Alternatives to the US Navy's LCS program

[Zhaow]

Question, If you were called by the US Navy to come up with an Alternative to the LCS. What would you advise the US Navy as to what they should get as an Alternative to the problem plagued LCS program.

For me, I would have them cancel the LCS production in it's entirely. Decommission all the remaining LCS's and sell them to countries that desperately need them such as Iraq and the Philippine's. I would then make the US Navy look at two options, which would be to take a version of the US Coast Guard's National Security Cutter and Modify them to frigate standards. Which would include upgrading the hull to Naval frigate standards and install frigate weapons, sensor suite and systems. The other option would be for the US Navy to go to Europe and buy the rights to Frigate designs such as France's FREEM Frigate, Spain's Álvaro de Bazán class frigate, Norway's Fridtjof Nansen class frigate, Singapore's Formidable class frigate and German's F-125 Frigate.

 

[StobieWan]

Have you priced up an NSC as they stand? You might be a *bit* surprised and come around to the conclusion that by gosh and by golly, the LCS is a bargain...


If were making changes, I'd pick *one* design and build that - not both - as both have slightly differing weapons, sensors and CMS fits, and the principle behind this all was to replace three ships with one class, not create two new ship types.

Having done that, forget worrying about modules, just buy fifty and get them to sea. They'll be okay as long as everyone remembers they're not a Burke.

 

[Zhaow]

Have you priced up an NSC as they stand? You might be a *bit* surprised and come around to the conclusion that by gosh and by golly, the LCS is a bargain...


If were making changes, I'd pick *one* design and build that - not both - as both have slightly differing weapons, sensors and CMS fits, and the principle behind this all was to replace three ships with one class, not create two new ship types.

Having done that, forget worrying about modules, just buy fifty and get them to sea. They'll be okay as long as everyone remembers they're not a Burke.

Let's not forget the LCS has Hull problems and cracks in the Hull in key areas of the LCS. On top of that, the Concept was built on half full ideas that never materialized. Also the LCS has never passed it's INSURV inspection.

As for the NSC, I think it would be a viable alternative because it is in production and it has ironed out all the bugs and problems in the first ship. The Price tag Ingalls Shipbuilding quoted for the Patrol frigate is around $400 Million per copy vs $700 million per LCS.

 

[StobieWan]

Let's not forget the LCS has Hull problems and cracks in the Hull in key areas of the LCS. On top of that, the Concept was built on half full ideas that never materialized. Also the LCS has never passed it's INSURV inspection.

As for the NSC, I think it would be a viable alternative because it is in production and it has ironed out all the bugs and problems in the first ship. The Price tag Ingalls Shipbuilding quoted for the Patrol frigate is around $400 Million per copy vs $700 million per LCS.

Nope, current price of either LCS is nearer $350 mill without GFE in 2012 dollars.


LCS: The USA’s Littoral Combat Ships

Scroll down or just search for FY 2012. That's $1.4 billion for LCS 9-12 - admittedly that's without GFE (weapons and some systems) but it's well away from the totally made up figure of $700 million you've quoted.

Yes, there are reports of hull cracking on Freedom and corrosion on Independence - both issues can be fixed and it's far from the first time that hull cracks have been reported on warships - in fact I understand the latest NSC has similar issues reported.



I'm not saying LCS has been a fabulous program and it could have been run much better, but the USN has sunk a stack of cash into it and right now the best thing to do is to stop fidgeting around, buy some hulls and get them into the water doing useful stuff.

They have some really good features like the aviation facilities which for a ship this size are first rate, and they are not intended to be frigates by any stretch of the imagination.

Stopping now and starting up a program to develop another type of ship will just cost more cash, create more delays and will likely rapidly increase in cost much as LCS has.

LCS is intended to replace three types of ship - the Cyclone patrol boat, the Avenger mine hunting craft and the OHP ASW frigates.

There's your national security cuttter :

USCG Orders Fifth National Security Cutter for $482 Million | gCaptain - Maritime & Offshore

Note the price tag...

Here's a short note on the current condition of the last one ordered :

Delivered in 2011, National Security Cutter has holes, rust

My advice, read around the subject a bit,

Ian

 

[AegisFC]

The Perrie's and Ticonderoga's both have hull cracking problems, so do aluminum hulled civillian ships.
These are new ships with radically (for the USN) different CONOPS. It will take a few years to work out the kinks.

 

[Zhaow]

Here read this from CDR Salamander blog

LCS-1: a "no-go"
CDR Salamander: LCS-1: a "no-go"

Here's why the LCS have Hull crack problems
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/04/24/the-navys-hull-crack-problem/

Here's a link where you can see pictures of the LCS-1's Hull cracks
POGO Releases Navy Documents Showing Problems with the Littoral Combat Ship

Here's why the LCS cost $700 Million per copy and why it's going to cost the US Taxpayers alot of money. It's why it would be cheaper to get a frigate version of the NSC for $400 Million per copy than to pay for $700 Million per copy.

The LCS ‘snowball’ may now be unstoppable
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/04/06/the-lcs-snowball-may-now-be-unstoppable/

 

[StobieWan]

Here read this from CDR Salamander blog

LCS-1: a "no-go"
CDR Salamander: LCS-1: a "no-go"

Here's why the LCS have Hull crack problems
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/04/24/the-navys-hull-crack-problem/

Here's a link where you can see pictures of the LCS-1's Hull cracks
POGO Releases Navy Documents Showing Problems with the Littoral Combat Ship

Here's why the LCS cost $700 Million per copy and why it's going to cost the US Taxpayers alot of money. It's why it would be cheaper to get a frigate version of the NSC for $400 Million per copy than to pay for $700 Million per copy.

The LCS ‘snowball’ may now be unstoppable
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/04/06/the-lcs-snowball-may-now-be-unstoppable/

Uh ..maybe you linked the wrong article but I can't see anything indicating why a bare LCS with no modules will cost $700m in that last article.

And in fact of course, it won't - I've given you a fairly authoritative link describing the contract price for LCS 9-12 as being under $400m, and a solid link showing that the NSC will cost nearer $500 million - those are facts, they're publicly established.

Yes, LCS has concerns regarding the manning levels - these will still to be honest apply to anything else that the USN might select -- the USN is really keen to cut manpower at sea to the bone so if they picked your NSC turned frigate then they'd be turfing folk out of berths rapidly.

Your article on cracking problems overlooks the basic fact that lots of ships have similar issues - whenever you join aluminium to steel the two want to part company when heavily worked in high sea states - this is *not* news - we had it with Type 42, Type 21 etc, the USN had it with Ticos, OHP's and all the rest. If you build an NSC turned Frigate, I've even helpfully linked an article stating where they'll be after a year.

Read AegisFC's comments above - I've never had the honour (or burden) of serving my country - he has. He knows what he's talking about...

LCS has a bunch of stuff to fix - it can be done and I suspect to be honest that the bulk of the LCS fleet will in fact operate without modules, but with a slightly heavier loadout than standard - the 25mm guns from the ASuW modules may end up permanently installed for instance. That's actually not a problem - the USN has a stack of old ships that need work - LCS will be fresh, have great potential to be easily upgraded, and right out of the box can do productive work more cheaply than the existing platforms.

Canning the lot and starting over with a new design doesn't make much sense.


Ian

 

[colay]

If the USN had wanted a frigate, they would have built a frigate. The LCS offers greater versatility and. addresses many more roles than a mere frigate.

LCS-1 and LCS-2 are lead vessels of their respective classes and essentially prototypes. Lessons learned in their construction and operation will be applied to succeeding hulls.

IIRC, one of the succeeding ships from each class will undergo shock testing at sea in 2014. This is SOP as they would be more representative of the final design.

 

[Zhaow]

The LCS as it is, is an under gunned ship that would not survive combat. It would not even survive a hit from an Anti Ship missile. One Anti Ship missile would take the LCS out and could possibly sink real fast. On top of that, the aluminum would burn completely. Given a good example, remember the USS Belknap collision with USS John F kennedy on Nov 22 1975. Look what happened to the USS Belknap and that surely be repeated with the LCS as well.

It's why I believe the US Navy should have canceled the LCS program and go with a modified Patrol frigate out of the US Coast Guard's National Security Cutter. Give a good example, the USCGC Bertholf (WMSL-750) is on deployment to Thailand in CARAT right now. It was able to Sail from California to Thailand without any problems and issues.

 

[colay]

On top of that, the aluminum would burn completely.

Are you sure about that? Aluminum will only burn in powder form AFAIK. It will melt given enough heat.
The LCS meets and exceeds the survivability specifications contracted for by the Navy i.e. Level I+ so any criticisms of the platform in this regard are misdirected IMO.

 

[Bonza]

You want to go say that to the people who died on the USS Belknap that collide with the USS John F Kennedy. I'm sure the people that died on the USS Belknap collision would like to hear Aluminum will only burn in powder..

Mate, you really have to take a look at how you're posting. Invoking the names of the dead in this context comes across as really immature and seeking to appeal to emotion instead of fact. Obviously Colay wasn't trying to show disrespect to those people so there's really no need at all to stick it in his face like that.

I've already told you in one thread, and I'll tell you here once again: think a bit more before posting. Please.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

You want to go say that to the people who died on the USS Belknap that collide with the USS John F Kennedy.

Those photos showed the Belknap the day after the fire. The fire was not cause by aluminium alloy in the superstructure. You don’t just collide aluminium with some other metal and it starts to burn. The only real difference between a steel superstructure and an aluminium one is the day after uncontrolled fires the steel ship would have looked more intact. Its superstructure would be completely worthless and would have to be cut away and replaced but it wouldn’t look all melted like an aluminium one.

Aluminium has been used safely in ships for decades. You might as well declare because the rigid structure of the Hindenburg Zeppelin (made from aluminium, shock horror!) melted after its fire that 747s shouldn’t be built from aluminium.

 

[Marc 1]

Zhaow,

You may want to read this:

Section F.7: Aluminum in warship construction
There are many misconceptions and incorrect stories regarding the use of aluminum in warship construction.

One common story is that HMS Sheffield, a destroyer sunk during the 1982 Falkland War, was lost because her alleged aluminum superstructure made her more vulnerable to damage. This story is completely untrue, because Sheffield's superstructure was not aluminum. Like all ships of her class, her hull and superstructure were entirely steel. Aluminum played no role in her loss.

Two Royal Navy warships lost during the Falklands War did have aluminum superstructures, and their loss is incorrectly attributed to this feature. Ardent was hit by seven 500- and 1000-pound bombs, plus at least two more bombs which failed to detonate, and sank some six hours after the attack. Any warship of her size, regardless of aluminum or steel construction, would likely be sunk by this many bombs, so aluminum cannot be blamed here. Antelope, another aluminum-superstructure ship, was struck by two bombs, which lodged in the ship but failed to explode. Later, while one of the bombs was being defused, it exploded, blowing a major hole in the hull and starting a large fire. The fire eventually reached the magazines, causing these to explode. Again, an aluminum superstructure appears to have little connection to the ship's loss, which was caused by the explosion of the bomb and the magazines.

A related story claims the US Navy and Royal Navy abanonded aluminum superstructures, in favor of steel, as a result of the Falklands war. Since aluminum superstructures played little or no role in the Falkands losses, this story is obviously untrue. The Royal Navy's switch to steel appears to be a result of a 1977 fire in the frigate Amazon. In the US Navy, the switch from aluminum to steel superstructures was a result of the 1975 collision between the carrier John F. Kennedy and the cruiser Belknap. The collision caused major fires aboard the cruiser, and her aluminum superstructure essentially melted; she was reduced to a badly burnt hulk. This incident lead to a decision to adopt steel superstructures in the next new warship class, the Arleigh Burke (DDG 51) class destroyers. This decision had been made prior to the Falkands War.
From: sci.military.naval FAQ, Part F - Surface Combatants

 

[ASSAIL]

You want to go say that to the people who died on the USS Belknap that collide with the USS John F Kennedy. I'm sure the people that died on the USS Belknap collision would like to hear Aluminum will only burn in powder. It clearly shows that Aluminum is not safe on a warship and this picture from the collision would clearly show.

Take a reality check about aluminium and cut the bs..
This is what happens to a steel ship under similar circumstances. There were plenty of fires and 74 USN sailors died.
I was there, I strapped the remaining aft section of the USS Frank E Evans alongside HMAS Melbourne's quarterdeck.

USS Frank E. Evans DD 754 Photos
Take a good look at page 2

 

[gf0012-aust]

"My eyes are bleeding" No: 2

This ones closed for Mod review.

Here's a hint for some. The BlueTags under some marked Defense Professional/Analyst are a hint that the individual has a level of proficiency earned by service or trade. Its more than useful to pay attention to their perspectives as they are usually wrapped around some professional insight. ie Life and Learned Experience as opposed to google-fu. Countering the argument needs more than zeal.....

Anyone with a convincing argument about why this post should emulate Lazarus can PM the Mods