Lil Crappy Ship 4 Terminated!

[Omega18]

It doesn’t have destroyer sized guns, or torpedoes, and its only missiles are tiny. It goes fast and that’s about all it does. The only way it has any capability to do anything remotely useful at all, except sink as a block ship, is through ‘mission modules’ which are incredibly impractical and unrealistic to swap out.

I'd argue that they will spend most of their times with the ASW modules anyways with the exception of some with the minehunting module.

One thing all of them can do with any module is effectively serve in antipiracy patrols along with stopping ships from smuggling arms or other materials illegally (I.E. from North Korea) as long as you don't expect serious military intervention from a country involved with the matter when you stop the ship. A 57mm gun along with its other armament is quite sufficient for this sort of role.

The reality is using an Arleigh Burke Destroyer for this role is gross overkill, and it really makes sense to have something close to LCS sized available. Something frigate sized can also be effective in an ASW role, which is where the US should really be focusing regardless. (The LCS does have RAM for protection, and in a wartime scenario could stay close enough to get additional protection from an Aegis Destroyer or Cruiser with its SM-2 Missiles.)

I'd say the only question at this point is whether it makes more sense to go forward with at least one of the LCS designs which already have most of the design costs expended, or whether its necessary to start from scratch with a new frigate design. It should be noted that the current US plan is simply to see how the first two work out before deciding on which design to work with any whether any other modifications to the construction plan need to be worked out, not to cancel the program.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Omega18
Given that the LCS is already of similar tonnage to the some of the lighter frigates, the LCS is a frigate in every sense. The only question is what role they are meant to take and what weapons and equipment it ought to take.

I think whoever thought out the ship must have been dreaming of Nebula class ships in Star Trek. Not least, the idea of a modular design is ridiculous. Imagine having the fit out tens of ships just for some mission. Not only is it expensive and time consuming, such designs undoubtedly compromise on seakeeping and comforts etc. in the bit to squeeze as much as possible into the hull.

[Stuart]

Hang on; why do these people need a fleet of super-fast boats?

I have been asking that question (at a variety of high levels) for ten years and I have never, repeat never, had a sensible answer. The nearest I have had was (from one female U.S. Navy officer) was that standing on the bridge wings at 60 knots would help dry her hair after a shower.

In the LCS program, the need for speed is a demonstrated end in itself. You're not supposed to ask why.

[Stuart]

One thing all of them can do with any module is effectively serve in antipiracy patrols along with stopping ships from smuggling arms or other materials illegally (I.E. from North Korea) as long as you don't expect serious military intervention from a country involved with the matter when you stop the ship. A 57mm gun along with its other armament is quite sufficient for this sort of role.

The best ship for anti-piracy is a converted trawler with, as you say, a 57mm plus a couple of machine guns. Long endurance, cheap and seaworthy. We don't need a glorified speedboat for this role.

I'd say the only question at this point is whether it makes more sense to go forward with at least one of the LCS designs which already have most of the design costs expended, or whether its necessary to start from scratch with a new frigate design. It should be noted that the current US plan is simply to see how the first two work out before deciding on which design to work with any whether any other modifications to the construction plan need to be worked out, not to cancel the program.

But the U.S. Navy doesn't need frigates to start with. The roles it could use a frigate for can be done better and less expensively by something else (eg a Coast Guard Cutter).

Let's do this logically; what are your defined mission roles for a frigate?

[Sea Skimmer]

I'd argue that they will spend most of their times with the ASW modules anyways with the exception of some with the minehunting module.

I’m willing to bet the USN wont even buy enough mission modules to give every ship one, let alone have any slack for swapping. I’d also bet the first several LCS, assuming more are built, hopefully that will not be the case, will be perpetually kept in US home waters to’ develop tactics’ or similar non combat jobs.

One thing all of them can do with any module is effectively serve in antipiracy patrols along with stopping ships from smuggling arms or other materials illegally (I.E. from North Korea) as long as you don't expect serious military intervention from a country involved with the matter when you stop the ship. A 57mm gun along with its other armament is quite sufficient for this sort of role.

If we wanted a ship to do that job we could have an awful lot more space and endurance for the near 400 million dollar price.

The reality is using an Arleigh Burke Destroyer for this role is gross overkill, and it really makes sense to have something close to LCS sized available. Something frigate sized can also be effective in an ASW role, which is where the US should really be focusing regardless. (The LCS does have RAM for protection, and in a wartime scenario could stay close enough to get additional protection from an Aegis Destroyer or Cruiser with its SM-2 Missiles.)

I don’t think a Burk is overkill for anything actually, its just what we should build, because combatants with no land attack capability or even a semblance of area air defense at all are just not useful. We do not need to build ships to defend against freaking pirates, in our home waters we have the Coast Guard for that and overseas it’s a multinational problem.

But if we really do want those extra numbers vs. 950 million dollar Burkes, then for about 600 million dollars each Norway recently bought four Nansen Class frigates of about 5,600 tons. The things have AEGIS with SPY-1F radars, and a 32 silo Mk41 VLS that can fire everything a Burke can. They also have torpedoes, SSMs and 76mm gun making them a well rounded multi role warship. The only downside is they are slow, but this wont matter for a reason Ill list later, and only carry one aircraft.

LCS costs over 400 million plus the cost of the mission module. The cost of the fifth and sixth units has been ‘capped’ at 460 million. So for the cost of a pair of Nansen’s you would get three LCS without mission modules. The only advantage LCS would have is operating more aircraft, but for the cost of several LCS you could also get an acraft carrier with F-35s. Even the big 40,000 ton Wasp class amphibious assault ships cost us only about 800 million right now; and could carry 40 aircraft including AV-8 or F-35 jet fighters. The Wasp class isn’t too fast, 24knts or so, totally opposite of LCS but this fits with the Nansen which is listed as being 26+ knts.

So here’s the match up, on one side we have five LCS ships each with two SH-60s. On the other side we have two Nansens each with an SH-60, escorting a Wasp with say a half squadron of F-35s, a squadron of SH-60s some CH-53 transport helos.

The Wasp also has a well deck which can hold a pair of LCACs or minehunting robots, plus an onboard hospital and a big hold full of military and humanitarian supplies. Potentially it can also carry the better part of a marine battalion with tanks and amtracks, but a platoon or company of troops is more like what it needs for a littoral sea control mission.

The LCS cost 400 million x 5 for 2 billion, the two Nansens and a Wasp would be 600 million x 2 plus 8 million x 1 for a total of 2 billion. The aircraft on the Wasp cost more, but that’s balanced by the uncounted cost of mission modulus and the simple fact that it would be worth paying more to have that kind of capability around.

I sure know which force I’d rather have in any scenario.

[Sidewinder]

It all started off with a guy called Wayne Hughes who proposed what he called "rebalancing" of the fleet, essentially replacing our existing force of combatants with a larger number of small craft.

When I looked up that name in Wikipedia, I got a Pentecostal minister. Who's the Wayne Hughes you're talking about? A defense contractor?

Esentially he was proposing the sort of FAC-M fleet that had already been discredited in the past.

What's FAC-M?

[Black Admiral]

What's FAC-M?

Fast Attack Craft - Missile, I believe. Sort of a missile-armed version of a Motor Torpedo Boat.

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)?

[The Yosemite Bear]

What's FAC-M?

Fast Attack Craft - Missile, I believe. Sort of a missile-armed version of a Motor Torpedo Boat.

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)?

proably combinedd Harpoon with the Arduin Crit system.

[layman]

It all started off with a guy called Wayne Hughes who proposed what he called "rebalancing" of the fleet, essentially replacing our existing force of combatants with a larger number of small craft.

When I looked up that name in Wikipedia, I got a Pentecostal minister. Who's the Wayne Hughes you're talking about? A defense contractor?
quote]

This guy,
http://research.nps.navy.mil/cgi-bin/vi ... 1023567605
who wrote this book.
http://www.amazon.com/Fleet-Tactics-Coa ... 1557503923

Hopefully Stuart would give a critique of what other concepts are wrong in that book.

[Pu-239]

How useful are these compared to LCS? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegasus_class_hydrofoil

[DavidEC]

They're oddly armed. No anti-air armament, but they're supposed to take on real warships? Maybe it's because they're so fast they rush ahead of the big boys, like kids on sugar ahead of their parents, so they need Harpoons. The 76mm is nice though.

[Sidewinder]

How useful are these compared to LCS? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegasus_class_hydrofoil

The PHM is even more useless than the LCS-- at least that thing is big enough to ferry helicopters. As for range and endurance-- the biggest weaknesses of the LCS-- I doubt ships that small can contribute much to fleet actions.

[Patrick Degan]

Naturally —to accomodate more subcontractors.

Oh please.

It didn't quadruple in size to accomodate the EEEVIL Military Industrial complex™.

It quadrupled in size because it was the only way of actually coming somewhat near accomplishing the contradictory goals set forth by the Navy:

1.) It must be fast.
2.) It must have a sorta decent range.
3.) It must be armed with something more powerful than a machine gun.
4.) It must be capable of supporting a helicopter.

etc

And this defeats the observation... how, exactly?

[MKSheppard]

They actually do make sense in two specific conditions:

Riverine Warfare - that is, actually going up rivers to control the Riverine lanes of communication and supply.

Barge Busting - The enemy is using lots of really small craft or lighters to maintain supply routes in an island area of operations. While it might actually be cheaper and more efficienct to use LCIs or LCLs armed with various guns to bust barges; they need decent steel to carry things; while you can build small speedboats out of non strategic materials like wood or fiberglass.

[MKSheppard]

And this defeats the observation... how, exactly?

Your observation was that the reason LCS quadrupled in size was to accomodate more subcontractors - ie, more military pork barrelling.

May I suggest you do some research?

Obviously something capable of reaching 40+ knots and yet being heavily armed, etc is going to have to be gas turbine powered; for simple reasons of weight. It takes about oh, 49,000~ or so HP to get a 600~ ton ship with dimensions about 25% bigger than the Asheville PGs: (206 x 30 x 11.8 ft) up to 40 knots, and 84,000 SHP to get it up to 45 kts.

Now, you might say that these HP requirements are for a traditional displacement hull, and not for a high speed planing hull. One of the early design proposals for LCS put forth was for a really really BIG planing hull type of warship; which was based off a 1980s UK design. Unfortunately, the UK design was a deliberate fraud. Stuart will be able to tell you more about this.

So suffice to say, we can't do a planing hull, so we need 49-84k SHP. (actually 100k SHP due to 20% margin needed).

Because this is a USN ship, we can't just get around with one really big engine, because of battle damage requirements; so we need to have two engines; each with a rated power of about 50,000 SHP.

Something that meets our requirement is the GE LM6000 Marine Gas Turbine Link to it.

Since we need to have a 1000 nm range at 40 knots, that comes down to 25 hours of full power. We know from that page that the SFC is 0.329 lb/per shp-hour.

So 100,000 SHP * 25 hours = 2,500,000 shp-hours. At 0.329 lb/shp-hr SFC; that means....822,500 lbs, or 411.25 tons of fuel will be needed.

So what this means is that the original spec for LCS is going to need to be 68% fuel by weight to meet the goals for hi speed running. You can reduce the SHP needed by lengthening the hull to get a higher hull speed; but this adds more tonnage, etc; and then add in the demands for a armament, supporting a helicopter, etc; and you can see easily how a 500-600 ton boat quadrupled in size to a 2,500 ton frigate before it was acceptable to the US Navy's General Board Specifications.

[Patrick Degan]

Sure, two specific conditions. Which is why it makes more sense to develop two specific types of vessel to deal with those instead of trying to compromise several incompatible mission goals into a too-small hull. The only reason a project this half-assed gets approved is because the Congresscritters who vote for it are swinging pork for their districts (and the contractors therein) or are scared of looking "anti-defence" to vote against it.

[Patrick Degan]

And this defeats the observation... how, exactly?

Your observation was that the reason LCS quadrupled in size was to accomodate more subcontractors - ie, more military pork barrelling.

May I suggest you do some research?

Obviously something capable of reaching 40+ knots and yet being heavily armed, etc is going to have to be gas turbine powered; for simple reasons of weight. It takes about oh, 49,000~ or so HP to get a 600~ ton ship with dimensions about 25% bigger than the Asheville PGs: (206 x 30 x 11.8 ft) up to 40 knots, and 84,000 SHP to get it up to 45 kts.

Now, you might say that these HP requirements are for a traditional displacement hull, and not for a high speed planing hull. One of the early design proposals for LCS put forth was for a really really BIG planing hull type of warship; which was based off a 1980s UK design. Unfortunately, the UK design was a deliberate fraud. Stuart will be able to tell you more about this.

So suffice to say, we can't do a planing hull, so we need 49-84k SHP. (actually 100k SHP due to 20% margin needed).

Because this is a USN ship, we can't just get around with one really big engine, because of battle damage requirements; so we need to have two engines; each with a rated power of about 50,000 SHP.

Something that meets our requirement is the GE LM6000 Marine Gas Turbine Link to it.

Since we need to have a 1000 nm range at 40 knots, that comes down to 25 hours of full power. We know from that page that the SFC is 0.329 lb/per shp-hour.

So 100,000 SHP * 25 hours = 2,500,000 shp-hours. At 0.329 lb/shp-hr SFC; that means....822,500 lbs, or 411.25 tons of fuel will be needed.

So what this means is that the original spec for LCS is going to need to be 68% fuel by weight to meet the goals for hi speed running. You can reduce the SHP needed by lengthening the hull to get a higher hull speed; but this adds more tonnage, etc; and then add in the demands for a armament, supporting a helicopter, etc; and you can see easily how a 500-600 ton boat quadrupled in size to a 2,500 ton frigate before it was acceptable to the US Navy's General Board Specifications.

So instead of actually thinking through why approving this half-assed project was a bad idea from the jump for any reason other than pork-barreling, you instead give a laundry-list in place of a reasoned argument.

Down to your usual standard, in other words.

[MKSheppard]

Down to your usual standard, in other words.

No, you're up to your usual standards. I lay out the reasons why LCS ballooned in size, due to the limitations of reality™, rather than evil contractor pork barrelling™ and you dismiss them without a thought.

LCS is still money worth well spent, as having two multi-billion dollar Frigates which will spend their time doing trials before being laid up is still massively better than having 50+ multibillion dollar boondoggles of speedboats that are so dangerous to their crews in combat that they're equipped with ejection seats, and are totally worthless for anything.

There's a reason LCS is also referred to as "Lets Crucify Streetfighter" and "Lynch Cebrowski Slowly".

[Patrick Degan]

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.

[Julhelm]

To me, LCS really looks like the US trying to build a Visby- or Göteborg-type corvette and failing at it.

[Sidewinder]

Just found some info on this POS ship the Navy is using as a testbed for the LCS.

Sea Fighter is an experimental littoral combat ship under development by the United States Navy. Its hull is of a SWATH design, providing exceptional stability, even in high seas. The ship can operate in both blue and littoral waters. For power, it can use either its dual gas turbine engines for speed or its dual diesel engines for efficient cruising. It can be easily reconfigured through the use of interchangeable mission modules.[2] Helicopters can land and launch on its deck. Smaller water craft can be carried and launched from its stern. The vessel is being developed under the program title Littoral Surface Craft-Experimental (LSC(X)) with a hull type designation Fast Sea Frame. The first vessel has been assigned the hull classification symbol FSF 1[1] and also has been referred to as the X-Craft.

Description
Sea Fighter's hull is of a SWATH design, constructed out of aluminum. The SWATH design gives Sea Fighter exceptional stability, even in high seas. This is accomplished by placing most of the ship's displacement below the level of the waves (like a submarine) where all the kinetic energy of the sea surface is located. Conversely, ships with traditional hull designs have most of their displacement in the wave level of the sea, causing them rock and roll in the waves.

With twin gas turbine engines, twin water jets, and a streamlined hull, Sea Fighter is capable of speeds of 50 knots (90 km/h) and greater. It is designed to be a sea frame that can carry interchangeable mission modules resembling shipping containers. These modules allow it to be easily reconfigured to meet a variety of mission requirements, including mine warfare, anti-submarine operations, amphibious assault support, surface warfare, transport and logistical missions, cruise missile launch, and special forces interdiction operations. The mission modules are easily loaded and stored on Sea Fighter’s inner deck.

The vessel has the capability of launching small craft up to 11 m in length from the stern, including assault craft and submersibles. The vessel also has a twin-pad helicopter deck capable of operating aircraft up to the size of an H-60 type, including unmanned aerial vehicles, and landing helicopters while traveling at speeds of up to 50 knots (90 km/h). A special deck lighting system has been developed for Sea Fighter using low intensity green lighting around the vessels edges and heilopads. This lighting is particularly effective when using night vision goggles, making landings on the vessel easier than on conventional warships, even at the higher speeds in which Sea Fighter operates.

The basic design has a displacement of 1,100 tons while measuring 73 m long and 22 m broad. Power is provided by a CODOG arrangement comprising two MTU 595 diesel engines and two LM2500 gas turbines. Diesel power is used for cruise while the turbines provide high power output for high speed operation. The two gas turbines power the vessels twin water jets, drawing water from the bottom stern of each hull and powering it through large water turbines, which are responsible for the vessel's remarkable speed. Each water jet has thrust vectoring and thrust reversers making it possible for Sea Fighter to move sideways while docking, or even traveling in reverse. Thrust vectoring also makes it possible for Sea Fighter to make dramatic evasive maneuvers while traveling at high speed. This would prevent the craft from being forced to shore or into the path of enemy vessels.

"Sea Fighter's" forward superstructure consists of a bridge on the lower deck, and a flight operations station on top. The bridge is relatively small, and generally manned by a crew of three. The bridge control stations incorporate glass displays using the latest in navigational aids to assist Sea Fighter in patrolling coastal areas while operating at high speed. Maneuvering Sea Fighter is more reminiscent of the operation of a LCAC than a conventional warship. Above the bridge is a small flight operations station with room for only one operator. This glass enclosed station provides an excellent view of the entire flight deck, and allows the operator to coordinate the approach and landing of heilocopters, and loading of the vessel's mission containers, as well as providing visual aid for navigation.

The ship has a modern computer system to control its systems and for navigation. Steering and throttle control are done by wire rather than mechanical linkage.

The first vessel of the type (FSF 1) was constructed at the Nichols Shipyard at Freeland, Washington, under the supervision of Titan Industries. Nichols Shipyard was selected because of their previous experience in the construction of aluminum hulled high speed ferries.

Role
The Sea Fighter is destined for employment by the Office of Naval Research as a testbed for technologies related to the Navy's littoral combat ship effort, as well as direct testing of the hull design. Once trials are completed, the Navy will have the option of outfitting the vessel for operational deployment.

Future development
The Navy and Coast Guard are jointly exploring the possibility of further development of Sea Fighter-type vessels for use in patrolling U.S. coastal waters. With an effective range of 4,400 nautical miles (8,100 km) unrefueled the type could also be deployed quickly overseas for similar duties. Sea Fighter is expected to pave the way for a future line of fast, long range destroyers capable of travelling fast enough to avoid or out maneuver most of the current generation of torpedoes. Such vessels would be capable of crossing the Atlantic Ocean unrefueled, and have a very low radar signature, making detection difficult. They would be able to respond quickly to targets located by air or satellite and aggressively attack surface and submerged vessels using their speed to evade torpedo and missile attack.

Concerns
Some concern has been raised with regard to the use of aluminum almost exclusively in the construction of Sea Fighter’s hull, as well as future vessels based on the design. While aluminum is very strong and light, its property of catching fire as a result of a missile or explosive impact could result in a ship that would burn easily and uncontrollably, resulting in a significant loss of life in the event of a successful strike upon the hull.

So the Navy decided not to build a fleet of oversized speedboats that are marginally useful in combat, so it can have a fleet of even more oversized speedboats that are even less useful in combat, considering the LCS's poor range and endurance. I bet the Navy Chief of Staff is hating life right now.

[Stuart]

How useful are (The Pegasus Class PHMs) compared to LCS?

The Pegasus class were a truly horrible experience and they probably did more to kill off the idea of a hydrofoil surface combatant than any other consideration. They were very badly armed indeed; their 76mm gun was wildly inaccurate due to pounding and vibration and jammed like cray for the same reasons. The ships had virtually a zero sensor fit - they had a navigation radar and a fire control set and that was virtually that. So their ability to shoot their main weapons was severely restricted. They were appallingly expensive to run since they basically had two speeds, up to 12 knots or 48 knots and nothing in between. (The reason for that was that they required a specific speed to get up on their foils and that was that). So, they either allowed around doing nothing very much or ran around flat out and drained their gas tanks. Their operational range was very limited and they were utterly defenseless against air attack. They share that with all FAC-M; a helicopter gunship is a devastating weapon against such craft.

(Tale from the crypt for you. During Operation Desert Storm, the Iraqis tried to use Boston Whalers to infiltrate special forces behind coalition lines. The craft were intercepted by British Lynx helicopters which blasted their escort of FAC-M out of the water and forced to shelter in a bay.All sorts of helicopters turned up to join in the fun, mostly troop carriers using machine guns and grenade launchers out of the doors, but one ASW Sea King arrived and, lacking any other offensive weaponry, started trying to use its dipping sonar as a wrecking ball.)

The weaknesses of the whole FAC-M concept come from two things, both size-linked. One is that they lack the space to arrange tehir electronics properly. Some time ago, the company I worked then for did a study on the electronics fit of TNC-45 and TNC-62 class FAC-M. These ships are identical except the 45s have a 45 meter long hull and the 62s have a 62 meter hull. The radar/EW fits are identical - yet the TNC-62 outperformed the smaller ship across the board (when I say the equipment was identical, I mean they were exact clones - the manufacturers's serial numbers were consecutive). The reason why the difference in performance existed was quite simple; the bigger hull gave more potentially optimum positions for the antennas and reduced electronic interference.

The other weakness of the FAC-M is that internally, they are so compressed that all the ship's vital functions are essentially in the same place. Any sort of damage anywhere and a lot of vital functions go bye-bye. That's why Sea Skua is so effective despite its small warhead - even the small bang does a lot of vital systems damage.

There's many other reaosns why small craft are bad ideas (their inability to handle rough weather for example, severe on-board vibration and the proximity of the radars to the water resulting in multi-pathing for example) but overall, they're bad news. The final nail in the coffin of the Pegasus class was that they were very expensive to maintain as well as run - their foils needed frequent replacement due to water erosion and they were very prone to docking damage.

[That NOS Guy]

(Tale from the crypt for you. During Operation Desert Storm, the Iraqis tried to use Boston Whalers to infiltrate special forces behind coalition lines. The craft were intercepted by British Lynx helicopters which blasted their escort of FAC-M out of the water and forced to shelter in a bay.All sorts of helicopters turned up to join in the fun, mostly troop carriers using machine guns and grenade launchers out of the doors, but one ASW Sea King arrived and, lacking any other offensive weaponry, started trying to use its dipping sonar as a wrecking ball.)

Stuart, laughing that hard certaintly isn't healthy for me. That's quite possibly the most innovative use of an attached object ever.

[Stuart]

To me, LCS really looks like the US trying to build a Visby- or Göteborg-type corvette and failing at it.

Considering that the Visby class itself is pretty much a failure....

One of the alternatives for the LCS program was an enlarged Visby - the U.S. Navy was not impressed (although personally I thought it was one of the better designs offered, that's pretty faint praise though).

The Skjold class is another example of an utter failure in this category. It looks like the Norwegian government are finally going to recover their senses and cancel the things. Which is what the Norwegian Navy wanted five years ago.

[[R_H]]

To me, LCS really looks like the US trying to build a Visby- or Göteborg-type corvette and failing at it.

Considering that the Visby class itself is pretty much a failure....

One of the alternatives for the LCS program was an enlarged Visby - the U.S. Navy was not impressed (although personally I thought it was one of the better designs offered, that's pretty faint praise though).

The Skjold class is another example of an utter failure in this category. It looks like the Norwegian government are finally going to recover their senses and cancel the things. Which is what the Norwegian Navy wanted five years ago.

Where they failures due to the reasons you outlined in your post about why the Pegasus class was shit?