History was made here today when the nation’s first Littoral Combat Ship, FREEDOM (LCS-1) – the inaugural ship in an entirely new class of U.S. Navy surface warships – was christened and launched at the Marinette Marine shipyard.
The agile 377-foot FREEDOM — designed and built by a team led by Lockheed Martin [NYSE:LMT] — will help the Navy defeat growing littoral, or close-to-shore, threats and provide access and dominance in coastal water battlespace. Displacing 3,000 metric tons and with a capability of reaching speeds well over 40 knots, FREEDOM will be a fast, maneuverable and networked surface combatant with operational flexibility to execute focused missions, such as mine warfare, anti-submarine warfare, surface warfare and humanitarian relief.
FREEDOM’s christening ceremony included the traditional smashing of a champagne bottle across the ship’s bow, performed by ship’s sponsor Birgit Smith. Smith, the wife of U.S. Army Sgt. 1st Class Paul Ray Smith, who was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor for bravery and gallantry above and beyond the call of duty in Operation Iraqi Freedom, was selected as FREEDOM’s sponsor by Secretary of the Navy Gordon R. England.
FREEDOM made a spectacular side-launch before an audience of thousands who had lined both sides of the Menominee River, which divides the states of Wisconsin and Michigan.
“Just a little more than three years ago she was just an idea, now FREEDOM stands before us. And on this morning, we christen her, send her down the ways and get her ready to join the Fleet next year,” said Admiral Michael G. Mullen, U.S. Navy, Chief of Naval Officer. “It comes none too soon – because there are tough challenges out there that ONLY she can handle.”
“This is a rewarding day for the entire LCS team and signifies a major milestone in the LCS program,” said Fred Moosally, president of Lockheed Martin Maritime Systems & Sensors. “We are proud to be the team bringing FREEDOM to the U.S. Navy fleet.”
In 2004, the Navy contracted the Lockheed Martin-led industry team to develop its first LCS. The team’s LCS design for FREEDOM — a survivable, semi-planing steel monohull — provides outstanding maneuverability with proven sea-keeping characteristics to support launch and recovery operations, mission execution and optimum crew comfort.
Now formally christened and launched, FREEDOM will continue to undergo outfitting and testing at Marinette Marine. FREEDOM will be commissioned by the U.S. Navy in 2007 and eventually homeported in San Diego, CA.
The Lockheed Martin LCS team received a contract in June 2006 to build a second Littoral Combat Ship. Construction on this ship, yet to be named, will begin in Bollinger Shipyards Lockport, LA (near New Orleans), in early 2007.
The Lockheed Martin-led industry team for LCS includes naval architect Gibbs & Cox, ship builders Marinette Marine Corporation, a subsidiary of The Manitowoc Company, Inc. [NYSE: MTW], and Bollinger Shipyards, as well as best-of-industry domestic and international teammates to provide a flexible, low-risk warfighting solution.
By: Arabella-Cox - 16th December 2006 at 02:28
Exactly who are you talking to?
Ditto……..:confused:
By: sealordlawrence - 16th December 2006 at 01:31
What Argument?
You made statements of fact that you cant back-up.
Again.
Exactly who are you talking to?
By: rickusn - 16th December 2006 at 01:26
What Argument?
You made statements of fact that you cant back-up.
Again.
By: Arabella-Cox - 15th December 2006 at 01:58
I am certainly not disputing that, but the degree to which the USN is all powerful is likely to diminsh dramatically in the coming years as the fleets of China and India grow and its own shrinks.
I would agree if nothing changes…………yet with time everything does! Many things could happen including within the navies of China and India…….time will tell.:rolleyes:
By: sealordlawrence - 15th December 2006 at 01:38
Even with 7-CVB’s, plus Aegis Cruiser & Destroyers, DDX’s, and F-35’s……the USN would still have no equal……………….:rolleyes:
I am certainly not disputing that, but the degree to which the USN is all powerful is likely to diminsh dramatically in the coming years as the fleets of China and India grow and its own shrinks.
By: Arabella-Cox - 15th December 2006 at 01:16
Yep they are, maybe not the Europeans but certainly the asians, India (despite some truly bizzare procurment decisions) China, South Korea.
Even with 7-CVB’s, plus Aegis Cruiser & Destroyers, DDX’s, and F-35’s……the USN would still have no equal……………….:rolleyes:
By: sealordlawrence - 15th December 2006 at 00:54
I would agree that such complex programs like the DDX are bleeding the USN budget dry………………surely changes will have to be made! On the otherhand is any major navy in the world in a better position? Take France and the UK for one?
Yep they are, maybe not the Europeans but certainly the asians, India (despite some truly bizzare procurment decisions) China, South Korea.
By: Arabella-Cox - 15th December 2006 at 00:51
Yeah, and unfortunately none of it is likely to solve the USN’s budget problems………..short of a miracle. This is not just a 43 year problem this is a now problem, thats why the DDX programme has already been cut back from 32 units to just 10.
Here you go, read it and weep.:(
I would agree that such complex programs like the DDX are bleeding the USN budget dry………………surely changes will have to be made! On the otherhand is any major navy in the world in a better position? Take France and the UK for one?
By: sealordlawrence - 15th December 2006 at 00:32
alot can happen in 43 years…………..:rolleyes:
Yeah, and unfortunately none of it is likely to solve the USN’s budget problems………..short of a miracle. This is not just a 43 year problem this is a now problem, thats why the DDX programme has already been cut back from 32 units to just 10.
Here you go, read it and weep.:(
By: Arabella-Cox - 15th December 2006 at 00:27
Yeah, a few months ago there was a congressional budget report, saying that by the middle of this century the USN will be down to just 7 CBG’s and under 30 SSN’s. The current defence budget is being funded by an over all budeget deficit (largely provided by China and Japan). Just look a the USN’s procurement plans for the next decade, they are planning for ships for which there is OFFICIALY no money. So do I think there will be 50, no I dont. By the way im not going to argue this with you, the USN’s procurement programme for the next decade looks like a train wreck, look it up yourself.
alot can happen in 43 years…………..:rolleyes:
By: sealordlawrence - 15th December 2006 at 00:24
Pretty strong statement;
“As for the issue with the USN getting 50, nahhhhhhhh, the AB’s are replacing about 30 OHP’s, the others will be replaced with the LCS but not 50 of them!”
Anything to back it up?
AFAIK the AB’s are replacing none of the OHP’s.
And the LCS are the nominal, defacto replacement for 30 OHP’s, 26 MHC/MCM and 13 PC1 over a decade or longer.
The only possible shortcoming I see for the LCS is can it do Blue-water ASW.
Thanks. Rick.
Yeah, a few months ago there was a congressional budget report, saying that by the middle of this century the USN will be down to just 7 CBG’s and under 30 SSN’s. The current defence budget is being funded by an over all budeget deficit (largely provided by China and Japan). Just look a the USN’s procurement plans for the next decade, they are planning for ships for which there is OFFICIALY no money. So do I think there will be 50, no I dont. By the way im not going to argue this with you, the USN’s procurement programme for the next decade looks like a train wreck, look it up yourself.
By: Arabella-Cox - 15th December 2006 at 00:17
Pretty strong statement;
“As for the issue with the USN getting 50, nahhhhhhhh, the AB’s are replacing about 30 OHP’s, the others will be replaced with the LCS but not 50 of them!”
Anything to back it up?
AFAIK the AB’s are replacing none of the OHP’s.
And the LCS are the nominal, defacto replacement for 30 OHP’s, 26 MHC/MCM and 13 PC1 over a decade or longer.
The only possible shortcoming I see for the LCS is can it do Blue-water ASW.
Thanks. Rick.
As for shortcoming a small lightly armed ship operating in the Littorals sounds very risky to me?
By: rickusn - 15th December 2006 at 00:13
Pretty strong statement;
“As for the issue with the USN getting 50, nahhhhhhhh, the AB’s are replacing about 30 OHP’s, the others will be replaced with the LCS but not 50 of them!”
Anything to back it up?
AFAIK the AB’s are replacing none of the OHP’s.
And the LCS are the nominal, defacto replacement for 30 OHP’s, 26 MHC/MCM and 13 PC1 over a decade or longer.
The only possible shortcoming I see for the LCS is can it do Blue-water ASW.
Thanks. Rick.
By: Arabella-Cox - 14th December 2006 at 22:26
Its not a case of it being a physical replacement but of it being a conceptual replacement, a lower tier surface combattant for a Navy that feels its been forced to shrink.
The point is the LCS type could operate more efficiently in the Littorals than larger more conventional warships………… 😎
By: sealordlawrence - 14th December 2006 at 22:09
No I don’t think the LCS will replace the OHP’s, but if there is a bigger design of the ship then it is a possibility.
As for the issue with the USN getting 50, nahhhhhhhh, the AB’s are replacing about 30 OHP’s, the others will be replaced with the LCS but not 50 of them!
Its not a case of it being a physical replacement but of it being a conceptual/cycological replacement, a lower tier surface combattant for a Navy that feels its been forced to shrink.
By: Arabella-Cox - 14th December 2006 at 18:30
Good point, a more capable version of the LCS, possibly with a single Mk41 and a cheap radar (like the Aussie CEAFAR), would be a good way to boost overall fleet size. If the unit cost can be kept under control, then the USN might be able to get a good number in service.
Well, an enlarged LCS Type could be equipped with fair number of Aster or ESSM for Air Defense along with one or two helo’s. Especially, based on the larger Australian Design………………..:rolleyes:
By: EdLaw - 14th December 2006 at 18:18
Well, the USN is looking to increase its overall ship numbers and its cheaper with LCS than big fleet units……………
Good point, a more capable version of the LCS, possibly with a single Mk41 and a cheap radar (like the Aussie CEAFAR), would be a good way to boost overall fleet size. If the unit cost can be kept under control, then the USN might be able to get a good number in service.
By: Arabella-Cox - 14th December 2006 at 16:54
No I don’t think the LCS will replace the OHP’s, but if there is a bigger design of the ship then it is a possibility.
As for the issue with the USN getting 50, nahhhhhhhh, the AB’s are replacing about 30 OHP’s, the others will be replaced with the LCS but not 50 of them!
Well, both designs are very modular! So, maybe a enlarged Australian Designed LCS could become a Frigate Replacement???? Sounds interesting to me…………….:rolleyes:
By: Arabella-Cox - 14th December 2006 at 16:50
As per FY07 plans the Navy is to order 23 by FY2011, and a total of 51 costing $13.7b by FY2016 (+ the four already on order now). And as LCS is currently projected to have a service life of 25 years procurement of replacements is pencilled in for a rather distant FY2030 start.
Whether all this will actually happen in light of budget cuts, rising cost etc remains to be seen, but these are the current projections (Annual Long-Range Plan for Construction of Naval Vessels for FY 2007).
Well, the USN is looking to increase its overall ship numbers and its cheaper with LCS than big fleet units……………
By: pred - 14th December 2006 at 14:11
As for the US getting 50, I would be somewhat surprised, though 30 is probably realistic.
As per FY07 plans the Navy is to order 23 by FY2011, and a total of 51 costing $13.7b by FY2016 (+ the four already on order now). And as LCS is currently projected to have a service life of 25 years procurement of replacements is pencilled in for a rather distant FY2030 start.
Whether all this will actually happen in light of budget cuts, rising cost etc remains to be seen, but these are the current projections (Annual Long-Range Plan for Construction of Naval Vessels for FY 2007).
Sign In
December 13, 2006 at 3:46 am