tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post3932377958524932259..comments2024-03-28T07:56:09.239-07:00Comments on Navy Matters: LCS and RMMVComNavOpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-89443858153376506922016-07-25T02:58:34.539-07:002016-07-25T02:58:34.539-07:00The LCS also uses a less capable MCM helicopter. T...The LCS also uses a less capable MCM helicopter. The MH-53E can conduct MCM operations at night whereas the UH-60S cannot. Also, the MH-53E has twice the operational endurance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-67234899473371194642016-05-17T13:32:44.112-07:002016-05-17T13:32:44.112-07:00As far as clearance rates, you can get an idea for...As far as clearance rates, you can get an idea for yourself. The speed of the RMMV, for example is known. Work out the coverage rate that gives and remember to allow for the hours spent launching, recovering, transiting to and from the mine field, and refitting the RMMV (because those impact the clearance rate). The RMMV is only good for several hours at a time (assuming no reliability issues!) and then it must return and be turned around. Then, remember to factor in second and third passes over the same area to make up for the poor detection performance as documented by DOT&E reports. Finally, factor in the actual mine destruction which takes about an hour or more per mine and you can estimate an overall clearance rate. It's slow!!!!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-75127781101089770302016-05-17T13:27:07.234-07:002016-05-17T13:27:07.234-07:00There is no rapid mine clearance technology!
I sa...There is no rapid mine clearance technology!<br /><br />I saw a Navy slide show early in the LCS history that pegged the LCS mine clearance rate at half that of the Avenger and this was before the failures of the MCM module. Unfortunately, before I could copy the presentation, it was taken off the Internet and I haven't seen it since. The reason seems obvious.<br /><br />For, say, a mile wide channel clearing, a single LCS can clear at a rate of advance of about 1 kt. Ships drift faster than that!<br /><br />The answer to slow rates from individual platforms is numbers. Only helos potentially have the numbers to clear at a high cumulative rate.<br /><br />I thought you were clear of the hype but you fell back into it with your embrace of the MCM module. On paper it sounds good - what doesn't? - but it has thus far failed miserably. DOT&E and the Navy have stated that the demonstrated failures now require the LCS to make multiple passes over the same area to ensure clearance, further slowing the rate of advance. We've been working on the MCM for the LCS for a decade and have nothing usable to show for it. You're on the verge of buying into the "just around the corner" pitfall. Don't fall for it!<br /><br />We have helos that work, we have Avengers that work, and we have a developmental effort that has produced nothing after a decade. ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-90003142209220025002016-05-17T10:51:28.951-07:002016-05-17T10:51:28.951-07:00"My problem with the LCS unmanned vehicle app..."My problem with the LCS unmanned vehicle approach, even if it worked, is that the clearance rate is too slow by a huge margin."<br /><br />Is there a source or background data to support that statement, particularly when compared to legacy systems? Clearance rate with an MCM ship and MH-53 cannot be very high...the MCM is limited in speed while conducting a search and the MH-53 is limited by range and supporting platform, and neither platform has a rapid method of clearing mines that have been detected. The MCM is either using divers (EOD) or the SLQ-48 or SeaFox neutralization systems, both of which require an investigation run before the neutralization run. The MH-53, after conducting a search with the sonar, has to return to a facility to load a neutralization system or to load sweep gear.<br /><br />The MCM Mission Package on LCS would include the search capability and either neutralization through EOD or use of the AMNS, which has to be more rapid than current capabilities. <br /><br />That said, clearance rates are always going to be slower that desired unless in-stride capabilities are developed, significantly more assets are allocated to the program (ie, quantity of platforms), or organic sensors are deployed on combatants (ie, CG, DDG, L-class, other) that mitigate the minefield effect.<br />InterestedPartynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-17889879979453633772016-05-17T07:41:01.732-07:002016-05-17T07:41:01.732-07:00My personal opinion is that for the near future a ...My personal opinion is that for the near future a helo carrier and helos are the way to conduct MCM along with surface vessel support (Avenger type vessels).<br /><br />Even if the LCS/MCM worked, it's just way to slow a clearance rate to be useful.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-19914976898363950762016-05-17T07:37:46.971-07:002016-05-17T07:37:46.971-07:00You've pretty well grasped the basics of the i...You've pretty well grasped the basics of the issue. The main problem with continuing to pursue the RMMV (or any of the LCS MCM modular approach) is that it's always "just out of reach but almost here". That leads to poor decisions like neglecting the maintenance of the Avenger ships or upgrading existing MCM equipment to the point where you wind up with almost no MCM capability, as now, because you're continually believing that the "solution" is just around the corner. We've been working on the MCM module for a decade and have almost nothing to show for it while we've allowed our conventional MCM capability to wither.<br /><br />My problem with the LCS unmanned vehicle approach, even if it worked, is that the clearance rate is too slow by a huge margin. At the moment, only helos have the speed and potential numbers to clear a field in a timely manner. The Navy has limited themselves to about a dozen LCS/MCM total. That's woefully insufficient for any major operation.<br /><br />Overall, a nice comment.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-64024425927289106392016-05-17T07:23:20.692-07:002016-05-17T07:23:20.692-07:00"Maybe repurpose an old 'phib?"
Tha..."Maybe repurpose an old 'phib?"<br /><br />That's the thought I have had...a throw-back to the use of the USS Tripoli during Desert Shield/Storm, only with a well deck to support USV/UUV operations. Perhaps in a more permissive environment, the MLP hulls would provide the flight deck space for MH-53, MH-60, or MQ-8 platforms, and well deck space for USV / RMMV-like platforms, as well as UUV operations. You would get the sortie generation rate up (when compared to a single LCS), raising the clearance rate.<br /><br />"First is that the more we look at this, the less suited the LCS seems to be even for missions that are in its conops."<br /><br />I'm not ready to throw out the LCS in this mission...is it optimized for the MCM mission? Of course not. But mission capability for the LCS is critically dependent on the operations of the systems in the respective mission packages, so if there is a shortfall in the mission package capabilities, that degrades the LCS mission capability. Even the current MCM platforms do not have the USV, UUV, and airborne platform support facilities, so those platforms would not be optimized for conducting MIW without having a nearby platform or base to support MH-53 operations.<br /><br />"The second issue is why is this so difficult? This sounds like a Sonar hooked to a sled with a datalink. Is it just making it more reliable? Or does it just flat out fail to find the mines?"<br /><br />You pretty much hit the nail on the head...it's a sonar being pulled by something, either an RMMV, USV, or an aircraft. You can only pull the sonar so fast, so something like an RMMV offered longer endurance in the search mode, reducing the need for additional aircraft sorties, but with the inherent limitation of having to be relatively close to the minefield when launched because the transit time would be higher than an aircraft. Where RMMV failed was the reliability of the vehicle pulling the sonar. The sonar worked decently well...some issues in localization but nothing that couldn't be fixed (time and money) and/or worked around with tactics. The navy has two primary sonar tow vehicles (the AQS-20 and AQS-24), so the IRT appeared to direct that the navy look at different options for towing the sonar and figure out which sonar can perform the mission better.<br />InterestedPartynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-69945815595081185942016-05-17T06:01:11.816-07:002016-05-17T06:01:11.816-07:00"that would require either multiple LCS worki..."that would require either multiple LCS working together or a larger platform with a larger flight deck and well deck."<br /><br />Maybe repurpose an old 'phib? That could be interesting. Maybe not cost effective. Just a spur of the moment thought. <br /><br />To me there are two things going on: First is that the more we look at this, the less suited the LCS seems to be even for missions that are in its conops. This wouldn't be horrible if, again, the LCS was a test platform to look into new ways of doing ASW/MCM, etc. Build a little, test alot, learn alot.... but instead the Navy went from giving MCM short shrift to the Navy throwing all its eggs into one new, unproven basket. So we run the very real risk of spending buckets of money on something that can't perform the mission, or performs it poorly.<br /><br />The second issue is why is this so difficult? This sounds like a Sonar hooked to a sled with a datalink. Is it just making it more reliable? Or does it just flat out fail to find the mines? <br />I don't know the engineering issues involved, but it doesn't sound like the moon shot, or trying to stuff a nuclear reactor into a submarine hull. But we repeatedly seem to be unable to solve engineering problems anymore despite buckets of money and lots of time. JFWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095723023404412328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-85173690357994532822016-05-17T05:11:07.287-07:002016-05-17T05:11:07.287-07:00Okay, I'll bite...
I'm not sure what a be...Okay, I'll bite...<br /><br />I'm not sure what a better course of action would be with the RMMV. If you accept that LCS will be the MCM platform of the future, the options are to hold on the MCM Mission Package until the RMMV replacement is developed and tested, or to start working with the mission package "as is", and use the vehicles that represent a significant sunk investment (pun intended). As I understand it, the PEO approach is to conduct early deployments with the RMMV and the other MCM Mission Package capabilities (ie, ALMDS and AMNS), and then experiment with adding new capabilities with the UISS vehicle and Knifefish. Knifefish was always intended to be a complementary capability to RMMV, so the decision with Knifefish would be better described as finding the best approach to integrate that capability with the MCM Mission Package capabilities. The identified alternative to the RMMV is to look at using the UISS USV with either the AQS-20A sonar (from the RMS) or the AQS-24B/C sonar (from the MHU and airborne MCM). <br /><br />While everyone is quick to bury RMMV, I'm not sure the best approach is to completely drop RMMV and run to the next shiny object. There are technical and programmatic risks with the next shiny object, and the Navy at least knows what they have with the RMMV.<br /><br />But to your bigger point, there certainly has been a neglect in MCM that has only recently been reversed. There is a strange mix of legacy equipment and next generation equipment, and lots of RDTE/S&T work on filling other gaps, much of which is focused on the LCS platform. With the unmanned and manned systems, if you want to keep the man out of the minefield, the key will be to generate enough sorties of those systems to clear the field. And that would require either multiple LCS working together or a larger platform with a larger flight deck and well deck.<br />InterestedPartynoreply@blogger.com