Apparently corrosion isn't the only thing that can cripple the LCS:

 

 

 

We're building and deploying a $500 million dollar, 3,000 ton ship that can't defend itself against current or future threats?  Really?

 

I guess we can argue that our Avenger-class minesweepers can't defend themselves either, but it's a wooden-hulled 1400 ton ship.

 

It seems like all too often 'multi-mission' means the new platform is mediocre at best on each of the missions, and excels at none.

 

Look up the 'Leander' class frigate from the UK:  Same tonnage, 5x the armament (one of the reasons for the high complement.  A modernized design could more than halve this).

 

 

 

 

It's far worse than that.  Not a single mission module currently works or is projected to work anytime soon.  The surface warfare module is geared toward fighting small boats and will feature a missile with a range of 3.5 miles, less than the 57mm gun.  The modules are also an extra cost in addition to the $500 or so million for the ship.

 

It's actually ridiculous paying $500+ million 45 knot frigate to do mine hunting given that is a slow deliberate process.  Similar thoughts on ASW.  The last USN report on the ASW module notes that it doesn't any capability and that it's unacceptable that the ship has to stop to deploy the systems.

 

LCS is non cost effective for mine warfare.  It has very minimal capacity to deal with surface and air threats and assuming they get the ASW module to work only those equipped have any capacity for sub surface threats.  The only virtue of LCS is that it carries two helicopters or Firescout.   Why one needs to travel at 45 knots carrying two 140 knot helicopters is a mystery.  It's certainly not worth the cost.

 

LCS was originally a 500 ton fast ship when the concept originated under Street Fighter.  The USN added the aircraft and increased the size to 3,000 tons.  They wanted a proper ship for blue ocean career minded ticket punching officers.

 

So instead of small cost effective mine warfare craft, general purpose frigates, patrol craft (the Cyclones aren't being replaced and the mission will be handed off to the USCG), and possibly a cost effective NGS ship, we get LCS.  Frankly the USN is out of it's mind.

 

To cite one example the DDG-51 III might be so expensive to purchase and operate that more DDG-1000's might be cost effective and have the virtue of doing shallow water asw very well.  Think about that.  The USN might purchase more 15,000 ton cruisers for shallow water asw.  If that's a requirement one might be forgiven for thinking that perhaps they might want to think about some small cost effective frigates, like the majority of the world operates.

The old style minesweepers are out because they can no longer do the job. Mines have gotten smarter to make them harder to fool and to sweep, and those slow wooden vessel no longer an advantage of being able to work closer in, which was dangerous enough before. A lot of the work has been transferred to helicopters, that is part of why the Navy insisted on having 2 on the LCS, and the rest will be done with UUV’s. And there is no reason the minesweeping modules cannot be mounted on a vessel of opportunity (an offshore support vessel, freighter, or seagoing barge) with the deck space for the modules and the helicopters required for operating in safe areas.

 

The problem is that most of the areas where these systems will be needed can no longer be considered ‘safe’ for small, unarmed, vessels. Even up until Viet Nam a vessel over 12 miles (20,000 yards) offshore was pretty safe. Now with cruise missiles that probably extends to 100 miles or more depending mostly on the range the target can be tracked at. In the area of anti-missile capabilities the LCS is possibly more capable than larger vessels because of the gun mounted, assuming of course that what the larger vessels have is sufficient.

Most the cost increase is caused by the new Air and Missile Defense Radar system and a second helicopter with hanger on the DDG-51 Block III. Probably a lot of the cost for the DDG-1000 is likewise, the weapons and electronics of the 2 vessels are very similar in capability, though different in layout. You have to pay for the capabilities if you want to have them, and the hull you wrap around it does not make a huge difference in the final cost.

The LCS is truly absurd, it's the zenith of procurement folly - while many criticise the F-35 program it's hard to deny that the design itself (if affordable) will significantly enhance the capability spectrum of its operators  - with the LCS programme you can't even say that, it seems to offer almost nothing in terms of new capabilities and anything it does do it does for about 1000% of the cost of comparable systems.

 

It boggles the mind..

 

R 

Modularity is excellent in principle, the problem is that it always relies on a degree of compromise - Stryker, LCS and F-35 all have that in common - with F-35 the A B and C variants are derived from an initial set of enormously demanding requirements - as the inevitable problems of commonality and modularity have arisen on the program the three platforms have essentially become far more discrete entities than was initially envisaged which means that maintaining systems commonality (reducing cost) while also configuring each variant in its own right as a specialised system means that the inevitable result will be reduced commonality between the variants and in a worst-case scenario one or more variants might no longer be economically viable. If one assumes that the greatest level of risk is in the 'B' variant, whose STOVL requirement dictated the overall airframe (and systems) design of A and C then you would consider it an enormous irony that of all 3 variants it is by far the most vulnerable as a program, in which case one might reasonably also ask to what degree the STOVL requirement has helped or hindered developments of the far more numerous A and C variants that can broadly be termed as strike fighters..

 

Baking modularity in from the start is a wonderful premise so long as the goalposts don't change and that the level of divergence from the original design is minimal (i.e. the level of engineering risk is accurately assessed at outset (unlikely))- otherwise it seems to offer enormous additional complexity and guaranteed performance compromises- that is not "as a result of sloppy workmanship" but perhaps theoretically assured from the outset. 

 

It is possible that the only way to design a system intended for modularity is to first describe a "base model" and then allow others to optimise it as they see fit (F-teens) - if the requirements are too broad it might well fall victim to the "jack of all trades" argument (LCS?) or alternatively become an engineering nightmare (F-35). 

 

The likelihood is that the touted mission modules won't be swapped all that often - the likelihood is that eventually the mission modules will grow in complexity until they are no longer modular, at which point you will have specialist units that no longer have to compromise so drastically for the ill-conceived notion and guaranteed reduced operational effectiveness of "plug and play" modules versus specialised mission fit-out.

 

You could also mention STRYKER of course...

 

R 

It's a rather problematic argument to assert traditional mine hunters are obsolete because they don't posses self defense capacity given LCS has very limited capacity to deal with air and/or missile threats.  Yes mine warfare today utilizes off board assets but these are not platform limited.  Helicopters have been used in mine warfare since 1971.  You still need to send in mine hunters to confirm. 

 

LCS is far less protected against mines than purpose built smaller craft.  LCS is not shock resistant and in fact does not posses the same levels of protection as a normal warship.  It in fact operates a mine hunting sonar and will be searching for mines the same as a traditional mine hunter except it will be far more vulnerable and of course is cost ineffective.

 

The new helicopter mounted mine systems, the ones on medium helicopters not the those on the MH-53E, have not demonstrated their effectiveness.  Nor has it been demonstrated that it's more cost effective using these.  Small cost effective mine warfare craft are still used around the world because they do the job and do it relatively cheaply.