Littoral Combat Ships (LCS)

Regarding the CIWS I think the millenium gun would have been an even better choice. It's able to attack a wide variety of targets, including AShM, with a good caliber and has the AHEAD technology integrated.
However, I also don't see the point in putting a 11x RAM launcher there? Is the 21x that much more expensive?

Originally Posted by Scratch

Regarding the CIWS I think the millenium gun would have been an even better choice. It's able to attack a wide variety of targets, including AShM, with a good caliber and has the AHEAD technology integrated.
However, I also don't see the point in putting a 11x RAM launcher there? Is the 21x that much more expensive?

Even only 11 is better than none. But I agree...I believe it is the same box, just fewer missiles. I will have to look into it.

Originally Posted by adeptitus

I think LCS-2 use 11-cel SeaRAM instead of 21-cel RAM? I like the 20mm Phalanx addition but not the reduced number of rounds on the RAM launcher.

Now I have it.

The SEARAM is what we are seeing.

It is a single, self-contained unit, combining the missiles of the RAM (but only 11) with the self contained tracking and quick reaction (to engage multiple targets) of the Phalynx.

Here's some info:

The SEA RAM Anti-Ship Missile Defense System under development by RSC and RAMSYS is an evolved Close-In Weapon System (CIWS) comprising key attributes of both the existing Phalanx CIWS and the RAM Guided Missile Weapon System. SEA RAM is designed to extend the battle space of the CIWS and enable the ship to effectively engage multiple targets.

Leveraged technology from Phalanx and RAM integrates elements of each system into the self-contained SEA RAM System. An 11-missile round RAM guide assembly, loaded with RAM Block 1 guided missiles, replaces the 20 mm gun of Phalanx.

SEA RAM combines the superior accuracy, large intercept range and high maneuverability of RAM with the high resolution search-and-track sensor system and reliable quick response capability of Phalanx Block 1B.

And a pic.

If you look at the LCS-2 photo, the RAM launcher mounted in the back as the R2D2 style dome on top. Only SeaRAM has that. The regular RAM launcher with 21 rounds doesn't.




On LCS-2 they have 1 x SeaRAM and 1 x 20mm CIWS. On LCS-1 they have 1 x RAM.

The SeaRAM is an inexpensive plug-in option or Phalanx replacement/upgrade. But if you're building a ship from scratch, I'd think that you can do the proper system integration to use RAM instead of SeaRAM.

Here's an article on Malaysian navy regarding SeaRAM:
http://thestar.com.my/maritime/story...8&sec=maritime

“It is similar to the ‘plug and play’concept where we can install the vessel with the relevant hardware like surface-to-surface missile system, the Exocet MM40 and anti-aircraft missile system, the SEARAM.

“It will only take 24 hours to fix the hardware. This is because SEARAM fitting does not involve any extensive module projection from the deck.

“It only needs a perched missile launcher on the deck.

Im not a fan of the LCS apart from the huge cost overruns its under gunned and LCS2 is all Aluminum which would lethal if theres a fire.
Also the moudal are ill defined
lastly the 40kn requirement is absurd

Originally Posted by adeptitus

If you look at the LCS-2 photo, the RAM launcher mounted in the back as the R2D2 style dome on top. Only SeaRAM has that. The regular RAM launcher with 21 rounds doesn't.

See my post 21.

At first glance I thought there were two weapons system on the deck house there. As it turns out, there is only the one SEA RAM.

SEA RAM, with its own tracking and engagement capability, is something that puts less burden on the overall sensor suite when place in "God" or auto mode. Still, I agre e that a RAM installation with the necessary ship-borne sensors would be best.

sketch of FFG version with Mk41 VLS, 2 x 35mm CIWS

Originally Posted by planeman

sketch of FFG version with Mk41 VLS, 2 x 35mm CIWS

[qimg]http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/1165/lcsffgkq9.jpg[/qimg]

Nice sketch. But I believe that they will not sacrifice flight deck space. The parameters for the design call for, in several of the mission packages, large flight deck space for standard and unmanned helos for the types of operations envisioned.

Perhaps a international/export version dimilar to what you envision could be developed to meet needs more suited to a true FFG where such a design would be desirable.

I have some misgivings about the modular concept. You have ONE set of crewmen trained for the ship, and the do the work of maintenance, operation, DC for a half-dozen mission packs... granted the DC part would be relatively small, but we are still talking about giving a big subset of the crew different sorts of jobs to do. I think there may be problems with training and organisation. I'd be interested to see how this works out.

Originally Posted by Troika

I have some misgivings about the modular concept. You have ONE set of crewmen trained for the ship, and the do the work of maintenance, operation, DC for a half-dozen mission packs... granted the DC part would be relatively small, but we are still talking about giving a big subset of the crew different sorts of jobs to do. I think there may be problems with training and organisation. I'd be interested to see how this works out.

I believe it will work out fine. You have ASW, anti-mine, and anti-surface that will not be a problem because existing fire control and other techs on other vessels handle all of that now.

With the multi-mission tasking it's just that you will have the equipment/ordinance necessary for that poackage available on board as required (as opposed to it all being there all of the time) while the crew is trained to operate them all.

For the Spec Ops you will definiately bring in spec ops personnel, but the sea handfling and operations of the ship will remain the same.

My bigger concern is that they require a different package while out performing a different task. For example, they are taked with anti-surface but run up against enemy subs and need the anit-sub too. Something like that. They may end up going out in small task forces or flotillas where all the conceivably necessary needs are covered within the flotilla by different ships.

Originally Posted by Jeff Head

I believe it will work out fine. You have ASW, anti-mine, and anti-surface that will not be a problem because existing fire control and other techs on other vessels handle all of that now.

With the multi-mission tasking it's just that you will have the equipment/ordinance necessary for that poackage available on board as required (as opposed to it all being there all of the time) while the crew is trained to operate them all.

I am not so sure about that. Crew complement is a concern. An OHP has 170 crew, give or take. An LCS has, what? Half that? Each crewman will have to learn more, unless they have specific mission specialists for the combat package (which they seem to?). What do they do in the mean time? A big part of being a crewman is familiarising yourself with the ship, being on it, technical expertise is only half the battle.

I am sure the problem is not insurmountable, and somebody'd thought of that before, but this, more than anything else, is what I consider might be bigger problem. Ships are just toys, software's the thing.

Originally Posted by Jeff Head

My bigger concern is that they require a different package while out performing a different task. For example, they are taked with anti-surface but run up against enemy subs and need the anit-sub too. Something like that. They may end up going out in small task forces or flotillas where all the conceivably necessary needs are covered within the flotilla by different ships.

I think that'll definitely be one of the possible solutions, they operate in flotillas of four ships, maybe, and fit out their kit according to mission profile. That'd be what give them an edge over larger generalist ships, you get more bang for your buck, cutting away the redundant capabilities but still having exactly what you need to do the job, on a smaller and faster platform.

Originally Posted by Troika

I am not so sure about that. Crew complement is a concern. An OHP has 170 crew, give or take. An LCS has, what? Half that? Each crewman will have to learn more, unless they have specific mission specialists for the combat package (which they seem to?). What do they do in the mean time? A big part of being a crewman is familiarising yourself with the ship, being on it, technical expertise is only half the battle.

There is also a high degree of automation with these vessels, which will reduce significantly crew numbers and tasks. I believe that the fire control speacialists, the seamen, the electronics techs, etc., etc. will be able to aptly handle the mission requiremnts for the various packges.

Of course the Spec Ops missios are the exception where those personnel will e brought on board the vessel..

But time will tell.

Both LCS entrants (Lockheed and GD) have been built with these very requirements in mind.

believe it will work out fine. You have ASW, anti-mine, and anti-surface that will not be a problem because existing fire control and other techs on other vessels handle all of that now.

Correct. From what I understand multiplie ships will eventually deploy. Each one suited for diffrent missions. Perhaps the mission modules will be pre-positioned.

I am not so sure about that. Crew complement is a concern. An OHP has 170 crew, give or take. An LCS has, what? Half that? Each crewman will have to learn more, unless they have specific mission specialists for the combat package (which they seem to?). What do they do in the mean time? A big part of being a crewman is familiarising yourself with the ship, being on it, technical expertise is only half the battle.

The USN has this covered. They are "cross training" sailors for duty on these ships as I write this. The crew will be multi-tasked.

Originally Posted by Troika

I have some misgivings about the modular concept. You have ONE set of crewmen trained for the ship, and the do the work of maintenance, operation, DC for a half-dozen mission packs... granted the DC part would be relatively small, but we are still talking about giving a big subset of the crew different sorts of jobs to do. I think there may be problems with training and organisation. I'd be interested to see how this works out.

Just because it has a modular design doesn't mean they'd change the load-out every other month. @_@ The importance here is having the option to easily swap out mission modules, versus "fixed" systems that require major retrofitting.

Think of it as an easy way to upgrade, or change mission profile/load-out.