I don't blame the ship builders. I blame the US Navy for fuzzy requirements and flawed "transformationalist" thinking. Read how Israel joined the world club in building a better LCS...otherwise known as a
Friday, May 17, 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
I'd think that Saar 72 is on the high end of the Corvette but nowhere near a true Frigate. If the Israeli's want a true frigate, that has ASW, ASUW, AAW, Land attack and NGFS, then they could go for a Incheon Class frigate.
ReplyDeletea frigate in the traditional sense is not a multi mission ship. its a specialist in one realm and relies on other ships or frigates to perform the other missions.
DeleteTheir are true Multi Role frigates out their that can do ASUW, ASW, NGSF and limited Land attack.
DeleteI would not say it is a superior LCS but it is a better ship for what Israeli is trying to do. The LCS is supposed to do ASW and MCM as well as Surface Warfare against small pirate boats, or Iranian bog hammers.
ReplyDeleteThe Navy should have just sucked it up and built different ships for MCM, small boat surface warfare, long range patrol and so on. That was how it was always done in the past and it continues to work well for almost every other Navy on the plannet.
The Navy is suffering from the same problems as the rest of the military: way too many missions and not enough money to accomplish all of them.
"suppose" is the operative word. we see eye to eye on most issues but the Navy totally screwed up with this one. the idea of mission modules seems almost ludicrous now. we really should have pushed for a slower platform, more firepower off the basic platform and better sensors. this ship went from being a close to shore fighter to basically a really big patrol boat. its unsat.
Deleteif you dislike mission modules now, you are really going to hate the future. While there are certainly things wrong with the LCS designs, the emphasis on the mission modules is not one of them. For the size and type that the two LCS designs are trying to be, mission modules are exactly the right way to go.
DeleteMission modules provide the overall most cost effective way of allowing the navy a fleet which can response to the various missions with which it is tasked and allow it the flexibility to respond to future missions and requirements without requiring whole new ships to be constructed each time.
For someone who praises modularity in armored vehicle design to rail against the same functionality in ships is a bit schizophrenic.
you're being a smart ass and aren't as well read on the subject of mission modules for the LCS as you pretend to be. they're expensive as all out, they provide little actual utility in the way that they're going to be used and the concept is good if you have an ABSALON type ship but in the LCS its a fucking joke.
Deletei'm rock solid in my analysis. pound sand.
I want to clarify that I am not a fan of the LCS in current form at all. I do not think that the international version will be much better but at least it would have some weapons. It also needs to have torpedo tubes but if it had VLS it would at least have ASROC capability.
DeleteI also do not like how the Navy has dangled the LCS in front of the USMC and SOCOM as a silver bullet for upcoming fights.
Yes the Navy needed to build something other than the DDG-51s but I yet to find a Navy officer that thinks a 3,100 ton ship that has roughly the firepower of a Bradley was the answer.
DAMMIT, Sol. everyday I come here and read more about how US procurement is so broken it is depressing.
ReplyDeleteYesterday it was the TAM compared to the Farsical Combat System, now it is LCS.
We should reduce the total number of Flag Officers by 90%, fire 95% of the Flag Officers we have now and promote the remainder from colonel. Then make employment in the Defense Industry illegal for all former officers to prevent conflicts of interest or influence peddling.
no "institutionitis", no Not Invented Here syndrome, no brown-nosing/mentorships, no cushy defense jobs awaiting anyone who retires with a star, no service-rivalry.
the current system (personnel, acquisition, etc.) will not reform itself
from your lips to Gods ears. i'm punching walls cause i'm looking at the price tag on the MV-22 and F-35 and wondering why we can't shut down one squadron of each and get us some decent armor! but no instead the Marine Corps is shutting down Infantry Battalions! its Friday. i should be drinking but instead i'm ready to punch walls.
DeleteAnd dont forget that the MV-22 costs the same as an Superhornet+a Patria/havoc...its a good aircraft but its price its just pure porn...you could buy around 15 wheeled APCs like the Patria for the price of one of those things...
DeleteAnd the LCS...how is it possible to be an«international version» with ESSM,Harpoon,(VLS)and the Navy is getting a «Gun Ship»...
Well its friday...of to drink with my fiends and my girlfriend...dont whait up :)
LCS can do ASW and mine warfare when fitted with those modules. Of course neither of those modules presently work and it's not clear when they will. They are also an additional cost in addition to the ship. Moreover, spending say $650 million for a mine hunter that can carry around 2 helicopters at 40+ knots, and that is very lightly constructed (forget about structurally reinforced for mines) is in my view simply absurd.
ReplyDeleteLCS is a totally flawed construct. The speed requirement was actually to rush back to port to swap out the modules. That is simply never going to happen because the modules cost too much to buy any significant number of "spares" and the modules take far too long to swap out. That's not my opinion but official USN stated policy now.
LCS is capable of very little and what it can do it does at excessive cost. At the most basic level of dealing with other surface combatants it's hideously under armed and will have to depend on it's helicopters which assumes they are always available, the weather is adequate, the enemy doesn't have any systems to shoot down helicopters, etc.
LCS can't escort a convoy because it has no significant anti air systems (and there is no module for that), no significant anti surface systems (either with the surface warfare module and it's pathetic missile system), etc. It can't perform as a radar picket, can't do naval gunfire support even though it has a shallow draft to exploit such a capability had it been given one, etc. If they get the mine warfare module to work then it's simply the wrong over priced platform for the mission.
yes there are various things wrong with the LCS, many of which can be reasonably fixed via switching to variants of the international configurations.
DeleteBut at the same time a lot of the arguments against the LCS are also heavily flawed. The speeds are very useful in several of the missions for which the LCS was designed including patrol and in a variety of the envisioned mission specific configurations. And while the idea of swapping out modules during combat ops is absurd, the idea and concepts of modular mission modules is not.
For the anti-surface combatant mission, the LCS is reasonably armed for the patrol scenario, and a switch to a variant of the international configs would make it perfectly capable of dealing with the variety of of combatants it will see in its various missions against peers and near peers.
It was never intended to be able to do covering anti-air support, we have a whole class of ships dedicated to that functionality (Burkes).
NGFS cannot be done by any vessels close to its size except dedicated NGFS "barges" which no one has built since Viet Nam, and even those were mediocre for what many people consider NGFS. The only ships planned in the whole of the US or any other major navy which can do realistic NGFS are the Zumwalt-class destroyers.
As far as mine warfare is concerned, in a AA/AD scenario, something like the LCS and its mine warefare module combination are about the only things which have the possibility of handling that mission. The currently available mine warfare ship designs make the LCS look like a battleship in comparison. Current design mine warfare ships can't really even handle a fishing boat with a 50 cal, they are good for peacetime and fully controlled waters only.
seriously? are you really trying to ATTEMPT to make those arguments? wow. you called me schizophrenic but you're delusional if you believe half of what you wrote!
Deleteevery other nation on the face of the earth is doing what the US Navy tried to do but failed. this mission module talk is simply a coat to hang behind...they will never be able to afford enough to make them a viable option (as intended) nor are they ever going to do a better job than a purpose built ship.
question. if the LCS as the Navy designed it is such a good idea, then why did the builders of the ship design "international" models that look much more like real frigates?
but lets talk about mine warfare in particular. you talk about an attack by another ship...but what about the mission of hunting mines? in that scenario the hunter will have TONS of support so your argument even on that point is downright silly.
you talk about making the switch to the international model but they aren't doing it. the LCS as designed and implemented is a TOTAL FAILURE.
The only other nation with significant modularity is the Danish Navy.
DeleteAs far as the current configuration of the LCS, I've already said that many of the issues with the LCS would be fixed by changing to the international/export configurations.
And for hunting mines in AA/AD scenarios, the mine hunter will not have tons of support. The current crop of US mine hunting vessels have to taken down by a speed boat with a 12.7 mm gun and API ammunition has it has basically no defenses and no sensors beyond those for simple mine hunting. Not to mention that the current mine hunters are the slowest ships in the entire fleet.
As far a mission modules and ship fitment modularity, that is going to have to be a fact of life going forward as we simple cannot afford enough low end ships of every type.
despite my misgivings i'm going to play.
Deleteso you're telling me that US or NATO or our Pacific allies will commit limited density, high value mine hunting ships to an area without adequate cover? you're also telling me that even though these lightly equipped ships are the only thing that can take out a device that can potentially wreck a aircraft carrier, severely damage a big amphib or sink anything else that those same navies would allow someone with a patrol boat to get close enough to sink them?
as far as the discussion about the LCS International, i get what you're saying but you're trying to have it both ways. on one hand you're defending the design and on the other you're saying that the version that the US Navy is getting is trash but there is a better one available.
i refuse to allow you that. the US Navy isn't acquiring the International version. then you turn around and talk about not being able to afford enough low end ships but you ignore the COSTS OF THE MODULES and fail to realize that when equipped the LCS (using whatever module they eventually get to work) simply becomes another minehunter, AAW frigate or ASW frigate. the difference being that it won't be as good as a ship designed for that mission.
the LCS is fucked up from the floor up and even the Admirals know it. they just don't have the balls to cancel it...
You don't always have the capability to provide adequate cover to the mine hunting ships because of exactly what the mine hunting ships are there to deal with. The current Avenger-class mine hunters have neither the speed nor the armament to deal with even an RHIB with a 12.7mm gun. The LCS does however have both the speed and armament to deal with an RHIB with a 12.7mm gun.
DeleteI'm not trying to have it both ways, the current gen LCS is only useful for test deployments on modules and figuring out rules and procedure of operations. Personally, I think all future LCS should be built to at least the export level designs provided by both groups. That would include full length VLS for the Freedom-class (and ideally and uprating to a larger gun) and tactical length VLS for the independence-class (and I'd also look into the tradeoff of reducing the deck size in exchange for a couple full length VLS cells, since having the largest deck size in the us navy outside of LHAs and CVNs doesn't make the most sense in the world).
As far as the ability of the modules to do their jobs, the modules will improve over time. The development work on the modules would also have to go into for instance a new generation MCM design as well. For the MCM role, the modules that they are doing for the LCS is exactly what they were planning for the next generation MCM suites.
For area-AAW, any US designed frigate would not be designed for that role. We have sunk extremely large amounts of money on building the world's best fleet of AAW ships in the Burkes.
For ASW, the module can do basically everything that the perry-class can do and will be further enhanced over time. If/When the get the remote sensor system working, the LCS is a very good platform for dash-in/dash-out setup.
The main problem with the LCS is that the version we are getting is under-weaponized and the design very much needs VLS cells (and the navy as a whole needs a VLS anti-ship-missile, how that hasn't happened yet... The Norwegian NSM should be adaptable to VLS and its a very modern design and will still be a good counter point to the LRASM when and if it ever becomes operational as the NSM is about 1/4th the mass).
BTW, at least according to the results of the IMCMEX 12, no one currently has a viable MCM solution. 29 simulated mines, no one found more than half...
Deletei think that a better assessment would be that the world's navies have allowed MCM training to wane right along with anti-sub training. the next war at sea will be bloody. lessons will have to be relearned and the over emphasis on influencing the land battle before the sea battle is won will cost many, many lives.
Delete