Littoral Combat Ships are they useful?

[Sea Toby]

I'm not answering for the original poster, but his comment is not neccessarily anti-LCS. If you look at most of the live-fire engagements to date in CTF-15x and EUNAVFOR, none of them called for anything larger than machine guns or cannon fire. In that sense, if you replaced LCS with OHP, they would be pretty identical from an operational perspective - Perrys no longer have Mk.13 and LCS doesn't have NLOS..

The Navy may continue with the PAM NLOS missile system despite the Army cancellation. The PAM is still a third of the price of a Harpoon. The Navy doesn't see the program as being expensive as the Army does. The Army has Javelin and Hellfire missiles which are a third the price of PAM.

The Navy is using LCS shipborne sensors with PAM, unlike the Army. The Navy versions were planned for testing until 2012. Its still too early to write off the Navy PAM...

 

[StevoJH]

Looked at from a historical perspective, both LCS's are both over budget but not significantly more so that FFG-7 was (cost adjusted for inflation of course), first of class ships always are over budget. In this case you are building 2 first of class ships and the USN went in a couple times and changed their minds on what they wanted during construction.

I still think they are overpriced for what they are unless the price decreases significantly towards the original estimate of circa $300 million each.

Admittedly the USN massively increased the damage control requirements of each ship about halfway through construction from memory, that would have messed things up massively and contributed a great deal to the cost increase. Since it probably included redesign as well as demolishing and rebuilding stuff that had already been completed.

 

[swerve]

I still think they are overpriced for what they are unless the price decreases significantly towards the original estimate of circa $300 million each..

+1.

My criticism of their cost has nothing to do with the increase in cost over the original estimates, but a straightforward comparison of the cost with what one gets for it.

 

[kev 99]

+1.

My criticism of their cost has nothing to do with the increase in cost over the original estimates, but a straightforward comparison of the cost with what one gets for it.

+1+1

I tend to think the USN has come up with a decent concept for a cheap ship and then gold plated it.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

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

 

[Juramentado]

Some thoughts as folks compare OHP to LCS:

The Perry class' success is partly due to the fact that it never had to prove some of the downsides that were identified early in the program - for example; could it really survive on it's own in a medium intensity ASuW environment using it's own organic fires? The Stark incident notwithstanding, it was always a question of when it would get knocked off as a picket, not if, assuming Tico or air superiority was denied. Blue-on-blue exercises (at least unclassified reports and anecdotal evidence) show it is very decent ASW platform when using TACTAS and LAMP III.

The other aspect was that the operational requirements for some assets changed to continuous OOW following the Cold War. In that regard, the OHP class is very successful because it has all the capabilities it needed as an indepdent command - good sensor suite, speed versus endurance mix, organic air and up until the Mk 13 retirement, it could defend itself against most threats in any axis. You could send it in and not have to think too hard about attachments to bridge capability gaps. And fleet commanders have done so.

Contrast to LCS, which is still envisioned as the low-mix end of the fleet. It's occupying the same tier that OHP does, and it has additional missions, such as MCM and SOF. But it was designed under the auspices of the 21st Century framework which meant working with CG(X) and DDG-1000. Fast forward to today and SECDEF's comments from the League Con; we will have to live with an aging Tico, Burkes will have to take up most of the Fleet role for AAW as well as ASuW (?) and LCS handles the rest. There is no doubt now - LCS *is* going to get rammed through as a program - Gates ran roughshod over the "developmental problems."

Can LCS meet the changes in requirements since the 21C whitepaper? Vego and Martin take opposing sides on the actual suitability of the platform using current CONOPS, but they also have some nice dovetails. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. Where they diverge are around the operational capabilities - using mission packages that are not matured or still being designed and developed. The lack of NLOS isn't the problem - it will get replaced by something else. The real concern is that LCS will get sent into a higher threat environment than it's ready for. Or worse, not designed to operate in. The pressure to retire the fig-7s and minehunters will only grow as more hulls roll off. That concern is amplified by the convergence aspects - by the time the full ASuW and ASW mission packages are slated for IOC, we'll have more than 7-8 units stood up or commissioned, and what kind of tasking will be asked of those vessels in the meantime?

 

[Sea Toby]

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

The LCS and FFGs/FFs are used to escort the supply ships during wartime, as almost all of the cruisers and destroyers are used to escort carrier battle groups and marine expeditionary force groups. The navy also requires escorts for several merchant convoys as well. Simply put, mid ocean ASW escorts, not front line warships...

Since that role isn't threatened by over 100 Soviet submarines any longer, the US Navy is attempting to add a littoral capability with the LCS. During peacetime the US Navy lately has used its FFGs as picket ships. Their shortcomings as pickets is in the littoral regions near land...

In summary, the US requires mid ocean ASW escorts capable of defending themselves against a low air threat, whether by aircraft or missiles. The LCS is designed to fulfill this role along with the new littoral capabilities the Navy does not wish to risk a cruiser or a destroyer...

The LCS will also replace the minehunter fleet as well with new technology mine countermeasures equipment. Doing so will save the expense of replacing the current minehunters. The goal is to get two ship types for the price of one. While our current minehunter force are great in local areas, i.e., short distances, they are very slow to deploy half way around the world. Recently the US Navy has shipped the minehunters abroad. It would be nice if the minehunters could sail there under their own power...

Its likely an LCS will be operating during peacetime with a carrier battle group or marine expeditionary force. In wartime the LCS will probably operate with other LCS in a convoy escorting group whether supply or merchant. Its not expected the LCS will operate alone...

Even at $500 million, the LCS is still a fourth of the price of one $2 billion Burke class destroyer... Or if you wish to be pessimistic, at $700 million they are a third of the cost of a destroyer...

Yes, a frigate design along the lines of the Coast Guard's Bertholf class would run $100 million cheaper, but we would still be faced with building minehunters at a similar cost. At the moment with the US shipbuilding program, its the FFGs which are reaching their paying off stage, not cruisers or destroyers. After the LCS class is built, the US can return to building more destroyers and cruisers...

Unlike most nations, the US has defense commitments to Diego Garcia smack in the middle of the Indian Ocean, along with commitments to Guam, which is closer to China than the continental US... Even our states of Alaska and Hawaii are a significant distance from the continental US...

 

[Juramentado]

Its likely an LCS will be operating during peacetime with a carrier battle group or marine expeditionary force. In wartime the LCS will probably operate with other LCS in a convoy escorting group whether supply or merchant. Its not expected the LCS will operate alone...

Even at $500 million, the LCS is still a fourth of the price of one $2 billion Burke class destroyer....

The Perrys weren't expected to operate as independent units either, and yet history says otherwise. That is true towards the tail-end of their history and the LCS is replacing the Perry. Has the mission changed significantly? Note the first operational deployment for LCS-1 Freedom was anti-drug - operating in Southcom without any supporting units. The doctrinal temptation to task this platform to missions and objectives for which it is not appropriate or effective must be managed until the mission packages are fully operational. Period.

The pricetag is hard to swallow when the Navy was sold a system design that is incomplete and took acceptance of same. When viewing it relative to the success of other Navies' programs at the same or comparable price to deliver a seaframe that can do most of what LCS is supposed to do *today* (and some them do some things even better) is just maddening. The promise of the "advanced" features of the LCS platform is really inherent in the mission packages, not in the seaframe itself. Absent those items, call it what it is right now - an expensive high-speed gunboat. With the lack of clarity around the mission package evolution, there is a big uncertainty around when that will change. When that change occurs, what are the cascade impacts? Training, integration and time to get to an operational readiness with the packages are all considerations that lengthen the amount of time that the fleet will be using essentially an incomplete platform.

 

[Sea Toby]

I don't ever recall the FFG-7s or any other US Navy warships operating alone. They have always operated in groups outside of supply ships and submarines. They have operated as pickets for a group of ships...

When the Stark was hit, she wasn't the only US ship in the Persian Gulf...

This pdf document is the current shipbuidling program as of the end of Dec. 2009. Notice we have overbuilt the DDG-51s. The quickest way to cut fleet numbers is to cut the carrier's escorting ships...

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32665.pdf

Its my opinion building ships we don't need is a vast waste of money... Unfortunately the ships we don't need are destroyers, not LCS...

The stimulus package was designed more to quickly boost the economy, not to boost the navy...

If you are opposed to the shipbuilding program, attempt to change the minds of the administration, the pentagon, and the Congress...

 

[Juramentado]

I quoted Stark because if the watches and equipment were maintained or enabled at the time of missile impact, especially CIWS, we might have a better idea if she could have succesfully defended herself against a determined air attack. Note I said nothing about her being the only US ship in the Gulf at the time. Do you actually read people's posts or do you just prefer to answer haphazardly?

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 Zumwalt class couldn't address BMD since they were the NGFS part of the 21C Navy model. Between BMD and NGFS, the former won out as the more critical of capability gaps. There is also plans to continue building out a Flight III of the Burkes with spin-off tech from the cancelled cruiser program, especially the radar system.

 

[huskerguy7]

I will agree with part of the opinions mentioned above: The LCS is a bit overprice. I also support the idea of 30 LCSs instead of 60.

However, the LCS has strengths that our Burkes and Perrys don't have. I strongly believe that LCSs would be better counter-piracy weapons than our destroyers. Off the Horn of Africa, 150, 151, and even a EU force are patrolling, but don't cover alot of ground. These Destroyers are made to eliminate Russian/Chinese heavy naval ships, not skiffs. On the other hand, the LCS will be much more successful in counter piracy. I support this assertion because it's faster (covers more ground), seems better armed for shorter ranges, and does carry two helicopters. Why not use LCSs to strengthen maritime operations and maybe add 1-2 to our CVGs?

 

[StevoJH]

I will agree with part of the opinions mentioned above: The LCS is a bit overprice. I also support the idea of 30 LCSs instead of 60.

However, the LCS has strengths that our Burkes and Perrys don't have. I strongly believe that LCSs would be better counter-piracy weapons than our destroyers. Off the Horn of Africa, 150, 151, and even a EU force are patrolling, but don't cover alot of ground. These Destroyers are made to eliminate Russian/Chinese heavy naval ships, not skiffs. On the other hand, the LCS will be much more successful in counter piracy. I support this assertion because it's faster (covers more ground), seems better armed for shorter ranges, and does carry two helicopters. Why not use LCSs to strengthen maritime operations and maybe add 1-2 to our CVGs?

See posts 134 & 142 for my opinion.

Oh, and LCS has pittiful range while going at any decent speed, you'd have to basically assign her a full time AOR, which then limits LCS to the 18-20knot speed of the AOR for transit.

A 45 Knot LCS is pointless when she carries two 180knot helicopters.

 

[huskerguy7]

See posts 134 & 142 for my opinion.

Oh, and LCS has pittiful range while going at any decent speed, you'd have to basically assign her a full time AOR, which then limits LCS to the 18-20knot speed of the AOR for transit.

A 45 Knot LCS is pointless when she carries two 180knot helicopters.

]

You do have strong points. However, I likely won't be completely convinced until I see the LCS in action.

One question: Why don't we arm the LCS with two MQ-8s and one Seahawk? I've done a bit of research with robots and war and would feel confident with this. Plus, the MQ-8s are MUCH lighter than the Seahawks.

 

[StevoJH]

]

You do have strong points. However, I likely won't be completely convinced until I see the LCS in action.

Fairly sure LCS-1 is hunting drug runners from columbia if you google it.

One question: Why don't we arm the LCS with two MQ-8s and one Seahawk? I've done a bit of research with robots and war and would feel confident with this. Plus, the MQ-8s are MUCH lighter than the Seahawks.

I'm asking this because I don't know, can you fit a full boarding party for an opposed boarding aboard a single Sea Hawk? Fairly sure you can't while the ASW kit is fitted.

 

[Sea Toby]

Fairly sure LCS-1 is hunting drug runners from columbia if you google it.



I'm asking this because I don't know, can you fit a full boarding party for an opposed boarding aboard a single Sea Hawk? Fairly sure you can't while the ASW kit is fitted.

The helicopter hangar is the same for all missions, The ASW kit is placed in the vehicle deck below the hangar. A boarding party will be housed in containers on the vehicle deck. The LCS can house two Seahawks. Its the flexibility of the LCS when being used for patrols one of the Seahawks would be an ASW version whereas the other Seahawk would be a troopship/cargo version.

The LCS is designed to fit any two combinations of its mission modlules kits. Oh, yea of any faith...

 

[Sea Toby]

See posts 134 & 142 for my opinion.

Oh, and LCS has pittiful range while going at any decent speed, you'd have to basically assign her a full time AOR, which then limits LCS to the 18-20knot speed of the AOR for transit.

A 45 Knot LCS is pointless when she carries two 180knot helicopters.

An LCS has a range of over 3500 nautical miles at 18-20 knots. One would assume an LCS won't be crossing any oceans at full speed. Full speed would be reserved for combat operations for sprint speed... I doubt whether any combat operations would involve much more than 100 or 200 nautical miles...

 

[StevoJH]

Toby,

I mean the helicopter itself. How large is a USN/USMC boarding party and how many can an ASW Sea Hawk carry?

 

[Juramentado]

I mean the helicopter itself. How large is a USN/USMC boarding party and how many can an ASW Sea Hawk carry?

First off - to your other post - LCS-1 finished her SOUTHCOM tour in February this year and got a partial drug bust - the drugrunner they were chasing managed to dump most of their load before escaping back into Columbian waters. Freedom is now home-ported at San Diego and will be headed to Canada and Hawaii for joint exercises and presentation tours this summer.

To your question about the helos. Freedom is not currently deployed with an ASW mission module - that system is definitely not ready. She's carrying all of what's operational of the ASuW package minus NLOS of course. For attached air assets - this means an MH-60S version of the Seahawk - not an ASW version like the older Bravos or the newer Foxtrots (the latter with the dipping sonar made famous in Clancy and Bond's Red Storm Rising novel). The Sierra can in the future carry the airborne portions of the MCM mission package - such as the Airborne Laser Detection system. But for now, the S model is mostly a SAR/Special Operations bird - equipped with some sort of door gun like an M240. Typical crew is MC/Co-Pilot and a Crew Chief. She could be armed like the Blackhawks using winglets and carry unguided munitions or even guided missiles, but that is really going to be the domain of the Romeo model. Any S model birds are usually assigned to Sea Combat Squadrons. The Rs will go to Maritime Strike squadrons.

The CONOPS for ASuW package currently does not utilize a Fleet Marine VBSS team. Instead, there is a Coast Guard Law Enforcement Detachment . This is to comply with the Posse Comitatus law, which prevents military forces (with the exception of CG) from conducting law enforcement operations. This is a typical set-up especially if the navy vessel with an attached LEDET is operating in known areas of high-drug trafficking. LEDETs are usually about 10-11 people strong and the S should be able to carry all of them in a single load.

For tactical purposes though, it's a distinct challenge trying to board a vessel that's underway. It doesn't matter which way you go - RHIBs or vertical insertions - it's one thing to get there quickly, it's another thing to get aboard without getting shot or causing collateral damage to the crew. The Dutch made it look easy with M/V Taipan, but the innocents were all inside a saferoom, which is why they were generous with suppressive fires aimed at the bridge and wings.

The MQ-8 FireScouts are currently not armed. Carrying more FireScouts vis-a-vis Seahawks buys you more range and longer loiter time, but the only thing you can do is track and monitor. If you actively want to do something, you have to put boots on the deck and that means a manned helo. So it's a tactical choice - which of those capabilities do you want more? The answer depends on what your current mission is about. If you expect more opportunities to board, two Seahawks buys you redundancy against downtime or operational loss. The FireScouts aren't quite ready for the Big Show anyway. The McInerney interception the other month was mostly a fluke - they were actually conducting an air test when they got the call about tracking the go-fast.

 

[Sea Toby]

Toby,

I mean the helicopter itself. How large is a USN/USMC boarding party and how many can an ASW Sea Hawk carry?

I am a retired Coastie snipe. In the Coast Guard we boarded ships using our RHIBs... I haven't a clue how many troops a Seahawk can carry. My naive answer is as many as they could fit depending upon their weight....

 

[huskerguy7]

First off - to your other post - LCS-1 finished her SOUTHCOM tour in February this year and got a partial drug bust - the drugrunner they were chasing managed to dump most of their load before escaping back into Columbian waters. Freedom is now home-ported at San Diego and will be headed to Canada and Hawaii for joint exercises and presentation tours this summer.

To your question about the helos. Freedom is not currently deployed with an ASW mission module - that system is definitely not ready. She's carrying all of what's operational of the ASuW package minus NLOS of course. For attached air assets - this means an MH-60S version of the Seahawk - not an ASW version like the older Bravos or the newer Foxtrots (the latter with the dipping sonar made famous in Clancy and Bond's Red Storm Rising novel). The Sierra can in the future carry the airborne portions of the MCM mission package - such as the Airborne Laser Detection system. But for now, the S model is mostly a SAR/Special Operations bird - equipped with some sort of door gun like an M240. Typical crew is MC/Co-Pilot and a Crew Chief. She could be armed like the Blackhawks using winglets and carry unguided munitions or even guided missiles, but that is really going to be the domain of the Romeo model. Any S model birds are usually assigned to Sea Combat Squadrons. The Rs will go to Maritime Strike squadrons.

The CONOPS for ASuW package currently does not utilize a Fleet Marine VBSS team. Instead, there is a Coast Guard Law Enforcement Detachment . This is to comply with the Posse Comitatus law, which prevents military forces (with the exception of CG) from conducting law enforcement operations. This is a typical set-up especially if the navy vessel with an attached LEDET is operating in known areas of high-drug trafficking. LEDETs are usually about 10-11 people strong and the S should be able to carry all of them in a single load.

For tactical purposes though, it's a distinct challenge trying to board a vessel that's underway. It doesn't matter which way you go - RHIBs or vertical insertions - it's one thing to get there quickly, it's another thing to get aboard without getting shot or causing collateral damage to the crew. The Dutch made it look easy with M/V Taipan, but the innocents were all inside a saferoom, which is why they were generous with suppressive fires aimed at the bridge and wings.

The MQ-8 FireScouts are currently not armed. Carrying more FireScouts vis-a-vis Seahawks buys you more range and longer loiter time, but the only thing you can do is track and monitor. If you actively want to do something, you have to put boots on the deck and that means a manned helo. So it's a tactical choice - which of those capabilities do you want more? The answer depends on what your current mission is about. If you expect more opportunities to board, two Seahawks buys you redundancy against downtime or operational loss. The FireScouts aren't quite ready for the Big Show anyway. The McInerney interception the other month was mostly a fluke - they were actually conducting an air test when they got the call about tracking the go-fast.

Not much faith in the FireScouts?

Yes, the MQ-8 has work to be made, but it's a matter of time before it becomes a popular weapon on the battlefield.

I believe the MQ-8 has made an autonomous landing. If so, in my opinion, that shows that the MQ-8 is a machine with much potential.

Are you sure that we can't arm the MQ-8 with Hellfires?

So two years, the MQ-8 wouldn't be a good choice. But lets say in...five years, I think the MQ-8 (or a possible successor) will be ready. I will admit that the "UAV" idea has been sold to me many times. Just my opinion.

Also, in response to an earlier comment about how MQ-8s will require the same amount of personal. This is sort of false. If autonomous capabilities are achieved, then one pilot could easily manage two-three UAVs.

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?