Register here

Author Topic: USN Large Surface Combatant - Delayed  (Read 2722 times)

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11257
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8108
  • The path not taken.
Re: USN Large Surface Combatant - Delayed
« Reply #1 on: March 14, 2019, 03:48:46 am »
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11257
Re: USN Large Surface Combatant - Delayed
« Reply #2 on: March 14, 2019, 05:39:55 am »
Couldn't have said it better myself.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
Re: USN Large Surface Combatant - Delayed
« Reply #3 on: March 14, 2019, 07:33:45 am »
The messaging surrounding LSC for the past couple years has been bordering on absurd. Putting aside the "don't call it a cruiser, or destroyer, or anything" game:
First, they talked as if they had just started studying a new large combatant without elaborating on whether the existing work from previous years had been discarded or the goals had simply shifted. Then they began referencing the Frigate program and implying they needed to use an exiting hull to contain costs, which led to the obvious conclusion that only the DDG-1000 and LPD-17 hulls are practical "existing" options for a larger combatant hull. Then we got a backtrack, without much in the way of public discussion, to a new plan where instead LSC would be a new hull but the combat system+ from Burke Flight III would be carried over to contain costs and accelerate development. Meanwhile, in a wider context, they started making allusions to a dramatic shakeup of fleet balance and a new high/low mix. And despite all uncertainty and lack of clarity, they wanted to start buying them in 2023. Now, even that aspiration is gone, and Richardson even has the gall to say "we have to prove we need a LSC." But the Cruisers and early-program DDGs continue to age.

What a bleeping mess.

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1297
Re: USN Large Surface Combatant - Delayed
« Reply #4 on: March 14, 2019, 12:00:20 pm »
Network control and ROV technology has reached a level where it is realistically feasible to  reconsider basic naval architecture.  If you can offload weapons onto ROVs and disburse them while maintaining tight, realtime control, then what are the remaining requirements of a combatant ship?

The Littoral Combat Ship is the first attempt at this concept and has suffered the consequences for it.  Still, ROV maturity keeps improving and modest projections of future capability raise the specter of a step change in naval warfare.  The problem is the transition period where traditional architecture remains superior but you want to avoid developing expensive new platforms with potentially fast obsolescence.

In the meantime, less fishing more bait cutting and no clear answers.

From The Article:
Asked about this apparent delay in the new ship’s start, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson told USNI News that the requirement for the ship is being revisited in light of the new focus on future operating concepts that emphasize distributed, lethal – and in many cases unmanned – platforms equipped with weapons still in development.

“I’ve got to tell you, given the discussion that’s happened already, first question that we have to do is prove to ourselves that we need a large surface combatant. What is the unique contribution of something like that in the face of all these emerging technologies?” Richardson said while speaking to reporters after a speech at the annual McAleese Defense Programs event.

Offline Foo Fighter

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 649
  • I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Re: USN Large Surface Combatant - Delayed
« Reply #5 on: March 14, 2019, 12:19:56 pm »
What bothers me is this;- "those priorities are paid for by canceling the refueling of aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75), which was set to begin its mid-life overhaul in 2025. In a further nod to the fluidity of the Navy’s understanding of what a future fight looks like and therefore what gear it needs, Richardson said the Navy had to weigh another 25 years of life for a Nimitz-class carrier against “requirements which are being studied”.

Considering they are trying to increase the number of carriers it hardly makes sense.  It also makes little sense in light of the huge cost to acquire the ship.  Madness?  Perhaps.

Offline Hood

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1104
Re: USN Large Surface Combatant - Delayed
« Reply #6 on: March 15, 2019, 02:08:44 am »
I agree, the decision not to refuel USS Harry S. Truman doesn't seem to make a lot of sense given the ship will only be 25 years old in 2024 and should have plenty of life left. I suppose if she were mothballed she could be reactivated again if numbers became a concern, but given the costs and construction time to build a new carrier, it would seem to be a no-brainer to keep the refit as a relatively economical way to preserve the carrier fleet.
I can't honestly see the USN suddenly finding future requirements for 2030 onwards that won't include carrier airpower.

As to the LSC, if feels like deja vu. The emphasis on emerging technologies that might be the next hottest thing the Pentagon wants to play with is getting the USN nowhere. DD(X) was meant to be the future, based on all the technical goodies the USN wanted. It built three and decided it wasn't what it wanted after all. LCS was much the same, what they thought they wanted at the time is now not what they want. What's to the say the decisions on LSC will be the right ones and whether after building a couple they won't change their mind and go for the next 'big thing'.

A concept like a smaller frigate sized command ship shepherding a flotilla of USVs (something like Sea Hunter with a couple of Mk 48 VLS) might look good on a Powerpoint but its hard to translate that step change in thinking into hardware when other nations are building classical all-in-one naval ships. Its a leap of faith to believe that a flotilla of ships can be controlled and integrated like a fighter with loyal wingmen supported by airborne and satellite C3 assets, especially when these concepts have yet to be translated into a workable operational system for aviation, let alone ships.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2019, 04:22:51 am by Hood »

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11257
Re: USN Large Surface Combatant - Delayed
« Reply #7 on: March 15, 2019, 03:56:37 am »
The emphasis on emerging technologies that might be the next hottest thing the Pentagon wants to play with is getting the USN nowhere. DD(X) was meant to be the future, based on all the technical goodies the USN wanted.

They don't exactly have the best track record there.  They ditched the X-47B like it had ebola and every day it's more obvious that was a bad decision.

https://news.usni.org/2019/03/05/report-u-s-carriers-need-new-lethal-unmanned-aircraft-new-fighter-to-stay-relevant

The Zumwalt hull would be the perfect base for a cruiser replacement.  It's got the space, the power, a large flight deck, bigger cells, etc. etc. etc.  Unless there is something fundamentally wrong with the design of the hull itself, leaving the class to rot has got to be THE stupidest thing the USN has done in recent memory. (And that's saying something.)



« Last Edit: March 15, 2019, 05:43:38 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Online George Allegrezza

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 786
Re: USN Large Surface Combatant - Delayed
« Reply #8 on: March 15, 2019, 05:52:53 am »
Quote
Starve before doing business with the damned Navy. They don't know what the hell they want and will drive you up a wall before they break either your heart or a more exposed part of your anatomy.

-- Clarence L. Johnson

Offline Foo Fighter

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 649
  • I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Re: USN Large Surface Combatant - Delayed
« Reply #9 on: March 15, 2019, 07:20:39 am »
Question, how will these smaller hulls manage open water sea states?  Will they be as usable as the ddg1000's?  I get the feeling they will not.

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1297
Re: USN Large Surface Combatant - Delayed
« Reply #10 on: March 15, 2019, 02:31:45 pm »
The question for those in the decision making process is whether this is 1939 again and you are reviewing the build plans for the Yamato.  I haven't heard of any fleet exercise tests similar to the ones that forewarned the switch to carriers but I assume they run simulations on these things.

The LCS ROV situation has quietly progressed and may be influencing this new found uncertainty.  Of course they don't bother showing any background slides on those "future operating concepts" (and specifically those showing newly developed ROVs being demonstrated).  Delay is a decision itself so they aren't doing themselves any favors without providing more convincing information.

Offline Colonial-Marine

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 586
  • Fighting the UAV mafia.
Re: USN Large Surface Combatant - Delayed
« Reply #11 on: March 16, 2019, 11:59:33 am »
I do not understand this thinking at all. Even if you have a lot of small unmanned ships with a few dozen VLS cells each the fact needs you'll need some big ships with a lot of power for the radar arrays and the Navy has previously indicated they want a larger array than what will fit on even a Flight III Burke. That big ship ought to have the speed to keep up with the CVN's other escorts and weaponry suited for its size. In other words what they should be looking for is a cruiser.

Let the unmanned ships support it, besides chances are things will still break on those unmanned ships on occasion and will need men to go over and fix them.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2019, 06:35:46 pm by Colonial-Marine »
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy."

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11257
Re: USN Large Surface Combatant - Delayed
« Reply #12 on: March 19, 2019, 05:31:21 am »
Absolutely brilliant:

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2019/03/18/once-again-the-us-navy-looks-to-scrap-its-largest-combatants-to-save-money/

They're going to delay the cruiser replacement AND they want to retire six cruisers early. Not enough face palms for this.  And then there's this:


"The Navy has announced that it plans to buy a replacement large surface combatant, but recently delayed the first buy from 2023 to 2025, according to a report from USNI News.

The Navy’s top officer told reporters in a roundtable March 14 that the service was working through the requirements process.

“We’re early in the discussion of requirements on the large surface combatant. I’ve got to tell you, given kind of the discussion that’s happened already, the first question that we have to do is prove to ourselves that we need a large surface combatant,” said Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson."


I don't have words.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8108
  • The path not taken.
Re: USN Large Surface Combatant - Delayed
« Reply #13 on: March 19, 2019, 05:38:29 am »
Ditto.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline Foo Fighter

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 649
  • I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Re: USN Large Surface Combatant - Delayed
« Reply #14 on: March 19, 2019, 06:40:30 am »
Oh well, one day their boat will come in.  Problem is by then it will be the entire navy and the two boy scouts rowing it had better be in possession of a permission slip from both parents so they can share the Swiss Army knife.