One of the crowning achievements of the LCS was supposed to have been a very small, bordering on non-existent, crew. I believe the original crew was to have been three sailors, a parrot, and a dog that was cross-trained as a cat. That quickly became a core crew of 40 with an add-on of 20-30 for the module specialists and aviation for a total of 60-70. The concept was roundly mocked as everyone, including the dog/cat, could see that was a ridiculous and unworkable crew size.
As predicted by everyone but the Navy, the LCS crew size has been inching steadily up. The latest report puts the crew size at 94.
… LCS deploy with a total of 94 sailors – 70 for the core crew, including the MCM force, and an additional 24 that make up the aviation detachment for the MH-60 aboard … (1)
Remember, that each ship has two crews so the actual crew size for each ship is 188 (I assume the aviation det crew swaps out when the core crew does). Just out of curiosity, does anyone recall the crew size of the Perry class frigates that the LCS was supposed to replace and reap huge savings by having a smaller crew? That’s right … the Perrys had a crew of around 176. The LCS now has a larger crew than the Perrys!
 |
| Original LCS Crew |
But wait, we’re not done yet!
The LCS still requires an extensive shore-side maintenance support group so that adds an unknown but, according to various DOT&E reports, large shore maintenance group. When those shore maintenance people are factored in, the average LCS crew size is probably around 200+.
Those Perrys are looking better and better now, aren’t they?
________________________________
(1)USNI News website, “Six Littoral Combat Ships to Deploy by Year’s End as Navy Continues to Refine Operations”, Sam LaGrone, 28-Jun-2021,
"When those shore maintenance people are factored in, the average LCS crew size is probably around 200+."
ReplyDeleteWith or without the dogs/cats?
"Those Perrys are looking better and better now, aren’t they?"
ReplyDeleteThey always looked better.
Plus the Perry's were survivability level 2. REAL level 2 -- before they adjusted it!
ReplyDeleteAnd Perry's actually survived mines and cruise missile attacks. Does anyone believe an LCS could do that?
ReplyDeleteWhat if you took a Perry as the starting point.
ReplyDeleteModify the hull to facilitate stealth and add a second shaft.
Go to CODLAG or IEP for quiet running in the ASW mode.
Move the 76mm to where the missile launcher was, with a couple of ComNavOps's RBUs behind it.
Put 32 VLS cells where the 76mm gun was on the original, with a load like 32 ESSM in quads, 12 VL-ASROC, 12 VL-NSM.
TRS-3D/4D radar.
Use the Knox torpedo layout, two fixed tubes P&S that can be reloaded quickly from a submarine-style torpedo room. I would actually like to stack a 324mm tube over a 533mm tube.
Add ComNavOps's Virginia passive arrays to the hull, P&S.
Add sufficient armor and internal armored bulkheads to be able to take a hit and keep on going.
That looks doable to me, and looks like an ASW specialist with some ability to take care of itself if needed. I don't know what it would cost, but it does make use of existing technology throughout, and the way the Navy gets in trouble cost-wise is by using experimental, cutting edge stuff instead. If we could do them for $500MM, and I think we could if we got serious about it, we could build a bunch for what we are spending on useless junk like the Zumwalts or the LCSs.
"Put 32 VLS cells where the 76mm gun was on the original"
DeleteTwo points:
(1) Note that a VLS needs 25 or 30 feet of space below the surface. Is that there?
(2) Note that a bunch of missiles that high in the ship may affect the center of gravity and make it unstable.
" Note that a VLS needs 25 or 30 feet of space below the surface. Is that there?"
DeleteThis is a non-existent ship design so … sure, there's room! You make as much room as you need in the design. As a real world example, the Burkes have VLS mounted on top of their hangar which is exactly the same as what is envisioned for this.
"a bunch of missiles that high in the ship may affect the center of gravity and make it unstable."
If they were added on after the ship was designed and built then that would be a concern. If a ship is designed for that then it's not an issue because the design would incorporate it.
"a Perry as the starting point"
DeleteOf course, once you completely change the hull and superstructure to incorporate stealth, completely change the propulsion system, completely change the weapons fit, completely change the sensor fit, and incorporate an extensive armor fit, there's nothing left of the 'starting point'. It's a brand new design with nothing in common with a Perry!
Very minor quibble and utterly irrelevant.
"(2) Note that a bunch of missiles that high in the ship may affect the center of gravity and make it unstable."
DeleteYou would be moving a 76mm gun mount forward and considerably lower, which should buy you some weight. And moving the exterior of the superstructure outward to make the design more stealthy should enable reducing or eliminating one level of superstructure.
"It's a brand new design with nothing in common with a Perry!"
Sorry, I meant it only in the sense of using a Perry layout as a starting point. It would have about as much in common with a Perry as the FFG(X) has with a FREMM. You could do similarly starting from the different Knox layout.
But do you need to add stealth? If you are using this as the low end to the Burke high end, then can't you modernize the weapons, the radar, the propulsion system (electric drive propulsion, even though it isn't working for US ships, is useful), and such and leave it at that? Sure, it's easier to detect, but it isn't the ship that you are using to kick the doors of a defended port. It seems to me that stealth is going to add cost for benefits that are unnecessary in this kind of ship. Though I am certainly open to being wrong.
Delete"But do you need to add stealth?"
DeleteYou ask the right question! The answer depends on the CONOPS for the ship. If you anticipate it escorting remote convoys or executing peripheral patrol duties then you can likely get by without it. If, on the other hand, you anticipate the ship being part of your main battle groups then you need stealth.
While stealth coatings are expensive to produce, apply, and maintain, most ship stealth is structural/physical as the result of hull, superstructure, and fittings shaping. Shape doesn't cost much. A slanted piece of steel costs the same as a vertical piece. There might be some minor handling or assembly issues that cost a bit more but that would be almost insignificant.
The final factor to consider is the cost of stealth - to whatever degree - versus the cost of a sunk ship. Generally, for ship stealth, the cost of stealth is insignificant compared to the cost of a sunk ship so why not include stealth?
That's kind of both sides of the issue for your consideration.
My spin on stealth is it depends on the ships mission. Id think that most ships from here on should have some basic stealthy shaping, but not extreme like the Zums. An argument can be made that ASW ships would benefit most from stealth, as they could be operating further away from any formation they are supporting, and its protective AAW umbrella. Since an ASW-centric ship wont have all the aerials, antennae, etc of an AAW ship, it could also be easier to integrate stealthy shaping.
DeleteOf course you could argue that ships operating with a formation, ASW or otherwise, dont need stealth, as they're protected by the dedicated AAW ships. Depending on a ships CONOP and the cost/penalties of integrating stealthiness, its a tough call.
What Id love to know is, what are the actual comparison numbers of a Tico,a Perry, a Spruance, a Burke, and a Zumwalt when it comes to radar observability??? Ive heard the Zumwalt claims about looking like a small fishing boat, but are there any real factual comparisons to look at??
I saw at least one official say they are looking at dropping the blue/gold model. (Sorry, can't remember where. if I find it again I'll add it.)
ReplyDeleteThe two crews was always a waste of manpower that is desperately needed elsewhere. It works for the Subs because they are pretty dependable (when maintained properly) and are also multi-billion dollar vessels whose mission requires being at sea a lot.
The LCS? Never dependable enough to be working when you were ready to hand off. But that aside, why would we need two crews for a vessel that is considered expendable by design, and is no more than an Offshore Patrol Vessel? There are no missions it can actually perform that are so vital as to require non-stop readiness.
(I leave aside the fact that there are no missions it can actually perform that cannot be done better a Coast Guard Cutter.)
Anti-drug, Anti-piracy, and "showing the flag" may be missions but they are not deterrents to foreign aggression. A Ballistic Missile submarine is.
You could justify it for a Burke as hard as we are running them but an LCS? Two crews is a waste.
Use all that underdeck space for more berthing and repair equipment instead of barely useful modules and put one decent sized (100?) crew not two barely useful ones.
@CDR Chip
ReplyDeleteThat looks like a great frigate to be the navy's primary blue-water ASW ship.
Two ASW helicopters?
Maybe around 5k to 6k tons full-load?
Lutefisk
Lutefisk,
DeletePerrys and Knoxes were both around 4100T. With the adds, 5000T might be about right. I'm not really adding a lot of weight, just moving things about a bit.
The Navy could buy five more Puller classes, but modified for alongside repairs. They would deploy with the LCS and provide repairs every 96 hours of run time to keep the engines running. Move the extra crew slots to the Pullers.
ReplyDeleteThen do crew swaps on the Pullers, which would be O6 command slots, doubling the number of command jobs for captains in the LCS fleet.
The old joke with the SSBNs was, there are three crews: Blue, Gold, and the “Other” crew….
ReplyDeleteHow many blue suiters are carried by Indy & Farce class ships ?
ReplyDeleteBlue Suit = Army speak for 'Lowly Contractor'
I keep thinking there is a breed of ship here that could emerge if they worked to keep it simple. Even the current commercial ships now have more watertight bulkheads than the LCS and EPF classes. 1 engine type, 1 transmission box type, 1 water jet type. 98 berths for 3 weeks endurance could have been 146 berths for 2 week endurance. If we have established 2 H-60 detachments, why not plan for that and then change to a hybrid or all UAV detachment only once proven? If its modular, why not start with what we know already works because its on another ship. The module should for sure accommodate that capability (Specifically thinking CAPTAS-4 here).
ReplyDeleteWow, a 25+% increase!! Someone certainly missed the msrk originally. Was additional berthing added or are there now surface sailors 'hot-racking'??? Another interesting take away here- The aviation det is 24 people. Think about that. 24 people to fly and maintain a single helicopter. Yet the Navy expected somewhere near twice that number to sail and maintain a WHOLE SHIP!!! Of course a difference is that the airdet is ACTUALLY doing maintenance and repairs, rather than just taking notes for the contractors when/if they return to port. But the comparison here shows the absurdity...
ReplyDeleteThey were design with 75 with 2 high berths knowing they could change to 3 high which they did. Trick is all the rest of the services needed upgraded in practice for just the 75 and then they had to add even more for the 98. The whole everyone does their own laundry everyone is their own cook model is nuts. Plenty of kids just learning how to do those things for the first time in life, let alone run a ship. No human factors work in this thing from my view.
Delete"all the rest of the services needed upgraded"
DeleteQuite right! In addition to food prep, there's increased fresh water generation and storage, increased refrigerated food storage, increased waste handling, increased head requirements, increased shower requirements, and so on. Much of that CAN'T be increased. The fresh water generation and storage is fixed as is the refrigeration spaces. If you can't increase those then the only option is to decrease the ship's endurance (have to resupply more often) which is already extremely short (spec'ed for around 14 days and is likely now around 8 days).
Never been in the Military, never been in the Navy, but know boats and spent a little time in aerospace. (Enough to know before I finally left - Oh happy day! - that military contractors produce over-engineered and overpriced junk for semi-corrupt procurement officers.)
ReplyDeleteThat said, what I see in these all these designs is waaay too much complexity combined with trying to make something that does everything, meaning it does nothing well. In other words, it's all as described in Martin Van Creveld's classic Technology and War. (Also Defense or Delusion by Thomas Etzold.)
So the question is this: Has anybody ever considered looking to the past for littoral combat ships and simply bringing back PT boats serviced by a mothership? (I know the author of the is blog is a big advocate of bringing back battleships, so there's some editorial precedence here.)
And I mean absolutely not reinventing the wheel and already existing and relatively cheap production line items from the civilian sector, only minor changes allowed.
As as example, you could start with an offshore Boston Whaler Outrage 420 with a draft of 31 inches as you base hull. Power would be provided by 4 Oxe off-the-shelf and fuel sipping 300HP diesel outboards. Superstructure would be factory modified to accept, say, an already existing 20 or 30 mm (rotary)cannon (or something) in the bow, mounted low, and a rack in the stern to carry 3 or 4 smallish (but deadly) missiles of varying types depending on need.
The advantages:
Delete- Proven, rugged off the shelf basic design
- Relatively low cost, easily 600-800K each not counting missiles (or torpedos).
- Simplicity inasmuch as they're they're for littoral/close to shore combat only and nothing else. (South China Sea?)
- Very shallow draft allows for beaching and/or mooring/hiding out in gunk holes
- Can attack much larger ships if suitably equipped with the proper (off the shelf) hardware.
- At time of manufacture can easily be lightly armored with kevlar and without any real weight penalty .
- Inherently stealthy inasmuch as the whole thing is fiberglass. And very low to the water relative to a ship of larger size.
- Fiberglass is inherently corrosion proof and easy to maintain/repair. The crew can easily fix anything that needs fixing, and in the field using only hand tools.
- Inherently unsinkable. (Yes, really; you read that correctly. Quite literally you can saw a Whaler in half with a chainsaw and it won't sink. Look it up.)
- Oxe diesels are based on off the shelf and reliable GM automotive diesels, meaning parts sourcing and repairs are easy and cheap, world wide.
- Multiple engines allow for redundancy whilst allowing for extended range/duration simply by shutting down and raising a couple of them out of the water.
- Multiple engines give you speed when you need it.
- While it would rely on a mothership, in reality it could use any ship for resupply and rearming. Or just the local marina.
Delete- Using the Pantsir type system as a model, multiple hulls could be telemetry cross linked and operate as a single entity if necessary. Sort of a hive mind. Again, an off the shelf sort of solution, no re-inventing the wheel allowed.
- Overall tremendous and proven flexibility of use. Whalers is on that very short list of products that actually do everything well.
- Small size makes them easy to transport on larger ships or aircraft. Take them where you need them.
- You really could crew it with 3 or 4 people, and with some comfort.
And so on and so forth.
The advantage overall would be that because each hull is inexpensive (and of proven design), you can afford to have a few hundred of them. And that means in turn that you wouldn't be afraid to use and possibly lose them. In other words, the definition of a good weapon - Creveld again - quantity having a quality all it's own.
Granted, nobody will become an admiral commanding these things, much to the dismay of the careerist aspiring perfumed prince. And there's ever present procurement danger of somebody trying to gold plate everything in sight or not understanding the term "design freeze."
But like a swarm of angry wasps, a group of these things might very well prove to be a nasty surprise for an adversary otherwise dismissive of their small size.
(I suspect that the Persians have exactly that in mind.)
Anyway, that's the idea. Feedback?
Just a thought.
VicB3
P.S. Here are the Whaler and Oxe sites Not selling anything, just making it easy for the interested reader to find out what's what:
https://www.bostonwhaler.com/boat-models/outrage/420-outrage.html
https://oxeoutboards.com/
https://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2021/06/lcs-crew-size.html
You might want to look at this post, "PT Boats"
DeleteThank you for your kind and prompt reply. I've read that essay and greatly admire your insights.
DeleteYou'll notice that in my post I referenced the Pantsir system. As I understand it, it pulls in and shares out telemetry from everywhere, allowing a group of them, Borg-like , to operate as a single entity if necessary. It also does not require line of sight anything inasmuch as it can utilize whatever data is available via other units, aircraft, satellites or what have you.
It would seem therefore that even if one boat were destroyed, all the other boats in the swarm would know about it and would be able retaliate. Again, the whole angry swarm of wasps analogy.
Further, the Whaler in question is much smaller than the Chinese vessel - smaller even than a PT boat though potentially much deadlier - probably inherently stealthier and harder to see, and a hell of a lot cheaper. They could run out of missiles before you ran out of boats.
The question here is, if PT boats had access to modern electronics, would they have been effective ship killers or what have you? And especially if there were a non-line of sight and co-ordinated swarm of them.
Anyway, like your (correct to my mind) thoughts
on battleships and armour, relatively small and certainly cheap off the shelf then modified Whaler type craft should be examined in terms of what newer electronics and systems could do for their lethality.
Just a thought.
VicB3
The modern PT boat concept has two major flaws and they really are major!
DeleteOne, is the sensor issue. You can't shoot what you can't detect. There's a bit of a Catch-22 at work here. If you have sufficient control of the skies and the water to operate a host of (flying?) sensors then you probably don't need the PT boat. Conversely, if you don't have sufficient control of the skies and water then your sensors are likely to have very short life spans and your PT boats will be ineffective.
Two, is that a small boat requires frequent and physically close support in the form of a base or a tender. A base is a fixed target and easily destroyed by cruise/ballistic missiles especially when it is located so close to enemy territory as is required for supporting short-legged PT boats. A tender is a large, slow, non-stealthy, defenseless target that will have to operate close to enemy territory to support the short-legged PT boats and it will likely have a short life span. For the enemy, if they sink the tender then the PT boats cease to be a problem. In WWII, the relatively much shorter range of sensors and weapons allowed bases and tenders to survive close to enemy territory but that is no longer true, today.
So, until you figure out how to address those two problems, the PT boat concept remains problematic. This is a large part of the reason why most small missile boats are intended for home water defense as opposed to forward deployed, offensive operations.
This is a system failure.
ReplyDeleteIt is like a commercial factory designed to be highly automated with very few people on payrolls. Upon opening, its CEO boasts to Wall Street on automation and low labor costs. After start operation, then, management finds network system keeps failing, heap of software bugs need fix, machines easily break down, ....
Can some provide an exact breakdown of the roles of 24 sailors to support one H-60? They must have a commander to command the det and probably a master chief and EEOC officer.
ReplyDeleteLook up "Unmanning the rails" Scroll through and it gives a break down. Had been 23 originally.
DeleteSome MQ-8Bs might be part of the aviation detachment. Last July, the Gabrielle Giffords (LCS 10) deployed with a detachment from Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron (HSC) 23 which consisted of one MH-60S Sea Hawk and two MQ-8B Fire Scouts. The detachment crew consisted of five pilots, four aircrewmen and 16 maintainers and private contractors for the helicopter and UAVs. I'm guessing the contractors were for the UAVs.
DeleteWhy in the name of all that is holy did we continue building these wastes for so long? We have built them through four presidential administrations, two of each party, so it's not a partisan thing, just a colossal stupidity thing.
ReplyDeleteWe could start to reduce admin overhead by firing everybody left on active duty who had anything to do with this or the Zumwalts or the Fords. And maybe recall a few retired folks to active duty to court-martial them.
You'll recall that everyone outside the Navy was stunned when the Navy failed to downselect to a single builder and, instead, went with two different builders and two different designs. One can't help but wonder if that was a politically calculated maneuver on the part of the Navy to increase the likelihood that Congress would continue to fund the program since, with two builders at two different locations, several Senators would have a vested interest (constituent's jobs) in keeping the program going?
DeleteIt had everything to do with major programs getting delayed through contractor protests at the time. KC-46 being the one that immediately comes to mind.
DeleteIn hindsight, the Navy could have chosen a single LCS design and have it manufactured by different builders. Its what the Navy successfully did with the Perry-class, Burke-class, and other classes.
DeleteThat was the plan at the time. Bath was shooting to be the second yard with GD on the Austal design team.
DeleteSeems as though the Navy brass didnt learn anything from the whole Cyclone class. Too big to do what it was designed for and too small for much else and then they come up with and entirely "new" class of ships are are even less capable. We could take a proven design like the Coast Guards Sentinal Class cutter and up arm it to be a decent ASW platform with little advanced research required. Plenty of room for upgrades on the ships as they currently float. The savings would be phenomenal.
ReplyDeleteThe Navalanalyses.com showing an image of the Lockheed proposal for the Greek frigate competition with the Gibbs & Cox designed MMSC HN, a version of the Saudi Multi Mission Surface Combatant (MMSC), which based on the LCS Freedom class.
ReplyDeleteWhat i find of interest in the specs shown on the MMSC HN image (no mention of crew numbers), full load displacement of 4,300t, assuming a token additional ~200t for SLA would result in ~ 4,500t EOL ship ~ 1,000t larger in displacement than Freedom class, GAO quoted Freedom's Naval Architectural Limit/EOL as 3,500t. It allows the MMSC to be fully fitted out as a light frigate with one eight cell Mk41 VLS block with mention of ESSMs, but not SM-2s, and the light Mk110 57mm gun, so still weight limited (Lockheed's proposal for the FFG(X) based on the LCS was over 6,000t before they withdrew from the competition).
Secondly and perhaps more importantly cruise range shown as a not great but not unreasonable 5,000nm, but the kicker is that's it at only 10 knots, less than the cruising speed of all but the very slowest commercial ships, confirmation that Freedom/MMSC semi-planning hull optimized for high speeds has the drag of a brick at anything above 10 knots till it gets on the plane, reflected in the abysmal range of the Freedom class if cruising at 14/16 knots.
PS If by a miracle Lockheed won the Greek frigate competition the ships would be built in-country, Fincantieri Marinette Marine shipyards fully committed to completion of the Saudi MMSC ships and their own designed FFG-62/Constellation class for the Navy, though would mention the Navy FY20 plan buy for the FFG(X) was one in FY20 and then two per year, actual only one each in FY20 and FY21 and again only one requested in FY22, if remember correctly back in the 70's and 80's seven FGG-7 were procured per year?
Hate to ask but the article mentioned MCM are these modules actually working deplpyed yet That would be news to me
ReplyDeleteThey are not. Some of the individual components have been operated from ships but the entire module does not yet exist.
Delete