Littoral Combat Ships (LCS)

Jura said:

impressive work ... but how impressive is the USN LCS project overall?

1. the Independence-variant hasn't been deployed.
2. there are design problems, cost overruns, manufacturing delays of Mission Packages; correct me if I'm wrong, but I think none has been declared operational yet...
   
3. "The underlying strength of the LCS lies in its innovative design approach, applying modularity for operational flexibility." says the USN web-page,..
   
4. but yes, the plan is to turn LCSs into Frigates which "will offer improvements in capability, lethality, and survivability." but did you notice both the Freedom and Independence hulls should be kept.

four salvos fired, right from the middle of Europe

Click to expand...

I think the deficiencies are well known...and the fact that mid-production, the Secretary of the Navy and the Secretary of Defense had to get involved to "fix" things speaks strongly to this.

The fact is, the outcry from the people, and from the serving members of the Navy...all the way up the chain, had to get loud enough, persistent enough, and detailed enough to force the change. I believe the entire modularity thing is going to pretty much go by the side and the development that went into them will be implemented organically on various vessels which will be used for those purposes.

Nonetheless, changing mid-stream is not an easy thing to do. You are left with options...none of which are optimum.

I honestly believe now, that with the SSC...now called the FF...design there will be vessels that are multi-role and much more survivable and much more capable.

Yes, the Freedom and the Independence hull forms/classes remain. But that decision was made long ago...and it is clear that both hull forms bring good things to the table.

I believe that the FF Freedom, and the "upgraded" LCS Freedoms (which may themselves end up being called FFs) will be ideal escorts with very good ASW capability, and decent self-defense AAW capability, with also a decent ASuW capability. They would also work well in a secondary role using that ASuW when working in groups of 2-4 vessels. Also good all around for show the flag, basic patrol, etc.

I believe the FF Independence and the upgraded LCS Independence vessels (which also may receive the FF name) will also be an excellent escorts in the ASW role. It's principle backup/secondary role IMHO, should be MCM missions, and also SpecOps type missions.

Also good to serve in show the flag and perhaps Littoral ASuW.

This is a significant improvement over the program as it was going forward. The only thing they really need now, is to bolster the SeaRAM CIWS anti-air with four VLS cells...or even a box launcher... to fire ESSMs and carry 16 ESSMs which would give them a minimal AAW coverage to help the escorted vessels in their charge. As TE says, that may well be added to the mix down the road.

But, now the US Navy will have 55 vessels that can actually, without a bunch of dock time to swap out modules, got to sea with decent oganic multi-role fighting capabilities.

I am confidant it will work out now.

I believe the two hull froms, whether built as FFs or upgraded to it should do this:

Freedom: ASW escort primary, ASuW secondary
INdependence ASW Escort primary, MCM Secondary.

In fact I would not be surprised to see 12+ Independence vessels simply dedicated to the MCM role. They would also have those other organic war fighting capabilities' which is a huge step up over any other MCM vessels the US has deployed in the last 50 years..

Jeff Head said:

I think the deficiencies are well known...

Click to expand...

I'll repeat this:

Jura said:

... did you notice both the Freedom and Independence hulls should be kept, and both should have "ASW Configured" and "SUW Configured" variants: four new types of frigates, and I don't like it either.
...

Click to expand...

and add the reason, which is increased complexity, even within the Small Surface Combatant concept (there are going to be two LCS variants, both with up to three Mission Packages, plus the total of four FF variants around! will it work in "the manning concept 3:2:1", or it'll be dropped?); simply speaking, I'd prefer to operate one versatile Frigate instead ... and I stop my armchair-admiraling at that (I mean for now

The choice was made to build both Freedom and Independence classes, due to the main fact that they both ended up with very very similar prices. Yet both also added capabilities that equaled each other. Sure most nations like to build the same hull then customize to this or that mission. But in this case since both offerings had about the same unit price and found to fit the missions the the Navy reasoned that both could fit the bill.
Later when they asked for FF variants and received there replies again both ended up being very similar in all but hull. And again both fit the bill.

Normally when the US military runs a down select on a program and it hits the trials stage. There is one feature or set of performance specs or price difference between the two that sells one and not the other. In this case at first glance it might have seemed like that was going to happen I mean a very conventional hulled Freedom vs the largest Trimaran hull of any ship on the planet in the Independence.
But looks aside both have similar enough specs and armament that at the end of the day they ended up being more equals and the price difference between the two from the Navy's and Congressional eyes is negligible. So if neither out shines the other then the Navy figured it might as well try and take advantage of having both in construction.
Which leads back to numbers, by having two yards in operation building Freedom and Independence you can in theory crank out two LCS or FF at the same time.

Don't get me wrong personal I do agree with you that 4 versions does seem a bit much. I would rather have customized one of the two for Anti submarine and the other for anti surface. But in the end the results would be the same. This was a unique case though not likely to be repeated, and both classes have already got requests for export and licensing.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

... So if neither out shines the other then the Navy figured it might as well try and take advantage of having both in construction.
...

Click to expand...

but now I found out at one point they had even considered the 2:1 split:

The Navy envisions a competition in which the winning bidder is awarded contracts for two of the ships while the other builds a third, Lt. Cmdr. John Schofield said Wednesday.

Click to expand...

one thing still not clear. Is the LCS ASW going to include torpedo tubes? I see contradictory reporting on the issue.

here, says no.

"So far, the ability to carry a pair of anti-submarine helicopters is the only thing that distinguishes an ASW-equipped LCS from a small corvette, and even there, LCS performance is likely to suffer by comparison. The towed sonars have depth limitations that may prevent their use in shallow water, and the LCS waterjets are so noisy that unlike an ASW corvette, a bow sonar isn’t really an option. In deeper water, GAO is concerned that the ship’s lack of defensive capabilities don’t make it survivable enough to act as an ASW escort beyond any initial attacks. Meanwhile, the lack of torpedo tubes or vertical launch cells remains a weakness, removing the ability to take fast shots at discovered submarines unless a helicopter is in the air already. "

but graphic on this page says Mk 54 torpedo.



maybe not torpedo for the first 32 LCS, but torpedo on the follow up SSC?

Jura said:

...even within the Small Surface Combatant concept (there are going to be two LCS variants, both with up to three Mission Packages, plus the total of four FF variants around! will it work in "the manning concept 3:2:1", or it'll be dropped?); simply speaking, I'd prefer to operate one versatile Frigate instead

Click to expand...

I think you will have two FFs, and then I believe there will ultimately, once the upgrades are completed, be two LCS/FFs.

Each Independence has the room for two Modules at once...so they will pick the two modules necessary to do the principle jobs they want the Independence LCS/FFs to do...and probably outfit them that way. Except for very rare cases, I expect the "quick module swap" scenario they started with will rarely happen.

The Freedom class, once they get it where they want it with the upgrades, will get the one module they need...probably the ASW one, and then leave it at that.

It will take some time to get there...but I believe you will end up with something like this:

Freedom Class FF - Multi-role, ASW emphasis (14 vessels)
Freedom Class LCS- Multi-role (w/upgrades) ASW (14 vessels)

Independence Class FF - Multi Role, ASW emphasis (14 vessels)
Independence Class LCS - Multi Role (w/upgrades) MCM & ASuW emphasis (14 vessels)

(I personally think they should cap the LCS builds, even with the upgrades, at 14 vessels each...that's why I listed it that way)

There will be significant commonality between the FF and LCS variants of each class. THis means that the Independence LCS and the Independence FFs will be very much alike...same for the Freedoms.

They are making the best of a situation that should never have gotten to the point it did. But it did, and now they have to make it work. I believe what I have discussed (or something very much like it) will be able to make it work out fine in the long run,.

Jeff Head said:

...but I believe you will end up with something like this:

Freedom Class FF - Multi-role, ASW emphasis (14 vessels)
Freedom Class LCS- Multi-role (w/upgrades) ASW (14 vessels)

Independence Class FF - Multi Role, ASW emphasis (14 vessels)
Independence Class LCS - Multi Role (w/upgrades) MCM & ASuW emphasis (14 vessels)

...

Click to expand...

Jeff but where would you put this:

and this:

?? they come from the official
Dec. 11, 2014 fact sheet on the results of the Navy’s recent Small Surface Combatant study
I posted the link
Wednesday at 8:42 AM

Jura said:

...
available at

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

and based on this info I mentioned the increased complexity which I think is going to be created
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/littoral-combat-ships-lcs.t3993/page-84#post-353971

anyway, this document presents as optimistic view as it gets:

The modified LCS will be multi-missioned, with increased lethality and enhanced
survivability at the most affordable cost.
-- The modified LCS is multi-mission focused and expands Surface Warfare (SUW) and
Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) capabilities.
-- The ships will be based upon on existing LCS designs with modifications that will
include additional capabilities.
-- Over-the-horizon surface to surface missile and additional weapon systems and
combat system upgrades improves lethality.
-- Increased survivability will be achieved by incorporating additional self-defense capabilities and increased hardening vital systems and vital spaces.
-- The ship will retain certain aspects of modularity but will maintain a baseline of
surface and subsurface warfare capabilities.
-- Provides lethality, survivability and multi-mission capabilities in accordance with
fleet priorities.
-- Requirements are based on estimated theater threat environment for the 2025 timeframe.
-- Fulfills the remaining 20 ships of our 52 small surface combatant requirement.
-- Both LCS variants remain a valuable addition to the fleet.
-- Our procurement strategy of 32 LCS continues, and we intend to provide incremental upgrades to these ships beginning in FY17.
-- The 32 LCS, with their full modular capability, will allow the Navy to deploy assets
to meet the Navy’s Mine Warfare, Surface Warfare, and Anti-Submarine Warfare
demands.
-- Small surface combatants enable the Navy to execute Defense Strategic Guidance
(DSG).
-- The Navy has a validated requirement for 52 small surface combatants
-- Innovative, low-cost, and small footprint approach to achieve security objectives
-- Offers flexibility to Combatant Commanders for Theater Security Cooperation
-- Frees large surface combatants to conduct their primary missions
-- Builds and strengthens maritime partnerships by being able to train and operate with smaller, regional navies and to enter previously inaccessible, shallow-water foreign ports.
-- Procurement of this multi-mission ship supports industrial base schedule and is fiscally
responsible.
-- The modified LCS helps maintain industrial infrastructure with no breaks in
production.
-- The Navy balanced design alternatives with consideration for cost, risk, and other
capabilities currently in the fleet.
-- Ship and combat systems design funding is included in our FY16 President’s
Budget Request to support procurement starting in FY19.
-- By leveraging the current LCS design, total ownership cost is optimized.
-- This increased capability is achieved at less than 20% more cost than the current LCS.

Click to expand...

Jura said:

Jeff but where would you put this:

Click to expand...

As I said.

In the FF vessels, I believe that they will add the ASW module, which does not take away from anything in those pictures, and use them for Multi-role ASW escorts.

In the LCS vessels, I believe they will outfit them with the upgrades and the particular modules as I indicated in my earlier post.

That's still four different vessels...but as I say, there will be very significant commonalities between the FF and the LCS of the two different hull forms which will help reduce the additional cost.

Time will tell.

Jeff Head said:

...

That's still four different vessels...

Click to expand...

... and I repeat one, standard, universal vessel would've been a better idea according to me, and I'm leaving this discussion with:

Jeff Head said:

Time will tell.

Click to expand...

and thanks, Jeff, for talking to an armchair-admiral

Jura said:

... and I repeat one, standard, universal vessel would've been a better idea according to me.

Click to expand...

Simpler to work with certainly...but not necessarily better.

If this works out, and the LCS program, even with its flaws, ultimately produced 55 vessels that are well armed and cover the FFG roles of ASW, ASuW, patrols, show the flag, etc. AND add better MCM capabilities than we had before and the ability to do decent SpecOps support from such vessels, the US Navy will have done better in the long run.

But we will have to wait and see if aall of that transpires. At this point...I believe it just may.

Jura said:

...and thanks, Jeff, for talking to an armchair-admiral

Click to expand...

No problem Jura...you ask good questions, you do very decent research...and this type of discussion is what makes SD so great!