Lee sent me this evaluation of the LCS-2 that I wanted to share. Seems as if he shares my initial impressions. The LCS-2, despite its limitations, has the potential to be much more than the sum of its parts.
If the USMC can develop mission modules designed for Infantry Companies with an eye toward mini-MEU capabilities then the idea of dispersed operations at sea become a reality.
The idea of Company Landing Teams via the LCS is nothing short of brilliant.
But before I get ahead of myself here's his review.
Well gents I got onboard the second LCS on Friday 26 Feb. The an officer new to the ship (Blue/Gold crewing) led
the group, he did not have all the type experience which the other crew
had. I tagged along with a group of medical type sailors from local
shore commands. The contractors were weight testing the after gantry
aka twin boom lift system so I did not get to ask much about it. Did
not get into ICC2 which is the enclosed CIC space. Did not get into
engineroom not offered. Was NOT allowed to photograph the flight deck
because Fire Scout UAV was on it? I will start from bow and go aft
These are my deckplate impressions. I will go into programmatic and
operational matters SEPCOR.
The
first and overlying observation is the LCS-2 is MUCH larger than LCS-2
(which I got on last year). All the working spaces, passageways,
ladders, overheads – everything is bigger. While the interior layout
amazed some sailors in the tour group,
it seemed conventional for some used to civilian crewed T-ships.
Flight deck is huge by comparison to Perry and wider than DDGs. See the
deck problem below. Here are my other observations
The
height above water of the Mk110 gun is notable especially when compared
to Burke DDG that the Independence was bow on to. I would also assume
that it keeps the mount somewhat drier from seas? The soft patch on
foredeck behind the gun is big. I was told that there is a large space
under it. The new missile system could certainly be changed out for
something bigger? (Topic of any earlier discussion).
The
view from the bridge is exceptional (about a 280 deg view), but there
are NO bridge wings. There are many cameras installed onboard for both internal and external viewing with
large displays in several positions on the bridge. There are two
roll-down windows to look out for during UNREPs (sort of like hanging
out a truck’s window while driving?~). There is a removable pilot
platform which apparently is disliked?
The bridge is laid out well, but smaller than the T-AGS60 class which I spent a lot of time on. On the aft part of the bridge is ICC-1 which is essentially a mini-CIC cordoned off only by a black-out curtain. There are 3 “operator seats” tight together on the bridge centerline with a chartable
(no full paper portfolio onboard just harbor charts) to port and the
CO’s chair to stbd with large display panels in front of all chairs.
Ship has no conventional helm being steered by joystick. While there
were peloruses on the bridge, apparently traditional fixes were only
done as backup? Windows had rounded corners and were deep set in
structural frames. Engineroom monitoring is done by the Readiness
officer seated to left of Conning officer. Then engineroom is unmanned
with two roving patrols and full monitoring on the bridge.
Tour
went down to centerline passageway which doubled as cafeteria food
line. Wardroom, CPO and crews mess rooms were along it. Hospital aka
sickbay also there was aft. Staterooms had bunks for 74 (crew + air det + 1 mission team) and were installed 1, 2 or 4 person arrangements depending on rank/rate. We were told that the ship bunks had not filled up during normal operations to date, but when more than one mission module was onboard a habitability module would be added on the mission deck.
Can
you believe that everyone onboard has to bus and clean their own
dishes? While this may be egalitarian, it certainly seems like a poor
use of rather limited manpower. The galley crew was small. I spoke with the LPO and it would appear the galley arrangement, crewing and messing are, once again, similar to T-AGS 60 Pathfinders
(which has only two mess rooms and stewards to serve/cleanup). I would
suggest that someone go over and look at how an MSC ship operates for a
better food service arrangement. This is even more important since the
galley staff is small and must be augmented by crewmembers at times
since the cooks are assigned extras duties outside foodservice. This is partially because there are NO E-4 or below in the crew.
The hangar and mission deck (in fact most interior surfaces) have some form of metal foil wrapping & insulation on them. It everywhere!
The hangar has room for two H-60s. Apparently they have only operated
one aircraft at a time so far. Hopefully the Navy will test for both
H60 and two Fire Scouts which would be a really effective “fire team”.
The Fire Scout reps onboard said that the UAV had been operated out to
about 110 nmi from ship and currently flys for over 6 hrs, but when test
gear is removed and a new model enters service (in a year!?) flight
time could be up to 8 hours. One UAV had a 6 person test team. They thought that 2 UAVs could be operated by 6 buy that is TBD.
Now comes the weird parts. While the Fire Scout was landed on a large landing platform about 10 ft square~ that apparently is used for shipment and securing purposes. BUT the flight deck itself was NOT rated for H-53s?! On a ship whose dry goods/provisions are expected to delivered by VERTREP, and where other
cargo like mission modules may be larger than an H60 capacity, why in
the world should that big deck be so restricted? It also means that
support of large USMC lifts may not be feasible. A bad design decision which needs to be corrected. (subsequent discussions have indicated that the deck can be strengthened to accept an MH-53)
That
leads me to another design flaw which I think is unacceptable. There
is an elevator from the hangar (stbd side long.) deck to the mission
deck which is NOT capable of lifting
anything over 6000 lbs. The elevator is about the dimension of a TEU
container. Why in the world the ship is so restricted from moving
cargo/gear between main deck and mission deck is beyond me? So in essence nothing large/heavy can be landed and lowered below or vice versa? Again a dumb design and certainly part of this “box” which needs correction. A shipalt should be considered (if any changes are being allowed)?
Dropping
down to the mission deck. A couple of features stand out. First there
are three longitudinal “bays” for modules with structural columns
in-between. This is a typical configuration of Austal HSVs. There is a straddle loader for moving containers and boats etc around the deck. A rather large piece of MHE, but seemingly flexible.
I could not get to see how the containers onboard were secured, but
both ISO sockets and raised D-rings were installed in the mission deck.
The overhead gantry, aka twin boom lift system, was well into the overhead on the overhead aft to midships. The officer said that boats
could be launched at 5 to 8 knots easily, but he had not launched more
than one type boat. The ship had a Navy Standard 11 meter RHIB onboard
for utility and testing support. This ship needs to be tested with a
full boat det onboard to prove capacity for boats, spares and crews.
Operating one boat is a bare minimum capability. NECC/NSW unit support
should be anticipated. There was a rescue boat outside the skin to port launched by at SLAD.
The sideport ramp is very substantial and can support a full ISO 20
ft container on a forklift truck. I would say the mission deck is a
vast improvement over the LCS-1 design (which was rusted from water
intrusion and had an inoperable smaller ramp).
From an operational viewpoint, the ship was a little hard to judge. The tour time did not allow for more discussions about weapons or sensors. I was told there was relatively new ROC/POE, but the CONOPS was several years old. The lack of installed weapons was obvious. One medium caliber gun and SeaRam plus small arms. There
was a comment that these ships are “not expected to conduct offensive
operations like a conventional warship”. The comment was amazing, but
since there was a tour group, I did not press the point.
The
two 30mm guns were not expected until later as that was a different
mission?! To date the ship had been used/tested for one mission at a
time and that was mainly MIW. It would appear that while an air det (composition?) was expected as SOP, ALL other mission modules
were on a one at a time only basis? This may be testing peculiarity?
I submit that an air det (1 H60 + 2 UAV) and SUW mission module should
be minimum for most operations,
but of course that is debatable. OT&E was still going on, final
trials and PSA had not been completed. I did not discuss engine
problems. The ship is reportedly very maneuverable inport.
I obviously could have gone back to discuss more topics, but the crew was busy preparing for u/w ops next week. Some other info noted: The whole crew is cross trained, seems like every sailor had a collateral duty? I did not discuss DC/FF.
Survivability was not discussed. There are lots more details that need
to be looked at and the final OT&E report should be scrutinized for
problems.
The ship is big, it has potential, I am very skeptical of its naval warfare capabilities especially in the dangerous green waters
For now, I think the characterization some have used before is applicable:
LCS-2 has potential but for now it is a sub-optimal platform.
It must be improved up front. BUTI suspect the Navy has cut a no
change order deal for the dual buy, so improvements won’t be seen for
years to come??
Lee
