Companies interested in pursuing the Navy’s follow on for the small surface combatant requirement will have to come close to the current cost of building Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), the chief of Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) said this week.
Several firms responded by the May 22 deadline to the Navy’s request for information (RFI) seeking ideas for the follow-on ship that could also include more capable and survivable version of the LCS, or a new ship based on an existing design.
Vice Adm. William Hilarides would not discuss details of the industry responses, but told a group of reporters Thursday that cost will be a key factor in how the Navy proceeds.
“People who are thinking about doing something other than that (the current LCS) have to look at the price point that that ship is at,” Hilarides told a group of reporters Thursday. “The alternatives will need to be very close in price to where we currently are for it to be affordable.”
The Navy issued two RFIs in April seeking industry input, one to address ship and hull design and another to deal with systems like weapons and radar and their integration on to the vessel. The service allowed a short time frame to respond because it wants the input to inform a review that is due for completion at the end of July.
The Navy created a task force to conduct the evaluation following Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel’s announcement earlier this year that he was reducing the Navy’s planned buys of the currently designed LCS from 52 to 32. Hagel instructed the Navy to look at increasing capability and survivability that would be more suitable for future warfare environments for the remaining 20 vessels under the small surface combatant requirement.
Lockheed Martin [LMT], the prime contractor for the Freedom variant of the LCS, and Austal USA, the builder of the Independence variant, each submitted responses outlining vessels with increased firepower and improved radar.
Huntington Ingalls Industries [HII] suggested a hull based on the National Security Cutter the firm is building for the U.S. Coast Guard that could serve as a frigate. General Dynamics [GD] Bath Iron Works, a builder of Navy destroyers, responded but did not publicly provide details.
General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems responded to the RFI on potential systems. Raytheon [RTN] spokeswoman Carolyn Beaudry said the company offered a “range of options” to meet the small surface combatant, or SSC, requirement, and responded to both RFIs. She declined to discuss details of Raytheon’s response to the RFI for a hull design. The company currently provides systems for Navy ships but does not build hulls.
“The combination of our large system integrator expertise and depth of knowledge, from sensor to effector, allowed us to provide the full range of affordable, scalable solutions that meet SSC mission requirements, adaptable to any ship design,” she said.