Littoral Combat Ships (LCS)

Bltizo said:

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.

Click to expand...

With the LCS it was always about money and that is to get as much out of the design with a cap around $500-$600 million per vessel. I just think that with a limited set amount of funding on the program a better outcome is to incorporate VLS into the design by way of offset with lower vessel numbers. This might require some hull modification and cost around $750 million per vessel. It is IMHO a better outcome to end up with less more capable vessels than stick with a less flexible armed design just to make the original total vessels count. It think it is ethically wrong to send the service personnel into harm's way with a capability and/or operational gap.

I think what is lacking is naval leadership committed in doing the right thing.

Brumby said:

With the LCS it was always about money and that is to get as much out of the design with a cap around $500-$600 million per vessel. I just think that with a limited set amount of funding on the program a better outcome is to incorporate VLS into the design by way of offset with lower vessel numbers. This might require some hull modification and cost around $750 million per vessel. It is IMHO a better outcome to end up with less more capable vessels than stick with a less flexible armed design just to make the original total vessels count. It think it is ethically wrong to send the service personnel into harm's way with a capability and/or operational gap.

I think what is lacking is naval leadership committed in doing the right thing.

Click to expand...

It just comes down to how much it costs for a viable VLS equipped LCS to be developed and produced, and how long the USN is willing to wait for it.

Personally, I think that even if the SSC LCS decision isn't changed (i.e.: no VLS, no ESSM, no more capable radar), it isn't necessarily the end of the world for the USN, it just means a change in doctrine. In low intensity patrol situations like anti pirate duty, FFs will be fine, and if they want to do ASW or other missions in a higher intensity situation, they'll need a burke as overwatch for a taskforce of say, 4 or so LCS/FFs.

That isn't a terribly bad situation, after all the PLAN will likely need at least an 054A to guard a similar number of 056s in a high intensity scenario as well.

I think the USN will have enough aegis destroyers/cruisers in coming years to help defend FFs in a high intensity situation, but it'll require a change in organization among the USN's escorts for CSGs and ESGs.

And even if there aren't enough burkes to help defend FFs in individual, independent small SAGs, they can always incorporate some FFs into their larger CSGs and ESGs as a dedicated anti submarine ship. With their new towed and variable depth sonars and two ASW helicopters, the FFs should be good at that job, and allow Burkes to concentrate on AAW escort jobs.

So I think the way SSC/FF is being currently proposed makes it unable to independently operate in a medium intensity environment or higher, yes. However it should be able to operate in low intensity environments, and it will be able to operate within larger groups in a high intensity situation if other ships provide AAW support -- the key is that in both situations, it will help take the burden off burkes so the burkes can do other jobs. That burden can be pirate patrol, ASW, showing the flag missions, low intensity SOF support, along with the anti swarm capabilities inherited from the LCS. Not every USN surface combatant necessarily needs to have MR AAW, especially when the USN has so many aegis ships to begin with.

Bltizo said:

So I think the way SSC/FF is being currently proposed makes it unable to independently operate in a medium intensity environment or higher, yes. However it should be able to operate in low intensity environments, and it will be able to operate within larger groups in a high intensity situation if other ships provide AAW support -- the key is that in both situations, it will help take the burden off burkes so the burkes can do other jobs. That burden can be pirate patrol, ASW, showing the flag missions, low intensity SOF support, along with the anti swarm capabilities inherited from the LCS. Not every USN surface combatant necessarily needs to have MR AAW, especially when the USN has so many aegis ships to begin with.

Click to expand...

What you described is essentially what has been mapped out for the LCS to perform. They are described in detail by Robert Work in the document I provided a link to in post #711. The planned operational concept obviously has to be tested out at sea. There is concern that the normal speed of the LCS is unable to keep pace with a CSG. Also the point to note is that "littoral" in which the design is meant to operate in may not be low intensity.

Brumby said:

What you described is essentially what has been mapped out for the LCS to perform. They are described in detail by Robert Work in the document I provided a link to in post #711. The planned operational concept obviously has to be tested out at sea. There is concern that the normal speed of the LCS is unable to keep pace with a CSG. Also the point to note is that "littoral" in which the design is meant to operate in may not be low intensity.

Click to expand...

Well I specifically left out the high intensity "littoral" possibilty, because I think FF/LCS won't be survivable in such a scenario without a Burke for AAW support... and even then I wouldn't be wholly confident, as a Burke with SPY-1s emitting will naturally lead to discovery.

An LCS/FF at speeds necessary to keep up with a CSG will likely not be too efficient and lead to a decreased endurance, but depending on if there are friendly ports available or if there are multiple LCS/FFs in the fleet, they can potentially be rotated out. There's also the possibility that a high intensity conflict won't be that long anyway, so the low endurance of LCS at CSG speed might not matter very much.

So assuming the SSC doesn't change from the current FF proposal, I think the USN will definitely have to forgo some of the LCS's original requirements (specifically any kind of independent operation in a high intensity scenario, whether it is littoral or at open ocean near the coast), and other missions like ASW escort as part of a CSG or any other kind of task group where a 25-30 knot normal speed is required may not be very fuel efficient for the ship either.
But it'll be able to do low intensity missions independently, which will hopefully free up a lot of burkes for use in other places.
LCS/FF is and will be a good ship in some respects, it just costs too much for the capabilities it has. It is just unfortunate that the USN don't have an extra 5-10 years to go back to the drawing board to design a proper frigate or dramatically redesign the LCS to give it the capabilities of a modern frigate.

glad to see a new round of discussions here I'm looking forward to see the Malaysian Gowind-class (displacing 3100 tons it's going to have a 3D radar; VLS; AShMs; 3" gun; helicopter plus hangar; torpedo tubes https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/south-east-asian-nations-news-and-views.t5809/page-90#post-306076 etc., the DCNS presentation:
and cost about $0.5b per ship), just hope what Brumby said (in a different thread though https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/pak-fa-fgfa-discussions.t7155/page-40#post-326613)

Add 1/3 to the timeline and 50 % to the cost and that is likley where things will be eventually.

Click to expand...

won't apply here

Lockheed Martin-Led Team Lays Keel of Future USS Wichita Thirteenth Littoral Combat Ship

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Naval Today said:

US Navy’s littoral combat ship USS Fort Worth’s (LCS 3) has swapped crews in Sembawang, Singapore, February 17. The LCS Crew 103 Rough Riders boarded the vessel.

Cmdr. Kendall Bridgewater, LCS Crew 104 commanding officer, said:

“The Feb. 17 crew turnover with Crew 103 is the fourth turnover between Crews 104 and 103."

Crew 104 will arrive at their homeport of San Diego Feb. 18, where the crew will spend time training on-shore and off the California coast before redeploying in May to Marinette, Wisconsin, and serving as the commissioning crew for the littoral combat ship Pre-Commissioning Unit (PCU) Milwaukee (LCS 5), the third ship in the Freedom class.

Crew 103 comes aboard with about 100 Sailors, which includes Sailors from HSM-35 Detachment 2 and SUW Mission Package Detachment 1. Shortly after crew swap, Fort Worth will get underway and conduct port visits, patrols, and starting with Foal Eagle in March, exercises with regional navies throughout U.S. 7th Feet. Held annually with the Republic of Korea navy, Foal Eagle also is the first exercise in Northeast Asia that incorporates LCS participation.

Click to expand...

Interesting look at how the US Navy is using its LCS crew rotation for these vessels.

Jeff Head said:

...
Interesting look at how the US Navy is using its LCS crew rotation for these vessels.

Click to expand...

here's the USN press-release:

meaning of "the 3-2-1 manning concept":

three crews rotate between two ships, one of which is forward deployed for an extended period, while the other ship is stateside for workups and training

Click to expand...

according to

For crew matter finaly more big as planned i don' t ask for helo, about 15 and modules only for ship and for crew number future German Type 125 use the same method ofc with a more big crew, planned very long time deployed also.

found a moment ago
US Navy: 4 LCSs to Operate Out of Singapore by 2018

SINGAPORE — Four US warships designed to fight in coastal areas similar to Southeast Asian waters will be operating out of Singapore by 2018, up from one currently, a senior US Navy official said Tuesday.

The "rotational deployment" of the vessels, called littoral combat ships (LCS), comes as China continues to flex its muscles in the South China Sea and tensions remain on the Korean Peninsula.

"We will soon see up to four LCS here in Singapore as we rotationally deploy Seventh Fleet ships," said Rear Adm. Charles Williams.

"We envision four ships here by May 2017 to sometime in 2018 ... but I think what you have is that by 2018, four LCS ships will be rotationally deployed here to Singapore."

Williams, commander of the Seventh Fleet's Task Force 73, was speaking to reporters aboard the USS Fort Worth, an LCS on a 16-month deployment to Southeast Asia.

It replaced another LCS, the USS Freedom, which recently ended an eight-month tour of duty.

The USS Fort Worth is set to take part in exercise Foal Eagle, a joint military drill with South Korea from Feb. 24-March 6.

It will also join regional navies in the annual Cooperation Afloat Readiness and Training exercises and the International Maritime Defence Exhibition.

Fast and agile, LCS vessels can be adapted for specific missions through a system of interchangeable modules and crew.

The US Navy plans to build 52 LCS vessels at a total cost of $37 billion but the program has become controversial due to cost inflation, design and construction issues.

In 2012 the then-US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced that Washington would shift the bulk of its naval fleet to the Pacific by 2020 as part of a new strategic focus on Asia.

China is embroiled in a maritime dispute with four Southeast Asian countries — Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam — as well as with Taiwan over territorial claims in the South China Sea.

While not a claimant, the United States has said it has an interest to ensure freedom of navigation in the area

Click to expand...

source: