Littoral Combat Ships (LCS)

Jan 20, 2016
well, I've been following the LCS Project for something like one year and a half now, so I think
  • it was actually the US Navy which had to be "pushed" to prepare alternatives to LCS in 2014 (so called Hagel's memo):
    Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

    but
  • I think the USN then actually tried to change LCSs as LITTLE as possible, under the circumstances:
    Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
  • and ...
and ...
... and yesterday
Navy Slowing Frigate Procurement To Allow Careful Requirements Talks; Contract Award Set for FY2020
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Director of Surface Warfare Rear Adm. Ron Boxall ... said he did not sit on the 2014 SSC TF and therefore didn’t want to criticize its work, he told lawmakers “the Small Surface Combatant Task Force, the environment when they created that task force was, I’ll call it reactive in nature. We were responding to criticisms and to get to a more capable, survivable ship as quickly as possible. And there was also fiscal guidance that was given to them at the time.”
which is a very politically correct description after December 11, 2014
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The new version gets a lot more combat power for not much more cost, insisted the Chief of Naval Operations,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Greenert, and the Navy’s top procurement official, Assistant Secretary
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, at a hastily convened roundtable with reporters this evening.
see? "a lot more combat power" delivered in 2014 ...
Mr. Stackley now acting SecNav!!
 

dtulsa

Junior Member
Jan 20, 2016

... and yesterday
Navy Slowing Frigate Procurement To Allow Careful Requirements Talks; Contract Award Set for FY2020
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

which is a very politically correct description after December 11, 2014
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

see? "a lot more combat power" delivered in 2014 ...
Mr. Stackley now acting SecNav!!
IMHO if ya read between the lines the navy is actually saying oops we messed up with the original version so let's try this again at least it's my interpretation
 
Yesterday at 7:35 AM
Jan 20, 2016

... and yesterday
Navy Slowing Frigate Procurement To Allow Careful Requirements Talks; Contract Award Set for FY2020
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

which is a very politically correct description after December 11, 2014
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

see? "a lot more combat power" delivered in 2014 ...
Mr. Stackley now acting SecNav!!
related:
US Navy delays frigate contract for further requirements consideration
The U.S. Navy is slowing down its frigate procurement, taking more time to thoroughly evaluate the requirements for the program.

Speaking at the House Armed Services seapower and projection forces subcommittee, Rear Admiral Ron Boxall, U.S. Navy head of surface warfare, and Rear Admiral John Neagley, LCS program executive officer, said the awarding of a detail design and construction contract is being postponed for Fiscal Year 2020.

Delaying the contract award for a year will allow the navy to fully understand the requirements for the frigate program and ensure a “mature design”, Representative Rob Wittman of Virginia said.

The announcement comes after the Government Accountability Office repeatedly urged Congress to consider delaying the appropriation of funds for the 12 frigates. The navy was expected to make the request to Congress for Fiscal Year 2019.

The U.S. Navy initially wanted to simply up-gun and up-size the two littoral combat ship designs that were deemed not lethal or survivable enough. The idea was to “frigatize” the littoral combat ships.

A newly established frigate requirements evaluation team will now examine current plans and consider adding anti-surface and anti-submarine capabilities, and evaluate how to include anti-air firepower into the designs.

Speaking to USNI News after the hearing, Rear Admiral Ron Boxall said the navy was also looking at possible upgrades to the LCS’s rotating radar that would allow the frigates more than just self-protection air defense capabilities, meaning they could take over some roles from the destroyers.

In addition to improved armament, the U.S. Navy will also be evaluating a greater number of hull designs, beyond the current two Lockheed Martin and Austal designs used for littoral combat ships.
source is NavalToday
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

dtulsa

Junior Member
Funny feeling if this or any version of the frigate comes into service that actually works foreign dales will follow I know the Saudis backed out due to cost but if ends up being the new frigate then they may just rethink the deal because cost will come down due to number of ships involved with the recent delay to the frigate/LCS debacle we could well see a ship like this which would not hurt my feelings one little bit
 

dtulsa

Junior Member
Well now that I've think bout it what in the world are they going to do with all of the LCS ships or hulls that are in service or under contract I could they be modified to the new standard if it actually comes into service I mean what use are they I guess they could be used for minesweepers or drug/illegal activity close to the mainland any thoughts on this scenario
 

NeoIsolationist

New Member
Registered Member
Well now that I've think bout it what in the world are they going to do with all of the LCS ships or hulls that are in service or under contract I could they be modified to the new standard if it actually comes into service I mean what use are they I guess they could be used for minesweepers or drug/illegal activity close to the mainland any thoughts on this scenario

They will be effective anti-submarine warfare and mine counter-measures ships.

They will also probably be modified with anti-ship missiles (LRASM or NSM) and a jammer, and get the hellfire or Raytheon Sea Griffin missile. Bob Work was posting to all kinds of blogs about two years ago and seemed to like the Raytheon Sea Griffin missile for the LCS IIRC.

I hope the anti-submarine warfare version gets some kind of anti-submarine rocket or MK50/54 torpedo, but this is another issue entirely.
 

dtulsa

Junior Member
They will be effective anti-submarine warfare and mine counter-measures ships.

They will also probably be modified with anti-ship missiles (LRASM or NSM) and a jammer, and get the hellfire or Raytheon Sea Griffin missile. Bob Work was posting to all kinds of blogs about two years ago and seemed to like the Raytheon Sea Griffin missile for the LCS IIRC.

I hope the anti-submarine warfare version gets some kind of anti-submarine rocket or MK50/54 torpedo, but this is another issue entirely.
While I tend to agree (if) they receive the asroc then they will need some kind of VLS if I'm right therefore it would make since to add at least ESSM capability if possible again it all depends on cost as always if they come in at less than 1 billion per copy it may be what most would consider a very viable frigate capable of doing its mission
 

NeoIsolationist

New Member
Registered Member
dtulsa, I don't think they need VLS. I think they can use the weapon modules to house them in a new launcher configuration is all.

I disagree with the ESSM modification for the current LCS Mod 1's. too expensive. For new build, I'd say go for it.

We do need a full-on frigate that can do air warfare as well as surface and undersea warfare, but having modified LCS Mod 1 with everything except for ESSM is do-able.

Recall we had Knox and OHP's operating in the navy at the same time, when we had not nearly the number of Aegis-capable platforms. Anti-submarine warfare was also handled by large DD-973's, which were over double the displacement of the single-mission ASW specialist I'm thinking of for the LCS role.
 

dtulsa

Junior Member
dtulsa, I don't think they need VLS. I think they can use the weapon modules to house them in a new launcher configuration is all.

I disagree with the ESSM modification for the current LCS Mod 1's. too expensive. For new build, I'd say go for it.

We do need a full-on frigate that can do air warfare as well as surface and undersea warfare, but having modified LCS Mod 1 with everything except for ESSM is do-able.

Recall we had Knox and OHP's operating in the navy at the same time, when we had not nearly the number of Aegis-capable platforms. Anti-submarine warfare was also handled by large DD-973's, which were over double the displacement of the single-mission ASW specialist I'm thinking of for the LCS role.
Possibly but the key word is (if) some would say they all they need for the ASW mission us Helios that I don't agree with at all the good thing is finally the navy is looking at a viable frigate design that can do its mission not some modified speed boat
 
Today at 7:03 AM
Yesterday at 7:35 AM

related:
US Navy delays frigate contract for further requirements consideration

source is NavalToday
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
now
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The Navy’s decision to slow down its LCS frigate program is “reassuring,” the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
said yesterday evening. Delaying contract award from 2019 to 2020 gives the service more time to do “due diligence” on the designs,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
told reporters after a hearing on the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

The extra time not only reduces the risk of mistakes that would require costly rework, Wittman went on: It also gives the Navy and the shipyards to fully explore options such as
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
— potentially including
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. While there are other launchers, VLS accommodates not only the Navy’s largest missiles but also the widest variety of weapons, from anti-aircraft to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, from missile defense to land attack.

“It’s reassuring in the sense that we want to make sure that we go through the proper due diligence,” Wittman said of the delay. “(We need) a good discourse between Congress, the industry, and the Navy about what’s the requirement…. so I have no problem with taking a little bit of additional time.”

That way, Wittman went on, “when we go to award and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, design’s gonna be mature, we truly understand the requirements set, all the competitors understand what the needs are and how they can put out their proposals there, and we end up with the best decision.”

More Time, More Options

Just two weeks ago, the Government Accountability Office, Congress’s watchdog, issued an
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
that the Navy was
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
to upgrade the current,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
to a frigate and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. Yesterday, the head of the LCS program,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, and the Navy’s director of surface warfare,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
that the frigate contract would now be awarded in 2020 —
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
than the Navy had been shooting for.

“The specifics on that will come out when we come out with the budget, but we are now focused on a 2020 contract award for a future frigate,” Boxall confirmed to reporters after the hearing. “That’s what the work of the team is shooting for. That’s our goal.”

Does the additional time mean options like the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
— originally ruled out by the task force that developed the frigate concept — are now back on the table?

“All that is kind of in play right now,” Boxall said. “All those are in the (process of) look at what we’d like to have vs. what we think we need vs. what we can afford.”

“You can drive yourself nuts on all the things you’d like to have,” Boxall warned. “We don’t want this to become … untenable.”

Boxall only mentioned VLS once during the hearing, specifically in the context of anti-ship weapons. The
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
to add an Over The Horizon missile to both the current LCS and the frigate envisions a relatively small weapon fired from a launcher mounted on the deck, but what about a VLS option?

“If we choose to go with a vertically launched system that could take any other longer-ranged missile of the future, that would be a bonus if you will, it would increase the flexibility to adapt to future weapons, but from an anti-surface standpoint that is not one of the focuses of this team at this time,” Boxall told the subcommittee. (Emphasis ours). “Most of the efforts we’re looking at right now is focused on the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
aspects, (especially) improving the air defense capability.” (What he didn’t mention was that the Navy’s most powerful air defense missiles are all fired from, you guessed it, VLS).

That said, Boxall made clear that the Navy is now reexamining options initially ruled out for the frigate by the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
back in 2014. Under orders from then-Secretary of Defense
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
faced a tight timeline to come up with a more powerful ship that still met strict cost constraints. As a result, said Boxall, “it was… reactive in nature (and) we made some assumptions then that weren’t exactly right.”

The new Frigate Requirement Evaluation Team, by contrast, is operating on a less cramped schedule and without a predetermined cap on what its proposed ship should cost. That allows it to consider a greater breadth of options in greater depth.

In particular, Boxall said, the 2014 task force didn’t get as much information as desired on alternative foreign designs, something the new effort hopes to correct. The task force also didn’t consider the sensor, electronic warfare, and networking requirements of the Navy’s
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
concept, which was only rolled out in January 2015.

...
... goes on in the subsequent post due to size limit; source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Top