At this point, not even the LCS’ most ardent supporter would call the LCS a successful program. Even the Navy seems to be trying to get out from under the LCS given that they’ve retired, or announced the retirements of, six vessels, each with only a few years of actual service. Talk about early retirement!
However, beating up on the LCS is not the purpose of today’s post.
The LCS has made many changes since its initial incarnation and, to be honest, most of the changes have been for the better (they’d almost have to be, right?). The list includes:
- Adding the anti-ship Naval Strike Missile
- Adding Hellfire missiles to deal with small boats
- Standardizing on SeaRAM over RAM
- Standardizing on one combat software system
- Dropping the ridiculous 3:2 crewing scheme in favor of a simpler blue-gold scheme
- Increasing crew size
- Eliminating the module swap concept
- Somewhat de-emphasizing the shore maintenance concept and attempting to return some of the maintenance to the on-board crew
Of course, there are many other things they should have done and have not but, let’s be fair and acknowledge that the changes listed above are pretty clearly improvements to varying degrees.
With that said, and those changes in mind, is it possible that the LCS can now serve a useful function as a member of a combat fleet? Or, is the ship burdened with so many built-in constraints, weaknesses, and limitations that there is simply nothing productive they can do? Let’s take a look at some possible combat missions/roles for the ‘new’ LCS. Let’s see if the LCS can have a second life.
For the moment, I’m going to ignore the mine counter-measure (MCM) and ASW roles since there are no active, functional modules and may never be. In addition, while useful, those roles are not direct combat.
So, let’s consider the following possible roles:
Hunter-Killer Surface Sweep Squadrons. The LCS could operate in squadrons, using its numbers, UAVs (surveillance), and anti-surface missiles to sweep ahead of larger surface groups such as amphibious groups and clear the way. Ironically, this is somewhat akin to the original concept wherein the LCS would clear the littorals (littoral - a discredited notion) ahead of a larger group. This sweep mission would be somewhat analogous to the WWII fighter sweeps that routinely preceded air strikes. This kind of sweep could be useful in the Middle East or the islands around the E/S China Seas.
Choke Point Patrol and Interdiction. While not a ‘battleline’ combat function, this kind of peripheral patrol is vital and would likely result in some direct combat. One issue with this is that the LCS does not possess a ship-killing capability when facing a large commercial vessel. The Naval Strike Missile is the heaviest anti-ship weapon and it is far too light to pose a lethal threat to large commercial ships.
Dedicated Electronic Warfare (EW) Escort Vessel. This is a long time ComNavOps favorite. By eliminating the aviation element, the LCS has the deck and internal space to mount numerous large EW antennae, jammers, sensors, etc. The existing SLQ-32/SEWIP units are small, low powered, and effective only for the host ship (at best). Just as we have area anti-air warfare protection from Aegis Burke/Ticonderogas, we should have area EW protection using very high powered systems. One or two dedicated area EW vessels per surface group would be highly beneficial.
Peripheral Scout Ship. This is an intriguing role wherein the LCS would be loaded with passive sensors of all types (EO, IR, SigInt, radar warning receivers, etc.) as well as passive UAVs and operate as distant scouts, far from surface groups, to provide early passive detection of ships and aircraft. The LCS stealth, such as it is, would aid in keeping the scout ship undetected. Some external modifications such as removing deck equipment, railings, etc. could further enhance the ship’s stealth.
Armed Transport.[1] The Marine’s Light Amphibious Warfare (LAW) vessel appears to be the key to the Corps’ advanced base concept. Setting aside any discussion of the wisdom of that concept, the LAW is a weak link in the concept with its very slow speed and lack of defensive weapons, among other drawbacks. It is also highly questionable whether the Navy will purchase the LAW in the quantities the Marines desire, given the Navy’s many other budget priorities. As an alternative to the LAW, the LCS could be used as a high speed transport for Company size (or smaller) units in support of the Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations. In contrast to the slow, defenseless LAW, the LCS is fast and has a degree of short range anti-air defense as well as anti-surface capability. Loading and unloading would, of course, be a challenge due to lack of equipment, facilities, and crew.
Network/Communications Support Vessel.[1] On a more speculative level, the hangar space and large flight deck could allow the LCS to act as a host for communications drones or high altitude balloons if we anticipate significant satellite losses. In this case, balloons and communication relay drones could establish temporary local network communications.
Summary
One of the fundamental assumptions in this second life concept is that two of the LCS’ original missions should be dropped. The MCM mission does not require a high speed vessel and the LCS is not optimized for the mission. A dedicated, smaller, more conventional MCM ship needs to be designed and procured in large numbers. Similarly, the LCS is a very poor choice for ASW for a variety of reasons and the Navy needs to design and build a small, dedicated ASW corvette. Dropping these missions frees up LCS vessels for one or more of the second life roles.
So, with the anticipation of having more vessels available, one or more of the preceding second life roles would seem viable and would certainly offer more utility than the neutered vessels we have now that are doing nothing but sitting around waiting for the eternally-under-development modules to mature. At the very least, with so many LCS sitting around, idle, why not convert some of the ships to prototypes of the various roles and see what benefits they can provide? If they don’t pan out, they can always go back to sitting round waiting for modules with no harm done.
Of course, there’s no escaping the inherent limitations of the LCS such as limited range, lack of ship-board maintenance capability (shops, parts storage, fabrication facilities, technicians, etc.), stability issues, weight limitations, and very limited endurance (lack of food and water storage). Again, though, modifications could alleviate some of those limits, to some degree. The modular bays, for example, could be converted to storage and maintenance compartments.
It costs money to crew (two crews per ship! what a stupid idea!) and operate these ships even when they’re doing nothing. It is crystal clear that we need to either retire the entire LCS fleet, wholesale, to save the operating costs or find something productive for them to do. These second life roles are at least worth a look.
The only caution in this is that, whatever second life role we want to convert to, we need to treat it as a single function role. We cannot do the typical Navy approach and try to make them multi-role, gold-plated, do-everything vessels with a second life role added on. We need to strip the ships of everything that isn’t required for the particular second life role. Generally speaking, we need to remove more than we add for the second life role. In addition, we need to abandon the idiotic dual crew and shore maintenance concepts. We need to return to traditional manning and maintenance.
The Navy has a chance to give the LCS a second life and salvage something useful out of a disaster of a program but it needs to be done right, as we’ve described, here.
__________________________________
[1]Sincere thanks to Steven Wills for suggesting this concept during private discussions.
Does the LCS still need to take a scheduled break every two weeks?
ReplyDeleteThe Navy has attempted to transfer some small amount of maintenance to the ship but, as far as I know, yes, they still need scheduled dock-side maintenance every couple weeks.
DeleteI'm confused, is that really such a bad thing, having a 2-week endurance? I recall you being a proponent of ships undertaking short missions and returning to their bases - that was my read of your CONOPS for your destroyer in your modern Fletcher post.
Delete"is that really such a bad thing, having a 2-week endurance?"
DeleteDuring peacetime that's a manageable constraint, however, during war it severely limits the ability to carry out missions. For example, sailing from Guam to the South China Sea is around 2000 miles which is a 7 day or so voyage and 7 days back. There's your two week period right there with no time left for the actual mission in the operating area.
During peacetime, missions are just short training exercises, however, a typical war mission would be 2-8 weeks which, again, is well past the two week maintenance schedule.
I guess I was just confused, because I'd been reading one of your earlier blogposts ( https://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2020/01/the-missing-destroyer_47.html ) and the impression I was getting from it was that you didn't think range and endurance were important. I quote you:
Delete"As I've stated in entire posts, the nature of naval warfare is one of short duration missions. That's the historical reality. You sortie from your base, execute your mission, and return to base, all in a matter of days/weeks not months on end."
I guess I'm just trying to understand - has your thinking changed since then? Or are we just defining short missions differently?
"Or are we just defining short missions differently?"
DeleteYes. When I discuss mission length it's relative to the nearly year long deployments the Navy does. So, a short war mission is days, on up to several weeks.
Peacetime is yet another situation. When home ported, missions will be mostly training and exercises and will be days, on up to a couple of weeks.
I hope that makes it clear.
Freedoms are never going to see NSMs. I think we need them to be the MCM ships. Pull the MT30s and boost jets for more gas and gear. Or anything else that keeps us from buying a ship they can do for same or less money.
ReplyDeleteTransport is a bad idea. Maybe practice SOF but don't plan for it.
Independence still has a future. Aside from NSM and survivability upgrades, I'd try and get 2 MH-60 detachments aboard. I'd also add 2 more 11 M RHIBs or other UAVs. The original MCM package required the ability to fit 2 12m RHIB and 2 7m RHIB size vehicles. I'm confident you could manage 4 of the larger boats.
I still really want a do over where we get a newer single seaframe for a future versatile ship leaning toward combat to fill the EPF and LCS role. We still need a sub 1.2 billion dollar surface combatant.
"Freedoms are never going to see NSMs."
DeleteI've not seen anything stating that. Do you have a reference?
" I think we need them to be the MCM ships."
Why? They're not well suited for it. Wouldn't it make far more sense to acquire an optimized - and much smaller/cheaper - vessel and let the Freedoms retire for adopt one of the second life roles?
"Transport is a bad idea."
Why?
"Independence still has a future."
Why?
Offer some analysis and data for your various statements!
NSMs on Freedom - I know because it hasn't happened and their plan if that were the plan would be slap them on that wet bow. No survivability upgrades have been bought for Freedom nor the mounting gear for NSM so far as I am aware.
DeleteOh, I would trash the Feedoms. I'm just trying to think of the path of least resistance to useful. All the MCM gear for the module is designed for the ship, therefore use it on the ship.
Transport - They can let forces take an 11m rhib to shore or get them their via H-60 size or smaller helos. They have had to upfate the ship just to get the facilities to support the as designed accomodation of 98 for 21 days. That works out about the same as EPFs accomodation for 146 for 14 days. That kind of ship could do the transport job. The ship we have won't.
Independence has space, gas and reliability going for it. Its hangar area is smaller but more flexible, and it being smaller is a misnomer. Freedom stores containers in the hangar and Indy doesn't.
"I know because it hasn't happened"
DeleteCome on, now. The standards of this blog are much higher than that! Give me some actual proof.
Here, for example, is a quote from a 29-Apr-2021 Breaking Defense article reporting on CNO Gilday's testimony before the House Appropriations defense subcommittee:
"The Navy plans to put its new Naval Strike Missile on 31 of its 35 Littoral Combat ships over the next 18 months,"
That's straight from CNO Gilday. If you have something more authoritative than that, please offer it.
Please research statements that are not generally known to be factual. This is the standard of the blog and must be met.
"All the MCM gear for the module is designed for the ship, therefore use it on the ship."
DeleteThe MCM module does not yet exist in functional form.
The Navy has been careful to say that the components can be used on 'ships of opportunity' so there is nothing unique about them being on the Freedom class and, in fact, the Navy intends to place MCM modules on Independence class ships, as well … assuming the MCM module ever works which is a big assumption.
The Freedom is poorly suited for MCM work and is hugely overpriced and expensive to operate for MCM work. A modern version of the Avenger class would be a much better and cheaper option.
"They can let forces take an 11m rhib to shore or get them their via H-60 size or smaller helos."
DeleteThat would work if it's only people being transported. However, if they have vehicles, missiles (the Marine's mission!), and other large pieces of equipment, those become a challenge to get ashore. The LCS would need some sort of loading/unloading modifications to accomplish that.
The MCM module is just that--a module. Meaning it can be taken off and removed. So it should be able to be placed on any vessel with the proper power, sensor, and support structure.
DeleteA commercial yacht builder could make a large GRP (non-metallic) hulled vessel and have all the fittings put in to accept and support the MCM and then have it installed at a Navy yard. This could be done at half the cost of an LCS. Since Minehunters have never had big guns or major AA assets anyway, there would be no need for space for a 57mm or RAM. At most a single non-deck penetrating CIWS and a couple .50s would be needed and those can be added to the deck of the minesweeper.
Ironically the one thing building a ship to commercial specs like the LCS would be good for is a small non-metallic hulled minehunter. But it is one thing the LCS was never really suited for.
We better get on it while we still have the one composite yacht builder left to build it.
DeleteThere's also a few Coast Guard like missions that they could probably be used for. For example, looking for drug smugglers in the Caribbean or whatever. Obviously can't use the whole fleet this way.
ReplyDeleteOr maybe chasing pirates in West Africa, or whatever.
DeleteBurdening our CG with high maintenance ships that don't give commensurate capabilities is a bad idea. We underfund and over use the CG too much as it is.
Delete"Burdening our CG with high maintenance ships"
DeleteI'm not saying give the ships to the Coast Guard. I'm saying keep them in the Navy, but use them in situations that don't involve high level combat.
Whether it's the right approach or not we DO have Navy ships participating in drug interdiction in the Caribbean. Sometimes they are even LCS's. BUt not always. Sometimes they've been Burkes. And it's hard to imagine more of a waste of a Burke than using it for drug interdiction.
What I'm basically saying is that the Navy DOES have some missions that don't involve high end combat -- drug interdiction, anti-piracy, and so on. So there's a use for these ships in those missions. Probably not a use for 35 of them, but still ....
"What I'm basically saying is that the Navy DOES have some missions that don't involve high end combat -- drug interdiction, anti-piracy"
DeleteThe LCS has very high operating costs and demanding support requirements and logistics. It's a very inefficient and costly way to provide very low end, non-combat mission coverage. As I've stated, we could buy civilian yachts, tack on a few machine guns, and call it a day for those low end missions and the cost would be free relative to Navy budgets.
It could be used as form of Tender and command vessel for those low intensity missions. Lets say the Navy takes your suggestion and buys some yacht quality ships or maybe just buys some Coast Guard FRC's for their own use.
DeleteThe LCS could provide command and control for the cheaper vessels, provide supplies (and receive some via helo), in the case of very small vessels like the MKVI a bunk and meals. Should the small ship find itself against a particular heavy armed vessel the LCS could haul anchor and provide fire support.
Couldn't a small freighter do those roles as easily and cheaper.
ReplyDeleteAll of the roles require a ship with some degree of speed, stealth, and firepower. A freighter has none of those.
DeleteThe navy has very capable patrol boats they easily could stick a better radar and some Hellfires on.
DeleteThe are getting rid of them as quickly as they can; because no officer gets a Command at Sea pin for them.
"The navy has very capable patrol boats they easily could stick a better radar and some Hellfires on. "
DeleteIf you're referring to the MkVI, those are not oceanic vessels and no patrol boat could perform the missions discussed in the post.
That said, there are lots of things the MkVI could do but the Navy, inexplicably, has no interest in those jobs.
Actually, it seems to me that the key question, before we start proposing more uses for the LCS, is whether they can be made reliable at sea. We currently have the spectacle of the whole Freedom class hobbled by a faulty combining gear design. Supposedly there is a fix. We can always hope.
ReplyDeleteHaven't heard too many Independence class problems recently, but their history also has serious problems in it.
If they can be made reliable at sea, we can probably find uses for them. Otherwise .....
Since the typical profile appears to be:
ReplyDelete1. Leave Mayport for Gitmo, and
2. within 48 hours limp or get towed back
I would hope job one, even before cramming more enlisted on board and forcing first termers to hot rack, would be making the engines run for more than a week without needing major work.
You can't race in a 40 knots and fire the NSMs, if the LCS is getting towed.
Good ideas to turn LCS into something "useful" the problem it's too expense and fragile for real combat. To use an analogy, we need a tiger or lion, animals that can take a beating and give one, have to brawl and get close to make a kill and instead we bought a cheetah, goes fast but can't get injured or get close because it knows it can't get injured.
ReplyDelete"Dedicated Electronic Warfare (EW) Escort Vessel"
ReplyDeleteThat is actually a pretty good idea.
Lutefisk
The Independence class has a large mission bay that is to low for SH-60's but could hold AH-1's,UH-1's or MD-500/MQ-8C's. If you enlarge the elevator to handle these units, they would give you several possibilities.
ReplyDelete1. They could provide the vertical lift for company sized units, or hold a SEAL team and lift it.
1. They could become the control ship for USV's. They would provide the vertical lift ASW that ships like the SEA Hunter cannot. Also, a couple of them could provide the vertical lift component for a CVL allowing the CVL to carry more fixed wing aircraft.
2.AH-1's and MQ-8C's can be useful in the Littorals against small boats or to back up a USV version of the Streetfighter concept. ;) (LCS was based on the streetfighter concept).
Finally, the ships could easily switch between missions by changing which helicopters it carries.
I'm ppretty sure the Indy Mission Bay can clear MH-60. LCS sppecs call for bay height .1M higher than the hangar clearance. I think the problem is the existing elevator doesn't lower flush to the deck. This would also be a remaining problem with a larger elevator.
DeleteHow about a "fire support" ship for the Marines. Marine-ize a couple of MLRS rocket launchers (the HIMARS without the truck) and put them on the flight deck to fire rocket artillery in support of the Marines. I believe they're even working on extending the range of the artillery rockets to nearly the planned range of the LRLAP that was planned for the Zumwalts, then cancelled.
ReplyDeleteAn alternative launcher might be the Mark 29 ESSM launcher, which of course is already marine-ized. The MLRS artillery rockets are similar in size (not exact) to the ESSM. Slightly thinner (9 inches vs 10 inches), slightly longer (13 feet vs 12 feet), slightly heavier (650 to 700 pounds vs. 620). Perhaps with modest updates, the Mark 29 could handle them.
Assuming you're envisioning more than a single salvo, the concept would require a massive magazine (600 rounds or so?) and an automated reload mechanism. This would require significant structural reworking of the ship, addition of magazine fire suppression systems, addition of a munitions loading (to the magazine) system, a gyro-stabilized MLRS, and integration into the ship's fire control system.
DeleteIt's all doable but I just want to be sure you realize the magnitude of what you're suggesting. So many people envision just slapping gear on a ship and think it's a zero cost, zero time effort but you and I know that's not true, right?
Why not massive bomb boats like the Campbelltown?
ReplyDeleteTow them into position, plot a course and let them sail into a major military port at high-speed with 300+ tons of explosives.
The Feb 2022 LCS report by the GAO-22-105387
ReplyDelete"As of fiscal year 2019, the Navy had spent over $28 billion (in constant fiscal year 2019 dollars) to develop and build 32 LCS. As of December 2019, the Navy planned to build an additional three LCS, for a total of 35 LCS by 2025. While acquisition costs have been significant, operating and support costs make up approximately 70 percent of total program lifecycle costs of Navy ships. The Navy has already spent at least $3.3 billion to operate and support 17 LCS since 2008. In 2011 the Navy estimated that it would cost $38 billion (in constant fiscal year 2019 dollars) to operate and support 35 LCS for their planned service lives of 25 years. However, as of December 2018 that estimate had increased to over $60 billion (constant fiscal year 2019 dollars)."
Do wonder if best to save ~$45 billion in future spend of the ~$90 billion total program cost by decommissioning both classes now. You could make an argument for keeping the Independence class and using them for the missions outlined by CNO but Freedom class look a lost cause due to the semi-planning hulls having drag of a brick at cruise speeds, limited to 10/12 knots for range, they would not even be able to keep up with the proposed 15 knot LAW's and think make them unsuitable for other CNO missions as would suggest other new standard displacement ships would be less costly option than Freedom's costing $70 million per annum just for O&S, 25 year life at $70M equals $1.75 billion per ship.
"Choke point patrol"
ReplyDeleteIn that respect, an LCS could expand its arsenal easily with mine-laying.
While it has no value as a Minehunter or sweeper, it could have utility as a mine-layer and MCM support ship. The aft boat launch area needs little if any modification to dump mines. An SH-60 could also lay mines. An LCS squadron with multiple ships could make a denser minefield than air-dropping. It could also support minesweepers with parts and equipment as a tender while also provided protection for the minesweepers against small combatants and drone/helicopters.
In areas where we have air supremacy such as the Gulf, it could mine waters off Iran, with the onboard armament sufficient for self-defense against their paramilitary and patrol assets and long range AA provided by a supporting Burke.
Trick is, a minelayer is really for defense. its why we mine from aircraft as its offense. Our alternate is subs, which have stealth.
DeleteHow much gear can you even add to a LSC, given their weight margin issues?
ReplyDeleteOr did they eventually solve that?
No, the weight issues have not been solved and are a major stumbling block. From the post, here's your answer:
Delete"We need to strip the ships of everything that isn’t required for the particular second life role. Generally speaking, we need to remove more than we add for the second life role."
RE: the dedicated EW ship:
ReplyDeleteYou mention the dedicated ship would have high powered systems, as opposed to the current SQL-32/SEWIP system, which is low powered.
Does the LCS have sufficient electrical generating capability to power "high powered systems"?
I don't know but we can add as many generators as needed.
DeleteCNO, I know this post is about uses for the LCS, but would a Fletcher hull be a large enough platform for a dedicated EW ship?
DeleteLutefisk
I don't see why not. It just needs to mount sufficient generators and a bunch of antennae.
DeleteThe Fletcher is the same length as the LCS, just a bit narrower.
From the Navy Fact File for the LCS, dated 9 February 2022, "The LCS sustainment strategy calls for monthly, five-day, preventative maintenance availabilities (PMAVs) and quarterly, 14- day, continuous maintenance availabilities (CMAVs) as part of the ship’s operational schedule."
ReplyDeleteHow can a ship that needs a monthly 5-day maintenance availability perform a mission likely to take many weeks or a few nonths such as peripheral scouting or armed transport? The LCS seems more suited to coastal patrol or port defense. Perhaps escorting convoys in and out of port.
At the same time, LM's Multi-Mission Surface Combatant (MMSC), based on the Freedom-class, is better armed (Harpoon and an 8-cell VLS) with greater range, might be a better option to pursue.
I don't know if you were asking a rhetorical question or a real one but I'll give an answer as it pertains to this post.
DeleteAny of the second life uses described in this post REQUIRE a shift from the current maintenance philosophy to one much close to traditional and conventional. In other words, maintenance MUST be shifted from shore back to ship. This will require additional crew, fabrication shops, parts storage, etc. This would be balanced, in most cases, by SIGNIFICANT removal of current equipment rendered unnecessary by the new, second life role.
Failure to do this renders all of the second life options non-viable.
As stated in the post,
"In addition, we need to abandon the idiotic dual crew and shore maintenance concepts. We need to return to traditional manning and maintenance."
The original LCS maintenance concept can only have been conceived by a blithering idiot with zero consideration for actual war needs and constraints. Whoever conceived this maintenance concept should be court-martialed, shot in front of a firing squad, dishonorably discharged, then called back to active duty to repeat the cycle.
"In addition, we need to abandon the idiotic dual crew and shore maintenance concepts. We need to return to traditional manning and maintenance."
DeleteI don't have a problem with the dual crew manning because that is far less of an issue compared to having to return to port once a month for maintenance. But, one would think that some 10+ years after the first ships were commissioned, that the Navy would have this maintenance issued solved already.
"I don't have a problem with the dual crew manning"
DeleteI have a major issue with it and it ties back into the maintenance issue.
As documented in a recent post, we have several thousand gapped at-sea billets WHILE WE HAVE DUAL CREWS FOR THIRTY SOME LCS (yes, I know they're not all fully crewed yet). How can we send ships to sea with manning shortages while having dual crews on others? That's idiotic.
The dual crew concept results in a lack of crew identity with, and ownership of, the ship. This results in reduced concern about maintenance which, combined with the idiotic 'leave it for the shore maintenance' attitude is causing maintenance neglect.
Dual crews can work, to an extent, in the submarines because the crews deploy for many months at a time and are 100% cut off from shore assistance and, therefore, 100% invested in the sub's maintenance. The fact that they're underwater the entire time certainly sharpens their interest in maintenance since the result of neglected maintenance can be death.
In contrast, the LCS dual crews are rarely deployed and generally only for brief periods and always near shore support. All of those factors combine to make maintenance a neglected activity on an LCS.
So, I do have a problem with dual crew manning!
"Whoever conceived this maintenance concept should be court-martialed, shot in front of a firing squad, dishonorably discharged, then called back to active duty to repeat the cycle."
DeleteI still kind of like the old British idea of lining them up in front of the Pentagon and going around and cutting the buttons off their coats. Then do the rest of that. A little public humiliation would do some good.
The dual crew never made any sense to be on the era of minimal manning. During the development of the LCS, the Navy embarked on the minimal manning approach as a way to limit the excessive expenses related to personnel.
DeleteWhat doesn't follow logically, is why would you have two crews or 3 crews for two ships? If personnel expenses were truly greater than material expenses, then you would want the fewest personnel per ship. By adding on additional crew on a rotation, not only did they Haley mission effectiveness by not fully staffing the base crew, but the added a wholly redundant gold crew as well. If material costs for ships were the dominant budget sink, then it would make sense to have 2:1 or 3:1 crew to skip ratio. However, if personnel costs dominated, then clearly each crew should have its own ship to focus on manning and maintaining.
“For the moment, I’m going to ignore the mine counter-measure (MCM) and ASW roles since there are no active, functional modules and may never be. In addition, while useful, those roles are not direct combat.”
ReplyDeleteThey will never be functional because they are based upon flawed premises.
“So, let’s consider the following possible roles:
Hunter-Killer Surface Sweep Squadrons. …
Choke Point Patrol and Interdiction. …”
I have envisioned coastal/littoral squadrons based loosely upon CAPT Wayne Hughes’s NNFM concepts, including ASW corvettes, missile patrol boats, mine countermeasures ships, and SSKs, that would address these missions in the first island chain, Persian/Arabian Gulf, eastern Mediterranean, and Baltic.
“Dedicated Electronic Warfare (EW) Escort Vessel…
Peripheral Scout Ship. …”
These are both interesting concepts but would need a bit of workup to evaluate fully.
“Armed Transport.[1] …”
If we reject the Marines’ EABO concept, I’m not sure how useful this would be.
“Network/Communications Support Vessel.[1] ….”
Another interesting concept.
I am still inclined toward replacing the overly complex main propulsion systems with something simpler and more reliable, and turning them over to the Coast Guard as cutters.
Still like my ideas for Lcs the most Sinkex will be running out of targets sometime seems lie the perfect fit
ReplyDelete