Littoral Combat Ships (LCS)


Jeff Head

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
I remember this incident weren't they in RHIB boats or something like that really small craft for that long of a trip not the Cyclone class I may be mistaken certainly wasn't under the current administration it just another episode of the previous administration appeasement policy towards Iran
No, they were in Riverine patrol boats, which are not RHIB, are hard bodied and quite a bit larger...but boats none-the -ess and not a ship.

Much smaller than a Cyclone...but can be heavily armed with .50 cals, grenade launchers, and MADPADS. These vessels were simply being tranited fomr one spot to another along the west side of the Gulf and the Ianians came out and took them.

The US Navy should have responded heavily and simply began sinking the entirety of the Iranian Navy.

But the Obama administration was incapable of defending American interests.

Reagan would have responded a lot differently.

How do I know?

I saw him do it in the 1980s when the Iranians began acting this way.

Look up and read about Operation Preying Mantis.
 
Last edited:

dtulsa

Junior Member
No, they were in Riverine patrol boats, which are not RHIB, are hard bodied and quite a bit larger...but boats noen the less and not a ship.

Much smaller than a Cyclone...but can be heavily armed with .50 cals, grenade launchers, and MADPADS. These vessels were simply being tranited fomr one spot to another along the west side of the Gulf and the Ianians came out and took them.

The US Navy should have responded heavily and simply began sinking the entirity of the Iranian Navy.

But the Obama administration was incapable of defending American interests.

Reagan would have responded a lot differently.

How do I know?

I saw him do it in the 1980s when the Iranians began acting this way.

Look up and read about Operation Preying MAntis.
Thanks for the clarification Jeff I knew they were much smaller than the Cyclone just not the size and totally agree with what you said about Reagan
 
Mar 28, 2017
Feb 20, 2017
while now Nine months into a four-month deployment to Singapore, relief is on the way for marooned LCS crew

source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and
Forward Navy Maintainers Cutting Down on Repair Time on Littoral Combat Ships
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The U.S Navy’s Commander Logistics Group Western Pacific/Task Force 73 has reorganized the process for dealing with maintenance incidents for Littoral Combat Ships deployed to the Indo-Asia-Pacific, reducing turn-around time for such incidents from 15 days to four days, Rear Adm. Don Gabrielson told USNI News.

He said one of the purposes of the current rotational deployment of USS Coronado (LCS-4) was to prepare for multiple Littoral Combat Ships deployed through Singapore and in other locations and there was a growing need to ensure an effective and efficient maintenance program in the forward operating environment. Gabrielson said when Coronado arrived in Singapore, a comprehensive examination of the process and procedures for handling unexpected engineering casualties was undertaken. The examination revealed that based on past deployments, it took an average of 15 days to correct maintenance casualties.

He added, “our team got together and first of all looked at the operational requirements. We then asked ourselves how good do we need to be in order to maximize our ability to meet those requirements. We needed to have confidence that we could correct most propulsion casualty incidents within four days to ensure we can meet LCS operational schedules down the line”.

Gabrielson said the examination required a collaborative effort by the entire LCS enterprise, from the maintenance and support process comprised of a mix of navy, civilian and government contracted personnel along with original equipment manufacturers, to reduce the 15 day turnaround time for correcting maintenance casualties to an average of four days. Gabrielson said these efficiencies are applicable to wherever Coronado and future Littoral Combat Ships are deployed in the region and not just in Singapore. He also added that some of the conclusions that were reached included the relocation of personnel, support assets and spare part stocks to better support the operation of rotationally deployed Littoral Combat Ships in the region.

Coronado will be one of the U.S ships participating in an exercise code-named Pacific Griffin with the Republic of Singapore Navy, which will take place in Guam in September. “We’re still finalizing the details on that, but it will be a high-end exercise which will involve live-firing,” Gabrielson said.

The Navy is also examining increased aviation capability for rotationally deployed Littoral Combat Ships, an over the horizon missile capability and additional systems to increase the Littoral Combat Ship lethality for sea control missions to maximize the potential of the platform.

In regard to the future presence of multiple Littoral Combat Ships to the region, Gabrielson said his team was ready and prepared to support these deployments.

“We’re in a good place with the work that has been done, the lessons learned and the avocation of those lessons, such as the 15 to four turnaround for casualty repair, and we’ll continue to do more to conduct preventive maintenance on these ships and seek ways to maximize efficiency and effectiveness in how we support them. We’re ready and excited to welcome multiple LCS to the region and put them to work, and there’s no shortage of meaningful work for these ships.”
 
Yesterday at 12:13 PM
Senators Call on Mattis to Buy More Littoral Combat Ships
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"All four states that the senators represent have close ties to the littoral combat ship program." I lost the track ... do those four Senators sell, or buy?
oops, it's two times four:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"The eight signatures are four Republicans:
...
And four Democrats:
..."


here:
"Mattis has yet to comment publicly on the LCS program."
me waiting

by the way Feb 15, 2017
WHEN REPEAT WHEN THE NAVY GETS ITS SECRETARY?
I just wonder for how long I'll be waiting
 

dtulsa

Junior Member
Yesterday at 12:13 PM
oops, it's two times four:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"The eight signatures are four Republicans:
...
And four Democrats:
..."


here:

I just wonder for how long I'll be waiting
I certainly hope and prey that the ships as currently constructed and armed are the last we see of them it's kind of telling that one of their main missions of combating pirates is being done by other ship's Ok it's a ringing indictment of the failures of the class as a whole
 
... as a whole
the LCS endeavor reached crossroads: the Obama administration

(which was bragging about LCSs, as in Feb 9, 2016
indeed, "a group of small surface ships like LCS is still capable of putting the enemy fleet on the bottom of the ocean" since 21:14 in:
)

is gone, and under the new administration I can imagine
  1. some trimming (based on "proven accomplishments" of LCSs), but I can also imagine
  2. placing even more orders (to live Trump's dream of 350 ships Navy / USN dream of 355 ships Navy)
the problem with the option #1 is somebody in the Pentagon would have to admit there was a problem (probably impossible after the project has been praised for like twenty years and Apr 13, 2017
"... the Navy remains firmly committed to execution of the current LCS program of record ..."
);

the problem with the option #2 is money

what I can also imagine though is they'll just build what's been ordered (26 if I'm not mistaken), declare some of them "beefed up" (without actually changing them), and call it a tremendous success

time will tell the rest
 
Boeing pulls Harpoon from US Navy missile competition
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Citing continuing requirements changes that would mean giving ships a less-capable weapon than those carried by aircraft, Boeing said Tuesday it would drop out of a U.S. Navy effort to buy an over-the-horizon (OTH) cruise missile for littoral combat ships (LCS) and frigates.

Boeing’s decision to withdraw its widely-used Harpoon missile leaves the Raytheon/Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile (NSM) and Lockheed Martin Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) as the likely candidates in the OTH effort.

Troy Rutherford, director of cruise missile systems at Boeing Defense, said the company had long planned to adapt the Block II Plus Extended Range Harpoon being developed for Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) to support the needs of Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA).

“We felt we were well-positioned when the RFP dropped” in February, Rutherford said, but subsequent Navy changes -- in Boeing’s opinion – devalued a lot of what the company felt it could offer.

“We were invested heavily across the OTH domain, and we’re on track with Navy to produce the Block II Plus first net-enabled OASUW [Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare] cruise missile into operational capability this year. And we continue to be on track for with early development for Extended Range for the air-launched version,” Rutherford said.

But, he said, “in every iteration of the RFP amendments we see a decrease in the top-level requirements document and changes in the top-level requirements document. We’ve taken a hard look at that and said that at this point it doesn’t make sense for the Boeing Company to bid on this.”

Among the differences between the NAVAIR and NAVSEA requirements, Rutherford noted, are all-weather and net-enabled capabilities for the air-launched weapon – capabilities deleted or not given in the surface ship requirements.

“We would have to take a lot of capability out of this existing system and really deliver a less-capable weapon system to NAVSEA than the one we are currently on track to deliver for NAVAIR,” Rutherford said.

NAVSEA’s requirements, he added, “really don’t give credit to the full capabilities of the missile. It also doesn’t allow for a lot of leeway in offering non-development technology and alignment with where naval aviation is taking us.”

The new Block II Plus Harpoon will become operational this year, Rutherford said, and Boeing is doubling its production over the next four years. “We’ve got a very strong pipeline there.”

Boeing has no intention to drop support or development of Harpoons launched from ships.

“We continue to invest in this capability and the technologies,” Rutherford said.

“We have a lot of interest from the international community to pick up Extended Range Harpoon. We see a very healthy market for not only air-launched but also surface and submarine-launched Extended Range Harpoon across our current inventory of partners.”

The company remains ready to produce sea-launched Harpoons, Rutherford said.

“If the surface Navy in the future wanted to upgrade to an extended-range variant there’s a way for them to easily do that,” he said. “We’re always happy to have that conversation with the Navy and discuss openly what the true requirements are. I just go back to the way this solicitation is currently written and the requirements continue to change within this particular solicitation. We’ve chosen not to place a bid on this activity.”

The move caught industry and officialdom somewhat by surprise, but the Navy, through a spokesperson, declined to comment on the development. Lockheed followed suit, referring questions to the Navy, but Raytheon offered a statement.

"Raytheon and Kongsberg are jointly preparing a submission to the U.S. Navy’s Request for Proposal for its Over-The-Horizon Weapon System," spokesperson Tara Wood wrote in an email. "The companies believe that the ready-now Naval Strike Missile offers the U.S. Navy a high-performance capability to rapidly and affordably deliver strike dominance to the U.S. surface force."

Boeing’s decision to withdraw is likely to come up Wednesday afternoon when the House Armed Services Committee holds a hearing on the LCS and frigate programs.

Only one LCS has launched cruise missiles. The Coronado conducted a demonstration launch of the Naval Strike Missile in September 2014, when a launch box was placed at the edge of its flight deck. The launcher was removed following the test.

The Coronado was subsequently chosen to be modified to carry Harpoon launch canisters during its current deployment to Singapore. The installation, which was not intended to be fully integrated with the ship’s combat system, was only partially complete last summer when the ship launched a Harpoon during Rim of the Pacific exercises. The missile ran out of fuel and failed to reach its target.

The Harpoon installation was completed during the deployment, with eight missile tubes installed on the Coronado’s foredeck. But since arriving at Singapore in October the ship has not fired another missile, although several live-fire exercises using other weapons have been performed.

Final bids on the OTH program are due to be submitted June 23.
I guess it's somehow related to Aug 13, 2015
I did some digging :)
starting from
Navy Issues RFI for New Frigate Anti-Surface Missile
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I got to this update ("Responses to Vendor Questions):

etc., dated June 29, available from:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
I mean the vendor now saying
"Among the differences between the NAVAIR and NAVSEA requirements, Rutherford noted, are all-weather and net-enabled capabilities for the air-launched weapon – capabilities deleted or not given in the surface ship requirements.

“We would have to take a lot of capability out of this existing system and really deliver a less-capable weapon system to NAVSEA than the one we are currently on track to deliver for NAVAIR,” Rutherford said."
 

dtulsa

Junior Member
Boeing pulls Harpoon from US Navy missile competition
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


I guess it's somehow related to Aug 13, 2015
I mean the vendor now saying
"Among the differences between the NAVAIR and NAVSEA requirements, Rutherford noted, are all-weather and net-enabled capabilities for the air-launched weapon – capabilities deleted or not given in the surface ship requirements.

“We would have to take a lot of capability out of this existing system and really deliver a less-capable weapon system to NAVSEA than the one we are currently on track to deliver for NAVAIR,” Rutherford said."
Very strange the USN to keep changing the requirements for the OTH that really only leaves the NSM as a ready "now"system as the LRASM is still being developed and is more expensive and heavier
 

Top