[JClark]

Another LCS tidbit from Commander Salamander:

http://cdrsalamander...-dumb-idea.html

"LCS is based on a PowerPoint concept that won't work and at $300 million a pop for a hull with no mission system (add another $150-200 million) based on yet to be fielded systems - we can't sell that to anyone. The hull is solid enough to make into a nice Corvette with a phased-array radar and MK-41 - kind of a mini-Arleigh Burke. Now that can break things and kill people. The other thing is just requirement hoops from the Pentagon. Hey, we just work here. Don't blame us.'

Boats

[James Powell]

JClark, on Jun 5 2006, 10:37 AM, said:

Another LCS tidbit from Commander Salamander:

http://cdrsalamander...-dumb-idea.html

"LCS is based on a PowerPoint concept that won't work and at $300 million a pop for a hull with no mission system (add another $150-200 million) based on yet to be fielded systems - we can't sell that to anyone. The hull is solid enough to make into a nice Corvette with a phased-array radar and MK-41 - kind of a mini-Arleigh Burke. Now that can break things and kill people. The other thing is just requirement hoops from the Pentagon. Hey, we just work here. Don't blame us.'

Boats

Um, Boats, might this have done better in the other half of the HULL .

The concept could work. Don't blame us if the purchaser is on crack...we make it to the customer's orders.

I would agree that a corvette style of vessel is probably what is needed. That or a torpedo boat destroyer. Crewing is going to be a major issue for the USN. The USN has institutional experience set that does not allow for multi tasks being proformed by the same person. (note, this is NOT a slag, but a statement of operational practices). This means that there is a requirement for extensive changes to manning principals compared with, say, a Burke or a Tico.

I will ask what should be the basic principals: Mission ? Range to do mission ? Speed requried to do mission ? Weapons to do mission ?

That is what the first questions to ask are. If a range of 1000 NM is enough to do the mission, and a speed of 36 kts, with 150 ton of weapons...make a ship that will fit those issues. Weapon weight (and I would include sensors in weapons weight for this purpose) is the "cargo" of the ship. If 50 kts is essential to the mission, then you are looking at ~50 000 HP by probably under 2000 tons. 2 LM2500's, 2 shaft, (C.O.DE.A.G.) To get the range, you are looking at ~400 tons of fuel (that gives a 1 way range of 1000 nm at speed) 1450 tons left for crew (probably around 10 ton/member to 50, giving 500 tons for the crew) 950 tons left to give structure for the weapons systems to hang on, framing, hull, and propulsion system /electrical system. I'd assume based on previous designs, that the ship would end up around 250 ft long, by 15 ft draft, by 30 ft beam (gives 2025 tons of displacement). It would NOT be a fun boat to cross the Atlantic in mid november on. (but rather better than a 35 ton sailing ship!)
Why DE and GT? Because DE allows quietening for other roles than AAW/ASW (ASW and MCM) to be considered on a common platform. DE may also allow less engines to be run at cruise speeds (only 1 DG run to run Hotel load and Propulsion, say up to 14 kts? (given something like 3000 kw DE propulsion motor, with a installed capacity of something like 4500 kw (3x1500kw DG's)

This ship is a single missile/mine away from being a mission kill. That is a trade off to get a ship which uses a crew of 50 or less. Practically, it is the same as most FF(x)'s, in that they are likely combat incapable after a single hit as well. I would not want to use a single one of these as a escort for a convoy. But, given that they _should_ be cheap, they allow the filling of the volume role of the equation. The fact is that by designing for a finite life (probably 20 years), with a absolutely common serial design (make 1, test for 2-3 years, scrap that one, make xx of the production version using the first one + modifications as the guide, make them identicle, including where all the valves, fittings, weapons system mounts go...so that the crew can be exchanged from one to another without moving the ship...far cheaper to send a crew from the US to the gulf via airplane than a whole ship...The whole system costs need to be considered with "little crappy ship" (which I don't take as a bad discription, btw!), to see if the system is worth what the costs would be. Ships like this have a severe advantage over a heavy, in that if you have 3 of them instead of 1 heavy, you CAN be in 3 places at once...and a lot of what we do is presence, not actual combat.

It doesn't mean that the current LCS is a good design. I have my doubts that it is a good design...

James Powell

[Sunburn]

James Powell, on Jun 6 2006, 12:44 AM, said:

...and a lot of what we do is presence, not actual combat.

While true, this does not relieve the LCS of the necessity to be able to fight and survive. Should a couple of these boats sink in a hypothetical embarassing incident, their presence & deterrence value would sharply decline.

[JClark]

And the value of the missing, the wounded, the captured, and the dead sailors would decrease in value as assets to the Navy as well. THIS is my biggest problem with the LCS.

Boats

[VCDH]

Byron I gotta admit that you stick to your guns on this one.....

The LCS is the lower tier of the SC21 family of ships that will make up the navy of the future. The other two tiers being DDX and CGX. While CMDR Salamander may come from the navy, from an extensive read of his blog he also has a trait that is common among senior officers from the older service branches.

Inflexibility. In his case it sounds more and more like he is from the blue water navy in a time when the littoral (oh god do I hate that term) is taking more and more operational resources. Yet the blue water navy is covered by CGX and DDX. So what's the problem here?

The problem here is, as I stated above, conventional thinking. I will admit that, from my perspective, the jury is still out on the LCS. For me the deciding factor is probably going to be the modules that the ship will carry. But given the current operational practices of the US Armed Forces, what is the problem with a ship that has no base missile armament? The US doesn't do anything without air dominance and this gives the LCS, even the basic model WITHOUT modules, the freedom to navigate pretty much where it pleases.

And with the fleet's curret composition, surface threats are about as likely as an An-2 taking on an F-22.

So that leaves sub sea threats. Mines and subs. There is no doubt that the USN is lacking in ASW expertise and training. Hopefully the speed that the LCS will be able to attain will help defeat the current generation of torpedoes. IIRC the first two modules are going to be mine warfare based but again, we'll have to wait and see.

I'm noticing alot of parallels between the Light Fighter Mafia of the 60's and 70's and the LCS project now.

Perhaps instead of lamenting about the coming doom of the Navy (just like the USAF did in the 60s with the coming of the F-16) CMDR Salamander would do well to provide his readers of VIABLE solutions and/or alternatives to the LCSs. Alternatives that will take into account the objective ficsal realities of today's military and one that will use the procurement process instead of trying to buck it. Quite frankly, ordering up some Nansen or Stanaflex class designs smacks of desparation and doesn't take into account the political realities that some of us call NIH.

So far the only thing I have noticed about the LCS is it's lack of a dedicated missile battery. Given the current threats that the USN faces I believe that the navy is heading in the right direction with this design. It will offset the manning and technological shortcomings that the navy faces at the moment, despite the procurement process issues that I have discussed at the HHQ (and won't bother to repeat here). Those aren't going away anytime soon.

Later
D

[JClark]

Dale I know you're a merchant mariner, and that you are very "inside" Harpoon. I respect you for that. But you AREN'T a serving line officer, and you have never worn a Surface Warfare Qualification pin, nor would you ever have to be in the position of commanding a warship in the US Navy. The CDR IS. Not only that Dale, I read his blog every day, and every point you've adressed so far, he's already visited, and amazingly, you agree with each other. Where the difference ends, is that he understands at a fundemental level what a warship has to do, while you know at an abstract level. Did you know that the serving Surface Warfare line officers, from 0-1 to 0-5 have been saying for years now, that the LCS had a critical flaw from day one, that of a hazordous low manning level, one that will NOT allow the ship to both fight and do damage control. Computers are great Dale, and so is automation. But all these things can do is warn the human in the loop, close a valve or open a fire suppression system. They can't shore a bulkhead, they can't drag an eductor to a flooded space, they can't fight a fire in the areas of the ship that won't have fire suppression via halon or CO2.

Never mind the manning issue. The LCS is a ship who's mission will place it squarely in the most dangerous zone for a ship, in sight of the shore, and in range of guns and missiles such as Silkworm. And unless they LCS has a CVN offshore, square in the sights of aircraft of all sorts. Can you imagine what a couple of Hinds would do to this lightly armed little ship? They'd sink it in less than five minutes! And place all the crew in danger of captivity, something no American has relished since the end of WW2, and the Korean brainwashing of prisoners.

Dale, my dislike of this ship is by no means personal. It's just a ship. I probably won't even get to work on it, since by the time they get to the fleet, I'll be near retirement (you better hope it takes that long, or else I'll be right about the flaws in the superstructure and hull, and the damn thing is already going to hell). But there's a better than even chance my grandson will. He's made his mind up to go to the Academy, and be a sailor just like his dad. Since he doesn't want to be a pilot, lawyer, doctor, or any other crap, I'm pretty sure he's going to be a surface warfare line officer. I want my grandson to be a GOOD Navy ship, one well made, and ready to go into harms way, and bring those within her home to their families...and grandfathers. I also want all the rest of the sailors who will sail on this ship to have the same chance of surviving war in this ship, just like the FFG sailors found out on the Stark and the Roberts (I've worked on both of them, and am on the Roberts now).

Byron

[James Powell]

Quote

Did you know that the serving Surface Warfare line officers, from 0-1 to 0-5 have been saying for years now, that the LCS had a critical flaw from day one, that of a hazordous low manning level, one that will NOT allow the ship to both fight and do damage control.
(snip)

I also want all the rest of the sailors who will sail on this ship to have the same chance of surviving war in this ship, just like the FFG sailors found out on the Stark and the Roberts (I've worked on both of them, and am on the Roberts now).

Byron

I know I pointed out the same flaw. The reality is though, that we (sailors) get paid to go in harms way. There are times when we will be callosly risked relative to the reward to the nationstate that sends us into harms way. I don't think that a properly designed PG is a bad ship to go into harms way in. Frankly, what worries me is NOT the ability of a 2000 ton ship to take a Shipwreck and keep on fighting. I mean, come on...we have all gamed it enough to know what is going to happen to a 2000 ton ship hit by Exocet, let alone anything bigger. It is going to be a mission kill. Period. Personal survival would be nice, but sometimes, well, we eat the salt, we take the risks.

I think I outlined what I would arm it with...to be more specific, 16 ESSM,4 Harpoon, CWIS 2B (? one with a IIR and manual mode as well as the pure AAW mode), and a 57mm gun as the base weapons load. Mission loadout dependant on mission. That gives near enough the same weapons loadout as a CPF, but on a much lighter platform, requiring a lot more logistic support. This is a unit that would not be able to deploy without tender or shore support.

Yes, the darn'd thing is at risk in combat. Equipped with a decent SAM (baselined, not a mission fit), with a reasonable number of them (hence the 16 that I would use...that's 4 cells worth...), gives you 8 targets (2x missiles/per target). If the opfor uses more than 8 missiles to try and take a LCS out, they want it...well, toast would be a reasonable word, I think, to describe it.

Stark and Vincennes probably describe the other problem. NCID. Without KNOWING what the target is, how are you going to choose to shoot it out of the sky/sea? (subs can fairly safely be assumed to be hostile, there are not many TWA submarines

James Powell

[MikMyk]

SeaRAM is planned as baseline for Flight 0's not sure what the story is on Flight 1. SeaRAM is better then ESSM in terms of reaction times and engagement but not range. You're also getting more shots.

LCS Q and A stuff:

http://peos.crane.na...s/inquiries.htm

Official Sea Ram announcement

http://www.prnewswir...04333188&EDATE=

This of course shouldn't detract from the LCS bashathon;) Carry on.

[JClark]

From the peos.crane site you just put up:

Quote

It was noticed that LCS flight 0 has RAM planned as the primary ASCM defense weapon. What is planned for LCS flight 1?

LCS Flight 1 specifications have not yet been determined.

It seems that the right hand is not talking to the left hand, or else Raytheon is more excited about SeaRam than the Navy is.

And I'll repeat: I'm unhappy with the ship as designed, because the sea-going professionals are unhappy, and they know a hell of a lot more about the subject than any of us. I've become way too leery of Congressional, defense contractor, and upper-echelon Navy public affairs handouts to believe much of what I hear from them. But the 0-5s in the wind tunnel, carrying their spears and serving their admirals, ARE hearing the real deal. They're not saying much in the way of hard info, because they are serving officers, and would rather not go to prison, much less lose their jobs, but they are NOT happy. What I can find out in open source, only makes me agree with them.

I unreservedly retain my right to question everything said about LCS that is put out by the contractors, the Congress, or the upper echelons of DoD.

Boats

[MikMyk]

Cultures sometimes fear change. There really hasn't been a program in awhile that hasn't faced a level of resistance. Although I'll admit your arguments on construction carry the most weight.

Taxpayers have good grounds to have an opinion (good or bad) for what they indirectly pay for flag rank or not

[James Powell]

JClark, on Jun 13 2006, 10:44 AM, said:

because the sea-going professionals are unhappy, and they know a hell of a lot more about the subject than any of us.

Um, I would consider myself to be a seagoing professional. Unless 10 years as a Mar Eng doesn't count?

To be frankly honest, I am more concerned with what will happen when the Canadian version of the LCS, known as Orca, runs across some druggies who decide to shoot it out. Since we are likely to be used to supplement the MCDV's with there whopping armament of a 40mm cannon, with our single .50, and a crew of 2 (1 bosn, 1 engineer) ...well, you do the math. What happens when the crew on a drug carrying boat decides to try to duke it out with us ?

And you thought US sailors had issues with multi tasking. I do: Helm (Special Sea Dutyman). Ropework. Cleaning stations supervisor. Anchor detail. All engineering tasks. Fuel management (including fueling). Pollution Control. DCO. DC team IC. (makes coordination simple). Black Water Maintance. Electrician. Advisor to CO when they are reserve & don't sail much. Have done basic nav, radar nav, comms...well, if it is something that a 70 ton ship can do, I have been involved, and I doubt the tasking list will decrease with the new boats.


James

[JClark]

James, would you put yourself on the same level as a Commander who has C and GS and Newport behind him? And awaiting major command?

Boats, who appreciates your experience, but believes that your scope is not nearly as broad based as the pro's

[Anakin_S]

Bad news, Boats.

The USN has ordered Another Little Crappy Ship.

I see these things getting prematurely decomissioned by the Squids and serving with the Puddle Pirates as suppliments to the new class of high endurance cutters.

[JClark]

David, the Navy is going to build FIFTY of these things. And for the same money, we could have gotten a ship more like the Nansen, one with sensible yet reduced manning, with teeth, and survivability. We got a half ass ship for way too much money. And presence, gentlemen, is kinda like a sherrif showing up in a bar fully of rowdy cowboys and dead eyed gunslingers with nothing but a badge.

Boats

[A6BSTARM]

What is worst right now is how the higher ups in the five-sided wind tunnel are not even completely sure all what they want the LCS do except to do it all cheaper, faster, with less people. So they are building who knows how many different styles of ships trying to achieve what then want. Though this has happened in the past with in the US Navy. They were smart enough to build a one off or at lest a decent number of a class (like 10-15) and then improve on them as the technology improve (see matured), use the lessons learned to build a better class. Instead the US Navy has recently decided to get it all backwards and dive head first in building a better ship when not even all the technology has been proven. At what cost? Too much money is being spent on ship building and not enough on maintenance. The Navy is almost ready to go head first into the same problems that the USAF is running into with the F-22 project. They have to rob from current force to pay for future force.

[Anakin_S]

A6BSTARM, on Jul 12 2006, 06:08 AM, said:

They have to rob from current force to pay for future force.

You have to wonder how effective is the "up close and personal" style of warfare LCS fights will be.

With the exception of anti-mine/ AAW/ and NFG for the gator freighters, isn't standing off the enemy's coast and launching cruise missiles and air strikes still the best way to go Forward...from the Sea?

At $350 million a piece for LCS, I'd think the money would be better spent in additional Rhinos or development and deployment of the SM-3.

Unless the Navy is intentionally building a new class of Coast Guard cutters?

[Anakin_S]

LCS replaces Osprey

Dedicated light minesweepers are getting tossed for the LCS. Problem is that LCS's draft may be too deep for all mined areas.

I'm seeing a lot of eggs in one basket.

[JClark]

Anakin_S, on Aug 15 2006, 01:17 PM, said:

LCS replaces Osprey

Dedicated light minesweepers are getting tossed for the LCS. Problem is that LCS's draft may be too deep for all mined areas.

I'm seeing a lot of eggs in one basket.

And ya'll thought I didn't know what the hell I was talking about.

I DO

Boats

[MikMyk]

LCS to get NLOS-LS System

http://www.defense-u...ducts/p/pam.htm

Quote

NetFires will develop Non Line-of-Sight-Launch System for the Navy Littoral Combat Ships under a US$54.8 million contract awarded by the U.S. Navy. The common vertical launcher will be initially designed to store and fire the Precision Attack Missile (PAM) and later, accept future missile variants. The Non Line-of-Sight-Launch System has been selected to be the premier engagement capability against surface threats such as small moving boats deployed with the U.S. Navy's Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). The U.S. Navy expects to build in excess of 50 such with the first ship, USS Freedom, being commissioned in fiscal year 2007. The Non Line-of-Sight-Launch System is slated for integration into the USS Independence in 2008.

http://www.spacewar....ystems_999.html

[JClark]

And for a dose of reality...the 200 million ship that will cost 300...only a 50% increase in cost, nuttin' to it...

http://www.sunherald...ss/15302061.htm

Boats, who will believe the LCS is viable, when ALL mission modules are loaded...and even then, what happens when they are in the back of beyond, and need a different module? Duh?