Ship launch

[paperburn1]

http://www.sandiego6.com/story/uss-coro ... t-20140127


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Coronado_(LCS-4)

[KitemanSA]

Oh goody, another "Little Crappy Ship" (LCS) to waste the taxpayer's money on.

[ladajo]

Just spent a week in San Diego recently looking into exactly that.

Lots of misconceptions. A soon to be published article should help with that.

Bottom line, navy got what it wanted. Problem is that nobody outside the LCS family circle understands that, and wants to think it is something else.

Despite the best attempts of Congress, it is not a frigate, nor an FFL. It is a large corvette. And, in the fine tradition of U.S. Naval platforms, underarmed.
Hopefully that will be rectified in the future with something like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Strike_Missile

[GIThruster]

I like the Independence class a lot. The Freedom class not so much, as it did not reduce the number of sailors to the target goal, costs more to run and doesn't provide the stealth package the Independence does.

I think if you understand much about modern piracy, and believe the US has a stake in addressing the issue, you can see how such a small, fast, lightly armed and armored ship is justified, especially with the inclusion of such a large heli-deck. We're talking about a single ship that can do piracy interdiction all by itself, extremely effectively, and in fact, adding other ships would only make such a force slower. A couple MV-22's and half a dozen Bell Eagle Eyes would make the ship its own fleet. Stick an M-134 in an Eagle Eye and fire into the water by some pirates at 6,000 rpm to see them surrender. Party over. I'd love to see a couple weaponized MV-22's on the class. Anything that can keep the Osprey out of Stinger range is enough, since none of its targets are going to have more than that. You can't put a Specter gunship on a corvette, but an Osprey. . .probably. An MK44 Bush II would do just fine on an Osprey, especially the new GAU23A, and you'd still have room for a full Marine squad. Half a dozen of the tilt-rotar Bells and a pair of Osprey and you have the ability to project far more force over far larger range, much more quickly, with much less expense, than if you mount big guns and missiles you'll never use. Tilt rotors rule!

People don't think in terms of anti-piracy missions, and they're really the most common sorts of missions we're likely to face in the future. The only trouble I see with the new Independence class is they're so darn expensive, but that's what you get when you want to make something so fast. Too, if we ever face another naval conflict, the swappable mission packages can turn the Independence into all sorts of other ships. I'm sure there's a package of just missiles, and probably several different kinds of such packages. So for the price of the ship, you get several ships. That's almost cost effective, and in the long run keeping the sailor count down is what sells me.

http://www.naval-technology.com/videos/ ... 98001.html

[ladajo]

A couple MV-22's and half a dozen Bell Eagle Eyes would make the ship its own fleet.

Can't.

In general, yes they are perfect for Anti-piracy or low end interdiction. You can even get more sporty for interdiction without a major leap in kit or bodies.

The biggest thing to plan for is on station time. Gas and Food. If you are shooting, then you would need to include ordnance.

www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA479828

But in the aggregate, you can get about 2.5 LCS for each DDG resourced (my estimate). For low end or specific missions it is a bargain in comparison. Not saying it couldn't be cheaper. Give it the Norwegian kit for some long range bite, and now you have something. If I was going to do anything else, probably I would look at a better radar package. The ones they have seem range limited. But given the lack of ability to hit mid and long range air targets, I guess they only need to see far enough to provide clock for point defense effectiveness. It is always about the darn clock.

[paperburn1]

The promise of the V-22 and the reality of the V-22 are to very different things. We (The Marines) did not end up with the platform we wanted. I personally feel the money spent would have been better spent on some of the whirl thingys rather than some bastardized cross breed fixed wing platform. ( Can't tell I am from the fixed wing community can you )

[GIThruster]

I dunno what complaints people have about the Osprey, but there are no VTOL's with its range, speed and lift. None that come close. Personally I think the Osprey is a success story.

Its the F-35 that's the failure.

[paperburn1]

Basicly we were promised a lot more and got a lot less.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/V-2 ... ame-04822/

[GIThruster]

That's interesting but I would note to you, only very light helicopters like the Vietnam era Hughies are able to use autorotation to avoid death when crashing a heli. That's not a current issue.

The real issue with Osprey is they can fly farther, faster than anything else, and if what you want is to put people on the ground, you want an Osprey. They're far more capable than what they replaced.

There have been several attempts to arm them, but the arguments against such always seem to win the day. There are better options for ground cover, like the Specter. Unless you need to land (to offload troops), there is no advantage to the Osprey. Use the AC-130. It's got lots more bang. My only interest in arming the Osprey is that it can then perform just as above, flying off little ships like the Independence class. That means you can suddenly put gunships when and where you couldn't otherwise. That's new capability.

Be it Specter or Osprey though, to provide ground support the gun needs to have a range greater than shoulder mounted missiles, which means you need something like the Bushmaster. Otherwise the plane is just another high value target that can't defend itself well. Marines might want a shorter range gun on the Osprey, unless they are the one flying the Osprey. So its important to note the real problem is not that the Marines can't get ground cover from a gunship above. It's that they need to rely on the Air Force to get it. It is this dopey drive for independence that gave us the F-35B debacle--the most expensive weapons system in human history. We certainly don't need more of that.

[KitemanSA]

The Little Crappy Ships are great, as long as they don't see combat.

[paperburn1]

I am not saying we don't need a V-22 type platform. just this one did not deliver what was promised.
As for the independent marines we are to be that way by charter. The "presidents own" has a meaning that most people forget or do not understand. The marines can be deployed without the authority of congress by presidential order for 90 day. This require us to have some autonomous operation ability. And a ride from the navy now and then.

And If you think I do not like the v-22 wait till you hear my opinion on the JSF.

[GIThruster]

I am not saying we don't need a V-22 type platform. just this one did not deliver what was promised.

Agreed. That does seem to be the way the Pentagon does business these days. "Over-promise and under-deliver" seems to be the common strategy for all weapons systems designers.

I think though in the long term, tilt rotors flying off little ships with big landing platforms, are the way to go. I have to wonder if anyone ever even looked at the option of putting an A1B on the Independence. That seems to me would have addressed some of Iadajo's concerns about on station time. If you don't need to deliver fuel so often, you can deliver lots more food and ammo. For that you'd think the Navy would invest in some oversized flying boats.

The President can command any executive branch to any kind of service for 90 days without congressional approval, and for far longer if he's a Democrat. Witness the 2011 assault on Libya, which involved US forces for far more than 3 months, and cost hundreds of cruise missiles, all with no congressional approval. There was never any US interest to attack Libya, and this is why congress did not grant its approval. That did not stop our King. . .er. . .I mean President. It has not stopped him from assassinations in Yemen, nor interventions in Pakistan, nor arms trades with terrorists in Syria. When a Democrat is in the White House, he can do whatever he likes, from dismissing specific requirements of US law with the wave of a hand, to launching missiles for no reason at all.

[ladajo]

That's interesting but I would note to you, only very light helicopters like the Vietnam era Hughies are able to use autorotation to avoid death when crashing a heli. That's not a current issue.

This is not true. Auto-rotation is integral to the training and practice of anyone who flies 60 series. As I understand it is also done with 53 series.

For a second time I will point out that you can not fly Osprey from either LCS.

As for LCS related combat. They are not meant to be line combatants. No more than non ships-of-the-line back in the days of sail. However, I would point out that if push came to shove in a shooting war we would not hesitate to place them on the line. Just as we did not hesitate to put smaller more vulnerable platforms on the line during WWII. You think LCS is a combat joke, look at the WWII 1200 ton DE's. Or 1500 and 1750 ton DD's. They were built as throwaways, and thrown away they were. It is Congress that has the issue with LCS not being a line combatant in intent, not the navy. The navy knows full well what it can and can not do.

I will say I was on the fence, if not negatively biased on LCS. But over the last months, I will say I have become educated to a much greater extent, and now am on the positive side of the fence. In fact, I think we need more of them right now. There are many many complex interelated reasons why I think this, but the short of the long of it is that they will help us win are next most probable war at a much lower cost in treasure and blood than we would expend without them.
Remember the 2.5 to 1 number and think long and hard on it. Also think that the only piece they are really missing right now is OTH strike. And that, as I pointed out already is an easy fix. If you want to say air defence, I will point out that comparable foreign units are even more at risk to this than LCS. In fact LCS is better at air point defense than the units it is "replacing". For now, it lacks the longer reach. But that is probably not a hard leap to make either. But, it is probably not needed in the full context of the aggregate fight. In fact, there are other things to worry about that are more important.

[GIThruster]

You can check if you like, but IIRC, half of all modern heli crashes happen form engine failure so autorotation landing is a big deal. Last I recall, only empty helis can survive such a maneuver. That was not true of the Huey's back in the Vietnam era, but they only held 4 people. I'm not aware of amy Blackhawks autorotating with a full crew aboard and surviving.

I didn't catch your explanation of why Osprey can't fly off the Independence. Maybe if you make it without the jargon?

[paperburn1]

Heat from the Osprey's engines can potentially damage the flight deck on some of the U.S. Navy's smaller amphibious ships. Naval Air Systems Command devised a temporary fix of portable heat shields placed under the engines to prevent deck damage. They determined that a long-term solution to the problem would require redesigning the decks with heat resistant coatings, passive thermal barriers, and changes in ship structure to accommodate V-22s,
Due to the requirement of folding the rotors, their 38 feet diameter is 5 feet less than optimal for vertical takeoff, resulting in high disk loading. This puts limits on mission capacity. The Osprey is already certified for operating upon amphibious ships, aircraft carriers, and logistics ships; certification on hospital and small combatant ships has not yet been achieved.