LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteActually, it's a 57mm (2.25 in) gun.
Interesting you say that Sandman. The USCG deployed the cutter Midget with the Boxer ESG, a move designed to test integration between the two services in 6 month patrols. I would speculate it is a test to see if it is effective for the LCS to have a "coast guard' detachment for deployments.
I'm still not sold on the LCS, but I think it 'could' be a good idea. A few examples..
As of today, there are 8 OHP frigates deployed worldwide, with 6 deployed to South America. Those 6 could easily be replaced by the LCS, and it would reduce operating costs considerably. While fuel is often cited as a major expense, it is pennys compared to the cost of higher crew numbers.
Because of expense, the US Navy is using modified USNS ships of the Nigeria coast. I consider that a joke, if the US is really going to stand up an African command, the LCS would be a perfect ship for this role. It would basically be the role of the PT boat in the south pacific prior to WWII. The major threat off Africa, South America, and in the South Pacific are swarming boats, a role the LCS can handle.
The LCS is a major upgrade over existing minesweepers.
I hate that the LCS has only a 3" gun. What a joke. This needs to be upgraded to the same 5" gun on the CGs so it can use ERMs.
Is the LCS the best platform for deploying unmanned systems? Seems to me L class ships like a varient of the LPD-17 would be a much better ship for this role.
The LCS can carry 2 H-60s and 3 RQ-8s as a standard load, so why then will the LCS deploy with only 1 H-60? Seems like a lot of downtime for a critical component of the LCS concept.
Where is the Affordable Cruise Missile?
The USV systems being developed need more attention, including mounting the NETFIRES system as originally planned.
2 ship LCS squadrons need an established requirement to deploy a reinforced Marine rifle company with full equipment. If the LCS can't be a modern APD, it is flawed. The flaw is in the lack of development of the LCS as a naval utility truck for the Marine Corp.
And finally, the newest tender in the USN is over 35 years old. The idea that an axillery is an afterthought for a modular platform in the networked naval battlespace is rediculous. Without the LCS tender, the whole idea lacks the utility the modular design is intended to enable.
Actually, it's a 57mm (2.25 in) gun.
F/A-18E/F Super Hornet: The Honda Accord of fighters.
AgreedOriginally Posted by Galrahn
A 5" gun would be nice, but it'd also be a muuch larger installation. (22 tons vs 6.8 tons for the 57mm)
And the 57mm is a better air defense and counter-boat gun, IMHO.
As I've said earlier, I don't like that we're basically throwing all our eggs in one basket with the LCS. I'd much rather see a range of platforms. Preferably ones adapted from existing systems to keep costs down.
The mission modules are a key concept for LCS, but their modularity means they aren't tied to the LCS. They could just as easily be deployed on a different ship design. IMHO, there's no fundamental reason why you couldn't build a NSC/OPC variant that has space for an LCS mission module, for instance.
Well, I don't totally agree. You should be able to buy several LCSs for the price of one LPD-17 conversion. With speed and numbers in its favor, the LCS can deploy systems like ADS faster, over a wider area.
Also, LCSs will have a larger number of helo/VTUAV pads that can be distributed around a greater area.
OTOH, an LPD-17 conversion could carry several small combatants along the lines of the Israeli Super Dvora, the Mark V Special Operations Craft, and riverine boats in addition to USVs like Spartan.
Over on the Pimp My Warship thread, I toyed with such a design.
Pimp My Warship
Maybe LCS and an LPD-17 conversion are really complementary.
My guess would be price and the time needed to field sufficient numbers of RQ-8s.
Good question. Haven't heard much out of the Affordable Weapon program of late.
Is it flawed, or just underdeveloped? The system has to start somewhere. Perhaps this feature will be added at a later date.
This, combined with its inherent lack of endurance, is the LCS's biggest weakness, IMHO.
I think I can see somewhat why the navy wanted the LCS. It's a multimission APD that can operate in shallow waters and defend itself against small boats.
"You zip in. You zip out. Come on, it's Czechoslovakia. It's not like it's Moscow."
There will be mission modules for it to adapt different mission profiles. Endurance might be low, but there might be a mission module that can extend the endurance of the boat and crew.
Bottom line is the navy has to keep the cost low to buy more platforms and the associated modules that can make them useful. Empty hulls can't do much.
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
Once you figure in the development, manufacturing, training, mission module, and purchase costs of LCS that argument falls flat IMO.
As per the "F18 saves money over F14". Not by the time you're done designing and testing it, building the factory, and buying the planes/training the crews its not...or at least, not anytime soon. It takes YEARS to recover those investments, if indeed it is EVER really recouped, which i suspect, it's not.
LCS is a 40kt band-aid for that role, and i am sure it cost more than purpose built minesweepers would've. And seriously, to say its an upgrade over existing PURPOSE BUILT minesweepers IMO is a suspect claim at best(though i will listen to the rationale behind it if anyone wants to give it a go).
The "minesweeper role" is IMO little-more than a flashy sounding sales pitch, along the lines of "Stryker can be air deployed by C-130".
Yeah, sure it can...
Be prepared to hate it even more, cause LCS only has a 57mm AAA gun mount.
As i said earlier, i honestly have NO IDEA WHATSOEVER what the USN was thinking with this POS class. 40kts? WTF is that all about? 57mm AAA mount and RAM as the only inherent weapons? WTF is that all about? No VLS mission module, thereby preventing the ship from performing ANY kind of useful AAW escort role(which the Perrys in their day could do adequately using their SM-1s)?
I simply don't get it at all. :(
Last edited by Bill; 12 Oct 06, at 21:45.
And utterly useless for NGFS/ASuW unless you want to pull within a few thousand meters of the shoreline or enemy vessel!
The LPD EASILY makes up for it's speed 'deficit' by having vastly superior endurance and range IMO, not to mention a far, far greater payload. The LPD is also better armed(which is ridiculous really).
We don't even know if the "VTUAV" doo-dads will ever be built, let alone how useful they'd be. As far as A/C capacity, a purpose configured LPD can obviously carry far more A/C or UAVs than a 40kt frigate.
Since i can find no real world role for a very lightly armed 40kt frigate with bad endurance i really fail to see how one can come to that conclusion.
Define "affordable" please...
Flawed, poorly concieved, inferior in many ways to a conventional FFG, STOOPID.
The fact that goes 40kts is to me it's biggest weakness. The extra mass, cost, and space that is utterly wasted in 'achieving' that capability would've been much better spent on a more effective weapons fit or greater bunkerage.
IMO, the LCS is the dumbest and most poorly conceived US warship of the modern era, and maybe of all time.
So can virtually any modern half decent frigate in any navy in the world.
LOL, i say we should've bought Cigarette boats if that's what you wanted Pvt. Winger...
These mission modules are NOT free you know. By the time you start adding them in(including R&D) it is OBVIOUS that a 'standard' frigate would've been the MUCH cheaper way to go...but then, that IS the US military in a nutshell.
Complexity for complexities sake.
Bottom line is the USN MISSED THE BOAT in the whole mess!
My mistakealthough I believe it is a secondary role for the missile.
This is exactly why I agree utterly with Snipe on this one. It cannot operate independently in the littoral. Look what happened to the Saar V in Lebannon. The Israelis had air-supremacy, the boat comes close enough to shore and it gets popped by a missile.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.
OK, its systems were turned off, but its not hard to imagine a salvo of cheap, missiles like the Sea Skua being shorelauched against an LCS. Aegis can only protect the LCS if the missile launched at it is within the envelope. The envelope for a sea-skimmer is extremly limited, given the need for terminal illumination.
The logic of this is that the LCS has to stay within what - 20 to 30 klicks? of an AEGIS equipped vessel. This situation only gets worse when you look at a coastline like that of the Falklands, a river delta etc. Do you risk the troops on board in such a situation, if that is the "mission" involved? Or do you sail a bn dollar Aegis ship up the same delta, just in case?
Its nonsense, caused by the whole small boat swarm stuff. Give an FFG or larger corvette, extra Phalanx mounts, or extra 30m cannons + MGs, and the problem goes away...
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
NGFS is not a mission of the LCS. When we've built all the Burkes, we'll have something like 84 ships with 5" guns. So there should be at least one or more in theater for NGFS.
ASuW is an LCS mission, but guns aren't primary ASuW weapons these days, missiles are. Heck surface combatants in general aren't primary ASuW systems these days, airpower is. The LCS's ASuW mission is primarily vs small boats. For this, it's armament is more than adequate. It can carry a pair of armed helos or more VTUAVs to extend its ASuW reach.
It would be interesting to see what the time difference to emplace an ADS field or sweep an area for mines would be between an LPD-17 conversion and a cost-equivalent group of LCSs with mission modules.
IMHO, the LPD would only have a chance if it carried a group of smaller boats to do the actual work. Thus the time difference would probably depend on the number and capability of the LPDs boats.
And, IIRC, the armament for the current crop of LPD-17s is a couple 30mm cannons, two RAMs and some .50 cal mounts. (VLS cells not installed)
Hardly better than the cost-equivalent group of LCSs.
It's hard to make an argument either way. It depends on the final configuration and cost of this new LPD thing and its boats.
A regular LPD-17 costs around $1.1 billion, IIRC. The first LCSs are around $300 million.
Mission modules cost more, but they cost more for both platforms.
But for just hulls, you can buy 3. 6 LCSs per LPD-17.
With 3.6 LCSs, you have hangar space for 7.3 MH-60 helos and more decks to take off and land from.
The current LPD-17 only has hangar space for 3 UH-1s. Granted, a conversion could have more. But still, they have to fly off of one deck. The LCSs can be distributed around an area, thus shortening helo sortie radii.
Rapid emplacement of sensors. Rapid minesweeping. Rapid closure to shore carrying SOF or marine elements. Ability to change roles with a mission module swap.
Just off the top of my head.
http://www.designation-systems.net/d...le-weapon.html
But less expensive and modular.Flawed, poorly concieved, inferior in many ways to a conventional FFG, STOOPID.
But don't frigates have deeper draft so it's harder for them to operate in shallow water?
Modern frigates are the size of WW1 light cruisers. Some topping 6000t. I think a critical requirement for the LCS is shallow draft even with a displacement of 4000t.
Then again I agree that we can just build frigates and corvettes with shallow draft and call them frigates and corvettes with shallow draft.
The only problem I see with the LCS is the high speed. Power requirement grows exponentially at high speeds to overcome the drag. Lowering the speed from 40+kts to 35kts would have added a lot more useful space, payload, and endurance for the LCS.
And why 57mm gun? Why not 76mm Super Rapid from OTO?
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
The LCS has a RAM launcher with 21 ready missiles and the 57mm has a secondary anti-missile capability.
So it's not completely defenseless.
Further proof JUST HOW STUPID this ship really is.
Wow....one whole 5" mount in theater? Whoo-eee!!!!
Doesnt matter if they're 'primary' or not, what matters is that decent sized RF guns are effective ASuW weapons, but the LCS 57mm mount AINT.
Sure, when it's available, or when you're operating in conjunction with a carrier or land based tacair, which you will not always be doing.
ONLY in the land of DREAMS. This is another one of those STOOPID manufactured mission roles that totally departs from REALITY.
No **** it's adequate against small boats. So would a Mk15 Block 1B Phalanx be completely adequate against small 'swarm' suicide boats.
Yes...TWICE as many missiles, and quite NASTY 30x173mm cannons that the LCS lacks.
Disagreed. With 2x the mounts and missiles the LPD is 100% better protected wrt Point air defense, and it also has very powerful 30mm guns for 'small boats' too.
Without mission modules.
And the LPD carries far more payload, has much greater range/endurance, and is better armed.
Perry FFGs could so the same, and we already had those in operation.
Nice sales brochure that falls flat in the real world.
Minesweeping helos are MUCH faster, We have SO MUCH specops insertion capability that i feel like LITERALLY PUKING whenever someone uses "SpecOps" as a justification for ANYTHING.
Besides, the Specops guys normally deploy by AIR(which means ANY helo carrying ship is in reality every bit as fast as LCS), or by Sub, or by their own specialized vessels.
LCS is HARDLY a specops enabler.
It is IMO, total BS.
I simply DO NOT ACCEPT that LCS is less expensive once the modules and development/production costs are figured in.
EVERYTHING about this ship is one BIG FAT SALES PITCH to justify a ship that is..................what? I dont even know WHAT the fucck this stupid ship is supposed to be, and neither does anyone else apparently. All the squids i know on other boards have called LCS a totally misguided disaster.
We'd have been MUCH better off with a conventional 30kt top speed frigate with a 16 Cell VLS system, a single Phalanx1B or SeaRam mount, 3" gun, and two helo capacity.
And guess what, in open combat, the ship i just described would kick the friggin' snot out of an LCS(either mano a mano or in a SAG action).
No, just virtually defenseless...
Shooting back with point defenses and being UTTERLY unable to attack your attacker in return is NO way to fight a battle my friend.
LCS is the Infantry equivelant to sending your troops to battle with no more than side-arms when facing an enemy equipped with rifles.
Or how unconcerned the Navy is with NGFS.
How many do you need? We'll have over 100 on 84 ships.Wow....one whole 5" mount in theater? Whoo-eee!!!!
And yet the "NASTY" 30mm on the LPD is?
The 57mm is plenty for the types of targets expected.
Or helos operating off of the LCSs.
So in your humble estimation, if not small-boats, then what?
Considering the USN has more tonnage than the rest of the world's navies combined, I'm not too worried about dealing with larger warships.
Phalanx might be completely adequate for DEFENSE against small boat swarms, but it's hardly an offensive system.
The 57mm at least has a published max range of 18km (though probably not terribly effective at that range)
Plus the ASuW package includes up to 60 Netfires-PAMs with a 40km range (IIRC).
3+ LCSs will have 3 57mm mounts and 3 RAM launchers to your 1 LPD's 2 30mm mounts and two RAM launchers.
I'd say the LCSs win this simplistic comparison.
Payload and range/endurance, yes. Armed? Not the standard LPD-17s.
And the LPD is going to have to expend its payload on patrol craft to compete in sensor area coverage with 3 LCSs.
And they're getting old, they're manpower intensive, and BTW, their Standard launchers are being (or already are) deactivated.
And you know this how??? Your extensive experience with deployable sensor nets and minesweeping systems?
And each LCS can carry two MH-60S helos configured for minesweeping in addition to their onboard mine warfare package.
And that's completely meaningless because all of our enemies' major combatants will be hiding in port or at the bottom of the sea by the time the LCS or your frigate shows up.
Last edited by B.Smitty; 13 Oct 06, at 03:33.
I disagree with the lesson learned from the Saar V incident, the lesson there is don't underestimate your opponent, and don't patrol off the enemy coast during a war with your defense systems turned off. Do you believe the Saar V would have been able to detect or engage the weapon had the ship actually had its tracking and weapon systems turned on? I do.
Robert Work recently depicted the relative degree of littoral maritime access that exists today in the form of a simple probability curve. I think it is relivent for any naval warship, including the LCS
As suggested by the figure above, there are currently few nations capable of mounting a serious defense of their maritime approaches, why then would the LCS not be able to operate independently? The LCS will actually be better armed than the current Oliver Hazard Perry's, and they operate independently all the time. For that matter, the Avenger class amd the cyclone class often operate alone, right next to Iran in the Persian Gulf or hot spots like Sri Lanka or Nigeria. The argument made that the LCS cannot operate alone really isn't very compelling, or informed, unless you complete ignore current deployment cycles.
One of the reasons I advocate the LPD-17 design is that the LCS is being rolled out at the beginning of the unmanned revolution, not in the middle of it. The current designs for unmanned vehicles are 1st generation. Few are armed, and there is very little variety for weapons. It is highly unlikely most of these smaller UUVs and UAVs will ever be armed, meaning sometime over the next decade larger UUVs and UAVs that are armed will likely be developed.
So why rush into a hull that lasts 25 years if it may not be the right ship for the unmanned vehicle job before it is 10 years old? Will the LCS be able to deploy a 10 ton armed UUV? We know an LPD can.
In May 2006 the Stilletto conducted a week long exercise off the shore of California. It deployed from the well deck of the USS Dubuque (LPD-8). This type of larger LPD type mothership concept seems more adaptable than the smaller LCS design, particularly considering the range of systems able to be deployed from the larger well deck of a LPD compared to a rear ramp of the LCS.
After all, the Stilletto itself can deploy unmanned systems as well. Could multiple M-class hulls deployed from a LPD-17 varient perform the same tasks as a 2-ship LCS squadron over a larger dispersed area, and do so supported by a moderately armed 'mothership' like the LPD-17 which has design specs to support 16 VLS cells, not to mention the rest of its capabiltiies?
It seems to me the rush to deploy the LCS has left a variety of important questions unanswered. While I understand the need to replace the FFG-7s, which consume more money per long ton than any other ship in the Navy, there is still 10 years of life in the OHPs, so there is no pressing requirement to rush the LCS. The lack of a Naval competitor right now also tends to imply the Navy is in good shape to evaluate options rather than rush the cheapest, quickest option to deployment.
Hopefully Block 0 of the LCS ends at 4 ships, and Congress forces the Navy to justiify the program compared to alternatives before beginning a long run of more LCS ships.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: