Admirals, sailors, naval buffs, and historians should be thankful to the friends of Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus. According to Mr. Mabus, he directed that the littoral combat ship (LCS) be redesignated as a frigate because he got tired of having to explain to his friends the meaning of the word “littoral.”1
In reality, for some two years the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and the Naval History and Heritage Command, with assistance from a few private individuals, have been grappling with the problem of the LCS designation—and those of a few other ships that were arbitrarily given designations outside of the Navy’s carefully crafted “system.” The joint high-speed vessel (JHSV), afloat forward staging base (AFSB), and mobile landing platform (MLP) similarly were given designations without regard for tradition or instructions.
Apparently Admiral Vern Clark—the Chief of Naval Operations from 2000 to 2005, and the “father” of the LCS—selected the designation LCS at a time that the military services were trying to demonstrate that they were sponsoring new weapons and systems that were “transformational.” Thus, such passé terms as frigate and corvette would not have the same impact when trying to garner funding for the new ships.
The “L”-series designation has been assigned to all amphibious ships since 1969. Previously landing ships and craft had “L” designations dating back to 1941, with LCS originally indicating landing craft support (later landing ship support—LSS).
Under the recent Department of Defense directive to “up-gun” the LCS (now frigate), the last 28 ships of the planned 52 units will be built as frigates—half of them by Lockheed Martin based on the USS Freedom (LCS-1) design and half by Austal USA derived from the USS Independence (LCS-2) design. What is not clear is what happens to the 24 ships—12 of each design—already built, building, or under contract. It appears that some will be modified to a frigate configuration.
The LCS/frigate configuration will be oriented to the antiship- and antisubmarine-warfare (ASW) roles. Probable upgrades will be:
• Armor
• Electronic-warfare suite
• Improved radar
• Mk-32 torpedo tubes for “short” ASW torpedoes
• Mk-38 25-mm cannon
• Ship-launched, short-range missiles (e.g., Longbow)
• Towed sonar array.2
The ships will continue to operate MH-60R Seahawk helicopters and vertical-takeoff unmanned aerial vehicles.
Unfortunately, there does not appear to be a plan to literally “up-gun” the ships to provide a more powerful gun than the 57-mm/70-caliber Mk-110 weapon now fitted in both designs. The OTO Malera firm—which produced the 76-mm/62-caliber Mk-75 that was fitted in U.S. frigates—has new weapons of that caliber that could replace the 57-mm guns.
And a surface-to-air missile capability does not appear to be in the offing for these ships. Frigates of the U.S. Navy’s Oliver Hazard Perry class were built with the Mk-13 Standard SM-1 surface-to-air system (which also could launch Harpoon antiship missiles). The Royal Australian Navy has modified four Perry-class frigates with Mk-41 vertical-launch systems that can accommodate eight Standard-type missiles or 32 Evolved Sea Sparrow missiles while retaining the Mk-13 launcher.
An antiaircraft missile capability can be accommodated in both LCS designs, according to Lockheed Martin and Austal USA. The former firm’s LCS-1 design has been proposed in lengthened variants that provide space and weight for comprehensive up-gunning with guns and surface-to-air as well as antiship missiles to a realistic, multipurpose frigate capability.3
The LCS/frigate force could possibly comprise one-fourth of the Navy’s surface ships in the 2020s and beyond. Hopefully, the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and various program managers and others in Navy leadership positions will develop realistic upgrade packages for these ships.
The up-gun effort additionally raises the question of how many LCS hulls will be available for the mine-countermeasures (MCM) role. As originally conceived, the 52 littoral combat ships would be capable of taking aboard mission modules for the anti-small craft, antisubmarine, or MCM missions. Subsequently, the decision was made that the modules would not be shifted between ships—the mission modules fitted when the ship was completed would be a permanent installation. The LCS/frigate force as now envisioned will be configured for antiship and antisubmarine missions. Thus, some number of early hulls probably will have the MCM modules permanently installed.
Mine warfare has always been a “poor cousin” in the U.S. Navy. The force of coastal minehunters (MHC) has been discarded, and the larger mine-countermeasures ships are being retired; only 11 MCMs remain in service, and they will be decommissioned in the next few years.4
The efficacy of LCS with the MCM modules has been questioned. It recently was revealed that the MH-60S helicopter intended for the MCM role cannot handle the air-towed countermeasures vehicle that is a key component of the LCS/MCM system. The late discovery of this limitation places the entire LCS/MCM effort in question. Again, one can only hope that Navy leadership can develop an effective and realistic solution to the mine-warfare requirements, although if past experience in the field is a guide, one cannot be too optimistic.
Questions and issues remain with respect to the LCS/frigate program. Hopefully, their resolution will provide the Navy with effective warships.
1. Secretary Mabus speech at Surface Warfare Association, Arlington, VA, 15 January 2015.
2. The Longbow is derived from Lockheed Martin’s Hellfire missile.
3. See Norman Polmar, “LCS ‘Frigate’ Options,” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, vol. 141, no. 1 (January 2015), 86–87.
4. See Peter Peter von Bleichert, “It’s Time for the MCM(X),” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, vol. 141, no. 2 (February 2015), 12.
Designation Issues Continue
The decision to designate the LCS as a frigate (FF) raises the question of what should be the hull number of the first LCS/frigate. The last “straight” frigate built by the U.S. Navy was the USS Moinester (FF-1097), completed in 1974 (and transferred to Egypt in 1998). However, the research ship Glover (ex-AGFF-1), completed in 1965, later was redesignated FF-1098.
Thus, the first LCS/FF properly should be assigned the hull number FF-1099.
(Subsequent U.S. frigates were guided missile ships, the last being the USS Ingraham—FFG-61.)
Also being considered is the redesignation as cruisers of the now-building Flight III destroyers of the Arleigh Burke class. This change is justified by those ships probably being commanded by captains (instead of commanders of the earlier Burke-class ships) and the improved missile/ radar systems of these ships. If redesignated, these ships should begin with the hull number CG-74, the last cruiser to be constructed having been the Port Royal (CG-73), commissioned in 1994.
More significant would be the redesignation of the three “destroyers” of the Zumwalt class (DDG-1000 through 1002). At almost 15,500 tons full load, those ships are larger than the existing cruisers of the Ticonderoga class as well as all U.S. heavy cruisers built until 1943. While such a change is not known to be under discussion at this time, it seems more logical than the Flight III destroyers redesignation to cruisers.