Register here

Author Topic: Small Surface Combatant Task Force concepts  (Read 47716 times)

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Small Surface Combatant Task Force concepts
« Reply #15 on: October 07, 2014, 10:00:27 am »
http://defense-update.com/20140824_super_ghost.html

Quote
Plans are to build a corvette-sized 46 meter (150 ft) ‘super Ghost’ at a cost of about $50 million per vessel – six times cheaper than the $300 million per-ship cost of a current Freedom-class and Independence-class littoral combat ship. Such a vessel could operate with LCS or with other oceangoing naval vessels, providing a more affordable, agile and survivable naval strike forces.

That would be the plan of Juliet Marine Systems, the article makes it seem as though the United States Navy has plans to acquire the "super Ghost."

Offline nxx_2002

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 4
Re: Small Surface Combatantooooooooooooooooooooppoooooop Force oppo
« Reply #16 on: October 08, 2014, 07:02:03 pm »
"Lockheed Outlines Post Littoral Combat Ship Pitch
By: Sam LaGrone
Published: June 10, 2014 5:42 PM
Updated: June 10, 2014 6:08 PM

Source:
http://news.usni.org/2014/06/10/8077

Quote
Lockheed Martin outlined the range of options they presented to the Navy as part of the Pentagon mandated study into a follow-on ship to the Flight 0 Littoral Combat Ships in a media briefing on Monday.

Lockheed — as part two April requests for information (RFI) from the Small Surface Combatant Task Force — submitted a variety of options based on their current Freedom-class (LCS-1) design.

Joe North, vice president of Littoral Ship Systems for Lockheed, emphasized the sea frame ability to accommodate increasingly sophisticated radars and weapons systems within the constraints of the basic design.

“We have a lot of flexibility in the hull. If you remember, we’re carrying around 180 metric tons of capability, empty space right now, for the mission packages, so depending on what they’re looking at we have a lot of capability in the hull from a naval architecture standpoint,” North told reporters on Monday.
“From a performance standpoint, we can add to the ship and make [systems] permanent or if you want to look at separate packages.”

Part of those options include a much more robust anti-air warfare (AAW) capability with permanent vertical launch system (VLS) cells capable of holding anti-air missiles and much more capable radar.

“[Increased] radar capability is everything from solid-state more capable rotators to a high end capability —the hull allows that,” North said.

As part of its international offering for ships based on the Freedom hull, Lockheed has offered a SPY-1F air defense radar — an 8 foot diameter version of the radar on U.S. destroyers sized for frigates.

An upgunned Freedom — at its current length of 118 meters — could also include 4 to 32 VLS cells. Each cell would be capable of fielding four Raytheon RIM-162D Evolved SeaSparrow Missiles (ESSM), North said.

“[VLS] is a modular package in itself because it gives [the ship] the capability to launch several types of missiles including ESSM, which is one of the things they’ll absolutely come back and look for to give the ship some more self protection… as a permanent installation,” he said.

Critics of the current Freedom and Austal USA’s Independence classes of ships have zeroed in on a perceived lack of offensive capability for the two ships.

Austal and Lockheed have developed preliminary designs of their ships with VLS for international sale.

In remarks earlier this year, then acting deputy defense Christine Fox implied the current LCS variants were “niche” platforms and the Navy needed tougher ship.

“We need more ships with the protection and firepower to survive against a more advanced military adversary,” Fox said in February, just ahead of a Pentagon announcement forcing the Navy to take a second look at the LCS program.

As part of the coversheet for its response to the Navy’s RFI, Lockheed included a Freedom variant with a quad cell VLS firing what appear to be Raytheon Standard Missile (SM) 2.

In the surface-to-surface realm, North said the ship could accommodate either the current BAE Systems Mk 110 57 mm gun or a larger Mark 45 five-inch gun. The range of offerings did also factor in Naval Sea Systems Command decision to integrate the Longbow Hellfire AGM-114L for the fast attack craft/ fast inshore attack (FAC/FIAC) threat.

The Flight 0 Freedom and Independence LCS will be manned by 90 sailors for surface warfare (SuW), anti-submarine warfare (ASW) and mine countermeasure (MCM) missions by a series of mission packages that can be swapped out of the ship depending on the circumstances.

The Navy’s original plan was to build 52 LCS but cut the Flight 0 program at 32 — a reduction of 20 ships as part of the current reexamination of the LCS begun in February under mandate from Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel.

The RFIs were part of the work of the Small Surface Combatant Task Force tasked to evaluate other options beyond Flight 0 LCS. The group was mandated to examine: A modified design of an existing LCS, existing ship designs and a new ship design.

“The RFI will ask for pretty specific information that will give us insight to the ship integration requirement, the performance, what are the primary, second and third order costs associated with [concepts],” John Burrow, executive director of the Marine Corps Systems Command and current head of the Small Surface Combatant Task Force told reporters in April.
“It’s a fairly detailed list of information that we’re looking for.”

The task force is due to submit their findings by the end of July.

Given tightening Pentagon budgets, an entirely new ship design is unlikely, however North speculated that several European yards have likely submitted information for the RFIs.

“I can imagine every shipyard across Europe — which is very stagnant and a lot of them have designs — [submitted a packet],” North said.
“I bet you woke up the entire planet.”

An artist's conception for two variants of the Freedom-class LCS design provided to USNI News. Lockheed Martin Image

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Small Surface Combatant Task Force concepts
« Reply #17 on: November 19, 2014, 01:17:04 pm »
"US Combat Ship Decision Coming in 'Very Near Future'"
Nov. 7, 2014 - 03:45AM   | 
By CHRISTOPHER P. CAVAS

Source:
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20141107/DEFREG02/311070021/US-Combat-Ship-Decision-Coming-Very-Near-Future-

Quote
WASHINGTON — Senior US Navy leaders have made their final presentations to the Pentagon’s top leadership on their choice for a small surface combatant (SSC), and a decision by Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel on what sort of ship to build after the littoral combat ship (LCS) could come soon.

“The secretary took another meeting by Navy leaders during the last week of October,” Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby said Friday. “The purpose of the meeting was to review the Navy’s recommendation for the way forward. The secretary expressed his gratitude for the hard work and analysis that went into forming that recommendation and assured Navy leadership that he would be rendering a decision in the very near future.”

Asked to confirm if Hagel now had all the information he needed to render a decision, Kirby added, “we do not anticipate that he requires more at this point.”

The future course of the LCS program has been in doubt since February, when Hagel directed the Navy to develop a more heavily armed warship — the SSC — to succeed the politically troubled LCS. A decision on the form of the SSC is to be made, Hagel directed, in time “to inform” the 2016 budget submission, due to be sent to Congress in February 2015.

The Navy presented its initial findings to Hagel on Oct. 6 in a meeting attended by Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work; Frank Kendall, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics; and Jamie Morin, the director of cost assessment and program evaluation.

Unusually, Director of Operational Test and Evaluation Michael Gilmore also was in attendance. Gilmore has long been a critic of the LCS program, particularly regarding survivability issues, and has heavily influenced Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., expected to chair the Senate Armed Services Committee when the new Congress is seated.

Meanwhile, the LCS program itself is moving forward. The Fort Worth is to leave San Diego later this month to begin a 16-month Western Pacific deployment — the second such LCS cruise. The Freedom-class LCS Detroit, of the Lockheed Martin variant, was launched Oct. 18, and another ship, the Independence-class Montgomery, will be christened Saturday at Austal USA.

The Navy expects to double the number of ships in service during 2015 when four more ships are delivered, bringing the active total to eight.

Twenty-four LCSs are either in service, under construction or on contract. Another eight ships are expected to be ordered based on existing designs. The switchover to the SSC, Hagel has directed, is to begin no later than the 33rd ship to be ordered.

It’s expected the Navy will call the ships something other than LCSs or SSCs — perhaps light frigates or corvettes.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Small Surface Combatant Task Force concepts
« Reply #18 on: December 03, 2014, 05:04:28 pm »
Model of Lockheed Martin Small Surface Combatant (SSC) concept, also known as Surface Combat Ship (SCS), based on the Freedom-class LCS.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20141107/DEFREG02/311070021/US-Combat-Ship-Decision-Coming-Very-Near-Future-
« Last Edit: December 03, 2014, 05:07:31 pm by Triton »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Small Surface Combatant Task Force concepts
« Reply #19 on: December 03, 2014, 08:45:42 pm »
Lockheed Martin Surface Combat Ship (SCS) brochure.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Small Surface Combatant Task Force concepts
« Reply #20 on: December 03, 2014, 09:59:00 pm »
Lockheed Martin Surface Combat Ship (SCS) brochure.

Interesting looks like it packs a pretty good offensive and defensive punch.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Small Surface Combatant Task Force concepts
« Reply #21 on: December 04, 2014, 09:36:51 am »
Haven't seen anything from General Dynamics/Austal USA concerning the Small Surface Combatant Task Force. Are they pitching the Multi-Mission Combatant configuration of the Independence-class?

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Small Surface Combatant Task Force concepts
« Reply #22 on: December 04, 2014, 09:56:08 am »
I stand corrected:

"Navy begins weighing future of littoral combat ship; or whether to replace it"

by Michael Finch II | mfinch@al.com By Michael Finch II | mfinch@al.com
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on August 01, 2014 at 12:42 PM, updated August 01, 2014 at 2:06 PM

Quote
MOBILE, Alabama -- It's judgment day for the littoral combat ship.

The July 31 deadline has passed for a task force of U.S. Navy officials to collect information for a new or improved small surface combatant. In a released statement the Navy said it will begin reviewing the preliminary findings that will decide the future of the littoral combat ship, or whether to replace it.

"Because the task force alternatives will be considered as part of (the fiscal year 2016 budget) deliberations, the Navy will not comment publicly on the report's findings until budget decisions within the defense department are finalized," said Sean J. Stackley, assistant Navy secretary for research, development and acquisition.

The Navy requested information in April from defense contractors and shipbuilders, casting a much wider net outside the two incumbent prime contractors: Austal USA and Lockheed Martin.

Austal's shipyard in Mobile builds the Independence class littoral combat ship, an aluminum trimaran that's 419-foot-long. The Marinette, Wis.-based shipbuilder Marinette Marine constructs the Freedom class version, a 388-foot-long steel monohull.

In response to the Navy's request Austal submitted ideas to improve each of the ship's three mission packages: 

    Anti-Submarine Warfare: Towed array sonar, torpedoes, vertically launched anti-submarine rocket and a tremendous aviation capability to support the MH-60 helicopter. 

    Surface Warfare: Surface to surface missile system, 76mm gun and remotely-operated smaller caliber guns.

    Air Warfare: A vertically launched surface to air missile, C2 (command and control) capability for a much greater radar detection range to detect and respond to threats at a greater range.

"Austal has submitted a strong response to the Navy's RFI on the Small Surface Combatant," the company said in a released statement. "Austal's Small Surface Combatant incorporates significant offensive and defensive capability to support higher end missions with the existing sea frame."

The program was designed to foster competition between the two companies, allowing the Navy to reap the benefit of increased efficiency. But the littoral combat ship has been chided for its high cost, lacking firepower and performance issues while deployed abroad.

Mounting concerns prompted defense secretary Chuck Hagel to stop buying any more of the ships until the issues were addressed. Not long after his announcement the small surface combatant task force was formed to reassess the future of the program.   

The task force will tailor the new or modified vessel with the Navy's future needs to deal with emerging threats in East Asia. Hagel said in February that he wanted a "capable and lethal small surface combatant generally consistent with the capabilities of a frigate."

In the meantime, two reports from the U.S. Government Accountability Office were released, blasting the LCS program for the weight management issues, testing and uncertainties about cost.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Small Surface Combatant Task Force concepts
« Reply #23 on: December 04, 2014, 11:07:14 am »
Model of Independence-class LCS armed with 18 Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile (NSM) anti-ship missiles. Kongsberg proposal?

Source:
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?237160-Navy-Adds-Hellfire-Missiles-to-LCS/page4
« Last Edit: December 04, 2014, 11:10:04 am by Triton »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Small Surface Combatant Task Force concepts
« Reply #24 on: December 04, 2014, 11:14:50 am »
Model of Freedom-class LCS armed with 12 Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile (NSM) anti-ship missiles. Kongsberg proposal?


Source:
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?237160-Navy-Adds-Hellfire-Missiles-to-LCS/page4

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: Small Surface Combatant Task Force concepts
« Reply #25 on: December 04, 2014, 11:25:38 am »
Yes, both of those models came from Kongsberg at Sea-Air-Space 2014.  They reflect ways to up-arm the existing LCS surface warfare packages, not proposals for the Small Surface Combatant. 
 
 
 
 

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Small Surface Combatant Task Force concepts
« Reply #26 on: December 04, 2014, 11:31:01 am »
Yes, both of those models came from Kongsberg at Sea-Air-Space 2014.  They reflect ways to up-arm the existing LCS surface warfare packages, not proposals for the Small Surface Combatant.

Thanks for the clarification, TomS.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Small Surface Combatant Task Force concepts
« Reply #27 on: December 12, 2014, 04:36:29 am »
Looks like SSC with be 'uparmed' LCS I'm kind of disappointed was looking for a new and larger 'frigate'

http://breakingdefense.com/2014/12/lcs-lives-hagel-approves-bigger-gunned-upgrade/

Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: Small Surface Combatant Task Force concepts
« Reply #28 on: December 12, 2014, 06:41:23 am »
I don't think anyone seriously should have expected a new hull design out of SSC.  I'm a bit surprised they still aren't fitting VLS of any sort, though.  That is going to keep LCS from carrying antiaircraft missiles other than RAM.  I hope RAM Block 2 is really, really good. 
 
It's also really odd that at least some of these ships will apparently have both 25mm guns AND 30mm guns (the 25mm being permanent and the 30mm being part of the ASuW mission equipment.) 
 
The slides describing the two fits are here:
 
http://news.usni.org/2014/12/11/gunned-lcs-hulls-picked-navys-next-small-surface-combatant
 
Edit: Images attached for posterity.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2014, 07:14:18 am by TomS »

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Small Surface Combatant Task Force concepts
« Reply #29 on: December 12, 2014, 07:16:18 am »
I don't think anyone seriously should have expected a new hull design out of SSC.  I'm a bit surprised they still aren't fitting VLS of any sort, though.  That is going to keep LCS from carrying antiaircraft missiles other than RAM.  I hope RAM Block 2 is really, really good. 
It could be really, really good but if you only have 8 of them on hand (if that) that's a problem.  I'd like to know why they couldn't put an 8-cell, SD length Mk41 with 32 ESSMs on board.  Seems like that would be a no-brainer.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.