Pages

Monday, November 7, 2022

Pounce

The Captain of the Independence variant LCS was frustrated and angry and he was taking it out on the poor radar operator.  The ship had been hiding amongst the Philippine islands for the last six days, searching for a target and had found nothing despite the heavy Chinese presence.  The LCS was part of the Navy’s distributed lethality operation and pre-war distributed lethality doctrine had assured the Captain that networked regional surveillance assets would provide situational awareness and targeting data without the LCS needing to conduct active searches. 

 

Reality, however, disagreed with the Navy’s plan.  The UAVs and P-8 Poseidons that the Navy had counted on for surveillance and targeting were being shot down as quickly as they arrived in the operational area and the Navy had now suspended aerial surveillance operations.

 

Prior to the Taiwan invasion which had kicked off the war, the Chinese had taken a page out of the US Marine’s book and established numerous bases on Philippine islands with the intent to use the Philippines as an outpost to guard the southern approaches to Taiwan thereby cutting off any attempt by the US to flank the invasion. In a master-stroke, the Chinese had persuaded (coerced?) the Philippines to ban US presence or overflights during the run up to war and the Chinese had used the time and freedom from observation to pre-position base materials at numerous locations throughout the islands.  The Chinese now had multiple radar, IR, optical, and sonar observation posts set up throughout the islands.  In addition, Chinese aircraft were operating from their few carriers and from Philippine civilian airports which the US refused to attack for political reasons.  Unlike the Marine’s plan, the Chinese had control of the sea and the sky and were, thus, able to support their forward bases.

 

The LCS was part of the Navy’s distributed lethality operation aimed at neutralizing the Chinese naval presence in and around the Philippines and opening up the southern approach to Taiwan.  So far, however, this particular LCS had been searching for targets with no success.  The radar operator went over the difficulties of their situation yet again with the Captain, explaining that the very islands that interfered with Chinese search radars and protected the LCS from detection also prevented the LCS from seeing beyond and around the islands for targets.  In addition, the ship’s radar could only be operated in very short ‘bursts’ or else it would be detected and pinpointed.  It was far more likely that any detections by either side would be from optical sensors rather than radars.  Of course, optical sensors were just as impaired by the surrounding islands as were the radars. 

 

While the Captain understood the search challenges of the situation, he couldn’t help but wish that he had more skilled sensor operators.  The unfortunate reality was that, like all LCS crewmen, the sensor operators were cross-trained and had multiple job responsibilities.  This meant that their training and time on task was necessarily limited.  The operators were competent but not experienced or exceptionally well trained and in this kind of life and death situation, merely competent wasn’t good enough.  Exceptional was the only passing grade in combat.  This was an unforeseen detrimental effect of the Navy’s decision to pursue minimal manning for the LCS.  The saying, jack of all trades and master of none, certainly applied to the LCS crew, in general, and the sensor operators, in particular, and, unfortunately, ‘master of none’ was not the path to success in combat.

 

The LCS had only one more day left on station before it would be forced to retire for scheduled maintenance.  The LCS maintenance model of returning to port every couple of weeks was proving to be a severe limitation and liability in war.  The Navy had, initially sent two LCS ‘tenders’ – actually, Puller class Afloat Forward Staging Bases – to service the LCS vessels so as to enable them to stay in the operating area longer but, being non-stealthy and having no credible self-defense capability, both ships had been quickly spotted and sunk.  Now, with Guam having been rendered inoperable in the first hour of the war, the nearest maintenance and resupply location was Northern Australia, some 2000 miles to the south.

 

Cognizant of his ship’s time constraint and sensor limitations, the Captain decided to take a calculated risk and venture out from the relative safety of the island shore the ship was currently nestled up against.  Venturing out would offer an improved field of view for his sensors but it would equally offer the Chinese sensors a better view of the LCS.



LCS Hiding Near Island

As night fell, the LCS slowly sailed out into more open waters.  While darkness did not provide the concealment that it once did, the Captain felt that his ship would have a bit of an advantage when it came to optical detection since it was somewhat smaller and, thus, harder to detect than the larger Chinese destroyers believed to be operating in the area.

 

As the hours ticked by, tensions aboard the LCS rose.  The crew had been at their battle stations almost continuously since entering the operating area six days ago.  The LCS minimal manning concept was proving incompatible with wartime operations.  The crew was exhausted and beginning to lose concentration and they were making mistakes – yet another reason to return to base soon.

 

Despite the fatigue and strain, the Captain’s gamble paid off.  An electro-optical sensor operator spotted the faint shadow of a ship against the horizon, some 15 miles distant.  Maneuvering to keep the now distant island at his back in order to hide the LCS silhouette, the Captain began to stalk his target, trying to obtain visual identification.  While any ship in this area was certainly an enemy, he wanted to have some idea of what type of ship it was so that he could tailor his attack to maximize his chances while also trying to minimize his weapons expenditure.  The LCS only had eight Naval Strike Missiles (NSM) and using them all on, say, a small patrol boat would be a waste that could come back to haunt him if another target appeared.

 

The Captain slowly closed the distance and at around 12 miles, he was fairly certain the target was a Chinese Type 052D destroyer.  It was time to attack.  Besides, he felt he had pressed his luck far enough.  This would be a full salvo of the LCS’ 8 NSM anti-ship missiles.  The destroyer was approximately the equivalent of a Burke and possessed an Aegis-type defense system.  Even 8 missiles might not be enough to achieve a hit but the Captain hoped the element of surprise at such a short range would ensure success.

 

The NSM’s in the rack mounted canisters received the targeting data and launch commenced.  This was a short range, straight-on attack. The flare of each successive missile launch announced the presence of the LCS to the surprised destroyer.  However, the Chinese ship’s combat software had a fully automatic operating mode, like the US Aegis system, and it was not capable of being surprised.  It began to react even as the first US missile cleared it’s launch rack.  The destroyer’s HQ-10 short range surface to air missile system - equivalent to the US RAM - trained to the incoming threat and began launching.  In addition, the destroyer’s 30 mm CIWS trained around and began firing as the chaff/flare dispensers started spewing their decoys into the air and the ship’s electronic jamming emitters activated and focused on the incoming missiles.

 

LCS Launching NSM at Chinese Destroyer


Only the electronic ‘reflexes’ of a fully automatic defensive system could have reacted to the attack in time.  The Chinese did not believe in a man-in-the-loop concept in wartime and this attack demonstrated the wisdom of that belief.

 

The first missile, benefiting from the slight delay as the destroyer’s weapon and decoy systems trained and launched, was able to lock on the destroyer and impacted the side of the hangar.  Being thin-skinned and largely open space, the missile nearly passed straight through and out the other side but, instead, managed to explode on the far side of the hangar, blowing a hole in the side and venting much of the explosive force outward rather than having it concentrated inside the hangar.  Fortunately for the destroyer, the ship’s helo was parked outside on the flight deck, undergoing engine run-up tests.  Still, the hangar was heavily damaged.  The two chaff/flare dispensers above the hangar on the unengaged side were put out of action, and the hangar was engulfed in flames.

 

The second NSM was also able to beat the defensive fire but was lured away by a decoy.  The third missile was hit by the destroyer’s forward-mounted CIWS and dove into the sea.  Electronic countermeasures spoofed the fourth and fifth missiles while the HQ-10 SAMs accounted for the last NSM.

 

While a single hit against an Aegis-type destroyer was probably all that could be hoped for, the damage to the Chinese ship was not severe and most of the ship’s combat systems were undamaged. 

 

Having been discovered, the destroyer activated its radar and immediately locked on to the LCS which had turned away as soon as it finished launching its missiles and gone to its maximum speed of around 37 kts.  Unfortunately, that speed meant nothing to the four YJ-18 anti-ship cruise missiles the destroyer launched.  The LCS’ 11-cell SeaRAM, the ship’s only defensive weapon, managed to intercept two of the incoming missiles and one missile was decoyed away but the remaining missile hit the stern of the fleeing vessel, entering the mission bay, exploding, and disabling the propulsion system while sending debris and flaming fuel nearly the length of the ship.  With insufficient crew to even attempt damage control, the Captain, miraculously still alive, ordered the crew to abandon ship.

 

LCS Abandoned and Sinking

 

Of the eight LCS sent to the Philippines to implement the distributed lethality concept, four were sunk before being able to find a target.  Three others launched attacks resulting in two enemy ships damaged but not sunk and each LCS was, itself, sunk immediately after their attacks.  One LCS survived to return to base, having found no targets.

 

 

_________________________________ 

 

Disclaimer:  This short story was intended to present several of the distributed lethality issues and concepts that we’ve discussed.  As always, such stories are not meant to be fully accurate combat simulations but, rather, are simply a more entertaining way to present the concepts and understand how they are related.

 

59 comments:

  1. "The unfortunate reality was that, like all LCS crewmen, the sensor operators were cross-trained and had multiple job responsibilities. This meant that their training and time on task was necessarily limited."

    I experienced something similar myself. After enlisting in 2001, I endured two months of Basic and eight months of Advanced Individual Training (AIT) to become an armament and electrical systems repairer for the OH-58D helicopter, only for the Army to assign me to units that operated UH-60 Black Hawks; those units understandably didn't entrust me with any repairs, because I didn't receive the necessary training on a different helicopter model's systems. The sergeants' insistence on on-the-job training instead of sending me back to AIT for specialized training the sergeants insisted "we don't have time for," prevented me from gaining the necessary competence to do the job they wanted me to do, instead of the job I was actually able (and TRAINED) to do.

    The US military needs to use its people better.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Which American strategic thinker opined "a great deal of military planning assumes that the opponent is stupid and that he will fight the kind of war for which one is best prepared. However ..."?

    ReplyDelete
  3. 1). I really appreciate the way CNO uses these scenarios to illustrate the tenets of the blog.

    I know that the primary purpose of the post was to highlight the need for realistic doctrinal planning, but I'd like to throw out there the type of ship that I would like the Navy to have for this type of scenario.

    First things first, I believe that this type of engagement is going to be relatively common in naval warfare.
    Everyone is going to be practicing EMCON.
    No one is going to have their radar active.
    Passive systems like EO/IR are going to be primary.
    Engagement ranges are going to be much closer than anticipated.

    To succeed in this environment I would use a modernized Gearing class destroyer.

    The Gearing was the final evolution of the Fletcher class.
    As per Wiki, it has a length of 391 ft, a beam of 41 ft, standard displacement of 2600 tons, and speed of 36.8 knots.

    Lutefisk

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "throw out there the type of ship that I would like the Navy to have for this type of scenario."

      You're described a nice ship, without a doubt, however, I would caution you that this kind of scenario is almost a suicide type scenario with very low odds of survival. With that in mind, you need to be careful that you don't apply a ship(s) whose loss would be a significant financial hit. The reason why WWII PT boats could be forward fielded - and lost in large numbers! - was because they were almost free.

      The ship you describe would cost around that of a current frigate ($1B+). Is that really a ship you're willing to throw away in pursuit of distributed lethality? Remember, in this scenario, your ship is in enemy controlled water and airspace. The odds of a single ship surviving under those circumstances is very poor. Ask Repulse and Prince of Wales how that worked out!

      So, good ship but is it really right for this scenario? If one insisted on trying to execute this type of scenario, a better choice of vessel would be the Chinese Type 022 missile boat or the long gone US Pegasus class.

      Delete
    2. "...is it really right for this scenario?"

      I see your point. I realize that I was thinking of a somewhat different scenario.

      I started thinking about this Gearing type ship after your Fletcher post and then reading about destroyer operations between the Brits and Germans in the Norwegian Fjords.

      In my mind I was envisioning two to three of these ships working together, which I think would be very formidable.

      But tightening up the mission parameters to more closely match your scenario, I can see how a small 'stealthy' ship could be utilized here.

      I wonder if a MK48, set up for surface targets, could be a valuable weapon for this?
      It would remove the big visual signature of a missile launch and avoid the anti-missile defenses of the Chinese ship.

      Target acquisition might be a problem since it would be critical to use passive sensors. Probably EO during the day and IR at night.

      Of course, you don't want the torpedo track to lead right back to your own ship and give away your position.
      Maybe use a dogleg approach by controlling by wire and having the torpedo wait until it's closer before starting its active search?
      I would think that might work if the enemy ship doesn't immediately hear the sound of the torpedo when it starts moving.

      My only concern is that this feels a lot like the pre-WW2 ideas for PT boats, which to my understanding were fairly unsuccessful in torpedo attacks.
      Maybe the homing torpedo makes a difference, wherein the firing ship can launch the torpedo and then discretely slip away before it's detected?

      Anyway, love the scenarios. They really make me think.

      Lutefisk

      Delete
    3. "In my mind I was envisioning two to three of these ships working together"

      Again, just be mindful that, in this scenario, they would be operating under enemy controlled air and that's a losing proposition every time. Now, for other scenarios, such ships, operating as a squadron, could be highly useful and effective. You might ponder what scenario(s) in a China war such a surface squadron could be used? Let me know if you have something interesting in mind.

      "My only concern is that this feels a lot like the pre-WW2 ideas for PT boats"

      It's exactly that or worse since today we would have no nearby base of operation. The PT boats were a failure at their intended use although they eventually adapted and became useful for surveillance and barge-busting. There is no reason to believe distributed lethality would work any better than PT boats and, likely, would suffer worse losses due to their much greater size (easier detectability).

      What's the point of having a naval history if we continue to ignore the lessons from it? Navy leaders seem to think their ideas have risen above the lessons of history. That kind of arrogance is going to cost us dearly when war comes.

      Delete
    4. "...what scenario(s) in a China war such a surface squadron could be used?"

      I guess I'd start with the ships' strengths and weaknesses.

      Strengths:
      Substantial (hopefully overwhelming) short range firepower with the 3 twin-mount 5"/62 guns and MK48 torpedoes.
      Moderate mid-range firepower with the 18 or so naval strike missiles.
      Ability to function in EMCON environment.
      Massive short-range defensive armament.
      Moderate mid-range defensive armament with limited number of ESSM.
      Small physical size.
      High top-end speed.
      Built-in redundancies in weapons and radar.
      Varied weapons suite.
      Six 5" guns for NGFS.

      Weaknesses:
      Nearly worthless in fleet AAW defense.
      No long-range AAW weapons.
      Limited long-range offensive weapons.
      Extremely limited ASW ability.
      Light armor at best (most likely to be primarily Kevlar).
      Small ship size means redundant weapons and radars are not really all that far apart physically.
      No Tomahawk missiles for land strikes.

      To best utilize the capabilities of this ship, I'd use them in congested or semi-congested areas in which enemy surface ships are likely to be operating.
      The Philippines, the Spratly Islands, the Strait of Malacca, Indonesia come immediately to mind.
      Any place where they can utilize EMCON and EO/IR search to see the enemy first and engage them on their own terms.
      (An NSM with an anti-radiation seeker would be handy for ships not utilizing EMCON).

      I could see these being used in blue-water as well. However, they may sail around for a long time without blundering into any enemy surface ships. Maybe it would work if they could be vectored to an enemy that has been spotted by some other search asset.

      A use that came to mind during the whole Taiwan exercise by the PLAN was that it would be nice to have a dozen or so of these ships to shadow the Chinese fleet activities.
      Standing off a distance but staying within visible range, exhibiting a "Go ahead, I dare you" attitude.

      Another place that would seem to fit would be in the Persian Gulf. I would think that these would be a nice asset to have steaming around in the Gulf.

      One adaptation that I would consider would be to have some equipped with a different main armament to deal with Iranian speedboats.
      I'd replace the 5" twin guns with fast slew triple 76mm turrets. One barrel fires HE contact fuze, one fires HE with a VT proximity fuze, and one fires a proximity fuzed beehive round with heavy nails. Each barrel would raise independently so that the ranging computer could adapt to the different ballistics of the various rounds.

      Those ships would kick out some serious ordinance downrange against small craft and would also work against warships that are in range of the guns.

      Those are some of the thoughts that I had on the use of these ships.
      I'd think they'd be useful and affordable.

      Lutefisk

      Delete
    5. It's not really all that important, but I realized that I didn't point out that the three barrels of the 76mm turret would fire in series, not simultaneously. With the rapid firing of the 76mm guns, that should be able to nail a speedboat.

      Lutefisk

      Delete
    6. " that should be able to nail a speedboat."

      You need to read, Swarm Attack before you go any further. There are concepts that you're overlooking. Take a look and then let's pick this up again.

      Delete
    7. "triple 76mm turrets"

      I'm unaware of such a mount. Is this something that exists or something that you're proposing?

      Delete
    8. November 9, 2022 at 5:01 AM
      "triple 76mm turrets"

      That is a complete figment of my imagination.
      Like a lot of things I suggest here, it's something that I want and think should be possible.

      I would think that the challenges would be in the physical size of the gun, how wide would the turret need to be? Part of that would be solved by the use of autoloaders...no accommodation for crew in the turret.
      Also, can the vibrations be dampened enough to maintain accuracy?
      And finally, this thing would eat through ammunition really fast...is there enough storage space for the rounds? On the plus side though, this is a ship with space potential, not a cramped armored vehicle.

      Lutefisk

      Delete
    9. "Take a look and then let's pick this up again."

      CNO, sorry for the delay in posting...real life intruding.

      I had a chance to read through 'swarm attack' and the comments.
      I can tell you what my thought process is in regards to using the 76mm guns against swarms.

      Much depends on the expected engagement range. The OTO Melara has a range of about 8 nautical miles. But frankly speaking, the shorter the range the more accurate the rounds.

      The gun fires at a rate of 85 rounds a minute.so the three barrels would be firing approximately 4 rounds a second.

      The velocity is 3000 fps, which is about a nautical mile every 2 seconds.

      I assume the fastest swarm speedboats are going to be in the 80 mph (70 knots) range.

      So with all those statistics out of the way, my concept is that this ship would have 3 independently targeting and firing turrets engaging 3 speedboats at a time (assuming no turrets are masked).

      Using radar ranging and computer aided targeting, each turret would fire a round every 1/2 second or so.
      If the target is two nautical miles away, it would take the round 4 seconds to arrive, which is not much of a lag time for evasive maneuvers.

      I would have the guns firing in series; 1) HE contact fuze, 2) HE proximity fuze, 3) proximity 'beehive' rounds with heavy 'nails'.

      I flew scout helicopters in the army, and our little junky aircraft flew at 100 knots top speed. I think that a 76mm triple turret that I've described would have blown us out of the sky.
      The speedboats are at best 70 knots. I don't think they could evade this concentrated fire.

      A key would be that the turret must have a rapid slew rate to be able to keep up with the movement of the swarming craft.

      If the swarm gets past the 76mm guns, then the 30mm Goalkeeper and 20mm Phalanx would be available.

      I think this would work, am I missing anything?

      Lutefisk


      Delete
    10. "I think this would work, am I missing anything?"

      Yes, much!

      It's all about dwell time (and swarm numbers).

      If all you have is a single target, your gun concept will work and the target will be destroyed. However, the scenario is a swarm. The issue is not how far can the single target move in a few seconds, it's how far can the rest of the incoming swarm move during the several to many seconds of dwell time on a single target.

      As noted in the linked post, it is not possible to determine a kill without a catastrophic explosion (Hellfire, for example). A boat that has been shredded by fragmentation, for example, will continue on course and speed for several seconds. Since there is no visible evidence to the contrary, you have to assume the boat is still a threat and continue firing. That's dwell time.

      Look at the videos of anti-swarm boat firing exercises and you'll see exactly this phenomenon.

      You're hugely overestimating accuracy. Look at any video of naval gun fire and note the incredible spread of impacts on the water for what are called precision fire weapons. When you're firing at multiple miles, the spread is enormous. You're not going to have many hits. Combine the lack of hits with dwell time and your dwell time is going to be on the order ten to thirty seconds, PER BOAT!

      I don't want to repeat the post so I'll stop there. I urge you to look at actual fire exercise videos. In addition to noting the inaccuracy and dwell time, also look at the lack of visible evidence of damage/kill. Also note the utter unrealistic conditions: firing ship not moving, target motoring slowly back and forth as opposed to straight on, perfect weather conditions making targeting easy, very close range, etc. Make any of those conditions more realistic and the results plummet.

      Delete
    11. CNO, as you suggested I've been looking at lots of swarm videos.
      They were pretty interesting. I was surprised/dismayed at how close they were allowed to get to US Navy ships.

      I can see the value of missiles. Of course, as you stated, they would need to be autonomous once fired. Laser guided missiles aren't going to do the job. Keeping a laser spot on one of those boats is going to be problematic at best, and you can only service one boat at a time per laser designator.

      But I wouldn't want to be depending only on the missiles.

      I had a couple of thoughts about guns while watching this.

      The first is that these boats look like great candidates for DPICM (cluster bomblets). The army has these for 105mm and 155mm artillery, so the 5" gun should be perfectly adequate to use this type of munition.

      The second was...why can't the navy hit anything with its guns?
      I figure that there are two possibilities:
      1) The conditions are such that it is asking the impossible.
      2) The navy doesn't care about guns so it doesn't apply any resources to improve their accuracy.

      The conditions are challenging. The ship and its target are both moving on the open sea. And although I've never been on a ship in the ocean, I assume that what looks like a smooth ride up and down on swells is actually a pretty rough ride with bangs and shudders and lurches, etc.

      But the army has been stabilizing tank cannons to fire on the move for a while, and they are really pretty good at it.
      The navy ships move quite a bit more on the ocean, but the degree of adjustment needed would seem to be a matter of developing targeting software.
      If the Germans can drive around with a full beer stein on the end of a Leopard II's barrel, I think the navy can up its game a bit.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vVKrVCJnIA

      And that leads to the second point. Is the navy even REALLY trying to make the guns as accurate as possible?
      I think it's a legitimate question.
      Missiles are the navy's comfort zone. Guns are not.
      They have one gun per ship. On the Perry's is looks like they said, "Hey, we forgot about a gun." The reply, "Don't worry about it, if they insist on having a gun we'll put it on the roof, haha." They don't come across like people that are serious about gunnery.

      I would like to see that triple 76mm tested against speed boats.
      It would be direct fire, and with its high rate of fire, radar and computer targeting, and the natural beaten zone of the round dispersion I believe it would be effective against the swarms.

      So, we'd be looking at a layered defense. Missiles first, followed by 5" DPICM, followed by 76mm direct fire, then 30mm Goalkeeper, 20mm phalanx, and then sailors with 25mm Bushmaster and .50 cals.
      With an aggressive attitude from the navy, I think those speedboats would be massacred.

      Lutefisk

      Delete
    12. "autonomous once fired"

      Hence, the choice of Hellfires for the LCS.

      "why can't the navy hit anything with its guns?"

      It's harder than it looks! People think it's easy but it's not! Consider the continuous rolling and pitching of the firing platform. Yes, we gyrostabilization but it's not perfect. Even a degree of variation, when extrapolated out to a mile or so, produces quite a bit of scatter of the projectile. Add to that that the constant movement of the target, at high speed, and it's a miracle that any rounds hit!

      "army has been stabilizing tank cannons to fire on the move for a while"

      Much easier! Tanks do not fire while navigating continuous five, ten, fifteen foot waves while also rolling side to side. A tank's movements are much more limited. The ground, for instance, while it may have small dips and rises, is still rock steady as opposed to waves. Tanks can fire at long range targets but, generally, their targets are relatively close. You might investigate their accuracy as a function of distance and movement. It's probably not as accurate as you might think.

      You're hugely overconfident, I'm afraid! Also, don't forget that swarm boats don't need to pull up next to the ship to do damage. Their rockets and small missiles can fire from thousands of feet to miles. See, Iranian Swarm Craft and Weapons for a discussion of boats and weapons. It's eye opening.

      Delete
    13. I don't really have any dispute with what you just said.

      However, I would like to see that gun system evaluated.
      I don't think they're trying very hard with naval guns. In my opinion they just don't see it as a viable option for, well...really anything.

      Thanks for a great blog! I really enjoy discussing these things.

      Lutefisk

      Delete
    14. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for trying out new systems! The challenge with this gun system is not the gun itself but the associated dwell time and there's just no getting around that. Against one boat, it's not a problem. Against a swarm, it's an insurmountable problem, I'm afraid.

      You know, you don't really need three barrels just to fire three different types of projectile. Autoloading guns with single barrels can select each shell type as needed/instructed. You can get your diversity of shell types from a single barrel. That would reduce the size, weight, and complexity of the mount. Just food for thought.

      Delete
    15. I actually came to the idea of using the three barrels kind of backwards.

      I was thinking about my updated Gearing design and the ineffectiveness of the 5" guns against speedboats.

      My first thought was to replace the 5" guns in the 'B' turret with the 76mm. This would give the ship a direct fire weapon to engage speed boats.
      The problem with that is it takes away the best part of the Gearing against ships -- overwhelming 5" gun fire and doesn't provide enough anti-swarm firepower.

      I thought, why not use 76mm guns in all three turrets? The triple turret gives massive firepower. This would serve it well against unarmored surface ships as well.

      I was considering the difficulty of putting an HE round on a small target and thought that it would be helpful to use airburst rounds, the horseshoes philosophy. I also believe in the value of the beehive. The normal flechette 'nails' are a little light, but with a fewer number of larger 'nails' they should be able to punch through light metal sheeting fiberglass (and wreck radars too).

      Since I had three rounds and three barrels, I thought that I would just match them up, as one of my concerns was the ballistic flight of three different shell types. But if you can elevate each barrel independently you can adjust the elevation of each to compensate for the variance in shell-type ballistics.


      While I don't think these would be the only answer against swarms, I think they would be effective. The only way to find out is to test it.

      Along with IR targeting missiles, I also like the idea of using DPICM in the 5" shells. That seems like it would be a good way to attack the boats when they are a farther distance out.

      DPICM rounds would be a good choice against standard surface ships also. They would really play heck on radars and sensors and probably put a hurt on unarmored ships.

      I hope that all made sense.

      Lutefisk

      Delete
    16. Late to the game but have some gunnery background so wanted to throw my nickel's worth in.
      CNO mentioned the late, lamented Pegasus-class PHM's the successor to the PT boats. Armed with Harpoon and the aforementioned Oto-Melara 76mm gun. Still a great platform for this scenario.
      The talk of the Hearing-class is what really prompted me to comment. You talk of replacing the 5" /38 twins, but the Navy did that; with a gun system that could shoot in EMCON. The Mk 68 system on the Forrest Sherman and Adams classes still had an optical rangefinder. Now, this took some training and practice to master but it was possible to use well. I'm not sure the Mk 42 5" /54 would be up to the challenge but it might be worth a try to shred the enemy sensor arrays using VT frag. That MIGHT buy time for some follow-up rounds.
      Thanks. Glad I don't have to train for war at sea anymore.
      Boat Guy

      Delete
    17. "have some gunnery background"

      Several questions you might be able to shed some light on:

      1. Did you find that the optical fire control was capable when both the ship and target were maneuvering at speed?

      2. What did you think of the Vincennes 5" fire control which reportedly fired around a hundred rounds and recorded zero hits?

      3. Do you find the current trend of a single 5" gun per ship to be sufficient?

      4. Did you ever attempt anti-air with the 5" and, if so, how effective was it? Would you anticipate current 5" guns to be effective in the anti-missile role?

      Delete
  4. 2) The intention for this ship would be as a pint-sized back-alley brawler armed with brass knuckles, a switchblade and a length of chain.

    Literally, the primary armament would be three twin 5"/62 caliber gun mounts, arranged in the standard American two turrets forward and one aft configuration.

    These guns would be supplemented with 28 VLS cells, located amidships. Typically they would be assigned 10 quad-packed ESSM and 18 naval strike missiles.

    Defensive armament would provide two Phalanx CIWS, oriented forward and placed on the main deck level on each side of the superstructure with each responsible for either the port or starboard hemisphere.
    Above and behind the B turret would be a Goalkeeper 30mm CIWS covering any possible seams between the two Phalanx. The Goalkeeper also provides some extra punch against small fast boats and a different radar band than Phalanx to help discourage enemy frequency jamming.
    Above and behind this, on the superstructure, would be a pair of SeaRAM CIWS. These would be separated by a small bridge and each would be responsible for either the port or starboard hemisphere.

    This pattern would be repeated on the aft end of the ship oriented back towards the rear.

    Lutefisk

    ReplyDelete
  5. 3) The modernized Gearing would not have steam boilers. It would have a pair of LM2500 engines which would save significant space within the hull and still provide over 60,000 shp.

    In place of the forward stack, I would place an AN/SPQ 9B fire control radar and a single rotating flat panel TRS-3D radar. Both of which could retract into a kevlar box to protect against explosive fragmentation.
    This configuration would be repeated on the aft half of the ship to provide redundancy.

    Under the aft radar would be 6 fixed torpedo tubes, 3 on each side of the ship, housing MK48 torpedoes adapted for both surface ship and submarine targets.

    The final piece of weaponry would be a hedgehog/RBU style depth charge launcher on the fantail The primary purpose of this would be to curb the enthusiasm of inbound enemy torpedoes and hopefully give the ship a chance to evade them.

    Lutefisk

    ReplyDelete
  6. 4) Situational awareness would come primarily from a mast mounted EO/IR search sensor. This would be supplemented by an EO/IR search drone which could be flown above the ship, possibly tethered to provide secure and EMCON friendly control and information flow.

    Awareness would also be enhanced with a bow mounted sonar, utilized primarily to track inbound and outbound torpedoes and only secondarily to listen for enemy submarines.

    The final awareness piece would be a below deck combat information center in the space afforded by the replacement of the boilers with turbine engines.
    This would be a large open room with radar and sonar operators and weapons control in workstations in the center of the rectangular room.
    The outside walls and ceiling of the room would be flat screen TVs fed with live stream images from dozens of cameras located around the outside of the ship, providing a 360 degree real-time view of the ship in any direction.
    The effect would be that someone standing in the CIC would be able to look outside the ship in any direction simply by turning their head and looking around.

    Lutefisk

    ReplyDelete
  7. 5) The use of this ship would be in situations much like that depicted in CNO's scenario.

    The intention would be to operate in EMCON, an electronic void in the ocean, and utilize passive IO/IR search to see the enemy first.

    Operating in pairs or threes, the ships would turn towards the enemy to close the distance to enhance the accuracy of their 5" guns.
    The narrow beam would provide a small visual, radar, and target signature to the enemy.

    The ship could fire up to 18 NSMs, 6 Mk48 torpedoes, and 20 rds/min per 5" gun which could be armed with both contact fuzes and proximity airburst fuzes.
    The effect would be to overwhelm the defenses of the enemy ships.

    Incoming enemy missiles would meet electronic jamming, up to 40 ESSM, and forward facing SeaRAM, Goalkeeper, and Phalanx CIWS.

    These ships would be feared in congested waters.

    Lutefisk

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think triple 76mm would be the best choice there. The Oto Melara 76mm super rapid fires 120rpm so you could have fewer guns achieve the same roof as you envisioned Lutefisk. A twin mount would then output 240rpm and be much smaller. The single gun over deck mountings for the 76mm would also be a good idea as they could be mounted almost anywhere on the ship. For small fast moving and manoeuvering targets you probably wouldn't even want to bother with contact fuzed shells. An interesting development that should be applied to naval guns is the gps/ins course correcting fuze developed for 155mm shells. It screws right into the nose where the normal fuze sits and turns a basic dumb shell into almost a Excalibur she'll for only a few thousand dollars (compared to 10s of thousands for Excalibur) this would cut down dwell time significantly by reducing the amount of shells that miss by too much to do any damage.

      Delete
    2. The 76 mm DART round claims to be guided. Of course, the DART round is a sub-caliber round of the already small 76 mm round. According to NavWeaps website, the DART burst charge is only 0.88 lb and it's a fragmentation round. One has to wonder how effective that is against a swarm boat and what the dwell time would be for a verifiable kill.

      Delete
    3. "The Oto Melara 76mm super rapid fires 120rpm so you could have fewer guns..."

      That super rapid gun is a good idea, as you said, the rpm is almost identical for two of them as it is for three of the earlier version.

      Ideally I don't want to go backwards on the firing rate. I envision this working somewhat like a CIWS with radar and computer fire control. I don't, however, want those continuous long bursts like the Phalanx as it walks its way into the target. Instead I would like to see short 1-2 second bursts with adjustments between.

      Against the speedboats I could see not using the contact fuzes, but I would retain the HE contact fuze option for use against standard surface ships.

      The weight savings of two guns rather than three should be helpful. One of the problems noted with the Sumner/Gearings when they were new was a concern that they were a bit bow heavy and thus didn't ride over swells as much as plowing through them. If that concern was well founded, a lessening of the turret weight in the bow would be helpful.

      This problem might be already remedied, however, by switching the LM2500 engines. This would remove the forward boiler, engine, and stack which should shift the center of gravity aft.

      Overall weight, balance and stability is a concern. Compared to the WW2 era ship, these would not have the forward power plant, the 40mm and 20mm anti-aircraft mounts, the 5-tube torpedo launcher and likely a somewhat reduced superstructure.

      But it will have added 4 Phalanx, 2 Goalkeepers, 4 SeaRAM, 6 Mk 48 torpedoes in fixed launchers, two radar and fire control sets with armored enclosures, and 28-32 VLS cells.

      The LM2500 engines would likely be in the aft/center of the ship. The VLS cells would be in the center of the ship at the main deck level.
      It might end up weighted a bit to the rear? If so, I would be happy to add hull and deck strengthening and armor to the bow of the ship to enhance balance and stability, as I see this ship benefitting from head-on engagements with enemy surface vessels.

      Interested to hear your thoughts, if you are still monitoring this post.

      Lutefisk

      Delete
    4. "The Oto Melara 76mm super rapid fires 120rpm so you could have fewer guns..."

      That super rapid gun is a good idea. Turrets with two of them, rather than three of the standard, would afford the same rounds down range.

      I would prefer not to reduce the rate of fire. I envision these working somewhat like a CIWS, with radar/computer tracking and fire control. But instead of ripping off long continuous streams of rounds like a Phalanx, I would like to see short 1-2 second bursts with quick adjustments in between.

      Eliminating the contact fuze for speedboats probably makes sense, but I would retain that HE/contact fuze option for use against standard surface ships.

      Reducing the number of guns from three to two per turret would save the weight of the third gun, the third autoloader and feed mechanism, and reduce the size of the turret.

      Weight savings are always good, but might be particularly helpful for these ships.
      When the Sumner/Gearings were new, there was concern that they were too bow-heavy and thus didn't ride over swells very well. This might help that.

      But it's hard for me to gauge exactly how the weight distribution would change.
      Besides the main gun change, these ships would be set up somewhat differently than the WW2 originals.

      With the LM2500 engines, the two boiler/engine/stacks configurations would be replaced. The forward of those was fairly far forward in the hull. That probably shifts weight balance aft in a non-incidental way.
      The ships also wouldn't have the 20mm and 40mm AA mounts, the quintuple torpedo tubes, depth charge racks and K-guns, WW2 era radars, large bridge, or CIC in the above deck superstructure.
      But it would have two sets of modern search and targeting radars with lightly armored enclosures, 4 Phalanx, 4 SeaRAM, 2 Goalkeepers, 6 fixed Mk48 torpedo tubes, hedgehog/RBU on the stern, and 28-32 VLS cells amidships at the main deck level.
      The net result might be a shifting of the center of gravity aft?
      The bow might have added bouyancy from a sonar bulge in the bow.

      If the ship needed additional weight forward, that could be easily accommodated by strengthening the forward structure and adding armor to the bow, since I see these ships benefitting tactically from a head-on posture when engaging other ships.

      If you're still monitoring this thread, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts.

      Lutefisk

      Delete
    5. r delete your comment. Learn more

      Comment as:
      "The Oto Melara 76mm super rapid fires 120rpm so you could have fewer guns..."

      That super rapid gun is a good idea. Turrets with two of them, rather than three of the standard, would afford the same rounds down range.

      I would prefer not to reduce the rate of fire. I envision these working somewhat like a CIWS, with radar/computer tracking and fire control. But instead of ripping off long continuous streams of rounds like a Phalanx, I would like to see short 1-2 second bursts with quick adjustments in between.

      Eliminating the contact fuze for speedboats probably makes sense, but I would retain that HE/contact fuze option for use against standard surface ships.

      Reducing the number of guns from three to two per turret would save the weight of the third gun, the third autoloader and feed mechanism, and reduce the size of the turret.

      Weight savings are always good, but might be particularly helpful for these ships.
      When the Sumner/Gearings were new, there was concern that they were too bow-heavy and thus didn't ride over swells very well. This might help that.

      But it's hard for me to gauge exactly how the weight distribution would change.
      Besides the main gun change, these ships would be set up somewhat differently than the WW2 originals.

      With the LM2500 engines, the two boiler/engine/stacks configurations would be replaced. The forward of those was fairly far forward in the hull. That probably shifts weight balance aft in a non-incidental way.
      The ships also wouldn't have the 20mm and 40mm AA mounts, the quintuple torpedo tubes, depth charge racks and K-guns, WW2 era radars, large bridge, or CIC in the above deck superstructure.
      But it would have two sets of modern search and targeting radars with lightly armored enclosures, 4 Phalanx, 4 SeaRAM, 2 Goalkeepers, 6 fixed Mk48 torpedo tubes, hedgehog/RBU on the stern, and 28-32 VLS cells amidships at the main deck level.
      The net result might be a shifting of the center of gravity aft?
      The bow might have added bouyancy from a sonar bulge in the bow.

      If the ship needed additional weight forward, that could be easily accommodated by strengthening the forward structure and adding armor to the bow, since I see these ships benefitting tactically from a head-on posture when engaging other ships.

      If you're still monitoring this thread, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts.

      Lutefisk

      Delete
    6. Lutefisk, your comment(s) appeared in the spam folder and I've moved them so they should now be visible. I check the spam folder several times per day. If a comment does not immediately appear for you, it's likely been routed to spam and it will appear as soon as I see it and move it to the normal folder.

      Delete
    7. CNO, sorry about that.

      From my end, they simply disappeared when I hit submit. I thought it was a problem on my end.
      I also had to re-do it because I hadn't copied it...that's why it's different :)

      Again, sorry about the spamming.

      Lutefisk

      Delete
    8. No problem. I wish there was something I could do about it but I have almost no control over the function of the blog. That's the flip side of it being free.

      It happens sporadically, for no apparent reason. 95% of the comments are unaffected but 5% appear in spam despite being legitimate and, generally, from regular users.

      Delete
    9. And thanks for giving me the forum to talk about my Gehring ideas.

      I've been thinking about it for awhile.

      Lutefisk

      Delete
  8. To further understand Chinese weapons, you may visit the official website of the Zhuhai Air Show which starts today. It is a once every two years Chinese weapons show mainly to promote exports. Although it is called an air show, it covers weapons in all spectrums.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Another great fictionalization!!! I think the LCS CO woulda liked to have had some Mk48s aboard...!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hadn't even thought about that but, yes, the situation does illustrate the usefulness of heavy torpedoes. Very good insight !

      Delete
    2. It just seemed that torps were a better option and had a better likelihood of success at that range... Especially if they have a swim-out and low/high speed capability in order to get closer before detection. Is there a surface ship Mk48 capability??

      Delete
    3. "Is there a surface ship Mk48 capability??"

      Not currently. Ships that have torpedoes are equipped with the 12.75" lightweight torpedoes with 96 lb warheads. Those are not ship-killers. The Mk48 has a 647 lb warhead.

      Delete
    4. Well not that it necessarily makes LCS any more viable- but at least in your fictional scenario, you seem to have maybe brought up a shortcoming and/or an opportunity(??) I dont know if having heavyweights on the Burkes would make sense or be worthwhile, but in a rare but possible scenario, maybe giving the LCS different "teeth" might pay off..(??)

      Delete
    5. "maybe giving the LCS different "teeth" might pay off."

      The answer is ... it all depends. It depends on what the ship is being asked to do. What role is it expected to play? This is the CONOPS issue. If we don't know what we're going to ask the ship to do then how can we decide whether any particular weapon is a good idea or not?

      So, is a heavyweight torpedo a good idea for the LCS? It all depends! In this particular scenario, yes, it would be a good idea. Is that how the LCS will be used (its CONOPS)? The Navy has no idea. They're retiring most of the Freedom variants and I would guess that they'll reserve the Independence variants for MCM but who knows?

      Would heavyweight torpedoes be a good idea for, say, Burkes? It depends on their CONOPS. Those ships are already overloaded and lack open deck space so simply tacking torpedo launchers on is not an option unless we remove something of equal size/weight. What could we remove? Say it with me now ... it all depends on the ship's CONOPS.

      CONOPS!
      CONOPS!
      CONOPS!

      Delete
    6. Agreed... And unfortunately, just like the Navy, Im in a quandry as to how/where the LCS could be of use. Considering that a CONOP should drive a ships design, and, well, the LCS already exists, we're a bit stuck with some limited options. Its bassackwards, and Im not sure theres a mission for them that will be viable or realistic. Its as if LCS and EABO are siblings, related on a deep, defective DNA level...

      Delete
    7. "Im not sure theres a mission for them that will be viable or realistic"

      The agrees. There is no worthwhile mission for the LCS and the Navy belatedly recognizes this which is why they're retiring most of the Freedom class and will attempt to quietly retire all the LCS over the next decade or so.

      When you build without a CONOPS, you wind up with useless platforms. It's an absolute embarrassment that the Navy is retiring brand new LCS and Mobile Landing Platforms all because they didn't bother to establish a CONOPS before building.

      Delete
    8. "Im in a quandry as to how/where the LCS could be of use"

      Hopefully, you've availed yourself of the archives and read the post, LCS Alternative Uses

      Delete
    9. Oh i have!!! Im normally here as long time reader "Jjabatie", but its absolutely refused to let me sign in for a while now- reasons unknown...

      Delete
    10. Sign in problems have often been traced to cookie permissions. Unfortunately, I have no control over the blog's actions. Signing in as anonymous and just putting a name at the end of the comment will work just fine.

      Delete
  10. This story reminds me very much of accounts of our PT boats during the early stages of WW II in the South Pacific. "They were expendable".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The question is, is a $600M LCS expendable?

      Hopefully, you've read the post PT Boat !

      Delete
    2. I think not--and yes I have, thank you.

      Delete
    3. The old Pegasus class hydrofoils might be useful for this role. See, Pegasus Class Hydrofoils

      Delete
  11. The comments in this post illustrate a problem that the navy also has. People look for the correct answer, i.e. what kind of ship would do best in this scenario, or how we can change the LCS etc like this was a test question. We immediate frame it instead of asking deeper questions.

    How many admirals and think tanks do we have trying to solve distributed lethality, instead of thinking strategy?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Sorry as interested civilian I don't think these abstract discussion apply.Dealing with China we have to respond with immediate overwhelming force.Unfortunately nuclear and at mainland not sea forces.I just think service people miss the point.Which is cripple the enemy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "these abstract discussion"

      The 'abstract discussions', as you put it, are how doctrtne and tactics are developed and are essential. That said, the conclusions the Navy has drawn about the proper strategy, doctrine, and tactics may well be wrong.

      Delete
  13. The Captain of the Independence variant LCS was rested yet watchful and he kept a weather eye out on the surface search radar operator.  The ship had been hiding north of the Maldives for the last six days, searching for a target and had found nothing. No Chinese presence to speak of because they just can’t project power that far consistently. 

    The LCS was part of the Navy’s distributed lethality operation and pre-war distributed lethality doctrine had assured the Captain that networked regional surveillance assets would provide situational awareness and targeting data without the LCS needing to conduct active searches. Satellites and shipping schedules provided OTHR cueing.

    Bitch box squawks, “Captain, radar shows a large target 100KM out which corresponds to the tanker our P-8 has been shadowing on its way to China. COMMO is coming up now and 7th Fleet says clear to smoke ‘em.”

    “Thanks XO. Very well, TAO, launch a single harpoon.”

    Doesn’t matter if we kill ‘em, Captain thought; shipping insurance industry will get the message soon enough. Who needs to get in to a South China Sea knife fight? What’s cutting off 5M barrels per day from the Middle East mean to China?

    Reckon we’ll find out.

    And, yeah, the Little Crappy Ship platform sucks (per CDR Salamander). But quantity is a quality and all that.

    LCS Captain sits back and thinks, “Yeah, we’re not a Burke but we just plugged a gap. Wouldn’t mind a martini about now.”

    ReplyDelete
  14. Got 2.5 minutes to spare? Go to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWyhKobyM68 and watch from 1:24 to 1:26:32.

    Doesn't particularly matter if you agree with Zeihan- Look at geography (I myself had to pull out a globe) and check trade routes (sea routes are compelling).

    IF I understand COMNAVOPS correctly he advocates platforms should be designed contingent on mission. As all of you make me further examine my own thinking I'm now realizing our MISSION is wrong/mis-construed. Especially wrt China.

    USN surface forces, today, are sufficient to strangle any near peer enemy. With minimal risk to platform.

    Yeah, yeah, yeah- 2nd, 3rd and 4th order effects. I get it. Speculative the further you go out- But my point is that designing ships for CQB isn't necessarily the way to go.

    This conversation plus the prior has made me re-examine my own preference for modern battleship. I'm no longer sure it's necessary.

    BTW, I'm in no way a advocate for LCS. But I think I could find a way to employ them effectively. And I will.

    When I become SECNAV.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I just recently read a paper from the Naval War College from 2018. It focuses on a maritime blocade of China, oil specifically. With overland supplies and a massive reserve, plus its own production, it was estimated to take from 10 months to 4 years to deplete the reserve and force reliance on daily production/imports. We won't be able to strangle China quickly. The effects we had on the Japanese war effort was pronounced, but China produces more than enough domestically to keep their military supplied indefinitly... Only a blockade coupled with many deep strikes(Russian pipelines, among others) and a major focus on dismantling ALL their import options would have any semi-rapid, serious effects on their economy. We may be able to put together and maintain a blockade, but the time it takes for it to be even remotely effective suggests to me that its not a tool to prioritize or rely on...

      -Jjabatie

      Delete
    2. A lengthy read but quite informative. Luckilly i still could pull up the.link:

      https://www.jstor.org/stable/26607046?seq=21#metadata_info_tab_contents

      Delete
    3. Good stuff!

      From oilprice.com:

      China’s crude oil imports ticked up in October for the first year-over-year increase since May, reaching 43.14 million tons, according to official customs data.

      The amount is equal to about 10.5 million barrels daily, based on a conversion rate of 7.33 barrels to a ton.

      The October figure compared with an import rate of 9.79 million barrels daily for September or 40.24 million tons for the whole month. Over the first nine months of the year, Chinese oil imports stood at 370.4 million tons or 9.9 million barrels daily, which was 4.3 percent lower than the average for the first nine months of 2021.

      I'm trying to gauge food imports and am not having a easy time of it, but this was a interesting tidbit:

      In fact, China has to feed nearly a quarter of the world's population with just 7 percent of its total farmland. Due to construction occupation, disasters and ecological conversion, the area of farmland continues to decrease.

      I like your point about 'overland'. Let's assume pipelines are easily interdicted. Access to China comes through several 'Stans and Russia. The Stans don't have much to offer beyond waypoint access. Russia? Their oil industry won't survive without Western Expertise. Foodstuffs from Russia? Don't know about that one.

      I still think China can be strangled from afar. But you've made the point arguable.

      Thanks

      Delete
    4. Actually, with the exception of the pipeline head in Myanmar(?), which could be made part of an exclusion zone and shut down through blockade, I dont think the overland pipelines, especially from Russia, will be easilly cut off. Strikes of almost any kind that deep into China are going to be a real challenge, if not impossible. But looking at the "feed the population" side of things, theyre seemingly more vulnerable, especially once the fishing fleets are sunk or cant leave/come home. Maybe in a protracted conflict, the rationing of oil products and lack of food might create a hostile populace and maybe, a regime change. Its an awful slim chance, but that would be a relatively happy ending. I have doubts about our success rate with a highly kinetic conflict and/or a blockade style approach. But ill keep fingers crossed!!

      Delete
  15. A quick note - retiring the UGM-109B without replacement was stupid. One 688 with ADCAPs in the tubes and the VLS cells full of TASMs can station-keep at three knots on the open-ocean side of a strait and do this chokepoint-holding ASuW business better than ten LCSs trying to avoid running aground at night in the middle of an archipelago, for the cost of two LCSs and with the crew complement of one LCS. The sub in its modern configuration (with TLAMs instead of TASMs in the VLS cells) is still a lethal ASuW combatant, but it doesn't have the potential to take out the escorts with dog-legged torp shots then quickly slaughter the escorted ships without waiting to reload that the Cold War-configured sub could have.

    Overall, "Distributed lethality" would work a lot better if the platforms it was based on were actually lethal and survivable. If they're not lethal there's not point, and if they're not at least reasonably survivable the strategy fails to an enemy that can concentrate their forces into a real task force. But making your ships lethal and survivable and manufacturable isn't some new concept, it's just succeeding at designing a ship. Maybe the reason the Navy came up with a new name is because we haven't done that in so long we forgot what it even was!

    ReplyDelete

Comments will be moderated for posts older than 7 days in order to reduce spam.