Thanks for that. Sadly I could not get the DID article to open. I still think that $427mil is a lot of money for a single mission capability for most navies. I have no doubt it may (noting there are doubts) fit the USN operational scheme as an assest that is support by others. Littorial work appears to be a big issue for the USN noting the DDG1000 is focused on this as well and I guess it would be very useful is situations like the gulf or similar waters.
Looks like I had a bad link
Here's the link again, as well as the article.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-usas-new-littoral-combat-ships-updated-01343/
The USA's New Littoral Combat Ships (updated)
The Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) is the U.S. Navy's newest surface combatant class. Optimized for shallow seas and littoral operations within 100 miles of shore but deployable across the ocean, LCS ships are a centerpiece of the USA's new focus on littoral warfare. They will help to counter growing "asymmetric" threats like coastal mines, quiet diesel submarines, global piracy, and terrorists on small fast attack boats. They will also perform intelligence gathering and scouting using helicopters and UAVs, offer some ground combat support capabilities, and share tactical information with other Navy aircraft, ships, submarines, and joint units. Swappable "mission modules," UAV robot aircraft, and robotic UUV and USV vehicles will give these small ships the specialized capabilities they require for each of these roles.
At present, two teams are competing for the final LCS design. The General Dynamics team is offering a futuristic but practical high-speed trimaran based on Austal designs and experience. The Lockheed Martin team offers a high-speed semi-planing monohull based on Fincantieri designs that have set trans-Atlantic speed records. Each team will produce two Flight Zero ships, and both teams have now received contracts and begun construction of their initial pair of "Flight Zero" LCS ships.
DID places recent developments in context by explaining a bit more about the US Navy's new surface combatant; detailing the teams, key timeline events, and contract awards under the program to date; and providing additional resources and links to complete our in-depth coverage. New material is in green type. In the wake of the Navy's cancellation of Team Lockheed's LCS 3 ship, and warning to Team General Dynamics re: cost growth, National Defense Magazine reports that new cost forecasts are causing even LCS supporters to re-assess their positions – and may becreating openings for other options…
LCS = Standard Equipment + Mission Modules… + Controversy
LCS: Designs, Teams, and Program Stakes
LCS: Contracts & Key Events
LCS Ancillaries: Mission Module & Weapon Contracts & Key Events
Additional Readings & Sources
LCS = Standard Equipment + Mission Modules… + Controversy
LCS Flight 0 Basics
(click to view full)The US Navy is trying to replace 30 FF-7 Oliver Hazard Perry Class "frigates," 14 MCM Avenger Class mine countermeasures vessels, and 12 MHC-51 Osprey Class coastal mine hunters (TL = 56), with about 55 Littoral Combat Ships.
Given their size (at 127-134 meters length, almost the size of a British Type 23 frigate), the LCS might well be classified as a frigate or corvette were it not for its shallow water design. For whatever reason, high speed has also been identified as an important ship characteristic. Both the GD/Austal trimaran and Lockheed's racing-derived monohull fulfill this requirement, with potential top speeds of 40-50 knots. Internal capacity will allow Special Forces to be embarked for missions, along with their equipment.
The LCS requirement has been identified as part of a broader surface combatant force transformation strategy, which recognizes that many future threats are likely to require near-shore and even river access. Given the diversity of possible missions in these zones, any ship given these tasks must be extremely versatile, and also stealthy. Given the reality that ships are expected to remain in service for 30+ years, "future-proofing" and upgradeability are critical in order for these small ships to remain useful.
While a ship's hull and design makes a number of performance parameters difficult to change, the Americans believe they may have a solution to the problem of affordable upgrades to sensors, weapons, et. al. The revolutionary approach of swappable mission modules pioneered by designs like the Danish Standard Flex 300 corvettes radically changes the LCS' breadth of top-level capabilities, and also allows for spiral development and much simpler future upgrades as technologies evolve.
No matter which mission modules are loaded, the ship will carry a BAE Systems Mk110 57mm naval gun with a firing rate of up to 220 rounds/minute, and Mk 295 ammunition that allows the system to perform against aerial, surface or ground threats. The ship will also carry .50 caliber (12.7mm) machine guns, plus defensive systems including automated chaff/flare dispensers and a Raytheon RIM-116 RAM (Rolling Airframe Missile) launcher integrated into an upgraded version of the MK 15 Phalanx gun system's radar & IR sensors. The ships will also rely on their onboard MH-60 helicopters and/or RQ-8B Fire Scout helicopter UAVs, plus other robotic vehicles including a variety of Unmanned Underwater Vessels (UUV) and Unmanned Surface Vessels (USV). UUVs currently being tested for use with the LCS include the Bluefin 21 advance surveyor, WLD-1 which tows AQS-20 mine-hunting sonar, and others.
As discussed above, these systems will actually be part of mission modules, integrated packages of weapons, sensors, robotic vehicles, and manned platforms that can be switched in and out depending on the ship's mission. The program will initially draw upon modules for Mine Warfare (MIW), Anti-submarine Warfare (ASW) and Surface Warfare (SUW).
AMCM Components
(click to view full)The LCS Mission Modules Program Office (PMS 420) packages a variety of technologies, many of which are produced by other program offices and delivered as elements of a particular mission module.
The MIW module, for example, brings together several systems developed by the Mine Warfare program office (PMS 495): the AN/WLD-1 Remote Minehunting UUV System; the AN/AQS-20A towed mine-detecting sonar and sensors; the Organic Airborne Surface Influence Sweep (OASIS); the Airborne Laser Mine Detection System (AES-1 ALMDS); the Airborne Mine Neutralization System (AMNS); The Rapid Airborne Mine Clearance System (RAMICS) 30mm cannon with its "supercavitating" ammunition; and others. DID has described them asll or linked to in-depth profiles in our in-depth coverage of the MH-60S Airborne Mine Countermeasures (AMCM) program.
The Advanced Deployable System (ADS) had been at the heart of the ASW anti-submarine module, and was intended to be a fast-deploying underwater sensor net developed by Lockheed Martin under the Maritime Surveillance Systems program office (PMS 485). Unfortunately, as our coverage's update section notes, ADS was terminated. The ASW module also includes Lockheed's WLD-1 UUV, a new General Dynamics USV, and acoustic sensors such as Lockheed's Sea Talon multifunction towed array and remote towed active source. Other detection systems and weapons are designed for use aboard the MH-60 helicopter and unmanned surface vessels (USVs) like the Spartan. New technologies like the revolutionary "Sea Sparker" that DID covered in August 2005 may also find their way into this mix.
The SUW attack module makes use of 3 weapon stations. Options include the same 30mm cannon used in the Mine Warfare program's RAMCIS mine-disposal system, and the Marines' Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. Another option is a version of the US Army's Non Line-of-Sight – Launch System. NLOS-LS, aka. NETFIRES. Each of the on-board weapon stations are sized to carry 4 Netfire modules, each of which packs 15 cells (60 missiles total per station). These cheap "missile-in-a-box" precision attack missiles (PAM) roughly duplicate the effects of a 155mm shell and have a range of up to 40 km/ 24 miles. They can be fired in direct mode, and a forthcoming LAM missile would be able to loiter in an area and look for targets or wait for another platform to laser-designate one.
Note that even with the SUW module installed, this is a very light armament set for a major naval vessel. Present LCS designs don't even carry torpedo tubes, or true vertical-launch systems (VLS) that could accommodate present and future attack and/or defensive missiles. Even the corvette-sized Danish Flyvefisken Class, whose swappable modules helped pave the way for the LCS idea, has a Mk 48 vertical launch system and can carry Harpoon anti-ship missiles and/or longer-range air defense missiles. The LCS weapon array also compares unfavorably with corvettes like Israel's US-built, $260 million Sa'ar 5 Eilat Class, and Sweden's ultra-stealthy Visby Class; or even some small Fast Attack Craft classes. Not to mention comparable-sized multi-role frigates like the new Franco-Italian FREMM Class or Britain's much older Type 23/Duke Class.
In contrast, brochures for the International LCS versions offered by each team feature the small SPY-1F AEGIS radar and 16 VLS cells (GD version has 16 tactical length cells for up to 64 RIM-162 ESSM anti-air missiles, LM version has strike length cells that could accommodate anti-ship missiles et. al.), as well as Harpoon missiles. The GD/Austal international brochure even adds torpedo tubes.
It's estimated that the switch to Naval Vessel Rules will probably add about $50 million per ship; leaving out the MH-60S/R helicopters at $25-30 million per, the Navy claims the mission modules will be $80 million apiece. If so, the best case may be a recurring cost of around $427 million ($297M per + $50M + $80M) to provide a ship and only 1 mission module, instead of the originally envisaged target of about $400 million with 3 modules per ship.
If the LCS' cost continues to hover around $350-400 million, future procurement trends begin to make LCS ships the most common form of US naval power, and their armament continues to lack flexibility, unfavorable comparisons are inevitable. A versatile surveillance and special forces insertion ship whose flexibility doesn't extend to the light armament that is its weakest point, and isn't flexible enough to accommodate anything beyond token naval or air opposition, won't meet those expectations.
Worse, it could cause the collapse of the Navy's envisaged "high-low" force structure if the DDG-1000 destroyers and CG (X) cruisers are priced out of the water and built in small numbers, and the LCS has no way of taking up key roles like fleet air defense.
LCS: Designs, Teams, and Program Stakes
Team Lockheed LCS Concept
(click for cutaway)According to official Pentagon documents, the Navy's FY 2006 budget for the LCS program was $1.054 billion ($470.3M procurement, $584.1M RDT&E), which dropped to $926.6 million in FY 2007 budget ($597.2M procurement of ships & mission modules, $329.4M RDT&E). The FY 2008 request is set at $1.208 billion ($990.8M for 3 ships + 2 mission modules, $217.5M RDT&E), but the Navy's revised LCS procurement strategy may cause shifts in that allocation even if all funding survives.
As noted earlier, there are currently two different LCS designs being produced and procured as part of the competition. The General Dynamics team is offering a futuristic but practical high-speed trimaran, based on Austal designs and experience with vessels like the US Marines' Westpac Express high-speed transport and the Army and Navy's TSV/HSV ships. It offers an especially large landing area and internal volume for its size, and has the potential for improved survivability against hits to its sides thanks to the trimaran design. Team Lockheed Martin, meanwhile, offers a proven high-speed semi-planing monohull based on Fincantieri designs that have set trans-Atlantic speed records.
The program is structured for Team Lockheed and the General Dynamics/Austal consortium to each produce a number of fully operational Flight Zero ships; construction of the first 2 ships from each team is now underway. The Navy's experience with these ships will help it select one eventual winning team for the overall program, and it will still be able to use all of the Flight 0 ships.
The design approach for the winning team's second generation Flight 1 LCS ships is flexible, and will change somewhat to take into consideration the experience gained in the Flight 0 designs. While the number of LCS ships is not finalized, there has been speculation of 50-60 LCS ships within a total US naval fleet of 315 ships. This would put the overall program value at around $12 billion.
Four Flight 0 ships and nine Flight 1 ships were initially contemplated, along with 7 mission components which include 3 mine warfare components and 2 anti-submarine warfare (ASW) components. Austal's December 11, 2006 press release even implied that more early-build ships might enter US Navy plans:
"Recent Navy reports have speculated on an expanded acquisition strategy, from 4 to a possible 17, for the Flight 0 fleet of LCSs that also includes an alternate monohull ship design. Commenting in September, Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development, and Acquisition), Dr Delores Etter, told Reuters, 'The U.S. Navy hopes to finalize its acquisition strategy for a new class of shore-hugging combat ships by mid-December [2006].' "
As the program progressed, however, per-ship cost growth due to new Navy standards compliance requirements and other shifts forced significant changes in the Navy's acquisition strategy. Under the new approach, planned FY 2007 procurements would be channeled into getting LCS 1-4 built, rather than buying additional ships as some in Congress proposed. Instead of buying 3 LCS ships in 2008, and then ramp up to building 6 ships per year beginning in 2009 through 2012, amended procurement plans would buy 2 LCS ships in 2008, and 3 in 2009. Congressional votes, which are becoming less supportive of the LCS program as its costs rise, could trim that number further. For instance, the US Senate's proposed FY 2008 defense bill would fund just 1 LCS ship.
Furthermore, the revised program would select one final design by 2010 – with a design competition that would be separate from the build competition.
Nonetheless, the December 11, 2006 Austal release adds that foreign interest is rising, and cites a figure of "...reported 26 potential buyers exist worldwide for the ship and its companion equipment with two near-term contenders and four others that have expressed active interest." DID notes releases and information below that pinpoint Israel (Lockheed version) and Saudi Arabia (GD/Austal version) as two of those possible foreign sales.
The General Dynamics LCS team is led by General Dynamics Bath Iron Works shipbuilder as prime integrator, with Austal of Mobile, AL (a subsidiary of Austal Ships of Australia) as the main design partner and ship-building site. The team also includes GD subsidiaries General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products Division in Burlington, VT; General Dynamics Electric Boat Division in Groton, CT; General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems in Fairfax, VA; and General Dynamics Canada in Ottawa, Ontario. Other key participants include the Boeing Company in Seattle, WA; BAE Systems in Rockville, MD; L3 Communications Marine Systems in Leesburg, VA; Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems in Baltimore, MD; and Maritime Applied Physics Corporation who are also located in Baltimore, MD. Bofors (gun) and Ericcson (radar) are among the minor partners whose equipment will be featured on the GD Team's proposed design.
Lockheed's core team includes various Lockheed divisions, plus naval architects Gibbs & Cox of Arlington, VA; shipbuilders Bollinger Shipyards of Lockport, LA; and shipbuilders Marinette Marine of Marinette, WI. It also includes a host of niche providers and related partnerships including Angle Incorporated, Blohm + Voss, Data Links Solutions, DRS Technologies, EADS, Fairbanks Morse Engine, Fincantieri, Izar (now NAVANTIA), L-3 Communications, MAAG Gear AG, MacTaggart Scott, NAWCAD, Raytheon, Rolls Royce, Sensytech, SPAWAR, Sperry, Terma, Unidynamics, and United Defense (now BAE Systems).
LCS: Ship Contracts & Key Events
Team GD LCS Concept
(click to view full)According to official Pentagon documents, the Navy's FY 2006 budget for the LCS program was $1.054 billion ($470.3M procurement, $584.1M RDT&E), which dropped to $926.6 million in FY 2007 budget ($597.2M procurement of ships & mission modules, $329.4M RDT&E). The FY 2008 request is set at $1.208 billion ($990.8M for 3 ships + 2 mission modules, $217.5M RDT&E), but the Navy's revised LCS procurement strategy may cause shifts in that allocation even if all funding survives.
