Littoral Combat Ships

[JRT]

Mouse-click on the picture for a much larger version.

[surfgun]

WASHINGTON — Turns out a littoral combat ship will be headed to Hawaii this summer after all.

Adm. Jon Greenert, chief of naval operations, told an audience in Washington Monday that the Independence will operate off Hawaii as part of the huge Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercises to take place in June and July.

The move reverses an earlier decision that kept the Independence, along with the other three littoral combat ships in service, in southern California, carrying out tests and various exercises.

The recently commissioned Coronado, sister ship of the Independence, is participating with RIMPAC, but all in the waters around San Diego.

A spokesman for the U.S. Pacific Fleet in Pearl Harbor confirmed the Independence will take part in the seagoing phase of the exercises, scheduled to run July 6 through July 25. Further details of the ship’s participation, Cmdr. Steve Curry said, would come from planners with the US 3rd Fleet.

Freedom, the first LCS, took part in the 2010 RIMPAC exercises, and Navy leaders have frequently cited that experience as a significant event in getting the new type of ship to sea.

But no LCS showed up in 2012 for the biannual exercises — said to be the largest naval exercises in the world — and planners had not scheduled any of the four ships to visit Pearl Harbor. More than two dozen foreign ships are expected to voyage to Hawaii to join a similar number of Navy ships in the exercises.

A highlight of this year’s events will be the first-time seagoing participation of the Chinese Navy. A four-ship squadron is coming to Pearl — a destroyer, frigate, replenishment ship and hospital ship — and will undoubtedly garner a major share of media attention.

With an LCS now headed for Hawaii, the American ship is also likely to attract a bright media spotlight.
Navy changes course, sends LCS to Hawaii for RIMPAC | Navy Times | navytimes.com

[ace16807]

Thought experiment:

The standard counter-proposal to the LCS is what is usually touted as a cheaper frigate based on either a pre-existing design or one that draws heavily upon said designs. These designs typically field a VLS system, harpoon canisters and organic helo capabilities. This is all makes sense given that the LCS is intended to succeed the OHP. And while the USN claims that the LCS is indeed supposed to fill the role of OHPs, nowhere does the DoD claim that the LCS is supposed to be oriented towards AAW or significant SuW. It's intended to fill an ASW, small craft ASuW, MCM and a secondary amphibious role. So while the counter-proposals fill the gap left by OHPs, it does not fill the MCM or amphibious operation mission sets that the LCS fills (supposedly).

So let's assume we can reverse the LCS program to the point that it never existed. Those funds are now available to develop an OHP successor but should also be expected to deliver a platform (not necessarily the same one) that fills MCM/Amphibious/SOF mission sets as well. Presumably we get a new FFG out of this acquisition with 1-2 dozen VLS cells, a good ASW capability and can hold its own in ASuW. It is unlikely to field any of the other given mission sets. That means the reasonable alternative is to create a dedicated MCM vessel that will succeed the Avenger class. But neither of these fills the amphibious/SOF mission set. The capabilities that the LCS brings in this mission set is probably much more versatile/capable than what a Virginia-class SSN is expected to deliver. But it doesn't make sense to make a small dedicated amphibious/SOF support vessel. So let's say that we drop this requirement. That leaves us with two platforms with two distinct mission sets. One is a conventional surface combatant while another is a dedicated MCM platform. Given costs of what would no doubt be more crews, more hulls and two independent platforms that require their own RDA infrastructure, is this option really cheaper?

Furthermore, given potential adversaries the USN faces, is new conventional surface combatant what we really need? The USN already maintains a strong dominance in the AAW field (although hypersonic weapons may soon level this playing field). No navy in the world maintains a surface fleet that I would assess as being truly threatening, especially given the US's superb SSN fleet. However, ASuW and MCM remain staunchly difficult mission sets to perform well. And the US's potential maritime opponents recognize this and have developed rather sophisticated systems that would tax the US's current capabilities, especially in MCM. So given these relative strengths and deficiencies, why is the proposed alternative to the LCS always something that can kill ships/planes/missiles/subs when quite honestly, we're currently capable of doing the first two quite well, the third one moderately well and the fourth one to an unknown proficiency (ROKN/JMSDF are probably on par or better than the USN at ASW at this point). And US MCM, relative to the state of MIW is rather mediocre. Should LCS alternatives not be pushing ASW/MCM capabilities over AAW/ASuW? Afterall, this is what the LCS is touted as being capable of doing.

[kato]

So given these relative strengths and deficiencies, why is the proposed alternative to the LCS always something that can kill ships/planes/missiles/subs

You might want to look at the multi-mission modular ships currently under development for the next decade in Europe. These generally fill the exact same role and missions as LCS (and more), but are usually touted as "corvettes", "multi-mission OPVs" or similar despite often being quite a bit bigger than the frigate, corvette or FAC classes they replace - typically in the region of 5000-7000 tons.

Although at least Italy very quickly stepped back and diversified its UPAD project into a "combat" and a "other roles" class. With the "combat" version now planned to mount a 48-cell VLS...

[jlvfr]

Start by dropping the top speed to 28-30kt. That alone will save a lot of money...

[gunnut]

why is the proposed alternative to the LCS always something that can kill ships/planes/missiles/subs when quite honestly, we're currently capable of doing the first two quite well, the third one moderately well and the fourth one to an unknown proficiency

Think export.

Most navies don't have a carrier providing CAP, with multiple Aegis ships armed with hundreds of SM-2 plus ESSM to complete a layered defense system. Most navies don't have the luxury of air launched Harpoons and TLAMs. Most navies don't have a fleet of nuclear subs patrolling every inch of the earth's oceans.

Most navies have 4 to 6 3000t to 6000t hulls to provide air defense, anti ship warfare, chase subs, and parade for the tax payers. They want multi-mission ships bristling with weapons to show they are money well-spent.

[Dreadnought]

One big diffence between an armed LCS and an armed Corvette. The LCS travels blue ocean, Corvetts travel coastlines. Two different animals all together..

[desertswo]

Corvette or LCS, they are all cancerous one-lungers.

[kato]

One big diffence between an armed LCS and an armed Corvette. The LCS travels blue ocean, Corvetts travel coastlines. Two different animals all together..

"Corvette" is an ambiguous term. The last two french corvette classes for example were WW2-style heavily-armed ocean ASW escort DEs intended as blue water ASW pickets for the French Strategic Force (i.e. SSBNs) at sea.

[jlvfr]

Think export.

When was the last time the US actually exported a warship, except for Israel and Taiwan, who (till recently) had no other choices?...

Fact is US-built ships are simply too big and expensive. No one else uses such large vessels; and Europe is the leader in frigate/corvete construction...

[ace16807]

When was the last time the US actually exported a warship, except for Israel and Taiwan, who (till recently) had no other choices?...

Fact is US-built ships are simply too big and expensive. No one else uses such large vessels; and Europe is the leader in frigate/corvete construction...

I wouldn't event count Taiwan. To my knowledge, all those "exports" are sales of former USN warships (Kidds, OHPs, Knoxes etc).

Given that the plug-and-play modules are contributing substantially to costs, why not follow FREMM philosophy and build a dedicated AAW, ASW and in this case a MIW version instead of having modules. Modules understandably provide operational versatility in being able to turn your MIW fleet into an ASW one if you need, but I doubt you can feasibly cram the necessary sonar/OTH radar suites into the same platform.

[desertswo]

When was the last time the US actually exported a warship, except for Israel and Taiwan, who (till recently) had no other choices?...

Fact is US-built ships are simply too big and expensive. No one else uses such large vessels; and Europe is the leader in frigate/corvete construction...

I suspect it was the RAN with the brand new FFG-7s we exported to them in the early-80s. HMAS Adelaide (FFG 01) was one of them. I don't recall the names of the others. I remember Adelaide because they ran her aground almost immediately before they even left US waters after they accepted the ship. Sometimes bad things happen to good people.

I personally trained the Pakistani and Brazilian navies to take over two Garcia and two Brooke-class frigates; and the Egyptian Navy to take over two Knox-class frigates; one of which was my command ride. I also taught a special course we stood up at Surface Warfare Officers School Command in Newport, RI to train 30 Mexican Navy engineering officers and senior enlisted ratings in the care and feeding of the Knox-class engineering plant. Including me, we had three officer and four senior enlisted instructors, all fluent in Spanish, who taught the course. They had translators but we rarely needed them. They were very appreciative of the effort we made. I am still in contact with many of them, as well as an Egyptian officer who is now an Admiral. It could be a very frustrating experience, but also quite rewarding in many ways.

[jlvfr]

I suspect it was the RAN with the brand new FFG-7s we exported to them in the early-80s. HMAS Adelaide (FFG 01) was one of them. I don't recall the names of the others. I remember Adelaide because they ran her aground almost immediately before they even left US waters after they accepted the ship. Sometimes bad things happen to good people.

The Perrys were indeed good ships, but probably the last class the US managed to sell on the "open" market. And I suspect the major reason for such a sale was the fact that they were the smallest ships that could carry a medium range SAM. After them?...

Garcia and two Brooke-class frigates;

40 and 50 year old ships, sold 2nd hand. Not exactly new models...

[kato]

I suspect it was the RAN with the brand new FFG-7s we exported to them in the early-80s.

With regard to Perrys, Spain's six Santa Maria class frigates came five years later. Though of course until about the same time Spain was in a similar geopolitical situation to Taiwan and Israel, i.e. no one willing to do business with them.

[DonBelt]

Taiwan with the former Kidd class DDG's.

-Ah, never mind, just saw Ace already posted the Kidds. The US tends to export systems more than the ships. The various Aegis systems for example, and the LM-2500 gas turbines. I think that politically, other nations while desiring the capabilities we have, still like to keep heavy industry with it's jobs and trades closer to home. We also export command and control. When we organize exercises and maneuvers (think RIMPAC) we provide support and command and control to countries that otherwise might lack that ability with their own resources.