Home » Sea » LCS Fort Worth Completes Test as Congress Cools on Program

LCS Fort Worth Completes Test as Congress Cools on Program

by Kris Osborn on May 1, 2014

LCS Fort WorthNavy officials told reporters Thursday the third Littoral Combat Ship recently completed a successful operational evaluation of its surface warfare technologies days after Congress slowed down the production rate for the vessel.

The USS Fort Worth, the Navy’s third LCS, engaged in scenarios involving swarms of small boats, engagements with its 57mm gun, and search and seizure exercises, said Rear Adm. John Ailes, LCS Mission Modules.

“We destroyed all the targets and the crew’s performance was excellent. It was a great event and we are pleased with all facets of the surface warfare mission package,” Ailes told Military​.com in an interview.

The House Armed Services Committee Seapower and Projection Forces subcommittee has proposed legislation that slows the rate of purchase for the LCS from three to two per year.

The subcommittee supports the LCS program and the development of a new small surface combatant, but priorities such as refueling the USS George Washington and ensuring that the Navy can operate an 11-carrier fleet took precedence in the budget, said a congressional staffer close to the subcommittee.

The mark up is the latest in a series of setbacks for the controversial LCS program, which was truncated from 52 ships down to 32 by Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel in January of this year.

Formal results and grades from the commander for the operational test that took place at the Navy’s Point Mugu test range in California are expected within 90 days, Ailes added.

The operational evaluation was designed to further develop the LCS’ increment 2 of its surface warfare mission package. The LCS is engineered to accommodate specific mission packages to include surface warfare, mine-countermeasures and anti-submarine warfare.

The LCS has two variants, the Freedom ships built by Lockheed Martin and the Independence ships built by Austal, US.

The LCS’ mine-countermeasures, or MCM, mission package is slated for end-to-end testing this summer and its own operational evaluation in 2015, Ailes said. The MCM testing, to take place with the USS Independence, will assess a handful of technological upgrades to the mission package to include a new radio, he said.

“We’ve upgraded the radios to allow us to do multiple vehicles at the same time and we have a radio system that is a high bandwidth radio which we call the multi vehicle communications system. The new radio is a network radio. You could think of it as Wifi,” he said.

The centerpiece of the MCM mission package is a remote minehunting system, or RMS, which consists of a semi-submersible remote vehicle operating with a AN/AQS-20A variable depth mine-hunting sonar. The sonar is designed to detect, classify, identify and locate bottom and moored mines in shallow and deep water, Navy officials said.

Overall, the Navy has worked closely with RMS-maker Lockheed Martin to improve the reliability of the system.

“We made vehicle upgrades that would allow the system to operate with much less overall maintenance. We made design changes to allow the system to operate in a minefield. This reduces the sailors workload and increases operational availability of the system,” said Steve Froelich, director of remote minehunting systems, Lockheed.

Also, data collected from the remote minehunting system is intended to work in tandem with an airborne mine neutralization system on board an MH-60 helicopter, Ailes explained.

Prototypes of the third mission package for LCS, called an anti-submarine warfare package, are slated to go to sea this summer aboard the USS Freedom, or LCS 1, he added.

The ASW package uses what’s called Variable Depth Sonar, or VDS, and a Multi-Function Towed Array, or MFTA.

“Variable Depth Sonar allows us to put the sound down where the submarine is. If you look on current destroyers, they have a hull-mounted sonar on the bow. It turns out that there are acoustic layers based on temperature and pressure that bend the sound up. A submarine can dive below this layer and there is a lot of attenuation and signal loss from a hull-mounted sonar,” Ailes explained in an interview last year.

The Variable Depth Sonar allows sailors to place the sonar “beneath this layer,” he said.

MFTA is a towed array sonar system, tethered to the ship, that is able to receive and transmit signals, including sounds and signals emerging from the VDS, Ailes explained.

The VDS and MFTA, working in tandem, are able to detect submarines deeper and at further ranges than hull-mounted sonar systems currently on Navy cruisers and destroyers, Ailes added.

Ailes also said the ASW package technology can successfully detect submarines while traveling at high speeds.

“The Variable Depth Sonar puts the sound out, the Multi-Function Towed Array receives it. We take the data coming out of the Multi-Function Towed Array and run that through digital signal processing techniques,” he added.

The Navy is planning a competition to procure a new, smaller VDS in order to lower costs and decrease the size of the hole needed to be cut through the door, Ailes explained.

The MFTA, called the AN/TB-37, is currently fielded on 30 US Navy cruisers and destroyers

The ASW mission package is also configured to work in tandem with UAS such as the Fire Scout and airborne torpedoes on-board the Navy’s MH-60R helicopter.

The MH-60R can also lower active and passive sonar sensors using a sonobouy device; in fact, the MH-60R can make use of a dipping VDS which drops into deep water from the air, Ailes added.

An operational evaluation is slated for the ASW mission package in 2016, Ailes said.

Share |

{ 53 comments… read them below or add one }

blight_ May 1, 2014 at 7:11 pm

We'd be insane to use anything but MCM and ASW.

At some point using drones to separate the VDS and the MFTA will increase the power of the ASW system…

Reply

blight_ May 5, 2014 at 2:09 pm

We can't predict which types of small boats we will encounter, but hopefully LCS is ready for small, medium and large.

We need torpedo boat, ahem, Missile Boat Destroyers. Emphasis placed on neutralizing anti-ship missiles before they hit the valuable targets, and the firepower to dispatch them with missiles. But missile boats are actually larger than the "small boats" we seem to preoccupied with, and far more dangerous.

Going back to the Soviets, they made the older Komar, the larger Osa and the larger Tarantul. The Tarantul is in the 500 ton range, about the mass of a corvette or fast attack craft. The Osa is in the 200 ton range, the Komar in the ~80 ton range.

Iran's littoral fleet seems distributed in this fashion. There's a number of small ~100 ton craft with missiles and I suspect the stereotypical boghammars are even smaller (10-50 tons?), and perhaps armed with recoiless rifles or ATGM's. Then there's bigger things closer to 100 tons, then the 300 ton and the 500 ton range.

For the smaller boats that can't reach out very far the LCS is probably well-suited to defeating them. The SW module's 30mm guns and the 57mm will outrange a fifty-cal and anything you can put on a small boat. And a single ATGM might be counterable from long range, and a recoiless rifle is comparatively short range and will require getting close.

Hard to say how well LCS will do against larger classes of small boat. Presumably an attacker of LCS would have to open up with anti-ship missiles at the edge of range, and could only count on whatever made it through defenses, if any, to damage the LCS. LCS' option at range beyond the 57mm is limited by whatever missiles are eventually procured, and the use of the helicopter and drones. Then there's an inner zone of 57mm range. We assume attacker using anti-ship missiles in a small platform sacrifices medium range capability for the use of missiles on a small boat. In which case, it may be a wash for LCS.

What may be of greatest concern is a surface combatant of ~500 tons designed to combat missile boat destroyers. Attack missile boat destroyers with weapons intended to outrange it, along with a heavier gun (since anti-LCS is hunting for frigates and corvettes, instead of LCS hunting for smaller, more numerous targets). LCS is quite fast, so it's probable that gun-hunting an LCS requires some degree of fire control.

The messier alternative is to try and get into gun range, but the surface warfare package throws in some 30mm's to make it interesting: beyond the range of the 30mm's the LCS will only really have the Bofors.

Effective attack strategies will be adjusted to weapons at ranges greater than the 30 and equal to the Bofors, and those with ranges beyond the Bofors and in missile territory, probably equal to the LCS' next missile, whatever form it takes.

At some point LCS will be dispatched against a Navy, and it'll expect to fight small Boghammars with a fifty-cal (which it can presumably do so with ease), or a 20mm, or a 23mm, or maybe an ATGM (which it can outrange with the 57's)? and it'll encounter something like a Komar or a boat with C-801's. Or something in the Tarantul size.

Reply

Clint Notestine May 1, 2014 at 7:29 pm

The Independence was just here in Humboldt Bay getting ready to do some testing off the coast of CA, OR and WA

Reply

hank May 1, 2014 at 8:52 pm

What about reliability????

Reply

hibeam May 1, 2014 at 9:29 pm

LCD. Littoral Combat Drones. There is no good reason to go into shallow waters to mix it up with the tiny boat swarms. Take them on with helicopter drones.

Reply

blight_ May 2, 2014 at 10:10 am

The future will probably be drones to sweep mines and push out sonar range.

Maybe a small nuclear reactor like the one on NR-1 will give the system extended loiter time?

Reply

d. kellogg May 2, 2014 at 1:48 pm

What were those Pelican or whatever UCAV drones proposed years ago to be verically-launch from SSBN tubes?
Seems like a variant of such would be ideal for the LCS, if they could be folded up by the tens/dozens in racks, collapsible not unlike the battle drones from whichever Star Wars prequel that were all sardined into those mastodon-looking APCs…
Expendable VL combat drones that kamikaze into their last target once all other ordnance is expended (SDBs and/or JAGMs for surface attack, CAMM/SeaScepter-sized AAMs for aerial denial).
Sounds like an expensive project DARPA would put out there for bidders to compete…
By the time the maritime engineers and bureaucrats finally agree on a survivable surface combatant design, these should be ready…

Reply

tiger May 1, 2014 at 10:21 pm

The PHM's 30 years ago cost less, were just as fast & actually had firepower to kill something. As for the drone/ Mh-60? What about when it can not fly? The LCS does not even have anti sub torpedo to shoot. Detect subs at high speed? Then the sub can hear them as well.

Reply

blight_ May 2, 2014 at 10:09 am

Navy has no interest in a small boat that can punch above its weight. It wants some kind of fat boat that can pick on small boats while doing minesweeping, or operating a VDS.

Curious how well a ASW LCS will do vs one of the remaining Perrys. The LCS by virtue of newer technology will be far more capable at the ASW mission. Both lack missile systems for the time being (LCS lost NLOS, Perry lost single-arm launcher). Perry has a bigger gun, but this might not be a big deal against small boats. A Perry has been hit by an Exocet, and another took a sea mine. Could LCS have done at least as well under similar circumstances?

Reply

Clint Notestine May 2, 2014 at 4:13 pm

it would hopefully be close enough to shore that the sub wouldnt want to risk detection

Reply

Curt May 3, 2014 at 11:42 am

The PHM has the LCS beat hands down in at least one area. Hydrofoils are even more expensive than planing craft! Because of a fixation on going fast (remember the 100kt Navy?), it cost at least 3 times what a comparable ship would cost, probably closer to 4 times. LCS is probably only twice the cost of a similiar but slower ship!

Reply

blight_ May 5, 2014 at 9:56 am

Not sure if the Soviets bought into hydrofoils. They did try ekranoplanes but dumped them due to a variety of issues.

Can you make enough of them? Do enough missiles penetrate battlegroup defenses and hit the carrier?

Does anyone know what the Navy is using to simulate the small boat adversary that the LCS is meant to trounce? I hope it isn't dhows and RHIBs packed with explosives.

Reply

Deuterium2H May 1, 2014 at 11:17 pm

Breaking news headlines from Breaking Defense dot com:

"Ready, Set, Go! Navy Gives Industry 21 Days For LCS Alternatives".

Here is the direct link:

http://breakingdefense.com/2014/04/ready-set-go-n

Looks as though the USN has a crash program underway to solicit RFIs (Request For Information) pertaining to LCS alternatives. The gist of the RFI involves a platform that is more in line with a frigate class, both in offensive and defensive capabilities. One possibility mentioned is the modification and "upgunning" the Coast Guard National Security Cutter (built by HII). While they will be entertaining proposals from HII and other usual suspects, the USN will be exploring existing solutions already in service with our allies. Sounds like the LCS goose may finally be cooked…we can only hope.

Reply

Nadnerbus May 2, 2014 at 2:36 am

Naw, they are playing the game to make congress happy, the same way they had another carbine competition even though everyone knew they had no plans to actually adopt a new carbine. They will probably use whatever results they get from the RFI to show congress that it will be too expensive to start a new program. I hope I'm wrong, but I'd be surprised.

Reply

jacob c May 2, 2014 at 2:09 am

I love how these defense company’s will rush a milestone only after they’re under the threat of sequestration.

Reply

Chuang Shyue Chou May 2, 2014 at 2:29 am

MCM and ASW are necessary functions and a fleet of cheap vessels that is versatile and can be reconfigured like the LCS is necessary. Not every vessel need be a surface to surface strike craft.

Reply

oblatt22 May 2, 2014 at 6:27 am

If you wanted to do MCM or ASW you wouldn't build a LCS.

Just because the LCS is bad at multiple roles doesn't mean its multirole.

Reply

Dfens May 2, 2014 at 9:40 am

It's not cheap either. LCS-1 cost more than an Iowa Class Battleship. Remember when we retired those because they were too expensive? Seems hilarious now, doesn't it?

Reply

Clint Notestine May 2, 2014 at 4:21 pm

actually the USS Iowa cost $2.5 BILLION

Reply

Dfens May 3, 2014 at 10:41 am

BS

tiger May 3, 2014 at 12:49 pm

That is a estimated cost if built today. The ship cost $100 million originally. The reconstruction in the 1980's only cost $496 million.

Rob C. May 7, 2014 at 12:38 pm

Still worth the money. It does exactly what its meant to do. Scare the dickens out anyone who see them coming. Give the marines fire support from the sea be missiles or rather big bullets. They may not be as good against todays anti-ship missiles meant sink carriers, but they’ll survive a lot longer than a LCS.

Let the Escorts handle missiles, like Battleships do the “Talking”.

Marshall R May 2, 2014 at 9:50 am

Not every vessel need be a surface to surface strike craft.

Unless its up against a surface to surface strike craft. You can bet the Chinese are going to be sure there are some missiles with reach on whatever they send to challenge it.

Reply

blight_ May 2, 2014 at 10:34 am

Russian missiles are perturbing enough (especially with tacnukes) that almost any ship in isolation is vulnerable to some form of anti-missile attack.

Reply

d. kellogg May 2, 2014 at 2:01 pm

Question is though: are the Russians, chinese, or anyone really willing to risk the resulting escalation when even one tactical nuke is used?

For the amount of international marketing so many weapons systems get today in the hopes of attracting new customers, the majority of known anti-ship weapons are just as well known in their warhead configurations: if an AShM that generally carries a 200-400kg warhead suddenly totally obliterates a >7000ton destroyer, we know the nuke card is played.
But what nation is willing to risk the retaliation?

Reply

blight_ May 2, 2014 at 2:38 pm

Very few. And arms control agreements mean the Russians aren't exporting those weapons, they will only come into play if we go into action against the Russians and create the incentive to use nuclear weapons.

On the plus hand, how big of a conventional weapon do you need to hurt an American ship? Hard to say without copies of those weapons.

I like think that the Navy got its hands on some Oniks, Granit or Moskit missiles, and used them during the SINKEX on the USS America. It would be very informative to learn of the effects of modern anti-ship missiles on a CV, and presumably if the exercise could be repeated with other ship types we'd learn even more. Harpoons may not be an accurate proxy for modern Russian anti-ship missiles.

blight_ May 2, 2014 at 10:05 am

LCS is open architecture but not rapidly reconfigurable. In principle we really need a seperate craft to do the littoral combat mission, and another to perform the utility missions that required modules in the first place. Even with 50 LCS' instead of 32 we probably could not have afforded enough to escort every MSC tanker, clear every area of mines and chase down every sub on a global scale.

Reply

Tad May 2, 2014 at 10:06 am

Some missions need purpose-built specialized vessels. One size does not fit all just by adding a few shipping containers with robots to them.

Reply

blight_ May 2, 2014 at 10:34 am

I think they're going to argue that purpose-built robots will displace the need for manned ships for certain missions. Navy will want to keep manned warships though.

Reply

Dfens May 2, 2014 at 9:43 am

Sure, kill this program now. Lockheed will laugh all the way to the bank with their "cancellation fees" in hand. Or don't kill it and Lockheed will make a profit on every day they can drag out the production of this crappy ship. They win either way and you lose. Oh, and don't forget, the next program will be better. We will do it right next time.

Reply

oblatt22 May 2, 2014 at 1:22 pm

We didn't pay compensation to the mafia when we shut down their gin stills. There are tens of thousands of cases of fraud and racketeering on the books against Lockheed. Send in the FBI and shut it down just like any other organized crime group.

Reply

d. lellogg May 2, 2014 at 2:10 pm

Shutdown all of LM?
Are you in Colorado by chance?
Who's going to compensate tens of thousands of employees suddenly out of jobs when the corporate leadership collapses?

Or would you propose some kind of government bail out intervention to prevent the collapse of a too-big-to-fail component of the US, and international, defense industry?
I bet ol' Ike never envisioned his MIC nightmares growing far beyond national demons into such truly horrific international monsters.
Suggesting the US government has the power to shutdown LM would be like suggesting they could shut down BAE, Boeing, Toyota,…far too many intertwined international divisions that could shelter those truly guilty culprits within the leadership, and in the end the only people shouldering any punitive burden would be the assembly line workers who aren't the ones at fault here.

Reply

Dfens May 3, 2014 at 10:48 am

He's not saying we stop defending our country, just that we stop paying Lockheed to make our weapons. Hell, we spend more now on defense than we did during the Reagan years of the Cold War and yet our defense workforce is at the lowest levels since WW2. I'm pretty sure if we shut down Lockheed, Boeing's defense side, and NG, replacing all of them with either new suppliers who want to step up or by having the military design their own weapons we would have far more employment in the defense sector and get better weapons for a much smaller cost than we do now. Of course, it would be difficult to come up with a system that is any more idiotic than the one we have now that pays contractors more to screw up than it does if they do the right thing.

Reply

tiger May 3, 2014 at 11:39 am

Not a very practical idea.

voodkokk May 3, 2014 at 3:30 pm

Yea, they may laugh, but I guarantee you that if they are disbarred from all future government contracting they will not be laughing.

Reply

Big-Dean May 2, 2014 at 6:38 pm

Oh great, another LARGE crappy ship………China is laughing……an so is Putin…….

Reply

voodkokk May 3, 2014 at 3:24 pm

The USS Fort Worth, the Navy’s third LCS, engaged in scenarios involving swarms of small boats, engagements with its 57mm gun, and search and seizure exercises, said Rear Adm. John Ailes, Program Executive Officer, LCS.

What were the small boats armed with?

Reply

Big-Dean May 4, 2014 at 12:02 am

with air-soft guns, and they weren't allow to go over 10 knots……. ;-P

Reply

toady May 4, 2014 at 1:20 am

Waterskiers. A couple had crab pots but the weren't deployed.

Reply

Rich May 5, 2014 at 2:53 pm

I won't pretend to be very knowledgeable about these ships; however, the biggest complaint I've gathered is concerns about the ships armor or lack there of. I just hope that they don't throw the baby out with the bath water, because I think these ships close to shore capabilities, speed, and other modern features would make them gold for service with the Coast Guard.

Reply

blight_ May 6, 2014 at 9:51 am

LCS was designed for low draft, and it's unlikely the CG would need to take this into 10 meter water. It's also designed for high speed and trans-ocean self-deploy, capabilities perhaps beyond what the Coast Guard needs in a boat. It is probably more boat than the Coast Guard needs or can afford to pay for.

Reply

tiger May 6, 2014 at 3:25 pm

Why do people think the USCG want more Navy cast offs? All in the past have failed.
There is more to a USCG cutter than a White paint job. The LCS is not exactly set up for saving sinking fishermen out of Dutch Harbor.

Reply

John Fourquet May 5, 2014 at 3:10 pm

Each LSC cost about $450,000,000.00 plus mission module of about $90,000,000.00. Stop LCS production at 24 ships and reduce the # of mission modules to 24 total and use the money to refuel the GW.

Reply

blight_ May 5, 2014 at 4:36 pm

Not sure what the obsession with refueling the GW is. If the GW has to give in order to free up funds and manpower to crew the Ford, to give the Ford a proper battlegroup (in addition to the loss of the USS Enterprise, this will mean more surface combatants per carrier group, which is a good thing, right?) and to ensure more aircraft per carrier it's a bitter pill that we've been delaying for too long. Compromising the ability of a carrier just to maximize the amount you can put afloat is unwise. We are overdue for putting a carrier into reserve anyways. And if we're feeling very curious, we can also do one more SINKEX.

We've tried to maintain the large number of carriers and amphibs, even after vastly downsizing the surface fleet. We retired Spruances, CGN's, sold Kidds to Taiwan, dumped Perrys and started dumping older Ticos. At some point a carrier has to take one for the team, or we will be a force of carriers and LCS with no escorts. There won't be enough DDG's and CG's to go 'round.

Reply

tiger May 6, 2014 at 11:51 am

Sorry, no SINKEX. Must keep the fish/tree huggers happy.

Reply

blight_ May 6, 2014 at 12:53 pm

I guess they could move the GW to James River. Not sure how long it would take to refuel if required though. The other possibility is to keep it in James River with a caretaker crew for the reactor until the fiscal situation changes, then disperse its battlegroup and carrier wing to remaining units to make them stronger.

Reply

tiger May 6, 2014 at 11:48 am

What is the point of refueling it when we can not afford to keep 11 CG's in service? A whole Air wing is likely to be cut as well.

Reply

blight_ May 6, 2014 at 12:42 pm

Indeed. We are also standing up more independent amphib groups, which compete with the carrier groups for money and escorts.

Reply

blight_ May 6, 2014 at 7:29 pm

From defenseindustrydaily:
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/csba-on-futu

"The choice of shrinking strike range for current US carrier groups, but greater strike density within that limited range. The emergence of land-based “surveillance-strike complexes” in other nations, designed to keep US carriers well outside of that range. International carrier plans. Not to mention a future in which the USA will have 11 operational carriers – but just 10 US Navy/ USMC carrier aircraft wings. "

Reply

Rob C. May 7, 2014 at 12:40 pm

Hopefully the modules will function properly, i’m not so keen on them now being able to work.

Anti-Submarine weaponry is going be interesting. Will there be modules mounted so they can slide a door aside launch torpedos? Towed sonar seems most likely, aside from helicopter support.

VLS Astroc is still the best but Freedom and definately not the Independence with narrow bow can mount them.

Reply

d. kellogg May 2, 2014 at 4:10 pm

No argument there.
I'd be more speculative that Tomahawks would be more indicative of the larger Russian AShMs than Harpoon playing the surrogate role…
Also, pertaining to the SINKEX, we have no real open-source figures as to were there any modern air-delivered bombs (guided or unguided, and what size) used in the exercise, ditto for the large MK48 torps….without having actual active damage control parties onboard the target vessel(s) who can supply first-hand account to battle damage, and not having the ship(s) actually survive the SINKEX, it becomes a little more guesswork in determining survivability: a derelict hull, regardless of design, will surely suffer more significantly (succumb faster) than a vessel having a crew fighting for its survival.
Speaking of nukes, even the Pacific expirements post-War demonstrated that large bombs won't guarantee sunken vessels, even with shockwaves (although radiation on crews is a different story).
Granted though, direct hits or near misses with vaporize metal, even from those tactical "small fry".

Reply

blight_ May 2, 2014 at 5:33 pm

I feel like the real reason they made it so hush hush was the use of Russian anti-ship missiles vs regular ol' American ones (versus saying it was done because it was a CV). Otherwise SINKEX is pretty routine, at least for non-CV's.

Reply

Dfens May 4, 2014 at 9:08 am

Paying a company $1.10 for every dollar they spend is a practical idea? Since when?

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: