it plans to begin Low Rate Initial Production in April 2010, and to deliver the first production AH-64D Apache Block III in June 2011.

A follow-on Lockheed Martin release notes the debut of its Arrowhead surveillance and targeting sensors, and Longbow Unmanned Aerial Systems Tactical Common Data Link Assembly (UTA) on the new helicopters. The Longbow UTA can control up to 4 UAVs.

1st flight

April 30/08: Award. A team comprised of The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA], the U.S. Army’s Aviation Applied Technology Directorate, AMRDEC Aviation Systems Integration Facility, Harris Corp. and Rockwell Collins receive the American Helicopter Society’s (AHS) 2008 Howard Hughes Award during the AHS International Annual Forum in Montreal, Canada. The AH-64D Block III’s progress figures prominently in that award.

One hopes that the award’s annual winners will have better luck with aircraft development than Howard Hughes. Boeing release.

Jan 17/08: Longbow LLC in Orlando FL received a $15.4 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract for Apache Block III radar electronics unit and an unmanned aerial vehicle tactical common data link assembly. The latter item would allow the helicopter’s pilots to share data with UAVs, and could allow full control depending on the technologies used.

Work will be performed in Baltimore, MD and Orlando, FL and is expected to be complete by June 30/09. One bid was solicited on Jan 20/06, and 1 bid was received (W58RGZ-05-C-0239).

FY 2007 and Earlier

Initial development contract; Advance electronics contracts.

AH-64D Longbow
(click to view full)

July 14/06: Development. Boeing and U.S. Army officials sign a $619.3 million development contract for Block III upgrades to the current and future Apache fleet, via a virtual signing ceremony in Washington, DC; Huntsville, AL; and Mesa, AZ.

Those upgrades are described earlier in the article.Boeing release

Block III SDD contract

Jan 25/06: Longbow LLC in Orlando, FL received a $76 million increment as part of a $100 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract for Apache Block III Radar Electronics Units.

Work will be performed in Baltimore, MD (50%), and Orlando, FL (50%), and is expected to be complete by Dec 30/08. This was a sole source contract initiated on Jan 11/06 (W58RGZ-05-C-0239).

July 13/05: Longbow LLC in Orlando, FL receives a $15 million increment as part of a $17.6 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for the Apache Fire Control Radar Electronics Unit.

Work will be performed in Baltimore, MD (50%), and Orlando, FL (50%), and is expected to be complete by Dec 15/05. This was a sole source contract initiated on July 22/04 (W58RGZ-05-C-0239).

Appendix A: Apache’s (Re) Production History

No sunset yet.
(click to view full)

Of the 937 AH-64As ever built, 821 were built for US Army. Over 500 of those were remanufactured to AH-64D status over a 10-year period, under 2 multi-year contracts that ran for 5 years each. Subsequent contracts drew in more AH-64As, and as of April 2012, only 8 AH-64As remained in the US Army.

• 284 helicopters were fielded as AH-64D Block Is. The first multi-year remanufacture contract was for 232 helicopters, and covered Lots I-V. The Lot VI helicopters from the 2nd multi-year contract were also built to the AH-64D Block I standard, which included the “Longbow” radar mast, compatible dual-mode Hellfire II missile capability, updated self-protection suites, and better cockpit displays. These initial AH-64D helicopters received equipment upgrades, and were also rebuilt to “zero flight hours” condition.

• Another 217 helicopters in Lots VII-X built AH-64As to the AH-64D Block II standard, which adds improved electronics and software to include the “Longbow” radar mast, compatible dual-mode Hellfire II missile capability, color cockpit displays including moving digital maps, and even more up to date self-protection suites. All were built during the 2nd multi-year contract period, which covered 269 Block I and Block II helicopters in total.

• The lateness of the JTRS radio program, and other issues, have delayed the future Block III model, and so January 2007 saw a contract to convert another 96 American AH-64As to the AH-64D “Extended Block II” standard, followed by additional contracts for Extended Block II+, where the plus simply indicates that “we’re still producing this model, past our expected schedule”. Boeing has received orders for 278 of these so far: 117 for the Army, 95 for the National Guard, and 66 War Replacement helicopters. In 2013, this production line is expected to switch to Block IIIs.

Observant readers will note that adding up all of the above cohorts makes 779 AH-64Ds produced (284 + 217 + 278) – but that counts the 66 war replacement helicopters twice, so the real total is 713. 713 – 690 = 23 unconverted AH-64Ds for whatever reason, be it unreplaced losses, budgets, or a safety margin to account for future losses and accidents. The Block III program was also supposed to manufacture 56 new-build helicopters as a separate program, but the FY 2014 budget throws the “AB3B” program into doubt. Unless Congress changes the Pentagon’s plans, the new-build program will end at just 8-10 helicopters.

Additional Readings

Readers with corrections, comments, or information to contribute are encouraged to contact DID’s Founding Editor, Joe Katzman. We understand the industry – you will only be publicly recognized if you tell us that it’s OK to do so.

Background: AH-64 Apache

• Boeing – AH-64 Apache.

• AgustaWestland – Apache AH MK1. They have an agreement with Boeing to make the British AH Mk.1s (AH-64D), which use Turboomeca’s RT332 engines instead of GE’s T700-701D. The AH-64E hasn’t come up in that context yet.

• DID – Boeing Remanufactures AH-64A Apaches to AH-64D Block II. Most, if not all, will eventually become Block IIIs.

• DID – American AH-64D Apache: War Replacement Contracts. These are new-build Block IIs. At some point, they’ll become AH-64Es.

 

Background: Ancillary Equipment

• Northrop Grumman – AN/APG-78 Longbow Fire Control Radar.

• Lockheed Martin – LONGBOW FCR and LONGBOW HELLFIRE Missile.

• Lockheed Martin – LONGBOW UTA. UAV Level IV controller, mounts instead of the Longbow FCR.

• DID – Apache Helicopter Pilots Take Aim with Arrowhead. Explains this urveillance, targeting, and pilot vision system in detail.

• ATK – LW30mm M230 Automatic Cannon. The most frequently-used weapon on the helicopter.

 

Competitors

• Bell Helicopter – Bell AH-1Z. Earlier Cobra models have been widely exported, but the new “Zulu” model hasn’t yet.

• DID – Russia’s Ka-52 Alligator Scout-Attack Helicopters. Has not been exported yet.

• DID – Russia Improving its Mi-28 Attack Helicopter Fleet. Exported to Algeria and Iraq.

• DID – Turkey Finally Lands Its Attack Helicopters. The T-129, formerly AW129. Turkey didn’t just buy some helicopters – they bought the helicopter model.

• Eurocopter – Tiger. It actually comes in several different models (HAP, HAD, UHT, ARH), which can be confusing. Exported to Australia and Spain.

 

News & Views

• Flightglobal (Oct 14/14) – US Army details combat experience with AH-64E.

• NDIA’s National Defense (January 2014) – Fuel-Efficient Engine to Increase Range, Power of Army Helicopters. The VAATE/ITEP program, featuring the GE3000 and HPW 3000, which could become a future upgrade.

• Aviation Week DTI (Oct 26/12) – US Army Prepares for Full-Rate AH-64E Production.

• edefense Online, via WayBack (Oct 25/05) – New Tactics for Apache.

On 13th of June, during the 10th EDA REACH Plenary Meeting, experts from Member States’ Ministries of Defence exchanged views with the European Commission (DG GROW) and representatives of the European defence industry on current developments concerning the European Regulation on Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) and its interaction with defence. 

The aim of the meeting was to jointly explore ways and means to meet REACH’s objectives and ensure a coherent application of the Regulation in the defence sector while, at the same time, minimise its possible impact on the operational capabilities of Member States’ Armed Forces and the EU defence industry’s competitiveness and innovation as an important stakeholder in support of European defence capabilities, including through the implementation of the EDA REACH Roadmap 2018-2020 activities.

The defence industry was represented by the Aerospace and Defence Industries Association of Europe (ASD) / REACH Working Group, National Defence Industry Associations (NDIAs) and individual EU defence industries. REACH experts from the European Space Agency also attended the meeting as observers. 
 

Background

EDA is addressing REACH and its defence implications since 2009, at the request of its participating Member States and in close coordination with the European Commission. 
The Agency’s current work in this field is guided by the EDA REACH Roadmap 2018-2020 adopted by Member States in October 2017. The roadmap encapsulates a wide spectrum of activities and tasks aiming to support in a structured approach the main purpose of REACH, which is to protect human health and the environment, while taking into account the defence specificities. 

EDA regularly invites the European Commission, the European Chemicals Agency and the EU defence industry to EDA REACH meetings, in order to facilitate a closer and more transparent interaction on REACH issues affecting defence, which is considered an important success factor for EDA’s work in this field. 
 

More information:

• EDA REACH Activities 
• EDA REACH Roadmap 2018-2020 
• EDA REACH Portal 

 

Americas

• Armtec, a subsidiary of Esterline, is being tapped for work in support of the Navy’s Airborne Expendable Countermeasure program. The three-year, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract is valued at $33.7 million and provides for the production of six different Chaff cartridges used in radar countermeasures. Chaff decoys produce specialized radar signatures to provide protection against radar-guided missiles and tracking systems. Chaffs offer reliability, multiple broadband frequency protection, operational radar cross section and a rapid bloom with minimal birds-nesting. Chaffs are deployed on many platforms including the F-35 and V-22. Esterline Defense Technologies is the sole producer of such systems for the US Department of Defense. Work will be performed in Lillington, North Carolina, and the ordering period is expected to be completed by June 2021.

• The Navy keeping up its MQ-4C Triton efforts. Northrop Grumman Systems is set to provide operator, maintenance, logistic support and sustainment engineering services in support of the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance Demonstrator program. The $61 million contract will ensure that the aircraft are mission-capable for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions. Tritons work in conjunction with the P-8 Poseidon maritime surveillance aircraft on missions that include maritime surveillance, collection of enemy order of battle information, battle damage assessment, port surveillance, communication relay; plus, support for maritime interdiction, surface warfare, battlespace management, and targeting for maritime and strike missions. Work will be performed in Patuxent River, Maryland and at various forward operating locations outside the continental US. It is expected to be completed in June 2019.

Middle East & Africa

• IMI Systems and Israel Aerospace Industries have unveiled their jointly developed Rampage missile. The new long-range precision strike weapon is suitable for use during stand-off-range attacks. The supersonic Rampage is 15.4ft long, has a weight of 1,250 lb. and boasts a warhead, rocket engine and advanced navigation suite which allow precision striking of high-quality, well-protected targets at a distance of 90 miles. It is a derivate of IMI Systems’ ground-launched guided Extended Range Artillery rocket. Minimal changes have been made to the weapon’s external design for its air-launched role. The missile can operate in any weather conditions, both day and night. It offers simplified operation, with no need for a “man in the loop” and can be carried on a broad range of aircraft. For Israel itself, this could be a valuable capability, particularly in light of its low-level fight against Iran and its proxies, including the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, in Syria. Israeli jets carrying Rampage missiles could easily hit targets in and around the Syrian capital Damascus from within Israel’s own airspace.

• The government of Qatar is planning to equip its Dassault Rafale fighter jets with Lockheed Martin Sniper targeting pods. Sniper is an electro-optical targeting system in a single, aerodynamically efficient pod weighing less than 450 pounds. The system is capable of detecting, identifying and engaging multiple moving and fixed targets in both air and earth-centric scenarios, but also presents an answer to the challenge of non-traditional intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions. Lockheed Martin’s AN/AAQ-33 Sniper ATP was designed to be a major step-change from the firm’s twin-pod LANTIRN systems, making use of a low radar signature profile and an advanced array of sensors and electronics, in order to offer longer range detection and identification. A universal interface, which self-detects the plane type it’s on and automatically load the appropriate Operational Flight Program, is an important time and money saving feature. The pod deliveries to the Qatar Emiri Air Force are scheduled to begin by 2019.

Europe

• Jane’s reports that Switzerland’s Rheinmetall Air Defense has completed its first example of a new-generation Oerlikon Skyranger Gun 35 mm mobile air-defense system integrated onto a Boxer MRAV. The Skyranger is being developed as answer to the complex requirements imposed on short and very short-range air defense systems that have to tackle unmanned air vehicles and precision guided munitions that are smaller, faster and more agile than ever. It is designed to protect mobile units and stationary installations. The Skyranger unmanned turret is a member of a whole modular family of air defense systems. These include battle management, gun systems and missile systems, that can form an air defense architecture. The Skyranger gun system can also operate autonomously or in conjunction with existing missile systems and fire control units. The new system is fitted with an Oerlikon Revolver Gun Mk 3 remote controlled turret armed with a 35 mm/90 caliber gas-operated Oerlikon Revolver Cannon. It has 252 rounds of ready use ammunition, and the empty cartridge cases are ejected externally. For its counter UAV role, the Skyranger would typically fire the latest-generation AHEAD 35×228 mm round.

• France and Germany are planning to jointly develop the future European Main Battle Tank (EMBT). The new platform is currently developed by France’s Nexter and Germany’s Krauss-Maffei Wegmann and would be a cross between a Leopard 2 chassis and a Leclerc turret. The Leopard 2 is often considered to be the world’s best main battle tank. The Leclerc was first operational in 1992 and is currently deployed with the French Army and the armed forces of Abu Dhabi of the United Arab Emirates. The tank hybrid would utilize the Leopard 2?s very-high capability chassis, which can carry up to 68 tons, and the lightness of the Leclerc’s turret, which needs only a crew of two to operate. As a result, potential customers get 10 percent of the weight, or 6 tons, to install additional kit on the tanks as they see fit. The EMBT could to see the light of day in the mid-2030s.

Asia-Pacific

• India’s state-run Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) has successfully completed the final round of trials of its license-built, upgraded Dhanush howitzer after years of delay. The FH-77B 155m howitzer upgrade is based on original drawings of the Swedish 155mm/39-caliber Bofors howitzers, which India procured in the mid-1980s. For India the simple process of buying off-the-shelf artillery guns has become a decades-long affair filled with legal drama, accusations of corruption, and multiple re-starts – but not one new gun. After several competitions were declared, and canceled many times over, India’s stock of operational 155mm FH77 howitzers has dwindled to around 200, and their last successful artillery buy was over 2 decades ago. With the upcoming IOC of the Dhanush, India may very well be on the right direction of satisfying its demand for 155mm caliber guns worth over $4 billion.

• Japan is set to supply the Philippine Air Force (PAF) with a wide range of spare parts in support of its fleet of UH-1H helicopters. The UH-1H or Huey is considered to be the most widely used helicopter in the world, with more than 9,000 produced from the 1950s to the present, the Huey is flown today by about 40 countries. The US Marine Corps is currently in the middle of its H-1 program where older helicopters are remanufactured into new and improved UH-1Y utility and AH-1Z attack helicopters.

Today’s Video

• Eurosatory 2018 French Army land forces live demonstration in Paris, France!

Dassault Rafale
(click for cutaway view)

Will Dassault’s fighter become a fashionably late fighter platform that builds on its parent company’s past successes – or just “the late Rafale”? It all began as a 1985 break-away from the multinational consortium that went on to create EADS’ Eurofighter. The French needed a lighter aircraft that was suitable for carrier use, and were reportedly unwilling to cede design authority over the project. As is so often true of French defense procurement policy, the choice came down to paying additional costs for full independence and exact needs, or losing key industrial capabilities by partnering or buying abroad. France has generally opted for expensive but independent defense choices, and the Rafale was no exception.

Those costs, and associated delays triggered by the end of the Cold War and reduced funding, proved to be very costly indeed. Unlike previous French fighters, which relied on exports to lower their costs and keep production lines humming, the Rafale has yet to secure a single export contract – in part because initial versions were hampered by impaired capabilities in key roles. The Rafale may, at last, be ready to be what its vendors say: a true omnirole aircraft, ready for prime time on the global export stage. The question is whether it’s too late. Rivals like EADS’ Eurofighter, Russia’s Su-27/30 family, and the American “teen series” of F-15/16/18 variants are all well established. Meanwhile, Saab’s versatile and cheaper JAS-39 Gripen remains a stubborn foe in key export competitions, and the multinational F-35 juggernaut is bearing down on it.

Dassault’s Rafale: Variants

Rafales
(click to view full)

The Rafale is a 9.5 – 10.5 tonne aircraft powered by 2 SNECMA M88 jet engines, each generating up to 16,500 pounds thrust with afterburner. Canards are used to improve maneuverability, especially for snap-shots in short-range dogfights, and radar shaping lowers the aircraft’s profile relative to 4th generation competitors like the Mirage 2000 or F-16. Carrier capability was a prime motivator behind France’s decision to go it alone with the Rafale program, and variants exist for both land-based and carrier use.

Despite its size, the Rafale can carry an impressive set of ordnance beyond its 30mm DEFA 791 cannon: up to 9.5 tonnes of weapons and stores on 14 pylons (1-2 on center fuselage, 2 below engine intakes, 6 underwing and 2 wingtip pylons), 5 of which are “wet” pylons that can carry heavy stores or fuel tanks. Its Thales RBE2 mechanically-scanned array or RBE2-AA AESA radar can direct MBDA’s MICA RF missiles, and future integration of the long-range Meteor is also planned. A combination of Thales/SAGEM’s OST Infrared Scan and Track optronics, and MBDA’s MICA IR medium-range missiles, allows the Rafale to supplement its radar-guided missiles with passively-targeted, no-warning attacks on enemy aircraft from beyond visual range. At present, this capability is only duplicated by Russian aircraft: Sukhoi’s SU-27/30 family, and advanced MiG-29s.

Rafale Variants: Types and Tranches

Dassault: Power of One

The Rafale comes in several broad types, and also comes in different capability tranches.

Carrier-capable Rafales are single-seat fighters, and are referred to as Rafale Ms. They will become the French Navy’s only fighters, replacing the F-8P Crusader fighter, Etendard IVP reconnaissance aircraft, and Super Etendard strike aircraft. They feature the usual set of carrier modifications, including lengthened and strengthened landing gear, strengthened airframe and arrester hook for landings, and carrier landing electronics. The front-center pylon is deleted on this version, in order to make room for that robust landing gear.

French Air Force Rafales come in 2 broad types: the preferred 2-seat Rafale B, and the single-seat Rafale C. They will eventually replace the SEPECAT Jaguar, Dassault’s Mirage F1, and most of the Mirage 2000 family in French service.

Rafale & Mirage 2000D
over Afghanistan
(click to view full)

Within those designations, Dassault’s Rafales also come in capability tranches that are common across all versions.

Initial Rafale F1s are limited to air superiority missions, and included only Rafale-Ms intended as urgent replacements for the French carrier force’s 1950s/60s era F-8P Crusader air superiority fighters. Rafale F1s are capable fighters, and represented a huge upgrade for the Marine Nationale. Even so, they lack the wide weapons fit of 4+ generation counterparts like the JAS-39 Gripen or modern F-15 Strike Eagles, the optimized cockpit of EADS’ Eurofighter, or the price advantages of Sukhoi’s SU-30 family.

Surviving Rafale-M F1s will be upgraded to the F3 configuration, swapping out the core mission computer and cockpit displays, and changing the plane’s radar, electrical wiring, SPECTRA countermeasures system, and hardpoints. The 1st upgraded plane was delivered in October 2014.

Rafale F2. The F2 standard, which adds the ability to carry and use precision ground attack weapons. This standard includes 2-seat air force Rafale-Bs, single-seat Rafale-Cs, and naval Rafale-Ms. Key additions include radar ground attack and terrain-following modes, carriage of laser-guided bombs and Storm Shadow/ Scalp cruise missiles, MICA IR missile capability using the OSF IRST sensor, a Link 16 datalink, and a buddy tanker pod for Rafale Ms. The biggest thing the F2 standard lacks is integration of independent laser targeting capability, which is why French Rafales over Afghanistan had to operate in conjunction with Super Etendard and Mirage 2000D fighters.

F2 Rafales have now been upgraded to F3 status, which was much easier than it is for the F1s.

ASMP-A4 on Rafale
(click to view full)

Rafale F3. Since 2008, all Rafales have been delivered in the F3 standard, and most have now been upgraded to it. Initial changes added the ability to carry French ASMP-A air-launched nuclear missiles, allowing the Rafale to replace the Mirage 2000N in that nuclear strike role. Other modifications include full integration with the Reco NG reconnaissance pod, implementation of all currently planned modes for the RBE2 radar, anti-ship attack with the Exocet or follow-on ANF, and support for an improved tanker pack.

Further changes were forthcoming within F3. Full integration with Thales’ Damocles surveillance and laser targeting pod was executed, and Damocles-equipped Rafales were used over Libya in 2011. The current standard is F3.3, and F3.4 is expected to debut in early 2014.

The Rafale’s radar took a quantum leap forward as of Rafale #C137, with Thales’ RBE2-AA AESA radar replacing the mechanically-scanned RBE2 array on previous aircraft. The new radar has hundreds of active T/R modules, and involves about 400,000 lines of code all by itself. This compares to about 2 million lines of code for the aircraft’s entire original avionics suite. In exchange, AESA radars generally create roughly 2x-3x better range or resolution than current PESA technologies. Note that older Rafales don’t currently have AESA radars, but they’re expected to see upgrades under a EUR 1+ billion F3R program.

Nuclear ASMP-A capability is irrelevant to exports, but the addition of an AESA radar and full independent precision strike capability will go a long way toward making the Rafale more competitive with challengers like American F-16/15/18s, Saab’s JAS-39NG Gripen, EADS’ Eurofighter Typhoon, and the oncoming F-35 program.

Thales Inside

Rafale F3Rs features software enhancements to make full use of the RBE2-AA radar, Meteor long range air-to-air missile integration, SBU-64 dual mode laser/GPS AASM smart bomb integration, improvements to Thales SPECTRA self-defence system, an Identification Friend or Foe interrogator/transponder with full Mode-5/ Mode-S-compatibility. Diagnostic improvements will make maintenance easier and more cost-effective, and there are reports that F3R will improve an overall pilot interface that has been consistently rated below the Eurofighter’s. As of September 2013, the DGA started referring to these planes as the 4th tranche (4T), and January 2014 saw a full commitment to develop all of these upgrades for fielding by 2018.

Efforts to include MBDA’s Meteor long-range air-air missiles are underway already, but it won’t be ready until 2018. That will make Rafale the last European fighter to integrate the Meteor, about 3-4 years later than the JAS-39 Gripen. It will also be the only fighter with a 1-way Meteor datalink instead of a 2-way link.

The Rafale remains behind in 2 other areas.

Its new Damocles surveillance and targeting pod’s 320 x 240 infrared array is far behind other international offerings, even with an architecture that effectively gives 640 x 480 resolution. Current performance is adequate, but this gap will continue to widen until the improved PDL-NG surveillance and targeting pod’s debut in 2018 with an effective 1280 x 1040 array. That’s about the same as some rival offerings in 2014, so by 2018, the Rafale is likely to modernize from a gross competitive disadvantage in a critical technology to a noticeable competitive disadvantage.

The 2nd gap is even more consequential. While the Rafale has a wide Head Up Display, an installed Helmet Mounted Display that would allow the Rafale to take full advantage of its wide-borseight MICA missiles remains the type’s most important missing piece, even after F3R.

Dassault’s Rafale: Program

Le Bourget, 2005
(click to view full)

The French Senat tallied the Rafale program at EUR 43.56 billion over 40 years, at 2011 prices. That figure was for 286 forecast aircraft, and the EUR 152 million per-plane figure was similar to the Pentagon’s “PAUC” metric, amortizing development costs as well as flyaway purchases.

Current plans call for delivery of 225 Rafale B/C/M aircraft by the end of the program, which will stop sometime around 2017 without export orders. Cutting production totals to 225 worsens per-plane raises the development cost average per plane, and slowed production will raise actual per-plane fixed costs.

If the Rafale is expensive, it’s also the heart of French military power. Its carrier and nuclear roles are irreplaceable, and the 2011 Libyan operation demonstrated that it has evolved to play a central role in French conventional wars. The Rafale program equally important to France’s aerospace industry, as the heart of France’s advanced military aerospace research. The Rafale has been responsible for significant steps forward in French materials science, engine design, computing, sensors, etc. at Dassault, Thales, and Snecma. Not to mention over 500 sub-contractors. In total, the aircraft is said to be responsible for 7,000 direct and indirect jobs.

As of September 2013, 121 Rafales had been delivered: 38 Rafale-M, 39 Rafale B, and 44 Rafale C. As of October 2014, the total had risen to 133.

Rafale Program: History

Production line
(click to view full)

Unfortunately, 1985 proved to be a perilous start date for an expensive decade-plus weapons project. The end of the Cold War led to a severe funding crunch. Development took a long time, and fielding was delayed for many years. That delay left Rafales with great potential as a 4+ generation fighter, but limited operational capabilities that compared unfavorably with the planes it was trying to replace. That has come back to bite Dassault, and France.

The first operational Rafale-M aircraft was delivered in 2000, to the Marine Nationale, and the type entered full service in 2004, in the F1 configuration. Plans call for eventual delivery of up to 60 Rafale Ms, delivered or upgraded to at least the F3 standard.

The end of 2004 saw initial delivery of 2-seat Rafale B fighters to the French air force, and 2005 saw delivery of the 1st single-seat Rafale C. The aircraft entered service with the air force in 2006. All Rafale B/C fighters have been delivered as F2s or F3s.

By 2006, the French armed forces had ordered just 120 Rafales (82 Rafale A-C for the Armée de l’Air, 38 Rafale M for the Marine Nationale) of the planned 294. About 70 had been delivered by 2009, when a new French purchase raised the order book to 180 Rafales; but 2009 also saw production cut from 14 to 11 aircraft per year. This is seen as the minimum necessary to maintain the production line, and keeping the line at even that minimum capacity required an extra EUR 1.1 billion during 2009-2014 budget period, to bring forward 17 orders planned for later years.

The challenge for the following 2015-2019 budget period was to finalize the export orders necessary, in order to maintain production while French orders were cut again.

The Rafale Program: What’s Next?

Rafale F3
(click to view full)

Additional multi-year buys will be required, but absent major export orders, a combination of deteriorating global finances, future demographic crunches in Europe, and the advent of unmanned UCAV projects like the nEUROn, will all compete with additional French Rafale orders. As those orders are squeezed, Dassaut won’t be the only firm feeling the pain. The effect would be felt throughout France’s aerospace sector, as Snecma, Thales, and their subcontractors would be forced to rethink their plans – or even their existence, in the case of some lower-tier suppliers.

That leaves 2 options for the platform.

As the British have demonstrated, one way to improve a jet’s affordability is to improve maintenance contracts. In 2008, the French defense ministry’s SIMMAD signed a 10-year “Rafale Care” contract with Dassault that paid for availability and flight-hours, rather than spares and man-hours. The British approach has been to build toward a contract that makes 1 firm responsible for all sub-contractors as well, but in 2012, a decade-long contract between SIMMAD and Thales made it clear that France prefers a set of modular performance-based contracts instead.

Once the French approach has several years of data behind it, that kind of future cost certainty could be helpful on the export front.

That would be timely, because after over a decade of failure, exports may offer the program a 2nd ray of hope. Rafale versions were picked as the preferred choice in India’s MMRCA competition, and have several potential export contenders in the wings. They need to close a few of these deals – but that hasn’t been easy.

Rafale’s Export Issues

French Mirage 2000C
(click to view full)

For previous French fighters, domestic production has been supplemented, and subsidized, by strong export sales. The Mirage III was exported to around 20 countries, and was so successful that its export profits could have financed almost 25% of France’s oil imports! The Mirage F1 was exported to only 10 countries. The Mirage 2000 has 8 customers. Rafale? None.

To date, the Rafale has lost export opportunities in Algeria (SU-30MKA – Rafale a long shot), Brazil (JAS-39E/F Gripen NG – Rafale the initial favorite), Greece (Eurofighter, then F-16), Morocco (F-16C/D – Rafale the favorite), The Netherlands (F-35A), Norway (F-35A), Oman (Eurofighter – Rafale a long shot), Saudi Arabia (Eurofighter), Singapore (F-15SG), South Korea (F-15K, Rafale won but politics reversed the pick), Switzerland (JAS-39E Gripen NG), and the UAE (F-16E/F, but could win next competition). Other losses have been rumored over the years.

Europe’s 4G+ trio

In a March 2012 statement, Dassault CEO Charles Edelstenne threw its export issues into sharp relief. Translated:

“When one is in a country like India which is an open country and in which Americans do not have the same weight as countries that are their private hunting preserve, we have a chance. And this chance, we got it… The market for the Rafale, it is countries that do not want or can not buy or American countries who want to have a second source while buying American. Now all countries, except two, where we lost, were countries that did not fit this definition.”

There’s some truth to this statement, but it also elides many of the Rafale’s genuine problems. Questionable precision ground attack capabilities for Rafale F1-F2s, coupled with limited integration beyond French weapons, hurt the aircraft badly on the export market until mid-2011.

Ground attack capabilities have been fixed, but the Rafale’s EUR 100+ million price tag leaves it occupying a high-end market segment that has historically been responsible for just 25% of fighter export sales. That price gap beyond competitors like Saab’s Gripen, Lockheed Martin’s F-16, and Sukhoi’s SU-30 has also cost Dassault sales, most recently in Brazil and Switzerland.

Despite Dassault’s rosy projections for the global fighter market as a whole, therefore, their lack of foreign orders has choked expected investments, and started to feed back into platform modernization issues.

It’s also affecting the rest of the French air force. Lack of exports is forcing extra French funding, in order to keep the Rafale production line at its minimum sustaining rate. That extra spending is delaying the much-needed modernization of France’s Mirage 2000 fleet, and is beginning to pose an operational risk for France.

Current export opportunities for Dassault include:

• India (~126). Preferred choice, but no contract yet.
  
• Qatar (36). Could rise to 72 over time. The QEAF is looking to replace their 12 Mirage 2000D fighters and 6 combat capable Alpha Jet light aircraft, but the growing power vacuum is pushing them toward a larger buy. Competition: Eurofighter, F/A-18 Advanced Super Hornet, F-15 Strike Eagle.
  
• The UAE (60). Mirage 2000 customer. Negotiations have dragged for a long time.

Secondary opportunities include:

• Bahrain (12-18). Considered a low odds bid. Competition: Eurofighter, likely F-16V and F/A-18 Advanced Super Hornet.
  
• Canada (~65). F-35 partner. Very unlikely there there will even be a real competition.
  
• Kuwait (18-24). Considered a low odds bid. Competition: Eurofighter, F/A-18 Advanced Super Hornet.
  
• Malaysia (18). MiG-29N replacement on hold. Competition: JAS-39E/F Gripen NG, Eurofighter, F/A-18 Advanced Super Hornet, Sukhoi SU-30MKM.

Contracts and Key Events 2014-2018

Rafale F3R upgrades ordered; 1st export contract to Qatar?; Indian workshare agreement negotiated.

2013 French Air Force

June 13/18: Qatar picks Lockheed’s Sniper The government of Qatar is planning to equip its Dassault Rafale fighter jets with Lockheed Martin Sniper targeting pods. Sniper is an electro-optical targeting system in a single, aerodynamically efficient pod weighing less than 450 pounds. The system is capable of detecting, identifying and engaging multiple moving and fixed targets in both air and earth-centric scenarios, but also presents an answer to the challenge of non-traditional intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions. Lockheed Martin’s AN/AAQ-33 Sniper ATP was designed to be a major step-change from the firm’s twin-pod LANTIRN systems, making use of a low radar signature profile and an advanced array of sensors and electronics, in order to offer longer range detection and identification. A universal interface, which self-detects the plane type it’s on and automatically load the appropriate Operational Flight Program, is an important time and money saving feature. The pod deliveries to the Qatar Emiri Air Force are scheduled to begin by 2019.

April 03/18: Qatar says “oui” to additional orders Qatar will buy additional Rafale fighter jets as part of an existing contract. Qatar initially purchased 24 Rafale jets in May 2015 for a total of $7.8 billion. The exercise of the option to purchase 12 additional fighter jets increases the total of the order to 36 aircraft. The deal includes the provision of missiles, pilot training and some 100 mechanics. The Rafale is a 9.5 – 10.5 tonne aircraft powered by 2 SNECMA M88 jet engines, each generating up to 16,500 pounds thrust with afterburner. Canards are used to improve maneuverability, especially for snap-shots in short-range dogfights, and radar shaping lowers the aircraft’s profile relative to 4th generation competitors like the Mirage 2000 or F-16. A combination of Scan and Track optronics allows the Rafale to supplement its radar-guided missiles with passively-targeted, no-warning attacks on enemy aircraft from beyond visual range. At present, this capability is only duplicated by Russian aircraft. Qatar so far bought 24 Eurofighter Typhoon, 6 Hawk trainers and F-15QA fighter aircraft.

March 12/18: US approval needed The head of Dassault Aviation, Eric Trappier, has said the French government must seek authorization from the US government before selling MBDA Scalp cruise missiles with American components to Egypt. “This is very sensitive,” Trappier said at a March 8 media conference on 2017 financial results. “This is a government-to-government contract. If there are authorizations, then it is up to the government for the component and the government for the aircraft.” A US State Department official said that “as a matter of policy, we do not comment on private diplomatic exchanges, and we are restricted under federal law from commenting on issues related to specific commercial defense export licensing cases.” The inclusion of Scalp missiles have been requested by Cairo as part of an exercised option for 12 additional Rafale fighter jets, adding to 24 ordered in 2015. The package includes the delivery of weapons from Safran and MBDA.

December 5/17: Foreign Military Sale-Negotiations France is close to finalizing a deal with Qatar to supply additional fighter aircraft and armored vehicles, a source to the presidential office said. One deal is to exercise and option to purchase 12 additional Rafale fighter jets, adding to the 24 already on order with manufacturer Dassault Aviation. Additional deals being discussed include an order of 300 VBCI armored vehicles from French firm Nexter, and a non-military deal to manage the Doha metro for 20 years. The deals could be concluded by the end of the week.

October 24/17: Egyptian President Abdul Fattah al-Sissi is expected to use his trip to Paris this week to raise the issue with his French counterpart over purchasing additional Rafale fighters, as well as two more DCNS Gowind 2500 corvettes. Cairo currently has 24 Rafale fighters and four Gowind 2500 corvettes on order under a 2015 multi-billion contract signed with the previous French government. However, that deal was financed with the help of loans underwritten by the French government and it remains unclear whether Paris would extend fresh loans for further purchases. French President Emmanuel Macron is also expected to raise human rights abuses with al-Sissi, after receiving criticism at home for remaining silent in the face of increasing violations of freedoms by Sisi’s government in the run up to the 2018 presidential elections.

October 10/17: A French gambit to sell a Rafale fighter jet package to Belgium that went outside the official procurement program may not succeed, if comments from Belgium’s defense minister are to be believed. Speaking in parliament, Defence Minister Steven Vandeput told lawmakers that Paris had not responded correctly to a request for proposals (RfP) covering the replacement of its Lockheed Martin F-16 fleet, adding that the two bids officially received were from the UK and USA, respectively offering the Eurofighter Typhoon and Lockheed Martin F-35. However, Brussel’s has sought legal advice on the French position—34 warplanes plus a close relationship outside the parameters of the initial tender—and will be presented to the government by the end of October to inform a final decision on whether or not to rule out the Rafale.

September 11/17: The French government pulled out of a Belgian tender, due on September 7, for the replacement of its F-16 fighter aircraft. Instead, Paris is offering the Dassault Rafale as part of a military partnership that goes beyond the supply of weapons. In addition to the 36 jets required by Brussels, the French deal offers enhanced military cooperation between the two NATO countries, more training, and industrial and technical cooperation between companies on both sides. When asked about the new offer, manufacturer Dassault Aviation had no immediate comment, while the Belgian defence ministry said it would not comment until the process was finalised. Both Lockheed Martin and the Eurofighter consortium have submitted tenders to the original procurement program.

September 1/17: The Indian Air Force (IAF) is looking at additional orders of Rafale fighter aircraft from French aerospace manufacturer Dassault, doubling its current order of 36 units. Ministry of Defence (MoD) sources state that such a follow-on Rafale order would cost 60% of the initial package’s value (the September 2016 agreement cost $8.8 billion), which also includes weapon systems, India-specific customizations and a five-year support package guaranteeing an operational rate of 75%. Dassault hopes to sell as many as 200 Rafales to India over the next decade, with CEO Eric Trappier hinting that subsequent orders could lead to the transfer-of-technology to enable India to take on a substantive share of the fighter’s sourcing. Besides expanding upon IAF orders, Dassault is also looking at the Indian Navy’s bid for 57 carrier-borne fighters as an avenue for additional Rafale orders in the country.

July 31/17: Egypt has received its first of eight single-seat Dassault Rafale C multirole combat aircraft in the latest batch of Rafale deliveries from manufcaturer Dassault. This is the fifth batch of Rafale deliveries since Cario ordered the aircraft in 2015—the previous four only containing the twin-seat Rafale B variant—and the Egyptian Air Force will eventually operate a fleet of 24—8 Rafale Cs and 16 Bs. While most fighter customers receive twin-seat variants first to allow for the training of pilots ahead of the arrival of the fully operational single seaters, in the case of the Egyptian Rafale deal it appears that the EAF intends to use the Rafale Bs in a full combat role, with the additional crew member taking on a mission commander role.

July 19/17: India’s Dassault Rafale fighters on order from France will be equipped with Israeli firm Rafael’s Litening targeting pod. Yuval Miller, head of the Israeli company’s air and C4I systems division said that the pods, produced to the latest 4I island will be manufactured in India in partnership with a local firm. The Indian air force already uses the Rafael-produced pod on several types of combat aircraft, having acquired the system in the Litening III standard. Rafael also is to supply its advanced 4I version of the system for use by the Aeronautical Development Agency’s Tejas light combat aircraft.

June 14/17: Dassault and Indian partner Reliance Defense & Aerospace will break ground next month on a components facility for Rafale fighter aircraft. Construction of the facility comes as part of ‘Make in India’ commitments stipulated in September’s $8.8 billion Rafale fighter jet deal. Dassault are also currently training the first group of Indian engineers at its facilities in France, and the Indian facility is expected to be operational and producing components by the first quarter of 2018.

May 17/17: The CEO of French aviation firm Dassault, Eric Trappier, has told French media that the firm expects to sell an additional 18 Rafale fighters next year. In an interview with French regional newspaper Sud-Ouest on Sunday, Trappier hinted that the purchaser may by Malaysia, in a deal that could potentially be worth $2 billion. India has also been earmarked as a potential repeat customer after a high profile deal for 36 Rafales was concluded last year. “India’s needs are enormous,” said Trappier. “Hence, for its navy, 57 aircraft are considered,” he added. Malaysia, however, may be the more likely candidate for a deal to be finalized in the near term as it looks to replace its ageing combat aircraft.

April 2/17: French officials have told media that the Malaysian government is in exclusive negotiations with Dassault for their MiG-29 replacement program, indicating that the company’s Rafale fighter has won out against BAE’s offering of the Eurofighter Typhoon. Malaysia is looking to purchase 18 new combat aircraft — likely to be in the region of $2 billion — to replace the Royal Malaysian Air Force’s squadron of Russian MiG-29 combat planes, nearly half of which are grounded. The decision to move forward with Dassault follows last week’s visit by French President Francois Hollande.

March 28/17: The Malaysian government has said that it has yet to decide on whether it will go ahead with a $2 billion procurement of Rafale fighters from France. Bilateral talks between Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak and French President Francois Hollande did see the leaders discuss the aircraft deal, which aims at replacing Kuala Lumpur’s fleet of MiG-29 combat planes, half of which are grounded. Malaysia’s Defence Minister Hishammuddin Hussein was reported in the media as saying the race for new fighter jets has narrowed to the Dassault Rafale and the BAE Systems-built Eurofighter Typhoon. Speaking on the decision, President Hollande said, “all I would like to say is that the Rafale jet is the best in its category, and then we propose to discuss the prices, and the specifications. I trust you will make the decision when the time comes.”

March 26/17: The French government has approved key upgrades for the Rafale multi-role fighter which will bring the aircraft up to its F4 standard. Under the program, manufacturer Dassault will modernize legacy F3-R standard jets with updated technological capabilities that will boost their performance in a network and be more effective in combat missions, with Thales and Safran providing subsystems, and MBDA supplying missiles. It is expected that the F4 standard will begin qualification in 2018 and enter service by 2025.

March 23/17: Dassault’s Rafale is being touted as the preferred selection by Malaysia for their latest fighter procurement program. A pitch in fovor of the fighter is expected to be made during French President Francois Hollande’s visit to the country next week, and could initially be worth as much as $2 billion for 19 aircraft. Hollande’s arrival will be marked by a ceremony which will see two French Rafales join a Royal Malaysian Air Force A400M in a flypast at Subang airbase in Kuala Lumpur. Also in the hunt include BAE with the Eurofighter Typhoon, Russia’s Sukhoi and Sweden’s Saab, which is selling its single engine Gripen.

October 18/16: Thales’ new-generation TALIOS laser targeting pod has successfully completed a more than two-hour first flight on a Rafale fighter. Development of the pod has been carried out as part of a major development program for French Air Force and Navy Rafales. The company reported remarkable performances in pointing and telemetry from the pod with the system collecting high-quality images taken using the “day” channel. Adjustment and performance measurement tests with the pod and fighter will continue throughout 2017.

September 26/16: Well folks, it’s finally a done deal! France and India’s defense ministers inked contracts for 36 Dassault Rafale fighters on Friday, with pictures of French Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian and his Indian counterpart, Manohar Parrikar, surfacing on Parrikar’s Twitter account stating “Rafale will significantly improve India’s strike & defence capabilities.” Due to be delivered over the next six years, the Rafales are estimated to be worth $8.7 billion, haggled down from an original figure of $13.47 billion.

September 23/16: It may have taken a long while to get to this stage, but the Indian government is expected to sign a deal for 36 Dassault Rafale fighters today after the Cabinet Committee on Security, chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, cleared the inter-governmental agreement (IGA) with France. New Delhi had initially intended to buy 126 Rafale before several years worth of talks with Dassault broke down and Modi and Hollande stepped in last year to agree on the smaller purchase. Friday’s signing will see French defense minister Jean-Yves Le Drian finalize the deal with his Indian counterpart, Manohar Parrikar, believed to be worth between $8.5 and $9 billion.

September 20/16: Dassault Rafale fighters purchased by the Indian government are believed to operate as the platform to take over the nuclear strike role from the Indian Air Force’s current fleet of Mirage 2000 fighters. It’s expected that a long awaited Inter-Government Agreement for the purchase of 36 of the French fighter will be announced over the next few days after New Delhi dropped its initial plan to procure 126 Rafales. While there is a follow up clause for an additional 12 Rafales, the IAF’s capability gap will be filled by either the indigenous Tejas fighters, or another foreign fighter such as the Gripen or F-16, both of which have been offered in conjunction with the “Make in India” initiative.

August 3/16: India and France are edging ever closer to closure on a potential $9 billion Rafale fighter deal. According to Defense Minister Manohar Parrikar, New Delhi has agreed to sign a long awaited inter-governmental agreement (IGA), a key requirement for a potential sale; however, negotiations on offsets and final pricing are still to be confirmed.

July 8/16: While reports of imminent French concessions to India reported last week may have seemed too good to be true, that was probably because they were. Instead, Paris is insisting on the signing of an $8.9 billion government-to-government deal with India prior to any finalization on offsets for New Delhi’s purchase of Rafael fighters. An Indian MoD procurement official said that no negotiations on the Rafale deal between France and India have taken place in more than six weeks, and the next meeting is yet to be scheduled.

June 01/16: This week’s Singapore Shangri-la Dialogue may see sideline discussions between France and India over the closing of a multi-billion sale of 36 Rafale fighters. The defense ministers from both nations will be in attendance, and it’s expected that issues like consensus on actions to be taken in case of a material breach, stringent liability clause, and guarantees by France are likely to be discussed.

May 23/16: Selection of a fighter to be manufactured under the “Make in India” initiative will be decided by next March according to India’s Defense Minister Manohar Parrikar. Models in the running include Boeing’s F18A, the Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault’s Rafale or the Saab Gripen. Parrikar also mentioned that the ministry’s negotiations over its drawn out purchase of 36 Rafales will be wrapped up in “weeks.”

May 6/16: India’s ongoing AgustaWestland helicopter bribery scandal is likely to cause further delay to the country’s perpetual Rafale fighter negotiation with France. An increasingly cautious government in New Delhi still hasn’t finalized an Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA) with France as bilateral discussions continue to drag on. The $8.9 billion deal includes 36 Rafale fighters alongside state of the art stealth, radar, thrust vectoring for missiles, and materials for electronics and micro-electronics from defense companies Dassault, Thales and Safran.

April 18/16: After months of wrangling, India will sign a final agreement for the purchase of 36 Rafale fighters within the next three weeks. France had initially wanted over $12 billion for the sale, but negotiations over the last number of months have resulted in a drop to $8.8 billion. The first lot of deliveries will not take place for another 18 months. India’s air force replacement of its older fighters is part of an effort to effectively check the capabilities of Pakistan and China.

March 31/16: A $7.5 billion deal between Qatar and France has concluded, with Qatar to purchase 24 Rafale fighters alongside MBDA missiles, and training for 36 pilots and some 100 mechanics.The deal had been initially estimated to be $6.9 billion, but extra cruise missile orders pushed up the price. The contracts were signed by French Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian and his Qatari counterpart, Sheikh Khalid Al-Attiah, on the opening day of the Doha International Maritime Defence Exhibition and Conference. Despite this, the UK’s defence minister stated that a deal with Qatar to sell them Eurofighter Typhoon warplanes was “definitely still on the table” when speaking in Doha on Tuesday.

March 22/16: Qatar’s purchase of Dassault Rafale fighters has been financed with the help of Japanese banks. The Gulf state recently paid a 15% down payment on its order, which in total amounts to $6.8 billion. The loan highlights a growing relationship with Japan through Japanese business interests in areas of construction and finance. Investments and projects involving Japanese companies include construction for the 2022 World Cup, and the building of a subway system in Doha, while Qatar supplies liquefied gas to Japan. The participation of Japanese money in the deal comes as tighter EU financial regulations to European banks bring lending under greater scrutiny, while a US loan to buy French technology may have upset Boeing, a competitor to Dassault in the fighter market.

March 16/16: Dassault has experienced a 12-fold increase in defense exports in 2015. The defense wing of the company experienced an order intake for the year end (2015) at $9.2 billion compared to only $770 million in 2014. The staggering jump has been attributed to a year that involved the sale of 48 Rafale fighters to Egypt and Qatar, and further by the well publicized ongoing negotiations with India for a further 38 of the aircraft. Adding to the exceptionally good year was upgrade of the Indian Mirage 2000 fighter.

March 16/16: India’s Law Ministry has come out against the country’s Rafale deal, citing several issues in regard to the contract with French manufacturer Dassault and France. While the Defense Ministry has come out in support of the deal, refusing to answer any questions submitted by the media in relation to the issues, it seems that even a preliminary contract has yet to solidified. Costs and pricing still remain an issue, as well as a series of legal issues which are apparently weighted heavily in France’s favor. French liability has been described as “watered down,” with huge payouts not promising actual delivery. Furthermore, the French government continue in their refusal of a bank guarantee, instead offering a “comfort letter” from Prime Minister Manuel Valls.

January 29/16: India’s Rafale deal with France is expected to be complete within four months according to French ambassador to India, Francois Richier. Speaking to Indian television, it is the first time a senior official has given a time scale for the completion of the deal. President Francois Hollande had indicated earlier in the week that the process would take some time, but that there would be gradual progress on agreeing to a final sale price. Dassault had previously stated that a deal may be signed within a month after a signing of an inter-governmental agreement on Monday, but officials from both governments have admitted that the price may become somewhat of a sticking point. Richier also stated that he hoped that India would in time purchase more Rafale’s from Dassault after their initial order of 126 fighters was slashed to just thirty-six.

January 27/16: Dassault expects to have a contracts signed with India over their sale of Rafale fighters within a month. The company announced on Monday that both the French and Indian governments signed a tentative inter-governmental agreement on Monday during President Hollande’s recent state visit to India. The agreement will pave the way for Dassault to conclude the deal for thirty-six fighters once some final financial issues are sorted out over the next couple of days. The expected early delivery date for the jets were initially stated for between 2016-2017, but pre-existing contracts with Egypt, Quatar and the French Air Force may see these deliveries delayed.

January 22/16: Officials from Dassault are to fly to New Delhi to pitch a navalized version of the Rafale. With the sale of thirty-six of the fighters almost over the line, the French manufacturer looks to be capitalizing on the sale and arrangements to have parts of the aircraft produced in India. India is looking for potential suppliers for over fifty fighters for their second indigenous aircraft carrier vessel, the Vishal. Their first indigenous aircraft carrier, the INS Vikrant is already under construction and will operate the MiG 29K, but no plans have been made to include it in the design for the Vishal. Sources said that India has written to four countries, including France, seeking proposals for the design of the aircraft carrier. Dassault’s visit will follow shortly after that of French President Francois Hollande’s visit this weekend.

January 18/16: The suspense surrounding India’s Rafale jet acquisition continues. With plans seemingly already in place for the deal to be finalized, India is looking to negotiate a new option to the existing deal to buy thirty-six fighters from Dassault. A visit to New Delhi by French defense minister Jean-Yves Le Drian last week was initially seen as a final dotting of i’s and crossing of t’s on negotiations ahead of President Hollande’s visit next week. The Indian government seems to be more confident that the $9.1 million deal will be ready for the visit, claiming the contract to be “politically ready”.

January 12/16: India’s long awaited purchase of thirty-six Rafale fighters is set to be finalized as French Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian is scheduled to visit New Delhi next week. It’s believed that the visit is specifically for the purpose of officially concluding the high-profile deal ahead of President Francois Hollande’s visit to the country. Hollande will visit as a guest to celebrate India’s Republic Day on January 26. France and manufacturer Dassault will no doubt be happy to see the deal secured, which has been ongoing for some time, and the cause of much haggling over price offsets and a deal to produce parts for the aircraft within India.

December 21/15: After some delay, Qatar has finally made their down-payment on their order of 24 Rafale fighters. The $7 billion deal had undergone a number of delays after initially being agreed upon in May. It had been feared that the deal would have stalled in the new year, but with only four shopping days left until Christmas, any issues over the deal seem to have been ironed out.

November 27/15: India is to sign a deal to purchase 36 Rafale fighters from France it has been announced. The signing coincides with French President Hollande’s visit to New Delhi to celebrate Republic Day. It is expected that the delivery of the Rafale fighters will be completed within seven years and is part of India’s move to increase its air force strength to maintain effectiveness against both China and Pakistan.

November 16/15: Qatar have still to make their downpayment for 24 Rafale fighters from France despite contracts being signed by both nations six months ago. The deal, which is worth approximately $7 billion cannot be executed by manufacturer Dassault until such a payment is made and will no doubt be on the agenda for Qatari prime minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Nasser bin Khalifa al-Thani’s visit to Paris this week. The visit is said to go ahead despite last Friday’s terrorist attack in Paris.

November 12/15: The United Arab Emirates is reportedly close to signing an agreement for Rafale fighters, with the sixty-aircraft deal slated to value approximately $10 billion. Similar talks between the UAE and manufacturer Dassault collapsed in November 2011, but were revived in April 2015.

October 26/15: French firm Dassault has offered the Rafale fighter to Canada as an alternative to the F-35. The new Canadian PM looks set to withdraw from the international Joint Strike Fighter program, pushing up the cost of the other partners’ fighter in the process, although this still remains to be officially finalized. Dassault has offered the country its Rafale fighter.

October 23/15: France has reportedly agreed to invest half of the value of the contract for 36 Rafale fighters in Indian industry, with negotiations ongoing. The offset agreement is now thought to have paved the way for further negotiations over the sale of the fighters, which was first originally announced in April, following the collapse of the M-MRCA competition. The negotiations reached a sticking point in August over offset arrangements, with high level intervention in September kicking talks forward. Another potential issue has been identified as the Indian insistence on installing the indigenous Astra missile on the French fighters.

August 17/15: One sticking point in the ongoing government-to-government negotiations between India and France over the procurement of 36 Rafales has reportedly been identified. The Indian Air Force wants to modify the fighters to carry the indigenous Astra air-to-air missile, with the French refusing to do so; citing the associated cost increases with the required recertification such a move would entail. These contract negotiations have been playing out since the Indian Prime Minister announced the acquisition in April. The French government has lowered the per-unit cost of the deal, dropping this by 25% in May. They are offering French missiles instead of the Astra, likely manufactured by European missile house MBDA. The Indian Air Force also wants to integrate an Israeli-manufactured helmet display system, something which the French are unlikely to allow.

Additionally, French negotiators have reportedly rejected Indian proposals for a 50% offset arrangement in the Rafale contract negotiations. The French government has responded by offering to manufacture aircraft in India through future contracts, under the ‘Make in India’ procurement framework. Indian insistence on an offset will drive up the price of the 36 Rafales, which are currently on offer for the same price being paid by the French Air Force, following the aforementioned price drop in May.

July 30/15: France is anticipating an additional pair of export orders for its Rafale fighter, with Malaysia and the United Arab Emirates reportedly the most likely candidates. Reuters also reported Thursday that negotiations between India and France are now also discussing the possible supply of additional Rafales on top of the 36 ordered in April. Malaysia is looking to replace its MiG-29 Fulcrums, with the UAE recently restarting negotiations for the Rafale as it looks to swap out its fleet of Mirage 2000-9 fighters. The Gulf state has previously articulated a potential buy of sixty Rafales.

July 21/15: Rafale manufacturer Dassault is increasing the production rate of the fighter in anticipation of more export orders. The French jet has become an export success in recent months, following orders from Egypt, India and Qatar. The production line has recently come under strain because of the mounting orders, with the delivery rate from Dassault’s assembly line in Merignac, south-west France, set to double from the current rate of eleven per year by 2018, according to the company’s CEO.

July 17/15: Photos have emerged showing Rafale fighters flying in Egyptian colors. Egypt ordered twenty-four of the French aircraft in February, recently opting to buy AASM Hammer precision air-to-ground missiles to equip its new fleet. The first three Egyptian Rafales are due for delivery before 5 August.

May 7/15: France reportedly offered India a 25% price drop in order to seal the deal for 36 Rafales in April. The French also agreed to an extended maintenance schedule, with the 36 fighters thought to be the minimum number they would sell. The deal is thought to bring the per-unit cost of the Rafale to around $220 million, far below the approximate $300 million pricetag which became the death-knell for the Indian negotiations with Dassault. The recently announced Qatari order saw a comparable cost of $290 million per aircraft.

May 5/15: Following the acquisition of 36 Rafale fighters in April through government to government negotiations – side-lining India’s negotiations with manufacturer Dassault – the Indian Defense Minister announced on Monday that further negotiations between the French and Indian governments will begin this month. The Rafale’s selection as preferred bidder in the country’s MMRCA competition subsequently stagnated, with Prime Minister Modi bypassing the negotiations following pressure from the Indian Air Force. The French Defense Minister will visit India later this week, during which time the opening negotiations for more government to government Rafales are expected to begin.

March 10/15: Egypt says yes. Egypt will buy 24 Dassault Rafale fighters. Egypt already flies predecessors Mirage Vs and Mirage 2000s, and was once looking at upgrading its already large fleet of F-16s to more modern versions. Dassault’s fighters have the benefit of not having many political strings attached, and for a government arguably installed by coup, this has a certain charm.

Feb-17/15: India recalculates that Dassault wasn’t low bidder.The negotiation-via-newspapers exchange continues between France’s Dassault and India in regard to the Indian purchase of Rafale fighters. India’s MoD is now saying that upon thinking about it a bit more – for three years – they think the Dassault offer is going to be more expensive than some other, rejected bidders. Being India’s first life cycle costing contract, the RFP for 126 fighters did not demand specific information on some items relevant to that cost cycle, according to an unnamed official involved with the contract negotiation committee.

Feb-16/15: India’s hardcore negotiating not phasing Dassault. India has been sending messages through the press that it is ready to walk away from the Rafale deal. Dassault, for it’s part, isn’t biting, expressing confidence in the 126 fighter deal. Some reports indicated India is pressuring Dassault to make unspecified guarantees regarding the manufacture of the fighters. The French procurement agency DGA defended Dassault, indicating that Dassault will not be responsible for HAL-built fighters.

Oct 6-17/14: F3.4+ Testing. The French DGA tests the F-3.4+ software upgrade at Mont-de-Marsan AB. It should enter operational service in early 2015.

The F3.4+ builds on the current F3.3 standard’s improvements to Link-16 and integration of laser-guided weapons includes many software improvements, adding full compatibility with NATO’s MGRS geographic format for GPS-related functions, radar improvements in terrain following mode, new warnings for low altitudes and unusual positions that are designed to snap pilots out of disorientation, and warnings to prevent overloading the landing gear brakes during take-off. Sources: French AdlA, “Le Rafale F3.4+ experimente a Istres”.

Oct 3/14: F1 to F3. Dassault Aviation in Merignac, France re-delivers aircraft M10 to the Marine Nationale, after upgrading it from F1 to F3 status under a EUR 240 million contract for 10 aircraft.

Modifications include swapping out the core mission computer and cockpit displays, and changing the plane’s radar, electrical wiring, SPECTRA countermeasures system, and hardpoints. In return, the jump to F3 status adds implementation of all currently planned modes for the RBE2 radar, incl. radar ground attack and terrain-following modes; full integration with the Reco NG reconnaissance pod and Damocles surveillance and targeting pod; MICA IR air-to-air missile capability using the OSF IRST sensor; carriage of laser-guided bombs and Storm Shadow/ Scalp cruise missiles;anti-ship attack with the Exocet or follow-on ANF; nuclear strike capability using the ASMP-A missile; a Link 16 datalink, and a buddy tanker pod. They do not include the RBE2-AA AESA radar antenna, but the jet could reportedly be refitted with that later on.

Of the 180 Rafales ordered by France to date, 133 have been delivered, including Rafale-M F2s and F3s for the Marine Nationale. The contract only applies for the first 10 orders, which were delivered as Rafale-M F1s. Rafale fighters are currently executing missions against ISIS in Iraq, after seeing combat use in Afghanistan, Libya, Mali, and Central Africa. Sources: French DGA, “La DGA receptionne le premier Rafale Marine retrofite” | Dassault Aviation, “The French defense procurement agency (DGA) takes delivery of its 1st retrofitted Rafale “Marine” from Dassault Aviation” | Navy Recognition, “The French procurement agency takes delivery of its 1st retrofitted Rafale M from Dassault Aviation”.

QEAF Mirage 2000-5
(click to view full)

June 19-23/14: Qatar. Reports continue to predict that Sheikh Tamim Ben Hamad Al-Thani’s visit to Paris on June 23/14 will herald a contract for 36 Rafales, with an option for 36 more. The move would represent the Rafale’s 1st export contract, and a dramatic expansion of Qatar’s fighter force from the current fleet of 12 Mirage 2000s.

With that said, the best source is France’s La Tribune. They cite government sources who are pleased with the progress of negotiations, while cautioning readers about the deal’s complexity, and doubting that the Rafale deal will be signed in Paris. That turns out to be correct: France’s Alstom wins a $2 billion light rail contract, but all “a source close to French President Francois Hollande” will says after ward is: “They discussed it. Negotiations are continuing.”

Qatar is a significant customer for French defense equipment, and their support of the Muslim Brotherhood has given then an anomalous position within the Gulf Arab states. France recently sold them A330 aerial tankers and NH90 helicopters as part of a $23 billion global splurge, and are reportedly negotiating to sell the Emirate VBCI wheeled APCs and FREMM FREDA air defense frigates on top of the Rafales. Sources: La Tribune, “Le Qatar veut le Rafale de Dassault Aviation” | Bloomberg, “Dassault Said to Close in on Rafale Contract to Lift Exports” | Reuters, “France wins Qatar tram deal, discusses Rafale jets”.

May 28/14: Qatar. La Tribune says that France’s Rafale has emerged as Qatar’s 1st choice for its new fighter fleet, against competition from the Eurofighter Typhoon and an American offer that was not the F-35 (i.e. F-15 Strike Eagle or F/A-18 Super Hornet – q.v. Nov 26/13). Talks reportedly resumed in March 2014, with Qatar inquiring about a range of options from 12-72 aircraft. The pick is expected to be announced by Sheikh Tamim Ben Hamad Al-Thani on June 23/14, when he visits Paris.

The stakes are high for France, whose recent multi-year budget would buy only 26 Rafales from 2014 – 2019, despite a minimum required production rate of 11 jets per year. The French order would only last until the spring of 2016. Given the contract penalties involved in falling below minimum production, France would be forced to move its own orders forward, unless significant export orders arrive to rescue the production line. Sources: La Tribune, “Le Rafale de Dassault sur la piste d’envol au Qatar?” | AFP, “Qatar nears exclusive talks on buying Rafale fighter: Report” | Gulf News, “Qatar nears talks to buy ‘unpopular’ Rafale fighter jets”.

March 2/14: India. Dassault and HAL have reportedly established an initial workshare agreement for Indian Rafales, after long and difficult negotiations. Dassault will provide the first 18 planes from its own factories in fly-away condition. After that, HAL will be responsible for directing 70% of the work in India, while Dassault remains responsible for 30%.

Negotiations have included industrial coordination, as well as straight workshare. For instance, RBE2-AA AESA radar production will be outsourced to state-owned Bharat-Electronics Ltd (BEL) in Bangalore, while the corresponding radome will be manufactured by HAL. One step toward the agreement involved HAL setting up a new facility close to the one that BEL has in Bangalore, so that issues with radome or radar production won’t create compatibility problems that leave India’s Rafales unable to meet acceptance tests.

The MoD has already spent this term’s capital budget, so the deal will have to be finalized by whichever government wins India’s May election. Which turns out to be a landslide for the BJP opposition. Sources: Indian Express, “India seals Rafale jet deal with French firm” | NDTV, “A big step in India’s Rafale jet deal with France”.

India: workshare deal

Jan 22/14: Canada. Dassault SVP of NATO affairs Yves Robins is quoted as saying that they’re offering Canada unrestricted transfers of technology if it picks the Rafale, including software source codes for servicing the planes. That’s something Canada won’t get with the F-35, and it’s being touted as a long-term cost savings that will let Canadian firms do more of the required maintenance. They’re also pushing the government to declare a competition.

The CBC report goes on to show that the broadcaster doesn’t really grasp the issues, asking about the Rafale’s ability to operate alongside the USAF. France replies that this worked over Libya, but that isn’t the real question. The question is whether Canada could use its American weapons with the Rafale, without having to conduct expensive integration and testing programs. In most cases, the answer is no. Which is why Rafale is a long shot, in the unlikely event that Canada even declares a competition. Sources: CBC News, “Dassault Aviation ramps up CF-18 replacement pitch”.

Jan 10/13: F3R. French defense minister Jean-Yves le Drian hands Dassault Chairman and CEO Eric Trappier the Rafale F3R development contract, during a visit to Dassault Aviation’s Merignac plant. The contract, which is reported to be worth about EUR 1 billion ($1.32 billion), had actually been ratified by the DGA on Dec 30/13.

Key additions to the Rafale F3R include full integration with the SBU-64 laser/GPS AASM smart bomb and the Meteor long-range air-to-air missile, improvements to Thales SPECTRA self-defence system, an Identification Friend or Foe interrogator/transponder with full Mode-5/Mode-S-compatibility, and assorted incremental improvements to the plane’s navigation systems, data links, and radar.

At the same time, the DGA announces the expected EUR 119 million development deal with Thales Optronics for the F3R’s new PDL-NG surveillance and targeting pod, under the 2014-2019 budget. That’s on top of the initial EUR 55 million risk-reduction phase that confirmed the system’s architecture, integration, and development schedule (q.v. Jan 28/13). The French military expects to order 20 pods during a subsequent initial production phase, with 16 delivered between 2018 – 2019. The full program is expected to order 45.

French Rafale orders currently stand at 180 production aircraft, with 126 delivered: 39 Rafale-M naval single-seaters, 42 Rafale-B twin-seaters for the air force, and 45 Rafale-C single-seaters for the air force. Sources: French DGA, “Lancement du nouveau standard du programme Rafale” | French DGA, “La DGA lance le developpement du PDL-NG” | Dassault Aviation, “RAFALE “F3 R” standard launched” | Usine Nouvelle, “L’Etat debloque un milliard d’euros pour rendre le Rafale exportable” | Thales Group, “Thales begins development of New Generation Laser Designation Pod”.

Rafale F3R & PDL-NG pod development contracts

2013

Rafale program to end early in France, putting the pressure on exports; Loss in Brazil doesn’t help; Qatar competition delayed into 2014; PDL NG targeting pod development; Rafale F3R.

Rafale w. Damocles

Dec 18/13: Brazil. Earlier press reports that the competition was stalled for another 2 years are proven wrong by a somewhat unexpected announcement from the Ministerio da Defesa. Brazil has picked Saab’s Gripen-NG as their preferred bidder, and expects to buy 36 planes for $4.5 billion. That’s currently just an estimate, as negotiations need to sort themselves out. A final contract and financing arrangements are expected in December 2014, and deliveries are expected to begin 4 years later. Dassault shares fall by about 2% on the news, despite statements by French Defence Minister Jean-Yves Le Driana that this was a:

“…disappointment on a target that wasn’t a priority…. Brazil was not the priority target for the Rafale. We have more important targets in India and the Gulf (Arab states)…. We have good reason to think that in India and the Gulf (Arab states) there will be results.”

The Gripen NG contract figure tracks exactly with previous reports by Folha de Sao Paolo, which means an additional $1.5 billion contract can be expected for long-term maintenance and support. Saab was the cheapest of the reported offers, beating Boeing ($5.8 billion) and Dassault ($8.2 billion, reportedly reduced) by significant margins. Once Edward Snowden’s revelations of NSA spying on Brazil’s government killed Boeing’s chances, there was no middle ground. The Rafale’s reported $10.2 billion purchase + maintenance total made it 70% more expensive than Saab’s Gripen. Brazil’s economic slowdown, and the Rousseff government’s focus on entitlement spending, made that cost chasm a big factor. Dassault issued a terse statement pointing out the presence of US parts on Gripens, and positioning the Rafale in a different league. Which may or may not be true, but it’s indisputably true that global fighter buys have historically been heavily weighted toward a less-expensive league. Gripen is within that low to mid price range, and Rafale isn’t. Sources: DID full report, “F-X2: Brazil Picks Saab’s JAS-39 Gripen-NG over Rafale, Super Hornet” || See also: Dassault, “FX2 contest – 2013/12/18” | Le Monde, “A qui la France peut-elle encore vendre le Rafale?” | Reuters, “France soothes nerves over Dassault jets after Brazil setback”.

Loss in Brazil

Dec 10/13: Sub-contractors. PTI reports that Dassault Aviation and India’s NYSE-listed Reliance Industries are planning to set up a Bangalore facility to produce Rafale wings for India’s future order, and reportedly have the approvals they need to do so. The facility would reportedly cost about INR 10 billion ($248 million) to build, but the ultra-modern facility would leave Reliance in a strong position to leverage additional civil and defense-related aerospace work. That would be a new sector for Reliance, but Dassault is impressed with them, and reportedly wanted to use Reliance as the Rafale’s main Indian manufacturing contractor.

India’s government insisted on the state-owned HAL instead, but Dassault may still see a larger opportunity. If Reliance can produce quality assemblies at a cost savings, outsourcing some production for future orders could help Dassault lower their cost per jet, while meeting India’s targets for industrial offsets. Sources: FirstPost.Business, “Reliance, Dassault may join hands to make wings for Rafale fighter jets”.

Nov 26/13: Qatar. La Tribune cites a number of French export opportunities in Qatar, including 22 NH90 transport/naval helicopters (bought), up to 480 VBCI wheeled infantry fighting vehicles, Gowind ASW corvettes, FREMM air defense frigates, and SAMP/T Mamba air and missile defense systems.

The Rafale has been helped by the USA’s failure to respond to the fighter RFP (q.v. Nov 10/13), and their Swedish Gripen competitor wasn’t even invited to bid. Qatar already uses French weapons on their Mirage 2000s, and their defense purchases are far more straightforward than India’s, leading to optimism that the Rafale’s 1st export sale could take place in the Middle East. If Qatar really does want a mixed fleet, the Rafale’s competition narrows to only the Eurofighter. Sources: La Tribune, “La France au Moyen-Orient (3/5) : le Qatar premier client du Rafale?”.

Nov 10/13: Qatar. Qatar’s competition will be delayed because the US Dept. of State couldn’t get their act together in time to issue all of the necessary export approvals. The QEAF is looking to replace their 12 Mirage 2000D fighters and 6 combat capable Alpha Jet light aircraft, but the neighborhood’s growing dangers are pushing them toward a larger buy. A split buy within their maximum total of 72 is seen as a real possibility, and some observers even see a potential split buy among the initial planned set of 36 planes. The initial decision was supposed to come down by the end of 2013, but will now take place in mid-2014.

Dassault already has a foothold here, and the Qataris are exactly the kind of customer they need to win. Eurofighter buys in Saudi Arabia and Oman have opened the door in the Gulf, and a UAE turn toward the platform could cement it as the Gulf Cooperation Council’s future standard. On the flip side, Rafale wins in the UAE and Qatar could open doors to tougher GCC customers like Bahrain and Kuwait.

The US State Department was reportedly wrestling with a pair of Boeing platforms as alternatives: the F/A-18 Super Hornet, and the F-15 Strike Eagle family. The later group includes the stealth-enhanced F-15SE, as well as the Saudis’ new F-15SA standard. Despite ongoing rumors regarding interest in the F-35 stealth fighter, Defense News reports that it isn’t a factor yet. Sources: Defense News, “US Bid Delays Qatar Jet Competition”.

October 2013: Need for Exports. As France is working on its 2014-19 defense budget law, the need to finalize an export order becomes ever more acute. To meet the French government’s baseline financial scenario, 7 out of 11 planes delivered in 2016 would already have to go abroad, which means a firm order has to be locked in by mid-2014 as jets for foreign customers would have their own configuration. France’s DGA procurement agency pays for Rafales in 3 installments. If exports don’t pan out in time, they may have to face difficult cash management trade-offs. Source : Les Echos, Rafale : le plan B de Dassault et de la DGA [in French] | LPM 2014-19: MINDEF, Legifrance [both in French].

October 17/13: India. Deputy chief of air staff Air Marshal S. Sukumar said during a conference that the contract with Dassault will be finalized before the end of the government’s current fiscal year, which ends on March 31st, 2014. Sukumar is a former flying instructor with 4,000+ flight hours who took his current job in December last year. Dassault was really hoping to get this done in 2013, but the sudden death of chief negotiator Arun Kumar Bal on October 2 must not have helped an already slow process. Source: Reuters, India to finalize Rafale deal this fiscal year.

October 2013: Canada. Yves Robins, a senior vice-president for corporate communications at Dassault Aviation, pitched Diane Finley, Canada’s Minister of Public Works and Government Services, during an Aerospace Summit luncheon. Robins urged Canada to run a full competition to replace its CF-18s and played the industrial cooperation card by reminding the minister that Dassault buys engines from Pratt & Whitney Canada for its Falcon business jets, and promising full technology and intellectual property transfer.

Mr. Robins is familiar with the fact Canada so far selected the JSF without a competition, as this came up when he met with the National Defence Committee in Parliament 3 years ago. At the time Robins insisted on the Rafale’s open design which would let it host Canada’s US-made weapons, though he refrained to say how much that would add to the price tag. Montreal Gazette: Aviation execs seek wide open competition for Canada’s fighter jet contract | National Defence Committee on Nov. 4th, 2010.

Sept 19/13: 4th tranche. The French DGA confirms that they’ve received the 1st “4e tranche” Rafale, a twin-sea Rafale-B for the air force. It includes the new RBE2-AA AESA radar, an improved electronic warfare system, and upgraded IFF. All are part of the “Rafale F3R,” but Meteor missile integration won’t happen until 2018.

The DGA also offers a snapshot of deliveries to date: 121 aircraft, including 38 Rafale-Ms, plus 44 Rafale-C and 39 twin-seat Rafale-B fighters for the air force. Source: French DGA.

Sept 13/13: Weapons. Russia’s Tactical Missile Corporation (TRV) told journalists at MAKS 2013 that they’re negotiating with Dassault Aviation for the possible use of their missiles on India’s Rafales. India bought MBDA’s MICA air-to-air missiles for its Mirage 2000s, and Paveway-II guided bombs are already in use by the IAF, but Rafale-compatible weapons don’t otherwise feature prominently in India’s existing stocks.

The ability to use Russian weapons would help the Rafale in some export competitions, but it doesn’t come for free. Unless the TRV/Dassault partnership develops a Universal Weapon Interface for TRV’s products, and probably modifies a number of the missiles themselves, that kind of integration and testing is time-consuming and expensive. How much less expensive than buying new weapons? And what’s the capability/ reliability payoff if India buys French products instead? That’s what negotiations, and Indian business analysts, need to determine. Sources: TRV Products page, via WayBack 2013 | AIN, “Russian Missiles for India’s Rafales?”

June 20/13: India. IANS reports that India’s Minister of State for Defence Jitendra Singh told an audience at the 50th Paris Air Show that the Rafale deal:

“…is not stuck anywhere. It is the biggest deal of its kind in the world and, of course, a very complex one too. They are talking to HAL and the private sector companies in India as well; so it is progressing…”

In his first Le Bourget press conference

as Dassault CEO, Eric Trappier had made a similar-sounding statement a week earlier.

June 20/13: Qatar. AFP says that the Middle Eastern Emirate intends to launch its RFP for 24-36 fighters “soon.” They own a fleet of Mirage 2000-5s, which recently flew to enforce the no-fly zone over Libya.

French President Hollande will visit Doha for high-level economic talks on June 22, and France has close ties with the Emirate, but the Qataris aren’t waiting around. They reportedly spent time in May 2013 evaluating the Eurofighter Tornado with the RAF, and will soon host a Eurofighter team in-country for flight trials. Boeing also remains in the mix. Agence France Presse.

June 12/13: French defense minister Jean-Yves Le Drian reminds Dassault that they will need to rely on exports after French orders are done. They can’t be all that surprised, given a minimum delivery of 11 planes per year, and the April 29/13 White Paper’s reduction of the French fleet to 225 planes.

With 180 already ordered and 120 received, orders will stop sometime between 2016-2019, probably in 2017. The problem with these kinds of public reminders is that they make negotiations more difficult for Dassault, and may end up reducing export sales instead of spurring them. On the other hand, there have been reports of frustration in Paris over Dassault’s pricing and flexibility; if true, this kind of public reminder is one way to send a message. L’Usine Nouvelle [in French].

May 16/13: Meteor. The Rafale team continues to work on integrating MBDA’s Meteor long-range air-to-air missile in time for 2018, which will make the Rafale the last core platform to become operational. It will also be the only platform with a 1-way datalink, as Rafale uses the same transmit-only system for MICA and Meteor.

Saab’s JAS-39 Gripens will be operational by 2014, and Eurofighter GmbH eventually signed a June 2013 contract with a 2017 in-service date. Both fighters will have 2-way datalinks.

Late May will see over-water release trials begin at the Cazaux flight test centre, with 2 tests (high-g, and high angle of attack) scheduled before the end of 2013. The 1st controlled and boosted launch is slated for 2015. France placed an initial order for 200 Meteors in January 2011, and missile production began in June 2012. Flight Global.

April 28/13: Coming cuts. France releases their defense white paper (Livre Blanc) for 2013, which aims to set their force structure to 2025. With respect to the air assets, by 2025 they’re planning for:

“…les forces aériennes comprendront notamment 225 avions de combat (air et marine), ainsi qu’une cinquantaine d’avions de transport tactique, 7 avions de détection et de surveillance aérienne, 12 avions ravitailleurs multirôles, 12 drones de surveillance de théâtre, des avions légers de surveillance et de reconnaissance et 8 systèmes sol-air de moyenne portée.”

Translation: 225 fighters (all Rafale, cut from 234), about 50 tactical transport aircraft (A400Ms and CN-235s), 7 E-3F AWACS planes, 12 A330 MRTT aerial tankers and transports, 12 MALE drones and an unspecified number of light surveillance planes, and 8 SAMP/T long-range air and missile defense batteries. Note that original plans for the Rafale had involved 294 planes. Livre Blanc 2013 [PDF, in French].

March 8/13: Brazil. Brazil has asked the 3 F-X2 finalists to extend their bids for another 6 months from the March 30/13 deadline, as the Brazilian commodity economy remains mired in a 2-year slump. The competitors had hoped for a decision by the time Brazil’s LAAD 2013 expo opened in April.

The length of the cumulative delays could create changes for the bids, and it effectively squashes any faint hopes that the new jets would be able to fly in time for the 2014 World Cup. Reuters.

Feb 25/13: With Rafales flying combat missions again, in Mali, Jane’s reports that France will designate a new round of improved Rafales as “F3R”. They’ll include a major software upgrade that allows the aircraft to take fuller advantage of the new Thales RBE2-AA AESA radar, improves their Thales SPECTRA self-defence systems, adds Mode-5/Mode-S capable Identification Friend or Foe, and allows the Rafale to deploy MBDA’s Meteor long range air-to-air missile. IHS Jane’s.

Feb 7/13: India. While a French Rafale-B performs at Aero India 2013, negotiations grind on. India’s defence minister, A K Antony, describes negotiations as a 6-7 layer process, which then has to be sent to the Ministry of Finance. There will be no deal during Aero India, as the contract simply isn’t ready. Antony adds that coming defense budget cuts won’t delay the Rafale deal, but an election looms in 2014.

India’s Financial Express cites anonymous “highly placed sources” who say that remaining friction involves industrial issues. The Dassault team that visited the HAL facility in Nashik were said to have been disappointed by the infrastructure in place, and concerned that HAL will have trouble absorbing the required technology. They’re also reportedly wrestling with India’s insistence on giving HAL ‘lead integrator’ responsibility for decisions about workshare with other companies, while sticking Dassault with overall responsibility for the project. The French are trying to use the RFP as a starting point for discussions, while India insists that the RFP’s terms are the final word. Economic Times | Financial Express.

Jan 28/13: PDL NG The DGA commits a EUR 55 million risk reduction contract for Thales to develop the next-generation PDL NG surveillance and targeting pod, as the successor to the Damocles pod. Another EUR 115 million tranche is expected by year end, and deliveries are expected to take place beginning in about 5 years, from 2018-2022.

The DGA touts this as a boost to the export attractiveness of French fighter jets, which is true. Targeting pods have become such an important ancillary that the Rafale can’t really remain competitive without one that meets modern high-end standards. It’s essentially part of the Fighter’s life-cycle modernization plan. Damocles’ 320 x 240 IR resolution is far behind the 1280 x 1024 arrays in current Sniper SE or LITENING SE pods, and needs improvement. Unlike its European competitors, which use LITENING-III pods from Israel, France is keeping full control over the technology and exportability by designing its own.

The bad news is twofold. One is that the Rafale will receive a pod in 2018 whose doubled-scan 640 x 520 array (effectively 1280 x 1040) is roughly equal to Sniper-SE and LITENING-SE pods being delivered in 2013. High design modularity ensures that both of its competitors will continue to evolve, swapping in better sensors and new technologies by the time PDL-NG appears.

The 2nd bit of bad news is that France’s need to do this themselves results in a final expected cost per targeting pod of EUR 10 million, in order to equip the French Rafale fleet with 45. Exports could help boost PDL-NG production, but first the Rafale must win some foreign orders. India, whose Mirage 2000s are getting life extensions, is an important target for both the Rafale and PDL-NG – and a committed customer for RAFAEL’s LITENING pod across several of their fighter fleets. French DGA | Les Echos | Usine Nouvelle.

PDL-NG pod development

2012

Thales MAESTRO maintenance contract; Preferred in India; Not taking “no” for an answer in Switzerland; Rafale with AESA radar delivered.

Rafale-M
(click to view full)

Oct 30/12: From Damocles to PDL NG. The unofficial site Rafale News quotes the latest issue of Air & Cosmos (N°2305), who says that the Rafale’s future surveillance and targeting pod won’t be an upgraded Damocles pod, whose 320×240 infrared sensor is very small compared to competitors.

Instead, France is reportedly planning to invest EUR 450 million to develop and produce 45 PDL NGs (Pod de Designation Laser Nouvelle Generation), to equip both Rafales and Mirage 200Ds. The new pods will reportedly have a 1280×1024 equivalent IR resolution, by using a 640×560 array plus a micro-scanning technique. Better GPS/INS geolocation will have accuracy that matches the new AASM smart bombs. In terms of its shape and design, PDL NG is expected to offer carrier landing compatibility, and provide a lower radar cross-section.

Oct 4-10/12: Meteor. Rafale B301, operating from Cazaux DGA Flight Test Center in southwestern France, successfully completes 2 successful tests of the Meteor long-range air-to-air missile.

Oct 2/12: Thales and Dassault deliver the 1st production Rafale equipped with the RBE2-AA AESA radar, an air force Rafale C. Aircraft C137’s delivery makes the Rafale the 1st European fighter in service with an AESA radar, though older American designs (F-15 retrofits, F-16 E/F, F/A-18E/F Block II) have had this equipment for several years now. French DGA [in French] | Thales Group | Usine Nouvelle [in French].

1st Rafale with AESA

Sept 27/12: Media are forecasting a signed M-MRCA fighter deal with India before the end of their fiscal year, in April 2013. That’s certainly possible, but India’s history suggests that any such expectation is a very risky bet. Usine Nouvelle [in French].

Sept 20/12: Exocet qualified. The French Navy qualifies the air-launched AM39 Exocet anti-ship missile on its Rafale fighters, using Rafale-M number 27 launched from FS Charles de Gaulle [R 91]. The firing conditions were deemed to be fully representative of an operational mission. MBDA.

AM39 Exocet

Aug 23/12: India. L’Usine Nouvelle say that any India deal will be done as a series of agreements to produce specific items, with the scope growing over time. They also say that over 50% of initial production will remain in France, even after the initial 18 fighters are delivered, until Indian production expands. Beyond the engines, which are very likely to remain in France, the article cites complex electronics, and especially Thales RBE2-AA AESA radar, as being difficult to transfer. India’s failure with its Tejas fighter’s multi-mode radar, which was a generation behind AESA, does lend credence to that view.

Meanwhile, highly placed Russian and German sources say that India and Russia are having trouble coming to agreement on technology transfer and price, and say that the M-MRCA competition isn’t closed yet. The Hindu | IBN Live | Times of India | L’Usine Nouvelle [in French].

July 11/12: India. Indian defense minister Antony effectively ends contention over the Rafale’s selection as L1, the lowest evaluated bid. Replying to the Feb 27/12 letter from Rajya Sabha member MV Mysura Reddy:

“The issues raised by you were examined by independent monitors who have concluded that the approach and methodology adopted by the Contract Negotiations Committee (CNC) in the evaluation of the commercial proposals thus far, have been reasonable and appropriate and within the terms of the Request for Proposals (RFR) and Defence Procurement Procedure, 2006.”

India’s history shows that this is a big moment for the M-MRCA program, preventing its derailment and allowing negotiations toward a contract to continue. Hindustan Times.

July 9/12: Sim upgrade. Thales announces that France’s DGA procurement agency has accepted the 1st F3.2 simulator upgrade, to the first 2 cabins at the simulation centre in Saint-Dizier. The Rafale Transformation Squadron in Saint-Dizier has a total of 4 cabins, and the 2 upgraded simulators will faithfully replicate the F3 Rafale’s ability to use AM39 Exocet anti-ship missiles, ASMP/A nuclear missiles, the advanced Reco-NG surveillance pod, and the Damocles targeting pod.

The 2 cabins at the Rafale simulation center in Landivisiau will be upgraded to the F3.2 standard in the summer of 2013.

July 7/12: Brazil. The FAB has asked the 3 bidders (Boeing, Dassault & Saab) to renew their F-X2 fighter offers. It’s the 4th consecutive 6-month extension, while Brazil dithers over its choice and the timing of the buy. France24.

July 7/12: Wi-Fi of Doom. Raytheon announces that it has integrated its dual-mode GBU-49 Enhanced Paveway II laser/GPS guided smart bombs onto France’s Rafale-M fighters, after successful tests at Bisacrosse. The Marine Nationale had been using the 250 kg weapons for 6 years on their trans-sonic Super Etendard Modernisee naval fighters, and they wanted their supersonic naval Rafales to have the same capability. The challenge was how to do that without spending all the time and money that full weapon integration usually requires.

Enter Raytheon’s WiPAK. The WiPAK kit consists of a small wireless transmitter in the cockpit, a pilot interface, and a small receiver affixed to the Paveway weapon. Raytheon VP Harry Schulte explains that “WiPAK uses wireless connectivity technology similar to what is being used in laptop and tablet computers.” Hopefully, it’s more resistant to jamming. Raytheon describes WiPAK as “a combat proven system, used operationally on counterinsurgency aircraft.”

The tests open the door to competition against Safran’s emerging dual-mode SBU-64 AASM Hammer smart bombs. France’s air force already uses GBU-49s from their Mirage 2000D fighters, so a similar conversion for AdlA Rafale-B/Cs is an obvious opportunity.

July 2/12: Crash. A Rafale-M aboard FS Charles de Gaulle crashes during exercises with the USS Eisenhower’s F/A-18s. The pilot ejected, and American helicopters picked him up and transfer him to the de Gaulle. The cause of the crash is under investigation. US Navy | French MdlD [in French] | Navy Recognition | Usine Nouvelle [in French].

Crash

April 20/12: Refit. The DGA’s Christophe Carpentier discusses some of the complexities involved in the 10-plane Rafale-M refit, which is upgrading these F1 aircraft to an F3 standard that will add precision ground attack, reconnaissance, and even nuclear warhead delivery to their capabilities. The biggest challenge is that the upgrades take place on the Rafale production line, so careful scheduling is essential to avoid disrupting new-plane production. French MdlD [in French]. See also Nov 30/09 entry.

March 30/12: 1st RBE2-AA. Thales announces that they have delivered the 1st RBE2-AA AESA radar to the Dassault Aviation production line in Merignac, France. The radar will now be installed on Rafale C137, which is scheduled for delivery to the French defence procurement agency (DGA) in summer 2012.

A comprehensive 3-month flight test program conducted at the Istres air base has already been held to demonstrate the radar’s performance, and the RBE2 AESA radar was delivered in line with the contract schedule.

1st AESA

March 22/12: Rafale exports. Dassault CEO Charles Edelstenne discusses the Rafale’s export issues, while making the most of the Rafale’s win against the Eurofighter in India. His characterization is unpromising, since it concedes American dominance of the global fighter market, leaving the Rafale as the choice of countries that don’t buy American, or make reduced dependence on American arms a priority.

There’s some truth to this, as shown by Dassault’s experience in South Korea. On the other hand, it’s also true that the Rafale has lost export competitions over price and technical features. Usine Nouvelle [in French]

March 22/12: India. Indian Defence minister A.K. Antony orders the Ministry to probe all of the allegations made by Rajya Sabha (Parliamentary upper house) member M.V. Mysoora Reddy. The Telgu Dessam party representative filed an official complaint on Feb 27/12, over alleged irregularities in the evaluation process that designated France’s Rafale as the L-1 lowest cost option for India. The probe is expected to delay the process by a couple of months, if nothing surfaces. If the claims get any traction, India’s procurement process could come to a complete halt. Read “India’s M-MRCA Fighter Competition” for full coverage.

March 20/12: Canada? As Canada’s government gives conflicting signals about its F-35A commitment, and braces for a scathing Auditor General report about their pledged buy, Dassault’s Rafale may get an opening:

“The likeliest contenders, should there be a competition, are U.S.-based Boeing, maker of the F-18 Super Hornet, and Dassault of France, maker of the Rafale… “In our world we’re already in a competition,” one industry insider said. “(Associate Defence Minister) Fantino himself said we’re basically looking at our options. There’s a team at (Department of National Defence) looking at the market. So it’s already on.”

Despite this report, Canada’s considerable stockpile of American-made air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons adds huge additional switching costs to an already-expensive Rafale aircraft, and makes it a very unlikely challenger. Post Media.

Feb 22/12: UK Rafales? French DGA head Lauren Collet-Billon tells a press conference that the extent of carrier cooperation with Britain will depend on Britain’s final plans and choices. With respect to fighter jets, Defense Aerospace quotes him saying that the F-35:

“…is an ambitious program, and like all ambitious programs it faces a number of challenges… If one day we have to lend Rafale Ms to the Royal Navy, why not? Personally, I’d find that very pleasing.”

Issues with the F-35 program are indeed putting Britain in a bind, but cost issues with the CVF carriers’ catapult retrofit may make any catapult-launched fighter problematic for Britain.

Jan 31/12: India’s preferred plane. Dassault’s Rafale is picked as the “L-1” lowest bidder for India’s 126-aircraft M-MRCA deal, even after the complex life-cycle cost and industrial calculations are thrown in. Some reports place its cost as $5 million lower per plane. Next steps include the negotiation of a contract, in parallel with parliamentary approval and budgeting. If a contract is signed, it would help extend the Rafale’s production line beyond 2021, which is its current closure date without export orders.

Until a contract is actually signed, however, India’s procurement history reminds us that even a “close” deal is just 1 step above a vague intention. Read “India’s M-MRCA Fighter Competition” for full coverage.

India’s pick

Jan 31/12: What is the Rafale to France? L’Usine Nouvelle’s article asks: “A quoi sert le Rafale?” – The short answer is that it’s at the heart of French military power thanks to its carrier and nuclear roles, as well as its central role in French conventional wars. It’s also the industrial heart of France’s advanced military aerospace research, responsible for significant steps forward in French materials science, engine design, computing, sensors, etc. at Dassault, Thales, and Snecma. Not to mention over 500 sub-contractors, all of whom are made nervous by uncertainty. In total, the aircraft is said to be responsible for 7,000 direct and indirect jobs.

Unfortunately, lack of exports is forcing extra funding to keep the Rafale production line at its minimum. Which is delaying the much-needed modernization of France’s Mirage 2000D fleet, and beginning to pose an operational risk for France.

Jan 29/12: Swiss cheese. Dassault makes Switzerland a new offer: 18 Rafale fighters for SFR 2.7 billion (EUR 2.24 billion, $2.96 billion), instead of 22 Gripens for SFR 3.1 billion.

This is, frankly, the kind of approach that has cost Dassault sales in other countries. If this offer is substantially less than Dassault’s earlier offer to the Swiss, the Swiss could be forgiven for asking what has changed, and why the previous offer was so high. Meanwhile, submitting offers after a competition is done doesn’t win many friends in military or ministry circles.

In this case, however, the audience is the Swiss parliament, which is supposed to begin discussing the fighter buy on Feb 13/12. Hans Hess of parliament’s security commission confirmed to Le Matin Dimanche that he had received the letter. What’s deeply troubling is that Swiss defence minister Ueli Maurer told the Sonntags Zeitung that he wasn’t aware of the offer. If that’s true, the decision to blindside the minister reflects even more poorly on the Dassault executive responsible. That kind of behavior goes well beyond a normal political battle, and can create powerful enemies whose grudges are deep, personal, and lasting. AFP via Yahoo | France 24.

Jan 10/12: Support. Thales announces a 10-year MAESTRO (MAintien en condition operationnelle des Equipements B et des moyens de Soutien Thales du Rafale Optimise) fixed-price contract from France’s SIMMAD, with specified availability metrics, to support Thales equipment on board French Rafales.

Thales announced a 5-year base contract for that service on Feb 2/10, but that one was from Dassault, as a sub-contractor. This one is directly with SIMMAD, alongside Dassault’s “Rafale Care” contract (vid. Dec 12/08), and reported deals with Snecma for engine maintenance (vid. Feb 24/10). Under the terms of this contract, Thales is responsible for supporting the Rafale’s RBE2 radar, SPECTRA electronic warfare system, avionics (displays, onboard computers, etc.), optronics (OSF front-sector optronics, cameras, etc.) and communication systems. They’ll also be in charge of optimizing replacement parts management, logistics management, and equipment repair processes; and will deploy technical and logistics advisers to work directly on military bases. Thales Group.

MAESTRO support

2011

Performance against Libya; Swiss loss; Doubts in Dubai; Bulgaria RFI; Progress for RBE2-AA radar, Reco NG pod.

Off to Libya after all…
(click to view full)

Dec 1/11: Swiss Loss. Switzerland announces their choice – and it’s Saab’s JAS-39 Gripen. Swiss Defence Minister Ueli Maurer estimates the cost of the envisaged deal at up to CHF 3.1 billion (currently $3.5 billion, probably more by 2014), for 22 planes. The DDPS explicitly stated that Gripen also won because it offered lower maintenance costs that made it affordable over the medium and long term. Dassault wasn’t very happy, though they did concede that the Gripen beat them on price:

“The RAFALE’s capacities would enable the Swiss Confederation to meet its operational requirements with a smaller number of aircraft [emphasis DID’s] at an equivalent or lower cost, as was demonstrated during the assessments… The “Swiss-tailored” GRIPEN only exists on paper. Its technical development and production risk significantly increasing the financial efforts required of the Swiss Authorities to accomplish the country’s fighter aircraft program. RAFALE INTERNATIONAL extends its sincere thanks the 250 Swiss companies that took part in its industrial partnership project in the 26 cantons of the Swiss Confederation.”

The next step is for the DDPS and Saab to negotiate a draft contract, including details of the required matching value (100%) industrial offsets program in Switzerland. Contract options are scheduled for presentation by February 2012, whereupon the package will be proposed to the Swiss national parliament as part of the 2012 weapons plan. The catch is that the buy requires about CHF 600 million in savings from elsewhere. The government’s strategy is apparently to tie that savings program to the fighter order if a referendum is required, and even the proposal isn’t expected before 2013. This means that it’s likely to be 2014 before Saab has a production contract they can rely on. Swiss DDPS in French | German | Italian || Saab Group | Rafale International | Agence France Presse | Flight International’s The DEW Line.

Swiss loss

Nov 16/11: What’s up in the UAE? The UAE is either engaged in the mother of all hardball negotiations, or the potential Rafale sale is crashing. Meanwhile, the UAE may be about to cut its planned new jet order and buy more F-16E/F Block 60s, regardless of what happens next. Read “Derailed Denouement in Dubai: What’s Up With the UAE’s Fighter Deal?” for a snapshot.

June 20/11: Defense News’ Paris 2011 Show Scout covers Dassault executive chairman Charles Edelstenne’s comments re: the Rafale & M-MRCA. It includes this important point:

“The French government has made export of the Rafale a “priority” because of the perceived importance of the fighter industry in political, technological and economic terms, and also because of the domestic budgetary needs, Edelstenne said. France has written into its defense budgets export of the Rafale, and if those foreign sales fail to appear, funding must be found from other defense programs to finance an annual output of 11 aircraft, the minimum deemed for economic sense.”

May 31/11: Libya Report. In the wake of a 2-day tour of the Rafale detachment at Solenzara, Corsica, which flies France’s missions over Libya, Giovanni de Briganti of Defense Aerospace submits a report. As one might imagine, the tour wasn’t conducted to showcase unhappiness, but the reports do offer a number of useful tidbits.

One is that the Rafale has now emerged as the multi-role plane it was promised to be, using Damocles targeting pods, advanced Reco NG reconnaissance pods, GPS guided weapons, and more. The other is that the Rafale is now moving France out of narrow squadron stovepipes, and toward the full multi-role orientation the USA began embracing in the 1990s. Lacking American resources, the French AdlA is even being pushed toward the next step of that orientation, where stovepipes break down completely and one plane may fly SEAD(suppression of enemy air defenses), precision strike, air superiority, and reconnaissance tasks within a single sortie. Whether coached or serendipitous, the pilots’ special praise for their air conditioning system, and ability to cite their SPECTRA integrated self-defense system’s protection when flying early missions deep into Libya, are also significant. They’re 2 less-obvious capabilities, but both are considered especially valuable by the Rafale’s most likely buyers in Brazil, India, and the UAE. Additional excerpts:

“Pilots… routinely take off with four MICA air-to-air missiles, three or six AASM Hammer precision-guided bombs, a Thales Damocles laser targeting pod or a Reco NG reconnaissance pod and two drop tanks… [for a] six- or seven-hour sortie… “Two Rafales carry as much ordnance as two Mirage 2000-5 and four Mirage 2000D combined,” notes [pilot] Pierre G., adding that their sensor capabilities “are much greater even than that.”… “MICA is not just a missile, it’s an extra sensor as well,” says Pierre G., and its detection range is much longer than generally supposed…

Transit to Libya is flown at 50% power setting, which translates to Mach 0.9 cruise speed even with six AASM bombs and two large underwing drop tanks… Since Operation Harmattan (the French designation for enforcing the Libya No-Fly Zone) began on March 19, the detachment has flown 2,200 flight hours with over 1,500 in-flight refuellings… Aircraft turn-around, even with live weapons on board, requires only 90 minutes and an engine change requires one hour, although none have been changed during current operations… Maintenance requirements of the Rafale are about 25% lower than for the Mirage 2000, and there is no scheduled or preventive maintenance; maintenance depends only on the type of mission flown, and on the condition of components… detachment commander Lt. Col. Pierre G. says that the availability rate is close to 100%.”

See also: Flight International.

Libya experience

April 27/11: India finalist. After a close call where it was nearly drummed out of India’s future fighter competition, the Rafale rallies. India’s M-MRCA competition is now a one-on-one duel between the Rafale, and EADS/ BAE/ Finmeccanica’s Eurofighter Typhoon.

Feb 15/11: AREOS Reco NG. As the Rafale F3 prepares to take over the reconnaissance role from older Mirage F1 and Super Etendard planes, it is preparing to fully qualify Thales’ new digital AREOS Reco NG pod. The French air force has already ordered 12, and the Navy 8. Now, battlefield trials based on a hundred test flights enabled the CEAM military aircraft test center to validate the pod for basic employment, from land and from aircraft carriers.

The 1,100 kg/ 2,420 pound AREOS Reco NG pod is 4.6 meters/ 15 feet long, and can als be deployed on the Mirage 2000 if needed. Its identification range of several tens of kilometers is 2-3x the range of the Presto pod currently deployed on Mirage F1CR aircraft in Afghanistan, and it supplements high and medium altitude coverage with a low-altitude sensor that supports high speed horizon to horizon photography at an altitude of only 60 m/ 200 feet. The pod operates automatically, within its intermittent, zone coverage or terrain-following modes, and always knows its exact position in space, thanks to an inertial reference system, correlated with data from the Rafales nav-attack system. As soon as the shots are taken, they are automatically overlaid on a digital elevation model, geo-referenced, and assembled to provide a complete mosaic, then stored on a hard disk in the pod. They can be also transmitted to a ground image receiving and processing station in real time, via a high-speed microwave link. The pod can also operate in video mode by using successive images, and estimate a moving object’s speed.

The first Rafale/ AEROS crews from operational units were trained at CEAM in summer 2010. Several weeks later, the system reached its initial operational capability, and is now deployed on the FS Charles-de-Gaulle aircraft carrier. By the end of the 2011, it will open its operating envelope to include terrain following during penetration flights, at which point it will officially be in service with full operational capabilities. Dassault.

RECO NG pod ready

Feb 9/11: RBE2-AA. Thales announces that “a comprehensive programme of flight tests conducted between September and December 2010” have validated its new AESA RBE2 radar for the Rafale. The announcement makes the Rafale the first of the 4+ generation European fighters to qualify with an AESA radar.

By confirming that the radar’s performance complies with the “Roadmap” contract, awarded by the French DGA, Thales can begin series production for installation into the Rafale Tranche 4 planes that were ordered in 2009, and will be delivered by Dassault Aviation to the French Air Force beginning in 2013.

Feb 4/11: Bulgaria RFI. Bulgaria issues another fighter replacement RFI, soliciting information from Boeing (F/A-18E/F), Dassault (Rafale, Mirage 2000), EADS (Eurofighter), Lockheed Martin (F-16), and Saab (JAS-39 Gripen) re: 8 new and/or second-hand fighter jets, to replace its existing fleet of 12 MiG-21s.

Bulgaria issued a similar RFI in 2006, for 20 jets, but the global economic crash, and Bulgaria’s own issues in trying to pay for past defense purchases, forced a hold. The Defense Ministry has taken pains to emphasize that this is just an exploratory request, and is not the start of a purchase tender. Nevertheless, November 2010 saw the formation of a National Steering Committee and an Integrated Project Team, to draft preliminary fighter replacement operational, technical, and tactical requirements. That followed October 2010 remarks by Bulgaria’s Defense Minister Anyu Angelov, who discussed spending BGN 1 billion (around $725 million) for the purchase of an uncertain number of new fighter jets to replace its MiG-21s, while modernizing its fleet of 16 MiG-29A air superiority jets. Sofia News Agency.

Jan 6/11: UAE. French media report that during a vsit to Paris in mid-December 2010, UAE armed forces commander Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan asked France to renew its proposal to sell up to 60 Rafales to the UAE.

The recent purchase of 200 Meteor missiles by the French government reportedly removed one of the UAE’s concerns. Other equipment like the Damocles targeting pod has been integrated late, due to budget constraints, but the French purchase ensures that this won’t happen to the long-range Meteor missile as well. A partial squadron of Rafale F3s equipped with Reco NG and Damocles pods is reportedly operating from a new French base in Abu Dhabi, in support of deployments to Afghanistan as well as the UAE sale. That still leaves issues of AESA radar capabilities, improvements to the Snecma M88 engines, disposal of the UAE’s 60+ plane Mirage 200 fleet, and possibly airline landing rights near Paris as items of contention.

On the other hand, both Qatar and Kuwait have early-stages programs going to select new fighters for their air forces, and the UAE is a very respected and influential weapons buyer in the region. A sale to the UAE would make a huge difference to Dassault, and the UAE would reap royalties if Rafales with its requested extra features are bought by other countries. Aviation Week | Reuters | UAE’s The National.

2010

Nuclear-ready Rafales; Qatar opportunity; Kuwaiti interest & opposition; UAE breaks negotiations; Algeria goes for SU-30s; M88 engine improvements; ACMI upgrade for Red Flag exercise; Active stealth?; Rafale-M crash; Joint French AF/Navy training.

Rafale-M
(click to view full)

Dec 16/10: UAE. Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed al Nahyan and French President Nicolas Sarkozy reportedly discussed the potential Rafale deal in Paris during the Prince’s visit. Negotiations aren’t formally on again yet, but this is a form of progress. TopNews Arab Emirates | Reuters.

Nov 29/10: Splash one. The French MINDEF announces that a Rafale F3 from FS Charles de Gaulle crashes due to a mechanical failure, in Pakistani territorial waters 100 km offshore, following a mission over Afghanistan. MdlD release:

“Dimanche 28 novembre 2010, en debut d’une mission d’appui aérien en Afghanistan, un pilote de Rafale qui opérait depuis le porte-avions Charles de Gaulle , s’est ejecté de son avion en mer, au large du Pakistan.”

The pilot was recovered by helicopter, and is receiving medical treatment. An inquiry is being conducted into the accident.

Crash

Nov 17/10: Program cost change. The French Senat’s foreign affairs and defense committee releases a report on the draft budget law for 2012. It updates the Rafale program to EUR 43.56 billion over 40 years at 2011 prices, including both purchase and development costs for all 286 forecast aircraft. That’s a EUR 2.86 billion increase from the previous EUR 40.7 billion, and raises the per-plane program cost (similar to the USA’s PAUC figure) to EUR 152 million.

Some inflation factored into this increase, but other increases involved the F3/F4 standard’s technology, including upgraded M88 engines, the RBE2-AA AESA radar, the Damocles laser designation pod, the Reco NG reconnaissance pod.

In the immediate term, about EUR 1.1 billion in 2011-2013 increases stem from the Rafale’s lack of exports, which forced France to increase its 2009-2014 order by 17 planes in order to fund the plane’s minimum production rate. This is an uncomfortable position for France; the period’s orders now stand at 69. L’Usine Nouvelle [in French]

Program costs

Nov 15/10: UAE. France’s La Tribune reveals [in French] why the UAE broke off negotiations, and the new condition they’ve added for the sale:

“Après avoir gelé les négociations pourtant très avancées au coeur de l’été en raison d’un article dans “Le Figaro”, propriété de Dassault, qui a fortement déplu, Abu Dhabi a récemment rajouté dans les discussions une nouvelle exigence pour acquérir le Rafale. Selon plusieurs sources concordantes, les Emiratis mettent désormais dans la balance des droits de trafic supplémentaires (autorisations de vols) en France, essentiellement à Roissy, pour leurs compagnies aériennes Emirates (Dubai) et surtout Etihad, le transporteur d’Abu Dhabi.”

Translation: The UAE suspended Rafale negotiations because of an article in Le Figaro, which Dassault’s ownership structure also owns. Must have been quite some article.

The new condition will be familiar to Canadians – the UAE wants to double the number of reserved slots for Emirates Airlines and Etihad Airways at Roissy airport, France main passenger hub near Paris. France had rejected this request when it was made recently, as its national airline Air France objected. In Canada’s case, the request was to double slots at Pearson airport in Toronto, the country’s busiest and largest passenger hub. Air Canada objected, Canada refused, and in October 2010, the UAE kicked Canada out of its “Camp Mirage” base, and denied overflight rights for Canada’s defense minister on his way to Afghanistan.

Nov 8/10: Qatar. Aviation Week reports that Qatar plans to pick its new fighter in 2012, and the Rafale is a contender to replace the current Mirage 2000v5 fleet:

“The size of the program is still under discussion, with 24-36 fighters likely to be acquired… The service is evaluating a broad spectrum of aircraft, including the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and F-15, Eurofighter Typhoon and Dassault Rafale, says Al-Khayarin. Saab officials note they also have entered the competition [with their JAS-39NG].”

Oct 4/10: UAE suspended. French media confirm that negotiations with the UAE for up to 60 Rafale fighters have been suspended. Issues reportedly included the range of enhancements requested, and associated terms if they’re sold in future aircraft; and requests that Dassault exchange the UAE’s 63 Mirage 2000s as part of a deal. Usine Nouvelle initial article and follow-up [in French].

Sept 13/10: UAE. Defense News reports that The UAE has requested technical information on the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. An unnamed source cites no need to develop the platform further, which would avoid a $2+ billion effort to upgrade the Rafale with a longer-range AESA radar, better electronic warfare systems, and uprated engines. On the other hand, the UAE has seen returns on such developments before, via royalties when the Mirage 2000v5s it helped to develop were sold abroad.

Defense News says that it’s “not immediately clear why the UAE is exploring a U.S.-made option.” It could be technology. It could be politics. Or, it could just be smart negotiating tactics.

Aug 7/10: India. India’s Times Now news show reports that the M-MRCA trials will leave only Dassault’s Rafale and EADS’ Eurofighter in the race. There is no official confirmation. Brahmand | Livefist.

June 22/10: Joint French Training. The 3rd COMORAC (COMite d’ORientation de l’Aviation de Chasse) meets, as the French Air Force and Navy discuss joint management of Rafale training. They sign an agreement establishing an ETR (Escadron de Transformation Rafale), which would serve both branches from the St. Dizier air base, beginning in September 2010. Rafale-M and Rafale-B pilots will now have a common initial processing and training, and initial personnel assignments are beginning.

Part of the co-ordination effort also involves work at the Istres-Le Tubé air base near Nice. It would take over land-based carrier landing simulations from the nearby Naval Air Station Nimes Garons, which also serves as a civilian airport. These initial improvements will be made during the summer 2010, with the goal of having the French carrier’s air wing embark at Istres beginning in September 2010. French Navy [in French].

June 6/10: Nuclear strike ready. France declares the Rafale B operational in the nuclear strike role with EdC 1/91 at St. Dizier-Robinson air base. The Rafale will eventually replace all 62 Mirage 2000Ns as the launch platform for France’s ramjet-powered ASMP-A nuclear missile, which has a 500-600 km range and is carried on the centerline pylon. Combat Aircraft, August 2010.

Nuclear-ready

March 22/10: M88 upgrade. The first test flight of a Rafale fighter powered by the Snecma M88-4E “TCO Pack” engine takes place for 1:30 at the Istres air base in southern France. In January 2008, French defense procurement agency DGA awarded Snecma the “TCO Pack” contract to improve the M88-2 engine, modifying the high-pressure compressor and turbine and extending service life and time between inspections.

The first ground test of the engine was performed in September 2009. Development engines are now undergoing ground performance and endurance tests, and a series of altitude chamber tests was completed in late February 2010. The engine has been on 10 test flights, and the test program comprises some 70 flights in 2010, with different engine configurations. Qualification and delivery of the first production-standard M88-4E is now slated for the end of 2011. Snecma release.

April 29/10: UAE. Arabian Aerospace magazine repeats long-standing rumors that Dassault/ France will be asked to buy back, or find a buyer for, the UAE’s 62 Mirage 2000v9 aircraft, as a condition of a Rafale sale. The article goes on to detail the Mirage 2000v9’s capabilities and key equipment differences from earlier models; many revolve around the incorporation of technology that was also used on the Rafale.

April 5/10: No win in Algeria. Looks like the always-slim Algerian opportunity for Rafale has vanished. RIA Novosti reports that Algeria will replace its rejected MiG-29s with SU-30MKA aircraft, to complement 28 less-sophisticated SU-30MKs it has received under a 2006 deal.

Algeria

April 5/10: Active stealth? Aviation Week’s Air and Cosmos reports that France is developing active stealth for the Rafale F5 (2 versions hence). Bill Sweetman explains:

“Active cancellation means preventing a radar from detecting a target by firing back a deception signal with the same frequency as the reflection, but precisely one-half wavelength out of phase with it. Result: the returned energy reaching the radar has no frequency and can’t be detected. It’s quite as difficult as it sounds… This may not be the first French attempt to implement AC on the Rafale. At the Paris air show in 1997, I interviewed a senior engineer at what was then Dassault Electronique… [DID: which became Thales, then Dassault became Thales’ largest private shareholder]”

Sweetman goes on to explain that Moore’s Law of improved processing power may make the project more achievable now. MBDA and Thales have since confirmed that they are working on active cancellation for missiles as part of the Rafale’s SPECTRA defensive suite, and research in this area is underway in several other countries.

April 2/10: Oman loss. Oman, which was always seen as a likely Eurofighter customer but had been offered Rafales, confirms that it intends to buy the Eurofighter. As of 2012, however, it has yet to sign a formal contract. Read “British Eurofighters to Oman?” for full coverage.

Oman

April 1/10: SPECTRA. Aviation Week runs a picture taken by the new imaging infrared missile warning system being developed for the Rafale’s DDM NG warning system against incoming infrared missiles – part of the wider SPECTRA system. DDM NG lacks the level of coverage found in the F-35’s DAS, but the picture’s breadth and clarity are an impressive illustration of how far IIR has come. The DDM-NG system is slated for fielding on new Rafale F3s.

March 21/10: Kuwait. The 4-member Islamist “Reform and Development Bloc” in Kuwait’s 50-member Parliament issued a statement against Kuwait’s proposed Rafale purchase, reiterating “…its firm rejection of this suspicious deal, especially following information that the latest technical reports have recommended the rejection of the deal.” The Bloc also cites the Rafale’s failure to win other export orders to date, as a reason to avoid the aircraft. Defense Minister Sheikh Jaber Mubarak al-Sabah, on the other hand, continues to maintain that the Rafale deal remains a priority.

The word “suspicious” is code for “involves payoffs,” in a monarchy that has dissolved Parliament 3 times from 2005-2009, in order to avoid scrutiny of the royal family. In November 2009, some opposition MPs claimed the proposed 14-28 plane contract was over-inflated. In response, Kuwait’s parliament voted unanimously to ask Kuwait’s Audit Bureau to probe 3 planned arms deals with the United States and France for C-130J Super Hercules transports, an ammunition plant, and the Rafale.

The bloc’s claims regarding the technical reports are difficult to verify – a technical defense ministry team has been assessing the deal, following Sheikh Jaber Mubarak al-Sabah’s approval, but its findings have not been made public. Al Defaiyah | Kuwaiti Times | Zawaya | Defense News | France 24 | UPI.

Feb 24/10: Defense News reports that the French defense ministry’s ministerial investment committee has approved a “power-by-the-hour” type arrangement with M88 engine maker Safran. Rolls Royce has trademarked the term, which refers to a contract that pays for hours flown, rather than time and maintenance costs. The M88 arrangement would reportedly include a guaranteed number of flying hours, plus the spares and support required to meet those benchmarks.

The report refers to a “contract” running from 2010-2014, with optional extensions and adjustments available from 2014-2020. At this point, however, it’s not 100% clear whether a formal contract exists, or the ministry has just given approval to negotiate a contract along specific lines.

Engine support

Feb 20/10: Kuwait. Middle East Newsline reports that France and Kuwait have resumed high-level defense talks to finalize an estimated $3 billion order for up to 28 Rafales.

Feb 2/10: Rafale Care. Thales Group announces a 10-year, fixed price sub-contract with Dassault Aviation, to provide a range of extended services and maintenance support for avionics equipment on Rafale combat aircraft in service with the French armed forces. These services will include “obsolescence management,” which is always a hazard given the short production cycle of many electronic components, and involves guaranteed availability rates.

The avionics support agreement with Thales flows from the SIMMAD contract noted in the Dec 12/08 entry, whose initial 5-year base period is followed by 5 further options of 1 year each.

Jan 22/10: ACMI. Dassault Aviation announces that it has configured the Rafale fighter to carry MBDA’s Semac Air Combat Maneuvering Instrumentation pod on its wingtip, enabling it to participate in the USAF’s multinational Red Flag exercise. In early 2008, the Dassault Aviation design department in Saint-Cloud had been asked to assess the impact of the new pod in early 2008, ensuring that it didn’t create aerodynamic problems, or interfere with other aircraft electronics. By the end of July 2009, Dassault had submitted this file to the authorities, and received flight authorization. In early August, 4 Rafale fighters participated in the Red Flag 2008-04 exercise.

ACMI pods relay and store position and performance information during exercises, and can also simulate the firing of missiles and calculate hit probability. The combined transmissions of participating fighters creates a complete command picture for those running the exercises, who can also replay engagements to the fighter pilots later on.

2009

France orders 60 more. modernizes 10 Rafale-M F1s; Preferred in Brazil; UAE rumors; Oman offer; Libya looking elsewhere; Crash 2 Rafale-Ms.

Rafale w. Meteors
(click to view full)

Dec 31/09: 60-plane order. Defense Aerospace reports that on this date, France’s DGA awarded Dassault Aviation a multi-billion euro, multi-year production contract to deliver 60 Rafale F3 combat aircraft (50 Armée de l’Air, 10 Navy) under “Commande Globale no. 4” (global order #4). Deliveries are expected to begin in 2015, at an average rate of 10.5 aircraft per year (q.v. Nov 12/09).

A supplementary deal would cover the modernization of 10 Rafale-M F1 naval fighters to the current F3+ standard (q.v. Nov 30/09 entry).

Defense Aerospace says that the orders have been confirmed by a DGA spokesman, while Dassault declined to comment. Related contracts have also reportedly been awarded to Snecma for M-88 engines, and to MBDA for weapons, but values and particulars were not disclosed. France does not have the same disclosure requirements as countries like the USA, and news outlets have reported that invidious comparisons between the Rafale’s French price and export price helped sabotage a sale to Morocco in 2007.

To date, France remains the fighter’s only customer. Commande Global IV reportedly brings the total number of Rafales ordered by France to 180, out of a planned total of 286 (228 air force, 58 navy). An option to order 9 additional aircraft under this order could return the program plan to 295 aircraft.

60 Rafales

Nov 30/09: F1s – F3s. Defense Aerospace reports that French defense minister Hervé Morin has committed EUR 300 million to modernize 10 French Navy Rafale-M (F1) fighters. This would bring the French Navy’s in-service Rafales to 26 F3 aircraft, plus any new-build aircraft delivered in the interim.

The retrofits were originally expected in 2012, but were moved up to 2010 as part of the French government’s economic stimulus program. Aircraft M2 – M10 will be moved from Landivisiau naval air station to the existing Rafale F3 production line, and retrofitted over a period of 12-18 months. When delivered, they will replace 11F Squadron’s modernized Super Etendard fighters, which are nearing the end of their safe flying life.

10 Rafale-M F1s to F3s

Nov 26/09: French Defense Minister Hervé Morin is quoted regarding the September 2009 crash of 2 Rafales. Both recorders have been recovered and sent to France’s Bureau of Accidents Enquiring and Analysis (BEAD) for investigation. Morin says the report is complete, adding that: “It’s evident… It’s very probable, very certain to be a human error.” China’s Xinhua.

Nov 15/09: At the Dubai 2009 air show, Thales representatives discuss the expected French contract for 60 more planes, and export opportunities. Flight International:

“[The inclusion of RBE2-AA AESA radars] is paving the way in terms of technology for the export process,” says [Thales aerospace senior vice-president Pierre-Eric Pommellet]. “Negotiations with the UAE on Rafale are ongoing,” he says. “I’m sure that this will be a very important topic at Dubai. This is the biggest project that we are involved in in this region.” Kuwait is also emerging as a strong prospect. “There have been some state-to-state talks, including on the Rafale. Kuwait could be a good customer for us, but it’s their decision on whether to progress,” he says.”

Nov 12/09: 60 approved. Defense minister Hervé Morin and France’s Comité ministériel des investissements de défense (CMI) approve a multi-year, 60-plane order of Rafale fighters for the French air force and navy, per France’s multi-year defense budgeting plans. These aircraft would be equipped with new RBE2-AA AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array) radars and improved self-protection systems, in addition to the standard Rafale F3 fit-out.

Order estimates hover around EUR 6-7 billion, but exact costs, delivery date, and order composition will now be negotiated by France’s DGA procurement agency. The multi-year commitment is designed to provide both assurance to the supply chain, and confidence on the part of potential export customers. The DGA itself acknowledges that the presence or absence of those exports will affect overall schedules and delivery dates. Key firms involved will include Dassault Aviation, Thales, Safran, and MBDA, among about 100 firms in the overall supply chain. French DGA [in French] | Avio News | Flight International | StrategyPage.

Oct 23/09: Kuwait. As Kuwait and France sign an umbrella defense agreement to enhance bilateral cooperation, reports surface that Kuwait is investigating Dassault’s Rafale as a possible successor to its fleet of F/A-18C/D Hornets. UPI:

“Obviously,” said [Kuwaiti Defense Minister Sheik Jaber al-Hamad] after meeting with his French counterpart Hervé Morin, “we would be proud to have the Rafale in the heart of the armed forces in Kuwait.” Jaber, also deputy prime minister of the emirate, told reporters he was awaiting terms of the deal from Paris.”

Oct 19/09: Libya. Libya’s potential Rafale purchase could be in danger. Russia’s Interfax media agency reports that Libya plans to buy 12-15 Sukhoi Su-35 multirole fighters, another 4 Su-30s as an immediate interim order, and 6 Yakovlev Yak-130 trainer and light attack aircraft aircraft. Reports indicate that a contract could be signed with state arms export agency Rosoboronexport by the end of 2009, or early 2010.

The UPI report adds that Libya is also interested in the long-range, high-altitude S-300 air-defense system, the shorter-range Tor-M2E and BUK-M1 surface-to-air missile systems, combat helicopters, T-90 tanks, and at least one diesel-powered submarine.

Libya has also been in talks with France to buy its Rafale fighters since late 2007. Any signed Sukhoi deal is likely to end the Rafale’s near-term chances in Libya. Libya would later help the Rafale gain international credibility – but through use in theater, rather than a sale.

Sept 24/09: Crash. A pair of French Rafale-M fighters collide and crash in the Mediterranean, about 30 km off the French coast. The crash reduces the Rafale M fleet from 17 to 15 aircraft, and kills one of the pilots involved. Aviation Week | Defense News | Flight International: body located.

Crash 2

Sept 7/09: Brazilan Rafales? Brazil’s Ministerio Da Defesa announces that Dassault Aviation is now the F-X2 competition’s preferred bidder, and the country will order 36 Rafales subject to further negotiations. Subsequent events lead to partial backtracking from the government, as the competition is still not over, and the Brazilian Air Force hasn’t delivered its recommendations yet. The Rafale has definitely achieved front-runner status, however.

This sale would be France’s 1st export order for its Rafale fighter, after numerous attempts spanning more than a decade. French technology transfer across a broad range of projects was reportedly the critical factor in the deal, and Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim reportedly said that the decision to begin talks with Dassault “was not adopted in relation to the other two” competing companies. President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva described the move as “definitively consolidating a strategic partnership we started in 2005” – one that would now produce helicopters (EC725), submarines (nuclear-powered and diesel-electric), transport aircraft (KC-390) and possibly fighters (Rafale). Read “Brazil Embarking Upon F-X2 Fighter Program” for more details, and full updates.

June 5/09: UAE. Rumors surface that the UAE, who chose to develop the F-16E/F Block 60 Desert Falcon instead of buying the Rafale, may be willing to replace its Mirage 2000v9 fleet with Rafale aircraft in a $10 billion deal.

If they do, however, they reportedly want some changes to the platform, including engine thrust growth from 16,500 pounds each to 20,000 pounds, an AESA radar, and integration with MBDA’s Meteor long-range missile. Funding from the UAE could help France finance Rafale upgrades, as their key requests are all already planned or in development. where negotiations become interesting is the quid pro quo. A follow-on article in UAE’s The National discusses past licensing-for-exports deals associated with funded modifications to their Mirage 2000 and F-16 platforms. Those deals made the UAE several hundred million dollars when the Mirage 2000v5 modification it helped finance were sold to other countries. Al Defaiya | UPI | UAE’s The National.

Feb 10/09: Oman. France enters the fray with an offer to sell Oman Dassault’s Rafale fighter, instead of the 24 Eurofighters reportedly on offer from Oman’s historic ally Britain. The offer was reportedly made by visiting French President Nicolas Sarkozy during a meeting and dinner on Tuesday with Sultan Qaboos bin Said. Report.

2008 (Partial)

10-Year Rafale Care contract; Dassault becomes Thales’ largest private shareholder.

Rafale-M F1
(click to view full)

Dec 19/08: Alcatel-Lucent SA sells its 20.78% stake in major defense electronics firm Thales SA to Dassault Aviation SA of St. Cloud, France. The sale price is reported to be EUR 38 per share, or about EUR 1.57 billion (about $2.25 billion). Dassault already owns 5.2% of Thales, but this purchase will make it Thales’ second largest shareholder after the French government’s 27.1%. Read “Dassault Takes a Major Stake in Thales.”

Thales et Dassault

Dec 12/08: Rafale Care. Dassault announces that France’s Structure integrée de maintien en condition opérationnelle des matériels aéronautiques du ministère de la Défense (SIMMAD) has signed a 10-year contract to maintain the 120 Rafale fighters France has ordered to date for its Air Force and Navy.

This contract follows the nascent global trend toward pay for performance in military maintenance. The 10-year “Rafale Care” global contract does use maintenance payments based on operational availability and flying hours, rather than materials and labor. The contract also includes a commitment to reduce those costs per hour over time, in a similar manner to many corporate outsourcing agreements. Unlike Britain’s fully comprehensive “future contracting for availability” model, however, “Rafale Care” covers the aircraft but not the engine (Snecma), radar (Thales), countermeasures or weapon systems.

Costs were not disclosed, but Defense News quotes a Dassault spokesman as saying that the larger twin-engine Rafale costs about 15% more per flight hour than the Mirage 2000 lightweight fighter. The French Armée de l’Air also refused to provide figures, sidestepping the question by saying that costs were heavily dependent on key variables like flight and mission profiles. Dassault Aviation | Defense News.

Rafale Care

Additional Readings

Readers with corrections, comments, or information to contribute are encouraged to contact DID’s Founding Editor, Joe Katzman. We understand the industry – you will only be publicly recognized if you tell us that it’s OK to do so.

Background: Rafale & Ancillaries

• Dassault Aviation – Rafale

• Dassault Aviation – Rafale for India. Promotional site.

• Air Force Technology – Rafale Multirole Combat Fighter, France

• Air Vectors – The Dassault Rafale

• L’Usine Nouvelle, via WayBack – Infographie : le Rafale en 19 chiffres et 11 usines. Program infographic includes costs, main industrial sites, material composition percentages, etc.

• Sagem, via WayBack – GERFAUT/ Aircraft Modernization. Gerfaut is/was a Helmet Mounted Display for the Rafale.

• Dassault Aviation, via WayBack – Rafale F3 and AREOS Reco NG: the 21st century reconnaissance team.

News & Views

• Defense Aerospace (May 31/11) – Rafale in Combat: “War for Dummies”. Discusses experiences over Libya. Predictably rosy views, but seems to confirm Damocles pod integration aty last, and notes the effect it’s having in breaking down previous narrow functional foci among squadrons.

• Flight International, via WayBack (Sept 11/09) – FLIGHT TEST: Dassault Rafale – Rampant Rafale. Flight test of an F3 model.

• DID (Nov 3/08) – French President Tries to Set French Defense on a New Course. Details France’s current multi-year defense budget and force plans.

• DID (Feb 14/08) – French Adding GPS to Paveway-II Bombs. In part, to give Rafales their own smart bomb option before French ASSM weapons arrive.

• Dassault, via WayBack (May 2007) – Rafale over Afghanistan. These F2 models lack their own laser targeting, and require Mirage 2000D escorts.

• Aviation Now, via WayBack (Le Bourget 2001) – French Industry Plans Upgraded Rafale for Export Markets.

Americas

• Boeing is being tapped for the production of more fighter jets in support of the Navy. The $862 million modification to a previously awarded fixed-price-incentive-firm target contract provides for the procurement of 15 F/A-18E and 3 F/A-18F aircraft. Super Hornets are flown by the US Navy, replacing the service’s retired F-14 Tomcat Fighters. The F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets have been enlarged in all dimensions and fitted with 2 extra weapons pylons. The new design created pylon vibration problems early on, which explains the new “dogtooth” design on the wings’ leading edge. The F/A-18E is a single-seat Super Hornet. The 2-seat F/A-18F sacrifices some range, carrying only 13,350 pounds of fuel, which is 900 fewer pounds than the F/A-18E. In exchange for this reduced range, it adds a 2nd crewman with an advanced attack station cockpit to assist in strike roles. Block II Super Hornets come with a re-designed forward fuselage and a number of electronic countermeasures, including the AN/APG-79 AESA radar. Work will be performed at multiple locations in the continental US including El Segundo, California and St. Louis, Missouri. Production is expected to be completed by June 2020.

• The Navy is contracting Lockheed Martin for further work in support of the F-35 Lightning II program. The $735 million modification provides for the procurement of long-lead time materials, parts, components, and effort in support of the joint strike fighter. This modification combines purchases for the US Air Force ($359 million); US Navy ($193 million); and the US Marine Corps ($182 million). The Air Force flies the CTOL version of the F-35, it is considered the least expensive version of the aircraft with an estimated flyaway cost of $108,3 million. The Navy flies the C version of the plane, designed for carrier-based operations. It features 30% more wing area than other designs, with larger tails and control surfaces, plus wingtip ailerons. These changes provide the precise slow-speed handling required for carrier approaches and extend the plane’s range a bit. The average flyaway cost of the F-35C is about $125 million. The Marine Corps has the F-35B STOVL variant in its inventory, which is the most expensive Lightning II fighter variant with an average flyway cost of $135 million each. Work will be performed at various locations, including Fort Worth, Texas; El Segundo, California and Nagoya, Japan. Production is scheduled to be completed by December 2019.

Middle East & Africa

• Jordan is again flying its AH-1F Cobra attack helicopters. The Middle-Eastern Kingdom had put 12 of its vintage helicopters through an extensive upgrade process. Northrop Grumman and Science and Engineering Services (SES) have significantly modified the helicopter to extend its life by at least 20 years. The aircraft was rewired and reconditioned by SES to ensure its quality and integrity. Meanwhile, as the avionics systems integrator for the helicopters, Northrop Grumman is overseeing the design and incorporation of the avionics solution. As noted by Northrop Grumman, its avionics solution comprises a digital Integrated Mission Equipment Package (iMEP) made up of a commercially available FlightPro Gen III mission computer, a full suite of liquid-crystal display units, an embedded software digital map and navigation controls. The US resold many of its 498 AH-1F Cobras after it decided to retire the platform in 1999. This program marks the first global customer to modernize the avionics equipment on the AH-1F/S helicopters since their production during the early 1980s.

Europe

• France is ordering more Light-VBMR reconnaissance vehicles. The new ordering agreement provides for an additional 420 Light-VBMRs, which increases the total amount to 978 units. The vehicle is a key element in the French Army’s $12 billion Scorpion modernization program. This major program intends to rationalize a hodgepodge of aging land vehicles and systems while preserving France’s industrial base. VBMR-L will be produced by a consortium that includes Nexter, Thales, and Renault Trucks Defense. The 15-ton vehicle is designed to carry 10 troops and can be deployed in several configurations. Including a Troop Carrier, Scout (ISR), Communications and Electronic Warfare (EW), Ambulance, Command, and artillery fire direction configuration. The vehicle is armed with a remote controlled 7.62mm machine gun, a minigun at the rear and self-protection with a Galix smoke dispenser and can be airlifted by C-130 and A400M transport aircraft. The first batch of VBMR-L vehicles funded by the current order covers the development, production, and induction of 689 vehicles by 2025.

• Jane’s reports that Airbus’s Optionally Piloted Vehicle (OPV) has conducted its first fully unmanned flight demonstration. The OPV is a modified Hélicoptères Guimbal Cabri G light helicopter being used to develop the control laws for the VSR700, a vertical take-off and landing unmanned aerial vehicle (VTOL UAV). The VSR 700 flight control system is a fully-digital, multi-channel system with a very high level of redundancy. The robust shroud and energy-absorbing skid of the tail rotor ensures superior safety during close-to-the-surface maneuvers, and during landing in cluttered zones. The VTOL UAV will be fitted with a turbocharged heavy-fuel engine, which develops a maximum power output of 155hp. The UAV will have a fuel storage capacity of 296l and can be optionally added with an auxiliary tank for carrying an additional fuel load of 70l. The fuel consumption of the UAV will be about 30 pounds an hour. Developed to meet the French Navy’s requirements for a shipborne rotary-wing tactical unmanned aerial vehicle and complement to manned helicopters, it could also be used in land-based military operations to carry out ISTAR (Intelligence Surveillance Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance) missions, thanks to the VSR700’s optical sensors and maritime/land radar.

Asia-Pacific

• India’s Air Chief Marshal B.S. Dhanoa has reaffirmed the Air Force’s (IAF) plan to buy 36 Rafale fighter aircraft. In a recent exercise the IAF demonstrated its capability to achieve and sustain a very high serviceability of aircraft and systems. However, at the same time there are concerns about the depleting combat strength of the Air Force. It is expected that India will reach its desired air combat strength by 2032. India is currently upgrading its fleet of MiG-29, Jaguar and Mirage-2000 aircraft as part of obsolescence management. France and India had a somewhat rocky procurement history regarding the Asian nations Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) program. The induction of 36 Rafale aircraft is the result of negotiations that lasted close to a decade. Deliveries of the Dassault produced fighter aircraft will commence by September 2019 and are expected to be completed by April 2022.

Today’s Video

• Boeing and Saab show off their SDB capability.

Breakthrough…
(click to view full)

The US Navy flies the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet fighters, and has begun operating the EA-18G Growler electronic warfare & strike aircraft. Many of these buys have been managed out of common multi-year procurement (MYP) contracts, which aim to reduce overall costs by offering longer-term production commitments, so contractors can negotiate better deals with their suppliers.

The MYP-II contract ran from 2005-2009, and was not renewed because the Pentagon intended to focus on the F-35 fighter program. When it became clear that the F-35 program was going to be late, and had serious program and budgetary issues, pressure built to abandon year-by-year contracting, and negotiate another multi-year deal for the current Super Hornet family. That deal is now final. This entry covers the program as a whole, with a focus on 2010-2015 Super Hornet family purchases. It has been updated to include all announced contracts and events connected with MYP-III, including engines and other separate “government-furnished equipment” that figures prominently in the final price.

Hornet MYP: Aircraft Types

Hornet vs. Super Hornet
(click to view full)

Super Hornets are flown by the US Navy, replacing the service’s retired F-14 Tomcat fighters, and by Australia’s RAAF. The US Marines fly smaller, earlier-generation F/A-18 C/D Hornets that are no longer in production, and will replace them with F-35B STOVL (Short Take-Off, Vertical Landing) Lightning IIs when the time comes. While both F/A-18A-D and F/A-18E/F fighters are referred to as Hornet family planes, the Super Hornets have less than 40% commonality with previous F/A-18A-D versions. The F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets have been enlarged in all dimensions and fitted with 2 extra weapons pylons. The new design created pylon vibration problems early on, which explains the new “dogtooth” design on the wings’ leading edge. Super Hornets also have more powerful GE F414 engines, instead of the F404s that equipped the Hornets. The air intakes have been modified to accommodate the new engine’s demands and lower the plane’s radar signature, and other “signature shaping” measures have been employed around the plane.

The F/A-18E is a single-seat Super Hornet. The 2-seat F/A-18F sacrifices some range, carrying only 13,350 pounds of fuel – 900 fewer pounds than the F/A-18E. In exchange for this reduced range, it adds a 2nd crewman with an advanced attack station cockpit to assist in strike roles.

In addition to its strike role, both versions of the Super Hornet are also taking over the tactical refueling role from the retired S-3 Viking sea control aircraft. Any F/A-18E/F can do this, as long as they have the specially-equipped drop tanks that can extend refueling hoses. This isn’t an operationally efficient option, compared to the retired S-3s or A-6s, as the Super Hornet’s capacity is very limited. Nevertheless, there are situations where it is helpful and effective.

Super Hornet Block II

F/A-18E & F-14:
passing gas
(click to view full)

Beginning with Lot 26 (FY 2003), Boeing began building Block II Super Hornets, with a re-designed forward fuselage and a number of electronic enhancements. The most important upgrade involves the AN/APG-79 AESA radar which can perform simultaneous air and surface scans, and is likely to offer advanced improved reconnaissance, jamming, and even communications capabilities. Plus other capabilities the government may wish to add. Electronic Countermeasures are upgraded by replacing the AM/ALQ-165 with the AN/ALQ-214 IDECM jammer, which can work with ALE-50 or ALE-55 towed decoys.

Block II also includes the Advanced Crew Station (ACS), complete with Advanced Mission Computers and Displays (AMC&D) that offer more screen area (8″x10″ Display), and upgrade the mission computers from an assembly language to an open architecture higher order language (Lot 25+). A Fiber Channel Network Switch and Digital Video Map Computer round out the ACS improvements.

The EA-18G: Electronic Attacker

EA-18G: key systems
(click to view full)

The EA-18G Growler is based on the F/A-18F. It removes the 20mm cannon in the nose, adds new electronics, and mounts special electronic warfare pods on the aircraft’s underwing (AN/ALQ-99) and wingtip (AN/ALQ-218) pylons. Typically, the EA-18G retains 2 fuselage slots and 2 underwing slots for weapons carriage, though the wing pylons can also be used to hold extra fuel. Typical weapon loads will include anti-radar missiles like the AGM-88 HARM/AARGM family on the 2 free underwing pylons, plus 2 AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles on the fuselage slots for aerial self-defense.

The EA-18G Growler will replace the old EA-6B Prowler aircraft, whose airframes date from the Vietnam era. With the retirement of the USAF’s EF-111 Ravens, the Prowlers are now the only dedicated jamming aircraft in America’s inventory that can accompany tactical strike missions. They are also called upon for a wide variety of other missions, including missions over Iraq to cover convoys and jam remotely-triggered IED land-mines. See “EA-18G Program: The USA’s Electronic Growler” for full in-depth coverage.

Can the Super Hornet Keep Up?

Chinese J-20
(click to view full)

At present, Super Hornets are multi-role fighters that can compete against contemporary designs, albeit with some drawbacks. The key question for the US Navy, which intends to keep them in service to 2030 and beyond, is how long they can remain competitive.

Despite a switch to higher-thrust F414-GE-400 engines, the Super Hornet family’s added size and weight gives it poorer acceleration than the older F/A-18 C/D Hornet, which was already middle of the pack in that category. One compensation is that Hornet family designs have traditionally excelled in “low and slow” dogfights, but that edge is being eroded or reversed by external competition from 4+ generation opponents like the thrust-vectoring Russian SU-30MKI/A/M, SU-35, and MiG-35; from agile European opponents like the Eurofighter Typhoon, France’s Rafale, and Sweden’s JAS-39 Gripen; and from the next generation of full-stealth planes like the super-maneuverable Russian PAK-FA/ “SU-50? and China’s J-20.

For now, the Super Hornets can rely on next-generation AESA radars, JHMCS helmet-mounted displays (HMDs), and pilot-friendly controls and software, in order to maintain their status as air superiority fighters. Issues with APG-79 AESA radar reliability, and lack of testing for multi-shot engagements using medium-range missiles, thin their margin of error. Even if those issues are fixed someday, the Super Hornet’s overall electronic advantages are beginning to erode as rivals field AESA radars, HMDs, and other advanced electronics of their own. Expected and fielded upgrades to existing rivals, and new designs like the Russian-Indian PAK-FA/ “SU-50?, and China’s J-20, will reach electronic parity well within the Super Hornet’s operational lifetime.

Malaysian SU-30MKM
(click to view larger)

Most rivals were also were designed with IRST (InfraRed Search and Tracking) to allow no-warning passive targeting, an area where the Super Hornet is just starting to catch up. As aerodynamically better fighters gain similar electronic suites, and exports make those fighters more common, it’s logical to be concerned that the Super Hornet will be pushed away from air superiority roles against advanced opponents.

If so, the Super Hornet would be forced into a more limited strike fighter role, only to be challenged by very dangerous modern long-range air defense systems. Which is why the EA-18G is so important to the fleet.

What’s Next for the Super Hornet?

CBC: Boeing’s pitch
click for video

In the immediate term, a special centerline fuel tank with an embedded IRST sensor pod is being developed to give the Super Hornet some parity with peer fighters, albeit at the cost of extra drag.

Immediate improvements are also being made to ground attack, via a Distributed Targeting System (DTS) that brings together data feeds from different sensors, and adds a pre-loaded, high-resolution imagery database to overlay on top of the sensor data. The idea is to be able to fire ground attack weapons with more certainty about the target, and less delay from navigating through multiple screens, handing off coordinates, etc.

F/A-18F Advanced
(click to view full)

In order to compete farther into the future, Boeing invested in private development alongside its partners, and created a Super Hornet Roadmap centered around 3 areas: (1) doubling down on electronic advances, (2) trying to improve flight performance in strike or air superiority roles, and (3) improving the design’s radar signature (RCS).

Electronics. A new cockpit based on large touch-screen technology and more advanced computers is designed to bring the Super Hornets closer to sensor fusion parity with the F-35, without relying on a helmet-mounted-display as their single point of failure. An internal IRST will detect infrared emissions from enemy aircraft, replacing the current drag-inducing IRST/fuel centerline tank option, and addressing a disadvantage vs. the F-35 and contemporary European and Russian fighters. Full spherical laser and missile warning systems would be added to improve survivability.

The EA-18G, which is built around and for electronics, will receive special upgrades of its own if the USA’s Next Generation Jammer goes into production.

Performance.On the performance side, improved engines would offer the Super Hornet family either better fuel use and range (F414 EDE), or more power (F414 EPE).

Up top, new dorsal Conformal Fuel Tanks (CFT) are shaped to add lift, adding 3,500 pounds of fuel for strike and EW missions, but creating almost zero net drag at sub-sonic cruising speeds. Boeing engineers are quite proud of the CFTs, which are actually a Northrop Grumman product. The net extension is some combination of up to 130 nautical miles of combat radius (+260 nmi range), or 30 minutes of extra station time. That gives the “Advanced Super Hornet” a maximum base combat radius of 700 nautical miles with unmodified F414-GE-400 engines.

In an era where the Navy is emphasizing the Pacific theater and its vast distances, while inheriting carrier-based fighters with a shrunken strike reach, upgrades to add the CFTs could represent a huge return on investment. The EA-18G will appreciate this range boost the most, because the fighter’s canted pylons mean that each of its 3 required drop tanks generates a lot of drag.

On the flip side, the CFTs do add weight and some transonic drag, hurting already-marginal transonic acceleration. Missions like Combat Air Patrol would probably accept the extra cruising drag inherent in multiple droppable tanks, in order to make full use of a cleaner configuration and improved engines in dogfights.

“Stealth” F/A-18E
(click to view full)

Stealth. The final set of upgrades involve stealth. The Super Hornet will never be as stealthy as an F-35, but it has a notably smaller Radar Cross Section than earlier F/A-18s, even though it’s a bigger plane. Advanced Super Hornets can widen that advantage by adjusting the design a bit, adding special RCS-reducing coatings, and carrying up to 3 enclosed and specially-shaped weapon pods. Each pod could carry up to 4 x AMRAAM missiles, or 2 x 500 pound/ 1 x 2,000 pound bomb each.

Combat radius with the CFTs and a centerline weapon pod, but no external ordnance, rises by 130 nautical miles to around 700 nmi. If the plane stays within the existing 570 nmi circle, it adds 30 minutes of station time instead.

Testing also showed that a “clean” F/A-18F Advanced with CFTs and a single centerline weapons pod dropped radar cross-section by 50%, compared to a Super Hornet whose external pylons had to be loaded with fuel tanks and the same weapons.

Will that be enough?

Boeing and Northrop Grumman have been funding the testing, and investing along with Hornet Industry Team partners GE Aviation and Raytheon. As of August 2013, Boeing says that these enhancements are ready for inclusion as new-build options, or as retrofits to existing fighters. That’s an attractive proposition.

Boeing’s customers will decide if it’s enough. The US Navy would like to keep buying Super Hornet family planes beyond 2014, but the most likely path for upgrades is some kind of retrofit program. Australia has ordered 12 more EA-18Gs soon, which could keep the line running at reduced output into early 2016. After that, Canada, Denmark, Malaysia, and the Gulf Cooperation nations Bahrain, Kuwait and Qatar are seen as the most likely export prospects.

The USA’s Super Hornet Family Program

(click to view full)

Excel
download

The EA-18G Growler is bought under the same multi-year contract, and uses the F/A-18F Block II’s base airframe and equipment. As noted above, some equipment is swapped out, and other internal equipment is added for the conversion. Then jamming pods, fuel tanks, and weapons are hung on the fighter’s hardpoints to create a fully mission-ready plane. Australia was initially going to buy just the basic EA-18G with internal equipment, but decided to buy the full array of specialty stores. That pushed their costs up by about $1.25 billion for 12 fighters.

Fortunately for the US Navy, it can re-use existing AN/ALQ-99 underwing jamming pods from its EA-6B Prowler fighters. Unfortunately for the US Navy, those pods are wearing out fast, have reliability issues, and use technology that will have trouble coping with mid-band threats beyond 2018. A separate program called the Next Generation Jammer will have to survive, and start delivering gear, in order to fix that; its totals are not listed here.

The MYP-III Buy

F/A-18E, Parked
(click to view full)

Unlike countries like France, the USA sets its defense budget on a year-by-year basis. Multi-year contracts are not a new concept in American defense procurement, however, and they are often used to save money. Contractors get the predictability of production and deliveries over 4-5 years, which allows them to negotiate with their sub-contractors for quantity discounts, make longer term investments, and pass some of the savings along. The down-side from the government’s point of view is that if requirements change, or circumstances intervene, these contracts are much more expensive to cancel or restructure. Most of the Super Hornet program has been made up of multi-year contracts:

After the first 62 Super Hornets were bought under Low Rate Initial Production, the first multi-year Full Rate Production contract bought 210 Super Hornet fighters from FY 2000-2004 inclusive. MYP-II bought 230 Super Hornet family fighters from FY 2005-2009 inclusive, and deliveries from those contracts will continue into 2011. Boeing claims that these 2 multi-year contracts saved the US Navy about $1.7 billion.

Initially, the plan was to replace MYP-II with single year procurements in 2010, 2011 and 2012, in order to finish up the program. Congress was less certain. Concerns about the F-35 program’s timing, and the Navy’s fighter gap as older aircraft retire, led to pressure for another multi-year contract. In order to qualify for a multi-year deal, however, any proposed buy must first meet several legislative criteria. In My 2010, the Pentagon certified that a Super Hornet family MYP-III would meet those criteria, paving the way for the current MYP-III contract. It covers FY 2010-2014 buys, with deliveries through to August 2015.

MYP-II and MYP-III have produced the entire planned program of EA-18G electronic warfare fighters, with MYP-III having a very slight edge at 50.9% of those aircraft. MYP-III comprises a much smaller percentage of overall F/A-18E/F Super Hornet production for the USA, and its percentage would be even lower if delays to the F-35C program hadn’t forced emergency Super Hornet buys.

Sharp-eyed readers will note a big difference between these budgets, and the announced MYP-III multi-year contract figure with Boeing. Once a multi-year contract is signed, it’s important to understand how fighters are bought, in order to understand the difference. The $5.3 billion MYP-III contract, like its $8.56 billion MYP-II predecessor, covered only the airframes, which are used by the Super Hornet and Growler programs alike. Engines, radars, jamming devices, and other equipment are installed under these MYP contracts, but they are usually specified, designed, and paid for under separate contracts, as “government furnished equipment.” This drives the final cost of fielding operational fighters much higher than any initial MYP contract would suggest, though reports seem to settle around a $60 million flyaway cost for the F/A-18E/F.

To highlight GFE’s range and importance, a section below tracks items that are directly traceable to F/A-18E/F family purchases in general, which is inevitably just a subset of the real total.

Contracts & Key Events

F/A-18F, landing
(click to view full)

The EA-18G Growler electronic warfare aircraft has a history and role that extend beyond this MYP contract. It’s covered separately in its own FOCUS article, though its base airframes come from this contract.

Unless otherwise specified, The Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) in Patuxent River, MD, USA manages these contracts, and Boeing subsidiary McDonnell Douglas Corp. in St. Louis, MO is the contractor. Northrop Grumman is the original creator of the YF-17 that spawned the F/A-18 series, and manufactures about 40% of each Super Hornet (center & aft fuselage, vertical tails) or 50% of each EA-18G (above plus Electronic Attack systems). All work performed in “El Segundo, CA” is almost certainly NGC’s work.

Finally, note that any links in this section are not updated if their owners allow them to lapse.

FY 2016 – 2018

June 12/18: Navy orders 18 F/A-18s Boeing is being tapped for the production of more fighter jets in support of the Navy. The $862 million modification to a previously awarded fixed-price-incentive-firm target contract provides for the procurement of 15 F/A-18E and 3 F/A-18F aircraft. Super Hornets are flown by the US Navy, replacing the service’s retired F-14 Tomcat Fighters. The F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets have been enlarged in all dimensions and fitted with 2 extra weapons pylons. The new design created pylon vibration problems early on, which explains the new “dogtooth” design on the wings’ leading edge. The F/A-18E is a single-seat Super Hornet. The 2-seat F/A-18F sacrifices some range, carrying only 13,350 pounds of fuel, which is 900 fewer pounds than the F/A-18E. In exchange for this reduced range, it adds a 2nd crewman with an advanced attack station cockpit to assist in strike roles. Block II Super Hornets come with a re-designed forward fuselage and a number of electronic countermeasures, including the AN/APG-79 AESA radar. Work will be performed at multiple locations in the continental US including El Segundo, California and St. Louis, Missouri. Production is expected to be completed by June 2020.

May 22/18: New Electronics Boeing is being awarded two contracts in support of the Navy’s fleet of F/A-18 A-F and EA-18G aircraft. A $22.6 million firm-fixed-price task order provides for engineering required for the redesign of the Data Bus Interface Unit and the Deployable Flight Incident Recorder of the Deployable Flight Incident Recording Set (DFIRS). The redesigns will address obsolescence issues, as well as provide for additional memory and a 406 MHz beacon capability. The DFIRS 2100 is a combined flight data recorder, cockpit voice recorder, and emergency locator transmitter designed to provide instantaneous alert and accurate location of a downed aircraft, assist in the speedy rescue of survivors, aid in the recovery of the aircraft and assure timely recovery of vital accident investigation data. A $9.4 million cost-plus-fixed-fee order provides for engineering services for incorporation Tactical Targeting Network Technology (TTNT) into the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G aircraft. TTNT is a joint Tactical Radio System modern networking platform produced by Rockwell Collins. It creates a secure meshed network that can deliver megabits of voice, video and data at speeds up to Mach 8. Work will be performed in various locations including St. Louis, Missouri and El Segundo, California. Work is scheduled for completion by July 2022 and February 2023 respectively.

May 08/18: Super Hornets get a new sting Jane’s reports that the first US Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet has entered its Service-Life Modification (SLM) process ahead of the planes’ Block 3 enhancement program. Super Hornets are flown by the US Navy, replacing the service’s retired F-14 Tomcat fighters. The F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets have been enlarged in all dimensions and fitted with 2 extra weapons pylons. The new design created pylon vibration problems early on, which explains the new “dogtooth” design on the wings’ leading edge. The Navy currently has a program-of-record of 573 Super Hornets, 300 of which will undergo a comprehensive refurbishment ahead of the fitting of additional improvements under the Block 3 upgrade. Block 3 is the Navy’s answer to keeping the jets in service to 2030 and beyond. The upgrades introduce a better performing AN/APG-79 active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, a ‘shoulder-mounted’ conformal fuel tanks (CFTs), new General Electric F-414-400 enhanced engines as well as a new cockpit based on large touch-screen technology and a more advanced computers is designed to bring the Super Hornets closer to sensor fusion parity with the F-35, without relying on a helmet-mounted-display. All in all, F/A-18 Super Hornets outfitted with Block 3 upgrades will boost better performance, an increased operational radius, a smaller radar cross-section and better electronics. Work on the up to 14 years old fighter jets is being performed at the company’s St. Louis production facility in Missouri.

April 24/18: Sensor upgrade Boeing will take care of additional Super Hornet and Growler sensor upgrade work after receiving an $18.7 million award from the US Navy last Thursday. Awarded by the Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division, out of Orlando, Florida, the agreement enables Boeing to integrate advanced software to the Tactical Operational Flight Trainer sensor models on F/A/-18E/F Super Hornet and the EA-18G Growler. Work will take place across the United States with some work to take place in Japan. Contract completion is expected in July 2021.

April 6/18: Engine Contracts General Electric will provide engines for US Navy F/A-18 aircraft as part of a $91.5million contract modification awarded by the service on April 3. According to the deal, the firm will provide 24 Lot 22 full-rate production F414-GE-400 engines with work to take place in Lynn, Massachusetts (59 percent); Hooksett, New Hampshire (18 percent); Rutland, Vermont (12 percent); and Madisonville, Kentucky (11 percent). Contract completion is scheduled for February 2019.

April 5/18 Onboard Atari Last month saw a landing signals officer (LSO) successfully was able to remotely take over a F/A-18 Super Hornet on the glide path and bring it aboard an aircraft carrier for a touch-and-go. Taking place at sea on board the Nimitz-class USS Abraham Lincoln, the event was made possible by the use of an ATARI, or aircraft terminal approach remote inceptor, which allows LSOs to take over an aircraft from up to five miles away. Though not intended to be a primary method for recovering aircraft, it does provide a relatively inexpensive backup system in the case an LSO needs to step in and use their expertise and training to safely guide an aircraft. Along with the ATARI, a van outfitted with the ATARI system was brought aboard and setup behind the LSO platform to allow the engineers to watch the approaches in real-time, monitor safety-of-flight data and ensure passes were going smoothly. The van recorded flight data for engineers to analyze later and allowed the Air test and Evaluation Squadron VX-23 to test their system without having to install it Abraham Lincoln. No plans are yet in place for fleet-wide deployment.

April 02/18: Kuwait-FMS Boeing has been awarded a contract for the production and delivery of 22 F/A-18E and 6 F/A-18F Super Hornets in support of the government of Kuwait. The contract is valued at $1.16 billion. The contract immediately obligates $275.9 million for long-lead nonrecurring engineering costs, including radar warning receivers and aircraft armament equipment. The Super Hornets have less than 40% commonality with previous F/A-18A-D versions. The F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets have been enlarged in all dimensions and fitted with 2 extra weapons pylons. The State Department approved the Super Hornet sale to Kuwait in November 2016. At the time, Kuwait was considering a purchase of up to 40 aircraft to replace its current fleet of legacy Hornets, and the department estimated the sale could rack up a value of up to $10.1 billion. Work will be performed at various sites including Hazelwood, Missouri; Goleta, California and El Segundo, California. Work is expected to be completed in September 2022.

March 29/18: Support & Engineering The Boeing Co., St. Louis Missouri has been awarded a contract modification valued at $34 million. This amended contract includes an integrated product support and sustained engineering for F/A-18A-F and EA-18G aircraft in support of the US Navy and the governments of Australia, Finland, Kuwait, Malaysia, Switzerland, Canada and Spain. The F/A-18A-F Super Hornet is the two seat version of the aircraft that exchanges a greater operational range for a more advanced attack station cockpit to assist its strike role. The EA-18G Growler is a variant of the F/A-18F that provides tactical jamming and electronic protection capabilities. They have been used in Iraq for everything from disrupting enemy IED attacks by jamming all radio signals in an area to escorting strike aircraft against heavily defended targets during the opening days of the war. Work is scheduled to be completed in December 2010 and will be performed in St. Louis, Missouri, Bethpage, New York as well as El Segundo and San Diego, California.

March 23/18: USMC seeks new radars Jane’s reports that the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) has issued a request for information (RFI) on behalf of the Marine Corps, requesting a new AESA radar for the service’s F/A-18C/D fleet. Approximately 98 sets are being sought to replace the incumbent Raytheon AN/APG-73 radar currently installed and a winner is expected to be selected by October 1. Retrofits are scheduled to take place from the fourth quarter of 2020 and running through to the fourth quarter of 2022. Potential entrants include Raytheon’s Raytheon Advanced Capability Radar (RACR)—which has been adapted from the AN/APG-79 as fitted to the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler—and Northrop Grumman, with its Scalable Agile Beam Radar (SABR). Both radars are compatible with the legacy Hornet and Lockheed Martin’s F-16 Fighting Falcon.

March 16/18: Indian Fighter Comp Boeing has found itself in consideration to supply aircraft to the Indian Air Force, after the firm abruptly asked for its twin-engine F/A-18 Super Hornet to be considered. The IAF had previously only been considering Lockheed Martin’s F-16 and Saab’s JAS-39 Gripen, both single-engine fighters, for the competition, however, it has transpired that last month the government asked the air force to open up the competition to twin-engine aircraft and to evaluate Boeing’s F/A-18 Super Hornet, a defense ministry source said. Now, the defense ministry plans to within weeks issue a new request for information (RFI) for a fighter to be built in India. The competition will be open to both single and twin-engine jets, the official said, but both Lockheed and Saab said they had not been informed about the new requirements. Both firms had previously offered to build single-engine fighters in India in collaboration with local companies as part of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s drive to build a domestic industrial base and defense industry under his ‘Make in India’ initiative. What will happen next? Who knows.

March 5/18: Block III Contracts Boeing received on February 28, a $73.2 million US Navy contract to perform service life modifications on an initial four F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fighter aircraft. The work will extend the fighter’s operational service life from 6,000 to 9,000 flight hours by converting them to Boeing’s Block III configuration which includes an enhanced network capability, longer range with conformal fuel tanks, an advanced cockpit system, signature improvements and an enhanced communication system. Work will take place in St. Louis, Missouri and El Segundo, California, with an expected contract completion time set for April 2020. A Boeing statement said that an additional production line will be established in San Antonio, Texas in 2019 in anticipation of follow-on orders over the next ten years. The F/A-18E and F-model Super Hornets are the single and tandem-seat variants of the Super Hornet respectively, and have been in service since 2002. Approximately 568 Super Hornets are in the US Navy fleet.

February 16/18: Contracts-Sensors-Fuel Tank ECP Boeing received a $219 million order against a previously issued basic ordering agreement for non-recurring efforts associated with Engineering Change Proposal 6503 for the design, development, test and integration of the conformal fuel tank in support of the F/A-18 Super Hornet. Work will take place at several US locations with a scheduled completion date of July 2022. Meanwhile, Raytheon will provide additional hardware and software developments for sensor systems on board F/A-18E/F Super Hornets and EA-18G Growlers. Valued at $8.8 million, work on the agreement will performed in El Segundo, California, and is expected to be completed in December 2021. While the contract modification did not specify what developments would be made, the firm’s AN/APG-79 Radar Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar is in use by Super Hornet Growler aircrews.

February 13/18: Contract Modification-Electronic Countermeasures Harris Corp will deliver electronic countermeasure systems for F/A-18 aircraft operated by the US Navy and Australian government. Valued at $161 million, the contract modification exercises an option for 86 full-rate production lot 15 Integrated Defensive Electronic Countermeasures AN/ALQ-214 A(V)4/5 Onboard Jammer systems for the F/A-18 aircraft. It also exercises an option for eight WRA1 A(V)4 receiver and processors, along with seven WRA2 A(V)4 modulators. Contract completion is scheduled for May 2021, after work taking place primarily in New Jersey and several sites across California.

January 29/18: Kuwait-FMS Kuwait is to finally go ahead with the purchase of 40 F/A-18 Super Hornet aircraft from Boeing, after the foreign military sale was initially approved by the Obama administration back in November 2016. 32 E- and 8 F-model Super Hornets equipped with F414-GE-400 engines, as well as training, support, and other associated equipment are included in the package, estimated to be worth $10.1 billion. However, Kuwait is expected to set up specialized military committees to follow up on the details of the purchase, as well as their maintenance, training and spare parts.

January 12/18: Services & Support General Electric will provide its services in support of F/A-18 E-F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler aircraft, thanks to a $74 million contract issued by the Naval Supply Systems Command Weapon Systems Support. The six month agreement, scheduled to be finished in June, tasks GE with the supply of 773 F414 engine components used on the Boeing-made aircraft, with work to be carried out at various GE supplier locations. Fiscal 2018 working capital funds (Navy) will be obligated to fund delivery orders as they are issued, and will not expire at the end of the contract ordering period.

January 3/18: Contracts-Maintenance & Support A to D variants of the F/A-18 Hornet fighter aircraft are scheduled for depot level maintenance support and sustainment services as part of an option exercised by the Naval Air Systems Command to a previous contract awarded to Boeing. Valued at $148.5 million, work includes performance of high flight hour (HFH) inspections, HFH recurring inspections, additional inspections, modifications and liaison engineering, and F/A-18E/F/G modifications and inspections required to correct deficiencies to achieve current design life limits. Boeing’s plant at Jacksonville Florida will be the location of the work and is expected to wrap up by December 2018.

October 24/17: Boeing has suggested the inclusion of equipment upgrades on US Navy F/A-18 Super Hornets slated for service life extension work from next year. Negotiations between the firm and Navy for the first service life modification (SLM) contract are currently underway, which will lay out the structural modifications the company will conduct to extend the life of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet from 6,000 to 9,000 flight hours. Additional modernization work suggested by Boeing that could be carried out during the life extension include an upgrade to the more advanced Block III configuration, addition of conformal fuel tanks, an advanced cockpit station and advanced networking, as well as application of a low observable coating to the aircraft to help reduce the aircraft’s signature. Despite these ideas, Boeing was unable to give a full costing for these additional upgrades with Boeing’s director of SLM, Mark Sears, saying that there would be an additional cost to develop the Block III retrofit kits as well as “a few million” dollars more per plane to make the relevant changes. The Super Hornet SLM effort is set to take about 10 years, with as many as 50 aircraft going through the process modifications per year starting in 2023.

October 23/17: Boeing has awarded Lockheed Martin two contracts to upgrade the latter’s IRST21 sensor system for use on the US Navy’s F/A-18E/F fleet. According to Lockheed, the Block II contracts provide up to $100 million “for developing advanced software, performing hardware upgrades and delivering prototypes,” with the aim to “enhance IRST21’s proven detection, tracking and ranging capabilities in radar-denied environments.” Compared to radar, IRST21 significantly enhances the resolution of multiple targets, giving pilots a “see first, strike first” capability that will allow them to accurately identify threat formations at longer ranges. The IRST21’s predecessor, the IRST, has accumulated more than 300,000 flight hours on the US Navy’s F-14 and on international F-15 platforms.

October 19/17: Harris Corp. has received a series of contracts from the US Department of Defense (DoD) for wares totalling nearly $900 million. The first, announced last Friday, is the $133 million order for Lot 14 ALQ-214(V)4/5 integrated defensive electronic counter-measures jammers that will protect US Navy and Australian F/A-18 Hornet and Super Hornet aircraft. Harris said the equipment will be used on F/A-18C/D/E/F variants with deliveries expected to be completed by May of 2020. The second deal is a five-year, $765 million ceiling, single-award IDIQ contract to provide tactical radios and ancillary devices to the Navy and Marine Corps. It replaces a $300 million IDIQ contract that expired in August and includes the Harris AN/PRC-117G, AN/PRC-152A and the new AN/PRC-160 wideband HF/VHF radio, as well as peripheral attachments to support handheld, manpack, vehicular and base station mission needs.

September 15/17: The US Navy has awarded a contract modification to Boeing for continued production of F/A-18 Super Hornet aircraft. Valued at $677 million, six F/A-18E and eight F/A-18F aircraft will be produced at various locations throughout the US, including El Segundo, California, and St. Louis, Missouri. Contract completion is scheduled for February 2019.

August 30/17: Boeing has offered to construct a manufacturing facility in India for the F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter planes as it chases New Delhi’s planned acquisition of 57 carrier-based multi-role fighter aircraft. The offer follows a similar agreement between India and Lockheed Martin, made earlier this year, for an India production line of the F-16 Block 70 Fighting Falcon. If selected, the F/A-18 procurement will replace the Indian Navy’s current fleet of MiG-29K aircraft, which have been plagued by maintenance problems. They will be based on the modified Kiev-class aircraft carrier, INS Vikramaditya, and its two planned indigenously-built Vikrant-class carriers.

August 2/17: The US State Department has approved a foreign military sale (FMS) package to upgrade Swiss F/A-18 Super Hornet aircraft. If approved by US Congress, the sale of the Service Life Extension Program for the aircraft would include as many as 50 Multifunctional Information Distribution System Joint Tactical Radio Systems with Concurrent Multi-Net 4 capability, 50 ARC-210 GEN 5 RT-1900A(C) radios with a second-generation anti-jam tactical UHF radio for NATO frequency hopping, and 20 joint helmet-mounted cueing system/night vision cueing display systems. Also included in the deal are software enhancements to the APG-73 radar, improvements to the F/A-18 Software Configuration Set 29C, and sustainment for the ALQ-165 Airborne Self Protection Jammer system. The estimated value of the sale is worth up to $115 million.

June 29/17: The US Navy has been asked by Congress to provide a plan for the replacement of reserve F/A-18 aircraft incapable of being integrated back into their fleet. As many as 33 Super Hornets were found to lag behind front-line aircraft in terms of technology and will be unable to participate in combat activity during a time of crisis. The aircraft are predominantly used by the service to act as opposition forces for training aviators and are painted to look like Russian MiG fighters. Congress expects the plan to be delivered no later than December 1.

June 19/17: It’s been revealed that the US Navy intends to acquire at least 80 F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter aircraft over the next five years, running against initial plans to zero out the aircraft program beginning next year. The announcement was made by the sailing branch to the US Senate Armed Services seapower subcommittee last week in a written testimony notes the “Fiscal Year 2018 President’s Budget requests $1.25 billion in [the Navy’s aircraft procurement account] for 14 F/A-18E/F Super Hornet aircraft” that will “address continuing warfighter demand for advanced tactical aircraft.” 23 aircraft will procured in 2019 for $1.95 billion, 14 in 2020 for $1.35 billion and 14 in 2021 for $1.27 billion and 15 in 2022 for $1.28 billion.

May 30/17: F/A-18 Super Hornets operated by the US Navy will have the Infrared Search and Track System (IRST) integrated onboard by Boeing. The $89 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract calls for the initial design and development, procurement of prototyping hardware, technical risk reduction efforts, integrated product support, and technical reviews of IRST Block II with the F/A-18E/F aircraft to support the system through the preliminary design review. Work is expected to continue through to April 2020. The IRST is designed to locate the heat emitted by aircraft engines without the use of active radar, which is easily detected by enemy planes and ships. It also helps countering stealth technology.

May 23/17: Boeing is planning future upgrades for the F/A-18 Super Hornet that will keep the fighters flying into the 2040s. If approved, the plan will see continued development of the aircraft after the current Block 3 enhancement planned for the E/F variant of the Super Hornet enters production in 2020. Speaking on the plan, Larry Burt, director of Global Sales & Marketing for the Global Strike division, said that there “could well be lots of new capabilities added after Block 3. The Block 3 is built around a new processor that is a hundred times more powerful that today’s. This processor resides outside of the aircraft’s Operational Flight Program [computer], and so is not tied to its five-year software development cycle. It is truly open architecture that allows for plug and play of weapons, sensors, and systems.”

May 10/17: Boeing has received a $89.2 million US Navy contract to conduct maintenance on various F/18 series fighter and EA-F18G electronic warfare aircraft. Included in the agreement are a wide variety of inspection and engineering projects, including High Flight Hour programs designed to keep aging airframes flying. Work will be performed in Jacksonville, Florida, and is expected to be completed in December 2017.

March 16/17: Canada moved a step closer to acquiring the F/A-18 Super Hornet after issuing a letter of request to the US government. Included in the letter were requirements on capabilities, schedule and economic benefits for 18 aircraft. The next steps in the deal will see the Pentagon approach manufacturer Boeing as well as other suppliers in order to develop an official proposal for Ottawa which is expected for this Fall. Canada has favored a procurement of Super Hornets as an interim solution to replace its aging CF-18s after dropping out of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program in 2015.

February 20/17: US President Donald Trump took the opportunity to suggest a further F/A-18 Super Hornet order while attending a ceremony for Boeing’s inaugural 787-10 Dreamliner in South Carolina. While Trump has made no clear indication or commitment to the numbers that would be ordered, he said “we are looking seriously at a big order. The problem is that [Boeing CEO] Dennis [Muilenberg] is a very tough negotiator, but I think we may get there.” Trump also had kind words for the aging, Boeing-made, Air Force One. “That plane, as beautiful as it looks is 30 years old. What can look so beautiful at 30? An aeroplane,” he said.

February 15/17: Boeing’s F/A-18 Super Hornet Block 3 proposal will focus on adding firepower and an increased ability to network with other carrier-borne aircraft, such as the F-35C, in the US Navy. The new plan moves away from the company’s 2013 Advanced Super Hornet concept which focused on stealth, instead optimizing the Navy’s integrated network architecture. Under this proposal, Boeing believes the Navy could detail a plan to procure the Super Hornet Block 3 as soon as the fiscal 2018 budget proposal, and a fiscal 2019 buy would mean Boeing could have aircraft off the production line in the early 2020s.

February 3/17: The Canadian government has commenced talks with the Pentagon over their planned purchase of 18 F/A-18 Super Hornet fighters, with Ottawa requesting first deliveries to commence in 2019. Data received from the Department of National Defense suggests that the acquisition will cost between $5 and $7 billion over the lifetime of the aircraft. Canadian military officials were in St. Louis two weeks ago to visit the Boeing production line, examining how they can customize their aircraft.

January 30/17: US Deputy Secretary of Defense Bob Work has been tasked by new boss Jim Mattis to do a comparison analysis of the F-35C and F/A-18 Super Hornet. The investigation’s spec tasks Work to do a review “that compares F-35C and F/A-18 E/F operational capabilities and assesses the extent that F/A-18 E/F improvements (an advanced Super Hornet) can be made in order to provide a competitive, cost effective, fighter aircraft alternative.” In his war on costs, the Trump Administration has suggested the development of an advanced Super Hornet in order to get a better deal on defense procurements.

January 25/17: A change in defense strategy by the Trump Administration could see the F/A-18 compete with the F-35, according to one analyst. Speaking at the Center for Strategic and International Studies on Monday, defense acquisition analyst Andrew Hunter stated that an “advanced Super Hornet” still can’t compete with the stealthy F-35 in airspace monitored by radar surveillance, but a semi-low-observable F/A-18E/F with more carriage capacity could emerge as an attractive option against less sophisticated threats. However, if US strategy “requires to operate continuously in denied access air environments, there is no such thing as a comparable Super Hornet…It simply doesn’t exist.”

December 13/16: Raytheon has won a $101 million US Navy contract to repair 10 weapon replaceable assemblies for F/A-18 Hornet aircraft. Under the contract, the company will support and repair weapon assemblies for the fighters’ AN/ALR-67(V)3 advanced digital countermeasures. The devices are equipped to all variants of Hornet and Super Hornet aircraft serving under the US Navy, allows pilots to intercept faint signals, and improves situational awareness.

December 7/16: Mid-life upgrades of Finnish F/A-18 fighters will see the inclusion of the Multifunctional Information Distribution System Joint Tactical Radio System (MIDS-JTRS), following approval by the US State Department. 90 units of MIDS-JTRS will be sold to Helsinki at a cost of $156 million. MIDS-JTRS is the communication component of the Link 16 military technical data exchange network, used by the US, NATO, and approved partner nations.

December 5/16: The US Navy plans to invest in more F/A-18E/F Super Hornets as a means of stopping a shortfall in capabilities. Delays in the fielding of the F-35C, longer-than-expected maintenance times for older model Hornets, and higher usage rates, have resulted in a predicted shortfall of 70 fighters over the next number of years. If implemented, the plan could receive funding in the fiscal 2018 budget and keep the Super Hornet production line in continuation for the next several years.

November 30/16: Just ten days after the US State Department cleared the sale of 40 warplanes to Kuwait, the Gulf monarchy wants more. Major General Lafi al-Azmi, chief of the military’s Armament and Procurement Authority, said that Kuwait plans to purchase 28 more F-18 Super Hornets as well as return a number of outdated F-18s in their inventory as part of the purchase deal. Details of the sale will only be revealed once it is officially signed.

November 23/16: Switzerland’s Defense Ministry plans to ask parliament next year for funding to extend the life expectancy of their F/A-18 Super Hornets. $486 million will be requested for the modernization. The Swiss Air Force is also looking to keep a number of their aging F-5 Tiger aircraft, until a new replacement fighter is selected in 2022 and inducted into service in 2025. Saab’s Gripen, the Eurofighter and Dassault’s Rafale are believed to be in the running and follow the 2014 rejection by Swiss voters to acquire 22 JAS-39 Gripen fighters.

November 21/16: Sources close to the Canadian government claim that Ottawa is still hoping to acquire approximately 20 F/A-18 Super Hornets without the need for an open competition. It’s believed that the procurement, intended as an interim solution to replace their soon-to-be retired fleet of CF-18s, could move the need for a new fighter selection process for another decade. It’s been just over a year since Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party took office, and they vigorously campaigned for the cancellation of Ottawa’s participation in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program during ithe election campaign. Trudeau deemed the jet too expensive and not necessary to Canadian defense requirements.

November 17/16: F/A-18 Hornet fighters operated by the Spanish Air Force will be replaced by a “system of systems” by 2030. Known as the Future Combat Air System (FCAS), the prgram will see about 50 legacy Tranche 2 and Tranche 3 Eurofighter Typhoons upgraded to network with a fifth-generation aircraft; a new fifth-generation aircraft (type and numbers to be decided); and an unmanned combat aerial vehicle (type and numbers to be decided). While the fifth-generation aircraft will likely be the F-35, Spanish Navy plans to retire their AV-8B Harrier II will result in a joint procurement between the two branches.

August 3/16: Boeing is to provide $1 billion in spare parts for US Navy F/A-18 fleets. A total of four contracts were awarded by the US Defense Logistics Agency with the largest amounting to $640 million. All four orders were made against the same five-year base contract with one five-year option period.

June 24/16: Boeing has thrown in a sweetener for Canada if it were to select the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fighters as the replacement for its CF-18 fleet by including civil aviation work opportunities for Canadian firms. Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government promised during last year’s election that it would launch an open CF-18 replacement competition, and pledged not to buy Lockheed Martin’s F-35 jets as the previous Conservative government had planned to do. In response to the F-35 slight, Lockheed Martin warned that they may shift work on the F-35 away from Canadian firms amid the uncertainty.

May 31/16: The US State Department has cleared the potential Foreign Military Sale to the government of Kuwait for F/A-18 C/D services and support in a deal worth up to $420 million. Under the contract, 275 contractor representatives will travel to Kuwait for a period of three years to provide support including F/A-18 avionics software upgrades, engine component improvements, ground support equipment, engine and aircraft spares and repair parts, publications and technical documentation, Engineering Change Proposals (ECP), US Government and contractor programmatic, financial, and logistics support. The deal comes as Kuwait awaits approval for 24 newer F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets.

May 23/16: Boeing is still holding on to hope that it can sell its Super Hornets to Denmark after claiming that the Danish government had used “incomplete and possibly flawed data” to conclude that the Super Hornet was more expensive to operate than the F-35. The comments were made by a Boeing official speaking to a Danish parliamentary committee last Thursday following the government’s decision to opt for the next generation F-35 to replace its aging F-16s.

February 15/16: Boeing is to decide whether or not they are to go ahead and self-fund the building of F/A-18 fighters, as production of the planes at their St. Louis plant has slowed from three planes a month to two. Delays in approval of the sale of 28 F/A-18s to Kuwait by the US Government has forced Boeing to consider investing hundreds of millions in order to maintain production rates for future sales of the fighter. The investment comes as the company faces job cuts, particularly in the commercial division, in addition to a federal investigation into whether it properly accounted for two jetliners, the 747 and 787. The deal with Kuwait is said to be worth approximately $3 billion to the company.

November 5/15: The Navy has reiterated its desire to procure additional F/A-18E/F Super Hornets to cope with operational demands and cover delays to the F-35 program. The service is looking for an addition of 24 to 36 Super Hornets, with acquisitions taking place in FY2017 and FY2018; meaning an extension to Boeing’s St Louis production line’s planned closure in 2017. The company has previously asserted that it intends to keep this line open even if orders from the Navy are slow, citing potential international orders including an expected order for 28 jets from Kuwait. Congress is also deliberating over a production order for a dozen Super Hornets in FY2016, which in itself could extend the production line out through 2018.

FY 2015

 

August 24/15: The Navy has also ordered more radio-frequency jammers for its fleet of Super Hornets. Harris Corp was awarded a $97 million contract for the company’s twelfth production lot of ALQ-214 radio-frequency integrated countermeasures systems, with an option for a thirteenth in 2016 included within the contract terms. The ALQ-214 systems are capable of operating with ALE-50 or ALE-55 towed decoys and provides protection against radar-guided missiles.

June 9/15: Raytheon has been awarded a $10.6 million contract to provide testing equipment for assessing the Small Diameter Bomb II on the FA-18E/F Super Hornet aircraft, including jettison test vehicles and instrumented measurement vehicles, with these presumably to assess the future viability of using the SDBII with Super Hornets. The SDBII recently passed Milestone C, facilitating its progression to low rate initial production by manufacturer Raytheon.

FY 2014

USN debates its future options; Loss in Brazil, Preliminary work to integrate Kongsberg’s new JSM naval strike missile; Australian ANAO report cites platform issues – US DOT&E report explains them; Advanced Super Hornet prototype flies.

F/A-18E
(click to view full)

Aug 7/14: Iraq. With thousands of Yezidis trapped on Mt. Sinjar, and The Islamic State threatening the Kurdish capital of Erbil with captured heavy equipment from the Iraqi army, the US President orders USAF relief airdrops and limited airstrikes from American carriers.

The aircraft use Paveway laser-guided bombs, but this is exactly the kind of environment and situation that’s well suited to MBDA’s Brimstone missiles (q.v. July 20/14) under analysis by the Navy. Sources: White House, “President Obama Makes a Statement on the Crisis in Iraq”.

July 20/14: Weapons. Navy Recognition reports that the US Navy is “beginning environmental and integration analysis” of the dual-mode laser/MMW radar Brimstone 2 missile, as a potential option for Navy Super Hornets. Brimstone was originally developed as a close air support weapon, but MBDA has also been touting Brimstone 2’s naval capabilities, including demonstrations against fast boat swarms.

Adding Brimstones would give the Super Hornet a comparable capability to the AGM-65 Maverick carried by Navy F/A-18C/D Hornets, plus more weapons on station. Unlike Lockheed Martin’s Hellfires or Raytheon’s SeaGriffin, Brimstone is designed and qualified for use from fast jets, offering a strike missile that can replace the AGM-65 Maverick on a 3-for-1 basis at each hardpoint. Laser-guided rockets like APKWS could one-up that to 7-for-1 replacement, but only the shelved Navy LOGIR program’s imaging infrared guidance mode would match Brimstone’s fire-and-forget targeting/ salvo firing capabilities.

Positive reports from Congressional committees that want to “counter high-speed, erratically maneuvering targets on land and at sea” may give the Navy another $10 million in FY 2015 to pursue the idea. Sources: Navy Recognition, “U.S. Navy is evaluating MBDA’s Dual Mode Brimstone for its F/A-18 Super Hornet jets”.

July 16/14: Industrial. Super Hornet program manager Capt. Frank Morley says that the U.S. Navy might agree to accept slower deliveries than 2 planes per month to help extend the company’s production line by a year to the end of 2017. On the other hand, “my marching orders are not to do that at any additional cost to us.”

He adds that Boeing has already used some of its own funds to pay early procurement costs for another 12 EA-18G jets, which does seem to be the way things are working out in Congress. Sources: Reuters, “AIRSHOW-U.S. open to slower Boeing deliveries, but no extra cost”.

June 30/14: +11. Boeing in St. Louis, MO receives a $1.939 billion fixed-price-incentive-fee contract for full rate production of 11 FRP Lot 38 F/A-18E aircraft for the US Navy, and 33 EA-18G aircraft for the US Navy (21) and the government of Australia (12 for $533.4 million, which is 27.3% of the total). The USN’s total is $1.406 billion, using USN FY 2013 (F/A-18E) and 2014 (EA-18G) aircraft budgets (72.7%).

The extra F/A-18Es come from a $605 million Congressional markup in FY 2013. Which is why FY 2014 may not be the very last Super Hornet family order, if Congressional mark-ups of the 2015 National Defense Authorization bill or defense appropriations bill survive the budget process. The House Armed Services Committee has approved 5 Growlers, and the House Appropriations Committee has approved funds for 12 Growlers.

Work will be performed in El Segundo, CA (46%); St. Louis, MO (30%); Fort Worth, TX (2%); East Aurora, NY (1.5%); Irvine, CA (1percent); Ajax, Ontario, Canada (1%), and various locations within the United States (18.5%), and is expected to be complete in December 2016. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to 10 USC. 2304(c)(1). US NAVAIR in Patuxent River, MD manages the contracts for the US Navy, and acts as Australia’s agent (N00019-14-C-0032). See also US NAVAIR, “Contract awarded to produce F/A-18 Super Hornets, EA-18G Growlers” | Seapower, “Boeing Awarded to $1.94 Billion Contract for F/A-18 Super Hornets, EA-18G Growlers”.

44 bought: 11 F/A-18Es, 33 EA-18Gs

May 22/14: Support. Boeing in St. Louis, MO receives a $9.8 million cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order modification to an existing performance based logistics contract, covering F/A-18E/F supply chain management of spares and repairs. All funds are committed immediately.

Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO (40%), and Jacksonville, FL (60%); and is expected to be complete by December 2015. US NAVSUP Weapon Systems Support in Philadelphia, PA manages the contract (N00383-06-D-001J-0014).

May 6/14: Politics. House Armed Services Committee (HASC) chair Buck McKeon [R-CA] is proposing to add $450 million to fund 5 EA-18Gs and their equipment in the FY 2015 budget, instead of the 22 on the unfunded priorities list. The committee’s proposed changes would also preserve all F-35 funding, while cutting the Navy’s unmanned UCLASS R&D budget in half to $200 million.

Meanwhile, Missouri Lawmakers say that they’ve already gathered over 80 signatures from Republicans and Democrats in the House of Representatives, and the International Association of Machinists will be weighing in. The HASC markup will make the lobbying job more challenging, and they’ll need to more than triple that number of allies in order to get the full 22 planes. As the saying goes – show me. Sources: Flightglobal, “House bill promotes EA-18G and U-2S, but hits UCLASS” | Reuters, “Boeing, backers to fight for funding for 22 Boeing jets”.

May 5/14: Sharp-eyed readers might note that the last full contract for Super Hornet family jets was in FY 2012. That isn’t an accident. Boeing program manager Mike Gibbons says that they’ve finally hammered out a contract for 47 planes: 11 F/A-18E/F Super Hornets (FY 2013) + 21 EA-18G Growlers (FY 2014) + 3 EA-18Gs included in a legal settlement with the US government + 12 EA-18G Growlers for Australia. If so, there should be an announcement shortly.

It’s worth emphasizing that all of these planes are long-planned buys, it just took a while to come to terms on this batch. If the FY 2015 budget funds another 22 EA-18Gs, they would be the subject of a separate contract negotiation. Sources: Reuters, “Boeing sees contract soon for 47 more F/A-18, EA-18G fighters”.

May 5/14: EA-18G #100. Boeing [NYSE: BA] delivers the 100th EA-18G Growler to the US Navy, and the ceremony was turned into one more element of Boeing’s push to increase the Navy’s buy from 114 to 136. Sources: US Navy, “Navy’s Newest Electronic Attack Aircraft Reaches Centennial Milestone” | Boeing, “Boeing Delivers 100th EA-18G Growler to US Navy”.

100th EA-18G

March 11/14: Budgets. CNO Adm. Jonathan Greenert has confirmed that the Navy has placed 22 more EA-18Gs on their FY15 unfunded request submission. The Pentagon’s FY14 budget already contains a $75 million option for advance procurement, as a result of Congressional additions. If the Navy’s FY15 suggestion is approved for inclusion by the Secretary of Defense and Joint Chiefs of Staff, the $2.14 billion request would receive more momentum toward a possible Congressional insert in FY15.

The unfunded requests list has a number of items on it. If Congress does decide to fund 22 EA-18Gs as one of their choices, the US Navy would use it to raise some squadron rosters to 7 jets, while Boeing would use it to extend the Super Hornet production line by a year or more. Sources: Reuters, “UPDATE 1-U.S. Navy confirms Boeing jets on ‘unfunded’ priority list”.

March 4/14: FY15 Budget. The Navy unveils a preliminary budget request briefing. It doesn’t break down individual programs into dollars, but it does offer planned purchase numbers for the Navy’s biggest programs from FY 2014 – 2019. Short answer: no plans to buy any more Super Hornets or EA-18Gs, but that doesn’t mean that Congress couldn’t add some later. This interesting tidbit came from the US Navy’s detailed RDT&E justifications for PE 0204136N:

“Delays in the schedule for IRST [pod] are due to technical challenges with the Fuel Tank which led to additional flight test requirements.”

Source: US Dept. of the Navy, PB15 Press Briefing [PDF] | US Navy, detailed budget justification.

Feb 28/14: Support. A $22.4 million cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order against a previously issued basic ordering agreement for supplies and services to support follow-on test and evaluation of the F/A-18 E/F and EA-18G aircraft.

All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2014 Navy aircraft budgets. Work will be performed at the Naval Air Station Patuxent River, MD (76%), St. Louis, MO (22%), El Segundo, CA (1%), and Bethpage, N.Y. (1%) and is expected to be complete in January 2015 (N00019-11-G-0001, 0166).

Jan 31/14: Support. A $38.1 million cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order for F/A-18E/F logistics support and associated material requirements.

All funds are committed immediately, using USN FY 2014 budgets. Work will be performed at St. Louis, MO, and is expected to be complete by Dec 31/15. The contract was not competitively procured in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2304 (c)(1) by US Naval Supply Systems Command’s Weapon Systems Support group in Philadelphia, PA (N00383-06-D-001J, 0017).

Jan 28/14: DOT&E Testing Report. The Pentagon releases the FY 2013 Annual Report from its Office of the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E). The Super Hornet family is included, and as is often the case these days, software at various levels is the main issue.

Quick background: All F/A-18E/F Block II Super Hornets and EA-18Gs use high-order language or “H-series” software, and will carry the APG-79 AESA radar. Their current “OS version” (System Configuration Set, or SCS) is H8E Phase I, and Phase II is in testing. F/A-18A-D Hornets and F/A-18E/F Block I Super Hornets (to Lot 26) use “X-series” software, currently SCS 23X, with SCS 25X in testing. These USN aircraft use the APG-73 radar.

SCS 25X has been delayed for a year, with system qualification testing only beginning in FY 2014. SCS H8E has also hit delays, to the point where 6 of its 14 new capabilities were stripped out: AESA electronic warfare capability, integrated ESM and high-gain ESM to detect emitters using only onboard sensors, the ability to identify specific emitters, single-ship geolocation, integration of the ALQ-214(V)4 defensive jammer, and RNAV (Area Navigation) for GPS civil airspace navigation instead of using TACAN. They’ll presumably be pushed back to SCS H9, along with AGM-154C-1 JSOW integration (q.v. Nov 17/13). Testing for the remaining 8 H8E enhancements is expected to end in March 2014.

The biggest news for the Super Hornet family, however, is the 2 major weaknesses that H8E will not correct. One is the APG-79 AESA radar, whose software instability has been a problem for 7 years. That wasn’t even on the agenda for SCS H8E. Neither was “an end-to-end multi-AIM-120 missile shot” to take on multiple opponents, which has never been successfully operationally tested. That isn’t a good statement to make about a nation’s core naval fighter, and the Navy doesn’t plan to fix that until SCS H12 in FY 2016-2017. Those situations, and these statements from DOT&E, are legitimately concerning:

“…operational testing has yet to demonstrate a statistically significant difference in mission accomplishment between F/A-18E/F aircraft equipped with AESA and those equipped with the legacy radar…. Overall, the F/A-18E/F/G is not operationally effective for use in certain threat environments, the details of which are addressed in DOT&E’s classified report….”

Jan 22/14: SLEP. Boeing in Jacksonville, FL receives a $17.8 million firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity delivery order under the F/A-18 A-F Depot Level Service Life Extension Program, for remanufacturing activities and associated maintenance and sustainment.

$249,399 in FY 2014 USN aircraft budgets is committed immediately. Work will be performed in Jacksonville, FL (92%) and St. Louis, MO (8%), and is expected to be complete in September 2014. This contract was not competitively procured, pursuant to FAR 6.302-1 (N00019-14-D-0001).

Jan 22/14: Support. Boeing in Jacksonville, FL receives a $17.8 million firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity delivery order contract to support the F/A-18 A-F Depot Level Service Life Extension Program, including both maintenance and remanufacturing work.

Around $250,000 in FY 2014 USN aircraft budgets is committed immediately. Work will be performed in Jacksonville, FL (92%) and St. Louis, MO (8%), and is expected to be complete in September 2014. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to FAR 6.302-1 (N00019-14-D-0001).

Dec 30/13: Support. A $22.2 million firm-fixed-price delivery order for Super Hornet Family automated maintenance environment integrated software. Your car dealer has these for your machine, and the US Navy has them for its machines. The difference is that new software capabilities can also deliver enough maintenance savings to justify development, and the military’s fighters change more than your car does. This contract combines purchases for the U.S. Navy ($19.25M / 86.6%) and the government of Australia ($3M / 13.4%).

All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2013 US Navy aircraft budgets and FMS funding from Australia. Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO, and is expected to be complete in December 2015 (N00019-11-G-0001, DO 0140).

Dec 30/13: Support. A $46.7 million firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order against a previously issued basic ordering agreement for integrated logistics support and sustaining engineering for F/A-18A-D, F/A-18E/F, and EA-18G aircraft for the U.S. Navy ($36.6M / 78.3%) and Australia ($7M / 15.1%); plus $501,289 / 1.1% each from Canada, Finland, Kuwait, Malaysia, Spain, and Switzerland. Support will include logistics, engineering, provisioning, information systems, technical data updates, support equipment engineering, training and software integration support.

All funds are committed immediately. Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO (70%); El Segundo, CA (15%); Oklahoma City, OK (6%); Bethpage, NY (5%); and San Diego, CA (4%), and is expected to be complete in December 2014 (N00019-11-G-0001, 0110).

Nov 25/13: ECP. A $37.3 million delivery order modification to a delivery order for F/A-18E/F and EA-18G Trailing Edge Flap engineering change proposal retrofit kits. They’re buying 48 Trailing Edge Flap Redesign kits, 48 left hand units, and 48 right hand units.

All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2014 USN aircraft budgets. Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO, and is expected to be complete in July 2017. Fiscal 2014 aircraft procurement, Navy contract funds in the amount $37,338,608 will be obligated at time of award; none of which expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-11-G-0001, DO 007302).

Nov 17/13: ANAO Report. Australia’s National Audit Office releases their 2012-13 Major Projects Report, which includes some interesting notes concerning the JSOW-C1/ Block III. Australia to place an interim buy of AGM-154Cs in time for the F/A-18F’s planned December 2010 Initial Operating Capability, and they did. But the AGM-154C-1s that are effective against ships and moving targets won’t be done until at least February 2016, because software and integration issues forced the US Navy to delay adding JSOW-C1 until the next core software release. The USN also canceled the planned September 2014 tests. Other issues and notes:

“The Super Hornet is meeting its capability objectives. Identified anomalies, limitations and improvements of the USN common aircraft software, radar, electronic warfare, mission planning, and training devices are being fed back into the USN spiral development program as part of Super Hornet sustainment, and RAAF/DMO are accessing opportunities to influence USN decision makers on the priority for addressing these areas under a RAAF/USN common paradigm.

….Spares availability has been affected by late delivery of spares because of Original Equipment Manufacturer delays and USN delays in award of Supplier contracts leading to an impact on performance, supportability and schedule.

….There is a possibility that the Forward Looking Infra Red performance will be degraded. This was identified as an emergent risk in the 2011-12 MPR and has now been realised. Engineering Change Proposal No 35 will introduce an Electronic Image Stabilisation Card. This issue has been transferred to Air Combat and Electronic Attack Systems Program Office Risk and Issues Log for management.”

Dec 18/13: Brazil. Saab picks Saab’s Gripen NG as their future fighter in a surprise announcement, shortly after reports that a deal for Super Hornets was killed by public revelations that the NSA had spied on Brazil’s presidency and government (q.v. Aug 12/13). The 36 plane contract will be worth about $4.5 billion, which is about 29% less than Boeing’s reported $5.8 billion bid. A final contract and financing deal is expected in December 2014, along with a long-term maintenance deal estimated at around $1.5 billion. Deliveries are expected to begin 4 years later.

The Brazilian Air Force has a dedicated website to explain its choice. Dassault issued a terse statement pointing out the presence of US parts on Gripens, and positioning the Rafale in a different league. Which may or may not be true, but it’s indisputably true that global fighter buys have historically been heavily weighted toward a less-expensive league. Gripen and the Super Hornet are just within that low to mid price range. Rafale isn’t. Indeed, its reported $10.2 billion purchase + maintenance costs would have been 70% more expensive than the Gripen. Sources: Brazil MdD, “FX-2: Amorim anuncia vencedor de programa para compra de novos cacas” | MdD, “Perguntas & Respostas sobre a definição do Programa F-X2” (Q&A) | Dassault, “FX2 contest – 2013/12/18” | Folha de Sao Paulo, “Dilma agradece Hollande por apoio contra espionagem dos EUA”.

NSA spying loses Brazil deal

Dec 9/13: Industrial. Boeing’s VP in charge of the Super Hornet family, Mike Gibbons, sees USN fleet upgrade funds to add Advanced Super Hornet features as “a given.” He says that Boeing is “extremely bullish about how much of a future we think we have on Super Hornet and Growler production,” and cites recent multi-million dollar investments in their St. Louis production line as proof of the firm’s belief that local and export orders can keep it open to 2020 and beyond. USN Program Director Capt. Frank Morley says the Navy has taken delivery of 490/ 563 planned Super Hornets, and 90/ 135 planned EA-18G Growlers.

Barring further orders, Gibbons says that March 2014 is the industrial deadline for Boeing to decide whether it will invest its own funds to keep supplier orders coming. The firm has studied C-17 program lessons on how to cut production rates in half, leaving Super Hornet capacity at 24/year without increasing costs. Gibbons gives Boeing a $37 million share of the flyaway cost for a ~$50 million F/A-18E/F, while placing EA-18G flyaway cost at ~$60 million.

On the other hand, Gibbons concedes that Boeing was waiting until the US Navy’s FY 2015 budget request comes out before buying long-lead items, and another set of mandated across-the-board cuts would likely cement the program’s termination. One option to keep the plane as an option beyond 2016 would involve combining the adjacent F/A-18 and F-15 production lines into a single flexible line. That would require serious investment, but it would extend the production life of both planes. Aviation Week, “Boeing Faces March Funding Decision On Super Hornet, Growler” | Reuters, “Boeing must decide on F/A-18 production in March 2014: executive”

Dec 5/13: Politics. House Armed Services Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee Chair Rep. Randy Forbes [R-VA-04] sends a letter urging the Pentagon to buy more Super Hornets beyond 2014, or find other ways to keep the line open (q.v. upgrade option Nov 4/13) past 2016. His argument is fairly straightforward:

“With future carrier-based aircraft still in development until 2019, I strongly believe that creating a single U.S. tactical aircraft supply chain at this time is too great a risk…. will eliminate vital competition that could result in spiraling costs…. also eliminate competition among aircraft radar and engine producers. In other instances, the Department has taken steps to appropriately ensure multiple manufacturers in the shipbuilding and submarine industries. The Navy and the Department should nurture its tactical aviation manufacturing in the same way.”

Despite Rep. Forbes’ title, he’s going to have a very hard time prevailing amidst current budget cuts. Reuters offers some hope, saying that the USN is very interested in buying more, but had no funding available. In other words, “let’s see if rumblings among some Republicans are followed by actions that ease the sequester’s disproportionate effect on defense.” If not, the US Navy’s proposal to deal with further sequestration cuts by pausing F-35C production and pushing its IOC to 2021 creates strong pressure in the Pentagon to end Super Hornet buys now, lest continued production begin eating into F-35 purchases and encourage further F-35B/C cuts. Sources: J. Randy Forbes letter, “Forbes: Continuation of F/A-18 Production Line Crucial for Strength of Tactical Aircraft Industrial Base” | Reuters, “U.S. lawmaker urges continuation of Boeing F/A-18 fighter line”.

Nov 6/13: Weapons. Boeing and Kongsberg take the 1st step toward Joint Strike Missile integration with the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fighter family. All they did was ensure that the weapons fit on the aircraft’s external pylons. Next, they have to conduct wind tunnel tests in early 2014, to assess the effect of the missiles on the plane’s aerodynamics, and likely stress on the pylons. That has to be followed by live captive carry testing to verify their conclusions, and of course full integration with the aircraft’s electronics will be its own separate effort.

Norway doesn’t fly Super Hornets, but potential JSM partner Australia does (q.v. May 16/13), and so does the US Navy. F-35 integration won’t be ready until 2021-2022, but successful F/A-18 integration would give the JSM an early deployment option with any future Super Hornet customers, such as Kuwait, Brazil, or Denmark. It would also provide an incentive for Australia to commit to JSM early and deploy the missiles well before 2025, by offering them a much more immediate fleet upgrade. Finally, Super Hornet integration would provide an opening to put JSM forward as an AGM-84 Harpoon missile replacement for the US Navy, if the higher-end LRASM program falls to coming budget cuts. Sources: Boeing, Nov 6/13 release.

Nov 4/13: USN Upgrades? US Navy F/A-18 and EA-18G Program Manager, Capt. Frank Morley, discusses the Advanced Super Hornet with Defense Tech:

“We’re getting good performance numbers on it and good signature measurements. These are items the Navy is considering…. We reduced the signature of the aircraft by over 50-percent. We added low-signature treatments to specific areas of the airplane and then when we designed the conformal fuel tanks and enclosed weapons pod….”

Oct 31/13: Trick, or Treat? An FBO.gov Pre-solicitation notice for up to 36 Super Hornet family fighters in FY 2015 is cancelled. This effectively terminates media speculation concerning the potential for additional US Navy orders, in light of added F-35 delays resulting from R&D budget cuts.

On the other hand, FY 2014 may not be the Super Hornet family’s last order year. Australia has confirmed plans to buy another 12 EA-18Gs, and the official request to negotiate that deal is already cleared. Denmark intends to make a decision concerning 24-32 fighters in mid-2015; the Super Hornet is competing against Lockheed Martin’s much more expensive F-35A, and Saab’s JAS-39E/F Gripen. Brazil was reportedly ready to buy 36 Super Hornets in 2013; NSA spying scandals torpedoed negotiations, but the competition hasn’t been closed. In the Middle East, Kuwait and Qatar are both evaluating future fighters, and preparing to order new planes.

Australia’s 12-plane order is very likely to arrive before supplier shutdowns begin; after that, timing will begin to matter to Boeing. FBO.gov | Breaking Defense | Flight Global.

FY 2013

Another 15 extra bought; 2014 budget switches final production to EA-18Gs from Super Hornets.

F/A-18F & EA-18G
(click to view full)

Sept 23/13: ECP. A $38.2 million award for fixed-price, incentive-fee delivery order for F/A-18E/F and EA-18G trailing edge flap retrofit kits. The flaps were redesigned as part of an engineering change proposal, and the order includes 48 trailing edge flap kits, 48 left hand units, and 48 right hand units. All funds are committed immediately.

Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO, and is expected to be completed in July 2017 (N00019-11-G-0001, 0073).

Aug 12/13: Brazil – NSA fallout. Reuters reports that revelations of NSA spying may have damaged the Boeing Super Hornet’s chances in Brazil. US Secretary of State John Kerry’s October meeting with Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff won’t discuss the deal, and the unnamed political source was blunt: “We cannot talk about the fighters now… You cannot give such a contract to a country that you do not trust.”

In July, the O Globo newspaper published documents leaked by Edward Snowden that revealed U.S. surveillance of Internet communications in Brazil and other Latin American countries. Nobody who has been paying attention can possibly be surprised, given concerns regarding transnational drug cartels, Brazil’s close relationship with Iran, and the growth of Islamist activities in the “triple border” junction area of Brazil, Argentina, and Paraguay. Brazilian senators may not have been paying attention, or may just have been playing their expected role when they questioned President Rousseff’s visit to Washington in toto.

Brazil could just go ahead and pick another plane, but fighters seem to be dropping down the government’s priority list. Huge protests against corruption and misuse of public money have left the government skittish about big outlays, and another government source tells Reuters that they no longer expect a decision in 2013. With 2014 as an election year, that means 2015 for any fighter decision. The Brazilian government isn’t exactly responding with denials following the Reuters report, and for Boeing, later is better than sooner. Reuters, “Spying scandal sets back U.S. chances for fighter jet sale to Brazil”.

May 24/13: SAR. The Pentagon finally releases its Dec 31/12 Selected Acquisitions Report [PDF]. The EA-18G is included, thanks to the 2014 budget switch that shifted the final Super Hornet buy and added a few more:

“EA-18G Growler Aircraft – Program costs increased $2,023.9 million (+18.3%) from $11,060.3 million to $13,084.2 million, due primarily to a quantity increase of 21 aircraft from 114 to 135 aircraft (+$1,752.1 million) and associated schedule and estimating allocations (-$60.7 million). There were also increases in support costs for integrated logistics support/reliability demonstration, production engineering, and developmental testing) (+$306.6 million).”

SAR – Super Hornet switch

May 9/13: Testing. Boeing in St. Louis, MO receives an $18.3 million cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery to support Follow-On Test and Evaluation of the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G aircraft.

Work will be performed at the Naval Air Station, Patuxent River, MD (78%); St. Louis, (21%); El Segundo, CA (0.5%); and Bethpage, NY (0.5%), and is expected to be complete in February 2014. All contract funds are committed immediately by US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD (N00019-11-G-0001).

April 10/13: FY 2014 budget. The Obama administration finally releases its budget proposals, including the Pentagon’s FY 2014 requests. One of the most notable changes in the Navy’s “Procurement by Weapon” file is the addition of 21 more EA-18Gs, with a $2 billion budget. At the same time, plans to buy 13 F/A-18E/F fighters for around $1.14 billion were canceled. The $274 million in FY 2014 involves spares, and shared costs related to the EA-18G. In effect, the Super Hornet order was transmuted into Growlers, raised pro rata by about $375 million total for that switch, then had 8 more planes added to it.

The shift into an all-Growler buy was helped by the Australian purchase of 12 Airborne Electronic Attack kits, which lowered costs for added US orders. Strike while the iron is hot, and all that. The other story associated with this shift involves the F-35B/C. The F-35 program is improving, but it has basically stood still or even gone backwards over the last 5 years. That means late introduction, and even later Initial Operating Capability. Especially given the poor progress of software development, and the additional progress required to create a combat-ready F-35. Not having stealth-enhanced F-35s is more than a fighter gap – it’s also a strike gap against improving air defenses. The most obvious way to close that gap is to add to the EA-18G fleet, in order to help existing naval fighters get through enemy defenses before F-35s start contributing sometime in the early 2020s. Even after F-35s arrive, EA-18Gs will remain invaluable to coalition warfare for a long time, and have real utility in small wars that feature remotely-detonated bombs.

FY 2014 is expected to end Super Hornet family orders, barring exports outside the USA. That leaves the USN’s Super Hornet program finishing with 552 fighters bought (though DID’s records show 549), and the EA-18G program finishing with a higher-than-expected 135 planes. Recall that at one time, the planned buy of EA-18Gs was just 80.

April 3/13: Embraer. Embraer’s CEO Luiz Carlos Aguiar talks to Defense News about F-X2 and other subjects. Regarding the fighters:

“I think [the decision is] going to be in the next months, this year, I would say. Our role in that depends… on who is going to win. We have a memorandum of understanding with all three of the contenders. Each of them offers an offset program, but we prefer not declaring publicly our preference…. Whatever they choose, we’re going to be in the process. They need to make this decision because Brazil needs that…. With the F-X, we can even go further in terms of technology, and even some new products could come up with one of these three contenders. That’s what I can tell you, I can’t go further than that.”

Given Embraer’s dominant position in the Brazilian aerospace industry, it would be shocking if any of the contenders had chosen not to sign industrial partnership MoUs with Embraer. In light of the April and August 2012 agreements, the “new products” comment suggests that Boeing may have replaced Saab as Embraer’s preferred choice. That isn’t at all certain, however – as Aguliar surely intended. Defense News.

March 13/13: Denmark. The Danes pick up their fighter competition as promised, following their announced hiatus in April 2010. Invited bidders include the same set of Lockheed Martin (F-35A), Boeing (Super Hornet), and Saab (JAS-39E/F) – plus EADS (Eurofighter), who had withdrawn from the Danish competition in 2007. The goal of a 2014 F-16 replacement decision has been moved a bit farther back, and now involves a recommendation by the end of 2014, and a selection by June 2015.

The Flyvevabnet are reported to have 30 operational F-16s, with 15 more in reserve, out of an original order of 58. Past statements indicate that they’re looking to buy around 25 fighters as replacements, but there are reports of a range from 24-32, depending on price. Danish Forsvarsministeriet [in Danish] | Eurofighter GmbH | Saab | JSF Nieuws.

March 8/13: Brazil. Brazil has asked the 3 F-X2 finalists to extend their bids for another 6 months from the March 30/13 deadline, as the Brazilian commodity economy remains mired in a 2-year slump. The competitors had hoped for a decision by the time the LAAD 2013 expo opened in April.

The length of the cumulative delays could create changes for the bids, and it effectively squashes any faint hopes that the new jets would be able to fly in time for the 2014 World Cup. Reuters.

Dec 28/12: Support. Boeing in St. Louis, MO receives an $81.75 million firm-fixed-price delivery order covering integrated logistics support and sustaining engineering services for the F/A-18 A-D Hornet and F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet fighters, and EA-18G Growler tactical jamming aircraft. They’ll provide in-service engineering, information systems, automated maintenance environment, technical data updates, support equipment engineering, training, and software integration support for the US Navy ($69.5M / 85%); and the Governments of Australia ($9.0M / 10.98%); Canada ($544,992 / .67%); Finland ($544,992 / 0.67%); Kuwait ($544,992 / 0.67%); Malaysia ($544,992 / 0.67%); Spain ($544,992 / 0.67%); and Switzerland ($544,992 / 0.67%)

Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO (70%); El Segundo, CA (15%); Oklahoma City, OK (6%); Bethpage, NY (5%); and San Diego, CA (4%), and is expected to be complete in December 2013. This contract combines purchases under the Foreign Military Sales Program. All contract funds are committed immediately, and only $342,372 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/13. US NAVAIR in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00383-06-D-001J).

Nov 30/12: +15. A $687.6 million ceiling-priced fixed-price-incentive-fee contract modification for 15 Production Lot 37 (FY 2013) F/A-18E Super Hornet airframes “in accordance with the aircraft variation in quantity clause.” Which is to say, beyond planned multi-year orders. This follows a similar Jan 25/12 order from Production Lot 36.

Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO (45.2%); El Segundo, CA (44.6%); Hazelwood, MO (3.4%); Cleveland, OH (1.7%); Torrance, CA (1.4%); Vandalia, OH (1.0%); Ajax, Canada (1.0%), and various other sites within the continental USA (1.7%), and is expected to be complete in July 2015. $645.5 million is committed on award (N00019-09-C-0019).

FY 2012

Japan loss; 15 extra bought; MYP-II deliveries done; Boeing lobbying to extend MYP-III.

Australian F/A-18Fs
(click to view full)

Sept 10/12: A $12 million cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order, to perform requirements planning and analysis “necessary to identify Production Transition Support for the F/A-18 E/F and E/A-18G aircraft programs”. Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO, and is expected to be completed in May 2013 (N00019-11-G-0001).

Aug 23/12: Australia. Minister for Defence Stephen Smith and Minister for Defence Materiel Jason Clare announce their decision to proceed with the conversion of 12 Super Hornets into Growlers for about $1.5 billion, with availability expected for 2018.

This doesn’t affect MYP-III, since all 24 of Australia’s F/A-18F Block II Hornets were bought under MYP-II (vid. Feb 22/12 entry), and all of them have already been delivered. This conversion order takes the 12 Australian F/A-18Fs that were pre-wired for EA-18G conversion, and adds the internal electronics and pods. Australia DoD.

Australia EA-18G conversion

April 1/12: Raytheon in El Segundo, CA receives a $7 million order for 13 ECP-6279 retrofit kits in support of F/A-18 E/F and EA-18G aircraft. ECP = Engineering Change Proposal, a design alternation. Work will be performed in Forest, MS (80%), and El Segundo, CA (20%), and is expected to be complete in December 2013 (N00019-10-G-0006).

March 30/12: Extend MYP-III? That’s what Boeing is lobbying for. The $2.5 billion add-on would extend production by as many as 37 Super Hornet family fighters, beginning with a $60 million increase in the Navy’s FY 2013 budget for advance purchases.

Boeing’s document claims that the Super Hornet program supports 100,000 direct and indirect jobs and has 1,900 suppliers across the US. Additional orders beyond 2014 would keep the line open past 2015. In return, they’d keep the Navy from suffering a fighter shortfall due to the F-35B/C program’s extended delays. The F-35s aren’t likely to see Initial Operational Capability before 2018, and could run later than that. Bloomberg | DoD Buzz.

Feb 22/12: MYP-II done. Final delivery of all orders under the previous MYP-II contract, which Boeing says covered 233 aircraft for the USA (210 + 23 added options), and another 24 F/A-18Fs for Australia. Boeing.

MYP-II final delivery

Jan 31/12: Support. A $48.1 million firm-fixed-price delivery order contract modification for integrated logistics support and sustaining engineering services in support of US Navy F/A-18 A-D, F/A-18 E/F, and EA-18 G aircraft. This includes in-service engineering, information systems work, technical data updates, support equipment engineering, training and software integration support.

Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO (70%); El Segundo, CA (15%); Oklahoma City, OK (6%); Bethpage, NY (5%); and San Diego, CA (4%); and is expected to be complete in December 2012 (N00383-06-D-001J).

Jan 25/12: +15. A $687.5 million ceiling-priced modification to the MYP-III fixed-price-incentive-fee multi-year procurement contract buys another 15 FY 2012 Super Hornets in Full-Rate Production Lot 36, using the variation in quantity clause: another 14 single-seat F/A-18Es, and an F/A-18F.

Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO (45.2%); El Segundo, CA (44.6%); Hazelwood, MO (3.4%); Cleveland, OH (1.7%); Torrance, CA (1.4%); Vandalia, OH (1%); Ajax, Canada (1%); Irvine, CA (0.7%); Johnson City, N.Y. (0.5%); and Grand Rapids, MI (0.5%); and is expected to be complete in October 2014 (N00019-09-C-0019).

15 more added

Dec 20/11: Japan loss. Japan’s F-X competition picks Lockheed Martin’s F-35 over Boeing’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet International, and EADS’ Eurofighter.

Japan

FY 2011

More for USN; More for Australia?; #500 delivered; USN’s long-term maintenance planning.

F/A-18Es over Afghanistan
(click to view full)

Sept 30/11: Support. A $22 million firm-fixed-price contract modification to provide non-recurring engineering in support of the F/A18E/F and EA-18G multi-year procurement. Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO, and is expected to be complete in October 2014 (N00019-09-C-0019).

Sept 29/11: Support. A $298.6 million cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order for logistics support and associated material requirements for the F/A-18E/F aircraft. This effort also includes the government of Australia (3%, $8.96M) under the Foreign Military Sale Program.

Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO, and is to be complete by December 2014. US Naval Supply Systems Command Weapon Systems Support in Philadelphia, PA manages this contract (N00383-06-D-001J, #0014).

Sept 12/11: Australia. During a joint press conference with Canada’s defense minister Peter MacKay, Australian Minister for Defence Stephen Smith says that they might buy more Super Hornets – but no decision has been taken. The window is closing, however, unless the USA extends production beyond MYP-III. So:

“Our position on Joint Strike Fighters I’ll restate. We’ve committed ourselves to 14. The White Paper or the Defence Capability Plan talks in terms of ultimately a number up to or around 100, but we’ve committed to 14… we’ll do an exhaustive risk assessment in the course of next year and make a judgment next year about whether we need any transition capability… The last thing I will allow will be a gap in our capability for our air combat capability. And if I am concerned or worried or not persuaded there won’t be a gap in terms of delivery of the Joint Strike Fighters, then an obvious option for us is more Super Hornets. We’ve made no decision to that effect.”

July 12/11: Former USAF F-16 pilot Mike Gerzanics pens “Testing the new-generation Super Hornet“, documenting his experience flying an F/A-18F Block II simulator. Overall, he was impressed by the radar and liked the aircraft, but said:

“My overall feel for the pilot/vehicle interface, while it is effective and combat proven, was that it lags newer aircraft. Tactical information, for the most part, is presented on separate displays, forcing the pilot to do much of the fusion. This federated arrangement is no different from what I experienced when I flew a Block 60 F-16 simulator… [In contrast,] The F-35’s level of integration and sensor fusion was a generation ahead of what I experienced in the Block II Super Hornet and Block 60 F-16 simulator sessions… A next-generation [Super Hornet] cockpit is also under development and has a very large 19in x 11in touch-sensitive display. I was able to fly a cockpit built around this display and can confirm that it provides an ideal palette to display fused tactical information.”

June 13/11: +9. A $408.8 million ceiling-priced fixed-price-incentive-fee contract modification for 9 single-seat F/A-18Es from Full-Rate Production Lot 35, in accordance with clauses that let the US Navy add aircraft above baseline FY 2011 purchases.

As usual, note that these contracts are for airframes and integration, leaving out purchases of minor accouterments like radar, engines, etc. Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO, and is expected to be complete in December 2013 (N00019-09-C-0019).

9 more added

April 20/11: #500. Boeing and the U.S. Navy celebrate the induction of the 500th Super Hornet family fighter (F/A-18E/F Super Hornets and EA-18G Growlers) into the US Navy. Boeing.

#500

April 15/11: SAR – more planes. The Pentagon’s Selected Acquisitions Report ending Dec 30/10 includes the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. While EA-18G plans rise to 114 aircraft:

“F/A-18 E/F – Program costs increased $2,888.8 million (+6.0 percent) from $48,091.4 million to $50,980.2 million, due primarily to a quantity increase of 41 aircraft from 515 to 556 aircraft (+$3,105.4 million) and associated schedule, engineering, and estimating allocations

• (+$208.6 million), the application of revised escalation indices (+$392.2 million), and an increase in initial spares for the additional 41 aircraft (+$94.1 million). These increases are partially offset by a reduction due to multi-year procurement contract award (-$390.4 million), adjustments for current and prior escalation (-$397.8 million), and decreases in other support costs (-$56.5 million).

• Note: Quantity changes are estimated based on the original SAR baseline cost-quantity relationship. Cost changes since the original baseline are separately categorized as schedule, engineering, or estimating “allocations.” The total impact of a quantity change is the identified “quantity” change plus all associated “allocations.”

See also April 1/10 entry.

SAR – more planes

March 3/11: Support. Boeing in St. Louis, MO receives an $8.8 million firm-fixed-price delivery order for integrated logistics support; in-service engineering; information systems; technical data; support equipment engineering; automated maintenance environment; training/software integration support; provisioning; and A-D sustaining engineering services in support of the F/A-18 A-D Hornet, F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet, and EA-18G Growler aircraft.

Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO (70%); El Segundo, CA (15%); Oklahoma City, OK (6%); Bethpage, NY (5%); and San Diego, CA (4%), and is expected to be complete in December 2011. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00383-06-D-001J).

Feb 14/11: FY 2012 request. The Pentagon releases its FY 2012 budget request: $2.662 billion for 28 Super Hornets ($153 million RDT&E, $77.2 million spares, $2.432 billion procurement), and $1.125 billion for 12 more EA-18Gs ($1.108 billion procurement, $17.1 million RDT&E).

Note that this funding also provides the advance procurement resources for 28 FY 2013 aircraft, continues research into planned spiral upgrades of F/A-18E/F onboard systems, and funds common shared cost between the EA-18G and F/A-E/F programs out of the F/A-E/F budget. The EA-18G buy is very much in line with the FY 2011 request, while the Super Hornet order rises sharply from the FY 2011 request of $1.976 billion for 22 aircraft ($148.4 million RDT&E, $41.2 million spares, $1.787 billion procurement). The F-35 program’s lateness is making itself felt here, otherwise the Super Hornet buy would actually have fallen from FY 2011 – 2012.

Jan 18/11: Support. US NAVAIR discusses its efforts to create a 6-year Planned Maintenance Interval (PMI) site for Super Hornet aircraft. With large numbers of Navy Super Hornets near their scheduled deep inspections and maintenance, they plan to use the Fleet Readiness Center Southeast (FRCSE) hangar at Cecil Commerce Center, near Jacksonville, FL, as an overflow and companion facility for NAS Oceana, VA.

This is a boring sort of detail that ensures the continued viability of a fighter fleet intended for operations, not just for show. FRCSE has to tow the aircraft over in NAS Oceana, but the Florida facility will be fly-in/fly-out. Airplanes progress through 4 work cells: disassembly and inspection, repair, final assembly and operations, and flightline preparation for the Functional Check Flight. FRCSE is working on 4 prototypes in FY 2011, with a goal of 16 planes per year.

Jan 6/11: More F/A-18s. The Pentagon announces a number of changes, instead to take $150 billion from administration and weapons programs, and shift them into higher priority weapon programs. The F-35B goes on probation, and F-35 production is cut by over 100 planes during the 2012-2016 period.

In exchange, the Navy will order 41 more F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, using MYP-III options. That means another 15 in FY 2012 & 2013, and another 11 in FY 2014, on top of existing order plans. Pentagon release re: overall plan | Full Gates speech and Gates/Mullen Q&A transcript | F-35 briefing hand-out [PDF] || Atlanta Journal Constitution | The Atlantic | The libertarian Cato Institute | Defense Update | Fort Worth Star-Telegram’s Sky Talk blog | The Hill | NY Times | Politico | Stars and Stripes || Agence France Presse | BBC | Reuters | UK’s Telegraph | China’s Xinhua.

More Super Hornets

Dec 30/10: FIRST. Boeing in St. Louis, MO receives a $69.1 million delivery order under the F/A-18 Integrated Readiness Support Team (FIRST) Program for continued support of F/A-18 A-D Hornet, F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet, and EA-18G Growler fleets of the U.S. Navy ($64.6M/ 93.6%); and the governments of Australia ($1.7M/ 2.5%), Canada ($513,996; 0.7%), Spain ($513,996/ 0.7%), Finland ($513,966/ 0.7%), Switzerland ($513,996; 0.7%), Kuwait ($513,996; 0.7%), and Malaysia ($256,998/ 0.4%).

Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO (70%); El Segundo, CA (15%); Oklahoma City, OK (6%); Bethpage, NY (5%); and San Diego, CA (4%). Work is expected to be complete in December 2011. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages this contract (N00383-06-D-001J). See also Jan 3/06 entry, in this section.

Dec 22/10: Support. An $11.7 million fixed-price-incentive-fee contract modification for one-time engineering in support of the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G Multi-Year III buy. Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO, and is expected to be complete in February 2012 (N00019-09-C-0019).

Dec 6/10: Support. Boeing in St. Louis, MO receives a $17.6 million modification to a delivery order, for supplies and services in support of the follow-on test and evaluation of the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G aircraft.

Work will be performed in Naval Air Station Patuxent River, MD (77%); St. Louis, MO (21%); El Segundo, CA (1%); and Bethpage, NY (1%), and is expected to be complete in October 2011. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year (N00019-11-G-0001).

FY 2010

Program expands; MYP-III contract; FY 2010 budget adds more; Super Hornet International.

F/A-18F over CV-63
(click to view full)

Sept 28/10: A $5.297 billion modification, converting a previous advance acquisition contract (N00019-09-C-0019) to a fixed-price-incentive-fee multi-year contract. Over its lifetime to May 2015, MYP-III will supply 124 base airframes: 46 single-seat F/A-18Es, 20 two-seat F/A-18Fs, and 58 of the EA-18G electronic attack airframes for the US Navy. Deliveries will begin in 2012. Boeing F/A-18 and EA-18 Programs Vice President Kory Mathews:

“Procurement of these 124 aircraft through a multi-year contract… will generate more than $600 million in cost savings for U.S. taxpayers… Boeing and its Hornet Industry Team suppliers have delivered every Super Hornet and Growler on schedule to the warfighter and on budget for the taxpayer from the first Super Hornet delivery… The first two F/A-18E/F multi-year contracts generated more than $1.7 billion in savings for the United States.”

Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO (45.2%); El Segundo, CA (44.6%); Hazelwood, MO (3.4%); Cleveland, OH (1.7%); Torrance, CA (1.4%); Vandalia, OH (1%); Ajax, Ontario, Canada (1%); Irvine, CA (0.7%); Johnson City, NY (0.5%); and Grand Rapids, MI (0.5%). Work is expected to be complete in May 2015. See also Boeing.

MYP-III

Sept 28/10: Support. A $249 million delivery order under a firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee contract covers logistics support and associated materials for F/A-18E/F aircraft. Work will be performed in St Louis, MO, and is expected to be complete by September 2011.

This effort combines purchases for the US Navy (99%) and the government of Australia (1%), and was not competitively awarded. The Naval Inventory Control Point in Philadelphia, PA manages this contract (N00383-06-D-001J, #0010).

Sept 24/10: Support. A $21.6 million firm-fixed-price delivery order for integrated logistics support, in-service engineering, information systems, technical data, support equipment engineering, automated maintenance environment, training/software integration support, provisioning and sustaining engineering in support of F/A-18 A-D, E/F, and EA-18G aircraft. This modification combines purchases for the U.S. Navy ($18.5 million; 85.7%) and the governments of Australia ($2.5 million, 11.5%); Canada ($212,300, 1%); Spain ($147,700, 0.7%); Finland ($98,500, 0.5%); Kuwait ($61,500, 0.3%), Switzerland ($52,300, 0.2%), and Malaysia ($12,300; 0.1%), under the Foreign Military Sales program.

Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO (70%); El Segundo, CA (15%); Oklahoma City, OK (6%); Bethpage, NY (5%); and San Diego, CA (4%); and is expected to be complete in December 2010. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00383-06-D-001J).

Aug 10/11: Support. A $9.3 million firm-fixed-price delivery order for organizational level peculiar support equipment in support of 4 emerging F/A-18E/F aircraft squadron stand-ups (VFA-25, VFA-146, VFA-192, and VFA-151). Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO, and is expected to be complete in July 2013. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11. The US Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division in Lakehurst, NJ manages the contract (N68335-10-G-0012).

July 20/10: Super Hornet International. Boeing’s VP and General Manager of Global Strike Systems, Shelley Lavender, announces a “Super Hornet International Road Map” at Farnborough 2010. Technology modifications would include internal IRST to detect infrared emissions from enemy aircraft (instead of the US Navy’s current retrofit approach using a modified centerline fuel tank), an enclosed weapon pod to lower radar signature, full spherical laser and missile warning systems, a new cockpit based on large touch-screen technology, improved F414 engines (EDE/EPE), and conformal fuel tanks mounted up top to boost range.

These enhancements are described as an “international road map,” reflecting ongoing competitions in Brazil, Denmark, India, and elsewhere. These same modifications also have the potential to become part of a US Navy multi-year buy agreement with Boeing, if the Navy is willing. Presentation [PDF] | See also “Future Hornets?” section, below.

June 17/10: Exec change. Boeing announces that 26-year veteran Kory Mathews will serve as program vice president of F/A-18 and EA-18 Programs within Boeing’s Global Strike Systems division. The VP is responsible for customer satisfaction and the quality, cost, and schedule performance of every facet of the F/A-18A-F and the EA-18G family, and leads all activities associated with program development, production, and support.

Mathews moves from his role as VP and Chief Engineer for Boeing Military Aircraft. He succeeds Bob Gower, who has been named to the new position of VP Boeing Military Aircraft (BMA) India.

May 19/10: MYP? As part of its revisions to the FY 2011 defense budget, the House Armed Services Committee’s summary is vocal and insistent about their request for another multi-year buy program:

“…the Committee is extremely concerned by the Navy and Marine Corps managing and accepting an unprecedented level of operational risk within their tactical air force structure while waiting for the completion of the F-35B and F-35C. The Committee estimates that by FY 2017, the Navy and Marine Corps inventory could be at least 250 aircraft short of requirements – the equivalent of five carrier air wings. This is an unacceptable outcome, and the Committee will not support future budget requests [emphasis DID’s] that fail to address the factual realities of a naval strike fighter shortfall. Barring a complete reversal of the development and performance failures in the Joint Strike Fighter program, the Committee expects future budget submissions to continue the production of F-18s to prevent our naval airpower from losing significance in our nation’s arsenal. Because of the Navy’s inability to meet required reporting dates, the bill makes technical corrections to the multi-year authority provided in the FY10 NDAA and requires the Secretary of the Navy to use the savings garnered from the multi-year procurement contract for 124 aircraft, over the previously planned annual procurement contracts, to procure additional F/A-18E or F/A-18F aircraft up to the quantity that the savings would enable.”

See House Armed Service Committee: Chairman’s statement | Summary [PDF] | Tables [PDF].

May 14/10: MYP? The Pentagon takes a big step closer to a multi-year contract for Super Hornet family fighters:

“[Ashton Carter] certified to Congress that the proposed F/A-18 multiyear procurement met statutory requirements, including substantial savings, for 124 F/A-18E/F and EA-18G aircraft. The proposed agreement will run for four years, from fiscal 2010 through 2013… the Department of the Navy will continue to work with Congress to gain necessary legislative authorities required before the Navy may enter into a multiyear contract… [to] acquire the remaining program of record for the 515 F/A-18E/F Super Hornets and 114 EA-18G Growlers.

The Navy’s fiscal 2011 budget request, sent to Congress Feb. 1, includes $1.9 billion to buy 22 Super Hornets and $1.1 billion for 12 Growlers. In fiscal 2012, the Navy plans to buy 24 more Growlers and one Super Hornet, with 25 more Super Hornets in fiscal 2013.”

See: US DoD | Rep. Todd Akin [R-MO-2] | Sen. Kit Bond [R-MO] statement and Letter to SecDef Gates [PDF] | DoD Buzz.

May 1/10: MYP? Two months after its 1st request, the Pentagon asks for a second extension of 5 months, in order to negotiate a 3rd multi-year procurement deal for Boeing’s F/A-18 Super Hornet family fighters. Tough sledding, or just bureaucrats stalling? The Hill.

April 6/10: Support. FBO Pre-solicitation #N0001905G0026Phase4ModLine

“The Naval Air Systems Command intends to issue a cost plus fixed fee order under existing basic ordering agreement N00019-05-G-0026 with The Boeing Company in St. Louis, Mo for the procurement of over and above support during the Phase 4 mod line on a sole source basis. Boeing will be installing multiple engineering change proposal kits into F/A-18 E/F and EA-18G aircraft during the phase 4 mod line. The Boeing Company is the sole designer, developer, manufacturer ad integrator of the F/A-18 E/F and EA-18G aircraft and is the only source with the knowledge, expertise and on-site personnel base necessary to accomplish this effort.”

AMRAAM from F/A-18F
(click to view larger)

April 1/10: SAR – more planes. The Pentagon releases its April 2010 Selected Acquisitions Report, covering major program cost changes up to December 2009. All Super Hornet family aircraft are included, because the Pentagon plans to buy more of them:

“EA-18G – Program costs increased $2,901.0 million (+33.5%) from $8,649.1 million to $11,550.1 million, due primarily to a quantity increase of 29 aircraft from 85 to 114 aircraft (+$2,342.5 million) and associated schedule and estimating allocations

• (+$7.8 million), and an increase in support costs for 26 expeditionary aircraft associated with the quantity increase (+$547.6 million).

F/A-18 E/F – Program costs increased $1,746.6 million (+3.8%) from $46,344.8 million to $48,091.4 million, due primarily to a quantity increase of 22 aircraft from 493 to 515 aircraft (+$1,872.9 million), and increases in other support costs and initial spares associated with the quantity increase (+$427.9 million). These increases were partially offset by a reduction in the estimate for foreign military sales (-$198.3 million) [DID: which would have helped defray some American costs] and the estimate for actual contract costs and efficiencies (-$208.6 million), and the application of revised escalation indices (-$131.9 million).”

SAR – more planes

March 1/10: MYP? Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn asks for an extension on the deadline to notify Congress of a new multiyear Super Hornet family deal. Lynn reportedly told the congressional defense committees that the Pentagon had recently received “a viable offer” from Boeing for 124 of the fighters, but would need more time to evaluate the contract offer. The Hill.

July 30/09: The US House of Representatives passes its defense budget (H.R. 3326) by a crushing 400-30 vote. The FY 2010 Super hornet buy had been cut to 9 fighters in the Pentagon request, in order to fund the F-35 program. Both the House and the Senate promptly added $560 million and 9 more Super Hornets to their bills, bringing the FY 2010 total to 40 planes: 18 Super Hornets and 22 EA-18G electronic warfare aircraft.

This is in line with past years, and avoids a production line slowdown at Boeing. It also addresses expressed concerns about a naval fighter numbers gap created by the retirement of older fighters, and the uncertainty of the F-35C’s on-time arrival. The House also appears to be gearing up for another 5-year procurement contract for 150 more Super Hornet family planes, instead of reverting to year-by-year buys.

Reconciliation eventually took place with the Senate’s counterpart S. 1390 bill, and the final total of 40 Super Hornet family planes remained.

June 23/09: MYP? Government Executive magazine reports that Boeing has submitted an unsolicited offer to the US Navy for an MYP-III program that would build 149 Super Hornet family aircraft over the next 5 years for $50 million each base cost, instead of the planned Navy buys of 89 aircraft over the next 3 years. As always, key government-furnished equipment like engines, radars, the EA-18G’s electronic warfare equipment, etc. would fall under their own separate contracts, so actual cost per operational plane will be higher.

Present studies indicate that age and retirement, coupled with the F-35C program’s long lead time, will leave the Navy below its planned number of operational carrier-based fighters, rising to a maximum of 69 planes in 2017.

Feb 3/10: MYP? Ranking House Armed Services Seapower subcommittee Rep. Todd Akin [R-MO] publicly supports building more Super Hornet family aircraft, and advocates a multi-year buy approach for the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G, similar to the 2005-2009 contract. In Rep. Arkin’s release, he says that:

“I remain concerned that the Department of Defense is not taking the Navy’s strike fighter shortfall seriously… The Super Hornet is an active production line, and is dramatically cheaper than the JSF, which may not deliver anywhere close to on time… In this case, a multi-year procurement could save hundreds of millions of dollars, but the DoD seems to have their head in the sand. Secretary Gates mentioned that he thinks we need to have a 10% savings before we use a multi-year agreement. However, the Congress already gave DoD the authority to use a multiyear in this situation, even if the savings is less than 10%… A multiyear procurement could save nearly half a billion dollars over the next few years. To not pursue that savings is just irresponsible.”

FY 2009 and earlier

FY 2010 order raised; F-35 issues; FIRST support contract.

F/A-18E, armed
(click to view full)

June 2/09: Budget battles. US Navy CNO Adm. Roughead defends the FY 2010 budget decision to request only 9 F/A-18E/F Super Hornets instead of 18 ($1.19 billion, incl. $127.7 million RDT&E), alongside the planned 22 EA-18G Growlers ($1.69 billion, incl. 55.4 million RDT&E). The decision was made in order to speed up F-35 fielding and procurement, though the F-35C carrier model isn’t scheduled for fielding until 2015. The US Marines’ F-35B STOVL(Short Takeoff, Vertical Landing) variant still hopes to begin fielding in 2012. Current FY 2010 plans call for 30 F-35s: 10 USAF F-35As, 16 USMC F-35Bs, and 4 USN F-35C test aircraft.

Gannett’s Navy Times quotes Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway re: Future plans:

“The initial vertical flight has slid right six or seven months… going to happen this fall… But the most recent information we have out of Fort Worth is that the engine is developing even more power than we thought it might for vertical lift, so we’re encouraged… We reach initial operating capability in 2012… We are the first of the services… We’re anxious to put it aboard ship and see how it performs there. Then we will make a joint Navy-Marine Corps decision in terms of what the resulting numbers of our buy needs to look like. But we’re fairly encouraged by what we see.”

They weren’t successful. Both the House and Senate defense bills went on to add $560 million for 9 more F/A-18 E/F aircraft, raising the FY 2010 buy to 18. There is also talk of a follow-on MYP-III contract.

FIRST: the goal
(click to view full)

Sept 26/07: FIRST prize. The F/A-18 Integrated Readiness Support Teaming (FIRST) program receives the system-level award for excellence in the field of performance-based logistics from the U.S. Department of Defense and the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA). Under FIRST, the US Navy pays for a set level of aircraft readiness, not individual spare parts or services. Industry has the incentive to make parts and systems more reliable, while the customer enjoys increased readiness at a lower cost of ownership.

FIRST has improved the Super Hornet’s mission capable rate from a problematic 57% in 2000 to 73% thus far in 2007, while providing significant cost savings. In Boeing’s press release, FIRST program manager Larry Sellman is quoted as saying something the British already knew, which is that:

“We continue to prove that streamlining the support for a major weapons system through a public/private partnership is the best solution for everyone.”

Jan 3/06: Boeing announces a long-term, $995 million performance-based logistics contract from the US Navy for the F/A-18E/F Integrated Readiness Support Teaming (FIRST) program. FIRST consolidates a number of existing Naval Inventory Control Point (NAVICP) contracts into one, and adds new services including an automated maintenance environment with an integrated software program that improves maintenance data, fault diagnosis and decisions; as well as integrated electronic technical manuals for F/A-18A-D Hornet models.

Under FIRST, Boeing will manage and forecast spares and repairs, oversee spares inventories, make supportability improvements within the budget in order to meet its availability targets, and handle obsolescence management and technology insertion. Like the British “contracting for availability” agreements, the objective is to improve fleet support and aircraft readiness while reducing costs. Boeing will be rewarded for having the aircraft meet in-service readiness targets, rather than getting paid for spare parts or hours worked.

Boeing currently provides field service representatives on site at aircraft bases in California and Virginia under the Hornet support network concept, and this infrastructure will be leveraged for the new contract. Several original equipment manufacturer suppliers, along with Navy depots in California, North Carolina and Florida, will also be used to perform FIRST repairs.

FIRST began in 2001 with annual contracts, and the program is projected to provide approximately $1.0 billion in cost avoidances and savings over the 30-plus-year life cycle of the Super Hornet. FIRST was nominated for the Department of Defense awards program for excellence in performance based logistics by the Navy’s Program Executive Office for Tactical Aircraft in Patuxent River Naval Air Station, MD, USA.

FIRST support contract

GFE: Ancillary Contracts & Developments

As noted above, multi-year procurement buys don’t extend to all Super Hornet and Growler components, many of which are provided as “Government Furnished Equipment.” Nor do they cover many fixes and changes to the fighter family’s design. This section includes some of those ancillary items, from FY 2010 onward. It isn’t 100% comprehensive, but may help readers understand the scope involved.

Additional GFE coverage can be found in DID’s separate Spotlight article covering the AN/APG-79 AESA radar, and an effort to develop long-range Infrared Scan & Track capabilities as a bolt-on addition; those contracts are not included here. Nor are specific items unique to the EA-18G, like jamming equipment, which is covered in the Growler’s own FOCUS article.

FY 2014

 

AIM-120C7 onto LAU-116
(click to view full)

Sept 19/14: Support. Boeing in St. Louis, MO receives a $9.4 million delivery order for engineering and logistics support services to improve F/A-18A-F and E/A-18G readiness, expand Interactive Electronic Technical Manual/Structural Repair Manual work packages, and perform maintenance planning. All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2014 US Navy O&M funds.

Work will be performed in St. Louis, Missouri, and is expected to be complete in September 2015 (N00019-11-G-0001, 0211).

Sept 19/14: Support. Boeing in Jacksonville, FL receives an $8.8 million firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee to a previously awarded indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract modification, exercising an option for depot-level service life extension and remanufacturing activities, including associated maintenance support and sustainment in support of the F/A-18E/F aircraft. Funds will be committed as needed.

Work will be performed in Jacksonville, FL (92%), and St. Louis, MO (8%), and is expected to be complete in September 2015 (N00019-14-D-0001).

Aug 28/14: HARM computers. Raytheon in Tucson, AZ receives $24.6 million for a firm-fixed-price delivery order to provide 158 High Speed Anti-Radiation Command Launch Computers for the U.S. Navy (121) and the government of Australia (37) for F/A-18 E/F and EA-18G aircraft. These CLCs work with AGM-88 HARM and AARGM missiles, which are designed to destroy enemy air defense radars. All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2012 – 2013 US Navy ($20.5M / 83.5%) and Australian ($4.1M / 16.5%) budgets.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ, and is expected to be complete in February 2018. US NAVAIR in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-10-G-0006, DO 0060).

Aug 18/14: AMC. General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems in Minneapolis, MN receives a $16.3 million firm-fixed-price contract for the full-rate Lot 38 production of 60 Advanced Mission Computer Type 3s for E/A-18Gs ordered by the US Navy (48 AMCs / $9.8 million / 60%) and the government of Australia (12 AMCs / $6.5 million / 40%). All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2014 US Navy aircraft budgets and Australian FMS funds.

Work will be performed in Bloomington, MN and is expected to be complete in August 2016. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to 10 USC 2304 (c)(1) by US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD (N00019-14-C-0068).

Aug 11/14: Engines. General Electric Co. in Lynn, MA receives a $311.5 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for 75 F414-GE-400 engines and associated devices: 48 production installs for the US Navy ($194.9 million / 63% / all production installs), and 27 for Australia ($116.6 million / 37% / 24 EA-18G production installs and 3 spares), under Production Lot 14. In addition, this modification provides for spare after burner modules, fan modules, high pressure combustor modules, combustor modules, and high and low pressure turbine modules for the US Navy and the government of Australia. All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2013-14 US Navy aircraft budgets, and Australian funds.

Work will be performed in Lynn, MA (59%); Hooksett, NH (18%); Rutland, VT (12%); and Madisonville, KY (11%), and is expected to be complete in September 2016. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contracts (N00019-11-C-0045).

July 23/14: Training. L-3 Communications Corp. in Arlington, TX, receives a $14.1 million firm-fixed-price delivery order modification to improve F/A-18E/F and EA-18G Tactical Operational Flight Trainers (TOFT). The update reduces host/instructor operator station hardware, centralizes software storage in a SAN and provides expandable software storage for future TOFT enhancements, allows for multiple software configurations, and updates all analog Mission Management System (MMS) video output to digital. All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2014 US Navy aircraft budgets.

Work will be performed in Lemoore, CA (20%); Miramar, CA (20%); Whidbey, WA (15%); Oceana, VA (15%); China Lake, CA (10%); Arlington, TX (10%); and Atsugi, Japan (10%), and is expected to be complete in June 2016. The Us Navy’s Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division in Orlando, FL manages the contract (N61340-12-G-0001).

July 23/14: Support. Boeing in Jacksonville, FL receives a $7.7 million firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract modification for additional FY 2014 F/A-18A-F depot-level service life extension and remanufacturing activities, including associated maintenance support and sustainment. Funds will be committed as individual delivery orders are issued.

Work will be performed in St. Louis, Missouri (61%), and Jacksonville, FL (39%), and is expected to be complete in July 2015. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity (N00019-14-D-0001).

July 14/14: Boeing in St. Louis, MO receives a $6.9 million firm-fixed-price contract modification to a previously awarded for aircraft armament equipment items: SUU-789A/A centerline pylons for the US Navy (35) and Royal Australian Government (15); and ALE-50 well covers for the U.S. Navy (11). All funds are committed immediately.

Work will be performed in El Segundo, CA (95%); Irvine, CA (4%); and St. Louis, MO (1%), and is expected to be complete in May 2017. This contract combines purchase for the U.S. Navy ($4.9 million / 70%) and the government of Australia ($2 million / 30%) under the Foreign Military Sales Program. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity (N00019-14-C-0032).

May 14/14: Ejection seats. Martin Baker Aircraft Co., Ltd. in Higher Denham nar Uxbridge, Middlesex, England receives a $26.4 million firm-fixed-price contract modification to exercise an option for the procurement of 89 Navy aircrew common ejection seats for F/A-18 series and EA-18G aircraft for the U.S. Navy (65) and the government of Australia (24). In addition, this option provides for associated hardware, equipment, technical data, and production support services for the US Navy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the governments of Australia, Switzerland, Malaysia, and Canada. All funds are committed immediately, using a variety of FY 2013 and 2014 budgets.

Work will be performed in Johnstown, PA (60%) and Higher Denham, England (40%), and is expected to be complete in May 2016. This contract combines purchase for the US Navy and Marine Corps ($18.8 million, 71%), NASA ($4,985; 0.2%) and the governments of Australia ($6.9 million, 26%); Canada ($538,347; 2%); Switzerland ($154,525; 0.6%); and Malaysia ($39,878; 0.2%) under the Foreign Military Sales Program. US Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-12-C-0066).

Feb 3/14: A $42.2 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for F/A-18E/F and EA-18G jumper bundles, pylons, and bomb racks.

All funds are committed immediately, using USN FY 2013 aircraft budgets. Work will be performed in Meza, AZ (71%) and St. Louis, MO (29%), and is expected to be complete in May 2018 (N00019-09-C-0019).

Jan 29/14: Raytheon Technical Services Co. LLC in Indianapolis, IN receives a $17.3 million firm-fixed-price delivery order from Australia and the USN for missile launchers. The government of Australia ordered for 28 LAU-115D/A and 30 LAU-116-B/A launchers ($11.4 million / 66%), while the USN ordered 34 LAU-116-B/A missile launchers ($5.8 million / 34%). LAU-115s are used carry air-ti-air missiles like AIM-120 AMRAAM and AIM-9 Sidewinder. LAU-116s are mounted on the undersize of the aircraft, and allow it to carry AIM-120 AMRAAMs there.

All funds are committed immediately, using USN 2013-2014 aircraft budgets and funds from Australia. Work will be performed in Indianapolis, IN, and is expected to be complete in September 2016 (N00019-10-G-0006).

Jan 28/14: Marvin Engineering Co., Inc. in Inglewood, CA receives a $7.4 million firm-fixed-price contract modification, exercising an option for 156 BRU-32 Ejector Bomb Racks in support of the F/A-18 E/F and EA-18G aircraft.

All funds are committed immediately, using USN aircraft budgets. Work will be performed in Inglewood, CA, and is expected to be complete in July 2016 (N00421-13-C-0002).

Nov 6/13: F414. General Electric in Lynn, MA receives an $8 million firm-fixed-price contract modification, for F414-GE-400 engine long-lead materials.

All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2013 budget dollars. Work will be performed in Lynn, MA (59%); Hooksett, NH (18%); Rutland, VT (12%); and Madisonville, KY (11%), and is expected to be complete in October 2015 (N00019-11-C-0045).

Nov 5/13: Boeing in St. Louis, MO receives a $13.7 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for Super Hornet family equipment: 270 station control units, 13 aerial refueling stores (ARS) air probes, 13 ARS fuel probes, 26 ARS suspension lugs, 168 chaff dispenser cover, 26 ALE-50 towed decoy dispensers, 26 ALE-50 decoy protectors, 26 ALE-50 decoy chassis, 26 ALE-67 Radar Warning Receiver mounting bases, 26 mounting retainers, and 12 centerline feed-thru plates.

All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2013 budget dollars. Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO, and is expected to be complete in August 2015 (N00019-09-C-0019).

FY 2013

 

China Lake TOFT
(click to view full)

Sept 23/13: Avionics. A $12.9 million firm-fixed-price delivery order for 114 Super Hornet advanced navigation system retrofit kits. $2.8 million is committed immediately. Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO, and is expected to be complete in May 2017 (N00019-11-G-0001, 0164).

Sept 23/13: ECP – DTS. A $24.6 million for firm-fixed-price delivery order for Distributed Targeting System B kits (modification kits), bulk data cartridge units and mass storage units. It’s part of the F/A-18E/F Full Rate Production I aircraft Distributed Targeting System engineering change proposal. The DTS is discussed in the “Future Hornets” section.

This contract combines purchases for the U.S. Navy ($17.75M/ 72%) and the Government of Australia ($6.83M/ 28%). All funds are committed immediately.

Work will be performed in Melbourne, FL (75%); St. Louis, MO (21%); North Reading, MA (1.6%); and various other locations in the United States (2.4%); and is expected to be completed in August 2015 (N00019-11-G-0001, 0161).

July 18/13: F414. General Electric in Lynn, MA receives an $87 million firm-fixed-price contract modifications, exercising an option for 22 Full Rate Production Lot 17 F414-GE-400 install engines to equip 11 F/A-18E/F aircraft. Other Lot 17 engine buys have included 18 engines (EA-18Gs, Dec 28/12) and 52 engines (Nov 30/12). All funds are committed immediately from Navy FY 2013 procurement budgets. A Sept 26/12 contract set the maximum at 83 engines, and they’ve now ordered 82 engines for 41 planes.

Work will be performed in Lynn, MA (59%); Hooksett, NH (18%); Rutland, VT (12%); and Madisonville, KY (11%), and is expected to be complete in October 2015. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-11-C-0045).

July 17/13: ECP. Boeing in St. Louis, MO, is being receives an $8.1 million firm-fixed-price delivery order for 84 F/A-18E/F retrofit kits (ECP 6282, AYC 1439 A1). All funds are committed immediately.

Engineering Change Proposals are long-term modifications to the aircraft, involving very specific parts of the plane. Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO (80%), and St. Charles, MO (20%), and is expected to be complete in February 2016. T US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-11-G-0001, #0141).

June 13/13: Radar. Raytheon in El Segundo, CA receives a $22.4 million order, covering 53 ECP-6279 retrofit kits for F/A-18 E/F and EA-18G aircraft. ECPs involve aircraft or component modifications, and the announcement doesn’t explain which one, but our coverage elsewhere shows that it involves improvements to the APG-79 AESA radar. All funds are committed.

Work will be performed in Forest, MS (80%), and El Segundo, CA (20%), and is expected to be completed in July 2015. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-10-G-0006; delivery order 0036).

June 13/13: Radar. Boeing St. Louis, MO receives a $9 million firm-fixed-price delivery order for 30 ECP-6038 R2/R3 retrofit kits for the F/A-18 E/F aircraft, including radomes for the AN/APG-79 active electronically scanned array radar. A fighter’s radome nose cone is very specialized. It needs to allow the right radiation wavelengths to pass in and out easily, while remaining durable enough to handle the shocks and stresses of flight.

Work will be performed in Marion, VA (57%) and St. Louis, Mo. (43%), and is expected to be completed in January 2016. Fiscal 2013 Aircraft Procurement Navy contract funds in the amount of $8,996,280 are being obligated on this award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-11-G-0001).

May 29/13: Avionics. Honeywell Aerospace Defense & Space in Albuquerque, NM receives a $9 million firm-fixed-price contract for 121 F/A-18E/F and EA-18G advanced multi-purpose displays. All funds are committed immediately.

Work will be performed in Albuquerque, NM, and is expected to be complete in January 2015. This contract was not competitively procured, pursuant to FAR 6.302-1. The Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-13-C-0048).

May 9/13: Boeing in St. Louis, MO receives a $6.9 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for F/A-18E/F and EA-18G armament equipment, including SUU-78A/A Pylons and well covers. All funds are committed immediately.

Work will be performed in El Segundo, CA (85%); St. Louis, MO (9%); and Irvine, CA (6%), and is expected to be complete in January 2016. US Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, MD, is the contracting activity (N00019-09-C-0019).

May 9/13: F414. General Electric Co. in Lynn, MA receives a $22.2 million firm-fixed-price contract modification, exercising an option for 6 F414-GE-400 engines, pre-installed in 3 EA-18Gs.

Work will be performed in Lynn, MA (59%); Hooksett, NH (18%); Rutland, VT (12%); and Madisonville, KY (11%), and is expected to be complete in March 2015. Contract funds in the amount of $22,237,386 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, MD, is the contracting activity (N00019-11-C-0045).

May 6/13: F414. General Electric Co. in Lynn, MA receives a $45.2 million firm-fixed-price contract modification, exercising an option for 7 F414-GE-400 spare engines, 1 fan module, 13 high pressure compressor modules, 9 high pressure turbine modules, and 8 low pressure turbine modules.

Work will be performed in Lynn, MA (59%); Hooksett, NH (18%); Rutland, VT (12%); and Madisonville, KY (11%), and is expected to be complete in November 2015. Fiscal 2013 Aircraft Procurement Navy funds in the amount of $45,156,940 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, MD, is the contracting activity (N00019-11-C-0045).

May 6/13: Seats. Martin Baker Aircraft Co. Ltd. in Upper Denham, Middlesex, England receives a $25.2 million firm-fixed-price contract modification, exercising an option for 100 Hornet/ Super Hornet family Navy Aircrew Common Ejection Seats (NACES), on behalf of the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps. In addition, this contract provides for NACES hardware, equipment, technical data, and production support services for the US Navy, US Marine Corps, NASA, and the government of Finland. The contract breakdown is: US Navy and Marine Corps ($25M / 99%); NASA ($4,389 / 0.3%, F/A-18 Hornet only); and the government of Finland ($184,379 / 0.7%, F/A-18C/D Hornets only).

Work will be performed in Johnstown, PA (60%), and Upper Denham, Near Uxbridge, Middlesex, England (40%), and is expected to be complete in April 2015. All funds are committed immediately, with $2.9 million expiring at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/13. It’s managed by US Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, MD (N00019-12-C-0066).

April 26/13: Weapons. Raytheon Missile Systems in Tucson, AZ receives a $12.7 million cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order to integrate the new AGM-154C-1 JSOW into the F/A-18E/F aircraft’s H10E Operational Flight Program (core operating system) software. This JSOW variant can hit moving naval targets, turning the stealthy glide bomb into a short range anti-ship missile.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ, and is expected to be complete in February 2015. $7.7 million in FY 2013 Navy Weapons Procurement funds are committed immediately, with the rest available as needed. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, MD, is the contracting activity (N00019-10-G-0006, #2002).

April 19/13: Boeing in St. Louis, MO receives a maximum $14.8 million contract for airframe structural support components. The award is a firm-fixed-price, sole-source, definite quantity type contract with no quantity options for the USAF.

Work will be performed until Aug 31/18. The contract is managed by the US Defense Logistics Agency Aviation in Richmond, VA, (SPM4A1-09-G-0004-865W).

March 22/13: Gun. General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products in Williston, VT receives a $7 million firm-fixed-price contract modification, exercising an option for 19 M61A2 Lightweight 20mm Gatling Gun Systems in support of FY 2013 F/A-18 E/F aircraft. EA-18Gs don’t carry the cannon.

Work will be performed in Williston, VT and is expected to be complete in March 2015. All funds are committed immediately, from the FY 2013 Aircraft Procurement, Navy budget line. The US Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division in Patuxent River, MD (N00421-10-C-0024).

Feb 27/13: AMC. Harris Corp. in Palm Bay, FL receives a $10.8 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for the obsolescence upgrade to the Fibre Channel Network Switch (FCNS) used in the Advanced Mission Computer & Displays (AMC&D) system on board US Navy F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, EA-18G Growler, and E-2D Advanced Hawkeye aircraft.

Work will be performed in Melbourne, FL and is expected to be complete in September 2015. The USN is using funds from its FY 2012 Aircraft Procurement and FY 2013 Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation accounts, and all funds are committed immediately. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to the FAR 6.302-1. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-13-C-0039).

Jan 10/13: AMC. General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems in Minneapolis, MN receives a $19.2 million firm-fixed-price contract modification, exercising an option for 76 forward fit Type 3 Advanced Mission Computers for the F/A-18E/F and E/A-18G aircraft. All contract funds are committed immediately.

Work will be performed in Bloomington, MN (80%) and Albuquerque, NM (20%), and is expected to be complete in December 2014. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-10-C-0014).

Dec 28/12: F414. General Electric Co., Lynn, MA receives a $67.1 million firm-fixed-price contract modification, exercising an option for 18 F414-GE-400 Production Lot 17 install engines, and 24 “devices”. They’ll be used in EA-18Gs.

Work will be performed in Lynn, MA (59%); Hooksett, NH (18%); Rutland, VT (12%); and Madisonville, KY (11%), and is expected to be complete in March 2015. Contract funds in the amount of $67,141,518 will be obligated on this award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-11-C-0045).

Dec 19/12: Avionics. Boeing in St. Louis, MO receives an $8.9 million firm-fixed-price delivery order against a previously issued Basic Ordering Agreement for 285 Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS) retrofit kits in support of F/A-18C and F/A-18F aircraft.

Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO (56%); Meza, AZ (37%); and El Paso, TX (7%), and is expected to be complete in June 2015. All contract funds are committed immediately, of which $1.35 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/13. US NAVAIR in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract.

Dec 19/12: F414 ECIP. General Electric Aviation in Lynn, MA receives a $17.5 million cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order for engineering and engine system improvement services, as part of the F414 and F404 Engine Component Improvement Programs. $10.8 million are committed immediately, of which $6 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 13/13 (N00019-11-G-0001).

This contract combines purchases for the U.S. Navy ($13.3M / 75.6%) and the Governments of Sweden ($1.3M / 7.4%); Australia ($832,277 / 4.8%); Canada ($516,877 / 3.0%); Spain ($514,156 / 2.9%); Finland ($380,856 / 2.2%); Korea ($225,793 / 1.3%); Kuwait ($233,955 / 1.3%); Switzerland ($204,030 / 1.2%), and Malaysia ($48,967 / 0.3%), under the Foreign Military Sales Program. Work will be performed in Lynn, MA, and is expected to be complete in December 2013. US NAVAIR in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-09-G-0009).

Dec 18/12: Raytheon Technical Services Co. LLC in Indianapolis, IN receives a $17.3 million firm-fixed-price delivery order for 102 LAU-115B/A missile launchers to equip US Navy F/A-18E/F and EA-18G aircraft (86 / $15.1M), and Australian F/A-18Fs (16 / $2.2M). These launchers are used with various adapters for air-to-air missiles: short range AIM-9 Sidewinder/ AIM-132 ASRAAM, or medium range AIM-7 Sparrow/ AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles.

Work will be performed in Indianapolis, IN in and is expected to be complete in October 2015. All contract funds are committed (N00019-10-G-0006).

Nov 30/12: F414. General Electric in Lynn, MA receives a $197.5 million modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract, exercising an option for the procurement of 52 Production Lot 17 F414-GE-400 install engines and devices, used in F/A-18E/F family fighters. That many installed engines would equip 26 planes.

Work will be performed in Lynn, MA (59%); Hooksett, NH (18%); Rutland, VT (12%); and Madisonville, KY (11%), and is expected to be complete in March 2015. All contract funds are committed with this award, which is managed by US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD (N00019-11-C-0045).

Nov 15/12: Marvin Engineering Co. Inc. in Inglewood, CA receives a $17.9 million firm-fixed-price contract for 420 BRU-32 B/A Ejector Racks. These racks can be positioned on the Super Hornet family’s centerline or wing hardpoints, and are used as the base for many stores fittings. BRU-32s have 14- and 30-inch suspension hooks, and can hold single stores or BRU-33/A vertical ejector racks (VER). The 14-inch hooks add compatibility with LAU-115/A, LAU-117/A, and LAU-118/A missile launchers. Operation is via gas pressure, with a safety interlock and sway bracing. Sensing switches are incorporated to provide status information to the cockpit.

Work will be performed in Inglewood, CA, and is expected to be complete in December 2015. All contract funds are now committed. This contract was competitively procured via an electronic request for proposals, with 2 offers received by the US Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division in Patuxent River, MD (N00421-13-C-0002).

Nov 14/12: Training. Boeing discusses an ongoing project to allow flying Super Hornets and F-15E Strike Eagle fighters to interact with virtual opponents flown in simulators, as well as “constructive” threats created wholly by a computer. This will reduce the number of opposing “red” aircraft that have to fly real missions alongside the F/A-18E/Fs or F-15Es.

Boeing began developing this modeling and simulation technology on its own in 2007, and a series of demonstrations with an F-15E through November 2009 verified key components. A Super Hornet recently completed its 1st flight tests with these new technologies, and the most recent flight tests, involved 2 F/A-18Es and 2 F-15Es simulating air combat against 2 live F-16s and 12 virtual aircraft, as well as multiple ground threats. A constructive E-3C Block 40/45 AWACS surrogate provided command and control.

Under the current 3-year, $6.3 million contract with the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory, the pilot project will culminate with a capstone demonstration at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada in late 2013. Boeing.

Nov 13/12: IFF. The US Naval Air Traffic Management Systems (PMA-213) program office plans to begin Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) Mode 5 testing aboard an F/A-18E/F Super Hornet this winter, as part of its effort to field the civil-military signal on nearly every surface, subsurface and airborne platform in the fleet.

Compared to NATO’s Mode 4, it adds better encryption, spread spectrum modulation, time of day authentication, and a unique aircraft identifier. IFF Mode 5 level 2 adds aircraft GPS position information and other attributes, which can help IFF systems when aircraft are grouped closely together. Once fielded, Mode 5 IFF is expected to achieve Joint Initial Operational Capability in FY 2014. US NAVAIR.

Nov 7/12: Training. L-3 Link Simulation & Training (L-3 Link) announces a contract from the US Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division to integrate SimuSphere HD-9 high-definition displays on 13 F/A-18E/F Tactical Operational Flight Trainers (TOFTs) at NAS Lemoore, CA; NAS Oceana, VA; and Naval Air Facility Atsugi, Japan. The Atsugi TOFTs will be new, and the others will be upgrades. This will be followed by upgrades to 4 existing EA-18G TOFTs at NAS Whidbey Island, WA.

This award follows L-3 Link’s successful fielding of SimuSphere HD-9 systems on 4 existing F/A-18C TOFTs at Naval Air Station (NAS) Oceana, VA in April 2012. The changes will help the TOFTs take full advantage of L-3’s HD World simulation product line, which combines high-definition databases, image generation systems, physics-based processing and visual system display technologies. The upgraded TOFTs will support a full range of tactical training capabilities, including the ability to use their actual flight night vision goggles, and experience real-world performance over a 360-degree field-of-regard.

FY 2012

F414-GE-400 engine
(click to see in sections)

Sept 26/12: F414. General Electric Co. in Lynn, MA receives a $327.5 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for 80 Production Lot 16 F414-GE-400 engines, 2 F414-GE-400 spare engines, 1 high pressure turbine module, and long-lead materials for the FY 2013/ Lot 17 order of 83 F414-GE-400 engines.

Work will be performed in Lynn, MA (59%); Hooksett, NH (18%); Rutland, VT (12%); and Madisonville, KY (11%), and is expected to be complete in June 2014. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-11-C-0045).

Sept 26/12: TOFTs. L-3 Link Simulation & Training Division in Arlington, TX receives a $46 million firm-fixed-price delivery order covering high definition visual systems for 23 F/A-18 and EA-18G Tactical Operational Flight Trainers (TOFTs), and installation of 2 government-owned F/A-18E/F TOFTs at the Naval Air Facility Atsugi, in Japan. Looks like the USN’s stock of government-owned TOFTs just hit 3 (q.v. March 1/12 entry).

Work will be performed in Arlington, TX (92%), and Atsugi, Japan (8%), and is expected to be complete in May 2015. The US Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division in Orlando, FL manages this contract (N61340-12-G-0001).

Sept 6/12: AMC-4. Boeing successfully flight tests General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems’ new Type 4 Advanced Mission Computer during a 90-minute flight at Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, CA. Additional testing is planned, and Boeing is set to deliver Super Hornets and Growlers with the new computer in 2014.

The AMC increases Super Hornet family computing power and accelerates image and mission processing functions, in order to support new functions like the Distributed Targeting System, Infrared Search and Track pod, and a new high-definition touch-screen display.Boeing.

Sept 6/12: Boeing in St. Louis, MO receives a $21.2 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for F/A-18E/F and EA-18G aircraft armament equipment. It includes station control units, ALE-50 towed decoy protectors, dispensers and chassis, air probes, fuel probes, suspension lugs, mounting bases, mounting retainers and centerline feed thru plates.

Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO and is expected to be complete in October 2014. The US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-09-C-0019).

Aug 29/12: Memory. A $10.6 million firm-fixed-price delivery order for engineering services required to retrofit a new Digital Memory Device in Production Lot 26-29 F/A-18E/F aircraft.

Work will be performed in Melbourne, FL (78%); St. Louis, MO (19%); and Oklahoma, City, OK (3%), and is expected to be complete in December 2014. $1.2 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-11-G-0001).

July 12/12: F414. General Electric in Lynn, MA receives a $13.2 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for F414-GE-400 engine support.

Work will be performed in Lynn, MA (90%) and Evendale, OH (10%), and is expected to be complete in December 2012. $274,986 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/12. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-11-C-0045).

May 23-30/2012: SATCOM. Boeing and the US Navy’s VX-31 Squadron have successfully completed an in-flight satellite communications (SATCOM) system demonstration using an EA-18G. If the system is added to fleet F/A-18E/F Super Hornets as well, it would allow their aircrews to conduct 2-way, secure voice and data communications that reach around the globe.

The test took place at the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division’s Advanced Weapons Lab at China Lake, CA, less than 90 days after the initial request. The secure voice & data transmissions were received by ground personnel at China Lake, and across the country at NAVAIR in Patuxent River, MD.

Boeing says they have delivered more than 480 F/A-18E/Fs to the U.S. Navy, adding that the fighters have logged more than 166,000 combat flight hours supporting operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Boeing.

May 29/12: ECM. Raytheon in Goleta, CA receives a $9.4 million firm-fixed-price delivery order for the digital conversion and testing of 56 AN/ALR-67v3 radar warning receivers.

Work will be performed in Forest, MS (48%), San Diego, CA (38%), and Goleta, CA (14%). Work is expected to be complete in September 2014, and US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract.

May 7/12: Boeing in St. Louis, MO receives a $16.3 million firm-fixed-price, fixed-price-incentive-fee contract modification for F/A-18 E/F and EA-18G aircraft armament, including jumper bundles, pylon attach fittings, sensor well covers, adaptors, and pylons.

Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO, and is expected to be completed in May 2015. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-09-C-0019).

May 1/12: Seats. Martin Baker Aircraft Co. Ltd. in Higher Denham near Uxbridge, Middlesex, England receives a $22 million firm-fixed-price contract for 88 Navy aircrew common ejection seats and associated hardware, equipment, technical data, and production support services for the US Navy ($21.9M / 99.69% / 12 F/A-18A+, 22 F/A-18E; 12 F/A-18F; and 24 E/A-18G) and the government of Kuwait ($69,121 / 0.31% / 18 F/A-18C).

Work will be performed in Johnstown, PA (60%), and Upper Denham, Near Uxbridge, Middlesex, England (40%), and is expected to be complete in March 2014. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2304c1. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-12-C-0066).

April 4/12: F414 ECIP. General Electric Aviation in Lynn, MA receives an $8.9 million cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order against a previously issued basic ordering agreement for the F414 Engine Component Improvement Program, to include engineering and engine system improvement support. Work will be performed in Lynn, MA, and is expected to be complete in December 2012.

This contract combines purchases for the US Navy ($8.3M / 93%) and the government of Australia ($578,616 / 7%). US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-09-G-0009).

March 6/12: Boeing in St. Louis, MO receives an $8 million firm-fixed-price, fixed-price-incentive-fee contract modification for 57 SUU-78 A/A pylons, and 40 ALE-50 towed decoy well covers.

Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO, and is expected to be complete in December 2014. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-09-C-0019).

March 5/12: Gun. General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products in Williston, VT receives awarded a $7.8 million firm-fixed-price contract modification to exercise an option for 21 M61A2 20mm Lightweight Gatling Gun Systems in support of FY 2012 F/A-18 E/F aircraft.

Work will be performed in Williston, VT, and is expected to be complete in February 2014. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00421-10-C-0024).

March 1/12: TOFT. The US Navy has installed its only government owned and operated Super Hornet Tactical Operational Flight Trainer (TOFT) at its China Lake, CA facility, in order to save millions of dollars by avoiding shuttle flights to NAS Lemoore, CA.

The TOFT takes up 1,800 square feet, and requires 30 tons of extra air conditioners, but it offers local VX-9 and VX-31 pilots an alternative for qualification training and mission rehearsal. It also allows Navy PMA-205 to conduct software upgrade tests locally, shortening turnaround times. China Lake’s TOFT is identical to those located at NAS Lemoore and NAS Oceana, except that the 9-panel Simusphere visual-display dome has been replaced by a 5 foot flat panel screen. If you try this at home, we want to see the pictures! Boeing.

Feb 29/12: ECM. Raytheon Co., Space and Airborne Systems, Goleta, CA receives a $77.3 million firm-fixed-price contract modification, exercising an option for Full Rate Production Lot 14: 89 AN/ALR-67v3 radar warning receivers, and 9 countermeasure signal processor weapons replacement assemblies.

The AN/ALR-67v3 is the standard RWR system for Super Hornet family fighters, and also equips some F/A-18 Hornets – Canada and Switzerland both operate earlier-generation F/A-18 Hornets, and Australia operates both Hornets and Super Hornets. This Radar Warning Receiver is more like mission central for defensive systems. It doesn’t just alert the pilot(s) that enemy radars are targeting their fighter; it provides accurate identification, lethality, and azimuth displays of both hostile and friendly emitters. In its spare time, it controls the electronic warfare data bus, and interfaces with electronic warfare systems, the onboard radar, the airborne mission computer, and the F/A-18 weapon systems. It’s the first deployed radar warning receiver to combine a fully channelized digital receiver architecture with the power of dual processors.

Work will be performed in Forest, MS (34%); Lansdale, PA (18%); Goleta, CA (17%); Chatsworth, CA (11%); San Diego, CA (10%); Sydney, Australia (4%); Milwaukie, OR (3%); and McKinney, TX (3%). Work is expected to be complete in December 2014. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-09-C-0052).

Feb 17/12: Boeing receives a $22 million cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order for F/A-18 E/F and EA-18G follow-on test and evaluation supplies and services (N00019-11-G-0001).

Work will be performed at the Naval Air Station, Patuxent River, Md. (77%); St. Louis, MO (21%); El Segundo, CA (1%); and Bethpage, NY (1%), and is expected to be completed in February 2013. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-11-G-0001).

Feb 16/12: Displays. Honeywell International Defense & Space Electronic Systems in Albuquerque, NM receives an $8.1 million firm-fixed-price contract modification, exercising an option for 124 full rate production advanced multi-purpose displays (70 5″x5″ forward displays; 36 5″x5″ aft displays; and 18 8″x10″ displays) for Lot 35 F/A-18F and EA-18G aircraft.

Work will be performed in Albuquerque, N.M., and is expected to be completed in December 2013. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md. manages the contract (N00019-10-C-0061).

Feb 10/12: Raytheon in Goleta, CA receives an $11.6 million cost-plus-fixed-fee, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract for 56,488 hours of sensor system software and hardware support in order to update, improve, and enhance F/A-18 Hornet & Super Hornet family aircraft, including the EA-18G.

Work will be performed in Goleta, CA (59%), and El Segundo, CA (41%), and is expected to be complete in February 2015. This contract combines purchases for the U.S. Navy ($7.4M/ 64%); and, under the Foreign Military Sales Program, the governments of Malaysia ($1.3M/ 12%), Finland ($961,391/ 8%), Switzerland ($877,792/ 8%), Australia ($501,595/ 4%), and Kuwait ($501,595/ 4%). This contract was not competitively procured, pursuant to FAR 6.302-1, by the US Naval Air Warfare Center, Weapons Division in China Lake, CA (N68936-12-D-0001).

Feb 2/12: F414. General Electric Aviation in Lynn, MA receives a $7.5 million performance-based logistics requirements contract modification to supply repair & replacement consumables for 879 US Navy F414 engines, which equip its F/A-18 Super Hornet family planes.

Work will be performed at Lynn, MA (90%), and Jacksonville, FL (10%), and will run until Dec 31/12. This was a sole source requirement by NAVSUP Weapon Systems Support in Philadelphia, PA (N00383-11-D-002M).

Jan 27/12: Avionics. General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems in Bloomington, MN received awarded a $20.6 million firm-fixed-price contract modification, exercising an option for the full-rate production of 80 Type 3 Advanced Mission Computers (AMC) for the US Navy’s F/A-18E/F and E/A-18G aircraft ($19.9M/ 96%), and 3 more Type-3 AMC spares for Australia ($0.7M/ 4%).

Work will be performed in Bloomington, MN (80%), and Albuquerque, NM (20%), and is expected to be complete in December 2012. US NAVAIR in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-10-C-0014).

Jan 12/12: A 5-year, $80.6 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for maintenance, manufacturing of parts, instrumentation and engineering support for all models of the F/A-18 & EA-18G aircraft including future variants for both domestic and Foreign Military Sales, to pay for ground and flight test programs at the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division in Patuxent River, MD. Funds will be obligated on individual task orders as they are issued, between now and January 2017.

Work will be performed in Patuxent River, MD (97%), and St. Louis, MO (3%). This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to FAR 6.302-1 by the US Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division in Patuxent River, MD (N00421-12-D-0003).

Dec 8/11: AMC-4. Boeing in St. Louis, MO receives a $6.7 million firm-fixed-price, fixed-price-incentive-fee contract modification for the Delta phase of the Advanced Mission Computer (AMC) Type 4 system, which finalizes development and prepares AMC Type 4 for production. See Sept 15/11 entry for background.

Work will be performed in Bloomington, MN (71%); St. Louis, MO (24%); and Linthicum, MD (5%), and is expected to be complete in December 2013. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-09-C-0019).

Nov 18/11: Launchers. Raytheon Technical Services Co., LLC in Indianapolis, IN receives a $55.9 million delivery order modification, exercising an option for 237 LAU-116B/A and 213 LAU-115D/A launchers, for use on Super Hornet family aircraft. LAU-115 launchers sit under the wings, and mount 2 AIM-9 or AIM-120 air-to-air missiles each, if LAU-7 or LAU-127 launchers are bolted to its sides. They could also carry one past-generation AIM-7P Sparrow missile directly, but don’t. LAU-116 launchers are the ones that sit flush with the plane’s side body, and hold AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles.

Work will be performed in Indianapolis, IN, and is expected to be complete in August 2015. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-10-G-0006).

Nov 18/11: Maintenance Tech. Boeing in St. Louis, MO receives an $11.2 million firm-fixed-price delivery order modification for the automated maintenance environment, data-at-rest, and similar automated maintenance environment in support of the F/A-18 A-D, F/A-18 E/F, and EA-18G aircraft. Your car’s mechanic uses this technology, and the people who maintain $60+ million fighter jets need it, too. It’s one of those “small ticket price, big difference” items.

Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO, and is expected to be complete in December 2012. $263,864 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/12. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00383-06-D-001J).

Nov 9/11: Australia. Boeing had been working with Australia’s Production Parts to provide Super Hornet rudder pedal kits, but the firm entered receivership in August 2011. Managing these kinds of minor shifts and contingencies is one of the headaches of running a global supply chain, and foreign suppliers add an extra layer of difficulty, even as their presence helps firms retain international customers.

Over 2 months later, Boeing has signed a contract with Ferra Engineering in Brisbane, Australia. Ferra will produce the rest of Production Parts’ order, as well as 123 additional kits for the global Super Hornet program. The switch has helped by the Australian government’s Global Supply Chain Program, which funded Boeing’s specialist team in its search for an alternative. Boeing works on a number of projects in Australia, and from 2007-2011, 24 Australian companies have won 101 Boeing sub-contracts worth A$ 256 million. Australian DoD.

Oct 3/11: A Boeing video details changes made to the Super Hornet family’s “outer” wing frame design, which converted it from an assembly of many parts from different vendors, into a machined 1-piece frame with far fewer additions. Labor assembly time savings alone were about $16,000 per plane.

Note that despite the name, the outer wing frame sits inside the visible wing. The flip side of this effort is that any cracks or serious damage to that now-larger part, involve replacing a larger and more expensive item, which also needs more storage room. Even there, however, faster replacement time and more certain quality may offer offsetting benefits.

FY 2011

AN/ALR-67 V3
(click to view full)

Sept 29/11: DTS. A $12 million firm-fixed-price delivery order for the low rate initial production of 26 Distributed Targeting Systems and supporting equipment/documentation for the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G aircraft. Work will be performed in Melbourne, FL (85%), and St. Louis, MO (15%), and is expected to be complete in December 2013 (N00019-11-G-0001).

The Distributed Targeting System improves onboard hardware and software processing, in order to produce precise ground targeting solutions. It’s part of the US Navy’s F/A-18E/F Network Centric Warfare Upgrades program, and is slated for operational testing in late 2011, and deployment in operational fighters in 2012.

Sept 27/11: DTS. A $7 million firm-fixed-price delivery order against a previously issued basic ordering agreement for the design, development, and first article production of Operational Test Program sets 824, 825, and 560, in support of the F/A-18E/F Aircraft Distributing Targeting System.

Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO, and is expected to be complete in December 2014. The US Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division in Lakehurst, NJ manages the contract (N68335-10-G-0012).

Sept 15/11: ECM. Boeing in St. Louis, MO receives a $7.7 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for F/A-18 E/F and EA-18G aircraft armament equipment, to include a number of systems. 174 station control units comprise the first set of capabilities.

F/A-18E/F Super Hornets with tanks can act as low-capacity hose-and-drogue aerial tankers, and this order covers 22 aerial refueling store (ARS) suspension lugs; 12 centerline feed-through plates; 11 ARS air probes; and 11 ARS fuel probes.

Self-protection items include 6 ALE-50 dispensers for those towed active missile decoys; 6 ALE-50 chassis towed decoys; and 6 ALE-50 protector towed decoys. They’re also ordering 4 sets of mounting bases and retainers for the plane’s ALR-67 radar warning receivers.

Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO, and is expected to be complete in December 2013. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD (N00019-09-C-0019).

Sept 15/11: AMC-4. Boeing in St. Louis, MO received a $7.3 million firm-fixed-price contract modification to continue development of the new Advanced Mission Computer (AMC) Type 4 System for the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G aircraft. This modification will also begin the necessary customization of the AMC for use in existing Navy F-18s.

Tom Mantia is Boeing’s AMC Type 4 program manager, and a production contract is expected in 2012. Boeing later adds that the new computers will “increase aircraft performance, address obsolescence issues, and improve image- and mission-processing functions.”

Work will be performed in Bloomington, MN (66.5%); St. Louis, MO (25%); and Linthicum, MD (8.5%), and is expected to be complete in October 2012. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages this contract (N00019-09-C-0019).

Sept 13/11: Boeing in St. Louis, MO receives a $46.7 million cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order 0014 for new spare parts to support the USA’s F/A-18E/F aircraft.

Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO, and is expected to be completed in Dec 30/13. This was a non-competitive requirement, and one offer was received in response to the solicitation by NAVSUP Weapon Systems Support in Philadelphia, PA (N00383-06-D-001J, #0014).

Sept 13/11: F414. General Electric Aircraft Engines in Lynn, MA receives a $38.8 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for 3 F414-GE-400 spare engines; 15 combuster modules; 20 high pressure turbine modules; 15 high pressure compressor modules; and 10 low pressure turbine modules. All will support American Super hornet family aircraft.

Work will be performed in Lynn, MA (51.9%); Madisonville, KY (20.9%); Hooksett, NH (12%); Rutland, VT (4.6%); Dayton, OH (2.5%); Jacksonville, FL (1.8%); Muskegon, MI (1.6%); Terre Haute, IN (1.6%); Bromont, PQ, Canada (1.3%); Asheville, NC (1.2%); and Evendale, OH (0.6%), and is expected to be completed in March 2013. US NAVAIR in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-06-C-0088).

Aug 30/11: ECP. A $16.9 million firm-fixed-price, fixed-price -incentive contract modification for non-recurring and recurring engineering in support of Engineering Change Proposal 6213R2, “Trailing Edge Flap Honeycomb Redesign” for the F/A-18 E/F and EA-18G aircraft. Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO, and is expected to be complete in May 2015.

The “honeycomb” is the flap’s internal structure. The April 27/10 entry documents structural issues discovered in long-term fatigue testing, which have led to this redesign. When combined with the $25 million in the June 17/11 entry, this ECP has reached $41.9 million (N00019-09-C-0019).

Aug 1/11: F414. General Electric Aircraft Engines in Lynn, MA is being awarded a $71.5 million firm-fixed-price contract modification, exercising an option for supplemental engine purchases of 18 F414-GE-400 engines and associated device kits. That would equip 9 Super Hornet family planes, which are seeing more orders due to the F-35C Lightning II’s development delays.

Work will be performed in Lynn, MA (44.8%); Madisonville, KY (18.1%); Evandale, OH (14.1%); Hooksett, NH (10.4%); Rutland, VT (3.9%); Dayton, OH (2.2%); Jacksonville, FL (1.5%); Muskegon, MI (1.4%); Terre Haute, IN (1.4%); Bromont, Canada (1.2%); and Asheville, NC (1%). Work is expected to be complete in July 2013 (N00019-06-C-0088).

July 13/11: Boeing in St. Louis, MO receives a $53.7 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for Super Hornet family “armament equipment,” including jumper bundles, pylon attach fittings, sensor well covers, adaptors, pylons, and tooling.

Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO, and is expected to be complete in February 2015. $19.3 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract.

June 30/11: F414. GE Aviation Engines in Lynn, MA receives a 3.5 year, performance based logistics contract to support the F414 engine components used on the F/A-18E/F, and EA-18G aircraft. The contract is worth up to $414.6 million, and GE will be responsible for engine repair, engine replacement, consumables support, and program support as required.

Work will be performed in Jacksonville, FL, and is expected to be complete by December 2014. This contract was not awarded through full and open competition, but only 1 firm (the engine manufacturer) was solicited, and 1 offer was received by the US Naval Inventory Control Point in Philadelphia, PA (N00383-11-D-002M).

May 12/11: F414. General Electric Aircraft Engines Business Group in Lynn, MA receives a $9.2 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for 1 spare F414-GE-400 engine; 8 combustion modules, 7 fan modules, and 1 high pressure turbine module.

Work will be performed in Lynn, MA (51.8%); Madisonville, KY (20.9%); Hooksett, NH (12%); Rutland, VT (4.6%); Dayton, OH (2.5%); Jacksonville, FL (1.8%); Muskegon, MI. (1.6%); Terre Haute, IN (1.6%); Bromont, QB, Canada (1.4%); Asheville, NC. (1.2%); and Evandale, OH (0.6%), and is expected to be complete in December 2012. US NAVAIR in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-06-C-0088).

April 21/11: ECM. Raytheon Space and Airborne Systems in Goleta, CA receives an $84.8 million firm-fixed-price contract modification, exercising an option for 87 Full Rate Production Lot 13 AN/ALR-67v3 radar warning receivers for the U.S. Navy (77/ $72.1M/ 85%) and the government of Switzerland (10/ $9.4M/ 11%). In addition, this option provides for the procurement of ALR-67 weapons replaceable assemblies for the governments of Canada ($2.5M/ 3%) and Australia ($762,842/ 1%).

Work will be performed in Goleta, CA (41%); Lansdale, PA (18%); Forest, MS (12%); Chatsworth, CA (11%); San Diego, CA (10%); Sydney, Australia (4%); Milwaukie, OR (2%); and McKinney, TX (2%). Work is expected to be complete in December 2013. US NAVAIR in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract. See also Raytheon release.

April 8/11: Boeing receives a $7.3 million cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order for supplies and services to support the F/A-18 E/F Structures Service Life Assessment Program. It’s very important to have a baseline for that, and to test for unexpected early fatigue spots within the fleet.

Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO (82.8%); El Segundo, CA (14.6%); Bethlehem, PA (2.5%); and Lynwood, CA (0.1%); and is expected to be complete in December 2013. $101,924 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-11-G-0001).

March 30/11: A $40 million awarded fixed-price-incentive-fee contract modification for one-time engineering services in support of the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G’s next generation advanced mission computer system.

Work was performed in Bloomington, MN (53.7%), Baltimore, MD (33.3%), and St. Louis, MO (13%). This is a retroactive contract, with the Pentagon noting that “Work was completed in December 2010” (N00019-09-C-0019).

March 25/11: Avionics. Boeing receives a $10.6 million firm-fixed-price delivery order for 741 Honeywell model GG1320 ring laser gyros, to be installed in F/A-18E/F and EA-18G aircraft for the U.S. Navy (714) and the government of Australia (27 spares).

Work will be performed in Clearwater, FL (87%), and St. Louis, MO (13%), and is expected to be complete in April 2013. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-11-G-0001).

March 22/11: F414. General Electric Aircraft Engines in Lynn, MA receives a $246.5 million firm-fixed-price contract modification, exercising an option for 68 F414-GE-400 engines and device kits from Production Lot 15, to equip F/A-18E/F aircraft. That would equip 34 planes, without spares.

Work will be performed in Lynn, MA (44.8%); Madisonville, KY (18.1%); Evandale, OH (14.1%); Hooksett, NH (10.4%); Rutland, VT (3.9%); Dayton, OH (2.2%); Jacksonville, FL (1.5%); Muskegon, MI (1.4%); Terre Haute, IN (1.4%); Bromont, Quebec, Canada (1.2%); and Asheville, NC (1%); and is expected to be complete in April 2013. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages this contract (N00019-06-C-0088). See also The Daily of Lynn.

On the same day, GEAE also received a $453.1 million firm-fixed-price, sole-source, requirements-type contract for engine parts, from the US Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. This Defense Logistics Agency contract runs until March 31/12, and is almost certain to include some F414 related parts, but also includes engine types equipping other aircraft and helicopters: F/A-18 A-D Hornets, F-16s Falcons, large aircraft like the C-5 Galaxy and VC-25 Air Force One, and helicopters like the UH/AH-1, AH-64, H-60 family, etc. (SPM400-03-D-9404).

March 7/11: Gun. General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products in Williston, VT received a $7.8 million firm-fixed price contract modification, exercising an option to buy 22 M61A2 lightweight 20mm Gatling gun systems in support of the F/A-18 E/F program. Note that EA-18Gs never mount the nose cannon, as the space is taken by electronics.

Work will be performed in Burlington, VT (50%), and Saco, ME (50%), and is expected to be complete in April 2013. The US Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00421-10-C-0024).

March 4/11: Seats. Martin-Baker Aircraft Co., Ltd. in Middlesex, England receives an $18.3 million firm-fixed price contract modification to exercise an option for 65 Navy Aircrew Common Ejection Seats (NACES). They will equip F/A-18 A+/C+ Hornets and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler aircraft flown by the U.S. Navy ($18.2M/ 99.4%), and the air forces of Australia (F/A-18A+ and F/A-18F; $51,920/ 0.27%) and Kuwait (F/A-18C+; $61,730; 0.33%). This option also buys associated hardware, equipment, technical data, and production support services.

Work will be performed in Johnstown, PA (60%), and Middlesex, England (40%), and is expected to be complete in December 2012. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-07-C-0011).

March 4/11: Avionics. Honeywell International Defense & Space Electronic Systems in Albuquerque, NM receives an $8.3 million modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract (N00019-10-C-0061) to exercise an option for the procurement of 131 Advanced Multi-purpose Displays (68 of their 5″x5″ forward displays; 42 of their 5″x5″ aft displays; and 21 of their 8″x10″ displays) for Lot 35 F/A-18F and EA-18G aircraft.

Work will be performed in Albuquerque, NM, and is expected to be complete in December 2011. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-10-C-0061).

Feb 28/11: Boeing in St. Louis, MO, receives a $29.5 million fixed-price-incentive-fee contract modification for F/A-18E/F and EA-18G aircraft armament equipment, including jumper bundles, pylon attach fittings, sensor well covers, adaptors, and pylons.

Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO, and is expected to be complete in December 2014. $27.2 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-09-C-0019).

Feb 16/11: ECM. ITT Corp. Electronic Warfare Systems in Clifton, NJ receives a $14.9 million firm-fixed-price contract for 6 full rate production Lot 8 AN/ALQ-214v3 onboard jammer systems for installation on the F/A-18E/F aircraft. The AN/ALQ-214 is a major subsystem of the Integrated Defensive Electronic Countermeasures (IDECM) Radio Frequency Countermeasures (RFCM) Program, a self-protection electronic countermeasures suite designed for use against radar guided missiles. It’s integrated with ALE-50 and ALE-55 towed decoy systems.

Work will be performed in Clifton, NJ, and is expected to be complete in November 2013. This contract was not competitively procured by US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD (N00019-11-C-0002). See also ITT on ALQ-214 | BAE on ALQ-214.

Jan 7/11: F414. General Electric Aviation in Lynn, MA receives a 3-year, $576 million performance-based logistics contract for repair, replacement, and program support for F414 engine components used on F/A-18 E/F and EA-18G aircraft. This multi-year procurement arrangement is an availability-based contract, and works through the Navy’s Fleet Readiness Center – Southeast in Jacksonville, FL.

Work will be performed in Jacksonville, FL (62%), and Lynn, MA (38%), and is expected to be complete by December 2013. Funding is provided by Navy Working Capital Funds, and this contract was not competitively awarded by the Naval Inventory Control Point in Philadelphia, PA (N00383-11-D-001M). The Jan 6-7/11 contracts build on the success of a series of previous F414 PBL contracts dating back to 2002. See also GE release.

Jan 6/11: F414. General Electric Aviation in Lynn, MA receives a $58.4M, 6-month extension of its existing performance-based logistics contract for repair, replacement, consumables support, and program support for the F414 engine used on F/A-18 E/F, and EA-18G aircraft.

Work will be performed in Lynn, MA (96%), and Jacksonville, FL (4%), and is expected to be complete by June 2011. Funding is provided by Navy Working Capital Funds, and this contract was not competitively awarded by the Naval Inventory Control Point in Philadelphia, PA (N00383-08-D-002M).

Dec 29/10: ECM. Raytheon in Goleta, CA receives a $7.8 million firm-fixed-price delivery order for the retrofit and testing of 33 digital [electronic] countermeasure receivers, in support of the F/A-18 E/F. ECM receivers capture opposing signals for analysis and subsequent jamming.

Work will be performed in Forest, MS (65%), and Goleta, CA (35%), and is expected to be complete in February 2013. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-10-G-0006).

FY 2010

F/A-18F w. tanks
(click to view full)

Sept 24/10: Tanks. GE Aviation Systems, LLC in Santa Ana, CA received a $21.5 million firm-fixed-price contract for 241 FPU-12/A 480 gallon external fuel tanks for the F/A-18 E/F (136) and the EA-18G (105) aircraft, including related program support. Work will be performed in Santa Ana, CA, and is expected to be complete in February 2012. This contract was not competitively procured by US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD (N00019-10-C-0076).

Sept 24/10: A $28 million firm-fixed-priced delivery order against a previously issued order basic ordering agreement for Super Hornet and EA-18G aircraft armament equipment including pylons, well and chaff dispenser covers, station control units, protector and dispenser magazines, dispenser chassis, probes, lugs, plates, and mounting bases and retainers.

Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO, and is expected to be completed in June 2013. $3.55 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/10. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-05-G-0026).

Sept 23/10: Avionics. Honeywell International Defense and Space Electronic Systems in Albuquerque, NM received a $10.6 million firm-fixed-price contract for 185 advanced multi-purpose displays – 116 of the 5″ x 5″ forward displays; 46 of the 5″ x 5″ aft displays; and 23 of the 8″ x 10″ displays – for F/A-18E/F and EA-18G aircraft.

Work will be performed in Albuquerque, NM, and is expected to be complete in December 2011. This contract was not competitively procured by US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD (N00019-10-C-0061).

Aug 19/10: F414. GE Aviation in Lynn, MA receives a $6.3 million order against a previously issued basic ordering agreement (N00019-09-G-0009) to work on the F414 Component Improvement Program. Work will be performed in Lynn, MA, and is expected to be complete in June 2011.

July 28/10: F414. General Electric Aircraft Engines Business Group in Lynn, MA receives a $28.2 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for the procurement of 6 F414-GE-400 engines; 4 F414-GE-400 engine fan modules; 14 F414-GE-400 engine high pressure combustion modules; and 5 F414-GE-400 combuster modules, for installation in F/A-18E/F and EA-18G aircraft.

Work will be performed in Lynn, MA (49%); Madisonville, KY (21%); Hooksett, NH (12%); Albuquerque, NM (7%); Rutland, VT (5%); Dayton, OH (2%); Wilmington, NC (2%); Evendale, OH (1%); and Bromont, Canada (1%), and is expected to be complete in December 2011 (N00019-06-C-0088)

July 8/10: IFF. Boeing in St. Louis, MO receives a $43.3 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract to integrate IFF(Identification Friend or Foe) Mode 5 capability into the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G’s AN/APX-111 combined interrogator transponder (CIT), including upgrades to 3 Mode 5 CITs, buying 14 Mode CITs for test, and implementation of Mode 5 into automated test equipment.

Identification friend or foe (IFF) systems aren’t foolproof, but they can reduce friendly fire dangers. IFF Mode 3/A is also required for flight in many regions of civilian airspace. BAE’s AN/APX-118 CITs provide both IFF coded query and IFF coded response. The new Mode 5 is a NATO IFF standard. Compared to NATO’s Mode 4, it adds better encryption, spread spectrum modulation, time of day authentication, and a unique aircraft identifier. IFF Mode 5 level 2 adds aircraft GPS position information and other attributes, which can help IFF systems when aircraft are grouped closely together. In this respect, Mode 5 shares some characteristics with the new civilian IFF Mode-S.

Work will be performed in Greenlawn, NY (75%), and St. Louis, MO (25%), and is expected to be complete in September 2014. This contract was not competitively procured (N00019-10-C-0078).

June 17/10: ECP. Boeing announces a $25 million modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract (N00019-04-C-0014) to incorporate engineering change proposal 6213R2SOW, “trailing edge flap honeycomb redesign” into the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G aircraft. The “honeycomb” is the flap’s internal structure. Hints of why that might be underway can be found in the April 27/10 entry.

Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO, and is expected to be complete in October 2013. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/10 (N00019-04-C-0014).

May 27/10: ECP. Boeing in St. Louis, MO received a $6.4 million firm-fixed-price delivery order against a previously issued basic ordering agreement (N00019-05-G-0026) for 144 kits in support of F/A-18E/F engineering change proposal #6282, “Fatigue Test Article 50/Fatigue Test Article 77 Post-Cost Reduction Initiative Inner Wing Retrofit Out of Warranty Kits.”

Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO, and is expected to be complete in January 2015. The Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages this contract.

May 21/10: Gun. General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products in Burlington, VT receives a $9.8 million firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for 30 M61A2 20mm lightweight gatling gun systems for the F/A-18E/F.

Work will be performed in Burlington, VT (50%), and Saco, Maine (50%), and is expected to be complete in September 2012. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year, and this contract was not competitively procured pursuant to FAR 6.302-1 by the US Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division in Patuxent River, MD (N00421-10-C-0024).

May 5/10: F414 Improvements. GE describes 3 of the programs underway to improve its F414 engine, which powers all Super Hornet family fighters.

The US Navy wants the F414 EDE (Enhanced Durability Engine), which uses an advanced high pressure turbine and 6-stage high pressure compressor (HPC) that offers a 2-3x hot-section durability gain, and reduced fuel consumption.

The F414 EPE (Enhanced Performance Engine) is based on the EDE, but it has a new fan to increase airflow, and aims to increase thrust by 20%. It is explicitly “targeted for potential international customers,” but may also have applications in future Super Hornets. F414 EPE longevity and fuel gains will not be the same as the EDE on which it’s based, owing to its design differences.

The 3rd program is a retrofittable F414 noise reduction kit project, with serrated nozzle edges where each “lobe” penetrates into or out of the primary airflow and generates a secondary flow, reducing jet noise by 2-3-decibels. The USN has identified funding for a program to further test and mature the technology to prepare it for incorporation in the USN F414 engine fleet, with work scheduled to continue through 2011. GE Aviation.

April 27/10: ECP. FedBizOpps solicitation #20058-10:

“The Naval Air Systems Command intends to place a Firm Fixed Price order under an existing Basic Ordering Agreement, N00019-05-G-0026 with The Boeing Company of St. Louis, Missouri 63166, for the procurement of 4 sets of Production Tooling and 4 sets of Retrofit Tooling associated with Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) 6213R2C1, “Trailing Edge Flap (TEF) Redesign” for the F/A-18 E/F and E/A-18G aircraft. ECP 6213R2 shall correct the deficiencies found during testing and teardown analysis: Cocure rib 1 shear clip failure, cracks in the inboard hinge area, cracks in the front spar, cracks in the splice rib, numerous fastener failures, cocure skin stability and rib pull off, micro cracking in the cocure rabbet. This ECP should result in an increase of the Safety Flight Hours on the TEF. This synopsis/solicitation is for the Non-recurring portion only. A new pre-award synopsis/solicitation shall be done for the recurring portion of this effort at a later date. Boeing is the sole designer, developer, manufacturer and integrator of the F/A-18 E/F and EA-18 G aircraft in its various configurations and is the only source with the knowledge, expertise and on-site personnel base necessary to accomplish this effort.”

March 11/10: F414. General Electric Aircraft Engines in Lynn, MA received a $326.1 million modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract (N00019-06-C-0088), exercising a US Navy option for 80 F414-GE-400 engines and modules, 2 spare engines, 1 engine fan module; 8 engine high pressure turbine modules; 33 combuster modules; and 80 engine device kits. The contract also includes advance procurement funding to buy long-lead material for future F414-GE-400 engines.

Work will be performed in Lynn, MA (49%); Madisonville, KY (21%); Hooksett, NH (12%); Albuquerque, NM (7%); Rutland, VT (5%); Dayton, OH (2%); Wilmington, NC (2%); Evendale, OH (1%); and Bromont, Quebec, Canada (1%), and is expected to be completed in May 2012. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages this contract.

March 30/10: ECP. Boeing Co. in St. Louis, MO received a $6.4 million firm-fixed-price delivery order against a previously issued Basic Ordering Agreement (N00019-05-G-0026) under Engineering Change Proposal 6240R1, “FT 50 18K Main Landing Gear Sidebrace Fitting Failure – Revision for Retrofit”, covering 144 kits for the F/A-18E/F aircraft.

Work will be performed in El Segundo, CA, and is expected to be complete in October 2014. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD issued the contract.

March 26/10: Avionics. Rockwell Collins, Inc. in Cedar Rapids, IA receives a $5.9 million modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-priced contract (N00019-09-C-0069), exercising an option for 124 ARC-210 RT-1824C radio receiver transmitters for the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G aircraft.

Work will be performed in Cedar Rapids, IA, and is expected to be complete in December 2010. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD.

Feb 16/10: F414 Improvements. General Electric Aircraft Engines in Lynn, MA received a $7.3 million modification to a previously issued order under a basic ordering agreement. This money funds the demonstration of new technologies, with the goal of reducing the specific fuel consumption of the F414-GE-400 engine by 3%. This effort is in support of the “Near Term Energy Efficiency Technology Demonstration and Research Project,” under the USA’s 2009 economic stimulus funding.

Work will be performed in Lynn, MA (89%), and Evendale, OH (11%), and is expected to be completed in December 2010. $7.3 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/10. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages this contract (N00019-09-G-0009).

Dec 4/09: F414. General Electric Aircraft Engines in Lynn, MA receives $28.1 million modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract, for engineering and integrated logistics services in support of the F/A-18E/F fighters’ F414-GE-400 engines.

Work will be performed in Lynn, MA (78%); Evendale, OH (13%); Lemoore, CA (5%); and Jacksonville, FL (4%). Work is expected to be complete in December 2010, but $1 million in contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/10. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD issued the contract (N00019-06-C-0088).

Future Hornets?

This section will cover efforts that could make significant changes to the Super Hornet family as a whole. Unless otherwise noted, these efforts are not part of any multi-year buy contract.

Super Hornet
International tour
click for video

Aug 28/13: Advanced Super Hornet. Boeing and Northrop Grumman announce that initial flight tests of their “Advanced Super Hornet” have validated the Conformal Fuel Tanks, RCS (stealth) shaping, and Weapons Pod. Combat radius with the CFTs and pod, but no external ordnance, rises by 130 nautical miles to around 700 nmi. Meanwhile, radar cross-section vs. a Super Hornet carrying the fuel and weapons externally drops by 50%.

Northrop Grumman designed and built the conformal tanks ahead of schedule, in less than 10 months, using rapid prototyping. The tanks can be used on all Super Hornet variants, and hold up to 3,500 pounds of additional fuel. That means a combat radius boost of up to 130 nautical miles, 30 minutes more station time, or some combination. The EA-18G will find the tanks especially helpful, as they reduce both overall weight and drag compared with the 2-3 external fuel tanks they’d otherwise carry.

Best of all, from a business standpoint, these capabilities can be retrofitted to existing fighters. Orders from the USA or Australia would give the modifications a big boost, and improve Boeing’s standing in a number of international competitions. A similar F-15SE solution may be about to provide more validation by winning a big tender in South Korea, and competitions are afoot in Brazil, Denmark, Malaysia, several Mideastern countries, and possibly Canada. Boeing’s timing is good. Sources: Boeing feature, incl. video | Boeing Aug 28/13 release | Northrop Grumman Aug 28/13 release.

Advanced Super Hornet

March 26/13: F/A-18i. Malaysia’s Langkawi International Maritime & Aerospace (LIMA) exhibition includes many of the aircraft vying to replace its MiG-29Ns. The F/A-18 Super Hornet exhibit is especially interesting, as the mock-up includes Boeing’s conformal fuel tanks to extend its range. That’s a feature from the Super Hornet International concept, and Boeing is looking to take the tanks into flight tests by summer time. If all goes well, they hope to interest the US Navy in buying some, while offering the tanks to international customers.

Boeing engineers are quite proud of the tanks. Their shaping is said to add lift, creating almost zero net drag at cruising speeds. If tests bear that out, it means that almost all 3,000 pounds of extra fuel could be used to extend range. With that said, nothing in physics comes without cost. The conformal tanks add weight and some transonic drag, reducing the Super Hornet’s already marginal transonic acceleration during missions that add them. This isn’t a fatal problem if the goal is long-range strike, but it could be an issue for air superiority missions like Combat Air Patrol. The logical solution would be to remove the conformal tanks for those kinds of missions, and accept the extra cruising drag inherent in multiple drop tanks. Flight International | DEW Line.

July 10/12: Cockpit. Boeing and its partner Elbit Systems have been working to add wide screen touch displays for its next-generation fighters. The 11″ x 19″ displays themselves are almost as big as the F-35’s, without sacrificing the Head-Up-Display as the F-35 did. The display technology itself is conventional. Making sure that the display can work smoothly with all of a plane’s on-board system is the challenge. Once that’s done, pilots can tap to bring up displays, use fingers to zoom in, even customize which displays to show, how big they should be, and where they go. Sources: Boeing feature, incl. video.

Feb 1/12: Distributed Targeting System. Boeing announces that it has started production of the Super Hornet family’s new DTS. The Navy granted approval for Low Rate Initial Production, following successful initial operational assessments at Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, CA, and Naval Air Station Patuxent River, MD. DTS is part of the US Navy’s F/A-18E/F Flight Plan, and Network Centric Warfare Upgrades program.

DTS upgrades involve a module with its own advanced processor that brings together data feeds from different sensors, and a pre-loaded, high-resolution imagery database to help with geo-registration. The idea is to be able to fire ground attack weapons with more certainty about the target, and less delay from navigating through multiple screens, handing off coordinates, etc. DTS can be retrofitted during scheduled maintenance periods, or see a more aggressive rollout to front line squadrons if required. That will be up to the US Navy.

Boeing representatives would not directly specify exactly which sensors would be integrated by DTS, beyond the APG-79 AESA radar and ATFLR targeting pod. It’s reasonable to believe that DTS will also include input from the plane’s threat monitoring and electronic warfare sensors, in order to backtrack those dangerous threats and quickly target them; the EA-18G already does some of that. Boeing representatives declined to discuss the exact difference in pilot response times enabled by DTS, aside to say that it was “significant” in tests, and noting that pilots seemed to like using the DTS’ pre-loaded high-detail map in the display next to their primary sensor feed. They wouldn’t say exactly why, but it’s certainly easy to see how that might help in any crowded targeting situation. In an urban battle, for example, where you want to make sure you have the right building in your geo-registered crosshairs.

Nov 4/11: Super Hornet International. Boeing continues to discuss Super Hornet International designs. Not much has changed beyond earlier releases, though they do mention that the dorsal conformal fuel tanks will have a similar center of gravity to the aircraft, and that up to 3 weapon pods would be able to carry up to 4 x AMRAAM/ 2 x 500 pound/ 1 x 2,000 pound bomb each. That’s in line with earlier reports, which touted 2 x AMRAAMs and 2 x 500 pound JDAMs per pod, but the 2,000 pound JDAM option is new. So, too, is confirmation that the new design would have additional radar shaping to lower its cross section further.

With the Super Hornet out of contention in India, Japan appears to be the main target, though the Super Hornet is also being marketed to Brazil, Greece, Denmark, Kuwait, and Qatar, among others. Aviation Week.

F/A-18E/F International
(click to view larger)

July 20/10: Super Hornet International. Boeing’s VP and General Manager of Global Strike Systems, Shelley Lavender, announces a “Super Hornet International Road Map” at Farnborough 2010. Technology modifications would include internal IRST to detect infrared emissions from enemy aircraft (instead of the US Navy’s current retrofit approach using a modified centerline fuel tank), an enclosed weapons pod to lower radar signature that can carry up to 2 AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles and 2 JDAM 500 pound smart bombs, full spherical laser and missile warning systems, a new cockpit based on large touch-screen technology, improved F414 engines (EDE/EPE), and conformal fuel tanks mounted up top to boost range.

These enhancements are described as an “international road map,” reflecting ongoing competitions in Brazil, Denmark, India, and elsewhere. These same modifications also have the potential to become part of a US Navy multi-year buy agreement with Boeing, if the Navy is willing. Presentation [PDF]

May 6/10: Aviation Week’s Bill Sweetman details a number of proposed Super Hornet family improvements, unveiled by Boeing at the Navy League show in Washington DC. They include a big-screen cockpit like the F-35’s, but of one single screen; GE’s F414 engine programs; the Navy’s Next Generation Jammer program focused on the EA-18G; and potential integration of either MBDA’s long-range Meteor air-air missile or its own developmental Joint Dual Role Air Dominance Missile (JDRADM).

April 22/10: Green Hornet. The US Navy’s F/A-18F “Green Hornet” test aircraft becomes the first plane to achieve supersonic flight using a biofuel blend fuel that combines 50% conventional JP-5 with 50% renewable additives. “Green Hornet” is actually a range of efforts ranging from test flights like this, to more energy efficient aircraft refueling policies at the Navy’s master jet bases, to ongoing research and development efforts by NAVAIR and General Electric to reduce Specific Fuel Consumption (SFC) for the F414 jet engine.

The biofuel blend used in this Earth Day flight is derived from the camelina sativa plant, which is U.S.-grown, and not used for food. The objective was a flight showing no difference in performance between the biofuel blend and standard JP-5, with an ultimate goal to develop protocols to certify alternative fuels for naval use.

The Navy Fuels Lab at NAVAIR Patuxent River, MD will develop those certification requirements for a variety of biofuel sources, while the USA’s Defense Energy Support Center awarded the $2.7 million contract to Sustainable Oils of Seattle and Bozeman, Mont. for 40,000 gallons of the camelina-based fuel. NAVAIR pre-release | NAVAIR release | Boeing.

June 9/07: More Stealth? Defense Technology International claims that new computing capabilities may allow a stealthier “Block III” version of the Super Hornet, since it’s now possible to accurately model the radar cross section and aerodynamics of an aircraft when it’s loaded with external weapons etc. Boeing’s president for advanced systems, George Muellner, says. “It’s not the bombs and missiles – it’s the interactions between them and the airframe. Ten years ago, it would have taken you six months of Cray time to model it. Now you can do it on a distributed network of PCs.”

Jane’s has also talked about the idea of a stealthier Super Hornet under development by Boeing’s Phantom Works, noting that the basic Super Hornet already incorporates some edge alignments, swept inlets, treated blocker vanes in front of the engines, and other stealth (“low observable”) features. Stealthier external weapons would definitely offer an important next step, since the F/A-18 E/F lacks the internal weapons bays found modern stealth fighters like the F-35 Lightning II and F-22A Raptor.

Additional Readings

These links are kept current by Defense Industry Daily, as they offer especially useful background and research resources. Readers with corrections, comments, or information to contribute are encouraged to contact DID’s Founding Editor, Joe Katzman. We understand the industry – you will only be publicly recognized if you tell us that it’s OK to do so.

Background: Aircraft

• US Navy Fact File – F/A-18 Hornet strike fighter. Less information than some other sources, but does offer useful comparisons of the Hornet and Super Hornet, since both are included.

• Naval Technology – F/A-18E/F Super Hornet – Maritime Strike Attack Aircraft, USA

• Boeing – F/A-18E/F Super Hornet

• DID FOCUS Article – EA-18G Program: The USA’s Electronic Growler

Background: Program

• US Congressional Research Service (updated April 5/10) – Navy F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler Aircraft: Background and Issues for Congress

• DID Spotlight Article – The USA’s 2005-2009 Multi-Year Hornet Procurement Contract. Covered MYP-II. Article no longer updated as contracts ended, converted to full public access.

Background: Aircraft Ancillaries

• GE Engines – Model F414

• DID Spotlight – New APG-79 AESA Radars for Super Hornets

• DID Spotlight – Elec Tricks: Turning AESA Radars Into Broadband Comlinks

• DID – F-18 Super Hornets to Get IRST. InfraRed Scan & Track, which lets planes target enemy planes with infrared missiles from beyond visual range. IR-guided missiles use passive sensors, so they don’t trigger an enemy plane’s radar warning receiver the way radar-guided missiles do. IRST is an increasingly common feature on modern fighters, but the location of the Super Hornet’s IRST will not be: it will be part of a reduced-capacity centerline fuel tank.

News and Views

• Aviation Week (Nov 4/11) – Boeing Reveals Details Of International F-18 [dead link]. Not much change beyond earlier releases re: Super Hornet International: conformal fuel tanks, up to 3 weapon pods with 4 x AMRAAM/ 2 x 500 pound/ 1 x 2,000 pound bomb each, plus F414 EPE engines, and better radar shaping. Japan is seen as the main target.

• Boeing (Oct 3/11) – Wings of change for F/A-18, EA-18G programs. Wing frame redesign project. Includes an embedded video.

• Flight International (July 12/11) – Testing the new-generation Super Hornet. An F/A-18F Block II simulator, to be precise.

• Aviation Week (April 22/11) – Rhino’s Revenge (Super Hornet upgrades). Dead link. At the time, it was the Super Hornet International Roadmap.

• Boeing (Dec 13/10) – Ramping up for delivery. A video feature that looks at the final stages of integration and delivery for EA-18G Growler and Super Hornet jets.

• Boeing (Sept 28/10) – A fighter jet rain check. “When it comes to the F/A-18 Super Hornet, Boeing engineers in St. Louis use a special process called the Water Check Test to rule out areas where moisture could seep into the aircraft and its electronics suite…”

• Boeing Frontiers (July 2008) – Their ‘Flight Plan’ [PDF]. How to modernize the Super Hornet and keep it relevant. At this point, the focus is on the Block II model and new AESA radar, plus an undetermined IRST implementation and the ROVER datalink.

• Flight International (March 13/07) – Ultra Hornet. Describes the updates to create the Hornet Block 30/Block II+; the performance enhancements are all electronic rather than aerodynamic. Interestingly, among future Flightplan enhancements is a limited electronic attack function for all APG-79 AESA radars.

• DID (Oct 22/05) – Supersonic SIGINT: Will F-35, F-22 Also Play EW Role?

Griffon

In 2009 France was planning to start delivering by 2015 new multirole armored vehicles to replace a variety of aging infantry vehicles starting, within a large modernization program called Scorpion. But the 2010-14 multiyear budget relied on a number of rosy assumptions that were soon disproved by reality, and the Scorpion program was one of the mismatch’s casualties, along with plans to start working on a second aircraft carrier.

Promises were made again in the next 5-year budget plan, while maintenance costs kept increasing to sustain vehicles offering an underwhelming mix of limited protection, autonomy, and mobility. French defense manufacturers also started to sound the alarm as Scorpion became increasingly vital to prevent factory closures. The French DGA defense procurement agency paid heed to their plea and issued a tender limited to national manufacturers. By the end of 2014 the ministry of defense finally initiated the 1st procurement tranche of a program expected to last beyond 2025.

On one hand, the expected turnaround from prototype to delivery in 4 to 6 years is tight and will put pressure on contractors, though they started some early conceptual work in 2010. On the other hand this still amounts to a late and light production schedule for the rest of the decade.

The Scorpion Acquisition

VAB Ultima

This major program intends to rationalize a hodgepodge of aging land vehicles and systems while preserving France’s industrial base. The 2 main vehicles in this program share a common chassis and will offer protection from mines and IEDs and ballistic threats at NATO’s STANAG 4569 Level 4. There’s been no public information on engines yet.

Scorpion launch (in French)

The main components of the planned, full acquisition are:

• 1,722 véhicules blindés multi rôles (VBMR)

Dubbed “Griffon”, VBMRs will replace Véhicules de l’avant blindé (VAB) 4×4 infantry carriers acquired starting in 1976 and upgraded in the late 90s. While the ubiquitous VAB turned into 36 variations, no more than a handful of VBMR variants should be created, between troop transport, medical, command/control, and artillery observation purposes.

The 6×6 designs will weight between 20 and 24 tons, with a remotely-operated 7.62mm or 12.7mm machine gun or a 40mm grenade launcher. Deliveries should reach 780 units by 2025. The infantry transport version will carry 8 troops in addition to the crew of 2.

• 248 engins blindés de reconnaissance et de combat (EBRC)

Dubbed “Jaguar”, EBRCs will replace AMX10RC and Sagaie light tanks, as well as VABs in their HOT antitank configuration, to perform combat and reconnaissance missions. These legacy vehicles lost mobility and autonomy with upgrades, but their design remains vulnerable to current threats, and they have become expensive to maintain given their average age. VABs for instance grew from an initial 13 tons to about 16 tons in the latest Ultima configuration.

Jaguar is a 6×6 wheeled 25-ton design with a crew of 3. For armament it will be fitted with a 40mm cannon jointly developed by Nexter and BAE with a 1,500m reach, a remote-controlled 7.62mm machine gun, and MBDA’s MMP (3,500, reach). Deliveries should reach 110 units by 2025.

• 358 lightweight VBMRs

This 10-ton 4×4 design will replace 4-ton Véhicules Blindés Légers (Light armored vehicles) procured since 1990. Deliveries between 2021 and 2025 should reach 200 vehicles.

• The Système d’information du combat SCORPION (SICS)

This common communications platform will replace 6 separate legacy systems, starting in 2016.

• 200 overhauled Leclerc XL tanks

This looks somewhat like an extraneous graft in this program, so that France doesn’t give up entirely on what’s left of its battle tank fleet.

Contracts and Events

June 12/18: Make it double, please! France is ordering more Light-VBMR reconnaissance vehicles. The new ordering agreement provides for an additional 420 Light-VBMRs, which increases the total amount to 978 units. The vehicle is a key element in the French Army’s $12 billion Scorpion modernization program. This major program intends to rationalize a hodgepodge of aging land vehicles and systems while preserving France’s industrial base. VBMR-L will be produced by a consortium that includes Nexter, Thales, and Renault Trucks Defense. The 15-ton vehicle is designed to carry 10 troops and can be deployed in several configurations. Including a Troop Carrier, Scout (ISR), Communications and Electronic Warfare (EW), Ambulance, Command, and artillery fire direction configuration. The vehicle is armed with a remote controlled 7.62mm machine gun, a minigun at the rear and self-protection with a Galix smoke dispenser and can be airlifted by C-130 and A400M transport aircraft. The first batch of VBMR-L vehicles funded by the current order covers the development, production, and induction of 689 vehicles by 2025.

November 28/17: Tender Award French government-owned weapons manufacturer Nexter has won out against a unit of Swedish-owned Volvo—Renault Trucks Defense (RTD)—in a tender to design and produce a light multirole reconnaissance vehicle, dubbed “Light VBMR,” for the French Army. The winning firm was informed unofficially last week ahead of the eventual official announcement by the Armed Forces Ministry. The vehicle is being procured as part of the French Army’s Scorpion program, where Nexter are already involved as joint prime contractor for the Jaguar combat reconnaissance vehicle and Griffon multirole troop carrier. Despite having earlier highlighted the strategic importance of winning the competition, an RTD exec said that losing the Light VBMR deal “is a pity, but not catastrophic.” The Light VBMR will complement the Griffon VBMR, with a first delivery of the latter next year in a planned total 1,722 units. The two vehicles will replace some 3,000 ageing VAB troop carriers.

August 9/17: France’s Scorpion modernization program is likely to suffer a funding hit as Paris looks to skim $1 billion off this year’s defense budget. The comments were made to Parliament by former chief of staff Army Gen. Pierre de Villiers prior to his resignation on July 19. “If we do not receive the required funding, we will need to postpone this program, with all the consequences that will entail,” he said, adding that Contact—a key software-defined radio used on the program’s vehicles—is expected to be a casualty. Thales supplies the Contact system and is an industrial partner with Nexter and Renault Trucks Defense on the Griffon troop carrier as well as the Jaguar reconnaissance and combat vehicle being developed under the Scorpion program.

July 26/17: France placed its new Griffon multirole troop carrier on public display during this year’s Bastille Day celebrations on July 14. The Griffon featured in the parade was one of two prototype vehicles undergoing certification tests by the French Army and Direction Générale de l’Armement (DGA)—its procurement office—with four more currently on order with manufacturers Nexter, Renault Trucks Defense and Thales. The same group is also developing the Jaguar, a combat vehicle designed to share common equipment with the Griffon. Both vehicles are being developed under France’s Project Scorpion—a $6.8 billion multi-company modernization effort that aims to replace all of France’s frontline fighting vehicles with improved platforms linked with a new and unified communications and battlefield management system (BMS).

April 26/17: The French government has placed orders for two types of newly-designed armored vehicle platforms as part of the SCORPION program. Thales, Nexter, and Renault Trucks Defense will deliver over 300 models of the Griffon, a 6×6 multi-role personnel carrier, and the 6×6 Jaguar, which is armed with a 40mm gun and anti-tank missiles. The exact order by the French procurement agency, DGA, for 319 Griffons and 19 Jaguars, comes just after 27 months of vehicle development. Paris is likely to use the Griffon to replace the VAB Hot personnel carriers currently used by the French Army, while the Jaguar will replace the army’s wheeled light tanks.

June 14/16: The French government has pledged $6.7 billion over 11 years for the Army’s Scorpion modernization program, with more being sought by both the Army and industry members involved. Aspects of the program include the delivery of 780 Griffon multirole troop carriers and 248 units of the light multirole Jaguar combat vehicle by 2020. Also included is an upgrade of the Leclerc tank, a battle management system, crew training with onboard 3D simulation, and maintenance.

Dec. 5/2014: Development contract. French Defense Minister Jean-Yves le Drian announces the phase 1 award in the Scorpion program, in line with commitments made in the 2014-19 defense budget planning law known as LPM. This 1st tranche, worth €752 million ($932M). Deliveries will start in 2018. Nexter, Thales and Renault Trucks Defense (RTD) have partnered to form a temporary consortium for the purpose of this program. Safran will provide optronics, and as noted above, CTA International (a Nexter-BAE joint venture) and MBDA will contribute the most significant weapon systems.

Phase 1

Jan. 16/2014: Préférence nationale. Les Echos reports that the DGA procurement agency restricted its tender to French manufacturers, and cited article 346 of the European Union Treaty to exclude bids from other member states.

Sources: Les Echos: Blindés : l’armée lance un appel d’offres de plus de 2 milliards d’euros | EDA: Article 346 of the TFEU.

Nov. 9/2011: industrial team. Nexter and Renault Truck Defense sign a cooperation agreement to jointly manufacture VBMRs.

Feb. 22/2010: initial decision. An inter-ministerial investment commission approves the start of Scorpion’s research and development phase.

Readings and Sources

• French MINDEF – Official Scorpion presentation [PDF, in French]

• DGA – Scorpion [in French]

• Nexter – 40mm Cased Telescoped Armament System (CTAS): Cannon (CT C).

• France’s DGA – Le canon de 40 mm à munitions télescopées CTCA (Cased Telescoped Canon and Ammunition).

Last week, the third progress report on the implementation of the common set of proposals on the implementation of the Joint Declaration, signed in Warsaw in July 2016, was presented to the EU and NATO Councils. 
 
In addition to the 42 proposals adopted on 6 December 2016, 32 new actions were added on 5 December 2017 including on topics such as counter-terrorism, women, peace and security and military mobility. EDA is involved in the implementation of 30 out of these 74 actions.
 
The new progress report covers the period January-June 2018 and elaborates on the main achievements of EU-NATO cooperation – also in view of the upcoming meeting of the European Council on 28-29 June and the NATO Summit on 11-12 July – and highlights the added value of EU-NATO cooperation in different areas aimed at strengthening the security of citizens.
 
The next common progress report is foreseen in a year’s time (June 2019).

 

Americas

• Raytheon is being tapped for the procurement of missiles in support of the Navy. The $44 million cost-only modification provides for the full-rate production and spates for the Standard Missile-6. The Raytheon-manufactured Standard Missile-6 is both an offensive and defensive long-range weapon system that is designed as an anti-air and surface warfare weapon, in addition to being capable of targeting incoming sea-based ballistic missiles. The SM-6 is based on technology derived from the SM-2 Block IV, and the AIM-120. Active guidance in the missile’s own radar improves anti-jam resistance and is especially helpful during saturation attacks against ships without active array radars. The missile comes with a “over-the-horizon” targeting mode, where it’s cued by other ships or even aircraft, then uses its own seeker for the final approach. The US Navy typically arms both naval cruisers and destroyers as the Standard Missile-6 can integrate with the AEGIS missile defense system. Work will be performed at multiple locations, including Wolverhampton, United Kingdom and Warrington, Pennsylvania, and is expected to be completed by March 2020.

• Chinese hackers have reportedly stolen 614 gigabytes of highly sensitive data regarding the Navy’s Sea Dragon program. The intrusion has further provided the Chinese military with information on the service’s electronic warfare and threat library, cryptographic radio systems used on submarines, specific sensor data, and detailed information on the Sea Dragon program, a previously undisclosed and fast-paced initiative to field a supersonic anti-ship missile onto American nuclear submarines. No specifics about the Sea Dragon have been given, however considering the recent Block V upgrades of the Virginia-class fast attack submarines, it seems likely that the missiles will be launched from the Virginia Payload Module, which carries four large missile bays. Analysts have pointed to Raytheon’s SM-6 and Lockheed’s LRASM as development platforms for the Sea Dragon. For example, the same cells currently used for Tomahawk cruise missiles could be configured to house an altered SM-6-booster combination capable of launching the missile submerged without destroying the launch cell. What’s exactly behind the Sea Dragon program remains to be seen, however if such supersonic missiles were developed and implemented, the variety and flexibility of firepower that America’s submarine force would possess would greatly increase. This development in return could hamper China’s geo-political aspiration in the South-China Sea and the Pacific.

Middle East & Africa

• The Iraqi Ministry of Defense will replace its fleet of M1A1 Abrams tanks with Russian made T-90Ss. A spokesperson announced that 39 T-90S tanks had been handed over to the 35th Brigade of the 9th Armored Division and added that the units’ officers and crews had been retrained with Russian assistance. Iraq had bought the Abrams tanks as well as equipment and services required to keep them in the field as part of a US foreign military sale in 2008. The Iraqi M1A1-SA tanks are a modification set designed by the US Army, in response to their experiences in Iraq. The T-90S is the latest development in the T-series of Russian tanks and represents an increase in firepower, mobility and protection. The T-90S armament includes one 125mm 2A46M smoothbore gun, stabilized in two axes and fitted with a thermal sleeve. The tank is manufactured by Uralvagonzavod in Nizhnyi Tagil, Russia.

• Ethiopia will be the next country to have a C-130 aircraft in its inventory. The transport plane was handed over on behalf of the United States Government US Ambassador Michael Raynor. The C-130 Hercules remains one of the longest-running aerospace manufacturing programs of all time. Since 1956, over 40 models and variants have served as the tactical airlift backbone for over 50 nations. The C-130 Hercules primarily performs the tactical portion of the airlift mission. The aircraft is capable of operating from rough, dirt strips and is the prime transport for airdropping troops and equipment into hostile areas. The C-130 will further enhance Ethiopia’s capacity to play a vital role in regional peacekeeping missions, enabling Ethiopia to move humanitarian supplies where they are needed in a timely manner and protect the lives of civilians in conflict areas.

Europe

• The French Air Force has taken delivery of a second C-130J Super Hercules transport plane. The C-130J is a modernized version of the combat proven C-130 airframe. Its improvements are clustered around 2 key characteristics: performance, and operational costs. The overall system generates 29% more thrust, while increasing fuel efficiency by 15% and offering improved reliability and maintenance. Compared to the 1960s-era C-130E maximum speed is up 21%, climb-to-altitude time is down 50%, cruising altitude is 40% higher, and range is about 40% longer. The C-130J only requires 2-3 crew members for most missions instead of 4, and avionics have been changed to incorporate more advanced capabilities into the night-vision-system compatible “glass cockpit” and heads-up display. The French Air Force has now two C-130Js to carry freight and passengers to foreign theaters. An additional two C-130Js are due for delivery next year, bringing to the French forces a long sought-after capability for aerial refueling of helicopters.

• Embraer is looking to introduce its EMB-314/A-29 Super Tucano light attack turboprop to the European market. Simon Johns, one of Embraer’s vice president said that the Super Tucano could provide European air arms with a lower-cost alternative to jets and helicopters for many of their missions. One potential customer could be Ukraine that currently lacks funding for a new multirole combat aircraft. The A-29 has five hardpoints for carrying weapons and is capable of carrying a maximum external load of 1,500kg. The Super Tucano is armed with two wing-mounted 12.7mm machine guns with a rate of fire of 1,100 rounds a minute and is capable of carrying general-purpose bombs and guided air-to-air and air-to-ground missiles. The company is offering enhancements to the baseline aircraft, including the integration of anti-tank munitions as well as laser guided rockets. Pursuant to being equipped to perform these missions, the Super Tucano now has a radar warning receiver and missile approach warning system in development for an increased threat environment in the European theatre.

Asia-Pacific

• The Philippine Air Force (PAF) is looking to acquire about 12 more FA-50 training and light fighter jets from South Korea. South Korea’s T-50 Golden Eagle family offers the global marketplace a set of high-end supersonic trainer and lightweight fighter aircraft. The FA-50 is slightly more expensive variant that’s fully fitted for the lightweight fighter and light attack roles, with a secondary role as a lead-in fighter trainer (LIFT) if necessary. Development of the FA-50 combat aircraft began in October 1997. Six prototypes were built during the development phase that concluded in January 2006. With a length of 43 feet and a wingspan of 30 feet, the 2-seat T-50 is about 4 feet shorter than the F-16; overall, it’s only about 80% of the F-16’s size. The aircraft can be equipped with a lightweight 3-barreled M61 20mm gun, GPS-guided bombs, a targeting and surveillance pod and several types of missiles. The arrival of the planes is part of the PAF’s purchase of 12 fighter jets worth $365 million from South Korea.

Today’s Video

• F-15 Eagles vs. L-159 Honey Badgers

SM-2 Launch, DDG-77
(click to view larger)

Variants of the SM-2 Standard missile are the USA’s primary fleet defense anti-air weapon, and serve with 13 navies worldwide. The most common variant is the RIM-66K-L/ SM-2 Standard Block IIIB, which entered service in 1998. The Standard family extends far beyond the SM-2 missile, however; several nations still use the SM-1, the SM-3 is rising to international prominence as a missile defense weapon, and the SM-6 program is on track to supplement the SM-2. These missiles are designed to be paired with the AEGIS radar and combat system, but can be employed independently by ships with older or newer radar systems.

This article covers each variant in the Standard missile family, plus several years worth of American and Foreign Military Sales requests and contracts and key events; and offers the budgetary, technical, and geopolitical background that can help put all that in context.

The Standard Missile Naval Defense Family: Missiles and Plans

60 years of SM-x
click for video

Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) is the technical direction agent for Standard missile. They work with the US navy, other naval customers, and Raytheon to manage ongoing technical improvements.

Within Raytheon, a long-term effort is underway toward capability-based development, and common components. As each SM-x missile advances, the expectation is that it will use components from other members of the missile family, while contributing new component and software advances that can be re-used elsewhere.

SM-1: Allied Legacy

SM-1 on launcher
(click to view full)

The SM-1 was phased out of US service in 2003, but still serves with some allied navies; most US and international orders are currently SM-2s, but many countries operating FFG-7 Oliver Hazard Perry Class frigates and similar vintage ships still use them. The “growth space” inherent in its basic design is a big reason that the Standard missile family remains relevant to this day.

Support for foreign SM-1 missiles has transitioned from the US government to Raytheon, who leads a team of companies that provides customers with continued access to spares and repair services. The SM-1 FSS Program consists of core support (program management, asset storage, test equipment support, logistics support and tasking to demilitarize hardware no longer needed for long-term support of the SM-1 Program), intermediate level maintenance (re-certification of SM-1 Block VI, VIA, VIB missiles), depot level maintenance (repair and maintenance of, or preparation, upgrade and installation of SM-1 Block V, VI, VIA and VIB sections, assemblies, sub-assemblies, and components), MK56 Rocket Motor Regrain Program (qualification and production), test equipment support, All-Up-Round (AUR), and technical engineering services. Countries listed in SM-1 support contracts over the past few years have included: Bahrain, Canada, Chile, Egypt, France, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Taiwan, and Turkey.

SM-2: The Mainstay

SM-2 (top), SM-3

The RIM-66K-L/ SM-2 Standard. This is the most commonly encountered variant, and a long series of upgrades have kept it current over the years. SM-2 Block IIIA missiles have greater capability at even lower altitudes than previous SM-2 versions, a more powerful fragmentation warhead, and can use Interrupted Continuous Wave Illumination (ICWI) to improve performance against supersonic maneuvering anti-ship missiles. SM-2 Block IIIB is the most popular version at present, swapping ICWI capability for an infrared (IR) guidance mode capability developed by the Missile Homing Improvement Program (MHIP). IR guidance offers a form of backup guidance in saturation missile attacks, where the limited number of illuminators on a ship without active array radars may have to switch back and forth during the targeting process. It also helps against enemy missiles with stealth features, which can be tracked by the infrared plume created by their engines or by air friction.

These SM-2 versions are provided as medium range (50 mile) rounds that can be fired from AEGIS rail launchers, AEGIS vertical launch systems, and Tartar rail launchers. SM-2 has recently completed an upgrade that gives it improved maneuverability via improved steering, thrust-vectoring, and software. This is especially important against supersonic wave-skimming cruise missiles, which offer less than 1 minute to impact from the moment they break the horizon to become visible on a ship’s radar. Tests have also demonstrated a secondary SM-2 capability against small, fast-moving naval targets.

SM-2 Block IVA

An extended range SM-2 Block IV missile added a booster rocket; it had been developed and tested, but few Block IV missiles were bought. They were to be replaced by the SM-2 Block IVA that would add theater ballistic-missile defense capability, but SM-2 Block IVA was canceled in December 2001, with the project over 2 years behind schedule, and average unit costs more than 50% beyond original goals. It has now been revived as the Near Term Sea-Based Terminal weapon (NT-SBT) for last-phase intercepts, following a number of modifications. The May 2006 Pacific Phoenix sea trial, in which an NT-SBT successfully intercepted a Lance missile target, paved the way for production approval, and modifications for the 100 Block IV missiles in stock began in July 2007. NT-SBT is described as an interim solution aimed at the very last phase of a ballistic missile’s flight, just before impact. It will offer extended-range air defense, but its main function is to acting as a second line of defense against incoming ballistic missiles, similar to the Patriot PAC-3 on land.

Raytheon believes that updated SM-2 variants will remain in service for 20-30 years, which means they’ll need to be kept current. Replacing the US Navy’s entire SM-2 stock would be a huge undertaking, and would perpetuate another problem since the Navy already has low stockpiles of missiles for its vertical launch cells. An MoU with Canada, Germany, and The Netherlands reflects long-term foreign interest in upgrades, and these countries have contributed technical development and funding of their own to SM-2 development. Key improvements on the drawing board include combining ICWI and IR guidance capabilities, 3rd party cueing capabilities that allow it to be used “over the horizon” against low-level targets, further aerodynamic and maneuverability improvements, and the insertion of key SM-6 capabilities including reprogrammability and built in test. An SM-2 Block IIIC proposal with some of these capabilities is on the table, but is not funded yet.

SM-3: Ballistic Missile Killer

SM-3 Block IA
(click to view full)

SM-3 ABM variants, aka. RIM-161. This larger missile will be the mainstay of naval Anti Ballistic Missile defense, and can also fulfill an “outer air” role via long-range kills of bombers carrying cruise missiles. The SM-3 uses the RIM-156 (SM-2 Extended Range Block IV) test program’s airframe and propulsion/booster, then adds a third-stage rocket motor (a.k.a. Advanced Solid Axial Stage, ASAS, made by ATK), a GPS/INS guidance section (a.k.a. GAINS, GPS-Aided Inertial Navigation System), and a LEAP (Lightweight Exo-Atmospheric Projectile) kinetic warhead (i.e. a non-explosive hit-to-kill maneuvering warhead). At present, SM-3 is in naval service with the USA and Japan, may be ordered by the Netherlands for its air defense destroyers, and is set to play a key role in Europe’s land-based missile defenses from bases in Romania and Poland.

Launching ships, usually CG-47 Ticonderoga Class cruisers or Japanese Kongo Class destroyers, are updated with AEGIS LEAP Intercept (ALI) computer software and hardware (the current version under development is AEGIS BMD Block 2006/2008, Baseline 4.0.1), as well as the Long Range Surveillance and Track (LRS&T) AEGIS enhancements that will be implemented across all AEGIS ships that take the upgrade. When used in conjunction with the USA’s Co-operative Engagement Capability components, the result is a single integrated “picture” available to all CEC-equipped ships in the area – a picture that can even be used to help guide long-range anti-air missiles launched from other ships.

This SM-3/AEGIS LEAP combination plays a prominent role in near-term US and Japanese missile defense plans. These interceptors have a better record in ABM tests than their land-based counterparts to date, and their naval mobility makes them well suited for forward defense. They will also be deployed on land, under current American plans to protect Europe.

The SM-3 Block IA version provides an incremental upgrade that improves reliability and maintainability at a reduced cost. It’s finishing its build run alongside production SM-2s, in Raytheon Missile Systems’ factories in Tucson, AZ, and Camden, AR. The SM-3 kinetic warhead (KW) is built and tested at a state-of-the-art kill vehicle manufacturing facility in Tucson, AZ, and the entire upper stage including KW and third stage also is integrated in Tucson before going to Camden, AR for all up round integration. Work on SM-3 also is done in Anaheim, CA; Sacramento, CA; and Elkton, MD. Raytheon leads an integrated team that includes The Boeing Company, Aerojet, and Alliant Techsystems.

The missile was supposed to end production with FY 2009 orders, but testing problems with its successor kept orders coming until 2012. According to a June 2011 CRS report, its estimated cost per missile is about $9 million.

SM-3 Block IB has become the main variant for orders, as of Q2 FY 2011, but the subsequent FTM-16 test failure put a big dent in orders and deliveries. With Block IB and associated ship-based upgrades, the Navy gains the ability to defend against medium range missiles (MRBM, 1,000 – 3,000 km range) fielded by countries like North Korea and Iran, and some Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles (IRBM, 3,000 – 5,500 km range) under development by those rogue regimes. Upgrades include an advanced 2-color infrared seeker, and a 10-thruster solid throttling divert and attitude control system (TDACS/SDACS) on the kill vehicle to give it improved capability against maneuvering ballistic missiles or warheads. Solid TDACS is a joint Raytheon/Aerojet project, but Boeing supplies some components of the kinetic warhead.

The MDA wanted to buy 472 SM-3 Block IBs by 2020, but flight test issues cut initial orders, and there were still issues to resolve as as of 2014. The FY15 budget seems to indicate a new target of just 332, at an estimated cost per missile of $12 – 15 million.

SM-3 Block II: Next-Generation

SM-3 Evolution
(click to view full)

SM-3 Block II will widen the missile body above the booster from 13.5″ to 21″, while shrinking the maneuvering fins. The resulting missile will be faster, and have longer range. That changes the kinds of targets it can take on, and changes its deployment, too. Instead of being able to defend just Israel’s tiny land mass and parts of nearby countries from a ship sailing near Crete, for instance, it becomes possible to defend most of Europe with that same ship. Instead of requiring 3 AEGIS ships to cover Japan, it becomes possible to cover most of Japan with just 1 ship. That’s a strong attraction for the Japanese, who have signed on as development partners.

The SM-3 Block IIA is the co-operative US-Japanese program. It adds the larger diameter, a more maneuverable “high-divert” kill vehicle, plus another sensor/ discrimination upgrade to help deal with harder targets, countermeasures, and decoys. It’s a joint development effort with Japan, which has exceeded both its expected 9-year development time frame, and $2.1 – 2.7 billion price tag. At the end of FY 2011, there were still technical difficulties with the 2nd and 3rd stage rocket motors, and the alternate propellant picked for the DACS thruster system may leave kill vehicle performance below program targets.

The program was rescheduled by joint agreement in September 2011, with flight tests pushed back to FY 2016. It’s currently scheduled to debut around 2018, and Japan has given the go-ahead for exports under certain conditions. Once it’s deployed, the US Navy, Japanese JMSDF, and other customers will have a weapon that can handle the near-strategic IRBM threat, and even engage some Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM). Its estimated cost per missile is $20 – 24 million.

The SM-3 Block IIB NGAM: The “Next Generation Aegis Missile,” was to be an open competition, with the potential to field a new design missile that could destroy IRBMs and even ICBMs. April 2011 contracts for phase 1 concept development included Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon. The new missile was originally meant to be land-based, and set to integrate with AEGIS BMD 5.1 for debut in 2020.

The FY 2014 budget relegated it to a component R&D program, and killed the missile. Technical analysis had concluded that its launch sites in Europe couldn’t protect the USA from Iranian missiles (vid. Feb 11/13 entry). One solution would have involved expanding it from a 21″ diameter missile to a 27″ missile, and switching from solid fuel to liquid fuel, in order to boost speed for earlier intercepts. The bad news is that liquid-fueled missiles aren’t safe on board ship, and 27″ wouldn’t fit in standard strike-length Mk.41 Vertical Launch Systems, even though the North Sea was the best European location from which to defend the USA. So the program wanted land and sea deployment, but didn’t know what propellant it would use, or whether it would fit current BMD ships. On-time development was doubtful, and the development schedule for other SM-3 variants is also backlogged. The final capability will be missed, but the outcome isn’t really a surprise.

SM-6 ERAM: Next-Generation Air Defense

SM-6 test
(click to view full)

The SM-6 Block IA ERAM is in full-rate production following a March 2013 approval, despite a rocky test history that hasn’t fully sorted itself out yet. Present plans call for 1,800 SM-6s to supplement the SM-2 missiles in the air/surface defense role against cruise missiles and aircraft. It was approved for Full Rate Production in May 2013. The SM-6 is expected to become useful for ballistic missile defense in 2015, as the Sea based Terminal (SBT) Increment 1 combines SM-6 + Aegis BMD 5.0. Fall 2015 is the expected date for Full Operational Capability, and in 2018, SBT Increment 2 will deploy the SM-6 in conjunction with Aegis BMD 5.1. Production is currently expected to end in FY 2024.

Initial versions of the SM-6 will rely heavily on existing technology, including the airframe of the SM-2 Block IV, and advanced seeker technology derived from the AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM). Radar improvements over the AMRAAM include a much larger and more sensitive seeker (13.5″ vs. 7″ diameter), along with redesigned antennas that boost radar power even further. Active guidance in the missile’s own radar improves anti-jam resistance, and is especially helpful during saturation attacks against ships without active array radars, because it removes some of the combat load from the ships’ limited number of targeting illuminators. Semi-active guidance using large, powerful ship radars remains very useful, however, so the missile retains that option.

CEC Concept
(click to enlarge)

The SM-6 extends and combines those advantages by allowing an “over-the-horizon” targeting mode, where it’s cued by other ships or even aircraft, then uses its own seeker for the final approach. Some of its launch platforms aren’t ready for that yet, so SM-6 ERAM missiles will be launchable in “legacy” mode like an SM-2, or in SM-6 Enhanced Mode that will add 3rd party over-the-horizon targeting and other new capabilities.

Other SM-6 improvements translate into cost performance rather than targeting performance. At present, 25-30% of SM-family missiles must be re-certified each year, a process that involves unloading and moving the missiles. Instead, customers will be able to bring portable testing equipment to a ship and press a button on the SM-6’s “All Up Round” container, whereupon it will test itself. The other big “under the hood” improvement is a design that stresses software programming rather than hardware swap-outs when conducting upgrades. This makes improving the existing missile stock via “spiral development” inserts much easier, much faster, and much cheaper.

The SM-6 program has led the way for Raytheon’s adoption of Earned Value Management as a program management approach; see Sept 5/08 entry, below. It is now in Low-Rate Initial Production. The missile received its first LRIP order in September 2009, and 1st delivery was in April 2011, even as testing continues. Testing has been rocky, as the SM-6 experienced failures in 5 of 12 intercept attempts. Even so, the USA switched all SM-2 missile orders to the SM-6 in FY 2012. Australia has formally declared their intent to order the SM-6, and they are likely to be its 1st export customer. South Korea has also expressed interest.

The Standard Missile Naval Defense Family: Programs Budgets

American budgets for the Standard family of naval air defense missiles are split. One line continues production of the SM-2, and continues development of its follow-on the SM-6 Standard Extended Range Active Missile (ERAM). The usual American annual production order for SM-2 Standard missiles is 75, but that has been dropping lately, even as production budgets rise.

The long-range SM-3, which can be used in a ballistic missile defense role, is part of a separate budget line for “AEGIS BMD,” which also includes radar improvements, ship updates, and other changes required in order to use the SM-3 to its full potential.

American budgets for SM-2/SM-6 work include:

Naval Ballistic Missile Defense is a separate program, run by the US Missile defense Agency (MDA). It involves DDG-51 destroyers and CG-47 cruisers with AEGIS BMD systems, using a combination of AEGIS BMD radar improvements, and SM-3 missiles. For full coverage of those US Navy efforts, read “Serious Dollars for AEGIS Ballistic Missile Defense Modifications (BMD)“.

Across the Pacific, Japan will deploy 4 Kongo Class and 2 Atago Class AEGIS BMD destroyers of its own. Japan has purchased SM-3 Block IA missiles, but are scheduled to eventually receive the jointly-developed SM-3 Block IIA. The USA’s forthcoming DDG-1000 Zumwalt Class destroyers may have potential ABM capability of their own via the SPY-3 radar/ SM-3 combination, if additional software is added.

SM-3 Programs: 2006-2020 Timeline

Raytheon factory
click for video

With so many versions in play, it can be challenging to keep track of the SM-3 family of missiles. This timeline covers the period from 2006 to the present, and also includes planned events out to 2020.

The Standard Missile Naval Defense Family: US Contracts & Events

SM-3, USS Hopper
(click to view larger)

Unless otherwise specified, all contracts are issued to Raytheon in Tucson, AZ, at the request of US Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA). Note that All Up Rounds (AURs) are missiles in storage containers that contain appropriate electronics, and can be moved from storage to loading as is. ORDALT stands for “ordnance alternation,” i.e. modifications to existing weapons.

Procurement contracts are predominantly American buys, but some foreign customers will also be found in this section due to grouped purchases.

Note that all missile tests have been moved to be part of our in-depth AEGIS BMD coverage. We will cover tests that have a direct impact on missile production, which unfortunately means greater attention to failures. The AEGIS BMD article includes a full chart of naval BMD tests, for a better sense of perspective.

FY 2016 – 2018

 

SM-6 firing
(click to view full)

June 11/18: More incoming Raytheon is being tapped for the procurement of missiles in support of the Navy. The $44 million cost-only modification provides for the full-rate production and spates for the Standard Missile-6. The Raytheon-manufactured Standard Missile-6 is both an offensive and defensive long-range weapon system that is designed as an anti-air and surface warfare weapon, in addition to being capable of targeting incoming sea-based ballistic missiles. The SM-6 is based on technology derived from the SM-2 Block IV, and the AIM-120. Active guidance in the missile’s own radar improves anti-jam resistance and is especially helpful during saturation attacks against ships without active array radars. The missile comes with a “over-the-horizon” targeting mode, where it’s cued by other ships or even aircraft, then uses its own seeker for the final approach. The US Navy typically arms both naval cruisers and destroyers as the Standard Missile-6 can integrate with the AEGIS missile defense system. Work will be performed at multiple locations, including Wolverhampton, United Kingdom and Warrington, Pennsylvania, and is expected to be completed by March 2020.

May 02/18: A batch of 20 missiles has been added Raytheon Missile Systems Co., Tucson, Arizona, has been awarded a contract modification in support of ballistic missile defense efforts. The contract is valued at over $387 million and allows Raytheon to procure a limited subset of items necessary to maintain schedule for eventual manufacture, assembly, test and delivery of 20 Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) Block IIA missiles and related efforts. SM-3 Standard missiles, also known as Ballistic Missile Killers, have been the backbone of the US Navy’s ballistic missile defense plans for many years now. The missile will be the mainstay of naval Anti-Ballistic Missile defense and can also fulfill an “outer air” role via long-range kills of bombers carrying cruise missiles. The SM-3 uses the RIM-156 test program’s airframe and propulsion/booster, then adds a third-stage rocket motor, a GPS/INS guidance section and a LEAP) kinetic warhead. At present, SM-3 is in naval service with the USA and Japan, may be ordered by the Netherlands for its air defense destroyers, and is set to play a key role in Europe’s land-based missile defenses from bases in Romania and Poland. The modification increases the total cumulative face value of the contract to $1.1 billion. The work will be performed in Tucson, Arizona and is set to be completed by April 2022.

February 21/18: Options-Engineering & Technical Services The US Navy will exercise an option with Raytheon Missile Systems for engineering and technical services on the Standard Missile-2 and Standard Missile-3. Valued at $12.1 million, the agreement tasks the firm to provide engineering and technical services in support of SM-2 and SM-6 production to ensure continuity in production, design integrity and total systems integration of the missile round and its components. It will support missiles used by the Navy, Australia, Japan, South Korea and the Royal Netherlands Navy. Work will primarily take place at Raytheon’s Tucson, Arizona operation, with some work to take place in Boston, Massachusetts. Contract completion is expected by December 2019.

February 2/18: Inquiry begins on SM-3 miss Reuters reports that a SM-3 Block IIA missile launch from an Aegis Ashore site in Hawaii has failed to shoot down an incoming dummy missile launched from an aircraft. A US military official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the reason for Wednesday’s failure remained unclear and that an analysis into the cause is underway. Developed by Raytheon, with participation from Japan, a previous intercept test of the SM-3 last June also failed, but there was a successful test in early 2017. The Missile Defense Agency did not comment on the outcome of the test, but confirmed that one had taken place.

January 12/18: DSCA Approval—FMS The US State Department’s Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) has cleared the potential sale of four SM-3 Block IIA missiles to the government of Japan. Valued at an estimated $133.3 million, the sale also includes four MK 29 missile canisters, US Government and contractor representatives’ technical assistance, transportation, engineering and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistical and program support. Raytheon will act as prime contractor on the SM-3 production, while BAE Systems, based out of Minneapolis, MN, will supply the MK 29 canisters. Since the SM-3 Block IIA is being designed jointly by the US and Japan for defense against medium- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles, the sale is believed to pass by Congress with ease, and can be deployed on Aegis-class destroyers or on land by the Aegis Ashore program—both of which Japan either has, in the form of its destroyers, or is planning to procure, in its Aegis Ashore procurement.

January 9/18: Procurement—Maintenance The US Naval Sea Systems Command awarded Raytheon Friday, a $27.2 million contract for the procurement of the Navy’s Standard Missile-2 (SM-2) between fiscal years 2018 and 2022. Under the agreement, the firm will also provide Standard Missile-6 (SM-6) depot and intermediate level maintenance, all-up round re-certifications and special maintenance tasks. 100 percent of the base award will go towards the US Navy, but will also include options to provide SM-2 repair and maintenance services to the navies of Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, South Korea, Spain and Taiwan. If all options are exercised, the value of the contract could reach $227.7 million. Work will take place across Arizona, Arkansas and Alabama, and is expected to be completed by December 2018.

October 25/17: A NATO-led international ballistic missile defense exercise off of the coast of Scotland concluded with the successful interception of a medium-range missile with a Standard Missile-3. Known as Formidable Shield, the exercise ran from September 24 to October 17 with participants from Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Britain and the United States, and was designed to assess the capabilities of allied ballistic missiles and air warfare defenses at sea, with the goal of improving NATO allies’ ability to respond to incoming threats. During the SM-3 test, the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Donald Cook (DDG 75) successfully detected, tracked and intercepted a medium-range ballistic missile target with a Standard Missile-3 Block IB guided missile. Simultaneously, the Spanish frigate SPS Alvaro de Bazan (F101) fired an Evolved SeaSparrow Missile (ESSM) against an incoming anti-ship cruise missile while the Netherlands frigate HNLMS Tromp (F803) fired ESSMs against a pair of incoming anti-ship cruise missiles. Manufacturer Raytheon added that the first land-based version of the SM-3 to became operational in Romania in 2016, and a site in Poland is expected to be in service by next year.

August 31/17: The US Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and US Navy have successfully conducted a scheduled test of a Standard Missile-6 guided missile (SM-6) off the coast of Hawaii. Launched from the deck of the USS John Paul Jones, the missile intercepted a medium-range ballistic missile target, and comes just one day after North Korea fired a ballistic missile over Japan. The MDA said the test gives the naval component of the missile defense system higher ability to intercept ballistic missiles in their terminal phase.

August 30/17: Raytheon has been awarded a $614 million modification for a contract previously valued at $630 million by the US Missile Defense Agency (MDA). The modification calls for the production of 17 Standard Missile-3 Block IIA missiles, perform production support and engineering efforts, perform obsolescence monitoring, perform technical baseline engineering support, perform quality assurance and audit efforts, and provide containers. Work will be performed in Tucson, Arizona, and is estimated for completion in March 2020.

August 9/17: The US Missile Defense Agency (MDA) has given Raytheon a $66.4 million contract modification for the Standard Missile-3 Aegis Ashore ballistic missile defense program. Work will be carried out in Tuscon, Ariz and includes engineering work, support services and analysis of the SM-3 Block IIA missile and BMD 5.1 flight testing and certification. Scheduled completion has been given for Sep. 30, 2018. This modification brings the total contract cost to $2.07 billion.

July 27/17: The US Navy has awarded Raytheon a $11.5 million contract modification for engineering and technical services for Standard Missile-2 and Standard Missile-6 surface-to-air missiles. As well as the US Navy, Japan, Denmark, South Korea, Taiwan and Germany will receive services under the award which includes engineering work for production and integration of the system into Navy and foreign missile platforms. Work will be conducted in Tucson, Ariz. and has an expected completion date of June 2018. The SM series feature as a key element of the AEGIS Weapon System mounted on Ticonderoga and Arleigh Burke-class Navy warships, while variants are also in use with 15 allied countries.

July 27/17: Last month’s failed SM-3 Block IIA interceptor test conducted by the US Navy and Missile Defense Agency (MDA) was caused by human error, according to an anonymous source close to the test. The June 21 test saw the missile self-destruct after it tracked a medium-range ballistic target missile launched from the Pacific Missile Range Facility at Kauai, Hawaii. Now, it is believed that a tactical datalink controller, in charge of maintaining encrypted data exchanges between ships and aircraft, accidentally identified the incoming ballistic missile target as a friendly in the system, causing the SM-3 missile to self-destruct in flight. So while the incident is slightly embarrassing, there doesn’t seem to be anything wrong with the interceptor.

June 26/17: A Standard Missile-3 Block IIA intercept test conducted by the US Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and the Japan Ministry of Defense has failed. Launched from the USS John Paul Jones at the Pacific Missile Range Facility on Kauai, Hawaii, the SM-3 successfully detected and tracked the missile with its AN/SPY-1 radar and engaged, but failed to score a hit. This is the fourth test launch of the Block IIA and the second intercept test. The first attempted intercept earlier this year was successful. Further details are expected to be released at a later date once test data is reviewed by program officials.

June 23/17: Land-based testing of Raytheon’s SM-6 Block IA interceptor has been successfully completed, paving the way for the new missile to enter at-sea testing before it is expected to enter low-rate production later this year. The test, conducted at a test site in southern New Mexico, involved the interceptor engaging and destroying a sub-sonic target. Improvements on the earlier SM-6 BLK 1 version include an enhanced precision guidance section that allows the missile to seek and destroy a wide variety of threats.

June 19/17: Raytheon is to restart the Standard Missile 2 (SM-2) production line after a $650 million dollar order from the Netherlands, South Korea, Japan and Australia. The sale calls for the delivery of a total of 280 SM-2 Block IIIA and IIIB missiles, and the sale is expected to keep the company’s Arizona production line open through 2035 as Raytheon anticipates more orders from the US and its allies as they rebuild their inventories using the modernized production line. Congress are expected to be notified of the sale in the coming days.

April 30/17: Raytheon’s Standard Missile-6 (SM-6) is expected to be declared fully operational in the near future, after the missile was successfully put through a series of rigorous Navy testing. Four missiles were fired from surface ships using the MK 41 Vertical Launch System—deployed on Ticonderoga-class cruisers and Arleigh Burke-class destroyers—at a variety of land-launched targets, including supersonic and subsonic missiles, with all four test fires successfully intercepting their targets. Furthermore, the missile has been approved for international sales to select countries as of January this year.

April 19/17: The US Navy has selected Raytheon to perform engineering and technical services for several Standard Missile variants used by the service. Valued at $113 million, work to be carried out under the agreement calls for the procurement for other government agencies and foreign military sales to undisclosed customers, as well as engineering work for the Standard Missile 2, 3 and 6. Other tasks to be carried out by Raytheon include research and development efforts, component improvement, shipboard integration and evaluation services. Scheduled to be completed by April 2022, the contract contains options that if exercised, could bring the cumulative value of the contract to $466 million.

January 26/17: Raytheon has been selected to provide SM-6 missiles and spares, to be deployed on AEGIS-equipped cruisers and destroyers. Valued at $235 million, the award comes following several testing and milestone events for the weapon that verified the weapon’s capability to intercept incoming medium-range ballistic missile attacks. This contract represents funding for the fourth year of full-rate production for the multi-mission missile and deliveries are expected to begin in 2018.

January 12/17: Raytheon’s SM-6 missile has been cleared for international export by the US DoD. At present, the missile is in use by the US Navy, providing anti-aircraft and anti-ship defenses for its fleet. First deployed in 2013, testing of different variants of the SM-6 have progressed over the last several years, the most recent in December 2016, which confirmed the missile’s ability to be used against ocean surface targets. During the trials, the SM-6 set a record for the longest range surface-to-air interceptor.

October 3/16: An SM-6 air defense missile interceptor fired from the USS Princeton has set a new distance record for an intercept during testing at the Point Mugu Test Range on September 22. Using data from a remote airborne sensor and equipped with the latest Aegis Baseline 9, the missile beat the previous long-distance intercept record held by the USS John Paul Jones’ test in January.

March 9/16: Raytheon’s recent SM-6 anti-air missile test was used to engage the decommissioned USS Reuben James, (FFG 57) made famous for its appearance in the 1990 movie The Hunt for Red October. The test was a demonstration of the Navy’s concept of “distributed lethality,” employing ships in dispersed formations to increase the offensive might of the surface force, and enabling future options for the joint force commander. The USS John Paul Jones fired the SM-6 while another Arleigh Burke-class destroyer was on station as the assist ship.

February 5/16: The Pentagon is to invest in the development of Tomahawk and SM-6 missiles which will be capable of hitting moving vessels. $2 billion has been requested for the purchase of 4,000 Tomahawk missiles with manufacturer Raytheon. Raytheon has invested in a multi-modal seeker that would allow the missiles to hit moving targets so that missiles may be adapted from land missiles into anti-ship missiles. A further $2.9 billion will also be made available for the purchase of 650 SM-6 interceptors as well, to advance them to become anti-ship missiles for the first time. This will allow the SM-6 to operate in an offensive capability instead of operating solely as an anti-ballistic weapon.

October 22/15: A Standard Missile-3 Block IA interceptor, fired from an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, has successfully intercepted a short-range ballistic missile. The target missile was launched from the UK’s Hebrides Range, off the northwest coast of Scotland, with the test also seeing two anti-ship missiles fired simultaneously. The ballistic missile was intercepted in space by the SM-3 fired from USS Ross (DDG-71), with USS The Sullivans (DDG-68) downing the anti-ship missile using SM-2 missiles. The Sullivans saw a SM-2 Block IIIA explode soon after launch in July, with this test the first time a ballistic missile has been intercepted in the European theater.

FY 2014 – 2015

SM-6 buy; MDA considers SM-3 IB MYP; SM-6 reached IOC.

August 5/15: The Navy has successfully demonstrated the use of a Standard Missile-6 to intercept a short-range ballistic missile. The tests, conducted off Hawaii, also included the use of a SM-2 Block IV missile against a ballistic missile and two more SM-6s against cruise missile targets. Moving from initial-rate to full-rate production in May, the Navy ordered 74 SM-6 missiles from Raytheon in June. The Navy also announced in January that the missile will be deployed on more than 35 vessels equipped with the Aegis combat weapons system.

June 4/15: Following a contract modification worth $149 million, Raytheon will manufacture 74 Standard Missile-6 (SM-6) air defense rounds for the Navy. This follows a $110 million contract in March and the transition of the SM-6 from low-rate to full-rate production last month.

May 8/15: Raytheon’s Standard Missile-6 (SM-6) has moved from low-rate to full-rate production, following the Navy’s decision in January to expand the number of ships the missile is deployed on from 5 to over 35.

May 1/15: Raytheon was awarded a $559.2 million undefinitized contract action by the Missile Defense Agency for multiple fixed-price incentive firm, firm-fixed-price and cost reimbursable contract line items. The first of these is an order for 44 Standard Missile-3 Block IB missiles.

Aug 24/14: SM-2/6 Support. Raytheon Missile Systems in Tucson, AZ receives an $8.5 million contract modification for SM-2 and SM-6 engineering and technical services. This contract combines purchases for the US Navy (84.5% / $7.2M) and Japan (15.5% / $1.3M), using a combination of FY 2014 US Navy weapons and RDT&E budgets, and Japanese funds.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ (86%); Maizura, Japan (11%); Huntsville, AL (2%); and Camden, AR (1%), and is expected to be complete by July 2015. US NAVSEA in Washington, DC manages the contract, and acts as Japan’s agent (N00024 13 C-5403).

Aug 14/14: SM-6 Testing. The US Navy conducts flight test “Juliet,” in which an SM-6 successfully intercepts a subsonic, low altitude target over land. That’s a tough shot, due to the radar clutter created when looking for a small object against the ground’s own moving signature. Juliet is one of 10 follow on operational test and evaluation (FOT&E) events planned for SM-6’s missile performance and demonstration. Sources: US Navy, “Standard Missile Shows Versatility With “Juliet” Flight Test”.

Aug 1/14: SM-6. Raytheon Missile Systems in Tucson, AZ receives a $7.5 million contract modification for a lifetime buy of obsolete SM-6 components. All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2012 – 2014 US Navy weapons budgets; $6 million will expire on Sept 30/14.

It may be hard to believe this is needed with a new missile, but then, how many of you use 8 year old electronics? Long development times make this a common military problem, and stocking up on items that are ending or have ended production is one way to deal with it.

Work will be performed in Malaga, Spain (67%); Melville, Y (19%); Camden, AR (5%); Dallas, TX (4%); Sandy Hook, CT (2%); Los Alamitos, CA (2%); Wilmington, MA (less than 1%); and Austin, TX (less than 1%); and is expected to be complete by December 2014. US NAVSEA in Washington Navy Yard, Washington, DC manages the contract (N00024 13 C-5407).

June 19/14: SM-6 Testing. Raytheon touts a June 2014 series of tests, in which the Arleigh Burke Flight I destroyer USS John Paul Jones [DDG 53] successfully used SM-6 missiles against 2 tough threats. The 1st involved destroying low-flying cruise missile targets flying ‘over the horizon’ – which is to say, beyond the ship’s own radar. That’s similar to a Aug 23/13 test, and represents an important part of US Navy Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air (NIFC-CA) plans, which involve the ability to cue SM-6 targets using aircraft like the E-2D AWACS or F-35C fighters, or other ships.

Separately, the destroyer used another Raytheon SM-6 to intercept a supersonic target, which simulates modern Russian and Chinese missiles. Sources: Raytheon, “Raytheon Missiles Make History in Long-Range, Supersonic Tests”.

June 27/14: SM-6 FRP-2. Raytheon Missile Systems, Tucson, AZ, is being awarded a $275.4 million contract modification for FY 2014 SM-6 all-up rounds, and SM-6 and SM-2 spares and containers. All funds are committed immediately, using a mix of FY 2012 and 2014 USN weapons budgets, and FY 2014 USN O&M budgets. $14.3 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/14.

Numbers aren’t given, but the FY 2014 budget projected 81 missiles, a cut from the original 115. Note that the missile still has some technical issues (q.v. Jan 28/14).

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ, (33.7%); Camden, AR (28%); Wolverhampton, United Kingdom (11.6%); Andover, MA (8.6%); Middletown, OH (2.7%); San Jose, CA (2.6%); Huntsville, AL (2.3%); Dallas, TX (2.1%); Anniston, AL (1.4%); Clarkston, GA (1%); San Diego, CA (1%); Warrington, PA (1%); Wichita, KS (1%); Middletown, CT (1%); Thousand Oaks, CA (1%); and Anaheim, CA (1%); work is expected to be completed by March 2017. US NAVSEA manages the contract (N00024-13-C-5407).

FY14: SM-6s

March 14/14: GAO report. The GAO releases GAO-14-248R, regarding the USA’s EPAA plans for defending Europe from ballistic missiles. They’re characterizing SM-3 Block IIA development as “on track” for EPAA Phase 3 in 2018, but SM-3 Block IB still has some issues.

MDA plans to buy 48 Block IBs as part of Phase 2’s Romania deployment from 2015, which will create a bit of an order spike. GAO doesn’t say so, but if Block IIA is late, there will be another Block IB order spike to equip the Polish site in 2018. They do reference the Block IB’s TRSM cold gas regulator issue (q.v. Jan 28/14), and say only that the failure review is still underway, with unclear effects on production.

March 5/14: +36 SM-3 IB. Raytheon in Tucson, AZ receives a not-to-exceed $350.2 million sole-source contract modification bringing FY14 SM-3 Block IB orders to $506.2 million for 44 missiles.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ, with an estimated completion date of September 2016. The US Missile Defense Agency in Dahlgren, VA manages the contract (HQ0276-13-C-0001).

FY14: 36 SM-3-IBs

March 4/14: MDA Budget. The MDA finally releases its FY15 budget request, with information spanning from FY 2014 – 2019. The FY15 request buys AEGIS BMD 4.x upgrades for 3 ships, and installation of received BMD 4.x systems on board 5 ships, while continuing the development of versions 5.0 and 5.1. Beyond that:

“The MDA is requesting $435 million to procure 30 Aegis SM-3 Block IB missiles in FY 2015, for a total [DID: program objective, presumably] of 332 SM-3 Block IB missiles. MDA requests $68.9 million for advance procurement for four long lead items associated with the FY 2016 SM-3 Block IB missile buy to ensure timely delivery to the Combatant Commander. These items include: 1) MK 104 Dual Thrust Rocket Motor, 2) MK 72 Boosters,3) Integrated Dewar Assemblies and 4) Circuit Card assemblies.”

That’s a sharp drop from original plans for 472 missiles, but the Block IB has lost a few years of production. The number will rise again if the SM-3 Block 2A is late.

Jan 28/14: DOT&E Testing Report. The Pentagon releases the FY 2013 Annual Report from its Office of the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E).

The SM-3 Block IA went 4/5 this fiscal year, thanks to a faulty IMU chip in the FTI-01 test’s missile. That chip is only present in a few Block IAs, and isn’t in Block IB. The Navy is taking corrective action.

The SM-3 Block IB went 3/3, but after a string of 5 successful flights, the TSRM cold gas regulator that was redesigned after the FTM-15 fail glitched out during FTM-21’s 2nd pulse rocket motor firing. It didn’t affect the score, because the missile in question was a pre-planned 2nd salvo shot, and the 1st missile had already destroyed the target. The Navy wants to know if there’s a common underlying root cause they haven’t quite fixed.

The SM-6 still has some issues, even though all FY13 flight tests were successful and it has reached Initial Operational Capability (q.v. Nov 28/13). Improved uplink/downlink shrouds have interior delamination issues, but they still worked and didn’t fail externally in test firings. The Navy will treat this as progress and keep monitoring it. On the other hand, a classified missile deficiency discovered during IOT&E remains a problem. The Navy is looking at several possible solutions with varying degrees of complexity, and they’re trying not to hurt the missile’s performance with the fix. A final decision is expected in Q3 FY14, but they don’t know where the funding will come from.

Full SM-6 performance won’t be achieved until The Navy can launch using other sensors (Navy Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air From the Sea/ NIFC-CA FTS) in FY15. They had good initial results from an initial LF-04 test in FY13, using the same Aegis Baseline 9 system that will be present for the 16 planned SM-6 tests en route to NIFC-CA FTS.

Jan 9/13: +8 SM-3-IB. Raytheon in Tucson, AZ receives a not-to-exceed $156 million sole-source, unfinalized contract for 8 SM-3 Block IB missiles and AUR containers ($19.5 million per missile), under a hybrid contract structure with firm-fixed-price and cost reimbursable contract line item numbers. FY14 funds are being used. Raytheon says:

“This contract award is limited due to the continuing resolution; we anticipate the remainder of the FY14 contract to be awarded once the appropriations bill is passed.”

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ through September 2016. The US Missile Defense Agency in Dahlgren, VA manages the contract (HQ0276-13-C-0001).

FY14: 8 SM-3-IBs

Nov 28/13: SM-6. The US Navy declares that the SM-6 has reached Initial Operational Capability, as it begins loading the new missiles into USS Kidd [DDG 100] in San Diego, CA.

SM-6 Full Rate Production was approved on May 22/13, but the Pentagon DOT&E’s Jan 28/14 report confirms that some of the deficiencies outlined in their Jan 17/13 publication still haven’t been fixed. All NAVSEA would say is that 50 SM-6 missiles have been delivered to date, and that “…test and evaluation will continue in 2013 and 2014 to validate the integrated fire control capability in an operationally realistic environment.” Sources: US NAVSEA, “Standard Missile 6 (SM-6) Achieves Initial Operational Capability”.

SM-6 IOC

Nov 25/13: Support. Raytheon Missile Systems, Tucson, AZ receives a $15.9 million contract modification for Standard Missile family engineering and technical support services. All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2012 weapon budgets.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ (82.8%); Andover, MA (12.4%); Huntsville, AL (3.8%), and Camden, AR (1%), and is expected to be complete by November 2014 (N00024-13-C-5403).

Oct 31/13: SM-3-IIA. Raytheon and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries have completed the SM-3 Block IIA’s Critical Design Review (CDR), and the USA and Japan have agreed on workshare arrangements that allocate development responsibility between each country. SM-3-IIA is the key new piece in EPAA Phase 3, and the successful CDR keeps it on track for flight test in 2015.

Raytheon made the announcement at the 2013 AIAA Multinational Ballistic Missile Defense Conference in Warsaw, Poland. Sources: Raytheon, “New, Larger Standard Missile-3 Moves From Design to Testing” | Raytheon, Oct 31/13 release.

SM-3 Block IIA CDR

Oct 15/13: SM-3 IB. The MDA announces its intent to award a sole source contract worth up to $3 billion to Raytheon Missile Systems (RMS) for the production and integration of up to 216 SM-3 Block IB missiles, as a follow on to HQ0276-13-C-0001. This would amount to $13.88 million per missile, presumably including suitable spares and support costs. The agency would like to structure that as a 3-year multiyear procurement (MYP) over FY15-17, for up to 72 missiles per year. If that doesn’t receive congressional approval, they will fall back to an annual contract for FY15 with up to 2 pre-priced annual contract options.

The 72/year procurement rate is in line with the MDA’s April 2014 budget submission [PDF], though that document assumes a gross/weapon system unit cost of around $10.35 million for Block IB missiles (a dozen block IIAs raise the projected average cost/missile in FY2017). Even after adding ancillary costs like canisters and production engineering, it is not immediately clear why the MDA seems to seek a contract at costs higher than what it had budgeted so far, right when volumes would ramp up to full rate production rates, and as the missile is maturing as the main production weapon. It also appears the multi-year commitment is more a tool for the MDA to protect itself from budgeting vagaries, rather than to gain pricing leverage with its sole supplier. The fate of the 72 missiles planned for FY18 in the FYDP is not covered by the MDA’s contract intent.

Note that contrarily to some mistaken news reports, this is not yet an award, but rather a declaration of intent pending the availability of matching appropriations. HQ0276-14-R-0099 presolicitation.

FY 2013

SM-2 multinational buy; SM-6 Full Rate Production; SM-3-IA failure in FIT-01; SM-3-IB’s success in FTM-19 clears it for orders; GAO Report.

FTM-19: SM-3-IB
(click to view full)

Sept 27/13: SM-6. Raytheon Missile Systems, Tucson, AZ, was awarded a $243.5 million contract modification for 89 Standard Missile-6 Block I All Up Rounds, spares, containers, and engineering services. This order launches full-rate production of the missile. $236.7 million is committed immediately, and will expire on Sept 30/13.

This contract is added to the Jan 31/13 long-lead items contract for $33.3 million for a FY 2013 total of $276.8 million, or about $3.1 million per missile. That sum compares very closely to Lockheed Martin’s PATRIOT PAC-3, which plays a similar role on land.

Work will be performed in Camden, AK (34.4%); Tucson, AZ (25.5%); Wolverhampton, U.K. (14.6%); Andover, MA (7.3%); Middletown, CA (5.3%); San Jose, CA (3.1%); Dallas, TX, (2.7%); Anniston, AL (1.5%); Clarkston, GA (1.3%); Huntsville, AL (1.1%); Andover, MA (1.1%); San Diego, CA (1.1%); and Warrington, PA (1.0%) and is expected to be complete by March 2016. US Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington Navy Yard, DC manages the contract (N00024-13-C-5407). See also: Raytheon release, Sept 30/13.

FY 2013: 89 SM-6s launches Full-Rate Production

Sept 24/13: Industrial. DRS RSTA, Inc., Infrared Technologies, Huntsville, AL receives a maximum of $17.7 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract to design, develop, and fabricate a 2-Color Focal Plane Array (FPA) for the MDA’s Advanced Technology Risk Reduction. The objective is to develop and implement a controlled dual-band, large-format, long wavelength infrared FPA manufacturing process to improve the yield for multiple lots of FPAs. If they can succeed, it would benefit a number of missile defense programs, including a very strong payoff for SM-3 Block IB and higher missiles. It would also benefit Finmeccanica’s DRS, as a premium supplier of this specialized technology.

$125,000 is committed immediately, with the rest awarded over time. Options work includes a digital FPA design, development, and fabrication effort.

All work will be performed in Dallas, TX, and Santa Barbara, CA from Sept 30/13 through Nov 30/17. This contract was competitively procured via FBO.gov, with 112 proposals received by the MDA in Redstone Arsenal, AL (HQ0147-13-C-0021).

Aug 6/13: +29 SM-3 IB. A $218.5 million sole-source, cost-plus-incentive-fee contract modification exercises an option for 29 SM-3 Block IB all-up-round missiles and containers, using FY 2013 defense-wide acquisition funds. This raises the total value of the contract from $179.4 – $398 million, which represents the FY 2013 order.

These 2 orders are good news for the SM-3 Block IB, which faces an imminent full-rate production decision.

The Pentagon says that work will be performed in Tucson, AZ, but that’s just the guidance sections. Final assembly will take place in Raytheon’s new, state-of-the-art Redstone Missile Integration Facility in Huntsville, AL, with an expected completion date of Sept 30/16. The MDA in Dahlgren, VA manages the contract (HQ0276-13-C-0001, CLIN 0002). Raytheon.

Aug 6/13: +4 SM-3 IB. A $48.9 million sole-source cost-plus-incentive-fee contract modification exercises an option for 4 SM-3 Block IB all-up round missiles and containers, using FY 2013 defense-wide acquisition funds. This is the add-back discussed in the July 9/13 entry, and raises the total value of its contract from $1.91 billion – to $1.958 billion.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ with an expected completion date of Sept 30/15. The MDA in Dahlgren, VA manages the contract (N00024-07-C-6119, CLIN 0026).

FY 2013: 33 SM-3-IBs

July 11/13: SM-3 IIA. A $57.2 million sole-source, cost-plus-fixed-fee contract modification for SM-3 Block IIA upgrades and engineering support, using FY 2013 RDT&E finds. The total contract value rises from $1.537 billion to $1.594 billion.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ through Sept 30/16. The MDA in Dahlgren, VA manages the contract (HQ0276-10-C-0005, PO 0046).

July 9/13: SM-3 IB. Raytheon in Tucson, AZ receives a somewhat confusing modification contract, so we’ll summarize in point form:

• $48.9 million cut, along with 4 SM-3 Block IB missiles. CLIN 0016 (q.v. March 29/11 entry) will now buy 20 SM-3-IB missiles.

• The 4 missiles could be added back later as an option, under new Contract Line Item Nimber 0026, for the same $48.9 million. If the option is exercised, it’s expected to happen in Q4 (Summer) 2013.

• $24 million added for “resolving technical and production transition issues,” but CLIN 0016 doesn’t change its March 2011 – December 2013 timeline.

So, the overall cut is $25 million, and the contract’s total value drops from $1.933 billion to $1.908 billion, but the new option could change that to a $24 million boost. The US MDA in Dahlgren, VA manages the contract (N00024-07-C-6119, PO 0117).

May 31/13: Support. Raytheon Missile Systems, Tucson, AZ, is being awarded a $75.9 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for Standard Missile engineering and technical services. These services include research and development efforts; design, systems, and production engineering; technical services; evaluation services; component improvement services; and production proofing services for missile producibility, missile production, and shipboard integration. This contract includes options that could bring its cumulative value to $316.5 million.

$33.1 million is committed immediately, using a combination of FY 2011-2013 budget lines. Of this, $1.6 million will expire at the end of FY 2013, on Sept 30/13. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ (86.8%); Andover, MA (9.4%); Huntsville, AL (1.7%); Arlington, VA (1.1%); Camden, AK (0.7%); and White Sands, NM (0.3%), and is expected to be completed by December 2017. Since the Standard Missile family is Raytheon’s, this contract was sole sourced under 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1) – only one responsible source. US Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity (N00024-13-C-5403).

May 22/13: SM-6. A Pentagon Defense Acquisition Board approves full-rate production of Raytheon’s Standard Missile-6. The current configuration is the SM-6 Block I, and the team is on track to deliver the first Full-Rate Production missile in April 2015, 3 months ahead of contract. Raytheon.

SM-6 into FRP

SM-3-IB Schedule slips
(click to view full)

April 26/13: GAO Report. The GAO looks at the MDA’s full array of programs in report #GAO-13-342, “Missile Defense: Opportunity To Refocus On Strengthening Acquisition Management.” They have a lot to say about various SM-3 programs:

SM-3 Block IB: After the Sept 1/11 failure, 2012 has been a year of fixes, while Block IB production was cut and production of the previous SM-3 Block IA was extended by 55 missiles. The May and June 2012 tests went well, but MDA experienced further difficulties completing testing of a new maneuvering component, delaying the FTM-19 flight. To keep the production line going, the FY 2013 buy of Block IB missiles was split in 2, with an initial components purchase in early 2013, and the rest to be placed after the FTM-19 test.

During 2012, the SM-3 Block IB program experienced multiple issues completing TDACS qualification tests, including a test failure in October 2012 whose root cause analysis will cost $27.5 million. Completion of qualification testing ended up slipping from late 2011 to February 2013.

SM-3 Block IIA: After the SM-3 Block IIA had its Preliminary Design Review delayed by problems with 4 components (incl. the nosecone, TDACS, and 2nd & 3rd stage rocket motors), the GAO thinks MDA did the right thing by delaying the PDR by a year and adding about $296 million to extend development. The program completed the PDR successfully in March 2012, but the TDACS thrusters that aim the kill vehicle remain an issue. Program management officials say they’re applying SM-3 Block IB program lessons learned, as DACS systems are tough problems that have often challenged SM-3 variants.

SM-3 Block IIB: The missile was effectively canceled shortly after the report, and the report explains why. See SM-3 background section, above, for more.

April 10/13: FY 2014 Budget. The President releases a proposed budget at last, the latest in modern memory. The Senate and House were already working on budgets in his absence, but the Pentagon’s submission is actually important to proceedings going forward. See ongoing DID coverage. The biggest news is the SM-3 Block IIB Next-Generation Aegis Missile’s effective termination into a technology demonstration program. Its ability to defend the USA from European bases became questionable, and its timelines were never realistic. The USA will buy the originally-planned number of land-based GBI missiles instead.

Budget totals are graphed above, and it’s also worth noting that the SM-6 missile saw multi-year production cuts. The Navy’s justification documents explain, though we suspect SM-6 production will end up stretched long beyond 2024 due to future cuts:

“SM-6 was rephased to better align with the combat systems upgrades to Destroyers and Cruisers via [Aegis] ACB-12…. Per OPNAV Direction of 11 July 2012, the Program of Record total procurement quantity for SM-6 is increased from 1200 to 1800. The estimated scheduled completion date is extended from FY19 to FY24.”

March 15/13: SM-3 IIB. Following North Korea’s 3rd nuclear test attempt, the new US Secretary of Defense announces that the USA will add 14 more ground-based interceptors at Fort Greely, AK and Vandenberg AFB, CA, boosting the total number from 30 back to the 44 planned by the previous administration. At the same time, they’re re conducting Environmental Impact Studies for a potential additional GBI site in the United States.

They’re paying for this by “restructuring” the SM-3 Block 2B Next Generation Aegis Missile program, whose 2020 deployment date was never realistic (vid. April 20/12 GAO report).

Japan will continue to collaborate with the USA on the SM-3 Block 2A program, and will get a 2nd AN/TPY-2 radar on its territory. Pentagon AFPS | Full Speech Transcript | Boeing.

SM-3-IIB/ NGAM cancelled

March 11/13: Datalink. Raytheon announces that they’ve begun advanced testing of their company-funded dual-band (S/X) datalink, linking SM-3 missiles to an X-band Thales Nederland Advanced Phased Array Radar (APAR) at a shore-based Dutch facility. Dutch LCF ships have already participated in American missile defense tests as trackers, but they’d need this datalink if they wanted the full radar communication that’s needed to launch their own interceptors.

APAR active array radars are used as fire control radars by Dutch LCF and German F124 frigates, and by the new Danish Ivar Huitfeldt Class. The datalink would also help the US Navy. Their 3 new Zumwalt Class “destroyers” will use Raytheon’s SPY-3 X-band radar, but their SM-2 and SM-3 missile inventories are designed to work with SPY-1 S-band radars.

March 5/13: SM-3 support. Raytheon’s SM-3 Block IB in-service engineering support contract jumps from $594.4 million to $656.7 million, a raise of $62.3 million. Based on subsequent documents, this appears to be an early order for components etc., with the rest to follow if the next test succeeds.

They’ll work on this sole-source, cost-plus-award-fee contract through Sept 30/15, with initial funds coming from FY 2013 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation accounts. The US MDA in Dahlgren, VA manages this contract (HQ0276-11-C-0002, PO 0032).

Feb 28/13: Industrial. Raytheon announces that their new SM-6 production facility, with modern tools that include mobile robots and ultra-precise laser positioning, has delivered its 1st SM-6 all-up-round to the US Navy. See Nov 16/12 entry for more.

Feb 11/13: Block 2B – GAO Report. GAO-13-382R: “Standard Missile-3 Block IIB Analysis of Alternatives” throws cold water on the idea that the SM-3 Block 2B can defend the USA from bases in Poland or Romania. The geometry isn’t very good, and success may require a boost-phase intercept. Those are very tricky, and have limited range, because you have to hit the enemy missile within a very short time/ distance.

Some members of the military think it’s possible, at an initial estimated budget of $130 million extra. The missile may also need to grow from 21″ diameter to 27″, which will change which launchers it can fit into. Then there are other tradeoffs. Liquid propellants can boost speed, but are unsafe on Navy ships due to the fire risks. On the other hand, the middle of the North Sea offers much better missile intercept geometries, which can work after the boost phase. Maybe Block 2B shouldn’t be land-based at all, but then how big an improvement is it over Block 2A? MDA still needs to set the future Block 2B’s missile’s performance requirements and limits. Where should the tradeoffs be made?

This brings us to the GAO’s point about the MDA developing the SM-3 Block IIB under a framework that dispenses with a good chunk of the usual paperwork, including an Analysis of Alternatives. On reflection, this is more than just a bureaucratic point driven by “records show that programs doing the paperwork usually fare better.” One of the EPAA’s key underlying assumptions is now in question, and the proposed solution must now be in question as well. Is the best solution for land-based European missile defense still SM-3 Block IIB? What are the tradeoffs vs. using a system like the enhanced US-based GMD system recommended by the September 2012 NRC report (q.v.), and making Block 2B a ship-deployed missile? Without good answers regarding capability, options, and maintainability, how does the MDA pick the right winning combination among the Block 2B competitors? A full AoA could improve those answers – and hence the odds of a smart pick.

Feb 4/13: Support. A $14.2 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract to repair, provide depot and intermediate level maintenance for, and recertify “Standard Missiles” or associated items. The contract covers the US Navy and Foreign Military Sales from FY 2013 – 2017.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ (89%); Camden, AR (8%); Huntsville, AL (2%); and Andover, MA (1%), and is expected to be complete by September 2013. $5.6 million in funding from the FY 2013 “Operations & Maintenance, Navy” is committed immediately, and will expire at the end of the current fiscal year on Sept 30/13. This contract was not competitively procured in accordance with the “one responsible supplier” provision of 10 U.S.C. 2304 (c) (1), as implemented in FAR 6.302-1 (N00024-13-C-5402).

Jan 31/13: SM-6. A $33.3 million cost-only contract for FY 2013 long-lead items, to support SM-6 Block I production.

Work will be performed in Camden, AR (72.6%), Andover, MA (11.5%), Wolverhampton, United Kingdom (9.8%), Tucson, AZ (2%), San Carlos, CA (1.1%), San Diego, CA (0.9%), Anniston, AL (0.7%), Middletown, CT (0.6%), Joplin, MO (0.5%), and Milwaukie, OR (0.3%), and is expected to be complete by February 2015. All funding is committed immediately, via the FY 2012 “Operations and Maintenance, Navy” budget line. This contract was not competitively procured in accordance with the “one responsible source” exemption in 10 U.S.C. 2304 (c) (1), as implemented in FAR 6.302-1 (N00024-13-C-5407).

Jan 17/13: SM-6 DOT&E. The Pentagon releases the FY 2012 Annual Report from its Office of the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E). The SM-6 is included, and the overall recommendation is blunt:

“SM-6 does not meet the flight reliability criteria established by USD(AT&L) for full-rate production…. Until reliability deficiencies are resolved, the Navy should consider issuing tactics that employ multiple missiles for certain targets [DID: because you can’t depend on just 1].”

The good news is that the SM-6 has demonstrated longer downrange engagement than any SM-2. Unfortunately, current Aegis SPY-1 B/D radar and combat system can’t fully test the SM-6’s capabilities, and won’t until Aegis Baseline 9 (aka. Navy Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air) From the Sea combat system enhancements in FY 2014 – 2015. Once that back-end element is delivered, however, initial trials using multiple sensors suggest that “SM-6 battlespace will be significantly expanded.”

The bad news is that the classified deficiency noted in the 2011 report is still there, and the Navy doesn’t have a fix yet. There’s also a problem with debris and the uplink/downlink antenna, which can interfere with initial guidance. The fix hasn’t been fully flight tested, and wind tunnel testing revealed new problems with the antenna sealant material and insulation bonding. Finally, there’s an anomaly with the fuse’s Mk54 Safe-Arm Device.

Jan 17/13: SM-3 DOT&E. The Pentagon releases the FY 2012 Annual Report from its Office of the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E).

With respect to the SM-3’s anomaly in test FTM-15, the 3rd stage rocket motor has been redesigned, and flew successfully in test FTM-18. That stage is common to SM-3 Block IA and Block IB. The program is still trying to fully understand what went wrong in FTM-16, though, and that issue also deals with the 3rd stage motor. DOT&E wants a flight test to verify the correction for FTM-16 Event 2, which didn’t end as well as FTM-15 did.

Beyond that, they recommend that the US Navy engage a medium-range target before the SM-3 Block IB’s Full-Rate Production Decision.

Dec 14/12: Support. A $12.3 million contract modification exercises options for Standard Missile engineering and technical services, including evaluations of advanced missile configurations and advanced technology efforts.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ, and is expected to be complete by March 2013. All funds are committed immediately, and $2.7 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. US Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington DC (N00024-12-C-5400).

Nov 30/12: SM-2. A $108.8 million contract modification to previously awarded contract for SM-2 production, section level components and spares, shipping containers and associated data. It lists itself as a FY 2011 award, and Raytheon confirms that it brings the total FY 2011 contract value to more than $200 million. They also confirm that the award includes 60 SM-2 missiles, while emphasizing that well over half of the contract value is for design agent services, spare sections, and test equipment.

This contract will support foreign military sales to Australia (39.8%), Korea (19.8%), Japan (17.5%), Canada (3.2%), Germany (0.4%), Taiwan (0.2%) and the Netherlands (0.1%). That only totals 81%, so about $20.7 million/ 19.0% must be for the US military, which has committed to supporting SM-2 past 2035.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ (43.5%); Camden, AR (22%); Andover, MA (16.7%); Netherlands (5.3%); Anniston, AL (2.6%); San Diego, CA (2.4%); Lebanon, NH (2.1%); San Jose, CA (1.9%); Joplin, MO (1.8%); and El Segundo, CA (1.6%); and is expected to be complete by March 2014. $8.5 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/12 (N00024-11-C-5300). See also Raytheon.

Nov 29/12: SM-3 SDACS R&D. Aerojet-General Corp. in Sacramento, CA wins a $34.9 million contract, Aerojet to develop and test Solid Divert and Attitude Control Systems (SDACS) technologies for exoatmospheric BMD kill vehicles, which are carried by systems like the SM-3, THAAD, etc. Improved SDACS is part of the SM-3’s planned evolution, and Aerojet is just one firm receiving these awards – vid. Sept 27/12 entry.

This contract was competitively procured and the work will be performed at Rancho Cordova, CA, from December 2012 through November 2014. $3.7 million in FY 2013 research, development, test and evaluation funds will be used to incrementally fund this effort. The MDA in Huntsville, AL manages the contract (HQO147-13-C-0005).

Nov 26/12: Industrial. Raytheon opens the doors of its new $75 million, 70,000 square-foot, SM-3/ SM-6 all-up-round production facility at Redstone Arsenal, AL in November 2012. Its advanced features include a fleet of 5-ton capacity laser-guided vehicles that silently move missiles around the factory, and use lasers and software to position missiles within 1/10,000 of an inch. Raytheon.

FY 2012

SM-6 production begins in earnest; SM-3 block IIA work gets big funding injection and continues with Japan; SM-6 test problems; Report examines SM-3 development.

SM-2 maintenance
(click to view full)

Sept 27/12: SM-3-IIB MDACS R&D. Alliant Techsystems (ATK) Inc. of Minneapolis, MI receives a $52.8 million award to develop and test solid divert and attitude control systems (SDACS) technologies of interest to the MDA, “for use in final-stage kill vehicles.”

ATK has produced more than 165 earlier-generation solid DACS (SDACS) for the SM-3 program, but a Dec 3/12 release confirms that the work is aimed at the new SM-3 Block IIB (NGAM). The new Modular Divert and Attitude Control System (MDACS) is designed to improve the warhead-killer’s performance.

This contract was a competitively awarded procurement, and the work will be performed at Elkton, MD from October 2012 through September 2014. The contract begins with $200,000 in FY 2012 research, development, test and evaluation funds. The US MDA in Huntsville, AL manages the contract (HQO147-12-C-0016). See also ATK.

Sept 27/12: SM-2. Raytheon in Tucson, AZ receives a $14.2 million firm-fixed-price modification for SM-2 spares.

Work will be performed in Joplin, Mo. (31.6%); Tucson, Ariz. (23.5%); Minneapolis, Minn. (18.7%); Andover, Mass. (13.8%); Stafford Springs, Conn. (6.8%); and other sites below one% (5.6%), and is expected to be completed by March 2014. Contract funds in the amount of $11,738,119 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea System Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity (N00024-11-C-5300).

Sept 21/12: SM-6 test. The high-altitude JLENS radar aerostat is part of a test involving the new SM-6 naval defense missile. During the test, JLENS’ fire-control radar acquired and tracked a target that mimicked an anti-ship cruise missile, then Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) was used to pass the data on to the firing ship. The missile was fired, and used JLENS’ targeting data to move into range of its own radar, before picking up the target and destroying it. Raytheon.

Aug 30/12: +19 SM-3s. A $230.3 million sole-source cost-plus-incentive-fee contract modification buys 14 SM-3 Block IA and 5 SM-3 Block IB missiles. This raises the overall contract value from $1.7 billion to $1.93 billion, and raises FY 2012 orders so far to 14 Block IA and 14 Block IB missiles.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ through Sept 30/14, using FY 2012 Defense-Wide Procurement funds. The MDA in Dahlgren, VA manages this contract (N00024-07-C-6119, PO 0102).

FY 2012: 14 SM-3-IAs, 5 SM-3-IBs

July 31/12: +9 SM-3-IB. A $77.1 million sole-source cost-plus-incentive-fee action exercises an option for 9 SM-3 Block IB AURs. This order increases the total contract value from $1.618 billion to $1.695 billion, and is funded by FY 2012 Defense Wide Procurement funds.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ from July 31/12 through July 31/13, and the MDA in Dahlgren, VA manages the contract (N00024-07-C-6119, PO 0099).

FY 2012: 9 SM-3-IBs

July 25/12: SM-3 IIA SDD Extended. Raytheon Missile Systems in Tucson, AZ receives a a sole-source $925 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract modification, which raises the total for this FY 2010 contract from $583.4 million to $1,508.4 million. It extends and increases SM-3 Block IIA development through the Critical Design Review stage, and covers flight test support, from July 27/12 – Feb 28/17.

The SM-3 Block IIA began in 2006 as a cooperative development program with Japan, but shifts like the cancellation of the Multiple Kill Vehicle, and technical issues, have delayed the program. A restructuring plan was agreed on in September 2011, and initial flight tests won’t begin until FY 2016.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ, and FY 2012 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation funds will be used to begin funding. The MDA in Dahlgren, VA manages the contract (HQ0276-10-C-0005, PO 0030). Raytheon’s release adds that the missile is “on track for a 2018 deployment date,” and says that they’ve delivered “more than 130 SM-3 variants to the U.S. and Japanese navies…”

SM-3-IIA development extended

May 10/12: SM-6 LRIP-4. A $313.8 million combination fixed-price-incentive, cost-plus-fixed-fee, firm-fixed-price letter contract, for Low-Rate Initial Production of FY 2012 SM-6 Block I all-up rounds, plus special tooling and test equipment, spares, and containers. $63.4 million are committed at time of award, and the rest will be used to place orders over time.

This order is a milestone for the program. FY 2012 was intended to be the shift into SM-6 Full-Rate Production, after 3 LRIP lots. This may be LRIP Lot 4, but as the order’s size indicates, this is where the transition to SM-6 production really begins for the US Navy. Numbers aren’t given, but the figure is close enough to the FY 2012 procurement budget of $356.9 million that one can assume it orders all 89 of those missiles. To date, Australia has also committed to the missile for its Hobart Class destroyers.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ (46%); Camden, AR (24%); Andover, MA (6%); Wolverhampton, United Kingdom (6%); Huntsville, AL (4%); Dallas, TX (4%); Hanahan, SC (3%); Anniston, AL (3%); San Jose, CA (2%); and Middletown, OH (2%), and is expected to complete by March 2015. This contract was not competitively procured, as Raytheon is the sole qualified producer for Standard Missile (N00024-12-C-5401). The Raytheon release doesn’t add anything.

FY 2012: 89 SM-6s

May 9/12: FTM-16E2a – Block IB success. For “FTM-16, Event 2a”, the missile was fired from the guided missile cruiser Lake Erie [CG 70] using the new AEGIS BMD 4.0.1 hardware and software, and the missile used its new 2-color infrared seeker to track and intercept the target. Overall, this is the 20th successful SM-3 intercept, but the Block IB had failed the previous FTM-16 firing test (vid. Sept 1/11). Wes Kremer, vice president of Raytheon Missile Systems’ Air and Missile Defense Systems product line, offers a quick update:

“Raytheon has delivered more than 130 SM-3 Block IAs ahead of schedule and under cos… We are on track to deliver the SM-3 Block IB to the nation by 2015 for deployment at sea and ashore.”

It’s a big moment for the missile. See: US MDA | Lockheed Martin | Raytheon.

FTM-16E2a: SM-3-IB test successful

SM-3 programs
in FY 2011
(click to view full)

April 20/12: GAO report The US GAO releases “Opportunity Exists to Strengthen Acquisitions by Reducing Concurrency.” That bland-sounding title has a lot to say about the Pentagon’s SM-3 missiles, as it reviews the events of FY 2011 and looks at each variant.

SM-3 Block IA: Production was supposed to end in 2009, but Block IB failures led to 41 FY 2010-2011 orders, and may lead to more in FY 2012. The problem with further Block IA orders is an anomaly in test FTM-15. The test still succeeded, but it was serious enough that deliveries were frozen until the problem is fixed. At the time of the GAO’s report, 12 missiles were awaiting delivery (GAO says about 10% of the operational fleet), and at least 7 missiles will need modifications.

SM-3 Block IB: The 2015 political schedule for deploying a European Missile defense is forcing a lot of the program’s overlap between development, testing & production. For instance, the program began production of SM-3 IB interceptors before resolving development issues with the kill vehicle’s TDACS propulsion. TDACS failed qualification testing in early 2010 and required a redesigned propellant moisture protection system, but the version used in the failed FTM-16E2 flight test in 2011 wasn’t the same as approved production design. TDACS is expected to complete qualification testing in 2012, barring further problems, and various issues continue to delay production. After the FTM-16 E2 test failure, FY 2011 orders were cut, and most of those missiles (18/25) are now slated for testing. Those issues aren’t fully resolved, and the Block IA’s FTM-15 test anomaly is also a problem, since the affected system is shared with the Block IB. A decision must be made on the planned FY 2012 order for 46 missiles, even though testing may need until 2013. The MDA wants to buy 472 SM-3 Block IBs by 2020.

SM-3 Block IIA USA/Japan: While this is still technically an “SM-3,” the GAO correctly points out that this 21″ diameter missile will have very little in common with the Block IB. A September 2011 program rescheduling has helped, and an issue with nosecone weight seems to be settled. At the end of FY 2011, however, there were still technical difficulties with the 2nd and 3rd stage rocket motors, and the alternate propellant picked for the new “high-divert” DACS system may offer less kill vehicle performance than hoped.

SM-3 Block IIB NGAM: Being pursued as a competitive program, with 3 design vendors and multiple technology development contracts for key technologies. The GAO is also concerned about concurrency here, as the summer 2013 product development decision will occur before the March 2015 Preliminary Design Review. They add:

“Based on the experience of other SM-3 interceptors, the program must commit to produce flight test interceptors 2 years before the March 2016 first flight. However, this timeline means the commitment to a flight test vehicle would occur a year before the SM-3 Block IIB PDR [in March 2015] has confirmed that the design is feasible and more than a year and a half before CDR has confirmed that the design is stable.”

Key progress report

March 21/12: SM-3. Raytheon Missile Systems in Tucson, AZ receives a $120 million contract ceiling increase for SM-3 design and engineering, in service engineering support, production engineering and obsolescence, surveillance and flight test support, and transition to production. The change increases the contract’s maximum value from $689 million to $809 million.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ through Sept 30/15. FY 2012 research, development, test and evaluation funds will be used to incrementally fund this initial effort. The MDA in Dahlgren, VA manages the contract (HQ0276-11-C-0002, PO 0017, contract line item number 0003).

Jan 19/12: SDACS. Alliant Techsystems (ATK), Inc. in Minneapolis, MN receives a $13.5 million contract modification to “develop and test Solid Divert and Attitude Control Systems (SDACS) technologies of interest to the Missile Defense Agency.”

This contract represents part of the MDA’s technology development strategy to improve performance and reduce risk for BMD interceptor divert and attitude control systems, which maneuver missile kill vehicles to hit their target in space. ATK’s SDACS is associated with the SM-3 program’s LEAP(Lightweight Exo-Atomspheric Projectile) Kinetic Kill Vehicle, but similar kil vehicles are also used in the land-based THAAD (Boeing liquid DACS) and GBI/GMD (Raytheon/Aerojet EKV) programs. Depending on the technologies tested, there may be spinoff benefits.

The original contract was a competitively awarded procurement. Work will be performed at Elkton, MD, from February 2012 through December 2012, with $800,000 in FY 2012 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation funds as opening funding. The MDA, Huntsville, AL manages the contract (HQOI47-11-C-0003).

Jan 17/12: DOT&E & SM-6. The Pentagon releases the FY2011 Annual Report from its Office of the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E). The SM-3 and SM-6 are included.

For the SM-3, the DOT&E report has little to say. The SM-3 Block IA system is stable, and continues to show progress. There was an anomaly in the SM-3 Block IA interceptor’s flyout during test FTM-15, but it achieved intercept. FTM-16 Event 2 saw a failure by the new SM-3 Block IB. Both incidents are still under investigation.

The SM-6 completed IOT&E flight testing in July 2011, but was assessed as not operationally effective or suitable yet. On the plus side, it showed strong range, and performed well against low-level, maneuvering, and ECM(electronic countermeasure) protected targets. On the other hand, it succeeded in only 7 of 12 intercepts, and those weren’t in an “objective operational environment.” Two missions failed due to fuze-related anomalies, 2 missions were in-flight hardware failures, and 1 was a failure of the missile navigation system.

There were 2 classified performance anomalies that DOT&E believes should have been uncovered in developmental testing, and 2 more anomalies (antenna debris, MK54 safe-arm device) that were found but not fixed, with effects on the test results. The DOT&E wants corrective action on the problems, more flight tests, and an IOT&E test plan for SM-6’s full over-the-horizon capability when Aegis Capability Baseline 12 and the NIFC-CA sensors are fielded after FY 2014.

Dec 8/11: SM-3 IB. A $35 million sole-source modification to Raytheon’s cost-plus-incentive-fee SM-3 Block IB contract, to buy materials and assemblies used in those missiles from December 2011 – May 2012. This raises the contract’s total value to $1.604 billion. The period of performance for this contract action is from December 2011 through May 2012.

FY 2011 RDT&E funds will be used to fully fund this effort. The MDA in Dahlgren, VA manages the contract (N00027-07-C-6119).

Nov 15/11: SM-3 IIA. Raytheon in Tucson, AZ receives a sole-source, $241 million cost-plus-award-fee contract modification, including options, which brings the total contract to $575.6 million. In exchange, they’ll offer engineering services and material for systems engineering, design and development support, and initial hardware fabrication for the SM-3 Block IIA missile, including redesign of the divert and attitude control system (DACS, vid. Sept 17/11 entry).

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ through March 31/12, using FY 2012 research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E) funds. The SM-3 block IIA is a collaboration with Japan, but the Pentagon notes that this is not a Foreign Military Sales acquisition. The MDA in Dahlgren, VA manages the contract (HQ0006-10-C-0005). See also Sept 8/11 entry, Raytheon release.

FY 2011

SM-3 block IIB/NGAM, phase 1 R&D contracts; Datalink could expand SM-3 to new ship classes; SM-3 block IIA work continues with Japan; SM-3 block IA production continues after all, following FTM-16’s SM-3 block IB test failure; SM-3 IA demonstrates launch on remote track in FTM-15; Multinational SM-2 contract; SM-6 LRIP-3 contract; 1st SM-6 delivery.

SM-3 seeker: target!
(click to view full)

Sept 23/11: FY11 SM-2s. A not-to-exceed $142.6 million cost-only contract for FY 2011’s SM-2 all-up-rounds (number not mentioned), section level components and spares, shipping containers, and associated data. This contract will provide 60 SM-2 Block IIIB all-up-rounds, along with components and spares. This contract combines purchases for the U.S. Navy (17.8%); and, under the Foreign Military Sales Program, the governments of Korea (32.4%), Japan (26.5%), Australia (21.9%), Germany (0.7%), Taiwan (0.5%), and Canada (0.2%). It includes options which could bring the total to $146.2 million.

Work will be performed in Andover, MA (37%); Camden, Ark. (36%); The Netherlands (7%); Anniston, AL (5%); Joplin, Mo. (4%); San Diego, CA (3%); Middleton, CT (3%); El Segundo, CA (3%); and Reisterstown, MD (2%). Work is expected to be complete by June 2013. This contract was not competitively procured by US Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington Navy Yard, DC (N00024-11-C-5300).

FY 2011: 60 SM-2s

Sept 17/11: SM-3-IIA delays. Mianichi Daily News reports US notification to Japan that the SM-3 Block IIA will be delayed 2 years, because the kill vehicle needs additional testing. The USA will cover the additional costs.

The original development plan involved a 9-year effort ending in 2014, with Japan paying $1.0 – 1.2 billion, and the USA $1.1 – 1.5 billion. That will now extend to 2016, with the USA looking to deploy the new missile in 2018.

SM-3-IIA program delayed

Sept 16/11: SM-3 IA order. A maximum $285.8 million unfinalized sole-source, cost-plus-incentive-fee contract modification to build another 23 SM-3 Block IA missiles. The award increases the total contract value from $1.269 billion to $1.555 billion, and appears to cancel the procurement shift indicated by the March 29/11 contract, which cut and seemingly ended SM-3 Block IA production. See also the Sept 1/11 entry, in which the replacement SM-3 Block IB missile failed its 1st intercept test.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ through April 30/14. $60 million in FY 2011 defense-wide procurement funds will be used to incrementally fund this effort. The MDA in Dahlgren, VA manages the contract (N00024-07-C-6119, PO 0068).

FY 2011: 23 SM-3-IAs

Sept 16/11: SM-6. Another $9.1 million fixed-price incentive-fee and firm-fixed-price contract modification for low rate initial production of FY 2011 SM-6 Block I AURs. See also the $182.3 million June 21/11 entry.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ (50%); Camden, AR (23%); Boston, MA (5%); Dallas, TX (4%); Hanahan, SC (3%); Anniston, AL (2%); San Jose, CA (2%); and other areas (11%), each having less than 1%; and is expected to be complete by March 2014 (N00024-09-C-5305).

Sept 13/11: DB Datalink. Raytheon announces successful testing for their prototype dual-band datalink, allowing ships that use either Lockheed Martin SPY-1/ AEGIS or Thales Nederland’s SMART-L and/or APAR radars to employ the full range of Standard Missiles, including the SM-3.

The firm cites up to 20 eligible ships, including SPY-1/ AEGIS/ MK41 VLS operators in Norway (Fridtjof Nansen) and Spain (F100); as well as APAR/ SMART-L/ MK41 radar operators in Denmark (Iver Huitfeldt), Germany (F124 Sachsen), the Netherlands (De Zeven Provincien); and closely derived S1850 operators in France (Horizon), Italy (Horizon) and the United Kingdom (Type 45).

For discussion of the issues, the opportunity, and the ships Raytheon left out, read “Raytheon’s Datalink: A New Naval Standard for the Standard?” See also June 20-21/11 entry.

Sept 8/11: SM-3-IIA. Raytheon Missile Systems in Tucson, AZ receives a sole-source $48 million cost-plus-award-fee contract modification, to perform SM-3 Block IIA engineering services, design and development support, and initial hardware fabrication, including continued DACS(divert and attitude control system) development work. The award raises the total contract value from $286.5 million to $334.5 million.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ is through Oct 31/11. FY 2011 research, development, test and evaluation funds will be used to incrementally fund this effort, and even though the Block IIA is a joint effort with Japan, his is not a Foreign Military Sales acquisition. The MDA in Dahlgren, VA manages the contract (HQ0006-10-C-0005, PO 0017).

Sept 1/11: FTM-16E2 = SM-3-IB fail. The first ABM test of the new SM-3 Block 1B missile does not go well, as the launch from the AEGIS BMD 4.0.1-equipped USS Lake Erie [CG-70] fails to intercept the target missile during “FTM-16, Event 2”. The US MDA is now 21/26 for SM-3 missile intercept attempts, plus one successful satellite kill.

The root cause of failure turns out to be abnormal performance in the 3rd stage, during thrust pulses for final rocket maneuver. That stage is common to Block IA and Block IB missiles, so the program decides that the least disruptive approach is to change the ship’s Aegis BMD 4 software to control the timing between pulses. There are no further problems in the next 3 SM-3 Block IB tests. US MDA | Aviation Week pre-test | GAO report explains cause.

SM-3-IB test failure

Aug 31/11: TDACS. GenCorp subsidiary Aerojet announces successful SM-3 Block 1B Throttleable Divert and Attitude Control System (TDACS) ground static testing, which is short of full qualification. Aerojet is the Standard Missile’s TDACS supplier, developing the SM-3 Block IB and Block IIA systems, and doing technology research for NGAM Block IIB. Vice President of Missile Defense, Michael Bright:

“These tests confirm the readiness of the TDACS for the upcoming [Block IB] critical flight test… We look forward to a successful flight test.”

Aug 23/11: Raytheon Missile Systems Co. in Tucson, AZ receives a $9.8 million sole-source, cost-plus-award-fee contract modification. The CLIN 0008 option, “Future Upgrades and Engineering Support,” will help the MDA execute technical analysis for the Aegis BMD 5.1/SM-3 Block IIA combination, and increases the total contract value from $276.7 – $286.5 million.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ through Sept 30/16, and will be incrementally funded by FY 2011 research, development, test, and evaluation funds. Though the SM-3 Block IIA is a cooperative program with Japan, this is not a foreign military sales acquisition. The US MDA in Dahlgren, VA manages the contract (HQ0276-10-C-0005, PO 0015).

July 6/11: DSB controversy. In an open letter, the US Defense Science Board aims to dispel impressions that they recommended against the SM-3, which by its nature is a mid-course or terminal phase interceptor:

“The DSB concluded that the Missile Defense Agency is on the right track in developing European Phased Adapted Approach (EPAA) options, including continued evolution of the SM-3 family of missiles… The DSB also examined the potential in the EPAA context for EI [Early Intercept] in regional defense against short-range missiles before threat payloads could be deployed, and concluded that this was not a viable option because of technical constraints… The fact that this form of EI is not viable in shorter-range regional applications does not imply that either SM-3 family interceptors or the EPAA concept are flawed… MDA is on the right track in pursuing this capability for national missile defense, and examining the potential application in regional defense as a function of the range of threat missiles.”

June 23/11: CRS report. The US Congressional Research Service releases the latest update of “Navy Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Program: Background and Issues for Congress” [PDF]. Key excerpts:

“Some observers are concerned… that demands from U.S. regional military commanders for BMD-capable Aegis ships are growing faster than the number of BMD-capable Aegis ships. They are also concerned that demands from U.S. regional military commanders for… BMD operations could strain the Navy’s ability to provide regional military commanders with Aegis ships for performing non-BMD missions… Options for Congress include, among other things, the following: accelerating the modification of Aegis ships to BMD-capable configurations, increasing procurement of new Aegis destroyers, increasing procurement of SM-3 missiles, and providing funding for integrating the SM-2 Block IV BMD interceptor missile into the 4.0.1 version of the Aegis BMD system… MDA states that SM-3 Block IAs have a unit procurement cost of about $9 million to $10 million, that SM-3 Block IBs have an estimated unit procurement cost of about $12 million to $15 million, and that SM-3 Block IIAs have an estimated unit procurement cost of about $20 million to $24 million.”

June 21/11: SM-6 LRIP-3. Raytheon Missile Systems in Tucson, AZ receives a $182.3 million contract modification to previously awarded contract for FY 2011 low-rate initial production (LRIP Lot 3) of SM-6 Block I all up rounds (AUR), complete with storage and self-test container. The USA is buying 59 SM-6 Block I AURs, 35 instrumentation kits, spares and containers, and engineering/ design agent services.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ (61%); Camden, AR (23%); Boston, MA (5%); Dallas, TX (4%); Hanahan, SC (3%); Anniston, AL (2%); and San Jose, CA (2%). Work is expected to be completed by June 2013 (N00024-09-C-5305). See also July 1/10 entry.

June 3/11: SM-3 IB. A $219.5 million cost-plus-award-fee, cost-plus-incentive-fee, and cost-plus-fixed-fee contract modification, finalizing work for the FTM-16 ballistic missile defense test. This finalizes the total contract at $294.5 million, which includes the engineering, development, testing, support and material necessary to deliver an SM-3 Block 1B missile; and to provide engineering support, production engineering and obsolescence, surveillance and flight test support, and travel during the 55-month (about 4.5 year) performance period.

FTM-16 is scheduled for late summer 2011. It will demonstrate the new AEGIS BMD 4.0.1 fire control standard mounted in USS Lake Erie [CG 70], in conjunction with the 1st flight test of the SM-3 Block IB interceptor. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ through Sept 30/15, and about $32 million in FY 2011 research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E) funds will be used. The MDA at Dahlgren Naval Base, VA manages this contract (HQ0276-11-C-0002). See also US MDA testimony to HASC [PDF].

May 27/11: SM-3 IIB R&D. GenCorp subsidiary & rocket propulsion specialist Aerojet announces 2 contracts to develop key technologies required for the SM-3 Block IIB Next-Generation Aegis Missile.

That’s still in competition, and will be for a while, but Aerojet will work to develop improved high-performance, lightweight propulsion components for the missile’s upper stage, and also for the final Kill Vehicle’s maneuvering Divert and Attitude Controls. At this stage, however, it’s extremely preliminary stuff. They’ll identify key propulsion technologies, define and conceptualize propulsion components, and conduct limited testing to provide characterization data. Even prototyping won’t take place until the next stage.

May 26/11: SM-3 IA R&D. A $110.7 million cost-plus-award-fee modification, resulting in a new cumulative contract value of $276 million for SM-3 Block IIA engineering and development. The modification will extend contract line item number (CLIN) 0001 period of performance to from May 1/11 through Sept 30/11, the end of fiscal 2011.

FY 2011 RDT&E (research, development, test and evaluation) funds will be used for this effort with $20 million provided at time of award (HQ0276-10-C-0005, PO 0011). This announcement repeats a May 11/11 Pentagon notice.

April 26/11: SM-6 1st delivery. Raytheon announces that they’ve delivered the 1st SM-6 missile to the US Navy. Raytheon’s Air and Missile Defense Systems product line VP Frank Wyatt implies that the delivery actually took place in March, when he says that:

“Five years ago, Raytheon promised the U.S. Navy that SM-6 would be delivered in March 2011, and we delivered on that promise… and met cost expectations for system development and demonstration.”

SM-6 delivery

April 15/11: FTM-15. Flight Test Standard Missile-15 (FTM-15) fires an SM-3 Block 1A missile against an intermediate-range (officially, 1,864 – 3,418 miles) target, based on AN/TPY-2 ground-based radar data, before the USS O’Kane (DDG 77, equipped with AEGIS BMD 3.6.1) could pick the target up using its own radar. Initial indications are that all components performed as designed, and the missile recorded the 21st successful AEGIS BMD intercept in 25 tries.

The target missile was launched from the Reagan Test Site, located on Kwajalein Atoll in the Republic of the Marshall Islands, approximately 2,300 miles SW of Hawaii. The AN/TPY-2 radar, which is also used as part of the THAAD missile system, was located on Wake Island, and crewed by Soldiers from the 94th Army Air and Missile Defense Command. It detected and tracked the missile, then sent trajectory information to the 613th Air and Space Operations Center’s C2BMC (Command, Control, Battle Management, and Communications) system at Hickam Air Force Base, HI. That was relayed to USS O’Kane, sailing to the west of Hawaii, which launched the SM-3-1A missile about 11 minutes after target take-off. O’Kane’s own AN/SPY-1 radar eventually picked up the incoming missile itself, and controlled the missile until impact.

FTM-15 was less dramatic than the SM-3’s 2008 satellite kill, but it’s equally significant. Launch on remote track was supposed to wait for AEGIS BMD 5.1, and SM-3 Block IB was supposed to begin addressing IRBMs, with full capability only in SM-3 block II. Instead, the test also combined to extend the current system’s proven capabilities, while validating the difficult connections that make a missile defense system more than the sum of its parts, and proving out an important early warning element (STSS satellites) in the system. US MDA | Lockheed Martin | Raytheon | Lexington Institute.

April 12/11: SM-6. Raytheon in Tucson, AZ receives a $17.7 million fixed-price incentive-fee contract modification to get ready for SM-6 production. It includes incorporation of pre-production materials and support required for FY 2011 production of “all up rounds,” i.e. missiles and smart canisters.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ, and is expected to be complete by June 2013. US Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington Navy Yard, DC manages the contract (N00024-09-C-5305).

April 7/11: SM-3 IIB/ NGAM Phase 1. The MDA announces a trio of Phase 1 cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts to work with MDA on the Next Generation AEGIS Missile/ SM-3 Block IIB. The firms will perform concept definition and program planning, offer their competing visions for viable and affordable missile configurations, conduct trade studies, and define an executable development plan. This contract was competitively procured via publication on the Federal Business Opportunities website, and received 4 proposals. Based on previous releases, it would appear that Northrop Grumman is the odd firm out (vid. Nov 10/10 entry). Winners included:

Boeing in Chicago, IL wins a $41.2 million contract. Work will be performed in Huntsville, AL, through December 2013, and $1.4 million in FY 2011 research, development, test and evaluation funds will be used as incremental funding (HQ0147-11-C-0007). Boeing’s core theater missile defense offering is the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense program, run with key team members Orbital Sciences and Northrop Grumman.

Lockheed Martin Corp. in Bethesda, MD wins a $43.3 million contract. Work will be performed by Lockheed Martin Space Systems in Sunnyvale, CA, through December 2013, and $1.4 million in FY 2011 research, development, test and evaluation funds will be used as incremental funding (HQ0147-11-C-0008). Lockheed Martin’s core theater missile defense offering is the THAAD interceptor, and there has been talk of expanding it to a longer-range 21″ diameter weapon. Lockheed Martin’s release touts their lead roles in the AEGIS BMD 5.1 combat system and Mk.41 launcher, which will be used with the land and sea-based SM-3 Block IIBs. This contract was also announced on May 6/11; that announcement was a duplicate.

Current SM-3 incumbent Raytheon Co. in Waltham, MA wins a $42.7 million contract. Work will be performed by Raytheon Missile Systems in Tucson, AZ, through December 2013, and $1.4 million in FY 2011 research, development, test and evaluation funds will be used as incremental funding (HQ0147-11-C-0009). See also Raytheon’s release notes that “Raytheon has delivered more than 130 SM-3s ahead of schedule and under cost as part of its contract with the Missile Defense Agency.”

SM-3 Block IIB/ NGAM, Phase 1

March 29/11: Shift to the SM-3 Block IB. The MDA takes with one hand, and gives with the other.

Contract #N00024-07-C-6119, CLIN 0004 cuts $72.3 million in funding from the SM-3 Block IA, ordering 18 missiles for $157.6 million instead of 24 missiles for $229.9 million. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ, and will take place from March 2011 through April 2012. This identical change was announced on March 22/11 as well. The MDA tells DID that the original plan was to go to 12 missiles, but Congress added funding for another 6 in the FY 2010 budget/supplemental rounds.

On the other hand, CLIN 0016 for the same contract pays $312.7 million to finish SM-3 Block IB development, and order 24 missiles. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ, and will take place from March 2011 through June 2013. FY 2011 research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E) funds will be used to incrementally fund $47.8 million of this order – but the Block IB’s days as a development project are numbered. It’s about to become the main production weapon. See also Raytheon release. The GAO-12-486 report notes that this purchase of 24 Block IB missiles was later canceled.

March 3/11: SM-3 IB. The MDA announces a $75 million sole-source cost-plus-award-fee contract to Raytheon Missile Systems in Tucson, AZ to support flight test mission 15 involving an SM-3 Block 1B missile, and deliver the SM-3 Block 1B missile for FTM-16. This undefinitized contract action will award contract lines items for in service engineering support and travel, and will also cover engineering development, testing, support and necessary materials.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ from February 2011 through May 2011, and $20 million in FY 2011 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) funds will be used to incrementally fund this effort (HQ0276-11-C-002).

Dec 29/10: SM-3. Raytheon Missile Systems in Tucson, AZ receives a $24.4 million cost-plus-award-fee modification, exercising an option to provide continued systems engineering and development of the Standard Missile-3.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ from Jan 1/11 through Jan 31/11. FY 2011 research, development, test and evaluation funds will be used to obligate $5 million to provide the initial funding for this effort. The MDA manages this contract (HQ0276-08-C-0001).

Nov 29/10: The US Navy’s PEO-Integrated Warfare Systems issues a readiness and sustainment contract to BAE Systems, to establish and maintain the ship interfaces for the Standard Missile family. That includes, but is not exclusive to, the Mk41 vertical launch systems carrying the missiles. These services include systems and software engineering, systems integration, testing, and computer-aided design. The contract has a 1-year base period, with up to 4 one-year options. If all options are exercised, it will be worth $60 million. Work will be conducted at a BAE Systems Support Solutions facility in Rockville, MD, and at customer sites in Tucson, AZ and around the world.

Under the same contract, the company also works with the Navy to support Standard Missile family interfaces for Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, and Taiwan. BAE Systems.

Nov 22/10: Raytheon Missile Systems in Tucson, AZ receives a $70 million contract modification for FY 2011 Standard Missile program engineering and technical services. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ, and the option will expire in January 2012 (N00024-09-C-5303).

Nov 10/10: NGAM/ SM-3 IIB. SM-3 Block IIB won’t be sole-sourced to Raytheon. Several firms have submitted proposals to the MDA under its “Next-Generation Aegis Missile” program, a.k.a. SM-3 Block IIB, which aims to provide early intercept capability against intermediate- and long-range (IRBM/ICBM) ballistic missile threats. The new missile will integrated with AEGIS BMD 5.1 equipped ships (4.0.1 is the most advanced version in current ships), and the MK 41 Vertical Launching System, both ashore and at sea.

Competitors beyond Raytheon include Boeing (GMD background), Lockheed Martin (THAAD), and Northrop Grumman (KEI). A 32-month concept definition and program planning phase will begin in 2011 to define design objectives, conduct trade studies, establish a technical baseline, and develop an executable program plan. A competitive product development phase will follow, but the SM-3 Block IIB missiles aren’t expected to be available before 2020. FedBizOpps Pre-Solicitation | Boeing | Lockheed Martin | Northrop Grumman | Brahmand.

Nov 5/10: A $34 million contract modification, exercising an option for R&D engineering and technical services to support the standard missile program. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ, and is expected to be complete by December 2012. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year (N00024-07-C-5361).

FY 2010

SM-3 block IIA work continues with Japan; Pointed debate – is SM-3 a flawed concept?; R&D for early intercept investigation re: SM-3; New Mk.125 warhead for SM-2 and SM-6 missiles; SM-6 LRIP-2 contract; SM-6 risks, cost increases; Upgraded Australian FFG-7 frigate fires SM-2; New missile production facility at Redstone Arsenal, AL.

SM-3 Block IA
from USS Decatur
(click to view full)

Sept 23/10: SM-2 spares. A $5.8 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for FY 2010 SM-2 common production spares. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ, and is expected to be complete by December 2012. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/10 (N00024-09-C-5303).

Sept 10/10: SM-1 support. A $60.5 million contract modification to a previously awarded contract (N00024-05-C-5341) for Standard Missile-1 (SM-1) core support, missiles, spare components and parts to Taiwan (98%) and Italy (2%). This contract modification will provide for the procurement of 1 SM-1 Block VI-B inert operational missile, 407 MK 56 regrained dual thrust rocket motors (DTRMs), and 1 option to procure an additional 3 DTRMs.

Work will be performed in Camden, AR (45%); Sacramento, CA (45%); and Tucson, AZ (10%). Work is expected to be complete by August 2013.

Sept 8/10: SM-3-IIA R&D. A $165.2 million cost-plus-award-fee with technical/schedule performance incentive contract, covering SM-3 Block IIA Preliminary Design Review efforts. This may include engineering services and material for systems engineering, design and development support, and initial hardware fabrication for the Standard Missile-3 Block IIA missile.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ, and is expected to be complete by March 31/11. FY 2010 RDTE(Research, development, test and evaluation) funds will be used to for this effort, with initial incremental funding of $40 million (HQ0276-10-C-0005). Raytheon release.

July 19/10: Industrial. Raytheon announces plans to build an all-up-round Standard missile production facility at the US Army’s Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, AL. The 70,000-square-foot facility will be for final assembly and testing of SM-3 and SM-6 missiles. Construction will begin in 2010.

July 1/10: SM-6 LRIP-2. A $65.3 million contract modification for low-rate initial production of FY 2010 SM-6 ERAM Block I all-up-rounds, instrumentation kits, design agent services, spares and containers.

Raytheon informs DID that there are actually several contracts involved, worth up to $368 million. They finalize FY 2009 (Low Rate initial Production Lot 1) work for 19 missiles under an existing letter contract, award FY 2010 (LRIP-2) production of 11 missiles plus spares pending Congressional clearance, and add an option for 59 LRIP Lot 3 missiles in FY 2010, as the firm moves to ramp up to full production in 2012. System and design engineering efforts are also part of these awards. See also May 20/10 contract for long-lead items.

Raytheon will deliver the first missiles in early 2011, with initial operational capability set for March 2011. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ (50%); Camden, AR (23%); Boston, MA (5%); Dallas, TX (4%); Hanahan, SC (3%); Anniston, AL (2%); San Jose, CA (2%); and other locations (11%). Work is expected to be complete by December 2012 (N00024-09-C-5305). See also Raytheon.

FY 2010: 11-70 SM-6s

May 24/10: SM-3 R&D. A $182.6 million cost-plus-award-fee modification for Raytheon to continue systems engineering and development for new SM-3 variants.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ, from May 2010 through December 2010. FY 2010 Research, development, test and evaluation funding will be used to incrementally fund this effort in the amount of $56.2 million. The MDA manages this contract (HQ0276-08-C-0001).

May 20/10: SM-6 lead-in. A $7.2 million fixed-price incentive-fee modification to a previously awarded contract, buying long-lead materials for FY 2010 production of SM-6 Block I all up rounds.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ, and is expected to be complete by June 30/12 (N00024-09-C-5305).

May 17/10: SM-3 dispute. The New York Times runs an article critical of the Navy’s SM-3 program. “Review Cites Flaws in U.S. Antimissile Program” alleges that the MDA’s definition of “successful intercept” is essentially fraudulent, because it does not require a direct hit on the warhead, and cites instances in 1991 where a hit on the missile still resulted in a warhead landing and detonating. They also claim that the technologies used cannot reliably pick the warhead out from simple countermeasures, from “chuffing” rockets to debris fields. Instead of 84% test intercept success, the paper argues that the figure should be 10-20%. Dr. Postol, a former Pentagon science adviser who forcefully (and correctly) criticized the performance of the Patriot system in the 1991 Persian Gulf war, is categorical:

“The system is highly fragile and brittle and will intercept warheads only by accident, if ever.”

The military does not often refer to Wile E. Coyote in public responses, but it does here. The MDA adds that the NY Times chose not to publish extremely relevant information they had been given, in order to push the paper’s version of the story. Excerpts:

“…whether it’s a unitary target or a separating target – [the impact] completely obliterates the warhead and the missile and spreads a debris field along the path of the original trajectory… pieces that… we’ve seen after and intercept, some of them have only been maybe two or three inches across. Even in the case of the satellite that we had to shoot down, there was nothing larger than a football… contrary to what Doctors Postol and Lewis said, after being hit, the – well, the interceptor does not pass through the body of the – of the target missile. That’s akin to, you know, Wile E. Coyote running through a glass or plate glass and leaving the exact outline of his body after he goes through.”

The MDA adds that Postol & Lewis made their assessment without any access to the base data that showed “the complete destruction” of the target missiles, adding that even the public photos they cite cast doubt on their claims. Tests against unitary targets where the warhead does not separate did hit what they were aimed at. MDA also contends that the tests without warheads for the first 3 tests (FM-2/3/4) using prototype interceptors were a sensible move, reducing costs for tests that aimed only to prove that missiles could be intercepted – and did. They also point out that the NY Times was told all of these things, and chose not to publish them. In terms of the overall record, and lethality tests:

“Since 2002, a total of 19 SM-3 missiles have been fired in 16 different test events resulting in 16 intercepts against threat-representative full-size and more challenging subscale unitary and full-size targets with separating warheads. In addition, a modified Aegis BMD/SM-3 system successfully destroyed a malfunctioning U.S. satellite by hitting the satellite in the right spot to negate the hazardous fuel tank… From 1991 through 2010 the MDA has conducted 66 full scale hit-to-kill lethality sled tests and 138 sub-scale hit-to-kill light gas gun tests covering all MDA interceptor types against nuclear, unitary chemical, chemical submunitions, biological bomblets and high-explosive submunition threats. Eighteen of these tests were specifically devoted to the current SM-3 kinetic warhead system.”

See: Lewis & Postol’s May 2010 Arms Control today article and PDF on MIT’s site | NY Times article | DoD roundtable audio | MDA written response | DoD Buzz | WIRED Danger Room #1 | WIRED Danger Room #2.

May 10/10: A $54.3 million cost-plus-incentive-fee modification to deliver SM-3 Block IA spares common and unique material for U.S. and Foreign Military Sales (FMS) manufacturing. The purchase will use $15 million of FY 2010 Research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) funding, and $7.9 million of FY 2010 Foreign Military Sales monies, to incrementally fund this effort in the amount of $22.9 million.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ from May 2010 through March 2011. The MDA manages this contract (N00024-07-C-6119).

May 3/10: Raytheon announces that its SM-6 ERAM missile will begin sea-launched flight testing this month. This would represent an acceleration of the program, based on the GAO’s March 30/10 report. According to Raytheon, the SM-6 is on-time and on-budget, despite the April 1/10 SAR report’s noted increases. Asked by DID about this divergence, Raytheon replied that:

“The report referenced projects costs (including government costs) to manage the program through 2019. We stand by our statement that Raytheon Missile Systems SM-6 is on schedule and on budget through five years of System Development and Demonstration.”

The firm believes that they are on track to achieve the SM-6’s Initial Operational Capability milestone in 2011, with 5 successful land-based flight tests and manufacturing now in low rate initial production.

April 9/10: A $6.5 million modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-08-C-5374) for 6 more SM-2 all-up-round (AUR) missiles; AN/DKT-71A telemetric data transmitting sets; 10 guidance section spares, 9 SCU spares, 36 shipping containers, 30 battery spares, 1638 Innovasic chips; and associated data.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ (74%); Andover, MA (18%); Camden, AR (5%); and Farmington, NM (3%); and is expected to be complete by December 2010.

April 1/10: The Pentagon releases its April 2010 Selected Acquisitions Report, covering major program changes up to December 2009. The SM-6 program is listed, due to cost increases:

“Program costs increased $645.6 million (+10.8%) from $5,954.4 million to $6,600.0 million, due to an increase in known missile component costs and refinement of the production cost estimate (+$563.8 million), an increase to fully fund initial spares (+$225.3 million), and a stretch-out of the procurement buy profile from fiscal 2010 to fiscal 2019 (+$30.6 million). These increases were partially offset by the application of revised escalation indices (-$174.4 million).”

SAR: SM-6 cost increases

March 30/10: GAO report. The US GAO audit office delivers its 8th annual “Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs report. The SM-3 and SM-6 missile programs both come in for comment:

“The Aegis BMD program is putting the SM-3 Block IB at risk for cost growth and schedule delays by planning to begin manufacturing in 2010 before its critical technologies have been demonstrated in a realistic environment. This risk has been deemed acceptable by the MDA… Prototypes of these four critical technologies – the throttleable divert and attitude control system [TDACS], all reflective optics, two-color seeker, and kinetic warhead advanced signal processor – have not completed developmental testing in a relevant environment. Aegis program officials told us that the integrated ground test would not be completed until late 2010. In addition, the first target intercept flight test will not occur until the second quarter of fiscal year 2011… Aegis BMD program officials… stated that the SM-3 Block IB full rate production decision is scheduled for 2012 – after several flight tests. The procurement that is mentioned in this report is for test rounds to conduct developmental and operational flight testing… may also be deployed if a security situation demands…

“The Aegis program completed the system design review for the Block IIA in fiscal year 2009 after a delay of over 5 months. The first operational test of the Block IIA is planned for the third quarter of fiscal year 2014.”

“Land-based [SM-6 ERAM] developmental flight tests against targets representing anti-ship cruise missiles were successful. However, during a developmental test in January 2009, the SM-6 missile failed to launch. Post-test failure investigation identified an issue with the tactical seeker batteries which caused mission computer failure. The contractor implemented corrective actions… in August 2009 it was retested successfully. The SM-6 has not yet been flight tested at sea. As of January 2010, the first operational flight test at sea is scheduled for the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2010, following a series of… tests (DT / OT) scheduled to begin in the second quarter of fiscal year 2010… The SM-6 program is pursuing a concurrent testing and production strategy that could result in costly retrofits and schedule delays if unexpected design changes are required as a result of testing… the program has not yet flight tested the SM-6 at sea or tested one key capability – receiving in-flight updates from another Aegis ship (engage-on-remote).”

Feb 16/10: A $143.9 million modification covering FY 2010 production of SM-2 all-up-round missiles, missiles serviced under the service life extension program, section-level spares, post production spares, shipping containers, and associated data.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ (74%); Andover, MA (18%); Camden, AR (5%); and Farmington, NM (3%). Work is expected to be complete by December 2012 (N00024-09-C-5301).

FY 2010: SM-2s

Feb 2/10: BAE Systems Technology Solutions and Services, Inc. in Rockville, MD receives a $9.1 million cost-plus-fixed fee contract for continued design agent and technical engineering support to the Standard Missile Program’s Weapons Direction Systems. This contract includes options which, if exercised, would bring the cumulative value of this contract to $12.2 million.

This contract combines purchases for the US Navy (24.7%), the government of Australia (73.6%) as a Foreign Military Sales Program and the governments of Germany (0.8%) and the Netherlands (0.9%) under Memoranda of Understanding (MOU). Work will be performed in Rockville, MD (85%) and Sydney, Australia (15%), and is expected to be complete by May 2010. Contract funds in the amount of $147,157 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured (N00024-10-C-5345).

Jan 14/10: Raytheon announces success in the SM-6’s 4th guided test vehicle launch, clearing the way for at-sea testing in 2010.

Jan 4/10: Warheads. GenCorp subsidiary Aerojet announces that it has been selected to provide the MK 125 warhead for SM-2 and SM-6 missiles, with deliveries beginning in 2010. Program management and manufacturing will take place at Aerojet’s modern load assembly and pack facility in Camden, AR. Aerojet VP of Tactical Programs John Myers said that:

“The competitive selection of Aerojet to provide this critical warhead is a clear indication that our efforts to cut costs have been effective, while continuing to provide high-quality and on-schedule deliveries. The MK 125 consolidates our position as Raytheon and the U. S. Navy’s major energetic systems provider for the SM-2 and SM-6 missiles, complementing our MK 104 and MK 72 propulsion programs.”

Dec 18/09: A $71.2 million modification, exercising options for engineering and technical services to support SM-2 production. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ, and is expected to be complete by June 2012 (N00024-09-C-5303).

Dec 8/09: SM-3-IIA extension. A $159.5 million modification under cost-plus-award-fee contract HQ0276-08-C-0001, contract line item number (CLIN) 0003, extending its performance period for an additional 10 months to Aug 31/10. Under this contract modification, Raytheon will continue the SM-3 Block IIA cooperative program’s technology development. Their work will be performed in Tucson, AZ.

At the time of award, $4.2 million is committed using the Missile Development Agency’s FY 2010 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation funds. The rest will be allocated over the contract period, as needed.

Nov 17/09: Early BMD intercept? Northrop Grumman announces a 3-month $4.7 million task order from the MDA, under an indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity Joint National Integration Center Research and Development Contract. Under the Sept 29/09 task order, the firm will help the MDA integrate and demonstrate an early-intercept capability using existing SM-3 and GBI missiles.

The Early Intercept effort aims to address renewed focus by the U.S. Department of Defense on dealing with large raids and countermeasures. Early Intercept will demonstrate an integrated architecture of early warning sensors, including space, airborne, land and sea; regional fire control and battle manager systems; and secure communications. This integrated architecture will enable current systems to engage threats earlier in the battle space to improve protection against large raids and facilitate “shoot-look-shoot” opportunities.

Northrop Grumman will begin by assessing existing sensor and battle management systems’ ability to support missile interception in the difficult boost phase, including technology developed for programs like the now-canceled Kinetic Energy Interceptor and battle management projects. The firm will plan demonstration experiments, leading toward the design and development of an experimental, plug-and-play architecture for battle management, command and control.

Nov 5/09: Raytheon in Tucson, AZ receives a $47.8 million modification to a previously awarded contract (N00024-07-C-5361) for engineering and technical services to support the Standard Missile program. This contract is for Round Design Agent engineering and technical services for the design integrity, and total systems integration of the missile round and its components. Work will be performed in Tucson and is expected to be complete by October 2010.

According to the DefenseLINK release, work under this modification includes “flowdown of top level requirements, predicting and monitoring missile performance and reliability, internal/external interfaces, interfaces with ship combat systems, test and packaging, handling, storage and transportation equipment, improving missile design, and maintaining the technical data package.”

FY 2009

SM-3s will be deployed on land, too; Multiple-Kill Vehicle contract cancellation hurts SM-3 block IIA program with Japan; Multi-national SM-2 contract for FY 2009-2010; SM-6 completes final development fight test, begins initial LRIP manufacturing; SM-2 block IV and IIA successfully beat a “Midway high-low” attack.

SM-2 Launch w. AEGIS
(click to view larger)

Sept 30/09: FY09/10 SM-2s. Raytheon in Tucson, AZ receives a $206.1 million modification to a previously awarded contract (N00024-09-C-5301). It covers SM-2 related American and Foreign Military Sales buys, in FY 2009 and FY 2010 (options). The order is for 402 SM-2 all-up rounds, 40 AN/DKT-71A telemetric data transmitting sets (TDTS), section level spares, post production spares, shipping containers, and associated data.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ (74%); Andover, MA (18%); Camden, AR (5%); and Farmington, NM (3%), and is expected to be complete by December 2011.

FY 2009: 402 SM-2s

Sept 29/09: Raytheon in Tucson, AZ receives a $7 million modification to a previously awarded contract (N00024-07-C-5361) for R&D Level of effort engineering and technical services to support the standard missile program. This ceiling increase is to permit the continuation of several ongoing efforts which include prototype design, development integration and testing. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ and is expected to be complete by December 2009. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year.

While the announcement doesn’t specify, that kind of RDT&E is underway for the SM-3 Block 1B, SM-3 Block II, and SM-6 missiles.

Sept 29/09: Raytheon in Tucson, AZ receives a $6.8 million modification to a previously awarded contract (N00024-09-C-5303) for the delivery of common spares material in support of FY 2009 SM-2 program. Common spares are those items purchased or manufactured during the production of SM-2 all up rounds. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ (72%) and Camden, AR (28%), and is expected to be complete by December 2011. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year.

Sept 17/09: EPAA = Land-based SM-3s. The Obama administration announces revised plans for its European missile defense architecture. Instead of positioning Boeing’s Ground-Based Interceptors, which could intercept even the longest-range ballistic missiles, they choose an architecture based around the SM-3. Read “BMD, in from the Sea: SM-3 Missiles Going Ashore” for full, ongoing coverage.

EPAA – land-based SM-3s

Sept 04/09: SM-6 LRIP-1. A $93.9 million fixed price incentive fee, firm fixed price contract to begin low-rate initial production of the FY 09 Standard Missile-6 (SM-6) Block I All Up Rounds (AURs). This contract provides for the procurement of 19 SM-6 Block I AURs, 20 SM-6 Block I AUR instrumentation kits, and SM-6 Block I spares and containers.

Raytheon will perform the work in Tucson, AZ (50%); Camden, AR (23%); Boston, MA (5%); Dallas, TX (4%); Hanahan, SC (3%); Anniston, AL (2%); San Jose, CA (2%); and other locations (11%), and expects to complete it by March 2012. This contract was not competitively procured (N00024-09-C-5305). See also Raytheon release.

LRIP for SM-6

Aug 28/09: SM-6 test. Raytheon completes the SM-6’s final System Design & Development (SDD) phase flight test. By performing a series of pre-programmed maneuvers, the SM-6 missile was pushed to the limits of its performance, allowing the US Navy to gather simulation validation data. Technically, this is the 3rd SDD test. A “4th” test, which was not in the contract, was completed in May 2009: the Advanced Area Defense Interceptor (AADI) test, where an SM-6 was launched using a targeting cue from outside the “ship.”

Aug 18/09: SM-3 to land. In a presentation at the 2009 Space and Missile Defense Conference & Exhibition in Huntsville, AL, Raytheon announces that it is developing a land-based system SM-3 system that would work with THAAD’s Raytheon-made AN/TPY-2 long range radar, and could be ready as early as 2013.

The presentation states that this solution could provide Israel a near-term solution to counter ballistic missiles from Iran, given the deployment of TPY-2 radars in Israel by the US government. It is also reportedly under consideration for use in Europe as the missile component of planned deployments in Poland and the Czech Republic.

It’s no accident that this comes just as Boeing announces a “mobile GBI” proposal for Europe by 2015, and Lockheed Martin has gone farther by submitting a modified THAAD proposal to the MDA for consideration in the 2011 budget. Lockheed Martin has already invested privately funded R&D into a 21″ wide THAAD variant that would nearly double the Army interceptor missile’s range. Current SM-3s are 13.5″ in diameter, current THAADs are 14.5″, and the proposed SM-3 Block II being developed in partnership with Japan will also be 21″ in diameter. It would appear that a competition for the forward-deployed theater defense role may be brewing. Arutz Sheva | Reuters | Aviation Week re: shifts in doctrine | Aviation Week re: THAAD | Jerusalem Post re: Boeing’s “mobile GBI”.

Aug 4/09: MKV ripples. The Pentagon’s decision to cancel Lockheed Martin’s Multiple Kill Vehicle program has contributed to a big jump in the cost of Raytheon’s SM-3 IIA interceptor system now under development with Japan. The system is now expected to cost $3.1 billion by the time it is deployed in 2014, an increase of $700 million over earlier $2.4 billion estimates. Since the change lies entirely on the American side, the USA is expected to shoulder the extra costs. AIA SmartBrief | Aviation Week | NTI Global Security Newswire.

MKV program kill hits SM-3-IIA

Aug 4/09: Colin Clark of DOD Buzz publishes a short video interview with Raytheon VP of advanced missile defense and directed energy Mike Booen. The interview took place at the 2009 Paris Air Show, and the topic is the $50 million FY 2010 US military budget request to study land-based SM-3 deployment.

July 16/09: SDACS. Aerojet General Corporation of Rancho Cordova, CA received a modification for $5.6 million under cost-plus-fixed-fee contract #HQ0006-08-C-0006. They will design and test prototype solid propellant divert thruster components, a composite solid propellant gas generator, and case structure as part of the SM-3 Block IIA development program. Block IIA is the next generation “high divert” variant, which will combine a wider, longer-range missile with a larger diameter kill vehicle that’s more maneuverable and carries a better seeker.

Work will be performed in Rancho Cordova, CA from Ju1y 1/09 – March 29/10. So far, $3.9 million is committed using FY 2009 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation funds. The MDA manages this contract (HQ0006-08-C-0006).

July 13/09: SM-3 Block IB CDR. Raytheon announces that the Standard Missile-3 Block IB program has completed its critical design review, clearing the way for a 2010 flight test and deployment.

The release also includes dates for the SM-3’s 12 successful hit to kill interceptions so far.

SM-3 IB CDR

May 28/08: FY09 SM-2s. An $87.2 million cost-reimbursable-letter contract to buy long lead material in support of the FY 2009 production of SM-2 Block IIIB all up rounds (AURs). These long delivery lead-time materials will support buys of 50 American SM-2 Block IIIB AURs, 104 Block IIIB ORDALT missile rounds, and 69 SM-2 Block IIIA/B AURs for international customers.

Raytheon will perform the work in Andover, MA (37%); Camden, AR (36%); The Netherlands (14%); St Petersburg, FL (5%); Middleton, CN (3%); El Segundo, CA (3%); and Reisterstown, MD (2%), and expects to complete it by December 2011. This contract was not competitively procured (N00024-09-C-5301).

April 27/09: SM-3 – Land, ho? Japan’s Yomiuri Shimbun reports that the MDA has started studying a new missile defense system capable of launching the Standard Missile-3 from the ground. See also Land-Based SM-3s for Israel?

March 24-26/09: SM-2 high/low test. During the Stellar Daggers 2009 exercise, the USS Benfold [DDG-65] fires a pair of SM-2 surface-to-air missiles against 2 very different targets. A ballistic missile target was launched from San Nicolas Island, CA, while a sea-skimming anti-ship cruise missile target was launched from Point Mugu, CA.

An SM-2 Block IV NT-SBT missile intercepted and destroyed the ballistic missile warhead during the last phase of its descent, while an SM-2 Block IIIA intercepted and destroyed the anti-ship missile. This was the 3rd test of the modified SM-2 Block IV’s terminal defense capability against short range ballistic missiles. US Navy | Raytheon.

March 9/09: A $30 million modification to previously awarded contract for FY 2009 engineering and technical services to support SM-2 export customers.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ., and is expected to be complete by March 2010 (N00024-09-C-5303).

Jan 12/09: A $44.3 million modification to previously awarded contract N00024-07-C-5361 for engineering and technical services in support of Standard Missile research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) programs. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ and is expected to be complete by December 2009.

According to the DefenseLINK release, work under this modification includes “flowdown of top level requirements; predicting and monitoring missile performance and reliability; internal external interfaces; interfaces with ship combat systems; interfaces with test and packaging, handling, storage and transportation equipment; improving missile design; and maintaining the technical data package.”

Nov 20/08: A $40 million cost-plus fixed-fee contract for engineering and technical services to support Standard Missile production programs. This contract includes options which would bring the cumulative value of this contract to $334.4 million if exercised.

This contract combines purchases for the U.S. Navy (64%) and Foreign Military Sales (FMS) Program countries (36%). Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ; and is expected to be complete by November 2009 (N00024-09-C-5303).

FY 2008

SM-3 kills a satellite; SM-3 contracts & tests; Multi-national SM-2 contract; SM-6 processor replacement contract, 1st test firing; 100% Earned Value Management score for Raytheon.

SM-2 Block IV:
stage separation
(click to view full)

Sept 30/08: FY08 SM-2s. A $422.6 million firm-fixed-price cost plus fixed fee contract for the 419 SM-2 All-Up-Round (AUR) missiles, 96 AN/DKT-71A Telemetric Data Transmitting Sets (TDTS), section level spares, post production spares, 265 shipping containers, and associated data. This contract includes options which, if exercised, would bring the cumulative value of this contract to $428.7 million. This is an international purchase that combines purchases for the U.S. Navy (22.34%) and the governments of Japan (5.75%), South Korea (37.99%), Taiwan (33.91%) and the Netherlands, (0.01%).

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ (74%); Andover, MA (18%); Camden, AK (5%); and Farmington, NM (3%), and is expected to be complete by December 2010. Contract funds in the amount of $9.3 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured (N00024-08-C-5347).

FY 2008: 419 SM-2s

Sept 5/08: EVM 100%. Raytheon Missile Systems announces a 100% score on an Earned Value Management (EVM) Systems compliance review by the Pentagon’s Defense Contract Management Agency. DCMA auditors found that the firm passed all 32 guidelines, which is currently a rare level of performance among major defense firms.

Earned Value Management is a key project management methodology used by America’s Department of Defense, and the SM-6 program was one of 2-3 programs that led the way for Raytheon. Firm sources tell DID that the US Navy encouraged Raytheon not to compromise of EVM, which helped by removing potential conflicts between customer demands and the need for training. Raytheon’s upper management also made a decision to make the financial and time investments required, in order to strengthen that capability within the firm for future projects. That commitment included monthly meetings that spend a full day conducting EVM reviews, in addition to other measures described in the release.

Raytheon EVM 100%

Sept 5/08: SM-6 test. The U.S. Navy conducted its 2nd firing test of the Standard Missile-6 extended range missile, which intercepted a BQM-74 aerial target drone. The active seeker, employing the U.S. Navy’s legacy command system, autonomously acquired and engaged the target.

Note that the SM-6 fills the short range SM-2’s role; its range is extended in comparison to the SM-2, not the longer-range SM-3. Raytheon release.

July 1/08: A $13.2 million modification to a cost plus fixed fee contract for the Processor Replacement Program, Phase I. This project will replace the data processor module that’s common to both the AIM-120 AMRAAM air-air missile and SM-6, which shares its independent radar homing technologies. The problem is that the AMRAAM Data Processor (ADP) and the Input-Output application specific integrated circuits (I/O ASIC) in the guidance section electronics aren’t manufactured any more. The electronics industry has much shorter life cycles than the military does, so the USAF is looking to replace these obsolete parts and do any redesign required.

This effort supports the US military, and foreign military sales to Greece and Taiwan. All funds have already been committed (FA8675-07-C-0055, P00012).

June 23/08: SM-6, 1st test. Raytheon announces the first test of its new SM-6 missile, launched from the Navy’s Desert Ship at the White Sands Missile Range, NM. The SM-6 successfully intercepted a BQM-74 aerial drone, using its active seeker to find and target the drone on its own.

FY 2008: 419 SM-2s

June 6/08: FTM-14: SM-2-IV NT-SBT. The USA’s AEGIS cruiser USS Lake Erie [CG 70] uses a modified SM-2 Block IV missile to hit a short-range ballistic missile target about 100 miles WNW of Kauai, Hawaii. FTM-14 test objectives included evaluation of: the BMDS ability to intercept and kill a short range ballistic missile target with the Aegis BMD, modified with the terminal mission capability; the modified SM-2 Blk IV missile using SPY-1 cue; and system-level integration of the BMDS. FTM-14 marks the 14th overall successful intercept in 16 attempts, for the Aegis BMD program, and the 2nd successful intercept by an SM-2 Blk IV.

The SM-2 Block IV adds a rocket booster and additional guidance technologies to the SM-2, giving it anti-ballistic missile capability at shorter ranges than the SM-3, during the last phase of a missile or warhead’s descent within the atmosphere. The program was canceled in 2001, but revived as the Near Term Sea-Based Terminal weapon (NT-SBT). This test looks to keep it going. US Navy.

SM-2 Block IV NT-SBT test success

Feb 20/08: Satellite Killer. The U.S. Navy’s Ticonderoga Class AEGIS cruiser USS Lake Erie [CG 70] has participated in a number of successful ABM tests, but today was something new. A modified SM-3 Block 1A missile fired from the cruiser destroyed a National Reconnaissance Office satellite traveling at 17,000 mph, about 247 km/ 150 miles over the Pacific Ocean. The satellite was no longer working and falling out of orbit, and contained toxic hydrazine fuel that could pose a health hazard if it hit a populated area. President George W. Bush authorized the Navy to bring down the satellite, in order to avoid that scenario, and the missile appears to have hit the fuel tank itself in a very exacting shot. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Navy Adm. Mike Mullen:

“What we’ve tried to do from the beginning was be as open as possible about the intention… We are taking the shot at what we hope will be an altitude that will minimize the amount of space debris that will occur. We’ve engaged governments throughout the world to tell them what our intentions are. We have been very transparent, very open in that regard.”

Frost & Sullivan Industry Analyst Michael Stuart noted that:

“The amazing thing about using it in this scenario is that it required alterations to not only the tracking assets involved, but also the flight characteristics of the missile itself. The orbit of the satellite was nothing like that of a missile shot from earth and designed to return to earth.”

Perhaps, but after spending $30-60 million, it worked just fine. The capability was always obvious as a potential spin-off, but the wider acknowledgment that comes with a successful test makes this an important inflection point. See also Navy photo essay | Navy satellite impact Video [MPG] | US SecDef Gates comment | Slate looks at the modification effort | The Christian Science Monitor examines the factors driving the decision | India Daily looks at the China/Russian angle | Lexington Institute analysis.

SM-3 Satellite Killer

Feb 15/08: FY08 SM-3s. A $1.016 billion cost-plus-incentive-fee sole source contract modification to manufacture 75 SM-3 block IA missile for the United States, and 27 SM-3 Block IA missiles for Foreign Military Sales “in support of the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System” (N00024-07-C-6119). That almost certainly means sales to Japan, which has successfully tested the SM-3 from JS Kongo (see Dec 17/07 entry in exports section).

The principal place of performance is Tucson, AZ, but work will also be performed in Elkton, MD by major subcontractor Alliant Techsystems, and is expected to be complete by February 2012. FY 2007 research and development and Japanese Foreign Military Sales funds will be used for the initial funding, and will expire at the end of the fiscal year. The contract modification will be incrementally funded, committing $92.8 million at the outset – $85.9M FMS funds and $6.9M FY 2007 R&D funds.

FY 2008: 102 SM-3-IAs

Nov 16/07: Raytheon Missile Systems of Tucson, AZ received a $25.5 million cost-plus-award-fee sole source contract modification to revise the statement of work for the manufacture of 29 SM-3 Block IA missiles (20 US, 9 Foreign Military Sales) plus one set of spare sections for the AEGIS ballistic missile defense program. See the June 6/07 DSCA request in the “Foreign Military Sales” section; the 9 are destined for Japan.

The principal place of performance is Tucson, AZ. Work will also be performed in Elkton, MD by major subcontractor Alliant Techsystems and is expected to be complete by July 2008. FY 2007 research and development funds will be used, the contract will be incrementally funded, and at award it will obligate $8.5 million. Contract funds will expire at the end of the fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, DC issued the contract (N00024-03-C-6111).

Nov 8/07: Raytheon Co. in Tucson, AZ received a $37.3 million modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-07-C-5361) for engineering and technical services in support of Standard Missile research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) programs. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ, and is expected to be complete by September 2009. Contract funds in the amount of $117,743 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year.

FY 2007

SM-3 orders from USA & Japan; Multi-national SM-2 contract; 1st SM-2 SBT/Block IV+ delivery;

Co-operative defense
(click to view full)

Aug 27/07: SM-3 R&D. A $142 million cost-plus-award-fee contract modification for engineering and technical services for the continued missile design and development, fabrication, test, and flight test support for the SM-3 as part of the Navy’s AEGIS Ballistic Missile Defense System program. The contract modification will be incrementally funded, and at award will obligate $48.6 million of FY 2007 research and development funds. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ and is expected to be complete by December 2007 (N00024-03-C-6111).

July 20/07: FY07 SM-2s. A $201 million firm-fixed-price modification to previously awarded contract for FY 2007 SM-2 production requirements of 190 missiles, 121 shipping containers, spares and associated data for the US (73.12%) and the Governments of Japan (22.17%); Germany (3.28%); Spain (1.10%); and Canada (0.33%) under the Foreign Military Sales Program.

Work will be performed in Tucson, Ariz. (83%); Andover, Mass. (14%); Camden, Ark. (2%); and Farmington, N.M. (1%), and is expected to be complete by September 2009 (N00024-06-C-5350).

FY 2007: 190 SM-2s

July 19/07: SM-2 Block IV/ SBT. Raytheon announces delivery of the first Near Term Sea-Based Terminal weapon (a modified SM-2 Block IV) to the U.S. Navy for use in defending against short-range ballistic missile threats. Raytheon, the Navy and Johns Hopkins University’s Applied Physics Lab partnered to update the Standard Missile 2 Block IV weapon. The idea is to use these missiles as a near term solution and supplement “until a more capable system can be fielded.

Unlike the SM-3, SM-2 SBT is aimed at the very last phase of a ballistic missile’s flight, just before impact. It will fulfill a naval role similar to the Patriot PAC-3 on land, therefore, acting as a second line of defense against incoming missiles. Raytheon release.

SM-2-IV NT-SBT delivered

May 14/07: SM-3 lead-in. A sole source $140.7 million cost contract for long-lead material required for the manufacture and delivery of 36 Standard Missile-3 Block IA missiles to meet U.S. and Foreign Military Sales requirements in support of the AEGIS Ballistic Missile Defense System.

Fiscal Year 2007 research and development and Foreign Military Sales funds will be used. The contract will be incrementally funded, and at award will obligate $20 million FY-07 research and development and $5 million Japan Foreign Military Sales funds. Work will be performed at Tucson, AZ and is expected to be complete by May 2008 (N00024-07-C-6119).

April 19/07: SM-2 upgrade. Raytheon Company and the U.S. Navy announce that they have successfully completed a major update to Standard Missile-2 (SM-2). The improvement, called a “Maneuverability Upgrade,” provides SM-2 with substantially increased performance against new, anti-ship weapons. See also the April 5/06 entry below.

The team included representatives from the U.S. Navy Standard Missile program office and Naval Weapons Station/ Seal Beach and a cross-section of manufacturing and engineering employees from Raytheon Missile Systems. Raytheon release.

SM-2 finishes major upgrade

Jan 30/07: An estimated $30.6 million cost-plus award-fee contract for engineering and technical services in support of Standard Missile Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) programs. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ and is expected to be complete in January 2008. This contract was not competitively procured (N00024-07-C-5361).

Dec 7/06: SM-3. A $20.6 million cost-plus-award-fee contract modification for the development and procurement of additional tooling and test equipment in support of the continued development and delivery of Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) Block IA missiles to meet U.S. and Foreign Military Sales (FMS) requirements in support of the AEGIS Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) system. The work will be performed in Tucson, AZ and is expected to be complete by November 2007 (N00024-03-C-6111).

Nov 6/06: SM-2. An estimated $39.3 million cost-plus-award-fee modification to previously awarded contract N00024-03-C-5330, to provide additional engineering and technical services to support SM-2 production efforts for Fiscal Year 2007 U.S. requirements. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ and is expected to be complete by February 2008.

FY 2006 and Earlier

SM-3 orders for USA, Japan; Boeing delivers 1st SM-3 block IA warhead; Multi-national SM-2 order; Upgraded SM-2 block IV tested.

SM-3 Launch –
note rocket booster
(click to view full)

Aug 16/06: FY06 SM-3s. A $265.9 cost-plus-award/incentive fee contract modification for 29 SM-3 Block IA missiles to be produced for the United States and Japan and for flight test support, engineering activity, system upgrades and continued cooperative research and development work with the MDA and Japan. The initial delivery order is for $168 million.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ and is expected to be complete by December 2009 (N00024-03-C-6111). The Japanese order may well be related to the June 5-6, 2006 item in the Foreign Sales section, below.

FY 2006: 29 SM-3-IA

Aug 4/06: Spares. An $8 million modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-06-C-5350) for FY06 SM-2 Block IIIB, post-production spares, and FY04 SM-2 common production spares to support of maintenance and repair of shipboard missiles. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ (83%); Andover, MA (14%); Camden, AZ (2%); and Farmington, NM (1%), and is expected to be complete by December 2008.

July 27/06: TDACS. Raytheon Company and Aerojet successfully demonstrate the capability of a solid Throttling Divert and Attitude Control System (TDACS) for the SM-3 in a ground test at Aerojet’s Sacramento, CA facility. Four of the 10 proportional TDACS pintle thrusters move the kinetic warhead sideways while the 6 other thrusters maintain the seeker’s angular alignment and view of the target. On-board electronic controls and software throttle the combustion pressure up and down to alternate between high thrust and coast periods. In addition to the improved intercept capability this gives the hit-to-kill payload, TDACS is also easier to produce, thus holding the potential for significant cost savings. Raytheon release.

June 22/06: As North Korea prepares to test-launch a Taepodong-2 ballistic missile reportedly capable of hitting the US mainland, the US & Japan successfully conducted a joint missile intercept test off of Hawaii using the USS Shiloh [CG 67] guided missile cruiser and its upgraded AEGIS radar & combat system, firing an SM-3 missile. The test was the 7th successful intercept in 8 tests during the current program.

The USS Lake Erie [CG 70], USS Paul Hamilton [DDG 60], & USS Milius [DDG 69] also participated, as did the Japanese Kongo Class destroyer JS Kirishima [DDG-174], which has installed AEGIS Long Range surveillance & Tracking 3.0 but no engagement capability. Testing also included receipt of target data on USS Shiloh from a land-based radar, as well as a second CG-47 Class cruiser that used the flight test to collect data and further the development of an upgraded SPY-1B radar with a new signal processor. See Navy News article | Lockheed Martin release.

June 8/06: Boeing has delivered the first Block 1A Standard Missile-3 Kinetic Warhead (SM-3 KW) to Raytheon. Boeing has been partnered with Raytheon on the SM-3 program since 1996, and is under subcontract to integrate and test the KW hardware. They are responsible for the KW avionics, guidance and control hardware and software, as well as the ejection subsystem. In addition to SM-3 round integration, Raytheon provides the KW infrared seeker, signal and image processor, and the integrated KW software. Boeing release.

May 26/06: SM-3 R&D. An estimated $424 million cost-plus-award fee contract modification (N00024-03-C-6111). It covers the continued systems engineering, design, development, fabrication, and testing of Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) Block IA and IB Missiles for the AEGIS Ballistic Missile Defense Program being conducted by the USA, with some cooperation from Japan. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ and is expected to be complete by May 14, 2008. Initial funding of $96 million has been issued to support engineering services, engineering studies and technology development technical instruction efforts. See June 7, 2006 corporate release.

April 5/06: SM-2 SBT test. A Raytheon Company Standard Missile-2 (SM-2) Block IV with control systems upgrades was successfully flight tested against a subsonic target at White Sands Missile Range, NM on Feb. 16, 2006. The SM-2 Block IV upgrade includes a new steering control section, new thrust vector actuator assembly for the boost rocket motor and a new primary missile battery as well as upgrades to the guidance and control software. The upgrade was completed as part of a value engineering project at Raytheon Missile Systems in Tucson, AZ, and “will result in a significant cost reduction” by making the missiles more reliable and easier to produce. Raytheon also notes that these improvements will be applied across the Standard missile family to the SM-3 and SM-6 as well.

March 27/06: SM-6. A $9 million modification to previously awarded contract N00024-04-C-5344 exercises an option for engineering and technical services to support the STANDARD missile-6 (SM-6) program. Engineering & technical services include initial performance studies, conceptual design studies, functional design, preliminary design, detailed design and development and round integration studies for potential future improvements. The Contractor shall also provide design assessments as necessary for current improvements. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ (80%); Camden, AK (15%); and Andover, MA (5%), and is expected to be complete by December 2011.

AEGIS-BMD: CG-70
launches SM-3
(click to view full)

Feb 27/06: Spares. A $17.8 million modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-06-C-5350) exercises the United States option for the procurement of the FY06 STANDARD Missile-2 BLOCK IIIB Spares. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ (83%); Andover, MZ (14%); Camden, AK (2%); and Navajo Agricultural Products Industries (NAPI) in Farmington, NM (1%), and is expected to be complete by December 2008.

Feb 15/06: FY06 SM-2s. A $122.2 million modification under a previously awarded contract exercising an option for FY 2006 production of 75 Standard Missile-2 Block IIIB All-Up-Rounds (AUR), 80 SM-2 Block IIIB Service-Life Extension Program (SLEP) Retrofits, and 125 AN/DKT-71A Telemetric Data Transmitting Sets (TDTS) with installation kits. The contract modification will also provide for royalties associated with AUR and SLEP equipment. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ (83%); Andover, MZ (14%); Camden, AK (2%); and Farmington, NM (1%), and is expected to be complete by December 2008 (N00024-06-C-5350).

See also the May 4 Raytheon release. Note that “all-up-rounds” include the missile, its launch container, and related equipment that allows for rapid installation of the naval missiles in vertical launch systems.

FY 2006: 75 SM-2s

Feb 15/06: A $7.9 million option under another previously awarded Raytheon contract (N00024-01-C-5306) to provide FY 2006 Depot Level Maintenance Facility work in support of Standard Missile 2 (SM-2), Guided Missile Program. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ (100%), and is expected to be complete by the end of September 2006 – which is also the end of the US Defense Department’s fiscal year.

Jan 18/06: Raytheon Missile Systems in Tucson, AZ received a cost-only contract modification that covers the procurement of long lead material and is estimated at $21.7 million. It will be used to build special tooling and test equipment for Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) Block IA Missiles for the AEGIS naval Ballistic Missile Defense program. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ and Camden, AR, and is expected to be complete by April 2006. This contract was not competitively awarded by the Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, DC (N00024-03-C-6111).

July 20/05: FY05 SM-3s. Raytheon Missile Systems in Tucson, AZ received a $124.1 million cost-plus-award/ incentive-fee contract modification for the continued development and delivery of 12 Standard Missile-3 Block IA Missiles in support of the AEGIS Ballistic Missile Defense System. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ and is expected to be complete by April 2007. This contract was not competitively awarded. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C. issued the contract (N00024-03-C-6111). DID covered this along with a number of other contracts related to ballistic missile defense.

FY 2005: 12 SM-3-IA

Sept 3/04: SM-6 SDD. Raytheon Co. in Tucson, AZ received a $440.1 million cost-reimbursable contract with cost and technical/schedule performance incentives for the Systems Development and Demonstration (SDD) of the STANDARD Missile-6 Block I/Extended Range Active Missile (SM-6 ERAM). This includes the design, development, fabrication, assembly, integration, test and delivery of flight and non-flight assets.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ (80%); Camden, NJ (15%), and Andover, MA (5%), and is expected to be complete by December 2011. Initial funding in the amount of $5 million will be provided at contract award. This contract was not competitively procured by the Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, DC (N00024-04-C-5344).

SM-6 SDD

The Standard Missile Naval Defense Family: Exports & Related Key Events

AEGIS Combat Control
(click to view full)

Unless otherwise specified, all contracts are issued to Raytheon Co. in Tucson, AZ, at the request of the US Naval Sea Systems Command. See also the above section.

With respect to Japan, the USA and Japan are working together on missile defense, continuing their efforts now that Japan has announced completion of the joint technology research stage. The plan is to have SM-3 missiles as Japan’s outer ABM layer and Patriot PAC-3s as the point defense component. Cooperating partnership contracts between the USA and Japan, and international orders with a strong American component, are listed in the American section, above.

2012 – 2014

 

RIMPAC 2010: USN & ROKN
(click to view full)

May 26/14: South Korea. South Korean official rule out any deployment of SM-3s for now. Defense Ministry spokesperson Kim Min-seok:

“We’ve never considered adopting the SM-3 missiles… Among issues under consideration is how to boost our maritime-based intercepting capabilities, but we’ve not yet reviewed any details…. Intercepting a missile in the ascending stage goes beyond what our military aims at. It is also beyond our capability…. The KAMD [land-based missile defense architecture] has been under development regardless of the U.S. system, and no changes have been made in our position.”

Planned SM-6 missiles (q.v. June 11-12/13) will give the ROKN terminal BMD intercept capabilities around 2015-2016, and that seems to be enough. The national KAMD system currently includes Israeli Green Pine long-range radars, ex-German PATRIOT PAC-2 missiles, and an AMD-Cell command and control backbone. South Korea is about to to upgrade its PATRIOT batteries to PAC-3/Config 3, and add SM-6 missiles to KDX-III destroyers. They may also field Cheolmae 4 BMD-capable missiles in future, designed in collaboration with Russia. Sources: Yonhap, “Acquiring SM-3 missiles not an option for S. Korea: defense ministry”.

July 17/13: Support. Raytheon Missile Systems in Tucson, AZ, is being awarded a $19.1 million modification to previously awarded contract, covering exported Standard Missile 2/3/6 engineering and technical services. These services include research and development efforts; design, systems, and production engineering; technical services; evaluation services; component improvement services; and production proofing services for missile producibility, missile production, and shipboard integration for fiscal years 2013-2017.

$18.5 million is committed immediately. The total percentage of foreign orders is 100%: to Japan (28%), Australia (24%), Korea (21.5%), Germany (8.3%), Netherlands (8.3%), Taiwan (7%), Canada (1.7%), and Spain (1.2%). Japan already fields SM-3s, and Australia and South Korea have both expressed plans to adopt the SM-6 on their Aegis destroyers by 2017.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ (86.8%); Andover, MA (9.4%); Huntsville, AL (1.7%); Arlington, VA (1.1%); Camden, AR (0.7%); and White Sands, NM (0.3%), and is expected to be complete by July 2014. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity (N00024-13-C-5403).

June 11-12/13: South Korea. The Yonhap news agency quotes “a senior government official” who says that KDX-III destroyers will be armed with SM-6 missiles as of 2016, as part of an overarching Korea Air and Missile Defense System (KAMD) program. If true, that date implies a 2014 order. It also implies a future system upgrade for the ships, from a standard Aegis combat system to Aegis BMD 5.0.

The SM-6 will complement the ROK’s existing SM-2s. Unlike the SM-2s, the new missiles can be used for terminal point defense against ballistic missiles, while also providing long-range air defense against enemy fighters, cruise missiles, etc. KAMD would integrate the ROK’s Green Pine radar, PATRIOT missile batteries, naval missile defense assets, and other surveillance systems into a single “kill chain”, reducing Korea’s dependence on American help. They hope to have KAMD v1.0 ready by 2020. Yonhap | Global Post.

2011

SM-3 IA, JS Kirishima
(click to view full)

Sept 17/11: SM-3-IIA delay. Mianichi Daily News reports US notification to Japan that the SM-3 Block IIA will be delayed 2 years, because the kill vehicle needs additional testing. The USA will cover the additional costs.

The original development plan involved a 9-year effort ending in 2014, with Japan paying $1.0 – 1.2 billion, and the USA $1.1 – 1.5 billion. That will now extend to 2016, with the USA looking to deploy the new missile in 2018. Japan had planned to deploy the SM-3 Block IIA in 2020 on its Kongo Class BMD destroyers, and the question is whether that deployment will also be delayed.

SM-3-IIA delayed

Sept 7/11: Japan. Mianichi Daily News reports that Japan’s Defense Ministry has begun launching about 15 mock missiles and collecting data, in a YEN 8.2 billion (currently about $106 million) bid to boost the accuracy of detecting and tracking missiles under the missile defense plan. The operation is expected to run until the end of March 2013.

Aug 30/11: Australia. Australia’s government approves 4 new defense projects, including the A$ 100 million SEA 4000 Phase 3.2. Note that this is not a contract yet; that will take place later, under the US State Department’s Foreign Military Sales protocols.

Australia’s DoD explains that their upgraded FFG-7 Adelaide Class use SM-2 missiles configured for Rail Launch operations. Under Phase 3.2, many will be converted to the Vertical Launch configuration, for use in Australia’s Hobart Class Air Warfare Destroyers and their MK41 launch systems. They’ll also be upgraded to “the latest [SM-2] version”, and DID worked to clarify further; it only involves and upgrade to the latest SM-2 Block III, rather than the BMD-capable Block IV.

The Hobart Class will eventually carry the SM-6, with active guidance and final defense capabilities against ballistic missiles, but that’s slated for the early 2020s under project SEA 1360 Phase 1.

June 20-21/11: SM-3s for the Europeans? Raytheon Missile Systems VP Ed Miyashiro is telling journalists that a number of other platforms are being looked at for NATO/European ballistic missile defense and SM-3 carriage. They include ships that already carry compatible Mk.41 vertical launch systems (VLS), like the forthcoming Danish Iver Huitfeldt Class, German-Dutch F124s, and Spanish F100 frigates; and also ships with DCNS’ rival Sylver system, like the Franco-Italian Horizon Class, and Britain’s Type 45 destroyers.

The ship types with Sylver launchers are already slated to carry MBDA’s Aster-30, which has just begun land tests against ballistic missiles. In its favor, the SM-3 can cite 3 advantages: a much longer test record, the coming SM-3 Block II’s significant performance improvements, and much cheaper BMD development costs, thanks to American and Japanese advance work. Some reports even float the possibility of SM-3 Block IIB/NGAM becoming a joint American/European project, just as the IIA is an American/Japanese project.

The fleet issue would be integration. F100 frigates are the most straightforward, with the same AN/SPY-1D radars and Mk.41 VLS as American ships. The same BMD upgrade set used in American destroyers would suffice. Dutch, German, and Danish ships also carry the MK.41 VLS, but use higher-performance Thales APAR and SMART-L radars. That requires additional integration and modification work, but all 3 classes are using a shared core system that allows a common upgrade path. The British, French, and Italian ships would be the most work. While they share a similar core air defense system, they all use different radars, while sharing key electronics and DCNS’ Sylver VLS. That means both electronics work, and physical changes to the weapons array. In the latter area, Miyashiro mentions that they’re looking into the possibility of fielding SM-3 compatible inserts in DCNS’ Sylver A70 VLS, which is the required size for the 6.6 meter SM-3. Britain’s Type 45 Daring Class uses only A50 launchers, but there is space for adding the larger A70 launchers up front. Miyashiro has reportedly said that they’re also looking at the possibility of inserting the strike-length Mk.41 VLS in that location. Aviation Week | Defense News | Later coverage: “Raytheon’s Datalink: A New Naval Standard for the Standard?”

May 25/11: Japan. Media reports indicate that Japan is preparing to approve U.S. export of their jointly developed SM-3 Block IIA missiles to 3rd countries, provided each export is discussed, no transfer can occur beyond the buyers, and North Korea, Iran, or any other country under UN sanctions is ruled out. The decision will reportedly be officially communicated to the United States at a June 2011 meeting. Japan plans to begin deploying the missiles itself, beginning in 2018.

It remains to be seen if the SM-3 Block IIB missile, whose design is being competed as the Next Generation AEGIS missile program, ends up avoiding the shared technologies that require this export approval. Japan Times | Defense News | UPI.

Jan 10/11: Japan. Japan’s Yomiuri Shimbun reports that Japan’s government will compile criteria that would allow the United States to deploy and export SM-3 Block IIA missiles in Europe and other parts of the world, without violating the nation’s “3 principles” of not exporting weapons to communist bloc countries, countries subject to U.N. arms embargoes, or countries involved in or likely to become involved in international conflicts.

Officials from Japan’s Defense Ministry, Foreign Ministry, Economy Trade and Industry Ministry and “other relevant government organizations” will soon start discussing how to draw up the criteria, which is expected to take about a year.

In 2004, the Koizumi government relaxed those 3 principles in order to allow joint development with the USA, and Chief Cabinet Secretary Hiroyuki Hosoda issued a statement in December that required those exceptions to be “strictly managed.” The question is what that term will mean in practice, but one thing is clear: Japan will have the power to block SM-3 Bock II exports, and deployments, on the same technology transfer grounds that the USA has so often used with others.

2010

JS Kirishima
(click to view full)

Oct 29/10: Japan JFTM-4 test. The recently upgraded JS Kirishima [DDG-174] successfully hits a separating “1,000 km class” ballistic missile target using an SM-3 Block 1A missile, in test JFTM-4 off the coast of Kauai in Hawaii. It’s the 3rd of 4 successful SM-3 test firings for the JMSDF. America’s USS Lake Erie [GC-70] cruiser and USS Russell destroyer [DDG-59] also participated in this test, tracking the target and simulating their own intercepts.

The firing follows another test earlier this month, in which JS Kirishima acquired a separating target passed from a U.S. destroyer with her own sensors, and performed a simulated engagement. Jeff Bantle, Lockheed Martin’s vice president of Surface-Sea Based Missile Defense Systems, said that “This [live fire] test completes the planned upgrade of the Japanese navy’s destroyers with the Aegis ballistic missile defense capability.” US MDA | Lockheed Martin | Raytheon (incl. video).

Oct 26/10: Japan request. The US DSCA announces [PDF] Japan’s formal request to buy 13 SM-2 Block IIIB missiles, 13 AN/DKT-71A Telemeters, conversion kits, containers, spare and repair parts, support equipment, and support. The estimated cost is $33 million, and these appear to be slated for use as test missiles. The prime contractors are Raytheon Missiles Systems Company in Tucson, AZ; Raytheon Company in Camden, AR; and United Defense LP in Aberdeen, SD.

Japan has already integrated the SM-2 Block IIIB missiles into its ship combat systems, and maintains two Intermediate-Level Maintenance Depots capable of maintaining and supporting the SM-2. As such, implementation of this proposed sale will not require any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives in Japan.

DSCA: Japan SM-2-IIIB request

Oct 26/10: Australia request. The US DSCA announces [PDF] Australia’s formal request to buy 17 Warhead Compatible Telemetry missiles used in missile tests, including AN/DKT-71 Telemeters and assembly kits, spare and repair parts, technical data and publications, personnel training and training equipment, and support. The estimated cost is $46 million. The prime contractors are Raytheon Missiles Systems Company in Tucson, AZ; and Raytheon Company in Camden, AR.

The proposed sale of SM-2 Block IIIB STANDARD missiles will be used for anti-air warfare test firings during Combat Systems Ship Qualification Trials for the Royal Australian Navy’s 3 new Hobart Class Air Warfare Destroyers, currently under construction. Australia, which has already integrated the SM-2 Block IIIA, will have no difficulty absorbing these missiles into its armed forces. Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Australia.

DSCA: Australia SM-2-IIIA request

July 29/10: SM-3 IIA exports. Cooperative weapons programs like the SM-3 Block II come with a catch: export permissions. Japan banned exports of weapons it develops in 1967, with the USA’s 1983 blanket exemption as the only exception to date. The Japan Times reports that Washington recently notified the Japanese government that it plans to begin shipping SM-3 Block 2A missiles in 2018, and asked Tokyo to start preparing to strike export deals with third countries. The US wants a response by the end of 2010.

The SM-3 Block 2 is expected to play a significant role in European missile defense, and is also likely to attract interest from countries like Australia and South Korea. Brahmand.

Feb 26/10: South Korea. A $67.3 million modification to a previously awarded contract (N00024-09-C-5301), exercising the FY 2010 SM-2 production option of 46 SM-2 Block IIIA and 16 SM-2 Block IIIB missiles and associated data.

This contract combines purchases for the US Navy (2.07%), and the governments of Korea (96.15%), Taiwan (1.16%), Japan (0.19%) and Canada (0.43%) under the Foreign Military Sales program. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ (74%); Andover, MA (18%); Camden, AR (5%); and Farmington, NM (3%), and is expected to be complete by December 2012.

Korea: SM-2-IIIA/Bs

Dec 18/09: Australia SM-2 test. The frigate HMAS Melbourne fires the SM-2 Block IIIA, as an enhancement from its previous SM-1 armament. Australia’s upgraded Adelaide Class frigates are slated to add this capability, and the lessons learned may allow Raytheon to offer a more standardized upgrade package for other operators of the SM-1 missile and/or FFG-7 Oliver Hazard Perry Class Australian DoD | Raytheon.

2009

ROKS King Sejongthe Great
(click to view full)

May 27/09: South Korea request. The US Defense Security Cooperation Agency announces [PDF] South Korea’s official request for 46 SM-2 Block IIIA missiles, 35 SM-2 Block IIIB missiles, 3 SM-2 Block IIIB Telemetry Missiles for testing, 84 SM-2 missile containers, and associated test and support equipment, spare and repair parts, training, and other forms of support. The estimated cost is $170 million.

South Korea uses the SM-2 missiles on its KDX-II (SM-2 Block IIIA) and its KDX-III AEGIS (SM-2 Block IIIB) destroyers. Read “South Korea Beefs Up Anti-Air Defenses as North Blusters” for a look at this missile request in the context of South Korea’s overall defense modernization efforts, and increased tensions with North Korea.

DSCA: Korea SM-2-IIIA/B request

May 2/09: Australia. Australia’s new defense White Paper says that the forthcoming Hobart class Air Warfare Destroyers will be equipped with SM-6 missiles and Cooperative Engagement Capability, giving them some latent terminal-phase defense capabilities against ballistic missiles. The destroyers will not have the AEGIS BMD modifications to their electronics and radar, however – at least, not at the outset.

2008

Arrow launch
(click to view full)

July 16/08: SM-3 on land? Aviation Week reports that the MDA is considering a land-based variant of the SM-3, and Raytheon is examining options – largely due to specific requests from Israel.

Israel already has its own successful Arrow-2 system, and fields shorter-range Patriots. So why the sudden interest? As it happens, Israel decides later on to keep its Arrow system, but the USA thinks this is a great idea. Read “BMD, in from the Sea: SM-3 Missiles Going Ashore.”

Feb 15/08: Japan order. A $1.016 billion cost-plus-incentive-fee sole source contract modification to manufacture 75 SM-3 block IA missiles for the United States, and 27 SM-3 Block IA missiles for Foreign Military Sales “in support of the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System” (N00024-07-C-6119). That almost certainly means sales to Japan, which has successfully tested the SM-3 from JS Kongo (see Dec 17/07 entry, below).

The principal place of performance is Tucson, AZ, but work will also be performed in Elkton, MD by major subcontractor Alliant Techsystems, and is expected to be complete by February 2012. FY 2007 research and development and Japanese Foreign Military Sales funds will be used for the initial funding, and will expire at the end of the fiscal year. The contract modification will be incrementally funded, committing $92.8 million at the outset – $85.9M FMS funds and $6.9M FY 2007 R&D funds.

US/Japan SM-3-IA order

2007

JS Kongo fires SM-3
(click to view full)

Dec 17/07: Japan test. The JS Kongo AEGIS destroyer [DDG-173] becomes the first Japanese ship to destroy a ballistic missile, launching an SM-3 Block 1A missile to successfully intercept a medium-range ballistic missile target fired from the U.S. Navy’s Pacific Missile Range Facility on Kauai, Hawaii. The veteran ABM test participant USS Lake Erie [CG 70] sailed from its homeport of Pearl Harbor to participate as a secondary, using its radar to track the target.

This marks the 12th successful intercept overall for the SM-3, and the first successful ABM interception by anyone other than the US Navy. Read “Japanese Destroyer JS Kongo Intercepts Ballistic Missile” for more information, and links to news articles and reactions around the world.

Japan: 1st BMD intercept

Sept 12/07: Taiwan request. The US DSCA announces [PDF] “The Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States” formal request for 144 SM-2 Block IIIA STANDARD missiles, 16 Telemetry missiles, canisters, containers, spare and repair parts, supply support, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical data, U.S. Government and contractor technical assistance and other related elements of logistics support.

The prime contractor will be Raytheon Missile Systems Corporation in Tucson, AZ, and although “the purchaser generally requires offsets, at this time, there are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.” The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $272 million.

DSCA: Taiwan SM-2-IIIA request

Aug 24/07: Spain request. The US DSCA announces [PDF] Spain’s request for 36 SM-2 Block IIIB STANDARD missiles (36 tactical missiles with warheads), 36 MK 13 MOD 0 canisters, section-level shipping containers, spare and repair parts, support equipment, training, technical assistance, and other related elements of logistics support. The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $63 million. The weapons will be carried on the Spanish Navy F-100 Alvaro de Bazan Class Frigates.

DSCA: Spain SM-2-IIIB request

June 8/07: Japan request. The US DSCA announces Japan’s request for Ballistic Missile Defense upgrades to one AEGIS Weapon System (Lockheed-Martin Maritime System and Sensors in Moorestown, NJ), AEGIS BMD Vertical Launch System ORDALTs (BAE’s Mk41 modifications, Minneapolis, MN), 9 SM-3 Block IA STANDARD missiles (Raytheon in Tucson, AZ) with MK 21 Mod 2 canisters, containers, spare and repair parts, publications, documentation, supply support, U.S. Government and contractor technical assistance and other related elements of logistics support. The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $475 million.

The intended ship is believed to be the JMSDF destroyer JS Chokai [DDG-176], which is the last of the current Kongo Class destroyers; the 5th and 6th Improved Kongo Class ships currently under construction will reportedly have AEGIS BMD capability pre-installed.

DSCA: Japan AEGIS BMD + SM-3-IA request

May 25/07: Japan request. The US DSCA notifies Congress [PDF] of Japan’s request for 24 SM-2 Block IIIB Tactical STANDARD missiles with MK 13 MOD 0 canisters; 24 AN/DKT-71A telemeters and conversion kits; containers; spare and repair parts; supply support; U.S. Government and contractor technical assistance and other related elements of logistics support. The SM-2 missiles will be used on ships of the Japan Maritime Self Defense Force fleet and the total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $40 million.

Japan has already integrated the SM-2 Block IIIB into its ship combat systems and maintains two Intermediate-Level Maintenance Depots capable of maintaining and supporting the SM-2. The missiles’ prime contractor is Raytheon Company in Tucson, AZ and the MK 13 Mod 0 canister’s prime contractor is BAE Systems of Minneapolis, MN. There are no offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale, and implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Japan.

DSCA: Japan SM-2-IIIB request

April 20/07: South Korea request. The US DSCA announces South Korea’s request for 150 SM-2 Block IIIB Tactical STANDARD missiles, 60 SM-2 Block IIIA Tactical STANDARD missiles with MK 13 Mod 0 canisters, 1 inert Block IIIB Tactical STANDARD missile, spares, intermediate-level maintenance activity section-level shipping containers, test equipment, hardware/software upgrades, test and support equipment, supply support, training and training equipment, publications and technical data, U.S. Government and contractor technical assistance and other related logistics support

South Korea already has these missiles in inventory, and the total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $372 million. Industrial offset agreements associated are expected as part of the contract, and will be negotiated between the South Koreans and Raytheon Systems in Tucson, AZ. See DSCA release [PDF]

DSCA: Korea SM-2-IIIA/B request

Jan 3/07: SM-1 support. A $24.9 million firm-fixed modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-05-C-5341) to procure Full Service Support (FSS) requirements in support of the STANDARD Missile-1 (SM-1) Program of U.S. Allied Nations. This SM-1 FSS FY 2007 option exercise consists of MK56 Dual Thrust Rocket Motor (DTRM) Regrain production and SM-1 Block 6B Missile assembly, testing and delivery for the Governments of Spain (89.5%, see also Oct 20/06 below) and Egypt (10.5%) under the Foreign Military Sales Program.

Work will be performed in Tucson, Ariz. (49%), Sacramento, CA (47%) and Camden, AK (4%), and is expected to be complete by September 2009. The Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, DC issued the contract.

2006

Spain’s F100 Frigate
(click to view full)

Dec 6/06: Japan. “The U.S. and Japan plan to build a joint base in the Nagasaki Prefecture for the maintenance of Standard Missile-3 interceptors, reports the UPI. According to sources in the Japanese Defense Agency, the facility would be located on a filled-in area off the coast near the U.S. Navy’s Hariojima ammunition depot in Sasebo. The U.S. and Japan would each maintain their own missiles, although the Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force (MSDF) would be able to ask the U.S. military for technical assistance if it encountered problems, allowing it to minimize costs.” Link.

Nov 13/06: SM-1 support. A $31.9 million firm-fixed-price modification under previously awarded contract (N00024-05-C-5341), exercising an option to procure Full Service Support (FSS) requirements in support of the STANDARD Missile-1 (SM-1) Program of U.S. Allied Nations. This SM-1 FSS FY 2007 option exercise consists of MK56 Dual Thrust Rocket Motor (DTRM) Regrain production and SM-1 Block VIA missile assembly, testing and delivery.

This effort combines requirements for the Governments of France (24%); Japan (16%); Turkey (16%); Bahrain (15%); Poland (12%); Italy (11%); and Chile (6%) under the Foreign Military Sales Program. Work will be performed in Camden, AK (85%) and Tucson, AZ (15%), and is expected to be complete by June 2009.

Nov 6/06: SM-2 support. An estimated $25.5 million cost-plus-award-fee modification to previously awarded contract N00024-03-C-5330, to provide additional engineering and technical services in support of the SM-2 Guided Missile Program under the Foreign Military Sales (FMS). Initial funding of $311,095 will provide services for Germany (50.3%) and Canada (49.7%). The purchase of additional services by other countries – Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, and Spain – has not been finalized. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ and is expected to be complete by December 2007.

Oct 20/06: SM-1s for Spain. Defense Aerospace translates a release from the Spanish Council of Ministers, who have authorized the acquisition of 94 SM-1 Block 6B missiles from the US Navy for the amount of EUR 25.7 million (about $32.3 million now) to be paid from 2006-2010 inclusive. The missiles will equip Spain’s six F80 Santa Maria Class frigates, a modified variant of the USA’s Oliver Hazard Perry Class. They will be loaded into the forward section’s Mk. 13 Mod. 4 (aka. “one armed bandit”) missile launchers; each ship has a capacity of up to 32 SM-1MR Standard Missiles.

Spain: 94 SM-1-6B

June 26/06: South Korea request. The US DSCA announces South Korea’s formal request for 48 SM-2 Standard Block IIIB missiles, as well as Mk 13 Mod 0 canisters for vertical launcher systems, containers, Intermediate-Level Maintenance spares and repair parts, supply support, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical data, U.S. Government and contractor technical assistance and other related elements of logistics support. The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $111 million.

Korea already uses SM-2 missiles aboard some of its ships, and these SM-2 are slated for use as the primary defensive system aboard its new KDX-III AEGIS destroyers. Industrial offset agreements are expected but not yet defined. See DSCA release [PDF].

DSCA: Korea SM-2-IIIB request

DDG176 Chokai
(click to view full)

June 5-6/06: Japan requests. The US DSCA announces a pair of requests from Japan for Standard-family naval air and missile defense systems, as well as destroyer BMD upgrades. The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $528 million. Raytheon, Lockheed, and BAE are the primary contractors.

The first sale for $458 million sale involves 9 longer-range SM-3 missiles plus ballistic missile defense upgrades to one AEGIS Weapon System, AEGIS BMD Vertical Launch System (VLS) alternations, and other support. The JMSDF destroyer JS Myoko [DDG-175] may be the target of the request.

The second sale is for $70 million if all options are exercised, and involves up to 44 shorter-range SM-2 Block IIIB Standard Missiles that serve as the mainstays of the Kongo Class AEGIS destroyers’ air defense, plus various forms of support. See full DID coverage.

DSCA: Japan AEGIS BMD + SM-3-IA + SM-2-IIIB request

April 6/06: SM-2 support. A $29.5 million cost-plus-award-fee modification to previously awarded contract N00024-03-C-5330. This provide for engineering and technical services in support of the Standard Missile 2 (SM-2) Guided Missile Program for foreign military sales for the countries of Taiwan (66.2%) and Korea (33.8%) under the Foreign Military Sales Program. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ and is expected to be complete by March 2007.

2005

JS Kongou
(click to view full)

Dec 30/05: SM-2 orders. Raytheon Co. in Tucson, AZ received a $235.7 million firm-fixed-price contract in for the production of the FY06 Standard Missile-2 Block IIIA and Block IIIB all up rounds (AURs) AN/DKT-71A telemetric data transmitting sets (TDTS), section level spares, and shipping containers for allied nations. Note that “all-up-rounds” include the missile, its launch container, and related equipment that allows for rapid installation of the naval missiles in vertical launch systems. This contract will provide for the procurement of Foreign Military Sales (FMS) and other international customers procurements of 221 SM-2 Standard Block IIIA AURs, 64 SM-2 Block IIIB AURs, 106 TDTS’ with installation kits, 69 various FMS spare sections and 393 various FMS shipping containers. Specific countries were not specified by the US DoD DefenseLINK release.

Work on this contract will be performed in Tucson, AZ (83%), Andover, MA (14%), Camden, AR (2%), and Farmington, N.M. (1%), and work is expected to be complete by December 2008. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured by the Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, DC is the contracting activity (N00024-06-C-5350).

285 SM-2s for Export

Nov 22/05: SM-1 support. An $8 million firm-fixed-price modification to exercise an option under previously awarded contract (N00024-05-C-5341) to procure Full Service Support (FSS) requirements in support of the STANDARD Missile-1 (SM-1) Program of U.S. Allied Nations. This modification supports the governments of Spain (77%); Poland (14%); Taiwan (4%); Italy (3%); Egypt (1%); and Japan (1%) under the Foreign Military Sales Program. Work will be performed in Sacramento, CA (85%); Camden, AR (10%); and Tucson, AZ (5%); and is expected to be complete by June 2008.

June 29/05: Japan request. The US DSCA announces a Government of Japan request for 9 SM-3 Block IA Standard missiles with MK 21 Mod 2 canisters, Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) upgrades to one AEGIS Radar & weapon control system, AEGIS BMD Vertical Launch System ordnance alternations (ORDALTs), containers, spare and repair parts, publications, documentation, supply support, U.S. Government and contractor technical assistance and other related elements of logistics support. The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $387 million.

The target of these BMD upgrades may be the destroyer JS Kongo [DDG-173], as JS Kirishima’s modifications were limited to AEGIS Long Range Scan & Track 3.0, which lacks the weapon control aspect. It is expected that the JS Kirishima will be upgraded later to include engagement as well.

These BMD modifications will provide, in concert with Japan Self Defense Forces PAC-3 Patriot missiles, the initial ballistic missile defense for mainland Japan. The principal contractors will be Lockheed-Martin Maritime System and Sensors in Moorestown, NJ (AEGIS radar) Raytheon Company Equipment Division in Andover, MA (missiles), and BAE Systems in Minneapolis, MN (canisters). DID article | DSCA release [PDF format].

DSCA: Japan AEGIS BMD + SM-3-IA request

June 6/05: Japan request. The U.S. Defense Department notified Congress of a proposed sale to Japan of Raytheon’s SM-2 Block IIIB surface-to-air missiles. The sale includes 40 SM-2 Block IIIB missiles with MK 13 MOD 0 canisters; 24 SM-2 Block IIIB Telemetry Standard missiles with MK 13 MOD 0 canisters, and associated equipment. It would be worth up to $104 million if all options are exercised, with contracts going to Raytheon and United Defense LP.

The Pentagon’s Defense Security and Cooperation Agency said Japan requested the missiles for use on ships of the Japan Maritime Self Defense Force fleet and said it would enhance Japan’s defense of critical sea-lanes. Reuters: U.S. Moves To Sell Japan SM-2 Missiles

DSCA: Japan SM-2-IIIB request

May 31/05: Australia request. The government of Australia has requested a possible sale of up to 175 SM-2 Block IIIA Standard anti-air missiles, up to 30 Telemetry missiles, up to 2 SM-2 Block IIIA inert operational missiles, canisters, containers, spare and repair parts; plus supply support, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical data, US government and contractor technical assistance, and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is $315 million, and the principal contractors will be Raytheon (Tucson, AZ) and General Dynamics (Scottsdale, AZ). There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.

The Royal Australian Navy already has SM-1 Standard missiles in its inventory, and intends to use the improved SM-2 missiles on its FFG 7 Oliver Hazard Perry Class frigates for self-defense against air and cruise-missile threats. DSCA release [PDF format].

DSCA: Australia SM-2-IIIA request

May 13/05: SM-1 support. Raytheon Co. in Tucson, AZ is being awarded an $11.2 million firm-fixed-price contract to provide Full Service Support (FSS) for the Standard Missile-1 (SM-1) program of U.S. Allied Nations. This contract combines purchases for the countries of Egypt (43%), Taiwan (26%); Spain (10%); Japan (6%); Turkey (6%); France (3%); Italy (3%); Bahrain (1%); Netherlands (1%); and Poland (1%) under the Foreign Military Sales Program.

This contract was not competitively procured. Work will be performed in Sacramento, CA (67%) and Tucson, AZ (33%), and the contract will expire before the end of September 2006 (N00024-05-C-5341).

March 23/05: SM-2 orders. A $266 million firm-fixed-price modification for production of the FY 2005 SM-2 missile order to equip the U.S. Navy and the navies of Japan, the Netherlands, Germany, Taiwan, Canada, and Korea respectively. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ (56%), Andover, MA (23%), Camden, AR (20%), and Farmington, NM (1%), and is expected to be completed by December 2007. The Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, DC, issued the contract (N00024-04-C-5342).

U.S. Navy orders include agreed quantities of Block IIIA All-Up-Rounds (AUR), Block IIIB AUR, Block IIIB ORDALT kits, AN/DKT-71A Telemetric Data Transmitting Sets (TDTS), and section level spares.

The contract also includes procurement for other navies under the Foreign Military Sales Program: 99 SM-2 Block IIIA AUR, 64 SM-2 Block IIIB AUR, 51 AN/DKT-71A TDTS with Installation Kits, 25 various foreign military sales spare sections and 161 shipping missile containers.

FY 2005 SM-2s

March 22/05: SM-2 support. A $29.6 cost-plus-award-fee modification to a previously awarded contract (N00024-03-C-5330) to provide engineering and technical services in support of the Standard Missile-2 Guided Missile Program for Foreign Military Sales (FMS). This modification satisfies the requirements of the following FMS customers: Germany (16.5%); Japan (16.67%); Korea (16.67%); the Netherlands (16.67%); Spain (16.67%); and Canada (16.67%). Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ and is expected to be completed by December 2005.

Additional Readings

• US Navy Fact file – Standard Missile. Covers SM-2 and SM-6.

• Raytheon – Standard Missile Family

• GlobalSecurity.org – SM Standard Missile.

Associated Systems

• Lockheed Martin – AEGIS, Shield of the Fleet.

• GlobalSecurity.org – AEGIS Weapon System Mk7.

• Wikipedia – AEGIS Combat System.

• GlobalSecurity.org – AN/SPY-1 Radar. Interesting analysis of some of the systems weaknesses as well, but those may or may not be current.

• HighFrontier.org, via WayBack – Sea-Based Platforms.

• DID FOCUS – Serious Dollars for AEGIS Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD).

• DID Spotlight – Japan’s Fleet BMD Upgrades. Covers their Kongo Class AEGIS destroyers.

• DID – SM-3 BMD, in from the Sea: EPAA & Aegis Ashore.

News & Views

• US Congressional Research Service (July 2/13) – Navy Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Program: Background and Issues for Congress [PDF].

• MIT, via WayBack (May 3/10) – A Technically Detailed Description of Flaws in the SM-3 and GMD Missile Defense Systems Revealed by the Defense Department’s Ballistic Missile Test Data [PDF]. By George N. Lewis and Theodore A. Postol. See May 17/10 entry for MDA replies.

• StrategyPage (Aug 4/08) – Aegis Triumphant. “The U.S. Navy, capitalizing on the success of its SM3… wants to equip more ships with it… There are 18 U.S. Navy ships equipped with SM-3, and the navy would like enough money to equip all of its Aegis equipped ships (90) with the SM-3. This is expensive… to equip over 80 additional Aegis ships with SM-3 would cost over three billion dollars.”

• George C. Marshall Institute, via WayBack (Nov 28/08) – Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System – Status and Upgrades [PDF]. By Rear Admiral Alan B. Hicks, Program Director, Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense. Includes discussion of SM-3 Block II.

• DID (Dec 18/07) – US Missile Defense Shifting Toward More Realistic Testing?

• Lexington Institute, via WayBack (Oct 12/07) – The Standard Missile: Standard Bearer Of Reliability

• Information Dissemination, via WayBack (June 21/07) – US Navy Ballistic Missile Defense. Well researched article covering the USA’s plans in this area, including ships slated to receive ABM capability.

• Navy League Seapower Magazine, via WayBack (November 2004) – Navy Pursues SM-6 as Defense Against Cruise Missile Threats.