Even with the upgrade its still a poorly armed ship. Consider. The long retired Pegasus hydrofoil patrol boats and World War 2 US PT boats were both more heavily armed than this piece of Shiite.
Check out this tidbit from Navy Matters...
In addition, all the fundamental flaws that made the LCS such a poor design still remain. The ship has weight and stability issues, lack of compartmentation, structural weaknesses, excessive vibration at speed, weak flight decks, poor seakeeping by both versions, insufficient stores, inadequate range, poor endurance, sub-standard survivability (though some additional shrapnel protection will be added), etc.Read the whole thing here.
That about sums it up. Protecting manufacturing is more important than acquiring a capable warship. I'd like to be surprised but I'm not. Even sadder? It would be so easy to do this right but for some reason they insist on sticking with this substandard, and poorly conceived naval vessel.
A turd is still a turd.....even if you stick a few more missiles on it.
The LCS was a right ship if built at the original quoted price of $300 million a unit, just like how the F-35 would be the right fighter if built at the original quoted price of $50 million a unit.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, both the LCS and the F-35 are double and triple that, and this is why they are not worth the money anymore.
That's the thing, if it was that right price there would be money for a real frigate, and this ship could spend it's time chasing drug boats and and PT boats. The problem is that the opportunity cost problem here is a double whammy. The ship is weak even for the lighter, close in littoral missions and it has no chance of even pretending to be a frigate. Second, by consuming so much "gold" from the treasury is takes away from a real frigate to be built.
DeleteThe LCS was originally intended to patrol the Yellow Sea and the Persian Gulf, and it was deemed that it didn't need to be heavily armed because North Korea and Iran wouldn't be able to threaten it.
DeleteOnly when the LCS's intended mission was changed to the containment of China, it was found to be unsuitable for the role.
Oh, North Korea is currently testing a locally developed air-launched anti-ship missile, and Iran will get one after North Korea deploys it.
well if you're going to go down original thinking with the ship then don't stop halfway. the ship was designed to deal with small boat swarms. it was suppose to protect carriers and amphibs in littoral waters. then things started to change when we pulled our heads out of the desert. containing China has nothing to do with the design. it has to do with the ship being called on to form a large portion of our combat fleet. that means that it must be multi-mission and capable of independent operations. none of that was considered likely when the ship was first developed.
Deletethe problem is the same thing that has affected the F-35 and is strangling the ACV. no one is saying that the original requirements were trash and saying that things have changed and so must procurement plans.
China and N. Korea are just sideshows. the likelyhood of combat with China is small. any issues with N. Korea should be a S. Korea issue.
@slowman
DeleteI understand what you are saying about the original intent of the LCS. It doesn't change the fact that is too expensive for what it delivers.
Solomon
Delete> the likelyhood of combat with China is small.
It defends on what the US decides to do with regards to the Diaoyu Islands. If the US intervenes, then the probability of a war with China is 100% because China plans to take the Diaoyu Islands by force at an appropriate time. If the US stays out, then the probability drops to 10%.
So if the US has decided to intervene as a policy, then the US has to prepare for a coming naval war with China with a 100% certainty.
This is nothing my brave Canuck... check Ambassador Mk. III and compare it to LCS in terms of firepower.
DeleteAmbassador MkIII,
DeleteMade in America, 41 knots, good punching power, a lot less money, but not good enough for USN.
Dare I see that the USN could potentially have 26 Iver Huitfeldt's and 26 Ambassador MKIII's for equal to or less than the cost of 52 LCS, while having significantly more firepower.
There isn't going to be a "naval war" with a first-rate nuclear power like China.
DeleteThat turns into watching most of the Pacific basing we rely on go up in fireballs in about an hour.
Those of you too young to remember 1946-1990 need to catch up.
LCS is being supported because they built a couple. They're both one-off gold-plated pigs, a fact even a NatGeo visit and episode couldn't massage - there isn't enough lipstick to make the pig look pretty.
If USN brass, esp. the Surface Warrior patronage, wants to use those two piles as test beds, they should ROWTBS. But as prototypes for anything serious to follow on, they're an embarrassment to the word "ship".
We've already "contained" powers like China: it takes a large submarine fleet, and carrier battle groups. We already know how to do both of those. Actually doing it requires that someone bite that bullet, and foot that bill, or take their soap cakes out of the bath tub and stop pretending to be admirals.
As for dealing with "swarms of small boats", we've done that too.
Send in frigates, armed helos, and our own puddle pirate small-craft fleet, and wax them from hell to breakfast.
A veritable fleet-full of j.g.s would give their left nuts to command a PT boat as part of our own swarm, with an FFG mothership or three, and a few SeaHawks or navalized Apaches and an AEW bird in support, along with a hunting license.
As an added bonus, we'd recoup some respect from the douches who'd challenge us at sea, and build a suitably ferocious bunch of junior officers capable of command of larger vessels and formations, not to mention get real-world target practice with weapons and systems on an ongoing basis. And let the guys in the Dixie-cup has "get some" without having to go to BUD/S.
Historically, that's precisely what pirates offered all navies from the Phoenicians onwards - a chance to sharpen their claws between real wars.
What a concept.
Aesop
Delete> There isn't going to be a "naval war" with a first-rate nuclear power like China.
Yes there will be, because China needs to and must fight this war to put a closing chapter on China's painful history with Japan and justify the communist party's rule of China. Chinese leaders believe that a negotiated settlement is not possible with Japan, and the only way to settle this long standing dispute once and for all is by establishing a pecking order by the outcome of a victorious naval war against Japan at the Diaoyu Islands. Only then the past historical wrongs committed against China will be undone and Japan will be obedient to China never challenging China again, much the same way how Japan became completely obedient to the US following the surrender and never questioned the US supremacy.
This is why Japanese government is increasing defense spending even in the face of a soaring debt, because they understand this Chinese mentality better than Americans do and that a Diaoyu war is a 100% inevitability for political reasons alone. Now, the US has two choices; it can choose to stand by Japan and fight the Chinese, or stay out and watch the US-Japan alliance deteriorate and witness China exert a greater influence on Japan, because of Japanese cultural tendency to offer an unconditional obedience to the strong party.
Oh, today(December 13th in China) is China's new national holiday, the Nanjing Massacre remembrance day.
You're not listening: we aren't going to war with a nuclear power.
DeleteNot. Happening. (And if it does, it'll be the first and last time either country goes to war.)
Which will lead to Japan electing, openly or covertly, to go nuclear in the 15 minutes it will take them to do so.
Once Japan and China both have nuclear weapons available, and a millennia-old grudge to fuel the match, what they'll do doesn't bear thinking about to people who want to sleep well at night.
Aesop
DeleteChina's objective is Japan, a non-nuclear power.
There have been plenty of territorial wars between a nuclear power and a non-nuclear power, and the use of nuclear weapons were never suggested. ie. US-Vietnam War, Vietnam-China War, India(then)-China War, US-Iraq War, Falklands War, US-Afghan War, Soviet-Afghan War, etc.
Oh, yes there was an actual territorial war between two nuclear powers, the Sino-Soviet War of 1969. Again no nuclear weapons used.
So yes, China will wage a conventional naval war to retake the Diaoyu Islands from Japan, with no implying of nuclear weapons use from either side; it will be strictly a conventional war.
That's just a plain wow. If one hasn't totally lost faith is the leadership then they will after this. It would appear at this point that the Navy is more interested in putting hulls in the water than getting the right ship.
ReplyDeleteFor a lot less money, this it the "hitting power" you get with an Iver Huitfeldt class frigate.
4 x VLS with up to 32 SM-2 IIIA surface-to-air missiles (Mk 41 VLS)
2 × VLS with up to 24 RIM-162 ESSM (Mk 56 VLS)
8-16 × Harpoon Block II SSM
2 × Oerlikon Millennium 35 mm Naval Revolver Gun System CIWS
1 x Otobreda 76 mm (mount is capable of a 5 inch/ 127mm gun)
2 × dual MU90 Impact ASW torpedo launchers
...and a range of 9,000 Nmiles. It doesn't sprint at 40 knots, but who cares. It's a hard hitter, not a drug boat chaser. The forward turrent mount can accept a naval 5 inch. Crew of 100, with room for 165. Mission modules space, etc, etc.
faith is lost. between Tommy Franks and his invasion plan of Iraq, Amos as Commandant and the other issues that have come our way, I'm convinced that we're seeing the worst leadership both civilian and uniformed of US armed forces in the history of our nation. before it was just one or two people that needed to be shit canned.
Deletetoday? we need to just nuke the entire pentagon and start over. unless things change we've already lost the current conflict and will lose the next major war .... and that's before its even started.
Sol, many times in history armies and nations have believed in their own supremacy only to be "ass kicked" by someone else who was craftier, hungrier, shiftier, etc.
ReplyDeletei could accept all this if it was just coming from civilian leaders but we're seeing it on the military side. too many lack the courage to call a spade a spade and a piece of shit a piece of shit. i once thought it was a lack of moral courage and the inability to handle the heat of stepping up and saying that the prince has no clothes but i think its something even more diabolical. arrogance, mixed with greed, mixed with just plain stupidity. arrogance because they refuse to admit that they were wrong, greed because they're making money off the program and will do anything to keep it going and finally plain stupid because if i can see these things so can others.
DeleteOne question, he cites 1 source for the article, but the Breaking defense article he cites does not list a lot of the specifics that he does, like the lack of VLS, the lack of upgrading the gun, engine, ect. Where is he getting those details from?
DeleteThat's because they are more concerned about their future corporate job or big money speech tours that they can make than they are being a good military leader and servant of the nation.
DeleteIt's all part of the narcissism society we now live in. One just has to look at a picture of Ike in uniform (with almost no medals) to see how much things have changed.
This is actually the Navy brass saying "F-U" to LCS critics: They actually changed even less than it appears they did. The Hellfires, , and the light cannon, were all part of the ASuW module, and the towed sonar and torpedo decoys part of the ASW modules. They basically just unpacked the modules and permanently installed them. The other upgrades are the sort of small incremental improvements every ship gets after a few years in production. They basically changed absolutely nothing. For pity's sake, they didn't even replace the 57mm...and the Navy said the 57mm wasn't good enough for the Zumwalt.
DeleteAnd some of the proposals by Lockheed were actually decent like a SPY-1F equipped, stretched version that actually had a 5" gun.
They don't even address which anti-ship missle....why? Because they haven't picked one. They talk about the NSM but haven't committed yet. Just take one of the sets of harpoons we are taking off decommissioned Perry class., they're paid for!
They could have at least added a second SeaRAM or CIWS. Or the couldn't because they went with the same overweight designs with turbines that are more useful as boat anchors.
And who puts on a towed sonar and doesn't give it torpedos? Is a helicopter supposed to do everything?
This is a Coast Guard Cutter...with hellfires. Actually when during the Reagan years, we had a class of coast guard cutters with 76mm, Harpoon missiles, CIWS, sonar, and torpedoes...so they are less well armed than a high endurance cutter 30 years ago. We are not serious about preparing for a real war anymore.
Yes and at 'only' 300mn each they would almost be decent coast guard cutters...... Not really that great for the price though is it... And it does have questionable design elements. If you took out all those cannons and the CWIS station out and replaced them with RIM-116, 2xOerlikon Millennium 35 mm, and a 76mm cannon slaved into an actual decent local-area 3d radar it would have quiet ridiculous CWIS capabilities.
Delete"Its job is to protect the sea base and high value naval units from swarming boats, hunt down and sink diesel submarines, and clear mines in littoral waters.”-- but it's sea-frame is only built to the Navy's level-1 standard (a fleet oiler, in comparison, is a non-combatant, yet is built to the level-2 standard).
ReplyDeleteThe Marine Corps should be raising a huge stink over this Little Crappy Ship because littorals = Marines. Which reminds me, has anyone heard from Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr. on anything important recently?
not a peep. i've been speculating that he's allowing the inertia from Amos' initiatives to run there course but if he waits too much longer they're going to gain a type of momentum that will be extremely hard to stop. i've gone so far as to set up an alert and to read MARADMINS everyday just to keep my ear to the ground but so far nothing. quite honestly i expected more and i'm becoming a bit alarmed at the lack of communication from his office.
DeleteYou mentioning the Marines reminds me: If they weren't going to at least arm it equal to a frigate, and were actually serious about the littorals then why isn't there some Naval gunfire support with this ship? Sure helfires are nice but a bit expensive for shelling the enemy. That 57mm isn't much better than the 25mm that is on just about every ship and boat in the Navy/CG. It has vibration problems that make the accuracy pathetic.
DeleteLockheed showed a Freedom class class variant with a 5'. In VIetnam the CG did some very effective fire support with the single 5" on the Owasco class cutter. They could get in close and shell hard. Since the Ludicrous Cornhole Stufferi is obviously NOT meant for real naval combat, and is just another COIN vehicle, then why not make it an honest to god Gunboat with a 5" on the bow, and load them with the new Volcano smart round for Precision kills 25 miles out or just saturate bad guys up close with normal shells. Instead of the 30mm with their short range, you could put in a semi-auto 120mm mortar system that could put a lot more hurt at a lot further range.
I swear, if I hear the words "swarm boat" one more time I'm going to projectile vomit. You can take them out with a 5", a 76mm, a 25mm, an ESSM, or if your'e that scared a million dollar SM-2 can even take one out. Crazy idea; you see bunch of small boats headed towards your Burke-class destroyer, then launch a chopper and have it fire hellfires or just strafe them with a .50. Even the Little Capgun Shooter should be able to take a hit from an RPG if one gets thru. If the enemy is mounting serious anti-ship weapons its not a swarm boat its a naval ship and the Lockheed Congressional Suckjob isn't equipped for those.
If we really want to intervene in every 3rd world murder hole, then we should remember one small thing: Gunboat diplomacy requires gunboats!
Deputy Dog Bob Work, for some odd reason, is a huge LCS supporter.
ReplyDeleteThe Naval War College, Jan 2013, released a working paper titled The Littoral Combat Ship: How We Got Here, and Why, by Robert O. Work.
comment by Galrahn at Information Dissemination:
"LCS - A History Lesson in Failed Execution
"....I was originally given this paper in October [2012] to read for feedback when Bob Work submitted it to the NWC for publication. My opinion has not changed. I appreciate the effort and the detailed research poured into this article, and I understand what the Undersecretary is trying to do, but in my opinion I think the article does what everyone always does when discussing the Littoral Combat Ship - it focuses on the mistakes of the past. Because the history of the Littoral Combat Ship is a lesson in what not to do, I personally no longer find anything in the history of the Littoral Combat Ship of any value because I look towards the future of the program, not the past. In my opinion the history of the program, as laid out in detail by Bob Work's latest paper, offers no justification for the stated future of the LCS program at 55 ships.
"If the Navy had any credibility left on the Littoral Combat Ship, and for the record I am not sure they do right now, it is my impression this paper erodes all remaining credibility of the Littoral Combat Ship into oblivion. While I know that is not what Bob Work was trying to do, I do believe the paper ultimately delivers the impression that the Navy has been lost at sea trying to execute the concept of this program from the beginning."
The problems is the Navy doesn't know what the fuck it wants to do: protect larger fleet vessels from boat swarms and unconventional attacks OR replace the OHP FFG-7 frigates.
ReplyDeleteSO it compromised and got a ship that does neither. It's too big AND expensive to take on boat swarms, but is too lightly armed and armored for frigate work.
For the money of an LCS, you can purchase an Iver Huitfeldt frigate AND a Visby-class corvette.
OR
Build a San Antonio class and have some Norwegian Skjold fast attack craft operating as mother ships.
OR
Build Absalon with CB90 boats.
There are so many better options than the crap LCS but we refuse to discipline the shoddy contractor work. The system is crooked.
Check this: http://newwars.wordpress.com/warship-costs/
"the Navy doesn't know what the fuck it wants to do"
Delete...Which reminds me of another failed system about which a Marine said: "It's just that we don't have our established role yet."(Osprey)
“If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there.”--Lewis Carroll
Check these out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victory-class_corvette
DeleteOwl pointed them out to me, very similar to the modifications I described for those Taiwan Missile boats. FYI that 76mm cannon is widely regarded as one of the best naval cannons, it has a very high firepower in terms of rounds and weight of munition per minute, is CIWS capable, can be modified to fire guided munitions (with a coaxially mounted radar, see Strales system), can fire Vulcano long-range munition and potentially be slaved into the 3d radar used for firing the local-area defence SAMs.
IMHO optimal Configuration for small-frigate/corvette:
*76mm OTO Melara cannon
*Rim-116 rear (21 missiles)
*CAMM (~25KM range) or similar actively-guided SAM
>Slaved to local 3d radar
*ASuW/ASW systems
*Air/sea drone bay
my curiosity about the gun, if a patrol boat hydrofoil (pegasus class) can mount a 76mm OTO melara cannon, why not the LCS ? they certainly can mount 2 of them front and rear.. better to have more gun against enemy "swarm" right ?
ReplyDeleteby "swarm" i assume they meant fending off low tech suicidal speed boat manned by some iranian martyr warrior ? what if the "swarm" is a combination of torpedo attacks, suicide boats, supersonic ASM ? with decoys and ECM/jamming from a sophisticated enemy ? or is it safe to assume that USN wont ever face such sophisticated enemy ever ?
i have a suspicion that iranian military is working on a stealth LO cruisemissile based on RQ170.. can the LCS AD defend against such things?
Single 76mm is very capable, Super-Rapid version can put out >700KG/minute of munitions downrange, and has a maximum range of 16KM (8KM Effective) for the basic munitions. It also has very high traverse speed, can do 90 degrees (horizontal) in 1.5seconds, and has a drum containing 85 ready rounds. Add that together and you have a recipe to take out a VERY large number of stupid suicide speed boats.
DeleteRemember the system requires room below for the large munition drum and support system, as well as the ability to add that much weight without seriously adversely effecting the ships stability or structural integrity. In the event of a war we should expect to see significant use of Aerial assets (awacs, sea-patrol planes, fighter planes) to screen the oncoming fleet, locate potential sources through detecting their radar emissions and utilising our own radar systems, and facilitate in their removal. Following and possibly during this phase you should expect too see significant use of Aerial assets over there territory before any major vessals (i.e. carriers) enter within range of a coastal missile battery.
By the time coalition vessals enter the littorals most of the military vessals should be eliminated, leaving only mines, civilian vessals and hidden missile batteries as the major ship threat.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_3-62_mk75.htm
FYI italian ships have multiple 76mm cannons.
People here already know that I'm a Singapore watcher and here's a pretty informative vid that shows a 76mm room below the gun. Just ignore the propaganda.
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExqOpgR-S3Q
One of the reasons I love watching the SAF, they are so desperate for recruitment that they sometimes let things out that others keep hidden just to generate interest in signing up.
doesn't Singapore have compulsory service?
DeleteYeah, but
Delete1) They want to get people going in so that the guys can specialize in what they want to do in the future without wasting the 2 years doing something else and
2) Compulsory is for 2 years + 1 month per year till retirement, sign on is every day till you retire.
BTW, Sol, Pitch Black 2014 just ended, lots of video for fighter fanboys to drool over, lots of awesome footage, go take a look!
DeleteThat is exactly what I mean, you have to fit the drum below deck, I know it's not that big but you still need to be able to fit it and have the weight budget left and the structural integrity there. And it is nice to have some extra ammo stowage to reload the gun as well. So you probably want to include these at the design phase not retrofit these onto existing ships.
DeleteJust compare the US LCS against a more conventional corvette:
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braunschweig-class_corvette
Less than 2,000 t displacement and no excessive speed for sure but a Otobreda 76 mm gun. The 2 MLG27 on board have a rate of fire starting from 1,000 and up to 1,700 rpm. Not quite cheap at €240 million.