Thread: Littoral Combat Ship Analysis

From what I gathered above, the main concepts behind reduction in manpower form other legacy platforms to the new thershold requirment for the LCS are as followed;

• Smart Ship
• Fleet Optimal Manning Experiment (OME)
• Composite Sailor
• Technology Leverage
• Workload Transfer

Smart Ship - A combination of technology based and policy initiatives. The YORKTOWN was the first ship to incorporate SMART SHIP and other Ticos are undergoing various upgrade initiatives to reduce manpower while still retaining the same combat effectiveness.

SMART SHIP "CORE TECHNOLOGIES"

• Integrated Bridge System (IBS): automated piloting, ship’s course and track analysis with radar and chart overlay, including collision avoidance.
• Integrated Condition Assessment System (ICAS): automated condition-based maintenance recorder for main propulsion and auxiliary equipment; digital information maintained on fiber optic LAN.
• Damage Control Quarters (DCQ): automated damage control management system providing information and communication throughout the ship on the fiber optic LAN.
• Machinery Control System (MCS): automated digital propulsion and electrical plant control using signals passed via the fiber optic LAN.
• Fuel Control System (FCS): automated digital control of ship’s fuel transfer system.
• Wireless Internal Communication System (WICS): individual ship’s company personal communications or near the ship.
• Fiber Optic Ship Wide Area Network (FO SWAN): fiber optic LAN hosting the above listed core technologies (vice the WICS) utilizing asynchronous transfer mode (ATM) and being IT 21 compliant

However, the majority of reduction was primarily through policy initiatives as opposed to purely from technology introductions. Such as changing watch standing philosophy, combining watch stations, and developing the flex team approach to watch standing. (Example from implementation
(http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/s...smartship.html)

As a result from various initiatives;

- Bridge Core watch reduced - 5% (Policy)
- Bridge watch reduced - 2 (Technology)
- Combat Core watch reduced - 8 (Policy)
- Combat watch reduced - 1 (Technology)
- Engineering Core Watch - 3 (Policy)
- Engineering watch reduced - 4 (Technology)
- Damage Control watches reduced - 13 (Technology)
- Training Department added + 5 (Policy and Technology)

Based upon the Smart Ship Project Assessment, the USS YORKTOWN met all mission requirements laid out by the Navy, reduced annual operating costs by $2.8 million, and developed long-term benefits in terms of improved morale and retention of quality personnel. Total weekly workload was reduced by 9,000 hours or 30%. "The Smart Ship Project has demonstrated that shipboard workload reductions are possible while maintaining combat readiness and safety with significant net positive return on your investment." Specific results are provided in sections III, IV and V herein.

Baseline improvements from Smart Ship concept.




Fleet Optimal Manning Experiment (OME) - Involves even more policy and structural changes to reduce workloads by various personal while maximizing efficeny in other areas. For example, refer to the below table. As you can see, from recent OME's testing - Medical Officer, Limited Duty Officer, Limited Duty Officer Surface Engineer, Warrant Officer Surface Operations Tech, Warrant Officer Surface Engineer, Command Master Chief Petty Officer (CMD) were all eliminated and consolidated.

- http://www.flagshipnews.com/archives...22004_11.shtml

Commander Surface Forces in the Pacific Vice Adm. Timothy LaFleur, took CNO’s direction on board and directed his staff to come up with a plan, and the optimal manning experiment was born. The beginning stages of the plan were to direct two Pacific Fleet surface combatants (Mobile Bay and Milius) to come up with ways to reduce their existing crew sizes by either cutting jobs or cutting billets in a ship’s manning doctrine. The reductions, however, couldn’t increase the workload among the remaining sailors or cut into the ships’ war fighting capabilities. Later, Boxer was added to the experiment to see if the same type of manning reductions and billeting cuts could be performed on a large deck amphibious warship.

“Optimal manning is an opportunity to take ideas from a ship, test them out through an interdeployment training cycle and then during a deployment take the ideas, that an optimal manning platform feels has become the ‘best practices,’ to the fleet,” said Cmdr. Sandra Davidson, force personnel officer for SurFPac and the OM coordinator.

All of these new ideas and “best practices” in manning and “working smarter and not harder” are an eye to the future when new classes of destroyers, cruisers and amphibious assault ships hit the fleet in the coming years. The practices implemented today, according to Davidson, will already be in place for the new ships of the future.

Composite Sailor - Consolidation and Hybrid tasking. (http://www.news.navy.mil/search/prin...etype=0&page=1)

Originally Posted by Galrahn

I have a question. I have heard by many people they would take SeaRAM over Phalanx if given a choice due to ammunition issues with the CIWS. The point I have heard is that during attacks, you could run out of CIWS ammo very quickly, and it takes time to manually reload, while the SeaRAM can engage more targets and be reloaded by the same number of crew at sea. Does anyone have any insight into this? How many rounds would a Phalanx actually fire against a single incoming missile, and based on ammo load, how many total could it engage in a single engagement prior to reloading?

Well, i'd figure considering the short range of the ram and the velocity of the Ashm, reloading time wouldn't really matter or not in the short amount of time required. Possibly automated would make a difference, slightly.

Personally, i'd perfer a dual layer defense of Ram/CIWS. mainly due that the LCS will be operating in littoral enviroments and be more greatly exposed to Ashm's which i'm afriad that the reduction in signature will be unable to prevent.

I agree that the CWIS/RAM combo for LCS would be nice. In the Littorals there is a definite need for short range protection. I suspect the role of the LCS will probably result in a lot of action against small boats, Block B CWIS is the solution there. I know that there are 12.7mm machine guns mounted, but I wonder about reaction time with those. RAM seems like expensive overkill in a situation of that sort, as do other missile systems. At least my impression is that the LCS will be dealing with situations like the coast of Somalia, in that sort of situation I think guns are the way to go.

Originally Posted by HKDan

I agree that the CWIS/RAM combo for LCS would be nice. In the Littorals there is a definite need for short range protection. I suspect the role of the LCS will probably result in a lot of action against small boats, Block B CWIS is the solution there. I know that there are 12.7mm machine guns mounted, but I wonder about reaction time with those. RAM seems like expensive overkill in a situation of that sort, as do other missile systems. At least my impression is that the LCS will be dealing with situations like the coast of Somalia, in that sort of situation I think guns are the way to go.

With the only problem being potential manpower requirments for baseline LCS's.

As you can see, the core crew is already stretched thin with reduced manning and multiple responsibilities. However, according to the above, CIWS manning could be reduced by 40% from other legacy ships adding about 30-40% of Combat Operations. Keep in mind, core combat systems comprise of the .50, ram, decoy, sonar and fire-control. Or whatever other augmented attachment of UAV's.

I think it would be worthwhile to consider adding that extra crew. The core systems in the LCS are something that I am just not too comfortable with. Its just too lightly armed. LCS seems to be putting too much faith in the mission modules and the helicopter. I would prefer a CWIS, but people advocating VLS cells are not without merit. Im sure that people smarter and more knowledgable than me have worked on it, but thats my two cents.

Originally Posted by Galrahn

I have a question. I have heard by many people they would take SeaRAM over Phalanx if given a choice due to ammunition issues with the CIWS. The point I have heard is that during attacks, you could run out of CIWS ammo very quickly, and it takes time to manually reload, while the SeaRAM can engage more targets and be reloaded by the same number of crew at sea. Does anyone have any insight into this? How many rounds would a Phalanx actually fire against a single incoming missile, and based on ammo load, how many total could it engage in a single engagement prior to reloading?

I have worked on both CIWS installations for several classes of ships and proposed RAM installations on the FFG-7 class of ships.

It is true that a CIWS can run out of ammo pretty fast. It is "governered" down to fire "only" 50 shots per second. The rotary magazine under it only holds about 950 rounds so that means you only have 19 seconds of firing time.

Also, though the CIWS acquires and tracks the incoming target from about 5 miles out, it doesn't open fire until the target is 1,850 meters away (about 2,000 yards or one sea mile). It can take on multiple targets and select which ones to shoot first.

However, due to the high penetrating qualities of the depleted Uranium sub-caliber penetrators, there have been a couple of test cases where the CIWS only knocked out the guidance system of the incoming missile but did not break through into the warhead. Thus the reason for the short "open fire" range to get as many bullets as possible through and into the warhead in as short a possible time.

The proposed RAM installation on the FFG-7 ships would have put it aft of the stack requiring a lot of ablative protection in case of a hang fire. While visiting General Dynamics they said their missiles don't hang fire. I reminded them that just two days before one of their Tomahawks hang fired on the Missouri over in the Gulf.

They demonstrated their launchers for us and it was interesting and disturbing at the same time. Because the targeting RADAR cone is only 30 degrees, they have to fire the first RAM at 15 degrees above Earth level to catch a straight-in sea skimming bird and quickly fire a second RAM at 45 degrees should the bird turn into a Pop-Up like our Harpoons can do.

One launcher arrangement carried 10 RAMS whereas their larger launcher carried 21 RAMS (don't know what they are now). I noticed in a photo of a post above that they have a RADOME on top similar to CIWS. That makes sense because on the FFG-7 ships they would be tapping off the data of the RADARS in the aft (and only) CIWS gun to fire the missiles that would have a longer range than the gun.

What was a thorn in my side was that they couldn't find any space to have a magazine to reload the launchers with the exception of armored lockers on the upper deck. I recommended they get rid of the 76 mm Oto Malera (sp?) gun as it was useless for anti-ship, anti-aircraft or shore bombardment. It is a good tank or anti-tank gun but doesn't belong at sea except for small gunboats and then the 25 mm Chain Gun would take care of them (every ship that deployed to the Gulf had two Chain Guns "temporarily" mounted port and stbd, including the Battleships).

With the 76 mm mount gone, they would have plenty of room for the RAM launcher topside and lots of room down below for magazine and workshop in place of the 76 mm ammo mag and loading machinery.

But by that time I was crowding 39 years of service to the Navy and already past minimum retirement age so "senile thinking" like that was rather ignored.

Originally Posted by RustyBattleship

I recommended they get rid of the 76 mm Oto Malera (sp?) gun as it was useless for anti-ship, anti-aircraft or shore bombardment. It is a good tank or anti-tank gun but doesn't belong at sea except for small gunboats and then the 25 mm Chain Gun would take care of them (every ship that deployed to the Gulf had two Chain Guns "temporarily" mounted port and stbd, including the Battleships).

Is the 76mm really that bad? Isn't it like the most popular gun mount in the entire world? Or it's just bad on the Perry, in the middle of the ship, with no firing angle fore or aft?

I'm partial for the 5-in but the 76mm should have a place on smaller warships.

Originally Posted by gunnut

Is the 76mm really that bad? Isn't it like the most popular gun mount in the entire world? Or it's just bad on the Perry, in the middle of the ship, with no firing angle fore or aft?

I'm partial for the 5-in but the 76mm should have a place on smaller warships.

I, too, prefer 5-inch on up. But with today's destroyers as big as WW II cruisers there's not a heck of a lot of damage a 76 can do except drill deep holes and hope it hits a critical piece of equipment.

But the problem we were having with the FFG-7 class ships was that there was ALREADY 12 pounds of potatoes in a 10 pound sack and there was no way we could get any more potatoes in without taking some of the others out.

Originally Posted by RustyBattleship

It is true that a CIWS can run out of ammo pretty fast. It is "governered" down to fire "only" 50 shots per second. The rotary magazine under it only holds about 950 rounds so that means you only have 19 seconds of firing time.

I think the newest version holds around 1500 rounds. They are still limited to around 50 rounds per burst.

I noticed in a photo of a post above that they have a RADOME on top similar to CIWS. That makes sense because on the FFG-7 ships they would be tapping off the data of the RADARS in the aft (and only) CIWS gun to fire the missiles that would have a longer range than the gun.

Its the R2D2 from the Mk 15 CIWS, they sub the gun for an 11 round missile pack.

Stand alone RAM has a 21 tube launcher.

I remember being on float when they replaced the 5/38". a GM telling me that CIWS stood for Christ It Won't Shoot. Said it was a POS but not as big a POS as what it replaced.

I think Navy wide they avg around 50-60% readiness rate in the late 90s.

Block 1 RAM was suppose to address the problems that you mentioned.

The idea behind SeaRam was to replace half of the CIWS on a ship. More reaction time. That way Rams can engage further out and CIWS can handle the leakers. Call it a middle distance in the layered defence. ESSM/RAM/CIWS

RAM reload isn't fast. I'll bet CIWS has a faster reload time.

RAM reloading

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

I think the newest version holds around 1500 rounds. They are still limited to around 50 rounds per burst.
Its the R2D2 from the Mk 15 CIWS, they sub the gun for an 11 round missile pack.

Stand alone RAM has a 21 tube launcher.

I remember being on float when they replaced the 5/38". a GM telling me that CIWS stood for Christ It Won't Shoot.

Block 1 RAM was suppose to address the problems that you mentioned.

The idea behind SeaRam was to replace half of the CIWS on a ship. More reaction time. That way Rams can engage further out and CIWS can handle the leakers. Call it a middle distance in the layered defence. ESSM/RAM/CIWS

RAM reload isn't fast. I'll bet CIWS has a faster reload time.

RAM reloading

All excellent and very accurate points. Always loved the "Christ It Won't Shoot" translation of CIWS.

The pics you show of the 21 tube launcher is the exact same gizmo General Dynamics demonstrated for us. Not exactly a small item to add to a ship.

Allow me to detail the sack and potato problem with the FFGs. They were originally designed to be about a 2,600 to 2,800 tonne ship. But as more and more heavy electronics, weapons, etc. were added topside, a fuel tank had to be taken over and converted into a ballast tank loaded with pigs of lead.

Strain on the hull was also setting in with the weight additions so the thirty one hundred ton Shipalt (that included the lead ballast) also added reinforcing straps to the hull at deck level, at bilge strake and just outboard of the flat keel. Also reinforcing of the aluminum superstructure had to be done because the ships were designed without an expansion joint and the Duncan had almost a 2-piece deckhouse on her maiden voyage from Seattle to Long Beach.

With the ships now weighing in around 3,100 tonnes, they settled deeper in the water and all the overboard discharges (sewage lines from the heads, galley, etc.) had to be moved up another foot in the sides of the ship. Any further up and they would not have a down slope. And you know that (proverbial) does NOT run uphill.

Some of the ships were also provided with a Stealth shipalt which, though relatively light in weight per square foot, still had to be considered in the weight and moment calculations. The ship stability was so critical that we had to abandon the thought of adding applique fragmentation armor to their critical spaces as we did on some of the Spruance class Destroyers.

Ah. Those were the days. No wonder I turned gray so early.

Rusty Battleship,
Earlier you mentioned ships in the gulf mounting 25mm chain guns. Do you have any idea about the possibility of replacing the .50 cal mounts on the LCS with those? One of the biggest reasons that I would like to see CIWS on the LCS is the small boat threat. If the .50 cal mounts could be replaced with somthing bigger and with greater range, it might go a long way towards addressing that threat. Of course, I would prefer CIWS for performance against a wider range of threats, but just wondering.

Originally Posted by HKDan

Rusty Battleship,
Earlier you mentioned ships in the gulf mounting 25mm chain guns. Do you have any idea about the possibility of replacing the .50 cal mounts on the LCS with those? One of the biggest reasons that I would like to see CIWS on the LCS is the small boat threat. If the .50 cal mounts could be replaced with somthing bigger and with greater range, it might go a long way towards addressing that threat. Of course, I would prefer CIWS for performance against a wider range of threats, but just wondering.

There were too few 25 mm Chain Guns to go around and mount port and stbd on EVERY ship. So as a ship came back from risky areas, its guns would be taken off and put on another ship.

This was a bit aggravating as the foundation for those guns was of pretty fair size and welded to the deck. And IT had to be cut off also.

But all ships also had mounts for the good ole' "Mah Deuce". Perhaps the best all around heavy caliber machine gun ever made. Even the Battleships had simple mounts for them in at least 2 places port and 2 places stbd.

What makes the .50 caliber so versitile is it's variety of ammunition. It can fire anything from common ball to Mk 211 Armor Piercing/Incendiary.

As an example of its popularity, we captured an Iranian gunboat back in post Shah era. It was a Swedish made fiberglass boat powered by twin Volvo-Pinta inboard/outboard engines (I had to design foundation reinforcements for them). The boat was originally found drifting with a dead crew (air strike score) and mounting a Russian 25 mm AA gun. Our Special Ops boys that took over the boat changed that out to the .50 caliber M2 Browning real quick.

Originally Posted by Galrahn

I have a question. I have heard by many people they would take SeaRAM over Phalanx if given a choice due to ammunition issues with the CIWS. The point I have heard is that during attacks, you could run out of CIWS ammo very quickly, and it takes time to manually reload, while the SeaRAM can engage more targets and be reloaded by the same number of crew at sea. Does anyone have any insight into this? How many rounds would a Phalanx actually fire against a single incoming missile, and based on ammo load, how many total could it engage in a single engagement prior to reloading?

What ammunition issues? The USN uses APDSDU don't they?

Originally Posted by Galrahn

how many total could it engage in a single engagement prior to reloading?

I dont suppose it was ever designed to engage more than 1/2 missiles at the most. I always thought it was a weapon of last resort...If three or four Kingfish had got throught the Aegis shield - it was probably too late for any CVBG