SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Lessons for the Navy's New Frigate From the Littoral Combat Ship - War on the Rocks:
Since their inception over a decade ago, the U.S. Navy's littoral combat ships have been plagued by cost overruns, frequent breakdowns, and an ever-changing mission set. As the former navigator of the USS Coronado, the second littoral combat ship of the Independence-class, I experienced firsthand how these ill-conceived vessels impacted sailors. Recently, the U.S. Navy selected a variant of the Italian-made European multi-purpose frigate to revitalize its stock of surface combatants, which, given the ship's design is already in use by NATO navies, is a promising sign. However, as its newest class of warships begins construction and as the Navy continues to formulate its training and crewing structures, it should take stock in the lessons learned from its ongoing struggle with the littoral combat ship.
During my nearly three-year tenure in the program, I heard a range of derisive substitutes for the littoral combat ship acronym, LCS. "Let's Change Something" and "Little Circus Show" were common and among the more polite. Indeed, the program has largely been dismissed by insiders, and even by its own sailors, as a $30 billion failure. As the navigator of the USS Coronado from 2018 to 2020, I spent much of my time struggling with the ship's many shortcomings. On one occasion our vessel's propulsion lost all power in the middle of San Diego Bay and we were saved from grounding in the city's downtown only by an emergency anchorage. The Coronado, along with the other first three littoral combat ships, have proven so disastrous that the Navy announced their early decommissioning next year.
[...] How can the Navy redeem itself with the new guided-missile frigate class, or FFG(X), which seeks to fill the hole of small surface combatants left by the fledgling littoral combat ship? By selecting the Italian-designed FREMM frigate, the Navy has already taken a positive step. Littoral combat ships were originally conceived as part of a radical concept of operations: fast and customizable combatants that could operate in near-shore environments and meet a range of missions from minesweeping to anti-submarine warfare. In short, they were warships designed to face the asymmetrical threats of the 21st century. In the end, however, the customizable modules were deemed impractical and the ships were delivered with few weapons and no capability to detect mines or submarines. Furthermore, the Independence-class littoral combat ships were designed after high-speed ferries and featured aluminum hulls, waterjet propulsion, and empty compartments for a yet-to-be-chosen missile. In order to defend itself on deployment, the Coronado had to be retrofitted with harpoon missile cannisters on its bow. These were dubious choices for warships that were meant to cross the Pacific Ocean and fight independently at sea.
(Score: 4, Informative) by choose another one on Sunday September 06 2020, @02:23PM (2 children)
Unless it is for coastal defence only (or invading neighbours that you can get to overland) it will need to cross seas and oceans to get to it's target, with the possibly of a fight on the way, it seems it is not very good at that. Basing the design on ferries may not have been the greatest idea...
Mostly though it seems that military procurement once again fell for the old "multi-role" fallacy, i.e. if we create a jack-of-all-trades and buy a lot of them it'll be cheaper. It usually isn't, it's invariably worse at it's jobs (the master-of-none) and usually ends up costing as much as a specialist design by the time you have "customised" it for each role. The customisation part is often not built in (or not fully) to the original contract (which is why it looks cheaper) and when you go looking for it pretty much only the original mfr is capable of doing it so it's think of a number that'll make the shareholder s really happy and buy a hell of a lot of nice long trips and lunches on the expense account.
Another example is UK aircraft carriers where the MOD paid extra to procure carriers that were V/STOL capable but could be adapted for cats&traps if the F35B turned out to be, umm, a bit crap. The carriers were designed with empty space (very expensive empty space...) to fit cats&traps. Then things went like this when the F35B turned out to be a bit crap and a bit late...:
- MOD went back and said "can we have the full costing for fitting EMALS please"
- BAE said "give us, erm, £100M and we'll tell you"
- MOD - OK
- BAE (goes out to lunch a lot) "it'll be, erm, about £1Bn per ship, and erm. three years delay, is that ok?"
(Score: 1) by pTamok on Sunday September 06 2020, @04:58PM
Its a little bit more complicated that that:
https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/cats-traps-and-claptrap-why-the-royal-navys-new-aircraft-carriers-operate-vstol-aircraft/ [savetheroyalnavy.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 06 2020, @09:34PM
Being a destroyer sailor, I sort of agree with you. But, your statement is rather simplistic. The Gator Navy can cross the open ocean. Gators are less seaworthy than destroyers, true, but they are seaworthy. Where most ships of the line can intentionally navigate into storms and severe sea conditions, gators will skirt those hazards. As for fighting along the way, that is what the destroyer escorts are for.
You cannot expect that any ship is ideal for all possible missions. If the mission is to establish a beachhead from which to invade some country, a destroyer positively sucks, and cruisers would be little better. Review any marine invasion in modern history, and you will see that multiple ship types were used to accomplish a variety of missions within the campaign. Every task force is planned thoroughly, to include supply ships, transport of personnel, air defense, submarine defense, mine countermeasures, as well as control of the sea itself. A marine invasion would be totally worthless without the Gator Navy ships that can put troops ashore.
I enjoy picking at the sailors on round bottom ships, telling them that they aren't "real" sailors. Inter service rivalry is a lot of fun. But the Gator boys have a pretty tough job to do, and they do it pretty well. And, mostly without any thanks.
Again, as a destroyer man, I'll point out that virtually every headline in regards to the Navy has a photo of an aircraft carrier, and one or more aircraft. Few appreciate the less glamorous components of the Navy.
Hail to the Nibbler in Chief.