Littoral Combat Ships (LCS)

Jeff Head said:

Jura...you have posted three time on this page your feelings about Pork.

...

But we do not need t hear "por, porl, pork" on all of your posts. It makes you sound like someone I do not believe you are.

Click to expand...

Jura said:

I'll tell you what's tragicomic: the Australian OHPs were recently part of
‘Upgunned ESG’
(whatever this is, it looks like somebody realized an amphibious force should be escorted, and made a tremendous success story of something what's been known for centuries:
Bonhomme Richard ESG Combines With Australian Frigates For ‘Upgunned ESG’ Rehearsal in Talisman Saber 2017

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

)

...

Click to expand...

Jura said:

OK Jeff over the years I've made it clear I'm the enemy of the LCS Project, for the reasons I've been posting about for years, and after those years in fact my heart starts pounding when I realize how the USN treated the lighter surface forces like hastily retiring the OHPs instead of for example adding an VLS Nov 14, 2017
and replacing them with LCSs whose combat value is ... questionable (though around ten of them were already COMMISSIONED to the USN, with about two dozen more coming)

some time ago I was thinking maybe I was just too conservative, and LCSs might work in the way I don't know, but considering their current status plus what other Navies are fielding in similar displacement category, I can't help to say it's a botched project

but based on your post I realized since it's just me posting in this thread lately, my remarks here are superfluous now, I'll cut them

Click to expand...

Jeff Head said:

...but lets give them a chance to see if they will actually dio what they said they would do realizing that a lot of pressure was brought to bear to get them to make these changes.

Click to expand...

Jura said:

well, I've been following the LCS Project for something like one year and a half now, so I think

• it was actually the US Navy which had to be "pushed" to prepare alternatives to LCS in 2014 (so called Hagel's memo):
  
  Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
  
  but
• I think the USN then actually tried to change LCSs as LITTLE as possible, under the circumstances:
  
  Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
• and I think this "backfired" on the USN in the end of 2015:
  
  Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

...

Click to expand...

Jura said:

one of the problems is they've been some attempts to change stuff for example already two years ago Jan 20, 2016


but I think they're just drifting

the latest idea I noticed Dec 11, 2017
was to send LCSs against drug trafficking in 2018

Click to expand...

dtulsa said:

Sadly I believe these drug trafficking extremely low risk type missions are what the LCS is going to end up being they simply can not be an effective warfighter due among other things an extreme lack of range and the maintenance requirement they can only be on station for about 2 weeks before returning to base for repairs another brilliant idea from some bearocrat some where range is quoted as 2500 nm not nearly sufficient for AWW or escort duties and yet that is the very thing that is needed most of all

Click to expand...

Jura said:

...

"During operational testing,
LCS 3 did not demonstrate that it could achieve the
Navy requirement for fuel endurance (operating range)
at the prescribed transit speed or at sprint speed. Based
on fuel consumption data collected during the test, the
ship’s operating range at 14.4 knots (the ship’s average
speed during the trial) is estimated to be approximately
1,960 nautical miles ..."

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and at p. 124 of Conway's 1906-1921 I see
Range 2500 nm at 20 knots for Wickes-class

(San Diego - Hawai is about 2300 nm)

...

Click to expand...

Jura said:

where do I start here ... I've read
Base Notice: RFI: FFG(X) - US Navy Guided Missile Frigate Replacement Program -
N0002418R2300

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

already twice; I also read (but not twice LOL) the following articles (I don't repost the texts as I don't know if anybody cares about what's going on):

Frigate competition wide open: Navy specs reveal major design shift

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Navy Releases Details of New FFG(X) Guided-Missile Frigate Program in Request to Industry

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Exclusive interview: The Navy's surface warfare director talks frigate requirements

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I'm going to add my thoughts later

Click to expand...

The Navy’s new class of 20 guided-missile frigates could cost an estimated $950 million per hull, the Naval Sea Systems Command FFG(X) program manager said on Tuesday.

Speaking at the Surface Navy Association 2018 symposium, NAVSEA’s Regan Campbell said the new class of small surface combatant would set a so-called threshold requirement for a net average cost of $950 million for the second through 20th hulls in the FFG(X) next-generation frigate program following a downselect to a single shipbuilder in 2020. The lead ship in the class is expected to cost more than the $950-million average.

In comparison, a Flight IIA Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer (DDG-51) costs about $1.8 billion to build and equip with sensors and weapon systems.

That frigate number is also above the $588-million per-hull cost of the existing Lockheed Martin Freedom-class (LCS-1) and Austal USA Independence-class (LCS-2) Littoral Combat Ships slated for the Fiscal Year 2018 budget.

The estimate emerges as the Navy is in the midst of a conceptual design review with an unknown number of bidders for the follow-on to the LCS, following a request for proposal issued late last year.

By March, NAVSEA expects to award four to six contracts to further develop the conceptual designs ahead of the final construction contract award in 2020.

“We’re going to have a technical review of each of these proposals by the end and provide them feedback in where these designs might need some buffing up to get to a full and open competition,” Campbell said.
“You will see those requests for proposals by the fourth quarter of 2019, with an award in 2020.”

While NAVSEA has not disclosed the bidders for last year’s RFP, USNI News understands up to eight or more designs are under consideration for the next phase of the program.

Those designs not only likely include the two existing LCS builders but also several European frigate designs. European shipbuilders, like Spain’s Navantia, have experience building smaller frigate-sized warships using the Lockheed Martin Aegis Combat System. Aegis shares a common DNA with the COMBATSS-21 combat system currently in use on LCS and planned for FFG(X).

“There are foreign ships that are competitors in the space and we anticipate those could be coming into play,” Campbell said.

In addition to previously disclosed requirements, NAVSEA has set the range it would like to see for the number of the Mk-41 Vertical Launch System cells – an objective target of 32 and threshold of 16. The cells could field a single Raytheon SM-2 or SM-6 per cell or four Evolved SeaSparrow Missiles quad-packed into a single cell. In comparison, a Flight IIA Burke has 96 VLS cells.

NAVSEA also will require the FFG(X) field a minimum eight over-the-horizon anti-ship missiles, with an objective requirement of 16.

Click to expand...

The Navy’s next-generation frigate could end up costing just shy of a billion dollars per hull, the Naval Sea Systems Command program manager said Tuesday.

Regan Campbell said the Navy had set an upper limit of $950 million per ship, about half the cost of a Flight IIA Arleigh Burke-class destroyer and nearly double the cost of the littoral combat ship. USNI News

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

the Navy’s cost estimate.

Moving forward on the FFG(X) is among the Navy’s top priorities in 2018. The ship is slated to have between 16 and 32 vertical-launch missile tubes and an over-the-horizon, anti-surface missile capability.

The cost estimate surprised some analysts, who thought the number might be lower given previous signals from the Navy. The price tag could also push out some of the high-profile contenders who were interested in the bid.

“That seems a little high to me, in the sense that’s about $100 million more than I was expecting,” said Jerry Hendrix, a retired Navy captain and analyst with the Center for a New American Security. “I do think it may be exclusionary, in that some of the designs — Navantia’s frigate or BAE’s Type 26 design — will likely come in at a billion or more.”

“Both littoral combat ship designs, the National Security Cutter and Fincantieri’s FREM should be able to meet that,” he added.

Both Austal and Lockheed Martin are offering up frigate designs based on their littoral combat ships, while Huntington Ingalls is believed to have offered up a redesigned version of the Coast Guard’s National Security Cutter.

Fincantieri is offering up a version of its multi-mission frigate, known by its acronym FREMM (European multi-purpose frigate). Fincantieri is currently partnered with Lockheed on the mono-hulled Freedom-class littoral combat ship.

Click to expand...

By the end of March, the Navy will award four to six contracts for “conceptual” designs of a

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. That ship that must cost under $950 million, have “Grade A shock hardening” on key systems to survive blasts, and carry at least 16 Vertical Launch System cells to defend itself and nearby vessels, program manager

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

told the Surface Navy Association conference here.

Those requirements, among many others, demand a

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

than the current, controversial

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. They make winning harder for the builders of the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

— Marinette Marine’s Freedom monohull and Austal’s Independence trimaran — which are making ships for

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

that lack VLS and heavy-duty shock hardening. On the other hand, that $950 million maximum may be a challenge for

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

in the competition.

A crucial caveat: The forthcoming decision doesn’t knock anybody out of the competition. The four to six winners will split $90 million to do conceptual designs due in 16 months, and they’ll get intensive feedback from the Navy how to improve their work. But the Navy will also keep updating a “bidders’ library” with the latest specifications and files of Government Furnished Information (GFI), which will be available to all interested and qualified parties. When the government issues its final Request For Proposals (RFP) late this year — in the first quarter of fiscal year 2019 — any company can enter the “full and open competition,” even if they didn’t get a conceptual design contract.

The choice that really counts will come in 2020, when the Navy chooses one design to actually build. The first ship will be bought in 2020 (and delivered in 2026), the second in ’21, and two a year after that.

That $950 million figure is the maximum average price allowed for ships two to 20: The first of class can (and almost certainly will) go higher. Those caveats aside, the $950 million is the real average cost per ship, including the Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) provided by the Navy rather than the winning contractor. (You can hide hundreds of millions in costs by not counting all GFE).

The Government Furnished Equipment will be expensive, Campbell said, to ensure that whichever design wins, it will have compatible technology with the rest of the fleet. Used tried-and-true tech also reduces cost and risk. That includes standard Navy radars and the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

combat management system, a dialed-down derivative of the Aegis air and missile defense system used on destroyers. (By contrast, the original LCS were allowed to use sui generis electronics, creating all sorts of headaches).

The GFE also includes Mark 41 Vertical Launch Systems, specifically the full-size “strike length” version capable of carrying the Navy’s entire array of offensive and defensive missiles.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

had

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

; now it’s mandatory, Campbell made clear. 16 VLS cells is the minimum, 32 the preferred or “objective” number. In addition, the frigate needs eight dedicated on-deck launchers for Over-The-Horizon anti-ship missiles.

The VLS cells, by contrast, are primarily needed for anti-aircraft and anti-cruise-missile weapons, like the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. (Though VLS can load offensive weapons if the situation warrants, she said). These defensive weapons are not just to protect the frigate itself but nearby vessels for which it’s providing “close escort.” How close? Campbell carefully didn’t say — details are classified — but she made clear there was no appetite, and no money, for the frigate to replicate the extensive air and missile defense capabilities of a full-size Aegis destroyer.

While better armed and better protected than LCS, the future frigates will still — like LCS — serve as the “low” half of a “high-low” mix alongside destroyers and cruisers. Unlike LCS, however, the frigates will have the VLS, shock hardening and reinforced hull structures to accompany the destroyers into so-called contested environments under threat from a hostile and well-armed enemy. That’s a big shift from the early vision for LCS. The frigates will also have the command, control, and communications systems to work with amphibious and aircraft carrier task forces. In short, the Navy doesn’t want an auxiliary ship: It wants a frigate that can fight with the fleet.

UPDATE On an even larger scale, the frigate is

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

to shipbuilding, the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

told reporters later at the conference. “We’ve been doing anything we can to reform our (acquisition) processes so we can challenge the assumptions, particularly (for)

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

— I think we can just do that

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

,” Adm. John Richardson said. “The one that we’re going to see, I hope, a big step forward in that regard is the frigate program.”

UPDATE We need to get the frigate right, Adm. RIchardson said, “not only because we need those ships, but also we’re really trying to approach how we design and build of our ships differently, which might define a new era in shipbuilding.”

Click to expand...

Lockheed Martin model of their proposed frigate design, based on the Littoral Combat Ship, on display at the 2018 Surface Navy Association conference. Note VLS hatches on foredeck, behind turret and flanked by OTH launchers.

Click to expand...

dtulsa said:

Ok per defense news Lockheed and Saab have withdrawn from the OTH missile for the LCS/ frigate leaving only the NSM so I guess we now know what the missile will be or do we?

Click to expand...

The surface Navy is planning to wrap up its over-the-horizon, anti-surface missile competition in the coming months, the Pentagon’s director of Surface Warfare Division said Tuesday.

Rear Adm. Ronald Boxall told the audience at the 2018 Surface Navy Association’s national symposium that he hoped to have the missile competition, intended for use on the littoral combat ships, wrapped up this summer.

The bidding for the requirement has been fraught, with two major competitors dropping from the process leaving Raytheon and Kongsberg’s Naval Strike Missile as the team to beat.

Boeing’s Harpoon missile and Lockheed Martin’s Long-range Anti-Surface Missile both were pulled from the competition. Both companies felt the competition was skewed towards the Raytheon/Kongsberg offering, Defense News reported in May.

The Naval Strike Missile has a range of more than 100 nautical miles and has target-recognition capabilities that limit the need for another ship or aircraft to hold a track on the target.

Boxall said the addition of the OTH missile was a step in the direction of getting more lethal weapons on surface ships so they can take the offensive. Last spring, the Navy test-fired the Longbow Hellfire, which has a significantly shorter range than the Naval Strike Missile, as a way of beefing up the current anti-surface warfare package on the LCS.

The Hellfire missile on the LCS is intended to counter swarming boat targets.

The next step after getting longer-range anti-surface weapons on surface ships is to work on how to target adversaries at long ranges, Boxall said.

The Navy is looking at a combination of manned aircraft, unmanned aircraft and submarines as potential partners in helping the surface Navy hold adversaries at risk at increasing ranges.

Click to expand...

Jura said:

May 25, 2017
while more than seven month later Over-the-horizon missile competition nearing completion

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

more than seven month to hear "The surface Navy is planning to wrap up its over-the-horizon, anti-surface missile competition in the coming months ..." etc.

Click to expand...