Lil Crappy Ship 4 Terminated!

[Stuart]

The problem with that non-argument is that the ships, as they are, are pretty much worthless for anything. A boondoggle is a boondoggle is a boondoggle, whether it's a billion or 10 billion or 50 billion spent on the goddamned thing.

Patrick, this isn't the point Mark was addressing. Remember, I also regard the LCS as being a criminal waste of money but that wasn't the issue being raised. The primary concern was why LCS went from 300 to 4,000 tons.

It had nothing to do with providing more room for subcontractors. What happened was that the Navy finally got control of the project - previously it had been driven by a handful of fanatics, some supporters in the media and a group of gullible politicians. When the Navy got control of it, the first thing they did was lay down a series of specifications. They demanded range figures, payload, crew levels, sensor outfits etc etc etc. All of these are things that had to be defined before the ship could be designed.

What Mark showed you - very well if I may say so - was how unrealistic it was to fit those specifications into the originally-proposed hull. It wasn't that the ship grew per se, it was that the Streetfighter supporters had dramatically understated the size of vessel needed to support the claims they were making. Put another way, LCS didn't grow from 300 tons to 4,000, it was always a 4,000 ton ship, it was just that Cebrowski-Wayne et al knocked a zero of the displacement for public consumption.

That doesn't change the fact that the thing is a boondoggle, but it does tell us that there were sound design reasons for the apparent growth in ship size. Mark gave you one very good, well-argued example of that.

By the way, another thing that went wrong with LCS was that the Lockheed Martin proposal used a composite hull to save weight. I told them that was a bad idea but they wouldn't listen. Then a Norwegian minehunter, the Orkla, caught fire and burned out. In eight minutes (eight!!!) she went from an intact ship to a sinking hulk. When the wreck was examined, it was shown that the composite hull was delaminating and that all the other members of the class had the same problem. L-M were given a choice, build the ship out of steel or forget we gave you a contract. That pushed the displacement up by over 750 tons alone and the cost ramped skywards.

[Stuart]

And, Stuart, because I'm curious - how did Hughes and Cebrowski justify the conclusion that any ship taking an anti-ship missile hit would be sunk (assuming they actually tried to justify it in the first place)?

They simply stipulated that all future naval conflicts would use nuclear weapons. Remember their thought process, they started out with the results they wanted and then worked backwards to give the assumptions they needed to produce that result.

A guy called Paul Van Riper did the same thing with an amphib exercise a little before OIS. He decided what results he wanted, and then started unauthorized additions to his force levels until he produced those results. Very much a Cebrowski in mind-set he was also very astute in playing the media game (as Cebrowski was) and managed to make sure his account got out

[DavidEC]

Is it really essential to have a helicopter? The LCS won't be fighting submarines and its very definition calls for short-range, highly adept combat in a potentially hostile environment with AAA and missiles flying about. I imagine adding a helipad and hangar to the back of the ship takes up a good 100 feet of length, and needs extra crew to boot. How about lightening and automating the Arleigh Burke design (e.g. with a smaller cheaper, single rotating AESA, one VLS, no helo capability) and using that instead?

[Stuart]

Is it really essential to have a helicopter? The LCS won't be fighting submarines and its very definition calls for short-range, highly adept combat in a potentially hostile environment with AAA and missiles flying about. I imagine adding a helipad and hangar to the back of the ship takes up a good 100 feet of length, and needs extra crew to boot. How about lightening and automating the Arleigh Burke design (e.g. with a smaller cheaper, single rotating AESA, one VLS, no helo capability) and using that instead?

Very much so (although I'd modify "helicopter" by including unmanned airborne vehicles). On warships, the shipboard helicopter is about the hardest-worked piece of equipment on the ship (other than the heads). It isn't just used for ASW, it's also used for mine clearance, troop transort, boarding operations, special forces work, routine movements, land attack, over-the-horizon targeting (especially important for LCS that doesn't have a decent sensor system) and electronic warfare.

The problem with cutting down a Burke is that at any level, the loss of capability is much greater than the savings in cash. Look at it this way, the last 10 percent of capability costs a disproportionate amount of money; we made that saving when we went from CG-47 to DDG-51. Now e're at the point where small saving cut very important things. We've already looked at losing the helicopter capability on the Flight IIA Burkes (Flight I Burkes don't have a helicopter); so we can see what we can save by deleting said helo capacity. The answer is about US$10 million. In fact, the idea of getting rid of the Flight Is and replacing them with extra Flight IIAs is very attractive. Lot of extra capability for very little money

[DavidEC]

I got schooled there, but then wouldn't it be better to have dedicated helicopter carriers for economies of scale? The Iwo Jima series apparently carries 20 helos per ship, that's a helo for every 1,000 tons of displacement roughly; an LCS would carry one per 4,000 ton displacement, and that's not even counting the different types the larger ship. In addition, Iwo Jima is presumably a larger, slower and therefore probably safer platform for helos. I don't think LCS is not going to be backed up by heavier forces a few miles offshore in any case. How would you land a helo on a hard-manoeuvering 40-knot speedboat in a hostile littoral environment anyway?

[Stuart]

I got schooled there, but then wouldn't it be better to have dedicated helicopter carriers for economies of scale? The Iwo Jima series apparently carries 20 helos per ship, that's a helo for every 1,000 tons of displacement roughly; an LCS would carry one per 4,000 ton displacement, and that's not even counting the different types the larger ship. In addition, Iwo Jima is presumably a larger, slower and therefore probably safer platform for helos. I don't think LCS is not going to be backed up by heavier forces a few miles offshore in any case. How would you land a helo on a hard-manoeuvering 40-knot speedboat in a hostile littoral environment anyway?

This is a complicated question; on one side of the ledger, you're quite right, economy of scale suggests that a large helicopter carrier offers significant advantages over smaller ships. This is the approach adopted by the Japanese Navy with their new DDH, the Hyuga. The Thai Navy adopted a similar logic with their helicopter carrier, the Chakkrinareubet. There, the idea was to provide maritime law enforcement helicopter cover out of range of land bases. The requirement was to have two helos airborne at all times, working backwards that gave a group of around ten birds.

On the other hand, the problem with the larger dedicated helicopter carrier is that it isn't always there when its needed; the shipboard helicopter is a hard-worked piece of kit and the ships can't always rely on having a helo carrier in support. The only helo a destroyer can rely on is the one it carried itself, so there's a good case for that as well.

You're quite right on the safety aspects, trying to bring a helo in on an LCS doing 40 knots is an interesting thing to contemplate. That's one reason why I think that the whole LCS program is fundamentally misconceived; many of the things the ship is supposed to do can't be done at 40+ knots.

Another problem (just to add to the general air of gloom and despondancy) is that LCS is supposed to work within a network of sensors and can thus economize on the on-ship sensors (note that the provision of the sensor net is not included in the cost of the LCS itself). That sensor net is a horrible glaring weakness that nobody dares mention. The whole point about net-centric warfare is supposed to be finding the enemy center of mass and eliminating it. Well, that sensor net is LCS's center of mass, take it out and the ships are virtually defenseless (and to make it worse, we've been there before).

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

By the way, another thing that went wrong with LCS was that the Lockheed Martin proposal used a composite hull to save weight. I told them that was a bad idea but they wouldn't listen. Then a Norwegian minehunter, the Orkla, caught fire and burned out. In eight minutes (eight!!!) she went from an intact ship to a sinking hulk. When the wreck was examined, it was shown that the composite hull was delaminating and that all the other members of the class had the same problem. L-M were given a choice, build the ship out of steel or forget we gave you a contract. That pushed the displacement up by over 750 tons alone and the cost ramped skywards.

Didn't the same damn thing happen with the new Coast boats that turned into useless hulks because they couldn't handle the stresses of speed?

[DavidEC]

On the other hand, the problem with the larger dedicated helicopter carrier is that it isn't always there when its needed; the shipboard helicopter is a hard-worked piece of kit and the ships can't always rely on having a helo carrier in support. The only helo a destroyer can rely on is the one it carried itself, so there's a good case for that as well.

This should really be a problem for every navy except the US. The Italian, Spanish and Thai navies are f-ed in that regard because they only have one helo carrier; the US has seven Iwo Jimas, seven Wasps and three Tarawas. The latter can of course carry even helos than the Iwo Jimas although admittedly they'd also be tied up with Harriers.

Anyway, I find it very unlikely that the US would be so tied up that at least one or two of those seventeen ships would not be able to support the LCSs. One of them would provide the helos of twenty LCSs, or at least under ideal conditions. If the US could deploy something like six Nimitzes for the Iraq War, I'm sure at least a few helo carriers would be deployed - in fact, littoral combat is probably likely to coincide with amphibious operations, so helo carriers and amphibious assault ships are likely to be nearby anyway. In any case, scrapping the helo capability and generally simplifying LCS would free up funds for more helo carriers.

[DavidEC]

Sorry I'm getting mixed up with helo carriers and aircraft carriers; I'll refresh my memory right now with a perusal of the information for each navy.

[Stuart]

the US has seven Iwo Jimas, seven Wasps and three Tarawas. The latter can of course carry even helos than the Iwo Jimas although admittedly they'd also be tied up with Harriers.

The Iwo Jimas are long gone; you've probably shaved with what's left of one.

Anyway, I find it very unlikely that the US would be so tied up that at least one or two of those seventeen ships would not be able to support the LCSs. One of them would provide the helos of twenty LCSs, or at least under ideal conditions. If the US could deploy something like six Nimitzes for the Iraq War, I'm sure at least a few helo carriers would be deployed - in fact, littoral combat is probably likely to coincide with amphibious operations, so helo carriers and amphibious assault ships are likely to be nearby anyway. In any case, scrapping the helo capability and generally simplifying LCS would free up funds for more helo carriers.

What about the ships that are depoyed singly or on remote detachement; if anything they need a helo more than one that's part of a task group. Also, in many cases, when a ship needs a helo, it needs it NOW. If you're depending on another ship, then the answer to "get a helo up" is likely to be "with you in 30 minutes."

The problem with your argument is that providinga helicopter deck and hangar is fairly inexpensive, its just structural steel, the cheapest part of the ship. Remember, steel is cheap and the air inside it is free. We can't simplify LCS much more than its been simplified already. We could give it oars instead of gas turbines I suppose, or perhaps sails but that's what we're down to. The problem with LCS is that its too simple already, it can scoot around very fast but that's pretty much all.

[DavidEC]

I'll quit while I'm ahead... or behind.

[Beowulf]

By the way, another thing that went wrong with LCS was that the Lockheed Martin proposal used a composite hull to save weight. I told them that was a bad idea but they wouldn't listen. Then a Norwegian minehunter, the Orkla, caught fire and burned out. In eight minutes (eight!!!) she went from an intact ship to a sinking hulk. When the wreck was examined, it was shown that the composite hull was delaminating and that all the other members of the class had the same problem. L-M were given a choice, build the ship out of steel or forget we gave you a contract. That pushed the displacement up by over 750 tons alone and the cost ramped skywards.

Didn't the same damn thing happen with the new Coast boats that turned into useless hulks because they couldn't handle the stresses of speed?

Weren't exactly new. They stretched existing boats to be able to fit certain things in. Problem is, they didn't reinforce them well enough.