Littoral Combat Ship News

[a77]

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

 

And you do combat planes out of aluminium and magnesium and stuff them full of jet fuel wherever there is space......

 

Yes steel is better to resist a fire then aluminium but a modern anti-ship missile that hit will most probability cripple the ship regardless of steel or aluminium...... modern ship do not have torpedo bulges because a torpedo will cripple/sink the ship regardless of torpedo bulges.....

[Colin]

 

 

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?

BH-7 Hovercraft, has been fitted with surface to surface missiles.

 

Of course the russians pushed it all the way

[Jeff]

No matter how cheap a ship can be made, American politicians will never allow the crews to be despensible so the cost per ship is irrelevant to its use.

[cybermax]

Fire aboard USS Coronado LCS-4

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130414/DEFREG02/304140004/Newest-LCS-Suffers-Fire-Sea-Damage-8216-Minor-8217-

 

WASHINGTON — Fire broke out aboard the littoral combat ship Coronado late Friday morning while the vessel was on its second day of sea trials in the Gulf of Mexico, a U.S. Navy official confirmed Saturday.

No one was injured in the accident, and early indications are that the damage was minor, the official said.

The incident happened as the ship was conducting a full-power demonstration and running at high speed. Insulation on the starboard diesel exhaust first smoldered, then ignited but, according to the official, the flames were “extinguished immediately.”

Shortly after, the lagging on the port diesel exhaust repeated the sequence and again, the flames were immediately put out.

Running on its gas turbines, the Coronado returned to the Austal USA shipyard in Mobile, Ala., late Friday night to begin the incident assessment by representatives from the Navy, Austal USA, diesel builder MTU and others.

[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.

 

 

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.

Ding ding ding...

[Steven P Allen]

APDs were very much more useful, even after the troops landed. They could do ASW, AA escort, and even NGFS.

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

[baboon6]

Isn't what is really needed a class of cheapish offshore patrol vessels- something like the Dutch Holland-class:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holland-class_offshore_patrol_vessels

 

Apologies if this has been mentioned before, didn't go through the whole thread.

[tankerwanabe]

When was the last time the DoD provided a cheapish anything by the time all the bells and whistles are added?

[Simon Tan]

I know...sell it to the PLAN Better still, leak the data to PLAN, have them build afew!

[shep854]

I know...sell it to the PLAN Better still, leak the data to PLAN, have them build afew!

We tried that, but they sensibly tested it on a smaller scale and dropped the idea...

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsurf/20130305.aspx

China Retires Trimaran Ambitions

Edited April 17, 2013 by shep854

[pikachu]

 

I know...sell it to the PLAN Better still, leak the data to PLAN, have them build afew!

We tried that, but they sensibly tested it on a smaller scale and dropped the idea...

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsurf/20130305.aspx

China Retires Trimaran Ambitions

 

The Indonesian attempt ended rather badly. On the plus side, it was quite interesting to see the results of encasing tons of flammable objects in a carbon composite hull.

 

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cb7_1349148575

[ScottBrim]

Over on Galrahn's Information Dissemination forum, Lt. Jimmy Drennan, USN, has outlined his concept for a small surface combatant along the lines of the concept that Capt. Wayne Hughes was advocating a decade ago. His version is optimized for attacks on larger surface combatants in the context of a flotilla-size surface warfare engagement against DDG class opponents.

Strength in Numbers: The Remarkable Potential of (really) Small Combatants

Over on the ID forum, I've taken to calling Lt. Drennan's concept "JimmyD's Expendable Small Surface Combatant (JDESSC)" . (Let's see if that acronym sticks.)

Lt. Drennan's concept is definitelyy not an LCS. But I do think that if serious analysis of the JDESSC concept went forward, there is danger of a process of Creeping LCS-ification becoming active inside that analysis process.

[rmgill]

The problem with small combatants is that congress doesn't like the idea of Expendable US Sailors.

[ScottBrim]

The problem with small combatants is that congress doesn't like the idea of Expendable US Sailors.

 

They funded the LCS, didn't they?

 

To be fair, the USN says that if an LCS is seriously damaged, it will exit the battlespace for a safer location.

 

The problem I see with that claim is that its exit might be in a vertical direction.

[RETAC21]

"Space battleship Freedom!" but first it needs to be blown to bits.

 

[Corinthian]

"Maximum Warfighting Capability Per Dollar"...

 

Sounds like something for a cereal box.

[Gunguy]

It amazes me (not really) that the Navy took an intial idea that most of us here on Tank Net, thought was a very good idea and totally botched it. Years ago we got on board for an inexpensive ship with cutting edge modules (very capable) that would save money in the long run. So what happened over the years? They brought the cost up to an enormous amount, they put in a smaller gun than any of us thought they would, then they killed off the decent missile with great range that was supposed to be onboard for attack, and finally they killed all of the sensors needed to take advantage of the weapons that they canceled. So they went from Tank Net support to Tank Net buffoonery!

 

If the Congress and the others involved in these programs would only read Tank Net regularly, they would know when things are going off the rail and could initiate new policies to save the programs. We CONSTANTLY are ahead of the curve on these programs and sniff out problems way before they are made public. If we can do it, why can't the supposed "professionals"? Makes you wonder...........

 

So now the US Navy Secretary wants to look at adding a 76mm Rapid Fire Gun, 2 ESSM quad packs, 2 Harpoon quad packs and a towed sensor for anti torpedo work. This STILL does not install a capable ground/ship attack missile so the ship can actually attack and defend itself at distance outside of other 76 mm guns and missiles. I see this ship as the best target that the Navy has ever made (cost wise). Going against ANY other ship other than extremely cheap pleasure boats (Iranian style) will get the LCS ships sunk or at least dead in the water and fighting a fire to save the ship for later disposal. You guys have pointed out that ships HALF THE COST can easily take out an LCS. It seems like a huge amount of money to be a target for everyone elses small, cheap ships. So, we are once again at the unbelievable stage of a massive procurement debacle. Our taxes are being wasted at staggering rates. We will go broke far before we get into a battle with any neer competitor. Heck, maybe we can sell them to China in a few years........

[Colin]

The problem I see in government is "groupthink". If you disagree and voice your opinion that is contrary you are told "get with the program" or "You are being negative"

[Tony Williams]

Something like this would probably meet the need: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigma-class_corvette

 

 

This is also a useful site, on warship costs: http://newwars.wordpress.com/warship-costs/

 

It shows that the Sigma class corvette is $222 million compared with $647-704 million for LCS.

[Jeff]

It amazes me (not really) that the Navy took an intial idea that most of us here on Tank Net, thought was a very good idea

 

Wait, what?

[DB]

I wonder if the original thread exists?

 

Could the US just decide to buy 50 or so type 26 frigates, pretty please? We need to export something and I'm sure we could break it badly enough to qualify as a classic US procurement fiasco (we have plenty of practice of our own, after all).

[Ivanhoe]

Something like this would probably meet the need: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigma-class_corvette

 

 

 

This is also a useful site, on warship costs: http://newwars.wordpress.com/warship-costs/

 

It shows that the Sigma class corvette is $222 million compared with $647-704 million for LCS.

 

I'd go smaller and more numerous, maybe closer to a Visby, except not as hideous. Room for one (1) module only. Primary module being coastal patrol, maybe a minesweeper module (not sure a corvette is going to be big enough for that), maybe a rescue/medical unit, etc.

 

We have to give up this notion that the LCS has got to be capable of going bare-knuckle with Kirovs out in blue water, else our "affordable littoral ship" is going to look like a cross between a Ticonderoga and a cruise ship.

[rmgill]

It needs to be armed like a sloop or corvette from WWII.

[Colin]

You could contract the Russians if you want a shallow draft vessel

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bora-class_guided_missile_hovercraft

[tankerwanabe]

What is the mission of the LCS?

 

Is it supposed to be a patrol boat, or frigate?