Lock and Load: Duncan Hunters Navy

We covered the renewal contract for the HSV Swift on Friday, but we didn't discuss the other contract announcement for the high speed vessel. On Friday along with the HSV Swift contract the Navy also spent the earmark funds of one Duncan Hunter on their soon to be commissioned FSF-1 Sea Fighter. We previously covered how Duncan Hunter would like to see his fleet of one commissioned into the Navy, and the resistance from the Navy towards that end. Congress usually wins though, and the Navy has been upgrading Duncan Hunters Navy using it as a test platform off Florida for the Littoral Combat Ships. Well, earmarks are being spent, and the Navy never refuses money unless it is for the Marines (bad joke).

International Systems LLC, DBA L-3 Communications Advanced Systems Division, San Diego, Calif., is being awarded a $20,036,760 cost plus fixed fee contract for the Sea Fighter Vessel modification. The purpose of this research is to design, integrate, and implement modifications to Sea Fighter that will improve ship survivability features and improve various hull, mechanical and electrical capabilities. Work will be performed in San Diego, Calif., and work is expected to be completed Apr. 2009. Contract funds will not expire at end of current fiscal year: This contract was competitively procured under Office of Naval Research Broad Agency Announcement 08-001. Office of Naval Research, Arlington, Va., is the contracting activity (N00014-08-C-0625).

As Defense Industry Daily points out, this money is probably being spent to make the ship more survivable. We don't like earmarks, so we give Duncan Hunter a hard time on this, and if this ship had been shoved on the Navy through the regular Navy budget we would be OK with that. However, despite being an earmark and a ship the Navy doesn't want, we are happy to see the ship getting 'armed up' and hopefully it will be 'forward deployed.' This is what Duncan Hunters website has to say on the subject.

The Sea Fighter, formerly known as X-Craft, is a high speed, shallow draft vessel for littoral warfare. Deployment of the Sea Fighter can demonstrate and validate many of the Navy’s operational concepts for littoral warfare, and more specifically reduce risk in the Littoral Combat Ship program. Funding will be used to add offensive and defensive armament, improve ship survivability systems, and complete command and control.

In particular, we observe that the Sea Fighter could do some good fighting pirates, because as a high speed vessel able to support RHIBs and has deck space to land two helicopters. Why do we like Sea Fighter a hell of a lot more than the LCS? I got into some talks awhile back with some good folks at L-3. OK so I gave them shit like this blog does about being an earmark away from a new contract, but still...

They insist, with NVR changes and everything the Sea Fighter can be mass produced with 4 or more a year, armed up with CEC, at $130 million. At that price, you can build 10 advanced Sea Fighters and a LPD-17 for the price of one DDG-1000. Those 11 ships, supposed by a DDG-51, a T-AKE, and a T-AO and you will kick the snot out of any small war situation from piracy to special forces support from the sea, and btw, those 14 ships represent a hell of a sea base in a strategic sense that is ready for action.

Instead the Navy uses 2-4 big AEGIS destroyers supported by a LSD to do the work, and depends on other nations to support security operations. The Navy can do better, and needs to learn to do small wars on the cheap. Sea Fighter is one alternative towards those ends.