tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post2558858591052693670..comments2024-03-28T07:56:09.239-07:00Comments on Navy Matters: LCS OTH RFIComNavOpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-76252115879272286882015-07-02T08:10:05.225-07:002015-07-02T08:10:05.225-07:00DJF, the LCS was originally intended to be an MCM,...DJF, the LCS was originally intended to be an MCM, ASW, and anti-surface/land attack vessel. The original NLOS (now cancelled) weapon system was supposed to provide land attack up to 20 miles or so inland and anti-surface capability 20 miles or so around the ship. It was never intended to be an OTH combatant. Since the Navy opted (or was told) to modify the LCS to a "frigate", it now needs an OTH capability to act as a "frigate".<br /><br />The new "frigate" version of the LCS will NOT be performing MCM according to the Navy. That will be limited to the earlier LCS' and probably only the LCS-2 version, so somewhere between 8-16 LCS will be capable of MCM assuming they ever develop a functional module.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-10945997312374593592015-07-02T08:03:42.923-07:002015-07-02T08:03:42.923-07:00Smitty, brain fart on my part. I meant to say MCM...Smitty, brain fart on my part. I meant to say MCM, not ASW. The ASW module is at the weight limit but OK. The MCM module is overweight and will probably be fielded in subsets.<br /><br />Your comments about the effectiveness of the ASW version of LCS are on the money. It is not an ASW vessel and will likely prove unsuited to the task.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-41105733953133929122015-07-02T08:00:55.952-07:002015-07-02T08:00:55.952-07:00I'm not sure what you're saying or asking....I'm not sure what you're saying or asking. Try again?ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-83096660298154561162015-07-02T08:00:19.818-07:002015-07-02T08:00:19.818-07:00Anon, it sounds like you're new to the blog. ...Anon, it sounds like you're new to the blog. Welcome aboard!<br /><br />To answer your question, there are a few reasons why the LCS needs to be more heavily armed than other country's minesweepers.<br /><br />1. Unlike other country's minesweepers, the LCS is intended to fill three main roles: MCM, ASW, and anti-surface (ASuW) warfare. The latter requirement drives the need for significant anti-ship weapons.<br /><br />2. The original ASuW module was supposed to have a significant anti-surface and land attack capability in the form of the now cancelled NLOS system. That lost capability has not been replaced, hence, the criticism of the LCS' lack of weaponry.<br /><br />3. The LCS is eventually intended to make up a quarter to a third of the combat fleet (52 out of 150-180 or so). To have that much of the combat fleet unable to fight is unacceptable. ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-87461322983016448082015-07-02T02:32:07.902-07:002015-07-02T02:32:07.902-07:00If the LCS is meant to hunt subs and mine sweep, t...If the LCS is meant to hunt subs and mine sweep, then why is there so much fuss? Don't most, if not all, current mine sweepers in the world NOT have over the horizon missiles/3-5 inch guns/heavy torpedoes/heavy grade sensors?<br /><br />Besides it's size (120-130m), is there another reason why the LCS is expected to be so much more than the type of ship it was to replace?<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-22429739048239107022015-07-01T19:05:16.928-07:002015-07-01T19:05:16.928-07:00Oh completely agree, its definitely a much better ...Oh completely agree, its definitely a much better soloution than no missiles, and probably an improvement over the harpoon. It's just that 120-180seconds is an awful lot of time for interception, whereas 10-30 seconds is a completely different ball park.<br /><br />At that sort of speed, even a successful interception can easily see a large mangled, metal rod with an aweful lot of kinetic engergy, slam right into the side of your ship, fragmenting and/or going straight out the other side.<br /><br />And yes agree with manufacturers claims, I did point out both US and RUS interception systems make such claims, but I believe against slow moving subsonic missiles heading towards the interception system, it is probably not too hard. The interception missiles should enjoy a substantial energy advantage and be able to out-turn the ASMs, but it isn't like the ASMs are fighter pilots evading SAMs. They probably don't have that sort of capability.<br /><br />_____________________________________________<br />Also yes, agree about the full auto thing, they don't operate on full auto, if it were upto me, ironing out the flaws to enable the CIWS to operate in auto would be a priority, especially given a a coordinated Sub Attack might plink one or two Carrier groups, but hey...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-51702255475411013712015-07-01T11:14:56.239-07:002015-07-01T11:14:56.239-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-79284945138678448522015-07-01T09:43:36.253-07:002015-07-01T09:43:36.253-07:00I thought that was what its helicopter was for. I thought that was what its helicopter was for. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-44199927372324990022015-07-01T08:22:26.185-07:002015-07-01T08:22:26.185-07:00Jim, the LCS had a 200 ton allowance for the modul...Jim, the LCS had a 200 ton allowance for the module. Where that fits into the overall weight issue is unclear from the reports. Regardless, that Navy has stated that the current modules are weight-constrained. The ASW module, for example, is likely going to be fielded in sub-versions that contain subsets of the full module because the full module is too heavy. Thus, even an ASW module equipped LCS may not be the right ASW ship for any given ASW scenario. <br /><br />Further, the Navy has stated that future modules will have to give up equipment and capabilities to accommodate new equipment which kind of defeats the vision of an infinitely upgradeable module.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-1479578690866294742015-07-01T08:16:19.487-07:002015-07-01T08:16:19.487-07:00"We do however know that there is plenty of t..."We do however know that there is plenty of time once it crests the horizon to intercept it, modern interception systems fire many large calibre rounds, each containing >100 tungsten submunitions that literally create a wall/cloud of tungsten balls that the missile can not fly through. We also have missile based systems from buth russia and the USA that have very high claims of interception probability."<br /><br />Bear in mind that the horizon is 10-20 seconds from impact for a supersonic missile and only 120-180 seconds for a moderately high subsonic missile. Given minimum engagement (arming) distances, that doesn't leave much time for engagements. That also assumes that the defending ship is fully alerted and all systems are up and functioning automatically. The last point is key. If the systems are not in full auto mode, most of the reaction time will be consumed trying to get a human to report the detection, assess the threat, make a decision, and issue engagement orders. The USN does not operate its systems in full auto under any but highly unique circumstances. CIWS has been known to shoot down friendly helos operating from and around the defending ship, for example. Despite the wall of lead (or tungsten, as the case may be), CIWS has not proven to be the infallible weapon that the manufacturer claims.<br /><br />Manufacturer claims are notoriously overstated, bordering on fraudulent. History (and this blog) has clearly demonstrated this. Missiles and guns just don't enjoy anywhere near the success rates that the manufacturers claim.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-78752348922558483302015-07-01T08:08:02.673-07:002015-07-01T08:08:02.673-07:00I consider NSM and LRASM to be upgraded versions o...I consider NSM and LRASM to be upgraded versions of legacy technology. Having said that, I have no problem with a solid performing upgraded legacy weapon if it can be procured in large quantities.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-34253079082963519052015-07-01T08:05:03.068-07:002015-07-01T08:05:03.068-07:00Alt, you've summed up the situation nicely. H...Alt, you've summed up the situation nicely. However, I draw a different conclusion. While I can't disprove your conclusion that industry is the main reason for the observed behavior and, indeed, your conclusion is a reasonable fit to the facts, I don't believe (or don't want to!) that industry has that much control and influence. I believe there's some other reason that I have not yet figured out. Navy leaders aren't inherently stupid people despite the never-ending litany of stupid decisions. Something else is motivating them and I don't know what it is. On the other hand, you may well be right.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-63976323010934232072015-06-30T21:59:48.317-07:002015-06-30T21:59:48.317-07:00Yes, its a very slow, very short ranged, subsonic ...Yes, its a very slow, very short ranged, subsonic cruise missile with a unitary payload. Considering the much larger warhead in the harpoon missile, the weight difference is probably negligible. And the harpoon has been in service since the 70s, and is somewhat retired by the USN...<br /><br />LRASM is bassically the JASSM-ER, which is an upgrade of the JASSM, and consider that its sort of similar to TASM UGM-109B Tomahawk in function, a system which entered service long before JASSM development really kicked off. So I don't see what is new there, from a ship-launched perspective. A TASM like soloution is actually better, because it shares commonality with the TACMs, already exists, and has far greater reach.<br /><br /><br />>Yes I don't think we know the RCS or how easy it is to detect these missiles, although given the fact that they skim the sea, that the distance to the horizon is relatively short, and that ships have very large and powerful sensors, I think it's safe to say that such a missile will probably be seen once it crests the horizon (if the ship is scanning it).<br /><br />We do however know that there is plenty of time once it crests the horizon to intercept it, modern interception systems fire many large calibre rounds, each containing >100 tungsten submunitions that literally create a wall/cloud of tungsten balls that the missile can not fly through. We also have missile based systems from buth russia and the USA that have very high claims of interception probability.<br /><br />Definitely, if it's moving about it's going to be harder to train and lead the gun and score hits, but it's probably not that difficult, that it isn't effective, because nowadays you are trying to hit the missile with a wall/curtain of tiny pellets, that have an effective speed approaching mach 2.<br /><br />___________________________________________<br />I know I wrote quiet a bit but bear with me:<br /><br />The advantage of the higher speed missiles, is even if you detect it, train your guns, or fire missiles, and manage to intercept it in time after it crests the horizon, it's travelling so fast that its probably come so close, that whatever is left is going to most likely continue towards and hit the ship anyway and do significant damage.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-41053954993118999012015-06-30T18:13:17.467-07:002015-06-30T18:13:17.467-07:00It's still suffering from survivability proble...It's still suffering from survivability problems - which are inherent due to the use of aluminum.<br /><br />The other issue is that what you're proposing probably would require a major redesign, because the LCS is already near it's weight margins.AltandMainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01014823246265859953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-2891077590702814072015-06-30T14:39:50.775-07:002015-06-30T14:39:50.775-07:00Best fighter? Probably the Dassault Rafale in term...Best fighter? Probably the Dassault Rafale in terms of airframe design. I am not fond of dual engine aircraft and it does compromise some of it's air to air capability for air to ground (heavier hardpoints), plus it's fuel fraction is lower than I'd like (0.34 for Rafale C; 0.31 for Rafale M), but overall it's the best designed airframe.<br /><br />Probably number 2 would be the Russian Su-27 family. They have good range and are pretty good as bomber interceptors. They do suffer from their large size as pure air superiority planes though.<br /><br />The PAK FA (latest variant of the Su-27) does have it's share of issues as well, but the Russians generally seem to be more cautious in their aircraft designing. Nothing like concurrency. They use an incremental design system, Su-27, Su-35, PAK FA, with variants for each one. <br /><br />The bankruptcy of the USSR put a hold on Russian fighter development, which is partly why they are behind (probably internal problems to in Russia). Russia does have somewhat older avionics, but the gap has been narrowing. There is also greater complexity on the newer generations of fighters, something I don't agree with. <br /><br />Neither aircraft is what I'd call "truly" great at air superiority, just the least bad amongst the crop. <br /><br /><br />If you rely on tanking, then that becomes a problem because:<br /><br />1. You have to spend money on air tankers, which means less money for fighters<br /><br />2. The tanker is a point of vulnerability that the enemy can take on <br /><br />Plus, if you enemy uses tankers too, then you're right back where you started.<br /><br />Also, the latest reports on the F-35 are not good:<br />https://medium.com/war-is-boring/test-pilot-admits-the-f-35-can-t-dogfight-cdb9d11a875?source=latest<br /><br />AltandMainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01014823246265859953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-69305134842081501812015-06-30T10:41:50.671-07:002015-06-30T10:41:50.671-07:00@Alt
A couple of things; I know fuel fraction is ...@Alt<br /><br />A couple of things; I know fuel fraction is important; especially to my lights for a Navy fighter. <br /><br />But it seems now that most American fighters you've brought up don't have great fuel fractions; its starting to sound more like a design plan instead of an engineering failure. <br /><br />Could it be (and I don't know) the American fighter style is to rely more on in air tanking? <br /><br />If so, if you have a huge refueling fleet, are there advantages to a lower fuel fraction? <br /><br />As to problems; I'm sure the F-22 has them. But, then again, I'm sure the SU-27 has them too. <br /><br />I'm curious in your view which is the best fighter out there now? <br /><br />JFWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095723023404412328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-77900934284395965032015-06-30T10:12:41.037-07:002015-06-30T10:12:41.037-07:00In some regards, the F-22 is not the great fighter...In some regards, the F-22 is not the great fighter that it's proclaimed to be either. <br /><br />The subsonic acceleration is actually rather sluggish. It's actually outperformed in some regards by an early model F-16 and probably foreign models as well. I have wondered if the aircraft has become "classified" to hide some of the bigger problems with the design. <br /><br />Supersonic acceleration-wise, it's probably one of the top aircraft, although variants of the Su-27 probably come close. <br /><br />It also doesn't have the fuel fraction to go very far (only 0.29). <br /><br /><br />The F-35 does have a higher fuel fraction, but it's a large draggy fueslage. Actually, on paper, the Navy one should be the best of the 3 variants (due to the larger wing so more lift), but it probably comes at the expense of structural fraction. AltandMainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01014823246265859953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-46892908981126352942015-06-30T09:43:16.415-07:002015-06-30T09:43:16.415-07:00With respect,
I don't think it is meeting it...With respect, <br /><br />I don't think it is meeting its designed standards. It was supposed to be the low end compliment to the F-22; like the F-16 was to the F-15. <br /><br />But in this test it was a clean F-35 vs. an F-16 with drop tanks; and the F-35 was badly beaten. So it misses design benchmark there. <br /><br />To make matters worse, not only is it not going to meet its original design spec, its going to be forced into situations for which it was not designed because we don't have enough F-22's to reliably fill that high end role.<br /><br />And with the Navy; its eventually going to replace the SuperHornet. It will be the CVN's fighter. <br /><br />Combine its not meeting its meager ACM standards with the fact that its BVR may not be good enough against a EA wielding hyper manueverable peer enemy and the F-35 may well merge alot more often than we think; and be in big trouble when it does. <br /><br />Suppose it even achieves a 2:1 kill ratio due to stealth and improved AMRAAMS. If it marges alot of them will die in a fight with HOBS wielding very manueverable planes of a peer. And if those planes are an SU-35 we're trading a ~$150 million jet and pilot for a ~40 million jet. <br /><br />So again, I'm worried for a Navy with 1/3 LCS surface fleet and a questionable hyper expensive air wing. JFWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095723023404412328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-91713713720131878902015-06-30T09:29:40.156-07:002015-06-30T09:29:40.156-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.JFWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095723023404412328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-74296675787513334782015-06-30T08:45:50.376-07:002015-06-30T08:45:50.376-07:00Good comment. To be fair, the F-35 was never desi...Good comment. To be fair, the F-35 was never designed for dogfighting ACM. The original specs only called for F-16-like maneuverability. With the subsequent increases in weight and reductions in some performance parameters, it is hardly surprising that the F-35 would only be on par, or a bit less, than the F-16.<br /><br />We can debate whether the most expensive plane in history, one that was expected to be the premier aircraft in the world for decades, should have been designed to a mere F-16 standard for ACM but it was so it's not fair to criticize it for meeting the standard it was designed to.<br /><br />I'm the last guy to defend the F-35 but in this case it's doing what it was designed to do.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-41678635797123063432015-06-30T08:32:30.419-07:002015-06-30T08:32:30.419-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-53376008635022848772015-06-30T08:08:55.653-07:002015-06-30T08:08:55.653-07:00"At this point, opting for a legacy short ran..."At this point, opting for a legacy short range, ineffective subsonic cruise missile is really just box-ticking"<br /><br />NSM is a 'legacy' missle? I would think the curren Harpoon is, but NSM and LRASM are brand now. Sure, they are subsonic, but do we know for sure they aren't survivable with stealth coverings and compex manuevering? JFWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095723023404412328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-12763931656748352212015-06-30T08:04:57.509-07:002015-06-30T08:04:57.509-07:00Just re-read. Thanks.
I'd forgotten that the...Just re-read. Thanks. <br /><br />I'd forgotten that the marks they are missing are honestly quite low for combat ships or even 'phibs. <br /><br />*sigh*.<br /><br />With issues like this, and the recent articles about the poor showing of the F-35 with ACM vs. the F-16, I'm getting increasingly gloomy about the Navy's combat power in the future. JFWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095723023404412328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-78290452566775297452015-06-30T06:35:25.012-07:002015-06-30T06:35:25.012-07:00Unless you have a contract reference sitting aroun...Unless you have a contract reference sitting around, any belief that they are actually building it or developing it is pure speculation. These things are literally just conversation starter ads. Its like believing Airbus or Boeing are building whats in their concept videos.atshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11410880091736531848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-32920350738269747322015-06-30T03:53:41.112-07:002015-06-30T03:53:41.112-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.com