Littoral Combat Ship News

[tankerwanabe]

My impression isn't that the LCS lacks weapons. The LCS is modular roughly 50% empty space. Modern missile launching systems are cell-based. So just drop the cells in. I'm sure that the LCS was designed for cell installment.

 

The problem is the lack of electronics, radars and all that high tech Aegis tracking stuff needed to guide the missiles. I suppose that one can data link a single Aegis Cruiser/Destroyer to multiple LCS.

 

But can the LCS operate on its own? I dunno.

[shep854]

You'd think, but after all this time, the 'cells' (modules) still don't work as promised.

Edited April 11, 2013 by shep854

[rmgill]

So there is apparently a Gun Mission module with 2 30mm guns that's been tested or is being tested.

http://www.seaforces.org/wpnsys/SURFACE/LCS-mission-modules.htm



What's the SSM Mission Module supposed to have?

[Olof Larsson]

So there is apparently a Gun Mission module with 2 30mm guns that's been tested or is being tested.

 

http://www.seaforces.org/wpnsys/SURFACE/LCS-mission-modules.htm

 

 

What's the SSM Mission Module supposed to have?

 

The Griffin that delivers the firepower of a 57mm shell, but only 1/3 as far.

So any missile armed FAC should have wastly superior fire-power.

[shep854]

It would be nice if those guns were made permanent installations.

[Olof Larsson]

It would be nice if those guns were made permanent installations.

 

I'd expect any 2000-3000 ton surface combatant, to always have AA, ASh and ASW capacity onboard...

 

But that is just me, not thinking that brand new ships

should't be inferior to ships that are severel decades old.

 

If a surface combatant that size can't carry and use Harpoons, ESSM, VL-ASROC,

a multi-purpose MCG, CIWS, a few light guns, a helo or two, surface search radar,

air search radar and TAS at the same time, and to do so for weeks, the bloody thing is a waste of steal/aluminum,

and should be turned into something the navy could use, like razorblades and beer cans.

[EvanDP]

 

So there is apparently a Gun Mission module with 2 30mm guns that's been tested or is being tested.

 

http://www.seaforces.org/wpnsys/SURFACE/LCS-mission-modules.htm

 

 

What's the SSM Mission Module supposed to have?

 

The Griffin that delivers the firepower of a 57mm shell, but only 1/3 as far.

So any missile armed FAC should have wastly superior fire-power.

Don't the RAM Missiles have a anti-surface mode? I know it ain't a Harpoon but if you have a couple of systems that can handle surface threats that isn't all bad. Can they fit ESSM? The larger missile would have better kinetic effect.

[Olof Larsson]

 

 

So there is apparently a Gun Mission module with 2 30mm guns that's been tested or is being tested.

 

http://www.seaforces.org/wpnsys/SURFACE/LCS-mission-modules.htm

 

 

What's the SSM Mission Module supposed to have?

 

The Griffin that delivers the firepower of a 57mm shell, but only 1/3 as far.

So any missile armed FAC should have wastly superior fire-power.

Don't the RAM Missiles have a anti-surface mode? I know it ain't a Harpoon but if you have a couple of systems that can handle surface threats that isn't all bad. Can they fit ESSM? The larger missile would have better kinetic effect.

 

Yes, the RAM could also engage surface targets.

ESSM would be an improvement, but still wastly inferior to a conventional AShM.

 

ISTR that GD has offered the Independce-class with a 8-cell VLS and two quadpacks of Harpoons,

fitted between the brigde and the 57mm gun.

 

If they would only install that, and a fire control radar for the 57mm

(to allow it to engage aerial targets in a proper fashion),

and TAS, and a couple of light (preferably CIWS-capable) guns

and crew up so that they could use all the gear onboard for extended times,

then they might be on to something useful (but horribly expencive).

[Jeff]

You still have too small a crew to properly maintain the ship under normal conditions let alone combat.

 

Also, the problem of loading an ASW module and finding out the enemy decided to make it a surface combat mission or a minefield so you head back to port, swap out modules and come back to find the enemy has shifted strategies again, rinse and repeat. Multiple ships don't help because only the ones fitted out for the current need are of any use. It's not like they are building a dozen of them, a significant percentage of the Navy's fleet will be comprised of these things.

 

It all sounds like it was designed by a group of people who got kicked off the show "Are You Smarter than a Fifth Grader?".

[rmgill]

I'm really starting to think all we've managed to do is build a very fast, very expensive APD.

[Colin]

LCS, it makes the Duffel Bag look sane. speaking of which the CG should be able to sell them some harpoons

 

http://www.duffelblog.com/2013/02/cg-cutters-accidentally-equipped-with-harpoon-launchers-not-harpoon-missiles/

[shep854]

Swap the LCS' to the Coast Guard for their HECs.

----

I can only imagine what ARRSE would do with LCS stories...

[Ivanhoe]

What does this thing do that something like a "FRAM-ed" & slighly modded Spruance or twin-arm Ticonderoga with AH-1Z instead of SH-60 LAMPS III couldn't do at a fraction of the cost?

 

The LCS really has only one thing that current DDGs don't; shoal draft. The Indy class draws about 13 ft, according to Wikipedia, versus 30 for the Burkes and 29 for the Sprucans. I'm all for the USN "thinking green" if it means green water and not recycled pee. However...

 

If your primary offensive tool is a helo, it begs the question of why you'd want to run your hull into green water and allow every d-bag with a towed 105 to take potshots at you. If you're going to get into the surf zone and mix it up with speedboats, fishing trawlers, sampans and the like, it begs the question of why you'd think that 2500 tons is the right size.

 

If you're going to fight a hot war in somebody else's littoral, my preference would be to stay well offshore and use helos to shoot anything that moves at least 50 nmi from the hull. In which case, I want a bunch of helos and UCAVs so I can cover hundreds of square miles of littoral, 24/7. That can't be done with LCS, only boarding two helos. If you're going to fight a counterinsurgency/counterterrorism fight, lots of boardings and inspections, then give me a gas-turbined light corvette with some kind of automated speedboat launch/recovery ramp thing. And put a whole bunch of guns on it.

[BP]

 

What does this thing do that something like a "FRAM-ed" & slighly modded Spruance or twin-arm Ticonderoga with AH-1Z instead of SH-60 LAMPS III couldn't do at a fraction of the cost?

 

 

. . . going to fight a hot war in somebody else's littoral,

 

Oddly enough, that's the line the hookers in Norfolk called out when I got turned around trying to find a SPAWAR program office last summer.

[a77]

I want a bunch of helos and UCAVs so I can cover hundreds of square miles of littoral, 24/7. That can't be done with LCS, only boarding two helos. If you're going to fight a counterinsurgency/counterterrorism fight, lots of boardings and inspections, then give me a gas-turbined light corvette with some kind of automated speedboat launch/recovery ramp thing. And put a whole bunch of guns on it.

Exactly what is the point to have a "cheap" and inferior ship then it cost almost as a real destroyer.....

 

What US need is a cheap corvette, 57mm canon (shoot warning shoot), RAM (some air deafens), dozen machine guns (to slaughter the Iranian ski jet brigade) as a large flight deck/hangar as practical possible(for the helos and drones) a speedboat(s) and ramp (boarding actions) rudimentary sonar (to hunt sea mines and mini subs or more important confirm that the sea is clean from them) a real prison (so you have somewhere to stuff the pirates/suspects, and you can stuff the SEALS there if you are doing secret insertions. Iran will never know because they are always loots of corvettes who drive up and down along the coast)

 

It is a totally uneconomical to have a Ages Bunker Destroyer to check up some garbage in the sea to confirm that it is normal garbage and not some al-Qa'ida sea mine and doing routine ship boarding/inspection.

Edited April 12, 2013 by a77

[tankerwanabe]

Somehow we (Americans) always turn an inexpensive economical design into a very very very expensive one by the time it enters service.

[swerve]

 

Exactly what is the point to have a "cheap" and inferior ship then it cost almost as a real destroyer.....

What US need is a cheap corvette, 57mm canon (shoot warning shoot), RAM (some air deafens), dozen machine guns (to slaughter the Iranian ski jet brigade) as a large flight deck/hangar as practical possible(for the helos and drones) a speedboat(s) and ramp (boarding actions) rudimentary sonar (to hunt sea mines and mini subs or more important confirm that the sea is clean from them) a real prison (so you have somewhere to stuff the pirates/suspects, and you can stuff the SEALS there if you are doing secret insertions. Iran will never know because they are always loots of corvettes who drive up and down along the coast)

 

It is a totally uneconomical to have a Ages Bunker Destroyer to check up some garbage in the sea to confirm that it is normal garbage and not some al-Qa'ida sea mine and doing routine ship boarding/inspection.

Absolutely right. If you're going to pay for a frigate, buy a frigate.If you want a cheap ship as a platform for a helicopter & able to do secondary roles, make sure it really is cheap.

 

There are a few designs which match or are close to what you describe, e.g. the Spanish Meteoro class (AKA the BAM - buque de accion maritima). They're generally cheap enough to buy a few for the price of one LCS. But they ain't built for the US navy.

[Brian Kennedy]

Somehow we (Americans) always turn an inexpensive economical design into a very very very expensive one by the time it enters service.

 

Well, what we _sometimes_ do is try to make an uber quantum-leap system, give up after wasting shedloads of money, buy the fallback system instead and have it turn out to be a wonderful design that we use for several decades (M1 tank, M16, etc.). Maybe that dynamic will play out here too?

[Jeff]

Somehow we (Americans) always turn an inexpensive economical design into a very very very expensive one by the time it enters service.

That would be bad enough if the damn thing at least did something worth doing.

[Guest Jason L]

LCS, it makes the Duffel Bag look sane. speaking of which the CG should be able to sell them some harpoons

 

http://www.duffelblog.com/2013/02/cg-cutters-accidentally-equipped-with-harpoon-launchers-not-harpoon-missiles/

 

 

 

 

“Those LCS ships are a goddamn nightmare,” said one HEC skipper. “Nobody at General Dynamics seems to be aware that aluminum alloys melt at 900 degrees, and the warheads on antiship missiles burn a whole lot hotter than that. Plus, when the ship sprints, the fucking guns couldn’t hit Diego Garcia at 500 yards.”

Read more: http://www.duffelblog.com/2013/02/cg-cutters-accidentally-equipped-with-harpoon-launchers-not-harpoon-missiles/#ixzz2QJbg5y9g

Follow us: @theduffelblog on Twitter | duffelblog on Facebook

 

Wonder how many people actually believe the bolded bit.

Edited April 13, 2013 by Jason L

[shep854]

 

Somehow we (Americans) always turn an inexpensive economical design into a very very very expensive one by the time it enters service.

That would be bad enough if the damn thing at least did something worth doing.

Depends on what that 'something worth doing' actually is.

[Yama]

 

What does this thing do that something like a "FRAM-ed" & slighly modded Spruance or twin-arm Ticonderoga with AH-1Z instead of SH-60 LAMPS III couldn't do at a fraction of the cost?

 

The LCS really has only one thing that current DDGs don't; shoal draft. The Indy class draws about 13 ft, according to Wikipedia, versus 30 for the Burkes and 29 for the Sprucans. I'm all for the USN "thinking green" if it means green water and not recycled pee. However...

 

If your primary offensive tool is a helo, it begs the question of why you'd want to run your hull into green water and allow every d-bag with a towed 105 to take potshots at you. If you're going to get into the surf zone and mix it up with speedboats, fishing trawlers, sampans and the like, it begs the question of why you'd think that 2500 tons is the right size.

 

If you're going to fight a hot war in somebody else's littoral, my preference would be to stay well offshore and use helos to shoot anything that moves at least 50 nmi from the hull. In which case, I want a bunch of helos and UCAVs so I can cover hundreds of square miles of littoral, 24/7. That can't be done with LCS, only boarding two helos. If you're going to fight a counterinsurgency/counterterrorism fight, lots of boardings and inspections, then give me a gas-turbined light corvette with some kind of automated speedboat launch/recovery ramp thing. And put a whole bunch of guns on it.

 

 

Dramatically lower draught is useful in many littoral missions as it makes for example, pursuits in littoral area much easier, also various amphibious landings/evacuations/support missions. Also, it makes you less vulnerable to still-commonplace contact mines. Of course, there are helicopters and dedicated landing craft, but they aren't always available because of weather/other missions/etc, it's useful & flexible when your primary fighting vessel is able to operate in as many environments as possible. This is why, after all, littoral navies indeed do still have small fighting vessels.

 

BUT, the problem here is that LCS is designed to go "in thick of things" in environment which is risky to real warships, but it costs as much as a real warship, which are not meant to go there because they are too scarce & expensive. Which will probably lead to LCS also being too scarce & expensive to risk (leaving LCS to do...er...) Which will lead to new USN requirement for "This Time It Really Is Affordable Multirole Joint Inshore Fighting Vessel". And the cycle repeats anew...

 

But maybe that was the plan all along?

Edited April 13, 2013 by Yama

[Ivanhoe]

The only real plan is for CPTs to make RADM, with as much budget growth as possible. Whether or not fights are won is irrelevant.

 

The thing about LCS that points towards complete cancellation and memory-holing is that the peacetime USN, up at the GO level, is not really interested in the littoral. Control of shipping lanes, projecting air power onto foreign shores, and getting a piece of the space pie are the desired missions. Maybe some intel & CT work. All else is really nothing more than budgetary gingerbread.

 

The sad thing is that if you look at the senior enlisted and lower officer ranks, you can find all sorts of guys who know and love the mission, but those guys don't run things.

[rmgill]

 

 

Somehow we (Americans) always turn an inexpensive economical design into a very very very expensive one by the time it enters service.

That would be bad enough if the damn thing at least did something worth doing.

Depends on what that 'something worth doing' actually is.

 

 

Put a golf putting green on the back and ski tow points off the fan tail. Vacation spot for General Officers/Admirals and State Department flaks.

Edited April 13, 2013 by rmgill

[Max H]

 

LCS, it makes the Duffel Bag look sane. speaking of which the CG should be able to sell them some harpoons

 

http://www.duffelblog.com/2013/02/cg-cutters-accidentally-equipped-with-harpoon-launchers-not-harpoon-missiles/

 

 

 

>

“Those LCS ships are a goddamn nightmare,” said one HEC skipper. “Nobody at General Dynamics seems to be aware that aluminum alloys melt at 900 degrees, and the warheads on antiship missiles burn a whole lot hotter than that. Plus, when the ship sprints, the fucking guns couldn’t hit Diego Garcia at 500 yards.”

Read more: http://www.duffelblog.com/2013/02/cg-cutters-accidentally-equipped-with-harpoon-launchers-not-harpoon-missiles/#ixzz2QJbg5y9g

Follow us: @theduffelblog on Twitter | duffelblog on Facebook

 

Wonder how many people actually believe the bolded bit.

 

 

Aren't there some anti-warship warheads with aluminium liners?