SNA: The Navy’s next LCS dilemma

SNA: The Navy’s next LCS dilemma

The Navy absolutely, positively, no-kidding must make its littoral combat ship program work, two of its top surface warfare leaders said Tuesday, because the stakes couldn’t be any higher for the future of the service.

And yet in the very same speeches, the same leaders acknowledged the Navy’s thorny, ongoing problems with the very skills and principles that the service needs to reach its LCS goals.

Rear Adm. Thomas Rowden, the Navy’s brand-new boss of requirements for surface warfare, said one of its most important abilities was to show “American flags on halyards” atop Navy warships. The planned program of 55 LCS ships will let commanders show the flag more often in more places, he argued, and that will only get more important further into the 21st century.


“That means aggressively fielding the LCS fleet in order to meet our vital war-fighting gaps and forward-deploy additional American flags on LCS halyards,” Rowden said. “We must we must bring LCS into the fleet. We must control cost and build them in numbers.”

Not only could LCSes compose as much as half of the future surface force, making the program critical based on numbers alone, the smaller ships’ value in alliances only raises the stakes, Rowden said.

“LCS will be ships with which our partners will be comfortable operating … We have a number of ships that are simply overwhelming to friends and potential friends,” – as in, the blue water Cold War-era fleet. “LCS allows us the flexibility to begin working with friends, partner nations and potential friends on their terms – in the end, their terms must be considered if we’re to work with them.”

In other words, the navies of Vietnam or the Philippines might not be able to play when the U.S. Navy shows up with a 95,000-ton nuclear-powered aircraft carrier and an armada of Aegis escorts. But if the American brass sends a few 3,700-ton littoral combat ships, the locals might feel that’s more their speed.

Rowden could feel the crowd of surface warfare officers, many of whom are Aegis Mafiosi, sit up in their chairs.

“There’ll always be a requirement for ships suited to intense phases,” he said – as in, full-scale war. “But we must have ships that can be adapted as the future transitions into the present.”

Fair enough – and it’s rare these days to hear any top officer volunteer an enthusiastic defense of LCS, given the beating it has taken in Congress and elsewhere. But the Navy has to get a lot right in order to realize Rowden’s vision, and it’s not just an acquisition exercise. The service also has to be able to figure out how to produce expert sailors at the scale it needs to field two crews per hull.

Surface Force Commander Vice Adm. Richard Hunt made it clear that the fleet still has a long way to go before its sailors begin arriving at their ships with the levels of skill they’ll need to keep them running for as long as the Navy hopes. Hunt said the Surface Force is standing up yet more new schools for sailors and officers, and trying to impose yet more rigor into executive officer and commander officer training – on top of what has been a historic effort over the past few years.

Today’s Surface Force is on the upside of a pendulum swing, back from an era in which the Navy tried to cut costs everywhere it could as it tried to “run like a business” under the authority of MBA admirals. That meant fewer sailors on ships, trained less thoroughly than their predecessors and getting less funding, maintenance and fewer spare parts.

The Navy brought it off for a few years, but when it began to hit bottom – at times literally, as when the cruiser USS Port Royal ran aground off Hawaii – it had to begin undoing its cutbacks with more people and better training.

So LCS was born of an era that created not just a novel acquisition approach – a  “modular” ship developed apart from its main weapons and mission equipment – but a novel personnel approach, too. The Navy wanted to field two small crews of senior, highly trained sailors for each LCS. They would share the ship, taking alternate deployments, and there would be no time or ability to accommodate junior newcomers. Everybody had to be ready on arrival.

In effect, one of the Navy’s metaphorical hands didn’t know what the other was doing: At the same time service officials were scaling back training, they were fielding a ship that depended on senior, highly trained sailors in order to function. Hunt became the latest top leader to promise he was committed to getting back to the core onetime principles, and Rowden made clear he thought the Navy had no choice.

“It is disheartening when a [sailor] with 12 years experience comes up and says, ‘Sir, it’s broke — the stability’s not very good and I can’t trust the picture,’” Rowden said.  The crews of today and tomorrow both must get better at operating, repairing and “owning” their equipment, he argued.

This necessity, combined with the entirely separate acquisition challenges for pursing LCS through the coming build-down, could wind up being the Navy’s biggest problem for at least the next decade.

 

Join the Conversation

We probably need fast speed fast missile boat career’s for defense.

Gee, better than an average eighth grade education will be required for our hamburger flippers, WHAT!!. It may not be possible to generate a “super sailor” that has to be able to read, “r“ite and do “r“ithmatic with our current “baby sitting” education social system. Good Luck Navy, we threw education “under the bus” back in the ‘60s Anchors A Weigh! :)

Okay, probably a stupid question…but what the heck does “SNA” stand for, in the by-line of the last three articles? I don’t recall seeing it used before here on DOD Buzz.

Never mind, just found it. SNA = Surface Navy Association

OK, where have I seen this promotional strategy before? Hmmmmm…the current ships are too capable; the current ships are too expensive to operate and replace; the threat has gone away; we need to take financial advantage of these facts by designing new ships that are modular and reconfigurable; commonality between configurations will enable economies of scale; we can’t afford not to do it; exportable technology will be emphasized making it attractive to all nations; foreign sales will increase economies of scale; foreign sales will enable unprecedented cooperation with allied nations;the LCS is the best idea ever; this is a time to be bold; we must be totally committed; it is too big to fail; and we should make sure there is a vertical landing version for the Marines …voila!

“We have a number of ships that are simply overwhelming to friends and potential friends” WHAT? So now we are in the business of making our friends (and enemies) feel good about themselves. Is that what the Navy is all about?

Why don’t we just replace what we got with rubber boats and a slingshots, then maybe EVERYONE will feel good about themselves, including the Chinese.

My god, my Navy has become a hotbed of namby pamby feel good types who worry about everyone’s feelings. This country is screwed if that’s what we have for military leadership nowdays.

AMICUS: I dont know if you’ve noticed but the list of nations buying into the JSF continues to grow. Now w/the US long termed strategy refocused in Asia the Asian buy in is just getting started. 1st Australia, then Japan, soon the Taiwanese & the Singaporeans, w/talks in place for S. Korea.

That was 1 of the keys in the Aussie base deal. It will become a hub for training & joint exercises, logistics, maintenance for connected systems like the JSF.

Same will be true w/the LCS making a connected 1000 ship Combined Navy & 1000 JSF Combined Air Force possible.

be cheaper to save money on LCS and upgraded current ships with LCS technology.

The problem is we don’t have “current ships” in the weight/size range of the LCS. The closest thing would be the old OHP class frigates, but most of those have been retired and those remaining are now just as under-armed as the LCS.

I’m not saying it has to be the current LCS designs, but it has to be something new. Nothing else in the Navy’s inventory fits the bill.

I totally agree with you.

I once learned that there are no stupid questions, only stupid answers.

The main problem is that there is no real modern alternative to the LCS (just with the F35). A new development will take years and of course enough dollars.
Put the LCS in full service and learn from it! Then slowly change the design. Do not want to come with something new. This is not the time for it. Accept it and move on!

Don’t forget, the Navy is now “The Global Force for Good.” It’s not about defending our country or winning wars, it’s about making everyone feel “Good.”

Don’t get me wrong, I’ve had plus and minus thoughts about the LCS concept over the years.

But for what has been spent, we coulda/woulda/shoulda gotten a lot more ship and capability (other than the mildly-armed speedboat part) than what we’ve ended up with.

Other than the Surface Warfare modules, none of the other ones are even remotely near their hoped-for capability.

The person(s)who OK’ed (gave approval)settling for the countless underachievements in the program so far need sent somewhere they can’t do anymore harm to USN mission goals.

Compared to other hulls around the world, there is an abundance of technology and capability (and reliabitility!) these ships should have for the money spent. But why again don’t we?

Saying “the requirements changed” in and attempt to cover up for program failures isn’t the way to build an effective Navy.

Showing the flag is good and all, BUT the bloody ships have to work!

“…when the U.S. Navy shows up with a 95,000-ton nuclear-powered aircraft and an armada of Aegis escorts.”

Now that’s a plane I’d like to see!

Even as an AF toad, I have to wonder if we dont need to do some remedial training in the niceties of “Gunboat Diplomacy”, and not just for my salty friends. Once upon a time, admittedly prior to the advent of CNN, parking a big, nasty looking, and overtly threatening, gray ship off of an unfriendly coastline was an invitation to be nice or else.… . Perhaps we need to go with the red, white, and blue paint scheme on the split exhaust, high rise funnels, go with a sleek and “happy face” white paint job, and be done with it! LoL! :-(

Naval vessels have traditionally had “other than combat” missions, but those were generally NOT part of the design criteria or justification, just convenient “hobbies” when not otherwise employed. When we forget the primary and principle mission of a naval vessel, or any other weapon system, the potential foes around the world also forget, and when they forget, we get to experience the downsides to all of the tradeoffs made in favor of those “namby pamby” options.

Roger that! We have too much invested in the LCS. There is no alternative to the path selected. It is too big to fail. Nothing to see here. Accept it and move along.

Lo205, I have to say that yours is one of the more intelligent interpretations and recommendations that I have seen in this subject. For all of the faults with the LCS designs, they are at least “starting points” to begin a shakedown of the concepts and technologies. Throw them out and start over, and we step back from that starting point, and THAT is even more unacceptable than bringing them into service and making them right! Bravo Zulu my friend!

On the other hand, now that the first hulls are afloat, one would hope that the P3I program (Pre Planned Product Improvement) is already moving up to “Flank” and some very sharp minds are finding ways to make the LCS’s not just good “flag poles”, but also undeniably credible fighting ships.

Perhaps an unintended consequence, but you do allude to a very significant point.

Requirements DO change, and that is NOT an excuse for programmatic failures. If the program is not sufficiently robust to accomodate those unknown but fully expected changes, then.… it is undeniably a program management failure unto itself. Robustness, defined as an ability to adapt and accomodate change, particularly given the length of our product development cycle is a fundamental “day one” requirement. Ignore it in favor of being able to present a “happy face” unit cost, or maintain a good CPI and SPI, and we have nothing less than flagrant program management malpractice.

One quick question though, is there any openly available information on the “mission modules”? Because of some past history, I would be very interested in what mission modules are being developed and their status. I know a few of the modules that were suggested during the very early concept development phase! :-)

It WOULD put a whole new face on the idea of an “aluminum cloud” (aka the AN-225). Make it an aluminum storm front perhaps! ROTGLMAO!

I notice a lot of things. Apparently, it’s a recessive genetic defect. My analysis of the data often results in controversial conclusions that are ridiculed. I have no power and influence anyway, so who cares? Hey, I noticed that the US government is spending 40% more than the revenue they take in. Once you get to ridiculous levels like that I guess any discussion of wasted resources is a waste of time. Are we all in Wonderland? “If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn’t. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn’t be. And what it wouldn’t be, it would. You see?” Alice makes a lot of sense to me now, I think, sort of…

So long as its Alice that “makes sense”, dont worry! When Depp’s Mad Hatter starts sounding reasonable, be afraid, be VERY afraid! As for the “ridiculous levels” …

“The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of a nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies, but would be ashamed to tell big lies.” A. Hitler

From the context of the article, it sounds more like an abbreviation for SNAFU, whatever that means.

What other similar size ships are even being built around the world that you think are comparable?

The current LCS design is suitable for showing the flag — but not really demonstrating that you mean business. Since the cancellation of the NLOS-LS, the current recommended replacement is the Raytheon Griffin (~3–4 mile range). For being a navy ship intended to go into harms way in the littorals, this is a sad development.

Why can’t we come up with a naval version of the Army’s MLRS? — thats a missile that has the ability to reach out and touch someone.

MLRS is a rocket system (the letter ‘r’ stands for rocket), not a missile. If you’re referring to the ATACMS, which can be fired from the MLRS launcher, I don’t think there’s really any advantage of the ATACMS over the already navalized Tomahawk.

I belive that he might be thinking about the Guided MLRS rocket variant thats in service right now and the guided DPICM version thats in the wings. The big advantage of such a navalized MLRS with precision guidance (as a Mission Module) is that it would give the little LCS a very credible, long range “gunfire support” capability. It would not be terribly useful in a ASuW role, but for shore bombardment…. . (which COULD be a very important part of many littoral warfare scenario!) that box launcher could be the cat’s meow! Even something as simple as parking a battery of (G)MLRS vehicles on the flight deck and lashing them down would provide a very real, totally credible, capability in the right scenarios!

For your wise console and standing up for what’s right, AF “toad” you are not hereby awarded the title of honorary LCDR United States Navy, and all of the privileges and responsibilities it entails. Congratulations commander, now go get dressed, your out of uniform :-D

Are you really talking physical size (i.e. length/displacement) or basic mission capability?

The US Navy is on to something here. If you build enough small cheap and lightly manned vessels to keep the enemy busy, you can sneak in the big boys to do the damage. Sounds like the LCS is the expendable vessel that the WWII destroyers used to be. The US Navy at least needs to give the ships a long range weapon system to make them last longer than one engagement!!! I wouldn’t want to be one of those crew men!

Based on a little quick Googling.…

LCS-1 3000 T / 115m
LCS-2 2784 T / 127m
—————————————————————

Absolom 6600 T / 137m
River Class 1850 T / 81.5m
Saar 5 1063 T / 85.6m
Stregushciy 1900 T / 104m
Visby 650 T / 72.6M
Skold 274 T / 14.3M

And for casual discussion:
Perry FFG 4100 T / 136m

Interestingly enough for those who might be a bit too narrowly focused on what to call a given ship, even the Skold is called a “Coastal Corvette” (kystkorvett) by the Norwegian Navy!

Doh! Does that mean that I am allowed to chase all of the nice, middle aged movie stars around the shuffleboard deck while they are trying to restart their careers by guest starring on a low budget Saturday night comedy, just like “Captain” Steuben? Or is that only on the Litteral Cruise Ship (all puns no mispellings)!!!! LOL!

Thanks much, although Im well aquainted with the rare and very interesting Sea Bat, I’m allergic to the first-night-at-sea, greasy pork chops in the mess (marinated with syrup of ipecac of course!)! So… I will just relax in the pleasure of shore-based jet noise! :-) Check six, my friend!

The enemy is going to be “confused” when they see this massive 3000 ton boat on their radar, they might think it’s a corvette, frigate, or small destroyer. Boy will we fool them!

If that was the case, every big RORO carrier would be thought to be a CVN and the oceans would be a much safer place.

By the way, take a good look at the Skjold kystkorvett above. That little 274 ton “coastal corvette” bantam is loaded out with 8 Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile SSMs in an internal weapons bay, a 76mm Otobreda Super Rapid multi-role cannon, Mistral Surface to air missiles, and a 12.7mm gun.

The Visby, a welterweight, at 650 tons, has 1 × Bofors 57mm Mk3 (same as LCS), 8 × RBS15 Mk2 AShM, 4 × 400 mm torpedo launchers for Type 45 torpedoes, plus Mines and depth charges.

Thankfully the Swedes and Norweigians are friends and would appear to remain so for the forseeable future! If we ask them nice, I bet that they would actually allow out LCS to come play in their littoral areas without too much danger to the ship.… so long as they REALLY want us there! LOL!

Well, Shail had said “Compared to other hulls around the world, there is an abundance of technology and capability (and reliabitility!) these ships should have for the money spent.”

You aptly point out that there aren’t many other hulls out there even close in size to the LCS (I don’t know what you’re referring to by Stregushciy though …). I think the closest would actually be the La Fayette class, which hardly has an abundence of technology, but is a perfectly capable frigate performing much the same mission as LCS. The smaller ships are all non-starters, they don’t have the ability to support two helicopters, or even one in some cases. The Absolom is much larger and really not intended to be of similar combat capability to the LCS (it’s more of an offshore patrol vessel deluxe).

One could argue that the LCS is too big or too small, but I think the size is somewhat driven by the need to operate two helicopters (with the need for two vs. one to support the ability to operate autonomously in the case one becomes inoperable), and if it were much larger, then they might as well just have kept building Arleigh Burkes.

You know, you may be right. The LCS’s are caught “betwixt and between”, i.e. too physically large and undergunned to really be a “littoral” coastal warship, yet too little to take on a “blue water” frigate role.

“Stregushciy” is my sad mispelling of Steregushchiy (Стерегущий — Watchful), I have enough trouble with English so I should steer clear of Anglicizations of Russian. LOL!

The La Fayette (3600 T/ 125m) is at least size wise pretty close to the LCSs, but since it comes with a 100mm deck gun, 2xCIWS type gun mounts, Crotale and Exocet missiles with more of a “blue water” sensor suite and an expeditionary (blue water) mission.

How many helos and Harriers was it that the Brits operated off of the top of the containers on the Atlantic Conveyor in the early stages of the Falklands re-capture? :-) For any given requirement there is USUALLY more than one answer! :-)

The only capability these over-grown junk-piles can develop in the next ten years is mine warfare, and we could get a fleet of existing designs today for just the cost over-runs of LCS 1–3. This program should be the Navy’s contribution to reducing the national debt. The only thing they will ever accomplish is getting into trouble and starting a war. Melt them down and make soda cans.

If the rest of the US Military is going to smaller sized units why should we still have the number of big capital ships that we have?

LOL, vertical landing version…

We DON’T have the number of big capital ships we used to have. We have gone from the 600 ship Navy in the 80s to 285 ships with a reduced number of Carriers. The number is set to fall farther.

Great insight. Now how about those one man subs?

Look no further than the CG47 class to ask yourself if understanding aluminum behavior in a marine environment is something the navy does well. Go ahead and search google for cracking — - All aluminum ship — - I guess we won’t engage any geo-politicals around the north atlantic (ice + aluminum = hole in hull)

so, let me get this strait, we need smaller, less capable platforms to that our allies can feel like they’re not out classed??!!! I don’t give a Rosy red Rats @$$ whether our allies feel outclassed, I want to make sure our enemies feel out classed. Maybe the Adm. has forgotten what the MISSION is. THE MISSION is to be so damn frightening that our enemies never pull the trigger, for fear that they will get thier entire fleet distroyed, thier coasts ocupied, and Marines eating off thier capital’s fine china. Smaller less capable ships will NOT do that.

oh man, you just gave up our strategy lol

My secret was 7-up and soda crackers (when the seas got rough), but never Coke– that would come up right away doh!

Once again it seems everyone has a opinion! I am sorry to say but its the best plan that is out there with the current budgets.. If you are not about a solution then you are basically a problem.. Butt out and lets us LCS engineers, crewman and shipyard workers do what we have to do in order to get the sailors of today trained up and ready to go!

If every one would notice our country is in bad trouble !! if Congress & sitting President has there way we would be down to 5 Navy Ships &the Air force down to 10 aircraft ‚THE National Guard will be Super Sized just to have a place to store what we have now till every thing is Scraped out .After all this they would cut the Guard . Sounds Bad it is !!! We really could use a modern day Paul Revere to announce The CHINESE are coming if We keep going like we are !!! Have you noticed also everything now comes from China & ther are still our most favored trading partner !! China is shipping our ever day things that is used up so you have to re order ~!!!! Check our trade score !!! Ever one in congress needs to start working for the people not for them self ( Like the one in Cal. that was Speaker of the house that made all that money , That’s all I have . Keep your eyes open maybe a new President is in order !!!!!!!!!!!

Our country is in decline, the drive, the ambition, individual excellence, and determination that made this the best country and people on the face of the earth in recorded history, is just that. HISTORY. America I love you, and I mourn for what you once were. But on the course you are following, Your Greatness is Gone. GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUIR A## PEOPLE, BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE!!!. We need to turn around NOW.

It’s always the warriors who first notice the decline of a civilization, not the general populace.

The Navy or the staff wants to inpress a nation and a port. Pull the mighty Missouri in and let them see what fire power realy looks like.
The 16″ guns on it will show and tell all.
But it may hurt some ones fillings.
We need Fleet Admirl Nimits back, at least had the balls to shoot and not talk . God rest him. We need more shooters and less talking.

I think that all sen. and cong. men should only serve two tearms. When they come in office,they should pay for their up keep and not the people.
They want to hit SS all they can, the working man puts it in and it is ours. Keep your fingers out of it.

If the US were prudent they’d have built a modest craft like the German K-130 that can cross oceans on its own and can operate close to coasts, and would have built it in substantial numbers. It would have probably been plenty “good enough” for the USN’s needs.

It would be a highly useful vessel for patrolling the Gulf and other littoral areas, just where you don’t want 7000ton ships run risk of, say, running aground.
http://​en​.wikipedia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​B​r​a​u​n​s​c​h​w​e​i​g​_​c​l​a​s​s_c

With two RAM launchers it can defend itself against missiles, add Harpoons and you got anti ship capability, add a 127mm main gun and you have NSFS capability. Give it two to four 25mm guns. Leave it at that. If you want better manoeuvrability, give it water jets. Helo deck and Helo drones (think small, S-100, or Cl.227/327) but no embarked helicopter. Speed? Speed isn’t everything, and in particular speed drives up cost and size.

But to go such a modest route is impossible in the US since it would lack the gold plating and be too cheap. In particular, it just would not be awesome enough.

Did I say awesome? Clearly I meant ‘transformational’.

I believe in the use of the LCS! I am moderately familiar with the equipment and its capability. It fills a big gap that the Navy has had for a long time. It arrives fast, gets in close and quiet, and has support capability for those it delivers. It’s not meant to replace the large craft but fills a gap that has existed for a long time. We need to properly train the personnel to support the LCS. It will cost less to accomplish smaller missions instead of moving large flotillas and support craft. Large craft and flotilla are still required to accomplish appropriate missions.

Because its the warriors that continue to try to defend it, with their lives when necessary; long after those who are safe and warm inside the walls have forgotten what it means to not have all of the benefits of that civilization handed to them on a platter.

LOL! My secret, on my short stay with “Big Gray”, was a big bowl of the midrats gumbo and a square of jalepeno corn bread. :-) Luckily, cast iron stomachs are sometimes issued in all shades of blue, and if you can handle the cargo bay of a C-130 going low level over the desert on a hot afternoon with a full load of airsick Army types, a little rocking and rolling at sea is a cakewalk! 8-)

I agree that the LCS COULD be a very useful ship to the USN, but. .… not as they currently float. Right now they are both sort of like the sexiest little sports cars on the lot.… . without an engine in either one. They have the inherent capability to “absorb” the weapons and sensors that would make them viable, but. . until those sensors and weapons are available.… . you have got very, very little other than a magnet for all of the professional critics and naysayers.

The USN had better “make them real” really soon or they will loose them all to the axe.

I’am curious, exactly what is this ship suppose to do? I mean, is this something we need or is this something we want? I really can’t speak for the Navy, but I’ve seen the Army buy a lot of stuff we didn’t need, the only reason it was bought was because some senator or congressman wanted to create jobs in his state or district. If this is a precursor to the future Navy then by all means move foward with it, but if it’s not, whats the point? I admit, I do like the concept, but if this is something we donot need right now then mabe we should wait, because you can’t make something fit if it’s not suppose fit, not only that, but I don’t think there is another Navy on this planet that come close to ours. I guess what I’am trying to ask is, how will this new ship enhance our current Navy?

They fill a gap all right. That gap is from minesweepers and patrol crafts to … with the withdrawal of the Perry class due to age … cruiser sized blue water destroyers of the Arleigh Burke class, that is, it is right there between 600 and 6000 tons. The LCS are frigates posing as corvettes, while possessing the qualities of neither.

The Navy has had three or four LCS ships in my career and couldn’t wait to get rid of them once built. Remember the PHM’s, FFG7’s, Cyclones, Minehunters? All LCS mission ships. Why did we get rid of them– the same reason — no way to base them overseas and no legs to keep up with the ARGs and CVBGs. Stop wasting money oin this junk. Instead pick one of the two designs and stretch it into the next generation destroyer so it can do double duty.

with the missles that are out now the NAVY better have something to defend the ships from being sunk,they pull into port and a rubber boat almost took out one of them.….

The navy won WW-II with a vast number of vessels that didn’t have the legs to keep up with ARGs and CVBGs. The problem you point out is hardly insurmountable.

Then as today, there are ways to address the short legs and lower endurance, for instance replenishment at sea and tenders, and today, crew reduction through automation. The navy can establish FOBs in friendly host nations, like Djibouti, have marines protect the base, and operate their vessels out of there.

The point is really whether you’d rather want to have a 6.000 cruiser manned with 450 men operating under a hostile coast playing missile sponge and minesweeper, or a ‘dispensable’ 1500 ton vessel manned by 65. Increasing weapon lethality may suggest that a sensible approach to risk mitigation is through larger numbers of cheaper vessels and their geographic dispersion.

The problem for the Navy is IMO probably risk aversion. A loss of a vessel, even though probably inevitable in war time, must not happen. Behemoths like the Arleigh Burke are very capable and more survivable than a true corvette or frigate — but utter overkill for for instance an anti-piracy or drug interdiction or a patrol and reconnaissance mission, or for blasting Boghammars out of the Strait of Hormuz.

It’s really ludicrous — one of the most capable air defence ships afloat, and a very capable blue water surface combatant — used to hunt armed peasants in boats and a net worth of $ 500 — because the Navy is running out of frigates who could do the job for a fraction of the cost.
http://​www​.guardian​.co​.uk/​w​o​r​l​d​/​2​0​1​2​/​j​a​n​/​0​6​/​u​s​-na

… and the solution is to abolish ships or to abolish ports?

Now, what about port security?

NO maybe about it. If Obama is reelected this nation really is history. Just as Rome, the Byzantine Empire, and the Soviet Union are history. Americans need to wake up! We let our voting performance sink in the twentieth Century to such a low point the progressives saw an opportunity to elect a foreigner who has championed their progressive causes. Electing a Republican in 2012 maybe the difference between life and death for the elderly, the Tea Party, and another 10,000,000 innocent fetuses. And that maybe is because it is only an 80% probability.

OK, so why did we deep six the PHMs, FFG7s, Cyclones, etc? LONG before the platforms wore out.
WWII we had a vast base infrastructure overseas to support the PT boats, DEs, etc.. Don’t have it today and are not likely to get it. Having port access ain’t the same as basing you need to be able to SUSTAIN a forward presence = family housing, exhanges, etc. ad infinitim. Short legged vessels don’t work well for surges — takes too much effort to get everything forward and a lot of effort to get it all back. In WWII long family separations were norm. It was either join the Navy, or get drafted into the army. Todays all volunteer military doesn’t give you that luxury. Incessant IA deployments since the GWOT are detroying our investments in sailors and JOs. Keeping up with the CVBGs and ARGs demands a higher frequency of of UNREPS which wears on crews and sustaining platforms like AOEs.

My point is that if you can take the current design and stretch it to give it more inernal logistics stoarage (weapons, fuel, food) capacity, you might be able have your cake and eat it too. Don’t need a bigger crew either (unless you want one). At the current projected cost of the LCS, it is hardly a dispensable commodity. I too would like to see a cheap replacement for the DDG51’s. As far as the anti-piracy busines — that is a job for our Marines and ARG/ESGs. Our history has n merous examples where we took out pirate bases. I don’t undertsand why this is not an option.

I think the point that was being made it that smaller foreign navies could interop with and participate more effectively with the simpler ships such as an LCS. If so, it is to our benefit to find as many ways as possible to encourage other navies to take on/help with the duties ours is currently performing. In other word, I think it is less about them feeling good with themselves then about them being an effective partner.

A ‘Senior’ crew? Where’s the ‘Mess– Cranks’ going to come from? Helo’s?

You are aware that the resulting design, a stretched Arleigh Burke, would be an even bigger ship? 7.000 tons perhaps? And on a ship that big — if it walks, looks and quacks like a cruiser — then the US Navy is going to give it a 90 cell VLS and Aegis.

The devious French do piracy patrols with humble vessels like the Floreal class: They don’t have and don’t spend nearly as much money as the US do and thus must make reasonable compromises.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flor%C3%A9al_class_f

That one’s larger than the K130, and has longer legs: 2.800 tons, 20 knots (not 40), small crew of 88, has four diesels and as a result has a far greater fuel economy and operational range with far less fuel than an Arleigh Burke derivative (which also reduces the logistics footprint since less resupply is needed). Operational range is 10.000 nm, endurance 30 days +. For speed they have the chopper. From Wikipedia:

“The concept of “sentry frigate” emerged from the will of the French government to protect its Exclusive Economic Zone (12 million km²), as defined in the Montego Bay treaties. Another need was to address matters of humanitarian aid, diplomacy, or naval law enforcement. To address these missions, an onboard helicopter is clearly the optimal solution, provide versatile, swift and long-range capabilities to deliver support, ferry or rescue.

These constraints defined the need for a ship which would be small; extremely stable to allow use of a heavy helicopter in all weather; small crew, while retaining capacities to accommodate navy commandos; light armament; economic and long-range propulsion system.”

The US Navy would probably find it under-armed and not sexy enough, clearly something that ought to be in the Coast Guard and not in the Navy — i.e. find it something like that is never going to be procured. Clearly, what’s doing sterling service for the devious French isn’t good enough for the US. It lacks the gold plating. Mon dieu! It doesn’t even have a 90 cell VLS or transformational sensors and other glitzy gizmos! Fooey!

Question: Is all that needed for the role? Does one need an S– or X-Band Radar, AEGIS or a 90 cell VLS for doing anti-piracy patrols, drug interdiction or sentry and and reconnaissance mission, or for blasting Boghammars out of the Strait of Hormuz?

The US Navy is unwilling to procure humble ships for humble roles, focusing on big and expensive and sophisticated combatants for high intensity conflict instead. The problem why there is no 300 ship Navy lies with the Navy as much as with politicos who are too deferential to them. It isn’t necessarily about budget cuts.

For one stretched Burke they could have four to six Floreal type vessels, which have the advantage over the Burke that they can be in several places at the same time. I argue that numbers are a quality as well.

The point is, they see such vessels as competing for funds with the big ones, and the Navy thus refuses them because they want to protect their coveted battleship equivalents. The argument goes like that: One Burke like ship is more capable than four to six Floreals in high intensity conflict — true, if they were using the Burke that way right now. I is oversized and over-designed for anything but high intensity conflict.

For instance, the problem with the SCS concept was not that it did a bad job, the Spanish and Italians are quite happy with it, and the tests on USS Guam were promising, as well. The british SCS they did a decent enough job in the Falklands war — the problem is that their success and existence would give politicos an excuse to cut budgets for CV. So better not have them at all, pre-empting that problem. That is also precisely why the USN abolished their diesel subs, even though the Barbel class was plenty good enough for a lot of roles, and far cheaper than the nuclear powered subs.

If there is a budget crunch, the Navy will kill off the less capable vessels in order to retain capability. That as easily explains them ridding themselves of the small ships as your thesis that the vessels didn’t have the legs and were otherwise flawed.

Considering the extent and intensity (with two rotating crews) with which the Navy has deployed the Cyclones there is nothing wrong with the ships, except that they are ageing, indeed, it indicates instead that they are up to the task and do it well.

You seem to be confused with my direction on this — stretch the LCS design — not the Arleigh Burkes . I agree with you that the DDG51s are more mini-cruisers in capability — and we have enough of them. Though I am concerned that the trimaran LCS design is aluminum. and this seems to ignore the lesson the British learned when a single exocet burned the HMS Sheffield. It could make a pretty good Coast Guard cutter — for our existing littoral navy. Still you have a valid point on the Navy’s desire to protect its more capable platforms by eschewing smaller less capable vessels — erego the quandary of protecting the LCS from the budget axe. I’m done — good give and take here. Thanks for your comments.

Do not understand why ESSM is not being considered for use on the LCS. Perhaps quad packed in 1 or 2 x 8 cell Mk 41 VLS (32 or 64 missiles). Not sure if new electronics will be needed for fire control. Does ESSM not also have an anti-surface capability?

There are several modern alternatives to the LCS that could give you more capability for the same or less money. They just have the problem of Not Invented Here. See below for some of the alternatives, this kind of ship is bread and butter to European navies.

The Germans tried really, really hard to navalise MLRS, and they just couldn’t get it to work. The main problem was the corrosive exhaust, but there were other problems with fire control etc. By the time you’ve fixed all those issues, you’ve lost commonality with the Army and you might as well just use Tomahawk. Mind you, it would be no bad idea to cut down Tomahawk into a SLAM equivalent that could fit in tactical-length Mk41 tubes. A useful capability that would be cheap to do.

Similar size is not the relevant parameter, what matters is ships of a similar cost. Which means that the LCS is up against most of the standard Eurofrigates, the FREMM, Type 26/GCS and the various members of the MEKO family.

Personally I’d let the current LCS order run to 12–24 vessels, then licence a Mk41 version of GCS to replace the Perrys, and in the long-term join the Anglo-French MHPC project for the small stuff like “resident” minesweepers in the Gulf, hydrography and patrol.

@Thinking_ExUSAF — it’s not about how many missiles you hold, what takes up space is the stuff that gives you endurance, seakeeping and survivability. Plus proper aviation support and space for visiting ninjas and eg a boat ramp. Still, steel is cheap and air is free. It’s also worth noting that just complying with modern habitability and survivability standards has put the best part of 1000t on GCS compared to the standards required of the T23 designed 30 years ago.

It is all about Aegis, the missile defense system. The LCS is the front radar, nearest to the coast. It is all about radars nowadays. LCS is a radar, part of a bigger one, as part of a defense system. F-35 also.

Holland class, of the Dutch navy, is also a nice ship. For the littorals, where the growth of the world population will take place. The littorals will be dominant.

Read more: http://​www​.dodbuzz​.com/​2​0​1​2​/​0​1​/​1​0​/​s​n​a​-​t​h​e​-​n​a​v​y​s-n
DoDBuzz​.com

*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.