Littoral Combat Ships (LCS)

Feb 20, 2017
and on February 20
LCS crew marooned in Singapore on an open-ended deployment
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

the LCS program is ... revolutionary indeed: "And to get underway, the crew, which will be Crew 203, needs a ship and for now all the trimaran LCS-2 variant ships are either in overhaul or undergoing repairs."
while now Nine months into a four-month deployment to Singapore, relief is on the way for marooned LCS crew
The embarked crew of the forward-deployed littoral combat ship Coronado deployed in June, headed toward Singapore and was supposed to be back around Thanksgiving. Now, one week into spring, Crew 204 is finally getting some relief.

Crew 203 is en route to Singapore to relieve 204, which will be thrilled to leave the Coronado in their rear view and get back to their families.

Over the past months, Crew 203 has been working up in an LCS simulator, but the underway portion of their pre-deployment training was delayed because all the available trimaran LCS hulls were in maintenance. But as delays mounted, family members of the crew who spoke to Navy Times said the crew became increasingly demoralized.

That seems to be coming to a much-needed end, according to a release from Naval Surface Force Pacific. Crew 203 departed Naval Air Station North Island Tuesday morning, which should allow 204 to head back by mid-April.

"Crew 203 is ready to assume our duties in the Pacific, continuing to develop partnerships and maintain presence in some of the world's most significant sea lanes," said 203's commanding officer, Cmdr. Douglas Meagher, in the release.

Navy Times first reported that Crew 204 was stuck in December, and then again in February. Part of the delay in getting 203 out to Singapore was reorganizing the program and shifting training standards after a string of mechanical failures on LCS ships, some of which were caused by crew error.

A program review carried out after recommendation by Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson uncovered the need to increase on-hull training that was previously done in the simulator, SURFPAC officials said.

"The recent LCS study prompted several changes to the LCS training and certification process to make sure deploying crew are provided both off-hull simulator and on-hull underway opportunities to fully certify prior to deployment," said Lt. Cmdr. Rebecca Haggard in a February email.

Officials who spoke to Navy Times on background have said Crew 204's extended stay in Singapore is not going to be the new normal for sailors, and reorganization of the program, which moves a blue-gold crewing system, will smooth out some of the manning issues.

Under the original crewing plan for the LCS fleet, three crews of about 50 sailors each rotated between two ships, which meant sailors would spend four-to-six months deployed on the ship, about six in pre-deployment workups and six months off hull for training and leave.

Much of the training and certification was supposed to be done in a simulator to free up ships for tasking. All this was meant to keep the LCS forward-deployed and underway for as much time as possible.

But the high-profile crew failures on Freedom and Fort Worth, in which crew members caused breakdowns, prompted senior Navy leaders, including top surface warfare officer Vice Adm. Thomas Rowden, to change how the LCS conducts business.

From now on, the ships are going to be manned by two crews of roughly 70 sailors that trade on-hull and off-hull time. The reboot also scrapped the mission-module concept, where each ship was manned by a core crew and could rapidly switch out mission packages from, for example, an anti-surface warfare module to an anti-submarine warfare package with a permanently assigned crew of specialists.

The new concept assigns roles to each ship, while entire crews will train for that specific type of warfare.

“When I send out USS Gabrielle Giffords to do anti-submarine warfare, I want 70 sailors doing anti-submarine warfare, 93 with the air detachment,” said Vice Adm. Thomas Rowden in a September interview. “There’s none of this, ‘Hey we are a jack of all trades business.' No, we are signed up on this mission and this is the mission we are going to go execute. Simplify the mission in the minds of the individuals and make them experts in the execution of it.”

In the SURFPAC release, Littoral Combat Ship Squadron One head Capt. Jordy Harrison congratulated Crew 203 on meeting the new training standards put on deploying LCS crews.

"The training and certification process is extensive and necessary to ensure our crews are fully prepared for the demands of deployment," Harrison said.

"I am proud of Crew 203 and our entire LCS team for their dedication and hard work to implement recent changes to LCS on-hull training opportunities following last September's LCS review. These changes in the LCS program will ensure we provide the Fleet with crews trained and prepared to execute the mission sets," he said.
source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
I seem to remember several post about this very concern earlier in the thread looks like those concerns are now a reality stay tuned as I am sure more will follow
well '3-2-1' manning concept is the LCS Program blunder, actually the only LCS Program blunder the USN partly conceded Dec 30, 2016
the whole situation is much worse though as the LCS Program is a product of
  1. the end of 1990s when it appeared to the USN it could be sending a fast, shiny but unarmed ship anywhere, and this would be a jaw-dropping experience to any other Navy of the World; gradually the USN realizes the idea of sending a fast, shiny but unarmed ship was a blunder, and some Navies of this World (not of 1990s World which is gone) may shoot back, which is something an LCS can't (and you may tell me "this is being addressed by currently mulling Frigate/LCS designs")
  2. the beginning of 2000s when it appeared with sufficient funds it could be advantageous 'concurrently' develop new classes of weaponry, something the vendors have kept telling the brass, but the wars in Iraq and 'stan came, which cost trillions; the USN gradually realizes 'concurrency' was a blunder, as the numbers of issues actually grows when they're put off due to insufficient funds for testing etc., and instead of for example a new Frigate which would've succeeded the OHP class, the USN spends ten of billions on, well, LCS Project
  3. political engineering when two subclasses have been built, which is yet another blunder (this one would make me furious, so I won't go on)
so the USN 'reaps the fruits' of the above points, in short: dubious CONOPS for dozens of ships; concurrently "fielding" untested stuff and saying the development is cheaper and faster that way, instead of using an evolution approach; involvement in several job programs (heck I mean I would understand supporting one shipyard, buying its "product" even if it wasn't great, but it's above me why to support two)

and I wait to see what the new SecNav (I wonder who may that be, perhaps also Trump wonders who may that be) will do about it EDIT probably s/he just orders more LCSs :)
 
Last edited:
Does anyone have the info on the Freedom installation last I heard the NSM was delayed due to lack of funds
I think there's nothing official about the NSM; the related part of [Mission Module]

Surface Warfare (SUW)
"... To meet threshold requirements a surface-
to-surface missile is required. According to program
officials, initial missile demonstrations were
successful, but operational testing was delayed by
about a year to fiscal year 2018 due to ship
integration issues."

it's in the end of the left panel at p. 108; 116 out of 211 in PDF document
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
March 2017 Assessments of

Selected Weapon
Programs


you can click on 'Littoral Combat Ship - Mission Modules (LCS Packages)' in Contents in the beginning of the document but, hey, it's a pitiful read (they cost almost 100m on average but for Surface "Warfare" this money appears to buy two 30mm, two boats, and a helo ... it's interesting while considering in 2013 a 30mm cost 25.7/8 which is about 3.2m:
General Dynamics Awarded $26 Million for MK46 Naval Weapon Systems
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

)
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King

is this:
i6Fsh.jpg

a joke?
I would appreciate if somebody knowledgeable commented on the placement of AShM launchers so close to the waterline
SHIP_LCS-2_Independence_Rear_View_Trials_lg.jpg
If the fan tail on the model is the same size and placement as the doors and mission bay on the existing LCS
150815-N-KR961-068.jpg
Assuming that the man in the door is 2 meters tall then it's easily 3 to 4 meters from the waterline.
 
almost missed this one:
View attachment 37595
If the fan tail on the model is the same size and placement as the doors and mission bay on the existing LCS
View attachment 37596
Assuming that the man in the door is 2 meters tall then it's easily 3 to 4 meters from the waterline.
well
  1. I don't think any current warship carries AShMs at a level below the main deck;
  2. I happen to know it was a known glitch of the
    Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

    to have the secondary-battery guns (in casemates:
    ) only three meters above the waterline, as this was unsuitable even for the Adriatic ...
you can disprove me on either point (would be surprised if on #2 :)
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
View attachment 37595
If the fan tail on the model is the same size and placement as the doors and mission bay on the existing LCS
View attachment 37596
Assuming that the man in the door is 2 meters tall then it's easily 3 to 4 meters from the waterline.
All of the placement I have seen show the VLS Hellfire missiles forward in the compartment behind the main gun, and 8 x OTH ASMs either directly behind that in front of the bridge, or on top of the main deck house forward from the SeaRam launcher.

I see no reason to add the additional structure, etc. on the fantail like that.

The testing to date has reflected the same.

Like so:

160707-N-MW990-036.jpg

28338302962_65d87c555a_b.jpg
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
All of the placement I have seen show the VLS Hellfire missiles forward in the compartment behind the main gun, and 8 x OTH ASMs either directly behind that in front of the bridge, or on top of the main deck house forward from the SeaRam launcher.

I see no reason to add the additional structure, etc. on the fantail like that.

The testing to date has reflected the same.

Like so:

View attachment 37683

View attachment 37684
the fantail is not just for the duel quad pack OTH it also adds variable depth sonar and a option for a sonar array. Re watching the video the Austal rep also points out other changes for there frigate concept. You have still have the forward mounted OTH SAW so that means 16 OTH missiles, mk41 VLS in the super structure, a 3D radar and a new fire control system.
So for a platform that people were complaining about being "under gunned" this would be a major jump in fire power.
 

dtulsa

Junior Member
the fantail is not just for the duel quad pack OTH it also adds variable depth sonar and a option for a sonar array. Re watching the video the Austal rep also points out other changes for there frigate concept. You have still have the forward mounted OTH SAW so that means 16 OTH missiles, mk41 VLS in the super structure, a 3D radar and a new fire control system.
So for a platform that people were complaining about being "under gunned" this would be a major jump in fire power.
I wouldn't have a problem with just 8 OTH missile and a mk56 launcher somewhere for ESSM that would cover the whole frigate role quite nicely what you think Jeff
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
the fantail is not just for the duel quad pack OTH it also adds variable depth sonar and a option for a sonar array. Re watching the video the Austal rep also points out other changes for there frigate concept. You have still have the forward mounted OTH SAW so that means 16 OTH missiles, mk41 VLS in the super structure, a 3D radar and a new fire control system.
So for a platform that people were complaining about being "under gunned" this would be a major jump in fire power.

I wouldn't have a problem with just 8 OTH missile and a mk56 launcher somewhere for ESSM that would cover the whole frigate role quite nicely what you think Jeff

I believe Eight good ASMs would be fine, and that a VLS capable of quad packed ESSMs...even just four of the cells for 16 ESSMs, would be great.

They have room on these vessels to add towed arrays already.

Putting in a large active bow sonar would take a lot of work for both types. They should have don that in the intial design.

But a towed array and two ASW helicopters for ASW missions would be fine by me.

Then if they came standard with the 8x ASMs, the 32 Hellfire missiles, and with Sea RAM and four cells four 16 ESSMs, and these vessels would be fine.

They'd have to upgrade the sensors to match.

But they could do all of that to both types without adding that fantail or any other major structural changes.
 
Top