USS Freedom LCS-1 soon and very soon

[geetrue]

If the US Navy can't figure out how to build diesel boats anymore ... the least we can do is find them and sink them. This is going to be one fine ship when she's finished this fall.

http://www.ussfreedom.org/

http://www.ussfreedom.org/assets/photos/17/medium/LCS_christening-7.jpg

The Freedom is being built in Marinette, Wis., and will arrive in the Milwaukee harbor one week before her commissioning.


About the LCS and USS Freedom

The Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) is a new class of surface combatants. A fast, agile and networked warship, LCS will execute focused missions to defeat shallow-water threats such as mines, diesel-electric submarines and fast surface craft.

The Freedom (LCS-1) was designed by Lockheed Martin and will be homeported in San Diego, Calif., following its commissioning.

General Characteristics:

Displacement:
3,089 tons, full load

Dimensions, feet
(metres):
379.0 × 43.0 × 12.8
(115.5 × 13.1 × 3.9)

Main machinery:
CODAG: 2 Rolls Royce MT-30 gas turbines; 96,550 hp (72 MW); 2 Fairbanks Morse Colt-Pielstick 16PA6B diesels; 17,160 hp (12.8 MW); 4 Rolls Royce Kamewa 153SII waterjets

Speed, knots:
45

Range, n miles:
3,500 at 18 kt

Complement: :
50

Missiles:
Raytheon RAM

Guns:
1 United Defence 57 mm/70 Mk 2; 220 rds/min to 17 km (9 n miles); weight of shell 2.4 kg. 4-12.7 mm MGs

Countermeasures:
2 SKWS/SRBOC decoy launching systems. WBR 2000 ESM

Combat data systems:
COMBATSS-21

Weapons control:
To be announced

Radars: Air/surface search:
EADS TRS-3D; C-band

Navigation:
NAVSSI/GPS/WSN7V

Fire control:
DORNA EOD EO/IR System

Sonars:
None

Helicopters:
2 MH-60 R/S helicopters or 1 MH-60 R/S and 3 Firescout VTUAVs

[seafarer]

Wow, only 50 crew - that's amazing to my mind.

[geetrue]

Not only does she have a small crew of fifty ... the USS Freedom will have two captains with two crews.

Gold and Blue crews like on the boomers and ssgn's.

[Wolfehunter]

Why the two captains geetrue?

Shes a cool looking warship. Very sleek.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Not only does she have a small crew of fifty ... the USS Freedom will have two captains with two crews.

Gold and Blue crews like on the boomers and ssgn's. They should do that on the newer Virginia's and 688I's too, IMO. Would really get the most out of the boats that way. And wouldn't have to strain the crews so much constantly.

PD

[geetrue]

Why the two captains geetrue?

Shes a cool looking warship. Very sleek.

One captain for each crew ... keeps them sharper and fresher.

[SUBMAN1]

Why the two captains geetrue?

Shes a cool looking warship. Very sleek.They aren't both on the boat at the same time - which is what you're thinking. It's so when returning to port, you switch crews to a fresh crew while the other rests. Allows you to do more with less hardware - seems to be a common form of thinking these days in the military and in business.

-S

[Wolfehunter]

Ah thanks. I didn't know that.

[Lurchi]

Mmmh strange ship - it is completely underarmed for its size!

I don't understand why the Navy just built some more of Israel's Saar5 class corvettes for themselves.
Those ships have a lot more firepower are are considerably smaller => http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%27ar_5-class_corvette

[Raptor1]

I've actually seen a Sa'ar 5 up close, but armament isn't everything, the LCS's are considerably faster, also they have more range (Don't forget that while the purpose is relatively similar, the Sa'ar 5 Corvettes are really made for protecting the Israeli coast in the Med while the LCS's are made for the much larger US coasts)

Oh, BTW, USS Independence (LCS-2) isn't so far from completion either

[seafarer]

I did not realize either that LCS-2 (USS Independence) will be very different! So will the final LCS fleet be a mix of the two designs, or will they choose the rest based on some evaluation of these two ships?

[PeriscopeDepth]

I did not realize either that LCS-2 (USS Independence) will be very different! So will the final LCS fleet be a mix of the two designs, or will they choose the rest based on some evaluation of these two ships? It's up in the air, IIRC. They have canceled all LCS's post LCS-2 pending rebidding. The cost overruns got out of hand and they pulled the plug.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/25/us/25ship.html?_r=1&ref=washington/&oref=slogin

PD

[Tchocky]

I like the ships, but who would want to serve on something called "Freedom"?

Captain Bligh to CIC...

nevermind the wonderful headlines if she sinks..

[SUBMAN1]

Mmmh strange ship - it is completely underarmed for its size!

I don't understand why the Navy just built some more of Israel's Saar5 class corvettes for themselves.
Those ships have a lot more firepower are are considerably smaller => http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%27ar_5-class_corvetteI think you are thinking that what is listed above is everything. If I am not mistaken, the LCS's were designed to be modular and could accomidate what was needed for the mission. No other ship can do this.

Some additional details here - http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/lcs-mods.htm

So you are seeing the base platform - weapons and sensors can be added as needed.

-S

[Raptor1]

I like the ships, but who would want to serve on something called "Freedom"?

Captain Bligh to CIC...

nevermind the wonderful headlines if she sinks..
This reminds me of the WWII Deutschland which was renamed because if a ship called Deutschland would sink, it wouldn't be too good for morale...

[PeriscopeDepth]

I like the ships, but who would want to serve on something called "Freedom"?

Captain Bligh to CIC...

nevermind the wonderful headlines if she sinks..
This reminds me of the WWII Deutschland which was renamed because if a ship called Deutschland would sink, it wouldn't be too good for morale...
And that reminds me of:
The United States Fleet was an organization in the United States Navy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy) from 1922 until after World War II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II). Initially the abbreviation CINCUS, pronounced as "sink us", was used for Commander-in-Chief, United States Fleet, officially replaced by COMINCH in December 1941.

:lol:

PD

[Oberon]

No onboard Sonar? :o That's an interesting development. Makes sense though but you'd have thought she'd have some form of active sonar, unless it's a Greenpeace related issue. Good to see that she's making full use of Fire Scouts too. She should be quite the ship in littoral deployments. Good luck to her :up:

[fatty]

No onboard Sonar? :o That's an interesting development. Makes sense though but you'd have thought she'd have some form of active sonar, unless it's a Greenpeace related issue. Good to see that she's making full use of Fire Scouts too. She should be quite the ship in littoral deployments. Good luck to her :up:

Sonar may not have a place in the 'core' capabilities of the ship to cut down on costs and crew requirements, but as mentioned above, both LCS classes are built on the premise of modularity, a concept probably best pioneered by the Danes. So you can be sure that an anti-submarine warfare mission module, air-transportable in a neatly packed TEU, would enable an LCS to embark some kind of more specialized underwater sensor systems. Here is a pretty simple diagram that sums up the modularity concept:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/images/lcs-designconcept.jpg

A littoral fighting ship is a sensible role for the world's navies to fill but I think both of these ships - Freedom and Independence - are unfortunately overengineered and overpriced solutions. The logistics runaround that the USN will need to contend with when shuttling around the TEUs containing the mission modules also does not sit well with me.

[Oberon]

I'm impressed, it's a good idea. I look forward seeing how it works out once they've got the initial logistical and design bugs ironed out.

[SUBMAN1]

No onboard Sonar? :o That's an interesting development. Makes sense though but you'd have thought she'd have some form of active sonar, unless it's a Greenpeace related issue. Good to see that she's making full use of Fire Scouts too. She should be quite the ship in littoral deployments. Good luck to her :up:That's a module. See my link above.

Here is the Anti Submarine option:

Anti-Submarine Warfare

In all mission configurations the LCS shall have core systems that provide the capability to detect threat torpedoes at sufficient range to permit initiation ofeffective countermeasure and/or maneuver action to defeat the threat. When equipped with the appropriate ASW Mission Package, the LCS will conduct multi-sensor ASW detection, classification, localization, tracking and engagement ofsubmarines throughout the water column in the littoral operating environment. The LCS will have the capability to embark ASW/multi-mission helicopters and unmanned vehicles, and will utilize Undersea Surveillance Systems, environmental models and databases. The Mission Package will enable LCS to:

Conduct offensive ASW operations. The LCS must achieve a mission abort or sink a threat submarine, if the submarine target of interest is transiting through a designated key choke point or operating (e.g., patrolling) in a designated search/surveillance area.
Conduct defensiveASW operations. The LCS must defeat threat submarine attacks against units operating in company with CSGs, ESGs, or LCS squadrons. The LCS must achieve a mission abort or sink a threat submarine that poses a threat to any friendly units.
Conduct coordinated ASW, contribute to the Common Undersea Picture, maintain and share situational awareness and tactical control in a coordinated ASW environment.
Maintain the surface picture while conducting ASW in a high-density shipping environment.
Detect, classify, localize, track and attack diesel submarines operating on batteries in a shallow water environment to include submarines resting on the sea floor.
Perform acoustic range prediction and ASW search planning.
Conduct integrated undersea surveillance employing on-board and off-board systems.
Achieve a mission kill ofASW threats through engagement with hard kill weapons from on-board and off-board systems.
Employ signature management and soft kill systems to counter and disrupt the threat's detect-to-engage sequence in the littoral environment.
Deploy, control, recover, and conduct day and night operations with towed and offboard systems, and process data from off-board systems.
Employ, reconfigure, and support MH-60R in ASW operations.
Conduct ASW Battle Damage Assessment after engagements against undersea threats. Lockheed Martin Sea TALON (Tactical Littoral Ocean Network) system successfully completed several significant testing milestones in mid-2006 in its development as an Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) mission module for the US Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). Sea TALON is a unique undersea surveillance system that uses a Remote Towed Active Source (RTAS), a multi-band transducer networked with a Remote Towed Array (RTA), to provide search, detection and localization of quiet submarines in the littorals. Each array is towed by an unmanned, semi-autonomous, semi-submersible Remote Multi-Mission Vehicle (RMV), an ASW-variant of Lockheed Martin’s AN/WLD-1 Remote Minehunting System. The RMV, launched and controlled remotely from a forward-deployed LCS, will provide the Navy’s first unmanned, organic, real-time ASW capability, significantly enhancing ship and crew safety.


Testing conducted in mid-2006 offshore of Lockheed Martin’s Riviera Beach, FL facility verified two important parameters for the Sea TALON program’s capabilities to serve aboard the LCS. The tests demonstrated that the RTAS and RTA could achieve the necessary depth for the best acoustic performance and that the RMV’s stability was not affected during the towing of the active source and passive receiver at various speeds and depths. Sea TALON successfully leverages several important Navy programs and technologies, including towed array development, use of common software baselines to achieve efficient use of computer programming resources, plus the unmanned vehicle and architecture from RMS.
Further in-water testing was conducted in late 2006 at the Navy’s test facility at Seneca Lake near Syracuse, NY. Final integration and test were conducted in 2007 at Lockheed Martin’s Riviera Beach, FL facility. Its rapid development and maturity enabled delivery to the first LCS ASW Mission Package in 2008.

[SUBMAN1]

One thing that you guys may not know - it will be almost as quiet as a sub.

Here is something very peculiar to this ship - notice - No Prop! No prop makes low noise. It also allows it to operate in extremely shallow water:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/images/raytheon-lcs-side-001.jpg

[geetrue]

No big sonar dome hung on the bow will allow the 45 kts and above top speed.

Sonar wipes out at those speeds anyway ... those little helio's can track sonar bouy's anyway.

[peterloo]

There's no countermeasure for any wave homing torpedo once they home on your wave. The torpedo will keep on making zee-zags around the position of the wave while getting closer to you (a S shaped loop) and it goes BOOM when it gets sufficiently close

BTW, I don't think a LST should be used to detect and sink subs. This job is best left to corvettes or hunter killers

[baggygreen]

There's no countermeasure for any wave homing torpedo once they home on your wave. The torpedo will keep on making zee-zags around the position of the wave while getting closer to you (a S shaped loop) and it goes BOOM when it gets sufficiently close


People keep saying that..... but i dont believe it for one second.

when peolpe used active sonar to track (asdic anyone?) we got around that by developing a decoy that reflected sound waves, representing the target, and hooray, a countermeasure was developed which was effective when employed properly.

When people used passive sonar in homing torps etc, we developed nixie decoys etc, again a decoy to represent the target.

take it away from the ocean, apply it to anything military - when the enemy develops something new to attack you with, you come up with something newer to defend yourself with. So why everyone keeps saying these wake-homing torps are unavoidable i'll never know

[McBeck]

So this baby will be able to track down the Swedish submarine?
(The USN have been very unsuccessful in doing that some tests last year)

[XabbaRus]

Subman where did you get that pic from. Would be good to have some dimensions on it.

[Oberon]

Incredible design, I am very impressed indeed. The cushion design, is that in case of groundings?

[fatty]

Check the link, it's from globalsecurity.org, although it's a diagram of the now defunct Raytheon offering.

[peterloo]

There's no countermeasure for any wave homing torpedo once they home on your wave. The torpedo will keep on making zee-zags around the position of the wave while getting closer to you (a S shaped loop) and it goes BOOM when it gets sufficiently close

People keep saying that..... but i dont believe it for one second.

when peolpe used active sonar to track (asdic anyone?) we got around that by developing a decoy that reflected sound waves, representing the target, and hooray, a countermeasure was developed which was effective when employed properly.

When people used passive sonar in homing torps etc, we developed nixie decoys etc, again a decoy to represent the target.

take it away from the ocean, apply it to anything military - when the enemy develops something new to attack you with, you come up with something newer to defend yourself with. So why everyone keeps saying these wake-homing torps are unavoidable i'll never know

ya I know it sounds stupid that this wave homing stuff don't have any countermeasures, but I don't think there is any decoy which is proven capable in misleading them

The only way that I know to reduce the risk is to change the propeller design? (the one that is proposed to fit in the next UK carrier). Not sure whether there are any other which I have overlooked

[Raptor1]

Fooling the wake-homers shouldn't be a problem:

Active Sonar - Spoof the Bounce Contact
Passive Sonar - Spoof the Sound Source
Wake-Homer - Spoof the Wake, I'm surprised such a thing doesn't exist yet

Also, You can always mount something like the old Torpedo-Nets on your stern that will detonate the Torpedo before it gets close, after all, it HAS to come from the stern...

[SUBMAN1]

Some more pics:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/images/lcs-1-060923-O-0000X-002.jpg

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/images/lcs-1-060923-O-0000X-001.jpg


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/images/lcs-lm-image30.jpg

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/images/lcs-lm-image31.jpg

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/images/lcs_lm_seaframe_msncap_05.jpg

[rifleman13]

Some piece of technology you got there!:yep:

[Raptor1]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/images/lcs-1-060923-O-0000X-001.jpg



Is dropping the ship into the water like that safe, or are you risking your multi-million dollar ship for a really cool picture?

[rifleman13]

Not an expert on shipbuilding but I think that's the way they traditionally launch ships since there was shipbuilding.;)

[SUBMAN1]

Is dropping the ship into the water like that safe, or are you risking your multi-million dollar ship for a really cool picture?Man, if it can't take that, it will sink in a storm guaranteed. Thats the first shock test and a minor one compared to some storms you get on the high seas!

-S

[Raptor1]

Not an expert on shipbuilding but I think that's the way they traditionally launch ships since there was shipbuilding.;)
Nah, last I heard they put them in drydock, fill the place SLOWLY with water and then let tow her into the water, nice and safe

I guess it's safe, just didn't seem logical they would throw a 3,000 ton ship into the water like that

[SUBMAN1]

Not an expert on shipbuilding but I think that's the way they traditionally launch ships since there was shipbuilding.;)The old ones used to slide backwards down a ramp. I think this is a modern way.

-S

[Raptor1]

Oh, wait, is that how they do small ships that aren't big enough to waste a drydock on?

[SUBMAN1]

Oh, wait, is that how they do small ships that aren't big enough to waste a drydock on?For repairs, it will be drydocked in the future, but every new major boat has a christening ceremony like this where they drop it in the water. They do it to subs too!

-S

[Raptor1]

Oh, wait, is that how they do small ships that aren't big enough to waste a drydock on?For repairs, it will be drydocked in the future, but every new major boat has a christening ceremony like this where they drop it in the water. They do it to subs too!

-S

Ehh, weird, I always thought ships were built in drydocks and then shipped out of those

[SUBMAN1]

Found the video:

http://www.metacafe.com/fplayer/445835/navy_combat_ship_being_launched_very_cool_girl_chr istening_sh.swf

[seafarer]

Some good pics of LCS2 here (http://www.instapinch.com/?p=1085)

:D And Bath Iron Works prefers the more gentle float out to a side launch (although the side launch is much more fun to watch) :lol:

[SUBMAN1]

Some other boats that have come off the dock, or will soon be off the dock.

-S


The Indy:

http://op-for.com/INDY%2520Afloat.jpg


USS New York:
http://gothamist.com/attachments/jen/2008_02_ussny3.jpg

Lewis and Clark:
http://www.msc.navy.mil/inventory/pics/lewisandclark.jpg

[Raptor1]

The Independence...I didn't know Ironclad Rams were coming back into style...

[geetrue]

I just read seafarer's link (here (http://www.instapinch.com/?p=1085))
that the US Navy won't order anymore after these two, due to the shipyards inability to gurantee the price.

How can any shipyard gurantee a price with high gas and food prices?

After the Navy gets hold of these two ships they will change their mind, unless these new ships threaten more of the same old fleet ships they need to guard the aircraft carrier's.

[PeriscopeDepth]

I just read seafarer's link (here (http://www.instapinch.com/?p=1085))
that the US Navy won't order anymore after these two, due to the shipyards inability to gurantee the price.

How can any shipyard gurantee a price with high gas and food prices?

After the Navy gets hold of these two ships they will change their mind, unless these new ships threaten more of the same old fleet ships they need to guard the aircraft carrier's.
The program is pending a rebidding at a fixed price, then three more LCS will be built. The contractor needs to be given incentives to not just lowball the hell out of their offer to get the contract and then claim "Whoopsie!" later at the taxpayer's expense. I am glad the Navy finally wised up instead of bending over backwards to the contractor in this case.

PD

[SUBMAN1]

I just read seafarer's link (here (http://www.instapinch.com/?p=1085))
that the US Navy won't order anymore after these two, due to the shipyards inability to gurantee the price.

How can any shipyard gurantee a price with high gas and food prices?

After the Navy gets hold of these two ships they will change their mind, unless these new ships threaten more of the same old fleet ships they need to guard the aircraft carrier's. The program is pending a rebidding at a fixed price, then three more LCS will be built. The contractor needs to be given incentives to not just lowball the hell out of their offer to get the contract and then claim "Whoopsie!" later at the taxpayer's expense. I am glad the Navy finally wised up instead of bending over backwards to the contractor in this case.

PDMaybe the Air Force should take notice of the wise Navy?

-S

[seafarer]

I gather Congress is concerned that the costs of both ships look like they will come in at double, or more, the advertised price. Before they commit to anything further, they want some details as to just what the cost overruns entailed, since I gather that is not really very clear right now.

First ships of a new class are pretty much expected to cost more then originally thought, but double or more is a bit hard to swallow, especially when the overruns haven't been fully accounted for yet (and especially when you are considering ordering 15-20 of them over the next several years).

[TLAM Strike]

Fooling the wake-homers shouldn't be a problem:

Active Sonar - Spoof the Bounce Contact
Passive Sonar - Spoof the Sound Source
Wake-Homer - Spoof the Wake, I'm surprised such a thing doesn't exist yet

Also, You can always mount something like the old Torpedo-Nets on your stern that will detonate the Torpedo before it gets close, after all, it HAS to come from the stern...

According to my buddy in the Navy they do have some sort of Wake Reduction system already. Infact his destroyer probaly has it... or had it until they backed it in to a dock in Turkey... twice... :o :lol: :roll:

[Raptor1]

Yeah, but how about a wake-creating device, turn hard to one side, shoot it at the other and hope the Torpedo follows your decoy instead of you?

[SUBMAN1]

The undeniable fact here is in any war that involves subs, you are going to lose some ships to subs. Hopefully this LCS can hunt them and force them to either abandon their mission or kill them. Wake homers or not, if a sub wasn't such a power equalizer, no one would buy them.

-S

[geetrue]

It would take a brave submarine captian to hear those little echo ranging helio's pinging over 30 miles away and then order his sub and crew to turn towards the warship they belong to.

Yes siree that would be a dumb move in time of war.

I wonder if those little things can carry a weapon too?

[baggygreen]

I wonder if those little things can carry a weapon too?No doubt, predators etc can carry hellfires, im sure that shipborne UAVs could also carry weapons..

[Bort]

The thing that sets the LCS apart from previous ships is also what makes it a potential white elephant. The warfare modules are the achilles heel of the whole ship, they must be fitted prior to sailing (which may be very complicated and time consuming besides which you may load the wrong module for the scenario and have to return to port), the amount of modules themselves may be limited, impairing flexability, they will require different sailors which aren't normal members of the crew to come aboard to operate the modular systems, they rely primarily upon unproven UUV/UAV technologies for sucess, and they limit the amount of onboard weaponry that the ship can carry, ie. torpedo tubes and surface to surface missiles. Many foriegn countries have stated an interest in purchasing ships of the LCS design, but all have opted to have a traditional weapon/sensor fit, which should raise eyebrows in the US government.:-?

[Lurchi]

I have to agree with what you said, Bort: The modular concept is nothing new and was first used with the MEKO Corvette/Frigate concept developed by a german shipyard - the newest ships are the ANZAC Frigates and the german K130 Corvettes.

Although the modular design has its theoretical advantages, in reality however, none of the MEKO ships has been extensively reequipped with new weapon or sensor modules. No Navy decided to buy (and store!) additional modules yet, as they represent a dead investment in peacetime - navies prefer to spend this money for additional ships.

The LCS is certainly an innovative and interesting design but i don't see it as effective subkiller (like any surface ship). It looks like the perfect ship for hunting pirates and lightly armed vessels in the persian gulf ... which currently makes them the most expensive 'Patrol Boats' right now. The U.S. built Saar5's are more versatile with their mutli-mission weaponry and are probably a lot cheaper.

[PeriscopeDepth]

The LCS is certainly an innovative and interesting design but i don't see it as effective subkiller (like any surface ship). It looks like the perfect ship for hunting pirates and lightly armed vessels in the persian gulf ... which currently makes them the most expensive 'Patrol Boats'.
IMO, LCS is a platform suitable to operate in the littorals not by its capabilities but rather its expendability and scale. Any number of things can get you whacked in the littoral during a hot war, and the USN would prefer it wasn't a ~$1 billion Aegis DDG.

It does make a much more appropriate peace time patrol boat for these areas, though, no mistaking that.

PD

[Takao]

Well, at the numbers I have been seeing, I hardly think $630-$677 million qualifies as expendable. The Congressional budget Office has placed the cost per ship, upon series production of 55 ships, at $450 million. The $450 million does not include the cost for "mission modules", just the ship "as is." Who knows how much the cost of the "mission modules" will be, $80 million per module according to some sources. Now, that would give the LCS a cost of $530 million. But, where is the flexibility in that? There isn't any, to have some flexibility, you would need two or three modules. Now, you are talking $610-$690 million per ship. At $690 million per copy, why not just build another DDG-51. Delving further into the LCS lunacy. One of the ships the LCS is intended to replace is the MCM-1 Avenger class minesweepers. If my math is correct, an MCM-1 would cost roughly $200 million dollars to produce
today versus a LCS with 1 module at $530 million. That is two MCM-1s for an LCS and you still have $130 million in the bank!

Going further, the USN is using the assumption that the LCS will be operating under the protection of the yet-to-be-built DDG-1000 and CG-X class ships. Given the spiraling cost of the LCS, the base cost of a DDG-1000 or CG-X will make them prohibitively expensive and limit the number, if any, that are built. Thus, the Navy will be faced with a choice of increasing the size, capability, and cost of the LCS or operating the very vulnerable LCS in a much more hostile environment.

In conclusion, this cost of this limited value, minor combat vessel of is approaching the cost of other nations' larger combat vessels without any increase in the LCS's fighting ability or capability.

[AntEater]

Building as ship as a "cheap alternative" and ending up with a hugely expensive project is certainly not very smart. Especially since they apparently couldn't decide on one design anyway.
I hope the modules (are any of them ready yet??) fit both versions!
Actually those texts contain a lot of blah blah but not really much info on what can be fitted to these ships. Another problem is that these designs are basically high-speed ferries adapted for military use. I know much of the cost overruns are from adapting that civilian design, but I suppose a ferry was not build with watertight integrity in mind and there's only so much you can do after you design it.
Also, giving the contract to one contender who is actually not a shipyard is calculated risk taking, giving both contracts to companies with zero warship building experience is stupid.
Re international competition, the german K 130 is much slower and most of its innovative systems were cancelled before the ship was ever launched (UAV helicopters, fibreoptically guided missiles). The follow up K 131 class might turn into something useful, but the 130s are basically large but very slow (26 knots) high seas missile boats. The complementing larger "white elephant" will be the F 125 frigate which is something in between a small landing ship and an oversized gunboat without any ASW and marginal AAW capability. Yet even the 8000 ton F 125 is still (a bit) cheaper than the LCS.
The Israeli ships are the same as all israeli ships: Overloaded. The Saar 5s never sail with their full weapons load and in any other sea than the eastern med, these ships would be misplaced. Not everything with "Israeli" on it means quality. Israel has a great army and the best air force in the world, but its navy is the stepchild of the military.
Even though the missile strike on the Hanith was not due to a design flaw, but due to the usual arrogance paired with incompetence that doomed the whole Israeli Lebanon campaign of 2006.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Building as ship as a "cheap alternative" and ending up with a hugely expensive project is certainly not very smart. Especially since they apparently couldn't decide on one design anyway.
What IS up with that? In the new fixed bid arrangement, winner of the bid builds two, loser one. It sounds like the Navy really doesn't trust either of the bidders, no surprise there I guess.

PD

[geetrue]

There won't be a history channel to tell us what we did wrong after the next war ... just go ahead and get rid of a couple of carrier air strike groups especially in the western Pacific.

Protect the homeland ... :yep:

[Bort]

IMO, the US Navy would have been way better of just deciding to build a new fast frigate class, with better capability in shallow water and some new tech, to replace the OHP's. Instead they had to go and reinvent the wheel with all this "transformational" and "modular" garbage, and in the end we will end up with a HUGE bill, and probably around 10 deeply flawed vessels before the program is cancelled. :nope:

[SUBMAN1]

Look at the cost of a Tico!!! This ship makes sense for this day in age - to do more with less. And, unlike the German Navy, you can guarantee America will buy the modules. The Germans rely on the Americans anyway for support in wartime so they see it of little value to buy them.

This ship makes sense for this day in age. It is a stealth design as well - radar sig is minimal. Sound sig is minimal. Even IR sig is reduced.

$600 mil is cheap to a single Tico. A Tico takes $50 mil per year approx to simply operate too ($28 mil in 1996 $)

-S

[Takao]

Yeah, it does make sense in this day and age. It is like a Hollywood movie, big budget, neat-o special effects, but little intrinsic value.

As for the doing more with less. Yep! that is why USN studies found the proposed crew of 40 to be very overworked. Testing of the proposed 70 hr work week exceeded core crew endurances by 594 hrs. and 42 percent of the crew exceeded acceptable fatigue levels. You can't win if your too fatigued to even fight.

The LCS is: Over priced. Under equipped, under armed, and under staffed.

It can be a gold-plated minesweeper.
It can be a gold-plated battle taxi for special forces.
It will be gold-plated but of dubious use in surface combat.
It can be a gold-plated ASW unit.
It can be a gold-plated ELINT unit.
It can be a gold-plated Maritime Intercept unit.
It can be a gold-plated Homeland Defense unit.
It can be a gold-plated Anti-Terrorist/Force Protection unit

As for stealth, it will be at SEA! What's it going to be mistaken for a low flying seagull with a high powered radar emitter.

As for the Aegis cruisers: look what you get for $1 billion as opposed to the $600 million LCS. The Aegis is a major offensive and defensive weapons platform. The LCS is about as inoffensive an offensive weapons platform can be and its defensive capabilities are nowhere near an Aegis.

The LCS is just a modern variant of the battlecruiser. It can out fight what it can't out run. That didn't work then, so why does the USN think it will work now?

[AntEater]

Subman, sadly it seems the US navy is not as rational as in your days.
If it were, the whole LCS program would've either looked different or would simply have been a new generation FFG.
Even in the US, it is not unheard of not to realize the full potential of a weapons system. AFAIK the LAMPS program originally intended to arm the SH-2 Seasprite with Sparrow missiles to extend SAM coverage. The system worked, but was never taken over operationally. And that was in the cold war days with a lot more funds to go around. So it wouldn't suprise me if only the modules urgently needed will be purchased, most likely Special Forces, mine countermeasures and maybe ASW. The others might just be put on back burner and eventually be forgotten.
Also I doubt there will be enough modules to really have an option for each LCS. That would mean 3-4 Modules per ship, but I suppose given the cost it is more realistic to assume one module per LCS, so that we will have a de facto specialized ship with no flexibility at all.

A similar phenomenon is with the StanFlex ships of the danish navy. These might have been the inspiration for the LCS, but these are conventional warships. In theory, you have a large patrol vessel with a 76mm gun and helos that can be turned into a fully fledged FFG in very short time. Problem is, that has never been done in 10 years of service and most modules apparently are not even available.

Re german arms procurement, the opposite is true. The german military tries to become self sufficient or european equipped in pretty much everything. I think the Standard missiles for the F 124 class frigates might have been the last actual weapons bought in the US. US systems today are only bought when a comparable german or european system is not available and the weapon/vehicle is urgently needed. For example Global Hawk and Predator UAVs and .50 cal Barrett sniper rifles.
But even those systems are largely license build in germany.

But regarding the LCS program, the problem is that the US navy has largely privatized its procurement and development. That is, they basically threw away 100+ years of institutionalized knowledge in warship building and combat experience and replaced it with fancy powerpoint presenations.

[TLAM Strike]

A similar phenomenon is with the StanFlex ships of the danish navy. These might have been the inspiration for the LCS, but these are conventional warships. In theory, you have a large patrol vessel with a 76mm gun and helos that can be turned into a fully fledged FFG in very short time. Problem is, that has never been done in 10 years of service and most modules apparently are not even available. Or like the Candian Kingston class OPV which have a mine sweeping module. The Candian Navy only has two or so of these aviable and rearly uses them.