What-If LCS Flight II: Littoral Combat Ship Improvement

[SumGui]

If the point is to take the existing LCS program and build something useful out of the proverbial sow's ear - cheers!

I'm still in the scrap and go smaller camp, but didn't want to leave Dave hangin'....

[navydavesof]

The missions the LCS type ships are supposed to accomplish are very limited.

The smaller but extremely important things like regional sea control (Philippines, Japanese Islands, escort through the Straights of Hormuz) can and should be accomplished by FACs hosted by an LPD/LSD mother ship. If air support was needed, the mother ship could launch helos and very quickly assist the FACs. Perhaps there should even be two tiers of FACs, one that is strictly offensive (Japanese Hamina-class) and one that can be offensive and defensive (Ambassador-III-class). Any trip through Jane's will show you an awful lot of FACs, and a huge amount of them are made in the US. The designs are already refined, and the manufacturers would wet themselves for USN contracts.

Concerning the LCS, I have been really wondering about the additional length needed to accommodate a 5" gun and 8-16 VLS tubes forward. The 57mm gun magazine is already big enough for a 300-400 round 5" magazine. There is a whole, whole lot of wasted space in there. If that same space were added to the length of the ship, a small group of VLS (with its support equipment) could fit as well.

The reason why I would want VLS up there in the first place is to provide without question a strike length VLS for long-stick missiles (tomahawk and VLA). The only reason why I would want to explore long-stick VLS is in the case that the counter battery fire would actually benefit from the long legs of a TLAM strike (even if it takes an hour for the TLAM to arrive on target) and the possibility of throwing a VLA if necessary.

If the VLS arranged on the port and starboard sides of the hangar could accommodate the strike length tubes, then bow tubes would not be necessary at all. In all likelihood...the hangar tubes could probably be strike length and the bow tubes would not be needed.

If memory serves, and Bob can correct me if I am wrong, the missions for the ASuW are:

-combat small craft (perhaps swarms)
-counter battery
-provide self-defense AAW
-carry a helicopter capability
-carry unmanned surface craft

I imagine the LCS-1 FlightII being fitted with:

- Mk45 Mod4 5"/62 caliber gun firing projectiles with PGKs acting as the ship's counter battery fire capability. Detection would be accomplished by the SPQ-9B and TRS-3D radars, and the counter battery solution would be solved by possibly the Mk160 GFCS or the TAS-23 WDS. Throwing 5" rounds over 19nm with GPS terminal guidance meets these requirements. Hitting a moving target would be another issue. That would require laser guidance, and so far that is only accomplished in the Dead-eye round. Production would have to be resumed for that to be added to the armament.

Self defense AAW:
- 16-32 xMk41 VLS for ESSM and TLAM
- 1x 21-cell RAM launcher
- 2x Millenium Guns fitted in place of the Mk46 30mm guns

ASuW small craft:
- 2x 76mm SR on the flight deck, forward and against the super structure
- 2x Millenium Guns (noted above)

The stern would be lengthened to meet the LCS-3+ length.

I would add the ScanEagle and possibly Shadow UAVs to the ship for situational awareness and target scouting and designation. The Fire Scout has too many problems for me.

As Bob has so comprehensively pointed out, the current LCS-1 design is so fragile in able to accomoodate high speed that the entire power plant and possibly even propulsion plant would need to be replaced to allow for stronger structure, greater protection, and a more realistic speed.

That description above is what my LCS-1 Flight II is going to center around. The only questions I still have are:

- How should I design the mast
- Should I have the additional 8-16 VLS tubes forward

[navydavesof]

Of course, with all of this in mind, even Dr. Friedman has said that there is no mission for a "littoral combat ship"...period.

[Busto963]

The missions the LCS type ships are supposed to accomplish are very limited.

The smaller but extremely important things like regional sea control (Philippines, Japanese Islands, escort through the Straights of Hormuz) can and should be accomplished by FACs hosted by an LPD/LSD mother ship. If air support was needed, the mother ship could launch helos and very quickly assist the FACs. Perhaps there should even be two tiers of FACs, one that is strictly offensive (Japanese Hamina-class) and one that can be offensive and defensive (Ambassador-III-class). ...

Two points:

Air support: I think fixed wing MPA, operating from land is the way to go.

FAC/Strike Craft/Missile boat support: The modern LPDs and LSDs are too expensive to to serve as tenders and cannot provide inter-theater transport for these vessels. The Navy ought to buy small commercial flo/flo vessels , sometimes called yacht transporters to do the job. 12-15 man crew, some have real cranes to actually do maintenance, and yes, they cost a tenth of what an LPD does.

This one has been used to transport submarines (two!)

This one is a flo/flo, has an articulated deck macking it a roll-on roll-off, and she has two cranes that could lift something as large as a Visby-class.

If memory serves, and Bob can correct me if I am wrong, the missions for the ASuW are:

-combat small craft (perhaps swarms)
-counter battery
-provide self-defense AAW
-carry a helicopter capability
-carry unmanned surface craft

Well this is a very different ship and mission set than the Navy briefed to Congress (could be interesting to go back to the old hearings and appropriations language).

Again this is WIF, the military is fond of "implied tasks", and the strategic reality today is different from the problems facing the nation when the LCS concept was tied up.

[SumGui]

I envision the tender being equipped with ESSM and guns for self defense, and to have Harpoons and Aviation assets to pass forward to the smaller vessels (Absalon already has these assets as it exists today). This support ship/tender will be a tempting target.

The lift ships as they exist today are perfect for transport to and from the operational area, but don't have the self defense or support capabilities I'd like to see, including shops. Modifications could be made of course, but that will take away much of the cost savings.

One of the reasons I mentioned LSD-41 as a possibility is that they are potentially coming to the end of their lives in their current form. They already have heavy cranes and a massive amount of space. The well deck would not really be able to move the FACs, I was thinking of inserting what would essentially be a 'light floating dock' for transit in the well which is deployed alongside the tender at the support location. A refit of those existing assets could be a good re-use of sunk costs to get a large support platform.

LPD-17 is too expensive to contemplate as the basis for a new build support ship in its current form, and it may only become affordable if it could support two squadrons of 6 or more, but that is certainly possible considering its size

I do not think every squadron would have to have a full LSD/LPD sized support ship - some squadrons could be shore supported, and I still like the Absalon idea for half squadrons or shorter term deployments of a full squadron. An area could be rather well covered by a converted LSD-41 (with the folding dock) as the primary support point, and two Absalons farther forward with all three supporting 2 or 3 squadrons of FACs (12-18 total), rotating forward and back to the LSD for refit/stand down time.

Lift ships for transport of these FACs to and from the area is 100% on.

Edit to add: the new T-MLP may be a good option to alter for tender duty, but defense of the platform would need to be addressed. Maybe by assigning a Frigate or Burke
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USNS_Montf ... _(T-MLP-1)

[SumGui]

The size problem.

I don't think most understand the size of the LCS, especially the LCS-2. While I am not opposed to adding size to a design for more capability (heck, a little more size it usually a cheap add) size for size's sake gets a little absurd when you have so few weapons and sensors on a massive platform.

Burke IIA vs LCS-2:


LCS-2 vs 'Patrol Corvettes', Brandenburg and Floreal class


LCS-2 vs Visby, Goteborg (similar in size to the Hamina mentioned above) and Cyclone class


LCS-2 vs many things....including PHM, LCAC, Mk V



Notice a late they are a little blurry - sorry, these small guys are difficult to photograph.

And at this time I do not have an LCS-1 to put in there, but Absalon should be on the way soon.

[Busto963]

Okay I am going to combine comments from two posts�

The size problem.

I don't think most understand the size of the LCS, especially the LCS-2. While I am not opposed to adding size to a design for more capability (heck, a little more size it usually a cheap add) size for size's sake gets a little absurd when you have so few weapons and sensors on a massive platform.

Your pictures are brilliant, and show the issue nicely.

That said, part of the problem with LCS is that the USN never really defined the concept of operations in concrete terms. Should LCS really be a single platform, or is it a combination of platforms; and if the later, should they be supported by a tender? As Mr Carr noted, the LCS concept appears to be to launch a bunch of drones or UUVs from mission modules that resolve the issue (MCM, ASW, ASUW), while the LCS remains off board.

This is problematic for a number of reasons, including the infamous 40 knot speed requirement, but if the Navy is putting it�s faith in the helicopters and UUVs, etc., then LCS should look a lot more like a commercial FLO-FLO or other vessel that is designed to launch and recover a lot of heavy objects, small craft in high sea states 24/7. Commercial industry is frankly far ahead of the LCS team, and the gator community as well in solving this issue.

I envision the tender being equipped with ESSM and guns for self defense, and to have Harpoons and Aviation assets to pass forward to the smaller vessels (Absalon already has these assets as it exists today). This support ship/tender will be a tempting target.

I sense mission creep here.

Harpoon does not fix the stated LCS small boat ASUW mission. This is even less palatable as MPA and helicopters are the preferred method of killing small boats. Once you start adding all of the stuff, including a robust CIC, to run these systems, you end up with an underperforming frigate.

I have no problem putting a small gun, and a CIWS on the tender, but beyond installing modular weapons you start to run into the procurement and life cycle issues that plague the larger surface combatants. LCS was never intended to operate in a high threat environment, at least not with support, so I think economic prudence is to add escorts to meet specific scenarios before adding major weapons.

A lot of the technology that was proposed for the LCS is not mature, and the platform requirements for example MCM helicopters are likely to change. It makes more sense as Captain Hughes pointed out, to pursue *several different classes of hulls* to be built (the WWII destroyer programs as an example), rather than settle on a specific hull. For example, if the Navy by is going to buy say 48 hulls, it would be better to have them built in classes of 10-12, with each iteration getting better, than to try and achieve perfection out the gate, and end up with 40 or 50 of what may be a marginal design.
support capabilities I'd like to see, including shops.

One of the reasons I mentioned LSD-41 as a possibility is that they are potentially coming to the end of their lives in their current form. They already have heavy cranes and a massive amount of space. The well deck would not really be able to move the FACs, I was thinking of inserting what would essentially be a 'light floating dock' for transit in the well which is deployed alongside the tender at the support location. A refit of those existing assets could be a good re-use of sunk costs to get a large support platform.

LSDs are an inferior choice compared to a modern commercial hull. The well decks are useless for any larger platform like a Skjold or Hamina, the cranes are antique, unsafe for the operations required, and are dwarfed by the modern 700-metric ton crane capacity of the Roll Dock vessel which can dead lift a 600+ ton Visby. Base crew size is ~15, service life is 20-25 years and the cost would be ~$150 million.

LPD-17 is too expensive to contemplate as the basis for a new build support ship in its current form, and it may only become affordable if it could support two squadrons of 6 or more, but that is certainly possible considering its size

Yes, LPD-17 is too expensive to be viable. I address some other considerations below.

I do not think every squadron would have to have a full LSD/LPD sized support ship - some squadrons could be shore supported, and I still like the Absalon idea for half squadrons or shorter term deployments of a full squadron. An area could be rather well covered by a converted LSD-41 (with the folding dock) as the primary support point, and two Absalons farther forward with all three supporting 2 or 3 squadrons of FACs (12-18 total), rotating forward and back to the LSD for refit/stand down time.

This is a great point, but begs the question: �How many missile boats, minesweepers, UUVs, helicopters etc. are needed to do the job?� This goes right back to mission. I can see the need for three or four deployed squadrons of MCM vessels supported by one or two full squadrons of MCM helicopters in the Persian Gulf. Missile boats are cool, but I do not see the requirement for multiple squadrons of them.

Lift ships for transport of these FACs to and from the area is 100% on.

Well it would certainly make it at least a feasible option. Not having to forward deploy forces to friendly (or not so friendly) allied bases used to be an advantage of naval power. Right now, we really do not have the option.

Edit to add: the new T-MLP may be a good option to alter for tender duty, but defense of the platform would need to be addressed. Maybe by assigning a Frigate or Burke
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USNS_Montf ... _(T-MLP-1)

I think the issue with MLPs, LPDs, and the like is this: the are not dedicated tenders with built in facilities to service boats, ships and helicopters on anything other than an ad hock capacity. Worse, they use up amphibious lift which is itself limited.

[SumGui]

I understand the concern form mission creep, but I am concerned these will become tempting targets, drawing resources (another ship, aircraft, or holding back some of the FACs assigned) to defend them. If they can defend themselves to a degree, we have essentially saved the need for another vessel.

To be clear I do not advocate pulling LPD/LSDs away from their primary roles, I do think they could be utilized as they become available - at least two LSD-41 will be on the decom list soon in spite of a recent midlife update program. I would hate to see these assets idle (there is also info on them acting as motherships for Mk VI PBs in Dave's PC thread). This would be similar to what happened with USS Ponce, although the LSD-41s are in better condition.

Any MLP based solution would be new build and purpose customized to operate as a tender. Their ability to lift may allow them to act essentially as a drydock for the FACs in some cases. I am leaning toward an MLP-AFSB type platform as I write this.

Of course, we have a potential example on the Elbe class for support to groups of smaller vessels.

MLP-AFSB as described in these articles I think is a great way forward for MCM (freeing LCS of this mission...)
http://www.defensenews.com/article/2012 ... g-U-S-Navy
http://cno.navylive.dodlive.mil/2012/10 ... ing-bases/

[Seasick]

The LCS suffered from mission creep, and Rumsfeld syndrome (aka Gee-Wiz Syndrome).

[carr]

..

[Busto963]

Go back in time and recall the circumstances of the LCS genesis. It was the mid-1990's and the war on terrorism had not really started, China was not perceived as a threat, the Mid-East was fairly quiet, and the Navy had no compelling reason for existence (so it was thought). The Navy was in very real danger of losing budget to the other services. In response, the Navy commissioned a series of studies, reports, and position papers all designed to defend and articulate the Navy's need for budget. They failed (because they didn't articulate the Navy's core mission - but that's a story for another time). With no naval rival and being unable to articulate their reason for existence the Navy made up an enemy - the "littoral". Ignoring the fact that the Navy had routinely operated just offshore throughout its history, the Navy now claimed that no one could fight the littoral monster without a specialized littoral combat vessel. ... Hence, the LCS became a hodgepodge of tacked on missions and functions.

This is great background material, but surely the USN/DOD had to present hard missions for the Ronald Reagan Defense Authorization Acts for fiscal years 2005, and 2006 to get the funding for LCS. At that point we leave the realm of concepts and run squarely into the U.S. Congress. The closest insight we have into the LCS mission set used to justify the funding requests are the CRS reports, which define those missions as MCM, coastal ASW, ASUW against small boats.

If you're going to build something, have a reason. Well, the Navy did have a reason - budget protection. In that light, the program was wildly successful. The Navy locked in enormous sums of money and is on track to build 50+ LCSs. They accomplished exactly what they wanted. That the LCS has little value was never the original goal.

I think that it is mission failed if that was truly the goal of the LCS program. There seems to be little sympathy in Congress for LCS, and there is a great deal of undesired scrutiny being focused upon the Navy with respect to LCS.

Even in FY 2010 you see Congress start to pin the Navy down by limiting the per hull cost of LCSs to $480 million.

The pain is only beginning...

[carr]

..

[Seasick]

I'd say take the LCS-2 design and develop it into an actual FF.

[navydavesof]

Perhaps there should even be two tiers of FACs, one that is strictly offensive (Japanese Hamina-class) and one that can be offensive and defensive (Ambassador-III-class). ...

I have to correct this. The Japanese FAC I was referring to are not the Hamina, they are the Hayabusa-class. I was able to see one in person and talk to the crew in Sasebo, Japan.



They are cool little craft, but they would be the strictly offensive ones I was referring to in the "two-tier" thought while those with a self defensive capability would be the Ambassadors or ones very similar. Even the modified Cyclone-PCs design meant to meet the Ambassador requirements offer a good capability.

From Wiki:

• "The feasibility study conducted by the Carderock ultimately concluded that most of Egypt�s FAC requirements, as were specified, could be met within the modified Cyclone design, but there were some significant shortfalls.[7] For example, to modify the Cyclone design to meet Egypt�s needs Carderock Division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center recommended:
  
  - Reducing the sea keeping requirements from 5 to 3 for full operations, and from 7 to 5 for restricted operations.
  - Reducing the range radius from 1000 nm to a minimum acceptable range radius of 500 nm.
  - Fitting two Super Barricade decoy launchers instead of four Mk-36 Super RBOC launchers.
  - Either eliminating the Close-in-weapons System or reducing the number of Harpoons from eight to four (two twin-pack launchers instead of two quad-packs)."

However, there are existing designs that must be taken into consideration before using the modified Cyclone-class.

If memory serves, and Bob can correct me if I am wrong, the missions for the ASuW are:

-combat small craft (perhaps swarms)
-counter battery
-provide self-defense AAW
-carry a helicopter capability
-carry unmanned surface craft

Well this is a very different ship and mission set than the Navy briefed to Congress (could be interesting to go back to the old hearings and appropriations language).

I would be surprised if these requirements (or the requirements developed from the 1990s wargames) made it to the appropriation language. From the Proceedings article Bob and I cite (I don't have it at the moment, but I am sure Bob can chime in with the issue, anrticle title, and page number) the requirements were built around a series of wargames based in the congested waterways of the Persian Gulf specifically. Of course that does not mean that they are strictly limited to the Persian Gulf, but the scenarios were consistant with most congested waterways.

From the first time I read that article, I wondered if a FRAM II Gearing-class fitted with modern 5", CIWS and RAM, radar, and communications gear could accomplish the tasks assigned to the ASuW variant.

Again this is WIF, the military is fond of "implied tasks", and the strategic reality today is different from the problems facing the nation when the LCS concept was tied up.

Indeed! Seasick's point about the "transformative" view point of SECDEF Rumsfeld's philosophy has very much misguided a leaderless Navy into the LCS type projects.

Like they have said before:

"The last time the US Navy had a real building strategy was the 600-ship fleet."

Everything since has been bandaids and pipe dreams. :'-(

[Busto963]

Perhaps there should even be two tiers of FACs, one that is strictly offensive (Japanese Hamina-class) and one that can be offensive and defensive (Ambassador-III-class). ...

Dave,

I did not post this response. You are quoting yourself from Friday.

[Busto963]

After another flurry of responses, I still am not seeing any LCS design proposal that can address the primary MCM and ASW missions. The third primary mission for LCS is ASUW against small boats - something that is probably best served by aircraft.

I see the lack of organic MCM and ASW capabilities (sensors!) on any LCS design as a fail.

We have a potential immediate threat in the Persian Gulf that requires an *effective* and inexpensive MCM and ASW platform.

• - Current UUVs are great for hunting and clearance, but any LCS design that relies solely upon slow USVs and UUVs (<10 knot speed) for ASW and MCM is not going to be effective for searching and clearing 600 nm+ of water ways.
  - A $2.5 billion dollar ABM DDG is not the answer - as they are too valuable.
  - The current MCM vessels are not the answer - they are old and falling to pieces.
  - Our MCM helicopters cannot fly from any of the proposals here (or LCS 1/2) and are aging rapidly.

LCS needs to look a lot more like an old WWII sub chaser than a missile craft. A good sonar system hull mounted ant VDS or TACTAS is going to cost, and not leave a lot of money for high speed low drag weapons and sensors. Gosh, LCS is likely to look a lot more like an MCM vessel than missile boat...

[carr]

..

[navydavesof]

Perhaps there should even be two tiers of FACs, one that is strictly offensive (Japanese Hamina-class) and one that can be offensive and defensive (Ambassador-III-class). ...

Dave,

I did not post this response. You are quoting yourself from Friday.

My apologies! I was trying to quote two quotes at once without quoting too many quotes in a quote. Total fail

[Timmy C]

Something else to keep in mind is how much sweeping you expect the MCM ship to do on its own. Presumably, if it's doing a sweep in a minefield, it's going to have to do it by itself at some distance from defending vessels to reduce the risk of the latter coming into contact with the mines (e.g. USS Princeton). Thus, the MCM vessel becomes a juicy target for the enemy - why go after the heavily-protected carrier when you can just go after the MCM ships and thus either 1. keep the carrier out or 2. let the mines do the work of sinking the carrier if Blue team decides to forge ahead anyway.

Logically, then, the MCM ship must have some self-defence weapons.

[Busto963]

After another flurry of responses, I still am not seeing any LCS design proposal that can address the primary MCM and ASW missions. The third primary mission for LCS is ASUW against small boats - something that is probably best served by aircraft.

Alright, you want to talk about a clean slate lcs (lowercase) 2.0. I'm game! Let's start with missions. You suggest MCM and ASW with ASuW passed to aircraft.

I would not completely abandon the ASUW (small boat mission), but it is clearly a distant third behind ASW and MCM. The idea of loading up with Harpoon, hypersonic ASCMs, etc. is excessive. Let�s give her a modest gun and missile (Gryphon, Hellfire/Brimstone, Spike, etc.) loadout to deal with leakers.

I'm not sure MCM and ASW are compatible missions in a single hull just for reasons of competency... So, my answer is that we can't have an lcs 2.0 with both MCM and ASW mission sets. Simply fitting the equipment on the ship does not guarantee proficiency and a ship that has equipment for both missions but proficiency in neither is a waste.

There certainly will be a competition for training resources.

I believe a common mass produced hull could serve as the basis for ASW and MCMV versions, but be fitted differently in the deck, and weapons departments.

I am still not entirely convinced that the LCS cannot be an MCMV and an ASW platform. The JMSDF seems to be prepared to use their DDH to supports MCM and ASW by embarking MCH-101s and HH-60s.

The next problem is the question of how MCM is going to be performed over the next 20 years. I don't know MCM well enough to offer a detailed list of required equipment but the real problem is that neither does the Navy, apparently! Will MCM be performed by USV/UUVs? -53 helos? Ship based sweeping? Divers? Some combination? The crux of the issue is helos. If MCM is going to be largely helo based, we need a vessel capable of operating at least two, and preferably 4 or more, -53 type helos. The Seahawk variants have proven incapable. That takes the required vessel from an Avenger size to a near amphibious ship size. Quite a difference!

Good points.
I believe MCM should be done by a combination of platforms and sensors. MPA or submarines may be the first to detect the problem, heavy lift rotary wing aircraft will likel do the bulk of initial sweeps with laser, sonar and possibly towed systems. This would be followed by surface drones towing mechanical, pressure, acoustic, etc. sweeps, and followed up with MCMVs, UUVs, and mammals. Then there will be EOD personnel. Each piece has a part to play.

At the moment, it looks like helo based MCM is the near term future. None of the USV/UUVs seem to be panning out and even if they do, the rate of clearance is glacially slow.

The Germans and Swedes seem to have some effective surface MCM drones.

So, if helos are needed, what ship do we need? Well, we're not going to ask the MCM vessel to fight so this may be a situation where a commercial cargo/barge-ish type vessel would work. It just has to be a host for helos and associated equipment and crew along with support for whatever USV/UUVs might happen to be useful.

Well a helo carrier would be useful, but I think it is only a piece of the solution. I think the reality is you need MCMVs, that are under 1500 tons, which means that you also need inter-theater lift. I do not think it needs to be the same vessel. As I said, I think a small commercial FLO-FLO is the key, a yacht transporter could probably lift four MCMVs. We probably should plan to deploy MCMVs as a squadron.

What we don't need is to build full fledged, combat capable amphibious type vessels just to conduct MCM.

Agreed!

We need the bare minimum vessel capable of hosting helos and at the bare minimum cost. If they can be built in numbers so that multiple vessels are readily available, then a capacity of two helos is adequate. If ship numbers will be limited then a greater helo capacity is needed.

On the aviation side of the picture, I think a real crisis would require at least one MCM helicopter squadron. In the interest of distributing combat capability, I imagine two 4-helicopter detachments spread on two or three ships. Again, the heavy lift helicopters are probably more efficiently operated in larger detachments than H-60s.

I'll stop there and ask if this is what you're looking for in a discussion. If so, I'll continue with the ASW and ASuW portions. If not, then give me some additional guidance as to what you're looking for.

I think you are making more sense than the LCS program!

I am pushing the thought in the direction of a �family of platforms� solution, rather than a single multi-purpose or modular ship. That may be wrong. I look back at the modern historical example, and no navy seemed to approach coastal or amphibious operations with a single fleet unit type. I think that should have triggered some discussion as well.