Posted on 06/11/2014 12:26:40 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
ARLINGTON: In the race to replace the Navy’s controversial Littoral Combat Ship, the leading contender seems to be…. a better Littoral Combat Ship. That’s the clear implication of what we’ve been hearing from Navy leadership, and it’s clear from press briefings today that LCS contractor Lockheed Martin feels pretty confident it can do the job. (Lockheed builds the Freedom-class LCS; the Independence variant is by Austal and General Dynamics).
The incumbent’s advantage here is time. Lockheed VP Joe North told reporters at the companys pre-Farnborough Air Show briefing that he expects “every shipyard across Europe” to take a shot. But existing European designs might take years to revise to the US Navy’s requirements and an all-new design would take at least a decade. Of course, LCS is already in production, and while many in the Pentagon and Congress are deeply dissatisfied with the ship, Lockheed argues that its modular design makes it easy to upgrade.
“Whatever they decide they want for upgrades, they will start [putting on ships] as early as FY ’17 [fiscal year 2017],” North said of the Navy. Lockheed can meet that schedule or even beat it by putting upgrades on 2016 ships if desired, he said confidently. “I can easily work these [changes] in,” North said, and keep LCS production going without a pause: “If you do this right, we don’t need to break production. I think that’s huge.”
So what would the LCS-plus look like? “We gave them lots of options,” North said, “them” being the Small Surface Ship Combatant Task Force appointed by Defense Sec. Chuck Hagel to review alternatives to the existing LCS design; the SSCTF will report back to Hagel by August. Lockheed can build its LCS with a bigger main gun (“we’ve always been gun-agonistic,” North said), a more powerful radar, or a less zippy but more fuel-efficient power plant — all diesels instead of the current diesel-turbine combo — if the Navy decides long range is more important than high speed.
Perhaps most important, Lockheed can build an upgunned LCS with Vertical Launch Systems (VLS), the Navy’s plug-and-play launchers for a wide variety of missiles. The ship could accommodate eight VLS cell with a modest redesign to the bow, North told reporters, or up to 32 VLS if you cut the hangar capacity from two helicopters down to one. For comparison, the Navy’s cutting edge DDG-1000 Zumwalt destroyer, a vastly larger ship, carries 80 VLS cells.
What about survivability, though? The most common criticism of LCS — including by the Pentagon’s Director of Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E) — is that the hull is simply too fragile to survive in major combat. The Navy’s own rating system puts the LCS at survivability level one, compared to level two for the FFG-7 Perry-class frigates it replaces and level three for the much larger DDG-51 Arleigh Burke destroyers.
But in fact, “we’re more survivable than the FFGs,” North said bluntly. The Navy’s requirements for the various survivability levels have changed since the frigates were assessed, he asserted, and technology’s improved: “We’re using high-strength, low-weight steel that wasn’t even around.”
Yet ANOTHER Lockheed POS!
Easily for a couple of billion dollars. Like Future Combat Systems the basic idea is flawed. It ignores mines, land fired missiles and small attack craft. It’s essentially an aluminum can with no ability to take damage. It will probably need to be escorted by heavier deeper draft ships which knocks it out of the littoral mission it was designed for.
The more LM weeds out its senior engineers as “cost-cutting” measures, the more the government shouldn’t trust their products. The technical knowledge base of the company is being depleted as each month goes by.
The LCS is a failed concept. But no one has the guts to admit it. It will serve as a “flaming datum” once the shooting starts.
I never have understood what was so different from a LCS and a FFG or a DD. Is it THAT much shallower draft? How freaking close do you really want to be to shore? With craptastic survivability? Any number of crew served weapons can ambush you FROM THE BEACH and take you out. And if you aren’t going to get THAT close then a FFG or a ‘corvette’ can do the same job. It might be a perfectly nicely built ship but the whole role seems flawed.
In a world of longer range and deadlier weapons, the littoral warfare concept is flawed. LCS is not equipped to properly defend itself. Their solution is to make LCS into an Arleigh Burke. Build more Arleigh Burkes.
The LCS was an attempt to replace the already missile-less FFGs with something smaller, cheaper, and capable of doing what FFs did. Major FAIL. Now after four have been built, they have proven to be useless. They cannot sail any distance or in rough seas. Their modular battle design doesn't work. The crews are so small they fall asleep in duty from fatigue and motion sickness. They are defenseless, both dynamically and statically. They have almost no offense capability.
It's hard to understand why they were initiated other than as a way to get the most hulls afloat for the least money while hoping for the development of some advanced weapon like the "phaser" to mount on them. The buy has been reduced from about 80 to 52 to 32 and this number will probably settle at about a dozen. They will be commands for up-and-comer O-3s/O-4s like the PCs used to be. Of course, with the Navy deciding to scrap its minesweepers, this is the most likely duty for the LCSes. If the Navy were smarter it would have been pushing for many, many 5th generation AIP diesel subs, but that is unthinkable to those who are now in command. The P-8? Dead on arrival. It cannot do ASW or open-ocean search, the two most important missions for VP. The P-7 was the way to have gone, but that airplane left the terminal years ago.
The thing that gets me about the LCS is, it just looks like an updated version of the FF-1075 that I spent 3 years on. Now I’m sure everything is updated...but we had a 5” gun, missiles, torps, CIWS, Helo. We also had a sonar dome and a very reliable oil fired boiler for power. For a small ship I thought the “Trippe” was a very effective and versatile ship. I can’t remember the Skipper ever complaining that we couldn’t get close enough to the shore.
Granted I know we have to have new ships (they don’t last forever) - but the LCS design doesn’t look all that “revolutionary” to me.
P.S. We also had a fantail that wasn’t part of the flight deck. Where do you throw the slop off of an LCS? Where do you go to smoke and spread rumors?
I agree. The LCS ships are fast. Very fast. But USS Trippe was a more capable ASW, ASUW and ASW platform. Better sensors and better weapons.
Downstairs from the "mission bay". Plenty of room as the mission packages supposed to fill it haven't been built.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.