US Navy News and updates

[colay]

The Navy seems to have a good handle on the LCS Program as more hulls have been contracted.
I realize it's early days yet and the various Mission Modules still have to he proven but the Navy seems to have things under control. The final price for each LCS variant is still to be determined but it will look palatable compared to the price tag for the proposed Flt III Burke DDG which is approaching the $3B mark IIRC.



U.S. Navy Orders Four More LCS Vessels | Defense News | defensenews.com

U.S. Navy Orders Four More LCS Vessels
Mar. 16, 2012- 06:09PM |
By CHRISTOPHER P. CAVAS
Construction contracts for four more Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) were awarded March 16 by the U.S. Navy, bringing the total number of LCS vessels under order or in service to 12.
Lockheed Martin received $715 million for two ships, or $357.5 million apiece. Austal USA received $691.6 million for two ships, at $345.8 million each.
The funds do not include government-furnished equipment needed to fully outfit each ship, such as weapons or communications equipment.

 

[the concerned]

i reckon that as flight 3 burkes are built flight 1's will be offered to countries like turkey and taiwan the lack of true helicopter facilities was a mistake. people say about the senarios of swarms of small craft attacking a ship and i cant think of a better defense of that than 2 helicopters each carrying hellfire missiles plus providing data-linkng for the ships own weapons.I would like to see the US navy progress on to the slightly larger surface combat ship which is a upscaled version of the LCS this is the ship they need .

 

[RobWilliams]

i reckon that as flight 3 burkes are built flight 1's will be offered to countries like turkey and taiwan the lack of true helicopter facilities was a mistake. people say about the senarios of swarms of small craft attacking a ship and i cant think of a better defense of that than 2 helicopters each carrying hellfire missiles plus providing data-linkng for the ships own weapons.I would like to see the US navy progress on to the slightly larger surface combat ship which is a upscaled version of the LCS this is the ship they need .

AFAIK the only Burke deal on the table with foreign interest is with Saudi Arabia (this was last year though, no idea on the current status of the option)

Saudi Arabia Mulling BMD-Capable Destroyers | Defense News | defensenews.com

 

[colay]

i reckon that as flight 3 burkes are built flight 1's will be offered to countries like turkey and taiwan the lack of true helicopter facilities was a mistake. people say about the senarios of swarms of small craft attacking a ship and i cant think of a better defense of that than 2 helicopters each carrying hellfire missiles plus providing data-linkng for the ships own weapons.I would like to see the US navy progress on to the slightly larger surface combat ship which is a upscaled version of the LCS this is the ship they need .

What benefit in terms of capability or performance is to be gained by increasing the size of the LCS? It's the modular mission modules that will define the role and effectiveness of the LCS.q

 

[Belesari]

LCS to recieve larger crews.

OK im posting this here because i cant for the life of me find the US navy discussion thread. If a mod wants to move it there i'd appriciate it.

U.S. Navy Boosting LCS Core Crew Up to 50% | Defense News | defensenews.com

"Years after sailors and planners realized the crew size of littoral combat ships was too small, the U.S. Navy has decided to increase the number of sailors on the ships.

The changes will be made on the first LCS, the Freedom, starting in July — in time to beef up the crews for next year’s 10-month deployment to Singapore.

Twenty additional berths will be permanently installed onboard Freedom — two for officers, two for chief petty officers and 16 for other enlisted — but the final manning plan has yet to be decided,"

From what i've gathered its gonna be another 20 people or so. This is something i've been expecting. The ships crews have been insanely buisy and really Too buisy even compared to a modern vessels norm.

This is a good thing sense more crew means more for damage control, basic repair and some give in manning incase you have injuries or sickness among the crew.

 

[StobieWan]

Sounds quite sensible given all the concerns raised about maintainability of the LCS in normal operation (someone mentioned that UNREP was an "all hands" evolution I believe)

 

[Twain]

OK im posting this here because i cant for the life of me find the US navy discussion thread. If a mod wants to move it there i'd appriciate it.



"Years after sailors and planners realized the crew size of littoral combat ships was too small, the U.S. Navy has decided to increase the number of sailors on the ships.

The changes will be made on the first LCS, the Freedom, starting in July — in time to beef up the crews for next year’s 10-month deployment to Singapore.

Twenty additional berths will be permanently installed onboard Freedom — two for officers, two for chief petty officers and 16 for other enlisted — but the final manning plan has yet to be decided,"

From what i've gathered its gonna be another 20 people or so. This is something i've been expecting. The ships crews have been insanely buisy and really Too buisy even compared to a modern vessels norm.

This is a good thing sense more crew means more for damage control, basic repair and some give in manning incase you have injuries or sickness among the crew.

I've seen a few rumors to about plans to lengthen the LCS (both types) by about 10 meters. Any truth to this? It seems likely now since a 50% increase in crew size means that either more stores are needed or the length of time at sea has to be decreased.

 

[AegisFC]

Sounds quite sensible given all the concerns raised about maintainability of the LCS in normal operation (someone mentioned that UNREP was an "all hands" evolution I believe)

Yeah, the XO was a phone talker on one of the crews.

I've seen a few rumors to about plans to lengthen the LCS (both types) by about 10 meters. Any truth to this? It seems likely now since a 50% increase in crew size means that either more stores are needed or the length of time at sea has to be decreased.

Doubt it, nothing has been said by legitimate sources just forum rumors.

One thing LCS isn't lacking is space so extra dry stores won't be a big deal and this ship needs to UNREP for fuel like every other ship in the fleet so either VERTREPing or sling posting over some more frozen food won't be a big deal either.

 

[Belesari]

Actucally i believe LCS-1 class are all being lengthened.

And while the LCS has plenty of space now after mission moduals and such the same probably cant be said.

After all its never a good thing to realise your going to have to either-not have enough crew to fully man the ship or not include 1 or two key weapon systems.

Yeah, the XO was a phone talker on one of the crews.



Doubt it, nothing has been said by legitimate sources just forum rumors.

One thing LCS isn't lacking is space so extra dry stores won't be a big deal and this ship needs to UNREP for fuel like every other ship in the fleet so either VERTREPing or sling posting over some more frozen food won't be a big deal either.

 

[AegisFC]

LCS-1 got a set of "butt cheeks" that added some length for added stability in a flooding situation, but I think future examples have a fix that won't need the cheeks.

 

[StobieWan]

Actucally i believe LCS-1 class are all being lengthened.

And while the LCS has plenty of space now after mission moduals and such the same probably cant be said.

After all its never a good thing to realise your going to have to either-not have enough crew to fully man the ship or not include 1 or two key weapon systems.

The way LCS works is that if you add weapons, or any other systems, you add crew and crew accommodation modules. The existing arrangements have two bunks racks but have the height to take a triple bunk rack for instance, so by a rejig of the current design, you could find the twenty crew spaces fairly easily at very little cost.

Sixty crew for a ship this size seems more reasonable - it's still light but hopefully it's not back breakingly difficult to manage the ship at that crew level. Forty looked to be a challenging number to work with and I think it's encouraging that after trials they've responded to the results. LCS looks to be evolving a bit, and as a base concept may well work out fine. The modules ..well...TBA on a lot of the core requirements so far.

 

[Belesari]

The only one ive heard really anywhere near a reality is the ASW moduals and thats been projected to not be ready till something like 2017 maybe later.

I agree i think everyone knew that 40 crewmen was the wrong number. 60 might be but we will see.

I've heard gryphon is almost ready but with a small warhead and a range of only 6km or something not so great.

The way LCS works is that if you add weapons, or any other systems, you add crew and crew accommodation modules. The existing arrangements have two bunks racks but have the height to take a triple bunk rack for instance, so by a rejig of the current design, you could find the twenty crew spaces fairly easily at very little cost.

Sixty crew for a ship this size seems more reasonable - it's still light but hopefully it's not back breakingly difficult to manage the ship at that crew level. Forty looked to be a challenging number to work with and I think it's encouraging that after trials they've responded to the results. LCS looks to be evolving a bit, and as a base concept may well work out fine. The modules ..well...TBA on a lot of the core requirements so far.

 

[StobieWan]

The only one ive heard really anywhere near a reality is the ASW moduals and thats been projected to not be ready till something like 2017 maybe later.

I agree i think everyone knew that 40 crewmen was the wrong number. 60 might be but we will see.

I've heard gryphon is almost ready but with a small warhead and a range of only 6km or something not so great.

Griffin seems a pointless addition to LCS - both variants of LCS already have a 57mm cannon on the front that out ranges the missile and which can make up for the lesser punch of it's rounds by just shooting the target a bit more.There's other weapons which would be useful and are available on the market right now with more reach and more punch.

As to LCS, they'll be fine in service doing a lot of useful work - the ASW and MCM modules will fix themselves as there are other countries working on similar modules - either the US will get it right or will have the opportunity to buy off the shelf. Right now, getting some LCS into service to get the patrol, anti piracy, anti drugs etc roles handed off from other more expensive platforms.

Biggest muff up on LCS to date I still think is selecting both designs for production - they have different CMS, different radar and weapons fits to a lesser extent - they were never intended to serve alongside one another and these large differences effectively put more strain on the training and procurement side of things.

 

[Anixtu]

How much would the presence of mission crew have alleviated the pressures for cross-departmental (or whole-ship) tasks like UNREP, ship husbandry, loading stores, etc.?

(someone mentioned that UNREP was an "all hands" evolution I believe)

Normal USN (and RN) UNREP/RAS procedures are rather manpower intensive. Has LCS been fitted with sufficient mechanical assistance to replace that manpower?

 

[StobieWan]

I dare say for the normal human chain affair of getting your beans and bacon to dry stores, any pair of hands present would be useful and I believe both designs have the usual compliment of lifts etc.

The UNREP comment was more aimed at illustrating how stretched the core crew were and certainly the reports coming in were of crew constantly engaged in maintenance and cleaning to the extent that they were all fairly sleep deprived.

I know keeping 'em busy at sea is a time honoured way of stopping them organising a mutiny but this seemed extreme. The makeup of the additional crew hasn't been finalised but it looks to be a mix of posts, presumably aimed at keeping the ship afloat and in good order.

It's an interesting development and takes the crew to nearer the size of a national security cutter or a medium size corvette and obviously increases their running costs by a fair chunk of change.

 

[Belesari]

LCS: Quick Swap Concept Dead | Defense News | defensenews.com

"The original idea for the littoral combat ship (LCS) envisioned modular mission packages that could be rapidly swapped, so one ship could change missions easily from mine warfare, for example, to anti-submarine warfare over the course of a single deployment.

But instead of taking just days to make the switch, it’s now apparent it could take weeks. An LCS assigned to a particular operation will likely operate in a single “come-as-you-are” configuration, requiring additional ships equipped with other mission modules to provide the flexibility the concept once promised."

I think everyone realised the the idea that the moduals could be switched out like lego's was a fantasy, let alone how that actucally was going to affect operations. This however drives it home.

I hate to say it but maybe its time to cancel the LCS program at 10 ships. And look into building a multi mission frigate series that uses the same hull but can be made to specialise in 1 or 2 things instead of everything. And for god sakes forget the silly 50+kts demand.

 

[Tomcat231]

LCS-2 modification

I agree both LCS classes underperform. What if you took LCS-2, extened the outer trimarans forward and widened the brow to contain a 76mm gun, 10 quad packs of ESSM. ESSM is both AAW, SUW capable. You would need to have another radar than the giraffe to direct ESSMS. Convert hangar space to quarters and reefers instead of living out of CONEX boxes.

Find another platform for mine warfare. Give LCS-1s to coast guard or Phillipines.

 

[StobieWan]

LCS: Quick Swap Concept Dead | Defense News | defensenews.com

"The original idea for the littoral combat ship (LCS) envisioned modular mission packages that could be rapidly swapped, so one ship could change missions easily from mine warfare, for example, to anti-submarine warfare over the course of a single deployment.

But instead of taking just days to make the switch, it’s now apparent it could take weeks. An LCS assigned to a particular operation will likely operate in a single “come-as-you-are” configuration, requiring additional ships equipped with other mission modules to provide the flexibility the concept once promised."

I think everyone realised the the idea that the moduals could be switched out like lego's was a fantasy, let alone how that actucally was going to affect operations. This however drives it home.

I hate to say it but maybe its time to cancel the LCS program at 10 ships. And look into building a multi mission frigate series that uses the same hull but can be made to specialise in 1 or 2 things instead of everything. And for god sakes forget the silly 50+kts demand.

You can't really re-use the hull but throw the speed requirement out the door as the hull is optimised for that range of performance - I agree that dropping the speed requirement would be sensible in hindsight but it's now a part of the design.

I suspect what will happen is that the ships will begin acquiring permanently fitted gear and become more like, the way the Stryker is used in the army - a base core of a ship, with some fitted out for a general role and others specialising.

One other thing that probably would cost a bit in the short run but would save on through costs would be to standardise the fit for both LCS in terms of CMS and so forth.

I believe LCS 2 has a soft patch for additional kit and that adding Mk41 wouldn't be difficult.

http://uglyships.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/lcs-gd-line2.gif

You can see the patch just aft of the gun. Stick an illuminator or two in there or better yet some of the CEAFAR panels and you'd be in business for self defence.


I don't know why the modular thing is such a shock to any one because the people who pioneered this, the Danes with the STANFLEX ships, tend to leave the ships in the same configuration for long periods simply to allow the crews to stabilise around a role and become proficient in it.

Think of the modular aspects as being flexibility to upgrade and repurpose ships during refits and they look more sensible.

 

[StobieWan]

I agree both LCS classes underperform. What if you took LCS-2, extened the outer trimarans forward and widened the brow to contain a 76mm gun, 10 quad packs of ESSM. ESSM is both AAW, SUW capable. You would need to have another radar than the giraffe to direct ESSMS. Convert hangar space to quarters and reefers instead of living out of CONEX boxes.

Find another platform for mine warfare. Give LCS-1s to coast guard or Phillipines.

Sea Giraffe would be fine for ESSM - you'd just need to add illuminators - personally, I'd stick with SeaRam or add a RAM launcher for a bit more reach than SeaRam (which is limited by the radar on the mount to about 5km)

 

[Sea Toby]

You can't really re-use the hull but throw the speed requirement out the door as the hull is optimised for that range of performance - I agree that dropping the speed requirement would be sensible in hindsight but it's now a part of the design.

I suspect what will happen is that the ships will begin acquiring permanently fitted gear and become more like, the way the Stryker is used in the army - a base core of a ship, with some fitted out for a general role and others specialising.

One other thing that probably would cost a bit in the short run but would save on through costs would be to standardise the fit for both LCS in terms of CMS and so forth.

I believe LCS 2 has a soft patch for additional kit and that adding Mk41 wouldn't be difficult.

http://uglyships.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/lcs-gd-line2.gif

You can see the patch just aft of the gun. Stick an illuminator or two in there or better yet some of the CEAFAR panels and you'd be in business for self defence.


I don't know why the modular thing is such a shock to any one because the people who pioneered this, the Danes with the STANFLEX ships, tend to leave the ships in the same configuration for long periods simply to allow the crews to stabilise around a role and become proficient in it.

Think of the modular aspects as being flexibility to upgrade and repurpose ships during refits and they look more sensible.

Yes, your ideas was the plan all along. The cynics of the LCS program have always mugged the different roles. There never was a plan to have all of the LCS ships do everything at the same time. How could they? There aren't enough of the different modules to put every type of module on every ship.

But there is a good case for shipping mine countermeasures modules by aircraft, along with their crews. Aircraft fly up to 500 mph, coastal minehunters travel piggy back at less than ten knots.