The companies bidding for the U.S. Army and Marine Corps’ Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) program have experienced a shakeup, with the field widening to five teams.

Oshkosh is joining the race, while Navistar and BAE Systems, which paired for the technology development phase, are now competing separately.

The Army and Marine Corps are developing the JLTV to replace a portion of their fleet of Humvees. Companies wanting to compete in the engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) phase had to submit bids March 27.

The Defense Department has said it plans to award up to three contracts for the 27-month EMD phase. There are two planned JLTV variants: a Combat Tactical Vehicle that can transport four passengers and carry 3,500 pounds. and a Combat Support Vehicle that can transport two passengers and carry 5,100 pounds.

According to an Oct. 3 request for proposals, the Army plans to buy at least 50,000 vehicles with the option to buy more, while the Marines could buy 5,500 vehicles. The new target price per vehicle is $250,000.

In October 2008, the Army awarded three contracts for the technology development phase of the program. Winning teams were Lockheed Martin, a BAE Systems/Navistar team and General Tactical Vehicles, which is a joint venture between Humvee-maker AM General and General Dynamics Land Systems. Those teams built and delivered several prototypes, which the Army and Marine Corps evaluated in an effort to refine vehicle requirements.

The Army said all along that it would reopen the competition for the EMD phase of the program, but many predicted the companies that participated in the technology development would have an advantage.

That advantage may not be as firm since the Army and Marine Corps overhauled the requirements to bring down weight and cost, and win back congressional support.

Five teams have confirmed submitting bids for the next phase of the competition.

Lockheed Martin
Formed in 2005, the core Lockheed Martin-led JLTV team includes the tactical wheeled vehicles team at BAE Systems in Sealy, Texas. It also includes Cummins Engine, Allison Transmission, Bosch, Meritor Defense, Lotus Engineering, L3 Combat Propulsion Systems and Vehma International of America.

It was one of three teams that won a contract for the JLTV technology development phase.

“Our improvements removed hundreds of pounds of weight from our [technology development] design, which was already proven in helicopter lift tests,” Scott Greene, vice president of ground vehicles at Lockheed Martin’s Missiles and Fire Control business, said in a statement.

By relying on more affordable materials and reducing the use of exotic metals, like titanium, the industry team was able to bring down cost, according to Kathryn Hasse, Lockheed’s JLTV program director.

General Tactical Vehicles (GTV)
As expected, the joint venture between General Dynamics Land Systems and AM General is also competing for an EMD contract. The team’s vehicle, the Eagle, makes use of a Double-V hull design, which has proved effective against roadside bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“With the GTV JLTV Eagle, we offer a modified non-developmental, low-risk vehicle with inherent manufacturing readiness that is built for program success and an accelerated path to production,” Mark Roualet, president of General Dynamics Land Systems, said in a statement.

BAE Systems
BAE Systems teamed up with Navistar Defense in the last round of JLTV, but this time around, the two companies are submitting separate bids.

The BAE Systems-led team still includes Northrop Grumman and Meritor Defense. With its submission, BAE announced that it had also selected an engine designed and built by Ford. They are calling their vehicle the Valanx.

“We are excited about this significant enhancement to our team and vehicle and look forward to the possibilities it could offer in the future,” BAE spokeswoman Stephanie Serkhoshian said in an email.

Ford designed and built the 6.7 Power Stroke engine for its F-Series Super Duty trucks.

Navistar
Navistar will bid with a variant of its Saratoga light tactical vehicle, which Navistar launched in October after conducting its own automotive and blast testing, the company said.

“We made a significant investment in developing the Saratoga on our own nickel because that’s what we do commercially — it is part of our DNA,” Archie Massicotte, Navistar Defense president, said in a press release. “The Saratoga is a solid design and now that we have seen the requirements of the JLTV migrate toward our vehicle capabilities, we are in a position to modify the Saratoga to fit those requirements.”

Oshkosh
Oshkosh is offering a variant of its Light Combat Tactical All-Terrain Vehicle (L-ATV).

The company says it has committed significant resources for light vehicle research and development to produce the L-ATV.

“Since 2006, we have aggressively and continuously worked to design, develop and test the L-ATV to deliver a robust, mature solution for the JLTV EMD phase,” John Bryant, vice president and general manager of Joint and Marine Corps Programs for Oshkosh Defense, said in a statement.

Oshkosh also builds the MRAP-All Terrain Vehicle, designed to meet an urgent need in Afghanistan for a lighter MRAP.

Source: Defense news

(Defense Daily) Strengthening procurement and self-building by foreign designers, Vietnam is showing the efforts to narrow the gap in military power.

Gary Li is head of Marine & Aviation Forecasting, Exclusive Analysis, London. He has a review of the process of military modernization in Vietnam in recent times.

On Jan. 17, Vietnam unveiled its first homemade warship. Seemingly a heavily modified Russian Tarantul corvette, the new ship is equipped with anti-ship missiles and artillery systems.

Although unimpressive by modern warship standards, this unveiling reflects Vietnam's concerted efforts at developing its regional naval power to offset the growing capabilities of its larger neighbor, China.

Vietnam appears to be upping the ante in its disputes with China over the past few years in the South China Sea. As Vietnam's economy grows, it is faced with the same insatiable appetite for oil as China did during its own reforms. Some of its major offshore oilfields, such as the Bach Ho, are expected to run out in 2020, thus making the need to explore and drill in new basins all the more pressing.

However, China has proved that it is willing and able to disrupt these activities through the combined efforts of its Navy and its marine paramilitary forces. The former is well on the way to achieving its goal of having a blue-water Navy by 2050, with its first aircraft carrier already undertaking sea trials.

While much speculation and effort has focused on the growth of Chinese naval power over the past decade, little notice has been paid to Vietnam’s growing military ambitions. In 2009, it bought six Russian Kilo-class diesel attack submarines for about $3.2 billion, a considerable chunk of its defense budget and Russia's largest naval export contract.

In late 2011, the Dutch Schelde shipyard signed a contract to build four Sigma-class corvettes for Vietnam, with two being built in the country itself under Dutch supervision.

It is not only the Vietnamese Navy that is upgrading its fleet; the Vietnamese Marine Police (VMP) has purchased several offshore patrol vessels from the Dutch Damen group, including one that is more than 1,000 tons and can carry a helicopter, which will be the largest ship in the VMP. This would give the VMP considerable punch against increased numbers of 1,000-ton-plus vessels of the Chinese Marine Surveillance Agency in the South China Sea.

These are not purely turnkey imports. The inclusion of licensed production and the building of specialized maintenance facilities along with the vessels themselves are helping establish a nascent naval research and development infrastructure within Vietnam. And the timing helps Vietnam take advantage of China's inability to acquire foreign arms imports (either due to embargoes or fears of reverse-engineering, as in the case with Russia), as well as help form strategic alliances with China's old rival, India.

The latter stated in September that it will sell Vietnam the BrahMos cruise missile to augment Vietnam's coastal deterrence suites, which already include the Russian Bastion system. It is perhaps not a coincidence that India made this decision at a time when the Indian state oil company, ONGC, announced plans to jointly explore and develop Vietnam's claimant oil blocks in the South China Sea. India also is helping Vietnam train its crews for the new Kilo subs once they begin to arrive in 2014.

However, it is reasonable to wonder if Vietnam's efforts are all in vain. The Vietnamese Navy has never had as much prestige as the Army, with the latter being the main force that decided the bloody Vietnam War.

Still, that appears to be changing, as Vietnamese state propaganda is striving to increase the visibility of its marine forces, especially in the garrisons in the Spratly Islands.

This growth of a semimanufactured provenance of the Navy is aimed to prepare its people for the possibilities of future offshore conflicts. The funding for the Navy also has been drastically increased over the past few years.

Strategically, Vietnam actually has the advantage over China. Far from being the underdog that Vietnam likes to portray itself to the world, it actually possesses some of the largest and most numerous of the disputed Spratly Islands, while China has only half a dozen reef-sized forts and pillboxes. While the ever-expanding Chinese fleet seems larger and more advanced, it has to travel vast distances to reach the ends of its claimant zone.

Vietnam, on the other hand, is contesting an area that is right on its doorstep. Its fleet of missile-armed light corvettes and submarines can strike and retreat into their homeports at will, while a stricken Chinese fleet would more or less be lost.

Vietnam does not need to match China ship for ship, but rather take its doctrine of guerrilla warfare to the high seas. An asymmetrical strategy, combined with the forging of timely alliances with China's rivals, places Vietnam well for the coming conflict. Whether this turns out to be a hot war, however, is still likely to be decided at the conference tables. But one thing is certain, Vietnam is making sure it has all the best cards before sitting down to talk.

Will Dassault’s fighter become a fashionably late fighter platform that builds on its parent company’s past successes – or just “the late Rafale”? It all began as a 1985 break-away from the multinational consortium that went on to create EADS’ Eurofighter. The French needed a lighter aircraft that was suitable for carrier use, and were reportedly unwilling to cede design authority over the project. As is so often true of French defense procurement policy, the choice came down to one of paying additional costs for full independence and exact needs, or losing key industrial capabilities by partnering or buying abroad. France has generally opted for expensive but independent defense choices, and the Rafale was no exception.

Those costs, and associated delays triggered by the end of the Cold War and reduced funding, proved to be very costly indeed. Unlike previous French fighters, which relied on exports to lower their costs and keep production lines humming, the Rafale has yet to secure a single export contract – in part because initial versions were hampered by impaired capabilities in key roles. The Rafale may, at last, be ready to be what its vendors say: a true omnirole aircraft, ready for prime time on the global export stage. The question is whether that will come in time. Rivals like EADS’ Eurofighter, Russia’s Su-27/30 family, and the American “teen series” of F-15/16/18 variants are all well established. Meanwhile, Saab’s versatile and cheaper JAS-39 Gripen remains a stubborn foe in key export competitions, and the multinational F-35 juggernaut is bearing down on it.

Article Source: Defense Industry Daily

Turkish defence companies FNSS Savunma Sistemleri and Aselsan have displayed the jointly produced Claw remote-controlled turret (RCT) in public for the first time.

Claw RCT can be fitted to a wide range of AFVs, either as original equipment or as an upgrade. Ammunition for weapons can be reloaded from inside the vehicle under full armour protection

Development of the Claw RCT (known as 'Pence' in Turkey) for home and export markets commenced in 2008 and is privately funded. A prototype was completed in early 2011 and shown at the IDEF exhibition in Istanbul in May.

Development of the Claw RCT (known as 'Pence' in Turkey) for home and export markets commenced in 2008 and is privately funded. A prototype was completed in early 2011 and shown at the IDEF exhibition in Istanbul in May.

Claw is suitable for installation on a wide range of tracked and wheeled armoured fighting vehicles (AFVs), either as original equipment or to enhance the firepower of older platforms.

The prototype is armed with Rheinmetall Italy's stabilised 25 mm KBA dual-feed cannon, which is provided with 160 rounds (80+80) of ready-use ammunition. The empty cartridge cases are ejected outside the turret. The KBA cannon has a maximum cyclic rate of fire of 600 rds/min and the gunner can select single-shot or burst modes of fire.

A 7.62 mm MG3 machine gun (MG) is mounted coaxially with the KBA cannon on the right-hand side of the RCT and is provided with 200 rounds of ready-use ammunition. The gun is electromechanically cocked from the user interface within the hull.

A key feature of Claw is that ammunition for both of these weapons can be reloaded from within the platform under full armour protection.

A bank of four 76 mm grenade launchers is mounted either side of the turret towards the rear, but these could be replaced by grenade launchers of other calibres, such as the Russian 81 mm or US 66 mm.

Turret traverse is all-electric through 360 degrees, with weapon elevation from -10 degrees to +50 degrees.

The electro-optics (EO) and fire-control system (FCS) have been developed by Aselsan and are integrated into the left side of the forward part of the turret.

A meteorological sensor is mounted on the turret roof towards the rear and feeds information to the FCS, which has a full ballistic computation capability.

The dual-axis stabilised EO package includes an 8-12 µm thermal camera with wide and narrow fields of view, a day camera and a laser rangefinder. This enables the platform to engage targets in most weather conditions with a high first-round hit probability.

The 25 mm KBA cannon is electronically slaved to the sight and an automatic target tracker is fitted as standard. The second version of Claw is intended to have an independent commander's sight on the roof to provide a hunter/killer capability.

The weapons are laid onto the target by the gunner from within the hull of the platform using a flat-panel display with controllers for left and right hand. This display could also be used to provide images from cameras mounted around the vehicle as well as information from a battle management system.

The turret shell is made of all-welded aluminium armour with add-on steel armour, providing ballistic protection to STANAG 4569 Level 2 standard. This can be increased to Level 3 if required.

The baseline Claw's low weight of 1,700 kg enables it to be fitted to a much wider range of platforms than conventional manned turrets fitted with a basket. The latter takes up considerable internal volume and reduces the number of troops that can be carried when the platform is being used in the armoured personnel carrier role, for example.

The prototype Claw RCT was shown integrated onto the FNSS Armoured Combat Vehicle - Stretched (ACV-S), which is already in service with two export customers.

Firing trials will be carried out in Turkey in the second half of 2011 with the Claw integrated onto the latest-generation FNSS Pars (6x6) Wheeled Armoured Combat Vehicle (WACV) and the ACV-S tracked vehicle.

While the prototype Claw is armed with the 25 mm KBA cannon, a number of other weapons could be installed in this turret, including the ATK 25 mm M242 and 30 mm Mk 44 cannon or the Mauser 30 mm MK 30-2 with its air-bursting munition capability.

Claw can also be integrated onto the baseline FNSS ACV as well as the Pars (8x8) WACV that has been ordered by Malaysia.

The development of Chinese carrier Shi Lang is the focus of military experts in the world.

If you have a question, which weapons development program that attracted the most attention in recent years in Asia, the development of aircraft carrier Shi Lang and stealth fighter J-20 of China are definitely two of the answers.

"Relay" for J-20 is almost silent after the flight "advertisement" in early 2011, every steps of the carrier Shi Lang (restored from the carrier Varyag bought from Ukraine) continue to help China's military power appears in the media world.

Here are the latest photos about the development of carrier Thi Lang, were synthesized through the Chinese defense websites.

Accordingly, the Thi Lang was installed four antennas produced by China itself. Currently, the type of radar is used on the Shi Lang aircraft carrier has not been announced.

According to data from Strategy Page, radar stations were installed on the aircraft carrier Shi Lang has the same parameters of the radar parameters produced by the U.S. built Aegis system. In addition, the ship also arranged electronic devices and implemented systems of computer information networks.

Shi Lang owns short-range artillery systems have been improved Type 730, combined missile FL-3000N, able to destroy air targets at distances up to 9km. The missile has diameter of 12cm, 2m long.

China has purchased aircraft carrier Varyag of Ukraine in 1998 and then improved and renamed Shi Lang. Currently, China is conducting repair and modernize it.

According to previous notice, by 2011 China will test the carrier and the end of 2012 will be armed for the navy.

China's Defense Ministry plan construct series of aircraft carrier based on aircraft carrier Varyag which purchased from Ukraine.

The Independence class is a class of littoral combat ships built for the United States Navy.

The hull design evolved from a project at Austal to design a 40 knot cruise ship. That hull design evolved into the high-speed trimaran ferry Benchijigua Express and the Independence class was then proposed by General Dynamics and Austal as a contender for USN plans to build a fleet of small, multipurpose warships to operate in the littoral zone. Two ships were approved, to compete with Lockheed Martin's Freedom class design for a construction contract of up to 55 vessels.

As of 2010, the lead ship is active, while a second ship is under construction. Despite initial plans to only accept one of the Independence and Freedom classes, the USN has requested that Congress order ten ships of each class.

Planning for a class of small, multipurpose warships to operate in the littoral zone began in the early 2000s. In July 2003, a proposal by General Dynamics (partnering with Austal USA, the American subsidiary of Australian shipbuilder Austal) was approved by the USN, with a contract for two vessels. These would then be compared to two ships built by Lockheed Martin to determine which design would be taken up by the Navy for a production run of up to 55 ships.

The first ship, USS Independence was laid down at the Austal USA shipyard in Mobile, Alabama, on 19 January 2006. The planned second ship was cancelled in November 2007, but reordered in May 2009, and laid down in December of that year as USS Coronado, shortly before Independence was launched.

The development and construction of Independence as of June 2009 was running at 220% over-budget. The total projected cost for the ship is $704 million. The Navy had originally projected the cost at $220 million. Independence began builder's trials in July 2009, three days behind schedule because of maintenance issues. A leak in the port gas turbine saw the order of trials altered, but builder's and acceptance trials were completed by November. And although her first INSURV inspection revealed 2,080 deficiencies, these were rectified in time for the ship to be handed over to the USN in mid-December, and commissioned in mid-January 2010.

Navy leaders said that the fixed price competition offered the Austal design an equal shot, in spite of its excess size and cost and limited service.

After much inconsistency on how testing and orders were to proceed, in November 2010, the USN asked that Congress approve ten of both the Independence and Freedom classes.

The Independence class design began life at Austal as a platform for a high speed cruise ship. The principal requirements of that project were speed, stability and passenger comfort and Austal's team determined that the trimaran hull form offered significant passenger comfort and stability advantages over both a catamaran and a monohull. The high speed cruise ship project evolved into Austal's commercial high-speed trimaran ferry Benchijigua Express. The ships are 127.4 m (418 ft) long, with a beam of 31.6 m (104 ft), and a draft of 13 ft (3.96 m). Their displacement is rated at 2,176 tons light, 2,784 tons full, and 608 tons deadweight.

The standard ship's company is 40-strong, although this can increase depending on the ship's role with mission-specific personnel. The habitability area is located under the bridge where bunks for ships personnel are situated. The helm is controlled by joysticks instead of traditional steering wheels.

Although the trimaran hull increases the total surface area, it is still able to reach sustainable speeds of about 50 knots (93 km/h; 58 mph), with a range of 10,000 nautical miles (19,000 km; 12,000 mi).[citation needed] Austal claims that the design will use a third less fuel than the competing Freedom-class, but the Congressional Budget Office found that fuel would account for 18 percent or less of the total lifetime cost of Freedom.

The Independence class carries a default armament for self-defense, and command and control. However unlike traditional fighting ships with fixed armament such as guns and missiles, tailored mission modules can be configured for one mission package at a time. Modules may consist of manned aircraft, unmanned vehicles, off-board sensors, or mission-manning detachments.

The interior volume and payload is greater than some destroyers and is sufficient to serve as a high-speed transport and maneuver platform. The mission bay is 15,200 square feet (1,410 m2), and takes up most of the deck below the hangar and flight deck. With 11,000 cubic metres (390,000 cu ft) of payload volume, it was designed with enough payload and volume to carry out one mission with a separate mission module in reserve, allowing the ship to do multiple missions without having to be refitted.

One Mobicon Flexible Container Handling System is carried on each ship in order to move mission containers.

In addition to cargo or container-sized mission modules, the bay can carry four lanes of multiple Strykers, armored Humvees, and their associated troops. An elevator allows air transport of packages the size of a 20-foot-long (6.1 m) shipping container that can be moved into the mission bay while at sea. A side access ramp allows for vehicle roll-on/roll-off loading to a dock and allows the ship to transport the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle.

The Raytheon Evolved SeaRAM missile defense system is installed on the hangar roof. The SeaRAM combines the sensors of the Phalanx 1B close-in weapon system with an 11-missile launcher for the Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM), creating an autonomous system.

The Independence class ships also has an integrated LOS Mast, Sea Giraffe 3D Radar and SeaStar Safire FLIR. Northrop Grumman has demonstrated sensor fusion of on and off-board systems in the Integrated Combat Management System (ICMS) used on the LCS. Side and forward surfaces are angled for reduced radar profile. In addition, H-60 series helicopters provide airlift, rescue, anti-submarine, radar picket and anti-ship capabilities with torpedoes and missiles.

The flight deck, 1,030 m2 (11,100 sq ft), can support the operation of two SH-60 Seahawk helicopters, multiple unmanned aerial vehicles, or one CH-53 Sea Stallion helicopter. The trimaran hull will allow flight operations up to sea state 5.

The vessels have an Interior Communications Center that can be curtained off from the rest of bridge instead of the heavily protected Combat Information Center found on Navy warships.

The control system for this class is provided by General Dynamics, while Lockheed provides their own control system for their variant of the LCS.

Austal has proposed a much smaller and slower trimaran, called the 'Multi-Role Vessel' or 'Multi-Role Corvette'. Though it is only half the size of their LCS design, it would still be useful for border protection and counter piracy operations.

A Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) is a type of relatively small surface vessel intended for operations in the littoral zone (close to shore). It is "envisioned to be a networked, agile, stealthy surface combatant capable of defeating anti-access and asymmetric threats in the littorals."

Two ship classes are the first examples of the LCS in the U.S. Navy: the Freedom-class and the Independence-class. LCS designs are slightly smaller than the US Navy's guided missile frigates, and have been likened to corvettes of other navies.

However, the LCS designs add the capabilities of a small assault transport with a flight deck and hangar large enough to base two SH-60 Seahawk helicopters, the capability to recover and launch small boats from a stern ramp, and enough cargo volume and payload to deliver a small assault force with armoured fighting vehicles to a roll-on/roll-off port facility. The standard armament for the LCS is Mk 110 57 mm guns. It will also be able to launch autonomous air, surface, and underwater vehicles. Although the LCS designs offer less air defense and surface-to-surface capabilities than comparable destroyers, the LCS concept emphasizes speed, flexible mission module space and a shallow draft.

The concept behind the littoral combat ship, as described by former Secretary of the Navy Gordon R. England, is to "create a small, fast, maneuverable and relatively inexpensive member of the DD(X) family of ships." The ship is easy to reconfigure for different roles, including anti-submarine warfare, mine countermeasures, anti-surface warfare, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, homeland defense, maritime intercept, special operations, and logistics. Due to its modular design, the LCS will be able to replace slower, more specialized ships such as minesweepers and larger assault ships.

Most of the functions of the mission modules will be performed by carried vehicles such as the helicopters or unmanned vehicles such as the Spartan Scout, AN/WLD-1 RMS Remote Minehunting System and MQ-8B Fire Scout. By performing functions such as sonar sweeps for mines or submarines or torpedo launches against hostile submarines at some distance from the ship's hull, the crew is placed at less risk. This is part of the Navy's goal to "unman the front lines."

However Thales has sold one Captas 4 antisubmarine sonar to the US Navy to be towed behind the LCS itself, with a potential order of 25 units.

Also by placing sensors on remote vehicles the LCS will be able to exploit concepts such as bistatic sonar without actually being in two places at the same time.

A report by the Pentagon's director of Operational Test and Evaluation found that neither design was expected to "be survivable in a hostile combat environment" and that neither ship could withstand the Navy's full ship shock trials.

The combat abilities of the LCS were said to be "very modest" even before the cancellation of the XM501 Non-Line-of-Sight Launch System.

Under Secretary of the Navy Robert O. Work has said that Marines will deploy from the Littoral combat ship.

The Independence-class is said to have better helicopter facilities and more internal space while the Freedom-class is said to be better able to launch and recover boats in high seas. Adm. Gary Roughead has said that a mix of both types would be "operationally advantageous".

The LCS is reconfigured for various roles by changing mission modules. These include weapon systems, sensors, carried craft and mission crews.

The Surface Warfare Mission Module includes two 30mm Gun Mission Modules (GMM) manufactured by Teledyne Brown Engineering, Inc.

The United States Navy launched its first littoral combat ship, Sea Fighter, in 2003. Sea Fighter used a SWATH type hull and was designated as Fast Sea Frame or FSF-1.[12] The ship was put into service in 2005 and serves as an experimental test bed ship using mission modules.

In 2004, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics and Raytheon submitted designs to the Navy of their proposed littoral combat ships. It was decided to produce two vessels each (Flight 0) of the Lockheed Martin design (LCS-1 and LCS-3) and of the General Dynamics design (LCS-2 and LCS-4). After these are brought into service, and experience has been gathered on the usability and efficiency of the designs, the future design for the class will be chosen (Flight I). This may be a decision to use one or the other design in whole, or a combined form made by selecting features from each, or a mixed fleet of both designs. The Navy currently plans to build 55 of these ships.

On 9 May 2005, Secretary of the Navy Gordon R. England announced that the first LCS would be named USS Freedom (LCS-1). Her keel was laid down on 2 June 2005 at Marinette Marine, Marinette, Wisconsin.[14] The contract to build the ship was managed by Lockheed's Maritime Systems and Sensors (MS2) division, directed by Fred Moosally.[15] On 23 September 2006, LCS-1 was christened and launched at the Marinette Marine shipyard.

On 19 January 2006, the keel for the General Dynamics trimaran, USS Independence (LCS-2), was laid at the Austal USA shipyards in Mobile, Alabama. LCS-2 was launched 30 April 2008.

On 12 April 2007, the Navy canceled the contract with Lockheed Martin for the construction of LCS-3 after negotiations to control cost overruns failed. The second General Dynamics ship (LCS-4) was also canceled on November 1, 2007 after similar cost overruns on their first ship. The Navy currently plans a brand new bidding process for the next three ships, with the winner building two ships and the loser only one.

In the September 26, 2008 U.S. Presidential debate, John McCain denounced the littoral combat ship as an example of botched contracting procedures that drive up the costs of ships unnecessarily.

On 8 November 2008, the Freedom was commissioned in Veteran's Park, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

In March 2009, Secretary of the Navy Donald C. Winter announced that LCS-3 would be named the USS Fort Worth (LCS-3) after Fort Worth, Texas [22] and the fourth ship would be named the USS Coronado (LCS-4) after Coronado, California.[23][24] United States House Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces Chairman Gene Taylor (Mississippi) criticized the lack of cost controls on the LCS program, saying that during his tour of the Austal shipyard that "I saw absolutely no effort being made to save the taxpayers a dime."[25] Also in March 2009, the Navy renewed the contract with Lockheed to build its second LCS, the USS Fort Worth (LCS-3).

On 6 April 2009, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced a Department of Defense budget that would purchase three LCS in FY '10 with a goal of 55 total ships.

On 1 May 2009, the Navy renewed the contract with Austal/GD to build its second Trimaran LCS, the USS Coronado (LCS-4), with delivery scheduled for May 2012.

On 15 May 2009, Sean Stackley said that the Navy had no current plans to downselect to a single design and senior Navy officials pointed out the two designs have complementary features.

On 22 May 2009, former Navy Secretary John Lehman cited the example of the Littoral Combat Ship as an example of a flawed acquisition program in which dozens of task orders were changed daily and called for the use of fixed-price contracts. Also Congressman Joe Sestak leaked that the LCS did not have the needed bandwidth for the anti-submarine mission.

On 12 June 2009, during a hearing of the House Armed Services Seapower Subcommittee, Subcommittee Chairman Gene Taylor, D-Miss said that other contractors would jump at the chance to build LCS as the subcommittee added language that would require The Navy to open bidding on the project if either lead contractor walked away from the $460 million fixed price contracts that would be offered. In response the Naval Sea Systems Command studied whether reducing the top speed requirement from 40 knots to 30 would help keep the ships under the price cap.

On 16 June 2009, Vice Adm. Barry McCullough told the United States Senate Committee on Armed Services that the Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates and minesweepers were too worn out to continue in service to cover the gap if the LCS development process suffered further delays.

Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems released a study that showed that seven LCS can more efficiently perform anti-piracy patrols in the Western Indian Ocean than a fleet of 20 conventional ships for a quarter of the cost.

On 30 June 2009, Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Gary Roughead said that costs have nearly stabilized on the next batch of LCS vessels and that he would work with Congress to adjust the cost cap on these Naval ships.

On 5 July 2009, Retired U.S. Navy Adm. James Lyons called for termination of the LCS program in favor of a $220 million per ship common design with the USCG that could "meet limited warfare requirements."

On 16 September 2009, Navy acquisition chief Sean Stackley and Vice Admiral Barry McCullough said that only one of the contractors would be offered a fixed price contract in 2010 for up to ten ships. This would be the long rumored downselect to a single design. This would be followed in 2012 with an offer for a second shipyard to build up to five additional ships of the same design as the first shipyard's. The Congress has agreed to this plan.

FY2010 budget documents revealed that the total costs of the two lead ships had risen to $637 million for Freedom and $704 million for Independence.

On 16 January 2010, the Independence was commissioned in Mobile, Alabama.

On 4 March 2010, Austal USA split from Bath Iron Works and announced that it would bid on future LCS contacts by itself, so that Austal could for example win the 2010 contract and Bath could win the follow on contract in 2012.

On 23 August 2010, The US Navy announced a delay in awarding the contract for 10 ships until sometime near the end of the year. A meeting of the Defense Acquisition Board scheduled for 29 October 2010 has been delayed and The Navy has indicated that no decision on the contract can be made until this meeting is held.

The GAO found that deploying the first two ships will delay the overall program because these two ships were not available for testing and development so changes may have to be made in the second pair of ships during their construction instead of being planned for before construction started. The US Navy responded that "Early deployment brought LCS operational issues to the forefront much sooner than under the original schedule, some of which would not have been learnt until two years on."

In November 2010, The Navy changed their minds again and asked Congress to allow the order ten of each design, instead of just ten of one type. US Senator Carl Levin said that the change was made because both bids were under the Congressional price cap. Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said that unlike the possibility of splitting orders for projects like KC-X or the General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136, the Pentagon had already paid the development cost for both designs so there where no further development costs required to build both designs and have them compete for future orders. However every Republican in the United States House of Representatives voted against this plan. And John McCain moved to block it in the Senate.

The Government Accountability Office has identified problems with the designs other than shipbuilding, these include extremely long crew training times, unrealistic maintenance plans and the lack of comprehensive risk assessment.

On 13 December 2010, both production teams extended their current contract prices until December 30 in order to enable to Navy to push through Congressional headwinds. If the Navy fails to achieve approval by that date it will be forced to award only one of the two contracts. The Navy has apparently budgeted $490 million per ship for the 20 ships, while the Congressional Budget Office has projected a cost of $591 million per ship. Navy acquisition chief Sean Stackley testified to a Senate panel that the actual price range was $440 to $460 million.

On 29 December 2010, Lockheed Martin and Austal USA received contracts to build more Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) for the U.S. Navy. The new contracts give each shipbuilding team one ship to build now, with another in 2011. Two more per year for each team will follow in 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015. The contract for Lockheed's ship, the yet-to-be-named LCS 5, is for $437 million. The contract for LCS 6, Austal USA's ship, is for $432 million. The contract awards were announced one day before the prices were to expire. Sean Stackley, the Navy's top weapons buyer, in a conversation with reporters on 29 December 2010 noted that the LCS program was now well within the Congressional cost cap of $480 million per ship. The average per-ship target price for Lockheed ships is $362 million, Stackley said, with a goal of $352 million for each Austal ship. Government-furnished equipment (GFE), such as weapons, add about $25 million to each ship. Another $20 million is figured in for change orders, and a "management reserve" is also included. All told, Stackley said, the average cost to buy an LCS should be between $430 million and $440 million.

The Griffin (missile) will be integrated into the surface warfare module starting in 2014 or 2015 with a longer range version implemented in 2016 or 2017. The anti-submarine module will have its focus changed from stationary systems to en-stride systems that are useful in the open ocean as well as in coastal areas.

Saudi Arabia and Israel have both expressed an interest in a modified version of the Freedom Class vessel, the LCS-I, but Defense News has reported that Israel has dropped out of this project in favor of a new frigate design to be built in Israel.

 However Israel has been unable to talk Germany into subsidizing any more naval vessels so may be forced to return to more reliable American funding.

The Republic of China Navy is also studying the purchase of some US littoral combat ships. The Royal Malaysian Navy intends to purchase much smaller ships that they call littoral combat ships.

Planning for a class of small, multipurpose warships to operate in the littoral zone began in the early 2000s. The construction contract was awarded to Lockheed Martin's LCS team (Lockheed Martin, Gibbs & Cox, Marinette Marine, Bollinger Shipyards) in May 2004 for two vessels. These would then be compared to two ships built by Austal USA to determine which design would be taken up by the Navy for a production run of up to 55 ships.

On 15 April 2003, the Lockheed Martin LCS team unveiled their Sea Blade concept based on the hull form of the motor yacht Destriero.

The keel of lead ship USS Freedom laid down in June 2005, by Marinette Marine in Marinette, Wisconsin. She was christened in September 2006, delivered to the Navy in September 2008, and commissioned that November. During INSURV trials, 2,600 discrepancies were discovered, including 21 considered high-priority. Not all of these were rectified before the ship entered service, as moving the ship away from Milwaukee before the winter freeze was considered a higher priority.

Cost overruns during Freedom's construction combined with projected future overruns led the government to issue a "Stop-work" in January 2007 and ultimately led to the cancellation of construction of LCS-3 (the second Lockheed Martin ship) on April 13, 2007. This ship was later re-ordered.

After much inconsistency on how testing and orders were to proceed, in November 2010, the USN asked that Congress approve ten of both the Freedom and Independence classes.

The ship is a semi-planing steel monohull with an aluminum superstructure. It is 377 feet (115 m) in length, displaces 2,950 metric tons, and can go faster than 45 knots (83 km/h; 52 mph). The design incorporates a large reconfigurable seaframe to allow rapidly interchangeable mission modules, a flight deck with integrated helicopter launch, recovery and handling system and the capability to launch and recover boats (manned and unmanned) from both the stern and side.

The flight deck is 1.5 times the size of that of a standard surface ship, and uses a Trigon traversing system to move helicopters in and out of the hangar. The ship has two ways to launch and recover various mission packages: a stern ramp and a starboard side door near the waterline. The mission module bay has a 3-axis crane for positioning modules or cargo.

The fore deck has a modular weapons zone which can be used for a 57 mm gun turret or missile launcher. A Rolling Airframe Missile launcher is mounted above the hangar for short-range defense against aircraft and cruise missiles, and .50-caliber gun mounts are provided topside.

The core crew will be 40 sailors, usually joined by a mission package crew and an aviation detachment for a total crew of about 75. Automation allows a reduced crew, which greatly reduces operating costs, but workload can still be "grueling". During testing of the class lead, two ship's companies will rotate on four-month assignments.

Four 750-kilowatt Fincantieri Isotta-Fraschini diesel generators provide 3 megawatts of electrical power to power the ship systems.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that fuel will account for only "8 percent to 18 percent" of the total life-cycle costs for Freedom. Senator Jeff Sessions has called the report into question and has suggested that the Independence, built in his state, would be more fuel efficient and that less frequent refuelings would have an impact on military operations beyond the cost of fuel.

Lockheed Martin has offered an Aegis Combat System equipped variant for National missile defense radar picket use to a number of Gulf states.

The Surface Combat Ship will be offered to Saudi Arabia as part of the 2011 arms deal.

The F-35A model AF-7 was delivered to the Air Force at Lockheed's final assembly plant in Fort Worth, Texas, on 5 May.

The flighter was then flown to Edwards Air Force Base, California to to complete an airframe-specific flight test programme.

The hand-over marks the delivery of the first production jet nearly 10 years after Lockheed won the contract to deliver 1,763 F-35As to the US Air Force, plus a total of 640 F-35Bs and F-35Cs for the Marine Corps and navy, respectively.

"Today we begin to fulfil the vision of our government and international customers," said Larry Lawson, Lockheed's F-35 program manager.

Fighter development program JSF has been delayed several years because designed flaws, while funding for projects ongoing to increase up.

This is a aircraft development program which many countries involved, including 9 countries. The delay caused the countries complained constantly and reviewing arms procurement plan.

With this event, the JSF program has achieved important progress, overcome the harsh criticism.

F-35A has entered the first stage of production, currently the 8 of 13 first productions is shipped out. F-35B has passed the critical test phase, F-35C is also ready for first production.

According to the US Air Force plans the first F-35A team will operate in 2017-2018. According to a report by the US Air Force, the end of 2011, 20 first F-35A aircrafts will be produced and delivered for pilot-training.

In parallel with the pilot training, US Air Force will assess the ability of the aircraft. The amendments will be conducted after this review.

The first F-35A aircrafts is the short variant, the information about the surrounding environment, target, weapon interface will be displayed on the dashboard, instead of integrating flying-helmet as the original design.

Complete system of the F-35A will be armed in the second production. Lockheed Martin will manufacture F-35 aircraft with several different blocks, after putting into operation and evaluation. Deficiencies (if any) will be overcome for the next block.

Lockheed Martin said, the perfecting through the different bolcks will give better results and save time, costs rather than trying to improve in the first production.