Home » Budget Industry » Navy Issues RFP for Oilers and LHA-8 to NASSCO, Ingalls

Navy Issues RFP for Oilers and LHA-8 to NASSCO, Ingalls

Military Sealift Command fleet replenishment oiler USNS Rappahannock (T-AO 204) prior to a replenishment-at-sea on June 29, 2015. US Navy Photo

Military Sealift Command fleet replenishment oiler USNS Rappahannock (T-AO 204) prior to a replenishment-at-sea on June 29, 2015. US Navy Photo

The Navy has issued a request for proposal (RFP) directly to General Dynamics NASSCO and Huntington Ingalls Industries for the third America-class big deck amphibious warship and six next-generation oilers (TAO(X)), the service told USNI News.

The RFPs to the two shipbuilders — deemed by the service to be the only two in the country capable of building the next generation oiler and the LHA-8 — was issued on June 25 without public notification on the U.S. FedBizOpps solicitations website.

“It is not uncommon to distribute a limited competition solicitation and/or sole source solicitation to the limited source offeror(s) and not to post the solicitation to FedBizOpps (FBO),” read a statement from the service provided to USNI News.
“The Navy expects responses for T-AO(X) and LHA 8 this fall. The responses will not be publically releasable.”

One yard will receive contracts for the detail design and construction contract for the first six TAO(X) or LHA-8.

America (LHA-6) returns to Ingalls Shipyard from acceptance trials on Jan. 31, 2014. US Navy Photo

America (LHA-6) returns to Ingalls Shipyard from acceptance trials on Jan. 31, 2014. US Navy Photo

LHA-8 will follow the first two America-class big deck amphibs — USS America (LHA-6) and Tripoli (LHA-7) — that were built without a welldeck to launch amphibious landing craft.

LHA-8 — and the rest of the ships in the class — will include the welldeck capability.

“In order to preserve the industrial base, leverage competition, bring affordability and stability to that industrial base, we’ve elected to limit the competition, go out with a single solicitation that contains both the LHA-8 and the TAO(X),” Navy acquisition chief Sean Stackley told Congress in March.

“Size them what we believe to be about the same in terms of man hours of work and also about the same in terms of horizon of time, so that the industry has some surety that, ‘OK, we understand how much work is coming our way’.”

The Navy will also likely look to the two shipbuilders to compete for the next generation LX(R) amphibious warship, slated to start construction in 2020.

  • Greg Lof

    With the reintroduction of the dry well, why was not the next LHA be reclassified as LHD?

    • Sandy

      I think it is dependent on the size of the well-deck…the old LHA’s, if memory serves, had smaller well-decks than the LHD’s – can someone correct me if I am wrong??

      • Secundius

        @ Sandy.

        Hey Sandy, what new with you?
        Nothing definitive of the America class, but probably similar to the Wasp class.
        1. Tarawa class “Well Deck” measured: 268′ x 78′ x 20′ (418,080-cu.ft.)
        2. Wasp class “Well Deck” measured: 267′ x 50′ x 28′ (373,800-cu.ft.)…

        • Sandy

          thanks brutha…I don’t get too much time on these cites recently as I started grad school….and it’s wearing out my “old eyes”…LOL…hope you are well!

    • Rob C.

      I believe there really was no difference between LHA or LHD, they switched to LHD . There really isn’t any difference that they changed last letter of the designation from A to D then again to A. Only differences was Tarawa had smaller flight deck with 5 inch guns to provide Fire-Support, which was removed for more flight deck. Wasp Class was more aviation dedicated.and had cargo for marines. The early America-Class has no wet amphib capacities, but as soon LHD-8 is built there won’t be much differences between LHD-8 and LHA-8

  • Sandy

    they need the well-deck, even if it only holds one LCAC – this will be redundancy in the case of the LSD “going Democrat”….

  • CaptainParker

    Only two “capable” ship builders?!? What about Bath Shipbuilding. They have the reputation of building the most reliable ships and many times bring them in under contract price. Or, are those qualities the disqualifier to steer everything to the two most politically connected shipbuilders? I smell lots of cost overruns and profits in politicians back pockets.

    • Secundius

      @ CaptainParker.

      Other then the fact of it being a Huntington-Ingalls, build. Not a whole lot…

    • Bob

      Bath probably doesn’t have the facilities to handle a ship that large – they’re plant is geared towards smaller combatants and IIRC they are rather strongly constrained by the geography of the area. Also somewhat of a different construction mentality between a high speed combatant ship and a tanker or amphib.

    • aniptofar

      All are politically connected pseudo gov’t shipyards. It’s easy to bring things on “budget” when the budget can be changed. Certainly DDG1000 shows BIW can be guilty of massive cost and schedule overruns.

      In the end, the amphib will go to HII and the oiler to NASCO. It’s pre ordained.

  • disqus_zommBwspv9

    What is this need to build such big ships. The old LSD where based on 1940’s to technology Since technology is much improved maybe it is time to start build diesel
    Electric. Gas turbine etc. power LSD’ and Bring back the LST. The old Anchorage LSD well decks were 400 x 40 feet. Then the navy went the wrong way with the Harper’s Ferry class well deck 180 x 50 feet

  • disqus_zommBwspv9

    The LCU’s are on the end of their service life with no replacement in sight. While it appears the French has a cat style LCU pushed by waterjets at 30 knots. And can Carry 50 plus tons. Looks like the amphibious forces are still getting the short end of the stick as usually

  • Pingback: Extended Continuing Resolution Could Threaten Navy Ship Deliveries, Carrier Refueling | Aircrew Systems()

  • Pingback: Report: Ship Availability May Delay Fire Scout Test Schedule; Inflation Rates Hurting Trident II D-5 | Aircrew Systems()

  • disqus_zommBwspv9

    The T-AO’s needs to be done separate from the Gators What about Akers American Shipping in Philly? If they can build 600 ft oil tankers (12) for American companies under the Jones Act why can’t they be allowed to bid on the T-AO design. Sure the company is own by a Norwegian company. veteran Class MT46 double-hulled product tankers The MV Overseas Huston looks like a kraiser class tanker without the kingpost for the unrep equipment

  • Pingback: Top Stories 2015: US Navy Acquisition – USNI News | American Veteran Coalition()