LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteHere's what a FFG based on the Legend class might look like from some friends of mine:Originally Posted by M21Sniper
Any ship can be a minesweeper.
Once.
Here's what a FFG based on the Legend class might look like from some friends of mine:
F/A-18E/F Super Hornet: The Honda Accord of fighters.
Very interesting! Do they have any specs?
From looking at it:
5"/62 gun
16-32 MK41 VLS cells
8 Harpoon missiles
2x MH60R helicopters
F/A-18E/F Super Hornet: The Honda Accord of fighters.
LOLOL!!!
Have i just been quoted?
I believe you're now the third poster here at WAB that's sporting one of my comments in your custom sig.
Hehehe, i am duly honored my friend.
I see the 16 VLS cells(presumably in a 4x4 config) fwd, but i dont see any more aft.
Regardless, i love it.
That ship is elegant, simple, and would be brutally effective in multiple mission areas, including front line carrier or Phib task force escort AAW/ASW, blue water convoy escort, persian gulf oil tanker escort(anyone remember the tanker war?), deep inland strategic strike, major ASuW operations, helo based minesweeping, and yup, "Specops Insertions"(vommit, vommit, vommit, vommit). It could even pull off NGFS in a pinch.
It doesnt even need Aegis to fire ESSM.
So what's the disconnect? What am i(are we) not seeing that makes the USN want a 40kt "minesweeping, specops insertion platform?"
If only LCS was built on the same time proven straightforward highly lethal, multi-mission concept we'd be in friggin business. LCS as it has emerged is, IMO(not highly valued by some, highly valued by others- apparently), an affront to common sense.
V.L.S.
Victor
Lima
Sierra
Where's the beef?
Last edited by Bill; 16 Oct 06, at 07:20.
From what I can see, the LCS has 2 things other than speed that the Perrys and the NSC don't have.
1. shallow draft (LCS 15ft; OHP 22ft; NSC 20ft)
2. RORO capability
I guess we can look at the LCS as a fast, reconfigurable, small tank lander. How much use for this boat in the real world? I don't know. The navy seems to think that a small lander capable of high speed and shallow draft that can land and support a company of marines (?) is useful in the future. They foresee low intensity conflicts near the coastlines around the world which requires rapid deployment of small scale forces...maybe... Anything larger and we'll call in the LPDs and assault carriers.
I don't think the LCS is a fighting ship in the traditional sense. It's not an escort or sub hunter like the Perrys and Sprucans were. It's not to provide anything useful to the fleet other than maybe mine hunting or sub chasing with proper modules. It's definitely not to provide fleet air defense. What it can do is to transport small scale forces to a hot spot in a hurry while marginally defending itself against expected low-tech speed boat swarm generally employed by 3rd world navies or pirates.
Will it work? I don't know. I hope so. We are spending some good money on this.
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
Actually, I don't think I saw that post. I came to the same conclusion independently. It's cheap and reliable, but underpowered for the job assigned.LOLOL!!!
Have i just been quoted?
I believe you're now the third poster here at WAB that's sporting one of my comments in your custom sig.
Hehehe, i am duly honored my friend.
from the side profile, it looks like there are four VLS rows. Since MK41 launchers only come in 8-cell units, which means a minimum of 16 cells. However, the Legend class cutters have about the same beam has the Ticos, which means they could easily fit two launchers side by side which gives a maximum of 32 VLS cells. In a escort role, that'll give you 16 SM-2s and 64 ESSMS. Pretty good upgrade for a ship the size of a perry. Crew would be about half the size too.I see the 16 VLS cells(presumably in a 4x4 config) fwd, but i dont see any more aft.
Regardless, i love it.
F/A-18E/F Super Hornet: The Honda Accord of fighters.
Hmm.. ESSM has always been pitched as a short-range, self defense system, IIRC. Give that, I really don't think this ship would be a tremendously effective escort. Sure it might be able to fire SM-2, but it doesn't have the cells and won't have the radar to use it effectively.
So, IMHO, either leave the convoy/Phip/carrier AAW escort to the 86 Burkes & Ticos, or design a real AAW frigate.
It also can't do much in the way of deep inland strike with only 16 cells. It's primary contribution to strike will be firing ERGM/BTERM from the Mk45, and 63nm ain't what I'd call "deep".
I would also worry that adding Mk45, VLS, and associated sensor and C4 upgrades would limit it's multi-mission payload and/or endurance and drive up costs.
And without the LCS's multi-mission payload, it may not be able to carry and deploy the cable and hydrophone arrays comprising the ADS system. So you may end up having to build yet another vessel to do this, or build something larger that can handle a VLS, 5" and still have enough room for deployable sensors. The Absalon class Flexible Support Ship comes to mind as a candidate. It has a 5", space for a small VLS and a very large multi-mission area (compared to the LCS)
ESSM has a longer range than the SM-1 the OHPs carried. RIM-162 is a much better missile than the old RIM-7P.
F/A-18E/F Super Hornet: The Honda Accord of fighters.
Your missing the traditional role for small combantant ships and trying to justify your position against the LCS by assigning it roles of the larger combantants already in the USN. You also choose to ignore all of the researched recommendations of the last decade for the USN to persue a smaller ship to assume the roles currently being performed by larger, more expensive warships the Navy will not be able to afford if they continue to deploy these larger warships to these lesser mission profiles. You have come to your conclusions without any researched evidence, except to say someone on a messageboard once said that is the way it should be, which by any standard is hardly a well sourced criteria.
According to the Defense Science Board, there are 10 traditional roles for small combatants:
Battle Force Screening - Think Fletcher class in WWII, a defensive battle line ASW role and close in support screen.
Mine Warfare - Osprey and Avenger class which LCS is intended to replace
Protection of Shipping - Examples are ASW Patrol Frigates in WWII, Knox class ASW escort in Cold War
Scouting - The intended role of North European FACs if WWIII ever broke out. This has not been a role for small combatants of the US Navy since WWII due to satellites and air recon, however the LCS will be able to allieviate the role of electronic intercept in unimpeeded access waters (think Africa or South America) currently performed by submarines.
Small Craft Anti-Surface Warface - PT Boats in WWII, Ashville Patrol Gunboats in Vietnam are a few examples.
Amphibious Support - Examples exist today, the LCU and LCM are examples. Typically small combatants performing this role were off-board craft deployed from larger vessels.
Close-in Fire Support - The WWII Landing Ship Medium, Rocket (LSM(R)) and Infantry, Gun (LCI(G)) are good examples. This function is no longer performed today.
Riverine Warfare - A few examples include Swift boats (PCFs) and River Patrol Boats (PBRs), River Minesweepers (MSRs), and Minesweeping Boats. Additionally specialized river infantry transport craft such as the Armored Troop/Cargo craft (ATC) performed this role. The US Navy recently stood up their new Riverine Warfare squadron, and speculation is a Riverine Warfare module may be built for the LCS at some point.
Naval Special Operations Forces (SOF) Support - during World War II. Over 100 small destroyers and destroy escorts were converted to serve as fast destroyer transports (APD). Today, the T-AK USNS Gunnery Sgt. Fred W. Stockham, after being modified with a large helicopter deck, is used exclusively as a large Special Forces platform.
Maritime Domain Awareness and Defensive Maritime Interdiction - This ranges from everything from the radar pickets (DDRs and DERs) of the 1950s for early warning to drug interdiction patrols in the Caribbean to the MSO operations in the Middle East region today.
You continue to make the case that these roles would be better done by larger ships with more firepower, but you do so without the justification of the cost increase adding VLS would have on such a ships, or without explaining how exactly the increased number of anti-aircraft weaponry would enhance their ability in these mission profiles or reduce the cost required, and still be able to provide modular capability with growth potential in the future.
I hate defending the LCS, because I am not really sold on the current project, but I feel I have no choice if we are going to have a realistic discussion regarding the platform. You have completely ignored the role for the LCS and attempted to place your own critieria there, instead of the established researched criteria, and your position isn't very impressive considering your basically making yourself more of an expert than the Defense Science Board, Naval Warfare Review Board, and other research think tanks who have published criteria that have specifically identified weaknesses in the USN to respond to nontraditional, small boat, littoral mine and asw, lesser priority mission profiles.
I agree with those who did the research regarding the gaps in USN capability, and I also agree with them that keeping cost low and providing maximum available space should be top priority in designing a vessel to fill these roles. I believe it is the "extra space" concept that allows for deployable systems to provide future adaptability for these roles. Current USN warships simply do not have the space necessary to deploy large numbers of unmanned systems, so a small fast ship with that capability makes as much sense as a large slower ship with the same role, although I hope the USN chooses of mix instead of only the small option.
Therefore I reverse the questioning.
Please justify the cost and mission requirement for adding VLS for additional AAW to a minesweeper, or littoral ASW ship, or SOF support craft, or a scout vessel, or an amphibious support craft. Every well researched white paper on the gaps in USN mission capability downplayed the requirement, and went on to warn of requirement creep, so if you could please explain how and why all of these professional naval reviews are wrong.
I would encourage those who advocate VLS to review the Defense Science Board findings, review the Navy's own internal review, and review independent research available.
A good place to start is here, although this is also a good review of the decision making processes that led to the LCS concept in begin with. Streetfighter and other Naval War College studies of the late 90s also provide insight into the theories behind networked systems, specifically small, fast lightly armed ships and why they are so effective in war fighting from the sea.
By adovcating adding a specific system or capability to the LCS, I think it is wise for the advocates to first understand the criteria that led to the LCS concept in the first place, that is if we are trying to hold a realistic discussion instead of fantasy 'wish list' discussion for Naval weapon systems.
In reviewing the comments of the advocacy crowd, it is plainly apparent that many here who are advocating the VLS addition do so without even the most basic background regarding the original LCS justification, the LCS concepts greater mission profile, and justify their advocacy without any evidence by dedicated research that developed the LCS criteria in the first place.
OHPs aren't known for their AAW escort capabilities.
That's exactly what they were designed for. Air, surface, and subsurface protection of convoys.
F/A-18E/F Super Hornet: The Honda Accord of fighters.
Sorry bro, ESSM has a 30 mile range- significantly longer than even SM-1. You were misinformed. As far as radar, a volume search with two SPG-62s would give plenty of coverage and illumination to handle numerous targets, even without Aegis/SPY-1.
Adding ESSM with SPG-62s and incorporating it via SSDS(Ship Self Defense System) would make LCS or anything else a "real air defense ship".
As opposed to LCS, which cannot do it AT ALL.
TACTOM 1000+nm and about 100+ mile for the Harpoon II(remember the 8 cell amidships in that illustration?)
And you dont think insisting on a silly 40kt sprint speed has done the same with LCS?
But once more, for the record, i dont care about it's 'multimission payload' beyond the Mk41. That to me IS the multimisison payload, as are the helos.
Sure it should be able to fit the ADS, just remove one or both the helos when you wish to deploy it.
Given the choice between embarking ADS or ACTUAL WEAPONS SYSTEMS, i will take weapons any day of the week.
That cutter above is EXACTLY what we should be building, right now.
There is NO traditional role for a 40kt 4000ton vessel cuz.
What "larger combatants" are to perform convoy escorts in a major war(a traditional FFG role)? Perrys are gone. Sprucans are gone. Burkes? We going to use our limited supply of 1bn dollar aegis warships for convoy escort? When theyll also be needed for carrier/phib escort, BMD defense, and independent action groups?
Listen here my brainwashed friend, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR A 40KT MINESWEEPER OR ESCORT WITH NO ABILITY TO ESCORT.
You simply fell for someone's sales pitch cuz.
Good, let's look at them, shall we?
"My" VLS FFG could do that, LCS would seem to have serious endurance problems trying to do the same. Also, LCS is incapable of providing even "close in" AAW support short of a single 57mm gun mount!
There goes that sales pitch again. We need not be replacing minesweepers with 300+ million dollar 40kt speed boats when traditional minesweepers are MUCH cheaper.
LCS is completely inadequate for that role beyond ASW operations, and again, they appear to also lack the endurance.
So in other words, it is reintroducing an obsolete role LONG AGO replaced by better platforms(ie, satellites and aircraft) that even if it did exist, the Euros have covered anyway.
Interesting...
Another role that any ship already in the inventory is capable of. Though LCS is quite challenged at it compared to most others. "MY" FFG would be quite capable in this role though.
The LCS would be unable to even duke it out with the typical AShM armed FAC provided the latter had a decent OTH target fix(which should be no problem considering LCS has NO ABILITY to deny enemy aircraft from just shadowing it everywhere it goes).
Depending on how you define this one, and where the op is taking place, a FFG may or may not be able to perform this role.
An obsolete role, though either LCS or "My" FFG could do it.(mine would be somewhat better at it of course due to the better gun)
Neither LCS or "My" frigate could do this one, and boy, talk about shoehorning a role onto something. Likely, it is little more than a lip service sales pitch.
Any helo capable ship in the fleet can perform in this role.
IOW, operations other than warfare. LCS (and "MY" FFG) would both be OK at this. That's what our old Pegasus PHMs ended up spending most of their lives doing.
Nonsense son. Adding VLS makes a ship CLEARLY more capable in several mission roles even if i dont draw you a little picture explaining how.
Also, LCS is ANYTHING but cheap, ESPECIALLY after you add in the mission modules. PS....talk about foolishly driving up prices, what do you call that 40kt sprint speed?
LCS has no realistic role.
Probably because it has no clearly defined role that exists in the real world besides "minesweeping".
No son, just COMMON SENSE.
Im no air defense expert either, but i sure knew Sgt York was a piece of shiit without executing a research study. Likewise the same is true for LCS. Hey cuz, are YOU an expert who's served on any of those boards?
Well?
If not, then STFU about how im not qualified to have a reasoned opinion.
Yet you support what will in effect be little more than a 400 million dollar speed boat/minelayer/OOW platform.
Develop a UAV designed to be fired from VLS. Certainly makes more sense than a 40kt, $400 million speed boat/minesweeper.
The beauty of VLS is it's versatility, exactly what you say you're after.
VLS allows the ship to perform in all roles(it has any business doing to begin with) at a comparable price. The mission modules do not. NOR DOES A 40KT SPRINT SPEED.
Simple.
I would encourage those who advocate VLS to review the Defense Science Board findings, review the Navy's own internal review, and review independent research available.
No thanx, i've had my fair share of KooLAid already.
The criteria that any reasonable person should be going by is that the enemy(all of them) have aircraft, LCS needs to defend itself not just from their arrows, but to a reasonable extent, from the Archers themselves.
The simple addition of VLS and illuminators allows for that while also simultaneously conferring so much more. VLS gives LCS strike, AAW, ASW without hurting any of it's other roles.
Well tell ya what cuz, if being "well informed" makes one champion 40kt 4000ton 400 million dollar vessels with no clear role or reason for being, then i am quite proud to proclaim to the world my "Ignorance".
Your attempt to lay a rationale for a 40kt speedboat is about as compelling as a call to action as a gentle breeze on a warm spring day.
What id suggest is you lay off the USN KooLAiD for a while, and take a step back and simply ask yourself, "Can this ship properly defend itself from aircraft or OTH warships when operating alone in the enemy littorals."
The simple answer, is NO, it cannot, it is virtually defenseless against both.
Even a Perry(properly armed, not the gutted version now serving) would be able to rain Harpoons, Sea Skuas, and SM-1s down on an LCS until it ran out of point defense RAM ready missiles, and then it'd be all she wrote.
If you do not feel it wise that LCS should be able to defend itself against even obsolete FFG's(let alone fighters firing even short range missiles like the Maverick) if we ever face off in an enemy littoral, well, i dont know what to tell you. Apparently, most of us in this discussion feel it should. And so do i.
LITTORAL combat ship means by it's very nature it will be operating well forward of the fleet in the enemys waters, and that is one VERY DANGEROUS place to be, especially alone.
PS: Where is NGFS on your roles list? Are you telling me that the 'experts' at the USN have un-invented that role?
Last edited by Bill; 16 Oct 06, at 18:47.
Indeed.
The Perrys were to provide 3D(air, surface, sub) escort for NATO convoys traversing the North Atlantic(and also ended up doing a lot of show the flag oil tanker escorts in the gulf too).
Hence the Mk13 system with a 40rd magazine that's capable of handling SM-1, Harpoon, and ASROC.
Compared to LCS, the Perry was armed to the teeth, and very versatialle.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: