US Navy News and updates

[StobieWan]

I have direct experience in balsa cored FRP small working ships (200 - 500 tonnes). The three vessels are now 30 to 40 years old and the structure is as good as day one. If the outer glass is damaged and water ingresses there can be problems but the fix is dead easy.

In most cases the balsa is not laid flat, the grain/core is all end grain and immensly strong.

Well, there we go then It's light, strong, self extinguishing, and if constructed and maintained properly, is good for the working life of a ship -- and in DDG1000, the structure in question isn't even normally wet.

I'll be interested in seeing how it works out,

Ian

 

[Belesari]

The Navy is getting what it asked for. The pundits look,at it from their own skewed perspective. Never shall the twain meet.

Return Fire on the Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship | U.S. | TIME.com

Theres pundits and then there are the people who know exactly what they are talking about. So far it seems they have gotten it right far more than the other side. They dont like LCS. They agree'd something outside of a frigate like the FFG's were needed but LCS was not it.

 

[Belesari]

I have direct experience in balsa cored FRP small working ships (200 - 500 tonnes). The three vessels are now 30 to 40 years old and the structure is as good as day one. If the outer glass is damaged and water ingresses there can be problems but the fix is dead easy.

In most cases the balsa is not laid flat, the grain/core is all end grain and immensly strong.

Yes but how will it do in a 14,000ton vessel twisting and turning in terrible weather and in massive sections. Not saying your wrong its just......to me LCS, DDG-1K, all of it seems to have been so driven by ego and power points that everyone forgot the old enemy murphy. Instead of gradually working out the kinks of all the tech a little at a time they just threw everything they knew away and went crazy.

Now optimal manning has fallen flat on its face, the LCS is left neither fish nor fowl, and-trust me on this the LCS is NO WHERE near done with its teething issues. There isnt enough birthing space or other crew needs for some of the modules and such.

We'll see with the DDG's. Still alot of things in their design i dont like.

 

[ASSAIL]

Yes but how will it do in a 14,000ton vessel twisting and turning in terrible weather and in massive sections. Not saying your wrong its just......to me LCS, DDG-1K, all of it seems to have been so driven by ego and power points that everyone forgot the old enemy murphy. Instead of gradually working out the kinks of all the tech a little at a time they just threw everything they knew away and went crazy.

Now optimal manning has fallen flat on its face, the LCS is left neither fish nor fowl, and-trust me on this the LCS is NO WHERE near done with its teething issues. There isnt enough birthing space or other crew needs for some of the modules and such.

We'll see with the DDG's. Still alot of things in their design i dont like.

Most people know FRP from the perspective of eggshell thin production yachts and power boats. Generally these are rubbish and should be held in contempt.
A properly built FRP structure does not crack, does not rust, does not need paint, absorbs radio energy and is absolutely ideal for seawater applications.

The biggest problem that I see for the Zumalt will come when she decommissions. What do you do with the superstructure?
The Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) has mandated that the only way our ships can be disposed of, when the time comes, is by cutting them up in small pieces by chainsaw and putting them into landfill!

As you can tell, I'm a true believer in this stuff.

The only caveat, when it comes to warships, is that its almost impossible to change the structure. Once you've got it its there for the life of the ship

 

[colay]

Theres pundits and then there are the people who know exactly what they are talking about. So far it seems they have gotten it right far more than the other side. They dont like LCS. They agree'd something outside of a frigate like the FFG's were needed but LCS was not it.

The Navy was quite specific about what the LCS is going to be and where it is primarily meant to operate, namely the littorals.. shouldn't be hard to figure out, it's the "L" in the LCS after all.. those who insist in shoehorning it into the traditional frigate role/model are so disconnected with the reality of the program and what the direction the Navy is heading. If the Navy wanted a traditional frigate, they would have specified one but they didn't because it wouldnt be optimum platform,for that environment.
Not saying an update frigate couldn't serve a purpose but bashing the LCS won't turn it into a FFG. Really bizarre to criticize something fornwhat it aint. Maybe if Romney gets elected he'll find the money for,frigates but for now the Navy wants it's 50 LCS.

 

[Milne Bay]

The Navy was quite specific about what the LCS is going to be and where it is primarily meant to operate, namely the littorals.. shouldn't be hard to figure out, it's the "L" in the LCS after all.. those who insist in shoehorning it into the traditional frigate role/model are so disconnected with the reality of the program and what the direction the Navy is heading. If the Navy wanted a traditional frigate, they would have specified one but they didn't because it wouldnt be optimum platform,for that environment.
Not saying an update frigate couldn't serve a purpose but bashing the LCS won't turn it into a FFG. Really bizarre to criticize something fornwhat it aint. Maybe if Romney gets elected he'll find the money for,frigates but for now the Navy wants it's 50 LCS.

Perhaps, with shrinking budgets, Navy will simply have to use what it's got. LCS isn't a frigate, but - of necessity - might have to act like one sometimes.

 

[colay]

Perhaps, with shrinking budgets, Navy will simply have to use what it's got. LCS isn't a frigate, but - of necessity - might have to act like one sometimes.

I suspect you're right to some extent.,The emphasis on the ASW module has shifted from barrier to in-stride anti-sub detection which expands it's capabilities to include open ocean operations per the GAO report..,something "frigate-like"..
The LCS is still in the "ugly duckling" stage..still evolving, both in tech and how it is going to operate so quite unrealistic to have a beautiful swan right out of the egg. Definitely not the turkey some would make it out to be.

 

[the concerned]

IT makes sense when the cold war ended the US and its nato allies were well equiped for asw so the perry class frigates and spruance class weren't needed as much .Now with the shift in attention to the east you now have China and north korean subs to contend with so an asw capability is now needed because although the US has numerous allies can it really depend on them to back the US up in out of area disputes.Take a look at the Iranians the main concern for the US would still be the Kilo class subs.

 

[t68]

Do you think they will stop at 22 ships?

Would participating with the UK in the Type 26 Global Combat Ship have a better outcome for USN for dedicated ASW Frigates as part of mixed force of LCS and a traditional Frigate?

 

[colay]

do you think they will stop at 22 ships


the stated intent is to have a fleet of 55 lcs. Expect the navy to pause and take stock after the 20 additional ships have been built.,

the flexibility afforded by the modular mission modules has spurred the navy to consider additional roles for the lcs in addition to the asuw, asw and mcm missions originally identified.

lcs dives into irregular warfare with new mission package

would participating with the uk in the type 26 global combat ship have a better outcome for usn for dedicated asw frigates as part of mixed force of lcs and a traditional frigate?

maybe if romney is elected he will push through with his campaign promises to build up the navy, including a new frigate.

. . .

 

[Blackshoe]

The biggest problem that I've seen with the LCS is that it was designed to do a few things, and be an open-ocean ASW escort was not one of them (I distinctly remember press conferences with then CNO ADM Mullen/Roughead, and maybe even AMD Clark saying that LCS was not going to replace the frigate's mission set).

And now we're pressing it towards doing open-ocean ASW. It reminds me of the plight of the battlecruiser. Designed to do one thing (patroling the Empire's long sea lines of communication against German commerce raiders), it ended up being pressed into the gun line against the Hochseeflotte where the Brits found out that there was something wrong with their bloody ships.

I think LCS will be fine if we use it for the non-intensive combat missions-showing the flag, presence, VBSS/MIO, etc. Even for littoral ASW and MIW (provided we ever get modules for it). But if we try to put it into the battle-line, I predict a disaster.

 

[RobWilliams]

Do you think they will stop at 22 ships?

Would participating with the UK in the Type 26 Global Combat Ship have a better outcome for USN for dedicated ASW Frigates as part of mixed force of LCS and a traditional Frigate?

That'd be pretty freakin' sweet.

It'd be a decent step up from a Perry (in the right direction, IMO). I'd prefer a mix of ASW frigates + LCS rather than just LCS for that role, but that could turn into "The government doesn't trust the LCS for ASW work, what else can they not trust it to do? DESTROY IT!".

Weapons/sensors wise, it should be able to carry whatever the USN would want to slap on it, the issue being; how many?

EDIT: All academic, of course.

 

[colay]

The biggest problem that I've seen with the LCS is that it was designed to do a few things, and be an open-ocean ASW escort was not one of them (I distinctly remember press conferences with then CNO ADM Mullen/Roughead, and maybe even AMD Clark saying that LCS was not going to replace the frigate's mission set).

And now we're pressing it towards doing open-ocean ASW. It reminds me of the plight of the battlecruiser. Designed to do one thing (patroling the Empire's long sea lines of communication against German commerce raiders), it ended up being pressed into the gun line against the Hochseeflotte where the Brits found out that there was something wrong with their bloody ships.

I think LCS will be fine if we use it for the non-intensive combat missions-showing the flag, presence, VBSS/MIO, etc. Even for littoral ASW and MIW (provided we ever get modules for it). But if we try to put it into the battle-line, I predict a disaster.

The enhanced ASW capability would allow it to escort and protect supply convoys against the sub threat whereas with the previous kit it seemed to be restricted to protecting fixed locations e.g. a beachhead.. don't know if the intent is to have it as part of a CBG.

 

[t68]

That'd be pretty freakin' sweet.

It'd be a decent step up from a Perry (in the right direction, IMO). I'd prefer a mix of ASW frigates + LCS rather than just LCS for that role, but that could turn into "The government doesn't trust the LCS for ASW work, what else can they not trust it to do? DESTROY IT!".

Weapons/sensors wise, it should be able to carry whatever the USN would want to slap on it, the issue being; how many?

EDIT: All academic, of course.

Well actually I think if the Anglo sphere nations can create a program similar to the Joint Strike Fighter Program together it has benefits for all concerned it can only be a win-win for all involved. Shipbuilding can be still completed at each country or used to gather cost saving in having 2 lines in the UK or US.

 

[AegisFC]

The NATO common frigate project died for a reason. NAVSEA took a look at the project and eventually decided that by time everyone customized the ship with preferred weapons, sensor, aux equipment, radio and CIC fit-out as well as costs for local production any cost savings from a common design went out the window.

 

[Sea Toby]

. . .

Frankly, the US Navy doesn't want ASW escorting frigates. The Navy has always considered frigates as underarmed destroyers, and would rather have another destroyer. Haven't you noticed US frigates usually have only one screw? Many in the navy didn't even want to place SM-1 SAM missiles on the Oliver Hazard Perry class when we built them, and didn't have a heart attack when they removed that missile launcher. They were added mainly because during the Cold War the Soviets used their Bear aircraft on long range mid ocean patrols and flew at high altitudes. Otherwise the navy would have been very happy with a short range SAM such as Sea Sparrow.

Today the navy would be very happy with even a shorter range and more deadly SAM such as RAM for its mid ocean ASW escorts. Notice the LCS have RAM or SeaRam. In littoral operations the navy would also rather have RAM than Evolved Sea Sparrow too. Without a doubt the navy does not wish to over spend on weapons and systems for the LCS or frigate which will consume funds to spend on destroyer weapons and systems.

Unfortunately not every LCS mission module has been as successful as the navy had hoped for.

 

[fretburner]

^ So the USN never had a requirement for a Perry-class replacement? Or did you simply mean that this was just pushed further back in their priority list? Romney seems to want a Perry-class replacement. I don't think he would have made that "requirement" himself.

Makes me wonder though... what's the USN's priority list like for in-development and totally-new ships?

1. Gerald Ford-class carriers
2. New BMD ships - either Burke Flight 3 or more Zumwalts?
3. Ohio-class replacement
4. Perry-class replacement?

More Virginia-class subs, LCS, LPD-17, JHSV are pretty much a done deal right? It's just the final numbers which are being continuously evaluated.

And talk about the Virginia-class subs -- who gets to be in the Seawolf vs Virginia?

 

[Belesari]

Sounds like a movie on the scifi channel. Just after wrestling.

^ So the USN never had a requirement for a Perry-class replacement? Or did you simply mean that this was just pushed further back in their priority list? Romney seems to want a Perry-class replacement. I don't think he would have made that "requirement" himself.

Makes me wonder though... what's the USN's priority list like for in-development and totally-new ships?

1. Gerald Ford-class carriers
2. New BMD ships - either Burke Flight 3 or more Zumwalts?
3. Ohio-class replacement
4. Perry-class replacement?

More Virginia-class subs, LCS, LPD-17, JHSV are pretty much a done deal right? It's just the final numbers which are being continuously evaluated.

And talk about the Virginia-class subs -- who gets to be in the Seawolf vs Virginia?

 

[colay]

If the Navy did decide in the future that it needed a FF, what are the chances that they would go with a platform based on the LCS hull? Both LM and Austal have been pitching their versions of a multi-mission combatant/surface combat ship that offer more potent offensive and defensive arsenals (e.g. ESSM, Standard Missiles, bigger gun, Harpoon, bow-mounted sonar, ASW torpedoes, etc.).

Costs are increasingly a key factor in procurement decisions. Separating the platform from the mission payload offers significant savings by capitalizing on an existing seaframe design and an active production line. Much of the mission and weapons systems are mature and just entail integration effort. 1

 

[fretburner]

Sounds like a movie on the scifi channel. Just after wrestling.

So I'm way off the mark?

If the Navy did decide in the future that it needed a FF, what are the chances that they would go with a platform based on the LCS hull? Both LM and Austal have been pitching their versions of a multi-mission combatant/surface combat ship that offer more potent offensive and defensive arsenals (e.g. ESSM, Standard Missiles, bigger gun, Harpoon, bow-mounted sonar, ASW torpedoes, etc.).

But what of the power generators and radars? I can see that it would be relatively easy to put those missiles in - except perhaps the SM2/6 - but you will probably need a bigger, better radar than the LCS and more power too. Or maybe you can just skip the SM2/6 and focus on ASW?