Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence

news.usni.org

Navy, Lockheed Haven’t Reached Cost Deal on LCS Combining Gear - USNI News

The Navy and Lockheed Martin are still negotiating the cost breakdown for a fix to the Freedom variant Littoral Combat Ship that has restricted the operations of most ships in the class, a service official said last week. Capt. Andy Gold, the program manager for the Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship...
news.usni.org news.usni.org
 
www.defensenews.com

LCS Little Rock temporarily lost power during sea trials, returned to Mayport

USS Little Rock lost power and returned to port during its post-maintenance sea trials, two years after a similar incident involving its combining gear forced it to end its maiden deployment.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com

cdrsalamander.blogspot.com

What Did You do Your First 5-yrs After Commissioning?

Some ships are just cursed, snakebit, or ... well ... just a LCS. Light a candle for the crew of USS Little Rock (LCS-9). Our friend Megan ...
cdrsalamander.blogspot.com cdrsalamander.blogspot.com
 
I've been doing a little reading about the weapon modules, and had a couple of questions.

First, I've read they have a weight capacity of 30 tons, roughly triple that of the Stanflex modules, but not what the actual dimensions are. Stanflex is 3.5x3x2 meters, the LCS modules look to be around 4x4x2, but other than the illustrations that seem to show they can fit the length of an NSM canister, which I believe is a bit longer than that, I haven't seen actual figures. Does anyone know those dimensions? Or have a link?

Second, does anyone know how many NetFires NLOS-LS missile in a box launchers could fit in one of the module spaces? The reason I ask is that 30 tons is a lot of weight. The LAM and PAM missiles for NetFires were around 45kg, so even if we assume two thirds of the weight would be taken up by structure that would still leave 10 tons for munitions, which would be around 200 LAM or PAM missiles, or the same number or ADATS (assuming a second generation upgrade), or roughly 100 CAAM missiles, all of which have diameters that would fit in the same launcher cell. ADATS is a little longer and CAMM is about twice the length, so you would need modules/launchers that would stick up above deck level, and probably fewer cells to maintain topweight.

Incidently, a fully loaded 8-cell mk41 is in the ballpark of 30 tons with a heavier loadout. I've seen illustrations of both LCS ships with two of the weapons modules replaced with a single 8 cell mk41. With NSM mounted on the deck, they would be useful for VL-ASROC and ESSM. The ships would still be fragile, but they would be a lot closer to the capability they were meant to have, and a lot more useful as a battle fleet screen.
 
Oh, one more question. With regards to the Freedom class engine problems, I get the impression that like the Allison T-40 that powered the A2D Skyshark a major issue is the combining gearbox being unable to handle the power running through it. Would limiting the operating speed to something lower be a viable "solution" to that problem? If the Freedom's are going to be used as MCM ships they won't need 40+ knot speeds anyway.
 
apparition13 said:
I've been doing a little reading about the weapon modules, and had a couple of questions.

First, I've read they have a weight capacity of 30 tons, roughly triple that of the Stanflex modules, but not what the actual dimensions are. Stanflex is 3.5x3x2 meters, the LCS modules look to be around 4x4x2, but other than the illustrations that seem to show they can fit the length of an NSM canister, which I believe is a bit longer than that, I haven't seen actual figures. Does anyone know those dimensions? Or have a link?

Second, does anyone know how many NetFires NLOS-LS missile in a box launchers could fit in one of the module spaces? The reason I ask is that 30 tons is a lot of weight. The LAM and PAM missiles for NetFires were around 45kg, so even if we assume two thirds of the weight would be taken up by structure that would still leave 10 tons for munitions, which would be around 200 LAM or PAM missiles, or the same number or ADATS (assuming a second generation upgrade), or roughly 100 CAAM missiles, all of which have diameters that would fit in the same launcher cell. ADATS is a little longer and CAMM is about twice the length, so you would need modules/launchers that would stick up above deck level, and probably fewer cells to maintain topweight.
Click to expand...

The Navy has been very cagey about the exact dimensions of rth LCS mission modules, soe some reason. I know I've seen it once, and thought it was posted here, but can't find it from an official source. We do have some references on this forum, though:

From earlier in this thread, a picture of what the NLOS module would look like (3x NLOS launcher boxes, each box with 15 missiles)


And some specs for same:


apparition13 said:
Incidently, a fully loaded 8-cell mk41 is in the ballpark of 30 tons with a heavier loadout. I've seen illustrations of both LCS ships with two of the weapons modules replaced with a single 8 cell mk41. With NSM mounted on the deck, they would be useful for VL-ASROC and ESSM. The ships would still be fragile, but they would be a lot closer to the capability they were meant to have, and a lot more useful as a battle fleet screen.
Click to expand...

Such redesigns have definitely been offered, but the issue is that even the tactical and strike VLS are much deeper than the standard LCS mission module box. So whatever is below the mission module also has to get relocated. In the LM ships, there's hangar space under there, which means you have to lose helicopter/UAV space.

Also, my impression is that the ships are already heavier and thus slower than intended. Adding VLS and related structure would be an even bigger hit.
 

Textron to provide engineering support for UISS uncrewed counter-mine surface vessel in $41.7 million order​


March 11, 2022

UISS counter-mine system will enable the Navy littoral combat ship to detect, pinpoint, and destroy acoustic and magnetic, and magnetic sea mines.

[...]Officials of the Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington announced a $41.7 million order last month to the Textron Systems Corp. Autonomy & Control Systems segment in Hunt Valley, Md., for engineering and technical support, incidental materials, and travel for the UISS uncrewed patrol boat.


The UISS is one of the counter-mine warfare systems that will enable the Navy littoral combat ship to perform mine warfare sweep missions. UISS will target acoustic, magnetic, and magnetic and acoustic combination mine types only. The UISS program provides rapid wide-area mine clearance to neutralize magnetic and acoustic sea mines in a small, lightweight package.


The UISS uses the Textron Common Unmanned Surface Vessel (CUSV), which will travel aboard the LCS and deploy as necessary to detect, pinpoint, and trigger explosive sea mines hidden under the surface intended to damage or destroy surface warships or commercial shipping.

The system consists of the CUSV uncrewed power boat that tows an acoustic and magnetic minesweep system that emits acoustic and magnetic signals that provide a false signature that triggers mines. The surface vessel operates far enough away so that it will not be damaged by a detonating mine, Navy officials say.
Click to expand...
www.militaryaerospace.com

Textron to provide engineering support for UISS uncrewed counter-mine surface vessel in $41.7 million order

UISS counter-mine system will enable the Navy littoral combat ship to detect, pinpoint, and destroy acoustic and magnetic, and magnetic sea mines.
www.militaryaerospace.com www.militaryaerospace.com
 

Littoral Disaster: Navy Wants To Retire 10 Littoral Combat Ships According To Report​


The oldest Littoral Combat Ship on the chopping block is just seven years old.​


By Joseph Trevithick
March 17, 2022

The U.S. Navy will reportedly seek to decommission between eight and 10 Freedom class Littoral Combat Ships, or LCSs, as part of its budget proposal for the 2023 Fiscal Year. This would despite the oldest example still on active duty being only seven years old. Last year, the service admitted that it would take years to implement critical fixes to the propulsion systems on all of the Freedom class vessels it has acquired to date...
Click to expand...

www.thedrive.com

Littoral Disaster: Navy Wants To Retire 10 Littoral Combat Ships According To Report

The oldest Littoral Combat Ship on the chopping block is just seven years old.
www.thedrive.com www.thedrive.com
 
news.usni.org

All Freedom Littoral Combat Ships in Commission Tapped for Early Disposal - USNI News

THE PENTAGON – The nine Freedom-class Littoral Combat Ships currently in Navy service – the youngest of which commissioned in 2020 – have been marked for disposal as part of the Department of Defense’s Fiscal Year 2023 budget proposal, USNI News has learned. The ships – USS Fort Worth (LCS-3)...
news.usni.org news.usni.org
www.defensenews.com

US Navy wants to cut nine LCSs, eliminate their anti-submarine mission

The U.S. Navy wants to decommission nine of its Freedom-variant littoral combat ships and eliminate the anti-submarine warfare mission for the ships, citing a tradeoff between the cost of the ships and equipment versus the warfighting capability they’d actually deliver.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com

Pentagon budget 2023: US Navy looks to cut LCS ASW module, decommission 9 Freedom-class ships

The US Navy (USN) fiscal year (FY) 2023 budget request includes a plan to eliminate the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) antisubmarine warfare (ASW) mission module package and...
www.janes.com
 
aonestudio said:
news.usni.org

All Freedom Littoral Combat Ships in Commission Tapped for Early Disposal - USNI News

THE PENTAGON – The nine Freedom-class Littoral Combat Ships currently in Navy service – the youngest of which commissioned in 2020 – have been marked for disposal as part of the Department of Defense’s Fiscal Year 2023 budget proposal, USNI News has learned. The ships – USS Fort Worth (LCS-3)...
news.usni.org news.usni.org
www.defensenews.com

US Navy wants to cut nine LCSs, eliminate their anti-submarine mission

The U.S. Navy wants to decommission nine of its Freedom-variant littoral combat ships and eliminate the anti-submarine warfare mission for the ships, citing a tradeoff between the cost of the ships and equipment versus the warfighting capability they’d actually deliver.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com

Pentagon budget 2023: US Navy looks to cut LCS ASW module, decommission 9 Freedom-class ships

The US Navy (USN) fiscal year (FY) 2023 budget request includes a plan to eliminate the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) antisubmarine warfare (ASW) mission module package and...
www.janes.com
Click to expand...

Not terribly shocking. LCS was obviously never designed with the silencing for proper ASW operations. Trying to get them to do ASW (Sprint/drift tactics with the VDS, presumably) was plausible but never ideal.

The Independence class ships become MCM/unmanned vehicle mother ships and the Navy gets to focus on new ships they actually understand how to operate and maintain.

It's really too bad that they held on as long as they did -- they probably should have fought to kill LCS as soon as Rumsfeld was gone; that would have made it much easier to put the blame where it belonged.
 
TomS said:
aonestudio said:
news.usni.org

All Freedom Littoral Combat Ships in Commission Tapped for Early Disposal - USNI News

THE PENTAGON – The nine Freedom-class Littoral Combat Ships currently in Navy service – the youngest of which commissioned in 2020 – have been marked for disposal as part of the Department of Defense’s Fiscal Year 2023 budget proposal, USNI News has learned. The ships – USS Fort Worth (LCS-3)...
news.usni.org news.usni.org
www.defensenews.com

US Navy wants to cut nine LCSs, eliminate their anti-submarine mission

The U.S. Navy wants to decommission nine of its Freedom-variant littoral combat ships and eliminate the anti-submarine warfare mission for the ships, citing a tradeoff between the cost of the ships and equipment versus the warfighting capability they’d actually deliver.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com

Pentagon budget 2023: US Navy looks to cut LCS ASW module, decommission 9 Freedom-class ships

The US Navy (USN) fiscal year (FY) 2023 budget request includes a plan to eliminate the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) antisubmarine warfare (ASW) mission module package and...
www.janes.com
Click to expand...

Not terribly shocking. LCS was obviously never designed with the silencing for proper ASW operations. Trying to get them to do ASW (Sprint/drift tactics with the VDS, presumably) was plausible but never ideal.

The Independence class ships become MCM/unmanned vehicle mother ships and the Navy gets to focus on new ships they actually understand how to operate and maintain.

It's really too bad that they held on as long as they did -- they probably should have fought to kill LCS as soon as Rumsfeld was gone; that would have made it much easier to put the blame where it belonged.
Click to expand...
A few thoughts
Congress will not authorize decommissioning all nine ships
Independence class doesn't have the payload capacity, 105 mt limit, for the full MCM kit, Navy really need a new hull platform with higher payload for MCM, as for acting as an unmanned vehicle mother ship think unlikely as Congress very lukewarm to USV's, think more likely primary mission will be SuW, 39 NSMs included in FY2023 budget for Navy (115 NSMs for the Marines!)
 
apparition13 said:
I've been doing a little reading about the weapon modules, and had a couple of questions.

First, I've read they have a weight capacity of 30 tons, roughly triple that of the Stanflex modules, but not what the actual dimensions are. Stanflex is 3.5x3x2 meters, the LCS modules look to be around 4x4x2, but other than the illustrations that seem to show they can fit the length of an NSM canister, which I believe is a bit longer than that, I haven't seen actual figures. Does anyone know those dimensions? Or have a link?

Second, does anyone know how many NetFires NLOS-LS missile in a box launchers could fit in one of the module spaces? The reason I ask is that 30 tons is a lot of weight. The LAM and PAM missiles for NetFires were around 45kg, so even if we assume two thirds of the weight would be taken up by structure that would still leave 10 tons for munitions, which would be around 200 LAM or PAM missiles, or the same number or ADATS (assuming a second generation upgrade), or roughly 100 CAAM missiles, all of which have diameters that would fit in the same launcher cell. ADATS is a little longer and CAMM is about twice the length, so you would need modules/launchers that would stick up above deck level, and probably fewer cells to maintain topweight.

Incidently, a fully loaded 8-cell mk41 is in the ballpark of 30 tons with a heavier loadout. I've seen illustrations of both LCS ships with two of the weapons modules replaced with a single 8 cell mk41. With NSM mounted on the deck, they would be useful for VL-ASROC and ESSM. The ships would still be fragile, but they would be a lot closer to the capability they were meant to have, and a lot more useful as a battle fleet screen.
Click to expand...
Sensors and other gear on the LCS are modular, by switching out gear / containers, but the armament of the LCS is not modular, or at least not "Stanflex modular."
  • Stanflex has multiple options with the exact same footprint and hookups.
  • The 57mm, 30mm, and RAM mounts are all custom installations, AFAIK, and the original NLOS module was also a unique footprint.
    • NLOS itself was also somewhat of a unique size/space.
    • I think the proposed "replacement," LockMart' JAGM Quad Launcher (JQL), was also a unique vertical launcher too, not a general purpose one (see thread here ). The USN did vertically launch a Hellfire off an LCS but I don't know what they shot it out of . . .
Ref the original NLOS module space, I was wondering where that 30 ton limit comes from: it seems awfully high for a single module. It's hard to imagine anything in that footprint that would come close to 30 tons, as your own math compared to the reference posts that Tom S. provided shows.

My notes were a 7.5 ton limit for the NLOS module (substantially lower than the Stanflex modules, which I believe are in the 10-16 ton range loaded), though I didn't note the source for that 7.5 number so I can't back it up, but it does seem more in line with holding 3 CLU.
 
Cordy said:
A few thoughts
Congress will not authorize decommissioning all nine ships
Independence class doesn't have the payload capacity, 105 mt limit, for the full MCM kit, Navy really need a new hull platform with higher payload for MCM, as for acting as an unmanned vehicle mother ship think unlikely as Congress very lukewarm to USV's, think more likely primary mission will be SuW, 39 NSMs included in FY2023 budget for Navy (115 NSMs for the Marines!)
Click to expand...

I guess it depends on what a "full MCM kit" includes. But yeah, I could see them as ASuW platforms as well. Seemed like the Freedoms would have made more sense for ASuW (they look the part at least) but man, their machinery is terrible.

And yes, definitely we will see Congress push back on decommissioning all of those hulls. But they're such a resource suck for no real return right now.
 
I am still baffled why the LCS designers did not adopt the well-proven Stanflex model.
 
Last edited:
Arjen said:
I am still baffled why the LCS designers did not adopt the well-proven Stanflex model.
Click to expand...
I have an explanation, though it's 100% opinion.

There is of course, 'not invented here,' but that doesn't explain why there is no modularity to armament on ships that were designed to be modular.

My theory is that the LCS was, first and foremost, designed to be politically acceptable within the Navy, which meant not only was it was designed for missions no established community (air, surface warfare, submarine) wanted:
  • shallow water ASW
  • mine clearance
  • fighting small boat swarms
. . . but also that it was designed for only those three roles. It was critical that the LCS could not be seen as being in competition with any of the three communities pet, gold-plated, projects. This meant that not only did all 'on ship' armament have to be very short ranged and weak, it also had to mean that it was impossible to upgrade that armament into an alternative to "real" ships (or aircraft), thus Stanflex, or even any "invented here" equivalent, was off the table.

If the LCS could take Stanflex, then there would be questions like "why not load a Stanflex full of Harpoons" or "what about using the Mk48 VLS to launch Sea Sparrow missiles", which would have forced more conversations about fire control radars and EW/ECM, which could have led down the path to congress looking at surface warfare trade offs between the LCS and real, manly, blue-water ships. It also would have forced discussions about a 76mm / Harpoon / Sea Sparrow armed ship that traded off a helicopter for more on board equipment. Threatening ship procurement ticks off the surface warfare community and fewer helos (and the de-emphasis of helos as the LCS only viable weapons) would tick off the aviation community so it was politically unacceptable inside the Navy to go with a modular weapons approach.

Long story short, the LCS was deliberately designed not only to have pathetic surface to surface / subsurface armament, but also to make sure that it was difficult to impossible to upgrade it to better armament later; it's a feature, not a bug
 
@BB1984 I hope you are wrong, but that seems uncomfortably plausible.
 
Huh, well at least it took longer then the Ticos did, those started to have cracks in shell and super stuctural metal nearly as soon as they launched apparently.

In the aluminum parts as well...

Eyeah making my views of it being a questionable idea to use aluminum in warships seem more valid.
 
BB1984 said:
Arjen said:
I am still baffled why the LCS designers did not adopt the well-proven Stanflex model.
Click to expand...
I have an explanation, though it's 100% opinion.

There is of course, 'not invented here,' but that doesn't explain why there is no modularity to armament on ships that were designed to be modular.

My theory is that the LCS was, first and foremost, designed to be politically acceptable within the Navy, which meant not only was it was designed for missions no established community (air, surface warfare, submarine) wanted:
  • shallow water ASW
  • mine clearance
  • fighting small boat swarms
. . . but also that it was designed for only those three roles. It was critical that the LCS could not be seen as being in competition with any of the three communities pet, gold-plated, projects. This meant that not only did all 'on ship' armament have to be very short ranged and weak, it also had to mean that it was impossible to upgrade that armament into an alternative to "real" ships (or aircraft), thus Stanflex, or even any "invented here" equivalent, was off the table.

If the LCS could take Stanflex, then there would be questions like "why not load a Stanflex full of Harpoons" or "what about using the Mk48 VLS to launch Sea Sparrow missiles", which would have forced more conversations about fire control radars and EW/ECM, which could have led down the path to congress looking at surface warfare trade offs between the LCS and real, manly, blue-water ships. It also would have forced discussions about a 76mm / Harpoon / Sea Sparrow armed ship that traded off a helicopter for more on board equipment. Threatening ship procurement ticks off the surface warfare community and fewer helos (and the de-emphasis of helos as the LCS only viable weapons) would tick off the aviation community so it was politically unacceptable inside the Navy to go with a modular weapons approach.

Long story short, the LCS was deliberately designed not only to have pathetic surface to surface / subsurface armament, but also to make sure that it was difficult to impossible to upgrade it to better armament later; it's a feature, not a bug
Click to expand...

Dear Gosh. So it was kind of "unwanted & boring missions we don't give a shit about"... dumping grounds ship.

Trying to put it differently: they deliberately designed a shitty warship for all those shitty and boring missions they hated so much.

"What, it is a crappy warship ? the missions it will perform are equally crap, so it is well adapted to them, ha ha ha !"

What a cynical and atrocious reasoning.
 
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XNwow2UUHQ
www.surfpac.navy.mil

LCS Successfully Completes First Land Attack Missile Exercise

The U.S. Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) class successfully launched sea-based missiles at a land-based target for the first time during a proof of concept exercise, May 12.
www.surfpac.navy.mil
news.usni.org

VIDEO: LCS USS Montgomery Fires Hellfire Missiles in Land Attack Test - USNI News

An Independence-class Littoral Combat Ship launched three Longbow Hellfire missiles that hit a land-based target in a demonstration last week, the Navy announced. USS Montgomery (LCS-8) launched the AGM-114L Longbow Hellfire missiles in the Pacific Ocean, the service said in a news release. The...
news.usni.org news.usni.org
 
Fire everyone responsible for this cluster. Demote retirees if necessary.
 
MadRat said:
Fire everyone responsible for this cluster. Demote retirees if necessary.
Click to expand...
If we did not do the same for the Ticos and Perrys...

Which started crack badly enough to force dry docking during trials.

All on the Alimuinium parts as well...

We are not retiring the people here after ships started to crack after a few years instead of a few weeks.
 
Lockheed Martin seems to be a problem. They should file for discovery to see if those problems were identified early and there was any cover-up. Engineers do not miss that big.
 
Dude has a point.

The LCS was design for low threat missions.

That was the entire point of the program before the, "ITS A FRIGATE" crowd, started comparing it to ships it not and congress cut funding for the gear.

Throw in the Issues with the Freedom?

Well I agree, keep the ships which are working, with a buy more to replace the lamed ones tact on.

Cause surprised surprised are jobs that need doing which requires a lightly armed and small ship that are just as important as the follow the carrier job that people wanted the LCS to do. And no one should be surprised that the ships design to do said job does it well.

In their niche the LCS are solid ship that does exactlywhats needed, issue always been the people try to remove them from said niche.
 
Firefinder said:
In their niche the ___________ does exactly whats needed, issue always been the people try to remove them from said niche.
Click to expand...
Is it just me, or can the blank above be filled by a number of things throughout history?
Actually, the original wording does kind of already say that.
 
Has the Freedom class solved its engine problems in an economic and reliable way?

How much stress does a class that could be replaced by the Heritage-class or Legend-class cutters put on procurement, and retention (given the ship’s company’s workload)?
 
starviking said:
Has the Freedom class solved its engine problems in an economic and reliable way?

How much stress does a class that could be replaced by the Heritage-class or Legend-class cutters after they get a complete redesign put on procurement, and retention (given the ship’s company’s workload)?
Click to expand...
FIFY
 
Firefinder said:
Dude has a point.

The LCS was design for low threat missions.

That was the entire point of the program before the, "ITS A FRIGATE" crowd, started comparing it to ships it not and congress cut funding for the gear.
Click to expand...
Except it doesn't cost like a low threat type of ships. It's a disaster. There's no way of making excuse for it without being absolutely cringy.
 
donnage99 said:
Firefinder said:
Dude has a point.

The LCS was design for low threat missions.

That was the entire point of the program before the, "ITS A FRIGATE" crowd, started comparing it to ships it not and congress cut funding for the gear.
Click to expand...
Except it doesn't cost like a low threat type of ships. It's a disaster. There's no way of making excuse for it without being absolutely cringy.
Click to expand...
Actually it kinda did cost like a low threat ship of their size.

Remember the LCS are large vessels, basically Burke size. Needed to be to do self deployments like tge navy wanted.

That was going to jack up the price no matter what you did from resource cost alone.

When you add in the need to pay two different compsnies, thank you lockmart, instead of one. And the resetting of its modules like 8 different times...

It is no wonder the cost balloon. If the program went like it should.

Ie, no two class bullshit, congress stopped messing with the modules, people not screaming "ItS a FrIgAte!" and the like?

Well it still be overprice, will not be a US military program otherwise, but it be reasonable bout it.

And we would have gotten a solid class out of it.
 
Firefinder said:

Remember the LCS are large vessels, basically Burke size. Needed to be to do self deployments like tge navy wanted.
Click to expand...
If it's gonna be burke size do you really want it to only be able to do low threat and niche missions? It's a failure at a conceptual level.

Every niche capability that made the ship cost like hell like speed and modularity ended up underperform or operationally irrelevant.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom