Latest Littoral Combat Ship News-- Navy Reconsidering

[swerve]

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_056_corvette

 

That seems to be much more heavily armed than the Navy's FCS will ever be, and probably significantly cheaper to build as well.

 

You can't beat the People's Liberation Army Navy when it comes to ship building.. .-)

 

Seriously though, would it be totally of the chart to just buy an existing foreign corvette-size design (of which there are plenty), license build it in the US upgraded what ever domestic bells and whistles desired, give the final product a new tacticool designation and then be done with it? Must be a lot cheaper if the USN doesn't plan to acquire a huge fleet of corvettes? (Which would seem rather odd).

Its actually not that easy to acquire foreign equipment. The design requirements are always a little different, so by the time you finish "Americanizing" it you might just as well have built an American weapon. The American requirements don't totally go away just because you buy foreign.

Change requirements. Too many of them turn out to be gold-plating.

+1.

[Ivanhoe]

The sprint requirement was most stupid. Nuttin missiles and UAVs cannot effect better.

 

How else are you going to save money by having two ships cover 1000 nmi of coastline?

[Brian Kennedy]

Kaizen, dammit! The military procurement system has always been cursed by this obsessive quest for the next quantum leap instead of building things that are rather better and releasing them often. I guess that's where the money is though.

[shep854]

Kaizen, dammit! The military procurement system has always been cursed by this obsessive quest for the next quantum leap instead of building things that are rather better and releasing them often. I guess that's where the money is though.

As the Russians say, "The best is the enemy of good enough."

[kaikaun]

The speed thing probably refers to the fact that due to having so few crew, the LCS cannot stay at sea for long and is basically tied to a home port. If you want to move an LCS to another theatre, you have to move the entire home port. Basically, it has very high tactical speed over short ranges but since it is not really self-sufficient, it has poor strategic or operational mobility.

 

I actually think that the 40kt sprint requirement is not a bad thing. That is basically its defence against AShMs. It is fast enough to leave the missile's "search box" before the missile can arrive, so the missile finds nothing to hit. Or at least, that is the theory. The only problem is this sprint requirement turned out to be too expensive to meet and forced too many compromises on the rest of the design.

[CaptLuke]

The speed thing probably refers to the fact that due to having so few crew, the LCS cannot stay at sea for long and is basically tied to a home port. If you want to move an LCS to another theatre, you have to move the entire home port. Basically, it has very high tactical speed over short ranges but since it is not really self-sufficient, it has poor strategic or operational mobility.

 

I actually think that the 40kt sprint requirement is not a bad thing. That is basically its defence against AShMs. It is fast enough to leave the missile's "search box" before the missile can arrive, so the missile finds nothing to hit. Or at least, that is the theory. The only problem is this sprint requirement turned out to be too expensive to meet and forced too many compromises on the rest of the design.

 

The sprint requirement didn't "turn out to be" expensive; every knot has always been more expensive than the one before. Review the battlecruiser thread for the same issues: very high speeds meant too much ship for too little firepower with not enough survivability (sound familiar?). Every sacrifice of size and cost and weight and range made for speed was entirely predictable, which is why no one else has gone this route for ships over 500 tonnes or so.

 

Tactically, the advantages of 40 knots over 30 - 35 knots are minimal, even before you start mounting helicopters. Once you can keep up with a container ship, you're good. Speed is of little use against missile attack because even a ship with much better radar than the LCS will not detect a sea skimmer with enough reaction time to do anything based on speed.

 

The speed idea came from the concept that the LCS would literally sprint across the Persian Gulf with one set of modules in the morning, sprint back, switch modules out, and then sprint back out with a new set of modules for the afternoon, more like aircraft sorties than maritime patrol. This was, of course, ludicrous but, like everything else about the use of the LCS, the USN didn't even start to think it through until they had two classes of LCS in full production.

[EchoFiveMike]

You basically have a 3000t torpedo boat, minus the torpedoes, or any other serious anti-ship firepower. Or any other firepower for that matter. OTOH, it should be able to tow lots and lots of water-skiers.

 

This thing is supposed to provide humanitarian relief and other MOOTW bullshit? With what, the three guys you can spare from the crew?

 

Everyone involved with the decision making process on this ship should be put in front of a wall. S/F....Ken M

[Olof Larsson]

How fast can the LCS's go with diesels only

and how fast they go with larger diesels (and no GT's)?

[EchoFiveMike]

Doesn't say for USS Freedom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Freedom_(LCS-1)

 

ATB 18kts for Independence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Independence_(LCS_2)

 

S/F....Ken M

[ScottBrim]

On other forums, there has been considerable debate as to what a USN frigate should look like, and as to what it would cost if specified and constructed in the US in comparison with what a similar warship might cost if specified and built in other countries with lower cost shipbuilding industries.

 

My guess is that if an American Requirements Frigate (ARF) were to be ordered with a twenty hull production run, the very first hull of the ARF would cost about $2.5 billion, with the fifth and subsequent hulls coming in at about $1.2 billion per hull.

 

To better manage cost versus capability, the ARF might be divided into three capability level subcategories:

 

1: A plain-jane Basic American Requirements Frigate (BARF)

 

2: A medium capability Standard Comparison American Requirements Frigate (SCARF)

 

3: A high end Extended Capability American Requirements Frigate (ARF-EC)

 

The last ship, the ARF-EC, might be a dumbed-down Burke without AEGIS but with lots of room available for All That Other Stuff We Really, Really Need.

[Ivanhoe]

The speed thing probably refers to the fact that due to having so few crew, the LCS cannot stay at sea for long and is basically tied to a home port. If you want to move an LCS to another theatre, you have to move the entire home port. Basically, it has very high tactical speed over short ranges but since it is not really self-sufficient, it has poor strategic or operational mobility.

That is not totally the fault of the ship, that is the fault of the overall USN fleet philosophy, which appears to remain port-based. There's no reason why the USN couldn't develop a "milk cow" supply ship to sustain its green water fleet in situ without first building a $1B throwaway port in theater.

 

Of course, to do so you've got to eliminate the Transformers Module thing.

 

As for a torpedo destroyer without torpedoes, you have to limit its maximum kill capability, or Congress won't fund DDG-22.

[EchoFiveMike]

How about we cut O-4 and up pay until we can afford the proper ships? How about we try that?

 

I imagine the problem will resolve itself in about .00050 seconds. Maybe faster. S/F....Ken M

[EvanDP]

On other forums, there has been considerable debate as to what a USN frigate should look like, and as to what it would cost if specified and constructed in the US in comparison with what a similar warship might cost if specified and built in other countries with lower cost shipbuilding industries.

 

My guess is that if an American Requirements Frigate (ARF) were to be ordered with a twenty hull production run, the very first hull of the ARF would cost about $2.5 billion, with the fifth and subsequent hulls coming in at about $1.2 billion per hull.

 

To better manage cost versus capability, the ARF might be divided into three capability level subcategories:

 

1: A plain-jane Basic American Requirements Frigate (BARF)

 

2: A medium capability Standard Comparison American Requirements Frigate (SCARF)

 

3: A high end Extended Capability American Requirements Frigate (ARF-EC)

 

The last ship, the ARF-EC, might be a dumbed-down Burke without AEGIS but with lots of room available for All That Other Stuff We Really, Really Need.

I recommend option three be renamed Superior Naval American Requirement Frigate (SNARF)

 

One should never pass up the chance to salute two of the greatest Rodent-Americans of recent history.

[ScottBrim]

 

On other forums, there has been considerable debate as to what a USN frigate should look like, and as to what it would cost if specified and constructed in the US in comparison with what a similar warship might cost if specified and built in other countries with lower cost shipbuilding industries.

 

My guess is that if an American Requirements Frigate (ARF) were to be ordered with a twenty hull production run, the very first hull of the ARF would cost about $2.5 billion, with the fifth and subsequent hulls coming in at about $1.2 billion per hull.

 

To better manage cost versus capability, the ARF might be divided into three capability level subcategories:

 

1: A plain-jane Basic American Requirements Frigate (BARF)

 

2: A medium capability Standard Comparison American Requirements Frigate (SCARF)

 

3: A high end Extended Capability American Requirements Frigate (ARF-EC)

 

The last ship, the ARF-EC, might be a dumbed-down Burke without AEGIS but with lots of room available for All That Other Stuff We Really, Really Need.

I recommend option three be renamed Superior Naval American Requirement Frigate (SNARF)

 

One should never pass up the chance to salute two of the greatest Rodent-Americans of recent history.

 

 

SNARF -- I wish I'd thought of that!

[Ben Dejo]

 

That is not totally the fault of the ship, that is the fault of the overall USN fleet philosophy, which appears to remain port-based. There's no reason why the USN couldn't develop a "milk cow" supply ship to sustain its green water fleet in situ without first building a $1B throwaway port in theater.

 

Of course, to do so you've got to eliminate the Transformers Module thing.

 

As for a torpedo destroyer without torpedoes, you have to limit its maximum kill capability, or Congress won't fund DDG-22.

 

I thought at keeping the U.S.S. Ponce and converting her, was essentially to keep Little Crappy Ships able to go from point A to Point B. It's kinda the Soviet Naval model where the Fleet Tug was avilable to pick up and tow the ship that would almost inevitably bust itself inroute ( see also T-72 Maintence Model)

[Colin]

Depot ships it's an old idea

 

[Ivanhoe]

Yeah, with modern materiel-handling gear, a scaled up ship like that could accomplish a lot. Add 2 or 3 helos and there's all sorts of stuff you can accomplish in a forward deployment.

[Chris Werb]

Thanks for that Griffin test vid Cybermax. It looks a good addition to the Cyclone weapon fit, but it presents a lower order of capability compared to the MDBA anti-FIAC Brimstone variant (albeit at much lower cost).

 

Brimstone anti-FIAC (Sea Spear) demo.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBZlIPyueDI

 

Uncharismatic, but nonetheless interesting interview about anti-FIAC Brimstone with the French IT helpdesk guy from The IT Crowd.

 

[BP]

Jeez, they made this far too complicated. Just build a modernized, twin screw Perry. Tough little bastards (USS Stark), and for an extra eight feet of draft you get an actual sonar dome. Unless their definition of "littoral" means running it up on the beach for "Gidget's Persian Gulf Beach Party".

 

Lockheed-Martin probably charged $750K for a graphic artist to produce a picture of a Perry with sloped deckhouse.

 

[Mr King]

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bora-class_guided_missile_hovercraft

[CaptLuke]

Jeez, they made this far too complicated. Just build a modernized, twin screw Perry. Tough little bastards (USS Stark), and for an extra eight feet of draft you get an actual sonar dome. Unless their definition of "littoral" means running it up on the beach for "Gidget's Persian Gulf Beach Party".

 

 

There's a throwing the baby out with the bathwater issue here. The LCS is a terrible program and a huge mistake, but . . .

• The basic idea of aggressively reducing ships complements is a budget imperative. The fact that the LCS did it badly does not invalidate the concept
• The basic idea of modularity is a good one and, again as badly implemented as it was, the USN needs to get more modular, not less. As with everything else about the program, the USN hosed module development and in fact the LCS is not modular at all in the most important facet of modularity: armament (57mm gun is fixed, 30mm gun areas are one offs, and the NLOS sized missile space uses a highly impractical standard)

 

The Perrys did their time but were hardly model designs, even for their time, let alone now. There is good work and good learning that can be salvaged from a bad program and I think that's the way to look at LCS now, not as a total write off.

[swerve]

WRT the modularity, I wonder why the hell they didn't just ask the Danes for a licence for Stanflex. Any details that didn't suit the USN could have been modified. It works, it's well proven, & it fits vessels much smaller than LCS, as well as bigger. A 57mm gun module would be easy (there's a 76mm one).

[Ivanhoe]

DOD is almost pathologically adverse to fielding a 95% solution quickly and affordably. Everything has to be newer, better, faster, cheaper, multi-joint, buzzword-centric, etc. That generates a lot more work, larger org charts, and higher salaries for the PowerPoint People in DC.

 

Heaven forbid we actually build useful stuff; those jobs go to sweaty guys that didn't go to uni, and live in manufacturing towns.

[TonyE]

One of the danish Absalons during a recent local navy visit, love the twin 76 arrangement:

 

[CaptLuke]

WRT the modularity, I wonder why the hell they didn't just ask the Danes for a licence for Stanflex. Any details that didn't suit the USN could have been modified. It works, it's well proven, & it fits vessels much smaller than LCS, as well as bigger. A 57mm gun module would be easy (there's a 76mm one).

 

One reason is that the LCS is deliberately built not only to be under-armed but also difficult to upgrade for armament. This is because the LCS was built not only to fit external politics but also USN politics. In the USN, 'little boats' are supposed to do things the blue water navy doesn't want to do and nothing else: mine sweeping and blowing up speedboats is fine, but actually sinking a surface ship is exclusively the province of the blue water navy, the one with the real ships.

 

The streetfighter concept was that little cheap ships could actually defeat big expensive ships and that is an idea that the USN simply will not tolerate. That's why real armament was a non-starter and why, even NIH aside, Stanflex was a non-starter.