How much can you do with the LCS?

[IWS]

ORIGINAL: jdkbph

Well if that's true, and they could be armed with 32 ESSM's and 8 LRASMs, a potential adversary might start to take them seriously.

JD

Yes. I've played around with the LCS 2 that way in-game, though with harpoons instead of LRASM.

The real LCS 2 class actually has space for 3 modules: one is just behind the 57mm (might not have enough below-deck space for Mk 48, but big enough for Griffins), and two are in the superstructure, port and starboard, just behind the radar mast. You could mount your Griffins (I used Spike NLOS instead) in the front one, with the ESSMs and LRASMs in the superstructure modules. Appropriate sensors and datalinks to support ESSM/LRASM would also need to be fitted.

The Navy could certainly do something like that if they wanted to, but it would cost quite a lot. If the Australian Adelaide class is any guide, something like 200-300 million each. So instead of 500-600 million per ship, it would be more like 700-900 million.

If price is no object, another more speculative possibility is using up a bit of the flight deck just aft of the hanger, and installing two Mk 48 sized modules, one port and one starboard. The mission bay is immediately under the flight deck, so there would be plenty of below-deck space, and access the hanger doors would still be clear.

[IWS]

ORIGINAL: Mgellis

So...what could you do if you had that kind of mission space?

A good starting point is to check on what the Danes are doing. They wrote the book on modular warships.

What they've done with their Stanflex mission modules is brilliant, and I expect it's where the LCS project got the "modular" idea from in the first place.

According to Wikipedia, Denmark has Stanflex mission modules for:

SSM (2 twin launchers for Boeing RGM-84 Harpoon missiles)
SAM (6-cell Mk 48 Mod 3 launcher for RIM-7 Sea Sparrow missiles)
Gun (1 Otobreda 76/62 Super Rapid gun)
ASW (Launchers for MU90 Impact torpedoes)
VDS (Thales Underwater Systems TSM 2640 Salmon variable-depth active/passive sonar)
MCM (Command and control equipment to operate MSF and MRD class drone minehunters and Double Eagle ROVs)
Crane (1 hydraulic crane for launch/recovery of a RHIB or deployment of sea mines)
Oceanography
Anti-pollution
Survey
Storage
SIGINT/ELINT


In particular, check out their Absalon Class support ship-- a better LCS than LCS, and cheaper too.

Here's a link with an interesting comparison:

http://noticiarionaval.blogspot.com/200 ... salon.html

[mikmykWS]

That is very interesting thanks.

[IWS]

ORIGINAL: Mgellis


Just for fun...

...

So...what could you do if you had that kind of mission space?

I could make a TV comedy series along the lines of McHale's Navy or Down Periscope featuring an LCS and its misfit crew, wandering the South China Sea!

I mean, an LCS crew isn't that much bigger than an ensemble cast, right?

Episodes could include:

- As morale officer, Lieutenant Parker wants to find out how many of the crew can water ski simultaneously. "I mean, it's not like we don't have the horsepower, and the YouTube videos would be a valuable recruiting tool". Hilarity ensues.

- Ferrying an insufferable MARSOC group and their equipment on a top secret mission. And saving their bacon in the end.

- Trying to finagle a new "bowling alley" LCS mission module. Denied as not cost effective, because LCS 1 isn't stable enough to bowl above Sea State 4. Their arch-rival LCS 2 gets the module instead. Bastards.

- Investigating an an underground UAV racing gambling ring. And the enemy is us!

- A "small boat swarm" that turns out to be smugglers. And business is business, after all.

etc...

[BB62squid]

Actually...the LCS WERE designed for direct combat. Their modular design was touted as being adaptable, and one of the interim steps the Navy envisioned to replace the Naval surface fire support role void left by the removal of the battleships.
Like many pork barrel projects, the LCS was driven and funded by select interest groups with the government that has, as usual, boned the American people with over-hyped, under-delivering platform. Sadly, if anyone looked at their fit when they were proposed it was obvious this was a gargantuan waste of taxpayer dollars. With the dismal failure to meet basic expectations on the first 3 hulls...ONLY in America can the politcos manage to squeeze more money out of the taxpayer for another projected 52 train wrecks.
With China rapidly expanding its navy and gaining the ability to enforce area denial missions, the USN should be focused more on building destroyers and cruisers--, you know, FLEET units. The LCS plan is a disaster from the word go..I doubt the Coast Guard we see any real utility in them. Just my humble opinion.

[BB62squid]

ORIGINAL: jtoatoktoe

I'd like to see a combo system.

I agree...something along the lines of the Soviet CADS-N-1...point defense gatling with SA_N-11. Missiles engage first and leakers are engaged by the guns

[BB62squid]

[/quote]

Since we're going to be stuck with a couple of dozen of them for a while, we might as well figure out what we can use them for.

Mustard is spot on. If you go back and look at the proposals, the Navy promised that the ships were what we in the fleet referred to as "PFM"--Pure F***in Magic"; they were supposedly, being modular, able to be configured for all aspect warfare-AW, SUW, USW, and strike, as well as mine clearing, Humanitarian aid and NEO. IMO they can only realistically complete the latter 3 missions.
As to what we can do with them? I agree with pierside trainers, or we can try to find an allied country gullible enough to buy them. A country say, with no need for a blue water capability. Or sink the frakkin things. Utterly useless and waste of money.

[Flankerk]

Is there any way to do a scenario with these along the lines of choose your modules based upon the supposed OPFOR, then try out different combinations?
I can almost feel a need for module ready times!

[DavidRob0]

With reference to the Aussie FFGs, there was an article about their upgrade in a USNI Proceedings issue not too long ago, as well as some articles in defence of the LCS (e.g. January 2013 issue).
After the upgrade, they're still obviously frigates, with 8 VLS cells (up to 32 ESSM), and still carry the Mk13 GMLS with up to 32 SM2s/RGM84s/whatever else fits, and the originally fitted 76mm and 20mm Vulcan/Phalanx.
As an Aussie, I would rather be in an upgraded Adelaide class than in either of the 2 LCS versions today.

That said, the 4 FFGs still in service with the RAN are not that far from reaching the end of their service lives (maybe a decade?) with the new Hobart class DDGs on the way, while the LCS is at the very beginning of its life. There is obviously still much to be done with the concept and the design, but there is plenty of time to do it (remember the Spruances?). I agree with Mike, they seem to be more of a "scout" and a gofer than a true combat vessel, and I'll do my best to have a look at one of them should one visit my home town.

The costs involved in developing warships of any type today is becoming truly horrendous, so the evolution of any type tends to take some time. Flexibility in design is the key to allow adaptation to changing requirements, roles, etc. We'll just have to wait and see how the class evolves.

[dandin384]

With more then 2 dozen of these things running around I've been thinking a wolfpack type plan would be pretty effective. Divide them into 4 ship groups and give each ship in the group a different module. Ship 1 has an VLS module with ESSM's, ship 2 has anti-surface module, ship 3 is a combo ASW/Minehunter, and ship 4 can be a intelligence gathering ship, psuedo supply ship, or any other theater specific role. One of these, as everyone is so fond of pointing out, is not to effective on it's own. However a group of ships capable of 40 knots with varied mission purposes can be very effective plus they can mutually support one another. Wolfpacks could join up with each other or other USN assets for higher risk missions as well. The LCS has a lot of potential, but it's also got big shoes to fill.

[USSInchon]

If you really wanted to have some fun, if you made a mission prior to October 19, 2001 you could use the USS Inchon(MCS-12) along with the Avenger Class and Osprey Class minesweepers and the MH-53E to conduct mine sweeping operations in the littorals. I am unsure as to how she would have worked in a "combat" environment, being that the only armaments she had was 1 CIWS gun on the starboard side near the island.

[dcpollay]

ORIGINAL: Flankerk


Is there any way to do a scenario with these along the lines of choose your modules based upon the supposed OPFOR, then try out different combinations?
I can almost feel a need for module ready times!

I hope its a long scenario. I would think the ready times would be measured in days, if not weeks (anybody know what the swap times are?). This was my primary objection in the first place. They were sold as "multimission" ships, but can really only do one thing at a time. To do more, they will spend more time in port than at sea, which makes them ineffective unless they have the module they need when the need arises.

It's not a bad thing that they don't have combat persistence. That's the nature of smaller, specialized ships. It's just that the variety of missions they are supposed to carry out have always been done by specialized ships because those tasks require specialists. And I'm doubtful that LCS in its current form(s) will be ready for the right specialty at the right time.

[Apocal]

ORIGINAL: BB62squid

Actually...the LCS WERE designed for direct combat. Their modular design was touted as being adaptable, and one of the interim steps the Navy envisioned to replace the Naval surface fire support role void left by the removal of the battleships.

What are you talking about?

[BB62squid]

At one point during the debate for reactivating the battleships the charge was made that while the battleships were incapable in present configuration of achieving the USMCs requirement for naval fire support (63nm in support of amphib forces), it was suggested that the LCS WOULD be able meet it. If memory serves was an article in Proceedings in 95 or that neighborhood.
Regardless, the LCS has monumentally failed to live up to even the minimal expectations, especially for the unit price.

[Mgellis]

ORIGINAL: dandin384

With more then 2 dozen of these things running around I've been thinking a wolfpack type plan would be pretty effective. Divide them into 4 ship groups and give each ship in the group a different module. Ship 1 has an VLS module with ESSM's, ship 2 has anti-surface module, ship 3 is a combo ASW/Minehunter, and ship 4 can be a intelligence gathering ship, psuedo supply ship, or any other theater specific role. One of these, as everyone is so fond of pointing out, is not to effective on it's own. However a group of ships capable of 40 knots with varied mission purposes can be very effective plus they can mutually support one another. Wolfpacks could join up with each other or other USN assets for higher risk missions as well. The LCS has a lot of potential, but it's also got big shoes to fill.

A wolfpack is also, effectively, a mini-carrier...it can operate 8 helicopters or 4 helicopters and 12 drones (and the MQ-8s can be armed). Coordinating flight operations might be complicated, but it opens up a lot of possibilities.

[Mgellis]

ORIGINAL: Mgellis

One question...and I really don't know the answer to this one...can power (like, a lot of power) be run from the big reconfigurable space in an LCS to the weapon station pods? If so, maybe those 30 mm. guns could be swapped out for COIL lasers? I'll bet the module bay is big enough for the power source, but can you get the power to the turrets? If so...well, a pair of those lasers would make an LCS a lot more impressive, I think.

Just checking...anyone have any information about this?

[Mgellis]

ORIGINAL: IWS

ORIGINAL: jdkbph

Well if that's true, and they could be armed with 32 ESSM's and 8 LRASMs, a potential adversary might start to take them seriously.

JD

Yes. I've played around with the LCS 2 that way in-game, though with harpoons instead of LRASM.

The real LCS 2 class actually has space for 3 modules: one is just behind the 57mm (might not have enough below-deck space for Mk 48, but big enough for Griffins), and two are in the superstructure, port and starboard, just behind the radar mast. You could mount your Griffins (I used Spike NLOS instead) in the front one, with the ESSMs and LRASMs in the superstructure modules. Appropriate sensors and datalinks to support ESSM/LRASM would also need to be fitted.

The Navy could certainly do something like that if they wanted to, but it would cost quite a lot. If the Australian Adelaide class is any guide, something like 200-300 million each. So instead of 500-600 million per ship, it would be more like 700-900 million.

If price is no object, another more speculative possibility is using up a bit of the flight deck just aft of the hanger, and installing two Mk 48 sized modules, one port and one starboard. The mission bay is immediately under the flight deck, so there would be plenty of below-deck space, and access the hanger doors would still be clear.

I like this idea, but can it be done? Can the modules be set up so part of them is below deck? It looks like the deck is solid at that point and you just load the module into place. Or can that part of the deck just be removed if necessary? And are the weapon pods directly above the mission bay so they could be used that way?

Another option...does it matter if the VLS cells stick up in the air? Do they have to be flush with the deck? Would it make them unstable to be so tall--15 feet or so, it looks like, to have the full length missiles? If not, then it would probably not be hard to design a canister version of the VLS cells that simply gets loaded onto the weapon pod station like the 30 mm. gun pod, but somewhat taller. You would probably have to limit each one to a 4- or 8-cell VLS, but that would give you a lot of options. Would this work?

[cwemyss]

There's different lengths of VLS cells too. If all you want is ESSM you don't have to have Tomahawk-capable strike-length VLS.

[IWS]

ORIGINAL: Mgellis

ORIGINAL: IWS

ORIGINAL: jdkbph

Well if that's true, and they could be armed with 32 ESSM's and 8 LRASMs, a potential adversary might start to take them seriously.

JD

Yes. I've played around with the LCS 2 that way in-game, though with harpoons instead of LRASM.

The real LCS 2 class actually has space for 3 modules: one is just behind the 57mm (might not have enough below-deck space for Mk 48, but big enough for Griffins), and two are in the superstructure, port and starboard, just behind the radar mast. You could mount your Griffins (I used Spike NLOS instead) in the front one, with the ESSMs and LRASMs in the superstructure modules. Appropriate sensors and datalinks to support ESSM/LRASM would also need to be fitted.

The Navy could certainly do something like that if they wanted to, but it would cost quite a lot. If the Australian Adelaide class is any guide, something like 200-300 million each. So instead of 500-600 million per ship, it would be more like 700-900 million.

If price is no object, another more speculative possibility is using up a bit of the flight deck just aft of the hanger, and installing two Mk 48 sized modules, one port and one starboard. The mission bay is immediately under the flight deck, so there would be plenty of below-deck space, and access the hanger doors would still be clear.

I like this idea, but can it be done? Can the modules be set up so part of them is below deck? It looks like the deck is solid at that point and you just load the module into place. Or can that part of the deck just be removed if necessary? And are the weapon pods directly above the mission bay so they could be used that way?

Another option...does it matter if the VLS cells stick up in the air? Do they have to be flush with the deck? Would it make them unstable to be so tall--15 feet or so, it looks like, to have the full length missiles? If not, then it would probably not be hard to design a canister version of the VLS cells that simply gets loaded onto the weapon pod station like the 30 mm. gun pod, but somewhat taller. You would probably have to limit each one to a 4- or 8-cell VLS, but that would give you a lot of options. Would this work?

Yes, that's how the weapons bays are designed. Most US surface weapons require below-decks space for the mount machinery, electronics, ammunition, etc. It isn't just a piece of deck, it goes one or more decks down into the hull.

Anyone please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it:

- The LCS weapon mounts are already set up with below-decks space allocated underneath them.
I don't know if there's enough for room "strike length" VLS tubes (the kind that can take standards and cruise missiles instead of ESSM). I would like to know, but haven't found any info yet.
In addition to the the 57mm and SeaRAM mounts, the LCS 2 has three weapons mounts, and the LCS 1 has two. I've read speculation that the third, "forward" mount on LCS 2 may have limited space underneath due to the hull configuration, but that's not confirmed.

- The part of the deck over the weapons mounts is designed to be removed as necessary on the LCS 2. You can see the "patches" if you look at overhead pics. The LCS 1 has two "bathtubs" in the superstructure roof that already have the deck removed, similar to the Danish Absalon class and Iver Huitfeldt class.
The weapons mounts are not directly over the mission bay, in either LCS 1 or LCS 2. They have their own below-decks space separate from that.

- "Mission modules" are not the weapon mounts, nor are they the mission bay. A mission module is a set of equipment for a specific type of mission that may make use of the mounts, and/or the bay, and/or the hangar.
For example, the antisurface mission module plans to include two 30mm autocannons (weapon mounts) a couple of unmanned surface vehicles and some RHBs (mission bay), a hellfire-equipped MH-60R and a couple of MQ-8 Fire Scouts (hangar). I'm not sure where they're planning on putting the Griffins. Probably in the third weapons mount for LCS 2, but dunno for LCS 1.


As to how much it matters if the VLS cells stick up in the air, I'm not sure. But here are some thoughts:

- Below-decks space is already allocated for the mounts, so they shouldn't stick up unless you're trying to use something too deep for the available space (i.e. strike length mounts if they don't already support those) or something that's designed to stick up (like harpoon launchers).

- The Mk 56 VLS system (12 ESSM tubes) is designed to stick up into the air (a bit), like harpoon mounts. But in both cases there's a below-decks component too. Check out the two Danish ship classes mentioned above to see pics of the Mk 56.

- I don't know whether you could install long VLS tubes at all, if there isn't enough below-decks space. "Strike length" VLS is about 26 feet tall, as opposed to 17 feet for the "Self Defense" ESSM version, so even if you could, the extra topside weight (in the superstructure no less) might hurt stability.

Interestingly, Lockheed is marketing a modified (and up-gunned) LCS 1 as the "Multi-mission Combat Ship" which they claim "features the proven Aegis combat system with the SPY-1F (V) radar and the MK 41 Vertical Launching System."

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/produc ... -ship.html

(Oops, fixed typo)

[Blu3wolf]

I'm a little surprised to see we are planning to do something similar, with our planned Offshore Combatant Vessel intended to replace the huon class MCM ships, the leeuwin and paluma survey ships, and the armidale class patrol boats...

I wonder if this modular mission thing will work or flop. I hope for the former but fear the latter...