Littoral Combat Ships (LCS)

The contentious question of how many littoral combat ships to build has been batted back and forth this year between the US Navy’s top leadership and senior Pentagon leaders. By the end of the day on Jan. 17, a certain kind of standoff appears to have been reached, foregoing — for the moment — a final decision.

Click to expand...

...

FORBIN said:

...

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

From the article:

Defense News said:

Key to that is effective anti-submarine warfare (ASW) and anti-air combat systems. The ASW mission package under development for LCS is getting early rave reviews from surface warfare officers, but the ships are too small to install Mark 41 vertical missile launchers needed for standard anti-air missiles. An effective anti-air system also needs search and fire control radars, along with an expanded combat system.

Click to expand...

Not so, both have been designed to hold at least an eight cell Mk-41 if not 16. If you use quad packed ESSMs in those cells, you end up with a decent medium ranged air coverage for escorted ships.

There's also the smaller Mk 48 VLS, which was designed originally for the Sea Sparrow missile:


They are installed in 2 cell modules, with the weight of the entire module 1,450 pounds.

Pointblank said:

There's also the smaller Mk 48 VLS, which was designed originally for the Sea Sparrow missile:

They are installed in 2 cell modules, with the weight of the entire module 1,450 pounds.

Click to expand...

Yes, but I would not expect the US to use those older modules and missiles on the LCS. Particularly when they have already designed in a space for Mk-41 VLS (sort of like the British, "designed for but not with").

The would opt for ESSM which far out performs and outclasses the Sea Sparrow, and can be quad packed into probably four of those eight cells to give a total of 16 ESSM missiles. Coupled with the RAM launcher, the vessel would be very adequately self defended, and could provide mid range coverage to vessels it mugh escort.

Jeff Head said:

From the article:

Not so, both have been designed to hold at least an eight cell Mk-41 if not 16. If you use quad packed ESSMs in those cells, you end up with a decent medium ranged air coverage for escorted ships.

Click to expand...

Jeff, what about the radar(s), could the Sea GIRAFFE (on Independence) and the TRS-3D (on Freedom) track and illuminate targets etc. for the RIM-162 ESSM, or they have/would get different/new contraptions ??

Jeff Head said:

Yes, but I would not expect the US to use those older modules and missiles on the LCS. Particularly when they have already designed in a space for Mk-41 VLS (sort of like the British, "designed for but not with").

The would opt for ESSM which far out performs and outclasses the Sea Sparrow, and can be quad packed into probably four of those eight cells to give a total of 16 ESSM missiles. Coupled with the RAM launcher, the vessel would be very adequately self defended, and could provide mid range coverage to vessels it mugh escort.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but the Mk-48 VLS doesn't require heavy duty modifications to the ship in order to install. There is both an on deck and bulkhead version of the Mk-48 which means that once could install the VLS onto any part of the ship that could take close to 2,000 pounds of equipment.

Furthermore, the Mk-48 VLS can accept ESSM; on our Halifax class frigates, the Sea Sparrow missiles are being replaced by ESSM. The Dutch also use a compact module version of the Mk-48 VLS as part of their STANFLEX modules, carrying 6 Sea Sparrow or 6 ESSM's in each module.

Jura said:

Jeff, what about the radar(s), could the Sea GIRAFFE (on Independence) and the TRS-3D (on Freedom) track and illuminate targets etc. for the RIM-162 ESSM, or they have/would get different/new contraptions ??

Click to expand...

The Sea Giraffe on Independence and the TRS-3D on Freedom are air search radars only. Will need a fire control radar to provide illumination and guidance.

I especially think it's a financial problem now because already LCS cost about 500 millions $, originally planned 250/300 ...
and with DOD budget which had fallen, definitely he do not want ( and can ) to invest more money for new LCS weapons*.

* Except for new AShM planned.

Pointblank said:

Yeah, but the Mk-48 VLS doesn't require heavy duty modifications to the ship in order to install. There is both an on deck and bulkhead version of the Mk-48 which means that once could install the VLS onto any part of the ship that could take close to 2,000 pounds of equipment.

Furthermore, the Mk-48 VLS can accept ESSM; on our Halifax class frigates, the Sea Sparrow missiles are being replaced by ESSM. The Dutch also use a compact module version of the Mk-48 VLS as part of their STANFLEX modules, carrying 6 Sea Sparrow or 6 ESSM's in each module.

Click to expand...

Three points.

1) Provisions for Mk-41 have already been made on both LCS classes. No structural mods necessary. They just have to drop in the modules, and then of course, add the electronics (fire control).

2) The Mk-41 cells allows a four for one ESSM. So eight cells of Mk-41 translates in up to 32 ESSM. Mk-48 is a two for one exchange. So eight cells give either 32 ESSM with Mk-41, or 16 ESSM with Mk-48.

2)Mk-41 has a much wider range of munitions that can be launched, including, importantly the LRASM that is going to be introduced.

Jura said:

Jeff, what about the radar(s), could the Sea GIRAFFE (on Independence) and the TRS-3D (on Freedom) track and illuminate targets etc. for the RIM-162 ESSM, or they have/would get different/new contraptions ??

Click to expand...

Jura, as pointblank said, there would need to be fire control placed on the LCS to control the Mk-41 and the various weapons it might fire. An upgrade to the air search radar might also be advisable depending on the range of the projected engagement.

I side against any above deck missile system going on any new US navy ships particularly the LCS whose mission statement is to operate in the Brown waters near Shore where Antiship missiles can easily lock. LCS needs its reduced cross section. so Flush mounted VLS are the Rule. so I side with Jeff although with the Zimwalt recently introducing the Mk 57 VLS which is a variation of the MK 41 I am thinking either they will try installing those or a update of the 41.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

I side against any above deck missile system going on any new US navy ships particularly the LCS whose mission statement is to operate in the Brown waters near Shore where Antiship missiles can easily lock. LCS needs its reduced cross section. so Flush mounted VLS are the Rule. so I side with Jeff although with the Zimwalt recently introducing the Mk 57 VLS which is a variation of the MK 41 I am thinking either they will try installing those or a update of the 41.

Click to expand...

The LCS designs already made provisions for Mk-41. The new Mk-57 would require significant structural changes to both class of ships. If they do VLS (and they should) I believe it will most certainly be Mk-41.