Littoral Combat Ships (LCS)


Jeff Head

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #761
I see, thanks Jeff ... so the best buy would be a sea-mine which blew away your rudder and broke the shaft :)
Yes, Jura...that would be an effective measure if you can get the vessel to run into one.

However, mines are static and located in place and the ship has to come to them...and then when one does damage, a mine clearing operation goes on. So you may do damage and then slow down the rest.

A submarine with its torpedoes goes out and hunts the ships...they take the weapons to the, They are also more likely to sink a vessel if they get a good firing solution and fire multiple torpedoes.

Both have their place.
 
the USN LCS related part of
Global Guided Missile Expansion Forcing U.S. Navy to Rethink Surface Fleet Size
says
decisions to leave the two emerging Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) variants without a significant AAW capability also stresses the cruiser and destroyer fleets, since the LCS could not then help protect non-combatant ships like oilers and logistics ships in an escort role, Clark said.

“We built a force structure assessment that captures the requirements to protect aircraft carriers and amphibious ready groups, and to do ballistic missile defense, and we kind of looked at LCS as a ship that would be able to do some of these escort missions for other forces,” he said.
“What that leads to in a new force structure assessment is, we’re going to need to capture what that requirement is if LCS and the follow-on frigate are not going to have the ability to protect other ships in an air defense role. What does that mean for our large surface combatant force structure if I’m having to use them to escort any other ships that are not going to be under the protection of the strike group?”
source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


any comments?
 

Jeff Head

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #763
the USN LCS related part of
Global Guided Missile Expansion Forcing U.S. Navy to Rethink Surface Fleet Size
says
source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


any comments?
We have talked and talked about the LCS and its deficiencies.

I feel that the US needs a multi-role FFG that fills the same role today that the OHP FFGs filled in the 80s and 90s.

That means they have a role as task group escorts providing some area AAW coverage and decent ASW coverage, and have a decent ASuW capability. That's what the Perry's did.

The problem is, with the LCS (until recently) they had the following weaknesses:

1) Their AAW capability was only self defense.
2) Their ASuW capability was only against speed boat swarms.

They have always been able to have a decent ASW capability. And, they were going to develop a decent MMC capability.

But with their speed, with their modularity, and with the Mine role, they sacrificed the other two listed above.

Numerous people have been clamoring about this for years...and now apparently, at this late date, people are beginning to listen. Mainly use they HAVE TO because they are finally seeing that peer powers, and even smaller powers, are going to be able to threaten these ships and that the US Navy needs more AAW and ASuW capability...not less.

So...I still believe that the ASuW and AAW capability can be addressed on the LCS>

Build the new Small Surface Combatant with at least a single 8 cell Mk-41. Load those eight cells with four decent ASMs (LRASM, NSM, etc.) and lad the other four cells with quad packed ESSMs (which would give them sixteen missiles). Keep the RAM and SeaRam launchers, keep the Hellfire or other ASuW weapons for small craft, and build into them the ASW capability. Make all of the intrinsic to the vessel with no need for "modules."

I would retrofit the 24 LCS that will be built and give each of them the 8 cell Mk-41 and then make the Freedom version ASW centric and make the Independence version MMC centric...but the Independence class has more room and so you may be able to have them do both.
 

kwaigonegin

Colonel
the USN LCS related part of
Global Guided Missile Expansion Forcing U.S. Navy to Rethink Surface Fleet Size
says
source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


any comments?
I've made multiple comments about the LCS recently and in the past and the escort role is definitely a reason why IMHO they should've gone with a more 'traditional' frigate instead of these LCSs.

In the end it cost MORE.. even the patrols protecting the tankers off Africa was done almost exclusively by the Burkes when they could've been easily and effectively carried out by frigates whose operating cost is much much less than an Aegis destroyer... not to mention freeing them out to do actual 'destroyer' type missions intead of using them to confront ex-fishermen in skiffs with RPGs and AKs.
 

Jeff Head

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #765
IMHO they should've gone with a more 'traditional' frigate instead of these LCSs.

In the end it cost MORE.. the patrols protecting the tankers off Africa could've been easily and effectively carried out by frigates whose operating cost is much much less than an Aegis destroyer... not to mention freeing them out to do actual 'destroyer' type missions intead of using them to confront ex-fishermen in skiffs with RPGs and AKs.
Spot on!

Amen to every bit of that.
 

Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
The USN would do great to have a domestically produced version or equivalent of the Formidable class; replace SYLVER with Mk-41, replace Herakles with SPY-1F, maybe a multi face fixed X band AESA or even a new rotating AESA, and give it a small sized aegis combat system to replace the french combat system. Replace slant launchers for exocet with either NSM or LRASM.
Change out the european sonars for american ones.

All this is well within the capabilities of US shipbuilding and they have all the subcontractors they need for all the subsystems, but somehow even a relatively simply ship like this will end up likely costing too much.

Of course, what I described is also what I'd like the 054A successor to look like.
 

Jeff Head

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #767
The USN would do great to have a domestically produced version or equivalent of the Formidable class; replace SYLVER with Mk-41, replace Herakles with SPY-1F, maybe a multi face fixed X band AESA or even a new rotating AESA, and give it a small sized aegis combat system to replace the french combat system. Replace slant launchers for exocet with either NSM or LRASM.

Change out the european sonars for american ones.

All this is well within the capabilities of US shipbuilding and they have all the subcontractors they need for all the subsystems.
The US, instead, will keep on building Burke DDGs. The US Navy already has 63 of them. Nine more Burke IIAs are going to be built (bringing it to72).

Then, at least 12 of the Burke IIIs will be built (brining it to 84), and more than likely it will be 24 of them (bringing it to 96).

Plenty of AEGIS vessels to go around.

If they simply make the SSC even decent in terms of a multi-role frigate (and they do not need AEGIS to do that - just decent ASW, decent ASuW, and ESSMs for air defense along with RAM), and then go back (as they are doing) and up arm the first 24 LCS, it will more than suffice.
 

Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
The US, instead, will keep on building Burke DDGs. The US Navy already has 63 of them. Nine more Burke IIAs are going to be built (bringing it to72).

Then, at least 12 of the Burke IIIs will be built (brining it to 84), and more than likely it will be 24 of them (bringing it to 96).

Plenty of AEGIS vessels to go around.

If they simply make the SSC even decent in terms of a multi-role frigate (and they do not need AEGIS to do that - just decent ASW, decent ASuW, and ESSMs for air defense along with RAM), and then go back (as they are doing) and up arm the first 24 LCS, it will more than suffice.
Well giving SSC and LCS a viable AAW capability is just the issue. It doesn't look like there's any plan or even space to give the LCS hull a proper VLS without more modifications that the USN are willing to tolerate.
And while the USN has an obvious need for aegis ships, with the LCS/SSC they're also ending up with a significant fraction of their future fleet lacking individual or small group survivability in any situation hotter than low intensity, without offboard aegis support.

Which is why I think it would have been a great idea to have built a ship along the lines of Formidable or even 054A rather than LCS a long time ago -- aka a modern OHP class. Of course it's too late now, and they'll have to make the best out of a less than optimal situation with a less than optimal ship class. If they're able to introduce a viable VLS based air defence system then I'll be much more content but that's looking more unlikely by the year.

Of course the major redeeming factor in the USN is they'll have enough capable aegis ships with radars and VLS to fight a high intensity conflict, but one can't help but wonder if the same high intensity AAW capability and VLS number could not have been preserved with a modern frigate class built in large numbers in place of the LCS to complement burkes, while also able to conduct duties unnecessary for a DDG but more survivable than the glorified corvette of LCS.
 

Jeff Head

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #769
Bltizo, many many of us over here wanted the Navy...and urged the Navy to simply build a decent, multi-role FFG to replace the OHPs with.

but they decided to go with a very fast, modular, less armed, less combat capable vessel instead.

Now, they are realizing that they have an issue...but hulls are already in the water, and contracts for more are already committed to.

We can only hope that the realization will continue to dawn on these people and that they will proceed to make the necessary changes.

Quite frankly, adding the quad launchers for the NSM, and adding a single 8-cell Mk-41 packed with ESSM...and insuring they have the sensors to operate them...would completely resolve the armament issue,
 
from DOT&E FY2014 Annual Report
p. 200 (6 out of 10 in the PDF available as
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
):
During operational testing, LCS 3 did not demonstrate that it could achieve the Navy requirement for fuel endurance (operating range) at the prescribed transit speed or at sprint speed.
...
Based on fuel consumption data collected during the test, the ship’s operating range at 14.4 knots is estimated to be approximately 1,961 nautical miles (Navy requirement: 3,500 nautical miles at 14 knots)
etc., my question is
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
just had issues during that particular test, or it's more general?

EDIT
now I checked at
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

San Diego -- Honolulu Distance 2275 nautical miles
 
Last edited:

Top