Littoral Combat Ships (LCS)

Jura said:

inside
Talking About My Generation—and the LCS

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

:
"The LCS will be called on to fight in China’s littorals, countering Chinese missile boats before they can venture farther to attack main elements of the U.S. fleet."

should I squee?

Click to expand...

The Navy is setting the groundwork this year to streamline the installation of several capability upgrades to both Littoral Combat Ship variants during the future years defense program.

The upgrades, which have been collectively dubbed LCS Lethality and Survivability, are being planned in two phases: the first of which has been largely decided, while the second remains open to changes based on the service's future needs, Nicole Sanders, Lockheed Martin's senior manager for small combatant strategic programs, told Inside Defense in an interview this week.

Most of the capabilities included in the first phase have been in development for several years, such as a modified version of the Surface Electronics Warfare Improvement Program, dubbed SEWIP Block 2 Lite. However, by bundling them together, the Navy stands to save time and money on the installations, Sanders said.

The first phase includes installing NULKA decoys and SEWIP Block 2 Lite, integrating the Naval Strike Missile into the combat systems and swapping out the 57 mm gun's fire-control system with one from a Mk 160 gun, according to Sanders. The second phase remains "conceptually wide open," but integrating the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile and Vertical Launch System cells are under consideration, she said.

The service's preparations are reflected in its fiscal year 2020 budget request.

"Beginning in [FY-21], this [program element] also provides funds for the design, development, engineering, implementation, and testing of the combat system modifications for Lethality and Survivability (L&S) for the LCS Class," according to a research and development line item in the Navy's budget justification documents.

"The L&S upgrades include the development of a common combat management system and integration and testing of government furnished systems including the gun weapon system, electronic warfare system and decoy launching system for both LCS class variant ships," the document continues.

Additional funding for LCS L&S is included in an LCS in-service modernization line item within the Navy's "other procurement" budget.

Sanders said the Navy’s current plan is to start implementing the upgrades in FY-23 beginning with two ships, one of each variant. A Navy spokesman confirmed to Inside Defense yesterday that plan remains on track.

"It's meant to be accomplished within the ship's dry-dock availabilities, so it is all synchronized with the fleet planning that is already going on," she said.

Lockheed produces the Freedom variant, while Austal USA builds the Independence variant. An Austal spokeswoman has not returned a request for comment.

The first four ships in the class, which the Navy now uses as test vessels, will not receive the upgrades.

Click to expand...

Brumby said:

Navy streamlining LCS upgrade installations starting in FY-23 (source Inside defense May 10, 2019)



Haven't followed this program for a long time. It seems to be stuck in time. Years ago if I remember correctly, the plan was to standardise to one common combat system between the two variant. In this article as reported - it is still a plan.

@Jura, any idea about planned integration of evolved sea sparrow with VLS cells?

Click to expand...

Jura said:

Brumby what on Earth "VLS cells" are you talking about it
Littoral Combat Ships (LCS)

is it something USN fanbois, who admire Star Trek look of those incredible vessels, are being fed now?

Click to expand...

Brumby said:

I did not made it up. ...

Click to expand...

The Navy has five categories of vessels under consideration for a new package of mine countermeasure capabilities and estimates it would need at least $50 million in future years to equip six select vessels, according to a report obtained by Inside Defense.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, created by the expeditionary warfare requirements director (N95), was sent to Congress to satisfy a Fiscal Year 2019 National Defense Authorization Act requirement. Lawmakers directed the Navy secretary to submit a report outlining the vessels under consideration for employment of the Littoral Combat Ship’s mine countermeasure mission package as well as associated testing and funding.

That mission package is comprised of nearly a dozen systems designed to fulfill the mine countermeasures mission following the retirement of the Navy’s aging MCM ships and MH-53E Sea Dragon helicopters. Those systems are in different phases of testing and are primarily meant to integrate with both LCS variants.

"The fleet validated requirement is for 24 MCM MPs. [Nineteen] MPs are or will be permanently embarked on LCS. The remaining five provide additional operational flexibility as available capability for employment from [vessels of opportunity] and/or shore-based facilities," according to the report.

The "leading VOO candidates" to be equipped with the mission package are the expeditionary sea base, expeditionary fast transports and amphibious warships. The list also includes broader categories such as "commercial vessels" and "foreign platforms."

Although the report does not appear to rank the ships by preference, the ESB is singled out as an example to project the baseline costs of equipping ships with the mission package.

"For ESB, effective modular MCM operations requires $24.9 million in [research and development funding] for the development of VOO mission kit equipment to install the MCM MP on ESB, including detail design of integration solutions, ship check and integration, and testing," according to the report. A hypothetical funding table shows that cost would be spread out over the future years defense program using then-year dollars.

"An additional $29.1 million in [the other procurement budget] procures three ESB integration kits with hardware and other items necessary to operate the modular MCM systems," the report continues.

The three kits would be capable of equipping six vessels total. Those cost estimates do not include "manpower, habitability or training costs," the report states. There would also be a $9.7 million recurring cost per ship.

Asked about the report, a spokesman for General Dynamics NASSCO, the prime contractor for the Navy's ESBs, said he had not viewed the document.

"As the builder of the ESB, we have developed modifications in support of the mine countermeasure packages," Dennis DuBard told Inside Defense today in a statement.

"The ship has inherent capabilities to easily flex to changing mission requirements to address a broad spectrum of mission areas. The Navy has not specifically asked; however, we have been working on concepts to support the warfighter," he continued.

The Navy plans to demonstrate the mission package's "full modular" employment from an Independence-class LCS in FY-21 and from a Freedom-class ship in FY-22. Employment from a vessel of opportunity is projected for FY-24, according to the report.

Concerning EPFs, the report characterizes those vessels as "a viable and attractive host" for specific MCM capabilities, but "space constraints prevent embarkation of the entire mission package."

"In these cases, a geographically appropriate sub-set of equipment would be selected to cater to the expected operational environment," the report states.

Amphibious ships are praised for their flexibility and "consistently score high in studies and assessments regarding the ability . . . to host and conduct MCM operations."

The Navy is also assessing a variety of commercial vessels such as "ocean going tugs, barges, and offshore supply vessels."

"Large commercial ships with a helo-pad and cranes, like those employed by offshore gas and oil companies, are particularly attractive," the report states.

"Each specific commercial ship option presents its own integration, contracting, and operational benefits and challenges," the document continues.

The report also states the service is considering foreign military platforms capable of employing the mission package, such as two British vessels that have conducted MCM operations with the Navy in the past.

Click to expand...

Jura said:

keep dreaming about some vaporware and in the meantime check this:

about two and a half years ago, inside the USNI News (note the end of September below)
May 16, 2015

Jura said:

news of the USN LCS mine-sweeping ("which I tried to cover here"
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/littoral-combat-ships-lcs.t3993/page-75#post-336653
SASC Cuts LCS Mine Countermeasures Funding Citing Concerns About Upcoming IOT&E

source:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

... Program Executive Officer for LCS Rear Adm. Brian Antonio ...
Overall, though, he was optimistic about achieving IOC by the end of September.

“We’ve proven that the systems work,” he said.
“Will we have issues every now and then? Yes we will. Some of these systems have been in development a long time, it’s time to bring them together and do the end-to-end run and prove them out.”

today, inside

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

quoting
Capt. Ted Zobel, the program manager for all three LCS mission modules. ...
... the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(MCM) module will enter testing in 2020, reach Initial Operational Capability on Independence variants by late 2020 or early 2021, and IOC on Freedom variants by late ’21.

Click to expand...

Brumby said:

I did not made it up. It is in the article.

IIRC, one of the LCS variant is designed to be able to accommodate at least a 8 cell VLS. In line with the USN concept of distributed lethality a mid life upgrade reflecting a configuration of :
8 X VLS (in the design)
8 X NSM (already in the plan)
SEWIP Block 2 (already in the plan)
NULKA decoys (already in the plan)
radar upgrade with RMAs (technical feasibility unknown but a 9 RMA is planned for the FFG (X))
would be a significant upgrade in lethality.

A LCS operating at 800 nm in the outer ring of a CVBG in conjunction with a F-35B/C (refuel via MQ-25) will potentially put at risk any Chinese surface group out to 1000 nm from the centre of a CVBG. The whole idea is to put more variables in any calculus.

Click to expand...