LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteThanx Ben. I'll read this today when i get a chance.Originally Posted by BenRoethig
They're morons.
I know for a fact that a Tico CG engaged in a gun duel with an Iranian FAC during that fight.
I do not believe that curve as i do not believe it is possible to reliably predict who you'll be shooting at in a few years except in generalities. I will tell you this, in a world with Iran, China, DPRK, and Venezuela, our offensive ships- all of them- should have VLS. The simple addition of LCS and a couple SPG-62 illuminators would transform this ship into a true 3D offensive vessel.
I can virtually guarantee you that the USN will never field that many minehunting LCS's at one time, ever. Odds are, they won't even buy that many minesweeping modules.
They're still not even comparable because even with the mission modules LCS cannot- repeat- CAN NOT perform any sort of useful AAW mission, it cannot launch TLAMs for strategic strike, and it cannot launch ASROC-VLS, a QUITE peculiar shortcoming for a ship 'designed' for ASW, yes?
You dont have to send it in. You can send the two helos on it's deck in...the ones you wisely bought the minesweeping kit for.
Indeed so could the ones on an FFG-X or DDG or CG or CVN as well.
Reduce LCS's top speed to a more realistic and still quite useful 30kts(thereby saving a ton of money on propulsion costs and freeing up extra mass/space) and install a 16cell VLS with two SPG-62s(one fore and aft), and you wouldnt hear me saying a single negative thing about LCS.
The Mk41 VLS system is the second most powerful weapons system in the USN surface fleet- ever- behind only carriers.
Only an idiot would omit it from a class the USN says it wants to buy in huge numbers.
I quite frankly would prefer an Aussie style modernization(and as much as possible via technology crew reduction) of the Perrys over LCS.
Thanx Ben. I'll read this today when i get a chance.
"and install a 16cell VLS with two SPG-62s(one fore and aft),"
Well you just ignored ALL the design parameters and requirements put forth for the vessel.
Not to mention a host of other considerations which I have stated ad nauseum.
LOL
Therfore what YOU want wouid never get built.
In fact the more you rail against the ship the more I like it.
LOL
And I was never a fan of the concept from the beginnng.
Mainly because of endurance, seakeeping and logistical concerns.
LOL
Personally I dont believe any surface warships(ie targets) should be built in the first place.
Every Real Navy should be entirely made up of submarines.
LOL
But what do I know?
I have no Army, USAF or Battleship experience nor a teenager or a professional student.
However I have spent more time on the sh-tter at "test-depth" than any of you!!!
Eat your hearts out you bunch of landlubbing, surface skimming pukes.
No offense intended. Just stating facts.
LOL
No, probably not, but since the mission modules are air transportable (IIRC) you can quickly build up a minehunting capacity wherever you need it, and have LCSs.
In 5 years we will have 86 AEGIS or better warships in the fleet, all of which can do NGFS (to varying degrees), launch TLAMS or ASROC-VLS, and are the world's best AAW warships. We'll have some 10,000 VLS cells spread across the fleet. Do we really need more?
Or would we be better off attaching a Burke or Tico or two to LCS squadrons that need area air defense and focus on integrating Cooperative Engagement Capabilities with airborne sensors like Global Hawk and BAMS.
I doubt you can get the same level of crew reduction from modernized Perrys as a clean-sheet design.
I was not referring to LCS as it is per se, but rather what it SHOULD have been.
As far as the requirements, they're stupid.
And the design paramaters, also stupid.
As far as not building any surface ships at all, if we could build intercontentental air superiority fighters, i would probably actually support the idea. Cause short of fighters everything you can put on a ship you can fly from land in an long range/intercontenental package(for a HELL of a lot less money, well, except bulk cargo- i mean combat platforms).
PS: Whether or not me liking something or not makes you like it, eh, whatever floats your boat skip. I assure you if a Venezuelan SU-27 was lining you up on an LCS for an attack that had him dropping his bombs WELL outside of RAM range you'd like LCS a whole lot fukking less!
VLS and ESSM was invented for a reason.
Last edited by Bill; 15 Oct 06, at 22:25.
Ever noticed that our new 4000t vessels are armed with guns smaller than that of a WW2 Sherman? Come on, can 57mm throw enough weight to do any real damage to anything other than a sanpan?
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
Well, at 220rpm, the damage adds up.
Nope, not really.
You shoot at another warship(even a corvette) with a 57mm, you're just going to piss him off unless you hit him a LOT of times. I mean seriously, even a 76mm is stretching the envelope wrt what'd be effective for NGFS or ASuW.
To even deliver NGFS with a 57mm you'd have to practically bring yourself into enemy land based heavy MORTAR range for cripes sakes(about 12-13 klicks). And i assure you, an LCS would not fare well to more than a couple 120mm HE-D mortar hits at all.
You'd need about 5 hits to be the equivelant of a single hit from a 5" gun. A 57mm is really only slightly more powerful than a handgrenade.
A 76mm OTO Melara super rapid at 185rpm is obviously also going to put a lot more steel(and explosives) downrange in any given timeframe- and to a further distance.
57mm is a AAA mount, and little else.
EDIT to add: The USN still has a way to weasel themselves out of the corner they've painted themselves into with LCS, and that is a purpose built(and oh yeah, likely VERY pricey) additional AAW mission module with some form of AMRAAM or other active homing VLS missile.
Still inferior to a Mk41 VLS system, but a hell of a lot better than nothing, which is in essence what it "brings to the table" now in the AAW/Strike game....nothing.*
And i thought Sprucans were light in the AAW department...
* dont even give me PAM as a strike asset. At 40kms range it's range is only 1 klick more than the max range of EXISTING 16" shells, which we've all been told 10000000000x takes them far too close to the shoreline, exposing them to all manner of danger. Likewise closing to that range against any sort of modern naval combatant(given LCS's highly limited AA defense) would probably be suicidal.
So as a ASuW/strike asset, or any kind of realistic NGFS asset, LCS is a total no-go.
Last edited by Bill; 15 Oct 06, at 22:50.
I suppose. But still I would like to see at least a 3" gun on a 4000t warship.
The Super Rapid 3" from OTO is pretty good:
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_3-62_mk75.htm
Although I can see why the navy picked the 57mm Bofors:
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNSw...7-70_mk123.htm
The 57mm seem to have better anti air characteristics while the 76mm SR has better throw weight.
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
And range.
Well, fortunately, the 57mm mount fires 10 rounds in the same time it takes to fire one 5" round from a Mk45.
Good thing we have a lot of other assets that can fill those missions.
And hit rates being what they are for naval vessels, will make a lot more pretty splashes on the surface of the ocean as well.
PS: The US 5" mount is a hideously slow ROF mount. Care to compare the rate of steel downrange to a RF 5" mount or an Oto Melara 76mm super rapid?
Also, when a 5" hits, it hits much harder- damaging things that even direct hits from a 57mm will not likely affect(like bunkers or fortifications, etc), and the 5" will always have much greater intrinsic range.
As i said, the 57mm mount is a AAA mount, and little else.
And because of LCS, soon, we'll have a lot of assets that CANNOT perform those missions.
Apparently, you're fine with such stupidity?
All cause the USN was too thickheaded to include VLS in the design. But hey, they do 40 knots! Maybe they can OUTRUN the enemy, cause that's about all they're fit for if any sort of enemy surface combatant or aircraft comes a calling.
Apparently, you're fine with such stupidity?
Admiral: Here you go captain, the keys to your new $400 plus million dollar 40 knot minesweeper.
Captain: Say what?
Does anyone know what the LCS is supposed to do that can't be done now?
Generously calculated for the 5-inch: 1,400 lbs of 5-inch terror on target per minute versus 2,300lbs of 76mm per minute
depending on which ROFs you use the disparity could be as high as 1,120 vs 3,247lbs/minute
I suppose this is somewhat counterbalanced by the 5-inch's greater range and probably greater accuracy (less affected by wind?)
Last edited by HistoricalDavid; 15 Oct 06, at 23:50.
No, but there are a lot of things that it's PREDECESSOR(the Perry FFG) could do that it cannot do, even a little.
Like fire long range anti-ship missiles. Or provide a medium range AAW/SAM blanket for a convoy, or provide a modicum of NGFS for friendly troops, or engage enemy combatants with SM-1 fire, or engage enemy subs with ASROC. Hell, with today's Harpoon II's the Perrys (prior to removal of the Mk13 launcher) could even do highly accurate inland GPS strike missions with some relatively minor upgrades(the Perrys magazine held- IIRC- 40 missiles in total, a combo of ASROC, Standard-1, and Harpoon).
LCS does 40kts though, and is now the most expensive mine-hunter in the history of mankind. What....that doesnt reassure you?
The only thing more amazing to me than the stupidity that is LCS is how many supporters it seems to have here on WAB(as opposed to other forums where i frequent(ed), where there is nearly universal and incredulous disdain for it).
Last edited by Bill; 15 Oct 06, at 23:49.
Well, OPrayingMantis won't occur because the mighty LCS will catch those mines. Haha.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: