LCS

"Don't Tread On Me" The historical along with current aspects of the largest navy in the world.
Joined: October 7th, 2009, 4:39 am

January 22nd, 2018, 4:32 am #2001

Every new ship has issues; not just the first of a design; it's not totally a design matter; it's a function of that particular construction being new and effectively unused.  Most complex manufactured things have issues when they are first put into service; cars for example.  And by comparison with a ship a car is almost laughably simple.  That's why there's both an INSURV to identify as many of the problems as possible and a warranty to fix them.

And, don't leave the sailor out of it.  I know of one where a fully trained and experienced but not in that ship class senior sailor threw a switch in a brand new ship.  It was the switch next to the one he should have thrown and the result was a trip back alongside to have a generator rebuilt.  There was an interlock but it had been installed back to front and because it was a low probability situation, and one we hadn't trialled as trialling all failure modes is generally impossible,  it wasn't picked up.  That was (if memory serves) about the fourth ship of that class.   Another where an officer ordered "stop" when he should have ordered "half ahead" and stripped about half the blades off a turbine.  It goes on.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: November 21st, 2010, 12:24 am

January 22nd, 2018, 12:28 pm #2002

ThePointblank wrote:
IcelofAngeln wrote: Teething issues?  The LCS has been in service for nine goddam years now.
I suggest you review the issues USS New York (LPD-21) had when she first commissioned, or the issues USS San Antonio had... Also, read the testing and evaluation reports a few years back on the San Antonio class LPD's which were NOT complimentary and highlighted a laundry list of deficiencies...
And San Antonio was considered a case study in shoddy construction and failure of contractor oversight, complicated by being shifted from one builder to another and then being hit by Hurricane Katrina.  Even so, within six years of commissioning (and two successful deployments), not only had her kinks been worked out but she won the Battle E.

Again, nine bloody years the Freedom class has been in service.  A plank-owning boot who reported aboard fresh from Great Lakes would be a PO1 by now. It hasn't been a "new design" for a long time.
The difference between "democracy" and "populism" is whether or not the ruling elite likes the outcome.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 18th, 2014, 6:37 pm

January 24th, 2018, 3:38 pm #2003

navyowl wrote:
OldNick wrote: General Dynamics Land Systems manufacture the 30mm Mk 46 mod 2 gun weapon system for the LCS under contract to Navy, presume they deliver to Northrop Grumman.
 
The Navy Recognition video SNA 2018 Day 2 posted by MattReloaded above re. the Northrop Grumman rep stated that they had delivered 8  Mk 48 30 mm ship sets and had orders for 3 more sets for delivery this year.
 
Ten LCS ships have been commissioned and another six have been launched to date.
 
So we have two different designations, Mk 46 & Mk 48 for the same 30 mm cannon ? and the numbers don't add up, 8 ship sets delivered, ten ships commissioned.
 
30+ mm naval cannon, as capability increases so does weight.
The Mk 46 has a low max. rate of fire ~200 rpm using ATK Mk44 Bushmaster II 30 mm chain gun 
The Oerlikon Contraves Millennium has a medium rate, ~1.000 rpm 35 mm KDG GDM-008 cannon
The Goalkeeper with high rate ~ 4,000 rpm using the GAU-8/A Avenger 30 mm Gatling gun
The Russian AK-630 M1-2 very high rate ~ 10,000 rpm

 
if you use (caliber^3)*rof  as indicator of firepower output (roughly corresponds to shrapnel) you'll find 57/220 is   worse than the millennium(35/1000) or rapid76/120. Mk46 (30/200) is a complete joke- it's a law enforcement sniper rifle while other guys are machine guns.
Using 'navyowl' formula for firepower, calculated with the LCS Mk 46 Mod 0 30mm as baseline of 1, very rough ROM as using quoted rof, but a guide for what's it's worth.
 
 
GD Mk 46 Mod 0  [ATK  Mk 44 Bushmaster II 30mm]                                      1    
BAE Bofors 40mm Mk 4                                                                                    3.6   
Raytheon Phalanx [M61 Vulcan 20mm]                                                            6.7   
BAE Bofors Mk 110 57mm                                                                                7.5      
BAE 5"/62 (12.7 cm) Mark 45 Mod 4                                                                7.6       
Oerlikon Contraves Millennium 35mm                                                              7.9
OTO 76/62 SUPER RAPID                                                                               9.8
OTO 127/64 LW VULCANO SYSTEM                                                            12.1
Thales Goalkeeper [GE GAU-8/A Avenger 30mm]                                          20
Russian AK-630 M1-2                                                                                      50  
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: November 29th, 2004, 7:40 am

January 27th, 2018, 11:41 am #2004

The DOT&E FY2017 has arrived. Enjoy.

LCS @ DOT&E 2017

The Navy has not conducted any air warfare test events against ASCM surrogates planned as part of the Enterprise Air Warfare Ship Self-Defense TEMP or the LCS TEMP. The Navy’s Program Executive Office for Integrated Warfare Systems has halted all work to develop a Probability of Raid Annihilation (PRA) Modeling and Simulation (M&S) suite of the ships’ combat systems for FY18. Delaying these efforts postpones evaluation of LCS air warfare capabilities.
Both LCS seaframes have limited anti-ship missile self-defense capability. The Navy has not fully tested these combat systems and the Navy does not plan to conduct further air warfare operational testing of Freedom seaframes 1 through 15 in their current combat system configuration. The Navy has accepted the risk of continued operation with a combat system that is not operationally tested. 
Survivability testing and preliminary analyses on both LCS variants continue to demonstrate that neither LCS variant is survivable in high intensity combat. Although the ships incorporate capabilities to reduce their susceptibility to attack, testing of analogous capabilities in other ship classes demonstrated that such capabilities have limited effectiveness in high intensity combat. As designed, the LCS lacks redundancy and the vertical and longitudinal separation of vital equipment found in other combatants. These features are required to reduce the likelihood that a single hit will result in loss of propulsion, combat capability, and the ability to control damage and restore system operation.
"We need to get closer to that Dane mentality" - Rear Admiral Bryant Fuller, NAVSEA Chief Engineer, March 2015 ASNE Day.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: November 29th, 2004, 7:40 am

February 8th, 2018, 1:07 am #2005

From Jane's :

COBRA beach zone mine detection system achieves IOC
Richard Scott - Jane's International Defence Review
13 October 2017

The AN/DVS-1 Coastal Battlefield Reconnaissance and Analysis (COBRA) airborne mine detection system has achieved Initial Operational Capability (IOC), the US Navy (USN) has confirmed.

Developed by Arête Associates, COBRA is based on a multispectral electro-optical payload – carried on the MQ-8 Fire Scout unmanned aircraft system – designed to detect and localise minefields and obstacles in the beach zone in daytime conditions. 

Previously, such reconnaissance was only possible by putting sailors or marines onto the beach in advance of a landing, exposing them to potential casualties and revealing the intended landing zone

The COBRA Block I system is comprised of two airborne payloads, a post mission analysis station and the Tactical Control System (TCS) segment for the MQ-8B Fire Scout mission control system (MCS).

(147 of 419 words)
"We need to get closer to that Dane mentality" - Rear Admiral Bryant Fuller, NAVSEA Chief Engineer, March 2015 ASNE Day.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: November 29th, 2004, 7:40 am

February 13th, 2018, 5:57 pm #2006

From Jane's :

Mine the gap: USN weighs options for countermine operations
Michael Fabey, Washington, DC - Jane's Navy International
13 February 2018

As the US Navy prepares to retire its Avenger-class mine-countermeasures ships the service finds itself in a countermine limbo while it resolves issues with future systems, writes Michael Fabey

With three of its 14 Avenger-class mine-countermeasures (MCM) vessels having been retired since 2013 and the rest fast approaching the end of their service lives, the US Navy (USN) is under the gun to develop a replacement force.

While the USN has settled on Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) MCM mission packages to take over the countermine operations carried out by the fibreglass-sheathed, wooden-hulled Avengers, delays in the LCS programme – and particularly with the MCM modules – mean the USN has had to stretch out the service lives of its old minesweepers, revamp its MCM procedures and search for ways to fill potential MCM gaps in the interim.

(137 of 1056 words)
"We need to get closer to that Dane mentality" - Rear Admiral Bryant Fuller, NAVSEA Chief Engineer, March 2015 ASNE Day.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: November 29th, 2004, 7:40 am

February 27th, 2018, 6:06 pm #2007

From Jane's :

Austal rides high in first-half results
Beth Stevenson, London - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
27 February 2018

Australian shipbuilder Austal has recorded an increase in earnings before interest or tax (EBIT) of 62% in the second half of 2017, which it largely attributes to successes on programmes it has to provide vessels to the US Navy.

EBIT was AUD29.2 million (USD22.9 million), which is up on the AUD18.1 million recorded in the same period the year before, while net profit after tax increased by 174% in the same comparative period from AUD9.3 million to AUD25.6 million.

Revenue was recorded as AUD653 million, which was up year-on-year on AUD649.2 million, while the order book across 13 different vessel programmes for Australia, China, the Philippines, and the United States stood at AUD3.4 billion.

(138 of 482 words)
"We need to get closer to that Dane mentality" - Rear Admiral Bryant Fuller, NAVSEA Chief Engineer, March 2015 ASNE Day.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: November 29th, 2004, 7:40 am

March 6th, 2018, 7:32 pm #2008

From Navy Recognition :

Lockheed Martin Receive Contract to Start Work on MMSC for Saudi Arabia
POSTED ON TUESDAY, 06 MARCH 2018 09:32

Lockheed Martin received a $481 million contract for long-lead-time material in support of the construction of four Multi-Mission Surface Combatant (MMSC) ships. The MMSC is a lethal and highly-maneuverable surface combatant capable of littoral and open-ocean operation. This contract involves foreign military sales to the kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). The vessels, based on the Freedom-class LCS, will be built at Fincantieri Marinette Marine shipyard in Wisconsin.


The Royal Saudi Navy MMSC on Lockheed Martin stand at SNA 2018
"We need to get closer to that Dane mentality" - Rear Admiral Bryant Fuller, NAVSEA Chief Engineer, March 2015 ASNE Day.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 18th, 2014, 6:37 pm

March 31st, 2018, 2:33 pm #2009

News
 
March 12 - FY19 Navy budgeting for 33rd LCS ship as a make work program to keep shipyard in being.  Navy acquisition executive Hondo Geurts said it was "make sure we had both those yards in a position where they could compete fairly for the frigate". Presume referring to Austal as LM/Fincantieri Marinette Marine won the $6B Saudi contract for four of the short range new Freedom design to operate in Persian Gulf. 
 
March 28 - Navy announces it will reduce LCS mission package requirement by 20 units to 44 as only buying 32 LCS [not 33?], 24 mine countermeasures mission packages, 10 surface warfare mission packages and 10 ASW mission packages. Striking that priority is mine warfare ships, so future buy of the Anti-ship missiles (Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile?) at $2.2M each is limited to 8 in FY19 budget, and the Navy has as yet has not formally decided to add Hellfires, the ASW buy also limited to 10 units, will require the Burkes to do the heavy lifting on ASW ops, LM awarded contract $33.7M May '17 to upgrade to the AN/SQQ-89A(V)15 on Burkes and yesterday awarded uplift to max. of $700.8M. 
 
The LCS main mission will be mine warfare (55% of mission package buy) and create the unwelcome world record as the most expensive and fastest mine warfare ships commissioned, will replace the 14 MCM Avenger class max. speed of 14 knots with the LCS cost of ~$28B x .55 = $16B and speed of 40+ knots. LOL
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 20th, 2005, 12:53 am

April 1st, 2018, 2:56 am #2010

OldNick wrote: News
 
March 12 - FY19 Navy budgeting for 33rd LCS ship as a make work program to keep shipyard in being.  Navy acquisition executive Hondo Geurts said it was "make sure we had both those yards in a position where they could compete fairly for the frigate". Presume referring to Austal as LM/Fincantieri Marinette Marine won the $6B Saudi contract for four of the short range new Freedom design to operate in Persian Gulf. 
 
March 28 - Navy announces it will reduce LCS mission package requirement by 20 units to 44 as only buying 32 LCS [not 33?], 24 mine countermeasures mission packages, 10 surface warfare mission packages and 10 ASW mission packages. Striking that priority is mine warfare ships, so future buy of the Anti-ship missiles (Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile?) at $2.2M each is limited to 8 in FY19 budget, and the Navy has as yet has not formally decided to add Hellfires, the ASW buy also limited to 10 units, will require the Burkes to do the heavy lifting on ASW ops, LM awarded contract $33.7M May '17 to upgrade to the AN/SQQ-89A(V)15 on Burkes and yesterday awarded uplift to max. of $700.8M. 
 
The LCS main mission will be mine warfare (55% of mission package buy) and create the unwelcome world record as the most expensive and fastest mine warfare ships commissioned, will replace the 14 MCM Avenger class max. speed of 14 knots with the LCS cost of ~$28B x .55 = $16B and speed of 40+ knots. LOL
I think that we can expect the "frigates" to replace the LSC-ASW and LCS-SW because those are the missions light frigates are design to do. As for the cost of the LCS-MCM, I have always expected that one day the USN would adopt a low cost, all diesel version of the LCS with a flight deck able to support true H-53 operation, not just touch and go landings.
Quote
Like
Share