I still say that each month makes the Church of Latter Day LCS advocates look more and more like The Thing in the dog kennel.
In spite of the strategic risk this entire program will have on our Fleet by having such a large percentage of our warships having so little capability - we push on? Why do we push on? Simple, because yesterday we pushed on.
Ego, myopia, pigheadedness? Hard to say. Never before has so much been spent for so little capability.
Even in its original forms of 60 then 45 NLOS missiles, the ASUW package was lame and fraught with technology risk. So much non-mitigated technology risk, that when NLOS predictably could not make it off the PPT slide - we defaulted to the even more than suboptimal Griffin missile that we discussed back in JAN of this year.
Over at PEO LCS - or whatever they are calling themselves this FY - RDML James A. Murdoch and his band of merry folks are doing the best they can with the bucket of goo they inherited .. but this is just sad.
The program executive office for the Littoral Combat Ship has already identified capabilities that could replace the Griffin missile that will be utilized by the ship's surface warfare mission package, and a competition will begin this fiscal year, Rear Adm. James Murdoch, head of the PEO, said here recently.
This is good news, really. Griffin is unquestionably unsatisfactory, but it is all that we have.
Griffin-B’s surface-launched range is less than 1/6th of the Raytheon NLOS-LS PAM’s planned 25 mile range, so replacing NLOS-LS with Griffin comes at a cost. This severe cut in reach, coupled with the warhead’s small size, will sharply limit the Littoral Combat Ship’s already-restricted ranged engagement options. Griffins would be suitable for engaging enemy speedboats, but cannot function as naval fire support for ground forces, or do much damage to full-size enemy vessels – most of which will pack large anti-ship missiles with a 50+ mile reach.Let me help you with the math with that 13-lb warhead.. 1/6th of 25nm is 4.17nm. Let that soak in. Target 2nm inland ... close shore ... some goober pulls a 57mm AZP S-60 out from behind the goat shed .. etc, etc, etc ... I guess we could just use that awesome speed to run away from a threat. That has such a wonderful pedigree in the Navy.
We have recognized the Griffin's shortcomings and are now working for something else. OK, fine. Something beats nothing for now. But, as a result - more money falling in to this money pit; money that could have been used to equip our fleet with something useful - a good general purpose light frigate or heavy corvette.
The best time to execute Plan B was four years ago - but alas the PPT was too strong. It can still be done, though less effectively at more cost - but is still better than the swampy and pestilence filled path we continue to go down. Blinkered stubbornness is not how one wins at war. It is how one finds yourself sunk or surrounded.
Would you really want one of your kids to go to war in one of these death traps any time soon? Marines or SOF ashore - like this as your cover and support? Ponder.
there is somthing really wrong when completely obsolete T-55 tank outguns 100 times heavier warship... and it is pretty much everywhere even subsaharan Africa...
ReplyDeleteThe BASICS: Can this ship even travel to a battle ? Using LCS-3 Improved numbers:
ReplyDeleteLCS-3 can travel a maximum range of 1,000 nm at 27.5 knots. That's not one-fourth of the way between Norfolk and Spain. Funny thing, LCS-3 can also only travel 1,000 nm at 40 knots ! It's a gas turbine efficiency thing and it just empties those tanks faster along with pounding the small crew into a stupor. These assume incredible goodies like never compensating with ballast as fuel is burned off (the displacement of the LCS is reduced by 20 percent when they burn off all their fuel). Ever heard about bouncing around on top of the seas like a cork ? Another amazing "rule" is that between FULL LOAD DEPARTURE and BURNED OUT ARRIVAL, LCS-3 will burn every bit of fuel that it can suction out of every fuel tank. This leaves 5 percent "reserve" fuel onboard at arrival (only because it is impossible to suction 100 percent out). At 5% fuel, all main propulsion ceases and DIW results.
Most economical speed for LCS-3 = 10 knots. That's not a misprint: ten knots. Max speed on diesels only at full deployment weight = 15 knots if you run the little diesels to near death. 14 knots max continuous speed just on diesels. If LCS-3 decides to burn 100 percent of its HELO (mission JP_5 fuel) inside its gas turbines, then this adds another 150 nm to range (endurance). But no UAV or HELO can operate. These numbers assume no machinery degradation whatsoever, no hull fouling, and sea state calm for most calculations. At maximum speed, LCS-3 can zip along for 24.5 hours before she sucks every 95 percent of usable fuel. What Captain would ever run his ship below 30 or 40 percent reserve fuel before finding an oiler ?
And, NO. USS FORT WORTH, LCS-3 still cannot transit from Norfolk to Rota, Spain without running her fuel tanks to empty (5 percent = no suction).
ReplyDeleteWhere are all those improvements over LCS-1 ? Same great range, same great weapons, same great staying capability. Phooey on the Navy for permitting this.
LCS delende est.
ReplyDeleteSo if I get this straight, Gato class diesel electric submarines, as built in 1944, are more heavily armed with longer range weapons - if you don't load any torpedoes, AND have a higher sustained transit speed and much (transpacific and return) longer range at any speed.
ReplyDeleteThe difference in price at constant dollars is what - a factor of 10...in favor of the fleet boat?
Didn't we used to build our own guns at Dahlgren? What do we have in storage? Seems like we would do better to just get all the 5 inch 38 guns back from the mothball fleet and loans to various small navies we made 40 years ago.
Greece could use the cash, I think, if we bought some back. Turkey too...of course.
How much worse off would we be if we just canceled the entire LCS program lock, stock and barrel?
ReplyDeleteAt least we could recoup some of our sunk (but not yet literally sunk) costs by recycling the existing and under construction "ships" as scrap aluminum.
Seriously!
An interesting note.... the GRIFFIN decision by ADM Pandolf was made WITHOUT sole source selection notification or legal methods for procurement. Opinions on the street indicate it was made to quiet congress. However, it is still a missile that cannot meet the mission: a SAL seeker where the ship has no laser designation system. Since you have to have the SH-60 up to direct these weapons, just arm THEM with more hellfire (longer range, bigger warhead, battle and raghead-killer tested) which is also a SAL seeker... oh and a thrid to cost.
ReplyDeletePerhaps, put VLS hellfire in place of the canceled NLOS PAM?!?
Another wart is festering.
I'd comment but not being a NAVSEA type, I'd probably just step on my crank; I won't poke at the syscom since it's not polite to throw stones at glass houses, etc. ESPECIALLY when we on the air breathing side o fhte house have some colossal warts festering - can you spell JSF?
ReplyDeleteSucks to be you :) Seriously, how do you keep your breakfast down at progress meetings?
ReplyDeleteAnd how much more weight will we put above the metacenter? Can LCS float upside down?
ReplyDeleteI passed the news to Ron O'Rourke at LCS a few weeks ago. I hope he calls the Navy on this one. Above and beyond all the concerns noted here, LCS crew and PEO have to change weapon systems later when a "better missile" is chosen? So all the Griffin systems interfaces, fire control, etc., are changed out for another one, with all the new maintenance, parts, and training. I cannot fathom how these decisions are acceptable to big Navy.
ReplyDeletejohn patch
But JSF wasn't a case of self-inflicted wounds.
ReplyDeleteDoes it really matter who inflicted the wound? Admitting there is a problem is still only an early step in recovery. LCS is still in denial.
ReplyDelete(fixed for &#@*$( spelling)
Israel was going to purchase a version of LCS with AEGIS and VLS as well as 8 harpoons. You sacrifice mission moodule space for firepower. It can be done without turtling the ship.
ReplyDeleteI object to letting RDML Murdoch off the hook. He was the MPM on LCS under PEO SHIPS before he became PEO LCS. He owns the puddle of goo as much as anyone else.
ReplyDeleteHere is a link to his biography.
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/bios/navybio.asp?bioID=538
Byron, the weight /KG reservation for a missile system has always been included in the LCS stability calcs.
ReplyDeleteAnd I might point out that the USN will have a hard time coming up with fleet oilers to refuel the LCS (there is usually only on on-station off East Coast with other out in theater.
ReplyDeleteAnd I might point out that the LCS only have one RAS tripod to fuel via CONREP. I have been told by somone who has fed them that it takes a really long time to do so.
And I might question why there is NO provision for the stowage/use of "tanktainers" (3,700 gal to 6,600 gal each) on the mission deck since those are set up for ISO TEUs already? (Perhaps because the specs do not allow for HAZMAT so stowed?? another screwup IMHO)
Max continous speed should be just that~ Need to add in %MCR to get a better metric though.
Just thinking RW but agree with your points.
RN - the required calculations for endurance were at SS3 in the original solicitation, and I think also in the NVR. Did the NAVSEA warrants relax that requirement?
ReplyDeleteSince the calcs were done, please tell me the maximum degree of roll before all bad things happen, and the degree of roll in 20 ft seas (which isn't much for you sea-going professionals)
ReplyDeleteI am sure you have driven down a major interstate highway and have occassionally seen a large motorcycle pulling a small trailer.
ReplyDeleteAnd if you have seen a motorcycle doing this, then you have probably said to yourself, "These people are on a motorcycle. Why are they pulling a trailer?"
Well, because they have to if they are going to carry all the stuff they want to carry.
What the LCS needs to operate flexibly within its ever-changing weapons technology milieu is a "Missile of the Month Module"; i.e. a "MotMM."
Since the LCS weight margins are so limited, this module might have to be towed behind the LCS on a small trailing barge.
Messy to be sure, technically and operationally, but sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.
sure, let me just reach up high in my FO/GO Good Idea Generator and pull those out for you...
ReplyDeleteThe Navy COULD have put provisions for Harpoon on board which would give it a decent anti-ship capability. And I can't think of any reason why Block II missiles with GPS land attack capability wouldn't work. Or even firing SLAMs from the cannisters.
ReplyDeleteLCS-Future of the US navy. Thin skinned, weak wristed, out of shape, and over budget.
ReplyDeletethat is a good STRIKE capability but it is not a decent FIRES capability. In order to have a decent fires capability you need to be able to accomplish volume fires. Additionally, HARPOON is about two generations old. The missiles need to be significantly upgraded. Faster, more maneuverable, longer range missiles need to be developed.
ReplyDeleteHow good will that ships crew be when all, repeat, ALL of the PMS is being done by sand crabs? That's exactly how they're handling all the work....
ReplyDeleteANALOGY: Think of LCS as a Lamborghini racing car. The crew team meticulously cares for this finely tuned racing machine. 6 weeks of TLC and then a careful trip to the track. Everyone prepares this machine just so. Exceptional care for both the automobile and its well rested driver. Brand new lube oil, finest clean fuels, all new air filters, tires adjusted expertly. Then, all the various "other" units are arranged and, "They're Off !" Racing for ____ laps.
ReplyDeletethen.... after a few hours, the Lamborghini is gently put back into its large trailer, and another cycle of 6 weeks of expensive TLC follows, while the driver rests up.
LCS ! The Lamborghini of the seas. We need to carefully schedule several "events" with equally civilized "opponents" every 12 to 15 months. Thanks NAVSEA/OPNAV. What we really needed was 55 Fords, running Catepillar diesels that never need any maintenance at all. Same price: 55 Fords or 1 Lamborghini. Your choice.
Sadly for LCS, there just isn't enough Kool Aid in the World.
ReplyDeleteShould have just built more PCs and went out and got some real frigates.
ReplyDeleteNo argument with the issues you raise, but it beats the crap out of what they have planned now.
ReplyDeleteI guess when real war breaks out emergency harpoon installments will follow on those units not lost early on...
ReplyDeletePretty interesting those LCS "specs". One of my brother-in-laws recalls that LCS had required endurance at slow speeds while in completely calm seas, and max speed endurance was like you mentioned but with 15 knots of wind. Too bad endurance requirements are not identical for every single class of non-nuc surface warship so that they would be easy to compare. Suggest that NAVSEA require every FF/FFG/DDG/CG to meet or exceed something like this: at 12 knots, 5000 nm. at 24 knots, 2500 nm. Minimum. Hopefully designers could exceed that reqmt, but actual endurance should be classified I think. How about you ?
ReplyDeleteTo stick with the Lamborgini theme...don't forget about the hand-picked crews on the new LCS ships. Eventually we'll run out of hand-pickable sailors and the middle 90% of the Navy will populate these ships with predictable results.
ReplyDeleteTo stick even further to the parable - ever tried driving Lamborghini thru mud, snow, sand, forest, stream crossing? then imagine LCS on winter Bering or Barents Sea, in typhoon off Okinawa, or going around Horn or Good Hope because Suez or Panama is out of service courtesy of local troubles?
ReplyDeleteWe used to have 5" crew-served guns with a longer range than Griffon. Cost a lot less, too. They came with ammunition options, and could be used for both surface contacts and airborne contacts. What's not to like?
ReplyDeleteThey also worked without radar or other emitters. Just sayin'... :)
Logistics is always the sticky wicket in any program. You can have all the whiz-bang kewl stuff, but someone needs to be able to pull maintenance and get the parts, ammo, etc, up to where it's needed.
ReplyDeleteI have been harping on the logistics soapbox for several years now. We simply cannot maintain a fleet at war with what we have, let alone provide sufficient escorts for the supply ships we currently have and will need.
ReplyDeleteWe are at a VERY dangerous point in time, because a whole lot of our Navy budget is going to the wrong ships, and not enough is going to what we NEED now and WILL need in any future conflict.
Our enemies realize this, and while our submarine fleet is retracting, theirs are expanding. They know that we want to fight close to their shores. They intend to take away that option by taking out our logistics capabilities. They want to make us fight close to OUR shore, where they can make us react to them.
I just can't fathom why this isn't being discussed more.
It's interesting to contrast this with the development and deployment of TALOS, Tartar and Terrier.
ReplyDeleteTALOS entered production in 1952, underwent modifications and final resting over the next 3 years and was in full rate production in 1956, the year USS Galveston began conversion to a CLG, In 1958 Galveston began shipboard trials of the missile and was the first to deploy them.
Times change
(AKA Shadow)
Kind of sent a message as well just sitting there up on the deck, being "guns" and all.
ReplyDeleteI see little or no mention about the new Kongsberg anti-ship missiles receiving any consideration for LCS or anything else 'over here'. Seems odd, given the capabilities advertised..and the fact that tests were conducted here in the US.
ReplyDeleteThe NSM has been pitched pretty hard to the USN but it seems there was little interest; as best I can tell, there's hostility/skepticism (possibly Not-Invented-Here induced) towards the imaging IR seeker.
ReplyDeleteIR is imho amazing because it allows approach without EM emission, which coupled with stealthy missile means enemy gets no warning before impact...
ReplyDeleteif IR is good enough for antitank missiles dealing with much lesser quantities of heat from the target, and not on perfectly contrasting cool background of water, then why not?
Poland has bought a few NSM for coastal defence, so far didnt hear bad word about them
Maybe underlying reason is the fact that LCS is gonna emit IR like crazy despite trumpeted radar-stealth :P
<span>it looks like they just decided to stick with Raytheon - and now - here we go.</span>
ReplyDeleteBut gee!
Uncle Vern is <span>still</span> making a good l'il ole paycheck off this abortion of a program, the he insisted, "was needed yesterday"...
Seven years ago.
<span>What is amazing to me is that all the LCS stake holders would agree that equipping an infantry battalion with nothing but a cheap, small caliber handgun would be a bad idea. Go get 'em men! But in their world equipping a large surface force with the equivalent of a cheap, small caliber handgun is a good idea.</span>
ReplyDelete9mm is small. As is the .223 ... excuse me, 5.56mm.
ReplyDeleteFor a small period 9 years ago it looked like we might get the .45 cal back and a new 6.5/6.8mm ..... but alas; the loggies won again.
Patheric ... but same mindset here. The focus in not on warfighting requirements ... it is about process and "clean" math.
sand crabs might keep the ship in better shape than the current batch of squids. just remember that they will be diverse" now because of all of the "diverstity training".
ReplyDeleteC
louiville can quite possibly build 5&8" guns (if they still exist) but probably at a reduced rate.
ReplyDeletethere are large numbers of people that can manufacture projectiles from solid stock.
c
is it possible even with the best cable and bulkhead stretchers to get one of these beasts into the well deck of anLHD????
ReplyDeletec
1 light weight, high maintanence, short ranged fuel guzzling ship with 1 small
ReplyDeleteweapon = $400,000,000
2 barely working mission moduals = $80,000,000
50+10 or 20 more A class sailors = priceless
Losing all of this to a pirate in a 30ft boat with $800.00 RPG-7 or a Heavy Machinegun
= Really, really, really, stupid
Or a $200,000 mine,
or a $20,000,000 Chinese FAC,
or a $30,000,000 Iranian corvett
or a $500,000 155MM artillery peice
or...............
What happens when that Lambo hits a deer at 170mph?
ReplyDeleteI would point out that working Griffin into the LCS weapons set is not neccesarily a waste as you and Cmdr Sal. Imply.
ReplyDelete1) Griffin is employed across many platforms at this time and projected for more in the future( includingFiresout) Griffin is likely to be on LCS even if not as a ships weapon in the near future.
2) Griffin would be an exceelent candidate for use on USVs
3) Should it prove difficult to obtain a missile that is both cheap enough to launch in volume and with sufficient range to have over the horizon effects (likely in my opinion considering the costs of current systemsii've surveyed) combining Griffin with another missile to provide a long/short high/low mix could be good option
4) any missiles and launcher purchased could be recycled onto other platforms ( the B is very adaptable)
5)DOD investment in Griffin as a system has been very low. (with the caveat that while it is perported to be a privately developed missile, the initial use on clandestine systems creates doubt as to its financial origins) It could be a model for how weapons used to be and should be developed(private companies proposing a capability, DOD expressing interest, private company develops and demonstrates, DOD pays for proof testing, DOD buys proofed system)
6) As a modular system other boats, ships, navies, coast guards etc could make use of it and mitigate costs
That last guest comment was me
ReplyDeleteThe same what happens when 40 knots LCS hits a whale :P
ReplyDeleteDid one soviet Alfa once run into one at over 30 knots? or was that sea "urban legend"?
I think I've found the solution for the long range passages of the LCS... It always pays off to follow OPFOR because they might just inspire you (^_-)
ReplyDeleteOnce saw an overhead recce shot of where a CLG (don't know which one) launched a salvo of Talos's in counterbattery fire against some active North Vietnamese coastal batteries.
ReplyDeleteLooked like two cleared lots where the exapnding rods buzzed through the flora -and presumably hostile fauna- from the beach to a pretty fair distance inland.
Impressive!
keep smearin' that lipstic on Al..
ReplyDeletePretty soon it might just start to look good.
The original Sammy B hit a whale at less than 20 kts....
ReplyDeleteScrewed up the boat right well..
Speaking of wells...
Go charging about here at 40 kts and see where it gets yah...
The problem is the Griffin is based on tech that the US Army rejected well over two decades ago. They were the first ones to start with NLOS missile systems via the EFOGM. One of the plans was that EFOGM was going to be a universal weapon system for use with the Armored Cav and the Marines were interested in it to upgrade their Anti-tank units for use with the MEUs. The problem faced was costs of the program and relaying of accurate targeting data to the launcher from a forward observing unit. So during the Peace Dividend defense review the US Army and USMC backed away from EFOGM and killed the program. Interestingly enough it was Boeing and Hughes that was developing EFOGM and guess who owns Hughes now? Raytheon. Who is developing Griffin again?
ReplyDeleteSID: look up the details of the shot whereby Long Beach shot down a single seat jet fighter over hanoi at a distance of 80 miles during the vietnam fun and games.
ReplyDeleteC