Home » Education Legislation » Littoral Combat Ship, Mission Package Testing Activity At All-Time High


Littoral Combat Ship, Mission Package Testing Activity At All-Time High

The littoral combat ship USS Jackson (LCS-6) sits pierside in San Diego, Calif. US Navy Photo

This article is the second in a three-part series on the changes occurring in the Littoral Combat Ship community as the fleet rapidly grows, moves to a new crewing and organizational construct and prepares for multi-ship forward operations. 

SAN DIEGO — A flurry of Littoral Combat Ship activity on the San Diego waterfront belies any thought the program is in a sleepy infancy phase.

There is more LCS activity taking place now than in the history of the program. Both Austal USA and Lockheed Martin continue to churn out new ships. All three mission packages – surface warfare, mine countermeasures and anti-submarine warfare – are in development. Several ships are in maintenance, and new crews are forming and training ahead of at least three upcoming deployments. One ship, USS Coronado (LCS-4) is operating out of Singapore today. And the crews and LCS squadrons are reorganizing themselves to maximize operational readiness. 

Cmdr. Michel Falzone and Cmdr. Emily Cathey, commanding officers of USS Freedom (LCS-1) and USS Independence (LCS-2), respectively, recently showed USNI News around their ships, docked next to each other at Naval Base San Diego. The two commanders are keeping busy implementing recent changes to the LCS organization and embarking on their new mission to test out mission module gear that will eventually be evaluated by the Navy and deployed on other LCSs.

The test division in LCS Squadron 1 (LCSRON-1) – which includes Freedom, Independence, USS Fort Worth (LCS-3) and Coronado – is informally stood up, pending final paperwork. In testing mission module equipment, Freedom will focus on anti-submarine warfare, Independence and Fort Worth will focus on mine countermeasures, and Coronado will take on surface warfare.

170409-N-RN789-001
PACIFIC OCEAN (April 09, 2017) An MQ-8C Fire Scout helicopter sits on the deck of Independence-class littoral combat ship USS Montgomery (LCS 8). Sailors and the Fire Scout testing team are underway conducting dynamic interface testing to verify the MQ-8C launch and recovery procedures and test interoperability between the unmanned helicopter and the ship. The MQ-8C Fire Scout is a larger variant than the MQ-8B and provides longer endurance, range and greater payload capability. (U.S. Navy photo by Command Master Chief Jacob A. Shafer/Released)

Falzone and Cathey and their crews aren’t wasting any time embracing their test ship responsibilities. Freedom and Independence have not yet been sent to sea for mission module testing, but both skippers are conducting in-port testing of systems that will eventually detect and destroy mines and hunt submarines.

Cathey and the Independence crew recently finished in-port testing with the Mk 18 Mod 2 Kingfish unmanned underwater vehicle, which was the ship’s main focus for a time. The Kingfish has previously deployed from rigid-hull inflatable boats with an expeditionary mine countermeasures company (ExMCM), and Independence had been conducting checks of the RHIBs on the LCS-2 variant of the ship, after a similar demonstration on Freedom last summer.

More broadly, Cathey said her crew had been working with Explosive Ordnance Disposal Group 1, who developed the ExMCM capability, to look at how compatible their gear is and what modifications, if any, would have to be made to the ship, the EOD Group’s RHIBs, dive chambers and more to allow the LCS to successfully launch EOD divers into the water, as an alternative to the unmanned vehicles and sensors included in the LCS mine countermeasures mission package.

Now the ship is turning to Coastal Battlefield Reconnaissance and Analysis (COBRA) integration on the ship, working through the communications and the testing procedures for that piece of the mission package.

“As we evolve the mission package hardware here … all of the plans are to go to the unmanned surface vehicles, with Kingfish, COBRA off of the (MQ-8B/C) Firescout, and then to take the development spirally along that type of hardware – and then the maintenance as aspect of maintaining that hardware – this is going to be your test bed, your platform here,” LCSRON-1 commodore Capt. Jordy Harrison told USNI News while aboard Independence, adding that the test ship crews will also work through doctrine; tactics, techniques and procedures; and learning how to best develop expertise in less-common warfare areas like mine countermeasures.

The littoral combat ship USS Freedom (LCS 1) transits the Pacific Ocean after departing Naval Base San Diego July 9, to participate in the Rim of the Pacific 2016 exercise. The engineering casualty that led to the engine damage happened this day, during transit from San Diego to Hawaii for the Rim of the Pacific exercise. US Navy photo.

The work being done on the components of the LCS mine countermeasures mission package will ultimately inform when and how the Navy conducts its formal test and evaluation ahead of declaring initial operational capability.

“I’ve got an experienced crew that provides some of the background and the experience operating the LCS and frankly experience with the MCM to help inform this decision-making process,” Cathey said.

On Freedom, Falzone said the anti-submarine warfare package is the least far along in development – it will be the last to be fielded, and therefore the ASW division within the LCSRON will be the last to stand up – but good work is already taking place on the ship. She said helicopters with sonobuoys will deploy as part of the mission package, so ahead of eventual at-sea testing “we’ve been testing the datalinks between the two to ensure [the ship is] capable of taking that information and using that as an additional asset for ASW.”

Outside of the ASW package, Freedom also conducted its first Coast Guard helicopter landing on the flight deck earlier this year and hopes to do more interoperability testing with the Coast Guard going forward.

Capt. Jon Rucker, the unmanned systems program manager at the Program Executive Office for Littoral Combat Ships, said the decision to create a dedicated test division would certainly benefit the development and acquisition timeline.

“It’s actually very promising for us to have dedicated test assets,” he said, noting the PEO still has to work around the crew’s training schedule but does not have to compete with other fleet requirements to get time at sea for testing.
“In the end it’s a benefit to the warfighter because we can ensure we get things tested, meet the requirements of the acquisition to get them the capability quicker.”

Rucker added that the stand-up of the test division comes as more systems in the mission packages are reaching the point of requiring at-sea and on-ship testing and demonstrations.

Beyond testing mission module hardware, Cathey and Falzone have been paving the way forward for the LCS community in terms of integrating the former mission package detachments with the ship’s core crew. Both skippers have fully integrated the two teams, bringing the ship’s crew from about 50 to 70.

“That has helped tremendously” in terms of sharing in watchstanding duties, ship maintenance work and more, Cathey said. The minemen and enginemen in the old detachment are being incorporated into the engineering, weapons and other departments based on their individual backgrounds and expertise, to best leverage each individual’s talents.

Falzone said her ship’s crew is still small enough that ratings don’t matter as much as they do in other communities.

“I have IT-men who are trained to be boat operators. We have a sonar tech who we’re going to send to coxswain school because she wants to drive a boat. So there’s just so many different things. We have a fire controlman who wants to be a qualified officer of the deck, so we are definitely blurring the lines there and not limiting people by their rating. It’s really the only way we can get through it,” she said, adding that a sonar tech and an operational specialist are also learning to stand engineering watches. Previous LCS crews have told USNI News a similar story, with sometimes five or six crew members qualifying as search and rescue swimmers because so many sailors are dual- and triple-hatted.

Fort Worth is expected to move to the same single-crew model this month, and Coronado will do the same when it returns home from its current deployment to Singapore. Coronado has been testing out an over-the-horizon missile capability during its deployment, though, so in a way is already embracing its test ship status even ahead of its formal transition into the test division.

USS Detroit (LCS-7) arrives at new home port at Naval Station Mayport after completing maiden voyage from Detroit on Nov. 23, 2017. US Navy Photo

In LCSRON-1’s next division – Division 11, which will stand up in October and focus on surface warfare – USS Jackson (LCS-6), USS Montgomery (LCS-8) and USS Gabrielle Giffords (LCS-10) are in or will soon be in maintenance, and the future Omaha is set for commissioning later this year. Jackson will serve as the training ship, and the other three will deploy for about 18 months at a time with a rotational blue/gold crew construct. Cathey said the Independence crew is supporting these crews as they work through certification events, and Harrison said LCSRON-1 is supporting the LCSRON-2 in Florida until the East Coast LCS infrastructure catches up to the West Coast.

Harrison noted that as the LCS community continues to implement its new crewing and organizational model, all eyes are on next year’s expected three LCS deployments aboard and ensuring that the ships and crews slated to deploy are ready to go on time.

“The intent and the plan is, in the summer of next year to deploy the first ship, Montgomery, the first ship on the East Coast in their division, which will be DetroitMilwaukee being the training ship – deploy those ships in the summer next year, and then what you will see is about every six months thereafter the second ship, the third ship to deploy, because that’s kind of the timing … to deliver two ships from each of the build yards each year,” Harrison explained.
“We’re a little farther along with the [Independence]-variant than we are with the [Freedom]-variant due to some of the engineering redesign they had to do with their plant for the combining gears. So I think we will probably have a little more early a little more set schedule, and it might take a little bit of time on the East Coast, but they’ll quickly catch up and get into the same kind of drum beat from the deployment perspective.”

Capt. Tom Workman, the LCS Implementation Team leader who oversees the move to the new organizational and operational ideas that came out of last year’s LCS Review, stressed that all the activities taking place on the waterfront now are important to getting next year’s deployments off to a successful start – and in turn, those deployments would shape how the program moves forward.

“Getting the ships out there to serve their operational commanders, that’s the first and foremost initiatives, and then how they get used in the different AOR [areas of responsibility], we take that feedback back into the program,” he told USNI News from his office at Naval Amphibious Base Coronado.
“Go operate forward and bring those lessons back and integrate that into the training process. That’s exciting.”

170705-N-AZ808-011
SAN DIEGO (July 5, 2017) The littoral combat ship USS Gabrielle Giffords (LCS 10) transits San Diego Bay to arrive at the ship’s homeport of Naval Base San Diego. Gabrielle Giffords is the newest Independence-variant littoral combat ship and one of seven littoral combat ships homeported in San Diego. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Nicholas Burgains/Released)

Workman said much of the focus on LCS so far has been getting the ship design right, defining and developing the mission packages and trying to get at-sea testing done. Now, he said, more attention can finally turn to operating the ships as intended and learning even more from that process.

“I know how one LCS can do this mission in this AOR. Two doesn’t just mean more flexibility in terms of numbers, it means more capability and capacity as well. I can now operate two together, or I can operate two independently, et cetera. From a [surface warfare] standpoint, how do I best position these two LCS assets for this mission? We’ll get tactical experience into the individual and or mutual employment of LCSs, and that’s exciting,” he said.
“As those first deployments happen and you start to flex capabilities on both sides of the world, and you start to develop capacity and capability, the interest level will only go up. Those ships will speak for themselves once they are able to start operating in greater numbers, and from an implementation team standpoint, it’s motivating to be doing the programmatic things, the setup things that we can to get them out there operating in numbers. At this point they’re speaking for themselves – Coronado is performing and staking its reputation. Programmatically we’re setting up the others so they can go and operate and speak for themselves, let their operational success carry the LCS message. It’s motivating, from an implementation team standpoint, to be doing some of the mechanics that will facilitate that.”

  • Chesapeakeguy

    I hope they finally get their act together…

  • Marc Apter

    An article that ignored all that has happened out in WESTPAC in the last few months. It described a different Navy than the one in the news.

  • PolicyWonk

    Well it sure is nice to hear that everyone in the LCS community is so thrilled at being assigned test-bed duties. It appears to have taken longer for LCS to get itself deployed and doing something useful than it has for LHA-6 (USS America), which is many times the size and does so much more.

    I love the part about them getting the ships right, because when you read the above, its clear they’re still trying to figure out what to do with these things and/or how to make them work – a strong indication that neither variant was well planned or thought through prior to construction.

    Now the crew sizes are up to 70 – a 75% increase over what was originally estimated (40). This will cut down significantly on mission duration (without underway replenishment), while simultaneously increasing the program cost (and therefore, the financial burden to the taxpayer). The good news, is that the crew might get enough sleep (the lack thereof was reported by the GAO resulting from the USS Freedom’s infamous first voyage across the Pacific), and they stand a better chance of performing damage control if need be.

    Now its all about putting a happy face on an ill-considered program, while hoping no one remembers the appalling (and still increasing) cost, let alone the precious tiny ROI.

    • RobM1981

      You have to feel bad for the crews. It always falls to them to clean up the congressional mess, doesn’t it? With 70 people aboard I’m sure there is hot racking, long lines for food and bathing, etc. Openly admitting “we’re trying to figure out what to do with this mess” is discouraging.

      I’m guessing that these will ultimately be the world’s most expensive mine sweepers. They should be adequate to that task.

      As combatants in anything but a brush war, they are insanely inadequate. That’s always good for morale…

      • PolicyWonk

        The LCS crews are all too aware that other navies ships of similar size are vastly better armed and protected. As former CNO Adm. Jonathan Greenert admitted in an interview on Breaking Defense, the “littoral combat ship” was “never intended to venture into the littorals to engage in combat…”.

        Think about that – I had to read that statement three or four times, because it was so fundamentally absurd my brain didn’t want to comprehend it. You can’t make this stuff up.

        Hence – all LCS is, and all it was intended to be, was a very fast (for no apparent reason) utility ship. they were never designed with room for growth, so adding weapons or protection of any significance is out of the question.

        • RobM1981

          I can’t remember the name of the manufacturer, and I don’t have time to google it, but in the 1930’s there was a diesel engine installed in “fleet class” submarines that was pretty much guaranteed to break down. Within a few months everyone knew that to be assigned to one of these boats, as engineer or even as any other rating, was to be assigned to a real dud. At best it would hurt morale; at worst it could get you killed. An engineering casualty, at the wrong time, is a very bad thing.

          The sailors carried on, just like they did with bad torpedoes – including aerial torpedoes at Midway that they knew could not hit the target even if things went perfectly.

          Sailors are the fodder for the admirals and the politicians, often driven by greed or pride.

          it has always been such. For every Humphries and his brilliant design of a frigate that was better than anything anyone else had, there is an LCS… or maybe more than one. It’s sad.

          • PolicyWonk

            “An engineering casualty, at the wrong time, is a very bad thing.”
            =================================================
            Perhaps the understatement of the day. One can only imagine how the crew of the USS Freedom felt when they had that exact event, and found themselves adrift in the Pacific.

            If they were in hostile waters (or facing a typhoon, etc.), that would’ve likely ended their existence. It is notable these same types of problems occurred in *both* classes – yet the USN took the bravest way out and foisted the blame on the crews.

            The above said, the Independence class does have the simpler propulsion plant, when comparing the two designs.

          • Duane

            The crew of the Freedom likely felt one heckuva lot better after their engineering casualty than did the crews of the Fitz and McCain after their seakeeping casualties.

            Note that nobody has died on an LCS as a result of their issues… nobody was ever even slightly injured, the crew just experienced a slight, temporary inconvenience.

            And of course, no heavy lift ships had to be rented for millions of dollars to haul a totally crippled multi-billion dollar warship back across the Pacific to be rebuilt from the keel up at the cost of hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars per ship.

            The cacophony over the LCS “engineering casualties” was, in every single literal sense of the phrase, a “tempest in a teapot” compared to deserved concerns over the casualties to the “real warships” that the LCS haters pretend are, well, real … while the LCS is supposedly some weak-kneed child’s toy of a warship capable only of getting its own crew killed. Yeah, right.

            Hard to imagine the vast wall of noise, the immense caterwauling coming from the professional LCS trolling community if one, let alone two, of the LCS suffered anything remotely as serious as did the two DDGs in just these last 3 months.

          • the_artist_formerly_known_as_m

            Duane, are you serious? If an LCS took the same hit as McCain it’d be a total write-off with major loss of life.

          • Duane

            No LCS has collided with another ship. The point is not to have a ship that costs a few bucks less to repair after a collision … the point is to not collide. Even an aircraft carrier ramming, or getting rammed by a big merchantman is going to be knocked out of action for years with many dead sailors.

          • the_artist_formerly_known_as_m

            So your solution is not to get into any accidents? Wow. Brilliant analysis as usual.

            7th Fleet has experienced a rash of it’s ships colliding with big merchantman and tankers. The exact causes are unknown, but factors likely include high optempo, poor seamanship, and extremely busy waters.

            Given that LCS is soon to be a major component of 7th Fleet (in numbers anyway – not capability!), it will be subject to those same factors.

            It is only a matter of time before we read of a similar collision involving LCS. Yet due to her weak construction, and lack of good damage control, the effects will likely be catastrophic.

          • Augustine’s Lion

            Which is a real testament to the awesome engineering and thought put into the Arleigh Burkes.

          • Augustine’s Lion

            Seriously? Roflmao 🤣

          • Lazarus

            When was Freedom ever “adrift?” They had one MPDE that had a jacket water intrusion casualty. Do you mean USS Milwaukee that had a software problem that shut down propulsion on her maiden voyage to her home port? That was in the Atlantic and not the Pacific.

          • PolicyWonk

            Go and re-read the GAO report on the USS Freedom’s first (and ultimately disastrous) overseas mission. It recommended that the Freedom be turned into a training or hazing ship – and barely stopped short of calling for its outright scrapping.

            Just be aware – you won’t find it a happy read.

      • Lazarus

        A small crew is more than capable of performing all the functions of operating a ship the size of LCS. There is no “mine sweeping” associated with the LCS sea frame. That task is performed by large, land/big deck amphib based helicopters and soon by unmanned surface craft. Not every ship can be an absolute fortress at sea. LCS and (probably) the LCS-based frigate will be good low-end components of the current high/low mix.

        • muzzleloader

          Think if it as an insanely priced overly sized under armed P.T boat.

          • Augustine’s Lion

            Yea. And even P.T. boats were built from steel. LOL

          • N

            False. Virtually all P.T. boats were plywood hulled (hence the boat moniker)

  • ejstruan

    Mr Policywonk-

    There is a subtle difference between the LCS and LHA platforms. Every ship that is built has to depend on the experiences of all the ships that came before. In the case of the LHA, most or all of the components had been used before. There may have been differences of size but basically a flight deck is a flight deck. Back in the days of the US Saratoga they started ironing out the issues of a flight deck. In the LCS we have two completely different new ships trying to do the same missions … two different ships trying to do the same thing and we haven’t done this “thing” before in the style envisioned (replaceable modules) with ships of a significant change in design produced with major changes in materiels.

    This is a mess created by politicians and procurement types. Now the ops types need to have a chance to try to succeed. About the only thing they possibly could have done better is to suspend the production of LCS until there is a chance to see if this is going to work.

    • PolicyWonk

      I am acutely aware that these ships are wildly different. But the LHA also benefited from relatively coherent planning – which LCS clearly did not. LCS didn’t even start with a decent sea-frame, because they’re both built to a “commercial plus” standard that doesn’t meet any of the survivability standards established by the USN.

      The inception, planning, etc., of the entire LCS program, is guilty of severe acquisition malpractice and incompetence at a staggering level – leaving no room on either of the sea-frames to up-arm or add protection of any significance.

    • M Yates

      This was not created by “politicians and procurement types.” The senior leadership of the Navy brought you the LCS and all accompanying challenges. The admirals bastardized the “street fighter” concept into an expensive couple of concept ships built in numbers to do a job that they are ill equipped for. Someone should have put a stop to this program 15 years ago and designed and built a frigate.

      • Augustine’s Lion

        Agreed. We could have built a fleet of an updated Perry class frigates with all this wasted money. 😠

  • Duane

    As usual, the content of the USNI post is fascinating and informative,while the bulk of the commentary comes from the angry old men who hate that the Navy chose to do it in the 21st century way, rather than the old obsoleted 20th century surface warfare way, which has not exactly distinguished itself in real world sailing this year on the supposedly “warships done right”.

    The learning curve for the LCS is accelerating, and the capabilities are coming on line, while officers and crew learn how to operate this uniquely capable surface warship which, despite all the ridiculous statements here in these threads, is the best armed littoral warship in the world, bar none, with littoral warfare capabilities that the CGs and DDGs could never dream of deploying in the littorals.

    Keep up the good work LCSers. Your nation needs what you do.

    • RTColorado

      Now, some good news about the LCS program…refreshing.

    • Augustine’s Lion

      LMAO oh man are you outta the loop.

  • LowObservable

    I almost wished they named these types of vessels LMMS (Littoral Multi-Mission Ships) instead of LCS to avoid the never ending connotations of Frigate based surface combatant.

  • Augustine’s Lion

    These things are absolute garbage.