Littoral Combat Ships (LCS)

strehl · Sep 14, 2015

In this picture, the large black vehicle is the Lockheed RMMV (remote multi mission vehicle) and the smaller white vehicle underneath is the Northrop variable depth sonar ROV. So you have an untethered ROV deploying a tethered ROV to perform the mission away from the LCS.

If ROV's are anything like the field I work, a lot of development bugs are software/firmware related. These of course impact how the mechanics are behaving but the root cause is in the software/electronics. It's easy to fix a mechanical bug since it is usually persistent and repeatable. Software can mess up in infinite ways.

That said, a basic design can be seen to work correctly one day and then screw up the next. Unfortunately, that opens up a large and fertile field for enterprising "journalists".

The latest edition of Air Force Magazine has an excellent history of all the efforts made to kill the AWACS and it sounds drearily familiar. This isn't to say there aren't real challenges and problems that need to be fixed. So I will just repeat: everyone (including everyone who reads and posts here) has an axe to grind. Some are bigger than others but there is no such thing as an unbiased person. Yours truly included which can be readily inferred.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Jeff Head · Sep 14, 2015

I am confidant that with the announcements creating the FF vessels and the upgrades to the LCS vessels...all of which were to address their known, and in some cases glaring, issues...that these vessels will now ultimately develop into decent combat vessels.

I believe they will have a decent, intrinsic anti-surface, anti-air, and anti-submarine capability.

I believe that those capabilities will be increased for specific missions involving the ASuW and ASW areas by the additional equipment being designed for their modules.

I believe that the issues on the mine countermeasures equipment particularly will be worked out, and that ultimately a certain number of the vessels (probably up to 12, perhaps more, of the Independence class) may have the CCM module permanently installed.

It has not been a pretty development cycle and I am sure that there will be more issues as they move along...but I think those issues will not be relatively normal types of issues in the development of a new class (actually two) of vessels.

The major concern...which was, IMHO, whether these vessels would even have the intrinsic capabilities to defend themselves in an ASuW role...are being addressed, which will open the door for these other areas now to be properly addressed.

Time will tell...but those are my feelings at this point.

Talk of the weakness of having both the Independence and Freedom class are moot now. It's not going to change. The US Navy will employ both and put them to good use. There will be both variants in the LCS role and in the FF role as well.

Jura The idiot · Sep 15, 2015

strehl said:
... So I will just repeat: everyone (including everyone who reads and posts here) has an axe to grind. ...

LOL! I'm wondering what mine is

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

an ulterior motive
a grievance
a pet subject

(I admit I checked the meaning of "ulterior", found:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

An

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

or

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

for doing something, especially when concealed or when differing from the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

or

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

reason.)

strehl, Navies of the World is my hobby

strehl · Sep 15, 2015

Jura said:
LOL! I'm wondering what mine is

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

an ulterior motive

a grievance

a pet subject

(I admit I checked the meaning of "ulterior", found:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

An
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
or
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
for doing something, especially when concealed or when differing from the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
or
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
reason.)

strehl, Navies of the World is my hobby

Doesn't have to be a hidden motive. My second sentence clarified:

bias. You find certain news compelling but others not. You find certain sources to be of importance. But others not. You have an overall world view and this filters down into what you choose to post and what you choose to dismiss.

Do you claim you have no political preferences?

Does a person's political views influence (or simply reflect) his opinions on other topics (ie, foreign countries, defense policy, economics, etc.).

I have talked to several hard leftists and one common theme I find is that they claim to have no ideology. They are merely applying rational thinking and scientific reason. It is anyone who disagrees that is exhibiting an ideology. And they are very insistent about this.

Jeff Head · Sep 15, 2015

strehl said:
My second sentence clarified:

bias. You find ....

You find certain sources ....

You have an overall world view ...

Do you claim ...

I have talked to several hard leftists and one common theme I find is that they claim to have no ideology. They are merely applying rational thinking and scientific reason. It is anyone who disagrees that is exhibiting an ideology. And they are very insistent about this.

Strehl...let's let up the psycho analysis.

I know you do not mean these attributes and statemeents to directly relate to Jura. but Jura does not speak English as a second language.

When you say "you" it will be easy for him (or others) to deduce that you are talking about him/them personally.

I know you mean it in the general sense, third person...but not everyone will pick that up and may therefore think you are calling them hard leftists personally..

Best to not delve too deeply into psycho analysis like this.

strehl · Sep 15, 2015

Jeff Head said:
Strehl...let's let up the psycho analysis.

I know you do not mean these attributes and statemeents to directly relate to Jura. but Jura does not speak English as a second language.

When you say "you" it will be easy for him (or others) to deduce that you are talking about him/them personally.

I know you mean it in the general sense, third person...but not everyone will pick that up and may therefore think you are calling them hard leftists personally..

Best to not delve too deeply into psycho analysis like this.

My compliments to Jura. He certainly speaks far better English than I ever spoke a second language. I do indeed mean "you" in the third person. However, I will end my responses forthwith. Nothing productive to be gained.

Jeff Head · Sep 15, 2015

strehl said:
My compliments to Jura. He certainly speaks far better English than I ever spoke a second language. I do indeed mean "you" in the third person. However, I will end my responses forthwith. Nothing productive to be gained.

Thanks strehl, I knew it was 3rd person, and I appreciate you clarifying it for Jura.

Alles Gute!

Brumby · Sep 15, 2015

strehl said:
If ROV's are anything like the field I work, a lot of development bugs are software/firmware related. These of course impact how the mechanics are behaving but the root cause is in the software/electronics. It's easy to fix a mechanical bug since it is usually persistent and repeatable. Software can mess up in infinite ways.

That said, a basic design can be seen to work correctly one day and then screw up the next. Unfortunately, that opens up a large and fertile field for enterprising "journalists".

It is a given that any new product will have developmental issues be it software or hardware related. Objective assessment of progress is based on its status relative to set timelines, deliverables , and cost. Our interest in the LCS program is whether it is meeting those goals as the USN had set for itself. An area of interest in particular is the MCM because it is an integral part of the program.

Recent news report on the MCM program had not been encouraging and was the genesis of what I believe was Jura's recent postings. In Defence news, link provided :

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Relevant extracts include :

“Recent developmental testing provides no statistical evidence that the system is demonstrating improved reliability, and instead indicates that reliability plateaued nearly a decade ago,” Michael Gilmore, director of the Office of Test and Evaluation (DOT&E), wrote in an Aug. 3 memo to Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall.

A copy of the memo was obtained by Defense News.

“The reliability of existing systems is so poor that it poses a significant risk to both the upcoming operational test of the LCS Independence-variant equipped with the first increment of the Mine Countermeasures (MCM) mission package, and to the Navy’s plan to field and sustain a viable LCS-based minehunting and mine clearance capability prior to fiscal year 2020,” Gilmore wrote.

and ....

The problem-plagued program has routinely failed or delayed test and evaluation programs and encountered a Nunn-McCurdy breech in 2010. Gilmore noted that reliability has improved since then, but continues to fall far short of the threshold of 75 hours’ mean time between operational mission failure (MTBOMF).

But despite all the efforts to improve reliability, Gilmore assessed the RMS system’s current overall reliability at 18.8 hours between failure, and the RMMV vehicle at 25.0 hours. He took consistent issue with Navy reliability data, pointing out that in some instances, “the Navy inflated operating time estimates for the MTBOMF calculations by assuming that post-mission analysis time (when the vehicle is not in the water and not operating) could be counted.”

Gilmore detailed 41 RMS and RMMV failures from technical evaluation tests that began in September aboard the LCS Independence, mostly while operating in the Gulf of Mexico. The tests were conducted using four RMMVs, vehicles 1, 7, 9 and 10. He noted that failures occurred on all four vehicles in numerous areas, including equipment failures and software problems.

A sampling of failures from the 2015 tests includes faulty depth sensors; throttle failures; alignment issues; inertial navigation unit failures; problems with recovery equipment; bad operator consoles; numerous computer and software connectivity problems; variable depth sonar failures; power failures; offboard communications failures; problems with maintaining line-of-sight communications between the ship and the vehicle; and repeated problems with the vehicle’s emergency recovery system, designed to float the craft to the surface should it begin to sink.

In many cases and for a variety of reasons, the LCS was unable to recover the RMMV and it was towed back to base by support craft — an option, Gilmore pointed out, unlikely to be available to an operational LCS using the system in a real minefield. On several occasions, the ship requested support personnel to come aboard to fix an RMS problem.

Rather than suggesting they are "enterprising" reporting, it would be helpful and far more productive if specific comments can be directed at what I would consider at face value to be problems with the program. It may be that given time, money and effort these issues could be addressed, nevertheless only time will tell.

PS. Neither Jura nor myself is a leftist by any measure. Lol.

Brumby · Sep 15, 2015

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The long-awaited deal to choose the frigates for Saudi Arabia’s Eastern Fleet modernization program could be closed before the end of the year, a knowledgeable source said, and the choice of ship will come as little surprise — a variant of Lockheed Martin’s littoral combat ship (LCS).

Earlier this year, the Saudis reportedly asked for ships armed with an “Aegis or like” combat system using a “SPY-1F or similar radar.” According to the knowledgeable source, the Saudis dropped their requirement for an Aegis combat system as too expensive, and the ship is likely to feature an enhanced version of the Airbus Group TRS-3D radar fitted on US Navy Freedom-class LCSs and US Coast Guard Legend-class national security cutters.

Earlier LoRs also specified an ability to launch SM-2 Standard surface-to-air missiles, and the ships are expected to be fitted with a 16-cell Mark 41 vertical launch system that can accommodate those and other weapons. The ships will carry two fire control illuminator radars.

The Saudi ships are expected to be armed with a 76mm OTO Melara gun, replacing the 57mm found on US LCSs.

The type of LCS that should have been for the USN.

Jeff Head · Sep 16, 2015

Brumby said:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The type of LCS that should have been for the USN.

I don't know that I would go that far.

An AEGIS LCS is a little overkill IMHO for US Navy purposes and would have driven up the cost significantly. with 62+ AEGIS DDGs and 22 AEGIS CGs, and with the number of AEGIS DDGs still climbing, I do not know that AEGIS is necessary for the US Navy on their frigates..

However, having said that, the things I believe the LCS "should have had" as a part of their intrinsic capabilities would include:

1 - Higher Combat level build
2 - A 76mm D gun
3 - Eight Decent Ranged, capable ASMs
4 - Four quad packed ESSM air defense missiles
5 - SeaRAM Close in Air defense missiles
6 - A decent 3-d Air search radar
7 - A decent Surface search radar
8 - Active Sonar and towed array
9 - Full landing pad and hanger for two Seahawk sized helos.

Then develop specific enhancement modules that add:

- A strong anti-swarming ASuW capability when specifically needed.
- Stronger ASW capabilities for longer range, and/or specific littoral SSK engagements

Also, have a full module for MCM capabilities developed...specifically for 12-16 targeted Independence class varieties..

But all of those should have been the object of development AFTER the initial intrinsic capabilities were locked in.

As it is, I believe the FF will vessels will address 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. The upgraded LCS will address the same except number 1. That is what we will end up living with to begin with. I hold out hope that in future upgrades during maintenance refits, numbers 2 and 4 might be addressed...but we will have to wait for that.

Littoral Combat Ships (LCS)

strehl

Junior Member

Jeff Head

General

Jura The idiot

General

strehl

Junior Member

Jeff Head

General

strehl

Junior Member

Jeff Head

General

Brumby

Major

Brumby

Major

Jeff Head

General