US Navy News and updates

Ranger25

Active Member
Staff member
It seems to me that only the Freedom class of Littoral ships are having problems. How is the other version faring in comparison?
From what I've gleaned the Freedom class has had more overall maintenance issues. Most have been worked out post sea trials. If you compare the readiness rates of the first LCS vs 2nd deployment to Singapore it's dramatically better. Without looking them up it was close to 90% on the second cruise.
USN moved containers of spares and teams and kept them forward deployed Looks like they continue to work out the issues of the new class. Larger issue to me is utter lack of lethality
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
From what I've gleaned the Freedom class has had more overall maintenance issues. Most have been worked out post sea trials. If you compare the readiness rates of the first LCS vs 2nd deployment to Singapore it's dramatically better. Without looking them up it was close to 90% on the second cruise.
USN moved containers of spares and teams and kept them forward deployed Looks like they continue to work out the issues of the new class. Larger issue to me is utter lack of lethality
Compared to what they're replacing (Avenger, Cyclone and OHP) they're loaded for bear. OHP is what, a 76mm cannon, a couple of 25 or 30 mm guns, anything that's on your helo, and that's your lot?

LCS gets that 57mm, SeaRam, 30mm cannon and now some sort of surface to surface missile, plus really good aviation and boat facilities. For a patrol/OPV/stop and check role, they're fine. I'd sooner they both got RAM cells and 1b but generally, I don't think they're lacking in punch for their intended roles.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
From what I've gleaned the Freedom class has had more overall maintenance issues. Most have been worked out post sea trials. If you compare the readiness rates of the first LCS vs 2nd deployment to Singapore it's dramatically better. Without looking them up it was close to 90% on the second cruise.
USN moved containers of spares and teams and kept them forward deployed Looks like they continue to work out the issues of the new class. Larger issue to me is utter lack of lethality
It would interesting to see comments from sailors who have served on both versions of the LCS. As for the the lethality issue, there seems to be a growing consensus that some addtional capability is required which likely means a redesign (LCS-frigate hybrid, ouch!).:confused:
 

Ranger25

Active Member
Staff member
It would interesting to see comments from sailors who have served on both versions of the LCS. As for the the lethality issue, there seems to be a growing consensus that some addtional capability is required which likely means a redesign (LCS-frigate hybrid, ouch!).:confused:


Agreed, the USN LCS panel announced the addition of an Over the horizon ASHM and SeaRSM systems for the future frigate, my guess the either Harpoon II or the NSM.


http://news.usni.org/2015/10/15/nav...lity-survivability-will-not-retain-lcss-speed
 

colay1

Member
Can't post links but the Navy is capping the LCS/FF fleet af 40 ships, 12 less than originally planned. Also, they will downselect from two builders to one. Apparently the Navy was able to defeat a move to cut 2 Burke DDGs and a 3rd DDG 2000 is safe from cuts. Funds will be reallocated to more SHs, F-35Cs, SM-6s and SSBN-X development.

Pentagon Cuts LCS to 40 Ships, 1 Shipbuilder
WASHINGTON — The US Navy's fight to buy 52 variants of its littoral combat ship (LCS) from two shipbuilders may have taken a fatal blow this week after the secretary of defense directed the service to cap its buy at 40 ships and pick only one supplier. The directive also orders the Navy to buy only one ship annually over the next four years, down from three per year.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Can't post links but the Navy is capping the LCS/FF fleet af 40 ships, 12 less than originally planned. Also, they will downselect from two builders to one. Apparently the Navy was able to defeat a move to cut 2 Burke DDGs and a 3rd DDG 2000 is safe from cuts. Funds will be reallocated to more SHs, F-35Cs, SM-6s and SSBN-X development.

Pentagon Cuts LCS to 40 Ships, 1 Shipbuilder
WASHINGTON — The US Navy's fight to buy 52 variants of its littoral combat ship (LCS) from two shipbuilders may have taken a fatal blow this week after the secretary of defense directed the service to cap its buy at 40 ships and pick only one supplier. The directive also orders the Navy to buy only one ship annually over the next four years, down from three per year.
This is the link that you want from Defense News: Pentagon Cuts LCS to 40 Ships, 1 Shipbuilder It would appear that the USN is having serious corrosion issues with the Austral aluminum ships.
 

FormerDirtDart

Well-Known Member
This is the link that you want from Defense News: Pentagon Cuts LCS to 40 Ships, 1 Shipbuilder It would appear that the USN is having serious corrosion issues with the Austral aluminum ships.
Where did you see something about a serious corrosion issues with the Independence-class? There's nothing in that article. And, really nothing much has been written about the subject in around four and a half years.

What I'm curious about is how this cut in total numbers affects the whole LCS-to-FF program. And, at what point do they make the down select to one design? (which the probably should have done years ago)

According to the article there 26 (built/in construction/contracted for) of the now "40" ships accounted for. The full FF mods were planned to be incorporated starting with unit 33. So eight ships built to the planned FF configurations seems would fail to come close to being useful. Makes me wonder if they will now attempt to push the full FF mods forward to the yet to be contracted unit 27.

As for the design downselect I wonder if the Saudi planned purchase for the modified Freedom-class will heavily influence the selection.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Where did you see something about a serious corrosion issues with the Independence-class? There's nothing in that article. And, really nothing much has been written about the subject in around four and a half years.

What I'm curious about is how this cut in total numbers affects the whole LCS-to-FF program. And, at what point do they make the down select to one design? (which the probably should have done years ago)

According to the article there 26 (built/in construction/contracted for) of the now "40" ships accounted for. The full FF mods were planned to be incorporated starting with unit 33. So eight ships built to the planned FF configurations seems would fail to come close to being useful. Makes me wonder if they will now attempt to push the full FF mods forward to the yet to be contracted unit 27.

As for the design downselect I wonder if the Saudi planned purchase for the modified Freedom-class will heavily influence the selection.
Corrosion issues have been prevalent on the Independence class since the first of class began sea trials and that was from an ABS Marine Surveyor involved in the LCS project from the early days of sorting out the new classing strategy. Having experienced the sort of problems a modern, competent, navy can experience with aluminium hulls vessels when unfamiliar with them I can't say I was surprised.

There are very major differences between commercial and, even non military government operation and naval operation of vessels, differences that can be very hard on vessels that need to be treated in a specific manner.
 

colay1

Member
This could be a game-changer for the Surface Fleet, reducing it's dependence on carrier-based aviation. It fits nicely into the Navy's unfolding Distributed Lethality doctrine.


https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/northrop-grumman-wins-darpa-tern-programme-420385/

Northrop Grumman wins DARPA TERN programme

Northrop Grumman will demonstrate that an MQ-9 Reaper-sized unmanned air vehicle (UAV) can operate at sea from ships smaller than an aircraft carrier under a $93 million contract awarded on 24 December..DARPA launched the TERN programme to solve a capability problem for the US Navy. The service regularly operates small, tactical unmanned air systems, such as the Boeing/Insitu Integrator from frigate-class ships, using a catapult to launch the aircraft and a crane to recover it. But carrying payloads larger than about 30kg required using an unmanned helicopter, such as the Northrop MQ-8C Fire Scout, which can carry heavier loads but lacks the range and endurance of a General Atomics Aeronautics Systems MQ-9.

The TERN attempts to bridge that gap with a vehicle that can carry a 272kg payload on missions up to 900nm (1,670km).
 
Last edited:

Blackshoe

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Compared to what they're replacing (Avenger, Cyclone and OHP) they're loaded for bear. OHP is what, a 76mm cannon, a couple of 25 or 30 mm guns, anything that's on your helo, and that's your lot?
OHPs weren't always that limited, and certainly could have gotten more weaponry-especially if the decision to essentially let them die for want of maintenance funds-a decision driven largely by the belief that the LCS would be there to save the day (along with other incredibly stupid decisions from SURFOR).

And I wouldn't call the LCS a replacement for the Avengers until there's a working MIW Module...:mad:
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
OHPs weren't always that limited, and certainly could have gotten more weaponry-especially if the decision to essentially let them die for want of maintenance funds-a decision driven largely by the belief that the LCS would be there to save the day (along with other incredibly stupid decisions from SURFOR).

And I wouldn't call the LCS a replacement for the Avengers until there's a working MIW Module...:mad:
Then again if you look at how expensive (and late) the RANs FFGs upgrades were the US decision not to bother seems sensible. The big issue, as I understand it, is even if everything went exactly to plan, without the installation of a vastly more capable radar suite, SM-2 is pretty much wasted. That's not to say that a Mk-41 with quad packed ESSM wouldn't have been a bad move.
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
Old article that I came across, Not sure made its way on here but apparently the Spearhead class EPF (Formally JHSV) have had issue with cracking in the bow.

DOT&E: JHSV Effective At Intra-Theater Transport But Challenged In Other Missions - USNI News

The first 4 ships have had there bows reinforced though this has reduced there range (If using full payload capacity) while the ships have also had limitations imposed on speed and sea state.

- Up to sea state 3 (1.25m) the ships can go full speed
- At sea state 4 (2.5m) the ships are limited to 15 knots
- At sea state 5 (4m) they are limited to 5 knots
- Above sea state 5 they have to remain on station until calmer weather arrives.

This has reduced there availability from 98% in the IOT&E down to 87% in follow up testing, Though should mention requirement was for 80%.

One thing I'm wondering is rather then just thickening the metal platting to better handle the slam of the ocean would it not be more efficient to put in place a central bow like Incat does with there Cat's? (HSV-2 Swift as an example). I'd imagine it better to slice through the ocean rather then to simply slam down on it but that is just a guess, Any ideas?
 

Ranger25

Active Member
Staff member
Where did you see something about a serious corrosion issues with the Independence-class? There's nothing in that article. And, really nothing much has been written about the subject in around four and a half years.

What I'm curious about is how this cut in total numbers affects the whole LCS-to-FF program. And, at what point do they make the down select to one design? (which the probably should have done years ago)

According to the article there 26 (built/in construction/contracted for) of the now "40" ships accounted for. The full FF mods were planned to be incorporated starting with unit 33. So eight ships built to the planned FF configurations seems would fail to come close to being useful. Makes me wonder if they will now attempt to push the full FF mods forward to the yet to be contracted unit 27.

As for the design downselect I wonder if the Saudi planned purchase for the modified Freedom-class will heavily influence the selection.
Here's a link to the Most recent update on the LCS program to the US Congress.
64 pages.

Quick summary

Plan seems to continue use the build out to 52

Stop LCS at 30 then in to the SSC(now a Frigate)

Report recommends selecting one hull past the 24 already budgeted for

Report also reccomends retrofitting most of the upgraded weapons systems to the Flight 0 LCS at least back to hull 25 ( past the initial build)



https://shar.es/1GNkzB

The following is the Dec. 17, 2015 Congressional Research Service report, Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS)/Frigate Program.
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
OHPs weren't always that limited, and certainly could have gotten more weaponry-especially if the decision to essentially let them die for want of maintenance funds-a decision driven largely by the belief that the LCS would be there to save the day (along with other incredibly stupid decisions from SURFOR).

And I wouldn't call the LCS a replacement for the Avengers until there's a working MIW Module...:mad:
They had SM-1R with a single TI - that was so marginal in service that the USN didn't even want to fit it and were pretty much forced to. RAM will be better than in all respects except range and the point remains, the OHP's are not Burkes, neither are the Cyclones and Avengers.

There's a cracking argument to be made that the later OHP's could have gone in with Mk41 etc etc but effectively, compared to what they're replacing the LCS are armed effectively for the role.

MCM ops ..well, thing is, it's modular so there's no major deal if the selected package won't work - the UK and France are both looking at doing mine clearance remotely for the same reasons and someone will make it work. OHP went into service with a sonar that pretty much didn't work at all if I recall...perspective etc :)
 

colay1

Member
From USNI Proceedings today:

Navy Aims to Install Over-the-Horizon Missile on Littoral Combat Ship by End of 2016 - USNI News

Looks like they're made keen to get a more capable missile on the LCS frames as quickly as possible.
IMO Boeing has a compelling argument with enhanced Harpoon variants. The network-enabled Harpoon Block II+ has successfully struck a moving maritime target. Boeing is also enticing the USN to upgrade existing Harpoons to Harpoon Next Generation with double the range for around $600K apiece. NSM would cost substantially more and represent a new logistics/support challenge.
Coincidentally, the Saudis new Multi Mission Surface Combatant based on the Freedom-class LCS will employ Harpoon Blk II.
 

colay1

Member
Deploying an operational railgun on DDG 1002 would be a coup though skipping the planned JHSV test to save time does come with the risk of a high-profile snafu. It doesn't seem that any of the near-peer rivals have anything similar going on so the USN is poised to leapfrog the competition once the engineering is sorted out.

Navy's Rail Gun Still Headed to Sea, but on Which Ship?
WASHINGTON — One of the prime attributes of the DDG 1000 Zumwalt-class destroyers is the design’s 78-megawatt integrated power system, able to switch electrical power between propulsion, sensor and weapon systems. It’s long been touted as the best platform to field new energy-gobbling weapons like rail guns and lasers.
A year ago, however, it appeared the first ship that might carry a rail gun to sea might be a joint high speed vessel (JHSV) fitted with a temporary installation. Briefers at naval exhibitions spoke publicly of the plans, and at least one model of the proposed demonstration was on display.
Plans for the at-sea demonstration remain in place, officials said, but it’s looking more likely that a test using an expeditionary fast transport (EPF) — the new designation for JHSVs — won’t take place at least until 2017, if at all.
“What I’m finding is if I go ahead with the demo it will slow my development,” Rear Adm. Pete Fanta, director of surface warfare, said during a Dec. 30 interview at the Pentagon. “I would rather get an operational unit out there faster than do a demonstration that just does a demonstration.
“It’s not definitely off but it’s not definitely going ahead,” Fanta said, “primarily because it will slow the engineering work that I have to do to get that power transference that I need to get multiple repeatable shots that I can now install in a ship. And I would frankly rather have an operational unit faster than have to take the nine months to a year it will take to set up the demo and install the systems, take the one operational [rail gun] unit I have, put it on a ship, take it to sea, do a dozen shots, turn around, take it off, reinstall it into a test bed.”

Officially, the JHSV/EPF demonstration is still on the books...
But Fanta is focused not on the demonstration, but on driving to an operational system.

“There are two technologies coming out of the rail gun program that both show very high promise,” he said. “One is the rail gun itself, and two is the projectile we need to shoot out of that rail gun, a hypervelocity projectile. Something that goes at high speeds that comes out of that barrel and is able to hit a spot multiple dozens of miles away.”..“Would I like it on DDG 1002? Yes. That would be my goal,” Fanta said, noting he has looked at installing an operational rail gun just before the ship “gets ready to go to its first deployment. I need to be able to have a power generation, a power transference and the barrel round integration to work for that level of integration to get out there.”
But, he cautioned, “I don’t know if I can get there from the engineering status yet. But that’s what we continue to look at.”
Fanta was adamant that an operational rail gun is fast approaching. When asked if he could field an operational unit in five years, he was adamant.
“Yes,” he said, then repeated it.
 
Last edited:
Top