Littoral Combat Ships (LCS)

Pointblank

Senior Member
Is there a reason the LCSs are being laid down and commissioned at a rate that is equal to (or even a little slower than) the USN commissioning rate and time for burkes?

Of course they're all different ships with different missions, but it sure is a little... off putting, to see mere 3,000 ton warships requiring 2-3 years from laying down to commissioning, and only two a year at that.

I want to compare LCS with 056 build rate, but of course they are different ships for different navies, but I wonder if the relatively slow LCS procurement rate is a result of production limitations, or deliberate, staggered building times (along with a lack of urgency for new LCSs?).

It definitely looks like the procurement system is being deliberately slow; looking at the annual funding for LCS, at most they are buying 4 LCS a year, and in a number of years, it tapers down to 2 or even 1 authorized LCS per year.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Is there a reason the LCSs are being laid down and commissioned at a rate that is equal to (or even a little slower than) the USN commissioning rate and time for burkes?

Of course they're all different ships with different missions, but it sure is a little... off putting, to see mere 3,000 ton warships requiring 2-3 years from laying down to commissioning, and only two a year at that.

I want to compare LCS with 056 build rate, but of course they are different ships for different navies, but I wonder if the relatively slow LCS procurement rate is a result of production limitations, or deliberate, staggered building times (along with a lack of urgency for new LCSs?).
Well, the first four from the intial contract have been built and are in service.

There are 20 more in the next contract and they will build up to 3-4 per year (up to two at each location) into 2019 by which time those twenty will be complete.

The follow on contracts have not been let, and since many of the mission modules are lagging...there is no need for the production to go any faster.

I expect a part of it is those mission module issues, and another part is determining whether the US Navy is going to continue building these vessels out to the 55 number initially planned, or be happy with the 24 (or a few more) and revert to a multi-mission frigate.

The key will be the development and production of those mission modules and their efficacy.

Quite frankly...building the hulls with their minimal armaments before one or two of the principle mission modules had been completed and tested on those first two vessels, IMHO, was always a mistake. Too much risk...and now they are into serial production with very little meat for the various functions the ship is designed to address. Complete ASuW and ASW mission packs will not be full functional before 2017-2018 at the earliest now.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



11440457404_1758f7411d_c.jpg


Wolrd Maritime News said:
The Navy will christen its newest littoral combat ship, the future USS Milwaukee (LCS 5) in a ceremony at the Marinette Marine Corporation shipyard in Marinette, Wis., Dec. 18 at 1:15 p.m. CST.

Sylvia Panetta, wife of former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, will serve as the ship’s sponsor. Panetta will officially christen the ship Milwaukee.

Milwaukee was named in honor of the largest city in the state of Wisconsin and will be the fifth to bear the city’s name.

“Milwaukee’s christening serves as a tribute to this great American city, but also to the hard working people of Wisconsin and our nation’s entire industrial base,” said Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus. “LCS is one of our most important platforms and represents the future of the Navy. Our commitment to this program remains as steadfast as that of those who helped build this great ship.”

Littoral combat ships are fast, agile surface combatants optimized for warfighting in the highly trafficked near-shore regions of the world against asymmetric “anti-access” threats. Through its innovative design, LCS can be reconfigured for surface warfare, anti-submarine warfare, and mine countermeasures. This versatility enables Navy to provide warfighters with the most capable, cost-effective solutions to gain, sustain, and exploit littoral maritime supremacy.

The launch and christening of LCS 5, and the recent launch of LCS 6 from the Austal USA shipyard together mark a milestone for the littoral combat ship program. These are the first two littoral combat ships built from start to finish using serial production processes. Serial production is important because it allows the Navy to reap benefits such as improved cost structure per vessel and reduced construction time.

The Navy has incorporated much of the knowledge gained in the build, test and operation of LCS 1 and LCS 2, the lead ships of the class, into follow-on ships.

Milwaukee will be 388 feet in length and equipped with four axial-flow waterjet engines, which will improve performance and move nearly half a million gallons of seawater per minute which will propel the ship to speeds in excess of 40 knots.

The first USS Milwaukee was a double-turret ironclad river monitor built for Civil War service. A St. Louis-class cruiser, the second USS Milwaukee (C-21) was lost in 1916 while attempting to free a submarine that had run aground. The third USS Milwaukee (CL-5) was an Omaha-class light cruiser, which served through World War II in the Atlantic, and the fourth USS Milwaukee (AOR 2), a Wichita-class replenishment oiler, was decommissioned in 1994.
 
Last edited:

navyreco

Senior Member
Re: US military news thread

Lockheed Martin Longbow Missiles Demonstrate Littoral Attack Capability
Wawwy67.jpg

The U.S. Army and Navy, with assistance from Lockheed Martin, recently conducted Longbow missile demonstration firings to showcase the missile’s ability to counter littoral threats, making the weapon an effective candidate for potential use in operational shipboard launches.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Re: US military news thread

Lockheed Martin Longbow Missiles Demonstrate Littoral Attack Capability

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
More accurate and a better missile than the current Griffen IMHO, but still only ranges out to 8km, or about 6 miles.

Pitiful if ever facing any corvette sized vessel in the littorals. The US Navy simply HAS to get a long range anti-shipping missile aboard the LCS.
 

kwaigonegin

Colonel
Re: US military news thread

More accurate and a better missile than the current Griffen IMHO, but still only ranges out to 8km, or about 6 miles.

Pitiful if ever facing any corvette sized vessel in the littorals. The US Navy simply HAS to get a long range anti-shipping missile aboard the LCS.

I don't understand why they can put Harpoons on the LCS. The math works. I can see why you can't put the opposing Mk. 141 canisters on the dual quad racks but you can certainly mount a couple of them.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Re: US military news thread

I don't understand why they can put Harpoons on the LCS. The math works. I can see why you can't put the opposing Mk. 141 canisters on the dual quad racks but you can certainly mount a couple of them.
The Independence class is actually designed to carry a small group of MK-41 VLS forward of the bridge and behind the gun...they just have not been installed (like the UK Daring Class was designed "for" but not "with" a number of systems).. You can clearly see the area in this pic:


lcs-02-04.jpg


The new LRASM is supposed to be able to be VL, so it could go there if necessary.

But a single quad set of Harpoos would be a quick, and effective fix.
 

Equation

Lieutenant General
Re: US military news thread

I don't understand why they can put Harpoons on the LCS. The math works. I can see why you can't put the opposing Mk. 141 canisters on the dual quad racks but you can certainly mount a couple of them.

I guess because the Longbow could be just as effective as the Harpoon, but a lot less cost for the LCS missions say nearby the Gulf of Aden or pirate patrol in the waters of Somalia. No need to waste a good Harpoon on some small fast craft targets, just waste them with the Longbow instead.
 

thunderchief

Senior Member
Re: US military news thread

I don't understand why they can put Harpoons on the LCS. The math works. I can see why you can't put the opposing Mk. 141 canisters on the dual quad racks but you can certainly mount a couple of them.

Current version of Harpoon cannot be launched vertically (it would damage VLS ) and slanted launchers are not very stealthy . On the other hand , USN doesn't want to spend money on Harpoon for VLS .
 

kwaigonegin

Colonel
Re: US military news thread

The Independence class is actually designed to carry a small group of MK-41 VLS forward of the bridge and behind the gun...they just have not been installed (like the UK Daring Class was designed "for" but not "with" a number of systems).. You can clearly see the area in this pic:


lcs-02-04.jpg


The new LRASM is supposed to be able to be VL, so it could go there if necessary.

But a single quad set of Harpoos would be a quick, and effective fix.

exactly Jeff. It's not difficult nor will it add much cost at all to just mount a couple cannisters on that vessel.
 
Top