What-If LCS Flight II: Littoral Combat Ship Improvement

[Timmy C]

This article should be fuel for your fires: http://www.defensenews.com/article/2013 ... -LCS-Order

[CSGN138]

how about a module for the dreaded Iranian swarm attack. I'm thinking the sensors from the Apache Long Bow coupled with some kind of MK-26 like launcher for the hell-fire missile. This system tracks and designates multiple moving targets and doesn't target same target twice. I think it would work??

[Busto963]

Yesss!

Terminate with extreme prejudice...

[Busto963]

how about a module for the dreaded Iranian swarm attack. I'm thinking the sensors from the Apache Long Bow coupled with some kind of MK-26 like launcher for the hell-fire missile. This system tracks and designates multiple moving targets and doesn't target same target twice. I think it would work??

This would probably work, but I think the real answer is not to over arm every warship to deal with small boat swarms, but to deploy a modern day equivalent of the S-boote/MTB in combination with maritime patrol aircraft to clean out the mess.

The whole swarm business really highlights the USN lack of: effective strike craft, lack of amphibious lift to strategicaly deploy small craft, the lack of suitable tenders to support them (cranes!), and the lack of a carrier replacement for the S-3 Viking.

Deploying squadrons of H-60 aircraft on CVNs is not even remotely a replacement for a squadron of 10+ hour endurance fixed wing MPA aircraft with triple the search speed and almost an order of magnatude greater range. Oh, and did I say the USN was silly for getting rid of the S-3 with no replacement?

Back on topic, the Typhoon weapon station can probably be fitted with Hellfire, Gryphon, or a 19-round LAU-61C 2.75� rocket pod (launcher ).

2.75"/70mm rockets are cheap and more than capable of shreading Boghammers, set skis and other flotsam.

[Seasick]

For an Iranian swarm attack in the straits the best counter is from the air. Land based and carrier based aircraft with lots of cluster bombs. The speed boats don't protect their crews very well and the boston whaler rip offs they use will be shredded easily by the sub-munitions. Larger vessels can be dealt with by gunfire, SAMs, and from the sky by HARM, Harpoon, Maverick (USN version), JSOW, and laser guided bombs.

[Busto963]

For an Iranian swarm attack in the straits the best counter is from the air. Land based and carrier based aircraft with lots of cluster bombs. The speed boats don't protect their crews very well and the boston whaler rip offs they use will be shredded easily by the sub-munitions. Larger vessels can be dealt with by gunfire, SAMs, and from the sky by HARM, Harpoon, Maverick (USN version), JSOW, and laser guided bombs.

The small boat threat encompasses a lot more than Iranian boghammers, and is potentially a global threat. Note that combat does not take place in neat little scenarios devised on forums, A2/AD threats combined with �strike craft� (a catch all for MTBs, MGBs, missile boats, etc.) could be very devastating � even if short lived. Theater land based air craft are vulnerable to conventional IRBMs targeting their airfield(s). The idea of SuCAP for use against strike craft is an economically loosing prospect. The cost (economic, political, and military) of maintaining airframes other than MPA on alert status, potentially for decades, is a loosing prospect. MPAs are excepted because their job is maritime patrol.

Cluster bombs delivered by fixed-wing MPA are probably the ideal balance of effectiveness and cost, but the �Tanker War� of the mid-1980s also conclusively demonstrated the effectiveness of unguided 2.75�/70mm rocket, particularly the flechette and fragmentation varieties against targets up to 600 tons (Iran Ajar). There are now guided versions of these rockets.

Gunfire was much less effective, and shooting an ASCM at strike craft is cost prohibitive. Circumstance may warrant it, but we ought to have better weapons and doctrine. After all, the idea strikel craft is to seek a cheap win in a David and Goliath engagement. [edited for grammar]

[Busto963]

Bump!

I could not resist the temptation to note that the LCS program faced yet another scourging from the Congressional Research Service in its 24 May 2013 report: "Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program:Background and Issues for Congress" available at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL33741.pdf

"In terms of amount of weaponry and other ship characteristics, the LCS does not fare well in comparisons with certain frigate and corvette designs operated by other navies."

"The LCS�s originally stated primary missions are antisubmarine warfare (ASW), mine countermeasures (MCM), and surface warfare (SUW) against small boats (including so-called �swarm boats�), particularly in littoral (i.e., near-shore) waters."

"Planners originally envisaged the LCS as a replacement for the fleet�s frigates, minesweepers and patrol boats, but the new assessments conclude the ships are not equal to today�s frigates or mine countermeasures ships, and they are too large to operate as patrol boats."

�The reality of it is, it�s time to step back and say, what did we get wrong here?�

[Timmy C]

Those quotes are from various press reports summarizing the situation prior to the formation of the LCS council in August 2012 - not necessarily reflective of the latest developments, and definitely far from objective in their tone.

conclude the ships are not equal to today�s...mine countermeasures ships,

It's pretty farcical to compare a still-in-development program that's not slated for full operation for another few years with a platform and systems that's been around for over 20 years and have had actual operational experience and which depends on an entirely different mode of operation

Even if the comparison is valid, the problem with the LCS in its MCM role lies not with the LCS itself, but with the individual components - I don't see how the problems would be fixed by going to a different platform without drastically changing the components.

[Busto963]

Those quotes are from various press reports summarizing the situation prior to the formation of the LCS council in August 2012 - not necessarily reflective of the latest developments, and definitely far from objective in their tone.

I think the report is both professional and objective.

conclude the ships are not equal to today�s...mine countermeasures ships,

It's pretty farcical to compare a still-in-development program that's not slated for full operation for another few years with a platform and systems that's been around for over 20 years and have had actual operational experience and which depends on an entirely different mode of operation

Even if the comparison is valid, the problem with the LCS in its MCM role lies not with the LCS itself, but with the individual components - I don't see how the problems would be fixed by going to a different platform without drastically changing the components.

The problem with your argument from a US taxpayer perspective is that:

• 1. The Navy touted the mission modules as being the solution for the the key mission areas: antisubmarine warfare (ASW), mine countermeasures (MCM), and surface warfare (SUW) against small boats. In every case to date, the modules are not just behind schedule and over budget, even the USN agrees that the modules will not meet *program objectives*.
  
  2. Procurement of replacement MCM vessels, helicopters, and other key platforms and weapons was stopped because LCS was supposed to not just replace these assets, but provide enhanced capabilities. This is a huge issue; for example the Navy now will have to scramble to provide a replacement for aging H-53 MCM helicopters. Candidate replacements are are large, expensive airframes that cannot deploy from either version of the LCS. And we are well behind the procurement cycle meaning that the USN may loose aerial MCM capability. The actual fleet of MCM vessels was identified as inadequate decades ago, and maintenance is so poor that recently, all but one were not mission capable.
  
  3. The Navy is already discussing "LCS 2.0"

[Busto963]

...Even if the comparison is valid, the problem with the LCS in its MCM role lies not with the LCS itself, but with the individual components - I don't see how the problems would be fixed by going to a different platform without drastically changing the components.

LCS is a program and the modules are part of the program, which includes R&D, hull procurement, training, Military Construction (MILCON) and other items. If the modules fail, and they have, those are marks against the program.

Dr. Friedman noted that the utility of CVNs, and even weapons systems like VLS was their flexibility in payloads and inferred that LCS size might actually be too small, even something as large as non-Aegis Burke might make a better LCS.

So let�s explore cost options consistent with desired LCS capabilities.

For roughly the same cost of an LCS hull the US taxpayer could have bought a ship like the HDMS Absalon.

The Absalon can support two EH-101s, and can land CH-47s, so it is a reasonable assumption she could also support MH-53 aerial mine-sweeping helicopters. That would have been great hedge against issues with the H-60 mine sweeping aircraft and the MCM module, both of which have failed.

The Absalom and her sister far exceed the endurance capabilities of the LCS, have a ro-ro ramp, a massive 915m� of internal mission deck capacity to support mission modules, small craft, UUVs, and even ground forces with main battle tanks! Additionally, she carries five standard shipping container wells

HDMS Absalon is also significantly better armed than the LCS with:

1 � 5 inch (127 mm)/54 Mark 45 mod 4 gun
2 � Oerlikon Millennium 35 mm Naval Revolver Gun Systems CIWS
3 x 12 cell VLS for 36 RIM-162 ESSM
16 � Harpoon
Torpedo Tubes

Additionally, Absalom carries a hull-mounted sonar (pretty important for ASW).

But the LCS goes fast (for a while anyway)!

So yes, I think the HDMS Absalom would have made a significantly better LCS than the LCS, and I think the Danish taxpayer got their money�s worth; while the U.S. Taxpayer got screwed.

[Timmy C]

The CRS report overall is professional and objective, yes, but I would not say the same for the quotes you cited, which, as I wrote, are from external press reports.

For the others:
1. Do they really say the mission packages, as conceived and completed in their optimal final iteration, will not meet program objectives? Keep in mind that I'm not talking about the MCM package in its current troubled state or the state it would be in if those troubles are left to fester unabated.

2. I agree the fact that AQS-20 and OASIS are untowable by current SH-60s can be very troublesome, but I still do not think their absence would render the whole package less capable than current systems, as claimed in the quote above. OASIS can be replaced by UISS, and the airborne AQS by the RMMV-towed AQS (problems with the AQS-20 itself aside). Speedy airborne removal of the majority of watercolumn mines can still be done by ALMDS and AMNS, though I would have liked for them to continue RAMICS. If the greatest problem with ALMDS is too many false positives, then I think they're not in a too-terrible situation - much better than false negatives, anyway!

In all, I don't think the LCS MCM project is as dire as the quoted press reports say. The alternatives are there, and though not as great as the originals, can be equal or better than existing systems.

Quite aware of the deficiencies of the current MCM force, though they did appear to perform well in 2003, taking into account the lessons of 1991 - perhaps that's what the reports were comparing the LCS package to.

3. No specifics yet, as far as I know, on how 2.0 might address the MCM problem (bigger hangar/deck, stronger flight deck for -53-sized helo?).

[Timmy C]

Right, the Absalons, the $300-400 million miracle - how did they do that, anyway? (And how do they measure costs?)

Quite frankly, I would have no problems with having a bunch of Absalons in place of the LCSs from the outset...assuming the US shipbuilding industry can somehow build them for the same price as the Danes did (still looking for a report on how they managed that!), or that Congress would be okay with a proposition as "demeaning" as purchasing a foreign design.

MCM-wise, an Absalon allows for larger helos. Great! OASIS and air-towed AQS-20 returns to the table. The hull sonar can probably be modified for use against mines. Two good and solid benefits. Furthermore, greater self-defence capability is wonderful, since MCM assets are otherwise a major defenceless weakpoint in any operation against a mine-centric enemy. But it still wouldn't address the false positive problems of the -20 and ALMDS, though. And what's the crew complement of Absalons including helocrew and mission package operators?

[Busto963]

The CRS report overall is professional and objective, yes, but I would not say the same for the quotes you cited, which, as I wrote, are from external press reports.

The CRS report include the quotes � and those quotes reflect comments from senior navy officers to include the CNO. I think the quotes were included for very good reason, and paint a picture of issues within the program. Given the report is hardly a week old, it also reflects current thinking.

For the others:
1. Do they really say the mission packages, as conceived and completed in their optimal final iteration, will not meet program objectives? Keep in mind that I'm not talking about the MCM package in its current troubled state or the state it would be in if those troubles are left to fester unabated.

I address the MCM capability at length below, but when the SUW module fails because the NLOS missile will not be fielded, the CNO is quoted as saying that maybe the navy will go with a larger gun (76mm vice 57mm), unit endurance is roughly 2/3rds of the requirement, the LCS is too big to replace patrol craft, significant reliability issues are raised, and the service is openly discussing whether to �truncate� (aka cancel) the program after procuring less than half of the planned units apparently for performance reasons � you tell me.

2. I agree the fact that AQS-20 and OASIS are untowable by current SH-60s can be very troublesome, but I still do not think their absence would render the whole package less capable than current systems, as claimed in the quote above.

In all, I don't think the LCS MCM project is as dire as the quoted press reports say. The alternatives are there, and though not as great as the originals, can be equal or better than existing systems.

I think you are grossly understating the dimensions of the problem.

The USN has two squadrons of ancient MH-53s for aerial MCM that are essentially at the end of their service lives. The loss of the MH-60 as a viable platform means that LPDs or even LHA/LHDs will have to be used to deploy MH-53s. This is unacceptable.

Even worse, it is entirely possible that the Navy will be forced to retire the MH-53 without replacement. This is unacceptable.

Replacement candidates for the MH-53 are the new H-53 (a totally new aircraft), the MCH-101, or possibly a variant of the H-47 (now returning as the joint CSAR platform). The costs of the next H-53K and MCH-101 will be on the order of $100 million per unit for the base airframe, which is also an unfunded requirement� In any event, neither LCS, or any other warship will be able to support H-53s or MCH-101s requiring instead a $2 billion dollar LPD, or a $3 billion dollar LHD/LHA be robbed from the amphibs to support MCM operations. This is unacceptable.

The USN has 14 aged MCM ships that are all at the end of their service lives.

Compare the swept rate of current MCMs with the *projected swept rate* of LCS and you will find a massive difference in capability. Ask yourself how many LCS and modules it will take to sweep the Straights of Hormuz and you will get an unacceptable answer.

In short, mucking about with LCS has negatively impacted the USN MCM capability and may in fact lead to a complete loss of capability for some years. Worse, LCS will not be able to deploy with MCM aircraft, which will result in even more disruptions throughout the fleet, to say nothing of the impact on readiness. This is completely unacceptable, completely avoidable, and heads should roll.

3. No specifics yet, as far as I know, on how 2.0 might address the MCM problem (bigger hangar/deck, stronger flight deck for -53-sized helo?).

Adding VLS was discussed, but the point is this: when you start talking about a new design for LCS while major procurement issues (like whether to build only one of the two in production designs), your program is a fail.

[Timmy C]

Great points, most of which I won't argue with

Just two questions for further research on my part:
1. when you mentioned swept rate, is that including "hunt rate" as well? Given LCS's much greater emphasis on hunting than sweeping, it would only be fair to take that into account. The safety of the ship and sailors is another aspect that should be considered when comparing the Avengers with the LCSs.

In either case, I would love to see a source for rate numbers.

2. In the context of this forum thread, is the intent to improve the LCS vessel itself or the program objective(s) overall?

[Busto963]

Right, the Absalons, the $300-400 million miracle - how did they do that, anyway? (And how do they measure costs?)

Well, they built the ships to civilian standard. 30-years ago this would have been unthinkable, but civilian standards now sometimes exceed warship standards, and since LCS also has survivability issues - I think it is a wash.

Quite frankly, I would have no problems with having a bunch of Absalons in place of the LCSs from the outset...assuming the US shipbuilding industry can somehow build them for the same price as the Danes did (still looking for a report on how they managed that!), or that Congress would be okay with a proposition as "demeaning" as purchasing a foreign design.

All in all, the Danes have it right. Essentially the Absalom is an LCS, a tender, a station ship for foreign mil-to-mil engagement, a humanitarian relief platform, and a miniature "sea base" for SOF. Perfect, no, but quite excellent in concept and execution.

Someone will inevitably decry any "foreign design," but the reality is that DoD does buy foreign weapons (under license) all the time from RAST, the 120mm mortar, the M1A2 tank gun, the 76mm Otto Melara, etc..

MCM-wise, an Absalon allows for larger helos. Great! OASIS and air-towed AQS-20 returns to the table. The hull sonar can probably be modified for use against mines. Two good and solid benefits. Furthermore, greater self-defence capability is wonderful, since MCM assets are otherwise a major defenceless weakpoint in any operation against a mine-centric enemy. But it still wouldn't address the false positive problems of the -20 and ALMDS, though.

Given the alternative of not having any MCM aircraft, or having to divert a $2 billion dollar LPD to do the job, I think that the Danes have it right.

And what's the crew complement of Absalons including helocrew and mission package operators?

The Absalon has a crew of 100 with permanent accommodation for up to 70 additional personnel and another 130 can be housed if container accommodation is installed on the flex deck (the containers can also set up a robust field hospital with surgical pavalions!). The ship has galley and personnel facilities for up to 300 embarked passengers and crew.

[Busto963]

Great points, most of which I won't argue with

Just two questions for further research on my part:
1. when you mentioned swept rate, is that including "hunt rate" as well? Given LCS's much greater emphasis on hunting than sweeping, it would only be fair to take that into account. The safety of the ship and sailors is another aspect that should be considered when comparing the Avengers with the LCSs.

In either case, I would love to see a source for rate numbers.

I define swept rate as the area per unit time (really it is a volume not an area) that an MCM can sweep. Normally channels of a given width are designated, and the issue is determined by how fast a sensor can be moved through the lane with an *acceptable* probability of detection.

Hunting is preferred, but the swept rate drops to glacier levels.

Current MCMs can hunt or sweep. The problem with LCS is that without sonar and the plethora of MCM gear, LCS can only hunt.

And what really kills LCS is the fact that you can buy (but perhaps not man) a lot of dedicated MCM vessels for the cost of one LCS, and that is before you add the cost of the module. You also might not be able to deploye the MCMs.

2. In the context of this forum thread, is the intent to improve the LCS vessel itself or the program objective(s) overall?

Well that is right question!

I have some ideas, but may have moved the thread beyond the intent of the original poster. Perhaps an new LCS 2.0 thread is in order?

It seems that without H-60 MCM capability, the LCS should either be a much smaller platform without helicopters, or a much larger platform to cope with the very large MH-53s or MCH-101 sized MCM aircraft.

Or perhaps we are really looking at two ships types deploying as a squadron, a missile boat tender with full MCM aircraft detachment and a flotilla of MCMs or smaller missile boats a la Hamina, or Skjold.

[Timmy C]

I define swept rate as the area per unit time (really it is a volume not an area) that an MCM can sweep. Normally channels of a given width are designated, and the issue is determined by how fast a sensor can be moved through the lane with an *acceptable* probability of detection.

Hunting is preferred, but the swept rate drops to glacier levels.

Current MCMs can hunt or sweep. The problem with LCS is that without sonar and the plethora of MCM gear, LCS can only hunt.

But hunt by air and [large] UUV/USVs! Which the Avengers cannot do.

If the desire is to move away from sweeping and towards hunting (since it's safer), then it is logical to try to address the main drawback of hunting: speed. Hence, the development of ALMDS and RAMICS, and now AMNS since RAMICS' cancellation. I don't think we should dismiss a platform just because it can't use an older and more dangerous method of accomplishing the same objective just because it's more reliable at the moment. Instead, it makes more sense to focus on fixing the speed and reliability of hunting.

It seems that without H-60 MCM capability, the LCS should either be a much smaller platform without helicopters, or a much larger platform to cope with the very large MH-53s or MCH-101 sized MCM aircraft.

Hmm, you don't think it's viable to keep an H-60 for ALMDS and AMNS, and leave the sweep and deep-anchored/seabottom hunting to USV/UUVs?


Back to the Absalon, the reason I asked about complement is, of course, the LCS's lower manning requirements as a selling point. Absalon's permanent comp of 100 compares favourably to LCS's ~80-90 total for when it carries MP and Helo crew. But I would imagine those same MCM systems and helo crew would have to be added to that 100-member total for an Absalon, increasing the difference in crew strength and increasing manning costs.

In regards to the Absalons being cheaper due to being built to civilian standards, isn't LCS almost the same? I thought one of the conception points for LCS was to build it to civilian standards, with minor increases in protection for certain areas to make it "Level 1+". Logically, if LCS's civvie standard (even if it wasn't 100% faithful to that) failed to result in lower costs, then there must've been something else unique to the Danes (whether in the design or in the process, or even institutional structural factors) that resulted in their low costs.

[Busto963]

Current MCMs can hunt or sweep. The problem with LCS is that without sonar and the plethora of MCM gear, LCS can only hunt.

But hunt by air and [large] UUV/USVs! Which the Avengers cannot do.

Avengers cannot operate helicopters, but I would argue that the LCS only adds marginal MCM capability because it can only carry H-60s � a distinctly inferior MCM aircraft compared to the MH-53. It is true that the H-60s can do other things like ASW, but since the LCS lacks a hull mounted sonar or towed array� it needs additional support to do them.

Remember that an LCS fully kitted out cost rough the same as an entire flotilla of MCMs...

If the desire is to move away from sweeping and towards hunting (since it's safer), then it is logical to try to address the main drawback of hunting: speed. Hence, the development of ALMDS and RAMICS, and now AMNS since RAMICS' cancellation. I don't think we should dismiss a platform just because it can't use an older and more dangerous method of accomplishing the same objective just because it's more reliable at the moment. Instead, it makes more sense to focus on fixing the speed and reliability of hunting.

Preference does not equal requirement.

The requirement is to be able to sweep major shipping channels like the Straights of Hormuz, or the approaches to a beach ahead of an amphibious assault. Hunting just will not do the job. While sweeping is not nearly as effective at detecting the really sophisticated mines, it is a better than letting someone choke-off the world�s most important seaway using WWI technology. The research into countering mines has not kept up with the threat.

It is difficult to see any of the major WWII ETO invasions as being effective, if mine hunting versus mine sweeping had to be employed. I think a foe could actually lay mines faster than you can mine hunt.

It seems that without H-60 MCM capability, the LCS should either be a much smaller platform without helicopters, or a much larger platform to cope with the very large MH-53s or MCH-101 sized MCM aircraft.

Hmm, you don't think it's viable to keep an H-60 for ALMDS and AMNS, and leave the sweep and deep-anchored/seabottom hunting to USV/UUVs?

You certainly could use H-60s, but it is a much less effective platform than MCH-101s or MH-53s. The H-60 not only lacks the power to tow, it lacks endurance, payload and other factors. At some point the huge expense of the larger helicopters does pay-off in capability (and swept rate!).

I do not see a lot of value added by the LCS design given its only real contribution is an H-60 MCM aircraft can be embarked on pretty much any other ship in the fleet. For the cost, I would prefer a good frigate that gives me the hangers and flight deck, plus a good TACTASS and other sensors, and can at least protect itself, shoot a tomahawk, do a little NGFS�.

And there is the rub, the LCS program is taking away from funds that the fleet *could spend*on better force mix options. If the end buy is 24 LCSs; an alternative force of $40 billion spent on Absaloms, MCH-101s, Skjolds, modern MCM ships, a couple of commercial flo-flos for sea lift, and USV/UUVs may look a lot more compelling. If the only point of LCS is a flight deck and a 57mm gun (I know I am overstating the case), I could buy a $50 million dollar commercial hull that does all that with a crew of 12!

Back to the Absalon, the reason I asked about complement is, of course, the LCS's lower manning requirements as a selling point. Absalon's permanent comp of 100 compares favourably to LCS's ~80-90 total for when it carries MP and Helo crew. But I would imagine those same MCM systems and helo crew would have to be added to that 100-member total for an Absalon, increasing the difference in crew strength and increasing manning costs.

Maybe�

Remember that we would be comparing H-60 dets to either an MH-53 det, or an MCH-101 det. That could be an apples to oranges comparison.

The MH-53 is easily *the* most expensive beast to operate and maintain � capability comes at a cost. An MCH-101 is also a beast, but being a current design, is likely to be much more economical in the O&M department, but I do not know what that translates to in terms of manning.

My suspicion is that trying to run intensive two helicopter operations on an LCS for a deployment like the Earnest Will missions back in the 1980s will be a nightmare. It was tough doing 24-7 flight quarters on an FFG with 238 guys (2-helo air det, army, helos, stinger det�.). I do not think that LCS�s are really manned to do that.

In regards to the Absalons being cheaper due to being built to civilian standards, isn't LCS almost the same? I thought one of the conception points for LCS was to build it to civilian standards, with minor increases in protection for certain areas to make it "Level 1+". Logically, if LCS's civvie standard (even if it wasn't 100% faithful to that) failed to result in lower costs, then there must've been something else unique to the Danes (whether in the design or in the process, or even institutional structural factors) that resulted in their low costs.

I do not think the LCS is truly a civilian standard design.

I do know that a conventional diesel engine/screw is significantly cheaper to procure and run than water jets and gas turbines.

I am dating myself but I do not think you could find an inconel or monel bolt for a gas turbine that cost under $100 in the 1980�s. Naval Air Rework Facilities had 50-gallon drums filled with old bolts � lots of $$$ in those buckets!

[carr]

..

[Timmy C]

On the manning comparison, the call for more crew on the ships is why I bumped the prospective LCS crew size to just a bit less than a 100, which should cover both the MP crew and whatever extra they feel needed for maintenance.

On the powerpoint - did they specify the methods used for those rates? And it'd be nice to have removal/neutralization rate in addition to detection rate, as I imagine the helo-borne four-round AMNS Archerfishes can neutralize mines a bit faster than having to deploy a SeaFox from an Avenger for each mine. (hunting, of course, not sweeping - in which case, it'd be interesting to see how UISS performs)