Littoral Combat Ship

[Izzy1]

Looks like the navy really wants these things. Either there's a shipyard in the right congressional district, or these things actually present an effective platform to deal with today's threats, because someone in the DoD is willing to shell out the bucks. No consideration to upgrading the FFG7s appears to have been given.

To be fair, the export potential for LCS maybe too great an opportunity to pass up.

Granted, for the US Navy, LCS offers little.

But I know that the Royal Saudi Navy is very interested in GD's LCS design. The Persian Gulf would a perfect operating environment for such a platform. The rumours last year talked of a double-figure order, which would be unprecedented for a Mid East Navy. Europe's FREMM is also in the frame. But given the LCS's modular multi-role capability, other countries like the UAE, Oman, Bahrain, Egypt and Kuwait would possibly follow suite. Other Asian navies would also consider - Thailand, Singapore and Malaysia.

With further export potential in South America, Europe and maybe even Africa - LCS could be the 'F-16' of surface warships.

 

[FiredForEffect]

"Granted, for the US Navy, LCS offers little."

Really? I was under the impression that it was just the price tage that was of concern. I thought they were reasonably capable in their role...was a mistaken? I also doubt congress would allow such high levels of funding for a military project destined almost entirely for export. Maybe the navy brass and Washington types anticipate LCSs in the hands of the Saudis, Kuwaitis and others will take a substantial burden off the USN?

 

[Izzy1]

Maybe the navy brass and Washington types anticipate LCSs in the hands of the Saudis, Kuwaitis and others will take a substantial burden off the USN?

I honestly hope not.

We both know Arab navies offered little before, now or in the future. But they'll still buy and keep shipyards busy.

 

[Galrahn]

The LCS capability is one of promise and potential, but because it really rewrites the book in terms of US Navy operations there remain many questions.

The first issue is the lack of firepower. This is the only capital ship I can remember in the last several centuries any western Navy building that is intentionally designed to fight small boats. It takes a lot of imagination to come to a conclusion that a 3000+ ton ship should be built to fight a fleet of boats more closely resembling the Miami County Yacht club than a true military force. However, today that is the expressed interest behind the anti-surface warfare capability of the LCS.

The emphasis of speed is questionable. 40 knots sounds great, but when reading what is out there on the LCS CONOP it can leave one scratching his head. The CONOP describes the LCS role in ASW and MIW in cooperation with a Carrier Strike Group as racing ahead of the strike group to insure safe sealanes in the approaches for the Task Force. The problem is, that CONOP was described in a large scale confrontation situation, ie China, which means the LCS is going to race out in front of a CSG and do ASW work in a war against China? Seems to me that Admiral would have questionable judgement to put his least defensive ship outside the screen of a task force, between the task force and the enemy no less, and expect the enemy not to exploit the situation and blow the LCS to hell.

Regarding ASW and MIW, a lot of these sensor technologies are new, as in they have never been used. It is a fairly substancial gamble to risk two critical warfighting capabilities on never deployed capabilties designed around a fast ship for 2 mission roles that inherently require slow speed for operation.

Finally, the major capability increase of the LCS is its distributed sensor systems integrated with CEC (integrated C4ISR). The problem there is that the maturity of the distributed sensors doesn't exist, and oh ya, niether does the maturity of CEC. CEC is limited by 19 nodes total, and while the Navy is trying to expand that to 49, it hasn't yet. 19 nodes isn't many at all, think about it.

2 CVNs
2 CGs
8 DDGs
4 SSNs
1 SSGN
2 E-Ds

Oops, that's 19, no room for the LCS, and the Navy is more likely to include an EF-18G, a P-8, or a Global Hawk (nevermind other large surface combatants) than a LCS in a shooting fight, which isn't going to help the LCS much, particularly since it doesn't have much to defend itself with.

The LCS may go on to be a fantastic ship, but at this point there is a considerable amount of risk involved beyond just the cost.

 

[FiredForEffect]

Wikipedia claims LCS-2 to have an armament consisting 64 VLS, 8 Harpoon, 57mm, .50 cals, CIWS, RAM, torps, 2 helos, plus nulka and that new Surface Ship Torpedo Defence system. Doesn't seem like that bad of a "punch" for a ship of <3000 tons.

Slightly OT a bit: it has been speculated the captain of the USS Vincenes launched that fateful missile sooner than he should have because he felt anxious to defend such an expensive warship in a high-threat/low tech environment. It seemed LCS was a response (somewhat) to that, in that it provided a low cost platform to safely deal with brown-water/suicide threats. Now the navy seems to want a $500M+ ship that can both fight pirates and terrorists as well as provide CVBG defence against the PLAN. Seems alot like having your cake and eating it too.

 

[Galrahn]

Wikipedia claims LCS-2 to have an armament consisting 64 VLS, 8 Harpoon, 57mm, .50 cals, CIWS, RAM, torps, 2 helos, plus nulka and that new Surface Ship Torpedo Defence system. Doesn't seem like that bad of a "punch" for a ship of <3000 tons.

wikipedia is wrong as usual. The LCS-2 fact sheet is available here on the General Dynamics LCS website.

Notice even the LCS Multi-mission ship available for export has 32 VLS cells, but that isn't what the US Navy is interested in.

 

[speed651]

Add me to the list of people who think it would be lunchmeat in a confrontation with China.

Great for irregular warfare though, which I think the Navy ranks higher than China at this time as a threat to US national security. For all the smoke, there hasn't been much fire in US - China naval relations, including that silly overblown sub incident with the Kitty Hawk last year.

The only incident between the US and China so far this century worth discussion is the EP-3 incident in 2001, and in the end, the result was China taking technology that was landed on their soil, something the US no doubt would have done had the situation been reversed.

It is true. In usual, U.S forces like to estimate their rivals as higher performance than actual ability. The main reason is, I believe, is to eat more money from administration. However, some analyzers in PLA, has question U.S. armed forces' military technology investment in future, because Americans have to face the IRAq war (anti-terror) and the rising of China.

 

[alexsa]

With further export potential in South America, Europe and maybe even Africa - LCS could be the 'F-16' of surface warships.

The vessel is primarily intended for litorial operations and as such may be attractive to gulf states or archeplegic countries. However, given the sea state 5 design limit and limited weapons fit in standard form (without mission modules) as well as high relative cost I doubt it would be considered suitable for South America, Europe and Africa on the basis of weather conditions.

 

[gf0012-aust]

However, some analyzers in PLA, has question U.S. armed forces' military technology investment in future, because Americans have to face the IRAq war (anti-terror) and the rising of China.

and insurgency warfare has what relationship to bluewater or greenwater warfare?

trying to equate the Iraq ground insurgency with stateless forces contesting nation state forces has no relevancy to nation state total warfare. expecially when one is a continental power against an established maritime and economic power.

there will be times when diverging off topic will occur, but this isn't one of them....

 

[B.Smitty]

The vessel is primarily intended for litorial operations and as such may be attractive to gulf states or archeplegic countries. However, given the sea state 5 design limit and limited weapons fit in standard form (without mission modules) as well as high relative cost I doubt it would be considered suitable for South America, Europe and Africa on the basis of weather conditions.

Which Sea State 5 design limit? IIRC, it just can't lanuch and recover aircraft beyond Sea State 5.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Which Sea State 5 design limit? IIRC, it just can't lanuch and recover aircraft beyond Sea State 5.

I suspect that alexsa is referring to the core design data used for the Benchijigua Express (which has a lower profile and CoG anyway)

 

[alexsa]

Given the fact the GD hull design was based on a fery built to the HSC code means it is limited by sea state. Driven in worse conditions you run a serious risk of hull damage given the yeild strength and elastic properties of steel and aluminium and the lightweight structure. Metal properties can be found at:

http://www.engineershandbook.com/Tables/steelprop.htm

In addition sea state 5 is effectively the maximum operating limit of this vessel given that is when it ceases operating aircraft which form one of the core functions of its capability. It is also notable that sea state 4 is the limit for operating boats and the vessel is only capabile of its maximum speed in sea state 3.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/weather.htm

These are not high figures.

 

[kato]

This is the only capital ship I can remember in the last several centuries any western Navy building that is intentionally designed to fight small boats.

What about torpedo boat destroyers (which later evolved into destroyers) as built between the 1880s and 1910s?
Their original purpose was to counter small 50-100 ton MTBs. Of course the first such units lacked the size to be called "capital ships" (being just enlarged MTBs themselves), but this primary role was kept with larger units later on up until WW1.

 

[alexsa]

I need to correct one misconcneption I may have put out in a previous post on the LCS where I indicated the LCS has a DWT of 450 tonnes. I also, inadvertantly, Pllied this figure to the Ferry which has a DWT of 1000 tonnes. The correct DWT for the GD LCS in light ship draft is 180 tonnes with basic weapons fitted.

For the purpose of balanced debate is is also worth noting that Austal claim the Fery hull can operate in a 4.5m with a "moderate degradation of safety". This take the vesel into a "strong breeze" beufort scale 6 (sea distrubance 5) and perhaps the beginings of 7 (near gale) but from my view would have a serious imapct on the vesel ability to fulfill any task except riding out the weather.

http://www.anbg.gov.au/jrc/kayak/beaufort.html

From a regulators point of view HSC are generally limited to a maximum of a 3.5m signficant wave height unless the designer can prove the vessel can operate in higher states without exceeding the "moderate degradation of safety" limit. As noted before the issue here is when the weather effects the ability of the ship to operate.

Another issue I would love more information on is how the LCS hull (as opposed to the ferry hull) form reacts in a tall swell of 4.5m. In the ferry the box structure of the vehicle deck extends well forward giving he plan veiw of the vessel a bullet shape which adds buoyancy forward (and probably increases the incidence of tunnel slam) which would allow the vessel to ride up on the swell.

http://www.austal.com/files/delivery/DS_BenchjiguaExpress.pdf

The GD LCS does not extend the box structure foward and the bow section is a slender monohull. This reduces the buoyancy of this section and may give the potential to knife through waves whihc is useful in lower sea states. The molded depth of the ferry is only 8.2m but the LCS fore deck is carried one deck high however it still appears likely the ship would "take it green" over the fore deck at the higher sea states as the bow spears in during higher sea states. This is more likely in seas combined with a tall swell in a longer period (which do not count toward the sea state) whihc occur in a fully developed swell (occuring after consistnet winds in a givne areas over a period of time). The operation of any weapons system ont he bow structure wouel appear to be limited in sea states at the higher end of the vessel operating envelope.

http://www.austal.com/images/delivery/lcs-gallery-8-t.jpg

Given the sloped facier of the superstructure which is located directly above the hull tunnels it also apear very likely that a lot of spray or broken water will be directed up over the bridge and mast in higher sea states (i.e. sea disturbance 5 or beufort 6) which is not entirely desirable.

I would love to see the tank tesing on this but suspect that is not available for public consumption.

don't get me wrong, this hull is an impressive piece of design for the roles envisaged for it (Fast Ferry, LCS) but it is not suitable as 'universal frigate' given the operating and DWT limitations in my view.

 

[rjmaz1]

All ship designs are about compromise though.

The Littotal Combat ship is an excellent compromise between speed, cargo carrying, firepower and running costs.

Being limited to sea state 5 is due to the fast and light design. A ship that size could have been built to handle sea's that were much worse, but it'd also be much slower, heavier and probably also have less cargo space.

99% of the time the sea's are below sea state 5, so why build a ship to take into account that 1% when it will cost twice as much to buy an operate.

I believe the LCS is the perfect ship for Australia. It could replace the ANZAC's and help perform the amphibious assault, transport and command centre roles that were originally planned for the Canberra class ships.

In fact if you installed AEGIS as a weapons module onto the LCS it could fill the role of the Air Warfare destroyer fairly well.

I believe Australia should put its foot in the door and start ordering a couple LCS once the price comes down.

 

[AegisFC]

In fact if you installed AEGIS as a weapons module onto the LCS it could fill the role of the Air Warfare destroyer fairly well.

You can't modulize the entire Aegis system. Installing Aegis on LCS would require major modifications and add a lot of weight.

 

[gf0012-aust]

All ship designs are about compromise though.

Thats true enough, but Alex is in a position to make substantial considered and relevant comment

In fact if you installed AEGIS as a weapons module onto the LCS it could fill the role of the Air Warfare destroyer fairly well.

Can't be done. It's a cradle to grave installation. You can't retro discrete modules to "make" AEGIS

I believe Australia should put its foot in the door and start ordering a couple LCS once the price comes down.

IMHO, waste of money for australia. We're responsible for policing and managing through our territories 1/9th of the worlds oceans. That means that warfighting roles are "real" bluewater roles (wrt Oz budget limitations and bang for buck issues)

 

[Galrahn]

You can't modulize the entire Aegis system. Installing Aegis on LCS would require major modifications and add a lot of weight.

That is true, however the new AEGIS being incorporated in the DDG-1000 hull form is lighter than the AEGIS system used today. If you keep the hull and modify the superstructure it is possible to put AEGIS on the LCS. It would be interesting to see the propulsion performance loss on that design, because I bet speed would be the first thing sacrificed.

 

[Galrahn]

Alexsa that is great information, leads me to some questions.

When I think about the LCS, my first thought is modularity. Those modules add a lot of weight, or at least some of them do, while other modules don't add as much weight. Given the module bays for both LCS designs are at the rear of the ship, how would a heavier mission module effect the LCS in higher sea state compared to a lighter mission module? If you were guessing, would either the GD or LM design have a leg up on the other in dealing with this potential issue?

Because the weight isn't balanced throughout the length of the ship, rather confined to the back of the ships, the weight differential that could exist depending upon payload has bothered me lately. It seems to me the design would need ballasts to compensate for lightweight loads (would you agree or no?), but I'm not sure if the ballasts are built into the design.

Am I off on this line of thought?

 

[B.Smitty]

Given the fact the GD hull design was based on a fery built to the HSC code means it is limited by sea state. Driven in worse conditions you run a serious risk of hull damage given the yeild strength and elastic properties of steel and aluminium and the lightweight structure. Metal properties can be found at:

http://www.engineershandbook.com/Tables/steelprop.htm

In addition sea state 5 is effectively the maximum operating limit of this vessel given that is when it ceases operating aircraft which form one of the core functions of its capability. It is also notable that sea state 4 is the limit for operating boats and the vessel is only capabile of its maximum speed in sea state 3.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/weather.htm

These are not high figures.

The GD LCS fact sheet says,

"Coupled with the inherent stability of the trimaran hull form, the ship is capable of conducting operations in Sea State 8 conditions and performing full flight operations through Sea State 5."

http://www.generaldynamics.com/prod_serv/marine/LCS/GD_LCS_Fact_Sheet.pdf

I agree, not being able to lauch/recover helos is a big hit.

As an aside, how do similarly-sized conventional monohulls compare in terms of aviation ops in high Sea States?