tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post4146764970580119392..comments2024-03-28T07:56:09.239-07:00Comments on Navy Matters: LCS Module UpdateComNavOpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comBlogger61125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-11183432347362540512015-08-12T01:48:43.903-07:002015-08-12T01:48:43.903-07:00I'm late to the party but my two cents. Since ...I'm late to the party but my two cents. Since the LCS is basically a long range high speed lightly armed corvette, use those features. <br /><br />Instead of expecting it to outgun anything more than a human standing on shore with a BB gun, let's use it to do anything not requiring much force. <br /><br />EG:<br /><br /> - hunting pirates.<br /><br /> - disaster aid. This is a good one because the high speed with which it can arrive at the location- up to 80kph is the same speed as an ambulance on the road! And you can have specialised "modules"- build hospitals into cargo containers- the LCS's can handle a few of those, and they have high speed boats and helos to fly injured people onto the ship. This also frees up large capital ships from diverting from their missions.<br /><br /> - Show the flag.<br /><br /> - Test bed for other tech.<br /><br />Just some ideasAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-29691399917554563442015-08-07T13:16:03.185-07:002015-08-07T13:16:03.185-07:00ASuW
Hellfire?
Really?
Sea Skua missiles had 3x th...ASuW<br />Hellfire?<br />Really?<br />Sea Skua missiles had 3x the warhead or hellfire are were hardly "ship killers"<br />Two destroyed the bridge of an 800t tug and a third destroyed the RHIB, although apparently 200t fast attack craft did go under when hit.TrThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316335177828136131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-67888336486913409402015-08-07T13:09:14.292-07:002015-08-07T13:09:14.292-07:00"3. LCS generates predicted target coordinate..."3. LCS generates predicted target coordinates and feeds them to missiles.<br />4. Hellfires launch and use autopilot to fly towads predicted target areas."<br /><br />Thats the bit I'm not sure of<br />Longbow Hellfire does "lock on after launch", but its pointed at the target and fired.<br />I'm unaware (that doesnt mean it doesnt exist) of any ability to fire away from the target and correct. Some "trick shots" were made is Afghanistan, but it was a bit of a curve (or involved moving the laser) rather than a 90* turn.<br /><br />Its the platform/payload speaky bit, I'm not certain it exists, its not impossible of course, but it would require a new hellfire.TrThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316335177828136131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-89451797447275654552015-08-07T09:46:28.554-07:002015-08-07T09:46:28.554-07:00Yes, the practicalities of accounting are always a...Yes, the practicalities of accounting are always a challenge, however if the Navy can figure out how to use R&D funds to build two warships, I'm sure they can figure out how to use "saved" shipbuilding funds for maintenance.<br /><br />I don't consider 14 fewer LCSs to be a detriment!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-38324881743987050782015-08-07T08:25:17.591-07:002015-08-07T08:25:17.591-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-43413469450858266112015-08-07T08:07:10.020-07:002015-08-07T08:07:10.020-07:00Smitty, nice comment! You've correctly summed...Smitty, nice comment! You've correctly summed up my view. The LCS will never live up to its full potential (you and I disagree in that I don't believe that the LCS has much potential, whereas you believe it does but wonder whether it will live up to it). I firmly believe that we would be far better off constructing dedicated MCM and ASW platforms.<br /><br />So, having recognized each other's positions, you offer options. You've left out the option I would select and that is to cancel the remaining LCSs that have yet to be ordered and devote that money to upgrades and maintenance of existing vessels. The fleet is still suffering from extensive maintenance problems, spare parts shortages, etc. Further, all of the ships could use upgrades to varying degrees (remember the Navy's recent announcement that they would forego Burke upgrades?). Let's accept whatever delay (you and I disagree on the length of that delay but it depends on whether we opt for a new design or adopt an existing one) and use the time to improve what we have. Hand in hand with that approach, I would put some of the freed up money into testing per DOT&E recommendations (realistic target surrogates and such). That's my preferred option and it would result in a much stronger fleet in the end.<br /><br />I would use the delay time to design a dedicated MCM vessel, a dedicated ASW vessel, and conduct a needs analysis rather than just leap into a new frigate program. I'm not convinced we need a frigate and if we do I have no idea in what numbers. Read today's post and you'll see where I'm coming from - it's my favorite "have a strategy" theme and then build from that.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-19629824007964693612015-08-07T07:05:14.912-07:002015-08-07T07:05:14.912-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-12056641235053006422015-08-06T15:23:21.682-07:002015-08-06T15:23:21.682-07:00Smitty, I find it amusing that you berate the Amba...Smitty, I find it amusing that you berate the Ambassador for being unable to perform the LCS missions while, apparently, supporting the LCS which can't perform the LCS missions. <br /><br />Again, you'll note that I never said the Ambassador could perform the LCS missions, either.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-39752491427748904222015-08-06T15:21:16.382-07:002015-08-06T15:21:16.382-07:00Smitty, you still haven't answered my question...Smitty, you still haven't answered my question,<br /><br />What's better, a new solution that's useful but 5-10 years away or 52 LCS that don't offer any useful capability and will comprise a third of out combat fleet? ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-19775632078253587732015-08-06T14:53:23.102-07:002015-08-06T14:53:23.102-07:00The issue I see is that even if the modules were w...The issue I see is that even if the modules were working perfectly, which they are not and even if the entire ship was working well, which clearly it is not, then:<br /><br />1. This ship is clearly uncompetitive from a firepower to displacement standpoint.<br /><br />2. It is extremely expensive for the capabilities that it offers.<br /><br />3. Survivability is far from adequate. <br /><br />That isn't even accounting for the numerous problems on the LCS (both models) that have been discovered since. <br /><br />From where I am standing, this is a sunk cost that needs to be cancelled before more money is wasted down this sinkhole. <br /><br />Yes, it could take several years to design a new ship. But the end result could be a better ship, indeed, a much better ship. AltandMainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01014823246265859953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-77162698755277871352015-08-06T11:57:01.122-07:002015-08-06T11:57:01.122-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-1015927596896438782015-08-06T11:08:52.005-07:002015-08-06T11:08:52.005-07:00I am talking specifically about HERO (Hazards of E...I am talking specifically about HERO (Hazards of EM Radiation to Ordnance) design/testing.<br />See<br />NAVSEA OD 30393, Design Principles And Practices For Controlling Hazards Of Electromagnetic Radiation To Ordnance (Hero Design Guide)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-70762361771937215632015-08-06T10:48:17.611-07:002015-08-06T10:48:17.611-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-21723560290390479942015-08-06T10:25:22.686-07:002015-08-06T10:25:22.686-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-43864659100275788092015-08-06T09:59:33.658-07:002015-08-06T09:59:33.658-07:00...... The sun comes up, the moon goes down, a new...<em>...... The sun comes up, the moon goes down, a new day's on its way .....</em><br /> <br />B.Smitty, your Excel spreadsheet and the pdf of the 2009 Hughes et al paper are very useful material. <br /><br />The material highlights the reality that it is not possible to compare two or more alternative USN fleet architectures without having a good understanding of how the alternative assumptions, the alternative strategies, the alternative CONOPS, and the alternative platform choices all work together to influence how someone chooses to define a total fleet architecture so as to achieve some pre-defined set of objectives. <br /><br />In comparison with the Hughes 2009 New Navy Fighting Machine (NNFM) architecture and the Captain Hendrix Influence Squadron architecture -- which is different from the Hughes NNFM architecture -- it appears LT. Drennan has his own ideas as to how many of the smaller less-than-1000-ton FAC vessels should be acquired and deployed. <br /><br />In any case, their commonly held viewpoint is that the proliferation of large numbers of anti-ship missiles among our potential adversaries will greatly impact how we must go about prosecuting both the Big War conflicts and the Not-so-Big Conflicts over the coming two decades.<br /><br />But we should also note that there are others with credentials who directly dispute that the future proliferation of anti-ship missiles is truly the problem it is being made out to be, and/or that small FACs which are in reality <em>'airplanes which float on the water'</em> would be a practical solution even if the problem was real.<br /> <br />When it comes to assessing how the twin issues of fleet size and fleet composition interact with each other, there is an opinion coming from those who believe that China will not emerge as a serious maritime peer competitor and that the USN is currently large enough and strong enough capability-wise to handle any foreseeable conflict. <br /><br />These people tend to say that, "These 52 LCS warships gives us all the numbers that we need, and those CVN's and Burkes give us all the combat horsepower that we need. So why do you need something more?"<br /><br />The latter opinion is one which tends to support the <em>Tyranny of the Status Quo</em>; i.e., we should just keep on doing whatever it is we've been doing until some largely-unpredictable future event demonstrates we shouldn't be doing it that way anymore. Scott Brimnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-49092398575853854672015-08-06T09:37:52.610-07:002015-08-06T09:37:52.610-07:00Reread my statement about the Ambassadors. I spec...Reread my statement about the Ambassadors. I specifically said they may not be the ideal vessel for our needs. <br /><br />I also addressed the total absence of any actual mission and CONOPS for the LCS so neither I, you, or Navy really knows what's needed. It might well be that if we did an analysis of needs we might conclude that an Ambassador is EXACTLY what is needed. Or we might not. Until and unless we do an analysis of needs, we'll never know.<br /><br />"... years to go through requirements definition ..."??? You just witnessed the Navy blowing through (blowing off, more accurately) various studies and analyses in a matter of a few months in order to come up with the LCS as the "new frigate", didn't you? Clearly, the Navy does not feel compelled to go through any formal process unless they want to. <br /><br />Also, how often do we sole source contracts under the flimsiest of rationales? If we wanted to, we could begin actual construction of an existing alternative in a matter of months.<br /><br />"... learn how to build them."??? Again, you watched the LCS manuf's learn how to build the ships on the fly, right? HII and Bollinger, to name two, already know how to build vessels of this ballpark size.<br /><br />There is NOTHING that would prevent us from putting an existing design into production immediately, if we wanted to.<br /><br />Heck, we could even purchase the first two using R&D funds and then ram the remainder down Congress' throat by claiming that it's too late to change course and the program is already too big to fail. Sound familiar?ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-56033514489247795522015-08-06T08:09:50.527-07:002015-08-06T08:09:50.527-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-68374151617954696082015-08-06T08:05:29.447-07:002015-08-06T08:05:29.447-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-84341153670656015852015-08-06T07:37:17.307-07:002015-08-06T07:37:17.307-07:00What's better, a new solution that's usefu...What's better, a new solution that's useful but 5-10 years away or 52 LCS that don't offer any useful capability and will comprise a third of out combat fleet? The answer seems clear.<br /><br />Also, Bollinger can build Ambassadors, which would be an improvement over the LCS, literally starting tomorrow, not 5-10 years from now, and they'd be a lot cheaper. Relax, I'm not saying that the Ambassador is the ideal vessel for our needs (seriously, what are our needs? Again, the lack of strategy and CONOPS !). I'm just pointing out that there are lots of existing options out there, most of which would probably be vast improvements over the LCS and could begin production tomorrow. The argument that we'd have to wait 5-10 years is only true if we want it to be. The entire MEKO family is instantly available, as another example.<br /><br />Continuing a bad program because we'd incur a delay is not a valid reason for propagating a poor product.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-17836633422734141212015-08-06T07:36:52.546-07:002015-08-06T07:36:52.546-07:00Was Hellfire ever engineered, and/or tested, for t...Was Hellfire ever engineered, and/or tested, for the Naval Ordanance EM environment?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-25136596643488947402015-08-06T07:16:15.965-07:002015-08-06T07:16:15.965-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-21978928504962881442015-08-06T07:11:41.677-07:002015-08-06T07:11:41.677-07:00I think the concept of sunk cost fallacy at this p...I think the concept of sunk cost fallacy at this point is clearly the answer - the program should be scrapped and a new series of ships designed from ground up.AltandMainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01014823246265859953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-49152067133311806252015-08-06T07:00:25.812-07:002015-08-06T07:00:25.812-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-89198286953636958392015-08-06T06:23:00.045-07:002015-08-06T06:23:00.045-07:00Anon, no one (well, maybe the Navy) is saying that...Anon, no one (well, maybe the Navy) is saying that Hellfire completely solves the LCS anti-surface engagement requirements. It's better than the Griffon but still inadequate.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-8452129014486316042015-08-06T06:18:52.018-07:002015-08-06T06:18:52.018-07:00Ztev, the 57mm gun vibration issue is not some gen...Ztev, the 57mm gun vibration issue is not some generic complaint made up to pile on the LCS. This issue was identified by NAVSEA during trials and subsequently reported in various GAO/CRS and other reports. The LCS was built with insufficient structural members and the entire ship vibrates at speed. The vibration is sufficient to throw off the aiming of the gun.<br /><br />The structural weakness is the reason why the ship can only operate a single -60 helo although it has room for two and it's the reason why a larger gun probably can't be accomodated, at least not without significant structural reinforcement.<br /><br />There is nothing inherently wrong with the 57 mm, as far as I know.<br /><br />You might want to go back and review some of the older reports.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.com