US Navy News and updates
- Thread starter AegisFC
- Start date
What is a GPS/INS guidance system good for in a missile with a 6kg warhead and 3.5km range anyway?
I would have thought that something like a surface launched brimstone system is much more usefull.
All this talk about swarm attacks is IMHO rubbish anyway. I am not an expert but I have a hard time imagening a situation which a conventional modern FFG with a 76mm-127mm gun, RAM Block 2, ESSM, some autocannons and .50cals and 1-2 helicopters can't handle but a LCS-1/2 can.
Heck, develop a missile canister for VLS cells which holds the equivalent of several brimstone/Spike-NLOS/whatever missiles and call it a day. Could be fitted to any VLS equipped CG, DDG or FFG entering these dangerous swarm boat waters all around the globe. And I bet for fraction of the cost of a design which has a small niche where it excells but lots of questions marks in other areas.
I would have thought that something like a surface launched brimstone system is much more usefull.
All this talk about swarm attacks is IMHO rubbish anyway. I am not an expert but I have a hard time imagening a situation which a conventional modern FFG with a 76mm-127mm gun, RAM Block 2, ESSM, some autocannons and .50cals and 1-2 helicopters can't handle but a LCS-1/2 can.
Heck, develop a missile canister for VLS cells which holds the equivalent of several brimstone/Spike-NLOS/whatever missiles and call it a day. Could be fitted to any VLS equipped CG, DDG or FFG entering these dangerous swarm boat waters all around the globe. And I bet for fraction of the cost of a design which has a small niche where it excells but lots of questions marks in other areas.
The article hints at how INS/GPS maybe employed by Griffin vs. static targets.
Raytheon Awarded $85 Million for Griffin Missiles | Defense Update - Military Technology & Defense News
During a test performed earlier this year the Army tested the Griffin B missile demonstrating how such missiles could be used to secure FOBs and small combat outposts. During the test, warfigthers fired a Griffin missile from a launcher at a static target more than 4 kilometers (2.5 miles) away. Using GPS coordinates generated by a tethered aerostat, the missile directly impacted the target. In another demonstration carried out last year, a Griffin was fired from a land-based RAM launcher at a static target more than 3 kilometers (approximately 2 statute miles) away. The weapon, guided by GPS and laser, scored a direct hit on the target. Both tests achieved all demonstration objectives, Raytheon said.
Raytheon Awarded $85 Million for Griffin Missiles | Defense Update - Military Technology & Defense News
During a test performed earlier this year the Army tested the Griffin B missile demonstrating how such missiles could be used to secure FOBs and small combat outposts. During the test, warfigthers fired a Griffin missile from a launcher at a static target more than 4 kilometers (2.5 miles) away. Using GPS coordinates generated by a tethered aerostat, the missile directly impacted the target. In another demonstration carried out last year, a Griffin was fired from a land-based RAM launcher at a static target more than 3 kilometers (approximately 2 statute miles) away. The weapon, guided by GPS and laser, scored a direct hit on the target. Both tests achieved all demonstration objectives, Raytheon said.
You don't need a 500 T$ missile to accurately hit a static target 4km from a FOB. Build a GPS guided 120mm mortar round and call it a day. And a mortar has way more options than a small missile (HE, Smoke, illum, Strix like PGM,...).
Sitting 1km (in range of lots of nasty stuff including HMGs...) out the sea in order to hit a static target 3km inland with a 6kg warhead is not what I would call really usefull.
As for the second test. The missile needed laser and GPS to hit a target 2 klicks away? ATGMs are doing this with a laser guidance only since decades. Not all that spectacular.
A FFG with a modern 127mm gun and modern Vulcano like ammunition would offer a combatant accurate GPS or IR guided firepower with a range of up to 100-120km while retaining the flexibility of a gun.
Sitting 1km (in range of lots of nasty stuff including HMGs...) out the sea in order to hit a static target 3km inland with a 6kg warhead is not what I would call really usefull.
As for the second test. The missile needed laser and GPS to hit a target 2 klicks away? ATGMs are doing this with a laser guidance only since decades. Not all that spectacular.
A FFG with a modern 127mm gun and modern Vulcano like ammunition would offer a combatant accurate GPS or IR guided firepower with a range of up to 100-120km while retaining the flexibility of a gun.
I think this is where the controversy over Griffin has crept in - there's a MK110 at the front that can quite handily take on that sort of target to well over the horizon with a 4P round. I'm hoping they'll spring for Spike-ER or similar in the nearer future. Griffin seems a bit underwhelming, and also takes up slots in the RAM launcher.
Worse yet, RAM blk 2 can do a surface to surface role which makes Griffin seem even less impressive.
I think for adding to patrol craft etc, Griffin is a handy addition but LCS needs something with more reach and punch to keep those FAC's at a distance.
Worse yet, RAM blk 2 can do a surface to surface role which makes Griffin seem even less impressive.
I think for adding to patrol craft etc, Griffin is a handy addition but LCS needs something with more reach and punch to keep those FAC's at a distance.
That expensive?
Sorry, fingerislip. A 0 too much.
I expect serial missiles to cost ca. 50k+ per missile. In 2011 78 Griffin missiles did cost 9.1 Million $ but that included additional testing and development.
Diehl/Oto for example state that Vulcano ammunition with GPS/Laser dual guidance is half as expensive as Excalibur bringing it to something like 20-40k. But you get a full grown artillery round out of it with the huge advantages in performance against soft targets, hard targets and structures as well a lot more range for real sea-land fire. And you can still shoot all the other usefull stuff out of the gun.
I expect serial missiles to cost ca. 50k+ per missile. In 2011 78 Griffin missiles did cost 9.1 Million $ but that included additional testing and development.
Diehl/Oto for example state that Vulcano ammunition with GPS/Laser dual guidance is half as expensive as Excalibur bringing it to something like 20-40k. But you get a full grown artillery round out of it with the huge advantages in performance against soft targets, hard targets and structures as well a lot more range for real sea-land fire. And you can still shoot all the other usefull stuff out of the gun.
Yeah, that's more like the figure I came across. Also, by comparison, RAM would be around an order of magnitude more expensive than Griffin.,
Sure a couple of RAMs and ESSMs is not cheap but seriously how often does a ship has to kill so many swarm ships that costs are a real problem?
What may happen much more often is hitting land targets in some backwater area with PGMs. And that's where costs and capability really matter.
What may happen much more often is hitting land targets in some backwater area with PGMs. And that's where costs and capability really matter.
For the LCS discussion though, protecting fleet assets against swarming boat attacks is a primary mission and hitting land targets would be a secondary capability IMO. That's a job better suited to other platforms e.g. DDG 1000, TACAIR. I can see a LCS providing a level of landstrike capability primarily using it's aviation platforms in support of a covert SOF scenario.
Protecting fleet assets against swarm attacks can IMHO be done as well by a classical FFG. As I said, look at the armamend and aviation capabilities modern FFGs can and do carry and you won't find both LCS designs to be lacking advantages over their more conventional brethren apart from speed, which IMHO is a dubious advantage.
And seriously, either these swarm boats consist of rather primitive gun armed FACs or they consist of rather modern missile FACs.
In case one the armament and sensor footprint of an amphibious or carrier action group is good enough to shred the incoming threat. Especially with the fact in mind that all the other platforms also add some serious aviation capabilities to the game.
In case two a LCS is going to do nothing to protect itself or other ships from a threat apart from adding 1-2 helicopters (which any other FFG can, too) and can only hope to survive.
As for support of coastal raids and stuff like this. Having the ability to only hit targets in a very limited coastal area with a rather restricted number of small missiles is rather unimpressive compared to a modern gun system with PGM capability. Aviation facilities are no special feature but essential and as such are present on any modern FFG design.
Heck, the LCS is not even cheaper than the hideously expensive F125 FFGs. And even these rather undergunned colonial cruiser style ships give you double the number of RAMs, a serious gun, 7 HMGs, 2 27mm ACs and some real AShMs together with a comparable aviation facility, loots of room and facilities for small amohibious ops in coastal areas (incl. 4 small boats and space for 50 infantry/special forces) and a good combat system.
And all this in a package with room for upgrades and one which should be able to stay in an area of operation for up to twice the time without major maintenance compared to other platforms.
I have serious doubt that a LCS would offer any advantage in combating swarm attacks compared to such a modern FFG designed with coastal operations in mind. But it has some serious drawbacks.
And seriously, either these swarm boats consist of rather primitive gun armed FACs or they consist of rather modern missile FACs.
In case one the armament and sensor footprint of an amphibious or carrier action group is good enough to shred the incoming threat. Especially with the fact in mind that all the other platforms also add some serious aviation capabilities to the game.
In case two a LCS is going to do nothing to protect itself or other ships from a threat apart from adding 1-2 helicopters (which any other FFG can, too) and can only hope to survive.
As for support of coastal raids and stuff like this. Having the ability to only hit targets in a very limited coastal area with a rather restricted number of small missiles is rather unimpressive compared to a modern gun system with PGM capability. Aviation facilities are no special feature but essential and as such are present on any modern FFG design.
Heck, the LCS is not even cheaper than the hideously expensive F125 FFGs. And even these rather undergunned colonial cruiser style ships give you double the number of RAMs, a serious gun, 7 HMGs, 2 27mm ACs and some real AShMs together with a comparable aviation facility, loots of room and facilities for small amohibious ops in coastal areas (incl. 4 small boats and space for 50 infantry/special forces) and a good combat system.
And all this in a package with room for upgrades and one which should be able to stay in an area of operation for up to twice the time without major maintenance compared to other platforms.
I have serious doubt that a LCS would offer any advantage in combating swarm attacks compared to such a modern FFG designed with coastal operations in mind. But it has some serious drawbacks.
I think they are being very deliberate. We know they initiated looking at a Griffin replacement a couple of year's back. Griffin is just a quick fix to tide them over so,I'm not unduly concerned. Hopefully the fiscal mess doesn't throw another wrench in the works.
I think they are being very deliberate. We know they initiated looking at a Griffin replacement a couple of year's back. Griffin is just a quick fix to tide them over so,I'm not unduly concerned. Hopefully the fiscal mess doesn't throw another wrench in the works.
I wouldn't says its been decided by anyone but the Admirals and even then there are those who would argue a Frigate could better perform these duties. So its not really decided i believe. You really can't make any comparison sense there was no Frigate built or tested for the LCS type program.
Hell the LCS-1 drifting through the Pacific doesn't give me a lot of confidence.
I think its just to many different missions shoved into one ship.
Its been decided by the treasury. The requirement was for 3 LCS builds to equal 1 AB and thats been achieved. Even the NSC costs $600m and cant do any of the roles that LCS can do either now or in the future.
Re drifting; 3 power outages totalling 17 minutes in a transit from San Diego to Singapore?
Of course none of us has ever been on a ship that suffered any power disruptions
While there are many unsolved quirks with this ship it is a WIP, capable of a range of developing roles to keep it viable in a networked navy throughout its life. I'm happy to wait a few years before passing judgement.
IIRC there were much the same criticisms passed on the OHP's and they ended up a very worthwhile unit.
OHP? Oh Help us Please ?
That'd be the cheap ally can with a sonar that didn't work and that would sink in bits if a passing .50 cal round got too close?
As you say, they worked out fine and now everyone's going "if only we still had some" - perspective's a useful asset
As you say, the LCS will work - some of it's problems are being addressed, others will be easier to fix than in previous classes due to the way modular fits can be accommodated. The program could have been managed better on both sides but such is life.
Are the Burke's bought as just the hull and such or does that add the weapons and sensors? Or are those later? And is that the same way the LCS is bought?
Then there is the question of the mission modules which how many are working or near (2014-2017) ready for the fleet?
I believe the end result of the LCS programs still wont be known until LCS what 5 and 6? The number I've seen most often quoted for the LCS buys are $350 mil-$450 mil per ship and with mission modules that come to around $800 mil per ship. Burke's I've seen as 1.5 bil with systems and weapons load out (Not sure if thats just the 5 in and phalanx or what honestly.).
Again no one disputes the original Idea of the LCS rather what it has morphed into and what is being put to see in what has the potential to be the most dangerous places for a ship to be.
Then there is the question of the mission modules which how many are working or near (2014-2017) ready for the fleet?
I believe the end result of the LCS programs still wont be known until LCS what 5 and 6? The number I've seen most often quoted for the LCS buys are $350 mil-$450 mil per ship and with mission modules that come to around $800 mil per ship. Burke's I've seen as 1.5 bil with systems and weapons load out (Not sure if thats just the 5 in and phalanx or what honestly.).
Again no one disputes the original Idea of the LCS rather what it has morphed into and what is being put to see in what has the potential to be the most dangerous places for a ship to be.
Its been decided by the treasury. The requirement was for 3 LCS builds to equal 1 AB and thats been achieved. Even the NSC costs $600m and cant do any of the roles that LCS can do either now or in the future.
Re drifting; 3 power outages totalling 17 minutes in a transit from San Diego to Singapore?
Of course none of us has ever been on a ship that suffered any power disruptions
While there are many unsolved quirks with this ship it is a WIP, capable of a range of developing roles to keep it viable in a networked navy throughout its life. I'm happy to wait a few years before passing judgement.
IIRC there were much the same criticisms passed on the OHP's and they ended up a very worthwhile unit.
There is an excellent paper by Bob Work U/Sec Navy which explains all the cost developments
[ame="http://www.scribd.com/doc/122722216/Littoral-Combat-Ship-How-we-Got-Here-and-Why"]Littoral Combat Ship - How we Got Here and Why[/ame]
He summarises the costs on page 74
"The average cost of a missionised LCS over the 10 ship run is $500.8m, 2% over the $490m threshold target set by the OSD a decade ago ($400m in FY 2005 adjusted for inflation)
Moreover, the lower price for the 10th ship in each run means the baseline for future missionised LCS will be $469.3m 3.4% under the threshold.
In other words, Navy underestimated the costs of the seaframs but overestimated the costs of the mission modules and associated programme costs"
The $1.2b cost quoted for AB's is in FY2005 dollars.
Cheers