Home » News & Analysis » HII Awarded $94M Long Lead Contract for 10th National Security Cutter


HII Awarded $94M Long Lead Contract for 10th National Security Cutter

Ingalls Shipbuilding launched the National Security Cutter Midgett (WMSL-757) on Nov. 22, 2017. US Navy Photo

Shipbuilder Huntington Ingalls has been awarded a $94 million long-lead material contract for the tenth Legend-class National Security Cutter for the U.S. Coast Guard.

“The advance procurement funds will be used to purchase major components for NSC 10, such as steel, the main propulsion systems, generators, electrical switchboards and major castings,” the company said in a statement this week.

The money was included by Congress as part of the Fiscal Year 2017 Department of Homeland Security budget and approved earlier this year, according to the Congressional Research Service.

“These ships are enabling the Coast Guard’s missions in not only defending our shores, but also in the detection and interdiction of drugs and other contraband,” said Ingalls president Brian Cuccias.
“Our shipbuilders in Mississippi look forward to continuing this hot production line and producing additional high-quality, state-of-the-art cutters for the men and women of the Coast Guard.”
HII’s Ingalls shipbuilding in Pascagoula, Miss. is currently building the seventh, eighth and ninth National Security Cutters, Kimball (WMSL-756), Midgett (WMSL-757) and Stone (WMSL-758).

The sixth cutter, USCGC Munro (WMSL-755), was commissioned last year.

The 4,500-ton Legend-class cutters average about $695 million a hull and were originally planned to replace the legacy 12 Hamilton-class high-endurance cutters. The original plan of eight cutters grew to ten with Congress directing more funds toward the program. The Legend-class ships are 40 feet longer, have more sophisticated Command, Control, Communication, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) equipment, and have added small boat and aviation operations capabilities.

Like What You've Been Reading? Get Proceedings Today
Categories: News & Analysis
Sam LaGrone

About Sam LaGrone

Sam LaGrone is the editor of USNI News. He has covered legislation, acquisition and operations for the Sea Services since 2009 and spent time underway with the U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine Corps and the Canadian Navy.

  • Sir Bateman

    If I’m not mistaken I believe the 2018 Omnibus Bill included funds to build the 10th and an 11th national security cutter.

  • Curtis Conway

    If we get two more I will be happy. If we get four more I will be ecstatic.

    • Sir Bateman

      I seem to remember reading, don’t ask my where, that when the NSC was first being looked into the Coast Guard initially had a requirement for 16, which got cut down to 8. I suppose the expanded production run of the NSC can be chalked up to pork, but in this particular instance I’d argue it’s a good thing.

      • Curtis Conway

        The US Coast Guard must replace the twelve (12) Hamilton Class High Endurance Cutters. Since the beginning of this divestiture of the Hamilton Class Cutters drug interdiction requirements have grown, and the Arctic has started to heat up with greater traffic, particularly in US fishing grounds. More tasking is required of High Endurance Cutters in other places due to their Legal status on the High Seas. Tasking for a force of sixteen could easily be established to support US Coast Guard operations CONUS, Arctic, and support Unified Combatant Commanders in other Areas Of Responsibility.

        • DaSaint

          I’m thinking there’s a better than average chance that this production line gets extended to 12, now that the 11th has been funded in the 2018 budget. Would not be surprised to see the 12th funded in 2019. And should the NSC-derivative not be selected, I would not be surprised to see 2 more as ‘consolation prizes’ to HII.

          • SDW

            from your mouth to congress’ ears…

          • Paul 2

            I’d like to see the production line continue hot, building export versions.

          • DaSaint

            Agreed. I saw mention of Brazil and others possibly being interested.

          • I seriously doubt that. Like most American warships, the NSC is rather expensive and just too much ship for smaller countries to operate. I mean, it’s larger than any of Brazil’s current frigates. Put a SeaRAM and some Harpoons on it and it would be more capable as well.

          • DaSaint

            Other smaller countries do operate sophisticated vessels, which the NSC is not. Spain, Norway, South Korea. Australia, Singapore, to name a few. So it’s not that far fetched. What is unlikely is purchasing an NSC built in an American yards when domestic production would cost much less due to cheaper labor.

          • USNVO

            Not just that, even when it is more expensive, say Canada and Australia which have had to build/rebuild a combatant construction capability at great expense, most countries would rather build their own. After all, they are supporting their own industries and will do so regardless of cost. Only parts of the US seem to think that is a bad thing. Even then steel and welding are cheap, the structural part of the ship is usually less than 10pct of the total cost for a combatant (cutter’s are a higher percentage), most of the expense is the various systems and those cost the same.

          • DaSaint

            Agreed.

          • Secundius

            The Brazilian Navy currently uses eight different Missile Types.
            1. the “Sea Skua”,
            2. the “Exocet”,
            3. the “Penguin”,
            4. the AIM-9H “Sidewinder,
            5. the “Piranha” (indigenous built),
            6. the “A-Darter (indigenous built),
            7. the “Derby” and
            8. the “MAR-1” (indigenous built).

            The AIM-9H Sidewinder is being Phased Out of Service by the “Mar-1” and an order just just recently placed for more “Penguins”…

          • Rudeboy1

            Sea Skua is on the way out, manufacturer support will cease in the near future as the RN has removed it from service pending the introduction of Sea Venom. When the Lynx are retired by Brazil, Sea Skua will go with them.

          • Secundius

            Your point be what? I said “Currently in service”…

          • Horn

            Like Ingalls needs consolation prizes …

          • Curtis Conway

            If the USCG does not get 16 NSCs, I hope the OPCs augment that count, particularly on both ends of the Arctic, a detachment in the Med, and some around the Rim of the Pacific, including our South Pacific Islands on that patrol schedule.

          • DaSaint

            I hope they replace the Hamiltons 1 for 1. But I don’t really see why the USCG needs to be in the Med. We have enough to do here and the poles, and the OPCs will certainly help.

          • Curtis Conway

            There are times when a ‘badge and a gun’ (Law Enforcement) is more effective than a war weapon. It’s a notch lower in response during tough times. The US Coast Guard can do things that 6th Flt. cannot do without a LEDET on board. A White OPC with a big red hash mark in the EastMed and WestMed AORs would be one more level of response on the bottom end of the spectrum. An NSC would be more appropriate. I would like to hear USEUCOM, SIXTHFLT and USCGCOM’s opinion on the concept. Jurisdiction and effectiveness is the issue. Can you imagine a training and assist visit to the Georgian, Bulgarian & Romanian Coast Guards, and the Ukrainian Sea Guard? Don’t know about the Stans, but Turkey might play ball.

            Our territories in the South Pacific do require patrols, and that can stretch into the South China Sea. Someone is going to have to help stand up to those two 10,000 ton Chinese Coast Guard Cutters on the High Seas, and I don’t see the Philippines doing that even in their own EEZ. I could be wrong.

          • tpharwell

            It is hard to argue the case for a Coast Guard law enforcement mission half way around the world, in the absence of a US naval presence and purpose. A CG vessel as adjunct to a USN formation makes plenty of sense. But without one, it has no legs, no backup and doubtful purpose.

            I am fully in agreement with you. But I doubt how others view the status of a USCG vessel in the Med or Indian Ocean differs much from how they see a USN vessel. It is mostly how we see ourselves.

          • Rocco

            Kudos great points agreed!

          • Rocco

            Not enough to go around in my opinion! Plus coast guard under homeland security is for our territory protection that we taxpayers pay for.

          • Curtis Conway

            There is this aspect of UNCLOS (International Sea Law in effect) and other governances on the High Seas, and our boys & girls with a Badge & Gun. That is what a LEDET is all about. There are times a US Coast Guard Cutter can go places and do things we would never do with a Surface Combatant without a lot of backup. That in no way insinuates that they are never in any danger. However, international relationships between Law Enforcement, particularly Coast Guard elements within the Coast Guard Community, has a relationships they rely on to get things done, most often under difficult (or worse) circumstances. There is many a foreign sailor owes his/her life to the US Coast Guard.

          • Rocco

            As ambassador presence agreed

          • Curtis Conway

            Ambassador ? maybe, Cop? definitely. Coordination with other countries Coast Guards is possible too. Cross decking would also be possible, particularly with our European Allies, and the Black Sea Allies. Smuggling (human trafficking/drugs/weapons) as well as Show the Flag are also possible.

          • Rocco

            Yes but however does the coast guard have jurisdiction to conduct drug trafficking especially across the pond?

          • Secundius

            On the Pacific Side Guam and Vietnam. On the Atlantic Side Germany, possibly further depending on Treaties signed…

          • Rocco

            I thought so I wouldn’t think we we go & stick our noses where it doesn’t belong!!!!………On second thought….

          • Curtis Conway

            In the Med they would have a host countries Liaison on board. They could be chopped to CINCEUR and maybe even have an assigned INTERPOL Liaison on board. In the English Channel could work with the France or Great Britain. In the Baltic they can work with the Denmark, Germany and Poland, and break some real ground with Norway, Sweden, and Finland. Then they can conduct some training & assist visits to Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania right after they get some of our retired 110′ Cape Class Cutters. Don’t think Kaliningrad will be on the assist visit list.

          • Rocco

            Agreed

          • tpharwell

            I have been wondering for some time how the OPC stacks up against the NSC, and how the roles that they play demand that they be different. We hear little about the OPC.

          • Curtis Conway

            The largest weapon is the Mk 110 57 mm gun. There are no missile systems. It’s CiC is not ‘command center capable’, nor will their comms system stack up to that kind of tasking. It will have a decent 100+ nm 3D radar (SAAB AMB Giraffe) with a UPX-29A IFF system, SLQ-32(V)6, boats amidships (up to three), a speed of 22 knots with a range of 8,500 nm on its diesel power. This thing is not capable of keeping up with a carrier battle group. As a surface combatant its slow and a lightweight. As a Sheriff’s Deputy it perfect. As a White ship with a Red hash, it’s fairly capable. It is slated for Arctic service as well, so we will see some at Kodiak Station. I hope they build more than 25 and we we them on the Keflavik side of the Arctic as well.

            The NSC is a Small Surface Combatant (Lite), it just doesn’t have a depth of offensive/defensive weapon systems (as currently equipped) to be the Skirmisher/Scout. With the FFG(X) 3 array face 3-RMA EASR radar, and Mk41 VLS along with the OTH surface-to-surface missile, it will definitely fit the bill, and with no hull-mounted sonar will be very viable in the Arctic. I hope it has an Ice-Hardened hull. An upgrade to the gun (larger) provides more explosive potential, and a greater amount of room for guidance (e.g., greater range/lethality).

          • Luke Shaver

            OPC was never meant to deploy with Battle Groups, only Expeditionary Strike Groups, the NSC was built to deploy with Battle Groups.

          • Secundius

            Not true! Both USCG and NOAA Vessels are to perform a Secondary Role under the Command of the US Navy in Times of War…

          • Luke Shaver

            The Offshore Patrol Cutter was never designed to deploy with a Carrier Battle Group, they for one lack the speed… They could however deploy with a Expeditionary Strike Group, this is publicly available info found in the OPC’s CONCOPS (Concept of Operations) However the National Security Cutter was designed to deploy with a Carrier Battle Group, just like the 378s before them.

          • Secundius

            Convoy Duties! Or is that to Slow for them…

          • Luke Shaver

            Depends on the convoy, threat environment, needed speed, etc. Again on the CONOPS one of the example OPC scenarios is a OPC escorting a ESG while it is attacked. So yes a OPC could perform convoy duties depending on various factors.

          • Secundius

            Offshore and/or Littoral Waters is anything up to ~280-meters in Depth. What Oceans, Seas and Gulfs “Doesn’t” that apply too…

          • Luke Shaver

            I never said that doesn’t apply, all I’m saying is the OPC wasn’t built to deploy with Carrier Battle Groups, but can deploy with things like Expeditionary Strike Groups, and the NSC can deploy with Battle Group. You have to take in the speed needed, the threat environment, etc. You can look through Coast Guard documents like the CONOPS and read this.

          • Secundius

            The “OPC’s” can be used a Escorts for the America/Wasp/Tarawa classes. Considering that All the Vessels mentioned have a Maximum Speed of only 22kts. And at least the “OPC’s” don’t have to be Refueled that often…

          • Luke Shaver

            Yes, and vessels of those classes are deployed in ESGs (Expeditionary Strike Group), which an OPC is capable of escorting… And yes their range and endurance is a plus.

          • Curtis Conway

            Roger Roger, you are exactly right. The Heritage-class cutters will perform various Coast Guard missions which include but are not limited to PWCS (Ports, Waterways, and Coastal Security), Defense Operations, Maritime Law Enforcement (Drug/migrant interdiction and other Law Enforcement), Search and Rescue, Marine Safety, and environment protection. For Defense Operations the WMSM will meet a range of roles from Theater Security Cooperation to deploying with an Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG) or supporting a combatant commander in various ways. The cutters will also support Arctic operations. Attribution: Wiki.

          • Secundius

            Oh, you’ll be happy to hear that HII is Reactivating their East Bank Shipyards in Pascagoula, MS. sometime in 2018…

          • Curtis Conway

            Once upon a time I spend a whole Saturday in my civies, wearing my anywhere/anytime badge, I explored the USS Iowa (BB-61). It was an experience I will always remember. The ‘Man Killers’ around the Battle Bridge were a real experience. The FDR Bathtub was still in its compartment. It was a real experience.

          • Secundius

            Follow Up, the East Bank Shipyard won’t be reopened until late 2019 or early 2020…

        • PolicyWonk

          Even discounting drug interdiction or the rise of activity in the arctic, the US Coast Guard’s mission set increased radically since 9/11. And while their budget has increased considerably, it hasn’t been anywhere near the level it should’ve been increased to 17 years ago, or for that matter kept in line with the increases on the demand for its services.

          That said, the USN could learn something from the acquisition of the NSC: the USCG is buying tough and thoroughly capable assets that will deliver value to the taxpayers and the service for many years to come; the USN, OTOH, has been buying pier queens that can only be classified as liabilities.

          • Rocco

            Agreed especially last paragraph! Just to unconventional for the Navy to Smell real coffee!

        • Secundius

          The US House of Representatives FUNDS Ship Construction, NOT the USCG. The USCG can Request additional Ship Funding, but if the “Bean Counters” in the House refuse to fund. The USCG has to make do with what they have…

          • Curtis Conway

            Appreciate the Refresher in how the System Works! You know Secundius, I don’t know what I would do if I didn’t have you to bring me back to Earth from time to time.

      • tpharwell

        Hmm. This is an interesting announcement. More is always better, right ? But more vessels means bulking up on everything else. It is my understanding that CG did not ask for this ship or the one prior. What is happening to their manning, operating, and maintenance budget requests ?

        You might also chalk it up to keeping all the domestic contenders for the FF[X] order content. “Hot production line”, and all that rot. Momma has to be fair to all her kids, you know.

        • Curtis Conway

          The US Coast Guard has twelve Hamilton Class Cutter crews who can cross deck through training schools on the way to their new gig.

          • Secundius

            Considering that there’s only one Hamilton class still in service (i.e. WHEC-724, Munro), And the last was WHEC-720, Sherman in 29 March 2018. I’m fairly certain that, that process has already been done…

    • Rocco

      If the Navy get them………..

  • disqus_CbFK3MPhJu

    so the diesels are foreign, the radar too, and the main gun, plz tell me
    we made the paint.
    and then there’s the helo.

    • Paul 2

      Sad that so much content is foreign, but don’t blame the USCG. US industry just doesn’t make equipment of this class anymore (I’m thinking the diesels and the drive line specifically).

      • disqus_CbFK3MPhJu

        I hear you, but somebody made the ultimate decision.
        and yes I think ge makes the main engine (lm2500), but they
        also make a long line of diesels, think trains, but they fail
        in so many other areas of use, guess that’s why their stock
        is in the teens.

        • El Kabong

          Even the diesel engine market is being eaten up by the Europeans.

      • DaSaint

        Yes, the diesels are MTU, German made, now owned by Rolls Royce (UK). The air-search radar is French. Good, cost effective radar. And the gun is Swedish. Again, good and cost effective – and we don’t make 57mm or 76mm except under license, which these are.

        And we want our allies to buy our products too, right? It’s a two-way street. These components are quality, cost-effective, and assembled here in US plants by US-based subsidiaries, employing US workers. Sounds fair to me.

        • PolicyWonk

          Lets face facts: the USCG doesn’t get to “circle the option page” with complete disregard for wise use of taxpayer funds like the other four service branches do (the Marines, albeit, to a lesser extent).

          They have to be a bit more pragmatic about stretching the budget and keeping its shipbuilding program and force structure at a sustainable rate.

          • DaSaint

            Agreed. And they do a damned good job of it!

            Their equipment is geared for their tasks and their training is excellent. Generally good decision-making all around, but they just need more resources to recapitalize for their mission sets.

          • Horn

            Think about how well they’d run if they were actually funded properly …

          • Rocco

            Think about how good this country would be if properly funded!! Lol

        • Secundius

          I believe the 57mm gun in made by Boeing under Licence and the Leonardo (Oto Melara) is made by Ordnance Systems Division (i.e. General Electric)…

          • Duane

            The Mk 110 gun is manufactured by BAE, which bought Bofors years ago. Bofors supplied most of the US Navy’s antiaircraft guns going back to long before WW Two. The BAE 57mm Mk 110 is a direct descendant of the ubiquitous Bofors 40mm AA guns (otherwise known as “quad poms” of WW Two fame, mounted on everything from fleet subs to DDs to heavy cruisers and BBs), with development of the upsized 57 mm starting in the mid 1950s. The 57mm was originally designed by Bofors as an AA weapon capable of shooting down jet fighters.

          • Secundius

            Bofors also supplied the Germans in WWII! You point…

          • Rocco

            Also in the AC-130 spooky until ammo for it ran out! Guess where they were built?

    • El Kabong

      Start making competitive equipment.

    • USNVO

      The main gun was built in the US by BAE (formerly United Defense). They didn’t even have to pay a licensing fee since United Defense owned Bofors at the time they were purchased by BAE.

    • John McHugh

      I agree to an extant. If there are viable domestic options, then they should be implemented. If not, then the best available product from a “partner” nation is next best option. Having extensive experience with the LM2500s and various MTUs, I can honestly say this is a good plant. The MTUs do require more intricate preventive maintenance to maintain their performance but, their power delivery and reliability is excellent. I think that the OTO Melara 76mm would have made a better MG, again, not domestic, but I believe that the majority would agree. It goes without saying that the FFG(X) should have GE LMs as well but I would suggest the LM6000. It has a similar footprint, vastly more efficiency and power.

    • Secundius

      Depends on what you consider to be “Foreign”? They say Imitation is the best form of Flattery! The MTU diesels is patterned after the Detroit Diesel 671, which was built in 1938…

  • Paul 2

    I remember the early dark days when I thought getting 4 of these was a big achievement.

  • Bubblehead

    Station a NSC in the Philippines!

  • Ser Arthur Dayne

    This is a prime time for me to point out how the HII Patrol Frigate (or Sea Conrol Frigate or FF4XXX , whatever you or they want to call it ) — specifically the HII design entrant to the FFG(X) competition — would pretty much be perfect for the job and probably the best overall bang for the buck. I am pretty much of the mindset that the FREMM FFGH would be probably the best actual ship (and I believe it would not even be close if they modified it to 32 VLS cells, whereas 3 of the 4 FREMM variants have only 16 VLS cells for their Aster SAMs, 1 of the French variants has a 16-cell land-attack cruise missile cell) and probably the best frigate in the world after it got hooked up with our stuff; however, I think the HII FFG would be the best value. The NSC is a hot line, and an outstanding design that has proven itself in our service, with plenty of room for improvement and upgrades. As I read it, HII did not publicly disclose their actual design last month so we don’t know yet exactly how they have spec’d it out …. but their video from a year or two ago looks pretty awesome (as does their LPD-17 based BMD Cruiser video, mmm mmm baby!) and they have a pretty good track record building awesome ships. I for one would be absolutely content with a fleet of HII FFG(X) ships.

    • William Sager

      Perhaps this would make a good Coast Guard class to follow the 12th NSC cutter.

    • Ed L

      The proposed HII design— was presented with 4 different variations about 4 years ago. Hll has already put a lot of design work into it. The navy could get 20 of them built in the next few years. While deciding on the FFGX platform

      • Ser Arthur Dayne

        Ed I agree with what you said 100%- just point of information — when HII came out with the designs (there were several different FF4### designs) they were designed to just offer an alternative to the LCS…. they were not actually formal proposals to replace the LCS because the government actually was against that at the time, they were simply going to “upgun” the LCS and call it the “LCS Frigate” …. THEN they decided last year to redo the program into FFG(X). HII has not formally unveiled their actual entrant into the program. It will probably be very , very similar to the Sea Control frigate, but could be some different combination of their designs plus other stuff we haven’t seen yet.

    • Secundius

      It’s doubtful “NOW” that the Fincantieri “FREMM” will even be built now or ever. After the CEO of “Fincantieri was caught trying to Meddle in the Selection Process…

    • Kypros

      I agree completely! The FREMM may be the best “ship”, but HII’s NSC proposal may be the best ship to fill the role of FFGx. Strange that Ingalls had no model of a proposal at SNA 2018. Why the secrecy?

      • Ser Arthur Dayne

        Thanks very much good sir… Now my PERSONAL thoughts are, HII knows it can put forth the best bang for buck frigate. It probably can put forth the best overall if it really wanted. But, according to some people (both here and elsewhere), “The Fix Is In” and LM has already been told that they’ll get their LCS-based FFG as the winner. If that is true, it might be HIIs idea to wait and unveil their proposal at the last possible time, this way they can show everyone “Look, here it is, it’s the best, and the best value, and it’s perfect for the job, NOW come tell us it doesn’t win…” and would give no one (ahem, LM) time to bamboozle their proposal (like Beretta did with the M9 back in the handgun trials of the early 80s, when Sig Sauer “won” the competition, and was even cheaper, but Beretta then threw in a package of mags/parts/support/training/etc. that was quickly accepted and suddenly Sig Sauer was left “losing” a competition they had already “won” ) and suddenly the LCS-Frigate gets picked and done deal, boom, no further discussion. Anyway as I said once before, I think FREMM is the best, I think that HII is the best value overall, and I would not hate the F100 “Mini-Aegis” …. the other two, not so much….

        • Kypros

          F100, FREMM or NSC would be acceptable. Let’s just hope the US taxpayer and US Navy are not once again saddled with more versions of the LCS.

      • Secundius

        The FREMM may be Out of the Running in the Design Competition, because of Actions taken by Fincantieri’s CEO.

        ( http : // nextnavy . com / frank – ffgx – feelings – from – the – fincantieri – ceo / ) …

  • Zorcon, Fidei Defensor

    Why bother when we let people cross the border with virtual impunity?

    • disqus_CbFK3MPhJu

      my favorite was a congressman with a meriauchi (sp) band and an
      elephant along with a few cheer leaders, walking across the border.
      not a single law enforcement member in sight.
      oh, and a few media members too.

      • Zorcon, Fidei Defensor

        Was reading today that there is a wave of them coming and Mexico is ushering them along. I was actually being serious, sadly..

    • PolicyWonk

      Because we’re now at a state where more people are leaving the country than entering. Would you prefer we wall them in so they can’t leave?

      BTW – you can give up in the wall: not one cent was allocated out of the $1.3T budget to purchase the millions of acres of land necessary to build the wall because the POTUS has proven incapable of selling the wall to his own party. Not one lawsuit has yet been filed to fight the thousands of eminent domain legal battles that would ultimately take place, let alone adjudicate, win, lose, or otherwise settle.

      Its done. Over. Finisio. Kaput. DOA.

      • Zorcon, Fidei Defensor

        So then I ask again, why build Coast guard cutters? More people are leaving? Really? Link?

      • Rocco

        Sure let’s let more historical statues to be pulled down by liberal millennials!!

  • Ed L

    Heck with it build the USCG 16 NSC cutters and I feel that HIl should build a FFGX out of there own pocket and show the Admirals what a real frigate is. With a 127mm forward the MK 110 aft on top of the hanger. keep the 6 machine guns the USCG has already

    • Rocco

      This argument has been beat like a dead horse on here & BD ! Agreed

  • John33

    Why don’t we paint the LCS’s white and red and call them “cutters” it would up arm the coast guard to patrol our shores while filling the gap of utilizable ships for the coast guard? If they are too lightly armored for attack missions, having a fast, armed coast guard in case WWIII breaks out, isn’t the worst idea. I could be way off here. But 32 fast, sonar equipped, up gunned and missile, ships that can launch helicopters, boats for boarding inspections, and travel at 40+ knots, wouldn’t be a bad thing. Would it?

    • Ed L

      Sounds like a really good idea.

      • John33

        Thank you. Run it by DoD friends or anyone on the armed services committee. They may have information we don’t. But it sounds like hitting 2 birds with one hellfire! LoL. It certainly makes way for the new frigate program. Which we NEED a lot more than the LCS. The commander of the LCS several years back stated “it was like being on a navy “Jet Ski”. I thought it would be a much better cutter than assault craft.

    • Rocco

      Agreed plus if an imminent breakdown happens it won’t be too far away for a sea tug to retrieve.

  • El Kabong

    Really bad English.

  • A voice of reason

    What we have here is a failure to communicate… What we have right in front of us is a real ship, built with steel, built tough, with long range, endurance, solid engineering plant, very sea worthy and well laid out. All it needs is a few “Navy” specific upgrades and presto (5 inch gun, ESSM, torpedoes, better electronics suite, Harpoon, Phalanx/Sea Ram, two SH-60’s, bow sonar, and a tail), we have a patrol frigate which can be built in numbers, quickly and every cost-effectively. One the other hand, we have an uber expensive, aluminum, built, to very low standards, low endurance, high maintenance, overly complex engineering plant, very un-seaworthy “sea-frame” (it doesn’t deserve to be called a “ship” so we only call it a “sea-frame”) that’s been around for 14+ years and it still can’t do anything. It’s very clear what we need to do, let’s deep six the totally failed LCS ‘experiment’ and start building up the real Navy with a patrol/escort frigate variant of the NSC (while we work on a more capable on range Frigate). We could quickly build 20 of these over the next 5 years, at a fraction of what we spending on the worthless LCS experiments (not including the so-called modules), to fill our pressing needs while the more capable Frigate program is under development.

    • Rocco

      Nice Segway lol. However unless the ship is built from the ground up you just can’t mount those weapons in her especially a 5″gun !! Which I’m all for!

      • A voice of reason

        yes of course, lots of internal changes, but the alternative is to keep producing aluminum coffins for our sailors-which is not acceptable.

        • Rocco

          News flash dude you can’t build a ship that size and sustain speeds of 40 knots + out of steel!! Hence back in the day your probably to young to have seen any DD’s or DE’s called tin cans!!

          • A voice of reason

            But those old WWII “tin” cans were very very tough, there are too many instances where those “tin” cans took kamikaze hits, shell hits from battleships, etc, and kept on fighting. Heck, a single well placed .50 cal round would take out the flimsy LCS. New flash back at ya, those old “tin” cans could do 36+ knots, just as fast as our vaulted shiny aluminum mine sweeper (as to why a mine sweeper needs to go 40 knots no one has bee able to answer).

          • Rocco

            now your not living up to your avatar name here!! Or do you reason when you here what you want to hear!!!???.
            How do you know what can take out an LCS?? Have you prof ??? No! So give it a rest! You hate the class so anything contrary to you is negative!! BTW prof read your reply before you hit post!! Troll!!

          • A voice of reason

            whatever you say Rocc00

          • Rocco

            Voice of an Idiot!!

          • Secundius

            The DD-724, USS Laffey, was struck by no less than Six Kamikazes before it sank. While the DD-792, USS Callaghan, was sunk by a Single Fabric Covered Wooden Biplane. Nobody knows how a Ship is going to React after being Hit by a Missile, Bomb, Gun Fire, or Kamikaze. DDG-67, USS Cole, was nearly sunk by a Fiberglass Speedboat doing less than 2kts. While the Unarmed All Aluminum UAE JSV-2, Swift was struck by a Chinese C-802 missile and returned to its Home Port under its own power…

          • Rocco

            Agreed

          • Duane

            Actually, no the DDs werent “built tough” as in armored against SuW gunfire. They were built to be fast, with little armor, very narrow beam, and capable of easily outrunning submarines even on the surface. If a DD got caught in a surface action they relied on their speed and maneuverability to zoom around and launch Mk 15 torpedoes to threaten the slower and less maneuverable big iron, i.e., enemy cruisers and larger.

            One or two cruiser gun hits (8 in or larger) in a vital spot (bridge, magazine, or engine room) was enough to knock out a DD, ditto with a single torpedo hit. A single hit from a battleship shell would blow a DD out of the water, or cut it in two.

          • Duane

            The DDs were very fast for their day, but not 40+ knots. Low to mid 30s was typical, while DEs were much slower. The DDs and their foreign equivalents were the ASW vessels most feared by submariners, mostly because of their speed (for both surface and subsurface attacks) and their guns (surface attacks).

          • Rocco

            I never said old DD’s did 40+ knots!! You misunderstood! I said for today’s LCS needing to do 40+ knots they can’t be made of steel total as the argument with the idiot!!

  • Lazarus

    The NSC would require a significant re-design in order to be the FFGX to include a new stern to support a towed array, additional shock mounting of equipment, as well as additional sensors and weapons. This is on top of a ship whose cost has steadily increased since the first unit; not a good trend. The latest unit is expected to cost $735m. LCS by contrast costs $568m and its modular space allows for ease of upgrade not matched by the NSC. It’s a great cutter, but its no more a frigate than its WHEC predecessor.

    • RichaRD SMITH

      Upgrade what exactly to date there is nothing to upgrade. Lol

    • Lucas Shaver

      You should probably check the cost on the next NSC, because it’s definitely not that much… They were about that much a few years ago… They got cheaper as they built them…