What's new

Littoral combat ship (LCS) To Get Missiles for Next Deployment

Hindustani78

BANNED
Joined
Apr 8, 2014
Messages
40,471
Reaction score
-47
Country
India
Location
India
LCS To Get Missiles for Next Deployment

By Christopher P. Cavas 12:01 p.m. EDT October 25, 2015

WASHINGTON — The US Navy’s push to increase the lethality of the littoral combat ship (LCS) is getting a major and somewhat unexpected boost with word that an over-the-horizon (OTH) surface-to-surface missile will be installed on-board the next LCSs to deploy.

Rear Adm. Pete Fanta, director of surface warfare at the Pentagon, issued a directive on Sept. 17 calling for the installation of an unspecified OTH missile aboard the Freedom and the Coronado, the next two LCSs scheduled for deployment. The Freedom is to deploy to the Western Pacific during the first quarter of calendar year 2016, while the Coronado is to follow in the second or third quarter.

“The objective is to install the OTH missile system aboard all in-service LCS deploying to forward operating stations starting in fiscal year 2016,” Fanta wrote in the directive, “as well as on all under-construction LCS prior to their commissioning ceremonies.”

The LCS has been without a surface-to-surface missile since the cancellation in 2010 of the Non-Line-of-Sight (NLOS) missile, a program managed by the US Army that would have provided LCS with a significant weapon. Ever since, the service has been searching for a suitable replacement. A shipboard launch system for the Hellfire missile is being developed for smaller targets, but that weapon is unable to inflict significant damage on larger ships -- a role the OTH is meant to fill.

An OTH weapon is to be included in the LCS frigate variant now under development. The Navy has issued a request for information to industry for the frigate missile, and a request for proposals is expected later this year, but no missile has yet been chosen.

Fanta’s directive does not mention a specific missile, but it’s understood from sources that the missiles for the initial installations will be the Boeing Harpoon and Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile (NSM).

The idea, sources confirmed, is to try out both kinds of missile on both LCS variants, each ship deploying with only one model of missile installed.

The Harpoon is a tried-and-true weapon that has armed most US warships since the late 1970s. It is a normally mounted in launch canisters, usually grouped in a quad pack. Most ships carry two quad packs, for a total of eight weapons – the maximum number of weapons per ship specified in Fanta’s directive. Boeing has been at work to improve the weapon, in particular to give it longer range.

The Norwegian-built NSM, by contrast, is not a US program of record and is not in service with any US platforms, although it is in service with the Norwegian Navy. It is the only naval strike missile to be fired from an LCS, however. In a simple demonstration test, a single missile box launcher was loaded aboard the Coronado and fired on Sept. 23, 2014. The launcher sat on a rudimentary platform exhausting over the ship’s flight deck, and the missile was not integrated into the Coronado’s combat system.

Fanta’s directive, in fact, notes that “full integration with the LCS combat system is not required. A stand-alone console or computer terminal capable of consummating an engagement is sufficient for initial fielding.”

The directive, to the Program Executive Officer for Littoral Combat Ships (PEO LCS) and Program Executive Officer for Integrated Warfare Systems (PEO IWS) at the Naval Sea Systems Command, calls for the installation of “the maximum number of missiles possible within the space, weight, power and cooling margins available. The initial design should be able to spiral to an eventual goal of eight missiles per ship.”

The missile system chosen, Fanta stipulated, “must be technologically mature with a demonstrated range.”

Fanta acknowledged in the directive that the missile installation on ships about to deploy is ahead of previous guidance, but noted the action is in line with moves to increase the lethality and survivability of the Navy’s small combatants.

The first priority for the new LCS frigate, he noted, is for an OTH surface-to-surface missile capability.

Numerous proposals have been provided by industry on how to fit missiles into the LCS designs. Lockheed Martin has offered vertical launch systems (VLS), usually in eight-cell groups, for the LCS 1 Freedom class, and such an installation is being provided on versions of the design approved for sale to Saudi Arabia.

Austal USA, builder of the LCS 2 Independence class all-aluminum variant, has also offered designs that include VLS.

Fanta, however, is said to prefer box launchers for LCS -- simpler, less costly and with less of an impact on a ship’s design. Drawbacks include the general inability to modify box launchers to accommodate improved or different missiles over the course of a ship’s service life.

The Freedom – the oldest LCS in service – is preparing for its second deployment to the western Pacific, where it will relieve the Fort Worth. The Coronado will be making the first deployment for the Independence class, which has been focusing on developing the mine-countermeasure mission module.

One element of the missile installation yet to be determined is how the shipboard system will be managed – either by the crew or the mission detachment that comes aboard to operate the modules.

The OTH system will be considered part of the surface warfare package, a Navy source said, and might also be carried when the ship is fitted with the anti-submarine warfare package. Out of the question, however, is its use when the mine countermeasure module is embarked. The greater weight of the mine module, the source said, precludes carrying the missiles.

It is also not clear what effect the directive will have on ships now under construction or set to enter service. The Milwaukee, third ship of the Freedom class, was accepted by the Navy on Oct. 16 and is to be formally commissioned Nov. 21 in a ceremony in her namesake city. The Jackson, third ship of the Independence class, was delivered to the Navy on Aug. 11 and is to be commissioned Dec. 5 in Gulfport, Mississippi.

More ships are nearing completion both at Fincantieri Marinette Marine, which builds the Freedom-class ships in Marinette, Wisconsin, and at Austal USA, building Independence-class ships in Mobile, Alabama.
 
.
LCS design is ready for quick change to variable missions.
 
.
From Fire Controlman 1st Class Christopher Bright, USS Jackson (LCS 6) Public Affairs

SAN DIEGO (NNS) -- Littoral combat ship (LCS) USS Jackson (LCS 6) successfully fired a SeaRAM missile against an aerial drone, destroying the target in a test off the Southern California coast, April 22.

The drone was simulating an anti-ship missile as part of a Combat System Ship Qualification Trials (CSSQT) event to demonstrate the self-defense capability of the ship against an aerial target.

"I couldn't be more proud of my crew and all the hard work we have put forth in preparing for and accomplishing the CSSQT events," said Cmdr. Patrick Keller, Jackson's commanding officer.

CSSQT events are designed to test the ship's ability to track and disable high-speed maneuvering surface targets and defeat long range anti-shipping air threats. Planned and coordinated by the LCS Shipbuilding Program Office, the CSSQT included firing exercises using the 57mm gun against a fast attack craft. Jackson's crew, along with personnel from Naval Surface Warfare Center, Port Hueneme Division, completed each scenario successfully and exercised Jackson's combat systems suite.

"It's been a long journey, with a lot of training, effort and dedication," said Keller. "These events further demonstrate that my team is ready to fight and defend Jackson, and that our ship is ready when called. I couldn't be happier with the results."

Constructed by Austal USA in Mobile, Alabama, USS Jackson is an Independence variant LCS and the third vessel of the trimaran design. Jackson was christened March 22, 2014 and commissioned Dec. 5, 2015 in Gulfport, Mississippi.

LCS is a high-speed, agile, shallow draft, focused-mission surface combatant designed for operations in the littoral environment, yet fully capable of open ocean operations. LCS is complementary to the surface fleet, with the ability to counter and outpace evolving threats independently or within a network of surface combatants. Paired with advanced sonar and mine hunting capabilities, LCS provides a major contribution, as well a more diverse set of options to commanders, across the spectrum of operations.
 
.
USS Coronado firing Harpoon
475606.jpg


636046538186398197-lcs04-160707-n-mw990-036-2733240bjpg


maxresdefault.jpg


RIMPAC-2016-Another-frigate-sunk.-USS-Coronado-fires-first-Harpoon.jpg


636046536632160234-lcs04-160707-n-zz999-112-2733239bjpg


USS Coronado firing NSM
140923-N-MB306-007.jpg


Screen-Shot-2015-04-09-at-1.02.20-PM.png


Another possibility:


Lockheed Martin LRASM Top Side Launcher

LRASM_TSL_Concept_Lockheed_Martin.jpg


Back in January, during the SNA 2016 show, we learned that in its deck mounted configuration, a LRASM launcher would have the exact same footprint as a Harpoon launcher. Lockheed Martin confirmed this is still accurate:
"Dimensions and configuration specifics are not publicly releasable at this time, but in general, we are comparable to the Harpoon launcher in space, weight, power and cooling parameters that the U.S. Navy would require. Lockheed Martin is currently maturing the design of the topside launcher concept and intends to demonstrate the capability in the future" a Lockheed Martin representative said.

Our source added "Lockheed Martin views LRASM as a viable addition to a “family” of surface-launched OASuW weapons in support of the Navy’s ‘Distributed Lethality’ concept. We have invested in the design of a topside (or deck-mounted) launcher configuration that will allow for easy integration on multiple surface ships. The missile configuration for this topside launcher is identical to the LRASM Surface Launch missile that has been proven in two previous successful flight tests - our internally-funded BTV and DARPA-funded CTV - making it low-risk and affordable. We are investing our own funding to lower risk and to mature all aspects of surface ship integration of LRASM whether the platform has a Mk 41 VLS or uses a deck-mounted launcher."

According to our source, this "top side" launcher graphic is a notional concept that could be used on an appropriately sized surface vessel, such as the Arleigh Burke class (DDG 51) or Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) classes.

http://www.navyrecognition.com/inde...-lockheed-martin-lrasm-top-side-launcher.html
 
. . .
LCS as a platform was never a disaster. The weapons package/modules chosen were inadequate but can (are being) be changed for the better.
 
. .
those weren't the original modules/weapons. LCS modified for the better.
 
.
1054646372.jpg


USS Ford

https://sputniknews.com/military/201706151054643090-navy-modernize-redeploy-obsolete-frigates/

America’s Naval leadership is considering bringing obsoleted Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates out of retirement and back into service, to bring the Navy closer to its goal of a 355-ship fleet.

In a speech before the US Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island, Adm. John Richardson said that the move might be worthwhile if the cost of modernizing the obsoleted vessels wasn't too high. Richardson is the Chief of Naval Operations, making him the highest-ranking military official in the service.

"We've got to be thoughtful about this," he said. "Those are some old ships and the technology on those ships is old. And in this exponential type of environment, a lot has changed since we last modernized those. So it will be a cost-benefit analysis in terms of how we do that."

Oliver Hazard Perry-class guided missile frigates, named for the naval hero of the War of 1812, were built in in the late 1970s and 1980s to replace World War II-era destroyers. The low cost of production meant that the Navy built quite a few of them, 51 in just twelve years, but it also meant that they did not age particularly gracefully and had short lifespans of 15-20 years on average.

Worse, later generations of warships outclassed the Perrys. The Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers, which began deployment in 1988, utilized the then-cutting-edge Aegis missile defense system while the Perrys did not. Their relatively cheap design and outdated armaments earned the Perrys the derisive nickname of "the ghetto fleet."

"We kind of got rid of [Perry-class frigates] at the 25-year point; we didn't do maintenance on them," said Vice Adm. Thomas Moore during a recent address to the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "The reality of it is, we really got rid of a lot of those ships because, from a combat systems standpoint, they had become obsolete."

Between 1994 and 2015, all of the Perry-class frigates were either decommissioned or sold/gifted to US allies such as Bahrain, Egypt, Poland, Pakistan, Taiwan and Turkey. Others were sunk for use as diving or fishing reefs, dismantled for scraps or destroyed in missile tests.

But 12 Perry-class frigates are still owned by the Navy, part of the "mothball fleets" of inactive ships. While some may still be sold to foreign militaries, it is possible for the others to be modernized and redeployed. Assumedly, restoring the Perrys and equipping them with modern weaponry would be cheaper and faster than building new vessels from scratch.

During his speech, Richardson also discussed the main prong of his plan to reach the magic number of 355: extend the lifespan of existing ships by altering and expanding existing platforms as well as equipping ships with new weapons like directed energy laser guns.

"There are many types of those technologies that are out there, imaging radars, those sorts of things, to make each of these platforms more capable, delivering more naval power," he said during the speech.
 
.
In June 2017, Chief of Naval Operations Admiral John Richardson revealed the Navy was "taking a hard look" at reactivating 7-8 out of 12 mothballed Perry-class frigates to increase fleet numbers. While the move is under consideration, there would be difficulties in returning them to service given the age of the ships and their equipment, likely requiring a significant modernization effort. Although bringing the frigates out of retirement would provide a short-term solution to fleet size, their limited combat capability would restrict them to acting as a theater security cooperation, maritime security asset.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Hazard_Perry-class_frigate

They would be like PNS Alamgir, but without Harpoon.

The thing is, once a ship is mothballed, reactivating it is expensive. That's why a 'hot transfer' - where the old USN crew steps off and a foreign crew takes possession of the ship - is preferable to a 'cold transfer' (service > storage > reactivation > service)

Of course, the Sputnik POV presented is a little inaccurate:

""We've got to be thoughtful about this," he said. "Those are some old ships and the technology on those ships is old. And in this exponential type of environment, a lot has changed since we last modernized those. So it will be a cost-benefit analysis in terms of how we do that."

Oliver Hazard Perry-class guided missile frigates, named for the naval hero of the War of 1812, were built in in the late 1970s and 1980s to replace World War II-era destroyers. The low cost of production meant that the Navy built quite a few of them, 51 in just twelve years, but it also meant that they did not age particularly gracefully and had short lifespans of 15-20 years on average.

Worse, later generations of warships outclassed the Perrys. The Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers, which began deployment in 1988, utilized the then-cutting-edge Aegis missile defense system while the Perrys did not. Their relatively cheap design and outdated armaments earned the Perrys the derisive nickname of "the ghetto fleet."

"We kind of got rid of [Perry-class frigates] at the 25-year point; we didn't do maintenance on them," said Vice Adm. Thomas Moore during a recent address to the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "The reality of it is, we really got rid of a lot of those ships because, from a combat systems standpoint, they had become obsolete."

Well, let's see:

You can't be an 'old ship' and yet have a sort service life of only 15-20 years.
You can't have short lifespans of 15-20 years on average and yet get rid of [Perry-class frigates] at the 25-year point.


To the extent these ships had a short service life, it is because they were decommed early as economy measure, NOT because they were worn out. Often the decommed ships were transferred to other navies.
The fact that USN 'didn't do maintenance on them' is also an economy measure. The USN ships had their Mk13 launcher for Harpoon and SM1MR removed in 2003. Why? USN chose not to upgrade to SM2. Unlike e.g. the Australian ships, which saw an upgrade with a Mk41/32ESSM and kept Mk13 for Harpoon and SM2. And unlike the Turkish ship, which got a new CMS, Mk41/ESSM, Smart-S Mk2. Simply different policy/budget choices, no reflection on the ships.

The actual average USN service life for the 51 USN ships is 24.45 years. NB: This average does NOT take into account the additional service years of some of the ships in foreign service! 19 of the 51 USN Perry's (37%) have been or will shortly be transferred to allied navies. If you add in the years in foreign service, the actual average service life of the 51 Perrys goes up to 30.24 years. Which is pretty much what they were designed for. On average, transferred Perrys serve another 17.35 years abroad, after having first served the USN some 17.7 years. Their average total service life to date is 35.06.

As for durability: On July 14, 2016, USS Thach took over 12 hours to sink after being used in a live-fire, SINKEX during naval exercise RIMPAC 2016. During the exercise, the ship was directly or indirectly hit with the following ordnance: a Harpoon missile from a South Korean submarine, another Harpoon missile from the Australian frigate HMAS Ballarat, a Hellfire missile from an Australian SH-60S helicopter, another Harpoon missile and a Maverick missile from US maritime patrol aircraft, another Harpoon missile from the cruiser USS Princeton, additional Hellfire missiles from an American SH-60S Navy helicopter, a 2,000-pound Mark 84 bomb from a US Navy F/A-18 Hornet, a GBU-12 Paveway laser-guided 500-pound bomb from a US Air Force B-52 bomber, and a Mark 48 torpedo from an unnamed US Navy submarine. They are tough ships. See Stark and Samuel Robberts incidents.

later generations of warships outclassed the Perrys
Perry's were always the low-end and Ticonderoga's Aegis CGs the high-end of the hi-lo mix envisioned by adm. Zumwalt, with the ASW-oriented Spruance DDs in between. Burkes came later, replacing Spruance's.

The Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates were designed primarily as anti-aircraft and anti-submarine warfare guided-missile warships intended to provide open-ocean escort of amphibious warfare ships and merchant ship convoys in moderate threat environments in a potential war with the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact countries. They could also provide air defense against 1970s- and 1980s-era aircraft and anti-ship missiles. These warships are equipped to escort and protect aircraft carrier battle groups, amphibious landing groups, underway replenishment groups, and merchant ship convoys. They can conduct independent operations to perform such tasks as surveillance of illegal drug smugglers, maritime interception operations, and exercises with other nations. However, the addition of the Naval Tactical Data System, LAMPS helicopters, and the Tactical Towed Array System (TACTAS) gave these warships a combat capability far beyond the original expectations. They are well suited to operations in littoral regions, and for most war-at-sea scenarios.

It is complete silly to compare Perry's (FFGs) to Burke's (DDG), which are easily twice the displacement and the latter are replacements for the Spruance DDs, the higher end contemporary to the lower end Perry's. The Spruances themselves, as well as the half-sister Kidd class DDGs were taken out of USN service early too, again as an economy measure, and also because they suffered hull crackling issue (much like the Ticonderoga's CGs on the same hull still do, with the Ticonderoga's being the highest-end Aegis equipped contemporary of the Spruaqnce and Perry). Many Spruances were quickly sunk in sinkex's, to prevent their reactivation. The Kidd's still serve with the Taiwanese navy. All but the first 7 Tico's still serve.

MEANWHILE: The U.S. Coast Guard is harvesting weapons systems components from decommissioned Navy Perry-class frigates to save money. Harvesting components from four decommissioned frigates results in more than $24 million in cost savings, which increases with parts from more decommissioned frigates. Equipment including Mk 75, 76 mm/62 caliber gun mounts, gun control panels, barrels, launchers, junction boxes, and other components will be returned to service aboard Famous-class cutters to extend their service lives into the 2030s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Hazard_Perry-class_frigate


they did not age particularly gracefully
BS!
 
Last edited:
.
@Hindustani78 : I appreciate the last two posts but this report concerns a DDG and should not be in an LCS thread > either create seperate new thread or merge into another existing USN thread to which it is relevant. Thank you.

ps. the report on the reactivation of Perry is marginally relevant to this thread as it would be to complement LCSs rather than building additional LCSs or SSCs.
 
.
NAVY1jpg


A few initial thoughts:
1. "Ouch!"
2. "Well, there goes someone's command and career..."
3. "How could this happen?"
4. "That's gonna cost some to fix..."
5. "Sturdy vessels, them all-steel Arleigh Burkes!"

ddg-51-passive.gif


802800102A-v3.jpg


arleigh-burke-class-destroyer-deck-plans-spruance-class-destroyer-lrg-11d22cb2fd116677.jpg
 
.
Back
Top Bottom