What-If LCS Flight II: Littoral Combat Ship Improvement

[navydavesof]

I scaled the hull to increase hull depth and deckhouse by a level for each so the deckhouse hangar could accommadate MH-53E/K helos for MCM or SOF support. I particularly wanted to have four helos plus four VTUAVs.
- Sideshooter Mk 45 five inch gun would have 21 cell RAM launchers on either side of the gunhouse and marry five gun AAA and RAM SAM with decoy launchers in one neat package that would save deck space and was patented in 1992.
- The 8 inch/60 calibre gun would have a long range and harder hitting with optional precision guided rocket/ramjet assist projectiles able to match and exceed ranges of AGS/AGS Lite.
- Hull was scaled to allow internal changeover of mission modules ala GD trimaran design which has one active and stowed mission package that did not need port visit to swap out as much as monohull LM design.

The "LCS" ship still needs to remain a very small ship, so that's the direction this project will go, so the Mk71 is totally out of the question. DD(X) still fills your ship's requirements a lot better than a trimaran, but why not go ahead and build your design as a model? It certainly falls into a light guided missile destroyer. If you would build your project, would you go 1/350 or 700? How would you build your sideshooter? Would you only have those as your whole RAM capability, or would those be in addition to normal RAM mounts? If it would be your only RAM mounts, why would you want to cluster your whole RAM capability into one location and mount it to a gun mount that has its own mechanical problems? I think it would be great fun to watch your idea come together as a model, man! Will you start a thread for it?

[navydavesof]

Concerning the LCS-3+ concept, does anyone have an idea as to how to improve that hull as far as the previously stated missions? I am fighting over whether to consume hangar space for the VLS. If that would be the case, as many VLS cells would have to be put forward as possible (8, 16, 24, 32).

What do you think?

[carr]

..

[Sciquest2525]

I would disagree about the size of the ship. The extra displacement (7000 tons full load, I hope) to accommodate increased fuel, helicopter hangar size and more VLS cells and heavier gun armaments.
The vessel would be a Littoral Frigate Guided Missile Helicopter Artillery or LFGHA as it would be a very capable warship and not the functionally crippled design of the baseline LCS.
I wanted to add one deck level to the superstructure and the hull so that both could handle the increased height of V-22 Osprey as well as the MH-53K Super Stallion helicopter and the increase in size is intended to carry more fuel and increased armaments.
Mk 71 is needed for NSFS role as the five inch popgun and the AGS or AGS Lite is being procured in very small quantities while AGS Lite is limited to 180 rounds of ammunition vice the Mk 71 has 75 ready rounds plus whatever could stowed in the main magazine. The 8 inch rounds are more destructive and longer ranged with rocket or ramjet assisted with an anti armour role if fitted with terminal guidance or carrier for SADARM guided and unguided submunitions and the larger amount of explosive of the unitary round.
All steel construction for deckhouse as well as the hull. Composite deckhouse in the future if costs were acceptable.
Retain the existing LCS propulsion and accept a reduction in maximum speed.
Seperate the diesel and gas turbine plants into four engine rooms (two diesel and two gas turbine) with electrical power generation in each so that a hit on one would not kill all the propulsion or electrical power as in the Cole affair.
Proper in hull protected CIC with backup CIC as in the Sa'ar IV Israeli corvettes.
Have a permanent mission module crew cross trained in all the module types so the same people could operate the ASW/ASUW/MCM/NSFS/SOF modules without changing crews for each module type.
Expanded mission bay area to have one module operating and one or two modules stowed ala Independence class LCS so module changeover less dependence on friendly ports and transits to and fro and take much less time.
NSFS using Mk 71 supplemented by navalized MRLS and AH-1Z and navalized Apache attack helos.
SOF support with SOF vehicles and aviation such as CV-22/MV-22 and helos.
Roll on and roll off ramp for vehicles and containers.
Elevator between mission bay and main deck inside the hangar safe from enviormental hazards that plagued the CGNs and able to handle up to one MH-53K with rotors/tail boom folded.
Accomodations of H-60 helos, VTUAVs,MH-53E/F helos and tilt rotors using containerized support modules as space allows with reconfiguration according to what type or types of aircraft hosted by the ship.
Gun armaments will include a bow mounted Mk71, port/starboard 5/64 Oto Melara behind the forward funnnel in Sideshooter configuration of two 21 cell RAM launchers on each side of the gunhouse.
Two port/starboard non deck penetrating 76 mm Super Rapid (120 rounds per minute) on top of the hangar firing guided and unguided ammo with on mount guidance radar.
Two Fast Forty twin port/starboard mounts firing 40 mm at 900 rounds per minute out of 888 rounds capacity magazine with dual ammo feed for CIWS and swarm boat role.
SPY-1F with two tracking and illuminating radars and a backup conventional air search and tracking radar.
Capabilities are high lighted on a larger hull, I know, way larger to accommodate more of whatever fuel/weapons/ammunition/sensors package provided for.

[Busto963]

Concerning the LCS-3+ concept, does anyone have an idea as to how to improve that hull as far as the previously stated missions? I am fighting over whether to consume hangar space for the VLS. If that would be the case, as many VLS cells would have to be put forward as possible (8, 16, 24, 32).

What do you think?

Dave,

After listening to a web interview with Dr Friedman about LCS flexibility and mission modules which sparked a few fires:

- VLS is important. Dr Friedman noted that VLS also offers flexible capabilities (implying not just weapon capabilities) and is relatively cheap to add. I say
add them!

- I do not think LCS has RAST which limits rough sea operation of helicopters. I say add it or a similar system.

- If the Navy continues to insist that unmanned surface and sub surface vehicles are key to the LCS effectiveness, then the ship needs a significantly improved capability to launch and recover these in high sea states. The commercial off shore industry is light years ahead in active compensated gantries, cranes, and other tools to handle obscenly large and very dynamic loads. The navy needs to tap into this bank of knowledge and provide LCS with some of this capacity so that the crew can rapidly launch, recover, and repair these vehicles. It does not good to apply all the attention to low radar reflectivity if the ship takes a lot of time screwing about in the combat zone (on the "X") when trying to launch submersibles. Active heave compensated knuckle-boom cranes should be fitted.

- I still think this ship needs a hull mounted sonar, possibly VDS, and maybe a TACTASS. ASW is not something that you just fly out a couple of dozen sailors, add helo det and call it quits. Crews need to train at this constantly to develop proficiency.

Finally, someone noted that the navy had traded construction of a number of amphibs to get more LCSs and that somewhere down the road, the LCS will have to make up some of that loss in amphibious lift. Perhaps the LCS has a future as a modern APD?

[navydavesof]

After listening to a web interview with Dr Friedman about LCS flexibility and mission modules which sparked a few fires:

- VLS is important. Dr Friedman noted that VLS also offers flexible capabilities (implying not just weapon capabilities) and is relatively cheap to add. I say
add them!

I thin I know what you're talking about. I heard a Midrats podcast where he makes that case, and I think he's absolutely right. The biggest problem with a lot of these foreign Aegis ships is that they chince out on VLS tubes. The only thing I am seeing that would dictate anything up to 48 tubes is how much of the hangar we are willing to give up for VLS on the port and starboard sides of the hangar. I am still working on that.

- I do not think LCS has RAST which limits rough sea operation of helicopters. I say add it or a similar system.

I agree. RAST is pretty important.

- If the Navy continues to insist that unmanned surface and sub surface vehicles are key to the LCS effectiveness, then the ship needs a significantly improved capability to launch and recover these in high sea states...Active heave compensated knuckle-boom cranes should be fitted.

Most of the mission modules and sensors will be launched from below decks. Would such a knuckle-boom crane be feasible below decks?

- I still think this ship needs a hull mounted sonar, possibly VDS, and maybe a TACTASS. ASW is not something that you just fly out a couple of dozen sailors, add helo det and call it quits. Crews need to train at this constantly to develop proficiency.

I agree. Maybe just VDS and TACTAS would be good to go as a shallow water capability, but I don't think there needs to be a deepwater capability for this ship in particular. A Spruance-class replacement, however, I can see that for sure.

Finally, someone noted that the navy had traded construction of a number of amphibs to get more LCSs and that somewhere down the road, the LCS will have to make up some of that loss in amphibious lift. Perhaps the LCS has a future as a modern APD?

No, I think they just deleted those mission requirements. Of course when the time comes where those amphib requirements are demanded, they won't be there, and the LCS that consumed with other missions that they won't be able to do that job.

[Sciquest2525]

Could the LM stretched 150 meter export variant of the Freedom class meet these requirements. It may have the additional weight margin for the systems and future modernization. The apparently expanded mission bay and hangar would allow more VLS cells to be added vice the LCS baseline hull used for the Israel for their proposed and then abandoned LCS-I. Hangar would have less space cut out for VLS as the larger hangar could give up more space to the VLS with less impact on the hangar space.
I think you need from 48 to 64 VLS if you have SPY-1F/Aegis combat system.
Missiles add flexibility to the super LCS.
Enlarged hangar might allow more H-60 helos/VTUAVs to be operated.
Enlarged mission bay might allow for carriage of two mission modules.
Some equipment would be fixed for ASW/MCM roles like a hull mounted mine hunting sonar and a towed minehunting sonar.
ASW would feature both hull mounted retractable sonar and VDS and MFA tail.
Need more crew.
Mission modules might be fixed and their containerized systems allow quicker and easier modernization when the ships reach their mid life update.
Build with Level II standards with more compartments, all steel construction, seperated engine rooms and more crew for damage control and maintainance, easier access to compartments for damage control and robust ASCM defenses both soft and hard kill with redundant systems that would allow some defensive systems to be backed up in the case of damage or breakdown.
Nixie torpedo decoys and active torpedo countermeasures such as the Penn State/Advanced Acoustic Concepts 6.75 inch ATT.

[SumGui]

Well, my Mom always said "if you can't say something nice, don't say anything". I haven't had anything nice to say about the LCS, so I've been quiet.

Sorry Mom.

My concerns with the LCS are that, at the concept of origin (Street Fighter), you have many platforms each carrying part of the needed mission equipment. The theory was that if any one is hit, you have lost only the mission equipment of that vessel. This should allow vessels to be smaller, and enhance some capabilities by allowing a more thorough concentration on a given task (the task that platform is equipped for).

Thus, as an example, instead of a larger single vessel with ASW, AAW, and ASuW, you have three smaller vessels - on each of AAW, ASW, and ASuW. Loss or degradation of one of the three platforms does not cause loss or degradation of the other two vessels in the Street Fighter concept, where it would on the single larger vessel. Street Fighter assumed a common platform with mission modules, just as we are still talking today for LCS.

Example scenario - you take two ASM hits. On the larger vessel, you are retiring form the area due to damage (if not loss) and thus take ASW, AAW, and ASuW capability away with you. In the Street Fighter concept, two ASMs hit one of your vessels (loss of vessel - not big enough to take hits like this), say ASW, you have now lost ASW capability but not AAW or ASuW.

So now we have LCS, which grew out of this swarm concept where it was OK to lose a vessel because you would not lose all capability, but that does not fit with trying to put all capabilities onto one vessel - it breaks the basic tenants of the Street Fighter concept.

We are at a point of having a vessel which cannot perform the missions as an independent unit (like a Burke or Spruance might have) because it has neither the equipment or the durability to do so, and it cannot perform the swarm/street fighter role because it is actually to large, to expensive (you now can't have that multiple hull to single hull ratio), and has too much equipment trying to do everything, but doing none of it well.

It is the worst of both worlds.

From a modeling angle I love the look of the proposals, but the current LCS platforms will always be too big and expensive to swarm, and too small and fragile to be effective independent units.


Some Street Fighter reference:
http://www.ndu.edu/CTNSP/docUploaded/Case%207%20LCS.pdf

[Busto963]

Could the LM stretched 150 meter export variant of the Freedom class meet these requirements.

maybe, but at 150 meters you have described a frigate, and there are many, many excellent frigate designs out there and an expanded LCS will not be nearly as effective. An updated OHP frigate with: a 5" or 155 mm gun, 32-cell Mk 41 VLS, RAM/SEA RAM, 35mm millinium gun or 57mm gun, two hellos, TACTASS and a VSW/mine hunting sonar would be a much better ship than trying to strech an LCS, which already has a marginal alluminum hull.

I think that the design concept for the LCS was confused. The create spark grew out of "the Cerebowski/Hughes "Streetfighter" but the mission module concept (not bad, just poorly implemented) and desire for excessive speed have resulted in ships that have serious issues.

What is devastating is that if Congress continues to fund these ships, they will make up a significant portion of the surface fleet. This raises the question of opportunity cost: what could we have done if we invested LCS in another ship type, or a basket of ship types. Ten LCS sans mission modules is a investment of $7-8 Billion: I could buy a couple of EM-314 light attack aircraft squadrons for the war we are fighting *now*, an entire squadron of MCM ships and aircraft, a flotilla of Hamina or Skjold class missile boats, a couple of squadrons of F-35s, a DDG or SSN , and an LHD for that kind of money. The mission modules would likely buy me another AOE. Or I could probably buy five (5) or so improved OHPs.

What is the better force mix? I would argue that almost any other ship/aircraft buy would fill out the fleet better than LCS in it current form, let alone a stretched LCS

[Busto963]

- If the Navy continues to insist that unmanned surface and sub surface vehicles are key to the LCS effectiveness, then the ship needs a significantly improved capability to launch and recover these in high sea states...Active heave compensated knuckle-boom cranes should be fitted.

Most of the mission modules and sensors will be launched from below decks. Would such a knuckle-boom crane be feasible below decks?

No, and this aspect of the LCS (and amphibs) needs to be rethought. Most of the active heave capacity is built into the hydraulics of the winch. But an articulated knuckle boom gets the load away from the hull (it does no good to stablise the load relative to the ocean, but let the hull bash into the load!)

That said, there are some lifting devices used by private industry that do have active heave type compensation to safely launch and recover high loads in heavy seas. For some reason I cannot apply styles to my text or upload images.

Here is a good video that shows active heave at work: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91K5cJiRB6c
I do not own stock or have any connection with that company.

The larger issue is what do we really want from the LCS? If the emphasis is so overwhelmingly on helicopters and "launched drones/boats etc., why doesnt the navy just buy a civillian off-shore vessel or work boat fitted for higher speeds and add defensive weapons? This would be a much less expensive, far more effective, and more flexible solution to at sea launch. I am overstating the case a bit, but I am making the point that the less certainy you have about "what kind of stuff" you need to carry, the less you can count on being able to shoe horn these mission modules into the hull.

[SumGui]

The larger issue is what do we really want from the LCS? If the emphasis is so overwhelmingly on helicopters and "launched drones/boats etc., why doesnt the navy just buy a civillian off-shore vessel or work boat fitted for higher speeds and add defensive weapons? This would be a much less expensive, far more effective, and more flexible solution to at sea launch. I am overstating the case a bit, but I am making the point that the less certainy you have about "what kind of stuff" you need to carry, the less you can could on being able to shoe horn these mission modules into the hull.

Agree here - but it is still a fun exercise to see what can be done with the platform.

To me, elimination of the mother ship from the original concept and adding self deployability made the platform grow huge in size and cost (and thus percieved need for additional capability...). A mother ship would allow for a Helo base in area.

And some of that active heave technology was pioneered by the 'Hughes' Glomar Explorer...check out "Azorian" on netflix.

Launch and recovery of any item at sea and/or in a significant sea state is a challenge - IMHO one system should be used for all deployed devices (Boats, UUVs, etc) to avoid duplication in costs, manning, and requirements.

[Sciquest2525]

Could a small well deck be a possible answer?
I also enjoy playing the LCS hull and possible sensors/weapons/sizing of the hullform.
Perhaps the diesel 85 meter variant might be suitable for seagoing gunboat.

[Busto963]

The larger issue is what do we really want from the LCS? If the emphasis is so overwhelmingly on helicopters and "launched drones/boats etc., why doesnt the navy just buy a civillian off-shore vessel or work boat fitted for higher speeds and add defensive weapons? This would be a much less expensive, far more effective, and more flexible solution to at sea launch. I am overstating the case a bit, but I am making the point that the less certainy you have about "what kind of stuff" you need to carry, the less you can could on being able to shoe horn these mission modules into the hull.

Agree here - but it is still a fun exercise to see what can be done with the platform.

It is fun as an intellectual exercise; but devastating when actually funded and built.

[And some of that active heave technology was pioneered by the 'Hughes' Glomar Explorer...check out "Azorian" on netflix.

I worked with the guy who designed the CVT for that winch. A delightful, elderly Filipino gentleman who fought the Japanese as part of the resistance movement in the Philippines and then immigrated to the US. One of the keenest and most practical people I have ever met. He was in the Southern Sahara desert unscrewing a UN logistical deployment of prefabricated structures. Of course the UN was trying to use a fleet of very nice German 18-wheel tractor trailers to move heavy loads into the soft sands of the southwestern Saharra desert. It was a hoot to watch those trucks drive 150 meters into the soft sand, get stuck, dig out, go another 150 meters, and get stuck again! Only another 163 km to go!

[Launch and recovery of any item at sea and/or in a significant sea state is a challenge - IMHO one system should be used for all deployed devices (Boats, UUVs, etc) to avoid duplication in costs, manning, and requirements.

Industry seems to have coalesced on active heave compensated cranes, boat ramps, or Flo/FLO as solutions.

Private enterprises seem to be so much more creative and practical in solving really hard problems than stuffy navy bureaucracies around the world.

[SumGui]

Industry seems to have coalesced on active heave compensated cranes, boat ramps, or Flo/FLO as solutions.

Private enterprises seem to be so much more creative and practical in solving really hard problems than stuffy navy bureaucracies around the world.

I lean toward boat ramps myself, as they tend to be less demanding to designs and can be used underway.

[navydavesof]

Perhaps the diesel 85 meter variant might be suitable for seagoing gunboat.

Maybe, but utilizing another design would be so much better. For instance, a Gearing-class DD armed with 2 5" guns and 2 helos would be a lot cheaper and a lot better. The same armed with 3 76mm SR with extended range guns would probably be very, very good. The LCS-1 design was chosen for super speed, and that's why everything is designed the way it is.

Other designs are great. I think the best design would be an Atlanta redesigned to accommodate in armament: 3 AGS(L) with 2 forward and 1 aft, and 2-4 76mm guns (2 waist or 2 waist and 2 shoulder, or 2 shoulder and 1 atop the helo hangar), and at least 32-40 VLS with helo capacity of 2 H-60 helos, etc and the ability to achieve over 30 knots with a heavy (to modern standards) armor scheme and a light to moderate radar arrangement of SPS-48, SPQ-9B, and TRS 3D, would be vastly superior. However, this thread is about making LCS as usable as possible.

[navydavesof]

I will be starting the weld lines on the bow this week. Instead of just painting darker lines down the deck, does anyone have an idea how to achieve this look? We talked about it in the DDG-53 JPJ thread, but I am curious if anyone has any further ideas. Thanks!!!

[carr]

..

[Sciquest2525]

LCS has so many failures in both the ship and mission modules but yet is forced on the USN.
Export versions are much more capable.
Should the export versions of Freedom scaled to 150 meters or downsized to 85 meters or even the diminutive 85 meter variants be considered by the USN as a viable alternative to the Freedom class and/or the export Independence class?
The ship who couldn't seems a suitable label for these ships.

[navydavesof]

LCS has so many failures in both the ship and mission modules but yet is forced on the USN.

To be more precise, it was forced on the USN by a very few CNOs, namely Admiral Gary Roughead. The Navy as a whole does not want to need these ships. They wanted a new FFG and a dedicated ASW DD...and battleships.

Export versions are much more capable.

Indeed, however to make them, they would have to be significantly modified to accommodate the added equipment and added structure. That's what this thread is all about.

Should the export versions of Freedom scaled to 150 meters or downsized to 85 meters or even the diminutive 85 meter variants be considered by the USN as a viable alternative to the Freedom class and/or the export Independence class?

No, I don't think so. Smallest, it seems that the Gearing-class DD would be the best to work with, affording 3 Mk45 5" guns and a small hangar for UAVs and 16-32 Mk41 VLS, a version with 2 Mk45 5" guns and 2 H-60s both with 16-32 Mk41 VLS, or larger: the Perry-class FFG with 3 Mk45 5" guns and 2 H-60s, or largest, an Atlanta-class CLAA with 3 Mk71 155mm or AGS(L) and 48-64 Mk41 VLS with 2-4 76mm SR and 2+ H-60s. They would all be good platforms to work with for a ship designed to work in the littorals.

Here, however, we are going to take the LCS 3 and 2 and make them feasibly useful ships in their margins of size. A 150m LCS should totally be out of the question. That's pushing into a DDG sized ship...and with what LCS offers, that is totally unacceptable.

[Busto963]

Dave,

One more idea for the LCS based on a paper that Captain Hughes of NPS wrote: turn the LCS into a mini "arsenal ship."

Captain H suggested that attempts to build new SSGNs would be prohibatively expensive (replacement SSBNs may cost $8 Billion!), as an alternative a small corvette or frigate with ~50 missiles could be built as a specialist vessel. The price would be low enough cost to enable survivability through numbers, as wel as increased global presence.

I propose the monohull LCS variant be modified into a specilized land attack and ASUW (small boat platform). This variant would:
1) eliminate the helicopter hanger and add a 64-cell VLS
2) add a second gun aft
3) Add two Typhon unmanned weapon stations amidships with four (4) gryphon missiles clustered around a 19 shot hydra 2.75" rocket pod for small boat defense
4) if possible add eight (8) NSM ASCMs in "flip-up" launchers
5) if possible add another CIWS system (RAM, SeaRAM, CIWS, MG, etc.)

First, the addition of the LCS would restore the land attack capability lost with the premature Spruance DD retirement (the DD ASW capabilty would still require another ship). Second,by making this a specialist ship, many of the LCS manning issues would disappear. Third, teaming the LCS with a DDG (teaming two single function ships (e.g. an AAW, and ASW) is another Hughes idea - also practiced by the PLAN), would let the DDG focus on AAW, and ASW mission areas, which would somewhat reduce the tactical workload on the DDGs. Finally the LCS would have modest self protection capability.