Dectilion

im probably a bit behind the ball on finding out about this, but have you seen this ships capabilities!? this is what the royal navy should be building, not overpriced under-equipped T45's

Wraith601

Personally I'd prefer the LCS be better armed. Just a 16 cell VLS would increase it's capabilities immensely. That and replace the 57 mm gun with a
76 mm one.

__________________
"We always have been, we are, and I hope that we always shall be, detested in France."
-Sir Arthur Wellesley

Dectilion

i heard it will be capable of having 2x 32 missile VLS units

kato

2x32 VLS NETFIRES maybe, definitely not standard VLS. not in the contract.

SierraM

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/att...=7756&stc=1&d=

I don't know about its capabilities but I love how it looks. Hopefully it lives up to expectations.

Attached Images

LCS2.jpg (386.2 KB, 271 views)

SierraM

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/att...1&d=1177455438

Here's some more pics and some weapons options

Attached Images

MMC-DataSheet-2.jpg (125.5 KB, 255 views)

Wraith601

It is a great looking vessel to me and it does offer some interesting capabilities, but it could be improved. Even as few as 8 VLS cells would allow you to carry up to 32 ESSMs. Add to that the RAM launcher and Phalanx (I think she'll carry one) and you have a solid self defense capability. Also, the 76 mm gun has superior range and throw weight over the 57, easily worth the increased space and weight.

Tasman

A VLS system for ESSM would be valuable and the GD site lists the Mk41 as an example of a system that is capable of being installed. I agree with you re the 76mm gun. Space and weight is provided for up to 32 VLS cells (4x8), 8 Harpoon canisters (2x4) and 2 x Phalanx CIWS.

http://www.gdlcs.com/documents/MMC-Brochure.pdf

Cheers

__________________
Learn from the past. Prepare for the future.

Wraith601

Granted I'm not a naval engineer, but I would have included a Mk 41 VLS forward, just aft of the gun. In addition to the increase in firepower the ESSm would bring (in all configurations, not just with a special AAW module) the weight of the VLS would help offset the weight of mission modules. There are concerns that the ship will be "rear heavy' and this could cause structural problems down the road. Fitting a 76 mm gun would also help this problem as well.

dundonrl

sounds like they are trying to cram too much stuff into too small of a hull...VLS is fine, but if it adds too much weight and slows down the ship, what good is it.. besides the Arleigh Burke over the horizon will have plenty of VLS cells to take care of what needs to be done..

Dectilion

the trimaran hull is kinda designed to offset the weight vs. speed issues

Wraith601

The LCS is designed for modularity. Instead of putting every type of weapon on one ship, a la the Burke, it swap packages based on the mission.

The weight isn't the problem, its the distribution of the weight I've seen complaints about. Too much stuff at the rear and not enough forward. Besides who really needs a 40 knot minesweeper anyway? In my view the LCS would have been fine with a speed of 30-35 knots, the money saved on larger engines and other systems could have been used to buy more weapons modules and for a intergal VLS.

B.Smitty

The LCS program is already having cost blowout issues. Adding a VLS and associated radar and fire control upgrades would only make this worse. Remember, it is supposed to be a relatively inexpensive sea truck, not a frigate.

If we wanted to make a frigate, we should've made a frigate.

Just MHO.

Wraith601

Most of the cost overruns were on the Lockheed Martin version, which is now dead. As far as I've heard the GD version has stayed realatively on track (as on track as naval vessels get at least). Personally I see the LCs multi-mission, modular corvette and it should be armed as such, the added cost of a small VLS is inconserquential compared to the cost of having aLCS sunk by AShM the ESSM could have easily intercepted.

Tasman

Good point Wraith.

Cheers