JMH

The LCS hull is rather small to fit a 6" gun on to use in Naval Gunfire Support Role. As an interim measure the Navy could reactivate the Heavy Cruiser that is used as a museum in Quincy Massachusetts, this Heavy Cruisers nine 8 inch guns would be sufficient for Naval Gunfire support and this ship would be cheaper than an Iowa class Battleship.

The DDX/DDG-1000 is far too expensive and will probably be cancelled after the first two units are launched. The only way the Navy would be able to afford substantial numbers of DDG-1000 class is by getting rid of another 100,000 personnel to pay for the new ships.

B.Smitty

I personally don't think there is a need for interim measures. We will have over 100 5" mounts on the Burkes and Ticos. That's plenty, IMHO. Just upgrade them to the 5"/62cal version, and continue ERM and the PGK fuze.

JA Boomer

That will definitely not happen, if they wanted the LCS to use its deck gun in the NGFS role, they would have put anything other than the 57mm on it. If the LCS ever performs this role, it will most likely be with the PAM Missile.

Yes, I agree, the US Navy has plenty 5'' deck guns in the fleet, and with the proposed modification and upgrades, they will be able to perform the NGFS mission quite adequately. Coming close enough to the Marines requirements IMO.

There is no reason to float out a WWII era ship to provide this role in the interim. Why would you want a single ship to be the primary NGFS asset in the entire US Navy? 1. It would cost a lot to get any of these ships operational again. 2. You are not gaining much, a bigger round, but it does not go much farther than a standard 5'' round, and not as far as the ERM munitions. 3. A single ship deployed for this role is costly. Having only one, you must deploy it to wherever it is needed quickly (what if it's in mx?) and it would have a big target attached to it being the primary source of NGFS.

Haha, that’s a whole other ball of wax. I think the whole program has gone out of control. The design they are pursuing does not make sense to me, not that it matters. IMO The next surface combatants should be next-generation Frigates, Destroyers, and Cruisers. Along the lines of what we are seeing from other Navies, sailing such ships such as the Formidable and proposed MEKO D classes.

I think rethinking what a surface combatant is has gone too far. I mean the US is trying so hard to stay 2 steps ahead of the curve, they could spend 1/4 less and be one step ahead, buy twice as much, and be in a 150% stronger position.

gunnut

In addition to upgrade all the Mk. 45s to the 62cal version on the Aegis ships, make more of those to equip the LCS. We don't even have to equip all the LCS fleet with it. Just some of them for the NGFS role.

Can the DDX/CGX after the first 2 ships. Use evolved Burke hull for our future CG/DDG like how the Sprucan hull served as a basis for the Kidd and the Tico classes.

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

B.Smitty

A Mk45 likely won't fit on the GD LCS - the center hull appears to be too slender. Might fit on the LM version though.

JA Boomer

I'm kinda hoping the LCS gets canned, and a more "suitable" surface combatant takes its place.

Like that idea. I've heard the idea of using the first two DD-1000 as test vessels for futures systems and abilities. I like that idea, and really don't think the US should pursue any more of the class. And YES, I think using the Burke as a starting point for developing the next major surface combatants is a great idea.

gunnut

The navy will never go for that. It just makes too much sense.

Galrahn

Most likely to happen if you ask me.

Congress appears more engaged with the Navy now than at any point this century.

Dreadnought

IMO The reason congress is so in to the Navy right now is due to a few things.

1)DDX Development cost and arrival date neither of which are being satisfied.

2)EM railgun development.And if they read up on its inception they may be asking themselves why they need the DDX and its price tag when the future CGX will carry such a weapon by 2025.

__________________
Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.