Littoral Combat Ships are they useful?

[gf0012-aust]

The German MJ2010 concept - 10 years ago, before it was trashed for cost reasons - planned the use of semi-autonomous "Sea Horse" USVs as combination minesweeper and minehunting drone carriers, with two or three of these USVs led and serviced by a manned platform, and these three or four ships sweeping and hunting as a pack similar to the Troika concept.

As for current development, the heavy "Sea Otter" UUV drone is envisaged to go in that direction with future payloads (sidescan sonar, possibly carrying destruction charges).

The problem then and now with the non US developments is that they do not have complete system autonomy - they're limited by the fact that all command and management is via umbilical - and that effects "effective" range. The second issue is autonomous payload - and is directly tied into the issue of range (search, sweep, duration issues)

The US is focussed on having UDT used at the wireless level so that they can dramatically change the way that UUV/USV's can work. It invites the issues of arrays, fused search, swarm management etc... it means that the UUV/USVs can start to hot swap roles, shuffle persistence issues on station etc....

umbilical vehicles have significant restrictions.

The US does have some very nice MCM capability built into ROV's - but its a long way from a gold release of wireless capability. I was lucky enough to witness a demo of such capability in the US about 4 years ago, and they even had some proposals for cavitating weapons release via USV control..

everyone else is a generation behind what the US were doing even 4 years ago. (although the USN regards the AI in Australias Wayamba USV as something that they are striving for in future array/swarm capabilities.

There is however a reason why countries like australia are maintaining development of umbilical management. I did witness a demo of a USV off Hawai'i about 4 years ago - it had a duration of 8hrs. within 2-3 years it had tripled its duration. The problem however is that autonomy means a demand on efficient onboard power as well as engine management. the ratio of efficient systems to persistence is still a long way off. The US however is determined to get around that restriction.

 

[kato]

The problem then and now with the non US developments is that they do not have complete system autonomy - they're limited by the fact that all command and management is via umbilical - and that effects "effective" range.

None of the current BAe Atlas developments are umbilical - however, unlike US AUVs they all offer the additional capability to be directly tied by umbilical cord.

Sea Otter is not umbilical, and navigates autonomously with its own systems. With a range of 100 nm (24 h endurance) and a diving depth of 600m (standard version, there's also a Mk IID deep-diving version) that would be a pretty long umbilical cord anyway. Sea Otter is currently in trials with the BWB. And BAe Atlas has already developed Seafox and Sea Wolf autonomous versions based on the Sea Otter systems.

The BWB is currently funding Atlas developing a sidescan sonar for MCM and potential ASW purposes for Sea Otter Mk II, based on the HS-12M minehunting sonar used on the Swedish Landsort class vessels.

As for autonomy... Seafox for example already acts fully autonomous. It takes the mine position from the search sonar before launch, then goes and dives down to it autonomously. It then gives the operator on the vessel a picture of the mine for identification and waits for man-in-the-loop approval to attack it. That's it.

 

[gf0012-aust]

None of the current BAe Atlas developments are umbilical - however, unlike US AUVs they all offer the additional capability to be directly tied by umbilical cord.

Sea Otter is not umbilical, and navigates autonomously with its own systems. With a range of 100 nm (24 h endurance) and a diving depth of 600m (standard version, there's also a Mk IID deep-diving version) that would be a pretty long umbilical cord anyway. Sea Otter is currently in trials with the BWB. And BAe Atlas has already developed Seafox and Sea Wolf autonomous versions based on the Sea Otter systems.

The BWB is currently funding Atlas developing a sidescan sonar for MCM and potential ASW purposes for Sea Otter Mk II, based on the HS-12M minehunting sonar used on the Swedish Landsort class vessels.

As for autonomy... Seafox for example already acts fully autonomous. It takes the mine position from the search sonar before launch, then goes and dives down to it autonomously. It then gives the operator on the vessel a picture of the mine for identification and waits for man-in-the-loop approval to attack it. That's it.

I'm deliberately avoiding going into specifics for obvious reasons.

The existing soft connected systems have some fundamental issues with range, payload and duration.

its why even the UK is focussed on umbilicals because there is no current system able to get the data bandwidth and data volume at range, interconnected with other supporting assets and for the requisite duration.

autonomous means that the asset can go in cold, search, identify, hunt and prosecute to the end state with a minimum of skimmer support. and the view is that they will do that for extended capability.

its why we're looking at dismounted solutions for subs - its an extension of the weapons system, and it means that the sub is a controller as well as a hub for increasing the depth of search and detect and kill.

its why swarm technology is so heavily researched as well as the shift is to dismounted solutions with small sub autonomy

soft connections cannot and are not competing in the real world.

 

[Firn]

Some very good points raised. I recently gave the UUV of Atlas Electronics a look and they seemed to be very promising. More about their products.

If you compare the challanges faced by UAV and UUV one can notice among many similarities at least one great difference - the ease of communication is markedly different. This and the nature of the medium has made and makes fiber-optical links so attractive. ( I posted a neat link some days ago about deep sea communications)

While I do think the US is leading in the R&D in almost all military areas - it would be tragic if it would be otherwise, given their huge budget - Atlas Electronics has also been on the forefront in their areas. This is partly due to the technological hub in Northern Germany and partly Sweden. MCM has also kept in a much sharper focus than in the USA, at least in my humble opinion.

Seafox wins another contract

The "british" Seafox

 

[StingrayOZ]

Getting back to the inital topic I do see the LCS and simular spin offs (OCV etc) as being great platforms to operate UUV's and UAV's. With large flexable space areas. Areas for UAV's like firescout to operate off. Able to support a crew size big enough, and storage space to control potentially dozens of UUV/UAV and able to maintain on station for longer periods of time.

This will be the big win.

 

[Firn]

It really seems to be the case, at least when looking on the size of the landing deck of the LCS in the video. Perhaps every combat ship will become a "unmanned craft carrier" in the longer term.

The Waterjets certainly make a lot of sense, especially in the littoral environment and when operating a lot of UV, SV, unmanned or with SOF.

 

[AegisFC]

Plus remember that they can't travel any faster then their supporting tanker anyway since their range at high speed is only something like 1,500 miles.

That isn't a big deal, where there are US or allied ships there are tankers and these things won't be deployed to an area alone and unsupported.

newer technology for anti-submarine, anti-air/missile, surface, and mine countermeasures than a FFG-7. It has the same range at slower speeds for long distances, and very fast speeds for short operations over shorter distances. From the hull to the propulsion system to the sensors and weapon systems.

Already sailors in Virginia are talking about how the LCS blew by a destroyers and frigates easily.

I get all of that, but the ultra-low crewing is bad news. None of the crew are techs, they are all operators, the only corrective maintenance they do is daily, weekly and monthly PMS checks, everything else (including keeping the ship clean) is contracted out, that is not good, that will not save the USN money like they planned.
Right now the Blue and Gold crews are all 2nd term or more sailors who have been to the fleet and have training on top of training for multiple jobs but that is not sustainable, eventually first term squids will go to these ships and the whole plan will fall apart. There just simply are not enough sailors on board to train junior sailors and maintain mission effectiveness.

I've been on board LCS-1, it is an impressive ship and I like the concept, but the execution needs a lot of work.

 

[Firn]

I get all of that, but the ultra-low crewing is bad news. None of the crew are techs, they are all operators, the only corrective maintenance they do is daily, weekly and monthly PMS checks, everything else (including keeping the ship clean) is contracted out, that is not good, that will not save the USN money like they planned.
Right now the Blue and Gold crews are all 2nd term or more sailors who have been to the fleet and have training on top of training for multiple jobs but that is not sustainable, eventually first term squids will go to these ships and the whole plan will fall apart. There just simply are not enough sailors on board to train junior sailors and maintain mission effectiveness.

I've been on board LCS-1, it is an impressive ship and I like the concept, but the execution needs a lot of work.

It seems to be that the low manning has become a major selling point of the new vessels, so that it is now "locked in" for political and other factors. Changing it might hence be difficult.

 

[Lucasnz]

That isn't a big deal, where there are US or allied ships there are tankers and these things won't be deployed to an area alone and unsupported.

The lack of range is a significant blunder it my view. While you are correct that the LCS won't be deployed without support, the increased dependence of tankers for logistical support must surely increase the risk of operational failure, in the event the tanker is sunk or suffers from machinery failure. Operational failure, not withstanding the normal risks of combat operations to frigates etc, is less likley to happen when the vessel is less dependent on external logistical support. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the lost of a tanker(s) to either the LCS or longer legged frigate, would have an operational impact to both vessel's, but the impact to operations is reduced in a frigate due to its longer range.

I get all of that, but the ultra-low crewing is bad news. None of the crew are techs, they are all operators, the only corrective maintenance they do is daily, weekly and monthly PMS checks, everything else (including keeping the ship clean) is contracted out, that is not good, that will not save the USN money like they planned. Right now the Blue and Gold crews are all 2nd term or more sailors who have been to the fleet and have training on top of training for multiple jobs but that is not sustainable, eventually first term squids will go to these ships and the whole plan will fall apart. There just simply are not enough sailors on board to train junior sailors and maintain mission effectiveness. I've been on board LCS-1, it is an impressive ship and I like the concept, but the execution needs a lot of work

.

Yes I'd agree with that. If you're bored at work sit down and work out the crewing arrangements for a corvette with a 70 strong crew. By the time you man the ops room (cic), weapons, flight deck, machinery space's with enough crew for local control, these very little left for damage control. I don't see how the LCS could do it.

 

[F35Owns]

It seems to be that the low manning has become a major selling point of the new vessels, so that it is now "locked in" for political and other factors. Changing it might hence be difficult.

I guess they are gearing up for the UCAV days ahead. Can't really do that with a fridgate . Does anybody have any info on the Gerald Ford class carriers? I'm curious if they are going smaller or staying with the Nimitz class sized carriers....

In my opinion on the Carriers, they should go smaller. By the time the first one is into service (2012), that will be the time the F-35 is introduced. Really don't need a huge deck, for obvious reasons, and the X-47B doesn't need a huge deck either. A Carrier every 4 years, i'm assuming they will be more compact.

Finally, the USN is getting their butts into gear, with our Ship Building procedure.

BTW, I hope the LCS lives up to the hype, they are building 55 of them.

Gates knows something, we don't.

 

[StingrayOZ]

The lack of range is a significant blunder it my view.

The USN might need additional oilers, but it has a limited range but its not tiny. At a regular cruise speed, your still talking about intercontinental distances. After all they are Littoral combat ships

If you're bored at work sit down and work out the crewing arrangements for a corvette with a 70 strong crew. By the time you man the ops room (cic), weapons, flight deck, machinery space's with enough crew for local control, these very little left for damage control. I don't see how the LCS could do it.

With remote observation, automation with extreme redundancy etc damage control can still be reasonable. Most other navies get by with less man power than the USN for simular sized/function ship (but is that a good thing?). Perhaps there is a training issue with this sized ship, but the USN does operate a large fleet and training could be conducted on numerous other vessels. They are still large enough if these ships need to have high crew accododation levels a refit/new revision should solve that. These are prototypes, I would imagine they are looking heavily at crewing issues and concerns to get the best balance.

I don't see the USN carrier's getting much smaller. They will just carry high numbers of UAV's than other nations carriers.

 

[gf0012-aust]

With remote observation, automation with extreme redundancy etc damage control can still be reasonable. Most other navies get by with less man power than the USN for simular sized/function ship (but is that a good thing?).

As part of normal discussions, but specifically with respect to DDG-51 based vessels, the USN has worked very closely with RAN on seeing whether their manning levels can be reduced beyond their atypical levels.

Bottom line is that the USN has a view (and I agree) that there is a significant body of data available that for them reinforces that going below a certain manned level will impede the ability of a ships crew to recover a damaged vessel under various stages of combat damage.

The last thing I would be doing is basing crew members survival on a series of automated systems. Redundancy only goes so far. To maintain combat effectiveness, to keep the vessel intact while still fighting - and to not compromise the combat operations is the key. Being able to maintain and employ effective battle damage control while fighting is not something the americans take lightly - and they have more collective experience than everyone over the last 50 years. (and a few lessons learnt from the Falklands)

 

[AegisFC]

The lack of range is a significant blunder it my view. While you are correct that the LCS won't be deployed without support, the increased dependence of tankers for logistical support must surely increase the risk of operational failure, in the event the tanker is sunk or suffers from machinery failure. Operational failure, not withstanding the normal risks of combat operations to frigates etc, is less likley to happen when the vessel is less dependent on external logistical support. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the lost of a tanker(s) to either the LCS or longer legged frigate, would have an operational impact to both vessel's, but the impact to operations is reduced in a frigate due to its longer range.

At more moderate speeds its range goes up to around3,500 nmi, that isn't bad and it can also refuel from an Amphib or other larger ship near by if it really needed to.

I guess they are gearing up for the UCAV days ahead. Can't really do that with a fridgate . Does anybody have any info on the Gerald Ford class carriers? I'm curious if they are going smaller or staying with the Nimitz class sized carriers....

A simple Google search will reveal plenty of publicly available info on the ship.
They will be the same sized as a Nimitz.

In my opinion on the Carriers, they should go smaller. By the time the first one is into service (2012), that will be the time the F-35 is introduced. Really don't need a huge deck, for obvious reasons, and the X-47B doesn't need a huge deck either. A Carrier every 4 years, i'm assuming they will be more compact.

The USN has looked at the issue of smaller carriers quite a few times in the past and have always come to the conclusion that going smaller would not be a smart move. A Nimitz has endurance, plane numbers and more importantly plane support capabilities that is ahead of anything else afloat by a good margin.

F-35C needs the same amount of space to operate off of as a Hornet, and X-47 will still be catapult launched and will use arrested recovery.

Finally, the USN is getting their butts into gear, with our Ship Building procedure.

BTW, I hope the LCS lives up to the hype, they are building 55 of them.

Gates knows something, we don't.

USN shipbuilding program is broken and needs an overhaul, mission creep and not holding the builders to task on items of cost and quality control are serious problems. Right now the only classes that do not suffer massive cost overruns or QC problems are the Burkes and Virginia subs.

 

[gf0012-aust]

USN shipbuilding program is broken and needs an overhaul, mission creep and not holding the builders to task on items of cost and quality control are serious problems. Right now the only classes that do not suffer massive cost overruns or QC problems are the Burkes and Virginia subs.

although the recent investigation by NCIS into the welding supervisor on a few Virginias raises a whole string of issues about how effective that project management has been.....

 

[AegisFC]

although the recent investigation by NCIS into the welding supervisor on a few Virginias raises a whole string of issues about how effective that project management has been.....

That was a single welding inspector and a couple ships it is a problem but overall the entire program has been well run and on budget, quite a feat for a US program.

 

[gf0012-aust]

That was a single welding inspector and a couple ships it is a problem but overall the entire program has been well run and on budget, quite a feat for a US program.

I've attended a couple of meetings in the US re the Virginia program. I must say that I was singularly impressed by what I heard. The engineering results have been most impressive, especially considering that it was the first non-paper design project, and that it involved benching against completely unfamiliar performance parameters.

The problem however, is that the current investigation has only been triggered by people and not by systems checks. (and for the number of faulty welds, thats a huge systemic issue). It also raises the question on the uniform side of the management shop as to whether there are any others that are sitting in the fog.

There are quite a few people worried about the potential for the last sentence in my prev paragraph having some legs. (We did go through the same issues with No 1's bow section when it was welded by Kockums in Sweden) That boat was almost rendered unusable for safety reasons until everything was re-done. (would have been a huge issue on proximity shock tests - we could have sunk our own boat if not attended to). As I understand the current USN/NG probs, they're deficient welds but not in external critical sections, so can be redone very quickly.

I'd hate to see the penalty clauses.

But, the consistent feedback we got from a combined meeting (USN/NG/State/Dept Commerce) was that the program was something that all were very proud of. Get rid of the bad apples though....

 

[Valin]

Besides the massive cost overrun, touching on the original topic, the argument can be made that yes, the LCS is useful, but another question arises. What is it useful for?

Much noise has been made about its littoral combat capability. While the idea of designing a multi use ship in order to venture into the littorals to duke it out with sampans, junks, and Exocets may seem to be a great idea to some, I beg to differ. The very best weapon platforms to use in the littorals are helicopters. Mix in some Grunts supported by UCAVs and you will have a pretty sound blockade/QRF/combat support structure. To venture into a modern littoral battleground with a target like LCS would be suicide.

The best use for an LCS size platform is as a Brown water FOB/C4I nexus for UCAV/UUV, RHIB, Riverine/corvette types, Helicopters, SOF and Marines based off a Blue water Amphib Group. Blue->Brown-> Littoral/inland Force projection, coupled with a possible DDG-1000, for fire support and DDG-51 for area defense, while integrating the Harrier/F-35 complement of the Amphibious group can put the LCS in a position to be a contributing factor in tomorrows naval engagements. The idea of sending these ships into the litorals the way we might send a DDG into a regional hotspot makes me shudder. It is a great irony to me that when the US tries to design a new platform, we end up utilizing it the same way we did the old one, rather than developing doctrine to put the capabilities of the new platform to its best use.

If we make a habit of sending these over priced, undermanned, underprotected tin cans into the littorals, and utilize them in other peoples home court like we plan to, we will end up with a causalty rate greater than what the RN experienced at Falklands, if not greater, when the shooting starts.

In short, the platform is useful, but not for the task it is intended for in my opinion.

 

[gf0012-aust]

In short, the platform is useful, but not for the task it is intended for in my opinion.

Until the US Executive changes their mind, this ship class is here to stay. Gates has made it clear that the USN needs to start focussing and shifting its capability onto greenwater management and projection (which I have a fundamental disagreement with)

what that means is that the "1000 Ship Navy" is now also dead in the water...

 

[Grand Danois]

what that means is that the "1000 Ship Navy" is now also dead in the water...

For the not so bright people, like me, what does the incompatibility consist of?

 

[gf0012-aust]

how so?

It was originally predicated on the US picking up the heavy lifting and heavy hitting role and acting in concert with all sympathetic nations - and there were quite a few, most notably ex warsaw pact, ex communist states, and surprisingly (to me) south american states.

If the US is shifting its doctrine emphasis to greenwater fighting, then it fundamentally changes doctrine and capability participation for that concept.

She's (USN) already running lean, and the new administration is keen on running sigma 6 principles in procurement, when you start doing that your operations will by need, also start to wind back.

Maybe I'm a sentimentalist, but I look back on the halcyon days of the "sword and the shield" when Reagan was wedded to the principles of the 600 ship navy (and that was USN owning 600 combat ships, not "sharing and fudging" the count)

Granted they don't need a 600 ship principle combatant list, but their current numbers are decidedly unattractive.