Littoral Combat Ships are they useful?

[USNlover]

Ive been doing some research about them and I just wanted to know what you thought about them. Here are the web sites www.naval-technology.com/projects/littoral/littoral10.html

[Lucasnz]

Ive been doing some research about them and I just wanted to know what you thought about them. Here are the web sites Lockheed Martin will build LCS 1 and LCS 3 (http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/littoral/littoral10.html)

I think there is some merit behind the LCS concept, given today's threats. The biggest issues I have with the LCS design is the lack of range, excessive top speed and its cost (choke sputter).

[Sea Toby]

While the rest of the world's navies concentrate their operations in their nearby waters, the US Navy requires ships to be forwardly deployed across the seas. The problem with the US minehunting fleet is that over half of them are designed for US coastal operations, and the other half don't have the speed to keep up with the replenishment fleet. In the recent past the US has leased ships to carry our minehunting ships to the front which aren't any quicker. And as for ASW operations, newer submarines have gained speed as well as a reduction in noise.

Since there aren't any navies with a hundred submarines prowling the oceans, a smaller and less expensive ASW ocean escort would be welcomed. On the other hand a larger minehunter would be welcomed. On top of these two operations, a coastal warship with lesser draft and more speed would be welcomed. Why not combine all three functions into one ship? LCS!

While the LCS may not be the preferred option for many European nations, or for that matter any of the world's nations, they are the preferred option for the US Navy.....

As for the cost, the LCS is more expensive than a frigate. But the LCS is cheaper than building a frigate, a minehunter, and a coastal patrol ship. Three capabilities for the price of one ship.....

[StevoJH]

As for the cost, the LCS is more expensive than a frigate. But the LCS is cheaper than building a frigate, a minehunter, and a coastal patrol ship. Three capabilities for the price of one ship.....

But nowhere near as good at any of the three roles as a ship purpose built for that role would be.

[Sea Toby]

There are many videos on the web. Here are three Lockheed Martin LCS videos.

YouTube - Littoral Combat Ship (LCS)

lcs - Google Videos (http://video.google.com/videosearch?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=lcs&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wv#)

Lockheed Martin Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Team (http://www.lmlcsteam.com/video/day-in-life.html)

For self defense the LCS is better armed than the current FFG-7s frigates they are designed to replace in anti-air/missile and anti-submarine. With eventually the new rocket assisted gunnery, their guns have more range than the 75-mm gun mount of the FFG-7s. The rolling airframe missiles are better for self defense. They carry more aircraft. For mine countermeasures they have newer and better ASW equipment. The LCS has a better hull as well, with more speed.

Frankly everything about the LCS is better than a FFG-7. The LCS will be deployed throughout the world, our current minehunters are mostly stationed in America. Their ASW module can be shipped via a Hercules aircraft, if not a C-17 quickly around the world, not take a month to get there. Plus they will make better SEALs vessels as well, carrying more of them and more of their equipment with less draft than the Cyclone class boats that were built for the SEALs.

The FFG-7 may have been a good frigate design for the early 1980s or late 1970s, but technology has gone a long way since then. Their air defense systems are at least one generation older, their gun mount is as adaptable with the new 57-mm gun mount.

The US Navy has never considered frigates a front line warship, therefore the reason to build so many cruisers and destroyers. Frigates were built for ASW ocean escorting. The LCS will have a newer generation of sonars and sonar arrays, along with carrying more aircraft.

While the price has been high for the first few ships, the ships are of an entirely new generation of engineering and armaments. Later ships will cost much less than the first ships built. While an FFG-7 may have run around $250 million during the late 1970s, the LCS will eventually run around $400 million. Cheaper when considering inflation. Not to mention not having to buy Cyclone class boats and mine countermeasure vessels.

[Firn]

While I doubt that later models will only cost $400 million I can see why the US Navy appreciates the merits of such a design. I'm also now more convinced about the utility of the higher speed compared to assets it replaces.

[Salty Dog]

Excellent points brought up by Sea Toby. I would like to complement those with emphasis on LCS draft and speed. LCS max draft (Independence class) is 4.5 M whilst the FFG-7 has 7 M and DDG-51 10 M respectively. LCS top speed is 40+ knots. This means the LCS not only can access a wider range of ports and littoral areas, it will get there quite a bit faster than the larger DDG/CG. As an example, there are very few ports in South America where even the older DD-963 could enter/dock due to draft constraints (including the Mar del Plata) only the FFG-7s could dock most of the time.The adds flexibility and options for the task group commander.

[AegisFC]

I like the concept, but I don't like the execution and several of the requirements leaves me confused.
I just don't see how the over ridding emphasis on speed is a good thing it just seems like an expensive gimmick. At low speed it is not very fuel efficient, at low speed it is not very maneuverable, and those water jets are going to be maintenance hogs that have to be worked on in dry dock.
The ultra-low crewing also seems like a mistake, at least from a damage control and crew workload and duty section perspective.

[StevoJH]

I like the concept, but I don't like the execution and several of the requirements leaves me confused.
I just don't see how the over ridding emphasis on speed is a good thing it just seems like an expensive gimmick. At low speed it is not very fuel efficient, at low speed it is not very maneuverable, and those water jets are going to be maintenance hogs that have to be worked on in dry dock.
The ultra-low crewing also seems like a mistake, at least from a damage control and crew workload and duty section perspective.

Plus remember that they can't travel any faster then their supporting tanker anyway since their range at high speed is only something like 1,500 miles.

[gf0012-aust]

Plus remember that they can't travel any faster then their supporting tanker anyway since their range at high speed is only something like 1,500 miles.

The best one placed to know is AMTP10....

[battlensign]

The best one placed to know is AMTP10....

I am assuming you mean AMTP10....

Brett.

[Sea Toby]

I like the concept, but I don't like the execution and several of the requirements leaves me confused.
I just don't see how the over ridding emphasis on speed is a good thing it just seems like an expensive gimmick. At low speed it is not very fuel efficient, at low speed it is not very maneuverable, and those water jets are going to be maintenance hogs that have to be worked on in dry dock.
The ultra-low crewing also seems like a mistake, at least from a damage control and crew workload and duty section perspective.

The US Navy expects the opposite, that the waterjets will have less maintenance, not more.

Why New Warships Will be Powered by Waterjets (http://www.marinelink.com/Story/WhyNewWarshipsWillbePoweredbyWaterjets-206051.html)

Again, I repeat the LCS has newer technology for anti-submarine, anti-air/missile, surface, and mine countermeasures than a FFG-7. It has the same range at slower speeds for long distances, and very fast speeds for short operations over shorter distances. From the hull to the propulsion system to the sensors and weapon systems.

Already sailors in Virginia are talking about how the LCS blew by a destroyers and frigates easily.

[gf0012-aust]

I am assuming you mean AMTP10....

Brett.

for some unholdy reason I keep on suffering from digital dyslexia with his "nom de g" :)

after a few years I should have got it right considering that its significant

[StingrayOZ]

I like the LCS idea. I hope they influence the Australian OCV in a simular way (but these are not likely to be 45 kt monsters), but the mission module concept I like and has merit, I think being small to crew also has merit depending how its done, and I think the LCS is a bit of experiment in that area for the USN.

I think the speed gives them the ability to be the first on the scene, or quickly respond to an incident. It also makes it difficult to attack while in transit or out run if they are chasing you (Pirate/patrol work). Depending on the situation you might be able to avoid out run some helicopters if given enough warning. Certainly for seal insertion/extraction they could be very useful.

I wouldn't be replacing destroyers or frigates with them, but replacing patrol boats etc they seem to have the right stuff.

[Vajt]

There must be some good benefits to these modular designs as MEKO is also studying a very similar approach with their version of the LCS, the CSL.

-----JT-----

[StingrayOZ]

I think there will be a lot of designs based around simular concepts.

Australia seems to be following in simular footsteps (with 20 modular OCV ships) to the USN.

I don't know if all compromise is bad. I think they will make better patrol boats. They are bigger which means more suitable for blue water missions. With more space to hold captives or refugees and able to use a helicopter etc.

Mine hunting/sub hunting might mostly be done in the future with dismounted UUV's which means the traditional mine hunter was on the way out anyway, a bigger ship can carry and operate more UUV's. Or UAV's which they can operate some types.

If you upsize your frigates to Destroyer (USN and RAN seem to be doing this with Australia going to 7,000t "frigates" built off a destroyer hull and capable of BMD, then you turn your patrol and mine hunters into light frigates/corvettes, for not much money. I would imagine half a dozen harpoons, searam, 35-76mm gun, short of a frigate but much better than a patrol boat. Frigates seem to be way overkill for much of what they do anyway (ECC protection, rescues, blue water patrols, pirates etc).

Then they will also be useful for other missions, emergency relief, Spec op insertion/extraction, hospital ship, etc that aren't really filled by any particular vessel at all these days.

Jack of all trades master of none? Not really, pretty good at two and good enough at the rest.

[Firn]

Mine hunting/sub hunting might mostly be done in the future with dismounted UUV's which means the traditional mine hunter was on the way out anyway, a bigger ship can carry and operate more UUV's. Or UAV's which they can operate some types.


UUV will be in combination with UAV will play a very large role in MCM and likely also in ASW warfare. The question here is how large and capable the platform has to be to allow an efficient employment of such unmanned systems.

[gf0012-aust]

UUV will be in combination with UAV will play a very large role in MCM and likely also in ASW warfare. The question here is how large and capable the platform has to be to allow an efficient employment of such unmanned systems.

The autonomous UUV/USV/UDT technology is not currently focussed on mine countermeasures. there's a way to go before its reached.

nearly all of the future sub designs I've seen over the last few years have been utilising dismounted weapons solutions.

prior to that everything revolved around "Tango Bravo" type concepts - or the buck rogers type "riders" that were coming out of the UK.

[kato]

The autonomous UUV/USV/UDT technology is not currently focussed on mine countermeasures.
The German MJ2010 concept - 10 years ago, before it was trashed for cost reasons - planned the use of semi-autonomous "Sea Horse" USVs as combination minesweeper and minehunting drone carriers, with two or three of these USVs led and serviced by a manned platform, and these three or four ships sweeping and hunting as a pack similar to the Troika concept.

As for current development, the heavy "Sea Otter" UUV drone is envisaged to go in that direction with future payloads (sidescan sonar, possibly carrying destruction charges).

[Firn]

The German MJ2010 concept - 10 years ago, before it was trashed for cost reasons - planned the use of semi-autonomous "Sea Horse" USVs as combination minesweeper and minehunting drone carriers, with two or three of these USVs led and serviced by a manned platform, and these three or four ships sweeping and hunting as a pack similar to the Troika concept.

As for current development, the heavy "Sea Otter" UUV drone is envisaged to go in that direction with future payloads (sidescan sonar, possibly carrying destruction charges).

The "Sea Horse" would have certainly been a great addition for mine infested seas. I have already taken a look on the "Sea Otter" and it seems to me that things are moving into the right direction. UUV should be perhaps the most universal MCM vessels, given that they potentially Detect, Classificate and Locate any type of sea mine.

Any way isn't the Visby already using and MCM UUV - IIRC Sea Fox or something like that. Ah it is Seafox.

Visby (http://www.kockums.se/pdf/visby2006.pdf) a well made prospect with some neat photos.

Visby,

A nice video but not without flaws, for example the passive radar detection r(which is key in the concept of the Visby, btw) is not included in this neat little ship-vs-ship animations.

Anyway a Visby + could be a nice LCS if it fits the doctrine and the structure of the specific navy.

[gf0012-aust]

The German MJ2010 concept - 10 years ago, before it was trashed for cost reasons - planned the use of semi-autonomous "Sea Horse" USVs as combination minesweeper and minehunting drone carriers, with two or three of these USVs led and serviced by a manned platform, and these three or four ships sweeping and hunting as a pack similar to the Troika concept.

As for current development, the heavy "Sea Otter" UUV drone is envisaged to go in that direction with future payloads (sidescan sonar, possibly carrying destruction charges).

The problem then and now with the non US developments is that they do not have complete system autonomy - they're limited by the fact that all command and management is via umbilical - and that effects "effective" range. The second issue is autonomous payload - and is directly tied into the issue of range (search, sweep, duration issues)

The US is focussed on having UDT used at the wireless level so that they can dramatically change the way that UUV/USV's can work. It invites the issues of arrays, fused search, swarm management etc... it means that the UUV/USVs can start to hot swap roles, shuffle persistence issues on station etc....

umbilical vehicles have significant restrictions.

The US does have some very nice MCM capability built into ROV's - but its a long way from a gold release of wireless capability. I was lucky enough to witness a demo of such capability in the US about 4 years ago, and they even had some proposals for cavitating weapons release via USV control..

everyone else is a generation behind what the US were doing even 4 years ago. (although the USN regards the AI in Australias Wayamba USV as something that they are striving for in future array/swarm capabilities.

There is however a reason why countries like australia are maintaining development of umbilical management. I did witness a demo of a USV off Hawai'i about 4 years ago - it had a duration of 8hrs. within 2-3 years it had tripled its duration. The problem however is that autonomy means a demand on efficient onboard power as well as engine management. the ratio of efficient systems to persistence is still a long way off. The US however is determined to get around that restriction.

[kato]

The problem then and now with the non US developments is that they do not have complete system autonomy - they're limited by the fact that all command and management is via umbilical - and that effects "effective" range.
None of the current BAe Atlas developments are umbilical - however, unlike US AUVs they all offer the additional capability to be directly tied by umbilical cord.

Sea Otter is not umbilical, and navigates autonomously with its own systems. With a range of 100 nm (24 h endurance) and a diving depth of 600m (standard version, there's also a Mk IID deep-diving version) that would be a pretty long umbilical cord anyway. Sea Otter is currently in trials with the BWB. And BAe Atlas has already developed Seafox and Sea Wolf autonomous versions based on the Sea Otter systems.

The BWB is currently funding Atlas developing a sidescan sonar for MCM and potential ASW purposes for Sea Otter Mk II, based on the HS-12M minehunting sonar used on the Swedish Landsort class vessels.

As for autonomy... Seafox for example already acts fully autonomous. It takes the mine position from the search sonar before launch, then goes and dives down to it autonomously. It then gives the operator on the vessel a picture of the mine for identification and waits for man-in-the-loop approval to attack it. That's it.

[gf0012-aust]

None of the current BAe Atlas developments are umbilical - however, unlike US AUVs they all offer the additional capability to be directly tied by umbilical cord.

Sea Otter is not umbilical, and navigates autonomously with its own systems. With a range of 100 nm (24 h endurance) and a diving depth of 600m (standard version, there's also a Mk IID deep-diving version) that would be a pretty long umbilical cord anyway. Sea Otter is currently in trials with the BWB. And BAe Atlas has already developed Seafox and Sea Wolf autonomous versions based on the Sea Otter systems.

The BWB is currently funding Atlas developing a sidescan sonar for MCM and potential ASW purposes for Sea Otter Mk II, based on the HS-12M minehunting sonar used on the Swedish Landsort class vessels.

As for autonomy... Seafox for example already acts fully autonomous. It takes the mine position from the search sonar before launch, then goes and dives down to it autonomously. It then gives the operator on the vessel a picture of the mine for identification and waits for man-in-the-loop approval to attack it. That's it.

I'm deliberately avoiding going into specifics for obvious reasons.

The existing soft connected systems have some fundamental issues with range, payload and duration.

its why even the UK is focussed on umbilicals because there is no current system able to get the data bandwidth and data volume at range, interconnected with other supporting assets and for the requisite duration.

autonomous means that the asset can go in cold, search, identify, hunt and prosecute to the end state with a minimum of skimmer support. and the view is that they will do that for extended capability.

its why we're looking at dismounted solutions for subs - its an extension of the weapons system, and it means that the sub is a controller as well as a hub for increasing the depth of search and detect and kill.

its why swarm technology is so heavily researched as well as the shift is to dismounted solutions with small sub autonomy

soft connections cannot and are not competing in the real world.

[Firn]

Some very good points raised. I recently gave the UUV of Atlas Electronics a look and they seemed to be very promising. More (http://www.atlas-elektronik.com/index.php?id=595&L=1) about their products.

If you compare the challanges faced by UAV and UUV one can notice among many similarities at least one great difference - the ease of communication is markedly different. This and the nature of the medium has made and makes fiber-optical links so attractive. ( I posted a neat link some days ago about deep sea communications)

While I do think the US is leading in the R&D in almost all military areas - it would be tragic if it would be otherwise, given their huge budget - Atlas Electronics has also been on the forefront in their areas. This is partly due to the technological hub in Northern Germany and partly Sweden. MCM has also kept in a much sharper focus than in the USA, at least in my humble opinion.

Seafox wins another contract (http://www.naval-technology.com/contractors/sonar/atlas_elektronik/press8.html)

The "british" Seafox (http://www.ultra-scs.com/mds.html)

[StingrayOZ]

Getting back to the inital topic I do see the LCS and simular spin offs (OCV etc) as being great platforms to operate UUV's and UAV's. With large flexable space areas. Areas for UAV's like firescout to operate off. Able to support a crew size big enough, and storage space to control potentially dozens of UUV/UAV and able to maintain on station for longer periods of time.

This will be the big win.

[Firn]

It really seems to be the case, at least when looking on the size of the landing deck of the LCS in the video. Perhaps every combat ship will become a "unmanned craft carrier" in the longer term.

The Waterjets certainly make a lot of sense, especially in the littoral environment and when operating a lot of UV, SV, unmanned or with SOF.

[AegisFC]

Plus remember that they can't travel any faster then their supporting tanker anyway since their range at high speed is only something like 1,500 miles.

That isn't a big deal, where there are US or allied ships there are tankers and these things won't be deployed to an area alone and unsupported.


newer technology for anti-submarine, anti-air/missile, surface, and mine countermeasures than a FFG-7. It has the same range at slower speeds for long distances, and very fast speeds for short operations over shorter distances. From the hull to the propulsion system to the sensors and weapon systems.

Already sailors in Virginia are talking about how the LCS blew by a destroyers and frigates easily.

I get all of that, but the ultra-low crewing is bad news. None of the crew are techs, they are all operators, the only corrective maintenance they do is daily, weekly and monthly PMS checks, everything else (including keeping the ship clean) is contracted out, that is not good, that will not save the USN money like they planned.
Right now the Blue and Gold crews are all 2nd term or more sailors who have been to the fleet and have training on top of training for multiple jobs but that is not sustainable, eventually first term squids will go to these ships and the whole plan will fall apart. There just simply are not enough sailors on board to train junior sailors and maintain mission effectiveness.

I've been on board LCS-1, it is an impressive ship and I like the concept, but the execution needs a lot of work.

[Firn]

I get all of that, but the ultra-low crewing is bad news. None of the crew are techs, they are all operators, the only corrective maintenance they do is daily, weekly and monthly PMS checks, everything else (including keeping the ship clean) is contracted out, that is not good, that will not save the USN money like they planned.
Right now the Blue and Gold crews are all 2nd term or more sailors who have been to the fleet and have training on top of training for multiple jobs but that is not sustainable, eventually first term squids will go to these ships and the whole plan will fall apart. There just simply are not enough sailors on board to train junior sailors and maintain mission effectiveness.

I've been on board LCS-1, it is an impressive ship and I like the concept, but the execution needs a lot of work.

It seems to be that the low manning has become a major selling point of the new vessels, so that it is now "locked in" for political and other factors. Changing it might hence be difficult.

[Lucasnz]

That isn't a big deal, where there are US or allied ships there are tankers and these things won't be deployed to an area alone and unsupported.

The lack of range is a significant blunder it my view. While you are correct that the LCS won't be deployed without support, the increased dependence of tankers for logistical support must surely increase the risk of operational failure, in the event the tanker is sunk or suffers from machinery failure. Operational failure, not withstanding the normal risks of combat operations to frigates etc, is less likley to happen when the vessel is less dependent on external logistical support. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the lost of a tanker(s) to either the LCS or longer legged frigate, would have an operational impact to both vessel's, but the impact to operations is reduced in a frigate due to its longer range.

I get all of that, but the ultra-low crewing is bad news. None of the crew are techs, they are all operators, the only corrective maintenance they do is daily, weekly and monthly PMS checks, everything else (including keeping the ship clean) is contracted out, that is not good, that will not save the USN money like they planned. Right now the Blue and Gold crews are all 2nd term or more sailors who have been to the fleet and have training on top of training for multiple jobs but that is not sustainable, eventually first term squids will go to these ships and the whole plan will fall apart. There just simply are not enough sailors on board to train junior sailors and maintain mission effectiveness. I've been on board LCS-1, it is an impressive ship and I like the concept, but the execution needs a lot of work.

Yes I'd agree with that. If you're bored at work sit down and work out the crewing arrangements for a corvette with a 70 strong crew. By the time you man the ops room (cic), weapons, flight deck, machinery space's with enough crew for local control, these very little left for damage control. I don't see how the LCS could do it.

[F35Owns]

It seems to be that the low manning has become a major selling point of the new vessels, so that it is now "locked in" for political and other factors. Changing it might hence be difficult.

I guess they are gearing up for the UCAV days ahead. Can't really do that with a fridgate . Does anybody have any info on the Gerald Ford class carriers? I'm curious if they are going smaller or staying with the Nimitz class sized carriers....

In my opinion on the Carriers, they should go smaller. By the time the first one is into service (2012), that will be the time the F-35 is introduced. Really don't need a huge deck, for obvious reasons, and the X-47B doesn't need a huge deck either. A Carrier every 4 years, i'm assuming they will be more compact.

Finally, the USN is getting their butts into gear, with our Ship Building procedure.

BTW, I hope the LCS lives up to the hype, they are building 55 of them.

Gates knows something, we don't.

[StingrayOZ]

The lack of range is a significant blunder it my view.
The USN might need additional oilers, but it has a limited range but its not tiny. At a regular cruise speed, your still talking about intercontinental distances. After all they are Littoral combat ships

If you're bored at work sit down and work out the crewing arrangements for a corvette with a 70 strong crew. By the time you man the ops room (cic), weapons, flight deck, machinery space's with enough crew for local control, these very little left for damage control. I don't see how the LCS could do it.
With remote observation, automation with extreme redundancy etc damage control can still be reasonable. Most other navies get by with less man power than the USN for simular sized/function ship (but is that a good thing?). Perhaps there is a training issue with this sized ship, but the USN does operate a large fleet and training could be conducted on numerous other vessels. They are still large enough if these ships need to have high crew accododation levels a refit/new revision should solve that. These are prototypes, I would imagine they are looking heavily at crewing issues and concerns to get the best balance.

I don't see the USN carrier's getting much smaller. They will just carry high numbers of UAV's than other nations carriers.

[gf0012-aust]

With remote observation, automation with extreme redundancy etc damage control can still be reasonable. Most other navies get by with less man power than the USN for simular sized/function ship (but is that a good thing?).

As part of normal discussions, but specifically with respect to DDG-51 based vessels, the USN has worked very closely with RAN on seeing whether their manning levels can be reduced beyond their atypical levels.

Bottom line is that the USN has a view (and I agree) that there is a significant body of data available that for them reinforces that going below a certain manned level will impede the ability of a ships crew to recover a damaged vessel under various stages of combat damage.

The last thing I would be doing is basing crew members survival on a series of automated systems. Redundancy only goes so far. To maintain combat effectiveness, to keep the vessel intact while still fighting - and to not compromise the combat operations is the key. Being able to maintain and employ effective battle damage control while fighting is not something the americans take lightly - and they have more collective experience than everyone over the last 50 years. (and a few lessons learnt from the Falklands)

[AegisFC]

The lack of range is a significant blunder it my view. While you are correct that the LCS won't be deployed without support, the increased dependence of tankers for logistical support must surely increase the risk of operational failure, in the event the tanker is sunk or suffers from machinery failure. Operational failure, not withstanding the normal risks of combat operations to frigates etc, is less likley to happen when the vessel is less dependent on external logistical support. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the lost of a tanker(s) to either the LCS or longer legged frigate, would have an operational impact to both vessel's, but the impact to operations is reduced in a frigate due to its longer range.


At more moderate speeds its range goes up to around3,500 nmi, that isn't bad and it can also refuel from an Amphib or other larger ship near by if it really needed to.

I guess they are gearing up for the UCAV days ahead. Can't really do that with a fridgate . Does anybody have any info on the Gerald Ford class carriers? I'm curious if they are going smaller or staying with the Nimitz class sized carriers....

A simple Google search will reveal plenty of publicly available info on the ship.
They will be the same sized as a Nimitz.

In my opinion on the Carriers, they should go smaller. By the time the first one is into service (2012), that will be the time the F-35 is introduced. Really don't need a huge deck, for obvious reasons, and the X-47B doesn't need a huge deck either. A Carrier every 4 years, i'm assuming they will be more compact.

The USN has looked at the issue of smaller carriers quite a few times in the past and have always come to the conclusion that going smaller would not be a smart move. A Nimitz has endurance, plane numbers and more importantly plane support capabilities that is ahead of anything else afloat by a good margin.

F-35C needs the same amount of space to operate off of as a Hornet, and X-47 will still be catapult launched and will use arrested recovery.

Finally, the USN is getting their butts into gear, with our Ship Building procedure.

BTW, I hope the LCS lives up to the hype, they are building 55 of them.

Gates knows something, we don't.

USN shipbuilding program is broken and needs an overhaul, mission creep and not holding the builders to task on items of cost and quality control are serious problems. Right now the only classes that do not suffer massive cost overruns or QC problems are the Burkes and Virginia subs.

[gf0012-aust]

USN shipbuilding program is broken and needs an overhaul, mission creep and not holding the builders to task on items of cost and quality control are serious problems. Right now the only classes that do not suffer massive cost overruns or QC problems are the Burkes and Virginia subs.

although the recent investigation by NCIS into the welding supervisor on a few Virginias raises a whole string of issues about how effective that project management has been.....

[AegisFC]

although the recent investigation by NCIS into the welding supervisor on a few Virginias raises a whole string of issues about how effective that project management has been.....

That was a single welding inspector and a couple ships it is a problem but overall the entire program has been well run and on budget, quite a feat for a US program.

[gf0012-aust]

That was a single welding inspector and a couple ships it is a problem but overall the entire program has been well run and on budget, quite a feat for a US program.

I've attended a couple of meetings in the US re the Virginia program. I must say that I was singularly impressed by what I heard. The engineering results have been most impressive, especially considering that it was the first non-paper design project, and that it involved benching against completely unfamiliar performance parameters.

The problem however, is that the current investigation has only been triggered by people and not by systems checks. (and for the number of faulty welds, thats a huge systemic issue). It also raises the question on the uniform side of the management shop as to whether there are any others that are sitting in the fog.

There are quite a few people worried about the potential for the last sentence in my prev paragraph having some legs. (We did go through the same issues with No 1's bow section when it was welded by Kockums in Sweden) That boat was almost rendered unusable for safety reasons until everything was re-done. (would have been a huge issue on proximity shock tests - we could have sunk our own boat if not attended to). As I understand the current USN/NG probs, they're deficient welds but not in external critical sections, so can be redone very quickly.

I'd hate to see the penalty clauses.

But, the consistent feedback we got from a combined meeting (USN/NG/State/Dept Commerce) was that the program was something that all were very proud of. Get rid of the bad apples though....

[Valin]

Besides the massive cost overrun, touching on the original topic, the argument can be made that yes, the LCS is useful, but another question arises. What is it useful for?

Much noise has been made about its littoral combat capability. While the idea of designing a multi use ship in order to venture into the littorals to duke it out with sampans, junks, and Exocets may seem to be a great idea to some, I beg to differ. The very best weapon platforms to use in the littorals are helicopters. Mix in some Grunts supported by UCAVs and you will have a pretty sound blockade/QRF/combat support structure. To venture into a modern littoral battleground with a target like LCS would be suicide.

The best use for an LCS size platform is as a Brown water FOB/C4I nexus for UCAV/UUV, RHIB, Riverine/corvette types, Helicopters, SOF and Marines based off a Blue water Amphib Group. Blue->Brown-> Littoral/inland Force projection, coupled with a possible DDG-1000, for fire support and DDG-51 for area defense, while integrating the Harrier/F-35 complement of the Amphibious group can put the LCS in a position to be a contributing factor in tomorrows naval engagements. The idea of sending these ships into the litorals the way we might send a DDG into a regional hotspot makes me shudder. It is a great irony to me that when the US tries to design a new platform, we end up utilizing it the same way we did the old one, rather than developing doctrine to put the capabilities of the new platform to its best use.

If we make a habit of sending these over priced, undermanned, underprotected tin cans into the littorals, and utilize them in other peoples home court like we plan to, we will end up with a causalty rate greater than what the RN experienced at Falklands, if not greater, when the shooting starts.

In short, the platform is useful, but not for the task it is intended for in my opinion.

[gf0012-aust]

In short, the platform is useful, but not for the task it is intended for in my opinion.


Until the US Executive changes their mind, this ship class is here to stay. Gates has made it clear that the USN needs to start focussing and shifting its capability onto greenwater management and projection (which I have a fundamental disagreement with)

what that means is that the "1000 Ship Navy" is now also dead in the water...

[Grand Danois]

what that means is that the "1000 Ship Navy" is now also dead in the water...

For the not so bright people, like me, what does the incompatibility consist of?

[gf0012-aust]

how so?

It was originally predicated on the US picking up the heavy lifting and heavy hitting role and acting in concert with all sympathetic nations - and there were quite a few, most notably ex warsaw pact, ex communist states, and surprisingly (to me) south american states.

If the US is shifting its doctrine emphasis to greenwater fighting, then it fundamentally changes doctrine and capability participation for that concept.

She's (USN) already running lean, and the new administration is keen on running sigma 6 principles in procurement, when you start doing that your operations will by need, also start to wind back.

Maybe I'm a sentimentalist, but I look back on the halcyon days of the "sword and the shield" when Reagan was wedded to the principles of the 600 ship navy (and that was USN owning 600 combat ships, not "sharing and fudging" the count)

Granted they don't need a 600 ship principle combatant list, but their current numbers are decidedly unattractive.

[Grand Danois]

OK... The projection doctrine into green water is an exclusive affair, as US conops and equipment will be incompatible with the rest...(?)

I would also prefer the USN to provide the main fighting units that are simply out of reach for smaller nations, and then locals can add in with their green/brown/blue water units specialize in the locality - sort of like the old days.

[Valin]

I would also prefer the USN to provide the main fighting units that are simply out of reach for smaller nations, and then locals can add in with their green/brown/blue water units specialize in the locality - sort of like the old days.

That would be ideal, i think, but the problem is, when you take, for instance, China lobbing ASBMs out from behind the small carrier force they are growing,(or planning) who is going to go in and do the dirty work in the formosa strait? RoK maybe, or Japan, but that's totally contingent upon not having the little dictator up north not holding a big plutonium knife to their throats.

Also, the local-based greenwater element would require a commitment to getting involved with our greenwater friends when they need help, not just using them when we need it.

[tphuang]

OK... The projection doctrine into green water is an exclusive affair, as US conops and equipment will be incompatible with the rest...(?)

I would also prefer the USN to provide the main fighting units that are simply out of reach for smaller nations, and then locals can add in with their green/brown/blue water units specialize in the locality - sort of like the old days.

I would prefer the military budget to immediately get cut in half along with other cuts in the gov't, so I won't have to pay this ridiculously high tax ;)


Maybe I'm a sentimentalist, but I look back on the halcyon days of the "sword and the shield" when Reagan was wedded to the principles of the 600 ship navy (and that was USN owning 600 combat ships, not "sharing and fudging" the count)

Granted they don't need a 600 ship principle combatant list, but their current numbers are decidedly unattractive.

Given the current economic situation in America, US will bankrupt like the Soviet Union if it tries for a 600 ship navy


Until the US Executive changes their mind, this ship class is here to stay. Gates has made it clear that the USN needs to start focussing and shifting its capability onto greenwater management and projection (which I have a fundamental disagreement with)

Do they have any kind of feasible solution to retain 300 ships navy if they don't do this?

[Grand Danois]

I would prefer the military budget to immediately get cut in half along with other cuts in the gov't, so I won't have to pay this ridiculously high tax ;)

I'm not asking for anything that isn't in the current force structure.

I'm paying 63% marginal tax. Where's you at. :D

[Grand Danois]

That would be ideal, i think, but the problem is, when you take, for instance, China lobbing ASBMs out from behind the small carrier force they are growing,(or planning) who is going to go in and do the dirty work in the formosa strait? RoK maybe, or Japan, but that's totally contingent upon not having the little dictator up north not holding a big plutonium knife to their throats.

Also, the local-based greenwater element would require a commitment to getting involved with our greenwater friends when they need help, not just using them when we need it.

I was more looking at it in the same sentimentalist way as GF, ie. from a Cold War perspective.

Which is in ways similar to the Taiwan Straits theatre setting.

In the scenario you describe, the LCS would be murdered - LCS is meant to push into the littorals as a direct extension of the blue water battlegroup.

[tphuang]

I'm not asking for anything that isn't in the current force structure.

I'm paying 63% marginal tax. Where's you at. :D
Where are you at? Does that even exist in America?

I think I'm in the second highest income tax bracket in America, behind the traders/bankers.


Which is in ways similar to the Taiwan Straits theatre setting.

In the scenario you describe, the LCS would be murdered - LCS is meant to push into the littorals as a direct extension of the blue water battlegroup.

couldn't LCS serve the same role as Perry class? except faster and have MCM capability also?

[Ozzy Blizzard]

couldn't LCS serve the same role as Perry class? except faster and have MCM capability also?

AFAIK the LCS could act as an ASW platform much like the Pery with its ASW mission package. But as with everything else its sensors are optimized for the littorals.

[Grand Danois]

Where are you at? Does that even exist in America?

I think I'm in the second highest income tax bracket in America, behind the traders/bankers.

Sorry, it wasn't meant to come off as a dick waving contest. I just wanted to give our American readers a heart attack over the tax level here in Denmark. :D I can elaborate that this is the top bracket, but a third of all taxpayers in DK belong to that bracket. :P

couldn't LCS serve the same role as Perry class? except faster and have MCM capability also?

Funny you should mention the Perry, because I was thinking an updated "Perry" with room for the LCS modules would be a far more practical vessel. And more suitable in a "Taiwan Scenario".

[Scott]

Admittedly, I lack the expertise of most of those posting, but I would have guessed that LCS was destined to show up in the Persian Gulf/Strait of Hormuz.

Also wonder if deployment off the Horn of Africa for anti-piracy operations is a possibility, or have I just demonstrated that I have less depth than draught of LCS?

[Valin]

Admittedly, I lack the expertise of most of those posting, but I would have guessed that LCS was destined to show up in the Persian Gulf/Strait of Hormuz.

Also wonder if deployment off the Horn of Africa for anti-piracy operations is a possibility, or have I just demonstrated that I have less depth than draught of LCS?

It could theoretically be deployed to the Horn, but, a key issue in anti piracy ops is always going to be Manpower for the LCS. Galrahn had a great post about it over at Informationdissemination.net (http://www.informationdissemination.net)
in the context of why are we sending DDG-51's (a 2 Bn dollar warship, or in galrahneese, 'battleship'" instead of smaller, supposedly more suited to the task warships.

[Scott]

There are more builder's trial photos in the DT gallery. Also a pre-launch photo in dry-dock that gives a good view of the trimaran hull.

Littoral Combat Ships - Military Pictures - Air Force Army Navy Missiles Defense (http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/showgallery.php/cat/4869)

Apologies if this belongs in the pictures forum. Thought it appropriate here because of current discussion.

[Abraxas]

Hey guys. I'm new here but have some comments.

First, I accept the US's need for an LCS. As our wars become "smaller", support ships are needed to patrol nearby bodies of water, clear mines and hunt submarines... but I question whether the LCS program was executed as well as it should have been and whether its cost is really worth it... or simply means the whole program needs a thorough "shake-down".

Cheif among my concerns is whether modularity is really a neccessary quality. The belief that we need less ships if we increase variability seems flawed - or at best, overrated. There are still many missions this ship cannot participate in, and furthermore, the missions it can participate in require the vessel to be modified in a ship yard, which incurrs cost and time. Beyond that, it requires the support of friendly allies nearby if a US base is too far away. And the benefit is simply that an LCS can move from a surface support ship to an ASW ship.

Why not just build 2 ships and abandon the complications associated with modularity? At least at the end of the day you have 2 ships and not just one.

Another issue I have with this program is the fact that the Navy decided to impose construction standards WHILE the ships were being built. They basically took a completely new program, which was going to have problems anyway simply cause it's new, and decided to complicate things further. Nevermind the fact that this ship is already a departure from conventional naval construction, but they had to go ahead and make even MORE work for our already fledgling ship yards, increase prices and ultimately slow down procurrment.

Who in their right mind thought it was a good idea to do something like that? If nothing else, this reveals a MAJOR flaw in the administration tasked with this ship's construction.

And more of my own personal beef - why build both designs? I honestly just don't get that.

But despite my seemingly cantankerous criticism, I do have some good things to say.

First, it IS the ship we need right now. Barring unforseen operational issues, it was designed and outfitted well (I'm referring to Lockheed Martin's monohull USS Freedom - I'm not as big a fan of General Dynamics' trimaran). It's fast, small and capable - provided it's used right and fills a niche in the US Navy's fleet of large, blue-Navy warships.

But once the ship left the drawing board, its benefits have since been buried by its numerous inadequcies, IMO.

But that's just me...

[Sea Toby]

Hey guys. I'm new here but have some comments.
Why not just build 2 ships and abandon the complications associated with modularity? At least at the end of the day you have 2 ships and not just one.

Another issue I have with this program is the fact that the Navy decided to impose construction standards WHILE the ships were being built. They basically took a completely new program, which was going to have problems anyway simply cause it's new, and decided to complicate things further. Nevermind the fact that this ship is already a departure from conventional naval construction, but they had to go ahead and make even MORE work for our already fledgling ship yards, increase prices and ultimately slow down procurrment.

Who in their right mind thought it was a good idea to do something like that? If nothing else, this reveals a MAJOR flaw in the administration tasked with this ship's construction.

And more of my own personal beef - why build both designs? I honestly just don't get that.

But despite my seemingly cantankerous criticism, I do have some good things to say.

First, it IS the ship we need right now. Barring unforseen operational issues, it was designed and outfitted well (I'm referring to Lockheed Martin's monohull USS Freedom - I'm not as big a fan of General Dynamics' trimaran). It's fast, small and capable - provided it's used right and fills a niche in the US Navy's fleet of large, blue-Navy warships.

But once the ship left the drawing board, its benefits have since been buried by its numerous inadequcies, IMO.

But that's just me...

The ship is brand new, from top to bottom. Yes, the first few ships are expensive as new systems are included during the build. But that will mostly end when real production begins. There is not only competition with the ship designs, but there has also been competition with the module systems designs as well.

I agree, one ship should be built in numbers. But there is nothing wrong during development to build two. In the future a decision could be made to build only one. Choices usually result in lower prices when full production begins.

What shortcomings? Both designs are great! The real waste is building coastal minehunters which can't sail to the Indian Ocean where they are needed. Its a waste to build larger minehunters for American waters which can sail to the Indian Ocean. The genius of the LCS is to build an ASW ocean escort which can double as an effective minehunter.....

What shortcomings?

[StingrayOZ]

Both designs are wildly different and pioneering. For a long time ~30kt was the designed Vmax for many ships and I think LCS might challenge that. The crewing is another area the USN is experimenting. Weapon systems is another innovative area.

The USN is experienmenting with hull design and I think there will be a lot of postitives come out of LCS. More than the DDG10000 project. Its the first big step after the coldwar for naval design.

Its already having an impact with allies. Australia announced its going to build 20 OCV simular to the Austal LCS, Israel has shown interest in the monohull LCS. This is a ship(and weapon systems) other navies want and can afford to get.

Honestly I don't see how the LCS can be a loser. Its replacing a whole bunch of not so good boats and ships, its going to be capable than anything in those roles and its going to be the perfect ship to deploy modern UAV/UUV's from, yet extremely useful in humanitarian missions.

[kato]

Israel has shown interest in the monohull LCS. This is a ship(and weapon systems) other navies want and can afford to get.

Except Israel is apparently buying a Meko variant instead. LCS and other US offers considered too pricey.

[StingrayOZ]

Well I wouldn't rule out any sales of LCS ships or systems. I think there is a real potential market for a low cost mini LCS like the Austal OCV Australia is looking at.

[Abraxas]

The ship is brand new, from top to bottom. Yes, the first few ships are expensive as new systems are included during the build. But that will mostly end when real production begins. There is not only competition with the ship designs, but there has also been competition with the module systems designs as well.

I agree, one ship should be built in numbers. But there is nothing wrong during development to build two. In the future a decision could be made to build only one. Choices usually result in lower prices when full production begins.

I understand that, but the biggest issue facing our ship yards is the increasing complexity of new ships, causing yards to pay more full-time specialists, increasing the overall cost of the design. The trimaran is brand new, which is half the problem. The monohull seems far more conventional and has many of the same advantages as the trimaran, but it's not as complicated to construct.

Even if the trimaran preforms better in certain categories (speed likely to be the most likely), the benefits do not overcome the intigral issues with the ship's unique construction.

The cost plateu you speak of is lower for the monohull then the trimaran, and I have to wonder whether the Navy will take that into account when they determine which model to eventually choose.

What shortcomings? Both designs are great! The real waste is building coastal minehunters which can't sail to the Indian Ocean where they are needed. Its a waste to build larger minehunters for American waters which can sail to the Indian Ocean. The genius of the LCS is to build an ASW ocean escort which can double as an effective minehunter.....

What shortcomings?

The LCS concept has no shortcomings, which is why I fully support it.

The execution, though, has made me reasses its development.

It needs to be done better. Period.

Both designs are wildly different and pioneering. For a long time ~30kt was the designed Vmax for many ships and I think LCS might challenge that. The crewing is another area the USN is experimenting. Weapon systems is another innovative area.

The USN is experienmenting with hull design and I think there will be a lot of postitives come out of LCS. More than the DDG10000 project. Its the first big step after the coldwar for naval design.

I've got nothing nice to say about the Zumwalt, but that's a discussion for another time.

But I wanted to comment on your observation of the LCS's "pioneering" design. Do you believe it's actually a benefit?

Its already having an impact with allies. Australia announced its going to build 20 OCV simular to the Austal LCS, Israel has shown interest in the monohull LCS. This is a ship(and weapon systems) other navies want and can afford to get.

Honestly I don't see how the LCS can be a loser. Its replacing a whole bunch of not so good boats and ships, its going to be capable than anything in those roles and its going to be the perfect ship to deploy modern UAV/UUV's from, yet extremely useful in humanitarian missions.

It's to be expected that countries with small, brown water navies might show intrest in an LCS design and I don't doubt the ship's capabilities - but for the US Navy, right now, is it worth it? And has it been executed appropriately?

And if not, why should we not scream bloody murder when these same people are in charge of the DDG 1000 project?

Except Israel is apparently buying a Meko variant instead. LCS and other US offers considered too pricey.

And here is a source (http://www.janes.com/news/defence/naval/jni/jni090706_1_n.shtml), no less.

Well I wouldn't rule out any sales of LCS ships or systems. I think there is a real potential market for a low cost mini LCS like the Austal OCV Australia is looking at.

But it makes more economic sense to buy a cheaper alternative.

The MEKO A-100 is that cheaper alternative.

The rising cost of the LCS project was supposed to be supplanted by foreign investment, but we're quickly losing customers because the US Navy fumbled the ball on the goal line.

[gf0012-aust]

The trimaran is brand new, which is half the problem.

Its not "brand new". Its based on an extant hull that is over 20 years in development - and the 127m hull which is universally regarded as a groundbreaking design for its capability within length.

Even if the trimaran preforms better in certain categories (speed likely to be the most likely), the benefits do not overcome the intigral issues with the ship's unique construction.

There are pros and cons with the tri as well as the mono. I am curious as to what you see as the integral isssues with its construction....

The cost plateu you speak of is lower for the monohull then the trimaran, and I have to wonder whether the Navy will take that into account when they determine which model to eventually choose.

Thats relative to the purchase, the USN will not absorb any sunk development costs from the trimaran - so the cost plateau issue is debatable.

Austal at one stage had close to the 20% of the entire world market in ocean going multihulls - and australia had over 40% of the worlds multihull builds until recently. This is a mature design even if conceptually anathema to those unfamiliar with it. There is stacks of material on tri's - ranging from material acquired from the Russians, to the old DERA developments (then Qinetic) and then from Australias two major multihull builders. Having seen both Austal and INCAT ships up close, Austal really is the rolls royce of the two. there are some very very nice engineering elements (dimpled decks so as to avoid having to paint non slip surfaces, thus saving a fortune on deck maint issues etc....

The internal fitout options on multi's make current monos look positively archaic - we need to start looking at capability through new glasses. mono's
fail to perform missions as effectively in some regimes - even transonic hulls are outperforming them.


It's to be expected that countries with small, brown water navies might show intrest in an LCS design and I don't doubt the ship's capabilities - but for the US Navy, right now, is it worth it? And has it been executed appropriately?

incorrect terminology, a brown water navy is a riverine or inland navy. greenwater is when a navy has an extant capability to manage and defend within its EEZ (200mile limit)
LCS is far from being greenwater and certainly is not brownwater. You seem to be unaware of the size of australias coastline - and how varied it is. Our territorial issues have evolved from greenwater to foraying into the blue - so the trimaran hull is well within the mission set - and way outside the EEZ if necessary (esp NW and W Australia)

We've used small cheap boats before, they're not good value for money. Our territorial maritime management requirements are not much different from the US, Canada, Brazil etc....

And if not, why should we not scream bloody murder when these same people are in charge of the DDG 1000 project?



And here is a source (http://www.janes.com/news/defence/naval/jni/jni090706_1_n.shtml), no less.



But it makes more economic sense to buy a cheaper alternative.

The MEKO A-100 is that cheaper alternative.

The rising cost of the LCS project was supposed to be supplanted by foreign investment, but we're quickly losing customers because the US Navy fumbled the ball on the goal line.[/QUOTE]

[Abraxas]

Its not "brand new". Its based on an extant hull that is over 20 years in development - and the 127m hull which is universally regarded as a groundbreaking design for its capability within length.

Oh c'mon. You knew what I meant.

It's certaintly not common and is not a standard design that our shipyards are adequetly prepared to produce in large numbers.

There are pros and cons with the tri as well as the mono. I am curious as to what you see as the integral isssues with its construction....

That with the exception of aluminium hull plating (which is part of both designs), the monohull is at least similar to previous monohulls and can be assembled without drastic changes to procedure.

I'm evaluating these two ships at the construction phase of their development, believing their military capabilities to be relatively similar. Assuming this is correct, the next determining factor should be how easily the ships can be built... but I fear this never enters into anyone's mind, because if it did, the Navy would have NEVER set forth construction guidelines while the ship was being built.

Thats relative to the purchase, the USN will not absorb any sunk development costs from the trimaran - so the cost plateau issue is debatable.

Someone absorbs the cost. It seems a shame to screw the private contractors that designed and built the ship for you...

Austal at one stage had close to the 20% of the entire world market in ocean going multihulls - and australia had over 40% of the worlds multihull builds until recently. This is a mature design even if conceptually anathema to those unfamiliar with it. There is stacks of material on tri's - ranging from material acquired from the Russians, to the old DERA developments (then Qinetic) and then from Australias two major multihull builders. Having seen both Austal and INCAT ships up close, Austal really is the rolls royce of the two. there are some very very nice engineering elements (dimpled decks so as to avoid having to paint non slip surfaces, thus saving a fortune on deck maint issues etc....

The internal fitout options on multi's make current monos look positively archaic - we need to start looking at capability through new glasses. mono's
fail to perform missions as effectively in some regimes - even transonic hulls are outperforming them.

I'm not doubting the research on monohull design. My issue is whether the shipyards are equipped to build them. In my opinion, this asks too much of an industry that already has trouble handling the complexity of monohulls. Why shock the weakened system with multi-hulls?

And for what its worth, multihulls quickly lose their stability at higher drafts, which makes ships larger then destroyers poor candidates for multihull design schemes.

incorrect terminology...

Most likely.

I'm a naval architect (in training) and don't have a very good grasp of military terminology or technology, which is why I became a member of this forum.

I apologize in advance for the numerous mistakes I will make.

... a brown water navy is a riverine or inland navy. greenwater is when a navy has an extant capability to manage and defend within its EEZ (200mile limit)
LCS is far from being greenwater and certainly is not brownwater. You seem to be unaware of the size of australias coastline - and how varied it is. Our territorial issues have evolved from greenwater to foraying into the blue - so the trimaran hull is well within the mission set - and way outside the EEZ if necessary (esp NW and W Australia)

We've used small cheap boats before, they're not good value for money. Our territorial maritime management requirements are not much different from the US, Canada, Brazil etc....

I was looking at this from a monetary perspective, not so much the ship's role in a country's navy.

[kato]

It's to be expected that countries with small, brown water navies might show intrest in an LCS design and I don't doubt the ship's capabilities
For brown- and greenwater navies, the LCS isn't exactly the right thing either. Such navies that primarily operate within their EEZ and slightly beyond that can achieve better and cheaper results with smaller specialized boats (ie. corvettes or OPVs and MCM vessels).

There are a few navies that might show a similar requirement for what's essentially a highspeed bluewater OPV with MCM capability and as small helo carriers - such as Australia - but often the LCS will be a bit too much tailormade for the USN for these requirements.
Also, when you consider that for the price of a LCS, you can buy two or three Meko A100s or NUMC or Austal builds or other similar-sized vessels and upgrade them to provide similar capabilities in the fields desired short of the speed variable...

[gf0012-aust]

I'm a naval architect (in training) and don't have a very good grasp of military terminology or technology, which is why I became a member of this forum.

I apologize in advance for the numerous mistakes I will make.



No need to apologise. It will be interesting to see what Alexas says if he sees this thread. Having worked with a number of maritime engineers (subs and frigates), I've yet to see any of them synchronise their dance steps... :) No offence intended.

[StingrayOZ]

There are a few navies that might show a similar requirement for what's essentially a highspeed bluewater OPV with MCM capability and as small helo carriers - such as Australia - but often the LCS will be a bit too much tailormade for the USN for these requirements.
How many countries buy USN off the peg? Not many, most are heavily customised and built locally? How often is the USN the cheap design? There will be varients based off the LCS, its a parent in a new family.

Going from a patrol boat/corvette that cannot operate any aircraft to a OCV/LCS type vessel that can operate multiple large air rotary units is a huge capability change.

There are many possibilities, look at what the french are going with multi hull landing craft.

[gf0012-aust]

Oh c'mon. You knew what I meant.

well, I didn't. I haven't seen enough of your posts yet so I erred on the side of maybe making my comment literal. I certainly wasn't being precious. :)

It's certaintly not common and is not a standard design that our shipyards are adequetly prepared to produce in large numbers.

Hence why both Austal and INCAT set up US yards. 1) to comply with getting contracts, and 2) to t/f skills and capability into that sector.

I do recall a US Dept of Commerce Strategic/Executive report being presented (to the USG and ABCA aka "4 Eyes" community) approx 3 years ago where the report emphasised the need for US yards to accelerate new technology development and to embrace partnerships in those tech developments. I don't have the report handy, but as I understand it was done in the period where all the western navies and their respective industry bodies were looking at ways to save their industry from the encroachment made by Sth Korea (and at a merchant level) China.

I did meet the US Dept Commerce contact when he came out for the annual DARPA visit (they attend with Service reps as well as State Dept and sometimes NAVSEA)


Someone absorbs the cost. It seems a shame to screw the private contractors that designed and built the ship for you...

as far as Austal are concerned they are working from the legacy platform design (nicknamed the Beluga Express after the lead hull built some years before)


I'm not doubting the research on monohull design. My issue is whether the shipyards are equipped to build them. In my opinion, this asks too much of an industry that already has trouble handling the complexity of monohulls. Why shock the weakened system with multi-hulls?

I wouldn't have thought that the skillset and capability of the US builders for these kinds of vessels is that parlous. The reason for building in the US was stated as above, and certainly had the support of the US Executive and USN. The yard might be doing a USN design, but they're also out their successfully competing and building multi's for the private sector as well. Its hardly a literal greenfields capability.

AFAIK, the US was keen to get the capability in place. They've been looking at multi's for a long time - ever since they had observors attached to HMAS Jervis Bay during East Timor in 99, and as a result of their own assessment of the ex DERA trimaran (which funnily enough has ended up as a lease for our Navy for maritime patrol work in our north western waters


And for what its worth, multihulls quickly lose their stability at higher drafts, which makes ships larger then destroyers poor candidates for multihull design schemes.

It would be interesting to see what Alexas says if he is lurking or reading this. But, I would add that when NAVSEA were here, they were well aware that the Russians had some substantial designs (which were deemed technically viable) for large carrier, Tico sized combat vessels. DERA (at that time) had a number of designs available to Aust/UK/US which showed the viability of these platforms in various sea states. NAVSEA certainly thought the jury was out rather than in.

[Abraxas]

well, I didn't. I haven't seen enough of your posts yet so I erred on the side of maybe making my comment literal. I certainly wasn't being precious. :)

:(

Excuse me. That was rude of me and I apologize.

Hence why both Austal and INCAT set up US yards. 1) to comply with getting contracts, and 2) to t/f skills and capability into that sector.

I do recall a US Dept of Commerce Strategic/Executive report being presented (to the USG and ABCA aka "4 Eyes" community) approx 3 years ago where the report emphasised the need for US yards to accelerate new technology development and to embrace partnerships in those tech developments. I don't have the report handy, but as I understand it was done in the period where all the western navies and their respective industry bodies were looking at ways to save their industry from the encroachment made by Sth Korea (and at a merchant level) China.

I did meet the US Dept Commerce contact when he came out for the annual DARPA visit (they attend with Service reps as well as State Dept and sometimes NAVSEA)

...

as far as Austal are concerned they are working from the legacy platform design (nicknamed the Beluga Express after the lead hull built some years before)

That report sounds interesting, and I wouldn't mind reading it if you stumble across it again.

But let me preface this by saying I wish US shipyards were more independent. In my opinion, the ship building industry in this country is woefully inadequate and if we have to consult with foreign buisnesses to build our navy, then we're adding a layer of complexity (and cost) that doesn't need to be there.

I have nothing against Austal, INCAT or Australia in general - I just have a desire to keep the industry more independent. A lot of our problems are domestic, and I'm not blaming foreign companies or countries - I just wanna make that clear. But I don't really consider foreign consultation as a solution to the problem I presented.

I wouldn't have thought that the skillset and capability of the US builders for these kinds of vessels is that parlous. The reason for building in the US was stated as above, and certainly had the support of the US Executive and USN. The yard might be doing a USN design, but they're also out their successfully competing and building multi's for the private sector as well. Its hardly a literal greenfields capability.

AFAIK, the US was keen to get the capability in place. They've been looking at multi's for a long time - ever since they had observors attached to HMAS Jervis Bay during East Timor in 99, and as a result of their own assessment of the ex DERA trimaran (which funnily enough has ended up as a lease for our Navy for maritime patrol work in our north western waters

...

It would be interesting to see what Alexas says if he is lurking or reading this. But, I would add that when NAVSEA were here, they were well aware that the Russians had some substantial designs (which were deemed technically viable) for large carrier, Tico sized combat vessels. DERA (at that time) had a number of designs available to Aust/UK/US which showed the viability of these platforms in various sea states. NAVSEA certainly thought the jury was out rather than in.

My conclusion was based on some work for a class. I don't have that data with me, but I'll look at it again soon to refresh my memory.

[Sea Toby]

:(

Excuse me. That was rude of me and I apologize.



That report sounds interesting, and I wouldn't mind reading it if you stumble across it again.

But let me preface this by saying I wish US shipyards were more independent. In my opinion, the ship building industry in this country is woefully inadequate and if we have to consult with foreign buisnesses to build our navy, then we're adding a layer of complexity (and cost) that doesn't need to be there.

I have nothing against Austal, INCAT or Australia in general - I just have a desire to keep the industry more independent. A lot of our problems are domestic, and I'm not blaming foreign companies or countries - I just wanna make that clear. But I don't really consider foreign consultation as a solution to the problem I presented.



My conclusion was based on some work for a class. I don't have that data with me, but I'll look at it again soon to refresh my memory.U

I will agree the US could have built a smaller, cheaper, similar OPV. Unfortunately, the US Navy wished to consider newer designed hulls with more speed in mind. The US Navy also has with most of its ships designs a requirement for more range as well. To carry more fuel for more range, the US has to have larger ships. Alaska and Hawaii, the two states not directly connected to the other forty-eight states, and a number of US territories too, are the link for a need for ships with more range than many other navies.

Americans will never build ships as cheaply as other nations. For starters, our shipbuilders union wages have had an effect. We also need newer modernized shipbuilding facilities and wherewithal. While Ingalls built most of the NCL Pride of America cruise ship, America had lost the skill of building cruise ships. Ingalls can build sophisticated warships without a problem, and weld a cruise ship together easily, fitting out the vessel was another experience. The Pride of America had to be towed to Germany for a proper fit out.

But you are correct in claiming other navies are building more flexible modular ships, especially for the smaller minor warships. It appears all of the major navies are building more flexible modular ships, alike the LCS. I believe most of the navies are looking for affordable solutions to mine hunting using patrol ships which can double when needed to be mine hunting vessels, among other duties. Aa an American, I say why not experiment with what other navies have learned? The Danish led, the others are following....

[kato]

The US Navy also has with most of its ships designs a requirement for more range as well. To carry more fuel for more range, the US has to have larger ships.
LCS actually has a pretty short range, compared to European frigate designs at least. LCS-2 comes within European requirements, the range of LCS-1 is only comparable to that of e.g. the German K130 or a number of current OPV designs (which displace roundabout 40% less across the board).
For comparison as a frigate, the Dutch M-Class which isn't really all that much larger than LCS-1 (10% more displacement) has 50% more range. The endurance of 21 days is also standard for this ship size (and exceeded by the M-Class at 30 days).

Also, most OPV designs in the 1500-2000 ton range match or surpass the range and endurance data of the LCS designs, smaller designs usually fall short by only 10-20%. The one thing that isn't matched by anyone - because they don't see it as necessary - is the speed.

[turin]

The one thing that isn't matched by anyone - because they don't see it as necessary - is the speed.

...and the flight deck, at least as far as LCS-2 is concerned. I dont think, the LockMart-design is a convincing one for the package it offers, but the GD one really grows on me. Range is not too bad either, even though it certainly could be better. The speed-requirement did never sound too convincing to me, however.

Whats the exact flight deck-size of LCS-1 by the way? Seems like I cant find hard data on that, at least not right away.

It will be interesting to see where they are going decision-wise. At least as far as the hull is concerned they will have to make a fundamental decision. Cant see how they would "integrate" the different approaches taken by Freedom and Independence.

[kato]

LCS-1 supposedly has 1000 m² flight deck, about the same size as on LCS-2 ([source (http://www.satellite-evolution.com/Satellite%202007/Issues/GMC-Aug-web/marine.pdf)]).

[AegisFC]

...and the flight deck, at least as far as LCS-2 is concerned. I dont think, the LockMart-design is a convincing one for the package it offers, but the GD one really grows on me. Range is not too bad either, even though it certainly could be better. The speed-requirement did never sound too convincing to me, however.

Whats the exact flight deck-size of LCS-1 by the way? Seems like I cant find hard data on that, at least not right away.

It will be interesting to see where they are going decision-wise. At least as far as the hull is concerned they will have to make a fundamental decision. Cant see how they would "integrate" the different approaches taken by Freedom and Independence.

The flight decks on LCS-1 and 2 were both built to the same spec and can handle the same weight so the extra visible deck space on LCS-2 isn't really that much of a advantage.
Here is a few clippings from an interview with Read Adm Bill Landay, PEO for NAVSEA.

Rear Adm. Bill Landay - Defense News (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4083036)

Q. There have been some reports that there are structural concerns with the LCS 2's flight deck.

A. That's not true. It will hold the requirement; it will hold an H-60 helicopter. It has no problem holding H-60 helicopters.

Q. What about a CH-53?

A. That's a different story; that's not what the requirement was. There is no concern that I have seen in my programs nor in talking with the technical codes of that ship's flight deck to handle the types of aircraft it was designed to handle.

[JonMusser]

I guess they are gearing up for the UCAV days ahead. Can't really do that with a fridgate . Does anybody have any info on the Gerald Ford class carriers? I'm curious if they are going smaller or staying with the Nimitz class sized carriers....

In my opinion on the Carriers, they should go smaller. By the time the first one is into service (2012), that will be the time the F-35 is introduced. Really don't need a huge deck, for obvious reasons, and the X-47B doesn't need a huge deck either. A Carrier every 4 years, i'm assuming they will be more compact.

Finally, the USN is getting their butts into gear, with our Ship Building procedure.

BTW, I hope the LCS lives up to the hype, they are building 55 of them.

Gates knows something, we don't.

as far as I know the Ford class will Displace 100,000 tons only 1000 tons lighter than the Nimitz

[Commander Eagle]

I heard that the Congress proposed that all new Naval Warship are to be Nuclear Powered uncless they are of not National Importance to avoid the skyroketting oil prices. Anyone heard of proposal of the LCS power plant being switched to Nuclear power?

Admin: If you are stating and making claims then its good form to provide a source - otherwise we end up with tall stories and conspiracy theories trotted out as fact

[Sea Toby]

I heard that the Congress proposed that all new Naval Warship are to be Nuclear Powered uncless they are of not National Importance to avoid the skyroketting oil prices. Anyone heard of proposal of the LCS power plant being switched to Nuclear power?

Admin: If you are stating and making claims then its good form to provide a source - otherwise we end up with tall stories and conspiracy theories trotted out as fact

Nuclear power for submarines and aircraft carriers, yes. But nuclear power for other ships I doubt. Mainly due to manpower requirements. What makes a nuclear power plant expensive is the number of redundant systems which requires more operators to run. Plus there is an increased security presence. Whatever you save in fuel costs will be overwhelmed with personnel costs.

While the rest of us should move away from oil with alternative energies, naval warships and ships in general won't be able to do so as easily... And this is from a man who owns some land with oil wells pumping and windmills spinning in Texas....