Northrop Grumman Pitches National Security Frigate

It didn't take long, we mentioned last week to expect this. I guess the good folks over the Northrop Grumman wanted to get their idea out there before Congress gets back to work. Defense News has a very well detailed article on the pitch for the National Security Frigate (NSF) proposal, which is built on the Coast Guard's National Security Cutter (NSC). The article details the proposal, including the problems facing it.

The U.S. Navy is stumbling to build the ship it wants — the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) — so shipbuilder Northrop Grumman is urging the service to turn to a ship it can get sooner and cheaper: a patrol frigate version of the Coast Guard’s National Security Cutter (NSC).

“We have listened to what the Navy has said — to be more efficient, be innovative and produce affordable and capable ships,” said Phil Teel, president of Northrop’s Ship Systems sector. “The patrol frigate is a response to that, and to the Navy’s new National Maritime Strategy.”

Northrop’s analysts have studied remarks and themes oft repeated by senior Navy leaders and concluded a de facto requirement exists for a frigate-size ship capable of handling a range of low- and mid-intensity missions. Those missions, said Eric Womble, head of Ship Systems’ Advanced Capabilities Group, are detailed in the Navy’s new Maritime Strategy and include forward presence, deterrence, sea control, maritime security, humanitarian assistance and disaster response.

So what does the Navy think about the idea?

The official response from the Navy to Northrop’s proposal so far is unenthusiastic.

“There is currently no requirement for such a combatant,” said Lt. Clay Doss, a Navy spokesman at the Pentagon. The Navy’s other surface ship programs, he said, “address specific requirements.”

Doss did note that “the Navy and Coast Guard have considered a common platform for the LCS and the Coast Guard’s National Security Cutter. However, due to the unique mission requirements of each service, a common hull is not a likely course of action.”

Northrop likely is facing an uphill battle with its patrol frigate, as the Navy culturally prefers to dictate requirements based on its own analysis.

In our opinion the requirements, developed before the Maritime Strategy, is where the review needs to take place. The Navy is using motherships for irregular challenges at sea today, but I bet if you took a close look at the same list of requirements that rejects the NSC you would notice the absence of that requirement.

The article highlights problems with the NSF idea, including that it doesn't conform to the NVR spec. It may be that the NSF isn't the right platform, but the only way to truly verify that is to take a serious look at the requirements the Navy currently works from and insure they are in line with the new Maritime Strategy, a process we understand is happening already.

To us, as long as the DDG-1000 program goes beyond the first two ships, or that the LCS program as outlined today is the only low mix combatant in the inventory for dealing with irregular challenges, we believe those requirements represents the single largest problem not only facing shipbuilding strategy, but facing the Navy as it attempts to align itself to their new Maritime Strategy.