Littoral Combat Ships (LCS)


UPDATE BEGINS: “This is the fastest de facto budget amendment I can recall, at least for the Navy programs that I cover,” said
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, the widely respected naval analyst for the non-partisan Congressional Research Service. “It came within a day or two of the budget being submitted, and only about three hours after the Navy had defended the one-ship request during the Q&A part of the SAC-D (Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee) hearing on the FY18 (Navy) budget.”

“As I understand it, the Navy is now requesting two LCSs for FY18, even though the Navy’s FY18 budget as submitted funds one LCS,” O’Rourke said. But, he said, whether the required funding, some $541 million, will have to come out of other Navy programs is still unclear.UPDATE ENDS

“I’ve never seen anything like this in the eight-nine budgets I’ve been involved in,” agreed one Pentagon official.

“Late in the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
,” the official confirmed, a second Littoral Combat Ship was definitely under discussion between OMB, the Navy, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense, as we reported. Trump had promised a build-up to a
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in the fleet (about 3,400 tons and $550 million), so adding an LCS is literally the least Trump could do to show progress towards that promise. But the administration decided to stick with one LCS and seven other naval vessels, the same
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
that the Obama administration had planned for 2017.

There were persistent rumors that OMB would add a second LCS, but Navy officials I spoke to yesterday denied them. Just this morning, the Chief of Naval Operations,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, and the acting Navy Secretary,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, got hammered in the Senate Appropriations Committee about the shortcomings of the shipbuilding budget, and they never mentioned a second LCS. (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
the plan was for Richardson and Stackley to make the announcement, but they weren’t told in time). Stiller herself doesn’t seem to have known until shortly before today’s 2:00 pm hearing, since she had to revise her written statement to include the added Littoral Combat Ship. House seapower chairman
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
hadn’t heard, because his opening remarks lambasted the administration for only building one LCS, which would lead to “massive layoffs” at
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
involved.

“It was unclear to what degree Stackley and Richardson knew about the switch,” the Pentagon official told me. “Sometime between the CNO’s testimony (in the morning) and Ms. Stiller and Vice Adm. Lescher’s testimony (in the afternoon), OMB told the Navy to articulate the new position.”

Results vs. Process

On the one hand, in a defense world where it can take years of legislative and bureaucratic wrangling to change an established program, it’s refreshing to see an administration respond to criticism and change course literally overnight. On the other hand, it’s alarming to see such poor communication between the White House and the Navy. And it’s confusing to see such vague, ad hoc pronouncements where taxpayer dollars and national security are involved.

If OMB really wants to add a ship to the budget request, there’s a well-established process for submitting a budget amendment. This isn’t it. If OMB just wants to encourage Congress to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, well,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

UPDATE BEGINS But even the Hill needs help, argued the source familiar with administration discussions. “If one (LCS) is in the budget and you’re trying to get three total, the Hill would struggle to find the money to add two. That’s a huge lift for the appropriators, the authorizers,” the source argued. “If two are in the request and they just have to find one…they can bridge that gap.” The Hill’s successfully added single ships in past years on many occasions, both LCS and other classes.

So, the source concluded, “the Hill is now in a position to ensure that we have the minimum sustainment rate of three, and there will be no layoffs, and we can move on to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
with no disruption.” The Navy wants both LCS shipyards, Austal in Alabama and Marinette Marine in Wisconsin,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
to compete against both each other and other yards for a
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
called a frigate.

“All I can say is, the process may not have been ideal, but the end result is far, far better than if we had had a simple process and we had layoffs in Wisconsin and Alabama,” the source said. “So I would trade a little bit of a haphazard process for
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and employed shipyard workers.”
source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Feb 11, 2017
... (and I of course know at the same time it's a job program!) ...
indeed
 

dtulsa

Junior Member
Ok I've slept in this a,little bit my thoughts are 1. The NSM is the best choice because it's designed for littoral and blue waters the price of 569,000 per missile is just a little higher than tomahawk block IV range is totally acceptable 100 nm plus 2. It's being developed into a land strike missile and it fits inside the 35 (all) versions and lastly it's ready Now it doesn't need or isn't in development it's not perfect but its a lot better than what we have now 3. It's the lightest of all the competition so more of needed could be carried if required 4. It makes it easier to install remember when it was fired in 2014 from LCS 4 it didn't use much more than a lap top and still hit the target so the entire system will be most likely a easy fit
 

dtulsa

Junior Member
Today at 7:03 AM

now
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


... goes on in the subsequent post due to size limit; source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
While I agree the most powerful anti air weapons are from the VLS ESSM is also available from the mk29 box launcher maybe they are looking into that system also right now it's anybody's guess what it's going to if any thing at all
 
Last edited:

dtulsa

Junior Member
They have yet do but Independence in aluminium are more vulnerable better Freedom class with much more steel, Sheffield in aluminium ...
HMS was sunk because the hit by the Exocet seververed damage control water lines plus un used missile fuel burning the warhead actually didn't explode according to news article's I have read I will back and read bout her again to make sure of that though
 

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
Ok I've slept in this a,little bit my thoughts are 1. The NSM is the best choice because it's designed for littoral and blue waters the price of 569,000 per missile is just a little higher than tomahawk block IV range is totally acceptable 100 nm plus 2. It's being developed into a land strike missile and it fits inside the 35 (all) versions and lastly it's ready Now it doesn't need or isn't in development it's not perfect but its a lot better than what we have now 3. It's the lightest of all the competition so more of needed could be carried if required 4. It makes it easier to install remember when it was fired in 2014 from LCS 4 it didn't use much more than a lap top and still hit the target so the entire system will be most likely a easy fit

And no o_O a Tomahawk want $1,101,000 (in FY 2014)
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The Tomahawk normaly going for be anti-ships with a new variant or modified but if you fire this missiles against ships you have less for land target same for SM-6 for ships and air targets etc... for utilisation it is also a question of number, stock and despite exist versatile each missile get a preferential employment.

In addition new misiles as NSN, MM-40 Bl III etc... have a warhead very inferior to a true LACM it is a capacity in fact, Tomahawk, SS-N-30 450 kg these ones 125, 165 ...
 
Last edited:

dtulsa

Junior Member
And no o_O a Tomahawk want $1,101,000 (in FY 2014)
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The Tomahawk normaly going for be anti-ships with a new variant or modified but if you fire this missiles against ships you have less for land target same for SM-6 for ships and air targets etc... for utilisation it is also a question of number, stock and despite exist versatile each missile get a preferential employment.

In addition new misiles as NSN, MM-40 Bl III etc... have a warhead very inferior to a true LACM it is a capacity in fact, Tomahawk, SS-N-30 450 kg these ones 125, 165 ...
This all true but I have not read anything yet about tomahawk or SM6 being considered at,all for the LCS or frigate either and the warhead size would still do some damage just not as much mainly I am thinking the NSM will be the anti ship version only for LCS and frigate with ESSM and possibly sm6 as anti air improvements
 

dtulsa

Junior Member
HMS was sunk because the hit by the Exocet seververed damage control water lines plus un used missile fuel burning the warhead actually didn't explode according to news article's I have read I will back and read bout her again to make sure of that though
Ok I read a little more about Sheffield turns out she had steel superstructure and no jammers installed also the crew discounted the threat from aircraft a fatal mistake they thought the bigger threat was from subs.
 
now I skimmed through
New World Threats Prompt Navy to Review Frigate Design
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

A planned $143 million review of the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
future frigate design was prompted by a changing threat environment that will require the ship to complete more missions, top service officials told Congress this week.

The review was included as part of President Donald Trump’s fiscal 2018 budget request, released Tuesday.

The money, budget documents say, will allow the Navy to “reassess the capabilities required to ensure the multi-mission frigate paces future threats.” Priorities, according to the request, include maximizing lethality and survivability, particularly in the areas of surface warfare, air warfare through local area defense, and anti-submarine warfare.

The future frigate is set to be based on the controversial
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, a platform that saw major cost overruns in its early years and still faces harsh criticism from oversight authorities on survivability and ability to execute its major mission sets.

In April, the Government Accountability Office released a report recommending that Congress delay what had been a planned frigate block buy in 2018 to pursue more information on the ship’s cost and capabilities. In a 2016 report, the GAO noted that the lethality and survivability of the LCS was still unproven, raising questions about investing more in the same design for the frigate.

Acting Navy Secretary Sean Stackley told a panel of the Senate Appropriations Committee in a Wednesday hearing that the service now plans to contract for the frigate in 2020, saying the revision of the initial 2014 plan reflects a changing world.

“Since that time, the security environment, the budget environment, and the industrial base have changed,” he said. “We are refining our requirements to the frigate to increase multi-mission capability and, in view of the additional year required to get to a 2020 contract, we will continue to procure LCSs to maintain the industrial base.”

Funding for just one LCS was included in this year’s budget request, but Navy officials said Wednesday that the workload would be enough for the shipyards when coupled with last year’s three-LCS buy. Currently, two variants of the LCS are made by competing companies: Lockheed Martin/Marinette Marine, and Austal USA.

Stackley said the Navy wants to make sure the LCS and frigate program remain “heel to toe” so that the industrial base will remain financially healthy and able to build the ships.

Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson called the pace of change in global threats “exponential,” saying the current threat environment will inform the way the Navy rewrites its requirements for the frigate. Tighter budgets, too, mean the service will have to ensure it is getting the best value for its money, he added.

“The way we operate is changing. The way the U.S. Navy operates in terms of networking … this frigate into the larger fleet, executing distributed maritime operations — that has changed as well,” Richardson said. “And so the combination of those three things really necessitated that we go back to the drawing board and make sure we haven’t missed an opportunity to put to sea a ship that will address today’s threats and be modernizing into the future.”
and I repeat Feb 15, 2017
WHEN REPEAT WHEN THE NAVY GETS ITS SECRETARY?
again
 

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
This all true but I have not read anything yet about tomahawk or SM6 being considered at,all for the LCS or frigate either and the warhead size would still do some damage just not as much mainly I am thinking the NSM will be the anti ship version only for LCS and frigate with ESSM and possibly sm6 as anti air improvements

OK but I provide only an example of employment for missiles especialy versatile...
 

dtulsa

Junior Member
now I skimmed through
New World Threats Prompt Navy to Review Frigate Design
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


and I repeat Feb 15, 2017
again
Local area defense means ESSM block II which by the way is set to enter service in 2020 timeframe they may also be looking at some new launchers which we have not seen or heard of as yet it's just speculation right now almost certain though the nsm has won the ASHM competition by default
 

Top