Littoral Combat Ship

[Jezza]

LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP

On April 12, 2007, Secretary of the Navy Donald C. Winter annonced that the Department of the Navy was terminating construction of the third Littoral Combat Ship (LCS 3) for convenience under the Termination clause of the contract because the Navy and Lockheed Martin could not reach agreement on the terms of a modified contract.

LCS will be a Modular Ship. The platform will support mine warfare, anti-submarine warfare and anti-surface boat modules. The LCS concept is presently being defined and is envisioned to be an advanced hullform employing open systems architecture modules to undertake a number of missions and to reconfigure in response to changes in mission, threat, and technology.
Primary missions are those that ensure and enhance friendly force access to littoral areas. Access-focused missions include the following primary missions:

• Anti-surface warfare (ASuW) against hostile small boats
• Mine Counter Measures (MCM)
• Littoral Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW), and may include the following secondary missions
• Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR)
• Homeland Defense / Maritime Intercept
• Special Operation Forces support
• Logistic support for movement of personnel and supplies.

If the USA and other countries want to save money with cheaper
ships why dont they use a generic hull???

The USA could use the FFG 7 hull (Perry Class) and use it for Littoral
operations.They were orignally designed as the cheaper end of scale
anyway.
Re-design the weapon arrangement and maybe lengthen it to
hold more weapons. Try to increase speed of modified platform
as thats what they wanted from the LCS. The 3 types specified were
ASuW ,MCM and ASW. I would include land attack as well.
One gun at the bow and one at stern say 127mm and a variety
of Lockheed Martin Mk 41 vertical launch systems and missiles to
suite ship design.
Maybe like the FREMM type of warship?

Any thoughts?????????????

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/lcs.htm

 

[kiwifighter300]

The LCS is designed for green water ops, hence it needs speed (45kt or greater) and a shallow draft (3.7m on the lockmart design). The OH Perry was designed for blue water merchant ship escort it has a speed of not greater than 30kt and a draft of 6.7m. It is these types of qualities of blue water cmbat ships that helped get the RN and RM personnel captured by the iranians. The HMS Cornwall was unable to get into the shallow water where the merchant ship was being searched. Had there been a LCS parked along side the merchant ship maybe things would have been different. Also I think it would be difficult to redesign a non-modular ship into a modular type ship (which the LCS is)

cheers

and as always these are just my thoughts

 

[aaaditya]

hey guys,can lcs class of vessels sustain a high cruise speed of 45+ knots throughout their entire range if used for blue water operations?

 

[Todjaeger]

hey guys,can lcs class of vessels sustain a high cruise speed of 45+ knots throughout their entire range if used for blue water operations?

From what I understand, no. The LCS (or at least one of the designs) is based off tri & cat designs by an Oz company called Austal. When transiting shallow water, high speed can be maintained. From what I understand though, if transiting blue waters (with higher Sea States) there is a dramatic increase in fuel consumption when underway at high speed. Someone like Wooki or Alexsa would probably be better equipped to really answer this question though.

-Cheers

 

[kato]

"maximum range" is always given at "most economic cruise speed". typically between 15 and 18 knots for military ships. since fuel consumption doesn't scale geometrically with speed, the answer is no.

 

[Tasman]

The LCS is designed for green water ops, hence it needs speed (45kt or greater) and a shallow draft (3.7m on the lockmart design). The OH Perry was designed for blue water merchant ship escort it has a speed of not greater than 30kt and a draft of 6.7m. It is these types of qualities of blue water cmbat ships that helped get the RN and RM personnel captured by the iranians. The HMS Cornwall was unable to get into the shallow water where the merchant ship was being searched. Had there been a LCS parked along side the merchant ship maybe things would have been different. Also I think it would be difficult to redesign a non-modular ship into a modular type ship (which the LCS is)

cheers

and as always these are just my thoughts

I think these comments are spot on.

Re using the OHP hull, I agree that it has too little speed and too much draft to be ideal for littoral operations. Also I can't see why anyone would want to develop a forty year old blue water hull design for a totally different role. The advantage of modern vessels with modular designs is the ease with which they can be upgraded or provided with alternative armament arrangements (in theory anyway).

I see the littoral combat ships as being modern equivalents of the pre WW2 RN sloop. British sloops were designed to be used for AA and/or ASW escort along with minesweeping duties in wartime. In peacetime they were useful as gunboats for showing the flag on foreign stations and served in patrol, survey and training roles. They could be manned by comparatively small crews in their peacetime roles but could mount a very effective ASW and/or AA armament in wartime, when additional light AA guns and depth charge throwers together with M/S gear or additional DC racks were fitted. With the outbreak of WW2 the multi role turbine powered sloops proved too expensive (and too difficult for many non naval yards) to be built in large numbers and 'specialist' minesweepers (in practice many never steamed a sweep and served in the same role as the corvettes), corvettes and later frigates were designed to be mass produced in yards not normally involved in naval construction. The single shaft corvettes were designed purely for ASW escort duties whilst the larger twin shaft frigates were given either an ASW or AA role.

Unlike the sloop, however, I think that the modular nature of the LCS design means that it should be possible to mass produce specialist variants of the basic design in the event of a major conflict.

Cheers

 

[Jezza]

Basicly modern corvettes to be right.

I dont see why they are so expensive as they are basicly
Large patrol boats. Basicly have as little crew as possible with all weapons
in vls apart from 2 naval guns for support.

 

[icelord]

its the modules that add up, as well as the size and the new designs aspects. the first ships will be expensive and eventually the cost will fall as with all large scale orders.
This is not a corvette or large patrol boat, these are mission based ships designed to be able to spread a variety of missions into modules that are interchangable with the ship. That means you have to be able to allow multiple systems to work with the same base point on the ship. They also can carry a lot more helos then any corvette or Destroyer for that matter.

The equipment used for medical evacs would be different to mine sweeping, and the modules built are for each ship i believe, or will the USN have several modules packages covering the fleet, without doubling up. for Example 6 for mine sweeping, 6 for intel, 6 for special forces deployments and a further 6 modules for a 15 ship fleet?

Austal, the company that designed the LCS with General dynamics, has a trimarian Corvette the Multi role vessel. The MRV is a smaller LCS and on a smaller scale conducts some of the operations but has not found a customer as yet(ACV triton replacement anyone)
http://www.austal.com/go/product-information/defence-products/multi-role-vessel

The LCS will also see 2-3 crews much like the HSV Swift, with a gold team for Mines and Blue team for Marine Expeditionary forces transportation.

 

[Galrahn]

its the modules that add up, as well as the size and the new designs aspects. the first ships will be expensive and eventually the cost will fall as with all large scale orders.

This is not a corvette or large patrol boat, these are mission based ships designed to be able to spread a variety of missions into modules that are interchangable with the ship. That means you have to be able to allow multiple systems to work with the same base point on the ship. They also can carry a lot more helos then any corvette or Destroyer for that matter.

The equipment used for medical evacs would be different to mine sweeping, and the modules built are for each ship i believe, or will the USN have several modules packages covering the fleet, without doubling up. for Example 6 for mine sweeping, 6 for intel, 6 for special forces deployments and a further 6 modules for a 15 ship fleet?

This was sortof what the LCS was supposed to be before it was under construction, today unfortunately it is a totally different animal. I fear if I really engaged this convesation it would quickly become 10,000 words of piss and vinegar, as the actual program has become something that doesnt' much resemble what it was orginally proposed to be.

 

[harryriedl]

I think these comments are spot on.

Re using the OHP hull, I agree that it has too little speed and too much draft to be ideal for littoral operations. Also I can't see why anyone would want to develop a forty year old blue water hull design for a totally different role. The advantage of modern vessels with modular designs is the ease with which they can be upgraded or provided with alternative armament arrangements (in theory anyway).

I see the littoral combat ships as being modern equivalents of the pre WW2 RN sloop. British sloops were designed to be used for AA and/or ASW escort along with minesweeping duties in wartime. In peacetime they were useful as gunboats for showing the flag on foreign stations and served in patrol, survey and training roles. They could be manned by comparatively small crews in their peacetime roles but could mount a very effective ASW and/or AA armament in wartime, when additional light AA guns and depth charge throwers together with M/S gear or additional DC racks were fitted. With the outbreak of WW2 the multi role turbine powered sloops proved too expensive (and too difficult for many non naval yards) to be built in large numbers and 'specialist' minesweepers (in practice many never steamed a sweep and served in the same role as the corvettes), corvettes and later frigates were designed to be mass produced in yards not normally involved in naval construction. The single shaft corvettes were designed purely for ASW escort duties whilst the larger twin shaft frigates were given either an ASW or AA role.

Unlike the sloop, however, I think that the modular nature of the LCS design means that it should be possible to mass produce specialist variants of the basic design in the event of a major conflict.

Cheers

the sloops were famous for being absolutely awful in rough seas with much piching and rolling

 

[contedicavour]

I've read that the USN is considering reducing the LCS programme to 30 ships maximum. Since there were more than 50 OHPs that's quite a cut.
May be the USN gave away too many OHPs too early. Refurbished a bit (VLS for ESSM or RAM) those hulls could have remained in service 30+ years instead of the 20 or so before being offered to several allied navies.

cheers

 

[falcon2k7]

US Navy can't seem to decide what it wants outside of the CVNX Ford class carriers. Which still look like an upgrade of the Nimitz class. The next generation destroyer project was scrapped and now this.

 

[contedicavour]

US Navy can't seem to decide what it wants outside of the CVNX Ford class carriers. Which still look like an upgrade of the Nimitz class. The next generation destroyer project was scrapped and now this.

If the confusion remains on the LCS and the huge Zumwalt super DDGs, soon the whole escort force of the USN will be made up of the Burkes... which may be a good idea after all since those DDGs are excellent and must be relatively cheap since they are built in so big numbers (more than 50 operational and 12+ building).

cheers

 

[Galrahn]

I've read that the USN is considering reducing the LCS programme to 30 ships maximum. Since there were more than 50 OHPs that's quite a cut.
May be the USN gave away too many OHPs too early. Refurbished a bit (VLS for ESSM or RAM) those hulls could have remained in service 30+ years instead of the 20 or so before being offered to several allied navies.

While the OHPs have done a pretty good job filling various roles for the US Navy, in fact they were never really designed for most of the roles they filled. Long deployments far from the US have really hurt them more than is admitted, and it takes considerable work to put them to sea these days.

The real problem is that will likely be pushed longer than they may hold up. If you talk to anyone who works on the OHPs in the yards, they can tell you the only thing keeping some of them afloat is their simplistic design and construction, which allows for 'plugs' to fix major problems easier than they would otherwise.

The OHPs really aren't worth the cost to refit with expensive weapons though, and they were never built for it. An expensive refit to upgrade a OHP today would cost more than many OHPs cost back when they were built from scratch. Considering the amount of stress those hulls have already taken in their lifetimes on long patrols, it simply wouldn't be a cost effective investment.

As far as reducing the LCS buy, it is too early to assume any number high or low. The current plan is still 55, but if someone was to ask me about the current USN ship plan, I would say the plan has major flaws because it is designed around several theories and assumptions that haven't even been minor factors in modern era Naval capabilities or modern era naval warfare.

 

[Todjaeger]

The OHPs really aren't worth the cost to refit with expensive weapons though, and they were never built for it. An expensive refit to upgrade a OHP today would cost more than many OHPs cost back when they were built from scratch. Considering the amount of stress those hulls have already taken in their lifetimes on long patrols, it simply wouldn't be a cost effective investment.

Going OT for a moment... The RAN Adelaide-class FFG are modified OHP. Currently it is planned that 4 of them will be upgraded to incorporate improved radars and illuminators, as well as a VLS for ESSM and a new FCS/CIS... If the OHP are expensive to refit as indicated, does this seem a worthwhile activity for the RAN, given that the last in the class is expected to decommission in the 2018 timeframe?

-Cheers

 

[Galrahn]

If the OHP are expensive to refit as indicated, does this seem a worthwhile activity for the RAN, given that the last in the class is expected to decommission in the 2018 timeframe?

The refits I am thinking about aren't only weapon systems and sensors. You have to keep in mind, the difference between a Australia or Spain OHP and a US OHP is somewhere between 15,000 and 25,000 extra Kilometers per year over the last two decades.

 

[speed651]

In china, some people highly praised the design idea of LCS. But discommenders think that LCS have no opportunity to combat in Taiwan Strait.

 

[Galrahn]

In china, some people highly praised the design idea of LCS. But discommenders think that LCS have no opportunity to combat in Taiwan Strait.

Add me to the list of people who think it would be lunchmeat in a confrontation with China.

Great for irregular warfare though, which I think the Navy ranks higher than China at this time as a threat to US national security. For all the smoke, there hasn't been much fire in US - China naval relations, including that silly overblown sub incident with the Kitty Hawk last year.

The only incident between the US and China so far this century worth discussion is the EP-3 incident in 2001, and in the end, the result was China taking technology that was landed on their soil, something the US no doubt would have done had the situation been reversed.

 

[FiredForEffect]

Looks like the navy really wants these things. Either there's a shipyard in the right congressional district, or these things actually present an effective platform to deal with today's threats, because someone in the DoD is willing to shell out the bucks. No consideration to upgrading the FFG7s appears to have been given.

nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2007/August/LittoralCombatShip.htm

 

[Galrahn]

Looks like the navy really wants these things. Either there's a shipyard in the right congressional district, or these things actually present an effective platform to deal with today's threats, because someone in the DoD is willing to shell out the bucks. No consideration to upgrading the FFG7s appears to have been given.

nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2007/August/LittoralCombatShip.htm

Too bad the article isn't being written today, at yesterday's HASC seapower subcommittee hearing the CBO revised its estimated cost for the first 2 LCS to around 650 million for just the hull. These are first in class ships.

LCS-4 will be over 500 million, with LCS-5 and LCS-6 cost capped at 450 million each, which the Navy deemed acceptable. A summery of the CBO findings, estimates, and other interesting tidbits including a FY08 dollar comparison between the FFG-7 and LCS can be found here.