By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.
Discussion in 'Navy & Maritime' started by AegisFC, Jul 3, 2008.
expensive 5.1 Billion for 1 ship
...that can be blown away by just one torpedo...
Actually, it costs more, as it's a multi contract deal, this is just one part of it. Whole ship should cost in the region of 8 billion dollars, if there's no cost overruns. Plus some 5 billion for R&D for all the new technologies and design work.
And actually it can't be blown away by just one torpedo. I could perhaps be neutralized with one VERY lucky shot. In real world scenario, though, it'd require several hits to be neutralized and several more to be blown away, or sunk. It's just too large and too compartmentalized for a single torpedo to be its doom.
Unless it has a nuclear warhead! The same goes for AShMs and mines. But as the article I posted on another tread, EW UAVs can jamm sat nav on naval aircraft trying to find their CVN, and those planes wiil have to divert to land bases- a totally different ball game!
There are numerous other methods the CVW can find their way back to the bird farm. Just like in the good old days before satnav was around. No big deal!
What other methods are there if their communications also are jammed, and the CVN has to move all the time?
Even if it's true, they'll have to look for it longer, expending time & fuel. All that will curtail their mission effectiveness and power projection ashore.
Well mate, you've gone from denying satnav to blanking out all communications to create no-win situation just to prove a point, which is what in the first place?
Other systems pilots can use are data link, TACAN, IFF, and voice as the CVN, CG/DDG/FFG, and airborne AEW&C controllers can track and guide the aircraft.
A UAV with the ECM capability to jam such as wide area and broad spectrum of comm and sat frequencies would require very high jamming power output which would mean lots of equipment and I doubt you could cram all that gear in a small airframe.
You can look here to see what the CVN can do: CV NATOPS MANUAL
Bottom line is just what exactly are you trying to prove?
To add to Salty's post the NAV subsystems in fighters are not like the NAVMAN (for your car) you find at the local electronics store. They are Inertial Navigation Systems updated by GPS. The INS does most of the heavy lifting, it could get the platform back into the vicinity of a CBG if it lost SATCOM, no worries. The only problem with INS's is that it drifts over time, so you need to update it.
As for blanking out all comms to a CBG, do you know how difficult that would be? You cant interrupt data links with noise.
Thanks for that manual, I'll enjoy reading it. Many small and bigger UAVs can be used for different frequencies, in addition to other platforms, both at sea and ashore. There will be combinations of UAVs, BMs, AshMs, mines, etc. to make CTF mission harder to execute. The old military principle applies: the attackers usually loose more men than defenders.
The mission modules are quite interesting as they are capable of rapid swap-out which can be done in forward deployed locations.
Forgive my ignorance, however these three things seem to be important at the same time, so how will this work?
Have a look at these Lockheed Martin LCS presentations. They explain how the mission modules work on the LCS:
A Day in the Life of LCS
A Month in the Life of LCS
Thanks, very nice animation film (the two linked to the same vid), very informative.
I think i was not able to ask my question correctly the last time?
What the use of the different configuration for the same ship (three modules for each ship, along with three crews trained to be effective using these modules)?
A ship will use a single module at a time (i think)
A naval operation will require very specific intelligence to predict which one from mine countermeasures, surface warfare, Anti-submarine warfare have to be stronger,
- In the time it takes the LCS group to arrive opposing force can: put some mines into the area, Submarine(s) can arrive or go to another place , Small ship/boat threat can scatter or intensify.
So, in many cases will the USN need to send a force consisting of all three elements in a strength good enough to take care of whatever might happen, in case it does, why bother with replaceable modules?
Keep in mind LCS is a small fast reaction (40+ knots) warship smaller than a multipurpose frigate. It can carry up to 75 crew, but 45-50 should be about the average "core" crew. Although the core crew would be able to operate all modules, they could be augmented by additional crew according to the mission specific modules and or duration of a mission. An example could be more aircrews for the MH-60R helos or VTUAVs.
The concept of the mission modules is so that the LCS is not required to carry equipment it does not need for mission requirements which also means the US Navy does not need to build mission specific warships such as minesweepers, or dedicated ASUW or ASW frigates. The concept also allows the LCS to be reconfigured rapidly. LCS would cost effective for acquisition and operations realtive to FFG/DDG. LCS will use one mission module at a time.
The LCS is no substitute for the fleet CG/DDG, it's main role will be a first responder.
Agreed, however this is a function of operational planning and not platform specific. The same challenges will be confronted with CVBG, MARG, etc. deployments and not just for the LCS.
Hopefully, C3I systems will pick-up on the changing dynamics of the battlespace. While LCS can be configured to meet specific treats, you can't expect it to be always perfect. The same situation can occur if you send in the currently available minesweepers, FFG, DDG, CG warships, it would just take longer for these to arrive on station.
LCS does have it's own self defense systems to counter threats, but please keep in mind it is not a FFG/DDG/DDG, so will have limitations.
LCS is a first responder. It gets on station first perhaps 1-3 days prior to main naval force. If the LCS forces can resolve the situation great. IMHO in the very least, the mere presence of a US warship (LCS) may be sufficient to defuse a volatile situation, or keep it at bay until the heavies arrive on station.
I do not feel the MIW module will be in use as much as the ASUW or ASW.
The LCS modules are a great. You can also swap out modules if you have equipment casualties/breakdown. All modules can be pre-designated and flown out to a forward location via airlift. A logistics system would be in place to support this.
Previously, modular construction warships would require a refit period in a shipyard to change out a combat system. An example were the DD-963 Spruance class destroyer hulls that received conversion to VLS. I see that akin to swapping out a hard drive in a PC. You don't need to buy a new PC, but you do have to open it up to make changes.
The LCS mission modules are truly faster and efficient, like using a pen drive.
MEKO and STANFLEX have shown that such full module swaps are not really a realistic possibility. Modularization is useful in quick repairs - both systems allow switching out weapon systems within hours or days in case of breakdown for example - and can be frequently used in fleet realignment during regular refits, in particular with STANFLEX.
The LCS modules - with one system of a diverse type procured per ship - won't be any different than STANFLEX in that regard.
Also, NETFIRE does not really make the LCS a viable ASuW platform; the ASuW module gives the ship moderate self-defense capabilities, but that's it. It distinctly lacks a longer range, preferably OTH, strike weapon with a dedicated large anti-ship/anti-surface warhead - especially considering it carries VTOL drones, this represents a distinct lack of capability use.
AFAIK the shortcomings in the both the MEKO and STANFLEX are those modular concepts have not been fully exploited. Whilst the modular capability exists, customers have not taken advantage of swapping out modules, most likely due to cost and current requirements. No reason to upgrade to a wartime configuration from a peacetime configuration. It remains to be seen if the LCS mission modules also fall into the same lack of exploitation.
Agreed that NETFIRE NLOS-LS does not have the same capability as a Harpoon for ASUW. This has to be an accepted limitation and most likely LCS is not meant for OTH-T engagements especially against frigate size targets or larger. The LCS ASUW module is probably optimized for targets likely to be found more frequently in a littoral environment such as patrol type vessels down to speedboats.
Interestingly TKMS Blohm and Voss (MEKO) collaborated initially with Lockheed Martin on the LCS-1 (Freedom) design.
This is nothing new. STANFLEX has been able to do exactly the same for decades. Modules have been swapped in hours, alongside in a port with no facilities other than a crane. But as Kato suggests, it's never proved useful on deployment. For a start, nobody ever sends a ship out to a foreign station without the equipment it's likely to need. Why would you do that?
I agree with Kato that modular equipment greatly eases maintenance. It also makes it easy to build otherwise identical ships with different equipment, & also makes it possible for ships being sent to an overseas station to be fitted out appropriately before being sent, without major work. But seriously . . . what is the chance that the ship on the X station is not going to have the appropriate kit? And if it doesn't, is the situation likely to remain static long enough to change it over? It will have to sail away from the crisis to a secure, friendly port, near a secure, friendly airport capable of accepting the load, & with a secure, friendly route from the airport to the harbour; meet its new module(s) which have just been flown out, along with the crew to operate them, have 'em fitted, test them (essential after that process), make adjustments if needed, then get to where it's needed. How long will that take?
It isn't the bolting the kit aboard that's difficult & time-consuming, it's everything around it.
Someone asked earlier whether a Nimitz class carrier would be able to fit into the new Panama canal locks being built, planned to open during the 100th anniversary of the old locks during 2015. The project is to cost $5.25 billion dollars, notice the American taxpayers have sunk in the recent banking crisis over hundreds of billions, and intend to swallow up over a trillion dollars in bad debt. Panama is building the new locks, and will pay back the bonds or loans over a period of time, significantly increasing its own annual budgets.
The new canal locks will be 430 meters x 70 meters x 5.5 meters.
The new canal locks will be 1410 feet x 230 feet x 50 feet.
The canal will use 7% less water, some 60% of the water will be reused. Gatun Lake will rise some one and a half feet, increasing the water being stored.
A Nimitz class aricraft carrier is:
332.8 meters x 76.8 meters-40.8 meters at the water level, x 11.3 meters
1092 feet x 252 feet -134 feet at the water level x 37 feet
Yes, a Nimitz class aircraft carrier will be able to use the new locks. Of the 118 feet of overhang of the carriers flight deck at the water level, only 18 feet overhand the lock, at its angle, only around 5 or 6 feet of height will be necessary when the ship has 13 feet available to play with, and that is if the ship is resting on the bottom of the lock, which I doubt....
This could result in the future more of a swing stragedy with the carriers, and could eventually be the rational to cut the number of carriers and their escorts in the fleet.
Panama has a goal of opening the new locks as I noted before during 2015, the 100th anniversary of the old locks. But even if they miss their goal for whatever reasons, being late a year or two won't necessarily be a disaster economically or militarily. Eventually the new locks will pay for themselves with tolls. While the tolls maybe high, as far as the shipbuilders are concerned, they're cheaper than sailing around the horn or transferring cargo by train.
Well, depending on the logistical structure, and the difficulty involved in module swapping, i could even see such a swap occuring at sea. However, for that, the USN lacks a dedicated ship for such a purpose (storing modules, and capable of mooring a LCS alongside for installation) - and it wouldn't really make much sense to build such a ship, unless say the whole fleet would consist of LCS. :lol
I'm skeptical about the LCS modularization exploitation primarily because of the cost of the modules. At 100+ million, there won't really be any "spare" modules around.
That kind of operation actually incites a "downloading" with "possible wartime upgrade", with potentially even decreased module pools available - just like with Stanflex. In that regard, consider that - in the hypothetical case that 55 LCS were procured - there'd only be a need for around 40-45 "active" modules, as the other hulls would be in for regular dockyard/refit/repair; that would be a real invitation for cost-saving, especially when we're talking about a billion dollars there.
"Wartime upgrading" doesn't really need modularization to this extent, especially with a navy the size of the USN. It'd be extremely unlikely a wartime situation would require more than e.g. the ~15 hypothetical ASW LCS on station, especially as there are also still the DDGs and CGs.
More needed things in wartime upgrades are adhoc modifications that modularization just eases - in the sense that any extra equipment would have an available multi-purpose socket to plug into; such wartime upgrade installations have been done with MEKO ships in fact, especially with sensors and defensive equipment.
No disagreement here. The LCS gives the option of configuring for specific mission or tasks. This is a departure from using multi-mission platforms which is the traditional way of thinking as multi-mission also means your warship should deal with all threats, so sending a FFG/DDG/CG should meet those. LCS does have limitations in that is configured for specific-missions. I doubt any commander would send an LCS into harms way unless it could deal with the threat. Some of those missions would be best left to larger multi-mission warships.
LCS mission modules will be strategically pre-located in forward areas such as Japan and Bahrain. Much of what you mention with harbours and ports, will be challenging, however nothing really different from current US Navy logistics support worldwide.
As far as how a volatile situation plays, no one can make that call. However the inability to act and take action could very well negatively influence that event. It could days or a week to get a SAG, CVBG, or MARG into the area. LCS can arrive on station in less time.
I am sure that all the obstacles and shortcomings you cited have been addressed before. There have been studies and operational analysis on the LCS concepts. I do not see the LCS system and concept as 100% effective and foolproof, and initial LCS deployments will have kinks to sort out. Time will tell how LCS will work out. Bottom line is that LCS gives a new set of capabilities to the US Navy specifically for littoral warfare which is what is needs.