Littoral Combat Ships

[BenRoethig]

OHPs weren't designed as carrier escorts. They were designed to protect merchant ships. They were pressed into being carrier escorts when the sprucans were canned.

[jlvfr]

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)..

Who said anthing about protecting carriers? The LCS isn't going to do that, is it? That's the job for DDG-51 & Co. Light frigates are not built for this, in any navy. They do patrol, scout, general protecion, anti-piracy, convoy escort... etc. No need for a cruiser for this...

[Juramentado]

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)..

And where are you drawing those conclusions? As I stated earlier, NO ONE in USN Leadership has acknowledged which approach to take - The Tipping Point report from CNA pretty much defines the five approaches the service can take for future Maritime Strategy. So again, how can you draw conclusions about Force Structure (which ships are appropriate) when the Intentions and Plans haven't even been agreed upon?

[dundonrl]

And where are you drawing those conclusions? As I stated earlier, NO ONE in USN Leadership has acknowledged which approach to take - The Tipping Point report from CNA pretty much defines the five approaches the service can take for future Maritime Strategy. So again, how can you draw conclusions about Force Structure (which ships are appropriate) when the Intentions and Plans haven't even been agreed upon?

Oh, I don't know.. it might be 19 years of service in that Navy, and being stationed onboard the ships in question (with the exception of the new LCS) and intimately knowing what they can and can't do..

[Juramentado]

Oh, I don't know.. it might be 19 years of service in that Navy, and being stationed onboard the ships in question (with the exception of the new LCS) and intimately knowing what they can and can't do..

That's nice. I know a lot of blackshoes, and brownshoes as well, some retired, some hoping to retire. I don't hold it against any of them. Some of them are buddies and fellow poker players. But snipes I get along with okay. Something they all have in common - they don't make generalized comments about strategy and capability - certainly not without backing it up with something substantial.

You claim that the future holds high operational tempos - where? How? Forward deployed? Down in South America fighting an enhanced CIT? Playing chicken with the Chinese near the Straits of Malacca? Be-bopping with Al-Shabaab in the Somali basin? You can't expect to make sweeping statements like that and not ante up. Show us your proofs as they say at NPS. Spidey sense? An advance copy of the Navy Times? What? Going on a gut feeling isn't enough. Maybe it is for you, but inquiring minds want a bit more than that. So come on then!

[Dreadnought]

Purpose of the LCS as stated by the Defense Industry in reply inquiry:

Ultimately, the US Navy is trying to replace 30 FFG-7 Oliver Hazard Perry Class frigates, 14 MCM Avenger Class mine countermeasures vessels, and 12 MHC-51 Osprey Class coastal mine hunters (TL = 56), with about 55 Littoral Combat Ships.

Now lets look at the individual classes it is planned to replace. (This is not from the Defense Industry) These are my numbers.

*OPH class Frigate: 3,605 tons disp. 445' length. Speed 29 knots. Crew 13/206 (including air detachment)
*MCM Avenger class Mine Countermeasure ships: (MCM11 Gladiator in this case) 1,367 tons disp. 224' length. Speed 13.5 knots, Crew 82.
*MHC-51 Osprey Class Coastal Mine hunters: 895 tons disp. 188' length. Speed 10 knots. Crew 53.

So far that is three different classes of ship, from the numbers we are looking at.

56 ships at different displacement, crew and speeds and capability.

OHP FFG class = 6,180 crew (206 crew x 30 ships)
MCM Avenger class = 1,148 crew (82 crew x 14 ships)
MHC Osprey class = 636 crew (53 crew x 12 ships)

Total = 7,964 crew between the three classes listed above.

LCS 2 Independence (First generation)

LCS-2 (Independence in this case) 2,874 tons disp. 418’ Length. Speed 47-50 knots. Crew 26

Total = 1,430 crew between 55 hulls.

Reduction in crew numbers by 6,534. A substancial savings in all catagories if we consider those numbers are just slightly over your modern CVN crew and airwing total for one CVN crew + airwing. The cost savings in training alone is a major savings not to mention other savings in condensing all of these different sytems and age of those systems down into one modern system. A major cost savings as well even if we dont count housing, medical, pension and other allowments for the crews.

The powerplants, although not as much range as the FFG @ 4500nm the LCS has 4300 nm @ 20 knots. Almost the same range as the FFG at economical steaming although the FFG cannot sprint as fast as the LCS either nor approach its top speed. Range from the Mining ships cannot even approach the LCS in performance in either catagory. Fuel savings as well as maintenance savings on the powerplants is another cost savings factor.

Weapons, Since the LCS was designed on a modular operation basis as opposed to the other ships, this would further reduce space aboard your replentishment ships that would have to meet and resupply if at sea and still carry a standard fit out of most of the weapons deployed aboard the three classes of ships listed above with some exceptions and in some cases more flexibility then all three. The idea alone that LCS can carry out the intended missions listed below further augment the desire to invest in a successfull program once all the bugs are worked out and a final price decided upon. Keep in mind as well, no doubt they have been designed with future upgrades to weapons etc in mind.

*Anti Terrorism/Force protection
*Homeland Defense
*Surface Warfare
*Maritime Inderdiction/Interception
*Mine warfare
*Special Operations
*Intelligence/Surveilance/Reconnaissance

Next we can discuss what and where they could be used for. Just by looking at the capabilities I can think of atlest three major powers outside the US that could use those capabilities right now.

[dundonrl]

Ships and Submarines
Deployable Battle Force Ships: 288

Ships Underway (away from homeport): 160 ships (56 % of total)

On deployment: 114 ships (40% of total)

Attack submarines underway (away from homeport): 29 subs (53%)

On deployment: 20 subs (37%)
Ships Underway

Carriers:
USS Enterprise (CVN 65) - Atlantic Ocean
USS Nimitz (CVN 68) - Pacific Ocean
USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) - 5th Fleet
USS George Washington (CVN 73) - East China Sea
USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75) - 5th Fleet
USS Ronald Reagan (CVN76) - Pacific Ocean
USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77) - Atlantic Ocean

Amphibious Warfare Ships:
USS Nassau (LHA 4) - Atlantic Ocean
USS Peleliu (LHA 5) - 5th Fleet
USS Essex (LHD 2) - South China Sea
USS Kearsarge (LHD 3) - 5th Fleet
USS Iwo Jima (LHD 7) - port visit Georgetown

Aircraft (operational): 3700+


you don't call 40% of your fleet deployed not a "high optempo" and in the future with China, India, Russia etc building up bigger Navys and wanting to play more.. what do you think is going to happen?

[jlvfr]

The only source I have on the LCS modules is this:
LCS
so I'll admit I may be missing something but...

Even with the combat module, the LCS will have only a point-blank SAM and short range SSMs. It's escort value is, therefore, limited, specially in open seas. So, I really don't see how it can replace an FFG (not the defanged Perrys, but any other FFG around) on light escort duties, vs aircraft/ships. And if you're thinking about hunting ships with heli-mounted SSMs, I point out:
- since the Penguins are being decomissioned, the Seahawks can only carry Hellfires... wanna attack a defended ship with that?
- the RN, who has probably the most experience in killing ships with choppers (all hail the mighty Sea Skua), continues to put Harpoons in their frigates. Same thing with everyone who uses SSM-carrying helis.

As for ASW: I won't comment on the range for open-ocean operations (no experience), but with 2 helis and a towed array, it looks well equiped (btw, I only see torps on the LCS-3; I assume the rest would carry them?...). So, I guess if someone else is doing AAW/AsuW duties is around (ie, a DDG-51), the LCS can go sub hunting...

No coment on anti-mining, don't know anything about that... but a 400+ milion ship to do this?...

As for the rest:
Maritime Intercept Operations
Homeland Defense (HLD)
Antiterrorism/Force Protection (AT/FP)

Isn't the Coast Guard doing this? And aren't screaming for money to get new ships as well?

[LGB]

LCS Rationale

The entire rationale for LCS was problematic even before it became far too expensive for words. It only does anti surface when that module is aboard, the missiles may never work (the US Army killed the program), the missiles are too expensive, the missiles are out ranged by every other dedicated ship killer.

The GAO report states the ASW module does not add significantly to the asw capabilities which are close to none.

The ship replaces an FFG with significant asw capability and ability to escort task forces and convoys with a ship that can do none of this nor can it do anti air picket.

A 3,400 ton 60 mph heli carrying mine hunter is beyond ridiculous in concept. It's so cost ineffective it's stunning. Mine warfare is a slow deliberate process. One has to hunt for pressure mines. They can't be swept. Hunting for them with a ship large enough to set them enough when one doesn't have to is irrational.

LCS originally grew out of Streetfighter and was then a 500 ton ship.

A 60 mph ship can be useful for some things. It's a bit odd however to then have this same ship speed around two helicopters. If speed is that desired the fly guys are faster. A class of 50+ such ships is beyond silly.

A shallow hull frigate that goes 60 mph and go operate up river would be very useful for naval gunfire support so of course LCS gets a 57mm.

The small crew is of course much too small by all reports so how many are really required is not known nor is it ever mentioned how many extra modules and crew will be sitting around training without the ship.

The USN in fact did need a new frigate as not every mission needs to be filled by a Aegis DDG. It requires new mine warfare ships. So in order to fill the brown water requirement inspired by streetfighter we get a frigate sized fast patrol boat that can't do asw or anti air, is non cost effective and dangerous in the mine warfare role, can not escort itself much less another ship outside the tiny spectrum of small boat warfare where it still doesn't have it's small boat optimized missile system and can't even do that.

Small cheap mine warfare ships have been forward deployed for a long time. The main threat to the USN since WWII has been the mine threat. Since then the USN has had 14 ships attacked of which 11 were damaged by mines. The mine warfare community needs it's own ships not part time modules.

[jlvfr]

Quick question on mine-hunting: aren't mine hunter hulls made of non-metalic materials, because of the threat of magnetic mines? If so... what's the LCS made of?...

[LGB]

Quick question on mine-hunting: aren't mine hunter hulls made of non-metalic materials, because of the threat of magnetic mines? If so... what's the LCS made of?...

Yes and they are also shock resistant. LCS has a big metal hull that I do not believe is shock resistant.

[Dreadnought]

New tech guys, Yes the old ones were combination fiberglass etc. They've come along way in making ships less mine attractive since then.

[Dreadnought]

IMO, The LCS would be a tool thats employed where and when they want it. Its not intended to sail with the carriers from what I can see, nor be an AA platform. Although the 57 mm Bofors may be capable of that along with RAM. Its intended to patrol in shallow waters and offshore, search out diesel subs operating in shallows and provide a minmal gun support to forces at land, interdiction,recon and special ops. Pretty sure that terrorists wont find it amusing either in certain parts of the world. Im sure it has to have a blue water capability to even be considered for a replacement to the above ships and the trials she went on. FFG's and maybe even perhaps the others within Littorial waters would never even make into the shallows like the LCS would and still be able to perform all of those ships missions.

All they would have to do it modify it for its intended mission and as mentioned in some of these articles some will be fitted for certain duties and some will have mods to perform other jobs. So this probably means they might be intended for more then one on patrol at a time pending what they are doing. The ships not exactly all that unarmed either. It carries enough to protect itself with room for upgrade and they are modules so its only limited to what you can plug into a warship and upgrade and transport. Crews will probably vary in numbers as in their missions.

I dont know what its final price tag would be but when you look at the ships in theory it will replace, their support systems, manning reductions and future upgrade possibilities and some of the lateset tech it appears expensive but its also constant evolving tech involved. There are in reality only two so far built. Both different designs.

Worlds changing, Countries Navy's are changing. USN has to change too.

[LGB]

It's a patrol boat that carries helicopters. It has almost no asw capablity- the GAO report is devasting in this regard. It doesn't have an anti ship or anti boat missle system so it doesn't really do surface warfare. It doesn't do naval gunfire suppport. It's hideously over priced and it's not going to survive.

It's really not a problem to design a general purpose frigate, patrol boat, or mine hunter. It is a problem designing all three into the same hull and mandating it goes 60 mph, has a shallow draft able to go up river, and carries helicopters. It's in fact ridiculous and non cost effective.

The surface warfare module has no missiles, the asw module doesn't actually contribute to the mission, and a ship this size and speed doing mine warfare is a criminal waste of resources. The modules are all expensive and require extra crew training away from the ship. The whole module rationale is not working out either and contributes to program termination.

[Dreadnought]

Navy tech seems to have another view of the LCS possibilities.

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

Defense Update Mag seems to hold an open opinion of the LCS. Even the Israei's expressed an interest in 4 of them.

http://defense-update.com/features/2...ust08/lcs.html

We also might note that the Saudi's have expressed an interest as well.

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,83505,00.html

Last update as of Sept 17. 2010.

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_di...&tid=1650&ct=4