What-If LCS Flight II: Littoral Combat Ship Improvement

[navydavesof]

Today during our General Military Trainings as how to be politically correct and not offend anyone in our sissy culture, I was thinking about the Millennium gun and how it would be used on the LCS. It makes sense that it would be directly incorporated into the TRS-3D and SPQ-9B and/or the localized CIWS/CRAM radar system. I am still not sure as to which to use...or to use both?...

The weapons modules do offer the capability to reload from inside the mount so the sailors don't have to run outside the ship with ammunition to reload the guns from the backs of the mounts. At 100lbs, the 25mm cans of ammo are heavy enough to carry around. I can only imagine what 35mm cans weigh. The best way to reload the Millennium gun would be to load it from underneath inside of the weapons module.

Any comments or ideas?

[Busto963]

Today during our General Military Trainings as how to be politically correct and not offend anyone in our sissy culture, I was thinking about the Millennium gun and how it would be used on the LCS. It makes sense that it would be directly incorporated into the TRS-3D and SPQ-9B and/or the localized CIWS/CRAM radar system. I am still not sure as to which to use...or to use both?...

The weapons modules do offer the capability to reload from inside the mount so the sailors don't have to run outside the ship with ammunition to reload the guns from the backs of the mounts. At 100lbs, the 25mm cans of ammo are heavy enough to carry around. I can only imagine what 35mm cans weigh. The best way to reload the Millennium gun would be to load it from underneath inside of the weapons module.

Any comments or ideas?

Puting sailors topside to fire automatic cannons and machine guns was a necessity in WWII, but even then the Navy made an atempt to put them in tubs with some protection.

Fast forward to the 21st century and the idea of manning .50 cal and 25mm gun mounts with personnel hiding behind tiny tin foil gun shields is criminal. The tredn on land, which I believe to be correct, is to up armour every vehicle weapon mount.

If the Navy cannot install a remote mount, it should put these crew served weapons in tubs, and the shields should be substantialy larger, and have a ceramic/aramid armor. Expensive? - Yes. Heavy? - Yes. Still should be done.

Dave, your point goes one step further to allow for loading under cover - I like.

How about two land based turrets for inspiration:

If you were to incorporate the radar tracking, Maybe you could co-locate mount a RAM launcher (one mount super firing over the other) and the radar could control both the gun turret and the RAM.

[Seasick]

Manually aimed guns on ships are not very accurate against surface targets and much worse against air targets. The stabilized 25mm gun perfectly fine being remotely operated by someone inside. I've visited the USS Texas many times and all the flak guns have tubs or bulwarks.

[navydavesof]

If the Navy cannot install a remote mount, it should put these crew served weapons in tubs, and the shields should be substantialy larger, and have a ceramic/aramid armor. Expensive? - Yes. Heavy? - Yes. Still should be done.

I would venture to say that HY-80 or 100 would actually be a lot cheaper and superior to ceramic/aramid armor. If it weight would not be an issue, and it would be permanent, I think the HY would be a far better choice.

Dave, your point goes one step further to allow for loading under cover - I like.

As you know, there are certain things that a war-fighter notices in person.

If you were to incorporate the radar tracking, Maybe you could co-locate mount a RAM launcher (one mount super firing over the other) and the radar could control both the gun turret and the RAM.

That's something I have really considered before. The Ambassador-class FAC seems to drive its 21-cell RAM launcher with the Phalanx Block 1B system. For the LCS, a center-line SeaRAM directing a port and starboard Millennium gun would seem best. However, if that SeaRAM goes down...then 3 mount are down instead of just one...

Maybe there should be the Sea RAM and the C-RAM radar where the WDS could shift between either the picture provided by the SeaRAM or by the C-RAM radars depending on which one is operable or is providing the best tracking picture. These days, it's not too difficult to layer different radar and tracking pictures.

However, what I am considering and what I think it is best is having a 21-cell RAM launcher instead of a SeaRAM and driving it with both the Millennium Gun C-RAM system and the ship's main radar system of SPQ-9B and TRS-3D instead of the SeaRAM CIWS direction system.

Any more thoughts?

[carr]

..

[Busto963]

If you were to incorporate the radar tracking, Maybe you could co-locate mount a RAM launcher (one mount super firing over the other) and the radar could control both the gun turret and the RAM.

That's something I have really considered before. The Ambassador-class FAC seems to drive its 21-cell RAM launcher with the Phalanx Block 1B system. For the LCS, a center-line SeaRAM directing a port and starboard Millennium
gun would seem best. However, if that SeaRAM goes down...then 3 mount are down instead of just one...

I did not describe my thinking completely: I envision the C-RAM/CIWS systems as having primary data feeds from the ship's search and fire control systems, but having a secondary data feeds from sensors mounted on either the C-Ram or the CIWS.

My reasoning is that the C-RAM and CIWS could continue to function under local power/FC even int the event of a disruption in ships' power (the MG has a battery). Obviously this is a short-term solution, but if you recall the frustration of the CO of the USS Princeton when his ship went dark and defensless after striking a mine in the first gulf war - not good! Temporary loss of 440v power is an unfortunate reality and happened even to larger armored ships. Of course mechanical computers, vacuum tube electronics, and manual backups were a lot more forgiving of power disruptions than modern systems.

==============================================
On the ratio of C-RAM to CIWS and arcs of fire: I lean torwards a centerline solution with one superfiring over the other. My reasoning is based upon optimum arcs of fire for the weapons.

Of course I expect the MG to earn its keep not only as a C-RAM, but also as a shreader of boghammers...

[navydavesof]

Your original intent was to make a Flt II of the actual LCS as opposed to an essentially brand new ship that only bears a slight physical resemblance to the LCS. As such, the ship would presumably still have an undermanned crew even if you allow for some increase.

My understanding is that the ship's berthing can be expanded by 50% without any additional spaces being utilized in the ship. The LCS berthing is only 2 racks high. They would be replaced by standard 3-high racks if not 4-high. However, your points about messing and head facilities then having to accommodate 2-3 times above the original designed capabilities is a very good one. Seeing how the MSC accommodates more mouths to feed than the original design, I think the Navy will do it, too.

The point being that as you consider guns and manual/auto reloads and the number of radars, bear in mind the lack of crew for servicing guns, operating guns, and maintaining guns and radars. In other words, to stay true to your intent, the more automation the better and the fewer pieces of equipment to maintain, the better.

The ship will certainly need more crew one way or the other. Accommodating the Millennium guns, NULKA, Chaff launchers, and 76mm guns will require more people for sure.

[Busto963]

The point being that as you consider guns and manual/auto reloads and the number of radars, bear in mind the lack of crew for servicing guns, operating guns, and maintaining guns and radars. In other words, to stay true to your intent, the more automation the better and the fewer pieces of equipment to maintain, the better.

Excellent point.

Way before the Navy started thinking of the LCS as a frigate substitute, the whole manning discussion was predicated on trying to make small combatants like aircraft, with the crews able to swap in for a mission.

In theory this is fine, but what was lost in translation, is that aircraft have centralized maintenance at the squadron (and higher) level. Aircraft mission tasking, planning, arming, etc. are also highly centralized, generally above squadron level. If you apply this concept to LCS, then the missing bit is a tender, which should handle all but the simplist maintenance and repair actions. The tender also by default becomes the minimum C4ISR component.

My feeling is that there is an upper limit on how many crew a ship using the "tender" model" can support. I think that it could work for something the size of a skjold, maybe a Visby, but once we start talking about a ship that starts operating embarked aircraft you have probably got a ship that is not a good candidate for crew swap, or the aircrew manning models.

Back to the hypothetical LCS 2.0/3.0/whatever - more weapons or sensors could work if you adjust your command organizational structure.

This begs the question: is LCS something at the PGM end of the spectrum, or is it at the Corvette/FFG end of the spectrum, or is it a something like an LDP with a big moon pool, cranes, and ramps for launch/recovery of small craft and unmanned vehicles?

[carr]

..

[carr]

..

[Busto963]

This begs the question: is LCS something at the PGM end of the spectrum, or is it at the Corvette/FFG end of the spectrum, or is it a something like an LDP with a big moon pool, cranes, and ramps for launch/recovery of small craft and unmanned vehicles?

The official Navy response has been: it's everything!!!

Yes, but we should be able to clarify this a bit eh?

[carr]

..

[navydavesof]

As limited of a ship as the LCS is, I think that as useful as we can make them, like the PCs, we will use them beyond their stated lifespans. However, if they are left as they are (like Freedom is) they will be decommissioned early.

With the reduction is propulsion plant, only making approx. 33 knots, a 5"/62caliber gun, 2 76mm guns, 32 Mk41 VLS, 8 Harpoon, and a 21-cell RAM launcher as its primary armament, I think the ship would be flexible enough to rock and roll by itself and have a hull strong enough to sustain heavy seas and be able to withstand shock. Beyond that, the mission modules could be added for various missions. The LCS-1 hull type should be limited to ASuW, counter battery, and limited AAW.

[Busto963]

As limited of a ship as the LCS is, I think that as useful as we can make them, like the PCs, we will use them beyond their stated lifespans. However, if they are left as they are (like Freedom is) they will be decommissioned early.

With the reduction is propulsion plant, only making approx. 33 knots, a 5"/62caliber gun, 2 76mm guns, 32 Mk41 VLS, 8 Harpoon, and a 21-cell RAM launcher as its primary armament, I think the ship would be flexible enough to rock and roll by itself and have a hull strong enough to sustain heavy seas and be able to withstand shock. Beyond that, the mission modules could be added for various missions. The LCS-1 hull type should be limited to ASuW, counter battery, and limited AAW.

No doubt, but at some point we have to realistically ask ourselves these questions:

1) Given what we now know about the mission modules, are the LCS hulls the best platforms for carrying them?
2) Is there/are there better alternatives to LCS (E.g. a single platform, or group of single purpose platforms)?
3) Is LCS the best use of SCN funding?

I think it is time to salvage whatever technical lessons we have learned from LCS and move on.

[Guest]

While I read most of the thread, I didn't have the time to get all the way through it. If the Spike NLOS hasn't been considered for the ASuW role it would be a good fit. It's in use by quite a few countries now and readily available. As a side note has anyone looked at quad packing a smaller ASM like they do the ESSM? The mods they did to the JSM variant of the Naval Strike Missile to fit the F-35 bay, would seem to make it fit. I can't find a precise diameter on it, so I can't be sure.

The other thing is crew berthing on the LCS ships. Can they include plumbing fittings on the mission deck so adding extra berthing could include heads and shower facilities? I know the extra embarked crews are having to share facilities with the permanent berthing spaces. Just that one change could make a heck of a difference in usability.

[Sciquest2525]

You need a bigger ship to support what is needed for a general purpose vessel to avoid the problems of the limited funding to buy two or three different ships that require DDG-51 escorts.
That is why I push for the 150 meter variant of the Freedom class hull form.
LM claims the hull can be scaled to 150 meters (beam unspecified) and up to 6000 tons displacement (full, standard or light unspecified) and it shows 5 inch gun, 16 cell VLS forward, two eight cell VLS either side of the hangar for a total of 48 cells with the possibility of strike length cells either side of the hangar at least.
The current 90 meter variant seems to be a tough little ship driven by all diesel drive (speed unspecified), 76 mm gun, 21 cell RAM launcher, one fire control radar visible forward, unspecified 3 D array radar, four (?) visible Harpoons, eight cell VLS forward that may be able to a accomodate SM-2 MR as well as ESSM and VL-ASROC, 30 mm unmanned guns P/S abaft the funnel, triple TTs P/S, hull mounted sonar, possible towed VDS, small reconfigurable mission bay (455 square meters), two H-60 helos and/or SUAS.
That is a lot for a 1650 ton displacement hull (condition unspecified) though range is low at 3500 nmi @ 15 knots even with diesels.
Might be useful PC replacement.
Large version might be FFG (light, if 6000 tons can be considered light)
Check out Mulitmission Combat Ship offering at LM.

[Busto963]

You need a bigger ship to support what is needed for a general purpose vessel to avoid the problems of the limited funding to buy two or three different ships that require DDG-51 escorts.
That is why I push for the 150 meter variant of the Freedom class hull form...

Or we could just take the last design FFG-7 hull, insert a 20 meter "plug" to lengthen the ship add a VLS module, add a 5" gun fwd, update the combat systems and be done with the frigate design.

Why do you remain wedded to the idea of a 150 meter LCS; effectively ignoring the reality that the base hull has proven to be a complete disappointment?

LM and Austal claims have thus far been completely unreliable in both cost and performance.

Mediocrity is not the basis upon which to build...

[SumGui]

I think the LCS platforms BOTH are fundamental failures, as they cannot take any significant form of shock or other damage, put far too much stock in going fast, and are far to expensive to produce for what they provide.

I could get behind a lengthened Perry, but that was a design already at the limits of stability, my preference would be a Frigate based on dimensions like the Murasame/Takanami/Akizuki class platform, and moving all the other capabilities to specialized platforms.

I've already addressed my opinion on fleet mix and platform options earlier in this thread, so no need for me to be redundant here, but I do not think any effort is worthwhile on either LCS platform due to their fundamental flaws.

One question becomes, what to do with the dogs that the USN has been saddled with?

LCS-2 has a lot of deck area at least...

[sea mule]

Perhaps the LCS platform might be a consideration for high speed disaster response and humanitarian relief? Perhaps as a littoral interim aid station until the arrival of advance medical assistance?

[Busto963]

Perhaps the LCS platform might be a consideration for high speed disaster response and humanitarian relief? Perhaps as a littoral interim aid station until the arrival of advance medical assistance?

This is an expensive, single purpose use for a navy hull.

And even then, LCS does not carry much cargo, nor does it have the ability to beach, nor does it have a crane that can move cargo (particularly ISO containers), nor a heavy lift helicopter.

The most expensive fast container ships that have these capabilities (or could easily be modified to have them) cost less than $350 million per hull, while LCS without mission modules is $500 million. At nearly twice the cost, and essentially negligible cargo (the container ship is 4000 TEU+ versus one or two containers for LCS) LCS fails here too.