Skip to comments.U.S. Navy Wants it All When it Comes to LCS
Posted on 11/04/2010 7:10:53 PM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld
Woah, so the U.S. Navy wants to buy both classes of Littoral Combat Ship in equal numbers for a total of 20 ships, double the planned by of 10 Hulls, according to my former colleague Chris Cavas latest piece over at Defense News.
The Navy, convinced that the competition has driven down the cost for the ships, is asking Congress for permission to award each team contracts for 10 ships, for a total of 20 new LCS hulls.
Were engaging with key committee members, their staff and industry on whether awarding a 10-ship block buy to each team merits congressional authorization, Capt. Cate Mueller, a spokeswoman for the Navys acquisition department, said Nov. 3.
Still, if this plan to convince the current lame-duck Congress to allow the sea-service to buy both Lockheed Martins Freedom-class and Austal USAs Independence-class designs doesnt work, the Navy will go back to its original plan: awarding a contract for ten ships to one of the two competitors.
(Excerpt) Read more at defensetech.org ...
It has not been doing well in tests.
The fiasco is basically the fault of former CNO Vern Clark.
I exaggerate only slightly but basically the whole program is him rolling out of bed one morning and scribbling it down. Almost no analysis went into the requirements. The high speed serves no purpose and caused the costs to explode.
Many things about the LCS, such as modularity, are good ideas. The way they implemented modularity was stupid, however.
The U.S Navy is planning to use the ship as an BMD/Aegis ship
They were both designed to meet the same requirements. The main difference is LCS-1 is a steel monohull and LCS-2 is an aluminum trimaran; the key fact there is a bunch of shipyards can build steel ships, while very few can do large-scale aluminum ships, because it's specialized welding. Hence, it's harder to spread the Pork around with LCS-2.
LCS-2 has a much larger flight deck. I used to think that LCS-2 sucked somewhat less than the disaster that is LCS-1, but I've recently heard about some more problems with 2 that have caused me to think they both might be equally awful.
I think you're confusing it with the DDG-51 Flt III design, which will be a BMD-focused Burke Destroyer.
Currently neither LCS has a VLS, and cannot carry Standard Missiles at all, and it's physically impossible, even if you wanted to, to put a VLS on either ship than can carry SM-3 BMD missiles, or a radar that is BMD-capable.
You may want to read this:
There is nothing in that article or anything that is linked to it about the UNITED STATES Navy wanting to use it as a BMD ship, and actually nothing suggesting the proposed LCS redesign has BMD capability. The intent of the new design is to sell it to foreign countries in the Gulf.
The Israelis wisely passed on LCS.
I assure you that if you brought up LCS as a BMD ship in a USN meeting it might take half an hour for the laughter to stop.
The radar they want to put on the DDG 51 Flt III is almost too big for THOSE ships.
To do serious BMD you need a big powerful radar and big missiles.
Yes; you can do a complete redesign of the internals of an LCS (getting rid of all modular capability) and put on a few MK 41 VLS cells. You can’t put a SPY-1D radar on it though; you CAN put the much smaller SPY-1F on it.
Thus you could give LCS a modicum of medium-range anti-aircraft and anti-cruise missile capability, and possibly self-defense or defense of a tiny area against short-range ballistic missiles. This doesn’t in any way resemble the current or future BMD capability in the Aegis cruisers or destroyers.
SM-3s are big missiles and getting bigger, and actually will require bigger cells down the road.
I see your point. We may gotten a different impression from the article
I thought I remembered seeing new stealth destroyer designs that are kind of a cross between sub and ship. I thought these were going to be main ships for the fleet.
BMD really requires the SPY-1D radar (with 12ft antenna) to work properly.
There has been talk of promiseware BMD enhancements for the SPY-1F (8ft antenna) but performance would be reduced.
But even the SPY-1F is really too big for the LCS, the radar for that size ship is the SPY-1K (5.5ft antenna) - imagine performance in BMD, how low can you go?
If the USN wants a design for the littorals, I think the Nordic nations could offer a couple of interesting and arguably more cost-effective smaller options.
Not to mention, the LCS-export variants have been shown with only 32 MK-41 VLS cells.
An Arleigh Burke class ship is fitted with 96 cells.
>>> Simple:Buy both classes.
Both classes are under-manned, under armed, and too darn expensive. Not long ago we were buying destroyers for not much more then one of these.
>>> Both should be canceled and a new design is needed(perhaps with interim procurement of a foreign design)
A class of Euro style Korvettes would have been more useful. Which is what I thought this program would be when I first read of it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.