Calling all Freedom-class LCS fans

[carr]

Here's some more info on the LCS variable depth sonar (VDS). As you recall, the LCS was not supposed to have any on-board sensors. The concept being that its sensors would be carried away from the ship by unmanned surface and underwater craft. Well, after repeated technical problems and failures by the remote craft, the LCS is now being fitted with an on-board VDS. The Thales Captas 4 has been selected for initial installation and proof of concept. The VDS is scheduled to be delivered in September 2011. The unit will be installed in and deployed from the stern. Installed weight will be around 35,000 pounds which obliterates the weight growth margins (weight was already an issue with LCS-1 having to have external buoyancy tanks welded onto the hull). Deployment or retrieval of the unit requires 20 minutes and the VDS can be operated to a tow limit of 30 kts, though with diminished performance at that speed due to flow noise. Unfortunately, the deployment time and speed limit put a significant crimp in one of the LCS' major features, its speed. The supposed ability to dart around submarines and outrun torpedos is lost when using the VDS. That presents a nasty dilema: use the VDS and be vulnerable to enemy subs or not use the VDS and maintain the speed capability but have no idea where the subs are.

The Captas 4 VDS is credited with a passive torpedo detection capability, which is nice, but the only anti-torpedo tactic is to run away from the torpedo which, again, becomes problematic with the VDS deployed.

[Russ2146]

Don't you just love it when a well thought out (by a fighter jock admiral) plan comes together!!!

[navydavesof]

Listening to Bob list the problems LCS suffers at the hands of the Navy is like watching a doctor describe my cousin's mental retardation due to my aunt's smoking and drinking during pregnancy. It's so sad but analytically neutral at the same time.

[carr]

Here is a photo of the Thales Captas 4 variable depth towed sonar which will be installed on the LCS. There are two versions of this device, Captas 2 and Captas 4, and reports differ about which version will be installed. Regardless, this gives a pretty good idea of what the unit will look like and how it will be deployed. The question, of course, becomes where along the stern waterline will there be room to install this?

Probably the major reason for selecting this unit is that the deployment/retrieval is fully automated which is mandatory given the manning levels of the LCS.

[carr]

I've been thinking about the impact of helos on an LCS. The ship is capable of carrying two helos. Does anyone know what that means in terms of number of pilots and maintenance crew? My understanding is that berthing and life support (laundry, mess, heads, showers, etc.) are at a premium. With a mission module and associated specialist crew, helo detachment and crew, plus the normal ship's crew, is the LCS capable of supporting that many bodies?

[Russ2146]

"As a surface combatant, LCS will be crewed by U.S. Navy sailors and officers. LCS is a leap forward in automation and reduced manning. The core ship (seaframe) has a crew complement of 40. The Mission Package brings a maximum of 35 personnel, including up to 20 personnel in the aviation detachment. Total berthing aboard LCS is 75."
http://www.navsea.navy.mil/teamships/PE ... sJHSV.aspx

[carr]

Since the Navy announced that it would acquire 10 additional ships of each LCS type (20 total) for a unit cost of around $440M, I've been pointing out that that cost is unrealistic (fraudulent is a fair synonym). Think about it. Common sense would dictate that the per ship cost can't drop from near $700M per ship for the first two to $440M for the next ten just due to serial production efficiencies. As I've pointed out, the purchase contract states that the $440M figure is, essentially, only for the hull. The Navy will supply all weapon systems, electronics, sensors, combat systems, etc. from another cost account line. What do you think those will cost?? Also, the purchase contract contains language allowing the builders to collect cost overruns from the Navy. Both the Navy and the builders know that the LCS can't be built for $440M. That figure was arrived at because the Congressionally mandated limit for the LCS is ... wait for it ... about $450M. Whoa! Who could have seen that coming! The contract price just happens to be almost exactly the mandated limit. What a coincidence!

Also, the modules are funded separately and are estimated to cost $200-$300M each.

So, the actual cost of a fully equipped (with module) LCS is $440M (contract price) plus $300M (Navy supplied equipment - guesstimated cost on my part) plus $250M (module cost). The total? $700M to $1B per ship.

Well, enough of my assessment. What does the Department of Defense say about the cost? The DOD's Selected Acquistion Reports (SAR) that it submitted to Congress as of 15-Apr cite an LCS program cost of $37B for 55 ships. Let's do the math. That's $37B divided by 55 ships for a per ship cost of $672M. Compare that to the contract price of $440M per ship. Something's wrong! Well, I told you what was wrong in the preceeding paragraphs.

I don't know what all is included in the SAR dollar figure of $37B. I suspect that the module costs are not included but the report doesn't say.

Does the LCS still represent value for the dollar? I leave it to you to decide.

Here is the link to the DOD Selected Acquisition Report:
http://www.defense.gov/releases/release ... seid=14411

Regards,
Bob

[Russ2146]

PLUS, At least 2 Mother-Ships/Tenders for deployed LCS.

[carr]

More baffling news. I do not make this stuff up! Here's a quote from the Aug 2010 GAO report to Congress,

"For example, the Navy now plans to fund construction of 17 seaframes between fiscal years 2011 and 2015�whereas only 13 mission packages will be purchased during that time."

Huh?!? The Navy is building 17 ships but only 13 modules? Not only will the ships not be able to swap modules, which was the whole point of the LCS, but 4 of the ships won't even have a module!!!

Here's the link to the GAO report:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10523.pdf

Enjoy!
Bob

[carr]

From the same GAO report cited in the previous post, here's another tidbit related to cost control. GAO took the Navy to task for purchasing additional ships without having a good handle on the actual costs of the LCS, with the following statement.

"The Department of Defense ... stated that the program can use existing ship and class design services contracts to execute additional changes after contract award [emphasis added]. As our prior work has shown, however, this practice has been tried before in Navy shipbuilding programs and has consistently contributed to ship deliveries that are over cost and behind schedule."

This practice was the source of the original cost overruns and now the Navy has stated that they're going knowingly to do it again. This relates to my previous post about the patently low-ball contract price for new LCS hulls. Clearly, the Navy recognizes that additional significant costs will be incurred but has basically said that they don't care.

Regards,
Bob

[carr]

As reported by defensenewsstand.com, http://defensenewsstand.com/index.php?o ... Itemid=416

"Navy Ditches Old LCS ASW Package, Will Field New Package In FY-16
Inside the Navy - 04/18/2011
NATIONAL HARBOR, MD -- The Navy plans to field its new anti-submarine warfare mission package on the Littoral Combat Ship later than the originally envisioned package, though officials say the wait will bring transformational ASW capabilities to the fleet."

You recall that the original ASW module was cancelled when the Navy found that several of the components failed to operate as advertised and the remaining components provided no improvement in ASW over currently available technologies.

Fortunately, the new package "... will bring transformational ASW capabilities to the fleet." Wait a minute ... Isn't that what the old package was going to bring? Well, I'm sure this time it will be different. The Navy wouldn't say it if it wasn't true.

[Russ2146]

Transformational Sonobouys placed by Transformational Helicopters linked to Transformational Shipbourne Computer Programs (pattern analysis software) enabling Transformational DASH delivery of Targeted Transformational Torpedos??

See also: http://www.informationdissemination.net ... =Sonobuoys

[carr]

..

[Russ2146]

http://www.informationdissemination.net ... ps-of.html

"All the happy talk of these smaller, low end, modular, 'crew and material swap' style platforms spread all over the world simply isn't credible as a legitimate capability in real world discussions without also having a legitimate discussion why Small Ship Tenders are not needed. I can't imagine a scenario where higher logistics requirements and greater support requirements for all these small, short range platforms and their deployable systems doesn't in some way translate into a greater logistics requirement for the fleet as a whole.

If the US Navy is not designing LCS tenders by the FY13 budget, tell me how in the world the Navy is going to be operating 47 [LCS & JHSV] small high speed gas sucking vessels all across the world in 2020. It won't happen, there will be a logistics tether that ties these smaller vessels to either foreign ports where logistics are purchased from others or larger clusters of US Navy ships where logistics will already exist, and that tether will limit the locations this new, large high speed force can be deployed."

[carr]

..

[Russ2146]

I can't help but wonder if Rand would choose the same three ports today, give the instability in Bahrain, events in Japan and the potential for unrest in Singapore.

Also of note, we have:
8 Fast Sealift Ships, each with two doubled Hagglund cranes capableof lifting an M-1 tank loaded and a speed of 34 knots. (I feel a whiff of an FSS converted to an LCS tender/module carrier/module installer.)
6 Crane ships capable of carrying cargo and each having 6 thirty ton cranes.
While I don't know the weight of LCS module containers, I suspect that the available ships could handle them both for the transfer and for "warehousing". Thus, a shore mounted crane may not be needed. What would be needed is protected anchorage to permit transfer. Are such anchorages available in areas of interest?

In the Middle East, Diego Garcia, BIOT, is available and relatively stable.

In the Pacific?
Guam is an organized, unincorporated territory of the United States.
Saipan is the largest island of the United States Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
Palau, ESE of the Philippines and North of New Guinea, upon independence in 1994, entered into a 50-year Compact of Free Association with the United States, similar to that of its neighbors, the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall Islands. Under the Compact, the United States, provides economic and financial assistance, defends Palau�s territorial integrity, and allows uninhibited access by Palauan citizens to the United States in return for exclusive and unlimited access to Palau�s land and waterways for strategic purposes.
Ulithi Atoll is administered by the state of Yap in the Federated States of Micronesia. You will recall that Ulithi was of some use during WW2

[carr]

..

[Yevgeniy]

For you USS Freedom fans (which company I am glad to join ) here is an article (albeight in Russian) with some pictures and videos including those of USS Freedom and what is most interesting showing similarity of hull lines between USS Freedom and Destriero speed yacht winner of Atlantic Blue Riband in 1992:
http://poludin.moy.su/news/katera_i_jak ... -05-21-696

So I guess one can already build a hull using those hull lines of Destriero and side view of USS Freedom.

That is the ship I am certainly having in mind - beautiful hull of a heavy-armed yacht! Sure would be great project for RC guys - high speed will be in scale with such model

Sincerely,

Yevgeniy

[carr]

I can't help but wonder if Rand would choose the same three ports today, give the instability in Bahrain, events in Japan and the potential for unrest in Singapore.

In the Middle East, Diego Garcia, BIOT, is available and relatively stable.

Remember that the key to making the LCS useful is the ability to quickly change out modules/missions in response to changing tactical requirements (the Navy's statement, not mine). Having the MidEast's module logistical base in Diego Garcia means that if an LCS needs to do a quick change of module it will require a 5 day transit to DG, 2-3 days swapping, and 5 days return. In other words, pushing two weeks to swap a module. That's not exactly responsive to changing requirements. Whatever the threat was that would have prompted the swap has probably already come and gone and done whatever damage it wanted over the intervening two weeks.

This illustrates one of the major weaknesses in the LCS concept. It's just not tactically responsive in a useful time frame. I really don't think the Navy gamed this out before starting the LCS program.

[carr]

The Navy touts the flexibility of the LCS as its greatest strength. However, my preceeding post leads to the question, is the LCS actually flexible at the tactical level? If module swapping requires several days even with a base fairly nearby, that would, in my mind, invalidate the claim of tactical flexibility. For example, an LCS(ASuW) receives a report of a sub heading for its area of operation and due to arrive within 24 hours. If the LCS can't swap its ASuW module for an ASW module in 24 hours, then it's not tactically flexible. The point being that tactical requirments change in a shorter cycle than the module swapping.

Strategic flexibility remains a potentially valid claim. Swapping an LCS to ASuW for the next several months because you're going to escort ships through waters threatened by small craft is not a problem. The several days it will take to make the swap are not critical compared to the several month time frame of the operation.

So, I can see that the LCS offers a potential strategic flexibility but not a tactical flexibility.

Thoughts? Agree? Disagree?

Regards,
Bob