The Navy is decommissioning Perry-class frigates because their role of anti-submarine warfare and protecting amphibious warships and convoys is being taken over by new littoral combat ships and Arleigh Burke-class destroyers.Ed, call you office and ask them to help you find better sources.
LCS could only find a submarine once - within torpedo range. The ASW module is an erector kit of bad ideas that have yet to do anything outside the lab and has not even taken the first baby steps to prove their operational capabilities with their not-ready-for-actual-oceans tinker toys.
LCS only has a 11-SeaRAM missiles to defend itself - barely. It cannot escort anyone - and in any type of tactical situation with a need for AAW - it needs escorting. LCS's tactical capability is only PPT thick. We are throwing away known multi-mission capability for a promised uni-mission china doll of a ship.
... and yes; a DDG can do the job of a FF(not-s-G-since-they-took-away-the-G) - but I can also plant my fall food plots with a BMW instead of a tractor, but is that smart?
Sigh.
Old beat-up ships, eh?
You might not see them, dwarfed among four mammoth aircraft carriers, but three frigates are also part of the Navy's local mothball fleet. The third, USS Jarrett, will arrive July 15 from its former homeport of San Diego, joining sister ships USS George Philip and USS Sides. They're moored at the Naval Inactive Ship Maintenance Facility along Highway 304, awaiting their fates.At least the Australians know what to do with them.
The Jarrett, which served just 27 years, will be put up for sale, according to the Navy's Southwest Regional Maintenance Command. It will be scrapped if there are no buyers in the next couple of years. The other frigates, commissioned for just 22 years, drew interest from Portugal and Turkey, but neither deal went through.
UPDATE: David Axe takes another leap from the top rope on LCS.
Hat tip Lee.
128 comments:
One would have thought that the Navy would have learned from the FFG-7 class that the minimum manning concept, in the absence of tender / IMA support, is bunk.
Yes, automation helps (when it works) but woe to the warship when it does breakand you are already steaming in condition II and port & starboard watches doing convoy escort or extended ASW in a TAPA. No depth whatsoever.
Edit - for some jobs, platform doesn't matter. Many of my BTs were port and starboard in the mains regardless of condition, as long as the plan was lit off. And this on a CV where some officer watch positions were 27 deep. Try that on an LCS!
ASW implies surface hunters that are Q-U-I-E-T !
Each LCS-2, LCS-1 has 6 (count them) diesels onboard !
And 2 of the diesels are monsters ! Navsea says LCS will only be using their super high speed gas turbines just a tiny %% of the time so that Navsea can claim (falsely again) that RANGE and Fuel carried by each LCS is really not so important (wink, wink...). Navsea and even some so-called "expert" think tanks say that LCS will rarely be consuming mass quantities of their tiny fuel load, using their large, large monster gas turbines.
Result ? LCS-2 and LCS-1 will be banging around the already noisy littorals, contributing lots more noise running 3 small electrical diesels and 2 monster propulsion diesels. So, are these soon-to-be-everywhere LCS's going to be sub huntin' using their own passive sonars ? or their own active sonars ? (recall that many countries have quiet diesel boats now. Ever listen to your car battery ? SSK's, especially the German design are prettty quiet to locate passively). So, let's assume LCS somehow gets an Active sonar installed or can tow one. The "L" in LCS implies shallow water, right Navsea ? And please don't get any silly ideas about LCS using LAMPS helo's to go out and search many hours per day and night. LAMPS is mostly a reactionary platform, mostly intended to launch after someone's sensor has (hopefully) found a CERT SUB. Besides the tiny crew of LCS is not going to do what FFG 7 class routinely does: operate LAMPS almost round the clock for up to two weeks in a row. LCS cannot do that now or in the future. Not just crew size, but JP-5 fuel carried ! Heck, LCS will be so busy pumping whatever JP-5 avgas they have over into their propulsion fuel tanks so that they can keep all their diesels running. (the reverse is not possible).
A little while back I had a most amusing "conversation: with a female admin type from Bath iron Works. I was discussing the LCS with a friend of mine and she overheard our comments. She came unglued, almost a full meltdown in her "response".
Apparently anyone who questions anything about the LCS is "uneducated" "against keeping jobs in Maine" "against having the best warship this nation can produce" "against__________" just fill in the blank.
She hit every single Big Navy and BIW talking point and kept on going. She was aghast when she found out that most of the folks in the bar were retired or former Navy, and were pretty much against her concept of what LCS really was.
What piqued my interest, though, was when she went off with the old idea that we've heard from so many of our friends on the left (on other subjects) that because we were against LCS that "obviously we (big Navy/BIW) have done a poor job educating you about LCS and it's concepts and capabilities". She said they probably needed to refine their message to make it "easier to understand" for us "civilians".
It was pretty much a one-sided conversation because when she got done with her thin-skinned response and subtle digs about us older guys being "out of touch with the real Navy" she up and left. Didn't catch her name as it wasn';t offered, and don't rreally care. It's the same thing I've heard over and over again from the zampolits at BIW and SupShips: LCS is the best thing since_______ and it's going to be bullt and will be the future of Navy Surface Warfare. I. Kid. You. Not.
Wonder if we could by some of our FRAMs back?
Part 2: LCS classes (both of them) just might be usefull for ASW if Navsea would install the whale-killer VLA very low active sonar onboard them. But that would call for a major redesign of the entire aft end of each LCS since this large VLA sonar would take up the boat decks internal waterborne mission areas inside the aft part of each LCS.
Perhaps the LCS could locate subs by extending their large (retractable) fin stabilizers (which they cannot use at high speed anyway), and perhaps they will get lucky and actually hit a sub with one of these heavy fins.
Or they could mis-use their Gun Fire Control System optical director to do searching 24/7, looking for subs near the surface with a stick up ? Of course these GFCS optical sights are not meant for continuous searching and, indeed, keep failing without even doing gun firing. Besides, if your PRIMARY MAIN BATTERY is a 57mm gun (and only one of them total), then you had better not be ensuring that it cannot be fired ! (by mis-using the sole GFCS optical sight for anti-sub searching 24/7 !!). Hey, Navsea, tell us how LCS-2 or LCS-1 can fire their MAIN BATTERY longest range weapon (57mm) when their one and only (optical) GFCS goes down ? Surely, everyone who is sober knows that LCS-1, LCS-2 are not really "war" ships for ASW, ASUW, or mine warfare.
I still don't know why the FF(G)s could not be SLEPed? If they are good enought to sell in FMS and for some countries to use for decades after they get them.....?
But you guys didn't get the memo for CNO, LCS is THE program of record and no dissent is allowed.
The ASW situarion is another example of the sub-optimal platform as Sal has dubbed LCS. Those who dream of platforms and seaframes are going to suffer the consequences in combat.
gimme one of those:
<span>Russian Corvettes Head For North Africa</span>
<span> <span>July 6, 2011: Algeria has ordered two Russian Stereguschyy class corvettes. Russia already has completed two of these and four more are under construction. These are small ships (2,200 tons displacement), costing about $125 million each. These "Project 20380" ships have impressive armament (two 30mm anti-missile cannon, one 100mm cannon, eight anti-ship missiles, six anti-submarine missiles, two eight cell anti-missile missile launchers, two 14.5mm machine-guns ). There is a helicopter platform, but the ship is not designed to carry one regularly. Crew size, of one hundred officers and sailors, is achieved by a large degree of automation. The ship also carries air search and navigation radars. It can cruise 6,500 kilometers on one load of fuel. </span>source:http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsurf/articles/20110706.aspx
</span>
Protecting Amphibs, huh? The only thing that LCS can protect an amphib from is scorn. As long as that program is in existence, folks will have something to talk about other than LPD-17.
This is kind of like a question I asked a few weeks back. We have tried and true platforms. Why can't they be retrofitted instead of sold for scrap, sold to foreign companies or scuttled?
I think you are seeing just that in the LCS-2 corrosion issue. I guess 21st Century Hybrid Sailors don't do corrosion control so I guess the tender's will have to do it...we still have those right?
ahhhh, what we called at Canoe U. a "sh*t screen*
<span>'LCS could only find a submarine once - within torpedo range'</span>
<span></span>
<span></span>
<span>You sure about that? I recall so many stories about WWII dogfights and the guy going down never knowing what got him.</span>
Because just like the arguement about the F-14 about a week ago. The older ships of the cold war were not incorperating low observable technology. These older ships failed at their in-ability to incorporate the latest in buzzword bingo lingo such as relative bi-linear ports or triple-buffered noiseless algorithm in the CDC modules. If not that then the configurable self-enabling system and the symmetric operative circuit down in the engine room. What any of those terms mean is for the writer and his overlord (All Hail MING! O:-) ) diety of choice to figure out.
Plus to some folks it looks cheaper on paper to buy new then to spend on upkeep of the old. Of course it looks good to buy knew then pay some yardbird like Byron to come onboard for 6 weeks to do what use to be our sailors job in maintenance with in the month using the approved OPNAV 4790 3-M PMS System. Simply cause OPNAV is all about bending or breaking rules as they see fit.
This was the big joke in the FFG community. To go quiet ship for ASW meant securing enough gear so as to degrade other mission areas (e.g. AAW)...otherwise you quickly started having equipment cooling issues. And, that capability only existed when you didn't have a third of your AC plants tagged out/inop (all too common in FFGland).
<span>"The Navy is decommissioning Perry-class frigates because their role of anti-submarine warfare and protecting amphibious warships and convoys is being taken over by new littoral combat ships and Arleigh Burke-class destroyers."</span>
What exactly is wrong with that statement? While you may disagree with the utility of the LCS -- I'm with you there -- it is factually accurate to say that the Navy does intend it to fill an ASW role, which is all this paragraph says. Like it or not, there are two sides to the LCS debate, so I'm not sure why you're dumping on poor Ed just because he didn't take a side when it's not his job to do so.
the torp striking is definite proof of submarine nearby...
It is hard to beleive the LCS is making (as opposed to "will make") such a contribution - we only have 2 of them in service.
It is hard to beleive the LCS is making (as opposed to "will make") such a contribution - we only have 2 of them in service.
Let me see if I have this straight....
The Navy is screaming because of the lack of hulls.
A FFG is supposed to have a nominal 30-year life.
We've got FFGs with 22 years on the clock awaiting disposal.
Are we out of our minds?
Mike M,
It is a repeat of the Clinton years, when we decommed 47 warships, most only at half of service life, and didn't replace them.
Then, it was the 'peace dividend', now it is a "budget crisis". Can't afford the billions to keep warships in commission, but spend the trillions on entitlement programs for the "takers" in our country.
in service? IN SERVICE?????
just how much time at sea has this pair spent compared to the ffg's, the tico's the spruances, the Burkes, at this particular period of their developement????
this pair is just wearing out lines and piers.
C
"..is being taken over..."
I'm not an engineer, but a liberal arts major. I know what that sentence means. There is no implied "intention" in that quote.
Read what is there - not what you wish to be there. -1
evidently she hasn't been around long enough or knows the work well enough to realize that the navy itself really wants to keep bath in business building "destroyers". most any one with a nickles worth of experience can step aboard a mississississippi boat and then a bath boat and tell the difference in quality.
BIW needs to trash can the modern bunch and get back to iron ships before the modernistas sink them.
C
From a technical perspective, of course it is possible to SLEP the FFGs. Salamander's link to the Aussie program proves that decisively. It also suggests that the Aussie program cost ~$1.5B (I think this figure is on the low side of what I've seen researching this issue). It looks like it started in 2002 and ended in 2009, required two of the older hulls to be retired to pay the bill for the four that they got. After all that pain, the four ships that finished the "SLEP" are scheduled to be decommissioned in 2013.
Run the list:
1. Cost is not low
2. Two in service hulls had to be sacrificed to pay for the remaining four upgrades
3. The Australians got between 4 and 11 years of service life extension for their investment.
I'm not convinced that it makes sense to me.
Here's another list:
1. Aluminum superstructure
2. Corrosion problems
3. Very small GM meaning limited combat system upgrades due to instability
4. No missile systems
5. Small caliber gun with limited firing arcs
LCS right....Nope, this describes the OHP frigates. I'm not sure how LCS works out, but to suggest that a SLEP of FF-7 class ships would solve all the USN woes in this capability area strains credulity. Pictures don't tell the whole story, and I know for a fact that the Turkish FFG-7s were in very rough material condition a few years ago. Nostalgia is not a viable shipbuilding strategery.
Don;t remind me. I remember those years - in my nightmares.
Amazing how that 20ish year cycle runs, isn't it? =-O
Guest,
Look at the missile load out of the Australian FFG - ours had their balls cut off as a penny-wise pound foolish cost reason. We unnecessarily inflicted that BS move on ourselves. Missle point not accepted.
As for upgrade costs - the savings that could have been made on a per-unit cost would have been much lower in the economies of scale gained by going in with the USA. If we had done it, odds are other nations with FFG-7 class ships may have joined whole are in part.
Also - for all its faults - OHP is a true multi-mission platform - LCS is a uni-mission platform that we are not really sure if it can be operationalized. It is a sub-optimal platform for all its missions except for that as a fast patrolgun boat.
I would much rather have limited arch 76mm than 57mm.
Corrosion is a result of our wrong headed maintenance practices that were adopted over a decade ago. Another unforced error - one we continue to see with our sparkly new LCS as well and saw in spades with the Spruance.
What we should have done - and was recommended here since the blog was started, was go to a modern multi-purpose patrol frigate along the lines of the NANSEN, F100, ABSALON, SEVEN PROVINCES line. If we needed a corvette - the Visby would have been fine.
What the pro-LCS crowd has yet to do is impress anyone past the PPT. Hopefull wishing is not a viable shipbuilding strategy - as that is all the pro-LCS crowd has.
Nostalgia for the OHP? No. But it is better than the LCS until we can either license build a Eurofrigate while we design our own.
As our OHP fade - what will replace them? LCS? No. Not even close. Don't need frigates? I guess the Brits don't need carrier air either.
So you believe it is more likely that a journalist at a measely 30,000-circulation newspaper in Bremerton, Washington, has a secret pro-LCS agenda he is trying to foist on the readership than that he is simply reguritating the oft-stated intention of the Navy?
Like you said, read what is there.
And again, I agree with you on LCS. But let's not get crazy with the conspiracy theories. This is pretty weak.
What is torp striking?
Please re-read my post. Who said anything about conspiracies?
You seem to want to discuss something besides the topic of the post. As much as I like to play Copernicus - this isn't about me.
"is being" ain't "is". Capability is being removed for a future promise which may or may not be true. This is a classic service vs COCOM argument...but the gamble isn't described as accepting more risk.
ASW by second flaming datum.
LCS..the gift that keeps on giving...
Someone,some group needs to go to jail...or at the least fired for this travesty. Every damn ship has to have this problem not only planned for but for every piece of electrical equipment, every bit of rotating equipment has to have it's electromagnetic signature mapped. There's supposed to be degaussing equipment...and there ain't. Standard shipbuilding practices demand, not require, that you put a barrier between dissimilar metals. The weakest will be the one that quits (or surrenders it's electrons) and in this case it's the stinking aluminum. I told you and I told you (yes, you, Lee) that aluminum is a terrible material to build a ship out of. Now you know why. It's because if you don't do everything right, if you cut any corners (and God knows Austal cut a LOT of corners), then the aluminum will cause your ship to sink, sink, sink...just like LCS-2 damn near did. Those lying thieving so-called shipbuilders had better not charge the US government a damn dime for this horror show and they better not charge us a single cent for the back fit or addition work to stop this on future ships.
This ship is Forest Gumps dumber brother...at least Forest had a bit of luck to go with the hard work. SINK LCS!
SLEP THE FIGS!
And yes, I'm on vacation in Gatlinburg and had to read this bullsh!t....
CDR S,
You may be right that LCS cannot adequately replace the FF-7 class frigates. You seem to know quite a bit more that most, but the points you raise do not directly address the apparent facts that an FF-7 SLEP will not solve the problems that some wish them to solve. Apply the same standards to the FF-7 class that you do to LCS (with an open architecture CS) and analyze where that ends up. Problems abound, but an FF-7 SLEP does not appear to be part of the solution to ASW and MIW too me.
The NANSENs were designed to have the 76mm guns replaced with 5"/54s. By buying NENSENs as the new JOHN C BUTLER class DEG, we would have 5 inch equipped AEGIS Destryoer Escorts for the same price as an LCS, that is actually a very capable small warship, as opposes to a pseudu war
bryon there is NO option to change the ships's metal. LM did that for the hull of the LCS-1 and it went far overweight. You can bitch about AL all you want but it is not going to change. AL was not a cost cutting decision is was inherent in the rqmt to have a HSV. If the Navy had spec'd a lower speed perhaps another hull material would have worked.
The Navy accepted the risks of AL for better or worse, its a done deal.
As far as AL causing a ship to sink, well in actuality the LCS-2 have better damaged stability (even if the Navy is not going to dynamically test that).
The Navy, most likely, accepted the systems or lack of CPS in the design review process.
Common on now, Lying theiving shipbuilders is over the top.
Especially IVO your part of the industry.
ship built to yacht standards. The NANSENs are what we should be buying/building under licence. We owe it to our Sailors to give them ships that can do the job, and we owe it to our Marines to hav
let us not forget that the LCS will have one or two H-60 to hunt subs and those a/c have been Navy standard for sometime now
what is wrong with amphibs providing for their own self-defense? Especially those costing over a billion bucks a pop?
have thier Gator Frieghters escorted by ships that can actually defend them.
We also need the build BUTLER/NANSENs, as the day is going to come, when we need Convoy Escorts, and we will need lots of them. The Bear is not dead, he is just laying low for the time being, and the Dragon is feeling frisky in the WESTPAC. Kill the LCS, start building BUTLER/NANSENs.
I think the GM problem is far over stated?
I think that a mix of ship types is needed NOT one or the other be that OHP, FAC, or whatever type needed.
As to SLEPs well the USN would get back what they put into them, but the Navy is having a rell hard time right now specifying ship M&R much less mods.
"Capabilities of the LCS"? A ship 2/3 the size of a CLEVELAND, armed with an optically aimed 57mm, 8 RAMs, and 2 M2HBs? What was she smoking?
Fair.
You cannot do sustained ASW from a RW platform. Simply cannot. Crew rest, maintenance requirements and JP will prevent. RW is an important part of the ASW equasion - but is a supporting not a supported element.
LCS in the OHP role? Okay I will believe it when "EB" allows the LCS to be "EW" or hell even "EN" okay how about "REDCROWN" or Okay.. even "GREENCROWN"
Then and ONLY then will I believe the the LCS capable,, from a detection and a reaction platform...
chirp, chirp, chirp.. (thems the sound of crickets while I wait)
I PITY THE DAMN FOOLS!!
And exactly how would they do that?
Chap's reply is indeed fair. Trading risk for future gains...It may work out...or it may not...We shall see.
Layered self defense. Kinetic, soft, and adequate seduction / diversion. the technology is out there. The space, weight, power and cooling is there. Nobody doubts the role of a shooter / shotgun in providing area air defense and ASW. But an amphib needs to be able to provide its own self defense against leakers and sucker punches. Especially with the ARG MEU replacing the ESG, especially as the threat is only increasing from the 1996 standard that we utilize today...
and especially with all the Sailors and Marines riding on them, not to mention that their mission really doesn't start until at the very least the ship to shore movement has begun...
Chap, Walthrop. It is NOT working out. We can tell by how the resourcing is going. The POM does not reflect confidence in the LCS or the mission modules. The technology is not materializing. The program is on political life support--just enough to preserve the farce, not enough to sink the entire Navy (yet). The DOTMLPF is not being resourced to support the CONOPS.
As a wise man once said...FOLLOW THE MONEY.
"well, in actuality the LCS-2 have better damage stability even if the Navy is not going to dynamically test that..."
How is that "in actuality" if never proven? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?
A helo is generally a poor ASW search platform. Limited endurance and range, especially when carrying a torpedo. The SH-60 is designed for locialization and prosecution, you need cueing/ datum first. The clowns who pass off this arguement are ignorant to the realities of what it takes to hunt and kill your adversaries submarines.
the damaged stability of multi-hulls has been tested before and compare favorably to monohulls. Simply stated there are more compartment to flood.
sal how long can a ship prosecute an ASW contact? Is that measured in hours or days?
I am not a fan of the ASW USV but it is NOT the only part of the package.
what many folks miss is that amphibious LIFT is an essential part of the mission. Now that the Navy is back to amphib only ARGs what escort will be available to protect the gators? That is where keeping the Perrys makes sense.
FFG as REDCROWN? Maybe only during REFTRA! Even when we still had the Mk-13 launcher we really couldn't fit into REDCROWN's shoes.
LCS even less so.
Only if they've been cued / localized by another platform. Can't just go out and expect to drop bouys in the wide expanses of the ocean hoping to find datum!
They just don't carry enough bouys to lay barriers like a P-3.
Maybe you could do the tandem dipper thing to keep the Romeos away from the CVN, but otherwise...
A surface ship should be able to prosecute ASW on the order of several days - beyond that, quiet ship and having your watches at IIAS (so largely port/starboard) will take their toll, your RD will tank, and you won't be able to find diddly until there's a flaming datum.
Except that, as I am given to understand, the US Navy has exempted LCS from shock testing.
So..... no one will evere really know just how strong that hull form is.
I can well understand how embarressing it might be to have an over-budget under-performing white elephant, the pride and joy of Big Navy, turn turtle and become a reef from a simple shock test.
FAST FWD TO A DECADE OR SO FROM NOW: While slowly “steaming” in an ASW formation searching for some quiet diesel-electric subs:
NEWS HEADLINES: US Navy loses 4 warships last night: LCS-13, LCS-14, LCS-15, LCS-16 were disabled and then apparently sunk possibly with the loss of many hands during yet another a well coordinated SWARM attack by heavily armed Pirate boats operating near the Western approaches to the Strait of Malacca.
Initial details are sketchy but some reports from passing ships witnessed perhaps a dozen or more Pirate go-fasts which rapidly approached the slower US Navy LCS ships on the cloudy, exceptionally hot and humid evening. Additionally, 2 or 3 larger and perhaps more heavily armed Pirate ships also were sighted astern of the Navy formation. A light breeze cleared the air briefly enabling the many terrorists vessels to walk their arms gunfire onto the 4 LCS warships as they cruised in fairly close proximity to each other. Quickly, projectiles began raining on the Navy ships with great accuracy from the Pirate vessels and boats which all took positions astern of the Navy warships. Some of the initial gunfire as well as rockets appeared to be well aimed near the waterlines and 2 of the LCS began to immediately slow and ride very low in the water. It appeared to witnesses of this short battle that the two sinking LCS’s were attempting to change course or maneuver to maybe shoot back with their larger bow mounted guns, but were handicapped by weight of the water rapidly flooding into their open aft end well decks. Some Navy crew members could be seen struggling in the water as the upper parts of each of these 4 warships soon violently burned with exceptionally bright flames, according to the passing witnesses onboard nearby ships.
Asked for his opinion, a Seaman Recruit who just graduated from Navy Boot Camp in Chicago last week commented to this news reporter that sending 4 of these highly controversial and lightly armed LCS warships directly into the thickest part of the Pirates’ op area was a grave miscalculation on the part of Navy commanders, especially so with them providing no air cover protection for a period of almost 4 hours of darkness. This E-1 SR asked that his name be withheld since he had not yet reported to his first duty station.
We used to have a layered ASW air program that used the P-3's, working from data collected through SOSUS and/or "other" intel to locate the target. The P-3 could also provide direct-support to a CBG and use barriers to screen a large area. Working in shifts, a squadron could do this for several days.
Closer to the CBG, the S-3's could provide some serious passive acoustic support and also had sufficient expendable stores to prosecute a target away from the surface group if needs be.
Close in, the Helo was best used when acting in pairs, like raptors or big cats. One using it's dipping sonar to flush and fix the target while the other went in for the kill. They could also fly solo, and use the dipping sonar away from the surface vessel to pass targeting data to the FFG and let that asset use it's weapons to attack.
Nowadays we have what, exactly?
We were the best in the world at what we did, once upon a time.
FAST FWD to 5 years later….
The final Washington D.C. spin is permanently written in a solid brass plate at a quiet and peaceful attraction in a corner somewhere near the WW-II Memorial:
5 Years later ….. BATTLE OF WEST MALACCA STRAITS MEMORIAL: Dedicated to the memory of the 125 brave and diverse crewmembers of LCS-13, 14, 15, and 16 who paid the ultimate wages of war against worldwide terrorism. No enemy ever walked their aluminum decks, no massive swarm of small better armed boats defeated them. They gave better than they took and fought a prolonged battle to the bitter end, defying the best the well armed Pirates could hurl against them. Few LCS’s in History ever fought against such incredibly high odds and survived and they were no exception. Constructed in haste, without shoddy workmanship and designs that were painstakenly and well thought out by the finest large companies ever assembled in America, LCS-13,14,15 and 16 accomplished the impossible during their short lifetimes : The extraordinary and effective careers of these four Littoral Combat Ships spanned almost a half decade of commissioned service to our country. Their small crews will be remembered always.
The ASW USV is no longer part of the ASW package at all. The plan is now one of hull mounted towed sensors and the MH-60R. The USV is now only specifically planned to be used in the MIW package for towing mine sweeping aparatus.
Alot of whats discussed in this thread is out of date.
The ASW USV is no longer part of the ASW package at all. The plan is now one of hull mounted towed sensors and the MH-60R. The USV is now only specifically planned to be used in the MIW package for towing mine sweeping aparatus.
Alot of whats discussed in this thread is out of date.
we have P-8s... in the future :P , meanwhile ever less P-3s, none S-3s, and one thing that I never got answer to was whether SOSUS is still online (I hope so, at least around Japan...)
oh, and big probability than in local crisis we will not have CBG around (see Libya...)
I'd be interested in seeing what you think supports this supposition. Details please....
Did the Australians get back the money that they put into them? Seriously...~$1.5B to $3.0B for 4-11 years service life extension on four hulls. I that really a good investment? People like to pretend that there is a magic bullet. There may be one, but a SLEP of the OHP is not it.
Just the cognizant decision makers, in this case, have lost reason and sense.
Uh, not exactly.
Sure we do! They are well-maintained and ready at a moment's notice.
Keeping the Perrys would have made sense. Making an ASW corvette out of a Gator Freighter is like using a 737 as a fleet defense interceptor. Won't work. Form follows function. The TFX/F35 error, writ larger.
Some equipment might be useful. Towed torpedo decoys,perhaps. A kick over the side Light Weight Torpedo programmed to home on and countermine a Heavy Weight Torpedo, perhaps. Torpedo sonar inbound warning receiver, perhaps. ASW helo dipper/killer team dets embarked working close in pouncer tactics, maybe. Takes bucks. No bucks - no buck rogers. Might save lives, if not ships.
A decent ASW corvette design (3 ea) and a general purpose frigate design (1 ea) working escort of convoy/ARG duty with five helos embarked, backed up by 3 ASW tilt rotors (S-3 meet OV-22, now go get a room and breed) on the big deck would be 100 times more effective - if they train together and deploy together. About the same bucks as 5 worthless LCS's. No bucks, no buck rogers, again.
LCS ASW? Cheaper to run out at high speed and scuttle. At least the crew isn't dead. Don't go past the sea bouy, the war starts there.
LCS delende est.
@SAL - CURTS found & destroyed over a hundred mines in DESERT STORM, albeit all floaters. JARRETT and NICHOLAS probably did about the same. There was actually a plan at one point to mod the Helen Keller to facilitate mine detection, but don't know if it was ever implemented. But then in those days there were all kinds of Frankenstein mods going on.
There is a slight shortage of tender repair dept nec carrying sailors, not to mention QM, BM, YN, PN, MS, SK, HM, Dental Techs, MM, EN, ET, OS, and whatever we are calling RM's these days, not to mention the SN's, FN's and etc. Breaking them out and having the crew work on own ship to get it sea and repair and logistic support worthy will take about a year. Don't forget the LDO's, Warrants, Staff Corps Officers from all Corps and line officers necessary to make it go and do. Not a simple ship to man, or work, or deploy.
Google "Tender Tales".
the business of loading the gators with good stuff for their own protection makes sense. after all they are "troop ships" and by that definition prime targets for the submarines. might as well make the subs really put their money where their mouth is.
then there is the room thing. the gators definately have room aboard for lots of "stuff" and truth be known they may already have a great deal of the required "stuff" already aboard.
C
i can just see the gator gang driving forklifts out onto the stern gate and dumping depth charges over the stern when the telephone talker hollars "NOW".
C
here is a new kind of torpedo decoy that is not used by US Navy (yet):
http://www.mahindra.com/What-We-Do/Defense/Products/Torpedo-Decoy-Launchers
Of course this is purely defensive and won't help an LCS actually locate the torpedo SHOOTER (aka Sub).
like I said the Navy decided (for better or worse) not to conduct full dynamic testing of LCS.
But that does not negate the damage stability testing which has already been conducted. I saw one for SWATH back int the nineties. Its not like advanced marine vessels are completely new to the Navy - althought the new guys do seem to be iffy on history?
thanks for the update
Grandpa I agree was not suggesting ASW for amphibs but more SUW.
I like your ASW corvette "group" idea.
Simply stated there are more compartment to flood.
Assuming said compartments are still attached to the hull without gaping holes in the bulkheads (or splits in weakened aluminum)....
Hey Ben...
How's the reel working for the MIW H-60 version?
"<span>AL was not a cost cutting decision is was inherent in the rqmt to have a HSV. If the Navy had spec'd a lower speed perhaps another hull material would have worked. "</span>
I hate to tell you leesea, but you just made the argument for those of us who think the LCS is worthless.
The requirements went beyond the fundamentally-flawed and touched upon the fundamentally-stupid. I don't blame the designers and builders for putting together what the Navy asked for, I blame the #$%*ing idiots in the Pentagon for asking for it in the first place.
"<span>If the Navy had spec'd a lower speed perhaps another hull material would have worked."</span>
As my old Senior Drill Instructor would remind us, "If your sister had a d*ck, she'd be your brother!"
I really don't see what the problem is...According to Capt. Riedel, the LCS Program manager, the LCS's will utilize their speed to avoid being hit.
In the power point slide on page 18 here, entitled "Avoiding A Hit"...
*Sprint Speed of 40+ knots is integral to avoiding a hit:
-Complicates enemy targeting (I wanna see how this evolution works at 40 kts)
-Allows quick repositioning against threats (you think you will have the searoom eh?)
-Torpedo evasion (Ummm...How will you know there will be a torpedo in the water...A tail? See the two points above.)
When will SWOs get past this speed fetish?
In the power point slide on page 18 here, entitled "Avoiding A Hit"...
Well Captain...Relying on speed to avoid a hit has gotten folks here...and here
Won't work for you either.
assuming facts not in evidence again? You got a real study to reference?
I said IF and WOULD. The LCS are sub-optimal for sure but worthless is not a supported conclusion.
There is more than speed involved, there is also construction and hydrodynamics and crewing and well you know the list.
My point is with some specifc modificatios to the ship themselves, their value can be improved. And with a wholesale change in the mission modules/package concept, some additional capability can be and should be addeed.
The real bottom line is that LCS are NOT the be all to end all ships the Navy touted them to be, or stated differenlty one hull type can not be used for divergent missions susccessfully. Speed is just a part of that.
The program should be truncated at 24 ships. In the meantime the USN should start and buy more conventional surface combatants.
I don't know how much sound deading was spec'd for the LCS, do you?
I do know the quietest ship in the world was the USNS Hayes used for sub sound signature measurement. It was diesel powered.
Is there any value in an ASW hunting Fire Scout?
Leesea - while I am a bit more cynical about the LCS's value, I am in agreement with your post here
Fact is...warships get shot at...
Those flooding studies all presume a reasonably intact hull...
Can't assume that after significant battle damage.
Certainly can't assume that after battle damage incurred while a ship is at high speed.
Another fact is, at least the first LCS-2 hull has severe corrosion problems.
And another fact is that every USN WWII aluminum superstructure warship had cracking problems (I've personally witnessed it-kinda cool watching a crack propagate in a seaway).
As these hulls will not be fullup tested...And I will straight up state that any proxy testing will be rigged and gundecked to make it all look good...
As for "studies"...Whats uniformly ignored is the historical combat damage record...
NAVSEA shut down their leak..
But feel free to browse through these samples.
<span> fact is that every USN post-WWII aluminum superstructure warship had cracking...</span>
<span>This was the big joke in the FFG community. To go quiet ship for ASW meant securing enough gear so as to degrade other mission areas (e.g. AAW)</span>
That was true when hunting quiet nukes in blue water....
Shallow water ASW against diesels on batteries...or for that matter diesels on diesel... won't be done passive.
And the notion these ships will be loitering unmolested in some place like the approaches to Malacca or the Bab-el-Mandeb, or Hormuz conducting toy boat ASW ops is just downright stupid.
as I commented above;
<span>The ASW USV is no longer part of the ASW package at all. The plan is now one of hull mounted towed sensors and the MH-60R. The USV is now only specifically planned to be used in the MIW package for towing mine sweeping aparatus.
Alot of whats discussed in this thread is out of date. </span>
that last comment was me.
<span><span>The ASW USV is no longer part of the ASW package at all. The plan is now one of hull mounted towed sensors </span></span>
How is that going to work at 40 kts?
And the idea that the LCS will do toy boat MIW in a similar scenario is euqally improbable.
Have to remember that, if threatend, the ship has to run.
Easy enough for a foe to spook somebody... Ship runs off with toys left behind never to be seen again.
This joke grows more ludicrous with each passing rendition.
... and it may change again. So, dragging a bolt-on tail - how will that impact mission module swap outs? How does that impact the LCS reason for being in the first place - speed? How about self-noise?
We have also discussed that the helo is a supported not supported platform for ASW. And how - given the issues with helo availability we all know of - will LCS kill the submarine if maintenance, crew rest, sea state, weather, etc prevent the helo from carrying (assuming it is already loaded with one) the LWT to the target?
With each step down from the PPT - LCS becomes less and less of the platform promised - as we predicted.
Thats a good question. COBRA can find shallow water mines in the surf zone, could it be used or modified to find shallow running subs?
Another question is should an ASW LCS use its Firescouts for antisub work? If the MH-60R is being kept at the ready or is actively prosecuting a contact in coordination with the ship mounted towed sensors, perhaps the best use of the Firescouts is to keep them in the air to provide overwatch and comm relay incase something else shows up and to provide communication and coordination with other ships doing ASW. Of course theres always the fact that most subs have to come to near the surface at some point to snorkel or put up a periscope so keeping a long endurance ac like a firescout over a contact area could either spot the sub, force it out of the area in order to surface, keep it submerged and blind or limit its time at the surface.
Since the CAPTAS 4 is the sonar being considered and it has a reported 30kn top tow speed active detection won't happen at 40kn unless Thales mods the system. I've found no info on the limits of the passive and defensive towed systems.
<span>Since the CAPTAS 4 is the sonar being considered and it has a reported 30kn top tow speed</span>
Thank you Al.
See the .ppt recap above...<span></span>
<span>The ships so equipped CANNOT MAKE 40+ knots in an operationally realisitic configuration!!!!!</span>
So..tell me why the sacrifices for this Stupid Need For Speed were worth it again?
Anyway...This is a great case study on what happens when an organization lies to itself....
Sal:
i don't think that mothballing the lcs's is a viable option. i firmly believe that the total time in the water for either of these subclasses is approximately 48 months. (do i hear the thundering heard of coating specialists that have a special mix coatings for sale to protect the ship for water comming down the hall????)
the only viable options in this matter are either pulling the hulls up on land on marine railways or berthing them in pure freshwater.
C
perhaps this is a feeble attempt to avoid the invietable questions at the "O club" of "Just what the hell were you guys thinking when you did ........... on lcs."
C
My Mom in a Boston Whaler can find floaters. Doesn't count. That isn't mine sweeping - that is haveing and effective lookout doctrine.
They can patrol Lake Champlain for any holdout Redcoats or sump'n.
as i remember those boats at sisuin bay were supposed to be 30 day activations. but when we actually tried to do that during nam it was more like three months.
do you guys really think that the next one will last 6 months (3months for reactivation, one month for loading, one month for steaming to the scene and one month for "slippage goat f$%ks".
C
remember we would have to negotaiate that treaty with canada about stationing warships on the great lakes.
C
keep in mind that BIW must follow orders. if they are given a certain amount of leeway then they will thunder along in their ususal fashion but will at least have the opportunity to "really star".
if they receive orders to be stupid they have no choice in the matter.
perhaps we should look at the orders they were given.
C
First, Lee, I dont build ships at my company...we just fix design mistakes and poor maintainance. Second, it ain't a done deal, or wouldn't if the Navy, DoD and Congress had the good sense that God gave a gnat. Last, if Austal has done so well with their fast ferries that you seem to be in love with, then why haven't they had this corrosion problem? Is it because someone either a) sold the taxpayers a bill of goods or b) some blithering idiot at NAVSEA decided to cut corners to get the end price down.
Now, as someone who has spent a lot of time hacking out rotted and cracked aluminum, I will say it again:
ALUMINUM SUCKS FOR SHIPS, ESPECIALLY SHIPS OF WAR.
Sid,
Last rumor I heard on the flight line said it wasn't working so well for the towable sled and the MH-60 mating. Something about the stress on the VX bird has either heavily damaging the developed "bolt-on" tow kit or it has actually pulled panels from the aircraft. Along with putting the aircraft in an unnatural Angle of Attack to be flying that low and slow enough for the sled to do its voodoo. So the rumor is NavSea is looking around for a redesign of the sled to be lighter and smaller. Meanwhile there are those in the V-22 office potentially scribbing notes on thier napkins about whether that bird can pick up the slack. Hmm, could a V-22 fit on the LCS????
NAVSEA shut down their lINk..
<span>But feel free to browse through these samples. </span>
In particular, check out the discussions in the Franklin kamikaze attack report (not the later catastrophic conflagration from the bomb hit), about the problems with aluminum in the gallery decks...Things like how the aluminum ladders and light locks were too easily destroyed which blocked access and egress.
Hrmph. Dead meat to any reasonably competent submarine CO shooting any torpedo from any boat extant. Ever heard of the General Belgrano?
Why don't they ask somebody from the Submarine Heavyweight Torpedo Project Office who has had submarine command before they bet the ranch on utter nonsense.
Left hand, left hand this is right hand, right hand, come in please. Please? Pretty please?
Sound isolated diesels don't come cheap. Jes sayin'.
you forgot MR's.
c
Nope, first phrase first sentence, just didn't list the ratings, to wit: MR, ML, OM, GMM, GMG, TM (yeah, I know, and nonsense on the face of it) MM, EN, DK, FTG, STG, ETN, EM, IC.
Managed by NEC and a dying breed. Some of the ratings doubtless consolidated out of existance.
Then there are the Cox'ns, Boat Engineers, Riggers and Splicers, Industrial Hygienist's (specialist group inside the Medical Service Corps) assistants and other specialists never favored with an NEC, but vital to the IMA.
And the MA's and PC's. Unloved, but try to run a tender without 'em.
'Taint an easy ship to man or deploy or work.
I stayed out of this one b/c the subj. FFG is USS Lastship. I can candidly say, though, that particular ship was ready for mothballs. Six deployments in five years, punctuated by "let's pretend" yard periods (usually 3-6 week CMAVs) had a debilitating effect upon morale and, by extension, material condition.
OBTW, this was also the ship that had the Christie recruiting poster removed from the CPO Mess for being sexist.
FCC,
Let's talk about that some. Why was she ready for mothballs? I think you started that with the comment about "let's pretend" yard periods.
Combine that with lack of preservation work by ship's company and just plain bad maintenance theories (see what happened to the SPRUCANS) - and we have a self fulfilling prophacy.
If you're interested in putting together a guest post on your experiences, kind of a "Top 5 Reasons we made our own bed" - drop me an email.
That cracks me up every time I read it. They obviously do not have a command environment that encourages hard questions. Talk to any aviator or a ground pounder about the difference between shooting at at 30kt vice a 40kt target and you'll get a nice giggle.
10kts is a rounding error for someone shooting anything greater than 12.7mm or any missile - guided or unguided.
Self delusion will get you killed every time.
<span> perhaps the best use of the Firescouts is to keep them in the air to provide overwatch and comm relay incase something else shows up and to provide communication and coordination with other ships doing ASW.</span>
A. What about EMCON? Nothing like saying I'm, HEERE!...I'm Over HEEEERE NOW!
B. See Retired's comments on how much -little- fuel these ships carry.
<span>Oh...and Retired's comments about self-radiated noise too.
Then ask Grandpa about how loud the bell would ring when the old Soviet Alphas would -on the rare occasion because they were usually broke- go buster out in the Atlantic.
That latter being another expensive mistake sacrificed at the Altar of Stupid Speed</span>
<span><span>Sound isolated diesels don't come cheap. Jes sayin'.</span>
Quite so...But if you are dealing with this kind of ambient environment, it'd be hard to find a boat that didn't have it anyway.</span>
Sid: I was speaking of lowering the self noise of the LCS, not the radiated noise of the submarine, or the environmental noise due to the trawlers, seiners, junks, dhows, walla-walla's, and etc. Then there are biologics, surf, rain, and sea state noise. Some time we should just review the effect of the passive and active sonar equations on detectibility and torpedo settings, and general tactics.
Just not today.
A shallow water corvette without a hull mounted sonar is correctly refered to as a "gunboat".
Them lytorhrals shore are complerkated, ain't they.
Sorry Grandpa, the lightbulb on your context lit a little after I had hit the reply button...But I kinda figured it was fair point on its own.
And yes, the lytorhals are complicated..,
Byron,
the problem with ship selection starts with rqmts definition, IF NAVSEA did that wrong and the shipbuilder built to the Navy's rqmts, then whose fault is it? Or put another way if something is NOT in the contract, don't expect it to be added because the contractor knows better. Congress, admirals etc don't usually write/read contracts so I don't blame them (too much).
The facts are that Westpac Express has been operating sucessfully in its transport role for over ten years now AND that it has a CPS installed. With no reported corrosion problems. We do not not know why that was omitted on LCS-2, but it looks like its being retrofitted in 2&4 and is baseline in -6 onward.
I guess the USN is going to have to find out first hand how well AL works out because we are stuck with 14 LCS for now. All metals corrode to one extent or another in a marine environment.
Make no mistake I an very cynical of LCS value, I just understand the realities, the Navy has contracted for the ships and will have to live with that for better or for worse.
... and if you're shooting 12.7mm, you just walk the tracers.
Join the movement on Facebook "Sink the LCS" Feel free to add thoughful and factual content
Post a Comment