Register here

Author Topic: Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence  (Read 143659 times)

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.