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: The Misunderstood LCS and Mission Modules
Galrahn    4/6/2006 12:39:28 AM
I think the LCS is currently the most misunderstood concept in the US Navy today. Whether it is the “Little Crappy Ship” nickname, or the observation that the LCS is limited in terms of offensive firepower, the LCS is certainly not popular among many. When attempting to shame the LCS concept, observers often distort the ship by using unfair comparisons by comparing it to other ships deployed by other nations, or illustrating some sort of disadvantage when performing a role it isn’t designed to do. Examples of this would be comparing the LCS to European ships, like the common comparison of the Denmark Absalon class. I think it is a silly comparison, while the Absalon is obviously a fantastic ship; the comparison is the top line ship of one Navy to the future minesweeper of the US Navy, hardly a fair comparison. By that comparison, it is implied the LCS should perform the role of the US AEGIS Cruiser; after all, the Absalon role for Denmark is what the AEGIS Cruiser role is for the US. What is almost never discussed is the statement that the ships the LCS is replacing do not have VLS. If the LCS is not replacing VLS ships, why is the expectation the LCS should perform some role that would be tasked to a VLS AEGIS ship? The assignment to the LCS by US Naval Commanders to perform those roles is not only unlikely, it is unreasonable. The LCS is a small combatant, designed to perform the small combatant roles by replacing the Avenger Class Minesweepers (MCM), the Osprey Class Coastal Minesweepers (MHC), and the Oliver Hazard Perry class Frigates (FFG). There are 10 traditional roles for small combatants: Battle Force Screening - Think Fletcher class in WWII, a defensive battle line ASW role and close in support screen. Mine Warfare - Osprey and Avenger class which LCS is intended to replace Protection of Shipping - Examples are ASW Patrol Frigates in WWII, Knox class ASW escort in Cold War Scouting - The intended role of North European FACs if WWIII ever broke out. This has not been a role for small combatants of the US Navy since WWII due to satellites and air recon. Anti-Surface Warface - PT Boats in WWII, Ashville Patrol Gunboats in Vietnam are a few examples. Amphibious Support - Examples exist today, the LCU and LCM are examples. Typically small combatants performing this role were off-board craft deployed from larger vessels. Close-in Fire Support - The WWII Landing Ship Medium, Rocket (LSM(R)) and Infantry, Gun (LCI(G)) are good examples. This function is no longer performed today. Riverine Warfare - A few examples include Swift boats (PCFs) and River Patrol Boats (PBRs), River Minesweepers (MSRs), and Minesweeping Boats. Additionally specialized river infantry transport craft such as the Armored Troop/Cargo craft (ATC) performed this role. The US Navy recently stood up their new Riverine Warfare squadron, and speculation is a Riverine Warfare module may be built for the LCS at some point. Naval Special Operations Forces (SOF) Support - during World War II. Over 100 small destroyers and destroy escorts were converted to serve as fast destroyer transports (APD). Today, the T-AK USNS Gunnery Sgt. Fred W. Stockham, after being modified with a large helicopter deck, is used exclusively as a large Special Forces platform. Maritime Domain Awareness and Defensive Maritime Interdiction - This ranges from everything from the radar pickets (DDRs and DERs) of the 1950s for early warning to drug interdiction patrols in the Caribbean to the MSO operations in the Middle East region today. To date, the US Navy has only released the details regarding the Flight 0 LCS Modules. While the expectations are that there will be other modules for later Flights of LCS ships, it is clear by the Flight 0 design that the LCS is a clear upgrade in capability by every measurement possible compared to the ships it is directly replacing. The baseline capabilities, which are very respectable btw, have been discussed to death, so I will skip straight to the mission modules. The Mission Modules MIW Mission Package: 1 MH-60S OASIS ALMDS AQS-20A RAMICS AMNS 3 VTUAV COBRA 1 MMUSV OASIS 2 RMS 3 BPAUV 3 SCULPIN 1 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Detachment The Mine Warfare Mission Package clearly gives the US Navy a major advantage over current minesweepers. Off board options include 2 helicopters (or 1 helo and 3 VTUAVs) for mine detection and neutralization, 1 RHIB or USV for mine detection, 8 UUVS with detection and neutralization options, and 1 EOC detachment. That is potentially 3 or 4 times the number of unmanned off board mine sweeping systems of current minesweepers, and additionally provides the range, speed, and capabilities of the baseline LCS. The LCS with MIW module will be the first dedicated minesweeper the US Navy has deployed that can go faster than 14 knots, EVER. The overall
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3 4   NEXT
EW3    RE:The Misunderstood LCS and Mission Modules   4/6/2006 12:54:37 AM
A very good post, you have put more in one post than any 10 posts about the LCS, you've done some good research. My only quibble is I'm not sure who you are defending the LCS against? Anyone conversent with AEGIS/CEC and the modern integrated USN, should appreciate the value of the LCS. The LCS is just what we need to spread sensors to give input to the shooters.
 
Quote    Reply

EW3    RE:The Misunderstood LCS and Mission Modules   4/6/2006 1:02:53 AM
Just to add the LCS is not a riverine ship. River boats need to have draft less then 3 feet. Also look up the WLD-1, it's scheduled to be used on the LCS.
 
Quote    Reply

TheArmchairCmd    RE:The Misunderstood LCS and Mission Modules   4/6/2006 1:10:23 AM
Great post! Examples of this would be comparing the LCS to European ships, like the common comparison of the Denmark Absalon class. I think it is a silly comparison, while the Absalon is obviously a fantastic ship; the comparison is the top line ship of one Navy to the future minesweeper of the US Navy, hardly a fair comparison. By that comparison, it is implied the LCS should perform the role of the US AEGIS Cruiser; after all, the Absalon role for Denmark is what the AEGIS Cruiser role is for the US. First to clear up some small misconceptions wrt the Absalons. They are not supposed to be used as AEGIS ships. They are more akin to the global cruiser concept. They are optimised for the littoral combattant role with selfdefense only in the AAW aspect. The Upcoming AAW frigates will be the AEGIS equivalents in the Danish Navy and these will be the top line ships. I have always thought that the USN was on the right track with the LCS. The platform to platform comparisons don't hold true as they are part of a system and a doctrine. The USN can do these comprehensive solutions due to its size and global mission. The contrast is the European navies, that are building ships that has to fulfill a national as well as a coalition role. Hence the diffenrent approach. The LCS and the system it is part of, offers so much more "bang for the buck!"
 
Quote    Reply

Galrahn    RE:The Misunderstood LCS and Mission Modules   4/6/2006 2:12:16 AM
Just to add the LCS is not a riverine ship. River boats need to have draft less then 3 feet. What I was trying to say is Riverine warfare is a traditional role for small combatants in the US Navy. Someone I met was discussing a study ongoing in the NWC about making a Riverine module for the LCS, which would allow the LCS to deploy the Riverine squadron at sea to move up river. I thought that was interesting, so I mentioned the potential here. Also look up the WLD-1, it's scheduled to be used on the LCS. Ya i should have put AN/WLD-1 RMS instead of RMS, but I did list it (just very generically). As far as defending the LCS, I read this today and shook my head. http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2006/04/lcs-2-gets-big-ship-name.html I like his blog, and love his sense of humor, but the problem I have is the only realistic point he made was the fire issue for a small crew, which is actually a better argument in terms of the DD(X) due to square-footage to sailor ratio. If you think about it, the implication of his sensational story is that the USS Avenger would be doing the mission instead. It is another indication of just how far people will go to trash the LCS concept without having a real debate. The lack of historical perspective regarding small combatants in the US Navy, combined with the idea that the only way to get something done at sea is with VLS and AEGIS is misguided in my opinion. Even on these forums, firepower is often guaged as the measurement of record for sea control, when in reality that simply is not the case for the vast majority of daily operations for the US Navy.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    RE:The Misunderstood LCS and Mission Modules   4/6/2006 4:31:53 AM
"Even on these forums, firepower is often guaged as the measurement of record for sea control, when in reality that simply is not the case for the vast majority of daily operations for the US Navy." there's a lot to be said for platform flexibility rather than absolute platform potency. after all, look how many people go "ooh and aah" when they see a mining team blow up a ridgeface . all that dust and muck looks impressive. the public rarely considers that the guy who can blow open a lock with a matchbox sized charge as being a specialist more worthy of attention. ;)
 
Quote    Reply

interestedamateur    RE:The Misunderstood LCS and Mission Modules   4/6/2006 8:17:08 AM
Very good post Galrahn, thanks
 
Quote    Reply

B.Smitty    RE:The Misunderstood LCS and Mission Modules   4/6/2006 8:42:27 AM
Galrahn wrote: "Examples of this would be comparing the LCS to European ships, like the common comparison of the Denmark Absalon class. I think it is a silly comparison, while the Absalon is obviously a fantastic ship; the comparison is the top line ship of one Navy to the future minesweeper of the US Navy, hardly a fair comparison. By that comparison, it is implied the LCS should perform the role of the US AEGIS Cruiser; after all, the Absalon role for Denmark is what the AEGIS Cruiser role is for the US." Great first post but I don't think the Absalon fills the same role for Denmark that an AEGIS cruiser fills for the US. It's called a "Command and Support Ship" for a reason. It only has self-defense AAW capabilities. There are/were plans for another line of ships using the Absalon hull that would fill a more traditional frigate role. The advantages of an Absalon-like ship over the LCS would include a larger multi-mission area, larger avation facilities (space for two Merlin-sized helos vs two MH-60 sized helos on the LCS), greater endurance, 127mm gun for NGFS, and space for a modest VLS and AAW suite. Plus, it may even have space to carry all three of the LCS mission modules you described simultaneously. On the endurance question, Global Security reports (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/lcs.htm) that the wave-piercing catamaran with a full mission module only has around 7 days of endurance, and at high speeds, its endurance is measured in HOURS! Here's the source analysis, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2003/030300-4523.pdf Now obviously, the Absalon has a greater draft, can only make 23kts, and would cost significantly more than an LCS to buy and operate. Plus, they probably have a higher signature. I would also like to throw in navalized versions of the new USCG Deepwater cutters as potential LCS competitors. They're designed with significant aviation and multi-mission facilities, have significantly higher endurance, and are already under development for the USCG. Maybe the answer is really to buy both. Buy some number of LCSs and larger ships like the Absalon or the Deepwater cutters.
 
Quote    Reply

Galrahn    RE: Regarding Absalon   4/6/2006 11:59:13 AM
I want to say up front I think the Absalon appears to be a great ship. I still don't think the LCS and Absalon are good comparisons, although many try to make that comparison due to cost ratio and mission module comparisons. The Absalon is currently the largest surface combatant in the Danish Navy, while the LCS will be the smallest Surface Combatant in the US Navy. That is the basis I used to compare the Absalon to the AEGIS CG, the largest surface combatants of each respective Navy. I agree my role comparison of the Absalon class and the US AEGIS CG was a bad comparison, and as I think about it, I basically used the same mindset for my comparison as the mindset I was attempting to discredit. The Absalon has: 1 ea 127 mm Gun Mk M/02 LvSa (5” Mk 45 Mod 4) 8 ea Harpoon SSM (2x4) 2 ea Sea Sparrow SAM VLS Mk. 48 Launcher (1x6) 7 ea 12.7 mm Heavy Machine Gun M/01 LvSa 2 ea 35 mm CIWS Mk M/0? LvSa 4 ea Stinger Lv M/93 (2x2) SEAGNAT/SBROC Mk. 36 MU90 323 mm Anti submarine torpedoes Mines With additional space for: 2 ea Landing Crafts of the LCP Class 2 ea Agusta-Westland EH-101 Helicopters Additionally the ship can perform transportation of personal and material and act as a command platform for land, air and sea operations. The ship also has a mine laying capacity. It also has the capacity to carry out humanitarian operations as a hospital ship. The ship is fitted with a 900 square meter flexible deck to perform in different operations and has a roll-on-roll-off (RO/RO) capacity aft. I agree the ship is flexible like the LCS, but at about 60% or more of the cost and more than double the displacement. I love the concept of an armed destroyer transport that can be configured for humanitarian, SOF, Marine, or MIW duty, and I think it is a great ship to enter the 21st century with for the Danes, but in the US Navy this would literally be a ship in search of a capability that is already tasked to other, more capable units. After all, the US Navy has hospital ships, has ships for SOF (SSGN), has both LSDs and LPDs for Marine transport, and has dedicated Mine Warfare ships. I also don't think a 6,300 ton FFG is a good comparison to a 2,800 ton LCS based on the bang for the buck theory. If you look at the critics of the LCS though, that is the comparison people attempt to make in advocating a FFG with an estimated cost of 650-750 million per ship (when built by US shipyards), before mission modules of coarse.
 
Quote    Reply

TheArmchairCmd    RE: Regarding Absalon   4/6/2006 12:34:54 PM
This is the weapons deck of the Absalon. 4 of 5 slots are occupied. on this pic. http://www.vaabenskjolde.dk/BillederUdePaaSiden/Vaaben/Launchere%20ABSALON.jpg> I believe this is 2 x 8 Harpoon II and 2 x mk56 VLS launchers with only 12 of 24 ESSM in place. And one empty container slot.
 
Quote    Reply

B.Smitty    RE: Regarding Absalon   4/6/2006 1:04:19 PM
I think my biggest problem with the LCS is the obsession with speed. I agree that it can come in handy, but the majority of roles envisioned for these ships could be done by a similarly-sized, but slower ship that had significantly longer endurance and payload and was far cheaper. The Absalon may be too big for the job, but one could envision a smaller version that retained the modularity and the RORO deck but had far longer endurance than an LCS and could carry multiple mission module equivalents simultaneously. Take either the USCG National Security Cutter (http://www.uscg.mil/deepwater/system/nsc.htm) or Offshore Patrol Cutter (http://www.uscg.mil/deepwater/system/opc.htm). The NSC has an endurance of 60 days and the OPC 45 days. They both have reconfigurable multi-mission areas (though no RORO, AFAIK). I bet it wouldn't be hard to add SeaRAM and a small VLS suite (Netfires and/or Mk48). The OPC is slated to cost around $200 mil as is. Obviously adding Navy systems, weapons & sensors would drive up the price. But I bet it'd still be cheaper than an LCS.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics