US Navy News and updates

[the road runner]

Lastly I have a question, is there any mission that the LCS can perform much better than a frigate and are there any missions a frigate can't perform that the LCS can. I'm not trying to be snide here, this is a serious question.

I was under the impression that Austal's LCS can "work" in shallower waters compared to a frigate?? i.e, most of the (Austal) LCS is above the water line

 

[alexsa]

Draft is about 2.8m deeper on the NSC but the cost to LCS is limited uplift (I.e a dead weight of around 180 tonnes). The beam may also be an issue, but for LCS, as the NSC is about 16.5m while LCS is 31.6m which would be intesting is some narrow waters.

Either way the draft is a factor in dead weight.

 

[Belesari]

BUT there in lies the problem. The LCS was originaly intended to BE corvettes. Corvettes have one enormous draw back RANGE. For a squadron of LCS to be deployed anywhere they would have to be ferried there. Not only that once there they would be trapped.

So they got bigger......and it began.

Basiclly whether they can admit it or not the US wanted something Frigate like without the cost and modular. It all got screwed up it was NEW and built on the fly and transformational!!!!!!!

And then the guys who build the boats kept looking at the Navy guys with WTH expressions as the boats kept being changed every few days durring construction.

Sorry it took me a bit to get back to this but real life intervened. Anyway, I don't disagree with most of what you said there except the last part. I'm just not convinced that in the long run the LCS would be any cheaper, especially when you take into account that it is now virtually a single mission ship.

So here's what we are looking at

LCS $450 million
One module estimated at $100 million
Replacement for the griffin missile ?????
One dedicated mothership for every 6-8 LCS', If that is an LPD, that is another $1.4 billion, divided by 6-8 is another $200 million each

Suddenly we are talking about roughly $800 million each for a single mission ship with an endurance of 14 days or less.

Then look at the possible patrol frigate, HII is proposing using the NSC and adding sea ram, ESSM, harpoons, torpedo launchers, bow mounted dome and possibly a towed array sonar. As you point out there will be development costs but HII has already done some of the preliminary design work as they are hoping to get some export orders (tough sell but they are going to try) With that ship, you get a multirole frigate that has an endurance of up to 60 days. In terms for bang for your dollar this looks like a much better purchase.

Patrol Frigate

Considering that the navy has taken delivery of or placed orders for 22 LCS' with total orders possibly reaching 55 ships, I just think the costs and risks are too great. The total development costs of the LCS still aren't even known until they at least come up with working modules and a replacement for the griffin missile (at minimum). Then there are the some unanswered questions, The navy says they have no need for a frigate, so just what are they going to use for escort missions? a multibillion dollar DDG? The need for escorts isn't going away.

Just to make one thing clear, I am not so much for buying the HII patrol frigate as I am in favor of buying any good multirole frigate. I think the idea of building 20-30 frigates and then building corvettes explained here is much better

Lastly I have a question, is there any mission that the LCS can perform much better than a frigate and are there any missions a frigate can't perform that the LCS can. I'm not trying to be snide here, this is a serious question.

 

[Twain]

BUT there in lies the problem. The LCS was originaly intended to BE corvettes. Corvettes have one enormous draw back RANGE. For a squadron of LCS to be deployed anywhere they would have to be ferried there. Not only that once there they would be trapped.

So they got bigger......and it began.

Basiclly whether they can admit it or not the US wanted something Frigate like without the cost and modular. It all got screwed up it was NEW and built on the fly and transformational!!!!!!!

And then the guys who build the boats kept looking at the Navy guys with WTH expressions as the boats kept being changed every few days durring construction.

The costs to keep this ship at sea keep going up.

U.S. law bars foreign shipyard workers from doing such tasks as preventative and corrective maintenance, deep cleaning and corrosion control — crucial work for a ship manned by only 50 or so sailors, meaning it will rely more on shore-based support than other U.S. Navy ships.

Yet if foreigners aren’t allowed to do the work, the LCS force will need to be supported by U.S.-based “fly-away teams,” a situation that could be unaffordable.

Maintenance Hurdles Mount for New USN Ship | Defense News | defensenews.com

There is more in the article. I would really like to see an honest accounting of the life cycle costs of this ship, it definitely doesn't look good. The more I read the less I am convinced this is a less expensive ship when compared to a more conventional frigate design.

 

[Belesari]

Oh i agree im not saying LCS as the present concept hasn't proven unworkable im saying problem is not just with LCS. NSC, DDG-1K, Ford class carriers, it goes on and on. So we have to look at where this cost creep is coming from and figure out a way to stop it or atleast reduce it.

The problems seem to not so much come from the ship yards as from the Designers, mission/concept planners, and such. The New LCS are from what i've heard good ships given the faults of the design and concept. Its not the ships themselves its the concepts we need to figure out.

So far we have figured out a few things,

The speed requirment cripples the ship in many ways without a return. The original concept was that speed would grant the LCS the ability to get to and from a area fast...however its low range (less than many a aircraft) at top speed-which it cant reach with a full load of fuel, crew, consumables, mission moduals, etc means that that reason is gone. Add into this the simple fact 55kns is nothing compared to the fast speed of a FAC/Aircraft/Landbased/etc launched ASM and it starts to make less sense.

Modularity is awesome but some things simply dont work the way they were supposed to. We need to make them easier to repurpose with new missions with less time/cost than it would be with current ship designs. Hell we really only have one modual near call it open beta phase its supposed to be working 2017-2020ish. However a part of this can be blamed on the failure of NLOS (which the israelies already have something similar i believe cant remember the name and not sure if it maritime capable).

Crew requirements. As others have said no one thought it was realistic to have a 3000-4000 ton ship with a base crew of 20-40 people. And it has been absolutly proven....realise the DDG-1K is also based on this concept and you see a future problem. And as you pointed out there are so many complications and cost both known and unknown with contractors off the ship to mention nothing of survival in case of battle damage even if the ship isnt a one hit wonder.
Bottom line. There is simple so much you can reduce crew wise even with automation. And drawing the "top 5%" leaves the rest of the fleet weaker as well as meaning those top 5'ers are going to be used up then what?

The cost for the LCS is at 400 or so million basicly for either type. For the NSC as is its 700mil. Add to that the need for more work on it before it goes into production and....

Bottom line what have we learned with the LCS concept and what do we need to change.



PS. i know its a mess but its just what i can think to reply to what your thinking. NO ONE really has the answers right now.

The costs to keep this ship at sea keep going up.

U.S. law bars foreign shipyard workers from doing such tasks as preventative and corrective maintenance, deep cleaning and corrosion control — crucial work for a ship manned by only 50 or so sailors, meaning it will rely more on shore-based support than other U.S. Navy ships.

Yet if foreigners aren’t allowed to do the work, the LCS force will need to be supported by U.S.-based “fly-away teams,” a situation that could be unaffordable.

Maintenance Hurdles Mount for New USN Ship | Defense News | defensenews.com

There is more in the article. I would really like to see an honest accounting of the life cycle costs of this ship, it definitely doesn't look good. The more I read the less I am convinced this is a less expensive ship when compared to a more conventional frigate design.

 

[StobieWan]

Somewhat remarkably, the Undersecretary of the Navy responds personally to a number of blogged criticisms and concerns:

CDR Salamander: CBO on 2013 Shipbuilding Plan: Snort, Giggle, Harumph

I'm impressed the bloke took time out to engage -some fairly straight answers there, where possible.

 

[Belesari]

Somewhat remarkably, the Undersecretary of the Navy responds personally to a number of blogged criticisms and concerns:

CDR Salamander: CBO on 2013 Shipbuilding Plan: Snort, Giggle, Harumph

I'm impressed the bloke took time out to engage -some fairly straight answers there, where possible.

Yep. Have to say while not all of my questions were answered many were. All and all learned a good bit. Glad to see the navy Could start going all electric in the next decade or so....i hope.

 

[icelord]

I was under the impression that Austal's LCS can "work" in shallower waters compared to a frigate?? i.e, most of the (Austal) LCS is above the water line

One thing of note is that with Australian coastline being shallower in certain elements(Qld) we tend to train our COs and Navigators to sail alot closer to shoreline and in narrow channels. With RAN Navigators they have to be qualified on a Long-N course, where as USN are more of a Senior Officer of the Deck. Having sailed on a Long-N course and working for the Navigators, we cruised at 28 knots around the great barrier reef with about 150-200m clearence either side of cliff faces around hamilton island, a cool sight to see till you go on the bridge and note the student nav is sitting down facing Aft with a stopwatch and notebook...all turns by plan, none by visual. The safety is in the 10 other with Navigator qualified officers facing Forward...

With the LCS in singapore it would give them more chance to train in Aus around the reef and with RAN officers teaching more littoral operations, something we are more capable at then Deep blue water like the USN is more use to. It would be a big help as most of South East Asia has small islands, and alot of shallow waters.

 

[Belesari]

A good point Icelord i have never thought of that. Might come in handy if the LCS are cruising around the Philippines and such.

One thing of note is that with Australian coastline being shallower in certain elements(Qld) we tend to train our COs and Navigators to sail alot closer to shoreline and in narrow channels. With RAN Navigators they have to be qualified on a Long-N course, where as USN are more of a Senior Officer of the Deck. Having sailed on a Long-N course and working for the Navigators, we cruised at 28 knots around the great barrier reef with about 150-200m clearence either side of cliff faces around hamilton island, a cool sight to see till you go on the bridge and note the student nav is sitting down facing Aft with a stopwatch and notebook...all turns by plan, none by visual. The safety is in the 10 other with Navigator qualified officers facing Forward...

With the LCS in singapore it would give them more chance to train in Aus around the reef and with RAN officers teaching more littoral operations, something we are more capable at then Deep blue water like the USN is more use to. It would be a big help as most of South East Asia has small islands, and alot of shallow waters.

 

[SpartanSG]

With the LCS in singapore it would give them more chance to train in Aus around the reef and with RAN officers teaching more littoral operations, something we are more capable at then Deep blue water like the USN is more use to. It would be a big help as most of South East Asia has small islands, and alot of shallow waters.

There are plenty more littoral waters to train in within Southeast Asia without the need to sail thousands of miles further south.

SEA littoral waters also present challenges that are typical of South China Sea and the islands around the Philippines; namely that of numerous fishing vessels (not all of which are versed in COLREGs), presence of maritime vessels form multiple countries (navy, coastguard, fishery protection, customs vessels, etc) and constant changes in the underwater environment (due to dumping, dredging, underwater works, etc).

I don't think there is a more complex littoral environment in this half of the world to rival that of Southeast Asia.

 

[AegisFC]

4 of the 7 Tico's slated for retirement are being kept for now.

Navy: 4 missile cruisers to remain in service - Navy News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Navy Times

 

[Blackshoe]

Not surprised at all that most of these are being kept. The move to decomm them early seemed like a threat to Congress over the impending possible Sequestration.

Somewhat surprised we're still going to keep the PRL, however.

 

[fretburner]

This is not a discussion in politics, but I just read this today: Mitt Romney’s Big Plans for the U.S. Navy

Apart from the 350-ship Navy... there's 2 things that really struck me:

1. A possible "missile defense" ship based on the LPD-17, and
2. FFG-7 replacement.

Are these 2 things really in consideration? Especially the 1st one?

 

[AegisFC]

There has been talk of using LPD-17 hull and engineering plant for a BMD "cruiser" for at least the last three or four years. Nothing too serious or contracts issued though.

 

[fretburner]

^ What's your take on the concept though?

Also, would it be like a surface combatant version of a Boomer? Because that's how I picture an LPD-17 "missile defense" ship -- a really powerful radar right behind the bridge (AMDR?) and then just rows and rows of VLS behind it.

And lastly... that's a HUGE ship! Almost 2x the size of a Zumwalt!

 

[colay]

So what is going to protect the CBG, the Navy's crown jewels? Would they favor switching to the DDG-1000 hull in lieu of the Flt III as plans currently stand? It boils down to money in the end and words are cheap , specially in the midst of an election campaign.

 

[Volkodav]

So what is going to protect the CBG, the Navy's crown jewels? Would they favor switching to the DDG-1000 hull in lieu of the Flt III as plans currently stand? It boils down to money in the end and words are cheap , specially in the midst of an election campaign.

Having spoken with a few guys on the DDG-1000 project I would be very surprised if more aren't ordered and new ships built using an evolved DDG-1000 platform to fill other roles i.e. CG. Basically the project has been pretty much free from technical problems and delays with the cost escalation being due to development costs being amortised over three instead of the originally planned thirty two hulls.

I understand that there are expected to be some issues with mating the composite superstructure with the steel hull but that said the LPD-17 mast design has provided some experience with large composite structures.

As an aside I notice that DDG-1002 is to be named Lyndon B. Johnson, interesting that is now two former Democratic US Presidents with ships other than CVNs named in their honour while former Republican Presidents are still being honoured with CVNs. Pot luck or is this being driven from somewhere inparticular? I supose we will know if and when we see a USS Nixon CVN.

 

[colay]

As an aside I notice that DDG-1002 is to be named Lyndon B. Johnson, interesting that is now two former Democratic US Presidents with ships other than CVNs named in their honour while former Republican Presidents are still being honoured with CVNs. Pot luck or is this being driven from somewhere inparticular? I supose we will know if and when we see a USS Nixon CVN.

Well, the Democrats do have CVN-79 to look forward to.

 

[AegisFC]

^ What's your take on the concept though?

Also, would it be like a surface combatant version of a Boomer? Because that's how I picture an LPD-17 "missile defense" ship -- a really powerful radar right behind the bridge (AMDR?) and then just rows and rows of VLS behind it.

And lastly... that's a HUGE ship! Almost 2x the size of a Zumwalt!

I really don't have an opinion of the concept, there isn't much public informaiton on it.
Using the same engineering plant and hull form will save money even if the super structure is completely different and the Mk-57 is a much bigger cell than the Mk-41 VLS.

 

[Blackshoe]

As an aside I notice that DDG-1002 is to be named Lyndon B. Johnson, interesting that is now two former Democratic US Presidents with ships other than CVNs named in their honour while former Republican Presidents are still being honoured with CVNs. Pot luck or is this being driven from somewhere inparticular? I supose we will know if and when we see a USS Nixon CVN.

Don't forget CVN-79, which has already been announced will be USS JOHN F. KENNEDY. So there's one. And many of the other names were at least logically connected to something else-it makes sense to name a submarine after Jimmy Carter. Likewise, it makes sense to name CVNs after Ford and George. H. W. Bush since both have service connections to carriers.

Without turning this into a political thread, the current count for CVN (built and/or named) is:

Democrats: 4 (JFK, Truman, John C. Stennis, Carl Vinson)
Republicans: 6 (Ike, Lincoln, Ford, George H. W. Bush, Reagan, Roosevelt).
Independents: 1 (George Washington, and Ike could have been a Democrat if he'd wanted to. You can argue that he should be in this list).

When you remember that we had CVs named after FDR and JFK when we started building the NIMITZ-class (and we still have a DDG named after FDR and his wife), the list is actually somewhat even.

It's hard to find a lot of truly great Democratic presidents (in terms of connection to the military/military service) unless you want to go out of the 20th century. I'm guessing we'll probably start getting 41 for Freedom names fairly quickly (Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe), and that's not necessarily a bad thing.