RA: Joe, thanks for the opportunity.  If you would, could you tell us a little bit about yourself?  What were some of the key career moves, or experiences you had that led you to your current position as President of one of the top shipbuilding companies in North America?

JR: Well, I’m a marine engineering graduate from the US Merchant Marine Academy at King’s Point.  Before that, I was enlisted in the US Navy as a nuclear Electrican’s Mate, so that gave me a good lead-in to go to the Academy.  The King’s Point experience really produces a well rounded background for the marine industry.  The military environment also familiarizes the graduate with the Navy  organization and the protocols, so you can fit in the commercial marine sector, or the defense sector, quite easily.  I sailed for several years after graduating and then came ashore and worked at Ingalls, starting in design engineering.   I ultimately ended up in the Program office for the LHD program where I learned about the non-engineering facets associated with shipbuilding.

I went back to the commercial industry at Alabama shipyard, (Atlantic Marine), where I became a program manager for the construction of two title 11 funded chemical tankers that were delivered to a Danish shipowner.  The first foreign ships built in the United States for export in 40 years.  These were the Danabrook tankers.  During my time at Alabama Shipyard, I got my MBA at Spring Hill College which obviously gave me some business acumen  along with my technical background.  I then moved to Jeffboat where I was the Vice President of Sales and Marketing.

This versatility across the spectrum of the business of shipbuilding from design, to construction, to programmatics, to sales, all came together to position me to first start as the Chief Operating Officer at Austal USA in October 2007, and then in August of 2008, President and COO.

RA: As someone who has clearly experienced a fair bit of success over your career, what’s your advice to young professionals as they begin their career in our industry?

JR:  My advice to anyone, including my own children, is the best investment you can make is investing in yourself.  You should never stop learning, and it’s important to get your education from the best possible institutions, with the best possible reputation, because that’s marketable, and that’s what you “sell” when you’re done.  It’s also important to make sure that you are challenging yourself in your job, and that you are always trying to do your best and expand your experience at what you are doing.  You need to focus on your job, and don’t wear your hunger for growth on your sleeve because that is an unattractive way to present yourself.  My focus has always been to do the best job I can, at the job that I am doing, for the job that I have.  And, I don’t spend a lot of time worrying where my next promotion is going to come from because good performance will be rewarded and will create opportunities.

USS Independence, LCS 2, image courtesy Austal USA

RA:  Austal’s trimaran littoral combat ship is a very cool looking ship, but clearly far different in design from the Marinette Marine version.  What was the biggest factor in pursuing a trimaran vice a monohull design?

JR: A multi-hulled high speed vessel has efficiencies that allow you to get higher speed with less installed ship’s horsepower, making the ship more efficient.  There is a reason why commercial high speed ferries are multi-hulled, and that is because they are driven by the economics of ship design.  That is what Austal is used to building, and that is what provides the most efficient hull design.  I’m not a naval architect, and it may be possible someone could come up with a mono-hulled design that could come up with towing-tank results that might rival a multi-hull, but I would like to see the results before I could accept that.

RA: Your ships are all aluminum from what I understand.  Where does the aluminum come from?

JR:  Alcoa is the principle supplier for our plate and we understand that a large amount of it is domestically sourced.  We use third party suppliers for our extruded panels and shapes.  When I say extruded panels, I mean sandwiched plate that has triangular vertical structure between the two plates to provide that inherent stiffness that you would otherwise have to weld stiffeners to.   It increases the efficiency in production.

RA: Global industry is pursuing more efficient supply chains and operations for both economical and environmental reasons, what are some of the ways that Austal is evolving to increase efficiency, and lessen the environmental impact of your operations?

JR:  Besides the inherent efficiencies built into the design of our hulls, the diesel engines we use are Tier II compliant, MTU 8000-series engines which are very efficient.

RA: But from a shipbuilding standpoint, do you have any unique processes in place that help increase the efficiency of your operations or reduce your carbon or waste footprint?

JR:  We’ve never been cited for any environmental infractions.  The one advantage of working with aluminum is that you don’t use plasma cutters, so you’re not cutting with a torch.  It’s all mechanical cutting.

So when we need to make all these different parts out of a plate of aluminum, we use a computer-controlled router table.  There’s no pollutants going into the air during this process.

RA: Mike Webster, the Chief Naval Architect on this project, mentioned you recycled all these aluminum shavings by sweeping it all up and melting it all down for reuse.  Is that right?

JR: Yes, we reclaim all our scrap and we have a third-party company who manages this recycling for us, and pays us for our scrap.  Additionally, 30% of the aluminum we use in our shipbuilding is actually from recycled products.

Image courtesy Austal USA

RA:  Welding aluminum is a unique skill, and one that was not prevalent in Mobile, Alabama before Austal moved to town.  How did you approach the task of assembling a skilled workforce to build your ships, and why were you ultimately successful?

JR:  Initially, Austal “seeded” the workforce with experienced welders from Australia.  That was in the very early days.   A lot of credit, in fact, needs to go to the state of Alabama.  Alabama has a program called AIDT, which stands for Alabama Industrial Development and Training, and what they will do is fund training for companies who are hiring people with a specific skillset.  AIDT has been a partner of Austal for probably 8 of the 12 years we have been in the United States.  They have since built a $16M maritime training center adjacent to our property  where we have two-thirds of that building for our unfettered use.  The state has also provided training reimbursement commitments to Austal of $32M against employment thresholds that we were meant to reach and maintain over a number of years.  In addition, the state has also provided construction and infrastructure grants of $10M to help us expand.  So the state has been a fantastic partner in helping us build up our work force.

The curriculum we’ve developed is done in our maritime training facility and pre-hire folks can go into the program, unpaid and on their own schedule, and in 6-weeks, they can test-out of the program to qualify to be hired at Austal.  The other thing is that there are a lot of maritime trades and a lot of shipyards on the US Gulf Coast and we were growing when other yards were contracting, so we were able to take steel welders and teach them the art of aluminum welding.  Those individuals with steel welding experience are well ahead of those who haven’t welded at all.

Image courtesy Austal USA

RA:  Shipbuilding in the United States has been on the decline for many years, however it seems to be plateauing a bit with the influx of foreign builders such as Austal, Fincantieri, and BAE Systems.  Why are these companies experiencing success where formerly American-owned builders have not succeeded?

JR:  It’s a two part answer.  First, commercial shipbuilding has been on the decay in the United States due to the differential in labor rates where ships are being built.  Looking at where ships are being built now… South Korea, China, Vietnam, Singapore… India may even get into it soon.  You can’t compete in a sophisticated industrialized market against countries that have lower labor rates and fewer regulatory requirements.  That’s the reality of it.

When it comes to Navy shipbuilding, it’s been a captive market here in the United States, and there aren’t many Navy shipbuilders to support that.  That’s a unique animal because it has a lot of oversight, it has a lot of documentation support governing requirements that burden the programs.  The emergence of foreign companies into the US I think is a manifestation of the fact that companies aligned with shipbuilding in those markets where commercial shipbuilding was able to be sustained have taken that experience and investment capital, and rolled it into the US to get a piece of the captive market that was Jones Act-restricted and/or US Navy.

The United States does not make it easy for foreign companies to build weaponry for them.  The Defense Security Service has requirements for the prevention of foreign ownership, control, or influence over classified programs.  So while a foreign company can invest in the US, and build their infrastructure, and stand up an organization, they are not allowed to tell that company how to operate.  And you can imagine how that would make you feel if you were putting money somewhere and running a business, but you were not allowed to tell them how to operate.  So it does create a hardship on foreign investors, but it does protect our national interests.

We think about a country like Australia, which is obviously very friendly to the United States and a close ally, so you’re less concerned about it, then you think well, there might be other countries that we wouldn’t want to be so closely aligned with, let alone build our Navy warships for us, even if they were here in the United States.

RA: How is the Eurozone crisis affecting your business?

JR: I guess the biggest risk is in currency exchange.  We’re looking at our hedging strategies on the Euro to make sure that we lock in the best rates.  We manage this so that we don’t get hurt by a big downside effect of currency exchange.  The other thing is that we do have some manufacturers that we buy from overseas, and we have to make sure that the health of their organizations is vibrant.  We have to keep an eye on our vendor base overseas.

RA:  A few southeast Asian shipbuilders such as (I think) HHI and Keppel FELS have diversified their businesses into the wind energy sector.  Do you see Austal making similar moves in the future?

JR: Yes.  In Perth actually, we just signed a contract to build a windfarm support vessels.

RA: But what about building the actual towers, nacelles, or possibly wind blades themselves?  Is that a market on Austal’s radar?

JR: There’s a possibility of that in the future, but we’re not actively pursuing that right now.

RA: I appreciate your time sir.

Image courtesy AustalUSA

On January 10, 2012, Austal’s Mobile, Alabama shipyard completed the launch of the second 127-metre Independence-Variant Littoral Combat Ship, “Coronado” (LCS 4).

The roll-out marked Austal’s second use of an innovative self-propelled modular transporter system to transfer the ship from the yard’s final assembly bay onto a drydock for launch. This system was first used a few months ago, in September 2011, to successfully launch USNS “Spearhead” (JHSV 1). Austal and the US Navy collaborated in the design of a new set of keel stands to support the ship during construction and facilitate the transition from the assembly bay. Austal’s own self-propelled modular transporters (SPMTs) supplemented those of Berard Transportation of New Iberia, LA, to provide a total of 3,800 tons lift capacity, on some 104 axle lines.

In a three-step process, SPMTs lifted the entire ship and keel stands lifted the Coronado almost three feet and moved the Littoral Combat Ship into the moored dry dock. Supporting close to 2,000 tons, the SPMT operators; aided by tug captains; the dock master and the Austal launch master manoeuvred “Coronado” aboard the dry dock in an incident-free operation.

A major improvement in safety and efficiency, the new roll-out method has shaved hours off the transfer process, and serves as a capstone in Austal’s effort to reduce cost and time required in future LCS deliveries.

The LCS and dry dock were then transported down river by tug to BAE Systems Southeast Shipyard, Mobile, where the ship was ultimately floated free of the keel stands, and was manoeuvred from the drydock. The vessel was then towed back upriver to Austal’s facility, where it will undergo final outfitting and activation before sea trials and delivery to the US Navy.

Image courtesy AustalUSA

The 127-metre Austal trimaran seaframe is the platform for the LCS’s mission and weapon systems. This seaframe provides superior seakeeping and aviation as a result of its long, slender central hull and smaller side hulls (“amahs”). The trimaran hullform provides a large internal mission deck with a high payload carrying capacity. Located above the mission bay is the enormous flight deck capable of conducting dual H-60 helicopter operations. The vertical location of the flight deck on the trimaran hull form provides the highest flight deck elevation on a combatant ship other than a major amphibious vessel or aircraft carrier.

The launch of “Coronado” (LCS 4) closely follows the christening of the 103-metre USNS “Spearhead” (JHSV 1) and the celebration of the keel laying ceremony for “Choctaw County” (JHSV 2). Modular construction has also begun on JHSV 3 and “Jackson” (LCS 6) – the first of the 10-ship US Navy contract awarded to Austal, as the prime contractor, a year ago – in Austal’s 65,000 square metre Module Manufacturing Facility (MMF). Austal also has “Montgomery” (LCS 8) and JHSV 3 through JHSV 7 under contract.

For the LCS and JHSV programs, Austal is working in a partnership with General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems, a business unit of General Dynamics. As the ship systems integrator, General Dynamics is responsible for the design, integration and testing of the ship’s electronic systems including the combat system, networks, and seaframe control. General Dynamics’ proven open architecture approach provides affordable capabilities to the fleet quickly and efficiently.

You may have seen recently that Austal, a designer and manufacturer of high performance aluminium vessels including a number of vessels for the U.S. Navy, released this press release titled “Corrosion in Warships” addressing “galvanic corrosion” in the Littoral Combat Ship, USS Independence (LCS-2).  At the time I didn’t think much of it and, in fact, did not cover it here on gCaptain.  It wasn’t until someone passed along an article from Wired and read this article from Bloomberg that I understood the extent of the problem and Austal’s stance on the “aggressive corrosion” issues found on the U.S. Navy’s newest warship.

Read below on how the USS Independence just may be dissentegrating.  Literally.

Corrosion is a $23-billion-a-year problem in the equipment-heavy U.S. military. But Independence’s decay isn’t a case of mere oxidation, which can usually be prevented by careful maintenance and cleaning. No, the 418-foot-long warship is basically dissolving, due to one whopper of a design flaw.

There are technical terms for this kind of disintegration. Austal USA, Independence’s Alabama-based builder, calls it “galvanic corrosion.” Civilian scientists know it as “electrolysis.”It’s what occurs when “two dissimilar metals, after being in electrical contact with one another, corrode at different rates,” Austal explained in a statement.

“That suggests to me the metal is completely gone, not rusted,” naval analyst Raymond Pritchett wrote ofIndependence’s problem.

Independence’s corrosion is concentrated in her water jets — basically, shipboard versions of airplane engines — where steel “impeller housings” come in contact with the surrounding aluminum structure. Electrical charges possibly originating in the ship’s combat systems apparently sparked the electrolysis.

It’s not clear why Austal and the Navy didn’t see this coming. Austal has built hundreds of aluminum ferries for civilian customers. The Navy, for its part, has operated mixed aluminum-and-steel warships in the past.

But Independence — the Navy’s first triple-hull combatant — could be a special case for both the builder and the operator. For all Austal’s chops building civilian ferries, the Australian company is new to the warship business. Austal set up shop near Mobile in 1999. Today, the shipyard has contracts to build 10 LCS plus several catamaran transports for the Navy.

Keep reading at Wired.com

Despite these issues, Austal maintains “galvanic corrosion has not been a factor on any Austal built and fully maintained vessel, and our technical experts are eager to support any request to identify root causes of any corrosion issue in any aluminum naval vessel in service today.”  It will be interesting to see this story develop.

LCS-8 is the second ship awarded under the contract between Austal and the U.S. Navy, earmarking the construction of up to 10 ships at a total value in excess of US $3.5 billion.

Construction will commence in January 2012 at Austal’s shipyard in Mobile, Alabama, where construction on LCS 4 is already under way.  Over the course of the next 12 months, Austal will also begin construction of LCS 6, the first vessel awarded under the 10 ship LCS contract.  Once commissioned, the ships will join the Austal-built USS Independence (LCS 2), commissioned in 2010.

For the LCS program, Austal is teamed up with General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems, a business unit of General Dynamics. General Dynamics is the ship systems integrator, responsible for the design, integration and testing of the ship’s mission systems.

According to Austal, this 10-ship contract is to more than double its U.S. workforce to approximately 3,800 employees.

At Austal’s shipyard work is also underway on additional U.S. Navy and U.S. Army ships including Spearhead (Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV) 1), scheduled for launch in mid 2011 and delivery in December 2011, and Vigilant (JHSV 2), scheduled for launch in late 2011 and delivery in mid 2012.  Work work is also said to begin on JHSVs 3, 4 and 5.

Pictured: The Navy’s first trimaran Littoral Combat Ship, the future USS Independence (LCS 2) courtesy Austal

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Navy has awarded a Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT]-led industry team $376 million to construct the nation’s seventh Littoral Combat Ship (LCS).

The fixed-price-incentive-fee contract provides funding for the second of 10 ships the Navy awarded to the Lockheed Martin team in December 2010. The contracts for the remaining eight ships will be awarded through 2015. Marinette Marine Corporation, a Fincantieri company, will construct the ships in Marinette, Wis., and naval architect Gibbs & Cox will provide engineering and design support.

“As the Lockheed Martin team constructs this next ship, we will remain focused on performance and cost,” said Joe North, vice president of Lockheed Martin’s Littoral Ship Systems business. “The Navy’s 10-ship award provides stability to this program, allowing industry to more efficiently meet the customer’s need for an affordable, multi-mission surface combatant.”

The Lockheed Martin industry team designed and constructed the nation’s first LCS, USS Freedom. USS Freedom was commissioned in 2008 and has sailed more than 50,000 nautical miles. Based at its homeport of San Diego, Calif., the ship completed a highly successful maiden deployment in 2010 and is now fully integrated into the fleet.

LCS 3, the Navy’s future USS Fort Worth and Lockheed Martin’s second LCS, is more than 85 percent complete and was christened and launched in December 2010 – a milestone reached just 20 months after contract award. The program remains on schedule and on budget for delivery to the Navy in 2012.

Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin is a global security company that employs about 132,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services. The Corporation’s 2010 sales from continuing operations were $45.8 billion.

Via Lockheed Martin

The amount awarded to Lockheed Martin Corp. for fiscal 2010 littoral combat ships is $436,852,639. The amount awarded to Austal USA for the fiscal 2010 littoral combat ships is $432,069,883.

Both contracts also include line items for nine additional ships, subject to Congressional appropriation of each year’s Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program requirements. When all 10 ships of each block buy are awarded, the value of the ship construction portion of the two contracts would be $3,620,625,192 for Lockheed Martin Corp., and $3,518,156,851 for Austal USA. The average cost of both variants including government-furnished equipment and margin for potential cost growth across the five year period is $440 million per ship. The pricing for these ships falls well below the escalated average Congressional cost cap of $538 million.

“The awards represent a unique and valuable opportunity to lock in the benefits of competition and provide needed ships to our fleet in a timely and extraordinarily cost effective manner,” said Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus.

This award is a unique opportunity to maximize the buying power on the LCS Program by leveraging the highly effective competition between the bidders. Each contractor’s 10-ship bids reflect mature designs, investments made to improve performance, stable production, and continuous labor learning at their respective shipyards. The award was based on limited competition between teams led by Lockheed Martin and Austal USA. Under these contracts, both shipbuilders will also deliver a technical data package as part of the dual award, allowing the government a wide range of viable alternatives for effective future competition.

This approach, which is self-financed within the program by adding a year to the procurement and utilizing a portion of the greater than $2 billion total savings (throughout the Future Years Defense Program), enables the Navy to efficiently produce these ships at an increased rate and meet operational requirements sooner.

Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead praised the Navy’s plan to add both ship designs to the fleet: “The LCS is uniquely designed to win against 21st century threats in coastal waters posed by increasingly capable submarines, mines and swarming small craft. Both designs provide the capabilities our Navy needs, and each offers unique features that will provide fleet commanders with a high level of flexibility in employing these ships.”

The innovation and willingness to seize opportunities displayed in this LCS competition reflect exactly the improvements to ‘the way we do business’ in order to deliver better value to the taxpayer and greater capability to the warfighter. Moreover, the Navy’s LCS acquisition strategy meets the spirit and intent of the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 and reflects the Navy’s commitment to affordability. The benefits of competition, serial production, employment of mature technologies, design stability, fixed-price contracting, commonality, and economies of scale will provide a highly affordable ship construction program.

“The rigor and diligence of the source selection process has resulted in the acquisition of quality, capable ships at fair prices,” said Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition Sean Stackley. “This dual award strategy exemplifies the Navy’s compliance with Secretary Gates’ and Under Secretary Carter’s direction to improve the buying power of the Defense Department. Both teams have shown cost control on their second ships, and we look forward to the delivery of these capable fleet assets in the future.”

The Navy remains committed to a 55-ship program and the LCS is needed to fill critical, urgent warfighting requirements gaps that exist today. The LCS Program is required to establish and maintain U.S. Navy dominance in the littorals and sea lanes of communication choke points around the world. The LCS Program operational requirements have been virtually unchanged since the program’s inception in 2002 and the both hull forms will meet the Navy’s operational warfighting requirements.

[Via Navy]

December 22nd, 2010:  Congress approved a short-term spending bill Tuesday night, clearing a contract for Marinette Marine and Austal to each build ten littoral combat ships for the US Navy. President Obama is expected to sign the bill by midnight Tuesday.

The passed bill went through some wording changes allowing the US Navy to purchase ten ships each from Lockheed Martin and Austal USA. As stressed in the last few days of debate over this issue, the Navy once again reminded Congress that the plan to use two builders allows them to purchase 20 ships for the price of 19.

The Lockheed Martin ships will be built at the Marinette Marine yard in Marinette, Wisconsin and the Austal ships will be built at Austal’s US yard in Mobile, Alabama.

Each contract is worth nearly $5 billion and is expected to double employment at Marinette Marine by 2013. Austal ‘s Mobile facility will double in size and is expected to add 1,800 jobs over the next two years.

The ships are capped at $480 million each, with expected price per ship to range between $440 million and $460 million, according to the Navy. [Source: The Maritime Executive]

Picture: USS Independence (LCS 2) via Austal

The Lockheed Martin-led industry team today launched the nation’s third Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), Fort Worth, at the Marinette Marine shipyard in Wisconsin.

The 389-foot Fort Worth was launched into the Menominee River. Just prior to its launch, the ship’s sponsor, Congresswoman Kay Granger of Texas, christened Fort Worth with the traditional smashing of a champagne bottle across the ship’s bow.

In March 2009, the U.S. Navy awarded the Lockheed Martin-led industry team a contract to construct Fort Worth. Only 20 months later, the ship is 80 percent complete. Now formally christened and launched, Fort Worth will continue to undergo outfitting and testing at Marinette Marine before delivery to the Navy in 2012.

“It is an incredibly rewarding experience to see Fort Worth launch into the water – on time and on budget,” said Orlando Carvalho, president of Lockheed Martin’s Mission Systems and Sensors business. “The team’s strong performance and hard work in bringing Fort Worth to this point illustrates our ability to meet the Navy’s need for a class of affordable, multi-mission combatants.”

Prior to constructing Fort Worth, the Lockheed Martin-led team designed and constructed the nation’s first LCS, USS Freedom, which was deployed in February 2010, two years ahead of schedule. Additionally, this summer the ship participated in the Rim of the Pacific Exercise 2010, where it interacted with international Navies and successfully completed a series of operational exercises, including a live-fire exercise with the MK-110 57mm gun, the launch of a Rolling Airframe Missile, and a maritime security exercise.

In addition to Marinette Marine Corporation, a Fincantieri company, the Lockheed Martin-led team for LCS 3 includes naval architect Gibbs & Cox as well as best-of-industry domestic and international companies.

Learn more about LCS 3 and view photos of the construction.

View public videos capturing the launch:

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UE4iiHQuF1k
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2csAeAWnqE0

[Source: Lockheed Martin]

Saturday, a Lockheed Martin led team held a keel-laying ceremony at Marinette Marine’s shipyard for the USS Fort Worth, marking the start of construction for the U.S. Navy’s third Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). The future USS Fort Worth, named in honor of the Texas city, will be 378 feet in length, have a waterline beam of 57 feet, displace approximately 3,000 tons and will make speed in excess of 40 knots.

LCS is a new breed of agile warships that are designed to operate in the world’s coastal waters and provide the Navy with fast, maneuverable and shallow-draft ships aimed at maximizing mission flexibility.

The LCS is a fast, highly manoeuverable, networked surface combat ship, which is a specialised variant of the family of US future surface combat ships known as DD(X). LCS is designed to satisfy the urgent requirement for shallow draft vessels to operate in the littoral (coastal waters) to counter growing potential ‘asymmetric’ threats of coastal mines, quiet diesel submarines and the potential to carry explosives and terrorists on small, fast, armed boats. (Naval-Technology.com)

In March 2009, the Navy awarded the Lockheed Martin team a fixed price incentive fee contract to construct the USS Fort Worth, scheduled to be delivered in 2012. The team’s first LCS, USS Freedom, was commissioned in Milwaukee in November 2008.

General Dynamics was awarded the contract for USS Independence (LCS 2) in October 2005. The keel was laid in January 2006 at the Austal USA shipyard in Mobile, Alabama and it is expected to be commissioned this year.

LINK -  Lockheed Martin Team Lays Keel On Nation’s Third Littoral Combat Ship, Fort Worth

This coming Saturday the U.S. Navy will be commissioning its first Littoral Combat Ship, USS Freedom (LCS-1), in a ceremony at Veterans Park in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.  Freedom is the first of ‘a new family of ships for the US Navy’.  The U.S. Department of Defense tells us in a press release:

A fast, agile, and high-technology surface combatant, Freedom will be a platform for launch and recovery of manned and unmanned vehicles. Its modular design will support interchangeable mission packages, allowing the ship to be reconfigured for antisubmarine warfare, mine warfare, or surface warfare missions on an as-needed basis. The LCS will be able to swap out mission packages pierside in a matter of days, adapting as the tactical situation demands. These ships will also feature advanced networking capability to share tactical information with other Navy aircraft, ships, submarines and joint units.

Freedom is an innovative combatant designed to operate quickly in shallow water environments to counter challenging threats in coastal regions, specifically mines, submarines and fast surface craft. The LCS is capable of speeds in excess of 40 knots and can operate in water less than 20 feet deep.

Freedom will be manned by one of two rotational crews, Blue and Gold, similar to the rotational crews assigned to Trident submarines. The crews will be augmented by one of three mission package crews during focused mission assignments. The Blue Crew commanding officer is Cmdr. Donald Gabrielson, a native of Hibbing, Minn. The Gold Crew commanding officer is Cmdr. Michael Doran, a native of Harrisonville, Mo.   Freedom will be homeported at Naval Station San Diego, Calif., as part of the Pacific Fleet.

Freedom, designed by Lockhead Martin, is one of two LCS ships being produced.  The other, USS Independence (LCS 2), was designed by by General Dynamics in competition with with the USS Freedom.  That ship is a trimaran design that is capable of over 40 knots.  Independence is said to be commissioned sometime in early 2009.

Now let’s take a look at some video…

Freedom (LCS 1) Sea Trials

Click here to view the embedded video.

Freedom (LCS 1) High Speed Trials

Click here to view the embedded video.

Additional Information: