Littoral Combat Ship

neil

New Member
moving away from australia for a bit..

any thoughts on the us navy 313 ship fleet plan.. is it achievable by 2030.. and how will LCS affect the plan?

at 55 LCS planned, it seems to me that any cut in these numbers would cause the 313 ship plan to fail..

also.. any thoughts on where the us navy is heading in terms of hull numbers as opposed to china and india?

thanx
 

B.Smitty

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
If you need a long range multi role hull with good sea keeping this is not really compatable with a vesel based on a HSC code vessel.
I've been wondering, how much has been done to navalize the GD LCS design? Is it still basically an commercial HSC? What kinds of changes were made?

How much would have to be done to convert the Bollinger 112m HSV design into an LCS? Was this considered?

It would seem to be a cheaper route than designing a new ship.

What drawbacks would it have over either of the LCS designs?
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
moving away from australia for a bit..

any thoughts on the us navy 313 ship fleet plan.. is it achievable by 2030.. and how will LCS affect the plan?

at 55 LCS planned, it seems to me that any cut in these numbers would cause the 313 ship plan to fail..

also.. any thoughts on where the us navy is heading in terms of hull numbers as opposed to china and india?

thanx
Agreed, if we could move the Australia only discussion to this thread http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5973 since it is getting somewhat OT for a discussion on LCS.

The general feel I get for the plans for LCS and/or a 313 ship fleet plan... It sounds rather fluid at present. 55 LCS might have been put forth under the plan, at present there is question on just how many LCS will actually be built. I believe currently 4 are allowed, but only 2-3 actually funded. Figures should be available earlier in this thread. Between that, and what seems to be unresolved questions on costs for additional vessels and looming budgetary issues, there might not be any further LCS. Also, the role envisioned for LCS seems to have been re-thought, so that LCS is now a design looking for a purpose. That sort of situation isn't likely to aid in securing further USN orders.

If I'm correct about the questions regarding LCS suitability for various planned roles, then I would also have to question a ship fleet plan where LCS figured so prominently, consisting of a sixth of the fleet. Not sure what the issue is, whether it's a changed strategic outlook, tech expected but not present, or unexpected tech that is present, or unanticipated cost issues, but perhaps the plan needed to be revisited, along with the assumptions made when it was drawn up.

-Cheers
 

Wooki

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
If I'm correct about the questions regarding LCS suitability for various planned roles, then I would also have to question a ship fleet plan where LCS figured so prominently, consisting of a sixth of the fleet. Not sure what the issue is, whether it's a changed strategic outlook, tech expected but not present, or unexpected tech that is present, or unanticipated cost issues, but perhaps the plan needed to be revisited, along with the assumptions made when it was drawn up.

-Cheers
Well, I guess you want to get back to basics and look at why you would want an LCS in the first place Tod...

Simply put; weapons systems carried by a vessel can augment to a large extent any ability that a fast vessel brings to a battle group.

But you still have to have "boots on the ground"... in other words presence where weapons systems cannot (to date) provide that.

So your LCS is basically a self deployable v/l that is able to sortie into shallow water of a foreign state. This is particularly advantageous in supporting land based operations and seeking out and destroying fast attack craft. Essentially it is a destroyer, because the destroyer concept was exactly that; destroy torpedo boats.

does that help?

cheers

w
 

Galrahn

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
any thoughts on the us navy 313 ship fleet plan.. is it achievable by 2030.. and how will LCS affect the plan?

at 55 LCS planned, it seems to me that any cut in these numbers would cause the 313 ship plan to fail..

also.. any thoughts on where the us navy is heading in terms of hull numbers as opposed to china and india?
The 313-ship plan is already dead, Mullin has said as much in discussions surrounding the soon to be released new maritime strategy for the US Navy, which will be released in October, followed by an Analysis of Alternatives in ship designs in November. The maritime strategy will likely change all existing plans, and hopefully straighten out the fleet which reflects the last strategy from the cold war era. There are very few clues on what the strategy will say or recommend, but expect it to focus on basics like strategic deterrence, maritime security, and homeland defense, with depth in the definition and challenges of each.

The LCS may or may not be apart of that strategy. There have been 4 funded to date, 1 was cancelled due to cost, and of the 3 intended to be built from the current budget in debate, the most we will see is 2, perhaps only 1 depending upon the outcome of the debate in Congress.

The new maritime strategy will likely provide the guidance on fleet strength and size, and probably also define the parameters for shape as well. I blogged about the challenges of the US Navy in developing its new maritime strategy this morning. Subjects to be defined in the strategy include how the US Navy should address the current war, the role of the navy in irregular warfare, how the navy should confront non state actors, a rising economic and potential military peer in China, a re-emerging strategic peer in Russia, the role of strategic deterence, the role of alliances, and the role of the Navy in homeland defense. When you think about what is required for meeting the challenges of each role, you realize you actually need a different set of capabilities for each challenge, highlighting the challenge of fleet design for the US Navy.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Well, I guess you want to get back to basics and look at why you would want an LCS in the first place Tod...

Simply put; weapons systems carried by a vessel can augment to a large extent any ability that a fast vessel brings to a battle group.

But you still have to have "boots on the ground"... in other words presence where weapons systems cannot (to date) provide that.

So your LCS is basically a self deployable v/l that is able to sortie into shallow water of a foreign state. This is particularly advantageous in supporting land based operations and seeking out and destroying fast attack craft. Essentially it is a destroyer, because the destroyer concept was exactly that; destroy torpedo boats.

does that help?

cheers

w
I believe I understand the concepts behind the LCS. What I don't understand is why a ship fleet plan would be drawn up in which the LCS concept has such importance, when the concept is untested and the vessels aren't available to test to see if they can fufill the mission requirements for a LCS.

Want to go over the following briefly to test my understanding.

Bluewater/open ocean naval vessels: Typically mono-hulled, deep draught vessels of 80+ m and 1,500 tons to provide both the needed seakeeping properties to transit the open ocean, as well as provide needed space and weight to carry stores and fuel for such a transit, as well as a useful weapons fitout. Generally smaller/lighter vessels in the 80 - 100 m range are more apt to be an OPV than a naval combatant.

Greenwater/littoral naval vessels: Tend to be smaller (less than 80 m) than an ocean-going vessel, with a lower displacement and a shallow draught hull. Often able to have a significant speed in littoral areas, but not as seaworthy in high sea states. Some do possess a powerful fitout relative to their size.

My impression of the LCS concept was that a LCS design would attempt to provide a vessel able to meet characteristics from both categories, and be of low enough cost to be acquired in numbers (estimated 60 vessels for US$12 bil).

What the designs look like to me, are vessels that are large for a littoral environment (115 m or 127 m), capable of high speed, but of uncertain ocean going capability, with a light fixed armament and limited space/weight for modules to expand the armament to a useful degree. I am also uncertain whether a LCS could get on-station to a needed area faster than a regular mono-hull if neither type vessel were already deployed in the area.

Let me know if I'm close (or wide) to the mark here.

-Cheers
 

spsun100001

New Member
I still tend to think that the whole concept of what the ship can or can't do is flawed.

Isn't the most important piece of equipment in the littoral the helicopters/ UAV's that the ship carries? In littoral combat in the first Gulf War against the Iraqi navy Britsh helicopters equipped with effective air to surface missiles decimated the Iraqi fleet. They were deployed on conventional destroyers and frigates that used them to stand off well out of range of Iraq's littoral centric navy.

Isn't the capability to carry an effective helicopter/UAV package about 80% of the story for whether a ship can be effective in projecting power into the littoral?

I must be missing some point because otherwise the US Navy is spending billions on ships that seem to be a response to the fact that the Iranians have a large number of speedboats with machine guns and a large number of nations have fast attack craft that operate in the littoral (exactly the kind of ships that GW1 proved were best dealt with by helicopters)
 

Galrahn

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Todjaeger I am not sure I completely follow you here...

High - Low shipbuilding strategies have existed in the US Navy in every era since the first 6 frigates of the US Navy, so it isn't like the idea to build a 'low' mix ship centered around the LCS is new, or even unexpected. In the current 313-ship plan, the LCS represents the low part of the high-low mix, with 65-70% being large combatants and 30-35% being the LCS.

There are also traditional roles for small combatants that you are overlooking, roles the LCS might fill very well. There is an added requirement to any US Navy small combatant though, it has to be able to cross oceans, which the LCS can do.

This is usually where someone cites the logistics argument, which is credible, but since it didn't apply in the past it is hard to apply with the LCS. The truth is the FFG-7 was never intended for frontline operations (WWII destroyers which populated every corner of the Pacific weren't built for endurance either). The FFG-7 was never intended to operate alone, and never intended to operate great distances from the US. Today the CONOP for the 30 FFG-7s still in service exactly matches a ship that operates alone on the frontline, sometimes great distances from the US. Go figure.

The issue I see with the LCS is that the US Navy has a need in the littoral for countering small boats, countering littoral submarines, and for mine warfare. For countering small boats, the LCS appears to be suited for the role, whether or not it is the best choice, or an overly expensive option, is yet to be proven. For littoral submarines the LCS again appears it is suited for the role, although the cancellation of the ADS hurts and it may be there are better ways to deploy unmanned ASW hunters forward than with the LCS. For MIW I think the LCS is a major upgrade over other options, and might be the best mine warfare ship ever built, but like everything else will have to prove that in action.

For other small combatant roles, like C4ISR, maritime security operations, fast ferry transport, and special operations I see the potential of the LCS, I just don't know if it is the best option.

I do know this though, the US Navy needs a smaller brown water option to compliment the big blue fleet somewhere in the mix. Whether or not the LCS is the right answer, I don't know, but I do know given the large lead in peer competition if there was ever a time to build a few for testing concepts, operations, and theories now would be the right time to do it, instead of later when funding will needed to replace critical elements of the fleet.
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
For MIW I think the LCS is a major upgrade over other options, and might be the best mine warfare ship ever built
... for the USN.

There are plenty of other dedicated MIW vessels out there. Especially navies bordering the Baltic Sea tend to have developed rather sophisticated systems. I'm thinking of the German Troika MCM system, Finnish dedicated minelayers, Swedish multirole MCMV, or Germany's 25-year experience in USVs and automated minelaying.

This mostly stems from NATO structures of course, in which MIW is relegated to e.g. SNMCMG1, which always primarily contains German, British and Belgian units for MIW.

The LCS concept, in my opinion, is a reasonable multi-role compromise for littoral multi-spectrum warfare, in various intensity levels (and that's important too).
 

Wooki

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Let me know if I'm close (or wide) to the mark here.

-Cheers
I think Galrahn summed it up. This LCS concept is nothing new ( like I said) It is more like the original destroyer concept, except with a bit more tech (organic aviation assets, etc) which makes it more capable.

For my money, it is a useful extension of capability that the USN has recently lacked.

It would work well with the over the horizon sea base operations. Its most powerful asset though, is its ability to carry out air operations. It is nigh impossible for a small v/l acting alone to catch another high speed v/l without air assets.

Without the air platform, it (or any other v/l) is virtually useless in trying to control any area of brown water. Anti pirate operations is one mission that comes to mind.

cheers

w
 

rjmaz1

New Member
It would seem that a cheaper alternative to the Littoral Combat Ship would be to use Incat ferries and modify them...

HSV-X1 Joint Venture
HSV-2 Swift
TSV-1X Spearhead

All currently in US service. They seem to be performing many of the roles that the Littoral Combat Ship will perform.

Bolt on a basic radar and surface to air missile system and a multi role helicopter with anti ship missiles and you have a pretty impressive package that would have half the crew of the ANZAC's with similar firepower. The only disadvantage would be range and the lower sea state conditions. This would make a very attractive low option in a high-low force.

It would be interesting what Incat does with the three Catamarans that are being leased to the US. The Australian Navy should buy them.
 

B.Smitty

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
It would seem that a cheaper alternative to the Littoral Combat Ship would be to use Incat ferries and modify them...

HSV-X1 Joint Venture
HSV-2 Swift
TSV-1X Spearhead
This is what i was talking about.

I was wondering what structural changes were made to the GD LCS to improve damage tolerance, etc., and what effort would be required to modify these HSVs to the same standards.

The large roro section in the middle of the cats might make for a rather quick death if it were to take a mine or AShM hit. Of course perhaps no worse (or not much worse) than the GD LCS.

Here are some concept drawings and specs from Bollinger/INCAT,

http://www.marad.dot.gov/nmrec/images/Bollinger-Savoye.pdf
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Ah, I see I didn't quite get my point across, I'll try a different way.

I'm aware of a need for the USN to be able to carry out green/brown-water operations, as well as the USN history operating smaller vessels like the 18 gun Hornet sloop and of course the forerunners to the USCG, the cutters of the Revenue Service.

What I'm less sure of, is whether the LCS concept is the correct one to meet differing (competing?) USN requirements. To me, in short, it looks to be a frigate-sized solution to what is ordinarily a corvette or patrol boat-sized problem as far as green/brown water ops are concerned. As for some of the other roles available through different mission modules, they seem to offer flexibility but I'm not sure how well everything will mesh together.

Given what seems to be the current edge the USN has over other potential navies now isn't a bad time to test out such a concept, build a small number of test vessels, etc. I'm not sure that the concepts or designs have matured enough for it to succeed though, and that is where I have (had) a problem with a ship fleet plan where LCS was such a large part. If, either due to design constraints or operational realities the LCS didn't perform as envisioned, a potentially large capability gap would appear.

-Cheers
 

B.Smitty

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
What I'm less sure of, is whether the LCS concept is the correct one to meet differing (competing?) USN requirements. To me, in short, it looks to be a frigate-sized solution to what is ordinarily a corvette or patrol boat-sized problem as far as green/brown water ops are concerned. As for some of the other roles available through different mission modules, they seem to offer flexibility but I'm not sure how well everything will mesh together.
The LCS is frigate-sized due to the need for self-deployment and organic helo capability.

Most corvettes only have limited or no helo capabilities but typically can self-deploy.

Patrol boats typically have no helos and very limited self-deployment capability.

I agree though. Seems like we should be looking for a mothership/patrol-boat combination as part of the littoral solution.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
The LCS is frigate-sized due to the need for self-deployment and organic helo capability.

Most corvettes only have limited or no helo capabilities but typically can self-deploy.

Patrol boats typically have no helos and very limited self-deployment capability.

I agree though. Seems like we should be looking for a mothership/patrol-boat combination as part of the littoral solution.
That was what I meant about LCS trying to meet blue water and green/brown water requirements, and potentially succeeding at doing so, without providing a reliably useful vessel.

Many of the larger and more potent FAC/patrol boats (Flyvefisken, La Combattante, etc) actually have greater armament than a base-line LCS. Given the smaller size of such vessels, they are likely also less expensive and potentially grouped together, meaning that a single LCS might not be able to engage safely. The ability to operate several helicopters I believe is good, but as I understand it, that comes at the expense of operating other mission modules due to weight limits. And even carrying 3 helicopters at once, they might not always be available, either due to simultaneous ops or maintenance reqs.

Given that there apparently are weight restrictions on the LCS modules, I have to question the effectiveness relative to risk, of taking a LCS close inshore. Aside from potentially engaging a similarly armed and capable green water ship, there are then the risks posed to a vessel from land-based equipment like artillery, mortars and rockets. I could be mistaken, but I believe that a 57mm gun has a range of ~5 miles, well within the range of a 122mm artillery piece and likely within range of the larger mortars.

A scenario where I see problems with the LCS is from earlier this year, when 15 personnel from HMS Cornwall were seized by Iran while conducting boat searches in the Persian Gulf. If the HMS Cornwall had been an LCS-type vessel instead of a frigate, I think there would have been the same result (crew seized) and in a LCS 15 people is approximately 20% of the crew. Given the planned cost (US$200 mil/ea) and size/displacement of a LCS, I doubt that for the primary mission HMS Cornwall had (protect a petroleum terminal) more than one LCS would have been tasked with that role. For similar reasons, I doubt a separate LCS would have been strictly assigned to inspect/search vessels in Iraqi waters. Also, with the likely increase of the per ship cost (US$300 mil+/ea) I think it unlikely that two or more LCS would have been available to be deployed in such close proximity to each other. It's possible, if the LCS was configured to carry 3 helicopters, that a helicopter might have been available to intervene, unlike what happened with HMS Cornwall. As I remember it, HMS Cornwall's helicopter was returning or had just returned after getting the "all clear", if three helicopters were available, the ROE might have been different, where a heli stayed aloft as long a boarding boat & crew were away. It's also possible, given the max speed potentially available to a LCS that it might have been able to close or intercept the Iranian boats either before they reached the RN RHIBs, or before getting back to Iranian home waters. That would require going off station from the petroleum terminal, which might have placed that facility at an unacceptable risk.

A solution I like a bit better for something like this is indeed a mothership & patrol boat type combination. The mothership would be a large vessel suitable for ocean crossings, capable of carrying, deploying and supporting a number of small patrol boats (CB90 or similar) and providing a platform for operation of several helicopters. Depending on how far out one wished to carry the idea, it might make sense to include a command/air control centre, a 5in/127mm or 155mm AGS with ERGM, and SAM for point/area air defence. The mothership would in essence be a floating base that the operation assets like the patrol boats, SF or boarding teams, helicopters, etc would return to for recovery, repair, resupply and other support functions. Now, if mission modules could be effectively created for a smaller vessel like the CB90, that could also then potentially meet a number of different requirements. A small SSM launcher module carrying something like Penguin Mk 2, or Hellfire-M, another module could contain MCM equipment, and so on.

-Cheers
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
It would seem that a cheaper alternative to the Littoral Combat Ship would be to use Incat ferries and modify them...

HSV-X1 Joint Venture
HSV-2 Swift
TSV-1X Spearhead

All currently in US service. They seem to be performing many of the roles that the Littoral Combat Ship will perform.

Bolt on a basic radar and surface to air missile system and a multi role helicopter with anti ship missiles and you have a pretty impressive package that would have half the crew of the ANZAC's with similar firepower. The only disadvantage would be range and the lower sea state conditions. This would make a very attractive low option in a high-low force.

It would be interesting what Incat does with the three Catamarans that are being leased to the US. The Australian Navy should buy them.
To my understanding, the various HSVs do not perform the same functions or roles that the LCS is supposed to do. As far as I'm aware, the various HSV are unarmed highspeed transports, akin to what Jervis Bay was. The LCS is supposed to be able to enage in MCM, ASuW and ASW ops amongs others, depending on mission modules carried. They are not rapid transports or lift ships, though they can be used to carry and deploy several helicopters. As such, the significant characteristics of the various HSV (available lane metres/internal volume) does not come into play as an advantage.

Also, one issue that has been raised repeatedly by various members in different threads, is that a cat/tri fast ferry designs like that of Jervis Bay, Joint Venture, Spirit (ex-Spearhead) etc tend to not perform as well in terms of operations, endurance and speed in rough seas, potentially negating any "high speed" advantage. I did take a look at the pdf for the Future Wave Piercing Catamaran Capability 112 m Seaframe Helo Transport. I am curious to know what assumptions were made on page 18 where a trans-Atlantic crossing from either the East or West Coast to the Straits of Hormuz, maintaining an average speed of 39+ kts. It would be interesting to know if that was a best case performance, worst case, or something in between.

-Cheers
 
Last edited:

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
As far as I'm aware, the various HSV are unarmed highspeed transports, akin to what Jervis Bay was.
HSV-2 Swift does carry a gun mounted forward, as can be seen in photos from the gallery.

http://www.incat.com.au/news/media.cgi?task=SHOWCATEGORY&category=63452

You are correct that the HSVs are primarily transports. The following description of Swift from Incat comparing her role to the LCS indicates that she is only armed for self defence:

Unlike the planned Littoral Combat Ship—another small, fast vessel being developed by the Navy—the Swift is not intended to do battle. But she is armed for self-defense, with an MK 96 stabilized-gun weapon system that provides 25 mm chain gun and 40 mm grenade machine gun firepower, as well as an MK 45 "Snake Eyes" weapon system with an MK 19 40 mm grenade machine gun.
http://www.incat.com.au/news/intere...ews_task=DETAIL&articleID=63941&sectionID=202

Tas
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
HSV-2 Swift does carry a gun mounted forward, as can be seen in photos from the gallery.

http://www.incat.com.au/news/media.cgi?task=SHOWCATEGORY&category=63452

You are correct that the HSVs are primarily transports. The following description of Swift from Incat comparing her role to the LCS indicates that she is only armed for self defence:


http://www.incat.com.au/news/intere...ews_task=DETAIL&articleID=63941&sectionID=202

Tas
I stand corrected. Though I took a look at the photos and they weren't quite clear enough (the ones I had access to) for me to identify where the gun was. I would assume it was the device mounted on the forecastle and best seen when viewing the bow at an angle. Thanks for the info Tas.

-Cheers
 

B.Smitty

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
To my understanding, the various HSVs do not perform the same functions or roles that the LCS is supposed to do. As far as I'm aware, the various HSV are unarmed highspeed transports, akin to what Jervis Bay was. The LCS is supposed to be able to enage in MCM, ASuW and ASW ops amongs others, depending on mission modules carried. They are not rapid transports or lift ships, though they can be used to carry and deploy several helicopters. As such, the significant characteristics of the various HSV (available lane metres/internal volume) does not come into play as an advantage.
Armament is largely a matter of configuration. There's nothing stopping you from modifying an HSV hull to carry a 57mm, 30mm Mk44, VLS cells, etc.. Still seems like it would be cheaper than building a brand new hull.

I'd be more concerned that an HSV would need significant structural modification and shock hardening. Or that the cat hull form was inherently less suitable than the tri.


Also, one issue that has been raised repeatedly by various members in different threads, is that a cat/tri fast ferry designs like that of Jervis Bay, Joint Venture, Spirit (ex-Spearhead) etc tend to not perform as well in terms of operations, endurance and speed in rough seas, potentially negating any "high speed" advantage.
But is that not also true of the GD LCS design?
 
Top