"LCS size/capability question" Topic

Comparing my LCS-2 1/2400 mini with my 1/2400 Oliver Hazard Perry frigate mini (both GHQ), the LCS-2 much bigger than the OHP.

What is confusing me is why the future LCS/FF model cannot be loaded with a VLS of a decent size for a frigate? It looks like the space is there and the larger accommodations for its smaller crew wouldn't seem to be an issue.

Besides the Navy fighting the last war and (maybe) trying to keep costs down, is there a design reason for this?

I've been out of the loop for a few years, but I was involved in the MIW Mission Package proof-of-concept testing of HSV-2 SWIFT.

The LCS has no inherent offensive capability as it is intended to be a general purpose support asset. The Mission Bay is set up to accept different containerized elements of the various Mission Packages. Being from Texas, I used to describe the LCS as a pick-up truck with a gun rack in the back window. If you wanted to go fishing, you threw all your fishing gear in the bed and went to the lake. If you were attacked by a bear, you had your rifle available.

If you decided that you wanted to go deer hunting instead, you went home, emptied your truck of all your fishing gear and threw your deer hunting gear in the back end.

It's the same way with LCS: there are Mission Packages for ASW, ASuW and MIW. There was some talk at one time of installing vertical launch Sea Sparrow, but I don't know what ever came of it.

The crew is very small for the size of the ship because the crew only runs the ship's systems. The Mission Packages are operated by personnel assigned to the Mission Package; a Mission Package is comprised of the equipment and the personnel needed to operate that equipment. For instance, although LCS has a fully equipped helo hanger, it does not carry an embarked helo unless it is part of the embarked Mission Package.

For what it's worth, I think LSC is a huge mistake and was very vocal about it being the A-12 of the 21st century.

Regards,

Scott Chisholm
CDR, USN/Ret

Problem is, most of those "mission packages" never were produced, and others that were don't seem to have lived up to the design specs desired.

So, you have a bunch of very expensive, anemically armed, naval yachts.

I think that is not really fair to the A-12, which while very expensive, seemed as if it could at least do the job.

Instead, we funded and are buying F-35s which can't.

So, you have a bunch of very expensive, anemically armed, naval yachts.

Acutally given their size and displacement I would argue that they are very expensive, anemically armed frigates/destroyers. Maybe even light cruisers!!

Thanks nukesnipe. My understanding is that the MIW Mission Packages are not part of the Small Surface Combatant design since it is supposed to focus on ASW/SUW roles.

The SSC-LCS looks to be bigger than an OHP, but the OHP carried 40 missiles including Harpoons, a 76mm gun and a towed-array sonar. The OHP displaces more, though. Is the SSC-LCS sacrificing capabilities so it is lighter in the water, then?

The LCS and new frigate will be different ships.

The new frigate design will be based on the LCS hull, but will do away with the mission package idea for permanent ASW and ASuW fits, along with additional light armor and anti-torpedo capabilities. There might be the addition of VLS tubes, based on the final requirements (I believe both manufacturers of the LCS have put out sales information for other navies showing that both hulls could accommodate VLS launchers). There has been a long debate about what size gun ships should have, but I don't think anyone is really looking at replacing the current 57mm.

The LCS was not really meant to be a frigate replacement, but sort of morphed to that in many people's minds. I think it was really supposed to be a multi-purpose replacement for the mine warfare ships that were being retired from the Navy. The strength of the design was to be the ability to quickly repurpose the mine ship to an anti-submarine or anti-surface (albeit with limited capabilities for each mission).

Scott gave a good overview of the mission packages, the primary of which (at least in my mind) was to be the mine warfare package. Most of the packages are coming in overweight or don't work (i.e. the mine warfare one), which is the real problem.

The LCS is big and expensive for what it turned out to be. The current crews and planners are trying to make the LCS work, which might be a tough go. But I still think there is some hope for the frigate design.

In 2004, when we were finishing up testing with HSV-1 JOINT VENTURE and beginning testing with HSV-2 SWIFT (a pair of twin-hulled auto ferries we were using as surrogate LCS platforms, the plan was to have 60 hulls and 100 mission packages. Everything was based on minimal manning and the use of unmanned vehicles. Ship's company was supposed to be 50 or so people, about what we had on the old MHCs, while the mission packages would bring another 25 to 50 people to operate the mission packages gear.

At the time, I was assigned to Commander, Mine Warfare Command as the Officer in Charge of the "Operations Detachment". We came into existence following the unexpected decommissioning of USS TRIPOLI and were originally intended as a support organization for MCM Squadron staffs embarked on big-deck amphib that was being used as a MCM command ship. Before our dissolution, we morphed into a surrogate MIW mission package crew, with a good portion of my people working MIW UUVs off of HSV-2 SWIFT.

I had a really hard time keeping my troops motivated between missions as you can only have them doo so much training and maintenance withoug letting them actually do what they're trained to do. After a few months, I started running some budget numbers. I want to say that at the time an enlisted sailor "cost" 50k USD per year, while an officer cost about 90k USD (pay, health care, etc).

Using 25 sailors and two officers, the personnel cost came out to right at 1.5M USD per year per mission module just to maintain the people. With the original 60 hull/100 package idea, that meant 40 packages of sailors sitting on the beach at any given time, to the tune of 60M USD per year, minimum. When you started considering the mission packages that weren't embarked on ships in the yards, the cost of inactive sailors became even greater.

I mentioned my calculations to the CMWC Chief of Staff and got beat down….

Then, the decision was made to make only as many mission packages as hulls to reduce personnel costs. I then made the mistake of pointing out that (1) that defeated the whole design concept of the LCS program and (2) if we were going to go for a 1-to-1 mapping of packages and hulls, wouldn't it be better to build three versions of the LCS, one for each mission. Better yet, why not design a frigate that could embark mission packages the same way we embark helo dets?

At some point, the powers that be started talking of making the LCS a battle group asset, something it was not intended to be. I pointed out that based on the (then) current design specs the LCS would have the same problem as the FFG-7 had as a battle group asset (something the FFGs were not designed for, by the way). At the time, the LCS was supposed to have a top speed of about 29 kts and lacked the endurance of the other battle group assets. Frankly, if the CVN lifted her skirts and began to run, the LSC would have been left behind.

I retired in 2008 and haven't paid much attention to the LCS program, so the shortcomings I pointed out may have been resolved. I really believe the USN needs a frigate with a 5-inch gun, embarked helo and the capability to operate unmanned vehicles. Having two manufacturers build LCS platforms is insane….

Regards,

Scott Chisholm

"Frankly, if the CVN lifted her skirts and began to run, the LSC would have been left behind."

A sight I'd like to see, but you'd need a helicopter to keep up. I don't think anyone can keep up with a carrier in a sprint.

A sight I'd like to see, but you'd need a helicopter to keep up. I don't think anyone can keep up with a carrier in a sprint.

Soviet Alfa and maybe the Seawolf subs, that's about it. Oh, and those supercavitating torpedoes.

260k+ horsepower does get anything moving, though!

=====
The LCS2 has a very large Ro/Ro bay, which makes it pretty good at operations other than war. I bet you could fit an entire MEU inside 3x LCS2 hulls (maybe 4x, gotta have space for the Marines to sleep), and put them ashore from any pier with 20 feet of water at low tide.

Supposedly, the 57mm can throw just as much weight of shell as a 5" gun, which is fine from an AA perspective. Kinda inadequate from an antiship perspective, and utterly laughable from a naval gunfire support perspective, though.

I still don't get why the LCS never got VL Sea Sparrows. I can understand maybe not wanting SM2s, Harpoons, and VL-ASROCS, but no ESSMs?!?

Having two manufacturers build LCS platforms is insane….

And to two radically different designs. Two sources may make some sense (if barely), but two different designs? Thoroughly insane…

One thing that I've never been able to square in my mind is the speed requirement for the LCS. 40+ knots had to place a huge strain on the design ending in a lopsided amount of hull volume devoted to the powerplant.

Well, the LCS2 doesn't need as much engine as the LCS1, the trimaran hull is quite efficient at high speed. And the LCS2 is quite big, ~410 feet long and ~100 feet wide. Almost too big to fit through the Panama Canal, in fact.

I'm still amused that we could put an entire MEU into about 4 LCS2s.