Littoral Combat Ships (LCS)


Which version is being request is one question
here I don't know

the second is are we seeing the kast,
here I don't understand the question


of LCS in its current form third remember that the budget as submitted now is a long ways from what will actually be funded and not be funded so as always in military terms "hurry up and wait"
but here...: “We are not submitting an amendment (to the budget) for a second LCS…. I have not been directed to create or submit a second budget submission.” says the Navy budget chief, Rear Adm. Brian Luther
!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


so let's wait see if a bunch like this: Apr 29, 2017
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?

...
will be able to "deliver" some additional LCS to the Navy
 

dtulsa

Junior Member
here I don't know

here I don't understand the question



but here...: “We are not submitting an amendment (to the budget) for a second LCS…. I have not been directed to create or submit a second budget submission.” says the Navy budget chief, Rear Adm. Brian Luther
!

so let's wait see if a bunch like this: Apr 29, 2017
will be able to "deliver" some additional LCS to the Navy
I meant to say are we seeing the last of the LCS in its current form?
 
I meant to say are we seeing the last of the LCS in its current form?
as far as I know, there's a block buy of 26 LCSs contracted ... I don't follow at which number this BLUNDEROUS project is (I'm guessing it's in its second half though), actually I facepalm at a look of any new LCS hitting the water
 

dtulsa

Junior Member
as far as I know, there's a block buy of 26 LCSs contracted ... I don't follow at which number this BLUNDEROUS project is (I'm guessing it's in its second half though), actually I facepalm at a look of any new LCS hitting the water
For sure it's going to be an interesting battle over this budget as far,as the navy is concerned so grab a pint and some popcorn and enjoy
 

dtulsa

Junior Member
Ok per defense news Lockheed and Saab have withdrawn from the OTH missile for the LCS/ frigate leaving only the NSM so I guess we now know what the missile will be or do we?
 
Ok per defense news Lockheed and Saab have withdrawn from the OTH missile for the LCS/ frigate leaving only the NSM so I guess we now know what the missile will be or do we?
let me see ... it's early in the morning here ... "Lockheed Martin, frustrated by changing requirements the company feels are skewed to a particular competitor ..." after
May 3, 2017
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."

now
“There was no value for being able to go after radiating or emitting targets,” an industry source said, discounting an LRASM capability that can detect emitting and moving targets. “Through responses it became clear there would be no credit for attacking emitting targets, and no requirement to be on a network.”

The absence of a networking requirement was “surprising,” the industry source said, “given the needs of the distributed lethality concept,” which envisions netting together weapons, sensors and command facilities on a variety of platforms.

Additionally, the industry source said, there was “no plan to do a cost-per-kill analysis. They made that clear. So no extra credit for improved survivability.”

Lockheed Martin drops out of US Navy missile competition
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Lockheed Martin, frustrated by changing requirements the company feels are skewed to a particular competitor, is dropping out of the U.S. Navy’s over-the-horizon missile program intended to give a lethal capability to littoral combat ships and frigates.

The move, which an industry source said was announced to the Navy on May 23, means that two of the three primary contenders — Boeing and Lockheed — are ceding the field to the rival joint effort of Kongsberg and Raytheon, now likely to be the only serious bidder to provide the weapon.

“After long and careful consideration, Lockheed Martin has decided to withdraw from the U.S. Navy Over-the-Horizon Weapon System (OTH-WS) competition,” Scott Callaway, director of advanced subsonic cruise missiles at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control unit, told Defense News on Wednesday.

“As the current OTH-WS request for proposal (RFP) process refined over time, it became clear that our offering would not be fully valued. Lockheed Martin remains a committed industry partner and looks forward to future opportunities to deliver superior combat power to the surface Navy.”

The RFP was issued Feb. 8 by the Navy’s Integrated Warfare Systems office at the Naval Sea Systems Command. Bids on the missile are due to be submitted by June 23.

Lockheed and Boeing each felt the competition was increasingly driven to favor the Naval Strike Missile, a weapon developed by the Norwegian firm Kongsberg, who has partnered with Raytheon to offer the system to the U.S. Navy.

Industry sources indicated they felt the initial RFP was viable, but as requirements were refined during the question-and-answer process, Boeing and Lockheed felt that key attributes of their systems, particularly networking capabilities and in-flight targeting updates, were being discounted, robbing Lockheed’s Long Range Anti-Ship Missile, or LRASM, and Boeing’s extended-range Harpoon Block II Plus of key competitive advantages. Versions of both weapon systems are in development for Naval Air Systems Command to provide air-launched versions, expected to enter service ahead of any surface-launched variant.

“There was no value for being able to go after radiating or emitting targets,” an industry source said, discounting an LRASM capability that can detect emitting and moving targets. “Through responses it became clear there would be no credit for attacking emitting targets, and no requirement to be on a network.”

The absence of a networking requirement was “surprising,” the industry source said, “given the needs of the distributed lethality concept,” which envisions netting together weapons, sensors and command facilities on a variety of platforms.

Additionally, the industry source said, there was “no plan to do a cost-per-kill analysis. They made that clear. So no extra credit for improved survivability.”

The comments echoed those made by Boeing on May 2 when the company announced its decision to drop out of the OTH-WS contention.

“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,” Troy Rutherford, director of cruise missile systems at Boeing's Defense business unit, told Defense News. “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.”

Another potential OTH-WS competitor, Saab, also recently dropped out of contention.

“We decided not to submit a bid,” said John Belanger, spokesman for Saab North America. “We evaluated the business case, didn’t see a good fit and decided not to bid our product.”

Belanger declined to discuss in detail the reasoning for pulling a variant of the company’s RBS-15 missile out of the OTH effort, but added that Saab continues to monitor the program. “If we see any change, our position might change,” he added.

Reached Wednesday afternoon, U.S. Navy officials declined to comment for this story.

LRASM is a long-range, precision-guided anti-ship missile developed from the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile-Extended Range air-launched weapon carried by U.S. Air Force bombers and strike fighters. The all-weather weapon is armed with a penetrator and blast fragmentation warhead, and can strike specific targets within a group of targets. The air-launched version is expected to enter service in late 2018.

Lockheed launched LRASM last year from a vertical launch system, or VLS, aboard the Navy’s self-defense test ship Paul F. Foster, and, according to Callaway, the company intends to continue development of the weapon.

“Lockheed Martin strongly believes that we have an offering of significant value, which the Navy is already familiar with in the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile Capability Air-Launched program of record,” Callaway said. “We will continue our investment in the maturation of the surface-launch LRASM capabilities for future competitions where survivability, long range, and lethality against the most capable adversary ships drive the requirements.

“On the heels of our recent successful at-sea VLS demonstration, our topside launcher flight test this summer designed for non-VLS applications will further demonstrate the flexibility and versatility of LRASM for the surface fleet. Lockheed Martin understands how critical this capability is to the Navy, particularly given the surface Navy’s return to sea control through the distributed lethality concept of operations.”
 
Last edited:

Jeff Head

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Ok per defense news Lockheed and Saab have withdrawn from the OTH missile for the LCS/ frigate leaving only the NSM so I guess we now know what the missile will be or do we?
The NSM and the existing Harpoon will be available for the current LCS. They are already putting Harpoons on the Indepndenc class.

This is not the same as the NAVSEA requirement for the future.

Either of those two missile in their current forms will perform fine. NSM is the likely competitor fr the NAVSEA new frigate missile and that is fine too. it is a very good missile.

I believe you will see ultimately the LRASM available for any MK VLS system that is put into the new frigates.

I personally think that the full 26 build of LCS is going to occur...but then over time you will see most of them upgraded in armament to the fast frigate or whatever they end up calling the LCS upgrade design.

Then, on top of that, you will have the new Frigate and probably end up seeing 30 of them.

Right now, here is what has been launched:

Freedom Class:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
LCS-1 Active in service
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
LCS-3 Active in service
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
LCS-5 Active in service
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
LCS-7 11 Active in service
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
LCS-9 Launched and Fitting out
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
LCS-11 Launched and Fitting out
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
LCS-13 9 Launched

Independence Class:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
LCS-2 Active in service
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
LCS-4 1Active in service
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
LCS-6 Active in service
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
LCS-8 Active in service
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
LCS-10 Launched and Fitting out
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
LCS-12 Launched and Fitting out
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
LCS-14 Launched and Fitting out
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
LCS-16 11 Launched

...and here is what is currently building or already ordered:

Freedom Class:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
LCS-15 2 Under construction
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
LCS-17 Under construction
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
LCS-19 Under construction
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
LCS-21 On order
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
LCS-23 On order
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
LCS-25 On order

Independence Class:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
LCS-18 Under construction
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
LCS-20 Under construction
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
LCS-22 Under construction
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
LCS-24 On order
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
LCS-26 On order

So, at this point, eight are commissioned and active and another seven are launched and fitting out.

That is 15 of the original 26 already in the water.

You then have another eleven either building or on order and completely budgeted.

I expect all 26 of those will build and over half of them, may 3/4 of them will eventually get armament upgrades and some sensor upgrades.
 

Jeff Head

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
So, for the FFGs you will have NSM and perhaps LRASM.

For the LCS you will have Harpoon and NSM.

For the DDGs you will have LRASM and Tatctical Tomahawk

NAVAIR will have all of them operating off of the carriers fro the F/A-18 and or the F-35Cs, and for the F-35B the NSM off of the LHA/LHD.

That will be a VERY pwoerful nunh of Anti-surace capability for the US Navy...and it is needed.

Ultimately you will see most of them available for sub launch from the Virginia class, and some of them from the Sea Wolf class too. Tactical Tomohawk will surely be available for the LA Class boats VLS as well.
 
Ok per defense news Lockheed and Saab have withdrawn from the OTH missile for the LCS/ frigate leaving only the NSM so I guess we now know what the missile will be or do we?
related USNI News
Lockheed Martin Drops LRASM Out of Littoral Combat Ship/Frigate Missile Competition
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Lockheed Martin has elected not to include its Long Range Anti-Ship Missile in the Navy’s competition to field an over-the-horizon missile for the Littoral Combat Ship and frigate, company officials confirmed to USNI News on Wednesday.

“After long and careful consideration, Lockheed Martin has decided to withdraw from the U.S. Navy Over-the-Horizon Weapon System (OTH-WS) competition. As the current OTH-WS request for proposal process refined over time, it became clear that our offering would not be fully valued,” read a statement from the company provided to USNI News.
“If additional changes are made to the RFP, Lockheed Martin would review the new requirements and assess whether our capability would be a good fit to meet the U.S. Navy’s needs, as we would with any RFP.”

LRASM – a modified version of the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile – was developed as part of an urgent operational need for U.S. Pacific Command for a modern air launched anti-ship cruise missile. In tandem with developing the air-launched version, Lockheed has spent several internal research and development dollars to prove out surface and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Lockheed’s exit from the competition was first reported by
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. Earlier this month Boeing dropped out of the OTH competition, withdrawing its RGM-84 Harpoon from consideration.

Both companies expressed concern that the Navy was giving little consideration to the networked capability of the weapons, USNI News understands.

“Lockheed Martin strongly believes that we have an offering of significant value, which the Navy is already familiar with in the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile Capability Air-Launched program of record,” said Scott Callaway, director of Advanced Sub-sonic Cruise Missiles at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control said in a statement to USNI News. “

We will continue our investment in the maturation of the surface launch LRASM capabilities for future competitions where survivability, long range, and lethality against the most capable adversary ships drive the requirements. On the heels of our recent successful at-sea Vertical Launching System demonstration, our Topside Launcher flight test this summer designed for non-VLS applications, will further demonstrate the flexibility and versatility of LRASM for the surface fleet.”

With Lockheed and Boeing both out of the competition, the only remaining contender for the OTH award is the Norwegian Naval Strike Missile

Both LRASM and Harpoon are being developed into air launched versions at the behest of Naval Air Systems Command.
now I reread this paragraph from the original DefenseNews article:
"Industry sources indicated they felt the initial RFP was viable, but as requirements were refined during the question-and-answer process, Boeing and Lockheed felt that key attributes of their systems, particularly networking capabilities and in-flight targeting updates, were being discounted, robbing Lockheed’s Long Range Anti-Ship Missile, or LRASM, and Boeing’s extended-range Harpoon Block II Plus of key competitive advantages. Versions of both weapon systems are in development for Naval Air Systems Command to provide air-launched versions, expected to enter service ahead of any surface-launched variant."

so even if the USN decides AFTER TEN PLUS YEARS it actually may be a good idea to put AShMs on LCSs, it probably wants to get something 'cost-effective' huh?
 
Last edited:
not sure what to say
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

UPDATE: Source Says WH Will Fund LCS Add; CRS Naval Expert Comments

CAPITOL HILL: In a startling turnabout, the Trump Administration now “supports” adding a $541 million
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
to yesterday’s
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, Navy officials told Congress this afternoon. What, exactly, does that mean? The Navy doesn’t know.

Minutes before Navy witnesses were to testify before the House seapower subcommittee, they were given new language from the White House
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
: “The Administration recognizes the criticality of our industrial base and supports funding a second LCS in FY18.” OMB gave them no information, however, about whether “supports” is a promise of new money or just a vague sentiment that Congress should feel free to increase the Navy budget.

UPDATE BEGINS: The money will come, promised a source familiar with the administration’s discussions. “The administration’s going to support two (Littoral Combat) ships in the budget in FY18, and we’re figuring out the mechanism to do that,” the source assured me. “There will be a document of some sort, some sort of statement indicating that the administration is going to include
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
two LCS in ’18.” The administration will also probably urge the Hill to add a third LCS, leaving it up to Congress to find the funding for that ship.

Where’s the money coming from for the second LCS, the one the administration is funding? “That is a question for which I do not have an answer,” the source admitted. “OMB and DoD are going to have to sort that out. All I can say is, it will be there.”

Land of Confusion

This was a pretty confusing way to get something in the budget, I said.

“Yeah. I don’t disagree,” said the source, chagrinned. “I wish that it had been done differently the whole way, (but)
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, and there are plenty of people who have concerns about it. (At DoD), I think they viewed LCS as a bill payer for other priorities.”

Ultimately, “the senior people in the administration said, we’re going to make the industrial base for our navy…a priority,” the source said, but by that point, “it was too late to put it in the physical budget document that were printed…The decision to include came rather late in the process and communicating that to the Navy and DoD writ large was a little delayed.” UPDATE ENDS

Confusion certainly reigned on the Hill this afternoon. After the seapower hearing, reporters swarmed star witness
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, a career civil servant who’s “performing the duties of” the assistant Navy secretary for research, development, and acquisition in the absence of a permanent appointee. (Trump’s
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
are another aspect of the new administration’s departure from established Washington procedure).

“You heard me say that the administration is supportive of a second LCS,” Stiller told us. “That was brought to us today, and that’s what I know.”

“Supportive” isn’t exactly budgetary terminology, I noted.

“I’m relaying what I was asked to relay,” said the beleaguered Stiller.

So, one of us asked, will the money for the ship be taken from other Navy programs?

“We don’t have those details yet,” said
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations.

Were you surprised to get this change from OMB?

“That’s OMB’s prerogative,” Stiller said.

Do you have any idea where the money’s coming from?

“What I said is the administration is supportive of the second ship,” said the increasingly strained Stiller. “I do not know the details. I do not know how that’s going to manifest itself.”

“And that’s all we really have on that,” a Navy public affairs officer interjected, urging the reporters on to other topics.

“Never Seen Anything Like This”

Without exception, reporters and other Washington veterans that I talked to expressed bemused disbelief. They couldn’t remember an administration proposing such a vague but dramatic change to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
within 24 hours of rolling it out.
goes on in the subsequent post due to size limit; source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Top