Mission Modules, a Possible CG System?

For those who might be interested, here is a “pdf” with a bit of information on how the Navy is implementing their mission module concept on the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). Unfortunately the information only covers the 30 mm gun and 60 round missile system. They are also developing mission modules for ASW and Mine Warfare.

I like the concept for the Coast Guard, in that it provides a way for Cutters to be designed to be armed for wartime missions without the service bearing the cost of maintenance, training, and personnel in peacetime. It might be applicable to the Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC) and possibly other cutters, such as future icebreakers and arctic patrol cutters.

There have been some difficulties with the surface to surface missile (SSM) system being developed for the LCS, the non-line-of-sight launch system (NLOS-LS), which began as an Army project, but which has now been taken over by the Navy. There is a relative recent summary of the status of the project here. It does seem the Navy is going to develop something to fill this perceived need, as well as the existing hole in the decks of the LCSs. There is some additional pictures and information here. If the Navy does get NLOS-LS working, it may also be useful on much smaller vessels. Looks like a 15 round launcher might fit on the FRC.

13 thoughts on “Mission Modules, a Possible CG System?

  1. Pingback: Tweets that mention Mission Modules, a Possible CG System? - CGBlog.org -- Topsy.com

  2. Sure Mission Modules will work on ships other than the LCS, IF! they are built with Flexdecks to hold the modules AND they have the extra payload capacity and utilities to support the modules and their crews? And pls don’t fall into the hole the USN did by making the modules NOT swappable at sea only in a port with crane.

  3. No its not the same. NIH (not invented here).

    The countries that do have modular systems now, like on the MEKO ships, virtually never change them out.

    The point of using the Navy system would be to allow quick upgrades to whatever systems the Navy had developed at that time, while avoiding the overhead of maintaining the capability in peacetime. It shifts nearly all the costs to the Navy department where they should be. I would not expect a lot of changes once installed.

  4. Modularity and quick swapouts are NOT the same thing. That is IF not done right. MKEO and Stanflex are probably done right, LCS is still yet to be proven. And LCS is complicated by the Navy’s desire to chane it over to an ocean escort ship while still being a poor littroal warfare ship.

    Being able to change systems and components is not the same as being able to load mission pacakages, as the USN now calls them, and their operators INTO a space onboard AND have them change a basic mission of that vessel.

    I repeat do not fall into the poorly implemented conceptual trap as did the USN with LCS.

    Exactly which cutter Missions do you want to change?

  5. leesea asks, “Exactly which cutter Missions do you want to change?”

    The point is to stay as flexible as possible since its not always clear what role Coast Guard assets will play in wartime, and that is the primary reason for doing this, although there are potential peacetime Coast Guard roles too.

    The cutters will last 30 to 50 years. Over that time, potential roles are certain to change. Hopefully the Navy will continually update their modules and when the need arises they will quickly replicate additional modules of the type required. (I might be being overly optimistic here. If you want to be pessimistic then perhaps a lot of LCSs will be sunk or disabled, leaving their modules orphaned on shore.)

    As far as potential peacetime made for CG modules, they might include cadet/student berthing and classrooms, holding cells for prisoners/migrant interdiction, scientific research facilities, or aviation or boat repair shops.

  6. So how dose STANFLEX and MEKO compare and stack up to the LCS system that the US Navy is planing to use. What are their pros and cons to each system.

  7. Nicky, Here is some information on the Stanflex including the various types the Danes have used and the ships they are on.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StanFlex

    One thing to be aware of is that to make the ESSM (Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile) work, the ship also has to have installed the associate radar illuminator.

    • To be realistic, any discussion of the MEKO or StanFlex systems are academic unless they are adopted by the US Navy, because the Coast Guard essentially does not buy weapons on its own. Weapons are furnished by the Navy, so really we only have the possibility of using weapons that are in their system.

  8. Chuck is right MEKO and Stanvflex are not USN standard because of NIH! LCS was the Navy’s absymal attempt to build that kind of “mousetrap” on a high tech ship not suitable for some littoral missions IMHO~

    Chuck for warships of the future I think the Flexdeck concept is key. That gives one the capacity to bring in other capabilities without rebulding the ship. Its the space and weight reservations which are key specs to implement that concept. Austal LCS reflects there HSV experience well while LM LCS reflects their lack of HSV experience (“buy it and change it to meet the RFP”).

    Which means obviously the the later will win the down-select – dahh~

  9. Pingback: Navy to Review Ship Needs–Opportunities for Cooperation? - CGBlog.org

Leave a Reply to Chuck Hill Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s