US Littoral Combat Ships under construction...

[Jacknola]

Littoral Combat Ships under construction, two different designs. 2,500 DWT slightly bigger than a WWII Fletcher class destroyer. I'm surprised at the corrosion issue. We in the offshore oil industry are pretty knowledgeable about cathodic protection and what happens when it is inadaquate.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmurph/articles/20120820.aspx

“Now that the U.S. Navy has decided to put its new "Littoral Combat Ship" (LCS) into mass production …

“…The navy surprised everyone two years ago by choosing both designs and requesting that the fifty or so LCS ships be split between the two very different lookingships. Ten are on order or under construction, in addition to the two (one of each type) in service.

“…The two different LCS designs are from Lockheed-Martin (monohull) and General Dynamics (trimaran). The first LCS, the monohull USS Freedom, completed its sea trials and acceptance inspections three years ago. The ship did very well, with far fewer (about 90 percent fewer) problems (or "material deficiencies")than is usual with the first warship in a class. USS Independence (LCS-2) was laid down by General Dynamics in late 2005 and commissioned in January 2010. Corrosion and hull cracks were expected eventually but appeared much earlier than anticipated.

“…The navy hoped to have between 50 and 60 LCSs by 2014-18, at a cost of $460 million (after the first five). The USS Freedom ended up costing nearly $600 million, about twice what the first ship in the class was supposed to have cost. The navy believes it has the cost down to under $450 million each as mass production begins.”

[Bidoul33t]

So two different design for the same job, that mean they still have no idea of what the ship should look like, cost twice the initial budget (for something supposed to be cheap, 600M is a lot, 460M is still a lot), heavier than a WWII destroyer roughly the same as a lot of current EU frigate (for a little ship that's not little at all, for little ships with lot of weapons see the old french A69 class, the new Russian Steregushchy class, the Swedish Visby class, etc... Note that all those designs have torpedoes... for between 2 and 4 time less money).

Still no weapon pods I assume? I'm guessing those will cost extra too...

Let's go to full production!

So the US navy will have by 2018 payed between $22 and $33 billions for two type of what is meant to be the same ship armed with .50 cals and a 57mm gun.

That's 4 billions a year give or take (that's a Gerald Ford every two year, or a Zumwalt and change a year).

Seriously I'm baffled. I've got nothing against the LCS as a whole (the strategic concept I read about was quite interesting, but those ship called LCS have very little to do with it), hell that's not even my money getting spent but is it that weird to choose one wait for the tech to be ready, then spend the money?

I mean that's how it happen usually and it's not like the Navy couldn't use the money elsewhere what's so urgent about those ships?

[Hellfish]

The two types was largely a political decision. The Navy needed ships, the two states where the two classes are being built had important Congressmen to please.

The rationale, as they explain it today, is one class will serve in the Pacific (The Independences) and one in the Gulf (the Freedoms, though the Freedom will go to Singapore for a trial run at basing in the near future.)

Of the two, the Freedom seems like a dud. Lots of problems, and apparently they realized that 40 crew members was not enough so now they're going to max out berthing (75, IIRC?) and all of the modules are still problematic.

I think the fundamental flaw the Navy ran into with these ships was that they didn't realize/chose to ignore we already have a modular ship structure - VLS cells. A VLS-equipped ship can carry damn near everything (though sensors and systems determine what they can use effectively - no LCS-sized ship will ever have SM-3s or SM-6s). An 8-cell VLS can carry up to 32 ESSM anti-aircraft missiles or 8 ASROCs or any other weapon system we decide to fit in a canister (LRASM, etc). Tactical length VLS, mind you, not the much larger strike length VLS (which can fire Tomahawks).

Anyway, too bad we can't adapt 20-foot TEUs as VLS systems. The helo deck would make a hell of a missile deck if that was the case.

[D-Mitch]

So two different design for the same job, that mean they still have no idea of what the ship should look like, cost twice the initial budget (for something supposed to be cheap, 600M is a lot, 460M is still a lot), heavier than a WWII destroyer roughly the same as a lot of current EU frigate (for a little ship that's not little at all, for little ships with lot of weapons see the old french A69 class, the new Russian Steregushchy class, the Swedish Visby class, etc... Note that all those designs have torpedoes... for between 2 and 4 time less money).

Still no weapon pods I assume? I'm guessing those will cost extra too...

I agree. The mission modules indeed will take time to be developed and to be tested. I would like to see the Israelis ordering some of the LCS and then to re-design and equip them properly.

[Deridex]

I just wonder: will mission-specific modules be interchangeable between two types...?

[gastrion]

I just wonder: will mission-specific modules be interchangeable between two types...?

It'd be stupid if they weren't...

[C.Puffs]

It'd be stupid if they weren't...

Then you can be certain they won't be.

[artjomh]

Anyway, too bad we can't adapt 20-foot TEUs as VLS systems. The helo deck would make a hell of a missile deck if that was the case.

Saying 20' TEU is redundant. Also, you can't even fit a Harpoon into a 20'. They are just 2,6 m high.

[Ought Six]

Saying 20' TEU is redundant. Also, you can't even fit a Harpoon into a 20'. They are just 2,6 m high.

Not sure what you are saying here. American VLS cells come in three lengths; the 'self defense length, designed just for ESSM, which allows for missiles up to 165" long; the 'tactical length', designed for ESSM, SM-2 (except Block IV) and ASROC, which allows for missiles up 222" long; and the strike length (USN standard), designed for ESSM, Standard (all versions), ASROC and Tomahawk, which allows for missiles up to 257" long. Since an RGM-84L is 183" long, there should be no problem loading it into a tactical length VLS tube. Boeing already developed a VLS version of the Harpoon, but the Navy declined to purchase it. None the less, the technology is already there 'on the shelf'.

[artjomh]

Not sure what you are saying here.

Right.

Standard shipping containers come in 3 most common sizes: 20', 40' and 40' HC. A 20' container is, obviously, 6,1 meter long and 2,6 meter high. A 40' container is the same height, but double the length. A HC container is 12,2 m long and 2,9 m high.

Hellfish suggested fitting a VLS into a 20's container, which could be put on any flat deck surface and won't require any special launch module. I pointed out that a standard container is too small to fit a VLS, unless you put a missile on the side, like the Russian Club-K, but then it won't be a VLS anymore. I hope there is no more confusion.

[Ought Six]

Right.

Standard shipping containers come in 3 most common sizes: 20', 40' and 40' HC. A 20' container is, obviously, 6,1 meter long and 2,6 meter high. A 40' container is the same height, but double the length. A HC container is 12,2 m long and 2,9 m high.

Hellfish suggested fitting a VLS into a 20's container, which could be put on any flat deck surface. I pointed out that a standard container is too small to fit a VLS. I hope there is no more confusion.

Got it. Thanks!

BTW, there is already a system offered by the Russians with an erectable AShM launcher in a shipping container.

[Hellfish]

Right.

Standard shipping containers come in 3 most common sizes: 20', 40' and 40' HC. A 20' container is, obviously, 6,1 meter long and 2,6 meter high. A 40' container is the same height, but double the length. A HC container is 12,2 m long and 2,9 m high.

Hellfish suggested fitting a VLS into a 20's container, which could be put on any flat deck surface and won't require any special launch module. I pointed out that a standard container is too small to fit a VLS, unless you put a missile on the side, like the Russian Club-K, but then it won't be a VLS anymore. I hope there is no more confusion.

Yeah, you're right on the redundancy.

I didn't mean Mk 41 VLS in a 20' container - rather a vertical launch system like the Israelis have developed, like the Jumper.

http://www.defencetalk.com/iai-to-sh...t-imdex-34238/

[Elbs]

Look at the upgraded Aussie FFGs and how they had to shoehorn the Mk 41 into place. Keep in mind it's not even the full length strike version, and it extends down two decks.

[Uruzu]

Yea I agree. One 8 cell VLS with either 32 ESSMs or a ESSM/ASROC combo would have muffled those concerns about LCS being underarmed. Snap on a anti mine modules and put some firehawks in the hanger bay. There you go, as multirole as you can get.

Still don't know why the planners are so insistent on not installing some sort of VLS. Maybe they know something we don't ?

[Jacknola]

Might as well post some pictures of Independence and Freedom classes. What I find interesting (I'm not Navy at root) is how ships in a class keep getting larger.... destroyers the size of cruisers, cruisers the size of pocket battleships... until suddenly someone realizes a need for a 2,000 ton ship ... the size of a WWII destroyer. But the cost and complexity.. what the heck? I'd say this is an example of mission creep... each committee keeps adding a capability until the original concept is almost lost.

Brown water? These guys are hardly brown water. I couln't picture them on the Mekong. Also, inshore capabilities... well missles, etc., are great.. as are helicopters. But at some point does anyone every see the need for a more powerful gun.. to support onshore SOF missions for example? I feel the same way about a lot of so-called ground support aircraft. Sooner or later we will be in a cloaked environment again, were you cannot identify exact location, but only general area. At that point, you need a bigger weapon.


Anyway, I hope these guys prove themselves ... I hope