Littoral Combat Ships (LCS)
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Re: Type 056 OPV/Corvette
Yes, the re-application of an old method based on new scientific research.
Saw that article a couple yes back and was wondering when we would see the first real world application of the new discoveries. Now we know.
Yes, the re-application of an old method based on new scientific research.
Saw that article a couple yes back and was wondering when we would see the first real world application of the new discoveries. Now we know.
Re: Type 056 OPV/Corvette
USN would have no use for something like Type 056. They have coast guard ships doing that kind of job.
Based on the blue water requirements of USN and the natural higher cost of labour in America, lower end USN ships are always going to be more expensive than lower end Chinese ships. Two countries also use different theory in procurement. USN would pay double the cost for a ship to get that 20% extra capability. China would not due to its smaller budget. So, China ends up getting the ship built cheaper and faster, but there are just tasks that it can't do compare to American counterpart. And they probably have no need to, since PLAN has this coastal water defense requirement that USN does not have. So, my point is that you can't compare them one to one.
USN would have no use for something like Type 056. They have coast guard ships doing that kind of job.
Based on the blue water requirements of USN and the natural higher cost of labour in America, lower end USN ships are always going to be more expensive than lower end Chinese ships. Two countries also use different theory in procurement. USN would pay double the cost for a ship to get that 20% extra capability. China would not due to its smaller budget. So, China ends up getting the ship built cheaper and faster, but there are just tasks that it can't do compare to American counterpart. And they probably have no need to, since PLAN has this coastal water defense requirement that USN does not have. So, my point is that you can't compare them one to one.
joshuatree
Captain
Re: Type 056 OPV/Corvette
If we're simply comparing the principle of project management, I think it is apples to apples. The 056 demonstrated better adherence to project objective and restraining mission creep. The LCS is on the other end of the spectrum.
Both ships, however different their purpose, has a common theme, to be jack of all trades, master of none. But the LCS, even factoring in higher American labor costs and different procurement theology, is just way too expensive for what it can do.
The talk of incremental improvements to the LCS over time is no different than many of us here with our wishlists and discussion on improvements to the 056. But that is outside the scope of the original project.
As a taxpayer, I want to see the program be stopped after the 10 of each flavor. No more. What is the need for 50+ of these vessels if they are built to only be forward deployed and have no purpose near home waters? How many mine clearing and special force insertions do we need in home waters? Sounds like an occupation force being built. Or the military industrial complex run amuck. Redivert the remaining funds to conventional frigates which will be a sorely open gap once the Perrys are all decommissioned. The US military has gotten an attitude problem lately and that is, all it's toys has to be the flashiest and cutting edge when it really is better served with a mixture of new stuff with tried-and-true stuff.
*Sorry, not sure where my post should go since I am touching on both the 056 and LCS.*
If we're simply comparing the principle of project management, I think it is apples to apples. The 056 demonstrated better adherence to project objective and restraining mission creep. The LCS is on the other end of the spectrum.
Both ships, however different their purpose, has a common theme, to be jack of all trades, master of none. But the LCS, even factoring in higher American labor costs and different procurement theology, is just way too expensive for what it can do.
The talk of incremental improvements to the LCS over time is no different than many of us here with our wishlists and discussion on improvements to the 056. But that is outside the scope of the original project.
As a taxpayer, I want to see the program be stopped after the 10 of each flavor. No more. What is the need for 50+ of these vessels if they are built to only be forward deployed and have no purpose near home waters? How many mine clearing and special force insertions do we need in home waters? Sounds like an occupation force being built. Or the military industrial complex run amuck. Redivert the remaining funds to conventional frigates which will be a sorely open gap once the Perrys are all decommissioned. The US military has gotten an attitude problem lately and that is, all it's toys has to be the flashiest and cutting edge when it really is better served with a mixture of new stuff with tried-and-true stuff.
*Sorry, not sure where my post should go since I am touching on both the 056 and LCS.*
Last edited:
I am respomnding to the following discussion point by Luhai regarding the US LCS program that was posted on the Type 056 OPV/Corvette thread because I hope to pull that discussion over to this thread which is specifically about the LCS>
So, if we say ultimately $400 million per copy, the $400 million LCS vs $560 million FREMM costs is not "basically about how much the FREMMs cost," in fact it is nowhere near the same cost. The FREMM frigates are 40% more expensive and that is nothing like basically the same. Basically the same would be within perhaps 5-10%.
Same for the Type 054As. Two of those are upwards of $600 million, which is %50 more expensive than a single LCS.
Having said that, we also have to consider that the LCS is meant to fight in the littorals and accomplish all of those missions I mentioned in my earlier post, which a Burke is not suited for and far too expensive anyway to send in there. In fact, there is not a single vessel in existance today that is designed to do all of this...and hence the LCS.
The LCS will also be used for at Sea Security duties which means escort duties for the ARGs and even CBGs for ASW support if conditions warrant it (ie. a wartime scenario where the ASW threat to those high value vessels is credable). This means the LCS will replace the Perry Class vessels for those duties, the Avenger Class MCM vessels for the Mine-warfare duties, and introduce a whole new class of vessels the US has not employed before for Littoral warfighting.
I am hoping that if they go ahead and produce the upwards if fifty vessels envisioned, that the costs will continue to reduce to near $350 million per. I expect if they stop at the current total of 24 vessels, it will be near $400 million per when all is said and done.
And yes, there are procurement issues...mainly because the US Navy is trying to accomplish something new that it has not done before (and which, to my knowledge, no other navy has done before), and with a vessel specifically designed to do it. This means there is unavoidably going to be a learning curve issues associated with it as the technologies associated with the various mission packs are developed and perfected for deployment on these single vessels.
At this point, I personally am not too disappointed...but I am still concerned, as I have voiced on this and other forums.
As to that last, I believe that with the Penguin missiles and the Joint Strike Missiles that will replace them, deployed on the LCS via the SH-60s, that in the anti-surface role they have an adequate interim solution to do so.
I also believe that they have a strong exsiting solution (though the full mission pack will add more to it) for ASW, and despite the failure of the SH-60 at this point to be able to adequately use the new towed mine-hunter equipment they are designing for the SH-60 to use, that they have sufficient existing solutions for the mine-hunting role to adequately perform that mission as well.
Well, first of all, the costs on this porgram are coming down and will continue to come down as more and more vessels are built. Simply economies of scale for the manufacturers which the government expects to derive benefit from.
So, if we say ultimately $400 million per copy, the $400 million LCS vs $560 million FREMM costs is not "basically about how much the FREMMs cost," in fact it is nowhere near the same cost. The FREMM frigates are 40% more expensive and that is nothing like basically the same. Basically the same would be within perhaps 5-10%.
Same for the Type 054As. Two of those are upwards of $600 million, which is %50 more expensive than a single LCS.
Having said that, we also have to consider that the LCS is meant to fight in the littorals and accomplish all of those missions I mentioned in my earlier post, which a Burke is not suited for and far too expensive anyway to send in there. In fact, there is not a single vessel in existance today that is designed to do all of this...and hence the LCS.
The LCS will also be used for at Sea Security duties which means escort duties for the ARGs and even CBGs for ASW support if conditions warrant it (ie. a wartime scenario where the ASW threat to those high value vessels is credable). This means the LCS will replace the Perry Class vessels for those duties, the Avenger Class MCM vessels for the Mine-warfare duties, and introduce a whole new class of vessels the US has not employed before for Littoral warfighting.
I am hoping that if they go ahead and produce the upwards if fifty vessels envisioned, that the costs will continue to reduce to near $350 million per. I expect if they stop at the current total of 24 vessels, it will be near $400 million per when all is said and done.
And yes, there are procurement issues...mainly because the US Navy is trying to accomplish something new that it has not done before (and which, to my knowledge, no other navy has done before), and with a vessel specifically designed to do it. This means there is unavoidably going to be a learning curve issues associated with it as the technologies associated with the various mission packs are developed and perfected for deployment on these single vessels.
At this point, I personally am not too disappointed...but I am still concerned, as I have voiced on this and other forums.
1st, are there enough crew members to adequately handle fire fighting and damage control if they take damage?
2nd, are the vessels built to a standard where they can take damage and keep on fighting and avoid mission kill or worse?
3rd, will the mission packages be available in a time frame as these vessels are deployed where their ability to perform the missions they are asked to perform can be accomplished while adequately defending themselves?
2nd, are the vessels built to a standard where they can take damage and keep on fighting and avoid mission kill or worse?
3rd, will the mission packages be available in a time frame as these vessels are deployed where their ability to perform the missions they are asked to perform can be accomplished while adequately defending themselves?
As to that last, I believe that with the Penguin missiles and the Joint Strike Missiles that will replace them, deployed on the LCS via the SH-60s, that in the anti-surface role they have an adequate interim solution to do so.
I also believe that they have a strong exsiting solution (though the full mission pack will add more to it) for ASW, and despite the failure of the SH-60 at this point to be able to adequately use the new towed mine-hunter equipment they are designing for the SH-60 to use, that they have sufficient existing solutions for the mine-hunting role to adequately perform that mission as well.
Last edited:
Re: Type 056 OPV/Corvette
The Type 056 is a classic, traditional OPV/Corvette using existing technologies and existing manning and packaging methodologies to create it.
The LCS is an entirely new design and class of vessel trying to accomplish somethig that has not been done before and introducing cutting edge technologies to do so in modular mission packages that can be interchanged on the vessel.
The Projet Management issues for those two types of projects are monumentally different.
The LCS was billed from the get go as a fast, stealthy combat vessel that would be able to accomplish the following four tasks in the littorals:
None of this has changed.
It is just that the advanced technologies required to be able to very effectively do all of that are proving to be difficult to build into the mission packs for replacment deployment on these vessels. That kind of difficulty however goes with the territory of this type of project, as stated above.
For more, including my own continuing concerns regarding the project...see my latest response here:
My Latest Response on the LCS Thread in the World Military Section
Actually, the comparison is not apples to apples.
The Type 056 is a classic, traditional OPV/Corvette using existing technologies and existing manning and packaging methodologies to create it.
The LCS is an entirely new design and class of vessel trying to accomplish somethig that has not been done before and introducing cutting edge technologies to do so in modular mission packages that can be interchanged on the vessel.
The Projet Management issues for those two types of projects are monumentally different.
What specifically is outside the scope? Or represents "Mission creep?"
The LCS was billed from the get go as a fast, stealthy combat vessel that would be able to accomplish the following four tasks in the littorals:
1. Anti-submarine warfare in the littorals, specifically pointed at finding and eliminating the smaller, conventionally powered AIP submarines that are so effective there.
2. Anti-surface combat in the littorlas, targeting specifically swarming attacks by small craft, and the OPVs and FACs that make their homes there and would cause problems to Amphibious operations that would follow.
3. Anti-mining operations in the littorals to find and eliminate mines that would reak havoc on shipping and allied amphibious or other naval opetrations there.
4. The ability to insert Special Operations teams in the littorals without having a nuclear submarine take the risk in those waters.
2. Anti-surface combat in the littorlas, targeting specifically swarming attacks by small craft, and the OPVs and FACs that make their homes there and would cause problems to Amphibious operations that would follow.
3. Anti-mining operations in the littorals to find and eliminate mines that would reak havoc on shipping and allied amphibious or other naval opetrations there.
4. The ability to insert Special Operations teams in the littorals without having a nuclear submarine take the risk in those waters.
None of this has changed.
It is just that the advanced technologies required to be able to very effectively do all of that are proving to be difficult to build into the mission packs for replacment deployment on these vessels. That kind of difficulty however goes with the territory of this type of project, as stated above.
For more, including my own continuing concerns regarding the project...see my latest response here:
My Latest Response on the LCS Thread in the World Military Section
joshuatree
Captain
Re: Type 056 OPV/Corvette
Yes it is, we'll most likely agree to disagree. I already acknowledged different projects with different missions but a project still has parameters and the 056 to the best of our knowledge, stuck with it's parameters. The LCS did not. That was the comparison I would say can be compared on equal footing.
Well, not having both Freedom and Independence classes as being final products. That wasn't part of the original program intent. It was supposed to be one or the other. Level 1+ survivability wasn't in the original scope either.
Yes it is, we'll most likely agree to disagree. I already acknowledged different projects with different missions but a project still has parameters and the 056 to the best of our knowledge, stuck with it's parameters. The LCS did not. That was the comparison I would say can be compared on equal footing.
Well, not having both Freedom and Independence classes as being final products. That wasn't part of the original program intent. It was supposed to be one or the other. Level 1+ survivability wasn't in the original scope either.
Re: Type 056 OPV/Corvette
My point that they are wholly different types of projects, with orders of magnitude different paramenters and technologies, IMHO calls for them to be viewed differently. To try and compare the two would be a dangerous financial policy that would lead to never being able to build a cutting edge fighting vessel because of the disparity in such a comparison.
In fact, it is very often the case that two vendors are selected and asked to build a certain number of initial level production units as a part of final competition. In this case, the government decided that both had merit and to have them both produce an initial 2 vessels each...and then followed that up with orders to produce 10 more each, for a total of twelve each, or 24 of a total of 55 envisioned.
At this stage, there is no assurety that either, or both, will get any orders beyond these initial 12 each.
As to the level of combat...it was always billed as a "Littoral Combat Ship."
Combat, by definition, means a high degree of survivability...the ability to be hit and keep fighting. I do not believe that the officail specifications indicated anything to the contrary of that statement. If a ship is going to, by design, go in harm's way...into combat...then it has to be built to handle it.
IMHO, any lessening of the specifications, that lowered the threshold in building these vessels beyond what is patently obvious (it is going to have to be able to go into combat), is an absurdity foisted through the procuremnt office into the program...one, which if true, the vessels, their crews, and the nation, may ultimately pay for.
If you read my own concerns, one is certainly that the vessels may not have been built, or equally importantly, manned, to handle what they are expecting of them. And that is a serious issue.
Finally, how about any response you make to my comment here...because we are specifically talking about the LCS...be posted in the LCS thread so we can get this thread back to discussing the Type 056 specifically?
Oh please...by that definition, my project to build a Lemon Aid stand for my daughter is apples to apples comparison to a project to build a nuclear powered aircraftc arrier. After all, they are both projects with parameters that have to be met.
My point that they are wholly different types of projects, with orders of magnitude different paramenters and technologies, IMHO calls for them to be viewed differently. To try and compare the two would be a dangerous financial policy that would lead to never being able to build a cutting edge fighting vessel because of the disparity in such a comparison.
Actually, there was nothing in the RFQ or competitive bids that followed, which precluded the government from picking both. It was a competitive bid...but the provisions were not iron clad that either had to win, or that both could not be selected.
In fact, it is very often the case that two vendors are selected and asked to build a certain number of initial level production units as a part of final competition. In this case, the government decided that both had merit and to have them both produce an initial 2 vessels each...and then followed that up with orders to produce 10 more each, for a total of twelve each, or 24 of a total of 55 envisioned.
At this stage, there is no assurety that either, or both, will get any orders beyond these initial 12 each.
As to the level of combat...it was always billed as a "Littoral Combat Ship."
Combat, by definition, means a high degree of survivability...the ability to be hit and keep fighting. I do not believe that the officail specifications indicated anything to the contrary of that statement. If a ship is going to, by design, go in harm's way...into combat...then it has to be built to handle it.
IMHO, any lessening of the specifications, that lowered the threshold in building these vessels beyond what is patently obvious (it is going to have to be able to go into combat), is an absurdity foisted through the procuremnt office into the program...one, which if true, the vessels, their crews, and the nation, may ultimately pay for.
If you read my own concerns, one is certainly that the vessels may not have been built, or equally importantly, manned, to handle what they are expecting of them. And that is a serious issue.
Finally, how about any response you make to my comment here...because we are specifically talking about the LCS...be posted in the LCS thread so we can get this thread back to discussing the Type 056 specifically?
Last edited:
Jeff, I think you have under estimated the cost over run of the LCS... This is an article from Rear Admiral John Kirby defending the LCS program...
Read more:
I can't believe Rear Admiral John Kirby can say the last sentence with a straight face, $460 million (FY10 dollars) for just the sea frame, and been able to beat that by just tens of million of dollar. (Note the use of FY10 dollars, so they can blame any additional cost overrun on inflation..)
Last edited:
Yes, I had read that article and follow the program fairly closely as a member of the US Naval Institute. They are talking about $460 million and believe they will beat it by several tens of millions...therfore my $400 million.
And of course it is in the dollars originally budgeted. You cannot have it both ways and expect a $250 million initial projection in 2010 to be the same now, and not allow them to do the same in reverse.
Anyhow, no doubt the $250 milloion was far off. But given what they are trying to do with one platform, and the new technologies they are developing and allowing for in each vessel, I am not surprised at overruns for this type of vessel.
I believe that the $400 million (without the modules) will be close, and that gets you a vessel with its basic armament and sensor suite. That price should always, IMHO, from the get go,have included two quad pack Harpoon launchers
If they can get it to do what they project, and have it replace the Perrys and the Avengers, and other classes while so doing for $400 million per, they will have done a fair job. My biggest concern remains as to whether they lowered the strength and damge specifications to try and lower the price, along with the manpower for each ship, and thus have a fancy, modern vessel that cannot take a hit and keep fighting and is too lightly manned to perform effective fire and damage control.
That's my biggest worry at this point. And if they have...andn if there is ever a serious fight, the vessels, the personnel manning it, and the nation will all pay in spades for that.
At any rate...time will tell.
Last edited: