Littoral Combat Ships

[ChrisV71]

Changing those anodes while on deployment sounds like a job for a destroyer tender. Oops, we don't have those any more...

[surfgun]

I just hope no one fires up a jet pump with a diver inside!

[kato]

What effectively amounts to yard work every four months? Are they serious?

Now I know why the 67-month technical inspection intervals on our F125 are making those ships cost so much...

[Dreadnought]

Being a littorial ship demands that many repairs to be made on site. Otherwise you are stranded or worse yet stranded in an unfriendly enviroment.

As far as yard time these are all growing pains, the more they learn, the better the future design will be and in the overall hopefully more cost effective.

[surfgun]

WASHINGTON — The office of the secretary of defense (OSD) has directed the Navy to limit its overall buy of littoral combat ships to a total of 32 ships, foregoing 20 more of the small, fast and controversial warships, Pentagon sources have confirmed.

The decision, in a Jan. 6 memo from acting deputy secretary of defense Christine Fox, came after the Pentagon received its final 2015 budget guidance from the White House. Several major acquisition decisions, including direction on what to do with the LCS program, were awaiting the numbers from the Office of Management and Budget.

The program of record calls for the service to build 52 LCSs, built to two designs, one from Lockheed Martin and the other from Austal USA. Three of the ships are in service, and a fourth ship will be commissioned in April. Another 20 are under construction or on order, split evenly between the two prime contractors.

Asked for comment, the Navy demurred, citing the premature nature of budget deliberations. No date has been announced for the submission of the 2015 budget to Congress, but it’s expected to take place no earlier than mid-February.

Over the past year, the Navy and OSD have debated cutting the LCS program — along with discussions about the future of virtually every significant defense acquisition program. Various alternatives have been put forth, including ending the buy at 24 ships.

It’s believed that OSD’s initial guidance in January was to cut the program even further. Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, a strident defender of the LCS program, personally argued to restore at least a portion of the future ship buy, Pentagon sources said.

One Navy source familiar with the situation declared that the decision to end LCS at 32 ships isn’t yet a done deal. “This isn’t over yet,” the source said.

The reduction is not surprising to the Navy, but it is a disappointment to many senior officials and officers who have defended ships. Unlike most warships, the LCS doesn’t carry a major load of weapons and sensors, but rather features a large mission bay and adaptable systems to accommodate a range of mission modules, equipment fashioned to perform specific warfare tasks such as anti-submarine or counter-mine missions.

OSD has long harbored a variety of LCS critics, who each year have sought to limit the program’s scope. The concept, under development for over a decade, remains hotly contested within the Navy’s surface warfare community.

A major political feature of the LCS program was that the 52 ships represented a major portion — nearly one-sixth — of the 306-ship fleet. Among other issues, the Navy is in the earliest stages of thinking about what sort of ship might be useful and affordable instead of an LCS.

It’s also not clear that any decision has been made as to how the eight ships remaining to be ordered would be structured. Current plans call for two ships per year, one from each builder, starting in 2016. Options would include four ships per year, or a down-select to only one of the LCS designs.
Pentagon cuts LCS buy to 32 Ships | Navy Times | navytimes.com

[surfgun]

WASHINGTON — The contentious question of how many littoral combat ships to build has been batted back and forth this year between the Navy’s top leadership and senior Pentagon leaders. By the end of the day on Jan. 17, a certain kind of standoff appears to have been reached, foregoing — for the moment — a final decision.

The result could be a compromise. Reportedly, LCS is being put on something of a probation: The buy would be limited to 26 or 28 ships — the exact number couldn’t be confirmed by press time — but the ship will need to pass evaluation by the Pentagon’s Office of the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) before further ship buys can proceed, according to multiple Pentagon sources, who stressed that no final decisions have been reached.

The first salvo of the year was fired Jan. 6 by Christine Fox, acting deputy defense secretary, when, in a classified memo, she directed the Navy to halt LCS production after 32 ships and begin development of a “more capable surface combatant.”

Navy officials have strenuously defended the service’s plan to build a total of 52 of the small, fast and adaptable ships. Three are in service, with a fourth set to join the fleet in April. Another 20 ships are under construction or on order.

Navy leaders fought back almost immediately. Service staff members argued with the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) to keep the status quo of 52 ships.

Fox is one of the key people within OSD urging a severe cutback of the LCS program, if not outright cancellation. She often questioned the combat effectiveness of the program in her previous position as director of the Pentagon’s Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation.

A Jan. 15 Defense News web story detailing the decision to cap the ships at 32 set off a renewed round of events inside the Pentagon last week. Navy Secretary Ray Mabus personally argued his case before Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Fox that evening, urging the program’s continuation, Pentagon sources confirmed.

A similar probation was issued in January 2011 by then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates regarding the F-35B version of the joint strike fighter. The probation was lifted in January 2012 — short of the two years Gates initially declared — after program performance improved.

Neither the Navy nor OSD would confirm an agreement by close of business on Jan. 17.

DOT&E routinely criticizes the LCS program, irked in particular by the Navy’s 2010 decision to take the first ship out of the normal testing cycle and instead send it to sea. As the first of a new ship class, the service was anxious to get underway time rather than keep it in a rigorous testing cycle.

The 2012 DOT&E report noted concerns about the ship’s survivability, writing that “it is not expected to maintain mission capability after taking a significant hit in a hostile combat environment.” There was no discussion of a comparable 3,200-ton ship that could meet that requirement, and DOT&E did not differentiate between the two LCS designs, which are considerably different.

Neither LCS design has undergone Navy survivability tests, which are performed on all new ship classes.

A New Approach?
If the LCS fails the tests, it is not clear what the next step would be. But whether the LCS is cut short or built out to 52 ships, the service already has been thinking about what a follow-on small combatant would look like.

Adm. Jonathan Greenert, chief of naval operations, routinely champions LCS, but already has directed the surface warfare community to begin thinking about a follow-on.

“We need to look and think about what the next small combatant is,” said Capt. Danny Hernandez, the CNO’s spokesman. “Regardless of what the number is going to be, there’s going to be something after LCS, and we need to look at our options. It’s also the prudent and responsible thing to do.”

One concept being thought about as an LCS alternative or follow-on has been a small frigate, able to defend several ships and provide escort services for merchant convoys, amphibious ships or support ships.

A capability gap already has been identified for an escort ship, said Bryan Clark, a naval analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington. Until last year, Clark also was a special assistant to Greenert, where he led the development of Navy strategy.

“The real need is for an escort to accompany convoys, logistic ships, even parts of the battle fleet. Analysis shows that as a gap. But LCS cannot provide air defense to ships it’s escorting — it only has self-defense,” Clark said.

“The Aegis destroyer is more than what is necessary for this mission. So this escort mission is one that cries out for a solution. That’s what a frigate can do,” he noted.

A frigate of about 4,100 tons, he said, would be a ship less capable than a 9,200-ton Aegis destroyer, but larger than the LCS.

“A frigate study would need to focus on designs that currently exist, that could be rapidly implemented at a US yard. And they’d probably include designs based on the LCS as well,” he said. “The study could include existing designs as well as starting from scratch. Foreign designs would be part of the mix — just as LCS is a derivative of foreign designs.”

Both LCS design teams, led by Lockheed Martin and Austal USA, have produced versions of their ships aimed at foreign sales, heavily loaded with permanently installed combat systems. Lockheed in particular is offering larger versions of its Freedom-class LCS, as well as smaller models.

“The Navy doesn’t really have an escort vessel that can do this mission. If you get into a large conflict you need to protect ships,” Clark said.

Key to that is effective anti-submarine warfare (ASW) and anti-air combat systems. The ASW mission package under development for LCS is getting early rave reviews from surface warfare officers, but the ships are too small to install Mark 41 vertical missile launchers needed for standard anti-air missiles. An effective anti-air system also needs search and fire control radars, along with an expanded combat system.

“That’ll be the toughest part of the frigate study, trying to figure how to handle the air defense mission in a way that doesn’t involve the start of a new design,” Clark said.

Work on a new frigate is not being driven by OSD’s current efforts to cut back the LCS, Clark said, although it would provide a basis for a new ship should the LCS fail.

Work on future surface combat ships already is underway at the Pentagon by the director of surface warfare, and under the direction of the surface warfare commander in San Diego, but neither of those efforts is focused on a frigate. A new study, Clark said, would be aimed at a ship that could be developed within only a few years.

Regardless of the LCS debate, “this need was starting to emerge anyway,” he said.Navy, Pentagon battle over LCS future | Navy Times | navytimes.com

[DonBelt]

Sure, now they say it after getting rid of all the Spruances and OHP's. I guess the first question that needs to be addressed is: What is the threat to convoys and logistic ships? Is it submarines? Aircraft? Pirates and small craft? If it's aircraft or asm's the Burkes aren't overkill. If it's pirates or small craft an LCS wouldn't be a bad choice, if it were inexpensive and had the range. But for ASW they should've kept some Spruances and OHP's around, dropped off the ABL's from the Spru's that had them. Maybe they haven't thrown the plans away yet.

[JRT]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]35236[/ATTACH]

Littoral Combat Ships - Mine Countermeasures (MCM) Mission Package

Description

The first increment of the MCM Mission Package is a major step forward in achieving the Navy�s goal of providing Joint Force Commanders with mine detection and neutralization capability that does not put ships at risk in minefields. Future increments add additional capability, including beach zone mine detection, mine sweeping, near surface mine neutralization and buried and surf zone mine detection.

The LCS MCM Mission Package conducts its mine countermeasures operations through the employment of aviation assets and unmanned surface, semi-submersible and submersible vehicles that together are equipped with an array of sensors and systems to detect, localize, neutralize and, sweep mines. These systems are designed to be employed while the LCS remains outside the mine threat area.


Features

Remote Minehunting Module
* AN/WLD-1(V) Remote Multi-Mission Vehicle (RMMV) (2)
* AQS-20A
* Cradle Pallet Assembly
* Capture Spine
* Support Containers

Near Surface Detection Module
* MH-60S Helicopter
* AN/AES-1 Airborne Laser Mine Detection System (ALMDS)
* Support Containers

Airborne Mine Neutralization Module
* MH-60S Helicopter
* AN/ASQ-235 Airborne Mine Neutralization Systems (AMNS)
* EX 64 neutralizers
* Support Containers

Coastal Mine Reconnaissance Module
* AN/DVS-1 Coastal Battlefield Reconnaissance and Analysis (COBRA) System
* MQ-8B Vertical Takeoff Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (VTUAV)
* Support Containers

Unmanned Mine Sweeping Module
* Unmanned Surface Vehicle (USV)
* Unmanned Surface Sweep System (USSS)
* Support Containers

Buried Mine Hunting Module
* Surface Mine Countermeasure Unmanned Underwater Vehicle (SMCM UUV) (Knifefish)
* Launch, handling and recovery equipment
* Support Containers

Mission Package Application Software (MPAS)
* Mission specific application software that support the MP in planning and executing the MCM missions
* Mine Warfare and Environmental Decision Aids Library (MEDAL)


Background

The Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) is a fast, agile, and networked surface combatant optimized for operating in the littorals. The primary missions for the LCS include countering submarine, surface and mine threats to assure maritime access for joint forces. The underlying strength of the LCS lies in its innovative design, applying modularity for operational flexibility. Fundamental to this approach is the capability to rapidly install an interchangeable mission package (MP) into the ship to fulfill a specific mission, and to later uninstall, maintain, and upgrade it at the Mission Package Support Facility (MPSF) for future use aboard any LCS.

Mission packages (MPs) were created for LCS in response to an evolving threat environment. All mission packages are interchangeable between both LCS variants. Mission Package can be decomposed as follows:

* Mission Systems = Vehicles, Sensors, and Weapons
* Mission Module = Mission Systems + Support Equipment
* Mission Package = Mission Modules + Mission Crew Detachments + Aircraft

The Mission Package Computing Environment (MPCE) is the hardware computing suite installed in each ship. The Mission Package Application Software (MPAS) is the software that runs on the MPCE computer. There are currently three versions of MPAS which support the three different Mission Packages: Surface, Mine Countermeasures and Anti-submarine Warfare.
The quantity of each mission package type differs based on an analysis of projected operational needs. The Navy plans to procure 52 LCS ships and 24 Mine Countermeasures (MCM) Mission Packages.


Point Of Contact
Office of Corporate Communication (SEA 00D)
Naval Sea Systems Command
Washington, D.C. 20376

Last Update: 20 December 2013

.

...

[dan m]

Why doesn't the Navy make a combination of corvettes and frigates? Many Euro frigates/corvettes appear to be well designed The LCS doesn't seem to be a good ship to put in the escort role despite its speed and it seems too lightly armed/armored to operate in the littorals.

On a completely unrelated note: The Royal Danish Navy's Absalon command-support ships are pretty damn cool.

[jlvfr]

Why doesn't the Navy make a combination of corvettes and frigates? Many Euro frigates/corvettes appear to be well designed The LCS doesn't seem to be a good ship to put in the escort role despite its speed and it seems too lightly armed/armored to operate in the littorals.

On a completely unrelated note: The Royal Danish Navy's Absalon command-support ships are pretty damn cool.

I have this theory: US shipyards simply don't know how to make small, cheap ships, only big-ass ones. Last ones were the Perrys

[dan m]

I have this theory: US shipyards simply don't know how to make small, cheap ships, only big-ass ones. Last ones were the Perrys

If your theory is true that's too bad. What I know about the LCS is that looks like its over priced for what its offering. According to the Congressional Research Service's report on the LCS the cost is around 448 million dollars per ship. I'm not sure if that price includes the mission modules. With 448 million you could buy 3 Holland class patrol vessels.

[qaz14595]

Don't think this has been posted here before....if i'm wrong my bad! But from Lockheed Martin's website found a Virtual tour of the FREEDOM -

LCS Freedom Variant Virtual Tour - Think some of you may enjoy this

Includes views ranging form the Flight Deck, reconfigurable space 1 & 2,Crews Mess, Wardroom, Mission Control Center, 4 & 8 person Staterooms, Bridge, Main Machinery room and much much more too!

And question - Is it just me, or is there no armored cable anywhere & it's just rubberized? Am I just stuck in the "Old Navy" design per say of SLATER with the era of armored cable, rotary snap style light switches etc; is it just part of the "New Navy" to just have rubberized cable, regular light switches and such?

[blidgepump]

Took the tour....

Don't think this has been posted here before....if i'm wrong my bad! But from Lockheed Martin's website found a Virtual tour of the FREEDOM -

LCS Freedom Variant Virtual Tour - Think some of you may enjoy this

Includes views ranging form the Flight Deck, reconfigurable space 1 & 2,Crews Mess, Wardroom, Mission Control Center, 4 & 8 person Staterooms, Bridge, Main Machinery room and much much more too!

And question - Is it just me, or is there no armored cable anywhere & it's just rubberized? Am I just stuck in the "Old Navy" design per say of SLATER with the era of armored cable, rotary snap style light switches etc; is it just part of the "New Navy" to just have rubberized cable, regular light switches and such?

;) Just tool the tour and I am impressed with the camera work!

Giving me some ideas for my next shipboard visit. Cool graphics, too.
TY for the link.

[surfgun]

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon leadership doubled back Monday on its direction for the Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program, returning to where things stood at the beginning of the year: End procurement at 32 ships — 20 short of the previously planned goal — and begin work on development of a new small surface combatant.

Acting Deputy Defense Secretary Christine Fox, in a Jan. 6 memo, directed the service to cap the LCS buy at 32 ships. Navy Secretary Ray Mabus vigorously protested, and something of a compromise was tentatively agreed to — essentially awarding no block buys past current purchases pending a successful evaluation of the ship by the Pentagon’s Office of the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E).

But that agreement seems to have been tossed overboard, and, in a Pentagon press conference Monday to discuss the budget, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced his intention to cut short the full LCS buy.

The decision to talk about LCS in the briefing was apparently made quite late, as no mention of the program was contained in a draft of his remarks sent Sunday to each of the services.

“I am concerned that the Navy is relying too heavily on the LCS to achieve its long-term goals for ship numbers,” Hagel said Monday. “Therefore, no new contract negotiations beyond 32 ships will go forward.”

Hagel said a close examination of the Navy’s small combat ship needs is necessary to look at “emerging new technologies, particularly in the Asia Pacific” region.

“Given continued fiscal constraints, we must direct shipbuilding resources toward platforms that can operate in every region and along the full spectrum of conflict,” he said.

Hagel is directing the Navy to prepare recommendations for a new “capable and lethal small surface combatant, consistent with the capabilities of a frigate.” The Navy, he said, will “consider a completely new design, existing ship designs and a modified LCS. These proposals are due to me later this year in time to inform next year’s budget submission.”

As previously reported, the service will not request funds to refuel and overhaul the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier George Washington, scheduled to begin a three-and-a-half-year overhaul at Newport News Shipbuilding beginning in 2016.

For now, the Navy will sidestep the issue of permanently reducing the 11-ship carrier force to 10 ships by decommissioning the GW — a highly problematic issue in an election year.

“However,” Hagel said, “we will have to make a final decision on the future of the George Washington aircraft carrier in the 2016 budget submission. If sequestration spending levels remain in place in fiscal year 2016, she would need to be retired before her scheduled nuclear refueling and overhaul. That would leave the Navy with 10 carrier strike groups. But keeping the George Washington in the fleet would cost $6 billion, so we would have no other choice than to retire her should sequestration-level cuts be reimposed.”

Hagel also discussed a plan to take half the fleet’s 22 Aegis cruisers out of service, laying them up pending the availability of modernization funds. In recent years the Navy has asked to decommission seven cruisers, along with two amphibious ship docks, but Congress has demurred, instructing the Navy to keep the ships in service and providing partial funding to do so.

The cruisers, Hagel said, would be “placed in reduced operating status while they are modernized, and eventually returned to service with greater capability and a longer lifespan.” He did not mention the amphibious ships, although Pentagon sources said the budget will also seek to lay up three amphibs.

The issue is expected — again — to be hotly debated in Congress.

The cruisers — all are the newest Ticonderoga-class ships still in service, but yet to receive full modernization — are the Cowpens, Gettysburg, Chosin, Hue City, Shiloh, Anzio, Vicksburg, Lake Erie, Cape St. George, Vella Gulf and Port Royal.

The amphibious ships are the Whidbey Island, Germantown and Tortuga.

Hagel did not address naval aviation issues, other than to note that if sequestration-level cuts return in 2016 and beyond, purchases of new F-35C carrier variants of the joint strike fighter would be halted for two years. Six additional ships would need to be laid up, he said, should sequestration cuts return.

The secretary noted the Navy will continue to buy two destroyers and two attack submarines per year, although sequestration could “slow the rate at which we buy destroyers.”

Hagel declared that “the Navy will launch an aggressive and ambitious effort to reduce acquisition costs and maximize resources available to buy and build new ships,” but he provided no details. Since that has been the service’s stated policy for some years, and Navy acquisition chief Sean Stackley has achieved remarkable successes introducing stability and cost management into the service’s acquisition programs, it is not yet clear what Hagel is referring to.

The president’s full 2015 budget request is expected to be sent to Congress on March 4.
Pentagon changes course, halts LCS at 32 ships | Navy Times | navytimes.com

[TopHatter]

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon leadership doubled back Monday on its direction for the Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program, returning to where things stood at the beginning of the year: End procurement at 32 ships — 20 short of the previously planned goal — and begin work on development of a new small surface combatant.

Hate to say it but....good.

“However,” Hagel said, “we will have to make a final decision on the future of the George Washington aircraft carrier

What? The what?? Nice wording there Chuck. What is this guy, a typical know-nothing-about-the-navy journalist?