Littoral Combat Ships (LCS)

Jeff Head said:

On Mat 28, 2019, last Tuesday, Lockheed Martin announced it WOULD NOT submit this, or any other full design for the FFX(G) program. This cuts the bidders down to four. The FREMM based design, the Hobart/F-100 based design, the Austal based design, and the Huntington Ingalls Legend Class Cutter based design. This was a surprise to me. At this point, I believe the Hobart or the Fremm would be the best, but now would rather see the Hobart because it is already an AEGIS based design. Surprises never cease.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

[/url]​

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

FREMM design is very flexible. The ship is like a master of disguise and you can turn it into anything. The first is the US proposed variant, the second is the Canadian variant, third is the French and the fourth is the Italian. One positive about the FREMM is that it has a second bridge that can be used for an admiral. It is also said to be quiet and smooth which can aid in anti submarine work.






The Navantia design or EMMF as in European Multi Mission Frigate, has all the experience of integrating US equipment already, such as Mk. 41 VLS, Aegis radars and back ends, and so on. That for me is the easiest route.

However there is a wrench thrown on this, and it has something to do with the Norwegian frigate the Helge Ingstad, which is a frigate built by Navantia and belongs to this family. The way and how quickly that frigate sank throws concerns about the damage and survival worthiness of the ship design, and that needs to be addressed behind closed doors.

I have not seen Huntington Ingall's and Austal submitting their final designs yet, compared to Fincantieri and Navantia, and I suspect both designs might be in trouble --- these are smaller designs that need to be enhanced and upgraded, whereas the FREMM and the EMMF are starting off as larger ships. It is for this reason why the BAE Type 26 might be lobbied for consideration.

Political clout and factors are going to go into this because there are jobs at stake for these shipyards and the people of the state around them. My political hunch is to split the contract anyway for both Fincantieri-Marinette Marine and General Dynamics-Bath Iron Works-Navantia. Huntington Ingalls is busy enough with Ford class carriers and Flight III Burkes, but Bath is only living on Burke contracts, and Marinette Marine only has the Freedom class to live on.

Jura said:

the USN has been commissioning aluminum scrap in the form of LCSs for more than ten years now,

and the USN has been operating without lighter surface forces for more than five years now,

so I of course won't be surprised if they cancel the FFG(X), as I predicted Oct 30, 2018, and

I won't even be surprised if they keep commissioning some more aluminum scrap in the form of LCSs, going beyond 35 hulls Sep 18, 2018,

and I wouldn't be surprised if they kept operating without lighter forces in decades to come:

the USN transformation in progress

Click to expand...

I believe the Independence class should be using composites on the upper structure but correct me on this.

Tam said:

Given China's living standards, $900 million might have the same economic effect as $3 billion in the US.

Click to expand...

I simply don't buy your reasoning. While there maybe significant PPP disparity I don't believe it would amount to that sort of magnitude. The cost structure associated with shipbuilding and trends just doesn't support what you are positing. Are you in a position to actually justify your claim with at least some empirical data?

TerraN_EmpirE said:

The Issue was the Propulsion system requirements. The FFG(X) demands redundancy and relocation of the main system. Lockheed Martin’s Freedom class meet all the systems requirements but that one. It would have demanded a total redesign of the ship, and they had already redesigned twice. Same is true for all the other entries FREEM included.

Click to expand...

I have been conducting a bit of research on shipbuilding cost for some time. A significant factor in cost is the difference between adopting commercial vs military standards. Unfortunately the Europeans have been trending towards adopting commercial standards. Would this difference in approach affect the decision on design choice? The demand on redundancy is an example of a differing requirement..
I remember when the USN decided that the LCS should be built only with Level 1+ there was a bit of a pushback.. This puts the LCSs at a rank that is lower than the FFG 7 class frigates they were replacing. Part of the reason behind this choice of lesser protection was that it would be cheaper, since Level 1 survivability is little more than that of commercial ships. I would think with the FFG(X) they would learn from the past mistake and go with Level 2.
Burkes I believe are built to Level 3. Compare their recent collision issue and the outcome vs the
Fridtjof Nansen-class frigate.

Brumby said:

I simply don't buy your reasoning. While there maybe significant PPP disparity I don't believe it would amount to that sort of magnitude. The cost structure associated with shipbuilding and trends just doesn't support what you are positing. Are you in a position to actually justify your claim with at least some empirical data?

Click to expand...

Why not? Have you compared labor costs? Shipbuilding remains highly labor intensive. Have you noted how low the prices of materials ranging from steel, to rare earths to Gallium, and noted that every bit of them comes from a government subsidized SOE. Can you actually obtain empirical costs to prove this out away? There is a reason why many many things are made in China and it comes from a combination of cost and things that simply work. Even when importing things, they become cheaper because in China, things are ordered in bulk, shipped in via the most massive container ships in the world through a shipping line that is another government owned and subsidized SOE. When things are manufactured, they heavily rely on just in time inventories --- they don't store huge stocks which means high inventory costs. Things are ordered as demand, and they get it right away. China's highly efficient transportation system --- yup the railroad system --- pays off. Even as costs rises in cities, they can easily rail cheaper labor from the countryside in thanks again, yup --- the railroad system. When buying life things are cheaper, you don't require higher salaries (although that can change in the future).

There is no open source confirmed cost of the ship, other than its twice more expensive than a 052D, which is why they are still building the latter. But we don't know the actual cost of an 052D either, and those things should not be cheap with their huge AESA panels.

Other factors are contributing too, including that these shipyards are self sustainable through commercial projects, and the fact that the orders are made in large sustained multiyear blocks. A warship can get cheap enough if you build 30 of them, or even 60 of them in one class, instead of two, six or eight. While the true size of the 055 multiyear block contract will never be known in public, we already missed how many 052C/D are going to be made by a large margin.

Tam said:

Why not? Have you compared labor costs?

Click to expand...

Labor cost is only a small component of naval shipbuilding. Here are some macro perspective :

The primary finding of the RAND study is that the main reason for increased ship costs is the increased complexity of ships, and in particular the insertion of more numerous combat and non-combat systems.

Click to expand...

(source : Mark V. Arena, Irv Blickstein, Obaid Younossi and Clifford A. Grammich, “Why has the Cost of Navy Ships Risen? A Macroscopic Examination of
the Trends in US Naval Ship Costs Over the Past Several Decades,” Santa Monica, RAND, 2006.)

In the UK, systems represent the biggest percentage of the price of a warship – 70% compared to 30% for the hull. In stark contrast to commercial vessels, the reverse is true – 20% systems, 80% hull.

Click to expand...

(source :Stuart Young and Jonathan Davies, “United Kingdom Warship Procurement Strategies,” in Douglas L. Bland (ed.), National Approaches to Shipbuilding
and Ship Procurement (Kingston: Defence Management Studies Program, School of Public Policy Studies, Queen’s University, 2010), p. 7.)

The same trend holds true in Australia where the costs are 33% for “platform design, hull, machinery, and equipment” versus 41% for combat systems. The similarity between these two countries is strengthened if we shift the Australian machinery and equipment cost percentages into that for combat systems, more accurately reflecting the broad system-hull dichotomy of the British example. In sum, the RAND conclusion that systems are the most significant element of ship costs is valid, seemingly regardless of country.

Click to expand...

(source :
Stefan Markowski and Robert Wylie, “Australian Naval Shipbuilding Strategy 2009,” in Bland (ed.), National Approaches to Shipbuilding and Ship Procurement, p. 87.)

Tam said:

Shipbuilding remains highly labor intensive.

​

Only for commercial shipbuilding as the UK study above indicated

Tam said:

Have you noted how low the prices of materials ranging from steel, to rare earths to Gallium, and noted that every bit of them comes from a government subsidized SOE.

​

The meaning of subsidised mean the true cost is higher than what is typically reported. Subsidised is not free money. Someone is paying for it even if it is not obvious.

For your information, labor cost of naval ship building is probably no more than 20 % of total cost. The biggest cost driver is building to military standard vs commercial standards. The reason why European naval ships typically cost about half of US is largely because they are building commercial standards.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Tam said:

There is a reason why many many things are made in China and it comes from a combination of cost and things that simply work. Even when importing things, they become cheaper because in China, things are ordered in bulk, shipped in via the most massive container ships in the world through a shipping line that is another government owned and subsidized SOE. When things are manufactured, they heavily rely on just in time inventories --- they don't store huge stocks which means high inventory costs. Things are ordered as demand, and they get it right away. China's highly efficient transportation system --- yup the railroad system --- pays off. Even as costs rises in cities, they can easily rail cheaper labor from the countryside in thanks again, yup --- the railroad system. When buying life things are cheaper, you don't require higher salaries (although that can change in the future).

Click to expand...

I don't think it is wise to make an argument based on some abstracts that China is super efficient and therefore can produce at very competitive cost. It is nothing more than a claim based on your own opinion. You might be interested to note the IMD ranking released just a couple of days ago on competitiveness between countries.


The major cost components associated with navy ships are weapon and combat systems and they typically account for 2/3 of the total cost. These systems are basically IC based and you should note the following statistics.

Today, only 16 percent of the semiconductors used in China are produced in-country, and only half of these are made by Chinese firms. It is dependent on foreign suppliers for advanced chips. China aims to produce 40 percent of the semiconductors it uses by 2020 and 70 percent by 2025. (Page 2 China’s Semiconductor Independence_CSIS)

You took one sentence and put it out of its main context that it is part of a whole set of factors.

Why not? Have you compared labor costs? Shipbuilding remains highly labor intensive. Have you noted how low the prices of materials ranging from steel, to rare earths to Gallium, and noted that every bit of them comes from a government subsidized SOE. Can you actually obtain empirical costs to prove this out away? There is a reason why many many things are made in China and it comes from a combination of cost and things that simply work. Even when importing things, they become cheaper because in China, things are ordered in bulk, shipped in via the most massive container ships in the world through a shipping line that is another government owned and subsidized SOE. When things are manufactured, they heavily rely on just in time inventories --- they don't store huge stocks which means high inventory costs. Things are ordered as demand, and they get it right away. China's highly efficient transportation system --- yup the railroad system --- pays off. Even as costs rises in cities, they can easily rail cheaper labor from the countryside in thanks again, yup --- the railroad system. When buying life things are cheaper, you don't require higher salaries (although that can change in the future).

There is no open source confirmed cost of the ship, other than its twice more expensive than a 052D, which is why they are still building the latter. But we don't know the actual cost of an 052D either, and those things should not be cheap with their huge AESA panels.

Other factors are contributing too, including that these shipyards are self sustainable through commercial projects, and the fact that the orders are made in large sustained multiyear blocks. A warship can get cheap enough if you build 30 of them, or even 60 of them in one class, instead of two, six or eight. While the true size of the 055 multiyear block contract will never be known in public, we already missed how many 052C/D are going to be made by a large margin.

#2245

Click to expand...

You are only looking at the direct associative cost of labor building the hull.

Those systems like radars and missiles, still have to be designed by people, developed by people, coded by people, wired by people, assembled by people and put all together by people, shipped by people, and on top of the people managing all these people. The cost of a missile or a radar is much more the sum of its materials and components.

PPP disparity does matter when it affects the entire chain.

And then on top of that, you have the sheer volume of components driving down the costs thanks to the large multiblock buys. That's the 80% of the ship cost being massively amortized.

If you have a $10 billion R&D for the ship, building five of them means you have to add $2 billion development cost for each ship on top of everything. If you build 30 of them, the R/D cost per ship goes down to $333 million each.

The entire Type 052C/D looks to be heading down past the 30th ship in the combined series. Each ship has over 6,000 elements per AESA face and there are four faces. How many elements you are going to have? How is that volume going to drive down the cost of each element and what's behind it? When you are building a lot of these radars, the costs will flatten. If you build six Type 346 sets, the costs must be crazy. If you build 30 of them, the costs will fall through the floor.

I use the Type 052C/D because these ships represent the biggest breakthrough in Chinese naval warshiptech, and likely by far the biggest expenditure in R/D. The Type 055 is coasting on the developments made of the Type 052C/D. The three main tech breakthroughs in the 052C/D is the Type 346 AESA radar, the development of indigenous gas turbine, and with the D itself, the development of the U-VLS that combines both hot and cold launch in a CCL design. The R/D costs behind the 052C/D program is offset and amortized by its large production run (the 26th 052D hull under construction has been spotted).

What the 055 adds to the 052D is minor: the introduction of a new X-band four faced AESA; the introduction of an octet set of AESA type surface scanning arrays; a new ECM system; and a new ESM mast, along with taking the evolution of the Type 346 radar a step further (possible switch of GaAs to GaN). So the R/D cost of the 055 may not cost as much as the 052D, as no major breakthroughs are made. You are taking the same tech --- once revolutionary for the Chinese industry but now solidly proven --- and add more of it, from 64 VLS to 112, from two GT25000 turbines to four.

Brumby said:

I don't think it is wise to make an argument based on some abstracts that China is super efficient and therefore can produce at very competitive cost. It is nothing more than a claim based on your own opinion. You might be interested to note the IMD ranking released just a couple of days ago on competitiveness between countries.
View attachment 52484

Click to expand...

A list that does not include South Korea and Japan, and puts Germany way down the list. Dubious. Lets not forget the UK via London is still a better research and startup place than most of these countries make its more dubious.

Competitiveness should be a measure city by city. That's why Hong Kong and Singapore tops. They are cities. Shenzhen, Shanghai, London, Tokyo, Seoul, are probably doing better than both; Shenzhen is certainly > Hongkong and Singapore when it comes to tech startups. But these cities have to be averaged in the national scale by other cities of that country.

The major cost components associated with navy ships are weapon and combat systems and they typically account for 2/3 of the total cost. These systems are basically IC based and you should note the following statistics.

Today, only 16 percent of the semiconductors used in China are produced in-country, and only half of these are made by Chinese firms. It is dependent on foreign suppliers for advanced chips. China aims to produce 40 percent of the semiconductors it uses by 2020 and 70 percent by 2025. (Page 2 China’s Semiconductor Independence_CSIS)

Click to expand...

ICs on the backdoor count even less, and your $200 Redmi smartphone likely has a CPU better than most missiles and legacy radar sets. SAM systems like S-300 and Patriot were originally powered by 8 bit CPU sets.

The biggest hardware cost --- if you are using an AESA --- would likely be the SSPA. PESAs and mechanical radars don't use this but TWTs and Klystrons, which are both tubes.

No, the greatest cost of any IT system is the work that goes to the software behind it. Which again is the human, but high skill, labor.