Littoral combat ship: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia


Article Images

Line 8:

The {{sclass|Freedom|littoral combat ship|4}} and the {{sclass|Independence|littoral combat ship|4}} are the first two LCS variants. Each is slightly smaller than the U.S. Navy's {{sclass|Oliver Hazard Perry|frigate|3}} but larger than [[Cyclone-class patrol ship|''Cyclone''-class patrol ships]]. Each has the capabilities of a small [[Amphibious assault ship|assault transport]], including a [[flight deck]] and [[hangar]] for housing two [[Sikorsky SH-60 Seahawk|SH-60 or MH-60 Seahawk]] helicopters, a stern ramp for operating small boats, and the cargo volume and payload to deliver a small [[Amphibious assault|assault]] force with [[armoured fighting vehicle|fighting vehicle]]s to a [[roll-on/roll-off]] port facility. Standard armaments include [[Mk 110 57 mm gun]]s and [[RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile]]s. They are also equipped with autonomous [[Unmanned aerial vehicle|air]], [[Unmanned surface vehicle|surface]], and [[Autonomous underwater vehicle|underwater]] vehicles. Possessing lower air defense and surface warfare capabilities than [[destroyer]]s, the LCS concept emphasizes speed, flexible mission modules and a shallow [[draft (hull)|draft]].

The first littoral combat ship, {{USS|Freedom|LCS-1}}, was commissioned on 8 November 2008 in [[Parks of Milwaukee|Veteran's Park]], [[Milwaukee]], [[Wisconsin]].<ref>{{cite web |last= Milwaukee Journal Sentinel |date= 5 November 2008 |url= http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/33947284.html |title= Navy's Vessel of Versatility |format= Newspaper article |work= [[Milwaukee Journal Sentinel]] |access-date= 19 July 2009 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20090108095409/http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/33947284.html |archive-date= 8 January 2009 |url-status= live}}</ref> The second ship, the [[trimaran]] {{USS|Independence|LCS-2}}, was commissioned on 16 January 2010, in [[Mobile, Alabama]].<ref name="USS Independence Commissioned"/> In 2012, CNO [[Jonathan W. Greenert]] stated that the LCS would be deployed to Africa in place of destroyers and cruisers.<ref name="breakingdefense12april12">Freedberg Jr., Sydney J. [http://defense.aol.com/2012/04/12/cno-lcs-couldnt-survive-war-with-china-but-it-can-prevent-one/ "LCS Couldn't Survive War With China, But It Could Help Prevent It: CNO."] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120414114430/http://defense.aol.com/2012/04/12/cno-lcs-couldnt-survive-war-with-china-but-it-can-prevent-one/ |date=14 April 2012}} ''Aol Defense''. 12 April 2012.</ref> In 2013 and 2014, the Navy's requirement for LCS ships was progressively cut from 55 to 32 vessels in favor of a newly proposed frigate more capable of high-intensity combat.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.navytimes.com/article/20140119/NEWS04/301190019/US-Navy-OSD-Battle-Over-LCS-Future |title=Navy, Pentagon battle over LCS future |last1=Cavas |first1=Christopher P. |date=19 January 2014 |website=www.navytimes.com |publisher=Gannett Government Media |access-date=19 January 2014}}</ref> In late 2014, the Navy proceeded with a procurement plan for enhanced versions of the LCS and upgraded older ships to meet the program's 52-ship requirement;<ref name="military11dec14">[http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/12/11/hagel-approves-navys-proposal-to-build-more-lethal-lcs-variant.html?comp=1198882887570&rank=1 Hagel Approves Navy's Proposal to Build More Lethal LCS Variant] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151019075859/http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/12/11/hagel-approves-navys-proposal-to-build-more-lethal-lcs-variant.html?comp=1198882887570&rank=1 |date=19 October 2015}} -– Military.com, 11 December 2014</ref> the modified LCS will be redesignated as FF or [[frigate]].<ref name="usni15jan15">[http://news.usni.org/2015/01/15/sna-modified-littoral-combat-ship-class-changed-fast-frigate SNA: Modified Littoral Combat Ships to be Designated Frigates] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170806141654/https://news.usni.org/2015/01/15/sna-modified-littoral-combat-ship-class-changed-fast-frigate |date=6 August 2017}} -– News.USNI.org, 15 January 2015</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2015/01/15/navy-secretary-mabus-littoral-combat-ship-fast-frigate/21805513/|title=SECNAV unveils new name for LCS: the 'fast frigate'|first=Meghann|last=Myers|date=7 August 2017|access-date=14 November 2018}}</ref> In December 2015, [[United States Secretary of Defense|Secretary of Defense]] [[Ashton Carter]] ordered the Navy to reduce planned LCS and FF procurement from 52 to 40, and downselect to one variant by FY 2019.<ref name="militarytimes17dec15"/>

In July 2017, the Navy released a request for information for a new multi-mission guided-missile frigate that can perform the same roles as the LCS while having better offensive and defensive capabilities. Almost any existing design that can be adapted to [[FFG(X)]] requirements can be considered, extending beyond versions of the two LCS hulls.<ref>[http://www.defensenews.com/articles/us-navy-releases-specs-for-a-proposed-guided-missile-frigate-a-break-from-the-littoral-combat-ship Frigate competition wide open: Navy specs reveal major design shift]{{dead link|date=August 2021|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}} -– Defensenews.com, 10 July 2017</ref><ref>[https://news.usni.org/2017/07/10/navy-releases-details-of-new-ffgx-guided-missile-frigate-program-in-request-to-industry Navy Releases Details of New FFG(X) Guided-Missile Frigate Program in Request to Industry] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170711040606/https://news.usni.org/2017/07/10/navy-releases-details-of-new-ffgx-guided-missile-frigate-program-in-request-to-industry |date=11 July 2017}} -– News.USNI.org, 10 July 2017</ref> In April 2020, it was announced that [[Fincantieri Marinette Marine]] had won the contract with its [[FREMM multipurpose frigate]]-based design.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2021-08-31 |title=Report to Congress on Constellation-class Frigate Program (FFG-62) |url=https://news.usni.org/2021/08/31/report-to-congress-on-constellation-class-frigate-program-ffg-62-6 |access-date=2021-09-05 |website=USNI News |language=en-US}}</ref>

==Design features==

Line 23:

[[File:USS-Freedom-rear-130222-N-DR144-367.jpg|thumb|left|Aerial view of {{USS|Freedom|LCS-1|6}}]]

In April 2012, [[Chief of Naval Operations]] Greenert said, "You won't send it into an anti-access area," rather groups of two or three ships are intended to be sent into areas where access is jeopardized to perform missions like minesweeping while under the cover of a destroyer. The LCS main purpose is to take up operations such as patrolling, port visits, anti-piracy, and partnership-building exercises to free up high-end surface combatants for increased combat availability.<ref name="breakingdefense12april12"/> Navy Secretary Ray Mabus clarified that the ship could operate in combat areas while under the protection of other warships.<ref>Freedberg, Sydney J. Jr. [http://defense.aol.com/2012/04/17/lcs-is-too-a-real-warship-insists-secnav/ "LCS Is Too A Real Warship, Insists SecNav."] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120420154320/http://defense.aol.com/2012/04/17/lcs-is-too-a-real-warship-insists-secnav |date=20 April 2012}} 17 April 2012.</ref> The LCS's utility against high-tech enemies would be when working with and being covered by destroyers, like they do with aircraft carriers. With destroyers providing extended air and missile defense, the cheaper (one-fourth the cost of a destroyer) and more numerous LCS can sweep for mines and deploy more sophisticated submarine detecting sonar. Following the decision to arm the LCS with [[anti-ship missile]]s, Navy wargames showed the adversary's risk calculus was radically changed, devoting more reconnaissance assets to trying to locate the smaller ships and sustaining heavier losses.<ref>[http://breakingdefense.com/2016/01/lcs-can-too-fight-russia-china-navy-leaders/ LCS Can Too Fight Russia, China: Navy Leaders] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160122095538/http://breakingdefense.com/2016/01/lcs-can-too-fight-russia-china-navy-leaders/ |date=22 January 2016}} -– Breakingdefense.com, 20 January 2016</ref>

The ships are planned to have a 3:2:1 manning concept. That is three ship crews, and two hulls for each ship that is on station at any time. The other ship and other two crews who are not on deployment will either be preparing for deployment or in rotation in or out of theater. The result is a 50% reduction in ships and a 25% reduction in crews (and smaller crew sizes) than traditional deployment practices.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://navylive.dodlive.mil/2014/04/29/operate-forward-lcs-brings-it/ |title=Operate Forward: LCS Brings It |last1=Rowden |first1=Thomas |date=29 April 2014 |website=navylive.dodlive.mil |publisher=U.S. Navy |access-date=1 May 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140502032728/http://navylive.dodlive.mil/2014/04/29/operate-forward-lcs-brings-it/ |archive-date=2 May 2014 |url-status=live}}</ref> The ships were predicted to fall short in manning.<ref>Williams-Robinson, MJ. [http://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a467716.pdf "A Littoral Combat Ship Manpower Analysis Using the Fleet Response Training Plan."] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170430180720/http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a467716.pdf |date=30 April 2017}} ''Naval Postgraduate School'', 2007.</ref> The Navy has deployed ships with berthing modules in the mission bays in order to carry the crew required for operations.<ref>Ewing, Philip. [http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/04/16/sas12-lcs-modules-may-never-be-final/ "SAS12: LCS modules may never be 'final'."] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120529000012/http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/04/16/sas12-lcs-modules-may-never-be-final/ |date=29 May 2012}} ''DoD Buzz'', 16 April 2012.</ref><ref>O'Rourke, Ronald. [http://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=707479 "Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program: Background, Issues, and Options for Congress."] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141129042833/http://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=707479 |date=29 November 2014}} ''CRS'', 20 March 2012.</ref><ref>[http://www.navytimes.com/news/2012/05/navy-house-defense-appropriations-subcommittee-raises-doubts-manning-lcs-051512/ "House panel raises doubts over manning LCSs."] ''Navy Times'', 15 May 2012.</ref> However the ships are designed with sufficient headroom to change from 2-high bunking to 3-high bunking, which would allow crew sizes of 100 if needed.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.c-span.org/Events/Navy-Undersecretary-Discusses-Future-of-the-Surface-Combat-Fleet/10737430842-1/|archive-url=https://archive.today/20120728162227/http://www.c-span.org/Events/Navy-Undersecretary-Discusses-Future-of-the-Surface-Combat-Fleet/10737430842-1/ |url-status=dead|title=Navy Undersecretary Discusses Future of the Surface Combat Fleet -– C-…|date=28 July 2012|archive-date=28 July 2012|access-date=14 November 2018}}</ref>

The LCS is the first USN surface combatant class in a generation to not use the [[Aegis Combat System]], though Aegis-equipped variants have been offered to foreign customers.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/05/24/a-heavy-duty-lcs-for-foreign-navies-maybe/|title=A heavy duty LCS for foreign navies. Maybe.|date=24 May 2011|access-date=14 November 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150923220304/http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/05/24/a-heavy-duty-lcs-for-foreign-navies-maybe/|archive-date=23 September 2015 |url-status=live}}</ref> They have suffered from problems in their communications and radars and will require refits in these areas.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3A6a8f8a25-7f4c-4dda-ba2a-aad39ed9d8db |title=Redeeming Freedom – Changes for the U.S. Navy's Littoral Combat Ship. |access-date=4 December 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130607105951/http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3A6a8f8a25-7f4c-4dda-ba2a-aad39ed9d8db |archive-date=7 June 2013 |url-status=dead}}</ref> Neither LCS class is able to defend itself effectively against anti-ship cruise missiles, which are commonly employed in the littorals,<ref name="quickswapdead">Cavas, Christopher P. [https://archive.today/20130121145421/http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120714/DEFREG02/307140001/LCS-Quick-Swap-Concept-Dead "LCS: Quick Swap Concept Dead."] ''Defense News'', 14 July 2012.</ref> but does have survivability via its ability to disperse in shallow waters better than larger warships.<ref name="dodbuzz2april14">[http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/04/02/lcs-wargame-reveals-new-tactics-amid-controversy/ LCS Wargame Reveals New Tactics Amid Controversy] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140405153801/http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/04/02/lcs-wargame-reveals-new-tactics-amid-controversy/ |date=5 April 2014}} -– DoDBuzz.com, 2 April 2014</ref>

===Mission modules===

[[File:Independence (LCS 2) in drydock.jpg|thumb|upright|[[Trimaran]] hull of an ''Independence''-class LCS]]

The LCS is reconfigured for various roles by changing mission packages, each of which includes mission module equipment (weapon systems, sensors, etc.), carried craft and mission crews.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2100&tid=406&ct=2 |title=Littoral Combat Ships -– Mission Modules |website=www.navy.mil |publisher=United States Navy |access-date=21 January 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140110130812/http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2100&tid=406&ct=2 |archive-date=10 January 2014 |url-status=live}}</ref> Modules include Anti-submarine warfare (ASW), [[mine countermeasures]] (MCM), [[surface warfare]] (SUW), and [[special warfare]] missions.<ref name="CRS">[http://opencrs.com/document/RL33741/2011-03-18/?26200 "Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program: Background, Issues, and Options for Congress."] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120312053631/http://opencrs.com/document/RL33741/2011-03-18/?26200 |date=12 March 2012}} ''Congressional Research Service'', 18 March 2011.</ref> The MCM and SUW modules are planned to reach initial operating capability in [[Fiscal year]] 2014, and the ASW module in FY2016.<ref>Jean, Grace. [http://www.janes.com/products/janes/defence-security-report.aspx?ID=1065973040 "US Navy gears up for more at-sea tests of LCS mission modules."] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211118103417/https://www.janes.com/error/500?aspxerrorpath=/products/janes/defence-security-report.aspx |date=18 November 2021}} ''Janes'', 5 November 2012.</ref> Module changes were envisioned to allow a single LCS to change roles in a matter of hours at any commercial port allowing it to rapidly optimize effectiveness against a threat. A report from the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations ([[OPNAV]]) on a January 2012 sustainment wargame reportedly stated that, possibly for logistics reasons, the mission module changes may take as long as weeks, and that in the future the navy plans to use LCS ships with a single module, with module changes being a rare occurrence.<ref name="quickswapdead" /> In 2014, ''Independence'' switched from mine to surface warfare modes in 96 hours on short notice.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140830/DEFREG02/308300022 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20140830151328/http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140830/DEFREG02/308300022 |url-status=dead |archive-date=30 August 2014 |title=RIMPAC Exercise Puts LCS Through Paces |last1=CAVAS |first1=CHRISTOPHER P. |date=30 August 2014 |website=www.defensenews.com |publisher=Gannett |access-date=30 August 2014}}</ref>

In an 8 September 2016 announcement, the Navy revealed a radical change in operations and organization plans for the LCS. Of the 28 Flight 0 ships built or on order, the first four, two of each class, will be turned into training ships and the remaining 24 will be divided into six divisions of four ships each; three divisions of the ''Freedom''-class based at [[Naval Station Mayport]], Florida and three divisions of the ''Independence''-class based at [[Naval Station San Diego]], California. The new organization does away with the LCS's signature interchangeable mission module concept, with each division being tasked to fulfill one of the three mission sets. Crewing is also changed into a more simplified two-crew "blue/gold" model, like that used on submarines and minesweepers, where ships cycle to forward deployed locations with the two crews swapping roles every 4–5 months; aviation detachments will also deploy with the same LCS crew, creating an arrangement of a core 70-sailor crew to conduct the warfare mission and a 23-person air detachment.<ref>[https://news.usni.org/2016/09/08/results-new-lcs-review-departure-original-vision Results of New LCS Review is Departure from Original Vision] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160910140255/https://news.usni.org/2016/09/08/results-new-lcs-review-departure-original-vision |date=10 September 2016}} -– News.USNI.org, 8 September 2016</ref><ref>[http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/09/09/navy-takes-four-littoral-combat-ships-out-deployment-rotation.html Navy Takes 1st Four Littoral Combat Ships Out of Deployment Rotation] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160914035738/http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/09/09/navy-takes-four-littoral-combat-ships-out-deployment-rotation.html |date=14 September 2016}} -– Military.com, 9 September 2016</ref>

====Surface warfare====

In addition to the ships' organic weapons systems, the surface warfare package includes two 30&nbsp;mm gun systems, a counter-boat missile system, two 11-meter rigid hull inflatable boats (RHIBs), and weapons deployed from MH-60 helicopters and MQ-8 Fire Scout UAVs.<ref name="defensetech6nov14">[http://defensetech.org/2014/11/06/navy-plans-to-arm-lcs-with-long-range-surface-missile/ Navy Plans to Arm LCS With Long-Range Surface Missile] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141109185141/http://defensetech.org/2014/11/06/navy-plans-to-arm-lcs-with-long-range-surface-missile/ |date=9 November 2014}} -– Defensetech.org, 6 November 2014</ref><ref>[http://www.stripes.com/news/navy/littoral-combat-ship-readies-for-pacific-deployment-the-navy-s-longest-in-decades-1.313954 Littoral combat ship readies for Pacific deployment, the Navy's longest in decades] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141216062341/http://www.stripes.com/news/navy/littoral-combat-ship-readies-for-pacific-deployment-the-navy-s-longest-in-decades-1.313954 |date=16 December 2014}} -– Stripes.com, 13 November 2014</ref> The surface warfare mission module is intended to deal only with small boats and is called the "best swarm killer in the surface fleet".<ref>Rear Admiral John Kirby, USN. [http://nation.time.com/2012/10/12/return-fire-on-the-navys-littoral-combat-ship/ "Return Fire on the Navy's Littoral Combat Ship."] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121013185034/http://nation.time.com/2012/10/12/return-fire-on-the-navys-littoral-combat-ship/ |date=13 October 2012}} ''Time Magazine'', 12 October 2012.</ref> It includes two 30&nbsp;mm gun mission modules manufactured by Teledyne Brown Engineering, Inc.<ref>[http://www.mfrtech.com/articles/13938.html "Teledyne Wins $9 Million Littoral Combat Ship Mission Modules Manufacturing Contract."] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111105161202/http://www.mfrtech.com/articles/13938.html |date=5 November 2011}} ''Teledyne Technologies'', 10 May 2011.</ref> The Navy's proposed budget for FY 2015 includes funding for the Surface-to-Surface Missile Module (SSMM) for the first time.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140304/DEFREG02/303040039/US-Navy-Budget-Takes-Bite-Out-Aircraft-Weapons |archive-url=http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20140305043251/http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140304/DEFREG02/303040039/US%2DNavy%2DBudget%2DTakes%2DBite%2DOut%2DAircraft%2DWeapons |url-status=dead |archive-date=5 March 2014 |title=US Navy Budget Takes Bite Out of Aircraft, Weapons |last1=CAVAS |first1=CHRISTOPHER P. |date=4 March 2014 |website=www.defensenews.com |publisher=Gannett Government Media |access-date=26 March 2014}}</ref>

In January 2011, the U.S. Navy recommended the selection of [[Raytheon]]'s [[Griffin (missile)|Griffin missile]] to replace the [[NLOS-LS]] missile, lowering the LCS's missile range from {{convert|25|mi}} to {{convert|3.5|mi}}.<ref name="CRS"/><ref>{{cite web |last=Reed |first=John |url=http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/01/11/navy-close-to-choosing-griffin-missile-for-lcs/ |title=Navy Close to Choosing Griffin Missile for LCS |publisher=DoD Buzz |date=11 January 2011 |access-date=8 May 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120312062437/http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/01/11/navy-close-to-choosing-griffin-missile-for-lcs/ |archive-date=12 March 2012 |url-status=live}}</ref> The packages were to be deployed in sets of three, with 15 per set for a total of 45 missiles. Initial deployment of the Griffin was set for 2015, a longer-ranged version was to enter service around 2017; however, procurement was canceled after the missiles were judged to be "too lightweight".<ref>[http://www.navytimes.com/article/20130531/NEWS04/305310001/LCS-matures-new-missile-coming "LCS matures, new missile coming."]</ref><ref>[http://www.navytimes.com/news/2011/01/navy-lcs-changes-012410w/ "Navy considering big changes for LCS"] By Sam Fellman, [[Navy Times]]. 24 January 2011</ref> An enhanced Griffin and the [[Brimstone (missile)|Sea Spear]] were considered likely competitors for the increment 2 missile.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130623/SHOWSCOUT02/306230010/Raytheon-Working-Extending-Range-Griffin-Missile-LCS |archive-url=https://archive.today/20130624225048/http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130623/SHOWSCOUT02/306230010/Raytheon-Working-Extending-Range-Griffin-Missile-LCS |url-status=dead |archive-date=24 June 2013 |title=Raytheon Working on Extending Range of Griffin Missile for LCS |last1=FRYER-BIGGS |first1=ZACHARY |date=23 June 2013 |website=www.defensenews.com |publisher=Gannett Government Media Corporation |access-date=23 June 2013}}</ref> The Navy chose to integrate the [[millimeter wave]] radar-guided [[AGM-114 Hellfire|AGM-114L Hellfire]] missile to increase the LCS's standoff firepower, and defense against swarming fast attack craft.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://defense-update.com/20150731_longbow.html |title=Longbow Missile Scores 7:1 Against Fast Attack Boat Swarm |last1=Eshel |first1=Tamir |date=31 July 2015 |website=defense-update.com |publisher=Defense-Update.com |access-date=31 July 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150803205351/http://defense-update.com/20150731_longbow.html |archive-date=3 August 2015 |url-status=live}}</ref> Navy use of the Hellfire gives access to the U.S. Army's existing stockpile of 10,000 missiles. The Hellfire is an interim decision, the Navy is interested in developing a longer-range version.<ref>[http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/04/09/navy-adds-hellfire-missiles-to-lcs/ Navy Adds Hellfire Missiles to LCS] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140413112900/http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/04/09/navy-adds-hellfire-missiles-to-lcs/ |date=13 April 2014}} -– DoDBuzz.com, 9 April 2014</ref><ref>[http://defensetech.org/2014/04/09/navy-ships-to-be-more-lethal/ CNO: Railguns and Hellfires Make Ships More Lethal] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140412004741/http://defensetech.org/2014/04/09/navy-ships-to-be-more-lethal/ |date=12 April 2014}} -– Defensetech.org, 9 April 2014</ref> An LCS can carry 24 Hellfire missiles in its Surface-to-surface Missile Module (SSMM), using M299 vertical launchers mounted within a gas containment system; the SSMM design does not facilitate at-sea reloading.<ref>[http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1900 Q & A with the U.S. Navy on Lockheed Martin Hellfire missiles for Littoral Combat Ships] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140727232007/http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1900 |date=27 July 2014}} -– Navyrecognition.com, 17 July 2014</ref> The Hellfire is slated to be operational aboard the LCS by 2017.<ref name="defensetech6nov14"/> A longer-range missile with an over-the-horizon engagement capability is planned to defend against fast attack craft, ships, and patrol boats by 2020 as part of the surface warfare package Increment 4.<ref name="defensetech6nov14"/>

Norwegian company [[Kongsberg Defense & Aerospace]] proposed equipping LCSs with their radar-evading [[Naval Strike Missile]], presenting scale models of the ''Freedom''-class with 12 NSMs and the ''Independence''-class with 18 NSMs.<ref>[http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1733 Kongsberg introduces some "armed to the teeth" LCS concepts at Sea-Air-Space 2014] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140413045503/http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1733 |date=13 April 2014}} -– Navyrecognition.com, 8 April 2014</ref> In July 2014, the Navy confirmed that it would test-launch the NSM from {{USS|Coronado|LCS-4|2}} to evaluate feasibility, the first time an LCS fired a surface-to-surface missile. The NSM has a range of {{convert|100|nmi|mi km|abbr=on}}, greater than the [[Harpoon (missile)|Harpoon]] anti-ship missile, but LCSs lack long-range fire control systems to detect targets at this distance.<ref>[http://www.militarytimes.com/article/20140724/NEWS04/307240087/LCS-conduct-test-Norwegian-missile LCS to conduct test of Norwegian missile] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150821050930/http://www.militarytimes.com/article/20140724/NEWS04/307240087/LCS-conduct-test-Norwegian-missile |date=21 August 2015}} -– Militarytimes.com, 24 July 2014</ref> On 24 September 2014, the NSM was successfully fired at a mobile target. The LCS's modular design makes it possible to add weapons and sensors as part of the warfare suite. This could mitigate lethality criticism of the LCS, which is oriented toward asymmetric swarm boat threats rather than comparable surface combatants.<ref>[http://news.usni.org/2014/09/24/navy-norwegian-missile-test-littoral-combat-ship-successful Norwegian Missile Test On Littoral Combat Ship Successful] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140925220016/http://news.usni.org/2014/09/24/navy-norwegian-missile-test-littoral-combat-ship-successful |date=25 September 2014}} -– News.USNI.org, 24 September 2014</ref>

In September 2015, the Navy issued a directive to install an OTH missile on ''Freedom'' and ''Coronado'' for their next deployments in early and mid-2016. The exact missile was not specified, but sources say it will be both the Harpoon and NSM, each ship equipped with only one model of missile. The directive calls for up to eight missiles, likely in two quad packs, to be installed on box launchers as a standalone system without requiring full integration into the LCS combat system.<ref>[http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/ships/2015/10/25/lcs-littoral-combat-ship-fanta-mission-module-surface-warfare-missile-harpoon-naval-strike-missile-kongsberg-norwegian-fort-worth-freedom-coronado-independence-navy/74477482/ LCS To Get Missiles for Next Deployment] -– Defensenews.com, 25 October 2015</ref> On 19 July 2016, ''Coronado'' conducted a live-fire missile test of a Block 1C Harpoon missile; although the missile missed the target, the test validated the ability to launch Harpoon missiles from the forward deck of an LCS.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.businessinsider.com/us-naval-strategy-just-came-to-fruition-2016-7 |title=A major element of US Naval strategy came to fruition in this 15-second clip |website=[[Business Insider]] |last=Lockie |first=Alex |date=21 July 2016 |access-date=23 July 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160722121710/http://www.businessinsider.com/us-naval-strategy-just-came-to-fruition-2016-7 |archive-date=22 July 2016 |url-status=live}}</ref> In May 2018, the Navy selected the NSM as the LCS's OTH missile.<ref name="usni31may18">[https://news.usni.org/2018/05/31/raytheon-awarded-lcs-horizon-anti-surface-weapon-contract-deal-worth-848m Raytheon Awarded LCS Over-the-Horizon Anti-Surface Weapon Contract; Deal Could be Worth $848M] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180531224707/https://news.usni.org/2018/05/31/raytheon-awarded-lcs-horizon-anti-surface-weapon-contract-deal-worth-848m |date=31 May 2018}}. ''USNI News''. 31 May 2018.</ref>

In January 2020, the Navy reported that a Lockheed Martin 150&nbsp;kW [[directed energy weapon|High Energy Laser]] and Integrated Optical-dazzler and Surveillance (HELIOS) would be put on {{USS|Little Rock|LCS-9}} for her upcoming deployment. The laser is part of a risk reduction effort to contribute to a layered laser defense effort, as well as boost the LCS's lethality to counter fast-attack craft and UAS.<ref>[https://news.usni.org/2020/01/13/littoral-combat-ship-will-field-laser-weapon-as-part-of-lockheed-martin-navy-test Littoral Combat Ship Will Field Laser Weapon as Part of Lockheed Martin, Navy Test] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200116094202/https://news.usni.org/2020/01/13/littoral-combat-ship-will-field-laser-weapon-as-part-of-lockheed-martin-navy-test |date=16 January 2020}}. ''USNI News''. 13 January 2020.</ref>

Line 50:

The anti-submarine module had its focus changed from stationary to en-stride systems (while the ship is moving) that are useful in the open ocean as well as in coastal areas.<ref name="CRS"/> One of the items to be added is a "torpedo detection capability" so that the ship can know when it is under attack.<ref>Fabey, Michael. [http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_05_09_2012_p0-456228.xml "What Price Freedom? LCS-1 Leaves Dry Dock Amid Questions About Worthiness."] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140425003952/http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=%2Farticle-xml%2Fawx_05_09_2012_p0-456228.xml |date=25 April 2014}} ''Aviation Week'', 9 May 2012.</ref> [[Thales Group|Thales]] has sold one CAPTAS 4 low-frequency active sonar to the U.S. Navy to be towed behind the LCS, with a potential order of 25 units.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.meretmarine.com/fr/content/thales-va-tester-un-sonar-remorque-pour-le-lcs-americain |title=Thales va tester un sonar remorqué pour le LCS américain |last=Groizeleau |first=Vincent |date=4 October 2010 |website=MerEtMarine.com |language=fr |access-date=8 April 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140615030855/http://www.meretmarine.com/fr/content/thales-va-tester-un-sonar-remorque-pour-le-lcs-americain |archive-date=15 June 2014 |url-status=live}}</ref> The USN will test a combination of this unit, derived from the [[Sonar 2087]] on British [[Type 23 frigate]]s, with the TB-37 multifunction towed array found on US warships.<ref>{{citation |title=RL33741 Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program: Background, Issues, and Options for Congress |first=Ronald |last=O'Rourke |date=13 June 2012 |url=http://cdn08.usni.org/sites/default/files/RL33741.pdf |access-date=11 April 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130923091430/http://cdn08.usni.org/sites/default/files/RL33741.pdf |archive-date=23 September 2013 |url-status=live}}</ref> {{Asof |September 2013}}, deployment of the ASW module is planned for 2016, but the [[Budget sequestration in 2013|2013 sequestration cuts]] could push this back to 2017.<ref name=Greenert20130918 >{{cite web |url=http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS00/20130918/101291/HHRG-113-AS00-Wstate-GreenertUSNJ-20130918.pdf |first=Admiral Jonathan |last=Greenert |author-link=Jonathan Greenert |title=Statement Before The House Armed Services Committee On Planning For Sequestration In FY 2014 And Perspectives Of The Military Services On The Strategic Choices And Management Review |date=18 September 2013 |publisher=US House of Representatives |access-date=21 September 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130923100518/http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS00/20130918/101291/HHRG-113-AS00-Wstate-GreenertUSNJ-20130918.pdf |archive-date=23 September 2013 |url-status=live}}</ref>

The Thales 2087-towed sonar will give the LCS an ability to detect [[diesel-electric submarine]]s while on the move, even better than destroyers and cruisers; because submarines can hide based on how sound is refracted through the temperature, salinity and pressure profile, the variable depth sonar can pierce that layer better than a hull-mounted sonar. The sonar is paired with a torpedo decoy under development. To destroy submarines, an MH-60S helicopter will deploy the [[Mark 54 Lightweight Torpedo]].<ref name="usni21aug13">[http://news.usni.org/2013/08/21/lcs-mission-packages-the-basics LCS Mission Packages: The Basics] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140709080611/http://news.usni.org/2013/08/21/lcs-mission-packages-the-basics |date=9 July 2014}} -– News.USNI.org, 21 August 2013</ref> Submarine detection is achieved by using an active VDS and passive Multi-Function Towed Array (MFTA); the active sonar sends out an acoustic signal to analyze the return, while the passive sonar simply listens through the water for noise signatures.<ref name="dodbuzz6nov14">[http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/11/06/navys-lcs-tests-counter-mine-anti-submarine-technology/ Navy's LCS Tests Counter-Mine, Anti-Submarine Technology] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141107190242/http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/11/06/navys-lcs-tests-counter-mine-anti-submarine-technology/ |date=7 November 2014}} -– DoDBuzz.com, 7 November 2014</ref>

A wargame held by the [[Naval War College]] demonstrated the possibility of using the LCS in open water operations to assist carrier battle groups and guided missile destroyers. The LCS was found to be more useful in open water operations than previously considered. The wargame found that an LCS operating the ASW package could perform the mission, which freed up a destroyer that would normally perform the mission to contribute to the lethality of the strike group. Submarine hunting ability is increased by the combination of a destroyer's towed array and hull-mounted sonar and an LCS's variable depth sonar.<ref name="dodbuzz2april14"/>

In July 2015, the Navy awarded three contracts to reduce the weight of the package elements down to or below 105 metric tons total to meet mission package weight requirements. Since both elements are mature and fielded (the VDS on [[Royal Navy]] Type 23 frigates and MFTA on {{sclass|Arleigh Burke|destroyer|5}} and {{sclass|Zumwalt|destroyer|1}}s), the systems cannot be overhauled and other weight reduction ideas need to be implemented like lightening sensors and using composites in the handling system.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://news.usni.org/2015/07/30/lcs-anti-sub-warfare-package-too-heavy-3-contracts-issued-for-weight-reduction-study |title=LCS Anti-Sub Warfare Package Too Heavy; 3 Contracts Issued For Weight Reduction Study |last1=Eckstein |first1=Megan |date=30 July 2015 |website=news.usni.org |publisher=USNI |access-date=31 July 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150731093039/http://news.usni.org/2015/07/30/lcs-anti-sub-warfare-package-too-heavy-3-contracts-issued-for-weight-reduction-study |archive-date=31 July 2015 |url-status=live}}</ref> Plans for the package shifted dramatically in 2011 when it was decided not to use the RMMV, used in the MCM package, in favor of an "in stride" capability. The ASW elements were chosen as cost-effective COTS sensors, so weight reduction needs by between 15 and 25 percent have been planned for since their selection for integration onto the LCS.<ref>[http://news.usni.org/2015/08/04/navsea-cutting-weight-on-littoral-combat-ship-asw-mission-package-not-a-new-problem NAVSEA: Cutting Weight on Littoral Combat Ship ASW Mission Package Not a New Problem] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160127181935/http://news.usni.org/2015/08/04/navsea-cutting-weight-on-littoral-combat-ship-asw-mission-package-not-a-new-problem |date=27 January 2016}} -– News.USNI.org, 4 August 2015</ref>

====Mine countermeasures module====

Line 65:

Increment three will involve adding the [[Fleet-class unmanned surface vessel]] ([[unmanned surface vehicle|USV]]) with the unmanned surface sweep system (USSS), a cable towed behind the boat. Each LCS will carry two, and they will be used for both MCM and ASW. It will mimic the acoustic and magnetic signature of a ship to fool magnetic and influence mines into detonating; introduction is expected in 2017. The final increment will be the Knifefish unmanned underwater vehicle ([[unmanned underwater vehicle|UUV]]) to find and detect buried mines in 2019.<ref name="usni21aug13"/>

In February 2016, the Navy announced they were halting procurement of the RMMV due to reliability issues, with the existing ten RMMVs to be upgraded to increase reliability.<ref>[http://news.usni.org/2016/02/26/navy-will-not-buy-more-rmmvs-will-pursue-system-of-systems-approach-to-mine-countermeasures Navy Will Not Buy More RMMVs, Will Pursue 'System Of Systems' Approach To Mine Countermeasures] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160227125012/http://news.usni.org/2016/02/26/navy-will-not-buy-more-rmmvs-will-pursue-system-of-systems-approach-to-mine-countermeasures |date=27 February 2016}} -– News.USNI.org, 26 February 2016</ref> The upgraded RMMVs will be fielded in 2018, and testing will be conducted to see if the Fleet class common unmanned surface vessel (CUSV) can tow the AQS-20A, and if successful will be used for minehunting by 2020. If the Knifefish UUV can have its endurance increased, the vessel will take over the mission from both systems.<ref>[https://news.usni.org/2016/04/07/stackley-rmmv-cusv-knifefish-will-all-play-a-role-in-lcs-minehunting-not-a-competition Stackley: RMMV, CUSV, Knifefish Will All Play a Role in LCS Minehunting; Not a Competition] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160407204014/https://news.usni.org/2016/04/07/stackley-rmmv-cusv-knifefish-will-all-play-a-role-in-lcs-minehunting-not-a-competition |date=7 April 2016}} -– News.USNI.org, 7 April 2016</ref>

====Irregular warfare and amphibious modules====

The Navy included an irregular warfare package in its 2012 budget request to Congress.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://defense.aol.com/2012/01/12/lcs-dives-into-irregular-warfare-with-new-mission-package/ |title=LCS Dives Into Irregular Warfare With New Mission Package. |publisher=Defense.aol.com |date=22 December 2011 |access-date=8 May 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120711112927/http://defense.aol.com/2012/01/12/lcs-dives-into-irregular-warfare-with-new-mission-package/ |archive-date=11 July 2012}}</ref>

Californian congressman [[Duncan D. Hunter]] wrote that the purchase of 55 LCS units was made at the cost of 10 fewer amphibious vessels.<ref>Scully, Megan. [http://www.rollcall.com/news/does_fleet_size_matter_a_navy_point_of_contention-219353-1.html "Does Fleet Size Matter? A Navy Point of Contention."] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130401153723/http://www.rollcall.com/news/does_fleet_size_matter_a_navy_point_of_contention-219353-1.html |date=1 April 2013}} ''Roll Call'', 25 November 2012.</ref> [[Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps]], [[General]] [[Joseph Dunford]] said in 2011 that the LCS is one of the platforms under consideration to help close the gap in amphibious shipping.<ref>Munoz, Carlo. [http://defense.aol.com/2011/12/07/marines-clamor-to-close-gaps-in-amphib-fleet/ "Marines Clamor To Close Gaps In Amphib Fleet."] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121027093445/http://defense.aol.com/2011/12/07/marines-clamor-to-close-gaps-in-amphib-fleet/ |date=27 October 2012}} ''AOL Defense'', 7 December 2011.</ref> In August 2014, USS ''Coronado'' demonstrated the ability to rapidly stage and deploy Marine Corps ground units, including operations by two Marine Light Attack Helicopter Squadrons (HMLA) that conducted day and night deck-landing qualifications. The ''Independence''-class LCS's features of high speed, a large flight deck to support [[UH-1Y Venom]] and [[AH-1W Super Cobra]] helicopters, and reconfigurable mission bay can support air and small-boat employment and delivery of ground and air forces; a small Marine ground unit can be carried within an embarked mission module.<ref>[http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1955 Littoral Combat Ship USS Coronado (LCS 4) Conducts Integration Exercise with U.S. Marines] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140826113724/http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1955 |date=26 August 2014}} -– Navyrecognition.com, 21 August 2014</ref> In 2014, Marine Corps General [[John M. Paxton, Jr.]] claimed several deficiencies in using an LCS for amphibious operations as a substitute platform for an amphibious assault ship, including the ability to operate in difficult sea states, survivability in contested waters, limited flight deck and berthing space, and command and control limitations.<ref>[http://news.usni.org/2014/10/02/usmcs-paxton-potential-marine-deployments-lcs-jhsv-carry-risks USMC's Paxton: Potential Marine Deployments On LCS And JHSV Carry Risks] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141005163000/http://news.usni.org/2014/10/02/usmcs-paxton-potential-marine-deployments-lcs-jhsv-carry-risks |date=5 October 2014}} -– News.USNI.org, 2 October 2014</ref>

In 2014, the [[United States Coast Guard|U.S. Coast Guard]] began advocating the LCS as a tailor-made platform for drug interdiction missions. Under pressure from Navy vessels retiring, the Coast Guard will suffer a surface vessel shortage for intercepting smuggling ships in the Caribbean area, forcing the Navy to examine other platforms for drug interdiction. The Coast Guard noted that the LCS has previously performed this task, and pointed towards its high speed and embarked helicopters to run down fast smuggling boats; the Navy plans to base 10 ''Freedom''-class ships at Naval Station Mayport, Florida which could be tasked to conduct interdiction missions.<ref>[http://www.seapowermagazine.org/stories/20141204-lcs-drug.html Coast Guard Admiral: LCS 'an Incredible Ship' for Drug Interdiction] -– Seapowermagazine.org, 4 December 2014</ref>

==Developmental history==

Line 97:

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that deploying the first two ships will delay the overall program because these two ships were not available for testing and development so changes may have to be made in the second pair of ships during construction instead of in advance.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/08/navy-lcs-report-083110w/ |title=GAO: Early LCS deployment hurt the program |work=Navy Times |access-date=8 May 2012}}</ref> The U.S. Navy responded that "Early deployment brought LCS operational issues to the forefront much sooner than under the original schedule, some of which would not have been learnt until two years on."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jni/jni100910_1_n.shtml |title=U.S. defends early deployment of littoral combat ship |publisher=Janes.com |access-date=8 May 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100916053957/http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jni/jni100910_1_n.shtml |archive-date=16 September 2010 |url-status=live}}</ref>

In 2013, [[Under Secretary of the Navy]] [[Robert O. Work]] explained that cost overruns were partly due to the shipbuilders' bidding to American Bureau of Shipping commercial standards, the Navy changed this to Level I survivability standards for greater crew survivability, although the ships were not expected to operate after being hit.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=1035|archive-url=https://archive.today/20130415103319/http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=1035 |url-status=dead|title=Navy's No. 2 Civilian Chronicles Missteps in Littoral Combat Ship -– B…|date=15 April 2013|archive-date=15 April 2013|website=archive.is|access-date=14 November 2018}}</ref> The Navy acknowledged that their failure to communicate clearly that the experimental and developmental nature of the first two ships caused a perception that the overall LCS program was in worse shape.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=%2Farticle-xml%2FAW_01_28_2013_p14-535170.xml |title=Upgraded LCS Starts Certification Trials. |access-date=6 July 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130520164336/http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=%2Farticle-xml%2FAW_01_28_2013_p14-535170.xml |archive-date=20 May 2013 |url-status=live}}</ref> A GAO report in July 2014 found that the annual cost to operate an LCS was $79 million, compared to $54 million to operate a larger frigate. Navy Secretary Ray Mabus pointed out that new vessels traditionally start off costing more to operate because of difficulties with building and testing ships simultaneously; GAO reports of new warships since the 1960s support this claim. As more littoral combat ships are built and enter service, Mabus said operational costs will decline to acceptable limits.<ref>[http://www.navytimes.com/article/20140725/NEWS04/307250041/Mabus-Cost-LCS-will-decline Mabus: Cost for LCS will decline] -– Navytimes.com, 25 July 2014</ref> On 2 November 2016 the Pentagon blocked publication of cost overruns on both designs.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-06/pentagon-blocks-littoral-combat-ship-overrun-from-a-gao-report |title=Pentagon Blocks Littoral Combat Ship Overrun From a GAO Report |last1=Capaccio |first1=Anthony |date=6 March 2017 |website=www.bloomberg.com |publisher=Bloomberg |access-date=8 March 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170307111747/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-06/pentagon-blocks-littoral-combat-ship-overrun-from-a-gao-report |archive-date=7 March 2017 |url-status=live}}</ref>

On 2 December 2016, it was reported that the GAO was critical of the LCS's ability to complete a navy requirement of 30 consecutive days underway without a critical failure of one or more essential subsystems. DOT&E Michael Gilmore states that the current LCS fleet "have a near-zero chance" of meeting this requirement.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/gao-the-miracle-of-the-lcs-didnt-happen/article/2608619|title=Pentagon's top tester: Littoral ships 'have a near-zero chance of completing a 30-day mission'|date=1 December 2016|access-date=14 November 2018 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20171022154420/http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/gao-the-miracle-of-the-lcs-didnt-happen/article/2608619|archive-date=22 October 2017 |url-status=live}}</ref>

Line 120:

At a hearing on 25 July 2013, the House Armed Services Committee's seapower subcommittee argued with Vice Admiral [[Richard W. Hunt]] on how the LCS would be employed if tensions with North Korea or China led to a confrontation in the Western Pacific. Hunt said the ships are designed in accordance with the Navy's survivability standards, and that the LCS would be used during the initial phase in the theatre and sense the environment before hostilities occur. Detractors claim the LCS is not survivable enough for long-range threats that China possesses; LCS ships are built to the Navy's survivability category Level I+, higher than Level I patrol craft and mine warfare ships, but lower than the Level II ''Oliver Hazard Perry''-class frigate they are replacing. The Navy has said the LCS was designed to pull out of combat upon sustaining damage.<ref name= "janes29july13">[http://www.janes.com/article/25239/in-china-or-north-korea-scenario-lcs-would-be-in-the-fight-usn-says In China or North Korea scenario, LCS would be in the fight, USN says] {{Webarchive |url= https://web.archive.org/web/20130801094539/http://www.janes.com/article/25239/in-china-or-north-korea-scenario-lcs-would-be-in-the-fight-usn-says |date=1 August 2013}}, Jane's, 29 July 2013</ref> The baseline LCS seaframe designs, however, boast a better air and missile defense capability than the partially disarmed and now retired Perry class, which somewhat counters claims that LCS is "unsurvivable."<ref>{{cite web |url= http://news.usni.org/2015/01/22/opinion-lcs-survivability-questions-linger|title= LCS Survivability Questions Linger |date= 22 January 2015|access-date= 16 September 2015 |publisher= United States Naval Institute|last= Wills|first= Steven |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20150909174106/http://news.usni.org/2015/01/22/opinion-lcs-survivability-questions-linger |archive-date= 9 September 2015 |url-status= live}}</ref> The deployment of USS ''Freedom'' was seen by the Navy as an opportunity to test the ship and operational concepts in the real-world. The Navy was about to conclude a war game at the Naval War College to examine ways of exploiting LCS capabilities in Western Pacific and other scenarios. Hunt added that the anti-submarine warfare (ASW) mission package would play an important role in protecting aircraft carriers and amphibious ships, and the mine countermeasures (MCMs) mission package would also provide necessary port security and waterway patrol capability following combat operations.<ref name="janes29july13"/>

A [[Government Accountability Office]] report in April 2014 found that several [[U.S. 7th Fleet]] officials thought the LCS was more useful in the Persian Gulf, but not suitable in the Pacific theater as they lacked the speed, range, and electronic warfare capabilities. The first two vessels from each maker were found to be overweight and not meeting performance requirements for endurance or sprinting over 40 knots. Navy leaders contend that the LCS's shallow draft is well suited for Pacific operations due to the many shallow-water ports, typically difficult for larger warships to access. The GAO report recommended the Navy consider buying fewer ships of the type if its limitations prevent effective use in the Pacific theater.<ref>[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-10/littoral-ship-s-fitness-for-asia-questioned-in-u-s-navy.html Littoral Ship's Fitness for Asia Questioned by Some in U.S. Navy] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150111165014/http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-10/littoral-ship-s-fitness-for-asia-questioned-in-u-s-navy.html |date=11 January 2015}} -– Bloomberg.com, 10 April 2014</ref><ref>[http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/04/11/7th-fleet-admits-lcs-not-suited-for-pacific.html?comp=7000023435700&rank=1 7th Fleet Admits LCS Not Suited for Pacific] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140413142243/http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/04/11/7th-fleet-admits-lcs-not-suited-for-pacific.html?comp=7000023435700&rank=1 |date=13 April 2014}} -– Military.com, 11 April 2014</ref> The GAO also found that both designs were overweight and underperforming.<ref>{{cite report |url=http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-749|title=Littoral Combat Ship: Additional Testing and Improved Weight Management Needed Prior to Further Investments|website=U.S. Government Accountability Office|date=30 July 2014|id=GAO-14-749|access-date=14 November 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181118155309/https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-749|archive-date=18 November 2018 |url-status=live}}</ref>

===Small surface combatant (SSC)===

Line 135:

On the proposal's due date, ship designs were submitted by [[Lockheed Martin]], [[Austal USA]], [[Huntington Ingalls Industries]], and [[General Dynamics Bath Iron Works]], and separate combat systems proposals were submitted by [[Lockheed Martin|Lockheed]], [[Raytheon Company|Raytheon]], and General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems (GD AIS); ship and combat systems responses were limited to 25 and 15 pages respectively. Lockheed's response was a variant of their ''Freedom''-class LCS; different upgrades included an advised increase in length to {{convert|125|m|ft|abbr=on}}, vertical launch systems for [[RIM-66 Standard|Standard Missile 2]] missiles or the [[RIM-174 Standard ERAM|Standard Missile 6]], and the [[AN/SPY-1|SPY-1F Aegis radar]] or an [[AMDR|Air Missile Defense Radar]] derivative. Austal USA submitted a modified ''Independence''-class ship, adding permanently installed systems like a towed array sonar, torpedoes, vertical launch anti-submarine rockets, and aviation capability to support the MH-60 helicopter in place of mission modules. Like Lockheed's submission, it has a VLS for Standard missiles, a 76&nbsp;mm gun in place of the 57&nbsp;mm gun, and can take on an Aegis or ADMR radar. Huntington Ingalls submitted a larger, more heavily armed National Security Cutter. General Dynamics also made an unspecified response.<ref>[http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20140523185730/http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140523/DEFREG02/305230023/Ideas%2DPour%2DUS%2DNavy%2Ds%2DSmall%2DShip%2DTask%2DForce "Ideas Pour in to US Navy's Small Ship Task Force"]. Defensenews.com, 23 May 2014.</ref>

Results from the Navy task force on LCS upgrades, capabilities, costs, and alternative options were completed by 31 July 2014 for the [[Office of the Secretary of Defense]] (OSD) to review.<ref>[http://www.navytimes.com/article/20140731/NEWS04/307310057/No-report-expected-just-yet-LCS-alternative No report expected just yet on LCS alternative] -– Navytimes.com, 31 July 2014</ref><ref>[http://news.usni.org/2014/08/01/navy-wont-discuss-lcs-follow-taskforce-results-next-budget "Navy Won't Discuss LCS Follow-on Taskforce Results Until Next Budget"] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140803021539/http://news.usni.org/2014/08/01/navy-wont-discuss-lcs-follow-taskforce-results-next-budget |date=3 August 2014}}. News.USNI.org, 1 August 2014</ref> The Navy senior leadership briefed top Pentagon officials on proposals for the new SSC on 6 October 2014. A decision is to be made by February 2015 in advance of the 2016 budget submission.<ref>[http://www.navytimes.com/article/20141016/NEWS04/310160064/Hagel-briefed-new-Navy-surface-ship-no-decisions-yet "Hagel briefed on new Navy surface ship, but no decisions yet"]. Navytimes.com, 16 October 2014.</ref> On 12 December 2014, a joint statement was issued by the Secretary of the Navy and Chief of Naval Operations endorsing SSCTF recommendations for a modified LCS to complement the planned 32 LCSs for a 52-strong Small Surface Combatant fleet.<ref>{{cite press release |url=http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=84854 |title=Joint Statement by Secretary of the Navy and Chief of Naval Operations on Endorsement of SSCTF Recommendations |author=Office of the Secretary of the Navy |id=NNS141212-19 |publisher=Navy News Service |date=12 December 2014 |access-date=10 December 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151222155338/http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=84854 |archive-date=22 December 2015 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite press release |url=http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=84849 |title=Navy Moving Forward With LCS |id=NNS141211-10 |publisher=Navy News Service |date=12 December 2014 |access-date=10 December 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160106151044/http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=84849 |archive-date=6 January 2016 |url-status=live}}</ref>

On 11 December 2014, Hagel accepted the Navy's recommendation to base the 20 SSCs on more powerful versions of both existing LCS designs. The SSC shall have an improved 3D air defense radar, air defense decoys, better electronic warfare system, over-the-horizon anti-ship missiles, multi-function towed array sonar, torpedo defenses, additional armor, and displace less than Flight 0 vessels. The SSC will focus on anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare; mine countermeasures will be handled by existing LCS ships. Although not designed for modularity, it will maintain the ability to carry mission modules and LCS mission package equipment, including 30&nbsp;mm and 57&nbsp;mm cannons (upgrading to a 76&nbsp;mm gun would have had marginal benefits for increased costs), Hellfire missiles, {{convert|11|m|ft|adj=on|sp=us}} RHIBs, and the ASW variable-depth sonar. Current plans lack vertical launchers for Standard missiles; the SSC is planned to be able to operate alone. The over-the-horizon surface-to-surface missile will likely be in the Harpoon Block II class. Other enhancements include spaced armor, installation of [[M242 Bushmaster|Mk 38 Mod 2 25&nbsp;mm chain guns]], improved decoy systems, the SeaRAM missile interceptor, a "lite" version of the [[AN/SLQ-32 Electronic Warfare Suite|Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program]] (SEWIP), and improved signature management through [[degaussing]]. An SSC will cost $60–$75 million more than a Flight 0 LCS, with procurement to begin by 2019. Hagel also directed the Navy to study which improvements could be added to LCSs; completed ships cannot accommodate all changes, more can be added to incomplete ones, the final number and mix of each type has yet to be determined.<ref name="military11dec14"/><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2014/12/11/hagel-new-ship-based-lcs/20266187/ |title=Hagel: New ship to be based on LCS |website=navytimes.com |last=Cavas |first=Christopher P. |date=11 December 2014 |access-date=2 May 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://news.usni.org/2014/12/11/gunned-lcs-hulls-picked-navys-next-small-surface-combatant |title=Up Gunned LCS Hulls Picked for Navy's Next Small Surface Combatant |website=usni.org |last=LaGrone |first=Sam |date=11 December 2014 |access-date=2 May 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160324215307/http://news.usni.org/2014/12/11/gunned-lcs-hulls-picked-navys-next-small-surface-combatant |archive-date=24 March 2016 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://seapowermagazine.org/stories/20141212-ssc-lcs.html |title=Modified LCS Selected for Follow-On Small Surface Combatant |website=seapowermagazine.org |date=12 December 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141214172124/http://seapowermagazine.org/stories/20141212-ssc-lcs.html |archive-date=14 December 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.defensenews.com/article/20141211/DEFREG02/312110041/Hagel-New-Ship-Based-LCS |archive-url=https://archive.today/20141214154956/http://www.defensenews.com/article/20141211/DEFREG02/312110041/Hagel-New-Ship-Based-LCS |url-status=dead |archive-date=14 December 2014 |title=Split Decision on New US Navy Ship |website=defensenews.com |date=11 December 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://defense-update.com/20141212_lcs_rearmed.html#.VI2sScIfodU |title=The US Navy wants better armed, more protected LCS based surface combat ships |website=defense-update.com |date=12 December 2014 |last=Eshel |first=Tamir |access-date=2 May 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160429122803/http://defense-update.com/20141212_lcs_rearmed.html#.VI2sScIfodU |archive-date=29 April 2016 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://breakingdefense.com/2014/12/lcs-lives-hagel-approves-bigger-gunned-upgrade/ |title=LCS Lives: Hagel Approves Better Armed Upgrade |website=breakingdefense.com |last= Freedburg |first=Sydney J. |date=11 December 2014 |access-date= 2 May 2016 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20160530233825/http://breakingdefense.com/2014/12/lcs-lives-hagel-approves-bigger-gunned-upgrade/ |archive-date=30 May 2016 |url-status= live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/hagels-new-small-surface-combatant-ssc-gives-lcs-eyes-teeth-and-toughness/ |title= Hagel's New Small Surface Combatant Gives LCS Eyes, Teeth, and Toughness |website= Defense media network |last= Oldham |first=Chuck |date=12 December 2014 |access-date=2 May 2016 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20160304000634/http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/hagels-new-small-surface-combatant-ssc-gives-lcs-eyes-teeth-and-toughness/ |archive-date=4 March 2016 |url-status=live}}</ref>

Line 492:

* {{sclass2|Sigma|corvette|1}}

* [[Doha-class corvette]]

* [[Fleet-class unmanned surface vessel|Fleet class USV]] -– An unmanned surface vessel designed to be carried by the LCS, and used for MCM & ASW.

* [[iRobot Seaglider]] -– UUV tested for use with Persistent Littoral Undersea Surveillance (PLUS) prototype system.

* [[Juliet Marine Systems Ghost]], a proposed replacement for the LCS

{{div col end}}