Home » News » Navy Finds Fix for LCS Power Woes

Navy Finds Fix for LCS Power Woes

by Matt Cox on July 26, 2013

REFILE - CORRECTING SPELLING OF LOCATION WHERE PICTURE WAS TAKEN The future USS Freedom (LCS 1), the first ship in the U.S. Navy's new Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) class, undergoes builder's trials on Lake Michigan near Marinette, Wisconsin in this picture taken July 28, 2008. LCS is a focused-mission ship designed to defeat threats such as mines, quiet diesel submarines and fast surface craft. The 378-foot future USS Freedom is being designed and built by a Lockheed Martin-led industry team. Picture taken July 28.   REUTERS/U.S. Navy/Lockheed-Martin/Handout   (UNITED STATES).  FOR EDITORIAL USE ONLY. NOT FOR SALE FOR MARKETING OR ADVERTISING CAMPAIGNS.
Navy officials told lawmakers recently that they are working on a permanent fix for the faulty generators aboard its newest combat ship.

Overheating generators became a high-profile headache for the Navy when the problem forced the USS Freedom to break off from an international exercise July 20 and return to base in Singapore for repairs. This is Freedom’s maiden voyage as one of two types of LCS class and represents the Navy’s priority modernization effort for years to come.

LCS technicians repaired the problem and the Freedom returned to the Cooperation Afloat Readiness and Training Singapore 2013 exercises July 24. Navy leaders downplayed the incident, describing it as a fairly common for a new class of ship on first deployment.

“I would be more concerned if we had [mechanical] casualties that were surprising us; that we didn’t have the right logistics support in place and we had big delays and we have not seen that,” Vice Admiral Richard Hunt, Navy Staff director, told members of the House Armed Services Thursday.

Hunt testified alongside Sean Stackley, assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition, at the July 25 hearing to discuss a Government Accountability Office report that criticized the service for rushing procurement of LCS before conducting the operational test phase of the program.

Freedom is one of two LCS class variants. Lockheed Martin delivered the first mono-hulled Freedom variant in September 2008. General Dynamics makes the aluminum trimaran-hulled USS Independence variant, which was delivered in December 2009.

The Ship Service Diesel Generators aboard Freedom have been operating for 450 hours between failures instead at the program’s 800-hour requirement, Stackley said.

The problem requires design fixes to the governor and cooler mechanisms as well changes to the size of the piping the delivers coolant to the generator, Stackley said, adding that Lockheed Martin has fixes for all three issues, but they will “not all be incorporated into LCS 1 today, but they are all being incorporated into the follow ships of that variant.”

“The good news is the ship is designed with four diesel generators; it requires two plus one in standby,” Stackley said. “So there is redundancy in the system to overcome some of the shortfall in the operational availability.”

Share |

{ 73 comments… read them below or add one }

Nicky July 26, 2013 at 1:29 pm

As far as the LCS, no amount of Fix or Lipstick in the Universe can fix the LCS problem. The LCS should have been canceled and put down a long, long, long, long time ago. It's a Ship that needs to be put down for it's own good because as it is, is going to put people's lives in danger. The LCS is a JOKE and nowhere near a Corvette or a Frigate. Even Corvette ship captains around the world are laughing at the LCS and are making sick jokes in the Bar room and wardroom.

Reply

Moose July 27, 2013 at 12:45 am

Yes, how dare our new minsweeper/drone mothership not be a Frigate. If there's one thing that will keep those mines and diesel subs at bay, its harpoon missiles.

Reply

Vaughn McCall July 29, 2013 at 9:11 am

If one has a better idea propose it, all those armchair warriors give me a pain. If you have a better idea remember the ORD (operational requirements document) that’s what the Program Office is working towards, and of course your comments have placed the integrity of all those who were involved with the initial trials and testing.
Vaughn

Reply

tiger July 29, 2013 at 12:14 pm

Well step one is to go to Europe. Blohm & Voss, the Swedes & other yards have built FAC's & Corvettes for decades. They have designs off the shelf & quality builders. General Dynamics & Lockheed Martin have delivered a over budget, poorly built, under manned, weakly armed ships. The USN has been clueless about small vessel design back to the PT program.

Reply

blight_ July 29, 2013 at 12:45 pm

The problem is we have no clue what we want.

We want a small boat that can go fast and carry big payloads (the modules), and use those big payloads to augment ship flexibility.

I propose a swiss army knife where there is one blade, plus a modular blade that takes two weeks to change out…we can put swiss army knives all over the planet, plus extra knives to change out with a two week lead time.

Reply

tiger July 29, 2013 at 6:41 pm

Swiss Army knife is how I feel about the F/A-18. Made to do 20 things, master of none.

USS ENTERPRISE July 29, 2013 at 8:38 pm

I dunno about that PT program. Did it create a vessel that was armed, and worked? I think so.

The problem with the LCS is that it isn't armed well enough. Thats it.

Yet you all rag on everything that these companies build like as if they can't even float.

Reply

Joe T July 30, 2013 at 7:25 pm
Lance July 26, 2013 at 1:36 pm

Scrap this boondoggle get more for a DDG-1000.

Reply

Jeff July 26, 2013 at 4:29 pm
JD* July 27, 2013 at 9:23 am

The Coast Guard could never afford to fuel and maintain them.

Reply

tiger July 29, 2013 at 12:15 pm

The DDG-1000 does not fit the mission needs.

Reply

Adm July 26, 2013 at 2:27 pm

Something tells me the taxpayers are paying for all of the contractors FUs.

Reply

Belesari July 26, 2013 at 6:14 pm

The contractors can't really be held as the blame. They had ships planned and while they were being built the Navy would change things over and over this lead to massive problems everywhere.

Reply

Russell Romick July 27, 2013 at 9:29 pm

So you are implying the contractors should have no accountability at all. It is not their responsibility to tell the government hey this or that change may not be a good idea. And just "sure we can do that" and give us our money and we'll will fix them anytime they break down. They obviously told the Navy they could work this or that need into it so where the hell is their accountability? That is a stupid idea. They Navy Procurement office should be cleaned out and have much more oversight with experts from every field on the board.

Reply

oblatt1 July 28, 2013 at 6:42 am

When the mafia buys a judge do we go after the mafia or abolish the judiciary – ask the mafia or contractors and they would.

Reply

Dfens July 29, 2013 at 6:14 am

What I think is funny is how easy it is for everyone to get on board with the stupid ass conspiracy theory that all these procurement people are out to screw the US taxpayer. Of course, when it comes to the obvious fact that the contractor, who makes at least $1.10 for every $1.00 they spend, couldn't possibly be jacking us around because even though the financial incentive is there for them to do so, they're clearly too "patriotic" to take advantage of that little conflict of interest. What a joke!

PolicyWonk July 29, 2013 at 10:28 am

Lamentably, this isn't all about the contractors FU's. This is about what the LCS was initially conceived to be, versus what it since *became*.

The navy wanted something simple that could be used to defend against small swarms of speedboats in the (for example) Straits of Hormuz, against USS Cole kinds of disasters. Instead, they built what is now called LCS, which is (tragically) laughably under-armed, under armored, and seemingly takes zero of the hard-learned lessons of fighting in the littorals from WW2.

And by the way – its unbelievably expensive ($400M per sea-frame).

Our allies (and potential adversaries) have built full military hulls in the same weight class (and less!) for far less money, even with "mission packages", that are far better armed and able to protect themselves.

If all the navy wanted to do was protect itself against swarms of speed-boats and pirates – then the PC's (which are almost as heavily armed as the LCS) are far cheaper and better suited for the mission the LCS was supposedly designed for.

Reply

Ron July 26, 2013 at 4:47 pm

Damn sounds like my power stroke 6.0 issue, replace the turbo,EGR cooler and valve, oil cooler I sure hope those Diesel engines does not comply with emission control.

Reply

hibeam July 26, 2013 at 5:06 pm

Navy Finds Fix for LCS Power Woes. That would certainly explain the oarlocks.

Reply

RunningBear July 26, 2013 at 6:30 pm
tiger July 29, 2013 at 12:17 pm

You finally made me laugh…..

Reply

Rob July 30, 2013 at 4:43 pm

hahahahahahaha

Reply

Big-Dean July 26, 2013 at 6:38 pm

I've got the fix for the "power problems", tie it up the pier and connect shore power! hahahahaha

Reply

Tad July 27, 2013 at 11:34 am

This is about the only mission we'll see the LCS perform effectively!

Reply

Tony July 30, 2013 at 8:03 pm

You need extra long cables to maneuver the ship in battle though.

Reply

blight_ July 26, 2013 at 9:50 pm

I assume these were tested by the vendor and shown as capable of meeting specs before putting them in? And not the vendor giving junk to the United States government?

Reply

Rick July 26, 2013 at 11:35 pm

Well, im glad it's fixed, weather it was because it needed it, or for buying time.

Reply

gk miller July 27, 2013 at 10:28 am

The only thing more dangerous than a spy is the DOD. Please save us from the U.S. Generals and Admirals in Washington. The downward spiral continues.

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE July 27, 2013 at 10:31 am

The major problem is the people in the dome shaped building, and the building that is supposedly White.

Reply

Thinto July 27, 2013 at 10:33 am

Over & Over & Over Again, just sign blank checks to the Defense Contractors, and the DC's just fill our Catfish Politicians Pockets. The Sun is setting quickly on our once great country, our traitors are on the hill.

Reply

Tad July 27, 2013 at 11:33 am

Wow. Now maybe they'll come up with a mission it can actually do. I mean, the most recent report on the LCS from the Navy admitted that the LCS is not survivable in combat, it must have protection from a fleet, whereas their original plan for the ship was that it would operate in littoral waters under threat of shore attack and coastal patrol boat attack.

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE July 29, 2013 at 2:53 pm

Might have something to do with John Paul Jones……..

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE July 29, 2013 at 2:54 pm

Whoops. Wrong reply. Disregard!

Reply

brownie July 27, 2013 at 4:51 pm

Is the USN allergic to working with the British to design a new frigate?

Reply

burnzy July 27, 2013 at 5:07 pm

That's not such bad idea really. I mean it's incredibly unlikely one(read never), which kinda sucks. The SeaCeptor missile system alone that the Brit's have would be a great asset to the ship. It's radar agnostic, works with the mk 41, has soft launch, economical, and would be a damn sight better than the griffin missile or the SeaRam.

Reply

d. kellogg July 29, 2013 at 7:32 am

Well, the LCS ships DO have a lot of European-designed bits in their construction, everything from guns to sensors and electronics and engine components.
And wait, isn't one design based off an originally-Australian trimaran configuration?

Reply

tiger July 29, 2013 at 12:24 pm

Historically yes….. The USN has always had problems with designing things smaller than Destroyers. From River gunboats for China in the 1920's to the PHM's of the 1980's.

Reply

Nicky July 29, 2013 at 12:38 pm

It wouldn't be a bad idea if the US Navy got in on the British Navy's Global Combat ship. It would be a trade for the Brits for taking the F-35 in return we take some of their Global combat ship as well.

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE July 29, 2013 at 2:53 pm

Might have something to do with John Paul Jones…..

Reply

d. kellogg August 1, 2013 at 8:27 am

Here's hoping none of the hoped-for 50-odd ships of this class, not 1 is ever named USS Panay
:-/

Reply

blight_ July 27, 2013 at 6:07 pm

Let's just acknowledge that mines will be with us FOREVER, and that we need a ship exclusively designed for it; not just trusting to the operation of drones from a special drone mothership that will simultaneously be thrown into littoral combat, perhaps close to the shoreline.

At the moment, asides from mines…what's the BS mission being given to the LCS? Actual littoral combat? That's okay, we have a surface warfare module that's an extra deck gun…ooh, scary!

Reply

Jeff July 28, 2013 at 12:59 am

This is the result of allowing our commercial maritime industry to go the way of the dodo bird. Now all we have to fall back on is overpriced pork gobbling, defense contractors.

Reply

hibeam July 28, 2013 at 10:07 am

Navy Finds Fix for LCS Power Woes. Full Steam Ahead is now No Steam Ahead.

Reply

d. kellogg July 29, 2013 at 7:33 am

Give it time, someone will re-invent the steam powerplant for these ships and claim its superiority over all things non-nuclear.

Reply

Dfens July 29, 2013 at 6:18 am

The LCS costs more than an Iowa Class battleship, buy hell, let's never go back to the US Navy designing their own ships. We enjoy being screwed by government contractors way too much to go back to that approach.

Reply

thedude123 August 5, 2013 at 3:14 pm

An Iowa class battleship costs around $1.35bn in current dollars ($100mil in 1943). The LCS is roughly half that. Relatively expensive, but nowhere near more than an Iowa.

Reply

George GSM1 July 29, 2013 at 8:12 am

DDG-52 Plankowner notes that the Inlet filters would get only halfway dirty and the turbine and the cooling fan would both fight for air causing the whole module to heave when it was trying to suck air from the space. All programs have their issues. The Burkes were no different as well these LCS ship will do as well.

Reply

George GSM1 July 29, 2013 at 8:13 am

Poor grammar I know…but you get the point.

Reply

Logistician July 29, 2013 at 9:49 am

I’d be interested to know whether the govt was willing to pay for the cost of developing a Failure Modes Effects amd Criticality Analysis (FMECA), or if they did, was it funded to the level necessary to be of any real use. This document aline would have helped to keep the LCS poerside until the truly needed design would have been put into place.
If anybody reading this has a copy, and wants a professional assessment of the document for content, detail, and quality, feel free to contact me.

Reply

blight_ July 29, 2013 at 12:47 pm

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2011system/TuesdayLose.p

Notes on the RMS. FMECA not performed. Powerpoint glazeover.

Tufte would have a seizure.

Reply

Logistician July 29, 2013 at 9:49 am
Gary Walker July 29, 2013 at 10:13 am

Did we not already learn Aluminum is not good material for combat ships! Remember the Falklands and the British ships hit by the Exocet's. Part of there problem was that there aluminum hulls actually caught fire
. This is why we sold them to the Brits in the first place.

Reply

shipfixr July 29, 2013 at 11:03 am

Sold what to the Brits??

Reply

OMEGATALON July 29, 2013 at 10:20 am

Maybe the US Navy needs to hire a third party Marine company to come in and do an inspection of the Freedom to see why there are so many issues as I suspect part of the issues is due to poor maintenance training of the crew who might not really understand the hardware because Freedom integrates a lot of leading edge marine technology as Lockheed Martin might need to develop things like iPad Apps to teach crew members on how to maintain specific components and systems within the ship.

Reply

tiger July 29, 2013 at 6:53 pm

This is crap that goes back to the yard. The Navy inspectors signed off on everything before commissioning. As for the crew? What is so cutting edge about a generator?

Reply

hibeam July 29, 2013 at 10:29 am

Engine room make turns for zero knots. Aye aye capin!

Reply

Joseph Senko July 29, 2013 at 10:43 am

They really need to get rid of that tiny pea shooter. looks sad. Dropping the load (power loss) was not uncommon. I served aboard the USS Ingraham DD-694. We dropped the load at least once a month. We blamed it on the MMs (machinist mates). Semper Paratus

Reply

merlin1358 July 29, 2013 at 1:42 pm

Who came up with the 800 hours between failures? I design marine power plants and that is pathetic, should be a minimum of 5000 hours with some of our units going over 10,000 hours only stopping for routine maintenance like oil and filter changes. I guess they had to drop the hours so the LCSs would have a chance to make a milestone.

Reply

Rob C. July 30, 2013 at 5:40 pm

Freedom is still the prototype of her Class, I just hope that its problems are unique to it. Not cross the board flaw in equipment their buying for the Freedom Class. Ship built on the less expensive should be built with cheap equipment.

I'm not supporter of the what has come out of the LCS programs, but US Sailors are stuck with them. I just hope they can make them functional enough to do Something. I seriously don't think their going be able fill the role of the Avenger Class MCMs or defunct Osprey Classes in Counter Mine role.

Reply

sapper740 August 1, 2013 at 7:07 am

I work as an Electrical/Mechanical Tech at a shore based data center. We have 3 X 1.8MW and 1 X 2.0 MW stand-by generators supplied by Caterpillar. The three smaller generators are all 20+ years old and all have 1000+ hours on them, the larger is a recent addition. We have had no failures, the only issue which was caught and repaired before it became a problem was Current Transformers, necessary for paralleling generators, were having their casings crack from vibration. I find it hard to believe that the LCS's generators were designed with too small coolant pipes when "over-design" is the watchword for such important systems, whether on shore or at sea.

Reply

d. kellogg August 1, 2013 at 8:33 am

Please remember: these ships seem more designed by committee led by
ooooh-aaah powerpoint snake oil salesmen,
than by competent engineers.

A case of Murphy's Law At Sea, these ships have shown what NOT to do in designing a naval vessel: seriously, corrosion issues at a time when we've been designing metal ocean-going ships for a century and a half???
A gunnery system that STILL has issues actually hitting a target at any true combat-environment distances and sea conditions???

I bet if they made these out of wood, they'd have picked the wrong kind of trees to do it.

Reply

blight_ August 1, 2013 at 9:43 am

USS Constitution vs LCS Freedom…!

Reply

D August 1, 2013 at 5:29 pm
D August 1, 2013 at 5:29 pm
D August 1, 2013 at 5:29 pm
ken badoian August 2, 2013 at 12:17 pm

Tech support in Singapore ??? A trail of contractors and tech reps across the Pacific.Remember old salts a ship called a tender or repair. We have some Destroyer Tenders in mothballs. Why not one stationed in Singapore? Cut the civilian cord. A what about the two crew concept. Stupid, Stupid, Stupid, no ownership, wait for the turnover, it's not really my ship the other crew will fix it, etc. Just home port a squadron of the Little Crappy Ships overseas w/o dependents, add a tender, and BINGO, a some what functional warship squadron. OH yea now for some firepower, modules that work, maybe a bigger crew, and some amour plate. Yup that would be a fix… less money and more productive. But doing those items would kill L/M's cash cow. Build it and contractor support it for it's life time. I understand some carriers should have contractor berthing and messing. MMCS(SW)(SS) USN Ret.

Reply

DEUSR August 8, 2013 at 12:55 pm

There is no on-board maintenance–or VERY little. Most PMS is done by shipyards in 30-day maintenance availabilities. The ship has a crew of 40. That's barely enough to set a wartime steaming watch!

Reply

Big-Dean November 12, 2013 at 7:05 pm

I hear good things about the modules being readied now for installation and "testing"

First up is the "Let's get a clue-we're not a warship" module This module only costs 50 million, it's detachment is only 30 people and it only requires 45 days to install during a full dry dock. It's mission is to "observe, report, and run away"

Next is the "when I grow up I want to be a real warship" module. This one cost a mere 45 million and it's detachment is one signalman who will wave the white flag at the appropriate time. This module only take 7 days to install

Last but not least is the most promising module of all, it's called the "Sir Robin" module. At the appropriate time it plays this song through loud speakers directly a t the enemy "Brave Brave Sir LCS, bore forth from Signapore, we were not afraid to die, brave brave LCS….. BYW, this module was free courtesy of Lockhead

Reply

Rick November 13, 2013 at 10:34 am

LIke all new ships and concepts, There are some problems, but the larger issue is that MOST navy folks do not want a small ship. Look at how FFGs were used, how the PHMs were used and how little we hear of the PCs. Navy is wedded to the CVs even though the SSGN proves to be a much more efficient means of delivery force.

Reply

blight_ November 26, 2013 at 7:43 am

Is it?

An SSGN can throw 154 TLAM's at a target (perhaps more, perhaps less in practice?)

A DDG's throw weight is 90, a CG's is 100+. But how many airstrikes can a carrier conduct? Granted, one requires less planning due to the reduced risk to human life and the lower cost of cruise missiles…unless you meant cost, in which case hanging out offshore with VLS tubes is indeed cheaper than a 5,000 crewman CVN that will at most launch 70-80 aircraft.

Reply

PC solutions November 26, 2013 at 7:19 am
blight_ August 1, 2013 at 9:46 am

The Hornet wasn't intended to do all these things: it got pushed into it when the Navy started retiring aircraft types.

Won't be long before they upgrade the radars on it and try to retire the Hawkeyes. And no; you can't do COD with one!

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: