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.

When Russia gave India a retired Soviet aircraft carrier five years ago, New Delhi was delighted — little realising the vessel would turn into a costly white elephant.
Russia, India’s longtime weapons supplier, said in 2004 it would give the country the 44,570-tonne “Admiral Gorshkov” as a gift, provided Delhi paid a Russian shipyard 974 million dollars to refurbish the carrier.
Since then, the price has skyrocketed for fixing up the 27-year-old ship, which was decommissioned after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
In 2007, Russia demanded 850 million dollars more, citing cost escalations. Then, six months ago, Russia startled India with another demand — this time for 2.9 billion dollars.
It also pushed back the ship’s delivery by four years to 2012 — a year after India must mothball its last remaining aircraft carrier, the British-origin INS Viraat.
Now India’s national auditor has waded into the row, saying the navy could have paid less for a new carrier.

What’s this mean in the long-term? India moves away from the Russian kit they’ve used for decades, buys more US-NATO gear (hopefully, I’m a big India fan… would like to see our alliance tightened).
–John Noonan

Under current plans, the Royal Navy circa 2020 will be a very strange force. There will be just six high-end warships to protect two 65,000-ton super-carriers, plus a mixed flotilla of old Type 23s and FSCs numbering just over a dozen. Itll be a top-heavy force with too few destroyers to escort the carriers into a shooting war, and too few frigates to perform day-to-day patrolling during peacetime. Its a fleet optimized for nothing.

For the past few decades, Her Majesty’s Armed Forces have steered away from the preservation of empire and colonies, instead configuring themselves in such a way that they can provide a solid bulwark to the US Armed Forces, while operating independently in a single theater, Falklands style scenario.
But, the backbone of any British strategy –from the pre-Victorian age all the way up until the Labour Party victory in the mid 1990s– has always been a powerful Royal Navy. The fleet’s demise over the past several years has been one of the great tragedies in recent memory. There was a time when the Union Jack protected every major sea lane and trade route on the globe — today the British can barely protect their own coastline. That’s a terrible fall for what was once a mighty sea-faring empire.
What’s troubling about this report, to me at least, is that the Brits are shaping their fleet in such a way that it will be largely reliant on American protection. Instead of existing as a powerful, independent ally that can operate jointly or independently with its US counterpart, the Royal Navy is becoming a welfare case — where supporting it with anti-sub and anti-air protection becomes more of a drain on our own resources than a benefit.
Watching the British lose confidence in themselves, the oft-lamented “Suez Syndrome,” is terrible. But, as much as it pains me to say so, perhaps it’s time we look for new, stronger allies for our special defense relationship — perhaps in the Aussies or Japanese.
–John Noonan
HT - Goldfarb

Iranian technical university student Hassan Sharifzadeh drafted a new reconnaissance submarine that can avoid radar detection, the Iranian Fars news agency said.

Next up: an Iranian fighter jet that’s invisible to sonar!
–John Noonan
Update: via the comments, we’ll call this a ‘lost in translation’ moment.

Proceedings sends

With all the talk about the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) and the next guided-missile destroyer, DDG-1000, no one has seen fit to discuss the future of the next generation of cruisers-the CG(X), the follow-on to the present class of Aegis cruisers. Because those remarkable ships will reach their 30th anniversaries-and beyond-in the middle of the next decade, we need to confront the issue of their successors now.

The Analysis of Alternatives for the CG(X) has been in the works for several months, but the outcome is far from certain. And with the target initial operational capability of the new cruiser class set for 2019, the present study of required capabilities and how to develop and fund them has reached the point of urgency.

A knotty problem. Back during 2006’s Lebanon War, Hezzy baddies killed four Israeli sailors with a UAV packed with explosives. Granted, textbook definition doesn’t exactly qualify that as a ballistic missile. But it does raise the larger point of potential enemies like Iran, Syria, and North Korea — and what tech they’d employ as a means of knocking back our air and sea power. Seeing that every dictator and his sweet mother have –at minimum– a few medium range ballistic missiles and a whole mess of lighter ship/aircraft killers, I’m thinking that the good Admiral has a point here.

Furthermore, most of our enemies (and potentials) are eager customers of a booming Russian defense industry. Taking into consideration the fact that Aegis was originally designed to protect our carriers from Russian missile attack, logic would dictate that as the Russians upgrade their ship-killing kit, we upgrade our seaborne defense systems as well.
–John Noonan

I wrote earlier this week about the apparent demise of the DDG 1000 in the Navy’s future budget planning. Well, in an unusual step, two very key lawmakers have come out in favor of curtailing the program.

I am pleased with the Navys decision to focus its resources on the DDG 51 destroyer, with its known costs and capabilities, rather than the increasingly expensive DDG 1000, said Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO). Our committee recommended this action in the fiscal year 2009 Defense Authorization Act, and I am pleased to see the Navy heed our advice. It is a responsible decision that will benefit both the Navy and the taxpayer for years to come.

I believe this is the right thing for the men and women of our Navy and the citizens who pay for these ships, Subcommittee Chairman Gene Taylor (D-MS) commented. The DDG 51 class destroyer is the premier destroyer in the world today. The ship has tremendous flexibility in a variety of warfighting missions, including the ability to serve as a ballistic missile defense platform. Just as important, the costs of these ships are well known. The Navy has built 62 of these superb vessels and our shipyards know how to build them on budget and on schedule.

Taylor continued, The two DDG 1000s that our nation will build will be extremely capable ships. However, virtually every independent organization with expertise in ship cost analysis has predicted the first two ships will cost up to $5 billion each, or more than $1.5 billion more than the Navy has budgeted. Such cost overruns would cripple the Navys plan to reach a 313-ship fleet.

Now, as DT reader George Skinner noted in his comments from Monday’s post, the DDG 1000 has been a great incubator for new naval technologies. I’m in favor of using programs such as this to develop new gear for the next generation of hardware — I see the same thing happening with the FCS program and I’m all for it. And it’s refreshing when services make a tactical retreat on some programs and admit that they’ll be used essentially as R&D labs.

Continues Taylor:

“I believe that our Navy and our nation are better served by building a large number of DDG 51s and then proceeding with a timely and orderly plan to begin construction of the next generation of nuclear powered cruisers. I look forward to working with Admiral Roughead and Secretary Winter during the return to DDG 51 production.“

Well said…

– Christian

It’s like the Navy’s version of the F-22 — a lingering vestige of the “blue water” fighting force the service once was. But like the F-22, and despite the Navy’s best efforts to shift its emphasis to surface fire support (a concept that still clings to life despite air-to-ground and surface to surface missile and artillery advancements) talk is that the DDG 1000 is slipping away.

From today’s Military.com headlines:

The DDG 1000 series of ships would run on quiet and compact electric motors, not today’s gas turbine engines. The ships would be unusually large but built with a radar-evading profile to make them appear small, and they would carry a new gun able to hit precisely targets 50 miles or more inland.

Most important for sailors, the destroyers would carry highly trained, computer-savvy crews half as large as the force on current destroyers.

As recently as early June, the Pentagon’s top weapons buyer reaffirmed the Bush administration’s support for the new ships. But as Congress refines spending plans for 2009 this summer, Navy leaders appear ready to abandon the DDG 1000 program, building only two destroyers for what once was seen as a force of two dozen or more.

The House of Representatives already has voted for at least a pause in DDG 1000 purchases, citing the cost — as much as $5 billion each — of the first two ships in the series and their dependence on still-unproven technologies.

In a statement released last week , the Navy seemed resigned to an early end for the program. “Even if we do not receive funding … beyond the first two ships, the technology embedded in DDG 1000 will advance the Navy’s future,” the statement asserted.

And the sad thing is that the littoral combat ship was to precede the DDG 1000 and even that’s on the skids (and is perhaps the most relevant ship the Navy’s looking into right now). Rummy started it with the death of Cold War vestige programs in the Army (remember the Crusader and Comanche?) and Gates pounded a few more nails into the coffin with is “next-war-itis” crusade. The services are beginning to see the writing on the wall and refocus their efforts — leaving a big job for the next defense secretary to get the procurement plans back on track.

– Christian

Things are heating up for the U.S. Navy’s first Littoral Combat Ship, after a long frozen winter in a Wisconsin shipyard.

The 377-foot Freedom is expected to head for open water once the ice melts. Prime contractor Lockheed Martin had hoped to set sail before the winter freeze, but ended up needing a few extra months for further development.

This week, the company announced a new testing milestone, as the new warship’s electric plant fired up for the first time. The so-called “light off” of four diesel generators and a three-megawatt electrical power plant involved putting the entire system through its paces, at full power.

“This marks a significant milestone for Freedom as her electric plant is completely functional and able to support all tests, evaluations and operations at sea,” Lockheed Martin said at this week’s Navy League conference.

Freedom will be delivered to the U.S. Navy in 2008 and will be homeported in San Diego. The new ships are intended to hunt mines, submarines and small boats in coastal waters. In addition to the Lockheed Martin design, the Navy also is buying a separate LCS design from General Dynamics. Both prime contractors are working with small U.S. shipyards to build the new ships, which are a lot smaller than the Navy’s traditional carriers, cruisers and destroyers.

– Rebecca Christie

Navy Ship With Steel From World Trade Center Ruins Christened USS New York
Associated Press
Avondale, LA
Thousands of people, including families of those who died in the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks, gathered Saturday for an at-times chilling and rallying service to christen a Navy ship built with twisted steel from the ruins of the World Trade Center.
The hulking grey USS New York, which abruptly rose from the horizon, bore a seal on the bow bearing 7.5 tons of steel from the site. The shield included two gray bars to symoblize the Twin Towers; a banner over that declared “Never Forget.“
“May God bless this ship and all who sail on her,” ship sponsor, Dotty England, said before smashing a bottle of champagne against it, producing a loud thump to go with the spurting liquid and flying streamers.
Story after story of lives lost, and touched, by the attacks peppered the ceremony, held under the blazing sun and broadcast on large screens.
“To New York, we say thank you for lending your sacred seal, your name,” U.S. Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., said. More importantly was that New York lent its spirit, he said.
Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England said ship names provide a legacy, and for their crews, serve as a source of strength and inspiration.
When the attacks occurred, the ship was planned but had no name. It was named the New York at the request of former New York Gov. George Pataki. The steel from the World Trade Center site is in the part of the ship that splices through the water, leading the way.
“It resurrects the ashes, so to speak, to do great things for our nation,” said Bill Glenn, a spokesman for Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, the ship builder.
The billion-dollar, 25,000-ton vessel is 684 feet long, 105 feet wide. It can carry about 360 sailors and 700 Marines who can be brought ashore via landing craft and helicopter. Its prospective commanding officer is Commander F. Curtis Jones, a native New Yorker. It is to be commissioned next year, said England’s wife, Dotty England, before the christening.
Rep. Vito Fossella, R-N.Y., said Sept. 11th was a turning point in the nation, and will never be forgotten because remnants of the disaster are part of the ship.
“If the USS New York has to follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of hell, PCO Jones and his crew … have my full support,” he said to a standing ovation.

Photo credit: AVONDALE, La. (Mar. 1, 2008) Mrs. Dottty England, wife of Deputy Secretary of Defense The Hon. Gordon England, christens the amphibious transport dock Pre-Commissioning Unit New York (LPD 21) at Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding New Orleans. U. S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Tiffini M. Jones (Released)
–Pinch Paisley

FM COMNAVAIRFOR SAN DIEGO CA//N43//

TO USS KITTY HAWK

USS ENTERPRISE

USS NIMITZ

USS DWIGHT D EISENHOWER

USS CARL VINSON

USS THEODORE ROOSEVELT

USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN

USS GEORGE WASHINGTON

USS JOHN C STENNIS

USS HARRY S TRUMAN

USS RONALD REAGAN

SUBJ/REMOVAL OF CAPTAINS GIGS FROM ALL AIRCRAFT CARRIERS//

GENTEXT/REMARKS/1. OPNAV N88 APPROVED THE NAVAL AVIATION ENTERPRISE (NAE) CARRIER READINESS TEAM (CRT) REQUEST TO REMOVE THE CAPTAIN’S GIG FROM ALL CV/CVNS. REMOVAL OF THE CAPTAIN’S GIG WILL REDUCE MAINTENANCE COSTS AND FREE UP VALUABLE HANGAR BAY SPACE.

2. PER REF A AND B, ALL CV/CVNS ARE REQUESTED TO PREPARE THEIR CAPTAIN’S GIG FOR DISPOSITION WITHOUT REPLACEMENT IAW REF C. SHIPS SHOULD COORDINATE THESE EFFORTS WITH THEIR TYCOM N43 MAINTENANCE PROGRAM MANAGER (MPM).

3. THE FOLLOWING IS A LIST OF THE CAPTAIN’S GIGS ASSIGNED BY SHIP AND ACTION REQUIRED (READ IN THREE COLUMNS):

SHIP CAPTAIN’S GIG ACTION REQUIRED

CV 63 10MPE9319 COMPLETE REF C REQUIREMENTS

CVN 65 12MPE9203 NO FURTHER ACTION REQUIRED

CVN 68 12MPE9201 COMPLETE REF C REQUIREMENTS

CVN 69 40PE9004 NO FURTHER ACTION REQUIRED

CVN 70 40PE761 NO FURTHER ACTION REQUIRED

CVN 71 40PE8514 COMPLETE REF C REQUIREMENTS

CVN 72 33PE8701 COMPLETE REF C REQUIREMENTS

CVN 73 13MPE9902 COMPLETE REF C REQUIREMENTS

CVN 74 33PE9006 COMPLETE REF C REQUIREMENTS

CVN 75 33PE9007 COMPLETE REF C REQUIREMENTS

CVN 76 10MPE9308 COMPLETE REF C REQUIREMENTS

4. REQUEST THAT CAPTAIN’S GIGS BE OFFLOADED AT THE EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY.

5. CAPTAIN’S GIGS MUST BE OFFLOADED BY 30 JUN 09.

6. UPON COMPLETION OF OFFLOAD, SHIPS SHALL NOTIFY THEIR TYCOM N43 MPM AND POC.//

Ah, memories … it seems like just yesterday we’d join the old man for the ride to shore, full of the kind of excitement that always preceded a great liberty call.

So it’s goodbye, trusty friend. Regardless of sea state, you always got us there and back.

– Ward