Littoral Combat Ships (LCS)

On New Sea Giraffe Radar:

Posted on InsideDefense.com: June 6, 2014

Swedish defense and security company Saab recently rolled out its new Sea Giraffe 4A radar, an upgraded version of the unit carried aboard Austal's Independence-class variant of the Littoral Combat Ship, with an eye toward eventually deploying the system on the Navy's follow-on LCS platform.

The system is part of a new family of radar offerings Saab unveiled recently, and is based on new active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar technology, Erik Smith, vice president and general manager of Saab Defense and Security, told ITN in a June 3 interview. The Sea Giraffe 4A is uniquely suited for the littoral environment, Smith emphasized, and would be an ideal choice for the Navy to field on any small surface combatant that will eventually follow the LCS.
The new long-range, multi-role radar is uniquely capable of simultaneous surface and air target engagement, and can track very small, highly maneuverable unmanned aerial systems in a maritime environment -- two capabilities the Navy is looking at for the follow-on platform, Smith said.

The Sea Giraffe 4A also supports the use of long-range surface-to-air missiles and operates well in a high-clutter environment, he added.

"We've taken what was basically a family of medium-range air-and-surface surveillance radars and now augmented it with an S-band family that now encompasses both the short-range mission and the long-range air-defense mission," Smith said. "We now are able to offer a full range of tactical -- what I'm going to call surface-based tactical radar capability for both naval and ground applications."

The radar is uniquely suited to the littoral environment, Smith said, because it was designed to excel in one of the most challenging littoral environments in the world: Sweden.

"Where you have other radars in this space that were designed for other missions that are now trying to be adapted for a littoral mission, this radar . . . was really designed in and for the world's most challenging littoral environments," Smith said.

"I think the fact that it can simultaneously discriminate and engage surface and air targets in high clutter environments, and its performance within those environments, sets it apart from other radars in this class," he continued.

Another perk for the Navy, should it choose to field the Sea Giraffe 4A, is that Saab has invested over $75 million in private funds into the new radar system, Smith said. The system is ready for production, and would save the Navy millions in research and development funds that the service would otherwise need to invest in a completely new radar system, Smith said. Saab's investment will continue to grow as the baseline develops, he added.

"So it allows the U.S. Navy in the case of LCS to avoid a significant radar development program by buying the radar that was already developed in Sweden and using Saab's U.S.-based capability to provide any modifications and adaptations to that system required to meet U.S.-specific requirements," Smith said.

The Sea Giraffe 4A would be built at Saab's Sensis unit in Syracuse, NY, he noted, where the company has a fully-instrumented radar test facility and a full staff of engineers focused on the radar system for multiple applications.

"When you combine the actual technical performance of this system with the fact that there is no development cost associated with it, that's a pretty strong value proposition for the Navy, I would say," Smith said.

All of Saab's radar systems are built to open architecture standards, Smith said, which increases supportability and drives down costs by maximizing the competition within the supply chain.

Smith declined to provide an estimate of what it would cost to install the Sea Giraffe 4A on a future small surface combatant, saying that the price tag would depend on the platform and the requirements of the customer.

The Sea Giraffe family is fielded by navies all over the world, Smith said, including the U.S., Australia and Poland. The new radar is already under contract to an international customer, he noted, although he declined to say which one. The system is slated for delivery to that customer in 2016, he said.

The Navy's small surface combatant task force, set up to develop proposals for an alternative to the LCS, is currently soliciting market information from industry to gauge the possibilities for a vessel that will meet the Pentagon and Navy capability requirements, ITN reported last month.
The service in May issued a request for information from industry on potential designs suited to the service's requirements for the future small surface combatant.
The task force is due to report out this summer, Smith said.
Although Smith said the Navy is "a ways away" from defining the requirements for an LCS follow-on platform, Saab will continue to work with the service to ensure that the company's operations "align as best as possible with what they are looking for."
 

Bernard

Junior Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


ARLINGTON: In the race to replace the Navy’s controversial Littoral Combat Ship, the leading contender seems to be…. a better Littoral Combat Ship. That’s the clear implication of what we’ve been hearing from Navy leadership, and it’s clear from press briefings today that LCS contractor Lockheed Martin feels pretty confident it can do the job. (Lockheed builds the Freedom-class LCS; the Independence variant is by Austal and General Dynamics).

The incumbent’s advantage here is time. Lockheed VP Joe North told reporters at the companys pre-Farnborough Air Show briefing that he expects “every shipyard across Europe” to take a shot. But existing European designs might take years to revise to the US Navy’s requirements and an all-new design would take at least a decade. Of course, LCS is already in production, and while many in the Pentagon and Congress are deeply dissatisfied with the ship, Lockheed argues that its modular design makes it easy to upgrade.

“Whatever they decide they want for upgrades, they will start [putting on ships] as early as FY ’17 [fiscal year 2017],” North said of the Navy. Lockheed can meet that schedule or even beat it by putting upgrades on 2016 ships if desired, he said confidently. “I can easily work these [changes] in,” North said, and keep LCS production going without a pause: “If you do this right, we don’t need to break production. I think that’s huge.”

So what would the LCS-plus look like? “We gave them lots of options,” North said, “them” being the Small Surface Ship Combatant Task Force appointed by Defense Sec. Chuck Hagel to review alternatives to the existing LCS design; the SSCTF will report back to Hagel by August. Lockheed can build its LCS with a bigger main gun (“we’ve always been gun-agonistic,” North said), a more powerful radar, or a less zippy but more fuel-efficient power plant — all diesels instead of the current diesel-turbine combo — if the Navy decides long range is more important than high speed.

Perhaps most important, Lockheed can build an upgunned LCS with Vertical Launch Systems (VLS), the Navy’s plug-and-play launchers for a wide variety of missiles. The ship could accommodate eight VLS cell with a modest redesign to the bow, North told reporters, or up to 32 VLS if you cut the hangar capacity from two helicopters down to one. For comparison, the Navy’s cutting edge DDG-1000 Zumwalt destroyer, a vastly larger ship, carries 80 VLS cells.

What about survivability, though? The most common criticism of LCS — including by the Pentagon’s Director of Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E) — is that the hull is simply too fragile to survive in major combat. The Navy’s own rating system puts the LCS at survivability level one, compared to level two for the FFG-7 Perry-class frigates it replaces and level three for the much larger DDG-51 Arleigh Burke destroyers.

But in fact, “we’re more survivable than the FFGs,” North said bluntly. The Navy’s requirements for the various survivability levels have changed since the frigates were assessed, he asserted, and technology’s improved: “We’re using high-strength, low-weight steel that wasn’t even around.”
 
As I have stated numerous times, adding an eight cell VSL launcher answers a lot of problems for both classes of LCS.

Four ASMs and sixteen ESSMs goes a long way toward upgunning these vessels.

sure but I noticed one thing (http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/world-armed-forces/us-military-news-thread-183-1547.html#post284812) which I suppose is relevant here, and that thing is the air-launched LRASM is going to be pretty expensive (maybe ten times more than an AGM-84 Harpoon) ... a moment ago I searched the net again, found some info on spendings here:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

so I suppose the ship-launched LRASM will be very expensive as well ... Jeff?
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
the air-launched LRASM is going to be pretty expensive (maybe ten times more than an AGM-84 Harpoon)

found some info on spendings here:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


so I suppose the ship-launched LRASM will be very expensive as well ... Jeff?
Well, we have seen all types of naysaying about military weapons systems before.

Let's see what happens. I do not believe we will be looking at those levels of pricing. ("Maybe ten times" has a way of, several years from now, not being close to what the pricing comes in at.)

The US needs the long range weapon. It has several options. LRASM is one of them...and it is getting fairly far along. Let's wait and see what happens.

As it is, four of those missiles, if they ever have to be used in an effort to protect and save the ship...will be worth it.
 
On LCS Follow-On:

Posted on InsideDefense.com: June 13, 2014

Lockheed Martin has submitted a proposal to the Navy for an option to upgrade its Freedom-class Littoral Combat Ship with already designed modifications, a Lockheed official said last week.

Lockheed recently responded to the Navy's request for information on potential designs suited to the service's requirements for a future small surface combatant, issued April 30, Joe North, Lockheed's vice president of littoral ship systems, said June 9 at Lockheed Martin's annual media day in Crystal City, VA.

"The RFIs were due earlier this month, actually in May. We did answer the mail on that from our end with options to upgrade the existing Freedom-class ship," North told reporters.

Lockheed's proposal includes options derived from designs the company has developed for potential international customers, North said. It offers new technologies such as more advanced radars, additional firepower in the form of the Longbow missile, and a modular vertical launch system, he added.

The existing Mk41 Vertical Launch System (VLS) is a multimission launcher that shoots a variety of missiles, including Raytheon's Tomahawk cruise missile, the Standard Missile-2, SM-3, SM-6 and the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM), Brian Bohs, Lockheed's business development manager for controls, launchers and weapons area, told Inside the Navy in a June 12 interview.

The Navy recently awarded Lockheed a $10 million cost-plus fixed-fee contract to continue to provide engineering design services for the Mk41 VLS, Bohs said. The contract includes options that could bring the total contract value to $182 million.

Should the Navy choose to integrate Mk41 VLS onto a follow-on LCS platform, the system would bring a critical ballistic missile defense capability to the fleet, Bohs said.

"The next generation [ballistic missile defense] capability will be added into the fleet via this contract," including SM-6 capability and the ESSM Block II, Bohs said.

Mk41 is already integrated on 23 different ship classes around the world, Bohs said, including the Navy's Flight III DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruisers.
An upgraded LCS could accommodate up to 32 VLS cells, North told reporters.

North also emphasized the flexibility in the existing LCS hull, noting that the hull has been built as small as a 67-meter variant and as large as a 140-meter variant.

"We have a lot of flexibility in the hull if you remember, carrying around 180 metric tons of bulk capability, empty space right now, for the mission packages," North said. "So depending on what they are looking at and how they want to build that, we have a lot of capability within the hull from a naval architecture standpoint, from a performance standpoint."

The Navy in March set up a small surface combatant task force to develop proposals for an alternative to LCS following a late February directive from Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, which outlined Hagel's "considerable reservations" about whether LCS is what the Navy will need over the next few decades. The directive halted LCS contract negotiations at 32 ships, instead of a planned 52.

North warned that the Navy would face "consequences" if it breaches the current multiyear buy for 10 Freedom-class LCS. The Navy is hoping to get advanced procurement in its FY-15 budget in order to secure the contract and prices that are in place for the buy, North said.

"If I was to only get nine [ships], there is a clause in the contract that allows me to go back and tell the Navy I have impact," North said. "Therefore, for both the first ship in [FY]-15 and the second ship, if it went away, there would be consequences of losing that synergy and that dependency of two ships per year. So yes, [the Navy] is well aware of it, they have seen numbers from us, and I believe the Hill is well aware of that as well."

Hagel's directive also tasked the Navy to provide the Pentagon with "alternative proposals" in time to inform fiscal year 2016 budget deliberations. The April 30 RFI was issued in support of that effort.

The task force is supposed to present its findings to service acquisition chief Sean Stackley and Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert no later than July 31.

North expressed confidence that Lockheed's proposal is the right choice for the Navy's follow-on LCS platform, saying that upgrades could start as early as FY-17.

"We were also very good about explaining to the Navy in our response again with the flexibility, with the solid design that's understood," North said. "We also believe not only is it low risk to put the things into the ship, we also believe that we have the capability to generate very good and very achievable cost estimates and time frames of how [much] it would cost to put a design like that together."

MY QUESTION NOW: Should I believe the BMD part (in the middle of the article)?
 

Bernard

Junior Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


The Navy is implementing specific design and engineering improvements to its Littoral Combat Ship following the construction of the first two vessels, the Freedom and the Independence.

The changes to LCS span a range of areas from adjustments to water jets to efforts to fight corrosion and improve the ships elevators, deck extensions and inflatable rafts.

Vice Adm. Willy Hilarides, commander of Naval Sea Systems Command, said the first two LCS ships were built with a specific mind to continued development of the platform for the long term.




“We forget that we decided to take LCS 1 and 2 and deliver them as ships to the fleet, long before the design was mature — so that we design the right class of ships for the long term,” Hilarides said. “There are 10 to 12 big changes to the ships that are in place. That is what we intended to do.”

The Navy plans to build and acquire as many as 32 of the controversial shallow-water, multi-mission ships engineered for surface warfare, countermine warfare and anti-submarine warfare. The LCS has come under fire from lawmakers, analysts and even members of the Navy for not sufficiently meeting mission requirements or being survivable enough to withstand anticipated threats.

However, proponents of the platform have long maintained the ship brings substantial mission-enhancing technologies to the Navy. Most of all, they say the platform has been engineered to adapt, meaning it is built to accommodate new technologies as they emerge.

The LCS class consists of two variants, the Freedom and Independence — designed and built by two industry teams led by Lockheed Martin and an Austal USA-led team. Contracts were awarded to Lockheed Martin and Austal USA on December 29, 2010, for the construction of up to 10 ships each.

So far, the first four ships have been commissioned with the fourth, the USS Coronado, being commissioned in April, Naval Sea Systems Command officials said. LCS 5 and 6 launched in December of last year, and ships 7 through 16 are in some stage of production, Navy spokesman Matthew Leonard added.

The Navy hopes to build as many as three LCS per year, however that remains unclear in light of Congressional mark-ups of the budget, some of which have lowered the amount to two per year.

Some of the improvements to the Freedom variant of the LCS emerged as a result of experiences on-board the Freedom during its recent deployment. Identifying and fixing problems with the ship is part of what the deployment was designed to accomplish, Hilarides explained.

The Freedom experienced problems with its ship service diesel generators, or SSDGs, which resulted in a temporary power outage during a trip to Guam in the summer of last year. The ship also experienced problems with a corroded cable and faulty air compressor, Navy officials added.
Overall, LCS 1 continues to receive a series of modifications which will improve the USS Freedom as well as the remaining LCS Freedom–class ships now being built and developed.

One such change resulted in what’s called an anchor windlass replacement, said Naval Sea Systems Command spokesman Dale Eng.

“To prevent water ingestion in the anchor windlass room, the existing anchor winch, hydraulic unit and mooring capstan were replaced with a single electric capstan (chain) winch on the main deck. In addition, the existing towing chain was replaced with a lighter chain,” he said.

Also, to improve corrosion protection, the ship’s Impressed Current Cathodic Protection system was modified by adding protections to the water jet inlet tunnel; Cathodic Protection is a technique used to control or minimize the corrosion of a metal surface. This change, designed to improve reliability and maintainability, was put into effect on LCS 3, LCS 5 and follow on ships, Eng said.

Other changes put into effect starting on LCS 3 include the lengthening of the stern transom and the integration of the buoyancy tanks into the stern of the hull. The transom stern is the bottom tip of the surface of the stern that approximates the waterline.

“These changes increase the weight service life margin and enhance the ship’s stability characteristics,” Eng added.

The ship’s water jets were modified as well, changing from a mixed flow design to an axial flow in order to reduce cavitation (air pockets) and improve efficiency. With an axial flow, water is pushed in a direction parallel to the shaft of the impeller, a type of propeller.

The end result of implementation of the axial flow water jets is improved operation efficiency with reduced maintenance intervals, Eng said.

Also on the Freedom variant of the LCS, engineers have moved to a significantly less complex gas turbine electric start system on LCS 5, in order to reduce costs and lower ship weight, he added.

There have been substantial changes to the Independence variants of the LCS as well, including the installation of what’s called bridge wings, narrow walkway extensions designed to improve safety.
Also, the 5.1 meter Rigid Hull Inflatable Boat, or RHIB, on the Independence variant was replaced with a Navy standard 7 meter RHIB. The new Navy RHIB is designed to provide improved performance and supportability, Eng said. The change was made to LCS 4 and follow on ships in the fleet.

Similar to their Freedom variant counterparts, the Independence-class ships of the LCS are also getting an improved cathodic protection system designed to combat corrosion. This effort is being built onto LCS 4 and follow-on Independence variant ships.

The Independence-variant ships are also getting upgraded water jets quite similar to their Freedom counterparts. The jets are being upgraded to handle the horsepower provided by the gas turbine, Eng said.

The Navy is also improving the anchor on the Independence ships through what’s called the winch control system, an effort to modulate the motion of the anchor and reduce the reliance on manual hand brakes.

“The variable control will make it safer to operate for the crew and the equipment. Other changes enhanced the ability to safely spool anchor cable and have reduced the wear on the ship’s bolster and anchor winch,” Eng added.

The Independence variant has also redesigned the mission bay side door of the ship to improve reliability and reconfigured the platform lift elevator such that it can better handle weapons and ordnance, Eng said.

Is this going to be the only revisions to the LCS?
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!




Is this going to be the only revisions to the LCS?
No.

These are revisions/upgrades to address issues with the first of class of each variant.

I am pretty sure that their surface combat capabilities are going to be upgraded...over and above the surface warfare module.

There will be other upgrades as well over their life.

One thing about both of the variants...due to the mission module space and other space for SPECOPS and others, there is quite a bit of room in them for some pretty significant upgrades down the line.
 

asif iqbal

Lieutenant General
USMC said they require 52 amphibious assault ships to be able to comfortably do their required job they will end up with either 32 or 33

LCS programme was 52 units and they are getting 32 coincidence or what

Now the LCS battle damaged question has arises further possibility of number cuts is possible
 
Top