By Geoff Fein
While the Navy begins the arduous task of determining which Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) design is the best for the fleet, the service is working to get a better handle on distance support, and to see where similar efforts can be applied across the fleet, according to a top service official.
The major distance support lesson with LCS is the need to define the requirement early to provide those specific LCS applications sufficient time for robust land-based and at- sea testing and also the development of proven processes, both ashore and at sea, that will ultimately support those applications, Rear Adm. James McManamon, deputy commander for surface warfare, SEA 21, Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA), told Defense Daily recently.
Similar to building a ship or other system, a systems engineering approach of the requirement and potential solutions (material and process) needs to occur, he added.
“One problem with LCS was distance support applications became ‘requirements’ without full vetting of requirements and a systems engineered approach to match development need against the requirement,” McManamon said. “Ships cannot turn into homes for distance support applications just because a particular community is pushing their latest idea. There needs to be proper systems engineering vigor to match applications to actual requirements.”
Also when applications are identified or legacy applications are proposed for removal from use, all functions need to be reviewed to determine impact, he added. “When the supply community pushes a new application what is the impact on maintenance and configuration management?”
“We were able to meet the various milestones for the first two LCS ships but only through extraordinary efforts from NAVSEA, the program office, fleet and TYCOM staffs, and the LCS Classron,” McManamon said.
Another lesson is when the Navy identifies “gaps/issues” that distance support may mitigate, whether on LCS or other ship classes, the service needs a holistic review of software, hardware, people, and associated processes before initial development of applications, he noted.
“This means looking at impacts on shore resources, evaluating the frequency of data and information that is required, assessing the total bandwidth requirement of individual applications and then evaluating their impact on a total shipboard bandwidth requirement,” McManamon said. “The need to establish basic Navy requirements for distance support is only the foundation. Navy must then evaluate how those requirements can be gained through new technologies, how they can reduce Total Ownership Costs (TOC), and do so within current and projected hardware constraints such as bandwidth. The latter are all crucial to the success of Distance Support for the future.”
The requirements and desired applications for LCS distance support evolved over the construction and initial testing of the ship. As the requirements became finalized, distance support was captured in the LCS Wholeness concept of operations produced by the Commander, Naval Surface Forces, but limited funds were available to support LCS Distance Support initiatives in a timely manner, he said.
“Applications were developed late in the process, which required them to be pushed to the ship without the usual testing pedigree we plan for,” McManamon said. “Although there are some excellent distance support applications that support LCS today, we are still assessing the full extent of a shore tail or infrastructure required to support those applications.”
Another challenge, McManamon noted, was bandwidth constraints that hindered the ability for initial, at sea testing. “These have been rectified, but it did cause us some initial delays.”
As LCS distance support applications were sponsored by different functional areas, such as maintenance and logistics, there was no single point of contact for the detailed integration of all of these on LCS’s Navy Information Application Product Suite, he added.
“Although distance support in relation to LCS may be considered a learning experience, our intent is to have these distance support applications fully ready for follow-on LCS ships and to continue to refine the products already installed in LCS-1 and -2,” McManamon said.
As for whether the Navy could apply the same distance support effort it has for LCS to other platforms, the jury is still out, McManamon noted.
“We are still evaluating the Interim Support Provider (ISP) for LCS. When that effort is complete, we will look at legacy classes to evaluate applicability. I am not sure that ‘one size’ will ever fit all, but I believe that there will be valuable lessons learned which we can adapt,” he said. “What is being looked at are the services vice applications. Though the distance support applications may be Navy provided or common across multiple classes, who and how a service is provided may be different for LCS.”
Right now for LCS, Lockheed Martin [LMT] and General Dynamics [GD] provide engineering support, troubleshooting, ashore maintenance support, and supply management for their respective hull types, McManamon said.
“Though the distance support tools onboard LCS-1 and -2 are the same, the executing support activity is different, and that is what we are evaluating as we move from Interim Support to Permanent Support,” McManamon added.
Lockheed Martin and Marinette Marine have proposed a semi-planing monohull for their variant of LCS. The lead ship, USS Freedom (LCS-1), is currently operating in the eastern Pacific.
Austal USA and General Dynamics have proposed an all-aluminum trimaran, based on Austal’s commercial ferry design, for their LCS. The Navy is currently readying the USS Independence (LCS-2) for her first deployment.