Register here

Author Topic: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence  (Read 143660 times)

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« on: February 11, 2009, 11:48:42 pm »
Is the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) dead after Lockheed-Martin's USS Freedom (LCS-1) and General Dynamics/Austal USS Independence (LCS-2). The last I heard the US Navy was going to re-open bidding. Has the Navy decided to not resurrect this program or has it just not gotten around to sending its bid requests?

Offline Just call me Ray

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 680
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #1 on: February 12, 2009, 12:43:58 am »
That doesn't make a lot of sense (but then again rarely anything in politics does anymore) the whole point of having LockMart and NG two their separate ship designs on their own would be so that the Navy gets to try out each ship design on their own, and then start the bidding process.
It's a crappy self-made pic of a Lockheed Unmanned Combat Armed Rotorcraft (UCAR), BTW
Even Saddam realized the hazard of airplanes, and was discovered hiding in a bunker.
- Skydrol from Airliners.net

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #2 on: February 12, 2009, 09:48:11 am »
That doesn't make a lot of sense (but then again rarely anything in politics does anymore) the whole point of having LockMart and NG two their separate ship designs on their own would be so that the Navy gets to try out each ship design on their own, and then start the bidding process.

The last I read, the plan was that the winning bidder would make two ships while the loser would make only one of the next three units. General Dynamics Bath Iron Works/Austal, not Northrop Grumman, and the Lockheed Martin ships designs are so different, who dreamed up this idea and for what reasons?
« Last Edit: February 12, 2009, 09:52:26 am by Triton »

Offline KJ_Lesnick

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1012
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #3 on: February 22, 2009, 08:04:55 pm »
Fast ship...

KJ Lesnick

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8065
  • The path not taken.
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #4 on: September 02, 2011, 06:58:33 am »
Back in 2007, these were some of the the main robotic systems (not entirely accurately referred to as USVs) that the Navy was planning to use.

Quote
The Navy wants to develop four main classes of USVs.  Three of them would be armed.

The three-meter long "X-Class" machines would be for "low-end" snooping and reconnaissance; like a robotic jet ski, with a camera attached. 

The "Harbor Class" would be based on the Navy’s seven meter long rigid-hulled inflatable boats, or RIBs.  These unmanned Zodiacs would be used for dropping mine countermeasures, and fending off boat-borne bad guys with a mix of "lethal and non-lethal armament."
 
The "Snorkeler Class" is a stealthy, seven-meter submersible that would stay in the water for up to a day at a time, tow ing mine- and sub-finding-gear — and maybe even carrying a torpedo or two. 

Lastly, there’s the "Fleet Class," capable of staying in the water for 48 hours straight, and reaching speeds of up to 35 knots.  The eleven-meter long USV would be used to do everything from carrying commandos to shore, jamming enemy communications, neutralizing mines, and delivering a "Harbor Class" drone.  Naturally, it would carry its own guns and torpedoes, too, so it could conduct ‘high end’ surface warfare missions."

The original USN 'USV Master Plan': http://www.navy.mil/navydata/technology/usvmppr.pdf

Quote
The “Harbor Class” is based on the Navy Standard 7m RIB and is focused on the
MS Mission, with a robust ISR capability and a mix of lethal and non-lethal
armament. The “Harbor Class” USV can be supported by the majority of our
Fleet, since it will use the standard 7m interfaces.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2011, 07:09:14 am by Grey Havoc »
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8065
  • The path not taken.
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #5 on: September 05, 2011, 07:01:21 am »
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8065
  • The path not taken.
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #6 on: March 17, 2012, 11:19:58 am »
A little more info on some of the USN/Industry development efforts regarding robotic systems: http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=713
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8065
  • The path not taken.
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #7 on: March 23, 2012, 03:38:16 pm »
Via Maritime Memos:

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-03-22/fastship-live-nation-google-vw-ca-intellectual-property

Quote
The closely held company plans to use bankruptcy to create a trust that would pursue a patent-infringement lawsuit against the U.S. government and repay creditors with any proceeds, Bullard said. A new $650 million U.S. Navy combat ship relies on designs owned by FastShip, Bullard said.

“The debtors believe a strong claim exists against the U.S. government for patent infringement,” the company said in court papers.


EDIT: FastShip dry docks in Ch. 11 (The Deal Pipeline)

Quote
FastShip believes the U.S. Navy violated its patents by building $650 million worth of high-speed combat vessels at the same time the debtor's business plan was failing. FastShip said it attempted to reach a settlement with the Navy when it filed an administrative claim against it in April 2008. Two years later, the Navy summarily denied FastShip's claim.



[IMAGE CREDIT: MARINE LOG]
« Last Edit: March 24, 2012, 07:04:45 am by Grey Havoc »
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8065
  • The path not taken.
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #8 on: March 29, 2012, 12:36:57 pm »

Lockheed Martin' Surface Combat Ship, export variant of the Freedom class LCS, equipped on this scale model with AEGIS, MK41 VLS, Oto Melara 76mm and Millenium 35mm guns.

Link to LMACS (Lockheed Martin Agile Management System] entry over on navyrecognition.com (part of their DIMDEX 2012 coverage).
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8065
  • The path not taken.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #10 on: May 04, 2012, 11:34:40 am »

Lockheed Martin' Surface Combat Ship, export variant of the Freedom class LCS, equipped on this scale model with AEGIS, MK41 VLS, Oto Melara 76mm and Millenium 35mm guns.

Link to LMACS (Lockheed Martin Agile Management System] entry over on navyrecognition.com (part of their DIMDEX 2012 coverage).

The model is of the LCS-I configuration that was offered to Israel.


Offline Arjen

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2187
  • It's turtles all the way down
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #12 on: May 10, 2012, 08:38:49 am »
Words fail me.
How about Terminal Optimism When Facing Adversity? Or Stone Soup?

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8065
  • The path not taken.
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #13 on: July 01, 2012, 11:02:11 am »
From Maritime Memos:

Quote
More on Austal USA

The word from my man on the ASX, (the Australian Securities Exchange), is that Austal's bankers are all in a tizzy about the huge sums of money that Austal USA is losing on the LCS and JHSV programs, at a time when their Australian yards are not generating enough to make up for it.  So, step up and move in, please, General Dynamics.  June 27, 2012.

 
News from Austal USA

Austal USA's President, Joe Rella, has indeed resigned and Austal says that he has been replaced, on an interim basis, by Brian Leathers, the company's CFO.  In addition, Craig Perciavalle has been promoted to Senior VP, Shipyard Operations.  Read the announcement here.  This change is described by Austal as "a natural step". I don't see what's natural about it, but who knows?  I don't think this saga is over yet.  June 26, 2012.

 
GD Taking Over Austal USA?

Upheaval in Mobile this week, with the resignation of Austal USA's President, Joe Rella, and the presence of Austal Chairman and Founder John Rothwell, accompanied by several members of the company's Board of Directors.  The hot rumor is that a majority interest in the yard is being sold to GD, with ex-BIW President Dugan Shipway coming in as interim President.  Probably not a bad idea, depending on how the company is restructured.  Lots more to come on this topic, no doubt.  Never a dull moment!  June 26, 2012.
 
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8065
  • The path not taken.
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #14 on: July 03, 2012, 03:09:46 am »
From the same source:

Quote
Jamming Them In

Oh my, here's yet another fiasco involving the LCSs.  Defense News reports that the Freedom-class boats are to have 20 additional berths installed to allow for an increase in the size of the core crew from 40 to 60.  Read the story here.  Note that these boats are already deficient in berth space, with extra berths being provided in containers located in space currently designated for mission modules.  Great planning, guys!  July 2, 2012.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline pathology_doc

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 789
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #15 on: July 03, 2012, 07:19:30 am »
Time to raise Sir William White from the dead, give him a crash-course in modern shipbuilding and design methods, and let him loose.  :P  Surely he couldn't do any worse than this lot.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8065
  • The path not taken.
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #16 on: July 12, 2012, 09:55:21 am »
Via gCaptain's Facebook page (Flickr Favorites Album):


[IMAGE CREDIT: US Navy/gCaptain]
Original Caption: USS Fort Worth (LCS 3) sea trials, photo courtesy US Navy

« Last Edit: July 12, 2012, 09:57:13 am by Grey Havoc »
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8065
  • The path not taken.
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #17 on: July 15, 2012, 07:05:24 am »
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline Arjen

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2187
  • It's turtles all the way down
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #18 on: July 15, 2012, 07:20:33 am »
Quote
Planners originally envisaged the LCS as a replacement for the fleet’s frigates, minesweepers and patrol boats, but the new assessments conclude the ships are not equal to today’s frigates or mine countermeasures ships, and they are too large to operate as patrol boats.
The LCS, according to the assessments, is not able to fulfill most of the fleet missions required by the Navy’s primary strategy document, the “Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower,” and included in a 2011 revision of the LCS CONOPS document.
Equipped with a surface warfare or maritime security mission package, the ships were judged capable of carrying out theater security cooperation and deterrence missions, and maritime security operations, such as anti-piracy.
But the LCS vessels cannot successfully perform three other core missions envisioned for them — forward presence, sea control or power projection missions — and they can provide only limited humanitarian assistance or disaster relief operations, sources said.
Jack of all some trades, master of none. Expensive, too.

Offline pathology_doc

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 789
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #19 on: July 15, 2012, 07:30:58 am »
forward presence, sea control or power projection missions — and they can provide only limited humanitarian assistance or disaster relief operations, sources said.

Perhaps it's time to reinvent the category of "second-class cruiser" that the Victorian-era Royal Navy found so useful. A rapid-fire five-inch up front, OTO-Melara 76mm behind, CIWS somewhere handy and a 32-cell VLS for quadpack Sea Sparrow or some variant thereof and some SSMs, a platoon or so of Marines, some RHIBs  and one or two large-ish helicopters. An armour belt that will keep out smallarms, man-portable recoilless rifles and RPGs.

And a yardarm, from which to hang pirates when caught.

Offline Hobbes

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 612
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #20 on: July 15, 2012, 10:48:09 am »
So basically a European frigate?

Offline pathology_doc

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 789
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #21 on: July 17, 2012, 12:10:37 pm »
Perhaps, but upsized for Atlantic and/or Pacific work rather than being optimized to the Mediterranean, for instance. A well-balanced and roomy ship, rather than a crowded one, with at least two Goalkeepers, Sea King an easy fit into the hangar, and very large magazines for the gun armament.


The main military opposition would be pirate speedboats plus fast patrol boats, corvettes and glamour-frigates operated by second-rate powers, with sustained rapid-fire surface support of landing teams a secondary mission - no pretence at intending to take on high-class opposition unaided, but the ability to hack down a first wave of SSMs or ASMs and launch enough Harpoons or Harpoon-successors to guarantee a spite-kill of a first-rate frigate or destroyer is implicit in the concept. To what extent it should be capable of ASW work, I have yet to decide.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8065
  • The path not taken.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline Hobbes

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 612
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #23 on: July 24, 2012, 09:25:56 am »
Perhaps, but upsized for Atlantic and/or Pacific work rather than being optimized to the Mediterranean, for instance. A well-balanced and roomy ship, rather than a crowded one, with at least two Goalkeepers, Sea King an easy fit into the hangar, and very large magazines for the gun armament.

I was thinking of the current crop of European 'frigates', e.g. the F124 and Zeven Provinciën. Those aren't exactly small at around 6000t.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8065
  • The path not taken.
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #24 on: August 06, 2012, 09:18:51 am »
Congressional Research Service report on the LCS program from June of this year: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL33741.pdf
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline Arjen

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2187
  • It's turtles all the way down
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #25 on: August 17, 2012, 02:12:34 am »
From AviationWeek:
U.S. Navy Officials Suppressed Bad LCS-1 Test Results
 
Quote

U.S. Navy emails and other documents suggest that officials muzzled bad test results for the first Littoral Combat Ship (LCS-1) variant, the USS Freedom, at a crucial time in the program’s development, when the service was considering which seaframe to pick for the $30 billion-plus fleet.
...
“I am disturbed by the Navy’s selective disclosure about what is going on in this program,” U.S. Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), a member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said after Aviation Week shared text of the emails with her staff. “If these had been good results, they would’ve hurried to the Hill to ring out the good news. Congress has the responsibility and obligation to be as knowledgeable as possible about the ships we purchase for our military forces. Most importantly, we must know whether these multibillion dollar programs will meet the operational needs and safety requirements for our troops.”
...
The documents show Navy officials planning to excise information that reflected badly on the ship, chastising subordinates for using certain negative language and cautioning them against using particular phrases that put the ship in a bad light.
For example, a fall 2010 report on the ship’s calm-water trials stated the “ship is inherently directionally unstable.” The report raised concerns that efforts to fix the instability could hamper overall maneuverability. In a Dec. 15, 2010 email about those calm-water trials Cmdr. James Garner, the Freedom’s commanding officer, told Cmdr. Matt Weber, the ship’s executive officer: “Good brief. Thanks for putting this together. I had a healthy conversation with Dan Brintzinghoffer today and he asked that we not use terms directional instability or the like in any briefings or discussions. The bottom line is concern with respect to the down select, but the definition of the term is also in question. I removed that in the brief but kept the bullets that discuss what we observed.”
...
In the wake of recent Aviation Week reports about current corrosion, system failures and design or fabrication issues aboard Freedom, Navy and Lockheed officials have touted the rigorous rounds of testing and operations the ship has undergone thus far.
But the email on Dec. 15, 2010, from Garner to Weber — shortly after Navy officials proposed the dual-buy plan — suggested the smooth-water testing was not as successful as had apparently been believed or reported to higher-ups. After the smooth-water trials, the ship’s rough-water trials were suspended in February 2011 because of hull and deckhouse cracking and rough seas. It has yet to pass those tests.
...
Defense analysts familiar with the LCS program say that although the ships were built with research and development (R&D) funding, they were not – until spring of this year – referred to as R&D ships.
...
   But the cost to the Navy, Rep. Speier says, has been one of credibility, given the timing of the emails apparently meant to bury negative reports about LCS-1. “These emails seem to indicate test results were manipulated to hide the true level of risk in the LCS program,” she says. “This raises disturbing questions about the integrity of the information Congress received, and whether we are being given the information we need to be good custodians of taxpayer dollars. Congress must stop relying upon the Navy and Navsea to reassure us that these problems are being adequately addressed and should instead get an independent assessment of this program and its management.”
Others have questioned the timing of the Navy proposal. “Did the timing of the Navy’s proposal provide Congress with enough time to adequately assess the relative merits of the downselect strategy and the dual-award strategy?” the Congressional Research Service (CRS) asks.
CRS notes that contractors submitted their bids by mid-September of that year and also asks if the Navy could have notified Congress of the proposed dual-award strategy sooner than November 2010, giving Congress more time to seek information on and evaluate the proposal.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8065
  • The path not taken.
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #26 on: January 14, 2013, 09:52:31 am »
Originally spotted over at MilitaryPhotos.net:
Special Report: Littoral Warfare (DefenseNews)


[IMAGE CREDIT: US Navy/DefenseNews]

EDIT: The image link has been restored, but once bitten, twice shy!

Quote
Four Colors

The Navy already had decided on another basic change to Freedom for the Singapore deployment — painting the entire ship. Originally, only the steel hull was painted, and the aluminum superstructure was left untouched, primarily to eliminate the need to maintain the coatings.

Freedom's counterpart in the LCS program, the all-aluminum Independence, is not painted at all above the waterline.

But when Freedom emerges from drydock in late February, it should be sporting a new, four-color camouflage scheme conceived and designed by the Blue Crew — something not seen on a larger U.S. combatant ship in many years.

“I want my ship to look like a warship,” declared Thien, who commanded a coastal patrol crew that manned several camouflaged patrol boats. “If we're going to paint it, we might as well go all the way.”

While camouflaged ships were the norm in the world wars, the advent of radar made use of “dazzle” patterns less common, and today, only a few ships sport camouflage patterns. Small patrol units were camouflaged during the Vietnam War and for operations in the Arabian Gulf, and the gray schemes applied to most naval warships worldwide are considered a form of camouflage. But Freedom will become the first larger U.S. surface combatant in recent memory to be painted up in a multicolor camouflage pattern — haze white, haze gray, ocean gray and flat black.

Thien pointed out several features of the camo pattern and noted how the white patterns conveyed a false bow wave on the port side, while hinting at a false bow on the starboard pattern. The black areas are strategically laid over diesel engine exhausts in the ship's side, where they might hide smudge spots.

Camouflage can't hide a ship from radar or infrared or other sensors, according to Heinken.

“It could confuse their visual identification,” Heinken said. “Any time you can confuse an enemy's targeting problem, create doubt about a ship's true heading or identity, you could gain an advantage.”

And, he added, “operating against the shore, it could blend in, unlike a blue-water ship.”
« Last Edit: January 15, 2013, 03:33:35 am by Grey Havoc »
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8065
  • The path not taken.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8065
  • The path not taken.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8065
  • The path not taken.
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #29 on: February 27, 2013, 04:08:18 am »
Again via CDR Salamander:



The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline Creative

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 241
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #30 on: February 27, 2013, 07:41:38 pm »
I hope Independence gets a paint job too because the current unpainted aluminum looks terrible.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8065
  • The path not taken.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline 2IDSGT

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 371
  • Ah tale yew wut!
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #32 on: March 18, 2013, 05:50:04 am »
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130317/DEFREG02/303170001/U-S-Navy-Weighs-Halving-LCS-Order
HOLY SH!T!!!  Someone finally realized LCS is a toothless, under-crewed car-ferry and that Burkes aren't big enough to handle future requirements.  What common sense will they come up with next?!  Ramps on the America-class LHAs?  Upping FRP plans for the F-35?  Further F-22 development/production?  Get serious about the CUDA missile?  Deleting the unmanned (aka land-itself-in-Iran) option on LRS-B?

Offline Arjen

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2187
  • It's turtles all the way down
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #33 on: March 21, 2013, 01:38:21 am »
If modularity is so important to LCS, have its designers considered fitting Danish StanFlex modules? Or some derivative?

Offline 2IDSGT

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 371
  • Ah tale yew wut!
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #34 on: March 21, 2013, 02:16:14 am »
If modularity is so important to LCS, have its designers considered fitting Danish StanFlex modules? Or some derivative?
Looks too late for that.  The LCS modular concept would appear to be much-less integral (simply CONEXs shoved into the well-deck).


Offline Arjen

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2187
  • It's turtles all the way down
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #35 on: March 21, 2013, 02:53:16 am »
Looks too late for that. The LCS modular concept would appear to be much-less integral (simply CONEXs shoved into the well-deck)
That's what I was afraid of. About it being late: StanFlex has been around since the eighties, modules are in use, from missile launchers through SIGINT to VDS. Somebody in the LCS program must have been aware of its existence. Why do nothing with it?

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8065
  • The path not taken.
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #36 on: March 21, 2013, 02:58:10 am »
Looks too late for that. The LCS modular concept would appear to be much-less integral (simply CONEXs shoved into the well-deck)
That's what I was afraid of. About it being late: StanFlex has been around since the eighties, modules are in use, from missile launchers through SIGINT to VDS. Somebody in the LCS program must have been aware of its existence. Why do nothing with it?

Oh, for the same reasons that the Raytheon LCS design wasn't selected in preference to the two disasters that were, I'd say.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #37 on: March 21, 2013, 05:48:02 am »
Re: Raytheon's LCS.   I didn't get a lot of warm fuzzies at the idea of a carbon fiber hull twice the size of the previous largest carbon fiber warship. 

Offline 2IDSGT

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 371
  • Ah tale yew wut!
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #38 on: March 21, 2013, 10:55:44 am »
Re: Raytheon's LCS.   I didn't get a lot of warm fuzzies at the idea of a carbon fiber hull twice the size of the previous largest carbon fiber warship.

Neither would I anymore...


Offline RP1

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 440
  • I see the truth in it.
    • RP1 dot net
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #39 on: March 22, 2013, 12:04:01 pm »
Quote
That's what I was afraid of. About it being late: StanFlex has been around since the eighties, modules are in use, from missile launchers through SIGINT to VDS. Somebody in the LCS program must have been aware of its existence. Why do nothing with it?


STANFLEX is an encapsulation of the range of weapon systems required by the RDN at the time of its' introduction, so - in it's precise form - would not necessarily be applicable to LCS. IIRC I have somewhere a STANFLEX presentation that was specifically produced for a USN LCS industry day or similar.


The two LCS ships have two forms of modularity:


1. The mission bay & hangar can support embarked modules - mostly something around ISO container sizes, generally to support deployable systems such as UxVs. This is effectively what is being done with manned aviation anyway - Merlin uses a mostly modular support infrastructure and IIRC CVF / QEC will do too.


2. Both ships have STANFLEX-esque module bays in the hull & superstructure (I think the monohull only has them in the superstructure). The NETFIRES missiles would have been fitted from one such module, and the 30mm guns are fitted in one.


The big difference between these and STANFLEX, or course, is that the RDN knew what was going to be put in the modules and so could develop a precise physical specification by working out the required envelope. (Albeit with some brilliantly simple modifications e.g. the change from 8 to 6 MK48 silos). Inherent in this is the acceptance that "that's the way it is and that's they way it always will be".


The LCS modular system seems to have been developed in parallel with an initial set of weapons systems and ahead of those that may eventually be carried by the ship, so is a bit more problematic, as it becomes a limiting factor, rather than an interface mechanism.


Regards,


RP1
"Just your standard-issue big gun."
- Batou, Ghost in the Shell

http://rp-one.net/

Offline RP1

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 440
  • I see the truth in it.
    • RP1 dot net
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #40 on: March 22, 2013, 12:14:34 pm »
Quote
Neither would I anymore...


The problems start at launch. Shorter ships such as Visby and the Indonesian trimaran can have hullform proportions and interactions with the seaway that mean that the most significant load case for the hullform structural design may not in fact be longitudinal bending, as is the case for a larger hullform. In some cases, the local loading due to engine installations etc may be far more significant.


This means that unconventional materials such as composites can be used as the bending loads are much less severe. Build a frigate out of composites and suddenly we are using the materials in a new way, where the anisotropic nature of composite strength, fatigue resistance etc will greatly complicate structural design.


Of course, this is not to say that one could not build a large vessel from composites - rather that it increases the risk, and thus expense, associated with doing so.


Regards,


RP1
"Just your standard-issue big gun."
- Batou, Ghost in the Shell

http://rp-one.net/

Offline Arjen

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2187
  • It's turtles all the way down
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #41 on: March 22, 2013, 12:35:07 pm »
Just the sort of answers I was hoping for. Thanks.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8065
  • The path not taken.
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #42 on: March 23, 2013, 02:44:57 am »
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline Creative

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 241
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #43 on: March 23, 2013, 09:58:51 am »
NLOS-LS Mission Module.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8065
  • The path not taken.
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #44 on: March 31, 2013, 02:38:43 pm »
There are parts of this, including the UISS, that seem to be directly LCS related: http://www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y2013/Navy/stamped/0603502N_4_PB_2013.pdf
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline 2IDSGT

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 371
  • Ah tale yew wut!
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #45 on: April 14, 2013, 05:41:08 am »

Offline entlim

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 1
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #46 on: April 15, 2013, 07:06:19 am »
it seems like this program is beset with gremlins much like the Air Force's F-22/35.... :o

Offline BioLuminescentLamprey

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 90
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #47 on: April 16, 2013, 03:31:35 pm »
Awesome. More conventional wisdom firing in from the sidelines.

Offline TaiidanTomcat

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 863
  • "A wretched hive of scum and villainy."
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #48 on: April 17, 2013, 09:47:52 pm »
it seems like this program is beset with gremlins much like the Air Force's F-22/35 All new military programs.... :o

Fixed it for ya!Welcome aboard BTW!
All F-35 threads will be locked, and supporters publicly outed or banned.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8065
  • The path not taken.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8065
  • The path not taken.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline 2IDSGT

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 371
  • Ah tale yew wut!
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #51 on: May 06, 2013, 03:07:43 pm »
Navy Sec. Mabus: LCS Freedom Ready To Keep Peace In The Pacific
http://breakingdefense.com/2013/05/03/navy-sec-mabus-lcs-freedom-ready-to-keep-peace-in-the-pacific/
Quote
...Freedom has been bedeviled by cost overruns, delays, and manufacturing defects, with a new problem, seawater contamination in lubricant fluid, arising on its trans-Pacific trip. But the bigger picture Mabus said, is how this new class of small and nimble ship will cooperate with foreign partners to keep the peace in the volatile South China Sea and the strategic Strait of Malacca.

“Freedom is the first of its class, and it was built as an experimental ship, and every first of the class has some issues,”...
Such an idiotic waste of time.  The USN is gonna keep being forced to make modifications and add manpower until they end up with a frigate... and one not as good as if they had just ordered such in the first place.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #52 on: May 06, 2013, 05:00:52 pm »
Quote
Littoral Combat Ships are significantly smaller, less well-armed, and less resistant to battle damage than the Navy’s workhorse DDG-51 Arleigh Burke destroyers. But precisely for that reason, they’re less intimidating to partners whose navies often resemble the US Coast Guard more than the US Navy’s ocean-going battle fleet. The ship also has a significantly shallower draft than full-size warships, giving it better access to coastal waters like those of the congested Strait of Malacca. And if LCS were to show up in one of China’s mid-sea standoffs, it will still loom large compared to the lightly armed or entirely unarmed civilian maritime patrol vessels the Chinese usually (thought not always) dispatch instead of more escalatory warships.

Stability in the South China Sea is essential because, with all the turmoil in the Middle East, the last thing the planet needs is a crisis at the Pacific end of the great Gulf-to-Asia oil trade that drives half of the world’s economy. “Even in peacetime,” Mabus said in his formal remarks, a threat from an “unstable regime” (i.e. Iran) can send oil prices spiking.

“I use the term unstable regime because my public affairs officer, [Captain] Pamela Kunze, told me I had to quit using the word ‘yahoo,’” Mabus let slip, pointing out Capt. Kunze in the front row, and then went on, “the threat of some yahoo” — he had to pause a moment to let the laughter die down — “may drive prices up.”

Mabus may not have been particularly diplomatic, but the servicemen and women about the Singapore-stationed warships will need to be. Said the Secretary, “they have to be great warriors — but they also have to be great diplomats.”

Source:
http://breakingdefense.com/2013/05/03/navy-sec-mabus-lcs-freedom-ready-to-keep-peace-in-the-pacific/

Oh, LCS stands for Less-intimidating Combat Ship.

Offline Creative

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 241
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #53 on: May 06, 2013, 08:05:40 pm »
So I guess the analogy would be: from Armored SWAT Truck to Bicycle Patrol?

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 908
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #54 on: May 07, 2013, 12:40:06 am »
SWAT APC to a police cruiser is not a bad analogy, actually.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8065
  • The path not taken.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline 2IDSGT

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 371
  • Ah tale yew wut!
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #56 on: May 22, 2013, 08:56:28 pm »
USS Freedom Cuts Short Initial Singapore Underway
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_05_22_2013_p0-581101.xml

*Sigh*  More of the same.

Offline seruriermarshal

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 861
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #57 on: May 23, 2013, 03:25:57 pm »
Austal LCS, JHSV Run Sea Trials

The second joint high speed vessel, USNS Choctaw County (JHSV 2), completed its acceptance trials May 3, the Naval Sea Systems Command announced on May 16. The all-aluminum catamarans are built by Austal USA in Mobile, Ala.

Spearhead, the first JHSV, was delivered in December, and is undergoing tests and evaluation at Little Creek, Va.,

All 10 JHSVs will be operated by the Military Sealift Command.

Also at Austal, the Coronado (LCS 4) completed its builder’s sea trials, interrupted April 13 when poorly-installed insulation on the ship’s diesel uptakes caught fire. The ship, which got underway May 8, reportedly ran at speeds up to 43 knots on the renewed sea trials, and Rear Adm. Jim Murdoch, the Navy’s officer in charge of the LCS program, said May 17 he was “quite pleased” with the results of the trials.

After delivery and completion this year, the Coronado is expected to arrive at its homeport of San Diego in January.

http://blogs.defensenews.com/intercepts/2013/05/new-ship-news/

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8065
  • The path not taken.
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #58 on: June 07, 2013, 01:24:53 am »
A Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments paper on the LCS program from 2004, titled Naval Transformation and the Littoral Combat Ship.

A Febuary 2004 presentation from the same source, titled Naval Transformation and the LCS.

EDIT: A June 2003 description of the (by now infamous) Sea Swap concept: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a430071.pdf

And finally, via the FAS, a CRS report for Congress on the LCS program, from May of this year.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2013, 03:59:39 am by Grey Havoc »
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #59 on: June 10, 2013, 07:01:05 pm »
I thought that this article was interesting. Elements in the United States Navy try to point out that the LCS is a different animal:

"NavWeek: LCS -- The Battle Within"
Posted by Michael Fabey 2:14 PM on Jun 07, 2013

Source:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a9a2884d3-aad9-460d-a413-0032e701d4d9

Quote
Do not compare LCS to current platforms.  It cannot be manned, trained, equipped, or maintained or tactically employed in the same way.  NO OLD THINK.”

-                               --  2008 U.S. Navy LCS Cardinal Rules (Emphasis in original)

The biggest impediment to the potential success of the U.S. Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) may very well be some of the top-level brass who continue to view the ship through the “old-think” prism used to scrutinize traditional Navy warships.

Whether the Navy achieves operational or acquisition success with LCS remains to be seen. There is still no production-model ship at sea yet with which to gauge cost and tactical effectiveness.

But we do most definitely have a ship that is designed to be operated far differently than any other warship before it. At the high-altitude conceptual level, that is precisely what the Navy wanted.

The Navy’s desires for this different kind of warship are spelled out not only in the “Cardinal Rules,” as cited above, but also in the initial LCS concept of operations (conops), Required Operational Capabilities (Roc) And Projected Operational Environment (Poe), a list of required waivers from warship manning and other requirements, and even its damage-control manual.

I’ve reviewed all of these documents, which date back to the previous decade – as the first ships were being built – and they detail clearly just how differently the LCS vessels are meant to be operated in the Navy fleet compared to the nation’s traditional surface combatants.

Consider some more of the cardinal rules: do not covet simultaneous multi-mission capability; manpower is a constraint – view it as an aircrew (who only operate but do not maintain their aircraft); and, do not deviate and make policy decisions that don’t match capability.

The lack of the same multi-mission capability that other surface ships are  known for is a biggie– most Navy warships are designed to go out and face a host of threats at any given time. That’s not the LCS role, as envisioned. And, as the LCS conops says, the ships are “not designed to operate in a high-intensity air defense environment.” Instead, as the Roc & Poe says, the ships’ “mission is to operate offensively in a high density, multi-threat littoral environment.”

There is a world of difference between a “high-intensity air-defense” scenario – the kind a destroyer or cruiser might fight in – and a “high-density, multi-threat littoral” combat zone filled with swarming speedboats, for example.

Essentially, the conops says, LCS vessels are meant to remain somewhat removed from major threats, under the protective umbrella of other ships or Navy assets, and use unmanned systems for most of the more dangerous work.

True, the Navy says it is reworking LCS conops now. But most of the revisions under consideration appear to be at a more tactical level. The overall strategic tone – that of a fast, agile, low-manned, relatively inexpensive warship meant for light engagements – seems to remain well-anchored as the program goes forward.

Manning is a particularly important issue for LCS. Indeed many of the “100s of deviations” from standard warship operating requirements identified in 2007-08 timeframe in preparation for ship deliveries’ have dealt with manning, according to Navy documents.

The LCS needs the deviations, the Navy says, because the ships simply cannot meet traditional Navy requirements for “manpower or ship design” because they are not meant nor built to do that.

The Navy also says, “Intent is to ultimately modify existing instructions and policies to account for LCS,” but the service also maintains the deviations do not represent “relaxation of standards but acknowledgement of LCS differences.” The deviations were well-vetted, the Navy says, referring to captain-level “summits” to approve the waivers.

So why is it then that recently leaked admiral reports criticize the LCS vessels on manning and survivability issues – apparently in comparison with traditional Navy warship ideals – which were the very things that were supposed to be different about LCS, according to the cardinal rules, conops, deviations and suchlike?

Well, for one thing, the admirals’ reviews are part of a very normal Navy process for scrubbing any ship or system. While many of the criticisms seem harsh, it must be remembered that other ships – including the now-beloved FFG frigates whose missions LCSs are meant to take over – suffered some of the same vilification.

“I welcome the debate,” says Admiral Jonathan Greenert, chief of naval operations.  It is through such discussion, he says, that the Navy develops the best ships possible.

Of course, he acknowledges, he wishes it had not become such a public debate. What’s become particularly public recently is last year’s classified review by Rear Adm. Samuel Perez.  Perez went aboard the LCS-1 USS Freedom last year when the ship was in San Diego. Many of his findings were reported shortly after his trip by Aviation Week in a series of reports based on interviews with crew members, program officials, sources who asked not to identified as well as on official and unofficial tours of the vessel.

While Navy officials still won’t disclose the document, they do acknowledge that Perez cited a failure to address LCS requirements, potential combat capability shortfalls, the need for a “correct” conops, and vulnerability to ships with certain anti-ship missiles – or any vessel other than small, fast boats.

Perez also questions how well the LCSs will be able to navigate in narrow waterways and tight harbors, Navy officials say, although the admiral does agree the ship has potential to be a strong Navy asset.

What needs to be remembered, says Rear Adm. Thomas Rowden, director of surface warfare, is that Perez was charged with putting the LCS through the wringer. “He was told to look hard,” Rowden says. “And he looked hard.”

And the Navy took that report to heart. The service did not simply shelve it. The conops are being revisited, at least on the tactical level. The manning levels are under review; the Freedom is now operating in Singapore with a pilot program of an additional 13 core crew members, bringing the total to 53.

But there are some things in the Perez report that will not likely result in stark changes to the LCS program. Some of the critiques appear to be based in the Navy “old-think” the LCS cardinal rules say to avoid. For example, the LCSs are designed to take on small, fast boats. That’s supposed to be the conops sweet spots for these vessels.

Perez is not the only one to question LCS vulnerability. The Pentagon’s Director of Testing and Evaluation (DOT&E) has done so in the past and another DOT&E report is expected soon.

But again, the criticisms seem to grade the LCS on the same curve as you would a traditional destroyer or cruiser – which is exactly the opposite of what the Navy concept says should be done.

Furthermore, most of the discussion seems to hinge on the design of the vessel, Rowden says, with very little attention paid to the way the Navy plans to use the LCS. There are quite a few variables, he notes, that determine how vulnerable a ship will be in any given situation.

That message needs to be circulated more – not only to the DOT&E, but also within the ranks of the Navy.

As former Navy Undersecretary Robert Work says in a recent draft white paper on LCS development for the Naval War College: “It is one thing to fight hard for the LCS program in the halls of the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill, and quite another to fight hard for the ship within the fleet itself.  While surface warfare officers might grudgingly accept a guided missile frigate’s less capable multi-warfare combat capabilities if forced to do so, it would take a lot to convince them that a ship only three-quarters the size of an FFG, and one so dependent on ‘the network,’ would be a wise addition to the battle force. And, in hindsight, there was never a concerted effort to sway them, one way or the other. As a result, the general lack of emphasis on socializing the LCS concept and design gradually had a pernicious influence on the fleet’s view and acceptance of the ship.”

Work points out, “Trust in the LCS concept and design remains low. The Navy needs to do a better job in explaining what it expects the ship to do, and how it fits within its planned fleet architecture.”

The Navy needs to rid the service of the “old think.” The admirals and surface warfare officers would be a good place to start.

Offline seruriermarshal

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 861
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #60 on: June 14, 2013, 04:54:21 pm »
LCS-4


Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #61 on: July 21, 2013, 09:40:21 pm »
"Kongsberg pushes NSM to US Navy as near-term OASuW option"
Richard Scott, Washington, DC - IHS Jane's Navy International
16 January 2013

Source:
http://www.janes.com/article/10271/kongsberg-pushes-nsm-to-us-navy-as-near-term-oasuw-option

Quote
Norway's Kongsberg Defence Systems is stepping up efforts to position its Nytt Sjomalsmissile/Naval Strike Missile (NSM) and derivative Joint Strike Missile (JSM) for nascent US Navy Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare (OASuW) requirements.

While the company has hitherto focused most of its efforts on JSM - an air-launched multimission precision-guided weapon designed for internal carriage on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) - it is now additionally pushing the ship-launched NSM as a near-term ship-launched OASuW option for USN surface combatants. In addition, the company has revealed studies for a vertical launch (VL) variant of JSM suitable for firing from a standard Mk 41 launcher cell.

An artist's impression of the Independence-class LCS fitted with an NSM box launcher. (Kongsberg Gruppen)
« Last Edit: July 22, 2013, 01:11:50 am by Triton »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #62 on: July 22, 2013, 01:20:20 am »
"General Dynamics Completes Successful Critical Design Review for Knifefish UUV"
April 9, 2013

Source:
http://www.unmannedsystemstechnology.com/2013/04/general-dynamics-completes-successful-critical-design-review-for-knifefish-uuv/
 
Quote
General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems has successfully completed the critical design review for Knifefish, the surface-mine countermeasure unmanned undersea vehicle (SMCM UUV), one month ahead of schedule.

The General Dynamics team will now begin the development of the system hardware and software to integrate the approved design via the fabrication of three engineering development modules. Knifefish is an essential component of the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) mine countermeasure (MCM) mission package, providing U.S. Navy commanders and sailors with enhanced mine-hunting capabilities.

Expected to attain initial operational capability in 2017, Knifefish is the first heavyweight-class mainstream mine countermeasure (MCM) UUV that will address the Navy’s need to reliably detect and classify mines resting on the seafloor and buried mines in high-clutter environments and areas with potential for mine burial. Knifefish also gathers environmental data to provide intelligence support for other mine warfare systems.

Knifefish will help greatly reduce risk to Navy personnel and ships by operating in minefields as an off-board sensor, while the host ship stays outside the minefield boundaries. The modular, open Knifefish has been designed to integrate with both variants of LCS via the common LCS interface control document.

“Knifefish is designed to be compatible with an open architecture platform, ensuring that the Navy’s mission systems will keep pace with technology and continue to evolve to meet current and future mission requirements,” said Lou Von Thaer, president of General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems. “The ease of the ‘plug and play’ integration with ship systems and mission modules allows for platform flexibility and quick reconfiguration of the whole mission package in response to the dynamic requirements the fleet will encounter day to day.”

The U.S. Navy’s Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) awarded General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems a contract to design and build Knifefish in September 2011.

The General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems team on the Knifefish program includes Bluefin Robotics (Quincy, Mass.), Ultra Electronic Ocean Systems (Braintree, Mass.), Oceaneering International, Inc. (Houston, Texas), Metron (Reston, Va.), Applied Research Laboratory at Penn State University (State College, Pa.), 3 Phoenix (Hanover, Md.), General Dynamics Information Technology (Fairfax, Va.) and ASRC Research Technology Solutions (Greenbelt, Md.).
- See more at: http://www.unmannedsystemstechnology.com/2013/04/general-dynamics-completes-successful-critical-design-review-for-knifefish-uuv/#sthash.J4LOty66.dpuf
« Last Edit: July 22, 2013, 01:43:43 am by Triton »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #63 on: July 22, 2013, 01:27:29 am »
"Bluefin Completes Knifefish SMCM UUV Design Review"

Source:
http://www.bluefinrobotics.com/news-and-downloads/press/bluefin-completes-knifefish-smcm-uuv-design-review/

Quote
Quincy, MA, USA - 13 July 2012 - Bluefin Robotics, a leading provider of Unmanned Underwater Vehicle (UUV) solutions for US Navy Programs of Record announced today that the company has successfully completed the Preliminary Design Review for Knifefish, the Surface Mine Countermeasure Unmanned Underwater Vehicle (SMCM UUV). In November of 2011, Bluefin announced a subcontract from General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems (GDAIS) for the engineering and manufacturing of Knifefish - a specialized Bluefin-21 UUV. A scale model of the design was revealed at the Sea-Air-Space conference in Maryland in April 2012.

 "We are pleased with Bluefin's ability to produce innovative designs for Knifefish while successfully meeting cost and schedule targets," said Harry Grant, Director of Sensors and Surveillance Business Area at GDAIS. "Bluefin continues to serve as a key contributor supporting the GDAIS Team in passing this important program milestone."

 

Knifefish will be a critical part of the Littoral Combat Ship Mine Warfare mission package and will provide the fleet mine warfare commander and sailors with enhanced mine-hunting capability by addressing the Navy's need to reliably detect and identify proud and buried mines in high-clutter environments.


The SMCM UUV System will include two Knifefish UUVs in addition to launch and recovery equipment, a support container, spare parts and support equipment. The UUV will feature Bluefin's field-swappable batteries, a top-of-the-line integrated navigation system, and low-noise propulsion technology. Bluefin's intuitive user software interface, the Operator Tool Suite, will also be provided for mission planning and monitoring. In addition, the vehicle will carry an advanced sonar payload provided by the GDAIS Team.

The subcontract includes an option for the production of up to five low rate initial production systems (ten UUVs) and various other options. Work will be performed in Quincy, Massachusetts.

ABOUT BLUEFIN ROBOTICS

Bluefin Robotics designs, manufactures and operates Unmanned Underwater Vehicle (UUV) systems and related technology. Founded in 1997, the company has grown to become a world leader in UUV products designed for defense, commercial, and scientific applications. Bluefin Robotics is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Battelle. For more information, please call +1-617-715-7000 and ask to speak with a sales engineer, send your inquiry to sales@bluefinrobotics.com or visit www.bluefinrobotics.com.

Model of General Dynamics/Bluefin Robotics Knifefish

Source:
http://stardefense.blogspot.com/2012/07/bluefin-completes-knifefish-smcm-uuv.html

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #64 on: July 23, 2013, 02:43:40 pm »
Quote
Published on Jun 28, 2013

Lockheed Martin's Surface-to-Surface Missile System for the Navy's Littoral Combat Ship is a fully integrated system consisting of a missile and missile modules optimized for employment from both the Freedom and Independence Class littoral combat ships.


Offline Madurai

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 97
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #65 on: July 23, 2013, 03:22:25 pm »
I'm curious to see exactly how they define "long range."

Offline SpudmanWP

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 948
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #66 on: July 23, 2013, 03:44:21 pm »
As is typical with a lot of LM info, there is none.

However, since Griffin 2B is headed for LCS as an interim solution, I think this may apply to the ER version of the Griffin (20km limit).

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2012armaments/Tuesday14016tackett.pdf

However, this is a Raytheon product so I would not be surprised to see LM come up with a JAVELIN variant to do the same thing.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2013, 03:49:21 pm by SpudmanWP »
WE4-45-1-08     OMHIWDMB
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 908
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #67 on: July 23, 2013, 04:54:23 pm »
This is very notional, but it appears they're using a Vertically-launched JAGM as the missile.

Offline SpudmanWP

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 948
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #68 on: July 23, 2013, 06:27:37 pm »
A vertically launched JAGM is not going to get into "long range" territory.  It would have to be longer and would need a more efficient motor.
WE4-45-1-08     OMHIWDMB
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

Offline seruriermarshal

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 861
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #69 on: August 05, 2013, 03:18:14 am »
USS CORONADO (LCS 4)
A Great Navy Photo Indeed! CORONADO and the Legendary BLUE ANGELS!
 
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=528079273930185&set=pb.191123770959072.-2207520000.1375697474.&type=3&theater

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 908
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #70 on: August 06, 2013, 12:18:42 am »
Well crap, Sequestration means the Blue Angels can't come to Seattle this year but they give take pretty pictures with Coronado? That's it, cancel LCS!

Offline seruriermarshal

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 861
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #71 on: August 22, 2013, 05:10:01 pm »
LCS 4 Acceptance Trials



Offline seruriermarshal

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 861
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #72 on: August 24, 2013, 05:36:27 pm »
Remote Mine Hunting Vehicle for LCS  ;D

Offline Creative

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 241
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #73 on: September 04, 2013, 06:30:49 am »

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8065
  • The path not taken.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline seruriermarshal

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 861
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #75 on: October 30, 2013, 04:58:03 am »
LCS-5 USS Milwaukee

 ;D ;D ;D

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 908
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #76 on: October 31, 2013, 06:04:08 pm »

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8065
  • The path not taken.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8065
  • The path not taken.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline seruriermarshal

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 861
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #79 on: November 23, 2013, 06:31:04 am »
More LCS-5

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8065
  • The path not taken.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline seruriermarshal

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 861
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #81 on: December 14, 2013, 04:09:24 pm »
 ;D

USS Jackson (LCS 6) rolled out the assembly bay at Austal USA

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #82 on: December 14, 2013, 07:37:53 pm »
"Birthing Ships is Never Easy; Give LCS A Break"
By Robert D. Holzer   on June 07, 2013 at 1:21 PM

Source:
http://breakingdefense.com/2013/06/birthing-ships-is-never-easy-give-lcs-a-break/

Quote
The chorus of criticism facing the first ships of the Navy’s new Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) class calls for a little historical context to be brought to this debate. Almost all new ship classes experienced considerable “birthing pains” in their early days.

This is not new. Indeed, the first six frigates acquired by the American Navy in 1797 all came in late and over budget.

The most strident criticisms about LCS focus on the USS Freedom (LCS-1, built by Lockheed Martin) and Independence (LCS-2, built by General Dynamics and Austal), which in addition to being the firsts of their respective ship design types, are essentially research and development firsts-of-class ships –– virtual prototypes. This means that these ships are experimental with characteristics, issues and challenges that will be corrected in follow-on ships. The Navy contributed to this situation, describing the lead units of both variants as “Sea Frame 0” platforms, begging the question: “what’s a ‘Sea Frame,’ anyway?
Hagel aboard USS Freedom

SecDef Hagel tours the USS Freedom in Singapore at Changi Naval Base.

All the first-of-class surface warships in recent Navy history have experienced significant problems to  one degree or another, all of which generated considerable criticism at the time of their construction and initial deployment.

The Knox class frigates (which achieved Initial Operational Capability in 1969) were labeled as “McNamara’s Folly” after then-Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and were often criticized for their single screw, single gun, and design-to-cost approach. Originally designated as destroyer-escorts, the entire class was re-classified as frigates in 1975 (in a general re-classification of U.S. surface warships), but were forever compared unfavorably to “real” destroyers.

Spruance class destroyers (IOC 1975) were criticized as bit 7,900 ton “destroyers” possessing only two five-inch guns and an ASROC launcher. They were hardly more capable than the still-in service World War II-era destroyers upgraded as part of the Fleet Rehabilitation and Modernization (FRAM) program. But the ships’ critics conveniently ignored other key facts that the Spruance-class was also helicopter capable, equipped with NATO Sea Sparrow Self Defense Missiles, and boasted a powerful bow mounted sonar. At the time, criticism of the Spruance ships was loud, strident and frequent.

The Perry class frigates (IOC 1977), much admired by many LCS critics, were unfavorably branded by as “square pegs” when they were first deployed. Criticism of the Perrys was fierce, including such charges as the ships had only a single shaft and were not survivable and suffered from the lack of main propulsion redundancy; they were problem-prone and had unreliable ship’s service diesel generators; a power-limited “fish finder” high-frequency sonar; and the Oto Malera 76mm was derided as a “pop gun” rather than a “proper” 5-inch gun. On top of all that, the critics said and the crew was too small and was unable to operate and maintain the ships properly. These echo many of today’s criticisms of LCS.

The Ticonderoga class cruisers fared little better when the lead ship first deployed in December 1983. Gallons of ink were spilled about how top heavy the ships were. They had weight and moment restrictions, suffered from poor sea keeping characteristics, and had unreliable “hydraulic fluid rain forest” MK26 missile launchers.

The Arleigh Burke class guided missile destroyers didn’t face as much criticism as its predecessors, but it was still roundly derided for having only a helicopter “lily pad” without an onboard hangar. Its engineering spaces with their low overheads bulged with pipes and cables. It was also said that the first ship, Arleigh Burke, was rebuilt three times over before final delivery because of an immature design, problems with sharing software between shipyards, and the late addition of “stealth” features.

Despite the early criticisms of almost every recent surface warship firsts of class, the Navy was able to successfully address the initial criticisms and fix their shortcomings. The criticisms of the Perry class ships were overcome in time, especially after the upgraded Coherent Receiver/Transmitter (CORT) combat systems were introduced.

The Spruance class evolved into a first rate anti-submarine warfare platform, with the Navy augmenting the original SQS-53 bow-mounted sonar with towed acoustic arrays in several ships of the class. Intelligence collection spaces were added aboard several ships, and the addition of Tomahawk cruise missiles, weapons that revolutionized the surface Navy by giving it a robust land attack warfare capability, were added later on. The four Kidd variants embarked improved MK26 launchers. Their design was the basis for the Ticonderoga guided missile cruisers.

The Ticonderoga class evolved into the premier anti-aircraft warfare platform in the world, and they too were fitted out with the MK41 vertical launching systems (VLS) to replace the MK26 missile launchers when VLS matured. In 2013, select ships have been upgraded to capable ballistic missile defense (BMD) assets. And what about the Arleigh Burke destroyers? Not only were later Flight II versions outfitted with helicopter hangars, but they  have evolved into what many naval experts say are the most capable surface warships ever built, capable of integrated AAW, ASW, BDM, and strike warfare missions.

Given the Navy’s history of initial issues and challenges, which the first ship of almost every modern surface combatant class has faced, are the challenges confronting USS Freedom and Independence significantly different? While it of course would be ideal if the first ships of any warship class would be delivered ready to go to war. It would be nice, but why should we expect less of the LCS firsts-of-class than the Spruance, Perry, Ticos, and Burkes have all achieved over time?

While some first-of-class ships are more highly criticized than others, the extent of negativity seems mostly attributable to the degree or amount of “newness” inherent in the ship’s design. The more “newness” that exists, the greater is the level of criticism. With LCS, which uniformed and civilian Navy leaders have universally said will usher in a new era in terms of how the Navy will conduct overseas presence and engagement, that “newness factor” is high. The Ticonderoga and Burke classes fared better, in terms of the overall level of criticism, compared to that leveled at lead ships of the Knox, Perry and Spruance classes, and now Freedom and Independence.

Part of this is attributable to the fact that Ticonderoga evolved from the already understood Spruance class, taking advantage of the same hull design and propulsion plant, but adding a new combat system. The Burke evolved from the Ticonderoga with the same combat system and propulsion plant, but a different hull design.

However, the Perry FFG began as a blank sheet of paper––originally conceived as a “Patrol Frigate” (PF-109)––with a significant amount of “newness”: new hull , new engineering plant, new sonar, new gun, and a new minimal-manning crew concept.

The LCS firsts-of-class are similarly “highly new”: new hull designs, new requirement for high speed, modular mission packages, heavy reliance on off-board vehicles for sensing and scouting, very minimal manning, crew swap, new shipbuilders, and a contractor supported maintenance strategy. Moreover, the Freedom and Indepedence are replacing three classes in terms of numbers, if not precisely in mission requirements: Cyclone class PCs, Perry class FFGs, and Avenger class MCMs. Given this degree of “newness,” it should not be surprising that LCS has generated so much public turbulence in the early stages of the programs.

The level of criticism being directed at LCS will most likely continue until additional ships of both the Freedom and Independence classes are delivered and deployed. Key to all this will be the fact that officers and sailors will learn in minute detail how to operate and maintain them––and unlock the operational flexibility and adaptability that Navy officials maintain are inherent in their respective designs.

Recent Navy history vividly demonstrates that the first ship of every class faced obstacles. We should maintain perspective: every new class of warship debuts to a chorus of critics

Robert Holzer, senior national security manager at Gryphon Technologies, was director of outreach for the Pentagon’s Office of Force Transformation and the longtime naval correspondent for Defense News. He is not working on LCS for any of the companies building the ships.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #83 on: December 14, 2013, 08:55:38 pm »
"NAVSEA: LCS Missile Competition Could Start Next Year"
By: USNI News Editor
Tuesday, July 2, 2013

Source:
http://news.usni.org/2013/07/02/navsea-lcs-missile-competition-could-start-next-year

Quote
The U.S. Navy could start its investigation into its new surface-to-surface missile for its Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program as early as next year, Naval Sea System Command officials told USNI News on Monday.

Currently, NAVSEA is testing the Raytheon Griffin IIB as part of the Surface Warfare (SuW) mission package, only, “as an interim capability,” according to a statement provided to USNI News.

“Subject to funds availability, detailed work on the solicitation contents could start in FY 2014,” NAVSEA said.
“Since this is planned competitive procurement, additional details will be released in the future, as required by Federal procurement regulations, by the cognizant contracting activity.”

The surface-to-surface missile is major missing component of the SuW package. A joint missile with a 25-mile range under development by the Army and the Navy — NLOS-LS — was deemed too expensive and canceled after more than $1 billion in development funds.
USS Freedom (LCS 1) is underway off the coast of Malaysia on June, 20 2013. US Navy Photo

The Navy selected Griffin in early 2011 as an interim capability. The Griffin is 43-inch missile was developed for U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) and weighs 33 pound with a 13 pound warhead. The missile is GPS guided and has been thought to have been used by SOCOM from airborne platforms. There is also a ground variant, though the surface-to-surface version only has a range of about 3.5 miles.

Last year the missile was successfully tested by the Navy engaging small boat targets, according to the company.

“Right now, this version of the Griffin probably doesn’t ultimately have enough range for this customer so we’re on LCS increment 1 with this Griffin, but what we need to do is, with what we’re calling a Sea Griffin, we need to put a bigger motor on the Griffin and give it some more range,” said Harry Schulte, vice president of air warfare systems for Raytheon’s missile systems business last week in a June, 23 report in Defense News.

Other competitors for the next increment could include the Sea Spear from European firm MBDA, reported Defense News.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #84 on: December 14, 2013, 09:18:32 pm »
I guess they don't plan on hitting anything bigger than a truck. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7144
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #85 on: December 14, 2013, 09:50:25 pm »
One wonders what plans the Navy has for things bigger than trucks hitting *them.*
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #86 on: December 14, 2013, 10:02:16 pm »
Wouldn't be as easy to integrate a M270 MLRS or ATACMS launcher and give you some range and serious multi-mission warheads?
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: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #87 on: December 14, 2013, 10:20:20 pm »
Would the Navy be better off buying the Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII) Patrol Frigate based on the National Security Cutter?

Northrop Grumman International Frigate
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,10964.0.html

What about building the remaining Independence-class and Freedom-class ships to their Multi-Mission Combatant (MMC) export configurations?

General Dynamics MMC
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,14174.0.html

Lockheed Martin MMC
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,17179.0.html
« Last Edit: December 14, 2013, 10:51:12 pm by Triton »

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 951
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #88 on: December 15, 2013, 05:21:29 pm »
One wonders what plans the Navy has for things bigger than trucks hitting *them.*

You don't need something bigger than a truck to scare the sailors on this boat.  Their weapon range is so severely short that a guy on a boat holding a rocket launcher is scary enough

Offline seruriermarshal

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 861
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #89 on: December 15, 2013, 05:31:38 pm »
Another pic of USS Jackson (LCS 6)

 ;D

Offline SpudmanWP

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 948
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #90 on: December 16, 2013, 08:09:53 am »
The missile is supposed to be for defending against swarm attacks.

I think they should go for Isreal's Spike-NLOS as it has a range of 25km, is sea-rated, can be command guided,  and packs a much bigger punch than Griffin.


WE4-45-1-08     OMHIWDMB
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #91 on: December 16, 2013, 11:21:27 am »
Video demonstration of MBDA Brimstone Sea Spear simulated FIAC ((Fast Inshore Attack Craft) engagement.



« Last Edit: December 16, 2013, 11:28:39 am by Triton »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #92 on: December 16, 2013, 11:26:33 am »
MBDA Brimstone Sea Spear

Source:
http://brimstonemissile.com/maritime/

Offline SpudmanWP

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 948
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #93 on: December 16, 2013, 12:00:40 pm »
If I may be so humble as to post my thoughts on UpGunning the LCS using "Of The Shelf" tech that does not go "through deck" with it's install.

Basic Layout


Remote M230 ChainGun


35mm Millennium Gun showing "above deck" mounting


Armored Hellfire mounted on a M113


Mix of Hellfire & DAGR-Class rockets on same mount

WE4-45-1-08     OMHIWDMB
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

Offline seruriermarshal

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 861
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #94 on: December 16, 2013, 04:10:49 pm »
 ;D

Future USS Jackson (LCS 6) Launches, Marks Production Milestone

Story Number: NNS131215-01Release Date: 12/15/2013 10:35:00 AM
A  A  A   Email this story to a friend   Print this story
By Program Executive Office Littoral Combat Ships (PEO LCS) Public Affairs

MOBILE, Ala. (NNS) -- The future USS Jackson (LCS 6) launched from the Austal USA shipyard in Mobile, Ala., Dec. 14, marking an important production milestone for the littoral combat ship program.

Jackson joins the future USS Milwaukee (LCS 5), which will launch from the Marinette Marine Corp. yard in Wisconsin next week.

These ships are the first vessels procured under the block buy contract awarded in 2010 and represent the true beginning of "serial production" for the class. With serial production, the Navy is able to realize benefits such as improved cost structure per vessel and reduced construction time.

"Seeing multiple littoral combat ships on the Mobile waterfront is a beautiful thing," said Capt. Tom Anderson, LCS program manager. "Serial production is in full swing at both building yards and we are seeing ship construction milestones, like launch, hitting their marks."

Following the launch, the ship will undergo outfitting, and test and evaluation of its major systems at the Austal shipyard.

The ship's christening, a ceremony that marks the official naming of the vessel, is planned for the spring.

The LCS class consists of two variants, the trimaran design Independence variant, and the monohull design Freedom variant. The ships are designed and built by two industry teams, led by Austal USA and Lockheed Martin, respectively. Jackson is the third LCS constructed by Austal USA.

Both variants within the LCS class are fast, agile, focused-mission platforms designed for operation in near-shore environments yet capable of open ocean operation. The LCS is designed to embark specialized mission packages to defeat "anti-access" threats such as mines, quiet diesel submarines and fast surface craft.

The Navy has been able to incorporate much of the knowledge gained in the construction, test and operation of LCS 1 and LCS 2, the lead ships of the class, into follow on ships.

Many of those are currently in various stages of construction, and will deliver to the Navy over the next few years. They include Jackson's sister ships; Montgomery (LCS 8), Gabrielle Giffords (LCS 10), Omaha (LCS 12), Manchester (LCS 14) and Tulsa (LCS 16).

Program Executive Office Littoral Combat Ships is affiliated with the Naval Sea Systems Command and provides a single program executive responsible for acquiring and sustaining mission capabilities of the littoral combat ship class, from procurement through fleet employment and sustainment. Delivering high-quality warfighting assets while balancing affordability and capability is key to supporting the Navy's Maritime Strategy.

http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=78288

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #95 on: December 19, 2013, 01:02:32 pm »
Published on Dec 18, 2013

The Lockheed Martin-led industry team launched the nation's fifth Littoral Combat Ship into the Menominee River on Wednesday, Dec. 18, 2013. The future LCS Milwaukee was formally christened prior to her launch by Mrs. Sylvia M. Panetta.

Milwaukee is the third Freedom-variant LCS, following the U.S. Navy's first LCS, USS Freedom, and USS Fort Worth (LCS 3).


Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #96 on: December 19, 2013, 01:06:18 pm »
Published on Dec 4, 2013

As the Milwaukee (LCS 5) prepares for christening, she was moved to her launch site. Mounted on special equipment, the ship left the building facility and completed a 180 degree turn on land before resting at the waterfront of the Menominee River in Marinette, Wisconsin. The 389 ft. ship will be formally christened and launched in December.



Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8065
  • The path not taken.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline malipa

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 183
  • TU Delft AE student
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #98 on: January 07, 2014, 07:58:41 am »
Why not put one set of VLC's on it, like 8 tubes. Fill 6 with LRASM and two with large anti aircraft missiles.. You could put it on the foredeck

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #99 on: January 15, 2014, 08:54:21 pm »
"USS Little Rock, From Light to Guided Missile Cruiser: Lessons For The Littoral Combat Ship"
by Norman Friedman   on December 23, 2013 at 3:14 PM

Source:
http://breakingdefense.com/2013/12/uss-little-rock-from-light-to-guided-missile-cruiser-lessons-for-the-littoral-combat-ship/

Quote
Warships are built to last a long time, so when they are laid down they are in essence bets on the future. But legendary baseball great and sometime philosopher Yogi Berra had it right, “It’s tough making predictions… especially about the future!” The increasing cost of modern warships makes it even more important that these platforms are capable of changing as threats evolve or new breakthroughs in warfare emerge.

Lost in all the discussions and debate swirling around the design, engineering, construction, and introduction of the Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) is the most fundamental change in warship design since the introduction of the Vertical Launching System or the AEGIS Weapon System decades ago, and that is the concept of modularity. One of the most important characteristics of the LCS program is its inherent modularity and how that will facilitate affordable and timely modernization of the LCS ships throughout its expected 30-year service life. As is often the case in these technical debates, a look at history is helpful in understanding and placing modularity into a 21st-Century context.

The history of the World War II-era light cruiser the USS Little Rock (CL-92) showed how right Yogi was; her life was full of operational and technical surprises. She was laid down in 1943 as one of a large number of light cruisers that were just showing how effective they could be in combat versus Japanese cruisers in murderous night gun battles in the Solomon Islands. By the time she was completed in June 1945, her mission had changed, and the same cruisers were now wanted primarily to protect aircraft carriers, the fleet’s main striking arm. The war ended, however, before Little Rock could see actual combat, and the world’s geo-strategic situation soon changed dramatically.

Amid the postwar political disorder, it mattered a great deal that the United States could deploy powerful cruisers. Little Rock spent the early postwar years patrolling the Caribbean and Mediterranean Seas – regions where the new Cold War was brewing. By 1949, however, money for defense was short and many cruisers like Little Rock had to be laid up. In 1943, very few observers could have imagined a nuclear world in which the U.S. Navy’s main priorities would be strike carriers and anti-submarine warfare, while general-purpose gunships like cruisers would no longer be essential.

The real surprise, however was that Little Rock was still valuable – because she was large enough to adapt to undertake new missions and to accommodate new technology. The new jets of the 1950s out-classed the shipboard anti-aircraft guns that had been so useful against kamikaze attacks in 1945, so the Navy led in the development of the first generation of ship-to-air guided missiles. It took a big ship to accommodate these new weapons, and in its inventory of war-built cruisers the Navy had exactly the right ships for this new mission.

Removed from “mothballs” in 1957, after three years of shipyard work and hundreds of millions of dollars in upgrades, Little Rock was re-commissioned in June 1960, as one of the first guided missile cruisers (CLG/CG-4) in the Fleet. Not only did she carry missiles, she was also large enough to be outfitted as a fleet flagship. Both the missiles and the flagship capacity made her extremely useful in the new Cold War.

USS Little Rock light cruiser fires missile

Little Rock returned to the Mediterranean as flagship of the Sixth Fleet, the most powerful Navy flotilla in that turbulent arena. As such, she was present when war erupted in the Middle East in 1967. After the Israelis inadvertently attacked the Navy surveillance ship USS Liberty, Little Rock provided medical aid and other emergency assistance to the stricken U.S. warship. As a command ship, she served as the hub of NATO forces in the Eastern Mediterranean. Besides Mediterranean operations, in 1961 Little Rock steamed off Santo Domingo to provide command and control capabilities for U.S. forces trying to stabilize that country after dictator Rafael Trujillo was assassinated. The crises may have changed, but the United States is still vitally interested today in both of those regions in which the original Little Rock once steamed. Little Rock was decommissioned in 1976, after two separate naval lives and providing valuable service to the nation.

Former USS Little Rock as museum

In June 2013, the keel of a new USS Little Rock was laid. The latest incarnation is the Navy’s ninth Littoral Combat Ship (LCS-9), and her design reflects the great lesson of her predecessor’s life; ships last, but the world and missions can change quickly. The first Little Rock was never conceived to be re-built with entirely new weapons and electronics for new types of missions; no one could have imagined what those might be in 1943. The ship was worth re-building because she was large enough, fast enough and had a great deal of hull and machinery life still left in her. The second, latest iteration of Little Rock, on the other hand, is a very different proposition already. Change is at the core of her design. LCS-9 is conceived from the keel up to carry weapons and sensors that would be installed by placing standard shipping containers on board and connecting them to a “plug-and-fight” combat system.

Right now, the mission options are what might be expected for the littoral arena: anti-submarine warfare, anti-surface warfare, and mine countermeasures. To support those options, the new Little Rock can carry helicopters – manned and unmanned – and she can launch unmanned surface and underwater craft. She is designed to connect not only with craft she may launch, but also with other off-board sensors and systems. Both the unmanned vehicles and the off-board systems will undoubtedly become more and more important over her lifetime. We don’t know exactly what new missions she may be called upon to perform at a future date, but we do know that adapting to changing missions cannot take three years of shipyard work and hundreds of millions of dollars before she is ready to confront those changing operational demands.

As the new Little Rock is designed and built, the Navy remembered the lesson of the past: change is inevitable, and the service must build ships that can change as needed. Accordingly, the new Little Rock will be able to swap in-and-out tailored mission packages quickly – on the order of days if not hours—vice months or years.

The other lesson of the two Little Rocks is that the sea does not change. There is a reason the cruiser Little Rock spent years in the Mediterranean in both of her incarnations, and a reason she also spent time in the Caribbean. The sea is still the main way in which the United States connects with the rest of the world – and in a globalized world, we cannot lose that intimate contact. It is the primary way in which the United States supports its friends and Allies abroad, because only by sea can we move masses of material, including airplanes.

The new Little Rock is a littoral combat ship because more and more of the action at sea is likely to be in the littorals – that strip of land influenced by what happens offshore, and the strip offshore influenced by what happens ashore. That means mine warfare, anti-ship missiles and diesel-electric submarines – operational problems the containerized, modular LCS systems are intended to surmount.

If the modularity concept is so important, why then have the LCS mission modules taken so long to develop and field? The short answer would seem to be that the overall LCS program was uncertain until the decision was ultimately made to pursue the 20-ship contract. Why press ahead on mission packages when the basic hull itself and the need for 45-knot speed were in question?

It would appear that the program is now at the point where the Navy can place increased focus and resources on modular mission packages. If successful, these packages will be available to support matter-of-fact upgrades, as well as respond to unforeseen advances in technology, for Little Rock (LCS -9) and her sister ships. In short, modularity is a terrific idea and – apart from aircraft carriers, which are inherently modular – the LCS is the only modular ship we have. We need to get it right. Modularity is the future.

In many ways Yogi Berra was right, predicting the future is tough. But Little Rock LCS-9 and her sisters will have the flexibility to respond to — if not anticipate —  unforeseen change and take on new missions that we can only dimly forecast today.

Offline Jemiba

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7924
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #100 on: January 16, 2014, 01:15:15 am »
Interesting article, thank you!
One question for me still is: A principle opponent to the LCS are modern conventional
submarines. In the regions, those subs are usually used, they could lay on the bottom
for quite long times. Apart from the fact, that this would make detection even more difficult,
IF detected, which weapons the LCS (or other ships) could use against them ? Homing
torpedoes probably are still of very limited value against such targets, as both passive and
active sonar would be more or less useless. Are there still depth charges to be carried by
helicopters in the inventory ? I don't know of any US weapon similar to the Russian RBU
systems.
It takes a long time, before all mistakes are made ...

Offline Arjen

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2187
  • It's turtles all the way down
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #101 on: January 16, 2014, 03:36:06 am »
Via navy-matters, on Navy Times:
Pentagon cuts LCS buy to 32 ships.
 
Quote

WASHINGTON — The office of the secretary of defense (OSD) has directed the Navy to limit its overall buy of littoral combat ships to a total of 32 ships, foregoing 20 more of the small, fast and controversial warships, Pentagon sources have confirmed.
The decision, in a Jan. 6 memo from acting deputy secretary of defense Christine Fox, came after the Pentagon received its final 2015 budget guidance from the White House. Several major acquisition decisions, including direction on what to do with the LCS program, were awaiting the numbers from the Office of Management and Budget.
 
More at the link.

Offline Arjen

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2187
  • It's turtles all the way down
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #102 on: January 17, 2014, 01:48:23 am »
Dodbuzz: Navy still expects to build 52 ship LCS fleet
Quote

Crystal City, Va. — The Navy’s acquisition executive said the service’s Littoral Combat Ship request for a 52 ship fleet “solid” and on track despite recent media reports that the Pentagon has directed a reduction in fleet size to 32 ships.
Navy acquisition chief Sean Stackley would not address specifics about the LCS program contained in reports on the issue, choosing to highlight the programs merits and not comment ahead of the anticipated 2015 budget drop expected next month.
“We won’t talk about the ‘15 budget process until the ’15 budget goes to the Hill. We have a valid requirement for 52 ships and the program is performing strongly in terms of cost. We’re conducting operational testing in accordance with the schedule,” Stackley told reporters June 16[?] at the Surface Warfare Association Annual Symposium, Crystal City, Va.

More at the link.

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 951
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #103 on: January 17, 2014, 03:01:35 pm »
The missile is supposed to be for defending against swarm attacks.


Against small boats = yes.  Unfortunately, many nations around the world are fielding or already have fast attack craft armed with anti-ship missile that can sit way out of range of the littoral combat ship with its tiny missiles.  In addition to the LCS being such lightly armored ship that won't be able to continue its mission after being hit, there's no way for the LCS to retaliate against these fast attack craft. 

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #104 on: January 17, 2014, 03:43:49 pm »
 "Littoral Combat Ship Cut Plan Reopens Navy Riff: Build ‘Em Fast Or Rugged"
by Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.   on January 17, 2014 at 4:30 AM

Source:
http://breakingdefense.com/2014/01/littoral-combat-ship-cut-plan-reopens-navy-riff-build-em-fast-or-rugged/

Quote
CRYSTAL CITY: The Littoral Combat Ship was supposed to be one of the fastest things in the fleet, but it seems like the skeptics – and the sequester – have caught up with it. The question is, what’s next?

After a Pentagon memo  recommended slashing the program by more than a third — from 52 ships to 32 — its backers came out swinging. “We have heard for the past 12 years about the importance of the LCS to our future Navy,” House seapower subcommittee chairman Rep. Randy Forbes said in a press release Thursday afternoon. “Although this platform has had its share of development difficulties, I believe it has a necessary role to play in the future fleet.”

What’s more, LCS proponents have at least a year to reverse the decision. The Navy is locked into a long-term contract for Littoral Combat Ships that ends in fiscal year 2015 with the purchase of the 24th LCS. Short of breaking that contract and paying penalties, the Pentagon can do nothing to LCS in the budget it is currently preparing to send to Congress. “This year is another oversight year and next year is a decision year,” one Hill source told me. What will really decide the LCS’s fate is the next contract, which will be in the 2016 budget.

It’s also possible that there could be no new contract and no 2016 money at all, which would end the program at 24 ships. The 32-ship number leaked this week certainly has the smell of an internal Pentagon compromise between going the full 52 and stopping dead at 24. Noted naval analyst, author, and LCS critic Norman Polmar still hopes the slam-on-the-breaks school will prevail: “24 might be a better total number for the current LCS program,” he told me in an email.

Then there’s the bigger picture. However many Littoral Combat Ships are cut – and at least some will be in this brutal budget environment – the Navy needs to start thinking hard about what to buy instead. The deeper the cut, the faster they need to figure something out. Stopping LCS at 24 ships would have given the Navy only a year to figure out its next move. Even the 32-ship compromise means the last pair of ships would be bought no later than fiscal 2019, an eyeblink for developing a new warship design.

“With 20 fewer LCSs in the plan, I presume the Navy must be looking at another small or medium-sized combatant,” Eric Labs, a naval expert at the Congressional Budget Office, said Thursday at the Surface Navy Association’s annual conference. But what is the other ship? And for what purpose?

LCS is meant to enter shallow waters — the littorals — in order to either clear minefields, hunt enemy submarines, or fend off fast attack boats, depending on which of three plug-and-play “mission modules” is fitted to the basic hull. (Just to complicate things further, there are two radically different hull designs: a kind of giant speedboat built by Lockheed Martin and Marinette Marine; and a spaceship-like trimaran built by General Dynamics and Austal).

Are those three missions the right priorities?, asked Congressional Research Service analyst Ronald O’Rourke. If so, are they best done by the same ship? If so, should that ship be small and fast, like the LCS?

“What’s amazing to me is just how often and how far way the discussion of LCS drifted from these central questions,” O’Rourke said. Much of the fault was the Navy’s. For a decade, he said, “the Navy continued to throw more missions into the discussion and to further confuse the issue of what it is we were really supposed to be trying to accomplish with this program.”

But the mistakes began at the very beginning, O’Rourke went on: “The Navy, prior to announcing the LCS as its preferred solution for performing those missions, never performed a rigorous analysis of multiple concepts to show that a small, fast, modular ship was in fact the best and most promising way to do it.”

So controversial was the small-and-fast approach, in fact, that some in the Navy dubbed the LCS the “little f*cking ship.” The Pentagon’s notoriously independent Director of Operational Test & Evaluation said the design was too small and too lightly built to keep fighting after it took a hit in combat — not a fatal flaw for the supporting roles it was meant to fill, but definitely a flaw.

The LCS did get built — after massive initial cost overruns now under control — although maintenance problems have marred its performance, including electrical plant failures that left it adrift on its first overseas deployment. Now, after surviving all these problems and criticism, the program’s fate is again in question.

Cutting the Littoral Combat Ship reopens a debate at the heart of the Navy: Should the fleet continue its traditional approach of buying a relatively small number of relatively large ships, like its current workhorse the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke destroyer, or buy more, smaller vessels, like LCS? In fact, LCS was itself a scaled-up version of the late Adm. Arthur Cebrowski’s “Streetfighter” concept, a vessel intended to be so small and cheap it was effectively expendable. In the information age, Cebrowski argued, you didn’t have to put all your weapons and sensors on a single big ship: You could have multiple small vessels linked by a network and working in concert. If any one of them got sunk, you had plenty more.

Most Navy officers were aghast, unsurprisingly. Ever since the USS Constitution – “Old Ironsides” – with her famously cannonball-resistant hull, the US Navy has wanted ships that could take a hit and keep on fighting. The counterargument: In an era when a single suicide boat can cripple a destroyer (the USS Cole) or a single missile a frigate (the USS Stark), the Old Ironsides model just doesn’t apply anymore.

“These two sides in the debate almost seem to be talking past each other,” O’Rourke said. “A key point of departure, a fork in the road that sends the groups down different paths, has to do with a fundamental difference they appear to have on future surface ship survivability.”

The small-ship insurrectionists believe that bigger doesn’t mean much more robust, not in the face of modern weapons, and that incoming threats move too fast to stop. The Navy mainstream believes that size does matter and self-defense is possible. The Chief of Naval Operations, Adm. Jonathan Greenert, in particular argues that ships can protect themselves in the 21st century if they limit their own tell-tale electromagnetic emissions, deceive enemy targeting systems with electronic jamming or cyber warfare, and as a last resort shoot down incoming missiles with anti-missile missiles of their own — or, in the future, lasers.

That’s a debate that goes well beyond the Littoral Combat Ship and whatever comes after it. It also goes to how the Navy replaces its aging Arleigh Burke destroyers after it cancelled one replacement program and truncated the other, the DDG-1000, at just three ships. Upgraded Arleigh Burkes are now supposed to stay in service until 2072.

The Navy is already contemplating a “Future Surface Combatant,” said Rear Adm. Thomas Rowden, the Navy’s director of surface warfare (aka staff section N96). It will be “the later part of the ’20s when we’re going to start contracting for these… to replace our cruisers,” the aging Ticonderoga class, Rowden told the Surface Navy Association conference.

The admiral had a slide of what the new vessel might look like, but he made clear fundamental choices were on the table. That includes questioning the Navy’s longstanding preference for large, versatile “multi-mission ships” like the current DDG-51s, he said. What he did not say was that the alternative would be something like the LCS, which can do only one mission at a time, depending on which mission module is currently aboard.

One thing the Navy definitely does want is more electrical power to run everything from radars to jammers to future laser weapons and rail guns, as well as the ship’s propellers, off a single integrated system. “I think it is about integrated power on the right size ship. I think it is about the right weapons,” Rowden said. “I think it is about affordability, affordability, affordability.”

For the foreseeable future, affordability probably will be priority number one.


Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #105 on: January 17, 2014, 06:17:37 pm »
"SNA 2014: Navy Won’t Rule Out Army Longbow Hellfire for LCS"
By: Carlo Muñoz
Published: January 14, 2014 6:22 PM

Source:
http://news.usni.org/2014/01/14/sna-2014-navy-wont-rule-army-longbow-hellfire-lcs

Quote
The Navy is not closing the door on integrating an Army missile into the weapons package for the sea service’s Littoral Combat Ship surface warfare mission package.

The Navy plans to continue tests on the Army’s Longbow Hellfire AGM-114L as a potential replacement to the Raytheon Griffin weapon aboard the Littoral Combat Ship, Capt. John Ailes, head of LCS mission module development, said Tuesday at the Surface Navy Association 2014 symposium in Crystal City, Va.

Program leaders and Army officials have conducted three live fire tests of the Lockheed Martn’s Longbow missile aboard a surface vessel designed to replicate the LCS deck, according to the company.

The missile are the primary close air support weapons aboard the Army’s AH-64D Apache attack helicopter.
However, Alies was quick to point out that all options for LCS armaments remain on the table.

Navy, Army and industry officials are “still working . . . to define the parameters” of what weapon combinations would best fit the the ship’s surface warfare mission package, Ailes said.

A decision on what that final weapon loadout for that particular mission module, the most advanced of the three packages aboard the LCS, is expected by 2020, he added.

Other LCS mission modules include mine countermeasure (MCM) and anti-submarine warfare (ASW) packages.

But the flexibility of the Longbow, compared to the Raytheon-manufactured Griffin rocket, has garnered many fans inside the LCS program office, Ailes said.

The Army missile ability to track and engage multiple targets in a single strike is a key factor in the Longbow’s appeal to program officials.

In comparison, the Griffin’s laser-based tracking system only allows the weapon system to engage targets one at a time.

That targeting autonomy aboard the Longbow could be a possible game changer, given the type of threats, such as small-boat attacks, the LCS could encounter during combat deployments.

Navy leaders in 2011 selected the Griffin rocket to replace the defunct Non-Line of Sight Launch missile system that Navy officials initially planned to put onto the LCS.

The Navy teamed up with the Army on NLOS-LS acquisition, with the Army planning to field a version of the missile on their fleet of tactical vehicles.

But the the ground service was forced to cancel their portion of the weapon’s development, due to rising costs associated with that work.

At the time, Navy leaders admitted the Griffin lacks many of capabilities that NLOS had, especially against long-range targets.

As a result, Navy drafted plans to hold a competition for a follow-on, beyond the horizon missile to replace the Griffin by the end 2011, service officials said at the time.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2014, 03:11:34 pm by Triton »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #106 on: January 19, 2014, 03:04:03 pm »
"SNA 2014: 52-Ship LCS Requirement is ‘Solid’"
By: Carlo Muñoz
Published: January 16, 2014 3:54 PM

Source:
http://news.usni.org/2014/01/16/sna-2014-52-ship-lcs-requirement-solid

Quote
Navy projections for its proposed Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) buy remains on solid footing heading into the Fiscal Year 2015 budget process, despite recent reports of pending reductions to the program.

“We have a valid requirement for 52 ships, and the program is performing strongly,” Navy acquisition chief Sean Stackley told reporters on Thursday.

Testing and development on the high-profile warship remains on schedule, with senior Navy leaders expected to put the next four LCS ships on contract within the next few months, according to the Navy.

“So the Navy’s position on the LCS program is that it is solid,” Stackley said during a media briefing at the Surface Navy Association’s 2014 symposium in Crystal City, Va.

That said, the Navy acquisition chief declined to comment on, “any press reports to the contrary.”

Stackley’s comments come a day after a report in Defense News stated the the White House’s Office of Management and Budget ordered Navy leaders to slash the proposed LCS buy from 52 ships down to 32.

Acting deputy secretary of defense Christine Fox issued the order in a Jan. 6 memo, directing the Navy to implement the cuts in its upcoming FY 2015 budget proposal.

For his part, Stackley declined on Thursday to comment on the memo or the service’s FY ’15 plans

“We don’t talk about the [FY] 15 budget process until the [20] 15 budget gets to [Capitol] Hill,” Stackley added.

Pentagon press secretary Read Adm. John Kirby reiterated Stackley’s comment noting the Pentagon-wide FY 2015 proposal “is not complete [but] its is near complete.”

In the last year, the services have plotted several different courses for budgeting that included alternative budget plans tied to budget restrictions imposed by sequestration cuts. The regular fully funded program objective memoranda (POM) was developed in tandem with a so-called alternative version (ALT POM).

In September a version of the ALT POM contained a cut to a mere 24 hulls, ending the program at the Navy’s current commitment to each variant of the ship.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #107 on: January 19, 2014, 03:07:51 pm »
"SNA 2014: U.S. Intelligence Community Could Be Considering LCS for Future Operations"
By: Carlo Muñoz
Published: January 15, 2014 4:57 PM

Source:
http://news.usni.org/2014/01/15/sna-2014-u-s-intelligence-community-considering-lcs-future-operations

Quote
U.S. intelligence officials have made informal inquiries to the Navy on whether the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) could be part of future intel operations across the globe.

Navy officials have conducted informal walkthroughs aboard an unspecified LCS variant with representatives from military and non-military intelligence agencies, Capt. Dan Brintzinghoffer with Naval Sea Systems Command Program Executive Office (PEO) LCS Wednesday said .

NAVSEA has previously said most of the informal LCS walkthroughs have been on the Freedom-class (LCS-1) hulls.

Brintzinghoffer, who heads ship introduction and sustainment for the LCS program with, said Navy officials have also conducted similar walkthroughs for Marine Corps and Special Operations Command leaders.

“There are all kinds of things we can do,” in terms of mission capabilities for both military and intelligence missions, Brintzinghoffer said after a briefing at the Surface Navy Association 2014 symposium in Crystal City, Va.

Military leaders in Quantico and in at Special Operations Command in Tampa, Fla. have repeatedly expressed interest in the multi-mission capability the LCS could provide special operations teams and Marine units.

However, efforts by the intelligence community to leverage the ship for future operations is a relatively new development for the LCS program.

Brinzinghoffer declined to comment on which specific intel agencies have reached out to the program office, but noted the agencies who have inquired about the LCS cut across military and civilian organizations.

He also could not provide specifics on what intelligence capabilities or operations could be carried out aboard the LCS, but noted potential missions could run the gamut from collections to analysis in hot spots worldwide.

To date, there is no standing program of record to build any new mission packages for the ship, with program leaders focusing their efforts on standing up the three planned packages for the ship — surface warfare, mine countermeasures and anti-submarine warfare.

However, momentum inside the Navy to explore multi-mission options outside the service’s traditional operations is growing, Vice Adm. Tom Copeman, commander of U.S. Surface Forces, said Wednesday.

“It is picking up steam,” within the sea service, Copeman said during a reporter’s roundtable. But the three-star Admiral reiterated the Navy’s focus is to get the three initial mission module packages up and running first.

On the military side, both Marines and U.S. special operations forces are eying new mission module packages, specifically tailored to their expeditionary operations, aboard the LCS.

Offline SpudmanWP

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 948
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #108 on: January 20, 2014, 08:33:01 am »
The missile is supposed to be for defending against swarm attacks.


Against small boats = yes.  Unfortunately, many nations around the world are fielding or already have fast attack craft armed with anti-ship missile that can sit way out of range of the littoral combat ship with its tiny missiles.  In addition to the LCS being such lightly armored ship that won't be able to continue its mission after being hit, there's no way for the LCS to retaliate against these fast attack craft.
1.  How will these small craft have OTH targeting?

2.  LCS does have both Soft and Hard kill defenses against AShMs.

3.  Drones or the helos can attack FACs or whatever provides the OTH targeting before and after any attack.

4.  LCS is no less able to continue a mission vs any other Frigate-sized ship after a AShM hit.
WE4-45-1-08     OMHIWDMB
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 951
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #109 on: January 20, 2014, 01:45:07 pm »
The missile is supposed to be for defending against swarm attacks.


Against small boats = yes.  Unfortunately, many nations around the world are fielding or already have fast attack craft armed with anti-ship missile that can sit way out of range of the littoral combat ship with its tiny missiles.  In addition to the LCS being such lightly armored ship that won't be able to continue its mission after being hit, there's no way for the LCS to retaliate against these fast attack craft.
1.  How will these small craft have OTH targeting?

2.  LCS does have both Soft and Hard kill defenses against AShMs.

3.  Drones or the helos can attack FACs or whatever provides the OTH targeting before and after any attack.

4.  LCS is no less able to continue a mission vs any other Frigate-sized ship after a AShM hit.
1.  These craft do possess sensors necessary for the mission. 

2.  Not exactly adequate if you get a swarm of these cheaply produced boats ganging up on LCS (which is exactly the doctrine behind these boats)

3.  Refer to #2

4.  According to Michael Gilmore, Test and Eval boss, LCS is not expected to be survivable in combat. 

Offline SpudmanWP

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 948
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #110 on: January 21, 2014, 08:24:31 am »
Just saying it has an OTH sensor does not make it so.

What is it?

Without OTH, how do they know where the LCS is in order to swarm?

If the LCS feels a swarm is eminent, a speedy departure is also an option.

On the survivability front, again, the LCS is no less survivable than any other similar sized craft.

On the firepower front, I have long advocated for more fire power and have even come up with a plan that would be relatively easy to implament, would increase short-range SA significantly, would increase offensive & defensive capability, and would not take up any extra internal space.
WE4-45-1-08     OMHIWDMB
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

Offline mithril

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 113
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #111 on: January 21, 2014, 09:02:51 am »
i suspect the idea with OTH missiles is that allied drones (either launched by the ship itself or from another platform) would provide the targeting ability. which is not a bad idea, though it assumes a permissive enough air enviroment that the drone can function in the way needed. (on the otherhand, IIRC you can fit a laser designator into a pretty small package now, so you could probably use a smaller, more survivable drone.)

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 951
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #112 on: January 21, 2014, 09:48:27 am »
Just saying it has an OTH sensor does not make it so.

What is it?

Depend on what types of ships we talking about.  Simply type "missile boat" onto wikipedia search engine can yield significant results for your answer.  LCS in its current form can fight off a swarm of inflatable boats armed with couple guys holding bazooka though, any more than that and Navy commanders would be hesitating.

As for survivability, its your words against the test and eval boss, so.....

Offline SpudmanWP

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 948
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #113 on: January 21, 2014, 10:07:41 am »
Holy krap.. just answer the question.

What OTH sensor does a FAC have?

The answer is simple, they do not have any.

What they have is surface search radars if they are luck.  But if you are talking about "Swarm attacks" by unsophisticated enemies, they have to get within sight of the LCS to make an attack.

Instead of throwing around vague terms and telling others to "look it up", try providing sources to back up your claims.

BTW, here is the exact quote from the DOT&E report:

Quote
LCS is not expected to be survivable in that it is not
expected to maintain mission capability after taking
a significant hit in a hostile combat environment. 
This assessment is based on a review of LCS design
requirements, which do not require the inclusion of the
survivability features necessary to conduct sustained
operations in its expected combat environment.

So, we can see that:
1.  It is talking about the ability to continue sustained operations after a hit and not whether it sinks (unsurvivable).
2.  It assumes that the LCS is hit "significantly"
3.  It is based on ZERO testing but on the review of the requirements the Navy put out (which may change).

Based on the above assessment, the Stark & Cole were also not "survivable" incidents.  How do you expect the LCS to perform better?
« Last Edit: January 21, 2014, 10:43:47 am by SpudmanWP »
WE4-45-1-08     OMHIWDMB
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 951
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #114 on: January 21, 2014, 10:49:46 am »
Holy krap.. just answer the question.

What OTH sensor does a FAC have?

The answer is simple, they do not have any.

What they have is surface search radars if they are luck.  But if you are talking about "Swarm attacks" by unsophisticated enemies, they have to get within sight of the LCS to make an attack.

Instead of throwing around vague terms and telling others to "look it up", try providing sources to back up your claims.

First, calm down for a bit.  No reason to get charged up.  Second, a vague question can only be answered with equally generalized answer.  Which type are you asking? That's like asking what specific radars do destroyers have? Well, which type of destroyer are we talking? 

And that last comment hits the key there - unsophisticated enemy.  Accept the world doesn't always give us unsophisticated enemy.  Using missile boats is within china doctrine of anti access. 

The problem lies not so much in the LCS itself, but the doctrine in which it was envisioned.  The ddg-1000 would cover any weaknesses present in the LCS in a littoral environment.  However, with the cancellation of ddg-1000, the LCS is left vulnerable against anything but unsophisticated enemy.  So what do we do, we put more weapons on a ship that was never designed to wield them, spiking up more cost. 


Offline SpudmanWP

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 948
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #115 on: January 21, 2014, 11:19:55 am »
 The question was not vague, your answer was.
 
You claimed that “many nations” were fielding FACs with OTH capabilities.  I simply asked which ones and what sensor. 
 
On the issue of China or any other potential enemy of equal sophistication, the LCS will not be in the AO of a known high level threat alone.  That is not in the plans.
 
WE4-45-1-08     OMHIWDMB
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

Offline mithril

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 113
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #116 on: January 21, 2014, 11:33:02 am »
i think the real question, at least for me, is what is a "significant hit"? are we talking guided bomb? anti-ship missile? cruise missile? 5 inch gun?


obviously any craft will be unable to continue with its mission if it is hit with enough damage. but the lack of quantification as to what the LCS can survive hasn't helped the debate any.

Offline SpudmanWP

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 948
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #117 on: January 21, 2014, 11:40:34 am »
That kind of info is Classified, as it is for any other type of naval vessel.
WE4-45-1-08     OMHIWDMB
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #118 on: January 21, 2014, 11:58:34 am »
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 donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 951
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #119 on: January 21, 2014, 04:58:23 pm »
The question was not vague, your answer was.
 
You claimed that “many nations” were fielding FACs with OTH capabilities.  I simply asked which ones and what sensor. 
 

I'll assume that you meant a realistic enemy.  In this case China and its type 022.  Unfortunately, type 022 sensors are not well known.  However, images allow us to see that there are sensors that perhaps can update targeting from off board sensors (in which China is also vigorously fielding in the form of stealthy UAV).  Another clue is the type of missile it carries, which has both onboard targeting system as well as data link to be updated and guided by either ships or aircraft. 

Quote
On the issue of China or any other potential enemy of equal sophistication, the LCS will not be in the AO of a known high level threat alone.  That is not in the plans.

The LCS is ordered at a rate and with a price tag to be one of the mainstay US navy warship, certainly not to fight with just pirates.    The US navy is returning to a blue water battle group philosophy, being pushed further and further out to sea by rapidly deployed anti-access weapon systems.  In a conflict with China, LCS would have to operate alone suicide style, or sit on the bench all together. 

Offline SpudmanWP

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 948
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #120 on: January 22, 2014, 08:31:13 am »
Against China alone ?

There will be entire CBGs, subs, land base aircraft, space-based sensors, BAMS, etc in the AO at the same time.  The LCS would also have it's own drones and other aviation assets in the air.  Everyone would be sharing SA data and I doubt very much whether anyone could put together a "swarm" package without being detected & attacked in that environment.

Btw, data-linked off-board assets are not OTH sensors.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2014, 10:13:06 pm by Jemiba »
WE4-45-1-08     OMHIWDMB
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 951
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #121 on: January 22, 2014, 02:41:02 pm »
Against China alone, are you high?

There will be entire CBGs, subs, land base aircraft, space-based sensors, BAMS, etc in the AO at the same time.  The LCS would also have it's own drones and other aviation assets in the air.  Everyone would be sharing SA data and I doubt very much whether anyone could put together a "swarm" package without being detected & attacked in that environment.

Btw, data-linked off-board assets are not OTH sensors, try again.

As I have said, the CBGs are distancing themselves from littoral environment, thus the cancellation of the ddg-1000.  They are being pushed out further into sea.  The only littoral capable ships in the forseeable future is a fleet of LCS and 3 ddg-1000.  As for OTH sensors, you simply now arguing for the sake of arguing I believe.  Whether it gets OTH capability from offboard or onboard sensor suite, it doesn't matter.  OTH describes a capacity, not a specific type of sensors.

Offline SpudmanWP

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 948
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #122 on: January 22, 2014, 03:11:11 pm »
While they may distance themselves from the litorals (they won't be that far away) , they will still maintain SA and have an influence in the area.  Aircraft from the CVNs, SAMs from various ships, AShMs from various ships, Subs prowling the depths, etc will all still have an impact on the AO.

The LCS will never be alone in a fight vs China.

OTH methods matter a lot.  If you cannot maintain an air presence, then your ability to prosecute the shot is severely diminished.  Any drone you use is going to give off EM which can easily lead to it being detected, jammed, and shot down.  Simply put, you keep moving the goal posts.  We started by talking about potential LCS swarming OTH attacks to specific China & Off-board based attacks.
WE4-45-1-08     OMHIWDMB
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 951
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #123 on: January 22, 2014, 05:00:11 pm »
While they may distance themselves from the litorals (they won't be that far away) , they will still maintain SA and have an influence in the area.  Aircraft from the CVNs, SAMs from various ships, AShMs from various ships, Subs prowling the depths, etc will all still have an impact on the AO.

The LCS will never be alone in a fight vs China.

OTH methods matter a lot.  If you cannot maintain an air presence, then your ability to prosecute the shot is severely diminished.  Any drone you use is going to give off EM which can easily lead to it being detected, jammed, and shot down.  Simply put, you keep moving the goal posts.  We started by talking about potential LCS swarming OTH attacks to specific China & Off-board based attacks.
1) I don't see how it's "moving the goal post."  In order to evaluate the capability of LCS fullfill the mission of defending the larger ships with swarming attack craft, realistic scenarios must be visualized. 

2) Anyway, back to the topic.  Reality tells us that littoral environment is a capability gap in our navy combat forces.  This was the whole incentive behind the birth of LCS.  If the navy was already that competent at dealing with the littoral environment, the LCS would have never been born. 

3) The claim that CBG is pushed out not too far from littoral zone is not congruent with reality.  The CBG is pushed out far enough that the UCLASS requirements jump from a relatively limited uav to a ultra long range tomcat sized platform. 

4) The typical argument "don't worry, the collective might of US force will overcome" is moot.  The argument leads to a irrational conclusion that we simply do not need capable single platform, since our "system" as a whole is adequate.  With this philosophy, why do we build f-22?  The collective might of cruise missiles, electronic warfare can still neutralize enemy air defense network, right?  This is too over simplistic of a view.  The more heavily a platform relies on others in order to achieve the mission, the more limited the options it provide to the commanders.  This is why we have the tradition of building platforms with terrifying offensive and defensive capability all on its own, even within the context of a network centric approach. 

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #124 on: January 23, 2014, 02:56:37 pm »
"Navy, Pentagon battle over LCS future"
Jan. 19, 2014 - 06:00AM   | 
by Christopher P. Cavas
Staff writer

Source:
http://www.navytimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2014301190019

Quote
WASHINGTON — The contentious question of how many littoral combat ships to build has been batted back and forth this year between the Navy’s top leadership and senior Pentagon leaders. By the end of the day on Jan. 17, a certain kind of standoff appears to have been reached, foregoing — for the moment — a final decision.

The result could be a compromise. Reportedly, LCS is being put on something of a probation: The buy would be limited to 26 or 28 ships — the exact number couldn’t be confirmed by press time — but the ship will need to pass evaluation by the Pentagon’s Office of the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) before further ship buys can proceed, according to multiple Pentagon sources, who stressed that no final decisions have been reached.

The first salvo of the year was fired Jan. 6 by Christine Fox, acting deputy defense secretary, when, in a classified memo, she directed the Navy to halt LCS production after 32 ships and begin development of a “more capable surface combatant.”

Navy officials have strenuously defended the service’s plan to build a total of 52 of the small, fast and adaptable ships. Three are in service, with a fourth set to join the fleet in April. Another 20 ships are under construction or on order.

Navy leaders fought back almost immediately. Service staff members argued with the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) to keep the status quo of 52 ships.

Fox is one of the key people within OSD urging a severe cutback of the LCS program, if not outright cancellation. She often questioned the combat effectiveness of the program in her previous position as director of the Pentagon’s Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation.

A Jan. 15 Defense News web story detailing the decision to cap the ships at 32 set off a renewed round of events inside the Pentagon last week. Navy Secretary Ray Mabus personally argued his case before Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Fox that evening, urging the program’s continuation, Pentagon sources confirmed.

A similar probation was issued in January 2011 by then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates regarding the F-35B version of the joint strike fighter. The probation was lifted in January 2012 — short of the two years Gates initially declared — after program performance improved.

Neither the Navy nor OSD would confirm an agreement by close of business on Jan. 17.

DOT&E routinely criticizes the LCS program, irked in particular by the Navy’s 2010 decision to take the first ship out of the normal testing cycle and instead send it to sea. As the first of a new ship class, the service was anxious to get underway time rather than keep it in a rigorous testing cycle.

The 2012 DOT&E report noted concerns about the ship’s survivability, writing that “it is not expected to maintain mission capability after taking a significant hit in a hostile combat environment.” There was no discussion of a comparable 3,200-ton ship that could meet that requirement, and DOT&E did not differentiate between the two LCS designs, which are considerably different.

Neither LCS design has undergone Navy survivability tests, which are performed on all new ship classes.
A New Approach?

If the LCS fails the tests, it is not clear what the next step would be. But whether the LCS is cut short or built out to 52 ships, the service already has been thinking about what a follow-on small combatant would look like.

Adm. Jonathan Greenert, chief of naval operations, routinely champions LCS, but already has directed the surface warfare community to begin thinking about a follow-on.

“We need to look and think about what the next small combatant is,” said Capt. Danny Hernandez, the CNO’s spokesman. “Regardless of what the number is going to be, there’s going to be something after LCS, and we need to look at our options. It’s also the prudent and responsible thing to do.”

One concept being thought about as an LCS alternative or follow-on has been a small frigate, able to defend several ships and provide escort services for merchant convoys, amphibious ships or support ships.

A capability gap already has been identified for an escort ship, said Bryan Clark, a naval analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington. Until last year, Clark also was a special assistant to Greenert, where he led the development of Navy strategy.

“The real need is for an escort to accompany convoys, logistic ships, even parts of the battle fleet. Analysis shows that as a gap. But LCS cannot provide air defense to ships it’s escorting — it only has self-defense,” Clark said.

“The Aegis destroyer is more than what is necessary for this mission. So this escort mission is one that cries out for a solution. That’s what a frigate can do,” he noted.

A frigate of about 4,100 tons, he said, would be a ship less capable than a 9,200-ton Aegis destroyer, but larger than the LCS.

“A frigate study would need to focus on designs that currently exist, that could be rapidly implemented at a US yard. And they’d probably include designs based on the LCS as well,” he said. “The study could include existing designs as well as starting from scratch. Foreign designs would be part of the mix — just as LCS is a derivative of foreign designs.”

Both LCS design teams, led by Lockheed Martin and Austal USA, have produced versions of their ships aimed at foreign sales, heavily loaded with permanently installed combat systems. Lockheed in particular is offering larger versions of its Freedom-class LCS, as well as smaller models.

“The Navy doesn’t really have an escort vessel that can do this mission. If you get into a large conflict you need to protect ships,” Clark said.

Key to that is effective anti-submarine warfare (ASW) and anti-air combat systems. The ASW mission package under development for LCS is getting early rave reviews from surface warfare officers, but the ships are too small to install Mark 41 vertical missile launchers needed for Standard anti-air missiles. An effective anti-air system also needs search and fire control radars, along with an expanded combat system.

“That’ll be the toughest part of the frigate study, trying to figure how to handle the air defense mission in a way that doesn’t involve the start of a new design,” Clark said.

Work on a new frigate is not being driven by OSD’s current efforts to cut back the LCS, Clark said, although it would provide a basis for a new ship should the LCS fail.

Work on future surface combat ships already is underway at the Pentagon by the director of surface warfare, and under the direction of the surface warfare commander in San Diego, but neither of those efforts is focused on a frigate. A new study, Clark said, would be aimed at a ship that could be developed within only a few years.

Regardless of the LCS debate, “this need was starting to emerge anyway,” he said.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8065
  • The path not taken.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #126 on: February 16, 2014, 08:11:02 am »
Specialist ELINT gear has been carried on various ships in van/container form for decades.  If they aren't using LCS for this already, it's only a matter of time.

Offline seruriermarshal

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 861
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #127 on: February 19, 2014, 04:25:33 pm »
 ;D

Lockheed Martin-Led Team Lays Keel on Nation’s Eleventh Littoral Combat Ship

MARINETTE, Wis., Feb. 19, 2014 – The Lockheed Martin-led industry team officially laid the keel for the U.S. Navy’s eleventh Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), the future USS Sioux City, in a ceremony held at Marinette Marine Corporation.

The industry team is building Freedom-class LCSs for the U.S. Navy, and has delivered two ships with five others under construction and one soon to begin construction. The nation’s first LCS, USS Freedom, completed her deployment to Southeast Asia, during which she participated in multiple international maritime exercises, conducted patrols in the South China Sea and provided disaster relief for Operation Damayan. As USS Freedom proved, the ship class is addressing the Navy’s need for an affordable, highly-networked and modular ship unlike any other in the world. The platform is designed and outfitted with mission systems to conduct a variety of missions including anti-surface, mine and submarine warfare.  The next LCS to deploy will be the Freedom-class USS Fort Worth (LCS 3) in 2014.

“We are proud to provide our Sailors with a proven warship that allows them to carry out their missions around the world,” said Dale P. Bennett, executive vice president of Lockheed Martin’s Mission Systems and Training business. “We are working in partnership with the Navy as they build a fleet able to operate forward, stand ready for any challenges, and serve our essential warfighting requirements.”

In keeping with a time-honored tradition, ship sponsor Mrs. Mary Winnefeld authenticated the keel block by having her initials welded.

“I'm both honored and delighted to be back in my home state of Wisconsin as the sponsor of the future USS Sioux City,” said Mrs. Winnefeld. “It's been a real privilege to meet the great Americans who are building this versatile ship, and I thank them in advance for their quality work.  I look forward to meeting her crew soon, being part of her family, and bringing our ship to life when she's commissioned.”

The Lockheed Martin-led LCS team includes ship builder Marinette Marine Corporation, a Fincantieri company, naval architect Gibbs & Cox, as well as nearly 900 suppliers in 43 states, including approximately 30 small businesses in Wisconsin and Michigan.

Lay the keel is a shipbuilding term that marks the beginning of the module erection process, which is a significant undertaking that signifies the ship coming to life. Modern warships are now largely built in a series of pre-fabricated, complete hull sections rather than a single keel, so the actual start of the shipbuilding process is now considered to be when the first sheet of steel is cut and is often marked with a ceremonial event.

Offline Creative

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 241
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #128 on: February 22, 2014, 07:54:59 am »
So I saw this 1:700 scale USS Coronado kit and something caught my attention. If you look halfway in the attached image you'll see "Optional Mk41 Launcher authentically reproduced". Was this an error on Dragon's part or an actual option for the Independence class? Because I don't ever recall hearing that it could take a 32 cell Mk 41 VLS in the forward mission slot.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #129 on: February 22, 2014, 10:07:04 am »
It's been shown in the LCS-International or Multi-Mission Combatant version, which also tends to have a phased array radar like SPY-1F.

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 908
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #130 on: February 23, 2014, 03:05:23 am »
The Indepedence can handle a MK41 VLS, according to Austal. The USN has never required it. I'm skeptical on a full 32 cell pack, and certainly not strike length without a redesign, but the "sockets" for the modular weapon systems should be plenty capable.

Offline RyanC

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 830
  • Crazy Researcher
    • Alternate Wars
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #131 on: February 25, 2014, 08:33:40 am »
And the LCS program sputters to an ignominious halt.

SecDef Hagel:

----

"Regarding the Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship, I am concerned that the Navy is relying too heavily on the LCS to achieve its long-term goals for ship numbers. Therefore, no new contract negotiations beyond 32 ships will go forward. With this decision, the LCS line will continue beyond our five-year budget plan with no interruptions.

The LCS was designed to perform certain missions – such as mine sweeping and anti-submarine warfare – in a relatively permissive environment. But we need to closely examine whether the LCS has the protection and firepower to survive against a more advanced military adversary and emerging new technologies, especially in the Asia Pacific. If we were to build out the LCS program to 52 ships, as previously planned, it would represent one-sixth of our future 300-ship Navy. Given continued fiscal constraints, we must direct shipbuilding resources toward platforms that can operate in every region and along the full spectrum of conflict.

Additionally, at my direction, the Navy will submit alternative proposals to procure a capable and lethal small surface combatant, consistent with the capabilities of a frigate. I’ve directed the Navy to consider a completely new design, existing ship designs, and a modified LCS. These proposals are due to me later this year in time to inform next year’s budget submission."
« Last Edit: February 25, 2014, 08:37:06 am by RyanCrierie »

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #132 on: February 25, 2014, 09:57:16 am »
Can't say I'm sorry to see this.  I thought the concept of a mission-adaptable ship had huge potential but I was never fully sold on the speed aspect.  Sadly, however, the way LCS was run was so catastrophic it beggars belief. 
 
I really hope they can preserve the better aspects of the concept (large hangar space and some interchangable modules) while putting in a more conventional combat system and more reasonable performance.  Something akin to the Danish Absalom class might be the ticket.

Offline Creative

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 241
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #133 on: March 11, 2014, 05:21:03 am »

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #134 on: March 11, 2014, 06:47:01 am »
They attached bridge wings to LCS-2. (Big Photos)

http://lostcoastoutpost.com/2014/jan/27/big-scary-looking-navy-ship-refueling-humboldt-bay/

I don't know why they don't use that big flat back end for VLS or would they not fit. Certain LCS's should have a large complement of anti-air and even land attack missiles, minimum a long range ATCMS IMHO.
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 SpudmanWP

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 948
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #135 on: March 11, 2014, 08:41:07 am »
The back deck is over the Mission Module bay and benieth that is the engine room.







They have proposed a Mk41 equipped LCS International Version

« Last Edit: March 11, 2014, 08:47:17 am by SpudmanWP »
WE4-45-1-08     OMHIWDMB
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #136 on: March 11, 2014, 10:47:49 am »
That "big flat back end" is known in the business as a helicopter flight deck.  There's a general dislike of missile launchers poking up through the flight deck -- aviators get twitchy about things like that.  So do damage control officers -- an aviation accident could dump burning fuel on the top of a missile tube.  (The only exception I can think of is the Kuznesov carrier, which has missiles firing up though the flight deck.  This has not been widely emulated.)
 

Offline Matt R.

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 80
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #137 on: March 11, 2014, 12:09:49 pm »
That "big flat back end" is known in the business as a helicopter flight deck.  There's a general dislike of missile launchers poking up through the flight deck -- aviators get twitchy about things like that.  So do damage control officers -- an aviation accident could dump burning fuel on the top of a missile tube.  (The only exception I can think of is the Kuznesov carrier, which has missiles firing up though the flight deck.  This has not been widely emulated.)

DDG-1000 has part of her flight deck bordered by PVLS cells.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #138 on: March 11, 2014, 12:18:35 pm »
Good point; I'd forgotten about the aft sections of the PVLS.  Still, not quite the same, as they are outside the actual flight deck area.  There isn't really room for that in the LCS, unless you shortened the available flight deck and eliminated the potential to land H-53s.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2014, 01:10:22 pm by TomS »

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #139 on: March 11, 2014, 12:46:59 pm »
Good point; I'd forgotten about the aft sestions of the PVLS.  Still, not quite the same, as they are outside the actual flight deck area.  There isn't really room for that in the LCS, unless you shortened the available flight deck and eliminated the potential to land H-53s.

Sorry I should have been more specific the VLS would be on a mission specific platform designed from the start to host launch tubes from the back end it would no longer be used as a helicopter landing pad.
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: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #140 on: March 11, 2014, 01:08:49 pm »
Remove the helo pad?  Sounds like a terrible idea to me.  The helicopter is generalyl the single most useful system on the ship. 

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #141 on: March 11, 2014, 01:23:41 pm »
Remove the helo pad?  Sounds like a terrible idea to me.  The helicopter is generalyl the single most useful system on the ship. 

Trying to address the lack of firepower argument

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2014/03/06/bring_on_the_frigate_lcs_is_outgunned_outclassed_107124.html
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 SpudmanWP

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 948
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #142 on: March 11, 2014, 01:43:23 pm »
Here is my idea of UpGunning the LCS without removing ANY internal volume.  You can also still add the Harpoon forward of the bridge.

WE4-45-1-08     OMHIWDMB
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

Offline starviking

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 921
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #143 on: March 11, 2014, 05:51:50 pm »
Wouldn't you need to raise the SeaRAM to clear the Millenium Guns?

Offline SpudmanWP

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 948
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #144 on: March 12, 2014, 09:03:31 am »
Maybe a foot or so, but remember that the SeaRam fires at an upward angle anyways.

Besides, the Millennium guns are very low profile.

SeaRam is 4.7 meters tall and the Millennium Gun is only 1.9 meters, less than half the height.

WE4-45-1-08     OMHIWDMB
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
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 bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #146 on: March 27, 2014, 10:04:54 pm »
http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a73aeca5d-1f6c-473d-8521-85e597604f02

..............The LCS, he says, could swing out from the group, nearly unobserved, and deliver a sneak attack with missiles that can hit a target 120 to 130 nautical miles away. There are missiles now, he says, available or in development, that the Navy is confident will work with the ships..........................


Any idea what these 120 nm missiles, some under development, might be?
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 donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 951
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #147 on: March 28, 2014, 12:40:38 am »
Somethin is rather fishy.  The ship isn't stealthy.  Was never designed to be stealthy, so how does it sneak out nearly undetected is certainly a mystery to me.  As for the 100ml missile - WHAT??  I can see how the ship can play a vital role as envisioned in these "wargames" but not the way it is now.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #148 on: March 28, 2014, 11:45:12 am »
Is Rear Adm. Thomas Rowden referring to the Kongsberg proposal to fit a Naval Strike Missile (NSM) launcher to the LCS? NSM has a range of at least 185 km (100 nm).

« Last Edit: March 28, 2014, 11:51:26 am by Triton »

Offline Racer

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 74
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #149 on: March 29, 2014, 04:43:01 pm »
He didn't say the missiles itself have the range, but the sneak attack? Maybe helicopter delivered Hellfires?

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #150 on: March 30, 2014, 07:40:25 am »
He didn't say the missiles itself have the range, but the sneak attack? Maybe helicopter delivered Hellfires?

With MISSILES that can hit a target 102 to 130......................

I think he is pretty clear. But the wargame can be construed as ship vs. ship or at the very least ship to shore against a sophisticated enemy. Why, he talks about the enemy knowing where the Carriers and Amphibs are in order to target them so you are probably taking about other Navies and/or countries with satellites.

I wouldn't want to try and fly a helicopter within 6km of a Chinese or Russia Naval strike group or near the Chinese shoreline.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2014, 04:53:46 pm by bobbymike »
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: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #151 on: March 30, 2014, 09:18:43 am »
Agreed that he's talking about a new missile for this ship.


The other one that jumps to mind is Boeing's Joint Air-Breathing Multi-role Missile, which was pitched as an LCS weapon.


http://defensetech.org/2012/01/18/boeings-new-missile-for-littoral-combat-ships/




Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #152 on: March 30, 2014, 04:48:36 pm »
Agreed that he's talking about a new missile for this ship.


The other one that jumps to mind is Boeing's Joint Air-Breathing Multi-role Missile, which was pitched as an LCS weapon.


http://defensetech.org/2012/01/18/boeings-new-missile-for-littoral-combat-ships/

Has any work been performed by Boeing on this missile beyond the concept stage?
« Last Edit: March 30, 2014, 11:02:35 pm by Triton »

Offline Creative

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 241
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #153 on: April 12, 2014, 06:48:48 am »
Models of the LCS classes with Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile at Sea Air Space 2014 Expo.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8065
  • The path not taken.
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #154 on: April 12, 2014, 11:36:29 am »
http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.ie/2014/04/must-have-been-tiddledeewinks-of_7.html


EDIT: Meant to thank Creative for those photos as well.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2014, 02:15:06 pm by Grey Havoc »
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #155 on: April 12, 2014, 01:56:12 pm »
Models of the LCS classes with Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile at Sea Air Space 2014 Expo.

Thanks for the photographs, Creative.

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 951
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #156 on: April 28, 2014, 07:34:09 pm »

Anyone heard of this particular export version of the freedom class? This is quite different from the export versions that we've seen so far.  http://pds23.egloos.com/pds/201210/26/78/a0041278_508a13866131d.jpg

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #157 on: April 28, 2014, 08:03:47 pm »
Thanks for posting, donnage99.

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 908
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #158 on: April 28, 2014, 10:34:18 pm »
That's the version they tried to sell to Israel.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #159 on: April 30, 2014, 11:27:10 am »
 Published on Apr 25, 2014

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index....
Joe North, Vice President of Littoral Ships Systems at Lockheed Martin, presents the various versions of Freedom type Littoral Combat Ship during Sea-Air-Space 2014 exposition.


Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #160 on: April 30, 2014, 12:13:19 pm »
That's the version they tried to sell to Israel.

It does look like one of the concepts for LCS-Israel.

"Lockheed Martin LCS-I"
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,8848.0.html

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1815
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #161 on: May 01, 2014, 07:26:54 am »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline pathology_doc

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 789
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #162 on: May 01, 2014, 09:52:38 am »
There is a steady creep up in size and equipment in the YT image to what might as well be labelled an AEGIS destroyer. That which by any other name... (aka the "Through-deck cruiser" dodge).

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #163 on: May 01, 2014, 05:16:41 pm »
I also wonder if the United States Navy is looking at the Gibbs & Cox light frigate from 2011:

Quote
The new ship concept calls for a vessel with a crew of 75 to 110, which is far smaller than the 180-200 people who operate the Perry-class frigates. The ship would have a range of roughly 7,000 miles, and a draft of about 20 feet, meaning that it could get into shallower water than existing frigates, but not quite as shallow as the Navy’s new and troubled littoral combat ship. The company has yet to release a drawing of the concept ship, or say how much it might cost to build.

Source:
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2011/Jul/27/top-architect-proposes-new-type-frigate-navy/

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #164 on: May 02, 2014, 03:52:50 am »
There is a steady creep up in size and equipment in the YT image to what might as well be labelled an AEGIS destroyer. That which by any other name... (aka the "Through-deck cruiser" dodge).

The radar on that larger version is SPY-1F, so nowhere close to AEGIS destroyer performance levels.

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 951
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #165 on: May 11, 2014, 04:45:04 pm »
What's the price tag of LCS now? Upper 400 - 500 million range? That's the price tag of a upper multirole frigate class in the international market equipped with better radar, torpedo tubes, harpoon missiles, and VLS and a hull that can continue to fight after damage (no need for modular swappable payloads with that amount of money, as you can buy all of those missions installed in one ship in Europe).  The only thing that the LCS has is speed, which it will need to run away the moment it detect something bigger than a pirate speedboat.

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 908
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #166 on: May 11, 2014, 10:45:50 pm »
What's the price tag of LCS now? Upper 400 - 500 million range? That's the price tag of a upper multirole frigate class in the international market equipped with better radar, torpedo tubes, harpoon missiles, and VLS and a hull that can continue to fight after damage (no need for modular swappable payloads with that amount of money, as you can buy all of those missions installed in one ship in Europe).  The only thing that the LCS has is speed, which it will need to run away the moment it detect something bigger than a pirate speedboat.
Without mission module, sail-away cost is around $450 million in 2014 Dollars, the full price depends on which module is onboard. An "upper multirole frigate class" defends on how you define some things. The last F100 cost more than $1.1 billion in 2010 Euros, a FREMM costs more than $800 million in 2012 Euros. Project 17A is aiming for $670 million each, though it's a long way from the water yet. That's just "advertised" price, detailed study usually find the real costs to be much higher. Most international frigates are not multi-role, and most are not built to any higher survivability standard than LCS. That said, sure LCS has all sorts of problems stemming from questionable decision-making, and I'm hopeful the small combatant study takes an honest look at the situation and finds the right solutions.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #167 on: June 16, 2014, 12:36:28 pm »

Offline SpudmanWP

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 948
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #168 on: June 16, 2014, 01:16:58 pm »
lack of hanger, module space, and range.
WE4-45-1-08     OMHIWDMB
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 951
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #169 on: June 16, 2014, 08:23:50 pm »
Perhaps what LCS should have been?

Source:
http://cimsec.org/strength-in-numbers-the-remarkable-potential-of-really-small-combatants/


They did pitch a larger version of this during the LCS competition.  It lost.  That being said, this ship program is racked with its own problems as well. 

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #170 on: July 30, 2014, 09:56:52 am »
"Norway's Naval Strike Missile to get LCS test"
Jul. 28, 2014 - 12:41PM   | 
By CHRISTOPHER P. CAVA

Source:
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140728/DEFREG02/307280010

Quote
WASHINGTON — This September, a US Navy littoral combat ship (LCS) will get underway on a missile range off Southern California and conduct test launches of the Naval Strike Missile (NSM), a Kongsberg-developed weapon already fielded aboard Norwegian warships and by Polish land-based coast defense forces.

The tests, confirmed last week by US Navy officials, will help determine whether the missile is adaptable to the LCS, and whether it is the sort of weapon in which the US should invest.

“The demonstration is not to integrate it into the ship but to launch it, and to explore the concept of operations for launching a missile that can go far from an LCS,” explained Capt. Michael Ladner, the Naval Sea System (NAVSEA) Command’s major program manager for surface ship weapons.

“Naval Strike Missile is an incredible missile,” he said, noting that a recent war game showed “NSM has a highly survivable, very advanced seeker, and it goes 100 miles.”

That range might not be optimal for LCS, which is not fitted with long-range fire control systems.

“If I can shoot 100 miles, but I can’t see a target at 100 miles, then that may or may not be the right missile for that ship,” Ladner explained. “If we can figure out how to solve the detect-to-engage sequence then that might be the right candidate.”

But, he added, “maybe the right answer is a shorter-range missile that goes closer to what the ship can detect organically. That is what the Navy is looking at to understand where we really want to go for this ship class.”

Kongsberg has been aggressively targeting the US Navy as a potential NSM customer. The LCS, initially planned to carry the Non-Line of Sight missile, has been without a missile system since the US Army canceled NLOS development in early 2010. The Navy recently decided to begin development work to adapt the proven Hellfire Longbow missile to shipboard use for the LCS.

The 13-foot-long NSM, in the 500-pound class of missile, is significantly larger than the Hellfire, in the 100-pound class. The smaller missile could essentially be a placeholder until a more effective weapon can be identified.

While there have been calls in the service to develop new surface-to-surface missiles, the Navy emphasized the upcoming NSM tests are not in response to a specific requirement.

“The planned September live-firing demonstration aboard USS Coronado (LCS 4) of the Naval Strike Missile under the Foreign Comparative Testing Program will test the ship’s feasibility to execute an increased anti-surface warfare role,” Lt. Kurt Larson, a NAVSEA Command spokesman, said in a statement.

“Additionally, it will provide insights into the weapon’s stated capabilities of increased range, survivability and lethality.

“While there is currently no requirement for this capability aboard LCS, we view the demonstration as an opportunity to test a possible future warfighting tool,” Larson added.

For now, the US Navy is not committing NSM to anything beyond the September tests.

“At this time, there are no further tests planned for the NSM or similar weapons,” Lt. Jackie Pau, a Navy spokesperson at the Pentagon, said.

Kongsberg, the Royal Norwegian Navy and NAVSEA’s Integrated Warfare Systems office are directly supporting the Coronado tests.

In addition to Kongsberg, other missile makers, including Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, have been working on potential weapons to arm the LCS. Lockheed makes the Hellfire, while Raytheon’s small Griffin missile was briefly considered, then dropped, as an interim weapon aboard LCS.

Ladner oversees development work on all three missile systems.

“We put the Griffin missile system on patrol coastal [PC] boats in the [Arabian] Gulf,” Ladner said. The weapon was declared operational on the PCs in March and, he added, “provides them some self-defense capability against fast attack craft, things like that. PCs are one area where we have done a lot of integration.”

Griffin, a lightweight weapon initially developed for special operations forces, in early 2011 was considered for use aboard LCS but the idea was dropped in favor of something with more firepower.

The Hellfire Longbow, a weapon used by Army and Navy helicopters, was chosen earlier this year for development for use aboard LCS.

“We wanted to take advantage of the fact that the Army has a whole bunch of Hellfire Longbows that have capability,” Ladner said. Integration into the LCS would “provide [the ships with] a little bit longer reach, interim capability or initial capability against surface craft, swarming boats. That is the program of record that I am supporting.”

Hellfire manufacturer Lockheed Martin is adapting the missile for seaborne use, but the effort is still in the early stages. One simple question has yet to be determined: What sort of launcher would be used?

The weapon was designed, Ladner said, to be launched off a rail on a helicopter. A ship launcher though, would likely use either a vertical-launch or inclined-launch attitude.

“It’s too early to decide if there’s a final decision,” he said. “There is engineering work right now to either modify what we used for Griffin on PCs, an angled fixed elevation launcher, or do we want to modify something else.”

He noted that the missile launcher space built in aboard each of the two LCS designs “is a cube. You put in an angled launcher and it limits the number of missiles you can put in at an angle, right? If you can put something in vertically launched, now you can increase the scope. Those are trades we are still working out.”

Another major factor to be considered is how the missile — which is usually aimed in the general direction of a target as it’s launched from a helicopter — acquires a target after being launched from a ship.

“In a helicopter configuration, typically the seeker can see the target before it launches,” Ladner explained. “In a vertical launch it is in a different attitude,” he said, essentially being launched blind.

“We have to capture the missile and make it stable during that egress and then tip over and make sure we get it pointed in the right direction so the seeker finds [the target] after launch,” he said.

Combat systems integration also is a major piece of the work. “There has to be a sensor on the ship that is going to see small targets,” he said. The information needs to feed “through the combat system to initialize the missile, to launch the missile and then get the missile pointed on the right range to control the missile.”

The Navy already is looking for a new surface-to-surface missile as a potential successor to Harpoon, although no formal requirements have been drawn up. Officials stressed that it is way too soon to determine if NSM fits the bill.

“The demonstration isn’t a test of LCS,” said Ladner. “It’s a test of the Naval Strike Missile being able to deploy from that ship out to a significant range.”

The results, he said, “allow us the opportunity to continue to look at other missile solutions depending on what the requirement is going to be.”

Offline ouroboros

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 352
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #171 on: August 01, 2014, 03:09:16 pm »
Perhaps what LCS should have been?

Source:
http://cimsec.org/strength-in-numbers-the-remarkable-potential-of-really-small-combatants/


They did pitch a larger version of this during the LCS competition.  It lost.  That being said, this ship program is racked with its own problems as well.

Wait, Visby had LCS levels of issues?

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 908
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #172 on: August 01, 2014, 07:19:34 pm »
Perhaps what LCS should have been?

Source:
http://cimsec.org/strength-in-numbers-the-remarkable-potential-of-really-small-combatants/


They did pitch a larger version of this during the LCS competition.  It lost.  That being said, this ship program is racked with its own problems as well.

Wait, Visby had LCS levels of issues?
Different scale of program but yes Visby class has had a lot of problems. They look cool as hell but for about a decade about all they could do was navigate and fire the deck gun.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
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 bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #174 on: September 11, 2014, 01:10:43 pm »


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 Creative

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 241
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #175 on: September 23, 2014, 04:41:06 pm »
https://www.facebook.com/SurfaceWarriors/photos/a.126278907607.103778.126238592607/10152765055452608/?type=1

Quote
(Sept. 23, 2014) - The crew of the littoral combat ship USS Coronado (LCS 4) successfully performed a live-fire demonstration of a Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile (NSM) during missile testing operations off the coast of Southern California, Sept. 23.  During the test, the Norwegian-made Kongsberg NSM was launched from the deck of Coronado and scored a direct hit on its intended target, a Mobile Ship Target (MST). (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Zachary D. Bell/Released)



Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #176 on: September 26, 2014, 01:22:54 pm »
"Updated: Norwegian Missile Test On Littoral Combat Ship Successful"
By: Sam LaGrone
Published: September 24, 2014 8:44 AM
Updated: September 24, 2014 1:52 PM

Source:
http://news.usni.org/2014/09/24/navy-norwegian-missile-test-littoral-combat-ship-successful

Quote
A Tuesday test of the Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile on Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) USS Coronado (LCS-4) was deemed a success and could pave the way to expand the anti-surface weapons portfolio of U.S. Navy’s surface ships.

“We view this successful missile test as a possible future warfighting capability for the LCS program,” said Naval Surface Forces commander, Vice Adm. Thomas Rowden in a Tuesday statement.

However, the successful test might not mean the NSM could find its way onto the LCS or the SSC and the Navy’s follow-on Small Surface Combatant (SSC) anytime soon, according to Naval Sea System Command (NAVSEA).

“There is no linkage between the SSC taskforce and the NSM test. The findings of the Small Surface Combatant Task Force will be used to provide a Navy recommendation to the Secretary of Defense to procure a capable and lethal small surface combatant,” read a Wednesday NAVSEA statement to USNI News.

The missile was fired from a launcher positioned on Coronado’s flight deck at a mobile ship target at the ranges off of Port Hueneme.

The sea skimming and subsonic NSM has a range of about 100 nautical miles — greater than the Navy’s current Harpoon missile. The missile is also designed to evade radar.

According to Rowden, the modular design of LCS would make it possible to integrate new weapons onto the platform.

“This allows for the integration of weapons and sensors like the Kongsberg NSM technology as part of the LCS warfare suite,” he said.

The test was facilitated through the foreign competitive testing (FCT) program following a demonstration of the NSM at the Rim of Pacific 2014 exercise.

“Since 1980, the FCT program has helped the United States and allies reap substantial savings by avoiding research and development costs, lowering procurement costs, reducing risk for major acquisition programs and accelerating the fielding of equipment critical to the reading and safety of operating forces,” according to a release from Naval Surface Forces.

No other missiles are being evaluated by as part of the tests, according to NAVSEA.

Currently, the Surface Warfare (SuW) package of the LCS is oriented toward fighting an asymmetric swarm boat threat and full size naval threats.

The lack of firepower onboard both variants of LCS has been a lingering criticism of the program for years and, in part, informed the decision of the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) to instruct the Navy to take a second look at the LCS program.

The following is NAVSEA’s full Sept. 24, 2014 statement to USNI News:

There is no linkage between the SSC taskforce and the NSM test. The findings of the Small Surface Combatant Task Force will be used to provide a Navy recommendation to the SECDEF to procure a capable and lethal small surface combatant.

This is a separate and distinct action from the naval strike missile test which is part of the Navy’s process of continually exploring opportunities for improved capability and reliability across all programs. While there is currently no requirement for the naval strike missile, the Navy is interested in seeing the potential to execute an increased anti-surface warfare role on its ships.

The test is a demonstration of the ship’s potential to execute an increased surface warfare role in both quantity of firepower and in range. Additionally, the test will provide insights into the weapon’s stated capabilities of increased range and lethality.

No other missiles are being evaluated at this time.

Offline Creative

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 241
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #177 on: September 30, 2014, 11:47:35 am »
Video of launch.


Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
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 bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
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: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #180 on: November 06, 2014, 06:47:18 pm »
Quote
Navy developers plan to arm the service’s Littoral Combat Ship with a long-range surface-to-surface missile by 2020 to defend against fast attack craft, ships and patrol boats, service officials said.

ATACMS is singularly useless for such a task.  I suspect NSM has this in the bag, unless Boeing has done a lot of very quiet work on their Joint Air-Breathing Multi-Role Missile.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #181 on: November 06, 2014, 09:23:56 pm »
Quote
Navy developers plan to arm the service’s Littoral Combat Ship with a long-range surface-to-surface missile by 2020 to defend against fast attack craft, ships and patrol boats, service officials said.

ATACMS is singularly useless for such a task.  I suspect NSM has this in the bag, unless Boeing has done a lot of very quiet work on their Joint Air-Breathing Multi-Role Missile.

Bring back the BAT version plus for land attack against hard targets.

http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/atacms-bat.htm
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: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #182 on: November 07, 2014, 04:56:18 pm »
LCS doesn't have a mission against hardened targets on land.  It also doesn't need an antiship missile with a minimum range of 25 km or more (some sources say up to 100 km minimum).  And it certainly doesn't need a missile weighing 1.5 tons (NSM is more like 400 kg).

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #183 on: December 03, 2014, 12:03:04 pm »
Published on Dec 3, 2014

On Nov. 17, the U.S. Navy deployed its third Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), USS Fort Worth, on a 16-month journey to Southeast Asia. While deployed, the ship will visit ports, collaborate with international navies and expand LCS capabilities. USS Fort Worth, which has traveled more than 40,000 nautical miles already, is the second ship built by the Lockheed Martin-led industry team. The ship was delivered to the Navy in 2012, two months ahead of schedule.


Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8065
  • The path not taken.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #185 on: January 15, 2015, 11:34:49 am »
Mabus is officially my hero! 
I don't mind creating new ship designations, per se, but they should make sense within the existing framework.  LCS as a hull designator didn't make sense.  Neither does JHSV and the rest of those mentioned.  Nice to see some tradition being reasserted.
 
 

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #186 on: January 15, 2015, 04:09:41 pm »
Mabus is officially my hero! 
I don't mind creating new ship designations, per se, but they should make sense within the existing framework.  LCS as a hull designator didn't make sense.  Neither does JHSV and the rest of those mentioned.  Nice to see some tradition being reasserted.

Now if it just had the firepower of a frigate.   :'(
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #187 on: January 15, 2015, 05:24:16 pm »
Lines up with the current FFGs....

The upgraded version looks well armed for surface actions.  Could use an AAW upgrade, but the budget just won't stretch.

Offline covert_shores

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 662
  • Research + illustration
    • COVERT SHORES
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #188 on: January 15, 2015, 10:52:41 pm »
This is only 'traditional' in the recent sense surly. If he'd called it a sloop or destroyer escort that'd be traditional. USN tradition is full of types having esoteric acronym designations. APSS anyone? LCVP, LCPL...
COVERT SHORES: www.hisutton.com

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #189 on: January 16, 2015, 07:28:23 am »
That's not a fair comparison.  Imagine if the F-22 had been designated the ATF-22 just because the program name was the Advanced Tactical Fighter. 
That's basically what happened with LCS.  The program name became a hull designation, directly, without regard for the mission-based designation scheme that was already in use.  The initial L in LCS is confusing, since it is otherwise used only for amphibious ships and craft, which LCS is not.   It should have always has a designation that clearly marked it as a surface combatant, and frigate is the closest logical match.  If they wanted to differentiate the LCS from other frigate-like ships, they had the option of adding a modifier to the basic FF designator (L for Littoral or M for Multi-Mission, perhaps.) 
LCVP and LCPL are perfectly consistent with the scheme that has been in use since the early 20th century -- LCxx for amphibious/landing craft).  APSS is from an era where many amphibious ships had A designations (APA, AKA, APD).  That was fixed in 1969, when all the amphibious ships became L types and A was reserved specifically for auxiliaries. 
 

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #190 on: January 16, 2015, 07:55:31 pm »
Did any one else read this news and think it was a load of BS?


"LCS Now Officially Called A Frigate"
By Christopher P. Cavas 11:18 a.m. EST January 15, 2015

Source:
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/ships/2015/01/15/lcs-navy-frigate/21801559/

Quote
WASHINGTON — Since its inception in 2001, the US Navy's Littoral Combat Ship program has been described as needed to replace the fleet's frigates, minesweepers and patrol ships. But the ship's place in the line of battle continues to be debated.

Navy Secretary Ray Mabus thinks one of the reasons the ship is misunderstood is the nontraditional LCS designator. He directed an effort to find a more traditional and appropriate designation for the LCS and several other recent ship types, such as the Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV), the Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) and the Afloat Forward Staging Base (AFSB).

The first of the types to be redesignated is the LCS.

"If it's like a frigate, why don't we call it a frigate?" he said Thursday morning to a roomful of surface warfare sailors at the Surface Navy Association's annual symposium just outside Washington.

"We are going to change the hull designation of the LCS class ships to FF," Mabus said, citing the traditional hull designation for frigates. "It will still be the same ship, the same program of record, just with an appropriate and traditional name."

Mabus has long been irked by the habit in recent years of applying program-like designations to ships, and LCS is an example. In the Navy's designation system, the first letter sometimes is the key to the overall role of the ship, and "L-class" ships are widely considered to be those involved in carrying Marines and their equipment for an amphibious assault. LCS is the sole exception — a ship the Navy counts as a surface combatant, not an amphibious lift ship.

"When I hear L, I think amphib," Mabus said. "And it's not an amphib. And I have to spend a good deal of my time explaining what littoral is."

Redesignating the ships as FF puts the ship squarely back in the surface combatant category, and is appropriate, since the Pentagon direction in developing the modified LCS was to make it more "frigate-like."

Navy sources said it was intended to designate only the modified LCS as frigates, but many of the upgrades intended for those ships are to be backfitted into earlier LCS hulls, blending the types. So in the end, the decision was made to make the change to the entire class.

Navy sources said a decision on what hull numbers the ships will carry has yet to be made. There are several possibilities — if the ships pick up with the frigate series, the next number available is FF 1099.

The fleet's last guided-missile frigates (FFGs) will be decommissioned in September, and the next number in that sequence is FFG 62. But unlike the Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates being phased out, the LCS doesn't carry an area air-defense missile such as the Standard missile — the basis for the "G" — so the FFG series isn't entirely appropriate.

The Navy also could decide not to change the hull numbers but simply change the designator — something that was done in the late 1970s when new Aegis guided-missile destroyers were redesignated as cruisers without changing the numbers.

Mabus said he would announce additional ship changes in coming weeks.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2015, 08:11:21 pm by Triton »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #191 on: January 16, 2015, 08:04:14 pm »
That's not a fair comparison.  Imagine if the F-22 had been designated the ATF-22 just because the program name was the Advanced Tactical Fighter. 
That's basically what happened with LCS.  The program name became a hull designation, directly, without regard for the mission-based designation scheme that was already in use.  The initial L in LCS is confusing, since it is otherwise used only for amphibious ships and craft, which LCS is not.   It should have always has a designation that clearly marked it as a surface combatant, and frigate is the closest logical match.  If they wanted to differentiate the LCS from other frigate-like ships, they had the option of adding a modifier to the basic FF designator (L for Littoral or M for Multi-Mission, perhaps.) 
LCVP and LCPL are perfectly consistent with the scheme that has been in use since the early 20th century -- LCxx for amphibious/landing craft).  APSS is from an era where many amphibious ships had A designations (APA, AKA, APD).  That was fixed in 1969, when all the amphibious ships became L types and A was reserved specifically for auxiliaries.

I just feel that re-designating the LCS as a "fast frigate" is dishonest. Is this the ship that the Navy, and supporters of the Navy, mean when they talk about a new frigate class? LCS from the very beginning was designed for green-water warfare and through feature creep has steadily grown larger and larger. The whole mission modules idea was an expensive flop. So, Mabus is just trying to pull a fast one on us by re-labeling this speedboat killer and fast minesweeper as an FFG. Is this really a replacement for the Oliver Hazard Perry class? This is a patrol boat and mine counter measures ship, not a frigate. Call it a PMCM (Patrol/Mine Counter Measures) not an FFG.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2015, 08:13:12 pm by Triton »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #192 on: January 16, 2015, 08:21:49 pm »
Mabus is officially my hero! 
I don't mind creating new ship designations, per se, but they should make sense within the existing framework.  LCS as a hull designator didn't make sense.  Neither does JHSV and the rest of those mentioned.  Nice to see some tradition being reasserted.

Now if it just had the firepower of a frigate.   :'(

Indeed, trade a misunderstanding for a deliberate falsehood.

Offline covert_shores

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 662
  • Research + illustration
    • COVERT SHORES
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #193 on: January 17, 2015, 03:21:27 am »
So basically this kills any hope of a true OHP replacement?

Mind you OHP is so lightly armed in its final state it doesn't deserve the Frigate status itself.
COVERT SHORES: www.hisutton.com

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 951
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #194 on: January 18, 2015, 01:32:43 am »
courtesy Creative for leading me to this site where I found a model of one of the losing proposal for LCS:


Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #195 on: January 18, 2015, 02:06:32 am »
That's a Textron design, IIRC.  I think it's from the Focussed-Mission High Speed Ship study that came before the actual LCS competition.  The lack of a gun was a hallmark of FMHSS.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2015, 05:23:45 pm by TomS »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #196 on: February 03, 2015, 04:20:38 pm »
"LCS Independence Ships Out for MCM Package Test"
By: Sam LaGrone
February 3, 2015 6:39 PM

Source:
http://news.usni.org/2015/02/03/lcs-independence-ships-mcm-package-test

Quote
The test ship for the U.S. Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) mine countermeasure (MCM) mission package shipped out from Naval Station San Diego, Calif., last week.

USS Independence (LCS-2) is heading toward Naval Air Station Pensacola, Fla. for the major end-to-end evaluation of arguably the complicated mission package for the LCS program.

The test – set for this summer, Naval Sea Systems Command told USNI News – will be the most challenging test of the LCS concept to date.

The operational test and evaluation (IOT&E) will seek to prove four MCM distinct technologies in the first increment of the package –the MH-60S helicopter-deployed airborne laser mine detection system (ALMDS); the mine-killing airborne mine neutralization system (AMNS); the remote minehunting system (RMS), composed of the Lockheed Martin Remote Multi-Mission Vehicle (RMMV) and the Raytheon AQS-20A sonar.

“IOT&E is the event that will transition the mission package from testing to fleet use,” read a statement from the service.

A successful OPEVAL will prove out the Navy’s plan to replace its aging fleet of Avenger-class MCM ships that are among the oldest ships in the service.

In the voyage from California to Florida, Independence will transit Panama Canal and visit Cartagena, Columbia.

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 908
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #197 on: February 03, 2015, 10:11:19 pm »
I guess Jackson is still not ready, otherwise she would seem the more logical testbed given that she's still on the Gulf Coast and wouldn't have to make the canal run.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #198 on: February 04, 2015, 04:08:21 pm »
"Northrop Grumman to Deliver Additional Mission Packages for US Navy Littoral Combat Ships"
February 3, 2015

Source:
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2386
 
Quote
Northrop Grumman Corporation has received a $21.6 million contract from the U.S. Navy for two additional Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) mission packages. As the mission package integrator, the company will deliver one mission package for surface warfare and one for mine countermeasures.

The capabilities contained in the various mission modules directly support the three LCS primary missions – surface warfare, mine countermeasures and antisubmarine warfare. Mission modules facilitate efficient modular mission package embarkation, mission package operations at-sea, and debarkation / logistics support.

"As the mission package integrator for LCS we are committed to meeting the demanding requirements of our warfighters, while providing supplier base stability and reducing cost to the Navy," said Doug Shaffer, director, electronic attack/maritime systems integration programs, Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems. "As more Littoral Combat Ships enter service, the U.S. Navy/Northrop Grumman team has stepped up to make sure the mission modules are available when needed to achieve initial operational capability (IOC)."

Northrop Grumman has delivered three mine countermeasures and three surface warfare mission modules for LCS. A fourth mine countermeasures mission module is in production and scheduled for delivery in 2015. The fourth and fifth surface warfare mission modules are also in production and scheduled for delivery in early 2015. Northrop Grumman performs the final integration work and completes delivery at the Mission Package Support Facility located at Naval Base Ventura County, Port Hueneme, Ca.



The capabilities contained in the various mission modules directly support the three LCS primary missions – surface warfare, mine countermeasures and antisubmarine warfare. Mission modules facilitate efficient modular mission package embarkation, mission package operations at-sea, and debarkation / logistics support.



GULF OF MEXICO (Jan. 7, 2012) The Remote Minehunting System (RMS) and an AN/AQS-20 mine hunting sonar are brought aboard the littoral combat ship USS Independence (LCS 2) during developmental testing of the mine warfare mission module package. (U.S. Navy photo by Ron Newsome/Released
     


« Last Edit: February 04, 2015, 04:11:17 pm by Triton »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #199 on: February 04, 2015, 04:20:33 pm »
Looks like we missed this article from August 22, 2014:

"U.S. Navy's LCS MCM Mission Package Takes another Step Toward Fleet Implementation"

Source:
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/year-2014-news/august-2014-navy-naval-forces-maritime-industry-technology-security-global-news/1957-us-navys-lcs-mcm-mission-package-takes-another-step-toward-fleet-implementation.html

Quote
The U.S. Navy Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama City hosted a two-week demonstration in July that verified Sailors' ability to conduct maintenance on the Littoral Combat Ship's Mine Countermeasure Mission Package without the assistance of civilian scientists or engineers.

The Littoral Combat Ship Mine Countermeasure Mission Package (LCS MCM MP) Sustainment Demonstration (S-Demo) puts the Navy a step closer to transitioning mine countermeasure mission modules to the fleet, offering Joint Force Commanders mine detection and neutralization capability that does not put ships at risk in minefields.
 The LCS MCM mission package conducts its mine countermeasures operations through the employment of aviation assets and unmanned surface, semi-submersible, and submersible vehicles, equipped with an array of sensors and systems to detect, localize, neutralize, and sweep mines. These systems are designed to be employed while the LCS remains outside the mine threat area. Future mission package increments add capability, including beach zone mine detection, mine sweeping, near surface mine neutralization, and buried and surf zone mine detection.

LCS MCM MP Features:

Remote Minehunting Module
» AN/WLD-1(V) Remote Multi-Mission Vehicle (RMMV) (2)
» AQS-20A
» Cradle Pallet Assembly
» Capture Spine
» Support Containers

Near Surface Detection Module
» MH-60S Helicopter
» AN/AES-1 Airborne Laser Mine Detection System (ALMDS)
» Support Containers

Airborne Mine Neutralization Module
» MH-60S Helicopter
» AN/ASQ-235 Airborne Mine Neutralization Systems (AMNS)
» EX 64 neutralizers
» Support Containers

Coastal Mine Reconnaissance Module
» AN/DVS-1 Coastal Battlefield Reconnaissance and Analysis (COBRA) System
» MQ-8B Vertical Takeoff Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (VTUAV)
» Support Containers

Unmanned Mine Sweeping Module
» Unmanned Surface Vehicle (USV)
» Unmanned Surface Sweep System (USSS)
» Support Containers

Buried Mine Hunting Module
» Surface Mine Countermeasure Unmanned Underwater Vehicle (SMCM UUV) (Knifefish)
» Launch, handling and recovery equipment
» Support Containers

Mission Package Application Software (MPAS)
» Mission specific application software that support the MP in planning and executing the MCM missions
» Mine Warfare and Environmental Decision Aids Library (MEDAL)

The purpose of the S-Demo is to identify gaps in training, processes, and procedures to make sure gaps are minimized for future operations and support," said Michelle Parker, NSWC PCD S-Demonstration Test Team.

During the demonstration, Sailors assigned to operate and maintain the MCM package, the Littoral Combat Ship Squadron (LCSRON) Mission Package detachment, followed systems and processes in place to perform maintenance tasks on the deployable LCS mine countermeasures equipment, while civilian scientists and engineers collected data. The data gathered will help to improve maintenance processes Sailors will use while on deployment.

"It's our way of ensuring the requisite amount of technical rigor is in place to ensure program success, because at the end of the day we must provide a safe and effective solution to the Fleet," said Ed Stewart, NSWC Panama City Technical Director.

By better estimating the actual time required to perform corrective and preventative maintenance, the sailors have more accurate data when calculating the time necessary to clear a minefield or complete a specific tactic at sea.

"At some point during development, a system will go through what is called a Maintainability Demonstration (M-Demo)," said Peter Halvorson, Lead for Integrated Logistics Support at NSWC Panama City. "It is an event where failures are intentionally introduced into the system to see if trained Sailors can use the written repair procedures (technical manuals) to fix it. This proves out the quality of both training and technical documentation. We're taking this a step further for the LCS MCM MP. We are starting our event with the process leading up to the repair - who gets called, what forms/documentation are filed electronically to alert someone that there is a failure, etc."

Halvorson said a "reach back" process was added to the event, so that if trained Sailors are unable to fix the problem with the technical procedures provided, they are trained to "reach back" into the support infrastructure, typically the Mission Package Support Facility or an In-Service Engineering Agent, and ask for an extra level of expertise to help troubleshoot and fix the failed component.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #200 on: February 09, 2015, 09:09:42 am »
"Document: Report to Congress on Littoral Combat Ships and Frigates"
February 9, 2015 10:56 AM

Source:
http://news.usni.org/2015/02/09/document-report-congress-littoral-combat-ships-frigates

The following is the Jan. 30, 2015 Congressional Research Service report, Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS)/Frigate Program: Background and Issues for Congress.

NOTE: Report embedded on this page.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #201 on: February 16, 2015, 08:09:22 pm »
"CNO says ship basing in Australia under consideration"
Lance M. Bacon, Staff writer 2:22 p.m. EST February 14, 2015

Source:
http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2015/02/14/australia-basing-looked-at-cno-confirms/23344415/

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #202 on: February 16, 2015, 08:11:27 pm »
Keel laying for USS Wichita (LCS-13):

"Lockheed Martin LCS team lays keel of future USS Wichita"

February 10, 2015

Source:
http://www.marinelog.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=8716:lockheed-martin-lcs-team-lays-keel-of-future-uss-wichita&Itemid=231

« Last Edit: February 16, 2015, 08:14:12 pm by Triton »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #203 on: February 20, 2015, 02:28:03 pm »
"LCS Versus the Danish Strawman"
February 19, 2015

by Steven Wills

Source:
http://cimsec.org/lcs-versus-danish-strawman/14974

Quote
Many critics have assailed the Littoral Combatant Ship (LCS) program for its high cost in comparison with foreign, supposedly better armed and equipped equivalents. The Danish Iver Huitfeldt and Absalon class frigates are often cited as examples of cheaper, more capable small combatants in comparison with LCS. These claims are not well researched and are based on isolated points of data rather than any systemic analysis. Other nations may be able to build relatively cheap warships, but hidden factors not discussed by critics, rather than U.S. shipbuilding and general acquisition deficiencies make this possible. The Danish Navy, in conjunction with corporate giant A.P. Moeller have produced an outstanding series of warships, but a direct comparison between them with the LCS is one of apples verses oranges. It’s time to stop using this inaccurate strawman argument against LCS.

The direct comparison of the Danish frigates to LCS is highly misleading due to significant differences in Danish shipbuilding practice and financial accounting. The Danish “StanFlex” system of “plug and play” weapons, sensors and equipment (including cranes!) officially separates these components from the advertised cost of the ship. A 2006 RAND report on the rise in warship costs specifically identified such systems as the principal drivers of warship cost inflation. The Danish concept of separating these more costly systems from their hull gives the appearance of a much less expensive warship. The ships were often accepted by the Danish Navy in an incomplete condition. The Danish Nils Juel, for example, was delivered in 2014 with 76mm guns scavenged from decommissioned ships. Danish figures suggest that the Iver Huitfeldt program used $209 million in reused equipment from scrapped vessels. Reuse, however, could not meet all system requirements. The planned 127mm (5 inch) gun system was deemed too expensive at $50 million a copy. The ship’s close-in weapon system mount was actually a dummy, wooden weapon due to a lack of certification. While equipped with a MK 41 vertical launch missile system (VLS), the ship deployed to the fall 2014 U.S. Bold Alligator exercise without the system certified for use or weapons purchased for eventual outfitting. That same reporting indicated that the ship was delivered with its damage control system incomplete and lacking a secondary steering control center. Much of the ship is built to merchant ship standards which are not as robust as those traditionally provided to warships. In addition, the Danish ship was forced to take on nearly 20 extra crew members when the lean 100 person complement was found insufficient for operational needs.

The Absalon class is more akin to a heavily armed, limited load amphibious ship rather than a surface combatant. It combines a number of warfare and expeditionary capabilities on a single hull, but excels at none of them. It is also significantly slower (at 24 knots maximum speed) than most other surface combatants. Both Absalon and her sister Esbern Snare were also delivered without their full installation of weapons and sensors. In the case of Absalon, this process took over three years. The Danish Navy has been open in regards to these conditions. U.S. advocates of adopting the Absalon or Iver Huitfeldt classes almost always overlook them.

The LCS, by contrast is delivered with significant systems such as its 57mm gun and point defense missile system incorporated into the overall cost. Scavenging of weapons from previous U.S. ships is extremely difficult due to a constant process of upgrades over time. Weapon systems, like ships also have service lives and U.S. ships being decommissioned often have equally aged weapons and supporting electrical, hydraulic and mechanical systems that make a re-installation not cost effective. Unlike the Absalon class which is not equipped to master any one warfare area in any of its configurations, the LCS can be exclusively equipped to master one such discipline. It is purposely designed to operate in tailored flotillas designed to mitigate the risks incurred by one ship like Absalon. Critics often fail to note that both Iver Huitfeldt and Absalon are nearly twice the size of LCS.  Neither has the speed requirements that drove initial LCS design considerations. The size difference alone may explain the Danish ships’ much longer endurance. These differences in Danish and U.S. practices make comparisons difficult at best.

Finally, the Danish Navy contracted the building of both the Iver Huitfeldt and Absalon classes to a single firm, the A.P. Moeller Corporation. This multinational giant derives the vast bulk of its earnings from the more stable commercial market and its warship business is not dependent on government orders, which causes instability and cost overruns in its production process. By contrast, U.S. LCS shipbuilders Lockheed Martin and Austal serve government interests much more than private ones and are more dependent on government contracts to maintain stability in their operations. The 2006 RAND report also identified this process of divided warship construction as another factor in the increased cost of surface combatants.

The LCS program has been beset with a number of technological and systemic problems since its inception that have slowed the program’s progress and likely contributed to some cost overruns. On the surface, the Iver Huitfeldt and Absalon class frigates would appear to be cost effective alternatives to the LCS. Deeper investigation, however, reveals how the Danes achieved these substantially lower figures by separating higher cost equipment from that of the platform, scavenging weapons from decommissioned ships, accepting incomplete warships for service, and purchasing these vessels from a single, robust commercial shipbuilder not dependent on or affected by unstable government ship acquisition processes. In summary, these classes meet Denmark’s needs, but are an unsuitable substitute for U.S. Navy small combatants. LCS critics, however, should not use the Danish ships as strawman LCS substitutes. It is a most unequal comparison./quote]

Offline covert_shores

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 662
  • Research + illustration
    • COVERT SHORES
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #204 on: February 24, 2015, 11:50:22 am »
Interesting and well argued, but I think that the absolon is a better comparison than the author gives credit for. It's not whether the absolon meets the specific requirements, it's wrther the absolon meets the real needs. Which design is more useful and cost effective?

 Absolon's main weakness is speed I think.
COVERT SHORES: www.hisutton.com

Offline Creative

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 241
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #205 on: March 06, 2015, 01:39:58 pm »
http://news.usni.org/2015/03/05/peo-lcs-begins-at-sea-testing-of-modified-longbow-hellfire-missile?utm_source=USNI+News&utm_campaign=ea901cae34-USNI_NEWS_DAILY&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0dd4a1450b-ea901cae34-230366957&mc_cid=ea901cae34&mc_eid=34f94d29e1

Quote
PEO LCS Begins At Sea Testing of Modified Longbow Hellfire Missile
By: Megan Eckstein
March 5, 2015 11:51 AM

The Program Executive Office for Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) began a series of tests on its modified Longbow Hellfire missile from a surrogate test platform, with a successful first test after some weather delays.

The LCS surface warfare mission package reached initial operational capability (IOC) in November with its 30mm gun and 11-meter rigid hull inflatable boats, and the next step is to add a missile to counter the fast inshore attack craft threat, Capt. Casey Moton, LCS mission modules program manager, said at the American Society of Naval Engineers’ ASNE Day 2015 on Wednesday.

To defeat the small boat threat, the Navy chose Lockheed Martin’s AGM-114L Longbow Hellfire radar-guided missile, with some modifications. Moton said the Hellfire missiles, acquired from the Army, was designed to launch horizontally from beneath a helicopter, so it needed to be adjusted to create a “maritime vertical launch configuration.”

“[The missile] gets told where the target is by the combat system; the missile has to launch vertically; it’s got to tip over; it’s got to find, with the missile’s radar, it’s got to find that target; and then it’s got to go engage the target,” Moton explained to USNI News after his presentation at ASNE Day 2015.

“The first of several test runs was last week. And we were successful,” he said. The test took place in the Virginia Capes test complex and was conducted from a test platform, not an LCS.

“I’m cautious because we got held up by weather, there’s a lot more testing to go. One test does not make a victory, but it was still successful,” Moton said.

It is unclear how soon the program will be able to continue its testing, he said, since bad weather delayed testing for several Navy programs. But he said he hopes to finish this series of tests soon, which will include variations in “how many targets are coming in, and what bearing they are, and are they just straight running or are they maneuvering. So there’s a whole series. This is the first test, and then we have a whole other series of tests set up later this year, so there’s a lot more to come.”

In addition to keeping the shorter-range Longbow Hellfire missile, the Navy will also add an over-the-horizon anti-ship missile (ASM) to the LCS-based future frigate. The Navy has not picked which ASM system to use, but a September test of the Norwegian Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile from the USS Coronado (LCS-4) proved successful.
During his presentation, Moton also said that the mine countermeasures (MCM) mission package testing was moving along well and preparing for its final operational tests for the first increment of the mission package sometime later this year.

PEO LCS ran the mission package through a developmental test last fall that included operations with airborne systems and the unmanned underwater Remote Minehunting System “and had very good success,” Moton said. Program officials have already embarked an MCM mission package onto the USS Independence (LCS-2) for a technical evaluation in Pensacola, Fla. Afterwards, the program plans to conduct initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E) in July.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
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 Brickmuppet

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 154
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #207 on: March 11, 2015, 03:02:23 am »


 Absolon's main weakness is speed I think.


Yes and that can be fixed simply by doubling the enginering plant. The Iver Huitfeldt class use the same hull with twice the horsepower (four rather than two MTU 8,000s) for 28 kts. They use SMART-L and APAR, which are good systems but heavy so they do away with the big flex deck to cut topweight. The thing is, numbers are important and in any event the "austere" weapons fit of the Absalon is a vast improvement on either the Perry or LCS so it would seem prudent to just increase the horsepower of Absalon , keep the flex deck and let it go at that. I know nothing about the "invisible" equipment like ECM but even assuming some upgrades in that area I'd expect a 28kt Absalon would still be cheaper and more useful.




Offline Firefly 2

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 461
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #208 on: March 29, 2015, 09:52:58 am »
Comparing a Perry class frigate to modern EU frigate of any kind is a bit weird. IMO modern EU frigates are more like scaled down destroyers: trying to combine both roles in the smallest package possible to reduce cost whilst still having semicomparable firepower with a modern electronic suite. The Perry's, in comparison, are very much old school frigates dedicated to their own, albeit polyvalent, role.
Regarding the Steven Wills article: the phrase "It combines a number of warfare and expeditionary capabilities on a single hull, but excels at none of them." is equally applicable to all LCS vessels.

Offline RyanC

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 830
  • Crazy Researcher
    • Alternate Wars
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #209 on: March 29, 2015, 11:32:15 am »

The Perry's, in comparison, are very much old school frigates dedicated to their own, albeit polyvalent, role. 


Actually, the Perrys were very powerful compared to what had come before them.


Look at all the prior Ocean Escorts (DE/FF) before them. Basically you had a 5" gun and early Sea Sparrow (later replaced with CIWS).


By contrast, FFG-7 had a smaller gun (3") but with the SM-1 system; actually had a somewhat minimally credible area AAW defense, as opposed to "last ditch defense of the unit".

Offline Firefly 2

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 461
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #210 on: March 29, 2015, 12:00:26 pm »

The Perry's, in comparison, are very much old school frigates dedicated to their own, albeit polyvalent, role. 


Actually, the Perrys were very powerful compared to what had come before them.


Look at all the prior Ocean Escorts (DE/FF) before them. Basically you had a 5" gun and early Sea Sparrow (later replaced with CIWS).


By contrast, FFG-7 had a smaller gun (3") but with the SM-1 system; actually had a somewhat minimally credible area AAW defense, as opposed to "last ditch defense of the unit".

I was was comparing them with the succesors, not the predecessors. Any new generation of class should be an improvement in some way. If that's shown in the hardware with higher cost, that's ok as long as one can afford it. If a class can show the same capability at reduced cost as a previous class, equally fine if possibly shortsighted. A new warship (or new design in any field) should, however, never trade a higher (relative) cost for a reduced capability. IMO that is pretty much comon sense.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #211 on: March 30, 2015, 09:15:05 am »
Document: Report to Congress on Littoral Combat Ship and Frigate Programs 2015

Source:
http://news.usni.org/2015/03/30/document-report-to-congress-on-littoral-combat-ship-and-frigate-programs

 March 30, 2015 8:14 AM

The following is the March 24, 2015 Congressional Research Service report, Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS)/Frigate Program: Background and Issues for Congress.


Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #212 on: April 09, 2015, 11:45:03 am »
"Raytheon and Kongsberg Team to Pitch Stealthy Norwegian Strike Missile for LCS"
by Sam LaGrone
April 9, 2015 2:13 PM • Updated: April 9, 2015 2:35 PM

Source:
http://news.usni.org/2015/04/09/raytheon-and-kongsberg-team-to-pitch-stealthy-norwegian-strike-missile-for-lcs

Quote
ALEXANDRIA, VA. — The Norwegian manufacturer of the Naval Strike Missile (NSM) has teamed with U.S. missile manufacturer Raytheon to pitch the anti-ship missile (ASM) to the Navy as the over-the-horizon (OTH) ASM for the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), company officials told reporters in a briefing on Thursday.

The agreement comes as the Navy surface warfare directorate is working through the requirements for a longer range anti-ship missile to include onboard the LCS and the modified LCS frigate design with a request for proposal (RfP) for the capability expected in Fiscal Year (FY) 2016.

The NSM — or a derivative — could also compete for the Navy’s Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare (OASuW) Increment 2 multi-platform competition as a follow on to the Lockheed Martin Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM). LRASM is in a sole source negotiation with Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) for OASuW Increment 1.

A version of the NSM, the Joint Strike Missile (JSM), is being developed for the Norwegian version of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lighting II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) by both companies.

The NSM — already a staple onboard Royal Norwegian Navy ships — is billed as a stealthy, subsonic missile to replace aging anti-ship missiles like the Boeing RGM-84 Harpoon Block II and the French-designed MBDA Exocet.

“There are several foreign nations that have developed counters to the Harpoon and Exocet missiles — from a range perspective — this particular missile fills that gap and allows [navies] to outrange the folks with the foreign systems that are being directed at our vessels,” Taylor Lawrence, Raytheon Missile Systems president, told reporters.

According to press reports, the NSM has an effective range of about 100 nautical miles.

As to price, Lawrence said it cost a little more than the company’s Block IV Tomahawk land attack missile (TLAM). The Navy quotes the price per round of the TLAMs at $569,000 per round in FY 1999 dollars (about $802,000 in 2015, adjusted for inflation).

“Our missile is competing very well, compared to other missiles when it comes to price per missile,” Harald Ånnestad, Kongsberg Defense Systems president told reporters
“The price will vary a lot if you buy ten or if you buy 400 missiles.”

For the LCS mission, the companies are proposing to place the proprietary canister launchers on the deck of the ship and claim the missiles could easily tie into the combat systems of both classes.

“We’re looking at these canisters to be placed on the deck or an appropriate horizontal surface on the ship and integrated in their missions control, mission planning suites,” Lawrence said.
“We wouldn’t have to have the vessels radically modified to include vertical cells for that matter. These would be placed on the deck.”

An artist’s conception of the placement would put the canisters forward of the deck house and aft of the main gun on both the Independence and Freedom classes of LCS.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #213 on: April 09, 2015, 11:57:52 am »
"Raytheon, Kongsberg Join Forces on NSM"
by Andrew Clevenger 1:55 p.m. EDT April 9, 2015

Source:
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/navy/2015/04/09/raytheon-and-kongsberg-join-forces-on-nsm/25518755/

Quote
WASHINGTON — Raytheon and Kongsberg are teaming to produce a fifth-generation naval strike missile (NSM), the two companies announced Thursday.

The American and Norwegian firms unveiled a similar partnership last year with the Joint Strike Missile (JSM), an anti-ship weapon launched from the air. The companies are hoping to integrate the JSM into F-35 joint strike fighters.

Raytheon and Kongsberg will collaborate on the NSM, with an eye toward marketing it to the US Navy's next generation of littoral combat ships (LCS). Because the Norwegian government has already borne the costs for developing the NSM — the missile is already in use on Norwegian frigates and corvettes, as well as Polish land defense systems — the companies hope it will present an affordable option in today's cost-conscious budget environment.

"It's a very good fit, and a very affordable weapon for the US Navy," said Thomas Bussing, Raytheon's vice president of advanced missile systems.

The midrange missile can strike targets on land and sea more than 200 kilometers away, said Harald Ånnestad, president of Kongsberg Defence Systems. Because the NSM uses an engine normally installed in missiles that weigh twice as much, it has enough maneuverability to avoid defensive measures, he said.

"We can constantly change acceleration and do maneuvers without losing speed," he said.

While the NSM is already in production in Norway, the missile could be built and assembled in America if the US buys the weapon for the LCS, said Bussing.

"There are several international opportunities that are being pursued in parallel," he said.

While Kongsberg was rolling out details of its tie-up with Raytheon to push NSM for the US Navy requirement, the Norwegian company was also announcing a sales success for the missile in Asia.

The company has secured what it called a "letter of award" from the Boustead Naval Shipyard in Malaysia to prepare for the installation of the NSM onboard six littoral combat ships scheduled to be built at the yard using the Gowind design of French shipbuilder DCNS.

The Kongsberg work involves preparation of fixed items like the launcher, cables, electronics and integration with the combat management system ahead of a production contract for the NSM.

The first ship is scheduled for delivery in 2020. Malaysia is set to become the third operator of the missile following orders from Norway and Poland. The latter uses the weapon in a land-based coastal defense role.

"This agreement with Boustead Naval Shipyard is to prepare the future Royal Malaysian littoral combat ships for NSM and confirms NSM's very strong competitiveness in the international market. Malaysia is the third user of this modern fifth-generation anti-surface weapon," said Kongsberg's Ånnestad.

Andrew Chuter contributed to this report.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #214 on: April 09, 2015, 12:01:09 pm »
I wonder if "distributed lethality" will become a buzzword that sticks?

"Want to distribute lethality? Here's one solution"

Source:
http://www.marinelog.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=8989:want-to-distribute-lethality?-heres-one-solution&Itemid=230

Quote
APRIL 9, 2015 — At the recent Surface Navy Association National Symposium, the buzz phrase was "distributed lethality." Rear Admiral Peter Fanta, the Navy's director for Surface Warfare explained it this way: "If it floats, it fights, that's 'distributed lethality' (…) Make every cruiser, destroyer, amphib, LCS, a thorn in somebody else's side."

One arms maker that would like to help the Navy distribute a whole lot of lethality is Norway's Kongsberg. Its Naval Strike Missile (NSM) provides superior strike capability against land and sea targets with a range in excess of 200 kilometers. It is the main weapon for Norway's new frigates and corvettes and for Poland's land-based coastal defense. It has also just been given a letter of award to supply NSM systems for six Littoral Combat Ships that Malaysia's Boustead Naval Shipyard is to design build and for the Royal Malaysian Navy based  on the DCNS "Gowind class" design.

The U.S. Navy got insights into the capabilities of the NSM last September  in missile testing operations off the coast of Southern Californiai using the littoral combat ship USS Coronado (LCS 4). The missile scored a direct hit on a mobile ship target.

Today, Raytheon Company (NYSE: RTN) announced it had formed a teaming agreement with Kongsberg for the Naval Strike Missile (NSM).

"The pact represents a second step in the companies' efforts to offer world-class Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare (OASuW) solutions to the many governments interested in this warfare mission," said a statement. "Raytheon and Kongsberg formed a similar agreement last year to develop the Joint Strike Missile, the air-launched version of the NSM."

"Raytheon and Kongsberg have a proud history of consistent partnerships to produce and improve the world's most trusted weapon systems," said Dr. Taylor W. Lawrence, Raytheon Missile Systems president. "This agreement enables us to bring a complete suite of solutions to the warfighter for the critical OASuW mission."

"We are very pleased to be extending our teaming with Raytheon to also include the proven NSM," said Harald Annestad, Kongsberg Defense Systems president. "Together we will be able to leverage Norway's investment favorably for all our allies to solve the critical OASuW mission."

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #215 on: April 09, 2015, 01:37:04 pm »
More from Defense News;

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/navy/2015/04/09/raytheon-and-kongsberg-join-forces-on-nsm/25518755/

Fairly compact for 200km+ I'd load dozens on every ship
« Last Edit: April 09, 2015, 07:47:23 pm by bobbymike »
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: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #216 on: April 09, 2015, 02:15:11 pm »
Would the purchase of the Raytheon-Kongsberg NSM for LCS disrupt the Navy's plans to install the RGM-84 Harpoon and then replace it with the Lockheed Martin Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM)?

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 908
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #217 on: April 09, 2015, 11:22:19 pm »
Would the purchase of the Raytheon-Kongsberg NSM for LCS disrupt the Navy's plans to install the RGM-84 Harpoon and then replace it with the Lockheed Martin Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM)?
The Harpoon is not certain to appear on the Frigate-LCS/SSC, the Navy wants to put an ASM on it but the decision will come later. For now, Harpoon is a baseline/stand-in. What happens with surface LRASM, NSM, and other concepts is not settled yet. For instance, the Navy's 2015 budget merged the OASuW Increment 2 with the Tomahawk replacement. But that doesn't necessarily mean one missile to rule them all, and it doesn't rule out the LCS program buying NSM off the shelf on its own.

Offline Creative

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 241
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #218 on: April 10, 2015, 07:24:33 am »
Thanks for sharing that concept art Triton. Seems a more logical placement of the missile canisters compared to the scale models.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #219 on: April 10, 2015, 10:06:26 am »
The Harpoon is not certain to appear on the Frigate-LCS/SSC, the Navy wants to put an ASM on it but the decision will come later. For now, Harpoon is a baseline/stand-in. What happens with surface LRASM, NSM, and other concepts is not settled yet. For instance, the Navy's 2015 budget merged the OASuW Increment 2 with the Tomahawk replacement. But that doesn't necessarily mean one missile to rule them all, and it doesn't rule out the LCS program buying NSM off the shelf on its own.

Thanks for the explanation Moose.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #220 on: April 14, 2015, 04:03:07 pm »
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 bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #221 on: April 16, 2015, 07:28:15 am »
Brimstone missile ripple fired takes on three attacking/swarming boats (avoids decoy boat). Annoyingly short but interesting Vine.

https://vine.co/v/eupbBr5Bvdl
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 sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #222 on: April 16, 2015, 09:51:56 am »
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2612

Guided 57mm round for MK110 to be fitted on LCS.

Too bad they didn't leave the Mk110s on the Zumwalts.  :'(
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #223 on: April 16, 2015, 02:06:47 pm »
"Boeing Will Offer Modified Harpoon Missile for Littoral Combat Ships"
by Sam LaGrone
April 16, 2015 1:42 PM • Updated: April 16, 2015 2:12 PM

Source:
http://news.usni.org/2015/04/16/boeing-will-offer-modified-harpoon-missile-for-littoral-combat-ships

Quote
Hoping to build off of the Navy’s extensive inventory of existing anti-surface missiles, Boeing plans to compete a modified version of the Harpoon RGM-84 anti-ship missile (ASM) for the over the horizon ASM capability for the Littoral Combat Ship and the modified LCS Frigate program, the company announced on Tuesday during the Navy League’s Sea-Air-Space Exposition 2015.

Boeing’s bid would add a new warhead and a reconstituted engine for a range of more than 130 nautical miles — up from the about 70 nautical mile range of the current Block II weapons — in a Harpoon Next Generation scheme that would create new missiles and offer kits to upgrade the existing inventory.

The company is focusing on the upcoming LCS over-the-horizon ASM and the existing fleet of Harpoon users as a cost effective option for the Navy. Boeing did not release pricing information.

The modified Harpoon will not be Boeing’s offering for the separate Next Generation Strike program which recently paired the Navy’s Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare (OASuW) Increment II and Next Generation Land Attack Weapon into a single program, USNI News understands.

The service has mounted a renewed interest in anti-surface weapons for the surface fleet after almost two decades of focus on land strike and ballistic missile defense (BMD).

The Next Generation Strike program will follow Raytheon’s Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM) and Lockheed Martin’s Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) — currently under development.

The LCS missile will eventually be included as part of the modular Surface Warfare (SuW) package and be native to the modified LCS frigate class, according to the most recent information for the Navy.

Last week, Raytheon and Kongsberg announced they would team to offer the Norwegian Naval Strike Missile for LCS.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #224 on: April 17, 2015, 10:20:37 am »
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2612

Guided 57mm round for MK110 to be fitted on LCS.

The BAE Datasheet for this round (no longer on their website!)
 

 
 
« Last Edit: April 17, 2015, 11:25:45 am by TomS »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #225 on: April 17, 2015, 10:51:56 am »
Thank you, TomS.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #226 on: April 17, 2015, 11:26:57 am »
Glad to help.  The seeker modes are interesting.

Quote
1. Laser designation to weapon impact
2. Laser designation then handoff to imager
3. Laser cueing of imager offset from target
4. Autonomous imaging guidance to impact

So basically, in two of the four modes, the laser is used just to get the imaging seeker looking at the right target or target area, and then the imaging seeker does the heavy lifting, letting the laser move on to another target. That should speed swarm engagements and also mitigate the difficulty of keeping a laser spot on a small, fast target -- you just have to lase for a moment until the imager can take over.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #227 on: May 05, 2015, 08:06:19 am »
Photo Gallery: Navy League Conference Floor
Apr 17, 2015
Dan Katz | Aviation Week & Space Technology

Quote
An improved Freedom-Class LCS, with twin quad-launchers for Harpoon missiles and what appear to be vertical launch systems on the superstructure, just forward of the 30-mm cannons were on display.

Source:
http://aviationweek.com/defense/photo-gallery-navy-league-conference-floor#slide-2-field_images-1290191


Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1280
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #228 on: May 06, 2015, 04:23:28 am »
Glad to help.  The seeker modes are interesting.

Quote
1. Laser designation to weapon impact
2. Laser designation then handoff to imager
3. Laser cueing of imager offset from target
4. Autonomous imaging guidance to impact

So basically, in two of the four modes, the laser is used just to get the imaging seeker looking at the right target or target area, and then the imaging seeker does the heavy lifting, letting the laser move on to another target. That should speed swarm engagements and also mitigate the difficulty of keeping a laser spot on a small, fast target -- you just have to lase for a moment until the imager can take over.






At some point, guided rounds will be shrunk down to where the damage incurred will be more from getting hit by fast moving computer chips than anything else.




Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8065
  • The path not taken.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Hot Breath

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 196
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #231 on: May 20, 2015, 08:43:16 pm »
I'd hardly call being within visual distance of another ship, "stalking" it.

Offline Bill Walker

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 482
  • Per Ardua ad Nauseum
    • Canadian Military aircraft Serial Numbers
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #232 on: May 21, 2015, 05:42:58 am »
Surely the real question is: was it within weapons range?
Bill Walker

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #233 on: May 21, 2015, 06:00:26 am »
Who cares?  This is a routine thing that navies do to each other.  Back in the Cold War, you'd have Soviet tattletales actually sitting in the middle of USN task forces, taking station in the formation and following the formation lead's maneuvering orders.  Perfectly legal and aboveboard surveillance.  And it certainly isn't a one-way thing -- the USN does similar types of surfveillance as well.  We just tend to have better capabilities to do it covertly or from a distance. 
 

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #234 on: May 21, 2015, 06:28:33 am »
Who cares?  This is a routine thing that navies do to each other.  Back in the Cold War, you'd have Soviet tattletales actually sitting in the middle of USN task forces, taking station in the formation and following the formation lead's maneuvering orders.  Perfectly legal and aboveboard surveillance.  And it certainly isn't a one-way thing -- the USN does similar types of surfveillance as well.  We just tend to have better capabilities to do it covertly or from a distance. 
 

Maybe not in this case but if you have a task force performing a war game or multiple ship maneuvers or show of force can you declare these zones or have other restrictions of ships getting too close? 
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 sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #235 on: May 21, 2015, 08:05:28 am »
I'd hardly call being within visual distance of another ship, "stalking" it.
Do you know what the word "stalking" means?  Here, let me help you:

stalk2stôk/verbgerund or present participle: stalking1. pursue or approach stealthily."a cat stalking a bird"
synonyms:[/t][/t]
creep up on, trail, follow, shadow, track down, go after, be after, course, hunt;
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #236 on: May 21, 2015, 08:07:45 am »
Who cares?  This is a routine thing that navies do to each other.  Back in the Cold War, you'd have Soviet tattletales actually sitting in the middle of USN task forces, taking station in the formation and following the formation lead's maneuvering orders.  Perfectly legal and aboveboard surveillance.  And it certainly isn't a one-way thing -- the USN does similar types of surfveillance as well.  We just tend to have better capabilities to do it covertly or from a distance.

Did you know some of those "tattletales" were equipped with torpedo tubes?

http://defensetech.org/2012/03/09/cold-war-tech-soviet-torpedo-trawlers/

Not too bright letting those sit right next to an aircraft carrier.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #237 on: May 21, 2015, 08:14:30 am »
Who cares?  This is a routine thing that navies do to each other.  Back in the Cold War, you'd have Soviet tattletales actually sitting in the middle of USN task forces, taking station in the formation and following the formation lead's maneuvering orders.  Perfectly legal and aboveboard surveillance.  And it certainly isn't a one-way thing -- the USN does similar types of surfveillance as well.  We just tend to have better capabilities to do it covertly or from a distance. 
 

Maybe not in this case but if you have a task force performing a war game or multiple ship maneuvers or show of force can you declare these zones or have other restrictions of ships getting too close?

China certainly didn't have a problem doing exactly that the first time they took their shiny new carrier out.  Basically the Aegis ship Cowpens came with 45 KILOMETERS of the Lianoning so the Chinese tried to ram it.

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1382875/us-navy-accused-harassing-carrier-liaoning-south-china-sea-incident

http://www.stripes.com/news/pacific/chinese-warship-nearly-collided-with-uss-cowpens-1.257478
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #238 on: May 21, 2015, 08:15:29 am »
Quote
Maybe not in this case but if you have a task force performing a war game or multiple ship maneuvers or show of force can you declare these zones or have other restrictions of ships getting too close?

Kind of.  You can certainly issue a Notice to Mariners stating that live fire exercises (for example) are being conducted within a given area.  Those are safety warnings and other countries usually observe them -- though we have had to run foreign ships out of safety zones from time to time.  It's much easier to do within your own territorial waters (12 miles) or Exclusive Economic Zone (200 miles).  In international waters, free passage is a right for all navies.
 
Countries dio declare all sorts of zones -- Military Exclusion Zones, No-FLy Zones, Air-Defense Information Zones, etc.  Other counties aren't necessarily  legally obliged to observe those, however.  The USN tends to push past such limits from other countries when necessary to make a political point.  That's actually what USS Fort Worth and the P-8 are up to in this operation -- it's what we call a Freedom of Navigation Exercise and the point is to establish precedent that we don't accept the legality of Chinese claims.  Sometimes these can blow up -- the famous US-Libya battls of the 1980s started as FON operations to show that we did not accept Libya's claim over the Gulf of Sidra.  There was also a fairly famous exercise where two USN ships entered the Black Sea for a FON exercise and got shoved around by some Soviet ships (shouldering, which of course was reported as "ramming" by the media). 
 
 

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #239 on: May 21, 2015, 08:21:54 am »
Quote
Maybe not in this case but if you have a task force performing a war game or multiple ship maneuvers or show of force can you declare these zones or have other restrictions of ships getting too close?

Kind of.  You can certainly issue a Notice to Mariners stating that live fire exercises (for example) are being conducted within a given area. 

Or you can attempt to ram ships that come within 45 kilometers of your task force, the Chinese way.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Arjen

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2187
  • It's turtles all the way down
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #240 on: May 21, 2015, 08:23:26 am »
Did you know some of those "tattletales" were equipped with torpedo tubes?

http://defensetech.org/2012/03/09/cold-war-tech-soviet-torpedo-trawlers/

Not too bright letting those sit right next to an aircraft carrier.
From an earlier thread:
It’s a torpedo and sonar trials ship variant of 1823/1824 Muna class which was mainly used as a coastal naval ammunition transport. The OS hull number means Opitnoye Sudno or experimental vessel.
Soviet AGIs may well have had torpedo tubes as was much rumored, but this isn't one of them, nor does its configuration make much sense for that role. Too much drag costing speed you need to chase warships around, and you don't need blatant sonar a NATO submarine would spot while doing a hull surface to attack surface targets. Many small torpedo test ships like this exist or have existed around the world. Given the way the USSR thought about life, I 'd imagine if a war broke out it had some kind of secondary harbor defense mission.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #241 on: May 21, 2015, 08:38:34 am »
Arjen, thanks for digging that up.  The actual Soviet AGIs tended to not carry Naval markings, as I recall. 
 
And the tattletales in carrier groups were often frigates, not trawlers.  If tensions had gone up, they'd have been run out rather aggressively and there would surely have been an unfortunate tin can tasked to keep itself directly in the LOS between the tail and the high-value target.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #242 on: May 21, 2015, 08:46:53 am »
Did you know some of those "tattletales" were equipped with torpedo tubes?

http://defensetech.org/2012/03/09/cold-war-tech-soviet-torpedo-trawlers/

Not too bright letting those sit right next to an aircraft carrier.
From an earlier thread:
It’s a torpedo and sonar trials ship variant of 1823/1824 Muna class which was mainly used as a coastal naval ammunition transport. The OS hull number means Opitnoye Sudno or experimental vessel.
Soviet AGIs may well have had torpedo tubes as was much rumored, but this isn't one of them, nor does its configuration make much sense for that role. Too much drag costing speed you need to chase warships around, and you don't need blatant sonar a NATO submarine would spot while doing a hull surface to attack surface targets. Many small torpedo test ships like this exist or have existed around the world. Given the way the USSR thought about life, I 'd imagine if a war broke out it had some kind of secondary harbor defense mission.

Well that actually makes me feel a little bit better.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Kadija_Man

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1844
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #243 on: May 22, 2015, 09:21:17 pm »
Who cares?  This is a routine thing that navies do to each other.  Back in the Cold War, you'd have Soviet tattletales actually sitting in the middle of USN task forces, taking station in the formation and following the formation lead's maneuvering orders.  Perfectly legal and aboveboard surveillance.  And it certainly isn't a one-way thing -- the USN does similar types of surfveillance as well.  We just tend to have better capabilities to do it covertly or from a distance. 
 

Maybe not in this case but if you have a task force performing a war game or multiple ship maneuvers or show of force can you declare these zones or have other restrictions of ships getting too close?

Generally, large areas for exercises are "declared" and generally they are actually only "advice to mariners" rather than have any legal bearing on whether a ship can be there, unless they are within territorial waters.

The Chinese ship was merely following and observing the US Navy ship, in International Waters.  It wasn't close enough to represent a navigational hazard.   As has been mentioned, this is normal naval surveillance and can occur for many reasons the world over.   ::)

Offline Kadija_Man

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1844
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #244 on: May 22, 2015, 09:24:12 pm »
Quote
Maybe not in this case but if you have a task force performing a war game or multiple ship maneuvers or show of force can you declare these zones or have other restrictions of ships getting too close?

Kind of.  You can certainly issue a Notice to Mariners stating that live fire exercises (for example) are being conducted within a given area. 

Or you can attempt to ram ships that come within 45 kilometers of your task force, the Chinese way.

You mean like the Icelanders did to British trawlers back in the Cod Wars?   ::)

Offline Jemiba

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7924
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #245 on: May 24, 2015, 11:10:23 am »
Did you know some of those "tattletales" were equipped with torpedo tubes?

According to Norman Friedman "Modern Warships", the reason for the Kildin-(former
Krupny-) class destroyers to have been armed with four rearward facing Styx launch
tubes just was their regular use as tattletales. Turning away from the US ships just prior
to the start of hostilities, they would have added their share of offensive potential.
It takes a long time, before all mistakes are made ...

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #246 on: May 24, 2015, 11:46:37 am »
Quote
Maybe not in this case but if you have a task force performing a war game or multiple ship maneuvers or show of force can you declare these zones or have other restrictions of ships getting too close?

Kind of.  You can certainly issue a Notice to Mariners stating that live fire exercises (for example) are being conducted within a given area. 

Or you can attempt to ram ships that come within 45 kilometers of your task force, the Chinese way.

You mean like the Icelanders did to British trawlers back in the Cod Wars?   ::)

Yeah, that's exactly the same.  ::)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Hot Breath

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 196
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #247 on: May 25, 2015, 11:02:32 pm »
Has the US Navy ever rammed another ship deliberately?

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8065
  • The path not taken.
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #248 on: May 26, 2015, 01:30:04 am »
Has the US Navy ever rammed another ship deliberately?

It was a common enough tactic in times past. For instance in both WWI & WWII it was used by various forces including the USN against surfaced or submerging enemy submarines. However, it was most often used as an emergency or last ditch tactic, for example in boarding actions, or as a GOTH plan when one's ship was about to sink.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #249 on: May 26, 2015, 04:14:26 am »
Has the US Navy ever rammed another ship deliberately?

It was a common enough tactic in times past. For instance in both WWI & WWII it was used by various forces including the USN against surfaced or submerging enemy submarines. However, it was most often used as an emergency or last ditch tactic, for example in boarding actions, or as a GOTH plan when one's ship was about to sink.

In a war situation.  For some unknown reason, both Russia and China, are allowed to use their ships themselves as weapons during peacetime with no ramifications.  A couple rounds through the bridge of the ramming ship would likely discourage such behavior.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Kadija_Man

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1844
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #250 on: May 26, 2015, 07:20:22 am »
Has the US Navy ever rammed another ship deliberately?

It was a common enough tactic in times past. For instance in both WWI & WWII it was used by various forces including the USN against surfaced or submerging enemy submarines. However, it was most often used as an emergency or last ditch tactic, for example in boarding actions, or as a GOTH plan when one's ship was about to sink.

In a war situation.  For some unknown reason, both Russia and China, are allowed to use their ships themselves as weapons during peacetime with no ramifications.  A couple rounds through the bridge of the ramming ship would likely discourage such behavior.

And when they reply and your ship then replies as well?  WWIII started all 'cause you decided you wanted to prove your ship was bigger than their ship...   ::)

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #251 on: May 26, 2015, 08:24:26 am »
Has the US Navy ever rammed another ship deliberately?

It was a common enough tactic in times past. For instance in both WWI & WWII it was used by various forces including the USN against surfaced or submerging enemy submarines. However, it was most often used as an emergency or last ditch tactic, for example in boarding actions, or as a GOTH plan when one's ship was about to sink.

In a war situation.  For some unknown reason, both Russia and China, are allowed to use their ships themselves as weapons during peacetime with no ramifications.  A couple rounds through the bridge of the ramming ship would likely discourage such behavior.

And when they reply and your ship then replies as well?  WWIII started all 'cause you decided you wanted to prove your ship was bigger than their ship...   ::)

Oh please. Do you ever tire of playing the drama queen?  ::)   Who am I kidding, of course you don't.  That's your raison d'etre.  Let's make this very simple: the way to get others to stop bullying you is to stop allowing yourself to be bullied.  But I forget.  That requires icky concepts like "resolve", "courage", and "perseverance".  Things that are increasingly "old fashioned" in today's modern, "progressive" world.   ::) ::)
« Last Edit: May 26, 2015, 09:06:25 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #252 on: May 26, 2015, 09:08:54 am »
Has the US Navy ever rammed another ship deliberately?

It was a common enough tactic in times past. For instance in both WWI & WWII it was used by various forces including the USN against surfaced or submerging enemy submarines. However, it was most often used as an emergency or last ditch tactic, for example in boarding actions, or as a GOTH plan when one's ship was about to sink.

In a war situation.  For some unknown reason, both Russia and China, are allowed to use their ships themselves as weapons during peacetime with no ramifications.  A couple rounds through the bridge of the ramming ship would likely discourage such behavior.

And when they reply and your ship then replies as well?  WWIII started all 'cause you decided you wanted to prove your ship was bigger than their ship...   ::)

Oh please. Do you ever tire of playing the drama queen?  ::)

You're think the appropriate response to a gentle ramming (which didn't actually happen, BTW) is to kill the bridge crew of an opposing ship, and you accuse someone else of being a drama queen???   ???
 
Here's a sense of perspective for you.  When USS Carron got "rammed" (shouldered) by a Societ ship in the Black Sea back in 1988, her CO didn't shoot up the Soviet ship or even aim his weapons at them;  he called away a bosun's party and put them over the side to paint over the scratches, while still steaming along in the Black Sea with the Soviet Navy in company.  Because that's what professionals do -- they get on with the mission without escalating an incident into a shooting conflict.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #253 on: May 26, 2015, 09:13:39 am »
Here's a sense of perspective for you.  When USS Carron got "rammed" (shouldered) by a Societ ship in the Black Sea back in 1988, her CO didn't shoot up the Soviet ship or even aim his weapons at them;  he called away a bosun's party and put them over the side to paint over the scratches, while still steaming along in the Black Sea with the Soviet Navy in company.  Because that's what professionals do -- they get on with the mission without escalating an incident into a shooting conflict.

"Gentle ramming"  there's an oxymoron if ever there was one.



Doing nothing is how you prevent a repeat of such behavior right?  Nothing wrong with saying, "hey bozo, you're on a collision course, reverse or you will be shot".   If they continue to attempt to ram you (and face it, as much as you'd like to pretend otherwise, intentionally ramming a ship is an attack) that's on them.  For whatever reason though, the apologist/pacifists think it's perfectly acceptable for China to continue to ram ships without repercussion.  One only need Google "china rams ship" to see, literally, millions of hits.   I suppose you think this is perfectly acceptable behavior as well:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/09/us.navy.china/index.html?_s=PM:POLITICS

Yes?

Sending memos won't get this kind of crap to stop.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2015, 09:26:59 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #254 on: May 26, 2015, 09:54:49 am »
You know what actually got it to stop?  A series of diplomatic discussions after several of these incidents, leading to an Incidents at Sea agreement that defined how ships should interact in such situations. 
 
https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/c3837643-1489-4530-91c9-9bd653f4d00b/Diplomacy-at-Sea--U-S--Freedom-of-Navigation-Opera.aspx
 
How about we try that first, before we start killing people over scratched paint and dented steel? 

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #255 on: May 26, 2015, 10:22:09 am »
You know what actually got it to stop?  A series of diplomatic discussions after several of these incidents, leading to an Incidents at Sea agreement that defined how ships should interact in such situations. 
 
https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/c3837643-1489-4530-91c9-9bd653f4d00b/Diplomacy-at-Sea--U-S--Freedom-of-Navigation-Opera.aspx
 
How about we try that first, before we start killing people over scratched paint and dented steel?

Sorry, it just pisses me off to no end that we allow China to do pretty much whatever it wants anymore.  This isn't something to disregard like say, if some podunk country, like Haiti or something, rammed our ships.  It's China marking it's territory and testing our resolve.  So far we are failing with bells on.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2015, 10:25:04 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #256 on: May 26, 2015, 11:19:36 am »
I think you (and a lot of other people) need to come to grips with the fact that China is a major world power and needs to be treated as such.  There's a bit chunk of US responses to China that are insultingly paternalistic and probably encourage their more bellicose actions.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #257 on: May 26, 2015, 11:22:46 am »
I think you (and a lot of other people) need to come to grips with the fact that China is a major world power and needs to be treated as such. 

And they would be if they acted like it.  Mature that is.  Right now they're like a teenager who thinks the way to get what he wants is to blast his music loud and steal from the neighbors.  If they want to be treated with respect they need to show they warrant it.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Hot Breath

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 196
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #258 on: May 26, 2015, 06:19:54 pm »
Here's a sense of perspective for you.  When USS Carron got "rammed" (shouldered) by a Societ ship in the Black Sea back in 1988, her CO didn't shoot up the Soviet ship or even aim his weapons at them;  he called away a bosun's party and put them over the side to paint over the scratches, while still steaming along in the Black Sea with the Soviet Navy in company.  Because that's what professionals do -- they get on with the mission without escalating an incident into a shooting conflict.

"Gentle ramming"  there's an oxymoron if ever there was one.



Doing nothing is how you prevent a repeat of such behavior right?  Nothing wrong with saying, "hey bozo, you're on a collision course, reverse or you will be shot".   If they continue to attempt to ram you (and face it, as much as you'd like to pretend otherwise, intentionally ramming a ship is an attack) that's on them.  For whatever reason though, the apologist/pacifists think it's perfectly acceptable for China to continue to ram ships without repercussion.  One only need Google "china rams ship" to see, literally, millions of hits.   I suppose you think this is perfectly acceptable behavior as well:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/09/us.navy.china/index.html?_s=PM:POLITICS

Yes?

Sending memos won't get this kind of crap to stop.

Of course it will.  Shooting the captain and his bridgecrew won't.  It will escalate a tight situation and make it far worse.  You talk about "resolve", yet you'd resort to your guns at the first sign your ship was being shouldered (note, not rammed, that suggests it's coming on with the intent ot sinking you, rather than just telling you, "You're not welcome here" and that is the key point, the US Navy sometimes isn't welcomed by everybody around the world!).   You obviously, arrogantly believe the US Navy owns the high seas for some reason.   The rest of the world recognises a 12 mile limit to their territorial waters, the US only recognises a 3 mile limit in 1988 (now a 12 mile limit as well).  Funny that.

Offline Hot Breath

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 196
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #259 on: May 26, 2015, 06:22:28 pm »
I think you (and a lot of other people) need to come to grips with the fact that China is a major world power and needs to be treated as such. 

And they would be if they acted like it.  Mature that is.  Right now they're like a teenager who thinks the way to get what he wants is to blast his music loud and steal from the neighbors.  If they want to be treated with respect they need to show they warrant it.

And how would they do that?  They warn their target that they are not welcome and when their target fails to respond appropriately, they use their ship, rather than their guns (unlike your proposal) to enforce their viewpoint.   Looks to me like they're showing restraint (unlike yourself).   China does what it thinks it can get away with.  The US does what it thinks it can get away with.  Simples, really! 

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #260 on: May 26, 2015, 06:28:43 pm »
You obviously, arrogantly believe the US Navy owns the high seas for some reason.   The rest of the world recognises a 12 mile limit to their territorial waters, the US only recognises a 3 mile limit in 1988 (now a 12 mile limit as well).  Funny that.

If rammings only occurred inside the 12-mile limit that would be one thing.  They don't.  Funny that.

International waters:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/12/exclusive-chinese-warship-pressures-us-navy-ship-leads-to-near-collision/

International waters:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USNS_Impeccable_(T-AGOS-23)

As for "the rest of the world recognizing the 12 mile limit":

http://www.informationdissemination.net/2008/11/on-february-day-on-black-sea-in-1988.html

"In February 1988, Caron operating with Yorktown, entered the Soviet Union's 12 mile (22.2 km) territorial waters limit in the Black Sea off the Crimean Peninsula without permission. Under established international law, this act was permissible if the transiting foreign ship is progressing from one point in international waters to another point in international waters via the shortest course possible."
« Last Edit: May 26, 2015, 06:37:26 pm by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Hot Breath

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 196
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #261 on: May 26, 2015, 06:32:57 pm »
You obviously, arrogantly believe the US Navy owns the high seas for some reason.   The rest of the world recognises a 12 mile limit to their territorial waters, the US only recognises a 3 mile limit in 1988 (now a 12 mile limit as well).  Funny that.

If rammings only occurred inside the 12-mile limit that would be one thing.  They don't.  Funny that.

I was referring to the concept that the US might need to reconsider it's actions on the High Seas in light of changing international views of what constitutes the "High Seas".

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #262 on: May 26, 2015, 06:39:44 pm »
You obviously, arrogantly believe the US Navy owns the high seas for some reason.   The rest of the world recognises a 12 mile limit to their territorial waters, the US only recognises a 3 mile limit in 1988 (now a 12 mile limit as well).  Funny that.

If rammings only occurred inside the 12-mile limit that would be one thing.  They don't.  Funny that.

I was referring to the concept that the US might need to reconsider it's actions on the High Seas in light of changing international views of what constitutes the "High Seas".

Define specifically what these "changing international views" are.  Pretty sure there isn't going to be a time when ramming the other guys ship is perfectly acceptable anywhere on the planet.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Hot Breath

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 196
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #263 on: May 26, 2015, 10:21:52 pm »
You obviously, arrogantly believe the US Navy owns the high seas for some reason.   The rest of the world recognises a 12 mile limit to their territorial waters, the US only recognises a 3 mile limit in 1988 (now a 12 mile limit as well).  Funny that.

If rammings only occurred inside the 12-mile limit that would be one thing.  They don't.  Funny that.

I was referring to the concept that the US might need to reconsider it's actions on the High Seas in light of changing international views of what constitutes the "High Seas".

Define specifically what these "changing international views" are.  Pretty sure there isn't going to be a time when ramming the other guys ship is perfectly acceptable anywhere on the planet.

The distance from shore that territorial claims on the high seas begins.  In 1988 the US only recognised three miles as the limit of territorial waters.  Most of the rest of the world, including the Soviet Union recognised 12 miles as the limit.  The US tried to enforce its view on the Soviet Union in the Black Sea.  The Soviet Navy responded.  In the 1999, the US adopted 24 miles as the limit.

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #264 on: May 26, 2015, 10:57:47 pm »
The US tried to enforce its view on the Soviet Union in the Black Sea. 



No this issue (size of territorial waters) had nothing to do with the 1986 and 88 Black Sea incidents. Both were related to the right of innocent passage that you have through another nation's territorial waters. The Soviets had passed a law in 1983 allowing innocent passage only through areas they had designated. Interestingly these incidents exposed that the Russian language version of the UNCLOS was different to the English language version! The difference was that in Russian a state had the right to limit innocent passage but in English no such right existed. The law was later clarified and made consistent allowing temporary suspension of innocent passage in specific areas only related to an ongoing security issue.


[/size]
The Soviet Navy responded.  In the 1999, the US adopted 24 miles as the limit.


The two are completely unrelated.
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #265 on: May 27, 2015, 03:33:34 pm »
"Chinese official: U.S. has ulterior motives over South China Sea"
by Steven Jiang, CNN
Updated 12:17 PM ET, Wed May 27, 2015

Source:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/26/asia/china-south-china-sea-dispute/index.html

Quote
Beijing (CNN)A week after a CNN team aboard a U.S. Navy P8-A Poseidon heard the Chinese military issue warnings eight times to a U.S. surveillance plane flying over disputed waters in the South China Sea, a senior official with the People's Liberation Army has called Chinese response "professional" and suggested Washington is playing up the issue with ulterior motives.

"For a long time, the U.S. military has been conducting close-in surveillance of China and the Chinese military has been making such necessary, legal and professional response -- why did this story suddenly pop up in the past weeks? Has the South China Sea shrunk?" Senior Col. Yang Yujun asked rhetorically at a press conference Tuesday.

"A certain country has increased the frequency of its close-in surveillance of China and that has caused a problem," he added. "Some people have been intentionally and repeatedly hyping this topic. Their purpose is to smear the Chinese military and dramatize regional tensions. And I'm not ruling it out that this is being done to find an excuse for certain country to take actions in the future."

The South China Sea is the subject of numerous rival -- and often messy -- territorial declarations over an area that includes fertile fishing grounds and potentially rich reserves of undersea natural resources. In addition to China, Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam also claim at least parts of the South China Sea.

The United States does not recognize China's territorial claims, and other claimants -- including several U.S. allies -- are alarmed by China's recent move to reclaim and militarize islands in the region.

Chinese expansion

In just two years, China has expanded these islands by 2,000 acres -- the equivalent of 1,500 football fields -- and counting, an engineering marvel in deep waters.

Last week the P8-A Poseidon -- America's most advanced surveillance and submarine-hunting aircraft -- that CNN had access to filmed early warning radar, military barracks, a lofty lookout tower and a runway long enough to handle every aircraft in the Chinese military on an expanded Fiery Cross Reef.

Yang, who is the spokesman for China's Ministry of National Defense, said the construction in the South China Sea is the same as building roads and bridges in the rest of the country "from the perspective of sovereignty," but stressed the civilian functions of the newly-built facilities.

Some in Washington have feared that China's creation of entirely new territory in the South China Sea is part of a broader military push intended to challenge U.S. dominance in the region.

They have pointed to Beijing's other maneuvers, such as sailing its first aircraft carrier, equipping its nuclear missiles with multiple warheads and developing missiles to destroy U.S. warships as proof.

As U.S. officials pledged to beef up military patrol in the South China Sea despite Chinese protests, tensions appeared to rise to a new high Monday when the Beijing-based Global Times -- run by the ruling Communist Party -- published an editorial that warned of an inevitable war between China and the United States.

War imminent?

At the press conference Tuesday, Yang echoed a Foreign Ministry spokeswoman who earlier said that the editorial reflected the newspaper's own view.

Defying U.S. calls for halting unilateral actions, however, China's transportation authorities on Tuesday hosted a ground-breaking ceremony for the construction of two "multi-functional lighthouses" to improve navigational safety on two reefs in the South China Sea, the state-run Xinhua news agency reported.

Meanwhile, Taiwan's president has proposed a peace initiative in the disputed waters, calling on all parties to put aside differences and focus on joint development.

"We emphasize that while sovereignty cannot be divided, resources can be shared, thereby replacing sovereignty disputes with resource sharing," Ma Ying-jeou was quoted as saying by the island's Central News Agency Tuesday.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #266 on: May 27, 2015, 03:47:14 pm »
Yes, the US has ulterior motives.  That's why it's building islands in other countries territory for military bases.  Oh, wait. . .
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Hot Breath

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 196
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #267 on: May 27, 2015, 08:58:50 pm »
Yes, the US has ulterior motives.  That's why it's building islands in other countries territory for military bases.  Oh, wait. . .

Doesn't it just normally topple their governments instead?  Much quicker!

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
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 seruriermarshal

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 861
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #269 on: July 17, 2015, 06:50:49 pm »
Getting ready for the christening of the USS Little Rock, the latest and most agile battleship I the Navy!

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 908
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #270 on: July 18, 2015, 11:43:03 am »
Warship, battleship is a specific type which the LCS is not.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence
« Reply #271 on: July 18, 2015, 02:09:37 pm »
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 Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret