Littoral Combat Ships (LCS)


Jura, 2 years ago they started talking about the upgunned frigate.
I've been following US Military news for let's say three years now and I'm telling you (of course you don't believe me, but that's fine) something is changing with those projects taking 'forever' like LCSs, F-35s, ... one year ago LCSs would've been 'terrific' 'awesome' 'game changers', and one year ago there wouldn't have been DefenseNews.com presenting what's inside Wednesday at 8:30 PM
here's DefenseNews What went wrong with Lockheed's F-35? [Commentary]
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


... goes on right below due to size limit
time will tell the rest
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Yeah.. defence news posted the same list of complaints regurgitated again and again with no actual bearing on what is happening there or here.

The best use of the OHP ffg or rather FF would be sale to a lesser ally as a off shore patrol ship class.
If the USN tried to bring them back, they would be over priced and under capable in there current forms for a handful of frigates that can't network, can't keep up and buys maybe 5years of service life
to get them to a modern spec would basically demand stripping them to the Keel and building a new ship. Which is basically what the Turks and Taiwanese did.
 
Today at 7:38 AM
...

time will tell the rest
but I changed my mind and will put here my thoughts on four programs now:
  1. F-35 is the one I actually like in the sense in the middle of this century 'situational awareness' will be needed to control drones etc. etc. and F-35 goes in this general direction (of course I don't like the hype like the announcements of 'wins' increased from like 15 to 20 to 24 I can put here the links to show exactly what I mean, of course I don't like the financial part (off top of my head, 1737 is still the planned US number), plus my impression is F-35 is a flying brick :) let's see next week in Paris);
  2. the Fords are completely unnecessary because, to me, the Nimitzes are the ultimate carriers (working, proven technology), and because those 'savings of operating cost over lifetime of the Fords' are imaginary considering the future force structure of the USN (what I mean is: using again middle of this century, if then the USN is going to project power this way) ... in other words, I think of it as the
    Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
    (=Nimitzes here) which, to me, had been the ultimate Battleships and would've been surpassed by the
    Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
    (with for example a heavier broadside than the Yamatos etc.) but weren't, because times had changed and other ships (for example the Midway carriers) were needed instead;
  3. the Zumwalts are a product of the times before wars in Iraq and 'stan, the wars which cost trillions and sent the Zumwalts to a death spiral ... by the way I admit I supported 2003 intervention in Iraq ... but I didn't believe WMD which the CIA, ehm, found :) I was still back in the US when they started to talk about Saddam's uranium from Africa or something, and CNN had been broadcasting this "info" in a loop ... now I see people don't want to even talk about 2003 Iraq (including those who'd been on the US side back then hahaha) but I still think the campaign was blitzkrieg in its best; the occupation of Iraq was a disaster, of course ... drifting back to the Zumwalts, there's one more thing: Nov 22, 2016
    well, several members have asserted (during Dongfeng talking, my favourite :) China now has the ability to find a CVGB from space, so I would think the US should have the ability to find a SAG from space and, in this context, I don't understand the fuzz about "stealth warships"

    I'm not saying "RCS reduction" is a bust, but I think it would be useful if for example some Navy in south-east Asia tried its luck and lobbed two AShMs without mid-course correction, this type of situations, not against a peer

    one more thing: warships like Zumwalt (and presumably Type 055) to me are electric power plants afloat, so their detection would have little to do with "RCS of a fishing boat" (that's how Zumwalts are sold to the public though)
    my point being billions are spent on trying to 'hide at sea' which I think is ludicrous
  4. the LCSs, for me, are the worst part here: even in a long run (middle of this century again) I don't think a 3k-displacing ship can be made 'universal' as the USN attempted ... plus the track record of this project is ... LCS Project is a disgrace to the USN!
one of longest posts ever, but I felt I should say where I stand
 

dtulsa

Junior Member
Today at 7:38 AM

but I changed my mind and will put here my thoughts on four programs now:
  1. F-35 is the one I actually like in the sense in the middle of this century 'situational awareness' will be needed to control drones etc. etc. and F-35 goes in this general direction (of course I don't like the hype like the announcements of 'wins' increased from like 15 to 20 to 24 I can put here the links to show exactly what I mean, of course I don't like the financial part (off top of my head, 1737 is still the planned US number), plus my impression is F-35 is a flying brick :) let's see next week in Paris);
  2. the Fords are completely unnecessary because, to me, the Nimitzes are the ultimate carriers (working, proven technology), and because those 'savings of operating cost over lifetime of the Fords' are imaginary considering the future force structure of the USN (what I mean is: using again middle of this century, if then the USN is going to project power this way) ... in other words, I think of it as the
    Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
    (=Nimitzes here) which, to me, had been the ultimate Battleships and would've been surpassed by the
    Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
    (with for example a heavier broadside than the Yamatos etc.) but weren't, because times had changed and other ships (for example the Midway carriers) were needed instead;
  3. the Zumwalts are a product of the times before wars in Iraq and 'stan, the wars which cost trillions and sent the Zumwalts to a death spiral ... by the way I admit I supported 2003 intervention in Iraq ... but I didn't believe WMD which the CIA, ehm, found :) I was still back in the US when they started to talk about Saddam's uranium from Africa or something, and CNN had been broadcasting this "info" in a loop ... now I see people don't want to even talk about 2003 Iraq (including those who'd been on the US side back then hahaha) but I still think the campaign was blitzkrieg in its best; the occupation of Iraq was a disaster, of course ... drifting back to the Zumwalts, there's one more thing: Nov 22, 2016
    my point being billions are spent on trying to 'hide at sea' which I think is ludicrous
  4. the LCSs, for me, are the worst part here: even in a long run (middle of this century again) I don't think a 3k-displacing ship can be made 'universal' as the USN attempted ... plus the track record of this project is ... LCS Project is a disgrace to the USN!
one of longest posts ever, but I felt I should say where I stand
On most of your post I tend to agree I simply cannot fathom a 13 billion dollar warship which from all I've been reading is having a lot if teething troubles to say the least 2. The 35 though I really don't have much faith in it I'll leave it alone 3. The Zumwalt same as the 35 4. AS to my favorite whipping child the much vaunted and feared LCS let me begin 1) Any ship that is designed not to be survivable has got to be a joke especially from a warship what the world were they thinking 2) the weapons that it has are pretty much useless against near peer or totally useless against peer ships 3) these engineer casualties ie. failures are extremely troubling 4) the crew size to small was an issue before the design was finalized and was proven pretty quickly 5) Although it remains to be seen the LCS looks to fading from the picture just as fast as it's max. speed can take it and I for one say good riddance 5) Now for the follow up frigate I hope they don't mess it up as badly as all these other projects have become but I for one have my doubts
 

dtulsa

Junior Member
don't hold your breath.
I saw the interview they are quoting and the admiral was pretty dismissive. What you would get is a very low end frigate with limited capacity for a fairly substantial investment, particularly since the Coast Guard has been stripping the hulls for parts.
This is the same interview that launched the idea of a relaunched Kitty Hawk, and that's pretty farcical to.
The admiral finished it up by saying they would take it in a ship by ship basis but the Ghost fleet was not likely to be a major role in expanding the fleet.
While I agree with you again about the Perry's the idea of Kitty Hawk sailing again had some appeal just don't know what it would take to get her back up and running which I probably say not many other people do either
 

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
On most of your post I tend to agree I simply cannot fathom a 13 billion dollar warship which from all I've been reading is having a lot if teething troubles to say the least 2. The 35 though I really don't have much faith in it I'll leave it alone 3. The Zumwalt same as the 35 4. AS to my favorite whipping child the much vaunted and feared LCS let me begin 1) Any ship that is designed not to be survivable has got to be a joke especially from a warship what the world were they thinking 2) the weapons that it has are pretty much useless against near peer or totally useless against peer ships 3) these engineer casualties ie. failures are extremely troubling 4) the crew size to small was an issue before the design was finalized and was proven pretty quickly 5) Although it remains to be seen the LCS looks to fading from the picture just as fast as it's max. speed can take it and I for one say good riddance 5) Now for the follow up frigate I hope they don't mess it up as badly as all these other projects have become but I for one have my doubts
Ford to 13 bill $ (the first possible others 1 bill in less ) last Nimitz 9 but Ford more cheaper to maintain with no RCOH but now appear she need ... in Sea Power relaible site but curious i have always read she don' t need ?
So with finaly a RCOH Ford must remains cheaper to maintain but less still inferior crew but the 3 - 4 billions recovered ...

For power with new cats and have a little more ammos undoubtely especialy for sorties rate max 200 vs 160 for Nimitz in general 160 /120 she is more capable, also new radars better for use ESSMs.
 
Last edited:

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
While I agree with you again about the Perry's the idea of Kitty Hawk sailing again had some appeal just don't know what it would take to get her back up and running which I probably say not many other people do either
At first glance, except The Kitty Hawk was the First of her class, She is the oldest of the Conventional carriers not yet a Museum over 50 years old.
If the Goal is 12 Carriers as stated by President Trump the best way to get that is to get the most from the Nimitz ( IE not allow her to be retired early but push to 2027-2028 ) and get Ford In service Kennedy to Commissioning and start The Enterprise.
Kitty Hawk has served well don't get me wrong but she has served long. She is just as old as the Clemenceau. Despite Jura's rant the Fact is the Ford Class ships are not a Revolution gone wrong but an evolution. Ford is the product of the sucess of the eight Super carrier classes Forrestal, Kitty Hawk, Enterprise, John F Kennedy, Nimitz,Theodore Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan and advances in technology.
No one ever said that that was not to come without a price tag.
Little known Fact well on the Subject the John F Kennedy CV 67 and America CV 66 were originally to be Enterprise Class CVN's but someone argued that the Nuclear powered carrier was a risk, To expensive, Immature, Unnecessary.
The reason they are Kitty Hawk CV and not Enterprise CVN is because the Enterprise Suffered cost overruns and delays (sound familiar?) The DOD moved back to the Kitty hawk class carriers. it took another 10 years until 1975 when the Nimitz class returned the Carriers to Nuclear.

The Issues brought up are teething troubles, New systems have those. sometimes they are the result of Failure to image issues for changes in threats, Sometimes they are the Result of people imagining problems that don't exist and many are issues that crop up along the way. I mean how many people rant and Rave today about Abrams Tanks and M4 Carbines being fundamentally flawed? Even though they have excellent combat records.
The USN was pushed to cut costs and imagine new ideas for Naval shiping after the OHP classes were more or less rendered Obsolete, They were told to design a new ship that would replace many ships in a world without a need for conventional naval battles. Where the Peace dividend meant that Seawolf class boats and SC21 were not needed and the NAvy would be more for launching over the Horizon Cruise missile strikes against terrorists in the desert or chasing Pirates. So they designed ships that were suited for doing that. Things changed so now they have to go back and redesign.

Well now I am ranting.
Here the interview.

US Navy littoral combat ship shows off maintenance capabilities overseas
By:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
June 15, 2017 (Photo Credit: MC1 John Herman/U.S. Navy)
MELBOURNE, Australia — The U.S. Navy's littoral combat ship Coronado has successfully conducted an expeditionary preventive maintenance availability while on a scheduled port visit to Vietnam, in a demonstration of its ability to conduct maintenance while deployed.

According to a news release from the U.S. Navy’s Task Force 73, the Coronado visited Cam Ranh Bay, Vietnam, from June 11-15 as part of a technical visit to an international port, and the visit marks the first demonstration of expeditionary maintenance capabilities for the rotationally deployed Independence-class LCS.

According to CTF 73, contractors and ship personnel executed more than 450 preventive maintenance requirements while the LCS was at Cam Ranh Bay, and the ship maintenance staff from Commander, Logistics Group Western Pacific coordinated closely with the U.S. Embassy in Hanoi, contractors and local authorities to conduct maintenance at a location outside of the normal LCS supply and maintenance hub.

“The Littoral Combat Ship was built with agility in mind, so the more flexible we can be with our expeditionary maintenance, the higher the state of readiness, and we get these ships out to sea and on mission for longer periods of time,” said Cmdr. Fernando Maldonado, assistant chief of staff for ship maintenance and repair on the Coronado.

Rear Adm. Don Gabrielson, commander of Logistics Group Western Pacific and Task Force 73, added: “This technical visit advances our expeditionary maintenance capabilities and further strengthens our partnership with Vietnam.

“Technical visits benefit both nations and increase our geographic flexibility in repairing and maintaining a high state of readiness in our ships. We appreciate the opportunity to partner with Vietnam and look forward to working together to enhance stability and create mutually beneficial relationships.”

The Coronado is currently on a rotational deployment to Singapore, which also serves as the maintenance and logistics hub from which the ship will conduct patrols and train with regional navies during exercises like Cooperation Afloat Readiness and Training. These deployments also seek to establish and prove the LCS concept of operations. The ship arrived in Singapore in November 2016 for a deployment that is expected to last 16 months.

Singapore has agreed to allow the U.S. Navy to rotationally station up to four littoral combat ships in Singapore’s Changi Naval Base, with the Coronado being the third, as well as the first Independence-class LCS to be rotationally deployed to Singapore since the U.S. Navy LCS Freedom made the maiden deployment in 2013. Lt. Cmdr. Arlo Abrahamson, CTF 73’s public affairs officer, told Defense News that deployments of “multiple LCS” in Singapore will start in 2018.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

dtulsa

Junior Member
At first glance, except The Kitty Hawk was the First of her class, She is the oldest of the Conventional carriers not yet a Museum over 50 years old.
If the Goal is 12 Carriers as stated by President Trump the best way to get that is to get the most from the Nimitz ( IE not allow her to be retired early but push to 2027-2028 ) and get Ford In service Kennedy to Commissioning and start The Enterprise.
Kitty Hawk has served well don't get me wrong but she has served long. She is just as old as the Clemenceau. Despite Jura's rant the Fact is the Ford Class ships are not a Revolution gone wrong but an evolution. Ford is the product of the sucess of the eight Super carrier classes Forrestal, Kitty Hawk, Enterprise, John F Kennedy, Nimitz,Theodore Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan and advances in technology.
No one ever said that that was not to come without a price tag.
Little known Fact well on the Subject the John F Kennedy CV 67 and America CV 66 were originally to be Enterprise Class CVN's but someone argued that the Nuclear powered carrier was a risk, To expensive, Immature, Unnecessary.
The reason they are Kitty Hawk CV and not Enterprise CVN is because the Enterprise Suffered cost overruns and delays (sound familiar?) The DOD moved back to the Kitty hawk class carriers. it took another 10 years until 1975 when the Nimitz class returned the Carriers to Nuclear.

The Issues brought up are teething troubles, New systems have those. sometimes they are the result of Failure to image issues for changes in threats, Sometimes they are the Result of people imagining problems that don't exist and many are issues that crop up along the way. I mean how many people rant and Rave today about Abrams Tanks and M4 Carbines being fundamentally flawed? Even though they have excellent combat records.
The USN was pushed to cut costs and imagine new ideas for Naval shiping after the OHP classes were more or less rendered Obsolete, They were told to design a new ship that would replace many ships in a world without a need for conventional naval battles. Where the Peace dividend meant that Seawolf class boats and SC21 were not needed and the NAvy would be more for launching over the Horizon Cruise missile strikes against terrorists in the desert or chasing Pirates. So they designed ships that were suited for doing that. Things changed so now they have to go back and redesign.

Well now I am ranting.
Here the interview.



Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
You make a some what convincing arguments the problem is what do we do them now that we have them and what can be done to bring them up to speed as in weapons radar etc and what will be their exact role my personal is convert LCS into dedicated minesweepers show the flag missions and afore said pirate chasers they should be in no way shape or form be close to major combattants unless we should expect major casualties who's fault is it we have them most every body in the establishment military and political
 
Tuesday at 8:25 PM
I'm talking 15 or so years wasted on 'concurrency' which, ironically, had been meant to 'speed up' the development, and I'm talking this really strange structure of USN surface forces now and in years to come (the Burkes, the aging Ticos, and that's it)
and Navy’s New Frigate Expected at Sea in 2024
Posted: June 15, 2017
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
The Navy expects to field its new frigate in 2024 while it sustains the small combatant industrial base with an additional littoral combat ship (LCS) order in 2018.

Sean Stackley, acting secretary of the Navy, testifying June 15 before the Senate Armed Services Committee, said that for the 2018 budget the Navy is requesting “two littoral combat ships, one of which is to follow in an amended budget proposal.

“We are seeking your support as we transition from the littoral combat ship to a frigate design that will provide multimission capability and increased survivability for our small surface combatant program,” he said. “The three littoral combat ships appropriated in 2017 with the additional ships we are requesting this year help fill our gap with small surface combatants and ensure a healthy industrial base for a competitive frigate down-select in 2020.”

“We’re committed to moving toward a more capable, more lethal and survivable frigate program,” Adm. John Richardson, chief of naval operations, told the committee. “The threat has changed. It’s become more challenging. The way we operate has changed. We’re operating the fleet under new concepts and want that frigate to be relevant in a distributed maritime operational concept. The combination of those two, with any changes in the fiscal environment, has caused us to re-address the requirements for the frigate.

“By the time that we define the requirements — which we’re just about done with — we’ll work with industry to find what I call the knees and the curves as to what’s possible technologically on a cost, schedule and risk that’s definable,” he said. “I think 2020 is an aggressive target. If we can go faster, we will.”

“We’ll put a request for proposals out in 2018 to get the proposals in 2019 with an award in 2020,” Stackley said. “We would expect industry to complete their detailed design; it will take them a year to a year and a half to complete their detailed design while they order material, about a three-year build span. So, we would expect the frigate to be in the water ready for delivery in the 2024 time frame. If we can accelerate that, we will, but what we don’t want to do is incur additional risk. We don’t want to take on the risk they took on in the LCS program where they established non-realistic schedule, and proceeded when a design was not mature.”

Stackley said the frigate competition will be full and open.

“Both of our LCS builders are strong competitors for that future frigate,” he said. “We want to ensure that they are healthy competitors and they maintain their viability in the interim.

“The [2018] budget reflects one ship in 2018. Congress added one ship in 2017, so our strategy at the time was we would take the three ships in 2017, combined with one in ’18 to ensure that each of the builders has a ship in ’17 and ’18 while we continue to look at 2019 and what unfolds in the industrial base in the interim. That is being revisited with regard to minimum sustaining rate — one per year — and then there is economic order quantity, which is three ships every two years per builder. We’re straddling those numbers and the decision was to add another ship in 2018, and that amended budget submission is pending.”

“We’re completely united with you to work with industry to accelerate this acquisition process as fast as we can,” Richardson said. “Moving into construction before you have a mature design is just a recipe for cost overruns and schedule delays.”
 

dtulsa

Junior Member
In related news per UPI Raytheon plans to submit a bid for the NSM to the navy for placement in LCS by 23 June 2017 I am thinking they stand a good chance of getting it seeing as there the I only one at least to my knowledge both Harpoon and LRASM have been withdrawn
 

Top