Despite troubled waters, Navy will stay the course with LCS

Despite troubled waters, Navy will stay the course with LCS

We observed not too long ago that the urgency seemed to have gone from the Navy’s littoral combat ship program, but nevertheless, the service’s next chief of naval operations, Adm. Jonathan Greenert, said Thursday that it’s still committed to its vision of 55 ships and their interchangeable mission equipment. Greenert told Senate lawmakers at his confirmation hearing that he’s spent the night aboard the first ship, the steel-and-aluminum USS Freedom, as well as some quality time aboard the second, the all-aluminum USS Independence, and he and the brass remain convinced that the Navy has made the right bet with the LCS concept.

Arizona Sen. John McCain, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, is not a fan of LCS. He castigated the Navy for spending so much money and still failing to “have a single ship that is operationally effective or reliable.” (Both Freedom and Independence are laid up today, and neither has any of the custom equipment it needs to hunt submarines, mines or fight surface battles.) Hey, we get it, Greenert said, but just you wait and see — the Navy’s bet on LCS is going to pay off. One of its bets already has, Greenert’s hearing showed: After going back and forth about whether it would select a single LCS design or build both of them, the Navy decided last year to go with both, pleasing shipbuilding-state lawmakers whose constituent yards will all get to share the work.

Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessons, for example, had a genial back-and-forth with Greenert about how, c’mon, y’got metal boats, put ‘em in salt water, of course you’re gonna get rust, right? Right. So the “galvanic corrosion” that has sidelined the Independence is no big deal right? Right. Greenert was glad for the friendly line of inquiry; it’s “not a new problem,” he said, and officials insist future copies of the ship, built by Sessions’ home-state yard Austal, won’t have it. Friendly lawmakers meant a lot of stuff didn’t come up Thursday, such as this week’s report by Sam LaGrone of Jane’s Defence that flawed engine intakes aboard the Freedom caused one of its main gas turbines to ingest seawater, meaning it failed and needed to be replaced.


Also unmentioned by anyone  was the reality that it’ll still be years before the Navy can use LCS the way it originally intended, in multi-ship “surface action groups” that planners said would be as much like fighter squadrons as traditional naval units. The Navy doesn’t want LCS to run with a carrier strike group, for example, in part because it doesn’t have the endurance or the firepower of a conventional escort. (The ships just weren’t designed that way.) Instead, the Navy wants a group of three or four LCSes to use their high speed to dash ahead of the strike group, clear out the mines, sink the submarines, or shoot up all the bad guys’ small speedboats, clearing the way for the carrier, its cruisers and destroyers. Fine, but to do that, first you need three or four LCSes and their specialized mission equipment, assuming it works — and it’ll be years before the fleet can roll all that together.

Lockheed Martin, which builds the Freedom-class LCSes, wants to inject a little sunshine amidst all these dark clouds — the company issued an announcement Thursday reminding everyone that its second ship, the USS Fort Worth, is doing fine, and will begin its initial sea trails up in the Great Lakes this fall. Here’s part of the announcement:

Now more than 93 percent complete, it remains on cost and on schedule. Builder and acceptance trials are scheduled early this fall in advance of delivering the ship to the U.S. Navy in early 2012.

“The team is focused on driving affordability initiatives through the entire process, and we’ll soon begin construction on the nation’s fifth LCS,” said Joe North, vice president of littoral ship systems at Lockheed Martin’s Mission Systems & Sensors business. “We remain committed to helping the Navy bring new and needed littoral capabilities to its fleet for current and future war fighting needs. On LCS 3, the future USS Fort Worth, the team completed light-off of the ship’s diesel generators this May and light-off of the main engines and rolling the propulsion shafts this month. LCS 3 is being constructed with 30 percent fewer production hours as a result of lessons learned from designing and building USS Freedom.

The addition of the Fort Worth, and of Austal’s next ship, the USS Coronado, will give the Navy enough LCSes to begin experimenting with its new operational concepts, if they all can be ready for sea at the same time. The more ships the Navy has, the likelier it’ll be for enough of them to be ready to deploy in groups. In the meantime, though, the Navy’s existing fleet of cruisers, destroyers and frigates — many of which date from the Reagan era — has to bear all the load.

Want to find out more about the Navy’s vision for these squadron-based LCS tactics? Take a look:

Join the Conversation

The Navy seems determined to stake the future of its surface force on this small, overpriced, over-hyped, under armed, under manned odd ball vessel. I just can’t shake this apprehension of another PUEBLO-like incident involving one of these small warship wannabes. Planning and intent aside, when pressed for resources, some staff is going to be forced to deploy these things independent of other vessels and quick response aircover. I fear for the over-worked, tired crew. This doesn’t seem like a good return on the $400-$500 million per vessel these little ships cost.

This isn’t the F-35, where there’s no alternative; we have the DDG-51. We can do better than this.

It will be canceled due to the debt reductions coming to DOD. As will the JSF, and there are many alternatives to the JSF. Just watch what happens in Europe next month and Australia in the coming months.

Any weapon system, including ships, can be used wrong or be put into a bad situation. Consider the USS Cole. It was a full blown AEGIS destroyer laid low by a little open boat (packed with explosives and a suicidal crew), but notheless, that was a big honking hole in the side of the Cole! An LCS may not be the most heavily armed boat afloat, and it may not have the crew of a CVN, but.… look at a Mark V in full fighting garb, and nobody would consider a Mark V exactly defenseless, at least not in its intended environment against the intended threat.

A little creativeness and careful consideration of the intended operational environment/threat and either of the LCS’s could be made pretty darned lethal. Those mission modules are the key (and they DONT have to all be focused on ASW, AMW and communications gear!). :-) What about an AMOS turret or two mounted on top of a C-Van container! That would be one heck of a Mission Module for close in gun battles or “moving mud”! LOL! After all, the Swedes put one on the back of a Combat Boat 90H and it works fine! http://​www​.youtube​.com/​w​a​t​c​h​?​v​=​O​e​a​j​1​H​f​3​_PY

Steel on target sometimes has a merit far beyond the best powerpoint briefing! :-)

Perhaps, but they haven’t gotten any of the modules which are spec’d working yet. How long will it be till they deploy as yet unspecified modules? I would speculate in the decades.

Thinking_ExUSAF, great ideas, but the reality is that the Navy ain’t close to having the modules ready, as symbolicalhead noted. However, they’ll deploy these things just to make a “splash” in PR and have something to twitter about. I pray the deployment is to South America or Hawaii. Keep these things out of the Persian Gulf.

And that “big honking” hole in the Cole, will break an LCS’s back. The dash speed will end up being its biggest liability and not its strength. I have no problem with the concept, I have a ton of issues with it being under gunned for a close in gun fighter. And being woefully light in armor.

An LCS couldn’t last in a fight with a FFG-7, the ship its meant to replace. And maintenance on the Austral gooney bird is turning out to be a nightmare. Time to STOP with the over priced naval engineer’s wetdream and just buy some more DDG-51s.

The contractors screwed the Coast Guard’s Deep Water Program too. We need more competition here, not an order from both contractors.

Agreed. You have to wonder if this ship will have enough crew for damage control. When a ship is holed, it takes a lot of men to keep it afloat. The Cole was caught short but survived; would an LCS be able to survive similar damage. I doubt it. Too many chiefs, not enough indians.

Agreed.

Agreed for the most part. But I’m not convinced this class of ship is worth the money. It’s under armed, isn’t really good at anything, and doesn’t have enough crew to keep it afloat if it has a severe damage control issue like the Cole.

The modules are part of the problem. To have enough of them close to where the ships might be they are going to have make a lot of these very expensive modules; just to be able to pre-position them all over the world. If they don’t built a large number of these things; the ships will have to steam long distance to refit for a mission that the module aboard ship at the time doesn’t serve. More DD-51’s is the answer. They are a known quantity and could be fitted for the missions of the LCS; with the exception of shallow water mine detection and sub hunting. And have we forgotten that the Navy is buying 300+ P-8 sub hunters? Sub hunting is best done from the air. That leaves mine hunting and the navy currently has a whole class of mine hunters that could be SLEP’d.
The LCS doesn’t have enough crew to keep itself afloat in damage control emergency like the Cole experience.

At the end of the day, we can get 2 DDG-51 class ships for every 3 LCS. I’d much rather serve on a Burke made in Bath than a 55 kt speed boat

There are no proper alternatives to the F-35 short of the development of new aircraft. There are alternatives to the LCS however. However neither will be canceled. Both represent many jobs in many districts and have strong backing.

I’d prefer if we put a halt to future LCS buys, finish the ones currently being built, and design or license a relatively cheap but well armed frigate. The currently LCS has too small of a crew and is too limited in terms of firepower.

Here we go again with the “no alternatives to the F-35″.

That thinking just is not true. It is too expensive to use for non-high end threats and it is not good enough to take on high-end threats in the Pacific Rim.

Note how we are going to push the A-10 to 2040. I wonder why?

The new CNO candidate told a fib (or surprisingly did not have a clue) to our elected officials.
http://​goo​.gl/​U​Q​E8F

“Greenert said the Navy has “no alternative” to the F-35, saying if “we fail to bring it home,” the service would need to develop a brand new — and likely costly —“stand-off weapon” that could be delivered by F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fighter jets.”

Duh. Already done sir.

JASSM isn’t too much of a reach for the Super Hornet. LOL. That is what the “J” is for; as in “joint”, like JSOW and JDAM.
http://​goo​.gl/​B​q​byk

As for the LCS, kill the program and hope the Coast Guard will accept the available faulty hulls. Or, failing that, use them for a shoot-x.

These LSC’s should have the ability to launch Tomahawlks a couple of 8 or 12 box launchers with the ability to reload fast and easy at sea . That would give it a fear factor maybe in addition have SM-3 launcher (China thats for you). I still think that half or 3/4 of all or our Navy should be submarines , in a modern war anything that’s on the surface will be sunk , with all the precision weapons out there anything that can be seen can be sunk, as good as we are at building subs ‚that is our best area to use our resources on in the Navy. jut ask the Brit.s about that.

To the “Taxpayer”

You wrote: “An LCS couldn’t last in a fight with a FFG-7, the ship it’s meant to replace.”

Brilliant phrase!

LCS is just another example of the DoDs inability because of pride, stupidity or both, to simply use existing OTS options. The whole concept was a knee jerk reaction to the Millennium Challenge 2002 debacle. The bulk of the solution simply was in being aware of the threat and deploying existing resources to counter it, what resources we needed certainly didn’t include this bloated pig of a program. There are options to everything, LCS and F35, included and no program that wastes tens of billions and doesn’t meet specs, is behind schedule, and under performing is critical to US national security.

To the poster “ribby22”

——————————-

Part 1 / 2

You wrote: “I still think that half or 3/4 of all or our Navy should be submarines, in a modern war anything that’s on the surface will be sunk.”

TOTALLY IN AGREEMENT WITH YOU !

I would add: Ideally, any Navy that wants to preserve itself maximally in combat should have only submarines AND land-based, long-range aircraft (for maritime surveillance, maritime strike and anti-submarine warfare). But building lots of large surface warships (“power projection”) is total madness, no matter how “well-armed” they seem.
And although supply ships ( = also surface ships) are essential, too, even for the submarines, what are THEIR chances to survive the first hour of fighting?

(Continued)

Part 2 / 2

However, this applies mainly to war, especially to wars against hi-tech enemies. In times of peace there are still a few rôles for small– to medium-size surface warships, which submarines can’t carry out so good (“sea-control”. For all those nations who love to posture as oceanic cops… No, but seriously: How do you fight – for example – Somali pirates only with submarines and aircraft?).

There is no alternative to failure — keep on failing until the money runs out then start failing again on a new debacle.

Its the same song every time

People say the LCS is stupid but they aren’t looking at it from the contractors point of view. LCS is a way to maximize spending on the most expensive part of the ship — it’s electronics and weapons. Each LCS requires several sets prepositioned around the world.

The idea was that at the start you front load the project by selling the cheap hull and then later you tack on multiple sets of the most expensive stuff later. It’ much easier to generate a stream of revenue by applying political pressure to “use the assets we already have” rather than pushing for new hulls.

This sort of lock the DoD in and then screw them for all they got is a feature of almost all current defense projects.

The funniest thing about the LCS is it’s name. The littorals are so dangerous that even full warships try to avoid them. The idea that the solution is to send a lightly armed ferry instead is just hilarious.

Truck launched silkworms are cheap and widely available. I’d like to see the LCS try to outrun one.

A typical destroyer “back in the day” had 3 repair lockers. This ship couldn’t man one. Remember the USS STARK and USS SAMUEL B. ROBERTS? Damage control saved those ships.

Ah yes, there is that.… but then HERE, the accountants can convince themselves that the ship can be made sufficiently unthreatening that nobody will even try to attack it, much less actually inflict damage, so… damage control is “fat” and therefore unnecessary! So, with a non-target, that would be impossible to hit anyway because of its controlled signature, you can get buy with the crew size of a tramp steamer (or less since everything is automated!). Crewmen are expensive for accountants you know. First you have pay, room and board, then you have medical expenses, and those naughty little crewmen (and women) do tend to procreate and you have to take care of their families, pay retirement, and all sorts of bad things. SO. .. . minimal crew = good thing.… unless someone decides that they want to shoot at an LCS, or it stumbles over a mine, or gets accidentally rammed in bad weather, or gets caught in a storm, or.… .… . . but accountants say those things will never happen.… :-)

The question is what modules are on the top of the pile? They are indeed complicated systems, just think of what needs to be in the littoral ASW module! ____Other modules, much cheaper, easier, and quicker could be ginned up to at least add some credible mission capability. The AMOS turret is a self contained, twin barrel 120mm mortar system designed for modular installation on an APC chassis. Bolt it to the reinforced top of a standard C-van, put the magazine in the C-van, and plug it in! Ready to dance! Take that same C-van and put a pop top on it and bolt down one of the Army’s “aerostat” systems. Now you would have a long range radar / EOIR surveillance capability! All self contained. I could of course go on, but.… . did you notice that these were both primarily land based systems, aka ARMY toys. But then I thought that dirt was at least PART of the littoral battlespace! :-) Seriously I have got to wonder if the absence of these kinds of modules has anything to do with the MINIMAL effort required, i.e. no big prestigious program office, just a couple of mechanics and a couple of C-vans! Sadly, LOL!

Remember the cute little 81mm mortars that were mounted on top of the .50s on Swift boats? They did a really nice job on sampans and any river bank bandits that you came across. That AMOS turret is a twin barrel, autoloading 120mm smoothbore capable of lobbing about 25 rounds a minute, 12 sustained, of GPS or laser guided 120mm mortar bombs out to about 10km (less for “direct fire”). Against an FFG I would use the laser guided variety of course.

Get down your JMEM and figure out what the impact of twelve 120mm mortar rounds landing one after the other on the bridge, gun mount, and radar mast of an FFG (remember, laser guided…) . If you want to stand off beyond 10 km, the LCS would not be worried about your 76mm deck gun, and with its dash speed I believe that the LCS can close the distance fairly quickly!

Want to change your estimate? (not that anyone would ever bolt an AMOS turret to a Cvan or anything! LOL!)

A box launcher for Tomahawks might make a good “mission module” but I think we already have enough platforms for delivering Tomahawks, and an SM-3 means an AEGIS fire control system. Put a half dozen SM-3s (VERY big missiles) and an AEGIS onboard an LCS and it would sink of its own accord just from the weight! (Oh yes, I would suspect that AEGIS is probably the most expensive and most heavily manned radar system every put on a combattant warship!). THAT my friend is pretty much an example of how cost growth can get out of control. I agree with the sentiment, but the offerings are a bit wide of the mark.

Its not pride, or even stupidity, its self preservation! If you want to play in the pentagon budget games, aka the POM process, you must have “critical” programs to get the budget dollars. If you dont get the budget dollars all of the procurement bureaucracy will have nothing to do! Eventually someone might notice!!! LOL!

To be prefectly blunt, you cant do “gun boat diplomacy” with something that cant be seen (and very few warships are as vulnerable as a surfaced submarine). Sometimes its just simply mandatory to park a big gray ship with guns off of a shoreline and let everyone see it. The problem is that sometimes those folks shoot at that very visible and influential ship, and it needs to be able to sustain at least a few hits and give much better than it gets!

From one point of view, buying the two models allow the USN to continue to assess the merits of the two very different appraoches. I would offer that the “competition” should be for each follow-on order, just as the USAF competed the engine purchases between GE and PW for the F-15 and F-16 fighters. Each time that contract came up for renewal there would be a two or three for one split between the two vendors. Kept both vendors “in the play” for fighter engine production providing a “surge” capability if needed, while simultaneously pushing down costs and pushing up performance through continued competion. Do the same for these ships, so long as both are shown to have unique and applicable merits, and you might have a very winning strategy.

The concept of having a majority sub based force is totally reasonable. Having been given a good idea of what sort of damage sub-surface warfare can potentially do to a surface fleet I can only see submarines as the way to go.
Although you US Navy folks have an awful mine warfare record, submarines will still be by far safest and most effective option. The only thing surface ships can do is force projection.
Keep in mind that whilst the US was developing sonar the Russians were 30 years ahead of anyone in Mine Warfare, this is still true today with mines being found from the 1980’s that contain tech that we hadn’t even thought of. This means there are mines on the coast right now that are tuned exactly to the signatures of particular warships just waiting for activation and there is nothing that can be done.

Rep Duncan Hunter has sent a letter to GAO asking them to audit the LCS program. Will anything positive come of this after the audit (in 2–3 years)? Who knows.
http://​hunter​.house​.gov/​i​m​a​g​e​s​/​s​t​o​r​i​e​s​/​H​u​n​t​e​r​_​Wit

“The Navy doesn’t want LCS to run with a carrier strike group, for example, in part because it doesn’t have the endurance or the firepower of a conventional escort. (The ships just weren’t designed that way.)”

So there will not be enough Burkes for escorts, the FFG’s are reaching the end of their life cycle as are the Agis Cruisers. These vessels (can we really call them ships?) are not designed to run with the carriers. What replaces the FFG’s and the Cruisers? Where is the Navy’s next escort? What ship is going to protect our carriers?

Just to add to the previous comments:

An LCS couldn’t last in a fight with a now “de-fanged” FFG-7, the ship it’s meant to replace”

first we take all offensive power off of the FFG-7 “oh it’s too hard to maintain” some stupid j.g. said on TV one time, “oh, we’re running out of SM-1″ the admirals said, well they hasn’t stop all of our allies from
UPGRADING and using their FFG. Right now the FFG is nothing but a glorified helo carrier

Now we replace a useless FFG with an even more useless LCS

My Navy is getting so bad we need to rename it to reflect reality. I’m going to start calling them the
“sea force” “A global force of stupidity”

To the poster “Thinking_ExUSAF”

———————————————-

Part 1 / 2

You wrote: “Get down your JMEM and figure out what the impact of twelve 120mm mortar rounds landing one after the other on the bridge, gun mount, and radar mast of an FFG (remember, laser guided…) .”

Before you use G.P.S.-guided mortar ammunition against attacking warships, you may want to anchor them first. (Unless you meant “mortar” in the original, artilleristic – but hardly used – sense of tube weapon with an extremely short-barrelled, inclusively horizontally firing gun [ barrel length < 15 calibres ] . But I doubt you did)

(Continued)

Part 2 / 2

You wrote: “…you want to stand off beyond 10 km, the LCS would not be worried about your 76mm deck gun”

Back in World War Two, (Russian and other) 76 mm guns already fired farther than10 km, too. Today’s 4 (FOUR !) cm anti-aircraft guns (for example Bofors’ much exported, fast-firing, super-accurate L70 gun = every pilot’s worst nightmare) even shoot 12,5 km far, and Otobreda’s 7,6 cm naval, multi-purpose guns even 20 km – 30 km far, NOT “10” km.

In simple words: No matter how “littoral” these L.C.S.es were meant to be, they better stay out of the enemy’s E.E.Z.s altogether, lest they become the first ships in naval history to be sunk by tanks, guns and… mortars.

But hell – why worry: It’s just a L.C.S. …

Sorry, wrong quote. I meant this phrase of yours: “…autoloading 120mm smoothbore capable of lobbing about 25 rounds a minute, 12 sustained, of GPS or laser guided 120mm mortar bombs out to about 10km (less for ‘direct fire’).”

Nope. Read the original post. LASER GUIDED for moving targets. GPS is just fine as you point out for very fixed targets. Done too many LGBs and slick bombs not to know the difference! LOL!

Just because you can shoot 20km it does not mean that I have to be in the anticipated impact area when the rounds get there. Again, its that issue about “free falling” projectiles vs laser homing rounds. Ship captains have understood the merits of chasing the splashes for over 100 years!

And yes, emphatically, the littoral is a very nasty battle zone, cluttered with all of the standard naval threats as well as the land-based and airborne threats as well, along with a few very naval threats that only show up in green/brown water. At least in my humble opinion, the littoral is an area for a light-heavyweight fighter, not a bantamweight.

Forgive my ignorance. I have never seen a fixed target on high sea. I didn’t know you even had to take special ammunitions along to destroy them.

The only problem with the LCS as I see it is that it can’t be loaded into a C-17 and dropped on the enemy. As a former FFG-7 naval officer, I know the strength of aluminum as I “bumped” into a steel cruiser. As far as the news that our newest aluminum LCS is in the Great Lakes in sea trials, I would like to make some deriding comment about the threat of the Canadian Navy but unfortunately, their real warships are in the open ocean.

Yes Oblat, we know you love being a failure. No need to remind everybody.

William C: Yes there are, but YOU don’t like them because they don’t fit YOUR ( Designed & Made in by US ONLY CONTRACTORS ). So Here we Go Again on the Gripen NG. The letters I’ve received back certain members on a few select committees in DC were very positive on a number of Different Alternatives that have been Proposed to the JSF.

The Gripen NG is a True 4.5++ Gen fighter not like the Super Hornet at a 4.2 Gen. The Gripen NG can land and refuel & rearm then take off from any 800 meter 2 lane strip of highway. ( Long runways in a shooting war might be hard to find) It Super Cruises at Mach 1.2. Has AESA radar & IRST capabilities already built into it. A Flight of 4 Gripen NG’s can be refueled & rearmed by a C-130 or a couple of choppers or a truck, by 6 men in 10 minutes. It’s maintenance costs are about 1/2 of what a F-16C costs. It can be carrier capable very quickly ( See Brazil ) and it cost only 60 million each. So

JSF F-35 $382 billion to develop and procure 2,457 aircraft.

3000 Gripen NG X $60 million = $ 180 Billion
800 F-22 Raptors X $120 Million = $ 96 Billion
400 F-15 S/E X $100 million = $ 40 Billion

Total = $316 Billion

With 1743 more aircraft ( 800 Free F-22 Raptors & 400 Free F-15 S/E )

A Savings of 66 Billion Dollars or Roughly a 20% Savings off the Current $$$ Projections.

Do you propose licensing the design and building it here? Because ordering 3000 from Saab is never going to happen.

Super Hornets that lack the stealth and strike capabilities the F-35C brings to the table? They’re also outmatched by those Pacific Rim high-end threats that you say jeopardize the F-35C. Super Hornets are a short term solution, what about the long term? Will those in congress really be willing to pay for a new fighter for the Navy, plus whatever new design the USAF would want if the F-35 was canceled.

Now the A-10 is worlds away from the F-35. Even if the F-35 is the success I want it to be, I would love to see A-10s kept around as long as realistically possible.

As for the LCS, I would prefer we start building a better frigate, yet don’t write off those ships built or in progress. With their high speed and large mission deck surely some use could be found for them other than as artificial reefs.

Why do you always advocate two different aircraft types for ‘pure air-to-air’, if their unit prices only differ by a measly 20 million $ ? Better spend those (96 bn $ + 40 bn $ = ) 136 billion $ ONLY on 1.133 F-22s! Not only are F-22s 100 % stealthy (F-15 SEs are not) and probably more agile, too, but this will reduce the F-22s’ unit prices even further, simplify logistics, etc. !

And why do you only talk of “Gripens”, never of A-10 “Thunderbolts” ? (In relation to the “Gripen’s” unit price of 40 million $ – 60 million $ : Don’t forget that a good percentage of the “Gripen’s” guts are U.S. American = no license-production with patent fees needed)

Of Course, they would be License built in the US by US workers, most-likely down in the southern states. I guess you don’t remember my earlier posts from back in Dec & Jan laying it all out. Also Saab is already working on the Conformal Fuel tanks & Stealth air-take inlets and working on the Thrust — Vectoring engines for a future upgrades.

De nada! Laser guided ordnance works just fine for running trucks and tanks on dry land too! :-) Put the spot where you want it to hit and you are in business (even if the spot changes position with respect to time). An F-15E even scored an A-A kill on a HIP that was airborne and running away during Desert Storm with an LGB. I suspect that the HIP was KIA immediately when the Mk-84 passed through it, and it really didnt matter that the explosion when the bomb hit the ground immediately under the target, disintegrated the residue! The Russians are rumored to even use laser guidance on their 130mm anti-aircraft/anti-missile shells off of their Sovermenii DDs and Kirov CBGs.

GPS mortar rounds are for moving mud, ie shore bombardment of fixed locations. As Tim Taylor would say, “The right tool for the task!” :-) and.… this is the LITTORAL combat ship we were discussing.

Because the US need only spend about 1 or 2 Billion to take care of CAS. What we need for most of our recent Dirt Wars are EMB 314 Super Tucano’s or Hawker Beechcraft AT-6B or something similar at 10 million a pop you could get more than 6 hours of loiter time. The USAF won’t like it but that’s what’s needed, we shouldn’t be putting all those hours on our fast movers when we really don’t need too. Since the USAF wont like it give them to the Army & Marine aviation units where thay would be put to very good use, in very short order I would bet.

freefallingbomb: The reason for the 60 million instead of the 40 million current price is to add all the US Advanced Avionics that would be put into the JSF that the current Gripen NG dosn’t at this point, like the Advanced Targeting ect ect. The Gripen NG has” 20–30% empty space that was designed to be upgraded later” which will cost about 20 million according to the latest estimate . As for the F-15 S/E there are a couple of reasons. 1. Political/ Industrial 2. The F-15 S/E can also carry the same weapons load as the current Strike Eagle. The heavy bomb load of PGM will be needed. After they drop their load then they can go hunting.

To the poster “Thinking_ExUSAF”

————————————————

Part 1 / 3

Don’t you understand that every time you use G.P.S.-guided grenades or missiles, you

1) either need to know your target’s coordinates in beforehand (e.g.: A dot on a map or a building on a satellite picture, etc. . But by the time the L.C.S.es arrive, this sort of static target has long been flattened by cruise missiles)

2) or wait idly for some lucky forward observer on land to present you a target = FORWARD OBSERVERS ARE NOT ONLY FOR LASER–GUIDED AMMUNITIONS !!!
Hell of a mission profile (“wait”) for your uber-expensive shipoid!

(Continued)

Part 2 / 3

But forward artillery observers who were inflitrated behind enemy lines can’t keep up with a L.C.S.’ patrol speed, so in essence you need a reconnaissance plane to know if there is something out there and where it is. Do you understand me: You need a whole aircraft as a “sight” for your puny 7,6 cm gun! That’s like buying a 2.000-$-riflescope for a 200-$-varmint rifle. What do you think of such a “marksman” ? That he’s braindamaged and rich, that’s what! (Might as well arm the reconnaissance plane or the spy drone itself and attack the targets directly from atop)

(Continued)

Part 3 / 3

And a L.C.S. that’s only 10 km away from the target it hunts ( = NOT FROM THE SHORELINE !!! ) is also in plain sight of everybody at the beach. Meaning: In your suggested artillery duel between L.C.S. and land forces, where shall it seek cover? Remember how a LITERALLY CAVE-DWELLING MILITIA called “Hezbollah” almost sank a djoow corvette with multi-layered missile defenses in 2005 with a single anti-tank missile (some say it was a drone, others an anti-ship-missile) ? (Pity it wasn’t a troop carrier) Now imagine if they had fired TWO missiles!

How powerless exactly are the uber-expensive L.C.S.’ designated targets supposed to be?

How does the L.C.S. even intend to defend itself against land artillery (or tanks, or rocket launchers) that shoot in an arc at it, from behind a hiding / protection?

To the poster “Tee”

You wrote: “As for the F-15 S/E there are a couple of reasons. 1. Political/ Industrial”

You bow to lobbyists?

No, but there is a company with a brand new factory that’s is having some Union issues with building what they want to build in there own factor right now. So having That Manufacturers Support would be beneficial to all involved, or use Northrop ??

And with the “Major Defense Budget Cuts Coming” whether we like them or not. This Cuts the Combined Air Forces budget by a whopping 20% which will make the “Cutters Happy” and Greatly Increases the number of Top of the Line Aircraft by 1700+ planes which makes that “Hawks Happy” And in the Long term the maintenance costs of the Gripen NG at half the costs of a current F-16C increases the overall savings even more. A Win Win in DC talk. Both sides get what they want, and more importantly the “War Fighter” gets what he or she needs “NOW” not 10 years down the road & if it works like it’s supposed too or if it works at all. I don’t think China will wait that long.

William C: Yes See posts in the first comment block.

But its not a destroyer, so how is this relevant? Its always been as silly to compare this to a destroyer as it is to compare a tug to a carrier. LCS is only intended to alleviate the duties of our destroyer fleet that benefit from having a ship that is smaller, less costly, and less manned thus making it less of a risk of life.

LCS is a corvette… not a frigate, its unrealistic to think that any ship can over come the size deficiencies of its class. They are buying more DDG-51s, but not every job needs to be done by a destroyer. The whole idea of LCS could be be summed up as just enough ship moving quickly enough to get the smaller jobs done.

The first DDG-51, ended up costing $1.1B… three times what was planned. If we approached that with as much apprehension as we approach this we’d have never had one of the most successful classes of naval history.

The newest flight of DDG-51s are expected to cost $3.2B for two ships. $1.6B each. Is a DDG-51 worth 4 LCS?-Yes, but only until the goal becomes global distribution, in which smaller ships allow you to cover more area.

You’re numbers are wrong. The most recent estimates for Flight III DDG-51s is $3.2B for 2 ships. Anything that says otherwise is old data. http://​www​.aviationweek​.com/​a​w​/​g​e​n​e​r​i​c​/​s​t​o​r​y​_​g​ene

There building more Burke Class Destoryers to replace the Cruisers, and the FFG are useless, they have no offensive capabilites and are no longer equipped with SM-1 missles.

The FFG never had any offensive capabilites outside of there 76mm gun. The SM-1 were removed because they were mostly ineffective against modern missiles and aircraft. I do agree the LCS need more offensive firepower, put 8–10 tomahawk on them.. The lastest versions on of the tomahawks have both landattack and anti ship capabilites. That would give the LCS much better standoff capabilites.

To the poster “William C.”

You wrote: “Yet don’t write off those ships built or in progress. With their high speed and large mission deck surely some use could be found for them other than as artificial reefs.”

How about stripping the few L.C.S.es already built of all their military technology and selling them at a discount to some Dutch women rights organization, which then converts them into swimming, itinerant abortion clinics?

The Navy has a huge bureacracy built around these little crappy ships. Bureacracies exist to exist. This one’s not going anywhere, no matter how useless their ships are.

Like to agree with you, but with a LCS costing 743 Millon without a mission module I can’t .With a mission module the price goes to 1.07 Billion. The last contracted Burke I’m building in Bath was for 1.17 Billion. The flight III you are talking about won’t be built until 2018. I’m talking apples for apples, not apples and oranges.
Even if you use your number of 3.2 Billion for 2 ships, my numbers are correct if you multiple 1.07 Billion x3 =3.21Billion

Just to enlighten you, FFG’s used to carry both the SM-1 and Harpoon-did you forget about that?

Armament: One single-arm Mk 13 Missile Launcher with a 40-missile magazine that contains SM-1MR anti-aircraft guided missiles and Harpoon anti-ship missiles.

For all of their flaws the LCS has a high speed, large mission deck, and plenty of hanger space. Sounds pretty good for some sort of specialized role the Navy might have for them.

OK, lets get down to the basics here. A laser spot can be delivered on target in many ways. A ground spotter with a MULE is good, an attack helo with an EOIR turret is good, an attack aircraft with a FLIR pod works too. So does a masthead mounted EOIR turret on an LCS or for that matter a designator mounted on a UAV launched from the LCS. Pick any one of the above and you can credibly hypothesize a clean hit from just about any laser guided weapon, even on a moving target. If I remember right, the next gen GPS guided weapons will also have some sort of seeker, eoir or laser or mmw radar or ??? that will allow the “shoot on coordinates” weapon to also be used against moving targets.

In this case… Sparkle on and lay a designation on the bridge window of a hostile from about 8km or so away and a laser guided mortar round from a 120mm mortar will fly through the window as nicely as can be.

Point well taken about the Canadian Navy, but I think that the USS Independence did her sea trials in the Gulf of Mexico (http://​www​.navytimes​.com/​n​e​w​s​/​2​0​0​9​/​0​7​/​n​a​v​y​_​l​c​s​2​_​s​e​a​_​t​r​i​a​l​s​_​0​7​0​2​0​9w/). The USS Freedom did indeed do its “Sea Trials” in Lake Michigan, but since April 2010 I think that she has been operating in the eastern Pacific out of San Diego.

Its that salt water and ocean waves that probably turned up the corrosion and cracking issues, perhaps? :-) But then are not those the kinds of issues you want to surface during sea trials?

Enlighten an old AF type, but isnt the “G” in FFG a clear indication of onboard missiles? LOL! Already know the answer but thought it was a fair question to ask given the discussio above! :-)

I’d think that the biggest issue with the whole Perry Class, as a combatant, might have been that single screw. Hurts close quarters maneuverabilty AND supplies an easy “single point failure”. Toss in a lot of aluminum for flamibility and the already mentioned fairly anemic armament (missiles, Oto Melara 76, and CIWS included), and I suspect it would have been the “Brewster Buffalo” of any major surface ship war. (Remember, the Buffalo was a 1939 vintage aircraft that was obsolete just after its first encounter with a Zero!).

Right or wrong the Navy will keep paying for the junk. LCS’s and the USS New York etc., all have mechanical problems. Good old Navy just keeps paying out more and more money, not holding the Manufactures accountable. SOS. Keep your nose up the bureacracies butt boys. I love this, a former E6 telling admirals to keep up their brown nosing.

It is ironic, but all of the steel, used in the World Trade Center was from Japan. All of the structural steel. I couldn’t believe it at the time. There is so much political BS that permeates all of the services. Subs are the way to go. Speaking as an ex RM2(SS)

Just make more modern DDG-51 with LCS networking and all its capabilities and retire LCS.

*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

AdChoices | Become a fan on and follow us on
© 2013 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.