Credibility of Navy Leadership assailed on Hill

[Flash]

I think the idea of LCS was to have basically an empty ship that could contain plug and play mission modules for whatever mission was required (AMCM, special ops, etc). It would basically be an aviation capable ship. I think the idea was also to have a multi-mission capable platform which would preclude the Navy having to purchase/build single mission focused vessels.

The Navy has enjoyed some "LCS-type" conceptual and actual successes by using the leased "HSV 2."

I think the idea of an LCS works in theory and maybe even in practice, but money issues (credibility issues) have basically put it on hold.

I know what the theory is, but you could have a bit of extra space for the touted modules on a FFG, what the Netherlands has done, and accomplish the same thing.

Part of my worry is that the 'littorals' that we work in often have sophisticated threats that would easily overwhelm the LCS as currently armed. Just RAM's and a 57mm?! Even Hezbollah has ASCM's nowadays, and all you are going to rely on is a single, last-ditch weapons system? Talk about putting your eggs in one basket.

And what about working with a battle-group? Are we just going to be left with just Burke's and Tico's for the next 10 years? Every ship need not be an Aegis one.

To me, the LCS is a one-size-fits-all that will fit none of its assigned missions very well at all for a long time, at an expense the Navy can ill-afford to spend poorly.

 

[BigRed389]

Wow. Insert " I guess they don't make 'em like they used to" cliche here.It sounds like Big Navy wants to make DDX a seagoing F-22. Overly capable of everything. Too bad there won't be many of them.


You know, $5.5 billion for a destroyer? I didn't care much for FFG-7's when I deployed on them and their capability was certainly limited, SPS-49, MK 92,SM-1, CIWS 1B, 76mm, JOTS, and of course the 60B. But, you can buy a shitload of 'em for that kinda coin. Put a GCCS-M system on 'em and a VLS and viola!
Something that is still far more capable than most naval combatants at sea today.

STOUT was right across the pier from us while they were failing INSURV.

It's not that they're not being made like they used to...it's lack of maintenance.
Steel corrosion was the big reason they failed...and apparently their deck division either didn't know or didn't care to do proper corrosion prevention. Instead of fighting rust, they just painted over and over, slabbing on paint for God knows how long. Rust continued through, and paint just got thicker and thicker.
We're expected to do more with less people, who are also getting less training before arriving at the ship.

You also may be able to build a SHIT TON of FFGs but the manning for a FFG is no better than your $1B DDG-51 class.
So it costs the same amount to crew over the life of the ship, but you'd sacrifice capability.

 

[VetteMuscle427]

You also may be able to build a SHIT TON of FFGs but the manning for a FFG is no better than your $1B DDG-51 class.
So it costs the same amount to crew over the life of the ship, but you'd sacrifice capability.

FFG-7: 15 Officers, 190 crew = 205
DDG-51: 23 Officers, 24 CPOs, 291 crew = 338

So their manning isn't close... the DDGs take about 50% more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Oliver_Hazard_Perry_(FFG-7)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Arleigh_Burke_(DDG-51)

 

[Gatordev]

FFG-7: 15 Officers, 190 crew = 205
DDG-51: 23 Officers, 24 CPOs, 291 crew = 338

So their manning isn't close... the DDGs take about 50% more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Oliver_Hazard_Perry_(FFG-7)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Arleigh_Burke_(DDG-51)

Except that a typical FFG now has about 30 officers including the Air Det. We had around 32 or so on both my cruises (and left a couple of additional ones behind on my second one).

I don't completely agree w/ BigRed's take on it, but wikipedia=/=reality.

 

[xj220]

Wow. Insert " I guess they don't make 'em like they used to" cliche here.
It sounds like Big Navy wants to make DDX a seagoing F-22. Overly capable of everything. Too bad there won't be many of them.

I thought the Navy already their own version of an overly expensive, overly capable toy (Seawolf anyone?).

 

[Hozer]

You also may be able to build a SHIT TON of FFGs but the manning for a FFG is no better than your $1B DDG-51 class.
So it costs the same amount to crew over the life of the ship, but you'd sacrifice capability.

Which is, to put the helo in a position to deliver a weapon. Thanks, I'll take a few more FFG's please.

 

[Flash]

You also may be able to build a SHIT TON of FFGs but the manning for a FFG is no better than your $1B DDG-51 class.
So it costs the same amount to crew over the life of the ship, but you'd sacrifice capability.

Except that a typical FFG now has about 30 officers including the Air Det. We had around 32 or so on both my cruises (and left a couple of additional ones behind on my second one).

I don't completely agree w/ BigRed's take on it, but wikipedia=/=reality.

You two are talking about FFG's that were designed in the 70's vs DDG's that were designed in the late 80's, and a FFG that would be designed today. Design a new FFG and you will get a smaller, but still very capable, platform that can pack a punch and defend itself in all environments, not just the littorals, and be a part of a battle-group too. And its manning would be much less than a DDG or a CG.

At the same time, you could add capabilities that incorporate some of the features of the LCS concept, without the risk of having a missile sponge that can't defend itself. Some countries already have done that, and France has done that for years with it's Corvettes and Frigates that patrol its overseas territories.

We are trying to reinvent the wheel, when all we need to do is come up with a better model than the one we have now.

 

[Gatordev]

You two are talking about FFG's that were designed in the 70's vs DDG's that were designed in the late 80's, and a FFG that would be designed today.

I agree with your points, but for the record, I wasn't talking about any of those things. My post was merely to point out the futility of quoting Wiki facts.

 

[Flash]

I agree with your points, but for the record, I wasn't talking about any of those things. My post was merely to point out the futility of quoting Wiki facts.

Okay, gothca.

 

[BigRed389]

You two are talking about FFG's that were designed in the 70's vs DDG's that were designed in the late 80's, and a FFG that would be designed today. Design a new FFG and you will get a smaller, but still very capable, platform that can pack a punch and defend itself in all environments, not just the littorals, and be a part of a battle-group too. And its manning would be much less than a DDG or a CG.

At the same time, you could add capabilities that incorporate some of the features of the LCS concept, without the risk of having a missile sponge that can't defend itself. Some countries already have done that, and France has done that for years with it's Corvettes and Frigates that patrol its overseas territories.

We are trying to reinvent the wheel, when all we need to do is come up with a better model than the one we have now.

Can you explain how the LaFayette or Floreal frigates are less of a missile sponge than LCS?

And wikipedia may say DDGs have 330 total crew, but in reality they're going out with ~270 thanks to "right sizing."

 

[HeyJoe]

And wikipedia may say DDGs have 330 total crew, but in reality they're going out with ~270 thanks to "right sizing."

Plenty of room for Mids!!

 

[VetteMuscle427]

I agree with your points, but for the record, I wasn't talking about any of those things. My post was merely to point out the futility of quoting Wiki facts.

FFGs

DDGs

Better?

Still a 35% difference in crew size.

 

[Flash]

Can you explain how the LaFayette or Floreal frigates are less of a missile sponge than LCS?

The Lafayette's can carry the Aster 15/30, the rough equivalent of an SM-1, and has a much longer reach.

A better example would probably be the Dutch De Zeven Provinciën class, with SM-2/3's and room for extras.

 

[eddie]

Business approach? If the Armed Forces are behaving like businesses, they have the WORST model I have ever seen / should realize they don't have the incentive structure to be effective as a "business."

Clearly, if ever given the chance / context, we must bring back, "The Prize." (And yes, crew fractionation and complexity of modern systems and engines makes that nearly impossible, I know. I'm merely speaking to / musing on incentives for "job performace," if you will... It's an interesting problem for a military organization, which usually must exist in a somewhat socialistic fashion / even more interesting for the companies that contract to them. see: tanker scandal / over-budget LCS).

 

[BigRed389]

The Lafayette's can carry the Aster 15/30, the rough equivalent of an SM-1, and has a much longer reach.

A better example would probably be the Dutch De Zeven Provinciën class, with SM-2/3's and room for extras.

Gotcha...forgot that the Lafayettes have that capability...when I visited them they only had Crotale equipped for air defense. Still, they didn't have any ASW capability worth speaking of, and they even admitted as much.
No hull sonar, towed array, or torpedoes...over the side or VLA. A diesel/AIP boat would just slaughter them in the littorals.

And I'd also love to know how much the De Zeven Provinciën costs, that capability has to put a dent in the wallet...it's also really damn big for a frigate, almost as long as a DDG-51 class, with much less capability.

Criticisms of the LCS aside, is there any foreign ship out there that can put out that kind of speed, engage small boat swarms as effectively, deploy in an expedious manner against MIW threats, and conduct littoral ASW?

And Hezbollah may have ASCMs, but how exactly are they providing targeting for them? A low RCS ship, can get lost easily in commercial traffic on radar. I guess the 40+kt speed could give it away, but it wouldn't be sprinting about wasting gas unless it was engaged.