LCS Missile Probs Detailed

LCS Missile Probs Detailed

By Greg Grant Wednesday, March 31st, 2010 1:06 pm
Posted in Naval

The failure of the Army’s Non Line-of-Sight-Launch System (NLOS-LS) Precision Attack Missile (PAM) to hit its targets in a recent series of live fire tests could prove problematic to the Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship (LCS).  LCS is to be fitted out with interchangeable modular mission packages, such as various weapons, aerial drones and helicopters, so the same ship can be custom tailored to different missions.

One of the primary missions of the LCS is to act as a screen for larger fleet ships, fending off small boat swarms in coastal waterways. The standard package for that mission is the Surface Warfare module (SUW), which includes a 30mm cannon and the NLOS-LS. According to the auditors at the Government Accountability Office, the Navy took delivery of a SUW package in 2008, minus the launcher and missiles (see page 98).

GAO says the launcher was tested last summer, but failed due to a malfunctioning sensor and battery connector. The Navy expects delivery of another SUW package this year, this time with the laudncher, but minus the missiles. As we noted in our previous write up, Army officials told us they think the missile’s targeting problems are pretty serious ones, considering how far along the NLOS-LS is in development. They’ve hinted they may look at a low cost alternative to the NLOS-LS.


Yet, the Navy is going ahead with delivery of the launcher. Why is the Navy taking delivery of a problematic launcher to fit in a mission module for an unproven missile? I’m guessing they’ve already sized the module for the NLOS-LS and at this stage it may be tool late to redesign it for another launcher without incurring serious costs. Absent a functioning SUW package, the LCS is not mission capable for its primary function as a small surface combatant. We’ll try and get some answers from the Navy on whether they have another launcher and missile on-deck in case the NLOS-LS doesn’t pan out.

Join the Conversation

BOOMER March 31st, 2010 at 6:01 pm

The main gun as placed is useless if a target manages to get in too close, we already have good surface to surface and surface to air missles that should have been part of the standard package, the 30mm and Nlos would not be useful against anything more than junkets, trawlers, and small speed boats. It will be totaly outmatched by the Corvettes and torpedo boats employed by most nations other than ours. I dont know what they were thinking but it obviously must have been that we would only be fighting countries with no Naval or coastal defense units (i.e. land locked or super poor like Somolia), all of the Iranian, North Korean and Chinees cigaretts and missle patrol boats which constanly harras us outgun this thing. Could had bought a few VISBY’s which have everything at all times this thing has to be individualy configured to do, or one VISBY and a bunch of Fearless class corvettes that also outgun the LCS. They at least should have looked over janes fighting ships and reviewed the capabilities of all the coastal countries we may be facing in the future, this thing is just a decoy and floating target.

Retired Now March 31st, 2010 at 6:49 pm

How dare you refer to this Recruiting Poster Tool as a “warship”.

These ships are worth every dime and will pay off handsomely by increasing recruiting.

Aurora March 31st, 2010 at 7:46 pm

It should be called the “Pubelo 2″ Class. It is minimally manned and woefully under armed. We are inviting disaster deploying this thing without sufficient support. I’ll take more DDG 51s any day.

Aurora March 31st, 2010 at 8:10 pm

Just to review the bidding:
–We’ve got an aircraft, the F-35, that may or may not cost more than the vastly more capable F-22, which the Pentagon terminated. The F-35 just breached Nunn-McCurdy.
–DOD/USAF are still trying to acquire a new tanker aircraft, after at least 8 years of SNAFU’s and are now trying to give the contract to the French to curry favor with the NATO allies?
–The Navy’s new “warship” doesn’t seem capable of fighting its way out of a paper bag.
–They might get around to getting a new search & rescue helicopter, after the CSAR-X disaster?
–The VH-71 experienced some “slight” cost escalation and was deep sixed.

What’s going right in the world of acquisition? Anything?

Perhaps they should work through GSA?

HKDan April 1st, 2010 at 12:20 am

While the failure of the recent NLOS tests is a serious setback, this article, like many other critical of the LCS concept is missing the point. It is exactly the modular concept of the LCS that makes this less than fatal. Its modular, so lets start looking for a module that will work. Maybe its time for further investigations into adapting the Army’s GMLRS to fit the bill. Many have expressed dissatisfaction at the RAM as the primary surface to air system, something could eventually be done about that. ESSM comes to mind. The point is, with a modular system that is designed specifically with the space to accept new tech, this can all be done. The failure of any one module in itself isn’t enough to ruin the broader concept. Costs, however, that seems like the real silver bullet to me.

Eroll April 1st, 2010 at 5:01 am

Or you could have read about NLOS BS back in 2004. http://​www​.g2mil​.com/​n​e​t​f​i​r​e​s​.​htm

Tony C April 1st, 2010 at 12:16 pm

The LCS is now a large aluminum target and aluminum burns very well.
The best defense for these ships is to take evasive action, not a good defense
against surface skimming missiles. These ships need a robust anti-missile
system and a robust over the horizon anti-ship missile. The speed is a plus
and will make them harder to hit with a gun, but as stated in other comments,
the flood of small speed boats could overwhelm one LCS. This ship is in need
of support during combat operations.

Shail April 1st, 2010 at 2:15 pm

“They’ve hinted they may look at a low cost alternative to the NLOS-LS.“
There isn’t one.
At least there isn’t anything in that class that can carry a similar warhead to similar ranges with the option of multi mode seekers, to engage a wide variety of surface targets.
The closest two alternatives would be Lockheed Martin’s in-house developmental P.44 missile (10 pack into the space of a 6-cell MLRS rocket pod), which unfortunately so far has been advertised with the NetFires’ troublesome multimode seeker tech, or Israel’s recent IAI “Jumper” missile, similarly package in a launch/guidance control multi-cell box like Netfires (just different overall dimensions).
Problem is, these aren’t currently configured into an LCS Mission Module, which means more time and money to develop for ship use.
There is nothing else available to fit the NetFires’ footprint on the ship.
Almost like the US might as well give up going to war to defend our way of life: the defense contractors’ cost hikes for stuff that still doesn’t meet specs and requirements doesn’t allow for it anymore.

Lanning April 4th, 2010 at 4:57 pm

Great we have an overgrown gunboat. I have no faith in the Pentagon any more.

steve April 5th, 2010 at 3:25 pm

How come the Argintines can put an EXOCET on a 5-ton truck during the Falklands war, fire it, and hit a British ship and we-the most technologically advanced navy-cannot put a weapons sytem on a ship?

I think DOD should have just gone out and did a mass buy of someone else’s missile gunboats in place of this (LCS). Too much political interfeance in procurement processes.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement