SNA: Modified Littoral Combat Ships to be Designated Frigates

Rob C.

LOL are they kidding??? The improvements don’t change the tonnage or lack of capacity? Either they take out chunk of their hangers to fit in more deeper missiles, or they enlarge entire designs. I’m sorry, but 57mm armed ships with couple 30mm guns on the side, unable carry Harpoon size anti-ship missiles does not equal a Fast Frigate. This is political skirting around fact, that ships aren’t as functional as they thought they were. Only thing they have going is that they are fast. I could live with them begin designated Corvettes if their trying get away from stigma of LCS, but new names don’t changes functionality of the thing.

Gregory Dittman

Originally frigates were meant to hunt down pirates and smugglers. They were never meant to go up against warships. In this age, it’s even worse since no surface ship is fast enough to outrun a 3+ Mach missile and all it takes is one hit to sink those ships. Since submarines can launch missiles from underwater, the speed and size of the frigates will not benefit the frigates.

The smallest true warship is the destroyer so if the navy wanted more warships, it should get more destroyers.
- Curtis Conway
  
  HiStory does not support your supposition. USS Constitution only one case in point.
  - Secundius
    
    @ Curtis Conway.
    
    USS. Constitution, flies in the face of convention. Technically a Frigate, it was in fact a “Super Frigate”. The Continental Navy tried to bridge the gap between Frigate of the Line and Battleship of the Line, and came up with USS. Constitution. Basically a Heavy Frigate…
    - Curtis Conway
      
      You make my case. The United States follows no ones convention! WE LEAD!
    - Secundius
      
      @ Curtis Conway.
      
      Your welcome…
    - Keith B. Rosenberg
      
      USS Constitution might also be called a “pocket battleship”.
    - Secundius
      
      @ Keith B. Rosenberg.
      
      That was the IDEA, or an 18th Century Battlecruiser…
- RobM1981
  
  Yes, while the Barbary Pirates were, indeed, pirates it’s also true that they were very often well armed. Xebec’s and other such vessels would often ship between 20 and 30 guns, and were manned with skilled warriors.
  
  Frigates of that period had to out-gun them, and be superior to them in almost every way.
  
  Today’s pirates are barely armed. These are not what modern frigates should be built to counter.
  
  The vessels that matter today are the patrol craft that many small navies maintain. There’s also the threat of shore-based SSM’s, and ASM’s fired from stand-off range by any number of platforms. And, of course, modern frigates have always been ASW platforms of decent capability.
  
  The OH Perry’s were designed with these kinds of threats in mind, relative to the period they were built. They shipped with CIWS, SAM, SSM, ASW, a hangar, and 5″ artillery. They were also rather robust, up to and including an emergency propulsion system.
  
  All of this is well understood, and well appreciated.
  
  The LCS is not the modern equivalent of this. It’s a Corvette, maybe – or even a Long Range Patrol craft (although the helicopter does make it a bit too much for that designation).
  
  There are simply too many navies that ship patrol vessels that outgun and outrun the LCS. If the LCS gets too close to a hostile shore, it better have some serious reinforcements… and that kind of defeats the whole purpose of the class.
  - Secundius
    
    @RobM1981.
    
    Typical Sailing Frigates of the Line mounted (38) 18-pounders. Constitition mounted (44) 24-pounders. The Continental Navy consisted of only (6) Frigates.
    1. United States, 44-guns
    2. Constellation, 36-guns
    3. Constitution, 44-guns
    4. Chesapeake, 44-guns
    5. Congress, 36-guns
    6. President, 44-guns
    
    Can’t give you Bore Sizes because, NO uniformity in sizes between Nation States. A 18-pounder from one nation wouldn’t fit the same “weight” on another country. Napoleon Bonaparte, introduced first Universal Measurement System to the world in 1799. Now called the Metric System…
    - RobM1981
      
      Great reply, and I love your comment on bore sizes. I’ve read on this quite a bit recently. It’s fascinating how the cannon sizes actually mounted on the frigates were chosen. Partly by commander’s choice; partly by what was available.
      
      As they were being built there were few secrets. Spies didn’t have to work too hard to see what was happening, and there was a lot of discussion about whether the Yanks were over-gunning the frigates. 24 pounders were generally considered the sole domain of battleships, but the Yanks wanted them on the frigates.
      
      The other weapon, which I’m sure you know about, was the carronade.
      
      Combined there’s no denying that most American frigates – even the smaller ones – threw a heavier broadside than their British counterparts.
      
      Projecting this to today: our initial Frigates were faster, better protected, and heavier armed than any of their contemporaries. When properly led and handled, they were fearsome ships.
      
      It’s very hard to say the same for the LCS’s, even if you control for their size. They’re stealthy, but not very stealthy. They’re fast, but not blindingly so. They seem to be under-armed for vessels their size. The small crew size makes survivability a concern. Etc.
      
      It’s hard to see them as the modern day “44’s,” or even “36’s.”
    - Secundius
      
      @ BobM1981.
      
      For get in close and pounding the Living @#$% out of the other ship…
    - Secundies
      
      @ RobM1981.
      
      Carronade’s, were the modern equivalent of a “BB’s” or an “Abbreviation Gun”. Short barreled heavy-caliber guns (.e. 32-pounders), they did the “dirty work” in a gun duel. Get as close to the enemy as possible, usually just within a few feet of each other and blow the other ship’s into “driftwood”…
    - Curtis Conway
      
      The foundation of which is a Cubic Centimeter of water, which one milligram of mass, and one Milliliter of volume. I like inches, pounds, and gallons.
    - Secundius
      
      @ Curtis Conway.
      
      “An inch, is an inch, is an inch”.
      
      Imperial Rome introduce the inch and a Standard Measurement System to the Republic, then to the Empire and later the Holy Roman Empire (i.e. the Vatican). Unfortunately Protestant England didn’t listen and/or take orders from the Catholic Church, so their inch was different. And every other Nation State, Barony, Dukedom, Principality, Kingdom, etc. had their own version of the same measurement. No Universal Commonality…
  - Secundius
    
    @ RobM1981.
    
    The Xebec, was little more than a “commerce raider”, while carrying many guns. Only a handful were considered large caliber gun (i.e. 4-pounders or 8-pounders) the rest were usually “Swivel Wolves”, guns of bore diameters of 2-inches or less and projectiles weighing no more than a pound. The “Go-Fasts” of the 18th and 19th centuries…
  - wfraser11
    
    All true. However the term frigate pre dates America’s “Six Frigates” Constellation, Constitution, President, Chesapeake,
    United States,Congress Lets look up the origin of the term frigate to address Mr Dittamin’s post.
    Ther US Navy had frigates before the six big frigtes and so did the navies of European powers.
    Check on origin of term frigate, which would address Dittman’s “original purpose” post.

David Andersen

Changing the name does not improve the capability. Calling a HMMWV a tank does not make it so. The up gunned LCS will still be out sticked by corvettes, so it might as well keep the LCS moniker in the interest of truth in advertising.

Secundius

@ David Andersen.

The Vietnam-era USMC M50 Ontos, was little more than just a “tracked skid-loader” that mounted six M40 106mm recoilless rifles and was used as a light tank. But it did it’s job extremely well and the Marines couldn’t get enough of them…

Bill

I’m amused that SecNav Mabus, who has done so much to politicize ship naming traditions, tries to strike a blow for traditional designations.

@notrizzo

As long as their “fixing” the class designation, can they rename the USS Gabby Giffords? I can think of so many more deserving names, even if you were married to the idea of naming it after a woman how about Marine Cpl. Ramona M. Valdez who died in combat in Fallujah?
- Secundius
  
  @ Loog Moog (Oh, A M-ooo Good Slighty.)
  
  We could call it Admiral of the Great Wide Waters, instead…

Peter

Rob pretty much got it accurate. I could understand if M-LCSs were labeled as Corvettes, but the M-LCS still lacks a bow sonar, deck torpedo tubes, dedicated AAMs, 76mm gun, and 3/8″ kevlar armor over vital spaces like the OHPs to even be in the same class as a former USN frigate. It isn’t a FFG like the OHPs because it lacks the guided missile capability (and hence no “G” designation).

If territorial waters extend 14 miles (12nm) from shore, then the M-LCS with its 5 mile-range RAM launcher cannot attack any enemy air targets over land without getting very close to shore, which basically means it will be infringing on coastal territorial waters. And this is a boat that will employ and cover Special Operations forces ashore…you mean from INSIDE territorial waters? It has to because its guns and missiles lack the range to cover SOF troops outside the 12nm boundary.

True, the M-LCS may get the Longbow, Spike, Griffin, or over-the-horizon (OTH) SSM, but that would still mean it’s a Corvette with one functionality compared to having inherent ASW and AA capabilities. The lack of installing the MK56 VLS for ESSM with its 27nm+ range seems to be a huge lack of vision as any LCS anti-surface missile except for the OTH SSM would mean entering territorial waters if used in a littoral combat scenario. Perhaps the MK56 VLS could be incorporated into a future module someday somehow.

I wonder if the additional of missiles would give them the designation of FFGs.

@notrizzo

Remember they took the guided missiles away from Perry Class FFG ages ago, but didn’t drop the G. I definitly think they needed to go further in upgrading the LCS AAW capability (ESSM being my expectation). Lack of deck torpedoes is troublesome, though minimal given the lack of an ASROC type system (shooting a torpedo over the side is a piss poor way to fight subs).
Although I’m no fan of the LCS even with upgrades, I don’t think calling them FFs is really much of a stretch, and at least shows a smidgen of respect for naval tradition from the SecNav’s office, which has been sorely lacking.
Secundius

@ Peter.

There was no M-LCS class of ship’s, there was the L-LCS class of ship’s. And the Mk. 48//Mk. 56 VLS are Sea Sparrow capable only launch systems…

James B.

The largest failing of the LCS program, because it caused the confused design, is the lack of a doctrinal role for the ships. The Navy doesn’t know what an “LCS” is supposed to be, but they know what Frigates are, and this should drive future programs to accomplish frigate tasks, rather than an ill-defined mission set which changes constantly.

@notrizzo

Hopefully this represents a step away from the Navy Department Policy offices running the show and more respect given to naval traditions (we can only hope this translates into the use, development and procurement of platforms too!).
If they are looking for a reduced cost (compared to Burke Class DDGs) platforms to perform ASW and interdiction (be that swarm boat screening or anti-piracy) akin to what Perry class FFGs (despite having no G since the early 90s) then they might be getting something useful at the end of the day, not to say this is the best return on investment, but at least the USN seems to be sending less good money after bad.
- Curtis Conway
  
  In today’s battle space not having the “G” is the ‘kiss of death’. We have no ‘Cloaks’ or ‘Shileds’. This platform will be plugged into so many places out of necessity, that it is uniquely not qualified and equipped to handle, that it is no longer funny. The US Navy Department is acting as though they can control HiStroy, and the future. That is not just dangerous, it is thumbing your nose at G-d. Our sailors will die in the future trying to solve problems of which they are not in control, and dying because they are not equipped.
SouthernCross

To the people familiar with the LCS concept/design, why didn’t the project just replicate what Denmark did with their Stanflex configuration on their ships?
- Secundius
  
  @ SouthernCross.
  
  If I had to venture a guess, “standardization”. TEU (Twenty-foot Equivalent Unit) and FEU (Forthy-foot Equivalent Unit), are pretty much the “World Standard” in cargo shipping containers. Whereas Stanflex, isn’t…
- Secundius
  
  @ SouthernCross.
  
  The problem with the Standard Flex or StanFlex is, you had to move Cargo and Equipment from a TEU or FEU into a StanFlex. The US. Navy, just remove one step in the process of evolution. Why go to a Smaller Unit, when you can just Eliminate the Unit and mount the TEU or FEU, instead…

waltermitty2012

This seems like an intermediate step since the Navy will re-designate the FF (formally LCS) to FFG once an anti-ship missile has been selected. Either way, this is a ship the Navy should never have procured.

Between this decision and the selection of the V-22 as a replacement for the C-2, I fear for the future of the Navy.

Nicky

Trying to call the LCS a frigate is like trying to call a destroyer a battleship. It’s still a turd and it’s still nothing more than a glorified US Coast Guard medium endurance cutter, painted Haze grey. The LCS in mu opinion is not a Frigate but more akin to a high end corvette that you commonly see in Asia, Middle east and Europe. The LCS is still a joke no matter how you call it.

ed2291

Agree, except it is not even a low end corvette.
Secundius

@ Nicky.

Without the Freedom/Independence class, you getting closer and closer too the 250-ship Navy. With the ChiCom’s PLAN getting steadily BIGGER and our Navy getting steadily SMALLER, were having to “Rob Peter to save Paul”. Haven’t you noticed the redistribution of funding programs within the USNI News forums. Cancelling and putting a “Hold” on some projects, just to stay in “Parity” with the ChiCom’s. Neglecting the Navy and the Marine Corps for more than 20-years cost us “Dearly” and NOW WERE paying to price for it. You may not like the LCS/FFG program, but it’s the only this “Stemming the ChiCom’s PLAN’sTide” at the moment. Until Congress can get their “Collective/Elective @#$%” together…
- Nicky
  
  We need Frigates & corvettes. NOT ships that are half glass full.
  - Secundius
    
    @ Nicky.
    
    The Jones Act of 1920, prevent the US. Government and the US. Navy from buying directly from a foreign government. Even if we were just to by the plans of the ship’s and build them ourselves. It would take 1 to 2-years to build a ship, once the KEEL is laid. We (i.e. US. Navy) doesn’t have the Luxury to wait for the ships to be built in that time frame. With our Dis-Functional Government, Funding is IFFY at best. We need to build ship’s FAST, and Fast means smaller ship’s. So If you now where there is a Replicator System, that allow us to build ship’s at Warp Speed. Please produce it, even if we did buy directly from a foreign government. It’s STILL going to take 1 or 2-years to build each ship…
    - Nicky
      
      Then again the only design left is the US Coast Guard’s National Security Cutter design. Though we can buy the design rights, but it has to be built in US shipyards.
    - Secundius
      
      @ Nicky.
      
      The Coast Guard is decommissioning 90-ship, just so we can replace with 91 brand new ships. The Coast Guard is in worse shape then the Navy is. Their fleet is older…
    - Nicky
      
      Then again, the USCG was able to do more with Less
    - Secundius
      
      @ Nicky.
      
      There seem to be a reluctance on either the US. Navy’s or SecDef. to go in that direction. And I can’t tell you WHY…

R Spitzer

Ahh… and I think the Join Chiefs of Staff become Ostrich’s when they sit at the JCS. Oh wait… they actually maybe “see head in the sand”

KellyJ

Calling a turd a Diamond does not mean my wife will put it on her finger. Its not the name. Its the platform.

PolicyWonk

From Breaking Defense Dot Com:

““I don’t worry per se about its survivability where I would intend to
send it,” (Admiral) Greenert said of the LCS. “You won’t send it into an
anti-access area.” That is, the LCS shouldn’t venture into waters where
American military “access” is jeopardized by weapons such as shore-based
missiles, small attack boats, and mines, the very threat that is the
focus of the Navy and Air Force “AirSea Battle” concept.”
=========================================================
In short, LCS – the “Littoral Combat Ship”, isn’t designed to venture into the “L” part of its name (“Littoral”) and take part in the C-word (“Combat”), which leaves the taxpayers with “Ship”.

A $400M ship – not counting any mission package – that the US Navy itself says is incapable of doing the job its name implies. So now its being re-branded as something else it isn’t – now an even bigger lie than the initials “LCS” – as if that makes it ok.

The skyrocketing cost of LCS was explained away (in part) due to design modifications made to strengthen the sea-frame to the navy’s level-1 survivability standard (up from commercial grade). Recently, Defense Industry Daily revealed that the navy admitted that neither LCS variant meets even that lowest possible standard.

Disgusting. Dishonest. Deceitful. Dangerous.

Winners: Lockheed, Austal, other recipients of this corporate welfare program, and adversaries of the USA
Losers: US Taxpayers, US national security, those who serve on them.

Curtis Conway

The knowingly placing ‘serciemen/women’ at risk almost places this in the criminal. This is not just sickening, it is irresponsible . . . to make a buck, or return a political favor. This is almost equal to the boots bought during the Civil War that came apart in the rain. We know the LCS-FF cannot win in battle, but we are building them to go there, saying that we will not send them?!?!?!?!
RobM1981

It’s OK that the public loses sight of just how vast the oceans are, but it’s criminal for the USN to do so. And by “criminal” I mean, “they are doing it on purpose, and should be punished for it.”

The modern USN still has great need of the role a Frigate fills. We will never have the assets to send full “AirSeaBattle” resources into a foreign harbor. This is obvious to anyone who is even casually paying attention, and your comments are spot on.

We need a *survivable* vessel. That’s probably Priority #1, since – to do its job – a Frigate has to go into harbors where shady characters are to be expected. The USS Cole is not an anomaly. So the ship has to be outfitted with modern defensive equipment. Beam and sound weapons make a lot of sense. CIWS, of course – perhaps two or more. It should be large enough to host a sizeable array of capabilities, and to “take a punch” if one gets through.

VLS allows a wide arrange of loadouts. A hangar is a must have, along with at least a reasonable ASW sensor suite.

An FFG is typically going to be our first asset at the scene. It has to be survivable, and it has to offer at least enough of a threat to “give the opponent pause.”

By 2020 I’d like to see an FFG ship at least a few ABM-capable Standards, and a radar that can handle the task. If Patriot’s were doing it during Desert Shield, then a 2020 FFG should have “better than that.”

This isn’t too much to ask, and it’s an insult that the USN is trying to dress up the LCS as even close to it. Or, as said, to pretend that the mission isn’t the mission.

Shame on the USN, for sure.
- PolicyWonk
  
  You might want to have a look at the recent article on Breaking Defense Dot Com, where Bryan Clark, a former assistant to the Chief of Naval Operations, tries to figure out how LCS/FF should be up-gunned.
  
  It is ironic that a ship that was supposed to be so simple to upgrade in capabilities (anti-sub, anti-mine, surface warfare) is especially difficult to arm well because it was never designed to fight – and that omission was *intentional*.
  
  Now we’re stuck with a so-called “frigate” (as opposed to a mere LCS) that even Adm. Greenert admitted isn’t able to do the job – and we haven’t even built them yet!
  
  Disgusting. Unethical. Dishonest. Dangerous.

Doug Uhlmann

This is just some admiral/CNO justifying his job. And not very well I might add

j011254

These ships do not fulfill the traditional role of Frigates. In the past, they were fast ships which packed a punch, but the, now former LCS, are not that capable despite what the Navy says. It is little more than a bad experiment, which should be stopped. The money could be better spent on a surface combatant that would increase the power of the fleet rather than diminish it.

@notrizzo

I think saying a Perry Class FFG (especially after they removed the G part) “packed a punch” is a stretch, it was an ASW and interdiction platform, which is what I think they envision the LCS-0 to be. Now I do think the FF is a stretch given the size, range and seaworthyness of the small tonnage platform, but as for capabilites in the strict roles it’s probably on par with the Perry FFs they are replacing (that is if everything on the ASW/SuWA package works, which is a whole different problem).
- dreamer75
  
  The “G” historically meant the ship carried some version of the “Standard” missile family or its 3T predecessors. Knox class FFs at different points in their lifespans carried NATO Seasparrow, Harpoon, and ASROC yet were always designated as FFs. So would the longer range ESSM warrant a change to FFG?
  - Rob C.
    
    I thought it meant it was equipped with Guidence system to direct missiles. Thus Guided Missile .
  - Secundius
    
    @ dreamer75.
    
    Actually “G” meant Guided (as in Guided-Missile)…
  - old guy
    
    So do the Spanish F81s. Also SQR19 towed sonar
    - Secundius
      
      @ old guy.
      
      I think the Spanish F101, Alvaro de Bazan class, would make a great FFG substitution @ ~$600-Million apiece…
    - old guy
      
      Could not agree more. Unconfirmed data, F101 costs ⅔ LCS
    - Secundius
      
      @ old guy.
      
      Project AeroPower (Kokudoryoku Kelkaku)…
    - Secundius
      
      @ old guy.
      
      Revised cost $942.42-Million USD. for the Spanish F101, Alvaro de Bazan class FFG’s…

EVA-04

Calling the LCS a Frigate is like calling a minnow a barracuda.

NavySubNuke

Little Crappy Ships are to Frigates as Nissan Versas are to Dodge Vipers.

Pat Patterson

Or Ludicrous Crappy Ship
old guy

Which are Mitsubishi 3000s.
- Secundius
  
  @ old guy.
  
  Don’t you actually mean, the 6000 SUX from RoboCop (1987)…
  - old guy
    
    NAH, I have a ’93 and it is 3000 GT all the way.
    - Secundius
      
      @ old guy.
      
      LOL, how’s your Japanese research going…

Steve Skubinna

Not “Fast Frigates.” There never was such a thing. FF is simply Frigate.

Do you think a DD is “Deadly Destroyer?” Maybe SS is a “Sneaky Submarine?”

And anyway, a ship’s designation ideally ought to reflect capabilities and missions. Up-gunned LCS platforms still don’t sound much like frigates. I suspect the real reason to redesignate them is to justify afloat command billets for O-5s.

Secundius

@ Steve Skubinna.

In this particular case it’s Fast Frigates, because or 47.5-knots for the Freedom class and 44-knots for the Independence class…
- old guy
  
  Neither of those speeds have ever even been close to achieved. The tri-hull is a slug and the monohull is a joke. Ah, but 35 knots is racing, for today’s Navy.
  - Curtis Conway
    
    Old Guy, I’m beginning to move over to your Mako camp. It is clear that the US Navy has no intention ob building a frigate that can survive and fight (no NSC move, or sufficient up-gun of LCS-1 Class). I’m a fan of the Anzac and it’s a hunter, particularly with the non-rotating 3D radar. THAT is what we should be about! If they want to keep the jobs . . . we can build them here.
    
    The only thing I don’t like about the Mako is my same gripe about the NSC. Segregated propulsion for each shaft provides propulsion redundancy. I would put an LM2500 and DRS electric motor on both shafts with two GTGs on board. One would have speed, survivability, fire-power, and all the electrical power you could want, even with directed energy upgrade in the future, but most of all it has a real gun. One can (and has) put a lot into a 5″ projectile.
    - Secundius
      
      @ Curtis Conway.
      
      I think you mean MEKO, not MAKO if your talking German…
    - Curtis Conway
      
      Thanks – Team Player!
    - old guy
      
      Your admonition is SHARKING.
    - old guy
      
      If you are moving over, please move quickly. I’m 87+ and who knows? HA, HA!
  - Secundius
    
    @ old guy.
    
    On 19 November 2009, USS. Independence official speed run recorded the ship’s speed at ~45-knots.
    
    In the case of USS. Freedom, the speed run wasn’t official, because it wasn’t part of the Navy Evaluation Test. On 22 February 2010, while operating off Columbia’s coast. Freedom encountered a Columbian Go-Fast with ~500-kilo’s of “cocaine” onboard, Freedom gave chase. The Columbian Go-Fast had to “dump” it’s cargo to getaway from Freedom, the speed set by Freedom was ~47.5-knots. Because it wasn’t an actual operational test of the ship’s capabilities, it wasn’t offically recorded in the Log’s…
    - old guy
      
      I meant a speed log, not a book.
  - Secundius
    
    @ old gun.
    
    1. 18 October 2009, LCS-2, USS. Independence recorded speed in excess of 45-knots.
    2. 22 February 2010, LCS-1, USS. Freedom, off the coast of Columbia, intercepted Columbian Drug Cartel Cocaine laden’d Go-Fast with ~227-kilo’s of Cocaine. While not official, she achieved 47.5-knots, Because it was not part of scheduled Test Run Speed Trials. It was NOT acknowledged as “Official High Speed”. Acknowledged speed was set a over 47-knots…
    - old guy
      
      Not doubting you or your data, BUT, was it obtained by a log aboard’ (most are inaccurate over 30 its, or a radar, which is accurate? When we clocked 96.5 knots on the SES100B, it was recorded by the A/F’s ARIS radar in Florida. I have the track printout. Do you know the source?
    - Secundius
      
      @ old guy.
      
      Most if not all Freedom’s test’s were conducted on Lake Michigan, I suspect so was Independence’s. I know that in the case on Independence, course was 44.5-miles long. Why Lake Michigan was chosen is unclear. And reason why Freedom was of Columbia’s coast is also unclear…
    - old guy
      
      SHMOOOTH water
Secundius

@ Steve Skubinna.

You might want to update your Ship’s Classification Table Book. But FF, means Fast Frigate. FR, means Frigate…
old guy

I understand, but I like your thinking. Try BB, LCS, PGM and V22.
- Secundius
  
  @ old guy.
  
  DOD Dictionary of Military Terms of 08 November 2010, as amended through 15 January 2015.
  1. FF
  FF: Navy Fast Frigate, Source JP 1-02
  URL: acronym/f/12929.html
  
  2. Ff
  Ff: Fatigue correction Factor, Source JP 1-02
  URL: acronym/f/12930.html
  
  Example: Some call it a “Camel”, while other’s call it a “Kentucky Derby Racing Horse” design by a Congressional Committee…

DrewPurple

I see from the comments that time zones mean I am behind the lead on this. Okay … so I shall await the shock testing results and really minor FF stuff like that and then perhaps SECNAV might be quietly taken aside and told “Sir … has anyone told you you’re wearing no clothes?”. Ahhh dear, and our Great and Powerful Ally appears to have done it again. Please God no one who takes command thinks they are actually driving an FF (of whatever description).

Curtis Conway

As constructed, the current design will not survive shock testing with sufficient capability to call it a success. That is one of the reasons RAM was converted to SeaRAM . . . trying to hedge their bet.

Ctrot

Why stop at FF? Why not just change it to BB and call it a battleship, if doing so makes them feel better about this sham.

old guy

Ya’ beat me to it.To (mis)quote Gertrude Stein, ” An LCS by any other name, would still smell.”

@notrizzo

As long as their putting real names on things can they make the DDG-1ks in CGs? A ship that displaces 14,564 tons (compared to 9,800 for a Aegis CG & Burke Class DDG) being called a Destroyer is just silly, and also would better represent it’s role & capabilities.

Ramsey

How about calling it a CA, since the primary weapon would seem to be the AGS?
- @notrizzo
  
  Zumwalt’s carry 80 lauch cells between it’s 20 MK57 VLS, so the G is still well deserved. The plan durin the design phase was that these DDGs would need to carry fewer LACM (or ASCM) since it’s primary surface-to-surface weapon would be the AGS (or eventually the EMRG), which means a higher percentage of the missile magazine could go to SM-2/6 (I believe the Zumwalts aren’t intended to carry SM-3s for BMD, could be wrong on that), thus a DDG-1000 might carry a large number of weapons for AAW than a DDG-51.
  - Secundius
    
    @ notrizzo.
    
    An 80-cell launcher usually consists of (40) SM-6 ERAM’s, (26) Harpoon/ArcLight ASM’s and (14) TLAM’s. But configuration varies depending on mission requirements…
Secundius

@ notrizzo.

Arleigh Burke class Destroyers have the same displacement of some Light Cruiser’s of WW2. The Zumwalt is just a Generation Step ahead of the Arleigh Burke class Destroyers. And the OHP class Frigate’s displacement, exceed’s the displacement of WW2 Fletcher class Destroyers…
- Mike
  
  Some light cruisers displacement exceed that of a heavy cruiser during WWII. The classification light vs heavy was based on it’s guns. 5″ in the case of CLAA, 6″ in CL’s and 8″ CA’s. For example the USS Helena CL-50 displace 13,500 tons while the USS San Francisco CA-38 displaced 9950 tons. The Zumwalts were to replace the Ticonderoga class cruisers and it should rightly be called a cruiser. To call it a destroyer is an insult to true destroyers.

ed2291

Why not call them aircraft carriers or battleships if a name change is all that is needed? No other service has the embarrassment of this many continuous displays of stupidity at the top.

Vits59

If they are going to do that,I believe they should have built Lockheed Martins MultiMission Combatant take the 150 Meter Design and instead make it somewhere between 135 to 140 Meters.Which would be between442 to 459 feet long.

Secundius

@ Vits59.

The OHP class went from a 445-foot (short) to 453-foot (long), what’s your point…

KM

Complete utter Horseshit! Maybe a Corvette, but a Frigate no way!

Secundius

Of the two classes, the Independence closely matches the OHP class Frigates…

CaptainParker

Ah…this merely illustrates (a) the power of the defense contractors to have the final say, and (b) no serving officer will do anything that will put into jeopardy a potential post-active duty second career with one of the defense contractors. We WILL bleed in the next big war.

Curtis Conway

AMEN!!!

DaSaint

FF is a more traditional designation. The Garcia’s, Brooke’s, and Knox class were all appropriately FFs, and all of them were low-end in comparison to the rest of the fleet. LCS being redesignated isn’t an issue.
The FF/LCS has an opportunity to be a creative platform, however. If they were to embark SF or Marine detachments, plus an MH-60 and a couple AH-1s or MH/AH-6s and Fire Scouts, that could be interesting, and alleviate some of the platform’s inherent shortcomings. The larger helicopters could be equipped with ASMs giving the vessel an over-the-horizon range and much greater flexibility, while the smaller ones would support SF detachments.
Overall, while improvements are needed (identical FCS across classes), better ESM/ECM, some SSMs, etc., wholesale changes aren’t required for low-end vessels.

Secundius

@ DaSaint.

There was NOTHING Fast of either the Gargia class @ 27-knots, the Brooke class @ 27.2-knots, and the Knox class @ >27-knots…

Pops

Lanikai Cruise Ship a Frigate? Not! May not even be a Corvette, perhaps a Sloop at best…

Secundius

January 15/February 1, 2015, issue of AW&ST. NavSec. Ray Mabus announced from this day forward, both Freedom/Independence class LCS L-classes are reclassified as FF (Fast Frigate’s)…

old guy

GEEZ, and I thought the FF was for FAKE FIGHTERS

Ken Badoian

Still not being upgunned – still small crew, still not built to higher standards, still a piece of crap…MMCS(SW)(SS) USN Ret.

OLDNAVYVET

I think the saying starts “You can’t make a silk purse….”

Curtis Conway

What has been wrong with LCS from the beginning?

The cost vs benefit makes no sense, basic combat capabilities in the potential battle space is insufficient, and primary design criteria is upside down. One plans for
the worst and hopes for the best. The LCS Program has planned for the best possible operational environment, and provided little with which to defend one’s self when Murphy inevitably shows up, with what will most likely be brought to bear by our most likely potential adversary in the Pacific (Order of Battle).

Aircraft operational 3D environmental design matrix (speed is life) was used in the wrong environment (2D battle space where speeds just makes it an easier target to find) has created the ultimate enemy target. The LCS is a multi-million dollar SEPTAR or Larne Target, and having attracted the wrath of the adversary will die because it is ill equipped to defend itself.

Designed to operate in a dangerous environment, close to the beach, in shallow water, and we are told the vessel will not be sent into dangerous areas where it requires defensive combat power it does not possess. Have you seen the Electronic
Order of Battle (EOB) of the most likely adversary? Air-to-surface, surface-to-surface, and sub & supersonic Anti-Ship Cruise Missiles (ASCMs) large and small . . . and in huge numbers! Anyone who claims the LCS (whatever you call it) will not face these threats is “Living on a River in Egypt”.

The US Navy has partly changed the name to help control the debate (we need a frigate) yet not equipping the platform to do now specified frigate jobs (Escort
[no meaningful AAW capability with which to protect its charges] & Shore bombardment [it’s near the beach where the Marines are]). This program makes no sense, but it is keeping shipyard workers employed in tow locations. If I was a member of this workforce I would quit out of principle. They are building floating coffins for our sailors.

It’s as if the people responsible for making the decisions on how to spend the tax payer’s money, on our surface combat fleet, are ‘Out to Lunch’, or not qualified for the task. Just like terrorism has grown tremendously around the planet, the EOB of
our most likely adversary in the Pacific has changed to handle targets out to
1,000 miles from the beach. The minimum AAW requirement for ANY surface combatant must be at least TBM defense capability at some level (20 nm is ok), with a non-rotating 3D radar for reaction time, and control).

In other words, the folks in Crystal City might as well be in the Emerald City, because they are not living in the Real World . . . and the American Taxpayers are paying for it, and our sailors will pay for this with their lives.

The Royal Australian Navy’s ANZAC Frigate comes in at about the same tonnage and draft, with a whole lot more combat power including a 5″ gun, at about the same cost. Almost everyone else can build this, but we can’t. Sad state of affairs.

RobM1981

On the face of it this seems like a pretty bad idea.

But… and this is purely speculation… we do seem to be on the cusp of some serious technical changes. The advent of the Free Electron Laser weapons is a pretty big deal. Continuing improvements in SAM technology, up to and including ABM, is impressive.

I don’t know if I’d build many more LCS “frigates” at this point… but we do need a small class of ship to “show the flag,” even if it can get its butt kicked by just about any port it will visit. It’s not as if the American River Patrol ships in China were able to withstand any kind of real opposition…

…then again, they never claimed that they could, and nobody every called them “frigates.”

If the LCS “frigates” are merely to hold the line until some truly modern designs can be developed and tested? I might be good with that. If beam weapons can be developed over the next five years to provide strong CIWS capabilities, plus SW, plus close range anti-aircraft capabilities? All in one container?

That could change things pretty dramatically. That could make a 3,500 to 4,000 ton vessel into something pretty potent, and probably save enough weight to even provide some significant protection.

I’d like to think that somewhere, someone is thinking along these lines…

Secundius

Marine Insight, confirms that the Raytheon RIM-174 ERAM (Extended-Range, Active Missile) or SM-6 ERAM. To be deployed on 35-ship’s now, instead of just 5-ships…

Chesapeakeguy

Given it’s missions and capabilities, I think a more accurate label for the LCS would be “corvette”. We’re long past any real logic being applied to the naming of ships and subs. One designation that should be dropped from them all is the “G”, meaning guided missile. What DOESN’T have a guided missile of some class on it these days? You can have a dinghy being rowed on the water, and if there is someone on board with an operational MANPADS in his/her hands, you can then apply the “G” to it! Ship classifications should be based on primary missions and weapons/sensor loads. If need be it would make some sense to bring back the designation of “light”, as in “light cruisers”, for some classifications.

Secundius

@ Chesapeakeguy.

Incorrect, you SeaRam, it’s a Guided-Missile System…
Nicky

I would say the LCS is more akin to a Corvette than a Frigate.
- Secundius
  
  @ Nicky.
  
  Hey Nicky do you want to hear a funny joke? The last purpose designed and built Frigate class in the United States. Was designed in 1992, built in 1993, and transferred to the Israeli Navy in 1994. Called the INS. Eilat or Sa’ar-5 class Corvette (US. small Frigate)…
  - Nicky
    
    Oh yea, tell me about it. The SA’AR 5 Corvettes were and still are perfect for the US Navy and USCG for Littoral operations.
    - Secundius
      
      @ Nicky.
      
      I just find it interesting that the last Administration, put TOP PRIORITY, Value on another Sovereign Nation. Over the Priority of Our Nation…
    - Nicky
      
      I know, the only REAL frigate left in the US is from the US Coast Guard’s National Security Cutter.
    - Secundius
      
      @ Nicky.
      
      Possible good news Nicky. I’ve done a “little digging”, there the FFE-62 (Light Frigate) project in the planning stage. Possibly based on the NSC (Legend class) lines, no name for the first ship as of yet. Possible projected cost >$800-Million USD./unit. Allocation of funds, lose the last 35-LCS/FF classes and reallocate the funds for a 20-ship FFE-62 class. Nothing firm, still digging to learn more, could also be a waste of time or a “blind alley”…
    - Nicky
      
      What FFE-62 (Light Frigate) ? What’s your sources
    - Secundius
      
      @ Nicky.
      
      DoD Buzz…
    - Nicky
      
      What’s the link
    - Secundius
      
      @ Nicky.
      
      Try either Navy Frigate fantasies die hard / DoD Buzz, August 22, 2011 or just Google ffe-62 light frigate and it takes directly to site…
    - Secundius
      
      @ Nicky
      
      Did you get the information or not. I’ve been reddited several time over the last few days. So, I don’t know weather or not you got the INFO you wanted…
    - Secundius
      
      @ Nicky.
      
      February 2 through 15, 2015 copy of Aviation Week & Space Technology have an article of LCS/FF as possible OHP class Frigate replacement. And show Indepencence class making “Doughnut’s” in the ocean…
    - Ed L
      
      Good size Ship. but whose idea was it to mount a Bofors 57MM gun? Anyone Remember the USCG Taney WHEC-37 She was Frigate
  - Ed L
    
    I remember that. It was a good design. Perfect Command for a LCDR.
    - old guy
      
      Please, see my comment above
- old guy
  
  But one that is outgunned by a 1/10 the cost, PG-84.

Secundius

It would appear that ASW gear for the LCS/Fast Frigate, is severely FLAWED. Doesn’t even meet Basic Minimum Requirements according Early Bird Times…

Secundius

If anyone is interested, USS. Sea Slice. An Experimental SWATH-Hull Design Test Ship, is going on the auction block. Starting bidding price $180,000.00 USD., just 0.012% of the original cost of $15,000.000.00 USD. Anyone interested, act soon…

Ed L

When it comes to Frigates I always though of the Perry Class as an “okay we will build this frigate but it will stay with the Battle Group.” I remember a couple Knox Class Frigates the would accompany our Amphip Squadron from time to time. We would also get a Charles F. Adams class destroyer or two for protection. The LCS even upgun are not capable for stand alone, convoy, or even provide Amphibous support. I think one of the best examples Today of a Frigate that could go in harms way is the ROK NEW Incheon Class Frigate. About 2500 tons, 374 ft long 46 ft wide with a depth of 13ft. combine diesel and gas turbine propulsion. Armament a 5 inch gun, A Phalanx, RAM Block 1, 4 Anti ship missles or cruise missles, and 2 triple tropedoes launcher. It also can carry an SH-60. Plus I would toss in a couple of 20MM chain guns in casemates on the superstructure. Now that is a Frigate. One could even add a Towed Array Sonar on it. Korea even offers an export version. But I feel America’s leadership would be too narrow minded to buy the license to produce 100 Frigates like these. But would rather send an Arleigh Burke destroyer.

Secundius

@ ED L.

I’m not opposed to “Ordering Out, and Eating In”, but with a Disfunction-Functional Congress. Who’s going to pay for it…

Ed L

Asheville class. I remember them, lots of teeth. A few were out of Little Creek VA. That always bother me when I was in. A simple system with the ability to be flexible and the Navy would dump it.

Feb	AUG	Sep
	06
2016	2017	2018

Menu

SEARCH

USNI News

SNA: Modified Littoral Combat Ships to be Designated Frigates

Related

Menu