Littoral Combat Ships (LCS)

Jura said:

is very interesting and recently I went through modern (1995+) warships within a large range of displacements -- irrespective how the ship is formally classified, from half of a thousand tons of the Skjolds to some six and half thousands of the Huitfeldts -- so that the USN LCS was somewhere in the middle (by the way, I was surprised what some Navies were able to pack into less than 1500 tons) and I might've missed something, but the closest seems to be the Incheon-class; it doesn't have "over the horizon anti-aircraft missiles" either and is similar in size

Click to expand...

There is a document I came across recently written by Robert Work titled : "The Littoral Combat Ship - How
we got here and why" It is a 64 page document which covers the complete history of the program and offers significant insight into why the program ended up the way it is today. It also discusses how the LCS would fit into Naval doctrine, CONOP and potential mission sets and would provide a reference point when looking at it from the standpoint of a Frigate. Highly recommended reading if you have an interest in the LCS program. Link to document provided below.

Brumby said:

Unless and until there is a change in strategic emphasis and design in terms of force structure in the navy leadership, the upgrade that you were hoping for is not going to happen.

Click to expand...

I agree...which is in essence what I have been saying now.

In order for those changes to occur...it is going to take a new administration and congress to bring about that "change in emphasis."

An article featuring Bryan Clark and his take on the USN recent moves to redesignate the LCS and the concept of "distributed lethality". It is becoming more surreal to me the strategic vision of the USN. It is pushing for "distributed lethality" and up-visioning the LCS but yet its action seems incoherent in that it is unwilling to fund the MK41 into the LCS program. A planned 56 unit buy would eventually be close to 20 % composition of the 300 plus navy fleet and would constitute a significant offensive force when tasking missions but is willing to restrict its effectiveness by not investing in a VLS capability.

Brumby said:

It is becoming more surreal to me the strategic vision of the USN. It is pushing for "distributed lethality" and up-visioning the LCS but yet its action seems incoherent in that it is unwilling to fund the MK41 into the LCS program. A planned 56 unit buy would eventually be close to 20 % composition of the 300 plus navy fleet and would constitute a significant offensive force when tasking missions but is willing to restrict its effectiveness by not investing in a VLS capability.

Click to expand...

Again, agreed.

However, I also will reiterate that such seeming incoherence can be corrected later.

...and I still believe it will.

Otherwise having 1/5 of your combat fleet, which has the tonnage and the space to allow for it, to then NOT have the "distributed lethality," capability really passed down into them simply does not make sense.

We shall see. As always...time will tell.

I wouldn't accept it even if it was offered to me for free but You Can Buy This Crazy Experimental Littoral Combat Ship For $180,000!
says

Jeff Head said:

Again, agreed.

However, I also will reiterate that such seeming incoherence can be corrected later.

...and I still believe it will.

Otherwise having 1/5 of your combat fleet, which has the tonnage and the space to allow for it, to then NOT have the "distributed lethality," capability really passed down into them simply does not make sense.

We shall see. As always...time will tell.

Click to expand...

Jeff,

There might still be hope to this program after all. The lastest Congressional Research Service report dated 30 Jan 2015 on the LCS program has criticized the way the SSC decision was made as it was on the back of some survey with senior naval leadership rather than any formal analyses of operational requirements and capability gaps review. The report is recommending that the final 20 units SSC design be put on hold pending a proper analysis is conducted.

Brumby said:

...The lastest Congressional Research Service report dated 30 Jan 2015 on the LCS program has criticized ...

Click to expand...

I'm just trying to be helpful (Brumby told me he had a difficulty to post links):
one quote:

The LCS program has been controversial due to past cost growth, design and construction issues with the lead ships built to each design, concerns over the ships’ survivability (i.e., ability to withstand battle damage), concerns over whether the ships are sufficiently armed and would be able to perform their stated missions effectively, and concerns over the development and testing of the ships’ modular mission packages. The Navy’s execution of the program has been a matter of congressional oversight attention for several years. The program’s restructuring in 2014 raises additional oversight issues for Congress.

Click to expand...

Brumby said:

might still be hope to this program after all. The lastest Congressional Research Service report dated 30 Jan 2015 on the LCS program has criticized the way the SSC decision was made...with senior naval leadership rather than any formal analyses of operational requirements and capability gaps review. The report is recommending that the final 20 units SSC design be put on hold pending a proper analysis is conducted.

Click to expand...

Thanks! I had not seen this, but it is good news if they will do a proper analysis and then address the issues of armament and combat design...and then produce a design that addresses those adequately.

The existing decision is (at least to me) a very thin veneer over the existing LCS types already being built.

That is not to say that the existing manufacturers cannot produce SSC designs that will be properly armed and built from their "Freedom" and "independence" basic designs...quite frankly I think they can.

But a complete attempt to fully address those issues is not what happened with this most recent decision IMHO.

IMHO, a good example of what a SSC LCS should be is the Turkish Ada Class Light Frigate. They displace 2,300 tons, are visually similar to the Freedom, and have the following, combat rated systems:

1 x 76 mm OtoMelara Super Rapid
2 x 20 mm Aselsan STAMP
8 x SSM BB
21 x
2 x 324 mm for
Hanger and flight deck for:
1 x
1 x

That's its standard armament without any "Modules". Here's how they look (two have been built). They cost about $260 million (US). Heavier main gun, 8 LR ASMs, twpo secondary guns, the ASW torpedo mounts, and the hanger. IMHO, they would just need a hanger capable of carrying two helos.


They are also building the TF-100 class, which are full frigates and more heavily armed (and will be more costly). They will be over 3,000 tons and will add a16 cell Mk-41 VLS with ESSM and VL ASROC.

I think the challenge they faced with the SSC/FF decision is that their two options of modding LCS with additional subsystems (like VLS and a better radar), or building a brand new design (such as based on Legend class), may have cost too much and arrive on the scene later than the USN would like. The first SSC is supposedly meant to be acquired from 2019, and I think the USN erring on the side of caution and choosing a LCS modification with minimal changes.

Considering recent USN shipbuilding programmes, I think that kind of caution is valid, therefeore possibly making the lightly upgunned LCS/FF the "safest" option that they currently have. Ironically, I think if they chose to develop a more conventional frigate instead of LCS from the very beginning, they may have come out with a more successful programme in the first place and wouldn't have needed to do a separate tender for SSC.

Who knows, maybe criticism of the decision will bring about changes, but I suspect the navy will have to either fork out more cash for development, or be patient enough to wait a bit longer, or both, compared to the LCS FF/SSC.