Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. Navy Wants it All When it Comes to LCS
Defense Tech ^ | 11/4/2010 | Defense Tech

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.

“We’re 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 Navy’s 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 Martin’s Freedom-class and Austal USA’s Independence-class designs doesn’t 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 ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: freedomclass; independenceclass; lcs; littoralcombatship; usn; usnavy; ussindependence
Simple:Buy both classes.
1 posted on 11/04/2010 7:10:56 PM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ErnstStavroBlofeld

Is one noticeably better than the other? Or do they fulfill different functions?
Surely there must be advantages to one over the other.


2 posted on 11/04/2010 7:18:29 PM PDT by IrishCatholic (No local Communist or Socialist Party Chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ErnstStavroBlofeld
What good is a LCS if it doesn't have a big gun...or four?

Interdiction of pirates?

Perhaps patrolling places like the Persian Gulf...coast of Venezuela.

However, I don't see much "Power Projection" capability that has been the hallmark of the US Navy since Tripoli around 1800. Merrimack and Monitor. Great White Fleet. WWII DOMINANCE over the Japanese. Reagan's 600 ship Navy.

Hell, a FFG costs 1/3 what these units cost and are far more capable in support of power projection. We could use 60 FFG's more than we can use the LCS. Hell, 30 FFG's and 10 DDG's.

I don't get it.

Did the Navy ask, or did a Senator/Congressman ask on their behalf?

3 posted on 11/04/2010 7:22:18 PM PDT by Mariner (USS Tarawa, VQ3, USS Benjamin Stoddert, NAVCAMS WestPac, 7th Fleet, Navcommsta Puget Sound)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

The Independence class is intended as a small assault transport that can take on various capabilities with the installation of mission modules. Instead of guns they will have mission modules. Modules may consist of manned aircraft, unmanned vehicles, off-board sensors, or mission-manning detachments


4 posted on 11/04/2010 7:29:34 PM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ErnstStavroBlofeld

Ensuring pizza delivery under 30 minutes to any part of the globe.


5 posted on 11/04/2010 7:30:25 PM PDT by NonValueAdded (Palin 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded

LOL


6 posted on 11/04/2010 7:31:11 PM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

The Freedom class is designed for a variety of missions in shallow waters, capable against submarines and ships, as well as minesweeping and humanitarian relief


7 posted on 11/04/2010 7:32:41 PM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: USNBandit

ping


8 posted on 11/04/2010 7:35:45 PM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ErnstStavroBlofeld


What's all this fuss about clittoral combat ships?
9 posted on 11/04/2010 7:37:29 PM PDT by AndrewB (FUBO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ErnstStavroBlofeld
I can see value, but not at the price.

These guys don't even carry Harpoon, Torpedos or Phallanx.

Even the Navy concedes they fail all Shock Tests and are not survivable under any modern hit...from missile, 4in gun or torpedo.

They cannot deploy autonomously...and will require support from REAL WARSHIPS...further spreading our real capabilities.

We need to replenish the real surface fleet before we go spending on auxiliaries.

Hell, we're down to 35 deployable attack subs and 250 deployable surface combatants with 11 deployable Carriers.

It's a cryin' shame.

The USA will get hurt one day, hurt bad because of the state of our Navy.

10 posted on 11/04/2010 7:39:07 PM PDT by Mariner (USS Tarawa, VQ3, USS Benjamin Stoddert, NAVCAMS WestPac, 7th Fleet, Navcommsta Puget Sound)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

I agree with you. Bring back the 500 ship navy


11 posted on 11/04/2010 7:40:45 PM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

You might as well paint these things white with a big orange stripe. If these things are even close to the cost of a Burke class we are making a big mistake.


12 posted on 11/04/2010 7:42:39 PM PDT by USNBandit (sarcasm engaged at all times)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

We might as well mothball one of the carriers, as well. We don’t have enough airplanes for an eleventh airwing.


13 posted on 11/04/2010 7:45:02 PM PDT by USNBandit (sarcasm engaged at all times)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: stylecouncilor

Gator Navy ping


14 posted on 11/04/2010 7:49:15 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

Within the Navy (both military, and civilians), privately, both LCSes are almost universally regarded as a disaster and a joke, and are considered essentially useless vessels.

The problems of the ships go way beyond what has been reported in the media...trust me.

This may be the worst military procurement fiasco in US Military History. The main competitor is the A-12; unlike the A-12, LCSes were actually built and operated, but I think the complete failure of LCS will end up hurting US military capability more.

Both should be canceled and a new design is needed(perhaps with interim procurement of a foreign design).


15 posted on 11/04/2010 8:03:31 PM PDT by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: IrishCatholic


Freedom Class...Independence Class....ah, it dont't matter.
16 posted on 11/04/2010 8:03:38 PM PDT by Thrownatbirth (.....Iraq Invasion fan since '91.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ErnstStavroBlofeld

The LCS is a failure. Hulls breaking, engines failing, crew too small, combat modules and UVs don’t work. Three weeks at sea and they have to be towed into port. Under Obama, the Navy is being scrapped. This is another futile attempt to keep some semblance of a Navy. p.s. LCS money is already pledged to ObamaCare.


17 posted on 11/04/2010 8:04:59 PM PDT by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ErnstStavroBlofeld
The Freedom class is designed for a variety of missions in shallow waters, capable against submarines and ships, as well as minesweeping and humanitarian relief

ROFL....it has no capability against submarines and ships. The ASW mission package was a complete disaster, and has been abandoned - it's being completely re-designed, and who knows when an actual working mission package will be available. LCS has NO modern anti-ship capability whatsoever; it has some limited capability against small boats (but is crippled by the Army cancelation of the NLOS missile).

Because so much weight and space was pointlessly wasted on giving it a speed 40 kts+, both ships have difficulty carrying enough equipment to be useful for anything.

18 posted on 11/04/2010 8:07:20 PM PDT by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

I see. I did know that. Thanks for providing some extra info.


19 posted on 11/04/2010 8:09:03 PM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ErnstStavroBlofeld
The Independence class is intended as a small assault transport that can take on various capabilities with the installation of mission modules. Instead of guns they will have mission modules. Modules may consist of manned aircraft, unmanned vehicles, off-board sensors, or mission-manning detachments

The modules are, rather incredibly, a bigger disaster than the ships themselves.

Even under the current 10 ship plan there will be more ships completed than there will be modules available, rendering them useless.

20 posted on 11/04/2010 8:09:25 PM PDT by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

It has not been doing well in tests.


21 posted on 11/04/2010 8:10:20 PM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

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.


22 posted on 11/04/2010 8:11:59 PM PDT by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

The U.S Navy is planning to use the ship as an BMD/Aegis ship


23 posted on 11/04/2010 8:13:13 PM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: IrishCatholic
Is one noticeably better than the other? Or do they fulfill different functions? Surely there must be advantages to one over the other.

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.

24 posted on 11/04/2010 8:18:14 PM PDT by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ErnstStavroBlofeld
The U.S Navy is planning to use the ship as an BMD/Aegis ship

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.

25 posted on 11/04/2010 8:20:13 PM PDT by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

You may want to read this:

http://militarytimes.com/blogs/scoopdeck/2009/11/17/another-new-lcs-mission-bmd-picket/


26 posted on 11/04/2010 8:21:40 PM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ErnstStavroBlofeld

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.


27 posted on 11/04/2010 8:35:18 PM PDT by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

I see your point. We may gotten a different impression from the article


28 posted on 11/04/2010 8:37:04 PM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

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.


29 posted on 11/04/2010 8:51:22 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ErnstStavroBlofeld
The U.S Navy is planning to use the ship as an BMD/Aegis ship

They nuts.

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?

30 posted on 11/04/2010 9:14:49 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce - Karl Marx)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist; Mariner

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.

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/haminaclass/
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/skjold/
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/visby/


31 posted on 11/04/2010 9:26:27 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy

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.


32 posted on 11/04/2010 9:27:53 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: ErnstStavroBlofeld; Strategerist

>>> 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.


33 posted on 11/04/2010 11:48:56 PM PDT by tlb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson