LCS Scores Drug Hits

LCS Scores Drug Hits

The Navy’s first Littoral Combat Ship (LCS 1) has been quick out of the slips to score some major public relations points by seizing a few tons of cocaine on its first operational deployment in the Caribbean. The fast, maneuverable LCS will excel at such “naval constabulary” operations, writes the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment’s Martin Murphy, in a new white paper (.pdf).

Murphy has done some impressive work on the policy challenges of piracy and insurgents operating in littoral waters. In this paper, he turns his analytical focus towards one of the Navy’s highest profile programs.

LCS had its origins in Cebrowski’s “distributed network” battle fleet idea and the Navy’s realization that larger multi-role ships were too costly. In the face of proliferating land-based, long-range precision missiles, the 1990s idea of maintaining a “sea-base,” a floating defensive bastion off an enemy’s shores, was losing support, at least among some naval analysts, in favor of “a more dispersed and flowing style of war fighting,” Murphy writes.


The speedy and maneuverable LCS appeared to fit just such a concept, particularly in light of Hezbollah’s surprise hit on an Israeli patrol boat with a Chinese built C-802 cruise missile; LCS’s multi-mission, or “plug-and-fight,” modular construction packaging was also appealing.

A sizable chunk of the world’s populace lives on or near inshore waters, making littoral waters a de facto strategically important operating environment. Yet, Hezbollah’s clever employment of today’s equivalent of coastal artillery represents but one of the many complexities found in the littorals, Murphy explains. Small suicide craft, stealthy electric diesel boats, a very messy and cluttered electro-magnetic environment and picking out hostile craft from the mass of commercial craft that ply coastal waters are others.

Murphy provides a good deal of data on the often “tortuous” development history of the LCS that was supposed to produce an inexpensive vessel, but did not, and led to the construction of two competing ship designs: a conventional hull built by Lockheed Martin and an aluminum trimaran hull from General Dynamics. The two ships are functionally similar, or at least similar enough.

The Navy said it will select a single design some time this year with a contract for up to ten ships by 2014. A second contract in 2012 for five more will go to a second shipyard for defense industrial base concerns. The Navy’s planned LCS purchase is 55 with up to 64 “mission packages” which include helos, drones and various weapons.

The real potential of the LCS lies in its “copious internal space,” the multi-mission modules and its large flight deck (one-and-a-half the size of current combatant flight decks), writes Murphy. Its shallow draft of 15 feet opens up much of the world’s waterways and expands the number of accessible ports from 362 to 1,111. LCS’ speed also gives it the ability to avoid submarines and gain maneuver room when confronting small boat swarms. The vessels could also be deployed on the periphery of large surface groups to extend its operational umbrella.

Murphy highlights a significant weapons limitation: the lack of vertical launch system (VLS) cells that not only limits its long-range attack potential and its ability to defend itself from air attack. He also sees as “worrisome” the ship’s lack of torpedo detection capability; he notes that the Navy is working to redress that one.

“Small ships generally require extensive logistic support,” writes Murphy, and LCS is no different, and when deployed, “consideration needs to be given to providing a “mother ship” or tender in support.” LCS crew size is deliberately small, which may put more demands on work shop access.

Operationally, “the primary use of the LCS is increasingly considered to be as a naval constabulary vessel,” which includes a range of tasks included in the Navy’s new “Cooperative Strategy for the 21st-Century.” These include: fishery protection, counter-narcotics and counter-piracy operations, evacuation of non-combatants, and humanitarian assistance/disaster relief operations. Navy undersecretary Bob Work described the LCS as a highly flexible naval “Swiss Army knife.”

When operating in conjunction with surface action groups, LCS’s primary mission is to protect larger ships from swarms of small boats, and act as a defensive “tripwire.” Murphy sees LCS acting as the “light cavalry” for the surface Navy, performing the roles of scouting, screening and exploitation.

On its own, LCS is well suited to the low-end tasks, such as counter-piracy, naval diplomacy and counternarcotics, writes Murphy. However, to effectively operate at the higher end, particularly where the threat of air attack is higher, an LCS or three would need to operate alongside an Arleigh Burke class destroyer.

“The LCS can undertake many of the missions and tasks that have often been assigned to frigates in the past but it can do more than traditional frigates can. It has the potential to be the “cavalry of the feet,” serving as a bridge or hinge between Phase 0 operations and larger-scale contingencies, freeing the Navy’s larger multi-mission combatants from the need to undertake Phase 0 operations, thereby releasing them to accomplish the missions for which they were designed.”

Join the Conversation

i bet the smugglers were better armed than the LCS

“Operationally, “the primary use of the LCS is increasingly considered to be as a naval constabulary vessel,” which includes a range of tasks included in the Navy’s new “Cooperative Strategy for the 21st-Century.” These include: fishery protection, counter-narcotics and counter-piracy operations, evacuation of non-combatants, and humanitarian assistance/disaster relief operations. Navy undersecretary Bob Work described the LCS as a highly flexible naval “Swiss Army knife.””

Isn’t that the description of the Coast Guard?

Good Evening Folks,

First off I’m not advocating not buying the LCS. The US needs to replace it’s aging frigate fleet and the current wars call for smaller and faster surface ships then what the USN now has.

The problem with the LCS is not and has never been it’s ability to carry out it’s assigned missions but it’s cost. Gerg begs the question of could the US do the same for missions for less the $480 million and still climbing.

When chasing down drug smugglers, pyrates or terrorists in the brown and green waters where cheap mobile ASCM’s could be a problem perhaps risking a vessel of the cost of an LCS is not a prudent choice when smaller (1,000–2,500 ton vs. 3,500 ton for the FCS) and much cheaper and at half the cost or less could be used such as perhaps the German built Meko CLS corvette class that is in the $200 million per copy class.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

comparing tonnage between displacement hulls and dynamically support HSV is like comparing apples and oranges

sorry his the send button too quick
that being said I think the USN needs another smaller class of warships along the lines of what Bryron describes.

It should be remembered that the US Navy’s Littoral Combat Ships(LCS) are intended to replace the current Frigate Class ships. However, I would have to agree, given the Navy’s current mission requirements, that a number of both Corvette and Patrol Boat class vessels would be useful.

Actually, the LCS was intended to replace the dedicated MCM ships (MHC/MCM), that have little utility outside of MIW (not that that is so bad), the PCs that were too small for extended operations, and some of the FFG-7s. Unfortunately, I believe that the mission set is too broad and, largely as a result of the unrealistic speed requirements, the cost is too much. A better mix would be 30 or so Littoral Support ships to handle MIW and, as a secondary mission, maritime security operations and 30 or so dedicated Corvettes to handle the ASW and ASuW in the Littorals, with the maritime security mission as a secondary mission as well. In any event, 27kts or so is fast enough and drives you to a much more robust and cheaper hullform. Using a diesel powered, electric drive displacement hull, every ship could easily carry 3–4 times the mission payload, have dramatically greater range and endurance, and be cheaper to boot. As the PHM proved, speed kills, especially the budget.

1. The Meko CSL is still nothing more than blueprints, actually, it’s blueprints are still being refined.
2. The Independence Class LCS (LCS-2) is in the same tonnage class as the Meko CSL

LCS is a good idea, but i think its another victim of a system that hasn’t been able keep eye on its cost spending. Every major project undertaken by Navy and rest of military seems to have spirally project costs getting out of control. Sometimes I wish they had team of people dedicated in keep sharp eye on their civilian manfacturers cost spending so these projects won’t get so out of control and become an embarrassment for them. LCS from what I’ve seen is based on Dutch’s Flex 300 system found in their Flyvefisken class patrol vessels. I think Navy went little too crazy with idea…

The German K130 and swiss 125 Corvettes would be a better choice, and could by a large number of them for the cost of one LCM, Also on more than one occasion German companies have used our shipyards to build naval vessels for them at Todd and Bath shipyards meaning a chance for more US jobs building multiple craft vice one (a number of diesel submarines and assault craft). I dont like the littoral platform any more than I did the too expensive Virginia class subs. Besides Littoral combat is supposed to be the job of SPECWAR (SEALS and SPECWAR COMBAT CRAFT) so that if you loose your boat in coastal waters you have the combat training and survival skills to not become POW’s.

I have to ask. What the hell is a Swiss 125 Corvette? I ask this because the Swiss have no Navy, as it is a land-locked country.

You are correct DIRT DART, I meant to say the swedish VISBY class 125 corvette.

Good Morning Folks,

It would appear that for one we are all are a near agreement. But about 25–30 LCS’s, mostly as a replacement for the aging FFG’s and the but about an equal number of a smaller and cheaper class of ships to do the up close down and dirty littoral fighting.

What ever brand of a smaller “Corvette Class” is the right one for the USN I’m sure will be worth hours of speculation.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Byron is correct and most of us are on the same wave length pretty much. If you look at the current LCS design what they did was try to combine a number of different corvette capabilities into it, thus it wound up too big and too expensive. I say the German 130 because it is close to a small frigate with helo capability, the 125 is smaller with a flatter deck which could be mounted with torpedo tubes and bushmaster cannons and depth charges for ASW and close in support, One design will never do it all.

We spend all this money on LCS and what do we get — a counter-narcotics hunter. The biggest problem I see is that unless a vessel can operate with a battle group and have the ability to integrate into it, it will never find a place in the Navy until the current structure changes. That is what killed the PHM and the SSN(Direct Support) concept. This ship is too lightly armed to do ANYTHING other than provide a helo deck. There is no ASUW, AAW or ASW capability on this ship at all. The best it can offer is a Penguin armed helo and a torpedo armed helo. Good luck with both since there is no sonar to find the sub and no surface detect capability unless the helo is on a “search and engage” mission. The FFG’s are of limited use, only offering ASW capability (hull mounted sonar and towed array) and ASUW helo. They have no organic ASUW or AAW capability. The Navy is in big trouble if they are hanging their hat on the LCS. Keep building DDGs because that is all there is right now until the get their heads out of the nether region and start building something else that can offer helos, Tomahawk and AAW capability. The current DDGs have already given up the towed array and Harpoon launchers. BIG mistake!

We must CONTINUE TO EXPERIMENT & DEVELOP new ships and NEW TACTICS to meet CHANGING NEEDS. THIS IS THE ADVANTAGE OF OUR CAPITALIST ECONOMY AND ALLIANCES WITH OTHER COUNTRIES!!!
THE FIRST CLASS OF ANY WARSHIP IS EXPENSIVE! WE MUST DO AS “LIBERTY SHIPS” IN WWII, MASS PRODUCE SIMPLE SHIPS ADAPTABLE TO SEVERAL MISSIONS!!! IT WILL BE EXPENSIVE TO START UP, BUT WOULD REVITALIZE OUR SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY!!!

JOE, U R CONTRADICTORY, U SAY “NO ASW” THEN CITE HELOS! THEY CAN EVEN GO IN HUNTER KILLER PACKS, ONE HUNTER HELOS, ONE KILLER HELOS. ONLY HELOS & DIPPING SONAR CAN HUNT TODAY’S FAST, QUIET SUBS!!!
CDR P W PRAWL, USN RET

I have a problem with the argument that LCS should be replaces with MEKO or National Security Cutter or any of the other perfectly good frigate size ships that are currently available. This argument ignores the true strength of LCS and the rationale behind its design. What will make LCS a winner(if it eventually pans out) is its cargo space. What we are seeing right now is just a shell of what LCS will eventually be. The mission modules and the capacity to rapidly reconfigure itself for new missions and to accept new technology is where this platform will shine. LCS is designed to operate as a “mothership” for new tech, and as such will be far more capable than most ships in its ability to accept new tech as it arrives. Yes, cost is a problem. But seriously, this is not a problem that is LCS specific. The argument that the USN could buy another platform at a lesser cost really doesn’t hold water for me. They have not really shown themselves capable of buying anything while staying under budget.

lord falcone, that is a dumb remark! U know nothing of THAT smuggler or THAT LCS, SINCE THEY ARE MODULAR!
PW PRAWL, CDR USN RET

Helos are great for localizing and attacking, not initial detection. You need long range sensors (i.e. towed arrays and passive hull mounted sonars) for that and these ships do not have that capability. I agree that dipping sonar is the best way to localize a sub, but good luck trying to provide any kind of wide area search with helos with dipping sonars. They need a relatively small area to narrow the search and ultimately kill them.

I am very skeptical of these “mission modules” that everyone speaks of. While there may be a lot of internal space, there does not seem to be any space for more weapons systems, which, to me, is the biggest drawback. If these ships are going to be operating inshore, they will not be under the umbrella of an Aegis CG/DDG and are going to have to fend for themselves. I do not see how they are going to be able to do this. There is no VLS or other point defense missile system and a pea shooter for a gun. It would almost be better if they had some quad 40mm mounts like WWII ships.

It seems to me that the majority of the people who are upset about the armament of the LCS are basing their arguments on some variation of this theme: LCS has neither AEGIS or VLS and therefore will be unable to defend itself properly against modern threats. Being upset with LCS because it is not an AEGIS destroyer is missing the point entirely. The United States Navy has an abundant supply of very heavily armed destroyers and cruisers which are the current final word in surface warfare. A frigate sized ship optimized for high end threats is exactly what they don’t want or need.
Instead, lets take a look at the state of affairs in the world today. The coast of Somalia is a mess, the Niger Delta equally out of control. Submersibles are being effectively used for drug smuggling in Caribbean and Pacific coast of the US. Piracy is also an on-again off-again problem in the waters around the Straights of Malacca. None of these real threats require the attention of a billion dollar destroyer that can shoot down satellites. Navy SEALs did not require the deck of the USS Bainbridge to shoot some clowns with AKs, they used it because the Navy is lacking in platforms that suit the roles it finds itself in. In any of these scenarios, LCS would be more than adequately armed. Furthermore, the assertion that there isn’t room for more weapons beyod the 57mm and RAM is just not true. The surface warfare mission module includes two 30mm guns and eventually, NLOS missiles. I am fully aware that the recent tests of NLOS were abject failures, but I have seen photos of USS Freedom with the 30mms in place already. I wont even bother going into detail about armed unmanned systems that could be operated from the LCS and the potential they have.
If you want to get upset about the failure to control costs with the LCS or really any other procurement, you are preaching to the choir. I couldn’t agree more. But saying that the LCS is not suitable for facing down Iranian anti-ship missiles in the Persian Gulf or Chinese destroyers in the Taiwan Straights is intellectual dishonesty. The navy has ships for those roles, and it has plenty of them. Its looking for a flexible ship that can handle new problems as they emerge and have the kind of open architecture that will allow it to rapidly reconfigure itself to face evolving threats. LCS is better positioned to do that than other current platforms.

Interesting discussion all.

I worked on the LCS Program 5 years ago supporting the cost analysis effort. There was/is a team dedicated to critically analyzing industry costs, developing Gov’t cost estimates, etc.

Some of the main problems (in my opinion) were the “fast track” nature of the program, unrealistically low first-ship target cost, and requirements changes. Many requirements were not nailed down fully at the start of the program. Also, the high speed requirements drove a lot of the cost increases.

Cost can take a back seat to other program requirements (schedule, performance). But, the high first-ship cost of the LCS is one of the main reasons the program was throttled back and there aren’t more than 2 LCSs in the water right now. Bottom line…during program execution, I think Navy “costers” do a good job. The Navy and other services need to do a better job developing realistic cost estimates for future programs BEFORE program kick-off.

But then again…would the LCS have been started knowing its actual final acquisition cost? Maybe or maybe not.

Ah.….but this is the New Navy. WE will soon be relocating terrorist families to the US while they all stand trial in our court system. These ships can get in close to pick up all their household goods and animals.

Exactly! Except that the Navy doesn’t secure operations at 1500L.

A lot of effort and thought went into the LCS ships and on paper it is cool, In the real world a ship that has to return to port to be reconfigured for a mission means you have a expensive toy that will spend more time in port than at sea. The technology was already in place and being used by other countries long before we jumped onboard. The VISBY stealth corvete has at all times variable depth sonar, towed array sonar, hull mounted sonar, ROV’s for mine hunting, torpedo tubes, ECM chaff launchers, ASW grenade launchers(aka HEDGEHOG), 57mm automatic gun, all kinds of sensors, waterjet propulsion, bow thrusters, cruising diesels and high spreed gas turbines, helo deck and requires only a 43 man crew to operate, and is way cheaper than an LCS and smaller. I would have started here — told industry this is what I want as a base and how much the current cost is — Now what can you give me that is better in the same price range within the same delivery time?

I think he means the Swedish Visby Class
http://​en​.wikipedia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​V​i​s​b​y​_​c​l​a​s​s​_​c​o​r​v​e​tte

Those 30mm guns will come in real handy when some guys shoots a anti-ship missile from the back of his pick-up truck and visially guides it to the target. Ask the Israelis about that. I’m not saying that you need to have a full 61 cell VLS installed, but to create a ship that does not have the capability to defend itself against air attack is absurd. Those heavily-armed destroyers won’t be with the LCS to help defend it. Buiild in at least an 8 cell VLS with ESSM to give it a fighting chance. These are really expensive gunboats that we are building and I don’t see the Navy getting it’s bang for the buck. They will end up perpetually doing drug ops in the Caribbean.

…and the RAM will not be able to engage that anti-ship missile? Do you have an equal problem with the other ships in the navy that are protected with RAM as their primary anti-air defense? The INS Hanit incident that you refer to above happened despite the said warship being armed with an Israeli VLS system. So I really miss your point. After action reports put the blame on the crew for not being prepared to respond to that threat. The lesson there is not about armament, but about being vigilant in a combat zone.

I think that the bigger issue though is that you are dismissive of the LCS doing counter drug ops in the Carribean. Why is that? Is that not a real mission that Navy is tasked with? A real mission that a Arleigh Burke class destroyer with its crew of nearly 300 is wasted on. Just like nearly every other Naval hotspot in the world today. LCS is not perfect, it does cost too much, but it exists and it will probably do very well in the roles that it will be asked to fill.

Excellent posts, Dan.

To elaborate on the unmanned aspect of which you spoke, I’d submit that within the next few years we’re going to see more and more sensor capabilities shifted into networked platforms. For sonar, think towed array but with independent propulsion, thus avoiding much of the cavitation & noise of the large ship (the whole idea behind a towed array). For radar, put it in a small UAV a thousand feet up and you get a vastly superior view. Now do the same thing for weapons delivery (think ASROC but with an ability to loiter). What would you need for that type of capabilities? A lot of interior space and a good helipad/back deck (both of which are found on both LCS designs).

Just food for thought.

Good Luck on all you can do hopefully you’ll figure out how to find the war missles from the big bra.

TMB,

You are right! USCG teams have to be on-board to do most of this, unless the Navy is using the trained up CG like boarding folks, that the USCG trained. You see alot of Navy step on since the USCG has been getting visibility from DOD Media. The Cooperative strategy should have listed the USCG, plain and simple! Some things are hard to change, especially if you have never worked with the USCG and do not know what 14USC89 means!

So we’re going to use this over-priced, under-gunned LCS to chase drug runners?

The USCG has been very effective at counter-drug work for decades using it’s Hamiton class cutters — which cost $130 million each (in constant year dollars) vs. $480 million for an LCS .

I saw this and was hoping someone would comment on the CG and its role in drug interdiction. I don’t understand the navy’s role in this or the need for more ships at that price tag when the job has been getting done effectively for so many years.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement