• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,978
Reaction score
482
Surface Navy Association news with updates for LCS. Austal is already in planning phase for LCS 38 and recently launched LCS 24.

Also discussed is a stretched HSSV (also Austal) with an enlarged flight deck. This seems to indicate that Austal thinks an air centric (consider a squadron of V-247's operating from this) design is better suited to this design vs the trimaran LCS layout.

stretched HSSV, LCS update, and Raytheon SEWIP and SPY 6 status

Fincantieri FFG bid and SM3 Block IIA updates
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,204
Reaction score
179
I think the Austal HSSV is less about the utility of cat v tri and more about maximizing the commonality with existing EPF to keep their business case looking good, but you may be right that they're seeing the relatively square footprint of their cats as being more suited to an air-focused mission. They have been showing an USV concept that looks more like a shrunken LCS.

More broadly, I hope we see some good conversations/debates in the naval community about things like HSSV and the USV concepts. I'd hate to blow a lot of money going down a problematic path just because it "seems" easier or "looks like" the right choice.

As for the Fincantieri Frigate bid, they're really knocking it out of the park. I was a skeptic, I though people were overly seduced by the sexy Italian ships and needed to wait for more information before falling in love. But they're really, really doing well (at least so far as publicly released information indicates) so far. I'm not writing of HII or Bath, and I still don't love the shipyard for this work, but it's a really solid contender.
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,978
Reaction score
482
Lethality upgrades as shown on Freedom class. Laser discussed at 5:22 mark.

 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,180
Reaction score
1,450

AN/AWW-14(V)

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
May 18, 2019
Messages
271
Reaction score
430

max range for vertical launch 6-8 km
inventory objective is 845 missiles
missiles are taken from the army warehouse, tested, modified in AGM-114L-7/8A (install a fragmentation sleeve, software update include new proximity fuze mode)
the cost for one AGM-114L is on average $ 120,000, it seems like the Navy pays residual value for Army
Prior Years acquisition - 112 missiles, FY2019 - 90, FY2020 - 90, FY2021 - 32

p.511
 

aonestudio

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 11, 2018
Messages
67
Reaction score
85

Attachments

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,978
Reaction score
482
Sounds like typical upgrades every warship goes through:

Excerpt from article
Features like next generation electronic warfare capabilities via the Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program (SEWIP), an integrated shipboard combat system, over-the-horizon capability via the Naval Strike Missile (NSM) or Nulka, a rapid response active expendable decoy system that would give the LCS a more effective way to respond to anti-ship missiles and increase commonality across the fleet.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,724
Reaction score
118
I think the Austal HSSV is less about the utility of cat v tri and more about maximizing the commonality with existing EPF to keep their business case looking good, but you may be right that they're seeing the relatively square footprint of their cats as being more suited to an air-focused mission. They have been showing an USV concept that looks more like a shrunken LCS.

More broadly, I hope we see some good conversations/debates in the naval community about things like HSSV and the USV concepts.
HSSV could fulfill the FFGV(x) and LCS and be the modular multi-purpose to meet USMC goals and even the new basing needs of the Army and AF.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,724
Reaction score
118
Adm Roughead testified to Congress today at the Future of the Naval Warfare hearing how the low draft and speed of Frigates defined them as the workhorse of the Navy especially for missions outside a fleet's main mission. Then some sort of HSSV form factor based craft would be great to fulfill the LCS/Frigate role.
 

A Tentative Fleet Plan

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Apr 9, 2018
Messages
82
Reaction score
105
I wonder if Cdrsalamander would have the guts to face the crews of LCS ships and tell them why their ships are crap.
Thu I've never taken him seriously ever since he scrawled over a Burke in Green Ink to make it more "survivable".

The LCS seems to be living rent-free in his mind.
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,978
Reaction score
482
I wonder if Cdrsalamander would have the guts to face the crews of LCS ships and tell them why their ships are crap.
There's a difference between respecting the men and women forced to make the best out of a crappy vehicle vs criticizing the vehicle itself.

What respect? I hear the criticism. I've haven't spotted the respect. And for those crewman in the video, are they lying, ignorant, or both?
 

donnage99

"Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
982
Reaction score
27
What respect? I hear the criticism. I've haven't spotted the respect. And for those crewman in the video, are they lying, ignorant, or both?
so everytime someone criticize the complete mismanagement of this program they have to put a bolded disclaimer that they "love and respect the men and women serving on this ship but...."

This is a little snowflake in my opinion if that's the case. As for your second statement, complete strawmanning. No where did the blogger gave any indication that he's questioning the people serving on board.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,774
Reaction score
676
I wonder if Cdrsalamander would have the guts to face the crews of LCS ships and tell them why their ships are crap.
There's a difference between respecting the men and women forced to make the best out of a crappy vehicle vs criticizing the vehicle itself.

What respect? I hear the criticism. I've haven't spotted the respect. And for those crewman in the video, are they lying, ignorant, or both?
It's a PR video. Do you seriously think it represents anyone's totally honest opinion?
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,978
Reaction score
482
so everytime someone criticize the complete mismanagement of this program they have to put a bolded disclaimer that they "love and respect the men and women serving on this ship but...."

This is a little snowflake in my opinion if that's the case. As for your second statement, complete strawmanning. No where did the blogger gave any indication that he's questioning the people serving on board.

This whole “respect” thing didn’t exist until you created it. Since you did, I pointed out the obvious.
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,978
Reaction score
482
It's a PR video. Do you seriously think it represents anyone's totally honest opinion?

Its an official Navy video. Deliberate falsehoods by government agencies are actionable. Of course, like everything else today, violations only matter depending on who does them.

Just to clarify, you believe the sailors in the video are dishonest for expressing positive attitudes towards LCS? Sort of like pilots describing F-35 performance being nothing more than approved statements and therefore to be dismissed without consideration.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,774
Reaction score
676
It's a PR video. Do you seriously think it represents anyone's totally honest opinion?

Its an official Navy video. Deliberate falsehoods by government agencies are actionable. Of course, like everything else today, violations only matter depending on who does them.

Just to clarify, you believe the sailors in the video are dishonest for expressing positive attitudes towards LCS? Sort of like pilots describing F-35 performance being nothing more than approved statements and therefore to be dismissed without consideration.
I've known enough sailors to know that they will say one thing in public and quite another in private (just like almost anyone else talking about their job). I also know that any sailor who said bad things about their ship in front of a camera will a) not have their quotes used in the final product and b) have a quick and pointed counseling session with their leading petty officer/executive officer/squadron commander/etc. (adjusting for the speaker's rank).
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,978
Reaction score
482
I've known enough sailors to know that they will say one thing in public and quite another in private (just like almost anyone else talking about their job). I also know that any sailor who said bad things about their ship in front of a camera will a) not have their quotes used in the final product and b) have a quick and pointed counseling session with their leading petty officer/executive officer/squadron commander/etc. (adjusting for the speaker's rank).

Fine. But that applies to everything. How about a husband talking about his wife? At what point do you reject the message?
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,774
Reaction score
676
I've known enough sailors to know that they will say one thing in public and quite another in private (just like almost anyone else talking about their job). I also know that any sailor who said bad things about their ship in front of a camera will a) not have their quotes used in the final product and b) have a quick and pointed counseling session with their leading petty officer/executive officer/squadron commander/etc. (adjusting for the speaker's rank).

Fine. But that applies to everything. How about a husband talking about his wife? At what point do you reject the message?
Sorry?

I basically don't consider specific PR videos to have any value at all in assessing a system's capabilities. I should know because I spent a few years early in my career essentially writing printed versions of this video.

Seriously, there are ample reports of the teething troubles of the early LCS's (two have had crippling gear box failures, for example). The failures of the mission modules to even be delivered much less perform has likewise well publicized. A couple of selected quotes from sailors saying how great the ship isn't going to offset that.
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,978
Reaction score
482
Sorry?

I basically don't consider specific PR videos to have any value at all in assessing a system's capabilities. I should know because I spent a few years early in my career essentially writing printed versions of this video.

Seriously, there are ample reports of the teething troubles of the early LCS's (two have had crippling gear box failures, for example). The failures of the mission modules to even be delivered much less perform has likewise well publicized. A couple of selected quotes from sailors saying how great the ship isn't going to offset that.

Indeed. And that was years ago. What major weapon system has not had similar issues? The Ford class carrier could match the LCS in terms of teething problems. The 24th LCS was just accepted by the Navy (now crewed by Navy personnel). Are you seriously saying these ship still have these problems?

The mission modules are pioneering the ROV systems to perform mine and ASW warfare. The mine warfare package may already be certified. I have not heard of any serious problem since the early phase. Some elements are used by other ship types.

Please identify the worst system you wrote PR for. I assume we can examine it to see just how bad it performed in operational service to show how untrustworthy such PR info really is.

You dismiss the opinions of people who live and work on these ships in favor of articles written by people who probably have not come within 1 mile of one. Who is being biased here.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,774
Reaction score
676
I'm dismissing a video deliberately constructed to say nice things about the ship's by people with a vested interest in saying nice things.

If you think that's a mistake, all I can say is that I've got a lovely bridge you might want to buy.
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,978
Reaction score
482
I'm dismissing a video deliberately constructed to say nice things about the ship's by people with a vested interest in saying nice things.

If you think that's a mistake, all I can say is that I've got a lovely bridge you might want to buy.

I would have been more impressed by reading about a terrible weapon system along with the PR blurb about how great it was. Never bought a bridge in my life and not in the market now.

Here are some more vested items:
This picture on the homepage of NAVSEA twitter showing how embarrassed they are about the whole thing.
NavSea Twitter Pic.jpg

LCS 26 launch date: January 2020
So 26 ships in the water with a total run of 38 fully scheduled and you think this program is still viable for the death spiral?

All Hands article on LCS
https://allhands.navy.mil/Features/LCS

Mission Module Status:
https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals...e-CaptGusWeekes.pdf?ver=2020-01-17-113429-960


You may be seeing bridges here. I see something else.
 

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,776
Reaction score
154
I think this headline summarises this well:

It's Official: The U.S. Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship Is a Complete Failure

The U.S. Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship was supposed to be cheap, fast, flexible and easy to build.
But after spending $30 billion over a period of around two decades, the U.S. Navy has managed to acquire just 35 of the 3,000-ton-displacement vessels.....


Regards
Pioneer
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,978
Reaction score
482
I think this headline summarises this well:

It's Official: The U.S. Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship Is a Complete Failure

The U.S. Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship was supposed to be cheap, fast, flexible and easy to build.
But after spending $30 billion over a period of around two decades, the U.S. Navy has managed to acquire just 35 of the 3,000-ton-displacement vessels.....


Regards
Pioneer

I’m not sure if citing National Interest is a subtle way of conceding defeat. The headline reads like so many similar articles for the F-35 (the use of “disaster”) it all blends together. Of course, if you want to base your conclusions on what the media tell you, then pretty much every major weapon system is simultaneously a technical disaster, waste of money, and destabilizing threat to peace.
 

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,602
Reaction score
374
If 'the media' tell you every major weapon system is simultaneously a technical disaster, waste of money, and destabilizing threat to peace - where do YOU get the information that tells you otherwise?
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,978
Reaction score
482
If 'the media' tell you every major weapon system is simultaneously a technical disaster, waste of money, and destabilizing threat to peace - where do YOU get the information that tells you otherwise?

My eyes, weapon test demonstrations, and actual wars where weapons declared as useless perform well and the consequent track records of people/organizations whose predictions were revealed as fake. And what is all this to you?
You are always quick to indignation over your non American identity so why are you so insistent on an issue of no relevance to you?
 

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,602
Reaction score
374
Your concern for my well-being is much appreciated. In am simply curious about your sources. In the most inoffensive of ways. You take part in these wars and demonstrations? If not, how do you receive your information?
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,978
Reaction score
482
Your concern for my well-being is much appreciated. In am simply curious about your sources. In the most inoffensive of ways. You take part in these wars and demonstrations? If not, how do you receive your information?

Enemy targets blowing up on video.
 

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,602
Reaction score
374
That would be an extremely restricted set of media.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,026
Reaction score
1,067
If 'the media' tell you every major weapon system is simultaneously a technical disaster, waste of money, and destabilizing threat to peace - where do YOU get the information that tells you otherwise?
Is this a real question? Clearly you're not familiar with American media. I recall "the media" regaling us with tales of how Bradley fighting vehicles would burn up like fireworks because, you know, "it has aluminum armor and they use aluminum in rocket propellant and the Hindenburg". I don't know about you but I didn't require another "journalist" countering with, "na-uh" to know they were completely full of $hit. Maybe you do, I don't know.
 
Last edited:

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,602
Reaction score
374
Actually, I am. Also various Canadian and European media, Australian, some Asian, South African.
I am a bit suprised even the specialist US media get tarred with the same brush as, say, Rupert Murdoch's, err, produce.
So yes. A real question. I am curious.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,026
Reaction score
1,067
Actually, I am. Also various Canadian and European media, Australian, some Asian, South African.
I am a bit suprised even the specialist US media get tarred with the same brush as, say, Rupert Murdoch's, err, produce.
It depends. The thing about military stuff is no matter WHAT it is somebody can make money tearing it down. Refuting claims, no matter how ridiculous, is often difficult because the required information is not publicly available or is classified. Consider all the media hysteria around the F-15, Apache, Abrams tank, Bradley, F-22, and F-35 before they proved themselves. Hell it was the same group of people that attacked the F-15 for being "gold plated" who then went on to do the same to the F-22 and F-35. (The F-35 had even more detractors because more people had an interest in seeing it fail.) When you've seen the same kind of thing decade after decade it becomes pretty difficult to believe any of them. You know how a program is TRULY as bad as the media says it is? When the military bails on it. See the Sgt. York for example. To hear the media tell it you'd think the DoD WANTS to buy $hitty equipment.
 
Top