Galrahn

With the new stabilized cranes come the expectation the modules can be extended into the side doors of the LCS. Actually not just the LCS, but also the side hatches of the LPD-17 and DDG-51 Flight IIAs.

From what I have read and seen, the LCS module will be able to swap out in less than day.

I don't think there is much overlap between an ESG and a LSG. ESGs are about combat power, while LSGs are about littoral presence.

As for more DDGs, I don't know. To be honest I'm working with the LCS in the model and I don't even really like the LCS much, it is still a Powerpoint solution until it proves otherwise. The FFG-7s would certainly be nice, and MCMs are certainly useful, but both are expensive to operate.

The US Navy currently fields the largest anti-aircraft/anti-missile networked system in the world in its AEGIS fleet (land or sea based btw), and within that framework operates CSGs and ESGs. The LSG is intended to operate in low intensity, limited threat littorals where a 57mm would represent the high end of the threat matrix. I add a single DDG-51 because in any situation the class represents a major deterrent. In the various theaters discussed for GFS, a single DDG-51 represents more than enough capability, and if there was a case where it didn't, that development alone might trigger a surge deployment or rotation of a heavier strike group to the region.

One more thought Smitty, expect the vast majority of LCS deployments to be with ASW or MIW modules, not the ASuW module, even if much of the time on deployment is spent on MSO. As the LCS program moves on, I am not going to be surprised if the Flight I version of the LCS has a NETFIRES or VLS payload by default, eliminating the ASuW module altogether. The same unmanned systems used in the ASW module are used in the ASuW module, all that is missing is the payload to those systems, which btw, are in the process of being developed to be swapped itself.