Anon

5" mounts? For a major amphib invasion? I'd want all of them...

Actually the AP ammo(of which there is a wide variety available) from the 30x173mm(same caliber as the tank killing A-10 gun) will probably handily outpenetrate 57mm HE rounds. At any rate, i was talking about "nasty" against these small boat swarm attacks.

BOTH are totally inadequate against warships or land targets.

The 'targets expected' should be various land targets, NGFS indirect missions, oil platforms(which a 57mm will not do squat to), fast attack patrol craft(not little swarm boats, but full out naval fast attack craft), and perhaps the occasional frigate or destroyer.
In the last 30 years the US has engaged in a lot of major surface combat against the likes of Iraq and Iran, and the prospect in the future for said ops against DPRK or China certainly can not be glazed over.

A 5" would've been ideal, but even a 3" super rapid would've been much better for NGFS and ASuW. The 57mm is about worthless for that role.

The whole point behind these things is that they can conduct independent littoral operations(which obviously means in very hostile waters).

We're sending them in harm's way with freakin' cap guns.

A 3" gun with a ROF of 100rpm sure is.

The terminal effect of 57mm shells(and the penetration) is seriously lacking. About the same punch as a 60mm mortar round.

VLS and ESSM would've given highly robust dual role service in a missile with about 50% more range, and with a flight speed about 4x greater. ESSM does not have a huge warhead, but at 66lbs it sure isn't "small" either.

A 16 cell VLS equipped FFG is clearly a far more potent warship than LCS.

Doesnt much matter, but sure, i'll give ya that point. LOL...

LPDs were not my suggestion, i merely referred to them because of their superior anti-air weapons fit. Forget small craft 'swarms', IMO it's antiship missiles and aircraft that are the real threat.(and of course, subs).

I told ya what i wanted. A FFG with a 30kt speed, 3" gun, SeaRAM(or Phalanx 1B), and a 16cell VLS system.

Simple, straightforward, all aspect LETHAL.

And you go by yours???

It is simple common sense that a purpose designed machine will be better than a 'jack of all trades'.

But are they configured that way?

Didn't happen that way during Praying Mantis cuz. US Aegis cruisers engaged in some good old fashioned Gun battles with enemy surface combatants(and oil rigs) in that one.

A VLS armed FFG would also be highly capable at AAW convoy or tanker escort, another potentially likely mission role that LCS would be unable to perform. And one with a 3" gun could also be at least somewhat useful for NGFS. And would not need to be escorted by Aegis warships, thus freeing them for more important duties.

We really dropped the ball with LCS.

Anon

Ever seen the range of RAM?

An enemy patrol plane(even a old prop job) could shadow an LCS everywhere it went feeding constant targeting data to the enemy and the LCS would be totally incapable of stopping it.

Not so for ANY SM-1/2 or ESSM armed ship.

Perrys had SM-1 (before it was removed after years of not being updated).
That gave them a 20-25mile attack range against enemy surface vessels, a legitimate medium range anti-air capability, and they also had Harpoon(and nowadays Harpoon II could be embarked for a decent inland strike capability too), and ASROC, and Mk46s, and a Phalanx, and two helos.

When they were new, the Perrys were far more capable warships than LCS specifically wrt weapons fit. Probably because they were to be tasked with NATO convoy escort missions. They HAD to be far more capable, and IMO, they were.

And a modern VLS armed FFG would be even better still.

LCS has point air defense systems, nothing more. And unless it has the ASuW module, it has dicck for ASuW/Strike systems too. Why in the name of effin' god they didn't give it VLS is a truly bewildering military mystery...

HKDan

"Ever seen the range of RAM?

An enemy patrol plane(even a old prop job) could shadow an LCS everywhere it went feeding constant targeting data to the enemy and the LCS would be totally incapable of stopping it.

Not so for ANY SM-1/2 or ESSM armed ship."

M21,
I am in complete agreement with your assesment that the lack of VLS on this class of ship is irresponsible. I can't help thinking though that off a coastline that has some potential of being defended there would be more powerful and capable ships around. I see the LCS being used in places where it would just be a waste of resources to have a DDG or anything else. For example, the incident off the coast of Somalia earlier this year where that couple of DDGs smoked those pirates. The delta area on the coast of Nigeria, shipping lanes around Indonesia, patrolling the Gulf of Mexico... In those instances a ship like this would free up valuable assets to be used in more important places, like knocking the patrol plane you mentioned out of the sky before it knew what hit it.

B.Smitty

The USN feels differently. Primary roles for the LCS include minesweeping, ASW, and small-boat ASuW, not shooting up oil platforms, NGFS or engaging frigates.

According to this , during Praying Mantis, Iranian frigates and FACs were destroyed by Harpoons and LGBs, not 5" gunfire.

If you believe the curve Galrahn posted, you'll note that it is FAR more likely that we will be facing "Unimpeded Access" or "Guarded Access" situations. In these scenarios, LCSs can operate independently.

Not necessarily. Numbers do matter. 50 LCSs that can ALL be tasked with mine warfare, or ALL tasked with ASW gives you a greater surge capacity than 25 dedicated minesweepers and 25 dedicated ASW platforms.

Now whether or not 50 LCSs gives you more or less capability than a multi-purpose FF(X) depends on the final prices for the FF(X), LCS and LCS mission modules.

But regardless, I still wouldn't want to send an FF(X) in to do minesweeping. And since WWII, mines have proven to be a far greater threat to the USN than aircraft or cruise missiles.

They can be if they need to be.

Don't get me wrong, I do, in part, agree with you. As I've said before, I think we would be better served by buying a mixture of LCSs and other warships.

I just don't think the LCS is as worthless or vulnerable (if used as intended) as you seem to.

PubFather

Couple of points that concern me.
1) High speed minesweeping. Actually, thats a misnomer. I dont have minesweeping experience. But I do know that the RN does minesweeping well - and does it slowly usuing RCUV's - and its not a 40 knot business. If you want quick minesweeping - use a chopper. If u want it done properly, use a vessel.

2) Deploying sensors - what sensors? Any sensor I can think of can be deployed more quickly and easily with an aircraft, not an LCS.

3) (With reference to Galhran). I was thinking primarily of a Falklands situation. Where point defences are overwhelmed in a hostile zone. My point about the Saar V was that the threat has magnified since the Falklands (in a hostile zone). We know who made the missiles that struck the Israelis boat afterall....The next hostiles are clearly Iran and NK. Perfect ground for this sort of attack

__________________
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit - Scottish Motto

"They that approve a private opinion, call it opinion; but they that dislike it, heresy; and yet heresy signifies no more than private opinion” Thomas Hobbes - Leviathan

Galrahn

If you want to be effective in minesweeping in the 21st century, use a distributed network of sophisticated unmanned vehicles with reliable communications and a variety of sensors. While disarming mines is still a manmed issue, effective mine detection over large areas is critical to insuring the safety of that manpower. The only aspect of the LCS I am sold on is the MIW capability, the LCS isn't just an upgrade over the Avenger and similar classes, it is a generational leap for the USN.

I agree though, tactical speed is not critical to minesweeping, although there is one thing about speed that could be useful for strategic deployment for minesweepers. It would take around 30 days at flank speed for Avenger class minesweepers at Ingleside, TX to reach the Persian Gulf. The LCS can make it in less than 10 days from Norfolk at 35 knots.

The thing is, most people know less about MIW than any other aspect of Naval Warfare. Be careful that sources for MIW are accurate and not pulling information out of thin air, because serious changes have happened over the last 3 years in MIW. Using the chart above, the LCS would be the MIW platform for unimpeded and guarded access situations, but for contested access the Navy is developing different platforms for MIW, again using modular concepts, on the SSGN.

The program for MIW of the SSGN is apart of PLUSNet, and while not involved directly, the UK, Australia, and Japan have expressed serious interest in the concept, which can be adapted for platforms other than SSGNs.

You can't deploy a persistent UUV with an aircraft, and in contested and defended access situations, deploying and retrieving deployed UUVs will be critical to identification of safe approaches.

If war breaks out between the US and China, would you deploy UUVs or U-2s?

It is a lot easier to defend against a global hawk or U-2 than a networked series of UUVs.

The US Navy currently has 22 CGs and 48 DDGs that would provide air defense for the LCS. In 5 years that number will be 22 CGs, 2 DD(X)s, and 62 DDGs. But only 6 of those 86 ships would be able to deploy unmanned vehicles, and that is 6 DDGs able to deploy 4 UUVs for minesweeping.

The LCS is a Naval truck, so in a Falklands scenario Aircraft Carriers, Cruisers, and Destroyers would provide air defense and surface strike, while the LCS provides ASW and MIW for the island assault phase of the mission. The Falklands would best be described as a Defended Access scenario according to the graph posted earlier, and in those scenarios the LCS wouldn't operate independently, rather under the shield of larger ships more suited for those roles.

rickusn

Some history:

1990 collapse of the USSR

The rest of the 90's was spent gutting the USN.

All but a dozen(at most) OHP FFG-7 class frigates were to be in service after the year 2000 all in NRF service.

They got a reprieve when it was decided in the mid-1990's to decommission the Spruances instead.

This also slowed the so called down-sizing somewhat. Although it still continues both for platforms and personnel..

Even now the USN is cutting some 40,000 sailors and the USAF is undergoing a similar blood-letting.

But I digress.

In the late 90's the upstart "streetfighter" concept appeared.

Also in 2001 the DD-21 was cancelled.

Shortly thereafter interest renewed in building a smaller warship.

A ship of less than 1000 tons full load was rejected.

As was a frigate of more than 3500 tons full load.

Effective and persistent helicopter operations require a displacement size of no less than 2500 tons.

It had requirements to have a small draft to operate closer to shore than a frigate/destroyer/cruiser, be very fast, have few personnel and its systems not only to be modular as has been the case for 30+ years but also to have the ability to rapidly change these modules out.

Also the 10-15 year warship development cycle was to be dispensed with.

The USN also disliked/s the dedicated MCM/MHC ships it procured for a variety of reasons. In particular the MHC's which were built for the sole purpose of clearing US harbors in the event of war with the now defunct USSR.

But knows mine-warfare is quite useful. However it has always had difficulty integrating it into the fleet because of the slow speeds of these vessels.

High-speed mine-sweepers have been a USN goal since before WWII.

First with WWI vintage destroyer conversions and later Benson class destroyer conversions.

However the Korean war experience pointed out the difficulties with this concept.

Also the USN now after stating for nearly two decades that it had no interest in building anymore frigates was, due in no small part to the DD21/X developent difficulties, looking for a OHP replacement. And that would assume some level of ASW.

Then we have the small-boat threat scenario, recon, surveillance, patrol and counter-narcotics issues and missions to consider that are really over-kill in some ways for larger warships.

OMFTS along with the LCS hull requirements pretty much precluded any serious condideration of NGFS.

The USN has plenty of AAW and Strike platforms so they too were not a consideration.

And the so-called "netcentric" connecting concept further made any such consderation of expanded AAW capabilities a non-starter.

Then of course ther is always the cost factor.

Therefore taking all that into consideration we are getting what we are getting.

The good thing is the UN hasnt spent billions of dollars over many years to develop a ship.

The program can be readily scrapped, changed or adapted.

Initially, at least, building two different/competing versions is a plus.

Having said all this doesnt make me its champion. Neither does it make me a detractor.

The USN will know quite soon if this was the way to go.

And seeing as how no one has there career heavily invested in its success or failure it sould prove to be at least an interesting, enlightening and illuminating program.

Heres a link to another analysis:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...s/ship/lcs.htm

rickusn

For Sniper:

8/31/06 - Navy to Base First Four Littoral Combat Ships inNavy Signs Contract to Integrate Army’s NLOS-LS Missile System into Littoral Combat Ship Surface Warfare Mission Module

By Program Executive Office Littoral and Mine Warfare

WASHINGTON – Navy and Army officials held a contract signing ceremony at the Army’s Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Ala. Aug. 28 to signify the cooperation between the services in the joint procurement of the Netfires Non-Line-of-Sight Launch System (NLOS-LS). The Navy is procuring the NLOS-LS for use on Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) surface warfare mission module.


"The NLOS-LS system brings considerable capability to the Littoral Combat Ship Surface Warfare Mission Package, allowing precision engagement of multiple moving sea targets at ranges of up to 40 kilometers," said Capt. Walt Wright, program manager, Littoral Combat Ship Mission Modules (PMS 420), Program Executive Office Littoral and Mine Warfare (PEO LWM).

Netfires LLC of Grand Prairie, Texas, was awarded a cost-plus-incentive-fee contract Aug. 25 for $54.8 million (as part of an estimated $1.15 billion contract) to procure the Non-Line of Sight Launch System Naval Littoral Combat Ship Integration, System Development and Demonstration. The work will be conducted in Tucson, Ariz., and Baltimore. It will be completed by Aug. 31, 2010. The U.S. Army Aviation & Missile Command is the contracting activity.

The Navy version of the NLOS-LS consists of the Raytheon-built Precision Attack Missile (PAM) and Lockheed Martin's joint Container Launch Unit (CLU). The PAM is a low-cost direct attack missile that is seven inches in diameter and weights about 117 pounds. It has a variable thrust rocket motor, dual-mode uncooled infrared/semi-active laser seeker, and a multi-mode warhead. Two-way data links on the PAM allows the missile to be re-tasked in flight and to down-link images of targets. The CLU contains 16 missile tubes in a 4 by 4 configuration. One missile tube is used for command and control and the other 15 tubes contain missiles.

The LCS will have a modular weapons bay built into the ship that will contain four CLUs for a total of 60 missiles. Once all missiles are expended, the CLUs can be removed and new units can be installed to replace them.

“The joint procurement of this system by the Army and Navy will result in better interoperability, command and control and mutual support between land and sea forces in the littorals. It's a win for both services,” said Wright. “As we deliver the first LCS Mission Packages and embark on a spiral development process to meet future requirements and improve warfighting capability, PMS 420 will continue to actively seek economic efficiencies through the potential use of other Army (and Air Force) systems that fill our mission needs.”

For more information on the NLOS-LS go to: http://www.raytheon.com/products/nlos_ls/.

PEO LMW develops, acquires and maintains operationally superior and affordable systems to provide assured access for U.S. and coalition forces in the littoral battle space. These include programs in support of Mine Warfare, Littoral Combat Ship Mission Modules, Unmanned Underwater Vehicles, Maritime Surveillance Systems, Afloat Anti-terrorism/Force Protection, Explosive Ordnance Disposal, and Naval Special Warfare..

For more information on the Littoral Combat Ship, visit the LCS website at http://peoships.crane.navy.mil/lcs/default.htm

Anon

The point is that with VLS instead of these fancy dan mission modules they could send LCS pretty well everywhere unescorted- OR- use it to legitimately escort civilian tankers/cargo ships/convoys, etc.

I started out as an LCS supporter until i heard so many sailor types call it flat out stupid. That 40kts is wasted, that it is inadequately armed and manned(the bigger the crew the more inherent damage control onboard), etc.

A simple conventionally hulled FFG with a 30kt sprint speed, 16cell VLS, a 3" gun, SeaRam, and capacity for two LAMPS III's would've been a vastly more well rounded and capable warship.

Anon

The navy doesnt give a fucck about minesweeping, it never has. It does just enough to gloss over the mission area and most of the systems they give lip-service to that role are actually intended for other roles.

Same as the 'spec ops insertion platform' sales pitch, it is total nonsense IMO.

I highly doubt LCS could traverse any kind of rough seas at those speeds, and guess what, a minesweeping helo(with a refueling probe) can get there even faster.
The CH-53 series has the capability to traverse the Atlantic non-stop with a refueling probe. I'd like to see LCS keep up with a CH-53...

Coincidentally enough, the USN cares LESS about mine warfare than any other mission area. They've neglected that mission for decades.

Ah, so now the SSGNs are "minesweepers" too eh? I detect another sales pitch to justify more (probably unrelated, lol) gadgetry for the navys newest toy.

Hmmm, we always managed to get by fine in the past, even with totally neglecting mine warfare needs in the fleet.


Nope, a Global Hawk would be harder to defend against cause the enemy just wont know it's there. They are like holes in the sky.

I would DEFINITELY prefer my surviellance come from high altitude 'holes in the sky' that have a MASSIVE horizon than UUVs that have a very limited visual/electronic horizon. You'd need hundreds of UUVs to provide the same are of coverage as a few Global Hawks at operating altitude.

It would be quite easy to add a UUV capability to existing ships based on my understanding of the hardware involved.

Further, our Aegis ships are for guarding Carriers, forming independent task forces, and guarding critical allies/patrolling hostile waterways(for BMD).

They are busy enough without having them baby sit LCS.


If it's a truck it's a "Ford Lightning", a superfast supercharged 2wd truck that handles like a pig and has no off-road capability, thus ensuring that compared to a purpose designed sports car or 4x4 truck it is clearly inferior than either.

Ah, OK, so now we're spending, what, $300-400 million each(including mission modules) for minesweepers?

And you think this GOOD?

And when we need LCS to operate independently to escort convoys either in the Gulf or N.Atl or Indian Ocean during a shooting war?

Then what?

Ah, right, we get to pull Burkes or Ticos off critical missions to play babysitter cause the USN was TOO FUKKING STOOPID to add any sort of AAW capability into LCS whatsoever.

Just add one 16cell VLS and reduce the speed of LCS to a more realistic 30kts, and i have NO PROBLEMS with it....but no.....

Anon

Thanx rick, but i am still wholly unimpressed. ESSM has more range(30 miles) and would be much harder to shoot down(mach 4 vs subsonic), and a 16 cell VLS could carry more of them anyway. Not to mention that ESSM is also QUITE HANDY for area anti-aircraft and missile defense as well.(or the VLS could be simply adopted to fire the new "PAM" missile. Obviously VLS could also fire ASROC-VLS, TACTOM, POLAR, or whatever other common VLS missile systems we design).

LCS is a dumb idea with even dumberer implementation.

JBG

After following this debate here and elsewhere, I have to agree with Sniper's last sentence - a dumb idea implemented in a dumb way ( paraphrased from Sniper's comment ).

The USN is trying to "reinvent the wheel", as it were, and has come up with a horse designed by committee, ie a camel.

The ship is too big and grossly underarmed, notwithstanding that I consider Bofor's 57mm to be an excellent piece of ordinance.

Jonathan

BenRoethig

Hey snipe, what would you think of a frigate variant of the Coast Guard 's new Legend-class cutters?

__________________
F/A-18E/F Super Hornet: The Honda Accord of fighters.

Anon

Nice to know not everyone thinks im nuts.

It really pains me to slam the LCS like this(as i am generally a fan of high-performance machines, which at 40kts, LCS clearly is), but i dont know how an interested American could not be anything but highly disappointed/concerned when they sit down and look at it.

40kts, no more than point air defenses and no VLS....pfft....pure stupidity.

As i said earlier, 'tis like sending infantrymen on patrol in fallujah armed only with sidearms. What it's really like is "FCS for the sea".

Yet another BAD implementation of Rumsfeld's 'transformation' concepts. I can't wait till that idiot is out of power...i really can't.

At any rate, welcome aboard Jonathan!

Well they sure look sleek and purty, but i'm afraid i don't know enough about their capabilities/configuration to comment intelligently at this time.

I hunted around for detailed specs briefly, but couldn't find them. If you run across the specs please post them for us bro.

BenRoethig

In her Coast Guard configuration, she has mission module stations that could be used for up armament possibilities. She also has facilities for two MH-60R/S helicopters.

http://www.uscg.mil/deepwater/system/nsc.htm
http://www.icgsdeepwater.com/objectives/cutters/NSC.php
http://www.uscg.mil/Deepwater/gallery/nscgallery.htm