LCS Update

ComNavOps was going to do a summary of the LCS status based on the DOT&E report but what’s the point?  Seriously, you all know the problems.  Sure, there’s some new ones like cracking of support beams after exposure to heavy weather but at this point, what’s a few more problems?

Given that the ship has been in development and under construction for nearly a decade, now, the status of the ship, itself, is horrible.  Worse, is the status of the mission modules.

The ASuW module is impotent with 30 mm guns that have on-going reliability problems and a 57 mm gun that is inoperable at speed (well, it operates – it just can’t hit anything due to excessive vibration).

The ASW module has been scaled back to existing technology (none of the promised revolutionary technology), has no ship-mounted ASW weapons, and because of the ship’s self-noise will be ineffective.

The MCM module simply doesn’t work.

If you really want to read all the gory details, check out the 2014 Annual Report from Director, Operational Testing & Evaluation.

Ford Update

The 2014 Annual Report from Director, Operational Testing and Evaluation (DOT&E) has been released.  As a reminder, this is the gold standard for what works and what doesn’t as opposed to manufacturer and Navy claims.  This is the straight story when it comes to weapon and system performance.  We’ll be taking a look at several systems in the near future.  Today, we’ll start with the new aircraft carrier, the Ford.

According to the report, the Navy has reneged on its plan to conduct shock testing.  Shock testing (Full Ship Shock Trial – FSST) was to have been performed on CVN-78, however, the Navy has postponed that testing until CVN-79, at the earliest.  As the report states it,

"The original Alternative Live Fire Strategy prepared by the Navy and approved by DOT&E on December 9, 2008, stated the FSST would be conducted on CVN-78. The Navy unilaterally reneged on the approved strategy on June 18, 2012."

You’ll recall that the Navy has opted not to perform shock testing on the LCS, at all.  This is a standard test that has been performed on every ship.  The suspicious among us might suggest that the Navy is trying to avoid shock testing because the construction and acquisition standards have slipped to the point where shock testing would be embarrassing and Navy ships are no longer capable of passing the tests.

The report discusses the new EMALS catapult and Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) systems,

"Reliability for the catapult and arresting gear systems have not been reported on in over a year. Before the Navy stopped tracking/reporting on catapult and arresting gear performance, both systems were performing well below their projected target to achieve required reliability."

Now what do we make of that?  The Navy has stopped reporting reliability data??  I guess that’s one way to avoid looking bad.  This kind of action combined with the refusal to perform shock tests sure suggests an attempt to cover up bad news rather than report it and correct it.

Here’s some more EMALS news.

"The testing discovered excessive EMALS holdback release dynamics during F/A-18E/F and EA-18G catapult launches with wing-mounted 480-gallon EFTs. Aircraft dynamics are considered excessive if they exceed stress limits of the airframe, internal, or external stores. This discovery, if uncorrected, would preclude normal employment of the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G from CVN-78. There is no funding at this time to correct this deficiency."

No funding?!  It’s kind of a big deal to leave unfunded.

It’s not just advanced technology that is suffering.  The ship has been found to have insufficient berthing for the crew!

"The ship will not be delivered with sufficient empty berthing for the CVN-78’s Service Life Allowance (SLA)."

Come on, now!  Who messed up with a simple count of the crew and a corresponding count of the berths? 

One of the major selling points for the new carrier was that it would supposedly increase sortie rates significantly.  This was always a dubious claim and of highly questionable value given that carrier ops aren’t sortie rate limited and that shrinking air wings make sortie rates irrelevant.  The report had this to say,

"It is unlikely that CVN-78 will achieve its Sortie Generation Rate (SGR) (number of aircraft sorties per day) requirement.  The target threshold is based on unrealistic assumptions including fair weather and unlimited visibility, and that aircraft emergencies, failures of shipboard equipment, ship maneuvers, and manning shortfalls will not affect flight operations."

Reread that last sentence.  It’s clear that the sortie rate claim was never valid and was a fraudulent attempt to promote the program.  The Navy’s honesty and integrity are taking some serious hits over the last decade or two.

You’ll recall that we’ve repeatedly discussed the pitfalls of concurrent development and production.  Here’s an example regarding the ship’s Dual Band Radar (DBR).

"The Navy planned to begin testing in January 2013; however, the testing has slipped repeatedly, and to date, no live testing with the full production DBR has been completed."

So, we’re going to install a radar system that is untested. 

Here’s an interesting tidbit that is undoubtedly budget driven.  JPALS [the automated landing system] has been deferred until the F-35 or unmanned aircraft require it. 

"The Joint Precision Approach and Landing System (JPALS) is no longer funded for CVN-78."

The Ford is a clear cut case study for how not to run a new construction program.  Of course, so was the LCS and the LPD-17 and he Navy failed to learn any lessons from those so I doubt they’ll learn anything from this one, either.

Major AirSea Battle Development Announced

Let me clearly state up front that this is not another of ComNavOps’ famous and much beloved humor pieces.  As I’ve said repeatedly, I can’t make up stuff as funny and ludicrous as what the Pentagon routinely comes up with in their “reality”.  That said, you’re going to love this one.

After years of debating what the AirSea Battle concept is and how it might be implemented, the Pentagon has finally made a major advance.  They’ve announced that they’re changing the name from,

AirSea Battle

to

Joint Concept for Access and Maneuver in the Global Commons (JAM-GC).

As I said, this is real and is being widely reported across the Internet.  Check it for yourself.

Seriously, this is what passes for military thought today – changing the name.  I wonder how many man-hours went into this major development?  Based on the increase in the number of letters in the title, this new version is just over four times better than the previous one.  I guess I have to grudgingly acknowledge that a 4x improvement is pretty significant by anyone’s standard.  I, therefore, salute the Pentagon and say, “Well done!”.

No word, yet, on Chinese reaction to this development but they are undoubtedly already at work developing a new wave of ships, aircraft, and tanks to counter this major advance by the Pentagon.

Carrier Shortage

There is a future carrier shortage looming that has, thus far, escaped notice.  Well, ComNavOps has noticed it and will now explain it.  First, it’s necessary to absorb a little background.  For starters, here are commissioning and decommissioning dates along with the number of service years for all the modern carriers that have served and been retired.

                                    Comm.           Decomm.       Years

Forrestal                       1955               1993                38

Saratoga                      1956               1994                38

Ranger                         1957               1993                36

Independence               1959               1998                39

Kitty Hawk                   1961               2009                48

Constellation                1961               2003                42

Enterprise                    1961               2012                51

America                       1965               1996                31

Kennedy                      1968               2007                39

                                                            Average =      40

So, we see that the average service life of a carrier is 40 years.

Next, we note that the Navy’s carrier force level goal is 11 carriers.  We’ll ignore that the Navy has made an effort to early retire one of the current carriers.  Thus, in order to sustain an 11 carrier force with an average service life of 40 years, we need to build a new carrier every 3.6 years.  Are we doing that?  Well, here’s the data for all the carriers from the Nimitz, on.  We see the commissioning date, the service life thus far, and, the important piece of data, the build frequency in years since the previous carrier’s commissioning.

                                    Comm.           Years              Frequency

Nimitz                           1975               40                      7

Eisenhower                   1977               38                      2

Vinson                          1982               33                      5

Roosevelt                      1986               29                      4

Lincoln                          1989               26                      3

Washington                   1992               23                      3

Stennis                         1995               20                      3

Truman                         1998               17                      3

Reagan                         2003               12                      5

Bush                             2009               6                        6

Ford                              2016*              0                        7

CVN-79                         2023*              0                        7

CVN-80                         2027*              0                        4

*anticipated delivery dates rather than commissioning dates – commissioning dates will be longer

What we see is that from the Nimitz through the Truman, the frequency was 3.75 years – just about the 3.6 years that is required.  However, and this is the big however, from the Reagan on, the frequency is 5.8 years which translates to a carrier force of 6.9 – well, call it 7 carriers. 

There it is.  A build frequency of 5.8 years can only sustain a carrier force of 7 carriers.

You’ll also note that the Ford class dates were delivery dates and that the commissioning dates, to keep the data comparable, will be longer than that by a year or two each.  Thus, the build frequency will be longer than calculated, here, and will probably produce a calculated carrier force level of 6.  But hey, there’s no need to quibble.  The point is valid regardless so we’ll use the higher number just to please the Navy.  ComNavOps bends over backward to be fair!

We see, then, that we’re retiring carriers faster than we’re building them.  There’s a carrier shortfall coming and a rather significant one.  I’ve been saying for some time that the carrier force is going to decrease to 9 (8 active) in the relatively near future and this simply demonstrates why it’s inevitable. 

I’ve also been saying that carriers are pricing themselves out of existence and this, again, is the proof.  The Fords are being stretched out because of cost - no other reason.  They’ve become so expensive that we’re attempting to deal with the yearly budget hit by stretching out the acquisition period.  Yes, that does lessen the yearly hit but it increases the total cost and, eventually, impacts the total force level.

Of course, there are a couple of things we can do to mitigate this problem.  One obvious solution is to take better care of our carriers and keep them around longer.  If we increased the service life to 50 years, we’d only need a new carrier every 4.5 years.

Another fairly obvious solution is to stop making each carrier bigger – hence, more expensive - than the one before it.  I’ve pointed this out before.  The Ford is significantly larger than the Nimitz despite the fact that the air wing will be half the size of the Nimitz’s original wing.  The air wings are getting smaller but the carriers are getting bigger.  Anyone see a disconnect there?  We’ve noted that a carrier the size of an old Midway could operate a modern air wing and yet we’re supersizing our carriers.  Until the air wings show signs of growing, why not build smaller carriers, proportionally sized, and save some money so that we don’t have to stretch out the acquisition period?  Pay attention – I’m not advocating “escort” or “light” carriers as replacements for full size ones.  I’m advocating making the full size no bigger than what’s needed and that’s a Midway size.  If the air wings ever grow (does anyone realistically believe that’s going to happen?) then we can grow the carriers, again.

Not only is the Navy trying to pass off the fantasy of a 300 ship fleet but they’re hiding the fact that there are shortfalls coming in submarines, destroyers, cruisers, and, now, carriers.  On the plus side, we’re firmly committed to 52 LCS’s!

War and Isolation

ComNavOps has seen a spate of comments in the last few months, both on this blog and others, that have highlighted a major problem that both the military and commenters suffer from: we've forgotten what war is. In a war, people die and planes and ships get destroyed. We've been conducting police actions and limited actions against third rate opponents for so long that we've forgotten what real war is.  

A consequence of forgetting what real war is, is that along the way we've adopted a zero-loss mentality about war.  If the mere theoretical possibility of one of our planes being shot down is enough to push us to standoff roles only, then we're not very serious about the conflict.  If the mere theoretical possibility of a ship being hit by a missile is enough to push our amphibious assaults out to 50 nm or more than we aren’t very serious about the objective.  If the mere theoretical possibility of a carrier being hit by an anti-ship ballistic missile is enough to push us back beyond a 1000 nm A2/AD zone then we don’t have a compelling reason to enter the zone. 

War is about attrition and war is about the balance between risk and reward.  If the objective is worthwhile then it’s worth some losses.  Too many of our recent military interventions have not been worth the losses which tells us that the reward wasn’t very compelling and we should have seriously questioned our involvement.  In these kinds of scenarios, prevention of losses is often the main objective rather than any military goal.

Because we’ve forgotten what war is, too many people have taken to evaluating weapons and systems in isolation.  We’ve forgotten that weapons rarely (never) operate in isolation against an opposing weapon.  For example, the A-10 doesn’t fly alone against an isolated SAM system as if it were a target drone.  The A-10 operates with supporting ECM, supporting ground forces, AWACS and spotters, helos, anti-radar missiles, etc.  It also operates as part of a squadron whose other aircraft provide mutual support, spotting, and suppression.  The A-10 also doesn’t operate in a clearly unfavorable situation.  The A-10 is not tasked with penetrating the heart of an enemy’s capital city.  That’s someone else’s job.

An LST (if we had one) doesn’t attempt to land all by itself against the entire arrayed enemy force.  Of course, it wouldn’t survive that!  It lands as part of an overall effort that attempts to support and maximize the LST’s chance of survival and mission accomplishment.

And so on …

Unfortunately, as we argue for and against various weapons and systems we tend to pick and choose individual matchups which support our contention instead of making realistic assessments of how a weapon or system would actually be used in combat.  That’s tactics, people!  Arguing without an understanding of the tactics relevant to the weapon under discussion is just arguing for the sake of arguing.  We don't fight in isolation (one A-10 versus one AAW system) yet we persist in discussing these things in isolation to prove our points.

The fact that an A-10 might be shot down doesn't render it obsolete. If we're not willing to face the possibility of losses then we should be looking very closely at our rationale for being there (wherever and whatever there is). Jumping into zero-loss police actions at the drop of a hat may not be the wisest policy. But, I digress...

This post is not about the A-10 or any particular weapon system.  It’s about the reality of war and the flawed basis of isolated arguments.  It applies equally to any weapon or system.  By all means, let’s continue our discussions and continue weighing the pros and cons of systems and weapons but let’s do so with the totality of the item’s usage kept firmly in mind.  Yes, that makes the discussions more complex and may require more thought and research but that is, after all, the point of this blog – to raise the level of discourse.  Have at it!

LCS PR Ramps Up!

I’ve pointed out that the Navy will engage in a PR blitz to cover the fact that the “improved” LCS is a very minor tweak, indeed.  We’ve seen some of the PR examples and they’re impressive in their unreality.  Well, here’s the latest.

As reported by Breaking Defense website (1), Navy Secretary Ray Mabus claims that the LCS will now be “worthy of the frigate designation” and added this bit of fantasy.

“ ’If you list the attributes of a frigate and then list the attributes of [an improved LCS], we’re actually more capable than a normal frigate is,’ Mabus told reporters after his remarks to the Surface Navy Association conference.”

I’m not even going to bother listing all the ways this vessel falls woefully short of being a “normal frigate”.  This statement has one of three possible interpretations:

1. He believes his statement in which case he’s an idiot.
2. He knows his statement is false in which case he’s a liar.
3. He has no idea whether the statement is true and he’s just repeating what he’s being told in which case he’s simply incompetent.

There it is.  Mabus is either an idiot, a liar, or incompetent. 

Using his naval expertise and analytical mindset, Mabus goes on to identify the main problem with the LCS.

“They don’t look like traditional Navy ships sometimes, and I think that’s one of the issues that traditionalists have …”

Well, I feel foolish.  I thought I didn’t like the ship because it was underarmed, underarmored, structurally weak, too loud, short legged, and suffered from a host of other shortcomings.  Instead, I now realize that all of my negative feelings stemmed from the ship’s appearance.  You know, I think he’s right.  Now that I realize the true source of my negative feelings, I suddenly see that everything that I thought was bad about the ship is actually good.

The PR is really ramping up!

LCS:  “Don’t be about it, talk about it.”

(1) "What’s In A Name? Making The LCS ‘Frigate’ Reality", Sydney J. Freedberg Jr., 16-Jan-2015,

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/01/whats-in-a-name-making-the-lcs-frigate-reality/

 

Surface Action Groups

There is some seriously stupid strategic and doctrinal “thought” coming out of the military and the Navy these days.  I’m not talking about your garden variety dumb stuff that seems to emanate from any bureaucracy.  I’m talking about some seriously flawed thinking that someone actually put some time into coming up with.  Any group of idiots can toss out stupidity without even thinking about it but it gets appallingly impressive when the group puts some effort into it and still comes up with unadulterated stupidity!

Consider a few examples of what we’ve heard lately:

• An offset strategy that would see us abandon traditional power for unmanned assets and asymmetric punishment philosophies
• A fractionally improved LCS that will make up 1/3 of the combat fleet
• Idling (retirement, for all practical purposes) of the most powerful Aegis/BMD cruisers in the fleet
• Counting hospital ships and patrol craft as fleet ships so as to disguise the shrinking fleet

The latest example was reported by USNI website (1).  The Navy is apparently looking to place missiles on more ships and form small surface action groups.  RAdm. Fanta and Adm. Rowden described it thusly,

“Distributed lethality is taking the budget that we have and making everything out there that floats more lethal.  I want to make every cruiser, destroyer, amphibious warship, Littoral Combat Ship, logistics ship a thorn in somebody else’s side."

As a sales brochure for Congress or an unknowing public, those kind of statements are fine – stupid, but fine.  As actual strategic or doctrinal thoughts they are stupid beyond belief.  There’s a reason why amphibious ships and logistic ships aren’t offensively armed.  It’s because those ships are too valuable to risk putting them in range of an enemy.  Remember, if you’re in range to launch at the enemy, they’re in range to launch at you.

They go on to discuss surface action groups (SAG).

"Part of the concept would codify in training and tactics three to four ship “hunter killer surface action groups,” [Adm.] Rowden told reporters on Wednesday."

Now this contains a possible nugget of worth.  I’ve previously stated that the Navy is going to be faced with the reality of having to fight with little or no air cover and needs to develop the equipment, doctrine, and tactics to do so.  However, the impression I get from the article is that the Navy’s version of a SAG is vastly different from mine.  I fear the Navy sees a Burke and two or three LCSs as a viable SAG.  I’m sorry, but that’s just a live fire exercise for the enemy.  A viable SAG would need a purpose-designed heavy cruiser or two to have any hope of success – and no LCSs.

Fanta made an interesting statement,

"If someone around the world is already flying it, I go buy it. If someone else in the world has a PowerPoint description of it and says ‘I can get that for you,’ I ignore it,” Fanta said. 'PowerPoint doesn’t win wars.'"

On the face of it, that sounds like a summation of a lesson learned about the risk inherent in trying to incorporate non-existent technology into a production asset.  If the Navy truly has learned that lesson then I give them credit.  Unfortunately, at the same time, I see them betting heavily on lasers and rail guns.  I see a potential UCLASS fantasy aircraft under consideration.  So, we’ll have to wait and see whether the Navy really has shaken off its addiction to non-existent technology.

Moving on, they discuss the issue of ASW as it relates to the LCS.  ComNavOps has long favored a small, dedicated ASW platform and noted that with suitable, significant modifications the LCS hull could be adapted to that role.  Unfortunately, we have this,

"An ASW focus will be part of the 20 planned modified LCS concept the Navy introduced in December.

'You add [in] a variable depth sonar and when you add that in conjunction with a multi-function towed array, you have the most effective ASW sensor platform in the Navy,' Sean Stackley, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development & Acquisition (RDA) said in December. 'You add to that a helicopter with its torpedo capability, now you have a detect and kill capability unlike any other platform in the Navy. Fanta, who was involved in the selection process for the follow-on to the Flight 0 LCS said there was significant demand from the fleet for more ASW capability.

'They said we want a small surface combatant that does a lot of ASW work,' he said."

The problem with the preceding statement is that it simply isn’t true.  A VDS and towed array constitute the most effective ASW sensor platform in the Navy???!  More effective than a Virginia class sub?  More effective than a Burke with built in quieting, hull mounted sonar, towed array, and the latest ASW software suite? 

The LCS is so noisy (self-noise) that hull mounted sonars aren’t even feasible.  The ship has no ASW machinery quieting built into the hull which makes the ship an acoustic beacon for the enemy and interferes with the ship’s own sensors.  I could go on with a long list of the LCS’s failings in the ASW role but you get the idea.

So, what else did they say?  A helo with a torpedo provides a “kill capability unlike any other platform in the Navy”.  Really?  A helo with a torpedo is some kind of revolutionary ASW killer unlike any other in the Navy?  If only someone had thought to put a torpedo on a helo before.  Oh wait …  We did that decades ago!  The Navy would have us believe that an LCS with no organic anti-submarine weapons and only a single ASW helo (the last I heard was that the LCS-2 would not conduct ASW) has a kill capability unlike anything in the Navy? 

I note the part about the ASW demand from the fleet.  That’s good and restores a bit of my faith in the front line sailors.  Unfortunately for them, the response is a badly flawed LCS.

Finally, here’s a statement that just might be a drop of wisdom in a sea of stupidity.

"The more aggressive language toward potential adversaries is a shift in a rhetorical emphasis from building partner capacity, which led to polices like retired Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Mullen’s 1000 ship navy concept."

If we interpret that to mean that the Navy has wised up and decided to move away from a focus on partnering with a bunch of tiny navies that have no significant capability and, instead, refocus on providing our own punch, then maybe there’s some hope for the Navy.  Of course, that’s reading a lot into a vague statement.

As I stated in the previous post, the LCS PR onslaught is just beginning and will only intensify. 

LCS:  “Don’t be about it, talk about it.”

(1) "SNA: Navy Surface Leaders Pitch More Lethal Ships, Surface Action Groups", Sam LaGrone, 14-Jan-2015,

http://news.usni.org/2015/01/14/sna-navy-surface-leaders-pitch-lethal-ships-surface-action-groups