Littoral Combat Ships

[Chunder]

Those are Mk41. Not Mk57. And that Mk41 completely exhausted the ANZAC's weight reserves btw. A Mk41 module weighs about 33,000 lbs for 8 cells. A Mk57 module weighs 36,000 lbs for 4 cells. And it can't fire default missiles without special canisters either.

Adelaide Class, not Anzac Class.
Adelaide class is the Aust Oliver H Perry's

Not to be pedantic but the idea was mooted @ post #500 as 41's.

At 30 years out - nobody really care's whether their weight reserves are maxed out.

it's still a shitload difference from the 10 kt.

[kato]

Not to be pedantic but the idea was mooted @ post #500 as 41's.

The Mk57 thing is about this:

It looks to me as though it would not be a problem adding the MK 57 peripheral VLS modules in blisters added to the sides of the hangar on Independence class LCS, extending down into the mission bay below.

As for 41s - where would you put them on Independence anyway? The forward section - where the third weapon slot is - isn't deep or wide enough (and would probably clash with damage control for the 57mm gun magazine), the topside weapon slots sit right on the hangar, the aft half is taken up by the helo deck.

[Chunder]

As for 41s - where would you put them on Independence anyway? The forward section - where the third weapon slot is - isn't deep or wide enough (and would probably clash with damage control for the 57mm gun magazine), the topside weapon slots sit right on the hangar, the aft half is taken up by the helo deck.

I'm not advocating putting anything on the LCS. I'm just stating that the Adelaide Class isn't a 10 kt ship which has been retrofitted with VLS. It's under half the size.

IMO I can't understand why you would want to tie the ship down to static systems for a design that is supposed to accept modular mission packages....

I understand it has been probably been mixed up with my statement of the Meko Design being in service with the RAN since 1993, but that was wholly seperate.

[Gun Grape]

It is not out of the ordinary for USN ships to carry other weapons and personel not listed in their original layout if going into an area where they believe they may be needed.

In other words the LCS might not be an "unarmed" as many would chose to observe or believe for that particuliar deployment depending upon who is embarked and where.

Those would be mostly small arms though, up to HMGs and grenade launchers. Although the US layout on this kind of thing is usually a bit anemic.

It's not like you can just bolt an extra 76mm gun or some Harpoons onto the helo deck

I have been on a few deployments where we have embarked, and used, Harriers and Cobras off Austin class LPDs.

[kato]

I'm just stating that the Adelaide Class isn't a 10 kt ship which has been retrofitted with VLS. It's under half the size.

And my 10kt statement earlier was explicitly referring to the 57s, not 41s.

IMO I can't understand why you would want to tie the ship down to static systems for a design that is supposed to accept modular mission packages....

Because the way the development of the packages is going there won't be any modular packages left?

I have been on a few deployments where we have embarked, and used, Harriers and Cobras off Austin class LPDs.

SOP for anything with a helo deck...

[Gun Grape]

SOP for anything with a helo deck...

You will never see it done on a Flt I/II Burke. Nor back in the day did you see it done on an Anchorage, Harpers Ferry or Whidbey Island class. Nor have you seen any other country do it

A helo deck does not give unlimited capability.

LCS-2 class could carry a Harrier. But it would be stupid to do if the LCS is being deployed correctly.

I think the biggest problems with the LCS is that people want it to be something that it isn't.

From the list of things I've seen that people seem to think the LCS needs to be a "Successful" design we need to bring back an updated Boston class CAG. That way everyone will have the radar/gun/missile capability that they seem to think that a LCS needs.

[kato]

Nor have you seen any other country do it

The French ALAT has done naval missions before not involving CVs or LHDs, including basing Gazelles off frigates or LPDs for raids. Couple years ago they qualified Tiger HAPs for doing the same.

Nor back in the day did you see it done on an Anchorage, Harpers Ferry or Whidbey Island class.

"Back in the day" the US Navy operated its "Seawolf" (Huey) equipped light attack squadrons off of WW2 LSTs re-equipped with helo decks in Vietnam.

Sure, it's not Harriers but only attack helos in either case, but considering the Harrier is going the way of the Dodo worldwide and there's no way you're gonna get that overweight, not-yet-really-secure guppy-looking thing on anything short of a LHA deck...

[HKDan]

Construction Commences on Future USS Milwaukee (LCS 5)

Construction Commences on Future USS Milwaukee (LCS 5)
Story Number: NNS110818-20 Release Date: 8/18/2011 2:11:00 PM 0 Comments Rate this story!
Bookmark and Share Email this story to a friend Print this story Font Size: A A A 0 0


From Program Executive Office, Littoral Combat Ships Public Affairs

MARINETTE, Wis. (NNS) -- Naval Sea Systems Command announced Aug. 18 that fabrication of the future USS Milwaukee (LCS 5), the fifth ship of the littoral combat ship class, has begun at Marinette Marine Corp. Shipyard in Marinette, Wis.

To pave the way for the start of fabrication, the LCS program office completed an extensive production readiness review Aug. 3-4.

The ship's design maturity and readiness, the availability of materials and components and the shipbuilder's ability to successfully start fabrication were all closely evaluated. Following the review, the Navy granted authorization for the company to begin construction.

"Starting construction on the fifth ship of the class is a major step in the life of this remarkable program," said Rear Adm. Jim Murdoch, program executive officer for LCS. "Based on our success in constructing the previous four ships of the class, I am confident we will deliver this ship on schedule and on cost."

LCS is a new breed of U.S. Navy warship, capable of open-ocean operation but optimized for littoral, or coastal, missions. The Navy remains committed to a 55- ship LCS program and is leveraging competition, fixed-price contracting and serial production to reduce construction duration and costs. In addition, Program Executive Office (PEO) LCS is committed to ensuring that, prior to the start of fabrication, the ship's design is mature and the requirements are well understood.

Milwaukee is expected to be delivered to the Navy in 2014. The ship will join USS Freedom (LCS 1) and USS Independence (LCS 2), both currently conducting post-delivery tests and trials, as well as the future USS Fort Worth (LCS 3) and USS Coronado (LCS 4), both expected to be delivered in 2012.

Milwaukee was named in honor of the city of Wisconsin, the state in which half of the class will be built. LCS 5 will be 388 feet in length and will be able to reach speeds in excess of 40 knots.

PEO LCS, established July 11 and an affiliated program executive office of Naval Sea Systems Command, provides a single program executive responsible for acquiring and maintaining the littoral mission capabilities of the littoral combat ship class, beginning with procurement, and ending with fleet employment and sustainment. PEO LCS designs, delivers and maintains the systems, equipment and weapons necessary for the littoral combat ship warfighter to dominate the littoral battle space and provide U. S. forces with assured access to coastal areas.

For more news from Naval Sea Systems Command, visit Naval Sea Systems Command.

[Dreadnought]

Construction Commences on Future USS Milwaukee (LCS 5)

IMO, When combined they are going to be a very mean bunch for the Littorials.

[Stitch]

IMO, When combined they are going to be a very mean bunch for the Littorials.

I'm not convinced this hull-form is the way to go with the littorals; I think the Austal hull-form is the way to go. More felexible, lighter, faster, etc.

[HKDan]

IMO, When combined they are going to be a very mean bunch for the Littorals.

I still have high hopes for these ships, but IMHO it is critical that they start to come in on time and at/under cost.

With the South China Sea in the news as much as it has been recently, it reminds me that LCS could still have a very active service with the USN.

[Chunder]

I still have high hopes for these ships, but IMHO it is critical that they start to come in on time and at/under cost.

With the South China Sea in the news as much as it has been recently, it reminds me that LCS could still have a very active service with the USN.

If they keep away from adding all the extras it probably holds more potential for FMS as well.

[Dreadnought]

Navy holds naming ceremony for new LCS

The Associated Press
Posted : Tuesday Oct 11, 2011 7:55:56 EDT

DETROIT — Officials have held a naming ceremony for the Detroit, the Navy’s newest Freedom-class littoral combat ship.

Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus, Democratic Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan and Detroit Mayor Dave Bing were among those on hand for Monday's event in Detroit. It is the sixth Navy ship to bear the city’s name.

The Navy in March announced the name. Congress last year approved the Navy's plan to buy new advanced littoral combat ships, including 10 from Marinette Marine Corp. in Marinette, Wis.

[Dreadnought]

As mentioned prior in post #496 these ships capabilities are changing already........

Navy To Arm LCS With New Missile System
By Carlo Munoz

Published: October 20, 2011

Washington: The Navy's newest warship now has a new missile system to go with it.

The Navy will deploy the Raytheon-built Griffin missile system on board its growing fleet of Littoral Combat Ships, Rear Adm. James Murdoch, program executive officer for LCS, said today.

An unmodified version of the short-range, surface-to-air missile will be installed onto LCS-1, the USS Freedom. Modification work on the Lockheed Martin-built ship's missile launchers is now underway, so it will be able to fire the Griffin, Murdoch said.

The Griffin missile system will be part of the anti-surface warfare mission module being built for both the Lockheed steel-hulled vessels and Austal's aluminum-hulled ships.

The first mission modules will be installed on the LCS ship by fiscal year 2014, but those modules will not include the Griffin, according to Murdoch. The mission modules that include the Griffin system won't go to sea until later, he added. The first module with the Griffin missile will be installed on the USS Freedom.

The other mission packages currently in the works for LCS will cover anti-submarine and anti-mine warfare.

The Griffin will replace the now-canceled Non-Line of Sight Launch missile system that Navy officials initially planned to put onto the LCS.

The Navy teamed up with the Army on NLOS-LS acquisition, with the Army planning to field a version of the missile on their fleet of tactical vehicles. Earlier this year, the ground service was forced to cancel the weapon due to rising costs associated with its development.

That prompted a Navy-led study study on potential NLOS-LS replacements, which led to selection of the Griffin missile system for the LCS. Murdoch did admit the Griffin missile lacks many of capabilities that NLOS had, especially against long-range targets. To try and close those gaps, Murdoch said the Navy plans a competition for a follow-on missile to the Griffin by the end of this year. That follow-on missile will be designed to hit targets "beyond the horizon," Murdoch said.

Navy To Arm LCS With New Missile System

[surfgun]

Is the Griffin considered a ASBM (anti speed boat Missile)?