Baby steps for the Navy’s LCS equipment testing

Baby steps for the Navy’s LCS equipment testing

Back in the day, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Vern Clark used to tell anyone who would listen that he needed littoral combat ships “yesterday.” Some top Navy officials continued to say that after he left, given the toll they said a high operational tempo was taking on the force. But even before the Navy got its next batches of LCS under contract, all that urgency seemed to evaporate. Today, the fleet’s two existing ships, the steel and aluminum monohull USS Freedom and the aluminum trimaran USS Independence, are laid up for repairs. They won’t do actual deployments for years, in part because LCS doctrine is based on multi-ship task groups and in part because the interchangeable mission equipment they need still isn’t ready yet. The Navy may get where it wants to go with this program, but it’s definitely no longer in a hurry.

For example, Naval Sea Systems Command announced this week that engineers are testing a key piece of LCS kit: A robot boat that tows a sensor through the water to hunt for sea mines. The Navy is banking on LCS to take over its minesweeping mission using this and other new toys, eventually assuming the place of its dedicated Avenger-class minesweepers. Planners also want LCS to swap in equipment that’ll let it hunt submarines or fight surface battles. (Never mind that the Navy first “delivered” all three of these mission modules, including the mine countermeasures equipment, in 2007. That’s in the past.) In the here and now, NavSea has demonstrated that, yep, its mine-hunting boat can do basic boat jobs:

The test, known as Phase 1 Sweep Operational Checkout, consisted of confirming that the new sweep system can be deployed and retrieved from a surface craft and that it tows properly. The test was the first use of the prototype Sweep Power Subsystem which includes magnetic and acoustic sweep systems. The first phase of testing was completed on July 1. Phase II is currently ongoing.


Eventually, the Navy says, this system will have to prove that it can actually find mines:

This summer’s test program includes a full signature test and full mission profile where the entire UISS system will be tested in a series of integrated systems tests planned to demonstrate minesweeping capability in preparation for littoral combat ship mission package integration.

Then, assuming it works as advertised, the crew of an LCS eventually will get its hands on it and need to determine whether the ship can use its onboard equipment to launch and recover this thing. Then, sailors will need to determine if they can talk to the mine-hunting boat, and whether it can talk to them, to prove it would be useable in a real-world scenario. Then, at some point, the Navy will need to decide whether to buy enough of them to equip its planned fleet of 55 littoral combat ships. Then, at some point after that, the Navy may be able to field enough ships and enough modules that LCS can accept missions somewhere in the world.

You might be puzzled by this laid-back approach to fielding what the Navy has promised will be an amazing new capability for combatant commanders. After all, top Navy officials just told Congress that today’s fleet is disintegrating under the incessant demand for ships, submarines and aircraft. We’re going as fast as we can, the admirals would probably say. These things take time. Fine, but by their own account, the existing ships in the surface force are quickly wearing out — if it continues at this rate, can LCS become operational in time to make a difference?

Join the Conversation

Hmmmm…. lets see…. the first study leading up to the Iowa-class battleships was in 1938, and the first of the class (USS Iowa) was ordered 1 July 1939, commissioned 22 Feb 1943, and after one shakedown cruise was stationed in Newfoundland to go beak to beak with the Tirpitz should that ill fated BB ever make it to the Atlantic. First combat, usually a pretty fair indication of having completed IOT&E, was in Feburary of 1944 in the Pacific. Hmmmm.… we had a 35 knot, 52,000 ton, 16-inch battleship in a fight about six years after it was a gleam in someone’s eye. Even if you allow for somewhat more complicated systems on LCS and the fact that the BUSHIPS didnt have a single copy of PowerPoint in 1938, how, with the conflicting wartime requirements and all, could the USS Iowa have possibly have sailed in to battle so quickly? The complicating factor is that we know that it did!

And I must ask, rhetorically of course, have we really gotten this bad at actually getting things done? And you cant blame it on the fact that all the engineers have lost their slide rules!

Can the LCS become operational in time to “make a difference”? Difference in what? Maybe the national debt if we terminate the program.

This thing is not only a financial disaster, its under armed, and under manned. Its not the F-35, i.e., too big to fail and no alternative. This is a pathetic little crap ship (hence LCS). Kill it before it gets someone hurt, or worse.…

Sounds like the Navy wants a ship that does a little of everything, but does nothing well. As the Coast Guard how well that theory works in practice!Forget it!

Well gee the guy who was pushing it gets a job at two of the contractors profiting from the project and suddenly it’s not so urgent anymore. That is not surprising that simple corruption.

Since phil cant see the forrest for the trees lets help him out…

Back in the day, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Vern Clark used to tell anyone who would listen that he needed a new cushy job “yesterday.” Some top Navy officials continued to say that after he left, given the toll they said being away form the golf course was taking on them…

Holy crap, what is wrong is my Navy? I used to think all of the jokes were on the air force, but my Navy has sunk to new politically correct, stupid is as stupid does lows.

Hey mr admiral, would you assign your son or daughter to this “ship” if you knew this ship was going to go in harms way-no I didn’t think you would.

This ship will do nothing but get sailors killed quickly.

We need a new frigate type of WARSHIP, not a plastic, fragile, doesn’t do anything piece of crap.

Well bigRick, not being a Navy guy, it just seems that whether an equal number of MH-60 fly off a LCS or an Arleigh Burke, the result is the same. Except the LCS can dash in closer to shore much faster, burning less fuel, and endangering fewer crew. Old Phil’s links to old articles don’t describe any disaster in the mine modules he seemingly implies are an issue. So what’s the problem? You guys still think you are facing the Soviet Navy…still want a lot of ships, and LCS is a cheaper way to do it.

Since you can buy three LCS for the price of one Arleigh Burke and neither would survive a cavitating torpedo such as the one that hit the South Korean corvette, isn’t it better to have 300 Sailors at risk on three separate boats rather than on just one? Can’t those three separate boats be backed up by the air defense of the destroyer that is safely further out at sea? Seems like the Navy can spend less on LCS and have less expensive problems or spend more…and have problems that bankrupt us, like LPD-17 and 12 carriers and their groups.

It’s like a duce & a half with a 50.cal mounted on the roof it can carry all these mission modules, but they will never get built. scrap all the stuff put in fixed missile packs where they can can carry SM-3 s or tomohawks

Interesting, pragmatic view; however, following the “hunt if you can — sweep if you must” ethos, the big challenge is finding the mines. The article implied that the sweep system will find mines — the reality is that the sweep will detonate those mines that can’t be found.

Accepting that the time to IOC of mine sweeping will be long, the time to IOC of mine hunting, and finding mines, will be even longer. Methinks that the Avenger has a ways to go yet!

To the “Other Guest”

You wrote: “Since you can buy three LCS for the price of one Arleigh Burke and neither would survive a cavitating torpedo such as the one that hit the South Korean corvette, isn’t it better to have 300 Sailors at risk on three separate boats rather than on just one?”

Operating under this assumption (explosion resistance, survivability), it’s better to simply scrap all aircraft carriers and other big warships and distribute all seamen over thousands of speedboats instead: The British aircraft carrier “H.M.S. Ark Royal” (in World War Two) was sunk by a single torpedo, the U.S. American / Argentinian light cruiser USS “Phoenix” / A.R.A. “Belgrano” as well, the H.M.S. “Hood” probably by a single shell and the British destroyer “Sheffield” even by a single dud, that literally caused a flash in a pan (LOL!).

Although, to be honest: During the Iran-Iraq War 1980 – 1988, a surprisingly high number of tankers from various countries ( LOADED tankers!!!) survived direct “Exocet” and mine hits, too, so…

Neither the crew size nor armament of the LCS has kept pace with it’s growth from the small Streetfighter concept to the larger ship we got today. Somebody didn’t think the specifics of this program out too well.

So they grew the ship but “forgot” to grow the crew or armament. Typical Bill C nonsense.

But hey Bill why did the ship get bigger when the equipment and crew stayed the same ? Needed space for a second basketball court did they ? Someone rubber banded the CAD model by mistake and they built everything bigger ?

stop trolling. how many computers did iowa had?

Under manned and under gunned for what?-Its a corvette. Its not supposed to be a destroyer. Not every ship can be a battleship. It’s not even really intended to engage other military vessels. While I believe these ships have flaws and cost more than they should, the short coming of these ships are because of the category of ship it is and the inherent flaw of building for speed. Complaining the LCS isn’t better armed and more survivable is like complaining a Humvee or Stryker isn’t an Abrams tank. Critics have to accept that there are more metrics to a military vessels effectiveness than firepower and survivability.

I don’t think you’re being fair. “Other guest” clearly accepts the role of larger ships in a fleet structure, he’s just emphasizing the role of the LCS. You’re taking a comment that is to say “small ships have a role” and using it to make an inverse argument that “big ships don’t”- which he never said.

LCS are needed specifically because we have such capable capital ships and destroyers. In a collection or formation of everything, something is going to have to be more expendable than the rest, regardless of context.

I think the other important thing to add was that the ship was built to be easily upgrade, so arguments that the ship is under armed shouldn’t be considered an argument against the design just the configuration while emphasizing how relatively easily, compared to building a whole new ship or upgrading other ships, it can be reconfigured.

LCS are suppose to be multi-use minor Warships, trying to tasks ment for smaller ships. Their not frigates, their not Destroyers/Cruisers who are fighting big high-tech fights. Their modules, if there done right, will allow these ships do tasks Auxiliary Combats ships do like Mine Sweeping. The old Destroyer Escorts were anti-submarine ships, just like what these ships were ment to do when they have the module for it.

I do agree these ships are under armed, they don’t offer alot protection for their crews. I rather see the smaller ships getting close to shore get and receive better armor protection from those RPGs and heavy machine guns their more likely to see. Possible attacks from Fast Attack Craft which likely been blown away by Navy Aircraft (drone or manned). It be nice to have a Battleship, but today, everything complicated no one wants to work for cheap anymore when it private company. LCS need another generation of development before they should deployed.

I agree with aSDF. Almost every aspect of the LCS is more complex than an Iowa-class battleship, even if it is more fragile and more poorly armed. You can argue that maybe its needlessly overly complex, but then you have to say which of LCS’s features need to be scaled back.

Also one of the reasons the Iowa reached service so quickly was because it used design elements from the failed Lexington and South Dakota class ships. The Navy has a long established history, where the successful ship programs that were quickly built and developed vessels that resulted in true class were built on the corpses of preceeding programs that failed. In the past a program like LCS would have been killed, elements of its research salvage, the chaff thrown out, and the program restarted under a new name; now they try to fix the short comings and pile on the added costs.

LOL! Yes it was a bit of a troll in retrospect but.… interesting responses. If you make the comparison of time (and therefore cost) versus impact in a battle zone, which is of course a metric one could use (instead of number of computerized systems of course), the analogy becomes even more stark. The Iowas were in fact extensions over the previous South Dakotas, but then is not LCS an evolutionary step from.… perhaps the FFGs, or maybe even a touch of the old riverine boats and Cyclones? If the computerization of the ship is the reason that a corvette ends up taking longer to field than a battleship, should not someone ask the question “WHY?”. And for those who would say that software development is more difficult than the analog computer systems originally used in the Iowa, I say again “WHY?” and lament the fact that some have never experienced the joys of linking op amps to make an analog computer! :-)

I would also ask, in all seriousness, is there perhaps a deeper reason for the discrepancies than JUST the computerization factor?

We DO NOT NEED Additional Ships… PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WE could have remote contolled Wave Runners that would make more since than spending additional funds on Worthless Outdated SHIPS. We have enough.

Put this in historic prospective. We cannot afford a large fleet of combatant warships anymore. We wanted a 600 ship navy and now we can almost support half of that. The cost of CVN based surface Navy has been OBE for a while. We need to have a viable small ship in numbers that can be useful. One Adm. called it the STREET FIGHTER concept. Going back in history it has been a numbers game. More numbers are better. YOu will take some loses. LCS is the first of the modern small combatant. In time it will develop and be able to carry weapons that make it useful in all fo the old “Frigate” roles. If it can support auxilliary missions and littoral combat support as well, it should be of great value. Some of you sound like any new idea is never good enough. Lets just build more Iowa class battle ships.…. Good enough for WWII. Or look at the beginings of Naval Aviation. Not good enough at the start, but I would say the tech has matured.

What are we paying $400million plus per copy for if it can’t safely operate independently? We’re coming back to the era of “more with less”. This thing can’t even do the “less” part.

LCS is an example of what can happen when “Because we can!” becomes the design philosophy for a weapon system as well as its reason for existence. I’m thinking that Adm. Cebrowski and his minions would hardly recognize the end result of his Streetfighter concept, seeing little more of a remanifestation of the FFG concept that he essentially rejected instead of the “Swift Boat on Steroids” that he advocated.

On second thought.… .It takes very little imagination to picture the littoral battlespace as a very nasty place, filled with mines, small conventional submarines, fast attack boats, slow “IED” boats, divers, land launched anti-ship cruise missiles, anti tank missiles, land-based air strikes and lots of other threats that keep naval planners awake in the night. When Dan Rather interviewed the Captain of the Wisconsin during Desert Storm, the good captain pointed out that the worst that the vaunted Iraqi coastal defenses could do would be repairable with a bucket of paint, after the launch site was shelled into oblivion! The physics of the dreaded Silkworm just did not stack up to the destructiveness of even a single round from the Tirpitz or Yamato and physics just dont lie. The Wisconsin with the necessary air cover and ASW screen, although expensive to maintain and man, WAS the penultimate littoral combat ship, ready to fight, and WIN the littoral battle, not just patrol and hope that noone considers it valueable enough to attack. I have a feeling that Gorshkov knew what he was talking about in 1985! LOL!

ROTFLMAO! Another generation of development? One of the biggest and most consistent problems in weapon system development today is that we take so long in getting the job done, that the “threat”, which is the foundation of the weapon system, moves out from under it! True, that approach keeps the R&D and procurement folks employed, but is it a good application of the taxpayers’ dollars? And now how much less, in a cumulative sense, would another round of LCS development cost in comparison to just building (rebuilding?) an Iowa?

Down boy! If your tummy really hurts this much, a slice of cheese and lay off of the road pizzas! If nothing else you have got to have some place to load those ROBOski’s and somewhere for their operators to sit, and perhaps a helo deck for resupply, and.… . Seriously, watch out for those time-expired road pizzas. Terrible for digestion. LOL!

LCS to me is nothing more than a picket ship. It will put along the threat axis. For a ship designed to work close to shore you would think that at least it would have a 5″ gun for naval gun support. What they needed was a simple 6000 ton design that had plenty of room for growth. I think the should have these over fighting pirates where there speed might be useful. As for teh price the thing I wonder is how many of them does it take to do the job of 1 frigate.

*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