- The first LCS was commissioned in 2008.
- There are 14 commissioned LCS, 7 of each variant.
- The LCS fleet has a total of 53 commission-years.
- The LCS fleet has performed 3 deployments.
- No LCS deployed in 2018.
- No LCS has ever participated in a mine countermeasures (MCM) exercise – MCM being one of the three primary missions.
- No LCS has ever participated in an anti-submarine (ASW) exercise – ASW being one of the three primary missions.
- No module exists yet in a useful, effective form. ASuW consists of two 30 mm machine guns, a RHIB, and a helo/UAV – utterly ineffective. ASW and MCM are still under development.
Monday, January 14, 2019
LCS Idle Thoughts
Here’s a few idle thoughts about the LCS:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Lets look at some addition information about the LCSs.
ReplyDeleteWhile the first LCS was delivered ten years ago, it was an R&D ships,and most LCSs are less than three year old.
The deployments done so far where more for testing, not function missions.
The main problem has been political interference which has prevented the ordering of any complete mission module set.
There are no functional ASW or MCM modules. They're still under development. Congress has simply refused to fund incomplete, developmental modules. Good for them!
DeleteThe ASuW module is a joke.
The LCS is a failed program by any standard and no amount of revisionist history can change that.
All in favour of naming the next LCS USS Dead Horse, say aye.
ReplyDeleteThe ASuW, was supposed to include the NLOS missile, cancelled. At least we only built 3 Zummies with its cancelled gun. The Navy votes with its effort, NGFS
is not something the Navy wants to do. Like the AF
dislikes CAS and the A-10. Death by hostile neglect.
AnonMonday1
Do you see any existing weapon that could be adapted to the LCS that can fill the NLOS void?
DeleteDo you think that Hellfire fills enough of the NLOS void to be useful?
We should at least lay some of the blame for the failure of NLOS at the Army's door, given that NLOS was a joint program that the Army pulled out of.
DeleteLongbow Hellfire has a range of 8 kilometers, but that's assuming an air launch; a surface launch would undoubtedly have shorter range, though how much shorter has not been publicly disclosed. Even assuming permissive airspace allowing Fire Scout UAVs to be deployed and spotting for targets, I'm not entirely keen on that for fighting small boat swarms - I would like a missile with a bit more range. Either that or running the Fire Scouts as missile slinging hunter-killers - but then, if your airspace is permissive enough to keep your helo/UAVs aloft, then your opposition is probably so weak that you don't need to service them with Hellfires.
"We should at least lay some of the blame for the failure of NLOS at the Army's door, given that NLOS was a joint program that the Army pulled out of."
DeleteWhy would we want to blame the Army for pulling out of something that wasn't going to meet their needs? I think it would be fairer to blame the Navy for banking on a non-existent weapon system that was nothing more than fantasy and wishful thinking and making it the cornerstone of the LCS ASuw module. The target of blame seems pretty clear.
If the Navy would do a little more bailing out of systems that don't meet requirements and do so a little bit sooner, maybe we wouldn't have the LCS, or Zumwalt without a gun, or Ford that can't launch/trap/move munitions, or F-35 that doesn't meet Pacific needs, etc.
Blame the Army???? What an odd thing to say!
Well at least the Navy forced to buy an upgrade to the Harpoon out of the LCS fiasco. Too bad they ain't going to stick them on every ship.
DeleteWhat would it take to cancel LCS?
DeleteThe 57mm gun is awful, the main missile is a vertically launched Hellfire that must unavoidably give up range and manueverability/no escape zone compared to air-launch, and even if Harpoons/NSMs are fired from the deck, any other ship/design could accomplish the same thing.
The ships may be fast, but they're loud- that has to hurt for ASW and MIW, and compromise range. There is no way a MIW LCS, even with the LCS-Even Indy class, is as protected against mines as the Avengers.
When can we give up on LCS and build the purposeful ships that we'll need? Serious question.
The LCS class is terminated even though the Navy is proceeding with construction of the allotted ships. When that allotment is complete there will be no more LCS … except, you know, for the new LCS frigate.
Delete"Do you see any existing weapon that could be adapted to the LCS that can fill the NLOS void?"
DeleteRafael's Spike NLOS with its 25km range would be my suggestion. Its about 50 lbs heavier than a Hellfire, but has more than twice the range. Its in service with Israeli Army and has been tested on a Cyclone-size patrol boat.
Spike NLOS is not a bad choice although it lacks the range of the original NLOS which was around 20-25 miles. Cost is another concern. I've seen reports suggesting a cost of $250,000 each.
DeleteWhile Spike NLOS appears to be a very good anti-terrorism and low end scenario weapon, I'm a bit concerned about its effectiveness in high end combat. It's clearly intended for pinpoint, fairly small targets. High end combat tends to be more indiscriminate and large, high explosive affairs.
What are your thoughts?
Hope don't mind if I interject but I was wondering about the SPIKE family of missiles and it's possible application.
DeleteJust throwing stuff on the wall and see if it sticks, I know there would need some work done to navalize,test,etc for an LCS application BUT many of us here like the "arsenal" concept for high end warfare, loads of cruise missiles, SAMS, etc, for the peer fight. I was thinking along the lines of a "low end arsenal" LCS for Iran, North Korea, bad guys with a AK47 type, maybe have a hunter-killer team of 1 LCS with the drones, helicopters, etc for the surveillance and targeting part and the other LCS loaded up with 100 or more SPIKEs, I think having a family of SPIKEs instead of an entire load-out of SPIKE NLOS could provide some advantages. Do you always need the longer range version? Probably not. Maybe different warheads could be beneficial too.....just my 2 cents.
"I'm not as charitable as you are to the Army because the last quarter century has been filled with Army procurement programs that failed "
DeleteThe Army's procurement history has nothing to do with the Navy's flawed decision to continue with NLOS. Reciting a history of Army procurement is irrelevant to a Navy blog. Therefore, I deleted your comment.
Regarding Spike NLOS:
Delete@Anonymous, @ComNavOps:
Range wise while Spike NLOS has an edge over Longbow Hellfire, what concerns me is that Spike NLOS is basically a big ATGM, and it uses a combo EO/IIR seeker and command guidance, which means that your launching platform needs to be able to see the target, so either you're using the Seahawk to spot for your Spike NLOS shoots, or you're using the Seahawk as a ghetto gunship. Rafael has been talking about future versions also having a semi-active laser seeker but that still means you need a Seahawk or a Fire Scout lasing targets for your shoots. At least Longbow Hellfire, which uses a milimeter-wave radar seeker, can be cued by the ship's radar.
How can Congress or media NOT investigate how USN can COMMISSION 14 ships AND NOT HAVE 1 DEPLOY for AN ENTIRE YEAR?
ReplyDeleteI mean, come on, that's a layup! This stuff makes the $200 hammer or $600 toilet seat of the 80s DoD procurement look down right legal and fair!
I would concur. Even the F-35 when its fully working is at a minimum an upgrade to the Harrier and older F-18 models. China and Russia are blowing money on stealth so its not seemingly an illusion spending option only the Pentagon believes in.
DeleteThe LCS should be stopped immediately. It simply can't do the jobs it was supposed to do and never will with any effectiveness. Its criminal to even deploy sailors on them.
Its also the first class of ships where the first 4 (the first 2 of each variant) will be primarily used for training and testing equipment and not for patrolling. And, if the Navy deploys them as planned, one LCS in each 4-ship division will be used for training. Taken in total, about 1/3 of the class will be used for training and not patrolling.
ReplyDelete"No LCS has ever participated in a mine countermeasures (MCM) exercise – MCM being one of the three primary missions."
DeleteHas no one in Congress ever asked why the MCM had to part of Rube Goldberg device ship? Why not just build the same new upgraded versions Lerici class
[That were the base of the Osprey class] the Italians are refitting out now in their own navy? Why the rush to scrap or sell the Osprey anyway? If half of them are good enough to be commissioned in foreign navies that means they could be in reserve.
Good news, 3 are deploying this year....try not to laugh or cry? when you get to part where he says commanders are clamoring for the LCS because they know what the LCS brings to the fight!!! LOL!
ReplyDeletehttps://breakingdefense.com/2019/01/navy-kicks-off-new-lcs-deployments-training-questions-remain/
Some LCS modules are in SCIP, one is code named "micro brew" built by noted defence contractor Great Lakes Brewing. The Edmund Fitzgerald Porter is mighty tasty.
DeleteGLB is proud to say theirs is the only module at TRL9.
GLB PEO
Huh?
DeleteYou're making some kind of joke, I think, but I don't get it.
Dear God that is a depressing link. They are 'forward deployed' to the coasts of the US? To do what they have no ASW or MCM ability. So they are doing the job of the USCG? At least I guess the sailors get paid.
ReplyDelete"While he declined to offer specifics, it will likely involve crew training, partner operations, and fisheries enforcement..."...
DeleteAs long as the Chinese decide to fight us next to US coast line, we are good! I'm sure the Chinese are afraid of what the LCS brings to fight!!!
"fisheries enforcement"
DeleteSomething I think I would rather have another 12 NSC cutters to do since the USCG has not been sailing into foreign waters or running into ships and shoals lately.
Fisheries enforcement is something you do in your own waters. You do not go overseas to a partner nation's waters to do fisheries enforcement for them.
DeleteIf your ally nation wants to protect its own waters and save a few billion dollars of lost fishing revenue, then it needs to use it's own goddamn ships to do that, not rely on Uncle Sam.
So the USN is 'forward' deploying the LCS at the US coast for Fisheries enforcement, but the USCG is deploying the cutter Bertholt to the Indo-Pacific Command for several months.
Deletehttps://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDHSCG/bulletins/2298f1a
Why is the USCG doing USN work and the USN maybe trying to do USCG work - something seems off in this
I cant say this enough LCS is a economic ship always has been always will be it's a job ie. Vote getter until the bullets start flying then it's a death Trap for every sailor on board no amount of money can change that
ReplyDeleteAs I have said before, a USS Newport (LST-1179) class LST can do every thing and more than a LCS except go as fast.
ReplyDeleteBut those LST's did go places and stay going to more places unlike the LCS's.
Now, some LCS's have made it overseas and promptly broke.
And here is the wiki for the 1179's,
Deletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newport-class_tank_landing_ship
What does lcs bring to the fight well plenty let's just take a look shall we 1. It provides many many hours of valuable training time for maintenance crews and staff 2. Serves to sharpen the logistics chain of command to keep up with the demand for parts 3.Privides extended shire leave for crews due to breakdown in ports especially Foreign ones (invaluable) for crew morale 4. It 0rovides invaluable trading for submarines do sharpen their tracking skills 5. It provides a entertainment component to the Chinese and Russian navies 6. It creates many jobs in Mississippi and Wisconsin last but not least it's a convenient coffin for those who have no choice but to serve in it I am sure there are more more things it brings to the fight but I will leave it up to you all to think of some more
Delete