Lockheed LCS Offensive Surface to Surface Missile System

Interesting that the only capability being touted is to engage fast-attack craft. There is no mention of suppressing shore based weapons or other support roles.
 
I'd guess this is a Javelin derivative. LM recently demonstrated Javelin launched from the Chemring Centurion trainable countermeasurers launcher, so this would be a logical extension. Also, Javelin is in the same basic performance class as the Grifon missile the Navy tapped as the interim LCS anti-small boat armament.

If so, that would explain why the target set is so limited -- Javelin has only been demonstrated out to about 5 km. No one would want to get that close to shore in an LCS.
 
Oh, dear god I'm an idiot -- it says Raytheon right on the link. Javelin is made by a Raytheon/Lockheed Joint Venture, so that must be why I was thinking of this Javelin demo as a Lockheed effort.

Yes, the weapon in this video does look like Longbow (basically a millimeter-wave Hellfire, the US counterpart to Brimstone.) The fact that Hellfire is also talked up in the video as armament for the UAV could support that. And they did just demonstrate this for naval applications as well.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2014/january/mfc-011414-longbow-missiles-demonstrate-littoral-attack-capability.html
 
dedicating valuable hull VLS space to something as small as Hellfire when one might be called upon to fight real combatants cruises etc. at real ranges seems beyond shortsighted.
 
Kongsberg proposed their Naval Strike Missile (NSM), a derivative Joint Strike Missile (JSM), for the LCS last summer according to Jane's.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,6234.msg194513.html#msg194513

index.php


index.php
 
I posted these questions back in December, which were ignored in the "Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence" topic:

Triton said:
Would the Navy be better off buying the Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII) Patrol Frigate based on the National Security Cutter?

Northrop Grumman International Frigate
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,10964.0.html

What about building the remaining Independence-class and Freedom-class ships to their Multi-Mission Combatant (MMC) export configurations?

General Dynamics MMC
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,14174.0.html

Lockheed Martin MMC
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,17179.0.html

From Wikipedia:

Huntington Ingalls Industries has proposed two "patrol frigates" for naval use, based on the NSC hull. Patrol Frigate 4501 is very similar to the NSC, the main differences being a modified stern ramp[21] and a knuckleboom crane replacing the overhead crane.[22] The crew is increased to 148,[21] and it was offered to the US Navy as a replacement for the Littoral Combat Ship;[22] the FY13 cost of an LCS was $446.3m compared to $735m for an NSC.[23]

Patrol Frigate 4921 is a more radical redesign with a crew of 141,[21] adding weapons and sensors at the expense of reducing range from 12,000 nautical miles (22,000 km) to 8,000 nautical miles (15,000 km).[22] It adds a 12-cell Mk56 VLS launcher for ESSM air-defense missiles, just behind the main gun which is upgraded from 57mm to a 76 mm Super Rapid.[21] Two quad launchers for Harpoon (missile) anti-ship missiles and a triple launcher for torpedoes are added to the stern.[22] It retains the SeaRAM/Phalanx CIWS and 6 machine guns of other NSC variants.[21] The stern is closed in and houses a towed-array sonar;[22] there is a hull sonar for mine countermeasures and an ESM suite.[22] The original "National Patrol Frigate" concept had an AN/SPY-1F air-defense radar[24] but by 2012 the PF4921 was being shown with an Australian CEAFAR radar.[21] This coincided with HII promoting an NSC variant for the Royal Australian Navy's upcoming Offshore Combatant Vessel project.[25] Brazil, Saudi Arabia and Germany have also shown interest in NSC derivatives.[21]

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Cutter

Would the United States Navy buy a frigate based on a United States Coast Guard design?

There is also the Gibbs & Cox Light Frigate proposal, which I am still looking for details:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,14608.0.html
 
jsport said:
dedicating valuable hull VLS space to something as small as Hellfire when one might be called upon to fight real combatants cruises etc. at real ranges seems beyond shortsighted.

Given how LCS is designed, you aren't "giving up hull VLS space" because there's no such thing. This would fit in the mission module spaces. which are too small for full-sized VLS in any case.
 
..wondered why what appeared to be VLS appeared in the vid as mission modules were never to be large enough for VLS and never read they were included. More deception. The anti-LCS crowd rightly argues against LCS for its inability for open sea combat for this very reason.
It would appear fuel wasteful to vertically launch Hellfires as they have limited range against longer range sea targets in the first place. Countering swarm w/direct fire guns as are already outfitted seems better solution. Rules of engagement might prevent the use of missiles when one doesn't have absolute intent before firing. Hellfires on horizontal trajectory might then make sense but the magazine could be quickly expended.. Resource might better be spent on countering swallow water torpedoes.
 
The nice thing about Longbow would be that you can ripple fire them and engage multiple targets at once, rather than just one at a time as with a gun.
 
TomS said:
The nice thing about Longbow would be that you can ripple fire them and engage multiple targets at once, rather than just one at a time as with a gun.
Wouldn't say Joint Common Missile (JCM) or whatever replaces Hellfire doesn't have role in the Littorals.. it just can't be counted on as the primary multiple threat type counter- swarm weapon exclusively. Whether multi simultaneous engagement deters an attack is always in question especially w/ remoting technology..
 
Here were some thoughts I had for Up-Gunning the LCS with the least impact on space available.

587a1df2.jpg
 
I wonder how useful (if they still had them) the ability to swap out RAM missiles for LOSATS in the same launcher would be.
 
sferrin said:
I wonder how useful (if they still had them) the ability to swap out RAM missiles for LOSATS in the same launcher would be.

Probably couldn't work -- LOSAT's Kinetic Energy Missiles were much bigger, about 6.4 inches in diameter. RAM is around 5 inches, plus a little windage for the folded up fins. They fit a Griffin in the same launcher at 5.5 inches diameter, but that's got to be about the limit.
 
LOSAT is also laser guided which precludes OTH and multi-target engagements.
 
TomS said:
sferrin said:
I wonder how useful (if they still had them) the ability to swap out RAM missiles for LOSATS in the same launcher would be.

Probably couldn't work -- LOSAT's Kinetic Energy Missiles were much bigger, about 6.4 inches in diameter. RAM is around 5 inches, plus a little windage for the folded up fins. They fit a Griffin in the same launcher at 5.5 inches diameter, but that's got to be about the limit.
A bit off-topic but do you know what the diameter of RAM Block 2 is? (Looks bigger than RAM and I know the round count goes down with that thing.)
 
The Navy's Fact File says 6.25-inches but other sources say 5.75-inches for the diameter of the rocket motor. That could be a difference in measuring the body diamter versus the overall diameter of the stowed missile with fins folded.

I've not heard about any changes of capacity in the launcher. If there are, it might be more of a weight issue--maybe they have to download the launcher to keep the moving mass within certain limits. No idea for sure.
 
TomS said:
The Navy's Fact File says 6.25-inches but other sources say 5.75-inches for the diameter of the rocket motor. That could be a difference in measuring the body iamter versus the overall diameter of the stowed missile with fins folded.

I've not heard about any changes of capacity in the launcher. If there are, it might be more of a weight issue--maybe they have to download the launcher to keep the moving mass within certain limits. No idea for sure.

The DL is definitely due to weight. I was just wondering if you knew the new dia. as I hadn't seen that anywhere.
 
Makes sense that it's weight driven. If they were to go ahead and mix in Griffin as a low-cost anti-boat supplemental weapon, they might be able to fill up the empty cells without getting tooo heavy (Griffon is very light compared to RAM).
 
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2016/05/17/US-Navy-tests-Raytheons-SeaRAM-system/1571463507595/?spt=mps&or=1&sn=si
 
TomS said:
jsport said:
dedicating valuable hull VLS space to something as small as Hellfire when one might be called upon to fight real combatants cruises etc. at real ranges seems beyond shortsighted.

Given how LCS is designed, you aren't "giving up hull VLS space" because there's no such thing. This would fit in the mission module spaces. which are too small for full-sized VLS in any case.

The LCS was designed to hold a vertical launch system, but it was the the NLOS system, which is much, much smaller than the standard USN Mk41 VLS.

The space dedicated for NLOS was about 4.8m x 4.25m x 2.5m, 7.5 tonnes, and was designed to hold three NLOS Container Launcher Units (CLU) for a total of 45 missiles. A vertical launch Hellfire is in the same size category as the planned NLOS, so should fit into the same space.

By way of contrast, the Mk 41 is anywhere from 5.3m to 7.7m tall (so 2-3 times as tall as the LCS space) and an empty 8 round launcher weighs between 12 and 14.5 tonnes.
 
Would the MML (Multi Mission Launcher) not be a nice replacement for NLOS on LCS?
Seems to be a quite flexible system load out wise. Not sure if it is suited for naval applications.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom