Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence

"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.
 
"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/
 
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
 
"LCS Versus the Danish Strawman"
February 19, 2015

by Steven Wills

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

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]
 
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.
 
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

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.
 
http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/03/revamping-us-navy-surface-ships-from.html
 
covert_shores said:
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.
 
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.
 
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".
 
RyanCrierie said:
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.
 
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.
 
"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

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.
 

Attachments

  • New-NSM-background.jpg
    New-NSM-background.jpg
    138.2 KB · Views: 354
  • Screen-Shot-2015-04-09-at-1.02.20-PM.png
    Screen-Shot-2015-04-09-at-1.02.20-PM.png
    213.5 KB · Views: 363
"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/

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.
 
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

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."
 
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
 
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)?
 
Triton said:
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.
 
Thanks for sharing that concept art Triton. Seems a more logical placement of the missile canisters compared to the scale models.
 
Moose said:
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.
 
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2612

Guided 57mm round for MK110 to be fitted on LCS.
 
Brimstone missile ripple fired takes on three attacking/swarming boats (avoids decoy boat). Annoyingly short but interesting Vine.

https://vine.co/v/eupbBr5Bvdl
 
bobbymike said:
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. :'(
 
"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

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.
 
Glad to help. The seeker modes are interesting.

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.
 
Photo Gallery: Navy League Conference Floor
Apr 17, 2015
Dan Katz | Aviation Week & Space Technology

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
 

Attachments

  • LCS-Harpoon.JPG
    LCS-Harpoon.JPG
    90 KB · Views: 345
TomS said:
Glad to help. The seeker modes are interesting.

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.
 
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/u-china-set-high-stakes-rivalry-skies-above-095934846.html
 
I'd hardly call being within visual distance of another ship, "stalking" it.
 
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.
 
TomS said:
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?
 
Hot Breath said:
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;
 
TomS said:
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.
 
bobbymike said:
TomS said:
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
 
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).
 
TomS said:
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.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom