Winds of Change.NET: The USA's New Littoral Combat Ships

October 25, 2005

The USA's New Littoral Combat Ships

by Joe Katzman at October 25, 2005 3:27 PM

General Dynamics Team
Trimaran LCS Design
(click to enlarge)

The Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) is the U.S. Navy's newest class of surface combatant ships. Optimized for shallow seas and littoral operations within 100 miles of shore but deployable across the ocean, LCS ships are a centerpiece of the USA's new focus on littoral warfare. They will help to counter growing "asymmetric" threats like coastal mines, quiet diesel submarines, piracy, and terrorists on small fast attack boats. They will also perform intelligence gathering and scouting using helicopters and UAVs, offer some ground combat support capabilities, and share tactical information with other Navy aircraft, ships, submarines, and joint units. Swappable "mission modules," UAV robot aircraft, and robotic UUV and USV vehicles will give these small ships the specialized capabilities they require for each of these roles.

At present, two teams are competing for the final LCS design. The General Dynamics team is offering a futuristic but practical high-speed trimaran based on Austal designs. The Lockheed Martin team offers a high-speed semi-planing monohull based on Fincantieri designs that have set trans-Atlantic speed records.

I'll explain a bit more about the US Navy's new surface combatant below, and add an in-depth set of additional resources and links. Defense Industry Daily also has that, plus key timeline events and contract awards under the LCS program; in future, the most up to date version of the article may be found there.

Team Lockheed LCS Concept
(click to view full)

Given the ships' size (almost the size of a British Type 23 frigate), the LCS might well be classified as a frigate or corvette were it not for its shallow water design. The LCS requirement has been identified as part of a broader surface combatant force transformation strategy, which recognizes that many future threats are likely to require near-shore and even river access. Given the diversity of possible missions in these zones, any ship given these tasks must be reconfigurable and stealthy.

The program is structured for Team Lockheed and the General Dynamics/Austal consortium to produce two fully operational Flight Zero ships each; construction of the first ship from each team is now underway. The Navy's experience with these ships will help it select one eventual winning team for the overall program, and it will still be able to use all of the Flight 0 ships.

Current designs from both teams will carry a 57mm naval gun, along with .50 cal machine guns and NETFIRES anti-armor/ anti-personnel missiles. The ships will also rely on their onboard MH-60 helicopers and Fire Scout helicopter UAVs - a program DID has profiled in-depth; a Spartan Unmanned Surface Vessel (USV) - also profiled by DID; and a variety of Unmanned Underwater Vessels (UUV) for underwater operations. UUVs currently being tested for use with the LCS include the Bluefin 21 advance surveyor, WLD-1 which tows AQS-20 mine-hunting sonar, and others.

Defensive systems will include automated chaff/flare dispensers, plus a Raytheon RIM-116 RAM (Rolling Airframe Missile) launcher.

While the number of LCS ships is not finalized, there has been speculation of 50-60 LCS ships within a total US naval fleet of 375 ships. This would put the overall program value at around $12 billion.

Four Flight 0 ships and nine Flight 1 ships have been budgeted initially, along with seven mission modules which include three mine warfare modules and two anti-submarine warfare (ASW) modules. The design approach for the winning team's second generation Flight 1 LCS ships is flexible, and will change somewhat to take into consideration the experience gained in the Flight 0 designs.

The result should be a warship equally comfortable crossing the seas or patrolling a major river, and comfortable operating in small ship clusters or as part of a major task force. Duties could include advance reconnaissance for a naval task force, clearing dangerous mines and submarines, anti-piracy operations, insertion and support for special forces or Marines, or anything else its swappable mission payloads and robotic vehicles can be configured for.

As threats proliferate in shallow-water lifelines of global trade and West Africa wilts under the oil curse, the versatile, fast Littoral Combat Ships may find themselves among the busiest ships in Uncle Sam's future fleet.

LCS Contracts & Key LCS Program Events

See DID for this information. The additional readings and sources links can also be found on that site.

The General Dynamics LCS team is led by General Dynamics Bath Iron Works as prime integrator, and includes General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products Division in Burlington, VT; General Dynamics Electric Boat Division in Gorton, CT; and General Dynamics Canada in Ottawa, Ontario. Other key participants include: Austal, based in Mobile, AL (a subsidiary of Austal Ships of Australia); the Boeing Company in Seattle, WA; BAE Systems in Rockville, MD; CAE Marine Systems in Leesburg, VA; and Maritime Applied Physics Corporation in Baltimore, MD. Bofors (gun) and Ericcson (radar) are among the minor partners whose equipment will be featured on the GD Team's design.

Lockheed's core team includes various Lockheed divisions, plus naval architects Gibbs & Cox of Arlington, VA; shipbuilders Bollinger Shipyards of Lockport, LA; and shipbuilders Marinette Marine of Marinette, WI. It also includes a host of niche providers and related partnerships including Angle Incorporated, Blohm + Voss, Data Links Solutions, DRS Technologies, EADS, Fairbanks Morse Engine, Fincantieri, Izar (now NAVANTIA), L-3 Communications, MAAG Gear AG, MacTaggart Scott, NAWCAD, Raytheon, Rolls Royce, Sensytech, SPAWAR, Sperry, Terma, Unidynamics, and United Defense (now BAE Systems).

Additional Readings & Sources:

The Littoral Combat Ships

U.S. Navy LCS site

Naval-Technology.com - Littoral Combat Ship LCS High-Speed Surface Ship

GlobalSecurity.org - Littoral Combat Ship

General Dynamics - LCS Summary Page and Site

Lockheed Martin Team LCS Site

See all DID coverage related to the Littoral Combat Ship program

LCS Ancillaries & Auxillaries

DID (Oct 17/05) - The Fire Scout UTUAV Program: By Land and By Sea (updated)

DID (Sept 23/05) - Navy Launches Final Development of Bluefin 21 UUV

DID (Sept 20/05) - WLD-1 UUV and AQS-20 mine-hunting sonar

DID (Sept 15/05) - $124.5M for 3 Airborne Laser Mine Detection Systems (Updated). These will be carried on the LCS, which will become an operational center for up to five MH-60S helicopters equipped with the AN/AES-1 ALMDS system.

DID (Aug 17/05) - Lockheed Makes Progress on NETFIRES Components

DID (May 18/05) - Spartan USVs for Singapore's Navy

C4ISR Journal (July 2004) - Design Work Proceeds on LCS Mission Modules: Suites will allow quick switches for pressing threat

LCS Rationale and Related Programs

DID (March 4/05) - U.S. Navy Exploring New Concepts, Procurement Priorities for ASW. The proliferation of quiet diesel submarines is forcing doctrinal changes, as well as new technology programs.

The Fourth Rail (April 27/05) - Of Pirates and Terrorists

Naval Postgraduate School at Monterey (Dec 2003) - "Sea Swat": A Littoral Combat Ship for Sea Base Defense

Melana Zyla Vickers at FOXNews (Oct 14/03) - High Seas Robbery. Covers the need for the LCS program.

Melana Zyla Vickers at TechcentralStation (May 6/02) - Naval Overkill. She thinks the DD (X) is, but the LCS and Streetfighter programs aren't.

DID Topic Archive: Naval Equipment/ Coastal & Littoral

GlobalSecurity.org - HSV Program for high speed troop carrier vessels (incl. WestPac Express and TSV ships TSV-1X Spearhead and HSV-2 Swift). Given that "HSV-2" is also a designation for a variety of Herpes Simplex STD, it is possible that this designation will change to a TSV variant once the ship class is firmly established.

DID (Sept 27/05) - UAVs, Blimps, and HSV-2, Oh My! It would not surprise us at all if the semi-autonomous, long-endurance ScanEagle surveillance UAV were to find itself added to the LCS' onboard options in future. These UAVs are valued very highly by the US Marines as combat surveillance UAVs, and testing them on the HSV-2 seems explicitly designed to pave the way for LCS integration.

DID (July 22/05) - U.S. Marines Extend Westpac Express TSV Ship Charter. The success of Austal's HSV 4676 has also helped to shape US military thinking about potential LCS designs. The article also discusses Austal's new Mobile, AL facility, which will be a key participant in LCS construction for the General Dynamics team.

Naval Sea Systems Command (April 2004) - HSV-2 proving to be Prototype for Littoral Combat Ship Program

"Seafighter" Experimental Vessel

Navy Marine Corps News (June 4/05) - "Seafighter" Experimental Vessel: Initial Deployment News Video

Lockheed's Sea SLICE X-vessel. The vessel participated in a US naval exercise as a littoral warfare combatant, and tested a number of weapons including the 35mm "Millenium Gun," NETFIRES missiles, and a simulated torpedo strike. The Lockheed release contains more information about Sea SLICE and the tested weapons.

Naval Technology - Visby Class Corvettes, Sweden

Naval Technology - Skjold ("Shield") Class Missile Fast Patrol Boats, Norway. One of these air cushion catamaran ships completed a 13-month deployment in the USA before theLCS program got underway, allowing the US Navy to study the Skjold class concept and shape thinking about the LCS idea.

U.S. Navy DD (X) site

All DID coverage of the DD (X) program

DID welcomes further information, corrections, and updates concerning the LCS program. Please send emails to Editor-In-Chief Joe Katzman, via joe@ the domain for the site (defenseindustrydaily.com).

Printer-friendly Version

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.windsofchange.net/windsopcentre-cms/trackback.cgi/5398

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference
"The USA's New Littoral Combat Ships"

Tracked: October 25, 2005 10:54 PM

The U.S. Navy's Littoral Combat Ships from DCeit

Excerpt: Joe Katzman brings us up to speed on the progress LCS program. Tons of links too! Highly recommended by this old Sailor.

Comments

#1 from Mark Buehner at 7:07 pm on Oct 25, 2005

Bring back the Missouri. She scoffs and submarines and has never heard of a mine. Not so much with the shallow waters but you dont need to be when your guns fire school bus sized shells 25 miles. Just not sexy enough for the procurement budgets i guess.

#2 from Joe Katzman at 8:09 pm on Oct 25, 2005

Actually, reactivating the Iowa class battleships is under consideration as an alternative to the DD (X) destroyer program.

The LCS is a horse of a different color, for different missions.

#3 from cadrys at 8:27 pm on Oct 25, 2005

I was under the impression that an Iowa class BB had unacceptably high manpower requirements? Is that inherent design issue something that can be refitted away with modern systems?

I can see a fire mission for a BB against static coastal targets, but is that sufficient to justify them? And does that plating still hold against a modern shaped or injection charge? [I know not these details]

#4 from Walter E. Wallis at 9:08 pm on Oct 25, 2005

I have thought that the reactors from several deactivated subs could be stuck in a battleship to replace the boilers and bunkers. This should allow for greatly reduced crew size.

#5 from C-Low at 9:41 pm on Oct 25, 2005

Didnt you do this story awhile back??

Either way this Littoral combat ship is all about fighting China and the Pacific region were island hopping and naval/marine operations are going to be important. This thing has a speed of around I heard as low as 50 as high as 80 knots that is crusing boss. Also the Navy is thinking on building large numbers over a 100 of these ships 10 old battle wagons cant match that. These ships also have a real shallow draft like 10' thats good enough to go up into most rivers. With the different box packages makes these ships do just about anything from air defence anti ship anti sub seal insertion small marine assault. This ship will also work with the fast transport catermeran that ship is fast can carry some sereous tonage fast right up on the beach with the water jets like a freekin giant Jet Ski. A major war in the Pacific will have alot of small islands, off shore oil rigs, reefs, shore facilities, small boats to intercept and search or destroy ect.. operations that dont quite need a battle wagon but would do well with some 5" rounds and a marine company with a handfull of assualt helicopters and some anti-air missles for air cover. Not to mention I see alot of naval blockade in the future and these small fast shallow draft ships will be able to run down pretty much everything short a cigeratte boat (that the helicopter can take down) and then run right up on and check out what they are dealing with. Battle wagons are like the DDX so expensive that limits thier numbers and thierby weakens their ability because thier loss is to risky to risk exept on priority targets, and you dont put all your eggs in one basket better to have them spread out and if you lose one or two you can still function.

#6 from M. Thompson at 9:50 pm on Oct 25, 2005

Well, the Navy's trying to build a ship that can fight closer into shore. It's something it does not like having ships to do, because of a high sea fighting tradtion.

Hey, all the existing ships were designed for beating the Red Menace. It needs the paradigm shift.

#7 from Jim Rockford at 10:32 pm on Oct 25, 2005

Marines in particular need a floating arty platform for fire support; when bad guys are trying to kill you particularly with tanks there is nothing like some supporting arty on your side.

So far I'm unimpressed with the DDX stuff; I don't think it has enough range, firepower, or survivability to support Marines or Army combatting enemy forces and air power alone can't do that support job.

I'd like to see a new Iowa class battleship with 19-20 inch guns able to fire over 40 miles to make whacking great holes in enemy forces; with mine, submarine, and shore-based arty fire built in.

#8 from Flynt at 11:06 pm on Oct 25, 2005

So, if there's engine trouble, will the seamen go under the Littoral hood?

(It had to be said)

#9 from Trent Telenko at 4:17 pm on Oct 26, 2005

What impresses me about the LCS is the reliance on the Army NETFIRES missile system as the primary surface strike weapon system.

A 15 pack of NETFIRES missiles weighs 3,000 lbs and carries two types of missiles. The precision attack missile (PAM) is a 120 lb rocket powered missile with a range of 70 km while the loitering attack missile (LAM) is a 120 lb turbojet powered missile with a �Range of 70 km with a 45 minute loiter time.�

That �45 minute loiter time� translates into a 200km maximum range. That is Harpoon II class range. Also, with the datalink, it can be used for �combat reconnaissance� against ill defined targets like multiple rocket launchers or shore based cruise missile launch trucks doing the �shoot and scoot.�

Several NETFIRES launch boxes (3-4 boxes with 45-60 missiles) can be mounted for the weight space reserved for a single four pack of Harpoons.

Admittedly the NETFIRES missiles will hit like a Hellfire missile rather than like a Harpoon. However, by not being radar based, and having a digital data link to assist in target aim point selection, it may be as deadly to small combatants. If NETFIRES missiles are used to strike Exocet or other anti-ship missiles launchers rather than the part of the small combatant with the strongest radar return, the sympathetic detonations will do the job of a larger warhead.

More importantly with a Fire Scout UAV and other NETFIRES communications equipment, it could �Forward pass� those NETFIRES loitering missiles to ground troops engaged in combat ashore.

Given these advantages, I find it a wonder that NETFIRES hasn�t been considered for the DD and back fit to Aegis ships not getting the improved 5 inch guns. A single NETFIRES launch box of LAM would give those older combatants an impressive surface strike capability with a �deep� magazine for littoral work.

#10 from RCN at 4:14 am on Oct 27, 2005

Woud'nt a big Hovercraft be a better platform for the shallows / rivers mission? It would be faster and more agile. Modern composit armour might give it the same capacity to take punishment. Range? well, size would be critical.

It it were a totaly new design it could even be atomically propelled. there are inherently safe pebble bed reactor designs out there that seem to have the right power outputs.

Again a total design from scratch could allow for palletised weapon spaces and weapon units. A big gun battery/ missile artillary / an anti aircraft system/ manpower conveyance / Intelligence gathering all exchangable both totaly or in sections depending on the mission.

Another advantage Marine artillary might use the platform to become as mobile as the men.

For tnat matter it could carry a couple of Harriers

#11 from Nortius Maximus at 7:07 am on Oct 27, 2005

Hovercraft have limitations.

They are noisy. They are inefficient at small scales and hard to maintain at large scales. They have weight and balance issues. Approximately, they have a substantial fraction of the shortcomings of aircraft while only providing some of the features.

That can still be a good tradeoff for, e.g., getting troops onto a beach, which is why the Marines still use them.

And they can be useful for search & rescue in places like the Pacific Northwest.

But I must take issue with your claim that HC ae "more agile". At speeds where you start getting any body lift payoff, they can't corner worth a damn unless you put something into contact with the surface, and then they're at risk of "digging in" in an unhealthy way. I would expect that there are large turn-at-speed regimes where a cutter could outmaneuver a similar-payload HC, even if the sea vessel had a shallow draft.