National Gun Forum banner
1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Ancient Gaseous Emanation
Joined
·
55,659 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
David B. Larter
9/6/2019


WASHINGTON — It can travel more than 100 nautical miles, passively detect an enemy through imaging stored in its computer brain and can kill a target so precisely that an operator can tell it to aim for a specific point on a ship — the engine room or the bridge, for example. And it’s heading to China’s stomping grounds.

The U.S. Navy littoral combat ship Gabrielle Giffords deployed Tuesday from San Diego, California, packing the service’s new Naval Strike Missile, transforming the LCS from an under-gunned concept ship gone awry to a legitimate threat to Chinese warships at significant ranges.

Giffords is the second LCS to deploy this year. The LCS Montgomery also deployed from San Diego in June after a 19-month lapse in LCS deployments as the Navy reworked the way it mans and trains crews for the ships.

Pacific Fleet spokesman Capt. John Gay confirmed Giffords’ deployment, saying the ship got underway Sept. 3, equipped with the Naval Strike Missile and the newly mission-capable MQ-8C Fire Scout drone. The Fire Scout, an over-the-horizon surveillance and targeting platform, achieved its initial operational capability in June.

A Navy official speaking on condition of anonymity said the ship was deploying to the Indo-Pacific theater. The official did not elaborate on the ship’s schedule. Giffords’ sister ship, the Montgomery, is currently operating in the Gulf of Thailand, according to a Navy website.

When equipped with the Raytheon/Kongsberg-made Naval Strike Missile, or NSM, and Northrop Grumman’s Fire Scout for surveillance over the horizon, an LCS sitting off the coast of Virginia Beach, Virginia, could destroy a ship sitting off Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. That’s more than 30 miles further than the published range of the current anti-ship missile, the Harpoon, which is in excess of 67 miles.

The Navy has signaled it will also install NSM on its next small surface combatant, FFG(X).

The deployment is the latest sign that the U.S. Navy is gradually upping its game in the Pacific, which during the past decade has seen rising tension over expansive Chinese maritime claims decried by the international community but enforced by China’s Navy, Coast Guard and maritime militias.

The U.S. Navy has made a dedicated push to improve the ranges of its systems, from its missiles and sensors, to its air wing with the development of the MQ-25 Stingray unmanned aerial refueling drone and new conformal fuel tanks for the F/A-18 Super Hornets that increase the speed and range of the service’s mainstay aircraft.

But it’s also a sign that despite a steady drumbeat inside the Pentagon to “move faster” to get new capabilities to the fleet, the Navy’s process is still moving painfully slow. The NSM partially answers the bell for a joint urgent operational need issued by former U.S. Pacific Command head Adm. Robert Willard from early in President Barack Obama’s first term, who identified the need for longer-range anti-ship missiles in the Pacific.

“It’s great that the Navy is doing these improvements, but it’s very incremental,” said Bryan Clark, a retired submarine officer and analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. "It has been a decade since the Navy said: ‘Hey, we need to start an unmanned aircraft program of some kind, and we need put better anti-ship missiles on our ships.’ ”

“And here we are, 10 years later, and the MQ-25 is still making its way toward fielding, which won’t happen for several years, and we’re finally deploying a ship with a better anti-ship cruise missile," Clark added. "So kudos to the Navy for doing it, but this is emblematic of the problem the [Department of Defense] has in making the shift toward new ways of fighting. It just can’t get out of its own way to field a new capability in under a decade.”

LCS to the Pacific

The surface Navy has signaled its intention to maintain a steady forward presence of littoral combat ships in the region for the foreseeable future. Giffords is the second LCS to deploy under the newly reorganized LCS program.

In an August 2018 interview, Navy Surface Warfare boss Adm. Richard Brown told Defense News that once the deployments started, they weren't going to stop.

“We are on track with the 2016 [chief of naval operations] review of the LCS … and I think we will see the first deployments next year and then happening continuously after that,” said Brown, who heads Naval Surface Force Pacific.

The trimarans Montgomery and Giffords would deploy first from the Pacific, then the mono-hulled Detroit and Little Rock on the East Coast, Brown said.

Getting a more deadly LCS up and running is critical for the surface Navy, which has been rocked by a string of engineering mishaps with the new littoral combat ships — some caused by crew errors — and by the 2017 accidents that claimed the lives of 17 sailors in the Pacific in two separate collisions. The Navy is on track to take delivery of 35 littoral combat ships total, a major chunk of the surface fleet.

The Navy has sought to keep up a consistent presence in the South China Sea, something that will be made easier once more littoral combat ships are regularly deploying. In its 2016 reorganization, the Navy switched from an arcane three-crew-for-two-hulls system to a more traditional blue-and-gold crewing model, where two crews man one hull and switch off at various periods in the ship’s deployment cycle.

That maintains a high operational tempo for the ship without burning out any one crew member, meaning more time forward for the Navy’s only small surface combatant.

Under the Trump administration, the Navy has stepped up its freedom-of-navigation patrols of Chinese claims in the South China Sea, a type of patrol where a Navy ships sail within 12 nautical miles of a Chinese-claimed features to demonstrate that the U.S. has the right to pass peacefully and freely without any preconditions in waters China claims as its territory.

Some have argued that using the Japan-based cruisers and destroyers for such missions is a waste of high-end assets and could instead be accomplished more cheaply and just as effectively with an LCS, freeing up destroyers and cruisers for missions involving their advanced sensors and weaponry.

The Navy just took delivery of the 17th LCS, the Indianapolis, in June. The mono-hull LCS is made by Lockheed Martin with Fincantieri in Marinette, Wisconsin, and all of those variants will be stationed in Mayport, Florida, where LCS Squadron 2 is based. The trimaran version is made by Austal USA, and all of those variants will be stationed on the West Coast.




https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2...s-new-ship-killer-missile-to-chinas-backyard/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,370 Posts
My son builds LCS in Mobile - their version has been flawless compared to Lockheed's version. Non-union built in the South better than union made in Wisconsin...........and Austal in Mobile and San Diego is Australian...... go figure.
 

·
Grand Imperial Poobah
Joined
·
24,900 Posts
The U.S. Navy littoral combat ship Gabrielle Giffords deployed Tuesday from San Diego, California, .....

The ship needs a new name.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
758 Posts
The U.S. Navy littoral combat ship Gabrielle Giffords deployed Tuesday from San Diego, California, packing the service’s new Naval Strike Missile, transforming the LCS from an under-gunned concept ship gone awry to a legitimate threat to Chinese warships at significant ranges.

I'm surprised the real Giffords and her hubby hasn't objected to the ship carrying any guns.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
629 Posts
"........ the LCS from an under-gunned concept ship gone awry........"


Saved by a missile with 100 mile range?
Those missiles are useless when the LCS is at the bottom of the ocean. They put those missiles on the ships to hide the fact that the LCS ships are intended to be sacrificed; let's think about how powerful they could be rather than how vulnerable they really are. I wouldn't want to be stationed on one.

A report in 2010 by the Pentagon's director of Operational Test and Evaluation found that neither design was expected to "be survivable in a hostile combat environment" and that neither ship could withstand the Navy's full ship shock trials.[SUP][18][/SUP] The Navy responded that the LCS is built to a Level 1+ survivability standard and that the ships will rely on warnings from networks and speed to avoid being hit, or if hit be able to limp to safety.[SUP][19][/SUP][SUP][20][/SUP] Jonathan Greenert said that the crew would "conduct an orderly abandon ship" if their ship was struck by enemy fire, an action that might not be necessary on other vessels in the same circumstances. The ships were designed to minimize vulnerability with modern automated damage control systems to perform its mission, then withdraw from the area under its own power.[SUP][21][/SUP]The combat abilities of the LCS were said to be "very modest" even before the cancellation of the XM501 Non-Line-of-Sight Launch System.[SUP][22][/SUP] The Independence variant reportedly has better helicopter facilities and more internal space while the Freedom variant is said to be better able to launch and recover boats in high seas. Admiral Gary Roughead said that a mix of both types would be "operationally advantageous".[SUP][23][/SUP]

Aerial view of USS Freedom

In April 2012, Chief of Naval Operations Greenert said, "You won't send it into an anti-access area," rather groups of two or three ships are intended to be sent into areas where access is jeopardized to perform missions like minesweeping while under the cover of a destroyer. The LCS main purpose is to take up operations such as patrolling, port visits, anti-piracy, and partnership-building exercises to free up high-end surface combatants for increased combat availability.[SUP][6][/SUP] Navy Secretary Ray Mabus clarified that the ship could operate in combat areas while under the protection of other warships.[SUP][24][/SUP] The LCS' utility against high-tech enemies would be when working with and being covered by destroyers, like they do with aircraft carriers. With destroyers providing extended air and missile defense, the cheaper (one-fourth the cost of a destroyer) and more numerous LCS can sweep for mines and deploy more sophisticated submarine detecting sonar. Following the decision to arm the LCS with anti-ship missiles, Navy wargames showed the adversary's risk calculus was radically changed, devoting more reconnaissance assets to trying to locate the smaller ships and sustaining heavier losses.[SUP][25][/SUP]
The ships are planned to have a 3:2:1 manning concept. That is three ship crews, and two hulls for each ship that is on station at any time. The other ship and other two crews who are not on deployment will either be preparing for deployment or in rotation in or out of theater. The result is a 50% reduction in ships and a 25% reduction in crews (and smaller crew sizes) than traditional deployment practices.[SUP][26][/SUP] The ships were predicted to fall short in manning.[SUP][27][/SUP] The Navy has deployed ships with berthing modules in the mission bays in order to carry the crew required for operations.[SUP][28][/SUP][SUP][29][/SUP][SUP][30][/SUP] However the ships are designed with sufficient headroom to change from 2-high bunking to 3-high bunking, which would allow crew sizes of 100 if needed.[SUP][31][/SUP]
The LCS is the first USN surface combatant class in a generation to not use the Aegis Combat System, though Aegis-equipped variants have been offered to foreign customers.[SUP][32][/SUP] They have suffered from problems in their communications and radars and will require refits in these areas.[SUP][33][/SUP] The LCS is unable to defend themselves effectively against anti-ship cruise missiles, which are commonly employed in the littorals,[SUP][34][/SUP] but does have survivability via its ability to disperse in shallow waters better than larger warships.[SUP][35][/SUP]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,914 Posts
The Navy has always had expendable ships and boats.
In WW2 it was the PT boat.
Destroyers and light cruisers even though more heavily armed and armored were used mostly to protect Aircraft Carriers and Battlewagons and would be sacrificed if needed.
I wish to have no connection with any ship which does not sail fast. For I intended to go in harms way
John Paul Jones. The father of the United States Navy.
Still kicking ass after 243 years
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top