Stunning LCS News!

I don’t know how this slipped by me but here’s some stunning LCS news.

 

The Navy has officially abandoned the LCS ASW module!

 

Apparently related to this (in the Navy’s mind), in FY23,

 

… the Navy plans to decommission 9 Freedom-class Littoral Combat Ships,…

 

Explaining the LCS decommissionings, Navy deputy assistant secretary for budget Rear Adm. John Gumbleton cited the service’s decision to abandon the anti-submarine warfare mission package for the LCS class because the Constellation-class frigate will have that capability.

 

“And the ASW variant – mission module – huge challenges, not going to work.”[1]

 

There it is.  The Navy is officially acknowledging that the ASW module is a failure. 

 

How many times did ComNavOps and others describe the unsolvable problems associated with the LCS and ASW?  Ignoring us – and reality - , how much time and money has the Navy wasted on this?  Someone absolutely has to be court-martialed over this.  This is far beyond a simple mistake.  This is fraud, negligence, incompetence, and waste on a criminal scale.  Navy officials lied about this program for years.  Someone must pay.

 

If CNO Gilday had an ounce of integrity, he’d resign  …  but he doesn’t.

 

 

 

__________________________________

 

[1]USNI News website, “FY 23 Budget: Navy Wants to Shed 24 Ships for $3.6B in Savings Over Next Five Years”, Mallory Shelbourne, 28-Mar-2022,

https://news.usni.org/2022/03/28/fy-23-budget-navy-wants-to-shed-24-ships-for-3-6b-in-savings-over-next-five-years

LCS Module Update

The original LCS program called for 55 LCS and 62 (if I recall correctly) mission modules.  As the program was whittled down, the number and type of modules was left in limbo.  Now that the LCS program is down to around 32 ships, here’s the latest on the number of modules that will be procured, courtesy of a USNI summary of a government report (1).

• 10 SUW
• 10 ASW
• 24 MCM

This gives a total of 44 deployable mission modules.  Here’s a more detailed breakdown of where/how the modules will be assigned and used:

• 24 modules (8 SUW, 8 ASW, 8 MCM) to outfit the focused mission LCS ships that make up the LCS divisions of 3 deployable ships and l training ship

• 3 modules (1 SUW, l ASW, l MCM) in Mayport, FL to ensure high operational
  availability (Ao) of the training systems for the training ships in the LCS divisions
  and to provide spare systems for each focused mission area

• 4 modules (1 SUW, l ASW, 2 MCM) in San Diego, CA to outfit the test ships (LCS l-4) and provide additional spare capacity for training ships and deployers

• 4 modules (4 MCM) to outfit LCS 29-32 to mitigate warfighting capability needs across the MCM mission area

• 9 MCM modules for use on other Vessels of Opportunity (VOOs) to meet the warfighting capability requirements and account for MCM maintenance cycles

There are a few interesting observations from this.

Note the 9 MCM modules that are for “Vessels of Opportunity”.  The Navy doesn’t actually need or want these modules and has no ships to use them but are required by law to procure 24 MCM modules.  From the article,

“An overall total of 24 MCM [modules] are required to comply with Section 1046 of the FY 2018 NDAA which prohibits the retirement of legacy MCM forces until the Navy has identified replacement capability and procured a quantity of such systems to meet combatant MCM operational requirements that are currently being met by legacy forces.”

Thus, the actual total of “wanted” modules is 35 for the 32 LCS seaframes.  This is the final, official nail in the coffin of swappable modules. 

Further, setting aside the 9 MCM modules that will be set aside on the Island of Misfit Weapons and discounting the MCM modules that are dedicated to the training ships, the total operationally deployable LCS mine countermeasure modules is 8 plus, potentially, 4 for LCS 29-32.

Let’s say that again because it’s incredibly important.  The total LCS MCM capability is 8 ships with an ultimate potential of 12.  That’s our total future U.S. military mine countermeasures capabiity.  We’re replacing 14 Avenger class minesweepers and two squadrons of MH-53E MCM helos (total inventory is 28 helos) with 8-12 LCS.

Does anyone really believe that’s adequate?  China, Russia, Iran, and NKorea each have hundreds of thousands of mines and we think 8-12 LCS are adequate to deal with that threat?  There goes any hope of conducting an amphibious assault.  On a larger scale, our Navy is going to be paralyzed by mine threats it can’t deal with.

I trust I’ve made my point about the inadequacy of our MCM force?

Moving on …

ASuW Module.  This module is currently a joke and consists of a couple of 30 mm machine guns and a helo.  The anticipated Longbow Hellfire missile which will provide some actual, though short ranged, firepower is scheduled for operation in 2019-20. 

Hellfire testing to date has demonstrated 83% success rate (1, full doc p.6) from 24 tests.  That’s surprisingly low given the scripted, simplistic, “designed to succeed” nature of such tests.  Real world performance is likely to be half that.

Current projected module purchase cost for the 30 mm guns, Hellfire, and RHIBs is $23.1M per module (1, full doc p.6).  The helo costs are not included.  It is not clear whether those are the individual equipment costs or the complete, packaged, installed costs.  It seems likely that they are just the individual component costs since the report also categorizes “common” costs as a separate item.

The ASuW performance is underwhelming, to say the least.  The Navy has established two levels of performance for the Key Performance Parameters (KPP):  a minimum threshold and a better, desired objective.  The ASuW module, even with the Hellfire missiles, will only barely meet the threshold requirements and will not even be remotely near the objective requirements.  The Navy’s graphic depiction of the actual and projected performance versus threshold and objective is so bad that they didn’t even include scales with actual values (1, full doc p.7).  Further, you know that the Navy’s projected performance is overly optimistic so the performance versus threshold/objective will be even worse than depicted.

ASW Module.  This module currently consists of,

• Continuously Active Variable Depth Sonar (VDS)
• Multi-Function Towed Array (MFTA)
• Light Weight Tow Torpedo Defense (LWT)
• MH-60R Helo
• MQ-8 UAV

There is no realistic scheduled operational date for the module although the Navy is suggesting sometime around 2020-21.  As always, that will be delayed.

Current projected module purchase cost for the VDS, MFTA, and LWT is $19.8M per module (1, full doc p.14).  The helo/UAV costs are not included.  It is not clear whether those are the individual equipment costs or the complete, packaged, installed costs.  It seems likely that they are just the individual component costs since the report also categorizes “common” costs as a separate item.

As with the ASuW module, the performance when compared to the KPP threshold and objective requirements is barely adequate.  Further, the DOT&E testing demonstrates that the Navy’s reporting on performance results is “optimistic”, to put it politely.

The MFTA is the only individual component that has achieved Initial Operational Capability (IOC).  Overall module IOC is scheduled for late 2019.  It is certain that will slip.

MCM Module.  This module uses a cobbled together collection of components that seem to change daily.  Current components include,

• Knifefish UUV for buried or bottom mine detection
• AES-1 Airborne Laser Mine Detection System (ALMDS) for near surface (top 30 ft) mine detection
• AQS-20 Sonar for suspended mine (volume) detection
• ASQ-235 Airborne Mine Neutralization System (AMNS)
• Unmanned Influence Sweep System (UISS) – acoustic and magnetic
• DVS-1 Coastal Battlefield Reconnaissance and Analysis (COBRA) for beach and surf zone mine detection
• MH-60S helo
• MQ-8 Firescout
• EX64 Archerfish neutralizer

Additional components are being developed such as an unmanned surface tow drone for sonar and sweep components and the Barracuda system for near surface mine neutralization.

The various capabilities are expected to trickle in over the next several years.

The various module subsystems are not meeting their performance requirements and many are not even close (1, full doc p.22-23).

Current projected module purchase cost for the various non-helo components is $87M per module (1, full doc p.22).  The helo/UAV costs are not included.  It is not clear whether those are the individual equipment costs or the complete, packaged, installed costs.  It seems likely that they are just the individual component costs since the report also categorizes “common” costs as a separate item.

The Annual Report lists module development costs as totaling $2.6B (1, full doc p.28).  Of course, those costs will increase well beyond that before all development is complete!

The report lists total anticipated module procurement costs, including the separate “common” category as (1, full doc p.29),

Module  Qty    Tot Cost   Mod Cost

ASuW     10      $319M     $ 32M

ASW      10      $267M     $ 27M

MCM      24      $2.5B     $100M

Common   44      $576M     $ 13M

Total    44      $3.6B     $ 82M

The key column is the Mod Cost  which is the unit cost for each module of the indicated type.  Note that the costs don’t agree with the individual component costs described above.  The costs listed here are likely to be more accurate.

It is worth noting that the modules have been under development since sometime around 2003/4.  Now, some 14 years later, not a single module exists in an operationally useful form.  Operational modules are not expected for another few to several years and then another few years will be required to actually manufacture the modules.  We are burning through LCS seaframe life spans without any modules to equip them.  It is possible, indeed likely, that some LCS vessels will retire without ever having had a functional, useful module equipped!

LCS module development has been an embarrassment of staggering proportions and the fiasco continues.

_____________________________________

(1)USNI News website, “Littoral Combat Ship Mission Package Annual Report”, February 2018 Annual Report to Congress for the Littoral Combat Ship Mission Modules Program, 3-Apr-2018,

https://news.usni.org/2018/04/03/littoral-combat-ship-mission-package-annual-report

Full document:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4429096-Mission-Package-RTC-February-2018.html#document/p9

LCS ASW Update

Here’s an interesting tidbit from the DOT&E 2016 Annual Report (p.267) concerning the LCS ASW module development and testing.

“The Navy did not conduct any at-sea testing of the ASW mission package in FY16.”

Huh???  I thought the ASW package was settled and a vendor for the variable depth sonar, Thales, was selected and the module was in the final integration and testing stages.  I guess not.

What’s the hold up?  Apparently, it’s weight. 

“The Navy continued its efforts on a weight reduction program for the components of the mission package, including the handling system and support structures for the variable depth sonar and multifunction towed array.”

We’ve repeatedly noted that the LCS (both variants) are overweight and have no weight growth margins.  Every pound added to the LCS has to be balanced by a pound removed.  The LCS “growth” has become a zero-sum game.  In other words, growth is no longer possible for the LCS.

Regarding the VDS vendor selection, apparently that is not the settled issue I thought it was.

“The Navy anticipates downselecting to a single vendor for the variable depth sonar in FY17 and beginning a test program soon thereafter.”

To refresh your memory, the ASW module currently consists of

• Lightweight Tow torpedo countermeasure (a Nixie-like acoustic decoy)
• Multi-Function Towed Array
• Variable Depth Sonar
• MH-60R and MQ-8B/C Fire Scout VTUAV

The Navy hopes to begin testing in 2018 or 2019.  Assuming, optimistically, a typical few years of testing and a few more years to actually purchase production modules, we’re looking at 2025 or so before production ASW modules reach the fleet.  That’s a lot of time and effort for what will be a pretty anemic ASW fit.  Many LCS ships are going to live significant portions of their service lives without any modules.  

LCS Variable Depth Sonar

There have been several recent articles about the LCS ASW module being overweight and how it’s not really a problem and what amazing new capabilities the module will bring to ASW warfare.  Of course, the module consists of technology that’s been in use for years so it’s kind of hard to figure how the module will bring amazing new capabilities but that’s not the point of this post.  Further, the Navy assures us that modules diet plan to lose weight is not a problem.  Of course, the weight issues have been known for years and, presumably, the Navy has been attempting to lighten the module for quite a while now and this is the result.  This version is, one assumes, the lightest version that the Navy could assemble over the last couple of years of effort while still maintaining the requisite capability.  Thus, it’s hard to imagine where significant additional weight loss will come from without cutting into capability but, again, that’s not the point of this post, either.

Setting the preceding aside, the main component of the ASW module, such as it is, is the Thales CAPTAS 4 variable depth sonar (VDS) or a similar variant.  This, according to the Navy is an amazing piece of technology that will allow us to accomplish ASW feats never before seen.  Of course, the Thales VDS has been around and in use by foreign navies for years and the US Navy never before deemed it worthwhile.  Kind of makes you wonder, doesn’t it?

Be that as it may, if the VDS can add capability that’s a good thing.

What is it that makes the VDS useful over a conventional hull-mounted sonar, anyway?  Well, as the name implies, the VDS can be raised or lowered to any desired depth, somewhat akin to a helo’s dunking sonar.  This allows the sonar to listen under thermoclines.  Thermoclines are temperature gradients in the ocean that form layers.  The layers tend to reflect sound at the boundaries between layers.  Thus, sound at a lower layer can be trapped or channeled within that layer and not propagate to the layer above or below it.  A submarine can hide in a lower layer that a surface ship’s sonar can’t effectively penetrate.  Hence, the value of a VDS is that it can be lowered into a lower thermal layer and detect a sub that a ship with just a hull-mounted sonar can’t.

Which, again, begs the question, why hasn’t the Navy pursued VDS systems before?  I have no answer for that.  The old Soviet ships had VDS but I have no idea to what extent, if any, they were used.

Moving on …  Does the VDS bring with it any drawbacks or limitations?  As you might suspect from the question, the answer is yes. 

The first limitation is that the VDS requires around 20 minutes to deploy or retrieve.  Thus, the LCS can’t just hop around the liquid battlefield, nimbly racing to and fro collecting data.  Instead, it’s going to have to carefully pick its spots with the knowledge that once it commits to a spot, it will be there for an extended period.

Thales VDS

This leads to the second limitation and that is the vessel’s speed while the VDS is deployed.  The LCS was predicated on speed, speed, and more speed (not sure why but the Navy assures us that speed is critical).  Unfortunately, the VDS only functions at very low speed and, therefore, the LCS is limited to very low speed while the VDS is deployed.  Higher speeds will not only negate the VDS performance but may damage the unit if towed at too high a speed.  This presents a bit of a dilemma.  If the VDS is deployed and a torpedo is detected, the LCS can’t use its speed to escape.  It becomes a relatively immobile target.  On the other hand, if the LCS chooses to retain its speed capability, it can’t deploy the VDS and, thus, won’t be able to hear a sub or torpedo.  Hmm …  That’s a real Catch-22:  use the VDS and forfeit speed or use speed and forfeit the VDS.  The LCS can’t have both. 

Presumably, the Navy has already made the decision that the VDS is more important than speed or else they would not have pursued the VDS option.  Of course, that leads one to wonder what use the Navy foresaw for speed in the first place.  But, I digress …

If the Navy is committed to using the VDS extensively, that implies that the LCS is no longer removed from the ASW battle.  Sonar performance in littoral waters tends to be short range.  Recall that the original LCS ASW concept called for remote unmanned vehicles and vast underwater sensor nets that would be deployed and allow the LCS to stand off from the actual ASW battlespace.  So, with the LCS now conceptually committed to up close and personal ASW battles, we have to wonder about the LCS’ suitability for such a role.  Lacking the built-in quieting that a purpose-designed ASW vessel would have and operating noisy waterjets would seem to put the LCS at an enormous tactical disadvantage in ASW operations.

All of this leads one to wonder how carefully the Navy thought out the revised ASW module concept.  Has anyone gamed out how a loud, speed impaired LCS with no ship-mounted ASW weapons will fare in an ASW battle?  I strongly suspect that the answer is no and that a lot of sailors will pay the price to find out that the LCS is unsuited for ASW work. 

The VDS was a knee jerk reaction to the abject failure of the original ASW module and was not well thought out.  The Navy has to start thinking ahead and ensuring that they have logical and viable concepts of operation before jumping into development paths that make little sense.

LCS Module Update

GAO’s 2015 annual weapons assessment report contains some interesting tidbits about the LCS modules (1).

ASW Module

Regarding the ASW module,

“Program officials report that currently the [ASW] mission package is 5 tons too heavy to fit within the parameters reserved for the packages.”

This is probably the most mature and useful module if only because the Navy abandoned every aspect of the original module and is now using proven, existing components:  a Thales variable depth sonar, a multi-function towed array, and a standard Navy helo.  The challenge is whether they can get the components to integrate in an effective manner.  Of course, the LCS can never be an effective ASW platform due to inherent structural problems that impact ASW performance:  the vessel is not quieted and optimized for ASW and the ship’s self-noise from the water jets not only precludes a hull mounted sonar but makes the ship an acoustic beacon for miles around.  Add to that the lack of an onboard ASW weapon and you have an extremely mediocre ASW platform.  Further, the inability to operate two helos (yes, some reports credit the LCS-2 version with the ability to operate two but that is questionable due to flight deck structural weaknesses) severely limits the extent of available helo ASW coverage. 

The Navy is currently contracting with three companies for ideas on how to reduce weight in the ASW module without removing a key component.  You know the process when things go through contracts and studies.  It will be years, yet, before we see a functioning ASW module.

MCM Module

Regarding the MCM module,

“The Navy has accepted five MCM packages without demonstrating that they meet interim—or threshold—requirements and plans to accept one more in fiscal 2015.”

As we know from various reports, the MCM module has proven particularly troublesome with most, or all, of the module components failing to meet their performance criteria.  Thus, the Navy’s continued purchases of MCM modules is puzzling, to say the least.  I guess it’s analogous to buying F-35s that are not ready.

Further, the Navy just announced that the MCM module would not reach its scheduled IOC in September due to across the board reliability issues discovered during testing.

“… LCS Mission Modules Program Manager Capt. Casey Moton said Thursday at a Mine Warfare Association lunch that across-the-board reliability problems in the two start-to-finish mine clearance runs in the technical evaluation led the program to extend the evaluation for several months rather than move prematurely to IOT&E.”

Independence, LCS-2, has been testing the MCM module for how long, now?  Since the mid-70’s, it seems like.  Despite all that work, the module reliability is still unacceptable.  How bad must the reliability be, to be unacceptable to the Navy?!  They’ve accepted barely built ships and F-35’s that have no combat capability.  For them to balk, it must be really bad!

It appears that IOC will be pushed back another year or so.

ASuW Module

The Navy has dropped the plan to use the incredibly short ranged and lightweight Griffon missile in favor of the Hellfire missile.  While there is nothing wrong with the Hellfire, it is still a lightweight, short range missile.  Wiki lists the range as 550 yds out to 5 miles.  It is doubtful that range holds for a surface, vertical launch.  The effective range will likely be more like 3-4 miles.  Also, note the minimum range.  If a target gets inside 550 yds the LCS will have to engage with guns which have, thus far, proven problematic.  The 30 mm guns have had a succession of maintenance and performance issues and the 57mm gun is inaccurate above 10 kts or so due to ship vibration.  Further, the guns are optically aimed and are not linked to radar in the ship’s fire control system.

USNI News has some disturbing news even about the Hellfire missile testing. (2)

“The program office began tests on a research vessel at the end of February against ‘high-speed maneuvering targets out off the Virginia Capes.’  That testing wrapped up in June, and based on the results, the office has to do ‘some tweaking – it’s really that level, tweaking – to the missile seeker and such.”

When you factor in the military’s ridiculously positive spin on testing – every test is an unqualified success, no matter how bad (remember the fabulously successful F-35B tests on the Wasp that actually barely achieved 50% availability? – you get the sense that the Hellfire has some serious issues integrating into a vertical launch system.  “Tweaking”, with the slight negative connotation it has, must indicate that the missile failed badly!  Getting a missile that is designed to launch horizontally to launch vertically, tip over, and acquire its target, is not a trivial feat without mid-course guidance.

The missile will have to undergo another set of tests several months down the road.

Here is GAO’s summary assessment in their typically bland style.

“The systems that comprise the Navy's mission packages have yet to work successfully together to achieve results. For example, none of the mission packages for any increment have achieved interim requirements on the Independence variant, or meet its threshold requirements for either seaframe.”

Remember, also, that the IOCs that the Navy is trying so desperately to achieve are not for the desired modules but for very stripped down versions that simply allow the Navy to field a bare minimum (many would say less than minimum) capability as a PR event.  The desired modules that the Navy sold the LCS program on are many years down the road or, more likely, will never be achieved.  Go back and read the original module descriptions to see just how much the modules have been dumbed down in the quest to get something, anything, fielded.  We’ve largely forgotten the grandiose promises made and have come to believe that the current, anemic versions of the modules are what was always intended.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  As a group, the modules are an utter and colossal failure.

Perhaps the most important point in the report, though, is this one,

“The Navy continues to procure LCS seaframes, even though the sub-systems necessary to meet full mission package requirements have not yet been fully developed, demonstrated, and integrated with either seaframe class.”

The LCS’s value and effectiveness, whether you support it or not, is predicated on the performance of its modules just as a carrier’s value is based wholly on its air wing.  An LCS without an effective module is just an overgrown Coast Guard cutter, if even that.  GAO points out that the Navy is proceeding full speed with seaframe acquisition in the absence of any useful and effective module.  The only module that even theoretically exists is the ASuW module and, let’s be real, an ASuW module that consists of a couple of machine guns and a RHIB is hardly useful or effective.

Worse is the Navy’s laser like focus on seaframes.  While the modules languish, seaframe construction continues unabated.  It would be nice if the Navy put the same effort into the modules as the seaframes and it would be even nicer if the Navy would recognize the importance of the modules.  No module, no useful LCS.  If the Navy isn’t careful, half the LCS seaframes will reach their end of life without ever seeing a useful module.  What a waste that would be (assuming you don’t consider the LCS to already be a waste!).

(1)Government Accountability Office, “Defense Acquisitions – Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs”, Mar 2015, GAO-15-342SP

(2)USNI, “LCS Anti-Sub Warfare Package Too Heavy; 3 Contracts Issued For Weight Reduction Study”, Megan Eckstein, July 30, 2015

http://news.usni.org/2015/07/30/lcs-anti-sub-warfare-package-too-heavy-3-contracts-issued-for-weight-reduction-study

LCS - It's Phenomenal

There has been a spate of good news regarding the LCS program recently or so the Navy would have us believe.  Consider this tidbit, reported by USNI website, in which PEO LCS describes the ASW module performance as "phenomenal" (1),

“ ‘… the results are classified, but what I can tell you is that the performance of the system was phenomenal,’ Antonio [PEO Rear Adm. Brian Antonio] said.”

USNI describes the ASW module components thusly,

“The anti-submarine warfare mission package consists of the same Multi-Function Towed Array submarine-detection sonar already used in the fleet, a variable-depth sonar and a towed lightweight torpedo decoy. If an enemy submarine were detected and needed to be attacked, the mission package also includes the MH-60S helicopter with Mk-54 airdropped lightweight torpedoes.”

Note that the towed array and decoy systems are fleet standard so the only new component is the variable depth sonar and that’s only new to the US Navy.  It’s been in routine use in other navies for some time.  So, it would seem that the combination of two standard systems and a well established foreign system constitute the definition of “phenomenal”.  Hmmmm ……

RAdm. Antonio also noted that the ASW module was too heavy for production and deployment but I guess that doesn’t stop it from being “phenomenal”.

Moving on …

In another USNI website article, the same RAdm. Antonio had this to say about the USS Fort Worth’s deployment (2),

“as challenging as Freedom was, Fort Worth has just been phenomenal”

There’s that word again, “phenomenal”.  Did someone get a word-of-the-day calendar for a gift?

Apparently, Fort Worth has experienced an improvement in maintenance issues over those experienced by Freedom during her Singapore PR cruise.

“… in the order of hundreds of hours of corrective maintenance compared to thousands of hours of corrective maintenance…”

The numbers are a bit vague and I don’t know whether hundreds of hours of corrective maintenance constitute an actual success or just a relative success compared to the phenomenally (hey, if PEO LCS can toss the word around, so can I) disastrous Freedom cruise.

I find it phenomenal that the LCS is suddenly so phenomenal after so many problems.  Still, it’s phenomenally good news – if you believe the Navy.  And therein lies the point of this post.  Do you believe what the Navy has to say about the LCS?  Remember, they’ve lied about every aspect of this program from day one until now so do you really believe the phenomenal news?  I don’t and that’s really sad.  It doesn’t matter whether PEO LCS’ news is accurate or not.  The real issue is that the Navy’s credibility is so badly damaged that it leads me to automatically and utterly discount anything they say.  Credibility was the real casualty of the botched LCS program.

Well, you say, there may have been some spin applied to the LCS in the past but they’re making real progress now and we should accept the phenomenal news at face value rather than automatically doubt it.  I might be inclined to do that if it weren’t for the DOT&E annual reports that paint a completely different picture of the state of the LCS program in general and the ASW module in particular.  DOT&E reports not only don’t use the word phenomenal, they describe in great detail the myriad failings of the program.  So, I combine the utter lack of credibility with the DOT&E reports and conclude that the Navy is, yet again, lying aggressively applying wishful thinking.

It’s phenomenal how difficult it is to regain one’s credibility after it’s been lost.  A good start, though, would be to speak truthfully.

(1) USNI, "PEO LCS Looking at 2016 Deployment of Anti-Sub Package Ahead of Reaching IOC", Megan Eckstein, 13-Apr 2015,

http://news.usni.org/2015/04/13/peo-lcs-looking-at-2016-deployment-of-anti-sub-package-ahead-of-reaching-ioc

(2) USNI, "USS Fort Worth Successfully Tested Overseas Maintenance Outside of Singapore Hub", Megan Eckstein, 13-Apr-2015,

http://news.usni.org/2015/04/13/uss-fort-worth-successfully-tested-overseas-maintenance-outside-of-singapore-hub

LCS ASW

The LCS was originally tasked with three missions:  mine countermeasures, anti-submarine warfare (ASW), and anti-surface warfare.  We’re going to take a closer look at the ASW mission.

To review, in the ASW role the LCS was originally intended to be a stand-off vessel that would launch a variety of remote, unmanned vehicles and deploy a sensor net.  As such, the ship did not need its own sonar systems or anti-submarine weapons.  Unfortunately, the Navy scrapped the ASW module when it was found to offer no improvement over existing capabilities (Navy-speak for less capable than existing systems, but I digress).  The current module consists of a ship mounted Variable Depth Sonar (VDS), towed array, torpedo decoy (presumably Nixie or something similar), and a helo.

Thus, the LCS is now an up close and personal participant in the ASW mission.  However, the fact that the ship was not designed for active involvement in the ASW process leads to several issues.

Helo Coverage – As we’ve demonstrated, helos are maintenance intensive and a single helo (LCS-1) or two helos (LCS-2) can only provide very spotty coverage.  In addition, the MH-60 series helos can only carry two torpedoes which severely limits the number of shots and rearming is not a quick process.

Towed Array – The planned towed array is a major issue.  First, a towed array can’t be deployed in shallow water which was the LCS’ entire rationale for existence!  Second, the towed array presents a major problem as it impacts the ships speed and performance.  Some say that the LCS was intended to use its speed to “dance” around subs and torpedoes (though that’s most likely an after-the-fact rationalization rather than a designed intent).  Accepting that premise for the sake of discussion, one can see that a towed array severely limits the ship’s speed.  With an array deployed, the ship can’t use its speed and becomes an easy target.  On the other hand, if the array isn’t deployed the ship can’t detect submarines and becomes an easy target.  Bit of a Catch-22, there, huh?

Sonar – The ship’s size and shape seem to preclude addition of a typical hull-mounted sonar, especially for the LCS-2 version.  I’ve read reports that suggest that the water jets and ship’s internal machinery noises preclude hull mounted sonar due to severe self-noise masking.  I consider that unconfirmed though plausible.

Acoustics – While some reports claim the LCS water jets are quieter than conventional propulsion systems, the majority of documents seem to indicate that the water jets are enormously loud acoustic beacons.  Anyone who’s seen film of the jets in operation would find it hard to believe that the system is quiet enough for ASW work.  Further, the ship was not built with acoustic quieting integrated into the design.  Unlike the Spruance class which was built from the keel up as an ASW platform, the LCS lacks sound isolating machinery mounts, internal acoustic insulation, a Prairie/Masker type quieting system, and the other acoustic features built into the Spruances.  So, in addition to the water jet issue, the ship’s internal noise is not quieted.  The ship is an acoustic beacon for enemy submarines.  It’s hard to be the hunter when you’re louder than the prey!

ASW Weapons – Like the dog that chases the car (what’s he going to do with it if he ever catches it?!) the LCS has no ASW weapons if it ever finds a sub.  Yes, the helo might be available but that’s not a likely scenario and the helo is limited to two shots.  The LCS, itself, has no ability to defend itself or initiate an attack and certainly no capability to react to a surprise, close range encounter.

VDS – The Variable Depth Sonar (VDS) is potentially a useful sensor although, because of the need for complete automation due to the insufficient crew size, the VDS model being acquired requires 20+ minutes to deploy or retrieve.  While ASW is a slow game, this still limits the ship’s movement and response time especially if a torpedo is inbound!

In summary, ASW requires a platform built from the keel up with integrated acoustic quieting features, on-board weapons and sensors, and torpedo countermeasures, none of which the LCS has because it was never intended to be intimately involved in the ASW fight.  This also illustrates the flaw in the modular philosophy but that’s an issue that we’ve already covered in a previous post.  Trying to force the LCS into a role it isn’t optimized for is going to result in an ineffective platform that makes a better target than attacker.

Employment of LCS squadrons and the use of good operational tactics can mitigate some of the problems but the flip side of that is that clustered numbers of LCS’s will simply provide a loud, target rich environment for enemy subs.

To be fair, I’ve advocated a low end, less than optimal ASW platform that can be built in numbers, however, the key feature of that type of vessel is cheapness and the LCS doesn’t even come close to meeting that requirement.

All of this leads to the question of whether the LCS could be successfully adapted to ASW?  The answer is that it’s possible but it would require extensive redesign of the basic seaframe.  The ship needs all the quieting measures I’ve described, probably quieter conventional engines, a rapidly deployable VDS (adapt an over-the-side helo dipping sonar?), a short length multi-function towed array, hull mounted sonar, torpedo decoys, anti-submarine torpedoes, and a Russian style (RBU series) short range depth bomb as well as an integrated ASW combat control software suite.  If all this was done the LCS would no longer be an LCS, meaning that it would no longer be a modular platform.  Instead, it would be a dedicated shallow water ASW vessel.  Ironically, in that form it would offer a credible purpose and functionality to justify its existence as opposed to the useless vessel it now is.

By the way, does a vessel with two helos, a towed array, hull mounted sonar, anti-submarine torpedos, Prairie/Masker quieting, and torpedo decoys sound familiar?  It should - it's called a Perry.  If only we had had dozens of those that could have been updated a bit ... 

LCS - Mission Module Status

Setting aside the question of whether the LCS is a worthwhile program or not, the value of the LCS, as designed, was the ability to swap mission modules.  This flexibility at a tactical level would be the core of the LCS’ strength according to the Navy’s vision.  Well, it’s time for an assessment of the state of module implementation.

As a frame of reference, 24 LCSs have been procured or scheduled through FY2015.  That’s nearly half of the total anticipated build of 55 ships.  Therefore, it would be reasonable to expect that module development should be mature and production modules should be plentiful relative to the number of hulls in the water by FY2015.  If this were not the case, the LCS’s main design feature, tactical flexibility via swappable modules, would be nullified.

As of Mar-2012, the two MCM modules, 2 ASuW modules, and 1 ASW module have been delivered (1).  Note that these modules are partial, developmental modules intended for testing and evaluation. 



RAM Launched Griffon?

ASuW Module – The main component of the ASuW module was to have been the NLOS missile system for use in land attack and in anti-swarm (small boat attacks) defense.  The NLOS has been cancelled and the current replacement is the Griffon missile although work has already been initiated to replace it due to its unacceptably short range.  Further, the Griffon has no land attack capability comparable to the intended role of the NLOS.  Griffon is scheduled to be operational in 2015 and its successor in 2017.  Interestingly, Griffon has been test fired from a RAM launcher.  Whether this means that Griffon will be fired from the existing LCS RAM launcher, thereby diminishing the already minimal AAW capability or be launched from additional, dedicated, RAM launchers remains to be seen.

MCM Module – RAMICS was intended to provide a mine destruction capability but failed to perform and has been cancelled.  The unmanned surface vehicle and associated sweep system have also been cancelled.  The Navy is now trying out various adaptations of existing or developmental equipment but does not currently have a well defined module.  Given that this module is nothing more than a wish list of capabilities, any forecasts of IOC must be seen as pure wishful thinking.

ASW Module – LCS was originally designed to be a mothership to an array of off-board sensors carried by various unmanned air, surface, and subsurface vehicles.  Thus, the LCS would deploy its sensors and then stand off from the danger area.  There is nothing inherently wrong with this concept other than the fact that none of the anticipated unmanned vehicles and sensors have panned out.  From the GAO report (2),

“In 2008, the Navy took delivery of one partially capable ASW module at a cost of over $200 million, but subsequently cancelled plans to continue procuring the module and is redesigning it. According to program officials, the new design includes a variable-depth sonar and towed array, unmanned aerial vehicle, helicopter, and torpedo countermeasure.” 

So, the original ASW module, termed Increment 1 by the Navy, failed completely and the LCS is now moving towards on-board sensors and weapons in a module termed Increment 2.  This approach now dictates that the LCS operate in physical proximity to enemy submarines.  Again, there is nothing inherently wrong with this approach other than the fact that the LCS was not designed to stand into combat and is not considered combat survivable by the Navy.  Also, this now gets away from the original LCS design concept and makes the LCS a traditional frigate. 

I know, you’re asking yourself why we’re retiring the Perry class frigates which already exist and already have towed arrays, torpedo countermeasures, helos, Fire Scout UAVs, and anti-submarine torpedos?  Good question!

LCS Mission Bay - Anything To Put In It?

The module status summary points out both the strength and weakness of the LCS.  The strength is that modules can be continually developed over the lifetime of the seaframe.  Hence, the lack of any current, fully functioning module is not a permanent and fatal flaw.  On the other hand, the lack of any current, fully functioning module means that the LCS is just an incredibly expensive and virtually unarmed and non-functional seaframe until such time as a useful module becomes available.

The Navy attempted to jump one or more generations on the technology ladder and, not unexpectedly, failed totally.  The scramble is on now to find something, anything, that can be used as a module until such time as the envisioned modules become technically feasible, if ever.

The next major issue that has, so far, received little attention is the number of modules.  Current plans call for 55 LCS sea frames and 64 LCS mission modules:  16 ASW, 24 MCM, and 24 ASuW (3).  When we do the arithmetic, if all 55 seaframes have a module installed, that leaves just 9 modules available for swapping.  Given that the LCS will have at least two main bases, one in the MidEast and one in Chinese area, that means that there will be only four or five extra modules at each location for swapping and the odds that the desired module is in stock become very low; more so, if multiple LCSs wish to swap at the same time.  This issue, alone, almost totally invalidates the LCS concept of tactical flexibility.

In summary, none of the modules exist in finished form and the closest, probably the ASuW, is still four or five years down the road.  The MCM and ASW modules are probably looking at 2017 to 2020 for IOC of any useful version, at best.  Even when the modules become available, the limited numbers almost totally negate the LCS concept.

(1)   Congressional Research Services (CRS), Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program: Background, Issues, and Options for Congress, Ronald O'Rourke, Specialist in Naval Affairs, April 6, 2012, p. 4

(2)   Government Accountability Office: Defense Acquisitions[:] Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs, GAO-12-400SP, March 2012, p. 110

(3)   CRS, p. 2