Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence

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…
 
Maskoki said:
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…
Click to expand...
No one has even put a mk70 on an independence class at all yet…chill out with the blind LCS hate homie.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
No one has even put a mk70 on an independence class at all yet…chill out with the blind LCS hate homie.
Click to expand...
Hate…sure :)

But not blind. Despite the Navy’s attempts, the ships can’t be fixed due to the extravagant requirement to achieve a max speed that adds nothing to the ships or the fleet.

The fleet capability deficit the LCS failed to fill will take decades to replace that the Navy doesn’t have. So I’ll remain critical of the process and people who materially weakened the Navy.
 
Maskoki said:
Hate…sure :)

But not blind. Despite the Navy’s attempts, the ships can’t be fixed due to the extravagant requirement to achieve a max speed that adds nothing to the ships or the fleet.

The fleet capability deficit the LCS failed to fill will take decades to replace that the Navy doesn’t have. So I’ll remain critical of the process and people who materially weakened the Navy.
Click to expand...
It’s blind hate, because all you can see is the past.
The program was handled like trash, but the ships are now great and will be indispensable if we went into a real naval war in the near future.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
It’s blind hate, because all you can see is the past.
The program was handled like trash, but the ships are now great and will be indispensable if we went into a real naval war in the near future.
Click to expand...
To each his own.

US Navy warships that must foul the flight deck to mount a semi-credible air defense capability just don’t reach my greatness threshold.

Semi-credible because the radar doesn’t match missile in terms of range, making the level of CMS integration suspect.

Just like the NSM ‘integration.’ Both are band-aids.

15+ years after the classes first-commissioned.

And as for a real naval war, I and others hope that ships of either LCS class are nowhere near combat, as their limited redundancy, aluminum construction, & understrength crew will be liabilities if hit.
 
Maskoki said:
To each his own.

US Navy warships that must foul the flight deck to mount a semi-credible air defense capability just don’t reach my greatness threshold.

Semi-credible because the radar doesn’t match missile in terms of range, making the level of CMS integration suspect.

Just like the NSM ‘integration.’ Both are band-aids.

15+ years after the classes first-commissioned.

And as for a real naval war, I and others hope that ships of either LCS class are nowhere near combat, as their limited redundancy, aluminum construction, & understrength crew will be liabilities if hit.
Click to expand...
…
1. Sea giraffe has a range of several hundred miles.
2. The new radars replacing sea giraffe are even better
3. They’re not air defense ships, AAW is not their mission
4. Even if their radars were absolute trash not a big deal because data link is a thing, and has been for decades.

NSM integration is just replacement of harpoon missiles that they were originally planned to use decades before NSM was remotely ready.

You and others have no clue what you’re talking about.
 
Maskoki said:
And as for a real naval war, I and others hope that ships of either LCS class are nowhere near combat, as their limited redundancy, aluminum construction, & understrength crew will be liabilities if hit.
Click to expand...
There are different naval wars, and there are different missions in those naval wars. Naval combat is a big thing.
Naval warfare is logistics and bases 90% of time, not high sea action.

I don't think you really want a Burke in strait of Hormuz. Or, in near future, in many other congested narrows, as Ukraine paves a way for countries other than Iran to choke off something.
Nor a Burke is a good tool to rush time-critical supplies in Island chains. No speed, no volume.
Nor Burke is a minesweeper.
Etc etc.
 
Firefinder said:
The USS Coronado tested it out before the navy switch to NSM in like 2016.
Click to expand...
On the subject of testing, Coronado tested NSM on September 23, 2014, predating Coronado testing Harpoon on October 16 2016 by more than two years.

Loading…

news.usni.org
The contract for LCS Over-The-Horizon (OTH) missiles was awarded in May 2018 to Raytheon/Kongsberg:

Loading…

news.usni.org
The companies announced they would pair together to compete for new U.S. anti-ship missile contracts in 2015. In 2016 Raytheon and Kongsberg agreed to assemble and test the Norwegian missile’s components in Raytheon’s Tucson, Ariz. facility and the launchers at Raytheon’s plant in Louisville, Ky.


The award to the Raytheon-Kongsberg team comes as little surprise as the Naval Strike Missile was the only competitor for the OTH contract. The Boeing Harpoon Block II Plus and the Lockheed Martin Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) were both withdrawn by their respective companies from the competition last year. Both Boeing and Lockheed complained that Navy requirements for the OTH missiles did not value the networking capability of their offerings, several sources confirmed to USNI News.


The OTH program for LCS emerged in tandem with the U.S. surface navy’s distributed lethality push in 2015.
Click to expand...
 
Firefinder said:
Umm Yes it was...

The USS Coronado tested it out before the navy switch to NSM in like 2016.

Even shot a few for Rimpac. Hell theres pictures and planning docs in this thread!
Click to expand...

Ok, let me rephrase. LCS was not intended to get Harpoon when it was designed.
 
Arjen said:
On the subject of testing, Coronado tested NSM on September 23, 2014, predating Coronado testing Harpoon on October 16 2016 by more than two years.

Loading…

news.usni.org
The contract for LCS Over-The-Horizon (OTH) missiles was awarded in May 2018 to Raytheon/Kongsberg:

Loading…

news.usni.org
Click to expand...
That was a general test of ‘do we want these missiles’ hence why they were launched from the flight deck.

Not really the same thing
 
Yet a contract for NSM for use on LCS was signed, not for Harpoon on LCS. For use on LCS, NSM is not a replacement for Harpoon.
When the USN was finally ready to put OTH missiles on LCS, NSM got the nod.
 
Last edited:
TomS said:
Let me again clarify. LCS as designed and built was not intended to carry Harpoon or any other OTH anti-ship missile. That Coronado test came a full decade after the first LCS was launched.
Click to expand...
I mean it was.
You don’t just bolt these launchers on and they’re fired via wifi or Bluetooth.
There’s basically a plug that has to be in place, which means it was part of the design.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
I mean it was.
You don’t just bolt these launchers on and they’re fired via wifi or Bluetooth.
There’s basically a plug that has to be in place, which means it was part of the design.
Click to expand...

No, it was not. The Coronado fit was a lash-up. The cables were literally gaffer taped to the deck. Look how they run to port from the launcher and then along the deck edge.

1738453882985.jpeg
 
This seems like a bit of a semantic argument. The trimarans are getting NSM and they do have a uniquely large landing area. I didn’t realize the fire scouted were going away, but I hope that means two MH-60s are employ instead.

I think it would be hard to qualify the LCS as anything but a failure whose costs the USN is trying to recoup, especially after Congress seemed to extend production further than even the USN wanted. The high speed requirement in particular seemed incredibly ill conceived and unjustified. But perhaps good use can still be made of some of them.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
I mean it was.
You don’t just bolt these launchers on and they’re fired via wifi or Bluetooth.
There’s basically a plug that has to be in place, which means it was part of the design.
Click to expand...
The LCS were designed with a joint Army/Navy OTH ASHM in-mind called NLOS-LS, which the Army canceled in 2010, leaving the Navy to start its search for an anti-shipping missile anew. One of the many problems with the Navy’s revolutionary (vs evolutionary) approach.

Unfortunately, both LCS classes were so well-designed & constructed that 6 years elapsed (spent on serial LCS-1 combining gear failures, 57mm & 30mm fire control inaccuracy [both classes], LCS-2 TBEC USV-mishandling & aft mission deck stanchion cracks, ship max speed and cruise range test failures [both classes], & MCM RMV failure /cancellation, among others) before the Navy could test the Harpoon on LCS-4 Coronado (2016), 7 years (2017) before LCS-7 Detroit could test the Hellfire, and 9 years (2019) before LCS-10 Giffords could test NSM. But…the LCS is great.

I know you know, since you’ve told everyone that I don’t know what I’m talking about, but mounting & using NSM involves more than just a plug or even cabling/services. Earlier in this thread I alluded to semi-integration of SM-6 / Mk.70 being a risk. Similar full CMS integration was required for NSM, which is likely why it has taken so long to evolve from Giffords’ NSM test-fire to regular live ordnance deployments.
 
Last edited:
Ah, duct tape, is there anything it can't do?

So, the USN has these ships and they're seeking a purpose and trying to make them more useful, even as we debate and ponder what sort of combat the USN might engage in over the next decade.
 
JoeCalPo said:
Ah, duct tape, is there anything it can't do?

So, the USN has these ships and they're seeking a purpose and trying to make them more useful, even as we debate and ponder what sort of combat the USN might engage in over the next decade.
Click to expand...
They have purpose, and missions…it’s not that hard to understand as it’s pretty straight forward… the missions have been set for decades. MCM and ASuW are their primary missions. MIO, FONOPs, show the flag are their peace time missions.

What’s the hang up?
 
Are any of the mission modules deployed besides ASuW? I thought almost every piece of the MCM got cancelled.
 
Josh_TN said:
Are any of the mission modules deployed besides ASuW? I thought almost every piece of the MCM got cancelled.
Click to expand...

MCM has been redesigned/rehosted but is being deployed.

www.navsea.navy.mil

U.S. Navy Announces First Mine Countermeasures Mission Package Embarked on USS Canberra

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Navy embarked the first Mine Countermeasures Mission Package (MCM MP) aboard USS Canberra (LCS 30), April 18, service officials announced. With the MCM mission package now
www.navsea.navy.mil

Embarked with the MCM mission package, an LCS or a vessel of opportunity can conduct the full spectrum of detect-to-engage operations (hunt, neutralize and sweep) against mine threats using sensors and weapons deployed from the MCM Unmanned Surface Vehicle (USV), an MH-60S multi-mission helicopter and associated support equipment.
Click to expand...

ASW was of course scrapped as unworkable given how loud the LCS platforms are.
 
TomS said:
MCM has been redesigned/rehosted but is being deployed.

www.navsea.navy.mil

U.S. Navy Announces First Mine Countermeasures Mission Package Embarked on USS Canberra

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Navy embarked the first Mine Countermeasures Mission Package (MCM MP) aboard USS Canberra (LCS 30), April 18, service officials announced. With the MCM mission package now
www.navsea.navy.mil



ASW was of course scrapped as unworkable given how loud the LCS platforms are.
Click to expand...
ASW was scrapped for a few more reasons it’s not that simple.

Going slow which is how ships do ASW, they’re not that loud.
The real issue is that for some reason a sonar meant for deep water was used.

Now look at the constellation class…what’s its primary purpose for existing? Blue water ASW. There was also concern a blue water sonar on LCSes could step on the toes of the constellation class and put that program in danger. After all, why spend $1b+ on a blue water ASW ship if we already have some that can do it, and a mature design to build if we need more?
But also with a dedicated high end ASW class of ships coming in, why tie up any more LCSes doing that role?

That being said the sonar systems used for MCM can in a pinch provide some ASW awareness, but that’s really not what you want to see happening.

As you can see the plan was for both ships to use the same sonar.

www.defensenews.com

US Navy to terminate DART sonar development with Raytheon

The Navy will end its work with Raytheon Technologies developing a sonar for littoral combat ships and the frigates, and the service will instead buy a sonar already in use by several navies around the globe.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
 
Last edited:
As I understand it, The tow sonar array module, or at least its tech, is being used.

Its just not an LCS only set up.

But a deal you can drop on ANY ship like say a San An and get more then decent sonar performances out off.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
ASW was scrapped for a few more reasons it’s not that simple.

Going slow which is how ships do ASW, they’re not that loud.
The real issue is that for some reason a sonar meant for deep water was used.
Click to expand...

The deep water sonar was adopted because the goal shifted from doing shallow water ASW to blue water. The ships are capable of blue water ops, but they have too much self-noise to do ASW there. The direct quote from Admiral Gilday is that they are "as loud as an aircraft carrier."

www.navalnews.com

Admiral Gilday Explains LCS ASW and MCM Module Decisions - Naval News

U.S. Navy Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Michael Gilday at the CSIS webinar held on April 28, 2022 answered a question posed by Naval News on the status of the ASW and MCM Mission Modules for the LCS.
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com
 
Firefinder said:
As I understand it, The tow sonar array module, or at least its tech, is being used.

Its just not an LCS only set up.

But a deal you can drop on ANY ship like say a San An and get more then decent sonar performances out off.
Click to expand...

Are you talking the MCM gear or ASW gear?

For MCM, sure, they can use craft of opportunity as well as LCS, as long as they have a suitable launching crane.

For ASW, commercial vessels are going to be far too loud.
 
TomS said:
Are you talking the MCM gear or ASW gear?

For MCM, sure, they can use craft of opportunity as well as LCS, as long as they have a suitable launching crane.

For ASW, commercial vessels are going to be far too loud.
Click to expand...
I’m talking MCM sonar can be employed in an extremely limited role for detection of underwater threats other than mines.
 
TomS said:
Are you talking the MCM gear or ASW gear?

For MCM, sure, they can use craft of opportunity as well as LCS, as long as they have a suitable launching crane.

For ASW, commercial vessels are going to be far too loud.
Click to expand...
ASW gear. And Im pretty use it being use on military vessel only unless they feel the need to give a Mearsk the knowledge of how to dodge torps.


Which can be useful since it is a tow array and those are far less effected by self noise over hull mounted ones.
 
TomS said:
The deep water sonar was adopted because the goal shifted from doing shallow water ASW to blue water. The ships are capable of blue water ops, but they have too much self-noise to do ASW there. The direct quote from Admiral Gilday is that they are "as loud as an aircraft carrier."

www.navalnews.com

Admiral Gilday Explains LCS ASW and MCM Module Decisions - Naval News

U.S. Navy Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Michael Gilday at the CSIS webinar held on April 28, 2022 answered a question posed by Naval News on the status of the ASW and MCM Mission Modules for the LCS.
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com
Click to expand...
Funny, carriers are quieter than Ticos or Burkes...
 
I cannot imagine four 25’ wide propellers are hard to listen for, even if the turbine noise is somehow rafted or cancelled. And transients from air operations must be stark. Not buying this one.
 
Josh_TN said:
I cannot imagine four 25’ wide propellers are hard to listen for, even if the turbine noise is somehow rafted or cancelled. And transients from air operations must be stark. Not buying this one.
Click to expand...
disbelieve it all you want. GTs make a lot more trackable noise than nuke steam.
 
Scott Kenny said:
disbelieve it all you want. GTs make a lot more trackable noise than nuke steam.
Click to expand...
Well, propellers aside, aren't GTs combustion engines? And steam boilers, well, just boil. I bet marine diesel popping off gives off more noise than an oversized kettle.
 
yeetmahboi said:
Well, propellers aside, aren't GTs combustion engines? And steam boilers, well, just boil. I bet marine diesel popping off gives off more noise than an oversized kettle.
Click to expand...
Yes, diesels are the loudest, then GTs, and finally the various boilers.

The trick is that the highest pitch sounds carry the shortest distance through the water.
 
Frequency and tonality matter…but on the other hand nukes still use turbines, and plant noise is only one type of self generated noise. Also radiated noise also involves whatever steps are taken to mitigate the noise…rafting, cancelation, PRARIE/MASKER, etc.

A CvN being less of sonar target is still a hard sell. Perhaps it is CV less easy to immediately identify compared to an LM 2500, but even that seems like a stretch - there are not a lot of four screw platforms out there and launch/recovery transients have to a LM incredibly unique sound.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom