Home » Budget Industry » Freedom-Class Littoral Combat Ship Milwaukee Delivers to Navy


Freedom-Class Littoral Combat Ship Milwaukee Delivers to Navy

Freedom-class Milwaukee (LCS-5) during its September 2015 acceptance trials. US Navy Photo

Freedom-class Milwaukee (LCS-5) during its September 2015 acceptance trials. US Navy Photo

The Navy has accepted the third Freedom-class Littoral Combat Ship Milwaukee (LCS-5) in a Friday ceremony, the service announced.

The 3,400-ton ship is the sixth LCS overall to enter Navy service and will commission in Milwaukee before transiting to its homeport at Naval Station San Diego, Calif.

The ship will join USS Freedom (LCS-1) and USS Fort Worth (LCS-3) and Austal USA built ships USS Independence (LCS-2), USS Coronado (LCS-4) and the soon-to-be-commissioned Jackson (LCS-6) in San Diego following its Nov. 21 commissioning.

Milwaukee completed and passed its acceptance trials in mid-September during a five-day trial period in the Great Lakes near the Marinette Marine Shipyard in Wisconsin.

When the ship commissions in November it will be the first ship to enter the service from a 2010 $8.9 billion block-buy deal between Austal USA and Lockheed Martin for 20 LCS — 10 of each variant.
“With each LCS delivered, we have succeeded in driving down costs by incorporating lessons learned to provide the Navy with a highly capable and flexible ship,” said LCS program manager Capt. Tom Anderson in a Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) statement.
“We are honored to place the Milwaukee in the able hands of her crew as they set sail for the ship’s commissioning.”

Prior to the block-buy, Lockheed and General Dynamics were tasked with building two of each variant desgined to replace the Navy’s mine counter measure and Oliver Hazard Perry-frigate

Now the Navy is working on creating a follow on to the Flight 0 versions of each ship with a new more heavily armed frigate based on each of the LCS designs.

The following is the complete Oct. 16, 2015 statement from the Navy on the Milwaukee’s delivery.

MARINETTE, Wis (NNS) — The U.S. Navy accepted delivery of the future USS Milwaukee (LCS 5) during a ceremony at the Marinette Marine Corporation shipyard Oct. 16.

Milwaukee is the sixth littoral combat ship to be delivered to the Navy and the third of the Freedom variant to join the fleet.

Delivery marks the official transfer of LCS 5 from a Lockheed Martin-led team to the Navy. It is the final milestone prior to commissioning, which is planned for Nov. 21 in its namesake city.

“With each LCS delivered, we have succeeded in driving down costs by incorporating lessons learned to provide the Navy with a highly capable and flexible ship,” said LCS program manager Capt. Tom Anderson. “We are honored to place the Milwaukee in the able hands of her crew as they set sail for the ship’s commissioning.”

Capt. Warren R. Buller II, commander, Littoral Combat Ship Squadron One, was on hand to mark the occasion.

“We are pleased to receive the future USS Milwaukee into the LCS class,” said Buller. “Milwaukee is scheduled to conduct Full Ship Shock Trials before joining her sister littoral combat ships in their homeport of San Diego.”

Buller’s squadron supports the operational commanders with warships ready for tasking by manning, training, equipping, and maintaining all littoral combat ships in the fleet.

Following commissioning, Milwaukee will be homeported in San Diego with sister ships USS Freedom (LCS 1), USS Independence (LCS 2), USS Fort Worth (LCS 3), USS Coronado (LCS 4) and the future USS Jackson (LCS 6).

LCS is a modular, reconfigurable ship, with three types of mission packages including surface warfare, mine countermeasures, and anti-submarine warfare. The Program Executive Office Littoral Combat Ships is responsible for delivering and sustaining littoral mission capabilities to the fleet. Delivering high-quality warfighting assets while balancing affordability and capability is key to supporting the nation’s maritime strategy.

  • Mr. Speaker

    So when the shooting starts do they call “time out” so LCS can go home and change its mission package?

    • 2IDSGT

      Tell ya what… go start your own navy and you can buy all the mini-Aegis-destroyers you want.

      • Ctrot

        The US Navy IS my navy.

      • Mr. Speaker

        Why would I do that?

    • Secundius

      @ Mr. Speaker.

      NO! They do just like the Corvette’s, Destroyer Escort’s and Destroyer’s in WW2 Did. ATTACK and TAKE THE HEAT…

      • Ctrot

        Except the corvette’s, destroyer escort’s and destroyer’s of WWII could attack and could take the heat, LCS has little to attack with and no proof that she can take the heat since shock testing has not been done.

        • Secundius

          @ Ctrot.

          I believe “Shock Tests” in WW2, were done in Combat…

          • Ctrot

            What is your point? In recent history is has been Navy policy to shock test every new US warship design, LCS has not been subjected to any such test and there are 8 LCS already launched with another 16 on order with NO PLANS for a shock test on any.

          • Secundius

            @ Ctrot.

            Considering that Both the Freedom and Independence classes are Lego (Plug-N-Play) Ship’s. I suspect ALL Shock-Test were done before Installation on board the Ship’s. I think in that “Haste” or “Cutting Corners” the Gerald Ford class “Shock Test’s” were NEVER performed as Required, and EVER MOUNTING COST’S the Builder decided to “Cover” the Test’s in the Ever Mounting Production Delays. Until they GOT CAUGHT, probably by someone that “Wouldn’t Sign-Off on Something”, or “Simply Couldn’t Be Bought Off”…

          • Ctrot

            There you go, making up crap again.

          • Secundius

            @ Ctrot.

            Please be Free to Share You Thought’s on Possible Plausible Answers to the Question’s, Reason’s, Variable’s that haven’t been THOUGHT OF YET. PLEASE…

          • Ctrot

            Build a real warship. See real world examples of a multitude of similarly sized (and smaller) vessels in service with other navies, friend and foe, that cost less and are an order of magnitude better armed:

            La Fayette-class frigate
            Sachsen-class frigate
            Nansen-class frigate
            Steregushchy-class corvette
            Jiangdao-class Corvette
            Sa’ar 5-class corvette
            Braunschweig-class corvette
            Visby-class corvette
            Ada-class corvettes

            The list is almost endless.

          • Secundius

            @ Ctrot.

            As I recall, Congress is In Control of Ship Funding, Not the US Navy. And ALL the Ship’s you mentioned, fall under the “Jones” Act of 1920. Which makes any argument at MOOT Point…

          • Ctrot

            LCS is the US Navy’s design, Congress simply agreed to pay for it.

            Jones act or not, the list above is proof that better ships CAN be built. Are you saying the US is incapable of designing and building them? Hard to make that claim when we are currently building the best destroyer on the planet.

          • Secundius

            @ Ctrot.

            US. Navy, NEVER ordered the LCS classes. SecDef Donald Rumsfeld, President George W Bush, Jr. and US. Congress DID…

          • Ctrot

            Utter sophistry. LCS was a direct result of a NAVY study.

          • Secundius

            @ Ctrot.

            WE HAVE THE DESIGN’S. Just NO Congress to FUND ANY OF the Shipbuilding of THOSE DESIGN’S…

          • Ctrot

            And why would they when there are so many LCS “fanbois” like you signing its praises?

          • Secundius

            @ Ctrot.

            Israel contracted Northrop-Grumman to design the Sa’ar 5, using evaluation report’s of the Sa’ar 4.5. And Litton-Ingalls Shipyards (now Huntington-Ingalls Shipyards) built the 3-class Ship’s…

          • Secundius

            @ Ctrot.

            The Sa’ar 5 class Corvette, ISN’T a Israeli Design. IT’s an American design, and was built by Huntington-Ingalls…

          • Ctrot

            Actually the Sa’ar 5 is an Israeli design, just built by a US yard. That isn’t the point, you EXCEL at missing the point! The point is that better designs exist, multiple better designs exist. I can’t find any frigate or corvette anywhere that isn’t a better design than the LCS.

      • Mr. Speaker

        LCS has proven itself in this manner when?

        • Secundius

          @ Mr. Speaker.

          In October 1944, In the Battle of Samar Island. The Corvette’s, Destroyer Escort’s and Destroyer’s, weren’t Given a Second or even a Third Option. When a Fleet of Japanese Battleship’s, Cruiser’s and Destroyer’s APPEARED. Tack Forces Taffy, Went Into Action. Largest Naval Gun in American Force was a Mk. 38 5-inch Gun. Largest Naval Gun in Imperial Japanese Fleet was 18.1-inches.

          A Fletcher class Destroyer’s best range for Penetration 5-inches of RHA Armor is 2,200-Yards, while the Yamato’s, 18.1-inch gun are in excess of 20-miles. The Taffy Task Force did what it had to do, with what Little it Actually Had…

          • Mr. Speaker

            That would be relevant if it happened today and 5″ was the only weapon used and if destroyers were the only ships involved in that battle but in fact torpedoes and aircraft were used extensively. Regardless of the weapons, leadership played a big part.

            In keeping with your gun analogy, LCS carries a single 57mm…………. not real effective and apparently doesn’t meet SUW requirements.

          • Secundius

            @ Mr. Speaker.

            All War’s are “Tool Box War’s”, You use what you Have and are Given. And not what you Would Like To Have, and What You Want to be Given. If you’re BLAMING the TOOL before it’s even been USED. Then your a LOSEY CARPENTER…

          • Secundius

            @ Mr. Speaker.

            Really, and what about the RAM Missile Launcher on top of the Hanger at the Stern. I guess that doesn’t count…

    • bass_man86

      Oh, it is much better than that. Swapping mission packages require some fairly advanced port facilities, preferably in a friendly country that can guarantee a degree of security, and don’t forget that you have to swap the crew as well. There are more points of failure in the mission package concept than you can shake a stick at!

  • Don Bacon

    Talk about your flank speed!
    LCS-5 Milwaukee – 1st of 2010 block buy
    Oct 27, 2011 keel laid
    Feb 6, 2013 – LCS 5 To Get New Waterjets
    Dec 18, 2013 – launched & christened
    Oct 13, 2015 – Delivers to Navy

    • Secundius

      @ Don Bacon.

      The Average Build Time for 2,100-ton Fletcher class Destroyer. From “Keel Laying” to Commissioning in WW2 was 212-days. And 175 were built. You Point being, IS?

      • Mr. Speaker

        You comment is relevant because?:
        a) Fletcher Class DD’s are modern warships
        b) ISIS has ships
        c) Shipyards today milk the government
        d) LCS is more complex than a WW2 destroyer

        • Secundius

          @ Mr. Speaker.

          A 21st Century Go-Fast with a Stabilized TOW II Missile Launcher. Could TAKE OUT a WW2-era Fletcher class Destroyer at 4,000-meters…

          • Ctrot

            A Fletcher could absorb 10x as many TOW missiles as could a LCS, all while shooting back. The LCS would probably loose power after the first hit.

          • Secundius

            @ Ctrot.

            The Fletcher class Destroyer, had 1/2-inch THICK Armor Plate. A TOW II, can Penetrate 41-INCHES of RHA ARMOR from 4,200-meter distance. And “NO” DD-724, USS. Laffey was NOT a Fletcher class Destroyer. Laffey, was a Allen M. Sumner class Destroyer…

          • Ctrot

            And how much armor does an LCS have?

            A TOW has a 12-13 lb warhead. Punching one, or a dozen, small holes in the side of a Fletcher isn’t going to slow her down.

          • Secundius

            @ Ctrot.

            Your talking about the “BB” or “Abbreviation” (Bunker Buster or Demolition) aka Surface-Bearing Projectile TOW II Missile. It replaced the 165mm Demolition Gun used by Combat Engineers and the 152mm Gun on the M551 General Sheridan Light Airborne Tank after 1992.

            The Anti-Tank Missile, has a Penetration Rod to Punch a Hole through the Armor followed by the Warhead. The Warhead detonates inside the Vehicle/Vessel, not upon Impact of said Object. A “Double Whammy” Missile…

          • Ctrot

            The secondary, penetrating, warhead of the tandem warhead TOW is even smaller. It’s effect on a real warship would be like poking a hole in the hull and throwing in a hand grenade, sufficient to kill a tank but not a 3000 ton ship.

          • Secundius

            @ Ctrot.

            A “Hand Grenade”, DOESN’T USE “C4” as an Explosive Force…

          • Ctrot

            C4 isn’t magical. Please describe the damage effects you think would result from the explosion of a TOW II’s secondary warhead penetrating a 3000+ ton warships hull. Forget warship, what effect would it have on a cruise ship or freighter?

          • Secundius

            @ Ctrot.

            In One Comment, You went from a 12 to 13-lbs. Warhead to a 6.4-ounce Explosive charge of a “Hand Grenade”. A Great Difference in a Controlled Explosive Detonation in a Confined Space. Which ARE you talking about???

          • Ctrot

            1 – I referenced the maximum sized TOW warhead once you brought TOW’s into the discussion as an anti-ship weapon

            2 – You then specified the Tandem Warhead version of the TOW since you apparently think that would make a great anti-ship weapon.

            3 – I then pointed out that the secondary warhead of the tandem warhead TOW is much smaller than the largest TOW warhead and thus too small to damage a ship and I made an ANALOGY using a hand grenade for comparison.

            4 – I then challenged you to prove your claims about the TOW vs a ship and you failed to do so, instead you went off on an unrelated tangent since you cannot make an intelligent case for your claims.

          • Secundius

            @ Ctrot.

            I can NO MORE PROVE the effectiveness of a TOW II on a WW2-era Fletcher class Destroyer. Then the US Navy can prove the Effectiveness of a P-39 Airacobra’s, Oldsmobile built T9 1.43-inch/37x145mmR M4 autocannon on PT-109 had on a Imperial Japanese Cruiser off “Plum Pudding” Island (aka Kennedy Island) in the Solomons in 1943…

          • Ctrot

            Non sequitur, but then that is your specialty.

          • Secundius

            @ Ctrot.

            Please be Free to Reread MY COMMENT’S. AND POINT OUT THE WORD-GROUPINGS OF “Dual-Warhead” or “Tandem-Warhead” or “Warhead’s (plural). I believe YOU MENTIONED THEM…

          • Ctrot

            You stated:

            “The Anti-Tank Missile, has a Penetration Rod to Punch a Hole through the Armor followed by the Warhead. The Warhead detonates inside the Vehicle/Vessel, not upon Impact of said Object. A “Double Whammy” Missile…”

            You brought up the concept; I corrected your terminology by using the Proper Term: “Tandem Warhead”.

            You were also in error stating the armor penetration is done by “a penetration rod”, instead it is done by a shaped charged warhead (commonly referred to as a “HEAT” round) which is then followed up by a second warhead / charge detonated by a delay fuse.

          • Secundius

            @ Ctrot.

            I Don’t Believe the Phrase “Double Whammy” refer’s to Dual-Warhead’s. A Kinetic Energy Penetrator, IS NOT AN EXPLOSIVE CHARGE…

          • Ctrot

            A kinetic energy penetration is not an explosive charge, my point is the TOW does NOT have a kinetic energy perpetrator! It has a shaped charge warhead.

          • Secundius

            @ Ctrot.

            Question to the Wolf High Servitor:

            The TOW II, missile can Penetrate 41-inches of RHA Steel. What “CONVENTIONAL” Explosive Warhead will Punch a Hole though that much Steel and STILL fit in a 204.6-Pound Missile Delivery System…

          • Ctrot

            Push away from the bong.

          • Secundius

            @ Ctrot.

            Question 1. TOW missile have been know to shoot down helicopter’s, yet it’s NOT classified as an Anti-Aircraft Missile. Neither is the “RPG”, which has been known as Anti-Tank, Anti-Shipping, Anti-Personnel, Anti-Aircraft, Indirect Artillery Support, etc.

            Questions 2 & 3. Please specify “Tandem Warhead”. Penetration Rod, IS NOT a Warhead.

            Question 4. NO KNOWN, “TEST” of a RPG has Ever Surfaced to my Knowledge. As an Anti-Aircraft or Anti-Shipping Attack or Defensive Role either.

            The Standard Missile One (SM-1) was designed as an Surface-to-Air Missile, and yet in Vietnam, it was used on “Wild Weasel’s” as Anti-Radar Installation Missiles (Fixed/Mobile Land-Based Target’s). A “rock” by itself is just a ROCK,. But by applying Force to that Rock, it becomes a Moving Projectile…

          • Ctrot

            1 – How many 3000 ton helicopters?

            2 – YOU brought tandem warhead TOW into the discussion, not me. TOW does not use a “penetration rod”, that would be a APFSDS tank gun round.

            3 – Non sequiter

            4 – A MiG-21 weighs 10 ton. A Fan Song radar, maybe 5-6 tons. Using an anti-aircraft missile to kill a radar dish van is NOT comparable to using an anti-tank weapon to sink a 3000+ ton ship.

          • Secundius

            @ Ctrot.

            About a 1/2-inch in Aluminium and Composite Kevlar Armor, thickness UNKNOWN. The Hull of the Freedom class is Steel and that of the Independence class Aluminium. Hopefully any future Navy Ship’s will be Built with the New South Korean Steel/Aluminium Alloy. Which is Stronger that Titanium…

  • Pingback: Some Of The Biggest Modifications In A Mercedes Benz - Modification video()

  • John B. Morgen

    The LCSs are posed to be our “silver bullet” to protect our interests in the South China Sea? As I said this before, the LCS are nothing more than “White Elephants,” and our Navy should be building more cruisers (frigates) or destroyers (corvettes). Larger hulls have a much greater endurance to damage than smaller warships in combat, such as the so-called LCS (sloop). We are wasting good funds for this experimentation, just like we did building/projected six USS Alaska class (CB-1) during the World War II; instead we could have build three more Iowa class (BB-61) battleships. A fast battleship is much better than building a battlecruiser/large cruiser.

    • Secundius

      @ John B. Morgan.

      A couple of years ago, their was Funding to build SIX San Antonio (Base Design) Ballistic Missile Defense (Arsenal) Ship with a 32MJ Rail Gun. The Closest thing to a Actual Battlecruiser, Project Got Cancelled because of the Financial Sequester…

      • John B. Morgen

        The arsenal ship and the rail gun projects are never going to materialized, the Navy is wasting funds for somethings that are NOT going to be built or deployed with the Fleet—ever. Both projects are nothing more but dreams, just like the cancelled project of converting the USS Hawaii (CB-3) into a missile ship or a communications ship. Those concepts went on and on, until the USS Hawaii was finally scrapped in 1960.

        A side note: My last name is spelled MORGEN and NOT …MORGAN. Thank you.

        • Secundius

          @ John B. Morgen.

          My Bad oh the Spelling, it’s a Medication Issue. But the chances of Building a Modern Gunned Battlecruiser, is between NIL and NONE…

          • John B. Morgen

            At most the Navy could design and build a modified LSD or LAP armed with a 155mm gun, for fire support missions. Again, it would be doubtful for such a warship to exist. Prudent warship designs are quite rare to come by.

          • Secundius

            @ John B, Morgen.

            The ASG was the Original Plan, then they decided to go with the BAE 32MJ Rail-Gun instead and 288-VLS. Plus Helicopters…

          • John B. Morgen

            The Navy was much better off sticking with the 288 VLS design than a rail-gun design because the former would have been a lot easier to build.

          • Secundius

            @ John B. Morgen.

            The point of the Conversation being WHAT, Sir. Their NOT GOING TO BE BUILT. Talking about a DEAD Subject, DOESN’T SOLVE ANYTHING…

          • John B. Morgen

            You’re the one who brought up the ASG, I didn’t. I was only talking about about an improved LSD/LPD design, no rail gun or VLS weapon systems.

          • disqus_zommBwspv9

            How about mounting the AGS on the Burkes. Or even bring the 8″/55 caliber Mark 71 gun that was tested on the USS Hull DD-945 in the 70’s which she actually deployed with to west pack twice. She even carried the heghog weapon system in the 70’s.

          • Secundius

            @ Sailboater.

            There’s talk about a Titanium Framed ASG to be used on the Tico’s and AB’s class. But nothing Concrete…

          • John B. Morgen

            Since the Burkes are the size of cruisers (frigates), thereby the class is much better off of being mounted with a 155mm or 203mm gun. For example, the USS Hull (DD-945). was mounted with a 8 inch gun, but the 8 inch gun was never put into production due to costs, yet it performed well.

          • Secundius

            @ John B. Morgen.

            No, I told you what the PLAN WAS. You added to the Plan…

          • disqus_zommBwspv9

            Is the AGS system still on track. Didn’t BAE deliver 3 units already for the zumwalt (waste of money ) project
            Also how stupid is it that the AGS can’t use the same ammo the army’s and marines 155mm artillery piece uses

          • Secundius

            @ Sailboater.

            The AGS is based on the M777 used by the Marines, which is based on the German Panzerhaubitza PzH.2000 15,5cm. SPH…

          • disqus_zommBwspv9

            Hey I just quote BAE who developed the AGS in the news article in JDW a while back. And every where else in news article.

        • Secundius

          @ John B. Morgen

          And an Arsensal without the 32MJ Rail-Gun or AGS or even Battlecruiser, is going to Materialize EITHER…

          • John B. Morgen

            The battlecruiser concept has already been proven to be folly in naval history, and to repeat it will only proves that some American supporters are feeble men/women.

  • Pingback: US Navy News and updates - Page 111 - DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums()

  • bass_man86

    Priceless! “With each LCS delivered, we have succeeded in driving down costs by incorporating lessons learned to provide the Navy with a highly capable and flexible ship.” Translation, “we know this program is deeply flawed and there are many serious concerns regarding the actual capabilities of these ships, which will be addressed by doubling down on the program because any frankly expressed misgivings equate to political/career seppuku.” Of course Captain Anderson will likely never have to sail one of these floating targets into a hot zone so why should he and his minions care?

  • Secundius

    Just in case you guy’s haven’t heard yet. Canada, is “Dropping Out” of the F-35 JSF Program. They plan to use the Funds for Space Research and Development. Which brings down the number ~9 Confirmed and ~6 Probables…

    • disqus_zommBwspv9

      More to sell to Israel. Who most likely will improve on the F35 abilities. There are a whole bunch of IAF at Wright-Patterson AFB.

      • Secundius

        @ Sailboater.

        More TO SELL? Or more TO GIVE to Israel!!!

  • disqus_zommBwspv9

    I really like the Adams class Destroyers. The just looked fierce and imagine then with gas turbines and VLS etc. cool! The retired them just before I retired