Lil Crappy Ship 4 Terminated!

[MKSheppard]

Link

Secretary of the Navy Donald C. Winter and Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead announced today that the Department of the Navy is terminating construction of the fourth littoral combat ship (LCS 4) for convenience under the termination clause of the contract because the Navy and General Dynamics could not reach agreement on the terms of a modified contract.

The Navy had not yet authorized construction on LCS 4, following a series of cost overruns on LCS 2. The Navy intended to begin construction of LCS 4 if the Navy and General Dynamics could agree on the terms for a fixed-price incentive agreement. The Navy worked closely with General Dynamics to try to restructure the agreement for LCS 4 to more equitably balance cost and risk, but could not come to terms and conditions that were acceptable to both parties.

The Navy remains committed to the LCS program. “LCS continues to be a critical warfighting requirement for our Navy to maintain dominance in the littorals and strategic choke points around the world,” said Winter. “While this is a difficult decision, we recognize that active oversight and strict cost controls in the early years are necessary to ensuring we can deliver these ships to the fleet over the long term.”

“I am absolutely committed to the Littoral Combat Ship,” said Roughead. “We need this ship. It is very important that our acquisition efforts produce the right littoral combat ship capability to the fleet at the right cost.”

[Sidewinder]

The Global Security article on the LCS describes the USN as wanting the damn thing to do everything, the same multimission ambitions that doomed the Enterprise-D to near uselessness in accomplishing many of those missions. And considering the LCS's short range/endurance, it probably will be nearly useless.

[Pelranius]

Just long as it's not build at Bath Iron Works, I could care less. They'd be better off building an actual frigate and an actual fast attack boat, rather than getting something that tries to do both.

Wait a moment, why am I becoming so parochial since I came to college? I'm not even from Maine, for crying out loud!

[Redleader34]

Can we just bring back PT Boats, damnit, they were good all purpose little ships. Hell, JFK served on one. They seem to be the right tools for the current mid to long range ocean missions the navy wanted for the LCS.

[Repoman]

This LCS concept is worthless. It is meant for brown-water operations which shouldn't even fall within the bailiwick of the US Navy.

Aerial assets and radar is all that is needed to provide full situational awareness to the commander of the naval taskforce responsible for security in the given area of operations.

[Sidewinder]

Aerial assets and radar is all that is needed to provide full situational awareness to the commander of the naval taskforce responsible for security in the given area of operations.

Limitations on aircraft range and endurance means their usefulness in brown water operations is also limited. Then again...

Speed, displacement, and significant wave height all result in considerable increases in fuel consumption, and as a result, severely limit Littoral Combat Ship endurance. When operating in a significant wave height of six feet, regardless of the amount of fuel carried, the maximum endurance achieved for a wave-piercing catamaran Littoral Combat Ship outfitted with all modular mission packages is less than seven days. Especially noteworthy is that when restricted to a fuel reserve of 50% and a fuel carrying capacity of Day tanks, the maximum achieved endurance is only 4.8 hours when operating at a maximum speed of 48 knots. The Littoral Combat Ship can achieve high speeds; however, this can only be accomplished at the expense of range and payload capacity. The requirement for the Littoral Combat Ship to go fast (forty-eight knots) requires a seaframe with heavy propulsion systems. The weight of the seaframe, required shipboard systems (weapons, sensors, command and control, and self-defense) and modular mission packages accounts for 84% of the full displacement, and as a result, substantially limits total fuel carrying capacity. Since initial mission profiles required the high-speed capability at most five percent of the time, the end result is a Littoral Combat Ship that has very little endurance and a high-speed capability it will rarely use. Refueling, and potentially rearming, will require the Littoral Combat Ship to leave littoral waters and transit to Combat Logistics Force ships operating outside the littorals for replenishment. Given the low endurance of the Littoral Combat Ship, its time on station is seriously compromised.

Maybe the USN would be better off building a destroyer-sized helicopter carrier, like the JSMDF.

[Stuart]

Can we just bring back PT Boats

Oh Lord please NO. It took almost twenty years to convince thw world's navies the damned things were useless the first time around. PLEASE don't make us all go through that again.

damnit, they were good all purpose little ships.

No, they're not, they're useless at anything except covert anti-shipping and they're not particularly good at that. Up against helicopter gunships or any type of fixed-wing air power, they're lambs to the slaughter. Defenseless lambs to the slaughter. They have absolutely no capability outside a single very limited niche. Unless you consider delivering mail to be a vital maritime combat function.

Hell, JFK served on one.

Which proves what?

They seem to be the right tools for the current mid to long range ocean missions the navy wanted for the LCS.

No, no no. They're not "right" for long range ocean work, they're utterly, completely, totally, irredemiably incontovertibly, demonstrably USELESS for that role. PT boats or their modern descendents are in-shore craft, incapable of use outside sight of land. They're littoral water craft, that means brown water. Take them out into blue water and they'll sink. They are horrendously unseaworthy and unstable. The only way a PT boat can operate on blue water is as the deck cargo on a merchant ship.

The U.S. Navy did not want the LCS for "mid to long range ocean missions" they were wanted for eactly what the name says, combat in the littoral regions, ie within sight of land. Most particularly they are intended to act as fast minesweepers/minehunters.

[Stuart]

Maybe the USN would be better off building a destroyer-sized helicopter carrier, like the JSMDF.

Actually, the perfect "littoral combat ship" is an LPD or small LHD like the ones thw Australians (God bless them) have just ordered. A flight deck for helicopters and UAVs, a docking bay aft for UUVs and USVs plus landing craft, lots of storage space for supplies, good medical facilities for disaster relief and the ability to land troops where needed. Does everything that's specified for a squadron of Littoral combat ships and does the jons with unmanned craft that don't put a single sailor at risk.

All we need to do to straighten the LCS program out is to cancel LCS-1 and LCS-2, take the entire design staff and ship them to North Dakota then take the project manager and assign him to the Thule Tourist Board in Greenland.

[Repoman]

Aerial assets and radar is all that is needed to provide full situational awareness to the commander of the naval taskforce responsible for security in the given area of operations.

Limitations on aircraft range and endurance means their usefulness in brown water operations is also limited.

Yes, but that assumes that the Navy should somehow be responsible for a river. It is that doctrine that I am arguing against.

Think of Iraq today - the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Why assign the Army and Marines responsiblity for Baghdad - except for the rivers?

Why should the Navy be expected to send tiny-ass boats all the way up from Basra to patrol the rivers around Bagdad?

Let the ground commander's ground and air assets and sensors cover the river. Why would the US Navy need to send dinky-ass little boats hundreds of miles upstream?

The US Navy is about force projection and strategic firepower. Aircraft carriers and ballistic missile submarines.

Thinking along the lines of "rivers are water and the navy operates on water, therefore the navy should have ships that can go up rivers" is absolutely crazy.

The right way to look at this would be "The navy has the responsibility for keeping the sea-lanes open/launching missiles and the Army has the responsibility for occupying terrain".

Then the question becomes "Which force's mission most logically covers rivers and shallow coastal areas"?

I would argue that the Army is better suited for such a mission because the successfull execution of that mission requires no ships whatsoever.

[Ryan Thunder]

Forgive my supreme ignorance, but isn't that the one they were going to put a railgun on instead of Tomahawks?

Or am I thinking of a different ship?

[Pelranius]

Forgive my supreme ignorance, but isn't that the one they were going to put a railgun on instead of Tomahawks?

Or am I thinking of a different ship?

That's the DD(X) project, I believe.

[Stuart]

Forgive my supreme ignorance, but isn't that the one they were going to put a railgun on instead of Tomahawks? Or am I thinking of a different ship?

Different ship; the railgun platform is most likely to be CGN(X) if that happens.

LCS is basically a 3,000 ton light frigate that has the armament of a Boston Whaler combined with the sensor outfit of the Staten Island Ferry. However, all of that doesn't matter because it can go very fast for the ten minutes it takes to run out of fuel.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Forgive my supreme ignorance, but isn't that the one they were going to put a railgun on instead of Tomahawks? Or am I thinking of a different ship?

Different ship; the railgun platform is most likely to be CGN(X) if that happens.

LCS is basically a 3,000 ton light frigate that has the armament of a Boston Whaler combined with the sensor outfit of the Staten Island Ferry. However, all of that doesn't matter because it can go very fast for the ten minutes it takes to run out of fuel.

I thought the DDX was designed in mind to possibly accommodate a rail gun? Or did the power requirements change?

[Sea Skimmer]

I thought the DDX was designed in mind to possibly accommodate a rail gun? Or did the power requirements change?

Sort of. It has a turboelectric drivetrain which would make it easier to install a power hungry railgun or coilgun, and the existing gun armament inherently reserves a lot of volume and weight, but the ship hasn’t really been really specifically designed for EM armament. The technology just isn’t mature enough yet to do that.

The ship has more then enough power for the job; two 36MW main turbo-generator sets and two 3MW backup generators all linked together. Full speed and maximum rate of railgun fire wouldn’t be compatible, but slowing down by even a couple knots vastly reduces the amount of power needed for propulsion.

[ColonialAdmiral]

In my opinion, the LCS project always seemed like it was trying to pack to many features into to small of a ship. The idea of trying to pack destroyer sized guns, along with both missile AND torpedo launchers, Cargo space for amphibious assualts, and a helicopter pad with a hangar onto a ship smaller than a frigate is just ridiculous. Then you go and pass it off as an fast inexpensive "wonder ship", when its obviously going to have a hefty price tag.
You can't have everything...

[The Yosemite Bear]

designed by committy

[layman]

LCS is basically a 3,000 ton light frigate that has the armament of a Boston Whaler combined with the sensor outfit of the Staten Island Ferry. However, all of that doesn't matter because it can go very fast for the ten minutes it takes to run out of fuel.
_________________

Would the LCS variant for Israel (with SPY-1F) be a better alternative should the USN go halfway through the program and find out that the LCS is too poorly equipped? Is there still space enough for the required UxVs?

[Sea Skimmer]

In my opinion, the LCS project always seemed like it was trying to pack to many features into to small of a ship. The idea of trying to pack destroyer sized guns, along with both missile AND torpedo launchers, Cargo space for amphibious assualts, and a helicopter pad with a hangar onto a ship smaller than a frigate is just ridiculous. Then you go and pass it off as an fast inexpensive "wonder ship", when its obviously going to have a hefty price tag.
You can't have everything...

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.

[Sidewinder]

LCS is basically a 3,000 ton light frigate that has the armament of a Boston Whaler combined with the sensor outfit of the Staten Island Ferry. However, all of that doesn't matter because it can go very fast for the ten minutes it takes to run out of fuel.

In late 2005/early 2006, I read a 'Popular Mechanics' or 'Popular Science' article criticizing the USN for investing so much money on DD(X), a Cold War era design, when the LCS was "cheaper" and "more adaptable" to the counter-terrorism missions now occupying the US military's time and resources. Now I'm reading articles on Global Security criticizing how damn useless the LCS is, with its short range and endurance. Seriously, what was the USN thinking when they authorized the project? Was it something certain influential congressmen shoved down their throats, a white elephant for certain industries and workers in certain districts?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

LCS is basically a 3,000 ton light frigate that has the armament of a Boston Whaler combined with the sensor outfit of the Staten Island Ferry. However, all of that doesn't matter because it can go very fast for the ten minutes it takes to run out of fuel.

In late 2005/early 2006, I read a 'Popular Mechanics' or 'Popular Science' article criticizing the USN for investing so much money on DD(X), a Cold War era design, when the LCS was "cheaper" and "more adaptable" to the counter-terrorism missions now occupying the US military's time and resources. Now I'm reading articles on Global Security criticizing how damn useless the LCS is, with its short range and endurance. Seriously, what was the USN thinking when they authorized the project? Was it something certain influential congressmen shoved down their throats, a white elephant for certain industries and workers in certain districts?

Personally, I wouldn't put too much weight in such magazines which are notorious for populist Science which is trash for the most part.

I think, as people have mentioned in many other threads before, that program management in the US military and Coast Guard is in serious need of overhaul. It is simply horrible, and companies are taking the military for a ride. The LCS pales in comparison to the mess the Coast Guard is in right now.

[Sea Skimmer]

In late 2005/early 2006, I read a 'Popular Mechanics' or 'Popular Science' article criticizing the USN for investing so much money on DD(X), a Cold War era design, when the LCS was "cheaper" and "more adaptable" to the counter-terrorism missions now occupying the US military's time and resources. Now I'm reading articles on Global Security criticizing how damn useless the LCS is, with its short range and endurance. Seriously, what was the USN thinking when they authorized the project? Was it something certain influential congressmen shoved down their throats, a white elephant for certain industries and workers in certain districts?

The USN was thinking ‘we need fast ships’, and everything since then has been an attempt to find reasons to justify this. Not that long before this program was launched the USN had in fact officially concluded that it had absolutely no use for small frigate sized warships because they just couldn't do enough to be worthwhile.

Note that when it was first announced LCS was also a mere 1,000 tons, it’s now nearly quadrupled in size!

[Patrick Degan]

Note that when it was first announced LCS was also a mere 1,000 tons, it’s now nearly quadrupled in size!

Naturally —to accomodate more subcontractors.

[MKSheppard]

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

[Stuart]

In late 2005/early 2006, I read a 'Popular Mechanics' or 'Popular Science' article criticizing the USN for investing so much money on DD(X), a Cold War era design, when the LCS was "cheaper" and "more adaptable" to the counter-terrorism missions now occupying the US military's time and resources. Now I'm reading articles on Global Security criticizing how damn useless the LCS is, with its short range and endurance. Seriously, what was the USN thinking when they authorized the project? Was it something certain influential congressmen shoved down their throats, a white elephant for certain industries and workers in certain districts?

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. Esentially he was proposing the sort of FAC-M fleet that had already been discredited in the past. Boiled down to its simplest, what Hughes was suggesting was that future naval battles would consist of a single exchange of missiles. Any ship that was fired on would be hit and any ship that was hit would be sunk. Therefore what mattered was to have more ships than the other side so that some would be left afloat at the end of that single exchange.

In reality what this meant was that instead of defending ships we should assume that they and their crews would be obliterated and accept the casualties involved. His theories weren't taken that seriously and he got little attention until he teamed up with a guy called Cebrowski.

Cebrowski had taken over as the head of the Naval War College and wanted to make his name. He picked up on Hughes' theories and created a concept called Streetfighter. This was a 300 ton surface combatant capable of 60+ knots and armed with 8 anti-ship missiles etc etc. He then staged a series of war games that showed the Streetfighter devastating its opponent. That wasn't surprising, the rules were that any ship fired upon by a Streetfighter would be sunk while the speed of the Streetfighter would prevent it being engaged effectively.

When other simulations showed the Streetfighters being slaughtered by real warships under real conditions, he started a screaming campaign in the press, the usual nonsense about how his forward-thinking ideas were being suppressed by hide-bound admirals etc etc etc etc etc etc etc. He also came up with another idea to back up Streetfighter, a small aircraft carrier displacing 3,000 tons, capable of 60 knots also and equipped with an air group of 20 F-35Cs and 10 SH-60Js. Anothers eries of games showed this also devastating the opposition.

The fact that the largest conceivable hull buildable on 3,000 tons couldn't even carry that many aircraft let alone operate them was neither here nor there.

Anyway, the whole Streetfighter concept got very popular with naval cadets, primarily because a fleet of small craft offers command opportunities at a much lower rank. Congresscritters got hold of the idea and started to press for Streetfighter construction.

That's when LCS got into the world (LCS standingf or Let's Castrate Streetfighter). It proposed a radical small surface combatant (intitally 500 - 1,000 tons) with a target speed to 50 plus knots. Various shipbuilders were asked what they could provide to meet that spec. There was much tooing and froing and much confused questioning, the Navy took a look at what it was offered (basically a PT boat), vomited in horror and laid down a decent spec. The contractors took one look at the spec and passed out with shock. After the administration of smelling salts and a liitle brandy, they chorused "You have got to be kidding".

The new spec was essentially that of a frigate, essentially a faster version of the FFG-7. So, LCS went up in size to frigate dimensions (roughly 4,000 tons) and the speed went down to more normal levels. That's what is being built now.

The whole point is not to build small combatants, they can't defend themselves, lack range and seakeeping and are damned uncomfortable for the crews. So LCS has already suceeded; Streetfighter has been forgotten, people have moved on to other things now, with a little luck, LCS can be cancelled.

[DavidEC]

Hang on; why do these people need a fleet of super-fast boats? What's the point of them sprinting to the battlezone (assuming they don't run out of fuel) if they're gonna be temporarily left without real cover from the heavier, slower CVBGs?