Littoral Combat Ships are they useful?

[Grand Danois]

OK... The projection doctrine into green water is an exclusive affair, as US conops and equipment will be incompatible with the rest...(?)

I would also prefer the USN to provide the main fighting units that are simply out of reach for smaller nations, and then locals can add in with their green/brown/blue water units specialize in the locality - sort of like the old days.

 

[Valin]

I would also prefer the USN to provide the main fighting units that are simply out of reach for smaller nations, and then locals can add in with their green/brown/blue water units specialize in the locality - sort of like the old days.

That would be ideal, i think, but the problem is, when you take, for instance, China lobbing ASBMs out from behind the small carrier force they are growing,(or planning) who is going to go in and do the dirty work in the formosa strait? RoK maybe, or Japan, but that's totally contingent upon not having the little dictator up north not holding a big plutonium knife to their throats.

Also, the local-based greenwater element would require a commitment to getting involved with our greenwater friends when they need help, not just using them when we need it.

 

[tphuang]

OK... The projection doctrine into green water is an exclusive affair, as US conops and equipment will be incompatible with the rest...(?)

I would also prefer the USN to provide the main fighting units that are simply out of reach for smaller nations, and then locals can add in with their green/brown/blue water units specialize in the locality - sort of like the old days.

I would prefer the military budget to immediately get cut in half along with other cuts in the gov't, so I won't have to pay this ridiculously high tax

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.

Given the current economic situation in America, US will bankrupt like the Soviet Union if it tries for a 600 ship navy

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)

Do they have any kind of feasible solution to retain 300 ships navy if they don't do this?

 

[Grand Danois]

I would prefer the military budget to immediately get cut in half along with other cuts in the gov't, so I won't have to pay this ridiculously high tax

I'm not asking for anything that isn't in the current force structure.

I'm paying 63% marginal tax. Where's you at.

 

[Grand Danois]

That would be ideal, i think, but the problem is, when you take, for instance, China lobbing ASBMs out from behind the small carrier force they are growing,(or planning) who is going to go in and do the dirty work in the formosa strait? RoK maybe, or Japan, but that's totally contingent upon not having the little dictator up north not holding a big plutonium knife to their throats.

Also, the local-based greenwater element would require a commitment to getting involved with our greenwater friends when they need help, not just using them when we need it.

I was more looking at it in the same sentimentalist way as GF, ie. from a Cold War perspective.

Which is in ways similar to the Taiwan Straits theatre setting.

In the scenario you describe, the LCS would be murdered - LCS is meant to push into the littorals as a direct extension of the blue water battlegroup.

 

[tphuang]

I'm not asking for anything that isn't in the current force structure.

I'm paying 63% marginal tax. Where's you at.

Where are you at? Does that even exist in America?

I think I'm in the second highest income tax bracket in America, behind the traders/bankers.

Which is in ways similar to the Taiwan Straits theatre setting.

In the scenario you describe, the LCS would be murdered - LCS is meant to push into the littorals as a direct extension of the blue water battlegroup.

couldn't LCS serve the same role as Perry class? except faster and have MCM capability also?

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

couldn't LCS serve the same role as Perry class? except faster and have MCM capability also?

AFAIK the LCS could act as an ASW platform much like the Pery with its ASW mission package. But as with everything else its sensors are optimized for the littorals.

 

[Grand Danois]

Where are you at? Does that even exist in America?

I think I'm in the second highest income tax bracket in America, behind the traders/bankers.

Sorry, it wasn't meant to come off as a dick waving contest. I just wanted to give our American readers a heart attack over the tax level here in Denmark. I can elaborate that this is the top bracket, but a third of all taxpayers in DK belong to that bracket.

couldn't LCS serve the same role as Perry class? except faster and have MCM capability also?

Funny you should mention the Perry, because I was thinking an updated "Perry" with room for the LCS modules would be a far more practical vessel. And more suitable in a "Taiwan Scenario".

 

[Scott]

Deployment

Admittedly, I lack the expertise of most of those posting, but I would have guessed that LCS was destined to show up in the Persian Gulf/Strait of Hormuz.

Also wonder if deployment off the Horn of Africa for anti-piracy operations is a possibility, or have I just demonstrated that I have less depth than draught of LCS?

 

[Valin]

Admittedly, I lack the expertise of most of those posting, but I would have guessed that LCS was destined to show up in the Persian Gulf/Strait of Hormuz.

Also wonder if deployment off the Horn of Africa for anti-piracy operations is a possibility, or have I just demonstrated that I have less depth than draught of LCS?

It could theoretically be deployed to the Horn, but, a key issue in anti piracy ops is always going to be Manpower for the LCS. Galrahn had a great post about it over at Informationdissemination.net
in the context of why are we sending DDG-51's (a 2 Bn dollar warship, or in galrahneese, 'battleship'" instead of smaller, supposedly more suited to the task warships.

 

[Scott]

There are more builder's trial photos in the DT gallery. Also a pre-launch photo in dry-dock that gives a good view of the trimaran hull.

Littoral Combat Ships - Military Pictures - Air Force Army Navy Missiles Defense

Apologies if this belongs in the pictures forum. Thought it appropriate here because of current discussion.

 

[Abraxas]

Hey guys. I'm new here but have some comments.

First, I accept the US's need for an LCS. As our wars become "smaller", support ships are needed to patrol nearby bodies of water, clear mines and hunt submarines... but I question whether the LCS program was executed as well as it should have been and whether its cost is really worth it... or simply means the whole program needs a thorough "shake-down".

Cheif among my concerns is whether modularity is really a neccessary quality. The belief that we need less ships if we increase variability seems flawed - or at best, overrated. There are still many missions this ship cannot participate in, and furthermore, the missions it can participate in require the vessel to be modified in a ship yard, which incurrs cost and time. Beyond that, it requires the support of friendly allies nearby if a US base is too far away. And the benefit is simply that an LCS can move from a surface support ship to an ASW ship.

Why not just build 2 ships and abandon the complications associated with modularity? At least at the end of the day you have 2 ships and not just one.

Another issue I have with this program is the fact that the Navy decided to impose construction standards WHILE the ships were being built. They basically took a completely new program, which was going to have problems anyway simply cause it's new, and decided to complicate things further. Nevermind the fact that this ship is already a departure from conventional naval construction, but they had to go ahead and make even MORE work for our already fledgling ship yards, increase prices and ultimately slow down procurrment.

Who in their right mind thought it was a good idea to do something like that? If nothing else, this reveals a MAJOR flaw in the administration tasked with this ship's construction.

And more of my own personal beef - why build both designs? I honestly just don't get that.

But despite my seemingly cantankerous criticism, I do have some good things to say.

First, it IS the ship we need right now. Barring unforseen operational issues, it was designed and outfitted well (I'm referring to Lockheed Martin's monohull USS Freedom - I'm not as big a fan of General Dynamics' trimaran). It's fast, small and capable - provided it's used right and fills a niche in the US Navy's fleet of large, blue-Navy warships.

But once the ship left the drawing board, its benefits have since been buried by its numerous inadequcies, IMO.

But that's just me...

 

[Sea Toby]

Hey guys. I'm new here but have some comments.
Why not just build 2 ships and abandon the complications associated with modularity? At least at the end of the day you have 2 ships and not just one.

Another issue I have with this program is the fact that the Navy decided to impose construction standards WHILE the ships were being built. They basically took a completely new program, which was going to have problems anyway simply cause it's new, and decided to complicate things further. Nevermind the fact that this ship is already a departure from conventional naval construction, but they had to go ahead and make even MORE work for our already fledgling ship yards, increase prices and ultimately slow down procurrment.

Who in their right mind thought it was a good idea to do something like that? If nothing else, this reveals a MAJOR flaw in the administration tasked with this ship's construction.

And more of my own personal beef - why build both designs? I honestly just don't get that.

But despite my seemingly cantankerous criticism, I do have some good things to say.

First, it IS the ship we need right now. Barring unforseen operational issues, it was designed and outfitted well (I'm referring to Lockheed Martin's monohull USS Freedom - I'm not as big a fan of General Dynamics' trimaran). It's fast, small and capable - provided it's used right and fills a niche in the US Navy's fleet of large, blue-Navy warships.

But once the ship left the drawing board, its benefits have since been buried by its numerous inadequcies, IMO.

But that's just me...

The ship is brand new, from top to bottom. Yes, the first few ships are expensive as new systems are included during the build. But that will mostly end when real production begins. There is not only competition with the ship designs, but there has also been competition with the module systems designs as well.

I agree, one ship should be built in numbers. But there is nothing wrong during development to build two. In the future a decision could be made to build only one. Choices usually result in lower prices when full production begins.

What shortcomings? Both designs are great! The real waste is building coastal minehunters which can't sail to the Indian Ocean where they are needed. Its a waste to build larger minehunters for American waters which can sail to the Indian Ocean. The genius of the LCS is to build an ASW ocean escort which can double as an effective minehunter.....

What shortcomings?

 

[StingrayOZ]

Both designs are wildly different and pioneering. For a long time ~30kt was the designed Vmax for many ships and I think LCS might challenge that. The crewing is another area the USN is experimenting. Weapon systems is another innovative area.

The USN is experienmenting with hull design and I think there will be a lot of postitives come out of LCS. More than the DDG10000 project. Its the first big step after the coldwar for naval design.

Its already having an impact with allies. Australia announced its going to build 20 OCV simular to the Austal LCS, Israel has shown interest in the monohull LCS. This is a ship(and weapon systems) other navies want and can afford to get.

Honestly I don't see how the LCS can be a loser. Its replacing a whole bunch of not so good boats and ships, its going to be capable than anything in those roles and its going to be the perfect ship to deploy modern UAV/UUV's from, yet extremely useful in humanitarian missions.

 

[kato]

Israel has shown interest in the monohull LCS. This is a ship(and weapon systems) other navies want and can afford to get.

Except Israel is apparently buying a Meko variant instead. LCS and other US offers considered too pricey.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Well I wouldn't rule out any sales of LCS ships or systems. I think there is a real potential market for a low cost mini LCS like the Austal OCV Australia is looking at.

 

[Abraxas]

The ship is brand new, from top to bottom. Yes, the first few ships are expensive as new systems are included during the build. But that will mostly end when real production begins. There is not only competition with the ship designs, but there has also been competition with the module systems designs as well.

I agree, one ship should be built in numbers. But there is nothing wrong during development to build two. In the future a decision could be made to build only one. Choices usually result in lower prices when full production begins.

I understand that, but the biggest issue facing our ship yards is the increasing complexity of new ships, causing yards to pay more full-time specialists, increasing the overall cost of the design. The trimaran is brand new, which is half the problem. The monohull seems far more conventional and has many of the same advantages as the trimaran, but it's not as complicated to construct.

Even if the trimaran preforms better in certain categories (speed likely to be the most likely), the benefits do not overcome the intigral issues with the ship's unique construction.

The cost plateu you speak of is lower for the monohull then the trimaran, and I have to wonder whether the Navy will take that into account when they determine which model to eventually choose.

What shortcomings? Both designs are great! The real waste is building coastal minehunters which can't sail to the Indian Ocean where they are needed. Its a waste to build larger minehunters for American waters which can sail to the Indian Ocean. The genius of the LCS is to build an ASW ocean escort which can double as an effective minehunter.....

What shortcomings?

The LCS concept has no shortcomings, which is why I fully support it.

The execution, though, has made me reasses its development.

It needs to be done better. Period.

Both designs are wildly different and pioneering. For a long time ~30kt was the designed Vmax for many ships and I think LCS might challenge that. The crewing is another area the USN is experimenting. Weapon systems is another innovative area.

The USN is experienmenting with hull design and I think there will be a lot of postitives come out of LCS. More than the DDG10000 project. Its the first big step after the coldwar for naval design.

I've got nothing nice to say about the Zumwalt, but that's a discussion for another time.

But I wanted to comment on your observation of the LCS's "pioneering" design. Do you believe it's actually a benefit?

Its already having an impact with allies. Australia announced its going to build 20 OCV simular to the Austal LCS, Israel has shown interest in the monohull LCS. This is a ship(and weapon systems) other navies want and can afford to get.

Honestly I don't see how the LCS can be a loser. Its replacing a whole bunch of not so good boats and ships, its going to be capable than anything in those roles and its going to be the perfect ship to deploy modern UAV/UUV's from, yet extremely useful in humanitarian missions.

It's to be expected that countries with small, brown water navies might show intrest in an LCS design and I don't doubt the ship's capabilities - but for the US Navy, right now, is it worth it? And has it been executed appropriately?

And if not, why should we not scream bloody murder when these same people are in charge of the DDG 1000 project?

Except Israel is apparently buying a Meko variant instead. LCS and other US offers considered too pricey.

And here is a source, no less.

Well I wouldn't rule out any sales of LCS ships or systems. I think there is a real potential market for a low cost mini LCS like the Austal OCV Australia is looking at.

But it makes more economic sense to buy a cheaper alternative.

The MEKO A-100 is that cheaper alternative.

The rising cost of the LCS project was supposed to be supplanted by foreign investment, but we're quickly losing customers because the US Navy fumbled the ball on the goal line.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The trimaran is brand new, which is half the problem.

Its not "brand new". Its based on an extant hull that is over 20 years in development - and the 127m hull which is universally regarded as a groundbreaking design for its capability within length.

Even if the trimaran preforms better in certain categories (speed likely to be the most likely), the benefits do not overcome the intigral issues with the ship's unique construction.

There are pros and cons with the tri as well as the mono. I am curious as to what you see as the integral isssues with its construction....

The cost plateu you speak of is lower for the monohull then the trimaran, and I have to wonder whether the Navy will take that into account when they determine which model to eventually choose.

Thats relative to the purchase, the USN will not absorb any sunk development costs from the trimaran - so the cost plateau issue is debatable.

Austal at one stage had close to the 20% of the entire world market in ocean going multihulls - and australia had over 40% of the worlds multihull builds until recently. This is a mature design even if conceptually anathema to those unfamiliar with it. There is stacks of material on tri's - ranging from material acquired from the Russians, to the old DERA developments (then Qinetic) and then from Australias two major multihull builders. Having seen both Austal and INCAT ships up close, Austal really is the rolls royce of the two. there are some very very nice engineering elements (dimpled decks so as to avoid having to paint non slip surfaces, thus saving a fortune on deck maint issues etc....

The internal fitout options on multi's make current monos look positively archaic - we need to start looking at capability through new glasses. mono's
fail to perform missions as effectively in some regimes - even transonic hulls are outperforming them.

It's to be expected that countries with small, brown water navies might show intrest in an LCS design and I don't doubt the ship's capabilities - but for the US Navy, right now, is it worth it? And has it been executed appropriately?

incorrect terminology, a brown water navy is a riverine or inland navy. greenwater is when a navy has an extant capability to manage and defend within its EEZ (200mile limit)
LCS is far from being greenwater and certainly is not brownwater. You seem to be unaware of the size of australias coastline - and how varied it is. Our territorial issues have evolved from greenwater to foraying into the blue - so the trimaran hull is well within the mission set - and way outside the EEZ if necessary (esp NW and W Australia)

We've used small cheap boats before, they're not good value for money. Our territorial maritime management requirements are not much different from the US, Canada, Brazil etc....

And if not, why should we not scream bloody murder when these same people are in charge of the DDG 1000 project?



And here is a source, no less.



But it makes more economic sense to buy a cheaper alternative.

The MEKO A-100 is that cheaper alternative.

The rising cost of the LCS project was supposed to be supplanted by foreign investment, but we're quickly losing customers because the US Navy fumbled the ball on the goal line.[/QUOTE]

 

[Abraxas]

Its not "brand new". Its based on an extant hull that is over 20 years in development - and the 127m hull which is universally regarded as a groundbreaking design for its capability within length.

Oh c'mon. You knew what I meant.

It's certaintly not common and is not a standard design that our shipyards are adequetly prepared to produce in large numbers.

There are pros and cons with the tri as well as the mono. I am curious as to what you see as the integral isssues with its construction....

That with the exception of aluminium hull plating (which is part of both designs), the monohull is at least similar to previous monohulls and can be assembled without drastic changes to procedure.

I'm evaluating these two ships at the construction phase of their development, believing their military capabilities to be relatively similar. Assuming this is correct, the next determining factor should be how easily the ships can be built... but I fear this never enters into anyone's mind, because if it did, the Navy would have NEVER set forth construction guidelines while the ship was being built.

Thats relative to the purchase, the USN will not absorb any sunk development costs from the trimaran - so the cost plateau issue is debatable.

Someone absorbs the cost. It seems a shame to screw the private contractors that designed and built the ship for you...

Austal at one stage had close to the 20% of the entire world market in ocean going multihulls - and australia had over 40% of the worlds multihull builds until recently. This is a mature design even if conceptually anathema to those unfamiliar with it. There is stacks of material on tri's - ranging from material acquired from the Russians, to the old DERA developments (then Qinetic) and then from Australias two major multihull builders. Having seen both Austal and INCAT ships up close, Austal really is the rolls royce of the two. there are some very very nice engineering elements (dimpled decks so as to avoid having to paint non slip surfaces, thus saving a fortune on deck maint issues etc....

The internal fitout options on multi's make current monos look positively archaic - we need to start looking at capability through new glasses. mono's
fail to perform missions as effectively in some regimes - even transonic hulls are outperforming them.

I'm not doubting the research on monohull design. My issue is whether the shipyards are equipped to build them. In my opinion, this asks too much of an industry that already has trouble handling the complexity of monohulls. Why shock the weakened system with multi-hulls?

And for what its worth, multihulls quickly lose their stability at higher drafts, which makes ships larger then destroyers poor candidates for multihull design schemes.

incorrect terminology...

Most likely.

I'm a naval architect (in training) and don't have a very good grasp of military terminology or technology, which is why I became a member of this forum.

I apologize in advance for the numerous mistakes I will make.

... a brown water navy is a riverine or inland navy. greenwater is when a navy has an extant capability to manage and defend within its EEZ (200mile limit)
LCS is far from being greenwater and certainly is not brownwater. You seem to be unaware of the size of australias coastline - and how varied it is. Our territorial issues have evolved from greenwater to foraying into the blue - so the trimaran hull is well within the mission set - and way outside the EEZ if necessary (esp NW and W Australia)

We've used small cheap boats before, they're not good value for money. Our territorial maritime management requirements are not much different from the US, Canada, Brazil etc....

I was looking at this from a monetary perspective, not so much the ship's role in a country's navy.

 

[kato]

It's to be expected that countries with small, brown water navies might show intrest in an LCS design and I don't doubt the ship's capabilities

For brown- and greenwater navies, the LCS isn't exactly the right thing either. Such navies that primarily operate within their EEZ and slightly beyond that can achieve better and cheaper results with smaller specialized boats (ie. corvettes or OPVs and MCM vessels).

There are a few navies that might show a similar requirement for what's essentially a highspeed bluewater OPV with MCM capability and as small helo carriers - such as Australia - but often the LCS will be a bit too much tailormade for the USN for these requirements.
Also, when you consider that for the price of a LCS, you can buy two or three Meko A100s or NUMC or Austal builds or other similar-sized vessels and upgrade them to provide similar capabilities in the fields desired short of the speed variable...