• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

NEWS LCS buy reduced, funding moved to other programs.

azguy

Well-Known Member
None
Time out. The OHP may have been successful (depends on how you measure success)...

The difference with OHP was that it was actually a multi-mission ship. While it had less capability to perform AAW, ASW, SUW, than a DDG/CG, the OHP, as originally built, could very effectively hunt subs, while engaging surface units (albeit at limited range), and defending itself against a fairly high-end AAW raid (for its day).

Multi-mission: the sensors, weapons, and people, to fight in multiple warfare areas simultaneously. That is why LCS, as originally fragged, isn't close to a real FFG.

The modularity, however, was supposed to make LCS better than an FFG in that a COCOM could tailor its capability to best fit what was needed at any given time/place; and, on paper, it would be able to do ASW better than a DDG, SUW better than/as well as a DDG, or MIW better than/as well as an MCM.

Fast forward a few years and the mission packages (especially ASW and MIW) have experienced some challenges and delays; that, intersected with the "distributed lethality" wave, and leadership has decided to retrofit some multi-mission capability: namely, they will all get a pack of over-the-horizon ASCMs (permanently installed), some defensive and offensive upgrades to existing systems, and the TYCOM is taking another look at what manning should look like (read: do they need more of it).
 

BigRed389

Registered User
None
The difference with OHP was that it was actually a multi-mission ship. While it had less capability to perform AAW, ASW, SUW, than a DDG/CG, the OHP, as originally built, could very effectively hunt subs, while engaging surface units (albeit at limited range), and defending itself against a fairly high-end AAW raid (for its day).

Right, but it was mostly designed around a specific mission. Its SUW capability is so limited because even against the Soviet Union, it wasn't expected to contribute meaningfully to take down a Soviet SAG. Same goes for AAW...if the Backfire raids that were hunting CSGs had gone up against a convoy escorted by FFGs, the OHPs would've been a speed bump at best.

Otherwise, you could argue LCS is a multi mission ship. It was spec'd to do limited SUW, has a fairly effective ASMD system (albeit with limited capacity and range), and can do either ASW or MIW.
Of course, that's assuming LCS is able to get off the pier in the first place. :D

The modularity, however, was supposed to make LCS better than an FFG in that a COCOM could tailor its capability to best fit what was needed at any given time/place; and, on paper, it would be able to do ASW better than a DDG, SUW better than/as well as a DDG, or MIW better than/as well as an MCM.

More specifically, it was supposed to deal with a littoral SUW/ASW threat which we were not capable of handling efficiently at the time.
And as for MIW, no minesweeper combines the ability to deploy UUVs, operate a sizeable flight deck, while protecting itself with more than just crew served guns.
As much flak as LCS MIW concept gets for being an "expensive" minesweeper, if you also factor in all the other supporting assets we have to throw into defending the flotilla of MCMs/MHCs doing mine clearance ops, it doesn't look so inefficient.
 

Uncle Fester

Robot Pimp
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
When talking about LCS, it's interesting to go back and see what the general opinion was on the OHPs at the time. Zumwalt took a lot of criticism for advocating frigates that were "poorly-built and under-gunned". The criticism was that they were "master of none" ships that were too small and lightly armed to effectively do any of the main warfare missions, while being expected to do all of them; while the aluminum superstructure, small crew, and lack of redundancy meant that they'd be death traps in combat. In other words, history doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme.

LCS isn't meant to be a heavy surface combatant, and never was. The whole rationale behind the program was that you don't need a CG or DDG to do piracy patrols, MIO, counter-narc, or guard the ABOT. Smaller, cheaper, more lightly-armed ships can do those tasks. Sometimes presence is the purpose. Expecting every main battle force ship to be able to take on a Sovremenny single-handed or hunt down a Type 93 isn't an affordable goal, especially when that isn't what the Navy is mostly actually doing right now.

LCS has a lot of issues, some of which were baked in from the start as a result of Rumsfeld's mania for innovation for its own sake. Credit where due, the Navy's taking an honest assessment of goods-and-others, discarding what will probably never work, and fixing what could work. We've zero realistic hope of building a 350-ship MBF or anywhere close without LCS.
 

azguy

Well-Known Member
None
Right, but it was mostly designed around a specific mission. Its SUW capability is so limited because even against the Soviet Union, it wasn't expected to contribute meaningfully to take down a Soviet SAG. Same goes for AAW...if the Backfire raids that were hunting CSGs had gone up against a convoy escorted by FFGs, the OHPs would've been a speed bump at best.

Otherwise, you could argue LCS is a multi mission ship. It was spec'd to do limited SUW, has a fairly effective ASMD system (albeit with limited capacity and range), and can do either ASW or MIW.

The OHP's air defense was far superior with -49, SMs, 76mm, and CIWS, than LCS has to offer with TRS-3D (hoping to see an improvement) and just RAM and 57mm.

LCS really isn't multi-mission. Even looking into it's FF future (adding ASCMs), they aren't currently spec'd to get additional watch stations to manage a SUW fight in addition to MIW or ASW.

More specifically, it was supposed to deal with a littoral SUW/ASW threat which we were not capable of handling efficiently at the time. And as for MIW, no minesweeper combines the ability to deploy UUVs, operate a sizeable flight deck, while protecting itself with more than just crew served guns.
As much flak as LCS MIW concept gets for being an "expensive" minesweeper, if you also factor in all the other supporting assets we have to throw into defending the flotilla of MCMs/MHCs doing mine clearance ops, it doesn't look so inefficient.

The main, and obvious, drawback that LCS has relative to MCM is magnetic signature. Are there things that can be done to mitigate that? Sure, but they cost money, a lot of money.

LCS, in a perfect world, will be postured to deal with an SUW 0r ASW threat pretty effectively. But that doesn't make it multi-mission. Again, I think that's a manning limitation.
 

Pags

N/A
pilot
The OHP's air defense was far superior with -49, SMs, 76mm, and CIWS, than LCS has to offer with TRS-3D (hoping to see an improvement) and just RAM and 57mm.

LCS really isn't multi-mission. Even looking into it's FF future (adding ASCMs), they aren't currently spec'd to get additional watch stations to manage a SUW fight in addition to MIW or ASW.



The main, and obvious, drawback that LCS has relative to MCM is magnetic signature. Are there things that can be done to mitigate that? Sure, but they cost money, a lot of money.

LCS, in a perfect world, will be postured to deal with an SUW 0r ASW threat pretty effectively. But that doesn't make it multi-mission. Again, I think that's a manning limitation.
From the MIW perspective LCS was never meant to be in the minefield, the MIW MP sensors would go in to the field via the H-60, RMMV, and other methods in future increments (knifefish, MQ-8+COBRA).
 

Randy Daytona

Cold War Relic
pilot
Super Moderator
Another problem.

Troubled Navy ship class design infringed on patent, lawsuit claims
But the LCS' engineering woes may not be the end of the trouble its shipbuilding programs are facing. As defense writer David Axe reports, David Giles, a British aerospace engineer-turned-marine architect, has filed a lawsuit accusing the Navy of stealing elements of the Freedom's design from work he did to commercialize a wave-piercing, "semi-planing" hull—work Giles patented in the early 1990s.

Giles' design, called the Prelude, was derived from work his firm first pitched to the British Royal Navy. The patents were filed for a design for high-speed container ships, called Fastships. Giles formed a company by the same name to build them. The design patents expired in 2010, but Giles' company—which is now bankrupt—filed suit against the Navy in 2012 after years of seeking compensation.


http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...tole-design-for-problem-plagued-lcs-from-him/
 
From all the bad things I've read about the LCS program, this sounds like a good thing to me.
An old quote, but how has your opinion changed with time? I know that I'm basically counting the days until Mabus leaves office (with all due respect to the Honorable Secretary of course).
 

Brett327

Well-Known Member
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
I know that I'm basically counting the days until Mabus leaves office (with all due respect to the Honorable Secretary of course).
+1 I've honestly not studied the LCS issue enough to be able to give an assessment at this point.
 
Top