Navy Plans to Arm LCS With Long-Range Surface Missile

RIMPAC 2014Navy developers plan to arm the service’s Littoral Combat Ship with a long-range surface-to-surface missile by 2020 to defend against fast attack craft, ships and patrol boats, service officials said.

The long-range missile plan is intended as a follow-on effort to the Navy’s near-term move to arm the LCS with a shorter-range Hellfire Longbow missile, said Navy Capt. Casey Moton, LCS mission modules program manager.

“Hellfire will meet the short-range missile requirements. We have a requirement to go to a longer range missile,” Moton said.  “We have a surface warfare package increment, Increment 4, which requires a longer-range, over-the-horizon type missile capability. Right now our plan is to have that be a competitive procurement.”

The Hellfire, which has already been tested and integrated onto the LCS platform, is slated to be operational on ships by 2017. The Hellfire, which features an all-weather millimeter wave seeker, already exists in the Army stock as it is widely used by helicopters and drones.

“We are essentially taking that missile (Hellfire) and its fire control system and modifying it to do a vertical launch from the ship and go against maritime targets,” Moton said.

The new long-range LCS missile, which will be acquired through a planned future competition among vendors, will be both offensive and defensive, he added.  The longer-range surface missile would enable the LCS to engage targets without being in close proximity to a threat or potential attacker.

“We have a short range requirement against small, fast targets – which Hellfire will meet. There is a second requirement for a long-range surface missile to work against bigger craft for the LCS,” Moton explained.

Analysts and lawmakers have criticized the LCS platform for not being survivable or protected enough to perform its envisioned range of missions and address anticipated threats.

Both the Hellfire and the new long-range missile for 2020 will function as part of the LCS’ Surface Warfare Package, or SUW, a collection of technologies designed to add lethality and transition on and off the LCS platform as needed.

The Surface Warfare Package, which is slated to deploy this year on-board the USS Fort Worth, or LCS 3, includes MH-60 helicopters, two 30mm guns and 11-meter RIBs, or rigid hull inflatable boats, for fast-attack, rescue or maneuver operations.

Future SUW increments will also include the Fire Scout UAS for additional intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance technology.  The Navy has already successfully tested the Fire Scout on-board the LCS and plans to include it on the upcoming deployment of the USS Fort Worth.  The SUW package deployed on board the first LCS, the USS Freedom, which deployed to Singapore and other parts of Asia last year. LCS 2, the USS Independence, participated this past summer in the large Rim of the Pacific, or RIMPAC, exercise with the SUW package on board.

The Navy also conducted SUW testing this past summer on board the forth LCS, the USS Coronado; it was the first time on the tri-moran hull or Independence variant of the LCS wherein integrated fires were performed with the ship’s combat system, Moton explained.

Missile Options

Although the formal competition for the long-range LCS surface missile has yet to get underway, the Navy and some industry partners are already exploring a handful of possible options.

“We’ve already done background work on some of the missile capability. A lot of prep work still needs to be done,” Moton added.

For instance, the Navy recently test-fired a Norwegian long-range precision strike missile from the deck of its Littoral Combat Ship to assess whether the weapon should be permanently integrated onto the ship, service officials said.

A live-fire demonstration of the Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile took place Sept. 23 aboard the USS Coronado, or LCS 4, Navy officials said, resulting in the missile achieving a direct-hit on a mobile ship target.

“We look at foreign weapon systems to see how good they are. We want to see if they can be integrated into our systems and to see if they are competitive. It was a successful firing,” Navy Secretary Ray Mabus told reporters Sept. 30.

The Kongsberg NSM is a long-range precision strike missile currently used on Norwegian Nansen-class frigates and Skjold-Class missile torpedo boats. The missile is also used by the Polish Coastal Missile Division, Navy officials said.

At the same time, Raytheon is testing a new extended range Griffin missile which triples the range of the existing weapon and adds infrared imaging guidance technology, company officials said.

“We start off with a baseline Griffin and add an extended range rocket motor. This more than triples the range of the current Griffin and it has more than twice the range of the Hellfire,” James Smith, the business development lead for Raytheon’s advanced missile systems, told Military.com several weeks ago.

The existing Griffin missile, which can be launched from the air, sea or land, uses GPS and laser guidance technology. The new variant now being tested allows infrared technology to work in tandem with laser designation, Smith explained.

“It is a semi-active laser sensor which we have in the current Griffin. With the new missile, we have both a semi-active laser system and an imaging infrared dual mode. You can use the semi-active laser to point out the target to the missile. The imaging infrared captures the target and then navigates on its own,” he added.

The extended range Griffin also features a data link in order to allow the weapon to receive in-flight target updates, he added. Smith said this technology could prove particularly useful on a platform such as the Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship, or LSC.

Smith explained that the targeting technology could help destroy small fast-moving surface targets such as swarming boats and also help fast-moving ships reach targets as well.

“An LCS moves fast. Before the seeker finds the target you may want to continue to update the target location until the missile then finds the target on its own,” Smith added.

The Griffin does not have millimeter wave technology, like the Hellfire, but is capable of operating in some difficult weather conditions, Smith said. Overall, however, the extended range Griffin is engineered to operate in reasonably clear weather conditions.  The new missiles infrared guidance system is configured with computer algorithms which enable the weapon to distinguish targets from nearby objects, Smith added.

“The imaging infrared is passive and uncooled so there is no cooling involved. Once the laser spot is removed, the imaging infrared seeker takes over on its own. You don’t have to keep the laser on the target you can move the laser onto another target,” he added.

Raytheon plans to continue testing of the weapon for another year and hopes the new missile will be considered for a range of ground applications, surface ships and air platforms including patrol craft and even unmanned aerial systems.

About the Author

Kris Osborn
Kris Osborn is the managing editor of Scout Warrior.
  • Big-Dean

    “The longer-range surface missile would enable the LCS to engage targets without being in close proximity to a threat or potential attacker.”

    WOW! That IS truly transformational, just imagine being able to attack your enemies without visually seeing first, too bad they didn’t have that capability way way way back in WWII. We’re really making progress here (sarc)

    • blight_qwertydd

      The Navy realizes that seeing a target without being able to hit it is ridiculous. Transformational.

      • shipfixr

        I think that kind of passed over your head blight.

        • Big-Dean

          LOL

  • rat

    Its akin to star trek where 300 years in the future we’ve lost the ability to fight bvr. Apparently 70 years after the invention of radar, and long range missiles, we are just now getting ground to a bar capability.

    • blight_qwertydd

      The battle scenes would be interesting if phasers didn’t actually leave trails for the viewer, and all combat was measured in ranges of 100 million meters or more, to reflect the standoff range of light-speed energy weapons not obstructed by diffraction through a medium.

      I am sure the longest range combat I observed in Star Trek was by V’Ger against its opponents in The Motion Picture…

    • t1oracle

      Star Trek’s concept of combat was laughable for far more reasons than that. No one would send human beings before doing remote observations, and sending tons of probes and drones first.

      • Christopher

        That’s one of the problems of TV shows. Advanced in one since and backwards in another. I don’t TV writers could have predicted the use of drones during the 60’s 80’s and 90’s.
        Of course if they fallowed the show bible. It says that missiles would make fighters pointless in space.

        • blight_weroasdfl

          Until Voyager and the Delta Flyer, but that is neither here nor there.

  • Edward

    This is putting lipstick on a PIG. No Tomahawk no Harpoon just 30mm cannon and a Hellfire and some sort of fictional AGM missile not in US service. Stop this crap MORE DDG 1000!!!!!!

    • FormerDirtDart

      Yet, far better armed than the MCM and PC ships, and similarly armed to the FFG ships, which they are replacing.

      • shipfixr

        Which haven’t, in fact, been “FFG’s” for over ten years…..

      • xXTomcatXx

        Folks never seem to understand this point. They think all 200 ships in the Navy need Aegis BMD, VLS, and weigh in at no less than 9,000 tons.

      • Big-Dean

        Similarly armed to the FFG? Yep, your exactly right!

        Perry LCS
        75 mm main gun vs 57 mm main gun
        (2) 25mm guns vs (2) 30 mm guns
        Harpoon vs none
        Torpedoes vs none
        SM-1 vs none
        Phalanx vs Plalanx
        Long range
        Surface and air search vs short range commercial radars
        SLQ-32 vs none
        SQS-56, SQR-19 vs none

        proven to take major damage and survive
        USS Cole, USS Roberts vs not survivable

        • xXTomcatXx

          Your outfitting of OHPs and LCS are both wildly incorrect. LCS has torpedoes, superior sonar, SEARAM, and superior Radar (definitely not commercial). Not to mention OHPs haven’t EVER had all of that outfitting at once. Now they’ve got one gun, old radar, and old sonar.

          So an LCS has sunk? News to me.

          • x_txswo

            I served on an FFG. Except for the two 25mm guns and tail sonar, I had most of the armament on the list. Add to it a LAMPS helo.

            While I wasn’t a big fan of the minimum manning concept, I never felt defenseless.

        • http://twitter.com/GreensboroVet @GreensboroVet

          Don’t Forget the USS Stark took to hits from French Exocet sea-skimming missiles.

    • tiger

      We are not making more $3 billion DDG’s as big as cruiser. Sure as hell not in LCS numbers.

    • shipfixr

      Yes, for what we’re spending on the entire LCS fleet we could have as many as THREE DDG 1000’s

      • Ziv

        I am not sure if you are saying that 3 DDG 1000’s would be worth the entire fleet of LCS craft or pointing out that 50 LCS can do a lot of jobs, while buying just 3 DDG’s would leave the vast majority of those tasks undone.
        If they ever up-gun the LCS class to the point where it has a similar armament (or even close) to the Perry class it will probably be a decent ship, even given the reduced damage control options. It has more speed and more flexibility, but if they ever get into a peer battle it will not be pretty.

        • Big-Dean

          speed for the sake of survivability make no sense at all

          you CANNOT outrun a missile nor a torpedo

          • xXTomcatXx

            An LCS can most definitely outrun a torpedo. Not that it needs to though because it’s one of the few ships (besides CVNs) to carry the new anti-torpedo system.

            Show me a ship that can take a direct hit from a missile and NOT burn to the waterline.

          • Big-Dean

            Tomkat, your lack of knowledge is truly amazing

            Do you remember the USS Stark, it took TWO Exocet missiles and survived, and yes it’s a Perry class frigate

            Do you remember the USS Roberts, it hit a mine, and survived, it was Perry class frigate

            Next, do you not know about the Russian wake homing torpedoes that can do 50 knots and it can run at that speed for over 30 miles. You are saying the LCS can outrun it?

            Lastly, The ONLY ships that have the SSTD are the USS Washington and the USS Bush, both are aircraft carriers in case you didn’t know that either.

            The bottom line is that the LCS and ZERO defense against a sub, it’s doesn’t even have a Nixie, so when it get fired upon it’s only hope it to outrun the torpedo but that isn’t going to happen

          • xXTomcatXx

            Here we go again. BD reads the internet therefore knows best. The LWT system on LCS read about it. It’s the same system you mention on CVNs.

            You calling the 35 year old excocets modern, and having them burn to the waterline surviving?!

            LCS 2 got a 5m whole punched in it identical to the DDG in the gulf a few months ago. That survived just fine.

            Let’s test your arithmetic BD. Go grab your abacus. What’s 50 minus 45? That’s a 5 knot closing speed. Assuming best heading for a weapon that has to run circles to pickup a target. Lol.

  • Brian B. Mulholland

    DirtDart, didn’t the FFGs have a 76mm gun and Harpoon as a matter of course? And (ahem) a Standard missile? And if NOT carrying the SUW package, if carrying a MSM package instead, aren’t they both equally vulnerable and a lot more expensive?

    The Norwegian NSM suffers from NIH problems, and the chance of deploying it without massive engineering is close to nil … and not much better with that engineering either.

    • FormerDirtDart

      OHP FFGs haven’t carried Harpoon or Standard missiles in over a decade. Ever since the Mk 13 missile launchers were removed.

      • Ziv

        True, but it sounds like the later versions of the LCS classes are going to upgun to the 76mm Rapide or an equivalent. Which seems like a no-brainer, but will probably entail both ship builders getting paid double for a slightly longer, more robust lead ship of a new class of LCS ships.

        • xXTomcatXx

          It isn’t a no brainer though. There’s major consequences to moving up in size. If your threat has low defenses, is fast, and numerous. You don’t need 76mm. You need something with more ammo, higher firing rate, and faster tracking. Which is why the 57mm was selected. The small boat swarm threat isn’t something the 5 inch guns could handle. Is 76mm worth of ammo enough to counter a swarm of 15? The range is only slightly better.

      • Brian B. Mulholland

        I stand corrected.

    • blight_weroasdfl

      Not sure about the emphasis of the gun in the missile age. Unless the LCS is going to be used up close to support landings ashore, which may be a possibility for the MCM LCS that will be hanging further back doing minesweeps, while the SWP’s would be better optimized for the close-up fight.

      The lack of long range missile is still a problem. An alternative may be the return to a twin arm launcher installed where the NLOS VLS goes, but that leaves unanswered questions such as designing internal storage for missiles and fitting a loading system.

      Taking a page from the Soviet playbook, we might have to store large missiles externally.

  • Nick987654

    The Army and Navy have completely dropped the ball with NLOS missiles.

    I don’t get it that there is no investment in a missile like a long range NLOS hellfire or TOW.

    • FormerDirtDart

      The Army had to walk. It all came down to cost vs target effect.
      NLOS autonomous IR imaging target acquisition wasn’t working.
      So, the choices became to attacks with either GPS guidance, or laser targeting (requiring eyes on target with designator).
      And between Hellfire, Copperhead, Excalibur, Guided MLRS, M1156 Precision Guidance Kits and XM395 Precision Guided Mortar Munition, the Army has a bevy of systems to meet those targeting requirement.

      • Nick987654

        These weapons, except the hellfire cannot kill a moving tank and cannot guarantee a direct hit. The Hellfire can acquire the target on its own with the MMW radar.

        • FormerDirtDart

          And NLOS couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn.
          What is your point?

          • Nick987654

            The point is to replace the LAM and PAM. The LCS can carry a few anti-ship missiles too.

  • Batou

    I’m gobsmacked that anyone can mention Griffin and NSM in the same sentence. Two missiles – two entirely different approaches and goals:
    Griffin: Weight: 20Kg. Warhead: 5.9Kg. Range: 20.1Km.
    NSM: Weight: 410Kg. Warhead: 125Kg. Range (ops): 185+ Km.
    Griffin’s not in the same league so why mention it?

    • xXTomcatXx

      That’s a huge issue here. Two different requirements. The first one was small boats. That was NLOS, then Griffin, and now Hellfire. Now, due to public outcry, a larger threat requirement has arisen. That’s the NSM or similar. The problem is that you can’t load every ship to counter every threat. The LCS was designed to augment a CSG with protection against small boats. Meanwhile, the CGs and DDGs would counter the larger, less numerous threats.

      • FormerDirtDart

        And, no one seems to acknowledge that the entire LCS concept is based on networked targeting. The LCS was always supposed to hand off targets requiring big missiles to other fleet systems.

        • xXTomcatXx

          Exactly! The MH-60 or VTUAV are providing the the threat detection over the horizon. If it needs ESSM than they have a DDG or CG send one over with the helos targeting data. Otherwise, if it’s smaller then you send a Hellfire off the pylons or a missile from the LCS. It’s a pretty solid concept.

  • Christopher

    Plans too or they made them up last week and announced them Today?

  • Beno

    NSM is for big ships. Griffin for close to shore swarm attacks. Although let’s face it it’s a little small for anything over a Rhib. And with laser designation you will have to take 1 target at a time with a very steady hand @ 50kn.
    Sea Brimstone is designed for ripple fire salvos. Full spreads of 12 missiles at a time. And packs more punch. Plus it’s ready right now.
    For groups of fast manoeuvring targets, and originally designed to be fired from platforms including supersonic jets. Its fire and forget and in combat has a 100% hit rate, surprisingly rare in a modern missile.
    Beno

  • rat

    So other than hauling around 2 helicopters and 2 drones, what exactly does this “warship” do? It’s got one cannon, and ….? Bueller? Bueller?

    • xXTomcatXx

      Three guns, missiles, 2 boats, 1 Helo, 1 VTUAV. No other non-amphib in the navy comes close with regard to off board vehicles.

      • Big-Dean

        I pity the poor little LCS when it faces a real warship with a 120mm guns and ASM, the poor little LCS will never see it coming

        but the LCS has it’s MIGHTY Surface Warfare Package, that’ll scare all the bad guys away!

        now, I’m sure you’re going to say in reply “well the LCS will always have friendly air cover and a Arleigh Burke destroyer nearby to protect it…”

        • xXTomcatXx

          Then why waste your time posting an illogical comment? How do those OHP protect themselves from enemy aircraft? A single WWII Zero could sink an OHP all by itself, right? hahaha

          • Big-Dean

            WWII Zero, well, those were all gone over 50 years ago

            I guess we all know who has a screw loose here don’t we?

  • d. kellogg

    I didn’t buy the argument that neither LCS can fit the 76mm OTO/BAE gun, because ships as small as the Pegasus (USN) and Sparviero (Italy) missile hydrofoils mounted them: the Sparvieros weren’t even 70 tons displacement.

    As to a BVR surface strike weapon for LCS: first and foremost the USN needs to grow the fortitude to decide what specific target set this missile needs to engage at what range and with what warhead and speed is required to do it.
    If it’s FACs/IPVs offshore and AFVs near-shore, a LAR-160 sized weapon coupled with a multi-mode seeker (like SDB and a few other modern PGMs use) would suffice.

    Said it before and will iterate it time and again: POLAR is STILL what the USN needs to pursue: an MLRS-based strike weapon that quad packs into Mk41 VLS cells or some newer, smallform VLS sized for such a munition singly that could also accomodate SLAMRAAM/NASAMs and Stunner.
    The Zumwalt/AGS combo killed POLAR, but I’d wager LockMart (MLRS is a program they’ve done right, but perhaps only because Vought invented it first) would be more than willing to re-introduce it in modern form (multimode seeker) if the USN was serious about having such capability in the first place.

    • xXTomcatXx

      The choice of going with the 57mm over the 76mm was indirectly about weight. It was more about round capacity.The threat was/is swarms of small boats. A 76mm would run out of ammo far quicker than a 57mm and only receive a marginal increase in range. People can argue that 76mm would do more damage, but a 57mm will require the same rounds (cheaper) to get a mission kill on FAC/FIAC.

      • Big-Dean

        so when those “swarms” are fast attack boats with ASM and 76 guns, what will the poor little LCS do run away?

        It’s a good thing then that the LCS is so fast-it can run from anything.

        • xXTomcatXx

          http://www.eaglespeak.us/2010/04/iran-military-se

          Do you see 76’s on those? Do you want to spend $350k a missile for each one? Don’t be thick.

          • Big-Dean

            This is the swarm you need to be thinking about tinkat, not a bunch of pleasure craft

            The Chinese have
            Type 22 missile boats- they have 83 of them
            Type 37 missile boat- that have close to 40 of these
            Iran has 23 missile boats
            N Korea has 43 missile boats
            and don’t forget about the Russians

            any of these would have the LCS for lunch without breaking a sweat

            bottom line, you are building a 4000 ton LCS to take on a bunch of pleasure craft, what’s your LCS going to do when it faces a real warship?

            Here’s my last “get a clue” tinkat message, the Chinese, Russians, and N Koreans have REAL warships, they don’t do pleasure craft swarms like the Iranian’s do

          • xXTomcatXx

            The PLAN operate smaller craft than the 22 and 37. Plus, a hull that size will require a VLS sized weapon. Which dictates anymore ther 9,000 ton ship. The Navy does need/want anymore of those. As for the Iranians. They operate way more boghammers and FAC than 23. They’ve mass produced the bladerunner for this very purpose.

          • Big-Dean

            so you’re not concerned about any of these real warships tincat?

            of course with the mighty 30mm anti-surface warfare mission package, you’re not going to have any trouble destroying those bad guys

          • blight_qwertydd

            We’ve done ourselves a disservice by forgetting that there are two size classes of small boat to worry about.

            One is Boghammar sized, and the other is larger boats that launch anti-ship missiles, like the Komar (>60 tons) and Osa (170+ ton).

            My guess is that LCS is meant to deal with the Boghammars. The use of CIWS and RAM mean it should be able to neutralize the missiles for the larger missile boats, and if successful can then neutralize the larger targets with ease. If the missiles get through, then David has killed a larger Goliath (but not the largest ones, the bluewater fleet of the Navy)

    • Curtis Conway

      Most small frigates overseas of similar tonnage as the LCS almost all have 5″ guns. Only the US Navy has decided to do way with 5″ guns on frigates all the way back to when FFG-7 was adopted. The South Koreans, Japanese and Taiwanese know better. They have have to live there.

  • Joe

    USS Boondoggle. Not the first in the arsenal though… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Vesuvius_(1888)

  • OkieRim

    The Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile didnt use the ships CIC systems to track or fire, they used their own laptop disconnected from the ship’s combat systems, so all the guidance & tracking was done off the ship. All they did was fire a missile off a portable launcher on the deck, they could do the same from a 50 year old Mississippi barge.

    • Big-Dean

      don’t tell tomkat that, you might ruin his reality

  • usmc0846

    The entire process designing and fitting out these LCS’s seems to be a classic case of putting the cart before the horse. They (The smart guys) came up with a fast but lightly armed vessel with a questionable mission goal in todays world. Now they are scrambling to come up with weapon packages that will hopefully keep the ships afloat on missions that are still not clear.

    • xXTomcatXx

      First of all you clearly have no knowledge of how this program came to be. The people that designed the ship have NOTHING to do with the people that designed the mission packages. The ship is modular. So to say it’s lightly armed is akin to saying you don’t like you F-350 because it means your POS boat. If you don’t like your POS boat, what do you do? You get a better one. You don’t buy a new truck. Same goes for the LCS. If it weren’t modular? Well, just look at the OHPs and ask those toothless “warships” how they’re doing.

      • Big-Dean

        the same people that design the boat are not the same people that design it’s weapon system, WOW?

        well maybe they should get together the same room and design a WARSHIP and not a cargo carrier

        imagine designing a battleship without it guns, a Spruance without it’s ASW systems, and Arleigh Burke without Aegis and VLS, a submarine without torpedo tube?

        but I guess it’s a brave new Navy world now, we design empty hulls then we figure out what to do with them afterwards-it’s much better that way me think

        • xXTomcatXx

          What you claim to try and imagine is the reality. The folks that designed Aegis are NOT the folks that designed the burkes and CGs. Same goes for VLS (the very foundation of the modularity concept). The guns on ANY surface combatant are designed LONG before they know where they’re going.

          There you go forgetting to use logic again.

  • RRBunn

    The Navy needs a ship that is small, cost effective and can operate the way frigates use to operate. the FFG-7 was a dog, slow, lack of redundant systems and the Standard missile system could not keep up with the modifications to the SM series. LCS needs AAW that is credible, ASU that can go toe to toe with a modern DD and an ASW capability against very quiet Diesel Electric boats in shore.

    • xXTomcatXx

      Every other surface combatant in the navy does AAW. You don’t need more AAW ships! You need counter swarm, counter piracy, MCM, and escort ASW capabilities. Every ship has a unique role in the Navy. CGs are mainly AAW, DDGs are mainly SUW and now BMD, and frigates were doing the escort ASW role. The LCS does what it’s replacing. Clear mine fields (Avengers) and ASW escort (FFGs). In addition the small boat swarm is a new threat and it’s countering that too.

    • jffourquet

      What you need is a new frigate, not an LCS that is already overeight.

  • Stan

    Why are they even talking about wasting missiles on speedboats? Cannons out of style? It’s freaking maddening!

    • Big-Dean

      Stan, but don’t you know it’s cost effective to shoot a $300,000 missile to take out a $20,000 speedboat in today’s Navy? (sarc)

  • http://twitter.com/f136man @f136man

    No amount of arms added will take away from the lack of survivability. The seaframe is simply a combat system built on an unsurvivable platform. A good offense may be a great defense, but nothing will ever replace damage control capability on a seaframe built to survive combat damage. THAT is why US Navy Regulations exist in the first place, developed over time (remember HiStory or you are bound to repeat it), and the lessons paid for in blood, which is something that current generations simply do not respect, or intend to ignore for whatever gain.

    • Big-Dean

      Now your hurting the LCS Mafia’s feelings, they’re going to give you a thumbsdown

    • xXTomcatXx

      Who said the LCS doesn’t have damage control capabilities. In fact, it probably has more modern DC than DDGs, CGs, and FFGs. Remember they all operate with pretty old tech. If you’re talking about survivability in marine design (ability to take damage), then the LCS is no different than any other modern surface combatant. No modern surface warship can take a direct hit with modern day missile technology. It’s a fact of life. Look what happened to the CG that accidentally got hit by target drone recently. Went right through the pilot house! lol

      • Charles

        The US Navy’s own inspectors disagree with your assessment: they don’t consider LCS to be reasonably survivable even with 10 extra crew aboard. And LCS is different: in that it is built to the lowest possible standard to still be called a navy ship – even the FFG’s were build to the Level-2 standard. LCS is only built to Level 1.

        If LCS is so well built, then there is no reason for shock testing to be continuously put off as it has been: this should be done to demonstrate how good it truly is – if it passes – we build more. If not: prosecution/courts-martials followed by prison for all involved, and all monies expended returned to US taxpayers along with a massive fine to deter recurrences or copycat crimes.

        • xXTomcatXx

          Do you know the difference between level 1 and level 2 survivability standards? There’s only two. The designation is decades old from an era when your ship was expected to take damage from guns. My point holds. No ship is designed to withstand a hit from a modern naval missile. It’s not about crewing. It’s about fire protection and water tight compartments. Modern missile warheads are an order of magnitude more destructive than during the ear when those archaic standards where made.

          Also, you never shock the first few ships of class. They look nothing like the ships in production. You would prove squat.

          The same BS was said about Burkes and Spruances.

          • Charles

            You are making a pointless argument, because regardless of your love for LCS – the US navy’s own inspectors don’t agree with you – and they probably know better.

            And I do know the differences between level-1 and level-2 (these are published). Fortunately, DOT&E are planning to shock-test LCS hulls # 5 and/or 6 from what I last heard, because guns aside, LCS is useless if it can’t survive a near miss of a missile (for example: RAM might actually *work*).

            The Burkes, BTW, survived what you call the BS shock tests. They are built to the level-3 standard.

      • Big-Dean

        “No modern surface warship can take a direct hit with modern day missile technology.” hahahahahahahahahaha

        In Tincat’s world these events didn’t happen

        USS Roberts, hit a mine and survived
        USS Stark took TWO Exocet missiles and survived
        USS Princeton his a mine and survived
        USS Cole had a 40 hole at the waterline blown into it and it survived

        so tell us tinkat, how well will your commercial ship aluminum LCS hold up to the same?

        • xXTomcatXx

          The Stark’s superstructure was Aluminum! Hahahahaha!

          Do you have ANY real world experience with the items you comment on?

          The egg on your face is not flattering BD.

          • Charles

            And the Austal version of LCS is *entirely* made of aluminum. And the Freedom variant is also a steel hull with aluminum superstructure.

            I’m sure you consider these to be a riot, too!

            Hence, you’re not getting any flattery here, and you may now start wiping the egg off your face as well.

        • oblatt22

          Its ironic that the craft designed to fight against small boats such as attacked the cole would have gone down with all hands if it had been attacked the same way.

  • AtlasMugged

    Anyone able to model the two LCS variants in Harpoon or some other simulation and let people test how it performs?

    I suspect it would not be flattering to the LCS.

  • Highguard

    OK, Let’s do the Time Warp again!

    Adv HF and Griffin, would be good vs swarm attacks/tactics. However, for LR-ASuW vs Major theater adversaries with high-end surface combatant threats, NSM does not have the range or the survivability to target. LRASM (or its valid competitor) will be the only near-term solution until CPGS hypersonic ASuW weapon is on-line. NSMs purpose for being, at present, is to give us a near-term ASuW weapon (JSM) to stick inside the JSF and make it useful in an AirSea Battle. That is, unless a competitor comes along that can provide a LCMCM variant of LRASM.

  • Dave

    By 2020? Meanwhile the LCS are just really expensive harbor patrol boats.

    • Charles

      The PC/Cyclone class are better littoral boats, weigh 600tons, much less draft, and for their size, vastly better armed than LCS, and built to take punishment. Just the thing for the swarms of small boats the navy originally wanted to create a solution for.

      They could’ve started with the Cyclones, designed away the problems , expanded them to take mission packages (maybe 1500 tons, 2000 max), and been done with it.

      Instead, they made a ship that’s way too large to be effective in the littorals, ignores all the lessons of fighting in the littorals, and is too small to be really useful in blue water.

      This is why all the other navies originally interested in LCS have since walked away: too much money for too little benefit.

  • x_txswo

    Wow. Lotta LCS Fanboys on here today. I think the whole LCS concept started with the first edition of Wayne P Hughes’ book, Fleet Tactics. The book starts with a fictitious Admiral winning the day with lots of small, fast ships with a lot of SSMs.

    I love that story.

    But I don’t see any of that with the LCS. Instead, I see an under-armed, under-equipped ship that can go fast. Which IS fun, having ridden a PHM once.

    All of the weapons for the LCS are in the future. The various “modules” are expected to be somewhere nearby, where the LCS can quickly swap them out and. . .I don’t know, exactly. Did they leave the fight to go home to get the right module?

    • blight_qwertydd

      It started with Jeune Ecole and the idea of torpedoes annihilating expensive battleships en masse. Quick, throw enough torpedo boats at the battleships and they will all become dust!

      The torpedo faded just in time for the missile to replace it. The missile is much scarier. But the LCS isn’t meant to be a fast-attack combatant with anti-ship missiles. It was meant to defeat the attacks of those ships (CIWS & RAM) and use helicopter-launched missiles, 57mm and 30mm guns to defeat those ships in turn. Due to the unpopularity of bringing a throwing knife to a gunfight it was decided to arm the LCS with Griffin and Hellfire, but it doesn’t give them the legs to hit a FAC from long range.

      • blight_qwertydd

        The LCS has plenty of weapons. But the good ones to remedy its major weaknesses are in the pipeline. The Navy has given up on rapid swap, so the modules you go to war with are the moduules you get (shudder).

        The LCS is never going to be a anti-ship missile boat: it’s way too expensive for such duty. Unless it plays drone mothership to drone vessels that carry Harpoon or LRASM launchers in the near future, its role in anti-ship fights in the future are limited.

        • blight_weroasdfl

          Have to amend this. Apparently for RIMPAC 2014 they switched from MCM to SWP in ~96 hours, which sounds pretty neat. Unsure of the specifics.

          • blight_weroasdfl
          • PolicyWonk

            I am somewhat heartened to see that the Independence-class LCS didn’t perform as poorly as the Freedom class did on its Asian misadventure.

            The Freedom, unfortunately, turned out to be a maintenance nightmare on the Asian deployment, even with the mission package folks (~17 of them) AND the on-board contractors all having to chip in.

    • Mastro

      The high speed is mostly meant for deployment. RAND did a study of how quickly the LCS could deploy to a hotspot- say Singapore to Vietnam.

      The problem is the damn thing can barely protect itself- so its the Fastest with the Leastest.

      • blight_weroasdfl

        Hoping that whatever missile they choose can be fired from the NLOS slot. Either that, or it will have to be re-engineered. Any of the LCS variants may be called upon to fire missiles, with targeting directed by aircraft or another LCS that needs the support.

  • Rob C.

    I wonder if their planning to place NSM on the fantail verse trying shoe horn it into the shallow VLS launcher? I think its good idea, perhaps they’ll be able do that and have enough room for the Helios.

    • blight_qwertydd

      That VLS launcher for NLOS was poorly thought out. I am unsure of what could conceivably go in its place. Could we just go with a twin-arm launcher, and opt instead for a much larger missile, instead of something that must fit in a VLS slot and be capable of vertical launch?

  • Arc

    LCS is a good idea–with some bad implementation. I actually think the 57mm gun is a versatile weapon, the large aviation facilities has great potential and the modular nature fits the future role of a small combatant rather well.

    But there is the downside.

    Not enough native weaponry, a versatile ship would be superbly served by a VLS weapons system. That should be integrated into the next ships of each class to be built and they should be lengthened to make room without sacrificing any more. VLS would offer some basic Anti-surface capability and by quad-packing, could give a decent AAW coverage as well with ESSM. Also, some simple torpedo tubes should be permanently added as they are on most other combatants. Even if they only carried 6 torpedoes, that would do a lot to scare off an enemy sub.

    I still think there is considerable room for improvement on these little ships and don’t want to write them off completely as some minor additions could make for major fixes.

    • Curtis Conway

      Perhaps we can make them more . . . Warlike!!!!!

  • will

    Little Crappy Ship

  • Jim

    Thought I read another article that said Destroyers will use their short range missles first. The article mentions that a massive missle launch from China will over whelm the long range missle supply so they will use the short range missles first. Why is the LCS different? Is this yet another weakness in the LCS?

  • Curtis Conway

    No mention in the Lockheed Martin promotional videos of AAW coverage. Now that the LCS will go from 21 cells to 11 cells of RAM this becomes even more critical. One will only get one shot at a supersonic ASCM . . . then you will wear it. All of the most likely adversaries have huge inventories of ASCMs, TBMs, and Ballistic Missiles of various types some of which can attack out to 1,000 nm.