Keeping with the theme of warfare in the Littoral Zone.
If you REALLY want to fight in this area then the LCS is not the answer. No, the answer is to retask the
Riverine Units and have them operate in Green and Brown water.
This is going to be a major undertaking however.
First you have to re-equip them with CB-90's or equal boats. Their rigid raiders can operate far afield but in order for them to be effective they need a slightly larger boat.
Next you need to provide them with some type of mother ship. I really hate the idea of dedicating an amphib to the mission of supporting these
Littoral Action Groups (my new name for the organization) but its necessary. We should take an
LPD that is to be retired, service life extend it (again) and have it act in this role...we'll need three. One for action in the Pacific, Atlantic and Middle East.
Lastly you need to have dedicated air assets devoted to fighting in the Littoral Zones, supporting these Littoral Action Groups yet capable of operating from the decks of the mothership. In other words bring back the
Sea Wolves. The US Navy should bring back its attack helicopter component. Ideally it would simply be additional CH-60's armed with hellfires. This would allow a fast response when necessary to emerging threats detected by radar or recon UAVs/aircraft and it would simplify logistics.
This would give you a force capable of operating in the Littoral Zone effectively. If its a counter-insurgency at sea then this force will be optimal. If its full scale warfare then hand the issue back to the big boys---Burke's, Subs and Aircraft Carriers.
Lets not fool ourselves. Full scale combat in the littoral zone will shred LCS and this new organization I propose. This will also bring our doctrine in line with common sense. The littorals are dangerous. If its less than full scale war then the Littoral Action Group, equipped with CB-90s, LPD motherships and dedicated CH-60's can handle it.
This leaves the question. What do we do with the LCS? I'm sad to say, we scrap it and move to a cheaper solution. It is looking more and more like the Navy's version of the FCS...a concept that was designed in haste to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
OK, good and original response.
ReplyDeleteLCS is precisely meant to serve as the 'mothership' (linking air, surface and submarine elements) in your package.
ReplyDeleteLCS is too small, doesn't have enough stores or endurance to do the job.
ReplyDeleteI don't need 40 knots to do the job. I need a ship with berthing for the crews of the CB-90's and the RHIBs. I need the hospital facilities...I need the endurance that only an LPD sized ship will bring.
In every regard the LCS comes up short.
With my little concept, one mothership could effectively (in concert with P-8's, Global Hawks and other ISR platforms) basically perform a mini-sea control mission with the CB-90's sorting out to do visit and boarding ops...anti-small boat ops and have CH-60's armed with hellfires providing support.
Using the gulf of mexico as an example, this Littoral Action Group should be able to control the shoreline from Louisiana to the Florida Pan handle....of course we would pull other Groups from locations that aren't active but you get the idea.
How many of those helicopters could an LPD carry?
ReplyDeleteHow would you handle mine sweeping?
ReplyDeleteMine sweeping is outside the area of expertise for this group and darn near the US Navy. If its an issue I imagine they could send over MH-53's or embark a mission module to handle the task....also, and i'm not sure but I believe they're developing a kit that will allow the H-60 to perform that mission.
ReplyDeleteAs far as helicopter carriage, Wikipedia says up to 6 CH-46....I've seen them pack in H-60's though...but six should be sufficient for what i have in mind.
OK, I'm convinced. Now convince the Navy.
ReplyDeleteDon't scrap the LCS. Sell it to someone. Someone, somewhere, is going to pay some bucks for a "next-generation" USN ship. Maybe not a lot, but more than scrap.
ReplyDeleteTake care. Ferran, BCN
Ferran,
ReplyDeleteI hate to say it but nobody wants our ships. European ship builders are kicking our ass. From the Absalon, to the MEKO to the Mistral no one is buying our stuff.
That's a shame too but its also the truth.
Name one US design that is being used by other powers that has been designed and put into service in the last 20 years. Outside of the LCAC, I can't think of one. Oh and second doesn't count. I'm only talking about new ships.
Yes, but the LCS would be second hand. Can you sell a brand new LCS competitively against an Absalom? No. But you might be able to sell it above scrap. Or maybe --I'm just throwing a wild idea, here-- take the milgrade electronics away and remake it into a tuna fisher, one of the big ones --it already has some storage and it should be that difficult to set some net deployment system--
ReplyDeleteDunno, I'm a bit uncomfortable saying all this about a ship from a foreign nation, specially with my lack of background --feels a bit like trolling--. My point is, if we think the LCS isn't worth a dime, then almost anything you get from it is a net gain.
BTW, since you mention the Absalom: you can get 2 helos in there, and you can deploy CB90s from it. You might also deploy another Piranha, the USV --although I presume it's not ready, yet--, since it has an MCM module [ http://www.piranhausv.com/ ].
Ferran.
No Navy/Marine background, but questions...
ReplyDeleteIn addition to anti-mine, what about anti-sub, and special ops. If you don't want your LPD sunk by a diesel-electric at 50 miles, wouldn't it help to have an LCS at 25 miles with several helicopters and FireScouts looking for subs?
Will your small boat feel more comfortable going to shore from 25 miles or 50 miles? Don't they have SeaRAM on LCS? Can't LCS move rapidly from 50 miles to 25 miles and back again as required with a smaller radar signature?
Now envision using a couple of LCS as lily pads on both sides of the LPD, closer to shore. You move your CH-60s and AH-1 to the anti-sub payload LCS just before the V-22s are scheduled to arrive from a central combatant command land locations...exploiting that MV-22 speed/range (and allowing you to buy fewer) instead of putting one or two on an LPD and trying to maintain them there.
So now you are ready to conduct your shore air assault from multiple directions, perhaps exploiting discovery of the easiest route facilitated by Cobras on LCS. Don't forget that you want some F-35B on your LPD as well, so can't be cramming lots of V-22, CH-60, Cobras, CH-53, and F-35B on only a few LPD where they won't fit anyway. You can buy lots of LCS for the cost of an LPD, can you not?
If you are going to get sunk by the bad guys with a few anti-ship missiles, assuming terrorists can beat SeaRAM which is doubtful, you will have fewer sailors to rescue and less equipment lost on an LCS than a LPD. If you must have a tripwire, better a smaller, lesser manned boat than a big boy?
Cole,
ReplyDeletethat leads me back to the throwaway mindset that appears to be settling into Navy thinking.
If its less than full scale combat...these CB90's are good. Once it ramps up, we pull these guys out and put in the Burke's!
No one or nothing is throwaway. We preserve our force. Losses will happen, it can't be helped but we will not design a ship to be lost.
Sol,
ReplyDeleteCompletely agree. A half dozen or so MH-60R/Ses, and a half dozen CB90s based on an old LPD or LSD would be more than sufficient as such a group. If you want a more sustained picket presence, you can add in a couple of Cyclone class patrol ships and you have an effective littoral patrol and control group.
The one thing I'd have to say is that you're underestimating the capabilities of such a group in a full scale war. Such units unprotected and used in the same manner would surely fail...but they could be a useful auxiliary to a larger landing force or as a means of landing a small raiding or SOF force in support of other missions. It is in this capacity that it also has plenty of missions available around the world.
CBD,
ReplyDeleteYou're probably right. I just wanted to pivot away from not 'going all out" when we fight wars.
In the next naval engagement I would hope that someone would be bold enough to declare an exclusion zone off limits to civilian shipping.
It won't happen.
In that scenario the Littoral Action Group would have much utility. Especially in the Pacific in their crowded waterways. Someone is going to have to visit and inspect those ships. Might as well be the L.A.G.
Look at the recent South Korean Corvette incident. It illustrates two things: a) thank goodness it was not a larger ship resulting in more loss of life, b) submarines and mines are treacherous and must be combated.
ReplyDeleteNow let's look at ISAF Afghan casualties. They are rapidly approaching in one month, what you might lose once or twice in multiple decades on a LCS, assuming (in error) that all hands would be lost.
Don't want to sound insensitive, but the ground component has born all of these kinds of risks since WWII. In contrast, the air and sea components have gotten the bulk of tech monies to enhance their survivability to the point of near-zero casualties.
Nothing is disposable, but something must support missions closer to shore that is bigger than a CB-90 to hold helicopters. An old LPD is not disposable, either, and has a lot more Sailors and Marines on board. A new LPD is maxed out with just 3 MV-22: 2 on deck and one in hangar. If you want anti-sub, anti-mine, and special ops helicopters, you need a smaller platform that gets closer to shore and still holds multiple helicopters, UAS/UUV and small boats.
Enhance LCS survivability, but don't forget it already has Sea-RAM, will get something to replace NLOS-LS, and at least one version has an aluminum hull making it more immune to many mines. There is already talk about towed sonar arrays.
And you can buy at least two LCS for the price of one LPD, and that will climb to 3 LCS per $1.3 billion LPD as more are produced.
Ok, this is where we part company Cole...
ReplyDeleteThe S.Korean incident I blame on laxity in their Navy...operating that close to the N. Koreans in disputed waters and you're not at battle stations automatically? Add to it that larger ships are able to absorb much more damage than smaller ones and have better damage control and I dispute the idea that a larger ship would be more vulnerable.
As far as the war in Afghanistan??? Its fucked up because of McChrystal.
He's trying to win hearts and minds and not a war. He's tied the hands of ground forces and the big brains in the Pentagon don't have the intestinal fortitude to speak up and call bullshit on the whole thing.
As far as the LPD acting as mothership...we're talking about a ship that's to be retired...definitely not a new built one. It won't carry any Marines...just Riverine personnel and their boats in the well deck.
LCS ??? Never heard of an aluminum hull making a ship mine resistant. Steel hulls maybe but aluminum???
NLOS-LS is done and won't be affordable. Sea-RAM is available on LPD's and is considered a last ditch system....I don't see its utility in a swarm attack from different vectors from land and sea based missile teams. I know i'm thinking complex ambush on land but it should work at sea too.
And the price point that you're quoting is for an LHA-6 that's been redesigned with a well deck.
Lastly who's talking about MV-22's for the air arm. I said H-60's. We don't need to be "close in shore" for them to perform their missions.
Less than half the 104 man crew died in the South Korean incident and LCS will carry fewer. If the U.S. was about to go to war, you would expect an LCS crew to be on full alert and have other protective systems in the air, under the sea, and providing AEGIS defenses from afar.
ReplyDeleteTwo LCS would carry more helicopters and other assets than one old LPD. Will a service life extension last 30 years? How many old LPDs could be upgraded. Enough to put in all theaters? Contrast that with 55 LCS that are also fast enough to move around and escort JHSV.
Specifically looked for the price of a new LPD, not LHA. One source said $1 billion. Another said $1.3 billion.
Aluminum is not magnetic. Most mines are.
H-60s would use substantial fuel getting to and from shore from 50nm (as you know, half hour each way at 100 knots at night). With an LCS at 25nm, Cobras launching from an LPD could refuel on an LCS rather than fly another 30 minutes round trip additional time to and from the LPD.
CHT-02D torpedo, esp if its on wake-homing mode, leaves very little footprint for detection. Moreover, sonar signal is greatly distorted in shallow water vs. in open sea. Even if it were a mine sweeper, the odd is still well against the one being fired upon.
ReplyDeleteIgnorance knows no bounds, Sol. Anti-terrorism is in part a warfare of heart and mind. It was so 'fucked up' (as you put it) in both war zones because we and the Soviet a few decades ago only tried to blast our ways into region. You piss off the local, you freely give the terrorists more support and leverage. Understood?
Just which 'old' LPD do you wish to gut? What if there are 3 littoral zones for you to deploy to and guard for months at a time? The USN/USMC only has a handful of LPD on rotation. Compared to LCS they are expensive as hell and must stay far off-shore to be safe. 5min in transit could very well mean losing the window of opportunity. Your LPD-mothership concept is swell on paper but rubbish in practice. LCS will most likely deploy in pair and serve as motherships to accommodate a whole range of littoral operations. If the situation is critical enough, LPD and the big boys will be sent.
Try to understand things a tab more in depth before attempting to sound so assertive, won't you? You will make a big fool out of yourself.
Hey Anonymous, you sanctimonious bastard. Shut the fuck up.
ReplyDeleteFirst. We've been doing counter insurgency and wining hearts and minds since we got in the region. To be precise we've been nation building. We're wasting money and lives. If we went after each and every military target and after they were liquidated, we got the hell out of dodge we'd be much better off.
As far as LPD's and my proposal are concerned I said about to be retired. I'm not pulling one ship from the amphib fleet unless and until its been replaced. You read what you wanted to because you're an arrogant son of a bitch.
And lastly how do you know my proposal is rubbish. No experiments have been conducted and its as valid as this LCS bullshit you're trumpeting.
Find another home. I don't need Goon's like you on my page.
LPD, meet the Houbei class missile boat. Welcome to the age of littoral warfare.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houbei_class_missile_boat
not exactly. one H-60 or AH-1Z or UH-1Y armed with hellfires will destroy those long before they get close enough to launch.
ReplyDeleteif they escape detection and get to their launch point then the ships close in defense systems should be able to handle the threat.
welcome to the real world of littoral warfare. its tough but not impossible.