The plan is for the SUW module to have 4 NETFIRES-LS VLS modules with 15 PAM missiles each (total of 60 missiles).Originally Posted by M21Sniper
The Visby is WAAY too small for what they envisioned. The larger "Visby Plus" or "Visby Plus Plus" concepts are closer.
Another option would be to produce Navalized versions of the NCS or OPC that, while undoubtably more expensive, would be tailored for littoral warfare rather than traditional USCG missions.
Maybe give them some of the core components from the LCS like RAM and the sonar and the ability to carry LCS mission modules.
The Coast Guard hasn't been under Treasury for almost 40 years. It was transferred to transportation in 1967 and homeland security in 2003.
The Coast Guard has been being exactly what its name implies for over 200 years. The wartime armament package of the Hamilton class includes mk32 triple torpedo tubes and 8 Harpoon missiles as well as ASW sonars. The mission modules for the NSC will offer a similar armament if called upon. That being said, I wouldn't mind the gun changed to a 5"/62 and 20-30ft section added between the mast and the funnel for an 8-cell MK41 launcher should they have to go to war.
F/A-18E/F Super Hornet: The Honda Accord of fighters.
I agree with a lot of the sentiments here. What the hell is the LCS for? It's a nice new shiny toy for the Navy, but why do we need 40 kts? Isn't 30 or 35 enough? And why such a radical design? I feel an updated OHP type hull would be more than sufficient and cost effective. Keep the cost low so we can buy many of them instead of some high tech gadget that we can only afford a few.
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
I've yet to see a single, worthwhile argument for the speed. It makes little or so sense for ASW, AsuW, and certainly not for minesweeping. Speed is provided by the helos and UAVs, small boats etc.
It's just a nonsense, shiny new toy syndrome gone mad.
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
Yeah, but these are designed mainly for NFS in the support of the USMC. They may have utility against the evil "small boat swarm menace"but i'd rather sink them with something like Brimstone, cluster bombs or strafing runs than with NETFIRES.
i think Snipe was meaning the lack of any area air defence. Even 4 cells with quad packed ESSM would be something. As it is, any LCS is deeply vulnerable to a helo armed with anti-shipping missiles: Penguin, Sea Skua etc. The RAM won't get them all.
With regards to the Visby - it already has space of 8 SSMs launched vertically (not difficult surely to use that space for VLS SAMs instead). I agree that the Visby isnt large enough but I think it is a sound design all round.
http://www.kockums.se/SurfaceVessels/visby.html
Last edited by PubFather; 11 Oct 06, at 20:28.
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
In the grand scheme of things, LCSs aren't supposed to be that expensive (~$307 mil each sans mission module, IIRC, vs $1.5 billion for a Burke).
I see the value of speed for the LCS in certain missions like fast emplacement of sensors, rapid minesweeping, etc.. I just think we need a mixture.
In the GWOT, more often than not, endurance and life-cycle costs will trump speed. (IMHO)
So I think the USN should buy a mixture of LCSs and an endurance-focused platform like the NSC/OPC or some other small frigate design.
Plus, at least two studies (done by RAND and someone else that escapes me) concluded that the Deepwater program needed to be significantly enhanced.
Right now, the plan is to only buy 8 NSCs. The RAND study recommended 44 to cover emerging USCG responsibilities.
For OPCs, the plan is to buy 25, but the RAND study called for 46.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2004/RAND_MG114.pdf
The Netfires modules on LCS definitely AREN'T mainly for NFS. They're primary focus is the evil "small boat swarm".Yeah, but these are designed mainly for NFS in the support of the USMC. They may have utility against the evil "small boat swarm menace"
Granted, armed helos or VTUAVs operating off the LCS are the preferred method of dealing with small-boats, but Netfires does give the LCS a credible medium-range small boat-killing capability.
LCSs won't operate alone in these circumstances. Area air defense will be provided by AEGIS destroyers, cruisers and tacair.
Adding ESSM plus the radar, directors & fire control to handle them would jump the price significantly.
Last edited by B.Smitty; 11 Oct 06, at 21:00.
I am not impressed. Say....can a PAM shoot down a shadowing enemy aircraft loitering right on the horizon like an ESSM or SM-1 or SM-2 can?
The LCS is supposed to be a littoral patrol craft. IMO, the Visby was more than fine for that, IF that is all one is looking for.
Me, i'd have preferred a true blue water escort, with a simple 16 cell VLS arrangement and a decent sized gun of at LEAST 3".
I frankly have no idea what they were thinking with LCS....a 40kt ship with almost no AAW capability whatsoever(certainly no offensive AAW capability), and with very limited ASuW and Strike capability based on very small subsonic cruise missiles.
Sans mission module all you're getting is a point defense armed speed boat!
How much are the mission modules? Bet they aint cheap(bet they cost almost as much as the ship- though i've no idea, im really just guessing based on previous DoD stupidity, lol), and last i heard, the USN was not buying enough of them to go around anyway.
RAM and the 57mm gun(and deck mounted guns/HMGs) would SLAUGHTER a small boat swarm attack, PAMS is utterly UNneeded for that role IMO.
Hell, a single Mk15 Phalanx 1B would wipe out huge numbers of small attacking boats.
And PAMS cant defend the ship from Aircraft like ESSM could. ESSM would also be EVEN BETTER for attacking small boats than PAM.
So then WTF do we need LCS for at all if it still needs Burkes for Escorts?
As if demanding a STUPID 40kt sprint speed didn't?
And besides, the VLS setup could've been designed as a "mission module" and not a permanent fixture on the ship.
LCS is as stupid as the Burkes are smart.
PAM gives it a limited over-the-horizon capability.
True, but ESSM and VLS cells and associated radar/fire control upgrades require a MUCH larger and expensive installation.
Because numbers matter when it comes to hunting for subs in the littorals or minesweeping or chasing down suspicious vessels. And Burkes aren't minesweepers, period.
Won't argue with you there.
VLS maybe, but adding illuminators, radar upgrades and fire control would be harder to do.
The mission modules do have top-side size and space constraints.
Don't get me wrong, I would've preferred something with an 8 or 16 cell VLS, but I understand why it was omitted.
I remember reading about a containerized version of Seawolf to defend freighters against missiles. Royal Navy lost some freighters in the Falklands to Exocets because they were large and appeared like capital ships. After the war someone thought of a crazy idea of putting vertical launched Seawolves in a cargo container, tracking and illuminators in another, and use these to offer some protection for the freighters in the future.
Is it possible to design a very small launch module for 16 ESSMs in a container, and associated electronics in another, for use in the LCS?
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
It's certianly possible, but integrating a useful-sized radar & fire control will be a challenge.
Another possibility might be a VL or trainable-launcher AMRAAM. Or steal the ARH seeker from AMRAAM to make an active-ESSM.
An active seeker would eliminate the need for illuminators.
The argument that a serious weapons/sensor fit was ommited to save money is wholly unmoving to me considering how much extra they surely pissed away chasing that 40kt sprint speed.
LCS is, IMO, stupid.
PS: Aegis is not needed for ESSM, just a couple SPG-62 illuminators.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Share this thread with friends: