Report: High cost prompts Israel to reject LCS

Report: High cost prompts Israel to reject LCS

Foreign military customers have always been one of the key goals of the Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship program, but at least one potential operator has already backed out, according to reports.

Israel had been looking at buying two littoral combat ships, according to a Jerusalem Post story this week, but their high cost means they’re no longer in the running. Here was the newspaper’s matter-of-fact account:

Due to budgetary constraints, the Navy has scrapped plans to purchase two next-generation missile ships and is instead looking to increase its fleet with smaller vessels. The Navy had originally decided to purchase the US Navy’s littoral combat ship, under development by defense contractor Lockheed Martin, but backed away from the deal after the price soared.


It then looked into buying designs from Germany’s Blohm+Voss and having the vessels built by Israel Shipyards – a privately owned company based in Haifa that already builds the navy’s smaller Shaldag patrol boats – but a senior IDF officer involved in procurement plans said that a budget for that plan was also lacking.

Instead, the Navy is now looking to order two new Sa’ar 4.5-class missile corvettes and to finance the deal by retiring two of its Sa’ar 4-class ships.

The U.S. Navy has a specific niche for LCS, but it also has its legacy fleet of cruisers and destroyers, so it doesn’t need the ships to be heavily armed combatants. But an LCS with Aegis, anti-ship missiles and other potential refinements has almost always been part of the contractors’ sales pitch, and the Israelis and Saudis both are said to have flirted with the idea of buying them.

Today, however, those notions seem dead in the water. The Israelis apparently don’t want to play and the Saudis, meanwhile, are talking about buying no-kidding Arleigh Burke-class destroyers.

There may be a silver lining for Lockheed, Austal and the U.S. Navy, however — despite admirals’ onetime admonitions that “they needed LCS yesterday,” the service and its vendors are taking their time putting together the ships, crews and mission equipment. When it’s all functioning operationally, doing deployments and proving itself worthy of the Global Force For Good, potential foreign customers on the sidelines might then want to join the LCS club.

Join the Conversation

Just as the Japanese stepped up to the F-35, and for about the same reason, the Israelis stepped back from the LCS! Neither the Japanese nor the Israelis felt that they could afford to wait.

Hilarious nonsense — they Japanese chose a bug ridden disaster over operational aircraft because they “couldn’t wait ?”.

Israel simply doesn’t have the money to buy rubbish.

Uh, the Israelis are currently set to buy F-35s; otherwise I totally agree.….

OK, remind me why we need the LCS so bad again (as if the F-35 didn’t cost enough).…..

Please dont confuse ITfunk with any stray relevant facts, it unnecessarily constrains his ranting! LOL!

Undergunned, undermanned, and very expensive (for what you get) while exhibiting some radical changes in basic concept for a naval vessel (hull shape, mission modues, etc…) with a lot of ambiguity as to exactly what the two designs are supposed to bring to the table.

Toss in the delays in developing the “mission modules” and there are skeptics aplenty.

Israel buys the ship from US military aid.. If the price comes down enough, Israel still can procure the ship.

a

So remind me why we need the LCS so badly and why we should have gone with a Multi role frigate with littoral capability.

So how come the US Navy doesn’t ditch the LCS and go with what they built for the Israeli Navy such as the Sa’ar 5-class corvette and modify it for US Navy use.

Well, I think that there might be a little bit of NIH in there somewhere, but… The Sa’ar 5 is a dang nice coastal corvette, well suited for the Israelis’ “theater of operation”, but.… not sure that it would be as viable of a warship in the wide Pacific. When you start to talk about operating over the breadth of the Pacific (or Atlantic for that matter), a lot of things change from an ideal ship for the eastern Med. THEN of course there is the issue of how to modify a Sa’ar, and the cost of engineering/testing those mods vs the cost to start with a clean sheet of paper

Also, at least SOME of the missions envisioned for the LCS would be, I suspect, pretty much out of the “sweet spot” for the Sa’ar. For example, imagine a Sa’ar 5 on a mineclearing mission or hauling a bunch of special operators to some beach 1500 miles away. Now, if you need to dance in the dark with a pack of Osa’s and Komars.… I think that Id probably take the Sa’ar, hands-down! :-)

Granted that the Sa’ar 5 class would have to modified for big ocean travels, but it’s a great template to start from.

For mineclearing you can use the onboard helicopter with a tow, which is the safest and most effective way. The Sa’ar 5 was also made with special operation in mind (come on, this is the Israeli’s we’re talking about) and can launch small boats, UAV’s, etc.

And remember, the Sa’ar 5 was built in the U.S. by Northrop Grumman (on Israeli designs); I don’t see them giving any arguement to a joint modification of those designs, Sa’ar 5.5 class we’ll call it, and having two of them built for themselves in return; everyone wins.

I’m wondering if we can build them for the Israeli Navy, why not build some for the US Navy and for that matter, the US Coast Guard as well. Build an LCS based upon the Sa’ar 5-class corvette and modify it for both the US Coast Guard and the US Navy as well. Heck that can be a shovel ready project that can get people back to work building a fleet of these for both the US Coast Guard and the US Navy, based on the Sa’ar 5-class corvette platform

Dont get me wrong, guys! Im with you on the idea that some Sa’ar 5s would be a darned fine acqusition for either the USN or USCG, and Im certain that both services would find excellent missions for them. I just dont see that in the tea leaves. For the USCG they have the issue of “sea keeping”, ie going out when its downright nasty. Boats designed for the Med (a veritible lake) just dont work when there’s a hurricane stirring in the south, a noreaster pounding at New England or some similar nastiness charging in from the northern Pacific. For the USN, there would always be the issue of expeditionary warfare. The Sa’ars are just plain designed to come home and tie up in a friendly port far more often than most USN ships.

Not that the boats COULD not be mofidifed to meet those missions, Im just not thinking that they WOULD be modified.

Lets play with this idea just a bit… if you take the Sa’ar hull and scale it up by a factor of two (for additional tankage and storage) what does that do for the propulsion? What about the stability of that particular hullform in ocean storms? Do we change the hull shape? Then redo the propulsion? What about the topsides treatment to handle icing? Do you increase the berthing for those SOF guys so that you can carry a full SEAL team or two? What about a Marine Ranger/Raider detachment?

The point is that a ship is a pretty “tight” system based on a mission, an environment, and a location. You cant just diddle one aspect without adjusting most of the rest. If you have ever swapped engines in a car, you know that the “just bolt in” mindset rarely works and the amount of modifications escalate rapidly once you start the project. Its the same with a ship design, only moreso!

Either a modified version of the Sa’ar 5s or we go back to building a frigate with Littoral capabilities that both the US Navy and US Coast Guard can use. Such as buying into the blueprints for the Formidable class frigate, Valour class frigate,Álvaro de Bazán class frigate or the Fridtjof Nansen class frigate.

One other option I was think is that the US Navy buy into the US Coast Guard’s National security cutter and make modifications based on the hull to US Navy Frigate standards. Make it Aegis and Harpoon capable.

They probably COULD have bought it today, if they had REALLY wanted it. The question is, as always, with X dollars to spend, do I spend it on one little ship, four big boats, or 10 little boats. Im betting that they end up with a whole bunch of smaller boats.….

because so much of the Navy leadership has drunk the LCS Koolaid. Once you drink the Koolaid the LCS
looks like a battleship.

I sort of like the Álvaro de Bazán’s but did you notice, thats a 6250 ton vessel, and a full blown, fully loaded Burke only goes about 9000 tons! In other words, the Bazan’s are pretty bold to be calling themselves frigates, much less substituting for an LCS which the USN refuses to even consider as a corvette. LOL!

They also seem to have the same powerplant (2xdiesels + 2xLM2500s) as the old Spru-cans, which were not exactly known for being at a loss for speed… :-)

Yep, I like the Álvaro de Bazán class frigate (destroyer!?!?!?) quite a bit!

I will concede that you are probably right on all those points.

The Sa’ar 5 would probably make a better match for the USCG than the USN in its current form. I guess we will just have to wait another decade for the Sa’ar 6 class to decide.

Maybe the US Navy can go with a scaled up version of the National Security Cutter and put all the frigate weapons and systems in them

Do the Israelis ever really buy anything as much of their Defense budget is based on how much the US is willing to give. And unfortunately, the US economy isn’t in shape to spend $Billions more to allow the Israeli navy. The Arleigh Burke class destroyer does make more sense as each ship has a pricetag of about $780-850M each while the base price of a LCS is about $500-550M and upgrading an LCS with AEGIS might add $75-100M.

thinking/exusaf ?? you have all the conflecting responses for any body with a question? You have no answer I care to listen to, Thank you! LCS is a ship for Sea Land warfare the Americans planned the ship for a nation in need of defense and offense in that area and if we produce the best then we should produce the best. If they cannot afford the armerment then build with the ability to add later and still sale the ship and the order for more weapons later. A sale to have more sales later

Come on people.. We are talkkng about a multi function brown water designed vessel .. Not a rhib or river rat as many of you suggest.. LCS is great if you have a dozen or so operating together.. And the price will go down considerably.. Look at the burkes intial cost in 1990.. Now look the cost.. Production costs go down the more you buy.. Anyone knows that..

Personally I think the LCS is undergunned and undermanned. Yet even if we got a proper frigate that could replace the LCS in that role, the LCS was also intended to replace minesweepers and other forgotten but important ships. We still need that part of the equation.

Say what?

The U.S. only provides around 3–5% of Israel’s military budget, and all of that has to be spent in the U.S..

The U.S. gets an amazing bang for the buck considering that $3 Billion (less than what they pay Saudi Arabia) buys them Mossad access, access to weapon systems like the Arrow, Iron Dome, UAV’s, THEL, TROPHY, etc., political pressure points and much more. Not to mention all captured foreign weapon systems and means to defeat them (the MiG-21, T-60’s and T-72’s, etc.)

If you want to start cutting then start with Pakistan and other hostile countries.

If there ever were a program that deserved to die this is it.

Actually, I revisited the numbers, check this out:

Range:
LCS Freedom — 3,500 nm
LCS Independence — 4,300 nm
Sa’ar 5 — 3,500 nm

I think the refit would be less than you think it would be.

The only advantage the LCS ships hold over the Sa’ar 5 class is the ability to do short bursts of 40km/h+ speeds and slightly stealthier outlines (to be expected from a ship launched 20 years later).

So far I don’t see anything that a new Sa’ar 5.5 class couldn’t handle, I mean just look at that weapon loadout for the Sa’ar 5 (from wikipedia):

–8 RGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missiles
– Most probably replaced already by the advanced Gabriel 4 or 5 missiles.

–64 Barak surface-to-air missiles
–Soon to be Barak 8 (60-70km range) with the MF-STAR radar (superior to the SPY-1 AEGIS).

–Phalanx CIWS

–6 Mark 32 torpedo tubes (Mark 46 torpedoes)

–Along with some other undisclosed weapons.

Makes the LCS look like a toy in comparison. Imagine what a larger size Sa’ar 5.5 could carry.

The Sa’ar 5’s are perfect for the US Coast Guard and they can replace their OPC as well.

Maybe the Sa’ar 5 may not fit the LCS role for the US Navy, but can you see the Sa’ar 5 be a perfect fit for the US Coast Guards Role in replacing the 210 & 270’s with modifications to fit into the USCG mission. I can see the Sa’ar 5 replacing the 210 and 270’s. I think that a replacement for the LCS is a frigate with littoral capabilities and a capability to carry an Spec ops team or a platoon of marines. What I am looking at replacing the LCS with is something more like the Formidable class frigate, F125 class Frigate, Fridtjof Nansen class frigate & Valour class frigate

Give it to them, at least they will know how to use it.

The LCS is a great platform for anyone who has fisrt hand knowledge of it’s structure and it’s weapons modules. It can operate in waters that the majority of U.S. Warships cannot plus carry Spec. Op’s, Marines, and specialized aviation groups. The best of the class is being built by Marinette Marine of Marinette, Wisconsin. I’ve crused the North Atlantic on a tin can and the USS Nimitz and winter on lake Michigan can match the North Atlantic without problem and that is where the Marinette Marine Ships are tested unlike the Mississippi Ships that cruse that languid waters of the gulf of mexico. the Navy would be stupid much like you sferrin to let a program like this die.

Not only have you drank the Kookaid but you are DRUNK on the Koolaid

“structure” ?? you’re kidding right, all aluminum, built to (very low survivability) commercial standards

“and it’s weapons modules” 57mm pop gun and and and and and.….….….???

“carry Spec. Op’s”?? There no Navy Seal in world that’s going to ride this monster into battle
this thing is nothing but a glorified 3000ton jetski. The whole world is laughing at us for this outlandishly expensive do nothing travesty

This Austal-LM vessel is bad ass and fast as hell. We got a chance to participate in some initial sea going tests and were blown away by its pure performance and capacity. A frigate, really?

I reviewed the specs and am appalled at the complete lack of utility of the LCS designs. That, and they’re all aluminum construction! We apparently have completely forgotten the lesson learned in 1986 from the conflageration aboard the USS STARK due to the Iraq attack with EXOCET ASMs. The Iraqis claimed to mis ID the ship, and thinking it was an Iranian tanker attacked it. The first missile did not detonate, but spread fuel all over which ignited. The second one exploded. The fire was out of control for some time, burning at incredible levels due to the aluminum alloy used to construct the bridge. The same thing happened to the HMS SHEFFIELD in the Falkland Islands War (1982). She was hit by an Argentinian launched EXOCET, which did not explode, but spread fuel on the ship which ignited. They lost the ship to fire, which they couldn’t control. The lessons learned from those incident was we shouldn’t build ship superstructures with aluminum alloy. It was done due to weight considerations, but it was found they contributed to loosing the ships by adding oxygen to the fires.

As we’re so proned to do, we’re disregarding lessons learned only a generation ago. Less than 25 had passed and all the lessons have been forgotten or disregarded with Navy leadership not only going back to a former practice, but deciding to build the entire ship of aluminum! One hit and she’s gone. Apparently we’re willing to spend outrageous amounts of money for throw away ships now. Are the crews also throw away? That, or they’re not even planning for combat. That might be it. With all the other policies, from promoting increased and open inclusion of GLBTs in the ranks to another round of reductions in force strength, it’s clear our navy is to become all show, and no blow.

What we’re showing is we’re building ships to show the flag and that’s about it. The rainbow flag, that is.

They’re not the only ones that should reject the LCS *cough* *cough* US Navy *cough*

Not real big surprise that Israel backed off of the LCS. They have been shopping for at least the last 4 years with champagne taste and a Budwieser budget. Lots of companies throwing good money after bad to try to win their business only to get the equiivalent of the Seinfeld line, “No Soup for You” when the company won’t met their unrealistic price demands. Lots of hype made over a nothing issue.

When I was a young teen I spent hours in the public library studying Jane’s Fighting Ships — real combat vessels. Right next to that volume was a book that listed all the “gooney birds” we spent money on in WW2 but which were never built or fielded. Today, the LCS fills that spot. It is a designer’s wet dream and a maintenance nightmare. Kill this disaster before we are shamed by its incapacities in battle. Then fire any admiral or politicial appointee supporting it. Since they know how to waste money, we don’t need them either.

So what is your proposed solution? Keep cranking out $2B a copy Burkes? I like em but they cost a lot of moeny. How about $7B a copy and counting DDG 1000s. Oh I know through more money at the aging OHP frigates and keep them around ANOTHER 10 years past their expected service life.

Or maybe we build something to replace the OHPs that is just as capable as they are today, in fact more. The first couple CG 47s and DDG 51s had their “kinks” just like LCS. Once you shake them out a bit, they will be a real force enabler. Not some touchy feely rainbow flag waver. Plus the lifecycle cost savings of reducing from a 300 man crew on a aircraft embarked DDG to a 75 man crew makes the ship FREE.

Better throw in a reading class as well for you.

We are giving them F-35 for free, so you are both irrelevant and wrong.

Maybe the US Navy is using aluminum in the LCS to save weight and they are hoping the new generation of anti-ship missiles are so potent that they would go through the LCS without exploding? Aluminum will burn at high temperature, that was proven on the USS Starke. The designers know this and will have to design fire suppression sytems to handle that. The LCS uses a minimal crew with maximum automation, redundant systems and the like. The question becomes, how much battle damage can those systems handle before they are overwhelmed? I am gald I am not there to find out!

OK, if I must. The aging fleet of mine hunters are going away. The Navy needed a new mine hunter. Since the present mine hunters can only do one thing, hunt for mines, for nearly 99% of their useful life they are useless. How often do we have to deal with mines today? But the threat stll exists as we can see by the Iranians threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz. So why not design a ship that can mine hunt asa well as other things, such as hunt for subs (we do this everyday)? I wouldn’t expect a present day mine hunter to go into battle, but they will be present. One hit and they are done and they have no means to defend thamselves at all. Quite comparing LCS to frigates. Compare them to mine hunters and they are leap and bounds better than the capability we have now.

The entire ship is NOT made of aluminum! It is built with a steel hull and aluminum service structure. JUST LIKE ALL OUR NEW SHIPS FOR THE LAST 30 YEARS!
If you are going to blow gas about something, then please know what the heck you are talking about.
And that goes for the rest of the windbags that carry-on spouting about a system thay obviously know nothing about.
It is fine to disagree but you are not entitled to your own facts. There are, just the facts! and this all aluminum BS is just that.
For the simple-minded here is a link to a brochure, read a little and talk less.
http://​www​.lockheedmartin​.com/​d​a​t​a​/​a​s​s​e​t​s​/​m​s​2​/​pdf…

NOTE: This started out as a reply to Tom, but I need to clarify the muddy waters a bit!
The entire ship is NOT made of aluminum! It is built with a steel hull and aluminum service structure. JUST LIKE ALL OUR NEW SHIPS FOR THE LAST 30 YEARS!
If you are going to blow gas about something, then please know what the heck you are talking about.
And that goes for the rest of the windbags that carry-on spouting about a system thay obviously know nothing about.
It is fine to disagree but you are not entitled to your own facts. There are, just the facts! and this all aluminum BS is just that.
For the simple-minded here is a link to a simple brochure, read a little and talk less. http://​www​.lockheedmartin​.com/​d​a​t​a​/​a​s​s​e​t​s​/​m​s​2​/​pdf…

One of the problems when there are two ships with the same label…. . there are differences. Tom was obviously talking about the Independence, LCS-2, and you were referring to the LCS-1. Let me offer a simple minded reference to a presentation to SNAME (society of naval architects and marine engineers) by the chief architect for Astral. http://​www​.sname​.org/​S​D​5​A​d​v​a​n​c​e​d​S​u​r​f​a​c​e​S​h​i​p​s​C​r​aft…

And since I have your license to blow gas, one of the biggest issues with the LCS (and DDG-1000) and many other ship designs of the last 50 years is that they are “overengineered” and over-optimized. A prime example would be the HMS Sheffield. It was optimized with a single damage control central, and a single set of firefighting mains. In order to “cover” the ship, the DCC was amidships, at the waterline, and half-way between the stem and stern. The unfortunate fact is that an Exocet has a centroid tracker and aims for the waterline. Aluminum hulls save a lot of weight for payload but.… burn nicely as was demonstrated with several of the Sheffields sisterships and the original Bradley IFV.

Now, are the waters a bit less turbid?

Just call me Mr Windbag, sir! :-)

Aluminium ships just mean that a great deal of care must be taken to insure adequate damage control.… and that the defensive systems need to be just a little bit better at preventing the hit in the first place. (Warships in combat WILL be hit, but.… you just cant make it too easy!). While we certainly dont build armored ships any more, I cant help but think of a comment by the Captain of the USS Wisconsin to Dan Rather during Desert Storm. After a big buildup on the vaunted lethality of the Iraqi Silkworm missiles emplaced along the shore, Rather asked the Captain if he wasnt worried about the threat with the shore clearly visible on the horizon. The captain curtly replied, “NO!” and pointed out that if a Silkworm were fired, odds were that the Aegis cruiser alongside would bag it, and if that didnt happen, he would just button up until it hit (and bounced off!) and then shell the launch site into bloody oblivion! Neither LCS is a battleship and either would be damaged seriously by even a single Silkworm if it got through the defenses. Unless you want to park an Aegis crusier alongside, .… … Hmmmmm….…ONE 57mm.…. hmmmm.

Why was my comment deleted? Afraid of the truth?

Has NAVSEA solved the galvanic corrosion problem on LCS?

No offense, please, but why is it that “something like” is always so much better than what we have? We have the two LCS designs.

Why not ask if they could be made into useful warships? Honestly, I think that they could EASILY be turned into very lethal, supremely useful littoral warships better than any adaptation of other warships developed for other tasks. All you have to do is go “colorblind” with respect to the systems loaded on the hulls. The littoral environment is by definition part water and part land, so… look to the land weapon systems that have been developed to fight the land wars that we have been at for the last 10 years. Find ways, via the mission modules, to upload one of the 120mm autoloading mortar turrets (AMOS being one), bolt down an aerostat control van for ISR and comm relay, even perhaps mount a Patriot battery for AD, and an Avenger turret for combined close in AD and small boat defense. All of those are VEHICLE MOUNTED self contained weapon systems that would be VERY effective in the littoral. They just are painted the wrong color.

Maybe not. What about the seakeeping capability of a SA’AR when faced with some of the USCG patrol and rescue missions? The Sa’ar is really designed for the Med and Red Sea where 5 ft waves and anything but warm sunshine are the exception. Put it out there with 20 ft waves and icing conditions that the USCG must face regularly. The weapons suite is certainly attractive in a fight, but .… . there is more to the mix than pure firepower. But of course, you can redesign the hull… and redesign the powerplant and redesign the .… .. get the idea? :-)

If it were easy we would already have the answer afloat!

IF we take the US Coast Guards NSC cutter and swap out the engine, weapons and systems for a standard Aegis system with Standard Frigate weapons. I would bet the NSC hull would make a perfect scaled up frigate based upon the NSC design. Maybe make it as a compact frigate or even a standard Frigate with littoral capability.

LOL! True in all cases! The Sa’ar 5 is a very formidable corvette, frigate, or some might say destroyer, poured into a large patrol boat hull. In an fist fight, Id take the Sa’ar every day from Sunday over the LCS in their current “dress”. (Although I might quibble a bit on the MF-STAR vs AEGIS comparison, but thats unnecessary since the LCS cant carry AEGIS on a bet!).

I would offer you the example of the Swedish warship VASA. It was the pride of the Swedish navy a few years back, 1628 to be exact. Less than 1 mile into its maiden voyage it sank under the weight of the heavy armament, the political pressure to join the fleet for the “30 Years War”, a poor basic design and a light breeze. Not saying that a “loaded up” Sa’ar would sink of its own accord, just that you have to consider the whole ship as a system, and part of that is its ability to remain afloat! :-)

One quick question…. . out of that 300 man crew, how many would be available as damage control parties when the fighting starts, and out of the 75 man crew, how many would be available to carry shoring timbers and stuff mattresses in the holes?

The Sheffield was one of the first of the RN ships designed for an “accountant-optimized” crew size. The manpower-reduced damage control parties were all mustered in the mess deck, ready to swarm forward or aft to do their thing should the ship take a hit. Unfortunately, that first hit was apparently to the mess deck, which just happened to be about at the centroid of the ship’s sillouette.

I know, automation is the answer…. but how many lines of new software code does it take to carry that railroad tie down three ladders and stuff it behind the dozen or so mattress pads it takes to fill in the hole in the bottom that the mine or torpedo left? :-)

Just not really impressed with the LCS, for a number of reasons, up to this point. I like the Alvaro de Bazan’s also but the the Norwegian Fridtjof Nansen class is a bit smaller and every bit as capable. Clean stealthy lines with enclosed mast, AEGIS, good weapons suite (I’d go with with 127mm gun instead of the 76mm but that’s just me), helo capable. A little over 5000 tons and has done well fighting Somali pirates.

While the NCS hull would almost certainly be an improvement over the Sa’ar 5 in terms of seakeeping, what percentage of the total cost (and development risk) of a ship is in the hull itself, and how much is in the engine, weapons, sensors, and communications systems? :-)

AND what is it that a switch to the NCS hull would be intended to save?

The “wartime” mission of the baseline NCS, should the CG be activated to operate with the USN, is probably more along the lines of a frigate anway!

Last time I checked neither the laws of physics nor the electromotive series was subject to PEO directives or software fixes! LOL!

The Sa’ar 5’s would be perfect for curtain areas of the US Coast Guard such as in Guam, Hawaii, the Caribbean and So Cal Area.

The problem with the NSC, it lacks a standard Frigate weapons and systems such as Aegis, Harpoons, ESSM, and torpedoes. I think the US navy should have done the same thing they did with the ticos and spur-cans. Take a standard spur-can and scale it up to a tico. The same way the Us Navy can do with the NSC. Take a standard NSC and scale it up to a standard AAW/ASUW Frigate. On the plus side you can make an NSC frigate much more exportable and attractive to US Allies as well. I’m all for killing the LCS and forcing the US Navy into scaling up the NSC to Frigate standards.

That’s why I’m all for killing the LCS project and going back to a Standard Frigate like Álvaro de Bazán or the the Norwegian Fridtjof Nansen class. The both have what a 21st century Frigate should be and what the US Navy should have in it’s fleet. Though one thing I would add is capability to carry a company or a platoon of Marines or a Special ops team in addition to a standard frigate load out.

You are certainly correct on the loadout for the NCS. Its not a “warfighting” frigate at least not in the sense that you or I would accept. so… if “activated” I would certainly expect to see some quick and dirty enhancements to beef up its ASW and ASuW capabilities.

“Forcing” the USN to do something usually requires elective office and lots of buddies in congress! LOL!

But in those areas there is basically no need for the “heavy ordnance” that the Sa’ar is carrying! For the Israelis’ the naval operating area, with very real potential threats, starts at the breakwater in Haifa! For us, the threats (at least those that would require a Harpoon or Gabriel to address) are in the Persian Gulf, the Taiwan Straights, or similar distant, hostile places. The Sa’ar 5 is a pure warship, designed to fight Osas and Komars in close to the home waters. Thats what it does, and it would do it well, if that were our mission. So far, the Cubans just dont look like a real naval challenge! :-)

I don’t know much about warships, but how will it be used? Armaments? Can it strike targets inland? Can it defend itself from missles fired from air, sea land? They will build it, and damn I hope they get it right. Aluminum..? Ohhh, man.

Thats a helluva weapons loadout. This I like. Can the LCS handle this kind of weaponry? Plus, there are other ways to insert Spec Ops besides the LCS.

Yeap and that’s why I think the US Navy and Congress should have killed the LCS when the price started to jack up. They should have done the same way they did to the Spur-cans and scale it up to Frigate standards. That way, if the need arises and the US Navy would have an NSC Frigate with Frigate weapons, Aegis and system at hand and it would give us time to add some quick on the fly enhancements for the US Coast Guard as well. Also that would boost the economy by creating shovel ready jobs for people, by building a Frigate based on the NSC.

For Guam, maybe because Guam is in reach of the Taiwan Straights. I would think a squadron of Sa’ar 5’s would be perfect for Guam. Even for the Caribbean, where Caribbean navies operate the equivalent size to the Sa’ar 5

But its the ordnance load and the small hull that makes the Sa’ar so attractive? Now, you say that loaded-for-bear loadout is not needed in those areas you were advocating for their deployment? I know, Im being picky, but.… . .

The USN is a GLOBAL military force and I have to think that we can not afford a “Guam area only” warship, in squadron levels, as we once had gunships that could only operate on the Yangtzee River!

Sorry, but the Sa’ar is a ship designed to operate in the Med, not to hold station at Guam as a typhoon comes through. Its not fair to even try to shoehorn that ship into the oceanic frigate role, even if the armament is heavier than most frigates, its just not a true sea-going ship.

And they are accepting it. Your point is still irrelevant.….

And they are breaking our bank like the F-35; unlike the F-35, we don’t need a super-advanced system to fill the slot. Read the threads above. We can get the capability we need for alot less.….

There is that term “shovel ready” again. And I guess you have the detailed design for shoehorning a AEGIS into an NSC in your back pocket? Everything from the HVAC runs, to the power distribution and generation, to the ballasting required to keep the boat upright, and the berthing and messing arrangements for the AEGIS operators? how about the structural assessment of the keel fatigue life with those heavy SM missile magazines and radar equipment? You would run rapidly into the same problems that the “stimulus” did with “shovel ready”, i.e. the Powerpoint engineering was complete but the real engineering had not begun! :-) No free lunch here, my friend!

Israel has no need for such a useless ship. Let’s take a close look on the LCS.

LCS 1:

Armament:
1x BAE Systems Mk 110 57 mm
1X RAM Launcher = 21 RIM-116
2x Mk44 Bush Master II
4x .50-cal machine guns
2X Helicopters
Or better said the LCS is armed like a Port patrol boat.

Range:
3,500 nautical miles

Hull:
Aluminum, I think everyone can imagine what his means them the ships is hit by a Hezbollah/Chinese Anti-ship Missile.

Costs:
500 Million Dollar or more.

Now let’s compare the LCS 1 with the Israeli/ US build by Northrop Grumman Sa’ar 5-class corvette.

Sa’ar 5-class

Armament:
8X RGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missiles
64X Barak surface-to-air missiles
1X CIW
6X Mark 32 torpedo tubes
1-2X Helicopters

Range:
3,500 nautical miles

Hull:
Don’t know

Costs:
200– 300Million Dollars.

The better question should to be why the US doesn’t buy Sa’ar 5 corvettes as cheap and a lot better alternative to the LCS. And the other question is, why need Israel a large Navy? Israel can sunk every enemy chip in is rage with is superior Air force.

How would you go about getting the NSC up to Frigate standards. What do you think about buying the blueprints for the Álvaro de Bazán class frigate or the Fridtjof Nansen class frigate and having it built to spec in US Shipyards

So the Sa’ar is more of the Med or Persian gulf navies. Not for Blue water navies such as the US Navy or the US Coast Guard. If the Israeli Navy wanted to go blue water, what would you recommend.

Then what’s your take about replacing the LCS with a Visby Corvette or a Sigma class corvette or even a Kedah class offshore patrol vessel or the Holland class offshore patrol vessels.

One option I think could be possible is that the US Navy kills the LCS and builds some Absalon class support ship that the Royal Danish Navy has.

Careful throwing all those fact around bud… it doesn’t fit in with the rabid anti-Israel mentality that is so “in” right now.

For an Air Force guy you seem to know a lot about the Navy :=)

HEY, 2337102, Liar ! You have not cruised lake Michigan in the winter. It is frozen over in JAN, FEB, MARCH.

NSC may be essentially all steel, but it is mighty thin steel in many places. Cannot add a larger gun without major redesign, which means more weight, less speed, less range, etc. you are dreaming if you think you can add much more than another radio to an NSC which are a perfect fit design just for the us coast guard. You are wasting your keyboarding to suggest up-arming (easily) any NSC.

And I forgot to throw in the final kicker:

- The fact that Israel, Egypt and Saudi Arabia don’t go to war that would close the Suez Canal and other shipping lanes costing the U.S. and other international trade tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars. They do this by bribing all the sides not to fight, the points I listed above in my previous post are really just a bonus.

Hey, I’ve watched “In Harms Way”, “Das Boot”, “Top Gun”, and even “Sands of Iwo Jima” at least twice each, what more do I need to know about naval warfare? ROTFLMAO!

I’m very much a non-expert on the salty service, but I try to at least get the self proclaimed experts thinking a bit! LoL! Sometimes just thinking it through makes a reasonable person realize just how little they actually KNOW! :-)

As for myself, I try very hard to just recognize all of the things that I DONT know! If nothing else, that pushes those shortfalls into the realm of the known unknowns. Its the unknown unknowns that are the butt kickers.

Sent from my iPhone

Before I dig in myself, just let me say that “guest” below pretty much sums it up. “Can do” and “Can do easily” are two very different things, particularly if you try to “stay in the box”.

Lets begin with the definition of a frigate… most commonly, a corvette is a “single capability” platform, a frigate is a single or dual capability platform, and a destroyer is generally a jack-of-all-trades. So… lets think about trying to turn a NSC into an area air defense frigate.… WAAAAAY too hard. The weight, power, manning and volume of an AEGIS-style weapon system (radar, fire control, C4, and missile battery) is just too much! So.… what about a “littoral” frigate with some credible shore bombardment capability, ability to engage coastal patrol boats, assymetrical attacks, and a credible self defense AA capability.

Stay out of the blue water! They really dont have any compelling reason to go there and showing the flag is not really necessary for them.

You could make the NSC a littoral frigate by carrying on some Hellfire launch rails and a few laser designators, a dozen or so Stingers, and tying an AMOS 120mm mortar vehicle down on the fantail. Infantry weapons dont need a lot of shipboard mods AND pack a considerable punch. Tack on a box launcher full of harpoons (ala the Sa’ar 5 installation) and you have a credible ASuW threat, not a Kirov-killer, but at least a threat, against just about any surface vessel.

ASW might also be a “frigate” mission that could be uploaded fairly easy with a dipping sonar from a helo combined with some kind of towed array sonar and a handfull of ASW torpedos in some kind of box launcher.

Did you notice that there was a yearly revision of that noble reference (Jane’s)? Thats because things, even naval ships, change. The HMS Dreadnaught was an awsome game changer in the early 1900s, but by 1945 it would not have been much more than a target hulk. The firepower (at least the JMEM-based damage potential against shore targets ) of a Newport News heavy cruiser could be virtually duplicated by parking (and lashing down) four or five APCs mounting AMOS turrets on the flight deck of the USS Independence (LCS-2)! The rules of physics (from which JMEM is derived) dont change, the capabilities that could allow the corvette sized LCS hit as hard as the USS Newport News in shore bombardment have changed.

That’s what I was thinking, scaling up a NSC cutter into a littoral frigate. Making it modular on the fly in case it is ever needed. Like you said, , we can make the NSC into a littoral frigate without sacrificing weight and keeping it within weight limits such as adding AMOS 120mm mortar a box launcher full of Harpoons a Box full of Hellfire missiles and Stinger missiles. For the ASW & ASUW, maybe a towed array sonar and a handful of torpedos. What about adding the XM501 Non-Line-of-Sight Launch System with the Griffin Missiles to the NSC Littoral frigate.

What about installing the IAI’s Jumper missile system to the NSC and the NSC littoral frigate. The Israeli military uses it and it’s light enough to be installed on the NSC and the NSC littoral frigate as well

Did you notice that all of those systems, with the exception perhaps of the AMOS could actually be mounted on anything bigger than a medium sized fishing boat! LOL!

THAT is why the Israelis dont need big blue water ships in their navy! :-)

I had not read up on the Jumper missile, but…. if it works, it would be a fine example of another “infantry designed” weapon system that would be ideal for a light littoral combat vessel. Put four of those launch “racks” in a C-van container and plop down on the deck. Minimal if any redesign and a significant addition in precision firepower.

The scary thing is that even those folks we dont like much can do the same thing! Look at the Iranian “attack boats”. If you dont need to SUSTAIN in an expeditionary mode, i.e. away from home, there are LOTS of things that you can put on your smaller patrol boats. For perhaps the ultimate, check out the “fire support” variant of the Swedish CB-90 at http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.com/2011/05/royal-marines-cb90-and-future-patrol.html" rel="nofollow">:http://​ukarmedforcescommentary​.blogspot​.com/​2​0​1​1​/​0​5​/​r​o​y​a​l​-​m​a​r​i​n​e​s​-​c​b​9​0​-​a​n​d​-​f​u​t​u​r​e​-​p​a​t​r​o​l​.​h​tml

There are Youtube videos, no less, of firing trials!

The Jumper missile system is the IDF’s answer to the NLOS that was suppose to be on the LCS. Here’s info on the Jumper missile system, http://​www​.israelnationalnews​.com/​N​e​w​s​/​N​e​w​s​.​a​s​px/…

The one thing about turning an NSC into a Littoral frigate is that you can put off the shelf infantry weapons system like the Jumper missile system, a box of Harpoons, Torpedoes, Towed array sonar and a box full of Stingers into a NSC without sacrificing the NSC’s weight.

Though for a High end frigate, I would have to say is that it has better be a Álvaro de Bazán class frigate or the Fridtjof Nansen class frigate.

I would think that someday in the future if the Israelis wanted to go blue water to protect their merchant shipping from piracy, They could at least get an multi purpose frigate that can do both ASW and ASUW.

Start out by figuring out how many ships are registered as israeli .… Not many, for obvious reasons. For the ones that are, figure a five or six man security detachment armed to the gills with standard small arms and a MK-19 or MaDeuce for effects. Rule of thumb is that after a line of significant splashes near the bow turns today’s pirates back into fishermen! :-). Now compare the cost of those security teams, AND the effectiveness for the total cargo fleet, with the cost, care, and feedingof a single frigate that can only be one place at a time! Hmmmmmm. Many sheckles for the ONE ship!! :-)Sent from my iPhone

Your question was though, how to make the NSC into a credible frigate!

Sent from my iPhone

Maybe the IDF can look at getting a Corvette with Ocean going capability or a compact frigate

WHY? Have you got one that you need to sell? :-)

The ability to do a thing should never be confused with the REQUIREMENT, NEED or even DESIREABLITY to do it!

Yea and what’s your take on the Sigma class corvette and a Sigma class Frigate

The LCS was thought up in a one navy world. Since then other possible threat navys have materialized and its light counter terrorism style mission set is less than adequate for future threats. I wouldn’t send my son up against Iran on one of those things let alone China.

The question you answer is the question that should be posed to many of the people who do get to make the decisions on the LCS and similar current acquisition programs. Would they send their own sons and daughters out to war in the systems that they are buying? Many may not even want to consider the possibility, but that IS what these weapon systems are for.… to be taken out to war!

One thing I can only think of replacing the LCS and build it to be exportable is to bring back the designs of the Knox class frigate,Bronstein class frigate,Garcia class frigate and even the Brooke class frigate. Those frigates would have been perfect if we updated them with the latest Frigate technology. The one thing I would do those frigates is replace the ASROC with VLS, add a box of Harpoons, Torpedoes, towed array sonar, Sea ram or Sea CIWS and update the guns to 57mm Bofors cannon. Cause the Knox class frigate,Bronstein class frigate,Garcia class frigate and even the Brooke class frigate would be perfect for smaller navies and even the US Coast Guard as well.

Sounds like the US Navy want the LCS to be a inexpensive Frigate. I can understand need for module capacity, that impressive. However, the platform their using (both of them) are not impressive. Aluminum is not greatest material make a warship, however what heck can resist a cruise missile strike? The USS Cole had steel hull, she barely survived the hit from a improvised explosive bomb in small speed boat. LCS-1 and 2 are neight survivable from hit, only its RAM and CIWS can protect them from missiles.

My issue with it, Navy’s leadership doesn’t know (has conflicting views) on what it wants. It wants Frigate, but the plan calls for coastal ship, but wants (needs) frigate. There are 30 year old coastal ships that better armed than LCS, frankly i’d put armor on it to resist RPGs, let alone machine gun fire. Thats where its suppose to be slugging out. I think its too late, Congress is soo controlled by outside interests, it be mircule if anything new designed is built.

Lcs price tag is approx 300million the first one cost 500+million because it was the first of it’s kind

Wish I knew where u worked os I could tell u that I wish it would go under so u could loose ur job house car ECT.

Btw the best class of LCS is being built by Austal in mobile al

Yes they have

Good COASTAL corvette. Would be comparable to a NSC that had been up-gunned a bit. A good match for non-expeditionary ops and anti-piracy (a major issue in SEA these days!). Dont have the dash of turbine powered ships, dont have the endurance that smaller diesels (in a turbine diesel layout) would give. Does not have the sensor suite that a “high seas” combatant might want nor the displacement to carry them.

So would a Sigma class corvette and a Sigma class Frigate be perfect for the US Coast Guard to Replace their 210’s and 270’s. Maybe the US Coast Guard can use them for non-expeditionary ops and anti-piracy.

Both Lockheed and General Dynamics proposed versions of the LCS armed with a different weapon configuration for Israel. For example CG images of Lockheed’s “LCS-I” featured VLS cells for ESSM missiles, Harpoon launchers, Mk. 32 torpedo tubes, and replaced the 57mm Mk.110 with a 20mm CIWS.

The AdB’s are slower than either LCS by a huge margin, 29 knots vs. 45 knots, and it draws nearly a full 3 feet more. I think the LCS teams have dropped the ball in a huge way on armaments, but an LCS needs to shave every inch of its draft that it possibly can. 3 feet deeper draft is huge. And 29 vs. 45 knots is simply day and night. And when you look at the size of the mission bay (15,000 sq ft) you just have to wonder what sort of mayhem an LCS (or two) could unleash, especially in the Pacific.

I think that they would be “perfect” for the Indonesian navy, and something less than perfect for just about anything else! :-)

The speed aspect is perhaps just a bit “oversold” since it is a “dash” speed. In the Pacific cruise speed is perhaps more important, and even at 45 knots, the LCS can not outrun an ASCM! :-)

That payload bay is a VERY important factor for a littoral combat vessel, since it gives the ship almost an “amphib” capability in terms of delivering Marines or SOF. It also plays a major role in some of the potential “other than warfare” missions, i.e. disaster relief and such.

Everyone is out there trying to champion their own particular pet rock, be it the Barzans, the Sigmas, or any one of a number of other alternatives, but.… we do have the LCS, in two distinctly different incarnations, and we COULD make them very credible small littoral warships, but.… .… somehow “Could”, “should”, and “WILL” are very different political animals.

Can you imagine what the Marines could with a squadron of 4 LCS-2 class ships? High cruise speeds are important everywhere but in the Pacific they really add flexibility that has never been there before. But I still think that a reduced draft is critical for a littoral combat ship. I remember looking at huge sections of a chart that was too shallow for the ship I was sailing on, and it drew just over 13′. When you get a draft up to 15′ or 16′, it is hard to claim ‘littoral’ anything.

Indeed! While the LCS is NOT a landing craft, if it can be run in to “just outside the breakers”, lots of things get much easier. The problem that everyone plays around is the fact that “just outside the breakers” is very dangerous territory where even the occasional infantry patrol on the shore can become a real threat. During the Falklands brew-up, one of the Royal Marines on S. Georgia apparently just barely missed a box launcher on one of the Argentine frigates with a Carl Gustav (Swedish functional equivalent to RPG) as it was trolling along the breakwater. If he had hit, the missiles would likely have gone high order and could have broke the ship in half. As it was, it punched a nice neat little hole in the railing (aimed just a tad low) and scared the bejebbers out of anyone who was on the bridge! :-) If you want to play around in an area where infantry anti tank ordnance can reach you, you have GOT to start thinking like a tank (and its really, really hard for a ship to hunker down in defilade!) :-)

I think I know where you work! Sadly you do put it right out there, as decisions to start or cancel programs do impact the lifes of the people working on those projects. The simple fact is that when a program like LCS “dies” the lives of many people get disrupted. The only thing I would offer up would be to consider how disruptive it would be to a family to loose a father, mother, son or daughter in combat because an ineffective weapon system was purchased simply to be a “jobs” program, and SPECIFICALLY if that son or daughter were your own. Would your continued income today justify them drowning, unnecessarily, in a sea covered with burning fuel and the agonized moans of their shipmates? Its a bit melodramatic, but… that IS what happens when bad weapon systems, procured for all of the wrong reasons, are taken to war.

Here is some light reading material that MIGHT just provide a realistic scenario for any ship that wants to take on the “littoral” label… when faced with a shoreline defended by just about any professional army.
http://​www​.britains​-smallwars​.com/​F​a​l​k​l​a​n​d​s​/​S​o​uth…

Only with todays Hellfires and equivalent precision guided weapons (the Carl Gustav is unguided), that first hit on the waterline would have been followed with hits to the bridge, the Exocet launcer and any other lucrative target. Not that Sweden’s Marines have much to fear from a US presence offshore, but for anyone that might contemplate such a thing, Im thinking that the Swedes might just make it a very tough nut to crack…
http://home.swipnet.se/~w-52089/marine/marine.htm

*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