Opinions expressed here are personal views of contributors and do not necessarily represent the companies, organizations or governments they work for. Nor do they necessarily represent those of the Board Administration.
I spent the day with my oldest grandson and Shanghai in Boston today. I park at the Coast guard base; across the harbor from the Old Charlestown Naval Shipyard home to Old Ironsides. That was and the place I was sold that bill of goods about how the LCS was going to revolutionize surface warfare by one of the kids I personally trained and mentored along with other CPOs of LCS-1 Freedom, many, many, many moons ago. I even paid the bar bill for these guys and that is what really Ps me Off.
Navy eyeing Littoral Combat Ships as ‘mothership’ for unmanned platforms,
A letter obtained by Breaking Defense states the "current phase" of a Navy study will wrap up this year. By Justin Katz on February 15, 2023 at 1:41 PM
The Navy is studying the potential of using Littoral Combat Ships as motherships for unmanned vessels, with the “current phase” of its study expected to wrap up in 2023, according to a letter to key lawmakers obtained by Breaking Defense.
“The Navy continues to conduct fleet experimentation in pursuit of future capabilities across multiple platforms, including an ongoing study of the supporting infrastructure required to operate a future hybrid manned/unmanned fleet,” Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro wrote in a Feb. 1 letter. The memo was sent to House Armed Services Committee chairman Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Ala., and House Appropriations defense subcommittee chairman Rep. Ken Calvert, R-Calif.
If the LCS can be used in such a manner, it could give new life to a ship that has has been plagued with design and production issues almost from inception. While the Navy is actively seeking to retire the LCS from its inventory, lawmakers have fought back, with the argument that rather than scrap the ships the service should find a new way to use them. After back and forth debate, in the fiscal 2023 budget Congress allowed the Navy to retire five of the nine Littoral Combat Ships the service wanted to decommission.
Del Toro’s letter was prompted by a requirement in a previous defense spending bill directing the service to provide the congressional defense committees with information about “alternative uses” for the Littoral Combat Ship.
“This effort uniquely focuses on dedicated platforms acting as a mothership for a variety of future unmanned capabilities,” the letter continues. “To date, this study has analysed current Navy platforms that could be repurposed for this concept.”
The Navy’s apparent interest in now focusing some LCS on a mission as an unmanned mothership is sure to attract new scrutiny. As Breaking Defense has previously reported, the Navy’s ambitions with the use of unmanned maritime systems has often invited skepticism from lawmakers.
The service in November 2022 previously published a request for information to industry about designing an “attritable mothership” for unmanned systems, one that was purposefully designed to be unmanned and able to sail fearlessly into “contested” waters.
The letter also says the service is “exploring the potential use of LCS” for either foreign military sales or excess defense articles transfers.
The Navy last spring opted to drop the anti-submarine warfare package for the Littoral Combat Ship, which subsequently triggered a cost breach known as a “Nunn-McCurdy” violation. Although Del Toro’s new letter does not mention the canceled mission package, he did write that the Navy will “aggressively employ the remaining” LCS to meet the remaining missions, mine countermeasures and surface warfare.
“Current investment in the LCS class will continue to focus on improving the sustainability and reliability of the ships designated for the SUW and MCM missions,” Del Toro wrote. “The Navy will continue to conduct experimentation to determine the feasibility of future capabilities and will keep Congress appraised of our progress.”
IMA the brass are BEATING A DEAD HORSE but according to the head firmly inserted up their own Butt flags they are giving the misbegotten ships CPR.
And people wonder why I drink!
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
They're beating a skeletal horse. One of the original missions for the LCS was as a mothership to unmanned drone ships. That idea died when the mission modules were found to not work. There was even supposed to be a dedicated mission module for that tasking.
Like the three DDG-1000, the Navy is throwing stuff at the bulkhead to see if there's anything useful they can do. Congress requires them to keep the LCS in service, so they may as well do some trials to see if they're good for anything other than show-the-flag.
kdahm wrote: ↑Sun Feb 19, 2023 5:51 amThey're beating a skeletal horse. One of the original missions for the LCS was as a mothership to unmanned drone ships. That idea died when the mission modules were found to not work. There was even supposed to be a dedicated mission module for that tasking.
Works just fine for us. Then again, we use a somewhat bigger mothership...
War is less costly than servitude. The choice is always between Verdun and Dachau. - Jean Dutourd
The LCS we got would be nice cutters for the Coast Guard, particularly in the 4th Fleet's area of operations.
To make them viable warships, they needed: SPY-1K, two or four Mk 141s, and a 32-cell Mk 41 VLS (or 2 16-cell Mk 41 VLS) with SM-2, ESSM, TLAM, and VLA.
And as an interim, in 2001, we should have gotten a license to build 48 Alvaro de Bazan-class FFGs to replace the Perry-class FFGs. We'd be in much better shape.
clancyphile wrote: ↑Sat Mar 18, 2023 4:07 am
The LCS we got would be nice cutters for the Coast Guard, particularly in the 4th Fleet's area of operations.
To make them viable warships, they needed: SPY-1K, two or four Mk 141s, and a 32-cell Mk 41 VLS (or 2 16-cell Mk 41 VLS) with SM-2, ESSM, TLAM, and VLA.
And as an interim, in 2001, we should have gotten a license to build 48 Alvaro de Bazan-class FFGs to replace the Perry-class FFGs. We'd be in much better shape.
In order:
1. The new Coast Guard mottor would be Semper de Lignus: "Always out of gas."
2. You can't mount that much crap on the hull because of the speed requirement
3. Hindsight is 20/20. Honestly, we should've been planning for the next generation FFG at the end of the Cold War. We didn't do a sensible downsizing of the military to meet the new realities of CONUS-based power projection/limited engagement on the Eurasian continent, and focused instead on dividing the cuts evenly among the services and communities, without respect for missions and roles. The USN arguably should've gotten bigger, the USAF should've stayed about the same, with some shuffling of budget allocations, and the Army should've been reorganized with a meat cleaver.
Scrap the damn things. All of them.
Pillory the idiots who designed them, then make them "facility manager" at high schools in problem districts.
Make a crime even mentiining the word "tranformational" while in uniform or in military employment.
Ditch the very concept of the LCS.
kdahm wrote: ↑Sun Feb 19, 2023 5:51 amCongress requires them to keep the LCS in service, so they may as well do some trials to see if they're good for anything other than show-the-flag.
... Don't they want to pay for replacements of practically new ships or what?
kdahm wrote: ↑Sun Feb 19, 2023 5:51 amThey're beating a skeletal horse. One of the original missions for the LCS was as a mothership to unmanned drone ships. That idea died when the mission modules were found to not work. There was even supposed to be a dedicated mission module for that tasking.
Works just fine for us. Then again, we use a somewhat bigger mothership...
Must admit I would LOVE to see a Bay class doing 40-odd knots…
clancyphile wrote: ↑Sat Mar 18, 2023 4:07 am
The LCS we got would be nice cutters for the Coast Guard, particularly in the 4th Fleet's area of operations.
To make them viable warships, they needed: SPY-1K, two or four Mk 141s, and a 32-cell Mk 41 VLS (or 2 16-cell Mk 41 VLS) with SM-2, ESSM, TLAM, and VLA.
And as an interim, in 2001, we should have gotten a license to build 48 Alvaro de Bazan-class FFGs to replace the Perry-class FFGs. We'd be in much better shape.
I thought the last use that the USN top brass had found for these was as training ships for new 3- ringers?
Jotun wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 7:01 am
Scrap the damn things. All of them.
Pillory the idiots who designed them, then make them "facility manager" at high schools in problem districts.
Make a crime even mentiining the word "tranformational" while in uniform or in military employment.
Ditch the very concept of the LCS.
Take them out to the parking lot and beat them with canes.
clancyphile wrote: ↑Sat Mar 18, 2023 4:07 am
The LCS we got would be nice cutters for the Coast Guard, particularly in the 4th Fleet's area of operations.
They do look the part.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
clancyphile wrote: ↑Sat Mar 18, 2023 4:07 am
The LCS we got would be nice cutters for the Coast Guard, particularly in the 4th Fleet's area of operations.
They do look the part.
FREEDOM does.
The INDEPENDENCE trimaran looks like the bastard child of C. Montgomery Burns and a bunch of fat-bottomed Queen groupies.
... Don't they want to pay for replacements of practically new ships or what?