By Geoff Fein
The Navy’s efforts to field mine countermeasure (MCM) systems developed for the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) are facing challenges, including whether testing the MCM systems on other platforms will provide enough information for successful operations from LCS, according to a government study.
The Government Accountability Office report (GAO-08-13) raised questions about the planned testing of MCM systems, whether LCS will have enough personnel to operate and maintain the systems, and whether the limited number of systems under production will provide a good picture of how the systems will work when deployed from LCS.
“Operational test plans for four systems in limited production will not provide a complete understanding of how the systems will perform when operated from LCS,” the report found.
The Navy intends to use other ships to test individual MCM systems before full rate production. GAO noted that while other ships may serve as platforms for anti-mine systems, LCS is the primary platform for those systems.
LCS will rely on different launch, retrieval and handling systems than currently being used on Navy vessels. Additionally, the Navy plans to test the MCM systems in uncluttered environments, different from what operational environments are expected to be like, GAO noted.
LCS’ modular design will enable the ship to conduct a variety of missions. However, the Navy is focused first on mine countermeasures, anti-submarine warfare and surface warfare.
The first mission package was delivered to the Navy in September and included Northrop Grumman‘s [NOC] Airborne Laser Mine Detection System and Raytheon‘s [RTN] AN/AQS-20A Mine Hunting Sonar set. It also includes an Unmanned Surface Vehicles made by Oregon Iron Works, the Remote Minehunting System (RMS) made by Lockheed Martin [LMT] and Raytheon’s Airborne Mine Neutralization System.
Although LCS is the only ship the Navy has decided to place the mine warfare mission packages on, some of the components, like the RMS, have been demonstrated on some guided- missile destroyers (Defense Daily, Aug. 30).
Currently, the Navy’s plan calls for taking delivery of the first LCS, the Lockheed Martin-built USS Freedom (LCS-1), sometime in spring ’08. The service has said the second ship of the class, General Dynamics‘ [GD] USS Independence (LCS-2), will be delivered later in ’08.
The LCS program has been fraught with a number of issues including significant cost overruns that led the Navy to cancel both Lockheed Martin’s and General Dynamics’ second ship (LCS-3 and -4, respectively).
The Navy intends to build a total of 55 LCS. A competition to choose a single design, or possibly a combination of the two LCS variants, is expected to occur in 2010.
Because of schedule issues with LCS and the Navy’s plans to decommission mine countermeasure ships, GAO recommended the “Secretary of Defense direct the Navy to evaluate the need for and feasibility of fielding mine countermeasures systems currently planned for the Littoral Combat Ship on alternative ship platforms as well.”
Additionally, GAO recommended the Secretary of Defense “delay approval of full-rate production for systems contained within the mine countermeasures mission package, pending successful completion of operational testing onboard their primary platform, currently identified as the Littoral Combat Ship.”
GAO noted that its recommendation “would continue low-rate initial production of systems as planned–not suspend production entirely, which would invite production gaps and increase costs. We also believe that by maintaining low-rate initial production of systems, the Navy will have sufficient quantities on hand to enable operational forces to train in advance of the Littoral Combat Ship joining the fleet.”
Delaying full-rate production for the mine countermeasure systems would result in gaps in industrial production, cost increases, and delays in delivering mine warfare capability to operational forces, according to the Pentagon.
“The department further noted that mine countermeasures systems intended for employment from the MH-60S helicopter and/or Vertical Take-off and Landing Unmanned Aerial Vehicle do not require the Littoral Combat Ship to continue testing and development because these aerial systems will have the ability to operate from a variety of sea and land based platforms.”
The Pentagon did agree with GAO’s recommendation calling for evaluating the need for and feasibility of fielding mine countermeasures systems planned for LCS on alternative ship platforms.
“The department stated that it intends to include this analysis in its fiscal year 2010 Naval Mine Countermeasures Master Plan (expected to be completed in early 2009 in support of the Navy’s fiscal year 2010 budget request),” GAO said.
Another issue GAO noted that could impact MCM operations is LCS’ limited crew size. The ship will operate with a core crew of approximately 50. Each mission package will have its own detachment of approximately 15 operators.
“Operation of mine countermeasures systems is currently expected to exceed the personnel allowances of the Littoral Combat Ship sea frame. In addition, many of the systems within this mission package were designed for fielding from larger platforms with more robust onboard maintenance facilities than those offered by the Littoral Combat Ship. The Littoral Combat Ship will have a limited capability to conduct corrective maintenance aboard,” according to the report.
“Given the importance of well-developed manning and sustainment concepts to achieving mine countermeasures time lines, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Navy to determine the extent to which concepts of operation and the likely performance of the Littoral Combat Ship and other assets can be reconciled to provide the needed mine countermeasures capability,” GAO said.
The Department of Defense partially agreed with GAO’s recommendation to determine the extent to which concepts of operation and the likely performance of LCS and other assets can be reconciled to provide the required mine countermeasures capability, the report said.
“The Department agreed with our recommended action, but did not believe new tasking was necessary. Specifically, it stated that concepts of operation remain under heavy scrutiny from multiple agencies including the Navy, Joint Staff, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense,” GAO said. “According to the Department, manning requirements, systems integration, logistics, system performance parameters, and maintainability of equipment are all being considered and reconciled in the Littoral Combat Ship concepts of operation as the ship’s mission is reviewed and evaluated. We agree with the Department that new tasking is not necessary as long as these actions are taken.”