Quote:
Originally Posted by B.Smitty
The LCS gains a lot of its value from its ability to embark two H-60 equivalents (typically one H-60 and several VTUAVs).
|
That was the feature I probably like the most about the LCS designs, particularily the GD design.
Quote:
Originally Posted by B.Smitty
I think a small, largely commercial-spec'd LHD (along the lines of the ThyssenKrupp MHD150, the Canberra class or Mistral) has a lot to offer for Global Fleet Station deployments, and can provide aviation and some small-boat support for higher threat situations, but I think there will still be a need for self-deployable, corvette and/or frigate sized surface combatants.
|
Those commercial-spec'd LHDs strike me as pretty usefull ships. You are right that the price tag of our LPD17 pretty much guarantees will never be able to afford very many of them. Any idea what they are costing now? By the third ship in the class, the per-unit-price should be coming down a bit.
I am a big fan of the Absalon class hybrid-frigate/ro-ro ships as well. (A fact that will make many on this board cringe as they do not have 64 VLS cells, Aegis, ...). They do strike me as very flexible ships though with good aviation facillities.
I am probably in the minority here, but I think the US was on the right track with the LCS concept: A modular, flexabily armed, self-deployable ship with very good aviation capabillities, cheap enough to buy in large numbers. To me, that is still our biggest need.
Many Navies are trying to find the right mix of capabillities to make their ships more suited to the needs of today, wheather we are taking about mini-LHDs, hybrid-ro-ro-frigates or even Japanese Aegis-LHDs, ... The theme there is "more flexability" even at the expense of organic kinetic combat power. The LCS may have priced itself out of the game, but I am sure it will not be the last attempt by the US Navy to bring more flexability to the fleet.