Littoral Combat Ships are they useful?

[Juramentado]

Not much faith in the FireScouts?

...

Now that I think about it, I believe that LCSs with two MQ-8s and one Seahawk is my preferred armament.

One question: The LCS has a core crew of 50 but a capacity at 75. Does this allow for an attachment of Marines?

I don't think my reply denounced the abilities of the FireScout in any way. As I said - it's about capabilities and what the mission calls for. If you need a stealthy track and monitor or longer range and endurance, FireScout is a better solution. But if you need to deliver a VBSS team, Seahawk is what you should call for. Ship commanders like options, so it's definitely going to be a mix of both air assets going forward. But if you have the luxury of knowing in advance what tools to bring to the job, wouldn't you take the option of doubling up on what you know you need more?

Armed UAVs are already proven (Predator for one), so it's now a matter of getting beyond IOC (which for FireScout started somewhere in '09) and getting to operational deployment phase. Eventually an armed FireScout will be an option, but for now, getting a more accurate picture of what's around you without the other guy knowing about it is a pretty powerful tool in of itself.

Right now, none of the three core mission packages call for that many attachments in terms of infantry troops. That's not to say LCS couldn't embark them. The initial CONOPS written for the platform called for the ability to deliver SOF troops, provide for their habitability as well as the attached air or small boat assets to deliver them to their objective.

 

[huskerguy7]

I don't think my reply denounced the abilities of the FireScout in any way. As I said - it's about capabilities and what the mission calls for. If you need a stealthy track and monitor or longer range and endurance, FireScout is a better solution. But if you need to deliver a VBSS team, Seahawk is what you should call for. Ship commanders like options, so it's definitely going to be a mix of both air assets going forward. But if you have the luxury of knowing in advance what tools to bring to the job, wouldn't you take the option of doubling up on what you know you need more?

Armed UAVs are already proven (Predator for one), so it's now a matter of getting beyond IOC (which for FireScout started somewhere in '09) and getting to operational deployment phase. Eventually an armed FireScout will be an option, but for now, getting a more accurate picture of what's around you without the other guy knowing about it is a pretty powerful tool in of itself.

Right now, none of the three core mission packages call for that many attachments in terms of infantry troops. That's not to say LCS couldn't embark them. The initial CONOPS written for the platform called for the ability to deliver SOF troops, provide for their habitability as well as the attached air or small boat assets to deliver them to their objective.

Yeah, I think our opinions share some similarities. I imagine that the the LCSs will first be deployed with Seahawks. However, in the long run, I see MQ-8s playing a larger role.

I guess that with littoral operations a VBSS team is sufficient. However, training VBSSs for some land operations wouldn't be a bad idea. Even though it's something that they likely won't encounter, it could come in handy. Say there is intelligence of an AQ leader off the coast of Southern Somalia. If no other forces are in the area to capture this leader, a VBSS might be our only option...do you understand at what I'm trying to point out?

 

[F-15 Eagle]

I don't agree. The USN needs a low end ship, a FF replacement not more Burkes or carriers the Perries won't last much longer. The Perries are rode hard and put away wet, they need replacement and thanks to Rummy and Co. the LCS's are the only option.

OK you have a fair point, but does the USN really need 60 of them? I think 30 LCS is way more than enough IMHO.

 

[Sea Toby]

OK you have a fair point, but does the USN really need 60 of them? I think 30 LCS is way more than enough IMHO.

To provide a proper escort during wartime for the supply ships, each convoy of supply ships require six escorts, not one. To provide a proper escort during wartime of merchant convoys require another six escorts .If we have more than five supply ship convoys and five trans Atlantic and Pacific merchant convoys, we will run out of escorts.
The only reason why the numbers are so low is that we are depending upon allies to help with escorting merchant convoys. If we don't get that help we would have to provide only three or four escorts per convoy.

Back during the Reagan years and before we had over 100 frigates in the flleet. Having only 55-60 is a low number in my opinion. Simply put we need a number of escorting ships as well as front line warships escorting our carrier and amphibious task groups.

Without mid ocean escorts our battle fleet would run out of supplies, and our troops abroad would not be supplied. The ending of the Cold War may have reduced the demand for mid ocean escorts, but anyone planning for the next war will want at least enough for flexibility...

The Burke Flight I program started with providing replacements for Adams and Coontz class destroyers. Flight II provided replacements for Spruance/Kidd class destroyers. When we cut the carrier force down from 12 to 11 the Virginia and California classes were not replaced. The Belknap and Leahy class cruisers along with their nuclear sisters were replaced by the Ticenderoga class. More or less generally speaking...

 

[AegisFC]

The Burkes aren't overbuilt. The Ticos are aging and can't be considered core assets to the latest threat - BMD. The Burkes are all being retrofitted to address BMD requirements to compensate for the cancellation of CG(X).

The only TIco's that can't do BMD (as in can't take the BMD mods) are the SPY-1A ships, the SPY-1B ships are being fairly rapidly converted to BMD and they are supposed to get multi-mission SIGPRO and the other SPY-1D(V) goodies during the Cruiser Mod upgrade program.

 

[AegisFC]

AegisFC: Does the US Navy really still need Frigates? Do the FF's still play a vital role in the Navy?

Yes, a Frigate is cheaper to operate and deploy for general patrol operations, showing the flag in friendly countries, hunting pirates or drug runners, escort supply ships and amphibs and with 2 helo hangars (even though they usually deploy with 1 SH-60) they are still pretty decent at ASW warfare.

OK you have a fair point, but does the USN really need 60 of them? I think 30 LCS is way more than enough IMHO.

The Navy says they want 60, but they will in the end probably wind up with 30 or 40. It is all politics, the USN says it needs 60 and fully expects Congress to cut the numbers built. I think the final number built will depend on how the blue and gold crew concept works, how much they cost to maintain and how many crew they will REALLY need.

 

[Juramentado]

The only TIco's that can't do BMD (as in can't take the BMD mods) are the SPY-1A ships, the SPY-1B ships are being fairly rapidly converted to BMD and they are supposed to get multi-mission SIGPRO and the other SPY-1D(V) goodies during the Cruiser Mod upgrade program.

Understood - but if you look at the numbers of Ticos that are in fact going to be converted, my comment makes more sense. There are currently three cruisers which have the BMD 3.6 baseline installed - Shiloh, Lake, Erie and Port Royal. That's out of a potential pool of fifteen. There's plans to convert two more. Yes, all SPY-1B capable cruisers could support BMD, but they're not all going to be upgraded. Compare that to the Burkes converted - 15 out of of 62, and the eventual plan is to upgrade all of Burkes to BMD baseline. My intel was as of 09-2009.

 

[Sea Toby]

With an American Congress and administration coming to terms with the overruns of just about every defense program underway, its more likely the more expensive items on the defense department lists of buys will be cancelled while the least expensive items survive...

Its likely the CGX program will be replaced by Burke IIIs, while the DDGX program has already been limited to just three. If the US Navy wants new ships in numbers, this leaves the LCS program to buy in numbers. While the LCS program has overruns as well, as I said before $500 million is a whole lot cheaper than $2 or $ 3 billion...

While the Congress last year was spending for a stimulus, in the future there will be significant budget cuts considering the huge deficit. The administration and Congress have already agreed to stretching out carrier acquisitions to five year intervals from the previous four year intervals. It wouldn't surprise me if the carrier fleet was dropped another one or two ships, which would lead to further cuts throughout the fleet...

Simply put, considering the deficit, the fleet won't be growing much in the future. Any hopes of maintaining a similar number of ships in the fleet resides with the LCS program... You are dreaming if you think many more Burkes will be bought in place of LCS...

 

[Sea Toby]

I found this magazine article of the LCS very informing. Please read:

Builders of the Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship Pull Out All the Stops

 

[huskerguy7]

I found this magazine article of the LCS very informing. Please read:

Builders of the Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship Pull Out All the Stops

( ((
\ =\
__\_ `-\
(____))( \----
(____)) _
(____))
(____))____/----


Nice article. I'm happy i read that.

Bookmarked

 

[Juramentado]

I found this magazine article of the LCS very informing. Please read:

Builders of the Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship Pull Out All the Stops

I personally prefer Mike Burleson's LCS Weekly...a voice of relative sanity in the happy-happy world of excessive defense procurement...

LCS Alternative Weekly « New Wars

Good comment on the Indian Corvette (ahem - a corvette by that name would be a very light frigate in any other navy, and something to respect to boot). Also the Hawaii Superferry blog cross-posting was a good find.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Interesting article. I think its an exciting project, even tho its not a big ship project (ie carrier or destroyer).

Some of the technologies and approaches are pretty novel. It will be interesting to see what they choose and how it influences future ship design/ procurement. The LCS isn't a burke replacement, but will replace far less capable ships in decent numbers.

 

[Juramentado]

Long term projection planning is hard. This is why 30 year plans rarely survive intact. It's made harder when you build and market an asset and then realize later that it's not what you actually needed, so you try to make it work anyway.

Lockheed Martin LCS Design Provides Commonality with U.S. Navy Fleet

Which totally goes against the CONOPS written by *any* of the dominant thinking in the LCS debate, pro or con. LCS wasn't built or intended for heavy Blue Water ops. Either it's a "gimmie" to showcase the integration of LCS into the fleet or someone needs to adjust their thinking cap.

 

[AegisFC]

Understood - but if you look at the numbers of Ticos that are in fact going to be converted, my comment makes more sense. There are currently three cruisers which have the BMD 3.6 baseline installed - Shiloh, Lake, Erie and Port Royal. That's out of a potential pool of fifteen. There's plans to convert two more. Yes, all SPY-1B capable cruisers could support BMD, but they're not all going to be upgraded. Compare that to the Burkes converted - 15 out of of 62, and the eventual plan is to upgrade all of Burkes to BMD baseline. My intel was as of 09-2009.

2 Ticos in Norfolk just got BMD in the last 6 or so months and a couple more are scheduled to get it this year. The problem with using the Tico's for BMD is that normally they are protecting the carrier and can't be peeled off to go sit in a geographical "box" somewhere in case a BMD mission pops up, unlike a Burke who often do independent steaming.

 

[fretburner]

I posted this in the other thread: House Authorizers Shift NLOS R&D Funding to Navy

According to a congressional source, the House Armed Services seapower and expeditionary forces subcommittee's markup will also include the additional $75 million for the Navy to complete NLOS-LS development.

Although the Army decided in April to recommend canceling the NLOS-LS program, Pentagon acquisition executive Ashton Carter has yet to make a final decision on the acquisition category 1 program. Originally part of the Army's Future Combat Systems program, NLOS-LS also is intended for the Navy's Littoral Combat Ship.

The statement above is of course and understatement. There's not a lot of alternatives for the LCS. And without such a system, the LCS will not be able to do what it's supposed to do.

 

[Juramentado]

I posted this in the other thread: House Authorizers Shift NLOS R&D Funding to Navy

According to a congressional source, the House Armed Services seapower and expeditionary forces subcommittee's markup will also include the additional $75 million for the Navy to complete NLOS-LS development.

Although the Army decided in April to recommend canceling the NLOS-LS program, Pentagon acquisition executive Ashton Carter has yet to make a final decision on the acquisition category 1 program. Originally part of the Army's Future Combat Systems program, NLOS-LS also is intended for the Navy's Littoral Combat Ship.

The statement above is of course and understatement. There's not a lot of alternatives for the LCS. And without such a system, the LCS will not be able to do what it's supposed to do.

I *know* the LCS Mafia (shades of the USAF Fighter Mafia in the 80s! ) here will jump all over me for this, but quite frankly, this is a very ironic situation. The very rationale that modularity was a key selling point of LCS flies in the face of this development. Had true modularity been built into the Mission Module design, something that was harped on again and again in cautionary statements as far back as 2002, DoN wouldn't be in the position of having to revive a USD 1B program that the Army walked away from. Talk about good money after bad. Is it a full moon out?

 

[Juramentado]

Navy Soliciting RFIs for NLOS Replacements

There's a solicitation open for a Surface-to-Surface Missile system that will fit in the Medium Range SSM Module - the same one on the LCS that's now empty thanks to the NLOS cancellation.

Seeking SSM Solutions for Surface Warfare Module

A couple of things to consider - either the Navy is doing the logical thing and opening the field to other candidates that can be deployed sooner, or they're building a strawman list and internally decided (foolishly IMHO) to continue down the NLOS path. Hopefully it's the former...

 

[Juramentado]

Update on NLOS-LS Bid Replacement

Some interesting amendments based on pre-bid questions:

Some of the amendments show the Navy is unwilling to release the LCS Capabilities Development Document , but the indications are that the bay will provide GPS, DC and Fire Enable Auth services - so it's still mostly NLOS oriented (no surprise). Neither will any Interface Control Documents be provided.

Question #6 - Can the Weapon/Launcher exceed the dimensions of the standard SUW Mission Module of 4.8m x 4.25m x 2.5m, mainly in height above deck?Response - Yes, the vertical dimension can be exceeded by 1.3m above the coaming.

Question #7 - Is there a not-to-exceed maximum weight requirement for the launcher loaded with weapons? Response - No, there is no specific maximum weight requirement allocated for the launcher fully loaded with weapons. However, there is a 7500 kg (16,535 lbs) maximum weight requirement for the entire LCS Weapon Zone. This weight requirement includes the launcher, weapons, and supporting mission module equipment. As the weight of the weapon and/or launcher increases, the number of weapons that can be accommodated decreases.

Question #8 - Will any portion of the existing NLOS-LS launcher or electronics package be made available for integration of a new weapon? Response - Possibly, existing mission module hardware and/or electronics could be made available to an offeror with a viable solution, but the specifics of any integration activities or efforts will be determined by the government on a case-by-case basis.

And the list of interested vendors is available - the usual suspects - LM , Northrop Grumman and a new but familiar player - MBDA(!) and what appears to be a minority-owned/operated cooperative called American Information Management Systems.

The bid still calls for a strike missile only - no dual-role SAM capability (!) so it would appear LCS will still go forth having to rely on a Burke or Tico, making that SeaRAM/RAM more important than ever in a full-spectrum threat environment.

 

[swerve]

...
And the list of interested vendors is available - the usual suspects - LM and GD and a new but familiar player - MBDA(!) ...

Why the exclamation mark? Look at some of the other LCS kit: BAe/Bofors gun, EADS radar (already bought by the USCG) . . . . between them, BAe & EADS own 75% of MBDA.

 

[Juramentado]

Why the exclamation mark? Look at some of the other LCS kit: BAe/Bofors gun, EADS radar (already bought by the USCG) . . . . between them, BAe & EADS own 75% of MBDA.

The (!) is because typically missile acquisitions are influenced by a Not-Invented-Here syndrome when it comes to the US Navy. With the exception of Penguin, I cannot think of a Navy missile that is not primarily designed and manufactured by a wholly US maker. So it's rare to see a foreign-based manufacturer (even with US subsidiaries) vying for a piece of a major fires bid.