On the US Navy's Littoral Combat Ship...
Moderator: Edi
On the US Navy's Littoral Combat Ship...
So the hulls are fragile, they have no major anti-ship or missile-defense capability, they have only limited anti-aircraft capability, their anti-submarine warfare capability is based on systems that don't exist yet, and (at least the first few units) are plagued with engine breakdowns.
Their combat strategy when encountering anything bigger than a patrol boat is to "withdraw". Navy strategists don't expect them to survive anything more than light combat.
So...is the Navy now in the business of building Coast Guard Cutters and calling them frigates?
Their combat strategy when encountering anything bigger than a patrol boat is to "withdraw". Navy strategists don't expect them to survive anything more than light combat.
So...is the Navy now in the business of building Coast Guard Cutters and calling them frigates?
You will be assimilated...bunghole!
Re: On the US Navy's Littoral Combat Ship...
No.
In theory, the modular system is what makes them different from traditional frigates. The idea is that they can return to Bahrain or Singapore and switch modules going form a anti-sub or anti-surface warfare get up to, say, anti-mine warfare. Both models also have ample storage space, in fact, IIRC you can cram a few LAV-family vehicles in the storage area of the Independence class. Having some baby amphibs/ ro-ro out of them will allow for additional flexibility. As a practical matter, they can take up slots that we had previously been using AEGIS CGs and DDGs for, such as maritime interdiction in the Northern Arabian Sea, CRACK PACS, training with smaller navies, etc.
All that said, it would be a mistake to use them in a high intensity war with, say, China unless there was a real ship following them around(say, some LCS on mine sweeping duty in the South China Sea).
In theory, the modular system is what makes them different from traditional frigates. The idea is that they can return to Bahrain or Singapore and switch modules going form a anti-sub or anti-surface warfare get up to, say, anti-mine warfare. Both models also have ample storage space, in fact, IIRC you can cram a few LAV-family vehicles in the storage area of the Independence class. Having some baby amphibs/ ro-ro out of them will allow for additional flexibility. As a practical matter, they can take up slots that we had previously been using AEGIS CGs and DDGs for, such as maritime interdiction in the Northern Arabian Sea, CRACK PACS, training with smaller navies, etc.
All that said, it would be a mistake to use them in a high intensity war with, say, China unless there was a real ship following them around(say, some LCS on mine sweeping duty in the South China Sea).
"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."
Re: On the US Navy's Littoral Combat Ship...
It always sounded to me like these ships were designed to replace the Perry-class frigates. But the Perry-class were more durable than the LCS...
You will be assimilated...bunghole!
Re: On the US Navy's Littoral Combat Ship...
Borgholio wrote:It always sounded to me like these ships were designed to replace the Perry-class frigates.
No they weren't. They never ever were. Why would you think they were?
They evolved out the more-shitty "streetfighter" concept, which, again, was not a Perry replacement concept.
"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."
Re: On the US Navy's Littoral Combat Ship...
http://www.navytimes.com/article/201205 ... -for-crewsNo they weren't. They never ever were. Why would you think they were?
And straight from the builder's mouth:The remaining 21 [Perry-class Frigates] are likely headed for the same fate in the coming years as the Navy places its faith in the smaller, faster littoral combat ship to perform traditional frigate missions.
Three were put down this fiscal year and six will go in 2013. Seven will depart in 2014 and 2015. The remaining three will go at a slower pace, with two leaving in 2017 and the last, the Ingraham, in 2019.
The problem is the frigates are going away faster than the Navy can build the LCS to replace them.
That delay has caused many observers to call on the Navy to cover the gap by extending the life of the remaining frigates, but officials are sticking to the schedule, saying the ships are too worn-out to make it worthwhile.
"There will be 31 fewer ships to do the same number of missions in 2015 than there were in 2009," retired Navy Capt. Rick Hoffman, who commanded the frigate DeWert and later the cruiser Hue City, wrote in a 2009 paper. "Decommissioning the FFGs prior to LCS arriving in the fleet in sufficient numbers to cover the mission set seems to introduce significant risk."
http://www.lmlcsteam.com/lcs/overview
What It Replaces
The 52 LCS-class ships will replace 30 FFG-7 Oliver Hazard Perry Class frigates, 14 MCM Avenger Class mine countermeasures vessels, 12 MHC-51 Osprey Class coastal mine hunters.
You will be assimilated...bunghole!
Re: On the US Navy's Littoral Combat Ship...
They are occupying the same hull spot, but they aren't intended as a "replacement" per se. Read what the builder said: It's intended to be a multirole ship that replaces multiple hulls. It isn't just a Perry replacement, it's a frigate, Minesweeper, and PC replacement.
That right there is a big reason why you should be careful complaining about the cost and difficulties of the program. It isn't a ultra low end solution(which is what the Perry originally was).
That right there is a big reason why you should be careful complaining about the cost and difficulties of the program. It isn't a ultra low end solution(which is what the Perry originally was).
"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."
Re: On the US Navy's Littoral Combat Ship...
The problem really is that the LCS isn't really a solution to ANYTHING. At least the Perry could do anti-sub, anti-ship, anti-air...the basic stuff you'd expect a frigate to do. Yes, the LCS can be re-fitted in port, but the Navy is finding that it takes months to refit rather than hours like originally planned. They're thinking about avoiding swapping modules completely in fact because it's too much of a pain in the ass. So you have a ship that can only do one thing at a time, meaning you need more ships to accomplish what you could before with just one.
You will be assimilated...bunghole!
Re: On the US Navy's Littoral Combat Ship...
Right now, at the end of the Perry-class's life cycle, a Perry can't actually do any of the three roles. It's anti-submarine capability is almost entirely from SH-60s, which the LCS (of either variation) can support. Anti-ship and anti-air died when the swing arm launchers were removed. Even before then, a Perry wasn't designed to be able to protect other ships, only itself. This is just as much of a capability that the LCSs have.Borgholio wrote:The problem really is that the LCS isn't really a solution to ANYTHING. At least the Perry could do anti-sub, anti-ship, anti-air...the basic stuff you'd expect a frigate to do. Yes, the LCS can be re-fitted in port, but the Navy is finding that it takes months to refit rather than hours like originally planned. They're thinking about avoiding swapping modules completely in fact because it's too much of a pain in the ass. So you have a ship that can only do one thing at a time, meaning you need more ships to accomplish what you could before with just one.
"preemptive killing of cops might not be such a bad idea from a personal saftey[sic] standpoint..." --Keevan Colton
"There's a word for bias you can't see: Yours." -- William Saletan
"There's a word for bias you can't see: Yours." -- William Saletan
Re: On the US Navy's Littoral Combat Ship...
Borgholio wrote:The problem really is that the LCS isn't really a solution to ANYTHING.
It cna do maritime intediction fine, and it's solutions are all modular based.
Not really, it relies heavily on it's helicopter...which the LCS does without a ASW module.At least the Perry could do anti-sub,
No more than the LCS family.anti-ship,
Even in 2004 all USN Perrys were having it's limited anti-air systems deleted, since they were so relatively inferior to SM-2s. The RAN tried to remedy this with a set of ESSM cells, and the program didn't turn out too well.anti-air...
I've never heard them claiming it would be "hours". "Days" maybe.Yes, the LCS can be re-fitted in port, but the Navy is finding that it takes months to refit rather than hours like originally planned.
The FFGs could really only do one thing at a time as well. Since the late 90s or so the Perrys have been used almost exclusively for maritime interdiction. In that sense, the LCS is a good replacement...the main difference being that the LCS will theoretically be able to be used for roles the Perry never was able to(mine warfare, for instances. Or carrying a platoon of infantry).They're thinking about avoiding swapping modules completely in fact because it's too much of a pain in the ass. So you have a ship that can only do one thing at a time, meaning you need more ships to accomplish what you could before with just one.
"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."
Re: On the US Navy's Littoral Combat Ship...
Right and it's high time they were replaced...they're getting old. But replacing them with something that has the same reduced capability? I don't see why they did that. Why not replace the Perrys with something similar AND create an LCS for small patrol-boat capability?Right now, at the end of the Perry-class's life cycle, a Perry can't actually do any of the three roles. It's anti-submarine capability is almost entirely from SH-60s, which the LCS (of either variation) can support. Anti-ship and anti-air died when the swing arm launchers were removed. Even before then, a Perry wasn't designed to be able to protect other ships, only itself. This is just as much of a capability that the LCSs have.
You will be assimilated...bunghole!
Re: On the US Navy's Littoral Combat Ship...
http://www.defensenews.com/article/2012 ... ncept-DeadI've never heard them claiming it would be "hours". "Days" maybe.
I stand corrected. You are right, they mentioned days. I'm sure I read it was hours somewhere but I can't find any mention of that except Wikipedia.
I guess my overall problem with the LCS is this...it doesn't come off as a fully capable all-around warship. For patrol boat duty it's fine. For things that the Coast Guard is capable of, the modular system could be useful. But despite it's shortcomings, the Perrys WERE fully capable in all aspects at the SAME TIME. It had anti-ship missiles always at the ready. It had anti-aircraft missiles always at the ready. It had anti-sub helicopters and torpedo tubes always at the ready. Yeah it might not be as effective an escort as a destroyer, but you could use it for many different missions.
Everything I read about the LCS says that it can only do one mission at a time if it has the module already installed, and it's being deployed to areas where a full-size warship would be more appropriate. As I mentioned to Beowulf, I'd feel more comfortable if they came out with a new frigate or corvette to fill the small, multi-mission ship role AND used the LCS for areas where a full warship would be overkill. I'll freely admit that the LCS will be very useful for anti-piracy or security roles. The Navy hasn't had a ship that could go that fast in open water since the old Pegasus-class hydrofoils in the 80's. But we need a new frigate class, and the LCS isn't it.
You will be assimilated...bunghole!
- Sea Skimmer
- Yankee Capitalist Air Pirate
- Posts: 37389
- Joined: 2002-07-03 11:49pm
- Location: Passchendaele City, HAB
Re: On the US Navy's Littoral Combat Ship...
Actually the cost of LCS has been found to be more or less exactly in step with Perry in terms of cost for capability. Thing is a repeat Perry like frigate built in a US yard would cost about 600 million dollars right now. The latest batch of four LCS ordered meanwhile, two of each type, will average 448 million dollars each. If we felt like it both classes could have VLS and better radar, but then we'd rapidly get back to the 600 million dollar range.Lonestar wrote:They are occupying the same hull spot, but they aren't intended as a "replacement" per se. Read what the builder said: It's intended to be a multirole ship that replaces multiple hulls. It isn't just a Perry replacement, it's a frigate, Minesweeper, and PC replacement.
That right there is a big reason why you should be careful complaining about the cost and difficulties of the program. It isn't a ultra low end solution(which is what the Perry originally was).
The original claims of a 220 million dollar LCS were simply never at all credible once the decision was made to build them to actual warship standards.
Eight I think, the deck rating is for 30 ton tracked vehicles so EFV would have fit, had it been bought, though it wouldn't have been possible to launch them into the water without some kind of ramp mod.Both models also have ample storage space, in fact, IIRC you can cram a few LAV-family vehicles in the storage area of the Independence class.
Makes even more sense if they operate alongside the JHSV fast transports. Suddenly we have a 40 knot invasion force that can dock at almost any port in the world that can take ocean going vessels at all.Having some baby amphibs/ ro-ro out of them will allow for additional flexibility.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
- Sea Skimmer
- Yankee Capitalist Air Pirate
- Posts: 37389
- Joined: 2002-07-03 11:49pm
- Location: Passchendaele City, HAB
Re: On the US Navy's Littoral Combat Ship...
Doesn't cost as much as one either, see above. We can buy FIVE LCS for the money the first new production Burke is going to cost.Borgholio wrote: I guess my overall problem with the LCS is this...it doesn't come off as a fully capable all-around warship.
It could be used for many different missions, but it basically sucked at anything but ASW. SM-1 was incapable of engaging anti ship missiles and too slow firing, with only one dedicated fire control channel, to stand much chance against them anyway. It also had no height finding capability in its radar suit, which was a somewhat glaring problem making SM-1 even less effective.
For patrol boat duty it's fine. For things that the Coast Guard is capable of, the modular system could be useful. But despite it's shortcomings, the Perrys WERE fully capable in all aspects at the SAME TIME. It had anti-ship missiles always at the ready. It had anti-aircraft missiles always at the ready. It had anti-sub helicopters and torpedo tubes always at the ready. Yeah it might not be as effective an escort as a destroyer, but you could use it for many different missions.
Take away the Mk13 launcher and you basically have most of the cost gap between the two ships. But meanwhile LCS can be equipped to do a bunch of things like mine warfare and operating large drone vehicles that a Perry never could, or carrying so many aircraft, particularly on the Independence class.
Very importantly LCS, both versions, have large amounts of room for growth meaning we are not stuck keeping the ships exactly as they are, they can be upgraded and modified in many ways as cost and requirements dictate. Perry had no growth space, one of the tricks to keeping it affordable in its own time, it didn't even have a good marginal of stability which caused problems in service as they slowly had to add weight to keep the superstructure from cracking off the deck. Ships with no room for growth are a bad idea, LCS was conceived as being the opposite, a very austere ship that would be modded as needed. Oh and cheap to operate, LCS kicks the crap out of a Perry on that front. Operating costs are even larger typically then the cost of buying the ship.
And if money grew on trees we could just build 120 Burkes and fuck the low end of warships. Nobody is ever going to like low end ships.
Everything I read about the LCS says that it can only do one mission at a time if it has the module already installed, and it's being deployed to areas where a full-size warship would be more appropriate. As I mentioned to Beowulf, I'd feel more comfortable if they came out with a new frigate or corvette to fill the small, multi-mission ship role AND used the LCS for areas where a full warship would be overkill.
Ever looked at the 'ocean escorts' we used before we had Perry?
I'll freely admit that the LCS will be very useful for anti-piracy or security roles. The Navy hasn't had a ship that could go that fast in open water since the old Pegasus-class hydrofoils in the 80's. But we need a new frigate class, and the LCS isn't it.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
Re: On the US Navy's Littoral Combat Ship...
True, but a Burke is a far more powerful warship than five LCSs. I think it'd be far more useful if there was ever an actual conflict with a hostile navy.Doesn't cost as much as one either, see above. We can buy FIVE LCS for the money the first new production Burke is going to cost.
Yeah I get your saying. Let me clarify, I don't think the LCS is a bad idea in concept, but it sounds like they're going to be expected to take on too much. If we end up building a shit-ton of them so they operate in small squadrons...that might work. But how many are we actually going to build? And are Navy strategists going to be smart enough to keep them "safely" out of the way if something big happens?It could be used for many different missions, but it basically sucked at anything but ASW. SM-1 was incapable of engaging anti ship missiles and too slow firing, with only one dedicated fire control channel, to stand much chance against them anyway. It also had no height finding capability in its radar suit, which was a somewhat glaring problem making SM-1 even less effective.
Take away the Mk13 launcher and you basically have most of the cost gap between the two ships. But meanwhile LCS can be equipped to do a bunch of things like mine warfare and operating large drone vehicles that a Perry never could, or carrying so many aircraft, particularly on the Independence class.
Very importantly LCS, both versions, have large amounts of room for growth meaning we are not stuck keeping the ships exactly as they are, they can be upgraded and modified in many ways as cost and requirements dictate. Perry had no growth space, one of the tricks to keeping it affordable in its own time, it didn't even have a good marginal of stability which caused problems in service as they slowly had to add weight to keep the superstructure from cracking off the deck. Ships with no room for growth are a bad idea, LCS was conceived as being the opposite, a very austere ship that would be modded as needed. Oh and cheap to operate, LCS kicks the crap out of a Perry on that front. Operating costs are even larger typically then the cost of buying the ship.
Talking about the Knox class? Specs were about the same actually.Ever looked at the 'ocean escorts' we used before we had Perry?
You will be assimilated...bunghole!
Re: On the US Navy's Littoral Combat Ship...
Borgholio wrote:True, but a Burke is a far more powerful warship than five LCSs. I think it'd be far more useful if there was ever an actual conflict with a hostile navy.Doesn't cost as much as one either, see above. We can buy FIVE LCS for the money the first new production Burke is going to cost.
When was the last time that happened?
"Aid, trade, green technology and peace." - Hans Rosling.
"Welcome to SDN, where we can't see the forest because walking into trees repeatedly feels good, bro." - Mr Coffee
"Welcome to SDN, where we can't see the forest because walking into trees repeatedly feels good, bro." - Mr Coffee
Re: On the US Navy's Littoral Combat Ship...
Shortly after the last time the economy looked this bad, funnily enough.madd0ct0r wrote:When was the last time that happened?
There are hardly any excesses of the most crazed psychopath that cannot easily be duplicated by a normal kindly family man who just comes in to work every day and has a job to do.
-- (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)
Replace "ginger" with "n*gger," and suddenly it become a lot less funny, doesn't it?
-- fgalkin
Like my writing? Tip me on Patreon
I Have A Blog
-- (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)
Replace "ginger" with "n*gger," and suddenly it become a lot less funny, doesn't it?
-- fgalkin
Like my writing? Tip me on Patreon
I Have A Blog
Re: On the US Navy's Littoral Combat Ship...
Sea Skimmer wrote: Actually the cost of LCS has been found to be more or less exactly in step with Perry in terms of cost for capability. Thing is a repeat Perry like frigate built in a US yard would cost about 600 million dollars right now. The latest batch of four LCS ordered meanwhile, two of each type, will average 448 million dollars each. If we felt like it both classes could have VLS and better radar, but then we'd rapidly get back to the 600 million dollar range.
The original claims of a 220 million dollar LCS were simply never at all credible once the decision was made to build them to actual warship standards.
Fair enough, I seem to recall Galhran or someone posting a per-tonnage cost of the LCS compared to the Perry that made them pretty close in price.
"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."
Re: On the US Navy's Littoral Combat Ship...
This is exactly the OPPOSITE of what the OHPs were designed to do, which should be obvious since their mission was escort. Granted they were not designed to be particularly capable but they were designed in an era when we could aford and expected to lose ships and when we wouldn't gold plate everything. Good enough to get a couple convoys across the Atlantic and die in place of the HVUs.Beowulf wrote:Even before then, a Perry wasn't designed to be able to protect other ships, only itself. This is just as much of a capability that the LCSs have.
In any case trying to cram anti mine capabilities into a regular combatant was obviously stupid, but the LCS design really fell victim to promising too much from one platform especially of that size. We have a jack of all trades, master of none and probably can'd do most period. We should have built an Absalon varient.
At just under $300M, it shows we are clearlly being ripped of with our POS LCSs.
Re: On the US Navy's Littoral Combat Ship...
First off, when comparing ships across nations. . . Woe to you. Different nations include different things in the cost which may increase or decrease the comparison price. Many nations, for example, does not consider the operation of the yard as part of a boat's cost while the United States does. As well, the price might not include weapon systems.
The LCS is actually cheaper on a per hull basis than the new National Security Cutter
They average about $650 million each.
As well, the LCS is on par price wise compared to the FFG-7 class
http://nextnavy.com/the-ffg-7-the-lcs-of-the-seventies/
Interestedly, against missile threats, the LCS is better able to defend itself against modern missiles than the FFG-7 could against 1970s / 1980s missile threats. The RAM missile is far better able to engage missiles than the SM-1 was even if the RAM is shorter ranged and smaller.
The LCS is actually cheaper on a per hull basis than the new National Security Cutter
They average about $650 million each.
As well, the LCS is on par price wise compared to the FFG-7 class
http://nextnavy.com/the-ffg-7-the-lcs-of-the-seventies/
Interestedly, against missile threats, the LCS is better able to defend itself against modern missiles than the FFG-7 could against 1970s / 1980s missile threats. The RAM missile is far better able to engage missiles than the SM-1 was even if the RAM is shorter ranged and smaller.
"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
Thomas Paine
"For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten."
Ecclesiastes 9:5 (KJV)
Thomas Paine
"For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten."
Ecclesiastes 9:5 (KJV)
Re: On the US Navy's Littoral Combat Ship...
How the heck is the F125 that weak compared to the Absalon despite being bigger? More emphasis on sensors instead of firepower?
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs
- Sea Skimmer
- Yankee Capitalist Air Pirate
- Posts: 37389
- Joined: 2002-07-03 11:49pm
- Location: Passchendaele City, HAB
Re: On the US Navy's Littoral Combat Ship...
Its weak and big because the heavy caliber gun and missile systems it was intended to carry were cancelled without replacement, leaving it with only the 5 inch gun instead, and unlike typical Eurofrigates it was designed to deploy overseas for protracted periods with no base support, requiring much better maintenance access, habitability and stores capacity. The last generation of Eurofrigate spam from the 1980s were all very cramped in comparison to say, USN vessels and struggle to operate even with bases overseas. It does not however have any improvement in cruising radius which kinda boggles the mind.
As of now, no firm plans exist to change its armament or spend actual money on flex container stuff. But hey it's being designed exactly like a colonial gunboat, so debters to the GERMANS beware!
Both Absalon and F125 are also slow; though Absalon actually has space reserved to double her engine capacity and the Danish follow on frigates on the same hull exercised this option. Course now that yard has been closed down, which doesn't say much for the reputed low cost of those ships.
The 52 hull count however, funding willing, may not be reached with the existing pair of designs. The USN may down selected to one hull, and it may adapt a new notional LCS-X at some point in the future. So far LCS-X is merely a building plan placeholder, it is in no way an actual project, yet.
The ship I actually had in mind though was the Garcia class, with two five inch guns, ASROC, one small helo, and not much else except being among the last USN vessels to carry heavyweight torpedo tubes in case of attack by communist battleships, or subs, or something like that. For bonus win they were only capable of 27 knots. We shall not speak of the overwhelming power that was the Bronstein class. Euthanized at two ships for some incomprehensible reason!
As of now, no firm plans exist to change its armament or spend actual money on flex container stuff. But hey it's being designed exactly like a colonial gunboat, so debters to the GERMANS beware!
Both Absalon and F125 are also slow; though Absalon actually has space reserved to double her engine capacity and the Danish follow on frigates on the same hull exercised this option. Course now that yard has been closed down, which doesn't say much for the reputed low cost of those ships.
Doubtful assertion, both types of ships are needed. No matter how capable any one ship is, and DDG-51 simply cannot do several of the tasks LCS is intended for, it can only be in one place at a time, and it becomes very vulnerable every single time it has to refuel and might just randomly die from a torpedo spread. Numbers do count at sea, particularly when escort or mine warfare missions come into play.Borgholio wrote: True, but a Burke is a far more powerful warship than five LCSs. I think it'd be far more useful if there was ever an actual conflict with a hostile navy.
That was the entire idea from day one! No type of warship is really ever designed to operate alone except a nuclear submarine. 24 are now built or on order. The plan remains 52 total hulls thanks to the partial abortion of sequestration in the latest DoD budget. Say one Tico, one Burke, three LCS fitted out for minewarfare and ASW, and a couple amphibious ships turns into a very capable task group.Yeah I get your saying. Let me clarify, I don't think the LCS is a bad idea in concept, but it sounds like they're going to be expected to take on too much. If we end up building a shit-ton of them so they operate in small squadrons...that might work.
The 52 hull count however, funding willing, may not be reached with the existing pair of designs. The USN may down selected to one hull, and it may adapt a new notional LCS-X at some point in the future. So far LCS-X is merely a building plan placeholder, it is in no way an actual project, yet.
Not really. Knox had functionally no real AAW capability, one only small helicopter, an ASROC launcher with limited reloads (I'll take multiple Seahawk over that, so would the USN in the end) no room for growth, and about the only good point is the five inch gun. Yet this was judged capable of conducting useful missions and built in large numbers. It would have been a little better had Mauler been fielded, giving it a real self defense AAW system, but then as now some systems simply don't work out.Talking about the Knox class? Specs were about the same actually.
The ship I actually had in mind though was the Garcia class, with two five inch guns, ASROC, one small helo, and not much else except being among the last USN vessels to carry heavyweight torpedo tubes in case of attack by communist battleships, or subs, or something like that. For bonus win they were only capable of 27 knots. We shall not speak of the overwhelming power that was the Bronstein class. Euthanized at two ships for some incomprehensible reason!
Last edited by Sea Skimmer on 2013-12-23 06:10pm, edited 1 time in total.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
- Sea Skimmer
- Yankee Capitalist Air Pirate
- Posts: 37389
- Joined: 2002-07-03 11:49pm
- Location: Passchendaele City, HAB
Re: On the US Navy's Littoral Combat Ship...
For the bonus win, as built FFG-7 had no active jamming capability either. This was rectified on most hulls with the Sidekick upgrade only after Stark ate her missiles. Given the limitations of SPS-49, it almost doesn't matter how much SM-1 sucked simply because the fire control system was most likely never going to acquire the target in time to shoot it. But of course SPS-49 was much better for fleet screening then TAS would have been, and I don't think TAS was in service in time for the first hulls anyway. Mk 92 had some search capability, but well, not really to be relied on vs a low, fast air target either.Kitsune wrote: Interestedly, against missile threats, the LCS is better able to defend itself against modern missiles than the FFG-7 could against 1970s / 1980s missile threats. The RAM missile is far better able to engage missiles than the SM-1 was even if the RAM is shorter ranged and smaller.
Amusingly Block II RAM with the two stage motor is going to have greater range then the original Tartar missile, not that this is exactly hard.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
Re: On the US Navy's Littoral Combat Ship...
Why doesn't the LCS 1 or 2 carry Harpoon? It fit just fine on the PHMs. I would think it would easily tack on to either LCS.
By the pricking of my thumb,
Something wicked this way comes.
Open, locks,
Whoever knocks.
Something wicked this way comes.
Open, locks,
Whoever knocks.
- Sea Skimmer
- Yankee Capitalist Air Pirate
- Posts: 37389
- Joined: 2002-07-03 11:49pm
- Location: Passchendaele City, HAB
Re: On the US Navy's Littoral Combat Ship...
Harpoon certainly can fit, and has been offered on export models of LCS 1/USS Freedom, but the USN is just not interested at the moment. It has been mentioned as a possible refit.
The USN however doesn't consider a small number of Harpoons to be a very credible threat to major enemy warships anymore, and actually wanted to have a bundle (30-45) Netfires NLOS missiles on board to deal with large numbers of smaller FAC-M and FIAC types of targets. Fired all together they'd have also been a very serious threat to a major warship simply because it would have been forty five missiles coming all at once. And with optical, laser and radar guidance all in one they'd have been more then accurate enough to deliberately target the waterline of the enemy.
However Netfires was an army led program which was cancelled in 2011 and left the navy up the creek on this subject. As an interim measure the anti surface package is now expected to include Griffin missiles, and a program has started to evaluate an extended range Sea Griffin with autonomous guidance against the navalized Brimestone. All LCS models will of course have Hellfire and laser 70mm missiles from Firescout and Seahawk as an anti surface weapon, and the USN is interested in replacing its retired Penguin missiles for Seahawk as well. In general though the pressing threat is Iranian small boats, and Harpoon is incapable of engaging those effectively. It'd fly right over them.
Beyond that, until LRASM-A testing is completed in 2015 the USN is not going to rush ahead to fit heavy missiles to anything. Provided it is adapted for service, uncertain as it remains a DARPA program, LRASM-A will have 500nm class range, exceeding that of even the most stupid big of Soviet anti ship missiles, and make the individual ability of specific ships to engage in 80nm range Harpoon duels far less relevant. Most USN Harpoons are lifetime expired, about all of them are obsolete, and only a limited number are going to be rebuilt for future service. The Norwegian Naval Strike Missile, a turbojet replacement for Penguin, has been pushed, and considered, as a replacement for Harpoon on ships and aircraft, to supplement or instead of the more expensive LRASM-A option. If money were no option sixteen of those would make far more sense then eight Harpoons on a LCS.
But money is limited, the best options aren't ready yet, NSM included. That's the way things stand now. Sequestration certainly didn't help, Lockheed had to spend its own money at one point to keep LRASM testing going. For the moment the USN is weak in SSMs, but still overwhelmingly capable in anti surface warfare with its air, submarine and line of sight SM-2 firepower. Its just not a really high priority this instant.
The USN however doesn't consider a small number of Harpoons to be a very credible threat to major enemy warships anymore, and actually wanted to have a bundle (30-45) Netfires NLOS missiles on board to deal with large numbers of smaller FAC-M and FIAC types of targets. Fired all together they'd have also been a very serious threat to a major warship simply because it would have been forty five missiles coming all at once. And with optical, laser and radar guidance all in one they'd have been more then accurate enough to deliberately target the waterline of the enemy.
However Netfires was an army led program which was cancelled in 2011 and left the navy up the creek on this subject. As an interim measure the anti surface package is now expected to include Griffin missiles, and a program has started to evaluate an extended range Sea Griffin with autonomous guidance against the navalized Brimestone. All LCS models will of course have Hellfire and laser 70mm missiles from Firescout and Seahawk as an anti surface weapon, and the USN is interested in replacing its retired Penguin missiles for Seahawk as well. In general though the pressing threat is Iranian small boats, and Harpoon is incapable of engaging those effectively. It'd fly right over them.
Beyond that, until LRASM-A testing is completed in 2015 the USN is not going to rush ahead to fit heavy missiles to anything. Provided it is adapted for service, uncertain as it remains a DARPA program, LRASM-A will have 500nm class range, exceeding that of even the most stupid big of Soviet anti ship missiles, and make the individual ability of specific ships to engage in 80nm range Harpoon duels far less relevant. Most USN Harpoons are lifetime expired, about all of them are obsolete, and only a limited number are going to be rebuilt for future service. The Norwegian Naval Strike Missile, a turbojet replacement for Penguin, has been pushed, and considered, as a replacement for Harpoon on ships and aircraft, to supplement or instead of the more expensive LRASM-A option. If money were no option sixteen of those would make far more sense then eight Harpoons on a LCS.
But money is limited, the best options aren't ready yet, NSM included. That's the way things stand now. Sequestration certainly didn't help, Lockheed had to spend its own money at one point to keep LRASM testing going. For the moment the USN is weak in SSMs, but still overwhelmingly capable in anti surface warfare with its air, submarine and line of sight SM-2 firepower. Its just not a really high priority this instant.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
Re: On the US Navy's Littoral Combat Ship...
"This is USS Freedom, I need a pair of Rhinos with Harpoons at my location."
"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
Thomas Paine
"For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten."
Ecclesiastes 9:5 (KJV)
Thomas Paine
"For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten."
Ecclesiastes 9:5 (KJV)