Home » News & Analysis » PEO LCS Begins At Sea Testing of Modified Longbow Hellfire Missile


PEO LCS Begins At Sea Testing of Modified Longbow Hellfire Missile

USS Fort Worth (LCS-3) on Nov. 25, 2014. US Navy Photo

USS Fort Worth (LCS-3) on Nov. 25, 2014. US Navy Photo

The Program Executive Office for Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) began a series of tests on its modified Longbow Hellfire missile from a surrogate test platform, with a successful first test after some weather delays.

The LCS surface warfare mission package reached initial operational capability (IOC) in November with its 30mm gun and 11-meter rigid hull inflatable boats, and the next step is to add a missile to counter the fast inshore attack craft threat, Capt. Casey Moton, LCS mission modules program manager, said at the American Society of Naval Engineers’ ASNE Day 2015 on Wednesday.

To defeat the small boat threat, the Navy chose Lockheed Martin’s AGM-114L Longbow Hellfire radar-guided missile, with some modifications. Moton said the Hellfire missiles, acquired from the Army, was designed to launch horizontally from beneath a helicopter, so it needed to be adjusted to create a “maritime vertical launch configuration.”

“[The missile] gets told where the target is by the combat system; the missile has to launch vertically; it’s got to tip over; it’s got to find, with the missile’s radar, it’s got to find that target; and then it’s got to go engage the target,” Moton explained to USNI News after his presentation at ASNE Day 2015.

“The first of several test runs was last week. And we were successful,” he said. The test took place in the Virginia Capes test complex and was conducted from a test platform, not an LCS.

“I’m cautious because we got held up by weather, there’s a lot more testing to go. One test does not make a victory, but it was still successful,” Moton said.

Longbow AGM-114L Hellfire

Longbow AGM-114L Hellfire

It is unclear how soon the program will be able to continue its testing, he said, since bad weather delayed testing for several Navy programs. But he said he hopes to finish this series of tests soon, which will include variations in “how many targets are coming in, and what bearing they are, and are they just straight running or are they maneuvering. So there’s a whole series. This is the first test, and then we have a whole other series of tests set up later this year, so there’s a lot more to come.”

In addition to keeping the shorter-range Longbow Hellfire missile, the Navy will also add an over-the-horizon anti-ship missile (ASM) to the LCS-based future frigate. The Navy has not picked which ASM system to use, but a September test of the Norwegian Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile from the USS Coronado (LCS-4) proved successful.

During his presentation, Moton also said that the mine countermeasures (MCM) mission package testing was moving along well and preparing for its final operational tests for the first increment of the mission package sometime later this year.

PEO LCS ran the mission package through a developmental test last fall that included operations with airborne systems and the unmanned underwater Remote Minehunting System “and had very good success,” Moton said. Program officials have already embarked an MCM mission package onto the USS Independence (LCS-2) for a technical evaluation in Pensacola, Fla. Afterwards, the program plans to conduct initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E) in July.

  • CharleyA

    I’m wondering why the Navy isn’t considering the JAGM that is slated to replace the Hellfire (and Maverick)?

    • JRR2

      Because Hellfire is a mature program and JAGM is not yet fielded. Since JAGM has an equivalent form to Hellfire, there is nothing that would preclude transitioning to JAGM once that missile is fielded.

    • Secundius

      @ CharleyA.

      I surprised that the LAU-117E2/L Maverick hasn’t been Field Tested on the MH-60R/S helicopters. Considering, it has been Field Tested on the AH-1W attack helicopter…

  • Tony

    “longbow” is Greek for “short range”. With the partial ASUW package with this interim missile we have a $600M 3000 ton warship that can defeat a few speedboats armed with heavy machine guns – impressive.

    • PolicyWonk

      The most impressive features of LCS, and its next-to-useless cousin, the so-called “FF” (fast frigate) variant, are:
      1. This particular corporate welfare program’s ability to avoid outright cancellation, and

      2. Those involved in the outright defrauding of the taxpayers ability to escape prosecution, dismissal from the service, and/or long sentences in prison.

      • Tony

        Please, “FF” is simply the designation for a frigate – it does NOT mean “fast frigate”.

        • PolicyWonk

          I wasn’t the one making the claim that “FF” stands for “fast frigate” – that designation was granted by the magic of marketing, and was explained by none other than the mighty Ray Mabus himself, after he determined that the problem with LCS, was that its designation (i.e. Littoral Combat Ship – the same ship Adm. Greenert admitted wasn’t intended to venture into the littorals to fight) “confused” people who couldn’t understand what it was supposed to do.

          So he went and “re-branded” LCS (as if that resolves any of the fundamental problems) into “FF” – that he said meant “fast frigate”.

          My remarks were sort of intended to be sarcastic (with the exception of the comments regarding the corporate welfare program or, the demotion, prosecution, and/or prison time requirement.

          Apologies for any confusion.

          • Tony

            Sorry, PolicyWonk, I didn’t mean to criticize you, only to try and squash the “definition” – and I was dismayed and embarrassed when SECNAV used the term, as it originated as a derogatory interpretation of the designation with fielding of the KNOX-class frigates. Who advises these people?!?

          • PolicyWonk

            No problem, Tony!

            I’m not sure who advises these people either. Throwing billions of good dollars after bad irritates the daylights out of me – and the re-designating of LCS into FF only constitutes a more monstrous falsehood and shafting for the taxpayers than the original one did.

            And I agree – the SEVNAV should absolutely know better. On BOTH counts.

        • Secundius

          @ Tony.

          Joint Publication 1-02, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms: 8 November 2010 (As Amended Through, 15 January 2015) Appendix A, A-64, Page 342. FF – NAVY FAST FRIGATE, as defined.

        • Dan

          Is a Frigate necessary? Why not have up to date DDG’s to handle/have more responsibility? I believe Frigate’s and Cruiser’s are going to be deemed unnecessary very soon, a destroyer carries much more in every aspect vs. a Frigate and a very similar load to a cruiser at a hugh annual saving’s.

          • Curtis Conway

            Dan, the cruisers are Double-Enders (have two guns). The primary reason for the gun is to intimidate surface craft and sink them if they are not intimidated out to about 15 miles. They also provide Naval Gun Fire Support (NGFS) for the Marines ashore. Two guns make coordinated illumination a snap. Its a pain with one gun.

            The cruisers have additional spaces for a flag and his staff and that’s not just birthing, and flag stateroom. The Combat Information Center (CIC) has more consoles and Large Screen Display (LSDs) just for this purpose. There are also additional consoles in CIC for ASW helo & fighter aircraft control. Comm center is bigger, and there is an admiral’s barge sometimes.

            The cruiser is the AAW Commander in every formation, and usually rotates the duty to other units, which is usually destroyers, present just to give everybody a shot at keeping up their skills.

            Can destroyer do the cruisers mission? In a pinch and does often. However, one sleeps nights better with a cruiser present. Almost everything else is pretty much comparable, if not exactly the same. Think we will hang onto the cruisers, and if they ever build more (double ender Burke?) it will probably have two big Railguns.

            Now about those missiles in the article. They cost over $100,000.00 apiece (air launched is $110 thousand and the shipboard one has a booster). A 5″ shell cost much less and one can carry more. There is such a thing as rocket assist rounds that go much further. The guided version goes to a point on the earth guided by GPS (the US Navy has not developed an IR one yet). We won’t discuss railgun yet.

          • Dan

            I get the concept of the Cruiser, these guns you mention for the Marines are weak garbage. You could also use a base bleed round perhaps. Both the Marines and Navy brass say shore bombardment can be taken care of by aircraft and missiles so the price is oviously not an issue at about $100,000 each. Railgun-a weapon that can only be fired from a very very select few ships, they are called Zumwalt’s. Putting such a weapon on such few ships is so none impressive (if it is ever completed). The Zumwalts remind me of the Seawolfs, hyped up and over priced just like the rail gun.

          • Secundius

            @ Dan.

            If your referring to the 6.1-inch (155mm/52-caliber) Naval Gun, it’s actually the M777 which is a copy of the German Design. With the exception being, the barrel is Chrome Lined Steel and the Breech is made of Steel. The rest is made of Titanium to keep the weight down so it can be Sling-Carried by the V-22 Osprey…

          • Dan

            I actually wasn’t, I was referring to the 5in/54 and the 155mm/62.

          • Secundius

            @ Dan.

            The 5-inch also comes in a 62-caliber. An alternative is also a Navalized version of Dragon Fire, an automated 120mm Mortar System with a range of ~13,000-meters with a “bleed based” mortar round. Or my favorite, the AMOS, a twin automated 120mm Breech-Loading Mortar, with a range of ~10,000-meters. Also known as “The Russian Crowd Pleaser”, because the Russian’s Devoutly Hate the Dam Thing…

          • Dan

            Thank you for the info.

          • Secundius

            @ Dan.

            It wasn’t meant as Sarcasm! And the latter two system, were intended to be replacements for the Mk. 110 57mm/70-caliber Bofors Autocannon…

          • Dan

            I wasn’t telling you I thought it was sarcasm, I simply didn’t know.

          • Secundius

            @ Dan.

            Sorry, I had a stroke a couple of years ago. And some phrasing’s or wording structures, sound like sarcasm to me…

          • Curtis Conway

            Ask a Marine. The customer always knows. The boss hasn’t a clue.

          • Secundius

            @ Curtis Conway.

            The 6.1-inch (155mm/62-caliber) Rheinmetall GmbH Naval Gun System has a nominal range of ~21.6nm using a “Abbreviation” round and a maximum range of ~85nm. using a LRLAP round. Standard Magazine capacity is ~300-rounds on the Arleigh Burke class Destroyers…

          • Dan

            You are so right, what do you think of the studies that show a 16″ modified round has a range of 460-500 miles. Does the customer know this or only the boss?

          • Curtis Conway

            Well, I don’t know about 500 miles but the rocket assist 75+ mile version was very doable. Can you imagine if we actually rebuilt the BBs with the LM2500 upgrade. At some point the guns would have been upgraded. We would have removed the 5″ 38s, and replaced a few of them with something (MLRS and guided rockets). The aviation upgrade aft with an elevator and a hanger. Cost less than a carrier, and the Marines would scream for it every time they hit the beach. With F-35B we could really do some interesting things. Two for PAC and LANT. Can you imaging an ARG with a BB?

          • Secundius

            @ Curtis Conway.

            The only way you going to get a 1,900-pound shell firing out of a 16-inch/50-caliber Mk.7 Naval Gun Barrel to travel 500sm. Is to reduce the weight of the 1,900-pound shell to less than 90-pounds. Or increase the Barrel Length to 1,087-caliber, which would make the barrel ~1,450-feet long. That’s a Pretty Big Naval Gun Barrel to be Mounting on a ship only ~510-feet long…

          • Curtis Conway

            To everything there is a Letter and a Spirit. The Letter people can ONLY run the numbers and see if it adds up. American HiStory is replete of American Citizens (Spirit People) showing the Letter people that . . . it can be done!

            Once again . . . the 70+ mile rocket round used the ‘not yet modified’ gun mount and barrel, which basically was a delivery and directional method of fire. The round was to have a guidance package with a rocket motor. Now you see this was in the 80’s before an Excalibur round existed, and before Italy did their thing, and that round goes places. The technology at that time was a tough nut not yet funded, but the figment of some bright engineers imagination which came to fruition later on. I would not want to be in any country where the BB Class vessel was waiting off shore. Can you sink here? Sure, ask a submariner. That’s why they have Mk50s, THAT is also why you must have good ASW platforms!

            Know thyself, and know thy enemy, and you will always be victorious. Then have GOOD intelligence.

          • Secundius

            @ Curtis Conway.

            Even with Rocket Assist Delivery System, It’s going to be a LITTLE difficult Cramming a V-2 Rocket into a 16-inch Naval Artillery Barrel….

          • Curtis Conway

            No one ever said that the condition of the test was bullet weight stays the same.

          • Secundius

            @ Curtis Conway.

            While Excalibur is good, it’s maximum range is only ~35-miles. LRLAP has a maximum range of ~85-miles. And I think the British AGM-169 Brimstone is a better Stand-Off Missile than the AGM-114 Hellfire. The Brimstone I missile range is 1-1/2 times as far as the Hellfire and the Brimstone II range is 5 times as far…

          • Secundius

            @ Curtis Conway.

            The Iowa produced 212,000-shp on steam-turbines, you’d probably have to go with four LM6000 gas-turbines @ 54,610-shp each for a total of 218,440-shp. And if you really want to make the Iowa fly, replace the screw shafts with Mermaids…

          • Dan

            Would Mermaids make her faster? Would she still need rudders?

          • Secundius

            @ Dan.

            Unlike Azipod, Mermaids have Screws on both end’s (Push/Pull) Configuration. And like Azipod, Mermaids can also rotate in any direction, so no rudders needed. Also with Mermaids you go from a 4xScrew-Shaft Configuration to 2xMermaids. Another plus, is Mermaids are Electric-Drive Propulsion System, so no Gearing-Transmission needed…

          • Dan

            I enjoy the thought, very impressive mind set you have.

          • Curtis Conway

            Dan, I was privileged to listen to the BB’s (first NJ, then Iowa) on the NGFS net off Beirut in the 80’s when the Marines were there. Correction of fire was in the 1,000 yard increments. Of course that’s how much territory was being chewed up. What a capability. Every nation on planet earth shook at the thought of their approach . . . and we parked’em. The BB CO’s always told all comers to give it their best shot, then they would call “Sweeper”, then look out here they come. The only way to take them out was with a modern (huge) torpedo or two, or tactical nukes.

          • Dan

            Sounds to me, giving is better than receiving on this topic. I was on USS Wisconsin recently, A Senior Chief was a volunteer on Wisconsin, he served on Wisconsin as well. He said she is in perfect condition, I asked about her engines, he said they were perfect and still ready to go, said they are still being dehumidified as is the rest of the original spaces are also. Can you put a price on high moral? Perhaps they should reactivate x2 (one on each coast) just for that reason, just a thought-I as a tax payer would gladly pay for there modernization and upkeep. Wisconsin is a beautiful Warship, I would love to see her siloute in Norfolk again.

          • Secundius

            @ Dan.

            Not going to happen, Low End Scale Reactivation Price ~$500-Million USD. High End Scale Reactivation Price ~$1.5-Billion USD…

          • Dan

            500 million being Gulf War armed and 1.5 billion being completely Aegis equipped?? What do you mean if you have some time?

          • Secundius

            @ Dan. If your going to that way, go ALL the way. Hybrid the design, remove the aft turret and replace the damaged turret. Replace the 2/3 amidship and aft section of superstructure, and replace it with a Ski-Jump Angled Flight Deck. This way you not only have a Bombardment Support Ship, but Light Aircraft Carrier as well with as many as 30 aircrafts…

          • Dan

            Could the damaged turret be replaced with VLS? Meaning, could VLS survive the shock wave of turret #1? Would this be a poor design?

          • Dan

            What do you think of Admiral Bordas Arsenal Ship design?

          • Secundius

            @ Dan.

            Are you sure on the spelling of the name, because i can’t find anything…

          • Dan

            Boorda, Admiral

          • Secundius

            @ Dan.

            Sorry, I see about a dozen different design’s but no names. And the one’s I found with names were the.
            Potoji Antikatoda class
            Metcalf class
            Comarac class
            Robert E. Lee class
            New York class
            Monitor class

          • Dan

            I will find it, pleasure talking with you, you know your topic.

          • Curtis Conway

            CNO!!! Mike Boorda was an awesome individual. Seaman to Admiral.

          • Dan

            Yes he was.

          • Secundius

            @ Dan.

            Something you might be interested in Dan, Scuttlebutt has it there’s talk about upgrading Iowa class BB’s to Montana class BB’s standards. So, 12×16-inch gun instead of 9…

          • Dan

            Thank you, I will look at it.

          • Secundius

            @ Dan.

            I found it by pure happenstance while researching the BMD system on another USNI News website. I must have gone through at least 100 different sites, before finding it by accident…

          • Dan

            Removing all gun turrets and installing apprx. 1000 VLS cells.

          • Secundius

            @ Dan.

            Little bit of a mix up here. I had to access his bio. to ge the information. Yes, I’ve seen the ship before, you can even buy a Mahogany scale model of the ship too. Loosely based on the LPD-17 San Antonio class Gator-Freighter. ~27,500-tons, 288-cell VLS, and 155/40mm Rail-Gun. Nice looking ship. Boorda, promoted the design to the Navy, should be named after him too. It would be a Honor to is Passing Memory and his family’s loss, too…

          • Dan

            I thought I read mention of the Iowa’s being modified on topic, I will search for it.

          • Secundius

            @ Dan.

            The Battle-Carrier concept go back to at least to the 1960’s. With multiple Design Revisions over the years, to the present day. You might try Shipbucket as a Google Search…

          • Secundius

            @ Dan.

            I’m more into the “Q-Ship” concept. Take an existing Panamax class Container Ship, and place VLS instead of TEU/FEU Container, but disguised to look like standard 5-Tier TEU/FEU containers. Even if you mounted only 40% of the ship with missiles and leave the other 60% as a Functional Supply Ship. Your still talk ~4,000-missiles. And “Window Dress” the ship to look outwardly as a Standard Supply Ship, too Prying Eye’s…

          • Secundius

            @ Dan.

            I don’t see why not. To minimize reactivation time, mount VLS in a Circular Pattern as opposed to a Square or Rectangular Pattern and use the Magazine space for something else…

          • Curtis Conway

            Shock Test here we come!?

          • Dan

            It would be incredible.

          • Secundius

            @ Curtis Conway.

            Hey Curtis, have you ever been to the Erotic Fairy of Southampton???

          • Curtis Conway

            Good answer, and very explicit! Since I have not been there someone will have to explain that Southampton thing to me someday. But . . . I have been aboard a surface combatant in the Atlantic, North Atlantic, Baltic, Mediterranean, Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, Pacific and others. Like a piece of equipment, every body of water has its own personality. The body of water is big, and the ship is little. There are times when you wish you weren’t on the water. However, when someone or something else shows up there is always anticipation, and expectation, perhaps apprehension depending on who you are and what you are doing. When that something else is HUGE, obtrusive, and intimidating, you can’t get away from it fast enough. Now imagine yourself in the South China Sea, 100 miles off your coast, and nearly a 600 miles or more from China, then here comes this huge ship with a gun steams right up to you and wants to know “why are you here”? Just to talk to them you have to look up, even from the bridge. Good Thing? And then, they object to you fishing in their waters, that they claim they have owned for over 400 years. Good Thing? The South China Sea is a Sea Line of Communication for cargo ships that support international commerce. We have a vested interest in not having a negative effect in international commerce, and . . . intimidating folks in there own EEZ is something we support? This activity is already happening today, and we aren’t there. A proactive presence is called for.

          • Secundius

            @ Curtis Conway.

            My father worked for the State Department after leaving the Army in WW2, we were stationed at various Embassies and Consulates in the Far East. And at that time there only two modes on international travel. Propeller-driven Airlines or Steam Ship. Most of the time it was Steam Ship…

            The “Erotic Fairy” reference, applies to the Marchwood Sea Mounting Centre in Southampton, England. It’s called the Erotic Fairy by the locals. According to Think Defense, an British version of USNI News, the Royal’s have sold the Family Aluminium. The Spanish company Compania Logistica de Hidrocarburos, high-bid the facility for Demolition and Scrap Removal. I thought in your travels, you might visited or at the very least past it doing Post Visits and INI calls (Intercourse and Intoxication) duties…

          • Curtis Conway

            Most of my travel in England was in the Porthmouth area, although I did take a trip to Thetford, and toured the entire region. Saw the Roman Wall, Cambridge College, and most of ‘The Wash’.

            When in Europe I was the quintessential ‘good little ambassador of good will’ and conducted myself accordingly, usually in a suit and tie wearing a London Fog raincoat.

            Any INI activity I may have witnesses was in the Pacific . . . Subic Bay was still going back in those days. Until recently I have been disappointed in my Filipino Brethren in the mater of their defense.

          • Secundius

            @ Curtis Conway.

            “Vulcanized or Non Vulcanized”…

          • Curtis Conway

            I plead the “5th”. However, Spock would have been proud of me.

          • Secundius

            @ Curtis Conway.

            Wrong Vulcan, the Vulcanization of Rubber or in this case Rubbers’…

          • Curtis Conway

            I knew what you meant. You seem to have a one track mind, and Spock would still have been proud of me.

          • Secundius

            @ Curtis Conway.

            Actually it’s not you, it’s me. I had a Stroke a couple of years ago. And the Medication I have to take Play’s pn my memory and reasoning abilities at times. Just the “side effects”…

          • Curtis Conway

            I hope the LORD G-d helps you in your hour of need . . . when ever that hour occurs! I’m watching El Cid, and we are about to take Valencia.

          • Secundius

            @ Curtis Conway.

            Dido, and my thanks. El_Cid, talked to him this morning, seemed fine to me. I’m not sure weather I ever conversed with Valencia or not. Haven’t talk to “old guy” in a while, I hope nothing going bad with him, also…

          • Curtis Conway

            The medication SEEMS to be doing GOOOD! Now that you mention it, Dito!

          • Secundius

            @ Curtis Conway.

            Thirteen in all, bad sign there “13”. Some make see thing’s that aren’t there, no “pink elephant’s” yet, KOW. Some Med’s just the control the other Med’s. And Teeny Tiny Pill, just to make sure I’m urinating on a 15-minute on the hour basis…

          • Secundius

            @ Curtis Conway.

            Just read a report about AESA Radar Pods, being used as NGJ Jamming Pods on the EA-18G Growler’s. I wonder, if there’s a shipbourne application in the works…

          • Curtis Conway

            SEWIP III?

          • Curtis Conway

            They will last practically for ever. Updated it would be without match underway. we would treat them like aircraft carriers with respect to support (underwater that it). they are more than national treasures.

          • Secundius

            @ Curtis Conway.

            You could Update the Iowa and Battle-Carrier modify the Wisconsin…

          • Secundius

            @ Dan.

            Just Google search Aviation Week/Ares: Introducing the Ballistic Missile Defense Ship. And that’s it…

          • Curtis Conway

            The ship is already there. The 5″ rounds are relatively inexpensive. The aircraft are very expensive (even the cheap ones) and the fast movers and lawn darts have problems hitting targets consistently. I recently had a Ranger tell me they would just have the A-10 do a couple of overflights at low altitude and the enemy basically disappear. The fast movers have less than a 50% accurate weapons delivery and the troops don’t trust them in Danger Close because of this fact. Fast Movers can get you killed faster. A-10s are loved by the ground troops and think getting rid of them is NUTS. Well, the customer is always right, unless it is the USAF asking the questions. They make up their rules as they go along, usually at high altitude and moving very rapidly. The troops [on the ground] really appreciate that.

          • Curtis Conway

            We do need a frigate, it should have about half the capabilities and crew of the DDG-51, and be competent and capable in all warfare areas all the way up to AAW defense at LEAST out to 20 nm, but SM-2 range is better, and a 9-module AMDR Lite will do that . . . providing SPY-1A coverage with about half the antenna size, space, power and cooling budget. But we just can’t afford that right now.

          • Dan

            Having a ship built deliberately to do half as much in this day and age is pathedic. Thank you for the budget forecast.

          • Curtis Conway

            Dan, I have had time to think and reflect on your comment.
            First, we do have a limited budget that seems to be squeezed tighter every day so building more CG or DDG platforms is not in the cards in the way of more platforms quickly.
            Second, we need more platforms more quickly, and the NSC based NPF is that ‘all ocean hull’ with room for growth.
            Third, The base capability of TBMD with a non-rotating 3D radar can free up a cruiser or destroyer for BMD missions when two or three are present in a CSG, which saves money and frees up an asset for higher level tasking which only that more capable platform can perform.
            Fourth, if a real gun (5″) is present the Marines will be happier with the greater availability of NGFS which seems to be the direction we are going in the future in the Pacific so this is prudent.

            The cruiser or destroyer may not be available. The AMDR with 9-cells has the same radar capability as a SPY-1A/D at a fraction of the space, cooling, and power requirements. This does several things:
            a) greater volume of fire control tracking information for the fleet on the net
            b) direction of own ship weapons, and participate in our new NIFC-CA equation
            c) the smaller VLS inventory will be targeted for ASW, AAW Inner defense (ESSM – 20nm), and medium defense (SM-2s within SPY-1 envelope).

            THAT is nothing to sneeze at. I would serve on her, and I could only sleep underway on good ole Tico. This is the base capability that should exist on our new little FF today!

          • Secundius

            @ Curtis Conway.

            The first of the AB III, DDG-124 “keel” laying isn’t scheduled until late 2016 or early 2017. Followed by the AB IIIA in 2020. AB IV have been cancelled, because fund’s were diverted for the BMD system and Ohio class Boomer replacements.

            And forget Rail-Guns for any AB classes, due to powerplant limitations…

          • Curtis Conway

            Railgun will come out when its ready, and its not. However, we have not stopped building DDG-51s. The Navy did recently say there were 5 destroyers that would not get the Integrated Air & Missile Defense package, but they would get their engineering upgrades. Literally days later here comes the “Help Help the skies falling” testimony during the hearing for Ballistic Missile Defense, and the 2016 Defense Budget. The generals and admirals were making the case that there is no greater priority than Ballistic Missile Defense, which the American People has communicated in numerous poles, and the BMD tasking for Aegis platforms has been on the increase and that demand climbing at an accelerated rate. THIS is the argument for an Aegis Guided Missile Frigate, and I have been saying it ever since I pointed out this impending problem starting in 2012. Our intelligence services and these boys been asleep?

            As for ‘not enough power for railgun’, I suspect a GTG upgrade and rewiring can fix this problem for the short term. Appropriate planning in ship design can solve the problem for future platforms.

          • Secundius

            @ Curtis Conway.

            Current Zumwalt Rail-Gun is 64-MegaJoules and Requires 40 to 50-Megawatts of power to operate. British Government has developed a 32-MegaJoules Rail-Gun System and would like to sell to US Navy. The problem it requires minimum of 15-Megawatts to operate efficiently. Current AB class can only produce 12-Megawatts of power Maximum. British Rail-Gun is also scheduled for future placement on Type 26 class Frigates which like the Zumwalt’s has Electric-Drive Propulsion…

          • Curtis Conway

            By Zumwalt Railgun you mean the BAE Systems unit or the General Atomics unit, or are they both to use the same spec?

            I’m a huge proponent of Hybrid Electric Drive, and this is one of the reasons. At GQ the electric motor (driven by the propulsion Prime Movers) provides a few more megawatts. The US Navy can’t be this efficient without platinum plating things (DDG-1000).

          • Secundius

            @ Curtis Conway.

            Not Quite, the General Atomics Railgun is 64MJ with a Power Requirement of between 40MW to 50MW firing a ~33-pound projectile from a 6.1-inch (155mm Bore equilavlent) at ~Mach 7.3 (~2,500m/s.) with an Impact velocity of ~Mach 4.7 (~1,600m/s.). The BAE Railgun is 32MJ with a Power Requirement of 12MW to 15MW firing a ~5.3-pound projectile from a 2.362-inch (60mm Bore equivalent) at ~Mach 7 (~2,328m/s) and an Impact velocity of ~Mach 5 (~1,700m/s.).

            Deployment date is between 2020 and 2024…

          • Curtis Conway

            The General Atomics Railgun will probably have a smaller foot print enabling it to go more places I would think. The Directed Energy Weapons will certainly have a smaller topside presence, just need a good field of view. We would be great candidates for a new frigate design, along with a very capable Passive detection, tracking and weapons direction system.

            I can very easily see a day when a combat systems package with corresponding CIC will be installed on all platforms, they will just have more, or less weapons to integrate. This is in pursuant of the “If it floats it’s a shooter” philosophy.

          • Secundius

            @ Curtis Conway.

            The problem is in the case of the BAE 32MJ Railgun is, While to Bore Diameter of the launcher is ~2.362-inch (60mm). The Projectile itself is less than 1.567-inches (~39.8mm) in diameter. So fore the foreseeable future at least, it’s basically a “Dumb” projectile without a Guidance System. “Indirect” Artillery or “Line-Of-Sight, Directed” Artillery…

          • Secundius

            @ Curtis Conway.

            If your still interested, Jane’s Radar and Electronic Warfare System – Free Ebook is available. I’d give you E-Mail address, but the Fo-Police on this Website will just Reddit it. Or you can buy the 2005-2006 Edition from Barnes & Noble for $88.88 USD. A NEW copy will set you back ~$500.00 USD. It will tell just about everything on the AN/SPY Radar System or any other system from Around the World. But be warned, the book weigh’s as much as a “good size Bowling Ball”…

          • Secundius

            @ Curtis Conway.

            Platinum is only need in Grand Theft Auto V [NG] X-Box 360 Games. And it’s a Tinting, not a Plating…

          • Curtis Conway

            We usually plate things with gold here on planet earth to make sure we have GOOD electrical connections. In space where it is more critical we sometimes use platinum. Capisce? I don’t do video games.

          • Dan

            You are very smart at these topics and I am somewhat swayed towards your view, I do still believe we should continuously improve our Burk’s and Tico’s at all cost’s, I truly believe the Perry’s should have been deactivated years ago and use that money elsewhere, the Perrys oviously had no air defence so they were no longer escort worthy, what was there purpose? If the Battleships were considered obsolete with all there updates and current at the time weapon’s, how could the Perry’s have survived with no weapon’s? Please respond to this and send me a possible different view. Let me ask you this question- should we continue to build Gerald R. Ford’s or would many smaller type Carriers with Harrier type aircraft like F35 be a great option with a possible jump to help elevation? I only ask this question because of the hugh cost on this class(which I have seen being built in Norfolk) vs. what other countries Aircraft Carriers sizes being built, our Carrier’s are just so massive compared to let say to the incredibly impressive Charles de Gaulle.

          • Secundius

            @ Dan.

            I don’t about Curtis’s opinion on the subject, but personally I this we should go to a Smaller Light Carrier design like the Spanish R.11 class (actual SCS-75 design American). You can by 7 to 8 for one GF class Carrier, and deploy ~30 aircrafts per ship. I’d rather see 70 to 80 Light Carrier, than 10 Large Carriers…

          • Dan

            I don’t completely agree neither but at least there is compelling argument by someone who clearly has a different view than me who appears to have some true insight. I personally believe 7-8 to 1 is a very good idea also. What are some possible downsides to not having Nimits or GRF class ships relating to size.

          • Secundius

            @ Dan.

            I would extend the Nimitz’s Life Cycle for at least another 25-years, while the BUG’s on the GF can be fixed. And Design and Build a New Class Large Carrier, to replace the GF. And just use the Single GF class as a Testing Testbed Ship. And even if you use the Traditional Navy of 30% Ship Deployments. For a Light Carrier class, that’s still 21 to 25 Carriers and 630 to 750 Operational Aircrafts deployed…

          • Curtis Conway

            Well Dan, you asked several questions so here goes:

            1. All of my comments concerning the FFG-7 Class are based upon the presence of the Mk 13 (One-Armed-Bandit) launcher. A replacement capability on another platform
            (LCS?) was expected when they were removed. So . . . we gambled with those sailors lives when they were steaming independently. When the up-gunned LCS/SSC/FF came out and it wasn’t a “G”, everyone’s mouths dropped open. The CoC was going to CONTINUE to gamble with sailors lives, while our ship count numbers decreased (particularly real surface combatants). The austere economic environment is not an apparition, and even if we begin to grow as an international economic power again, we will not be back on par for most of a decade. Therefore . . . more smaller units of capability and quality are needed. The CVLBG/ESG time has arrived. An ALL-OCEAN Aegis FFG is also needed in quantity with a Theater Ballistic Missile Defense capability as a minimum spec requirement, crew of about 129, half the missile loadout of the DDGs, 5” gun for NGFS (happy Marines), and Hybrid Electric Drive (HED) so we can stretch our fuel and provide more power for GQ, particularly in the Arctic, and a hull mounted sonar and tail. Costly little guy . . . probably $1.5 Billion (two for one DDG), but we get our numbers up, sacrifice little capability, and have a REAL SKIRMISHER frigates. This is what SHOULD have been coming out of the yards when the FFG-7s started coming out of service. The LCS has been a HUGE disappointment, and cost TOO MUCH! The Aegis FFG will be the true Blue Water Skirmisher and can show the flag with pride and feel safe doing it.

            2. Concerning carriers . . . supercarriers are not going away, we just need to give Ford time to mature, and stretch Kennedy and Enterprise out a decade or more over the current schedule. The USS America Class (LHA-6) Light Carrier will provide sufficient capability as is, and is maturing as a design rapidly. Don’t need the ski-jump and I
            do not want to see another DIME SPENT in more DEVELOPMENT. We need capability today! Rotary and fixed wing VSTOL/STOVL capability is here, and we have achieved that to a level that the rest of the planet can only dream about and drool over. We should exploit the capability to the fullest advantage. The next two decades are going to be tough on the high seas, and we are out of time to figure out what to do with the fleet. Build Light Carriers! We need six (6) ESGs. As I have previously stated we need one stationed in the Med and South China Sea on a permanent basis, as current events for the last 20 years has demonstrated in spades.

            3. Burke and Tico improvement should continue for sure . . . so what does the Navy do ? . . . they curtail five (5), count them, Integrated Air & Missile Defense modifications, then go to congress and demonstrate in testimony how that decision is not just precarious, but irresponsible. WE NEED MORE MONEY (they protest) . . . and we do, but THIS is . . . man. If I were Captian, someone’s getting strapped to a wheel and ————————–. Did you hear the testimony? Seventy seven BMD shooters needed soon (next 18 months), and they truncate the mods? Irresponsible – placed the nation in danger. Loose a couple of F-35s and do the mods . . . something, but we simply must kill the archers instead of focusing on the arrows, or kill the arrows early in boost phase. An SM-2/SM-6 will do that if we detect/track and launch quick enough. Well, a little frigate near the coast is less noticeable than our cruisers and destroyers. That capability all exist today, its just a matter of building and installing it in a vessel. An all ocean National Patrol Frigate with a SPY-1F (IAMD), or AMDR Lite 9-module radar (providing SPY-1 capability – this is not going to happen before three years), will fit, requiring less electrical power, cooling and space, if the superstructure is modified similar to the BAZAN class. If we did that, put a bow mounted sonar for better meta-center and help with weights and balances. Probably upgrade the HED and Gas Turbine propulsion at that point. GTGs for power and Directed Energy will replace the CIWS one day. Maybe railgun is in our future, but one must have power to do that (e.g., GTGs and HED). When at GQ, the HED makes about 3 megawatts of additional power while the LM-2500+G4s push the ship through the water, you just have to have a distribution system that can handle it, and that system must be capable of sustaining battle damage and be reconfigured in real time. I think HII will have difficulty making all that fit in an NSC hull, but I think it will fit. Over a decade, starting in three years, we build two Aegis FFGs in place of one DDG-51, particularly if the frigates are AMDR Light vessels. The NIFC-CA is the name of the game, and the new FFGs become missile donors for E-2D/F-35/what-ever that is way out on the threat vector. The AMDR Light is incorporated into the comms picture, and becomes an EW asset. This AMDR Light should also be our radar for all carriers (period)!!! Upgrades affect EVERYBODY then! Same training, logistics train . . . saves much more money over time via commonality, instead of a half dozen programs doing the same thing!!!!!

            4. The US Navy must begin in earnest a passive combat system development program. In the future, as soon as you go active, you are a target of great interest. We will radiate only when necessary, and mostly run with remote air picture provided by airborne assets.

            I hope this answered your question.

          • Dan

            Indeed and thank you for taking the time to respond.

          • Secundius

            @ Curtis Conway.

            Why on Earth would you take a 40,000-ton Gator-Freighter and assign it the role of a Light Aircraft Carrier. 40,000-tons, is a “Tab Bit” heavy for a Light Aircraft Carrier, wouldn’t you say. And it doesn’t even come close to performing the role of a Light Aircraft Carrier, or even carry as many aircrafts as a R.11 (SCS-75) Light Aircraft Carrier. If your going to “Flip” a 40,000-ton Gator-Freighter like the Tarawa class. At least give it a role it’s better suited for, like an alternative to the MLP (Mobile Landing Platform)…

          • Curtis Conway

            At this point I’m tired or debating the same issues, and going over the same ground, every other post. Once a point has been taken, we proceed from there.

            Point #1 WE DO NOT HAVE A LOT OF MONEY. No development funds, so the platform must be a mostly mature design. In the water. Doing something for which it is designed. The USS America (LHA-6) fits the bill.

            Point #2 The capabilities of the F-35 (any flavor) is the compelling factor in this matter. This capability does not exist in any aircraft on the planet and is a game changer. The bad thing about this assumption is . . . what gets us killed in combat . . . ROE. This aircraft cannot close and mix it up. BVR is the name of the game, and VID is NOT!

            Point #3 This is not a combat platform that will operate independently for extended periods, if ever. This is a center of a less expensive CVLBG/ESG that maintains presence, shows the flag, conducts humanitarian operations if necessary, and yes, if they must drop bombs and shoot things down . . . The Marines can (Trust me), and at an operational cost much less than a full CSG.

            Point #4 The operational environment for this CVLBG/ESG will be limited (e.g., South China Sea & Korean Waters (littoral waters), either coast of Africa, Med, Caribbean, Eastern Pacific N/S). These smaller battle groups can handle the tasking which brings us to:

            Point #5 The perfect GWOT platform. Even on the CVLGB, there will still be space for Marines/SEALS/any flavor SOF you need to bring along. Helos are part of the package and can be augmented by force assets in formation. These battle groups can go anywhere if necessary, and accomplish most any SOF GWOT tasking with the force present.

            Point #6 Now we start getting into speculation . . . IF . . . a pressurized V-22 is developed to make the US Navy’s COD mission aircraft more efficient and safer to operate, then the fundamental base element for the AEW&C platform can now be developed for the new, lighter, more versatile and less expensive battle group. The EV-22 Osprey AEW&C will be another game changing aircraft because we will be able to take that asset anywhere, and not only provide Over The Horizon radar coverage, but extend NIFC-CA to the radar coverage of that platform wherever it is located. The EV-22 AEW&C will not have as powerful a radar as the E-2D, but it will be able to perform most of the missions that a mini-JointSTARS could do.

            The game changing technologies that are compelling and keeping our forces in the lead are:

            AESA radar – greater range and sensitivity at much reduced logistics cost, and weight savings. Aviation is living this advantage at present and increasing that lead along with many of our Allies. Surface combatants will join these ranks soon with AMDR. The SPY radar has always represented a huge leap in detection, tracking and fire control technology, but requires huge quantities of power, cooling, and space.

            AMDR radar – This technological leap will be another game changer again, we are just ignoring the advantage. As in aircraft, surface vessels can gain a similar capability advantage if we use AMDR Lite 9-module units with its SPY-1A coverage capability, at lower power requirements, less cooling, and smaller space requirements. Everyone is so focused upon the DDG-51 Flt III upgrade that they forget that capability is to look a 1,000 miles into space. One only has to do that on the BMD ships. Other platforms (carriers, amphibs, and yes the new frigates) can take advantage of the lower power, less cooling and space requirements, yet much improved (fire control track quality) picture NOT slaved to rotation of the antenna. One can do so much more with a fixed array antenna controlled by a computer system, including many different functions OTHER than radar.

            Are we getting the picture. The Battleship admirals of WWII turned into CVN admirals today, and have a hard time thinking out of the box.

            Directed energy is right around the corner, along with Railgun. Give it time. It’s coming. Power generation, storage and energy distribution is the technology that must be mastered.

            I hope this helps and ladies and gentlemen . . .lets not cover this ground again.

          • Secundius

            @ Curtis Conway.

            If your tired of debating old subjects, STOP recycling them…

          • Curtis Conway

            Touche’ . . . get the vision, see you later.

          • Curtis Conway

            I’m not necessarily tired of debating the topics, it’s the fact that the subject addressed is not understood, a given, or accepted. We are BROKE folks, so all this new ideas stuff about a new developmental item (new aircraft carrier design) that will take a decade or more with money we do not have, nuclear power plant and all, is just a pipe dream, and will continue to be for at least a decade even if the economy turned around tomorrow and cooked full-tilt-buggy for a decade. SO we must live with what we have.

            Having said all that, the EV-22 AEW&C Osprey would fall in that category, so if I were going to truncate or reduce one thing to afford another, this would be one of the items that would percolate up in MY list.

          • Secundius

            @ Curtis Conway.

            One Man’s Opinion, I myself am interested in an AEW&C EV-22C Osprey, especially with the newer AESA Radar Pods could be a game changer. So if anyone else is interested I’ll talk with them…

          • Curtis Conway

            The Vigilant Osprey is probably the easiest and most cost effective solution. I’m very much interested in details. I obviously prefer a pressurized, higher altitude platform, with greater range. Don’t know about the track stores capability, but it should look a lot like F-35 X 4.

          • Secundius

            @ Curtis Conway.

            According to Foxtrot Alpha, A “Gunship” variant of MV-22C Osprey. tentatively called the “Vigilant Osprey” is just a concept and a few Artist Renditions. And any data varies from Scarce to Nonexistent. Maximum Service Ceiling and Pressurization is still ~25,000-feet and Maximum Hovering Altitude is still ~10,000-feet. If a “Gunship” platform were to be built, I would prefer something looking like the HALO: UH-144 Falcon, the design is ideal as a Gunship…

          • Secundius

            @ Dan.

            The French, Charle de Gaulle class Medium Aircraft Carrier is a nice ship, I grant you. But at 45,000-tons, she’s a “Little Light” on the top. 40 to 45 Aircraft on a ship that size is a little thin. Three Light Aircraft Carriers, with a combined weight of the Charles de Gaulle carry Twice her Air Assets and can be in three places as opposed to one…

          • Dan

            Would you consider reactivating the Kitty Hawk for another 10-15 years to relieve operating stress on the Nimitz Class possibly adding to there service lives. Call me an idiot if you wish but here goes, would you consider building new Essex Class again? My reasoning is this, they can operate appr. 90-100 aircraft, and possibly even more with verticle take off (F35), plenty of maintence space and they are absolutely proven assets with impressive service records, I believe a new conventional Essex Class would be more impressive than the Nuclear Charles de Gaulle for reasons you stated as a little light. NOTE: What about Midway’s as well??

          • Secundius

            @ Dan

            When Gerald R. Ford is commissioned, disposition of Kitty Hawk is unclear. But estimates to restore both JFK and KH is about ~$1-Billion USD. apiece. It currently costs ~$120-Million USD. a year just maintain each ship…

          • Secundius

            @ Dan.

            I would be more inclined to a Modernized Midway class using either 4 General Electric LM2500+G4 (CF6-50) or LM5000 (CF6-80C2) Turbofan Gas-Turbines then Oil-Fired Steam Turbines. A Midway class could comfortable support 60 aircraft, peacetime and 75 aircraft, wartime.

            The Gerald R. Ford, can handle 100 aircraft, peacetime and 130 aircraft, wartime…

          • Secundius

            @ Curtis Conway.

            The AN/SPY-1F or 1K, is about half the size of the AN/SPY-1A…

          • Secundius

            @ Curtis Conway.

            %-inch AAW rounds were removed from Naval ship’s because of the Guns Low Rate of Fire and the Overall Ineffectiveness of the AAW round. That, the fact the Magazines only capable of carrying 600-rounds

            1. Maximum Effective Range for the 5-inch (127mm/54-caliber) gun is ~24,140-meters.
            2. Maximum Effective Range for the 5-inch (127mm/62-caliber) gun is ~37,015-meters.
            3. The Mk. 171 ERGM round was cancelled in 2008. Maximum Effective Range was ~96,560-meters.

          • Curtis Conway

            We are in the process of a 60% force move (Pacific Pivot) of Navy & Marine Corps assets. Marines are preparing for Amphibious Operations. One of the things needed in Amphibious Operations is Naval Gun Fire Support. At some point a Marine is going to call for fire, and if its an LCS(FF) out there, the Marine is just out of luck.

            I do not care if the 5′ gun has an AAW capability or not. It sure chews up territory. I am more than confident that Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren, VA. can handle the task of adapting the 105/155mm (Raytheon’s M982 Excalibur) guided projectiles used in the US Army, for naval use. If this task has not already been accomplished . . . someone should be fired.

          • Secundius

            @ Curtis Conway.

            It also caused a lot of Collateral Damage too, Excalibur, was never made in 105mm Projectile and neither was Copperhead…

          • Secundius

            @ Curtis Conway.

            Both the M712 Copperhead and the M982 Excalibur are 6.1-inch (155mm) projectiles. The Mk. 171 ERGM was a Navalized 5-inch (127mm) version of Copperhead, that was cancelled. So, that leaves only the LRLAP and Volcano, in the picture…

          • Curtis Conway

            The point being that technology to do the job is out there, working, and building up a track HiStory of performance. Our boys at Dahlgren can do the deal once the technology has been selected and modified for our purposes. In the mean time, there are 5′ guided naval rounds that can be used. The US Navy policy over the last decade or so has indicated they just want to wait for Railgun. The technology for that round is quite a challenge, and may not be cracked for a while. We need something in the interum. It would appear, once again, just burning up Marines will be the solution in the mean time. My Navy has been dissapointing me greatly in recent months (LSC case in point).

          • Secundius

            @ Curtis Conway.

            Sounds like you get Disappointed Easily, Then…

          • Curtis Conway

            No . . . it must be paid for and dollars are short. Sometimes some of those in command cannot get the vision, and “Without a vision the people perish” (Prov 29:18). Today we have commanders who will send our people into the meat grinder just because they can. The LCS is a case in point, even with NSM. The greatest threat to anyone in Surface Warfare today is missiles (tactical, guided, and ballistic), and one MUST be able to defend oneself against them. That defense should be ‘in depth’, NOT ‘Mk15 CIWS is our insurance policy’ kinda thinking. Unless the 30mm has a similar loop-lock tracking system, it is even less effective. The United States Navy NEEDS a multi-warfare Aegis Guided Missile Frigate, and the first element is DETECTION and WARNING and that IS NOT a rotating radar with the effectiveness that Director Test & Evaluation noted in the last report. Additionally, in this SUPERSONIC AGE a rotating radar is just not GOOD ENOUGH! In our new Navy the non-rotating 3D AESA sensor is more than just a ‘programmable beam’ device, but it does provide the BEST probability of detection, track and designation that exist today. For that reason, the AMDR Lite 9-module system had better be available to our future small combatants.

            And . . . yes I’m on a tear today about it . . . the Dragon is not waiting for us to make up our mind what we are going to do in the South China Sea. A Chinese airbase will be off the coast of the Philippines soon.

    • Secundius

      Tony.

      The Freedom class is ~$450-Million USD. apiece and the Independence class ~$437-Million USD apiece…

      • James B.

        Those figures get you the ship, but not the mission modules. Equipped with a module, they run 500-600 million.

        • Tony

          Thank you, James B., although I will grant Secundius that calculating LCS costs is more voodoo than magic. For example, what is the per-hull cost of the immense training infrastructure that supports the minimal manning concept of LCS? And what are the embedded personnel and other costs of the 3-2-1 concept, a concept that allows LCS to achieve a 50% OPTEMPO? And what are the maintenance costs associated with flying contractors to Singapore to perform PMS at an accomplishment rate no greater than a legacy crew could achieve? I believe GAO has clearly demonstrated that the overall ownership costs of LCS are greater than that of a FFG-7, with virtually none of its combat capability in either ASUW or ASW.

          • Tony

            What the Navy seems unable to learn is that in trying to devise a minimal manning system you have to pay for training, and you have to pay for maintenance. You can do this in a number of different ways, but the bill has to be paid. DDG 1000, which cut automation (a manning and training substitute, but that comes with it’s own training and maintenance bill) and cut training systems in order to make revised cost targets is in the painful process of demonstrating this fact all over again.

            There is no validity to quoting per-hull costs for a minimally-manned LCS and somehow comparing it to the per-hull costs of a legacy-manned warship unless you also factor in the costs associated with achieving that minimal manning. If you want to compare manning costs as well, I am OK with that – fair is fair – but I don’t believe the Navy wants any of those numbers exposed, because I believe they don’t add up. I believe (but can not prove) that at best the increased off-ship costs associated with minimal manning more than make up for the larger crew size costs of legacy manned ships.

          • Greg Lof

            I am waiting to see what the cost effect of having a tender to provide permanent support in forward bases will be. Having trained naval personnel handling these support function will hopefully reduce the need for contractor support.

          • Curtis Conway

            They don’t add up and anyone with a brain knows it.

          • James B.

            All true. I fully favor giving these special children to the USCG, who needs ships badly enough they might take them, and starting over.

          • Curtis Conway

            The USCG has already said they do not want them because then can’t afford to operate them. But they CAN afford to operate NSC.

          • PolicyWonk

            Indeed, the GAO report w/r/t the USS Freedom’s Asian adventure was a sorry tale indeed…

        • Secundius

          @ James B.

          Even at ~$500 to ~$600-Million USD. their more than 3-times “cheaper” than a Block III AB class Destroyer @ 1.843-Billion USD. apiece…

          • James B.

            An Arleigh Burke is also exponentially more capable than an LCS, with a high-end radar, real missiles, a real gun, and enough crew to keep it all running.

            The LCS may have a lower list price, but the most expensive ship to buy is one that isn’t useful for anything.

          • Secundius

            @ James B.

            Unlike the AB class Destroyers, the LCS/FF classes have never been tested in combat. So it’s a little premature to discount the LCS/FF performance, when they haven’t done anything yet…

          • James B.

            I don’t think the most optimistic pro-LCS admiral thinks they are ready for combat in their current design. We have to think they are ready for combat before testing them is wise.

          • Secundius

            @ James B.

            It seem the Crappy Little Ship’s of Taffy 1, 2 and 3 did pretty good in the Battle of the Philippine Sea during WW2. Tactical Victory NO, Strategic Victory YES…

          • James B.

            The Battle of Samar was heroic, but we prefer to have our ships survive.

          • Secundius

            @ James B.

            Me too, but unless we start building our ship’s out of Titanium, Aluminium-Lithium Alloy, or Chobham Armor. Were going to have ship and, unfortunately crew losses as well…

          • James B.

            Taking casualties in combat is one thing. LCS designs, however, have so little firepower that their presence in combat is a waste.

            Also, ship survival is heavily dependent on what the enemy can throw at you, whether they can reattack a damaged vessel, and how big the ship is.

            If the LCS had real air defense, it would force enemies to use stand-off missiles, in relatively limited numbers, rather than short-range missiles, rockets, and bombs.

            Decent defenses would force the enemy to regroup after an attack, giving the LCS(s) time to do the same

            Last, big ships are hard to sink. Just increasing the size of the LCS to 5000t would dramatically increase its excess buoyancy and increase the number of bulkheads enemy fire would have to go through.

            The Little Crappy Ship, however, has none of these. It lacks the firepower to be useful on offense, lacks the defenses to slow an enemy down, and would be crippled easily by hits it took.

          • Secundius

            @ James B.

            SecDef Donald Rumsfeld, Pushed the LCS program. President Bush Proposed the LCS program. And Congress, Funded the LCS program. What are the odds of Congress, Defunding the program. Look at all the House Rep.’s and Senator’s names that have to be Memorialized on these ship’s. You Honestly can’t Deprive Congress of that. Can You???

          • Curtis Conway

            Deflective argument. Blame it on the Bush Administration. THIS administration has no good ideas of its own. They have no infinite wisdom. They run with what’s already in place (except in Iraq), then blame it on the past when things come apart. It’s a shame the Dragon will not stop its attack and listen to reason, when they know we cannot defend ourselves. I still cannot wait to see the picture of the LCS in front of the 10,000 ton Chinese Coast Guard Cutter.

            First tenant of leadership is to lead by example. What example?

          • Secundius

            @ Curtis Conway.

            Two-ChiCom Coast Guard Cutters Planned, One 3-inch gun and two 35mm Autocannons. Very Long-Range, but maximum speed only ~25-knots…

          • Curtis Conway

            Secudius, have you ever been to sea?

          • Secundius

            @ Curtis Conway.

            YES. As a child many times, when I was 6-years old. I was on a Greek Transport Ship’s making passage from Indonesia to India and got caught in Category 6 storm on the Beaufort Scale. And then again from France to New York on the SS. United States. As any adult, only by friends that owned pleasure crafts…

          • Curtis Conway

            That was a cheap shot. FOT&E report disagrees with you in spades on the survivability issue, and use very accurate and real matrix for their evaluation. You observations is an argumentative endeavor.

          • Pat Patterson

            Why don’t you make yourself available for target practice and see how those 30 mm guns work?

          • James B.

            Cute, but how many ships have ever been sunk by 30mm fire? The LCS can’t defeat much more than speed boats.

          • Greg Lof

            Do you know how many ships were sunk by 50 cal. during WWII? Depending on the type of vessel your shooting at, there are times when a 30mm gun is more deadly than a 16in shell?

          • James B.

            Please enlighten us.

            I appreciate that large-caliber misses don’t sink ships, but small-caliber shells have to hit vital areas to have any effect. Even unarmored warships have lots of bulkheads to shoot through before they suffer critical hull breaches.

          • Secundius

            @ Greg Lof.

            I can believe that, a Fletcher class Destroyer was essentially a floating Magazine with 1/2-inch thick steel plating as Armor. Many Japanese Maru class Transport Ship’s were taken out of service by AN/M3 .50-caliber (12.7×99) Heavy Machine Gun fire alone…

          • Pat Patterson

            Two totally different missions and not interchangeable.

    • Greg Lof

      “Longbow” is also British for “Kill you from a distance man in armor.”

      • publius_maximus_III

        Good point, Little John. And those musket-bearing British later found out what the term “Kentucky Long Rifle” meant…

        • Curtis Conway

          Those British Officers hatted the Original Army Rangers!

          • Secundius

            @ Curtis Conway.

            I hate to rain on your parade, but Rogers’ Rangers started as a British Company formed and lead by Major Robert Rangers during the Seven Years War (French and Indian War, here). Activated in 1755 and disbanded in 1763.

            Son of a what, I didn’t quite catch that last part…

          • Curtis Conway

            He, and his unit, evidently made quite an impression. The rest is HiStory.

  • publius_maximus_III

    If PT Boats used to launch torpedoes horizontally, why can’t these newer renditions do the same thing, only with missiles? Then there would be even LESS modifications required to the Army’s armament for Naval application.
    .
    Put them “upside down” using the same helicopter sling shown, on a swiveling pedestal somewhere amidships, like the old torpedo tubes on WW-II Destroyers, so you can launch them from either the port or the starboard side.

    • Secundius

      @ publius_maximus_III.

      True, but the Mk. 110 Bofors 2.244-inch (57x438mm/70-caliber) Autocannon has a 13-pound shell with a effective range of 8,500-meters. And a maximum range of 17,000-meters, with a 1,000-round magazine and CHEAPER per shell/missile ratio. The Hellfire, would be better suited for either the MH-60R Oceanhawk or the MQ-8 Fire Scout…

      • David Teer

        I just don’t see the need for having both Hellfires and two 30mm cannons. Remove one of these systems and add mk56 launchers for evolved sea sparrow.

        • ElmCityAle

          ESSM would be a dramatic improvement for LCS, but ESSM requires a FCS that doesn’t currently exist on those ships. Adding VLS, even MK56, is a significant redesign effort. Where would it go? Replace the 57mm with 16 cell MK 41 Tactical length and keep the 30mm guns?

        • Secundius

          @ David Teer.

          The current LCS/FF are Block 0, and weren’t scheduled to receive VLS until the Block I came on line…

    • David Teer

      That requires more deck space. The LCS is has very limited space.

    • Greg Lof

      The reason for converting to vertical launch mode is the same one for converting Standard and Tomahawk to the Mk41 VLS, It is simpler, reduces the number of moving part, thereby reducing maintains. while increasing the number of missiles that can be carried.

      Also remember that the torpedo boat did away with torpedo tubes for much the same reasons, So simplifying launching systems is a on going process.

      • Curtis Conway

        Greg Lof, cost per weapon is another metric to evaluate. There are 100,000 2.75″ rockets in the inventory and they cost much less to replace. An APKWS kit is slated to cost about $28.5K, but there is a lot of competition and the cost will come down as more units are built. We could literally have navalized/marinized APKWS launchers on Mk15 CIWS platforms with a common maintenance crew for multiple launchers, and shoot the same weapon from the helo, and the ship. The APKWS has a range of about 5 miles. Improvement program can work on longer range rockets and more lethal warheads. For small craft it perfect. We can install this thing on every vessel including amphibs.

        • Secundius

          @ Curtis Conway.

          The only drawback is, is that 2.75-inch (70mm) rocket is a Hit-or-Miss system. No guidance system…

          • Curtis Conway

            OK, SCHOOL CALL.
            Several defense contractors know about all of those rocket bodies out there, and are killing horses trying to get to the front of the pack with the best, lowest cost guidance package that the services want to buy, so we can use those dumb rockets more effectively. Look up: APKWS, DAGR, GATR, LOGIR, TALON. They provide a guidance system of some kind, and they all have their niche they are catering too. In the APKWS design, you just insert (screw) the guidance package between the warhead and the rocket, and the sensors are on the fins that flip out and guide the rocket to the target. Flies about 5 nm when launched from altitude, 3 km on the surface. Tests indicate that you can hit a 30mph target the size of a basketball at 5nm IF you have a stabilized
            laser guidance package, of course that’s on a good day. The warhead is whatever you screw on the front of it, and there is quite a variety (phosphorous, smoke, HE, frag), with the usual HE warhead being just under 14lbs. Got the poster in my office. One shot – One Kill! Look’em up, it’s quite a read.

            And here I thought you were a reader. Even the Jr. Birdmen defense contractors know about this stuff. Advertisements in AW&ST all the time.

          • Secundius

            @ Curtic Conway.

            When I was in the Army in the mid 70’s and early 80’s. I worked with 2.75-inch (70mm) Rocket Pods. The Stabilizing Fins pop out of the Rockets upon clearing the launch tubes to give stability in flight, there not steerable. At least not the one’s I worked with…

          • Curtis Conway

            Times have changed. The BAE Systems APKWS is probably one the more accurate. The first fixed wing aircraft to fire the APKWS was the AT-6C. It has now been fired from practically every helo, the A-10, and some fast jets, ground vehicles. I remember that one write-up was estimating the cost of the end item projected at about $15K. Well, they busted that by $10K. However, if the US Government were to purchase huge blocks, and the assembly line would have to grow, but the cost would come down. Awesome gadget. I congratulated the Program Management and they sent me a poster. Its in my office.

            If the surface combatant platforms actually ever do go ‘passive’, the I/R tracker/designators are the guidance systems, and its dedicated for the time of flight. Lots of cheap rockets out there. If a Guided Rocket Program Office exists they should be sponsoring the upgraded rocket motor, and more lethal and types of warheads. Ground forces during a conflict will eat the old inventory up. We should be providing things like this to the Ukraine right now.

          • Secundius

            @ Conway Curtis.

            I sort of curious where you got your information sources from. Because, according to DID (Defense Industry Daily) the Marine Corp is still testing the Laser-Seeker on there AH-1W Whiskey/Super Cobra’s as of December 2014. And the Navy isn’t scheduled to start testing on Super Hornets until 2017-2018. And the APKWS with 13.7-pound M822 Tri-Mode Warhead until 2019…

          • Curtis Conway

            I have a full folder of everything APKWS that goes back to several years ago. The Marines have been using APKWS in Afghanistan for some time. Mostly helo launched from H-1 platforms. The US Army has mostly completed their testing with AH-64s. Harriers have fired them. Lost track of the projected Hornet testing. Once it hit the field I started studying the other guided rockets. My folders are full. I even have a promotional film that I reviewed just a few moments ago. It’s quite a system, but limited by range and warhead size. It sure fills a niche and at a reasonable cost too. I suspect the price went up when they got the feedback from the fast jets. Some membrane changes as I recall, and manufacturing standards had to be increased. They are cracking them out like hot cakes now. Full rate production was expected soon if it has not been reached already. Man I work for a living. This is my part time hobby. You KNOW how us crusty old warhorses are. Always got to be in the know, and one sees so much of the otherwise today.

          • Secundius

            @ Curtis Conway.

            My hobby too. I try to keep track of New or Projected New Systems, but sometimes they fall into the crack’s…

    • Secundius

      @ publius_maximus_III.

      The concept is nothing new. Back in the ’80’s the Air Force drop-launched an ICBM, horizontally using a drogue-parachute, and it worked successfully. You could also use a “conformal” launcher to blend in with the hull too or even a “rotary/ejection” launcher, similar to the one used on Stealth Fighters. But I still like the “Sweetjudies” approach…

  • Pingback: US Navy News and updates - Page 104 - DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums()

  • Rob C.

    I would prefer the Naval Strike Missile over the Hellfire, longer range. However, i don’t think it would fit on the ship though. Short-legged missiles for fast moving, underarmed ship is not good thing i would think.

    • Secundius

      @ Rob C.

      there’s also the Penguin and the Standard…

  • Secundius

    After further reading, the Hellfire Missile System. Is a Rapid Responds Reaction’s system, similar to the Mk. 15 Phalanx CIWS. But for immediate threat Go-Fast’s, just outside 12.7x99mm Machine Gun ranges…

  • Secundius

    AN/SPY-1A: Cruisers
    AN/SPY-1B: Cruisers
    AN/SPY-1B(V): Cruisers
    AN/SPY-1D: Destroyers
    AN/SPY-1E SBAR (now SPY-2): Destroyers Flight II and Cruisers
    AN/SPY-1F FARS: Frigates
    AN/SPY1F(V): Frigates
    AN/SPY-1K: LCS’s (Smallest of the SPY series radar systems)
    AN/SPY-3: Zumwalt class and Gerald R. Ford class
    AN/SPY-4: Cancelled…

  • Secundius

    That reminds me. It looks like AB’s won’t be mounting Rail-Guns any time so. British have developed a 32MJ Rail-Gun that requires 15MW minimum to power. Current AB’s can only deliver 12MW of power…

  • Secundius

    FYI: Anyone

    Norway is coming up with Swath-Hulled Littoral design, supposedly capable of 80-knots and using a possible “Archimedes Screw” Propulsion System…

  • Secundius

    I’m sort of curious of the terminology of the “Longbow Hellfire Missile”, the AGM-114L Longbow Hellfire works in conjunction with the AN/APG-78 Longbow Fire Control Radar. Without the AN/APG-78 Radar, all your left with is a Hellfire Missile that’s Longbow capable. You Can’t Have One Without the Other. Is like having two bun roll’s and calling it a “Hamburger” without the Hamburger…

  • Jon

    $150k missile to shoot up $1.98 speedboats…when a $5k round from a 76mm mount would do the job with 3x the range, with an effectively bottomless magazine.

    If they’re close enough you can hit them with a Hellfire, they’re close enough to hit you with a cloud of their equivalent in return. Or drill through an LCS lengthways with a heavy MG.

    • Secundius

      @ Jon.

      The same could be said about all the $1,000,000, to shoot down a single ~$50,000 Japanese “Kamikaze” in WW2…

      • Jon

        Oddly, I wasn’t aware they had a $1 million per round AA weapon in WW2. Or are you talking about volume of fire? Because there’s no real equivalency.

        For that matter, in WW2 the “lesson learned” was a heavier volume of fire, at ever greater ranges, to engage the threat as far away as possible outside of its own engagement range, and inflict maximum damage as it closes the range.

        Not deliberately mount range limited weapons, and invite close-range knife fights. The 3″ shorts, 1.1″ quads, .30/.50 cals gave way to the 5″/38, 40mm, and 20mm…with the end goal being the autoloading radar controlled 3″/50 mounts to replace the 20 and 40s.

        There’s actually a lot of similarities between a swarm of Kamikazes and a swarm of Boghammers. Both need to get relatively close, both have the capability to do serious or fatal damage if allowed to, both need to be engaged at max possible range, and beat on all the way in.

        So why have we forgotten the lesson of the Kamikaze?

        • Secundius

          @ Jon.

          Well when you have 80 to 200 ship’s all firing at a single point in the sky, all that Ammunition adds up…

          • Jon

            WW2 cost of a 5″ round was about $30 IIRC. That would be the equivalent of all 80-200 ships firing off their entire ammo loadout at a single Kamikaze patiently doing racetracks over the entire fleet…

          • Secundius

            @ Jon.

            Japanese Kamikaze’s usually flew in groups of 30 or more, and it wasn’t just 5-inch guns. You had 16-inch guns, 12-inch guns, 8-inch guns, 6-inch guns, 5-inch guns, 4-inch guns 3-inch guns, 40mm guns, 20mm guns, 12.7mm guns, 7.62mm guns and probably a few .45acp’s too. And the objective wasn’t to hit the Lone Target, it was to throw-up a “Curtain of Lead” and have the Kamikaze fly though the lead to get to you. And when your considering ~33,929-degrees of “open sky” to shoot though, that’s a lot of @#$%^&* lead.

            Keep in mind, Nazi-Germany was the only country in the world at the time. That had a Operational SAM system…

          • Jon

            Gotcha. We used 16″ guns in the AAA role. OK.

          • Secundius

            @ Jon.

            16-inch Mk. 13 HC, High-Capacity Projectile, essentially a 1,900-pound “Canister Shot Round”…

          • Jon

            Care to cite a even single time they were used in combat, as opposed to being used commonly as you infer? And no, it wasn’t a “canister shot round”.

          • Secundius

            @ Jon.

            The Mk. 13 HC was a dual role projectile. In Vietnam it could punch a opening in the jungle 200-meters in diameter and defoliate tree too 300-meters. In WW2, it was used as an AA projectile, Uber Shotgun Shell or Canister Shot Shell. The principle is the SAME…

          • Secundius

            @ Jon.

            In Vietnam they used Proximity Fuses, that were set at 2, 4, 6 or 10-meters height before detonating. In WW2, they use Timed Fuses to detonate at a predetermined point in the sky…

          • Jon

            In other words, you don’t know what you’re talking about, and just keep digging in deeper with each evasion…
            Done here.

          • Secundius

            @ Jon.

            NavWeaps. BuOrd. 16-inch AA shells.

        • Secundius

          @ Jon.

          Correct me if I’m wrong, but 1.1-inch HMG, weren’t used by the US. Navy during WW2. Because they were largely ineffective against enemy aircraft. They were replaced by .50-caliber (12.7x99mm) BHMG which were far more effective then the 1.1. Also Radar Controlled 3-inch/50-caliber Semi-Automatic Mk. 22, weren’t introduced into the Navy until after 1946. During WW2, Mk. 10, 17, 18 and 20 dual-purpose 3-inch/50-caliber hand-loaded AA were used, with a rate of fire of only 20-rpm…

          • Jon

            The 1.1″ was somewhat widely used pre-early war, being mostly phased mostly out of service by 1945, other than on some rear echelon/support ships. They were replaced by 20s and 40s as fast as they could be produced. The 1.1 was expensive to make, maintenance intensive, broke often, and range/stopping power limited.

            .30/.50s were found to be largely useless in the AAA role, and their niche was covered with the 20mm, with superior range/killing ability. They even tried using the quad .50 power driven mount off the M16 SPAA IIRC, on a couple ships. Not enough bang/range for the weight…

            The ranged AAA guns were some of the 5/25, the 5/38, and various marks of 3″ guns, to include 3″ shorts. 20/40s covered intermediate/short ranges. 3″ and above could use the proximity fuze, anything smaller could not.

            The autoloading 3/50 wasn’t introduced until 1946/48 because they couldn’t get the damn thing to work, not from lack of trying or desire. It was being pushed out to replace 3″ and 40 mm mounts, primarily because of the Kamikaze threat, because of its superior ability to shred them at longer ranges vs. killing them when already in their terminal attack runs.

            The primary lesson learned from the “swarms of Kamikazes” was to engage/destroy/kill-stop them as far away as possible, and beat the survivors all the way in. Not intentionally wait to engage them at close range or within their own engagement range.

            If you’re waiting to engage “swarms of Boghammers” coming at you at speed, with a 5 mile ranged Hellfire, you’re engaging them just about at the range limits/LoS of their own weapons (which could be anything from HMGs to guided/unguided missiles). Each of which has the capability to sink/mission kill your infinitely more valuable LCS with a single lucky hit.

            A 5 mile range missile is better than no missile at all. Putting them on LCS and PC is a Great Idea. We’ve got metric craptons of them in the inventory, and nothing else to use them for. But it still has a limited ammo rack, and you are still killing $1.98 speedboats with $150k missiles vs. a $5k gun round.

            I’m seriously curious. A “vanilla”, non-mission configured LCS was supposedly built with all this excess internal volume and load capacity to be “multi-mission capable”. Transport troops and their vehicles. The ASuW package is a RIB, boarding crew, a couple bolt on 30mm, and now a Hellfire launcher. WTF? There isn’t enough excess internal volume/carrying capacity to actually upgun a “vanilla” LCS tasked with an ASuW mission? Is the damn thing that desperately overweight?

            And no, we didn’t use 16″, 12″, 8″, 6″ or 4″ guns in the AAA role. We may of had a 16″ AAA round…which was a standard HC round with a proximity fuze IIRC, but AFAIK it was never used. We also had “bat bombs”…

          • Secundios

            @ Jon.

            I only know of two possible usages of the 1.1. One is where Five “Quad-Guns” were sent to Corregidor, Philippines in December 1941. Four were put on the Heavy Cruiser CA-30, USS. Houston which was sunk by the Japanese off Indonesia, in March 1942. Where no record exist that they ever used. And the fifth, was given to the US. Army along with 25,000-rounds of ammunition. In that case, also no record exists that it was used in combat either.

            In the case of Radar on the 3-incher’s, they “Directed” the guns to the Target. They did not Control in the Operation or the Firing of the guns…

          • Jon

            If you’re truly interested, less than $100 will buy you a copy of Jane’s covering the USN 1941 or ’42, as opposed to relying on cut/pasting incomplete Wiki articles. Amazon has several listed as we speak. Or just cruise through period USN photos covering 1940-42 or so. Which is always interesting. There’s a very good pictorial history of the war years published by the USN in ’45 or ’46, with excellent photos.

            Bottomline: Quad 1.1s were found on anything from BBs to carriers, to DDs.

            As far as the quads on HOUSTON go, the issue is whether or not they were actually hurriedly mounted in P.I. prior to her departure for the N.E.I., not whether or not our CAs received quads as part of their pre/early war upgrade package. That’s a discussion that’s been going on for years, IIRC the general consensus by the knowledgeable is that they were. It’s a question whose answer will be determined by the evaluation of the wreck (discovered last year IIRC), if it hasn’t already.

            The quad that went to the Army, ended up on Corregidor, on top Malinta Hill. The Japanese, even made a propaganda postcard of it, showing it destroyed, probably from artillery fire.

            I have no idea why you’re lecturing me on radar direction vs control…it’s really not germane. Then again, neither is this entire discussion.

          • Secundius

            @ Jon.

            The 1.1 were “Last Stand” defense system, to be used at last resort, Throwing the Scullery Crew’s Pot’s and Pan’s were better defense weapons than the 1.1. That why and “SANE” Captain, would have had the removed at there earliest possible convenience. If they were such a Great Weapon System, the Navy would have mounted then on every Fighting and Support Ship in the Fleet. They were the “Chauchat” (next to being Totally Useless) of Naval Gun Systems in WW2…

          • Jon

            Oddly, I don’t recall claiming they “were such a Great Weapon System”. They were what the USN had available, in production, in the pre/early war years, until manufacture of the 20mm Oerlikon and 40mm Bofors ramped up. A mediocre short/mid-range automatic AAA weapon, is infinitely better than none at all.

            No comparison between the M1918 Chauchat LMG and the 1.1″ quad. The 1.1″ quad, once the teething issues were worked out, wasn’t that bad. It was infinitely better than the IJN 25mm, for example. It just wasn’t good enough…not when there were far superior weapons available.

          • Secundius

            @ Jon.

            The Washington Treaty of 6 February 1922, set guide lines on all Naval Oednance. The 1.1 were designed to engage and track planes traveling 200mph or less. Not plane like the Mitsubishi A6M Zero, speed of 370mph plus. The Fastest Warplane in the world at the time of the Washington Naval Treaty. Was the French Nieport-Delance NiD-29, with a topspeed of only 194.4mph. And during the Depression, funding for the Navy was Lean, if not Scarce. So upgrading Weapon Systems were not “High On the Things To Do List” for the Navy…

          • Jon

            Neither the Washington Naval Treaty or the London Treaties had zip to say about the anti-aircraft armament of naval vessels AFAIK.

            The 1.1″ quad design originated in 1928(?) IIRC…for its time, was a decent weapons system/concept. It wasn’t until the late 30’s and early 40’s that aircraft performance really made huge leaps forward…and it took harsh experience during the early war years to really grind that lesson in. And by then, there were better weapons becoming available.

  • Pingback: Extraordinar, episodul 19 | TehnoMil()

  • Pingback: Brass Curtain Poles 35mm | shutters - curtainsandblinds()

  • Pingback: Fort Knox Maverick 7241 Gun Safe | antique safes shop()

  • Pingback: Talon Sm Pro Wheels | performance - used tires()

  • Pingback: Brass Curtain Poles 35mm | pine - woodenblinds()

  • Pingback: Fort Knox Maverick 7241 Gun Safe | title here()

  • Pingback: 35mm Antique Brass Curtain Poles | security - curtainsandblinds()

  • Pingback: 35mm Antique Brass Curtain Poles | rods -curtain rods()

  • Pingback: Fort Knox Maverick Gun Safe Prices | weblog - emergency locksmith()

  • Pingback: Talon Sm Pro Wheels | americanracingwheels()

  • Pingback: 35mm Antique Brass Curtain Poles | budgetblinds - kitchen curtains()

  • Pingback: Oerlikon Carbofil 1a Gold | private - metals vault()

  • Pingback: Tension Curtain Rods 144 Inches | Curtains and Blinds()

  • Pingback: Vertical Blinds 127mm | roller blinds()

  • Pingback: Erd Commander Locksmith No Operating System Selected | corporate - review locksmith companies()

  • Pingback: Fort Knox Maverick Gun Safe Prices | local - local locksmiths()

  • Pingback: Locksmith Vulcan Alberta | 24hours - review locksmith companies()

  • Pingback: Eez Reader Locksmith | directory -locksmits around you()

  • Pingback: Lithium Gold Bbs | ticker - real time gold prices()

  • Pingback: Locksmith Vulcan Alberta | certification -qualified locksmiths()

  • Pingback: 35mm Antique Brass Curtain Poles | cover - venetiandesigns()

  • Pingback: Locksmith Vulcan Alberta | shop -super gun safe()

  • Pingback: Eez Reader Locksmith | buy - buy safe online()

  • Pingback: Locksmith Vulcan Alberta | 24hour lock smith()

  • Pingback: Aaa Blinds Port Kennedy Wa | slide - kitchen curtains()

  • Pingback: 35mm Antique Brass Curtain Poles | white - curtain rods()

  • Pingback: 35mm Antique Brass Curtain Poles | warranty - plantation shutters()

  • Pingback: Matrix Locksmith Courses Romford Essex Uk | private - review locksmith companies()

  • Pingback: Locksmith Beaufort Sc | corporate - review locksmith companies()

  • Pingback: Brass Curtain Poles 35mm | rods -curtain rods()

  • Pingback: Eez Reader Locksmith | call-us . 24hour lock smith()

  • Pingback: Carbofil 1 Gold | price - gold maple leaf()

  • Pingback: Erd Edmundson Electrical Hull | courses - electrical engineering()

  • Pingback: Mobile Auto Electrician Romford | electricity - auto electrician()

  • Pingback: Mobile Auto Electrician Romford | read - electrician salary()