I've been slamming the US Navy for proceeding with the LCS class despite evidence that it is outclassed across the board by ships found in navies around the world.
I provide the latest evidence in this case. The Type 22 Missile Boat and its C-802 missiles. Check out the pic below, its from USNI News and it shows the LCS' firepower with surface module in play.
Want to know what the range is of the 8 missiles found on the Type 22 ? Ok, I'll tell you anyway. 120km in the original version and in the product improved package it goes up to 180km. Let me remind you that this is the surface launched, anti-ship version we're talking about here, land attack versions go much further.
I love concepts. I like revolutionary ideas but to build an entire part of our fleet around the idea of battling Iranian Speed Boats seems like pure silliness. The US Navy made that mistake and bought into the LCS with that threat in mind. The Pacific will show how crazy that idea really is...the distances are longer and the threat much more formidable than a bunch of true believers with suicide belts and RPGs.
The COIN MAFIA swindled the Navy and set back our defense effort. It neutered the Navy with the idea that we would be involved in perpetual war with Jihadist. The LCS is the product of that neutering.
Note: Street Fighters main failing was that it was a response to a relatively weak enemy tactic. Swarming speedboats. Rules of engagement were the problem, not the ships in service. In other words it was a concept searching for a problem that did not really exist.
Which is why the LCS should kill the LCS and go with a Frigate. They should simply buy the design rights from Germany, Spain or UK.
ReplyDeletei don't know. i like alot of the European designs but forget that nonsense with the economy still being bad. design a new boat here in the US and spend every slimy cent on US workers building a US product. economic security mixes with defense security. we must protect every inch of our manufacturing base...what little we have left.
DeleteWe already have enough multi-billion dollar frigates. We need cheap MCM and ASW ships.
DeleteMaybe the US Navy can take a page from the US Coast Guard and buy the design rights for a European Frigate. Then put the Bid out to Shipyards that want to build the Frigate based on the design rights the US navy brought from Europe. Don't get me wrong, the US built Great frigates and ships in the past. Now and After the OHP's, we don't seem to building great frigates anymore other than Burkes. It's time the US Navy starts looking to Europe for frigate designs and get Bath Iron works to build them
Deleteplease name them...those multi-billion dollar frigates that we have enough of.
DeleteASW is a mission set for frigates so its just deciding how many ASW vs. AAW you need to build, of course i'm assuming that surface warfare would be built into all of them. as far as MCM, we should just keep what we already have...or had...it ain't sexy but what we have works.
We don't have multi Billion dollar frigates. We have Multi Billion dollar Burke destroyers playing the role of Frigate. We need a REAL Multi-Role frigate and not pop gun boat. It's why I have been advocating for German F-124 or A-200 frigates.
DeleteJust a reminder, that the the US Navy doesn't have any ships with substantially longer engagement range than the LCS. The Burkes top out at 23 NM max engagement range. The OHP is even shorter. The whole entire US Navy fleet lacks an effective long range anti-ship capability.
ReplyDeleteThe solution to fix this problem is the LRASM which isn't available yet. LRASM fits within tactical length VLS cells with both version of the LCS are capable of being fitted with.
harpoon is out of service?
DeleteHarpoon is not currently equipped on the vast majority of US Navy vessels.
DeleteFlight Burke Flt IIa and beyond don't included Harpoon missiles.
OHP lost the capability when they lost the MK 13 Missile Launcher.
LCS doesn't have Harpoons
Tico's may or may not have Harpoons depending on when they were serviced.
The majority of the Navies Harpoon capability is currently directly tied to aviation.
So, yes, until the LRASM goes operational in VLS (and the navy decides to actually put them in) or the US navy adopts the NSM, the vast majority of the naval fleet does not have AShM capability.
just a note to all...info on chinese anti-ship missiles is beyond spotty and whats out there is confusing. APA was once my go to source on their weaponry but even they haven't updated their database.
ReplyDeletewikipedia is about it and boy is it lacking. i'm trying to get info on a chinese anti-ship missile that is extremely fast and based off the FRENCH ASMP...but again the info is spotty.
Information on AShMs and their actual current modern capability is almost completely lacking all around for pretty much all countries.
DeleteWe have basically no insight in the capabilities of modern AShM hit or kill probabilities vs actual warships with both passive and active defenses. In theory, their target tracking and recognition capabilities should be significantly improved since the last warship to warship launch war time use of AShM (which did not go well for the AShM with a hit rate of below 20% and a kill/mission kill rate that is even less).
Why don't we just update the design of the O.H.Perry class? They were cheap in their day, worked and with modern updated design could have been already been in service compared to LCS and was a very good jack of all trade and good for showing the flag....why is it always necessarily to gold plate everything or reinvent the wheel???
ReplyDeleteNever heard of Chinese copying French ASMP or Exocet, although there was a picture of a Chinese ASM that kind of looked like an EXOCET, I will ask my French friends...
from what i understand they're just old and wore out. technically you could keep upgrading them but i imagine it quickly reaches a point of diminishing returns.
DeletePart of the reason is that the OHP class was getting very old. They were/are the sub-fleet with the oldest average age in the fleet. We could new build them, but their cost in current dollars for new build OHPs is between $800-1000m. Second, most of the work the OHPs have done over the years was via aviation. Part of the theory with the LCS, is to build a smaller ship with less manning, that had better aviation capabilities than the OHP. In theory it was a good plan.
DeleteIf we want to new build frigates, it would probably be better to license plans for existing frigates. Probably the best option would be to license the designs for the Singapore Navy Formidable class. Its a very modern well regarded frigate design. Only major change required would be replacing the Sylver VLS with Mk41 Tac length VLS.
I was thinking more along the lines of new ships with more or less the same hull but updated with new radar, missiles,etc..not rebuild of old ships, I didn't make it clear on that.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I have no problem buying a Euro design like a MEKO (my favorite) and building it in the USA.
i want long range, large missile loadout, two helos plus a couple of uavs, ability to carry boarding teams (not necessarily special ops...you put forces on a warship and the whole world will know...kiss your secret insertions goodbye), room for extra food and fuel and last but not least how about a bit of armor!
DeleteProblem with armor is that it is a no-win strategy. The world already went down that path with upwards of ft thick steel armor. Everyone went back from it because it ended up just adding a lot of cost and weight and compromise that could easily be overcome by better weapons. Going from 1/2" to 1" thick hulls isn't going to make a huge amount of difference if you get hit by an armor piecing AShM with a 500lb warhead.
DeleteFor a long range, large missile boat, you are basically looking at something like the RSN Formidable Class with additional VLS and LRASM missiles. If you were selling out for AShM, you could probably fit 48-64 VLS cells on a ship the size of a Formidable without sacrificing the main gun. If you are willing to sacrifice the main gun, you could probably get another 32 cells. But 48 cells with 8-16 as ESSM and 32-40 with LRASM would make a pretty impressive anti-naval combatant. Its range should be sufficient with between 4200-8000 nmi range at a speed of 16-12 kts and a max speed of ~25-26 kts.
ats, using the Formidable's VLS for AShMs is a bit of a waste, the design philosophy for that ship was SAMs in the VLS, AShMs in the middle "mission deck" area.
DeleteThe RSN tends to "lie" about their capabilities, they'll tell you that the ships "carry 8 Harpoons", but in reality, there is space and mounting points for 24 (3x4 packs per side, total 24).
If you were really hard core, I think you can fit another 48 VLS into the middle section that was formerly reserved for the Harpoons as well as extend the forward 32 VLS by another 16 cells. That should give it about 96 cells to play with. From what I can see, the RSN didn't do that because of cost, not many strike missiles are VLS loadable and that they wanted to keep the Harpoons for commonality in their fleet.
you're not talking about frigates anymore. now you're talking about destroyers with that many cells.
Deletewe already have a decent destroyer...what we need is a good frigate sized boat.
Destroyers, frigates, it's not about the cells, it's about the tonnage. Usually. The dividing line is approximately 4,000 tons, so slapping that many cells in might cause it to go over the line, but hey, I did say that was the hardcore version did I not?
DeleteThe West also really needs an updated shipkiller, Harpoons have almost gone out of service and are getting old.
A decent frigate I can see as having
-half the price tag of a Burke (~400M USD)
-16 shipkillers,
~32 VLS (24 quadpack ESSMs/24 Standards),
-a 57mm or 76mm main gun,
-a pair of torpedo tubes,
-a pair of 25mm mounts,
-a helo
-radar, sonar, towed array, EO fire director etc.
This is pretty much a decent general purpose frigate that can be used for fleet defence or get sent out by itself with a fair self defence capability, though if detached for solo duty, more ESSMs can be swapped for the Standards, less area defence, more self protection. Not top end, nor bottom of the deck. Sort of mid range in capabilities.
Daniel, the reason I'm allocating VLS for AShM is because that is the plan going forward with both LRASM and NSM. Part of the issue with Harpoon is that it requires completely separate launchers and infrastructure and is fairly space inefficient. Plus, you are generally limited to a relatively small number of AShM. One of the goals with LRASM is to be able to take say a burke that isn't needed for the primary AAW role and use it as a primary blue water ASuW role, which is something it could never do with harpoons.
DeleteAnd that flexibility goes through out the whole fleet with VLS AShM. Simply design ships with as many Tactical/Strike length VLS as possible and they have outfit with whatever mix of missiles they need to complete their role.
Solomon, the Formidable Class is no where close to a destroyer. Its a 3200 ton ship. Its just a very modern 3200 ton ship. Number of VLS has little to do with the type of ship. In fact, going forward, you are going to want a fair number of VLS on any ship. In an actual war fighting scenario, you are going to want 32-64 ESSM per ship in addition to automated point defense systems. That's 8-16 cells. You are going to want in the range of 32 or so AShM in order for a ship to have a reasonable probability of ship (mission) kill for 4-6 ships which is 32 cells. If you have ASW responsibilities you are going to want 8-16 VL-ASROC to support the aviation hunter assets which is another 8-16 cells. If you have an AAW role you are going to need on the order of 32-72 SMs in various mixes.
DeleteA frigate likely isn't going to have any primary or secondary responsibility for AAW except for low probability areas in which case it can trade ASROC/AShM capacity for AAW. But even without AAW you are looking at a baseline of 48-64 cells just to really be combat ready without anything beyond point AAW capability. So really a frigate with 64 cells plus a main gun and two secondary autocannons is pretty reasonable. Also Unequipped VLS cells are pretty cheap. If anything, I would say that the burkes could use more cells, esp in light of LRASM.
But the main point is that VLS isn't just for AAW. Going forward it will be used for everything. The DDG-1000 is designed with 80 cells and has no primary AAW role like the burkes. It will fill those cells with a large number of ESSM, Tomahawks, and LRASM.
if you're going to add that many cells then you're changing the very weight class of the ship. if you think that it could be done in a vaccum then something is wrong. you're telling me that you can get a ship with as many missiles on it as a Burke or a S. Korean "super" Burke and yet keep it as light as a frigate?
Deleteyou can do that and yet the Navy decided to heavy up its ships just for giggles?
sorry. the theory sounds good, but i have serious doubts about the execution. my point remains. you're just making another Burke if we follow that line of thinking.
Not really. A Burke is heavy not because of the number of VLS cells (VLS cells are actually pretty light weight), but because of the AEGIS system and all the subsystems required to support AEGIS. AEGIS alone is close to a half billion cost adder to a ship. An LRASM itself is at roughly 1 ton per. A 32 Cell block of Mk41 VLS with missiles is ~100 tons.
DeleteAnd we aren't making another burke because we aren't investing in the heavy and expensive AEGIS system.
wait you just went from cost to weight in your response and back again without missing a beat. my point remains. you add that many VLS cells and you're making a destroyer, maybe not a burke class but a destroyer none the less. thats the point.
Deletefrigates are suppose to be inexpensive, multirole ships. what you're proposing isn't close that. if it was that easy then everyone would have 100 cell frigates floating around.
Isn't the Formidable class Frigate a derivatives from the French Navy's La Fayette class Frigate. If were going for a Frigate, than we should stick to something within the 5,000 ton range such as the Formidable class Frigate, Lay fayette class frigate or something along the lines of the MEKO 200 frigates such as the ANZAC class frigate or Valour class frigate.
DeleteThe other option is to take a look at what Huntington Ingalls Industries is trying to offer as an alternative to the LCS that is based upon the US Coast Guard Cutters National Security Cutter design. The only change to the NSC would be that the NSC would be subjected to Naval Vessel Rules than commercial rules. Here's the story
http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/patrol-frigate-concepts-from-huntington-ingalls-industries-gain-traction-internationally/
MEKO 200 Frigate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MEKO_200
ats agreed on the VLS packed shipkillers in the future, but until they get produced and deployed in numbers, I'll keep the Harpoons thanks. Show me the missile, not the powerpoint slides.
DeleteThe all VLS ship, I'll give it about one more generation before it becomes practical. AFTER LRASM/NSM.
In the layout I suggested above, packing the shipkillers into VLS would only drive it up to 48 cells, an imminently managable number and not likely to drive into destroyer weight territory. The UK's proposed Type-26 frigate carries the same amount of cells.
Solomon, I'm not proposing a 100 cell frigate, I'm proposing adding ~16-32 cells to the existing 32 cells on the Formidable class. These cells can be reasonably fitted in the area already dedicated to 2x4 launchers for Harpoon missiles. This would give the ship a total of ~16-32 LRASM, 16-32 ASROC, and 32-64 ESSM. The existing Formidable class is already outfitted with 32 Aster 15/30 missiles in 32 Sylver VLS Cells. This is simply replacing the 32 Sylver VLS cells with 32 MK41 VLS cells and adding 16-32 cells in the midship location that can currently house multiple 4 pack launchers of harpoons. The midship location would likely use the short length version of the Mk41 VLS and be limited to quadpack ESSM.
DeleteThe upgraded design would be in the 3,300 ton range, which is in line with the design weight of the class of 3,200-3,600. Given its weight, its not a destroyer. Its a pretty nice design though that would be a reasonable replacement for the OHP in many of their roles. Cost would probably be within the 600-800m range. The theory being that most of the time the ship would operate without a full compliment of missiles (because except during wartime they aren't needed) saving general cost. Normal missile compliment would be 32 ESSM, 8 LRASM, and 0-8 VL-ASROC. In wartime, this can be relatively quickly upgraded to 64 ESSM, 32 LRASM, and 16 VL-ASROC. This would provide a pretty reasonable warfighting capability and be able to counter multiple Type 56 and Type 22 to at least a standstill.
A wartime frigate will need this level of capability if it is to stand a chance. It needs to be able to counter a 4 pack of Type 22 which requires at least 32 ESSM. It further needs to have additional ESSM so it doesn't immediately need to leave the area to re-arm for defense. Based on historical AShM kill ratios, it will need roughly 4 AShM per target will engage. I don't see how you can build a viable frigate for a modern peer/near-peer naval fight with under 48 VLS. For reference, the OHP class was originally designed in the 70's with a 40 missile capacity. Given the progression of enemy vessels, an additional 50% missile capacity isn't unreasonable.
Nicky, yes the Formidable class is an upgraded La Fayette class based design. It is the most modern actual frigate design out there at the moment with very good stealth characteristics, minimal thermal/electronic emissions, decent range and adequate speed. The Formidable class is in both the right weight range and the right crew size for what the US needs. It is a ~90 man ship including air crew. Its been in service and the manning issues have been figured out for years. 5Kt is a bit big both size wise and manning wise than what the US needs.
Daniel, yep, the Type 26 is currently planned to have a capacity of 72 missiles. 48 Sea Ceptor AA missiles which are basically equiv to the ESSM and a 24 cell general purpose strike length VLS cells that can be used for a variety of missiles from AShM to land attack and VL-ASROC.
DeleteYes but, Streetfighter had nothing to do with speedboats. Far from the LCS vision of 'the most dangerous thing is a guy in a zodiac with an AK,' Streetfighter was a response to littorals being filled with a lethal mix of diesel subs, missile armed FACs, and enemy air power.
ReplyDeleteThe underlying concept was that a conventional powerful ship, like a Burke, was far too tempting a target and that for all its power, the enemy would be more than willing to trade a couple FACs or even a sub for a Burke. But, if the US distributed a large amount of combat power over a number of smaller, cheaper platforms the enemy had to, for instance, expose the same sub to attack a much smaller, cheaper ship and then the sub would be sunk by a networked response from a number of other streetfighters nearby.
It inverted the situation from a US fleet that was afraid to expose, for instance, hugely expensive Burkes to relatively cheap subs to an environment where the enemy was afraid to expose their relatively expensive sub to kill a small, cheap streetfighter.
The streetfighter concept was a response to the incredible lethality of modern littorals whereas the LCS is in complete denial of that lethality, That's why the streetfighters, as envisioned, were much smaller, stealthier and more heavily armed than the LCS as produced. Streetfighter has much more in common with the Chinese Houbei (Type 22)class you've shown than it does with the 40 knot minesweepers of the the LCS program.
I'm right with you on the bigger theory but the seeds of it came from the Iranians, fighting in the Persian gulf and the STARK incident.
Deleteit grew legs because the US Navy looked at the fighting in the middle east and bought into the fantasy that the wars would be never ending so it hoped onboard looking for a way to get a piece of the funding pie.
the LCS was born because it fitted with the transformational DoD that was getting pushed at the time.
as far as Burkes being too valuable to risk in confined waters...yes! but the enemy was iranian speedboats not the littoral waters of the Philippines.
You've got a lot right about the LCS but what your missing is that the USN rejected the streetfighter concept for two reasons: 1. It accepted that USN ships would be sunk and worked to make losses sustainable and 2. Cheap combatants that were well armed would threaten procurement of over-priced behemoths like the Zumwalts.
DeleteTrying desperately to get their ship built regardless of this, the LCS team took the streetfighter name, but none of the doctrine, and then sucked up every mission no one else wanted: shallow water ASW and mine sweeping being the big two and promised to be everything to everyone in order to get the ships built. The anti-speed boat role was just tacked on for PR reasons and because no one in the USN either took it seriously or was willing to put a Burke someplace where an idiot with an RPG could take out an Aegis array.
Deliberately false price estimates and vast over-estimation of the viability of new technologies were then thrown into the mix for the same reason they were with the F-35: the object was to build them as fast as possible before development was done in order to keep the program from being cancelled as all of the flaws started to become too obvious to hide. You'll also note the classic F-35 pattern: first deny there is a problem, then admit the problem but claim it's going to be fixed soon, then move the goal posts by dumbing down the spec. It's used because it works: it's the best way to get poorly managed programs in full production.
It goes to Paralus's point, below,the reason the LCS looks so shabby compared to a Visby or a Skjold is because it has to: anything that could actually fight would have been strangled in its crib to protect procurement of 'real' ships. The LCS program is designed solely to get the damn things built, with any actual combat capability coming as a happy accident afterwards.
Which makes the LCS all the more baffling.
ReplyDeleteThe Navy had rented a Swedish Visby (640t), a Norwegian Skjold (260t) and what do they come up with...a 3000 ton POS that doesn't know if it's supposed to hunt subs, sweep mines or butcher unicorns. That's why our procure is so fucked. It's like it was supposed to be Streetfighter, but some committee got a hold of it and said, 'hey, we need a OHP replacement', then it turns into a 3000t monstrosity. Same with the F35, trying to combine needs and fucking up both programs.
Just as an aside, why we call the Burkes destroyers still is beyond me. The Flight III Burke's each weigh more than the Ticonderoga cruisers.
And while we screw around and accept substandard equipment into service other nations that we traditionally supplied are fielding better equipment. Hell even Taiwan has come up with a better LCS than America, see for your self.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1200
Ouch, no point defence missiles, though replacing the see-wiz with a RAM is a possible option and one that I prefer. CIWS is getting a bit old and obsolete.
DeleteFrom the lack of defensive missiles and heavy AShM load, the design concept is probably similar to the LCS, ships that they can afford to lose, but in this case, it has a huge overbite. Hammer armed eggshells indeed. Trading a single corvette for 4-8 (assuming a 50% hit ratio on double tap warshots) of the Chinese Hongbeis might really look attractive if you are looking at a force imbalance like the Taiwanese are vs the PLAN.
No surprise that they have an interest in getting it right. The prospect of getting hung does concentrate thoughts wonderfully, especially if the one looking to do the hanging is more than twice your size.
The lack of support for the LCS is dumbfounding lol. Why anyone would think puking off the side of a little mcm is a good Idea is beyond me lol. If the US Navy needs a small cheap fast attack craft or a missile boat it can scramble a F-18. If we need a vessel with multi-nission capability we don't need to screw around with a lightweight frigate, we need a destroyer with some real muscle and some actual ammunition. For the rest of the lightweight stuff the LCS is fine and seaworthy enough to actually ride that blue water with the US Navy. Patrol coastal my ass loool.
ReplyDelete