Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Littoral Combat Ships

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by USSWisconsin View Post
    A 76mm projectile? This one has 1.7# of filler:
    Griffin in small for AShM but not that small...
    The Griffin has an overall warhead size of 13 lbs. A 76mm shell/projectile weighs 13 to 15 lbs. You can effectively take the warhead off a Griffin and put it on a 76mm case (except you couldn't because the Griffin warhead is a relatively short 7-inch long, 5-inch diameter package, while the 76mm round "version" is a streamlined 14-inch long, 3-inch diameter package...). The filler in either case would probably be near-identical provided both packages go for similar terminal effect. Both weight and terminal effect are near-identical as long as we're talking about standard SAPHE-FRAG with blast and shell fragmentation effect in either case (i'd give the 76mm round the upper hand due to its shape and impact velocity improving penetration before explosion). The Griffin warhead due to its dimensions would have the upper hand as a HEAT version, the 76mm warhead would be superior in pure kinetic performance.

    It's a classic analogue situation pretty much as far as performance goes. RAM HAS and 127mm has a similar analogue situation, as does - oddly enough - Hellfire and 105mm HEAT-MP.

    Comment


    • Apparently according to Defense Weekly there are already three variations of this missle and two variations of its "munitions". So they may not exactly be the same nor the same effects.
      Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

      Comment


      • LCS-3 Fort Worth has completed builder's trials.
        Photo's and short film,
        News & Media
        Last edited by surfgun; 27 Oct 11,, 00:43.

        Comment


        • While watching the video of LCS 3 Fort Worth, I noticed what appears to be a third mission module position just forward of the RAM launcher (LCS 1 only has two mission module positions).
          Last edited by surfgun; 29 Oct 11,, 17:56.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by surfgun View Post
            While watching the video of LCS 3 Fort Worth, I noticed what appears to be a third mission module position just forward of the RAM launcher (LCS 1 only has two mission module positions).
            I see that, very interesting.

            Something that I really like is the wake, what a great painting that will make - the "aft" wake forming behind the ship - very awesome looking ship - great pictures.

            Thanks for calling my attention to that great video!
            sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
            If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

            Comment


            • Have to admit that although I kind of prefer the GD design, the Fort Worth looks good in that video.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post
                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
                In parallel to the story you quote above, the story quoted below from Jane's mentions that the Navy's current plans include integrating the mine-countermeasures (MCM) mission package initially only onto the Independence class LCS ships (even-numbered hulls) beginning with Independence, and then later integrating the MCM package on the Freedom class LCS ships after the surface warfare (SuW) mission package achieves initial operational capability (IOC) in FY14. The first SuW package is currently installed on USS Freedom (LCS-1).


                USN tackles LCS mine capability gap
                Geoff Fein - 25-Oct-2011
                Jane's International Defence Review

                The US Navy (USN) is continuing to iron out challenges with its mine-countermeasures (MCM) mission package systems as the service looks to find a way to attack near-surface mines as well as prepare unmanned underwater vehicles for deployment from a Littoral Combat Ship (LCS).

                Following the termination in May 2011 of Northrop Grumman's Rapid Airborne Mine Clearance System (RAMICS), the navy has begun examining new ways to destroy near-surface and floating mines. However, a solution is not likely to find its way into the fleet by the MCM programme's initial operational capability (IOC) in Fiscal Year 2014 (FY14), Rear Admiral James Murdoch, programme executive officer (PEO) LCS, said at a briefing at US Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) in Washington, DC, on 20 October.

                Adm Murdoch said that while cancelling RAMICS left the navy without an immediate ability to neutralise near-surface mines by shooting them, the service did get something out of the programme. "We've got some really good 30 mm cavitating ammo that we could use in the 30 mm guns that we have in the fleet, both on LPD-17 and in the surface warfare mission module," he said.

                The Mine Warfare Program Office (PMS 495) has been looking at Raytheon's Airborne Mine Neutralization System (AMNS) to fill the near-surface mine-neutralisation gap. "We are building on some modelling that we have done which says that the neutralisers on the AMNS system ought to be able to swim up close enough to take care of mines that are in the near-surface area," Adm Murdoch said.

                This new approach would use the Airborne Laser Mine Detection System (ALMDS) to sweep for near-surface mines. Following post-mission analysis, if a mine were detected, the MH-60S with AMNS, outfitted with a series of neutralisers, would be deployed to reacquire the mine and destroy it, he added. "We have a team with OPNAV [Office of the Chief of Naval Operations] authorisation working on that and bringing that capability into a later increment of the mine warfare mission package."

                However, that capability will not be ready in time for IOC in FY14. "[For] the near-surface AMNS, if I do my job right, we will have something out there and testing by then but it won't necessarily be ready to deploy with the fleet," Adm Murdoch added.

                The current navy plan calls for integrating the MCM package onto those ships with an even-numbered hull (Independence , Coronado , Jackson and Montgomery). In fact the USN has yet to conduct any MCM integration testing with USS Freedom.

                Adm Murdoch noted that the USN made a decision early on to test out the surface warfare (SuW) mission package on Freedom during her initial deployment to the Caribbean in February 2010. Once the SuW package achieves IOC in FY14, the navy will begin integrating the MCM package on Freedom.

                For Independence, Adm Murdoch said that integration of the MCM package is going well. "Frankly I am surprised at how well the crane launch and recovery system on LCS 2 [works]. The twin-boom extensible crane is really working out quite well," he said. "It has not been the challenge for us in integrating the remote minehunting system [RMS] into LCS 2."

                He said that while the system software, RMS and crane are doing well, the MCM detachment has told him that it is taking too much time to prepare the RMS for deployment.

                "The crew pointed out to me in integration testing that it takes a lot of time and effort to prep the vehicle for operations and get it put in the water. That's something we are going at very, very aggressively," he said.

                The focus on cutting the time it takes to get the RMS into the water is driven by the unique minehunting requirement that no previous programme has had to meet, he said. While the actual numbers are classified, Adm Murdoch said LCS, in its role as an MCM system, must prove it can clear a number of square miles of minefield per day.

                "I don't just have to prove that the individual sonar systems can go out and see the mine against the clutter. I don't just have to prove that a neutraliser can go blow up a mine. I have to show the whole integrated system," he said. "So when the crew tells me they can do more minehunting if they spent less time prepping the vehicle to go into the water, well, that matters to me."

                Adm Murdoch said that when he arrived at NAVSEA to take command of the newly organised PEO LCS a few months ago, it was important to get the MCM systems into the water.

                The good news, he added, is that there are no leaps in technology in the MCM package. "I am not trying to throw guided projectiles hundreds of nautical miles from a rail gun on the fan tail," he said. "I am just trying to put the same sort of sensor into the water that we have used for the last 30 years, with a little bit better software, a little bit better transducers and the ability to operate this thing remotely from the ship."

                The RMS is also in the initial phase of resolving reliability challenges. The USN is still in version (v) 4.1, which fixes those reliability issues, Adm Murdoch noted. "We are now up to 400 hours of testing on v4.1. We have to do the analysis of problems that we have had there but our goal is to get over 100 hours' mean time between operational failures over the first two increments, v4.1 and v4.2."

                The USN is learning a great deal in the process, but has not found anything significant, Adm Murdoch added. "We are addressing obsolescence and reliability problems. We are just getting the work going," he said.
                .
                .
                .

                Comment


                • Looks like the Marines' Expeditionary Warfare Module has either been pushed to the backburner or maybe is going to see initial developement quietly outside of usual procurement channels. If they are going to mostly make use of equipment that they already have, the latter would be my guess.

                  Also looks like the mine warfare module is a high priority, achieving IOC of the exisiting module, and further development, both.


                  Hanifen: Navy Will Finish First Three LCS Modules Before Getting Others
                  Posted on InsideDefense.com: October 28, 2011


                  PANAMA CITY, FL -- The Navy won't take a hard look at additional mission modules for the Littoral Combat Ship until the service wraps up development of the three that currently make up the program of record, Marine Maj. Gen. Timothy Hanifen, director of expeditionary warfare, told reporters at the Expeditionary Warfare Conference here last week.

                  "What I can speak to is what I am charged to deliver," Hanifen said Oct. 26 in response to a question about future LCS mission packages. "Right now, the LCS has those three main mission modules: mine warfare, surface warfare and anti-submarine warfare. Until we deliver those, we are just in concept development of what could follow."

                  Hanifen also noted that the Navy is currently in the midst of an analysis of alternatives on the broad concept of mine warfare and what capabilities could fill that role. The mine warfare module itself, however, is clearly defined, and the Navy plans to test Increment 1 in fiscal year 2013.

                  Mine warfare officials said at the conference they believed mine warfare has been "overlooked" in recent years, and the service would need industry help to determine a future mine-laying capability.

                  Randy Hill, an official in the Naval Mine and Anti-Submarine Warfare Command, said Oct. 24 at the conference that the service is examining the possibility of putting mines on the ship.

                  "Are we willing to put forces at risk? Are we willing to put mines on the LCS? Are we really going to put the LCS at risk with mines on it? I'm not saying yes, I'm not saying no," Hill said. "Those are the discussions occurring that are actually quite invigorating that we have not heard before."

                  He said he expects the Navy will encounter problems with Increment 1 of the mine warfare module, and the service will need to be prepared for that.

                  "Is it going to have problems? You betcha," he said. "Are we prepared for it? Not quite yet. . . . We have to figure out completely how we're going to deploy this thing, how we're going to sustain it, but the fact is that we recognize that's a problem and we're starting to put effort into how we're going to employ it." -- Dan Taylor




                  General Dynamics To Develop LCS' Surface Mine Countermeasures UUV
                  Posted on InsideDefense.com: October 21, 2011

                  General Dynamics won a $48.6 million contract to develop the surface mine countermeasures unmanned underwater vehicle component of the littoral combat ship mine countermeasures mission package, which the Navy said has tested well so far but faces a complicated task.

                  General Dynamics Advanced Informational Systems Inc. in McLeansville, N.C., will engineer and manufacture the 21-inch diameter heavyweight-class vehicle, which achieved its Milestone B approval in September. This UUV uses "a unique synthetic aperture sonar advanced low-frequency broadband sonar technology" to better detect mines in high-clutter environments and buried under the sea floor, said Chris Johnson, spokesman for Naval Sea Systems Command.

                  "Traditional acoustic imagery sonars have high false alarm rates in high clutter environments and cannot detect buried mines," he continued. "The system will also gather environmental data to provide intelligence support for other mine warfare systems."

                  The contract, announced Sept. 30, includes several options which could total as much as $86.7 million, including an option for the production of up to five low-rate initial production systems. Work will be completed by March 2016, the contract announcement says, and Johnson said the UUV is expected to reach initial operational capability in fiscal year 2017.

                  The low-frequency broadband sonar was developed by the Naval Research Laboratory through the SMCM UUV Experimentation Program established in FY-04, and Johnson said it has so far "demonstrated excellent mine hunting performance with low false alarm rate in what have been historically difficult mine hunting environments."

                  Rear Adm. Jim Murdoch, program executive officer for littoral combat ships, has said that mine countermeasures has proven difficult to fully understand but is a pivotal component of his PEO, which was established earlier this year. He said Oct. 20 during a media roundtable at the Washington Navy Yard that mine countermeasures, and any technology he develops as part of the MCM mission package, had to do better than just identifying a few mines and neutralizing them.

                  "I have to show that LCS the system can clear some number of square miles of minefield per day," Murdoch said, saying the actual number of square miles was classified..

                  "I don't just have to prove that the individual sonar systems can go out and see a mine amidst a clutter. I don't just have to prove that a neutralizer can go blow up a mine. I have to show the whole integrated system," he said which includes the SMCM UUV, a mine-hunting helicopter and more. -- Megan Eckstein



                  Farewell to SLMM
                  Posted on InsideDefense.com: October 28, 2011

                  The Navy is planning to completely divest itself from submarine-launched mines by the end of this fiscal year, Capt. Scott Burleson, an official at Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama City, FL, said Oct. 24 at the Expeditionary Warfare Conference in Panama City hosted by the National Defense Industrial Association. Burleson said the Submarine-Launched Mobile Mine, which is essentially a modified torpedo used by Los Angeles-class attack submarines, will be "eliminated . . . from our inventory." The service is weighing its options on future offensive mine-laying capabilities.




                  Navy sub adm: We need new weapons
                  What follows is an excerpt from Philip Ewing's, October 19th post on http://www.dodbuzz.com regarding Rear Adm. Barry Bruner, Navy Staff’s top planner for undersea warfare, commentary at the Naval Submarine League’s annual convention:

                  The latest-model Mk 48 heavyweight weapons are perfect for today’s submarines, but the Navy needs to begin pushing their basic technology forward as much as possible. He showed a PowerPoint slide that depicted future “modular” Mk 48 variants with different components, including different weapons payloads — or no weapons payloads — different motors and other components.

                  A future variant of the torpedo might prowl at slow speed waiting on its own for a target, or function as a disposable sensor for its parent submarine: Using the existing wire guidance system that ships now use to steer their fish toward their target, a sub could send out a sensor torpedo to investigate a box of ocean where it didn’t want to stick its own nose in — then, if necessary, quickly prosecute any targets.

                  This notion, along with standalone unmanned underwater vehicles, will be a big part of tomorrow’s undersea battles, Bruner said.

                  “This is where we need to go. Right now, this has my full attention. We can get into this pretty quickly but it costs money — but that’s in short demand right now.”
                  Last edited by JRT; 03 Nov 11,, 01:04.
                  .
                  .
                  .

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by surfgun View Post
                    While watching the video of LCS 3 Fort Worth, I noticed what appears to be a third mission module position just forward of the RAM launcher (LCS 1 only has two mission module positions).

                    Good catch. And to your point, here are some pics from L-Mart's website:


                    LCS-1 ... http://www.lmlcsteam.com/ssp_directo.../_Z6R9977b.jpg





                    LCS-3 ... http://www.lmlcsteam.com/ssp_directo...rial-01590.jpg




                    And if you want a close up of what those look like,
                    go to the page at: 360 Interactive,
                    then select view = Aft from 02 level,
                    and then use the pan arrows to move the camera view.
                    Last edited by JRT; 08 Nov 11,, 21:55.
                    .
                    .
                    .

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by HKDan View Post
                      Have to admit that although I kind of prefer the GD design, the Fort Worth looks good in that video.
                      Check out the video about LCS ships below (the video with the asinine title). I am not familiar with the source, just received an emailed link to the youtube video.
                      Last edited by JRT; 09 Nov 11,, 20:15.
                      .
                      .
                      .

                      Comment


                      • Here are more LCS related news reports to chew on:





                        Officials: Navy, Marines See Host Of Applications For Littoral Combat Ship

                        Inside the Navy --- 11/14/2011


                        Mission packages could expand beyond three

                        PANAMA CITY, FL -- The Navy and Marine Corps see the Littoral Combat Ship as a versatile platform that could potentially host a range of mission packages that expand the ship's capabilities far beyond the three currently planned, although the ship has its limitations, service officials said here recently.

                        Only the mine countermeasures, anti-submarine warfare and surface warfare mission packages are currently a program of record for the LCS, and Maj. Gen. Timothy Hanifen told reporters at the Expeditionary Warfare Conference hosted by the National Defense Industrial Association Oct. 26 that the service is focused on just those three packages right now.

                        However, multiple officials at the conference discussed the possibility of expanding on those packages.

                        Vice Adm. Richard Hunt, commander of naval surface forces, said it is "time to think about where we're going" with LCS. "I don't think we know what the complete variety of mission modules could eventually be," he told attendees. "We could get cyber mission modules, we could get [intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance] mission modules, we could support [special operations forces], we could support Marines. We've got to start thinking about what are the possibilities."

                        He said the "sky is the limit" and that the Navy and industry need to "figure out what the options are for LCS."

                        Rear Adm. James Murdoch, program executive officer for the LCS program, and Randy Hill, an official in the Naval Marine and Anti-Submarine Warfare Command, discussed the possibility of using the LCS for offensive mining. "Are we willing to put forces at risk? Are we willing to put mines on the LCS? Are we really going to put the LCS at risk with mines on it? I'm not saying yes, I'm not saying no," Hill said. "Those are the discussions occurring that are actually quite invigorating that we have not heard before."

                        Brig. Gen. Daniel O'Donohue, director of the Marine Corps capabilities development directorate, said in response to the question that the service is looking at the possibility of using the LCS for amphibious operations and to support special operations forces. However, he noted that LCS is limited in that it is focused on areas other than amphibious operations, such as mine countermeasures. "There's an opportunity cost in using LCS in other ways," he said, noting that the ship was not designed for amphibious landings or raids. "The ship has limitations, really, for a broad amphibious use," he said, but added that the Marines would carefully examine the capabilities offered by any ship, including the LCS. -- Dan Taylor




                        Next Surface Combatant Likely To Follow LCS's Modular Construction

                        Inside the Navy --- 11/11/2011


                        Open architecture key in reducing costs

                        The Navy may increasingly rely on modularity and open architecture to deal with both reduced shipbuilding budgets and ever-changing threats across the globe by incorporating concepts pioneered by the Littoral Combat Ship onto future ships, Vice Adm. Kevin McCoy, commander of Naval Sea Systems Command, said Nov. 9 at Defense Daily's Open Architecture Summit.

                        McCoy said the Navy had learned a lot from open architecture, particularly in its submarine programs and the LCS, and that he and others hoped to incorporate that concept into future platforms, particularly the next surface combatant.

                        Half of shipbuilding costs consist of contractor- and government-furnished equipment, much of which is combat-related, he said during his keynote lunch speech. In traditional shipbuilding, by the time the ship was finished and ready to be deployed, much of that equipment was already outdated, meaning the ship was less useful and a lot of money was wasted. With its submarine programs, though, the equipment was plugged in at the very end of construction and is being updated every four years, ensuring warfighters always have the tools they need.

                        McCoy used the USS Enterprise (CVN-65) as an example of modularity at its simplest. When the ship retires next year, it will be 51 years old and will still be as relevant as it was when it was built, he argued, due to the aircraft it hosts on its decks. The LCS follows that same concept, and McCoy said he believed it would soon be applied to larger ships as well.

                        The LCS is flexible enough that when it is unexpectedly deployed with a Coast Guard detachment, officials were able to throw together a "mission package" that included additional showers for the extra personnel aboard."

                        One of the things that I think we really have to start to think about as we look at particularly diminished budgets in the future is, how many sea frames do we need, and how many mission modules do we need?" McCoy said. "So for example, do we need every sea frame with the big SPY radar, or can the big SPY radar come literally as a module? "He said it didn't make sense for every ship to come equipped with expensive equipment that it would only use some of the time, nor did it make sense to have such specialized ships that they were only useful for one part of a mission and then needed to be swapped out a few days later for another specialized ship. "I think as we look to even larger ships than the LCS, the next surface combatant, we have to really start to think about . . . how do we keep a Navy that's relevant and afford it? And I think modularity brings a lot to the table," he said.

                        He added that Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert had already pushed Navy officials to more seriously consider open architecture solutions, including the idea of constructing a stable hull and allowing all sensors, weapons and more to be procured separately and plugged in. Doing so, McCoy said, would open up the market to additional contractors who can provide a capability but are not able to integrate it directly into the ships.

                        The Navy hopes the segmented contracting tactic would also drive down costs.

                        McCoy said these lessons were learned with the LCS.

                        Though it could be a hard sell to Congress -- the Navy would essentially be asking for ships with no real purpose identified yet -- McCoy said it was the service chiefs' job to "open up that aperture as wide as we can, and the independent cost folks will follow." -- Megan Eckstein




                        LCS Seeks Capability To Locate, Destroy Mines In A Single Sweep

                        Defense Daily --- 11/14/2011


                        Historically, naval mine clearing missions have consisted of locating a mine and returning later to destroy it. But now the service would like to see a platform that could merge both tasks into a single effort, a capability known as “in-stride,” said Capt. John Ailes, the program manager for the Littoral Combat Ship’s (LCS) mission modules.

                        “If you’re looking for a good project that you could sell to me, in-stride mine capability is a place that we want to go,” Ailes told industry representatives said at the 4th annual Open Architecture Summit hosted by Defense Daily last week.

                        The Navy touts the LCS as its finest example of an open architecture, modular ship that can be quickly adapted to meet mission requirements by swapping out separate mission specific packages. Those include coastal anti-surface warfare, anti-submarine warfare and mine clearing. So far, two of the ships have been operational, the USS Freedom (LCS-1) and USS Independence (LCS-2), with more on the way.

                        Ailes said mine clearing presents the “most challenging mission” for the Littoral Combat Ship. “The holy grail of mine warfare that you eventually want to get to is find the mine, kill the mine in a single thing,” he told Defense Daily on the sidelines of the conference. “The way it’s done today--and has been forever--is find the mine, comeback and clear it later.”

                        “The metric we’re trying to do is: How fast can you clear it out?” he added.

                        Sailors on small boats, unmanned systems and helicopters are all used in the mine clearing mission. Helicopters use the Airborne Laser Mine Detection System (ALMDS) to find the mines and store the locations using GPS coordinates. The helicopter then refuels, swaps out the ALMDS, returns to the location and destroys the mine with a depth charge or small torpedo. The helicopter can’t carry both capabilities at the same time because of weight and power issues, Ailes said.

                        Ailes said he is open to any platform or system capable of carrying out the in-stride mission, including manned or unmanned helicopters or other systems. It could be a matter of just getting the weight down on the current systems in use, like ALMDS.

                        Adding the capability to the MQ-8B Fire Scout would be a “best case” scenario because the unmanned helicopter is already integrated into the ship’s systems, but doing so would pose weight and power problems. “It would be cool to have it on Fire Scout, because sometimes you got to go into places where the bad guys are. And the nice thing about Fire Scout, of course, is it’s unmanned,” he said. “But it…becomes an engineering problem.”




                        Navy Taps General Dynamics For Surface Mine Countermeasure UUV

                        Defense Daily --- 11/10/2011


                        General Dynamics Advanced Informational Systems [GD-AIS] yesterday said it received a contract with a potential value of $86.7 million to design and build the Surface Mine Countermeasure Unmanned Underwater Vehicle (SMCM UUV) system. The system will initially be a part of the Littoral Combat Ship Mine Warfare mission package. The contract issued by the Navy’s Naval Sea Systems Command, has a maximum potential value of $86.7 million for one Engineering Development Model (EDM) and five low-rate initial production systems if all options are exercised.

                        The SMCM UUV system is expected to allow Navy commanders and sailors to reliably detect and identify mines in high-clutter underwater environments in a single pass, including mines that are suspended in the ocean, resting on the sea floor or buried. Additionally, it will gather environmental data that can provide intelligence support for other mine warfare systems, the company said in a statement.

                        “General Dynamics continues to deliver affordable, flexible solutions that meet the Navy’s vision for open architecture,” said Lou Von Thaer, president of GD-AIS. “Commanders and sailors will now have the most capable and advanced system available to detect, avoid and defeat mine threats.”

                        GD-AIS will use an open systems architecture approach to ensure the SMCM UUV will have the flexibility to be integrated into missions on Littoral Combat Ships, as well as other ship types. The Navy’s evolving and dynamic mission requirements call for a design that allows plug and play integration for ship’s systems and mission modules. These interchangeable packages of specialized equipment allow the Navy to quickly reconfigure a ship for changing mission requirements.

                        GD-AIS plans to hire 10 new employees to support this contract. The development and manufacturing will be done in Greensboro, N.C., Fairfax, Va., Quincy, Mass., Braintree, Mass., and Panama City, Fla. The GD-AIS team includes Bluefin Robotics; Ultra Electronics Ocean Systems; and Oceaneering International.

                        The program office for this contract is the Unmanned Maritime Systems Program Office (PMS 406), one of six program offices within the Navy’s Program Executive Office, Littoral Combat Ship (PEO LCS).
                        Last edited by JRT; 15 Nov 11,, 21:50. Reason: adding another
                        .
                        .
                        .

                        Comment


                        • Ive been intrigued by the idea of the USMC getting involved with the LCS program since I first read about it. Dumb Jarhead stereotype aside, the Marines are well established innovators. The first thing that popped into my head after reading about the plan to base Marines in Oz was how that would put them in a pretty good position to be working closely with the LCS that are supposedly going to be operating out of Singapore.

                          Comment


                          • The LCS is in jeopardy per Sec. Def. due to budget crises.
                            By Jen DiMascio

                            What does inaction by the U.S. Congress on the federal deficit mean? According to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, it means no more Joint Strike Fighter. No new bomber. No Littoral Combat Ships and no Ground Combat Vehicle program.

                            The Budget Control Act in August set up a Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to find at least $1.2 trillion in deficit cuts. And if Congress fails to pass a deficit-reduction plan by Jan. 15, 2012, the defense budget would undergo $600 billion in automatic cuts over the next 10 years.

                            Since August, lawmakers have been calling on the Pentagon to provide details about exactly what a reduction of that magnitude would mean. Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) recently wrote a letter to Panetta asking him to lay out the parameters. The senators plan to sponsor a bill that would remove the $600 billion penalty.

                            And McCain says President Barack Obama, who has threatened to veto a deficit reduction bill that fails to include tax increases, should listen to Panetta. “[Obama’s] secretary of defense just wrote us a letter saying [sequestration] would have the most devastating effects on our national security,” McCain says. “I hope he would listen to his secretary of defense.”

                            On Nov. 14, Panetta laid out $200 billion in kills or delays to major programs in the long term that would result from Congress’ failure to act. The F-35, the bomber, the Littoral Combat Ship, Ground Combat Vehicles and the next-generation ballistic missile submarine would all fall by the wayside.

                            And those aren’t the only programs that the process known as sequestration would relegate to the scrap heap. The U.S. could wave goodbye to Army helicopter modernization programs, “major space initiatives,” European missile defense, unmanned intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) systems and the missile leg of the nuclear triad, adding another $56 billion.

                            When Panetta says cuts would be devastating, he means all that and more. The Defense Department would also have to scale back training and furlough civilian personnel. He reminded the senators that sequestration would apply cuts across the board in ways that don’t make sense.

                            “A 23 percent cut in ship and military construction projects would render them unexecutable — you cannot buy three quarters of a building,” Panetta writes. “A 23 percent cut in [a] weapons program would drive up unit costs and lead to reductions in quantity of one-third or more.”

                            The letter comes just more than a week before the so-called super committee has to make its recommendations to the rest of Congress for budget reductions.

                            After the letter’s release, Robert Spigarn of Credit Suisse says even though the maximum penalty is “unlikely,” steep reductions are coming the Pentagon’s way. “We see limited longer-term sector upside due to continued incremental negative news flow and potential for further declines in consensus estimates,” he says in a note to investors.

                            “Regardless of what is decided this year, we think fiscal reality will require further cuts later, leading to a “boiling frog” scenario where cuts are $1 [trillion or greater] over a longer period.”


                            Panetta Details Budget Doomsday For Congress | AVIATION WEEK

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by surfgun View Post
                              The LCS is in jeopardy per Sec. Def. due to budget crises.
                              By Jen DiMascio

                              What does inaction by the U.S. Congress on the federal deficit mean? According to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, it means no more Joint Strike Fighter. No new bomber. No Littoral Combat Ships and no Ground Combat Vehicle program.

                              The Budget Control Act in August set up a Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to find at least $1.2 trillion in deficit cuts. And if Congress fails to pass a deficit-reduction plan by Jan. 15, 2012, the defense budget would undergo $600 billion in automatic cuts over the next 10 years.

                              Since August, lawmakers have been calling on the Pentagon to provide details about exactly what a reduction of that magnitude would mean. Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) recently wrote a letter to Panetta asking him to lay out the parameters. The senators plan to sponsor a bill that would remove the $600 billion penalty.

                              And McCain says President Barack Obama, who has threatened to veto a deficit reduction bill that fails to include tax increases, should listen to Panetta. “[Obama’s] secretary of defense just wrote us a letter saying [sequestration] would have the most devastating effects on our national security,” McCain says. “I hope he would listen to his secretary of defense.”

                              On Nov. 14, Panetta laid out $200 billion in kills or delays to major programs in the long term that would result from Congress’ failure to act. The F-35, the bomber, the Littoral Combat Ship, Ground Combat Vehicles and the next-generation ballistic missile submarine would all fall by the wayside.

                              And those aren’t the only programs that the process known as sequestration would relegate to the scrap heap. The U.S. could wave goodbye to Army helicopter modernization programs, “major space initiatives,” European missile defense, unmanned intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) systems and the missile leg of the nuclear triad, adding another $56 billion.

                              When Panetta says cuts would be devastating, he means all that and more. The Defense Department would also have to scale back training and furlough civilian personnel. He reminded the senators that sequestration would apply cuts across the board in ways that don’t make sense.

                              “A 23 percent cut in ship and military construction projects would render them unexecutable — you cannot buy three quarters of a building,” Panetta writes. “A 23 percent cut in [a] weapons program would drive up unit costs and lead to reductions in quantity of one-third or more.”

                              The letter comes just more than a week before the so-called super committee has to make its recommendations to the rest of Congress for budget reductions.

                              After the letter’s release, Robert Spigarn of Credit Suisse says even though the maximum penalty is “unlikely,” steep reductions are coming the Pentagon’s way. “We see limited longer-term sector upside due to continued incremental negative news flow and potential for further declines in consensus estimates,” he says in a note to investors.

                              “Regardless of what is decided this year, we think fiscal reality will require further cuts later, leading to a “boiling frog” scenario where cuts are $1 [trillion or greater] over a longer period.”


                              Panetta Details Budget Doomsday For Congress | AVIATION WEEK
                              As pointed out in this article, it really comes down to what Congress does (or does not) do; if they can get their act together for a week, these drastic budget cuts won't be necessary. Also, there is some speculation that Congress will (again) weasel out of actually making a decision, but still (somehow) avoid making the "required" cuts.

                              Debt Reduction Committee's Deadline Is 1 Week Away : NPR
                              "There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by HKDan View Post
                                Ive been intrigued by the idea of the USMC getting involved with the LCS program since I first read about it. Dumb Jarhead stereotype aside, the Marines are well established innovators. The first thing that popped into my head after reading about the plan to base Marines in Oz was how that would put them in a pretty good position to be working closely with the LCS that are supposedly going to be operating out of Singapore.
                                When General James T. Conway was still Commandant of the Marine Corps, he expressed interest in the LCS, and speciafically mentioned interest in utilizing the big flight deck and mission bay on the Independence when he toured it.

                                Now with the deeper cuts, LCS are getting more attention as a means of augementing the Gator Navy. See the recent news story below.

                                Marines Clamor To Close Gaps In Amphib Fleet

                                By Carlo Munoz
                                Published: December 7, 2011

                                (WASHINGTON) The Navy's decision to cut its future amphibious fleet from 38 ships to 33 has left the Marines clamoring for any and all options on how to close that gap, Assistant Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Joseph Dunford said today.

                                The typically stoic and reserved Dunford got a little gung-ho when I asked him what the Marines stand to lose with a 33-ship amphibious fleet. "We lose capacity, we assume more risk," Dunford said with vigor after a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. But just as quickly, the four-star general returned to form and explained that the Navy and Marine Corps came to the decision together and would make due with the situation as a team.

                                The Marines are looking at everything -- from the Littoral Combat Ship to the Navy's fleet of prepositioning supply ships -- as a way to get more amphibious capability into the water, Dunford said. He suggested the Navy could "put a flight deck" on some of its large, Bob Hope-class supply ships and use them for amphibious operations. Those ships can support helicopters but not fixed-wing aircraft.

                                So what has the Marines so eager to slap landing decks on container ships and scramble aboard the LCS? The answer lies in the Navy's future shipbuilding plan. The standing requirement for the amphibious fleet, or the "Gator Navy" as its known inside the service, has been a 38-ship force. The Marines say that's still the requirement. So does the Navy. But that's not what the services are going to get over the next few years. Instead they'll get 33 ships. And that won't happen until 2016.

                                Meanwhile, Marine and Navy officials are pressing ahead with a new Marine Corps-specific mission package for the LCS, Dunford said today. Options on what that mission package may look like are making the rounds inside the Pentagon. Getting a Marine Corps package aboard the LCS will help meet the service's amphibious needs. The four-star general did not comment on the specifics of that ongoing work. LCS program executive officer Rear Adm. James Murdoch all but guaranteed Marine Corps would get their own mission package on the ship. But service leaders decided to officially move forward with the plan during Navy-Marine Corps warfighter talks held earlier this year, Dunford said.

                                Dunford was clear that increasing budget pressures put the Navy and Marine Corps in this predicament. It was also clear that he, and probably most of the service's top leadership, were not happy about it.

                                .
                                .
                                .

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X