Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Surface Forces Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: LCS Gets A Bigger Crew And Lots Of Tweaks
SYSOP    1/17/2014 5:22:38 AM
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   NEXT
HR       1/17/2014 10:22:25 AM
Very controversial and mis-understood ship class. The Freedom is not a conventional hull but a see skimming racing hull of Italian design; one of its prototypes holds or used to hold the record for the fastest trans-Atlantic voyage. The trimaran is very fast too and has more endurance as well as more space for modules and a larger flight deck BUT has somewhat less sea keeping ability.
 
The 57mm gun and the rolling frame missiles are the only true organic defenses on the hull since the 30MM guns is actually a module that can be removed and replaced with something else.
 
The ships where designed from the get-go to be able to comfortably field a meaningful aviation component as well as unmanned underwater and surface vehicles. They are also very good for making searches of suspected smugglers, pirates, etc. and can deploy small special forces teams and their likes with ease.   
 
The Griffin will not be the last missile to go into this ship. It is an important one because of its accuracy, size which is proportional to the threats that will found in such waters as well as being helicopter  deployable which might prove an advantage (having the same missile for both roles can simplify logistics).
 
They are still searching for a beyond the horizon missile. They would like something with say 20 some miles range or longer.
 
And because of its power-plant and large space availability in the module bays to hold capacitors, etc. the LCS is being considered for rail guns and lasers.
 
The reason they choose both designs is unknown but could have something to do with capacity; not one of the two yards could produce ships at an acceptable rate to replace those being retired.
 
It represents a major up-grade from the old Perry's who for example would not have the space capacity to even be candidates for a rail gun, etc.
 
Quote    Reply

esmoore5       1/17/2014 11:57:00 AM
The Griffin will not be the last missile to go into this ship. It is an important one because of its accuracy, size which is proportional to the threats that will found in such waters as well as being helicopter  deployable which might prove an advantage (having the same missile for both roles can simplify logistics).
 
They are still searching for a beyond the horizon missile. They would like something with say 20 some miles range or longer.



Whatever happened to Boeing's Joint Air-Breathing Multi-Role Missile (JABMM)?:
 
 
Quote    Reply

joe6pack       1/17/2014 1:43:39 PM
"If you read the mass media you get the impression that all is lost. It isn’t. "
 
 So.. reports by Navy Admirals, various government commission and the Pentagon that state it's pretty much a money pit that don't work.. are all wrong?
 
"The LCS crews are also modularized so that specialized teams can be swapped in to operate specific modules..."
 
Last I read, the "module" swapping wasn't really working - so is that fixed??
 
"In 2013 the navy discovered that the LCS computer networks (and those of other ships as well) were vulnerable to hacking. "
 
Just wow... and this was on a ship that was / is highly automated etc.. ?? Where there might actually not be someone able to go manually close a valve.. or turn on a system.. just wow.. 
 
 "LCS is currently armed with a 57mm gun, four 12.7mm machine-guns, two 30mm autocannons, 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)."
 
And is still woefully armed for something that costs significantly more than some of the newer frigates out there.. and has the inability to absorb any sort of battle damage been addressed??
 
But I'm an old infantryman.. I won't presume to tell the Navy their business.. but it certainly doesn't seem very promising on paper.
 
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    6pack   1/17/2014 4:15:11 PM
Pierre Spey and Boyd spent years trashing the F-15/16....I can't tell you the number of times the M-1/2/3 have been dismissed....Does it mean the LCS ISN'T a crap design, No...but it does mean that just because Admirals (who may want LCS money for their community-Submarine, Aviation, Surface Warfare) or "government commissions", who answer the questions given them, i.e., the number of studies "demonstrated" that the M-113 was the better buy over the M-2/3, or the "Pentagon" (See Spey et al. and the Fighter Mafia and the Defense Reform School, in general) may all have a bias/animus against the LCS on the basis of internal service politics and be basing their claims on what they desire to spend the money on INSTEAD of the LCS.
 
The LCS is NOT designed to slug it out with Slava's or Krivak's....it's designed to operate inshore against Osa's, Komars, and Boghammars.  As I understand it, the goal is to kill the enemy at a distance, making the fragility of the platform less important.  IF, the USS Freedom can engage the gaggle of Boghammars from over-the-horizon "swarm" tactics don't even come into play.  Against the IRGC with a limited ability to identify targets at a distance, well the ability of the Freedom to "see" the Iranians well before the Iranians see the Freedom is critical.
 
Will this work.  I have NO idea.   But to criticize the program I think it's important to grasp what the point of the program is and isn't.
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       1/17/2014 4:41:23 PM
I think the real arguments that stack-up against the LCS are simply about cost/capability - that is what is proving hard to evaluate as it is designed to be capable of utilizing offboard / networked assets to a greater extent than previously thought. 
 
What I think IS (always) a valid argument is that of modularity proving too different to implement on major system builds without a resultant spike in risk and therefore cost/complexity with the eventual outcome being performance reduction across one or more areas.
 
This is all compounded by there being two separate hull designs, mission-packs that are likely to be cancelled or compromised, and if it does come down to the valid but contested view that it doesn't represent value for money across the range of missions for which it will be tasked.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

joe6pack    JFKY   1/17/2014 5:03:55 PM
Your points are well taken.  Just in my reading on the LCS, there have been more somewhat more 'WTF ?' moments than is normal for me.
 
Giving it the full benefit of my considerable doubts - I think Reactive states it nicely here:
 
"I think the real arguments that stack-up against the LCS are simply about cost/capability'
 
It seems like a really expensive ship to swat patrol craft with..
And it's other proposed 'modules' such as Anti-Sub, Anti-Mine,  etc.. seem to indicate that it may be looked at for higher levels of threats than say Iranian patrol boats.
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       1/17/2014 7:40:47 PM
"The LCS crews are also modularized so that specialized teams can be swapped in to operate specific modules..."
 
Last I read, the "module" swapping wasn't really working - so is that fixed??
The problems with the modules are logistical and perception.
• The logistics requirements have killed the quick swap concept. The problem is simply that if the modules are in the USA it can take up to 3 months to deliver them to the location where they will be swapped out. For a similar example see what happened when they tried to move a squadron of AH-64 Apache helicopters to the border between Macedonia and Croatia back during the Kosovo War.
 
• Perceptual -- The surface warfare module development halted when NETFIRES was cancelled pending the selection of a replacement missile system. The minesweeping module relies on technology that is still rapidly evolving. Basically every time they get everything working right, some improvement comes along that they have to incorporate. The other modules were put on hold pending the completion of the minesweeping module that had higher priority.
"In 2013 the navy discovered that the LCS computer networks (and those of other ships as well) were vulnerable to hacking. "
 
Just wow... and this was on a ship that was / is highly automated etc.. ?? Where there might actually not be someone able to go manually close a valve.. or turn on a system.. just wow.. 
Ongoing problem first identified on other vessels and effects all of them. It is a bigger problem for the LCS because of the higher degree of automation makes more systems vulnerable. This will be an ongoing problem as it is impossible to achieve the advantages of netcentric warfare without the interconnectivity that creates the vulnerability to hacking.
 "LCS is currently armed with a 57mm gun, four 12.7mm machine-guns, two 30mm autocannons, 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)."
 
And is still woefully armed for something that costs significantly more than some of the newer frigates out there.. and has the inability to absorb any sort of battle damage been addressed??
 
But I'm an old infantryman.. I won't presume to tell the Navy their business.. but it certainly doesn't seem very promising on paper.
When comparing the LCS to other designs throw out any design that doesn’t meet the following minimum requirments.
• 3.3m (10ft) draft maximum (Note: Nearly all the better armed designs are for deep water work, typically over 6m draft)
• Hanger space for 2 helicopters (Sikorsky SH-60 Seahawk equivalent).
• 32+knots speed. It needs to keep up with the rest of the fleet.
• Mission modules. While the quick swap concept is dead, the ability to easily reconfigure the vessels without a major overhaul is still valid.
 
Quote    Reply

joe6pack    WarNerd   1/17/2014 10:10:18 PM
"When comparing the LCS to other designs throw out any design that doesn’t meet the following minimum requirments."
 
On that front, the only really unique thing seems to the very shallow draft.   To be of any sort of advantage, that would make it getting in real close to land.  - Which is where I get back to questioning it's offensive capability and ability to absorb damage at a huge expense
 
In some quick internet perusing -  
 
If you subtract the helicopters / hangers - there a number of corvettes out there are a fraction of the weight and pack as much, if not more punch..
 
There a several that have similar characteristics - that don't quite match all the LCS capabilities, but appear to be only a fraction of the cost.
 
I guess I don't get what's so special that we are getting for all those dollars?  Is it worth it?? 
 
Quote    Reply

dogberry       1/17/2014 11:19:42 PM
Are the LCSs meant to replace the Perrys?  Or are the Perrys not being replaced by a ship?   
 
Quote    Reply

joe6pack       1/17/2014 11:59:55 PM
"Are the LCSs meant to replace the Perrys?
 
I think the Burke is pretty much replacing everything

Not sure what the LCS is doing
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics