One definition of insanity is to repeat a set of actions and
expect a different result.
The Navy is procuring a new class of ocean surveillance
ships (T-AGOS). That’s fine. However, they’re contracting with Austal to
design them. Austal, you’ll recall,
designed the Independence variant LCS. I
won’t bore you with a litany of the shortcomings and design flaws of that
ship. I would simply ask, after the massive
failure of the LCS, why would we immediately turn around and contract with
Austal again? We contracted with them
before and they failed miserably so we think that if we contract with them
again the result will be success? I
refer you to the definition of insanity at the start of the post.
On a related note, the T-AGOS mission is to tow sonar arrays
around and collect acoustic data. The
Navy’s cost estimate is around $430M per ship.
What is the one thing we know, with 100% certainty, about Navy cost
estimates? That’s right … they’re always
ridiculously low. So, we’re looking at a
$500M-$600M ship, minimum.
This ship just tows a sonar array. It has no radars, no weapons, no fire
control, no electronic countermeasures, no high speed, no stealth, no
survivability enhancements, no complicated propulsion system, a crew of around
40, and is likely built to commercial standards (unverified, as yet). It’s an upsized, ocean going tugboat! Can it really cost over half a billion
dollars? Can’t some commercial cargo
ship do the job for a tiny fraction of the price? Couldn’t we buy a used commercial vessel for
pennies on the dollar, mount some sonar array mechanisms and computers and call
it a day?
Insanity.
 |
| T-AGOS-25 Concept Image |
https://breakingdefense.com/2023/05/austal-wins-contract-for-first-vessel-in-ocean-surveillance-ship-program-valued-up-to-3b/
Along those same lines, why not just modernize the existing ships? They are old but not that old, for what they do.
ReplyDeleteThe Sonar is 66.5 and the C4I is 38.5M. First ship has inflated from Covid and inflation to 789.550M. Don't blame Austal, they are just working with the world's worst and best customer exclusively.
ReplyDelete"Don't blame Austal"
DeleteDon't blame Austal?????? Don't blame them for the Independence LCS fiasco? There's plenty of blame to share between the Navy and Austal but Austal certainly deserves their share!
The concept photo reeks of transformationism....
ReplyDeleteHow about a just a darn trawler??
USN has been using SWATH (type of catamaran) since the 1980's. They aren't fast but a lot more stable in rough seas have a sizable deck area.
DeleteSure... But is it necessasary or truly beneficial for the ship and mission?? Or would a knockoff of a commercial trawler do the job for much less expense???
DeleteTowing a cable. I don't know why that would require extreme stability.
DeleteJapan's new Surtass ships are also SWATH. Keep in mind they are electric drive so the engines are up out of the water and the water flows around the hull more like a submarine than traditional surface vessel.
Delete" the engines are up out of the water"
Delete??? All engines, on any ship, are out of the water! What did you really mean?
There are advantages to a SWATH design but there are also numerous, serious disadvantages.
On ships the engines are normally deep in the hull so they are essentially under water. With a SWATH the engine is out of the water so the ship is quieter. Being more stable means the hull isn't bouncing all about against the water. Its been used successfully for the TAGOS/SURTASS since the 1980's If it works, why change?
Delete"If it works, why change?"
DeleteBecause the cost has balooned to over $700M just to tow a cable!
"means the hull isn't bouncing all about against the water."
DeleteThat's true only in lower sea states. At higher states, the waves slam against the underside of the deck. Also, while roll is reduced, pitching can be increased. There are significant disadvantages to SWATH hulls. You might want to review the literature.
One of the requirements for the T-AGOS is they have to be *quiet* so the towed arrays don't pick up their own noise. That said it should not need to cost ,5 billion to do it.
ReplyDeleteThat thing cost more than Admiral Rickover's nuclear NR-1 of which only one was build:
ReplyDeleteNR-1 cost $30 million, from below
http://www.hisutton.com/NR-1.html
And unlike the NR-1 that thing sits on the surface (with no stealth features so easily detected)
Likely use fossil fuels (so unlike the NR-1 nuclear submarine has to refuel thus giving a good ideas of where it is, unlike a nuclear submarine which can, in theory, strike anywhere and anytime, think of how many times our navy "lost" a Soviet Nuclear submarine they were tracking during the Cold War )
To be fair the double hull could hide a NR-1 like sub between them like how Sea Shadow the stealth ship was hidden inside Hughes Mining Barge 1, or HMB-1 a secret spy ship in her own rights as you can read about below
"To keep Sea Shadow out of the public eye, she was built inside HMB-1 and delivered in March of 1985. Night tests were conducted in 1985 and 1986 off the Santa Cruz Islands in Southern California with the barge keeping the ship under cover for repairs and replenishment during daylight. "
https://maritime.org/tour/seashadow/index.php
However, with our shipping industry the way it is the Navy could come up with a better cover story if that was the way it was. (Of course it could be exactly the what they say it is, which is worse) The Hughes Mining Barge 1, or HMB-1 was "sold" as a mining ship: this T-AGOS is "sold" as a anti-submarine ship so already there are good reasons to watch over it, like say China can say they are tracking the T-AGOS because they are "protecting" their submarine and shipping lanes citing public data (Where the Navy says it is a Antisubmarine ship) and there is no way to hide: some wooden decoy ship could do the same job but cheaper if so.
"NR-1 cost $30 million, from below"
DeleteWell, of course NR-1 was built decades ago. I believe it's run through it's whole service life. Nimitz class carriers cost a lot less then too. So did fighter aircraft.
Adjusted for inflation the NR-1 would cost 307,462,500.00 or about $ 307M
DeleteFrom below using 1960 as the starting date
https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
and the NR-1 has been scrapped long ago
Still less than the $430M per ship of T-AGOS and the reason nuclear is so expensive nowadays is because of politics as well as "Lack of financial incentive" and "Proliferation fears" otherwise we would be recycling nuclear fuel as below
https://www.anl.gov/article/nuclear-fuel-recycling-could-offer-plentiful-energy
On the topic of naval matter Nuclear provide a lot of advantages including:
The general idea of nuclear ships was that they would not have to make regular stops for fuel like conventional vessels, making them only limited by supplies and crew endurance.
https://www.history.navy.mil/browse-by-topic/exploration-and-innovation/nuclear-navy.html
Not to mention no more fossil fuel which the environmentalists would love if they were smart.
Austal is also building the Spearhead Class Expeditionary Fast Transport. I've heard of a few problems but haven't heard of massive scandal. Maybe third time's the charm? :-)
ReplyDelete"Maybe third time's the charm?"
DeleteOf course, one might note that Austal has not yet built a successful warship. The JHSV is a ferry, built to largely (all?) commercial specs. Austal has built successful commercial ferries though not, to my knowledge, by Austal USA.
More heinous is that Austral has been given a $3 billion dollar contract to build the OPC--the latest CG cutter--which many believe would make an excellent (and lower cost) frigate once armed than the current constellation class. Eastern, the original designer and builder was put back on their production not by the usual overruns-they were on time and budget-but by Hurricane Mitchell damaging their production.
ReplyDeleteWhen reports emerged of a possible-not really confirmed-drive shaft problem with Eastern's first OPC, Austral then got a contract for building over half the remaining orders. Considering the insane number of defects to the LCS which is itself no better armed than a Cutter, this makes zero sense. Even more so since the CG requires a steel hull, while Austral's experience is with aluminum. And they can't keep their aluminum hulls from cracking. So we award them a contract for a steel ship? Ludicrous.
Aside from hull cracks, what defects has LCS-2 class had?
Delete"Aside from hull cracks, what defects has LCS-2 class had?"
DeleteI take it you're a new reader since regular readers have read a multitude of posts on the LCS-2 shortcomings. Please review the archives to come up to speed. Here's a post link to get you started:
LCS-2 Variant
In addition, there are posts on weight problems, SLA issues, steering issues (skidding), sea state issues, numerous module related issues, and the list goes on and on. You can also read the DOT&E reports for fairly detailed lists and descriptions of problems.
Read them all, although it might not be good for my health. Reality is LCS-2 is deployed abroad right now and LCS-1 class is not. Heck, LA and NYC fleet week's are both this weekend. LA has an LCS-2, NYC has no LCS-1. That says a lot. The Navy trusts one more than the other.
DeleteLCS-2 is deployed abroad right now and LCS-1 class is not. ... The Navy trusts one more than the other."
DeleteAre you defending the LCS-2 variant as a GOOD ship or simply the least bad of a pair of abject failures? If you're defending LCS-2 as good, you might be the only LCS defender left in the world!
There are plenty of people who see the value in LCS-2. There are several things it can do for a ship its size no other can do.
DeleteYou work for Austal, don't you?
DeleteI think we are missing the sarcasm, according to Wikipedia, LCS 2 was commissioned Jan 2010 and decommissioned July 2021.....she managed 11 years of service! And that's probably really pushing the definition of "service".
DeleteConsidering that USN sure seems to ant to get rid of all LCSs as fast as possible, USN doesn't seem to have found a lot of "utility" in the entire LCS series.
Wonder if one day someone will write a book on what really has to be one of the top 5 DoD worst military procurement programs of all time.
"Can’t some commercial cargo ship do the job for a tiny fraction of the price? Couldn’t we buy a used commercial vessel for pennies on the dollar, mount some sonar array mechanisms and computers and call it a day?"
ReplyDeleteThe USN has never made adequate use of off-the-shelf commercial designs IMO.
I remember back to my 3/c Mid cruise on Ranger. We rotated through divisions and while in Fox Division (fire control, still had the 5 inch 54s) I noticed that one of the CRT's had "SONY" clearly indicated. There was a big "Buy American" push at the time so I asked how they ended up with that. The answer was, "We had one crap out on us in Tonkin Gulf and the Navy said it would be six months before they could deliver a replacement. A couple of our guys were on liberty in Yokosuka and found a tube that seemed to be identical electronically and had the proper dimensions. We had enough money in the division welfare and rec fund to buy it, and we voted that we'd rather have fire control when on Yankee Station than a beer party somewhere, so we bought it and installed it and it works perfectly."
The deck area is about the size of a feeder container ship. Those usually cost around $20 million and already have quarters for up to twenty crew. As mentioned above the ship needs to be quiet, so the engine probably needs to be a fancier model. But these ships are very slow (10 knots) so it may not cost much more because it can be much smaller than a fast feeder ship (15 knots).
ReplyDeleteIf sea stability is really important there will be lots of extra space in a feeder ship so maybe you can make the free board relatively high and add extra ballast besides having a wide beam like a container ship?
Lots of interesting possible tradeoffs. Seems it should be 50%-75% cheaper with most of the cost being the sonar gear.
Even assuming the electronic gear and quieting engines costs $100 million which is probably more than enough, how does it cost over $300 million for the hull, crew space, some decks,etc....there's nothing there thats fancy, its just steel and furnished stuff?!? And thats worth $300 million, no way!!!
ReplyDeleteHave a look at this https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classe_Antares (sorry doesn't exit in English). Basically it is just a trawler used to tow a minehunting sonar in coastal waters near the French SSBN base in Brittany, it is used just to check that nobody put some stuff near the base that could be a mine or something intended to damage or sink an SSBN. It wouldn't do the job of the a T-AGOS because it isn't ocean going but this an example on how to use commercial design for a simple task.
ReplyDeleteLCS' problem started from its mission statement. They were developed to fight nations without strong navies nor formidable coastal defenses.
ReplyDeleteArrogancy was yesterday's problem. It is also today's.
The way the Navy is handling it's procurement and missile and gun loadout decisions I'm surprised they haven't called this a steal arsenal ship that's going to rule the ocean for 500 miles around it when it's deployed because they stick a 50 CAL on the Bow.
ReplyDeleteI've been saying for years that I don't understand why Austal keeps being given so many contracts. Their designs are not especially successful. It's a foreign company to boot. It's not as if the US doesn't have it's own designers and builders. I mean, look at the Ambassador Class missile ship the USA built for Egypt- now that's a warship.
ReplyDeleteOnly reason I can think of is the US using Austal as part of solidifying it's alliance with Australia. I think it's a weird way of doing it though. Ever since the FTA went through, USA/Aust trade numbers have gone down, and ship building is not an Austr strength.
Andrew