Challenge: Fix the LCS Program

[Not James Stockdale]

The first is that the existing MCM craft cannot self deploy in a timely manner. Ergo if you need mine sweeping at an unexpected place it takes forever for them to show up and requires an ocean going tug or lift ship. And WWII demonstrated that a merchant raider can plant minefields on the other side of the planet from its homeport, so nothing is stopping say Iran from loading up tramp with mines, having it play Lloyd's looper under false papers and then deploy a minefield somewhere nasty in the event of war

The second is that current MCM craft are vulnerable enough that they need a CG/DDG right next to them to provide terminal defense and chase off small boats, which leaves them at the edges of the minefield and very vulnerable to an oops like with Princeton

The LCS was intended to solve these, by being able to self deploy, and have a CIWS and autocannon to fend off small targets so that the DDG/CG on overwatch can be 5km+ away and not right at the edge of the minefield

If we can offload the LCS program's anti-small boat role to helicopters and we don't actually need to worry about ASW because the Burkes and remaining OHPs can do that, then what does an armed MCM look like? Something like an Absalon would have plenty of space for the minehunting gear and can operate a minesweeping helicopter, and if you have noise-isolated diesels on a displacement monohull then you can put on a few sonars and use it for shallow-water ASW. The speed requirement on the LCS seems to have primarily been for intra-theater maneuver rather than tactical speed in a gunfight, but transit times between an LCS at 40 knots and a normal frigate/corvette at 20 knots will be about a day at normal ranges because otherwise the LCS would show up to the fight without any gas.

Accept that the LCS program is a bad idea and take it out back and shoot it. Take the “bright“ spark that suggested the outback and shoot them too.

I joke it really is a terrible idea. The program has gotten capability creep in a bad way. Instead, design two or three classes to fill the purpose of the program. Have them share the same hull form.

If you are having two or three classes on the same hull, that sounds like it's just the LCS as we know it with permanently installed mission modules. What kind of hull form would you propose, and would you keep the speed requirement? My proposal is to look at missions other than what the LCS was designed to do, because I don't think the LCS is the best platform for those missions.

If you need a damn artillery gunboat, leave the Battleship Iowa in service. Throw 80 VLS Mk41s in there.

Where are you going to find the 8,000 sailors you would need for crews, how much is it going to cost to keep those steam plants going for another four decades, and where on the ships would the VLS go? The DD-21 program was supposed to put the equivalent of 50 artillery battalions (probably 25,000 soldiers) to sea with fewer than 6,000 sailors.

 

[Questerr]

The real solution for the debacle with the Zumwalt class and the AGS would be to simply have the government produce the shells at a government owned arsenal at cost.

 

[Sasza]

Where are you going to find the 8,000 sailors you would need for crews, how much is it going to cost to keep those steam plants going for another four decades, and where on the ships would the VLS go? The DD-21 program was supposed to put the equivalent of 50 artillery battalions (probably 25,000 soldiers) to sea with fewer than 6,000 sailors.

The launchers were to be located between the first and second stacks and at the rear of the second stack in place of the MK-143.

In the future modernization, the battleships were to have twenty-cylinder power generators, after Phase II modernizations. The crew of a single battleship was to be 1,653 sailors. I'm not saying to reactivate all four, let's just say two of them.

 

[sparky42]

The launchers were to be located between the first and second stacks and at the rear of the second stack in place of the MK-143.

In the future modernization, the battleships were to have twenty-cylinder power generators, after Phase II modernizations. The crew of a single battleship was to be 1,653 sailors. I'm not saying to reactivate all four, let's just say two of them.

I'm honestly struggling to see how such major refits and keeping them in service works out as somehow "cheap" and would need decisions well before the decision tree that got us the LCS.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

If we can offload the LCS program's anti-small boat role to helicopters and we don't actually need to worry about ASW because the Burkes and remaining OHPs can do that, then what does an armed MCM look like? Something like an Absalon would have plenty of space for the minehunting gear and can operate a minesweeping helicopter, and if you have noise-isolated diesels on a displacement monohull then you can put on a few sonars and use it for shallow-water ASW. The speed requirement on the LCS seems to have primarily been for intra-theater maneuver rather than tactical speed in a gunfight, but transit times between an LCS at 40 knots and a normal frigate/corvette at 20 knots will be about a day at normal ranges because otherwise the LCS would show up to the fight without any gas.

Armed MCM is probably a 3000 ton vessel, 57mm, 2 25-30mm autocannon and a RAM, speed of 20+ knots with decent range, hangar for at least one SH-60 and flight deck to handle a CH-53, lots of room for boats, divers, USV and UUVs and as small a crew as manageable. Don't need to be fast, just need to have enough speed/mass to be able to make up ground during heavy weather and not need a tow or lift like a conventional MCM

IMO you probably do need to worry about shallow water ASW, simply to sell the ship to congress, so need a variant/modules for that. So that would drive a lot of the design, so speed of 30 knots, hangar for 2 SH-60 for both versions and space for towed/hull sonar and SVTT instead of mine warfare gear. As a result you get something that can do shallow water ASW, if there is friendly air cover and not too much shore based threat and can serve as an ASW picket in a blue water force where the other members handle AAW and ASuW

The real solution for the debacle with the Zumwalt class and the AGS would be to simply have the government produce the shells at a government owned arsenal at cost.

Wouldn't help. The big issue was that you could either hand build the shells at 475k each or spend tens of millions on a production line to produce them cheaply for 50k each...for six guns. Government or private that doesn't really work out

Fixing the AGS involves developing the dumb shells first, rather than pushing them off because developing them would be quick and easy to divert money to elsewhere, only to find nobody wants to spend money to develop dumb shells for 6 guns. Once the dumb shells exist, you don't have the guns with no ammo problem, so you can shove AGS-L on a Burke and have more than 6 guns so investment in a production line makes sense

 

[Salvare7097]

If you are having two or three classes on the same hull, that sounds like it's just the LCS as we know it with permanently installed mission modules. What kind of hull form would you propose, and would you keep the speed requirement? My proposal is to look at missions other than what the LCS was designed to do, because I don't think the LCS is the best platform for those missions

Conventional hullform. If you want stealth, you should go with a submarine. Something a third again the size of a Fletcher.

 

[Not James Stockdale]

Armed MCM is probably a 3000 ton vessel, 57mm, 2 25-30mm autocannon and a RAM, speed of 20+ knots with decent range, hangar for at least one SH-60 and flight deck to handle a CH-53, lots of room for boats, divers, USV and UUVs and as small a crew as manageable. Don't need to be fast, just need to have enough speed/mass to be able to make up ground during heavy weather and not need a tow or lift like a conventional MCM

IMO you probably do need to worry about shallow water ASW, simply to sell the ship to congress, so need a variant/modules for that. So that would drive a lot of the design, so speed of 30 knots, hangar for 2 SH-60 for both versions and space for towed/hull sonar and SVTT instead of mine warfare gear. As a result you get something that can do shallow water ASW, if there is friendly air cover and not too much shore based threat and can serve as an ASW picket in a blue water force where the other members handle AAW and ASuW

This sounds a lot like the LCS without the speed requirement, so maybe it ends up designated as an FF or FMS (frigate minesweeper) unless Rumsfeld is set on creating an entirely new hull classification. The La Fayette class sounds pretty similar in terms of basic requirements, although this FMS would have a larger hangar and flight deck. The La Fayette class, its international variants, and its successor FTI are all diesel powered, so that might give you enough speed for the littoral MCM/ASW mission. Alternately, a gas turbine CODOG system might be necessary for the speed to operate with a CSG. A ship of this size would also provide an easy path to upgrading the design, or maybe even existing ships, to NATO light frigate standards with ESSMs and Harpoons/NSMs.

Although I think cutting out the speed requirement and focusing more narrowly on the MCM mission would help move up the IOC, the lack of area air defense capability still puts the Navy in the same situation as it saw with the OTL LCS program. I don't think a 3,000 ton hull would be big enough for an SM-2 system and the helicopter hangar, so we might still end up having to switch to a larger FFG hull.

Conventional hullform. If you want stealth, you should go with a submarine. Something a third in the size of a Fletcher.

A sub-1,000 ton ship is not going to be able to operate a Seahawk, so you're basically proposing something without any aviation facilities except for potentially small UAVs. My point with this thread is that I think helicopters would be more effective and efficient at a lot of these roles than a small corvette-type combatant.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

This sounds a lot like the LCS without the speed requirement, so maybe it ends up designated as an FF or FMS (frigate minesweeper) unless Rumsfeld is set on creating an entirely new hull classification. The La Fayette class sounds pretty similar in terms of basic requirements, although this FMS would have a larger hangar and flight deck. The La Fayette class, its international variants, and its successor FTI are all diesel powered, so that might give you enough speed for the littoral MCM/ASW mission. Alternately, a gas turbine CODOG system might be necessary for the speed to operate with a CSG. A ship of this size would also provide an easy path to upgrading the design, or maybe even existing ships, to NATO light frigate standards with ESSMs and Harpoons/NSMs.

Although I think cutting out the speed requirement and focusing more narrowly on the MCM mission would help move up the IOC, the lack of area air defense capability still puts the Navy in the same situation as it saw with the OTL LCS program. I don't think a 3,000 ton hull would be big enough for an SM-2 system and the helicopter hangar, so we might still end up having to switch to a larger FFG hull.

It's Rummy, so a new hull classification would better sell it

If you have an ASW variant that carries an acceptable towed array, you want to be able to operate with a CSG. I was assuming Harpoons but forgot to mention them, VLS more questionable as you need more than just free deck space and I think you want costs down to an absolute minimum to get as many as possible, even if I usually would favor leaving space free for that, though its topweight and power for the radar that's more concerning

The situation would be somewhat better as you have more hulls than OTL, with more up time per hull, so you end up easing some burden on the DDG's, ensuring more availability and reducing the maintenance backlog

Anyways I imagine it as something like this
FY 2005-2017 standard FFL/FFL(M) variants
FY2018-2023 Stretched FFL variant with a better radar and VLS for ESSM (and probably other stuff, whatever replaces RUM-139, LRASM, etc)
FY 2024+ A proper FFG, but since you have some sort of frigate can take time for a 7,000+ ton clean sheet design with room for upgrades to stay decent until 2070+ rather than the Constellation which while good is still somewhat rushed and has less growth potential being based off a hull first laid down in 2007

 

[jack_donaghy_is_the_shado]

Have Rummy die in a plane crash on the way back from meeting Saddam in the eighties- that would be a good start

 

[Salvare7097]

A sub-1,000 ton ship is not going to be able to operate a Seahawk, so you're basically proposing something without any aviation facilities except for potentially small UAVs. My point with this thread is that I think helicopters would be more effective and efficient at a lot of these roles than a small corvette-type combatant.

I meant a third again something about 3900+ tons.

 

[farmerted555]

Here's an idea on how to fix the LCS program: Don't do it in the first place.