Wednesday, March 31, 2010

GAO on LCS


The GAO just provided a gift the other day to critics of LCS, but are often told something to the effect, "Don't quote me something you heard off some blog - that isn't reliable ... " - well, you know how that goes.

If you need to, send them the links to
DefenseTech and Rueters with this summary,
One of the primary missions of the LCS is to act as a screen for larger fleet ships, fending off small boat swarms in coastal waterways. The standard package for that mission is the Surface Warfare module (SUW), which includes a 30mm cannon and the NLOS-LS
...
GAO says the launcher was tested last summer, but failed due to a malfunctioning sensor and battery connector. The Navy expects delivery of another SUW package this year, this time with the launcher, but minus the missiles. As we noted in our previous write up, Army officials told us they think the missile’s targeting problems are pretty serious ones, considering how far along the NLOS-LS is in development. They’ve hinted they may look at a low cost alternative to the NLOS-LS.

Yet, the Navy is going ahead with delivery of the launcher. Why is the Navy taking delivery of a problematic launcher to fit in a mission module for an unproven missile? I’m guessing they’ve already sized the module for the NLOS-LS and at this stage it may be tool late to redesign it for another launcher without incurring serious costs. Absent a functioning SUW package, the LCS is not mission capable for its primary function as a small surface combatant.
...
GAO said the total cost of the LCS program so far, including research and development as well as procurement funding, was $5.1 billion, nearly 300 percent more than the $1.3 billion cost projected in 2004.

It said the unit cost per ship was $730 million, up from $331 million in 2004, but analysts said that included the first ship of each design, which generally cost more to produce.

GAO said the Navy was conducting dynamic load testing of Lockheed's LCS-1 ship, but integration with the Remote Multi-Mission Vehicle was not due to happen before the ship's so-called shakedown cruise, although it is a "physically stressing system to launch and recover."

For LCS 2, testing of the crane used to launch and recover smaller boats "revealed performance and reliability concerns that were not fully addressed prior to installation."

Lockheed spokeswoman Kim Martinez said the company's first LCS ship, the USS Freedom, had successfully completed its small boat launch and recovery tests, and had used the capability during Freedom's current deployment to catch drug traffickers.

GAO said the main propulsion diesel engines on the General Dynamics ship had not completed a required endurance test due to corrosion in the engines' intake valves, which had to be replaced so the ship could complete acceptance trials.

The General Dynamics ship had also experienced pitting and corrosion in its waterjet tunnels, an issue that the Navy has temporarily fixed, but which will require welding work during a future dry dock availability, GAO said.

Design changes were also made to the General Dynamics ship to address the corrosion and pitting in its waterjet tunnels by isolating the propulsion shafts from the waterjets, GAO said.

General Dynamics spokesman Rob Doolittle said issues sometimes arose during construction of the first ship of any class, but the company and the Navy had already addressed the concerns raised in the GAO report.
...
The GAO report also noted previously reported concerns about the stability of Lockheed's ship if critically damaged, but said the Navy had added external tanks to the rear of the ship to allow it to meet the damage stability requirement.

The design for Lockheed's second ship was also modified to lengthen its transom by four meters to improve stability.
Better yet, read the whole GAO report here - is has a lot about more than just LCS.

Do I need to add that you read it here first a few years ago? Naw ... that would be just rubb'n it in.

If you don't like reading clear, direct, fact-based discussion about LCS - you can always soak in stuff like
this instead.

26 comments:

MR T's Haircut said...

My guess is we will see LT and LCDR commands again.  LCS.  No Captain or CDR will want to risk his chance for promotion for Command of one of these...

Byron said...

If the officers had a choice, they'd probably give it a WO-5 instead :)

kmadams85 said...

Heh... I'd love to see crusty old bosuns commanding ships

cdrsalamander said...

No, every one of those CDR commands are needed to make Captains.  Dirty little secret of LCS manning.

ewok40k said...

By Poeidon's trident,  what did the poor officers did to deserve being responsible for an LCS?

Leadership by Example said...

In obervance of earth day and the urgency and primacy of being PC to the exclusion of common sence and prudence, why not make ships biodegradable and water soluble?

XBradTC said...

Not just one CDR command per hull.

Blue and Gold CDR commands! Can't let all those aviators screen for Captain!

MasterGunner said...

<span>I question the actual use of the NLOS-LS missile on the LCS.  The NLOS-LS missile is an Army design that is designed to fit in the back of a Humvee.  It has 15 vertical launch tubes for a LAM (loitering attack missile) and PAM (precision attack missile -- now cancelled).  Each missile is 7 inches in diameter, weighs about 117 pounds and has a range of 4 kilometers,  The NLOS to be carried on the LCS is supposed to offer short range precision coastal attack and support of land operations.  This is a rather strange choice due to both payload and range.</span> <span>The Army doctrine for employing NLOS-LS is different from the Navy's.  The NLOS launch platforms can be off-loaded and left in autonomous mode where they will identify enemy vehicles and personnel and engage them automatically.  Or. a string of these platforms can be either loaded on Humvees or positioned in static emplacements.  All are data-linked together to blunt an enemy attack with multiple launches of missiles from different directions.   NLOS-LS is designed to attack soft-skinned, light armor, heavy armor, and personnel.  </span><span></span> 

MasterGunner said...

<span>From it's official Navy mission statement, the NLOS-LS would place the LCS very, very close to shore and expose it to both anti-ship missiles and counter-battery artillery fire of up to 155mm projectiles.  Neither the NLOS-LS nor its 57mm/L70 gun have the range or punch to engage heavy guns in the 105mm, 120mm, 125mm, 152mm, and 155mm calibers.  These guns have ranges between 14.5 to 22+ kilometers and carry explosive payloads equal to or heavier than the NLOS-LS.</span><span></span> <span>I don't understand why the Navy would put the large and expensive LCS in harm's way by putting it so lose to shore with such feeble offensive weapons.  The LCS would be at a distinct disadvantage if it was engaged by enemy main battle tanks that have guns in the 105mm to 125mm range or self-propelled artillery in the 105mm, 120mm, 152mm to 155mm range.  All of these vehicles are well-armored and not likely to be affected by the HE shells of the 57mm gun or are outside the engagement range of the NLOS-LS missile.</span><span></span> <span>What the LCS needs is a longer range anti-ship and anti-air missile system such as the Mk 56 Mod 0/1 ESSM (Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile).  The ESSM RIM-162D has a speed of Mach 4 and a range of 27 nautical miles.  It can engage anti-ship missiles, helicopters, and aircraft.  By contrast, the 57mm/L70 gun of the LCS has an effective range of 8.5 kilometers (17 kilometers maximum range) and NLOS-LS a maximum range of 4 kilometers.  </span> 

ewok40k said...

Get 5 inch gun at least on the real LCS, but it must be different "chassis" as would landlubber tankers say. As for the attack missiles, can't you build an land attack mission into good ole Harpoon while making a new generation ASCM a reality?

sid said...

Oh...But Gunner....

It goes FAST!!!!

And looks REALLY COOL!!!!!!!

Grandpa Bluewater said...

LCS delenda est.

Captan.joe said...

An RPG would knock out this POS. Put some flag rank in the wheel house and maybe some armor and armament will eventually appear.

WTH said...

Gunner,
 Your NLOS data is way off.  PAM is ongoing, LAM is cancelled.  Range is 40 not 4 km.  It was never designed to be a box that ID'd and attacked on it's own, rather a box that could respond to a call for fire without people having to be there.  Further NLOS is a far better solution to a missile engagement of a small target than Hellfire in a marine environment and far more effecient than an SM2.

MR T's Haircut said...

newMAN!

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Master Gunner,

Excellent points.  Being an afficionado of the cannon tube myself, I have pontificated many times regarding the LCS having to splash through the range fans of some hard-to-find and lethal weapons systems.  (At least lethal to the LCS)....

theguest said...

Diesel problems.  That's not good.

MasterGunner said...

On the other hand, I do see the LCS coming under attack by Fast Attack Craft (missile boats) and the LCS, with it's current armament, doesn't stack-up well in the defensive weaponry department.  OK, there are those who'll say that the LCS will have the advantage of air support and what about those helos?

Are you certain that air support will be available when the LCS needs it?  What if it is busy somewhere else? 

Well, what about those helos?  The LCS is not likely to use the Sea Hawks in a gunship mode -- that is, with air-launched anti-ship missiles.  The Sea Hawks are more likely going to do administrative and scouting kinds of tasks.  At most, they will have a couple of .50 machine guns or a .50 and a 7.62mm M240D or a GAU-17/A Mini-gun.  They might even carry some 2.75-inch unguided rocket pods.  However, that's it.  I don't see a Sea Hawk as too difficult a target for a FAC to bring down.  Most FACs have short range anti-air missiles or heavy machine guns and cannon. 

Forget the MQ-8B Fire Scout.  Fire Scout in an viable ARMED form is a mere hope at this time.  The manned platform mafias in NavAir are going to drag out the development of Fire Scout for as long as they can.  The reason -- the aviators believe their jobs are threatened -- and they're going to fight deployment of Fire Scout in anything but a recon role.  A Fire Scout armed for combat and capable of combat is going to get a lot of flak before it eventually gets fielded -- if it gets fielded.

The LCS is underarmed, undermanned, overweight, and overbudget.  The LCS would make a good command ship for a squadron of Corvette-type ships in the 1,600 ton range.  However, to expect the LCS to get in close to a hostile shore and not get shot to ribbons is silly.  The LCS is simply too large and tempting a target. 

MasterGunner said...

Correction on the NLOS-LS range: that shoud be 40 to 70 kilometers, vice 4 kilometers. 

However, my main points remain the same.  The LCS is woefully underarmed to venture close to shore with only its 57mm/L70 gun and the Mk 49 RAM launcher. 

With a launch weight of 117 pounds, the useful warhead of the NLOS-LS missile must necessarily be small but there were no published specs I could find on the payload.

The NLOS-LS was designed to function with two missiles: the PAM (precision attack missile) and the LAM (loitering attack missile).  Repeated failures of the PAM indicate that it may be on its way to cancellation (if it hasn't been cancelled already).  The LAM appears to be in better shape. 

I believe the NLOS-LS just doesn't have a lot of punch to it.  Instead of the NLOS-LS missile, why isn't the Navy fitting the Evolved Sea Sparrow to this ship?  The LCS needs longer range anti-ship missile and anti-air defense than offered by the RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile.  I just don't see the LCS going close in-shore to do shore bombardment or attack missions.  Such would be absolute suicide in the current state of LCS development. 

leesea said...

MG points to two topics which have been kicked around here before.  First off, the LCS is big ship both in tonnage and profile and will present a big target in the dangerous waters of the littorals.  So sufficient self-defense weapons must be permanently installled.  LCS-1 at least deployed without a full set of SUW mission package.

Secondly, the Navy and Marines are talking about using the LCS for many more missions then originally planned for the LCS ship type and they are being enormously optomistic that LCS will be capable of performing things linke ocean escort duty and amphib ops (NSFS) in any successful manner. One cannot change basics like payload and fuel consumption.

Even if weapons suites are altered, the LCS are going to have hard time getting past their basic limitations.

ewok40k said...

OT, but since LCS might edn doing pirate hunts I put it here
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/africa/04/01/navy.pirates/index.html?hpt=T1
this is not April fools I hope!
one skiff and one mothership sunk, 5 pirates captured.

DG said...

Stupid question, but why diesel instead of gas turbine?

DG said...

So, whats the survivability of this thing if attacked, simultaneously, by 5 or 6 speed boats with machine guns? Iranian Revolutionary Guard specials? Is there enough firepower to handle it?

Anonymous said...

I have seen 12 lbs. for the payload online.  Seems about right.

Matthew Scott said...

Does anyone why the LCS-1 has the 22 round RAM launcher and the LCS-2 has the 11 round SeaRAM unit? I mean how is it that one version has half the available number of anti missile rounds?

ewok40k said...

@DG - diesel is simply THE most fuel efficient combustion engine ever built - look at the operational ranges of WW2 diesel subs.