The U.S. Marines have a problem. They rely on their CH-53E Super Stallion medium-heavy lift helicopters to move troops, vehicles, and supplies off of their ships. But the helicopters are wearing out. Fast. The pace demanded by the Global War on Terror is relentless, and usage rates are 3 times normal. Attrition is taking its toll. Over the past few years, CH-53s have been recalled from “boneyard” storage at Davis-Monthan AFB in Tucson, AZ, in order to maintain fleet numbers in the face of recent losses and forced retirements. Now, there are no flyable spares left.

Enter the Heavy Lift Replacement (HLR) program, also known as the CH-53X. It was given the formal designation CH-53K in April 2006, and aims to offer notable performance improvements in a similar-looking package. The question is whether its service entry delay to 2018-2019 will come too late to offset a serious decline in Marine aviation.

The HLR Program Lifts Off

Up, up, and…
(click to view full)

The $25.5 billion, 200-helicopter CH-53K program will define the long-term future of the US Marine Corps’ medium-heavy lift capabilities – and may be needed to save Marine aviation in the medium term.

On average, existing CH-53E aircraft are more than 15 years old, have over 3,000 flight hours under tough conditions, and are becoming more and more of a maintenance challenge with a 44:1 maintenance man-hours:flight hours ratio. Not to mention the resulting $20,000 per flight-hour cost ratio. According to Jane’s Defense Weekly, a 1999 analysis showed that the existing fleet has a service life of 6,120 flight hours, based on fatigue at the weakest point where the tail folds. The USMC expected that the existing fleet would start to reach this point in 2011, at a rate of 15 aircraft per year. The funding profile below suggests a problem for the Corps:

Excel
download

The Marine Corps itself is the source of the disconnect. The HLR program initially called for 156 new-build helicopters derived from the CH-53E Super Stallion design, with initial flight tests in 2010-2011, and initial operating capability (IOC) in 2014-2015. IOC was defined as a detachment of 4 aircraft, with combat ready crews, and prepared to deploy with all required equipment and spares.

In 2010, however, the Marines grew the program plan to 200 helicopters, even as they pushed its initial flight back to FY 2013, and IOC back to FY 2018. The program wasn’t experiencing problems, and no reasons were given, beyond statements concerning the program’s aggressive schedule. Further slippage has occurred since. Here’s the full timeline:

The current schedule creates a number of risks for the Marine Corps. There’s no question that pushing the CH-53K program back will leave the Marines with a dwindling heavy-lift helicopter fleet, whose size, capability, and safety are governed by mechanical realities rather than political diktat. In April 2010, the US military ran out of stored CH-53D/E airframes to refurbish and return to the front lines. In February 2011, the USMC retired its CH-53D fleet altogether.

The other risk is political. On the one hand, the CH-53K is a large program, and the farther the Marines push it away, the easier it is to cut amidst budget crises. With its heavy-lift fleet dwindling, that could be disastrous for the force. On the other hand, budgetary crises also look for programs that are late or experiencing problems, and the CH-53K is big enough to earn a lot of attention if it’s seen as screwing up. That fact that the original schedule was overly aggressive wouldn’t matter.

Was the move to push the CH-53K back an act of political negligence, to protect less critical programs like the V-22? Or was it an act of supreme prudence, which will lead to a strong program that survives precisely because it goes out and meets its targets? Opinions vary. Time will tell.

Current Status

Some assembly required
(click to view full)

US Navy PMA-261 is responsible for the CH-53K program, and the program manager as of February 2010 was Capt. Rick Muldoon. He had been the program manager for over 3 years, which is something of a rarity at the Pentagon.

Sikorsky is currently working under a $3.04 billion System Development and Demonstration (SDD) contract, to include 4 SDD flight test helicopters, 1 ground test airframe, and associated program management and test support. The Navy believes it will take more than that to complete the phase; time will tell. To date, Sikorsky’s industrial partners include:

The CH-53X / CH-53K

Mission example
(click to view full)

The CH-53K’s maximum gross weight (MGW) will increase to 88,000 pounds with external loads, versus 73,500 pounds for the CH-53E. MGW with internal loads will be 74,000 pounds, compared to 69,750 pounds for the CH-53E. It’s being designed to carry a cargo load of 27,000 pounds (13.5 tons) 110 nautical miles, operating at an altitude of 3,000 feet and an ambient temperature of 91.5 degrees Fahrenheit. This is nearly double the capacity of the current CH-53E Super Stallions, all in a helicopter that’s roughly the same size.

Those altitude and temperature qualifications matter, too, because “hot and high” conditions lower aircraft load carrying capabilities and combat radius – especially for helicopters. This reduced performance has recently been a factor during operations in Afghanistan and relief efforts in Pakistan, for instance, and has been a factor with earlier models of the C-130 Hercules as well. Figures for the CH-53K operating entirely around sea level and in cooler temperatures would be higher, but would not be double that of existing CH-53Es.

As an example of these variables at work, Sikorsky’s CH-53K brochure states that the improved CH-53K will have a maximum external load of 16.3t/ 36,000 lbs. On the other hand, an operation that carries an externally-slung load from sea level to a point 3,000 feet above sea level, with a total range there and back of 220 nautical miles/ 407 km, and 30 minute loiter at the landing zone, would have a maximum mission load of only 12.25t/ 27,000 lbs.

MRAP: RG-31, IEDed
(click to view story)

Even at sea level, however, increased lift capacity will be important. As the Hummer’s fundamental lack of survivability began to marginalize it on the battlefield, the Marines led the charge to field “MRAP” blast-resistant vehicle designs instead. While an up-armored HMMWV weighs about 9,100 pounds empty, the lightest Category 1 MRAP patrol vehicles check in at weights ranging from 16,000 – 31,000 pounds, and even the “light” JLTVs that will replace a large segment of the HMMWV fleet are expected to weigh 14,000 – 20,000 pounds.

Those weights mean that tactical operations to airlift mobile forces ashore beyond the beach, or within the zone of operations, will have only one helicopter available that can get the job done: the CH-53.

If the Marines think their CH-53 fleet is seeing heavy use now, just wait.

New Technologies

CH-53K concept
(click to view full)

In order to meet those requirements, the CH-53K will be depending on a number of new technologies. No one technology constitutes a big stretch, which is good news for the program. Instead, a host of technologies that have been developed since the CH-53E program will be refined, and used in inter-related areas. For the basic outlines of many low-risk CH-53X/CH-53K improvements, read “An Affordable Solution To Heavy Lift” [PDF] by Lt. Col. James C. Garman, an H-53 family pilot and Senior Preliminary Design Engineer in Sikorsky’s New Product Definition Group. See also this interview with former HLR program manager Col. Paul Croisetiere.

The most important new addition to the CH-53K will be its 7,500shp class GE38 engines, which have already hit 8,300 shp in ground tests. The military is hoping for 18% better specific fuel consumption than the similarly sized T64 engine, even though the engine would produce 57% more power. To improve maintenance and reliability, the GE38 is also expected to have 63% fewer parts.

Other technologies slated for the CH-53K include a “glass” [digital] cockpit that has high commonality and interoperability with existing Army and Navy helicopters, high-efficiency rotor blades with anhedral tips that are 11% wider, a cargo rail locking system; external cargo improvements, survivability enhancements, and enhancements designed to extend service life.

Changes will be made as the program progresses, and engineers get a better sense of which technologies are ready, and which would create risks to the program. For example, the CH-53K was going to use a “viscoelastic lag damper” for the rotors, in order to minimize vibration and stress. It was removed in order to speed up deployment, and a modified version of standard linear hydraulic dampers will be used instead. The Navy hopes for 2x reliability compared to the existing CH-53Es, but gave up the potential for 4x reliability, in exchange for less development risk.

Given the CH-53E’s large maintenance ratio, reliability will matter. As former HLR program manager Col. Paul Croisetiere put it in a NAVAIR release:

“Given the CH-53E’s operational costs and maintenance demands, heavy lift has built its reputation for excellence on the backs of our maintainers… We are going to take our maintainers somewhere they’ve rarely been before. Home for dinner.”

Several decades of weapon program history suggest that the odds of meeting this goal are low. Instead, the trend is that these promises are made, but more advanced and complex weapons wind up having more points of failure, and require even more maintenance. If the CH-53K program can break that cycle, it would represent a landmark success in Pentagon weapons acquisition.

Contracts & Key Events

Unless otherwise noted, all contracts are issued by US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD.

CH-53K GTV
(click to view full)

May 17/13: General Electric in Lynn, MA receives a $7.6 million firm-fixed-price delivery order to buy critical hard tooling required to support the manufacture of the CH-53K’s GE38-1B engines. The current order involves GE38s for the CH-53K System Demonstration Test Article (SDTA) helicopters, and they’re the engine’s inaugural platform.

Work will be performed in Lynn, MA (20%); Morristown, TN (20%); Groton, CT (20%); Hooksett, NH (10%); Fort Wayne, IN (10%); North Clarendon, VT (10%); and Albany, OR (10%); and is expected to be complete in November 2014. All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2013 RDT&E budgets (N00019-10-G-0007).

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. Overall, expected costs have risen (q.v. March 30/12 entry), though the added cost per helicopter is only 5.6% above the baseline. The “ground test vehicle” non-flying model has been delivered, but issues with a test stand are delaying progress.

GAO points out that the design is released, but not necessarily finished. The big break in the program remains the April 2011 shift from a cost-plus award fee to cost-plus incentive fee contract, tied to specific cost and schedule goals, and associated with a much-delayed schedule. The next big event will be the beginning of system-level prototype testing in 2013.

CH-53E lifts M113 APC

May 6/12: Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. in Stratford, CT receives a $7.8 million cost-plus-award-fee contract modification to incorporate CH-53K live fire test and evaluation. This is exactly what it sounds like – the Navy will shoot lots of holes in test platforms, and assess damage resistance.

Work will be performed at Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division, China Lake, CA (80%), and Stratford, CT (20%). Work is expected to be complete in December 2018 (N00019-06-C-0081).

April 12/12: Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. in Stratford, CT receives a $25.7 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract modification, to provide detailed maintenance plans in support of the CH-53K helicopter program. Work will be performed in Stratford, CT, and is expected to be complete in December 2015 (N00019-06-C-0081).

March 30/12: GAO report. The US GAO tables its “Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs” for 2012. With respect to the CH-53K:

“Program officials reported that in July 2011, the contract’s estimated cost was increased by $724 million to $3.4 billion. According to Defense Contract Management Agency officials, the estimated contract costs increased because of several factors including the need for additional flight test hours and spare parts, increased material costs, and design complexity. The contract was also changed from cost-plus award fee to cost-plus incentive fee for the remaining period of performance. The incentive fees are tied to specific cost and schedule goals… According to Marine Corps officials, a force structure review has been conducted to assess the required quantity of aircraft and that review determined that the requirement for 200 aircraft is still valid despite the proposed manpower reduction.”

Feb 28/12: Avionics. Northrop Grumman announces a $5.6 million Phase II contract from US NAVAIR to modify existing software for the CH-53K’s LN-251 embedded GPS/fiber-optic inertial navigation system (INS). Northrop Grumman’s Navigation Systems Division will provide updated software and engineering support for platform integration and flight tests, to both NAVAIR and Sikorsky Aircraft.

Feb 24/12: Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. in Stratford, CT receives a $15.5 million cost-plus-incentive-fee CH-53K contract modification. The program needs a condition-based maintenance plus software toolset (almost certainly ISS – vid. Oct 26/11), to integrate the helicopter’s onboard prognostics and the Navy’s fleet common operating environment maintenance computers. The contract includes installation, operation, and recurring data analysis.

Funds and work will be assigned if and as needed, and work will be performed in Lexington Park, MD (90%), and Stratford, CT (10%). The contract is expected to run until February 2018. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-06-C-0081).

Dec 19/11: Sub-contractors. Northrop Grumman announces a follow-on contract from US NAVAIR in Patuxent River, MD to define system requirements for the integration of its LN-251 embedded global positioning system (GPS)/fiber-optic inertial navigation system (INS) on the new CH-53K.

The firm touts the LN-251 system as “the world’s smallest, lightest navigation-grade embedded GPS/INS unit in its class… [whose] modular, open architecture supports additional applications and evolving requirements.”

Oct 26/11: Recognition. The CH-53K Helicopter Systems Engineering Team wins a Department of Defense Systems Engineering Top 5 Programs Award, at the annual NDIA Systems Engineering Conference Award Luncheon in San Diego, CA. US NAVAIR.

Oct 26/11: ISS Patent. Sikorsky Aerospace Services’ Integrated Support System (ISS) aftermarket software suite has received a patent. ISS integrates onboard diagnostics (vid. Sept 26/08 HUMS entry) and usage data with ground-based troubleshooting and service information. This technology is part of Sikorsky’s efforts to move toward proactive diagnostics, and ISS platforms for the Sikorsky CH-53K and S70i are under development. Future plans include expansion to other aircraft types. Sikorsky.

Oct 11/11: Sub-contractors. Thermoplastic composites firm Fiberforge announces the addition of Njord A. Rota as its CH-53K Program Manager. They explain that the Lockheed Martin veteran will lead all management aspects of Fiberforge’s work for DRS Technologies Inc. Their work includes the design, development and production of the carbon fiber composite components within the CH-53K’s Internal Cargo Handling System. Helihub.

GE38 engine
(click to view full)

Aug 4/11: Engine. GE has delivered the 1st GE38 engine, for use on the Sikorsky CH-53K Ground Test Vehicle. After 2 years of testing, GE touts 57% more power and 18% lower specific fuel consumption than the CH-53E’s similarly-sized GE T64, while using 63% fewer parts.

In addition to the CH-53K SDD program’s 20 flight engines, the GE38 testing program includes 5 factory-test engines that will accumulate more than 5,000 engine test hours by 2013. GE is pushing ahead on its engine despite CH-53K delays, and expects it to have applications in the fixed wing and naval markets, alongside its helicopter potential. They see a total civil and military market potential of $4+ billion. GE.

June 21/11: Industrial. Sikorsky announces that they’ve begun assembly of the CH-53K Ground Test Vehicle (GTV), which is currently in position 4 on the line. It’s the 1st of 5 prototype CH-53Ks to be assembled at the Sikorsky Florida Assembly and Flight Operations (FAFO) facility in West Palm Beach, FL, which opened in March 2011.

Another 2 GTVs will be assembled at Sikorsky’s main manufacturing plant in Stratford, CT, making 3 ground test and 4 flight test helicopters. CH-53K ground testing is scheduled to begin in early 2012, and flight testing during FY 2014. To give one a sense of the CH-53K, its rotor hub and transmission alone weigh 15,000 pounds – about the empty weight of a UH-60 Black Hawk.

March 22/11: Industrial. Sikorsky officially opens its new 60,000 square foot Florida Assembly and Flight Operations (FAFO) campus, establishing experimental assembly line operations for the new CH-53K heavy lift helicopter. The FAFO line introduces a set of new manufacturing technologies. It’s equipped with wireless data connections to all operator plasma data screens, uses digital operation sheets, and is outfitted with overhead power and air dropdowns, new aircraft work stands, and overhead cranes. Sikorsky, incl. video.

Feb 16/11: Sub-contractors. Donaldson provides an update regarding its Engine Air Particle Protection System, which is a critical piece of equipment in desert or dusty environments. They received the contract in September 2007:

“We built the first full-scale EAPPS in just three months following the CDR, [DID: which was August 2010]” said Sheila Peyraud, General Manager, Aerospace and Defense at Donaldson. “Developmental testing began in November 2010 to support testing of the helicopter’s GE38-1B engine in 2011. We are pleased that initial results in this phase of the program are exceeding expectations originally set during the conceptual design phase. Qualification testing will begin in May 2011.”

Jan 14/11: Industrial. Sikorsky unveils a state-of-the-art virtual reality center for the CH-53K heavy lift helicopter program, attempting to help identify production and maintenance issues before the initial build takes place by using a 3-dimensional digital environment.

Located within the engineering labs at Sikorsky’s main manufacturing facility in Stratford, CT, the virtual reality center uses sophisticated software, along with 12 cameras, a head-mounted display headset, gloves, and a gripping tool. All devices are linked to 3 computers, which comprise the “command center” for operating the system.

Nov 19/10: Sub-contractors. ITT Corporation (formerly EDO) announces that after nearly 3 years of advanced design, development, testing and manufacturing, they’ve delivered the first pair of CH-53K sponsons to Sikorsky. Each sponson is 25 feet long by 4 feet wide and 5 feet high, and fits on the helicopter’s side to house landing gear, fuel, and other mechanical and electrical assemblies.

ITT used composite materials instead of traditional sheet metal for the sponsons, and hopes they’ll provide benefits in weight, corrosion resistance, and in-flight stress tolerance. To make that work, ITT has to use advanced manufacturing technologies like electronic model control, laser-ply projection, 5-axis computer numerically controlled machining, automated trimming and drilling, and laser and ultrasonic inspection of all subassemblies. The CH-53K parts will be built at ITT’s Electronic Systems facility in Salt Lake City, UT.

CH-53Ds in Hawaii
(click for video)

Sept 6/10: Sub-contractors. GKN Aerospace delivers the first major CH-53K structural assembly to Sikorsky – an aft transition fuselage section that measures approximately 20′ x 9′ x 9′, built of an advanced hybrid composite, aluminum and titanium structure covered with external composite skins.

GKN Aerospace was accorded full design authority and manufacturing responsibility for the CH-53K helicopter aft transition fuselage section, cargo ramp, and overhead door structural assemblies in 2007. Structural design is carried out by the GKN Aerospace Engineering Development Center in Nashville, TN, and manufacturing of over 1,000 separate components takes place at the Company’s plant in St. Louis, MO. GKN Aerospace is employing manufacturing technologies including automated fibre placement (AFP), automated trim and drill, and digital inspection. GKN Aerospace.

Aug 16/10: CH-35D plans. DoD Buzz looks at the shifting plans to replace the USMC’s 30 CH-53D Sea Stallions. The original plan was to replace them with MV-22s. At some point in 2007/08, the Marine Corps formally decided replace their aging CH-53Ds with CH-53Ks. But now USMC Lt. General Trautman is saying that he wants an east coast and a west coast MV-22 squadron to replace the CH-53Ds in Afghanistan, and “When I can do that, that’ll be the start of getting CH-53 Delta out of the way.”

Exactly what “out of the way” means is ambiguous. If it means out of service, DoD Buzz correctly notes that this raises questions about the USMC’s support for the CH-53K, and would seem to be better news for the MV-22. If it means “shifted back to Hawaii while MV-22s serve in Afghanistan,” that would be something else. The exact meaning isn’t 100% clear in the article.

June 28/10: Sub-contractors. Raytheon Co. in El Segundo, CA received a $26.5 million firm-fixed-price delivery order for 50 forward looking infrared devices that will be fitted to CH-53E (42) and CH-53K (8) helicopters. Discussions with corporate representatives confirm that these will be AN/AAQ-29 turrets, using a 480 x 640 element, 3-5 micron wavelength indium antimonite infrared detector, and a 2 field of view telescope on a 12-inch diameter turret.

This is a follow-on to a previous order. Work under this basic ordering agreement will be performed in El Segundo, CA, and is expected to be complete in June 2012. $530,000 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/10 (N00019-10-G-0018).

May 10/10: Engine. Flight International reports that even though the CH-53E is delayed, GE remains committed to delivering the 7,500 shp class GE38-1 engine on schedule. The firm sees re-engining opportunities and related sales beyond the CH-53K, so they’ve begun delivering GE38s for ground tests years before airframes become available for flight test.

As of Feb 15/10, GE had recorded 176 engine starts and 177 operating hours, with sustained power of 7,760 shp and peak power of 8,300 shp. April 2010 saw delivery of a 2nd engine for ground tests.

The article is less positive about the CH-53K’s odds of winning the German/French heavy-lift helicopter program. Apparently, Germany wants a helicopter that will fit key vehicles internally, not underslung. Ultimately, the question will be whether Germany can afford to develop what it wants, can find it elsewhere, or is forced to remove some requirements.

April 29/10: Why the delay? DefenseTech reports that the USMC has pushed back the initial flight date of the CH-53K by 2 years to FY 2013, and Initial Operational Capability by 3 years to FY 2018, “with little concrete justification beyond an ‘overly aggressive initial program schedule’ “, and while stressing that the program has not run into technical problems. Craig Hooper writes:

“The CH-53K was an unsung showpiece for those preaching the virtues of incremental development, and, as a result, appetite for the platform has grown by about 30 percent, with the program of record expected to increase from 156 aircraft to 200. But, in the process, the CH-53K has become something of a MV-22-killer. Is this the problem?… In late 2009, the Marine Corps decided to go with the CH-53Ks to replace their 40-year old CH-53D fleet (MV-22 Ospreys were originally slated to replace the CH-53D). At about the same time, Israel decided to forego the Osprey for the CH-53K, killing the Osprey’s best hope of snaring an international buyer. And with the Osprey 65% availability and the MV-22s high operating costs of about $11,000 dollars an hour… worse, studies from the Pentagon demonstrated that a CH-53K-equipped big-deck amphib provided a lot more logistical support for embarked Marines than the MV-22… Slowing CH-53K development will… prevent real-data comparisons between platforms… [until] a second multi-year MV-22 contract gets signed in FY 2013. Even worse, slowing the CH-53K schedule raised the program price by at least $1.1 billion dollars, raising the per-unit price… Why slow a program that stands to be a high-demand showpiece with potential markets in Israel, Germany, France, Turkey, Singapore and Taiwan?”

Asked for a response, US MARCORSYSCOM said that US NAVAIR was the only agency that could respond; NAVAIR did not respond to DID’s simultaneous inquiry.

April 1/10: SAR – Program grows. The Pentagon releases its April 2010 Selected Acquisitions Report, covering major program changes up to December 2009. The CH-53K is included, because the Marines want more of them – but there’s a self-imposed catch:

“CH-53K – Program costs increased $6,817.8 million (+36.4%) from $18,708.3 million to $25,526.1 million, due primarily to a quantity increase of 44 aircraft from 156 to 200 aircraft (+$3,108.9 million), and increases in other support costs (+$749.7 million) and initial spares (+$456.2 million) associated with the quantity increase. Costs also increased due to a three-year delay in the procurement profile shifting initial purchases from fiscal 2013 to fiscal 2016 (+$1,148.4 million), schedule growth attributable to funding constraints (+$669.6 million), and an increase in the cost estimate for the development contract (+$611.2 million).”

Feb 22/10: Sub-contractors. Cobham announces [PDF] a sub-contract from Sikorsky to manufacture all leading and trailing edge details and precisely locate and bond the details onto the CH-53K’s main rotor blade spar.

The work will be done by its Antenna Systems unit, which has consolidated all composites-related operations within the company. Depending on how many CH-53K helicopters are eventually built by Sikorsky for the US Marine Corps, the contract could be worth up to $25 million.

Jan 22/10: Industrial. Sikorsky formally opens its new $20 million Precision Components Technology Center, as part of United Technologies Corp.’s $130 million investment the CH-53K program.

The center currently employs 8 people, and was designed to allow the development of new product lines with “zero setup time” and quick changeover from one component to another. The center will produce major dynamic components of the CH-53K helicopter such as rotating and stationary swashplates, main and tail rotor hubs, and main rotor sleeves. The equipment in the center has the capability to produce any precision rotor and drive system dynamic component, including earlier-model configurations, and forgings machined there can be up to double the size of previous on-site limits. Sikorsky release.

Jan 7/10: IDR. Sikorsky announces the wrap-up of its Integration Design Review for the CH-53K, in preparation for the Critical Design Review coming in 2010. The event included industrial team members , and personnel from US NAVAIR and the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Risk reduction initiatives on the critical split torque main gear box and the advanced main rotor blade are done, and 2010 will also hold a Technology Readiness Assessment. Initial Operational Capability is currently slated for early 2016.

Established features of the CH-53K helicopter currently include a joint-interoperable glass (digital screens) cockpit; fly-by-wire flight controls; 4th generation rotor blades with anhedral tips; a low-maintenance elastomeric rotor head; upgraded engines; a locking cargo rail system; external cargo handling improvements; survivability enhancements; and design for reduced operation and support costs. Sikorsky release.

CH-53E, Cobra Gold 2002
(click to view full)

July 28/09: Engine. The GE38 team holds a ceremony at General Electric in Lynn, MA, celebrating the completion of the first full GE38 engine test. This first engine test, which began June 24/09, focused on basic engine checkout and risk reduction. All engine test parameters were within predicted values.

SDD phase testing will include 5 ground-test engines that will accumulate more than 5,000 engine test hours, plus production of 20 flight-test engines for the CH-53K development helicopters (each helicopter carries 3 engines). NAVAIR release.

May 7/09: Sub-contractors. Curtiss-Wright Corporation announces a contract from Sikorsky to develop and supply data concentrator units for the CH-53K. Curtiss-Wright’s system consists of 2 data concentrator units (DCUs) that will receive and provide various avionic and air vehicle discrete, digital and analog inputs for monitoring, processing data and controlling various CH-53K subsystem components.

Curtiss-Wright’s Motion Control segment will develop and manufacture the DCU systems at its newly-opened City of Industry, CA, facility. The initial contract runs through 2011 with the production phase starting in 2013. The contract has a total potential value of $22 million when development and all aircraft production options and phases are completed.

April 21/09: Sub-contractors. Curtiss-Wright Controls Inc., announces a contract from United Technologies subsidiary Claverham Ltd. (a Hamilton Sundstrand Flight Systems business unit) to provide multi-channel linear variable displacement transducers (LVDTs) for the fly-by-wire (FBW) systems controlling the main rotor and tail rotor on the Sikorsky UH-60M Upgrade and CH-53K helicopters.

The LVDTs are special pressure sealed linear displacement transducers that are embedded in Claverham’s Primary Flight Control Actuators. The transducers provide electrical signals that are proportional to the position of the hydraulic actuator rod, and the actuators change pitch angles on the main and tail rotors in response to the pilot’s commands.

These two programs have a potential contract value in excess of $20 million over a 15-year period, with shipments expected to begin in 2009. The company will supply these products from its Christchurch, UK operation.

March 30/09: GAO. The US GAO audit office delivers its 7th annual “Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs report, which looks at 47 programs including the CH-53K HLR. The CH-53K stands out, as one of the few programs to show lower R&D projections (from $4.23 billion to $4.17 billion) and estimated delivery time (2 months early) since its 2005 baseline. The truth is, the Marines have little choice. The time crunch has already begun:

“According to program officials, all available decommissioned CH-53E helicopters have been reclaimed… Currently deployed CH-53E aircraft are flying at three times the planned utilization rate… The program intends to manufacture up to 29 of the 156 total [CH-53K] helicopters (19 percent) during low-rate initial production at the same time that it is conducting initial operational testing. While concurrent testing and production may help to field the systems sooner, it could also result in greater retrofit cost…”

That’s likely, since a number of requirements and systems have been shelved, in order to deliver the helicopter on time:

“Both of the CH-53K’s current critical technologies, the main rotor blade and the main gearbox, are immature and are expected to be fully mature following the low-rate initial production decision in 2013. The program replaced a third technology, the viscoelastic lag damper, with a modified version of an existing [linear hydraulic damper] technology. During preparations for the preliminary design review, it was discovered that maturing system engineering tasks would potentially require additional cost and time. As a result, the program eliminated noncritical requirements to contain costs and delayed the preliminary and critical design reviews and low-rate initial production decision.”

Feb 8/09: Sub-contractors. BAE Systems announces contracts from Sikorsky Aircraft for development and initial deliveries of CH-53K Cockpit Seats and Cabin Armor Systems, and for integration of the CH-53K’s fly-by-wire flight controls. BAE Systems efforts will include design, development, testing, qualification, and delivery of initial systems to support the flight test and ground test aircraft. Follow-on contracts would be placed for production orders and spares.

The seats will be based on BAE Security & Survivability Systems S7000 armored, crashworthy seats, and first deliveries of both seats and cabin armor are scheduled for 2010. The total value of the programs is estimated at approximately $90 million through 2022, if 156 CH-53K aircraft are built.

Iraq: CH-53E lifts UH-60
(click to view full)

September 2008: PDR. The CH-53K program conducts a successful Preliminary Design Review. Source.

PDR

Sept 26/08: Sub-contractors – HUMS. Goodrich announces that it has been picked to supply its IVHMS Health Usage and Monitoring Systems (HUMS) for the CH-53K. HUMS are embedded sensors within the aircraft’s key components, like engines. They monitor these systems, and can often tell if things are beginning to wrong inside before something actually breaks.

Avoiding breakdowns, and helping to pinpoint problems faster if something does break, saves money. Further savings can be had by using HUMS in conjunction with advanced maintenance and fleet management software. Once a baseline of good data is available, it becomes possible to switch from “do it just in case” maintenance and overhaul checklists, to “condition-based maintenance” that’s performed only when necessary, based on a combination of HUMS readings and predictive software.

Goodrich has carved out a strong market position in this area, supplying HUMS systems of varying complexity for a number of US military helicopters. IVHMS will supposedly build on earlier IMDS systems implanted in the CH-53E, but will be broader in nature, monitoring “the CH-53K helicopter’s entire mechanical drive train from the engines to the rotor system, and hundreds of aircraft systems.”

Sept 2/08: Sub-contractors. Breeze-Eastern Corporation announces that Sikorsky has picked them to provide the CH-53K’s Internal Cargo Winch System. The initial contract requires the delivery of 5 units for the System Design and Development phase.

Breeze-Eastern has worked with Sikorsky in this area to supply the S-92, and to retrofit USMC CH-53Ds. Bloomberg.

May 30/08: Camber Corp. in Huntsville, AL received an $8.6 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for program management, acquisition management, and engineering and technical services in support of the CH-53D, CH-53E, MH-53E, and CH-53K.

Work will be performed in Patuxent River, MD and is expected to be complete in November 2008. This contract was not competitively procured by the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, Patuxent River, MD (N000421-08-C-0044).

Feb 18/08: Sub-contractors. Northrop Grumman Corporation announces that U.S. Naval Aviation Systems Command has picked their APR-39BvX radar warning receiver (RWR) integration program for the Navy’s CH-53K helicopter fleet. The APR-39 BvX upgrade, scheduled for completion and flight testing in late 2009 or early 2010, builds on the recently completed AvX program and includes new, faster processors and “massive” memory expansion.

Under the terms of the $17 million phase Phase 2 contract, Northrop Grumman will incorporate all electronic warfare (EW) integration capabilities of the APR-39Av2 and APR-39Bv2 versions, which are variants of the same system tailored to the kind of aircraft computer and cockpit interfaces in Navy/USMC aircraft. The APR-39BvX program will create one interoperable version for the forthcoming CH-53K fleet. This phase 2 program will include electronic warfare controller and integration interfaces to multiple missile and laser warning sensors, and also tie the APR-39 into Northrop Grumman’s Directional Infrared Countermeasures (DIRCM) systems onboard each of the helicopters. The intended result is a system providing warning and protection against electro-optical, infrared, and radar guided missiles, and electronic warfare threats. NGC release.

Nov 6/07: Sub-contractors. Sikorsky has selected fellow United Technologies Corporation subsidiary Eaton Corporation to design, develop and supply the CH-53K’s integrated fuel system. This is in addition to the contract for the helicopter’s hydraulic power generation system and fluid conveyance package awarded to Eaton in July 2007.

During the development phase of the program, which runs through 2014, Eaton will provide the integrated fuel system support hardware for 5 helicopter shipsets in addition to a number of system development test sets. “Based on expected production of more than 156 helicopters for the U.S. Marine Corps, the contract value is approximately $96 million and, when combined with anticipated foreign military sales, is expected to exceed $160 million over the approximate 12-year life of the program.” Eaton release.

CH-53E Super Stallions:
2 HMMWVs, to shore
(click to view full)

Sept 25/07: Sub-contractors. Donaldson Company announces that Sikorsky has picked them to provide the CH-53K’s engine air particle protection system (EAPPS), which helps keep blown sand and other contaminants from gumming up the helicopter’s engines.

Sept 17/07: Sub-contractors. Fellow United Technologies’ subsidiary Hamilton Sundstrand announces that they’ve been selected to supply integrated secondary power systems for the CH-53K, consisting of the environmental control system, auxiliary power unit and main engine start system. The environmental control system (flight deck and avionics air conditioning, cabin ventilation and heating, engine bleed system, and supply air for the onboard inert gas generation system) and main engine start system will be built at Hamilton Sundstrand’s Windsor Locks, CT facility. The Auxiliary Power Unit will be built at the company’s San Diego, CA facility.

The contract includes design, development and production work; design and development will begin immediately with first hardware deliveries scheduled for 2009. Hamilton Sundstrand says that this agreement has a potential value of more than $400 million. The firm already holds contracts to supply the CH-53K’s fly-by-wire flight control computers, and primary main and tail rotor actuators. Hamilton Sundstrand release.

Sept 4/07: Sub-contractors. Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation has selected Goodrich Corporation to act as integrator for the CH-53K’s input and tail drive shaft system, as well as supplying the electrical power generation and distribution system (q.v. June 17/07).

July 12/07: Sub-contractors. Sikorsky Selects fellow UTC subsidiary Eaton to supply the CH-53K’s Hydraulic Power Generation System and Fluid Conveyance Package. During the development phase of the program, which runs through 2014, Eaton will provide support hardware for 10 aircraft shipsets. Based on expected production of more than 156 aircraft for the U.S. Marine Corps, as well as anticipated foreign military sales, the potential value of the contract over the life of the program is expected to exceed $200 million. Eaton release.

June 20/07: European HTL. France & Germany confirm their heavy-lift helicopter program, known as HTL in France and FHT in Germany. A full set of specifications have not been created yet, and the countries involved are still trying to decide whether to pay the price of a full R&D program to get exactly what they want, or base their helicopter on an existing design. Possible contenders include the CH-53K, Boeing’s CH-47F, and Rosvertol’s super-giant Mi-26T helicopter.

June 18/07: Sub-contractors. Canadian aerospace manufacturer Heroux-Devtek Inc.’s Landing Gear Division received a contract from Sikorsky to design, develop, fabricate, assemble, test and deliver the CH-53K’s landing gears and tail bumper during the SDD phase, which includes the production of landing gears and tail bumper assemblies for 8 systems. Total revenue for the SDD and the Production Phase, which will be awarded in a separate contract, is expected to exceed C$ 95 million (about $89 million). Rotor News.

June 17/07: Sub-contractors. Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation has selected Fortune 500 firm Goodrich Corporation to supply the electrical power generation and distribution system for the CH-53K program. Goodrich’s Pitstone Green, UK and Twinsburg, OH facilities will be involved in the development and delivery of a complete electrical power system for the aircraft, consisting of generators and controls; primary power distribution; AC/DC converters; battery; and external power controls.

Goodrich currently supplies power generation for the Sikorsky S-92/H-92 Superhawk, and has recently been selected to supply the DC power generation for the Sikorsky’s upgraded S-76D civil helicopter. Rotor News | Goodrich press kit release incl. pictures

May 9/07: Sub-contractors. Sikorsky Aircraft announces its selection of 4 subcontractors to design and fabricate the CH-53K’s major fuselage sections, “following an extensive solicitation and evaluation of multiple bids over a 12-month competition”: They include Aurora Flight Sciences in Manassas, VA; Bridgeport, WVA; and Columbus, MS; R&D in Cambridge, MA (main rotor pylon). EDO Corp. composites in Salt Lake City, UT; select resin transfer molding parts from Walpole, MA; and final assembly in North Amityville, NY (tail rotor pylon & side sponsons). GKN Aerospace in Nashville, TN & St. Louis, MO (aft transition). Spirit AeroSystems in Wichita, KS (cockpit and cabin).

Design will be conducted in a collaborative environment between supplier sites and Sikorsky’s Heavy Lift Development Center using model management systems linked to Sikorsky IT and data systems. Composite and titanium materials are being employed extensively to provide superior fatigue and corrosion durability at minimum weight, and state-of-the-art manufacturing processes such as co-curing, automated part fabrication, super high speed machining, and determinant assembly are being pressed into service to keep costs down. Sikorsky release.

Assemblies will initially be built for 7 test and certification aircraft (4 Engineering Development Models, 1 Ground Test Vehicle, 1 Static Test Article and 1 Fatigue Test Article.) The CH-53K SDD program schedule runs through the end of September 2015.

ADDENDA: GKN Aerospace’s release says that they’re contracted to deliver their 7 development ship sets to Sikorsky between 2009 – 2012, and estimates that this deal could be worth up to $70 million to them. Aurora Flight Sciences’ release clarifies that the Main Rotor Pylon (MRP) is one of 6 major fuselage sections; it is mostly made of composite materials, and houses the CH-53K’s Main Rotor Head, the No. 2 engine and other aircraft subsystems. EDO Release [PDF]

Feb 12/07: Manufacturing. Sikorsky Opens the CH-53K Development Center. The CH-53K program’s new Heavy Lift Development Center is a 106,000-square-foot office building in Stratford, CT, about 5 miles from Sikorsky’s main facility. It houses the CH-53K Program and Engineering staff, co-locating 500 team members consisting of Sikorsky, Naval Air Systems Command, Defense Contracting Management Agency personnel and subcontractors. These members work in Integrated Product Teams to design, develop, test and manufacture major systems and subsystems within the CH-53K.

Dec 22/06: Engine picked. Sikorsky Aircraft has selected General Electric Aviation to provide the new CH-53K heavy lift helicopter’s main engines. The GE38-1B engine planned for the CH-53K is a derivative of the CFE738 commercial turbofan engine used in the Falcon 200 business jet; the CFE738 was in turn derived from the T407 turboprop intended to power the US Navy’s updated P-7 Orion (that program was canceled and a competition restarted that left the 737-derived P-8A MMA as the winner). See also GE’s Feb 7/07 release.

According to this Flight International article, GE’s engine beat out Pratt & Whitney’s PW150 and a derivative of Rolls Royce’s AE1107 that powers the V-22 Osprey.

Oct 30/06: Rotor. Sikorsky Aircraft has submitted test results for its 4th Generation(TM) rotor blade, which builds on the work done for the Growth Rotor Blade(TM) (GRB) currently used on their new UH-60M and S/H-92 helicopters, using anhedral tips. The CH-53K model wind tunnel testing performed late in the summer of 2006 has reportedly shown a significant improvement in forward flight efficiency over the GRB. Earlier in the year, similar model rotor hover testing indicated large gains in hover efficiency. Read Sikorsky’s release.

CH-53E at work
(click to view full)

July 19/06: European HTL. Jane’s reports that EADS Eurocopter is seeking partners for a “super lift” helicopter to be fielded around 2020 with the French & German militaries, and confirms that talks have been held with Sikorsky regarding a modified CH-53K with European avionics and a larger cabin.

The Germans apparently want to replace their CH-53Gs (actually modified CH-53Ds) around 2020, and will look for upgrade programs to bridge the gap. The French currently lack heavy-lift helicopters in the CH-53 or CH-47 class, though the supergiant Russian Mi-26 was evaluated recently. Eurocopter and Sikorsky recently partnered on the successful $3 billion LUH program, but the firm has said it is keeping all its options open and is making no commitments.

UPDATE: Germany is updating their CH-53Gs, and the 2 countries are also going ahead with the heavy lift helicopter program. The CH-53K is still a competitor. Where does it stand? Read “The European Heavy Lift Helicopter Program?”

Dec 22/05: Green light. A formal decision by the Honorable Kenneth R. Krieg, US Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, gives the estimated $4.4 billion HLR program the green light to proceed to the System Definition and Development (SDD) phase.

CH-53E Super Stallion
(click to view full)

August 25/05: Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. in Stratford, CT received a $43.3 million cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order against a previous basic ordering agreement to perform requirements definition and engineering studies in support of the Marine Corps’ Heavy Lift Replacement (HLR) Program. Work on the requirements definition and engineering studies will be performed in Stratford, CT and is expected to be complete in April 2006.

Jan 6/05: Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. in Stratford, CT received an $8.4 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for preliminary design work in support of HLR, as part of the initial system development and demonstration of the Marine Corps’ CH-53X Heavy Lift Replacement (HLR) program. Work on the preliminary design contract (N00019-06-C-0081) will be performed in Stratford, CT and is expected to be complete in January 2008 (N00019-03-G-0003).

Dec 23/04: A $34 million time and materials delivery order, issued against basic ordering agreement N00019-03-G-0003, to perform requirements definition and engineering studies in support of the Marine Corps’ Heavy Lift Replacement Program. Work was performed in Stratford, CT, and was expected to be complete in May 2005.

This contract number is not exclusive to the CH-53K. Other awards under this particular contract covered the Presidential Helicopter program (Sikorsky lost) and other helicopter engineering.

Appendix A: Flying Between Scylla and Charbydis: Navigating The Political Shoals

JHL: QTR Concept
(click to view full)

DID’s coverage of the HLR program has also included a report about HLR’s potential merger with the US Army’s futuristic JHL program. The Joint Heavy Lifter (JHL) is imagined as an aircraft with cargo capacity that approaches a C-130 Hercules transport (about 20 tons), but with the ability to take off and land like a helicopter. No current US military helicopter platform even comes close. JHL’s competitors are deploying some radical and different technologies in their attempt to achieve these goals – from quad tilt-rotors to coaxial skycranes and even compound helicopters.

Marine Corps acquisition officials also weighed the option of participating in JHL. While Congress could always step in to force the issue – and may still do so – the Marine Corps note that this would be deeply unwise for a number of reasons:

“The Army’s proposed heavy lift requirement to transport the Future Combat System greatly exceeds our requirement,” said program manager, Col. Paul Croisetiere. “The actual aircraft hasn’t been designed yet, but initial analysis suggests the joint heavy lifter will be too large to operate from current and programmed amphibious shipping. We may have a use for it, but in more of a logistical role as a possible KC-130J [air tanker] replacement – we still need the CH-53K for tactical heavy lift.”

Joint Heavy Lifters may not be available any sooner than 2025, according to Croisetiere, which is more than 10 years after the Marine Corps will be forced to start retiring its current CH-53E fleet. Even if the Marines could use it, Croisetiere pointed out that as currently envisioned, JHL will be too big to operate from the Marines’ amphibious ships.

V-22 Osprey

This is a logical argument. However this rationale might sell better if the USMC hadn’t spent the last decade describing tilt-rotor technology as the necessary wave of the future that would make helicopters obsolete, in its quest to sell the $100 million per plane V-22 Osprey.

When budgets are also being squeezed hard by multiple cost overruns on a wide swath of programs, programs that appear to be similar to each other will become big targets for Congressional cuts and pressure to merge. The US Marines have been the leading service advocates of tilt-rotor technology as a transformational necessity. Having invested so much of their prestige and credibility in the V-22, some people on Capitol Hill seem inclined to view the Marines’ rejection of a program that includes similar Quad Tilt Rotor and OSTR (Optimum Speed Tilt-Rotor) options as inconsistent, and hence mere territoriality. If this view spreads, it will not bode well for the HLR Program’s political survival.

It certainly wouldn’t be the first time in US military procurement history that the promise of the shiny new thing has found itself in the way of fulfilling military necessities with cheaper, proven options.

MH-53J Pave Low IV
(click to view alt.)

The natural response to such pressures would be twofold. One track would emphasize the comparatively speculative nature of the JHL Program’s technologies and their uncertain development timelines. The other track would tout the value of cheaper builds of proven helicopters, in order to meet immediate needs and an uncompromising timeline for fleet airframe life. This is exactly what Col. Paul Croisetiere has done.

Making that argument, however, flies in the face of almost everything the USMC said when some in Congress pushed for immediately available conventional helicopter options to replace the Marines’ extremely aged Vietnam-era CH-46 Sea Knights. Options that would also have cost about half the price per aircraft. If the CH-46s could be patched together via life extension programs and extensive maintenance while the V-22s sorted out their difficulties and eventually reached production many years late, why not the CH-53Es? Especially if pursuing a similar tilt-rotor technology like the JHL’s QTR would reduce the V-22′s per-aircraft costs while increasing overall interoperability, and therefore easing long-term maintenance and logistics costs as well?

These arguments may or may not be considered valid. Nevertheless, they should absolutely be expected as the Global War on Terror, unexpected future contingencies, and a looming demographic shift put increasing pressure on US defense budgets. The US Marine Corps has certainly prepared the ground well.

The HLR program may have an eventful political journey ahead of it.

Appendix B: Interesting Ideas: The CH-53X Skycrane Concept

CH-53X Skycrane Concept
(click for details)

As a point of interest, this is one of the more innovative suggestions we’ve seen re: the next-generation CH-53X. It proposes turning the CH-53 into a “Skycrane” variant, and using it in conjunction with the trend toward “battle box” containerized forces, plus underslung light armor & vehicles.

The idea is that this would improve both the CH-53E’s capabilities (via reducing aircraft weight but not power) and the USA’s transformational deployability (via faster and more versatile load and ship that would also improve tactical surprise).

Additional Readings & Sources

• GlobalSecurity.org – Heavy Lift Replacement [CH-53X]

• Sikorsky – CH-53K. See esp. their CH-53K brochure [PDF format, 1.15 MB]

• SLD (Oct 16/10) – Adding a Core USMC Capability: The CH-53K As A Logistical Force Multiplier. An Interview with Major Jeff “Kingpin” Davis.

• Sikorsky Frontlines (Q3 2009) – CH-53K Update [PDF]

• American Helicopter Society’s Vertifile Magazine (Spring 2002) – An Affordable Solution To Heavy Lift [PDF] by Lt. Col. James C. Garman, MH-53E pilot in HMH-772 and a Senior Preliminary Design Engineer in the New Product Definition Group, Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation. It describes the basic outlines of many low-risk CH-53X improvements.

• Naval Technology – CH-53E Super Stallion – Heavy-Lift Helicopter, USA

• GE Aviation – GE38. Engine. See also GE Marine page, touting it for naval uses.

• MTU – GE38. The firms are partnering to develop it, with the German firm having an 18% stake; MTU will be licensed to offer it for any European FTH helicopter program.

• Flight International (May 10/10) – CH-53K delay will not hold up GE38 engine programme. Its potential uses go beyond helicopters, to include things like hovercraft, and GE sees its market potential as $4+ billion.

• Flight International (June 25/08) – GE plots GE38 engine’s future in emerging heavylift market. Offers further details re: the CH-53K’s planned engine.

• DID – Incoming & Hostile: The USN’s JATAS Aircraft Warning System. ATK picked, will be used on the CH-53K.

• US DoD DefenseLINK, Transformation (Jan 9/06) – New Heavy Lift Helicopter Starts Development

• US Navy, NAVAIR (April 5/06) – $3B CH-53K contract awarded to Sikorsky

• Jane’s Defense Weekly (Feb 24/06) – US heavy-lift aircraft will stretch state of the art. Full subscriber’s article includes JHL Program coverage as well.

• DID (Jan 9/06) – CH-53X (HLR) Program Moves Into SDD, Preliminary Design. An $8.6 million preliminary design contract is issued to Sikorsky, beginning the SDD phase. The CH-53X program is also redesignated CH-53K. Has the HLR program dodged the bullet?

• DID (Sept 27/05) – CH-53X HLR & JHL: Future Heli Programs on Collision Course? The shiny new (expensive, uncertain) thing may become the enemy of the necessary, proven thing in the US military’s procurement culture. Again.

• DID (Sept 21/05) – CSAR-X: And Boeing Makes 3…. The HLR program may be affected by the choices Sikorsky makes in the CSAR-X competition.

• DID (Aug 29/05) – HLR (CH-53X) Helicopter Program Moves Toward Milestone B Approval

• Aviation Today (July 1/05) – Future Heavy Lift for the Marine Corps. An interview with Col. Paul Croisetiere, program manager for the U.S. Naval Air Systems Command H-53 Heavy Lift Helicopters Program PMA 261.

• Hill News (June 1/05) – House language could create friction over chopper programs

• USMC, Leatherneck Magazine (May/05) – Heavy Lift Replacement: A Vital Marine Corps Program

• American Helicopter Society, Vertifile Magazine (Spring 2002) – From The Past To The Future Of Heavy Lift Part Three: Heavy Lift Helicopters [PDF]

The world’s P-3 Orion fleets have served for a long time, and many are reaching the end of their lifespans. In the USA, and possibly beyond, the new P-8 Poseidon Multi-mission Maritime Aircraft will take up the P-3′s role. While the P-8′s base 737-based airframe offers strong service & maintenance arguments in its favor, the airframe is expensive enough that the P-3s cannot be replaced on a 1:1 basis.

In order to extend the P-8 fleet’s reach, and provide additional capabilities, the Poseidon was expected to work with at least one companion UAV platform. This DID FOCUS Article explains the winning BAMS (Broad Area Maritime Surveillance) concept, the program’s key requirements, and its international angle. We’ll also cover ongoing contracts and key events related to the program, which chose Northrop Grumman’s navalized MQ-4C Triton Global Hawk variant.

Next-Gen Maritime Patrol Systems: Issues and Options

USN ERJ-145 ACS concept

The P-3 fleet’s heavy use in both maritime surveillance and overland roles points up a potential problem with its successor the P-8A Poseidon. The 737-based aircraft will be bought in fewer numbers than the aircraft it replaces, but its high end Littoral Surveillance Radar System (LSRS) capabilities could quickly turn it into a sort of “mini-JSTARS,” making it a platform with strong maritime and land surveillance capabilities like NATO’s similar sized Airbus 321-based AGS battlefield surveillance aircraft.

As an expensive but in-demand asset, the P-8′s coverage scope could easily translate into a fleet run ragged by high flight hours per airframe, and forced into early retirement. See the Strategic Review article “Brittle Swords: Low-Density, High-Demand Assets” [PDF] for more background on this phenomenon.

The logical response is to pair the P-8s with a lower cost counterpart.

Hence the P-8 Poseidon’s companion Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) UAV program, run by NAVAIR’s PMA-263 program management office.

BAMS: Requirements and Missions

NGC on BAMS
click to play video

The BAMS UAV is formally designated MQ-4C Triton: “M” as a multi-mission aircraft, even though all of its missions are ISR/reconnaissance missions.

The name fits. In mythology, Triton was Poseidon’s son, and the messenger of the sea. Tritons will work with the P-8 Poseidon maritime surveillance aircraft on missions that will 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. MQ-4C Increment 3 UAVs and beyond are slated to add SIGINT capabilities, to capture enemy communication and radar transmissions. They would begin replacing the current EP-3 fleet in that role.

The MQ-4C UAV’s required capabilities definitely placed it at the high end of today’s UAV spectrum. BAMS had to be capable of a completely pre-programmed mission track, communication plan, and sensor employment plan, with manual override possible to support real-time control and/or re-tasking. The baseline requirement for operation with the P-8A is currently Level II control (receipt of sensor data to/from), with a proposal to quickly increase to Level IV (full control except landings) in the P-8A’s first improvement cycle. It also needed the ability to land on its own if necessary, however, using pre-surveyed and pre-programmed air fields.

Many of those capabilities are already present in existing medium UAVs. The requirements that follow are not.

BAMS: expected ‘orbits’
(click to view full)

BAMS had to have a minimum mission radius of 3,000 nautical miles, with a 10 hour time to on-station at 2,000 nm mission radius, and autonomous flight through moderate icing or turbulence. More to the point, the requirements were expressly crafted for persistence. They included an 80% Estimated Time On Station (ETOS) for a group of BAMS platforms, over a period of 1 week (168 hours). That means UAVs in the air, within their assigned patrol zones at an estimated 900 nm distance from launch, for 134 hours out of 168. That’s the minimum – the goal is 95% ETOS, or almost 160/168 hours.

The Navy saw BAMS UAVs employed within 5 “orbits” around the globe, with no more than 3 UAVs operating at the same time within each orbit. While this may make BAMS seem like a tiny program, consider the fact that all aircraft have fatigue lifespans measured in flight hours. Many fighters have lifespans of 10,000-12,000 hours. Transport aircraft can reach 30,000-40,000 hours, with major rebuilds along the way. Now consider the number of UAVs required to support flight profiles within those orbits, which are estimated to sum to 43,800 on-station flight hours/year, plus flight times to and from station for each mission. Over an expected program operational lifetime of about 20 years.

BAMS also has an unlisted, but critically important, program requirement. As UAVs proliferate in this role and begin undertaking long-range missions, they’ll require enough secure bandwidth to transmit large first-pass processed data sets to accompanying aircraft or ground stations. That cannot be provided from within the BAMS program, though communications relay packages on high-altitude BAMS UAVs will help military commanders on the surface. BAMS is in turn reliant on the USA’s Global Information Grid’s future security and capacity, in order to reach its full potential.

BAMS Options

BAMS/P-8 mission sets
(click to view full)

Some nations use smaller business jet derivatives for maritime surveillance, and this option was closely considered by the Navy. The joint ACS (Aerial Common Sensor) program had potential dual-use features that could have made it a maritime surveillance supplement, as well as a SIGINT/ELINT (Signals & Electronic Intelligence & intercepts) platform to replace the Navy’s aging EP-3 Aries II fleet. The ACS program’s demise has taken that option off of the table for now. As it happens, however, the Navy had already chosen a different kind of companion for its P-8.

While business jets offered economy and numbers, the US Navy believed that unmanned UAVs could bring more to the long and oft-times tedious job of maritime surveillance. They can undertake very long-endurance flights of 30 hours or more, in part because they don’t have to carry processing stations and crew, or worry about aircrew endurance.

Northrop Grumman was always the favorite to win the BAMS competition. Its unarmed RQ-4 Global Hawk UAV had already proven itself in battlefield surveillance roles around the globe, and had been used as the Navy’s GHMD/BAMS-D maritime surveillance UAV testing and concepts research.

In contrast, the General Atomics MQ-9N Mariner’s main offered efficiency at much lower flight ceilings, up to 3,000 pounds of integrated weapons, and commonality with the Air Force’s MQ-9 Reaper strike UAV.

Boeing’s manned/unmanned G550 business jet was the 3rd major entry, offering the largest payloads, twin-engine redundancy, and compatibility with a civilian fleet.

BAMS: The MQ-4C Triton

MQ-4C Triton rollout
(click to view full)

The “RQ-4N” system chosen by the US Navy was based on the USAF’s RQ-4B Block 20 Global Hawks, but it incorporated a wide range of changes on the way to its unveiling as the MQ-4C Triton.

Sensors received the biggest overhaul. MQ-4Cs will have a more rounded belly housing for Northrop Grumman’s own 360-degree coverage AN/ZPY-3 AESA radar, as part of their Advanced Integrated Sensor Suite (AISS). Unlike conventional mechanically-scanned radars, AESA radars offer the ability to zoom in on several targets of interest, and they can do this without stopping the broader scan. That shift from Raytheon’s side-looking AESA radar used in the RQ-4B could have become a major risk factor, which was a big reason behind Northrop Grumman’s decision to field their new radar on a Gulfstream II BAMS test bed during the competition.

Beyond the radar, “Electronic Support Measures” systems that can pick-up, map, and identify radar emissions initially relied on Northrop Grumman’s LR-100, but Sierra Nevada’s Merlin ESM system was substituted in order to meet the program’s requirement for 360-degree, 300 nm/ 555 km coverage. In the visual spectrum, AISS includes an optical day/night surveillance and targeting turret.

Other sensors expected for the MQ-4C include collision avoidance and other systems that let them operate safely through civil airspace, Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) in various modes, and of course sensor packages with additional SIGINT/ELINT equipment and other specialty mission packages. The UAV must be able to perform “first pass” processing of any data it receives, before sending it on to other ships, aircraft, and/or ground stations.

RQ-4N concept
(click to view full)

Communications. A Ka-band Wideband Gapfiller satellite link will replace the commercial Ku-band link used by the USAF, in order to ensure 100% accessibility over long stretches of water. In addition, a pair of Ku-band and X-band datalinks have been added to the fuselage sides, to act as communications relays. Those relays, plus the addition of dual Common Data Links instead of single-CDL, and Link 16 capability UHF/VHF radios with HAVE QUICK and SINCGARS capability, will allow real-time data feeds to other Navy ships and aircraft. The US Air Force is reportedly considering this upgraded set for its own Global Hawks.

On the MQ-4C, an Automatic Identification System (AIS) receiver will allow the detection, identification, geo-location, and tracking of cooperative ships equipped with AIS transponders.

Mechanical. The need to have Navy UAVs descend and rise from altitude during over-water missions requires de-icing systems on the MQ-4C’s engine inlet, wings and tail. Strengthened wing structures were also deemed to be necessary.

One final mechanical issue concerns the Global Hawk design’s single turbofan engine. To cope with possible engine outages without losing these ultra-expensive UAVs, the USAF reportedly uses a combination of modified control software and alternate “glide-to” landing bases. When flying over vast ocean expanses, high altitude flight will be required, in order to keep the “glide-to” option alive.

BAMS: The Program

In April 2008, NAVAIR’s PMA-263 selected Northrop Grumman’s RQ-4N Global Hawk, which has since been re-designated MQ-4C. The FY 2014 budget cut the program from 70 (5 test + 65 operational UAVs) to a total of 66: 5 test + 61 operational UAVs.

BAMS Budgets from FY 2009 include:

Industrial team members include:

NGC performs Global Hawk sub-assembly work at its Unmanned Systems Center in Moss Point, MS, and anticipates performing final assembly at its St. Augustine, FL manufacturing center.

BAMS: The International Angle

Mariner UAV
(click to view full)

The US Navy has been using the RQ-4 Gobal Hawk as a demonstration and proving platform to refine requirements and concepts of operations for BAMS, under the GHMD(Global Hawk Maritime Demonstrator) program. Even so, UAVs aren’t widely used for maritime surveillance just yet.

Beyond America’s shores, India has successfully used Israel’s Heron and Searcher II UAVs for coastal patrol as well and overland surveillance; UAVs from their 2005 follow-on Heron order have also been pressed into service along the coasts. To the southeast, Australia has undertaken successful trials with the General Atomics’ Mariner UAV for Coast Guard duties along its resource-rich Northwest Shelf. In the Great White North, Canada is evaluating UAVs for a maritime surveillance role under its JUSTAS program; Phase 2 could even include arctic surveillance out of Goose Bay, Labrador. IAI/EADS’ Eagle UAV, and General Atomics’ Altair high-altitude UAV derived from the MQ-9 Reaper, have already been tested as part of requirements definition.

Every one of these countries could eventually end up involved in the BAMS program.

P-8i test flight
(click to view full)

India’s MPA competition chose the “P-8I” as their next maritime patrol aircraft. With BAMS integration already scheduled for their chosen platform, a nation that sees its responsibilities stretching across the Indian Ocean from the Straits of Malacca near Singapore, to the Persian Gulf, and down to Madagascar, has obvious uses for the compatible Triton long-range, long-endurance UAV platform.

India seems to agree with this logic, but a treaty that it hasn’t signed is in the way. MTCR was originally aimed at limiting cruise missile exports, but a jet-powered UAV shares enough characteristics to create problems. Discussions are ongoing.

The Canadians have also been approached as possible partners in the P-8A Poseidon program, as a future replacement for their P-3/CP-140 Auroras. Thus far, they have made no commitments. Meanwhile, Northrop Grumman is offering them an RQ-4 variant called “Polar Hawk” for Arctic patrol, incorporating some MQ-4C features like de-icing. The vast expanses of Canada’s north make the speed of a jet-powered UAV very attractive, Northrop Grumman will have to beat General Atomics, which is offering its jet-powered Predator C as well as its slower MQ-9 UAV. If NGC can win, adding more Global Hawks for other missions would become easier.

AP-3C: who’s next?
(click to view full)

Australia went even father, and made itself a partner in BAMS via its AIR 7000 program. First Pass Approval was given in September 2006, and a Project Agreement was signed on Jan 13/07. Australian Embassy personnel have attended NAVAIR PMA-263 industry days, Australian technical experts are part of the BAMS integrated project teams, and and NAVAIR’s BAMS RFP now includes an “Australian Unique Option” section. BAMS had passed its Milestone B “go/no-go” decision, and was analyzing unique Australian requirements before an expected Australian second-pass approval decision that could begin Australian BAMS production in 2012, and achieve Initial Operating Capability in 2015.

In 2009, however, Australia chose to drop out of the BAMS program, with sources citing both operational stress over the P-8A’s similarly-timed introduction, and fiscal pressures. They could still choose to drop back in, and their May 2013 Letter of Request for technical information is a step in that direction. The trade-off is that they’ll be looking at more of a finished product, with less scope for free-of-charge changes.

BAMS: Contracts & Key Events

BAMS cutaway
(click for full PDF)

Unless otherwise noted, all contracts originate with the Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD.

BAMS-D Crash
click for video

May 16/13: Australia. Australia’s government announces that they’re sending a formal Letter of Request to the USA for the MQ-4C Triton UAV. The letter will become a Foreign Military Sales Technical Services Case with the United States Navy to obtain detailed cost, capability and availability information.

They emphasize that they haven’t picked the MQ-4C yet for AIR 7000 Phase 1B, but they didn’t announce letters of request for any other platforms that might compete with the Triton, like General Atomics’ MQ-9. Which may have separate opportunities of its own:

“As also outlined in the 2013 Defence White Paper, Defence will analyse the value of further investment in unmanned aircraft for focused area, overland intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, including for use in border security operations. This will include the potential expansion of the role of these assets in the ADF to include interdiction and close air support, subject to policy development and Government consideration.”

March 4/13: Australia. Aviation Week reports that Australia may want more P-8As, at the possible expense of its MQ-4C companion UAVs:

“The RAAF is quietly making a case for 12 Poseidons, arguing that eight would not be enough to cover the vast oceans surrounding the continent. And the unmanned requirement is now described as “up to” seven high-altitude, long-endurance aircraft, potentially reducing Northrop Grumman’s opportunity. At the same time the air force sees an argument for a supplementary drone, possibly the Predator, to take on some of the electronic-intelligence missions that would otherwise fall to the Poseidons and Tritons.”

This is a bit of a head-scratcher. The stated purpose of sustained ocean coverage would be better served by adding another orbit of 3-4 MQ-4Cs (to 10-11), using the P-8s as more of a fleet overwatch and contact response force. Likewise, it makes little sense to use a different UAV for ELINT/SIGINT collection, especially the slow and shorter-range MQ-9. Rather, one would use the MQ-9s in nearer-shore maritime and EEZ patrols, along the lines of the 2006 Northwest Shelf experiments, in order to free up MQ-4Cs for longer-range expeditions over strategic corridors, and the ELINT/SIGINT mission they will be equipped for as of Increment 3.

Feb 22/13: Australia. Australia may have officially dropped out of the BAMS development phase (vid. March 2/09 entry), but News Corp. reports that Defence Minister Stephen will sign a formal export letter of request for the MQ-4C at the 2013 Australian International Airshow. Australia has remained part of the P-8A program for a manned sea control jet, so the MQ-4C is a natural pairing.

The purchase budget is expected to be $A 2-3 billion, but it may be overshadowed by Australia’s expected announcement that they will buy another 24 F/A-18F Super Hornets. News Corp.

Feb 7/13: India. Northrop Grumman’s MQ-4C business development lead Greg Miller tells Shephard’s UV Online that India’s RFI for a High Altitude, Long Endurance maritime surveillance platform holds promise:

“They want to follow the US model; P-8 and Triton…. The Indian Navy agrees with the US’ requirements, which exactly fits our sweet spot.”

Their problem is the same problem facing South Korea: the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), which bans the export of cruise missiles or unmanned vehicles with certain range and payload limits. India hasn’t signed MTCR, but the issue needs to be resolved at a government-to-government level. UV Online.

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. With respect to BAMS, they say the design is stable, with 99% of drawings releasable to manufacturing. Software code is a challenge, as are the UAV’s new-design wings. Disruptions to the USAF’s Global Hawk programs aren’t expected to affect schedule, but fewer UAVs produced does drive up the cost per UAV. Excerpts:

“The second development aircraft, the first aircraft with a full sensor suite and the air-to-air radar subsystem, is nearing completion and is expected to begin testing in 2013…. However, the program poses a significant software development challenge, utilizing nearly 8 million lines of code, more than 20 percent of which will be new. Much of the remaining software is derived from Global Hawk; however, officials noted that integration and testing of this code is taking longer than expected. Officials also noted that delays in the manufacturing of the aircraft wing as well as corrections to software during integration of subsystems are the primary reasons for a delay in the program’s operational assessment and production decision….”

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 MQ-4C Triton is included, and the program is falling behind. The plan was to conduct an Operational Assessment in June 2013, leading to a Milestone C decision in October 2013.

Unfortunately, a combination of UAV mission computer software stability problems, and radar performance issues identified in tests with Northrop Grumman’s radar-equipped Gulfstream-II jet, delayed flight testing from May 2012 to “at least” January 2013. The program has also “deferred development and testing of [unspecified] air vehicle and sensor capabilities until after Milestone C in order to reduce current test schedule pressures.”

The plan to reach Milestone C by October seems less and less likely, especially given additional “ground test delays encountered in [fall 2012].” Northrop Grumman will also need to resolve issues with software stability for both the mission computer and ZPY-3 MFAS radar, radar detection and tracking consistency, and radar image quality.

September 2012: Testing. A 2nd MQ-4C is added to ground test efforts, with a focus on control software and subsystems. NGC.

July 2012: Testing. 1st MQ-4C Triton begins ground tests. NGC.

June 11/12: BAMS-D Crash. An RQ-4A BAMS-Demonstrator Global Hawk crashes into a marshy tributary of Maryland’s Nanticoke River, during a routine training flight from Naval Air Station Patuxent River. There were no injuries to civilians and no property damage, but the crash site has been blocked to recreational boat traffic while the agency investigates. The crash leaves 4 UAVs in the program: 3 for testing, tactics, and doctrine development in the USA, and 1 deployed abroad with the 5th fleet. CNN | Wired Danger Room | WBOC.

May 30/12: Canada. Northrop Grumman Corporation and Canada’s L-3 MAS announce plans to offer Canada a “Polar Hawk” UAV for surveillance of Canada’s arctic land and seas.

As one might guess, it will need to share a number of structural features like strengthened wings and improved de-icicng with the MQ-4C Triton. Improved satellite communications, with specialized receivers for polar-orbit satellites, will also be necessary. Sensors aren’t discussed, but the accompanying picture shows a conventional Global Hawk shape, without the AN/ZPY-3 MFAS. NGC.

May 29/12: More SDD. Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems in Bethpage, NY receives a $32.8 million cost-plus-award-fee contract modification, for BAMS system development and demonstration. This modification funds a maintenance concept change that will develop a logistics management I.T. system, and improve the transition from contractor logistics support to organic military maintenance by the Navy. Funding will be committed as needs arise.

Work will be performed in Bethpage, NY, (74.54%), Rancho Bernardo, CA (20.82%), Melbourne, FL (4.59%), and Palmdale, CA (0.05%); and is expected to be complete in September 2015 (N00019-08-C-0023).

Global Hawk
(click to view full)

April 25/11: ZPY-3. Northrop Grumman announces the start of system tests for the BAMS UAV’s Multi-Function Active Sensor (MFAS) maritime surveillance radar. MFAS will use a 2-dimensional radar with both electronic and mechanical scanning.

Northrop Grumman’s Aerospace Systems sector facility in San Diego, CA is expected to take delivery of the 1st MFAS in June 2011, following ongoing radar software mode development and hardware synchronization and integration activities. A 2nd radar is slated for delivery in September 2011, and risk reduction flight tests on board the company’s Gulfstream II test-bed expected before year end.

March 16/11: Northrop Grumman Corporation completes the 1st of 3 BAMS fuselages under the SDD phase. The MQ-4C fuselage will undergo final assembly and system checkout at the company’s Palmdale, CA facility, ahead of its first flight in 2012. NGC.

March 7/11: CDR. Northrop Grumman announces that the BAMS program completed its system-level Critical Design Review (CDR) with the U.S. Navy in February 2011 – but it is not fully closed yet. The government and Northrop Grumman teams will be working to close out issues raised during the CDR, before it can be officially over.

The system-level full CDR sets the initial product baseline for the MQ-4C system, and was preceded by 10 subsystem and segment CDRs. Northrop Grumman VP and BAMS program manager Steve Enewold says that the SDD phase’s first 2 UAV fuselages are being built at Moss Point, MS, and the first will ship in April 2011 to Palmdale, CA for final assembly. The next major milestone is Test Readiness Review, planned for fall 2011. First flight is expected in 2012, and Enewold says the program continues to meet its acquisition baseline cost, schedule and performance requirements.

Feb 18/11: Sense & Avoid. Northrop Grumman Aerospace Sector’s Battle Management & Engagement Systems Division in Bethpage, NY receives a $25.6 million cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order to develop an “airborne sense and avoid capability for the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) unmanned aircraft system in support of the Navy and Air Force.” The goal is a TRL 7 system, i.e. a prototype tested in operationally-relevant conditions.

The wording is interesting, as it implies that USAF RQ-4A/B Global Hawks will also be fitted with this capability. As they should be. Sense and avoid technologies are used in commercial aircraft, in order to prevent mid-air collisions. While flying at 60,000 feet will go a long way toward zero collisions, the UAVs do not begin at that altitude, and BAMS in particular will not spend all of its mission time at that level. Throw in funded experiments like aerial refueling between 2 Global Hawk UAVs, and expectations that the stratosphere is likely to be more crowded in future, and the necessity of sense & avoid technologies becomes clearer. To this point, however, the US Navy and USAF have pursued different technology approaches: an ITT-supplied air-to-air radar and ADS-B cooperative surveillance for the Navy, and a multi-sensor “multi-intruder autonomous avoidance (MIAA)” USAF project that uses 3 electro-optical cameras, a low-power radar, and the civil TCAS traffic collision avoidance system.

Work to reconcile those approaches into a common prototype will be performed in Bethpage, NY (50%) and San Diego, CA (50%), and is expected to be complete in November 2012. $7,368,022 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11 (N00019-10-G-0004). See also: Aviaiton Week.

Feb 9/11: Northrop Grumman announces a $3.3 million contract to participate in the Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Control Segment (UCS) Architecture Working Group (UCSWG), sponsored by the Office Secretary of Defense’s (OSD) Unmanned Warfare Office.

The UCSWG is an open technical standards committee consisting of industry and government representatives from each UAS program of record, several emerging UAS programs and small businesses. The objective of the UCSWG effort is to define a common UAS control station architecture based on standard data models and service interface definitions to enable interoperability, scalability and adaptability of UAS ground stations.

Sept 1/10: New designation. A ceremony at Northrop Grumman’s Moss Point, MS manufacturing facility marks the beginning of RQ-4N BAMS UAV construction.

It is also the first official mention of the platform’s MQ-4C designation. Northrop Grumman spokesman Jim Stratford explains that “M” stands for “Multi-mission,” referring to planned expansion to communications relay and SIGINT missions. The “C” is because there are significant differences from the USAF’s RQ-4B Block 20/30/40, such as anti-icing and sense/avoid capabilities. The “RQ-4N” was Northrop Grumman’s designation during the BAMS competition, but it was never official. Northrop Grumman.

March 3/10: Sub-contractors. Curtiss-Wright Corporation announces a $25 million contract from Northrop Grumman Corporation to provide BAMS’ Advanced Mission Management System (AMMS). Curtiss-Wright will design, develop and manufacture BAMS UAV AMMS units at the company’s Motion Control facility in Santa Clarita, CA Hardware deliveries will start at the end of 2010 and continue through 2011.

Australian RQ-4N? No.
(click to view full)

Aug 13/09: USAF getting ideas? The Shepard Group reports that The United States Air Force is exploring a potential communications suite re-architecture for its RQ-4 Global Hawk fleet, based on the Navy’s RQ-4 BAMS set. The BAMS de-icing system has also attracted interest.

April 27/09: Northrop Grumman Integrated Systems in Bethpage, NY received a $22.4 million modification to a previously awarded cost plus award fee BAMS System Development and Demonstration (SDD) contract (N00019-08-C-0023). This modification will add wing static and load testing for the BAMS RQ-4N UAS.

Work will be performed in San Diego, CA (90%) and Bethpage, NY (10%), and is expected to be complete in December 2012.

Feb 4/09: Delays. Aviation Week reports that the BAMS schedule has slipped, owing in part to delays created by Lockheed Martin’s protest. The first RQ-4N BAMS will begin testing in FY 2012 instead of FY 2011, with low-rate production beginning in FY 2013, and initial operational capability declared by FY 2016 instead of 2015. Full delivery is now expected by FY 2019.

Feb 4/09: Reports indicate that one of the Gobal Hawk Maritime Demonstration UAVs has deployed to CENTCOM’s theater of operations by the US Navy. Information Dissemination believes that its future will include pirate tracking off of Africa’s eastern coast. GHMD is a limited program that is both a predecessor to BAMS, and a way to experiment and learn how an advanced maritime patrol UAV can be used in real world operations (CONOPS).

Dec 23/08: Northrop Grumman announces that U.S. Navy’s Air Test and Evaluation Squadron (VX-20) gave the RQ-4 Global Hawk Maritime Demonstration (GHMD) team its Q2 2008 Test Team of the Quarter award. To date, the 2 GHMD demonstrator aircraft have flown more than 1,350 hours.

The team’s accomplishments included performing more than 1,000 hours of flight operations over an 18-month period, troubleshooting issues with the communications system, integrating the automatic identification system into the aircraft so it can be used in civilian air space, conducting tests with the ocean surveillance initiative, and developing tactics and guidelines for unmanned patrol systems. From January to June 2008, the team also supported various operational activities, including the Southeastern Anti-Submarine Warfare Initiative 08-2, the USS Iwo Jima Group Sail, and the Commander Carrier Strike Group 8. The team’s successes during this period culminated with the Trident Warrior exercise in June 2008, when the team flew more than 113 hours over a 5-week period, including an unplanned 23-hour humanitarian mission in which a GHMD was re-tasked to assist in the Northern California wildfires. July saw the UAVs participate in the Rim of the Pacific 2008 fleet exercise, which saw the team finish 4 missions totaling more than 92 hours.

Sept 29/08: Rolls Royce puts out a release confirming that Northrop Grumman has selected their AE 3700H engine to power the RQ-4N BAMS UAV. This is hardly a surprise, as Rolls Royce was part of the bid team and those same engines power non-naval Global Hawks. Rolls Royce release.

Aug 8/08: The Congressional Government Accountability Office (GAO) denies a protest from the Lockheed Martin MS2/ General Atomics team, which offered its MQ-9 Reaper derived Mariner UAV for BAMS. The grounds of that denial were interesting, and included improvement in Northrop Grumman’s contractor performance in comparabe programs. An improvement that was not matched by similar corrective successes at General Atomics.

The BAMS program had been frozen while the appeal went forward, but it is now free to begin in earnest. US Navy NAVAIR announced on Aug 11/08 that the program would resume. See: GAO decisions #400135.1/2 | NAVAIR announcement | NGC release | Aviaiton Week.

Jan 31/08: An 18-month, $15 million cooperative agreement between the United States and Australia becomes part of the pre-system development and demonstration processes for the US Navy’s Broad Area Maritime Surveillance Unmanned Aircraft System program. DC Military.

NGC’s Gulfstream II
(click to view full)

Sept 4/07: General Atomics talks about their BAMS efforts, which they are undertaking in conjunction with Lockheed Martin. The firm announces successfully completion of wind tunnel testing at the San Diego Air & Space Technology Center on a 1/10 scale model of its Mariner, which “exceeded our expectations… Preliminary evaluations validated key competitive capabilities of the aircraft and suggest that Mariner’s design is even more efficient than originally assumed.”

Basically, the testing enabled a specific set of configuration changes to be evaluated at a lower cost and faster pace, while generating important data regarding performance and statistical sensitivities.

Aug 6/07: Northrop Grumman promotes its “sense and avoid” approach, which is intended to meet the BAMS requirement of safely operating alongside manned military and civilian aircraft.

Though they rely in part on high-end capabilities like the Global Hawk’s radar, UAV deconfliction is a major industry issue and the underlying algorithms used are likely to be significant beyond BAMS – in its X-47B UCAS-D unmanned naval fighters, for instance.

June 18/07: Boeing enters the fray. The BAMS 550 would create a manned/unmanned version of the Gulfstream G550 business jet (already in service with the Navy) with fully integrated sensor and communications suites and an advanced mission control system. The Boeing BAMS 550 industry team consists of Boeing, Gulfstream, Raytheon, Rolls-Royce and Honeywell, and touts “an offering that significantly improves upon the historically low reliability, limited payload and extensive support requirements of legacy unmanned aircraft systems.” The Register | Boeing handout [PDF]

May 24/07: Northrop Grumman Corporation discusses its BAMS offer and proposed approach. Their offer is based on an RQ-4N maritime-configured RQ-4B Global Hawk, that will meet “all of the threshold and more than 90% of the Navy’s objective requirements.” The RQ-4N will benefit from the GHMD contracts and efforts already undertaken with the US Navy.

Northrop Grumman’s approach is called Head Start, and is organized around step by step risk assessment that concentrates on on system elements, sensor effectiveness, and demonstrating a ForceNet-compliant communications system. Head start will also use a specially modified Gulfstream II business jet as a flying test bed, equipped with the radar sensor that Northrop Grumman is offering as part of its BAMS system. Bill Beck, BAMS Head Start program manager, says: “The test-bed will be used to perform end-to-end communication functionality testing using the Advanced Mission Management System for network, bandwidth and sensor control. It will be tied to a company-built prototype of the Mission Control System (MCS), located at our Hollywood, Md., facility.” The prototype MCS contains off-the-shelf commercial software and hardware components, in keeping with the US Navy’s drive toward upgradeable open architecture approaches.

Carl Johnson, NGC’s vice president of the BAMS program, claims that. “This approach creates a significant program schedule margin which ensures an initial operation capability well ahead of threshold requirements.”

The Northrop Grumman RQ-4N BAMS team includes Northrop Grumman as prime contractor and team leader, unmanned aerial vehicle supplier and developer of the Multi-Function Active Sensor active electronically scanned array radar and the Night Hunter II electro-optical infrared sensor; L-3 Communications providing communications integration; Raytheon supporting the Mission Control System segment; and Rolls-Royce providing the jet engine.

May 8/07: Lockheed Martin discusses its BAMS proposal, which involves the modified Mariner version of General Atomics MQ-9/Predator B. The firm has partnered with EDO, FLIR Systems, Honeywell, LSI, and Sierra Nevada Corp., and its entry will offer an Electro Optical Infrared (EOIR) high definition camera, Automatic Identification System (AIS) to identify ships at sea, a communications relay capability, and Link 16 among its systems.

The Mariner shares its avionics, fuselage, flight controls, and engine (Honeywell TPE-331-1OT turboprop) with the MQ-9/Predator B, but adds enhanced wings (88 foot wingspan) and tails to support the increased takeoff weight, plus 2,000 pounds of additional fuel, 34 antennas for communications, anti-icing and deicing capability, and a retractable EO/IR surveillance turret as part of its 1,350 pound internal payload. The design has an extra 800 pounds of internal payload to offer, plus 4,000 pounds of external payload, which can be carried up to 50,000 feet. Maximum range would be 7,100 nautical miles, albeit at a rather slower speed than the jet-powered RQ-4. The flip side is that the Mariner would be able to cruise for long periods at low altitudes, and do so efficiently. Defense Daily.

May 3/07: The Broad Area Maritime Surveillance Unmanned Aircraft System source selection process formally begins, with receipt of proposals from aerospace manufacturers. A winner is expected to be announced this fall following BAMS Milestone B approval, with a System Design and Development (SDD) contract award following soon after.

Cdr. Bob Dishman, the BAMS Integrated Product team lead, is quoted in a NAVAIR release as saying that “This is a full and open competition and we are satisfied with the number, breadth and technical maturity of the proposals we have received.” See full NAVAIR release.

Jan 29/07: Flight International reports that the US NAVAIR is delaying the release of tenders for its broad area maritime surveillance (BAMS) unmanned air system requirement until mid-February, in order to enable modification of bid documents to meet unique Australian requirements for the system.

Additional Readings & Sources

• DID FOCUS Article – P-8 Poseidon MMA: Long-Range Maritime Patrol, and More

• US NAVAIR – Persistent Unmanned Aerial Surveillance Program. Despite the name, PUMAS appears to be more of an overarching concept of Navy-related ISR(Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance) systems and operations that includes various manned and unmanned platforms. See also “Northrop Grumman Wins U.S. Navy Contract to Study Maritime Surveillance Concepts.”

• US NAVAIR – Broad Area Maritime Surveillance UAS

• Northrop Grumman – Broad Area Maritime Surveillance Unmanned Aircraft System (BAMS UAS)

• GlobalSecurity.org – Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS).

• Boeing – Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) [PDF]

• DID FOCUS – The Wideband Gapfiller Satellite Program. BAMS’ initial control link.

• Australia DMO – AIR 7000: Phases 1B and 2B. Phase 1B is the unmanned portion, phase 2B will involve the manned P-8A aircraft. Phase 1B has now been shelved.

• DID – Australia’s Coastwatch: A Public-Private Model for Coast Guards and CBP. Has included UAV trials with the MQ-9.

• C4ISR Journal (May 31/07) – BAMS Battle

• Flight International (Feb 9/09) – RQ-4N spreads Global Hawk brand to maritime patrol

• DID (Dec 2/05) – Global Hawk UAV Prepares for Maritime Role (updated). These efforts are relevant to BAMS/PUMAS.

• DID (Aug 24/05) – Follow-Up: Rear Adm. Michael L. Holmes on The USA’s P-3C Force. Excellent in-depth interview, which discusses plans for the P-3 fleet, changes underway in the Navy, and the P-8/BAMS role.

• Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest (2003; Volume 24, Number 3) – Multi-Mission Maritime Aircraft Survivability in Modern Maritime Patrol and Reconnaissance Missions [PDF format]

• American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics [AIAA], Aerospace America Magazine (April 2002) – Maritime patrol market: Escaping the doldrums. By the Teal Group, an aerospace industry analyst firm. Very good at outlining the contours of the P-8′s market, as well as some of the turboprop vs. jet trade-offs in the maritime patrol role.

Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the RQ-4 Global Hawk high-altitude, long-endurance (HALE) UAV has gone from a developmental platform to the next generation of American aerial reconnaissance. Flying at 60,000 feet, the RQ-4′s use their advanced synthetic aperture radar and other sensors to provide high-resolution images, unaffected by clouds or similar impediments. A larger RQ-4B model has been developed, and forms the backbone of current deliveries.

The transatlantic Euro Hawk project aimed to produce an RQ-4B with additional capabilities in signals intelligence collection (SIGINT), to complement its native ground surveillance capabilities. The 6 UAVs would provide the ability to detect and collect information from electronic intelligence (ELINT) radar emitters and communications emitters, and would be connected to ground stations that can receive and analyze the data. An MoU was signed in May 2006, followed by a firm system development contract on Jan 31/07. The Euro Hawk flew, and was performing on a technical level, but regulatory barriers killed the program in May 2013.

The Euro Hawk Program & Platform

Still going…

The “Euro Hawk” was slated for the German Air Force, to replace Germany’s aging fleet of specially modified Atlantique ATL1 twin-turboprop SIGINT aircraft. The Atlantiques entered service in 1972.

Northrop Grumman and EADS established a 50-50 joint venture company in 2000 to pursue this program. Euro Hawk GmbH is based in Friedrichshafen, Germany, and acted as the national prime contractor for the German Ministry of Defence.

Northrop Grumman’s RQ-4B Block 20 Global Hawk was the starting point for the new system. An EADS-built SIGINT mission system will be the heart of the Euro Hawk’s intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) system, providing stand-off capability to detect radar emitters (ELINT) and communications emitters (COMINT). EADS would also provide the ground stations that will receive and analyze the data from Euro Hawk. The stations will be similar to existing Global Hawk Block 20 stations, with an additional workstation for the SIGINT payload.

It’s technically possible to control more than one Eurohawk from a single ground control station, as long as satellite bandwidth is sufficient. Providing satellite bandwidth will be a challenge for most militaries in the coming years, the USA included, but platforms like Euro Hawk will get priority.

Timeline

Roll-out
(click to view full)

Northrop Grumman and EADS initiated their transatlantic cooperation in August 2000, followed by a bilateral project agreement between the USAF and the German Ministry of Defence signed in October 2001. The first phase of the project included the operation of the HALE UAV concept, the mission system integration, and the October 2003 flight demonstration program at the German Naval Base in Nordholz.

The program stayed on track for the formal unveiling in late 2009 at the firm’s Palmdale, CA manufacturing facility. First flight and delivery to Germany was planned for 2010, but requires certification to fly in civilian airspace. While the first flight took place in June 2010, and tests began at Edwards AFB in December 2010, project and FAA certification delays pushed delivery to Germany back to July 2011.

If they could get past that certification block to allow successful testing and introduction into German operational service, Northrop Grumman anticipated that subsequent Euro Hawk systems would be delivered between 2016 and 2017. Instead, EASA certification difficulties killed the program in 2013.

Contracts and Key Events

Euro Hawk 2013
(click to view full)

May 14/13: Cancellation. Germany has decided to end the Euro Hawk project. Not only would it cost hundreds of millions to attempt EASA certification, but reports indicate that German authorities aren’t confident that they would receive certification at the end of the process. Rather than pay another EUR 600 – 700 million for additional UAVs and equipment, and an equivalent amount to attempt EASA certification, Germany will attempt to find another path.

There will be a test flight tomorrow, but it will have to take place over unpopulated areas and in cleared airspace, due to the UAV’s lack of a certified collision-avoidance system.

One obvious alternative for Germany would be to hand their initial Euro Hawk UAV and sensors over to NATO’s AGS program as an in-kind sign-on contribution. They’re already founding members, and UAV hours were supposed to be their contribution. The RQ-4B Block 20 SIGINT variant could serve alongside the 4 planned RQ-4B Block 40 UAVs at Sigonella Air Base in Italy, and get an allocation of RQ-4 hours to use as they wish. Agence France Presse | Deutsche Welle | Deutsche Welle interview: Christian Molling | India’s Economic Times.

Canceled

March – April 2013: Program in danger? Reports in the French and German media highlight the problems Euro Hawk has been having with airspace certification, and say that its cost could end the program entirely. Parliamentary State Secretary of Defense Thomas Kossendey says the program is having problems furnishing the documentation it needs for flight certification in shared airspace, and that those efforts could end up costing EUR 500-600 million on top of the EUR 1.3 billion already spent on development, UAVs, sensors, basing, etc. With the USA pulling back from further Global Hawk purchases in the 2013 & 2014 budgets, Germany is also contemplating issues like future support and maintainability.

Without that certification, Germany can certainly own the Euro Hawks, but how does it fly them where it needs them to go? This is also bad news for General Atomics’ hopes of selling Germany MQ-9 Reaper UAVs, which would face many of the same problems. Shz.de [in German] | TTU [in French].

Jan 11/13: Testing. Northrop Grumman Corporation and EADS Deutschland GmbH hail the 1st full system test flight of the Euro Hawk, complete with advanced signals intelligence (SIGINT) sensors to detect of radar and communication emitters. It happens in closed airspace.

As one might gather from the date, the program is somewhat behind its schedule to begin operations. NGC | EADS Cassidian.

Oct 12/11: The Luftwaffe formally unveils the Euro Hawk as a new platform for the force, which will soon fill the gap created by the retired Breguet Atlantiques.

Eleven German pilots have already received training in the United States, and the Luftwaffe will now begin working with the UAV in order to verify its capabilities and set up usage procedures. The Euro Hawk system as a whole is expected to begin operations in summer 2012. German Bundeswehr [in German] | Der Spiegel.

July 20-21/11: To Germany. Things get sorted with the FAA, and the first Euro Hawk is able to fly from Edwards AFB, CA to Manching, Germany. NGC | EADS.

July 18/11: FAA. The Euro Hawk’s flight to Germany will be delayed by the FAA, apparently over weather-related issues en route from Edwards AFB, CA to Germany. It was supposed to land in Manching on July 19th, but there is now no date for approval of its flight plan. Flight International.

July 8/11: German plans. Aviation Week reports on Germany’s high-end UAV plans, beyond its planned 6 RQ-4 Euro-Hawk surveillance and SIGINT drones. The publication states that Germany is looking to buy 4 UAVs for wide-area surveillance, probably more RQ-4 variants, in order to complement NATO’s 6 RQ-4B Block 40 AGS drones. They’re also looking at fielding 16 systems of MALE drones over the next decade, to replace the current Heron UAV lease, and are even considering unmanned combat aircraft (UCAV).

March 10-11/11: Testing. A Euro Hawk test aircraft is hung up in an anechoic chamber for electromagnetic interference testing, at the Edwards AFB Benefield Anechoic Facility, after a specific request from the German Ministry of Defence.

NGC Euro Hawk System Engineering manager Daniel Suh sums up the issue: “In highly populated areas there are more [electro-magetic] emitters [of all types] so there’s risk associated in flying an unmanned aircraft in those environments.” The BAF testing is designed to duplicate and test those risks. Edwards AFB.

Dec 1-2/10: Testing. A Euro Hawk UAV flies for 30.3 hours from Edwards AFB, CA, soaring up to 60,000 feet. The Euro Hawk has now logged over 100 flight hours.

The Euro Hawk aircraft will undergo additional flight testing in Germany before being delivered to the German Air Force by the end of 2011, and delivery of 4 subsequent systems is anticipated between 2015 and 2016, following successful testing and introduction in German operational service. Northrop Grumman.

June 29/10: Testing. The Euro Hawk successfully completes its 1st flight, taking off from Northrop Grumman’s Palmdale, CA, manufacturing facility and landing nearly 2 hours later at Edwards Air Force Base, CA. Northrop Grumman.

July 31/09: Industrial. Northrop Grumman announces that it has finished assembling Germany’s first Euro Hawk UAV at its facility in Palmdale, CA. The program is currently on track for the formal unveiling in late 2009 at the firm’s Palmdale, CA manufacturing facility.

May 5/09: FAA. Flight International reports that the Euro Hawk program is facing further delays – most of them regulatory. Northrop says it is still discussing the December 2009/January 2010 transfer flight to Edwards AFB with the US Federal Aviation Administration, which involves an unmanned aircraft in civilian airspace. A follow-on transfer flight to southern Germany is expected in mid-2010, but may be delayed if there are further setbacks involving that initial flight, or subsequent acceptance tests at Edwards AFB for the German authorities.

The proposed trans-Atlantic transfer flight will require agreements from the US, UK and German aviation authorities over the next 14 months, as well as a preliminary flight airworthiness certificate. As an added wrinkle, EADS also plans for the Eurohawk’s German ground control station to take over from Northrop once the UAV reaches northern Scotland.

Euro Hawk payloads
(click to view full)

Jan 31/07: The German Ministry of Defence (MoD) awards a EUR 430 million (then about $560 million) contract to EADS and Northrop Grumman joint venture Eurohawk GmbH. In return, they’ll develop, test and support the Euro Hawk unmanned SIGINT, surveillance, and reconnaissance system, and deliver 1 UAV. A separate contract will order the other 5 later, if the system meets its objectives. EADS release | Northrop Grumman release.

Euro Hawk development contract

Sept 7/06: Negotiations. Aerospace Daily & Defense Report explains that the Euro Hawk’s delayed contract involves issues within the German government and in the U.S. export control process. The fact that it’s a mix of commercial transactions and Foreign Military Sale transactions adds to that complexity. The report quotes Edward Walby, Northrop Grumman’s head of high-altitude/long-endurance systems:

“The administrative piece of it has been extremely difficult… This isn’t a large profit objective for Northrop Grumman, but it is a big deal to get an export of a system such as a Global Hawk under way. The next one, or the next country will be easier because you’ve gone through all of those little problems already.”

The report says that a contract is expected in October 2006. It would end up being later than that.

November 2003: ELINT. The Global Hawk high-altitude, long-endurance UAV completes a series of flight tests in the USA and Germany carrying an EADS electronic intelligence (ELINT) payload. Source.

Most Global Hawk UAVs are configured with SAR radars for finding ground targets, plus electro-optical and infrared sensors (see examples of Global Hawk imagery). An August 2005 DID article noted that in November 2003, the Global Hawk high-altitude, long-endurance UAV completed a series of flight tests in the USA and Germany carrying an EADS electronic intelligence (ELINT) payload. EADS.

Additional Readings

• Northrop Grumman – Euro Hawk

• EADS – Euro Hawk

• German BWB Procurement Agency – Wachsames Auge in der Stratosphare [in German]

• ISR Journal (Sept 5/06) – Super-sized Global Hawk revealed. Covers the RQ-4 from Block 10-40, and their planned capabilities.

• DID (Aug 30/05) – [American] Order for 10 Global Hawk UAVs Includes 5 for SIGINT Role.

• DID Subscription – AGS: NATO’s Battlefield Eye in the Sky

• Naval Technology – Atlantique ATL3 – Maritime Patrol Aircraft, France. Includes some details regarding the Atlantique ATL1.

• EADS – Breguet Atlantic SIGINT aircraft.

India’s submarine fleet currently consists of 16 boats: 10 Russian SSK Kilo (Sindhugosh) Class, 4 locally built SSK U209 (Shishumar) Class, a leased nuclear-powered Improved Akula Class SSN from Russia (INS Chakra), and its own INS Arihant SSBN. Most of the Kilos have been modernized, but readiness rates for India’s existing submarine fleet sits below 40%, and the U209s will have trouble lasting much beyond 2015. With Pakistan acquiring modern submarines, and Chinese submarine building exploding, expanding India’s submarine fleet became an obvious national priority.

In 2005, India confirmed that it would buy 6 Franco-Spanish Scorpene diesel submarines, with an option for 6 more and extensive technology transfer agreements. Unfortunately, 7 years after that deal was signed, “Project 75″ has yet to field a single submarine. A poor Indian procurement approach, and state-run inefficiency, are pushing the country’s overall submarine force toward an aging crisis. This DID FOCUS article covers the Scorpene deal and its structure, adds key contracts and new developments, and offers insights into the larger naval picture beyond India.

The Scorpene Class

Scorpene
click for video

The SSK Scorpene Class diesel-electric fast attack submarine was jointly developed by DCN of France and Navantia of Spain, and incorporates advancements that stem from being developed about 10 years later than DCN’s Agosta 90 Class. Many of the Scorpene’s internal systems and weapons, however, are shared with Pakistan’s Improved Agosta 90B.

Displacing 1,565 metric tonnes, the standard CM-2000 Scorpene Class is 71.7m (219 feet) long with a submerged speed of over 20 knots, and submerged range at 100% battery usage and 4 knots speed of 134 hours or 536 miles. This new submarine class incorporates a high level of system redundancy to achieve an average 240 days at sea per year per submarine, and the endurance to undertake a 50 day patrol before being resupplied. In addition, its maximum diving depth is 300 meters (about 1,000 feet), giving the commander good tactical freedom for a conventional submarine.

SUBTICS CCS

The Scorpene’s SUBTICS combat management system, with up to 6 multifunction common consoles and a centrally situated tactical table, is co-located with the platform-control facilities. The vessel’s sonar suite includes a long-range passive cylindrical array, an intercept sonar, active sonar, distributed array, flank array, a high-resolution sonar for mine and obstacle avoidance and a towed array. Each Scorpene submarine features 6 bow-mounted 533mm torpedo tubes, and stores 18 weapons divided between torpedoes, missiles, and mines (stacked, up to 30).

India was leaning toward Finmeccanica’s Black Shark, the same heavyweight torpedo used in Chile’s Scorpene subs, but that decision has been put on hold by corruption allegations. Fortunately, a contract for the MBDA SM-39 Exocet was signed along with the original submarine contract. The Exocet SM 39 variant is launched from a submarine’s torpedo tubes using a VSM (Vehicule Sous Marin), a self-propelled and guided container that will maneuver before surfacing so as not to reveal the position of the submarine. Once it surfaces, the Exocet missile leaves the VSM and proceeds to the target like a normal surface variant of the missile.

In addition to these regular weapons, the Scorpene platform also offers advanced capabilities for mine warfare, intelligence gathering and special operations.

Scorpene subs can hold a total company of 31-36 men, with a standard watch team of 9. The control room and the living quarters are mounted on an elastically supported and acoustically isolated floating platform, really a ship within the ship.

The India order brought the number of committed Scorpene submarine sales on the international market to 10. Scorpene orders worldwide now sit at 14, and include Chile (2 O’Higgins class CM-2000 with split Navantia/DCN production, both delivered); Malaysia (2 with split Navantia/DCN production); and now India (6 from DCN-Armaris and local manufacture, 3 each CM-2000 and AM-2000 AIP, delivery expected 2015-2020). Brazil would later undertake its own project, which will build 4 SSK Scorpenes and 1 nuclear-powered SSN fast attack submarine.

India’s Submarine Programs

Current Project 75 figures:

• Submarines: 6 CM-2000 Scorpene Class, #5-6 may have AIP, but that’s unlikely.
  
• Contract signed: 2005
  
• Schedule: Delivery from 2015-2018. Likely to go later.
  
• Cost: INR 235.62 billion

Project 75 has an pre-priced option for 6 more Scorpenes. A follow-on “Project 75i” is a separate program, which intends to field another 6 submarines with a very different design. The sections below provide more details.

Schedule, Cost & Plans

Final construction
(click to view full)

The Scorpene deal had simmered on the back-burner for several years, and media reports touted a deal as “close” in 2004, but nothing was finalized until late 2005. The cost had been subject to varying estimates over the life of those multi-year negotiations, and continued to change after the contract was awarded, but the final figure for the first 6 boats is now generally accepted as being about $4.5 billion.

India’s long-term objective is full made-in-India design, development and construction of submarines. Construction is the first step, and “Project 75″ Scorpene submarines will all be built in India at state-owned Magazon Docks Ltd. (MDL).

That insistence on local production, rather than having the first couple built at their home shipyard with Indian workers present on exchange, has cost India. There have been issues involving technology transfer and negotiations, but it’s also true that MDL simply wasn’t ready. Expected delivery dates for the first 6 were set at 2012-2017, until everyone had to bow to the obvious and begin promising 2015-2018. Given the record to date, and the difference between schedule slippage of 1st vs. final deliveries, it’s reasonable to expect deliveries stretching beyond 2018. Recent reports are even suggesting that deliveries may not begin before 2017.

Costs are slipping, too.

Planned costs for the Project 75 deal had a range of reported figures, until a contract was signed. In the end, the reported figure was Rs 15,400 crore, or $3.5 billion converted equivalent at the time. Subsequent auditor reports indicated that the program would actually cost about Rs 18,798 crore (about $4 billion), and escalations to Rs 20,798 crore/ $4.38 billion and then Rs 23,562 crore/ $4.56 billion have followed. That makes for about a 25.4% cost increase from the auditors’ baseline.

Tracking actual contracts is more difficult. Contracts signed as of August 2009 totaled INR 207.98 billion/ Rs 20,798 crore. The contracts were signed at different times, and will be paid over different periods, so a true currency conversion is difficult. A weakening American dollar and Euro have cushioned the increases somewhat, but most of the project’s cost involves local currency purchases. Contracts reportedly include:

• Rs 6,315 crore contract with DCNS’ predecessor for transfer of technology, combat systems and construction design.
  
• Rs 1,062 crore contract with MBDA for sea-skimming Exocet missiles and related systems
  
• Rs 5,888 crore contract with MDL for local submarine construction
  
• Rs 3,553 crore set aside for taxes
  
• Rs 2,160 crore for other project requirements
  
• Rs 2,000 crore added in March 2010 to cover added finalized costs of the “MDL procured material (MPM) packages”
  
• Rs 2,764 crore unaccounted for yet in public releases, but envisaged in final INR 235-237 billion program costs.

Timeline & Industrial Arrangements

Project 75 & 75i Timelines

A March 8/06 release from the Indian Ministry of Defence gives the long history of this contract’s genesis. After numerous delays, final negotiations were held with vendors in 2005. This reportedly cut INR 3.13 billion from the 2002 negotiated position, and involved other concessions. Even so, India’s program budget had to rise in order to accommodate the final contract.

As is often true in India, some of this was self-inflicted. In 2009, India’s Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) reported that the government’s delays in finalizing a deal had probably raised the project’s cost by 2,838 crore, or about 15% of the project’s total cost – and that was before the additional Rs 2,000 crore contract to DCNS was finalized in 2010.

Industrial

Scorpene
click for video

On the industrial front, the Scorpene deal will enable India to reopen its submarine building assembly lines. The initial plan was for all 6 boats to be built entirely in India by Mumbai-based Mazagon Dock Ltd. (MDL), whose submarine lines had been shut down since the finished the licensed manufacture of German HDW Type 209 diesel subs in 1994. That plan has remained fixed, despite delays created by MDL’s work.

The French firm DCNS (Thomson CSF became Thales, which became the Armaris naval JV, then DCNS) was set as the overall industrial prime contractor for this program. DCNS is also in charge of the technology transfer and delivery of all services and equipment, and DCNS subsidiary UDS International will supply the combat systems with help from Thales. An ancillary contract signed between DCNS’ predecessor Armaris and MDL provides for a team of French technical advisers during the construction of the first 2 submarines.

Tracking contract value for foreign firms is challenging.

The key foreign contractors for the Project 75 Scorpene buy are DCNS and Thales, who will provide the “MDL procured material (MPM) packages” of propulsion, sensors, weapons systems etc. that fit into the hull. When the initial contract was signed in 2006, Thales revealed that India’s Scorpene contract was worth nearly EUR 600 million (USD $736 million) to their company, in return for key subsystems for the submarines’ 6 UDS International SUBTICS integrated combat systems, underwater sensors, communications and optronics, and electronic warfare equipment. A corresponding DCN news release put the total value to all members of the DCN Group at EUR 900 million, but did not address possible overlaps with Thales.

Finalized supplier contracts changed overall totals, which increased by EUR 300 million to about EUR 1.8 billion total. The allocations also changed, since Thales sold part of its naval business to DCN in 2007, creating DCNS. Some of the Thales products destined for the Scorpene became part of the DCNS Group when the merger took place.

A variety of Indian subcontractors, such as SEC, Flash Forge, Walchandnagar Industries, et. al. are involved in the submarines’ construction, manufacturing and delivering specific parts for incorporation into the vessels.

By late 2010, delays at MDL led to reports that Scorpene construction might be altered to include other Indian shipyards, and even DCNS in France. That shift to other shipyards hasn’t happened for Project 75, but it is planned for the follow-on Project 75i. Whether that plan can survive rent-seeking lobbying by India’s state-owned industries remains to be seen.

The AIP Option

MESMA AIP section

Like many modern diesel-electric submarines, the Scorpene class is exceptionally quiet. It can also be equipped with an additional MESMA brand AIP (air-independent propulsion). A CM-2000 Scorpene can operate underwater for 4-6 days without surfacing or snorkeling to get oxygen to recharge its batteries. An AM-2000 Scorpene AIP, in contrast, will be able to operate underwater for up to 18 days depending on variables like speed, etc.

Each AIP system costs around $50-60 million, as they require adding a new 8.3 meter (27 foot), 305 tonne hull section to the submarine. The resulting AM-2000 Scorpene AIP is 70m long, and displaces 1,870t.

Naval Chief Admiral Arun Prakash has said that the agreement gives India the option of incorporating AIP technology after delivery of the 3rd submarines. India’s Navy appeared to be opting for this choice for Scorpenes 4-6, but decided in typical Indian fashion to try to develop their own AIP “hull plug” for the Scorpene. They’re now talking about fielding only submarines 5 & 6 as AIP boats, if the technology is ready. India’s past history suggests that it won’t be, even as Pakistan fields all 3 of its Agosta 90B boats with mature French MESMA AIP technology inside.

India’s Submarine Plans

U209 Shishumar class
(click to view full)

Most of the Project 75 delays, and many of the cost increases, are attributable to India’s slow decision making and lack of readiness. Meanwhile, India’s existing fleet continues to age, and the size of India’s submarine fleet will become a serious concern by 2016 or so.

“Project 75″ had options for another 6 submarines, but that option has been replaced by a 6-boat “Project 75i” competition. Introducing another competition sloows India to add improved technology, including an Air-Independent Propulsion module and the ability to carry supersonic BrahMos cruise missiles. On the other hand, it also adds industrial disruption from a new design.

India’s deeply flawed procurement process adds even more risks. The risk of delay has already materialized. Despite initial solicitations in 2008, the 75i RFP still pending in 2013, and India is unlikely to field any Project 75i submarines before 2023. The second risk is that a new competition will become bogged down in allegations and/or protests like so many other Indian projects, and fail to deliver anything.

If India can overcome its government’s own obstacles to fielding an effective submarine force, reports by Indian media describe a long-term desire to manufacture up to 24 submarines in a phased manner. Admiral Prakash confirmed that target, and used the objective of “24 subs in 30 years.”

DID reminds our readers that long term plans for major capital acquisitions have a way of shrinking over time as budgetary tradeoffs are made – 32 DD (X) destroyers for the USA became 12, and then 3. Nevertheless, options and/or future schedule delays could easily keep submarine production for India going to 2030 or beyond, and the buildup of China’s forces in particular is likely to keep submarines high on India’s defense priority list.

Time will tell if actual budgets and shipbuilding performance can match the Navy’s appetites.

India’s Scorpene Project: Contracts & Key Events

BrahMos
click for video

May 14/13: The Hindustan Times illustrates the dire situation facing India’s navy, due to mismanagement of India’s submarine programs:

“As reported first by HT on April 9, a confidential defence ministry report had warned that India had never before been poised in such a vulnerable situation and its undersea force levels were “at a highly precarious state.” …China operates close to 45 submarines, including two ballistic missile submarines. It also plans to construct 15 additional Yuan-class attack submarines, based on German diesel engine purchases.

The size of India’s submarine fleet will roughly be the same as that of the Pakistani Navy in two years…. merely six to seven submarines, including India’s first and only nuclear-armed ballistic missile submarine INS Arihant.”

That may be a bit pessimistic. The 4 U209s will need to begin retiring, leaving 10 Sindhugosh (Kilo) Class submarines that began entering service in 1986. At least 8 of those have been refitted under Project 08773, and can be expected to serve for several more years. That makes 9 submarines, but at Indian operational levels, that leaves just 3-4 boats available for missions. On the other hand, China’s fleet is venturing into the Indian Ocean more often, and bases like Hambantota in Sri Lanka and Gwadar in Pakistan will make that easier and easier. Keeping up with Pakistan won’t be enough, and the article is correct to point out that India is barely clearing even that low bar. Hindustan Times.

April 15/13: More delays and costs coming. The Times of India reports that bureaucratic delays by the Ministry of Defence may force Scorpene submarine deliveries to start in 2016, even as costs are set to rise again:

“According to sources, Mazagon Dock Limited (MDL) has informed the Navy that the project would be delayed by another 18 months…. Consultants from Navantia, the Spanish shipbuilding company, left the project in the last few days. The technical assistance pact for Navantia and DCNS, the French partner in the consortium, expired on March 31, sources said. With MDL failing to get the defence ministry’s approval in time, about 10 Spanish consultants working on the submarine project left India…. DCNS leadership is expected to meet with MDL top brass this week in Mumbai and present their own demand for additional technical assistance fee.”

Every problem listed here was preventable, and so is the crisis coming to India’s submarine force. A contract that built the first 2 boats abroad, with Indian engineers and specialists working at the foreign shipyard before transferring home to build the last 4 at MDL, would have cut technical assistance requirements, while delivering working submarines to the navy on time. India’s Navy has learned that lesson, and is lobbying hard for an analogous arrangement under Project 75i. Based on reports to date, the ministry hasn’t learned anything, and is resisting. Its political leaders would rather have the vote bank of state run jobs, and their associated financial arrangements up and down the supply chain. Even if that costs more, and leaves India strategically vulnerable. Somehow, that isn’t corruption.

March 20/13: BrahMos underwater. India successfully tests its supersonic PJ-10 Brahmos Mach 2+ cruise missile from a submarine. BrahMos joint venture CEO A Sivathanu Pillai describes it as the 1st underwater firing of a supersonic cruise missile anywhere in the world, and the missile successfully hit its target 290 km / 156 nm away.

Here’s the catch: none of India’s current submarines can fire the new submarine-launched missile. It’s too big to launch from a torpedo tube, and will need to use a vertical launch tube with the correct diameter. India’s Project 75i submarines are nearly certain to add this modification, but they won’t be ready until 2023 at the earliest, a decade after a submarine-launch Brahmos conducted its 1st test firing.

New Indian Express editorial director Prabhu Chawla attributes this disconnect to poor planning in the MoD. The truth is that there has been no shortage of planning, or lead time. Solicitations for the follow-on Project 75i reportedly began in 2008, and there is still no RFP. Likewise AIr-Independent Propulsion was discussed in 2006, but the ball has been dropped and it’s unlikely to appear in any of the 6 ordered Scorpene submarines. What has been in short supply is timely execution, thanks to a combination of delays stemming from MoD practices, industrial failures, and hindrances put in place by politicians. No amount of planning can trump that. Times of India | Chawla op-ed.

March 18/13: Legal. India PIB:

“A complaint was received alleging financial irregularities against the then Director in-charge of Scorpene Submarine project ina Defence Shipyard. The complaint is under enquiry.”

March 11/13: Torpedoes. Defense minister Antony offers a written Parliamentary reply to say that India still hasn’t finalized a contract for torpedoes. A Special Technical Oversight Committee (STOC) was convened to review the complaints about the proposed Black Shark buy, and approved it as fair and to procedure. The high-level political Defence Acquisition Committee accepted the report in September 2012 (6 months ago), and has done… nothing. The purchase has now been delayed for over 3 years.

Welcome to India. Part of the reason involves allegations that WASS’ parent firm Finmeccanica paid bribes to secure a contract for 12 AW101 VVIP helicopters. In Italy, its CEO is facing bribery charges, and has been deposed. That sort of thing could get the parent firm blacklisted, which would also scuttle the torpedo buy, and could make it difficult for India to build its Vikrant Class indigenous aircraft carriers. As of March 11/13, Finmeccanica subsidiary AgustaWestland has been given a ‘show cause’ notice regarding cancellation of the AW101s, but had not had the contract cancelled, or been blacklisted. See also Jan 12/10, Jan 31/11, Oct 28/12. India PIB.

March 8/13: China. An analysis piece in The Hindu by Vladimir Radyuhin points out that China continues to build a modern submarine fleet – including the most advanced conventional subs from Russia. The problem may be a pervasive one, stemming from poor Russian delivery and support on one hand, and India’s red-tape slowness and inability to make decisions on the other:

“At the end of last year, Russia concluded a framework agreement with China for the sale of four Amur-1650 diesel submarines…. It will also mark the first time that Russia has supplied China with more powerful weapon platforms compared with Russian-built systems India has in its arsenals. In the past, the opposite was the rule…. India risks being eclipsed by China on the Russian radar screens. As Russia’s top business daily Kommersant noted recently, even today, Russian officials from top to bottom tend to look at India with “drowsy apathy,” while Mr. Putin’s visit to India last year was long on “meaningless protocol” and short on time and substance.”

Jan 4/13: Investigation. India’s Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) has launched an inquiry against Commodore (ret.) Gopal Bharti, who heads up Project 75. The inquiry is in response to an unnamed internal whistleblower. the financial irregularities which include train fare reimbursement and taking his son abroad at public expense, aren’t earth-shattering. On the other hand, the CVC is investigating allegations that Bharti deliberately refused to place orders for 170 critical items, and are curious about the disappearance of 15 high pressure specialized underwater valves from his department.

Innocent until proven guilty, but the range of allegations are pretty broad. Times of India.

Pakistan’s A90Bs
click for video

Dec 4/12: AIP. StratPost offers an AIP system update from Indian Navy chief, Admiral D.K. Joshi

“AIP plugs for the fifth and sixth of (Project) 75 are under consideration. [DRDO's Naval Materials Research Laboratory (NMRL)] has been tasked to develop that. It is doing so. What is to be seen is whether the… timeline Matches the delayed production timelines of (Project) 75. In case this comes online in conformity with the fifth and sixth ones they will be put into place, but if for some reason they are not ready at that point in time we would not delay the production timelines…. This would [also] become an option for any of the subsequent indigenous options [Project 75i]…. The next line will have an AIP plug.”

Meanwhile, all 3 of Pakistan’s comparable Agosta 90B submarines will include DCNS’ mature MESMA AIP technology.

Dec 5/12: Project 75i. India’s cabinet Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) has accorded Acceptance of Necessity (AON) for buying “Project 75i”, India’s next 6 submarines. A global RFP is reportedly due “very soon,” and the Indian government has reportedly decided to spend up to $10 billion/ Rs 55,000 crore on India’s future submarine force.

Project 75i diesel-electric SSK subs will have air-independent propulsion, and India is also looking to equip them with conventional land attack missiles. DCNS could offer the AIM-2000 Scorpene with the MESMA AIP, and might be able to offer integration of MBDA’s developmental MdCN cruise missile. The MdCN is already slated for DCNS’ SSN Barracuda Class nuclear fast attack submarines, and the right electronic commonalities could give any French proposal a notable advantage over German and Spanish competitors.

If India prefers its own BrahMos missile, on the other hand, 2 things will happen. One is that the playing field will be level. The other is that any submarine chosen would have to be a modified design, with vertical launch tubes sized for BrahMos. Indian government | Zee News.

Oct 28/12: Torpedoes. More headaches for India’s Black Shark torpedo buy. As if their direct competitor’s complaint wasn’t enough, a probe is now underway into India’s EUR 560 million purchase of 12 AW101 VIP helicopters. AgustaWestland is also a Finmeccanica company, and there are several cases of India’s blacklist laws being invoked against firms on the basis of mere corruption allegations, with no available proof.

The Rs 1,700 crore buy of 98 torpedoes for the Scorpene fleet was expected to be followed by a similar buy for Project 75i’s 6 submarines, and possibly a 3rd buy to plus up stocks and equip the new SSBN Arihant Class of nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines. That could mean a total of up to Rs 5,100 crore, or about EUR 733 million / $947 million at risk given current conversions.

As for Atlas Elektronik’s claims that the torpedo bid was rigged (vid. Jan 31/11 entry), the Indian MoD’s Acquisitions Wing, Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), and Minister of State for Defence MM Pallam Raju have all rejected the claims, despite strong circumstantial evidence. India MoD | India’s Business Standard.

July 17/12: Sub-contractors. SEC Industries and DCNS today officially inaugurate new 1,500 m2 of workshop facilities at SEC’s Hyderabad facilities, and formally deliver cofferdam door coamings after successful Factory Acceptance Tests. The work was done under a September 2011 sub-contract between SEC DCNS India Pvt Ltd., and a second sub-contract for additional work was signed in 2012 (vid. March 23/12 entry). DCNS.

June 23/12: Kilo Class. Russia completes its set of 7 mid-life refits and modernizations of India’s Kilo Class submarine fleet, which were delivered from 1986 – 2000. Russia handled repairs and modernization for 7 boats, while Indian shipyards have delivered 1 and are working on another 2.

This last boat, INS Sindhurakshak ended her mid-life refit in Zvezdochka about 15 years after she was built. A submarine’s expected safe lifetime is usually about 30 years, but India may be forced to contemplate a 2nd refit series. Ortherwise, they may not be able to keep their overall submarine fleet at acceptable levels, while they wait for Scorpenes and Project 75i boats arrive. Additional refit efforts generally cost more for each additional year of safe service delivered. The Hindu.

June 11/12: Industrial. DCNS signs a strategic partnership for bringing DCNS technologies, methods and skills into India’s private Pipavav Defence & Offshore Engineering Company Limited. Pipavav is a shipbuilder, repair & dry-docking firm, and were recently chosen by MDL to form a Joint Venture to build warships for the Indian Navy. DCNS.

March 23/12: Sub-contractors. DCNS India announces a Scorpene sub-contract and transfer of technology with SEC Industries Pvt Ltd of Hyderabad, India. The deal for hull hatches, cofferdam doors, knuckle hoses, ballast vent valves, High Pressure air cylinders, weapon handling and storage system is worth about Rs 310 crore/ EUR 50 million. To make this work, DCNS will provide SEC with full plans for the components, training for over 40 SEC personnel at DCNS facilities during 2012-2013, plus 5 years of on-the-job training and support for manufacturing and quality control at SEC in Hyderabad.

SEC is known in Indian defense circles as a manufacturer of missile airframes and components, and signed a deal with Israel’s IAI back in 2008. The company’s previous experience had been with heavy pump set and road-roller equipment. DCNS.

March 19/12: Delays. The 1st Indian Scorpene sub is now confirmed as scheduled for delivery in June 2015, barring further delays, and program cost is now confirmed at Rs 23,562 crore (currently about $4.56 billion).

The original schedule was for delivery by December 2012, with submarines arriving each year until December 2017. The new official schedule has deliveries beginning 2.5 years later in June 2015, with submarines arriving every 9 months until September 2018. Costs are up about 25.4% from the original CAG-audited cost of Rs 18,798 crore after the deal was signed, or 87% over the program’s initial 2002 figure. Indian MoD | New Kerala | PTI

Sept 13/11: Industrial. Private shipbuilder Pipavav Defence & Offshore Engineering Company (PDOL) and state-owned Mazagon Dock (MDL) agree to form India’s first public-private partnership venture to build warships and submarines for the Indian Navy.

Mazagon Dock Pipavav Ltd will be held 50/50, and it will help MDL fulfill existing orders while competing for future defence contracts in India. Pipavav chairman Nikhil P Gandhi is quoted as saying that it’s “primarily to fast-forward the process of warships and submarine contracts held currently by the MDL.” India’s Financial Express | Indian Express.

July 29/11: Rear Admiral MT Moraes takes over as the Assistant Chief of Naval Staff (Submarines) at Delhi, to look after the planning and acquisition of submarines.

Rear Admiral Srikant is also slated to take over as Flag Officer Submarines (FOSM) based at Visakhapatnam, this is the indian Navy’s class authority on submarines, responsible for defining standards, policies and procedures for their operations and maintenance. Rear Admiral G Ashok Kumar will take over as Flag Officer Sea Training (FOST) at Kochi. India MoD.

June 8/11: Sub-contractor. DCNS India Pvt. Ltd. signs an undisclosed contract with Flash Forge India Pvt. Ltd., an ISO 9001:2008 certified manufacturer of customized special material forgings based in Visakhapatnam.

This first contract with Flash Forge for the manufacturing of mechanical equipment is the conclusion of a long process for DCNS, which involved identification of potential partners, audits of the manufacturing and quality processes, qualification, and then a competitive Request For Proposal (RFP). With a lot of the advance work out of the way, DCNS expects to announce other local contracts in the near future. DCNS.

June 6/11: IANS relays a report in the May 2011 issue of India Strategic, quoting DCNS India Managing Director Bernard Buisson to say that 2 Scorpene combat systems have been delivered to Mazagon Docks Ltd. (MDL). They’re in the process of integrating the first one.

Buisson reportedly said that there are about 20 – 25 French engineers assisting in technology transfer, and added that DCNS has had technical discussions with the Indian Navy on installing MESMA air independent propulsion (AIP) systems on board the last 2 submarines. That move would raise the subs’ cost, and DCNS said they are (still) awaiting the Navy’s response. IANS | India Strategic.

May 18/11: Delays. The Times of India reports that 2 Indian naval crews will be going to France “after some months” to train for operating the SSK Scorpene fast attack submarines. The article notes that by 2020, India’s fleet will comprise just 5 Kilo Class and 4 U209 Shishumar class boats available, and quotes an unnamed official:

“We now hope to get the first Scorpene by August 2015. Each submarine will have just a 36-member crew since automation levels in them are very high,”… “The first Scorpene will be ‘launched’ into water in 2013, and will be ready for commissioning by August 2015 after extensive harbour and sea trials,” said a top DCNS official. “The target is to deliver the sixth submarine by 2018, one every nine months after the first one in 2015. The third and fourth submarines are already under construction at MDL…”

April 6/11: Stretch the Shishumars? The Scorpene project’s lateness, and uncertainties around Project 75I award and delivery dates, have led India’s Navy to talk with Germany’s HDW about upgrading the capabilities, and extending the lifespans, of its existing U209 Shishumar Class boats, inducted from 1989-1994. Zee News.

Feb 16/11: P75i. Indian media quote Indian navy chief Admiral Nirmal Verma, who reiterates that the follow-on program to the Scorpene deal is already cleared by India’s government. The result could add 6 more Scorpenes to the order books, or it could result in a parallel program to build another model. With 7 of India’s 14 active submarines due for retirement by 2015, and the Scorpene program 3 years late because of self-inflicted delays, the Indian government’s unwise choice to avoid building any Project 75 Scorpene submarines in France has created a looming crisis for the Navy.

Verma says that the Navy is going through responses to the September 2009 RFI, and hopes to be able to issue a tender in 2011. Responses have reportedly included DCNS (Scorpene AIP), Germany’s HDW (U214) and its Swedish Kockums subsidiary (several options, incl. the forthcoming A26 design), Navantia (S-80), and Russia’s Rosoboronexport (Amur 1650), He adds that Project 75i is looking for an improved combat management system, better sensors and detection range, and the certain inclusion of Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) technology. Reports place the order total at $11 billion, but that seems high even if it includes both the current $4.38 billion for Project 75′s 6 subs, and a Project 75i program for another 6 diesel-electric boats. Time will tell.

The current plan is for India to order 2 submarines built at the winning foreign shipyard, and build 3 at Mazagon Docks Limited (MDL) in Mumbai, and 1 at Hindustan Shipyard in Visakaphatnam. That’s similar to the Project 75 plan pushed by India’s Navy, who wanted 2 boats built abroad because they feared that delays and performance issues might create problems for the Scorpene. Political favoritism overruled that request, and the feared scenario has come to pass. This time, the government is showing slightly more flexibility, by approving the plan to have 2 submarines built abroad in order to avoid a complete crash in fleet numbers. On the other hand, the Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) refused to accept the recommendation the Project 75i avoid MDL, due to that shipyard’s existing workload. Instead, the government assumes that it would be able to build 3 more submarines, which may even be of a different type, on an accelerated production schedule, while still delivering all 6 Project 75 Scorpene boats to the revised schedule. Yeah, right. IANS | Times of India.

Jan 31/11: Torpedo trouble? India’s Central Vigilance Commissioner has opened an inquiry into Project 75′s planned buy of 98 heavyweight torpedoes, after Atlas Elektronik GmbH executive director Kai Pelzer reportedly lodged a direct complaint. The complaint refers reportedly refers to irregularities in the conduct of the procurement process, including specific charges of corruption. The CVC inquiry was ordered in December 2010.

Atlas Electroniks’ complaint is straightforward: the competition was rigged. The RFP makes the torpedo vendor responsible for seamless integration and/or interface of the torpedo with the SUBTICS combat system. The Finmeccanica/DCNS Blackshark is the Scorpene’s default torpedo, but Atlas had to have their plan approved by the MoD’s Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC). That approval was given, but Atlas’ integration proposal was failed in the user trials. India’s DPP, Para 13, doesn’t allow requirements that “prejudice the technical choices by being narrow and tailor made.” The TEC’s approval escaped that trap, but Para 70a allows only one remaining vendor after trials. Atlas says this was the Navy’s intent all along.

The inquiry suspends India’s planned buy of Black Shark heavyweight torpedoes from Finmeccanica subsidiary Whitehead Alenia Sistemi Subacquel (WASS), until this can be sorted out. Atlas Elektronik Gmbh was offering their DM2A4 Seahake. Both torpedoes feature advanced seeker heads, and can be controlled by a trailing fiber optic cable. Defense World | Economic Times of India | Subsequent Business Standard coverage.

Jan 18/11: Industrial. India’s Economic Times sums up the latest revisions to India’s Defence Procurement Policy, amid hopes that the stranglehold of state-run firms on major Indian defense contracts might be loosened:

“…(DPP) 2011 has made it clear that the state-owned companies will get preference while awarding major defence contracts. Private sector will get certain concessions, but the situation has not gone down well with the players… According to DPP 2011, foreign defence vendors can now discharge their offset obligations in the civil aviation, internal security and training sectors, compared to the earlier mandate of discharging the same in the defence industrial sector only… The minister also brushed away concerns that the new policy guidelines related to the capital intensive shipbuilding industry favoured the defence PSUs, in spite of the demonstrated ability of private sector companies, such as Larsen and Toubro (L&T) and Pipavav Shipyard in recent years… L&T, which has invested millions on its state-of-the-art shipbuilding facility at Hazira, was promised a critical role in developing and manufacturing India’s second submarine line, Project 75I, along with the state-owned PSU Mazagon Dock, but was later sidelined… The new policy – which has divided procurement into two different sections – mandates that the DPSU shipyards will be given contracts on a nominated (non-competitive) basis, while the private shipyards will have to participate through a competitive bidding process. Further, it remains the government’s call to decide which contract should be open to competitive bids in the first place, raising questions of whether the government is queering the pitch further.”

December 2010: Torpedoes, etc. WASS (Whitehead Alenia Sistemi Subacquei) has launched its first subsidiary in India: Win Blue Water Services (WBWS)/ It will focus on naval equipment, market research and analysis, supporting offset and supply chain management, and creating a service hub for the Middle East and Asia.

WASS has operated in India since 1975. Their A244/S light torpedo recently received an Indian contract to upgrade their stocks to Mod 3, and their Bharat Dynamics Ltd (BDL) partnership is producing the C303 anti-torpedo countermeasures system, which is already 50% indigenized. The firm sees opportunities in artificial underwater targets, underwater surveillance systems for strategic areas and offshore energy production, etc. The more work it does, the more value it can count toward Indian requirements for industrial offsets, and the more it can compete with “indigenous” products for the Indian Navy. WBWS is planning to start joint ventures for its different domains, and is in the process of discussions with Indian companies including Larsen & Toubro. India Strategic.

Dec 2/10: Delays. The headline reads “After delays, Scorpene submarine now on track: Navy chief.” Unfortunately, the IANS article doesn’t offer many specifics to support that contention, so it’s hard to evaluate.

Nov 30/10: P75i. India’s PTI reports that Russia’s Rosoboronexport will offer the latest Amur-1650 class submarines to India for Project 75i, the follow-on tender for 6 new submarines that will either extend or complement the current Scorpene contract.

The Amur is known as the Lada class in Russia, and renaming it the “Amur” for export is probably a good idea, in case anyone still remembers those infamous Lada automobiles. The new class was developed by the Rubin Central Design Bureau of Naval Technology as an improvement to the Project 636 Advanced Kilo-class diesel-electric fast attack submarines, and is said to be even quieter. The 1,765t Amur 1650 variant is larger than the Amur 950 model, and has an option for air independent propulsion. It lacks the 950′s 10 vertical launch tubes, relying instead on 6 reloadable torpedo tubes.

Sept 29/10: Industrial. An Asia Times article, “Leaks in India’s submarine strategy,” says that the submarine construction program has changed:

“India is in the process of getting six Scorpene subs… to be built at the Mazagon facility in Mumbai… but this procurement is experiencing a slowdown. Mazagon Docks in Mumbai will construct three of the six, Hindustan Shipyard Ltd in Visakhapatnam will construct one, and the other two may be procured from foreign sources or built by another private shipyard in India.

“The delivery of the first of the French Scorpenes, which was supposed to enter service in December 2012, has been delayed. Antony addressed this situation in parliament only a few weeks back. This will clearly impact upon India’s undersea force levels,” said [Observer Research Foundation senior fellow Dr. Rajeswar] Rajagopalan. “India has about 35 private shipyards, of which L&T [Larsen & Toubro Ltd] and Pipavav are believed to be competing to build the two submarines, of the six planned.”

The report adds that shrinkage of India’s operational submarine fleet may even force 2 submarines to DCNS shipyards, so they can be delivered and become operational in time. As of March 2012, however, India has done none of these things – just added more overhead and reports, and pushed delivery back.

April 26/10: Delays. Sify News quotes a Parliamentary response by defence minister Antony regarding the Scorpenes:

“A programme of construction of six Scorpene submarines is currently underway at Mazagon Docks Limited (MDL) under transfer of technology from a French company. As per the contract, the first submarine was scheduled to be delivered in December 2012 and thereafter one each every year till December 2017… There has been a delay due to initial teething problems, absorption of technology and augmentation of MDL purchased material. The first submarine is now expected to be delivered in the second half of 2015… The delay in scheduled delivery of submarines is likely to have an impact on the envisaged [submarine] force level… However, the gap in submarine capacity has been addressed by modernisation with the state-of-the-art weapon and sensor fit on the existing submarines…”

See: Sify News | Indian MoD – less detailed.

March 30/10: WIL partnership. An Indian PR Wire release by Walchandnagar Industries quotes DCNS Chairman Patrick Boissier, who was speaking after the unveiling of the “Vinod Doshi Technology Center”:

“Said that the company which was Europe’s leading company in , ship building , off shore patrol vessels and Submarine manufacturing and valued at Euros 2.5 billion had signed an MOU with WIL last year manufacturing of critical technical parts for Scorpene” submarines for the Indian Navy… Walchandnagar Industries was identified for the project after we scouted for strategic partners and we were convinced that they would provide us the with High level technology for critical manufacturing components, he added “Talking about our future plans is premature, but it is possible in the long term to work with Walchandnagar Industry for world markets after our project in India is completed as we have a 30 % market share in Submarine manufacturing.”

While the release adds a piece to the industrial puzzle, careful reading of Mr. Boissier’s statement shows no commitment made.

Dec 2/09: Delays. The Indian government confirms earlier reports, via a written reply to a Parliamentary question:

“As per contract signed with Mazagaon Docks Limited (MDL), first Scorpene submarine is scheduled to be delivered in December 2012 and thereafter, one each every year till December 2017. On account of some teething problems, time taken in absorption of technology and delays in augmentation of industrial infrastructure and procurement of MDL purchased materials (MPM), slippage in the delivery schedule is expected. Delay in scheduled delivery of submarines is likely to have an impact on the envisaged submarine force levels [for the Navy as a whole]. Loss on account of the delayed delivery is difficult to quantify at this stage.

This information was given by Defence Minister Shri AK Antony in a written reply to Shri Prabhat Jha and Shri Prakash Javadekar in Rajya Sabha today.”

Aug 29/09: Costs. The Times of India reports that the Defence Acquisitions Council has decided to approach the Cabinet Committee on Security to approve a EUR 300 million (about Rs 2,000 crore) cost spike for the French ‘MDL procured material (MPM) packages,’ from a EUR 400 in 2005 to EUR 700 million now. The MPM packages go inside the hulls being produced by Magazon Docks Ltd., and reportedly include virtually all major systems connected with sensors, propulsion, and other systems.

Contracts signed to date include the October 2005 Rs 6,315 crore contract with DCNS’ predecessor for transfer of technology, combat systems and construction design; the October 2005 Rs 1,062 crore contract with MBDA for sea-skimming Exocet missiles and related systems; a Rs 5,888 crore contract with MDL for local submarine construction; Rs 3,553 crore set aside for taxes; and Rs 2,160 crore for other project requirements. Total: Rs 18,798 crore. India Comptroller and Auditor General reports that the government’s 9-year delay in finalizing the deal has probably raised the project’s cost by 2,838 crore, or about 15% of the project’s total cost before this price rise.

Jan 13/09: Sub-standard force. A CNN-IBN TV program highlights the case of the Kilo Class submarine INS Sindhukirti, whose repair schedule reportedly ran for 10 years, and which “has been in dry dock at Vizag for a refit programme for close to five years now.”

A confidential Indian CAG report is said to have found that only 7 of India’s 16 submarines are available for combat at any time. That’s not an unusual percentage for a submarine force, but if 10 of the 16 are due for phase-out by 2012, the impact on force levels is obvious. To maintain current numbers, one submarine would need to be inducted every 2 years, but there have been no additions since 2001. Source.

May 28/08: Delays. The Hindustan Times reports India’s navy may not be able to induct the first Scorpene submarine by the 2012 deadline, as the French have yet to part with crucial details including design and drawing documentation. “A senior navy official confirmed to HT on Tuesday that the project had been delayed by a year.”

The Scorpene project is not the only Indian naval project with delivery issues, and these situatons have begun to create combat power issues for India’s navy. The article states that by 2015, India’s fleet will have shrunk from 16 submarines to 10 Kilo Class plus the Scorpenes. See also subsequent Financial Express report.

March 22/06: Costs. India’s MoD responds to Scorpene-related financial and security breach allegations:

“No contract or contracts were signed with French firms for Rs. 16,000 crore for the Scorpene project. The total cost of the two contracts signed with the two French firms, M/s ARMARIS and MBDA, for the project is Rs. 7,197 crores.

The Government did not pay an extra amount of Rs. 4,500 crore than what was negotiated earlier. On the contrary, after the present Government came to power, it re-examined the project even though all negotiations had been completed in 2002 and the Ministry of Finance had accorded approval to the project in 2003. The present Government held negotiations and was able to achieve a reduction of Rs. 313 crore in the contracts with the two French firms from the negotiated position in 2002… As a result of the negotiations, the Government was also able to achieve several long-term concessions. These included the revision of the escalation formulae to the advantage of the Indian side by adjusting the fixed element in the ARMARIS contract and placing a cap on escalation in the MBDA contract. A cap was also placed on the Exchange Rate Variation (ERV) for calculation of profit for the Public Sector Undertaking, Mazagon Docks Limited (MDL).

Besides the contract with the two French firms, the only other contract that was signed was with the Defence Public Sector undertaking, Mazagon Docks Limited (MDL), for Rs. 5,888 crores for the indigenous construction of the submarines. Therefore, even taking into account the value of contract signed with MDL, the total value of all contracts signed for the Scorpene project is Rs. 13,085 crores out of the sanction accorded for Rs. 18,798 crores towards the project. Out of the balance amount of Rs. 5,713 crores, Rs. 3,553 crores is for payments towards taxes and Rs. 2,160 crores towards other items to be acquired during the project period for which only preliminary steps have been taken. No contract or contracts have been signed for the items under this head. A Technical Agreement was also signed between India and France to ensure the continued support of the French Government to the “project.

The Integrity Pacts signed to ensure transparency of the project, contain, severe penalties in case of breach of any of its provisions. The safeguards include cancellation of the contract, recovery of all advances with interest at a rate of 2% higher than the European Inter Bank Offered Rate or EURIBOR, non-payment by the buyer of any dues on any other contract to make such recoveries, imposition of Liquidated Damages and the recovery of all sums paid to any middleman or agent… The French company that has been accused of committing to pay commission to the alleged middleman has denied all the allegations and has stated that all the e-mails published in the articles in a journal that carried this story are fake and fabricated… The French company has since been reported to have filed a case in the Delhi High Court on 24th February 2006 against the journal which first made the allegations.

…Some press reports also sought to establish a link between the Scorpene project and the breach of security that had occurred in the Directorate of Naval Operations in the Naval Head Quarters… However, the leaked information did not pertain to the Scorpene project.”

March 1/06: AIP? “India Looks to Modify Scorpene Subs With MESMA AIP Propulsion.” Submarines 4-6 will include the MESMA system, according to reports. Those reports are contradicted by later reports, which make it clear that no AIP submarines are contracted yet.

The article also includes information about competing AIP systems.

Appendix A: India’s Current Submarine Force, and Rival Navies

Chinese SSK Project 636
(click to view full)

India’s two most prominent competitors are Pakistan and China.

Pakistan currently owns 5 submarines. Their 4 French Daphne submarines (Hangor Class) were retired in 2006. A pair of French Agosta 70 submarines (Hashmat Class) acquired from the French Navy were modified to fire Harpoon anti-ship missiles in 1985, but they won’t last much longer. Three updated Agosta 90Bs (Khalid Class) are also in service, commissioned in 1999, 2003, and 2008, respectively. PNS Hamza has a MESMA Air-Independent Propulsion system that lets the submarine stay underwater for much longer periods of time, and the other two Agosta 90B boats are getting MESMA retrofits. On balance, this will make them slightly more advanced than India’s new Scorpenes.

Pakistan had an opportunity to add to its diesel-electric fleet, but they’re reportedly pursuing nuclear submarine technology, while shelving a plan to more than double their advanced SSK fleet. On balance, that’s good news for India.

As of 2008, China owned about 66 submarines; 18 of them were Type 035/33s, which are Chinese derivatives of the 1960s-era Romeo Class. The Romeos were based on 1944 U-Boat designs, and even the 17 Type 35s aren’t expected to last much longer, or retain much of a role beyond training. If one leaves out all SSBN/SSGN nuclear missile submarines, all 5 of China’s problem-plagued Type 091 Han Class SSN nuclear powered attack subs, and all of the Romeo derivatives, China’s attack sub force alone still stood at 36 boats in 2008: 4 Type 093 Shang Class SSNs, 12 Kilo (Project 636) & Advanced Kilo Class (Project 877) SSKs, 13 Type 039 Song Class SSKs, and 7 Type 041 Yuan Class improvements of the diesel-electric Song Class.

China continues to build Shang Class SSNs and Yuan Class SSKs, which means that overall fast attack fleet numbers can be expected to grow.

As noted above, India currently operates 16 submarines, but only 12-14 can be said to be in service, and the fleet could face a noticeable decline beginning in 2015 or so:

Shishumar Class: 4 German Type 209 SSK submarines, built locally and delivered between 1984 – 1994. The vessels are expected to reach their end of service life between 2016-2024. The United News of India (UNI) reported on Sept 6/04 that Siemens of Germany has offered the Indian Navy an upgrade for the Shishumar Class submarines, which will involve the installation of their Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) system. As of 2012, India hasn’t done anything about it.

Sindhugosh Class: 10 Russian Kilo Class/ Project 877 SSKs, built (1986-1991, 1997, 2000) under a contract between Rosvooruzhenie and the Indian Defense Ministry. They’re very quiet submarines, but there are reports that the Indian Navy considers them underpowered. Most of these subs have received mid-life refits in Russia, but the quality of those refits has been a subject of dispute. Key components of these mid-life refits and upgrades have include tube-launched Klub-S cruise missiles, plus a hydro-acoustic “USHUS” complex, a CCS-MK radio-communication system, and Porpoise Electronic Support Measures to locate radar emissions. A couple of these submarines are still undergoing work in India.

Scorpene Class: 0 built or in service. Earliest expected in-service date is now 2015 for the 1st boat, and that date could slip again. The entire fleet of 6 may not be operational until after 2020.

INS Chakra: 1 Improved Akula Class nuclear-powered fast attack submarine, owned under a 10-year lease from Russia. Its primary purpose is to train nuclear submarine crews for the Arihant Class, but INS Chakra is fully capable, and could be pressed into operational service. The former K-152 Nerpa was handed over in January 2012, but as of January 2013, the boat had issues with readiness.

Arihant Class SSBN. 1 boat in trials, with 3 others under construction. Designed and built in India, this nuclear-powered submarine has a limited ability to launch nuclear-armed ballistic missiles. Arihant was launched in July 2009, and conducted her 1st K-15 missile firing in March 2012, but hasn’t been commissioned yet. The Indian Navy hopes to do so in 2013. See “India’s Nuclear Submarine Projects” for further details.

Additional Readings & Sources

Submarines and Platforms

• Naval-Technology.com – Scorpene Class SSK

• Deagel.com – Scorpene Basic, or CM-2000 | Scorpene-AIP , or AM-2000 | Scorpene Compact-AIP

• Rediff.com (Sept. 12/05) – What is the Scorpene?

• GlobalSecurity.org – Project 75/Scorpene

• Bharat-Rakshak – Shishumar {Type 209} Class

• Bharat-Rakshak – Sindhugosh {Kilo} Class

• Bharat-Rakshak – Foxtrot Class

• Wikipedia – Exocet missile

• DID FOCUS – India’s ATV SSN Submarine Project

• GlobalSecurity.org – Advanced Technology Vessel (ATV)

• DCN – MESMA AIP

• Undersea Warfare Magazine (Fall 2001) – Air Independent Propulsion:
  

• Navy League of the United States, Seapower Magazine (December 1999) – The AIP Alternative

Additional Readings: News and Events

• Rediff News – Scorpene project archive

• India Strategic (June 2012) – Indian Navy to select Wake Homing Torpedo

• India Strategic (May 2011) – Indian Navy’s second Submarine Line will witness strong competition. Discusses the decline of India’s subamrine force, and Project 75i.

• Asia Times (Sept 29/10) – Leaks in India’s submarine strategy

• BBC (Oct 23/09) – Crucial Indian defence deals delayed. These include the Navy’s submarine and aircraft carrier projects, advanced trainers for the air force, and coastal surveillance plans. “For its part, the government has been slow in responding to criticism – even from its auditing organisation. When it comes to defence issues in India, speed does not seem to be of paramount importance.”

• CNN-IBN (Jan 13/09) – Are We Battle Ready: Submarine repair that takes forever. Describes an overhaul of INS Sindhukirti, one of the Navy’s Kilo Class subs. It has been drydocked for 5 years, and the reapirs at Hindustan shipyards, which has no experience in this area, are expected to take a total of 10 years instead of the 1-2 years that would be expected elsewhere.

• IBN Live (Oct 25/08) – Indian Navy’s submarine fleet in poor health: CAG. “The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG)… states that no more than 48 per cent of India’s submarine fleet is available for waging war, should India be attacked… “The Indian Navy currently hold just 67 per cent of the force level envisaged in its 1985 plan,” the report says.”

• India Defence (Oct 19/08) – Indian Navy Project-75A: RFIs Issued for Six Advanced Submarines; Rosoboronexport, Armaris, HDW in the Fray. These would be a follow-on to the original Scorpene purchase. AIPs and land-atack capability are both requirements.

• Rediff News/PTI (Oct 7/05) – India signs Scorpene submarine deal

• The Indian Express (Oct 7/05) – Scorpene Deal Inked in Delhi

• Times of India (Sept 13/05) – Scorpene Ahoy! Also contains a paragraph concerning India’s intention of building a nuclear submarine.

• DCN Release re: India (Sept 13/05) – New Success for Scorpene

• Rediff.com (Sept 12/05) – India to Buy 6 Scorpene Submarines

• Times of India (Sept 12/05) – Scorpene: India’s Latest Weapon

• Thales Release (Sept 12/05) – Success for Thales in India on Scorpene Submarine Programme

• DCN Release re: Chilean Navy (Sept 12/05) – DCN Delivers First New-Generation Submarine to Chilean Navy

• The Tribune of Chandrigarh (Aug 11/05) – Admiral Arun Prakash: Scorpene Deal Awaits Cabinet Nod. Good set of additional naval updates in this article. Note that the Scorpene deal discussed here of 2 buy, 4 build is different than the deal being reported now.

• DID (Dec 14/04) – India Close to Deal on Scorpene Sub Technology. Maybe depending on what the meaning of “close” is…

Additional Readings: Rival Navies

• Naval-Technology.com – Agosta 90B SSK

• Official Pakistani Navy Site – Submarines (Hashmat Class, ex French Agosta 70)

• GlobalSecurity.org – Hangor Class (Fr. Daphne)

• Pakistani Post Office – A History of Submarine Construction in Pakistan

• GlobalSecurity.org – China/ Ships

In August 2005, “Team Warrior” leader General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. in San Diego, CA won a $214.4 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract for research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E) of the Extended Range/ Multi Purpose Unmanned Aerial Vehicle System (ER/MP UAS). That was just the first step along the US Army’s $5 billion road to fielding a true Medium Altitude, Long Endurance, armed UAV, modified from the USAF’s famous MQ-1 Predator.

The ER/MP program was part of the US Army’s reinvestment of dollars from the canceled RAH-66 Comanche helicopter program, and directly supports the Army’s Aviation Modernization Plan. Its position got a boost when a 2007 program restructuring cut the Future Combat Systems Class III UAV competition, in favor of ER/MP. Next, the US Air Force saw this Predator derivative as a threat and tried to destroy it, but the program survived the first big “Key West” battle of the 21st century. Now the MQ-1C “Gray Eagle” is moving into full production, as the US Army’s high-end UAV. This FOCUS article offers a program history, key statistics and budget figures, and ongoing coverage of the program’s contracts and milestones.

The MQ-1C Gray Eagle, and its Band of Brothers

Predator landing -
1 Hellfire fired?
(click to view full)

The Army wanted its ER/MP UAV to fill both surveillance and attack roles. General Atomics’ Sky Warrior, derived from their famous MQ-1 Predator, beat the Hunter II system offered by Northrop Grumman, Aurora Flight Systems, and IAI. With General Atomics Predators, Sky Warriors, and MQ-9 Reaper UAVs all headed for the skies above the conflict zone, our readers have asked us to help them tell the difference.

The MQ-1 Predator is 27 feet long, with a 55 foot wingspan. Its maximum gross takeoff weight is 2,300 pounds, and it can carry 625 pounds of fuel, 450 pounds of internal payload (sensors), and another 300 pounds on its wings for up to 2 AGM-114 Hellfire anti-armor missiles or equivalent loads. Its service ceiling is 25,000 feet, which can keep it well above the 10,000-15,000 ft ceiling above which most guns are ineffective. The piston engine is a Rotax 914 turbo that runs on aviation fuel, and pushes the Predator at a slow speed of 120 KTAS. It’s controlled by UHF/VHF radio signals, and is designed to be flown by a pilot – without automated takeoff and landing.

The USAF also had an MQ-1B Block X/ YMQ-1C project underway, to develop a Predator system that would run on heavy fuel and carry up to 4 Hellfires. That project, and questions of cross-service compatibility, died when the USAF stopped buying MQ-1 Predators, and shifted its focus to the larger MQ-9 Reaper instead.

MQ-9 w. Paveways
(click to view larger)

The MQ-9 Reaper, once called “Predator B,” is somewhat similar to the Predator. Until you look at the tail. Or its size. Or its weapons. It’s called “Reaper” for a reason – while it packs the same surveillance gear, it is much more of a hunter-killer design than its counterparts. The Reaper is 36 feet long, with a 66 foot wingspan. Its maximum gross takeoff weight is a whopping 10,500 pounds, carrying up to 4,000 pounds of fuel, 850 pounds of internal/ sensor payload, and another 3,000 pounds on its wings. The MQ-9 has 6 pylons, which can carry GPS-guided JDAM family bombs and other MIL STD 1760 compatible weapons, Paveway laser-guided bombs, Sidewinder missiles for air-air self defense, and AIM-114P Hellfire missiles or laser-guided Hydra rockets. With that arsenal the Reaper becomes the equivalent of a close air support fighter with less situational awareness, less speed and less survivability if seen – but much, much longer on-station time.

MQ-1 vs. MQ-9
(click to view full)

The Reaper’s service ceiling is 50,000 feet unless it’s fully loaded, which can make a lurking MQ-9 very difficult to find from the ground. That wouldn’t have been as useful to the other aircraft due to the Hellfire missile’s short range, but the ability to drop GPS and laser-guided bombs makes precision combat strikes from 50,000 feet perfectly plausible. The engine is a Honeywell TPE 331-10T, which pushes it along at a rather speedier clip of 240 KTAS. Not exactly an F-16, or even an A-10, but the extra speed does get it to the problem area more quickly when a call comes in from the troops.

Several MQ-9 variants exist. US Special Operations Command (SOCOM) also flies the MQ-9 Reaper, and has its own MQ-1 Predator program, too. Both UAVs are referred to as Medium Altitude Long Endurance Tactical (MALET) platforms. If SOCOM has to bring the MALET to hammer a target down, or soften it up, they fly in enhanced variants with improved video transmission, infrared modifications, signals intelligence payloads, and “delivery of low collateral damage weapons.” The latter presumably includes precision mini-missile options like Raytheon’s Griffin, and precision glide bombs like Northrop Grumman’s GBU-44 Viper Strike and Lockheed Martin’s Scorpion, all of which allow a single Hellfire rail or weapon station to carry multiple weapons.

General Atomics’ Mariner maritime surveillance UAV and FAA-certified high-altitude Altair research UAV are both derived from the MQ-9 Reaper. So, too, is NASA’s Ikhana.

The Army’s MQ-1C Gray Eagle

The MQ-1C Sky Warrior/ Gray Eagle looks a lot like the Predator, but it’s a little bit bigger, can carry more weapons, and has a Thielert Centurion 135hp engine that can run on the same “heavy fuel” that fills up the Army’s land vehicles. Maximum operating altitude is 29,000 feet, at a speed of up to 135 knots. The sensor turret payload was initially Raytheon’s AN/DAS-2, but has shifted to the final “Army Common Sensor Payload” AN/AAS-53 variant. The Army also added a communications relay, and has been working to give the UAV “sense and avoid” capabilities, in order to operate safely in crowded airspace.

There is some confusion over the exact name, with at least one notable Army spokespeople spelling it out as “Grey Eagle,” and other Army sources and General Atomics using “Gray Eagle.” DID will be using “Gray Eagle” throughout.

Sensors and Add-Ons

ZPY-1 STARLite
click for video

Beyond its standard equipment, the US Army is also developing and qualifying new payloads for the MQ-1C fleet, thanks to efforts by Product Manager RUS (Robotic and Unmanned Sensors) and PM-ARES (Airborne Reconnaissance and Exploitation Systems).

AN/AAS-53 CSP+. Raytheon’s base Common Sensor Payload (CSP) is being upgraded, and CSP High Definition (HD) is planned for production cut-in in FY 2013. It adds high-definition Full Motion Video (FMV) in both the Electro-optical and Mid-wave IR spectrums. A retrofit plan will begin in FY 2014 to convert all MQ-1Cs to CSP HD. The Army sees CSP Target Location Accuracy (TLA) as the final upgrade, upgrading targeting accuracy to allow timely use of GPs-guided bombs and missiles. All Gray Eagles will eventually be equipped with CSP TLA.

AN/ZPY-1 STARLite-ER. Northrop Grumman’s Small Tactical Radar – Lightweight (STARLite) Synthetic Aperture Radar/ Ground Moving Target Indicator (SAR/GMTI) is a lightweight, high performance, all weather radar that can track small moving ground targets, down to small car size, even in bad weather. It cross-cues with the UAV’s cameras, and enhancements have been approved to extend its range, and detect man-sized targets. STARLite ER (Extended Range) has been cut into production since FY 2011, and will begin fielding and retrofitting in FY 2012. The Army plans to buy 1 STARLite ER system per UAV.

Sense and Avoid. Ground Based Sense and Avoid (GBSAA) is a system designed to be aware of other aircraft, especially in civil airspace, and help avoid collisions with the MQ-1C. The Phase 2, Block 0 system will provide the operator with an air traffic display, color-coded to reflect the highest-priority potential conflicts. The Block 1 system will add recommended maneuvers to avoid crashing into others. That isn’t the full sense-and-avoid you’d see on a commercial jet, but by 2015 it will let the Army fly the UAVs from Fort Hood, TX; Fort Riley, KS; Fort Stewart, GA; Fort Campbell, KY; and Fort Bragg, NC, through Class D military airspace, to nearby test ranges without a manned chase plane. As the acronym suggests, making this work requires certain equipment in place on the ground at those locations.

Traveler Pod. BAE’s pods are designed to find and eavesdrop on electronic emitters, identify them (enemy radio communications? radar? etc.), then offer aerial precision geolocation (APG) and copying. SIGINT/ELINT pods and equipment can already be installed in larger UAVs like the USAF’s RQ-4 Global Hawks, and aboard light surveillance planes like the Beechcraft King Air MC-12Ws. The challenge is to shrink them and their supporting systems within the MQ-1C’s weight and size limits.

NERO pod. Provides electronic jamming that can prevent remote detonation of land mines, giving the UAV a very useful convoy overwatch role. It can also disrupt enemy communications. Raytheon’s NERO is adapted from the CAESAR pod that equips manned C-12 (Beechcraft King Air) turboprops. Initial deliveries took place in 2013.

The Army’s ER/MP Program

Prep for flight
(click to view full)

A few years after the ER/MP program began, General Atomics-ASI’s Steve May was already saying that “The Army is now as large a customer for us as the Air Force.” At the time, the firm saw a potential market for as many as 540 “Sky Warrior” UAVs – 45 sets of 12 UAVs each for each brigade, plus accompanying ground stations and crews. The production program grew five-fold, but it hasn’t approached that level.

The Systems Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase of GA-ASI’s multi-year ER/MP contract called for 17 MQ-1C UAVs, and 7 One System Ground Control Stations (OSGCS). Those pre-production Block 0 and Block 1 Gray Eagles have begun flying on the front lines, in Quick Reaction Component (QRC-1, 1R, and 2) deployments which began in December 2009, and continue to the present day. As noted above, QRC drones are unarmed, and lack other key capabilities. Even so, the Army has been very enthusiastic about their performance.

In 2010, the Army officially changed the planned number of MQ-1C Gray Eagle Block I+ production systems from 13 company-sized units of 12 aircraft, to 31 independent “UAS Platoons” with 4 UAVs each, plus the MQ-1C’s Standard Equipment Package (SEP), and Ground Equipment. The main production program will also buy 21 UAVs to replace those lost, and 7 training UAVs, for a total of 152.

Excel
download

As the MQ-1C transitioned into production, Pentagon documents began breaking the program out from its USAF counterparts. The total program, including both the initial development contract and follow-on production, looks like it will be worth almost $5 billion. Budgets from 2004-2017 include:

There’s also a manpower equation for the Army, which affects ongoing operating costs. Those aren’t found in these budgets, but they make up well over half of a program’s actual lifetime cost. Fully automated take-off and landing (ATLS) systems are becoming more common among UAVs, and the MQ-1C’s ATLS an important difference from the USAF’s MQ-1 Predators, which have all flight operations handled by pilots. While the initial batch of Gray Eagle UAVs will be flown by Army aviators, the Army plans to assign future MQ-1Cs to non-pilot warrant officers with UAV training. That’s a less expensive proposition, in terms of both salary and training costs. It’s also less expensive in terms of lost UAVs, as ATLS seems to lead to fewer crashes.

Key MQ-1C industrial partners include:

ER/MP UAS – Enter the Warrior: Contracts & Key Events

MQ-1C, Afghanistan
(click to view full)

May 14/14: NERO EW pod. Raytheon announces that they’ve delivered the first 2 Networked Electronic Warfare, Remotely Operated (NERO) pods, as part of a contract awarded by US NAVSEA-Crane in 2012 for use on the US Army’s MQ-1C Gray Eagle.

NERO is an airborne electronic attack system capable of jamming enemy communications systems, including remote detonators for land mines. It’s derived from the Army’s Communications Electronic Attack with Surveillance and Reconnaissance (CEASAR) program, which is mounted on MC-12W King Air manned turboprops. Moving to the Gray Eagle doubles or triples flight time, at a similar or lower operating cost. Raytheon.

May 7/13: Support. GA-ASI in Poway, CA receives a $110.3 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract modification for MQ-1C support and fleet sustainment, driving the contract’s total cumulative face value to $354.7 million.

Work will be performed in Afghanistan, using FY 2013 Operations and Maintenance funds, and other Procurement fund. The US Army Contracting Command in Redstone Arsenal, AL manages the contract (W58RGZ-12-C-0075, PO 0032).

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. For the Gray Eagle, the budget requests $627.1 million, of which just $10.9 million is RDT&E. That’s a cut of about $151.8 million from previous plans, and when combined with 2015 plans it cuts the program by $337.8 million. They’re still ordering the same number of UAVs, though.

The FY 2014 request covers continued development of the Universal Ground Control Station, a Ground Based Sense-and-Avoid system for flights at several US based locations (vid Aug 10/12 entry), 15 UAVs, 8 AN/ZPY-1 STARLite ER radars, 8 AN/AAS-53 Common Sensor Payload surveillance & targeting turrets, 16 Tactical SIGINT (TSP for signals interceptions) payloads, and 3 modular platoon sets of equipment.

April 2/13: What now? Defense News aptly summarizes the key question facing the USA’s large drones:

“On the one hand, the work in Mali shows that the signature weapon of the U.S. war in Afghanistan is outlasting that conflict. On the other, the detachment is a tiny fraction of the Predator/Reaper fleet – and just where are the rest of them going to go?”

With flights below 60,000 feet heavily restricted within the USA, there aren’t that many options stateside, and most of the MQ-9 fleet’s $8,000 per flight hour operations are funded by wartime OCO appropriations. AFRICOM may have the best combination of circumstances abroad, thanks to growing trouble in the Gulf of Guinea to the West, as well as the Indian Oceantp the East. Even a massive increase in surveillance can’t absorb all of the UAVs, and the $6,000 per flight hour manned MC-12s are a natural competitor.

Gray Eagle in Iraq
(click to view full)

Unless otherwise specified, the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command in Redstone Arsenal, AL issues the contracts to General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. (GA-ASI) in Poway, CA.

Oct 2/12: Support. A $102.6 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract for services to support the Gray Eagle UAS.

Work will be performed in Poway, CA, with an estimated completion date of May 7/13. One bid was solicited, with one bid received (W58RGZ-12-C-0075).

Oct 2/12: Engine retrofits. A $10.7 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract modification to retrofit MQ-1C Block 0 UAVs with an alternate heavy fuel engine.

Work will be performed in Poway, CA with an estimated completion date of Sept 26/13. One bid was solicited, with one bid received (W58RGZ-12-C-0001).

Aug 27/12: A $25.9 million fixed-price-incentive contract modification will add “a platoon set of ground equipment.” Note that for these UAVs, a “platoon” is 12 MQ-1Cs.

Work will be performed in Poway, CA with an estimated completion date of June 30/15. One bid was solicited, with one bid received (W58RGZ-12-C-0057).

Aug 27/12: An $11 million fixed-price-incentive contract modification, to buy more universal ground data terminals. Work will be performed in Poway, CA with an estimated completion date of April 30/14. One bid was solicited, with one bid received (W58RGZ-11-C-0099).

Aug 10/12: Civil airspace. The U.S. Army has validated the design and functionality of a Phase 2 ground-based sense and avoid (GBSAA, see above) radar system that will support training flights of MQ-1C Gray Eagle UAVs in unrestricted airspace, beginning in 2014.

The baseline GBSAA system was demonstrated in June 2012 at Dugway Proving Ground’s unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) testbed, and the Army’s UAS Rapid Integration and Acceptance Center. The 2-week demonstration covered several “vignettes” involving live RQ-7 Shadow and RQ-5 Hunter UAVs as well as simulated UAVs and intruder aircraft. The testing also replicated the airspace over other military installations and used live and recorded air traffic data from Salt Lake City, UT and Boston’s Logan airports. AIN Online.

July 18/12: A $19 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract modification for MQ-1C contractor logistics support. Work will be performed in Poway, CA with an estimated completion date of July 15/13. One bid was solicited, with 1 bid received (W58RGZ-11-C-0001).

July 11/12: A $411 million fixed-price-incentive contract for Gray Eagle systems, initial spares, and additional hardware. Work will be performed in Poway, CA with an estimated completion date of March 31/15. The bid was solicited through the Internet, with one bid received (W58RGZ-12-C-0057).

Looks like they got that authorization to continue Low-Rate initial Production.

June 27/12: Reliability & report. The US Army has some good news, and some bad news.

The bad news is that Gray Eagles are flying at about 80% availability rates after 24,000 combat flight hours, instead of their target 90%. The problems are mostly traceable to software issues that arise when new sensors are added.

The good news? The program is under budget. The UAVs have added weapons, ground-looking radars, and communication relays to their payload. The Army likes them a lot, and thinks they’re making a big difference, so they’ve decided to focus on expanding Gray Eagle capabilities for now, rather than trying to reach 90% availability rates. Right now, there are a pair of platoon-size 4-UAV QRC units in Afghanistan, and the “Fox 227″ full-size company of 12.

May 29/12: IOT&E funds. An $8.5 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract modification supplies incremental funding to support MQ-1C operational test and evaluation. The program’s IOT&E was moved back from October 2011, and is now expected in August 2012.

Work will be performed in Poway, CA, with an estimated completion date of Nov 30/12. One bid was solicited, with one bid received (W58RGZ-05-C-0069).

May 10/12: A $141.8 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract, for services in support of the MQ-1C Gray Eagle. Work will be performed in Poway, CA, with an estimated completion date of May 7/13. One bid was solicited, with 1 bid received (W58RGZ-12-C-0075).

April 4/12: Plans. The US Army discusses its plans for the MQ-1C, which includes the addition of a new Synthetic Aperture Radar with Ground Moving Target Indicator, and the development of a Universal Ground Control Station, or UGS that can show video feeds from Gray Eagle, Shadow and Hunter UAS on a single system.

A full company of 12 Gray Eagle UAS have now deployed as part of a full-spectrum Combat Aviation Brigade, and a Pentagon Defense Acquisition Board meeting is planned for mid-May 2012, to approve another Low Rate Initial Production buy. Initial Operational Test & Evaluation is scheduled for summer 2012.

March 30/12: GAO Report. The US GAO tables its “Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs” for 2012. With respect to the MQ-1C, it mentions that the Army will be modifying the UAV’s tail rudder and elevator, and the GAO is now satisfied with the automatic take-off and landing system’s technical maturity:

“However, the tactical common data link is still not fully mature… its air data relay capability has been deferred until fiscal year 2012. The March 2011 accident involving an MQ-1C in testing has delayed several key program events… The Army now plans to start [IOT&E] operational testing in August 2012 [instead of October 2011, and a]… full-rate production decision was postponed from August 2012 to March 2013. The Army has already awarded two low-rate production contracts in 2010 and 2011 for 55 aircraft. To avoid a break in production, the Army is planning to seek approval to award a third low-rate contract for 29 aircraft in May 2012. Based on the current program schedule, the Army will procure more than half of the total planned aircraft before the system’s operational effectiveness and suitability is fully tested…”

Jan 26/12: Preliminary FY 2013 budget materials discuss coming shifts in Pentagon priorities, as the defense department moves to make future cuts. The USAF will get fewer MQ-9 Reapers, but the Army’s MQ-1C is protected:

“Unmanned Air Systems – fund enough trained personnel, infrastructure, and platforms to sustain 65 USAF MQ-1/9 combat air patrols (CAPs) with a surge capacity of 85; the Predator aircraft was retained longer than previously planned, allowing us to slow the buy of the Reaper aircraft and gain some savings; we also protected funding for the Army’s unmanned air system, Gray Eagle.”

See: Pentagon release | “Defense Budget Priorities and Choices” [PDF]

Jan 17/12: A $30.3 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract modification to support the MQ-1C Gray Eagle Quick Reaction Capability drones in theater. Work will be performed in Poway, CA, with an estimated completion date of May 7/12. One bid was solicited, with one bid received (W58RGZ-09-C-0153).

Jan 5/12: SIGINT Pods. BAE Systems in Nashua, NH receives a $12.3 million firm-fixed-price and cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for T-Pod SIGINT Systems. on the MQ-1C Unmanned Aircraft System. A December 2011 expression of interest stated that the US Army was looking for up to 5 tested and calibrated Traveler Pods within 4 months for integration work on the MQ-1C, and within 6 months for deployment. The pods are designed to find and eavesdrop on electronic emitters, identify them (enemy radio communications? radar? etc.), then offer aerial precision geolocation (APG) and copying. Pods and equipment can already be installed in larger UAVs like the USAF’s RQ-4 Global Hawks, and aboard light surveillance planes like the Beechcraft King Air MC-12Ws. The challenge is to shrink them and their supporting systems so that it falls within the MQ-1C’s weight and size limits.

Work will be performed in Nashua, NH, with an estimated completion date of Dec 27/12. One bid was solicited, with 1 bid received by US Army Contracting Command at Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD (W15P7T-12-C-C009). See also FBO.gov.

Jan 5/12: A $20.5 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract modification to pay for operational test and evaluation. It does not specify further, but the contract is the MQ-1C’s.

Work will be performed in Poway, CA, with an estimated completion date of Nov 30/12. One bid was solicited, with one bid received (W58RGZ-05-C-0069).

Dec 30/11: A $12 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for Warrior A/Block 0 support services. These are the Quick Reaction Capability drones. Work will be performed in Poway, CA, until Dec 17/13. One bid was solicited, with one bid received (W58RGZ-12-C-0001).

Dec 23/11: An $18 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract. “The award will provide for the modification of an existing contract to allow for incremental funding of previous change order”; it does not specify further, but the contract is the MQ-1C’s. Work will be performed in Poway, CA; Hunt Valley, MD; Salt Lake City, UT; and Lake Forest, CA, with an estimated completion date of Dec 31/11. One bid was solicited, with 1 received (W58RGZ-05-C-0069).

Nov 10/11: A $15.2 million cost-plus-fixed-fee and cost-plus-incentive-fee contract modification, to support the MQ-1C QRC contingents. Work will be performed in Poway, CA, with an estimated completion date of Jan 7/12. One bid was solicited, with one bid received (W58RGZ-09-C-0153).

Nov 9/11: An AH-64D Apache Block III attack 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.”

Oct 17/11: A $30.3 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract modification for additional MQ-1C engineering services. Work will be performed in Poway, CA, with an estimated completion date of Aug 30/12. One bid was solicited, with 1 bid received (W58RGZ-09-C-0136).

Oct 7/11: WIRED Danger Room reports that a “keylogger” virus has infected the USAF’s MQ-1A/B Predator and MQ-9 Reaper fleets:

“The virus, first detected nearly two weeks ago by the military’s Host-Based Security System, has not prevented pilots at Creech Air Force Base in Nevada from flying their missions overseas. Nor have there been any confirmed incidents of classified information being lost or sent to an outside source. But the virus has resisted multiple efforts to remove it from Creech’s computers, network security specialists say… “We keep wiping it off, and it keeps coming back,” says a source familiar with the network infection, one of three that told Danger Room about the virus. “We think it’s benign. But we just don’t know.”

Unlike the USAF, the Army’s philosophy is to operate its MQ-1C Gray Eagles in-theater. The virus doesn’t compromise Army UAVs, therefore, but it may indicate a similar vulnerability point in the Army’s network.

Oct 5/11: An $8.8 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract will fund RESET efforts for the Warrior A/Warrior Block 0 Unmanned Aircraft Systems. RESET is a program for worn vehicles and aircraft, involving tear-down and comprehensive inspections, followed by replacement of any worn parts, and restoration to “like new” condition. The question is whether these initially-fielded “Quick Reaction Capability” UAVs will be upgraded to full operational MQ-1C Block 1 status, complete with weapons.

Work will be performed in Poway, CA, with an estimated completion date of June 30/13. One bid was solicited, with 1 bid received (W58RGZ-11-C-0001).

QRC-1 sunrise, Taji
(click to view full)

May 20/11: An $8.9 million cost-plus-fixed-fee, cost-plus-incentive-fee contract, that buys additional spare hardware under the MQ-1C Gray Eagle’s logistics support contract. Work will be performed in Poway, CA, with an estimated completion date of Jan 18/12. One bid was solicited, with 1 bid received (W58RGZ-09-C-0153).

April 25/11: An $8.3 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract, providing incremental funding to cover an extension of the ER/MP system development and design contract. Work will be performed in Poway, CA, with an estimated completion date of Dec 31/11. One bid was solicited with 1 bid received by U.S. Army AMCOM Contracting Center in Redstone Arsenal, AL (W58RGZ-05-C-0069).

April 12/11: +26. $173.5 million of a $354 million fixed-price-incentive-fee contract, for MQ-1C Gray Eagle low rate initial production. Queries to GA-ASI indicate that the contract covers 2 Gray Eagle systems: 26 UAVs (12 aircraft per system, plus 2 spares for losses), 15 of AAI’s OneSystem Ground Control Systems, L-3 Communications’ Satellite Communications equipment, and other peripheral equipment to support the systems.

GA-ASI says that part of this contract is for FY 2010 buys, and part is FY 2011. Work will be performed at Poway, CA, with an estimated completion date of April 30/14. One bid was solicited and one received (W58RGZ-11-C-0099).

March 7/11: A $64.3 million cost-plus-fixed-fee, cost-plus-incentive-fee contract modification for MQ-1C Gray Eagle product support, logistical support and sustainment operations.

Work will be performed in Poway, CA; Adelanto, CA; Palmdale, CA; Salt Lake City, UT; and Hunt Valley, MD, with an estimated completion date of Nov 7/11. One bid was solicited with one bid received (W58RGZ-09-C-0153).

March 2/11: +30. General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. in Poway, CA receives an announced $335.5 million fixed-price-incentive-fee contract for MQ-1C Gray Eagle systems. In-depth discussions with General Atomics place the order in its full context, which is somewhat complex.

In February 2010, General Atomics says the US Army placed a not-to-exceed $399 million contract, but did not appropriate any money. Their first step was the $195.5 million 49% funding contract in the May 19/10 entry. According to the firm, this award funds the remaining contract with another $115.1 million, to make a total of $310.6 million. This will include the LRIP Lot 1 order for 2 systems (24 UAVs + 2 attrition), plus the FY 2009 supplemental funding of 8 UAVs, and a sizable quantity of plus-up air, ground and communication equipment.

Work will be performed in Poway, CA, with an estimated completion date of Dec 31/12. One bid was solicited with one bid received (W56RGZ-10-C-0068).

Feb 14/11: Budget request. The Pentagon releases its FY 2012 budget request, which includes breakout information concerning the MQ-1C Gray Eagle program. The FY 2012 request is $805.8 million for 36 systems, which includes $137 million in RDT&E(Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation) funds.

Jan 18/11: Program ramp-up. A US Army release quotes Tim Owings, deputy project manager for Army Unmanned Aircraft Systems:

“We’re going to accelerate Gray Eagle yet again. We’re accelerating from two systems per year to three systems per year, which will result in seventeen systems being procured by FY 2014… Defense Acquisition Board in February of this year is expected to confirm the addition of two more Low Rate Initial Production Gray Eagle systems – each consisting of 12 air vehicles, five ground control stations and five additional attrition vehicles… The Army has already deployed two Gray Eagle “Quick Reaction Capabilities.” One QRC is now flying with Army Soldiers in Iraq and another is with U.S. Special Operations Forces in Afghanistan”

Nov 28/10: Iraq T&P work. A posting from the 1st Infantry Division discusses [Pentagon DVIDS | US Army] some of the work that goes into the Gray Eagle’s Quick Reaction Capability 1-Replacement 1 (QRC-1/R1) deployment in Iraq, which is working to pioneer Gray Eagle tactics, techniques and procedures before the UAVs are deployed throughout the Army. Some excerpts:

“The QRC1-R1 operators are working with aviators from the brigade’s Apache battalion to integrate their mission… The unit has flown nearly 7,000 accident free hours, more than 350 combat missions, produced over 16,000 surveillance-type images, and maintained a systems operational readiness rate of about 93 percent [in its first 6 months].

“…One of the biggest things we try to do is educate other units about our capabilities,” said [unit commander Capt. Michael] Goodwin. “A lot of units have the ability to use our assets, but they don’t know what we can do.” One of the most useful tools the unit offers ground troops is education on a portable system known as the OSRVT, or One Station Remote Viewing Terminal. “We’re finding that a lot of units have the OSRVT, but don’t know what it does for them,” said Goodwin. “Our company helps train the ground guys on the system, on how to access our feeds and use our aircraft to support them.” …The unit is working to prepare the aircraft to carry hellfire missiles, and is scheduled to conduct a live test of the missiles in Iraq this January.

Sgt. Brent Randal, a Gray Eagle operator deployed with QRC1-R1 and a native of Las Vegas, Nev., said that one of the aircraft’s best features is its new Synthetic Aperture Radar, or SAR. Mounted underneath the Gray Eagle’s nose, the SAR can compare high resolution images of a location taken at different times to determine whether objects have been removed from or placed at a scene… The Gray Eagle can also help ground troops communicate with their headquarters over long distances. The success of [Predator drones he flew for Task Force ODIN] helped pave the way for the Army’s acquisition of the Gray Eagle, said [former scout Staff Sgt. Raymond] Ballance.”

Nov 19/10: General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. in Poway, CA receives a $31.9 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract, providing incremental funding to cover an extension of the ER/MP system development and design contract. Work will be performed in Poway, CA, with an estimated completion date of Dec 31/10. One bid was solicited with one bid received by U.S. Army AMCOM Contracting Center in Redstone Arsenal, AL (W58RGZ-05-C-0069).

Announced System Development & Demonstration contracts covered here, not including any UAV buys or any support contracts, now stand at $253.4 million.

Nov 8/10: STARLite radar. Northrop Grumman announces a contract for 40 more AN/ZPY-1 STARLite synthetic aperture ground-looking radars, bringing announced orders to 73. These lightweight radars include Ground Moving Target Indicator (GMTI) capabilities, and will equip the Army’s MQ-1C Gray Eagle UAVs,. Under the terms of the contract option, deliveries to the Army’s Product Manager Robotic & Unmanned Sensors Program Management Office will begin in March, 2011 and conclude in March, 2012.

Pat Newby, vice president of Weapons and Sensors for Northrop Grumman’s Land and Self Protection Systems Division. “STARLite completed all first article and government testing requirements, which led to this award. These systems are ready now for immediate deployment.” See Feb 11/10, Apr 28/08 entries for more.

Oct 27/10: TRACER radar. Lockheed Martin’s tree-penetrating Tactical Reconnaissance and Counter-Concealment-Enabled Radar (TRACER) flies for the 1st time aboard NASA’s Ikhana MQ-9, because the Army Gray Eagle MQ-1C fleet that will eventually host the external unpressurized TRACER pods are all busy on operations.

TRACER is a dual-band synthetic-aperture radar (SAR), designed to detect vehicles, buildings and other man-made objects that are buried, camouflaged or concealed under trees and other foliage. The flight tests on Ikhana focused on the radar’s performance in the harsh environment of the unpressurized pod, as the TRACER system will eventually be installed on a variety of manned and unmanned aircraft. Lockheed Martin.

Oct 4/10: General Atomics Aeronautical Systems in Poway, CA received a Sept 28/10 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for $5.8 million, covering ER/MP sub-engineering services for engineering and integration support, integrated logistics support, and program management.

Work will be performed in Poway, CA, with an estimated completion date of Sept 30/11. One bid was solicited with one bid received (W58RGZ-09-C-0136, P00018).

MQ-1C test flight
(click to view full)

Sept 10/10: A $7.2 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract modification for ER/MP Quick Reaction Capability contractor logistics support replenishment sustainment spares. Work is to be performed in Poway, CA with an estimated completion date of June 6/12. One bid was solicited with 1 bid received (W58RGZ-09-C-0153).

May 24/10: A $38.5 million cost-plus-incentive-fee/cost-plus-fixed-fee contract modification that pays for new contractor logistics support; a transition to performance-based logistics for the Quick Reaction Capability 1 (see December 2009 entry), QRC-1R, and QRC-2 UAVs; and a UAS training base in support of Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom.

Work is to be performed in Adelanto, CA (34%); Hunt Valley, MD (24%); Poway, CA (18%); Palmdale, CA (17%); and Salt Lake City, UT (7%). The estimated completion date is May 19/11. One bid was solicited with one bid received (W58RGZ-09-C-0153, #P00011).

May 19/10: +26. General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. in Poway, CA received a $195.5 million fixed-price-incentive-fee contract for MQ-1C supplemental hardware and low-rate initial production. Work is to be performed in Poway, CA, with an estimated completion date of Nov 30/12. One bid was solicited with one bid received (W58RGZ-10-C-0068).

General Atomics tells us that this is for the first half (49%) of the LRIP Lot 1 contract, and covers 2 full Sky Warrior systems (24 UAVs) and FY 2009 supplemental hardware (2 attrition UAVs). The rest of the funding is expected in a few months, and could drive this contract set to about $399 million for 34 Sky Warrior aircraft, 16 of AAI’s One System Ground Control Stations, L-3 Communications West’s airborne and ground Tactical Control Data Link (TCDL) equipment, and various other items to include automatic landing systems, spares, and ground support equipment. Beginning in December 2011, the company is scheduled to deliver over 2 MQ-1C aircraft a month through the end of 2012.

This award comes at the same time that the U.S. Army is celebrating the achievement of 1,000,000 flight hours for its entire unmanned aircraft systems fleet, of which GA-ASI Sky Warrior Alpha and Sky Warrior UAS have logged 145,000 flight hours. See also July 8/10 release.

May 7/10: Lynx radar. General Atomics announces that its Lynx Block 30 Synthetic Aperture Radar with Ground Moving Target Indicator (SAR/GMTI) has achieved over 1,000 collective mission hours on their 4 Sky Warrior Block 1 UAVs in Iraq. The radar has a broad area GMTI scanning mode for detecting moving vehicles in front and to either side, can cue the camera payload to things it “sees” by using the CLAW payload control software, and features very fast Coherent Change Detection (CCD) algorithms.

The US Army’s Quick Reaction Capability-1 (QRC-1) deployment began in December 2009. A second group of 4 Lynx Block 30 radars is scheduled to begin Limited User Testing with the Army later in May 2010, in support of this summer’s planned QRC-2 deployment. In addition to supporting QRC-1 operations with the Lynx radar, GA-ASI is providing full Contractor Logistics Support (CLS), including radar operation, image analysis, and maintenance support.

May 7/10: A $5.8 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract for continued performance of the ER/MP’s SDD phase. Work is to be performed in Poway, CA, with an estimated completion date of Dec 31/10. One bid was solicited with one bid received by U.S. Army Contracting Command, AMCOM Constructing Center at Redstone Arsenal, AL (W58RGZ-05-C-0069).

May 6/10: A $15.2 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract, exercising an option in support of the ER/MP production readiness test asset. Work is to be performed in Poway, CA, with an estimated completion date of April 09/11. One bid was solicited with one bid received by U.S. Army Contracting Command, AMCOM Constructing Center at Redstone Arsenal, AL (W58RGZ-09-C-0151). Asked about this contract, General Atomics spokespeople said that:

“…this is not the other half of the [April 22/10] PRTA contract, this is an additional amount for spares and ground support equipment.”

On other topics, they add that the ER/MP’s name change from General Atomics’ Sky Warrior designation to the US Army’s Gray Eagle designation is not official – yet.

April 29/10: 1,000,000 UAV hours. The US Army announces that April 2010 saw the 1,000,000th flight hour for its UAV fleets. That’s a dramatic change from the handful of Army RQ-7 Shadow and RQ-5 Hunter systems in 2001, to roughly 1,000 UAVs by 2010 that are logging up to 25,000 of UAV flight hours per month. It has taken 13 years to put together the first 100,000 hours, followed by 8.5 years to add the next 900,000. About 88% of these flight hours are from time in combat.

The Army now operates 6 MQ-5 Hunter systems that have recently been armed, 87 RQ-7 Shadow UAS systems that are likely to become armed MQ-7 variants son, 9 MQ-1C ER/MP variants, 1,300 Raven mini-UAV systems and 16 RQ-18 gMAV systems. Each system includes several UAVs, plus launch platforms if needed and associated ground control station and communications equipment. Tim Owings, deputy program manager, Army UAS:

“Ninety-five percent of what the Army has in its inventory today did not even exist at the beginning of the war… A lot of people liken Vietnam to a helicopter war – I liken these two wars as the unmanned systems wars because these are the wars where these systems hit the central axis of the way we fight and became part and parcel to the way the Army prosecutes wars… It has been absolutely amazing, no matter how many we have built there has always been a need for more.”??

A Quick Reaction Capability (QRC) of 4 unarmed MQ-1C Block 0s were deployed to Iraq in 2009 – and another ERMP QRC is slated for Afghanistan later in 2010, armed with Hellfire missiles. The idea of the QRC is to field technologies in service of the ongoing war effort as they are available while simultaneously developing a system as a program of record.

April 22/10: +4. A $17 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract to finalize a contract for ER/MP production readiness test assets. Work is to be performed in Poway, CA, with an estimated completion date of Sept 30/11. One bid was solicited with one bid received (W58RGZ-09-C-0151). In response to a query, General Atomics tells DID that the contract includes:

“…4 Sky Warrior ER/MP aircraft, 2 ER/MP One System GCS, TCDL/GDT, SGDT, TALS, etc.). The [equipment is] to be used for the Initial Operational Test & Evaluation (IOT&E) phase that follows SDD.”

The other $23.4 million part of this contract, plus the May 6/10 contract, leaves the final price at $55.6 million for systems and support.

MQ-1C Sky Warrior
(click to view full)

March 30/10: GAO report. The US GAO audit office delivers its 8th annual “Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs report. With respect to the ER/MP:

“…a Secretary of Defense memorandum to field the capability as soon as possible… affected the program in several ways. According to program officials, it extended system development and demonstration by about 2 years and delayed the award of the low-rate initial production contract by over 1 year. In accordance with the Secretary’s direction, the Army fielded one “Quick Reaction Capability” system in 2009 and plans to field another in 2010. These systems lack the full capabilities planned.”

“…All four critical technologies are now mature and have been demonstrated on the final version of the unmanned air system… The ER/MP is expected to enter low-rate initial production in early 2010 with all its manufacturing processes demonstrated in a production representative environment… the program was approved in February 2010 for low-rate initial production, and they now anticipate changes in cost, quantity, and schedule. However, official, detailed information was not available in time for inclusion in this report… the Air Force has determined it will no longer acquire the MQ-1C Predator. The Army now anticipates a DOD acquisition memorandum closing the [DoD's earlier] direction to combine the programs.”

Feb 19/10: General Atomics Aeronautical System in Poway, CA receives a $36.7 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract, covering in-theater support for ERMP Alpha and Block 0 UAVs for the Iraqi and Afghan theaters of war. The contract will run until Nov 15/11. One bid was solicited, with one bid received (W58RGZ-10-C-0044).

Feb 18/10: Tests, and Milestone C. The US Army announces that the ER/MP has successfully completed a series of tests with the HELLFIRE II UAS missile variant, whose 360-degree targeting ability, allowing UAVs that lack a helicopter’s instant maneuverability to put missiles on target faster. Testing began on Nov 22/09, and took place at Naval Air Weapons Station, China Lake, CA, following cooperation from General Atomics-Aeronautical Systems, Inc.’s Software Integration Laboratory, the company’s El Mirage Flight Test Facility in El Mirage, CA, and Edwards Air Force Base, CA..

The tests began with dry runs and an inert test missile, followed by a successful “cold” pass using a live missile to verify lock-on, followed by “hot pass” firing. November and December involved testing in various conditions, from varying altitudes, against stationary or moving targets. Tests recorded 9 successful shots, which helped pave the way for the UAV’s February 2010 Milestone C approval.

Feb 13/10: The US military issues a FedBizOpps notice as it conducts market research seeking sources to provide in-theatre logistical support, to include field service representatives and maintainers to support sustainment of the AN/DAS-2 payload and the AN/AAS-53 sensor and target designation turrets. The usual winner in these cases is the contractor, especially when, as in this case, “The government does not own the technical data package for these payloads.”

The AN/DAS-2 equipped initial SkyWarriors. The day/night sensing and targeting turret contains a continuous zoom day camera, a thermal imager, a visible imager, a laser designator, and an eye-safe laser rangefinder, all packaged within a stabilized gimbal. The AN/AAS-53 “is planned to replace the AN/DAS-2 beginning in fourth quarter 2009.” FBO solicitation.

Feb 11/10: STARLite, express. Northrop Grumman announces the recent delivery of the first 2 production AN/ZPY-1 STARLite radars for the US Army’s ER/MP, under a compressed 18-month schedule. The STARLite radar [PDF] is a 65 pound synthetic aperture radar (SAR) with ground moving target indicator (GMTI) capabilities. In SAR mode, the radar provides images along the aircraft’s flight path or along a path independent of the flight path. It can also provide a high-resolution image of a specific area on the ground. In the GMTI mode, the radar provides moving target locations overlaid on a digital map. It can see through battlefield obscurants at all times of day, and in all weather. It also has software that connects with the Army One Common Ground Station.

Northrop Grumman is working under a $78.5 million contract with the Army’s Robotics and Unmanned Sensors Product Office at Aberdeen Proving Grounds, MD, to provide a total of 33 STARLite radar systems by April 2011.

Feb 1/10: The Pentagon releases its FY 2011 budget requests. For the ER/MP program, Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation would jump 45% to $123.2 million. Purchases would jump about 5% to $506.3 million for 29 UAVs, including 3 UAVs under OCO/war funding purchases.

Dec 11/09: Arming begins. Aviation Week reports that the Army is beginning to arm its MQ-1Cs as its pushes toward a “Milestone C” production decision. Tests at China Lake, CA began with 2 Hellfire shots in late November, and will continue until Dec 18/09.

“The soon to be re-designated Gray Eagle UAV, currently called the extended range/multi-purpose (ERMP) unmanned aircraft system by the Army, is being rushed into service with newly-formed quick reaction capability (QRC) units in Iraq and Afghanistan… the initial QRC-1 unit is now deployed in Iraq with four unarmed aircraft… The current weapons tests… form part of preparations to arm QRC-2 aircraft which will be deployed to Afghanistan in July [2010].”

Army UAS project manager Col. Gregory Gonzalez confirmed to Aviation Week that QRC-2 will have the first real weaponized MQ-1C system.

Oct 27/09: The DEW Line highlights a Raytheon Program Manager job ad that discusses possible improvements to the MQ-1C fleet:

“[Raytheon] has proposed a significant upgrade program to the baseline CSP configuration to include High Definition (HD) EO/IR capability and Target Location Accuracy (TLA) enhancements. This position is the program manager (PM) of the CSP TLA/HD (approx $30M) development program. The selected individual will be responsible for managing all aspects of the development program including start up, gate reviews, customer reviews, customer daily interface, supplier management, build of 6 integration and test systems, quality testing and flight testing. It is anticipated the CSP TLA/HD development program will result in retrofit of up to 100 baseline CSP systems and this position would manage the follow-on retrofit business. The TLA/HD upgrade program will be run in parallel with the CSP IDIQ base program and will require integration and leveraging with the on-going CSP production program.”

MQ-1C, Block 0
(click to view full)

August 2009: QRC-1 deploys. Deployment of Sky Warrior Block 1 (ER/MP program version), as the Quick Reaction Capability-1 (QRC-1). Feedback from the field will be incorporated into the QRC-2 deployment as software and hardware upgrades, and tactical changes. Source.

March 2/09: +8. General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. in San Diego, CA received a $35 million cost plus incentive fee, definitization of a letter contract to acquire 8 ERMP Quick Reaction Capability UAVs, and associated support equipment. This acquisition is directed by the Joint Chief of Staff to accommodate a surge of UAVs in theater.

Work is to be performed at San Diego, CA (46%); Adelanto, CA (14%); Palmdale, CA (8%); Salt Lake City, UT (18%); and Hunt Valley, MD (14%), with an estimated completion date of Jan 15/10. One bid was solicited and one bid received (W58RGZ-05-C-0069).

Feb 5/09: No SAR. Jane’s Defence Weekly [site] reports that:

“The US Army is suspending a synthetic aperture radar (SAR) requirement for Warrior unmanned aerial systems (UASs) in order to… speed the Warrior’s deployment to theatre, where intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) assets are in great demand.”

USAF MQ-1A/Bs currently carry the AN/APY-8 Lynx ground-looking synthetic aperture radar, which gives them the ability to notice certain kinds of objects more prominently, and to see through some obscurants like low clouds, smoke, etc. On Feb 5/09, General Atomics tested a Lynx II dual-beam variant, with a Space Time Adaptive Processing (STAP) upgrade developed in cooperation with BAE Systems. The modifications cancel the main beam’s GMTI (ground moving target indicator) clutter, which helps the radar detect slow-moving objects more accurately and at longer ranges.

Sept 18/08: General Atomics Aeronautical System in San Diego, CA received a $37.2 million cost plus incentive fee price contract for incremental funding for systems development and demonstration (including integration of the Hellfire Missile) for the ER/MP. Work will be performed in San Diego, CA, Adelanto, CA, Palmdale, CA, Salt Lake City, UT, Hunt Valley, MD, and Huntsville, AL, with an estimated completion date of Aug 31/09. One hundred and twenty bids were solicited and 3 bids were received (W58RGZ-05-C-0069).

Aug 19/08: General Atomics Aeronautical Systems in San Diego, CA received a $7.9 million cost plus fixed fee contract to acquire 3 ERMP Block 0 Unmanned Aircraft in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. Work will be performed in San Diego, CA with an estimated completion date of March 31/10. One bid was solicited and one bid received (W58RGZ-06-C-0208).

Aug 8/08: GA-ASI issues. A US GAO decision denies Lockheed Martin’s bid protest over the BAMS maritime surveillance UAV contract – and cites ongoing performance issues with its key partner General Atomics as the reason. The GAO summary for Bid Protest B-400135 states that:

“Agency reasonably determined, in procurement for unmanned maritime surveillance aircraft, that awardee [DID: Northrop Grumman] had significant advantage over protester [DID: Lockheed Martin] with respect to past performance where: protester’s subcontractor [DID: General Atomics], responsible for approximately 50 percent of contract effort, had recent past performance history of being unable to resolve staffing and resource issues, resulting in adverse cost and schedule performance on very relevant contracts for unmanned aircraft; record did not demonstrate that protester’s subcontractor had implemented systemic improvement that resulted in improved performance; [in contrast] operating division of the awardee also had performance problems on very relevant contracts for unmanned aircraft, many had been addressed through systemic improvement; and overall performance of awardee’s team on most evaluated contract efforts was rated better than satisfactory, while the overall performance of protester’s team on 11 of 26 contract efforts was only marginal.”

The BAMS bid in question has been based on General Atomics’ Mariner, a variant of its larger MQ-9 UAV. The GAO decision then goes on to discuss these issues in more detail, including this passage:

“In contrast, however, GA-ASI’s contract performance was a matter of great concern to the agency. Specifically, while recognizing that GA-ASI had demonstrated a willingness and ability to respond on short notice to evolving Global War on Terror (GWOT) warfighter requirements, the SSEB found that GA-ASI’s performance demonstrated: inadequate staffing, resulting in performance problems on SDD contracts for the MQ-9 Reaper (a second-generation, Predator B model) and the MQ-1C Extended Range/Multipurpose (ER/MP) UAS (a second-generation Predator model); unfavorable schedule performance on four of seven relevant GA-ASI contracts, including very relevant contracts for the MQ-9 Reaper, UAS ground control stations, MQ-1C ER/MP, I-GNAT Extended Range UAS (a version of the Predator with some differences for the Army), and MQ-1 baseline Predator; poor performance in meeting technical quality requirements on three of seven GA-ASI contracts, including contracts for the MQ-9 Reaper, MQ-1C ER/MP, and I-GNAT Extended Range UAS; and workload exceeded the firm’s capacity on five of seven GA-ASI contracts, including contracts for the MQ-9 Reaper, UAS ground control stations, MQ-1C ER/MP, I-GNAT Extended Range UAS, and MQ?1/MQ-9 maintenance support. In summary, the SSEB found the overall performance of GA-ASI on its very relevant contracts for the MQ-9 Reaper (most delivery orders), UAS ground control stations, MQ-1C ER/MP, and I-GNAT Extended Range UAS to be marginal.”

May 17/08: Theilert scandal. Thielert Engines insolvency administrator Dr. Bruno M. Kubler discusses the current situation in a release, including some revelations with implications for customers like General Atomics. The statement notes that attempts are being made to keep Thelert as a an operating concern, with some flexibility shown by creditors and Frank Thielert may not be CEO, but he remains the personal holder of key permits and therefore remains involved. Meanwhile:

• German insolvency law does not permit the assumption of warranties or guarantees free of charge for products and services supplied prior to the declaration of insolvency. Parts supplied after insolvency can be warrantied, but the firm is in no position to do so. Dr. Kubler hopes that aircraft manufacturers will step in.

• Higher prices will be charged for engines and spares.

• Payment in advance is now required, but assurances are made re: delivery once payment is made.

• The firm’s #1 customer, Diamond Aircraft, has pushed for concessions and preferential deals with Thielert, using both private negotiations and public tactics. Relations are deteriorating, but the firms are still negotiating.

April 28/08: STARLite radar. Northrop Grumman announces that its STARLite has been selected by the U.S. Army Communication-Electronics Life Cycle Management Command to equip ER/MP UAVs. The initial $42 million contract will finalize development, and deliver 10 radars.

The ground looking SAR/GMTI (Sythetic Aperture Radar with Ground Moving Target Indicator) fills the niche that General Atomics’ own AN/APY-8 Lynx radar occupies on USAF MQ-1A/B Predators.

April 16/08: +8. General Atomics Aeronautical Systems in San Diego, CA receives $38.5 million cost-plus incentive fee contract for the acquisition of 8 ER/MP quick reaction capability unmanned aircraft vehicles and assorted support equipment.

Work will be performed primarily in San Diego, CA and is expected to be complete on May 15/09. One bid was solicited on March 17/08 (W58RGZ-05-C-0069).

April 10/08: Theilert insolvency. SkyWarrior engine maker Thielert issues a release concerning their “urgent liquidity crisis.” The act is not an isolated incident, but rather a culmination of trends that include formal charges of accounting fraud and falsification of documents.

It is followed by a declaration of insolvency in May 2008.

March 31/08: General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. flies the first Sky Warrior Block 1 UAV from the company’s El Mirage Flight Operations Facility in Adelanto, CA. GA-ASI release.

March 3/08: General Atomics Aeronautical Systems in San Diego, CA received an $18.7 million cost-plus incentive fee contract that provides incremental funding for system development and demonstration of the ER/MP UAV. Work will be performed in San Diego, CA; Adelanto, CA; Palmdale, CA; Salt Lake City, UT; Hunt Valley, MD; and Huntsville, AL; and is expected to be complete by Aug 31/09. There were 120 bids solicited on Sept 1/04, and 3 bids were received (W58RGZ-05-C-0069).

Feb 14/08: Raytheon announces 2 U.S. Army orders totaling $17.2 million for 18 common sensor payloads, as system design and development continues. The article does not give details that would confirm the Nov 7/07 entry as one of those contracts, but it is possible. The firm states that they’ve delivered 10 AN/DAS-2 sensors so far.

Nov 7/07: Raytheon Co. in McKinney, TX received a delivery order amount of $11 million as part of an $800 million firm-fixed-price and cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for common sensors for the ARH-70A helicopter and the MQ-1C Sky Warrior ER/MP UAV. Work will be performed in McKinney, TX and is expected to be complete by Oct. 31, 2016. Bids were solicited via the World Wide Web on April 24, 2007, and 5 bids were received by the U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command in Fort Monmouth, NJ (W15P7T-08-D-S602).

Raytheon’s release adds that the program calls for design and development, testing and air vehicle integration of a variant of Raytheon’s Multi-spectral Targeting System, in a project could be worth up to $1.2 billion for 875 units, if all options are exercised. See also Raytheon Feature | Common Sensor Platform product page. Raytheon’s CSP completes its Predator family trifecta; it also supplies the AN/DAS-1 system that equips MQ-1 Predator UAVs, and the AN/AAS-52 on MQ-9 Reapers. With respect to deliveries to the Sky Warrior program thus far:

“The company has delivered 10 AN/DAS-2 electro-optical/ infrared/ laser designator sensors under a system design and development contract let in May 2005. At the beginning of this year, the Army ordered seven more systems under a low rate production option.”

Oct 19/07: General Atomics Aeronautical System in San Diego, CA received a $20.8 million increment as part of a $231.2 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract for system development and demonstration for the ER/MP UAV Vehicle, including integration of the Hellfire Missile.

Work will be performed in San Diego, CA (43%), Adelanto, CA (14%), Palmdale, CA (8%), Salt Lake City, UT (18%), Hunt Valley, MD (14%), and Huntsville, AL (3%), and is expected to be complete by Aug 31/09. There were 120 bids solicited on Sept. 1, 2004, and 3 bids were received (W58RGZ-05-C-0069).

Oct 1-17/07: UAV Wars. DID talks to the US Army about the SkyWarrior program. Going forward, the USAF will manage the program according to jointly agreed requirements, but each service will maintain its own budget for the UAVs it wants.

A common version will be selected and approved by late 2008, but no decision has been reached re: which version will predominate: the MQ-1B Block X/MQ-1C with 4 missile pylons and a heavy fuel engine that can burn diesel, or the existing MQ-1 that burns aviation fuel and has 2 missile pylons.

Oct 1/07: General Atomics Aeronautical Systems in San Diego, CA received a $27.5 million modification to a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for contractor logistics support for the Sky Warrior Block 0 Unmanned Aircraft System.

Work will be performed in San Diego, CA (80%); Hunt Valley, MD (10%); and Salt Lake City, UT (10%); and is expected to be complete by Sept. 27, 2008. This was a sole source contract initiated on Sept. 14, 2007 (DAAH01-03-C-0124).

MQ-1C Sky Warrior
(click to view full)

Sept 28/07: UAV Wars. In its Daily Report for this date, the Air Force Association’s Air Force Magazine Online discusses the UAV executive agency issue:

“Defending the recent Pentagon decision not to give the Air Force executive agency over medium- to high-altitude unmanned aerial vehicles, Army Secretary Pete Geren told defense reporters Thursday that the Army’s modernization goals don’t fit with an executive agent approach. “The need for control with UAVs fits close to the individual soldier,” Geren said. Part of the Army’s Future Combat Systems program is to empower soldiers and give them greater control over assets such as UAVs. He noted that Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Michael Moseley have met on the issue recently to work out disagreements. “Some of the disagreements have arisen because these issues have not been tackled at a high enough level,” Geren said. While sympathetic to the Air Force’s perspective, he noted that an executive agent approach that’s advocated by some would make sense if we were fighting a conventional war. “It’s a different debate when you’re talking about the kind of fight we are in today,” Geren declared.”

See also Military.com’s article re: the decision fallout.

Sept 13/07: UAV Wars. Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England rejects Air Force efforts to become the executive agent for all medium- and high-altitude unmanned aerial vehicles, over objections from the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps. In his memo, England directed the Pentagon’s acquisition office to create a task force on UAV issues to “enhance operations, enable interdependencies, and streamline acquisition” of the drones. He also directed Pentagon officials to take other steps to foster cross-service collaboration on the UAV programs.

The Predator and SkyWarrior programs, however, have been merged. The exact meaning of that move remains to be seen – either to standardize the Predator on a similar SkyWarrior/MQ-1C version, or eliminate the Warrior variant and use existing MQ-1As. Aviation Week | GovExec | The Hill.

Aug 22/07: A $5.15 million increment as part of a $215.4 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract for system development and demonstration for the ER/MP UAV. Work will be performed in San Diego, CA (43%), Adelanto, CA (14%), Palmdale, CA (8%), Salt Lake City, UT (18%), Hunt Valley, MD (14%), and Huntsville, AL (3%), and is expected to be complete by Aug. 31, 2009. There were 120 bids solicited on Sept. 1, 2004, and 3 bids were received (W58RGZ-05-C-0069).

According to DID’s calculations based on DefenseLINK public announcements, about $167 million of the $215.4 million ER/MP program’s contracts have been issued as of this increment.

Aug 6/07: +2 YMQ-1C. General Atomics in San Diego, CA received a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for $7.3 million to provide 2 Pre-Production YMQ-1C Block X aircraft. General Atomics has confirmed to DID that these are USAF versions of the Army Sky Warrior. See the May 7/07 entry and Appendix A for details; this award should be seen in the context of the USAF’s effort to take over UAV authority.

At this time, total funds have been obligated. Solicitations began in April 2006, negotiations were completed in July 2007, and work will be complete in January 2009 (FA8620-05-G-3028-0018).

July 5/07: General Atomics Aeronautical Systems in San Diego, CA received a $14.7 million increment as part of a $215.4 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract for system development and demonstration for the ER/MP Unmanned Aerial Vehicle. Work will be performed in San Diego, CA (43%), Adelanto, CA (14%), Palmdale, CA (8%), Salt Lake City, UT (18%), Hunt Valley, MD (14%), and Huntsville, AL (3%), and is expected to be complete by Aug. 31, 2009. There were 120 bids solicited on Sept. 1, 2004, and 3 bids were received (W58RGZ-05-C-0069).

June 27/07: UAV Wars. Air Force Times report: With the question of whether there should be an executive agency in charge of medium- and high-altitude UAVs still hanging in the air, U.S. deputy defense secretary Gordon England wrote in a letter earlier in June to Army and Air Force leaders asking the services to collaborate on procuring and operating the Predator and Warrior UAVs. Army and Air Force officials were asked to submit briefings to England by the end of June 2007.

May 17/07: UAV Wars. The Congressional Government Accountability Office releases report #GAO-07-578, “Greater Synergies Possible for DOD’s Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Systems,” which explicitly discusses the possible merger of Warrior & Predator programs. It mentions that “The Air Force and the Army are currently working to identify program synergies in a three-phased approach:

• First, the Air Force will acquire and test two of the more modern Warrior airframes.

• Second, the two services will compare their requirements for ground control stations and automated takeoff and landing.

• Finally, the Army and Air Force plan to compare concepts of operation and training requirements for additional synergies.”

May 10/07: The JROC directs the USAF to flesh out its executive agency plan. No firm deadline is set, and no firm decision is taken.

May 7/07: “Predator Block X”. General Atomics in San Diego, CA received a $10.1 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract from the USAF’s Headquarters Aeronautical Systems Center at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH. This contract action will provide a series of required tasks to design, fabricate, integrate, and test the Predator MQ-1B Block X aircraft which will utilize a Heavy Full Engine (HFE), will support a 3,200 lbs gross take-off weight, and will carry 4 Hellfire missiles (2 on each wing). The Predator MQ-1B Block X shall leverage off technology from the existing Predator B (MQ-9) program, the Army’s ER/MP program, and on-going GA-ASI internal research and development efforts. At this time, total funds have been obligated. Solicitations began June 2006 and negotiations were complete April 2007 (FA8620-05-G-3028-0016).

It should come as no surprise to anyone that the ability to operate the engine on “heavy” fuels like diesel, and to carry 4 Hellfire missiles instead of 2, constitute the two biggest differences between the USAF’s MQ-1 Predator and the Army’s Warrior UAV. This award should be seen in the context of the USAF’s effort to take over UAV authority, vid. Appendix A.

May 7/07: UAV Wars. Officials with the DoD’s Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) meet with Army and Air Force officials to discuss proposals to put all such UAVs under a single executive agency. See Appendix A for more background.

April 6/07: General Atomics Aeronautical System in San Diego, CA received a $5.3 million modification to a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for ERMP Block 0 UAVs. Work will be performed in San Diego, CA (65%), Adelanto, CA (5%), Palmdale, CA (5%), and Salt Lake City, UT (25%), and is expected to be complete by Aug. 31, 2007. This was a sole source contract initiated on June 21, 2006 (W58RGZ-06-C-0208).

March 5/07: UAV Wars. US Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley’s circulates a memo, proposing to name his service as the Pentagon executive agent for UAVs. See Appendix A for more background.

Feb 14/07: 4 more. General Atomics Aeronautical System in San Diego, CA received an $11.7 million modification to a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for acquisition of 4 ERMP Block 0 UAVs, associated support equipment, and initial spares. This appears to be the initial installment on the test aircraft.

Work will be performed in San Diego, CA (65%), Adelanto, CA (5%), Palmdale, CA (5%), and Salt Lake City, UT (25%), and is expected to be complete by Dec. 18, 2007. This was a sole source contract initiated on June 21, 2006 (W58RGZ-06-C-0208).

Jan 9/07: FCS changes. The US Army restructures its $160+ billion Future Combat Systems program, and “delays”/ eliminates its Class II and Class III UAVs. The Warrior ERMP is expected to be one of the existing systems filling the Class III brigade-level gap.

Dec 22/06: General Atomics Aeronautical System, San Diego, CA was received a $63.1 million increment as part of “a $215.4 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract for System Development and Demonstration for the Extended Range / Multi-Purpose Unmanned Aerial Vehicle.”

Work will be performed in San Diego, CA (43%), Adelanto, CA (14%), Palmdale, CA (8%), Salt Lake City, UT (18%), Hunt Valley, MD (14%), and Huntsville, AL (3%), and is expected to be complete by Aug. 31, 2009. There were 120 bids solicited on Sept. 1, 2004, and 3 bids were received by the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command in Redstone Arsenal, AL (W58RGZ-05-C-0069).

March 13/06: DID – Warrior UAV Program Underway. $67 million increment received for the Warrior program, as part of a “$214.3 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract for System Development and Demonstration for the Extended Range / Multi-Purpose Unmanned Aerial Vehicle” (W58RGZ-05-C-0069).

Oct 6/05: DID – AAI Takes Another UAV Ground Control Project. A $30 million subcontract for the Warrior UAV’s ground control.

Appendix A: US Army et. al. vs. USAF Over UAVs

US Army Air Corps

Faced with an aerial tanker fleet that’s 50+ years old, front line fighters under flight restrictions due to age and fatigue, and heavy strain on transport aircraft resources, the USAF has been making strenuous efforts to take over the UAV domain. At the moment, UAVs are bought by individual services: Army, Navy, USAF, Marines. The Army in particular has been using UAVs for reconnaissance and persistent fire support, as in-house assets that involve less organizational friction to deploy, and can be prioritized for purchase according to the needs of soldiers on the ground.

The USAF had asked for authority over all American UAVs before, but this was refused. The Pentagon’s JROC(Joint Requirements Oversight Committee) determined that an executive agent was not necessary. Instead, they created the Joint Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Center of Excellence at Creech Air Force Base, NV to share operational tips; and the Joint Unmanned Aerial Systems Materiel Review Board in order to work out best practices for materiel. There is also a US Army UAV Center of Excellence at Fort Rucker, AL.

The end of the argument? No, because of the organizational and budgetary threat that non-USAF UAVs represent.

Viper Strike
(click to view larger)

One measure of the potential threat can be inferred from usage figures. As of September 2007, MQ-1 Predator UAVs had reached 300,000 flight hours since inception around 2001, of which 80% were combat flight. Fully 1/3 of those flight hours were accumulated in the previous 12 months, and total fleet flying hours had risen to 10,000 hours/month. On Nov 9/07, Jane’s International Defense Review reported that by the end of the second quarter of Fiscal Year 2007, US Army UAVs had flown a total of 295,181 hours in Iraq, nearly 18% of the total hours flown by the army aviation fleet.

Well below a Predator’s size threshold, US Army RQ-7 Shadow battalion-level UAVs are racking up 8,000 flight hours per month in Iraq (almost equal to the Predators’ recent totals), accompanied by US Army RQ-5 Hunter aircraft that sit somewhere between a Predator and Shadow in size and are accumulating their own flight time. Smaller UAVs like the popular RQ-11 Raven, meanwhile, are racking up their own significant totals, with shorter flight times offset by much larger numbers in the field to produce 300,000 flight hours in 2007 alone. The Army reached 1 million UAV flight hours for its fleet of RQ-5 Hunter, RQ-7 Shadow, RQ-11 Raven, RQ-18 gMAV, and MQ-1C ER/MP UAVs in April 2010, and is adding to that at 25,000 hours per month.

The RQ-5 Hunters have been tested with Viper Strike mini-bombs, and the Shadows may be eligible as well if the Army wishes. Shadows will certainly be eligible for NAVAIR’s 5-6 pound Spike missile project (scheduled for an autumn 2007 UAV test), and all UAVs can provide targeting for M30 GPS-guided MLRS rockets, long-range ATACMS MLRS missiles, or the 155mm Excalibur artillery shells entering service in Q3 2007. Larger UAVs like the Sky Warrior add Hellfire II missiles, the 250 lb. Small Diameter Bombs, and 250 – 500 lb. GPS-guided JDAMs or laser-guided Paveway bombs to the mix.

With these fire support assets on the airframe or on call, most close air support functions encountered in counterinsurgency missions can be covered.

Manned fighters offer their own advantages: anti-air capabilities, a payload capacity several times a UAV’s, greatly improved panoramic visibility, no need for potentially vulnerable or limited-bandwidth long-range communications in order to fly, better intimidation presence via fast flyovers, and better survivability/ fewer crashes. In counterinsurgency scenarios, however, air threats are minimal to nonexistent, fighters are usually loaded with just a couple of weapons; and except for the A-10 or dedicated COIN (COunter-INsurgency) turboprops, the planes are moving so quickly that they must rely on targeting pods with the same narrow field of view as a UAV pilot’s. That still leaves intimidation and survivability advantages, but your average jet fighter is extremely expensive to buy, has a 7,000 – 10,000 hour airframe life, costs many multiples of dollars per flight hour to operate, and offers an on-station time that is usually less than half that of a Predator class MALE UAV.

Specialty close-support aircraft like the USA’s A-10, gunships like the AC-130s, and even COIN turboprops offer combinations of affordability and/or compelling advantages that keep them competitive in counterinsurgency scenarios. Can the same be said for the USAF’s F-16s, F-15… or its future F-35 Lightning II and F-22A Raptor fighters? In their January 2007 article “UAVs With Bite,” Air Force Magazine notes that:

“The Air Force now has provisional plans to buy some 170 Predator MQ-1s by 2010 and acquire 50 to 70 MQ-9s by around 2012, for a total of 220 or more of the combat-capable drones. At present, the service plans on retiring a comparable number of F-16s over the same period.”

MQ-1 Predator:
circling to kill?
(click to view full)

This calculus is why some observers saw the UAV fight as the “Key West Agreement” fight for the 21st century, with the outcome determining the future organizational backbone and role of the USAF – and other services besides.

Hence the USAF’s persistence. The USAF’s return foray in March 2007 involved a move to take over acquisition authority for all UAVs designed to operate at “medium or high altitudes.” Battalion-level UAVs like the RQ-7 Shadow 200 might or might not escape, but even so the maneuver would neatly strip away virtually all armed UAVs, and hence the bureaucratic threat of Army UAVs evolving toward the USAF’s close air support role. Besides, with the USAF re-organizing its ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance & Reconnaissance) assets into their own dedicated function, they can always come back for the rest later under a “unified ISR” claim, once a large portion of UAV acquisition and prioritization are already under their control.

The ER/MP Warrior program is obviously a front-line target in this fight, given its derivation from the MQ-1 Predator UAVs the USAF had already bought in quantity, before switching future orders to the larger MQ-9 Reaper.

Three broad-brush outcomes were possible:

# The US Army and USAF retain separate control of their UAVs, and continue to work out standards et. al. through the established joint centers of excellence; Warrior program unaffected.
# The USAF does NOT acquire executive authority over UAVs, but there is consolidation between the US Army and USAF MQ-1 variants/programs to a common version. This is the current state. The Warrior program survives only if it becomes that common version.
# The USAF acquires executive authority over “medium to high altitude” UAVs. The ER/MP Warrior UAV program is almost certainly canceled, future USMC programs are under threat, and the Navy will have to fight to maintain control of its own programs.

In the end, the answer was solution #1, with a twist. The USAF also switched its future UAV production plans from the Predator to the MQ-9 Reaper, whose high altitude performance and 3,000 pound ordnance load give it dramatically different capabilities.

There’s obviously a larger debate going on here. The Kasserine Pass disaster in World War 2, where commanders in quiet sectors refused to turn over their aircraft to units under fire, provided the impetus for today’s TacAir system, which puts airmen in charge of managing and allocating air assets in response to the needs of the ground commander. At some level, the USAF arguments hark back to that concept, and to the 1948 “Key West Accords,” which ended up turning Army Aviation into a helicopter force. There’s also a procurement angle, as noted during coverage of USAF Chief of Staff Moseley’s testimony on this issue before Congress:

“Without an executive agency, the services will likely continue their separate design and procurement efforts, and the DOD will have forfeited the considerable savings it could have realized. Additionally, DOD will have lost an opportunity to create and harness the interservice synergies that would result from building upon — rather than duplicating — each service’s strengths, General Moseley said.”

On the other hand, the US Army hasn’t always felt well served by the USAF’s procurement priorities, which many feel have tended to emphasize high-end USAF assets at the expense of some key roles (forward observation, light transport, close support) needed by troops on the ground. That fact that UAVs serve in a couple of the roles that have previously received short shrift doesn’t make the Army feel any better. They also worry that a service run by fighter jocks is likely to steer unmanned systems away from anything that might intrude on their established roles, or call high-ticket platforms into question. The last 40 years of organizational and political theory tends to support that worry.

Tim Owings, deputy project manager for the Army’s unmanned aircraft systems:

“From our perspective, consistently what has come out of theater is the need for our commanders to have direct control and ownership of the UAV application. That has played out in every theater that we have been in.”

In 2010, director of the Army Quadrennial Defense Review Timothy Muchmore brought the issue into sharp relief, when he was quoted as saying that:

“The air power provided by our sister services has dominated the third dimension, but the Army is unable to leverage that third dimension… We’ve had two combat outposts overrun by superior forces [during the past year]. Those are losses that we consider unacceptable, because we couldn’t see what was going on around the outposts.”

Anyone who has worked in a large organization can see the shape of the bureaucratic battle here. On one side, you have the staff department, preaching the benefits and savings of centralization and standards, and urging central control over the function. Some of those benefits may be real. Some of the “joint” and “team” rhetoric may also be real. But the real issue is control. On the other hand, you have the front-line business unit managers who want resources that are dedicated to their needs – and under their clear authority, in order to ensure required accountability and service levels. Some of that may be required. Still, the key is not so much the promised dedication as the control that guarantees it. Throw in a central department that has sometimes placed business unit needs lower on the priority scale than their own long term plans, add a dash of politics, and stir.

The US Navy, with a long history of running its own aviation programs, and the qualifying UCAS-D unmanned strike aircraft and BAMS maritime reconnaissance UAV programs underway, will not be watching idly. Nor will the US Marines, who also operate integrated aircraft and have UAV plans of their own.

There’s always a proper balance point in any organization, and points beyond which either central control or local control of key functions can become dysfunctional. The thing is, there’s no set recipe. It’s different in each organization, and depends on the situation, past institutional performance, and (legitimately) on the personalities involved at the time.

Where is that balance point for the US military and UAVs? Because there’s a larger issue a-wing beyond the ER/MP program – and this time, getting the answer right really is a matter of life and death.

• = DID is aware that the US Army Air Corps no longer exists.

Footnotes

fn1. A communication from General Atomics to DID referred to the platform as the “MC-1C”, a designation DID subsequently used in the article. Andreas Parsch of the fine site Designation Systems asked some questions about that, and the investigation revealed that it had been a typo. DID has corrected the article accordingly. Danke schön, Andreas.

Appendix B: Who Controls the UAVs? Readings & Primers

• Associated Press – Rise of the Machines: UAV Use Soars. Very interesting facts and figures concerning UAV use.

• US Army (April 29/10) – Army surpasses 1 million unmanned flight hours

• National Defense Magazine (April 2010) – Army on a Fast Track to Build its Own High-Tech Air Force

• National Defense (February 2010) – Army to Air Force: We Won’t Give Up Our Surveillance Aircraft. They back that up with anecdotes about USAF UAVs leaving enemies to plant land mines, and Army UAVs saving lives.

• National Defense (January 2010) – Air Force to Army: There Are Better Ways to Deploy Surveillance Aircraft. The Army disagrees.

• C4ISR Magazine (Nov 1/09) – Different courses: New-style UAV trainees edge toward combat

• General Atomics (Sept 15/08) – GA-ASI War Fighter Support Reaches Historic Proportions.
  

“Predator-series aircraft have amassed over a half-million flight hours and will soon complete 50,000 total missions, with 85-percent of that time spent in combat… Predator-series aircraft are now flying over 20,000 hours a month supporting U.S. coalition forces in combat and homeland security requirements… In the past year alone, monthly flight hours have doubled. Over 300 Predator-series aircraft have been produced to date”

• DID (Aug 29/08) – UAMS Experiment Brings Deconfliction Closer for Smaller UAVs. If efforts like UAMS succeed, the argument for single-service UAV control suffers a major blow.

• US Army (July 3/08) – Leaders discuss new joint unmanned aerial operations. “Army and Air Force leaders met Monday to discuss developing a new joint unmanned aerial system concept of operations…”

• NY Times (June 22/08) - At Odds With Air Force, Army Adds Its Own Aviation Unit. Project ODIN includes both manned C-12s and UAVs like SkyWarrior. “The work of the new aviation battalion was initially kept secret, but Army officials involved in its planning say it has been exceptionally active, using remotely piloted surveillance aircraft to call in Apache helicopter strikes with missiles and heavy machine gun fire that have killed more than 3,000 adversaries in the last year and led to the capture of almost 150 insurgent leaders.” See also…

• CASR (June 22/08) – Counterinsurgency Legacy – US Army Aviation Supports its Own: US Air Force turns out to be too Tardy to be Tactically Useful. Excerpts and background the NYT article. The US Army is reportedly seeking money to raise a similar unit in Afghanistan by late 2008/early 2009.

• Military.com (March 18/08) – Army Embarks on Ambitious UAV Program. Discusses key tactical and operational differences between the Army and USAF’s use of UAVs.

• US Air Force Association, Air Force Magazine (October 2007) – The Big Squeeze. Describes steps the USAF is taking to improve its ISR capabilities, the challenges, and some of the platforms involved. As recapitalization of major assets is pushed back, UAV/UAS options will grow in popularity.

• Lexington Institute (Sept 5/07) – Army Plans For Reconnaissance Drones Misuse A Vital Asset. Loren Thompson’s analysis explains the drivers at both ends of the UAV controversy without really addressing the implications of each, and without securing some underlying assumptions re: employment. Both sets of drivers and assumptions may even be true as written, and the question then becomes one of priorities:

bq. “Only 34 of the 1,200 drones U.S. forces are using in Southwest Asia can operate beyond the line of sight of ground controllers, so sometimes the wait for access to that handful of planes can be quite lengthy… Under the Army plan, if five divisions were deployed in Iraq (as is presently the case), their combined inventory of 60 Predators would be able to keep 12-15 aloft at any given time. In contrast, the approach used by the Air Force can keep nearly three times as many drones in the air because the availability of the fleet is not tied to rotation patterns and concentrating all the drones at a few sites permits maintenance efficiencies.”

• Air Force Magazine (July 2007) – The Drone War [PDF, see also Greater Synergies Possible for DOD’s Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Systems

• Defense News (May 14/07) – USAF Pushes Plan To Handle Pan-Service UAVs

• USAF Aim Points (April 27/07) – JROC wants Air Force to flesh out its UAV ‘Executive Agent’ proposal

• In From the Cold (April 27/07) – An “Executive Agent” for UAVs?

• Shephard UVOnline (April 21/07) – US Air Force official testifies on UAV executive agent issue

• Shephard UVOnline (April 16/07) – US military officials discuss executive agency for UAVs

• Aviation Week & Space Technology (April 2/07) – U.S. Army faults Air Force in UAV debate

• Defense Tech (Dec 13/06) – So Long, Key West

• DID (March 27/06) – USAF’s 25-Year Take on UAV Operations & Management

• DID (Aug 29/05) – USA’s Unmanned Aircraft Systems Roadmap, 2005-2030. That roadmap is already changing.

Additional Readings

• Defense Update – Warrior ERMP UAV System

• GlobalSecurity.org – ERMP Warrior

• General Atomics Aeronautical Systems – Sky Warrior (MQ-1C ER/MP UAS)

• General Atomics Aeronautical Systems – Predator (MQ-1)

• General Atomics Aeronautical Systems – Predator B (MQ-9 Reaper)

• USAF (Oct 15/07) – Putting a Reaper in the skies over Afghanistan, a chain of successes. The aircraft was fielded 2 years early.

• General Atomics Aeronautical Systems – I-GNAT. The Predator’s predecessor.

• US Air Force Association, Air Force Magazine – UAVs With Bite. Places the Predator family, Reaper, et. al. in a larger context.

• Raytheon – AN/DAS-2 Common Sensor Platform product page | Feature

• Northrop Grumman – AN/ZPY-1 STARLite Small Tactical Radar – Lightweight

• Alter Net (Oct 16/11) – America’s Secret Empire of Drone Bases: Its Full Extent Revealed for the First Time

• US Army (Jan 18/11) – Army expanding UAS fleet, speeding up delivery

• Strategy Page (April 30/09) – Cylons 1, Humans 0. “The army uses automatic landing software for its larger UAVs [including the MQ-1C], while the air force does not [using human pilots instead]. Thus the air force has lost about a third of its UAVs to various equipment problems and operator errors, while the army loss rate was less than half that.”

• Thanks to DID correspondent Trent Telenko for his assistance.

In early 2006 the future of DARPA’s J-UCAS program seemed uncertain. It aimed to create Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicles (UCAV) for the USAF and Navy that could approach the capabilities of an F-117 stealth fighter. Boeing’s X-45C was set to face off against Northrop Grumman’s X-47B Pegasus, the program had demonstrated successful tests that included dropping bombs, and aerial refueling tests were envisioned.

J-UCAS was eventually canceled when the services failed to take it up, but the technologies have survived, and the US Navy remained interested. A May 2007 non-partisan report discussed the lengthening reach of ship-killers. Meanwhile, the US Navy’s carrier fleet sees its strike range shrinking to 1950s distances, and prepares for a future with fewer carrier air wings than operational carriers. Could UCAV/UCAS vehicles with longer ranges, and indefinite flight time limits via aerial refueling, solve these problems? Some people in the Navy seem to think that they might. Hence UCAS-D/ N-UCAS, which received a major push in the FY 2010 defense review. Now, Northrop Grumman is improving its X-47 UCAS-D under contract, even as emerging privately-developed options expand the Navy’s future choices as it works on its new RFP.

N-UCAS: Programs & Potential

X-47B concept
(click to view full)

N-UCAS (Naval Unmanned Combat Air System) is the US Navy’s broader umbrella initiative to define/develop/produce a fleet of unmanned, carrier based strike and surveillance aircraft. The UCAS-D demonstration program is a subset of that initiative. If the demonstrations go well, the Navy may progress to an Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) program.

In July 2007, Northrop Grumman’s X-47B Pegasus beat Boeing’s X-45C to win the UCAS-D development contract. Northrop Grumman’s Aug 3/07 release describes their mission as:

“The UCAS-D effort will mature critical technologies, reduce unmanned air system carrier integration risks and provide information necessary to support a potential follow-on acquisition milestone.”

Translation: show us that this can work, and demonstrate carrier-based launches and recoveries of a tailless, autonomous, “LO-relevant” aircraft. “Low Observable relevant” means that its outer shape must reflect stealth requirements, but without any of the operational stealth coatings and other expensive measures. That makes sense, since UCAS-D is only about aerodynamics and control. Eventually, follow on programs like N-UCAS will have to test stealth as well, but UCAS-D will be about the basics.

Right now, there are 2 big technical challenges for UCAS-D. One is safe, reliable flight and landings in carrier-controlled airspace, for a stealth aircraft that may not always be visible on radar. The other big challenge is successful and safe aerial refueling.

Like the F-117, a UCAV’s self-defense would involve remaining undetected. While UCAVs can theoretically be built to execute maneuvers no human pilot could handle, the pilot’s awareness of surrounding events would be quite limited. The X-47B isn’t being designed to do what the type inherently does poorly, but to do what the type does inherently well: be stealthier than manned aircraft, and fly reliably on station for days using aerial refueling support.

If Northrop Grumman or emerging competitors can overcome those challenges, and if UCAV reliability lets them match the 2-3 day long mission profiles of Northrop Grumman’s RQ-4 Global Hawks, the US Navy would receive the equivalent of a carrier-borne F-117 stealth fighter, with improved stealth and no pilot fatigue limits. That would open up entirely new possibilities for American carriers.

If aerial refueling support is present behind the front lines, an N-UCAS wing could easily sally forth to hit targets thousands miles from their host carrier, while pilots inside the ship fly in shifts. The X-47s would fly a much shorter distance back to aerial tankers as needed, and only return to the steaming carrier several days later, or when their weapons had been used up. As a concrete example, in an emergency a carrier could launch UCAVs as it left Gibraltar at the gate of the Mediterranean, then fly them to the Persian Gulf and keep them on patrol using USAF aerial refueling tankers, all the while steaming to catch up. As the carrier got closer to the Arabian Sea off of Oman, the UCAVs would get more and more loiter time over their target area, and the “chainsaw” would get shorter and shorter.

Concept no more
(click to view full)

The USA’s Naval Aviation Master Plan currently includes provisions for a Navy UCAS (N-UCAS) around 2025. If UCAS-D work goes very well, and the US Navy follows through on its shift toward an X-47B-class UCAV that can be used for limited missions, pressure will build for much earlier deployment. There are already indications of pressure along those lines, and the UCLASS RFI sets a goal of fielding a limited capability UCAV on board American carriers by 2018 or so. Barring continued and substantial pressure from above, however, the level of cultural shift required by the naval aviation community is likely to slow down any deployment of advanced UCAVs on board ships.

If and when the US Navy proceeds with a full Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle deployment program, the X-47 will have competitors.

General Atomics was first out of the gate, expanding its jet-powered Predator C “Avenger” research program to include a carrier-capable “Sea Avenger” as well. Boeing is another clear competitor, who makes F/A-18 Super Hornet naval fighters, and has the privately-developed X-45 Phantom Ray. The Phantom Ray was developed under the earlier DARPA J-UCAS effort, and Boeing joins Northrop Grumman, General Atomics, and Lockheed Martin as recipients of the Navy’s next-stage UCLASS study contracts.

Beyond Boeing, Britain’s BAE Taranis and Europe’s Dassault-led nEUROn program have excluded carrier operations from their programs, but France has a full-size aircraft carrier, and Britain expects to join her by 2020. Once the initial demonstration phases are done, European work on carrier-related UCAV R&D becomes a distinct possibility.

Northrop Grumman’s UCAS-D team hopes that by completing the UCAS-D funded demonstration phase, they’ll be able to offer an inherently conservative service a proven UCAV option, with a more complete set of advanced capabilities than privately-developed or late-moving competitors.

UCAS-D: Program & Team

The first X-47B Pegasus UCAS-D (AV-1) was scheduled to fly in December 2009, but that was pushed back to Q1 of CY 2010, and finally ended up taking place in February 2011. It conducted series of detailed flight envelope and land-based carrier integration and qualification events at Edwards AFB, CA, then returned to NAS Patuxent River, MD to begin land-based carrier landing trials.

AV-2, which is equipped with full refueling systems, was expected to make its first flight in November 2010, and begin testing autonomous aerial refueling (AAR). Early 2011 saw the AV-2 airframe pass static and dynamic load tests, but AV-2′s flights were delayed until AV-1 finishes its own tests, in late 2011, and didn’t take off until November 2011. It began carrier-related testing in 2012, and launched for the 1st time in May 2013. Full launch and landing circuits, and aerial refueling tests, are still on the horizon.

Its first landing was initially set for late 2011, but the firm now talks about some time in 2013. Once autonomous aerial refueling demonstrations begin, the Navy intends to achieve both probe & drogue (USN style) and boom/receptacle (USAF style) refuelings.

Northrop Grumman’s facility in Palmdale, CA is the final assembly site for the X-47B, and the industrial team also includes:

UCAS-D: Northrop Grumman’s X-47B

X-47B 3-view
(click to view full)

UCAVs currently have no real situational awareness of the airspace around them, which makes them sitting ducks for any attack that doesn’t use radar guidance, and isn’t picked up by their radar warning receivers. Even an alerted UCAV currently has few options but to try and change course. That may work against ground threats, but mobile aerial opponents will simply follow and kill them. Their best defense is not to be found. Their best option if found is to make it hard to keep a radar track on them, or to vector in enemy aircraft. This may be why high-end strike UCAVs like the Boeing X-45 Phantom Ray, European nEUROn, British Taranis, and Russian MiG SKAT all use the maximum stealth configuration of tailless subsonic blended wing bodies with shielded air intakes, and attenuated exhausts.

The X-47B’s modified flying wing design and top-mounted air intake reflect this orientation. By removing the pilot and opting for sub-sonic speeds, Northrop Grumman is able to field a design that looks like a more advanced version of its B-2 bomber. Instead of a straight flying wing like Boeing’s competing X-45C, however, their engineers opted for a cranked wing that improves landing characteristics on carrier decks, and makes its easy to use carrier-borne aircrafts’ classic “folding wing” design for improved storage in tight spaces.

This UCAV may be a short plane, but it’s not a small one. The X-47B’s 62.1 foot wingspan rivals the Navy’s old F-14s, and is wider than a Navy F/A-18 Hornet or even a larger Super Hornet. Because of its foreshortened length, however, its storage “spot factor” relative to an F/A-18C Hornet (“1.0″) is just 0.87.

Target and strike
(click to view full)

Pratt & Whitney Canada JT15D-5C turbofan engine powered previous X-47 models, but the UCAS-D will adopt Pratt & Whitney’s F100-PW-220U, a modified variant of the engine that powers American F-16 and F-15 fighters. Subsonic requirements and carrier-based employment changed the engine’s imperatives: it will produce less thrust than its F100 counterparts (just 16,000 pounds), in exchange for efficiency improvements and better protection against the corrosive salt-water environment.

Efficiency matters to this platform. Unrefueled X-47B range is expected to be between 1,500 – 2,100 nautical miles, with a maximum payload of 4,500 pounds. The standard payload is expected to be a pair of 2,000 pound JDAMs, but the weapon bay’s ultimate size and shape will determine its ability to carry other options like strike missiles, JSOW glide bombs, a pair of 4-bomb racks for the GPS-guided Small Diameter Bomb, the forthcoming Joint Air-Ground Missile, etc.

Sensors are currently to be determined, as they aren’t really the point of UCAS-D. Any Navy strike platform is expected to have an advanced SAR radar with Ground Moving Target Indicator (SAR/GMTI), conformal electro-optic day/night cameras, and ESM (Electronic Support Measures) equipment that helps it pinpoint and trace back incoming electromagnetic signals. Given the X-47B’s design’s inherent strengths of stealth and long endurance, additional modules or payloads for tasks like signals collection must surely be expected.

Naval UCAVs: Contracts and Key Events

See also “Boeing to Advance UAV Aerial Refueling” for background and updates regarding unmanned aerial refueling test programs in the US military – which now include UCAS-D/ N-UCAS.

Unless otherwise indicated, The Naval Air Systems Command Patuxent River, MD manages these contracts.

Carrier launch
click for video

May 14/13: Carrier launch. An X-47B UCAS-D is maneuvered into position on deck, and launched from USS George W. Bush [CVN 77]. The US Navy, Northrop Grumman et. al. hail it as a revolutionary milestone. We’ll grant that launching amidst the busy, complicated, and dangerous goings-on of a carrier deck is unlike any land-based challenge. It’s a difficult task for humans, and a difficult task for computers to do with human help.

Having said that, this isn’t the complete circuit. It’s the next logical step after on-ship deck tests (vid. Nov. 26/12) and land-based catapult launch (vid. Nov 29/12). We’ve said before that they won’t have a revolution on their hands until they can do the complete circuit: maneuver, launch, fly a circuit, and land. The next revolution after that will involve aerial refueling. When they do these things, we’ll join the chorus. US NAVAIR | Northrop Grumman.

April 12/13: Support. FBO.gov:

“This synopsis provides notice of the Government’s intent to solicit a proposal on a sole source basis from Sierra Nevada Corporation, 444 Salomon Circle, Sparks, NV for work providing support in troubleshooting, problem resolution, and anomaly investigation associated with the Precision Global Positioning System (PGPS) as part of the existing Unmanned Combat Air System-Demonstration (UCAS-D) Program. This request for proposal will be issued in accordance with the terms and conditions of Basic Ordering Agreement (BOA) N00421-10-G-0001.

This acquisition is being pursued on a sole source basis under the statutory authority 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1), as implemented by Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 6.302-1, only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements.”

April 7/13: UCLASS. Lockheed Martin finally unveils their Skunk Works’ UCLASS design, which combines elements of their RQ-170 Sentinel stealth reconnaissance UAV with technologies from the F-35C for carrier operations, weapons use, etc. Overall, the design looks quite a bit like Boeing’s X-45C Phantom Ray. LMCO UCLASS Page | YouTube video.

March 26/13: UCLASS. NAVAIR indicates through a presolicitation that it plans to go ahead with follow-on Preliminary Design contracts to all 4 UCLASS study contract vendors (Boeing, General Atomics, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman – vid. June 23/11), and continue the Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike program.

The contracts are expected by the summer of 2013, supporting up to 2 years of work on the UAVs, datalinks for communications and control, and the carrier operations segment. They’re expected to carry each design to the Preliminary Design Review by Q3 2014, and support post-PDR design maturation and follow-on engineering. The next step after that will be the selection of 1 winner, and UCLASS initial operational capability within 3-6 years. FBO | Defense Update.

Dec 21/12: Aerial Refueling. Northrop Grumman Systems Corp. in San Diego, CA receives a $9.7 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract modification for Autonomous Aerial Refueling (AAR) demonstration activities in support of the N-UCAS program. Services will include completion of Delta Critical Design Review (DCDR), surrogate testing with manned aircraft, preparation for the X-47B demonstration, travel, and support technical data for the AAR demonstration activities.

Work will be performed in Manhattan Beach, CA (70%) and Patuxent River, MD (30%), and is expected to be complete in December 2013. All contract funds are committed immediately (N00019-07-C-0055).

Nov 29/12: Testing. An X-47B is launched using a land-based naval steam catapult, at NAS Patuxent River, MD. The releases are full of words like “historic,” but DID just doesn’t see it. Lots of UAVs have been launched by non-steam catapults, steam catapult technology isn’t new, and this isn’t a launch from an actual ship. It’s just a test to verify that the X-47B’s landing gear, body structure, and software, which were designed from the outset to handle the rigors of a steam catapult launch, can indeed do so. A milestone, yes, but a minor one.

When an X-47B is launched from an actual ship, and recovered aboard, that will be historic. Ditto for successful aerial refueling. US NAVAIR | Northrop Grumman.

X-47B deck tests
click for video

Nov 26/12: Testing. An X-47B air vehicle arrives by barge from Naval Air Station Patuxent River, MD, and is craned aboard the USS Harry S. Truman [CVN 75] for deck handling tests aboard the ship.

One suspects that civil airspace certification for high-end drones can’t happen soon enough for NAVAIR and the US military. US NAVAIR.

Nov 15/12: Testing. Northrop Grumman announces that its UCAS-D team has successfully completed initial onshore trials of the Control Display Unit (CDU), a new wireless, handheld controller used for carrier-deck maneuvering. Tests were basic: control engine thrust; roll forward, brake and stop; nose wheel steering; and maneuver the aircraft efficiently into a catapult or out of the landing area following a mock carrier landing.

On-ship deck trials are next.

Nov 6/12: NASIF Testing. US NAVAIR discusses testing at the “N-UCAS Aviation/Ship Integration Facility.” If NASIF didn’t exist, the Navy would have to use an aircraft carrier for this sort of testing, and it can’t afford that. Hence the NASIF building, stocked with Primary Flight Control (PriFly), Landing Signals Officer (LSO), Carrier Air Traffic Control Center (CATCC) and Mission Control Element (MCE) equipment.

The UCAS-D program uses the facility for system integration of new equipment, and UAV/manned surrogate demonstration events. Events like final Human Systems Integration (HSI) modeling and simulation testing for sailors from USS Carl Vinson and USS Abraham Lincoln.

Instead of using the current method of controlling multiple aircraft with radar displays and voice radio, the event tested their ability to send and receive digital instructions to and from aircraft, in addition to using voice instructions. This capability is absolutely required for UAV, but it will also help manned fighters, whose 60-second landing spread includes a final 20 seconds of enforced controller silence. If the controllers can communicate with everyone else by text while a pilot lands, that’s a big step forward.

The controller teams showed they could handle it over about 20 test scenarios, which progressed from relaying UAV commands to a UAV mission operator for entry, to direct communication with the simulated UAV and more automated systems.

X-47B, Edwards AFB
(click to view full)

Aug 20/12: UCLASS. NAVAIR awards a small $440,315 firm-fixed-price delivery order to Rockwell Collins, for Phase II of the ARC-210 UCLASS feasibility study with JPALS.

ARC-210 radios are used to communicate with UAVs over UHF, and their software may need fine-tuning to work with UCLASS for all of the Navy’s requirements (N00019-08-G-0016-0076). contract FBO.gov.

Aug 13/12: UCLASS. Naval Air Systems Command releases a Request for
Information to evaluate the Draft Mission Effectiveness Analysis (MEA) Tool developed by the UCLASS Program Office. In practice this is a spreadsheet fed with warfare analysis models, where the user can input UAV parameters for comparative assessment (N00019-12-P7-ZD235).

The RFP should come in the fall with a down-select to a single design in 2016 aiming for IOC in 2020. The spreadsheet is classified SECRET/NOFORN. FBO.gov | Flight International.

Early July 2012: Testing. Members from the UCAS-D carrier integration team engage in extensive software testing aboard aboard USS Harry S. Truman [CVN 75], talking to fleet air-traffic controllers and air-department personnel about the usability of the new software, and lessons learned. Land-based X-47B tests will continue at Patuxent River, MD, and the goal is a carrier landing in about a year. US NAVAIR.

June 14/12: UFO-G. US NAVAIR indirectly confirms that the wrapped object spotted on a truck in Kansas was UCAS-D AV-2 (vid. June 6/12 entry), being trucked across the country from Edwards AFB, CA to NAS Patuxent River, MD for the next phase of flight tests. Easier than getting the civil flight waivers, I guess.

June 8/12: JPALS. L-3 Service, Inc. in Mount Laurel, NJ receives a $12.5 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for engineering services in support of the precision GPS Joint Precision Approach and Landing System, and the Navy’s UCAS-D program. The 2 are highly connected, of course, since UCAVs will need to depend on precision GPS, in order to land on carriers (vid. the July 2/11 test). JPALS will also help manned fighters.

Services to be provided include requirements definition and analysis, prototyping, test and evaluation, technical assistance, system analysis, engineering, software work, test data acquisition, reduction and analysis, technical logistic support, configuration management, training support, and program and project management. Work will be performed in St. Inigoes, MD (95%); Providence, RI (3%); and Chicago, IL (2%). Work is expected to be complete in October 2012. This contract was not competitively procured, pursuant to the FAR 6.302-1, by the US Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division in Patuxent River, MD (N00421-12-C-0048).

June 6/12: UFO-G. From the Augusta (KS) Gazette:

“This morning several Butler County Sheriff officers and KDOT personnel escorted a flatbed trailer entering Augusta from the south on US Highway 77 and headed east out of town on US Highway 54. Traffic was backed up coming in and going out of town. At first glance the strange-shaped cargo cloaked in industrial-strength shrink wrap appeared to be a saucer, but an unidentified KDOT worker advised it was an X-47B Combat Drone coming from Texas and en route to an unknown destination.”

Operating unmanned jets in US civil air space is a bit of a problem, which may help to explain the decision to ship it by road. Kansas is a rather roundabout route from Texas to Patuxent River, MD, but it is more of a straight line from California.

Jan 21/12: Testing. NAVAIR/AFRL’s AAR program completes a series of ground and flight tests that began in November 2011, using a Calspan Learjet surrogate with X-47B hardware and software, and a Omega Air Refueling K-707 aerial tanker. The tests included simulated flight demonstrations of both boom/receptacle (USAF) and probe-and-drogue (Navy & European) aerial refueling techniques, but no fuel was actually transferred, and Calspan’s Learjet wasn’t equipped for that anyway. The tests were all about correct positioning and coordination, beginning at a position 1 nautical mile from the K-707, and allowing autonomous guidance to move the Learjet into the 3 air-air refueling positions: observation, contact, and re-form.

Navy UCAS program manager Capt. Jaime Engdahl says that the next big step will involve using the actual X-47B. The team plans to conduct 2 more surrogate test periods before a planned refueling demonstration with the X-47B in 2014. NAVAIR | Northrop Grumman.

Nov 22/11: AV-2 flies. The fully-equipped UCAS-D demonstrator #AV-2 takes off for the 1st time at Edwards AFB, CA. That’s about a year late, but AV-1′s issues had to be ironed out first.

With 2 flying UCAVs, the program is expected to move AV-2 to NAS Patuxent River, MD by the end of 2011, and begin testing carrier landing technologies in 2012. That will include GPS-guided precision approaches to the carrier, arrested landings and “roll-out” catapult launches at land-based test facilities; and flight testing of new precision navigation computers and guidance/ navigation/ control software recently installed on both aircraft. The new suite of hardware and software is designed to let the X-47B land safely on a moving aircraft carrier deck. AV-1 will continue testing at Edwards AFB, with a focus on finding its flight limits. Northrop Grumman.

Nov 7/11: Aerial refueling. Inside the Navy reports [subscription] that the US Navy will be expanding the X-47B’s planned aerial refueling capability, to autonomously refuel while in flight with both USAF Air Force and USN aerial tankers.

The USAF uses KC-135s and KC-10s, but many of the KC-135s need to place an attachment on the refueling boom, in order to refuel probe-carrying aircraft. The US Navy has KC-130 Hercules aerial tankers, and its F/A-18E/F Super Hornets can become “buddy refuelers” with special wing tanks.

“Look ma, no hands!”
(click to view full)

July 18/11: Northrop Grumman Systems in San Diego, CA receives a $25 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract modification for UCAS-D autonomous aerial refueling technology maturation and demonstration activities. They’ll provide “air systems, air vehicle segment, and mission management segment requirements definition; integration planning and verification planning; and definition of certification requirements and approach.”

Work will be performed in San Diego, CA, and is expected to be complete in December 2012. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-07-C-0055).

May 16/11: Northrop Grumman announces that it has picked up awards from the USAF Flight Test Center at Edwards AFB, CA, including Flight Test Team of the Quarter (above candidates like the F-35) for its X-47B/UCAS-D aircraft.

April 25/11: Sub-contractors. ARINC Engineering Services, LLC in Annapolis, MD receives a $9.7 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for technical and engineering services in support of the Joint Precision Approach and Landing Systems (JPALS) and Navy Unmanned Combat Aerial Systems (N-UCAS) programs. The 2 are related, as JPALS precision GPS-driven approach is a natural fit with the landing needs of a carrier-borne UCAV.

Work will be performed in Lexington Park, MD (80%), and St. Inigoes, MD (20%), and is expected to be complete in October 2011. This contract was not competitively procured by the US Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division in Patuxent River, MD (N00421-11-C-0034).

March 28/11: UCLASS. US NAVAIR issues a Broad Agency Announcement regarding UCLASS, in solicitation #N00019-11-R-0031:

“The Naval Air Systems Command seeks proposals which conceptually demonstrate that a UCLASS system can provide a persistent Carrier Vessel-Nuclear (CVN) based Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) and strike capability supporting carrier air wing operations in the 2018 timeframe. In order to identify and explore available trade space… The program anticipates leveraging existing, deployed Department of Defense (DoD) systems to launch, recover, and control the air vehicle, transfer data in support of time critical strike operations, and conduct persistence ISR operations. The ongoing Unmanned Combat Air System-Demonstration program will inform UCLASS development and provide technology risk reduction for Unmanned Aircraft (UA) integration into carrier environments.”

March 14/11: Testing. A US Navy/Northrop Grumman Corporation test team issues a report stating that 5 weeks of dynamic load testing on X-47B air vehicle 2 (AV-2) demonstrated its ability to handle the stresses, strains and dynamic loads associated with carrier catapult launches and arrested landings, and air-to-air refueling. AV-2 is the X-47B airframe that will be equipped for air-to-air refueling tests.

The tests themselves finished on Jan 24/11, a week ahead of schedule. NGC AV-2 manager says they included 8 design conditions, including a 3-G symmetrical pull up, a 2.4G rolling pullout, and turbulence during aerial refueling; and 5 conditions expected to occur on the ground, including takeoff and landing tests involving the nose gear and tail hook. To conduct the tests, engineers bonded pads to 200 points on the airframe surface, and then pushed and pulled on those pads using hydraulic jacks to simulate various static and dynamic load conditions. Northrop Grumman.

March 1-4/11: Testing. The X-47B UCAS-D makes its 2nd and 3rd of 49 planned flights at Edwards AFB, CA. Testers are working to expand the flight test envelope in terms of air speeds, altitudes and operating weights, while testing key systems. Major concerns at this point include its flight control system’s ability to handle unpredictable crosswinds and turbulence at all speeds, the accuracy of its flush-mounted air data testing instruments, and engine performance. NGC.

Feb 15/11: UCLASS. General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. announces success in wind-tunnel tests of its Sea Avenger model, intended to validate its new wing’s low-speed handling characteristics. a key wind tunnel test on a model of its jet-powered Sea Avenger Predator C variant. The new wing is also designed to increase aircraft dash speeds, which is an interesting engineering combination.

GA-ASI President Frank W. Pace touts the 90-hour, 8-day test at the San Diego Air & Space Technology Center, as a classic example of his firm’ push to invest in early development, ahead of customer requirements for a UCLASS type system. The firm’s past history with the MQ-1 Predator and MQ-9 Reaper backs up his boast.

Feb 7/11: Sub-contractors. Lockheed Martin touts their own involvement in the X-47B program, which mostly revolves around low observable (stealth) design and aspects of aerodynamic edges, inlet lip and control surfaces, and an all new arresting hook system. Al Romig is the current VP of Advanced Development Programs for Lockheed Martin Aeronautics, and the firm completed delivery of its UCAS-D hardware in December 2009. Lockheed Martin will continue to support further UCAS-D flight testing, as well as carrier flight operations.

UCAS-D 1st flight
(click to view full)

Feb 4/11: First UCAS-D flight. The flight took off at 14:09 PST (GMT -0800) at Edwards AFB, and lasted 29 minutes, flying between 180 – 240 kt and climbing to 5,000 feet with landing gear down at all times, while executing racetrack patterns. It provided test data to verify and validate system software for guidance and navigation, and aerodynamic control of the tailless design. The flight follows airframe proof load tests, propulsion system accelerated mission tests, software maturity and reliability simulations, full system taxi tests, and numerous other system test activities that happen before any 1st flight.

Eugene Fly had made the first landing on a stationary ship on Jan 18/1911, but a 100th anniversary flight for X-47B #AV-1 wasn’t possible. Some of items that delayed this flight from original expectations in late 2009 included propulsion acoustic and engine-start sequencing issues, an asymmetric braking issue uncovered during taxi tests, and a last-minute maintenance issue with an auxiliary power generation system.

Testing continues. Aircraft AV-1 will remain at Edwards AFB for flight envelope expansion before transitioning to Naval Air Station Patuxent River, MD, later in 2011, where they will validate its readiness to begin testing in the maritime and carrier environment. Meanwhile, the refueling-ready AV-2 has completed its design limit load tests up to 130% with no test anomalies, showing that it’s able to withstand g-loads encountered during aerial refueling. It won’t begin its own tests until AV-1′s initial tests are done, which is currently planned for late 2011. The program is currently preparing the X-47B for carrier trials in 2013. US Navy | NGC release | Bullet points, images & video | Aviation Week.

1st flight

Feb 2/11: USAF opportunity? Defense news quotes Col. James Gear, director of the USAF’s Remotely Piloted Aircraft Task Force, on the future of its UAV fleet. Despite a big commitment to the MQ-1 Predator, the MQ-9 Reaper caused a major mid-stream shift in plans. Col. Gear cites some existing issues with the MQ-9, which could leave it open to a similar shift.

The Reaper does not fare well in icing conditions, and is also not considered survivable against anti-aircraft systems. The issue of jam and snoop-proof data links, and trace-back and verification of signal origins, has also been a live question during the MQ-1 and MQ-9′s tenure. The “MQ-X” that replaces it will have to do better on all 3 counts, and the USAF also wants it to be easily upgradeable via switch-out modules. The Colonel believes the resulting UAV will end up being common with the US Navy’s carrier-based UCLASS requirement, as the 2 services are cooperating closely. That could give Northrop Grumman’s funded X-47B N-UCAS an edge over Boeing’s privately developed X-45 Phantom Ray. It could also offer a boost to General Atomics’ Predator C/ Sea Avenger.

Manned and…not
(click to view full)

July 19/10: UCLASS. General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. touts its jet-powered Predator C Avenger UAS as “ready for deployment” under programs like the British RAF’s SCAVENGER, or as the MQ-X successor to the USAF’s MQ-9 Reapers. The Avenger family’s avionics are based upon the Predator B/MQ-9 Reaper, and the plane features both radar and optical sensor options, plus a variety of internal weapons loads up to 2,000 pound Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM).

Ready for deployment” is stretching things a bit. The Predator C series first flew in April 2009, “tail one” is currently averaging 2-3 flights a week, and flight tests were recently transferred from GA-ASI’s Gray Butte Flight Operations Facility in Palmdale, CA, to Naval Air Station (NAS) China Lake, CA. GA-ASI Aircraft Systems Group President Frank Pace does describe some results as “exceeding our expectations,” including excellent agreement between advance engineering and flight tests, and fuel burn rates up to 10% better than predicted models. The UAV reportedly uses a Pratt & Whitney Canada PW545B engine, which also powers the Cessna Citation XLS business jet.

May 3/10: UCLASS. General Atomics announces that it has submitted its “Sea Avenger” as a potential candidate for UCLASS airborne surveillance and strike requirement. Their UCAV is based on their jet-powered, 44-foot long and 66-foot wingspan “Predator C Avenger,” which can fly at 400 knots for up to 20 hours, and operate up to 50,000 feet. Design changes include a highly fuel-efficient engine and inlet design, a Lynx SAR ground-looking radar, retractable electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) sensors and a 3,000 pound capacity internal weapons bay, and folding wings. The structure can accommodate carrier suitable landing gear, tail hook, drag devices, and other provisions for carrier operations.

Developed on company funds for near-term military use, the base Predator C Avenger is continuing through its planned test program, with a 2nd aircraft currently under development and expected to be complete by the end of 2010. General Atomics.

March 19/10: UCLASS RFI. The US Navy issues a Request for Information for a (UCLASS). The RFI indicates that the Navy is looking to move ahead with full unmanned combat aircraft earlier than its original plans.

“The Navy is interested in information on carrier based, low observable (LO) Unmanned Air Systems (UAS) concepts optimized for Irregular and Hybrid Warfare scenarios, capable of integrating with manned platforms as part of the Carrier Air Wing (CVW) by the end of 2018 to support limited operations in contested scenarios. The UAS should enhance situational awareness and shorten the time it takes to find, fix, track, target, engage, and assess time sensitive targets. This RFI is intended to determine the existence of sources that can provide a limited inventory of systems capable of being operated by fleet Sailors and performing the above mentioned Navy UAS mission.”

The UCLASS concept involves 4-6 UAVs that could perform both intelligence/ surveillance/ reconnaissance (ISR) and strike missions in contested airspace, that are able to fly for 11-14 hours without refuelling. Industry reportedly expected the navy to release a UCLASS RFP in early 2011, and interested parties beyond Northrop Grumman include General Atomics (Sea Avenger), and reportedly Boeing (X-45 Phantom Ray) as well. See: FedBizOpps RFI | Flight International | Jane’s.

March 17/10: Leadership. Janis Pamiljans, previously vice president and program manager of Northrop’s KC-30 aerial refueling tanker bid for the USAF, takes over from Scott Winship as vice president of N-UCAS related efforts. Pamiljans also has worked as a program manager on the F/A-18 and F-35 strike fighter programs.

Aviation Week points out that this is just one of several corporate moves, which seem to be aimed at freeing people up to participate in “black” (classified) programs, and develop a next-generation stealth aircraft for reconnaissance and long-range strike. Aviation Week | Defense News.

March 2/10: Leadership. Capt. Jeff Penfield takes over the Navy’s X-47B program office, replacing Capt. Martin Deppe. Source.

Feb 18/10: Predator C. Don Bolling, a Lockheed Martin senior business development manager, hints that General Atomics’ Predator C has a customer, and isn’t just a privately funded effort. He tells a media source that General Atomics Aeronautical Systems is interested in “Global Hawk-like” payloads for high altitude surveillance on its jet-powered Predator-C Avenger UAV, putting efforts to install the F-35 fighter’s Sniper pod-derived electro-optical targeting system (EOTS) on hold.

The shift was reportedly at the request of a customer, which made the report news because the Predator C wasn’t known to have a customer. The USAF already flies Global Hawks, and export approvals for the EOTS and Predator C would be an involved process. The most likely guess as to the customer would be the CIA, which does operate UAVs of its own, or US Special Operations Command. Flight International.

Feb 13/10: Testing. The US Navy announces that N-UCAS team members are underway with USS Abraham Lincoln [CVN 72] to test the integration of existing ship systems with new systems that will support the X-47B in carrier-controlled airspace. The team is testing X-47B software integration by using a King Air turbo prop “surrogate” aircraft taking off and landing from shore, but approaching the carrier and performing the various procedures associated with systems like Prifly, CATCC, LSO, etc. The digital messages from shipboard controllers receive “wilco” (ACK) responses to verify receipt.

Additional developmental testing later this year, will involve testing the software integration using an F/A-18 surrogate aircraft, to more closely emulate the X-47B’s flight.

Feb 4/10: Navy plans. Defense News reports that the N-UCAS program is slated to receive a $2 billion boost over the next 5 years, and seems set to follow the RQ-4 Global Hawk procurement model, rather than remaining a demonstration aircraft.

The RQ-4 Global Hawk was an advanced development program that was moved to the front lines after the 9/11 attacks, and became a fully operational platform. The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review featured a tilt away from technology demonstrator status, and toward an X-47 UCAV that can perform surveillance and/or strike roles. That would let the Navy field operational UCAVs much sooner, and allow them to field a capability that could be similar but superior to the USAF’s current RQ-170 Sentinel/”Beast of Kandahar” stealth UAV. Those exact capabilities remain a matter for discussion, however, as Navy Undersecretary and UCAV advocate Bob Work points out:

“There is a lively debate over whether or not the N-UCAS demonstrator should result in a penetrating, ISR strike bird, or be more of a strike fighter… That debate has not quite been resolved. Having this extra $2 billion added to the budget is going to help us resolve that debate.”

Jan 26/10: Aerial refueling. Northrop Grumman Integrated Systems Sector in San Diego, CA received an $11 million not-to-exceed modification to a previously awarded cost-plus-incentive-fee contract for autonomous aerial refueling technology maturation and demonstration activities in support of the Navy UCAS-D.

Work will be performed in El Segundo, CA (60%) and Rancho Bernardo, CA (40%), and is expected to be complete in November 2010 (N00019-07-C-0055).

Jan 17/10: Testing. First low-speed taxi test of an X-47 N-UCAS. Source.

Dec 22/10: Delay. Trouble with engine start sequencing and propulsion acoustics will now reportedly delay the X-47B’s December 2009 flight to some time in the first 3 months of 2010. Gannett’s Navy Times | Defense Update.

Nov 25/09: Aviation Week reports that the X-47 UCAS-D system demonstrator is experiencing “propulsion acoustic and engine-start sequencing” issues, which will require additional testing and push its 1st flight to 2010.

The US Navy reportedly says UCAS-D is still on track for sea trials in 2012, but Northrop Grumman has placed a “moratorium” on press interviews for UCAS-D – never a good sign.

Nov 2/09: Navy plans. The Brookings Institute’s 21st Century Defense Initiative hosts Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Gary Roughead, who discusses the U.S. Navy’s use of new technologies, and its development and integration of unmanned systems. Excerpts:

“I would say that where we can make some significant breakthroughs us just in the organizing principles and in the way that we approach the unmanned systems. The idea of being able to disembark or embark long-range unmanned air systems for example changes the nature in which we can run flight decks, changes the nature of the carrier air wing configurations as we move into the future.

…I would also say that I am often struck that as we talk about unmanned systems we’ve really become enamored with the vehicle itself and there has been very, very little discussion and arguably little work on something that makes it all work together and that’s the network and the architecture of the network, how the information will be moved, what are the redundancies that you would have in place, and what are the common protocols that are going to be required as we move into the future.”

See WIRED Danger Room | Brookings Institute and full transcript [PDF]

Oct 6/09: Sub-contractors. GE Aviation announces that it has delivered the first fully-dressed X-47B UCAS-D landing gear to Northrop Grumman Corporation. “Fully-dressed” landing gear is designed to meet or exceed all U.S. Navy carrier landing requirements for a fully loaded UCAS-D aircraft. GE Aviation says that its combined systems make it the largest non-partner equipment supplier to the X-47B, but the landing gear effort had partners of its own:

“Due to the demanding mission profiles required for this advanced carrier platform, the landing gear system incorporates the latest technology advancements in steering control from Parker Hannifin as well as anti-skid braking systems from Goodrich Corporation.”

UCAS-D load testing
(click to view full)

Aug 11/09: Updates. AUVSI 2009 event reports indicate progress on several fronts from the UCAS-D program.

Flight International reports that an F/A-18D Hornet test plane with be modified to carry X-47B avionics and software, then used as a test bed to develop a fully integrated aircraft/carrier auto-landing system. The Navy is hoping to perform manned but “hands-off” approaches and landings on an aircraft carrier within 2 years, though that aspect remains to be decided.

Meanwhile, Shephard reports that number of USAF personnel will begin arriving at NAS Patuxent River as observers to PMA-268, the Navy UCAS Program Office. The planned air-air refueling demonstration was apparently the catalyst for USAF interest, and the second test aircraft (AV-2) is being built with full internal refueling systems on board.

July 29/09: Load testing. Northrop Grumman announces a successful series of static and dynamic proof load tests, designed to ensure that the UCAV will be able to stand up to aircraft carrier launches, recoveries, and other associated stresses. For these torture tests, over 200 electro-hydraulic assemblies were attached to the major components of the X-47B, whereupon pressure was applied to simulate desired conditions. The 2-month effort included progressive structural, functional proof and calibration tests to verify the integrity of all flight control surfaces, major structural load paths, main landing gear structure, and the tailhook assembly.

The 2nd aircraft is currently being assembled, and will begin proof load tests later in 2009. UCAS-D aircraft will also undergo parallel engine integration and taxi tests through fall 2009, in preparation for first flight and aircraft carrier trials. Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems VP and UCAS-D program manager, Scott Winship, cited that unforgiving environment, then promised that:

“The X-47B was built for these conditions, and as the results of the rigorous proof test show, the design of the aircraft is structurally sound for all aspects of carrier operations.”

Jan 12/09: Aerial refueling. Jane’s confirms that the X-47 UCAS-D program will begin aerial refueling tests performed in 2010, using surrogate aircraft.

Dec 9/08: Aerial refueling. Aviation Week quotes UCAS program manager Scott Winship, as part of a report that that Northrop Grumman will modify the second X-47B UCAS-D to allow autonomous aerial refuelling (AAR) using both U.S. Navy probe-and-drogue and U.S. Air Force boom-and-receptacle methods. The U.S. Navy has announced plans to award the company a sole-source contract to support the demonstration of AAR capability by 2013, under UCAS-D’s parallel technology-maturation phase.

Boeing is currently leading a team including X-47B partners Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin for the 4-year second phase of a parallel Air Force Research Laboratory program. Winship says the X-47B could be used to provide a “graduation exercise” for the AAR effort.

Nov 19/08: Aerial Refueling. Boeing in St Louis, MO received a $49 million cost plus fixed fee contract as the automated aerial refueling Phase II integrator. At this point, $1.2 million has been obligated. The Air Force Research Laboratory at Wright-Patterson AFB, OH manages this contract (FA8650-09-C-3902). Read “$49M for Boeing to Advance UAV Aeral Refueling” for an explanation of the importance to the UCAS-D and similar programs.

July 14/08: Sub-contractors. Pratt & Whitney announces a $54 million contract from Northrop Grumman to develop and integrate the X-47 UCAS-D’s engine and exhaust system. The Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-220U engine will power the UCAS-D, providing up to 16,000 pounds of thrust while operating in a maritime environment, including carrier deck operations.

Just another day
at the office…
(click to view full)

August 1/07: UCAS-D. Northrop Grumman Integrated Systems – Western Region in San Diego, CA received a $635.9 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract for the Unmanned Combat Air System CV Demonstration Program (UCAS-D). Work will be performed in Rancho Bernardo, CA (38%); El Segundo, CA (29%); Palmdale, CA (13%); East Hartford, CT (7%); Jupiter, FL (2%); Nashville, TN (2%); Hazelwood, MO (1%), and various locations within the United States (8%), and is expected to be complete in September 2013.

The purpose of the UCAS-D is to demonstrate critical CV suitability technologies for a stealthy air vehicle in a relevant environment [DID: i.e naval/ aircraft carriers]. Expected deliverables include trade studies, analyses, software, reports and flight test data. This contract was competitively procured through a request for proposals; 2 firms were solicited [DID: that would be Boeing and NGC] and 2 offers were received (N00019-07-C-0055). See also Northrop Grumman’s Aug 3/07 release.

UCAS-D contract.

Sept 28/05: As part of DARPA’s J-UCAS program, Northrop Grumman Corporation’s X-47B conducted a successful simulated exercise at the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division in China Lake, CA. It demonstrated the simultaneous control of 4 of its X-47B unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) during U.S. Navy aircraft carrier operations. See Dec 9/05 NGC release.

Using a surrogate aircraft which represented one X-47B, 3 additional simulated X-47B aircraft were successfully controlled during several flights using advanced mission-management software and air traffic control procedures currently used by Navy aircraft carriers. The air traffic controller provided standard commands to a single mission operator, who in turn ensured all four aircraft safely operated within the simulated carrier’s airspace. The controller had to demonstrate the ability to guide all 4 aircraft through approach, wave-off and traffic pattern procedures, while accomplishing proper spacing and air traffic de-confliction. The mission operator had to be able to monitor the entire process to ensure proper command response, and advise the controller on aircraft response or performance limitations.

This was one of many tests undertaken as part of J-UCAS. It is reproduced here for its ongoing relevance to the UCAS-D program.

Additional UCAV Readings

UCAS-D/ N-UCAS

• Air Force Technology – X-47 Pegasus Naval Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV-N), USA

• Northrop Grumman – X-47B UCAS. See also UCAS brochure [PDF].

• Northrop Grumman Review Online (2007) – The United States Navy’s Unmanned Combat Air System Demonstration (UCAS-D) Program

• WIRED Danger Room (April 11/11) – Navy Wants Its Drone to Land on a Carrier With a Mouse Click

• DID – Aerial Refueling: Look, Ma, No Hands! DARPA’s Autonomous Airborne Refueling Demonstration program performs tests with a NASA F/A-18D and a commercial 707-300 aerial tanker… and the system works. In some cases, it works better than human pilots.

• Center for Strategic & Budgetary Assessments (June 18/08) – Range, Persistence, Stealth, and Networking: The Case for a Carrier-Based Unmanned Combat Air System [PDF]

• Military.com (Aug 14/07) – Will Drones Work on Carriers? Describes the process of launching and landing UCAVs on a carrier. You may be surprised to learn how much of this is already automated in America’s manned fighters.

• Center for Strategic & Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) Backgrounder (May 10/07) – The Unmanned Combat Air System Carrier Demonstration Program: A New Dawn For Naval Aviation? [PDF]

• Air Force Magazine (November 2005) – Will We Have an Unmanned Armada

UCAV Programs

• DID FOCUS Article – nEUROn UCAV Project Rolling Down the Runway (updated). nEUROn is a 6-nation European project that aims to create a UCAV with capabilities that resemble J-UCAS, but do not currently include carrier operations. It has moved into Phase 2.

• Air Force Technology – Taranis Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV) Demonstrator, United Kingdom. Not tackling carrier operations at this point.

• DARPA – J-UCAS program. J-UCAS died shortly after being transferred to the Air Force and Navy.

• Air Force Technology – X-45 J-UCAV Joint Unmanned Combat Air System, USA. The X-47B’s competitor for the UCAS-D follow-on program, and fellow J-UCAS participant.

• DID – Ride on the Ray: Boeing’s X-45 UCAVs. Boeing has restarted it with corporate funding.

• Northrop Grumman Analysis Center, presentation to the 3rd Joint-Industry Forum (Feb 16/05) – Joint Unmanned Combat Air System and US Military Transformation shows [PDF]

In 2006 the Turkish SSM procurement agency issued a request for information (RFI) for 4 more diesel-electric submarines. That RFI became an RFP for 6 diesel-electric submarines with air-independent propulsion systems, to replace older boats like Turkey’s U209-based Preveze and Atilay classes.

DID covers the competition, and adds some quick background re: the Turkish Navy’s existing fleet, where its rival Greece stands, and contract developments regarding their new “Cerbe Class”. Turkey has a signed multi-billion Euro contract for HDW’s U214 subs… and are about to add a revolutionary new weapon.

Contracts and Key Events

The Cerbe class has an 80% industrial offset provision, with Golcuk Naval Shipyard retaining its position as the build location. STM will assist. Havelsan will be involved in customizing the combat system, while Milsoft delivers Link-11/22 datalinks, and state agency TUBITAK will offer an underwater telephony system and help by verifying submarine signatures. Koc Savuma Sistemleri provides a torpedo countermeasure system.

U214 cutaway
(click to view full)

May 13/13: Weapons. ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems and Diehl Defence sign a cooperation agreement with Turkey’s Roketsan to develop and supply the submarine-launched IDAS (Interactive Defence and Attack System for Submarines) anti-aircraft missile. Roketsan will be responsible for the IDAS warhead, support testing of the Control Actuation System with some follow-on work share, and participation in system-level design activities. The Norwegian company Nammo is developing and producing the rocket motor.

IDAS builds on Diehl’s experience with the IRIS-T short-range air-to-air missile, and is launched without a protective capsule using a torpedo canister. An autopilot and image-processing infrared seeker offer autonomous guidance and navigation, with a fiber-optic data link as an operator-controlled backup. Its presence on submarines like the U212A/ U214 makes life far more dangerous for sub-hunting helicopters and maritime patrol aircraft, who have never had to worry about counterattacks before. Diehl.

July 1/11: The July 2/09 submarine deal takes effect, and its value is published as EUR 2 billion (currently about $2.9 billion) in public statements by TKMS.

“The two-billion-euro order for six U-214 submarine material packages placed with ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems by the Republic of Turkey has been activated with the receipt of the advance payment… ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems can now begin executing the order. The order will contribute to securing employment at [ThyssenKrupp's] Howaldswerke Deutsche Werft, or HDW, in Kiel, as well as at many subcontractors in Germany and Turkey, for the next 10 years.”

Of course, that’s just the TKMS deal. Without a more detailed report, it’s not clear whether, and how much, of the Turkish work at the Golcuk Shipyard might be considered extra. Hurriyet reports that the 2 sides had been discussing loan conditions for the last 6 months, with an agreement finally coming in late June 2011. Defense News adds that the go-ahead means the end of modernization plans for Turkey’s older submarines.

June 30/11: Spin-off opportunity. A Turkish Ministry of Defense official tells Today’s Zaman that a deal with Indonesia for 2 U209 submarines is “very close.” If the expected deal between the two states is signed, Turkey’s Savunma Teknolojileri Muhendislik ve Ticaret A.S. (STM) would partner with HDW to build them in the Golcuk shipyard. As it happens, Turkey loses to HDW partners in South Korea, but there may be another competition before Turkish shipyards are done building the U214s. Read “Submarines for Indonesia” for full coverage.

March 26/11: Transparency. Turkish media shine a spotlight on the fact that the government has not revealed key facts of the U214 deal, such as the deal’s price, or the submarines’ technical features. The Bugun daily adds that Turkey’s Undersecretariat of the Treasury had initially objected to the high interest rate on financing deal payments, and concerns were also raised over hidden costs such as inflation predictions, and labor costs for construction in Turkey. Overall, these factors are estimated to add up to EUR 1 billion, pushing outside estimates of the deal to around EUR 3.5 billion.

Even at lower figures such as the EUR 2.19 billion allocated for financing, there is also criticism that Turkey ends up paying more than Greece did for U214 submarines. Given that Greece’s submarines reportedly had their cost inflated by bribes and extra add-ons, that should be a matter of some concern in Turkey. The German magazine Manager says that bribery is not unknown to the naval firm, and alleges that TKMS Marine’s HDW subsidiary has paid bribes related to submarine buys in Argentina (U209), Colombia (U209), and Portugal (U214), as well as Greece (U214). Today’s Zaman.

Jan 12/11: Financing. After long negotiations threatened to destroy the submarine deal, a major financing deal between German banks and the Turkish Treasury reportedly rescued the project on Dec 31/10. The Turkish Treasury announced that:

“For the financing of the production of [6] submarines in Turkey, an export credit agreement in the amount of 1.878 billion euros was signed between the Undersecretariat of the Treasury and bank consortium led by Bayerische Landesbank, and a commercial loan agreement in the amount of 309 million euros was signed between the Undersecretariat of the Treasury and a bank consortium led by WestLB London Branch on Dec. 31. The total amount of financing provided equals 2.187 billion euros.”

This finally begin to put a firm deal figure on Turkey’s submarine program, which had been estimated at EUR 2.5 billion but had no contract. The financing package is reportedly the last obstacle to a firm deal, and at current exchange, EUR 2.187 billion is about $2.886 billion. The submarines will still be built at the military-owned Golcuk Shipyard near Izmit, and the Turkish government is still reportedly hoping for an in service date “shortly after” 2015. In practice, however, negotiation delays usually translate into fielding delays of similar magnitude. In this case, fielding in late 2016 to early 2017 seems likeliest. Hurriyet Daily.

U-214 SSK
(click to view full)

Nov 18/09: Cost concerns. Hurriyet reports that previous accounts of the Turkish deal may have overstated the cost:

“…selected HDW over its French and Spanish rivals in the summer of 2008. At the time, the program’s expected cost was announced to be nearly 2.5 billion euros. After yearlong price and work-sharing negotiations… a final contract was signed in July.

No price was specified in the public announcements for the contract at the time, but Hürriyet Daily News & Economic Review found out that the cost of the program was around 1.96 billion euros, which is nearly 500 million euros lower than the original price.”

Aug 26/08: Competition. The SSM begins contract negotiations with the HDW/MFI Business Partnership, for U-214 submarines with Air Independent Propulsion. Source.

Nov 12/07: Competition. The Turkish Undersecretariat for Defense Industries (SSM) has confirmed 3 bidders for the Future Submarine Project. DCNS in France, HDW/MFI in Germany, and Spain’s Navantia S.A.

HDW is the current incumbent in Turkey, and their most advanced submarines are the U-212A and U-214 classes. The U-212A has been ordered by Germany (5) and Italy (2), while the U-214 has been ordered by Turkey’s rival Greece (4) and by South Korea (3).

DCNS and Navantia both make Scorpene class submarines, which have been sold to India (6), Chile (2), and Malaysia (2). That partnership has split over future models, however, with Navantia developing the larger S-80 class for Spain in cooperation with BAE (4), and DCNS developing the Marlin class for export.

March 15-16/07: Competition. Turkey’s SSM holds a bidder conference for RFP purchasers.

Feb 2/07: Competition. The Turkish SSM lists the companies who bought the New Type Submarine (AIP) Project RFP. They are:

• Armaris (France, would become DCNS)
  
• Fincantieri Cantieri Navali Italiani S.p.A. (Italy)
  
• HDW/MFI (Germany)
  
• Lockheed Martin Maritime Systems & Sensors (USA)
  
• Navantia S.A. (Spain).

Lockheed and Fincantieri are almost certainly positioning themselves as subcontractors.

Dec 28/06: Competition. The SSM’s RFP announcement raised the total from 4 to 6 submarines, and adds air-independent propulsion systems as a requirement. See release with contact information… but the fee of the RFP is EUR 10,000 (currently about $13,200). Get your Euros in by January 31, 2007, by 17:00 Ankara time.

June 23/06: Competition. DID’s “Turkey Gets Responses re: Sub Program, Delays Other RFPs” covers the firms that responded to the RFI, most of whom are subcomponent manufacturers or services providers. Within the respondent group, HDW, Armaris, and Navantia all build diesel-electric submarine classes with air-independent propulsion; Kockums and Russia’s Rosoboronexport are conspicuous by their absence.

Links add details re: both the sub RFI, and accompanying competitions for a Submarine Rescue Mother Ship (Moship) and 2 Rescue and Towing Ships.

March 2006: Competition. Defense-Aerospace relayed a Turkish SSM procurement agency RFI for 4 more diesel-electric submarines:

“In this frame, Request for Information is issued to gather administrative, financial and technical information from related Companies who may be willing to participate for the project activities. The companies who are willing to reply to the RFI may request the RFI document by sending an e-mail including their company name and detailed contact address to [colcay -at- ssm -dot- gov.tr]. Then, the RFI document will be sent to the related companies by e-mail. The deadline for requesting the RFI document from SSM is May 15th, 2006 by local time 17:00.”

Additional Readings

• ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems – Class 214

• Naval Technology – U212 / U214 Attack Submarines, Germany

• Turkish SSM – New Type Submarine Project

• Bosphorous Naval News – Cebre Class (214 Type 1200)

• DID – Greece in Default on U-214 Submarine Order

Appendix A: Current Incumbents, and Future Possibilities

Atilay Class
(click to view full)

Haze Gray notes that Turkey currently operates 6 SSK Atilay class (Type 209-1200

• ) diesel-electric attack submarines built between 1975-1989, and will also operate a total of 8 related Preveze class (Type 209-1400*) boats when current commitments are fully built out. The second group of 4 U209-1400s was a DM 996 million contract signed in 1998 for a slightly modified design, and is sometimes referred to as the Gur class. Golcuk Naval Shipyard has worked in cooperation with HDW on many of these submarines, and will be the local co-production partners for these “new type submarines” as well.

• ) submarines in service, and is building 4 more SSK Papanikolis class (Type 214) diesel-electric attack submarines with air-independent propulsion.

This seemed to put HDW in a favorable position for additional orders from Turkey with its U-212 improved & U-214 Class, and the final outcome bore that out.

Other contenders included firms like France’s DCNS (Agosta class, Scorpene class, newer Marlin class under development), and Spain’s Navantia Scorpene class, newer S-80 class under development). They are always serious competitors; and firms like Kockums AB (Gotland class, and Collins class with ASC) and even their Russian neighbor’s Rubin Central Maritime Design Bureau (Project 636 Improved Kilo class) had to be seen as possibilities.

Neither HDW subsidiary Kockums AB nor the Rubin Central Maritime Design Bureau requested RFIs – though either or both could have theoretically bought an RFP and responded anyway.

The first submarine of the new class is scheduled for delivery in 2015.

Appendix: The U209 Family

HDW family tree
(click to view full)

N.B.

• = Type 209 boats are often followed by a number that indicates the displacement of their version. Since these numbers have tended to grow over time, they can also help observers determine submarine modernity, but they are not an absolute guide by any means.

Alenia’s Aermacchi’s M-346 advanced jet trainer began life in 1993, as a collaboration with Russia. It was also something of a breakthrough for Alenia Aermacchi, confirming that the Finmeccanica subsidiary could design and manufacture advanced aircraft with full authority quadriplex fly-by-wire controls. Those controls, the aircraft’s design for vortex lift aerodynamics, and a thrust:weight ratio of nearly 1:1, allow it to remain fully controllable even at angles of attack over 35 degrees. This is useful for simulating the capabilities of advanced 4+ generation fighters like the F/A-18 Super Hornet, Eurofighter, and Rafale. Not to mention Sukhoi’s SU-30 family, which has made a name for itself at international air shows with remarkable nose-high maneuvers.

The Russian collaboration did not last. For a while, it looked like the Italian jet might not last, either. It did though, and has become a regular contender for advanced jet trainer trainer contracts around the world – including its biggest potential opportunity, in the USA. For now, however, its biggest customer is Israel.

Italy’s M-346: Fast Plane, Slow Aerospace

From Partnership to Solo Flight

Yak-130
(click to view full)

The original Italian and Russian partners partners on this project eventually went their separate ways, and Russia’s Yak-130 went on to limited initial success. It uses Russian equipment, avionics, radar, and weapons, and is powered by a pair of AI-222-25 or Povazske Strojarne DV-2SM (export option) turbofans. By 2006 the aircraft had beaten the MiG-AT and Sukhoi’s S-54 to be selected as Russia’s next advanced jet trainer, bagged an export order from Algeria as a trainer and light attack aircraft, and received interest from several additional customers.

Italy’s M346 didn’t develop the same light attack capabilities as its Russian counterpart, and it flies using Fiat Avio/Honeywell ITEC’s F124-GA-200 turbofans, and uses its own distinct set of avionics, training systems.

Some 3rd party data sheets for the aircraft state various weapons-carrying options, but the company has been silent concerning any weapons trials, while avoiding any mention of armaments in data sheets, and issuing releases that clearly place the light attack variant in the future tense as something that would happen if the UAE signs a contract. That hasn’t happened yet, and Finmeccannica companies have not been able to clarify its status; as such, DID must characterize the M-346 as a training-only aircraft, unlike its Yak-130 counterpart or other lead-in fighter trainer competitors.

Slow Aerospace & M-346 Exports

M-346 in Singapore
by Mark Chen
(click to view full)

Despite serious development work since 2000, and aid from the Italian Ministry for Economic Development, by the end of 2008, Alenia’s M346 had no confirmed customers at all.

The Italian Aeronautica Militare announced the plane’s first confirmed contract in November 2009, and their current trainer fleet of 102 MB-339s offers room for future M-346 sales beyond the initial 15. At present, only 30 of their existing trainers have been modernized to the MB-339CD variant.

Finmeccanica’s first real breakthrough abroad came at IDEX 2009, however, when the UAE selected it for a 48-plane order. That deal is estimated to be worth about EUR 1 billion, but has yet to become a contract. A more solid breakthrough took place in late 2010, when Singapore picked the M-346 over Korean Aerospace and Lockheed Martin’s supersonic T-50 Golden Eagle. Israel followed with a similar decision in 2012, citing future compatibility with the F-35. That can only be good news for future European sales, and The Italian Defence Ministry has been heavily involved in supporting the M346 Master’s bids round the world, even pledging a billion-dollar offset buy of Israeli defense equipment that secured an order for 30 planes.

Alenia Aermacchi has stated that their plane is currently seeking potential orders in Chile, Ecuador, Greece, Indonesia, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia; and Poland can also be added to that list.

T-38A Talons
(click to view full)

Alenia’s largest opportunity by far involves the USA’s potential T-X competition, which would replace about 450 Northrop Grumman T-38 Talon supersonic trainers with about 350 new aircraft, and dozens of accompanying simulators. The USAF is conducting an analysis of alternatives, and was expected to decide around 2011 whether to replace the T-38 fleet with a new aircraft this decade, or to extend their service lives and delay their replacement until after 2020. T-X is still waiting for that decision, and budgetary pressures are making the latter option steadily more likely.

If a T-X decision aims for new aircraft, the M-346 aims to compete for that role as the “T-100 Training System.” A win there would easily outweigh all other opportunities put together, but the challenge was be finding an American partner to compete against Lockheed Martin (T-50 Golden Eagle) and BAE Systems (Hawk 128). General Dynamics became that partner in January 2013. The next challenge is waiting. Even the current delayed 2016 decision date presumes that further budget costs, or escalating costs for programs like the F-35 and new bomber, won’t force further postponements.

M-346: Contracts and Key Events

“T-100″
(click to view full)

May 11/13: Crash. An M346 prototype crashes around 20 minutes after take-off from Turin-Caselle airport, in Val Bormida, Italy. There was only 1 pilot, who ejected safely. The crash was in a location that didn’t harm anyone or destroy anyone’s property. Alenia is not discussing possible causes of the crash.

This is the 2nd prototype to be destroyed in a crash, following the Nov 18/11 incident in Dubai. Details regarding the Dubai crash remain sketchy, but the technical problem was said to be confined to the prototypes. The accident leaves Alenia with just 1 prototype aircraft. ASN report | Alenia | Aviation Week.

Crash

April 11/13: Chile. Defense News reports that Chile is stepping back from plans to replace their 35 T-35 Pillan trainers and 23 A-36 Halcon light attack jets. These are actually local designations for CASA’s C-101 jets, which are no longer in production. The usual contenders were reportedly involved: BAE’s Hawk, KAI/ Lockheed’s supersonic T-50, and the M-346.

Chile is reportedly focusing on its F-16 fleet instead, and a Lockheed Martin representative at LAAD confirmed that they were discussing F-16 upgrades. Chile does fly 33 second-hand F-16A/B MLUs, alongside 10 more modern F-16C/D Block 52 fighters. A common configuration would be a logical step, but if Chile really wants to wait for the USA to sort out their T-X competition, as the article implies, they could be waiting a long time.

March 4/13: Alenia announces that the M346 passed its Electrostatic Discharge (ESD) Test to certify it for hose-and-drogue air-to-air refueling when configured with external tanks. When an air refueling probe approaches the tanker basket, it can generate a discharge higher than 100,000 volts. Bit of a risk around lots of jet fuel, so they tested the M-346 at Alenia Aermacchi’s Venegono Superiore plant. The British firm Cobham, who makes hose-and-drogue refueling pods, provided support. Alenia.

Jan 17/13: USA. Alenia Aermacchi and General Dynamics sign a Letter of Intent for the T-X trainer competition. General Dynamics C4 Systems will act as the prime contractor for purposes of this competition, offering the “T-100″. As the prime contractor, GDC4S will be responsible for managing Alenia’s delivery of the aircraft, integrating some specific components; and supplying flight simulation devices, multi-media classrooms and logistics support.

Boeing had an agreement with Alenia for sales beyond the USA (vid. May 28/08 entry), and this announcement makes it very unlikely that they’ll work together within the USA. Alenia North America | Alenia | General Dynamics.

M346
(click to view full)

July 19/12: Israel. Italy and Israel sign a set of 2-way defense deals. Israel will get 30 M-346 trainers, for delivery beginning in mid-2014. It’s a $1 billion deal, with Alenia’s share announced at around $600 million. Israel will join Italy and Singapore as M-346 operators.

Going the other way, Israel’s IAI will supply 2 Gulfstream 550 “Eitam” Conformal Airborne Early Early Warning & Control (CAEW) planes, which can monitor airspace and even maritime areas in a wide radius around the aircraft. Italy will join Israel and Singapore as G550 CAEW operators. The last component of the deal is a shared IAI/Finmeccanica project for a high-resolution Italian OPTSAT-3000 surveillance satellite. Read “Italy & Israel: A Billion-Dollar Offer They Didn’t Refuse” for full coverage and details.

Israel: 30

Feb 17/12: US T-X delayed. The USAF confirms that it won’t make a T-X selection until 2016, and doesn’t expect initial operational capability for its new trainers until 2020. Until then, they’ll continue to use 2-seat F-16s to bridge the gap from the T-38 to the F-22A and F-35.

The extra time could be bad news for Alenia, as their international sales partner Boeing is reportedly readying a design of their own. Flight International discusses a notional twin-tail, single-engine trainer, which sounds rather like ATG & IAI’s Javelin design. The magazine also reports that Northrop Grumman is considering its own entry, and a check reveals that their Sept 19/11 announcement of a T-X partnership with BAE no longer displays on BAE’s site or on Northrop Grumman’s. Flight International.

M-346/T-100
(click to view full)

Dec 18-22/11: HMD. Alenia Aermacchi performs flight tests using the Italian Air force’s 3rd series production T-346A plane, which includes night missions, as part of the plane’s certification program. The 7 flight tests took place at Torino Caselle airport, Italy, including night flights using the HMD in Night Configuration.

In the M-346, both student and instructor pilots wear the HMD, which is fully integrated with the avionics suite, in order to support training for Navigation and Attack modes. Color symbology can be projected to the eyepiece, and Alenia Aermacchi touts combination as “the only Advanced Trainer that [currently] comprises the HMD, in both Night and Day configuration.” The tests provide the final go-ahead for production deliveries of the systems to Italian Air Force. Alenia, via Al Defaiya.

March 31/11: Italy’s T-346A. The first M-346 aircraft produced specifically for the Italian Air Force (ITAF) has a successful first flight. The ITAF has designated the plane as the T-346A. Alenia Aermacchi.

Feb 24/11: UAE. Flight International reports that M346 negotiations between the UAE and Alenia Aermacchi have stopped, with no word on when they might resume. Unfortunately for KAI, this apparently does not indicate an opening for competitors, just a priority shift. Having said that:

“There have also been reports that there was a misunderstanding over the aircraft’s specifications, and that components wanted by the UAE were not included… “Political problems that are outside my domain have resulted in the delays,” says [Alenia's] Vincenzo Giangrasso… “We have discussed the technical issues with the end user, and the air force is very happy with the aircraft…” …The door appears to remain closed to KAI and the T-50, with officials from the South Korean company agreeing. “Obviously, we would love to get back into the competition and offer the T-50. But we have not had any discussions with the UAE officials about the T-50 since they picked the M-346, and we are not expecting that to change any time soon,” says a KAI official.”

Feb 23/11: UAE. IDEX 2011 is drawing to a close, with AED 11.8 billion ($3.21 billion) in contracts from the UAE alone, but still no M346 contract. Jane’s:

“This week there has been no comment on the Alenia Aermacchi M346 trainer aircraft deal announced here two years ago, but yesterday the Italian company was awarded a contract for four MB339 trainers [which also equip the UAE's aerobatic team].”

Jan 20/11: Sub-contractors. CAE announces a contract from Boeing Training Systems and Services to design and manufacture 2 M-346 full-mission simulators, as part of the plane’s ground-based training system for “an international customer.” Italy and Singapore would both qualify for that designation.

The simulators will be delivered in 2012, and will feature a cockpit configuration to train the pilot and weapon systems officer (WSO), as well as the capability to network the simulators for joint training. Boeing’s Constant Resolution Visual System (CRVS) will be powered by CAE Medallion-6000 image generators, running databases based on the CAE-developed Common Database (CDB) standard. The contract’s value is cloaked by its presence within a scattershot set of announcements worth a total of “more than $140 million.”

M-346′s HMD
(click to view full)

Dec 21/10: Italy unveiling. Alenia Aermacchi unveils the first 2 M-346 advanced trainers from Italy’s first batch of 6 aircraft, in a ceremony at Venegono Superiore.

These 2 planes will eventually be delivered to the Experimental Flying Unit at Pratica di Mare Air Force Base, near Rome, for operational evaluation testing. The Italian Air Force will receive the other 4 aircraft in 2011; they are already under construction at the Venegono Superiore factory. Alenia Aermacchi.

Sept 6-8/10: Poland, UAE & Singapore. Poland’s 18th International Defence Industry Exhibition MSPO is held in Kielce. Alenia brings the M-346 to Poland for the 3rd time, and its announcements include some interesting tidbits.

The first is a tacit admission that the M346 is currently only a jet trainer: “The development of the light attack version is already under way to meet specific requirements of individual customer Air Forces.” That’s a reference to a United Arab Emirates requirement, but the UAE isn’t an M346 customer yet.

The second point of interest is their confirmation that “The M-346 has also been selected by the Republic of Singapore for its Fighter Wings Course (FWC) requirement, which aims to replace its current advanced trainers fleet.” There is no contract yet, but its status as Singapore’s preferred bidder is a sharp blow to Korea’s KAI. Alenia Aermacchi. See also “Poland Seeks Advanced Jet Trainers” for full coverage of Poland’s trainer competition.

July 1/10: Singapore. Defense News reports that Singapore’s government has selected Alenia Aermacchi’s M-346 as the preferred bidder in its $1.3 billion competition for 48 advanced jet trainers. The report adds that the UAE’s M346 deal remains in limbo over a stalled side deal to jointly develop UAVs, which may give KAI’s T-50 an opening.

May 2010: “T-100″ for USA. An online campaign by Alenia North America rebrands the Italian M346 as the “T-100 integrated training system (ITS)”. Alenia NA is actively seeking US partners to front its bid for the emerging T-X contract. The DEW Line.

May 18/10: HMD. Alenia Aermacchi announces initial flight tests of an M-346 equipped with a 1.6 kg Helmet Mounted Display (HMD) system to complement the traditional cockpit Head-Up Display. The HMD is fully integrated with aircraft avionics and with the Embedded Tactical Training Simulation system.

More and more advanced fighters are flying with HMDs, so an acceptable HMD option becomes an important feature for any advanced jet trainer.

April 26/10: AEJPT. Alenia Aermacchi has formally teamed with EADS to offer the M-346 Master for the 9-nation, 100 aircraft Advanced European Jet Pilot Training (AEJPT) program. Under their memorandum of understanding, Alenia Aermacchi would supply the aircraft while EADS would provide the ground-based training systems. Support would be split between the two companies.

The team is 1 of 7 that responded to the European Defence Agency’s AEJPT request for information. A formal RFP is expected by late 2011, with the winner to be under contract by 2014 and initial operational capability planned for 2017. The question is whether any of this will actually happen, given budget pressures in European countries. What this agreement does, is effectively spell the end of EADS’ Mako HEAT supersonic combat trainer concept. Alenia Aermacchi | EADS.

M-346 prototypes
(click to view full)

Nov 30/09: Sub-contractors. CAE in Montreal, QB, Canada announces that Alenia Aermacchi (AAEM) has awarded CAE a contract to design and manufacture a M-346 full-mission simulator and a M-346 part-task trainer as part of the M-346 ground-based training system for the Italian Air Force. The award flows from the initial Nov 10/09 ARMAEREO contract for 6 M-346 Master Integrated Training Systems (ITS), which include aircraft and their related flight simulators.

Within this contract, CAE has subcontracted the development and supply of simulation and instructor operator station (IOS) subsystems to Selex Galileo in Ronchi dei Legionari, Italy. The M-346 full-mission simulator and part-task trainer is scheduled for delivery to Galatina Air Force Base near Lecce, Italy during the second half of 2011. CAE.

Nov 12/09: Sub-contractors. Finmeccanica subsidiary SELEX Galileo discusses [PDF] its own participation in the M-346 program. Much of their work revolves around the plane’s Mission Core System (MCS), which includes a Mission Computer (MCSG) hosting the operational flight program, a “glass” (digital) cockpit with 6 AMLCD 5″x5″ smart multi-functional displays, and 2 HUD-100 Head Up Displays. The M-346 Mission Core System manages the databus and some communications links, symbology generation for displays, sensor data collection and Tactical Data Base management; and EICAS “Crew Alerting” control.

SELEX Galileo will do extensive work on the Ground Based Training System alongside CAE. SELEX Galileo will deliver the Instructor Operating Station (IOS) – a high-fidelity replica of the M-346 Cockpit, modeling and simulating the Avionics and most of the Aircraft Systems. Production will be carried out mainly at the Group’s sites in Pomezia (Rome), Nerviano (Milan), and Ronchi dei Legionari (Trieste).

Sept 21/09: Israel. Flight International reports that Alenia Aermacchi’s M-346 Master and the Korea Aerospace Industries/Lockheed Martin T-50 have emerged as the leading candidates to replace the Israeli Cheyl Ha’avir’s TA-4 Skyhawk advanced jet trainers. See also full DID coverage: “Israel’s Skyhawk Scandal Leads to End of an Era.”

April 28/09: DOMA cert. Alenia Aermacchi receives D.O.M.A. (Design Organization Military Approval) certification for the M-346 Master, on the basis of the audits carried out by the DGAA for compliance with Regulation AER.P-10. The company release adds that:

“Alenia Aermacchi is the first Italian aeronautical industry which, following its DOMA certification, enjoys the privilege to manage directly and autonomously the homologation process and continuing airworthiness of the M-346 Master advanced trainer. The privileges presently apply to the ECS (Environmental Control System), Windshield & Canopy System, Lighting System and all equipment. This allows internal M-346 design and development processes to be made more efficient and to streamline its interface with the DGAA.”

M-346 Master
(click to view full)

Dec 19/08: Call me Master. The Examination Committee of the competition to name the M-346 trainer picks the name “Master.” The competition was launched on Oct 20/08, and over 4,000 entries were received from every corner of the world. In order to remove any questions of motivation, the Aermacchi release kindly explains what they say they were thinking:

“This international name is the succinct embodiment of what the M-346 represents: the ideal tool to train the future jet pilots of the latest generation and at the same time the maximum level of training that a student can attain.”

Naming

LRIP00 flies
(click to view full)

July 9/08: The first low-rate initial production M-346 trainer makes its maiden flight. Alenia Aermacchi.

May 28/08: Boeing partnership. Alenia Aermacchi and Boeing announce an agreement to jointly pursue the international trainer aircraft market. Aermacchi’s M-311 and M-346 are both covered, for efforts outside of Italy or the USA. For those pursuits, both companies will cooperate on marketing, sales, training and product support. Under the agreement, Boeing Integrated Defense Systems’ Support Systems division will be responsible for several aspects of the program’s spares and support work, and associated ground-based training. Alenia Aermacchi | Boeing.

April 23/08: Sub-contractors. CAE in Montreal, QB, Canada announces that Alenia Aermacchi (AAEM) has picked them as the M-346 program’s preferred full-mission simulator supplier, and awarded CAE a contract to design, develop and validate the simulator’s Initial Training Capability. As part of the overall ground-based training system, CAE will initially design and manufacture a prototype M-346 flight training device (FTD) – a high-fidelity replica of the M-346 cockpit with CAE’s Medallion-6000 image generator, driving a dome display that includes liquid crystal on silicon (LCoS) projectors. CAE will also provide a simulation-based development and validation environment so AAEM engineers and test pilots can perform a range of tests as the M-346 completes its development.

Finmeccanica’s Selex Galileo will partner with CAE for simulator development, delivery, and support, including responsibility for the instructor operating station and cockpit environment. CAE.

May 17/07: France. Aermacchi announces that an Evaluation Team of the French DGA procurement agency’s official CEV flight test centre carries out a flight evaluation of the Alenia Aermacchi M-346 advanced trainer in April 2007. The team evaluated the M-346 in terms of performance, handling, human-machine interface, powerplant system and logistic and maintenance considerations; and examined the engineering and flight data processing capabilities available at the Alenia Aermacchi flight test centre.

This appears to be a case of lending greater expertise to a partner state, in the context of bilateral cooperation agreements. France already flies Alpha Jet trainers, which it intends to keep flying for many years. At some point, however, a replacement will be needed, and early bridge-building never hurts.

May 3/07: Industrial. The first M-346 Low Rate Initial Production fuselage comes out of the jig at Alenia Aermacchi’s Venegono facility. LRIP 00 differs from the prototype and pre-series aircraft in a number of ways, including a new main landing gear optimized wiring, and a weight reduction program that made more use of advanced materials such as unidirectional carbon fiber, thermoplastic and titanium materials, etc. Alenia Aermacchi.

Feb 21/07: UAE. The United Arab Emirates shortlists 2 Alenia Aermacchi aircraft – the M-346 advanced trainer and M-311 basic trainer – among its candidates for a new advanced jet training system. Alenia Aermacchi.

Polish TS-11
(click to view full)

Oct 2-4/06: Poland. The M-346 performs 8 evaluation flights at the Polish Airbase of Deblin. Poland is looking for new trainer aircraft, to accompany its new fleet of F-16s. Read “Poland Seeks Advanced Jet Trainers” for full coverage.

May 30/06: Greece. The M-346 performs 9 evaluation flights at the Hellenic Air Force Training Base in Kalamata, including flights by HAF pilots. During the Kalmata missions, continuous monitoring of all flight parameters conducted by a data receiving station set up at the base, and by Alenia Aermacchi at Venegono, through a proprietary satellite telemetry system. Aermacchi.

May 2005: Testing. First flight of the 2nd M-346 prototype.

Dec 15/05: Greece. Aermacchi and Hellenic Aerospace Industry (HAI) sign a Memorandum of Understanding that sets out the terms of their industrial cooperation in the M-346′s development program. HAI will be the Hellenic prime contractor, responsible for a planning, production and assembly of about 10% of the aircraft, including the posterior fuselage. HAI will also manage the contributions of the other Greek companies taking part in the program as sub-contractors. Aermacchi.

Additional Readings

DID thanks Mark Chen for authorized use of his Singapore Airshow photo.

• Aermacchi – M-346

• Alenia North America – T-100 Integrated Training System.

• Air Force Technology – M-346 Master Advanced Fighter Trainer, Italy

• Wikipedia – Alenia Aermacchi M-346

• Teal Group’s Richard Aboulafia – October 2009 letter. Discusses Italy’s “slow aerospace” industrial model counterpart to the “slow food” movement.

The USA’s T-X

• Defense News (Sept 8/10) – BAE Sees USAF T-X Contest as Foothold. “BAE is going it alone in its bid, despite its successful partnership with Chicago-based Boeing to supply the U.S. Navy with 223 T-45 Goshawk trainers… BAE would still use some U.S. firms as subcontractors…”

• Training & Simulation Journal (Aug 24/10) – The hunt for a jet trainer

• Flight International (Feb 9/09) – Three designs to contest USAF’s T-X deal, believes BAE. Hawk, M-346, and the T-50.

Competitors & Market

• Air Force Technology – Yak-130 Combat Trainer, Russia. Closely related to the Aermacchi M346; they were once a joint program. Currently serves with or ordered by Russia and Algeria.

• Air Force Technology – Hawk Trainer / Light Combat Aircraft, United Kingdom. Hawk is probably the world’s most popular trainer.

• Air Force Technology – Hawk Mk 127 / Mk 128 LIFT Lead In Fighter Trainer, United Kingdom

• Air Force Technology – L159 ALCA Advanced Light Combat Aircraft, Czech Republic. Now it’s also a 2-seat trainer version. Bought by Czech air force, which is trying to sell some of its fleet due to budget issues, but without much success.

• Air Force Technology – MiG-AT – Advanced Flight and Combat Trainer Aircraft, Russia. No market traction as yet.

• DID FOCUS – Korea’s T-50 Spreads Its Wings

• Forecast International (March 25/09) – Fighter R&M Market Facing Conflicting Priorities.

“In its new analysis entitled “The Market for Fighter/Attack/Trainer Retrofit & Modernization,” Forecast International estimates that nearly $20 billion will be spent on military aircraft upgrades during the 2009-2018 period. The United States alone is expected to earmark $9.5 billion for fighter/attack/trainer retrofit & modernization (R&M) programs, with the rest of the world kicking in another $10.3 billion… Caught between changing needs and tight budgets, militaries will seek upgrades for their air fleets that grant the greatest capability without being prohibitively expensive – literally, the most bang for their buck.”

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, what the Navy wanted, the capabilities needed to perform primary naval missions, and what could be delivered for the sums available, have proven nearly irreconcilable. 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. 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 30 FFG-7 Oliver Hazard Perry Class frigates, 14 MCM Avenger Class mine countermeasures vessels, and 12 MHC-51 Osprey Class coastal mine hunters (TL = 56), with about 55 Littoral Combat Ships.

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 gap-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.

USS Independence
(click to view full)

The first team is offering 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 with hits to the ship’s sides.

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 (Sea Giraffe AMB radar)
  
• Wartsila (water jets)

The ships will have an open-architecture combat system based on existing market offerings. Bofors (gun) and Ericcson (radar) are among the minor partners whose equipment will be featured on the Austal Team’s proposed design.

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 required additional bolt-on buoyancy fittings at its stern, however, and there have been persistent reports of weight and stability issues.

Team Lockheed LCS Concept
(click for cutaway)

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 long-range air defense missiles, 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 = 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 a 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 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.

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 20 more bunks before her 1st Asian deployment indicates that the Us Navy may be about to concede this point – but to do that, the LCS manning plan must also change.

Beyond the human element, the LCS program will initially draw upon packages for Mine Warfare (MIW: 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.

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 area of 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 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. 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 longer-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 larger Fast Attack Craft equipped with anti-ship missiles. Despite being 1/3 the LCS’ length and far less than 1/3 of its displacement, 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 equipped ship to $500-650 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 future procurement trends will 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 is 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 bought separately at about $100 million per module. This contrasts with the original hope of $22 billion total shipbuilding costs, at $400 million per ship ($220M construction + (3 x $60M) mission modules).

Despite these rising costs, the US Navy’s shipbuilding plan still envisions building 55 littoral combat ships until about 2040, accounting for about 18% of the Navy’s planned 313-ship force. The current plan also expects to buy 64 mission modules for the 55-ship program, or about 1.2 modules per ship, down from the originally-envisaged 3-4 modules per ship.

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 ships bought from 2036 – 2040 would be replacements for the original ships of class. Even so, that number of LCS ships would almost certainly be more than 18% of the actual force. 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, it will not rise above that number again.

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 more 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 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); 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.

By the end of FY 2013, the program is expected to be at about a quarter of total procurement, in units orders 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

Team Austal, Independence Class

• LCS 2, USS Independence. Commissioned Jan 16/10.
  
• LCS 4, Coronado. Going to be a bit late.
  
• LCS 6, Jackson
  
• LCS 8, Montgomery
  
• LCS 10, Gabrielle Giffords
  
• LCS 12, Omaha
  
• LCS 14, Machester

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. In addition to their upgraded radars, torpedo tubes, and 8 Harpoon missiles, these ships offer between 4-48 VLS cells, some of which are full strike-length size.

General Dynamics’ trimaran adds torpedo tubes, plus 16 tactical-length vertical launch (VLS) cells for VL-ASROC anti-submarine launchers or up to 64 quad-packed RIM-162 ESSM anti-air missiles.

Turkish MEKO 200
(click to view full)

The other aspect worth noting is the failure to close any export sales over almost 7 years.

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 weapons and proposed SPY-1 AEGIS or MF-STAR radar made it far more capable in critical roles like air defense and ship to ship warfare. As noted above, these 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.

Meanwhile, 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.

At present, both LCS designs have reportedly received preliminary export inquiries, but Israel and Thailand are the only cases where it has gone farther than that, and the Freedom Class lost the Thai competition. Meanwhile, designs like the German MEKO family, the multi-role Franco-Italian FREMM, the modular-construction Dutch Sigma class, and refurbished 1980s-era NATO frigates continue to find buyers around the world.

LCS: Ship Contracts & Key Events

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

To Singapore
click for video

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.” Bloomberg.

Perez Report

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 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: 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, precludes mission module space in a class with a lot of it. USN Director of Surface Warfare Rear Admiral Thomas Rowden doesn’t see an armament problem at all, 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 carry them even on corvettes. As DDG-51 Flight I destroyers have to retire due to age, the problem 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 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 doesn’t satisfy the 20 year operational hull life requirement for “maturity,” the only solution seems to be “wait 20 years.” 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 (q.v. entries), 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.

For the 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 OK. 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 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 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 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 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: 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).

Feb 21/12: New waterjets. Rolls-Royce delivers its new Axial Mk1 waterjet for use on the Freedom Class, offering 22MW of power per jet. Each Freedom Class ship has 4. This marks the successful completion of the Office of Naval Research’s (ONR) Future Naval Capabilities (FNC) program for “Compact, High Power Density Waterjets,” and the Axial Mk1s will be standard equipment on the Freedom Class going forward.

They’ll be made in the United States, with primary manufacturing activity at Rolls-Royce facilities in Walpole, MA and Pascagoula, MS. Rolls Royce.

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 comnfirmed 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 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 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).

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 sSouthwest 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).

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.

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.

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 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%).

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 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.

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.

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 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 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: 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 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].

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.”

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 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.”

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.

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.

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.49 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 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 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…”

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.”

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.”

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 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 who 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.”

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.”

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

LCS Ancillaries: Equipment, Mission Module & Weapon Contracts & Key Events

Griffin launch
(click to view full)

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

Some items are covered separately. The helicopter-based portions of the MCM module will be covered in full at “MH-60S Airborne Mine Counter-Measures Continues Development“, but notes and link entries may also appear here for some events, in order to provide an integrated timeline perspective or reference specific ships. The same is true for Raytheon’s RAM air defense and surface attack missile, and its Griffin missile.

Note that the structure of weapon contracts like the RAM, Mk-46, Mk-110, etc. may not announce all systems, or connect all systems to a specific ship. Inclusions here should be considered illustrative, therefore, rather than comprehensive.

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. The Navy owns 3 MCM (mine, 1st delivery Sept. 2007) and 4 SUW (“surface warfare”, 1st delivery July 2008) mission modules, and has completely re-started the ASW anti-submarine module. Several of the sub-systems in these modules are still experiencing performance problems, many components are still in development, and the Navy has yet to fully integrate these technologies and test them on board an LCS in a realistic environment. In October 2012, DOD delegated future decision authority to the Navy and requested an acquisition program baseline within 60 days – which was not delivered on schedule.

MCM: The Navy plans to accept 1 more in 2013, but it doesn’t meet requirements. The MH-60S helicopter can’t tow the AQS-20A sonar as planned, the WLD-1 USV has performance issues, the ALMDS laser system gets too many false positives from surface reflections, and the RAMICS gun and OASIS decoy are out. Nonetheless, the Navy describes recent MCM tests as “very successful”. The Navy plans to conduct developmental testing in FY 2014 and establish initial operational capability with 7 MCM modules in September 2014. Full operational capability isn’t expected until 2018, when the Navy is expected to have 21 LCS ships, of 30 ordered.

SUW: Does not meet requirements. At the moment it’s just the 57mm gun up front, a pair 30mm guns, a helicopter, and an 11m RHIB small boat for boarding teams. This is about what a coast guard cutter carries, and it still won’t reach initial operational capability before September 2014. Even the Griffin missile with its miniscule 3 nm range isn’t expected before 2015, and a competition for a missile with a more serious tactical range isn’t expected before 2019.

ASW: Canceled and has been restarted. The Navy plans for initial delivery in 2016, and full operational capability in 2018. The design is stripped down, involving a ship-based variable-depth sonar, towed array, and towed torpedo decoy for defense.

March 18/13: IOC delays. Jane’s quotes director of navy staff Vice-Admiral Richard Hunt says that the Continuing Resolutions have “delayed us probably a year for IOC [initial operational capability] for a couple of those different modules…”

March 15/13: Northrop Grumman Systems Corp. in Bethpage, NY receives a $28.6 million contract modification to provide engineering and production planning services for LCS mission packages. To date, those efforts haven’t gone very well, with many technologies failed out and no truly ready sets over 7 years after development began.

Work will be performed in Portsmouth, VA (32%); Huntsville, AL (25%); Bethpage, NY (21%); Manchester, NH (11%); Silver Creek, NY (10%); Hollywood, MD (1%), and is expected to be completed by September 2014. All monies are committed immediately, using FY 2012 Navy Operations & Maintenance funding (N00024-06-C-6311).

Jan 17/13: DOT&E Testing Report. The Pentagon releases the FY 2012 Annual Report from its Office of the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E). The LCS mission modules still have a lot of issues. There isn’t anything left to test any more in the ASW anti-submarine module, for instance, so DOT&E didn’t report on it while the Navy considers a re-start.

Mine Warfare: Begin with the MH-60S helicopter, which isn’t powerful enough to safely tow the AQS-20A sonar or OASIS decoy under all of the required conditions. Both are being removed from AMCM, and OASIS is removed from the MIW module. This would seem to be the epitome of a forseeable/ easily testable problem, but it’s being “discovered” 7 years after development began. Why?

The AQS-20A will now depend on the WLD-1 RMMV snorkeling USV, which is trying to correct its reliability and performance issues by 2015. RMMV v4.1 is showing some improvements in limited testing, but the ships themselves need to make changes to launch and recover it while underway. The AQS-20A sonar has its own problems with contact depth calculations in all modes, and with false contacts in 2 of 3 search modes. The Navy hopes to find AQS-20 engineering fixes. Meanwhile, in order to reduce those errors, the Navy will have to slow its scan methods and reduce the area covered.

The AES-1 ALMDS laser mine-detection system doesn’t meet Navy requirements for False Classification Density or reliability, and the DOT&E expects to issue a formal test report in Q2 FY2013. The Navy hopes to find engineering fixes. Meanwhile, in order to reduce those errors, the Navy will have to slow its scan methods and reduce the area covered. Some reports suggest that ALMDS will be cut entirely, but the raft of other MCM system casualties may force the Navy to keep it.

Surface Warfare: Still useless against anything ut a lightly-armed motorboat, but that’s beyond GAO’s purview. What they do say is that the Navy hasn’t not finalized any tactical idea of how the ships will be used with the SUW mission module. Even within this limited set, the MK46 “30 mm guns and associated combat system exhibit reliability problems,” and the Freedom Class has performance deficiencies with its COMBATSS-21 combat system and TRS-3D radar that affect tracking and engagement of contacts.

Dec 28/12: RMS. Lockheed Martin in Riviera Beach, FL receives a $12.2 million cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order to perform Remote Minehunting System/WLD-1 USV maintenance, testing and integration with the with Littoral Combat Ship. The WLD-1 is currently working on improving its reliability and performance, after falling short in these areas.

Work will be performed in Palm Beach, FL (87%), and Syracuse, NY (13%), and is expected to be complete by May 2013. $5.3 million is committed immediately, and $295,000 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-G-6306).

Dec 20/12: AMNS. Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems in Portsmouth, RI receives a $7.9 million contract modification, covering AMNS’ Critical Design Review.

Work will be performed in Portsmouth, RI, and is expected to be complete by July 2013. All contract funds are committed immediately, and $4.7 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/13. US NAVSEA in Washington DC in is the contracting activity (N00024-10-C-6307).

Feb 15/12: Northrop Grumman Systems Corp. in Bethpage, NY receives an $18.7 million contract modification to provide LCS Mission Module engineering and production planning services. “Mission package capabilities are currently focused on primary mission areas of mine warfare emphasizing mine countermeasures, littoral anti-submarine warfare, and littoral surface warfare operations, including prosecution of small boats.”

Work will be performed in Bethpage, NY (45%); Washington, DC (20%); Panama City, FL (20%); Ventura County, CA (10%); and Dahlgren, VA (5%), and is expected to be completed by December 2012. US Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, DC manages the contract.

Feb 10/12: Armed USVs. US Navy expeditionary warfare division branch chief Capt. Evin Thompson says that they are looking to arm their MUSCL (Modular Unmanned Surface Craft Littoral) USV unmanned boats with RAFAEL’s Spike anti-tank missile. Navy officials initially tested the weapon’s performance during the Trident Warrior exercise, aboard a USV originally designed as part of the LCS anti-submarine warfare package.

RAFAEL’s Spike packs roughly equivalent range and punch to the LCS’ Griffin missiles, with some variants having longer reach. MUSCL does look a bit light for it, but could certainly carry DRS/NAWCAD’s Spike missile. At this point, despite the involvement of the LCS PEO, there are no plans to deploy a USV/missile combination on LCS. AOL Defense.

Dec 19/11: MIW – WLD-1. Lockheed Martin announces the end of the 1st of 3 planned development and testing cycles, involving 500 hours of reliability testing on the U.S. Navy’s WLD-1 RMMV. These efforts are aimed at improving the Remote Minehunting System’s reliability and operational availability, which have been a serious problem for the sonar-towing snorkeling USV. A recent $52.7 million contract will continue the program to improve its reliability until 2013. Read “LCS & MH-60S Mine Counter-Measures Continue Development” for more.

Nov 7/11: Griffin replacement? Inside the Navy reports [subscription] that the Griffin missile will be part of LCS’ initial surface warfare module, but a competition will begin in 2012, and:

“The program executive office for the Littoral Combat Ship has already identified capabilities that could replace the Griffin missile…”

IAI’s Jumper (vid. May 16/11 entry) comes to mind, and there appear to be others.

Sept 30/11: SMCM UUV. General Dynamics AIS in McLeansville, NC wins a $48.6 million contract with cost-plus-incentive-fee, cost-plus-fixed-fee, and firm-fixed-price line items for the engineering, manufacturing and development of the Surface Mine Countermeasure Unmanned Underwater Vehicle (SMCM UUV, aka. “Knifefish”).

This will be a new part of the Littoral Combat Ship’s Mine Counter-Measures package, and includes 2 of Bluefin Robotics’ large Bluefin-21 UUVs, launch and recovery equipment, a support container, spare parts and support equipment, and an advanced sonar payload developed by GD-AIS. Read “LCS & MH-60S Mine Counter-Measures Continue Development” for more.

Aug 25/11: A not-to-exceed $161 million contract modification to previously awarded contract for MK15 Mod 31 SeaRAM missile systems to equip the Independence Class ships LCS 6 Jackson and LCS 8 Montgomery, and Japan’s “DDH 2405 helicopter destroyer”; as well as Phalanx CIWS Block 1B class “A” overhauls, and land-based Phalanx Weapon System class “A” overhauls. See the linked article for further details.

Aug 1/11: RAM. A $7.4 million contract modification for 3 refurbished and upgraded RAM MK 49 Mod 3 Guided Missile Launch Systems with associated hardware, for use on LHA 7 (unnamed, America Class escort carrier, 2 systems) and LCS 5 Milwaukee (Freedom Class Littoral Combat Ship, 1 system).

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ, and is expected to be complete by March 2013. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year (N00024-11-C-5448). Note that the structure of RAM contracts may not announce all systems, or connect all systems to a specific ship.

July 21/11: MIW – UISS. The US Navy announces the successful completion of shore-based and at-sea integrated system tests on the prototype Unmanned Influence Sweep System (UISS) USV and payload in Panama City, FL. UISS is designed for the LCS as part of the mine countermeasures mission package, supplementing the helicopter-based AMCM system. The system consists of an unmanned surface craft that carries and tows the combined acoustic and magnetic minesweeping payload.

The Phase 1 Sweep Operational Checkout was very basic, testing that UISS can be deployed and retrieved from Textron’s Common Unmanned Surface Vessel (CUSV), and that it tows the acoustic and magnetic Sweep Power Subsystem properly. The first phase of testing was completed on July 1/11; Phase II is currently ongoing, and the summer test program will include a full signature test and full mission profile that demonstrate minesweeping capability. US Navy | Textron Systems.

May 16/11: SUW. An Israeli answer for LCS missiles? Israel Aerospace Industries’ MLM Division announces that they’ll present a new maritime application for their Jumper missiles-in-a-box system at IMDEX Asia 2011, the Singapore International Maritime Defense Exhibition and Conference. Like Raytheon’s cancelled NLOS-LS, the Jumper missiles are launched from an 8-round Vertical Launcher Hive (VLH) mounted on a ship’s deck, a truck, or on the ground. The missiles then use GPS/INS and optional Laser guidance to hit targets at ranges of up to 50 km/ 30 miles, using fragmentation or penetration warheads.

Jumper had been showcased beginning in 2009, but as a land weapon. Its naval capability and good range is likely to draw interest from several quarters, but to play on the LCS, IAI would have to offer a lower-cost solution than Raytheon’s NLOS-LS PAM. IAI release | UPI | IAI’s Jumper page.

May 12/11: SUW – Griffin. Inside the Navy reports:

“The Navy may not have settled on the Griffin missile to replace the canceled Non-Line-Of-Sight missile on the Littoral Combat Ship, despite the service’s announcement in January that it planned to use the missile for both a short-term and long-term solution to the capability gap, officials told Inside the Navy last week…”

May 2/11: Alion Science and Technology announces a 3-year, $4.6 million contract from the US Naval Air Warfare Center Training System Division, to develop a PC-based training system for LCS-2 Independence Class Readiness Control Officers.

Alion will be developing the system based on its LCS-1 Freedom Class LCS RCO solution, but a number of changes are necessary because it’s a different ship design. It is intended that the LCS-2 RCO will ultimately integrate with the LCS Shore Based Training Facility in San Diego, CA.

April 13/11: Mk-110. BAE Systems announces a contract from Austal to supply various communications systems and its 57mm Mk 110 gun system, for use in the Independence Class as orders come in.

General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems has had BAE Systems as a major partner for LCS communications systems since 2004. The Mk110 gun is used in both LCS classes, along with its accompanying Mk 295 pre-fragmented, 6-mode programmable, and proximity-fused (3P) ammunition that makes it useful against aerial or surface targets. A corresponding January 2011 contract covered gun systems for Lockheed Martin’s Freedom Class.

Feb 14/11: Sub-contractors. Northrop Grumman will assemble LCS mission packages at Naval Base Ventura County, Port Hueneme, CA. The mission module supplier team will comprise:

• Earl Industries in Portsmouth, VA (ISO TEU 20′ containers; Electrical systems)
  
• Excelco in Silver Creek, NY (WLD-1 RMMV capture spine)
  
• Granite State in Manchester, NH (RMMV cradles)
  
• Smith Brothers in Shelby Township, MI (Maintenance stand assemblies mission module hardware)
  
• Teledyne Brown, Huntsville, AL (gun mission modules).

The end items from each of those companies will be shipped to Port Hueneme, where a Northrop Grumman-Navy team will complete the assembly of each package.

Jan 24/11: MIW – RAMICS. Gannett’s Navy Times reports that the RAMICS supercavitating 30mm cannon for killing shallow mines may be next on the chopping block, after performing poorly in testing. It would be replaced by the AMNS system, which would do double duty against both shallow and deep water mines using Archerfish towed kill vehicles, packing 4 shaped charges each.

The tradeoff would be one of greater performance certainty, cost certainty, timely delivery, and commonalty with AMNS; vs. the ability to engage more shallow water mines in far less time by using a RAMICS system that worked.

Jan 11/11: SUW – Griffin. Media report that the U.S. Navy is moving towards selecting Raytheon’s Griffin missile as the replacement for the cancelled NLOS-LS, instead of taking over that program’s development now that the Army has pulled out. USN surface warfare division director Rear Adm. Frank Pandolfe told a Surface Navy Association convention audience in Arlington, VA that a 6-month review had settled on this Raytheon product, as something that can hit targets at “acceptable” ranges and cost.

That recommendation must be endorsed by the Navy before anything comes of this; if they do, the service would field the existing very short range Griffin by 2015, and try to develop a longer range version later. See “Raytheon’s Griffin Mini-Missiles” for in-depth coverage.

Jan 7/11: Northrop Grumman Systems Corp. in Bethpage, NY receives a an $18.3 million contract modification to provide engineering and production planning services for LCS mission modules.

Work will be performed in Bethpage, NY (47%); Washington, DC (26%); Panama City, FL (20%); Ventura, CA (6%); and Dahlgren, VA (1%), and is expected to be complete by September 2011. $1,51 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11 (N00024-06-C-6311).

Jan 6/11: NLOS-LS canceled. As part of a plan detailing $150 billion in service cuts and cost savings over the next 5 years, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announces the proposed cancellation of NLOS-LS, among many other programs. The Army had pulled out by the point, and the Navy considered picking up the program, but apparently decided against it. Full Gates speech and Gates/Mullen Q&A transcript | Pentagon release.

MK46 naval

Sept 28/10: Northrop Grumman Systems Corp. in Bethpage, NY receives a $28.8 million contract modification to provide engineering and production planning services for LCS mission modules. Work will be performed in Huntsville, AL (56%), and Bethpage, NY (44%), and is expected to be complete by September 2012 (N00024-06-C-6311).

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:

“Navy analysis of anti-submarine warfare systems has shown the planned systems do not contribute significantly to the anti-submarine warfare mission… Mission package delays have also disrupted program test schedules – a situation exacerbated by early deployments of initial ships… Further, the Navy has determined that an additional capability will be incorporated into future anti-submarine warfare mission packages. The existing anti-submarine warfare mission package procurement is temporarily suspended, and performance will be assessed during at-sea testing in 2010… To date, most LCS mission systems have not demonstrated the ability to provide required capabilities.”

With respect to USS Freedom’s [LCS 1] Surface Warfare module tests:

“The surface warfare mission package onboard LCS 1 has yet to be fully integrated with the seaframe and lacks key capabilities necessary to defeat surface threats. For example, the 30-millimeter guns have undergone testing with the LCS 1 seaframe, but have yet to be fully integrated with the ship’s combat suite. Also, while the guns provide a close range self-defense capability, Navy officials report LCS 1 is currently unable to automatically transfer tracking data from the ship’s radar to the 30-millimeter guns.”

Current plans involve just 8 partially-capable mission modules delivered by the end of FY 2012, instead of the 2007 plan of 11 partial and 5 fully-capable mission modules. As of August 2010, 5 partially-capable packages have been delivered: 2 Mine Warfare (MIW), 2 Surface Warfare (SuW), and one anti-submarine (ASW). The planned changes by end FY 2012 break down as follows:

MIW: From 3 partial and 1 full capability by FY 2012 to 3 partial.
SuW: From 6 partial and 3 full capability by FY 2012 to 4 partial.
ASW: From 2 planned and 1 full capability by FY 2012 to 1 partial.

One of the rationales behind the LCS mission module approach was precisely this decoupling of onboard payload development with ship fielding and development, so delays in one don’t create delays in the other. At the same time, the Navy now plans to purchase 17 ships and 13 mission packages between FY 2011 – 2015, which would leave the Navy with whose payloads and effectiveness are unproven.

Aug 5/10: SUW – Mk.46. The first MK-46 30mm gun module is installed aboard USS Independence [LCS 2]. US Navy PEO-LMW.

July 2/10: ASW – towed sonar. DRS Sonar Systems, LLC in Gaithersburg, MD received a $9.7 million firm-fixed-price contract to develop a high search rate variable depth sonar (VDS) for installation on the littoral combat ship. This contract includes options which would bring its cumulative value to $12.7 million.

The VDS will include a rugged specialized handling system with an articulating arm and capture mechanism, that can handle a towed body the size and weight of a small car. The towed active subsystem consists of a hydro-dynamically stable tow body, a tow cable, handling and stowage equipment, and acoustic transmit assemblies. The sonar must be able to survive high sea states, work in deep water while being towed at flank speed, and possess enough power to detect submerged submarines.

Work will be performed in Gaithersburg, MD (10%); Panama City, FL (20%); and Stockport, UK (70%), and is expected to be complete by September 2011. This contract was competitively procured, with 3 offers received by the US Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division in Newport, RI (N66604-10-C-0675).

June 2/10: Mk-46. 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. It equips the US Marines’ Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (Mk46, MOD 0), LPD-17 San Antionio Class amphibious ships, and the Littoral Combat Ship surface warfare package. This contract covers both naval platforms, where the turret is operated from a console inside the ship.

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).

April 2/10: Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation in Bethpage, NY received a $17.1 million modification to a previously awarded contract (N00024-06-C-6311) to provide engineering and production planning services for LCS mission packages and “improve mission capability in identified mission areas.”

Work will be performed in Bethpage, NY (47%); Washington, DC (26%); Panama City, FL (12%); Hollywood, MD (12%); San Diego, CA (2%); and Dahlgren, VA (1%), and is expected to be complete by March 2011. Contract funds in the amount of $1.7 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year.

April 1/10: ASW – WLD-1 out. The Pentagon releases its April 2010 Selected Acquisitions Report, covering major program changes up to December 2009. One of the changes is to the Remote Minehunting System (WLD-1) in the Mine Warfare suite:

“The PAUC (Program Acquisition Unit Cost) increased 79.5% and the APUC(Average Procurement Unit Cost, no R&D) increased 54.6% to the current and original [baselines] as a result of a reduction in production quantities, the use of an incorrect average unit cost as a basis of estimate in the 2006 program baseline calculation, and an increase in development costs needed to address reliability issues. The Navy re-evaluated the capabilities of the Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) Mission Package for the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) and decided to eliminate the Remote Multi-Mission Vehicle (RMMV) from the ASW Mission Package. This decision reduced the total number of RMMV production units from the program baseline quantity of 108 to the current quantity of 54. The increase in development costs was needed to address reliability problems, which arose during an operational assessment in 2008.”

This level of overage is a critical breach, a.k.a. Nunn-McCurdy breach for the legislation that forces the Pentagon to certify the program’s fitness to continue, and provides for potential Congressional involvement.

March 30/10: GAO update. The US GAO issues report #GAO-10-388SP, its 2010 Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs. Regarding the LCS’ mission packages, the mine countermeasures package is either yet to be tested in a realistic environment (Surface USV, OASIS towed emitter, RAMICS cannon), or cannot meet system requirements (Airborne Laser Mine Detection System, WLD-1 Remote Minehunting System USV). With respect to other modules:

“The Navy has accepted delivery of partially capable Mine Countermeasures (MCM), Surface Warfare (SUW), and Antisubmarine Warfare (ASW) mission packages. Overall, operation of the MCM, SUW, and ASW packages requires a total of 22 critical technologies, including 11 sensors, 6 vehicles, and 5 weapons.

…The Navy accepted delivery of one partially capable SUW(SUrface Warfare) mission package in July 2008. This package included two engineering development models for the 30 mm gun, but did not include the Non-Line-of- Sight Launch System (NLOS-LS) launcher or missiles. Integration of the gun with LCS 1 was completed in January 2009… The program expects delivery of the second SUW mission package in March 2010. It will include the 30 mm gun module and the NLOS-LS launcher, but no missiles.

The Navy accepted delivery of one partially capable ASW mission package in September 2008, but plans to reconfigure the content of future packages… recent warfighting analyses showed that the baseline ASW package did not provide sufficient capability to meet the range of threats… The first package underwent end-to-end testing in April 2009 and will undergo developmental testing in fiscal year 2010. During the 2009 end-to-end test, the Navy found that the USV and its associated sensors will require reliability and interface improvements to support sustained undersea warfare.”

See also DefenseTech re: NLOS-LS issue.

Feb 26/10: SUW glitch. The NLOS-LS PAM missile Limited User Test (LUT) run from Jan 26/10 – Feb 5/10 at White Sands Missile Range, NM has 2 direct hits, 2 misses with causes known and corrected, and 2 misses still under investigation. That reportedly makes 23 PAM missiles fired with 14 direct hits so far, though not all firings were designed to hit a target. A Pentagon Defense Acquisition Board (DAB) meeting in March 2010 is expected to discuss this issue, and determine a way forward.

If the missiles cannot be made to work as advertised, the Littoral Combat Ship’s existing problems with poor armament would become far more severe. Since it lacks a built-in Vertical Launch System, such as the Mk.41 VLS with ExLS adapters for NETFIRES missiles, substituting other missiles for the NETFIRES launcher package would require ship redesign and modifications. Aviaiton Week Ares | Defense News | Defense Tech.

Jan 25/10: ASW – VDS. FBO solicitation #N6660410R0675 for a variable-depth towed sonar to equip the LCS:

“The Naval Undersea Warfare Center Newport has a requirement to develop and field a high search rate tactical Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) capability in the form of a Variable Depth Sonar (VDS) for installation on the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). A major component of the VDS System is the Towed Active Subsystem (TAS) consisting of a hydro-dynamically stable tow body, tow cable, handling and stowage equipment and acoustic transmit assemblies. The TAS shall be an existing product that is modified to meet the LCS integration and installation constraints identified in the performance specifications. The objective of this procurement is to fabricate, install, test and support the TAS and its integration with the VDS system.”

Feb 9/09: Northrop Grumman Systems Corp. in Bethpage, NY received a $16.6 million modification to a previously awarded contract (N00024-06-C-6311). They will continue to provide integration services for the ships’ mission module packages.

Work will be performed in Bethpage, NY (47%), Washington, DC (26%), Panama City, FL (12%), Hollywood, MD (12%), San Diego, CA (2%), and Dahlgren, VA (1%) and is expected to be complete by September 2009. Contract funds in the amount of $3.3 million will expire on Sept 30/09.

NETFIRES Concept

Sept 19/08: ASW rollout. The Navy rolls out its new Anti-Submarine Warfare mission module package in a ceremony at Naval Base Point Loma Naval Mine & ASW Command Complex in San Diego, CA. US Navy release

Aug 13/08: Northrop Grumman Systems Corp., in Bethpage, NY receives a $16.1 million modification to a previously awarded contract (N00024-06-C-6311). This continues funding for mission module integration services, using a spiral development approach of rapid, incremental improvements.

Work will be performed in Bethpage, NY (32%); Washington, DC (26%); Panama City, FL (15%); Hollywood, MD (15%); San Diego, CA (5%); Dahlgren, VA (5 percent); and Newport, RI (2%), and is expected to be complete by September 2009.

Aug 10/08: Northrop Grumman Corporation announces that the NGC/US Navy team has completed the successful installation of the Mission Package computing environment into LCS-1 Freedom in June 2008. Northrop Grumman employees installed and tested the computing environment itself, which comprises 4 racks of processing hardware and the classified and operational software that runs the package. A system check indicated that the computing environment was operating properly, and that communication with the ship’s infrastructure was complete.

Each mission package needs only 15 personnel, plus 23 aviation detachment personnel for the helicopters.

July 21/08: Launch & Recovery. General Dynamics Robotic Systems announces a contract from the USA’s Office of Naval Research (ONR) to develop the LCS’ Common Launch and Recovery System (CLRS) for unmanned boats and other watercraft. The firm is already designing and building the 11m USV that is slated for use as part of the ships’ anti-submarine mission module.

Oct 22/07: Defense News reports that Lockheed Martin is testing the LCS-1 Independence’s ability to load containerized mission modules and other equipment into the mission bay area. On Oct 10/07, their Moorestown, NJ facility ran a successful test of their COMBATSS-21 combat system’s ability to load the mine warfare mission package software. NAVSEA is continuing work on software for the other 2 initial mission packages: anti-submarine, and anti-surface warfare.

The article also covers Israel’s ongoing interest in the Lockheed Martin LCS design. See “An LCS For Israel?” for more details regarding that spin-off program.

Oct 12/07: MIW – issues. The US GAO audit office has some news re: the mine warfare module, the LCS’ first mission module. It seems some changes will be required:

“…For example, operation of mine countermeasures systems is currently expected to exceed the personnel allowances of the [Littoral Combat] ship, which could affect the ship’s ability to execute this mission. In addition, the Littoral Combat Ship will have only limited capability to conduct corrective maintenance aboard. However, because the Navy recently reduced the numbers of certain mission systems from two to one per ship, operational availability for these systems may decrease below current projections. Moreover, the mine countermeasures mission package currently exceeds its weight limitation, which may require the Navy to accept a reduction in speed and endurance capabilities planned for the Littoral Combat Ship. It is important that the Navy assess these uncertainties and determine whether it can produce the needed mine countermeasures capabilities from the assets it is likely to have and the concepts of operation it can likely execute.”

Sept 26/07: Northrop Grumman Systems Corp. in Bethpage, N.Y. receives a $15.4 million cost-plus-award-fee modification under previously awarded contract (N00024-06-C-6311) to exercise an option to provide integration services for mission packages that will deploy from and integrate with the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). This modification supports the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Mission Module Program Office (PMS 420), Program Executive Office, Littoral and Mine Warfare.

Work will be performed in Washington, DC (43%); Bethpage, NY (32%); Panama City, FL (19%); Hollywood, MD (2%); San Diego, CA (2%); and Dahlgren, VA (2%), and is expected to be complete by September 2008. Contract funds in the amount of $113,338, will expire at the end of the current fiscal year.

Sept 25/07: SUW Go-ahead. The Navy announces that it is moving forward with development of the LCS Surface Warfare (SUW) Mission Package, which it describes as “designed to combat small, fast boat terrorist threats to the fleet.” The announcement lists the components as:

“…electro-optical/infrared sensors mounted on a vertical take off unmanned air vehicle to provide over-the-horizon detection; 30mm guns to kill close-in targets; four [4] non-line-of-sight launching system (NLOS-LS/ “NetFires”/ “missile in a box”) container launch units, with each system containing 15 offensive missiles; and the MH-60R armed helicopter for surveillance and attack missions. The SUW mission package has software that interfaces with the LCS command and control system to maintain and share situational awareness and tactical control in a coordinated SUW environment… The first two SUW mission packages assembled for developmental and operational testing use the Mark 46 30mm gun made by General Dynamics Amphibious Systems.”

The Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren division is the technical direction agent for the SUW mission package, with NSWC Port Hueneme division providing integrated logistics and testing support. NAVSEA release.

April 2/07: MK-110. BAE Systems in Minneapolis, MN announces its second contract from General Dynamics to supply a 57-mm Mk 110 naval gun system as the main gun fitted to the U.S. Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship [LCS 4]. The contract is worth $7.2 million, and includes options such as spare parts and training. The gun is scheduled to be delivered in 2008.

The gun’s Mk 295 ammunition allows the system to perform against aerial, surface or ground threats, with a firing rate of up to 220 rounds/minute. The Mk 110 is designed to have minimal deck penetration, and can be operated directly or by remote control. BAE Systems has now received 3 contracts from the LCS program contenders, for a total of 4 gun systems. Note that the structure of MK.110 contracts may not announce all systems, or connect all systems to a specific ship.

Jan 5/07: GD’s Open Data Model. General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems has delivered the Littoral Combat Ship Open Data Model to the U.S. Navy for inclusion in the Software Hardware Asset Reuse Enterprise (SHARE) repository, with unrestricted rights for re-use by any other Navy program.

The Open Data Model is a critical open architecture component of the General Dynamics LCS computing environment. By using the Open Data Model, any company’s products can be integrated into the General Dynamics LCS quickly and efficiently, creating ease of integration and upgrade, as well as a continuous competitive environment that improves capabilities, lowers costs, and avoid’s platform lock-ins.

With this delivery, the SHARE repository now provides a vehicle for any company interested in bringing their technology to the General Dynamics LCS to gain access to the Open Data Model. In addition, the Open Data Model is now available as the basis of a published open architecture solution for any other Navy programs looking to reap the benefits afforded by open architecture, advancing the Navy’s growing focus on open architecture ship systems. EE Times report.

Oct 20/06: MIW – WLD-1. Lockheed Martin Maritime Systems and Sensors (MS2) Electronics Park in Syracuse, NY received a $13.2 million cost-plus-fixed-fee, firm-fixed-price modification under previously awarded contract (N00024-05-C-6327) for in the development, demonstration and integration of the Remote Mine-hunting Vehicle (RMV) with the anti-submarine warfare systems mission module, and for production of 4 installation and checkout kits with supporting equipment for 4 RMV units. This module will is part of the Littoral Combat Ship ASW mission package, and the RMVs will be incorporated into the DDG 91-96 and LCS Class ships.

The RMV is also known as the WLD-1, a UUV that works with the AQS-20A towed array sonar to scan ahead for mines; with slight adjustments, the system can perform active anti-submarine scans as well. Work will be performed in Syracuse, NY (80%) and Riviera Beach, FL (20%), and is expected to be complete by January 2008. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington in Washington, DC issued the contract.

Oct 19/06: ASW – USVs. a $12.7 million contract for 4 Unmanned Surface Vehicles (USVs), for the Littoral Combat Ship’s Anti-Submarine Warfare Mission Module. General Dynamics Robotic Systems will develop them. This contract follows a similar May 1/05 contract for up to 4 USVs; see below for further details, or just flip to DID’s dedicated coverage – and some of GDRS’ competitors in the USV field.

Oct 13/06: Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation in Bethpage, NY receives a $15.5 million cost-plus-award-fee modification under previously awarded contract (N00024-06-C-6311) to exercise an option to provide integration services for mission packages that will deploy from and integrate with the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). The US Navy’s plan is to use spiral development to improve mission capability on an ongoing basis, which is much easier since LCS mission packages can be developed and acquired separately from the ship itself. Work will be performed in Washington, DC (43%); Bethpage, NY (32%); Panama City, FL (19%); Hollywood, MD (2%); San Diego, CA (2%); and Dahlgren, VA (2%), and is expected to be complete by January 2008. See also DID’s Jan 5/06 entry.

(click to view full)

Aug 25/06: SUW – NETFIRES. Netfires LLC of Grand Prairie, TX received a cost-plus-incentive-fee contract for $54.8 million as part of an estimated $1.15 billion contract to procure the NLOS-LS Naval Littoral Combat Ship Integration, System Development and Demonstration. Work will be conducted in Tucson, AZ and Baltimore, MD, and will be complete by Aug. 31, 2010. The U.S. Army Aviation & Missile Command issued the contract (W31P4Q-04-C-0059). See also Raytheon’s Aug 29 release.

Aug 22/06: Engines. Rolls Royce announces that its Rolls-Royce MT30 gas turbines will power LCS 3, the second Lockheed Martin-designed Littoral Combat Ship. The order also includes 4 of its Kamewa waterjet systems. These systems were also installed in Team Lockheed’s LCS 1 Freedom, so the only surprise would have been a change.

July 31/06: MIW – WLD-1. Lockheed Martin Maritime Systems and Sensors Electronics Park in Syracuse, NY receives $23.4 million as part of the remote minehunting system (RMS) program (N00024-05-C-6237) to service 3 WLD-1 remote minehunting vehicle (RMV) UUVs. As noted above, the WLD-1 is a UUV that works with the AQS-20A towed array sonar to scan ahead for mines. The RMV/UUVs will be incorporated into the DDG 91 through DDG 96 Arleigh Burke Class destroyers, as well as the LCS.

April 10/06: Israel. Lockheed Martin announces a $5.2 million NAVSEA study studied Team Lockheed’s LCS hull, mechanical, and engineering systems’ ability to accommodate the systems and weapons the Israelis want, while avoiding the need for major redesign of the USA’s basic configuration.

The final answer was that it could, with some obvious modifications to accommodate better radars and vertical launch systems for missiles. See “A Littoral Combat Frigate For Israel?” for more.

April 4/06: SeaRAM for Independence. Raytheon Company announces that it will install the SeaRAM anti-ship missile defense weapon system on General Dynamics’ trimaran design for the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). SeaRAM combines upgraded Phalanx Block 1B close in weapon system radar & infrared sensors and the Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) Block 1A Helicopter, Aircraft, and Surface (HAS) guided missiles. Raytheon will work with General Dynamics to integrate SeaRAM with the LCS combat management system.

Note that the structure of RAM contracts may not announce all systems, or connect all systems to a specific ship.

April 2006: ASW – Sea Talon. The Navy’s Sea Talon Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (ACTD) system successfully completes a series of testing milestones offshore from Lockheed Martin’s Riviera Beach, Fla., facility.

Sea Talon is part of the LCS the anti-submarine warfare (ASW) mission module. Using 2 Remote Minehunting Vehicle (RMV) semi-submersibles developed under the AN/WLD-1 Program, Sea Talon creates an unmanned, distributed, underwater sensor network that uses unmanned vehicles for sensor deployment and sensor data communications. For Sea Talon, the RMVs are being fitted with the Remote Towed Active Source (RTAS) and the Remote Towed Array (RTA). Once fitted with these sensors, Sea Talon rapidly detects, tracks, classifies and localizes quiet diesel submarines in littoral waters, while conducting above-water persistent situational awareness and transmitting real-time data to U.S. Navy ships.

Sea Talon involves no new major technology development, but leverages already developed technologies from the AN/WLD-1 Remote Minehunting System, the AN/SQQ-89A(V)15 surface sonar program, towed array sonar development, and common software baselines. The April tests demonstrated that the RTA and RTAS could be towed at multiple depths, and that the RMV’s stability was not affected during the towing of the active source and passive source receiver at various speeds and depths. July 15/06 PEO-LLMW release.

Jan 5/06: Mission modules integrator: NGC. Northrop-Grumman Systems Corp. in Bethpage, NY is awarded a 10-year, cost-plus award-fee/ award-term contract serve as mission package integrator for the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Mission Modules program. The contract has a potential dollar figure of $159 million, and the FY 2006 portion of the contract award is $4.5 million. DID covers N-G’s mission modules integration contract in more depth.

July 6/05: COMBATSS-21, Flight 0. Lockheed Martin announces that they’ve completed their COMBATSS-21 combat management system’s software. COMBATSS-21 supports the FORCEnet initiative within the USA’s Seapower 21 doctrine, and uses an open architecture system that reuses proven components from Lockheed Martin, the US Navy, domestic industry and international industry. By leveraging off-the-shelf components, Lockheed Martin claims to have achieved greater than 95% software reuse, completing the Flight 0 COMBATSS-21 software well ahead of ship installation and below budget.

Lockheed Martin says they will continually evaluate new components for COMBATSS-21, which they’ll use for the Navy’s LCS, DD (X) Destroyer program, the Coast Guard’s Deepwater program, and other US and international ships.

May 1/05: ASW USVs. GD gets an order for up to 4 ASW USVs. An $8.5 million contract covers the first 2 vehicles, with options for raising that contract to 4 USVs and $11.3 million. The USVs will be used as part of the LCS Anti-Submarine Warfare module, employing towed arrays, dipping sonar sensors and acoustic sources as payloads.

General Dynamics Robotic Systems is a subsidiary of General Dynamics Land Systems. The company plans to adapt its land robotics command and control system for the new USVs; indeed, Scott Myers President Scott Myers cited this expertise as a key reason the Navy chose them.

June 29/04: GD announces core missions systems & software team. General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems announces the open-architecture core mission systems team for the General Dynamics design of the U.S. Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). Core mission systems infrastructure is a flexible information technology backbone for operating the ship as a whole that allows “plug and play” integration of custom-designed software modules for specific functions. GD AIS’ focus is on making it easy to integrate new modules by using non-proprietary standards and commercial middleware software as the key interface:

• BAE Systems in Rockville, MD is responsible for the ship’s internal and external communications systems, as well as topside antenna modeling and mission module interface coordination.

• CAE USA Inc. Marine Systems in Leesburg, VA, is responsible for the ship automation and control system. Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems in Baltimore, MD is responsible for the Integrated Combat Management System (ICMS).

• General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products in Charlotte, NC is responsible for “all of the weapons and effectors.”

• General Dynamics Canada in Ottawa, Canada is responsible for the above- and below-water sensors.

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 fro 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

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. The current RFP.

• 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] http://www.austal.com/Libraries/Newsletters-Presentations-Presentations-and-Publications/Advanced-Seaframes-for-Littoral-Security.pdf

• Lockheed Martin – LCS Team. LCS mini-site.

• Lockheed Martin – Littoral Combat Ship. The LCS-1 Freedom Class.

• Naval-Technology.com – Littoral Combat Ship LCS High-Speed Surface Ship

• GlobalSecurity.org – Littoral Combat Ship.

• USN – Littoral Combat Ships – Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) Mission Package

• USN – Littoral Combat Ships – Mine Countermeasures (MCM) Mission Package

• USN – Littoral Combat Ships – Surface Warfare (SUW) Mission Package

• 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 ad 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 Exports

• General Dynamics – international variant brochure, dating from when they were teamed up with Austal [PDF].

• 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.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/multi-mission-combat-ship.html

• 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 (January 2013: DRAFT) – The Littoral Combat Ship: How We Got Here, and Why. Scribd copy of the early draft.

• US Congressional Research Service (Aug 10/12 update, #RL33741) – Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program: Background, Oversight Issues, and Options for Congress.

• 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) – Logistical Analysis of the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) operating independently in the Pacific.

• 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 and Stories

• 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 Glf, 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 as well 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.”

• WIRED Danger Room (Jan 4/11) – Navy’s New Warship: Bargain, Death Trap or Both?

• Aviation Week (Jan 3/11) – Common LCS Combat Systems Debated

• 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 issue. 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) – EXCLUSIVE: 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. “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 format]. 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 the LCS program 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: Government, Industry, and US Naval Shipbuilding Challenges. US Secretary of the Navy Donald Winter discusses US shipbulding plans and challenges. The LCS is referenced as an important trend and exemplar.

• The Fourth Rail (April 27/05) – Of Pirates and Terrorists

• Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey (June – Sept 1992) – The Value of Warship Attributes in Missile Combat

LCS Ancillaries & Auxilliaries

• Anthony G Williams – Naval Armament: The MCG Problem. MCG = medium-caliber gun. There has been a global divergence of views re: what 55mm-155mm naval guns should be for, and therefore which characteristics should be stressed. BAE’s 57mm gun, which will equip the LCS, falls firmly on one side of this debate.

LCS & MH-60S Mine Counter-Measures Continue Development. Covers AMCM and the MIW package. DII Spotlight article.

• Lockheed Martin – COMBATSS-21 Combat Management System. Used in the Freedom Class, based in part on Lockheed’s Aegis. The Independence Class has a different system.

• DID – Raytheon’s Griffin Mini-Missiles. The NLOS-LS replacement, with just a 3 nautical mile range. Has already been mounted on some Cyclone Class patrol boats.

• DID – Cheap, Fast, Deadly: The NETFIRES “Missiles in a Box” Program (updated). DII FOCUS on NLOS-LS. Canaceled.

• DID – RAM Missiles: Contracts & Events. Will provide the LCS’ primary defense against aircraft and missiles.

• Military.com (Nov 1/07) – LCS to Carry Marines?

• Lockheed Martin (July 10/06) – Lockheed Martin Sea Talon Program Achieves Key Milestones Toward Deployment As Littoral Combat Ship ASW Mission Module. Since abandoned.

• DID (May 4/06) – $8.5M for 2 Littoral Combat Ship Anti-Submarine USVs. Since abandoned.

• DID (Jan 9/06) – N-G Gets $159M Littoral Combat Ship Mission Package Integration Contract. Covers the mission module program’s structure, and the MIW, ASW, and SUW modules as envisioned back then. Much has changed since.

• Seapower Magazine (December 2005) – Navy Custom Tailors Crew Training for Littoral Combat Ship.

• DID (Dec 2/05) – Sub-Finding Sensor Nets Get A Step Closer. Covers the ADS, or Advanced Deployable System. Abandoned due to technical issues, and realizations that static nets were not the way to go.

• DID (Oct 20/05) – U.S. Navy Exploring New Concepts, Procurement Priorities for ASW. Updated to include a number of related anti-submarine warfare technologies, most of of which will find their way onto the LCS fleet or will interface with it.

• DID (Oct 17/05) – The Fire Scout UTUAV Program: By Land and By Sea (updated)

• DID (Sept 23/05) – Navy Launches Final Development of Bluefin 21 UUV. It would appear in the LCS years later, as the mine warfare module’s “Knifefish”.

• DID (Sept 20/05) – Raytheon Receives $55M to Put New Mine Detection Sonar Into Production. The WLD-1 UUV and AQS-20 mine-hunting sonar are still the expected combination, but WLD-1 RMMVs aren’t expected to be ready until 2015 – and as of 2013, the AQS-20 still has some serious kinks of its own.

• DID (Sept 15/05) – $124.5M for 3 Airborne Laser Mine Detection Systems (Updated). These will be carried on the LCS, which will become an operational center for up to 5 MH-60S helicopters equipped with the AN/AES-1 ALMDS system. As of 2013, ALMDS is still having serious problems with false positives.

• DID (May 18/05) – Spartan USVs for Singapore’s Navy. These sorts of developments helped shape the USN’s thinking.

• C4ISR Journal (July 2004) – Design Work Proceeds on LCS Mission Modules: Suites will allow quick switches for pressing threat

Related American and International Programs

• Danish Navy – Flyvefisken Class (1989-), aka. Standard Flex 300

• Naval Technology – Flyvefisken Class (SF 300) Multi-Role Vessels, Denmark

• Danish Navy – Absalom Class (2004-). These multi-role ships can act as frigates, minelayers, command ships, hospital ships, or even as small roll-on/ roll-off landing ships thanks to their “Flex-Deck” and other features.

• Naval Technology – Skjold (“Shield”) Class Missile Fast Patrol Boats, Norway. One of these air cushion catamaran ships completed a 13-month deployment in the USA before the LCS program got underway, allowing the US Navy to study the Skjold class concept and shape thinking about the LCS idea.

• Naval Technology – Visby Class Corvettes, Sweden

• DID FOCUS – JHSV Fast Catamaran Transport Program Moves Forward

• US Navy PEO Ships – FAQ: JHSV vs. LCS

• DID – Dead Aim, Or Dead End? The USA’s DDG-1000 Zumwalt Class Program. FOCUS Article.

• DID – Russia & China Building Littoral Warships. The Chinese Type 022 wave-piercing catamaran fast attack craft is a potential littoral opponent. The Russian Project 2038 Steregushchiy (“Guarding”) Class, on the other hand, may well represent a true export competitor.

• Boston Globe (April 19/09) – The (smaller, faster, cheaper) future of sea power. Which may be significantly smaller and cheaper than the LCS.

• Defense News (Oct 25/05) – Ship Shows Off Danish Navy’s ‘Transformation’ Re: Absalom Class ships.

• DID (March 4/05) – U.S. Navy Exploring New Concepts, Procurement Priorities for ASW. The proliferation of quiet diesel submarines is forcing doctrinal changes, as well as new technology programs. Quite a few of these new programs will find their way onto the LCS, or interface with it.

• Sea Classics, via FindArticles (November 2004) – Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Contracts Awarded – What Does It Mean To The US Navy?

• Naval Postgraduate School at Monterey (Dec 2003) – “Sea Swat”: A Littoral Combat Ship for Sea Base Defense

• Proceedings magazine (February 2003) – All Ahead Flank for LCS

• Melana Zyla Vickers at FOXNews (Oct 14/03) – High Seas Robbery. Covers the need for the LCS program.

• Melana Zyla Vickers at TechcentralStation (May 6/02) – Naval Overkill. She thinks the DD (X) is, but the LCS and Streetfighter programs aren’t.

• Naval Institute, Proceedings Magazine (November 2003) – Sea Power 21 Series, Part VIII – Sea Trial: Enabler for a Transformed Fleet. Gives good background re: the releationship of the links that follow to the LCS program, and how that kind of effort fits in with the US Navy’s new naval doctrine.

• GlobalSecurity.org – HSV Program for high speed troop carrier vessels (incl. WestPac Express and TSV ships TSV-1X Spearhead and HSV-2 Swift). Given that “HSV-2″ is also a designation for a variety of Herpes Simplex STD, it is possible that this designation will change to a TSV variant once the ship class is firmly established.

• DID (Nov 24/05) – JHSV Fast Catamaran Transport Program Moves Forward

• DID (Sept 27/05) – UAVs, Blimps, and HSV-2, Oh My! It would not surprise us at all if the semi-autonomous, long-endurance ScanEagle surveillance UAV were to find itself added to the LCS’ onboard options in future. These UAVs are valued very highly by the US Marines as combat surveillance UAVs, and testing them on the HSV-2 seems explicitly designed to pave the way for LCS integration.

• DID (July 22/05) – U.S. Marines Extend Westpac Express TSV Ship Charter. The success of Austal’s HSV 4676 has also helped to shape US military thinking about potential LCS designs. The article also discusses Austal’s new Mobile, AL facility, which will be a key participant in LCS construction for the General Dynamics team.

• Naval Sea Systems Command (April 2004) – HSV-2 proving to be Prototype for Littoral Combat Ship Program

• US Navy Fact File – “Seafighter” Experimental Vessel

• HowStuffWorks.com – How the FSF-1 Sea Fighter Works

• Navy Marine Corps News (June 4/05) – “Seafighter” Experimental Vessel: Initial Deployment News Video

• Lockheed’s Sea SLICE X-vessel. The vessel participated in a US naval exercise 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.

Tag: LCSFOCUS

The NH90 emerged from a requirement that created a NATO helicopter development and procurement agency in 1992 and, at almost the same time, established NHIndustries (62.5% EADS Eurocopter, 32.5% AgustaWestland, and 5% Stork Fokker) to build the hardware. The NATO Frigate Helicopter was originally developed to fit between light naval helicopters like AW’s Lynx or Eurocopter’s Panther, and medium-heavy naval helicopters like the European EH101. A quick look at the NFH design showed definite possibilities as a troop transport helicopter, however, and soon the NH90 project had branched into 2 versions, with more to follow.

The nearest equivalent would be Sikorsky’s popular H-60 Seahawk/ Black Hawk family, but the NH90 includes a set of innovative features that give it some distinguishing selling points. Its combination of corrosion-proofing, lower maintenance, greater troop or load capacity, and the flexibility offered by that rear ramp have made the NH90 a popular global competitor.

As many business people discover the hard way, however, success can be almost as dangerous as failure. NH Industries has had great difficulty ramping up production fast enough to meet promised deliveries, which has left several buyers upset. Certification and acceptance have also been slow, with very few NH90s in service over a decade after the first contracts were signed. Booked orders have actually been sliding backward over the last year, and currently stand at 474 machines, on behalf of 14 nations.

The NH90 Platform(s)

NH90 NFH
(click to view full)

NH Industries’ design makes extensive use of composite materials instead of riveted metal alloy plates, which makes the helicopter lighter and sharply reduces routine maintenance and corrosion issues. On the other hand, it also creates potential issues with damage repair in the field, and with durability. Germany in particular has complained that the composite body is essentially too flimsy for normal infantry use, or the carriage of heavy items. Time will tell if these issues can be fixed.

Electronic fly-by-wire systems also contribute to the lift capacity, by saving the weight of heavy power-boosted hydraulic control systems. This allows the NH90 to remain within the 10-tonne weight class, while carrying about 50% more troops or stretchers than its American UH-60 counterpart. A pair of Rolls-Royce Turbomeca RTM322 engines delivering 2,412 – 2,544 shp, GE T700-T6Es delivering 2,269 – 2,380 shp, or GE CT7-8F5s delivering up to 2,520 shp at sea level, power the aircraft. At present, RTM322-powered NH90s have been sold to Australia, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, Norway, New Zealand, Oman, Portugal and Sweden. Spain and Italy will use GE’s engines instead.

Removal of the C-130 air-portability requirement that constrained the H-60 family’s height let NH Industries expand the NH90′s cargo area size. Features like dual-side exits and an optional rear ramp let the 10-tonne helicopter carry light vehicles or small boats internally, drop search-and-rescue swimmers out back, load MEDEVAC stretchers, etc.

Built for what NH Industrie calls “extreme adverse weather” operations, the NH90 can start up and fly, land, and shut down in winds gusting up to around 110 km/h without losing rotor control, flying day and night in heavy icing conditions down to temperatures of -30 C/ -22 F. Normal maximum range is approximately 200 nautical miles/ 370 km, or up to 300 nm/ 555 km using internal and/or external auxiliary tanks.

NH90 cockpit
(click to view full)

Advanced avionics and other standard features round out the offering, with frequent local customization in the electronics area. Thales’ TopOwl helmet-mounted display is the model’s preferred choice in that important category, and accompanying surveillance and/or targeting turrets are standard features. An EADS Defence Electronics/Thales partnership will deliver an Electronic Warfare Suite comprising a missile approach warning system, laser warning receiver, radar warner, central processing unit, and chaff/flare dispenser. This EWS has been selected by Australia, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, and Portugal, at minimum.

The NH90 is produced in 2 main variants: Tactical Transport Helicopter for troops (NH90 TTH), and the NATO Frigate Helicopter for naval utility and anti-submarine (NH90 NFH). The TTH variant can carry 12-20 troops (depending on equipment level), and normal load is up to 2.5 tonnes/ 5,500 pounds inside.

Equipment can be added to create the NH90 Special Operations configuration (NH90 SOF, generally based on NH90 TTH), and an optional High Cabin Version (HCV) option is available for any variant raises the cabin height from 1.58m to 1.82m, increasing cabin volume from 15 to 17.5 cubic meters. The high cabin is especially helpful for long search and rescue operations, or MEDEVAC flights where medical personnel need to be able to stand up and move freely.

Special NH90 MEDEVAC and CSAR (combat search and rescue) fit-outs are also available. The NH90 FAME MEDEVAC variant adds 2 intensive care bays for treating wounded personnel, on-board equipment, and seats for the medical team. Options for the CSAR kit include up to 3 machine guns (each side door and the tail ramp), extra ballistic protection, a rappel system, a double rescue hoist, an emergency flotation system, sand filters, an obstacle warning system, and improved self-protection electronics.

The NH90 NFH naval variant can be used as a utility helicopter like the TTH, or as an anti-submarine helicopter, depending on how they’re built. ASW helicopters will add a naval radar, a dipping sonar and sonobuoys, plus up to 2 missiles or torpedoes on side pylons.

The first NH90 series production helicopter made its maiden flight in May 2004, but the first acceptance by a customer didn’t take place until 3 NH90 TTH were accepted by Germany on Dec 13/06. Even so, Germany does not expect full operational capability until 2012, and other countries that ordered early are faced with even longer waits. Customer acceptances for the NH90 NFH naval variant were expected to begin in the second half of 2009, but actually began in mid-2010, and fully mission-ready NFH variants aren’t expected until 2012 or later.

UH-60, Iraq
(click to view full)

The NH90′s nearest comparable serving helicopter is probably the American H-60 Black Hawk/ Seahawk family, a 10-tonne helicopter flying since 1979 that remains America’s current and future mainstay helicopter for its Army (UH-60M) and Navy (MH-60 R/S). Within its 10 tonnes of maximum takeoff weight, the Black Hawk normally carries 11 equipped troops to a normal maximum range of around 550 km/ 330 miles. Unlike the NH90, the H-60 family has no rear ramp, which means it must fly with vehicles attached underneath via a hook and sling system that sharply cuts the helicopter’s range, maneuverability, and maximum speed.

While the H-60 family remains popular, Sikorsky has felt the pressure of the implicit comparisons. Their new UH-60 derived H-92 Superhawk, a heavier aircraft that makes heavy use of composite materials, features a rear ramp, and has a higher cargo capacity than the smaller H-60 series. It has been selected by Canada’s Navy (28 helicopters), and is in use a civilian and VIP transport helicopter.

The NH90 Production Program

Base workshare
(click to view full)

The NH90′s NAHEMO international program organization consists of 6 countries: France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Portugal (2001), Belgium (2007). Others may be customers, but are not full program partners.

NAHEMA (NATO Helicopter Management Agency) represents the customer. It is responsible for program monitoring and the qualification of the weapon systems. It also acts as the single contact with the prime contractor for the negotiation, attribution and execution of the primary contracts.

NHIndustries is the Eurocopter/ AgustaWestland/ Stork Fokker joint venture. It acts as the prime contractor, responsible for the design, development, industrialization and production of the NH90, including program management, order sub-contracting, marketing, sales, and support for helicopters in service worldwide. It is also the owner of the helicopter’s type certification. The NH90′s 3 main assembly lines, and their general work share items, are:

Eurocopter France in Marignane, France: Powerplant & section, rotors, electrical systems, flight controls, central avionics.

Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH in Donauworth, Germany: Central sections, fuel, communications, avionics control. Lead for TTH tactical transport, and makes nose sections until Spain’s plant reaches full production.

AgustaWestland in Cascina Costa, Italy: Tail cone and drive shaft, main gearbox, automatic flight control, hydraulics, electric system, rear ramp, rear fuselage, installation monitoring systems. They are alternates for engine installation, and the lead for NFH mission packages & installation and the construction and flight testing of the naval prototype. AgustaWestland has final assembly line responsibility for all TTH and NFH helicopters to be procured by the Italian Army and Navy, and for the Dutch and Norwegian NH90 NFH helicopters as well, for a grand total of 150 helicopters so far.

NH90 manufacture
(click to view full)

The Nordic countries ordered 52 NH90 helicopters with an option for 17, and Patria Oyj runs the final assembly line in Halli, Jamsa, Finland as a subcontractor to Eurocopter S.A.S. in Marignane. The Finnish assembly line is the 4th operational assembling line for the NH90, handling final assembly for all Finnish and Swedish NH90s. Per subsequent agreements, there are also assembly lines in progress or underway in Albacete, Spain (Eurocopter Espana, will manufacture nose sections for all NH90s) and Brisbane, Australia (Eurocopter subsidiary Australian Aerospace).

Stork Fokker in the Netherlands isn’t a main assembly line, but this founding partner is responsible for the tail boom, doors, flotation boxes, landing gear, and intermediate tail gearbox.

At present, NH Industries’ orders total 474, with 65-77 live options available as possible future orders. The breakdown is:

Over the past year, Portugal has canceled its buy of 10 helicopters, and Germany has cut its orders by 40 machines. Spain is also reportedly negotiating to reduce its contract by 8 helicopters, and Greece’s contract for 20 is in question, with only 4 helicopters delivered nearly 9 years after the order was placed.

A full timeline follows. To enlarge it for optimum visibility, use this link (GIF, 109k)

Contracts & Key Events

German NH90 & Tiger
(click to view full)

May 9/13: Australia. Australia’s Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) signs a Deed of undertaking with Eurocopter subsidiary Australian Aerospace and their industry partners to re-baseline the “MRH90″ army helicopter project’s schedule, settle a number of disputed program issues, and change some contract terms. The biggest change is free delivery of a 47th helicopter for maintenance training at the Army’s Aviation Maintenance school at Oakey, Queensland.

The MRH90 program is 3 years behind, and currently sits on the government’s notorious “Projects of Concern” list. Australian Aerospace agreed on a number of technical fixes back in 2012, and this contract aims to settle the remaining issues and get the MRH90 removed from the Projects of Concern list by the end of 2013. Meanwhile, the MRH90′s problems appear to have cost the NH90 a role as Australia’s future naval helicopter, which was awarded to Sikorsky’s MH-60R Seahawk instead (vid. June 16/11 entry). Australia DoD | Australian Aerospace | Projects of Concern.

Australia MRH90 settlement & changes

May 2/13: Italy. The Italian Army gets its 21st of 60 NH90-TTH machines, but it’s the 1st in Full Operational Configuration. Meanwhile, the Italian Army has now flown 5 Initial Operational Configuration NH90s in Afghanistan’s demanding conditions for 470 combat flight hours. 

Note that Italy’s order total in DID’s table shows 70 NH90 TTH helicopters, because the Italian Navy ordered 10 of its own. NH Industries.

April 8/13: Belgium. NH Industries announces the first flight of Belgium’s NH90-NFH, part of Belgium’s 8-helicopter, evenly split order. It’s being delivered:

“…in its full operational capability standard, already known as the “Step B.” This aircraft is very close to the Dutch NH90 NFH Step B currently operationally deployed with the Royal Netherland’s [sic] Navy.”

FS Aquitaine & Caiman
(click to view full)

Nov 28/12: Norway. NHIndustries delivers Norway’s 2nd NH90 NFH at AgustaWestland’s Tessera, Italy facility, where it was assembled. The Norwegians have been getting antsy (vid. Aug 2/12 entry), so every little bit helps. Note that delivery is not the same as “ready for operations.” NH Industries.

Sept 18/12: Belgium. Belgium’s 1st of 4 NH90 TTH helicopters begins flight testing from Eurocopter’s facility in Margianne, France. NH Industries adds that:

“The Belgian NH90 TTH is a Full Operational Capability standard helicopter. This aircraft is very close to the french [sic] NH90 Caiman TTH for which deliveries started in the end of 2011 in Full Operational Capability Standard. This commonality brings to the Belgian customer all the return of experience collected during the development of the french NH90 TTH.”

The same may not be true of Belgium’s 4 NH90 NFH naval helicopters, as that variant isn’t finished development yet. The helicopters were ordered in July 2007. NH Industries.

Aug 2/12: Norway out? Flight International reports that Norway, which ordered 8 NH90-NFH utility helicopters in 2001 and has received just 1 so far (vid. Nov 30/11 entry), is threatening to cancel its order and buy a different helicopter.

“Speaking last month on a tour with the coastguard in northern Norway, secretary of state for defence Roger Ingebrigtsen said: “NH90 is greatly delayed and I am very concerned about this situation. We therefore have to consider what the options are to ensure the coastguard has the helicopter capacity we depend on.”

The defence ministry adds: “If the manufacturer doesn’t manage to deliver the helicopters [to deadline] we are considering cancelling the contract… There are several helicopters on the market that are combat-proven and in use by other nations,”

If Norway canceled its entire order, it would also be canceling its 6 NH90-NFH anti-submarine helicopters. There are alternatives. Sikorsky’s comparable S-92 is already in use by other Coast Guards, and their smaller MH-60R is a proven anti-submarine helicopter. AgustaWestland’s larger AW101 has Coast Guard credentials, and its naval helicopter variant is in service with Britain and Italy. A few days later, an article in AftenPosten [in Norwegian] states that an Air Force report recommends asking a quote from Sikorsky for MH-60Rs, as a plan B in case NH Industries continues to fail. Back in 2007 their neighbor Finland settled its differences with the manufacturer for a relatively modest penalty, but that was a short delay on a smaller order.

June 29/12: Oman. NH Industries delivers another 2 NH90-TTH to Oman, bringing their total deliveries to 10 of 20 ordered. The contract was signed on July 24/04.

May 27/12: Flight International reports that the NH90′s orders from Greece, Portugal, and Spain are all in peril of cancellation or reduction.

To date, Greece is the only one of the 3 that has received any helicopters, despite orders that began in 2001. Only 1 of Greece’s 4 delivered NH90s is even in the process of conversion to the full operational version, out of a 2003 order for up to 34 (16 TTH, 4 Special Ops variants, 14 options). Portugal has yet to accept any of its 10 TTH machines ordered in 2001, while Spain is reportedly looking to cut up to 8 helicopters from its 2006 order for 45.

March 8/12: Writedown. EADS reports its 2011 financial results, and Eurocopter results were generally good. The firm finished its 100th NH90 in 2011, but:

“A net charge of around [EUR] 115 million was booked in 2011. This mainly relates to governmental programmes [i.e. NH90 and Tiger] as well as to SHAPE [the firm's restructuring plan]. The 2010 figure included a net charge of [EUR] 120 million.”

Aviation Week adds that:

“Departing EADS CFO Hans-Peter Ring says he “cannot guarantee” that there won’t be further charges . He blames the NH90 problems on the companies’ willingness to allow too much customization, with almost every buyer having a near-bespoke configuration.”

March 8/12: France. DCNS, the French Navy, and the French DGA procurement agency successfully complete a series of deck landing trials with the new NH90 NFH (“Caiman Marine”), on board the new FREMM frigate FS Aquitaine. DCNS.

Jan 30/12: France. An official unveiling ceremony is held for the 1st French Army NH90 TTH, which will also be referred to as “Caiman” in French service, alongside the NH90 NFH utility variant. The helicopter will go to GAMSTAT in Valencia to begin its technical and operational testing. French DGA [in French].

Jan 3/12: #100. NH Industries announces delivery of the 100th NH90 variant, about 11.5 years after the initial base contract was signed.

Australian MRH-90
(click to view full)

Dec 8/11: France’s “Caiman”. French NH90 NFHs operational. A ceremony marks the official entry of France’s NH90 NFH “Caiman” naval helicopters into service with Flotille 33F. So far, 5 helicopters have been delivered in utility configuration, of the 27 total. The name “Caiman” was chosen in conjunction with the French Army, who has ordered 34 NH90 TTH helicopters of its own.

The Marine Nationale’s eventual mix will be 13 utility models with a rear ramp, and 14 full anti-submarine models without the rear ramp. They’ll be based at BAN (NAS) Hyeres on the French Riviera and BAN Lanveoc in Brittany, plus 1 detached to Cherbourg in Normandy. From there, they’ll deploy aboard France’s high-end frigates: the 2 Horizon Class air defense ships, and its forthcoming Aquitaine Class FRMM multi-role ships. They may also deploy to France’s amphibious ships like the Mistral Class, but the number of NH90 NFH helicopters ordered will make that an occasional posting. Besides a door gunner, their initial armament will be MU90 Eurotorp lightweight torpedoes, with light anti-ship missiles to follow around 2021. Navy Recognition.

French “Caimans” operational

Nov 30/11: Norway. Norway holds a delivery ceremony at AgustaWestland in Verigate, Italy, for their 1st NH90 NFH naval helicopter. Their 14 NH90s will replace the Coast Guard’s AgustaWestland’s Lynx helicopters (8 NH90s), and serve as the the new Nansen Class AEGIS frigates’ ASW helicopters (6 NH90s). They will be based at Bardufoss Air Station. AgustaWestland.

Nov 8/11: Germany. Reuters reports that Eurocopter and HN Industries are looking to compensate for Germany’s NH90 TTH cut by pushing the country to buy the naval NH90-NFH, to replace 21 H-3 Sea King and 22 AgustaWestland Sea Lynx helicopters. Reuters adds that the German Navy hasn’t been impressed with the NH90-NFH so far, and has concerns about its upgradeability.

Even if that’s true, Eurocopter has a card to play. Eurocopter CEO Lutz Bertling said that talks over the proposed contract changes would begin in mid-December 2011, with the goal of an agreement in principle by March 2012. The implication is that Eurocopter would forego some or all cancellation fees on existing EC665 Tiger UHT and NH90-TTH contracts, if Germany agreed to buy the NH90-NFH instead of competitors like Sikorsky’s MH-92/CH-148 or MH-60R/S; or AgustaWestland’s EH101 or AW159 Wildcat.

Another possibility involves agreement to fund development of a joint FTH heavy-lift helicopter with France and/or the USA, in which Eurocopter would likely partner with Boeing or Sikorsky.

Oct 21/11: German cuts? As German austerity measures cut further into an already weak defense budget, the government announces changes to its NH90 TTH plans. They’ll be cutting 42 NH90s from the 112 helicopter procurement plan, capping the total buy at 80. The final split between the Army and Air Force, who were going to fly slightly different versions of the TTH model, remains unclear. Also unclear: potential termination costs under the contract with NH Industries.

Eurocopter will actually be taking 2 hits. One from its share of NH90 work, another from Germany halving its buy of Tiger HAC/UHT scout/attack helicopters, to just 40. Aviation Week.

Aug 31/11: Finland. Patria announces an agreement with the Finnish Defence Forces, to design and manufacture NH90 ballistic protection plates that will protect both pilots and transported personnel. The project will be implemented during 2012-2014. Patria Oy | Rotorhub.

June 23/11: Italy. The Italian Navy formally takes delivery of its first NH90-NFH naval helicopter. they’re the 2nd NFH customer to take delivery, after the Dutch (vid. April 21/10 entry). AgustaWestland.

May 9/11: Sonar. Marport C-Tech Ltd. receives “a multi-million dollar contract” From SELEX Galileo to manufacture OTS-90 helicopter dipping sonar modules. The firm is a specialist in software-defined sonar, and work will be carried out at its facilities in Cornwall, Ontario, Canada.

The OTS-90 system is derived from L-3 Ocean Systems’ HELRAS(Helicopter Long Range Active Sonar), and some component units are manufactured under license by SELEX Galileo. Marport manufactures some HELRAS modules as well, which gives it links to a broad array of maritime helicopters: HELRAS-equipped SH-60 Seahawks, AW101s, and Canada’s CH-148/H-92 program; as well as NH90 NFH helicopters belonging to Italy and The Netherlands (OTS-90).

May 5/11: Netherlands. AgustaWestland announces that the Royal Netherlands Navy (RNLN) has taken delivery of the firm’s Skyflight Mission Planning & Analysis System (MPAS) for their NH90 NFH naval helicopters, following successful completion of installation and Site Acceptance Tests.

The system will be fully operational on Dutch NH90s by the end of 2012 (vid. Dec 23/09 entry, looks like they’ll miss the Q3 2011 date for full capability), and Skyflight also serves aboard a number of other helicopter types around the world.

April 29/11: Australia. Australia completes its “full diagnostic review” of the MRH-90 program, after engine failures, transmission oil cooler fan failures and the poor availability of spares ground the fleet. To date, 13 of 46 MRH-90 helicopters have been accepted by Australia’s DoD and are being used for testing and initial crew training. They aren’t operational yet, and so far, the Army helicopters are 12 months behind schedule and the Navy helicopters, 18 months.

The review doesn’t consign the program to the infamous “Projects of Concern” list – yet. It does ask for a remediation plan, before a follow-up diagnostic review later in 2011 looks at the project again. With the Australian naval helicopter contract looming, a good follow-on review is important to Eurocopter. Australian DoD.

Feb 1/11: Australia. The Australian DoD makes an announcement concerning its MRH-90s:

“Mr Smith and Mr Clare also announced that a high-level comprehensive diagnostic review of the MRH-90 helicopter project would occur this month. As reported in both the Defence Annual Report and the ANAO Major Project Report released last year, the project has suffered delays of 12 months for the Navy’s helicopters and 18 months for the Army’s helicopters. Delays are due to a series of key issues, including engine failure, transmission oil cooler fan failures and the poor availability of spares… 13 MRH-90 helicopters have been accepted by Defence to date and are currently being used for testing and initial crew training. Minister Smith said that the full diagnostic review would be supported by external specialists. It will provide recommendations to Government on the actions necessary to fully implement this important project.”

The timing here is poor, as the NH90 is competing with Sikorsky’s proven MH-60R to replace Sikorsky’s S-70s as Australia’s next naval/ASW helicopter.

Dutch NH-90 NFH
(click to view full)

Dec 17/10: Spain. NHI announces the 1st flight of a Spanish NH90 TTH, at Eurcopter’s facilities in Marignane, France. This event marks also the first flight of a GE CT7-8F5 powered NH90, instead of the RTM322.

Spain ordered 45 of the medium utility helicopters in December 2006, with the first 2 built in France and the other 43 assembled in Albacete, Spain. The initial NH90 TTH will be transferred to Albacete in 2011 in order to complete the development flights, leading to a full qualification by the Spanish Ministry of Defence and expected induction in 2012.

Dec 16/10: France. NHI announces the maiden flight of the first French NH90 TTH medium utility helicopter for French Army Aviation (ALAT), at the Eurocopter facilities in Margianne, France. The flight follows the December 2007 order for 34 NH90 TTH machines.

Oct 23/10: Australia. The Australian reports on the Project AIR 9000, Phase 8 helicopter competition. A navy evaluation team reportedly test-flew the MH-60R in early October 2010, and wants to fly the NH90 NFH as well, even though its mission systems software won’t be ready until mid-2011, and the helicopter won’t be operational until late 2011 – well after Australia’s decision deadline.

In the end, the NH90 lost. Read “MH-60R Wins Australia’s Maritime Helicopter Competition” for full coverage.

Sept 30/10: Swedish switch. The US DSCA announces Sweden’s request to buy 15 UH-60M Black Hawk helicopters for combat search &and rescue & MEDEVAC duties in Afghanistan. Sweden already flies the NH90 TTH in a “high cabin” configuration that’s especially well suited to combat search and rescue and MEDEVAC operations, and Eurocopter unveiled a German NH90-TTH MEDEVAC kit on June 4/10.

Even so, the NH90′s slow delivery and certification times end up shifting the additional order to the NH90′s main competitor instead, as the contract goes through. See full DID coverage.

June 28/10: Oman. The Royal Air Force of Oman takes delivery of its first 2 NH90-TTH helicopters, out of an order of 20 that was placed on July 24/04. It will be followed in July 2010, by the acceptance process for the second batch of NH90s. These helicopters are supported by an integrated NHI/ RAFO maintenance team who will inaugurate the NH90′s GLIMS (Ground Logistic Information Management System). NH Industries.

June 14/10: New Zealand. News 3 quotes New Zealand Defence Minister Wayne Mapp of the National Party, who says that despite German reports citing issues with the NH90 (vid. Feb 23/10 and March 31/10 entries), he won’t be canceling New Zealand’s order.

June 7/10: Germany naval. Sikorsky is looking to pursue a 30-helicopter bid to replace Germany’s H-3 Sea Kings with their MH-92 Cyclone instead of the NH90 NFH, and also wants to compete for an 8-19 helicopter Combat Search And Rescue (CSAR) opportunity to replace German UH-1Ds. A decision is expected in late 2010, if proposed budget cuts don’t derail the programs.

At the ILA 2010 airshow in Berlin, Sikorsky signed a Memorandum of Understanding “to explore opportunities” in aftermarket support involves their long-standing partner ZF Luftfahrttechnik GmbH (ZF Aviation Technology), while the other involves Switzerland’s RUAG, and will explore “Maintenance and Repair Operation as well as integrated logistics support and completion capabilities.” Rheinmetall and MTU are also reputed to be involved in discussions.

The Cyclone might be operational in a maritime role before the NH90 NFH, and the firm has some HH-92 CSAR design experience from its participation in the aborted American CSAR-X competition. Their bid remains something of a long shot, but Sikorsky representatives are quoted as saying that the partnerships and experience will stand them in good stead to bid the future CH-53K heavy-lift helicopter for the Franco-German HTH program. Sikorsky has reportedly secured American export approval for the Cyclone, and would conduct final assembly in Germany. Aviation Week | Flight International | Shephard Group.

May 18/10: Australia. Australia’s government announces that specialists from Turbomeca and Rolls Royce have been brought to Australia to help investigate an MRH90 engine failure that took place on April 20/10, about 30 minutes north east of Adelaide. The helicopter returned to RAAF base Edinburgh without further incident or injuries to personnel, but the incident resulted in a fleet-wide grounding.

May 14/10: Finland. Finland announces that it will retire its last 2 Mi-8 helicopters. The Finnish Army is reportedly flying 7 of its eventual 20 NH90 TTHs at Utti, and has amassed over 1,400 fleet flight hours, with deliveries from local assembly partner Patria to be completed in 2012.

Local commanders expect the NH90s to reach full operational status by 2013-14, but believes that could be moved forward to 2012 on an emergency basis, if required for an international deployment or sudden circumstances. Flight International.

April 28/10: Australia. Australia issues its formal solicitation for “AIR 9000, Phase 8″ to buy naval helicopters: either the NH90 NFH or the MH-60R, decision in 2011. Ministerial release

April 23/10: France. The French Navy receives its first NH90 NFH naval helicopter. Following operational testing and training, the helicopter is expected to enter French Navy service near the end of 2011. France has ordered 27 NH90 NFH helicopters: 13 in support configuration, and 14 in naval combat/ ASW configuration. The NH90s will embark on its modern Lafayette, Horizon, and Aquitaine Class frigates, and on its Mistral Class amphibious ships. France DGA [in French] | NH Industries.

March 31/10: Defects? On the occasion of a visit to Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH, defpro.com asks for Eurocopter’s response to BILD’s report, and receives a response from Eurocopter Vice President & NAHEMA Programme Coordination Manager Dr Clive Schley.

As a quick rundown, the answer to most of these is “contractual specifications.” Dr. Schley says the ground clearance is to specifications, as is the winch’s 270 kg load. Other customers have done fast-roping from the NH90, but Germany did not buy that ancillary equipment. The approved internal 110 kg seat load is not the maximum load, and first results of tests for stretcher loading procedures when a machine gun is installed in the door are “promising.” Trials of the NH90 MedEvac demonstrator are scheduled for Q2 2010.

March 1/10: Defects? The Sydney Morning Herald reports that Australia’s military is aware of the German report, but is making no commitments:

“A defence spokesman said Australia was seeking an English translation of the German Army trial report on its NH-90 helicopters. He said all matters of operational effectiveness and airworthiness were taken seriously and the German report would be reviewed in detail.”

Australia operates the same model helicopter, but designates it as MRH90.

Jan 6/10: Australia. Australia’s Daily Telegraph reports that Australia’s Labor Party government has rejected a DoD request to approve a $4 billion “rapid acquisition” of 24 MH-60R Seahawk helicopters and related equipment. The buy would have been an emergency replacement for the long-running, ill-starred, and canceled SH-2G Super Seasprite program.

Instead, successful lobbying by Eurocopter will force a competition between Sikorsky’s MH-60R, in service with the US Navy, and the European NH90 NFH variant, which is expected to be ready for service some time around 2011-2012.

MRH90 w. 105mm Hamel
(click to view full)

Dec 23/09: Netherlands. The Netherlands gets its 1st NH90-NFH naval helicopter at AgustaWestland’s Italian facility, but the machine will not be officially accepted until after a series of inspections and tests. Once accepted and formally delivered, however, the helicopters will only be suitable for crew training and basic coastal patrols.

This “meaningful operationally capable” standard is the consequence of technical issues involving weight gain, the helicopter’s maritime radar and tactical navigation, etc. In order to minimize delays and begin delivering helicopters, which was supposed to happen in mid-2009 for the Dutch, NH Industries and its customers agreed to a phased fielding program. That allows basic acceptance trials and familiarization to begin earlier, which mitigates normal post-delivery service delays, but does not provide fully operational helicopters. Per the July 10/09 entry, NHIndustries believes they can deliver NH90-NFHs that fully meet Dutch specifications by Q3 2011.Dutch MvD [in Dutch] | Aviation Week | Europe Aviation News.

November 2009: Australia. Australia conducts naval trials of its MRH90s, which are closely derived from the NH90-TTH Army variant. The month long testing regime on board the LST amphibious ship HMAS Manoora gauged the MRH90′s capabilities at sea through takeoffs, landings, munitions transfers and weight load carries.

This month, the Army also conducts “lift trials” for various vehicles and loads with the MRH90′s external sling system. Australian DoD LST release and image gallery | Lift Trials release & gallery.

Oct 23/09: Australia. The Australian reports that the country’s military chiefs have recommended the MH-60R as Australia’s next anti-submarine helicopter, citing it as a cheaper and lower risk solution compared with the NH90 NFH, with better allied interoperability. Australia would be looking to buy 24 helicopters for service by 2014, per the 2009 Defence White Paper.

In the end, the MH-60R did win. Read “MH-60R Wins Australia’s Maritime Helicopter Competition” for full coverage.

Oct 14/09: Norway. A NH90-NFH naval test helicopter lands on Norway’s North Cape Class coast guard vessel Nordkap, at Helligvaer, in Vestfjorden. Nordkap will be used as the platform for operational testing of maritime landings, including landings under Norway’s famously difficult conditions. Mother Nature didn’t disappoint, as weather during the initial trials went from fair, to southwest winds gusting up to 60 knots.

Even though Norway was one of the NH90′s early export orders in 2001, deliveries of operational Norwegian aircraft are expected to begin during the second half of 2010. The Navy will then require additional time to test and qualify the helicopters before they can see operational use. Forsvaret [in Norwegian] | NH Industries.

Aug 4/09: Defects? Germany’s Der Spiegel runs “German Army Angry over EADS Delays and Technical Glitches,” which is critical of several EADS products including the NH90. Relevant excerpt:

“The NH90 transport helicopter is also regarded as a flop by the military… The Bundeswehr had ordered 80 of the helicopters for a total of [EUR] 1.7 billion. However, the first sample aircraft only arrived at the end of 2006. Admittedly, the army is now in possession of eight of them. However, they are only 26 percent fit for service. That means that on average only two of the helicopters are ready to start at any given time.

And the helicopters cannot be deployed in the way the military had originally planned. The NH90 is supposed to accommodate 16 fully-armed soldiers. It’s not yet clear if this can be achieved. Recently a somewhat heavy passenger was told that the maximum weight per seat was 100 kilograms. However, even a slim soldier with a combat pack would easily make that weight – after all, a bullet-proof vest alone weighs around 15 kilograms.”

July 10/09: Netherlands. The Dutch MvD expects to receive their first “Meaningful Operational Capabilities” NH90 NFH naval helicopters for acceptance testing by the end of 2009. Mid-2009 was supposed to mark induction of Full Operational Capability (FOC) helicopters, but he NH90 NFH weight growth has affected some operational capabilities, and so have technical delays. Instead, NHIndustries ‘believes’ they can deliver the first FOC NH-90s by Q3 2011. MvD release [in Dutch].

The Dutch eventually take delivery of their first partially-capable NH90 helicopter on Dec 23/09.

Italian NH90-TTH
(click to view full)

July 16/08: RTM322 Engine Wins. The Rolls-Royce Turbomeca partnership announces that its RTM322 engine has been selected over GE competitors to power new NH90 fleets in France (61 + 34 options), Belgium (8 + 2), and New Zealand (9).

RTM322-powered NH90s will now be flown by Australia, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, Norway, New Zealand, Oman, Portugal and Sweden. Spain and Italy will use GE’s engines instead.

March 11/08: Finland. Finnish Army Aviation officially takes delivery of its first NH90. The ceremony took place at Eurocopter in Marignane, France where the helicopter was assembled. Most of Finland’s subsequent helicopters will be assembled locally by Patria. NHIndustries release.

March 4/08: Finland. Suila’s NH90 program report is released to the Finnish public, and a summary is posted by the MoD. Key takeaways include a finding that both parties to the contract have been acting in good faith, that Finland received acceptable compensation of the delay in delivery, and that the choice of helicopter suits both Finland’s needs and interoperability requirements for deployments abroad.

With respect to areas for improvement, the Finnish Ministry of Defence release had an appropriate quote from the report: “The haste of the initial phase is usually a setback.” Risk assessment needs to be more fully developed, rules for communication need to be improved since this became a bottleneck at times, other areas of procurement policy also need to be streamlined, and more commonality in national aircraft certification processes needs to be developed in Europe. Ministry of Defence release | The full Suila report [PDF]

Jan 29/08: German EUA Planning System. The German BWB procurement agency has placed a EUR 40+ million 3rd tranche order with EADS Defence & Security (DS) for the EUA Operations Support System. In its final configuration, the EUA OSS will cover the entire process cycle of a helicopter squadron – from receipt of command through complete tactical and technical mission planning up to evaluation and logistics – using one single planning system. The EUA system also includes voice radio and radio data transmission with military command and control systems, as well as the ability to establish a connection with other information systems for weather, maps, aeronautical information and air-traffic monitoring, and other useful real-time updates.

The EUA is planned for deployment with the Fritzlar Army Air Corps in Spring 2008. Eventually, the system will prepare, plan and execute missions for Germany’s NH90-TTH medium transport, Tiger HAP attack, and CH-53G heavy transport helicopters. EADS release. See also May 16/06 entry.

Jan 8/08: Italy. AgustaWestland announces that the Italian Army’s Aviation Unit officially took delivery of its first NH90 TTH helicopter in “late December, 2007.”

Italian Army NH90s will be operated by Friuli Airmobile Brigade, replacing older models currently operated by the service in various utility roles. AgustaWestland will also provide a complete product support and training package through a Phased Logistic Support program, with an initial commitment of 3 years.

MRH90 arrives
(click to view full)

Dec 18/07: Australia. The first 2 Australian Defence Force MRH-90s are accepted into service during a ceremony at Australian Aerospace facilities in Brisbane.

Dec 12/07: Finnish settlement. The Finnish Ministry of Defence announces a satisfactory agreement with NH Industries re: its NH90 order, which was supposed to begin delivery in 2004 and end in 2007. An adjusted contract was signed on Dec 14/07.

Published reports vary re: the delivery schedule, but Jyrki iivonen of Finland’s MoD informs DID that it will be: 5 in 2008, 4 in 2009, and the remaining 11 in 2010-2011. The 9 helicopters delivered in 2008-2009 will not be fully operational, however, and will be used for training and development of concepts of operations. They will be upgraded to full capability by Patria in Finland during 2010-2011. This still leaves NH Industries at least 3 years late in fulfilling its commitments, so the firm will pay a penalty of just under EUR 20 million on the EUR 343 million order. Finnish Ministry of Defence | YLE News | STT | Helsingin Sanomat | Forbes re: penalty | Reuters.

Dec 12/07: Finland. In a move that may not be coincidence, Patria and NHI sign an agreement to give Patria an extended NHI Service Centre for Finland, which NHI and Patria will jointly offer to the other Nordic NH90 customers. There had already been some level of cooperation involving RTM322 engines, but this new agreement expands Patria’s capabilities considerably. In the Patria release, Executive Vice President Eukka Holkeri said:

“We are very pleased with the co-operation agreement. This agreement further strengthens the unique skills and competencies of Patria in helicopter support and repair technologies as well as represents an opportunity to gain even more in-depth knowledge of the NH90 helicopters. For Patria the agreement will bring further increased competencies and an opportunity to win a major role in the Nordic NH90 maintenance. This supports our strategy to strengthen Patria’s position as the leading helicopter maintenance provider in the Nordic countries.”

Dec 3/07: Australia ancillaries. Thales Australia announces a contract from Eurocopter subsidiary Australian Aerospace worth A$ 100M (about $88.2 million) for “MRH90″ related services helicopters under Project AIR9000 Phases 4 & 6. Thales will add the responsibility to provide aircraft equipment and spares, incl. TopOwl helmet-mounted displays with night vision capabilities, other cockpit avionics including navigation, internal secure communications, identification systems, and tactical systems for the 34 new MRH90s, bringing the total number of helicopters they’re responsible for to 46. The delivery of this equipment will be scheduled from 2008 – 2013.

As an A$ 20 million portion of that contract, Thales will also supply the Australian developed Ground Mission Management System (GMMS) to fulfill Army Aviations Training & Operation requirements. DID coverage.

Nov 13/07: Australia. The 1st two MRH90 helicopters arrive at the Australian Aerospace facility in Brisbane inside a leased Antonov aircraft. They are celebrated by a small ceremony at the Australian Aerospace facility involving Industry, DMO and Defence representatives.

The MRH90 aircraft will be returned to flying condition after the transit, and test flown by Australian Aerospace flight test crews in preparation for delivery to the Commonwealth. Australia’s contract calls for the first 4 NH90s to be delivered from Eurocopter in Margianne, France, with final assembly of the other 42 performed by Eurocopter subsidiary Australian Aerospace in Brisbane under the co-production agreement. Australian MoD release.

Nov 11/07: Finland. Finnish News Agency STT covers a report from national daily Helsingin Sanomat that Finalnd is looking into “Plan B” options, including buying or leasing UH-60M Black Hawk helicopters. Puolustsministerio Forsvarsministeriet spokesman Jyrki Iivonen downplayed those reports, however, stressing their interest in concluding negotiations and adding that Finland’s point of departure was that compensation for the delay had to be paid in full, but not necessarily in cash.

“We have built our own systems on the premise that it will be this specific type of aircraft… And we must also bear in mind that there is no oversupply of helicopters at the moment.” STT report | PF release.

Oct 19/07: Finland unhappy. With Finland’s initial NH90 delivery and acceptance over 2 1/2 years behind schedule, Defense Minister Jyri Hakamies appoints former Finnair CEO Keijo Suila to lead a working group that will assess their $790 million NH90 program. The 2001 Nordic Group contract was intended to replace Finland’s 4 Russian Mi-8 medium helicopters and 8 MD500 light utility helicopters with 20 NH90s that would enter service from April 2005 – October 2008, allowing a reorganized helicopter battalion to stand up in 2010. The common procurement action was directly linked to the establishment of the European Union’s Nordic Battle Group (NBG), which also driving other defense buys in the area.

Patria has assembled 3 Finnish NH90s so far, but Finland’s Military Aviation Authority is still securing supplementary technical data from NH Industries before it issues a type certification that would allow them to enter service. This process has been cited as part of Finland’s problem, but as in the Netherlands, there are also complaints that Germany and France’s demands for delivery from the delayed NH90 program are pushing out other customers. There are reports that about $30 million equivalent in compensation was offered when serious production delays made it clear that the planned 2005 delivery was impossible – and the 2 year delay at that time has only grown. NIH officials believe deliveries may begin around mid-2008.

Suila’s report is expected to be in by that time. It will focus on a detailed assessment of exactly what went wrong, and then recommend changes to future procurement processes. Depending on how things go with NH90 delivery, of course, it could also form a very handy basis for quantified compensation claims from the Finnish government. Finnish MoD | Defense News | Newsroom Finland.

NH90-TTH HCV
(click to view full)

Sept 6/07: Sweden. The 1st Patria-assembled Swedish NH90-TTH High-Cabin Version (HCV) helicopter is flown to Sweden. This helicopter is Sweden’s 2nd delivery (vid. June 20/07), but it will be the first NH90 to be operated in Sweden by the Swedish Defence Forces. It will initially be used for training purposes. Patria release | NHI release | EADS release.

Aug 10/07: Netherlands. The 1st serial production NH90-NFH for the Royal Netherlands Navy performs its maiden flight at AgustaWestland’s Vergiate facility in Italy. Final Assembly of the 20 Dutch helicopters takes place at that facility, which is also responsible also for the assembly of the NH90-NFH variant for the Italian (46) and Norwegian (14) navies, and the Italian Army’s NH90-TTH (70).NHI release.

Aug 9/07: Sonar. Thales announces that its FLASH (Folding Light Acoustic System for Helicopters) SONICS have been successfully integrated into a French NH90 NFH naval helicopter, and that flight testing is going well. The first system was delivered to Agusta in July 2005 for platform integration, completing its first test flight on board the NH90 in December 2006. Additional test with the helicopter manufacturer are planned later this year and official testing is scheduled for early 2008.

The FLASH system is a low frequency sonar for helicopters, which is incorporated into the ALFS system on board American Sea Hawk helicopters, and also serves on British EH101 naval helicopters and the UAE’s Cougars. This sonar will be installed on 14 French NH90 NFHs that will be used for anti-submarine missions, while another 13 will be used primarily for naval transport missions and other roles. Norway has also picked FLASH for its NH90 NFHs. Thales release.

June 21/07: GE CT7 Engine win. GE Aviation announces that Spain’s Ministry of Defense has selected GE’s CT7-8F5 engines to power its 45 NH90 helicopters. The engine generates slightly more power than the T700s installed in Italian NH90 helicopters, and is compatible with the upper range of the Rolls Royce/ Turbomeca RTM332′s performance.

As part of the deal, GE will “implement an industrial plan that will focus on the development and diversification of the Spanish aeronautical industry.”

June 20/07: Sweden. The first delivery of the Swedish serial production NH90-TTH High Cabin Version takes place from the Margianne, France facility to the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration (FMV) during the 2007 Paris Air Show. Delivery of Sweden’s Hkp 14 helicopters had originally been scheduled for “early 2005,” per the Sept 26/01 contract announcement. During this ceremony Gala Gonçalves, General Manager of NHIndustries, underlined the importance of this event since it is “the first serial NH90 transfer of ownership to an Export Customer” (i.e. outside the original French, German, Italian & Dutch consortium).

This particular helicopter will support the Swedish instructors’ training program in France until 2008. FMV release [English] | NHI release.

May 9/07: Oman. The first Omani NH90 takes to the air from Eurocopter’s Marignane facility. It represents the 9th country out of 14 to achieve the maiden flight of NH90 serial production aircraft after Germany, Italy, Finland, Sweden, Greece, France, Norway and Australia. NHI release | EADS release.

Given this timing, and other production issues, the likelihood of meeting the contracted delivery schedule of 20 helicopters arriving “from the end of 2008 to the end of 2010″ would appear to be remote.

Dutch NH90-NFH
(click to view full)

April 28/07: Netherlands. Dutch Defence State Secretary Cees van der Knaap openly expresses anger at the delayed supply of new NH90 helicopters, which has forced the Netherlands to invest EUR 6.5 million to extend the operational lives of 10 AgustaWestland Lynx helicopters as a stopgap measure. He expresses especial annoyance at France, whom he believes to be largely responsible.

The NH90 cockpits have also been a source of complaint; the Christian Democrat party (CDA) proposed to fit Dutch NH90s with American avionics, but this was quashed on regulatory grounds: it would apparently require changing aviation authority regulations. NIS News bulletin.

April 28/07: Belgium. The Belgian government’s Council of Ministers officially decides to procure up to 10 NH90 helicopters, consisting of 8 firm orders (4 TTH and 4 NFH) plus 2 optional aircraft. See “Belgium Orders up to 10 NH90s as Netherlands Complains” for more, including the associated political controversy and the NH90s’ likely deployments.

April 5/07: Finland. Patria Oyj announces that the first Patria-assembled NH90 destined for the Swedish Defence Forces has been successful in its test flights The helicopter in question is the 3rd Swedish NH90 to take off, with 2 others assembled by Eurocopter in Marignane, France. Of the remaining 16 Swedish helicopters, 14 will be assembled in Finland and 2 in France.

MRH90: first flight
(click to view full)

March 29/07: Australia. The first of Australia’s 46 MRH-90 helicopters conducts its maiden flight in Marignane, France. The Australian DoD release adds that: “The first 4 MRH-90 are on schedule for delivery into Australia by the end of 2007, and the first fuselage of the 42 aircraft to be assembled in Australia arrived in Brisbane on 27 March.”

Feb 1/07: Norway SAR. Norway decides to open up its search-and-rescue helicopter choice to a full competition rather than just exercising its 10 NH90 options, following political controversy and a pair of lawsuits. The existing contract’s options remain open if the NH90 should win.

Likely competitors are all larger, and include AgustaWestland’s EH101, Sikorsky’s S-92 Superhawk, and possibly Boeing’s HH-47 Chinook. See “Norway Opens Up SAR Helicopter Competition.”

NH90 TTH, Heer
(click to view full)

Dec 22/06: Spain order. Spain orders 45 NH90-TTH helicopters, as part of a larger Eurocopter order. They will pay EUR 1.26 billion (about $1.66 billion) for the NH90s, to be distributed over 19 annuities from 2007-2025, and the contract comes with a technological and industrial development agreement that makes Eurocopter Espana S.A.’s new plant in Albacete, Spain the site for the assembly of Spain’s NH 90 helicopters, as well as manufacturing the front NH90 fuselage for all customers. Spain’s Department of Industry, Tourism and Trade will contribute to the funding of the program via a grant “of returnable lendings to type of interest zero,” up to EUR 990.6 million (currently about $1.3 billion), “depending on his budgetary availabilities.” See “Spain Orders Civil & Military Helicopters from Eurocopter.”

Spain: 45 TTH

Dec 20/06: Norway. The first Norwegian NH90-NFH, wearing the Customer designation NNWN #01, takwes off for a successful test flight from AgustaWestland’s facility in Vergiate, Italy. NHI release.

Dec 13/06: Germany. The first 3 NH90 Tactical Transport Helicopters (TTH) are handed over to the German Army at Eurocopter’s Donauworth facility. The press release [EADS | NH Industrie] states that “The German Army is the first customer to take delivery of the NH90. The aircraft with the serial numbers TGEA02 and TGEA03 will be used for flight training at the German Army Air Corps Weapons School in Bückeburg, while serial number TGEA05 will be used to train maintenance staff…” Eurocopter President Dr. Lutz Bertling adds:

“Following a period of complex evaluation and comprehensive qualification processes we are proud to now be able to officially launch the NH90 for training purposes. Until the end of 2007, we plan to deliver 14 aircraft to Bückeburg.”

Dec 1/06: Germany. German type certification is granted, clearing the way for initial deliveries and for respective NH90-TTH national certifications by other NAHEMA and export customers. Source.

Sept 14/06: Australia. The Australian Army’s 5th Aviation Regiment based at RAAF Townsville has received parliamentary approval for A$ 20 million in new facilities for one of the key bases supporting its expanded NH90 helicopter fleet. The first NH90s are scheduled for delivery in late 2007, and the “Facilities for Troop Lift Helicopter” project combines the reconfiguration and refurbishment of a number of existing facilities and construction of some new ones. An advanced mission planning and computer-based training facility, a new Army Aviation Training Facility to provide transition training on the MRH90, a composites material workshop, and upgrades to some existing facilities for the S-70 Black Hawk fleet are all envisaged as part of this project.

NH90-TTH, SAR
(click to view full)

July 31/06: New Zealand’s order. New Zealand’s NZ$ 771 million (then about $475 million) contract for 9 NH90-TTH helicopters is signed in Wellington, NZ, after a 2-week final negotiation round up. Read “New Zealand Selects NH90, A109 Helicopters as its new Fleet“.

New Zealand: 9 TTH

May 16/06: Germany EUA. EADS announces that Germany’s Federal Office of Defence Technology and Procurement (BWB) has awarded EADS Defence Electronics an additional contract portion worth approx. EUR 12 million to develop the Operations Support System (in German: Einsatzunterstutzungsanlage – EUA) for the German NH90 helicopters.

In its final configuration, the Operations Support System EUA is due to cover the entire process cycle of a helicopter squadron – from receipt of command through complete tactical and technical mission planning up to evaluation and logistics – using one single planning system. As an integral part of network-centric operations, the EUA/OSS makes it possible to connect the helicopter with its own command and control structures (C3I) via voice radio and radio data transmission, or establish a connection with specialist information systems for weather, maps, aeronautical information and air-traffic monitoring, et. al. The system can also be used for operations support of other types of aircraft, such as Tornado or A400M.

March 31/06: Germany. Qualification of the German NH90-TTH variant is completed by NATO’s NAHEMA. It is the first Qualification to a NH90 TTH Variant, an essential milestone that, through a process of delta qualification [DID: qualifying the differences rather than requalifying the whole aircraft], will lead to the Qualification of the others NH90 national Variants. the NH90 German Army TGEA Variant includes a few specific National Operational Customizations, mainly in the communications field. EADS release.

NH90 NFH
(click to view full)

Dec 15/05: Italy. The first Italian Navy serial production NH90-NFH has a successful initial test flight. Under the NH90 program work-share, AgustaWestland will build 150 helicopters for 3 of the 4 initial NH90-NFH customers (Italy, the Netherlands and Norway), and is responsible of the overall integration of the naval mission system for all NH90-NFH variants. NHI release.

Dec 14/05: Belgium pick. Belgium becomes the 14th Country to select the NH90, though no contract is signed. “…following the proposition of the Belgian Ministry of Defence Mr. Andre Flahaut, the Council Minister authorised today the launching of the procedure for the acquisition of 10 NH90 multirole helicopters by entering into the International Programme Organisation NAHEMO.” NHI release.

Nov 21/05: Trials. Eurocopter announces the completion of high-altitude NH90 trials at the 9,191 foot/ 2,801 m high airfield at Latacunga, Ecuador. It was chosen because of its facilities, safety equipment, 3,700 m long runway, and other advantages. The 21 flights representing 20 hours 35 minutes of testing were mainly devoted to performance (hover, level flight, climb, Cat B, Cat A), engine operation (transients, one engine inoperative power), simulated autorotations, maneuverability in and out of ground effect, altitude-speed envelope, and fly-away characteristics. EADS release.

Sept 17-30/05: Trials. The NH90 undergoes French Army trials in the hands of the Gamstat (Airmobile Group of the French Army Engineering Branch), using the PT4 test aircraft with German Army markings and a team of ground mechanics from Eurocopter Deutschland. France has selected the NH90-TTH, and stated plans to order up to 68, but hasn’t yet placed a contract.

The main aims of the trials were to verify that the mission system operated as intended in an operational environment, validate the Thales TopOwl helmet-mounted display, and study work sharing between crew members. The majority of the missions took place at night to successively test the utilization of the standard ALAT night vision goggles (NVG) and then the Topowl helmet coupled to the piloting FLIR. The pilots did report that a short period of adaptation was necessary, but tests completed successfully.

The nighttime NOE flights were made in the Valence area at heights of 0-400 ft at 130-140 kts. NOE observation flights were also flown by Gazelles equipped with the Viviane sight or Mistral missiles to measure the NH90′s infrared signature. The engineering trials finished with a final 90-minute flight involving a complex scenario: after taking off at night, the NH90 performed an IFR penetration, followed by a visual NOE flight, before picking up a commando and returning to its base with its autopilot in simulated degraded mode. EADS release.

July 13/05: Finland. KH-202, the first Patria-assembled NH90 helicopter, makes its successful maiden flight in Halli, Jamsa, Finland. The main modules were supplied to Patria from NHI Partner Companies: Eurocopter France, Eurocopter Germany, Agusta Italy and Fokker the Netherlands. The splicing Phase of KH-202 was completed in October 2003, Installations during 2004 and System tests were started in January 2005. For its inaugural flight, the helicopter was piloted by by Eurocopter’s flight test crew, and lasted 1 hour and 5 minutes.

This effort follows the Sept 15/04 first flight of the first Finnish NH90-TTH, which was produced in France. NHI release. As the Patria release notes:

“This first helicopter from Patria assembly line will be delivered to the Finnish Defence Forces.”

July 13/05: Greece. The first Hellenic Army NH90 takes to the air for a successful test flight at the Eurocopter Marignane facility in France. This is the 6th serial production NH90 leaving the ground, following NH90s for Germany (the first), Finland, Italy and Sweden. At the time, NHI’s release adds that:

“The delivery of the whole series of 20 Hellenic NH90 will be achieved by the beginning of 2009 as planned, by the beginning of 2011 if the 14 options are confirmed.”

NH90 TTH
(click to view full)

June 2/05: Australian order. Australia signs an Acquisition Contract for 12 NH90-TTH helicopters. The A$1 billion contract is signed in Canberra between the Australian Defence Materiel Organisation and Australian Aerospace, the local fully-owned subsidiary of Eurocopter. According to the Australian AIR9000 programme, the 12 NH90 ordered are identified under the designation “MRH90,” standing for “Multi Role Helicopter.” project to provide the Australian Army with 12 new troop lift helicopters and associated equipment has taken