tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post7175417846534600698..comments2024-03-28T07:56:09.239-07:00Comments on Navy Matters: Forgotten LCS Capabilities - The LCS Air GroupComNavOpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-89384175241937290242016-10-06T13:19:26.200-07:002016-10-06T13:19:26.200-07:00CNO totally agree that either the towed array or V...CNO totally agree that either the towed array or VDS cannot operate effectively at excess 5/6 knots? As mentioned in original post the aim is to limit non-operational time for when ship sprints to new search area. The high tow speeds save time in reeling in the very long arrays/VDS and then having to re-launch them in the new search area.<br />The wording of the DRS press release of "working in deep water at combatant flank speeds" is misleading. Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14154573875521240433noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-47705382202003368312016-10-06T12:57:21.329-07:002016-10-06T12:57:21.329-07:00Expanding/correcting on previous post. Mid 2015 Na...Expanding/correcting on previous post. Mid 2015 Navy issued three contracts to reduce the weight of the ASW as it was over the LCS's max. payload of 105mt for mission modules, with aim to reduce weight of the Thales CAPTAS 4 VDS by 15 to 25%. Navy choose AAC,L-3 and Raytheon. AAC, Advanced Acoustics Concepts, is a joint DRS/Thales company. All companies have achieved or bettered target weight reductions and building engineering development models, mention of next phase will be to down select two companies.<br />So with the involvement of DRS possibility is that the aim of towing VDS at 'flank speed, 40+ knots for the LCS, is holding. <br /><br />Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14154573875521240433noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-3549506386084714832016-10-06T12:18:11.325-07:002016-10-06T12:18:11.325-07:00I think there's some kind of misunderstanding,...I think there's some kind of misunderstanding, here. A towed array could be designed that could be towed at max speed without ripping loose from the tow ship (although drag increases as the square of speed, if I remember correctly, so that would be an amazing feat of engineering) but speed results in flow noise and I'm unaware of any sonar that can function with excessive flow noise. Hull mounted sonars are susceptible to flow noise, hence the drift portion of sprint and drift.<br /><br />CAPTAS might be capable of being towed but it can't function at any significant speed.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-38714389586680367012016-10-06T11:01:54.124-07:002016-10-06T11:01:54.124-07:00CNO "Tow speeds"
In July 2010 DRS were ...CNO "Tow speeds" <br />In July 2010 DRS were awarded a $9.7 million contract by the Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Newport, R.I. for a VDS, variable depth sonar, for installation on the LCS. The VDS was to be capable of working in deep water at combatant flank speeds. Seventy percent of work to be carried out in Stockport, UK which is the home of Thales UK Underwater Systems. <br />The Navy's current choice of VDS to equip the LCS appears to be the Thales CAPTAS 4, no mention is made of DRS. <br /><br />http://www.militaryindustrialcomplex.com/contract_detail.asp?contract_id=12814<br /><br />Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14154573875521240433noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-87829440018279220582016-10-06T08:35:45.053-07:002016-10-06T08:35:45.053-07:00The first 4 LCS will still be operational warships...The first 4 LCS will still be operational warships. They are just being retained in US home waters for testing and according to VADM ROwden's plan can be surged as necessary.<br /><br />The Ford, like the LCS, tried to include too many new systems/concepts for both industry and for the US acquisition and test and evaluation system to sustain. There was a similar outcry in 1978 when the 4th Nimitz class carrier was projected to cost $2.2b. $15b is actually a reasonable price for so many new technologies and concepts contained within the Ford class. Inflation alone would cost $8.1b for inflation alone. Add to that the spiraling cost of electronics in warship construction (see a 2006 RAND report on warship costs for a good analysis of this issue) and you are approaching $12b. Add the waste and bureaucracy of the US acquisition and test and evaluation system and the pricetag probably comes out over $15b. <br /><br />Smaller carriers (like those being built by the UK) have consistently proved less cost effective over time, less survivable, more prone to flight accidents, less operable in heavy seas and a host of other issues that preclude the US from adopting them. The Sea Based Air Platform study of 1978 (still classified) pretty much confirmed the large nuclear-power carrier through the 1980's and 1990's. Some of its conclusions appear in former SECNAV John Lehman's book "Aircraft Carriers, the Real Choices." The sinkex of the former USS America (CV 66) a few years ago seems to have further confirmed the survivability and value of larger carriers versus small ones.Lazarushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11640239339632184002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-58285988028515275252016-10-06T08:24:28.587-07:002016-10-06T08:24:28.587-07:00Fair enough. It is important to note that LCS orig...Fair enough. It is important to note that LCS originally started out with zero air capability as the "streetfighter" concept. The original LCS cost ($220m) was admittedly too low and Bob Work admits that in his 2013 Naval War College history of LCS. LCS was designed to perform its missions primarily though its modular, not installed systems. They have been held up by the same pause in the sea frame construction (2007-2009) and by the failures of key systems (NLOS, RMS, MH-60R-based MiW systems)to work as planned or advertised. $500m is actually very very cheap for a ship the size and capability of LCS. Yes, some foreign govt's have built cheaper, but more capable ships, but there are a number of factors contributing to those lower cost that the US cannot emulate. Our ships are built by defense contractors dependent of long production lines for profit, vice civilian shipyards that can rely on civilian orders to maintain viability. Many foreign builder also sub-contract parts of a ship out to cheaper builders (Denmark sub-contracted parts of its Iver Huitfeldt class out to cheap Estonian yards.) Can you imagine the reaction of the US Congress if Austal sub-contracted parts of LCS-2 out to a Mexican shipyard (and caused the loss of US jobs in the process?)Lazarushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11640239339632184002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-3783527639098463022016-10-06T06:38:23.272-07:002016-10-06T06:38:23.272-07:00While I appreciate Laz's contribution, the cha...While I appreciate Laz's contribution, the championing of the LCS's air capabilities are underwhelming. It's essentially shipbuilding doctrine at this point that all USN ships will have some sort of air facilities. <br /><br />Lets assume that the various modules work; with the recent change in LCS composition it is going to take two hull to accomplish what is currently done in one.<br /><br />The selling point of Bob Work's version of LCS was retaining minimum surface ship capability (ASW, SuW) at a reduced cost. If it takes two $500M USD ships to accomplish that goal then IMO the LCS has failed in its objective. Jay Nixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05031750833658933314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-74501663446192077502016-10-06T06:17:23.477-07:002016-10-06T06:17:23.477-07:00That max tow speed just means that the array won&#...That max tow speed just means that the array won't part when the ship maneuvers. It does not mean that anyone is getting bearing data.Jay Nixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05031750833658933314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-45482136143872224882016-10-06T06:16:04.601-07:002016-10-06T06:16:04.601-07:00I don't think anyone outside the LCS program a...I don't think anyone outside the LCS program actually knows the answer but here's a few possible thoughts.<br /><br />-LCS has a very large superstructure relative to the Fletcher/Sumner class. Look at pictures of both and the huge LCS superstructure jumps out. All that structure adds weight.<br /><br />-The LCS engines and propulsion machinery add huge amounts of weight - all in the pursuit of the top end speed requirement.<br /><br />Beyond that, I don't know!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-21983452776756615672016-10-05T22:13:22.426-07:002016-10-05T22:13:22.426-07:001. Aviation: they have a lot of aviation capacity ...1. Aviation: they have a lot of aviation capacity for this size ship and aviation capacity eats up a lot of tonnage due to the need for hanger structure, flight deck area, av fuel storage, support facilities etc. In addition, to achieve good aviation capacity all of these things need to be located high on the ship which tends to reduce overall hull dead weight capacity in order to maintain stability.<br /><br />2. speed: the Sumners reached the low thirties, LCS had to reach 40+ to meet requirements and the Navy was looking for 50+ (!???) Speed in ocean going hulls comes at a logarithmic cost in plant and fuel.<br /><br />3. Those are the driving choices made on these ships, but there is another historical factor that affects all modern ships vs. ships prior to the introduction of electronic processing. Modern ships rely on enormous amounts of data collection, communication and transmission. There is no getting past the fact that the higher on the ship all those dishes , antennas etc are the better they work. So no ship is ever going again to look like a Japanese battleship that relied on just eyeballs way up high for targeting and armor way down low for ballast and protection. Just the amount of space needed up high for the antenna farm on a modern ship extracts a penalty in dead weight capacity as every ton added 50 feet above the waterline adds or negates multiple tons below. <br /><br />4. All that being said, the Independence class actually is full of empty space, weight capacity, etc. They are actually quite amazing hulls. They however have achieved this by accepting like never before the strengths and weaknesses of aluminum. Whether or not the US naval community will adopt living in aluminum remains to be seen. So far it looks like not, as the trihull has largely been sidelined in discussions as if only a ship with steel in saltwater can possibly be accepted by the Navy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-2850555869880848232016-10-05T20:43:59.396-07:002016-10-05T20:43:59.396-07:00I'm going to cut and paste Jim Whall's que...I'm going to cut and paste Jim Whall's question here because I also wondered about this and would like it answered before the OP loses interest in this thread:<br />A<br /><br />***************************************************<br /><br />Jim Whall October 4, 2016 at 12:05 PM<br /><br />Okay, one more question:<br /><br />"1) The LCS sea frames are packed with equipment and there is almost no room for further weight additions. <br /><br />I've read that, but... how? These are 3000-3500 ton ships with 1 57mm cannon and some sensors if you aren't including the mission modules. What is taking up all the weight? <br /><br />For comparison, a Sumner class was 3500 tons full load, but they were built of high grade steel, and had 3 dual mk 38 mounts, VDS, Torpedoes, and a DASH copter after they went through FRAM. And the Freedom class is longer and beamier than the Sumner.<br /><br />I'm not doing a 1:1 comparison in terms of mission, just in terms of ship size. You'd think that without the mission modules these things would be full of empty space.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-77157211013681650992016-10-05T10:17:27.984-07:002016-10-05T10:17:27.984-07:00Spruances were bad? Or were not bad? I had always ...Spruances were bad? Or were not bad? I had always read they were excellent in terms of noise reduction. <br /><br />I re-read my post earlier. It was horribly written and not very clear. Sorry. <br /><br />So what, in your opinion, will be best, most useful role of the LCS? ASW? 3 ship squadrons doing ASuW? Mine warfare? Presence/patrol missions? <br /><br />It seems with the Navy going to mainly 1 ship 1 role, and not using the modularity as it was originally envisioned, that there will have to be some decisions made as to what numbers of LCS will go to each role. JFWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095723023404412328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-60960894757420489662016-10-05T09:59:59.209-07:002016-10-05T09:59:59.209-07:00Modular Multistatic Sonar System (M2S2) by GD Cana...Modular Multistatic Sonar System (M2S2) by GD Canada, UEMS and Raytheon Canada for the RCN's Halifax-class frigates Underwater Warfare Suite Upgrade (UWSU).The UEMS,Ultra Electronics, in-line Horizontal Projector <br />Array, for sprint & drift operation. <br />Operational Features<br />1) HPA transmitter does not have drag of tow body<br />2) Does not need to be recovered and then redeployed<br />3) This saves considerable time in operation <br /><br />www.deagel.com/Ship-Sensors/CAPTAS-4249_a002134002.aspx<br />18 Oct 2015 - Corporations: Thales Naval Systems ... The CAPTAS towed Variable Depth Sonar (VDS) is well suited for ... The towed array sonar can be deployed or recovered within 20 minutes and has a maximum tow speed of 30 knots.<br /><br />Busy at moment will check later for USN VDS mods, did not keep source. Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14154573875521240433noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-39808743961384062332016-10-05T09:21:02.641-07:002016-10-05T09:21:02.641-07:00Lazarus "As to comparisons between the Perry&...Lazarus "As to comparisons between the Perry's and the LCS, the Navy never intended littoral combatants to be new Perry's. If so, the navy would have bought such a ship. A new "perry" would also cost at or more than $1 billion a copy, a pricetag the Navy just cannot afford."<br /><br />Navy would has no shortage of funding of it's shipbuilding budget for a $1 billion Perry ASW frigate if it was not so wasteful. Ignoring the LCS program where the first four ships have just been declared non-operational you have the $23 billion and rising for the three Zumwalt destroyers, recently Navy tried to cancel the third but at least program will end.<br />Latest example is the Ford CVN class of six, $4.7 billion for R & D and the first of class the Ford $12.9 billion in then year dollars, Navy priced it at $15 billion 2014 dollars, but that's just the starter, for on delivery 367 compartments will be incomplete, correction of deficiencies and installation of mission oriented systems are excluded. Despite all the noise from Capitol Hill this is done with the collusion of Congress as legislation for the Ford excludes the following costs<br />1) Inflation<br />2) Costs attributable to compliance with changes in federal, state, or local laws <br />3) Outfitting and post-delivery costs <br />4) Cost changes related to the insertion of new technologies <br />5) Cost changes due to non-recurring design and engineering <br />6) Costs associated with the correction of deficiencies that would affect the safety of the ship and personnel or otherwise preclude safe ship operation and crew certification. <br />7) Changes due to urgent and unforeseen requirements identified during shipboard testing<br /> <br />So it gives the Navy carte blanc to play shell games with the budgets for the Ford and doubt if even the CBO will ever know total, it may be $20 billion ship if the current technical problems persist.<br />Will end up with a ship of problematic operational capabilities that will be too valuable so unlikely to be risked in a real war scenario.<br /><br />As they say quantity has a quality all its own, UK RN building two 70,000 ton conventional carriers for approx. $9 billion and though do not have catapults and arresting gear back of the envelope would suggest for the cost of the Ford the Navy could have four conventional carriers. <br /> Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14154573875521240433noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-24796110049538972312016-10-05T08:51:43.677-07:002016-10-05T08:51:43.677-07:00Basing LCS on commercial or non Navy Standard cons...Basing LCS on commercial or non Navy Standard construction standards, New Crew rotation scheme, Extreme reduced manning, Unproven mission modules, Unproven mission module handling implementation (Hoists didn't work at first) Forward contractor supported basing, CODAG for such a high sprint speed, no concept of operations until AFTER construction.<br /><br />Big picture unproven idea we can ignore everything we have learned about building ships and expect to do it cheaper and have it work.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-31933945412780143722016-10-05T08:15:56.868-07:002016-10-05T08:15:56.868-07:00LCS was designed (according to Bob Work's 2013...LCS was designed (according to Bob Work's 2013 Naval War College paper on LCS) with only limited signature reduction. Work said the design was on par with the DDG 51's signature in that it was not bad (like the Spruance's were) but not superior or improved. Cost seemed to be a driving issue here. <br /><br />I agree that LCS as a surface ship ASW platform may not be ideal (if noise is an issue,) but if it can manage a towed array and support helo-based LCS Ops it will be useful. The feedback I have received from current/former LCS CO's and others assigned suggests that the 57mm optical sight gun mount has performed as advertised. The 76mm Oto-Melara gun is prone to jams at hight rates of fire. I have not heard similar complaints about the 57mm. The Canadians and the Swedes have used the 57mm for decades. They might have some data on accuracy/reliability.Lazarushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11640239339632184002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-86493921575384067722016-10-05T08:10:19.675-07:002016-10-05T08:10:19.675-07:00Can you explain on what "unproven" ideas...Can you explain on what "unproven" ideas LCS was based? Many critics suggest that other platforms/payloads might have been used for light surface combat, coastal ASW and MiW. I would agree that armed helicopters or fixed wing aircraft are better at destroying small surface combatants in the littorals than any surface ship of any size.Lazarushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11640239339632184002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-32137120623125195142016-10-05T08:08:09.145-07:002016-10-05T08:08:09.145-07:00I have never heard of leaving a towed array behind...I have never heard of leaving a towed array behind the ship while sprinting to another location. I suppose it is possible. LCS is capable of low speeds on diesels alone. A towed array at a significant distance from LCS might not be affected much by LCS propulsion "noise." Again, I am not aware of any specific LCS testing by sonar authorities like AUTEC, but I could be mistaken.Lazarushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11640239339632184002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-90133306794501949172016-10-05T07:21:04.412-07:002016-10-05T07:21:04.412-07:00Where did you get information about tow speeds? I...Where did you get information about tow speeds? I've not heard anything about increased tow speeds.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-35035350418280678922016-10-05T06:51:27.013-07:002016-10-05T06:51:27.013-07:00Lazarus "Surface ship ASW has been much more ...Lazarus "Surface ship ASW has been much more about helicopter rather than surface ship capabilities for many years. No towed array will get towed at 40 kts"<br /><br />That would explain why the USN is currently rolling out the installation of the new generation LM TB37/U Multi-Function Towed Array,MFTA, passive /active sonar receiver configured as a long 3-inch-diameter array that to be towed behind surface ships as part of the AN/SQQ-89(V) Undersea Warfare/Anti-Submarine Warfare Combat System,(which also includes a HMS noticeable for it's absence on the LCS ASW and integ. with helicopter's short range sonar/sonobuoys), for the Arleigh Burke's, Ticonderoga's, Zumwalt's and the future LCS ASW.<br /><br />The towed arrays are towed at slow speeds to obviate the noise from the ship interfering with the signal reception by the array, that's why LCS is such a bad choice for ASW as it's diesels are not silenced with noise attenuating enclosures or special hull engine mountings so as hull does not act like a bell plus the waterjets are noisy, all contribute to degrading the fragile signal the hydrophone in the array tasked to decipher from the new exceptionally quiet SSK's. The ASW ship with it's towed array will patrol an area at slow speed and then sprint to new area, in the past it had to reel in the towed array and then when in it's new position re-launch the towed array which could be over a mile in length, this can take a considerable time, dead time when not operating, to overcome this the new generation of towed arrays are designed to be towed at high speeds to cut down dead time. This is why the Navy is spending money to re-design the Thales CAPTAS VDS so it can be towed at higher speeds, understand current max. is approx. 24 knots, Navy objective could be 40 knots but presume same as the MFTA. Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14154573875521240433noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-56239073928621631272016-10-05T06:01:42.058-07:002016-10-05T06:01:42.058-07:00My experience is with the army, but if an abrams o...My experience is with the army, but if an abrams or bradley can engage tartgets at speed over rough terrain, the LCS should be able to as well. Andrew S.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-86573617613234959462016-10-05T05:14:29.241-07:002016-10-05T05:14:29.241-07:00Unfortunately LCS has become a Zombie program like...Unfortunately LCS has become a Zombie program like the F-111 and the B-1. All started based on new unproven ideas or self aggrandizing concepts for employment. But engineering realities happened and no one could grow enough to kill them off and move on.<br /><br />Kill this turkey program before a 1/6th of the Fleet consists of these things. Take the lessons learned and start over NOW.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-8298890169174781472016-10-05T04:27:30.104-07:002016-10-05T04:27:30.104-07:00Andrew: That's interesting. You can do this ev...Andrew: That's interesting. You can do this even in rough seas? Is that a concern? <br /><br />Lazarus: Sorry, I think I'm not being clear. I guess wha tI'm really asking is that I haven't read anything about any signature reduction for the LCS. Spruance had extensive quieting, IIRC. The FFG's I thought had prarie/masker. Both had them for the purpose of making it harder for subs to find or target them. <br /><br />I haven't read that LCS has anything like that, and it sounds like it may well be hunting diesel electric subs. <br /><br />What I'm wondering is if it makes a difference, or if operational experience recently suggests that they don't need it. <br /><br />I'm worried about ASW because, while we aren't facing hordes of Soviet subs like we did back in the day, we are likely to face very capable subs in or approaching the littorals; and our experience in some exercises where AIP subs seemingly run circles around us is an issue. <br /><br />I think we badly need something like LCS to perform an ASW role. But if it is loud, and it is an operational concern, its use would seem to be limited. If its not loud, or we've learned that the noise generated by the ASW ship doesn't matter so much, that's good. JFWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095723023404412328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-69323507046435911682016-10-04T20:30:22.997-07:002016-10-04T20:30:22.997-07:00I'm not sure any test agency has reported on h...I'm not sure any test agency has reported on how "loud" the LCS is, but I could be mistaken. ASW torpedoes on surface ships are more of a last-ditch system designed to interrupt enemy targeting rather than an effective weapon against submarines.Lazarushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11640239339632184002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-73331950736205637322016-10-04T20:28:29.884-07:002016-10-04T20:28:29.884-07:00Those are possible concerns. The SH-60 series helo...Those are possible concerns. The SH-60 series helos have been fairly reliable over the years. The Firescout UAV has had some development issues, but seems to be doing well. LCS has plenty of room in modular space for lots of helicopter parts, but could possibly not have enough helo det crew to carry out high intensity helo ops.Lazarushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11640239339632184002noreply@blogger.com