US Navy News and updates

[colay]

I'm glad to see the LCS discussion. Is anyone else concerned that this is an expensive patrol boat with close to zero capabilities? Much smaller ships carry SSMs like a harpoon or Exocet. I understand our desire to field hulls but my concern is its lack of capability to defend itself from both air and surface vs similiar or even much smaller foreign vessels. Perhaps someone saltier than I can help me understand the concept.

Assail posted a white paper by Dr. Robert Work, Navy Undersecretary, explaining how the LCS is envisioned to fit into the grand scheme of things.. see post #660 this thread.. definitely worth reading.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/navy-maritime/us-navy-news-updates-7961-44/

 

[harryriedl]

I believe the "six effective" refers to the fact that only six of the CGs mentioned for decomming are really worth anything at this point.

And don't let the fact that PRL was able to deploy fool you; it would have been financially (but not politically) cheaper to have scrapped her after her fight with the reef. Or made her the BMD test ship in place of LAKE ERIE. The effort put into bringing her back into something resembling "operational capability" was in no way shape or form worth the final results.

everything I read about Port Royal was that it was a Pontemkin deployment as everything from hull warping to electronics were crap it really should have been broken up on the reef like the MCM recently. It was a huge waste of 40mil the same really applies to subs have had big issues such as Miami
South Beached: Fire and Fixes aboard USS Miami

In regards to 22 Ticos they all seem to be suffering quite badly from cracks (irrespective of electronics capability and fact quite few have ABM) between the superstructure and the hull, these are old ships and they are really being run on (I would decommission all but the ABM vessels but its not really possible due hull requirements and tasking) due to mess which is the USN's deep problems with replacement classes. ABIII, CGX DDX and big expensive mess which seems to be modern procurement

 

[AegisFC]

I'm glad to see the LCS discussion. Is anyone else concerned that this is an expensive patrol boat with close to zero capabilities? Much smaller ships carry SSMs like a harpoon or Exocet. I understand our desire to field hulls but my concern is its lack of capability to defend itself from both air and surface vs similiar or even much smaller foreign vessels. Perhaps someone saltier than I can help me understand the concept.

Go look up what they said about the Oliver Hazard Perry class when they were first being commissioned. There have been cost comparisons of the OHP's vs LCS adjusted for inflation and LCS compares favorably on that ground. The cost over runs people like to bring up is partly the USN's fault for changing their minds mid-construction.
Look up the the early Spruances as well when they came out of the yards. Or even look up the history of the very early USN destroyers and the criticism about them. Armchair admirals are more often wrong then right.
All of these complaints have happened before, and they will happen again.

Also look how the US OHP's are currently armed, manned and used.

In short the USN doesn't need a general purpose Frigate like other nations, we have plenty of Burkes for medium and high end work. The LCS's will never operate alone. Yes they have issues, all new ships do. For the longest time the DDG-51 was called "Always Broke". Go look up the issues with the LPD-17's or CG-47.

 

[Ranger25]

Go look up what they said about the Oliver Hazard Perry class when they were first being commissioned. There have been cost comparisons of the OHP's vs LCS adjusted for inflation and LCS compares favorably on that ground. The cost over runs people like to bring up is partly the USN's fault for changing their minds mid-construction.
Look up the the early Spruances as well when they came out of the yards. Or even look up the history of the very early USN destroyers and the criticism about them. Armchair admirals are more often wrong then right.
All of these complaints have happened before, and they will happen again.

Also look how the US OHP's are currently armed, manned and used.

In short the USN doesn't need a general purpose Frigate like other nations, we have plenty of Burkes for medium and high end work. The LCS's will never operate alone. Yes they have issues, all new ships do. For the longest time the DDG-51 was called "Always Broke". Go look up the issues with the LPD-17's or CG-47.

Thank you for the update. Just seems under armed but I'm not a navy guy

 

[OPSSG]

Thank you for the update. Just seems under armed but I'm not a navy guy

It's not under-armed. And it is not a frigate.

Would you agree that the LCS is better armed than any existing USN minesweeper and much more damage tolerant? At some point in the future, when the modules are ready and more hulls are in the water, it will replace existing minesweepers. It also does not need a lot of missiles and guns for anti-submarine warfare; and it carries a Seahawk, which can provide domain awareness and conduct anti-surface warfare. To conduct complaint VBSS in support of State Department's for PSI initiative, the LCS's weapons fit is more than adequate.

If you are thinking of specific threats, where is the threat, for the LCS's current deployment in Singapore (7th Fleet AOR and HQ Westpac)? Even when the LCS is deployed in the 5th Fleet AOR, the 5th Fleet has substantial air assets in threatre.

IMHO, when USS Freedom (LCS-1) and her sister vessels are forward deployed to Singapore, by default, they also enjoys air cover from the Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF). Singapore will not tolerate an air attack on an American naval vessel when it is in Singapore waters; and the Singapore Navy's First Floatilla will defend freedom of navigation in the Straits of Malacca and Singapore. The RSAF currently operates 24 F-15SGs (and growing to 36), over 60 F-16C/Ds and 19 Apaches. USN partners are always 'forward deployed', by virtue of being there. US-Singapore relations are excellent and Singapore is a burden sharing littoral state that conducts joint "Eyes-in-the-Sky" (EiS) air patrols (using Maritime Patrol Aircraft) with Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand (that has reduced piracy in the region).

Just my 2 cents and let the navy guys take over.

 

[harryriedl]

Go look up what they said about the Oliver Hazard Perry class when they were first being commissioned. There have been cost comparisons of the OHP's vs LCS adjusted for inflation and LCS compares favorably on that ground. The cost over runs people like to bring up is partly the USN's fault for changing their minds mid-construction.
Look up the the early Spruances as well when they came out of the yards. Or even look up the history of the very early USN destroyers and the criticism about them. Armchair admirals are more often wrong then right.
All of these complaints have happened before, and they will happen again.

Also look how the US OHP's are currently armed, manned and used.

In short the USN doesn't need a general purpose Frigate like other nations, we have plenty of Burkes for medium and high end work. The LCS's will never operate alone. Yes they have issues, all new ships do. For the longest time the DDG-51 was called "Always Broke". Go look up the issues with the LPD-17's or CG-47.

Isn't their still an issue with LCS that they more expensive than they should and their falling budgets and sequestration meaning that though OHP, DDG-51, and the Ticos their is less slack in the budget for these overruns to make these worthwhile ships, I would not like to have to deal with any damage control on the Austal ship especially with the small crew.

 

[Ranger25]

It's not under-armed. And it is not a frigate.

Would you agree that the LCS is better armed than any existing USN minesweeper and much more damage tolerant? At some point in the future, when the modules are ready and more hulls are in the water, it will replace existing minesweepers. It also does not need a lot of missiles and guns for anti-submarine warfare; and it carries a Seahawk, which can provide domain awareness and conduct anti-surface warfare. To conduct complaint VBSS in support of State Department's for PSI initiative, the LCS's weapons fit is more than adequate.

If you are thinking of specific threats, where is the threat, for the LCS's current deployment in Singapore (7th Fleet AOR and HQ Westpac)? Even when the LCS is deployed in the 5th Fleet AOR, the 5th Fleet has substantial air assets in threatre.

IMHO, when USS Freedom (LCS-1) and her sister vessels are forward deployed to Singapore, by default, they also enjoys air cover from the Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF). Singapore will not tolerate an air attack on an American naval vessel when it is in Singapore waters; and the Singapore Navy's First Floatilla will defend freedom of navigation in the Straits of Malacca and Singapore. The RSAF currently operates 24 F-15SGs (and growing to 36), over 60 F-16C/Ds and 19 Apaches. USN partners are always 'forward deployed', by virtue of being there. US-Singapore relations are excellent and Singapore is a burden sharing littoral state that conducts joint "Eyes-in-the-Sky" (EiS) air patrols (using Maritime Patrol Aircraft) with Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand (that has reduced piracy in the region).

Just my 2 cents and let the navy guys take over.

I agree, understand its roll and appreciate its AOR. Just seems like other similar and even smaller vessels like the the Visby class still retain some surface combat and air defense capabilities the LCS currently does not

 

[OPSSG]

I agree, understand its role and appreciate its AOR. Just seems like other similar and even smaller vessels like the the Visby class still retain some surface combat and air defense capabilities the LCS currently does not

If the criteria is some air defense capabilities, then it has RAM missiles for air defence, a 57 mm gun and a hanger for naval helicopters (but it could be better). And naval helicopters are capable of surface attack, too. The USN is different from other navies, it is much more powerful and have different vessels for different roles.

Cheers.

 

[AegisFC]

Ok, I understand we and Europe are Allies in many things BUT.

Why are we basing BMD ships in the EU at all? Don't get me wrong I have friends all over Europe. But, with a large Economy multiple Military's and what over 1 billion people why can't they do these things themselves? Do they not have any BMD weapons? When they had the whole USSR to deal with it was one thing but other than Poland and other eastern European nations that can't be a big worry anymore with Russia. So......

These 4 DDG's will spend a lot of time deployed to the Gulf. Rota happens to be the closest US base that has the housing, barracks, logistics in place for the sailors and their families. It also has all the Aegis tech rep support for either for visiting US ships or to help support the Spanish Aegis frigates.
The base is already there and it hasn't been on a BRAC list yet since it is a convenient in and outward place for R&R and to get any work done. The USN will save money on fuel since it is 4 ships that won't need to cross the Atlantic for a regular deployment.

I believe the "six effective" refers to the fact that only six of the CGs mentioned for decomming are really worth anything at this point.

Those six have a really strange computer baseline as well that while it works needs to go away. Either upgrade or toss them.

In regards to 22 Ticos they all seem to be suffering quite badly from cracks (irrespective of electronics capability and fact quite few have ABM) between the superstructure and the hull, these are old ships and they are really being run on (I would decommission all but the ABM vessels but its not really possible due hull requirements and tasking) due to mess which is the USN's deep problems with replacement classes. ABIII, CGX DDX and big expensive mess which seems to be modern procurement

The issues with the Tico's are no worse than other steel and aluminum ships from that era. The Spruances and Perries have hull cracking issues as well, I don't remember the class but several RN ships had issues as well.

Part of the Cruiser-Mod program is removing a significant amount of top weight. Such as the SPS-49, original SPQ-9 (replaced with a lighter and more versitile SPQ-9B), MK-86 optical sights with lighter and more modern uinits. This along with the added hull bracing should make the super structure craking less of a problem. Upgrading these ships for the next 15 or so years is more realitic and cheaper than replacing them at this point.

Depsite the issues the Tico's have several advantages over a Burke, such as space for a flag officer and staff. Higher SPY arrays, higher mast for CEC.

Thank you for the update. Just seems under armed but I'm not a navy guy

These days the USN OHP's are deployed with a Phalanx,76mm cannon, a remotely operated 27mm .50 cals spread along topside and a pair of SH-60's. Even when they had SM-1 capability it was always considered marginal. The sonar was nicknamed the "Helen Keller" and the class was jokingly known as "missile sponges".
At this point LCS is comparable, with a much smaller crew and LOTS of space to add goodies later.

Don't get me wrong, the ships have issues that need to be sorted and I would be fine if no more were made after the current batch were built. However at this time the USN has no need for a traditional frigate and the idea of a drone mothership has some appeal. I also have no problem if the current design is flogged for a decade then thrown away and the knowlege is put towards a more evolved design.

The USN is pretty good with dealing with its failures and getting some use out of them. The Long Beach didn't work as advertised so it was refitted as a standard cruiser for example.

I agree, understand its roll and appreciate its AOR. Just seems like other similar and even smaller vessels like the the Visby class still retain some surface combat and air defense capabilities the LCS currently does not

Griffen will be added to the class in the next few years. While not the prefered solution it will be a cheap upgrade that will provide useful capability. Bigger ASM's like Harpoon are wasted on a platform like LCS especially when you have Harpoon capability on it larger cousins.
Endurance is a key factor in USN designs and that dictates a certian minimum size. The Canadians, Australians and the UK have similar issues. The Visby class will probably never deploy and put on the miles like a USN asset.

In Friedman's history of the US Destroyer he relates an interesting story. Back in the 1990's several surface warfare officers requesting a ship about the size, weight and armament of a European frigate. NAVSEA drew up some preliminary drawings for a ship armed like a Euro-frigate but with the fuel tanks needed for US style deployments and US style damage control. It would of been VERY cramped with almost no margins for growth.

 

[harryriedl]

Those six have a really strange computer baseline as well that while it works needs to go away. Either upgrade or toss them.



The issues with the Tico's are no worse than other steel and aluminum ships from that era. The Spruances and Perries have hull cracking issues as well, I don't remember the class but several RN ships had issues as well.

Part of the Cruiser-Mod program is removing a significant amount of top weight. Such as the SPS-49, original SPQ-9 (replaced with a lighter and more versitile SPQ-9B), MK-86 optical sights with lighter and more modern uinits. This along with the added hull bracing should make the super structure craking less of a problem. Upgrading these ships for the next 15 or so years is more realitic and cheaper than replacing them at this point.

Depsite the issues the Tico's have several advantages over a Burke, such as space for a flag officer and staff. Higher SPY arrays, higher mast for CEC.





Don't get me wrong, the ships have issues that need to be sorted and I would be fine if no more were made after the current batch were built. However at this time the USN has no need for a traditional frigate and the idea of a drone mothership has some appeal. I also have no problem if the current design is flogged for a decade then thrown away and the knowlege is put towards a more evolved design.

The USN is pretty good with dealing with its failures and getting some use out of them. The Long Beach didn't work as advertised so it was refitted as a standard cruiser for example.


In Friedman's history of the US Destroyer he relates an interesting story. Back in the 1990's several surface warfare officers requesting a ship about the size, weight and armament of a European frigate. NAVSEA drew up some preliminary drawings for a ship armed like a Euro-frigate but with the fuel tanks needed for US style deployments and US style damage control. It would of been VERY cramped with almost no margins for growth.

Didn't know about the weight reduction efforts but doesn't really invalidate my point as all the ships of that era especially the ones with cracking problems(the RN vessels you are thinking of are T21 Amazons now with Pakistan, and B1 T42) are out of front line service or on their way out as quickly as possible. The Spruances are at the bottom or in reserve fleets and OHP being flogged off the smaller navies and has a immediate replacement in the water a flawed one but one never the less.

No disagreement with me about the greater flexibility of the Ticos compared with the DDG-51 especially in Flag space and Radar placement but these are old maintenance intensive ships with problems and one that will get worse especially as their replacement is so very vague (I don't know what the current thinking is more FII DDG-51 or FIII as replacements or a very expensive new program) I would be keen in keeping the BMD and best conditioned vessels and just replace the rest with DDG-51s and except a loss in capability unless a replacement can be found in the very near future

 

[Belesari]

Military spending is quite low down on the priorities of most European countries, only really UK and France have got any pretentions of being major military powers.

Oh I understand that I just don't get why we have to do it. Sigh. Its kinda my point actually.

 

[ASSAIL]

In Friedman's history of the US Destroyer he relates an interesting story. Back in the 1990's several surface warfare officers requesting a ship about the size, weight and armament of a European frigate. NAVSEA drew up some preliminary drawings for a ship armed like a Euro-frigate but with the fuel tanks needed for US style deployments and US style damage control. It would of been VERY cramped with almost no margins for growth.

The Australian ANZAC class (Meko 200 euro frigate) is just such an example. By extending the range and adding ESSM the margins for growth are so critical that they cannot fit Phalanx CIWS and the Harpoon launches had to be fitted on 01 deck below the bridge. During their current upgrade the quarterdeck openings have been sealed to give greater stability margins. Those who serve on them comment on how cramped their machinery spaces are.
All in all, a lesson not to be repeated.

 

[Bonza]

Oh I understand that I just don't get why we have to do it. Sigh. Its kinda my point actually.

Did you read AegisFC's response to your post? He outlined several advantages there are to the USN's choice of location in posting units. I think you're being a bit premature by attaching a sort of... what, "babysitting" tag to what you're talking about, when reasons advantageous to the USN itself have been mentioned.

 

[justsomeaussie]

I think where people are getting tripped up with the LCS is that they think its a frigate and they also see it at bare bones without any modules. The statements like it can't defend itself aren't valid if you can put on a module to fits that role.

Both LM and GD have their international variants gunned up to show would could be done everything from CEAFAR with ESSM to cannons.

Modular is a different way of looking at things. So right now the questions are if the modules they develop will be suitable.

I'd like to seem some more hull analysis and discussion between the two variants.

 

[colay]

In actual real US Navy news, the 30-year Shipbuilding plan is out. Some highlights:

• The current Battle Force is 283, with a requirement for 306 BF ships. The belief is that we can cover shortfalls now with rotational crew and forward-deploying ships (to Rota, Singapore, Japan, and Guam). AegisFC can probably comment better than I can on how well the former usually works on surface ships, and the latter requires lots of infrastructure to really support.
• 1/6th of that BF is going to be LCS. When I mentioned earlier that getting LCS now was more about getting hulls than anything else, that's what I was talking about. If LCS gets truncated, there is nothing else that has any hope of getting us back up to BF requirements.
• The plan requires $16.8 billion per year for shipbuilding. Historical average is $12-14 bil a year. And sequestration was not factored into this plan. These two points should indicate this plan is highly "aspirational" to use a polite term.
• The 9 ships (7 CG, 2 LSD) sked for decomm in 2013 and saved by Congress are now sked to decomm in 2015 (which is going to be a very busy year for decomms, with 20 ships going away).
• The OR SSBN is obviously the closest alligator to the canoe, and is probably going to eat away a lot of the rest of the funds (to the tune of $19 bil a year). The 2020s could be a bad time for the Navy if the money for other construction doesn't appear.
• Plans calls for 33 ARLEIGH BURKE FLTIIIs. There's also going to be another new class of large surface combatants that's going to be designed and fielded starting FY30.

Also, aside from a notional DDG(X), a follow-on LCS(X) is also envisaged in around the same timeframe. This tandem seems to comprise the hi-low mix for the Navy well into the future. Both will undoubtedly incorporate lessons learned from their immediate predecessors. Notably absent is any mention of a future frigate..

 

[swerve]

The Australian ANZAC class (Meko 200 euro frigate) is just such an example. By extending the range and adding ESSM the margins for growth are so critical that they cannot fit Phalanx CIWS and the Harpoon launches had to be fitted on 01 deck below the bridge. During their current upgrade the quarterdeck openings have been sealed to give greater stability margins. Those who serve on them comment on how cramped their machinery spaces are.
All in all, a lesson not to be repeated.

If you look at what weapons & sensors the French put onto a light frigate sized ship for Pacific patrol, you'll see that European navies understand perfectly well what's needed for long range & endurance. It's just that most of them have no need of such performance.

I've never really understood the Anzac class. European shipbuilders would happily have built bigger ships if wanted, with the margins to carry more fuel, & fit more weapons. They'd done it for their own navies. It's not really the supplier's fault if the customer specifies a pint pot then tries to squeeze a quart into it. The ANZACs could easily have been built on the F123 hull, for example, giving them an extra 20 metres length & 2 metres beam. It was building when the ANZACs were ordered.

 

[Sea Toby]

If you look at what weapons & sensors the French put onto a light frigate sized ship for Pacific patrol, you'll see that European navies understand perfectly well what's needed for long range & endurance. It's just that most of them have no need of such performance.

I've never really understood the Anzac class. European shipbuilders would happily have built bigger ships if wanted, with the margins to carry more fuel, & fit more weapons. They'd done it for their own navies. It's not really the supplier's fault if the customer specifies a pint pot then tries to squeeze a quart into it. The ANZACs could wasily have been built on the F123 hull, for example, giving them an extra 20 metres length & 2 metres beam. It was building when the ANZACs were ordered.

The Meko 200s were one of the last ships designed and built with the anti air missile system of Nato Seasparrow size and weight to be located on top of the superstructure. Ships today are locating those missiles on the main deck, significantly lower. The lesson has been learned.

 

[ASSAIL]

I've never really understood the Anzac class. European shipbuilders would happily have built bigger ships if wanted, with the margins to carry more fuel, & fit more weapons. They'd done it for their own navies. It's not really the supplier's fault if the customer specifies a pint pot then tries to squeeze a quart into it. The ANZACs could easily have been built on the F123 hull, for example, giving them an extra 20 metres length & 2 metres beam. It was building when the ANZACs were ordered.

That makes two of us, they were not what navy wanted but as you are well aware, govts know best! I was out of the system but I understand they wanted the Karel Doormans or De Zeven Provincien?
As a light patrol frigate they were fine but suprise suprise, the RAN needed a long range escort frigate!
The ASMD upgrade has been a success though and a reasonable compromise given the basic platform limitations

 

[swerve]

The Karel Doorman frigates aren't any bigger, & the De Zeven Provincien class didn't start building until after the ANZACs were commissioned. Do you mean the F123 Brandenburg class? Same builder as the MEKO 200, many similarities in design, about a third greater displacement - and already building when the ANZACs were ordered.

 

[Volkodav]

I've never really understood the Anzac class. European shipbuilders would happily have built bigger ships if wanted, with the margins to carry more fuel, & fit more weapons.

Basically because Paul Dibbs report formed the basis of a defence white paper specifying 2000ton patrol frigates as the second tier of a three tier navy. The Navy managed to swing larger more capable ships than intended and I clearly remember reading Dibb whinging about how they were too large and not what was needed.

Abe brought up previously that the project, pre-Dibb was actually for a proper GP/ASW frigate along the lines of the Type 23, I suppose the Type 123 or Halifax could have been in the running too.