Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence

yeetmahboi said:
I mean no LCS carry Standards. More likely they took the C-UAS configured Hellfires or 57mm pot shots to trial. All speculation.
Click to expand...
I think it’s hilarious that you guys can’t fathom something being classified.

LCSes can indeed carry SMs now, but I think it’s unlikely they had any mk70s.

But of course the admiral could have just misspoken, and the article was corrected.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I'm more interested in the comment that the LCS acted as AAW coordinator.

I thought that job was for the Ticos!
Click to expand...
It was explained to me the flag officer took his staff to the Indy because there was more space.

Also would kinda make sense if they didn’t have the mk70s that way
coordinator duties aren’t taking up time, man power, etc onboard a shooter.

Also it keeps the enemy guessing on where command staff will be located, instead of always on a Tico. Not much of an issue with terrorists that have very limited means, but when an adversary has the means to launch major missiles and has spotters in the area, it could be problematic if they just decided ‘hit the Tico first’
 
Last edited:
Had it confirmed no mk70.

Also to avoid future confusion for indianpolis maybe we should refer to her as Indi and independence as Indy.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I'm more interested in the comment that the LCS acted as AAW coordinator.

I thought that job was for the Ticos!
Click to expand...
Depends on meaning of words.
WW2 pickets were doing a type of AAW coordination, too.
 
Ainen said:
Depends on meaning of words.
WW2 pickets were doing a type of AAW coordination, too.
Click to expand...
Yes I’m sure the citation was using an 80 year old definition of the term…
The flag officer embarked Indi, because she had the space for his staff, that Burkes don’t have. So she became the SAG’s AAWC.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
Yes I’m sure the citation was using an 80 year old definition of the term…
The flag officer embarked Indi, because she had the space for his staff, that Burkes don’t have. So she became the SAG’s AAWC.
Click to expand...

I started to understand this when you mentioned space for staff. The DDG-51s don't have a ton of spare bunks. An LCS without a manpower heavy mission module embarked does. As long as they have seats and displays in the Mission Control Center (LCS-speak for CIC) for the AW staff to see the air picture, I guess it can work. And in one weird way it might be better. During the Iran Air 655 shootdown, Sides (an FFG!) ended up having better situational awareness than Vincennes (an Aegis CG), in part because she wasn't actively involved in a surface gun action. Not having missiles blasting off from just outside CIC might make it easier to focus on the task at hand.
 
TomS said:
I started to understand this when you mentioned space for staff. The DDG-51s don't have a ton of spare bunks. An LCS without a manpower heavy mission module embarked does. As long as they have seats and displays in the Mission Control Center (LCS-speak for CIC) for the AW staff to see the air picture, I guess it can work. And in one weird way it might be better. During the Iran Air 655 shootdown, Sides (an FFG!) ended up having better situational awareness than Vincennes (an Aegis CG), in part because she wasn't actively involved in a surface gun action. Not having missiles blasting off from just outside CIC might make it easier to focus on the task at hand.
Click to expand...
Yep, Burkes are extremely tight on space.
Especially my old ship. Part of a berthing was stripped and turned into a lounge for the enlisted.
No clue how many other ships have had similar modifications made to them, but even with that area as a full berthing, it would likely only have about 10 racks at max, and I’m not sure how many extra staterooms for the officers on the staff.
 
jsport said:
www.twz.com

Littoral Combat Ships To Sail With Mk70 Vertical Launchers Strapped To Their Decks

The LCS is notorious for lacking firepower and the modular launcher could help with correcting that, but there are tradeoffs in doing so.
www.twz.com www.twz.com
Click to expand...
Other than a one or two off emergency mission, it’s a pretty bad addition to LCSes.

LCSes have their own jobs and missions, even during a conventional war, and none of those missions require VLS. They are not frigates, nor should they be treated remotely similar to a frigate.

The best example of how this could be a good idea is something like loading them on, sprinting to a firing position and launching a TLAM strike, and then sprint out to safety.

My biggest question is how expendable does the navy see these launchers? After firing what would justify unchaining them, and dumping them in a hard turn.
 
Fouling LCS-2 flight decks…after touting those same flight decks as a rare tangible LCS virtue for 15 years…?
  • Will a subset of LCS-2s not be equipped as MCM vessels due to the inability to operate MH-60S? I thought we needed a bunch of minesweepers?
  • In the spirit of ‘distributed lethality,’ will the Navy install Tomahawk control systems / stations and employ a subset of LCS-2s to attack the Chinese South China Sea island bases w/ TLAMs (& shoot PLAN warships w/ NSMs, & later AShM Tomahawks)? Is it fair to assume that sensors beginning the kill chains will come from, or mount on, non-LCS platforms, especially since the Navy retired its MQ-8Cs after only a few years in-service?
  • Will the Navy update the LCS-2 CMS to enable initial targeting for SM-2/SM-6? Is it customary for AAW missiles outrange the radar? What will standard-missile equipped LCS-2s be escorting or protecting?
  • If the Navy wants the LCS-2 to have AAW capability, why didn’t it develop a smaller container for ESSMs that might not prohibit flight operations? Could someone bolt Mk.56 launchers to the deck-edge just behind the hangar, and preserve the ability to launch & recover MH-60R/S?
 
Maskoki said:
Fouling LCS-2 flight decks…after touting those same flight decks as a rare tangible LCS virtue for 15 years…?
  • Will a subset of LCS-2s not be equipped as MCM vessels due to the inability to operate MH-60S? I thought we needed a bunch of minesweepers?
Click to expand...

The Independence-class will be the MCM ship
 
Maskoki said:
Fouling LCS-2 flight decks…after touting those same flight decks as a rare tangible LCS virtue for 15 years…?
  • Will a subset of LCS-2s not be equipped as MCM vessels due to the inability to operate MH-60S? I thought we needed a bunch of minesweepers?
  • In the spirit of ‘distributed lethality,’ will the Navy install Tomahawk control systems / stations and employ a subset of LCS-2s to attack the Chinese South China Sea island bases w/ TLAMs (& shoot PLAN warships w/ NSMs, & later AShM Tomahawks)? Is it fair to assume that sensors beginning the kill chains will come from, or mount on, non-LCS platforms, especially since the Navy retired its MQ-8Cs after only a few years in-service?
  • Will the Navy update the LCS-2 CMS to enable initial targeting for SM-2/SM-6? Is it customary for AAW missiles outrange the radar? What will standard-missile equipped LCS-2s be escorting or protecting?
  • If the Navy wants the LCS-2 to have AAW capability, why didn’t it develop a smaller container for ESSMs that might not prohibit flight operations? Could someone bolt Mk.56 launchers to the deck-edge just behind the hangar, and preserve the ability to launch & recover MH-60R/S?
Click to expand...
There are UAVs that use lasers to detect mines in the modules, but depending on size they may still be able to take off and land on what remains available of the flight deck.
The MCM module has nothing to do with MH60Ses as far as I have seen.

But as noted, none of the freedoms are scheduled to receive any MCM modules at this time.
 
TomS said:
The Airborne Laser Mine Detection System is part of the MCM module and is carried by MH-60S.

AN/AES-1 Airborne Laser Mine Detection System (ALMDS)

The AN/AES-1 Airborne Laser Mine Detection System (ALMDS) detects, classifies and localizes near-surface, moored sea mines, utilizing Streak Tube Imaging Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR).
www.navy.mil
Click to expand...
Yes MH60S. Do you have any source that LCSes will carry S variants? Why carry an S when they will already be carrying UAVs with that capability?

Navy Talks Details on LCS Mine Countermeasures Mission Package - USNI News

After several years of delays, the Navy’s mine countermeasures mission package for the Littoral Combat Ship has finally reached its initial operating capability. Last year, the Navy tested the mission package and its systems aboard Independence-class LCS USS Cincinnati (LCS-20), leading the...
news.usni.org news.usni.org
 
Last edited:
johnpjones1775 said:
Yes MH60S. Do you have any source that LCSes will carry S variants? Why carry an S when they will already be carrying UAVs with that capability?

Navy Talks Details on LCS Mine Countermeasures Mission Package - USNI News

After several years of delays, the Navy’s mine countermeasures mission package for the Littoral Combat Ship has finally reached its initial operating capability. Last year, the Navy tested the mission package and its systems aboard Independence-class LCS USS Cincinnati (LCS-20), leading the...
news.usni.org news.usni.org
Click to expand...
johnpjones1775 said:
Yes MH60S. Do you have any source that LCSes will carry S variants? Why carry an S when they will already be carrying UAVs with that capability?

Navy Talks Details on LCS Mine Countermeasures Mission Package - USNI News

After several years of delays, the Navy’s mine countermeasures mission package for the Littoral Combat Ship has finally reached its initial operating capability. Last year, the Navy tested the mission package and its systems aboard Independence-class LCS USS Cincinnati (LCS-20), leading the...
news.usni.org news.usni.org
Click to expand...

Because the Navy is retiring the Fire Scout drones and have proposed nothing else that can carry ALMDS.
 
TomS said:
Because the Navy is retiring the Fire Scout drones and have proposed nothing else that can carry ALMDS.
Click to expand...
Weird just talked to my buddy who was WEPS on a freedom, and they’re definitely forward deploying with firescouts. He did confirm they would likely be operating one of each as the standard.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
Weird just talked to my buddy who was WEPS on a freedom, and they’re definitely forward deploying with firescouts. He did confirm they would likely be operating one of each as the standard.
Click to expand...

Nevertheless, unless something has changed, they were slated to stop deploying operationally at the end of FY24 and retire completely by FY26. The Red Sea situation might have extended that a bit, but they seem destined to disappear in the immediate future.

www.flightglobal.com

US Navy’s MQ-8C Fire Scouts fly into retirement just two years after entering operational service

US Navy (USN) budget documents reveal that the service plans to retire the newest variant of an unmanned helicopter it spent more than a decade and nearly $1.5 billion developing.
www.flightglobal.com www.flightglobal.com
 
TomS said:
Nevertheless, unless something has changed, they were slated to stop deploying operationally at the end of FY24 and retire completely by FY26. The Red Sea situation might have extended that a bit, but they seem destined to disappear in the immediate future.

www.flightglobal.com

US Navy’s MQ-8C Fire Scouts fly into retirement just two years after entering operational service

US Navy (USN) budget documents reveal that the service plans to retire the newest variant of an unmanned helicopter it spent more than a decade and nearly $1.5 billion developing.
www.flightglobal.com www.flightglobal.com
Click to expand...
Clearly something has because the MCM Indy’s are set to deploy to their new homeport in Bahrain this year.

Firescout has been so underutilized it seems almost criminal.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
Clearly something has because the MCM Indy’s are set to deploy to their new homeport in Bahrain this year.

Firescout has been so underutilized it seems almost criminal.
Click to expand...

From the article, the Navy was planning to cover the retirement of the Firescouts with MH-60 helos. Which comes back around to my point about MH-60 and ALMDS. Firescout is going away and there is no other VTOL UAV in the same class in USN service or likely in the immediate future. So, MH-60S will likely have to continue carrying ALMDS. Which probably means we will see MH-60S on the MCM LCSs.

The Navy's continuing flailing about with unmanned assets is frustrating but typical. Firescout probably wasn't an idea VTOL UAS but the Navy can't seem to accept good enough while it works to figure out the next step.
 
TomS said:
From the article, the Navy was planning to cover the retirement of the Firescouts with MH-60 helos. Which comes back around to my point about MH-60 and ALMDS. Firescout is going away and there is no other VTOL UAV in the same class in USN service or likely in the immediate future. So, MH-60S will likely have to continue carrying ALMDS. Which probably means we will see MH-60S on the MCM LCSs.

The Navy's continuing flailing about with unmanned assets is frustrating but typical. Firescout probably wasn't an idea VTOL UAS but the Navy can't seem to accept good enough while it works to figure out the next step.
Click to expand...
I literally just told you that both would be utilized in the most common configuration.

I 100% agree about drones. We had predators 20 years ago in the airforce, why wasn’t firescout armed with a variety of options beyond a camera a decade ago?
 
TomS said:
The -8C was an unmanned Kiowa; it had plenty of payload. It was supposed to be armed with APKWS at least, but the Navy got cold feet and opted to use it strictly for ISR type tasks.
Click to expand...
Not all that much once you packed the cabin with all the computers and radios to run the thing. Same problem as Kiowa Warrior.

The -8B only had about 600lbs lifting capacity. NG tries to say that the -8C has 2900lbs capacity, but the base Bell 407 has ~2350lbs capacity with no pax (5) or crew (2), so about 1000lbs over the pax+crew weight.

The current sea-search radars weigh in about 600lbs, so that plus an EOIR eyeball pretty much wipes out 1000lbs of load in the -8C.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Not all that much once you packed the cabin with all the computers and radios to run the thing. Same problem as Kiowa Warrior.

The -8B only had about 600lbs lifting capacity. NG tries to say that the -8C has 2900lbs capacity, but the base Bell 407 has ~2350lbs capacity with no pax (5) or crew (2), so about 1000lbs over the pax+crew weight.

The current sea-search radars weigh in about 600lbs, so that plus an EOIR eyeball pretty much wipes out 1000lbs of load in the -8C.
Click to expand...
Apparently Northrop Grumman believed they had the ability to carry a bunch of sonobouys at the very least, which means without those they could also carry an MG of some sort with ammo.


Unless they’re proposing a whole new type of sonobuoy the lightest type is around 35lbs.
35x12 is 420lbs, and I think 12 is conservative estimate based on their rendering which appears to have 48.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
Unless they’re proposing a whole new type of sonobuoy the lightest type is around 35lbs.
35x12 is 420lbs, and I think 12 is conservative estimate based on their rendering which appears to have 48.
Click to expand...

Those Ultra Sonobuoy mission pods are sized for G or F-type buoys, which are 1/3 or 1/4 size, weighing between 4 and 6 kilograms. A single SMP-24 pod carries an expendable payload of 24 buoys, so around 120-150 kg. Plus the weight of the pod and processor. That's easily 200kg a side on an MQ-8C.
 

Attachments

  • Sonobuoy-Mission-Pod-Feb-2024.pdf
    430.5 KB · Views: 7
Last edited:
TomS said:
Those Ultra Sonobuoy mission pods are sized for G or F-type buoys, which are 1/3 or 1/4 size, weighing between 4 and 6 kilograms. A single SMP-24 pod carries an expendable payload of 24 buoys, so around 120-150 kg. Plus the weight of the pod and processor. That's easily 200kg a side on an MQ-8C.
Click to expand...
Not sure where you get 4 and 6 kg

The G class each weigh roughly 23lbs based on this.
Pod 290lbs, full pod(20 bouys) weighs 750lbs.
750-290=460 460/20=23 almost twice the heaviest weight you claimed.

www.ga-asi.com

Anti-Submarine Warfare System

www.ga-asi.com

So going by that 23x48=1,104

So Northrop Grumman seems to believe the firescout could carry roughly 1100lbs of sonobuoys on top of their sensors that they always keep, not even counting the total weight of their pods.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
Not sure where you get 4 and 6 kg

The G class each weigh roughly 23lbs based on this.
Pod 290lbs, full pod(20 bouys) weighs 750lbs.
750-290=460 460/20=23 almost twice the heaviest weight you claimed.
Click to expand...
"Each SDS pod can carry and dispense up to 10 A-size sonobuoys or up to 20 G-size sonobuoys"

You're assuming two G-size weigh the same as one A-size, which doesn't necessarily follow.

Rather than indulging in speculative maths you could just look up the answer:

Loading…

www.ultra.group

G’ size Weight: 5.6 kg (12.3 lbs)"
 
DWG said:
"Each SDS pod can carry and dispense up to 10 A-size sonobuoys or up to 20 G-size sonobuoys"

You're assuming two G-size weigh the same as one A-size, which doesn't necessarily follow.

Rather than indulging in speculative maths you could just look up the answer:

Loading…

www.ultra.group

G’ size Weight: 5.6 kg (12.3 lbs)"
Click to expand...
The article I linked says it uses G
 
johnpjones1775 said:
Not sure where you get 4 and 6 kg
Click to expand...

Ultra's sonobuoy datasheet:

Loading…

www.ultra.group

Most of the G-type buoys are around 5.1-5.6 kg. There's one weird outlier of an active G-type at 7.8 kg.

F-types are a bit shorter than G types (they are A/4, while Gs are A/3) so they should end up a bit lighter.
 
TomS said:
Ultra's sonobuoy datasheet:

Loading…

www.ultra.group

Most of the G-type buoys are around 5.1-5.6 kg. There's one weird outlier of an active G-type at 7.8 kg.

F-types are a bit shorter than G types (they are A/4, while Gs are A/3) so they should end up a bit lighter.
Click to expand...
I’m just reporting the numbers and the claims in their article.
The math says at 20 per pod, they weigh 23lbs a piece.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
I’m just reporting the numbers and the claims in their article.
The math says at 20 per pod, they weigh 23lbs a piece.
Click to expand...
Your maths is wrong. They explicitly say the pod can take 10 A or 20 G, you are assuming the weight is for the pod with 20 Gs, when it's clearly for the pod with 10 As if you bother to go check the weight of a G from easily available sources you've been pointed at twice.
 
TomS said:
From the article, the Navy was planning to cover the retirement of the Firescouts with MH-60 helos. Which comes back around to my point about MH-60 and ALMDS. Firescout is going away and there is no other VTOL UAV in the same class in USN service or likely in the immediate future. So, MH-60S will likely have to continue carrying ALMDS. Which probably means we will see MH-60S on the MCM LCSs.

The Navy's continuing flailing about with unmanned assets is frustrating but typical. Firescout probably wasn't an idea VTOL UAS but the Navy can't seem to accept good enough while it works to figure out the next step.
Click to expand...
If we think of unmanned vehicles as emergent technology, to me, it makes sense that we plan for low order quantities and rapid turnover to the next invention. Like the early jet fighter age, pre-war destroyers, & WW2 early tanks. Until the drone version of the F-4 Phantom/AB destroyer/M1 tank makes itself evident.

I think this is also one more indication of just how destructive the LCS program has been. We plan for the LCS-2 to become the new minesweeper, but then we toss the MQ-8C, foul the flight deck with Mk.70s, and put all our tokens on the TBEC being able to launch & recover the CUSV without issue every time. Check test the reports on that mess…
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom