Thread: LCS christened

Sorry, but I'm betting against the GD design. Too much metal below the waterline, and not enough space above it, where all the usable space would be in the GD design. Either one only has one major gun, if you want to call it that, and one RAM launcher in all it's various configurations for it's various missions.
Why not make the major gunfire support ship that the DD-1000 is suppose to be in this ship? Why this waste of money, times 60 littoral warfare target ships, and then add the DDX?

Better still, why not put at least a couple major caliber guns on an arsenal ship for that "littoral" mission? Why not make an "arsenal" ship, with a few major caliber guns for land gunfire support, plus cruise missiles and add a anti-mine, anti-sub, anti terrorist whatever capability to that inland littoral support ship and buy a dozen of them and leave the carrier escorts alone in their 'blue water' world?
I am sorry, but this just makes no sense whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Sandman

Sorry, but I'm betting against the GD design. Too much metal below the waterline, and not enough space above it, where all the usable space would be in the GD design. Either one only has one major gun, if you want to call it that, and one RAM launcher in all it's various configurations for it's various missions.
Why not make the major gunfire support ship that the DD-1000 is suppose to be in this ship? Why this waste of money, times 60 littoral warfare target ships, and then add the DDX?

Better still, why not put at least a couple major caliber guns on an arsenal ship for that "littoral" mission? Why not make an "arsenal" ship, with a few major caliber guns for land gunfire support, plus cruise missiles and add a anti-mine, anti-sub, anti terrorist whatever capability to that inland littoral support ship and buy a dozen of them and leave the carrier escorts alone in their 'blue water' world?
I am sorry, but this just makes no sense whatsoever.

As far as I know both ships are supposed have nearly identical initial armaments and are nearly the same weight once finished so GD is at no disadvantage there. And I'm not sure what you mean by most of the ship is below the waterline. As I understand it the point of trimaran hulls is to minimize the amount of drag the ship experiences in the water, in other words minimize the amount of ship surface in the water. Infact its advertised as having its mission modules higher above the waterline.

http://www.gdlcs.com/documents/LCS_brochure.pdf
http://www.gdlcs.com/documents/LCSwarfarebrochure.pdf

Neither ship is really what you'd want for heavy coastal gun support, there both pretty small. I suppose another gun could be mounted behind current one if you wanted to increase its gun capabilities.

Personally I like innovative ideas, especially when the idea makes alot of sense. I'm sure the navy guys in the thread can give you a better analysis of then benefits of each hull type better then I can.

One thing is certain; The navy can't afford everything out there. In a recent Proceedings article several proposals included immediatly retiring half the Burkes. IMHO, the blue water navy is more important, and talk of cutting carriers back to 7, and half the surface combattants concerns me.

Originally Posted by canoe

Neither ship is really what you'd want for heavy coastal gun support, there both pretty small. I suppose another gun could be mounted behind current one if you wanted to increase its gun capabilities.

The 57mm mount is a Anti-aircraft weapon, and will likely be virtually useless for NGFS roles. It's range is so short that the LCS would have to practically beach itself to fire any appreciable distance inland.

Originally Posted by Sandman

One thing is certain; The navy can't afford everything out there. In a recent Proceedings article several proposals included immediatly retiring half the Burkes. IMHO, the blue water navy is more important, and talk of cutting carriers back to 7, and half the surface combattants concerns me.

Retiring half the Burkes?

The oldest one is only 15yo aint it?

I'd call for the outright cancellation of DDX and LCS before i EVER supported that crazy idea!

Neither the Proceedigs article or the CBO report stated anything about retiring AB DDG's premarurely.

Once again Sniper you are being taken advantage of by idiots.

You well know that I have the Proceedings article right in front of me and that I have read and posted the referenced CBO report many months ealier.

But believe what you want.

And one more thing.

The reason I rarely post here or on any other forum is because your all full of sh-t.

LOL

haha i miss rick, and I see his reasoning as wise.

While the Navy may end up wanting one model or the other, because the decision is political I think the choice will end up being both. Politicians always choose the path of least resistance, and both models are that path.

Besides, one key element in reducing shipbuilding costs is to build ships for other countries, the LCS is the first US Navy designed warship since the OHP other countries are actually interested in buying.

An interesting point about foriegn sales. Has anyone other than Israel expressed interest at this point? I seem to recall that the Israelis wanted to investigate installing some VLS cells. I think that the size and cost of LCS might make it very attractive for export. With the modules it is possible that a smaller nation could get more bang for their limited bucks by buying LCS and different mission modules than buying much more expensive multirole ships.

Originally Posted by HKDan

An interesting point about foriegn sales. Has anyone other than Israel expressed interest at this point? I seem to recall that the Israelis wanted to investigate installing some VLS cells. I think that the size and cost of LCS might make it very attractive for export. With the modules it is possible that a smaller nation could get more bang for their limited bucks by buying LCS and different mission modules than buying much more expensive multirole ships.

Add things like hatches for torpedoes and anti-ship missiles, this becomes a very nice multi-purpose surface combatant. I don't remember any other ship that can be converted from a frigate to minesweeper to ro-ro while having a 40kt speed.

I know the UK was looking at at least one of them - I think it was the LockMart version. I would imagine that the UK wouldnt necessarily need the "mission module" stuff - and would want a more conventional ship with good ASW to eventually replace the Type 23's.

I'd expect "stretched" version (probably) with a bit more range, possibly Aster 15 (or VL Mica) in 8 cells to give it a minimal self-defence capability. It wouldnt need the speed of the LCS either. There are other corvette designs at VT and elsewhere - but it is possible.

Originally Posted by rickusn

And one more thing.

The reason I rarely post here or on any other forum is because your all full of sh-t.

LOL

Well then go and masturbate in a secluded corner to your preferred reality if it suits you.

I was merely reacting to the statement by another poster.

I WOULD support cancellation of DDX and LCS before i'd support retirement of 1/2 the AB fleet. Whether the rumor has any basis in fact at all is irrelevant to how i'd react if it was the case.

Originally Posted by Galrahn

haha i miss rick, and I see his reasoning as wise.

While the Navy may end up wanting one model or the other, because the decision is political I think the choice will end up being both. Politicians always choose the path of least resistance, and both models are that path.

Besides, one key element in reducing shipbuilding costs is to build ships for other countries, the LCS is the first US Navy designed warship since the OHP other countries are actually interested in buying.

I assume you mean besides the modified Burkes that Japan operates...

Originally Posted by BenRoethig

Add things like hatches for torpedoes and anti-ship missiles, this becomes a very nice multi-purpose surface combatant. I don't remember any other ship that can be converted from a frigate to minesweeper to ro-ro while having a 40kt speed.

There's a reason for that you know.

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

I assume you mean besides the modified Burkes that Japan operates...


There's a reason for that you know.

Not to mention the Kidds that Korea bought

Or the minesweepers (forget the class) that Turkey and other smaller navies have been purchasing. Mass market sales of warships are rare compared to those of aircraft - usually its second hand stuff thats sold...

The UK (I believe) does a great line in unwanted diesel subs... if anyone is interested...

EDIT: Oops Kidds to Taiwan....