Well, as I ponder the state of the US Navy’s combat fleet, I
get the same feeling.
LCS – We have a
fleet of commissioned warships that have no mission and no means to execute a
mission since they have no useful and effective mission modules. Seriously, an entire fleet of warships that
can’t execute a combat mission???
Zumwalt – We have
two commissioned Zumwalt’s – soon to be three – that have no mission, no main
functional weapon, are searching for a role, and lack installed combat
systems. Seriously, we commissioned
warships without a main weapon and without any combat system???
Ford – We have a
commissioned aircraft carrier that can’t load munitions onto its aircraft
because it has no functioning elevators and can’t operate F-35s because it
lacks the proper communications and support equipment and facilities. Seriously, we commissioned a non-functional
carrier???
If you asked the Navy to honestly and objectively describe
their combat fleet and its capabilities, their response would have to be,
“Ahh …
I got nothin’ ”
Considering the availability and sustainment rates of F-35s, as Ford CO, I'd mostly want F-18s. Maybe a SQ of Harriers.
ReplyDeleteq, Does the Zumwalt carry the development ammo for the guns ? Something beats nothing, in pinch.
"Does the Zumwalt carry the development ammo for the guns ?"
DeleteNo.
You might want to add the F-35B/C to your list. In addition to its myriad of problems, Defense News recently reported that the "Navy and Marine Corps’ versions of the F-35 jet can only fly at supersonic speeds for short bursts of time before there is a risk of structural damage and loss of stealth capability, a problem that may make it impossible for the Navy’s F-35C to conduct supersonic intercepts."
ReplyDeleteThe B issues are particularly interesting. I hadn't seen this article before, but if service life really is seriously curtailed it changes the cost dynamic completely.
Deletehttps://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/dote-delivers-another-scathing-report-on-f-35-progr-455483/
An F16 with a full fuel load and two drop tanks has 15 minutes of afterburner before it runs out of fuel and crashes
DeleteThe after burner limit is an issue, but it not quite on a scale of the Fords Catapult not working, or the Advanced Gun System having bullets that cost more than Tomahawk missiles.
My guess (pure speculation) is that the Navy knew darned well that the ships were not ready, but that commissioning them on time was a term of the contract with the shipbuilders. If the builder doesn't get paid, they go out of business, and the Navy never gets its ship at all.
ReplyDeleteSome of this is on the builders, though. They really ought to know better than to stake their business on a contract for something that'll never happen. . . .
It would seem that with recent events in the Gulf, LCS should have been front and center and USN hasn't even attempted to move one to the region, which seems pretty damning....I mean, come on, isn't this exactly what LCS was designed and built for?!? USN has said the regional commanders are "clamoring" for the LCS and it's going after drug smugglers?!?
ReplyDeleteAs for F35 afterburner problem, the good news it has happened supposedly ONLY twice and LMT hasn't been able to replicate the problem (supposedly...), the bad news is the restrictions which was news to everyone, I can't recall anybody mentioning the speed restrictions and wait times before using the AB again. They sure seem to be serious restrictions on operations. The way I see it, these could be really really bad news when LMT/PW want to increase thrust on next big upgrade, more thrust means more heat, how will that work out? Even more restrictions?
LCS saga continues
ReplyDeleteUSNI reporting Congress seems to have dissociative identity disorder/ multiple personality disorder in relation to the LCS, four congressional defense committees involved.
Congress buys 35 LCS, three more than Navy requested, H,M & E, but to make them semi-operational useful needs the modules, Congress has cut back funding for the MCM, SUW, ASW and Common Mission modules, Navy requested $388M for modules in FY2020. HASC originally cut back to $327M, mainly cutting the MCM funding, after markup steeper cuts made.
Thought Common Mission complete, incl'd 57mm and 30mm guns was complete years ago, but Navy requested additional $51.6M for FY2020, HASC $33.2M/House appropriators $38.7M
MCM Navy request $197.1M, HASC $77.1M/House appropriators $163.6M.
SASC approving the purchase of a more LCS, “If it is necessary to maintain a full and open competition for the guided missile Frigate (FFG(X)) with a single source award in Fiscal Year 2020,” as stated in the Senate version of FY 2020 NDAA." Which looks like pork barrel funding for Austal with Independence LCS? LM-Fincantieri moving on with the order for the four Saudi extended Freedom class ships, have option for another four.
Saudis will operate their ships in the restricted Persian Gulf so short range no problem, will be fully equipped, no modules, whereas no sign that Navy will operate their underequipped LCS in Gulf, which in theory should be their natural environment.
Give the LCSs to the Coast Guard. They need cutters, and maybe they can come up with something to do with them.
ReplyDeleteUse the Zumwalts as test beds for new weapons and other systems, one on each coast. Going forward, don't buy anything until it has been tested thoroughly and found to work. Also, use them as ORANGE forces for more realistic training exercises.
Don't build another Ford until everything works on the one (or I suppose it's unfortunately going to be 2 or 3) we have. Build more Nimitzes to keep the carrier shipbuilding line flowing. We know how to build them and they work.
The CG wants no part of the LCS even if they were given for free. They offer no capabilities the CG wants. Worse, the CG would have to set up an entire shore-side maintenance system (remember the no maintenance plan?) which would be prohibitively expensive for them.
DeleteAbsolutely agree... When the Ford became such a debacle, Nimitz-class should have made a comeback 'ala Zumwalt/Burke restart... Test, fix, and revisit when things mature. The more I look, the more the block-buy looks like a way to cram Fords down our throat to avoid any potential step back to the more proven, functional, and cheaper design.....
DeleteThe block buy was only secondarily (if that) about cost savings. It was primarily about avoiding Congressional oversight. The Navy is incompetent at most things but you have to give them credit for being masters at thwarting Congress and oversight.
DeleteAgree with ComNavOps why would the USCG take them. I would eat my own arm off before allowing that if I was in the command structure of the CG there is reason there are Coast Guard ships patrolling the Gulf/Straits and sailing through the Taiwan strait but no LCSs - you know the bit where they designed and bought effective ships. Besides it would kill the push to get armed new ice breakers so Russia does not have uncontested ownership of the arctic.
Delete"so Russia does not have uncontested ownership of the arctic."
DeleteI keep hearing this, about the Arctic. What is there that we care about? I genuinely have no idea and would love to hear anyone's thoughts on what there is of value to the US. The only rationale I hear, so far, is merely to stop Russia but, why do we care?
There is some oil and gas, but no one knows how much and its going to be a really expensive pain to extract and ship so its unlikely the economics will work.
DeleteAside from that, with the ice melting its going to make a great short-cut on some shipping routes. I think anyone (including Canada and Russia) that try to claim absolute ownership are just barking up a tree.
So … no compelling US national interest? So, why are people calling for new icebreakers?
DeleteWell there is compelling national interest in that USCG need more than one heavy ice breaker not held together with bubble gum and is some 60+ years old. Same for the great lakes the Ice breakers there are very long in tooth (of course no arming them).
DeleteMy key point was just that in terms of acquisitions the expensive useless LCS would be a nightmare for the CG. Beyond that I don't care why you think global warming is happening but it is. So I would behoove the US to have ships to stand watch on whatever resources are there if they pan out (ore watch over artificial islands...)
In terms of need one Ice breaker based out of Alaska is not really up to task for US commerce needs now.
DeleteThe USA has extremely compelling interests in the Arctic Ocean: oil & gas, mining, fisheries (a huge financial interest), and of course the military interests ranging from ballistic missile defense and weather reconnaissance.
DeleteGAB
"compelling interests ... oil & gas, mining, fisheries (a huge financial interest), … ballistic missile defense and weather reconnaissance."
DeleteThe cost of extraction and transportation make any oil, gas, mineral resources likely prohibitively expensive. Given the fact that the US is largely self-sufficient in energy and could be even more so with just some slight loosening of regulations and self-imposed reluctance to extract, using the Arctic as a source of oil and gas seems unattractive. Similarly, unless there are some very exotic minerals that can't be obtained elsewhere, the costs would seem to rule out any practical desire for Arctic mineral extraction. Fishing may be a valid interest although the fact that the US is leading an effort to establish an international moratorium on Arctic fishing suggests that it is not a compelling interest.
Military concerns may be valid and I lack the knowledge to assess those. My suspicion is that any permanent installations would be based in Alaska which negates an actual Arctic presence.
I am woefully uneducated about the Arctic so feel free to further educate me!
Well if you want to enforce no cheating on a ban you do need the means to enforce it. As I understand it I could be wrong most navy ships are not rated for even minimal ice conditions unlike some CG classes. Even in the worst global warming projections some ice will be a problem for a while.
DeleteSuppose an ice free aortic in the summer is a boon for shipping, and allow Russia declares some super expansive re China zone of control. You are going to need ships to contest that and right now we kinda don't have any not for the winter and maybe not for the near future summers.
"Well if you want to enforce no cheating on a ban you do need the means to enforce it."
DeleteYes, however, more importantly, you need the will to enforce it. China has build illegal islands and we did nothing to stop it despite having the means. Iran seized our boats and crews illegally and we did nothing to stop it despite having the means. And so on.
There's no point building ice-capable ships if we won't actually use them to confront someone.
CNO, how come the subs are doing well when the surface guys are not?
ReplyDeleteThe two groups don't mix (leadership/culture/procurement tree)?
The subs are just quieter about everything. We read about surface ship tests, exercises, equipment, etc. all the time. When have you every seen anything written about subs that wasn't so generic as to be pointless? The closest thing we get to any information is the DOT&E reports and those hint at some significant problems. I have no reason to believe that the subs have any less problems than the surface fleet, they just don't advertise it as much.
DeleteI guess there's a reason they're called the silent service.
I wonder if it starts out at the academy, that sub/sw/pilot gravitated students have different natural inclinations?
DeleteDo you sub students have better grades, especially in physics and engineering? (I ask that because in civilian tech companies, tech folks are usually the quiet type.)
The 'silentness' stems not from the sailors but from the various agencies and the security rules they operate under. Submarine exercises, for example, have been deemed classified/non-public as opposed to surface ship exercises which are fairly widely broadcast and the agencies have relatively few reporting restrictions, at least in general terms.
DeleteSubmarines do have some advantages that surface warfare community does not. When at sea they are effectively doing what they would in war (minus firing ordinance). Also due to the fact that they nuke powered, it appears that sub commands are less likely to get stupid about maintenance.
Delete"When at sea they are effectively doing what they would in war "
DeleteThere is no reason why surface ships shouldn't be doing the same: tracking targets, practicing EMCON operations, sailing in combat formations rather than photo ops, working on non-revealing surveillance methods, searching for subs, plotting attacks on other ships, etc. If we don't, it's just because we foolishly choose not to.
So, while its interesting that President Trump zeroed in on the Fords electromagnetic problems, maybe someone should point out the LCS debacle to him!! Maybe an Executive order stopping production immediately?? How about one for expanded airwings, or 90% aircraft readiness, or expanded training... Ill leave the politics out of it, but I feel as a previously successful businessman, the President should delve into DOD finance and procurement decisions, and order some common sense to be used. With the right technical advisors, maybe a dictatorial approach to fixing the military is what we need. I nominate CNO as his naval advisor...
ReplyDeleteI deleted a political comment. This isn't the blog for that. If you want to tie a specific political issue to military concerns, feel free, but generic politics are not a subject for this blog.
DeleteFair enough just following up political side of the comment made above about the politics of the POTUS and military made, consider knuckles taped will avoid in future - apologies
Delete"comment above about the politics"
DeleteThat comment was linked to a specific military issue and was non-partisan in nature. As I said, feel free to discuss politics if it's directly related to a military concern.
We got war.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.cnn.com/2019/06/14/politics/us-drone-tracked-iranian-boats/index.html
How about buying a future frigate. Buy a current one, but make sure the specs are for a cruiser. Then spend 30 years making a cruiser fit into a frigate.
ReplyDeleteThe waste is sickening, but scary thing is that no one in authority has ever (to my knowledge) even acknowledged the $B wasted on useless ships over the last 15 years, let alone actually holding anyone accountable.
ReplyDeleteWe spend so much time arguing about ideological issues in the US, and I get that (those issues seem important to me too), but one thing that has been entirely lost in the process is our ability and willingness as voters to hold our leaders, of both parties, accountable for basic managerial competency.
You could not be more right. 'We the People' have been quite negligent in our civic duties. If you run for Congress, you've got my vote!
DeleteI'm going to let my internet chairside imagination run wild for a moment.
ReplyDeleteWhat if...the flight deck of every LCS were heat treated so that F-35B's could land, refuel and rearm? I don't mean on a long term basis, but say, 1-2 times?
Why would you do that?
Surprise the enemy.
Scenario:
---------
The US is now at war with China. the main fleets are heading into all the China Sea's- North, "middle" and South. 2-3 "squadrons" of 4-5 LCS each are steaming a few hundred nm off Vietnam/Hainan Island.
The main action occurs with the main fleets.
But the marine fleet, with 3-4 LHD's , and their own F-35B's, are not actively participating in the battles the aircraft carriers are. They are mid China Sea.
The F35B's launch, but fly south/south west, towards the LCS's. Their mission is to fly towards the Chinese artificial militarised islands ini the South China Seas and coordinate with the Stealth bombers. They will provide sensor data, some protection and participate in the attack as well.
This is where the LCS's come in.
The Chinese ignore the LCS's, given how useless they are. The LCS is probably on some pitiful mission just showing the flag.
But the F'35's use the LCS as rearming/refueling platforms to leapfrog.
The LCS also frees up taankers as well.
After the strike, the F-35B's return to the LCS's. If they are short of fuel, the LCS can use move towards the F-35 to close the space (at it's vaunted 40 knot speed). If the F-35 can only land because it's in bad shape, it can stay on the LCS.
What do you think?
Andrew
We could do all that or we could just launch a few Tomahawks at the artificial islands and the problem is solved.
DeleteJust out of curiosity, how did you get a bunch of LCS, with their non-existent range and endurance, inside the middle of the Chinese A2/AD zone and why would you think the Chinese would ignore them? Sure, they're not much of a threat but the Chinese would at least send something along to dispatch them. This is the kind of wishful thinking that our military engages in - that the enemy will obligingly cooperate!
"What if...the flight deck of every LCS were heat treated so that F-35B's could land"
DeleteOne of the severe problems with the LCS was that, early on, a cost saving decision was made to lighten the construction of the flight deck. That's why, despite the very large area of the flight deck, it's only rated for a single SH-60 size helo plus a Fire Scout UAV type. The SH-60 weighs around 20,000 lb with a useful load. An F-35 weighs around 50,000-70,000 lb with a useful load. I suspect that LCS flight deck isn't rated for that weight.
This illustrates the major problem with the LCS - it can't actually do anything useful. It's myriad limitations simply preclude any useful function. If/when they ever get a functional MCM module, maybe they can do that but I'm not holding my breath.
DeleteAs you've seen, despite all the LCS in service the Navy has yet to deploy one on any useful mission. The recent Mid East flare up would have been the perfect application, in theory, but the Navy made no move to deploy any. I think they know they have a pier-queen on their hands.
I disagree with you entirely. The LCS's aren't useless. They just aren't being employed correctly. An LCS squadron would make the ultimate artificial reef.
Delete"An LCS squadron would make the ultimate artificial reef."
DeleteToo bad we can't trade them for some of the ships that we turned into reefs.
About the only useful thong you can use the zumwalts for is as a stealth ship aggressor squadron, I suppose. If you assume that pther nations are going to do their own stealth ships, anyhow...
ReplyDelete“The only useful thing”
DeleteYou may have accidentally typed “thong” instead of “thing” but it’s actually quite descriptive. A thong is sexy but impractical. The Navy too often judge potential vessels by how cool and sexy they seem to be: 50 knot LCS specifications, “invisible” planes and ships, magnetic catapults, missile firing guns, etc.
We need practical. Let’s say for the LCS we had made the speed 25 knots, with boring old conventional screws. That we kept it to small size to keep it small and cheap. Just enough ship. Instead of 3000 ton sexy ships with cramped engine rooms, And no practical equipment, we could have had a very boring 1000 ton vessel that wasn’t a mini- Burke but something we could slap proven equipment on.
The module concept wasn’t bad but it had to be sexier with brand new unproven tech.
Instead we could have containerized say an dipping sonar system or towed array. Or repacked the Avengers mine sweepers gear.
Nope. Gotta be new and flashy.
We don’t have fighting admirals, we have have kids with toys.
"Or repacked the Avengers mine sweepers gear."
DeleteOr, we could have simply built new, updated Avengers for $20M (based on Cyclone costs which ought to be similar).
" ... a very boring 1000 ton vessel that wasn’t a mini- Burke but something we could slap proven equipment on."
DeleteSounds to me very much like the Chinese Type 056 corvette, of which the Chinese are building some 10 vessels per year right now.
Setting aside any issues about the quality of their equipment, I very much like the way they're going about building their fleet. I wish we would take a lesson from them.
Delete"Or, we could have simply built new, updated Avengers for $20M (based on Cyclone costs which ought to be similar)."
DeleteThat seems to be a low estimate, especially if GFE is included. The Avengers are about 50 feet longer with 4 times the displacement compared to the Cyclones. And, per Wiki, we're buying 72 ton Mk VI patrol boats for $15 million each. The Navy doesn't do shipbuilding on the cheap. I would think a new Avenger, with GFE, easily going for $200 to $250 million.
" I would think a new Avenger, with GFE, easily going for $200 to $250 million."
DeleteIf so, we're being robbed! The LCS was supposed to come in at $200M - of course, it didn't so that may not be the best argument but still …
The Avengers have no particularly expensive GFE and their electronics are minimal compared to even a small warship like the LCS.
So, double the Cyclone cost and call it $40M! Still a better way to go. Heck, it's not even a steel hull - it's wood! It's gotta be substantially cheaper.
@ Johnniey Z
DeleteProblem is without all the super cutting edge stuff and vapor ware plug and play stuff the USN looks to buying a CG ship painted grey. We cant have that.
"Setting aside any issues about the quality of their equipment"
DeleteIt is not so easy to really evaluate the quality of the Chinese gear, as most information remains classified, but one indication might be the Chinese-Pakistani JF-17 jet fighter.
The Pakistan Air Force is quite familiar with the F-16 and the JF-17, and they decided to make the JF-17 the backbone of their air force.
Another indication might be Thailand which just recently selected the Chinese S26T submarine, even though for a similar price (some $400 million) they could have selected a Russian or a German boat.
“40 million”
DeleteEven at $80 mill you could have 3 with functional equipment for the price of 1 non functional LCS. Those who estimate higher have a point but only if we go with the concurrency nonsense combined with our ridiculously complex current procurement which is too in favor of a handful of “super-contractors” like Lockheed who build everything from missiles to boats to planes to armored vehicles...many of which these pages have complained of.
Minesweepers, patrol craft, and a destroyer escort style ASW ship could all be handled by smaller yards that are cheaper and more responsive.
And we don’t need to always go single source. The Cold War Navy had multiple aircraft types F-14, F-4, S-3, etc. some better suited to different roles than others.
We didn’t have one size fits all Burke’s but Knox and Perry class frigates, Spruance destroyers and the Ticonderoga cruisers. The Burke is a great ship, but it we have basically made them into cruisers without big guns. And the new Frigate isn’t a Frigate. The FREMM is a sweet looking ship but it is really a Burke on a smaller hull the way Navy is asking for it.
The Navy talks about diversity. Let’s have a true diversity of builders and ship designs.
"one indication might be the Chinese-Pakistani ...
DeleteAnother indication might be Thailand"
Those choices might be more related to political relationship considerations between the countries than an assessment of the actual quality of the weapon systems. Just as the West tends to not even consider Russian/Chinese weapons, so too the reverse.
On the we got nothing thing I assume the most recent 'good' news about the ever just about to be great F-35 is making the rounds? So why worry about the Ford since it seems the planes it will fly are death traps anyway better if those catapults don't work.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/06/12/the-pentagon-is-battling-the-clock-to-fix-serious-unreported-f-35-problems/
coda I am so not tying to do phone post any more I have delete and re post every time.
“Not tying to do phone post”
DeleteYea that’s why mine are incomprehensible sometimes. I’ve done that enough times that I knew you meant “trying” instead of “tying”.
Damn thee Autocorrects! Of course doing it with SIRI is even worse. It comes out like English is my third language.
And now the Navy is saying that the next large surface combatant will look more like the Zumwalts than like other surface combatants.
ReplyDeletehttps://news.usni.org/2019/06/19/navy-next-large-surface-combatant-will-look-a-lot-like-zumwalt?utm_source=USNI+News&utm_campaign=92075175dc-USNI_NEWS_DAILY&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0dd4a1450b-92075175dc-230443889&mc_cid=92075175dc&mc_eid=ee58c8c099
I really think that we are missing a possible use for the mostly aluminum LCS.
ReplyDeleteThe return of fire ships....
@JFW - nice
ReplyDelete@CNO sorta relevant.
On the got nothing thing the USN is increasing it sucking up of USCG assets into the pacific. Another NSC is being deployed to the South China sea guess its good we don't need them you know protecting the US coast
https://www.forbes.com/sites/craighooper/2019/06/05/the-u-s-navy-and-u-s-coast-guard-partnership-is-heading-for-trouble-heres-how-to-fix-it/#69cacfd37e23
Its a bit appalling that USCG does not get one to one dollar reimbursement for doing a USN job. Just give the USCG the residual planed budget fort the LCS.
Somebody in congress needs to get the bit in their teeth and highlight the epic scale of the failure of the LCS program since they should be doing the job that is being saddled on the USCG.