Littoral Combat Ships are they useful?

[Juramentado]

Tail-End Discussion

Looks like a very hot topic here.

As a perspective to the original question - I would recommend folks looking at Milan Vego's (NWC Newport) "No Need for High Speed" in Sept. '09 Proceedings Magazine and compare that to Martin Murphy's white-paper "Littoral Combat Ship - An Exmination of Its Possible Concepts of Operation," published by the CSBA.

One author is more favorable to LCS in it's current state than the other. Nonetheless, both agree that there are gaps in capabilities that render the comparsion to contemporary vessel classes (i.e., corvette, figs) meaningless. LCS cannot be expected to operate without assistance from other assets, or operate independently in a high-threat environment. Most notably, the lack of a good stand-off AA ability, an ASuW suite that is more COIN-oriented, and a heavy reliance on off-board systems to detect and prosecute contacts.

Personally, I am more sympathetic to Vego's thinking. The CONOPs that Murphy outlines is mostly reasonable, but it all assumes someone else is providing area AA and/or air superiority is established, plus national or theater recon assets confirming that there are no heavy ASuW opponents in the area. I cannot see LCS scouting for an SG. Granted, ISR and decisive engagement are theoretically mutually exclusive, but a scout should at least be able to bloody someone's nose while backing away - that's the whole point of a screening force. Ideally, LCS would use helos and UAV/USVs to extend the sensor reach, but those assets are very vulnerable to even a low-intensity AA environment, and there is only a fixed number of them available per ship.

 

[Sea Toby]

Looks like a very hot topic here.

As a perspective to the original question - I would recommend folks looking at Milan Vego's (NWC Newport) "No Need for High Speed" in Sept. '09 Proceedings Magazine and compare that to Martin Murphy's white-paper "Littoral Combat Ship - An Exmination of Its Possible Concepts of Operation," published by the CSBA.

One author is more favorable to LCS in it's current state than the other. Nonetheless, both agree that there are gaps in capabilities that render the comparsion to contemporary vessel classes (i.e., corvette, figs) meaningless. LCS cannot be expected to operate without assistance from other assets, or operate independently in a high-threat environment. Most notably, the lack of a good stand-off AA ability, an ASuW suite that is more COIN-oriented, and a heavy reliance on off-board systems to detect and prosecute contacts.

Personally, I am more sympathetic to Vego's thinking. The CONOPs that Murphy outlines is mostly reasonable, but it all assumes someone else is providing area AA and/or air superiority is established, plus national or theater recon assets confirming that there are no heavy ASuW opponents in the area. I cannot see LCS scouting for an SG. Granted, ISR and decisive engagement are theoretically mutually exclusive, but a scout should at least be able to bloody someone's nose while backing away - that's the whole point of a screening force. Ideally, LCS would use helos and UAV/USVs to extend the sensor reach, but those assets are very vulnerable to even a low-intensity AA environment, and there is only a fixed number of them available per ship.

Exactly the point! LCS is never expected to act alone, it will always be a part of a task force. By the way something the US Navy is quite capable of, unlike other navies.... The whole purpose of LCS is to provide more hulls in the water in cooperation with other ships of a task force....

If the US Navy wanted more go alone ships in the water they would build more DDGs which would cost at least three times as much.... As I have said before on this thread and others, the US Navy has never considered frigates as front line, go alone warships.... Otherwise they would have built them with more than one screw....

 

[Juramentado]

Hmmmm...

If the US Navy wanted more go alone ships in the water they would build more DDGs which would cost at least three times as much.... As I have said before on this thread and others, the US Navy has never considered frigates as front line, go alone warships.... Otherwise they would have built them with more than one screw....

If you look at Posture Statements throughout the peak of the FFG-7 program, you'll find quite a few operations where ships were sent singly into specific areas. Granted, most of them were low-intensity, enforcement or OOW, but the expectation was that OHP was more than adequate in that scenario without immediate support from other assets.

We have several ways to think about this - comparison of OHP to LCS is valid and LCS is under-<insert characteristics> to get the job done; LCS with all of the present and future systems integration is the way to business because the mission and capabilities have changed; or the middle-road, which says the Streetfighter concept was sound, but the program has been victimized to a great extent by outside influences, including budgetary constraints and the eternal enemy - scope creep. I think the latter two are the reality, but only time will tell. Publicly so far, LCS and sea-based UAV assets have participated in small incidents, mostly LE operations (and the recent incident with the McInerney UAV is entirely coincidental rather than a deliberate engagement).

 

[Sea Toby]

If you look at Posture Statements throughout the peak of the FFG-7 program, you'll find quite a few operations where ships were sent singly into specific areas. Granted, most of them were low-intensity, enforcement or OOW, but the expectation was that OHP was more than adequate in that scenario without immediate support from other assets.

We have several ways to think about this - comparison of OHP to LCS is valid and LCS is under-<insert characteristics> to get the job done; LCS with all of the present and future systems integration is the way to business because the mission and capabilities have changed; or the middle-road, which says the Streetfighter concept was sound, but the program has been victimized to a great extent by outside influences, including budgetary constraints and the eternal enemy - scope creep. I think the latter two are the reality, but only time will tell. Publicly so far, LCS and sea-based UAV assets have participated in small incidents, mostly LE operations (and the recent incident with the McInerney UAV is entirely coincidental rather than a deliberate engagement).

Isn't the LCS configured for ASW be just as capable of defending itself in low intensity operations as the FFG-7 frigates? Don't they have a medium calibre gun and a close in missile system when configured for ASW operations, the ocean escorting role? I have always though the FFG-7 class frigates should have had Nato Seasparrow, not Standard 2 SAMs... While they may not be capable of sinking enemy ships with SSMs, they have the capacity to defend themselves... Does every ship in the fleet have to have SSMs?

 

[AegisFC]

Isn't the LCS configured for ASW be just as capable of defending itself in low intensity operations as the FFG-7 frigates? Don't they have a medium calibre gun and a close in missile system when configured for ASW operations, the ocean escorting role? I have always though the FFG-7 class frigates should have had Nato Seasparrow, not Standard 2 SAMs... While they may not be capable of sinking enemy ships with SSMs, they have the capacity to defend themselves... Does every ship in the fleet have to have SSMs?

The Perries were built with SM-1, not SM-2, as of right now only the Australian Perries can handle SM-2. Also I'm pretty sure SM-1 had a surface mode (I know for a fact SM-2 does).

 

[Juramentado]

Isn't the LCS configured for ASW be just as capable of defending itself in low intensity operations as the FFG-7 frigates? Don't they have a medium calibre gun and a close in missile system when configured for ASW operations, the ocean escorting role? I have always though the FFG-7 class frigates should have had Nato Seasparrow, not Standard 2 SAMs... While they may not be capable of sinking enemy ships with SSMs, they have the capacity to defend themselves... Does every ship in the fleet have to have SSMs?

LCS is supposed to replace all OHPs. But the ASuW module only gives you a max range of 24 nm with NetFire. Yes, you can extend that reach with the H-60, but the helo must close to Hellfire range. Not a suggested path to a long life when talking about an asset with even a modicum of SAM abilities. As for ASW, what would it have taken to add an organic towed array instaed of having to swap out with modules? Just some of the observations by program critics....

 

[Sea Toby]

Standard Ones with the Perrys is correct, sorry my mistake. The Perrys could also fire harpoons from the Standard missile launcher as well. But none of the Knox's, or Garcia class frigates built before the Perry's could fire SSMs. With a fleet of 300 or more ships, the US Navy doesn't require every ship to be able to fire SSMs. Simply put, the new LCSs are being built with mostly new weapons sytsems, from the gun mount to the sensors.

 

[Juramentado]

Standard Ones with the Perrys is correct, sorry my mistake. The Perrys could also fire harpoons from the Standard missile launcher as well. But none of the Knox's, or Garcia class frigates built before the Perry's could fire SSMs. With a fleet of 300 or more ships, the US Navy doesn't require every ship to be able to fire SSMs. Simply put, the new LCSs are being built with mostly new weapons sytsems, from the gun mount to the sensors.

OHP was partly a result of the so-called cruiser gap in the 70s. Here was the big bad USSR building all sorts of combatants, but all of them had SSMs. Think about about who your future combatants might be, and what are their intentions and capabilities? China's not going to disappear anytime soon. They are a blue-water navy and you know they've got SS capability. LCS meets the needs of low-intensity and OOW. But it is a warship and is classified as a ship of the line. There's still a big disparity in what it's designed to do and what it might have to do.

 

[Sea Toby]

OHP was partly a result of the so-called cruiser gap in the 70s. Here was the big bad USSR building all sorts of combatants, but all of them had SSMs. Think about about who your future combatants might be, and what are their intentions and capabilities? China's not going to disappear anytime soon. They are a blue-water navy and you know they've got SS capability. LCS meets the needs of low-intensity and OOW. But it is a warship and is classified as a ship of the line. There's still a big disparity in what it's designed to do and what it might have to do.

I am under the impression the Perry's were built cheaply in numbers to replace many many old WWII destroyers and destroyer escorts for the ASW ocean escort role. Since many new destroyers were getting Nato Sea sparrow SAMs they added the Standard One SAMs to the Perry's. The thought was to provide some area air defense capability while escorting convoys, to especially shoot down Soviet Bears which had the range to engage Atlantic shipping. This mission does not exist much anymore as the Cold War is over.

Fast forward more than thirty years. The ESSMs range is almost the same as the original SM-1s. The US Navy has built many ships with ESSMs, and have more or less dropped the SM-1s. Since post WWII we have seen SM-2s range increase to what was Talos, and now ESSMs increase to what was Tartar, and the much smaller RAMs increase to what was Sea sparrow.... The missiles are getting smaller and smaller and reaching the same range of previous missiles, if not more....

The current RAMs or SeaRAMs effectiveness is better than what was Sea sparrow of the 1970s... The guidance packages are much more sophisticated today as well. Technology advances. The US wants to build new ASW ocean escorts to replace the Perrys, but also have better littoral capabilities as well. While it may not be your view, its mine that the LCS will be great replacements for the Perrys for the ASW ocean escorting role, plus be much more useful in the littorals and as mine hunters.... The LCS will never be a replacement for the Burke class destroyers, but will supplement them....

Keep in mind Burke class destroyers have approached $2 billion, whereas the much discussed overly priced LCS is expected with increased production at less than $500 million.... Four ASW LCS ships, not one DDG....

One of the reasons for more speed is that submarines now have surface strike missiles with much more range than a torpedo. A slower ship doesn't have much hope of running down a submarine at those distances anymore.... ASW helicopters will still be the key in the future....

There is a reason why the US Navy, and the US Congress, want to buy faster ASW ships....

 

[Juramentado]

Re: comments about cost reductions over time for LCS production. Scope creep is still the #1 culprit here. One progam aspect that is not emphasized in the press releases is that the systems integration phase is still underway. Case in point - NLOS. The questionable decision to formally accept the launcher *without a working round* notwithstanding : ; either a functional missile is finally delivered (at increased cost - there's no doubt about that part), or N-LOS is binned and something else gets shoe-horned into the ASuW package (at even more cost, because you designed the spaces, mountings and connectivity deliberately for one system). That's just one package. Mine-hunting is an even trickier (and likely more costly) proposition, due to the extensive use of remote systems that are not quite yet mature. Insiders may know better, but I haven't seen anything to dissuade that fact.

Even assuming pessimistic LCS per-unit costs, say ~USD 700M by the time we get into the low teens for hulls delivered, there are operational ship designs out there that deliver a more powerful in-hull package and still retain modularity and UxV integration for the same price today.

 

[JonMusser]

I heard that the Congress proposed that all new Naval Warship are to be Nuclear Powered uncless they are of not National Importance to avoid the skyroketting oil prices. Anyone heard of proposal of the LCS power plant being switched to Nuclear power?

Admin: If you are stating and making claims then its good form to provide a source - otherwise we end up with tall stories and conspiracy theories trotted out as fact

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL33946.pdf

here is a paper that makes case for congress wanting more major ships like CG to be nuclear powerd

 

[Sea Toby]

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL33946.pdf

here is a paper that makes case for congress wanting more major ships like CG to be nuclear powerd

While I can see long term life cycle costs being cheaper with nuclear power for large aircraft carriers and possibly amphibious assault ships, there really isn't much savings for smaller ships such as frigates, destroyers, cruisers, and smaller amphibious ships. We don't have a problem financing ship operations so much as we have problems affording the ships in the first place. As the price of oil increases, tax revenues increase as well. A fact I found missing in these studies.

By eliminating so many shipyards who bid the price of ships downward, we will end up paying a high premium building ships at only two shipyards. I worry about their monopoly effect with the overall price of ship construction...

As it is the navy is hard pressed to find recruits with the necessary education to train as nuclear plant operators for submarines and carriers. While I am sure more schools can be built to train more personnel, where will the recruits come from? The infrastructure in place can't handle much more...

There is much more to this issue of nuclear power beyond the current or future price of oil...

 

[JonMusser]

While I can see long term life cycle costs being cheaper with nuclear power for large aircraft carriers and possibly amphibious assault ships, there really isn't much savings for smaller ships such as frigates, destroyers, cruisers, and smaller amphibious ships. We don't have a problem financing ship operations so much as we have problems affording the ships in the first place. As the price of oil increases, tax revenues increase as well. A fact I found missing in these studies.

By eliminating so many shipyards who bid the price of ships downward, we will end up paying a high premium building ships at only two shipyards. I worry about their monopoly effect with the overall price of ship construction...

As it is the navy is hard pressed to find recruits with the necessary education to train as nuclear plant operators for submarines and carriers. While I am sure more schools can be built to train more personnel, where will the recruits come from? The infrastructure in place can't handle much more...

There is much more to this issue of nuclear power beyond the current or future price of oil...

i would like to point out first that i was only giving this guy a source for Nuclear powered ships

my question is simple we are moving in the direction of lasser armed ships what well the power requirements be for such a weapon and would that need nuclear power

l do not know i have always assumed


finally after reading what you have said i agree first i am conservative and am for limited government having said that i think our government should be able to own ship yards and build ships additionally there has been way to much consolidation in the Defense industry esspically Ship building and i believe we are shutting our selfs in the foot
Jon

 

[Sea Toby]

You need to understand and study lasers a bit more. The film Goldfinger implied lasers can cut... Sorry, lasers are light only...

 

[kato]

Ummm.... lasers are used for cutting.

File:Lasercutting-video.ogg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Grand Danois]

"I expect you to die, mr. Bond..."

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iveq_5G1pFk&feature=PlayList&p=974E89F234183596&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=5"]YouTube- Laser Cutting 1 inch Plate Steel on a Cincinnati CL-850[/nomedia]




(oh. kato was already here)

 

[gf0012-aust]

You need to understand and study lasers a bit more. The film Goldfinger implied lasers can cut... Sorry, lasers are light only...

nope, we've been using lasercutters for over 8 years. on mil projects we've cut over 37 types of metal (incl maritime quality titanium)

 

[Sea Toby]

"I expect you to die, mr. Bond..."

YouTube- Laser Cutting 1 inch Plate Steel on a Cincinnati CL-850




(oh. kato was already here)

Websters: A device that produces a monochromatic, coherent beam of light.

Great videos: but is it the laser light that is doing the cutting or is the cutting being done by another physical method with the light?

 

[kato]

The laser melts away the metal in the video with its (rather energy-rich = hot) light, hence creating a hole. If you make lots of hole next to each other, you have a cut-out line

 

[Sea Toby]

And materials up of say a half inch. The idea that a laser can cut through a foot of steel is still a long ways off, consuming unheard of power. We are still a longs ways off from Star Trek or Star Wars lasers shooting down aircraft or blowing up spaceships, much less warships on the sea or tanks on the ground...

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_cutting"]Laser cutting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Laser_cutting_CAD_and_physical_part.png" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/Laser_cutting_CAD_and_physical_part.png/220px-Laser_cutting_CAD_and_physical_part.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/f/fe/Laser_cutting_CAD_and_physical_part.png/220px-Laser_cutting_CAD_and_physical_part.png[/ame]