Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence

[Triton]

That's the version they tried to sell to Israel.

It does look like one of the concepts for LCS-Israel.

"Lockheed Martin LCS-I"
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,8848.0.html

 

[bring_it_on]

Ready, Set, Go! Navy Gives Industry 21 Days For LCS Alternatives

http://breakingdefense.com/2014/04/ready-set-go-navy-gives-industry-21-days-to-propose-alternatives-to-lcs/

 

[pathology_doc]

There is a steady creep up in size and equipment in the YT image to what might as well be labelled an AEGIS destroyer. That which by any other name... (aka the "Through-deck cruiser" dodge).

 

[Triton]

I also wonder if the United States Navy is looking at the Gibbs & Cox light frigate from 2011:

The new ship concept calls for a vessel with a crew of 75 to 110, which is far smaller than the 180-200 people who operate the Perry-class frigates. The ship would have a range of roughly 7,000 miles, and a draft of about 20 feet, meaning that it could get into shallower water than existing frigates, but not quite as shallow as the Navy’s new and troubled littoral combat ship. The company has yet to release a drawing of the concept ship, or say how much it might cost to build.

Source:
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2011/Jul/27/top-architect-proposes-new-type-frigate-navy/

 

[TomS]

There is a steady creep up in size and equipment in the YT image to what might as well be labelled an AEGIS destroyer. That which by any other name... (aka the "Through-deck cruiser" dodge).

The radar on that larger version is SPY-1F, so nowhere close to AEGIS destroyer performance levels.

 

[donnage99]

What's the price tag of LCS now? Upper 400 - 500 million range? That's the price tag of a upper multirole frigate class in the international market equipped with better radar, torpedo tubes, harpoon missiles, and VLS and a hull that can continue to fight after damage (no need for modular swappable payloads with that amount of money, as you can buy all of those missions installed in one ship in Europe). The only thing that the LCS has is speed, which it will need to run away the moment it detect something bigger than a pirate speedboat.

 

[Moose]

What's the price tag of LCS now? Upper 400 - 500 million range? That's the price tag of a upper multirole frigate class in the international market equipped with better radar, torpedo tubes, harpoon missiles, and VLS and a hull that can continue to fight after damage (no need for modular swappable payloads with that amount of money, as you can buy all of those missions installed in one ship in Europe). The only thing that the LCS has is speed, which it will need to run away the moment it detect something bigger than a pirate speedboat.

Without mission module, sail-away cost is around $450 million in 2014 Dollars, the full price depends on which module is onboard. An "upper multirole frigate class" defends on how you define some things. The last F100 cost more than $1.1 billion in 2010 Euros, a FREMM costs more than $800 million in 2012 Euros. Project 17A is aiming for $670 million each, though it's a long way from the water yet. That's just "advertised" price, detailed study usually find the real costs to be much higher. Most international frigates are not multi-role, and most are not built to any higher survivability standard than LCS. That said, sure LCS has all sorts of problems stemming from questionable decision-making, and I'm hopeful the small combatant study takes an honest look at the situation and finds the right solutions.

 

[Triton]

Perhaps what LCS should have been?

Source:
http://cimsec.org/strength-in-numbers-the-remarkable-potential-of-really-small-combatants/

 

[SpudmanWP]

lack of hanger, module space, and range.

 

[donnage99]

Perhaps what LCS should have been?

Source:
http://cimsec.org/strength-in-numbers-the-remarkable-potential-of-really-small-combatants/

They did pitch a larger version of this during the LCS competition. It lost. That being said, this ship program is racked with its own problems as well.

 

[Triton]

"Norway's Naval Strike Missile to get LCS test"
Jul. 28, 2014 - 12:41PM |
By CHRISTOPHER P. CAVA

Source:
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140728/DEFREG02/307280010

WASHINGTON — This September, a US Navy littoral combat ship (LCS) will get underway on a missile range off Southern California and conduct test launches of the Naval Strike Missile (NSM), a Kongsberg-developed weapon already fielded aboard Norwegian warships and by Polish land-based coast defense forces.

The tests, confirmed last week by US Navy officials, will help determine whether the missile is adaptable to the LCS, and whether it is the sort of weapon in which the US should invest.

“The demonstration is not to integrate it into the ship but to launch it, and to explore the concept of operations for launching a missile that can go far from an LCS,” explained Capt. Michael Ladner, the Naval Sea System (NAVSEA) Command’s major program manager for surface ship weapons.

“Naval Strike Missile is an incredible missile,” he said, noting that a recent war game showed “NSM has a highly survivable, very advanced seeker, and it goes 100 miles.”

That range might not be optimal for LCS, which is not fitted with long-range fire control systems.

“If I can shoot 100 miles, but I can’t see a target at 100 miles, then that may or may not be the right missile for that ship,” Ladner explained. “If we can figure out how to solve the detect-to-engage sequence then that might be the right candidate.”

But, he added, “maybe the right answer is a shorter-range missile that goes closer to what the ship can detect organically. That is what the Navy is looking at to understand where we really want to go for this ship class.”

Kongsberg has been aggressively targeting the US Navy as a potential NSM customer. The LCS, initially planned to carry the Non-Line of Sight missile, has been without a missile system since the US Army canceled NLOS development in early 2010. The Navy recently decided to begin development work to adapt the proven Hellfire Longbow missile to shipboard use for the LCS.

The 13-foot-long NSM, in the 500-pound class of missile, is significantly larger than the Hellfire, in the 100-pound class. The smaller missile could essentially be a placeholder until a more effective weapon can be identified.

While there have been calls in the service to develop new surface-to-surface missiles, the Navy emphasized the upcoming NSM tests are not in response to a specific requirement.

“The planned September live-firing demonstration aboard USS Coronado (LCS 4) of the Naval Strike Missile under the Foreign Comparative Testing Program will test the ship’s feasibility to execute an increased anti-surface warfare role,” Lt. Kurt Larson, a NAVSEA Command spokesman, said in a statement.

“Additionally, it will provide insights into the weapon’s stated capabilities of increased range, survivability and lethality.

“While there is currently no requirement for this capability aboard LCS, we view the demonstration as an opportunity to test a possible future warfighting tool,” Larson added.

For now, the US Navy is not committing NSM to anything beyond the September tests.

“At this time, there are no further tests planned for the NSM or similar weapons,” Lt. Jackie Pau, a Navy spokesperson at the Pentagon, said.

Kongsberg, the Royal Norwegian Navy and NAVSEA’s Integrated Warfare Systems office are directly supporting the Coronado tests.

In addition to Kongsberg, other missile makers, including Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, have been working on potential weapons to arm the LCS. Lockheed makes the Hellfire, while Raytheon’s small Griffin missile was briefly considered, then dropped, as an interim weapon aboard LCS.

Ladner oversees development work on all three missile systems.

“We put the Griffin missile system on patrol coastal [PC] boats in the [Arabian] Gulf,” Ladner said. The weapon was declared operational on the PCs in March and, he added, “provides them some self-defense capability against fast attack craft, things like that. PCs are one area where we have done a lot of integration.”

Griffin, a lightweight weapon initially developed for special operations forces, in early 2011 was considered for use aboard LCS but the idea was dropped in favor of something with more firepower.

The Hellfire Longbow, a weapon used by Army and Navy helicopters, was chosen earlier this year for development for use aboard LCS.

“We wanted to take advantage of the fact that the Army has a whole bunch of Hellfire Longbows that have capability,” Ladner said. Integration into the LCS would “provide [the ships with] a little bit longer reach, interim capability or initial capability against surface craft, swarming boats. That is the program of record that I am supporting.”

Hellfire manufacturer Lockheed Martin is adapting the missile for seaborne use, but the effort is still in the early stages. One simple question has yet to be determined: What sort of launcher would be used?

The weapon was designed, Ladner said, to be launched off a rail on a helicopter. A ship launcher though, would likely use either a vertical-launch or inclined-launch attitude.

“It’s too early to decide if there’s a final decision,” he said. “There is engineering work right now to either modify what we used for Griffin on PCs, an angled fixed elevation launcher, or do we want to modify something else.”

He noted that the missile launcher space built in aboard each of the two LCS designs “is a cube. You put in an angled launcher and it limits the number of missiles you can put in at an angle, right? If you can put something in vertically launched, now you can increase the scope. Those are trades we are still working out.”

Another major factor to be considered is how the missile — which is usually aimed in the general direction of a target as it’s launched from a helicopter — acquires a target after being launched from a ship.

“In a helicopter configuration, typically the seeker can see the target before it launches,” Ladner explained. “In a vertical launch it is in a different attitude,” he said, essentially being launched blind.

“We have to capture the missile and make it stable during that egress and then tip over and make sure we get it pointed in the right direction so the seeker finds [the target] after launch,” he said.

Combat systems integration also is a major piece of the work. “There has to be a sensor on the ship that is going to see small targets,” he said. The information needs to feed “through the combat system to initialize the missile, to launch the missile and then get the missile pointed on the right range to control the missile.”

The Navy already is looking for a new surface-to-surface missile as a potential successor to Harpoon, although no formal requirements have been drawn up. Officials stressed that it is way too soon to determine if NSM fits the bill.

“The demonstration isn’t a test of LCS,” said Ladner. “It’s a test of the Naval Strike Missile being able to deploy from that ship out to a significant range.”

The results, he said, “allow us the opportunity to continue to look at other missile solutions depending on what the requirement is going to be.”

 

[ouroboros]

Perhaps what LCS should have been?

Source:
http://cimsec.org/strength-in-numbers-the-remarkable-potential-of-really-small-combatants/

They did pitch a larger version of this during the LCS competition. It lost. That being said, this ship program is racked with its own problems as well.

Wait, Visby had LCS levels of issues?

 

[Moose]

Perhaps what LCS should have been?

Source:
http://cimsec.org/strength-in-numbers-the-remarkable-potential-of-really-small-combatants/

They did pitch a larger version of this during the LCS competition. It lost. That being said, this ship program is racked with its own problems as well.

Wait, Visby had LCS levels of issues?

Different scale of program but yes Visby class has had a lot of problems. They look cool as hell but for about a decade about all they could do was navigate and fire the deck gun.

 

[bobbymike]

http://defensetech.org/2014/09/03/lockheed-offers-navy-new-lcs-variant/

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSf744dKWaQ#t=3564

 

[Creative]

https://www.facebook.com/SurfaceWarriors/photos/a.126278907607.103778.126238592607/10152765055452608/?type=1

(Sept. 23, 2014) - The crew of the littoral combat ship USS Coronado (LCS 4) successfully performed a live-fire demonstration of a Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile (NSM) during missile testing operations off the coast of Southern California, Sept. 23. During the test, the Norwegian-made Kongsberg NSM was launched from the deck of Coronado and scored a direct hit on its intended target, a Mobile Ship Target (MST). (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Zachary D. Bell/Released)

 

[Triton]

"Updated: Norwegian Missile Test On Littoral Combat Ship Successful"
By: Sam LaGrone
Published: September 24, 2014 8:44 AM
Updated: September 24, 2014 1:52 PM

Source:
http://news.usni.org/2014/09/24/navy-norwegian-missile-test-littoral-combat-ship-successful

A Tuesday test of the Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile on Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) USS Coronado (LCS-4) was deemed a success and could pave the way to expand the anti-surface weapons portfolio of U.S. Navy’s surface ships.

“We view this successful missile test as a possible future warfighting capability for the LCS program,” said Naval Surface Forces commander, Vice Adm. Thomas Rowden in a Tuesday statement.

However, the successful test might not mean the NSM could find its way onto the LCS or the SSC and the Navy’s follow-on Small Surface Combatant (SSC) anytime soon, according to Naval Sea System Command (NAVSEA).

“There is no linkage between the SSC taskforce and the NSM test. The findings of the Small Surface Combatant Task Force will be used to provide a Navy recommendation to the Secretary of Defense to procure a capable and lethal small surface combatant,” read a Wednesday NAVSEA statement to USNI News.

The missile was fired from a launcher positioned on Coronado’s flight deck at a mobile ship target at the ranges off of Port Hueneme.

The sea skimming and subsonic NSM has a range of about 100 nautical miles — greater than the Navy’s current Harpoon missile. The missile is also designed to evade radar.

According to Rowden, the modular design of LCS would make it possible to integrate new weapons onto the platform.

“This allows for the integration of weapons and sensors like the Kongsberg NSM technology as part of the LCS warfare suite,” he said.

The test was facilitated through the foreign competitive testing (FCT) program following a demonstration of the NSM at the Rim of Pacific 2014 exercise.

“Since 1980, the FCT program has helped the United States and allies reap substantial savings by avoiding research and development costs, lowering procurement costs, reducing risk for major acquisition programs and accelerating the fielding of equipment critical to the reading and safety of operating forces,” according to a release from Naval Surface Forces.

No other missiles are being evaluated by as part of the tests, according to NAVSEA.

Currently, the Surface Warfare (SuW) package of the LCS is oriented toward fighting an asymmetric swarm boat threat and full size naval threats.

The lack of firepower onboard both variants of LCS has been a lingering criticism of the program for years and, in part, informed the decision of the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) to instruct the Navy to take a second look at the LCS program.

The following is NAVSEA’s full Sept. 24, 2014 statement to USNI News:

There is no linkage between the SSC taskforce and the NSM test. The findings of the Small Surface Combatant Task Force will be used to provide a Navy recommendation to the SECDEF to procure a capable and lethal small surface combatant.

This is a separate and distinct action from the naval strike missile test which is part of the Navy’s process of continually exploring opportunities for improved capability and reliability across all programs. While there is currently no requirement for the naval strike missile, the Navy is interested in seeing the potential to execute an increased anti-surface warfare role on its ships.

The test is a demonstration of the ship’s potential to execute an increased surface warfare role in both quantity of firepower and in range. Additionally, the test will provide insights into the weapon’s stated capabilities of increased range and lethality.

No other missiles are being evaluated at this time.

 

[Creative]

Video of launch.

http://youtu.be/ZwXNOhtyyAQ

 

[bobbymike]

Launch of LCS USS Detroit last Saturday

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/10/190977-watch-6-5-million-pounds-combat-ready-freedom-take-place-world/

 

[bobbymike]

http://defensetech.org/2014/11/06/navy-plans-to-arm-lcs-with-long-range-surface-missile/

I vote for ATACMS

 

[TomS]

Navy developers plan to arm the service’s Littoral Combat Ship with a long-range surface-to-surface missile by 2020 to defend against fast attack craft, ships and patrol boats, service officials said.

ATACMS is singularly useless for such a task. I suspect NSM has this in the bag, unless Boeing has done a lot of very quiet work on their Joint Air-Breathing Multi-Role Missile.

 

[bobbymike]

Navy developers plan to arm the service’s Littoral Combat Ship with a long-range surface-to-surface missile by 2020 to defend against fast attack craft, ships and patrol boats, service officials said.

ATACMS is singularly useless for such a task. I suspect NSM has this in the bag, unless Boeing has done a lot of very quiet work on their Joint Air-Breathing Multi-Role Missile.

Bring back the BAT version plus for land attack against hard targets.

http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/atacms-bat.htm

 

[TomS]

LCS doesn't have a mission against hardened targets on land. It also doesn't need an antiship missile with a minimum range of 25 km or more (some sources say up to 100 km minimum). And it certainly doesn't need a missile weighing 1.5 tons (NSM is more like 400 kg).

 

[Triton]

Published on Dec 3, 2014

On Nov. 17, the U.S. Navy deployed its third Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), USS Fort Worth, on a 16-month journey to Southeast Asia. While deployed, the ship will visit ports, collaborate with international navies and expand LCS capabilities. USS Fort Worth, which has traveled more than 40,000 nautical miles already, is the second ship built by the Lockheed Martin-led industry team. The ship was delivered to the Navy in 2012, two months ahead of schedule.

http://youtu.be/Q55KUNZhn08

 

[Grey Havoc]

Via MilitaryPhotos.net: http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/ships/2015/01/15/lcs-navy-frigate/21801559/ :

 

[TomS]

Mabus is officially my hero!
I don't mind creating new ship designations, per se, but they should make sense within the existing framework. LCS as a hull designator didn't make sense. Neither does JHSV and the rest of those mentioned. Nice to see some tradition being reasserted.

 

[sferrin]

Mabus is officially my hero!
I don't mind creating new ship designations, per se, but they should make sense within the existing framework. LCS as a hull designator didn't make sense. Neither does JHSV and the rest of those mentioned. Nice to see some tradition being reasserted.

Now if it just had the firepower of a frigate. :'(

 

[TomS]

Lines up with the current FFGs....

The upgraded version looks well armed for surface actions. Could use an AAW upgrade, but the budget just won't stretch.

 

[covert_shores]

This is only 'traditional' in the recent sense surly. If he'd called it a sloop or destroyer escort that'd be traditional. USN tradition is full of types having esoteric acronym designations. APSS anyone? LCVP, LCPL...

 

[TomS]

That's not a fair comparison. Imagine if the F-22 had been designated the ATF-22 just because the program name was the Advanced Tactical Fighter.
That's basically what happened with LCS. The program name became a hull designation, directly, without regard for the mission-based designation scheme that was already in use. The initial L in LCS is confusing, since it is otherwise used only for amphibious ships and craft, which LCS is not. It should have always has a designation that clearly marked it as a surface combatant, and frigate is the closest logical match. If they wanted to differentiate the LCS from other frigate-like ships, they had the option of adding a modifier to the basic FF designator (L for Littoral or M for Multi-Mission, perhaps.)
LCVP and LCPL are perfectly consistent with the scheme that has been in use since the early 20th century -- LCxx for amphibious/landing craft). APSS is from an era where many amphibious ships had A designations (APA, AKA, APD). That was fixed in 1969, when all the amphibious ships became L types and A was reserved specifically for auxiliaries.

 

[Triton]

Did any one else read this news and think it was a load of BS?


"LCS Now Officially Called A Frigate"
By Christopher P. Cavas 11:18 a.m. EST January 15, 2015

Source:
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/ships/2015/01/15/lcs-navy-frigate/21801559/

WASHINGTON — Since its inception in 2001, the US Navy's Littoral Combat Ship program has been described as needed to replace the fleet's frigates, minesweepers and patrol ships. But the ship's place in the line of battle continues to be debated.

Navy Secretary Ray Mabus thinks one of the reasons the ship is misunderstood is the nontraditional LCS designator. He directed an effort to find a more traditional and appropriate designation for the LCS and several other recent ship types, such as the Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV), the Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) and the Afloat Forward Staging Base (AFSB).

The first of the types to be redesignated is the LCS.

"If it's like a frigate, why don't we call it a frigate?" he said Thursday morning to a roomful of surface warfare sailors at the Surface Navy Association's annual symposium just outside Washington.

"We are going to change the hull designation of the LCS class ships to FF," Mabus said, citing the traditional hull designation for frigates. "It will still be the same ship, the same program of record, just with an appropriate and traditional name."

Mabus has long been irked by the habit in recent years of applying program-like designations to ships, and LCS is an example. In the Navy's designation system, the first letter sometimes is the key to the overall role of the ship, and "L-class" ships are widely considered to be those involved in carrying Marines and their equipment for an amphibious assault. LCS is the sole exception — a ship the Navy counts as a surface combatant, not an amphibious lift ship.

"When I hear L, I think amphib," Mabus said. "And it's not an amphib. And I have to spend a good deal of my time explaining what littoral is."

Redesignating the ships as FF puts the ship squarely back in the surface combatant category, and is appropriate, since the Pentagon direction in developing the modified LCS was to make it more "frigate-like."

Navy sources said it was intended to designate only the modified LCS as frigates, but many of the upgrades intended for those ships are to be backfitted into earlier LCS hulls, blending the types. So in the end, the decision was made to make the change to the entire class.

Navy sources said a decision on what hull numbers the ships will carry has yet to be made. There are several possibilities — if the ships pick up with the frigate series, the next number available is FF 1099.

The fleet's last guided-missile frigates (FFGs) will be decommissioned in September, and the next number in that sequence is FFG 62. But unlike the Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates being phased out, the LCS doesn't carry an area air-defense missile such as the Standard missile — the basis for the "G" — so the FFG series isn't entirely appropriate.

The Navy also could decide not to change the hull numbers but simply change the designator — something that was done in the late 1970s when new Aegis guided-missile destroyers were redesignated as cruisers without changing the numbers.

Mabus said he would announce additional ship changes in coming weeks.

 

[Triton]

That's not a fair comparison. Imagine if the F-22 had been designated the ATF-22 just because the program name was the Advanced Tactical Fighter.
That's basically what happened with LCS. The program name became a hull designation, directly, without regard for the mission-based designation scheme that was already in use. The initial L in LCS is confusing, since it is otherwise used only for amphibious ships and craft, which LCS is not. It should have always has a designation that clearly marked it as a surface combatant, and frigate is the closest logical match. If they wanted to differentiate the LCS from other frigate-like ships, they had the option of adding a modifier to the basic FF designator (L for Littoral or M for Multi-Mission, perhaps.)
LCVP and LCPL are perfectly consistent with the scheme that has been in use since the early 20th century -- LCxx for amphibious/landing craft). APSS is from an era where many amphibious ships had A designations (APA, AKA, APD). That was fixed in 1969, when all the amphibious ships became L types and A was reserved specifically for auxiliaries.

I just feel that re-designating the LCS as a "fast frigate" is dishonest. Is this the ship that the Navy, and supporters of the Navy, mean when they talk about a new frigate class? LCS from the very beginning was designed for green-water warfare and through feature creep has steadily grown larger and larger. The whole mission modules idea was an expensive flop. So, Mabus is just trying to pull a fast one on us by re-labeling this speedboat killer and fast minesweeper as an FFG. Is this really a replacement for the Oliver Hazard Perry class? This is a patrol boat and mine counter measures ship, not a frigate. Call it a PMCM (Patrol/Mine Counter Measures) not an FFG.

 

[Triton]

Mabus is officially my hero!
I don't mind creating new ship designations, per se, but they should make sense within the existing framework. LCS as a hull designator didn't make sense. Neither does JHSV and the rest of those mentioned. Nice to see some tradition being reasserted.

Now if it just had the firepower of a frigate. :'(

Indeed, trade a misunderstanding for a deliberate falsehood.

 

[covert_shores]

So basically this kills any hope of a true OHP replacement?

Mind you OHP is so lightly armed in its final state it doesn't deserve the Frigate status itself.

 

[donnage99]

courtesy Creative for leading me to this site where I found a model of one of the losing proposal for LCS:

 

[TomS]

That's a Textron design, IIRC. I think it's from the Focussed-Mission High Speed Ship study that came before the actual LCS competition. The lack of a gun was a hallmark of FMHSS.

 

[Triton]

"LCS Independence Ships Out for MCM Package Test"
By: Sam LaGrone
February 3, 2015 6:39 PM

Source:
http://news.usni.org/2015/02/03/lcs-independence-ships-mcm-package-test

The test ship for the U.S. Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) mine countermeasure (MCM) mission package shipped out from Naval Station San Diego, Calif., last week.

USS Independence (LCS-2) is heading toward Naval Air Station Pensacola, Fla. for the major end-to-end evaluation of arguably the complicated mission package for the LCS program.

The test – set for this summer, Naval Sea Systems Command told USNI News – will be the most challenging test of the LCS concept to date.

The operational test and evaluation (IOT&E) will seek to prove four MCM distinct technologies in the first increment of the package –the MH-60S helicopter-deployed airborne laser mine detection system (ALMDS); the mine-killing airborne mine neutralization system (AMNS); the remote minehunting system (RMS), composed of the Lockheed Martin Remote Multi-Mission Vehicle (RMMV) and the Raytheon AQS-20A sonar.

“IOT&E is the event that will transition the mission package from testing to fleet use,” read a statement from the service.

A successful OPEVAL will prove out the Navy’s plan to replace its aging fleet of Avenger-class MCM ships that are among the oldest ships in the service.

In the voyage from California to Florida, Independence will transit Panama Canal and visit Cartagena, Columbia.

 

[Moose]

I guess Jackson is still not ready, otherwise she would seem the more logical testbed given that she's still on the Gulf Coast and wouldn't have to make the canal run.

 

[Triton]

"Northrop Grumman to Deliver Additional Mission Packages for US Navy Littoral Combat Ships"
February 3, 2015

Source:
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2386

Northrop Grumman Corporation has received a $21.6 million contract from the U.S. Navy for two additional Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) mission packages. As the mission package integrator, the company will deliver one mission package for surface warfare and one for mine countermeasures.

The capabilities contained in the various mission modules directly support the three LCS primary missions – surface warfare, mine countermeasures and antisubmarine warfare. Mission modules facilitate efficient modular mission package embarkation, mission package operations at-sea, and debarkation / logistics support.

"As the mission package integrator for LCS we are committed to meeting the demanding requirements of our warfighters, while providing supplier base stability and reducing cost to the Navy," said Doug Shaffer, director, electronic attack/maritime systems integration programs, Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems. "As more Littoral Combat Ships enter service, the U.S. Navy/Northrop Grumman team has stepped up to make sure the mission modules are available when needed to achieve initial operational capability (IOC)."

Northrop Grumman has delivered three mine countermeasures and three surface warfare mission modules for LCS. A fourth mine countermeasures mission module is in production and scheduled for delivery in 2015. The fourth and fifth surface warfare mission modules are also in production and scheduled for delivery in early 2015. Northrop Grumman performs the final integration work and completes delivery at the Mission Package Support Facility located at Naval Base Ventura County, Port Hueneme, Ca.

The capabilities contained in the various mission modules directly support the three LCS primary missions – surface warfare, mine countermeasures and antisubmarine warfare. Mission modules facilitate efficient modular mission package embarkation, mission package operations at-sea, and debarkation / logistics support.

GULF OF MEXICO (Jan. 7, 2012) The Remote Minehunting System (RMS) and an AN/AQS-20 mine hunting sonar are brought aboard the littoral combat ship USS Independence (LCS 2) during developmental testing of the mine warfare mission module package. (U.S. Navy photo by Ron Newsome/Released

 

[Triton]

Looks like we missed this article from August 22, 2014:

"U.S. Navy's LCS MCM Mission Package Takes another Step Toward Fleet Implementation"

Source:
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/year-2014-news/august-2014-navy-naval-forces-maritime-industry-technology-security-global-news/1957-us-navys-lcs-mcm-mission-package-takes-another-step-toward-fleet-implementation.html

The U.S. Navy Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama City hosted a two-week demonstration in July that verified Sailors' ability to conduct maintenance on the Littoral Combat Ship's Mine Countermeasure Mission Package without the assistance of civilian scientists or engineers.

The Littoral Combat Ship Mine Countermeasure Mission Package (LCS MCM MP) Sustainment Demonstration (S-Demo) puts the Navy a step closer to transitioning mine countermeasure mission modules to the fleet, offering Joint Force Commanders mine detection and neutralization capability that does not put ships at risk in minefields.
The LCS MCM mission package conducts its mine countermeasures operations through the employment of aviation assets and unmanned surface, semi-submersible, and submersible vehicles, equipped with an array of sensors and systems to detect, localize, neutralize, and sweep mines. These systems are designed to be employed while the LCS remains outside the mine threat area. Future mission package increments add capability, including beach zone mine detection, mine sweeping, near surface mine neutralization, and buried and surf zone mine detection.

LCS MCM MP Features:

Remote Minehunting Module
» AN/WLD-1(V) Remote Multi-Mission Vehicle (RMMV) (2)
» AQS-20A
» Cradle Pallet Assembly
» Capture Spine
» Support Containers

Near Surface Detection Module
» MH-60S Helicopter
» AN/AES-1 Airborne Laser Mine Detection System (ALMDS)
» Support Containers

Airborne Mine Neutralization Module
» MH-60S Helicopter
» AN/ASQ-235 Airborne Mine Neutralization Systems (AMNS)
» EX 64 neutralizers
» Support Containers

Coastal Mine Reconnaissance Module
» AN/DVS-1 Coastal Battlefield Reconnaissance and Analysis (COBRA) System
» MQ-8B Vertical Takeoff Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (VTUAV)
» Support Containers

Unmanned Mine Sweeping Module
» Unmanned Surface Vehicle (USV)
» Unmanned Surface Sweep System (USSS)
» Support Containers

Buried Mine Hunting Module
» Surface Mine Countermeasure Unmanned Underwater Vehicle (SMCM UUV) (Knifefish)
» Launch, handling and recovery equipment
» Support Containers

Mission Package Application Software (MPAS)
» Mission specific application software that support the MP in planning and executing the MCM missions
» Mine Warfare and Environmental Decision Aids Library (MEDAL)

The purpose of the S-Demo is to identify gaps in training, processes, and procedures to make sure gaps are minimized for future operations and support," said Michelle Parker, NSWC PCD S-Demonstration Test Team.

During the demonstration, Sailors assigned to operate and maintain the MCM package, the Littoral Combat Ship Squadron (LCSRON) Mission Package detachment, followed systems and processes in place to perform maintenance tasks on the deployable LCS mine countermeasures equipment, while civilian scientists and engineers collected data. The data gathered will help to improve maintenance processes Sailors will use while on deployment.

"It's our way of ensuring the requisite amount of technical rigor is in place to ensure program success, because at the end of the day we must provide a safe and effective solution to the Fleet," said Ed Stewart, NSWC Panama City Technical Director.

By better estimating the actual time required to perform corrective and preventative maintenance, the sailors have more accurate data when calculating the time necessary to clear a minefield or complete a specific tactic at sea.

"At some point during development, a system will go through what is called a Maintainability Demonstration (M-Demo)," said Peter Halvorson, Lead for Integrated Logistics Support at NSWC Panama City. "It is an event where failures are intentionally introduced into the system to see if trained Sailors can use the written repair procedures (technical manuals) to fix it. This proves out the quality of both training and technical documentation. We're taking this a step further for the LCS MCM MP. We are starting our event with the process leading up to the repair - who gets called, what forms/documentation are filed electronically to alert someone that there is a failure, etc."

Halvorson said a "reach back" process was added to the event, so that if trained Sailors are unable to fix the problem with the technical procedures provided, they are trained to "reach back" into the support infrastructure, typically the Mission Package Support Facility or an In-Service Engineering Agent, and ask for an extra level of expertise to help troubleshoot and fix the failed component.