Article Archive: Current 1999 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics
Surface Forces: Cracked, Leaking And Limping Along
   Next Article → PROCUREMENT: The Blame Of India
February 12, 2012: Although the U.S. Navy has decided to put its new "Littoral Combat Ship" (LCS) into mass production more structural and other flaws are being discovered in the ones already built. The first LCS, the monohull USS Freedom, has suffered four major problems since it entered service four years ago. The latest one is a leak in a propeller shaft seal, which caused some minor flooding. Freedom was able to get back to port under its own power. Last year cracks in the hull as long as 17 cm (6.5 inches) were discovered, and the water-jet propulsion system broke down as well. Two years ago one of the gas turbine engines broke down.

The most serious problem is in the USS Independence, a radical trimaran design. It seems that a "dissimilar metals" situation arose when salt water, the aluminum hull, and some other metals got into close proximity with each other and extensive corrosion resulted. Aluminum hulls tend to corrode more than steel, but the problem became so bad with the USS Independence that, 18 months after entering service, it was sent into dry dock for corrosion repairs and design changes to eliminate the problem.

Cracks, corrosion, and equipment breakdowns are common in new warship designs, especially designs that are radically different (like the broad trimaran shape of the USS Independence). Usually, these problems can be fixed but there's always the risk that the new design will be seriously flawed, requiring extensive rework and a halt in building more ships of that class. So far, the U.S. Navy has not wavered in the face of potential design and construction flaws.

This is all part of the expected years of uncertainty and experimentation as this radical new combat ship design seeks to find out what works, to what degree, and what doesn't. There is some nervousness about all this. The U.S. Navy has not introduced a radical new design for nearly a century. The last such new design was the aircraft carrier, which required two decades of experimentation and a major war to nail down what worked. Even the nuclear submarines of the late 1950s and early 60s were evolutionary compared to what the LCS is trying to do.

In the last six years two different LCS designs were built and put into service. Problems were encountered. The much smaller crew required some changes in how a crew ran a ship and how many sailors and civilians were required back on land to support a LCS at sea. It was found that, so far, the interchangeable mission modules take far longer (2-3 days instead of 2-3 hours) to replace. The LCS has still not seen combat, and the navy wants the first violent encounter to be successful or at least not disastrous. It is expected that there will be surprises, which is about all that can be guaranteed at this point.

The navy surprised everyone two years ago by choosing both designs and requesting that the fifty or so LCS ships be split between the two very different looking ships. Seven LCS ships are under construction, in addition to the two (one of each type) in service. While both ships look quite different (one is a traditional monohull while the other is a broader trimaran), they both share many common elements. One of the most important of these is the highly automated design and smaller crew. Both ships have accommodations for only 75 personnel. Normally, a ship of this size would have a crew of about 200. The basic LCS crew is 40, with the other 35 berths occupied by operators of special equipment.

The LCS crews are also modularized so that specialized teams can be swapped in to operate specific modules. Thus about 40 percent of the ship is empty, with a large cargo hold into which the mission package gear is inserted (and then removed, along with the package crew, when it is no longer assigned to that ship). Thus the LCS has two crews when underway, the "ship" crew and the mission package crew. The captain of the ship crew is in charge and the officer commanding the mission package is simply the officer in charge of the largest equipment system on board. There are a variety of interchangeable modules (e.g., air defense, underwater warfare, special operations, surface attack, etc.), which allow the ships to be quickly reconfigured for various specialized missions. Crews will also be modularized so that specialized teams can be swapped in to operate specific modules. The design and crew requirements for these modules is still a work in progress but also shows a need for more people, or more automation.

So far, the heavy workload has not hurt morale. The small crew means that everyone knows everyone and it is standard for people to handle a number of different jobs. Even officers pitch in for any task that needs to be done. This kind of overworked enthusiasm is actually typical of smaller naval craft. These included World War II era PT boats, with crews of up to 17, and current minesweepers (with crews similar to an LCS) and larger patrol boats. There's also the "new" factor. In addition to being new ships there is a new design and lots of new tech. This gets people pumped. But the experience with the LCS has to be used to develop changes that will make these ships viable for the long haul.

The two different LCS designs are from Lockheed-Martin (monohull) and General Dynamics (trimaran). The first LCS, the monohull USS Freedom, completed its sea trials and acceptance inspections three years ago. The ship did very well, with far fewer (about 90 percent fewer) problems (or "material deficiencies") than is usual with the first warship in a class. USS Independence (LCS-2) was laid down by General Dynamics in late 2005 and commissioned in January 2010. Corrosion and hull cracks were expected eventually but appeared much earlier than anticipated.

Both LCS designs were supposed to be for ships displacing 2,500 tons, with a full load draft of under 3.3 meters (ten feet), permitting access to very shallow "green" and even "brown" coastal and riverine waters where most naval operations have taken place in the past generation. Top speed was expected was to be over 80 kilometers with a range of 2,700 kilometers. Basic endurance is 21 days and final displacement was closer to 3,000 tons.

LCS is currently armed with a 57mm gun, four 12.7mm machine-guns, two 30mm autocannon, and a 21 cell SeaRam system for aircraft and missile defense. The RAM (RIM-116 "Rolling Air Frame") missiles replace Phalanx autocannon. SeaRAM has a longer range (7.5 kilometers) than the Phalanx (two kilometers). Last year, the navy decided to equip LCS with a surface launched version of the Griffin air-to-surface missile. The Griffin is an alternative to the Hellfire II, which weighs 48.2 kg (106 pounds) and carries a 9 kg (20 pound) warhead and has a range of 8,000 meters. In contrast, the Griffin weighs only 16 kg (35 pounds), with a 5.9 kg (13 pound) warhead which is larger, in proportion to its size, than the one carried by the larger Hellfire missile. Griffin has a pop-out wings, allowing it to glide, and thus has a longer range (15 kilometers) than Hellfire. UAVs can carry more of the smaller missiles, typically two of them in place of one Hellfire. The surface-launched Griffin weighs about twice as much as the air launched version because of the addition of a rocket to get it into the air, after which it can glide to the target. An LCS can also carry two MH-60 helicopters and a MQ-8 helicopter UAV (that can be armed with Griffin).

The navy hoped to have between 50 and 60 LCSs by 2014-18, at a cost of $460 million (after the first five). The USS Freedom ended up costing nearly $600 million, about twice what the first ship in the class was supposed to have cost. The navy believes it has the cost down to under $450 million each as mass production begins.

Next Article → PROCUREMENT: The Blame Of India
  

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
bikebrains       2/12/2012 10:42:25 AM
"The navy surprised everyone two years ago by choosing both designs, and requesting that the fifty or so LCS ships be split between the two very different looking ships."    This has always sounded crazy.  The purpose of a competition is to scientifically judge which of the two designs is the best.   The extensive analysis should follow all of the rules of the Scientific Method to determine the best design.  Then produce the better of the two.   The whole LCS project should be reviewed adding the current experience to the knowledge base that is analyzed.    If the better of the two designs does not meet expectations then the project should be halted so that the best path can be chosen.   There are a number of options among them: develop a third design, use a more traditional design based on proven technology or postpone LCS until all of the problems with the current LCS can be solved.    Remember, this country is nearly broke.    
 
Quote    Reply

Chris       2/12/2012 10:53:21 AM
The most serious problem is in the USS Independence, a radical trimaran design. It seems that a "dissimilar metals" situation arose when salt water, the aluminum hull and some other metals got into close proximity with each other, and extensive corrosion resulted. 
====================================================================================
It isn't like this problem wasn't known, and it isn't like multi-hulled designs are unknown.  The design reviews were clearly inadequate. 
 
Quote    Reply

antares    Inadequate?   2/12/2012 7:59:50 PM

The design reviews were clearly inadequate.

Correction:  The design reviewers were clearly inadequate.
 
Quote    Reply

jessmo_24       2/13/2012 3:44:41 AM
has anyone ever thought about using off the shelf tech to improve the LCS lethality?
 here are some I deas I had
 
1. A Mission module with a MLRS/ATACMS launching capability. This would give the options of havng the 190 Mile ATACMs stand off capability, or the Guided or unguided MLRS. Both the Shore bombardment, small fast attack boat defence and stand off missiosn coudl be solved easily.
 
2. A Side mounted TLAM/harpoon canister. Even if you only had 4 this would turn the ship into a fast moving missile boat.
 
3. Side Mount sea rams in alot more places around the ship. Why not use the searam for both offence and defence? The missiles would shred fast boats.
 
In a time when the navy should exercise fiscal restraint. Its odd that the USn  wont use more avialable tech.
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY       2/13/2012 9:28:20 AM
1. A Mission module with a MLRS/ATACMS launching capability. This would give the options of having the 190 Mile ATACMs stand off capability, or the Guided or unguided MLRS. Both the Shore bombardment, small fast attack boat defense and stand off mission could be solved easily.
 
And the targeting information comes from where?  Plus is LCS' job to deliver long-range fire?
 
2. A Side mounted TLAM/harpoon canister. Even if you only had 4 this would turn the ship into a fast moving missile boat.
 
Requires an upgrade, I'd imagine, to the combat system.  Harpoon targeting requires a dedicated C4I system, as Harpoon is rather long-ranged.
 
3. Side Mount sea rams in a lot more places around the ship. Why not use the searam for both offense and defense? The missiles would shred fast boats.
 
SeaRam, comes at a weight penalty, stability penalty, and RAM is targeted via RF reception, what will RAM home in on in a Boghammar?
 
Quote    Reply

StobieWan       2/17/2012 6:53:17 AM
I don't think the USN needs more Harpoon launchers - LCS will be carrying the Griffin in a set of VLS boxes which is good enough for Boghammers etc. No sense in putting TLAM on the thing, it's not part of the mission set.
 
I suspect that the LCS will end up with the 25mm bushmaster mounts from the ASUW modules permanently mounted - they're useful and cheap.
 
The thing I do not understand is that LCS was meant to replace three hulls with one, and now they've got two hulls, and of course, as it was never intended to run them alongside another, there's now a major spares and training overhead as the two ships have different CIC's and different CMS plus radar fit.
 
 

has anyone ever thought about using off the shelf tech to improve the LCS lethality?

 here are some I deas I had

 

1. A Mission module with a MLRS/ATACMS launching capability. This would give the options of havng the 190 Mile ATACMs stand off capability, or the Guided or unguided MLRS. Both the Shore bombardment, small fast attack boat defence and stand off missiosn coudl be solved easily.

 

2. A Side mounted TLAM/harpoon canister. Even if you only had 4 this would turn the ship into a fast moving missile boat.

 

3. Side Mount sea rams in alot more places around the ship. Why not use the searam for both offence and defence? The missiles would shred fast boats.

 

In a time when the navy should exercise fiscal restraint. Its odd that the USn  wont use more avialable tech.

 
Quote    Reply

dogberry       2/17/2012 10:54:11 PM
Will they be able to fly an F-35 off an LCS?
 
Quote    Reply

myhandlewontfi    no   2/18/2012 8:17:18 AM
no the F35 will melt the LCS :P (With its exhaust) And for gods sake dont say that out loud someone may try it, if they can get an admiral to think it is a good idea. :P
 
Quote    Reply