The Navy’s new Littoral Combat Ship, USS Freedom, netted a pair of cocaine seizures on its first operational deployment to the Caribbean, even running down a “go fast” boat with its embarked MH-60 helicopter. “This is a perfect demonstration of what the LCS was designed for,” LCS builder Lockheed Martin’s Paul Lemmo tells Ares defense blog.
Yet, acting as naval constabulary is only one of the missions the Navy has in mind for LCS. The real test will come when the LCS must fight a swarm of small boats in the littorals, according to some analysts. As the Navy’s attention has shifted from the blue waters to the strategically vital inshore waters, it has sought out the right vessel for a more flowing style of fighting against swarms of fast attack boats, a threat that the traditional surface warfare group is ill-suited to combat.
When it comes to small boat swarms, Iran invariably comes to mind. Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps operates hundreds of speedboats armed with machine guns and rockets (Iran is thought to have around 1,000 small armed craft) that ply Gulf waters and it regularly war games swarming tactics to shut the strategically vital and really narrow Straits of Hormuz. Iran is also indigenously producing a number of different anti-ship missile armed fast attack craft.
Milan Vego, a professor at the Naval War College, says the Navy went with the LCS design without adequately assessing the fights it was likely to get in, which will be in confining waters against small boat swarms, where the LCS won’t do much to boost the Navy’s fighting abilities. The LCS is too lightly armed, “too large and insufficiently agile to engage such threats,” he writes in the September Proceedings.
An overemphasis on LCS speed led to sacrifices in onboard weapons and hull space for augmentation packages, he argues. Writing in a 2008 Armed Forces Journal piece titled “Think Small,” Vego says:
“The LCS is not really a littoral vessel but, rather, an ocean-going platform. Its draft of 20 feet is too large for maneuverability in the confined waters of a typical narrow sea such as the Persian Gulf. Its sprint speed is generally of little use around islands/islets and in shallow water. It is highly doubtful that a ship of 3,500 tons, no matter how well-armed and –equipped, could match the agility of hostile small boats, and suicide boats in particular. Another shortcoming of the LCS is that it has to move outside the littoral for refueling and rearming.”
The best solution for fighting small boat swarms is a small boat swarm, he says, and recommends the Navy truncate the LCS buy and instead acquire a “modest” number (some 44) of 1,200 to 1,500 ton multi-purpose corvettes and 400 to 500 ton missile craft. They would be cheaper, better suited to fighting small boat swarms and would be good ships for counternarcotics and counter piracy missions. For corvettes, he recommends something along the lines of the German 1,685-ton MEKO A-100, the Swedish 620-ton Visby, or the Italian 1,285-ton Minerva.
Coming out swinging in favor of the LCS is an emerging heavyweight in naval operations, the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment’s Martin Murphy, who has recently written some good stuff on piracy, and has a new paper out on the LCS. Its a ship particularly well suited to naval irregular warfare, including fighting fast attack craft and a range of naval “constabulary” missions. He sees the LCS acting as a defensive “tripwire,” or the “light cavalry” for the surface Navy, performing the roles of scouting, screening and exploitation.
While recognizing LCS limitations in onboard armament, particularly air-defenses, Murphy sees its speed as a distinct advantage and says its shallow draft of 15 feet opens up huge chunks of previously inaccessible ocean. The real LCS value added comes from its “lilypad” functionality, that is, its large flight deck, able to operate two MH-60 helicopters or an assortment of drones.
Yet, to realize their true operational potential, commanders must employ them in “significant” numbers. Operating independently, the ships lack of onboard weapons and long distance legs will prove limiting. A group of LCSs operating together, while not quite a swarm in fast-attack craft terms, would create a “web of rapidly moveable lilypads,” Murphy writes, allowing drones and helicopters to range over a very large area.
As Navy undersecretary Bob Work often points out, the Navy’s true counter to the small boat swarm is the MH-60 helicopter, faster than any small boat and, when armed with Hellfire missiles and mini-guns, a very lethal aircraft. High speed lilypads and fast, lethal helicopters, make for a very potent fighting force in littoral waters.
{ 40 comments… read them below or add one }
Totally agree with Mr. Work at the end there. Helicopters (manned and unmanned) and drones are the way to go when defending against swarms of fast attack boats. That coupled with the missile boats and corvettes mentioned above. Whether or not the LCS is involved in that in anyway, I'm not sure. It's a nice looking boat, but I don't see it doing very well by itself against swarms of boats and it makes a nice big target.
So it costs half a billion dollars to build a ship to support two helicopters?
Looking at a LCS alone l don't think it is the best solution, once again those in these things the enemy of good is perfect. There may be platforms that are technically better at the specific fight involving small boats, however, I'm also pretty confident with the mission package potential there are ops the LCS will be able to carry out the above mentioned corvette classes couldn't. I'm also equally certain that if Iran moves to seal the Straits of Hormuz the gulf states will happily allow US air power to operate from runways and savage Iran with Tacair. The LCS's are not going to be in the fight alone. They are just going to add capability to the fight we didn't have before. Besides Iran will get maybe one day of ops in, maybe. before air strikes annihilate their bases.
Will we ever have a lot of these? Cost?
If they need to operate in a group; will we ever have a group? Navy's Plans?
What type of small weapons will they be able to deploy on the deck of the ships? 50 Cals? Grenade launchers? Laser guided rockets?
To take a historical perspective from WW1 the litoral threat that developed was the Motor Gunboat, and more especially the Motor Torpedo Boat – small, fast, coastal vessels with a deadly weapons system.
What evolved to deal with the ? Destroyers – aka 'Torpedo Boat Destroyers'. Starting out at around 300 tons soon growing to over a 1000, the first turbine powered warships were fast, unarmoured and manevourable – mmm' sounds a little like LCS ? BUT they were also well armed to deal with their foes, and so the similarity with LCS ends….?? When it got to WWII the destroyers became ASW or AAW specialist ships – not so much multi-purpose.
If your going to be a platform for helicopters, why do you really need massive gas turbines to push you past 40 knots ? Would not the weight be better used for armament (and armour ?). How about multiple AMOS 120mm mortar turrets – rapid fire of air bursting HE should disrupt any 'speed boats' that get past your helo's – if a couple manage to squeek through and get closer, the same barrels can fire laser guided missiles (IAI Lahat). Just some thoughts…..
In WWI they still hadn't entirely phased out horse calvary, and had no airpower as capable as a modern predator drone.
Perhaps we need a carrier based version of an A-10.
The idea of primarily fighting ships with ships, tanks with tanks, etc. just doesn't make sense anymore.
At least they got the "Retreat Smartly" right, 40 knots can get you out of a bind in a hurry. Lacks on-board defensive weapons, so get a detachment of marines with stingers out there watching the sky? The LCS seems to be a medium utility platform, not a real combat ship. It probably won't be operating in the Gulf alone and the Navy hasn't indicated exactly WHAT it has up it's sleeve for the mission packages. It may have a mission package with anti-air and anti-ship capabilities in mind. I think an aluminum craft is susceptible to missile attacks (HMS Sheffield style). This ship needs support in a real hostile environment.
The Sheffield had a steel superstructure: the aluminum story is a myth. See: http://www.hazegray.org/faq/smn6.htm#F7
If the primary argument if favor of LCS is that it is an aircraft carrier, then the question arises: why not just use aircraft carriers? Why put a ship in danger 2 miles from shore to lauch helicopters, when a carrier can sit 50 miles off shore and launch the same helos or other attack craft? LCS has lots of mission packages, so what? Doesn't a carrier with 80 aircraft have lots of mission packages as well?
The argument in favor of LCS seems to be the largest argument against it. Ok, it's an aircraft carrier, great. We have lots of those already, why do we need a small one that isn't survivable?
It is true that the LCS is not really a swarm attack defense ship, but it wan't built to be one. For the cost of one aircraft carrier group you can have 50 LCS (or more) with 100 helicopters spread out over a wide range of locations. Each is ideal for taking on threats requiring quick response and involving small numbers of enemy ships at any one time in needle in a haystack situations — finding a dozen submarines between North Korea and Japan, finding a ship smuggling WMDs in a shipping lane following vague intelligence that they are passing through an area in a stream of maritime commerce, responding to piracy in the Red Sea, drug interdiction in support of allies in the Phillipines or Indonesia or Oceania. An LCS may still be a big ship to deal with these kinds of missions, it is closer to the right size than the roughly 10,000 ton cruisers and destroyers available beyond the U.S. Coast for those missions now. They were also designed to be deployed in places where it is necessary to take a some risk that you will lose a ship, a kind of risk that is unacceptable with a larger ship.
.
You can get 50 LCS, each of which can operate independently, for the of 1 aircraft carrier group. No, it isn't a swarm defense ship and it wasn't built to be one. But is the best platform the Navy has for needle in a haystack missions like anti-piracy (e.g. off Somolia), screening shipping for weapons imports or drugs, ASW, anti-mine warfare, locating and taking down isolated suicide boats, etc. We now use 10,000 ton +/- destroyers and cruisers for those missions. Its lower cost and smaller crew also make it possible to deploy in situations where you realistically might lose a ship or two, something you can't do with an aircraft carrier.
The US retired the ideal littoral combat ships–the IOWA class battleships. Their combination of multiple turrets of radar directed 5 inch, CIWS, 25mm mounts, Harpoon, in the most survivable hulls on the planet would overmatch any conceivable swarm of small, hostile combatants.
So, is the draft 15 feet or 20 feet? Seems like a meaningful difference.
Not even 15. LCS-1 is about 12ft. LCS-2 is 13. Although i think thats unloaded weight.
And careful about suggesting bringing back the Iowa. They were expensive to operate (and are only going to get more expensive as they age). It took 2500+ sailors to run a ship that size
Not even 15. LCS-1 is about 12ft. LCS-2 is 13. Although i think thats unloaded weight.
Yes that is unloaded weight. Looking at these maps of the Persian Gulf floor, it seems that these drafts are more than sufficient for most ops. The only problem might be getting in close enough to engage some land targets with the Mk 110 considering it's nine mile range.
http://www.stratfor.com/files/mmf/6/0/608a4a7d1f0…
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_as…
The LCS is what you get when you don't know what the design is supposed to do because you have no clear picture of who the enemy might be – but you what to build a ship anyways. There is a raft of DoD programs hith exactly the same problem.
Helicopters for reach, yes, but you can't launch one on the short notice required to survive the appearance of multiple small boats from behind an islet or oil platform.
I wonder if a large ESSM package might not be in the offing as standard equipment in all but name, especially if half the reason for a swarm of speedboats is to mask the presence of a small missile shooter.
Helicopters for reach, yes, but you can't launch one on the short notice required to survive the appearance of multiple small boats from behind an islet or oil platform.
Time to bring the hydrofoils,"Pegasus" out of moth balls and mount a Phalanx weapons system on them. When speed counts (47knots) they could turn in their own wake. The76mm OTO Melara (80rds a min.) on the bow was very potent on sea & air targets, their Harpoon system wasn’t bad either. Why do we have to re-invent the wheel every time a so called-New Threat- shows up on the block.
Gundeck
Unfortunately, the Navy scrapped them as soon as they could after decommisioning them. only Aries PHM-5 and Gemini PHM-6 are left. Aries is a floating museum in Missouri and Gemini is now a converted luxury vessel. CNO was convinced little manuverable boats were worthless….
I have sadi from the start that the LCS is and always had been a ship in search of a mission it does NOTHING well and you can't even say it does anything even half azzzed .
Sprucans that we had carried two helocpters they could have all been made quite effective DDG's for not a big investemnt if they had all been KIDDized during thier first ROH.
I would like to see any conclusive data showing the LCS as too generalized to be effective.. particularly considering that there isn't much data on mission modules yet, nor a service history to scrutinize.
Refit OHP’s with an 8 cell Mk41 VLS with quad packed ESSM forward of the of the Mk13. Replace the Mk13 GMLS and the 76mm gun with a pair of 57mm guns or maybe fit one of the 57mm’s aft inplace of the Phalanx and then fit a Phalanx Mod 1B PSuM on each beam, adjactent to the former 76mm location. Replace the flex mount .50cals with mini Typhoons and introduce a higher level of automation to reduce crew size.
There you have it, a super LCS at much lower cost.
Develop a round between the .50 and 20mm. Develop a light weight of the Phalanx using that round. Done.
Late and just post war there was work on the .60 Browning. 20mm doesn't have to be big and heavy,ie: Oerlikon.
Given that the class hasn't even really been deployed yet, LCS1 is just playing with this counter narc stuff, I am certain there will be bugs to be worked out. The mission package idea is worth exploring l think. Although given NLOS's lousy performance recently, I wonder if there is any emergency rethinking going on? I also saw a post about the international sales versions, with VLS options, and Israeli Typhoon gun mounts. I wouldn't be surprised if the international version becomes the US version with NLOS now having issues.
Wow, a PT boat at 70' length seems really well armed in retrospect. How about a mother ship with a squadron of modern PT's at the ready? Wait, we all ready did that….
You gus are missing an important piece of the puzzle here.
The NLOS-LS missile, a very important armament system for the LCS, is in BIG, BIG TROUBLE, as reported here on deftech….
Go back into the archives and read the NLOS-LS story, then report back.
Tip-toe through the Lillys? Seems to be a rather odd analogy. The point as always will be firepower at the point of contact. If it an't got it then what good is it?
Yup, modernized PT's would be the ticket for this type of warfare. Prolly cheaper by a long shot than the LCS to boot.
Jed- You need 40 knots to keep up with the carriers when they're putting birds up.
20ft in draft is huge. But I see so people saying as little as 12feet which means it can operate in a huge number of places. 20ft keeps it out of a lot of small shallow areas, but 13ft means it could get into port in most small marinas. The Cutter rigged Ketch my family owned back in the day drew 11feet and we took it into all kind of little inlets and rivers.
At 12 ft with 2 birds, and that awesome new cannon (if you have not seen that thing in action go check it out) is pretty tough stuff. Add to it the M2, a duel-240s that will be all over the deck I wouldn't call it an easy kill.
Bring back the hydrofoils!
Isn't this the reason why the Navy went with a modular design? If it's lacking swarm scenarios, build it a module for it. A couple CIWSs and an extra deck gun or two, plus the necessary radars and such. Draws added utility and flexibility out of the LCS, and I can't imagine that it would cost more then a full squadron of even more ships.
Sa they are saying mobile air power from helicopters are going to save the day against swarms of ships? Wait until someone gets the bright idea of putting MANPADS on those small boats and it will the Soviet Occupation of Afghanistan all over again except this time in "Literal Waters" and it will our people doing the dieing.
It they wanted a small helicopter carrier the should have designed such a ship and have it operate 50 clics off of shore, not this floating death trap. It seems primarily designed to go after lightly armed pirates and drug smugglers, not Nation States. You like modules, how about Guns and Armor are modules too, how about sending some of those into with our sailors into combat? The LCS is going to need an armed escort, just like carriers, because there is no way an competent commander is going to let operate alone anywhere near the coastal waters of iran. The LCS appears to be a support vessel, not a combat vessel which is strange because that's how they are billing it.
"The US retired the ideal littoral combat ships–the IOWA class battleships. Their combination of multiple turrets of radar directed 5 inch, CIWS, 25mm mounts, Harpoon, in the most survivable hulls on the planet would overmatch any conceivable swarm of small, hostile combatants."
Do we really have to have the obligatory battleship comment all the time? The Iowa class is just a huge sea skimming missile target at this point.
The PT boats were specifically designed for littoral operations, and were incredibly successful and super heavily armed for their size – a good model to follow.
Missiles are the big thing these days, and the defense industry loves them because they are highly profitible and very expensive. More guns (Bushmasters, etc) on a smaller platform with a few missiles just in case would probably provide a better platform for the littorals, along with a draft of maybe a max draft of 8 feet (that may be overdoing it). But the navy hated the MTBs when they came out, just as the ariforce hated the A-10s, until they became desparate enough to use them and found out how lethal they really were (which didn't stop them from trying to kill 'em off anyway).
The US Navy really needs to hire a few Russian ship designers for this one. No one knows how to stick things-that-go-bang on a ship like a Russian does. Just take a look at the Sovremenney class destroyer.
Or, alternatively, just give the drawings to a 10 year old boy and let him draw guns on it. Then actually go and fit guns there.
Slightly more seriously the Russian Kashtan combined gun and missile system would be a sweet marriage with the LCS, except that it’s Russian and so the US would never fit it. I mainly care about this because Australia tends to folow the US in naval matters and so we end up with seriously under gunned ships as well.
Were any of the lessons from RV Triton used on the GD LCS 2?
Possibility to fit VLS system' on the LCS 2? Behind the 57mm gun? I fear much of the talk is based around the LCS 1.
It seems to me that the Navy thinks 'speed' is a weapon system on LCS. Speed is not a weapon, there is no ship afloat that can outrun a missile, attacking aircraft or even a torpedo. And even if LCS is fast, it's not fast for very long-it will soon run out of 'gas.'
We FIRST need to replace all of the Perry Frigate out here, but with self-defense and real offensive capabilities, then we can think about building some pretty boats lie the LCS.