USNI News website is reporting that the Independence variant LCS USS Montgomery (LCS-8) recently conducted a demonstration launch of Hellfire missiles at targets on land.[1]
Well that’s exciting. The LCS can now support ground forces. That’s good, right?
“This test proved the critical next step in increasing lethality of the Littoral Combat Ship,” Cmdr. Dustin Lonero, the commanding officer of the ship, said in a Navy news release. “Using our speed and shallow draft, we are now uniquely optimized to bring this level of firepower extremely close to shore in support of our warfighters and operators on the beach.”[1]
Outstanding!
Just out of curiosity, what’s the range of Hellfire? The article credits the Hellfire with a range of around 5 miles. Um … that’s not very far for ground support. Unless the troops are literally at the water’s edge, the LCS would have to approach closer than 5 miles to land to get its Hellfires in range. In fact, the maximum inland support range is only 5 miles and even that would require the LCS to be beached. Is there really a lot of ground support to be done less than 5 miles from shore?
Moving on …
Do we recall that the Navy has stated that its amphibious ships can’t approach land closer than 25-50 miles due to the threat from anti-ship missiles? And yet, now we’re going to send the LCS within 5 miles of land?
Do we recall that the Russians just lost a Slava class cruiser operating close to shore?
Do we recall that the ex-HSV Swift was demolished off Yemen by a rocket/missile attack?
Are we now saying that we’re going to operate an LCS – which has minimal self-defense capability (and I’m being generous) – within 5 miles of enemy land? While not a multi-billion dollar ship, the LCS still costs around $600M. That’s not cheap and expendable.
Have we thought this through or, like most Navy actions, is this just a random impulse with no detailed Concept of Operations supporting and justifying it?
_____________________________________
On a side note, the Navy also had this to say about the awesomeness of the Hellfire:
“The Longbow Hellfire missile already plays a key role in the up-gunned surface warfare mission package,” the Navy said in the news release.[1]
Just one problem with that statement, Navy. It’s categorically false. The surface warfare module is the hugely dumbed down version of the original which called for the NLOS networked, loitering missile which had a range of around 22 miles. Thus, a 5 mile Hellfire is not a component of an up-gunned surface warfare module. Instead, it is the sorry and pathetic end result of a failed and now significantly down-gunned module. It’s an embarrassment not a success.
_____________________________________
[1]USNI News website, “LCS USS Montgomery Fires Hellfire Missiles in Land Attack Test”, Mallory Shelbourne, 16-May-2022,
It appears that, since all the LCS warfighting modules so far have been a failure, the Navy has refocused on the Happy Press Release Module.
ReplyDeleteOriginally, missile system under development was XM501 NLOS. Idea is to use a battle field wireless network. The missile's range was 25 miles. However, the program failed, failed miserably. You can search XM501 to find this story.
ReplyDeleteXM501 missile is only one of many technology failures of LCS.
In fairness to the navy, XM501 NLOS was originally an Army program, part of Future Combat Systems, and the Navy was piggybacking on that in the hopes that you'd have a joint missile that both services could use. Then FCS went the way of the Army's many failed procurements, and the Navy was left holding the ball, and eventually killed XM501 NLOS.
DeleteBetter say that it is a joint failure of Army and Navy.
Delete"Navy was left holding the ball, and eventually killed XM501 NLOS."
DeleteThis was, arguably, the main weapon of the LCS and would have applied to a 55-ship class of ships. Are you implying that the reason the NLOS was cancelled was because it was no longer a joint weapon? Being the main weapon for a 55-ship class of vessels seems more than enough justification for the project ...... if it worked.
There's two parts to the problem with NLOS:
Delete- Guidance was to be GPS/INS, SAL and IIR. This works fine for Army purposes, where you're going to be firing the missile at stationary targets, or where infantry further up are calling in missiles from company. It's also fine for shore bombardment, which would be shooting at pretty much the same targets. But, this is less ideal for the ASuW LCS missile requirement, which was for the anti swarm boat mission. Lasing a single missile at a time is a non-starter for that role.
Now, Longbow Hellfire shows that you can make a radar seeker that'll fit into a missile of this size, but that would have meant extra developmental time and cost, which ties into point two:
- Developmental Cost. XM501 started out as an Army missile to equip Future Combat Systems, the big Army development program that would replace the Army's ground vehicles (spoiler, it failed, as what happens with most Army programs). When FCS failed and the Army pulled out of XM501, the Navy was left holding the ball. Instead of paying for testing and integtion of XM501 on LCS, and development of a radar-guided variant, the Navy is now going to have to fund the full development of XM501, testing and integration on LCS, and development of a radar-guided variant for the small boat mission.
Evidently, the Navy didn't want to do that, which is why ASuW LCS ended up going with Griffin and then Longbow Hellfire for the anti-swarm missile, since these were existing missiles that needed no further development.
"Guidance"
DeleteYou may have an incomplete understanding of how the NLOS was supposed to work. The NLOS munitions were supposed to have an autonomous imagine infrared seeker with an onboard image library to assess targets. Active/semi-active guidance was not needed. Mobility of the target was not a factor.
There were supposed to be two types of munitions: a precision munition and a networked (networked between the individual munitions) loitering munition, again, both using autonomous targeting.
This would have provided more than sufficient targeting for ASuW purposes.
As it happened, costs rose and neither munition worked satisfactorily so the program was terminated thus illustrating the folly of designing a ship around a non-existent weapon system.
So we are back to nailing a M777 howitzer on the LCS's deck as the "surface combat" module?
ReplyDeleteA LCS' annual maintenance budget is 70 million but a Burke is only 81 million. Spend lots of money to maintain a ship with ultra small fire power.
DeleteI still can't understand why they didn't adoot the Spike NLOS for this role, a tried and tested system, that has been installed un much smaller hulls.
ReplyDeleteDo you understand the guidance mechanism and why it would or would not be a good fit for naval use?
DeleteSpike NLOS can be fired from a naval platform.
DeleteFrom Breaking Defence on June 12, "Rafael claims the weapon now ranges up to 50 km when launched from a helicopter and up to 32 km from land and naval platforms. When asked if the new version can be carried by fixed-wing aircraft or UAV, the Rafael official said that a strategic UAV like the Heron–TP made by Israel aerospace industries can carry the missile."
The Army is buying some to equip their Apaches. Another option would be a navalized version of the Switchblade 600.
The question about Spike NLOS guidance was meant to nudge consideration of the guidance requirement as it pertains to a ship. There are problems.
Delete5 miles is so paltry of a range, what's the point? Apart from PR, its useless! Yiu might as well just disembark some HUMVEE with TOW or Hellfire launcher on it and call it a day.....
ReplyDeleteI'd say 5 miles is acceptable for the anti swarm mission, where you're fighting small boats armed with RPGs and autocannon at most.
Delete"I'd say 5 miles is acceptable for the anti swarm mission"
DeleteThe post and discussion is about land attack.
That statement sounds like something from TASS or North Korea. The only positive thing that I can say about that accomplishment is, well, hmmmm whoopy do? Somehow, it sounds like a one-way mission for an LCS, assuming it doesn't breakdown. I don't know, maybe its progress, a Zumwalt actually fired a missile, the LCS hit something. I was a part of the Army Evaluation Task Force (AETF) for the Future Combat System (FCS) at Fort Bliss, TX in 2007. NLOS was a micro-failure of the larger failure of the FCS.
ReplyDeleteA Carl Gustav or a SMAW would be a far better choice. At least you can hide somewhere in the weeds on shore. Ugh!
If I remember correctly the Hellfire was supposed to be for small boat defence.
ReplyDeleteSo we have Hellfire with a 9000m range (that's being generous), a 57mm with a 9300m range, and 2 30mm for about 5000m. wow.
Are there any old WW 2 DEs laying around we can recommission?
Well, the USS The Sullivans is floating again, and the Texas is going into drydock soon... So theres some hope!!!🤣
DeleteThe Navy killed the range of the hellfire by taking a missile that was designed to launch horizontally and making it launch vertically. Not that it really mattered. Hellfires have a 12,000 yard range (6.8 miles).
ReplyDeleteThe LCS is now capable of less fire support than a Reaper drone because the LCS only has Hellfires and the Reaper has Hellfires, 2 JDAMS and cost less than 1/30th.
ReplyDeleteit was a joke from the start, nobody in their right mind should have put hellfires on a Corvette, harpoons or the Norwegian Missile period should have been the choices and use a cannon for any land support. We made the world's largest coastal patrol boat is what we did, and in two classes no less.....
ReplyDelete"nobody in their right mind should have put hellfires on a Corvette"
DeleteTo be fair, one of the original, main missions was anti-swarm boat and Harpoons/NSM are not appropriate for that. Hellfire is not a horrible choice for that mission. It is, however, a horrible choice for land attack.
Actually it wouldn't be 5 miles off shore, it would be more like on the shore, otherwise the only thing you are shooting is something right on the beach, with no fire support inland at all.
ReplyDeleteA 5" gun could reach 2.5 x the distance with 2.5x the explosives. Thousands of rounds were used for fire support for SEALS, Marines, and Riverine units.in Vietnam, One Coast guard cutter now retired in Baltimore put 3,400 rounds into the enemey successfully during their time on station. Hmmm at 150k per missile that would be 510 million to fire as many of these super smart rounds as a cutter fired in anger. Sounds like a bargain...if your an admiral.
Yea, I think we need to bring back guns.
With the Vulcano round it could go almost x as far with more explosives and with guidance.
The crppy 57mm on board outranges a hellfire (with with les explosives and accuracy.
"Actually it wouldn't be 5 miles off shore, it would be more like on the shore"
DeleteAs noted in the post,
"Unless the troops are literally at the water’s edge, the LCS would have to approach closer than 5 miles to land to get its Hellfires in range. In fact, the maximum inland support range is only 5 miles and even that would require the LCS to be beached."
Would not strapping on MRLS systems make way more sense as means of providing fire support? And presumably a lot more point defense.
Delete"Would not strapping on MRLS systems make way more sense as means of providing fire support? "
DeleteYes and no. MLRS would provide superior range and explosive weight but you only get 12 rounds per launcher and then you're done. You could construct some king of automated reload system but if you're going to the trouble of designing an entirely new fire support system, an 8" gun would be a far better option.
Despite the Navy's little PR stunt, the LCS-Hellfire is NOT intended as a fire support weapon. It is intended to kill small boats in a swarm scenario.
Well yes an 8" gun would be nice but I really can't see any way that you could put even one (let alone 2) on the LCS (without a cost that is not worth it). I was trying to think of a better more realistic and inexpensive way to use the white elephants.
DeleteIf you toss the helicopter and its crew fuel and all that you could get more than one M270 launcher on the ship. Or mix in something lighter like this
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a25850/this-240-rocket-semi-truck-means-business/
" I really can't see any way that you could put even one (let alone 2) on the LCS "
DeleteAh, my bad. I was thinking generically. No, you couldn't put an 8" on an LCS!
One of the problems modern naval observers have is that they've lost sight of what's required for effective fire support. The number one requirement is SUSTAINED fire which translates to a very large magazine. WWII fire support would use hundreds/thousands of shells from a single ship. A solution like an MLRS has 12 'shells' without some kind of reload mechanism and, to be useful, you'd need an MLRS magazine of hundreds/thousands of rounds. That would require a MAJOR rework of the LCS; and probably isn't even structurally feasible (just not enough room internally).
The best solution for the LCS would be the old WWII rocket launcher. See, "LSM(R) Fire Support Ship"
the Mk7 rocket, as per your link, has a range of 10,000 yards, or 5.6 miles. My understanding of your blog post is that Hellfire's 5 mile range is insufficient for proper shore bombardment.
DeleteIs your reasoning that the LSM(R) would be more viable because we're compensating for range with higher salvo size and damage sustain? (since the launchers are reloaded from internal magazines)
Or do you mean a conceptually similar weapon, albeit firing larger caliber of rocket for greater standoff range?
Large caliber guns are the preferred fire support weapon. The LCS can't accommodate that so the next best solution is small caliber but large volume like the rocket launchers in the link. The MLRS offers neither large caliber (setting aside ATACMS which would allow only ?2? per launcher) nor large volume unless a new, custom designed magazine and automated reload system is constructed and the LCS is completely redesigned to support it.
DeleteRecognize that fire support cannot be adequately solved by any existing US system. Any solution we discuss is a very poor, inadequate option and will not meet the need.
Ideally a