Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence

Arjen said:
It's not about Civic 101. It's about cybernetics - feedback.
Click to expand...

Again, it's really vitally important to understand the DOD acquisition process and where feedback is important vs. where is presently occurs. It is widely acknowledged that early feedback (as in Material Decision/AoA early) from embedded *developmental* test and evaluation personnel is crucial. But that can't happen with the DOT&E empire draining the funding.
 

Attachments

  • dtande-vs-otande.png
    dtande-vs-otande.png
    33.2 KB · Views: 592
Then your problem is not with DOT&E itself, but with funding, and whoever decides about where funds go. Congress?
 
Finally back on topic: LCS 7 acceptance trials. The monohull LCS will be undergoing its' own shock trials around December.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtjScj-lQew
 
https://news.usni.org/2016/08/26/no-funds-available-naval-strike-missile-test-uss-freedom-demo-stalled
 
http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.ie/2016/08/talleyrand-on-lcs.html

Merde, as the French would put it.
 
The first time I actually saw one, I wondered where were they going to put the weapons; surely it wasn't finished and was going to have weapons installed - someplace. The answer turned out that I was wondering the incorrect question. The correct question should have been, "Why build these things?" Could have had more destroyers and submarines.... you know, things that actually work and win conflicts with guns and missiles and torpedoes.

The only good bit of news is that the US has maintained shipbuilding experience.
 
Airplane said:
The first time I actually saw one, I wondered where were they going to put the weapons; surely it wasn't finished and was going to have weapons installed - someplace. The answer turned out that I was wondering the incorrect question. The correct question should have been, "Why build these things?" Could have had more destroyers and submarines.... you know, things that actually work and win conflicts with guns and missiles and torpedoes.
Click to expand...

The destroyer yards were going to be busy with DD(X) and CG(X). In that mix, LCS would be fine.
 
marauder2048 said:
Airplane said:
The first time I actually saw one, I wondered where were they going to put the weapons; surely it wasn't finished and was going to have weapons installed - someplace. The answer turned out that I was wondering the incorrect question. The correct question should have been, "Why build these things?" Could have had more destroyers and submarines.... you know, things that actually work and win conflicts with guns and missiles and torpedoes.
Click to expand...

The destroyer yards were going to be busy with DD(X) and CG(X). In that mix, LCS would be fine.
Click to expand...

But? But what we got is an armada of unarmed boats that can launch 1 or 2 helicopters and a speedboat or two? And it has no defenses other than 1 missile launcher on the back side. Other than provide a naval ship with an American flag in troubled waters, for political reasons, it seems to serve no purpose. Money better spend on weapons that work: subs, destroyers, missile cruisers.... hell more super hornets for that depleted asset.
 
Airplane said:
marauder2048 said:
Airplane said:
The first time I actually saw one, I wondered where were they going to put the weapons; surely it wasn't finished and was going to have weapons installed - someplace. The answer turned out that I was wondering the incorrect question. The correct question should have been, "Why build these things?" Could have had more destroyers and submarines.... you know, things that actually work and win conflicts with guns and missiles and torpedoes.
Click to expand...

The destroyer yards were going to be busy with DD(X) and CG(X). In that mix, LCS would be fine.
Click to expand...

But? But what we got is an armada of unarmed boats that can launch 1 or 2 helicopters and a speedboat or two? And it has no defenses other than 1 missile launcher on the back side. Other than provide a naval ship with an American flag in troubled waters, for political reasons, it seems to serve no purpose. Money better spend on weapons that work: subs, destroyers, missile cruisers.... hell more super hornets for that depleted asset.
Click to expand...

The original mission definition for LCS was anti-mine, anti-submarine, and littoral policing (ie, anti-piracy and the like). If you wish to be consistent, can today's anti-mine ships go into combat? Are frigates wasted chasing after pirates? Do you need heavy surface combat power to perform anti-submarine warfare? It seems to me a case of moving goalposts again.

Also, the original LCS envisaged having the canceled Army NLOS PAM missile installed. The closest analog to that missile would be the JAGM missile if it ever completes development. Fitted with stowed wings it would have a range compatible with the organic search/tracking radar fitted on the LCS.

The LCS was not intended to "slug-it-out" in surface combat against frigates. In such a situation, it would bravely run away using its high speed while relying on CEC to let other Navy assets take care of the problem. I'm not convinced this wasn't a valid overall architecture. Installing a long range anti-ship cruise missile such as Harpoon requires remote cueing since its range exceeds the radar on board. This again would be a use of CEC but in reverse mode and would fit into the evolving "distributed lethality" concept.
 
Would the an LCS even be able to handle a couple of these in a coordinated attack? It (the LCS class) seems woefully under-armed and woefully incapable of defending itself with it's singular RIM launcher. I'm not a naval authority by any stretch of the imagination, but I can think of a half dozen ways the LCS could have been better armed and better able to defend itself. The LCS just look like a pit to pour money in with nothing in return.
 

Attachments

  • Iranian-Missile-Boat.jpg
    Iranian-Missile-Boat.jpg
    44.2 KB · Views: 259
The swarm attack is based on close range surprise so that would be the worst case scenario. It presumes an LCS will be ordered to enter into an area where such an attack might occur without providing overwatch (drone, fighter CAP, etc). That is always possible given political restraints (which also means the restricted ROE changes after the first attack so this works only one time). The current Iranian tactic of "normalizing" swarm harassment is probably designed to maximize any initial attack. Given the political realities, dealing with swarm attacks is now a concern so there are efforts to come up with defenses. As I mentioned earlier, the NLOS PAM was originally part of the LCS design. Using Sea RAM against small boats is already possible and that is already installed. Using Hellfire as a stopgap is also being considered and of course the 57mm airburst gun is on all LCS ships.

Lockheed ad for an antiswarm missile (probably a modified version of their JAGM entry)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHlwFhMgyA0

An actual Hellfire test for antiswarm use
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Zry-DDwggg

Sea RAM on LCS (can be used anti-ship mode)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPz_CLwoy94

57mm gun
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2yRhVXKEXU
 
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/us-navys-new-super-frigate-will-be-armed-some-the-most-17596
 
http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.ie/2016/09/lcs-maintenance-stand-down-this-isnt.html
 
160904-N-YW024-067.JPG

ORIGINAL CAPTION: PEARL HARBOR (Sep. 4, 2016) Littoral combat ship USS Coronado (LCS 4) returns to Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam after experiencing an engineering casualty while transiting to the Western Pacific. Coronado departed Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam Aug. 26 to continue its independent deployment to the Western Pacific. Prior to departing Pearl Harbor the ship participated in the Rim of the Pacific 2016 exercise. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Katarzyna Kobiljak/Released)

http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.ie/2016/09/lcs-4-visual-testimony.html​
 
US Navy Drops LCS Plans, Concept After Latest Failures

For everyone who thought the LCS were an interesting but unworkable, underarmed, undermanned concept, the USN has FINALLY figured it out.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/176873/us-navy-drops-lcs-plans,-concept-after-latest-failures.html

Now we have to wait and see if the Navy's fix of single use ships based on the two LCS models now being built or it will follow the GAO and start over maybe being based on a foreign design.
 
The original plan to use 3 crews for 2 ships was abandoned in place of more traditional "blue/gold" crews for each ship. Also, of 28 planned LCS ships, 24 will be grouped into 4 ship divisions each specializing in a specific mission area (anti-mine, anti-sub, surface warfare). Again, this abandoned the idea of a single crew becoming experts in 3 different mission fields. The recent spate of maintenance and operating snafu's that have damaged hardware appears to be part of the reason for these changes: Note however, an LCS ship could still be converted from any mission area to a different one in order to adjust mission availability. The crewing would be switched when doing so.

From Military.com (italics mine)
"Officials added that a blue/gold crewing model might also simplify ownership of maintenance responsibilities -- a key area of concern amid a flurry of recent engine mishaps, including at least one caused by an engineer's error."

Having small crews means everyone needs to take initiative if they notice something wrong or if some maintenance procedure is being missed or done incorrectly. As always, cultural changes are a lot harder to make than equipment modifications.


Feedom class LCS ship status
USS Freedom (LCS 1), San Diego, CA
USS Fort Worth (LCS 3), San Diego, CA
PCU Milwaukee (LCS 5) - San Diego, CA
PCU Detroit (LCS 7) - launched
PCU Little Rock (LCS 9) - launched
PCU Sioux City (LCS 11) - launched
PCU Wichita (LCS 13) - launched
PCU Billings (LCS 15) - under construction
PCU Indianapolis (LCS 17) - under construction
PCU St. Louis (LCS 19) - in pre-production phase
PCU Minneapolis-St. Paul (LCS 21) - in pre-production phase
PCU Cooperstown (LCS 23) - in pre-production phase
PCU TBD (LCS 25) - awarded

Independence class LCS ship status
USS Independence (LCS 2), San Diego, CA
USS Coronado (LCS 4), San Diego, CA
PCU Jackson (LCS 6) - San Diego, CA
PCU Montgomery (LCS 8) - launched
PCU Gabrielle Giffords (LCS 10) - launched
PCU Omaha (LCS 12) - launched
PCU Manchester (LCS 14) - launched
PCU Tulsa (LCS 16) - under construction
PCU Charleston (LCS 18) - under construction
PCU Cincinnati (LCS 20) - under construction
PCU Kansas City (LCS 22) - in pre-production phase
PCU Oakland (LCS 24) - in pre-production phase
PCU TBD (LCS 26) - awarded
 
http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.ie/2016/09/vadm-rowden-calls-end-to-lcs-charades.html

https://news.usni.org/2016/09/16/littoral-combat-ship-uss-montgomery-suffers-engineering
 
What VADM Rowden said:

"Following the stand down the Surface Warfare Office School was asked to review “the wholeness of our LCS engineering education and training to include the testing and retraining of all LCS engineers,” NAVSURFOR commander, Vice Adm. Tom Rowden said in a statement at the time."


What LCS critics say you should think he said: The LCS design is invalid and the ships should be scrapped.


Unfortunately, it looks like the LCS is the F-35 of the naval world and featuring many of the same cast of characters as well. Compare the title of the CDR Salamander title to this story.

Salamander: VADM Rowden calls end to LCS charades

vs

Interview with VADM Rowden on LCS:
http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/interview-with-rear-adm-thomas-rowden-lcs-and-ddg-51-flight-iii/

Rear Adm. Thomas Rowden: As I mentioned, fielding LCS is one of my top three priorities. Our surface fleet of warships needs to be able to conduct the entire spectrum of mission sets. LCS is an affordable, vital, and complementary component of the surface fleet. In addition to the three focused warfare missions it conducts – mine warfare(MIW), anti-submarine warfare (ASW) and anti-surface warfare (ASUW) – LCS’s inherent capabilities and suitability to conduct lower-end presence missions that make up most of the Navy’s operations day to day – such as counter-piracy patrols, port visits, and exercises with foreign partners – will free up the more expensive, multi-mission cruisers and destroyers to conduct the higher end missions.
 
Bloomberg, via gCaptain: https://gcaptain.com/u-s-senators-mccain-reed-target-29-billion-littoral-ship-for-more-changes/
 
http://www.tboverse.us/HPCAFORUM/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=20277&p=267573#p267548

[sigh]
 
http://www.janes.com/article/64685/first-independence-variant-lcs-arrives-in-singapore-for-rotational-deployment-with-harpoon-missile-fit

main_p1679425.jpg

ORIGINAL CAPTION: USS Coronado (LCS 4) being moored alongside the deep-water pier in Singapore's Changi Naval Base on 16 October. The four Harpoon Block 1C anti-ship missile canisters are clearly visible immediately forward of the ship's bridge. Source: IHS/Kelvin Wong​
 
Stumbled across these:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6W-Z9cvD64
 

Attachments

  • RGM-84-Harpoon-047.jpg
    RGM-84-Harpoon-047.jpg
    515 KB · Views: 356
  • RGM-84-Harpoon-048.jpg
    RGM-84-Harpoon-048.jpg
    401.3 KB · Views: 317
Too bad putting them there means no VL Hellfires/etc on that LCS variant (it's sitting on top top of the missile bay).
 
SpudmanWP said:
Too bad putting them there means no VL Hellfires/etc on that LCS variant (it's sitting on top top of the missile bay).
Click to expand...

A shame they couldn't just take the turrets off a couple of these and mount them somewhere:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdVWFXWT8-Y

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGatEpNVU9g
 
SpudmanWP said:
Too bad putting them there means no VL Hellfires/etc on that LCS variant (it's sitting on top top of the missile bay).
Click to expand...
Temporary mounting for the test deployment, operationally the intention is for Harpoon/NSM/LRASM/whatever cans to be mounted in such a way that the mini-VLS plug isn't covered up.
 
I hope so. The original plan for Harpoon on LCS was to put them between the bridge and the forward launch bay and to have 8, not the 4 they have now.

jSBLBBQ.jpg
 
Free eBook from Breaking Defense

http://info.breakingdefense.com/littoral-combat-ship-ebook
 
http://www.tboverse.us/HPCAFORUM/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=20663&sid=c1fb5d8c9d8bbbff5f2397ac194ae681
 
http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2017-01/now-hear-another-course-change-lcs
 
http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1689500-navy-analyzes-lcs-long-range-attack-missiles
 
https://news.usni.org/2017/02/28/mccain-pledges-hold-hearings-navy-frigate-program-wants-expand-designs-consideration
 
Hellfire integration firing tests on LCS 7.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePvj1fUnyIE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbtGhNDgvK4
 
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-06/pentagon-blocks-littoral-combat-ship-overrun-from-a-gao-report
 
Surface deployed mine hunting sensor from Northrop. The current submersible deployed system failed to pass reliability tests (the RMMV host and not the sensor itself) so there will be a competition against an improved RMMV. Off hand, it would seem that a surface deployed system would be affected more by weather conditions but that also affects the ability to launch the RMMV as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8oFgfPjMwU
 
MQ8C tests on LCS 8. The C model basically doubles endurance to 16 hours or can carry a bigger payload.
 

Attachments

  • MQ8C Loading.jpg
    MQ8C Loading.jpg
    186.5 KB · Views: 292
  • MQ8C Practice On LCS 8.jpg
    MQ8C Practice On LCS 8.jpg
    1.9 MB · Views: 285
  • MQ8C In Hanger.jpg
    MQ8C In Hanger.jpg
    186.2 KB · Views: 242

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom