US Navy News and updates

[John Newman]

The minesweeper USS Guardian will be removed from the reef it is stuck on by cutting the ship up.
So far the information available says her electronic charts were off, by quite a bit.

Also here are some more pics of the USS Zumwalt now that the super structure is in place.
Mighty ZUMWALT Is Coming Together

An article and photo in Defense News about the minesweeper grounding:

Trapped U.S. Navy Minesweeper To Be Broken Up | Defense News | defensenews.com

Below is the paragraph about the digital navigation charts being off:

"The U.S. Navy also revealed Jan. 18 that the digital navigational chart in use by the Guardian misplaced the correct location of the reef by about eight nautical miles. The Navy and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, producer of the digital charts, reviewed more then 3,700 digital charts and, in addition to the Tubbataha Reef error, found another mistake off the coast of Chile. Both errors have since been corrected, and the Navy’s chief navigation official has declared his confidence in the accuracy of the digital charts."


Pretty amazing that the chart was off 8 nautical miles, and they also found another mistake in the charts off Chile too!

 

[Milne Bay]

An article and photo in Defense News about the minesweeper grounding:

Trapped U.S. Navy Minesweeper To Be Broken Up | Defense News | defensenews.com

Below is the paragraph about the digital navigation charts being off:

"The U.S. Navy also revealed Jan. 18 that the digital navigational chart in use by the Guardian misplaced the correct location of the reef by about eight nautical miles. The Navy and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, producer of the digital charts, reviewed more then 3,700 digital charts and, in addition to the Tubbataha Reef error, found another mistake off the coast of Chile. Both errors have since been corrected, and the Navy’s chief navigation official has declared his confidence in the accuracy of the digital charts."


Pretty amazing that the chart was off 8 nautical miles, and they also found another mistake in the charts off Chile too!

Also pretty amazing that the ship ignored warnings and proceded to the reef .......
...............Park rangers radioed the USS Guardian to advise it was nearing the Tubbataha Reef on Thursday, but the ship captain insisted they raise their complaint with the US embassy.....................

 

[swerve]

Didn't quite get the point, did he?

 

[Milne Bay]

Didn't quite get the point, did he?

Well, the Philippinos did what they were advised - I'm sure that there has been a lot of .....Taking it up with the US embassy ever since ....................

Was it stupidity or simply arrogance? .................. probably both!

Brings to mind that old joke:

US Ship: Please divert your course 0.5 degrees to the south to avoid a collision.

CND reply: Recommend you divert your course 15 degrees to the South to avoid a collision.

US Ship: This is the Captain of a US Navy Ship. I say again, divert your course.

CND reply: No. I say again, you divert YOUR course!

US Ship: THIS IS THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER USS CORAL SEA*, WE ARE A LARGE WARSHIP OF THE US NAVY. DIVERT YOUR COURSE NOW!!

CND reply: This is a lighthouse. Your call.

 

[ASSAIL]

Lcs

An interesting article from the USNI (Jan) which gives a very positive outlook for the LCS introduction into the Fleet.
At last the positives seem to be outweighing the negatives.
This whole programme reminds me of the F35 development where despite a large body of negative commentary during the development, the naysayers will be proved comprehensively wrong.
http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2013-01/littoral-combat-ship-all-ahead-full

 

[RobWilliams]

Need to knock off a http:// there mate, at least, my browser doesn't like it

Here's something i'd like to know, AFAIK LockMart are building the monohull design & GD the trimaran (Aluminium i think?) design, but why are 2 different hull designs being developed? Looking at an older PDF (linked) both designs appear to satisfy the criteria set by the Navy, but surely a single design would be more cost effective?

Operationally, does the trimaran have certain advantages over the mono and vice versa?

I get that this is a pretty basic question, i've had a look on Google & couldn't find much. Truth be told I know sweet FA about the LCS :

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL33741.pdf

 

[ASSAIL]

There's an excellent paper by Bob Work explaining the whole convoluted development of the LCS. Its an exercise in intellectual development of the USN under increasing budgetary and strategic pressure and well worth the quite long read. I only wish that our defence Minister (Oz) and his staff expended the same effort.




[ame="http://www.scribd.com/doc/122722216/Littoral-Combat-Ship-How-we-Got-Here-and-Why"]Littoral Combat Ship - How we Got Here and Why[/ame]

 

[Milne Bay]

Need to knock off a http:// there mate, at least, my browser doesn't like it

Here's something i'd like to know, AFAIK LockMart are building the monohull design & GD the trimaran (Aluminium i think?) design, but why are 2 different hull designs being developed? Looking at an older PDF (linked) both designs appear to satisfy the criteria set by the Navy, but surely a single design would be more cost effective?

Operationally, does the trimaran have certain advantages over the mono and vice versa?

I get that this is a pretty basic question, i've had a look on Google & couldn't find much. Truth be told I know sweet FA about the LCS :

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL33741.pdf

It may have had more to do with keeping shipyards in employment - and various voting blocks from around the country happy, than the pundits are prepared to admit. Also both ships were paper designs and unproven - as was the concept of interchangeable mission modules. It could also be seen as having a bet both ways.
What I have wondered, as this programme has unfolded, is whether each design will be optimised for a different set of mission modules, as the strengths and limitations of each ship become understood - effectively giving each design its own mission set.

 

[RobWilliams]

There's an excellent paper by Bob Work explaining the whole convoluted development of the LCS. Its an exercise in intellectual development of the USN under increasing budgetary and strategic pressure and well worth the quite long read. I only wish that our defence Minister (Oz) and his staff expended the same effort.

Cheers for the link, just digging through it and there's some interesting info, especially how the US was dealing with the LCS' survivability in relation to the rest of the fleet.

Hm, if the idea of 2 different hulls wasn't odd enough for me, 2 different powerplants too! Surely that's not going to be helpful for maintenance costs.

Rather like the aviation capacity of her, according to the link each of her 2 aviation stations - I assume the setup is equivalent on both - for a MH-60 or 3 FireScouts, quite a nice mix for the littoral theatre.

 

[RobWilliams]

It may have had more to do with keeping shipyards in employment - and various voting blocks from around the country happy, than the pundits are prepared to admit. Also both ships were paper designs and unproven - as was the concept of interchangeable mission modules. It could also be seen as having a bet both ways.
What I have wondered, as this programme has unfolded, is whether each design will be optimised for a different set of mission modules, as the strengths and limitations of each ship become understood - effectively giving each design its own mission set.

Sounds about right really, would be a fair few angry folks if either side lost the bid, bad news for the company & bad news for the Govt.

I was thinking the same thing, would the trimaran - being more stable at sea than the monohull design - be more suited to using modules that would operate more in green water than in the littoral? That type of thing.

According to navyrecognition, the Freedom class has a better sprint speed (47+ knots) compared to the Independence class (40+ knots), i'd always thought the accepted values were 40+ knots, but given the equivalent displacement, beam + powerplants the Independence has a considerably chunkier beam so could that make it not unreasonable to assume that she'll be slower because of it? Considering that the doc ASSAIL linked earlier talks about how the survivability of the LCS is more about prevention rather than resistance to hits, this'd suggest that the Freedom class could potentially be better suited to the littoral than the Independence class sprinting around to avoid hits, chuck in my earlier bit too. Maybe more suited to - say - MCM than ASW?

It looks as though the Independence has dual hangar doors too, would that make it more suited [or at least better at] to simultaneous helo ops? If so, could nudge it to be better suited to ASW/ASuW than the Freedom with her one. But with UAV's like Fire Scout then the single door won't be a problem [or not as much of a problem], would be handy supporting guys ashore with those birds too so closer to shore.

Should point out, this is pure conjecture on my part. Taking baby steps into the LCS at the minute, so to be honest i'd like it if people would put me straight and tell me to stop talking bollocks. I've got a habit of joining the dots when in actual fact the reality is the dots already make a pattern.

US Navy, United States Navy, Corvettes, Patrol Vessels, technical datasheet, specifications, intelligence, description, identification, pictures, photos, images, video, defense, defence, naval technology

EDIT: Considering we're talking about the LCS, just thought i'd chuck in the Future Weapons bit about the Mk110

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtOgY8L3Jy0"]naval gun/ mk110 - YouTube[/nomedia]

 

[AegisFC]

Hm, if the idea of 2 different hulls wasn't odd enough for me, 2 different powerplants too! Surely that's not going to be helpful for maintenance costs.

Not as bad as you'd think. The Freedom type will use the same gas turbines in the DDG-1000's and the Independance type uses the venerable LM2500's found in Burkes and Tico's.
What bothers me more than the engineering plant differences is that they use completely different combat systems. However that can be fixed later after some operational experience.
Several years ago the USN was supposed to down select to a single design with final price being one of the major deciding factors. However both designs have contract prices very similar to one another so the powers that be decided there was no good reason to build just one for now.

Also LCS-1 is a prototype. LCS-3 and above will be drastically different in many ways to the prototype. We can probably assume the same with the Austal design.

It looks as though the Independence has dual hangar doors too, would that make it more suited [or at least better at] to simultaneous helo ops? If so, could nudge it to be better suited to ASW/ASuW than the Freedom with her one. But with UAV's like Fire Scout then the single door won't be a problem [or not as much of a problem], would be handy supporting guys ashore with those birds too so closer to shore.

I've been on board LCS-1 and her hangar is massive and overall they have identical hangar capabilities.

 

[RobWilliams]

Not as bad as you'd think. The Freedom type will use the same gas turbines in the DDG-1000's and the Independance type uses the venerable LM2500's found in Burkes and Tico's.
What bothers me more than the engineering plant differences is that they use completely different combat systems. However that can be fixed later after some operational experience.
Several years ago the USN was supposed to down select to a single design with final price being one of the major deciding factors. However both designs have contract prices very similar to one another so the powers that be decided there was no good reason to build just one for now.

Also LCS-1 is a prototype. LCS-3 and above will be drastically different in many ways to the prototype. We can probably assume the same with the Austal design.

True, true. I was just thinking about the AB's and the Tico's, that's something like 80ish ships off the top of my head, would be better to piggy-back off that supply chain than creating a new one for ~25 Freedom class LCS' and 3 Zumwalts.

But I suppose - being the USN - it's got the logistical capacity to be able to deal with this enough that it's not as much of a problem (if any) like it is for other navies, would this be an accurate way of describing it?

Looking at navyrecognition again, the Independence has NG ICMS and the Freedom has COMBATSS-21, is that info good? It does seem a bit strange, but like you say that'll get worked out.

I've been on board LCS-1 and her hangar is massive and overall they have identical hangar capabilities.

Yup, they are equivalent, I was just making some observations about one class having 2 hangar doors and the other a single door. I mean I get that in the grand scheme of things that doesn't particularly mean much, but would the Independence be more effective at operating 2 MH-60 because of this? That's not to say that LCS-1 isn't capable of doing that, but the better access for the second helo to the flight deck might make it easier to do so? I think the deck is cleared to operate a pair simultaneously.

IIRC isn't LCS-3 a longer ship and I think faster and more fuel efficient because of this?

 

[AegisFC]

True, true. I was just thinking about the AB's and the Tico's, that's something like 80ish ships off the top of my head, would be better to piggy-back off that supply chain than creating a new one for ~25 Freedom class LCS' and 3 Zumwalts.

I think you might be reading too much into it. I would probably think differently if it was just one or two ships but you are talking about 20+.

Looking at navyrecognition again, the Independence has NG ICMS and the Freedom has COMBATSS-21, is that info good? It does seem a bit strange, but like you say that'll get worked out.

Yes that is accurate.
COMBATSS-21 is a highly modified version of Command and Decision (CND). CND is the heart of Aegis. ICMS as far as I know is based on SSDS fitted to Amphibs and Carriers.
As of right now all block 0 LCS's of both types are using those two types. It is expected that a common combat system will be selected within a few years.

Yup, they are equivalent, I was just making some observations about one class having 2 hangar doors and the other a single door. I mean I get that in the grand scheme of things that doesn't particularly mean much, but would the Independence be more effective at operating 2 MH-60 because of this? That's not to say that LCS-1 isn't capable of doing that, but the better access for the second helo to the flight deck might make it easier to do so? I think the deck is cleared to operate a pair simultaneously.

<Shrug> I honestly have no idea but LCS-1 has a bigger hangar. It is also cavernous inside the hangar, very tall as well as long.

An older article but it has a rundown of the basic differences between the two ships.

LCS 1 Vs. 2: Both Meet the Requirements, But Similarities End There | Defense News | defensenews.com

While LCS-2 has a bigger flight deck it is not as much of an advantage as I'd initially thought since neither can handle the weight of larger helo's like the CH-53.

IIRC isn't LCS-3 a longer ship and I think faster and more fuel efficient because of this?

It is longer, there are also significant internal differences as well. It also doesn't have LCS-1's "butt cheeks" either.

 

[RobWilliams]

I think you might be reading too much into it. I would probably think differently if it was just one or two ships but you are talking about 20+.

Again, very true, i've a tendancy to do that when I get carried away.

Yes that is accurate.
COMBATSS-21 is a highly modified version of Command and Decision (CND). CND is the heart of Aegis. ICMS as far as I know is based on SSDS fitted to Amphibs and Carriers.
As of right now all block 0 LCS's of both types are using those two types. It is expected that a common combat system will be selected within a few years.

Ah right, would that come down as a direct choice of a more mature version of one or the other then?

I'd imagine merging elements of the 2 together would be impractical and probably frowned upon by the manufacturers.

<Shrug> I honestly have no idea but LCS-1 has a bigger hangar. It is also cavernous inside the hangar, very tall as well as long.

An older article but it has a rundown of the basic differences between the two ships.

While LCS-2 has a bigger flight deck it is not as much of an advantage as I'd initially thought since neither can handle the weight of larger helo's like the CH-53.

Ah, cheers for the link, having a quick skim over it there's some nice numbers in there. I'll be reading through that later. I was just blue-sky thinking about it, but probably just reading too much into it . . . again

I'd have a guess and say LCS-1's hanger is longer (and probably taller) than LCS-2, but LCS-2 has the wider hanger due to the nature of the hull. But they do seem pretty big, the MH-60 is a big bird. Makes you appreciate the sheer size of the flight deck really.

I suppose the lack of CH-53 capability was a weight saving measure to get the maximum sprint speed possible I guess? I suppose the advantage would come from operating 2 of her regular helos concurrently, but chances are the financial savings - be it construction costs/fuel costs of a lighter ship outweighed any sort of bonus capability (but would it be particularly useful?) that the CH-53 offers.

 

[ASSAIL]

Not as bad as you'd think. The Freedom type will use the same gas turbines in the DDG-1000's and the Independance type uses the venerable LM2500's found in Burkes and Tico's.
What bothers me more than the engineering plant differences is that they use completely different combat systems. However that can be fixed later after some operational experience.
Several years ago the USN was supposed to down select to a single design with final price being one of the major deciding factors. However both designs have contract prices very similar to one another so the powers that be decided there was no good reason to build just one for now.

Also LCS-1 is a prototype. LCS-3 and above will be drastically different in many ways to the prototype. We can probably assume the same with the Austal design.



I've been on board LCS-1 and her hangar is massive and overall they have identical hangar capabilities.

According to Bob Work's paper LCS 1&2 are prototypes, 3 &4 are pre production units all flight 0. The next 6 units are all Flight 0+ and there are a host of changes to both types from LCS 3 onwards.

LCS 2 has the better aviation facilities with the flight deck/hanger capable of operating 2 x medium helos and I believe that LCS 1's problem with the boat launching system has been resolved after changing the frame to steel.

It is envisaged that the Flight I ships (LCS 11 onwards) will have common combat systems and as he says, both ships have the capacity to add capability as the concept matures. He compares their evolution to the Sprucans which started life with little other than 2 x 5" and a box launcher and ended up highly capable destroyers with a host of systems including a 61 cell Mk41 VLS allowed for by their reserve volumn.

The main point is that these are fully networked units of a total battle concept and should not be assessd in isolation to the rest of the ORBAT.

 

[RobWilliams]

LCS 2 has the better aviation facilities with the flight deck/hanger capable of operating 2 x medium helos and I believe that LCS 1's problem with the boat launching system has been resolved after changing the frame to steel.

Looking at the same paper they're both 2 x MH-60 capable, well it only talks about the 'LCS' rather than specific subclasses, checking it LCS-1 has the bigger hangar but something like 2/3 the flight deck space of LCS-2

So it'll absolutely be able to carry & operate 2 helos, but i'm not 100% sure if they can conduct simultaneous ops.

 

[Milne Bay]

Looking at the same paper they're both 2 x MH-60 capable, well it only talks about the 'LCS' rather than specific subclasses, checking it LCS-1 has the bigger hangar but something like 2/3 the flight deck space of LCS-2

So it'll absolutely be able to carry & operate 2 helos, but i'm not 100% sure if they can conduct simultaneous ops.

Not much point if they can't. That would mean simply carrying a spare helicopter - bit like a spare tyre for a car.
They can't operate the CH 53's, but why would they need to?
A pair of MH-60's is a formidable loadout.
Cheers
MB

 

[ASSAIL]

Looking at the same paper they're both 2 x MH-60 capable, well it only talks about the 'LCS' rather than specific subclasses, checking it LCS-1 has the bigger hangar but something like 2/3 the flight deck space of LCS-2

So it'll absolutely be able to carry & operate 2 helos, but i'm not 100% sure if they can conduct simultaneous ops.

Rob, check this youtube interview with Independence CO's x 2 at about 4.30 mins they talk about operating 2 or 3 helo spots depending upon type. Flt deck is 31/2 times size of an AB

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ1dnhJBIlA

There's quite a few good youtube shows re this ship

 

[Volkodav]

I find it interesting that people bang on about the LCS not being as capable as an OHP FFG when the truth is they are but one of the types that the LCS is meant to be replace. They are probably more akin to the WWII DE and DD conversions to APD (High Speed Transports), DMS (High Speed / Destroyer Mine Sweepers), as well as M/SGB, Sub Chasers etc.

They are definately more capable and survivable than the majority of craft, boats and minor warfare vessels they are intended to replace.

 

[RobWilliams]

Not much point if they can't. That would mean simply carrying a spare helicopter - bit like a spare tyre for a car.
They can't operate the CH 53's, but why would they need to?
A pair of MH-60's is a formidable loadout.
Cheers
MB

Well not neccesarily, simultaneous use would be - in my mind - one helo landing and the other taking off at the same time. If it couldn't do that then there's nothing stopping it from launching a helo after the previous one has already cleared, that type of thing.

That being said, i've only got reservations because it's a characteristic i've seen written about LCS-2 but not LCS-1. I'm not saying it can't do it.