tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21894908.post5297845542571329799..comments2023-11-01T02:19:14.796-05:00Comments on Elements Of Power: Why Suddenly I Find Myself Writing So Much About the LCSSMSgt Machttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08126690689798203866noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21894908.post-80648730096421789332012-05-26T13:10:52.617-05:002012-05-26T13:10:52.617-05:00Hi Smitty
RE: "Survivability". this was ...Hi Smitty<br />RE: "Survivability". this was one of POGO's BS claims that the Navy responded to already and I documented when I took down POGO's lame arguments in http://www.elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2012/05/project-on-government-oversight-still.html<br />As to the rest, think of one ship as part of a larger system, and you see where the Navy is going with this. They know what they want to do with the ships, they're now working on 'how' they want to do it befoer they spend the bucks to put the capability into the modules. Operating in the fleet will give them the insight they need ahead of spending $. I like the whole many seaframes and module approach as a force multiplier that also trims total logistics down times. We're fortunate in tha tthis is such a new approach that the Navy has been quite vocal all along on what they're doing, and the history is well documented.<br />If you've got Powerpoint, See http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=lcs%20conops&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CFMQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffaculty.nps.edu%2Fjekline%2Fdocs%2FLCS%2520CONOPS%2520brief%252011-15pt1.ppt&ei=XxvBT_aBA87hsQKetcj0CQ&usg=AFQjCNFIZBmLdyBGusxDb184DRHIvVwjMg<br />for a good brief on how the LCS concept was created. and see http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=lcs%20conops&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CFEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffaculty.nps.edu%2Fjekline%2Fdocs%2FLCS%2520CONOPS%2520brief%252011-15%2520Backups.ppt&ei=XxvBT_aBA87hsQKetcj0CQ&usg=AFQjCNG1_jywZpaCnK8IdgZYaQCZCFVtNw<br />for a brief on the CONOPs. Use Notes Pages view to get more interesting discussion of whats going on with the slides.SMSgt Machttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08126690689798203866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21894908.post-91734213345164793262012-05-25T07:10:56.085-05:002012-05-25T07:10:56.085-05:00SMSgt Mac,
Neither ship even meets the Level 1 su...SMSgt Mac,<br /><br />Neither ship even meets the Level 1 survivability criteria commonly required of MPS ships, let alone Level 2 (frigates and amphibs) or Level 3 (warships).<br /><br />They don't have anything close to the same level of internal compartmentalization or DC capabilities of even the FFG7. <br /><br />I don't see how building ships before we know how we want to use them is any way to run a program. At least not in the numbers planned for the LCS. Build a few, maybe. But commit to, what, 27 before we even know if they are good at anything other than going fast? Seems just plain dumb to me.<br /><br />The LCS concept puts 20% of the capability on the seaframe and expects 80% from the modules. IMHO, that's backwards (at least until we can prove modules work). We need a ship where 60-70% of the capability comes from the base seaframe and 30-40% from modules. At least then it actually has value BEFORE modules are ready. <br /><br />Oh and dump the speed requirement. It places too much emphasis on exotic hullforms and over-engineered propulsion plants at the expense of range, endurance, payload and survivability.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21894908.post-30568760178985485402012-05-24T18:38:15.032-05:002012-05-24T18:38:15.032-05:00RE: Going Dark.
Have no idea. Found out about it ...RE: Going Dark. <br />Have no idea. Found out about it when I tried to login from my phone to comment at Solomon's (SNAFU). Got a notice of Google shutting it down for 'suspicious activity'. The only thing I saw was a huge spike in the traffic counter. Could have been anything.SMSgt Machttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08126690689798203866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21894908.post-48925391684324671342012-05-23T21:19:18.089-05:002012-05-23T21:19:18.089-05:00Modularity was a key feature in deciding the weapo...Modularity was a key feature in deciding the weapons package I proposed.<br /><br />1. The mk51 mount is designed to carry a wide range of weapons from non-leathal microwave rays, to 7.62 mgs, to 50 cals, to the big M230.<br /><br />2. The Millennium Gun has no "thru-deck" footprint and can literally be bolted onto any open deck space ass needed.<br /><br />3. Hellfire launchers can use a wide variety of missiles from the original Hellfire, to Brimstone, to JAGM, and any of the 2.75" rocket (guided or not) family.<br /><br />4. The Spike NLOS is there to replace the canceled NETFIRES. IMHO the Griffin is a poorman's replacement with nowhere near the required range.<br /><br />The nice thing is that these can be added in stages. For a start, replace the mk44 with the Millennium Gun and replace Spike NLOS for Griffin.<br /><br />Next, when the need arises, add mk51 mounts (but keep the 50 cals).<br /><br />Then move the Millennium Guns aft and add the Hellfire launchers.<br /><br />Finally, mount the M230s onto the mk51 mounts.<br /><br />On the issue of maneuverability, what small difference there is cannot make a significant difference in combat . Do they expect them to be playing chicken with SBS attacks?<br /><br />As a parting thought, the Millennium Guns can also take on CWIS duties that includes MLRS and mortar attacks. The SeaRAM cannot do that.<br /><br /><br />btw, Your blog went dark today for a few hours, what's up?SpudmanWPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13808856347047254385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21894908.post-77573521627881158332012-05-23T20:30:09.479-05:002012-05-23T20:30:09.479-05:00I haven't thought too much on armament because...I haven't thought too much on armament because of the Navy's focus on mission packages that involve a lot of remote (and therefore indirect) force application. One of the things I actually like about the program is an unwillingness to tie the ships down to any weapons/sensor configuration before they (Navy) really figure out how they're going to use them. This approach has the added advantage of driving the usual suspects batsh*t crazy: they can't complain about what isn't there, so they have to focus on trying to convince people using the 'it doesn't work - waste of money' BS. <br />As to configurations, I'm leaning towards favoring the LCS 2 design for a lot of the reasons similar to what you mention. What I'd like to know is how they compare from the survivability POV. The LCS 1 is supposedly more maneuverable (a plus for susceptibility considerations, but the Tri-hull of the LCS 2 has to be a big plus on the vulnerablity side of the equation. This is the kind of 'diversity' that actually has benefits.SMSgt Machttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08126690689798203866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21894908.post-20465964717614758802012-05-23T12:44:40.899-05:002012-05-23T12:44:40.899-05:00I was just thinking.. Instead of a 6 round Hellfir...I was just thinking.. Instead of a 6 round Hellfire box launcher per side, replace the inner two cells with a larger cell for a 19-round 2.75 rocket pod.<br /><br />Instead of:<br />┌┬┬┐<br />├┼┼┤<br />└┴┴┘<br />Convert to:<br />┌┬─┬┐<br />├┤O├┤<br />└┴─┴┘<br />That would give 4 Hellfires and 19 DAGR/LOGIRs per side or 34 DAGR/LOGIR per side if you swap out the Hellfires.<br /><br />Also, put 4 EODAS (from the F-35 program) sensors on the mast to provide 360 IIR coverage around the LCS.SpudmanWPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13808856347047254385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21894908.post-86345566145100709922012-05-22T23:18:09.791-05:002012-05-22T23:18:09.791-05:00My pick is the LCS2 Class:
1.Longer range
2.Better...My pick is the LCS2 Class:<br />1.Longer range<br />2.Better flight deck<br />3.Better stability for flight & gun ops<br />4.Larger Module deck<br />5.More space for mk41 VL tubes if needed<br /><br />My options to up-gun it to my min standard:<br />1.Replace the 50 cals with a stabilized mk51 MAWS that can be upgraded to a M230 is needed.<br />http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2010armament/TuesdayLandmarkAStevenCannon.pdf<br /><br />2. Remove the POS mk44 Bushmaster (way too slow and takes up too much room) and put Millennium Guns on either side of the SeaRAM launcher. These will act in the secondary cannon & CIWS role.<br />http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_35mm-1000_Millennium.htm<br /><br />3. In place of the mk44, put a popup armored Hellfire launcher (4 or 6 cell). Each Hellfire can be replaced with 4 DAGRs as needed. Laser designators can be put on the mk51 mounts (from #1) or standalone units can be used for guidance.<br /><br />Armored Hellfires:<br />http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt271/SpudmanWP/Misc/attachment-3.jpg<br /><br />Hellfire & DAGR Combo:<br />http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt271/SpudmanWP/Misc/ORD_DAGR_Mounted_w_Hellfires_Concep-1.jpg<br /><br />4. In the forward mission bay (ex NETFIRES bay), put Spike NLOS (should hold 2 dozen or so).. Nuff said<br />http://www.rafael.co.il/marketing/SIP_STORAGE/FILES/6/1026.pdf<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXw9SqnXqZQ<br /><br />This should provide a nice & lethal layered defense and decent offense out to ~25km with very little developmental risk due to mostly mature systems. If you want oomph farther than that, put armored NSM or Harpoon launcher forward of the bridge ala the "International Variant"SpudmanWPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13808856347047254385noreply@blogger.com