Why does the Navy hate small ships? It says it needs them — in glossy report after glossy report, the top leaders of the fleet say the Navy needs to operate in shallow water, close to shore, yadda yadda yadda. But what does it do? Decommissions an entire class of coastal minehunters; marginalizes the surviving mine countermeasures ships; and, most recently, discovers that it must sideline its coastal patrol ships because, all of a sudden, they’re old and worn out.Via email, one of my spies has an idea ... and I think he is real close to the answer.
I think it's because Big Surface Navy does not get excited about at-sea commands for O-3s and O-4s. It messes with the conveyor belt promotion path mentality. If a guy gets a command as an O-3 should he even be considered for one as a junior O-5? Is it fair to the O-5s who didn't get an O-3 command? Personally I don’t think those questions are worthy of "professional black shoes". Maybe a few minor screw-ups as an O-3 skipper will inoculate against big screw-ups as and O-5 skipper.Yep. After all, earlier the last decade as LCS started taking shape I blurted out, "Sub-100 Sailor ship? Wow, what a great opportunity for more LT and LCDR commands!"
With a tilted head and furrowed brow - the Millington-DC Mafia harumphed back to me, "Are you nuts? We need those to be CDR commands so we can make more CAPT."
And so it goes. LCS: the gift that keeps on giving. Wait until 2030 when this "worn out" problem hits what LCS we do have in the fleet ... if not sooner.
.... and yes, I know. LCS isn't a small ship. It is the size of a WWII destroyer (with 1/3 the crew and 1/10 the firepower) ... but the language has changed.
2030?
ReplyDeleteI am betting the first two hulls won't make it past 2020.
The LCS is the most misguided program the USN has ever launched.
But hey...
I guess it provides those post retirement jobs so folks can stay in DC.....
Cdr,
ReplyDeleteOur senior leaders have been trying to kill small ships since the formation of the Navy. I mean when this nation was just starting out and the debate was tween trying to have a Navy good enough and a Navy second to none was constantly being debated in Congress. Just after the 6 Frigates were built the John Adams administration decided to not build anymore large frigates and instead built a number of smaller coastal artillery ships. They didn't last long, then there was the torpedo boats at the turn of the 20th century. The PT boats at the start of WW2, PCF/PBR's of Vietnam, PHM's of the Reagan Navy, and now the RIVRON's of anti-terror war. I am sure there are similar incidents from ACW and other incidents tween 1812 and now. All the time we have folks like Captain Wayne Hughes that talk about buying small boats to augment the larger fleet units.
I would say that if we wanted to make it work the selling point should be to treat an LCS/Small craft unit like an aircraft squadron. That is there is an 0-5 who will have a Command at sea pin except he runs LitRON that is composed of three smaller units composed of 2-3 ships. The ships would be run by 0-3 and at the most a junior 0-4. Maybe have the O-5 on a leader ship/support craft where the O-4's who would be running the admin, the supply, training, and Diveristy, and all the other billets required now a days for a successful Navy to run.
Uh, this is exactly how PCRON is organized. Post Command CDR in charge, a bunch of O3/O4s on the staff and O3/O4s as COs of ships. They don't deploy as a squadron though.
ReplyDeleteMe ^
ReplyDeleteso true... and lack of escorts will be back to bite USN once real war starts again someday
ReplyDelete<span>The LCS is the most misguided program the USN has ever launched.</span>
ReplyDeleteWell...you are probably right in that assertion Sid, but "Low Mix" was excessively misguided itself...especially when we started basing FFGs in Yoko, sans an IMA or Love Boat, or the manning to adequately and organically maintain. Oh wait, that's happening now with LCS...
Years ago the 2 VADMs I worked for both fondly told sea stories of their younger days when each had a LT command at sea. One took a mine sweep of some type (sorry I was an aviator) from San Fran to Japan with a stop in Pearl, Guam, Okinawa and then to Sasebo I believe. Both affirmed that the ability to lead and learn provided them with a strong foundation for O-5/O-6/O-7 and above command. So now the PCs are rust buckets with sagging frames, and are exactly what we need to counter priates - with some amphib offshore for support. Ashton Carter has to save 100 billion, let's start with 600 million each timess the number of planned LCS. They do nothing more than provide a false sense of security (altho prolly not to the crew who know all too well the floating debacle they sail). Some time ago there was article about an Arleigh Burke doing training with some African Navy like Burkina Faso (I know, lessse who doesn't) and you had to laugh. Teach them what - how to drive a $1.5 billion behemoth around in 1000 ft deep ocean when their biggest boat had TWIN outboards and never ventured out of sight of land? Yet CNO was praising the mission and how "much we accomplished". Sense when does the USN take pride in looking foolish?
ReplyDeleteApart from the Diversity Directorate, the scandals at USNA, testimony to Congress on shipbuilding, and aircraft procurement I mean. Sorry, rant out.
Yoy haven read very much shipbuilding history, For alol the LCS problem it is far from the worse. Think about Jefferson's gunboat, Monitors that could not carry armor or turrets, unarmed Rams, and aircraft carrier made of ice. Yes LCS needs a lot of work, but the basic outline is still workable.
ReplyDeleteOkay. I was just thinking that if the O-5 needed to get thier CAS pin then they could be the Squadron commander and being on a leader ship/support ship they could earn that command pin but also get some help in how to be a larger force commander (like one would see at the O-7 to O-8 range as a Task Force/Group) commander. Other wise the>O-3's and below would be in large and charge at small craft level, with maybe an O-4 or two who might have been promoted in the calander year. Other wise the rest of the O-4's would be getting thier DH tour filling billets in the squadron command level.
ReplyDeleteYes, I've read a bit of shipbuilding history (since I've been building ships for nearly 40 years now) and yes, I can tell you that both LCS designs are floating pieces of crap. One sits too damn high out of the water and drinks fuel like an alcoholic sailor and the other will bend itself to pieces in any hurricane or typhonon worth calling a storm. Sure, they're pretty.... BUT THEY'RE MADE OUT OF FREAKIN' ALUMINUM! At the very least, they'll be maintainance nightmares and will cost a buttload down the road.
ReplyDeleteThe difference is, NO ONE BUILT THE ICE CARRIER!
ReplyDeleteByron;
ReplyDeleteYou're treading on thin ice, making such vile comparisons to alcoholic sailors....
hey... I was a DRUNKEN sailor, not an alcoholic. I refused to go to meetings..... :)
ReplyDeleteFrom what I've ready lately, the problem with O-5/6 commanders isn't so much screwing up their commands as screwing WITH their commands. It's almost as if the exploding bolts on their command pins were connected to their zippers.
ReplyDeleteSigh. WE very much need small boys, willing and able to go into harm's way with a bone in their teeth, battle ensign snapping in the breeze, with crews that are led by officers who get their blood up at the scent of action, and cast an evil eye towards the lesser gods of Millington.
Men and Officers who wear their ship's name as a badge of honour, and not as a rung on the ladder to retirement.
Reminds me of that wonderful quote from Ronald Reagan (sniffle sniffle how I miss him).
ReplyDeleteHe was commenting on the comparison of Congress to people who spend like drunken sailors. But he said that was wrong, because at least the drunken sailor was spending his own money....
<span>Yes LCS needs a lot of work, but the basic outline is still workable.</span>
ReplyDeleteBravo Sierra GLOF.
The program was a dumbass idea from the beginning.
And the real travesty is that it was some STFU 4 Stars who dreamed it up....
But hey.
It paid off in some post retirement gigs
Actually they built a scale model of it at Patrica Lake in Alberta, Canada. However even that took too long to manufacture and then the need for it passed that lead to the project was canx'ed by 1944. Last that I heard is that it took about five more years to fully melt that scale model.
ReplyDeleteWe need 21rst Century equivilents of JOHN C BUTLER or RUDDEROW class DEs. Small, heavily armed ships that we can crank out in the hundreds, if needed. DEs were capable of playing with with full sized DDs on the Ping Line at Okinowa. Not a ship 2/3 the size of a WW!! CLEAVLAND class CL, that is less heavily armed than a yard minesweeper of the same war. A true LCS, as used in WWII, could shred a modern "LCS" in a couple of minutes. TIME TO STOP WASTING MONEY!
ReplyDeleteI dunno, Jefferson's gunboats would sure give them a run for thier money on that charge.
ReplyDeleteSid,
ReplyDeleteYou are sort of correct. I am going to play devils advocate in this, the basic outline of the LCS is that it was supposed to be a small ship that would be reconfigurable to support ops close to the shore or in the inter-coastal waterways. Like for example Cheskapeake Bay, Aegean, Red Sea, The Slot. The problem with the ship was that it started to suffer mission creep, that lead to size creep, that lead to price creep, that lead to the divide by zero hole we now have. Very similar to what the PC were supposed to be. If the Navy had decided that the PC could have been a larger SEAL support craft and carry a 76mm or smaller gun, then it could have worked effectively in the PG or even close to shore near Somila doing anti-piracy.
The same could have been said about the LCS project. If the Navy stuck with whatever SWO O-6 or O-7 thought of it. That is a ship again small enough that could effectively steam right near the beach and provide NFGS to an extracting SOF team, it could help to open up landing craft lanes while protecting itself from shore batteries via its mine warfare module and via a UAV/onboard weapon system, it could operate on the inner harbor patrol against Fast Attack Craft/RHIB bombers/submersiables, Running anti-piracy ops in a squadron setting using a MPS/L-class Ship as a mother with its UAV and ASuW module. Again cause someone else wanted to add on to the project the costs/size/missions all started to creep. That seems to have been the name of the game in the last 30yrs with our acqusition projects. Mission creep to cost creep to can't afford creep.
<span>"We resolutely oppose any country which has no connection to the South China Sea getting involved in the dispute, and we oppose the internationalization, multilateralization or expansion of the issue. It cannot solve the problem, but make it more complicated," she said.</span>
ReplyDeleteSo, while the modern USN...
We Are Too Good To Fight!
...Obsseses over O-5 commands and meaningless skin colors under khaki, the reason the organization exists get ignored.
Sure is a far, far cry from these days...
Meanwhile,,,Back At The Ranch...
ReplyDeleteWhile the modern -We Are Too Good To Fight!- USn obsseses over O-4 commands of silly, expensive speedboats, and meaningless skin colors under khaki...
The Real World is starting to leve the organization in its wake.
<span>"We resolutely oppose any country which has no connection to the South China Sea getting involved in the dispute, and we oppose the internationalization, multilateralization or expansion of the issue. It cannot solve the problem, but make it more complicated," she said.</span>
Sure is a far cry from these days...
57mm gun. 3500 tons. It probably also has a magazine the size of a shoebox.
ReplyDeleteSyria just bought some Russian ASCM. Lots of people have them. If you can't delete them diplomatically then the bare minimum of a Coastal Fighter is the ability to defeat them with guns, missiles and EW. We should buy a couple of Russian ASCM and put them in coastal battery in Port Hueneme and then take our test ship, now armed with a 57mm gun and the other 'weapons' on our LCS and see just how well they perform in a coastal warfare environment against modernish weapon systems based ashore. We can try one EMCON free shot and then one EMCON shot if anything is left after the first shot.
Officers with stars on should have the results of the tests nailed to either their forehead or another part of the body.
<span> "USN obsseses over O-4 commands of silly"...</span>
ReplyDeleteO-5 I meant.
Curtis,
ReplyDeleteThat is the problem that has given everyone who believes in a small combatant. That is trying to make it a jack of all but not being a master of any of them. So the powers to be who want a ship that can fight its way into the coast operate there without taking a hit and then fight its way back out. In the again what was supposed to be a small ship that could be considered disposable instead becomes something that should have meet a wire coat hanger before it got out of the PMA's office. Take a look at the application of the PT boats in SW Pacific Campaign during WW2. After a number of loses trying to intercept large shipping (when also combined with a faulty primary weapon) that role change went to intercepting barge traffic and the last effective role was during the battle of Suragio Strait. Their ops in the Med sucked just as well until they switched over to strictly night time ops where they didn't have to worry about aircraft.
ASCM's are great but when your talking about nation states with limited funding as it is, does it make sense to expend a $1 million dollar weapon against a ship that is under 10k GWT and there are larger assets just over the horizion. If you only have so many of those silver bullets then what?
Spending 1 million to sink 600 million LCS is a good investment by me :P
ReplyDeleteYou want good small ship? Get some short range air defence missiles, ESSM or Israeli Barak, or Brit Sea Wolf are examples, and at least 1-2 CIWS. You dont need AEGIS-like area air defence because ASCM will come from below radar horizon anyway. And consider CIWS getting upgunned to 30mm canon from A-10 like in Dutch Goalkeeper.
Areas for savings? can you say 30 knots is enough?
Another option is to build misile FAC, 1 76mm gun front, 1 CIWS aft, and at least 8 ASCMs.
And Syria getting SS-N-19 is bad news for everyone, since it means Iran will get some too, and probably Hezbollach too. Israeli Navy must be practicing ASCM defence like hell right now...
Having gotten a look at the three (3) foot poster the Defense Acquisitions University uses to to 'help' it's 180K yearly students in figuring out how to operated the DoD's aquisition system.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/09/revealed-pentagons-craziest-powerpoint-slide-ever/
From the look of it, smaller ships are just too small to justify the cubic paperwork, time, and anti-acid needed to invest into such a ship program. ;)
Honestly, if that's what we've got to do, then I'm amazed that we get anything into our war fighter's hands at all. :)
That's the slide. I've got an original from my sentence at DAU. Is it any wonder DoD can't do IT in a reassonable amount of time?
ReplyDeleteSAP,
ReplyDeleteProblem is, in the littorals, that $1m weapon system might be three or four $75 100mm antitank rounds fired from defillade. Or, in the crowded waterways of a semi-permissive environment, a 50-foot skiff with 500 pounds of PETN and four expendable half-starved teenagers.
"Two thousand pounds of education done in by a ten-rupee jezail."
ASCM's are great but when your talking about nation states with limited funding as it is, does it make sense to expend a $1 million dollar weapon against a ship that is under 10k GWT and there are larger assets just over the horizion.
ReplyDeleteSAP, I am betting you are going to see more -instead of less- of this kind of thing.
Especially given these recent developments.
Russian defense minister Anatoly Serdyukov announced that Russia would supply Syria with P-800 Yakhont cruise missiles.
So it is SS-N-26... I thought it was 19, but it is a minor difference. lighter but mre modern. asnyone remebers trouble Kornets gave Israeli Merkavas in Lebanon? Think naval version of the event.
ReplyDeleteAs I mentoned, Israeli navy must be training ASCM defence like hell right now
And USN might end up in the target box if there will be showdown over Iran nukes, with or without direct US involvement.
Remeber Stark? SS-N-26 is to Exocet like japanese master-crafted katana to a parade sword.
Wisdom of ages says in every war there wil be ships lost, so you have to make sure you will have enough of them to take punch and fight back... and a a capability to rebuild losses too, but thats another matter - Byron can you continue?
Note that Vern Clarke and Gary Roughead wer both O-3 skippers of Ashville class PGs. I wonder if their experiences had any effect at all on the LCS program.
ReplyDeleteA buddy tells me the year he commanded a small destoyer as an LT was the best year of his life.
ReplyDelete