Notes to the New Administration Week
By Shelley Gallup and Ben DiDonato
In past wars, small and well-armed ships have been a necessary complement to the large, multipurpose ships that dominate today’s U.S. Navy. China on the other hand utilizes a full range of maritime capabilities to outmaneuver the U.S. fleet. These ships can easily overwhelm the navies of smaller nations, like the Philippines, creating an unsustainable demand signal for support from large U.S. ships.
Scholars and engineers at the Naval Postgraduate School have developed a bi-modal fleet concept featuring a mix of small sea denial and large sea control vessels to correct this weakness. The key to implementing this strategy is the LMACC, or Lightly Manned Automated Combat Capability. This small warship combines autonomy, AI, resilient communications, and passive cloud-based sensor fusion to fight inside the Chinese engagement envelope. It is intended to operate within a scalable, networked flotilla alongside a variety of unmanned systems as well as Marines ashore. This will extend their Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations (EABO) doctrine into a more lethal and agile combined arms force able to overcome China’s capabilities. Furthermore, the features that make LMACC ideal for supporting Marines deep inside the first island chain also allow it to take on lower-intensity missions, such as special operations support and maritime patrol, making it an ideal choice for supporting President Trump’s stated goal of countering the cartels in the Gulf.
Unlike truly unmanned vessels, LMACC can be built today to affordably grow the fleet. It consists almost entirely of fielded systems and most preliminary design work is already done. Pre-covid estimates put the series production cost at about $100 million and its small size allows it to be built in struggling shipyards too small to build current warships. Furthermore, the human crew eliminates the legal and technological risks of unmanned systems. They can override the AI whenever needed and repair equipment that breaks down unexpectedly, building more confidence into these systems and informing future designs.
LMACC will also serve a critical function in developing future leaders. In today’s destroyer-centric surface fleet, platform command opportunities are mostly only available after more than a decade of service. LMACC is intended as an O-3 command, affording naval officers an opportunity to command earlier in their careers and develop critical leadership skills, including initiative, adaptability, and tactical acumen. Autonomous systems will become increasingly important, but cultivating command skillsets earlier in careers is a key benefit that smaller platforms bring to fleets.
Small warships have a long history in the U.S. Navy and are poised to offer an evolutionary leap in capability. Small, highly automated, lightly crewed, blue water warships will help offset the capabilities of competing fleets and ensure enduring maritime superiority for the U.S. Navy. It is time to fund and build a prototype of the LMACC and its flotilla of innovations.
Dr. Shelley Gallup is a retired surface warfare officer. As an Associate Research Professor at the Naval Postgraduate School, Dr. Gallup has spent 25 years assisting the Navy in developing large-scale experiments at sea. His current work includes research in human-machine partnerships, the role of emergence in combat at sea, and leads the small warship LMACC project at NPS. He can be contacted at [email protected].
Ben DiDonato is a volunteer member of the LMACC team. He is responsible for LMACC’s armament and most engineering work. He has provided systems and mechanical engineering support to organizations across the defense industry from the U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Research, Development and Engineering Center (CERDEC) to Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control, working on projects for all branches of the armed forces. He currently serves as vice president of technology for Expanse Laboratories Corporation, a startup developing novel physical encryption technology. He can be contacted at [email protected].
Featured Image: LMACC design screenshot courtesy of Ben DiDonato.
I personally am tired of all the conversation about how the lCS (little crappy ships). FIX the drive system issues, up-gun the ships and you have an answer, admittedly short-term. Optimize the platforms you have before you make them the “star” of a SINKEX. The NAVY won’t be happy (they have already set their sights on a new platform), but they can buy time to get the next iteration right from the “git”.
LCS is more aircraft carrier than surface combatant and would benefit from being formally redesignated a drone carrier. It is not at all comparable to LMACC, although LCS’s excellent aviation facilities could make it a useful supporting asset for a LMACC flotilla for certain missions.
Terrific article. We had small warships in the form of the Cyclone Class Patrol vessels. The Navy had plenty of time to develop their successor and failed to do so. Instead they decommission these vessels without a proper replacement plan.
Thank you. We were originally looking at LMACC as a direct replacement for the Cyclones since it would have been possible to move crews from decommissioning Cyclones to commissioning LMACCs, but that is obviously no longer possible. That said, the Cyclone’s missions remain, and LMACC would pick those up along with deterrence through high-end warfighting capabilities.
I went down memory lane tonight with the past LMACC articles and even the Shrike back in the day. This concept really needs remolded to use systems of record for the USN and/or USMC. Push new gear separately once you have a ship.
Same goes for engines and gensets. Fit in with the training pipeline to make the ship marketable. Things like this will pinch pennies which is important. We are talking $100 million for FRCs now, MUSV/OUSV hulls at $50 million. Your own original $100 million estimate is $125 adjusted for inflation.
This ship needs to feel like a versatile, little Italian PPA.
I think the Damen 6711/6911 is a good starting point from the waterline down and sea ax bow. Full load about 1400 ton. 4 engines, 4 CPP props, you can cut the engine room into 2 per the proposed version for the RAN. Survivability.
LMACC is built almost entirely with off the shelf components for exactly this reason. That’s why we switched to the Navy’s 30mm autocannon for shooting down drones after the originally planned miniature hit to kill missile didn’t wind up entering service. The only moderately new system is the DAS, but a similar system is already in service on the F-35 so it shouldn’t be a challenge to get working.
We’re currently working on HME with the Naval Academy with excellent results. The hullform is based on conventional OPV designs and the preliminary results are excellent, especially in terms of seakeeping. We’re not at the point of selecting machinery yet, but the plan is to use COTS diesel generator sets and pumpjets. Our preliminary layout is looking at either 3 or 4 main engine rooms running the length of the ship plus an auxiliary, although this is obviously subject to change.
Finally, while the PPA is closer to Constellation and a poor match for our needs, LMACC is absolutely the versatile little ship the Navy needs.
This push for electric with jets is going to bust the ship. Have you looked any at something like the Damen 7011 Aqua Helix where their are shaft mounted gensets with waterjets? If you are sticking with Jets you might as well take the increase in speed. The surface ship community will once again complain about Aluminum.
I am only referencing the Italian PPA as it appears to make modular work. I’m not talking about a ship that big. Yacht Support ships seem to have modular potential in the smaller hulls.
Why do you think connecting electric motors to jets will bust the ship? It’s very close to many proven systems and may already have been done for a custom yacht or something. If anything, the smoother rotation of an electric motor should improve the lifespan of the jet when compared to a mechanical gearbox since the bearing will be subject to less vibration.
That Damen design falls short in many areas, especially range and draft, so it’s off the table. If we tried to use it as a parent design, the results would be similar to the last three times the Navy used parent designs, the Constellation-class frigate and both LCS variants. Unless you limit yourself to minimal changes, parent designs generally cause more problems than they solve, so we’re not making the mistake of trying to tweak an existing ship into LMACC.
Also, LMACC will be all steel construction for durability, reparability, and cost reasons.
I think letting the navy invent a propulsion system for a small ship is a bad idea. Show me in nature where natural selection created your propulsion system through evolution/competition and I’ll give it some merit. Might it happen someday, sure, but how much technical risk should this effort take and how much of it should be on the propulsion?
I’ll grant the Sea Ax costs a bit in draft, but your ship’s draft on open water will have it riding very poorly. OUSV and FRC are even at 9.5 feet for very practical reasons.
You haven’t said what your cruise speed it for 7500nm range. I’m confident Damen’s designs will beat it. I’d also challenge that they have shown that an experienced ship designing firm can go a long way with a parent design.
Here are the various Damen 6211, 6711, 6911 and 5009s on a separate tab with indicated ranges, propulsion, dimensions etc from around the net. I” trust in their experience.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/189DNpzZN9p2TcmQ0YRG5JnKea9Igw_iw_CubA-2cR8Y/edit?gid=0#gid=0
Another way to address the “small warship” question, base new-builds on the USCG “Fast Response” Cutter (FRC). A proven, small (154 ft), vessel, already in service (54 ships), built by Bollinger, that could be a short/mid-term answer to this concern.
The FRCs are excellent vessels doing great work helping our allies enforce their maritime rights, but they lack the firepower for war with China.
True, but modifications to the current design, rather than waiting while going through the design process on a new vessel-type…
The FRC currently carries a 25mm gun, (Cyclone-class carried 2), so with modifications to the current design, it could fill the gap. No, not the ideal, but proven, current, platform to fill the gap until “clean-sheet” new platforms arrive?
You are correct. That’s exactly why USCG FRCs are being deployed forward and why building a few more wouldn’t hurt. LMACC would be the clean-sheet new platform you describe.
OUSV/MUSV ships like Ranger/Mariner/Vanguard are about double the displacement, faster, greater range, with similar seakeeping and vastly more payload potential. I’m not against FRCs, but there isn’t much growth space. You have to trade something to get something. Drop the RHIB for NSM. The Mk 38 mod III can apparently be updated to Mod IV on later ships.
I’m not convinced on small ships that can’t self-deploy to theater.
Where do you base them prior to conflict?
Basing and access are challenges and can’t be assumed away.
How do you get them to the theater after conflict begins? Every service thinks there toys are the most important. And DMO and its air force cousin will use more transcom resources than we assume.
We are currently in the process of refining our hydrodynamic design, but we currently have greater than 10,000 nautical miles of range and excellent stability. For conflict in the Philippines and Taiwan area, we’re planning on primary wartime basing in Guam with the option to operate from Hawaii if the Chinese nuke Guam.
We also fully agree that supporting DMO will be a major challenge. That is why we plan to have LMACC fill a secondary logistics role by carrying Marines and light supplies into and out of theater. LMACC is also uniquely capable of transporting Marines into and out of combat since it has the survivability to risk being shot at and the firepower to support Marines ashore.
Now transporting Marines with multiple engine rooms.
It sounds like the ship has changed greatly and likely grown. I think we need an update on the 2023 update to be talking on the same page now?
Also, electric propulsion to jets which has thus far never been done. Why are we making a small, cheap ship so technically challenging? Who are you running this by in the private sector?
While our naval architecture work is pointing to a slightly larger hull and more required power than initially estimated, LMACC hasn’t changed much beyond that. We always intended to carry detachments or Marines in the spare beds, up to about 24-30 using hot bunking. That lets a tactical pair carry a platoon and a 6-ship flotilla carry a company.
Similarly, the initial propulsion concept was two main generators, one forward of the bunks and the other between the bunks and the missiles, plus a smaller auxiliary generator under the launch bay. The naval architecture is still in progress and we haven’t selected machinery so we don’t have a final answer yet, but the overall configuration is still relatively similar to the original concept, just with more engine rooms.
I think if you dive into the LMACC, the idea is it does self deploy. You are looking at 210-234 foot ship.