The LCS modules have been under development for something on
the order of two decades, now, and none are yet ready at anything approaching
the original specifications or concepts.
In fact, the anti-submarine (ASW) module has been terminated. The anti-surface (ASuW) module is a joke,
having little capability and what there is, is a faint shadow of the original
intent and specifications. The mine
countermeasures (MCM) module is ready in the sense that there are a group of
individual components that kind of perform limited mine clearance. Even those components are constrained in
their performance, as a Naval News website article documents.[1]
For starters, the entire MCM module doesn’t fit in the LCS!
The unmanned tow vessel is also causing performance problems.
Communications are another issue.
The original intent was to keep the host LCS well away from the actual minefield but the communication issues are causing the ship to operate near the minefield, nullifying the original intended benefit of unmanned operations.
The Navy is looking to incorporate some kind of UAV as a
communications relay.
The MCM module is becoming a real ‘Rube Goldberg’ collection of increasingly ridiculous, mismatched, and constrained components attempting to meet a bare minimum capability.
A reminder … Even if all this works perfectly, it’s still a
failure in that it’s predominantly a one-at-a-time hunting method which is
operationally useless in a combat situation.
Yes, the Navy claims to have an influence sweep capability but, to the
best of my knowledge, that has never been tested and certainly not
realistically. I have severe doubts that
the sweeping method will work against modern smart mines.
Two decades or more of work and we have a cobbled together
collection of misfit, limited capability MCM components. Well done, Navy! You’ve made us proud.
____________________________
The components of the LCS MCM mission module were not originally designed to be loaded into the 30,000 square feet of mission bay space and shortcomings have been encountered in balancing the space between 11 meter CUSVs, four or five 12-foot CONEX boxes, a lift system for the CUSVs, and an independent berthing box for the operators of the MCM suite.[1]
The unmanned tow vessel is also causing performance problems.
According to Captain Scott B. Hattaway, Director of the SMWDC Mine Countermeasures Technical Division, the 11 meter CUSV is currently limited by form factor, limiting the endurance of the platform and the weight of the cable for towed sonar depth. The current form factor of the CUSV is limiting the maximum performance that can be extracted from the AN/AQS-20C sonar suite.[1]
Communications are another issue.
Another limiting factor, according to Captain Hattaway, is the range offered by the CUSV. Line of sight between the LCS mothership and the CUSV is required. In heavy sea states, effectiveness is limited. Bandwidth is taxed by the amount of information that needs to be shared back and forth to the operator and the sensor suites.[1]
The original intent was to keep the host LCS well away from the actual minefield but the communication issues are causing the ship to operate near the minefield, nullifying the original intended benefit of unmanned operations.
“We’re looking at having a UAV with a towed antenna, raising the elevation to hundreds of feet in the air that will allow us to increase the range of USVs …[1]
The MCM module is becoming a real ‘Rube Goldberg’ collection of increasingly ridiculous, mismatched, and constrained components attempting to meet a bare minimum capability.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2025/01/update-on-the-u-s-navys-littoral-combat-ship-mine-countermeasures-mission-package/
Here's a very not surprise....https://www.twz.com/news-features/cost-of-navys-newest-flight-iii-arleigh-burke-destroyers-is-ballooning
ReplyDeleteWhy don't we just contract to build some other country's mine sweeper design?
ReplyDeleteLutefisk
Are you aware of any foreign minesweeper design that is combat-sweep capable? I'm not but I'd be interested to hear of one!
DeleteI'm not, but then I don't really understand very well how modern mine sweeping works.
DeleteSo I'm not very qualified to judge the potential effectiveness of foreign designs.
I wonder how well the Japanese ships work?
Lutefisk
"I wonder how well the Japanese ships work?"
DeleteI'm not familiar with Japanese MCM ships. More generally, however, every foreign MCM concept I've looked at is a variation of the one-at-a-time mine hunting and disposal method. If you have unlimited time, that's fine. However, in war, time is always of the essence and rapid, widespread, area removal is what's needed. No foreign design that I'm aware of is intended for that. If you come across one that does, let me know!
Unmanned vessels are crucial in mine sweepings which are very danger. I cannot imagine why it takes so long to develop one for LCS.
ReplyDeleteBack in Vietnam War, China used unmanned vessel - type 312 to help Vietnam swept away mines laid by US to blockade Haiphong Port. Stunning results were achieved according to information released by US after the War.
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/ship-mine-vn.htm
Rather than develop a specific one for LCS, Navy should consider develop a common module (unmanned vessel and communication system) which can be carried by many different ships.
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/ship-mine-vn.htm
You have a lemon. It cannot carry loads which you need but keep giving you maintenance bills. If you want to make some uses of it, it breaks down and costs you a lot to repair. Promised modules have never been delivered but now the vendor promises you, just spend some money, I will ........
ReplyDelete^&%$#@!*
There's a old photo ( 1960s) of a Gearing class after it launched a nuke ASROC with a large geyser of water in the background,why not use tactical underwater nukes to blow holes through mine fields. Don't care about political or environmental arguments. If its wartime use what is expedient.
ReplyDeleteThe ship used for this test was the USS Agerholm DD-826.
Delete" nuke ASROC"
DeleteYou may be overestimating the effect of a small nuclear explosion or vastly underestimating the extent of a wartime minefield. The Bikini tests demonstrated that the destructive effects of an underwater nuclear explosion are surprisingly limited in area/volume (radiation is, of course, another issue).
Speaking of radiation, you'd have a radiation issue to deal with after flinging around nuclear weapons to clear a minefield. Would you really want to sail through that area afterwards?
Regarding the extent of minefields, unless you're talking about a VERY small area like a harbor entrance, minefields typically extend for many miles. WWII minefields typically covered hundreds or thousands of square miles. Do you really want to use the number of nukes that would be required to clear that kind of area?
The alarming part is the last of our old minesweepers will be decom this year during a time the focus is Iran. If we attack Iran it will instantly drop hundreds of mines in the Persian Gulf. The President will say we need them cleared ASAP, and our Admirals will say?
ReplyDeleteI looked closer. Four of the Avenger class are to be decom this year and the last four in 2027. The remaining MH-53E minesweeping helos are nearing 40 years old and in bad shape. They will begin retirement this year with no replacement planned. They tried using the much smaller MH-60S but they could barely do the tow work and quickly expended their fuel load.
Delete25 years Carlton you were advocating individual marine VTOL craft. The technology has arrived, but with drones as well. What is your current thinking about tactical vertical envelopment?
DeleteI see DARPA is developing a new wing in ground effect craft. Would this be useful as a mine sweeping tool? Just a thought.
ReplyDelete"Would this be useful as a mine sweeping tool?"
DeleteBy itself, no. If you mean as a tow vehicle for a towed sweep of some sort ... maybe. The towed sweep exerts an enormous drag. Would a WIG vehicle have enough power to overcome that drag? Would a WIG vehicle even be able to go fast enough to generate the lift required for a WIG effect? If it could tow a sweep fast enough to establish and maintain the WIG effect, would that be too fast for the sweep to be effective?
I have no authoritative idea but I highly doubt a WIG is suitable for minesweeping.
I just like saying "WIG". Super fun!
DeleteI was thinking of using the WIG to deploy a seaborne type of MICLIC to blow open a quick navigation lane. The surface anti mine vessels can finish clearing the field.
DeleteThe old Soviet Lun class ekranoplan is probably the best known example of a combat WIG. There's a nice Wiki article about it. Check it out. The Soviets had some interesting ideas in their day.
Delete"blow open a quick navigation lane. "
DeleteOne of the problems most people have when discussing naval mine warfare is a failure or inability to grasp the scale. Most people tend to think of naval mine warfare as being similar in size and scope to land warfare: mine a crossroad or a field for some small area. In reality, sea mining covers vast areas on the order of miles, often many, many miles. So, blowing open a navigation passage would require potentially opening a several mile long by a mile or more wide (you're not going to risk capital ships in anything less than a mile wide cleared opening are you?
Consider the lanes that were swept for the Normandy assault. They were the length of the English Channel and a mile or so wide, as I recall. That's not a quick MICLIC exercise!
Could there be a sufficiently small mined area to make this kind of approach work? Sure, but the likelihood is almost vanishingly small.
"a seaborne type of MICLIC"
DeleteLooking at the scale needed for a sweep, perhaps a class of ships like the LSM(R) only with banks of MICLICs vs the rocket launchers. For a rocking good read on this class of ship see: https://wwiiafterwwii.wordpress.com/2024/12/15/rise-fall-of-the-wwii-beach-bombardment-rocket/
"with banks of MICLICs"
DeleteYou're still not grasping the scope of ocean mining versus land mining. Land mines are a 2D problem with area but no depth. Ocean mines are a 3D problem with both area AND VOLUME, meaning that mines can be bottom dwelling, surface mines, or anything in between as well as covering many miles in all directions. A line charge of explosives will only work at one specific depth.
Ocean minesweeping/removal is not just an issue of area removal but of VOLUME removal.
By the way, here's a post on beach assault, rocket firing ships used in WWII: LSM(R) Fire Support Ship
The Avengers were simple ships. Why aren't we looking at a fresh, modern run of them- minimal changes, just up to date gear?? All these Mr Gadget systems are absurd, and I actually laughed hard enough to drop the phone when I read the part about "...having a UAV with a towed antenna..."
ReplyDeleteGood grief, what a clown show!!
"The Avengers were simple ships. Why aren't we looking at a fresh, modern run of them- minimal changes, just up to date gear??"
DeleteToo simple. Not enough budget money in them for the Navy.
Ugh...the obvious and likely, the accurate answer!! Well...what if we order 50?? Would that help LOL??
DeleteA current production Avenger like minesweeper is
Deletethe IJN Awaji class.
"A current production Avenger like minesweeper is
Deletethe IJN Awaji class."
As best I can tell ... not really. The Avengers were minesweepers. The Awaji, like every other modern MCM vessel I've seen, is a mine hunter which is a one-at-a-time proposition and unsuited for combat clearance.
The IJN uses the Australian DYAD sweep system.
Deletehttps://www.dst.defence.gov.au/innovation/australian-minesweeping-and-support-system-amass
Good information. Thanks.
Delete