NEWS LCS buy reduced, funding moved to other programs.

[BigRed389]

With its current design I don't think it can get the 'right' loadout.

If you are in the SCS you are within easy reach of the PLAAF/PLAN.

What's that mean specifically? The planned for modules that are actively in development or some other loadout you want to see?

Also, not the SCS near the PRC, but out near the approaches, being all...littoral.

Good point. Although, isn't the idea that the targeting info for over-the-horizon surface-to-whatever missiles will be generated not by the LCS itself, but by F-35's flying through contested airspace, drones of all sizes and loiter durations, and/or IMINT?

I feel like the LCS is designed be that one dude in every Call of Duty multiplayer game who just camps out right near where the enemy spawns, and shoots him in the back in the first 2 seconds the enemy is noticed. Except it will be all over Pacific littorals and we'll have ~12 of them dotted around, hangin out undetected, with missiles that have a strike range >100nm (>185km), ready to shoot when a target package is relayed over secure wireless/sat network via an ISR asset elsewhere.

Generally, yes, ships always need that survivable asset forward passing back targeting info to them. When I said "on its own" I include the embarked helo det.

But other issues:
If a F-35 is targeting ships on its own, it can shoot ASCMs.
If ISR assets can pick out enemy ships, it can also pass that for dissemination to SSNs, the air wing, any number of more capable assets, which can also strike from better relative safety.

Again, doesn't mean LCS can't help out...but an 8 cell max salvo doesn't mean much when a division of fast air can shoot off the same or more in a single salvo...then go back to the carrier, and do it again. When LCS shoots its load, it's done.

 

[Flash]

What's that mean specifically? The planned for modules that are actively in development or some other loadout you want to see?

You mean the ones that aren't doing very well?

Also, not the SCS near the PRC, but out near the approaches, being all...littoral.

If you are in the SCS, even those littoral approaches, you are well within reach of the PLA.

 

[BigRed389]

You mean the ones that rent doing very well?

Yes, those.

Seriously, I'm not a fan of how we've gotten here, but the advances in the MCM module pretty much represent the way it will go in the future regardless of platform, and the ASW modules will likely turn out quite good. The standalone parts of the ASW side are pretty good, it's mostly integration at this point.

If you are in the SCS, even those littoral approaches, you are well within reach of the PLA.

True, but it creates another "problem" to deal with, and extending themselves out that far brings them out to where they start to lose some of their A2AD advantages.

 

[RedFive]

I understand completely and I do think they would be a great addition to SOUTHCOM and JIATF-South but I think it highlights the stark difference between it and other similar ships, especially when it comes to cost. While not exactly equivalent to the LCS, especially when it comes to speed, the Dutch OPV's are all in service and were bought for a fraction of the cost, all four of them cost less than two LCS's even with the recent price drop, and they are all FOC and deploying right now.

I also want to slap whoever thought we should bring back aluminum ships, have we forgotten the lessons of the Stark and the Falklands already?!

You're 100% right, but those European assets are routinely deploying without helo support which significantly limits their ability to play down there. Putting gray helos on Euro/Coastie surface assets is a huge lift, but sending an LCS down south would keep everyone's rice bowls all nice and pretty.

 

[Flash]

You're 100% right, but those European assets are routinely deploying without helo support which significantly limits their ability to play down there. Putting gray helos on Euro/Coastie surface assets is a huge lift, but sending an LCS down south would keep everyone's rice bowls all nice and pretty.

Which is why at least one has been fortunate that our Coasties have been willing to let them play with some of their helos! I guess we can take comfort that we aren't the only ones to have serious procurement issues with some major weapon systems.

 

[RedFive]

Which is why at least one has been fortunate that our Coasties have been willing to let them play with some of their helos! I guess we can take comfort that we aren't the only ones to have serious procurement issues with some major weapon systems.

I keep trying to type out what I want to say, but I nothing that comes out is appropriate for this venue I could probably elaborate on the private forum. Needless to say, an occasional trip south for LCS would be great for the efforts down there.

 

[Hair Warrior]

Yay for a fast JCIDS cycle and getting that distributed lethality into the fleet: http://news.usni.org/2016/01/07/nav...issile-on-littoral-combat-ship-by-end-of-2016

Thoughts?

 

[Renegade One]

This is completely inadequate for a face off with a major surface combatant, especially Chinese vessels whose anti-ship missiles have a range of 100-150 miles.

LCS was never intended for that environment. Come to think if it, I guess none of our surface combatants can fence with a 100-150 mile missile (assuming they solve the targeting issue).

 

[BigRed389]

Yay for a fast JCIDS cycle and getting that distributed lethality into the fleet: http://news.usni.org/2016/01/07/nav...issile-on-littoral-combat-ship-by-end-of-2016

Thoughts?

It'll be interesting how fast "fast JCIDS" is. I'm genuinely curious as to how well that will play out.

I hope it goes well, but I've seen too many similar efforts fail spectacularly for various reasons.

 

[robav8r]

I wonder how a Mattis Defense Department and new SECNAV will handle this debacle.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/gao-the-miracle-of-the-lcs-didnt-happen/article/2608619

 

[Ektar]

So, just a dumb aviator LT here, but why didn't we just design and build a more conventional FFG?

To my understanding, the LCS is doing the same mission as the FFGs, why didn't we go more conventional? I shouldn't be surprised given all of the acquisition boondoggles that have befallen DoD (JSF, LCS, land warrior, etc).

 

[Uncle Fester]

So, just a dumb aviator LT here, but why didn't we just design and build a more conventional FFG?

To my understanding, the LCS is doing the same mission as the FFGs, why didn't we go more conventional? I shouldn't be surprised given all of the acquisition boondoggles that have befallen DoD (JSF, LCS, land warrior, etc).

What's your definition of "conventional"? Frigates have always been small surface combatants. The OHPs weren't exactly battlecruisers - one gun, one screw, one bird on the rail, and at the time they came into service everyone railed about what unsurvivable death traps they would be in a real war.

 

[BigRed389]

What's your definition of "conventional"? Frigates have always been small surface combatants. The OHPs weren't exactly battlecruisers - one gun, one screw, one bird on the rail, and at the time they came into service everyone railed about what unsurvivable death traps they would be in a real war.

More recent foreign navy frigates seem to have established a consensus on "conventional frigate" designs.

The Brit, French, German, Chinese, and Korean frigates are all pretty similar.

 

[Ektar]

What's your definition of "conventional"? Frigates have always been small surface combatants. The OHPs weren't exactly battlecruisers - one gun, one screw, one bird on the rail, and at the time they came into service everyone railed about what unsurvivable death traps they would be in a real war.

When I view this dilemma, I tend to view it through the lense of history. What comes to mind is ADM Zumwalt's Hi-Low plan during the 70s. The idea was build a balanced fleet with very high capability advanced ships, but balance it out with other ships that are more numerous with less advanced capability. The OHP was about the only successful outcome of the Low portion of ADM Zumwalt's plan. Experiences from the Samuel B. Roberts and Starke showed that the OHPs were tough ships.

IMO, a "standard" frigate as alluded to by @BigRed389 would be smart. We need a class of ships that are less expensive to acquire, cheap to operate, but still effective in combat while being able to carry out the presence missions that are required today for freedom of navigation and deterrence. Think back to the frigates of the days of sail, that is the paradigm I'm thinking of. There are of course many ways to accomplish this goal, but it doesn't require all of the latest do-dads and hardware. Proven technology with solid construction and planning will produce a capable ship to fulfill the mission alleviating the burden on our DDGs and CGs.

Again my 2 cents from a dumb aviator LT who only has history as a guide.

 

[BigRed389]

When I view this dilemma, I tend to view it through the lense of history. What comes to mind is ADM Zumwalt's Hi-Low plan during the 70s. The idea was build a balanced fleet with very high capability advanced ships, but balance it out with other ships that are more numerous with less advanced capability. The OHP was about the only successful outcome of the Low portion of ADM Zumwalt's plan. Experiences from the Samuel B. Roberts and Starke showed that the OHPs were tough ships.

Time out. The OHP may have been successful (depends on how you measure success)...but it by no means meets the qualifications in your following paragraph.

IMO, a "standard" frigate as alluded to by @BigRed389 would be smart. We need a class of ships that are less expensive to acquire, cheap to operate, but still effective in combat while being able to carry out the presence missions that are required today for freedom of navigation and deterrence. Think back to the frigates of the days of sail, that is the paradigm I'm thinking of. There are of course many ways to accomplish this goal, but it doesn't require all of the latest do-dads and hardware. Proven technology with solid construction and planning will produce a capable ship to fulfill the mission alleviating the burden on our DDGs and CGs.

It was less expensive. It was cheap. It did presence and FONOPS. Effective in combat? Depends on how you measure that.

OHP might've been effective in its intended role, Battle of the Atlantic convoy ASW escort. It had LAMPS and a tail, which was about as good as it got for surface based ASW.
But there were plenty of threats during its day that would've absolutely smoked an OHP.

STARK and SAMMY B mainly show that their construction was good, and USN Damage Control measures are solid.
In terms of combat effectiveness, STARK was asleep at the switch and SAMMY B ran over a mine. Neither indicate the platform's combat worthiness.

STARK got smoked by a single Mirage and a pair of Exocets. Even if they had been alert and ready to take action to defend themselves, scaling it up to a few more Mirages and Exocets would've probably killed an OHP, or leaked by to kill what it was supposed to protect.

About the nicest thing you can say about the OHP is that the other frigates of the day were equally limited, if not worse.
But FFGs doing presence ops don't really go toe to toe with peer Navy warships.
The real threat to presence/FONOPS today if recent history is a guide is the asymmetric threats, and today that's from small craft (Iran/Al Qaeda), proliferation of CDCMs (Hezbollah, Chinese/Russian export of advanced ASCMs), littoral ASW (North Korea), and mines (Iran).

The conventional frigates today aren't particularly good against any of those either. At best I can say they'd probably survive a CDCM shooting gallery better than an LCS...but against advanced export threats, it wouldn't change much.