Against China alone ?

There will be entire CBGs, subs, land base aircraft, space-based sensors, BAMS, etc in the AO at the same time. The LCS would also have it's own drones and other aviation assets in the air. Everyone would be sharing SA data and I doubt very much whether anyone could put together a "swarm" package without being detected & attacked in that environment.

Btw, data-linked off-board assets are not OTH sensors.
 
SpudmanWP said:
Against China alone, are you high?

There will be entire CBGs, subs, land base aircraft, space-based sensors, BAMS, etc in the AO at the same time. The LCS would also have it's own drones and other aviation assets in the air. Everyone would be sharing SA data and I doubt very much whether anyone could put together a "swarm" package without being detected & attacked in that environment.

Btw, data-linked off-board assets are not OTH sensors, try again.

As I have said, the CBGs are distancing themselves from littoral environment, thus the cancellation of the ddg-1000. They are being pushed out further into sea. The only littoral capable ships in the forseeable future is a fleet of LCS and 3 ddg-1000. As for OTH sensors, you simply now arguing for the sake of arguing I believe. Whether it gets OTH capability from offboard or onboard sensor suite, it doesn't matter. OTH describes a capacity, not a specific type of sensors.
 
While they may distance themselves from the litorals (they won't be that far away) , they will still maintain SA and have an influence in the area. Aircraft from the CVNs, SAMs from various ships, AShMs from various ships, Subs prowling the depths, etc will all still have an impact on the AO.

The LCS will never be alone in a fight vs China.

OTH methods matter a lot. If you cannot maintain an air presence, then your ability to prosecute the shot is severely diminished. Any drone you use is going to give off EM which can easily lead to it being detected, jammed, and shot down. Simply put, you keep moving the goal posts. We started by talking about potential LCS swarming OTH attacks to specific China & Off-board based attacks.
 
SpudmanWP said:
While they may distance themselves from the litorals (they won't be that far away) , they will still maintain SA and have an influence in the area. Aircraft from the CVNs, SAMs from various ships, AShMs from various ships, Subs prowling the depths, etc will all still have an impact on the AO.

The LCS will never be alone in a fight vs China.

OTH methods matter a lot. If you cannot maintain an air presence, then your ability to prosecute the shot is severely diminished. Any drone you use is going to give off EM which can easily lead to it being detected, jammed, and shot down. Simply put, you keep moving the goal posts. We started by talking about potential LCS swarming OTH attacks to specific China & Off-board based attacks.
1) I don't see how it's "moving the goal post." In order to evaluate the capability of LCS fullfill the mission of defending the larger ships with swarming attack craft, realistic scenarios must be visualized.

2) Anyway, back to the topic. Reality tells us that littoral environment is a capability gap in our navy combat forces. This was the whole incentive behind the birth of LCS. If the navy was already that competent at dealing with the littoral environment, the LCS would have never been born.

3) The claim that CBG is pushed out not too far from littoral zone is not congruent with reality. The CBG is pushed out far enough that the UCLASS requirements jump from a relatively limited uav to a ultra long range tomcat sized platform.

4) The typical argument "don't worry, the collective might of US force will overcome" is moot. The argument leads to a irrational conclusion that we simply do not need capable single platform, since our "system" as a whole is adequate. With this philosophy, why do we build f-22? The collective might of cruise missiles, electronic warfare can still neutralize enemy air defense network, right? This is too over simplistic of a view. The more heavily a platform relies on others in order to achieve the mission, the more limited the options it provide to the commanders. This is why we have the tradition of building platforms with terrifying offensive and defensive capability all on its own, even within the context of a network centric approach.
 
"Navy, Pentagon battle over LCS future"
Jan. 19, 2014 - 06:00AM |
by Christopher P. Cavas
Staff writer

Source:
http://www.navytimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2014301190019

WASHINGTON — The contentious question of how many littoral combat ships to build has been batted back and forth this year between the Navy’s top leadership and senior Pentagon leaders. By the end of the day on Jan. 17, a certain kind of standoff appears to have been reached, foregoing — for the moment — a final decision.

The result could be a compromise. Reportedly, LCS is being put on something of a probation: The buy would be limited to 26 or 28 ships — the exact number couldn’t be confirmed by press time — but the ship will need to pass evaluation by the Pentagon’s Office of the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) before further ship buys can proceed, according to multiple Pentagon sources, who stressed that no final decisions have been reached.

The first salvo of the year was fired Jan. 6 by Christine Fox, acting deputy defense secretary, when, in a classified memo, she directed the Navy to halt LCS production after 32 ships and begin development of a “more capable surface combatant.”

Navy officials have strenuously defended the service’s plan to build a total of 52 of the small, fast and adaptable ships. Three are in service, with a fourth set to join the fleet in April. Another 20 ships are under construction or on order.

Navy leaders fought back almost immediately. Service staff members argued with the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) to keep the status quo of 52 ships.

Fox is one of the key people within OSD urging a severe cutback of the LCS program, if not outright cancellation. She often questioned the combat effectiveness of the program in her previous position as director of the Pentagon’s Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation.

A Jan. 15 Defense News web story detailing the decision to cap the ships at 32 set off a renewed round of events inside the Pentagon last week. Navy Secretary Ray Mabus personally argued his case before Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Fox that evening, urging the program’s continuation, Pentagon sources confirmed.

A similar probation was issued in January 2011 by then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates regarding the F-35B version of the joint strike fighter. The probation was lifted in January 2012 — short of the two years Gates initially declared — after program performance improved.

Neither the Navy nor OSD would confirm an agreement by close of business on Jan. 17.

DOT&E routinely criticizes the LCS program, irked in particular by the Navy’s 2010 decision to take the first ship out of the normal testing cycle and instead send it to sea. As the first of a new ship class, the service was anxious to get underway time rather than keep it in a rigorous testing cycle.

The 2012 DOT&E report noted concerns about the ship’s survivability, writing that “it is not expected to maintain mission capability after taking a significant hit in a hostile combat environment.” There was no discussion of a comparable 3,200-ton ship that could meet that requirement, and DOT&E did not differentiate between the two LCS designs, which are considerably different.

Neither LCS design has undergone Navy survivability tests, which are performed on all new ship classes.
A New Approach?

If the LCS fails the tests, it is not clear what the next step would be. But whether the LCS is cut short or built out to 52 ships, the service already has been thinking about what a follow-on small combatant would look like.

Adm. Jonathan Greenert, chief of naval operations, routinely champions LCS, but already has directed the surface warfare community to begin thinking about a follow-on.

“We need to look and think about what the next small combatant is,” said Capt. Danny Hernandez, the CNO’s spokesman. “Regardless of what the number is going to be, there’s going to be something after LCS, and we need to look at our options. It’s also the prudent and responsible thing to do.”

One concept being thought about as an LCS alternative or follow-on has been a small frigate, able to defend several ships and provide escort services for merchant convoys, amphibious ships or support ships.

A capability gap already has been identified for an escort ship, said Bryan Clark, a naval analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington. Until last year, Clark also was a special assistant to Greenert, where he led the development of Navy strategy.

“The real need is for an escort to accompany convoys, logistic ships, even parts of the battle fleet. Analysis shows that as a gap. But LCS cannot provide air defense to ships it’s escorting — it only has self-defense,” Clark said.

“The Aegis destroyer is more than what is necessary for this mission. So this escort mission is one that cries out for a solution. That’s what a frigate can do,” he noted.

A frigate of about 4,100 tons, he said, would be a ship less capable than a 9,200-ton Aegis destroyer, but larger than the LCS.

“A frigate study would need to focus on designs that currently exist, that could be rapidly implemented at a US yard. And they’d probably include designs based on the LCS as well,” he said. “The study could include existing designs as well as starting from scratch. Foreign designs would be part of the mix — just as LCS is a derivative of foreign designs.”

Both LCS design teams, led by Lockheed Martin and Austal USA, have produced versions of their ships aimed at foreign sales, heavily loaded with permanently installed combat systems. Lockheed in particular is offering larger versions of its Freedom-class LCS, as well as smaller models.

“The Navy doesn’t really have an escort vessel that can do this mission. If you get into a large conflict you need to protect ships,” Clark said.

Key to that is effective anti-submarine warfare (ASW) and anti-air combat systems. The ASW mission package under development for LCS is getting early rave reviews from surface warfare officers, but the ships are too small to install Mark 41 vertical missile launchers needed for Standard anti-air missiles. An effective anti-air system also needs search and fire control radars, along with an expanded combat system.

“That’ll be the toughest part of the frigate study, trying to figure how to handle the air defense mission in a way that doesn’t involve the start of a new design,” Clark said.

Work on a new frigate is not being driven by OSD’s current efforts to cut back the LCS, Clark said, although it would provide a basis for a new ship should the LCS fail.

Work on future surface combat ships already is underway at the Pentagon by the director of surface warfare, and under the direction of the surface warfare commander in San Diego, but neither of those efforts is focused on a frigate. A new study, Clark said, would be aimed at a ship that could be developed within only a few years.

Regardless of the LCS debate, “this need was starting to emerge anyway,” he said.
 
http://navy-matters.blogspot.ie/2014/01/the-electronic-lcs.html#comment-form

Thoughts?
 
Specialist ELINT gear has been carried on various ships in van/container form for decades. If they aren't using LCS for this already, it's only a matter of time.
 
;D

Lockheed Martin-Led Team Lays Keel on Nation’s Eleventh Littoral Combat Ship

MARINETTE, Wis., Feb. 19, 2014 – The Lockheed Martin-led industry team officially laid the keel for the U.S. Navy’s eleventh Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), the future USS Sioux City, in a ceremony held at Marinette Marine Corporation.

The industry team is building Freedom-class LCSs for the U.S. Navy, and has delivered two ships with five others under construction and one soon to begin construction. The nation’s first LCS, USS Freedom, completed her deployment to Southeast Asia, during which she participated in multiple international maritime exercises, conducted patrols in the South China Sea and provided disaster relief for Operation Damayan. As USS Freedom proved, the ship class is addressing the Navy’s need for an affordable, highly-networked and modular ship unlike any other in the world. The platform is designed and outfitted with mission systems to conduct a variety of missions including anti-surface, mine and submarine warfare. The next LCS to deploy will be the Freedom-class USS Fort Worth (LCS 3) in 2014.

“We are proud to provide our Sailors with a proven warship that allows them to carry out their missions around the world,” said Dale P. Bennett, executive vice president of Lockheed Martin’s Mission Systems and Training business. “We are working in partnership with the Navy as they build a fleet able to operate forward, stand ready for any challenges, and serve our essential warfighting requirements.”

In keeping with a time-honored tradition, ship sponsor Mrs. Mary Winnefeld authenticated the keel block by having her initials welded.

“I'm both honored and delighted to be back in my home state of Wisconsin as the sponsor of the future USS Sioux City,” said Mrs. Winnefeld. “It's been a real privilege to meet the great Americans who are building this versatile ship, and I thank them in advance for their quality work. I look forward to meeting her crew soon, being part of her family, and bringing our ship to life when she's commissioned.”

The Lockheed Martin-led LCS team includes ship builder Marinette Marine Corporation, a Fincantieri company, naval architect Gibbs & Cox, as well as nearly 900 suppliers in 43 states, including approximately 30 small businesses in Wisconsin and Michigan.

Lay the keel is a shipbuilding term that marks the beginning of the module erection process, which is a significant undertaking that signifies the ship coming to life. Modern warships are now largely built in a series of pre-fabricated, complete hull sections rather than a single keel, so the actual start of the shipbuilding process is now considered to be when the first sheet of steel is cut and is often marked with a ceremonial event.
 

Attachments

  • LMLCS.jpg
    LMLCS.jpg
    152.1 KB · Views: 422
So I saw this 1:700 scale USS Coronado kit and something caught my attention. If you look halfway in the attached image you'll see "Optional Mk41 Launcher authentically reproduced". Was this an error on Dragon's part or an actual option for the Independence class? Because I don't ever recall hearing that it could take a 32 cell Mk 41 VLS in the forward mission slot.
 

Attachments

  • Dragon LCS-4 Coronado.jpg
    Dragon LCS-4 Coronado.jpg
    914.2 KB · Views: 377
It's been shown in the LCS-International or Multi-Mission Combatant version, which also tends to have a phased array radar like SPY-1F.
 
The Indepedence can handle a MK41 VLS, according to Austal. The USN has never required it. I'm skeptical on a full 32 cell pack, and certainly not strike length without a redesign, but the "sockets" for the modular weapon systems should be plenty capable.
 
And the LCS program sputters to an ignominious halt.

SecDef Hagel:

----

"Regarding the Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship, I am concerned that the Navy is relying too heavily on the LCS to achieve its long-term goals for ship numbers. Therefore, no new contract negotiations beyond 32 ships will go forward. With this decision, the LCS line will continue beyond our five-year budget plan with no interruptions.

The LCS was designed to perform certain missions – such as mine sweeping and anti-submarine warfare – in a relatively permissive environment. But we need to closely examine whether the LCS has the protection and firepower to survive against a more advanced military adversary and emerging new technologies, especially in the Asia Pacific. If we were to build out the LCS program to 52 ships, as previously planned, it would represent one-sixth of our future 300-ship Navy. Given continued fiscal constraints, we must direct shipbuilding resources toward platforms that can operate in every region and along the full spectrum of conflict.

Additionally, at my direction, the Navy will submit alternative proposals to procure a capable and lethal small surface combatant, consistent with the capabilities of a frigate. I’ve directed the Navy to consider a completely new design, existing ship designs, and a modified LCS. These proposals are due to me later this year in time to inform next year’s budget submission."
 
Can't say I'm sorry to see this. I thought the concept of a mission-adaptable ship had huge potential but I was never fully sold on the speed aspect. Sadly, however, the way LCS was run was so catastrophic it beggars belief.

I really hope they can preserve the better aspects of the concept (large hangar space and some interchangable modules) while putting in a more conventional combat system and more reasonable performance. Something akin to the Danish Absalom class might be the ticket.
 
They attached bridge wings to LCS-2. (Big Photos)

http://lostcoastoutpost.com/2014/jan/27/big-scary-looking-navy-ship-refueling-humboldt-bay/
 
Creative said:
They attached bridge wings to LCS-2. (Big Photos)

http://lostcoastoutpost.com/2014/jan/27/big-scary-looking-navy-ship-refueling-humboldt-bay/

I don't know why they don't use that big flat back end for VLS or would they not fit. Certain LCS's should have a large complement of anti-air and even land attack missiles, minimum a long range ATCMS IMHO.
 
The back deck is over the Mission Module bay and benieth that is the engine room.

gd_lcs_platform_cutaway_1k.jpg






They have proposed a Mk41 equipped LCS International Version

generaldynamicsmultimis_zpscfb7ca56.jpg
 
That "big flat back end" is known in the business as a helicopter flight deck. There's a general dislike of missile launchers poking up through the flight deck -- aviators get twitchy about things like that. So do damage control officers -- an aviation accident could dump burning fuel on the top of a missile tube. (The only exception I can think of is the Kuznesov carrier, which has missiles firing up though the flight deck. This has not been widely emulated.)
 
TomS said:
That "big flat back end" is known in the business as a helicopter flight deck. There's a general dislike of missile launchers poking up through the flight deck -- aviators get twitchy about things like that. So do damage control officers -- an aviation accident could dump burning fuel on the top of a missile tube. (The only exception I can think of is the Kuznesov carrier, which has missiles firing up though the flight deck. This has not been widely emulated.)

DDG-1000 has part of her flight deck bordered by PVLS cells.
 

Attachments

  • DDG 1000 Zumwalt Class_cutaway.jpg
    DDG 1000 Zumwalt Class_cutaway.jpg
    123.3 KB · Views: 459
Good point; I'd forgotten about the aft sections of the PVLS. Still, not quite the same, as they are outside the actual flight deck area. There isn't really room for that in the LCS, unless you shortened the available flight deck and eliminated the potential to land H-53s.
 
TomS said:
Good point; I'd forgotten about the aft sestions of the PVLS. Still, not quite the same, as they are outside the actual flight deck area. There isn't really room for that in the LCS, unless you shortened the available flight deck and eliminated the potential to land H-53s.

Sorry I should have been more specific the VLS would be on a mission specific platform designed from the start to host launch tubes from the back end it would no longer be used as a helicopter landing pad.
 
Remove the helo pad? Sounds like a terrible idea to me. The helicopter is generalyl the single most useful system on the ship.
 
TomS said:
Remove the helo pad? Sounds like a terrible idea to me. The helicopter is generalyl the single most useful system on the ship.

Trying to address the lack of firepower argument

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2014/03/06/bring_on_the_frigate_lcs_is_outgunned_outclassed_107124.html
 
Here is my idea of UpGunning the LCS without removing ANY internal volume. You can also still add the Harpoon forward of the bridge.

587a1df2.jpg
 
Wouldn't you need to raise the SeaRAM to clear the Millenium Guns?
 
Maybe a foot or so, but remember that the SeaRam fires at an upward angle anyways.

Besides, the Millennium guns are very low profile.

SeaRam is 4.7 meters tall and the Millennium Gun is only 1.9 meters, less than half the height.

image0301_zps7234126c.jpg
 
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/03/18/navy-memo-details-new-lcs-replacement-task-force/
 
http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a73aeca5d-1f6c-473d-8521-85e597604f02

..............The LCS, he says, could swing out from the group, nearly unobserved, and deliver a sneak attack with missiles that can hit a target 120 to 130 nautical miles away. There are missiles now, he says, available or in development, that the Navy is confident will work with the ships..........................


Any idea what these 120 nm missiles, some under development, might be?
 
Somethin is rather fishy. The ship isn't stealthy. Was never designed to be stealthy, so how does it sneak out nearly undetected is certainly a mystery to me. As for the 100ml missile - WHAT?? I can see how the ship can play a vital role as envisioned in these "wargames" but not the way it is now.
 
Is Rear Adm. Thomas Rowden referring to the Kongsberg proposal to fit a Naval Strike Missile (NSM) launcher to the LCS? NSM has a range of at least 185 km (100 nm).

index.php
 
He didn't say the missiles itself have the range, but the sneak attack? Maybe helicopter delivered Hellfires?
 
Racer said:
He didn't say the missiles itself have the range, but the sneak attack? Maybe helicopter delivered Hellfires?

With MISSILES that can hit a target 102 to 130......................

I think he is pretty clear. But the wargame can be construed as ship vs. ship or at the very least ship to shore against a sophisticated enemy. Why, he talks about the enemy knowing where the Carriers and Amphibs are in order to target them so you are probably taking about other Navies and/or countries with satellites.

I wouldn't want to try and fly a helicopter within 6km of a Chinese or Russia Naval strike group or near the Chinese shoreline.
 
Agreed that he's talking about a new missile for this ship.


The other one that jumps to mind is Boeing's Joint Air-Breathing Multi-role Missile, which was pitched as an LCS weapon.


http://defensetech.org/2012/01/18/boeings-new-missile-for-littoral-combat-ships/
 
TomS said:
Agreed that he's talking about a new missile for this ship.


The other one that jumps to mind is Boeing's Joint Air-Breathing Multi-role Missile, which was pitched as an LCS weapon.


http://defensetech.org/2012/01/18/boeings-new-missile-for-littoral-combat-ships/

Has any work been performed by Boeing on this missile beyond the concept stage?
 
Models of the LCS classes with Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile at Sea Air Space 2014 Expo.
 

Attachments

  • Independence Class Kongsberg Naval Strike 1.jpg
    Independence Class Kongsberg Naval Strike 1.jpg
    34.4 KB · Views: 534
  • Independence Class Kongsberg Naval Strike 2.JPG
    Independence Class Kongsberg Naval Strike 2.JPG
    88.5 KB · Views: 525
  • Independence Class Kongsberg Naval Strike 3.JPG
    Independence Class Kongsberg Naval Strike 3.JPG
    75.8 KB · Views: 524
  • Freedom Class Kongsberg Naval Strike 1.JPG
    Freedom Class Kongsberg Naval Strike 1.JPG
    83.7 KB · Views: 506
  • Freedom Class Kongsberg Naval Strike 2.JPG
    Freedom Class Kongsberg Naval Strike 2.JPG
    77.8 KB · Views: 504
http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.ie/2014/04/must-have-been-tiddledeewinks-of_7.html


EDIT: Meant to thank Creative for those photos as well.
 
Anyone heard of this particular export version of the freedom class? This is quite different from the export versions that we've seen so far. http://pds23.egloos.com/pds/201210/26/78/a0041278_508a13866131d.jpg
 

Attachments

  • a0041278_508a13866131d.jpg
    a0041278_508a13866131d.jpg
    81.3 KB · Views: 139
That's the version they tried to sell to Israel.
 
Published on Apr 25, 2014

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index....
Joe North, Vice President of Littoral Ships Systems at Lockheed Martin, presents the various versions of Freedom type Littoral Combat Ship during Sea-Air-Space 2014 exposition.

http://youtu.be/jcYPEd0vH30
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom