US Navy News and updates

[colay]

Many do not give the LCS credit for being a tough little ship and are happy to perpetuate the image of a floating deathtrap, a catastrophe waiting to happen the moment it experiences battle damage. As Dr. Work recounts:



However, as the design progressed, LCS survivability started to rely
less on avoiding a hit (e.g., susceptibility) and more on reducing ship
vulnerability and improving recovery after taking a hit. This move
was made partly in response to grumblings from the surface warfare
community, which was highly skeptical of warship based on
commercially derived designs.

Accordingly, during the design and construction of the two Flight 0 prototypes, the Navy directed the two LCS design teams (LM and GD) to shift to ABS Naval Vessel Rules (NVR), which were more stringent than the earlier commercially-based
ABS High Speed Naval Craft Rules. Naval Vessel Rules define a set of
combatant standards applicable only to hull, machinery, and electrical
passive survivability requirements (e.g., structural strength, redundancy and separation), and not to ship combat systems.

Consequently, the move to NVR meant an LCS’s main propulsion plant and associated auxiliaries, electrical generation and distribution systems, navigation, internal communication and announcement systems, fire mains, and navigation and external communications systems all had to be shock hardened. A second result was the addition of extra watertight compartmentation to allow the ship to
remain afloat even with three compartments and 15 percent of its
overall length flooded—the same damage stability requirement for
Level II and Level III combatants. Finally, the LCS was provided no less
than three redundant firefighting systems.

 

[AegisFC]

The last time I can remember anything remotely like a swarm attack was the Iranian boghammers in the 1980's.

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard practice swarm tactics and there are you tube videos showing recent practices and live firings. There are also videos of such swarms harassing US ships in the Straights of Hormuz.

In the case of the LCS rather than the Griffin, I would have a 76mm gun with PGM. Add to this a drone capable of over the horizon targeting. Then back it all up with a missile armed helo.

All equipment readily available, all capable of performing this and many other missions.

In all a much cheaper more versatile weapons package.

Problem is that a choke point crossing like the Straights of Hormuz over the horizon targeting is pointless and would likely be handled by on station aircraft. Also just about all the current ASM's do not have IFF and the USN doesn't want to accidentally sink a merchant or fishing boat, so the ROE is pretty strict.
The current ASUW package along with the installed gun and Griffin should work just fine for the foreseeable future with the current ROE, which is not likely to go away any time soon.

 

[colay]

The asymmetric threats including swarming boat attacks cunningly employed by Red Force during Millennium Challenge 2002 also demonstrated the lack of an adequate screening force to protect high value assets could be very costly.

 

[MickB]

Problem is that a choke point crossing like the Straights of Hormuz over the horizon targeting is pointless and would likely be handled by on station aircraft. Also just about all the current ASM's do not have IFF and the USN doesn't want to accidentally sink a merchant or fishing boat, so the ROE is pretty strict.
The current ASUW package along with the installed gun and Griffin should work just fine for the foreseeable future with the current ROE, which is not likely to go away any time soon.

The weapons package I suggested was a way to strike missile armed FACs at beyond their firing range at a cheaper price and over a longer sustained peroid. Plus of course do NGS and other normal missions.
In the situation you discribe it may not perform any better but I don't see it doing any worse. A 76 mm gun backed by a Hellfire equiped helo, visual targeting no IFF problems. Also drones are used to identify and strike targets in populated areas on a regular basis, so telling the differance between a FAC and a fishing vessel should be less of a problem.

 

[Belesari]

Aren't many of them armed with SAM's and wont they have fighter support? And if they are in the littorals they may have to worry about artillery and other land based threats.

The weapons package I suggested was a way to strike missile armed FACs at beyond their firing range at a cheaper price and over a longer sustained peroid. Plus of course do NGS and other normal missions.
In the situation you discribe it may not perform any better but I don't see it doing any worse. A 76 mm gun backed by a Hellfire equiped helo, visual targeting no IFF problems.

 

[MickB]

Aren't many of them armed with SAM's and wont they have fighter support? And if they are in the littorals they may have to worry about artillery and other land based threats.

Few are equiped with SAMs, but they may carry manpads.

If the other side is still capable of combined arms attacks then the LCS should not be there without a large amount of its own support.

 

[Belesari]

Few are equiped with SAMs, but they may carry manpads.

If the other side is still capable of combined arms attacks then the LCS should not be there without a large amount of its own support.

But that is what I find Ironic. The Idea was the LCS could operate by itself or with a group of them together each with mission specific load outs.

So...

 

[RobWilliams]

Here's a graphic showing the weapon systems/sensors loadouts for each type of module. Is this accurate?

Some of the choices on the ASW + surface attack threw me a bit - but that's just me being a FFG guy.

 

[colay]

But that is what I find Ironic. The Idea was the LCS could operate by itself or with a group of them together each with mission specific load outs.

So...

It's not that simplistic. LCS is designed to operate within the Navy's FORCENet Architecture as explained in the dissertation by Dr. Robert Work linked earlier in this thread.

 

[RobWilliams]

Exactly.

In the 3 stages above, there's only one scenario where a LCS deploys alone - "low threat". Even in the LAG scenario it says that during wartime the LAG will integrate into the larger network.

 

[Bonza]

But that is what I find Ironic. The Idea was the LCS could operate by itself or with a group of them together each with mission specific load outs.

So...

Did you read the linked article that described how the LCS is supposed to operate, as opposed to how you think it's supposed to operate?

 

[Belesari]

Did you read the linked article that described how the LCS is supposed to operate, as opposed to how you think it's supposed to operate?

I wasn't talking about the article. I am talking about one of the things they mentioned before the ships actually got built. One of the reasons the LCS were wanted was that they were supposed to free up DDG's and such for other duties. Able to outrun threats they couldn't stop.

However, after the ships were built the Navy decided that wasn't going to happen in all but the safest of places. So we are at where we are now.

 

[Bonza]

I wasn't talking about the article. I am talking about one of the things they mentioned before the ships actually got built. One of the reasons the LCS were wanted was that they were supposed to free up DDG's and such for other duties. Able to outrun threats they couldn't stop.

However, after the ships were built the Navy decided that wasn't going to happen in all but the safest of places. So we are at where we are now.

So in other words, "no, no I haven't".

 

[RobWilliams]

Pulled over from the JSF - Navy thread as it's not particularly JSF orientated

Yes personally, I do tend to see USN with 8 Ford and Nimitz after 2020. Which considering the situations with everybody else, will not be a disaster for USN (I do not believe by then China will able to operated 4 carriers like some China forumers says). Still will be interesting to see how far this mini-carriers concept will be put forward if they do lose 2-3 super carriers capability.

I wouldn't quite go as far as to throw down numbers, because i've got no idea. But especially not anything close to 2020, as of right now the USN have planned a 1:1 replacement of the Nimitz/Ford, so come 2020 the roster will be 9 Nimitz class & 1 Ford class, as JFK's conctruction time was increased so that the ship will be delivered in Sept 2022

• Gerald R Ford -> Enterprise (Sept 2015)
• John F Kennedy -> Nimitz (Sept 2022)
• Enterprise -> Dwight D Eisenhower (2027)

Here's a rather pertinant quote from this document (which i'll link below)

The Navy states that lengthening the construction periods of CVNs 79 and 80 by two years will not temporarily reduce the carrier force to less than 11 ships, but will instead eliminate some instances of when the carrier force would have temporarily numbered 12 ships.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RS20643.pdf

The document is dated 13th March 2013, so it's pretty darn recent. Gunna be reading through this.

 

[colay]

The Navy has to settle for a 14-foot AMDR antenna for it's new-build Burke Flt III destroyers even though there are concerns about it's ability to meet anticipated threats. Vice Adm. Tom Copeman, commander of US Surface Fleet has called for scrapping the DDG 51 Flt III/ AMDR program in favor of new, larger and more capable platform. I realize that the Navy is placing it's bets on sensor netting as a means to compensate for the reduced capability of the 14-ft AMDR antenna. Unfortunately, it's not even a certainty that the PTSS will materialize and even if it did, reliance on offboard sensors brings it's own v vulnerabilities.

But what if, in addition to installing AMDR on the new Burkes, consider replacing the dual-band radar on the Ford-class CVNs with a 20-ft. AMDR set originally intended for the cancelled CG(X) and eventually retrofitting all the Nimitz-class carriers when they undergo their regular refuel/ refit cycle. This would provide each CSG with enhanced radar capability to cope with growing threats and avoid the need for a new ship as suggested byVAdm Copeman.




Navy

Will the 14-foot, SPY +15 new radar be powerful enough? According to the January 2012 GAO report, “Flight III with a 14-foot AMDR will not be powerful enough to meet the Navy’s objective, or desired IAMD capabilities.[3] [IAMD =Integrated Air and Missile Defense] . The GAO cited two recent Navy studies.[4] A 2009 “Radar/Hull Study red team” said that a SPY+15 capability would give a “marginally adequate” capability against the threats considered in that study. An earlier Maritime Air and Missile Defense of Joint Forces (MAMDJF) study rejected the SPY+15 as inadequate and concluded that a radar close to a SPY+30 capability (30 dB = 1,000) would be needed for the most stressing threats. This would require an array diameter greater than 20 feet. However, according to the GAO, the Navy has concluded that 14-foot radar now planned is the largest that can be built into the existing DDG-51 hull.

 

[justsomeaussie]

Interesting about the DARPA work on the Independance

LCS Maker Responds to Ship's Firepower Critics | Military.com

 

[alexsa]

Many do not give the LCS credit for being a tough little ship and are happy to perpetuate the image of a floating deathtrap, a catastrophe waiting to happen the moment it experiences battle damage. As Dr. Work recounts:

Be careful in how your quote this as this is a critical element.....

However, as the design progressed, LCS survivability started to rely less on avoiding a hit (e.g., susceptibility) and more on reducing ship
vulnerability and improving recovery after taking a hit. This move
was made partly in response to grumblings from the surface warfare
community, which was highly skeptical of warship based on
commercially derived designs.

Accordingly, during the design and construction of the two Flight 0 prototypes, the Navy directed the two LCS design teams (LM and GD) to shift to ABS Naval Vessel Rules (NVR), which were more stringent than the earlier commercially-based ABS High Speed Naval Craft Rules. Naval Vessel Rules define a set of combatant standards applicable only to hull, machinery, and electrical passive survivability requirements (e.g., structural strength, redundancy and separation), and not to ship combat systems.

.

The HSC code rules on which the "naval HSC rules" are based is itself a dilution of the SOLAS rules for commercial vessels. The HSC rules are in place for a commercial vessel that operates within 4 (passenger vessel) or 8 (cargo vessel) hours of a safe haven at operational speed (not balls out) on a route approved by the flag state. This reflects the fact that the light construction of the vessels for speed compromises their ability to comply with contemporary structural fire protection, subdivision and safety equipment requirements ....... and limits their ability in more significant weather (force 5 plus).

Dr Work did note this but for readers it is worth noting that aluminum light weight warships would find it very difficult to comply with Chapter I, II and III of SOLAS that apply to the bog standard merchant ships. The move 'naval' rules more closely aligned with operational requirements of the Navy and the operational support capability of the fleet as a whole ans makes sense.

Warship rules generally are adopted reflect the operational requirements and recognize it is not always reasonable or practical to apply merchant standards.

 

[colay]

The recent successful AEGIS/STSS shootdown of a BMD test target apparently wasn't enough to save the follow-on Precison Tracking Space System (PTSS) from the budget axe. This does seem to raise questions about the effectiveness of the Navy's reliance on sensor netting to deal with BM threats. Space-based tracking was to play a key role in the sensor netting architecture and a justification for accepting a reduced AMDR capability on new-build DDGs.

Pentagon Unveils $527B 2014 Budget | Military.com

..The Pentagon would save money in part by canceling the Missile Defense Agency's Precision Tracking Space System, developed partly by Northrop Grumman Corp., "due to high technical risk and greater than anticipated cost."..

 

[StobieWan]

Just caught a Disco channel doco on the two LCS ships - while ignoring anything the commentator said I have to say, I was really impressed at the size of the mission bays and hangars on each - Indy in particular is stunning - for a ship of that size, the scale of the aviation facilities is amazing, followed by that enormous mission bay was incredible.

In the documentary Freedom was tasked with trialling some aspects of the ASuW modules, and Indy was tackling the mine clearance modules.

Watching it, I was impressed with the sheer energy of the captain of Freedom - very relaxed and informal command style, in which he motored from the bridge (which seemed quite spacious) to the CIC, and occasionally shouted steering commands from the bridge wing. The 30mm cannons struggled quite badly in trial but I guess these are the reasons they chuck trials at these things - shake 'em up, shake 'em down and then fix what breaks. I could see how the press might begin short stroking over the performance of the various cannon but they started sighting in with what I presume were solid shot or practise rounds - you could see where the live rounds came into play when the water around the target ships suddenly whipped up in a couple of dozen impact points as the fragments blew everything into either sharp proportion or smithereens, depending on how you looked at it.

The airborne mine neutralisation devices held a surprise for me as I didn't realise that they carry multiple "archer fish" which are the kill vehicles. Some aspects of the MCM trials went fine, others struggled, but I'm guessing that since France, the UK, Denmark and the US are all looking at remote mine clearance, either this system will work or they can buy something off the shelf.

Mainly, for me, seeing that much space and room to work internally in a ship that size was the real eye-opener - you can suddenly see where they gain vs all the bitching about not having enough guns.

I guess I'm starting to like them - and I'm more confident than ever that if you let some USN sailors at them, they'll *make* them work.

 

[justsomeaussie]

I think once people get it into their heads that the fit out of these vessels that left the dockyard isn't what they'll be working will change people minds overtime.

The whole modular concept is really throwing people with most attacking what isn't on the vessels without thinking what could on the vessels.

Personally I'd like to see more comparison of the hulls and the ship itself all the rest is changeable.