The Navy, in a miracle of technological speed, has managed
to deliver the first full mine countermeasures (MCM) module to an LCS although
the first planned deployment is still a year or so away.
I know … you’re wondering the same thing I am. Are we sure the Navy didn’t cut corners in
order to deliver the MCM module this quickly?
Well, here’s our answer:
Well, moving on …
Who’s leading this miraculous effort?
By the way, someone be sure to let me know when we’ve
actually demonstrated that ‘unmanned’ is leveraging anything except the budget
from Congress.
On a related note, many of you are probably trying to recall
what an LCS was. I don’t blame you. It hasn’t been in the news much, lately. I had to look it up because the only LCS I
could recall was a very short-lived, insignificant ship class that I thought
was abandoned and early retired several years ago. For those of you who would like a reminder,
here’s the Navy’s description of the LCS:
“optimally-manned”
? Every report I’ve ever states that the
ships are woefully undermanned and, in fact, the manning has been increased a
few times yet they remain undermanned and incapable of conducting on-board
maintenance.
“mission-tailored”??? How can the ship be mission-tailored when
there are no functional mission modules and, in fact, the ASW module has been
abandoned?
“operate in near-shore
and open-ocean environments” What
else is there? Isn’t that just a wordier
way of saying, ‘it’s a boat’?
____________________________
The U.S. Navy embarked the first Mine Countermeasures Mission Package (MCM MP) aboard USS Canberra (LCS 30), April 18, service officials announced. With the MCM mission package now onboard LCS 30, the Navy is looking forward to the first MCM Mission Package deployment in Fiscal Year 2025.[1]How long has the MCM module been in development? Well, the first Independence ship was laid down in 2006 so MCM module development must have been well underway by that time. So, it’s been 18+ years. That’s a remarkable pace of development! Well done, Navy!
The MCM mission package achieved Initial Operational Capability (IOC) on March 31, 2023, following rigorous initial operational testing and evaluation (IOT&E) of the full mission package … [1]Okay, I see that the module was rigorously tested and the Navy is famous for its rigorous test standards so that alleviates my concern. The module is truly ready to go … although it’s odd that it would require another year or so to reach a state of deployment. I assumed the crew would be ready to go as soon as the module was installed. What has the crew been doing for the last 18 years if not training for MCM operations?
PEO [ed. Program Executive Office] Unmanned and Small Combatants leads the Navy’s efforts to provide littoral combat ships with mission-tailored capability to Combatant Commanders to provide assured access against littoral threats, leveraging unmanned naval capabilities for enhanced operational effectiveness.[1]Bingo! I just filled my mindless platitude, buzzword bingo card with that sentence! Again we see - as we so often do - that creative writing is more important in the Navy than actual testing or combat effectiveness.
Littoral Combat Ships are fast, optimally-manned, mission-tailored surface combatants that operate in near-shore and open-ocean environments, winning against 21st-century coastal threats.[1]Just a few thoughts about that …
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2024/04/first-mine-warfare-usv-embarked-on-us-navy-lcs/
Could somebody explain to me why you need 40+ knots speed to do mine countermeasures ???
ReplyDeleteTo travel from one end of the world to the other. The idea was that you'd send out an Avengers Assemble call and all the LCSes would rush to the gulf from the SCS and elsewhere, load MCM packages, do minesweeping, and then go back to their usual antipiracy/2ndline patrol tasks that a Burke is overkill for. You don't need to use a 1.8 billion dollar AAW DDG on counterpiracy.
DeleteThe Avengers top out at 15 knots and cruise at 7, so it'd take forever and a day for them to self deploy anywhere.
Mines are shifty little pricks.
DeleteThe 40kont spec is for the Steel Beach/Water Ski Personnel Retention Enhancement Module,
Deleteused after you clear the mines it's party time.
Looks like most, or the rest of the Avengers are on the decommissioning list this year anyway...
Delete40+ knot speed is not for mine sweep but let LCS to move fast in battle.
DeleteLCS program is a combination of strategic blunder and technical failure. The 40+ knot speed ends up only good in demonstration. Power systems keep failing if an LCS did move in that speed. Other technical failure include XM-501 missile, Cyberfire (or Netfire) system, various modules, ... etc.
Far serious problem is strategic blunder. These ships were designed base on an assumption that US would no longer fight an equally competent navy but only regional powers having outdated surface ships, submarines, and mine warfare in desperation.
Now, the program is cancelled thus should show some R&D "success" because it will not be used in any real battle but head for a museum.
"40+ knot speed is not for mine sweep but let LCS to move fast in battle."
DeleteDo you have any documentation that states that? I've closely followed the LCS and read every available news item, report, etc. and I've never seen that. Is that just your speculation?
Regardless, ship speed is of limited value today. Missiles traveling at Mach speeds don't care about a ship moving 30-40 kts.
What, specifically, is speed good for?
Its kinda handy for fouling up a targeting solution. If you can zig your way fast out of a position where the last ISR satellite pass had you zeroed, you may be able to get out of the field of view of a missile seeker. No guarantees of course, but surely that is one reason that CSGs move so fast. Of course launching aircraft is as important...
DeleteI'm thinking about WWII convoys running zig-zags to mess up U-Boat targeting. Obviously not the same thing, but the principle applies.
This is in no way a defense of the LCS, just an observation that speed has its uses.
"Its kinda handy for fouling up a targeting solution."
DeleteYou may be laboring under some misconceptions. Satellites are not used for targeting. They may be used for indicating an approximate location and cueing other search assets which can provide targeting data.
"surely that is one reason that CSGs move so fast."
Carrier groups would travel quickly to reach a mission execution position with as little exposure as possible. In WWII, surface ship speed was useful for evading submarines but that is much less useful today since subs are capable of 20-30 kts submerged.
"WWII convoys running zig-zags to mess up U-Boat targeting."
Zig-zagging is no longer an effective tactic since the advent of homing/guided torpedoes.
"speed has its uses."
The streak continues. I'm still waiting to hear anyone offer a good used for LCS speed.
Theoretically, if your ESM antenna picks up the radar signals of an active antiship missile's seeker from beyond the horizon, that 40 knot sprint speed, combined with the lower radar cross section of the LCS and and use of decoys, could afford you a small chance to get outside of the field of view of the seeker cone of the missile.
DeleteTheoretically.
Sorry, no. For a high subsonic missile (say, 650 mph) and an LCS speed of 37 kts (highest recorded during trials and DOT&E testing) and a detection at, say, 20 miles out (horizon standing at sea level is 3 miles; 60 ft is 9.5 miles), gives an escape window of 1.8 min. The LCS will travel 1.3 miles in that time. That's not enough to escape the missile sensor field of view.
DeleteThis assumes the LCS is already traveling 37 kts.
Realistically, if it is starting at a much lower speed and has to ramp up and if it takes several seconds (still ridiculously optimistic) or a few minutes for the detection information to be absorbed, command informed, actions considered, and orders issued, the LCS will hardly have moved, if at all.
Also, not sure what ship's sensor you think would do over the horizon detection?
"You may be laboring under some misconceptions. Satellites are not used for targeting. They may be used for indicating an approximate location and cueing other search assets which can provide targeting data."
DeleteYou're a few years out of date. Yes, you CAN pick a target from a satellite. A satellite pass can give you course and speed. So if you want to invalidate that data, you better not be traveling on the same path at the same speed for an extended interval.
US military leadership has admitted that they are very concerned about the ability for the Chinese to track CSGs from space accurately enough to target them.
"you CAN pick a target from a satellite"
DeleteSorry, no. You can localize a target but that's not firing quality data. Consider the reality of the process. This is not science fiction where the satellite is linked straight to the missile on a ship. The satellite images have to be downloaded, analyzed, information disseminated, decisions made, plans formulated, orders disbursed, and then - and only then - a missile can be fired. By then, the information is so out of date that it can't be used for firing. Instead, additional recon assets would be allocated to the area which can provide firing data. Of course, we don't have any such survivable assets for that function and that's a capability gap I've pointed out for quite some time.
People who think satellites are directly linked to the firing circuit on a ship have been watching too many movies.
"Also, not sure what ship's sensor you think would do over the horizon detection?"
DeleteESM antennas.
The way the curvature of the earth works is that a radar beam traveling ahead of the missile (or a ship using surface search radar) is going ahead past the radar horizon, meaning that from our perspective, the enemy's radar beam is traveling ahead, on top of us. We're below the horizon, so their beams won't hit us and return a signal to the enemy, but we can detect the energy of their emission (it's the same principles behind bouncing radio beams for long range transmission in WW2).
Now, of course, ESM gear isn't sensitive enough to give us specific data for targeting (a bearing only launch and letting the missile seek on its own can still be done, of course), but it's enough to give an alert of "there's something in this heading that is putting out radar energy."
Of course, within the next 2 decades, maybe even sooner, shipboard passive ESM is going to be challenged by new ASCMs with LPI AESA seekers, which are going to be putting out significantly less emissions than the pulse-doppler radar seeker on older missiles like Harpoon. The Japanese have demonstrated that they can fit an AESA radar seeker into a Sea Sparrow sized missile (their XRIM-4 interceptor SAM), and we know that China is putting a lot of effort into domestic GaN AESA radars for their fighters, AEW and MPA, so it's only a matter of time before they propagate that technology down to their missiles.
Delete"“operate in near-shore and open-ocean environments” What else is there?"
ReplyDeleteSwamps, bogs, morasses, rivers, canals ... My God, they're going to attack Venice.
That’s a good one! 😆
Delete"Could somebody explain to me why you need 40+ knots speed to do mine countermeasures ???"
DeleteIt allows you to outrun the shockwave whem the mine detonates. Ask an admiral, they'll tell you.
From an old Mine Warfare Force sailor, the idea of an LCS as a mine countermeasures platform is incredibly stupid.
ReplyDeleteThe only thing an LCS can do is go fast (when it's engines and reduction gear are working) and the last thing you want to do anywhere around a mine field is go fast.
The US Navy has never understood or cared much about mine warfare, and this is just one more example.
We already know how this end: USN will declare it fully operational, write a great article patting itself on the back and then, decommission it the next day......
ReplyDelete- There is a Proceedings Podcast on Youtube that hasn't made it to the USNI site yet discussing how they are going to increase crew size to 112 as they move to single crewed vessels.
ReplyDelete- I could understand a ship doing remote minehunting and be designed to counter small boats simultaneously. We have literally seen Iran try that trick of mining with the boghammers while harassing our ships. My guess is someone figured they would toss subs into the mix too if it ever got really hot. Nonetheless their ConOps is wrong along with payload fraction etc. The ship should basically include the surface module as standard and hen toss in the ability to take on gear and people for other missions. (And this is just a what if, maybe rain of thought.)
- They did want the ships to self deploy, but the speed requirement was more for being able to move quickly inter-theatre. The 900 nautical miles of the Persian Gulf, for example.
"The ship should basically include the surface module as standard and hen toss in the ability to take on gear and people for other missions. (And this is just a what if, maybe rain of thought.) "
DeleteI'm pretty sure that's what the Navy are doing right now. I have not seen any indication otherwise in any of the forward deployed LCS ships. The ASW module should just include the tow sonar, UISS and whatever are the airborne components on the SH-60 Seahawks.
"include the surface module as standard"
DeleteIt kind of is and kind of isn't. Each LCS now has a standard ASuW capability although it's woefully short of what the original module called for so, yeah, there's a standard ASuW fit but it's nothing to write home about.
"The ASW module should just include"
DeleteThe ASW module has been cancelled and abandoned. The Navy was unable to make the ASW module work and dropped the capability from the LCS. There is no ASW module or capability anymore.
my bad haha. I meant the MCM module, don't know why I was just brainfarting the word ASW instead.
DeleteHey, no problem. The Navy gets confused all the time!
Delete"What has the crew been doing for the last 18 years if not training for MCM operations?"
ReplyDeleteFixing the hull cracks that come from going fast?
Pouring seawater into lube oil?
DeleteSeriously, I do wonder what the crews have been doing. There have been very few deployments and they have no modules to train with. They don't do on-board maintenance. What do they do?
These IOCs for the ASW mission modules do not inspire me with confidence. One of the critical components of the ASW modules is the Unmanned Influence Sweep System (UISS) which was declared to meet IOC in July 2022 and then DOT&E came out with a damning report "Operational availability demonstrated when employing UISS from an LCS was 0.29, well below the Navy defined minimum threshold" citing an August 2022 test. This was January last year and I think I read somewhere that the PEO admitted they knew about these reliability issues but chose to forego this and expect the companies to launch ECPs to fix this. They also said they did fix it but I have only seen that from the Navy side and nothing from DOT&E since.
ReplyDelete"These IOCs for the ASW mission modules do not inspire me with confidence. One of the critical components of the ASW modules is the Unmanned Influence Sweep System (UISS)"
DeleteJust to clarify, there is no ASW module. It's been terminated. the UISS is a mine countermeasures (MCM) module component.
As LCS program is about to close down, finally, a mines weep module comes out. Hopefully, they can be used in other ships or sell to recover some money spent.
ReplyDeleteRecall first unmanned mine sweep module was during the Vietnam War (type 312). After US laid mines to block then N. Vietnam's major ports, it asked China to help. Type 312 did great jobs to document released by Pentagon after the War.
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/ship-mine-vn.htm
https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Type_312_minesweeper
https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Type_312_minesweeper
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/futi.htm
LCS also use unmanned mine sweep drone ship:
Deletehttps://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2019/05/03/AAI-nets-205M-for-mine-sweep-system-on-Littoral-Combat-Ships/9831556885591/
Oh, too bad they’ll decide they need a Counter-Drone Warfare Module instead. Don’t worry, it’ll be ready by 2040.
ReplyDeleteCounter low tech drones is not a problem but how to counter them cheaply is a big problem.
DeleteYou cannot keep using SM-3 to shoot down cheap Houthi drones made by Iran.
I suppose banging away with machine guns might work at sea. Whereas it's not an attractive option on land where you might be risking lots of civilian lives with all the bullets that miss their target.
DeleteI wonder if there's a variant of the WWII barrage balloons that might be used in an anti-drone mode?
"Whereas it's not an attractive option on land where you might be risking lots of civilian lives with all the bullets that miss their target."
DeleteThis line of thought is absolutely baffling and illustrates one of my common themes which is that we've forgotten what war is. In WWII, we expended hundreds of millions of bullets in cities, towns, villages, and countryside. That's what you do in war. Civilian (are there any civilians in the Middle East?) casualties are a part of war and one of the reasons we try to avoid war.
Perhaps you're talking about some kind of peacetime scenario. Well, if someone is sending drones at us then we ARE at war, aren't we? If we're at war, the best defense against drones is wiping out the people sending the drones, right?
We need to relearn what war is and start recognizing reality instead of our fantasy world of dainty, precise, no-one-gets-hurt combat.
Understand, this wasn't directed at you, personally, but at the school of thought that is more concerned with collateral damage than military objectives. You shouldn't enter war lightly but when you do, you enter with military objectives as the prime concern.
(are there any civilians in the Middle East?)
DeleteYou are generally quite precise in your language. As a former resident of Qatar which I enjoyed the heck out of (not to mention Saudi, Iran and Kuwait back in the day), I can assure you that there are a huge number of civilians in the Middle East that don't deserve having Hell rained down on them just because of where they live. There are very few real democracies in the Middle East, and people don't get to choose their system of government, they just have to live or die with it.
Might be worthy of a thought. Or not. It might also be worth pointing out that that Israel is in the Middle East.
Aside from that, I get what you're saying and largely agree with it, but please, let's not dehumanize the truly civilian populations.
" I can assure you that there are a huge number of civilians in the Middle East"
DeleteYou can't possibly think I'm suggesting we suddenly appear in the middle of some friendly (or not actively antagonistic) country like Qatar or Canada and start firing machine guns at ... um ... what would we be shooting at since they're friends and wouldn't be launching drones at us?
Obviously, I'm talking about UNFRIENDLY countries like Iran and Yemen, as examples. If a country has decided to attack us (as Yemen has) then we have the right to defend ourselves and strike back regardless of the possibility of collateral damage.
You might also want to review the post on the definition of a civilian and how rare they are.
You're also undoubtedly aware that C-RAM, as an example, uses rounds that self-destruct before hitting the ground.
You're also undoubtedly aware that we intentionally avoid establishing bases in the middle of highly populated areas.
Please, let's not self-limit ourselves by concocting incredibly unlikely scenarios out of fear of collateral damage.
Here's the post on civilians: Civilians
DeleteHold on! Machine guns used against drones are a defensive weapon. The civilians you would be killing would be your own. I don't see how you can shrug that off.
Delete"civilians ... I don't see how you can shrug that off."
DeleteI'm not. The problem is you're concocting an unlikely scenario and then shrugging off the reality.
-Targets that are likely to be attacked are sited AWAY from populated areas specifically so that operations and weapon usage WON"T impact civilians.
-If you've been threatened or attacked, you eliminate the source of the threat so that you won't be attacked again.
-C-RAM, as an example, uses rounds that self-destruct before they hit the ground so as to avoid collateral damage.
-The likely anti-drone weapons are lasers, microwaves, and electronic countermeasures (signal disruption) as much or more than guns.
There is no problem here.
@CNO: I rather agree with you about civilian casualties. But would a US government undergoing media harassment? There's little point buying weapons that your political masters will then forbid you to use.
ReplyDeleteIf we're more concerned with 'civilian' casualties than military objectives then we shouldn't be there to begin with.
DeleteAs I mentioned, you tend to be quite precise in your language. Its one of the many things I enjoy about this blog.
ReplyDeleteAs far as base locations, I'm quite sure you are aware what and where Al Udeid is. Its about 4km from the Industrial Area in Doha where tens of thousands of TCN workers live in dormitories. When Iran starts throwing ballistic missiles around, some are going to miss.
You might also want to take a quick look at where NSA Bahrain (HQ of Fifth Fleet) is located.
So I hear you, but if things really go to Hell in the Middle East a bunch of innocent civilians are going to get slaughtered.
To me, its worth a bit of effort to try to keep out of a major scrap with Iran. If you look at the media in general, including blogs like yours, they tend to be quite dismissive about pounding on Iran. I've spent quite a bit of time in Iran, pre revolution, and have at least a reasonable feel for how the average man on the street mindset works.
In reality, bad things will happen and some of them may not go the way we expect.
"if things really go to Hell"
DeleteThat's kind of the definition of war.
"a bunch of innocent civilians are going to get slaughtered."
That's what happens in war.
"tend to be quite dismissive about pounding on Iran."
You have a very short term, localized view. Sure, the guy standing on the street doesn't want war because he might get in the way of it and get killed. However, the big picture view may be that stopping an on-going, persistent evil (let's call that evil ... oh, I don't know ... Iran) saves more lives in the long run. We recently saw EXACTLY this play out when the US was reluctant to destroy ISIS quickly and completely out of fear of collateral damage. As a result, ISIS was allowed to continue its rampage and thousands died unnecessarily. Similarly, Hitler was allowed to run wild because no one wanted to risk a confrontation and the result was that Hitler/Germany was able to build a war machine and which led to WWII.
Sometimes, the only thing worse than war is not war.
I read your civilian post, and frankly I would draw a line between a factory worker and a victory garden. But that's just me.
ReplyDeleteBut consider the exact opposite. The US chose to, and negotiated basing rights in the middle of a major population who has basically no idea about the risks involved.
How the hell do you expose these people to that kind of risk when you alone, thousands of miles away and a culture remote, know that their lives can be snuffed out in an instant because their leaders made that call with no input or support from the true civilians at risk?
"frankly I would draw a line between a factory worker and a victory garden."
DeleteAnd you would be wrong, as the post quite clearly explained.
"because their leaders made that call with no input "
Then maybe they need new leaders. People are responsible for the govt/leadership they have. This is part of the 'no true civilians' view.
Former Soviet Union Navy :
ReplyDeletewww.pakmil.net/forum/main-lobby/734-whatever#post745