Home » Sea » Lockheed Offers Navy New LCS Variant

Lockheed Offers Navy New LCS Variant

by Kris Osborn on September 3, 2014

140511-N-SK590-723Lockheed Martin is offering the Navy a slightly heavier, technologically re-configured multi-warfare variant of the Littoral Combat Ship that has added survivability features such as built in vertical launch tubes and a stronger radar.

It is part of Lockheed’s submission to the Navy’s Small Surface Combatant Task Force’s, or SSCTF, solicitation asking industry to come up with specs and designs for a new multi-mission surface ship engineered to address and correct some of the problems with the LCS.

Lockheed’s offering, which is based on their international variant of the LCS, is designed to engineer certain technologies into the hull itself, such as sonar. This approach is intended to prevent the need to swap out “mission packages” or sets of technologies as is currently the case with the LCS.

“We took the 118-meter hull and turned it into more of a multi-warfare platform. Multi-warfare means you have anti-submarine warfare capability built into the hull along with surface and anti-air capability,” said Joe North, vice president of Littoral Ship Systems, Lockheed Martin.  “It is basically putting everything in the hull that allows you to not have to swap out mission packages – and perform those missions with a single ship.”

The new ship design weighs 3,600 tons which is slightly more than the current LCS weight of 3,400 tons, North said.

Other technological adaptations include the use of a sophisticated anti-air radar than the one used by the LCS that allows for greater distance with air coverage, North added.

“You basically would integrate the radar with guns that you have on the ship, whether that be a 57mm or 76mm gun. You would put in a vertical launch capability which allows it to bring aboard missiles and address threats from over the horizon and for ASW (anti-submarine warfare) you would add sonar to the ship,” he explained.

The SSCTF emerged out of a request from Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel earlier this year stating that the Navy issued no new contracts for the LCS beyond 32 ships. The Navy had been planning to buy 52 LCS vessels as they were originally configured.

As part of this announcement, Hagel instructed the Navy to examine alternative proposals for the remaining 20 ships that, among other things, offered more survivable designs.

Navy officials said the service still has a requirement for 52 LCS’ and that the SSCTF is exploring what the last 20 ships in the class will look like.

The Navy recently evaluated a range of proposals for the ship but has not yet announced its findings or identified the direction it plans to go in regarding the new vessel.

North added that the steel hull of the LCS design could be stretched and additional seven to 10 meters in order to accommodate more weapons systems.

The Lockheed offering to the Navy is based upon a special design configured for international sales. North said international interest in purchasing the ship from navies around the world continues to grow, particularly in the Middle East and Southeast Asia.

So far, Lockheed has delivered two of its Freedom-variant LCS vessels and six more are in production, North said. LCS 7 is slated to launch in October of this year, he added.

“The Navy will have eight of these ships in their hands by the end of next year,” North said.

Share |

{ 48 comments… read them below or add one }

@shyuechou September 3, 2014 at 3:00 am

This would certainly go some way in answering to the critics of an under armed vessel.

Reply

Redcoat September 3, 2014 at 6:07 pm

"And for buying Britisch, Dutch, Swedish of French ships… hah! No American congressman wouldn't want to be seen within a one mile radius of a working Euro ship – Euros are cheese-eating, dope-smoking and surrendering Krauts so they can't EVER build better ships than the US! "
Except for the bit about Americans being reluctant to abandon old fashioned corrupt pork barrel politics have you any concept of how stupid your remarks are ?

Reply

Pharsalus September 3, 2014 at 5:30 am

Okay, so they now take the International variant (which nobody wants) and use it without the fabled mission packages? With stuff integrated into the ship itself? That's very 2006.

All the marketing they spent on reasons why the LCS was a good idea is now overturned by their sort-of admission the concept doesn't work ;)

And for buying Britisch, Dutch, Swedish of French ships… hah! No American congressman wouldn't want to be seen within a one mile radius of a working Euro ship – Euros are cheese-eating, dope-smoking and surrendering Krauts so they can't EVER build better ships than the US!

F$%k. Give me a Visby or MEKO any day.

Reply

Thomas L. Nielsen September 3, 2014 at 9:10 am

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/fly/

[waves Danish flag]

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg (expat Dane)

Reply

Pharsalus September 4, 2014 at 5:38 am

Thomas,

…and Danish, ofcourse. Forgot, sorry. ;)

Reply

Thomas L. Nielsen September 5, 2014 at 1:59 am

Gospodin Pharsalus, your apology is……….accepted.

[background sound of MW-range laser powering down].

:-)

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg

Reply

Pharsalus September 9, 2014 at 9:39 am

(Phew… just in time ;)

RunningBear September 3, 2014 at 12:43 pm

Yes, that seems pretty accurate! :)

Reply

anthony September 3, 2014 at 6:32 am

Maybe china can build better and cheaper?

Reply

Droggen26 September 4, 2014 at 12:47 pm

good one

Reply

rad September 3, 2014 at 7:34 am

Why is the General Dynamics' trimarane illustrating a piece about Locheed Martin's ship (the single hull one)?

Reply

sferrin September 3, 2014 at 8:05 am

Classic "journalism" at work. BTW this doesn't sound like much of an improvement. Basically the bare minimum to say "we did something".

Reply

xXTomcatXx September 3, 2014 at 9:20 am

What a crook. Don't trust a word that comes out of Joe North's mouth. He's the reason the Freedom Variant came out as lame as it did. Undermined the customer and sacrificed capability in the hopes of delivering a higher cost ship. He never understood the vision and delivered what instead what he thought the Navy "needed". What a disgust!

Reply

blight_qwerty September 3, 2014 at 5:42 pm

Oh, he understood the vision…a modular ship that could replace a number of utility functions.

Let's be honest, the FFG without the single-arm was very handicapped, and throwing one at FAC's with anti-ship missiles would end as badly as throwing LCS at the same targets.

Reply

Marto September 3, 2014 at 10:33 pm

The LCS with the surface warfare mission package is highly lethal to the FAC/FIAC threat.

Reply

Rob C. September 5, 2014 at 4:35 pm

Are you kidding? Typically FAC has Exocet Anti-Ship Missiles (Or Harpoons), 76mm (3inch) Otobreda gun, assortment of 40mm & 20mm guns. Surface Warfare combat include 57mm, couple 30mm and Hellfire Missile launcher, with perhaps 5 mile range when the Exocet can reach upwards to 97 nautical miles. Your RAM is going be hard press keeping those missiles off it as they come in. Maybe the stretched version of the Freedom perhaps can handle it, but not the LCS version.

Reply

Jim September 3, 2014 at 9:38 am

The photo with this article is not he Lockheed LCS.

Reply

shipfixr September 3, 2014 at 10:10 am

"“The Navy will have eight of these ships in their hands by the end of next year,” North said."

Wouldn't "ON their hands" be more descriptive?

Reply

G Lof September 3, 2014 at 6:05 pm

It could be worse, the guys pushing Euro-Frigates could have their way and we end up with a fleet of JFKs.

Reply

Thunder350 September 6, 2014 at 10:53 pm

He meant what he said, but he didn't mean real functioning ships. The navy will instead have eight MODEL sized ships in their hands by the end of next year.

But in reality, it'll be in about 4 years, triple the price, and only half the size it was originally suppose to be, with many patch jobs needed to finish and fix what they delivered at a premium price!

Reply

blight_qwerty September 3, 2014 at 10:38 am

It's fleecing time.

Reply

Dfens September 3, 2014 at 12:23 pm

This is the game, you f it up and then fix what you shouldn't have f'ed up in the first place. That way you make more money. If we didn't want contractors to do this, we wouldn't pay them more to do this, right?

Reply

Andy September 3, 2014 at 11:17 am

I rather have a GOST than this junk..

Reply

xXTomcatXx September 3, 2014 at 11:44 am

Of course a couple hundred ton glorified movie prop vs a 3,600 ton vessel. Because that makes sense.

Reply

Nicky September 3, 2014 at 11:33 am

I think the next replacement for the LCS is the US Coast Guard's National Security Cutter. I know Huntington Ingalls Industries is coming out with a version of the US Coast Guard's National Security Cutter called Sea Control frigate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OJZ8eB_mPA

Reply

xXTomcatXx September 4, 2014 at 9:50 am

It's not a bad idea. They may use the hull form, after all they worked a lot of kinks out in the first few hulls, but they need to make sure to introduced modularity. into the design as well.

Reply

Tad September 4, 2014 at 12:23 pm

Didn't the NSC program run into lots of problems, both design and program management issues?

Reply

Lance September 3, 2014 at 1:20 pm

Don't worry DOD. its just as expensive and worthless as the other LCS…. Give me a break!

Reply

jsallison September 3, 2014 at 2:46 pm

Still not doing underway VLS array replenisment. Buncha one shot wonders.

Reply

blight_qwerty September 3, 2014 at 5:42 pm

Navy ditched underway VLS some time ago, even for the full-length systems. A very poor choice.

Reply

Big-Dean September 3, 2014 at 2:48 pm

It doesn't matter how much lipstick you put on this pig….

Reply

Thunder350 September 6, 2014 at 10:54 pm

…you still won't be able to see Russia from your kitchen window!

Reply

G Lof September 3, 2014 at 5:55 pm

Well, I see we have our normal choir of naysayers. It is a mystery how Military.com stays in business with all this bashing their advertisers

Frankly from my point of view, Lockheed Martin has given what the current generation of Pentagon Bigwigs want, a ships that can survive politically even if it loses. any purpose for existing.

Now if L-M add a few meters to the hull so that the retain the mission modules which provides 75 percent of the LCS reason for existing, then maybe this idea will work. That be especially true if the dump the on hull sonar, as those are only effective when the LCS enters the SSK kill zone. We be better of using the LCS with a larger USuV that cares the sonar for the LCS without endangering the ship and crew.

Reply

retin88 September 3, 2014 at 6:23 pm

crap begets crap begets crap.

Reply

Curtis Conway September 3, 2014 at 7:51 pm

Some recent reports are that the LCS is more survivable than the FFG-7. We should take an LCS-1 and conduct a shock test similar to an M-08 Naval Mine under it and see how it does (Sammy "B" Test). Don't think that is going to work out so well. The United States Navy needs a REAL multi-warfare Aegis Guided Missile Frigate with a 5' gun (guided projectiles) and Directed Energy weapons. NO Diesels! Too many moving parts. Use the same Gas Turbine Generator (GTGs) going on the DDG-51 Flt III, or a GE38 derived GTG, and put electric motors on the main Reduction Gear (MRG) for more efficient cruise to stretch your fuel. SPEED will ALWAYS be a requirement for a combat vessel primarily based upon a constantly changing situation of which you are not in control, but when stuff hits the fan you want all the speed you can get, it just probably will not be 40 knots. We need planners dealing with reality in decision making, not selling products and wishing for the best. Plan for the worst, and hope for the best. All this 'it will be alright' business is going to get our sailor sons and daughters killed.
Really like the idea of a single hangar with extra missiles. Put strike length cells on the bow, and perhaps the short ones down the side. Really like the idea of a non-rotating 3D AESA (SPY) radar with the ability to be on the threat bearing and be able to take out a Theater Ballistic Missile, probably via tippers and OTH data before the organic sensors pick it up. If we are talking supersonic ASCM on the deck you only get one shot, if you see it at all. Now there is a challenging missile exercise. Let's not build multi-million dollar floating coffins. Let’s give our sailors a real combat system and a fighting chance. Take care of your people and they will take care of the tasking. The LCS program to date has treated our sailors without respect. As it is an LCS needs a crew of super sailors just to survive the PMS schedule. The crew had better be big enough to fight the ship and do damage control, and provide normal preventative maintenance schedule and still get to sleep from time to time.
The future holds a lot of rocks and shoals, and the current evaluation team is acting a penny wise and a pound foolish.

Reply

xXTomcatXx September 4, 2014 at 4:00 pm

LCS has less than half of the draft of a FFG-7. It will most certainly perform better in a mine detonation scenario. It's simple physics. The less hull in the water the less energy from the mine gets translated to the hull. Every see an LCAC get hit by a naval mine. Nothing happens.

Why does the Navy need a an Aegis Guided Missile Frigate? Every other ship in the Navy has VLS. You don't need another VLS ship with an AAW combat system like Aegis. There's a reason the LCS was made. Aegis is awful in the littorals.

Reply

blight_qwerty September 5, 2014 at 4:24 pm

"multi-warfare Aegis Guided Missile Frigate"

More Aegis? We can probably get away with a SPY-1F or equivalent to deal with local defense. It's not like we'll be using LCS as command and control datalinked to arsenal ships carrying VLS tubes.

If anything, we should be building larger cruisers to accomodate the need for larger radars, and not messing around with more, expensive Burkes. Maybe make the Burke bigger while we are going to blow money on more powerful radar for it…

But we still need a small combatant to do all the little things. Run down a submarine contact outside of helicopter range (or do the intercept with its helicopter outside of range of the fleet), fight AShipM armed FAC's, fire anti-missile missiles when directed by Aegis, massacre small boghammars, be the first-to-fire AshipM's at surface combatants…

Reply

Curtis Conway September 21, 2014 at 6:48 pm

Our new reality in the underway combat space anywhere on the planet places us in Theater Ballistic Missile range. That, along with the US Navy's new Naval Integrated Fire Control – Counter Air (NIFC-CA) capability, would best be met by something that can not only defend against ASCMs (hope they are not supersonic) but TBMs as well (that will be supersonic+), and have donation SM-6 on board for OTH engagements by the force. That is why I'm looking for strike length cells forward at least of qty 16, if we do not get some strike length cells down the sides of the helo hangar. We can have eight outboard cells in a short length, and longer cells inboard. Directed Energy (DE) growth space should be on any new vessel, so electrical power capacity (GTGs) must be present or upgradable. The GE38 turboshaft can churn out about 10 megawatts. Four spots for DE weapons placement and EO/IR direction columnated for direction should be present or expanded into at a future date. The LCS simply cannot go to the Arctic for extended periods, or handle rough seas for extended periods. If you lengthen the hull it makes it even more vulnerable as was the FFG-7 stretch jobs. That is why the National Security Cutter hull is preferable with its growth space, and Arctic capability. A Hybrid Electric Drive (HED) propulsion system enables the vessels commander to stretch his fuel using electric motors at slower speeds, and generate more electrical power for the bus when at GQ and the LM2500s are driving the ship. When we design and deploy this new frigate I want to get my moneys worth, it be combat capable and meet the threat both current and future. My take on the current navy designs is they are planning to fail for they have not estimated the threat well enough. China is coming on hard with more spending and construction than they are admitting, and they are building bases throughout the South China Sea without opposition from the US Navy from Woody Island South to where they are building Islands off the Philippine coast. The Chinese mean business and the LCS is a ripe Chinese target.

Reply

FWGuy September 4, 2014 at 10:34 am

It is my understanding that the Navy has only contracted (to date) for 10 hulls total and that would be the perfect point to stop at and switch to the new larger and more capable design.

Reply

The one armed man September 5, 2014 at 3:08 pm

I think it's 12.

Reply

Gunnerv1 September 4, 2014 at 7:14 pm

Go back to DE's/FF's, DDG's and CG;s (CG's with a 5' gun, what a joke) with Gas Turbines, forget about "Stealth Tech." The Main purpose of a Carrier Group Screening Escort DD (type) is, Wait for it, "Block that Torpedo" in other words, Take the hit, but do as much damage as you can before you are taken out. 8 DD ship types in 21 years, I think I can offer something here.

Reply

Nick987654 September 5, 2014 at 4:59 am

A weapon system to replace the FCS NLOS must absolutely be restarted by the Army. There are a number of possibilities to base it on existing missiles.

A small missile weighing no more that 150 lbs would have a range of around 25 miles and could be carried in large numbers by the LCS in miniaturized box launchers.

And these missiles would be light enough that they could be reloaded manually.

Now the 57mm gun is not very useful because it doesn't launch guided munitions. It could be replaced by a box launcher of 32 NLOS missiles.

The LCS also needs a small number of Mk 41 launchers, like 8 launchers for 2 anti-ships missiles and 24 ESSMs ( 4 per tube ).

With a better radar and OTH capability with advanced stealthy drones to guide its missiles it would be very good, no need for a new ship design.

Reply

blight_qwerty September 5, 2014 at 3:59 pm

That's pretty optimistic. A Hellfire weighs ~100 pounds with a declared range of five miles. Depending on that range is measured, it might be ground range (with flying platforms possessing greater than five mile range). If measured from an aerial platform, ground platforms would have less range.

Also, we have no anti-ship missiles that go into Mk 41 VLS. Harpoons are launched in their own launchers. The VLS fitted to small ships LCS-sized are short-length, limiting the types of missiles that can be carried. I suppose they can carry ESSMs…

Reply

Nick987654 September 8, 2014 at 11:03 am

The length of the motor of the hellfire is about 30% of the length of the missile. If you increase the length by 50%, the length of the motor is tripled.

Also, once the missile has reached its speed, it only needs to sustain its speed, which takes much less energy than the boost phase.

And the Army absolutely needs to work on a missile with NLOS capability.

Reply

edree September 11, 2014 at 2:53 pm

I may not know much about ships, so I defer to those who do. But I used to know OTH radar very well. It needed a lot of room for the transmitter and receiver antennae to handle the frequencies involved with OTH. If someone can explain how to do it with higher frequencies than those with which I am familiar, and the long antennae required, I would appreciate it.

Reply

Rob C. September 5, 2014 at 5:17 pm

Having Aegis armed Frigate made from the designs of the Freedom maybe questionable. All aluminium (if they build it with that instead of steel) would ignore the lessons learned on the fires USS Belknap when Kennedy collided with her. Hopefully if the Navy goes with this design they'll make sure the removed the problem the Freedom design has. Including that faulty propulsion system of theirs.

Reply

Curtis Conway September 21, 2014 at 6:57 pm

It also ignores the same lesson learned by the Royal Navy during the Falklands, and the fire on the USS Ticonderoga just before Hurricane David. Learn from HiStory or you are bound to repeat it. In this case the US Navy is rushing to the mistake. It also does not address the lack of an extended Arctic capability of the LCS.

Reply

Armand September 8, 2014 at 5:32 pm

There’s definately a lot to learn about this issue.

I love all of the points you have made.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: