Yuku free message boards

Hi,

I’ve seen a couple people suggest that they think the LCS will eventually turn into some form of Frigate or light destroyer, but it is unclear to me what they really mean. As I understand it, the original LCS program was to build a couple Flight 0 vessels (both the monohull and trimaran) kind of as technology demonstrator/proof of concept platforms and then design a revised Flight 1 platform (or platforms) that would be built in numbers. However, I was under the impression that those plans were shelved and that most of the talk going on now is that the USN would just continue to buy up to 50-60 of the current Flight 0 designs. As such, although I’m not really a big fan of the current LCS designs (or the LCS concept in general) it’s unclear to me how the design would be able to change much from where they are now.

In general I don’t know which is a better description for the LCS’s concept to me. On the one hand I think that the idea of the LCS kind of strikes me of the old analogy of designing a horse by committee, but on the other hand I also feel that they are in some ways it may be better to describe them as the “Duck Billed Platypus” of the naval world with a lot of random parts thrown together that probably never should be in the same package.

What I have been able to come across on the internet suggests to me that the designs are meant to be different things to different people, but the attempt to come up with a “one-size fits all” solution really seems to me to have resulted in a relatively larger vessel than I originally thought the Navy was considering, that guzzles fuel, and costs way more than desired.

Although I may be mistaken about this, it was my understanding that part of the desire for high-speed and shallow draft is to support Special Operations Forces. While part of the reason for modularity is to a) get stuff like Net-Fires/NLOS to sea, b) to provide a quicker way to get mine countermeasures assets, etc on station (in comparison to using the current relatively slow dedicated mine counter measures assets), and c) to provide the Naval Planners with an asset that can swap between mission relatively quickly similar to the original concept for the F/A-18 fighter/bomber which, as I understand it, was originally intended to be able to operate either as a fighter or bomber depending on load out. Finally, as I also understand it, the hoped for low costs are something intended to make the vessel affordable in large numbers.

Unfortunately, I have a lot of doubts that meeting all these goals in a single platform is actually really feasible. In general, I think I read somewhere once that the monohull LCS is supposed to have something like the total installed power of a DDG51, on a platform only about 1/3rd the size (in terms of displacement). That seems like an awful lot of power to provide the 40-50kts for some missions, that I’m not sure is really going to be of all that much use for other missions. Additionally, I was originally under the impression that the LCS would be on the size range of something like the HAV-X1 (which I think is about 1500 to 1800mt). However, the current LCS designs appear to be approaching almost twice that size. As such I wonder if the studies that drove the Navy to think that a small high-speed ship was the right solution to their needs are still valid if the ship ends up being considerably larger.

As such, although I know there is no chance of this ever happening, I’ve been wondering if it might not be better to go ahead and complete the first two LCS’s (one monohull and one trimaran) as technology demonstrators then cancel the rest of the program, and look at alternate ways to meet the design goals using different platforms rather than trying for a single “one size fits all solution”.

What I have in mind would be;

1. For Special Operations missions, build a small, fast, shallow draft platform capable of carrying a couple 11m RHIBS and with a flight deck (but no hangar) so that the vessel can act as a “lily pad”/fueling stop for a helicopter gunship or evacuation transport for special operations teams. In general I wouldn’t expect this ship to be too large and could probably be based on something like a reduced X-Craft or a small INCAT Ferry, etc (I think the current HSV-X1 size INCAT ships would be much too large). The vessel would have the ability to transit across an ocean at a reduced speed using transit fuel tanks (fitted at the expense of mission payload) and would meet up with its payload in theater, where it would conduct short range, high-speed missions from a forward seabase, etc. In general this platform would kind of be a replacement for the ill-fated PC-1 class, and could prbably be built in similar numbers to that class.

2. In order to get stuff like the Remote Minehunting System (RMS), or Spartan USVs etc to sea in number, I was thinking something along the lines of a small, modestly powered modular corvette. In general this vessel would have speed suitable for transiting and operating with Amphibious Ready Groups, Underway Replenishment Groups, or as a merchant escort in areas at risk of piracy, etc. As such I’d suspect a top speed on the order of 25-30kts might be suitable. Other than a 57 or 76mm gun and something like a Phalanx Block 1B and maybe a deck module of NLOS or something like the AAAV gun, the rest of the ship would mostly be devoted to a large hangar suitable for either helos, UAVs, or RMS’s and Spartan USVs handled over the side of the vessel. I would envision something a lot smaller than the current LCS designs, and as such probably wouldn’t be able to handle a complete LCS sized mission package on its own. As such I would envision either looking to breaking mission packages into smaller sizes or distributing them over a couple different ships that operate together.

3. Finally, to provide a low cost platform to keep fleet numbers up, I would suggest first keeping the FFG7s in service as long as possible, and developing a simple conventional, General Purpose, frigate/destroyer escort with modern habitability levels and reduced manning concepts. In general I would envision this vessel to be relatively austere, maybe sized and outfitted kind of similar to the upgraded Australian/New Zealand ANZAC frigates (with ESSM).

Anyway, as I said, I know this would never come to pass, but I have such doubts about the LCS I would really be interested in at least seeing the Navy and/or Congress publishing some studies of alternatives to validate whether the LCS is really the right solution.

Regards

PF