Littoral Combat Ships (LCS)

dtulsa

Junior Member
It was reported the pcs will be receiving the NSM missile for patrols later this year I though there was going to be a competition between it and the harpoon anybody have any extra information on this at one time I understood that one was going to have the harpoon and one the NSM to see which better fit the navy requirements
 

dtulsa

Junior Member
It was reported the pcs will be receiving the NSM missile for patrols later this year I though there was going to be a competition between it and the harpoon anybody have any extra information on this at one time I understood that one was going to have the harpoon and one the NSM to see which better fit the navy requirements
 

Brumby

Major
Navy to Deploy New Anti-Ship Surface Missile on a Littoral Combat Ship
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The Navy will soon deploy a new missile aboard its Littoral Combat Ship that can find and destroy enemy ships at distances up to 100 nautical miles, service officials said.

Called the Naval Strike Missile, or NSM, the weapon is developed by a Norwegian-headquartered firm called Kongsberg; it is currently used on Norwegian Nansen-class frigates and Skjold-Class missile torpedo boats, company officials said.

The Navy is currently planning to utilize the Foreign Comparative Testing program to procure and install the Norwegian-built Naval Strike Missile on the USS FREEDOM (LCS 1). The objective is to demonstrate operationally-relevant installation, test, and real-world deployment on an LCS,” a Navy spokeswoman from Naval Sea Systems Command told Scout Warrior.
It looks like a test installation rather than a decision made to equip the LCS with NSM. Regardless, I think the NSM is a much better proposition than the outdated Harpoon and maybe this approach is meant to circumvent the "US made only" protocol.
 

dtulsa

Junior Member
On that we agree maybe the more advanced JSM in future for land attacks will be added also either way these weapons are a welcome addition
 
Feb 23, 2016
... about LCS-3 now:
Decision Nearing on Where To Fix Damaged LCS

source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
an update:
USS Fort Worth to Return to San Diego for Propulsion System Repairs
The Littoral Combat Ship USS Forth Worth (LCS-3) will return to San Diego to undergo repairs on the complex gearing system that was damaged earlier this year, Navy officials told USNI News on Wednesday.

Fort Worth will proceed to San Diego under its own power, using the ship’s Rolls Royce MT 30 gas turbines later this summer, according to a statement from U.S. Pacific Fleet to USNI News on Wednesday.

“Preparations are expected to take several months to complete necessary inspections, conduct lube oil system flushes and configure the engineering plant for safe operations,”

“The Pacific Ocean transit to homeport in San Diego is expected to take about six weeks with several underway replenishments and planned fueling stops along the way.”

The ship was
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
following a Jan. 12 engineering incident in which the ship’s combining gear – the complex mechanism that combines the output of the gas turbines with the ship’s diesel engines – was severely damaged during an in port test of its port and starboard diesel engines.
Early assessments from the investigation determined operator error by the crew was the primary reason for the damage to the combining gear.

Late last month the commander of the LCS crew responsible for Fort Worth – Cmdr. Michael L. Atwell – was relieved of command
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

While the ship was sidelined, the Navy debated internally where to ultimately repair the ship – San Diego, Japan or pier-side at the Changi Naval Base.

“The decision to complete full repair of Fort Worth’s combining gears in San Diego was based on several factors, including maintenance timelines, efficiency of repairs, and shipyard capabilities,” read the statement provided to USNI News.
“Repairs will be conducted during Fort Worth’s previously scheduled selected restricted availability with docking maintenance period, reducing the overall cost to the Navy.”

Fort Worth’s casualty abruptly ended
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. Until January, the ship had preformed much better with more days underway than USS Freedom’s (LCS-1) initial deployment to the region.
source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
...

It looks like a test installation rather than a decision made to equip the LCS with NSM. ...
Brumby to me more important sounded the sentence right after the one you put in boldface :)
The objective is to demonstrate operationally-relevant installation, test, and real-world deployment on an LCS
which I think is related to the full integration of AShMs; I was able to find some nitty-gritty last year; it interested, you can follow links given inside of the post quoted below (I don't know if these links still work though):
Oct 26, 2015
dtulsa, I got an impression the USN wanted to fully integrate AShMs (into the combat-system, not just shoot them the way you portrayed it), which I base on this:

Aug 13, 2015


and if you went on into these documents available at FebBizOpps.org, you would see item #33 (out of 38! so dtulsa, it's perhaps not that easy ...)
 
Last edited:

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
Really LOL "is like the cat with nine lives" but not a big Cat right now, allow me :)


The U.S. Navy's LCS: The Ship That Won't Sink

The Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) is like the cat with nine lives. It has survived more near-death experiences than just about any other Navy program in modern times. First there was the problem with trying to build a military vessel based on commercial standards. When Navy shipbuilding rules were applied, big surprise, the cost per hull went way up and LCS no longer looked like a bargain. Then there were seemingly endless problems with the mission modules intended to allow the ships to perform multiple missions serially by simply swapping out payloads. The acquisition strategy was certainly unusual. The Navy made the bold decision, widely criticized at the time and even today, to acquire two variants. Then there was Secretary of Defense Ash Carter’s decision to truncate the program at 40 ships vice the planned 52. Most recently, the Chairman of the Senate’s Armed Services Committee, Senator John McCain, blasted the Navy and the Program Office for continuing problems with the reliability of an unmanned undersea vehicle that was part of the mine countermeasures mission package.

Perhaps the proper analogy is to the mythical phoenix, because the program has risen from the ashes at least three times. In each instance the concept of operations changed and with it the requirements. The LCS went from a lightly armed, essentially unarmored, high speed close-in patrol boat to a more heavily armed, slower, littoral and brown/blue water combatant and finally, to a new class, a frigate variant, with capabilities that will exceed that of the Perry-class frigates.

The current plan for the LCS, as directed by the Secretary of Defense, is to cut the total procurement to 40 (six ships, three of each type have already been commissioned and approximately 20 more are being built or under contract). One of the two variants and the shipyard that builds it will be terminated by 2019. The final eight ships will be converted to a frigate based on an as yet unapproved design variant of one of the two LCS classes.

In addition, the Navy is already deep into a program to improve both the survivability and lethality of at least some and possibly all the baseline littoral warships. Additional armor will be added to protect critical compartments and functions. New weapons are being deployed, particularly existing tactical missiles capable of sinking corvettes and small combatants. The Program Office recently conducted a successful series of tests with a variant of the Hellfire missile. Work is underway to provide the 57mm gun with precision rounds that will substantially increase its lethality. There will also be improvements to the LCS’s sensor suite, defensive systems, electronic warfare capabilities and sonar systems.

The initial concept behind the LCS was for a modular ship, with a basic sea frame and common operating systems, an open architecture and standard interfaces that would allow the Navy to plug and play a wide variety of sensors, weapons and C3 capabilities, as well as specialized mission modules for surface warfare, anti-submarine and mine countermeasure missions. Ironically, after a number of false starts and program redirections, a modular ship seems to be exactly what the Navy is going to get.

The “reborn” LCS, both the upgunned versions of the baseline designs as well as the new frigate variant are but a couple of the possible options. The current program is being restructured to allow for continual upgrades. Future possibilities, particularly for the new frigate variant, include adding air and missile defenses based on the Standard Missile 2 and 3 series and a phased array radar, creating a mini-arsenal ship loaded with Harpoons or other over-the-horizon missiles and even deploying directed-energy weapons. The LCS is well-suited to take advantage of advances in both manned rotorcraft and unmanned aerial vehicles to further extend its reach and effectiveness.

Despite the desire of the current Secretary of Defense to truncate the LCS program and spend the savings on higher priority procurements such as more F/A-18 and F-35 fighters, it is not only likely that the original goal of 52 hulls will survive but it could even be increased. Given all the options available in both the baseline upgunned LCS and the new frigate, as well as expected advances in technologies associated with power, sensing, lethality and command and control, why shouldn’t the Navy continue to produce ever more capable small ships?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Top