The video above is from Naval News via Youtube.
Just wanted to point out that, should a need arise to equip the NSCs, OPCs, or even icebreakers for combat, there are two options in the video above:
As to alternatives, on the NSCs, we know they were designed to be able to accept twelve MK56 VLS and could probably accept eight Mk41 VLS in their normal deck penetrating configuration. Using quad packed ESSMs this could allow them to carry up to 32 ESSMs or alternately perhaps 16 ESSMs and four vertical launch ASROC. (Since the latest versions of the ESSM are fire and forget weapons that no longer require an “illuminator,” it now requires less supporting electronics and can engage more than one target at a time.)
I know of no information publicly available that suggests planned upgrades for the OPCs, although I did speculate, “What Might a Wartime OPC Weapons Fit Look Like?”
The Mk70 would probably just be a temporary install on the flight deck to meet the requirements of a planned operation, but there is little doubt we could put at least four strike length four tube launchers, on NSCs, OPCs, or icebreakers.
For the OPC, the Adaptable Deck Launcher is a possible more permanent installation and would probably be mounted on the Focs’le. Weight and space requirements might mean a trade-off would be required. Loss of the 57mm in exchange for even four Mk41 tubes might be worthwhile, but we might also consider replacing the gun with eight deck penetrating Mk41 cells. If Strike length cells proved impossible, tactical length cells could still provide weapons with anti-air, anti-surface, and ASW capabilities we do not have with the 57mm.
Potential Mk41 VLS weapons load outs for tactical and strike length launchers.
Chuck Hill's CG Blog 
I think we need to think more about OPC and NSC being able to control and provide target data to ships like MUSV, LUSV, NOMARS etc. It starts to make weapons integration super easy if you just have the network.
I do think we need CEC cooperative engagement capability.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_Engagement_Capability
Would allow units with more capable sensors to use weapons on the cutter allowing us to act as adjunct magazine.
This is an excellent idea and would greatly enhance the utility of the Cutters in kinetic environments.
Plus, this could be done without making the Cutters more visually “warlike”.
Prepare the network and other things become much easier and doable.
@ Andy, that is one reason I have been wondering if the NSCs could transport the 39 foot Common Unmanned Surface Vessels on their stern. Might have a role in MCM or ASW.
Yeah, I think they are missing the boat so to speak by not putting the MH-60R dipping sonar on these USVs for persistence and simply keeping more ears in the water.
The Israelis are putting TRAPS active/passive towed arrays on their similar size USVs.
I thought that the Independence Class LCS was designed for VLS to be installed up front on the ship between the superstructure and the 57mm gun mount. Not sure which size but the space looks like it is still there. Might as well get some use from the hulls if it is an easy addition.
That space was supposed to be for the canceled Netfires missile launcher.
There was no intention of installing Mk41 cells in that location when the ship was designed.
Would the Mk56 fit including weight and balance?
If so, Ideas on how many?
The Netfires was a 100lb, 5 foot long missile.
ESSM is roughly 600 pounds and 12-13 feet in length.
That’s a lot bigger.
While I have not seen engineering studies of the possibility, I’m going to say, probably not.
Think the Mk56 is probably doable but current plan is two four cell NSM launchers
The trick is your Mk 56 is 4.65 meters high and the weapon module space is only 2.3 meters deep.
@Andy. I don’t see why it couldn’t stick out above the deck.
The Danes commonly mount the Mk56 on the deck. Photos of the Mk56 and similar Mk48 VLS here: https://chuckhillscgblog.net/2016/09/29/what-might-a-wartime-opc-weapons-fit-look-like/
Interesting . Would be good if space can be found that did not foul the helo pad since that is the ASW for many smaller ships, not just for LCS. On LCS the 2 extra 30mm from the SUW modules could be helpful against drones.
Would be interested if Sea-Ceptor or Tamir can cued with existing Independence radar/electronics. Both are 200lbs+- and can be quad packed in Mk56 cells. I know Navy would not want non-US missiles but at least Tamir is being built in US for Israel and has a >$50,000 cost.
Probably all poor thoughts but might as well see what sticks to the wall since I am pretty sure big Navy Only wants big ships.
Make the cost of Tamir to be between $30,000 and $50,000. Correcting the mistake earlier
Those 30mm have low elevation. We might be better ripping them out, removing the hull structure for the module, and then just putting in Mk 38 mod IV.
Apparently, there have been proposals to replace one or both the 30mms on LCSs with 4 cell Mk41 VLS.
That actually sounds like it would make the LCS a viable escort, even if it was just a mk-56 cells for top weight concerns. Now to get it done before they are actually needed and become late to the party.
Next step is how to create destroyer tenders rapidly.
The LCS Freedom Class is being tasked with pier defense.
The Independence Class is expected to take on the MIW role.
The Navy has tried for a long time now to make these ships work, mostly without success.
I just can’t see the Navy sinking more effort and dollars into them.
Hopefully the MIW tech they plan to use on the Independence Class works. I think it will. It’s an important mission and one that will bite you if you ignore it.
Using these ships for a variety of roles has been looked at and studied for a long time now.
Sometimes when you are in a hole, the best thing to do is stop digging.
The Freedom class LCS will never make a good trans-Oceanic escort because its cruise speed on diesels is too low and its range at any speed is too short.
The good thing about the new MCM gear is that it can be operated from almost any sort of platform that has the space and weight, including cutters. In some cases like domestic mine sweeping it might even be operated from shoreside.
In terms of domestic mine clearance portability is very important because all the MCM LCSs are in San Diego. We will not be able to wait for them to get where the mines are.
Just for context, an 8-cell TACTICAL length Mk.41 launcher is 82” wide, 125” long, 266” high, and weighs 29,800-lbs. They require a 50-gallon fresh water tank, 225psi compressed air, low- and high-pressure sea water hookups, heating and cooling systems to keep the system within temperature limits, and 440v 3-phase, 115v 1-phase & 115v 3-phase electrical power. This is just the mechanics and physical attributes; also needed are the electronic control system, data-link, antenna, and fire control station.
Sticking a single VLS system on a vessel is a big project. This is why NSM deck launchers and Harpoon deck launchers have remained so prevalent. For a CG Cutter, NSM and SeaRAM are the “easy buttons.”. Add an ASW helicopter and some sort of magazine space for air-dropped torpedoes, and with the SLQ-32s, the cutter will give useful additions to a task force, and at least not be a liability, which is what they are now.
@Bill Smith, I would add, they need a towed array as well.
The design anticipated the addition of 12 Mk56 VLS, which is easier than adding 8 Mk41s. That would probably be enough to deal with the relatively small number of cruise missiles a submarine is likely to launch.
The Mk41 has advantage of being able to launch things the Mk56 cannot, like ASROC and LARASM.
A combination of the Mk56 VLS and a couple of the Adaptable Deck Launchers might be a good compromise, even if it required sacrificing the 57mm Mk110–not that that would necessarily be required.