Littoral Combat Ship/frigate Program Woes now Spread to Congress

The future of the Littoral Combat Ship/frigate program is still far from decided with the split between factions spilling into a Tuesday Senate hearing.

It has been clear for months that the Navy and Defense Department do not see eye-to-eye on the issue of how many small surface combatants to buy and from how many shipyards. What began as a whispered-about schism turned public earlier this month, with Navy Secretary Ray Mabus telling a congressional subcommittee that decisions about the program’s future “will be made by the next administration and by Congress,” not by Defense Secretary Ash Carter.

On Tuesday, it became clear that difference of opinion exists in Congress, too.

At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on March 15, chairman Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) – a vocal critic of the LCS program – praised the decision to curtail production of what he called an expensive and unproven platform. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), in whose home state half of the LCSs are built, warned the discussion wasn’t over.

During his opening statement, McCain railed against the program.

“Initial cost-overruns more than doubled the cost of each Littoral Combat Ship, and development costs now exceed $3 billion and counting,” he said.

“Meanwhile, key warfighting capabilities of the LCS, including mine countermeasures and anti-submarine warfare, have fallen years behind schedule and remain unproven. Because of the long running cost, schedule, and performance issues with this program, I support the (Defense) Department’s proposal to down-select to one variant no later than 2019 and reduce the inventory objective to 40 ships. I am encouraged to see the Navy has begun the process of identifying the LCS replacement, and I hope we can transition to a more capable small surface combatant expeditiously.”

link.

The Freedom Class Litoral Combat Ship may be Fundamentally Flawed

After only a month after the USS Milwaukee suffered from a mechanical failure, the USS Fort Worth, deployed in Singapore, has suffered an engine problem as well.  

There has been some speculation the Freedom class is fundamentally flawed; though, the US Navy is saying the problems between the USS Milwaukee and the USS Fort Worth suffered are not related.  I think a lot of people are wondering about that.

I would not want to be Lockheed right now, given that the Navy has been directed to down select to a single LCS class and build the frigate from a single of the two classes.  Additionally, the Independence class received IOC today and Austal received a contract (paywall) to do the work to produce a design for a frigate based on the Independence class.

US Navy Told to cut Littoral Combat Ship buy From 52 to 40, Downselect to one Design in FY2019

The US Navy's fight to buy 52 variants of its littoral combat ship (LCS) from two shipbuilders may have taken a fatal blow this week after the secretary of defense directed the service to cap its buy at 40 ships and pick only one supplier. The directive also orders the Navy to buy only one ship annually over the next four years, down from three per year.

Defense Secretary Ash Carter, in a Dec. 14 memo to Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, told the Navy to "reduce the planned LCS/FF procurement from 52 to 40, creating a 1-1-1-1-2 profile, for eight fewer ships in the FYDP, and then downselect to one variant by FY 2019."

FF is a Navy designation for frigate. Beginning with LCS 33, the Navy is planning to build a more heavily-armed LCS variant with the FF designation — the result of a 2014 directive from then-Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to produce a more powerful ship.

The "1-1-1-1-2" profile would provide for one ship each year in 2017-2020 and two ships in 2021, the end of the current future years defense plan (FYDP).

Carter, in the Dec. 14 memo, directs the Navy to reallocate savings from the LCS/FF cuts to buy more F/A-18 and F-35 aircraft, more SM-6 surface-to-air missiles, and support Virginia Payload Module (VPM) development for future Virginia-class submarines. The VPM is an extra hull section that would be built into Block V submarines and mount four large vertical payload tubes.

The directive to cut the LCS comes in the face of strenuous Navy objections. The service has argued that building a ship takes much longer than ordering a new aircraft or missile.

link.

USS Milwaukee, newest Freedom Class Littoral Combat Ship, had Engine Damage, Will Require Weeks to Repair

The Navy’s newest Littoral Combat Ship – USS Milwaukee (LCS-5) – could be sidelined for weeks to repair an engine casualty that occurred last week during an Atlantic Ocean transit.

Lockheed Martin and the service are currently working through the total scope of the repair package for the gearings that connect the ship’s main engines to its water jets and timelines are far from adamantine.

But according to an initial assessment of the damage obtained by USNI News, and two sources familiar with the extent of the repair requirements, that timeline could push the work well into the new year.

“All concerned agree this will be a lengthy process,” read the early assessment seen by USNI News.

link.

US Navy Wants Littoral Combat Ship-like Modular Upgrade System for Next gen Cruisers

As the U.S. Navy gets down to developing its future cruiser or large surface combatant, the service wants to design and build a ship that can be upgraded to face new threats in a way that does not mean ripping apart most of the ship, as it does with the current fleet.

pay wall link.

US Navy's Small Combat Ship/Frigate Will Retain Some Modularity from LCS

The US Navy's (USN's) future multimission frigate will retain some of the modular features found in the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) but will do so in a manner "more innate and inherent" than the resident capability on board the original class, the officer responsible for acquiring the navy's small surface combatants said on 1 December.

link.

Littoral Combat Ships to Deploy With Harpoon and Kongsberg Strike Missiles

The US Navy’s push to increase the lethality of the littoral combat ship (LCS) is getting a major and somewhat unexpected boost with word that an over-the-horizon (OTH) surface-to-surface missile will be installed on-board the next LCSs to deploy.

Rear Adm. Pete Fanta, director of surface warfare at the Pentagon, issued a directive on Sept. 17 calling for the installation of an unspecified OTH missile aboard the Freedom and the Coronado, the next two LCSs scheduled for deployment. The Freedom is to deploy to the Western Pacific during the first quarter of calendar year 2016, while the Coronado is to follow in the second or third quarter.

“The objective is to install the OTH missile system aboard all in-service LCS deploying to forward operating stations starting in fiscal year 2016,” Fanta wrote in the directive, “as well as on all under-construction LCS prior to their commissioning ceremonies.”

The LCS has been without a surface-to-surface missile since the cancellation in 2010 of the Non-Line-of-Sight (NLOS) missile, a program managed by the US Army that would have provided LCS with a significant weapon. Ever since, the service has been searching for a suitable replacement. A shipboard launch system for the Hellfire missile is being developed for smaller targets, but that weapon is unable to inflict significant damage on larger ships -- a role the OTH is meant to fill.

An OTH weapon is to be included in the LCS frigate variant now under development. The Navy has issued a request for information to industry for the frigate missile, and a request for proposals is expected later this year, but no missile has yet been chosen.

Fanta’s directive does not mention a specific missile, but it’s understood from sources that the missiles for the initial installations will be the Boeing Harpoon and Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile (NSM).

The idea, sources confirmed, is to try out both kinds of missile on both LCS variants, each ship deploying with only one model of missile installed.

The Harpoon is a tried-and-true weapon that has armed most US warships since the late 1970s. It is a normally mounted in launch canisters, usually grouped in a quad pack. Most ships carry two quad packs, for a total of eight weapons – the maximum number of weapons per ship specified in Fanta’s directive. Boeing has been at work to improve the weapon, in particular to give it longer range.

The Norwegian-built NSM, by contrast, is not a US program of record and is not in service with any US platforms, although it is in service with the Norwegian Navy. It is the only naval strike missile to be fired from an LCS, however. In a simple demonstration test, a single missile box launcher was loaded aboard the Coronado and fired on Sept. 23, 2014. The launcher sat on a rudimentary platform exhausting over the ship’s flight deck, and the missile was not integrated into the Coronado’s combat system.

Fanta’s directive, in fact, notes that “full integration with the LCS combat system is not required. A stand-alone console or computer terminal capable of consummating an engagement is sufficient for initial fielding.”

link.

US Navy Solidifying Path Forward to Procuring Large Drone Submarines

The US Navy (USN) is solidifying a path towards acquisition of a large displacement unmanned underwater vehicle (LDUUV), an official said on 21 October.

The first increment of LDUUV will need to have the ability to not only launch and recover from both variants of the USN's Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), but also to deploy from the Virginia-class nuclear-powered attack submarine via the Virginia Payload Module, or a modernised drydeck shelter, said Rear Admiral Robert Girrier, director of the USN's new unmanned warfare systems (N99) division that was established in September.

link.

Saudis buy Four Freedom Class LCS Properly Upgraded to Frigates (inclusive of VLS)

Four Lockheed Martin Freedom-class ship variants are set to form the backbone of the Royal Saudi Navy’s Eastern Fleet as part of a $11.25 billion foreign military sales case presented to Congress on Monday.

[...]

Lockheed as presented several sizes of the Freedom for foreign sales and is yet unclear what the final tonnage of the Saudi variant will be.

The quartet — as described in the DSCA notification — will emphasize traditional anti-air warfare and will be built around two eight-cell Lockheed Martin Mk 41 vertical launch system (VLS) and an Airbus TRS-4D active electronically scanned array (AESA) air search radar.

The list also included 532 Raytheon RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles (ESSM) which can be loaded four to a Mk 41 cell. With 16 cells per hull, the Saudi Freedoms will be able to potentially field 64 anti-air missiles per-ship.

A December Naval Sea Systems Command contract award to Lockheed Martin included about $93 million for Mk 41 systems for Saudi Arabia, giving early hints to the direction of their SNEP II ship buys.

The ships will also field the 1980s era Boeing RGM-84 Harpoon Block II anti-ship missiles (ASM), anti-submarine warfare (ASW) sonar suites and torpedoes as well as an OTO Melara 76 mm main deck gun.

link.

Ok, US Navy, the Saudis just paid for the engineering work to get the LCS' to have VLS.  Put it in the SSC frigate, damnit.

Littoral Combat Ship Derived Frigates Will NOT Retain LCS Speeds

Whereas a high sprint speed was a driving factor in designing the Littoral Combat Ship, the follow-on frigate will instead be optimized for lethality and survivability, the Navy’s frigate program manager said Thursday.

As the LCS program transitions to a multimission frigate, the 40-knot sprint speed requirement will go away to allow for more armor, more weapons, an over-the-horizon missile and full-time anti-torpedo protection, Capt. Dan Brintzinghoffer said at an American Society for Naval Engineers event.

This change, he said, is a recognition of simple physics.

“If we don’t change anything [in the hull design] and add a lot of weight, they’re not going to go as fast as they do today,” he said, noting that a total redesign to maintain the high speed is out of the question.

“It’s acknowledging the reality of physics: it’s heavier, it’s not going to go as fast, and it’s no longer a requirement they have to design to.”

Instead, he said the frigate will be more lethal, more survivable, and will be able to conduct surface warfare and ant-submarine warfare simultaneously, whereas the LCS had to choose only one mission package to work with at any given time.

link.

Railgun, guys.  Just do it on the Independence derived frigate.

Saudi Arabia Buying 2 Lockheed Built Freedom Class LCS Derived Frigates for $1 Billion

Saudi Arabia is in advanced discussions with the U.S. government about buying two frigates based on a coastal warship that Lockheed Martin Corp is building for the U.S. Navy, and could reach agreement by the end of the year, according to sources familiar with the talks.

The frigate sale, valued at well over $1 billion, will be the cornerstone of a long-delayed multi billion dollar modernization of the Royal Saudi Navy’s Gulf-patroling eastern fleet of aging U.S. warships and would include smaller patrol boats. It underscores the strong business and military ties between the two countries, despite tensions over the U.S.-led Iran nuclear deal.

Paperwork for the Saudi deal could be finalized by year's end, the sources told Reuters this week. The larger modernization effort will encompass training, infrastructure and anti-submarine warfare equipment, and could include orders from other countries, the sources said.

link.

Amusingly, McCain et al want the minehunting UUV replaced on the LCS classes.

Stretching my Image Manipulation Skills: USS MC Perry

meh.  Just playing around.  

The USS MC Perry at the top and the USS Independence at the bottom.  The original image is at the bottom, of course.

The railgun up front is what I am least happy with but at least its to proper proportion. Not overly happy with the SPY-1F either.

The ship and class need a new name since there's already a USNS Matthew Perry.

Mini Crazy Thought: the USS Matthew Calbraith Perry, What the LCS Derived FF/G Circa 2020 Ought to be

The US Navy has been buying rather small corvettes which have been called the Littoral Combat Ships. They are fast and intended to be patrol vessels of a sort to deal with the small swarming squadrons of gunboats or fast attack boats and pirates as well as provide for help when there are disasters, etc. They are quite fast at 44+ knots each. However, they are very lightly armed: in terms of armament, a Cold War Coast Guard Cutter (with Harpoons) would be able to take one out.

There are two flavors of them, the Freedom and the Independence classes.

However, there has been a huge hoolah about the fact they are so weakly armed and so expensive (between $450 million to $500 million each, neglecting government furnished equipment).  This prompted a call to cancel the LCS contract and for a replacement which could fight in a full bore battle rather than be glorified coast guard cutter (though admittedly, if they get the Hellfires actually installed, they will be able to kill things out further...a whole 5 miles).  Keep in mind, the ship they are 'replacing' is the Cold War Oliver Hazard Perry class frigate, which no matter how you slice it, they had far more firepower than either of the LCS.

The Navy as a result commissioned the Small Surface Combatant study to see if a full frigate was affordable and what industry could do.  Lockheed and Austal proposed upgraded versions of their LCS classes.  General Dynamics offered an nonpublic bid.  Huntington Ingalls offered an upgraded version of their National Security Cutter.  The Navy settled on modest upgrades to the LCS classes much to the eye rolling of their critics. 

It got me to thinking, what ought we to do, in my opinion?  

A seemingly segue, but its relevant: the US Navy canceled its Zumwalt class destroyers after ordering three.  They were too expensive is the usual commentary, having suffered through the development/procurement death spiral.  There's another consideration too: the Zumwalts were delayed sufficiently that newer technologies were on the cusp of making their armaments obsolete.  Frex, the Advanced Gun System will be outranged  by the railguns being testing at sea next year and the rounds for the railgun will be $25k each or less: far lower than the AGS'. 

While the Navy seriously needs to get its act together for its surface combatants, like getting a new destroyer and cruiser program started and done within budget and on time while dealing with future threats, I wondered what could you incorporate into a frigate.  And where would you want to start?

It does help if it is possible to use as much as the same equipment as before, propulsion, mechanical and hulls, just to save money.  That would imply an existing hull design.  That in turn, based on politics, means something built in the US.  That means one of the LCS or the National Security Cutter.  The cutter isn't in the navy logistical path, so it ought to be cut based on that.  That leaves us with Freedom and Independence.

The Freedom class is a steel hulled ship (a plus) with some room for growth with minimal changes and its faster than the Independence class (47 knots vs 44).  It has 180 tons which it can accept without adding sections and whatnot.  However, significant changes would need to take place for more.  Its internal volume is significantly smaller than the Independence, too.  However, a lot of the upgrades Lockheed proposed for the SSC variant were spot on.  However, some I'm considering here make that internal volume a significant problem. 

The Independence class is aluminum hulled and slower than the Freedom class.  Its also, in terms of volume, enormous.  It also has a very large flight deck.  It also has the capacity to take 210 tons (vs the Freedom 180) as part of its mission packages.

Due to the volume and more mass to work with, the Independence seems like the best starting place.

The 'proposed' Matthew Calbraith Perry class frigate:

for comparison, I left the Independence class under the 'proposed' Matthew Calbraith Perry class.

sorry, couldn't do a good railgun turret, esp in the front, so I left the old one. 

HEY!  Don't mock my meager image manipulation skills!   

The MCP has an enlarge upper superstructure (adding about 300 tons) allowing for the addition of another LM-2500+ (generating 35 MW of power, adding 100 tons) and its fuel stores.  The LM-2500s already installed are replaced with LM-2500+'s.

The aviation hangar is the same volume, but flight deck shrinks by a third: its still larger than the Freedom class' flight deck.  It retains the two SH-60 ASW helicopters, adds a second Fire Scout, and adds two TERNs. 

A hull sonar is added (probably at this point the same as the Burke's AN/SQS-53C, weighing 26 tons) and the towed sonar array is kept.  An Aegis combat system is added with an SPY-1F array, adding another 20ish tons and requiring 3 MW.

The proposed SeaRAM self protection missile system is kept and an additional 32 Mk 57 VLS cells (72 tons) are added.  I'd speculate you'd have a load out of 16 cells of 64 ESSM (or successor), 8 ASROC (or successor) and 8 LRASM.

For close in ASW problems, two sets of Mk 32 Torpedo tubes would be ideal (or a successor, really).  These would weigh a total of 5 tons.

Here's where things get a little radical.

While our little frigate packs the punch of some destroyers now with the configuration above, it doesn't explain why we needed the volume of the Independence class or the power from the LM-25.  By upgrading the current LM-2500s to LM-2500+'s, we get a enough power for the new sensors (sonar and radar) without sacrificing speed.  However, the new weapons require more power than what could be sacrificed even with the upgrade.  What are those?  Yup, lasers and railguns.

Proposed here is to replace the 57mm cannon with a 155mm railgun, like what is to be tested next year on the JHSV.  The range will certainly be longer 60+ km vs 17 km.  The impact damage certainly higher.  The railgun can also be used in an antimissile capacity.  The rounds are very cheap, relatively speaking.  Amusingly, the railgun itself is pretty light weight: around 15 tons, about the same as the 57mm cannon!  However, its pulsed power system is very heavy and takes up several shipping containers in size.  That enormous mission bay of the Independence ought to be able to fit the pulsed power system.  Additionally, the weight ought not to be over 180 tons.  Together with the railgun itself, this is around 200 tons.

The second 'radical weapon' would be a laser.  I don't mean the LAWS system, but rather a weapon's grade laser (100 kw+) which would be used for both small surface targets and anti air and anti missile roles.  Considering we want to have a very low dwell time, we need a megawatt (erm, really megajoule) class laser.  There are two ways to do this.  Either we can wait for the free electron laser (on track, but going slow) or use a solid state laser.  DARPA's HELLADS laser fits the bill and has demonstrated a weapon already at General Atomics.  One which GA is planning on integrating on its Avenger drone (which I took and ran with).  If we aggregated the HELLADS modules, we can get a megajoule/pulse class laser: you need a total of 20 modules.  If one is half a ton, then twenty is 10 tons more.  If you count in optics, beam director, and extra cooling and power, you're looking at somewhere around 30 tons.  And the power requirements!  Oh the power requirements!  Let's just leave it at 'gimme.'  Okok, each pulse minimally will need 1.2 megajoules and if you plan on having more than one pulse per second you need to multiply the number of pulses you want by the 1.2 MJ.  The absolute most you can get is 22 pulses/second. 

(yes the butchered RAM launcher on the top of the MCP doodle is meant to be a beam director.  stop mocking my art!).

Now the question is, 'how fat did our baby get?'

Truthfully, we have added 750 tons of structure, sensors and weapons.  That pushes our ship to being 3800 tons fully loaded...without the extra fuel for the LM-2500+ for the new weapons and sensors!  Fortunately, even if we are carrying an extra 400 tons of fuel, we are will still be able to eek out another 2 knots from the upgraded engines.

Now how expensive is our baby?  We get roughly a cost of $820 million vs $464M for an Independence class.

So.  Why?  Why do it?  Its almost twice as much as an Independence class LCS.

The first answer it gives the US a huge numerical edge with well equipped, well armed combatants: the Burkes cost $1.8B each.  For five Burkes, you can get 11 MC Perrys.  

Second, you have a ship which act as an escort for an aircraft carrier.  One of the amusing bits is the monster sized aircraft carriers can sprint far, far faster than the escorts can.  The escorts, destroyers, etc, can do around 30 more than 30 knots, but the carriers can do well over 40 knots with the nuclear reactors.  In emergencies, carriers have sprinted ahead and rendezvoused with different escorts at its destination or been forced to be unescorted at its destination.  While the MC Perry is not a Burke in terms of capability, it will have some distinct capabilities: lasers and railguns are rather cheap per shot.  And, this is done without needing to resort to nuclear power plants for your escorts.

Finally, even when the Burkes and Ticonderogas or follow-on replacements are present, these new FFGs add a distinct capability as advanced screening ships like the previous Perry Frigates did for the carrier battlegroups. 

Aren't the laser and railgun a little immature?

If the lead ship, called Matthew Calbraith Perry here, is laid down in 2020 as the SSC plan calls for, then commissioning will take place in 2024.  Ten years from now.  The railgun is most likely going to be replacing one of the Advanced Gun Systems on the USS Lyndon B Johnson, the last Zumwalt.  The USS LBJ will be commissioned in 2021, a year after the laying down of our proposed MCP.  The HELLADS program will have been wrapped up and could, like with LRASM, be transitioned into a procurement relatively easily.  

 

Now, do I think this will happen?  

...

Yer funny.

However, back in the mid 90s, a silly for fun project I did on Usenet caught the attention of the Navy before and they asked me to do a little analysis for them.  I did but didn't take what was offered afterwards.  While I doubt I'll be offered anything here, maybe, just maybe, this might tickle someone with influences own ideas and alter course a bit.  

Maybe. 

Afterword:  its becoming obvious in the coming world of hypersonic weapons and antiship ballistic missiles and potential peer naval powers, a lot of our Navy's kit needs replacing.  I am not talking about the ships: that too.  Rather I am talking about the missiles and whatnot.  The Standard Missile is being upgraded, so less worries there.  LRASM is in play, so good start, but progress towards a VLS launched hypersonic missile is needed.  Likewise for a hypersonic Tomahawk replacement.  The ESSM has a range of 10 miles....that's 10 seconds for a Mach 5 missile and 5 for Mach 10: if it misses or fails to take out the hypersonic missile, you're not getting a second shot at that distance.  

For that matter, ASROC definitely is old and ought to updated if not had a replacement made.   etc. 

US Navy Purchases 2 Independence Class, 1 Freedom Class LCS in 2015

The Navy on Tuesday awarded Austal USA $691 million for two Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) and Lockheed Martin $441 million for one LCS and advance procurement funding for a second ship next year.

With its shipbuilding budget under pressure, the Navy last February broke from its four-a-year procurement strategy. Whereas both contractors had been producing two LCSs a year under a 20-ship, dual-yard block buy meant to stretch from Fiscal Years 2010 to 2015, the last LCS in the block buy would be deferred to FY 2016. Two more LCSs outside the block buy would be contracted in FY 2016, bringing the total to six over two years and leaving the Navy to decide how to allot those ships most efficiently.

Navy spokesman Chris Johnson told USNI News that as the Navy worked through how to allocate the three FY 2015 ships, “the Navy and industry have consulted on schedules, performance to date and related matters. Through the negotiations with both industry teams, the Navy determined that the most cost-effective option was to fund Austal USA two FY 2015 ships, and Lockheed Martin one FY 2015 ship plus advance procurement for one FY 2016 ship.”

USNI News understands that the Navy reviewed both Austal’s and Lockheed Martin’s shipyard schedules since 2010 to project how a change in production rate would affect future delivery schedules. The Navy found no appreciable difference between the two yards, meaning the decision came down to cost and not schedule.

Under the contract, Austal’s Mobile, Ala., yard will build the yet-to-be-named LCS-22 and 24, and Lockheed Martin subcontractor Marinette Marine in Marinette, Wisc., will build LCS-21. LCS-23 will be the FY 2016 Lockheed Martin ship, Johnson said.

link.

Saudis Want LCS With Aegis, VLS

The long-sought-after deal to upgrade and replace Saudi Arabia's Eastern Fleet has taken a major step forward, sources said, with the January delivery of a letter of request (LoR) to the US detailing Saudi wishes.

Rear Adm. Jim Shannon, head of the US Navy International Program Office, reportedly obtained the LoR during a visit to Saudi Arabia. The letter marks a major step forward after years of talks and negotiations with the Saudis, who have also strongly considered French proposals to replace their fleet.

The French hold the preponderance of contracts in support of the Saudi's western, or Red Sea, fleet. France and the US are considered the primary contenders for the Eastern Fleet contract, said to be worth as much as $16 billion or higher.

Several sources said the Saudi LoR did not list specific ship designs, but rather gave general guidelines. Among the highlights are:

• Four 3,500-ton frigate-like warships, armed with vertical launch systems (VLS), capable of anti-air warfare and speeds of 35 knots

• 12 1,150-ton corvette-like warships

• 24 or so smaller patrol craft

The deal would include MH-60R helicopters to operate from the frigates, along with support and training.

One condition is the shipbuilder would be the prime contractor.

The US Navy is reportedly working to define details of the LoR, including what air radar the Saudis want to fulfill the anti-air requirement. Sources said that while no specific radar is listed in the LoR, the only system that fits the requirement is the SPY-1F lightweight Aegis system from Lockheed Martin.

SPY-1F is fitted only to Norway's Fridtjof Nansen-class frigates. All other Aegis warships — US cruisers and destroyers, foreign ships including those from Spain, Korea, Japan and Australia — carry the heavier SPY-1D antenna. While there is a high degree of commonality between the two versions, the 1F features smaller antennas and less power, resulting in shorter range.

Lockheed Martin and Austal USA have offered versions of their littoral combat ships fitted with VLS and phased-array radars, including the SPY-1F, both for export and most recently for the US Navy's Small Surface Combatant (SSC) competition conducted in 2014. In the end, the US Navy chose to forego Aegis and VLS on its SSCs, now designated as frigates.

Other than the LCS/SSC/frigate designs, there are no other US projects that would fit the 3,500-ton parameters of the Saudi frigate.

link.

If I were the SecDef, I'd have the Saudis pay for development costs of the LCS with the real firepower of a frigate and then just add the minor improvements, relatively speaking, the US Navy needs.  Use those to replace the LCS with the minor upgrades that currently planned after the first 20 LCS.  Then they actually will be FF or really FFGs and worthy successors to the Oliver Hazard Perry frigates.

US Navy to Operate 4 LCS Singapore by 2018

Four US warships designed to fight in coastal areas similar to Southeast Asian waters will be operating out of Singapore by 2018, up from one currently, a senior US Navy official said Tuesday.

The "rotational deployment" of the vessels, called littoral combat ships (LCS), comes as China continues to flex its muscles in the South China Sea and tensions remain on the Korean Peninsula.

"We will soon see up to four LCS here in Singapore as we rotationally deploy Seventh Fleet ships," said Rear Adm. Charles Williams.

"We envision four ships here by May 2017 to sometime in 2018 ... but I think what you have is that by 2018, four LCS ships will be rotationally deployed here to Singapore."

link.

The Argument the LCS Classes are Really Frigates

The die is cast and the U.S. Navy has made its big bet – the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS)-Next is going to be an uparmed and uparmored version of the current vessels that the service has redesignated as an FF, or fast frigate.

"These are not ‘L' class ships," Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said last month during his keynote address at the Surface Navy Association (SNA) National Symposium. "When I hear ‘L,’ I think amphib. I spend a good bit of my time explaining what ‘littoral’ is." It is a good time, he says, to re-establish Navy tradition for naming ships properly. "It’s a frigate. We’re going to call it one."

Of course calling it one won’t make it one. Many doubt the idea that that the modified LCS will live up to the true definition of a frigate. But perhaps it's about time to give the Navy a chance to prove out its case. The service brass says it has the ships it wants and everyone can argue over the next few years whether the decision is a good one, but the truth is that only time will tell whether the gamble will be worth it. Indeed, with the new Navy focus on “distributive lethality,” where every ship will be armed up as much as possible, it’s difficult and perhaps impossible now to foresee how the new FFs will fare in the future force structure.

Having said that, it’s also time to clear up a few things about LCS performance thus far that factored into the Navy’s LCS-FF decision.

link.

Its an FFL, bit an FF.  (corvette, not a frigate)

Littoral Combat Ships' Survivability Questioned Again

Less than a month after U.S. Navy leaders announced modified versions of both variants of the Littoral Combat Ship would be the Navy’s pick for its for a more lethal and survivable small surface combatant, one of the chief LCS critics said the upgrades would do little to improve the survivability of the class.

Chief Pentagon weapon tester Michael Gilmore still remains fundamentally dissatisfied with the survivability of the Navy’s littoral combatant ship (LCS) and its upgraded follow-on, the small surface combatant (SSC).

“Notwithstanding reductions to its susceptibility” compared with the design of the first 32 ships, he told Bloomberg on Jan. 8.
“The minor modifications to the LCS will not yield a ship that is significantly more survivable.”

It remains to be seen, however, how the Navy can improve the other legs of the “survivability triangle” of a hull displacing 3,000 tons and is less than 425 feet in length.

Small ships have been historically unsurvivable. Modern small warships are not in any way the equivalent of the World War II predecessors. Every warship is a compromise in armament, endurance, speed and survivability. This is especially true of the LCS, as its modular operational profile demands absolute adherence to weight limitations.

Small warships are historically unsurvivable in combat. They have a shorter floodable length, reduced reserve buoyancy and more likely to be affected by fire and smoke damage than larger combatants. In both World Wars, losses in ships below 3000 tons in displacement far exceeded those of larger vessels.

In World War II, for example, the U.S. lost a total of 71 destroyers and 11 destroyer escorts — all under 3400 tons displacement and less than 400 feet in length.

By comparison, only 23 larger ships were lost. Part of that figure is undoubtedly due to their operational employment, but in simple terms of engineering and physics, larger ships are inherently more survivable than their smaller counterparts.

link. and again.

US Navy Redesignating Upgraded LCS Corvette Ships as Frigates (FF)

The US Navy (USN) has decided to classify its upgraded fast, shallow-water Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) as a frigate (FF), Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus announced on 15 January at the Surface Navy Association national symposium near Washington, DC.

The FF designation comes only weeks after the USN announced that it would modify current LCS designs to accommodate increased lethality and survivability requirements in its small surface combatant fleet.

link.

US Shipyards Gearing up for Small Combat Ship LCS Variants

With a decision taken by the US Navy (USN) to continue acquiring both Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) variants for the foreseeable future, the two LCS prime contractors are preparing for government discussions on modifying their respective seaframes to fulfill a requirement for more lethal and survivable versions of the fast shallow-water ships, company officials told IHS Jane's on 15-16 December.

Executives at Lockheed Martin Corp and Austal USA - the companies leading the two industry teams building the Freedom and Independence variants of LCSs, respectively - expressed excitement about the navy's decision to continue its 52-ship small surface combatant programme by acquiring modified versions of their Flight 0+ LCS.

link.