Littoral Combat Ships

[jlvfr]

*The UK did agree. Politics took its coarse and the British decided not to go through with it during the 1967 war. Some say Arab politics played large in the outcome. Myself, Im not sure.

yeah... talk about wasted oportunities...

Many countries wont ever be able to produce true Blue water Navy's so whatever is to happen will happen in the Littorials and thats why they percieve the need for such a ship.

Yes, but I sometimes get the feeling that US shipyards have lost the knack (or, at least, the willingnes) of building smaller warships. Either that, or they simply don't even try to get into other markets. They became used to supplying big, heavy, expensive ships to the USN, and simply can't compete with others when it comes to selling smaller ships... they even lost to Spain in supplying AAW ships to Australia...

IMHO, it's the US taxpayer that pays for this...

[Dreadnought]

Not meaning going from but choosing diesel subs from the go, many nations have them now and very few have nuclear subs. The diesel subs in many cases are limited and not designed for deep blue water ops. Alot of money however, would be required to maintain a nuclear submarine program and its support. The diesels IMO, would stick to shallower waters, perfect for hiding and conducting ops. FFG's wont do well in shallows and therefore the USN has need for a shallow draft that can manuver quickly and conduct ops against a potential aggressor.

When you look at some of these countries and the fact that a few major countries (France, Russia, China, Germany etc) find this as a vital source of income as in selling diesel subs to countries like Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, India, Libya, Egypt etc including SE Asia then the USN will more then like entertain the idea that they may have to face these boats one day and prepare for it.

As mentioned in prior posts, the worlds navies are changing, some reducing boats, some increasing boats. Some countries getting boats that never had them. The USN has too change along with them.

[gunnut]

Ok, this I didn't know. But, again, we have a very diferent kind of ships from the original LCS: use the hull, set up a combat-oriented ship. No mission modularity...


Yes, but my point was: if the UK had agreed to a version of the Chieftain for Israel, as originally intended, there probably wouldn't have existed a Merkava...

Apart from the Perrys (50+ ships yes, but only one class) what other frigates/escorts has the US built since the 1960s? Apart from israeli Saar 5?

Knox(46), Brooke(6), Garcia (11), and Bronstein(2). These don't even include the Claude Jone(4), and Dealey(13) built after WW2 but were essentially WW2 DE boats.

[gunnut]

Yes, but I sometimes get the feeling that US shipyards have lost the knack (or, at least, the willingnes) of building smaller warships. Either that, or they simply don't even try to get into other markets. They became used to supplying big, heavy, expensive ships to the USN, and simply can't compete with others when it comes to selling smaller ships... they even lost to Spain in supplying AAW ships to Australia...

IMHO, it's the US taxpayer that pays for this...

Somewhat agree. However, Sa'ar 5 is an American design. I think Northrop Grumman also has various designs of 3000t to 4000t conventional frigates ready to go. Plus, remember, the Coast Guard cutters are all American built and are small warships.

[USSWisconsin]

I'm not aware of any country that has gone from nuke subs to conventional-only programs or planned outfits. And not going the nuclear way is not always a question of money either, most countries simply don't perceive any need for a nuclear submarine.

I think this makes sense, when a country doesn't beleive it requires the range and endurance of nuclear propulsion in its submarines and can't really afford it, then burdening its economy to build or buy them would most like result in a dangerous unmaintained rotting hulk that could neither be deployed nor easily scrapped. If they find that they can't afford to operate their diesel boats, it is much easier to sell or scrap them.

[LGB]

Just to be clear it was widely reported over a year ago that Israel rejected LCS on cost grounds and was looking at a Meko 100/140. It was reported in Jane's and various other sources.

[dundonrl]

I'm not aware of any country that has gone from nuke subs to conventional-only programs or planned outfits. And not going the nuclear way is not always a question of money either, most countries simply don't perceive any need for a nuclear submarine.

well.. most countries that have diesel boats don't do more than short range, litoral warfare that's defensive in nature either.. also, just a few seconds after that diesel boat fires it's torpedo's at a modern nuclear boat, it's most likely going to be destroyed since it doesn't have the legs to outrun/evade a nuke boat.. even if it fires a cruise missile at a modern battle group, there's a good chance it will also be destroyed, where a nuke boat could get away..

[LGB]

well.. most countries that have diesel boats don't do more than short range, litoral warfare that's defensive in nature either.. also, just a few seconds after that diesel boat fires it's torpedo's at a modern nuclear boat, it's most likely going to be destroyed since it doesn't have the legs to outrun/evade a nuke boat.. even if it fires a cruise missile at a modern battle group, there's a good chance it will also be destroyed, where a nuke boat could get away..

There are many nations with large and effective diesel subs. Japan and Australia come to mind. A diesel has advantages in quieting and an SSN's absoute speed is something to be used based on conditions. Sprinting away at 20 knots can very well be a better compromise than 30. Diesel subs often do extremely well in realistic exercises.

Japan is expanding it's force to 24 and Australia has talked about going to 12 (various issues). These boats should not be underestimated nor assumed they can't survive against effective asw. There's the rub of course. How effective are their potential foes at asw? For all the focus upon specific asw platforms it's still a numbers game where few nations have enough ships, aircraft, and other sensor platforms to perform at the level required for really effective asw.

[Dreadnought]

IMO, The last to be made an example of poor ASW practices would have been the Argies during the Faulklands. They could have lost more then just the Belgrano. They should have done their homework more thoroughly before invading. They didnt and they paid for it dearly.

The attack on the Belgrano, where it happened and why it happened at that particular time proved the limitations of large submarines in shallow waters. HMS Conqueror had to get her before she reached the shallows, there she could have provided fire support to the Argie forces. The Brits knew this and thats why they slammed torps into her side and bow when the did. Before she reached the shelf and the shallows, were the Brits couldnt operate with a large sub.

This would be one example of why you need ASW capabilitly even in the shallows. Because Diesels can operate close to shore and the shallows where your larger boats cannot.

[jlvfr]

IMO, The last to be made an example of poor ASW practices would have been the Argies during the Faulklands. They could have lost more then just the Belgrano. They should have done their homework more thoroughly before invading. They didnt and they paid for it dearly.

The argentines had not given much thought for what would happen after the invasion. Remember, we're talking military dictatorship trying to keep it's people on it's side.

When the UK actually intervened they freaked out and did everything wrong and rushed...

[Dreadnought]

The argentines had not given much thought for what would happen after the invasion. Remember, we're talking military dictatorship trying to keep it's people on it's side.

When the UK actually intervened they freaked out and did everything wrong and rushed...

They opened the faucet and the water flowed, just not the way they ever expected.

If you were to read the "Seven Lies" theory, dont take it as gospel, there is alot of mitigating circumstances that these "experts" leave completely out leaving one to believe either they are not familiar with naval warfare or they just believe there to be benign points that would screw up their theory.

[JRT]

And why exactly does the LCS need a 35-40knot speed?
.

Throttled back to 35-40 knots? Excerpted from a linked Navy Times article dated 2009-10-22, "The aluminum trimaran hit a top speed of 45 knots and kept a sustained speed of 44 knots during its full power run in the Gulf of Mexico, shipbuilder General Dynamics said in an announcement. It kept a high speed and stability despite eight-foot waves and 25-knot winds."

High speed maybe useful within some particular task or tactic. But perhaps as important, higher speed may put to advantage in operational manoeuvre (recall Boyd's OODA loop, moving faster than the opponent can react inside of his decision loop), the speed being useful toward being in two places more nearly at once.



.

[Oldmike]

Navy Times says the Navy is proposing to buy 10 of both LCS-1 and LCS-2 over several years. If permitted to do so, one class would be based in Florida and the other in San Diego.

[HKDan]

Navy Times says the Navy is proposing to buy 10 of both LCS-1 and LCS-2 over several years. If permitted to do so, one class would be based in Florida and the other in San Diego.

...and here is the article. I have somewhat mixed feelings about this. I have serious misgivings about LCS, but having said that, am happy that the waaaay cooler of the two(the GD design) did not get cancelled.

Navy asks Congress to buy both LCS designs - Navy News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Navy Times

Navy asks Congress to buy both LCS designs

By Christopher P. Cavas - Staff writer
Posted : Wednesday Nov 3, 2010 18:08:05 EDT

Rival teams from Lockheed Martin and Austal USA have been waiting all year to see which of their designs would be chosen for the Navy’s littoral combat ship competition. Now, if the Navy gets permission from the lame-duck Congress, the winner could be: both.

At stake had been an award to the winner for 10 LCS hulls. But the Navy, convinced that the competition has driven down the cost for the ships, is asking Congress for permission to award each team contracts for 10 ships, for a total of 20 new LCS hulls.

“We’re engaging with key committee members, their staff and industry on whether awarding a 10-ship block buy to each team merits congressional authorization,” Capt. Cate Mueller, a spokeswoman for the Navy’s acquisition department, said Wednesday.

But Mueller cautioned that the move does not mean the effort to pick only one design has been put aside.

“The Navy’s LCS is on track for a down-select decision. We have not stopped the current solicitation,” she said. “If the [dual-award] path doesn’t prove feasible and we don’t get the congressional authorization, we will proceed to down-select in accordance with the terms of the current solicitation.”

“The Navy sees either approach procures affordably priced ships,” she said.

Congress — which has yet to produce a defense bill for 2011 — will need to act quickly, as the contract offers and prices put on the table by each industry team expire after Dec. 14. If the LCS contracts aren’t awarded by then, a new round of contract offers would need to be made, possibly pushing a decision into late winter or early spring.

Mueller said building both designs has several advantages, including:

• Stabilization of the LCS program and the industrial base.

• Increasing the ship procurement rate to support operational requirements.

• Sustaining competition throughout the program.

• Improving foreign military sales opportunities.

Under the new proposal, the Navy would split its buy equally each year between Lockheed and Austal USA. Two ships would be awarded under the 2010 budget and two in 2011, with four ships year each from 2012 through 2015. One key issue that will be put off appears to be the choice of combat system. Each team created its own system, with virtually no commonality between the two types. Under the new proposal, each team would continue to build ships with their original combat systems.

But, said Mueller, “That does not keep us from deciding in the future to go with one or the other.”

Other shipbuilders also could be brought into the program, she said, “because the Navy intends to procure the technical data package for both designs, and if necessary, a second source for either or both designs could be brought in.”

One administrative hurdle the Navy needs to award new contracts is approval by the Defense Acquisition Board, a Pentagon panel which reviews the status of all acquisition programs and certifies them for moving ahead. A DAB meeting, Mueller said, likely would not be scheduled until the LCS acquisition strategy is finalized.

Sources say the new ships would be split equally between the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, a change from the current plan to initially base all LCS hulls at San Diego. Navy officials have said that Mayport, Fla., would be the primary Atlantic base for the ships. The port is scheduled to lose many of its current tenants over the next few years as the Navy decommissions the remainder of its frigate force.

Each industry team already has delivered one ship and is at work on another. Lockheed’s ships are built in Wisconsin by Marinette Marine, a subsidiary of the Italian shipbuilding giant Fincantieri. Austal USA, a subsidiary of the Australian Austal firm, which specializes in aluminum high-speed craft, builds its ships in Mobile, Ala.

Each of the shipbuilding programs is looked on locally as a major job provider and source of income.

Both LCS designs have supporters and detractors. While both of the new ships have numerous problems — situations common to most prototypes — Lockheed’s steel-hull, aluminum superstructure version is seen as an efficient, capable and handy platform, while the large flight deck and spacious mission bay of Austal USA’s all-aluminum trimaran appeals to many mission planners. Planners for years have seen the designs as mutually supportive — one of the reasons that the Navy, until the fall of 2009, planned to buy both types.

[jlvfr]

While both of the new ships have numerous problems

Shouldn't these be fixed before paying a god-awfull amount of cash for more ships?! This kind of "let it go" "it's broken but ok" approach just encourages contractors (of any kind of product, really...) to slack in the future. LPD-17 comes to mind...