What Could the LCS Do in the Middle East?

Currently, two of the three LCS supposedly based in the Middle East have been moved (evacuated?) to Singapore.[1]  The whereabouts of the third is unknown.  Why aren’t they in the Middle East, perhaps ensuring the safe passage of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz?  Isn’t this kind of mission exactly what they were designed for?  As you recall, the original LCS concept was that they would boldly enter littoral (hence, the ship’s name) waters and neutralize mines, subs, surface, and land threats so that larger, more expensive ships could operate in the area with less risk.
 
So, why aren’t they there?  Well, we all know the answer.  The originally envisioned modules were just flights of fantasy and never materialized.  But, what if the original modules had become available as fully functioning equipment?  Would such LCSes be useful in the Middle East today?
 
Let’s briefly recall the intended functionality of the original modules.
 
MCM – The LCS was intended to stop well outside a minefield and use remote, unmanned assets to clear the area of mines.
 
ASuW - This was, perhaps, the key to the entire LCS concept.  The NLOS (not to be confused with the current Spike NLOS missile) system of loitering, smart, networked munitions would address all threats out to a range of 20+ miles.  By removing all visible threats, it would allow fellow LCSes to deal with mines and submarines.
 
ASW – The LCS was intended to basically stop and throw out an ASW barrier of remote vehicles that would track down and destroy enemy submarines while the LCS remained safely out of reach.
 
 
Thus, a mixed group of LCS would enter an area and the ASuW equipped vessels would eliminate all visible land and surface threats while ASW and MCM equipped vessels eliminated the subsurface threats.  Such a group in the strait, today, would eliminate all missile, rocket, artillery, and speed boat threats to shipping across the width of the strait and twenty miles inland.  UAVs would provide continuous surveillance with NLOS munitions on-call, moments away.  Hidden enemy launchers would be destroyed moments after they emerged from hiding.  The MCM-LCS would search for the rumored, but not yet confirmed, mines.
 
Highly effective, indeed!
 
Of course, the LCS modules were never realized (that’s why it’s called fantasy!) and the LCS proved useless as demonstrated by the Navy’s removal of the ships from the very mission they were designed for.  The concept was okay but it was dependent on non-existent technology coupled with unbelievably inept execution.
 
Since we don’t have fantasy modules but the conceptual need still exists, what do we have that could do the job?  Well, there’s always air power that could, for enormous cost and effort, provide the continuous surveillance and quick response strike that’s needed to deal with emergent threats.  We have Burkes with their single 5” gun that could provide persistent, on-call, fire support if some other asset can provide targeting.  We could land Army/Marines in various locations to search and destroy or provide counterbattery fire.using G/ATOR or similar systems.
 
We have the theoretical capability for ships to do counterbattery fire since the radars are fully capable, lacking only the software to do so.  Why hasn’t the Navy ever bothered to implement counterbattery capability?  Because it doesn’t put big, new, shiny hulls in the water which is how large budget slices are ensured.
 
 
The original LCS concept was valid and the need was legitimate but the actual design was based on non-existent technology and wishful thinking.  We didn’t need the LCS.  The need could have been met with existing assets by implementing counterbattery capability on Burkes, adding much more small UAV capability to ships, and incorporating air power and land forces.  The cost would have been minimal – free compared to what the LCS program has cost us.
 
That we didn’t take the approach of using existing assets simply highlights the Navy’s focus on budget over mission accomplishment.  The LCS gained the Navy large budget share as opposed to simple software modifications or buying some more small UAVs.
 
Until we stop viewing the Navy as a business organization trying to turn a profit (budget slice) and start viewing it as a tool for mission accomplishment, nothing will improve.
 
Where are the LCSes?  The past Navy CNOs need to be brought out of retirement and forced to take responsibility for their dereliction of duty.
 
 
 
_______________________________

 
[1]The War Zone website, “U.S. Navy Minesweepers Stationed In Middle East Are Now In Singapore”, Joseph Trevithick, 18-Mar-2026,
https://www.twz.com/sea/u-s-navy-minesweepers-stationed-in-middle-east-are-now-in-singapore

Up Close And Personal

We’ve discussed and noted many times that the Navy/Marine doctrine of conducting amphibious assaults from 25-50 miles off the beach is not feasible and is completely at odds with the need for naval fire support given that the Navy’s only gun is the 5” which has an effective range of 9-15 miles, depending on version.

We need to recognize that  the 5” gun’s limited range means that a fire support ship would have to be within a mile of shore to have any useful range beyond the immediate beach area.  That’s close!  That puts the ship within range of enemy artillery, rockets, and mortars as well as anti-ship missiles.

So, how will the Navy provide fire support?  The short and bitter answer is they can’t.  Even if the Navy wanted to bring its 5” guns (meaning Burkes) into range, they’d be risking high-tech, multi-billion dollar, capital, AAW ships to conduct low tech fire support – not a reasonable risk.  We’ve discussed the need for dedicated fire support ships of both larger caliber (8” – 16”) and small (5”).  Assuming the Navy won’t build such a ship, is there anything they can do to modify a Burke to allow it to operate near shore and give it a better chance of survival and success?

As it happens, there are a couple of simple modifications that would enhance the Burke’s chances.

C-RAM – The Army has adapted the naval Phalanx CIWS to the C-RAM (Counter Rocket, Artillery, and Mortar) function, apparently successfully.  The addition of three or four C-RAM units to a Burke would enhance its near shore survivability.  Given that the CIWS is a self-contained unit, requiring only ship’s utility hookups, installation of multiple units should be reasonably easy.  This would provide the ship with a degree of protection from artillery, rockets, and mortars.

Counterbattery – Aegis is, theoretically, capable of counterbattery sensing and computing with appropriate software modifications.  This would provide the Burkes with the ability to conduct counterbattery fire against both artillery, rockets, mortars, and anti-ship missiles.

The major near-shore threats to a ship are artillery and small anti-ship missiles and the modifications noted above would go a long way towards providing enhanced protection from both artillery and anti-ship missiles.  Thus, it would be possible to operate Burkes near shore with an enhanced chance of surviving.

Burke DDG - $2B and 1 Gun, Not Exactly Fire Support

Now, this doesn’t mean that this is a good idea.  Risking multi-billion dollar ships that constitute our main AAW defense is still a bad idea but, since the Navy adamantly refuses to build a dedicated, simple, cheap fire support ship, this at least offers a viable, if still unwise, option.

Failing this approach, any Marine assault will be operating without any fire support whatsoever which is one of many reasons why I say that our amphibious assault doctrine is non-executable and pure fantasy.

Assault Support Ship

The most vulnerable phase of an amphibious assault is the landing of the initial waves and the subsequent initial defense until follow on troops and equipment can land.  This vulnerability is due to the initial waves being mainly infantry with little or no armor or heavy weapons support. 

During this initial beachhead and buildup period, the assault force will be trying to get more troops, heavy weapons and equipment, and supplies ashore.  This will, inevitably, result in the proverbial mountain of supplies, much as everyone wants to avoid it.  Conversely, the enemy defending force will be raining artillery, mortars, rockets, and cruise/ballistic missiles on the beach area.  Enemy helos and fixed wing aircraft will be attempting to hit the area, as well.  The stacked up supplies will be a prime target as will the LCACs and whatever other logistics landing craft we use –take out the logistics landing craft and the assault withers.  The enemy knows this.  Really, the presence of Marines on the ground is almost irrelevant to the enemy.  I would expect most enemy defensive efforts to be focused on the amphibious fleet (the MLP is an exceptionally critical target) and the supply shuttle to the beach.

Naval gunfire support is lacking, to put it mildly and, against a peer, aerial support will be lacking or non-existent as the available aircraft are tied up trying to defend the fleet and establish local air superiority.  

So, who’s going to defend the ground forces from aircraft, helos, mortars, artillery, and cruise/ballistic missiles since they won’t have any significant weapons of their own?

Specific support needs for the ground forces during the initial phase includes:

• Cruise missile defense
• Ballistic missile defense
• AAW against enemy strike aircraft
• Counterbattery
• C-RAM (Counter Rocket, Artillery, Mortar)
• Heavy gun support

None of these capabilities will be available initially and most are simply not Marine capabilities at all.

How do we defend the beach, initially, until sufficient heavy weapons can be brought ashore?

A few of you will, undoubtedly, suggest that surprise will compensate for the lack of these capabilities – the enemy will be unable to muster a significant response before we get sufficient follow on forces ashore.  This is just wishful thinking against a peer.  Today’s plethora of cyber surveillance, satellites, UAVs, submarines, and all manner of land, sea, and airborne radars preclude the element of surprise.

So, who will provide these initial capabilities and how will they do it?  The “who” is easy.  There is, of course, only one conceivable answer and that is the Navy.  The “how” is the challenge. 

For example, the Navy has no useful gunfire support.  A handful of 5” guns are woefully insufficient and the Navy has stated that they will not risk major ships such as Burkes and Ticos within 50+ miles of an enemy beach.  Thus, the 5” guns with a range of 15 miles or so are useless as they can’t even reach the shoreline.

The Navy has no counterbattery capability.  Aegis is theoretically capable of performing the function but it is not a currently supported capability.  Major Hammond discusses the subject, poorly, in a Proceedings article (1).

Aerial support against a peer will be severely lacking and is only marginally useful as a protective, defensive capability anyway.  Assault force fixed wing aircraft will be fully occupied attempting to establish and maintain local air superiority and will not be available for close air support or local air defense.  Even if available, aircraft are not effective at anti-cruise or anti-ballistic missile defense and have no C-RAM capability.

What’s needed is a two-tier capability consisting of longer range anti-missile defense and a very short range AAW, counterbattery, and C-RAM defense.

We need the ability to reach out and intercept incoming cruise/ballistic missiles, preferably far from the beach.  Fortunately, we have that capability.  Aegis ships can stand off 50+ miles from the beach and still provide cruise/ballistic missile protection although the closer they are to the target area, the easier the geometry of the intercept and, thus, the higher the kill probability.

With long range missile protection available, that leaves the need for short range defensive fires (C-RAM, counterbattery, AAW) and offensive firepower.  As stated, none of this is available in the initial assault.  What’s needed is a specialized Assault Support Ship (ASS – an unfortunate acronym but I’m sure the Navy can come up with something better) that encompasses all these capabilities on an inexpensive hull. 

An LCS sized ship with two dual 8” gun mounts, two dual 5” gun mounts, 64 quad packed ESSM in two 8-cell VLS modules, and two SeaRAM mounts would provide the needed capability along with a yet-to-be-developed C-RAM gun or missile mount.  In addition, a counterbattery radar and a medium range AAW radar would provide the needed sensors.  Helos, flight decks, and hangars are specifically not needed for this ship type.  The Ship would have only a minimal superstructure (think WWII style/size superstructures) in order to reduce costs and radar signature.

• The 8”/5” guns would provide both the offensive firepower support for the ground forces and the counterbattery fire.  A navalized version of the Army’s TPQ-37 Firefinder radar ought to suffice to provide the counterbattery fire control.

• The ESSM would provide ship self-defense, beach cruise missile defense, and beach/inland AAW coverage.

• SeaRAM would provide ship self-defense.

• C-RAM is the missing capability.  Existing C-RAM weapons, like the Phalanx (2), are too short ranged to be based off the beach and still provide effective inland coverage.  The Phalanx C-RAM, for example, is reported to be able to defend a 0.5 sq. mile area which is nowhere near enough range.  What’s needed is a C-RAM with around a 10 mile range.  If an assault force has managed to establish a 10 mile deep beachhead, then we can probably safely bring land based C-RAM units ashore.

CONOPS.  The concept of operations for this vessel is simple.  It would accompany the initial assault wave and take station as close to the beach as feasible so as to extend its C-RAM coverage as far inshore as possible.  An assault would require one to two dozen or so vessels, depending on the size of the assault, to allow for the expected attrition and to be able to mass enough firepower to have a significant impact on the ground combat.

An Assault Support Ship is needed to provide the initial firepower and defense that an amphibious assault lacks due to equipment gaps and doctrinal limitations.  All the components for such a ship already exist except the extended range C-RAM so developmental costs should be minimal.  Due to expected attrition rates, the ship must be as cheap as possible which means no functions beyond those stated.  If we’re serious about amphibious assaults – and I have severe doubts that we are – we need to provide the assets to enable and support them.

______________________________

(1)USNI Proceedings, “Counterbattery From The Sea”, Maj. James W. Hammond, III, Apr, 1998,

http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1998-04/counterbattery-sea

(2)http://www.armyrecognition.com/united_states_us_army_artillery_vehicles_system_uk/centurion_c-ram_land-based_weapon_system_phalanx_technical_data_sheet_specifications_pictures_video.html

My Job Is Done

This is a companion piece to the previous post (see, “The Amphibious Inflection Point”).

When it comes to amphibious assault, the Navy seems to think that their job is done once the helos, LCAC’s, or whatever have left the amphibious ship.  Unfortunately for the Marines, that’s only the beginning of the job against a determined and capable enemy.

We’ve already discussed the difficulties in sustaining an assault due the lack of ship to shore transport.  A competent enemy knows this and will make every effort to interdict and disrupt the flow of supplies to the landing site (see, "Amphibious Assault Attrition").  Cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, mortars, and artillery will create a continuous rain of explosives.  How will the Marines defend against this onslaught while they attempt to get heavier weapons ashore?  Well, this is where the Navy comes in.  Historically, meaning during the assaults of WWII, the Navy moved up close to the shore and provided the initial umbrella of protection until tanks, artillery, and heavy weapons could be brought ashore.  Similarly, today, it will be up to the Navy to provide the counterbattery protection the Marines need until they can get their own artillery ashore and set up their own counterbattery capability.  It will be up to the Navy to provide a cruise/ballistic missile shield.  It will be up to the Navy to provide C-RAM anti-rocket, anti-mortar protection during the initial assault.  The Navy has to provide the umbrella that will protect the Marines until they can get established.

Naval aviation can’t do the job.  Aircraft are far too slow responding to provide counterbattery fire.  Aircraft have only a very limited ability to engage cruise missiles and no ability to engage ballistic missiles.  Aircraft have no ability to provide anti-rocket and anti-mortar protection.  Even setting all those problems aside, an assault against a determined and competent enemy will see the skies over an assault being a contested aerial no-man’s land.  Our limited naval aviation assets will be fully tied up trying to establish even a limited area of aerial superiority.  There won’t be any assets available for ground support even if the aircraft were capable of providing it.

Here’s the catch, though – the Navy can’t provide this kind of protection from 50 or 100 or 200 nm out at sea.  There’s no way to shoot down a mortar shell from those distances.  Counterbattery fire can’t even reach the shore from those distances.

The Navy has doctrinally moved out to those distances out of fear of land launched anti-ship missiles (see, "In Harm's Way").  However, the Navy has forgotten that they are in the business of combat and with combat comes risk.  Whatever happened to the tradition of standing in harm’s way?  It’s not just a saying.  In order to exert a dominant influence on events, it’s necessary to go where the most good can be done and that generally means standing in harm’s way. 

An assault force just can’t protect itself during the initial stages.  The Navy has to step in and act as the Marine’s shield until they can get their own artillery and AAW assets ashore and operating.  If the Navy refuses to do that, an assault will have no hope of success against a determined, competent enemy.

The baffling and disappointing aspect to this is that the issue of protective fires hasn’t even been raised, as far as I know.  The required equipment and capabilities largely do not exist and no one is looking at developing them.  In fact, doctrinally, we’re moving in the exact opposite direction.  We’re moving farther out to sea and further away from being able to provide the protective shield the Marines will need.  It’s odd that the Marines haven’t raised this issue, either, although the emphasis on aviation based assaults may explain the lack of concern from the Corps.

We need to beef up the Navy’s self-defense capabilities, as previously described, and regain the warrior’s mentality.  That will give us the ability to stand close to shore.  Then, we need to develop the specific counterbattery, cruise/ballistic missile defense, and C-RAM capabilities that will protect the Marines while they get established.

Currently, the Navy has no counterbattery capability although the technology base is certainly there.  A dedicated counterbattery radar and an effective gun are required.  Whether an existing Navy radar can be adapted for this role is an open question.  Aegis could probably provide the counterbattery radar capability but shouldn’t be diverted from its main function.  Gunfire could be supplemented by a navalized version of the Army’s M270 MLRS/ATACMS which would provide ranges of 40-150+ miles. 

The Phalanx CIWS has been adapted to the land based C-RAM but it is limited in range and does not exist as a sea-based weapon.  A longer range C-RAM type weapon probably needs to be developed.

Perhaps what’s needed is a small, specialized “umbrella” vessel that can move very close in-shore and provide the C-RAM and counterbattery support that is needed.

Counterbattery Fire

We previously discussed the conceptual origins of the LCS as presented in a Proceedings article (1).  Read the post, here.  The Proceedings article is one of the best naval writings I’ve read in recent years.  I urge you to find a copy of the magazine and read the article in its entirety.  One of the aspects of the original LCS concept that we mentioned but did not dwell on was the ability to conduct counterbattery fire.  I’d like to examine that concept in more detail.

The article listed several capabilities that a littoral vessel should have and one of them was the ability to conduct counterbattery fire.  The article had this to say about the conceptual vessel,

          “It should have some kind of counterbattery capability to respond in real time to
           a shore-based missile attack.”

The original LCS concept, as we see, was to include the ability to stand in littoral waters and fight back against shore-based attacks on ships.  The key phrase is in the quote is “… respond in real time …”.  Thus, the littoral vessel would identify an attack, backtrack its point of origin, and conduct counterbattery fire before the launch site or platform could relocate.

Think about this capability for a moment.  What is the Navy’s biggest fear (well, one of them at any rate) in conducting amphibious operations?  Why, it’s the land-launched anti-ship missile.  That’s the reason the Navy is now doctrinally refusing to close with shorelines and why the Marines are struggling to figure out how to get ashore from amphibious ships stationed 20-50 miles offshore.  What if the Navy had a ship that could stand inshore and counter land-launched missiles?  That would greatly expand the flexibility and range of options for an amphibious force or, for that matter, for any force operating near shore for whatever reason.

Of course, a counterbattery-capable ship would not prevent the initial launch of a missile but it would limit the enemy to one shot per launch site or launch platform.  It wouldn’t take long before the enemy would become very reluctant to conduct land-based anti-ship attacks if the result was a destroyed launch platform each time.  Aegis ships would, of course, deal with the missiles that did launch.  That’s what Aegis is designed to do.  The combination of an Aegis missile umbrella and a littoral ship with counterbattery capability to limit launch sites to one shot would make for a pretty effective overall shield for amphibious operations.

 

Counterbattery Fire Needed



Remember the Scud hunts during Desert Storm?  The problem was not locating the launch position;  it was getting ordnance to the position before the mobile launchers could relocate.  An effective counterbattery capability would have greatly changed the conduct of that conflict, though with the same end result.  Inordinate resources were diverted to Scud hunts from other missions with largely ineffective results.

Let’s look at counterbattery fire a bit deeper.  Although not explicitly called for in the article, a reasonable extension of the counterbattery capability would be the application of counterbattery to artillery and mortar attacks as well as anti-ship missiles.  In general terms, ships frequently operate in close proximity to land during passages (canals, straits, and various chokepoints) and other missions.  This creates a vulnerability to artillery and mortar attacks.  Picture a ship trapped in the Panama Canal and having to fight off terrorist mortar attacks.  The ability to conduct counterbattery fire on artillery and mortars would be invaluable.  Further, the ability to actually defeat incoming ballistic ordnance would be very desirable.  In fact, the basis for doing so already exists.  The Phalanx CIWS has been adapted by the Army for land use in exactly that role and is referred to as C-RAM (Counter-Rocket, Artillery, Mortar).  Adding that capability to the Navy’s CIWS would enhance a ship’s ability to operate in near-shore scenarios.

I believe that counterbattery was one of the most important, arguably the most important, of the capabilities in the original littoral ship concept.  Unfortunately, it was never pursued.  Even the aborted NLOS was not a counterbattery weapon but, rather, just a general land attack capability.

While I remain dubious about the actual need for a littoral vessel, if the Navy is determined to pursue such a ship, counterbattery fire should be one of the first requirements.  Counterbattery would also make a reasonable addition to the Zumwalt which is intended to fight moderately near-shore.

 (1) United States Naval Institute Proceedings, “Birth of the Littoral Combat Ship”, Captain Robert Powers (Ret), Sep 2012, p.42