Littoral Combat Ships

[jlvfr]

Then it's of very little use to the USN. Remember, USN is a global force. All the combatants need to have good endurance and seakeeping ability. A small boat with limited range and endurance is nearly worthless to the USN. In fact, a small boat with little endurnace hinders the main fleet. They have to be replenished more often. Vessels are unavailable for combat during replenishment.

I know this, but...

Look, first of all: why 2 large helis for what is pretty much a large patrol boat? You're trying to cram too much into such a small, multi-purpose, hull.
Why not make a smaller boat, (with just 1 heli) then base them in allied waters, or build a support ship for an LCS squadron? Build the ship to comercial standards (like the HMS Ocean, only smaller). This ship could also support other USN ships, maybe even serve as local command ship.

[Dreadnought]

I know this, but...

Look, first of all: why 2 large helis for what is pretty much a large patrol boat? You're trying to cram too much into such a small, multi-purpose, hull.
Why not make a smaller boat, (with just 1 heli) then base them in allied waters, or build a support ship for an LCS squadron? Build the ship to comercial standards (like the HMS Ocean, only smaller). This ship could also support other USN ships, maybe even serve as local command ship.

From the USN pages:

Core capabilities of the littoral combat ship
A full load displacement draft of 10ft allows the ships to access very shallow waters. The ships will have a top speed of about 50kt and the range at sprint speed is 1,500nm. At an economical speed of 20kt, the range is 4,300nm.

"Mission packages will be: mine warfare (MIW), anti-submarine warfare (ASW) and anti-surface warfare (SUW)."The ships are configured with a helicopter deck and hangar. The deck is capable of the launch and recovery of the MH-60R/S helicopter and a tactical unmanned air vehicle. The ships can carry out aircraft launch and recovery in conditions up to sea state 5, i.e. in winds up to 27kt and average wave heights between 6.4ft and 9.6ft. The ships will be capable of launching and recovering watercraft, for example 40ft high-speed boats, within 15 minutes in conditions of sea state 4, i.e. waves up to 5ft and winds up to 21kt.

Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) High-Speed Surface Ship - Naval Technology


As you can see the two huge helo capabilities are only to see if she can handle it. Many ships have carried or landed large helo's including the BB's which have landed every type in the inventory outside the Cobra and Apache although no doubt they could have landed them in any case. If they dont test them for this then they wouldnt know how well they will fit into the fleet and its operations. The BB's only carried one small Sea Sprite and that was only on occassion when attached. From what LCS specs state only one MH60R/S and a UAH for recon purposes. This loadout is only one slight step above many of the DDG's. Some carry one helo, some are designed for two helo capacity. Its all determined by the mission at hand and the ships operational design. You have to have atleast one helo, not only for sub warfare but also delivery and medical evacuation among other features.

[gunnut]

I know this, but...

Look, first of all: why 2 large helis for what is pretty much a large patrol boat? You're trying to cram too much into such a small, multi-purpose, hull.
Why not make a smaller boat, (with just 1 heli) then base them in allied waters, or build a support ship for an LCS squadron? Build the ship to comercial standards (like the HMS Ocean, only smaller). This ship could also support other USN ships, maybe even serve as local command ship.

Basing ships in allied waters is nice, but then we have to rely on others to provide this support.

A tender has been tried in WW2. We had PT tenders and DD tenders for the Pacific theater. The problem is you're tying down multiple vessles to a single tender, restricting their mobility. If you only need to deploy 1 or 2 LCS, the logistics will be nearly the same as 5 or 6 due to the attached tender. You will either have to build a lot of tenders (wiping out the savings) or deploy more ships than necessary (wiping out the savings).

[jlvfr]

Well...

Still think the USN would be better served by a general purpose light frigate. It would be a lot cheaper to build and operate, and would cover most duties. Last year, one of our MEKO frigates spent 4 months in anti-piracy patrols of Somalia. The ship carried a heli, small assault boats for the marines... even served as command ship for a while. And it's a 3200 ton hull, with a 4000 mile-range...
This kind of ship would be able to perform almost all duties except AAA and cruise missile launch (which the LCS can't do either?).

[Dreadnought]

Well...

Still think the USN would be better served by a general purpose light frigate. It would be a lot cheaper to build and operate, and would cover most duties. Last year, one of our MEKO frigates spent 4 months in anti-piracy patrols of Somalia. The ship carried a heli, small assault boats for the marines... even served as command ship for a while. And it's a 3200 ton hull, with a 4000 mile-range...
This kind of ship would be able to perform almost all duties except AAA and cruise missile launch (which the LCS can't do either?).

*Only enough to protect herself. RAM missles, NULKA launchers and SRBOC systems and 57 mm Mk3 Bofors cannon. The hull weight and range are more then comparible with any fast frigate of any make and as mentioned this final armament is subject to change as the USN see fit. Although no fast FFG is going to do the speeds nor manuver like the LCS can.

[jlvfr]

Ok, let's put it this way, then, considering the cash-strapped world we live in.
How many LCS do you think the USN is going to aford? Compare the cost (financial and political) with those of a light frigate. I realise you'd loose some capabilities, but I very much doubt the USN is going to get the number of hulls it wanted. So, trade some capabilities (start with speed, use a smaller helipad/hangar) for more hulls.

[Dreadnought]

Ok, let's put it this way, then, considering the cash-strapped world we live in.
How many LCS do you think the USN is going to aford? Compare the cost (financial and political) with those of a light frigate. I realise you'd loose some capabilities, but I very much doubt the USN is going to get the number of hulls it wanted. So, trade some capabilities (start with speed, use a smaller helipad/hangar) for more hulls.

Definately agreed, IMO, they probably wont end up with the full amount of hulls. Politics and budgets change, Obama is now at mid term elections. If they go through with LCS I would think you would see atleast half the hulls and politics and budgets will dictate the rest. Same as the F-22 program and a few others.

[gunnut]

Well...

Still think the USN would be better served by a general purpose light frigate. It would be a lot cheaper to build and operate, and would cover most duties. Last year, one of our MEKO frigates spent 4 months in anti-piracy patrols of Somalia. The ship carried a heli, small assault boats for the marines... even served as command ship for a while. And it's a 3200 ton hull, with a 4000 mile-range...
This kind of ship would be able to perform almost all duties except AAA and cruise missile launch (which the LCS can't do either?).

I agree, there should be a smaller combatant to complement the AB destroyers. But first we need to define the mission parameter. We can't just buy a bunch of frigates in 4000t class and run them along side the destroyers. What do they bring to the table?

[Juramentado]

I agree, there should be a smaller combatant to complement the AB destroyers. But first we need to define the mission parameter. We can't just buy a bunch of frigates in 4000t class and run them along side the destroyers. What do they bring to the table?

Here's the deal. The immediate fate of LCS in the fleet is directly tied to POM 12. ADM Mullen himself finally stated it - any program that can't rein in costs and be kept under control will be slashed. LCS was clearly part of that statement. The question becomes then, what is the restructuring going to look like? We're too far off SC-21 and even now NOC 2010, as doctrinal and planning guidance, to form a reasonable conjecture. The Tipping Point Report is very enlightening, but until Navy leadership actually gets behind one of the stated approaches in the document, it's still anyone's guess.

What we do know is that the Navy needs a low-end combatant. The Cyclones are finally out (again!), this time to structural failures. Yes, there is a need to fill the gap between essentially riverine assault craft and the Burkes. But before we can talk force structure, we need to talk capabilities. Before we can talk capabilities, we need to talk intentions. Back to the Tipping Point. Which one of those models is our stated model? If we're forward deployed, as we are today, then that defines a set of capabilities. If we're all pulled back home, a different set is envisioned.

Mixed in with all of this is the disruptive technologies of remote systems. As the GAO report painfully identified, remote ain't what it's all cracked up to be. ASW Terminator style is still a fictional future - a ship with a tail, stand-off weapons and a dipping sonar helo are still king of the hill. FireScout has an interesting future, if we can prevent it from flying off to do it's own thing every so often - and that would be good to get a handle on, before we decide to arm the darn thing. MCM is about the only Mission Package that was complete and working, but the problem is that it requires a Romeo-class Seahawk. The Romeos are all prioritized for the Carriers and the Strike Detachments on the CGs and DDGs, so there's very little stretch in that acquisition pipeline.

Some immediate lessons from LCS' evolution to date: we *seriously* need to re-think the attitude that small-end combatants will enjoy the AAW coverage from a Burke or a carrier deck. The missions of tomorrow, assuming we're one hub or forward deployed, will call for more independent steaming, not less. Helos are absolutely required and valuable. So are smaller ships - there's so much TTP versatility in being able to deploy raider craft or something maybe a bit larger like a CB-90. So it's a mothership, but one with enough teeth to protect itself in a multi-dimensional threat environment.

To go beyond that at this point is guesswork and "If I was King for a Day."

[jlvfr]

I agree, there should be a smaller combatant to complement the AB destroyers. But first we need to define the mission parameter. We can't just buy a bunch of frigates in 4000t class and run them along side the destroyers. What do they bring to the table?

Look at it the other way: do you always need a 9k ton monster, carrying 80+ missiles? What are all those missiles for? Most missions don't need cruise missiles, long range SAMs, etc. That's where a frigate comes. Look at the RN's Type 23, german F123 or the french La Fayette class, or even an older Meko (damn, I love my navy ;) . All are quite capable of undertaking patrol, escort and light protection duties. They are capable of standing up on their own against many threats, with SSMs, short range SAMs and guns for the rest, and an heli and torps for subs. And they still have room to cary a few marines and an assault boat for them. No need for a 400 million ship for this...

(btw, I wonder if some in the USN aren't regreting the fact that there's no light heli in the navy... sure would make these ships smaller...)

[gunnut]

If I were king for a day...

LCS-3 design wins! Downgrade the speed to 35 knots max. The savings in machinary space will go toward endurance. Half the procurement numbers will be dedicated ASW platforms. The other half will be "flexible" design more suited for general purpose use.

[Dreadnought]

Here's the deal. The immediate fate of LCS in the fleet is directly tied to POM 12. ADM Mullen himself finally stated it - any program that can't rein in costs and be kept under control will be slashed. LCS was clearly part of that statement. The question becomes then, what is the restructuring going to look like? We're too far off SC-21 and even now NOC 2010, as doctrinal and planning guidance, to form a reasonable conjecture. The Tipping Point Report is very enlightening, but until Navy leadership actually gets behind one of the stated approaches in the document, it's still anyone's guess.

*IMO, LCS is still in its learning stages, which ultimately means expensive. They are completely new ships with new operational concepts and parameters which means they will be expensive just like any other project they undertake as new. Its pretty tough to estimate the cost and operations of a ship that hasnt been on a war footing or in theatre as of yet from a desk point of view. They havent even passed a majority of tests as of yet. This is more bark then it is bite IMO, Look how many years it took to field the Osprey, how expensive was that? How many deaths were caused and look at her now serving in Iraq etc. The F22 is another, the Stealth was another. All a part of the learning phase and expensive. The Admiral has a budget to go by so these words are nothing new, he wants to keep it tight, I dont see this as a definate kill to the LCS project but I do see it as the Admiral giving a warning to keep focus on the project.

[USSWisconsin]

I remember an account of a late 19th century French admiral defending a battleship design, stating a warship may see combat for a brief period in its life, but most of her service will be outside of battle, and the cost, sustainability and efficiency of the ship will be most noticed in her peacetime service. The ability to have the ship ready for battle when needed relies on the ships ability to survive budget cuts in peacetime. IMO the American public has always complained about the seemingly unnecessary expense (from their perspective) of programs with parallel development of two options, though the outcome has often been very good in the long run. I see the small crew and reduced size of the LCS as a potential savings in the long run, I hope the LCS gets past this awkward stage and has the opportunity to demonstrate the benefits of the concept.

[Dreadnought]

I remember an account of a late 19th century French admiral defending a battleship design, stating a warship may see combat for a brief period in its life, but most of her service will be outside of battle, and the cost, sustainability and efficiency of the ship will be most noticed in her peacetime service. The ability to have the ship ready for battle when needed relies on the ships ability to survive budget cuts in peacetime. IMO the American public has always complained about the seemingly unnecessary expense (from their perspective) of programs with parallel development of two options, though the outcome has often been very good in the long run. I see the small crew and reduced size of the LCS as a potential savings in the long run, I hope the LCS gets past this awkward stage and has the opportunity to demonstrate the benefits of the concept.

It took an awful long time for the Osprey, much criticisms, crashes and deaths and yet she pulled through and into active service.

[dundonrl]

Look at it the other way: do you always need a 9k ton monster, carrying 80+ missiles? What are all those missiles for? Most missions don't need cruise missiles, long range SAMs, etc.
(btw, I wonder if some in the USN aren't regreting the fact that there's no light heli in the navy... sure would make these ships smaller...)

Well, you also have to look at the missions that the US Navy is preparing for.. a VERY heavy, high endurance combatant mission, where your protecting 10,000,000,000.00 dollars worth aircraft and the ship they are on (that's just one aircraft carrier) not counting the 6000 Sailors that are on it..

We have ships like what you said, Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates, and they just didn't get the job done (carrier escorts)..