The LCS program problems are many and, generally, well known. Still, there are aspects that are surprising even for this troubled program. One such issue is the Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) anti-air defense weapon for the Freedom class LCS. The issue is that the RAM system has not been tested on the Freedom class and the Navy has decided not to conduct any tests. No tests. None.
The Navy has not fully tested these combat systems and the Navy does not plan to conduct further air warfare operational testing of Freedom seaframes 1 through 15 in their current combat system configuration. The Navy has accepted the risk of continued operation with a combat system that is not operationally tested. (1, p.190)
The Navy has neither resourced nor conducted any air warfare test events against anti-ship cruise missile surrogates planned as part of the DOT&E-approved Enterprise Air Warfare Ship Self-Defense Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP) or the LCS TEMP. The Navy’s Program Executive Office for Integrated Warfare Systems halted all work to develop a Probability of Raid Annihilation (PRA) M&S suite of the combat systems in FY15 and has not yet restarted the effort. (2, p.141)
 |
| RAM Launcher |
Yes, the Rolling Airframe Missile itself has been tested (is that a true statement? I’m not sure) but the launcher, combat system software that controls the launcher, the sensors that have to integrate with the combat system and launcher, and possible sensor interference has not been tested. That’s a lot of potential problems. For example, prior to the Navy canceling testing, DOT&E noted the need to,
Correct the SSDS [Ship Self Defense System software] scheduling function to preclude interference with the RAM infrared guidance capability stemming from prior intercepts and warhead detonations. (1, p.209)
The Navy is knowingly sending Freedom variants into combat with untested point defense missile systems. This ranks right up there with the WWII torpedo fiasco. The only saving grace is that no one, not even the Navy, believes that the LCS is an actual combat asset.
On the plus side, the Navy appears to have standardized on the SeaRAM instead of the RAM so if they’ll quickly follow through and retrofit SeaRAM onto the Freedom variant then the testing halt is acceptable. If not, it’s simply criminal.
 |
| SeaRAM Launcher |
This does, however, raise a few questions/issues:
- Who initially thought having two different point defense systems (RAM and SeaRAM) within the same general class of ship was a good idea? Someone should be fired for that.
- Who thought a point defense system without a self-contained targeting sensor (radar) was a good idea? Someone should be fired for that.
- This is what happens when you allow two variants of the same ship to be built using completely different equipment. Who thought that was a good idea? Someone should be fired for that.
The larger point is that the Navy has been exhibiting a marked tendency to truncate or eliminate testing over the last decade or so. For example, the Navy delayed the shock testing of the LCS as long as they could and attempted to eliminate the shock testing of the Ford. Numerous other examples of the Navy skipping testing are documented throughout the DOT&E annual reports. This is what happens when there is no watchdog. The Navy cannot be trusted to conduct thorough testing or, indeed, any testing at all. This is what makes the recent decision to classify, eliminate, or significantly reduce public DOT&E reporting so concerning.
___________________________________
(1)Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, FY2017 Annual Report
(2)Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, FY2019 Annual Report
Those infrared missiles were designed to track the hot tailpipes of jet aircraft from behind and chase it. They were not designed to attack head-on, especially a far smaller cruise missile whose body blocks what little infrared it produces.
ReplyDeleteThere is also the issue of how to employ all these systems. Will these missiles chase hot 20mm rounds from the CWIS. Will they chase ship decoys? Will they chase the ship's own missiles? I think the contractors and Admirals know the answer, hence no tests.
My solution is NAVROC.
Deletehttps://www.g2mil.com/NAVROC.htm
Aerodynamic friction will heat up the missile's body- and if the missile is supersonic or faster, its body will heat up to the point a missile can track them. The US began manufacturing AIM-9 variants with all-aspect targeting abilities in the 1980s.
Delete"a missile can track them"
DeleteThat's the least of the potential issues. RAM uses the ship's radar and combat system for initial targeting. It's the integration of the missile with the ship's other systems that is always problematic. The Zumwalt is a good example of a AAW system that ought to have worked right out of the gate since it had standard missiles that have been in service for quite some time. However, there is an unknown problem - likely the guidance links - that has prevented the ship's self-defense system from working (see "Zumwalt Ship Self-Defense Problems")
Integration is always the problem. Multiple sensors, poor sensor locations, electromagnetic interference, communication problems, etc. are always problems when trying to integrate a weapon. It is 100% certain that the LCS RAM has problems but since the Navy has terminated testing, we won't find the problems until they're used in combat and that's how people get killed, ships get sunk, and battles are lost.
Another latent problem is what happens when we start flinging missiles and the sky fills with red hot fragments of exploded missiles? Will a missile be able to maintain an infrared lock on the one valid target in a sky full of hot objects? I seriously doubt it but the Navy refuses to run these kinds of realistic tests. The missile, itself, is the least of the problems.
The sailors on the LCS are almost defenseless. They just don't know it.
"My solution is NAVROC."
DeleteAre you envisioning a non-deck-penetrating system with no reloads or do you envision a magazine and reload mechanism?
"They were not designed to attack head-on, especially a far smaller cruise missile whose body blocks what little infrared it produces."
DeletePer Wiki, the RAM missile has three modes of guidance: passive radio frequency/infrared homing, infrared only, and infrared dual mode enabled (radio frequency and infrared homing).
"RAM missile has three modes of guidance"
DeleteTechnically, it has two modes: passive radio homing and infrared homing. Depending on the missile Block, the modes can be used stand along or in combination which gives the so-called third mode.
Interestingly, Wiki lists a purchase goal of 1600 RAM missiles for 115 launchers over 74 ships. Doing the math, that equates to 13 missiles per launcher. Given that the launchers have 21 missile cells, that means each launcher is only half full and there are no reloads! I don't know how accurate or up to date the Wiki data is but that's typical of the Navy, to develop a weapon system and then not follow through on fully equipping the missiles plus substantial reloads. I can only hope that the Navy has purchased more missiles but I suspect not. Generally, when you see plans for some acquisition number, those numbers usually get cut, not increased. I'll have to look into that sometime.
"Interestingly, Wiki lists a purchase goal of 1600 RAM missiles for 115 launchers over 74 ships."
DeleteAccording to published procurement documents, the Navy has bought over 1,900 rounds prior to FY 20 and plans to buy 320 rounds between FY 20 to FY 22.
But, the question comes down to need. Most of the carriers and large amphibs have 2 Mk 49 launchers. At present, we have some 40 carriers and amphibs and that alone would require almost 1,800 rounds.
SeaRAM seems to be limited to the Independence-class.
I haven't researched this but, if true, that's still 2220 missiles for 115 launchers which is 19 missiles per 21-cell launcher. Not even a full load for all the launchers and zero reloads!
DeleteSlightly off topic but close, has USN ever taken a DDG Burke or maybe a Tico when they were new and sent a couple of different type of missiles and profile attacks to see how the ENTIRE system responds?
ReplyDeleteI mean, separately we "kind of" know that a Standard SM2, SM3 and SM6 work BUT have we ever tested AEGIS when you fire a SM2/SM3 for one target, maybe a SM6 for another target and SeaRAM/Phalanx CWIS for another target all within lets say less than a minute, some ECM and challenging profile attacks?
Theoretically it should all work but wouldn't be worth at least once to try it out to see if there are any issues?
The short answer is not. The longer answer is much more discouraging.
DeleteThey retire ships every year. It would cost almost nothing to fire several types of missiles at once at one (with inert warheads) to see how our missiles and ship defense perform.
Delete"It would cost almost nothing to fire several types of missiles at once at one (with inert warheads) to see how our missiles and ship defense perform."
DeleteThe Navy is retiring Aegis cruisers, LCS, and soon, Burkes. There is no excuse for not conducting realistic tests.
As you know, we also have the dedicated self-defense test ship, the USS Paul Foster (Spruance class), but we never seem to actually use it!
With old Tico class being retired, take 1 out to sea, put AEGIS system on full automatic and fire some ASMs, a hypersonic missile and a few slow LO ASMs to test Phalanx or SeaRAM too, shouldn't be that hard to install in place and really not that expensive, what maybe 5 to 6 missiles,a ECM adversary jet and 10 to 12 USN missiles to shoot them down and Phalanx/SeaRAM, put some cameras and telemetry, pouf, voila! The ship is being retired so who cares if most systems don't work, only AEGIS, missiles and electrical power is required. Full auto so nobody needs to be around. How expensive can it be? Couple 100 million $$$ tops, maybe not even that much but information would be priceless.
DeleteOr the information could be disastrous from a public relations perspective, especially to a Navy leadership more concerned with appearances than reality and war fighting.
DeleteAs for LCS, Im not really worried since I bet most will be retired by 2030 anyways and will spend most of their time between now and then doing drug or piracy patrols.
ReplyDeleteIf the Navy was serious it has a useful test ship available to it for this purpose. Specifically LCS-1 which has been decommissioned. They could rig it up with remote control, fully equip it with the appropriate defensive systems, and send it out to a range to be shot at.
ReplyDeleteIf RAM, as mounted on the Freedom class ships proves to be a complete bust then they have learned something useful and in addition they haven't had to waste an in-service vessel in the process. If it works as designed, then woo-hoo.
Also, pet peeve, is there really any value in referring to the "LCS-class" ships? It seems to be about as meaningful a term as referring to the "DDG class". The ship designs are extremely different and does the use of some common components and subsystems really represent sufficient commonality to render them a single class. The uniting feature of the Freedom and Independence classes seem to be dodgy program management, poor concept development, and of course appalling failure on the module development side of the house.
Both ship classes are intended to carry the sundry modules (if they ever happen) but that development failure no more a ship commonality than a failure in the development of SM-6 would be a failure of the Arleigh Burkes.
"The uniting feature of the Freedom and Independence classes"
DeleteThe uniting feature is the mission. They were designed for the same role.
"pet peeve, is there really any value in referring to the "LCS-class" ships?"
Unless talking about general aspects, I try to use the term 'Freedom variant' or 'Independence variant'. As you read, today's post was about the RAM system on the Freedom variant.
I would be totally down with spending money to load up the LCS ships with remote control, and every decoy and deception and jamming device and bolted on missile defense we have, even put some blown in insulation in them simulate a bit of damage control. And that shoot them with everything we have to see how well the various systems sustain saturation attacks. Get our allies and friends to join to see if their systems are better.
Delete"The only saving grace is that no one, not even the Navy, believes that the LCS is an actual combat asset."
ReplyDeleteYep.
No need to test combat systems for a ship that's not going to experience actual combat anyway.
One the other way, one of the US advantages over China was actually testing and examination as opposed to just issuing party-line press releases about how wonderful everything is.
And with DOT&E being castrated, America is going the Chinese way: tell the plebs that everything is working great, sweep failures under the rug and hope nothing blows up.
Not a good move.
Gotta say you kinda ruined my new year with this post. Son is about a week a way heading of to RTC at the Great Lakes center. I hope to God (Gods? Devils, Demons Anyone anything...) he avoids a LCS post after A and C school.
ReplyDeletesigh ....
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, what's one more LCS scandal among friends. :-)
"This does, however, raise a few questions/issues:
ReplyDeleteWho initially thought having two different point defense systems (RAM and SeaRAM) within the same general class of ship was a good idea? Someone should be fired for that.
Who thought a point defense system without a self-contained targeting sensor (radar) was a good idea? Someone should be fired for that.
This is what happens when you allow two variants of the same ship to be built using completely different equipment. Who thought that was a good idea? Someone should be fired for that."
Fired? Heck, imprisoned.
ComNavOps, crazy thought just occurred to me. Maybe the LCSs could be your peace navy. Instead of buying a bunch of yachts, just let sailors sail around on them in peacetime to save wear and tear on the war fleet, and then park them as soon as war breaks out.
"Who thought a point defense system without a self-contained targeting sensor (radar) was a good idea? "
ReplyDeleteBarring a direct hit, bolt-on standalones seem much more likely to avoid incapacitation due to damage of sensors, computing equipment, and the cabling between them all. What is the advantage to having a non-standalone system?? Is there any??
Integrated systems are fine for outer layer defenses when there is no risk of damaged ship's systems. By the time you get to close in weapon systems, you're likely already damaged or about to be so it's mandatory to have stand alone systems that are immune from general ship's damage (other than power which we should be hardening … but that's another topic).
DeleteAs I read before, SeaRAM is a stand alone system. It has its own radar and electro optic. It also cannot integrate with ship's whatever radar system, which some criticized as a drawback.
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, since it is stand alone thus can be placed in any ship.
On the other hand, China's HQ-17 (perform similar function as RAM), despite having its own fire control radar, it is integrated with ship's combat system.
"SeaRAM is a stand alone system"
DeleteIt is necessary to understand what SeaRAM is. It is a close in weapon system - the last chance after every other defensive layer has failed. If SeaRAM is in action then, by definition, missiles have already defeated every other defensive measure and the host ship is in trouble and has either already taken hits or will momentarily. In that scenario, it is mandatory that each remaining close in defensive weapon have its own self-contained targeting system (radar) because, for sure, the ship's main sensors, computers, operators, cables, etc. will be damaged, destroyed, or degraded. You want a stand alone system that can operate without needing anything from the rest of the ship other than power (that's a weakness that ought to be addressed in multiple ways but that's for another topic). Thus, being a stand alone system is not just desirable, it's mandatory.
CNO best wishes and a happy new year, a thank you for your enlightening blog.
ReplyDeleteThe same to you and yours!
DeleteHappy New Year to ComNavOps and to all posters on here!!!
DeleteAs others have noted, the USN needs a maritime equivalent to crash test dummies to test their ships' missile defenses. My idea:
ReplyDeleteA floating barge with onboard radars identical to that on AEGIS Combat System-equipped ships. The barge will be unmanned, the crew operating from a bunker ashore, in case a missile misses the target; the controls will be sent via both radio and underwater cables linked to the barge.
After the barge is hammered with missiles to test onboard defenses, a crew will board it to perform repairs as well as test techniques useful for battlefield repairs.
Yes, the barge will be expensive to build and then operate, but as American auto manufacturers learned the Hard Way, it's cheaper to expend crash test dummies than to pay compensation for those injured and killed as a result of a defective car design.
There's no need for a barge. The Navy is desperately trying to retire actual Aegis cruisers. Sail one of those to the middle of a range, evacuate the crew, and fire away at it!
DeleteThe Ticonderoga class is unlikely to have our newest radars- those which most urgently require testing, to ensure they'll work, before we cripple our own fleet for years by installing defective radars on frontline ships. The ones being retired also lack VLS cells, which can use shock tests to see how they'll function under battlefield conditions, as you noted- though as they'll no longer be frontline ships, we can probably shoehorn VLS cells in place of the hangar and/or the helipad.
Delete"The ones being retired also lack VLS cells"
DeleteThat's incorrect. The last non-VLS Ticonderoga was retired 2005. The ships the Navy is trying to retire are all fully capable, front line vessels. Please do your homework for comments!
"The Ticonderoga class is unlikely to have our newest radars"
The Ticonderogas and 98% of the Burkes have the SPY series radars which are all we have currently active. If you're referring to the AMDR series, I don't think any are commissioned yet and that would be what the USS Paul Foster is for - the dedicated self-defense test ship. However, the Navy has steadfastly refused to install an SPY radar and has no plans to install an AMDR. This is criminally short-sighted.
Even without a test ship, it would be worth sacrificing a multi-billion dollar, brand new Burke to test our combat systems under realistic conditions since those systems are the foundation of our entire surface fleet.
The Aegis cruisers the Navy is trying to retire ARE frontline ships. There's nothing wrong with them and they are the most capable AAW ships in the world. The Navy's attempt to retire them is, again, criminal especially while the fleet is shrinking in size and capability.
Actually those being retired or slated to be soon are more current variants, some having just gone through "modernization", which was in reality an extended period of inactivity then some software upgrades. The non-VLS Ticos have been out of servive a while, wirh some, if not all, already scrapped.
Delete"Sail one of those to the middle of a range..."
DeleteThis would be a great way to truly validate things!! While there is some value to SinkExs, a target that can(??) defend itself is a whole different level, for offense and defense alike!! Being able to see weaknesses or failures on either side would be invaluable info to have. Now, a blue on blue weapons test wouldn't exactly translate to combat with the enemy, but still would show where the balance of future efforts should be. Harpoon, LRASM, and returning Tomahamk ASM could all prove themselves (or not), as well as AEGIS/SM-/point defense.
It'd be expensive,sinking/expending a loadout of defensive weapons, but it'd certainly be the wisest use of $$$ the Navy could claim in a long long time!! Sadly, just the cries from the environmental weenies alone, about sinking a fueled and unprepped ship, make the likelihood of this ever happening about zero...
"sinking a fueled and unprepped ship,"
DeleteIf we are to believe the Navy press releases, Aegis is beatable! The ship won't even get hit.
@Jjabatie. Good comment, USN would learn something for sure even with Blue vs Blue missiles.
DeleteDoes AEGIS work or not? Even if u assume all ASMs, hypersonic and ballistic surrogates are shot down which would be great, doesn't that tell us that Tomahawk, LRASM and Harpoon aren't going to cut it against China?!? IF AEGIS shoots those down, they aren't worth continuing to invest in.We learn something no matter what happens!!!
Our defensive AEGIS would be validated but USN would have to really refocus on offensive weapons since they couldn't penetrate and sink a DDG.
IF AEGIS shoots those down, they "aren't worth continuing to invest in."
DeleteMaybe, maybe not... The danger I see is that if testing shows success, whether offensive or defensive, then we might grow arrogant and start to believe that everything is superior to the Chinese, or whoever's... Sure, the systems that failed will get a revamp, but maybe not, as it could be chalked up to the other systems superiority.... A Catch-22 for real!!!
Here's a bit of good news. At least I think it's good news. The last of the weapons elevators on USS Ford were just turned over to the Navy. So they're all installed and supposedly working, only 4 years after the ship was commissioned!
ReplyDeletehttps://www.forbes.com/sites/craighooper/2021/12/24/the-navy-gets-a-christmas-present-all-11-uss-ford-weapons-elevators-delivered/?sh=408e48653a24
After shock testing, I really expected some "delays" with them...so yay!!! About @$&# time they work!!!
DeleteDo the toilets work yet?
Delete"Do the toilets work yet?"
DeleteThey didn't say, so probably not.
"Do the toilets work yet?"
DeleteHere's a toilet factoid that some folks may not know. The toilets, unlike some of the other technologies that we keep hearing about (the catapults, the arresting gear, the radar, the weapons elevators, and some others I can't think of right now), are NOT an untested new technology that was first installed on USS Ford. Basically the same system was also used on the last Nimitz class carrier (George HW Bush) WITH SIMILAR RESULTS. Here's an article from 2011 (ten years ago!):
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/checkpoint-washington/post/naval-ship-faces-chronic-toilet-outages-at-sea/2011/11/15/gIQALCZ3QN_blog.html
This begs an interesting question. At least I think it's interesting. The Bush (commissioned in 2009) has been in service and experiencing these problems for nearly the whole of the period during which Ford was under construction (laid down in 2009). Yet the Navy, which must have known about the problems, made no effort to address them during construction of the Ford (which time is, of course, the time when it's simplest and least costly to address this sort of systemic problem).
In fact, I believe that the next ship in the Ford class (John F. Kennedy) also uses this system.
Oh, well ....
"Who thought a point defense system without a self-contained targeting sensor (radar) was a good idea?"
ReplyDeleteYet, that's exactly what we have through out the Navy. The Mk 49 Guided Missile Launching System (21-rounds) equip our amphibious ships and carriers. And, the new Constellation-class frigates are set to have them too.
This perfectly illustrates the difference between designing for efficiency versus designing for combat. Combat is a very inefficient endeavor and we need to recognize and accept that.
DeleteSure, it's much more efficient to have a single multi-band, combination radar/comm/guidance, do every radar and communication function there is but in combat, when damage occurs and that single radar goes down, the ship is left, literally, defenseless. A much more inefficient, but combat effective, approach is to have several radars, separate comm gear, separate fire control/guidance systems so that some defensive systems can continue to function when damage occurs. Even better is to have self-contained systems (SeaRAM/CIWS) that can function in the total absence of any ship's sensors. Of course, we need to harden their power supplies but that's another issue.
Our current crop of ship designers in industry have never experienced combat and have had no combat feedback to guide their designs. This is why it's so critically important for the Navy to conduct as realistic testing as possible, along the lines that have been discussed on these pages.
"Of course, we need to harden their power supplies but that's another issue."
DeleteWhy not an emergency Honda generator assigned to each one in case of the loss of electrical power.
Lutefisk
"emergency Honda generator"
DeleteCIWS requires 440V/71kW. I'm not sure a portable generator can supply that. Regardless, we need to harden our entire ship's electrical system with reinforced and armored conduits, multiple path runs, extensive designed jumper points and cross connects, etc.
Yeah, it looks like the Honda generator isn't going to quite cut it.
DeleteAlthough my comment was partially in jest, using 440v/71kW as the benchmark it looks like this Generac product might be able to handle it:
The MMG100D commercial grade portable generator.
Capable of producing 3-phase power, it has a max capacity of 75kW.
It weighs in at 4740 lbs, dimensions approximately 10' x 4' x 5', and uses 6.2 gallons of diesel per hour at max capacity.
I don't know if it would actually be powerful enough to run the CIWS, but I think it gives an approximate idea of what it would be needed if a backup generator was the route chosen.
If anyone actually wants to look at the specs, here is the link:
https://www.absolutegenerators.com/generac-mobile-diesel-generator-mmg100d-71-86-kw-71-107-kva-single-or-3-phase-switchable-skid-or-towable
Lutefisk