What-If LCS Flight II: Littoral Combat Ship Improvement

[jasonfreeland]

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/04/09/navy- ... es-to-lcs/

Looks like they finally are putting some teeth in the surface warfare modules.

[Busto963]

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/04/09/navy-adds-hellfire-missiles-to-lcs/

Looks like they finally are putting some teeth in the surface warfare modules.

Except that AGM-114 Hellfire missiles were dropped out of the Presidents FY 15 budget request along with Tomahawk.

JAGM, the Hellfire replacement, will take 10-years to field under ideal circumstances - and DoD procurement has an awful track record for timely delivery.

How long do you think it will take for the Army to tighten its sphincter and put its entire stockpile of Hellfire missiles into critical war reserve?

The Navy will have a hard time getting these missiles, unless it is willing to fund procurement out of hide in a very tight budget. The Navy apparently is having no luck with the unfunded growler even at a 30% discount from Boeing.

The LCS team is a day late and a dollar short again!

[richtea]

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/04/09/navy-adds-hellfire-missiles-to-lcs/

Looks like they finally are putting some teeth in the surface warfare modules.

Only got a range of 3.3 NM, Ok if the enemy is stupid enough to come into this effective range.

[navydavesof]

Thanks for the continued comments, guys. I am making slow progress with my LCS-1 model, but I have the hangar and VLS deck built. I will have pictures up this week. My unit is going through a serious inspection this week, so time is limited...

I hope all is well for the modelwarships community!

[jasonfreeland]

Considering all they have currently in the modules is 30mm, I think it's a big upgrade. It also provides for catastrophic kills that are immediately verifiable unlike 30mm. On the procurement issue pretty much all of the hellfires used in recent years are the laser guided variant, so I suspect plenty of Longbow variants are around. Of course the last is an educated guess.

One thing I wonder is if they will need any kind of booster for vls launch, that could change the range.

Edit: http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairw ... 21019.aspx

It doesn't address the longbow variant, but the guidance modules changes would probably cover vertical launch.

[Busto963]

Considering all they have currently in the modules is 30mm...

There are no Hellfires in the FY-15 budget and none for the out years - where exactly do you think the the missiles are going to come from?

The stockpile of existing Hellfires, particularly the "L" model is likely to go into war reserve until JAGM comes online.

GAB

[jasonfreeland]

Considering all they have currently in the modules is 30mm...

There are no Hellfires in the FY-15 budget and none for the out years - where exactly do you think the the missiles are going to come from?

The stockpile of existing Hellfires, particularly the "L" model is likely to go into war reserve until JAGM comes online.

GAB

The article specifically addresses access to army stocks. I know you think that wont happen, but I already mentioned my belief that it will.

[navydavesof]

Yeah, I see they're saying LCS can use the Army stock, but I don't know how often that type of cross pollination actually happens. As far as gunnery goes, we can certainly see that the 155mm cross-caliber designs never, ever worked. Even when the USN adopted 155mm, it turns out that the Navy 155mm gun can't use Army or USMC ammunition.

Concerning a booster to get it out of the tubes, who knows? At 4nm, the Hellfires have a remarkably short range for any kind of maritime use. It seems that they will only be good strictly for point defense.

[jasonfreeland]

Yeah, I see they're saying LCS can use the Army stock, but I don't know how often that type of cross pollination actually happens. As far as gunnery goes, we can certainly see that the 155mm cross-caliber designs never, ever worked. Even when the USN adopted 155mm, it turns out that the Navy 155mm gun can't use Army or USMC ammunition.

Concerning a booster to get it out of the tubes, who knows? At 4nm, the Hellfires have a remarkably short range for any kind of maritime use. It seems that they will only be good strictly for point defense.

Point defense is pretty much what I see them used for and plenty of missiles and bombs are used multi service. I think this is a use what we have attempt instead of waiting on the Griffin and who knows how much more funding. I still say go with the idea I PMd you about with using ESSM bodies for a ground attack missile. A multimode seeker from the GBU-53/B project could be the guidance of a really fast responder for surface and land threats.

[navydavesof]

I still say go with the idea I PMd you about with using ESSM bodies for a ground attack missile. A multimode seeker from the GBU-53/B project could be the guidance of a really fast responder for surface and land threats.

Your idea about the GBU-58 is interesting. Marrying the GBU-58/B's guidance system and maybe even warhead with the ESSM body is an interesting idea. It's like the SMART-ROC where they put a 500lb laser guided bomb on a long range ASROC rocket body. That way, a Gearing-class DD could deliver a 500lb laser guided bomb up to 15 miles away.

Quad pack is very good. I wonder about capacity. My LCS-1 Flight II carries 32 VLS. If we completely go with quad pack missiles (ESSM and this missile) the ship could embark up to 128 missiles. It certainly seems that kind of a load out would be very beneficial to such a little ship.

I am pretty confident that with a thicker skin and putting berthing and head services in part of the mission bay. I would keep the exterior skin of the super structure aluminum but the interior would be steel in case there is a missile strike so the topside crew could go somewhere safe from the ensuing fire.

I am still of the opinion that the Mk45 Mod4 5"/62caliber gun is the best method of medium range counter battery, and the 76mm is a good method of short range counter battery.

[jasonfreeland]

I am still of the opinion that the Mk45 Mod4 5"/62caliber gun is the best method of medium range counter battery, and the 76mm is a good method of short range counter battery.

Cheaper certainly, the missile option is for targets that need self designation. I seriously like the DART 76mm system, if it's as good as they claim. As a side thought, are the ship radars set up for counter battery?

[Sciquest2525]

I would go with 48 VLS tubes. You could have three 8 cell VLS modules on each side of the hangar so a modest hull lengthening would be needed to maintain the helo square footage of the baseline LCS.
As to guns, if the five inch calibre was selected, I would go with the Italian 5/64 LW which features four 14 round loading drums, providing more ready(56) rounds and/or four types of 14 ready rounds from the four loading drums. License produce the gun and Volcano ammo in the US. At 28 rounds per minute vs. the 15-20 of that slow witted and slow firing Mk 45 Mod 4.
Two 76 mm Super Rapid mounts that fire 120 rpm using the STRALES mounting that has dual ammo feed between conventional and guided AA ammo or between AA and HE ammo for surface/shore targets. Guided Volcano rounds will be scaled down for the 76 mm SR gun.
Terminal defense by a pair of Millenium guns.
The 150 meter version has more length for mounting weapons.
Equip with ASW 12.75 torpedo tubes.
Mount seperate launchers atop the deckhouse for Harpoon and it's successor, the LRASM.
House module crews in enlarged crew quarters with necessary services and supplies.
Retain existing powerplant and use the extra space of the 150 meter variant for the needed weapons, more fuel, supplies and spare parts/maintaince space.
Before all this, definitely upgrade survivability to Level II frigate standard that saves ship and crew. Level III fight hurt would be desirable but may not be feasible with this hull type.
My dream weapons are either the Mk 71 (very unlikely) or the AGS Lite (180 round magazine) which is just plain unlikely.....

[Busto963]

Yeah, I see they're saying LCS can use the Army stock, but I don't know how often that type of cross pollination actually happens.

Actually it is quite common for one service either buy for, or transfer munitions and vehicles to a sister service. It actually saves a lot of money and hassle for the government to do things this way.

But the issue is whether the Army will have any incentive to transfer hundreds or thousands of these missiles given that their primary attack helicopter weapon is now no longer in production and the JAGM replacement is at least a decade away.

Even less understandable is why the Navy would try to buy and modify an out of production weapon, rather than: 1) use the newly fielded Griffin, or 2) jump back on the JAGM band wagon and modify a weapon that will be around for a couple of decades after purchase, or 3) do 1 and 2.

[Busto963]

I am still of the opinion that the Mk45 Mod4 5"/62caliber gun is the best method of medium range counter battery, and the 76mm is a good method of short range counter battery.

Industry has proposals for the venerable 5" projectile that rival AHEAD and VULCANO weapons.

[Timmy C]

Imagine how long it would take to redesign Griffin to be radar-guided - the reason for the switch to Hellfires is that the Longbow radar-guided version can be fired off at different targets at the same time using the ship's Sea Giraffe search/track radar, negating the need for the laser designator to point at one target at a time as with the Griffin. With that in mind, the question is not whether the US Army is willing to relinquish their Hellfire stocks, but rather how willing are they to relinquish their Longbow Hellfire stocks - how much have they and do they expect to use the laser-guided version versus the radar one?

[carr]

..

[Busto963]

Imagine how long it would take to redesign Griffin to be radar-guided - the reason for the switch to Hellfires is that the Longbow radar-guided version can be fired off at different targets at the same time using the ship's Sea Giraffe search/track radar, negating the need for the laser designator to point at one target at a time as with the Griffin. With that in mind, the question is not whether the US Army is willing to relinquish their Hellfire stocks, but rather how willing are they to relinquish their Longbow Hellfire stocks - how much have they and do they expect to use the laser-guided version versus the radar one?

Tim,
I was not suggesting a redesign of Griffin, but rather the installation used on the PCS.

Not ideal, but it is a weapon that is available.

The "Longbow" AGM-114L the latest model - it entered production in FY2012 so it is the rarest of the stockpile.

[Timmy C]

I was not suggesting a redesign of Griffin, but rather the installation used on the PCS.

I think you missed my point. I'm not talking about the launcher, but rather the simultaneous multi-targeting capability of the Sea Giraffe+Longbow combination, which the Griffin cannot do since it's dependent on constant laser illumination. For each target and Griffin, you'll need one addition laser illuminator, whereas the Sea Giraffe supposedly provides 360-degree continuous targetting for the radar-guided Longbows - but I have a feeling I'm telling you how to suck eggs, so I'm assuming we're talking past each other somewhere.

The "Longbow" AGM-114L the latest model - it entered production in FY2012 so it is the rarest of the stockpile.

Fair enough, but given all the other Hellfire IIs in the stockpile, does the Army really feel like the traditional laser-guided variants are now obsolete and they have to use the radar-guided Longbow versions? I mean, sure, every service wants to keep "its" toys for itself rather than sharing, but speaking purely from a rational perspective here - is there a foreseeable situation in which an Apache armed with old Hellfires will be unable to do its job because the Army handed over all 13k of its Longbow Hellfires to the Navy?

[navydavesof]

I would go with 48 VLS tubes. You could have three 8 cell VLS modules on each side of the hangar so a modest hull lengthening would be needed to maintain the helo square footage of the baseline LCS.

This is interesting for sure. The larger LCS hull allows for 32 in the hangar and 16 in the bow. The bow cells could be strike length and allow for the LRASM you mentioned in your post. Interesting for sure!

As to guns, if the five inch calibre was selected, I would go with the Italian 5/64 LW which features four 14 round loading drums, providing more ready(56) rounds and/or four types of 14 ready rounds from the four loading drums. License produce the gun and Volcano ammo in the US. At 28 rounds per minute vs. the 15-20 of that slow witted and slow firing Mk 45 Mod 4.

Indeed the Italian 5"/64caliber gun would be superior to the Mk45, but are you willing to say that the USN would be committed to switching the 5" gun program completely, because I don't think they would simply buy another 5" gun for a single class of ship.

Two 76 mm Super Rapid mounts that fire 120 rpm using the STRALES mounting that has dual ammo feed between conventional and guided AA ammo or between AA and HE ammo for surface/shore targets. Guided Volcano rounds will be scaled down for the 76 mm SR gun.

agreed, sir!

Terminal defense by a pair of Millenium guns.

Indeed. As stated before, I would provide both CIWS and C-RAM capabilities integrated together in the same console. As the Millennium Gun CIWS and Mantis C-RAM have demonstrated, all you need is a flip of the switch to select between the two different systems. Awesome!

Equip with ASW 12.75 torpedo tubes.

As I learn more and more about ASW, I don't see the point. Unless they are going to be used for anti-torpedo torpedoes, there is no need for them. Super close range torpedo engagements are not feasible unless you're accidentally right on top of the submarine. But maybe...if there are some extra laying around, why not?

Mount seperate launchers atop the deckhouse for Harpoon and it's successor, the LRASM.

All information I have says that they will be VLS fitted only. They won't be racked up like the 1970s vintage Harpoons.

House module crews in enlarged crew quarters with necessary services and supplies.

For as sexy as "berthing modules" may sound, I don't think there is any hope of really doing it. Any increase in berthing needs to be done to the ship itself.

Before all this, definitely upgrade survivability to Level II frigate standard that saves ship and crew. Level III fight hurt would be desirable but may not be feasible with this hull type.

It's interesting you say that. The Navy has continued to change these survivability levels and lower them further and further and further. In the 1980s, it was set up that a Charles F Adams DDG andPerry FFG had LEvel 1 survivability. Leahey/Belknap-class CGs had Level 2. Spruance and Ticonderogas had Level 3. Burkes and LHA/LHDs had Level 4. Battleships and Aircraft Carriers had Level 5.

In that scale (a realistic scale), LCS has a sub-Level 1 survivability.

My dream weapons are either the Mk 71 (very unlikely) or the AGS Lite (180 round magazine) which is just plain unlikely.....

As you know, I love the Mk71. There are huge possibilities with that weapon system. However, unless there was some serious magazine room, it would not be able to carry any more than a DDG-51 (204 rounds divvied up between 32 "long" rounds and 172 standard length rounds). The bow of an LCS-1 would need significantly strengthening to accommodate that weapon system.

However, I would be 100% in favor of the 155mm version of the Mk71. That would be super awesome and extremely flexible!

[jasonfreeland]

We're talking about launching Hellfires vertically, as I understand it. Does Hellfire have the capability to launch off axis (vertically, 90 degrees away from the target) and correct 90 degrees to horizontal to the target heading? We've had trouble getting ESSM to tip over and acquire from a vertical launch.

They have always had lock on after launch, so the Apache's could fire from cover and only unmask to designate. Until the latest variant, they didn't have the ability the ability to make those kind of major maneuvers to my knowledge. Only trick is the the new one is laser designated although I suspect it would just take some updating to get the longbows to do it. They developed the capability to let drones shoot behind them (it's in one of the articles I linked).

I learn more and more about ASW, I don't see the point. Unless they are going to be used for anti-torpedo torpedoes, there is no need for them. Super close range torpedo engagements are not feasible unless you're accidentally right on top of the submarine. But maybe...if there are some extra laying around, why not?

Heck David, why don't we work on a "quad pack" anti-torpedo torpedo for the Mark 32 mounts?