LCS RAM Untested

The LCS program problems are many and, generally, well known.  Still, there are aspects that are surprising even for this troubled program.  One such issue is the Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) anti-air defense weapon for the Freedom class LCS.  The issue is that the RAM system has not been tested on the Freedom class and the Navy has decided not to conduct any tests.  No tests.  None.

 

The Navy has not fully tested these combat systems and the Navy does not plan to conduct further air warfare operational testing of Freedom seaframes 1 through 15 in their current combat system configuration. The Navy has accepted the risk of continued operation with a combat system that is not operationally tested. (1, p.190)

 

The Navy has neither resourced nor conducted any air warfare test events against anti-ship cruise missile surrogates planned as part of the DOT&E-approved Enterprise Air Warfare Ship Self-Defense Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP) or the LCS TEMP. The Navy’s Program Executive Office for Integrated Warfare Systems halted all work to develop a Probability of Raid Annihilation (PRA) M&S suite of the combat systems in FY15 and has not yet restarted the effort. (2, p.141)

 

RAM Launcher

Yes, the Rolling Airframe Missile itself has been tested (is that a true statement?  I’m not sure) but the launcher, combat system software that controls the launcher, the sensors that have to integrate with the combat system and launcher, and possible sensor interference has not been tested.  That’s a lot of potential problems.  For example, prior to the Navy canceling testing, DOT&E noted the need to,

 

Correct the SSDS [Ship Self Defense System software] scheduling function to preclude interference with the RAM infrared guidance capability stemming from prior intercepts and warhead detonations. (1, p.209)

 

The Navy is knowingly sending Freedom variants into combat with untested point defense missile systems.  This ranks right up there with the WWII torpedo fiasco.  The only saving grace is that no one, not even the Navy, believes that the LCS is an actual combat asset.

 

On the plus side, the Navy appears to have standardized on the SeaRAM instead of the RAM so if they’ll quickly follow through and retrofit SeaRAM onto the Freedom variant then the testing halt is acceptable.  If not, it’s simply criminal.

 

SeaRAM Launcher

This does, however, raise a few questions/issues:

 

• Who initially thought having two different point defense systems (RAM and SeaRAM) within the same general class of ship was a good idea?  Someone should be fired for that.
• Who thought a point defense system without a self-contained targeting sensor (radar) was a good idea?  Someone should be fired for that.
• This is what happens when you allow two variants of the same ship to be built using completely different equipment.  Who thought that was a good idea?  Someone should be fired for that.

 

The larger point is that the Navy has been exhibiting a marked tendency to truncate or eliminate testing over the last decade or so.  For example, the Navy delayed the shock testing of the LCS as long as they could and attempted to eliminate the shock testing of the Ford.  Numerous other examples of the Navy skipping testing are documented throughout the DOT&E annual reports.  This is what happens when there is no watchdog.  The Navy cannot be trusted to conduct thorough testing or, indeed, any testing at all.  This is what makes the recent decision to classify, eliminate, or significantly reduce public DOT&E reporting so concerning.

 

 

 

 

___________________________________

 

(1)Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, FY2017 Annual Report

(2)Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, FY2019 Annual Report

Coronado SeaRAM Test

Here’s another of those seemingly innocuous news items that contain a bit more information than intended.

ASEAN Military Defense Review website has a brief article on a SeaRAM test conducted by the USS Coronado, LCS-4, on 14-Aug.

“Coronado's Combat Systems Team shot down a BQM-74E utilizing the RIM-116 Blk1A/SeaRAM missile off Pt. Mugu. This test validates the LCS-2 Variant's Core self-defense capability and further demonstrates the ship's effectiveness against high-end missile threats.” (1)

This prompts a couple of thoughts.  First, given that the BQM-74E is a subsonic drone (around 515 kts at sea level according to the Northrup Grumman data sheet), this hardly demonstrates effectiveness against “high-end missile threats”.  High end threats in my book are the large warhead, supersonic, terminal maneuvering missiles (SS-N-22, BrahMos, etc.) that everyone but the US Navy seems to have.

Further, demonstrating effectiveness would have to involve realistic conditions like poor weather, unknown location and approach time, and enemy electronic countermeasures as well as multiple, nearly simultaneous incoming targets.  None of that was part of this staged test.

Thus, this test proved only that under perfect conditions a SeaRAM could shoot down a subsonic, non-maneuvering target drone.  Such a test is better than no test but not by much.

The second, related thought, is why hasn’t the Navy tested its Rolling Airframe Missiles (RAM) against supersonic targets?  Perhaps they have and I’ve missed it but given the fact that they loudly trumpet every other test, I’m reasonably sure they haven’t.  Is it because the results are predictable and disappointing?  Well, who cares?  Isn’t that the point of testing – to find out what works and what doesn’t?  If RAM is ineffective against supersonic threats, let’s find out and then fix it or build a better system.  If RAM is effective, let’s hear about it! 

Let me be clear about this.  I have no information that RAM is ineffective against supersonic threats other than the lack of testing.  I’m speculating but in a logical manner.  I strongly suspect that this is like the Navy’s refusal to conduct shock testing on the LCS – they know it will fail and, therefore, why do it?

So, how did the test turn out?  From Defense Media Network website,

“This test success marks a major milestone toward full operation and employment of the SeaRAM system on U.S. Navy ships,” said Rick Nelson, vice president of Naval Area and Mission Defense product line at Raytheon Missile Systems.  “SeaRAM demonstrated that it is a vital weapon for defending navies against anti-ship cruise missiles, and provides warfighters with a capability found nowhere else.” (2)

“… capability found nowhere else”?  Ahh, you want to dial the hyperbole down just a smidge, there, Rick?  I think there are plenty of short range AAW missiles out there.

BQM-74 Target Drone - A Poor Threat Surrogate

SeaRAM

This is the kind of testing that is so disappointing.  A test that demonstrates almost nothing of combat relevance is passed off as some big achievement.  As a result, we send our sailors in harm’s way with little knowledge of their ship’s realistic capabilities.  This is how you lose battles and lives.

(1)ASEAN Military Defense Review, “Littoral Combat Ship USS Coronado (LCS 4) Conducts Live Fire Test of Guns and SeaRAM”, Maki Catama,

http://www.aseanmildef.com/2015/08/littoral-combat-ship-uss-coronado-lcs-4.html

(2)Defense Media Review, “First Raytheon SeaRAM Missile Fired from USS Coronado (LCS 4)”, Chuck Oldham, Sep 17, 2015,

http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/first-raytheon-searam-missile-fired-from-uss-coronado-lcs-4/

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