Quoted: Why doesn't it have a phalanx, in addition to the Searam? Especially one o those phalanxs that can be operated in manual mode on surface targets.

They have changed RAM so it can be fired at surface targets.  Thats why they put a RAM cell in the Phalanx mount, to use the IIR and the manual control channel.

Quoted: Why doesn't it have a phalanx, in addition to the Searam? Especially one o those phalanxs that can be operated in manual mode on surface targets.

Because it has a 57mm cannon that fires at 220 rounds per minute. It also mounts two 30mm guns. The same guns on the USMC's AAAV and LPD-17.

Finally, according the the USN, LINK, the SeaRAM has an anti-surface capability. Press release link.

Because it has a 57mm cannon that fires at 220 rounds per minute.

Dang, Bofors got the SAK really juced up!

But what about the SAK caused them to go to it over the 76mm OTOs that we already had in storage that were coming off the Perrys?  OTO-Melera can rebuild them to get them up to 150 RPM and they shoot a bigger shell.  What was the attraction to the 57mm?

Quoted: Because it has a 57mm cannon that fires at 220 rounds per minute. Dang, Bofors got the SAK really juced up! But what about the SAK caused them to go to it over the 76mm OTOs that we already had in storage that were coming off the Perrys?  OTO-Melera can rebuild them to get them up to 150 RPM and they shoot a bigger shell.  What was the attraction to the 57mm?

Aside from probable size/weight issues, the 57mm round can be programmed for six different functions as it is fired. The 76mm needs to be physically loaded with different rounds.

I'm hearing that the people that will actually have to man those ships aren't exactly doing cartwheels over them.

Won't be me, I'm a dyed in wool birdfarm sailor...

Quoted: I'm hearing that the people that will actually have to man those ships aren't exactly doing cartwheels over them. Won't be me, I'm a dyed in wool birdfarm sailor...

Really? To be honest, I wouldn't be either. Manning a frigate sized ship with a base crew of 40. No thanks.

.

Quoted: Quoted: Why doesn't it have a phalanx, in addition to the Searam? Especially one o those phalanxs that can be operated in manual mode on surface targets. Because it has a 57mm cannon that fires at 220 rounds per minute. It also mounts two 30mm guns. The same guns on the USMC's AAAV and LPD-17. Finally, according the the USN, LINK, the SeaRAM has an anti-surface capability. Press release link.

That was the answer I was looking for. IE what happens when 1 system misses, or is not ready to fire when a threat presents itself.  Belt and suspenders.

I didn't see the 30mm's in the sketch, my bad.

Also no ammater how cheap they make missiles, they are always FAR more expensive than guns to use on a target. Good for "high value" targets, not so good for area, or low value targets. I just hope the 57mm's minimum range is very small.  

Quoted: LCS is NOT designed to go into a high intensity environment alone. It does have some fantastic weapons systems onboard. For instance the SeaRAM is an awesome capability, IMO. So is the 57mm. The 30mm gun outclasses our legacy 25mm gun. And the Ma Duece once again proved her worth when pirates attacked the CAPE ST. GEORGE. Netfires looks to be very promising. Her helos will be just as capable as any other surface combatant. Maybe even moreso if the Fire Scout works as intended. She won't be able to multi-task. That's obvious. She wasn't designed to. She was designed to take on a mission package and execute one mission and do it well. There she'll have an advantage. Instead of one crew trained for many tasks, she'll be able take on specialists to execute a mission. What I find funny is the talk about it not being able to survive an onslaught of 100 missiles. Not many ships can withstand that. Not many navies can manage such an attack. Even so, let's think back to just over a decade ago. Our second most numerous ship of approximately the same size was the KNOX-class. It was hardly survivable against an onslaught of 100  missiles either. A capability the Soviet Navy certainly had. Yet, we still used them, and they would have been tasked with convoy support because it was fairly good at ASW. That class of ship most certainly would not have operated alone in such an environment. What you see with LCS is a similar philosophy in employment.

all your points are true except looking at the procurement plans, DDX is a slashed pipedream almost....

our task groups are maybe 1/3 cold war size, so these will get tasked with escort duty because we simply dont have enough ships....

specialized things like this would be amazing as additional forces, but not as replacement for more generally capable ships which they bascially will be.

Quoted: That was the answer I was looking for. IE what happens when 1 system misses, or is not ready to fire when a threat presents itself.  Belt and suspenders.

Yep.

Also no ammater how cheap they make missiles, they are always FAR more expensive than guns to use on a target. Good for "high value" targets, not so good for area, or low value targets. I just hope the 57mm's minimum range is very small.

True they are more expensive. They are also more flexible in that they allow you to engage targets the M61 cannot.

I'm not sure why the comment about minimum range. The idea is to engage the enemy as far away as possible. The 57mms 17km range is pretty good for that., as is the SeaRAM's range over the M61. The longer the range the more opprotunities for successful engagement.

Besides that's what the 30mm is for: http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/littoral/

Quoted: Quoted: Because it has a 57mm cannon that fires at 220 rounds per minute. Dang, Bofors got the SAK really juced up! But what about the SAK caused them to go to it over the 76mm OTOs that we already had in storage that were coming off the Perrys?  OTO-Melera can rebuild them to get them up to 150 RPM and they shoot a bigger shell.  What was the attraction to the 57mm? Aside from probable size/weight issues, the 57mm round can be programmed for six different functions as it is fired. The 76mm needs to be physically loaded with different rounds.

Sensor programmable fuzing is something that can be adapted to any model gun at overhaul, even the MK44s can have it, and we managed to fit OTO onto the Pegasus class.  It seems strange that on a inshore ship they would chose a gun with a smaller round when shore targets would be common.  Though if its MV is higher the Bofors might well be a better AA gun.

Quoted: all your points are true except looking at the procurement plans, DDX is a slashed pipedream almost....

You stated that we are building ships for a 3rd rate enemy. We are not the LCS can and will be brought into the overall battle plan. Also we are still building blue water ships, such as the BURKEs. LPD-17, DDX, LHA(R), CGX, and CVN-21, while all being littoral capable also can fight the most advanced enemies.

our task groups are maybe 1/3 cold war size, so these will get tasked with escort duty because we simply dont have enough ships....

I looked at a cold war battle group picture the other day. They had ADAMS class destoryers, an NTU cruiser, a KNOX frigate, a PERRY frigate and a SPRUCAN. Take a look at our carrier battle groups today. They are much more capable. Also we are doing something we didn't do during the Cold War, Expeditionary Strike Groups. We are putting "shooters" with the amphibs. If the need arises, it is a simple matter of putting the amphibs in a non threatening enviroment until called for and rolling the "shooters" back into the Carrier Strike Group. Alternately, you can augment the CSG will other ships, should circumstances allow.

Don't let numbers fool you. They are not necessarily indicative of capability.

specialized things like this would be amazing as additional forces, but not as replacement for more generally capable ships which they bascially will be.

They are replacing, if you can call it that, the PC, MHC and the FFG. They are not replacing more capable platforms. Look at the FFG vs the LCS. Right now the FFG is armed with CIWS Block 1B and a 76mm cannon, and it can carry two helos. The LCS is armed with the 57mm gun, SeaRAM, two helos. The FFG can be armed with 25mm chain guns. The LCS can be armed with 30mm cannons. Less capable? In some respects. In some respects it is more flexible and more capable.

Quoted: Quoted: all your points are true except looking at the procurement plans, DDX is a slashed pipedream almost.... You stated that we are building ships for a 3rd rate enemy. We are not the LCS can and will be brought into the overall battle plan. Also we are still building blue water ships, such as the BURKEs. LPD-17, DDX, LHA(R), CGX, and CVN-21, while all being littoral capable also can fight the most advanced enemies. our task groups are maybe 1/3 cold war size, so these will get tasked with escort duty because we simply dont have enough ships.... I looked at a cold war battle group picture the other day. They had ADAMS class destoryers, an NTU cruiser, a KNOX frigate, a PERRY frigate and a SPRUCAN. Take a look at our carrier battle groups today. They are much more capable. Also we are doing something we didn't do during the Cold War, Expeditionary Strike Groups. We are putting "shooters" with the amphibs. If the need arises, it is a simple matter of putting the amphibs in a non threatening enviroment until called for and rolling the "shooters" back into the Carrier Strike Group. Alternately, you can augment the CSG will other ships, should circumstances allow. Don't let numbers fool you. They are not necessarily indicative of capability. specialized things like this would be amazing as additional forces, but not as replacement for more generally capable ships which they bascially will be. They are replacing, if you can call it that, the PC, MHC and the FFG. They are not replacing more capable platforms. Look at the FFG vs the LCS. Right now the FFG is armed with CIWS Block 1B and a 76mm cannon, and it can carry two helos. The LCS is armed with the 57mm gun, SeaRAM, two helos. The FFG can be armed with 25mm chain guns. The LCS can be armed with 30mm cannons. Less capable? In some respects. In some respects it is more flexible and more capable.

Don't forget Netfires missiles (depending on mission module).



NetFires LLC Successfully Conducts Navy Ballistic Flight Test for the NLOS-LS Precision Attack Missile

TUCSON, Ariz., March 28, 2006 /PRNewswire/ -- The NetFires Limited
Liability Company (LLC), composed of Raytheon Missile Systems and Lockheed
Martin Missiles and Fire Control, successfully conducted a ballistic test
vehicle (BTV) flight test for the Non Line-of-Sight-Launch System (NLOS-LS)
Precision Attack Missile (PAM) at the Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., test range
Feb. 16.

The successful PAM flight test represents a significant milestone for
both the U.S. Navy's Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) weaponization goals and for
the NLOS-LS program. NLOS-LS PAM and Container Launch Unit (CLU) have been
selected as a surface warfare weapon for the LCS, the Navy's next-generation
multi-mission ship.

The PAM missile BTV was vertically launched from the NLOS-LS CLU that was
integrated onto a motion simulator. The ship motion simulator is able to
replicate a range of sea conditions that the LCS is likely to encounter while
under way. The PAM BTV flight test was conducted in upper-sea-state-three
conditions to demonstrate the safe egress of the PAM missile from the CLU. Sea
state three represents conditions where a vessel experiences three- to
five-foot waves and winds exceeding 15 knots.

"We're extremely pleased with this first shoot-on-the-move demonstration
of the combined PAM and CLU," said Nelson B. Mills, LCS Surface Warfare
project lead, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren, Va. "The PAM missile's
performance specification for the U. S. Navy requires that the missile is
capable of being fired from a moving platform experiencing diverse movements
along all three axes. This demonstration was a significant accomplishment in
engineering for the Navy's Littoral Combat Ship as well as the Army's Future
Combat System."

"The successful PAM BTV flight test for the Navy is another example of the
demonstrated technical maturity of the NLOS-LS PAM missile and CLU," said
Scott Speet, executive vice president of the NetFires LLC and Raytheon's
NLOS-LS program director. "The ability of the PAM and the CLU to meet the
Navy and Army performance requirements is a credit to the design team and the
close system engineering work between Raytheon and our Navy and Army
customers."

The NLOS-LS system consists of Raytheon's PAM, Lockheed Martin's Loitering
Attack Missile and a joint CLU. In 2004, the Army accelerated fielding of the
Raytheon PAM and joint CLU to the Army's Evaluation Brigade Combat Team into
Spin Out 1 in fiscal year 2008.

The Navy selected NLOS-LS PAM and CLU as the premier engagement capability
against surface warfare threats for the Littoral Combat Ship. The Navy
expects to build more than 50 LCSs with the first ships commissioned in fiscal
year 2008.

NLOS-LS provides a commander with immediate, precise and responsive fires
on high-payoff targets with real-time target acquisition and battle effects.
PAM is a direct-attack missile that is effective against moving and stationary
targets on land and sea at ranges from zero to 21 nautical miles and is
effective against hard and soft targets. The missile includes a networked
datalink that provides in-flight updates to each missile with ground and
airborne sensor nodes and has a large multi-mode warhead effective against
both hard and soft targets.

Quoted: Quoted: Of course, people in the know like dport can give better information.  I'd be curious to see what dport thinks of these things.  On the one hand, you have an almost frigate sized ship that seems to lack frigate type missile power.  On the other hand, it really isn't designed for those threats anyways. I'm sorry I can no longer offer my opinion of this platform. I have access to classified data and I wouldn't want someone to think that when I post information available to the public, via excellent websites like PEO Ships,  that it is somehow classified.

shouldn't that come with a wink and a nudge?

Quoted: Right now the FFG is armed with CIWS Block 1B and a 76mm cannon, and it can carry two helos. The LCS is armed with the 57mm gun, SeaRAM, two helos. The FFG can be armed with 25mm chain guns. The LCS can be armed with 30mm cannons. Less capable? In some respects. In some respects it is more flexible and more capable.

Minor quibble.  The Perry class originally carried standard and harpoon missiles as well.  Out of curiousity, why did they get rid of that capability?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Because it has a 57mm cannon that fires at 220 rounds per minute. Dang, Bofors got the SAK really juced up! But what about the SAK caused them to go to it over the 76mm OTOs that we already had in storage that were coming off the Perrys?  OTO-Melera can rebuild them to get them up to 150 RPM and they shoot a bigger shell.  What was the attraction to the 57mm? Aside from probable size/weight issues, the 57mm round can be programmed for six different functions as it is fired. The 76mm needs to be physically loaded with different rounds. Sensor programmable fuzing is something that can be adapted to any model gun at overhaul, even the MK44s can have it, and we managed to fit OTO onto the Pegasus class.  It seems strange that on a inshore ship they would chose a gun with a smaller round when shore targets would be common.  Though if its MV is higher the Bofors might well be a better AA gun.

The OTO is a nice gun, but IMO, having served on an FFG, I think the 57mm is better suited for a variety of reasons I don't care to get into. However, if you compare the stats of both guns, I think you'll see you don't give up much on the 57mm. And you gain a lot, as you point out, in the AA arena. The 57mm is also supposed to be more reliable than the 76mm. The 57mm offers programmable fuzing off the shelf. It is also a very common weapon, which makes supply issues easier.

Quoted: Quoted: Right now the FFG is armed with CIWS Block 1B and a 76mm cannon, and it can carry two helos. The LCS is armed with the 57mm gun, SeaRAM, two helos. The FFG can be armed with 25mm chain guns. The LCS can be armed with 30mm cannons. Less capable? In some respects. In some respects it is more flexible and more capable. Minor quibble.  The Perry class originally carried standard and harpoon missiles as well.  Out of curiousity, why did they get rid of that capability?

According to Wikipedia in 2003. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Hazard_Perry_class_frigate

ETA: The Navy's announcement: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3738/is_200309/ai_n9272042

Quoted: Quoted: Right now the FFG is armed with CIWS Block 1B and a 76mm cannon, and it can carry two helos. The LCS is armed with the 57mm gun, SeaRAM, two helos. The FFG can be armed with 25mm chain guns. The LCS can be armed with 30mm cannons. Less capable? In some respects. In some respects it is more flexible and more capable. Minor quibble.  The Perry class originally carried standard and harpoon missiles as well.  Out of curiousity, why did they get rid of that capability?

As I understood it, the fire control system on the Perry class could not support the SM2 MR.  They always used SM 1s.  It would of had to have been replaced.  The remaining SM 1MRs in inventory started to have a very high motor failure rate and had to be condemed.  Since the only thing they had left to shoot out of the Mk 13's was Harpoon they started to remove the launchers.  And since a FFG wasnt much use without it, they are being slowly removed from service as well.

Cool stuff, I just built 7 Precision gauges for Raytheon . I don't exactly how they are going to be used but this thread got me curious. I will ask the Military inspector and maybe, just maybe he will disclose that information.

Quoted: So what's the difference between SeaRAM and regular RAM?  I see that obviously, SeaRAM has the big white dome from Phalanx on it.  I assume that's some sort of radar or guidance system?  If so then what does the original RAM system use for guidance?  IR?

The missile is the same.  The original system uses a radar and the Mk-32 ESM system to provide radar track data and passive ESM track data to a computer to determine threat engageability.  If declared hostile and engageable, the system fires a missile.  The Rolling Airframe Missile actually does roll...or rather spins slowly as it flies.  It first tracks the active emitter of the incoming threat missile then switches over to an IR seeker for terminal guidance.  The missiles are only 5" in diameter and are supersonic.  The warhead, although small, is very effective.

RAM missiles are all-up-rounds, encased in Mk-44 canisters that are simply pushed into the rear of the empty cells.  A small crew can reload the launcher in a relatively short time.  The canister is the electrical interface between the ship and the missiles.

This is a good system that has been in development since about 1977.  It has high firepower and a good probability of kill against a broad spectrum of threat missiles.  As to a counter-surface engagement...I think I'd save my missiles and use my gun against enemy small craft.

Quoted: As to a counter-surface engagement...I think I'd save my missiles and use my gun against enemy small craft.

Bah.  Just have the SH-60R kill it with a hellfire.  

Quoted:  As to a counter-surface engagement...I think I'd save my missiles and use my gun against enemy small craft.

That would be my preference, but it's nice to have options.

This is as good a thread to post this in as any.

Do you know what the first two LCSs are going to be named?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Right now the FFG is armed with CIWS Block 1B and a 76mm cannon, and it can carry two helos. The LCS is armed with the 57mm gun, SeaRAM, two helos. The FFG can be armed with 25mm chain guns. The LCS can be armed with 30mm cannons. Less capable? In some respects. In some respects it is more flexible and more capable. Minor quibble.  The Perry class originally carried standard and harpoon missiles as well.  Out of curiousity, why did they get rid of that capability? As I understood it, the fire control system on the Perry class could not support the SM2 MR.  They always used SM 1s.  It would of had to have been replaced.  The remaining SM 1MRs in inventory started to have a very high motor failure rate and had to be condemed.  Since the only thing they had left to shoot out of the Mk 13's was Harpoon they started to remove the launchers.  And since a FFG wasnt much use without it, they are being slowly removed from service as well.

The Perry's are not terribly useful without that missile.

I hope none of them are going to be retained for any period of time without.  If they are, then the USN should have upgraded them with SM-2's

The Perry's do have some utility without the missile.  As the other posters have noted, the SH60s provide a modicum of ASUW capability against a low end threat without any missile based anti surface capability (pirates, smugglers, etc.)  It also provides a excellent platform for Reservist training, foreign exercises, counter-drug ops and the like.  It frees a more capable platform like a DDG to go do DDG stuff.

There is a great deal of life left in the hulls, and in a cooperative environment, they will continue to perform credible if not specatular service.

Quoted: Quoted: Looks like "R2-D2 with a woodie" (Phalanx) just got bigger wood. only 11 shots?.... they better mount alot of em unless we are going to pure 3rd world combat.... china could effortlessly, and prbably even NK through 100 missiles at us in one attack....

Per launcher, and that's only the inner layer... This is designed to put something between the Standard (USN's primary SAM system, vis-a-vis AEGIS crusiers & destroyers) and the 20mm CIWS...

100 missiles may be launched, F-18s & Standard will get most of 'em (these are sea-skimming cruise missiles, NOT Scud-type missiles), RAM & CIWS get the 'leakers'....

Quoted: The Perry's do have some utility without the missile.  As the other posters have noted, the SH60s provide a modicum of ASUW capability against a low end threat without any missile based anti surface capability (pirates, smugglers, etc.)  It also provides a excellent platform for Reservist training, foreign exercises, counter-drug ops and the like.  It frees a more capable platform like a DDG to go do DDG stuff. There is a great deal of life left in the hulls, and in a cooperative environment, they will continue to perform credible if not specatular service.

Someone actually gets it. This is also the environment the LCS will be operating in.