Littoral Combat Ships (LCS)

Jeff Head said:

2)Mk-41 has a much wider range of munitions that can be launched, including, importantly the LRASM that is going to be introduced.

Click to expand...

Depends on the length of the Mk-41 VLS. There are three variants of the Mk-41 VLS:

Strike length MK-41 is the largest system accommodating the widest variety of missiles, up to and including Tomahawk cruise missiles for land attack, and SM-3s for ballistic missile defense. Its capabilities cover almost every mission in naval warfare: anti-air, anti-submarine, ship self-defense, land attack, and ballistic missile defense.

Tactical length Mk-41 is over 7 feet shorter than the Strike length, and can accommodate a variety of missiles up to approximately 18.5 feet in length, such as SM-2, ESSM, and VL-ASROC.

Self-Defense Launcher is specifically designed to carry self-defense missiles for small ships, and is shorter and lighter than the other variants.

I believe the Freedom class LCS can host the strike length Mk-41's, but the Independence class LCS is Tactical length only. This will affect the variety of weapons that can be carried.

Pointblank said:

Depends on the length of the Mk-41 VLS. There are three variants of the Mk-41 VLS:

...

Click to expand...

oops, I overlooked this :-( "The length comes in three sizes: 209 inches for the self-defense version, 266 inches for the tactical version, and 303 inches for the strike version. The empty weight for a 8-cell module is 26,800 pounds for the self-defense version, 29,800 pounds for the tactical version, and 32,000 pounds for the strike version."

Radars (including AN/SPY-1) can experience problems in littoral environments (I don't think a link is needed here so I wonder if this also concerns Target Illuminator Systems, or their beam is so strong and narrow that anything can't go wrong?? An example: if a hostile speed boat lurked in a bay close to a cliff and close to a big buoy, could the missile be always locked on the boat (and not the buoy, or anything else) ... but even if this was a problem a 57 mm could be used instead heheh

Pointblank said:

Depends on the length of the Mk-41 VLS. There are three variants of the Mk-41 VLS:

Strike length MK-41 is the largest system accommodating the widest variety of missiles, up to and including Tomahawk cruise missiles for land attack, and SM-3s for ballistic missile defense. Its capabilities cover almost every mission in naval warfare: anti-air, anti-submarine, ship self-defense, land attack, and ballistic missile defense.

Tactical length Mk-41 is over 7 feet shorter than the Strike length, and can accommodate a variety of missiles up to approximately 18.5 feet in length, such as SM-2, ESSM, and VL-ASROC.

Self-Defense Launcher is specifically designed to carry self-defense missiles for small ships, and is shorter and lighter than the other variants.

Click to expand...

I believe the differences in length between the three are 209 inches for the self defense Mk-141, 266 inches for the tactical Mk-41, and 303 inches for the strike Mk-41. That's a difference of 37 inches between the strike and tactical, or just over 3 ft.

I do not believe there is any contemplation for Tomahawk missiles for either LCS version, but the LRSAM is a possibility.

I also believe that the LRASM is meant to be fired out of the tactical Mk-41 VLS since it is something like 170 inches long. In fact, . So, I have no doubt if they want it on the LCS, they can put it on both versions.

Jeff, do you think the PVLS is a one trick pony? or more specifically a single platform only pony I should say in the forseeable future?

Would be interesting to see how far Congress will find LCS, I don't have my warship magazine to hand but they were thinking of cutting the numbers, maybe someone can correct me but it's something like 30 cut to 25 those numbers sound kind of familiar but the Navy is asking for more but Congress isn't too happy but money is there for the foreseeable future but would like to know how far it will go

If they can secure exports it will convince Congress for more money

kwaigonegin said:

Jeff, do you think the PVLS is a one trick pony? or more specifically a single platform only pony I should say in the forseeable future?

Click to expand...

I think PVLS will be on the future DDG and CG after the Burke Class and after the Ticos and Zumwalts.

The Burke Flight IIIs are an interim solution to get around the impending decom of the Ticos and bridge to the next gen major surface combatant. The Zumwalts will prove the concept and the Mk-57 will be the next gen VLS in my opinion.

The problem with LCS started when it was named Littoral Combat Ship. It would've been more correct to name it Littoral Multipurpose Ship.

The most important mission it is suppose to fulfill is littoral minesweeping. That's most mature module at this time. With its high frequency sonar, remote mine hunting drone, and robust aviation facility to support mine sweeping helicopter, LCS should be a very good minesweeper. And if you look at as a minesweeper, it sudden doesn't appear to be under-armed at all. How many minesweeper can boast 57mm autocannon and RAM missiles?
The ASW module is also coming along fine now that the goals have been redefined to be less ambitious. The sonar barrier system is gone, so is remote ASW drone. But with the VDS, and aviation assets, LCS should still be decent at littoral ASW, and if the LF towed array is fitted, it'll even be a decent blue water ASW escort. One the minus side for ASW is the ridiculous high speed requirement, which dictated noisy waterjet propulsion bad for ASW. and why doesn't it have a pair of lightweight torpedo tubes?
Another role LCS seems likely to fulfill is that of littoral assault amphibious ship. With the large flex bay, rear boat ramp and aviation facility, LCS can function as a mini-LPD.

What it is not is a combat ship. The navy is very open that LCS was never suppose to operate in an AA/AD environment without protection from real combat ship like a Burke. It was never suppose to a multifunction frigate. So why was the little guy named littoral COMBAT ship?
Now everybody expect the little guy to actually do combat, and are disappointed to see it so lightly armed.
I guess USN was trying to fool the Congress into believe LCS is more combat capable than it is so it'll get more funding, but at same time USN didn't want to give LCS real combat capability lest it threaten funding for bigger ships such as Burkes and Zumwalts. OHP frigate, a truly balanced and affordable multipurpose frigate was hated by many USN top brass. Admiral Zumwalt had to shove it down the throat of USN. So USN want to make sure LCS doesn't become a modern OHP.

I like this: USS Coronado (LCS 4) to be commissioned in Coronado, CA

A dumb question: I just noticed the Baynunah-class corvettes have Sea Giraffe from the Saab company; is it the same radar as on the Independence-class LCS?? Well, the name and the producer match but I wonder about the capabilities of those two installations, thanks

Jura said:

A dumb question: I just noticed these vessels have Sea Giraffe from the Saab company; is it the same radar as on the Independence-class LCS?? I wonder about the capabilities of those two installations, thanks

Click to expand...

It is the same radar provided by Saab.

I would not be surprised to learn that the LCS version has some enhancements, but the basic Sea Giraffe system is very good as advertised.

It is the naval variant of the GIRAFFE radar including the AMB technology which provides multi-beam 3-Dimensional air and surface coverage up to 100 km (62 mi) in distance, and from ground-level to 20,000 meters (66,000 ft) in altitude with 70 degree elevation coverage. The Sea Giraffe data rate is 1-scan per-second. It maintains a pulse density that suppresses high cluttering in adverse weather conditions.

It can simultaneously handle multiple threats approaching from different directions and altitudes, including diving anti-ship missiles. Also, it is specialized for rapidly detecting small, fast moving targets at all altitudes and small surface targets in severe clutter.

One of the other critical things about it, from the US Navy LCS perspective, is its capability to be integrated into larger coverage systems and feed data to those systems or receive data from it...like AEGIS for example. The US will definitely take advantage of that for its own systems.