5 ms·

Warfare changes very fast lately, and it was one of the main pitches of those littoral ships: make them modular, so they can be easily modified for current and

Warfare changes very fast lately, and it was one of the main pitches of those littoral ships: make them modular, so they can be easily modified for current and future missions.

ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
not sure that precludes figuring out what customers want before building the whole thing TFA says the motivator is lack of capabilities against China. If the LCSs can be easily retrofitted to add capabilities, why not do so?
- riku_iki 4y ago
  > TFA says the motivator is lack of capabilities against China. If the LCSs can be easily retrofitted to add capabilities, why not do so? I don't think that's the issue. LCSs are small ships which goal to do small missions which would be much more expensive to do on large ships, cruisers for example. I don't think confronting China was their goal ever.
  - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
    Conceptual design started around 2001. Well, in 2001, China didn't have the navy it did today. If they didn't "skate to where the puck is going", they could easily have built a ship for countering what China was in 1995.
    - riku_iki 4y ago
      US navy has other ships with missions to counter China.
  - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
    you don't think what is the issue? TFA does indeed say that the motivator is lack of capabilities against China if I understand correctly, the LCSs were built to be easily retrofitted to add capabilities, as long as none of those capabilities are any we actually need
    - riku_iki 4y ago
      what is tfa? > if I understand correctly, the LCSs were built to be easily retrofitted to add capabilities, as long as none of those capabilities are any we actually need yes, but they were not intended to have strike capabilities, nor operate in deep sea as required to confront China in that region, that's why they called littoral.
- nradov 4y ago
  The LCS can't be easily retrofitted to add the necessary capabilities. There is simply not enough hull space to fit a Mk 41 VLS and AN/SPY-6 radar, plus the various other sensors and defensive systems needed to have any chance of survival against a near-peer adversary. The LCS will be gradually replaced in service by FFG-62 Constellation class frigates. During an early phase of the FFG(X) program the Navy considered using a lengthened "up gunned" variant of the LCS to meet the program requirements but quickly rejected that option as unworkable. The LCS is just a dead end.
iudqnolq 4y ago
Note that modularity is one of the things they abandoned to try and get something working.
- riku_iki 4y ago
  where did you get this?
  - iudqnolq 4y ago
    When I went looking for my source I realized it was older than I remembered. It's certainly possible things have gotten better since 2021. > Despite that positive spin, the utility of the LCS remains hampered by its controversial mission modules, which were originally designed to be switched in and out of the hulls rapidly while in port, before the idea was abandoned, leaving each ship with a single module to be installed. As it stands, only the anti-surface warfare version of these modules is fitted on some of the hulls, with the anti-submarine warfare and mine countermeasures modules not yet available. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/42582/the-first-littoral-combat-ship-has-been-decommissioned-after-just-13-years-of-service https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/42582/the-first-littor...
  - greedo 4y ago
    Modularity really doesn't work with ships. For the LCS, the idea was to have mission modules that can be swapped out depending on the ship's role. However, the entire idea is flawed. First, you need crew trained on these different modules, so not only would you be swapping out modules, but swapping out a large portion of the crew. Second, swapping modules sounds easy, but is a tough thing to do on a ship without affecting other design constraints. The LCS also suffered from the concept of minimal manning (which meant reliance upon contractors for a lot of support), and also lacked a decent set of weaponry.
    - toast0 4y ago
      > First, you need crew trained on these different modules, so not only would you be swapping out modules, but swapping out a large portion of the crew. Swapping out a large portion of the crew doesn't seem that uncommon? My friends in the navy get assigned deployments in a group, stay with the boat for several months and then come home and work on base for several months, etc. Often there's a significant time for the ship in port while the crew is swapped out. But, I don't get a lot of details.
jjk166 4y ago
A pitch that underwent very little scrutiny. The module sizes they were planning were massive, basically major sections of the ship's hull. Swapping those sections out would have required a lengthy process at a specialized facility where the module was either pre-positioned or shipped to. It would always be more practical to just sail a ship of the appropriate type to the location it's needed than to change over a ship in the location to the appropriate type. Modularity is expensive - you can't optimize for a particular role, you make design changes dramatically more difficult, and you need to pay for the entire modular ecosystem. Modularity really only makes sense when you are constrained to small numbers; for example if you have limited space in your garage it might be nice to have a single machine that can serve as both a lawnmower and a snow blower - yeah it may not be the best at either and it's going to be more expensive, but it's better than having to live with just one. If there were some sort of naval treaty limiting the number of ships the US could have in its fleet, then modularity might make some sense, but for the foreseeable future no such limitation is likely to exist. The LCS was actually initiated as part of a program specifically to boost fleet size with a large number of cheap ships. It makes much more sense to use a multitude of purpose built ships. Sure there's a chance that some of the ships you build aren't going to be needed; but then all peacetime military procurement is done in the hopes it will not wind up being needed. The LCS program took only 5 years from initial funding to the commissioning of its first ship. If they focused on maintaining the industrial capability to rapidly develop and build ships when needed, so in 35 years they can build the appropriate ship for the naval battles taking place 40 years from now, instead of trying to anticipate their needs for 40 years into the future, that would be tremendously more useful.
- riku_iki 4y ago
  > It would always be more practical to just sail a ship of the appropriate type to the location it's needed than to change over a ship in the location to the appropriate type. it is absolutely not obvious that building and then maintaining fleet of 12 different role ships is easier/cheaper than having LCS reconfigured on some bases, even if it is relatively large procedure. > If they focused on maintaining the industrial capability to rapidly develop and build ships when needed, so in 35 years they can build the appropriate ship for the naval battles taking place 40 years from now it is also not clear if US can maintain such capability plus logistics and training without actual fleet in place.

Warfare changes very fast lately, and it was one of the main pitches of those littoral ships: make them modular, so they can be easily modified for current and future missions.

ImPostingOnHN 4y ago

not sure that precludes figuring out what customers want before building the whole thing TFA says the motivator is lack of capabilities against China. If the LCSs can be easily retrofitted to add capabilities, why not do so?

riku_iki 4y ago
> TFA says the motivator is lack of capabilities against China. If the LCSs can be easily retrofitted to add capabilities, why not do so? I don't think that's the issue. LCSs are small ships which goal to do small missions which would be much more expensive to do on large ships, cruisers for example. I don't think confronting China was their goal ever.
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  Conceptual design started around 2001. Well, in 2001, China didn't have the navy it did today. If they didn't "skate to where the puck is going", they could easily have built a ship for countering what China was in 1995.
  - riku_iki 4y ago
    US navy has other ships with missions to counter China.
- ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
  you don't think what is the issue? TFA does indeed say that the motivator is lack of capabilities against China if I understand correctly, the LCSs were built to be easily retrofitted to add capabilities, as long as none of those capabilities are any we actually need
  - riku_iki 4y ago
    what is tfa? > if I understand correctly, the LCSs were built to be easily retrofitted to add capabilities, as long as none of those capabilities are any we actually need yes, but they were not intended to have strike capabilities, nor operate in deep sea as required to confront China in that region, that's why they called littoral.
nradov 4y ago
The LCS can't be easily retrofitted to add the necessary capabilities. There is simply not enough hull space to fit a Mk 41 VLS and AN/SPY-6 radar, plus the various other sensors and defensive systems needed to have any chance of survival against a near-peer adversary. The LCS will be gradually replaced in service by FFG-62 Constellation class frigates. During an early phase of the FFG(X) program the Navy considered using a lengthened "up gunned" variant of the LCS to meet the program requirements but quickly rejected that option as unworkable. The LCS is just a dead end.

iudqnolq 4y ago

Note that modularity is one of the things they abandoned to try and get something working.

riku_iki 4y ago
where did you get this?
- iudqnolq 4y ago
  When I went looking for my source I realized it was older than I remembered. It's certainly possible things have gotten better since 2021. > Despite that positive spin, the utility of the LCS remains hampered by its controversial mission modules, which were originally designed to be switched in and out of the hulls rapidly while in port, before the idea was abandoned, leaving each ship with a single module to be installed. As it stands, only the anti-surface warfare version of these modules is fitted on some of the hulls, with the anti-submarine warfare and mine countermeasures modules not yet available. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/42582/the-first-littoral-combat-ship-has-been-decommissioned-after-just-13-years-of-service https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/42582/the-first-littor...
- greedo 4y ago
  Modularity really doesn't work with ships. For the LCS, the idea was to have mission modules that can be swapped out depending on the ship's role. However, the entire idea is flawed. First, you need crew trained on these different modules, so not only would you be swapping out modules, but swapping out a large portion of the crew. Second, swapping modules sounds easy, but is a tough thing to do on a ship without affecting other design constraints. The LCS also suffered from the concept of minimal manning (which meant reliance upon contractors for a lot of support), and also lacked a decent set of weaponry.
  - toast0 4y ago
    > First, you need crew trained on these different modules, so not only would you be swapping out modules, but swapping out a large portion of the crew. Swapping out a large portion of the crew doesn't seem that uncommon? My friends in the navy get assigned deployments in a group, stay with the boat for several months and then come home and work on base for several months, etc. Often there's a significant time for the ship in port while the crew is swapped out. But, I don't get a lot of details.

jjk166 4y ago

A pitch that underwent very little scrutiny. The module sizes they were planning were massive, basically major sections of the ship's hull. Swapping those sections out would have required a lengthy process at a specialized facility where the module was either pre-positioned or shipped to. It would always be more practical to just sail a ship of the appropriate type to the location it's needed than to change over a ship in the location to the appropriate type. Modularity is expensive - you can't optimize for a particular role, you make design changes dramatically more difficult, and you need to pay for the entire modular ecosystem. Modularity really only makes sense when you are constrained to small numbers; for example if you have limited space in your garage it might be nice to have a single machine that can serve as both a lawnmower and a snow blower - yeah it may not be the best at either and it's going to be more expensive, but it's better than having to live with just one. If there were some sort of naval treaty limiting the number of ships the US could have in its fleet, then modularity might make some sense, but for the foreseeable future no such limitation is likely to exist. The LCS was actually initiated as part of a program specifically to boost fleet size with a large number of cheap ships. It makes much more sense to use a multitude of purpose built ships. Sure there's a chance that some of the ships you build aren't going to be needed; but then all peacetime military procurement is done in the hopes it will not wind up being needed. The LCS program took only 5 years from initial funding to the commissioning of its first ship. If they focused on maintaining the industrial capability to rapidly develop and build ships when needed, so in 35 years they can build the appropriate ship for the naval battles taking place 40 years from now, instead of trying to anticipate their needs for 40 years into the future, that would be tremendously more useful.

riku_iki 4y ago
> It would always be more practical to just sail a ship of the appropriate type to the location it's needed than to change over a ship in the location to the appropriate type. it is absolutely not obvious that building and then maintaining fleet of 12 different role ships is easier/cheaper than having LCS reconfigured on some bases, even if it is relatively large procedure. > If they focused on maintaining the industrial capability to rapidly develop and build ships when needed, so in 35 years they can build the appropriate ship for the naval battles taking place 40 years from now it is also not clear if US can maintain such capability plus logistics and training without actual fleet in place.