tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post4775558301299597090..comments2024-03-28T07:56:09.239-07:00Comments on Navy Matters: LCS AviationComNavOpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-24933273609717833772013-12-18T20:37:58.718-08:002013-12-18T20:37:58.718-08:00Yes, they have a grand total of two of these ships...Yes, they have a grand total of two of these ships. With no known plans to build any more. <br /><br />And they typically embark only 3-4 helos. Not very efficient given their size and manning.<br /><br />They still choose to disperse the vast majority of their helicopters in dets of 1-2 aircraft on 30+ destroyers.<br /><br />It's widely suspected (guessed) that the 'helo-destroyer' is really just a cover-story for developing a nascent fixed-wing aircraft carrier capability (F-35s).<br /><br />MattAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-55028971347304209492013-12-17T05:44:30.753-08:002013-12-17T05:44:30.753-08:00"A four-helo ship would likely be the size an..."A four-helo ship would likely be the size and shape of something like the DDH HARUNA. Basically twice the tonnage and three times the crew of a Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) to field four helos. <br /><br />The JMSDF only built two HARUNAs, both of which have since been decommissioned. They decided it made more sense to dispersing helos among multiple destroyers."<br />xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<br /><br />The JMSDF replaced the Harunas with the 13,000 ton DDH Hyuga class, wwhich can embark an entire squadron of H-60 aircraft!<br /><br />Thank you for providing an example to support my point!<br /><br />GAB<br /><br />GAB<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-85431562449971299092013-12-14T16:09:23.647-08:002013-12-14T16:09:23.647-08:00A four-helo ship would likely be the size and shap...A four-helo ship would likely be the size and shape of something like the DDH HARUNA. Basically twice the tonnage and three times the crew of a Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) to field four helos. <br /><br />The JMSDF only built two HARUNAs, both of which have since been decommissioned. They decided it made more sense to dispersing helos among multiple destroyers. <br /><br />Exactly the course we've been proposing, and which the US Navy has long since embraced!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-55071835576981810702013-12-06T08:49:00.299-08:002013-12-06T08:49:00.299-08:00Comments were deleted. Keep the discussion polite...Comments were deleted. Keep the discussion polite and respectful or don't comment, people.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-5432822932081536772013-12-06T07:37:30.565-08:002013-12-06T07:37:30.565-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-38748514835679432002013-12-06T07:21:17.857-08:002013-12-06T07:21:17.857-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-40872929854779102362013-12-06T06:30:27.606-08:002013-12-06T06:30:27.606-08:00Matt, once again you've wandered off on an arg...Matt, once again you've wandered off on an argument about something that no one has brought up. The majority of your post is about carrier strike group ops, first strike, and scouting. We're discussing LCS aviation and whether it makes sense to cluster MCM and ASW helo assets rather than disperse them on the LCS. That has nothing to do with carrier strike groups or naval battles. GAB's premise is that clustering for MCM and ASW ops is more efficient. Address that.<br /><br />If you want to address a new topic, contact me and I'll consider a new post or hosting a post from you.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-18026397309004098652013-12-06T04:44:31.595-08:002013-12-06T04:44:31.595-08:00GAB,
Your attempts to draw comparisons between Ar...GAB,<br /><br />Your attempts to draw comparisons between Army and Navy helo flight operations are a bit superficial. The maritime battlespace in which naval forces operate is orders of magnitude larger than that of land forces. The distances aren’t even comparable. Nor the sensor ranges. Nor the weapons ranges. <br /><br />When my carrier strike group deployed in the mid-2000s, we put the carrier in the Persian Gulf, a cruiser in the Gulf of Oman, and destroyers off the coast of Somalia. That’s 5-6 units spread over a distance of roughly the size of Afghanistan. Concentrating all of your aviation capability in one spot would not have been helpful.<br /><br />You also overlook that the essence of naval combat is scouting (Read Hughes!) All other things being equal, the fleet which detects the enemy first, and attacks first, without being counter-detected, gains a significant advantage. <br /><br />One ship can only be in one place at any given time, and can therefore only cover out to the range of its sensors and helos. Even if you placed 4, 5 or 20 helos onboard that one ship, you’re not scouting any further than the range of your helo. That’s about 100-120 nm.<br /><br />Spreading the helos among several smaller ships around the high value unit (HVU) allows you to disperse your ‘bases’ and scout a much larger area. It may not the most EFFICIENT approach, but it is the more EFFECTIVE solution in terms of maximizing scouting area and minimizing reaction time.<br /><br />Your ‘point’ seems to be that a WW2-type fighter is vastly superior to a helo in every performance measure… well, except for the minor detail that a WW2 fighter can’t take off and land from CRUDES! A tank is also vastly superior to a submarine in most measures – except under the water.<br /><br />As to other helo missions:<br /><br />LOG – MH-60S seems to be filling the role fairly well as a logistics platform.<br /><br />MIO – MIO is a lot more than VBSS. There’s a scouting element as well. And Navy helos routinely provide ‘overwatch’ for MIO and VBSS teams – both conventional Navy and NAVSOF. <br /><br />SUW (swarm) – Your argument seems to be in favor of a longer endurance airframe and/or longer range weapon. The former would be MQ-8C, the latter could be APKWS. Both are being pursued.<br /><br />Lastly, you seem to think that the Navy and DOD haven’t explored other options for CRUDES aviation. OPNAV, OSD, DARPA, etc. have looked at blimps, aerostats even VTOL aircraft. My take is that they were all found to be rather poor substitutes for the utility helicopter. They may have done one or more niches tasks well, but they couldn’t do the entire set as well.<br /><br />Matt Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-45073812701595440812013-12-05T06:49:58.636-08:002013-12-05T06:49:58.636-08:00B.Smitty, while I would have approached it somewha...B.Smitty, while I would have approached it somewhat differently, your FFG+prototype would have been a perfectly reasonable approach.<br /><br />As far as hindsight, LOTS of people suggested variations on your approach from day one without the benefit of hindsight. It was clear from day one that the amount of new or non-existent technology that was planned for the LCS represented a huge level of risk. You talk about hindsight, even after the first two ships were built it had become crystal clear that the modules were not on track. The Navy, WITH the benefit of hindsight at the time, could have stopped the program at one LCS of each type until module development matured. Again, WITH the benefit of hindsight at the time, they could have stopped production after the first four ships. Right now, before we commit further, we could take advantage of hindsight by recognizing that the modules are years to decades away from sufficient effectiveness to justify the LCS and pause the program until the modules catch up. But we're not. The Navy remains firmly committed to all 52 ships, at least publicly. <br /><br />The Navy couldn't see the future (despite the fact that many of us could) and embarked on a bad program. That's bad. That the Navy can't see the past even now with the benefit of hindsight is just pure incompetance.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-23913463085028710452013-12-05T05:47:13.253-08:002013-12-05T05:47:13.253-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-22891413108654822082013-12-05T05:35:39.945-08:002013-12-05T05:35:39.945-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-55911128041298334462013-12-04T12:59:48.340-08:002013-12-04T12:59:48.340-08:00B.Smitty, you do have a point there concerning the...B.Smitty, you do have a point there concerning the long term need for larger undersea unmanned systems. It is not reasonable to think the LCS itself should go so far beyond what was originally envisioned for its own embarked mission systems. <br /><br />When I look at the total footprint of the AN/WLD-1 aboard the LCS, then I have to wonder if past developmental issues have been spawned in part by size and weight constraints imposed upon the onboard mission support equipment by LCS displacement limitations. <br /><br />USNI has a piece describing the Navy's current plan for using the LCS for supporting mine warfare countermeasures here: <br /><br />LCS Mission Packages: The Basics<br />http://news.usni.org/2013/08/21/lcs-mission-packages-the-basics<br />Scott Brimnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-61906450079795653862013-12-04T12:34:24.356-08:002013-12-04T12:34:24.356-08:00B.Smitty, you just perfectly summed up the argumen...B.Smitty, you just perfectly summed up the argument for building a prototype, especially for revolutionary designs versus evolutionary, rather than instantly leaping into a production run of 55 vessels before any technology or performance was proven out. Thanks!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-87415350002147885382013-12-04T10:39:03.384-08:002013-12-04T10:39:03.384-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-55599077033927160582013-12-04T09:17:14.424-08:002013-12-04T09:17:14.424-08:00B.Smitty, at the risk of speaking for Scott, I thi...B.Smitty, at the risk of speaking for Scott, I think a 20,000 lb UUV is exactly the direction that he's anticipating and anticipating problems with. Think about it... The current LCS MCM (saying that it works, for sake of discussion) is capable of neutralizing one or two mines per hour. The UUVs are too small, slow, and have too short endurance. The helos are limited in capability. All components must return to the ship for refuel/replenish too often. A single LCS is a VERY slow MCM platform. What we'd like is a UUV that could both detect and neutralize, operate at great distances, and operate continuously for days, not hours. The only way to achieve this is with significantly larger UUVs - like 20,000 lbs larger. And around four of them per ship. Can the LCS accomodate this? I don't know but I suspect not and that's Scott's point, I think, that the inherent weight/space limitations may not allow the LCS to become what we'd like it to be.<br /><br />Jump in Scott if I'm misrepresenting you!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-82319312397739938532013-12-04T08:04:37.876-08:002013-12-04T08:04:37.876-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-42392825082119491612013-12-04T07:39:19.921-08:002013-12-04T07:39:19.921-08:00B.Smitty, ComNavOps has covered my concerns pretty...B.Smitty, ComNavOps has covered my concerns pretty well, but I will clarify further what I think.<br /><br />In looking casually at the individual parts and pieces of what's being developed now for the undersea warfare LCS mission modules, I am very suspicious that restrictions on their individual physical sizes and weights which might be imposed by the seaframe's limited weight growth margins will hinder the development of even the smaller UUVs and their associated support equipment, those that are now in the acquisition pipeline. <br /><br />Time will tell if my concerns about the smaller UUVs and their supporting equipment vis-s-vis LCS growth margins are valid, as the jury is still out on that score. Scott Brimnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-26655220903283502302013-12-04T07:30:35.155-08:002013-12-04T07:30:35.155-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-87250345956852895052013-12-04T07:20:33.591-08:002013-12-04T07:20:33.591-08:00B.Smitty, the LCS-1 version has no growth margin f...B.Smitty, the LCS-1 version has no growth margin for anything that isn't already part of the ship or designed in. The Navy has expressed concern about the module weights and acknowledged that weights are a serious concern. Buoyancy tanks had to be added to Freedom. Module loading tests demonstrated that the ship's stability was borderline with shifts of 15,000 lb module containers having to be carefully managed to avoid exceeding inclination limits.<br /><br />Scott was suggesting that UUVs may have to become much larger in order to accomplish their functions. Given the zero weight margin on the LCS-1 version, larger UUVs (mini-subs, actually) may be difficult to add. Larger UUVs would also require substantially heavier launch/recovery mechanisms, again adding weight to an already weight-challenged vessel.<br /><br />I don't know what the weight margin situation is for the LCS-2 version. I've never heard anything one way or the other.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-6673313043627953532013-12-04T06:40:59.781-08:002013-12-04T06:40:59.781-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-46686894356051202322013-12-04T06:21:11.726-08:002013-12-04T06:21:11.726-08:00Here are a number of articles that can contribute ...Here are a number of articles that can contribute to LCS discussions:<br />http://cimsec.org/nextwar/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-41092715765761608012013-12-02T14:19:53.864-08:002013-12-02T14:19:53.864-08:00Scott, the LCS-1 version has no weight margin so l...Scott, the LCS-1 version has no weight margin so larger UUVs will be problematic. Both LCS versions have UUV launch mechanisms that have largely failed. Larger UUVs will, undoubtedly, require totally redesigned and beefed up launch systems.<br /><br />I suspect that you are correct about the UUV size issue. Just as the first round of UAVs were quite small but have grown to the same size as manned aircraft (not surprising when they're being asked to do the same job!) I think the first round of UUVs will have to grow quite a bit to accomplish the tasks being asked of them. A very good observation on your part.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-45327538987498416602013-12-02T14:00:05.942-08:002013-12-02T14:00:05.942-08:00ComNavOps, I have become suspicious that the torpe...ComNavOps, I have become suspicious that the torpedo-size UUVs themselves, plus their embarked operational support equipment, will not work nearly as well as current plans call for, and that the UUV itself and its support equipment will have to become somewhat larger and hence heavier in order to reliably accommodate the range of operational functionalities now expected of them. <br /><br />I don't have access to the detailed designs for the torpedo size UUVs, but suppose this is things work out in practice. Is there enough margin available aboard one or the other LCS designs to handle larger versions of the modules supporting the existing UUV concept, if the current technical implementations don't prove to work reliably? <br /><br />I suspect not, but time will tell. Scott Brimnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-18093900114697359332013-12-02T13:45:06.063-08:002013-12-02T13:45:06.063-08:00GLof, the towed array is an interesting issue. To...GLof, the towed array is an interesting issue. Towed arrays require a great deal of depth in order to effectively employ them. The array trails out behind the vessel and sinks in the ship's wake depending on speed. The problem with a towed array on a ship that is meant to operate in shallow water is that the array can't be used due to the shallow depth. I'm not sure the Navy completely thought this one out.<br /><br />Also, from everything I've read, shallow water requires active sonar, predominantly, which the helo's dipping sonar can provide. However, the dipping sonar, especially in active mode, is a very short range sensor. Given that an LCS has only one (or two for the LCS-2 version) helo, the amount of helo sonar coverage will be quite small. Add to that the very spotty availability of helos, in general, and you can see that a single LCS is a very limited ASW platform. Of course, this can possibly be offset by operating several LCSs together. The Navy has not yet figured out how they're going to use the LCS in ASW mode - or, at least, they haven't shared their thoughts with me!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-64274650867654287842013-12-02T13:23:46.504-08:002013-12-02T13:23:46.504-08:00Scott, interesting comment. The UUVs that I'm...Scott, interesting comment. The UUVs that I'm aware of that might be intended for LCS use are fairly small; about the size and shape of a torpedo. There are much bigger UUVs but they're not intended for the LCS. Are you aware of any larger UUVs that are meant for the LCS or are you speculating that larger UUVs would be a good fit for the LCS but are constrained by the LCS space/weight issues? Do you have a specific UUV(s) in mind?<br /><br />You're also, indirectly, arguing for amphibious ships as MCM/ASW motherships since they have unlimited space and weight margins for this type of thing. ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.com