B.Smitty

Any discussion of buying a corvette-sized warship for the USN has to include a discussion of how to sustain them. Where friendly port access is available, the problem is not as great, but you are right, some form of tender that can refuel, and support corvettes appears vital to this discussion.

Also, if you go all the way down to a 600 ton ship, you will need to make up for the lost aviation somehow. The LCS gains a lot of its value from its ability to embark two H-60 equivalents (typically one H-60 and several VTUAVs).

I think a small, largely commercial-spec'd LHD (along the lines of the ThyssenKrupp MHD150, the Canberra class or Mistral) has a lot to offer for Global Fleet Station deployments, and can provide aviation and some small-boat support for higher threat situations, but I think there will still be a need for self-deployable, corvette and/or frigate sized surface combatants.

I'm still on the fence on the mothership concept. I like the fact that its a big hull that can sustain itself for significant periods, and carry a large load. I'm just not convinced it can give you the same geographic flexibility as a cost-equivalent number of corvettes plus tender.

For example, (pulling numbers out of the air) for the price of one $1.2 billion LPD-17, you might buy 6 $100 million 600 ton corvettes, and one $600 million tender/aviation ship. Those 6 corvettes could range over a much larger geographical area than the small USVs and boats from the LPD-17, and each corvette packs a much larger useful payload.

Just MHO.

jimmo

JA Boomer,

I am not going to try to convince you any more as I think you see my points even if you do not agree with them (which is OK). I do see your points as well.

Just one last comment on the Netfires thing. The current "packaging" of Netfires can be a good thing. A ships compliment (theoretically) of Netfires can be replinished or event augmented while the ship is at sea by simply bringing in new 15-pack 4x4x6 boxes. I think the Navy pretty much gave up on the idea of re-loading the Mk41 VLS while a ship is at sea (I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong in this).

I like the Netfires idea a lot (as you can tell) and wish someone would come out with a Netfires-like missile/launcher designed for short/medium range anti-air. Unlike the Mk41, the Netfires launcher only takes up space/weight/cost on your ship when it is deployed. The Mk41 adds to the cost of your ship as well as adds weight and reduces space even when the cells are empty. The Netfires launcher could even (in theory) be deployed on cargo ships, USVs, LHDs, ... basically any surface craft big enough to carry the weight of it. It is modularity taken to the next level beyond the traditional VLS.

Please keep in mind I am not saying that the current PAM missile used in Netfires is the be-all-and-end-all (slow, small-warhead) but the concept is a very good one and I hope it gets expanded on in the future. I am also not saying the Netfires concept can completely replace traditional VLS systems used on large warships such as the Burkes, Ticos, ...

JA Boomer

Ya, I understand that the modularity of the NLOS Netfires system is one of its strong points. However, I think integration into the Mk 41 system would make things easier. It combines the missile loadout, and would not necessitate another missile launcher located somewhere else on the ship. Also, in the event that a surface ship expends their Netfire loadout, a new canister launcher could be helicoptered aboard and placed somewhere on the deck if the ship needed more missiles in a pinch.

jimmo

[quote=JA Boomer;435541]. However, I think integration into the Mk 41 system would make things easier. [\QUOTE]

Easier for what? In what way?

JA Boomer

I just think it is a good idea to group the missiles together. It clusters launch locations, makes it more flexible because any multiple of 4 PAM's can be deployed on the ship, you don't need to think about where a Netfires canister is going to go, reduces the clutter on the deck (both for the crew and enemy radar).

jimmo

That was the feature I probably like the most about the LCS designs, particularily the GD design.


Those commercial-spec'd LHDs strike me as pretty usefull ships. You are right that the price tag of our LPD17 pretty much guarantees will never be able to afford very many of them. Any idea what they are costing now? By the third ship in the class, the per-unit-price should be coming down a bit.

I am a big fan of the Absalon class hybrid-frigate/ro-ro ships as well. (A fact that will make many on this board cringe as they do not have 64 VLS cells, Aegis, ...). They do strike me as very flexible ships though with good aviation facillities.

I am probably in the minority here, but I think the US was on the right track with the LCS concept: A modular, flexabily armed, self-deployable ship with very good aviation capabillities, cheap enough to buy in large numbers. To me, that is still our biggest need.

Many Navies are trying to find the right mix of capabillities to make their ships more suited to the needs of today, wheather we are taking about mini-LHDs, hybrid-ro-ro-frigates or even Japanese Aegis-LHDs, ... The theme there is "more flexability" even at the expense of organic kinetic combat power. The LCS may have priced itself out of the game, but I am sure it will not be the last attempt by the US Navy to bring more flexability to the fleet.

JA Boomer

jimmo

Yeah....I know...it is more fun to talk about modern day dreadnaughts than multi-purpose low-cost ships....but... unless the US Navy figures out how to build a low cost but usefull ship soon, US fleet numbers will continue to drop.

JA Boomer

Well they had better keep figuring...because the LCS didn't turn out to be LOW COST at all did it.

jimmo

Nope. Not low cost enough apparently at a project cost of 350 million a ship. If the goal was to get down to about 200 mils a ship they are going to have to get more austere. You are going to love it I know, I know...reality sucks! Seriously though, how much ship are we going to be able to buy for 200 mils? Maybe we should consider outsourcing ship construction to the Chinese for cost savings reasons. The is a serious edge to this though. If we cannot figure out how to build a warship for less than one billion dollars we are in trouble (see costs of the new LPD17s, Virginias, Zumwalts, ...).

JA Boomer

Careful what you say on here, people might think your serious!

Seriously though, it seems like this is the biggest problem facing the US Military. The DDX, F-22, V-22 are all revolutionary and are all revolutionarily expensive. The US Army seems to be the more mature of the services, scraping their cash cow program (Comanche) and reinvesting with tired and true equipment that will see them on the cutting edge of military technology (and not over the edge like the others) for some time.

jimmo

I lay the responsability for that at Rumsfield's feet. Rumsfield preached the gospel of "transformation". If a project was not "transformational" it would probably not going to get funded. Do you remember all the generals and admirals falling all over themselves trying to articulate why their pet project was "transformational"? It would take an admiral with the verbal skills of PT Barnum to convince anyone (much less Rumsfield) that a new traditional frigate would be "transformational".

The Army was forced to be more practical by the Iraq conflict. They were going down the "transformational" road too with projects like Land Warrior and FCS. The realities of war jerked them back into looking at the world in a more practical way.

B.Smitty

The "over the edge" FCS program is shaping up to be one of the the most expensive military program in history.

All of the services are guilty of procurement immaturity.

B.Smitty

You can still buy several LCSs for the price of one Burke. Just not as many as originally pitched.

B.Smitty

IIRC, the average unit price for an LPD-17 across the entire buy is supposed to be around $1.2 billion.

The biggest need for the USN right now is a means of addressing the low-end of the warfighting spectrum, characterized by numerous, long-term, littoral deployments, all over the world, requiring a wide variety of capabilities.

I'm not sure a single, best platform exists.

I do believe Sea Base has a place, as it addresses the critical issue of sustaining forces ashore without a local port or beach-side "iron mountain".

I also believe their is a place for both small and large vessels. But whether they are frigates and amphibious ships, or Sea Lances/Streetfigters and CVLs or corvettes and tenders, I don't know.