Littoral Combat Ships (LCS)

Jura said:

the most pathetic I've seen SO FAR was Feb 9, 2016

I now replayed that fragment, which made my day

Click to expand...

dtulsa said:

l will say it again as currently armed and equippe the only fleet LCS stands a chance of beating is one that has absolutely no weapons at all a RPG stands a very good chance of disaling one them

Click to expand...

The Navy’s top civilian official bristled during congressional questioning Tuesday after Rep. Bradley Byrne (R-Alabama) suggested the Navy was

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and the broader Defense industrial base by only requesting one

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

in 2019.

Byrne, whose district would be deeply affected if the Austal USA shipyard shuttered, accused Spencer and the Navy of slowing down the buying program and putting thousands of jobs in jeopardy.

“Since you’ve come on board I haven’t seen you Pick up the urgency on this program, in fact I see the opposite,” Byrne said. “I think you are slowing down the program.

Both shipyards have told congress that if the Navy drops down to just one LCS, the yards would lay off thousands of workers and there would be a real risk that one or both of the LCS shipyards (located in Mobile, Alabama, and Marinette, Wisconsin) might have to close.

“You may say you are concerned about the enduring industrial base but it seems to me that you are overlooking the industrial base this year.”

Spencer shot back that he though Byrne was off base and invited him for lunch to discuss the things the Navy was doing to rapidly move shipbuilding programs forward. Spencer held up the rapid acquisition plan for the LCS replacement,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, as the prime example of where he was trying to more quickly.

“I couldn't disagree with you more on urgency," Spencer shot back. "We're going to bring the frigate on from first discussions in 2018, to contracts award in late 2019, and get that thing out the door three years after that. I'd like to see a comparison to any other platform we've done on that timeline. And that is what is happening under my tutelage, just so you know.”

Spencer then said he agreed that the Navy had to provide a steady flow of work to the industrial base but that he could only work under the budget that he was given. He also added that he was looking to add new ships by finding savings in the budget then asking Congress to reprogram money mid-cycle.

All about that base

The exchange was in many ways a classic bit of Capitol Hill theater: A congressman from an affected district going to the mat for a program and the service secretary defending the budget proposal and highlighting another priority. But it was also a reminder of how contentious funding for the Littoral Combat Ship has been in recent years.

Last year the Navy proposed only one littoral combat ship, only requesting a second after an intervention from Trump Administration trade hawk Peter Navarro, and President Trump aides Stephen Miller and Rick Dearborn, who both have ties to Alabama politics through Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

A source with knowledge of the exchange told Defense News that preserving the industrial base was the “sole consideration” in adding the second LCS to the Navy’s budget request.

It’s possible that the Navy requested one LCS this year knowing that Congress would, as in years past, almost certainly add one or two more to the budget without them asking. But it’s also true that the Navy is pushing as fast as it can to get to a future frigate, a platform it sees as more capable in a high-end fight with China or Russia.

After the administration added the second littoral combat ship to its budget request, then acting Navy acquisitions boss Allison Stiller testified before Congress that “We desire to transition to the frigate as soon as possible” but that the service recognized how critical it was to the industrial base to keep buying it.

The Littoral Combat Ship was designed for low-end missions close to shore, and not high-end warfare with near-peer competitors.

The Navy is moving out fast on the FFG(X) program. In February, the service released a request for proposal to Huntington Ingalls, Lockheed Martin, Austal USA, General Dynamics Bath Iron Works, and Italian shipbuilder Fincantieri

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

over the next 16 months. After that the Navy plans to drop down to a single detailed design and construction contract.

Click to expand...

Jura said:

OK I promised Jeff not use a certain word here
Navy secretary bristles during questions about LCS program

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

The Navy expects to make a decision late this year on production of the Surface-to-Surface Missile Module (SSMM) for the littoral combat ship’s (LCS’s) surface warfare mission package, according to a Feb. 12 Navy report to Congress on the LCS mission packages, released March 29.

The SSMM uses the Longbow Hellfire anti-tank missile adapted for vertical launch from an LCS to strike surface targets. It has been evaluated in firings from the USS Milwaukee.

The report, by the LCS mission package program office, said the Longbow Hellfire “is currently in testing and exceeding requirements. To date, the SSMM has achieved an 83 percent successful engagement rate. The addition of the SSMM will make LCS with an embarked [surface warfare mission package] the most capable ship in the Navy in countering the small-boat threat.”

The SSM achieved 20 of 24 successful firings and the Navy implemented software upgrades to correct the causes of the four unsuccessful shots.

Because Milwaukee is preparing for its late 2018 deployment, the Navy plans to shift the system to USS Detroit in July and conduct developmental testing of the SSMM, followed by operational testing, with initial operational capability planned for early 2019, the report said.

Testing on board Detroit will be extensive, the report said, and include “on-load, groom and alignment, end-to-end testing, and SSMM single-target and multiple-target tracking events” and will include single- and multiple-target firing events.

Operational testing of the surface warfare mission package with the SSMM integrated will take place in the first quarter of fiscal 2019. Initial operational capability of the SSMM is expected in early 2019.

Click to expand...

Jeff Head said:

No...thatr is not correct.

The 57mm gun outranges and RPG for Pete's sake.

The helos carry Hellfire and larger ASMs.

The Hellfire Missiles have about a 12-15 mile range.

They will be getting the longer range ASMs and the upgrades.

I will agree that the whol thing has been a joke that should never have happened...but believe me, I know Captains and Flag Rang individuals whom I trust and they tell me that the fixes are going to be made...and I trust them.

...and they are as PO'ed as we are.

Click to expand...

Jura said:

Feb 25, 2018
and Canadians politely ask US Navy's noisy new warship stuck in ice to move away

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Jura said:

Mar 9, 2018
now noticed the game changer had left:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Jura said:

now I add one more thing I forgot to mention
Yesterday at 10:51 PM

which is in the proposal Yesterday at 1:14 PM the USN also dropped the Mission Modules ('modularity') boondoggle
it'll be interesting to see how much money they'll throw now into Mission Packages for the planned 32 LCSs ... tragicomic

...

Click to expand...

From the Report:
The LCS Flight 0+ Capability Development Document (CDD) specifies the requirements for the LCS MPs to provide focused capabilities in three areas: Surface Warfare (SUW), Mine Countermeasures (MCM), and Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW). The LCS Mission Modules (MM) Program Office is responsible for oversight, development, procurement, and post-delivery ship integration of these focused-mission payloads.

The Navy’s 2016 Force Structure Assessment revalidated a warfighting requirement for a minimum of 52 Small Surface Combatants (SSCs) (LCS and Frigates). As maritime threats continue to grow, the Navy is placing greater emphasis on distributed operations, highlighting the need for a full complement of SSCs. In February 2016, the Chief of Naval Operations and the Assistant Secretary for the Navy, Research, Development, and Acquisition established an LCS Review Team. The LCS Review Team, led by Commander of Naval Surface Forces, evaluated how to maximize operational availability and increase stability, simplicity, and ownership. The LCS Review Team recommended a shift in LCS crew structure, training, maintenance, and operations. In conjunction with this review, the total quantity of mission packages required for LCS was reviewed to address ship quantity changes and changes in employment approach.

The Navy has revised mission package quantities for the LCS MM Program of Record (PoR). The revised quantities are based upon the total planned 32 LCS class ships and their contribution to the warfighting capability requirements derived from the Navy’s Force Structure Assessment. The revised quantities of deployable MPs for the LCS Mission Modules PoR are as follows: 10 SUW MPs, 10 ASW MPs, and 24 MCM MPs, for a total of 44 deployable MPs. The 44 deployable MPs include the following:

• 24 MPs (8 SUW, 8 ASW, 8 MCM) to outfit the focused mission LCS ships that make up the LCS divisions of 3 deployable ships and l training ship
• 3 MPs (1 SUW, l ASW, l MCM) in Mayport, FL to ensure high operational
  availability (Ao) of the training systems for the training ships in the LCS divisions
  and to provide spare systems for each focused mission area
• 4 MPS (1 SUW, l ASW, 2 MCM) in San Diego, CA to outfit the test ships (LCS l-4)
  and provide additional spare capacity for training ships and deployers
• 4 MPs (4 MCM) to outfit LCS 29-32 to mitigate warfighting capability needs across the MCM mission area
• 9 MCM MPs for use on other Vessels of Opportunity (V OOs) to meet the warfighting capability requirements and account for MCM maintenance cycles

An overall total of 24 MCM MPs are required to comply with Section 1046 of the FY 2018 NDAA which prohibits the retirement of legacy MCM forces until the Navy has identified replacement capability and procured a quantity of such systems to meet combatant MCM operational requirements that are currently being met by legacy forces.
The program will procure production representative systems for the 44 deployable mission packages. One SUW MP was procured as a production representative Engineering Development Model (EDM) with Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy (RDT&E,N) funds and is included in the inventory objective of 10 SUW MPs. The program has procured four non-deployable EDM assets (one MCM MP, two SUW MPs, and one ASW MP) which are used for integration, test and training efforts.

An updated LCS MM Acquisition Program Baseline (APB) based on changes in quantities and the other LCS Review Team recommendations will be completed in 2018. The Navy routinely assesses evolving warfighting needs to optimize capacity across mission areas which may impact MP quantities. Any changes to MP quantities will be addressed in future budget submissions.

At the time of this report’s submission, an appropriation for FY 2018 has not been approved. This report assumes the LCS MM program is funded in accordance with the FY 2019 President’s Budget. Pending FY 2018 congressional reductions to both RDT&E and procurements will affect the information presented in this report.

Click to expand...