As you know, the LCS program has been in a state of disarray
– to put it politely and mildly! – for quite some time. LCS vessels – the Freedom variant, in
particular – are being slated for retirement almost as fast as they’re being
built. Further, the Navy has cancelled
the anti-submarine (ASW) module and eliminated that function from the LCS
mission (to the extent the LCS has a mission!).
You may recall that the Navy had organized the LCS into two
groups, one on each coast, with four ships dedicated to each mission (ASW,
ASuW, MCM). Each group of four were to
consist of one dedicated training ship and three deployable ships. Thus, in total, there were to be six
dedicated ASW ships, six dedicated ASuW ships, and six MCM ships.
The elimination of the ASW mission and the [very] early
retirement of a dozen or more LCS has thrown that organization out the
window. Now, the 2023 GAO annual report
offers some partial clarity on the new plan for task organization of the LCS.
..
24 MCM packages will support 15 MCM-assigned LCS and nine will deploy from
shore and other ships. Ten SUW packages will support eight SUW-assigned LCS and
two MCM-assigned LCS.[1]
This raises some interesting points:
- It appears that the Navy will have only 15 MCM vessels as
the total fleet mine countermeasures capability as the current Avengers and
MH-53E helos retire shortly. That’s a
pitifully small number against the hundreds of thousands of mines in the
Chinese (and NKorean, Iranian, and Russian) inventory.
- It appears that the Navy will have only 8 dedicated ASuW
LCS which is surprising since anti-swarm was, arguably, the main function of
the LCS.
- There is some confusion about the meaning of the statement
that two of the ASuW packages will support two MCM LCS. Does this mean the Navy will attempt to
double up on modules on two ships? Given
the critical weight limits, that seems not to be feasible. Perhaps it means that those two LCS will be
‘swappers’ even though the Navy officially abandoned the module swapping
concept?
- It appears that the Navy will be left with 25 active LCS
out of the original 38 that have been built with 5 already retired and around a
dozen more slated for retirement over the next two years.
A program in disarray has become even more confused!
__________________________________
The navy needs decisive leadership to make bold decisions about these programs.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, peacetime militaries don't foster bold decision making.
Lutefisk
What bold decision would you make?
DeleteAccept the fact that investing more into the LCS programs will be throwing good money after bad, and CANCEL THE PROGRAMS. Admit the USN screwed up re: minesweeping, and rent or outright buy minesweepers from allies to "bridge the gap" until American shipyards can build replacements for the minesweepers we retired. Accept the fact the US military has MASSIVE recruitment and retention problems, and instead of wasting time and money on "unmanned" systems still too technologically immature to use in ACTUAL BATTLE, either improve military service members' salaries and benefits to improve recruitment and retention- closing down overseas bases and ending overseas deployments, if necessary, to salvage the money needed- or outright enact conscription and impressment, i.e., draft the necessary men and women into the Army, send press gangs to force the necessary men and women into the Navy.
DeleteOur government and military leaders need to make "Hard Decisions" that are hard for themselves, not just their constituents.
"What bold decision would you make?"
DeleteI'd cancel LCS construction immediately.
If the existing LCS can't be given a job, put them into storage or scrap them....basically stop putting resources towards a loser.
I'd so something similar with the Ford class:
Stop building immediately. Rip out the catapults and elevators and retrofit something that works and can function in an EMCON environment.
I'd then finish the Kennedy (CVN-79) with the retrofits.
The other three would be scrapped or CXL'd.
The next carriers would be conventional, improved Kitty Hawks.
I would also aggressively halt the divisive DEI type of training/thinking and purge it from the navy.
Next, navy ships would spend far less time plowing furrows in the oceans and more time training, maintaining, and chipping paint. When they go to sea going forward, every moment would be in a simulated combat posture...train as you intend to fight.
Then I would start converting the equipment into the navy that I would want to have to defend American interests.
Lutefisk
@Lutefisk. Reading your comment on going back to conventional carriers, just finished Osprey Series book on USN Cold War cruisers, good book, those nuke cruisers were so cool BUT with everything except SSN being conventional now, made me wonder, do we really still need nuclear powered carriers? At first, your comment made me think:"no way!" BUT then thought :"do we really need them?" How much could we save down the world going back to conventional? Just because its been forever now they've been nuke powdered isn't much of a justification.....
Delete@NICO. A while back the blog had a good discussion about the pros and cons of nuke and conventional, not sure which thread it was but it's in the archives if you can find it.
DeleteFor me the overriding factor was the possibility of battle damage to the reactor system. The ship might have repairable damage but still has to be scuttled because of the contamination...to say nothing of the sailors affected.
Lutefisk
"blog had a good discussion about the pros and cons of nuke and conventional"
DeleteHere it is:
"The Nuclear Power Debate"
The bad part is the Navy has lost its "corporate knowledge" base on howto operate and maintain conventionally powered vessels (i.e. steam). There used to be a time that sailors could retube boilers underway. Days long since past. They barely maintain their own equipment now.
DeleteMy only thought as the LCS program goes down, is for the hundreds of officers who have lost their jobs, lost that promotion, or lost their careers for warning the entire concept wouldn't work.
ReplyDeleteIn a just world, the men who pushed this through will, someday, pay a price for the damage they've done to the Navy and to the country.
I won't hold my breath, but it is my hope.
So USN went with the whole multi-variants and all these nice modules to end up with basically a crappy MCM version....good job USN!....sarc.....how many more MCM ships could have been acquired instead of this fiasco if USN just went for a basic MCM ship from the start?!?
ReplyDeleteBut now we can make use of these fast (40+ Knot) ships to sweep those mines in hours instead of days or weeks!
ReplyDeleteHow does a minesweeper sweep for mines while moving too fast to actually DETECT THEM? By deliberately trying to ram and trigger these mines, the exact same way a Kamikaze pilot deliberately crashes his plane?
Delete"By deliberately trying to ram and trigger these mines"
DeleteWell, there is the saying "Any ship can be a minesweeper -- Once"
Trying to be as charitable as possible to the Navy, at least the new plan (for 15 MCM ships) is an improvement over the old plan (for 6 MCM ships)!
ReplyDeleteNow if only we had an MCM module that worked.
Delete"Trying to be as charitable as possible to the Navy, at least the new plan (for 15 MCM ships) is an improvement over the old plan (for 6 MCM ships)!"
DeleteNot as long as an LCS with a MCM module is basically useless as a MCM platform. 15 useless ships is not an improvement over 6 useless ships.
The Fraud, Waste, and abuse hotline number has been changed to 1-800-CALL-LCS
ReplyDelete"LCS Organization"
ReplyDeleteNow that's an oxymoron!
Wonder if anybody has tried a naval version of the Army's MICLIC system. You could have launchers forward and port/starboard. Maybe allow the line charge to sink to a predetermined depth before detonation. Just a thought.
ReplyDelete"MICLIC"
DeleteIt is NOT an area clearance system. That system is designed to create very narrow passage lanes through minefields (9 yds by 109 yds). That is useful for passing infantry or small vehicles but would be useless for ships which are much larger than the cleared lane.
Conceivably, one might create a much larger system for establishing landing craft lanes of sufficient width but even an LCAC is wider than the MICLIC lane. Also, there would be no visual markings to indicate exactly where the cleared lane is.
Finally, consider that the MICLIC cleared lane length is on a hundred yards and the approach lane for a landing craft is miles long.
As you note, mines can be at any depth so which depth do you choose?
A naval MICLIC is a thought but I don't see a practical way to do it.
The USN leadership does not understand mine warfare. I remember in the early days of End Sweep, when we knew that we were basically clearing the mines out of North Vietnamese waters in exchange for getting our POWs back. The then CincPacFlt gave a press conference during which he said something to the effect of, "Oh no, we are not actually going to sweep all the mines." The POW flow stopped. It took a bunch of political maneuvering to get the rest of the POWs out. Bottom line, the senior USN officers hate mine warfare, so they don't do anything about it until it bites them in the butt--Wonsan, End Sweep.
ReplyDeleteMines aren't pretty, they don't salute, they don't march around in neat formations--so admirals don't like them--but they are a prime example of the old maxim, "the better they look, the worse they fight."
In an era when cost effectiveness is a concept that is lost on almost all military procurement decision-makers, mines are an extremely cost-effectie weapon. And for some strange reason, the USN refuses to go there. The LCS "MCM" package is nothing but a backhanded way to say, "Yes, we have a mine countermeasures capability." It's not an effective capability, because is cannot be. The only way to have an effective MCM capability is to have dedicated assets designed specifically for the purpose, not some add on that is bolted onto another ship not designed for the purpose.
"cost effectiveness is a concept that is lost on almost all military procurement decision-makers"
DeleteRightly so! Cost effectiveness is NOT the primary criteria to use when designing and procuring weapon systems - COMBAT effectiveness is. Cost is a secondary (or tertiary?) consideration. It can't be totally ignored but it is NOT the driving force for weapon systems.
I think we are interpreting cost effectiveness differently. Cost effectiveness as in a commercial enterprise is not an appropriate criterion for military usage. But lethality for cost is worth considering. Of course, before you can make that comparison you have to have lethality. And that's what things like the LCS don't offer.
Delete"lethality for cost"
DeleteThat's combat effectiveness with cost as a secondary consideration.
"The only way to have an effective MCM capability is to have dedicated assets designed specifically for the purpose, not some add on that is bolted onto another ship not designed for the purpose" Does the LCS/MCM have the appropriate acoustic signature for a mine hunting vessel ? Mines with acoustic sensors are a threat. I agree about having a dedicated MCM vessel.
ReplyDeleteYou know sometimes there is reason you have allies. The Japanese Awaji class purpose built minesweeper cost ~120 Million. Pick up the phone and place an order after canceling the LCS. Use the money saved to I dunno buy more frigates or have enough aircraft to actually fill a CV
ReplyDeleteI'm aware of the class but I've been unable to determine what specific capabilities they have or how they conduct mine clearance operations. Do you have any information?
DeleteWell my Japanese is only as good as poor google translate unlike my Koine Greek or Latin so best I can work out is... Its got a ton of sonars on the ship, it is purpose built to be non magnetic of synthetic materials. It has more than one automated drone detection system and apparently fiber-optic wire guided disposable mine destruction ordinance. Can't find anyplace that says how many or how many mines they think the disposable devices can activate or destroy with their load.
DeleteAdded. But disposable and fiber optic seems positive you can reel out a lot of that and likely only need a small charge to blow up a mine.
DeleteAdded more. Personally I would think given this now and not 1973 you could build a more than a few cheap automated ships that would do the same job as the USS Washtenaw County (operation End Sweep). With a slightly different intent of them having no sailors and just automatically driving through a mine field and attracting attention until sunk.
Delete"how many mines they think the disposable devices can activate or destroy with their load."
DeleteAs you're well aware from reading this blog, most modern mine clearance is focused on one-at-a-time hunting/clearing as opposed to area sweeping. In combat, against enemies with inventories of hundreds of thousands of mines, the one-at-a-time approach will be of little or no use. So, with that in mind, what sweep capability, if any, does the vessel have that will make it useful in a war scenario?
just seen a piece on ABC news that should interest the Navy. The Ukrainians have a new combat kayak with a 40mm GMG, the Poloz M16. Only costs around 2500 per unit (2 million once the Navy gets done). According to the report, its gonna be a real game changer. (for the love of mike...)
ReplyDeleteI'm morbidly certain some idiot at the Pentagon and/or the US Capitol Building, will propose replacing all our "outdated" guided missile destroyers with "more cost-effective" combat kayaks.
Delete