Thread: LCS christened

Originally Posted by Galrahn

The Tamil Tigers are masters of small boat swarms, operating as many as 3 dozen boats ranging from 25ft to 65ft. It takes considerable ammunition to disable larger boats in small boat swarms, meaning the Mk15 would probably run out of ammunition in the fight.

Ever shot anything up with a 20mm vulcan?

A few rounds(to a few dozen- depending on ship size) of 20mm HEI, and everyone aboard would be dead or wounded from schrapnel.

Originally Posted by Galrahn

I'm not sure how effective it would be against a small boat swarm. Against individual boats it would be extreamly effective, but against swarms there are still questions.

The key is the gunner. You have to resist the temptatation to spray, and focus on one boat at a time. 1 second burst(about 75rds of 20mm), move on. 1 second burst, move on. 1 second burst, move on, etc on down the line. Executed in that fashion, a single Vulcan mount should handle about a dozen small combatants before running dry(excluding the deck mounted 25mm guns, which are no joke themselves)

Originally Posted by Galrahn

Your limited perspective of single ship in single operating environment is flawed, the LCS is a single ship in a series of ships.

I would imagine all manner of things i percieve are flawed.

Originally Posted by Galrahn

When it is all said and done, the LCS will operate independently forward of the fleet the vast majority of its time in service, just like every other class of USN ship since WWII.

The vast majority of it's service will assuredly come during peacetime.

In that environment, you could operate a cigarette boat with a couple .50's forward and you'd be just fine. And then you're sailing along the Persian gulf and out of nowhere an Iraqi Mirage decides to stick a EXOCET in your side. At which time, you'd be quite thankful you had (working) weapons(and sensors) aboard to hit not just the incoming missile, but the plane...before it could launch any more.

Originally Posted by Galrahn

Your statement would make sense if the LCS was going to fight WWII, but it isn't.

You dont know that, and neither do i.

If things go wrong with the DPRK that could EASILY start a domino effect of poor choices/bad luck that led to open warfare between us and China, or possibly, even us and Russia. I am not predicting that will happen by any stretch, but it is quite possible.

Originally Posted by Galrahn

Even if there was to be a WWIII against China, North Korea, or Iran the LCS would still be very deployable, just not as the main offensive asset you think it should be.

I think it should be offensive sure, but mostly i am concerned with it's near total lack of defensive systems.

No ASROC, no ability to shoe off shadowing patrol aircraft(and that is VERY bad once the shooting starts), and no inland strike capability.

Again, i ask, what is the point in building a FOUR HUNDRED MILLION DOLLAR PLATFORM that cannot do any of the basic things that a major surface combatant is expected to do?

I also ask what is the big deal about reducing the speed to a more reasonable 30kts(thereby saving a ton of cash and internal space) so that you CAN install a simple VLS installation? Even a single 4 cell with one SPG-62 would give you the ability to pack 16 ESSMs in case your plans do not develop as you intend(which is more often than not the case), or in case a major war breaks out.

It is NOT as if this is some cheap-o throw away fast patrol craft like the Cyclones(as mentioned by GG). This is a 4000 ton displacement warship, with a price tag close to a half-billion dollars once it's fitted out for a deployment(not to mention all the young american sailors aboard).

If we WERE building a Cyclone replacement, and if it WAS cyclone sized(and priced), id take one look at it and say, "Oh, OK....it's only a light patrol craft"...but that's simply not the case.

This vessel is in essence replacing the OHPs, so it damned well should be able to do the same things the OHPs did, and do it SIGNIFICANTLY better than the OHPs did.

And in my estimation, it simply can't.

LCS is the FCS of the seas. Both are equally stupid in my opinion.

And this over emphasis on SpecOps that Rummy pushes down our throats to the point that literally everything is touted as a SpecOps enabler is not just silly, but has resulted in TWO totally screwed up wars.

Sometimes when you set out to prove you're smarter than everyone else all you really do is show the world just how stupid you really are. Iraq and A-Stan are PRIME examples of just that.

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

.So now we replace light SEAL patrol craft and minesweepers with 400 million dollar FOUR THOUSAND TON speedboats huh?

yes, Them that have 2 25mm guns 39 crew and the Avenger and Osprey class MCMs each with 2 .50 cals and 81/51 crew and HSVs with 1 25mm/40mm dual mount and 42 crewmembers.

So 4 classes replaced by 1 class that has a crew of 40. Thats a savings of
122 sailors. I didn't include Osprey in crew savings since they are reserve ships so it could be more. Pluss the bennie of a ASuW capability with PAM.
A bigger gun and a much improved AA capability.

Better hope there are no coastal AShM batteries or enemy observers with a radio on the beach...

BTW geniuses, here's a novel concept....conduct coastal ASW ops with HELICOPTERS.

Much faster, much more responsive, much quicker getting out of a hot zone, and if you lose one you only lose 4 guys instead of dozens(or hundreds).

And LCS has those helos to do it. Plus a whole lot more, including ADS. Need more then helos and dipping sonar in shallow water

According to Stuart Slade(another think tank type), that whole exercize that Van Ripper pulled was a total nonsense ploy to get himself attention, and according to Stuart, it accomplished nothing but ruining a carefully planned out exercize at great expense to the US Navy.

You don't have to quote SS. Just quote me
I said the same thing that I said in the Bringing back our BB thread.

The one where you said in post 101 of that thread "I also seem to remember a certain former US general wiping out a certain USN carrier task force prior to OIF in a wargame using those same little rubber suicide boats. The same general who then quit in protest after the USN simply 'refloated' the fleet. You've probably heard about that, i know Rick has.
I also seem to remember hundreds of vessels of all types being lost while underway during the USN in WWII, to all manner of attack. Interestingly enough, i also remember that not a single one of them was a battleship.

And my response was :(post 102)
Yes and I know Gen Van Riper. He pulled a sucker punch. Don’t know if any of you have conducted any of the joint computer operations. He found the glitch. The Navy had programmed the TF to ignore local traffic. He generated boats as local traffic until they got into the TF than changed their designation. And before anyone yells and screams about “Well, it could happen” the program wasn’t designed to handle small scale ops. It’s a operational level game. Just like it doesn’t model individual refugees (suicide bombers anyone). The Navy called foul, as that wasn’t what was being “war gamed” and the general had a hissy fit. He was prone to those on active duty also. Ask anyone who had him as a Regt or Div Cdr.


Whats min depression on that R2D2 Block 1B PSuM ? How far out do you have to kill that fishing boat?

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

Ever shot anything up with a 20mm vulcan?

I would imagine all manner of things i percieve are flawed.

Not at all, I have found you know what you are talking about regarding air force platforms and tactics in the past. I have found that you do a lot of assuming 'how it works' in Naval discussions. We have somehow become very confrontational, with me being a big contributor, so I'll try to be more civil.

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

The vast majority of it's service will assuredly come during peacetime.

In that environment, you could operate a cigarette boat with a couple .50's forward and you'd be just fine. And then you're sailing along the Persian gulf and out of nowhere an Iraqi Mirage decides to stick a EXOCET in your side. At which time, you'd be quite thankful you had (working) weapons(and sensors) aboard to hit not just the incoming missile, but the plane...before it could launch any more.

You have to realize that isn't correct. A cigarette boat can't carry the off board platforms the USN needs with its larger forces, which is why the LCS is being built as a Naval truck. In a Persian Gulf scenario the LCS would be deployed as an escort for other larger forces including DDGs and perhaps L class ships, no different than how the Avengers would be used if the US went to war with Iran tomorrow. Surely you recognize the LCS is an improvement over the Avengers.

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

You dont know that, and neither do i.

If things go wrong with the DPRK that could EASILY start a domino effect of poor choices/bad luck that led to open warfare between us and China, or possibly, even us and Russia. I am not predicting that will happen by any stretch, but it is quite possible.

Well here is what I do know. The LCS is being built with a 25 year hull life, and the only countries over the next 25 years that appear to be building expensive access denial coastal defenses include Iran, China, North Korea, and Russia. Of those countries, only China and Russia have the capability of deploying submarines outside their territorial waters, and only Russia have operationally trained for such a scenario.

That leaves the vast majority of current USN missions available that can be effectively handled by the LCS, whether it is maritime patrol of Africa, South East Asian Atolls, or South America.

However, assuming major combat operations do break out, the LCS will be the first minesweeper able to deploy with US Navy carrier battle groups, and that is important. The Chinese Anti-Navy strategy is 3 fold.

First it is heavy on air attack, which means it is unlikely anything but the most heavily armed warships would operate in contested waters anyway, and even if you added 16 VLS cells it would fall well short of what is required in that scenario.

Second, it is based on large numbers of submarines for access denial. The USN is building a weapon of choice for hunting these submarines down, it is called the Virginia class submarine.

Finally, the Chinese strategy is largely based on mobile, smart mines that can operate in both shallow and deep water. The LCS provides a unique capability in deploying unmanned systems to detect and remove this threat, and the LCS is able to do this as a contributor to the battle group, unlike current minesweepers not only in the USN, but in any Navy in the world.

The Chinese Anti-Navy strategy is designed to push back Navies to 500 or more miles from the Chinese coast, making it difficult if not impossible for warships to get close enough to make a significant effect on Chinese strategy for Taiwan. It is very smart, and at no point was the LCS built to independently counter this type of high profile threat, and 4-16 cells wouldn't make a lick of difference in that fight, and would detract from its capability if the addition of the cells reduced the capability of the mission modules.

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

I think it should be offensive sure, but mostly i am concerned with it's near total lack of defensive systems.

No ASROC, no ability to shoe off shadowing patrol aircraft(and that is VERY bad once the shooting starts), and no inland strike capability.

Again, i ask, what is the point in building a FOUR HUNDRED MILLION DOLLAR PLATFORM that cannot do any of the basic things that a major surface combatant is expected to do?

I agree regarding it is lightly armed. I assume it is a cost decision. You are off on costs though, the LCS goes for 400 million, but it includes 1 hull and 2 mission modules in that price. The actual hull cost is around 240 million.

You say 'major surface combatant' but I'd like to point out it is hard to look at the LCS and say 'major.' It is designed to replace the Oliver Hazard Perry class, Avenger class, and Osprey class, none of which are major warships today. It is also not being built to do what other warships in the USN already do, it is instead being built to do what other warships can't.

Naval warfare is at the beginning of a major revolution, and it isn't just taking place in the US, as Asia and Europe are certainly getting involved. While I am not sure if the LCS is going to be a centerpiece of that revolution, I can see where it can be a contributor. Unmanned systems for MIW, ASuW, and ASW are enormous upgrades. The Navy needs these unmanned vehicles on the front lines, and instead of building LPDs, LSDs, or LHAs to get them there, they choose the LCS.

Where you and I disagree is when I read what you are saying, your questioning the mission profile, attempting to change it to a 'major surface combatant' able to perform traditional multi-purpose naval missions. The USN doesn't need that, CGs and DDGs already exist in great numbers for that role, what the USN needs is a platform to extend sensor reach for those major surface combatants, expand capability in prosecution of submarines and mines, or operate close to shore on behalf of its larger escorts for fast insertion/retrieval to free up submarines for more important roles, like maritime domain denial missions.

If you turn the LCS into another conventional warship, what are you going to build to deploy these surrogate systems instead of the LCS? The Navy needs something to do that job. I already mentioned I would like to see a LPD-17 variant, but I would agree it is too big and overkill for 'other missions' like drug interdiction the LCS can 'also' do.

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

I also ask what is the big deal about reducing the speed to a more reasonable 30kts(thereby saving a ton of cash and internal space) so that you CAN install a simple VLS installation? Even a single 4 cell with one SPG-62 would give you the ability to pack 16 ESSMs in case your plans do not develop as you intend(which is more often than not the case), or in case a major war breaks out.

It is NOT as if this is some cheap-o throw away fast patrol craft like the Cyclones(as mentioned by GG). This is a 4000 ton displacement warship, with a price tag close to a half-billion dollars once it's fitted out for a deployment(not to mention all the young American sailors aboard).

If we WERE building a Cyclone replacement, and if it WAS cyclone sized(and priced), id take one look at it and say, "Oh, OK....it's only a light patrol craft"...but that's simply not the case.

I have the same questions regarding the speed, I think everyone does. I do understand it though, because if you have ever played a war game it is hard to miss the impact speed combined with stealth can have in any scenario, however I don't know that justifies the requirement when endurance is more important. I have the same opinion regarding the MV-22, I have always believed the CH-53X should be the primary platform instead of the MV-22 because I consider the increases lift the CH-53X would provide as the primary lift vehicle is more important than the overall speed of the MV-22, but at the tactical level those who make decisions disagree.

Cyclones today are a good example, because they are indeed performing missions the LCS will in the future. Maybe they shouldn't be, but it is what it is. It makes more sense (not to mention is more cost effective) to patrol a Cyclone off the eastern African coast today than sending a FFG, so that is what the Navy does.

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

This vessel is in essence replacing the OHPs, so it damned well should be able to do the same things the OHPs did, and do it SIGNIFICANTLY better than the OHPs did.

And in my estimation, it simply can't.

Your looking at it from a 1-1 perspective. The US Navy replaced the Spruance class, which had virtually no anti-aircraft weaponry, with the DDG-51s so the OHP would never need to provide air defense. Remember, the USN has already paid for 62 Burkes, specifically to handle all air defense duties that could potentially be required by the fleet so that other ships can perform other roles.

What are the roles of the OHP today now that sufficient numbers of DDGs have been built? Drug interdiction? VBSS? ASW? The LCS can do all of this and more.

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

LCS is the FCS of the seas. Both are equally stupid in my opinion.

And this over emphasis on SpecOps that Rummy pushes down our throats to the point that literally everything is touted as a SpecOps enabler is not just silly, but has resulted in TWO totally screwed up wars.

Sometimes when you set out to prove you're smarter than everyone else all you really do is show the world just how stupid you really are. Iraq and A-Stan are PRIME examples of just that.

The Rumsfeld issue is political and I try to stay out of that, but he hasn't been a friend to the Navy in my opinion. I will say this, for my part I'm not really a believer of the current LCS project, but I am a believer in the concept. Will the current project work? I'll wait and see, but I think the challenge for the Navy is to find the platforms that can be effective in a 21st century war. The LCS might be that, might not, either way the Navy should slow down after block 0 long enough to evaluate the platforms before block 1, and insure the outstanding questions regarding speed and weaponry are sufficiently evaluated before moving forward too quickly.

They way that you guys are going back and forth has really turned this into a very informative discussion. Exactly why it is worth reading here. Please keep it up

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

Im not talking about the carrier fleets hot rod, im talking about LCS, which operates INDEPENDENT of the CVBGs.

LCS cant even get into range to shoot back at an enemy FAC if it's getting OTH targetting data from an enemy air platform that it ALSO cannot shoot at.

LCS is MEAT to the ENEMY.

According to the discussions involved in creating the LCS Concept of Operations there have been significant discussions regarding how the LCS will operate. It is generally agreed that the LCS is being developed to operate in tandums of 2 ship groups. Furthermore these 2 ship groups would be deployed independently only in certain roles, including Drug Interdiction and Maratime Patrol.

The LCS ConOPs is specific to including the LCS into the Carrier Strike Group and Expeditionary Strike Group. Promoting the expectation that the LCS will operate independently in hostile territory is akin to spreading rumors for the intent of fear mongering, because it simply isn't true. One of the primary purposes behind the mission modules was to increase the reach of sensor coverage area for a naval battle network with the sole intention of enabling the long range weapons of larger already deployed USN warships. Why would the LCS deploy to perform this function if there are no larger warships around to support such purpose?

This is why the FAC and OTH recon plane arguments do not offer compelling arguments for me. The LCS is intended to operate under the umbrella of existing platforms as a contributor to a regional naval battle network that includes larger naval platforms. The same mission concepts are being developed today in fact, for a present day example, the USS Trenton just returned from a specific deployment where it was embarked not with its typical USMC element, rather several unmanned vehicle groups. The USS Saipan is deployed today with this exact same mission profile, and has less than a quarter the number of marines it would deploy with as apart of an ESG.

The requirement for a Naval truck exists today, but the Navy is looking for cheaper ways perform these missions as apart of the battle networks (in the mid east in this example) than L class ships. Using USVs, UAVs, and UUVs the USS Saipan is able to independently provide sensor coverage for the busy commercial shipping areas around the Horn of Africa, which enables allied frigates and FACs to do boarding.

To suggest the LCS, which can provide the exact same mission as the USS Saipan, isn't a good alternative to the USS Saipan is wasteful thinking, and it also isn't operationally wise. The USS Saipan is a tremendous vessel, and is wasted in this role today but is forced into duty because of a real lack of suitable substitutes.

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

Except....that...LCS...cannot....break...contact.. ..with....shadowing...enemy....aircraft.

I never said a bad word about the OHPs. For what they needed them for, they were quite good ships, well suited to their role. They also gave decades of good service too.

The original role of the OHP, at least the cold war role they were designed for, was replaced by the Burkes. Their new role is overkill for the cost of the OHPs, making the LCS a suitable substitute.

An OHP cannot break contact with a shadowing enemy aircraft today either, and it doesn't have to, because it is almost always within distance of US or allied support.

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

Well you're the "expert"....lay it out for us. Make we the simpletons of the world understand rick. cause apparently, there are quite a few of us here at WAB.

Insulting Rick's expertise, which is well established, doesn't add to your point no more than my insults of you have added to mine. Rick is an established expert on Naval matters on this forum. He is well researched through available information both online and offline, and has long been credible in virtually every aspect of Naval discussion topics.

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

yes, Them that have 2 25mm guns 39 crew and the Avenger and Osprey class MCMs each with 2 .50 cals and 81/51 crew and HSVs with 1 25mm/40mm dual mount and 42 crewmembers.

So 4 classes replaced by 1 class that has a crew of 40. Thats a savings of
122 sailors. I didn't include Osprey in crew savings since they are reserve ships so it could be more. Pluss the bennie of a ASuW capability with PAM.
A bigger gun and a much improved AA capability.

It's actually five classes being replaced, cause LCS is in effect replacing the Perrys too.

So you have ships that cost WAY TOO MUCH for some of the roles they perform, are underarmed for some of the other roles they perform, and are not optimized for ANY of the roles they perform.

And they'll be stretched thin as hell too trying to fill all those roles.

If we wanted a minesweeper/layer, we shouldve built a minesweeper/layer.
If we wanted a SEAL patrol vessel, we shouldve built a SEAL patrol vessel.
If we wanted a Perry replacement, we should've built a perry replacement.

What we DID build is waaay overpriced, ill suited to many of the roles it will be asked to do, and really just makes very little sense when you view it as a stand-alone platform itself.

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

And LCS has those helos to do it. Plus a whole lot more, including ADS. Need more then helos and dipping sonar in shallow water

Any modern ship we built wouldve had the helos. And even the perrys have a whole lot more than just a dipping sonar. You have sonobuoys, active/passive bow mounted attack sonar, and a towed array sonar.

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

You don't have to quote SS. Just quote me
I said the same thing that I said in the Bringing back our BB thread.

SS? That Stuart Slade?

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

The one where you said in post 101 of that thread "I also seem to remember a certain former US general wiping out a certain USN carrier task force prior to OIF in a wargame using those same little rubber suicide boats. The same general who then quit in protest after the USN simply 'refloated' the fleet. You've probably heard about that, i know Rick has.
I also seem to remember hundreds of vessels of all types being lost while underway during the USN in WWII, to all manner of attack. Interestingly enough, i also remember that not a single one of them was a battleship.

I see nothing factually incorrect in my above statement.

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

And my response was :(post 102)
Yes and I know Gen Van Riper. He pulled a sucker punch. Don’t know if any of you have conducted any of the joint computer operations. He found the glitch. The Navy had programmed the TF to ignore local traffic. He generated boats as local traffic until they got into the TF than changed their designation. And before anyone yells and screams about “Well, it could happen” the program wasn’t designed to handle small scale ops. It’s a operational level game. Just like it doesn’t model individual refugees (suicide bombers anyone). The Navy called foul, as that wasn’t what was being “war gamed” and the general had a hissy fit. He was prone to those on active duty also. Ask anyone who had him as a Regt or Div Cdr.

That is in line with what Stuart said, i have no major problems with that explanation of things. Of course, i applaud the General just the same for his devilish misuse of the rules. That's my kind of Officer...

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

Whats min depression on that R2D2 Block 1B PSuM ? How far out do you have to kill that fishing boat?

Proabably at least -30 degrees. Off the top of my head im not sure(and a quick search did not reveal the answer), but would point out 1B is an upgrade aimed specifically at introducing a small craft capability to Phalanx(a mod i "cried about" FOR YEARS before they did it), so one would expect it to be designed with a large depression capability in mind. The minimum engagement range would also depend how high the Phalanx is elevated above sea level as well. Plus the firing arc. Shooting over the bow would or fantail would certainly increase the absolute minimum range of the weapon.

Im gonna guess typical minimum range is probably not more than 100 yards for most vessels, and probably a lot less for others. Each mount would be somewhat different, even with the same Block 1B weapon.

I got the opportunity to fire a 20mm Vulcan in a PIVADS AD track once(i had volunteered for a firepower display detail). Even at 1000rpm(that's the land fire rate, 3000rpm is the rate for air targets, whereas Phalanx is 4500rpm!), the Vulcan is one BAD motherfuccking weapons system. It will totally gut an armored personnel carrier with a 1 second burst. A 40 foot cigarette type boat would be blown to pieces with a mere 1/4 second burst(that's 19 rounds of 20mm, with each HE-I round having a 3 meter lethal radius).

Likewise, i would not want to charge at a ship that's packing 25mm deck guns either. Though nowhere near as effective as the 1B, the Bushmaster is still a pretty daggone good weapon.

If the USN was really serious about that mission, LCS would have a 30x173mm GAU-8/A GoalKeeper installed. You could literally shoot up a Kirov in a few seconds with one of those(if you were close enough, lol).

Galhran, i'm getting ready to run out the door now, i'll respond(best as i can) to your points later today.

One final point for now though....when the USN built the Burkes without any helos, i screamed that it was stoopid.

I was vindicated with the Flight IIA's.

When the Brits ordered Typhoon without any gun, i screamed it was stoopid.

I have now been vindicated as they've re-included it in the basic platform.

I said it was stoopid that the US army refused to deploy upgraded 113s to Iraq.

I've since been vindicated as they are now serving there in large numbers.

As i mentioned above, i always stated that it was stupid that Phalanx had no ASuW mode, and i have since been vindicated.

I may not always be right when i scream about things that are "Stoopid"(and i admit, i do it A LOT), but in hindsight, i really am right a lot of the time. If i wasn't, id have long ago stopped screaming to avoid looking like a dumb ass.

I may not be a diplomat, but i recognize a good weapons system when i see one.

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

If the USN was really serious about that mission, LCS would have a 30x173mm GAU-8/A GoalKeeper installed. You could literally shoot up a Kirov in a few seconds with one of those(if you were close enough, lol).

2 Mk 44s should be enough for the ASuW module, which is what is currently planned.

Additionally, the Navy has lined up an impressive series of USVs, from unmanned hydrofoils to 11 meter Protectors to 7 meter Spartans.

These platforms allow the Navy to transfer traditional roles for ships in the task force, from ISR inspection to sprint-drift, to unmanned vehicles without loss of capability.

For me, taking a task force level operation like a sprint-drift towed array PZ for ASW screening and unloading that duty to a couple USVs is a way the LCS concept makes sense to me.

If you put 2 LCS's with ASW module in the Kitty Hawk Group today, tasked the LCS for Task Force ASW screening, going off what we know of the KH CSG, you just freed up the USS John McCain and the USS Gary for other operations. That is not only cost effective, but you freed up 92 VLS cells on an AEGIS platform in just the USS John McCain, which is more cells than any 2 4000 ton ships in the world.

If you put your AAW frigate into that Task Force, you haven't contributed anything new to the battle network except more firepower, and with 16 or even 32 cells for 2 AAW frigates like you said, it still falls short of freeing up just the USS John McCain weapons load, which has 92 cells AND AEGIS.

That is an example of why the Naval Truck is the right concept, and your AAW frigate isn't. Hate the LCS as a specific platform all you want, but the Naval Truck concept behind the proposed platform is very much on target, and even the hard core LCS bashers would agree with that.

Originally Posted by Galrahn

2 Mk 44s should be enough for the ASuW module, which is what is currently planned.

Additionally, the Navy has lined up an impressive series of USVs, from unmanned hydrofoils to 11 meter Protectors to 7 meter Spartans.

These platforms allow the Navy to transfer traditional roles for ships in the task force, from ISR inspection to sprint-drift, to unmanned vehicles without loss of capability.

For me, taking a task force level operation like a sprint-drift towed array PZ for ASW screening and unloading that duty to a couple USVs is a way the LCS concept makes sense to me.

If you put 2 LCS's with ASW module in the Kitty Hawk Group today, tasked the LCS for Task Force ASW screening, going off what we know of the KH CSG, you just freed up the USS John McCain and the USS Gary for other operations. That is not only cost effective, but you freed up 92 VLS cells on an AEGIS platform in just the USS John McCain, which is more cells than any 2 4000 ton ships in the world.

If you put your AAW frigate into that Task Force, you haven't contributed anything new to the battle network except more firepower, and with 16 or even 32 cells for 2 AAW frigates like you said, it still falls short of freeing up just the USS John McCain weapons load, which has 92 cells AND AEGIS.

That is an example of why the Naval Truck is the right concept, and your AAW frigate isn't. Hate the LCS as a specific platform all you want, but the Naval Truck concept behind the proposed platform is very much on target, and even the hard core LCS bashers would agree with that.

All that is true, and i will not dispute LCS ASW capabilities(though any submariner will probably scoff at it, lol)....but the simple fact is that it simply does not need to do 40kts to do any of those things, and it would be better at everything it does with a VLS system. Doesnt have to be a big one. Even a simple 8 cell allows for good self-defense capability so that it DOESNT have to be escorted, and it truly CAN operate independently.

You can still have mission modules, and all your other high-tech gizmos, you simply get a ship about 10-20 feet longer, a few hundred tons of displ heaveir, with some VLS cells(really 8 is the minimum to be truly independent and all-mission capable) and an SPG-62 illuminator tied together with a SSDS.

Any way you cut it, that's a good thing, and including that instead of the 40kt speed would've been a wash wrt cost IMO.

As a longtime horsepower junkie, i can tell you, speed is EXTREMELY expensive. That 40kt top end sure cost a LOT of money to achieve....and again, to what end.

My point is, VLS does not make LCS anything but better. And a hell of a lot more survivable, and useful.

You could do all the things you want to do with it, AND all the traditional roles of independent missile armed escorts. And if you'd have specified 30kts top speed, it would've cost about the same amount of money.

You can talk til you're blue in the face, you will never convince me that the 40kt sprint speed is more useful or important than a the ability to aggressively defend yourself and confer the ability for independent ops.

It is my single largest problem with LCS- and IMO- it is the core reason why LCS has had to skimp on armament and sensors.

We are critically short on escorts. The simple installation of VLS would've greatly allieviated that issue.

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

My point is, VLS does not make LCS anything but better. And a hell of a lot more survivable, and useful.

VLS does do one thing you have completely ignored. It adds tremendously to the cost of the platform. Currently the LCS is the lowest cost per long ton ship the US Navy has built in awhile, by adding VLS and extending the hull you would raise the cost per ship anywhere from 100 - 180 million, depending upon how much the ship is extended. That is between 40% - 75% cost increase for the price of the LCS hull.

That isn't to say the LCS shouldn't look into VLS, but since keeping costs down is a priority of the LCS project, it is understandable why they would go without VLS and develop lower cost, less static solutions like NETFIRES.

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

We are critically short on escorts.

I absolutely disagree with this, and I don't know anyone except for a surface warfare commander who even remotely agrees with this.

The US Navy is critically short on logistics ships, L Class ships, Submarines, Naval helicopters, Marine helicopters, and Maritime Patrol aircraft. Please show evidence the surface fleet is short on escorts, because even the Navy couldn't come up with any evidence when attempting to say that exact thing in justification of the DD(X) to Congress.

While the Logistics, Amphibious Support Ships, and Submarines may not be as sexy as a cruiser or destroyer, the fact is in every single review of the US Navy 313-ship plan, the areas I listed are always cited as being critically short while the surface combatant fleet is specifically listed as well above requirement.

The requirements for aircraft carriers, amphibious ships, submarines, logistics ships, and aircraft continue to be reduced so that the Admirals at the top, all of whom happen to come from the surface fleet, can build more big expensive surface combatants. The average age of the current surface fleet is less than the average age of the submarine fleet, logistics fleet, naval helicopter fleet, marine helicopter fleet, and maritime patrol aircraft fleet even though the surface fleet has either the same or a greater life span per platform than those other respective platforms.

Your statement is absolutely false and I challange you to find any evidence that says otherwise. You have been fed spin if you believe that and should question whomever said it to back it up with facts. You'll find they can't.

Originally Posted by Galrahn

VLS does do one thing you have completely ignored. It adds tremendously to the cost of the platform.

Nope, i have specifcally addressed that point while simultaneously commenting on the huge increase in price that the 40kt sprint speed added to the LCS.

Originally Posted by Galrahn

Currently the LCS is the lowest cost per long ton ship the US Navy has built in awhile, by adding VLS and extending the hull you would raise the cost per ship anywhere from 100 - 180 million, depending upon how much the ship is extended. That is between 40% - 75% cost increase for the price of the LCS hull.

The costs would be about a wash if it had a more reasonable powerplant/top speed. It would also have much lower operating costs too.(LCS is going to be a total fuel pig if it's operated at the kind of speeds it can achieve regularly)

Originally Posted by Galrahn

That isn't to say the LCS shouldn't look into VLS, but since keeping costs down is a priority of the LCS project, it is understandable why they would go without VLS and develop lower cost, less static solutions like NETFIRES.

Netfires/PAM is at best a band-aid fix. The range is insufficient for ASuW or NGFS(if all the spin we've been feed about needed a huge standoff range to protect our assets from coastal defenses are true). The warhead is also very small. It is also not a very fast missile either.

In fact, i think they should've just saved whatever money they wasted on that module and instead worked on some sort of dual role AAW module instead.

Originally Posted by Galrahn

I absolutely disagree with this, and I don't know anyone except for a surface warfare commander who even remotely agrees with this.

Rick has said so many times. Our commitments have not decreased, yet the size of the fleet has shrunk, and shrunk, and shrunk.

It's perfectly plausible to me.

Originally Posted by Galrahn

The US Navy is critically short on logistics ships, L Class ships, Submarines, Naval helicopters, Marine helicopters, and Maritime Patrol aircraft.

Fixed wing carrier planes too.

Originally Posted by Galrahn

Please show evidence the surface fleet is short on escorts, because even the Navy couldn't come up with any evidence when attempting to say that exact thing in justification of the DD(X) to Congress.

Rick has posted on the subject here in the past many times. I would reccomend an archive search.

Originally Posted by Galrahn

While the Logistics, Amphibious Support Ships, and Submarines may not be as sexy as a cruiser or destroyer, the fact is in every single review of the US Navy 313-ship plan, the areas I listed are always cited as being critically short while the surface combatant fleet is specifically listed as well above requirement.

You do realize that such 'requirements' are often no more than political machinations, right?

Originally Posted by Galrahn

The requirements for aircraft carriers, amphibious ships, submarines, logistics ships, and aircraft continue to be reduced so that the Admirals at the top, all of whom happen to come from the surface fleet, can build more big expensive surface combatants. The average age of the current surface fleet is less than the average age of the submarine fleet, logistics fleet, naval helicopter fleet, marine helicopter fleet, and maritime patrol aircraft fleet even though the surface fleet has either the same or a greater life span per platform than those other respective platforms.

I wont disagree with any of that except the part where you opine we have more escorts than needed.

Rick has broken down how many classes have been retired post cold war with NO REPLACEMENT, and posted in great detail the dwindling numbers of escort ships since 1990. Entire classes have simply disappeared with no replacement.

Originally Posted by Galrahn

Your statement is absolutely false and I challange you to find any evidence that says otherwise. You have been fed spin if you believe that and should question whomever said it to back it up with facts. You'll find they can't.

Well, if it's spin, it was fed to me by Rick.

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

Nope, i have specifcally addressed that point while simultaneously commenting on the huge increase in price that the 40kt sprint speed added to the LCS.

The costs would be about a wash if it had a more reasonable powerplant/top speed. It would also have much lower operating costs too.(LCS is going to be a total fuel pig if it's operated at the kind of speeds it can achieve regularly)

Can you provide a source for that? The hull cost is up 44 million from 198 million to 240 million to date, and none of those cost increases were related to the engines.

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

Rick has broken down how many classes have been retired post cold war with NO REPLACEMENT, and posted in great detail the dwindling numbers of escort ships since 1990. Entire classes have simply disappeared with no replacement.

I think you are taking Rick out of context though. I'll let him speak to his position, but my past discussions with Rick and by doing the search you recommended of WAB, I'd point out that Rick has been an advocate of the high/low mix for surface combatants, with the CG and DDG warships as the high mix and LCS as the low.

Originally Posted by Galrahn

Can you provide a source for that? The hull cost is up 44 million from 198 million to 240 million to date, and none of those cost increases were related to the engines.

It is the very installation of such powerful engines and the required additional engineering of an ultra-lowdrag hull to meet such speeds that has inflated the price to begin with.

Unless one is under the delusion that engines all cost the same regardless of power output, and that you dont need to specifically engineer a hull to reduce drag, thereby enabling 40kt speeds. Ask any engineer just how much cost the quest for speed increases any project. Or even simpler, go buy a car(or boat) and hot-rod it. It's not just adding horsepower either. You have to strenghten EVERYTHING else to hold together at the increased speeds and stress levels that 40kt operations demand.

Horsepower, and the quest for increased horsepower and performance, are extremely expensive endeavours.

The same exact ship with a 30kt powerplant would be much cheaper. If you want me to guess how much cheaper, i'll guess about 20-30%.

Originally Posted by Galrahn

I think you are taking Rick out of context though. I'll let him speak to his position

Im fine with that. Rick can speak his own mind, but its he who has in the past stated time and again that we have a dearth of escorts....and on this very board. Rick also used to be the mod of the naval section on my board, and i've been reading his posts at HPCA and at the old Warships1 for over 5 years now.

Originally Posted by Galrahn

but my past discussions with Rick and by doing the search you recommended of WAB, I'd point out that Rick has been an advocate of the high/low mix for surface combatants, with the CG and DDG warships as the high mix and LCS as the low.

That paradigm is fine as long as we end up with an LCS that makes sense, which, IMO, and in the opinion of LOTS of sailors, we did not. They sacrificed hugely in the capabilities department to pay for that 40kt top speed. A capability which, quite frankly, is totally un-needed.

There is no need whatever for a 40kt minesweeper/layer/escort, or we'd have built them before- as would other nations. Feel free to point out the other 40kt 4000ton warships that are cruising the worlds oceans today...past or present. Even if there were some obscure need for 40kt operations, it certainly would NOT outweigh the desirability, versaitility, or usefulness of a basic VLS system. It's not like i said "It should have Aegis", which would massively increase cost. I simply said it should have a 30kt top speed, an 8 cell VLS system, and 1(or 2) SPG-62s tied together with the USN SSDS. In fact, given the choice between the gun and an 8 cell VLS, i'd have opted for the 8 cell. Speaking of the gun, what sort of FCR does that use? Bet it cost just as much as an SPG-62 does, and why couldnt they simply use the same type of illuminator as on the perry(Mk92 Fire Control System), which serves as both a FCR for the gun and the onboard SAMs?

Oh well, i bet it's GREAT for water-skiing off of...