USS Independence Corroding Away

[11bee]

In some ways, the Navy's Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program is the seafaring equivalent of the F-35. A high tech, do-it-all ship that will render conventional warships obsolete. However, like the F-35, the LCS program is not progressing particularly well.

The latest problem:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/07/plenty-of-blame-to-go-around-for-disappearing-warship/

Oh well, at least it still looks really cool sitting a dockside rotting away.

[Wolfgun33]

Wow. What a cluster. It seems to me that the DoD has issues with thier procurements as of late. Course there's always problems that crop up with new systems.

[GreyGhost]

'We should be alright using that water-soluble metal ... After all, we're going to paint it ...'

Gregg

[spejic]

Austal's been building aluminum ships for a while now and they've been fine. And Navy ships have had a combination of steel and aluminum for a long time. This is a USS Indepencence-specific problem.

[Viasistina]

I've spoken to several naval officers and DOD civilians involved in sea systems and ship building and to a man they call this a "total cluster FxxK"

Lets be honest, this design was dreamed up in the frantic days after 9-11 when the Navy politically decided thehy had to get their share of the "fighting Al-Quada" money. Of course the Navy's vison was that they would be lobbing 5 inch shells at clusters of terroirsts camping on beaches around the world. Sort of a Vietnam riverine scenario. Is this ever going to happen? Not so much right. It also seems the Navy retired perfectly good ships with some real punch like the Spruance class to fund this disaster. I ask you, what would you rather have a handful of these Independence class tragedies or the upgraded Spruance class ships back? I cant find anyone who wants these Independence class disasters instead. Of course many navies now have modern frigates, corvetter or even patrol ships that outgun these ships but why would that brother our naval planners.

[Spongebob]

But it can do 40kts...for a couple hours before it needs gas. Never mind it has less punch than a PT boat, has so little armor/structure a .50 round will go right through it and has a skeleton crew that gets beat into the ground because they are trying to do everything. Did I mention it'll do 40kts??

There are some great articles out there about what a hunk of FOD these things are. Foreign Navies have looked at the LCS-1 design (LCS-2 is considered unsuitable from the get go) but determined that by the time you turned the design into a real, multipurpose warship (added sensors, weapons and armor) they would have spent more than it would cost to buy a Burke. A big reason the European AEGIS designs are crushing the frigate market space.

Spongebob

[GreyGhost]

Was 'It has to float' one of the spec requirements ?

Gregg

[HOLMES]

Well isn't that just the saddest thing ever to see.

[Yuri]

Galvanic corrosion is a quite common thing on ships.... seems weird they hadn't considered it...

First leart how it works some years ago. A friend had an aluminium cutter and he told me about another guy that had a sister boat: he had used the wrong nuts and bolts to fix the fin keel during an overhaul... and the boat sank!

[jpk]

My brother in law, now recently deceased, hated the new littoral ships saying they were junk. He was a retired navy commander who served on the USS Virginia, USS Iowa, and several other ships. He was a lead engineer/designer for the Zumwalt DD. He mentioned to me last time I saw him asking what he thought of them and his language was quite colorful.

[DutyCat]

An aluminum warship is a mistake. Aluminum is lighter for a reason. It is a far less substantial metal than steel. Aside from being weaker, it also melts at a lower temperature. Can you imagine trying to build an aircraft carrier out of aluminum? Aluminum is ok for some applications (aircraft, soda cans), but for a naval vessel it is a poor choice. Heck, they won't even build cars out of aluminum.

We see this kind of politically inspired cheapness over and over while we ignore common sense and the lessons of the past. We used aluminum for aircraft in WWII, but the warships were steel, except for PT boats.

Idiots.

[Tankcommander]

I hope this ship never sees battle. Remember what happens to aluminum in a fire it melts. Didn't the ships hit in the Falklands suffer severe damage with aluminum superstructures. Will we never learn.

TC

[Spongebob]

Aluminum isn't the real problem - almost all US ships, including carriers, have large quantities of aluminum in them, going back to at least the 1960's. For the same reasons that cars and almost every airplane out there today use it - it's strength to weight ratio is outstanding.

Like everything else, it's just poor execution. Corrosion control, even the "dreaded" galvanic is nothing new and well understood. It just needs to be put in place. For instance, most ships where aluminum and steel (or other metal) that create a circuit usually have several "consumable" anodes on the hull. These are made of a metal more reactive to anything on the ship (circuit) and are allowed to corrode away to save the other parts. These are replaced as needed.

There was a huge book on corrosion control for the SH-60. There were (if memory serves) 23 different flavors of metal on it and they almost all touched each other. However, you planned for it and did stuff like wet seal screws in certain parts (i.e. aluminum panel held in place with stainless steel screws (bad for the aluminum) we would fill the screw hole with RTV then insert the screw while the RTV was wet...so the metal never touched).

In the LCS-2 case, my speculation would be that the anodes required would have knocked a knot or two off the speed. Since speed was a KPP and I'm not sure corrosion resistance was, the program managers with the concurrence of the resource sponsors (fleet) chose to leave them off.

Spongebob

[Spongebob]

BTW, Aluminum doesn't melt, it actually burns. Here's an example:

[zerosystem]

BTW, Aluminum doesn't melt, it actually burns. Here's an example:

and that was just after a collision, let alone enemy fire...

[4scourge7]

I hope this ship never sees battle. Remember what happens to aluminum in a fire it melts. Didn't the ships hit in the Falklands suffer severe damage with aluminum superstructures. Will we never learn.

TC

BTW, Aluminum doesn't melt, it actually burns.

It was the Royal Navy`s Type 21 Class of frigates. Lead ship HMS Amazon caught fire in an accident in 1977 and burned very badly. HMS Ardent was destroyed by fire after aerial bomb hits during the Falklands War in `82.

The Royal Navy resolved to use steel hulls thereafter.

Cheers, Ian

[DutyCat]

Aluminum isn't the real problem - almost all US ships, including carriers, have large quantities of aluminum in them, going back to at least the 1960's. For the same reasons that cars and almost every airplane out there today use it - it's strength to weight ratio is outstanding.

Just because it is used doesn't mean it's right. For general industrial purposes and for aircraft, aluminum is good stuff. Lightweight and strong, as you have stated. For a warship, it offers three advantages to steel: 1.It is cheaper. 2. It lowers the CG, making our skinny hulled combatants more seaworthy. 3. Less weight for the engines to push. However, all of these relate back to cost cutting, one way or another, and don't justify the compromise in hull combat worthiness. IMO using aluminum on a warship is a mistake, except for maybe non structural trim and some equipment here and there. Anything that is part of the hull and primary superstructure should be steel.

We put all of our money into the carriers and heavily compromise our surface fleet. They are escorts and to some degree expendable. I'll bet it you told the USN, "You can't have carriers. You have to build a quality surface navy," then the design of our surface combatants would be very different.

Look at the FFG-7 class. A more lame combat ship could not have been built. One screw, a single rail missile launcher, a small bore naval gun amidships, a CIWS, and a crappy sonar. The aluminum superstructures on these ships developed cracks when they got into service. Most recently, even the missile launcher has been removed as the missile was outdated. With that went the ability to fire the Harpoon.

Look at the Spruance class. A decent ASW ship but it has little ability to protect itself from air attack.

Next up is the Tico, and with that we have finally have a good set of weapons and sensors. But to save money, we shoved it all onto a Spruance destroyer hull and called it a cruiser. These ships are considered overweight and top heavy and have also developed cracks.

The Arleigh Burkes are beamier and seem like pretty good boats. They probably still have aluminum superstructures though.

I hate to say it, but the Russian approach to hull construction seems superior. They have, large, beamy, seaworthy ships loaded with redundant weapons and radars.

If you lined up one of their ships abreast with one of ours of the same general purpose and let them have at it with naval gunfire or missile shots, our ship would be on the bottom first.

Edited July 10, 2011 by DutyCat

[Aaronw]

Aluminum is actually a combustible metal similar to magnesium and nearly impossible to extinguish once it starts to burn, needing special extinguishing powder or copious* amounts of water (*one of my fire books defines copious as more water than you have ever used). The aluminium / magnisium alloy engine blocks used in old VWs and Porsches are well known to fire departments.

I thought it was interesting one of the links below the article leads to an article on the problems of policing piracy using the relatively large ships of most modern navies. In that article it suggests small ships like the USS Independence would be more effective (and the reason for the article tie in) with them being in many places, vs just a few large ships.

I don't know how they would work out from a practical basis but as a modeler it would be cool to see the return of small fast gun boats like the USS Tucumcari, and Pegasus class hydrofoils to combat pirates off the coast of Somalia and the South Pacific.

[Spongebob]

Just because it is used doesn't mean it's right. For general industrial purposes and for aircraft, aluminum is good stuff. Lightweight and strong, as you have stated. For a warship, it offers three advantages to steel: 1.It is cheaper. 2. It lowers the CG, making our skinny hulled combatants more seaworthy. 3. Less weight for the engines to push. However, all of these relate back to cost cutting, one way or another, and don't justify the compromise in hull combat worthiness. IMO using aluminum on a warship is a mistake, except for maybe non structural trim and some equipment here and there. Anything that is part of the hull and primary superstructure should be steel.

As with any program, everything is a series of (hopefully) intelligent compromises...I'll revisit that the driving design "Key Performance Parameter" in LCS is the ability to hit 40kts. There's lots of debate on the value of that and especially the compromises made to achieve it. A great series of articles (including discussions of the cracks in LCS-1) here --> HERE

I'll bet it you told the USN, "You can't have carriers. You have to build a quality surface navy," then the design of our surface combatants would be very different.

Navy leadership would love that directive since the SWO's have been in charge for almost 15 years now.

Look at the FFG-7 class. A more lame combat ship could not have been built. One screw, a single rail missile launcher, a small bore naval gun amidships, a CIWS, and a crappy sonar. The aluminum superstructures on these ships developed cracks when they got into service. Most recently, even the missile launcher has been removed as the missile was outdated. With that went the ability to fire the Harpoon.

Again, it's choices that are made in the program. For the US, they needed 50 hulls and the Aegis program was sucking money like a JSF, so they made decisions similar to what hosed the Spruances. The basic design itself is not bad at all. Even though they are single screw, they have good speed and the APU's give it good low speed handling and an ability to move if the screw is damaged. Actually, my experience (I've deployed on DD, CG and FFG) is that the FFG was by far the easiest to handle on sea-and-anchor detail because of that. I'd also point out that FFG's have demonstrated the ability to take a beating that sank larger ships and still get themselves to safety. The rest comes to how they were equipped...SQS-56 is considered junk because it has limited open-ocean capabilities...mainly due to the small aperature it uses (compare an FFG to say, a DDG-51). In shallow water, it's a good system. SURTASS is far, far from junk though...and the ships were designed to work with a LAMPS mkI or mkIII and in tandem they actually work well. The synergy between those platforms is unmatched to this day. The mk13 launcher - state of the art when designed, but the SM-1 is outdated in the era of RAM and ESSM. With the US surface navy having a woody about "40kts" they weren't about to threaten that with updated FFG's, so the decision was made. Look at the Australian and Taiwan FFG's and you'll see that they carry quite a punch as they put the investment into them (similar to the Spurance/Kidd relationship). BTW, the non-ASW sensor suite on a FFG-7 is very good and only exceeded by the AEGIS ships...the combat direction system was/is in bad need of updating though - similar to the Spruance's.

Overall, the FFG-7's are good hulls, just that they've never been a favored platform in the US Navy and have suffered as such.

Look at the Spruance class. A decent ASW ship but it has little ability to protect itself from air attack.

Again, capability was traded for cost. See CAIV. As designed, the Spruance class was supposed to look like the Kidd class (funded by Iran) and be a true multi-role ship. When you look at it, the only difference between a Flight I Tyco and the Kidd is the AEGIS combat system. There were plans in place to grow the Spruances into Kidd class ships, but the success of AEGIS doomed that.

Next up is the Tico, and with that we have finally have a good set of weapons and sensors. But to save money, we shoved it all onto a Spruance destroyer hull and called it a cruiser. These ships are considered overweight and top heavy and have also developed cracks.

And they are still one of the most capable multi-purpose warships ever produced.

The Arleigh Burkes are beamier and seem like pretty good boats. They probably still have aluminum superstructures though.

Designed with lessons from the Spruance, Perry and Tico classes and benefiting greatly from continued AEGIS development which yeilded a much smaller system to house.

I hate to say it, but the Russian approach to hull construction seems superior. They have, large, beamy, seaworthy ships loaded with redundant weapons and radars.

If you lined up one of their ships abreast with one of ours of the same general purpose and let them have at it with naval gunfire or missile shots, our ship would be on the bottom first.

I've had the pleasure of visiting/exploring several Russian surface ships in my carreer. I'd point out 3 things: 1.) as an S-3 SENSO, you're familiar with the different doctrines between the Russian and US Navy's...the designs of their respective ships show that. 2.) Comparing a comparable Russian/US ship you'll experience something similar to a MIR/ISS comparison. My impression was the Russians needed to jury rig a lot of things just to get underway. 3.) When the Russian fleets operate at the tempo and global reach the US Navy does, then I think it's valid to compare durability.

I don't know how they would work out from a practical basis but as a modeler it would be cool to see the return of small fast gun boats like the USS Tucumcari, and Pegasus class hydrofoils to combat pirates off the coast of Somalia and the South Pacific.

Although sexy, the Pegasus class hydrofoils were some of the most useless ships ever operated by the US Navy. The best way to deal with Pirates, by far, is based on Maverick, Hellfire and Rockeye.

Spongebob

Edited July 10, 2011 by Spongebob

[4scourge7]

Although sexy, the Pegasus class hydrofoils were some of the most useless ships ever operated by the US Navy. By far the best way to deal with Pirates, by far, is based on Maverick, Hellfire and Rockeye.

Spongebob

Although true, the decline in numbers of general purpose destroyers and frigates held by western navies, coupled with failed states bordering major sea lanes hasn`t helped the decline of law and order at sea. Sea lanes that we use to get our `stuff` at ever increasing prices which are going-up, at least partly, due to the knock-on effect of piracy.

I don`t know, but how much does Independence cost?

If it is more than the new Arleigh Burkes then what is the point?

Believe me, Britain also has naval procurement problems right now, alas. :(

Sensible ships in sensible numbers, when was that lesson lost and why?

Ian

[Aaronw]

Although sexy, the Pegasus class hydrofoils were some of the most useless ships ever operated by the US Navy. The best way to deal with Pirates, by far, is based on Maverick, Hellfire and Rockeye.

Spongebob

The main point of the article was that a handful of large capable ships simply can't be everywhere. Smaller ships are more than adequate to fight small bands of armed men in row boats and they can be spread out enough to be immediately available to assist ships under attack. You have to have a platform nearby to use your missiles.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/04/howitzer-vs-fli/

Edited July 10, 2011 by Aaronw

[DutyCat]

I've had the pleasure of visiting/exploring several Russian surface ships in my carreer. I'd point out 3 things: 1.) as an S-3 SENSO, you're familiar with the different doctrines between the Russian and US Navy's...the designs of their respective ships show that. 2.) Comparing a comparable Russian/US ship you'll experience something similar to a MIR/ISS comparison. My impression was the Russians needed to jury rig a lot of things just to get underway. 3.) When the Russian fleets operate at the tempo and global reach the US Navy does, then I think it's valid to compare durability.

Spongebob

Thanks for your thoughtful and well informed comments. Always a pleasure.

My Russian/US design comment was about hull design philosophy. It seems to me like they build tough, seaworthy ships. But as for operations, training, maintenance, and logistic support...that, as you have indicated, is a whole different story.

[11bee]

This thread has been a very interesting one.

I am curious why the Navy put so much emphasis on speed when they developed the spec for the LCS (that 40 knot objective that has been mentioned). What will that extra 10-15 knots really get you over a conventional destroyer? It certainly won't allow you outrun a modern anti-ship missile or torpedo. If you really need to get some light weapons deployed quickly, launch a helo. Plus, what kind of sea state can these things actually make 40 knots in? I'm guessing if the sea is even moderately choppy, those ships won't do anything close to 40 knots. Even if they could, I would not want to be onboard in those conditions, I think they would rattle the fillings right out of my teeth.

Also wondering what the range of one of these ships is at max speed?

[Spongebob]

I don`t know, but how much does Independence cost?

Currently estimated at $440 million a copy...not including government furnished equipment or weapons modules. I.E. a useless hull. Expect the mission modules and other GFE to double the cost. If the mission modules ever get dilivered as they are having capabilities axed by the week due to cost. You'll also note that a MCM module equipped LCS is useless for any other mission until the module is swapped out. So, you'll need 3-4 times the number of hulls you think in order to get a balanced capability in one spot.

If it is more than the new Arleigh Burkes then what is the point?

~$1.7 billion. Expcept for physical presence in the battlespace, that gets you more capability in every LCS mission area. Concurrently.

Believe me, Britain also has naval procurement problems right now, alas.

Very True. Type 45 Destroyers

The main point of the article was that a handful of large capable ships simply can't be everywhere. Smaller ships are more than adequate to fight small bands of armed men in row boats and they can be spread out enough to be immediately available to assist ships under attack. You have to have a platform nearby to use your missiles.

Agree, but you missed the subtlety in my comment when you look at the weapons - they are all air launched. My point was that chasing speedboats with warships is just a lousy strategy and way to do buisness and will never, ever be effective - we've proven this over 30 years of counter narcotics ops in the Caribbean/East Pac using this strategy. However, airpower can apply force over vast areas without a physical presence. The way you solve the issue is to put the risk out of balance with the reward for the pirates. Get serious about surveillance (we have the tools), move a carrier into the theater and put out a notice to mariners that anyone in a small boat that isn't actively engaged in fishing will be assumed to be up to no good and sunk...then grow a pair and follow up on that. Add in some kind of activity to clear out their bases and you'll see a dramatic improvement. It's worked before...the key point being to make a freaking decision about what to do, something leadership across the board has an inability to do without an opinion poll. At the moment, everyone at the top seems happy with open ended, strategy free commitments (CN ops, OSW/ONW, OEF...). Powell doctrine? Anyone?

What will that extra 10-15 knots really get you over a conventional destroyer?

Not even that much. The lowly FFG is good for 30+ kts, sustained.

Also wondering what the range of one of these ships is at max speed?

Advertised as 1500nm...add in the SWO factor where the Capt gets fired if they have less that 60% fuel on board that works out to about 700nm operationally or about 17 hours. At "economical speed" (20kts) it's about the same as a Burke at the same speed - 4,500nm because they are using deisel engines for that speed.

Spongebob

Edited July 11, 2011 by Spongebob

[phantom]

Canada made a really impressive hydrofoil Bras D'or back in the 50s.

Much smaller then the Independance, and was not put into fleet service.

Not quite 40 knots but to sink her all it would take was a well placed floating log hitting the ship at full speed.

She has been in parts at the Ministry of science and Technology since the early 70s.

Edited July 11, 2011 by phantom