US Navy News and updates

[Blackshoe]

There's a lot of interest in what type of ship will emerge out of the Small Surface Combatant deliberations. The article seems to imply that the ship may continue the Navy's focus on littoral warfare in lieu of a traditional blue water frigate. A modified LCS remains in the running. Dr.Bob Work assuming the no.2 post at the DoD can't hurt either.

Marine Official To Helm Navy

I'm going to go ahead and postulate for the record that the Small Surface Combatant discussion will create a proposal for a few options (one of which will probably look a lot like the Patrol Frigates variants that Northrop Grumman proposed on the National Security Cutter hull, one of which will look something like the Spanish F-100 design, and maybe a few more exotic options), none of which will end up being bought anyway.

 

[cdxbow]

A few things go to this:

1. The vessel is based on a light weight commercial ferry built to the High Speed Craft Code. It is optimise for speed and comfort/ride quality in relatively fair conditions. The hull structure is not as robust as a similar length (we will get to layout next) steel monohull. The 'need for speed' necessitates weight reduction hence these ships have only a small deadweight but a lot of volume......... and a lot less strength than a 125m feeder container vessels or RO PAX steel hulled ferry.

2. The light weight hull consists of a very long thin centre hull with two outriggers. IN a large seaway the centre hull will be subject to hogging and sagging and the aft structure (including its connection to the centre hull) will be subject to torsional stresses as parts of the hull are subject to greater or reduced buoyancy in the seaway, basically it is being bent and twisted and the outrigger design and side beam increases the forces (think of a sea saw and the difference in movement from the centre out to the seat, the same number of degrees of heel results in a greater distance the further out you go, force is subject to the same mechanics);

3. The supported vehicle deck sits on structure under which two 'tunnels' run between the main hull and outriggers. Where the vessel is in a larger seaway and the ride control (which also exerts forces on the hull) cannot compensate then there is a risk that the wave action will 'slam' into the roof of the tunnel and can cause damage (look up tunnel slam in multihulls).

All these issues have an impact on the speed the vessel can do but also apply stresses to the hull. As noted in my response how a light weight multi-hull and light weight monohull compare depends on the structure and strength of the hulls in question, however, as a general rule a typical mild steel monohull freighter will be more capable in such conditions than a light weight hull. Mind you, builders can stuff this up and port stability management can also put vessels at risk.

Thanks for that, very informative. There is not a lot about large aluminium multihulls in the public domain, and almost nothing about warships, so I really appreciate your effort. The uncertainty surrounding the performance of the hulls would help to explain the USN decision to hedge it's bets with the LCS

 

[colay]

The Director of Surface Warfare, Adm.Rowden, has come out with a very strong endorsement of the LCS program based on results of innovative CONOPs in wargames encompassing both blue water and littoral environments. The enhanced ASuW via a long-range AShM (harpoon?) is a surprise and addresses one of the LCS' biggest perceived weaknesses. The tag-team of LCS and DDG is said to be particularly effective in ASW.


NavWeek: LCS Got Game


NavWeek: LCS Got Game

In the coming decade, enemy forces that focus on aircraft carriers, destroyers and other ships of a carrier strike group and ignore the little Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) will do so at their own peril.

Thus dismissed, the LCS will be able to sneak up on the opposition and deliver quite a punch with a surface-to-surface missile from more than 100 nautical miles out.

So much for questions about lethality.

That’s just a taste of what some of the U.S. Navy’s best and brightest wargamers are discovering in the last week of March during some sophisticated simulated action involving LCS models in production now.

Yes – now. The wargamers are not using some modified LCS or new small surface combatant as was ordered recently by the Pentagon.

“The ships we are playing are the ships we are building today,” says Rear Adm. Thomas Rowden, director of surface warfare...

Stated simply, he says, the LCS give enemy fits.
“They are aware of where the carriers and amphibs are,” he says. “They had no of where the LCS was. They can give the enemy a helluva hard time.”

The LCS, he says, could swing out from the group, nearly unobserved, and deliver a sneak attack with missiles that can hit a target 120 to 130 nautical miles away. There are missiles now, he says, available or in development, that the Navy is confident will work with the ships.

Essentially, he says, when used the correct way – the way the ships were envisioned -- they can take a punch and deliver one.

“Are they lethal and survivable? Absolutely.”...

Like everything else with this ship, the conops have to be viewed through a different prism.

“You have to look at warfare just a little bit differently,” he says.

And, despite concerns to the contrary, he says the ships are up to the job. The naysayers, he says, are just being unrealistic.

Given the right conops, LCS will be a force to be reckoned with, he says.

“I see no issue with the survivability of these ships. The idea is to reach out and touch someone before they reach out touch you. With a destroyer, the LCS becomes very lethal.”

More..

 

[Volkodav]

It would be interesting if the USN found a way to install 8 to 16 strike length VLS cells. LRASM would be a threat a future enemy couldn't ignore and ESSM Block 2 is meant to have terminal AMB / ASBM capability, 8 LRASM and 32 ESSM or even 8 SM-6, 4 LRASM and 16 ESSM. Could possibly squeeze some Mk-56 VLS for ESSM in somewhere else.

The trick would be to make the VLS modular to permit is to be changed in and out and the threat environment dictated. Also the USN would need to look at upgrading the LCS designed with an appropriately scaled CEAFAR or AUSPAR or similar and / or maybe CEC.

 

[alexsa]

Thanks for that, very informative. There is not a lot about large aluminium multihulls in the public domain, and almost nothing about warships, so I really appreciate your effort. The uncertainty surrounding the performance of the hulls would help to explain the USN decision to hedge it's bets with the LCS

It really is horse for courses. The LCS suits the USN force structure and are a dedicated capability. Few Naval forces have the ability to field such a diverse array of capability. The LCS will also suit forces who operate in a limited area such as the Gulf and close in shore in the Med, where a flexible and fast platform is a bonus.

For other Naval forces where vessels are required to be a true multirole capability (general purpose) with range, ability to operate in all conditions and growth capacity in mass then the LCS is less attractive.

 

[StobieWan]

It would be interesting if the USN found a way to install 8 to 16 strike length VLS cells. LRASM would be a threat a future enemy couldn't ignore and ESSM Block 2 is meant to have terminal AMB / ASBM capability, 8 LRASM and 32 ESSM or even 8 SM-6, 4 LRASM and 16 ESSM. Could possibly squeeze some Mk-56 VLS for ESSM in somewhere else.

The trick would be to make the VLS modular to permit is to be changed in and out and the threat environment dictated. Also the USN would need to look at upgrading the LCS designed with an appropriately scaled CEAFAR or AUSPAR or similar and / or maybe CEC.

Thing is, you're then replicating capabilities present on existing ships like the Burkes - I don't think the USN needs more AWD or TLAM shooters or whatever - it's the patrol/MCM/ASW roles that are looking thin on the ground.

You could stick all of that stuff into LCS but you'd be mopping up all the margins available to carry the mission modules they're designed to carry (which often demand large internal volumes but weigh relatively little)

I'd like to see a common CMS on both ships (which I believe they're looking at doing) and it'd be nice if both were fitted with a RAM launcher plus a decent low end fixed face radar system (TRS-4D or CEAFAR, something similar) but I don't think filling LCS out with a full suite of systems that are already present in abundance on other platforms is needed.

 

[colay]

IMO the crucial point Adm.,Rowden was highlighting was the synergy that LCS would make possible when teamed up with other surface assets, specially DDGs. I've always been confident LCS modularity would eventually allow for a more potent ASuW capability which appears to be the case with the unspecified long-range missile. My hunch this will be Harpoon initially and subsequently the follow-on missile to LRASM which will be ship-launched. A fine balance will,have to be struck between cost and capability, with LCS primarily in a complementary role rather than duplicating it's bigger brothers.

 

[Volkodav]

I understand the modular concept of the LCS, I was just suggesting that the USN create additional modules for surface attack, anti shipping strike and air defence to be fitted to vessels deploying where the extra capability will be needed.

Having the ability to switch on the capability in a dozen or two LCS would provide the capability faster than building extra destroyers, the fact that the capability is hosed in an LCS, a LPD or even a fleet tanker of cargo ship etc. doesn't mean the enemy can ignore it because it isn't an DDG or CG, they will still have to find, trace and counter the platform before it bites them.

 

[StobieWan]

IMO the crucial point Adm.,Rowden was highlighting was the synergy that LCS would make possible when teamed up with other surface assets, specially DDGs. I've always been confident LCS modularity would eventually allow for a more potent ASuW capability which appears to be the case with the unspecified long-range missile. My hunch this will be Harpoon initially and subsequently the follow-on missile to LRASM which will be ship-launched. A fine balance will,have to be struck between cost and capability, with LCS primarily in a complementary role rather than duplicating it's bigger brothers.

I'm curious about those remarks as none of the platforms LCS is replacing has any primary surface attack role in that sense so this is new capability. A modern multi mode missile would be a very useful addition to the LCS however - something that could do over the horizon land attack or anti shipping in one package - and the ranges they're talking about sound like that.

 

[kev 99]

I'm curious about those remarks as none of the platforms LCS is replacing has any primary surface attack role in that sense so this is new capability. A modern multi mode missile would be a very useful addition to the LCS however - something that could do over the horizon land attack or anti shipping in one package - and the ranges they're talking about sound like that.

OHP's used to have it before the MK 13 launcher was taken out of service.

 

[Volkodav]

OHP's used to have it before the MK 13 launcher was taken out of service.

Technically still do, to a degree, with their Seahawks and Firescouts.

 

[StobieWan]

I'd forgotten they could launch Harpoon - handy device really


Buut..right now, none of the platforms LCS replaces has any surface attack capability over that carried by LCS. Switching in a longer range missile of the type discussed will be an interesting game changer.

I suspect we'll see LCS getting more kit plugged in as standard. Adding VLS as modules for LCS, in the same way that it's been added for the Danish ships will be I think, troublesome in terms of deck space etc. There is space reserved for surface attack missiles in the two designs (Indy has a soft patch which looks tantalisingly nicely placed for self defence length Mk41 for instance)

We'll see - we may end up with LCS looking more like a Type 26 in terms of permanent fit/mission modules. And hey, if you're interested in an off the shelf frigate design, you know we're always here, yah?

:0

 

[colay]

These intriguing enhanced capabilities may allay some of the concern raised in the 2012 memo from VAdm Tom Copeman, CO of Surface Forces to the CNO where he questioned LCS re offensive capabilities and survivability. The announcement of the enhanced LCS capabilities isn't a coincidence IMO, coming at a time when the Navy is studying a possible new small surface combatant. RAdm Rowden is involved with said study and is a proponent of LCS.,So is the new DoD no.2, Dr. Bob Work.


Ships Costing U.S. $37 Billion Lack Firepower, Navy Told - Bloomberg

 

[Volkodav]

These intriguing enhanced capabilities may allay some of the concern raised in the 2012 memo from VAdm Tom Copeman, CO of Surface Forces to the CNO where he questioned LCS re offensive capabilities and survivability. The announcement of the enhanced LCS capabilities isn't a coincidence IMO, coming at a time when the Navy is studying a possible new small surface combatant. RAdm Rowden is involved with said study and is a proponent of LCS.,So is the new DoD no.2, Dr. Bob Work.


Ships Costing U.S. $37 Billion Lack Firepower, Navy Told - Bloomberg

Interesting looking at the South Korean FFX Inchon Class, especially the Batch II design with the MT30 All Electric Propulsion by way of comparison
Korea’s New Coastal Frigates: the FFX Incheon Class
VLS, medium range SAM, cruise missiles and stand off ASW missiles all in a smaller lighter package than either LCS. Biggest issues, no mission modules and a much larger crew.

If a way could be found to fit the VLS it could become a permanent fixture and simply have its load out changed to match which ever mission modules the ship is carrying at the time. All electric probably should be looked at for future batches of LCS as well for the improved fuel consumption and increased power generation with will aid the ships in doing their jobs.

 

[alexsa]

I'd forgotten they could launch Harpoon - handy device really


Buut..right now, none of the platforms LCS replaces has any surface attack capability over that carried by LCS. Switching in a longer range missile of the type discussed will be an interesting game changer.

I suspect we'll see LCS getting more kit plugged in as standard. Adding VLS as modules for LCS, in the same way that it's been added for the Danish ships will be I think, troublesome in terms of deck space etc. There is space reserved for surface attack missiles in the two designs (Indy has a soft patch which looks tantalisingly nicely placed for self defence length Mk41 for instance)

We'll see - we may end up with LCS looking more like a Type 26 in terms of permanent fit/mission modules. And hey, if you're interested in an off the shelf frigate design, you know we're always here, yah?

:0

Weight will be the key. The deadweight of these vessels is quite low compared to a similar size monohull and this figure has to cover all stores, fuel, munitions, crew as well as mission modules.

Bay adding more fixed gear your ability to add additional modules may reduce ........ either that or range as fuel loads are lowered.

Just posulating

 

[Volkodav]

Weight will be the key. The deadweight of these vessels is quite low compared to a similar size monohull and this figure has to cover all stores, fuel, munitions, crew as well as mission modules.

Bay adding more fixed gear your ability to add additional modules may reduce ........ either that or range as fuel loads are lowered.

Just posulating

That's where advances in propulsion will have to come in, such as all electric to save weight and fuel burn for given evolution, the ability to stooge along at low speed on little over hotel power while using only a generator would be a massive cost saving as well as providing a similar increase in range.

 

[alexsa]

That's where advances in propulsion will have to come in, such as all electric to save weight and fuel burn for given evolution, the ability to stooge along at low speed on little over hotel power while using only a generator would be a massive cost saving as well as providing a similar increase in range.

Electric may still give you a weight penalty compared to the water jets as you have to factor in the drive motor. These ships are built around speed and have very small margins. don't forget even the helicopter(s) and all their gear, crew, weapons, deployed systems and support come off your margin,

 

[Bonza]

Regarding the LCS, personally I'm really surprised a small VLS battery wasn't planned in the thing from the get-go. It didn't really make sense to me given the flexibility you can get out of VLS now, let alone with future capabilities such as LRASM. I know LCS is also expected to plink small surface targets and I'm sure they'll find the right munition eventually (range seems to be an issue for a lot of potential systems), and yes the ship is supposed to operate around modular payloads, but if there's the space I think the capability increase would be worth it. But then I've missed the point with these ships before...

 

[alexsa]

Regarding the LCS, personally I'm really surprised a small VLS battery wasn't planned in the thing from the get-go. It didn't really make sense to me given the flexibility you can get out of VLS now, let alone with future capabilities such as LRASM. I know LCS is also expected to plink small surface targets and I'm sure they'll find the right munition eventually (range seems to be an issue for a lot of potential systems), and yes the ship is supposed to operate around modular payloads, but if there's the space I think the capability increase would be worth it. But then I've missed the point with these ships before...

I don't disagree but the total payload capacity is between 180 and 205 tonnes based on version. The VLS (and structure if any is required), missiles and systems will all come out of this allowance. This will have an impact on other mission modules, including aviation, if permanently fitted.

 

[Volkodav]

I don't disagree but the total payload capacity is between 180 and 205 tonnes based on version. The VLS (and structure if any is required), missiles and systems will all come out of this allowance. This will have an impact on other mission modules, including aviation, if permanently fitted.

Its that payload that keeps bring me back to thinking Absalon type vessels may be worth a second look. Imagine MT30 and all electric for twice the installed power, providing higher speed and greater power output, a smaller ro-ro / mission deck (hence smaller ship) and a stern ramp arrangement in place of the rear gantry boat launch and recovery arrangements. This would not be far off the LCS space but far more capable in terms of payload and baseline warfigthing equipment.

The midships weapons "bathtub" provides greater flexibility in weapons loadout as can be seen with the Mk56 Modular Pallets for ESSM installed there on both the Absalons and the Iver Huitfeldts and the Mk 41 on the Iver Huitfeldts only. Even cut to half the size the mission deck would far exceed the capacity provided by either LCS.

I don't argue the concept, I am just not convinced on the execution. Both the LCS and Absalons are basically scaled up from the concepts introduced SF300 class attack craft into something far more useful and capable. I believe something in between the two may have been a better way to go for the USN in their pursuit of a modern day switchable APD, fast MCM, littoral ASW and counter swarm combatant.