Thread: LCS a disaster?

In terms of the LCS, is it intended to replace the USN's current minehunters? I know that the USN has sold a number to various countries in the last few years, and I wondered if this trend will continue.

This is one of the points where I have a real problem with the whole LCS module concept. I have spoken to crews on a UK minehunter - dedicated and experienced men doing a very difficult job. Equally, proper ASW is an extremely difficult job, and one that was mastered (but never perfected) during the Cold War through constant training and practise against real world adverseries.

The idea that a crew of an LCS will be anywhere close to the level experience/expertise of such dedicated vessels if modules are regularly switched seems ludicrous to me, especially as the vessels are meant to be used in a variety of other roles as well.

Surely it would be better to build a larger hull (perhaps a FREMM sized one) and have two variants - ASW and MCM. On top of that basic variant, you could slot in additional modules/roles, for eg AsuW or to carry troops.... The larger hull need not cost dramatically more (steel is cheap and air is free afterall) and you could easily retain weight and space for a proper VLS system and/or a larger gun should the situation demand it in the future. The ship could get away with it as a cost-saving measure just now, but it would future proof it against more unforseen developments. (I'd argue for a small VLS system in anycase, but bean-counters might balk at the extra cost). It could even be based on a redeveloped Burke hull, which might offer lots of potential cost savings in terms of bulk construction/expertise.

Such a vessel would offer much better endurance and offer a blue-water ability that the LCS lacks, again if the need arose in the future.

You could still have a substantial number of hulls, perhaps 35-40 rather the 14 or so LPD variants that Galrahn suggests. You would also have the option to use somewhat larger USVs and retain a large hangar.

Just a thought....

"In terms of the LCS, is it intended to replace the USN's current minehunters?'

Yes and no.

Its primarilly intended to undertake littoral warfare but this includes nominally replacing all mine warfare ships, the PC 1 class and OHP's whether it can actually do this is open to question.

The USN has changed its mind on the PC1 class and now finds them useful..

The MHC class as operated was pretty much useless .

The MCM class lacks any warfighting prowess except mine warfare in a relatively benign environment but look for them to stick around longer than previously planned.

As for the OHP's it most likely can except for "Blue Water" ASW time will tell.

The LCS IMHO is experimental(or it should be thought of, procured and operated in that manner) but unfortunately time may be of the essence and that may not be possible.

Depends on how useful you think the OHP's and MCM ships are and how long they can be.

Originally Posted by B.Smitty

As the price rises, it gets harder and harder to justify the LCS.

It is meant to be a relatively simple sea truck. One has to wonder if the demands of high tactical speed have made it unaffordable for this role.

Opposing corvettes and frigates will pose no threat as they'll be resting on the bottom well before the LCS shows up.

Missile-armed FACs and other very small vessels pose some threat, but the LCS carries a helo plus several VTUAVs that will eventually carry Hellfire and APKWS. And the LCS's ASuW module is slated to have Netfires.



The LCS is not the only system we will deploy in a conflict. It is meant to augment capabilities in specific areas.

I'm not 100% sold on the mission module swapping concept, nor am I sold on the high tactical speed vs range/endurance/payload trade off. But I don't think the LCS needs to be an all singing and dancing warship. We have those already in the Burkes.



Adding a torpedo launcher to the LCS seems like a good idea to me. The LCS will eventually deploy with torp-launching USVs and helos though.

Why would the USN be better off marginally improving the AAW capability of the aging and manpower intensive FFG-7s rather than focusing on ASW and MIW on clean-sheet designs?

The FFG-7 class Frigates are in active use by the Navy currently so it is irresponsible to strip them of all but the most basic AAW defences (one CIWS). If the Navy wants to continue to use these ships they should be upgraded as an interim measure until new ships began to join the fleet in adequate numbers to replace them. If the Navy does not want to upgrade the FFG-7 class for cost saving reasons than it would be better to decommission the entire FFG-7 class and the savings would be alot higher than those achieved by removing all SM1 Standard and Harpoon Missiles from the FFG-7 class.

Originally Posted by Captain C

Perhaps we should go back to a modification of an older design , with a hull stretched about 15 feet.

These hydrofoils had speed, a 76MM main gun and Tartar missiles when first built. The Tartar missiles were later replaced by Harpoon missiles. I would suggest you replace the Harpoon with RAM and give it a "stretch" to increase the carrying capacity for troops, mine laying/removal, etc. They would also work well in drug interdiction roles as they were used for that purpose until retired.

giving you... about this?



armament: 1x 76mm, 4x Exocet MM38, 1x GDC RAM, 2x .50cal MG; mine-laying capacity; Link11.
not a hydrofoil, but speed is still "about 40 knots" officially. at about 185 feet a bit bigger than the size you're aiming for though.
replace the Exocets with a deckhouse, and you'll even have space for a few boarding troops or something.

I like it!

As good as the Exocets are, I would prefer the Harpoon. The launcher setup takes labout half the space of the Exocet configuration shown in your picture and the 500# warhead is larger than the Exocet's 250# warhead.

I've just been reading that the Exocet was upgraded in warhead size to around 360#, but that is still short of the Harpoon. Also their range is listed at 70 kilometers, far short of the 80 miles harpoon was rated for in 1979 when it was installed on my ship. I've heard it is listed at about 130 miles now.

You could probably stow about a platoon below decks for a short trip to an insertion point, but certainly there isn't berthing room for that many people on board. One thing to keep in mind, and I certainly forgot it earlier... They want to use this thing for ASW and mine sweeping. I think that's a bad idea all the way around..... You need dedicated vessels for mine sweeping, while a multipurpose ship is only good for ASW if you have a helo on board.....

"If the Navy does not want to upgrade the FFG-7 class for cost saving reasons than it would be better to decommission the entire FFG-7 class and the savings would be alot higher than those achieved by removing all SM1 Standard and Harpoon Missiles from the FFG-7 class.'

Not necessarilly so.

They are quite useful in the Patrol and MIO roles along with positive interaction with our allies of less means.

In addition as Ive stated before they are quite useful as helo carriers to complement an A. Burke I/II destroyer.

#s of ships are important to some degree if you want to operate on a world wide basis.

The Mk 13 launcher along the supporting weapons and sensors were deemed to be relatively ineffective.

IMHO better they were dispensed(Mk 13/SM 1) or used in reasonable manner(sensors) than to be touted as something they are not capable of.

Which again IMHO would be far more dangerous.

I know we all like to bash the Brass for their seemingly wrong headed decisions.

But we also need to keep things in perspective from time to time such as.:

If we know so much why did we not strive to become the decison makers?

If we can build, maintain and operate potent warships at reasonable costs:

Why havent we?

No excuses please.

I can only say for myself I have either chosen not to or I am incapable of doing or even attempting those tasks.

Neither of which qualifies me to condemn the decisons of those who have chosen and are capable.

As much as we may want to vilify certain people and/or entities we should use caution and restraint lest we are regarded in a like manner.

And therefore I look at the history behind what is. It can be enlighening.

That doesnt mean we have to like it but you should gain a better understanding of the situation and why it exists.

As for "stretching" small ship designs especially a unique one like the Pegasus class you should beware of unintened consequences much less at first ascertaining the feasability of your proposal.

The Pegasus were also as I understand it very costly to maintain in time, dollars and manpower.

In addition ships of this size are very limited in their range, endurance and capabilities.

They have in the past been highly touted but they have grave limitations in most any warfare role and are poor patrol units in many respects.

Over the years both their numbers and utility have decreased except for roles in niche areas ie the most consticted of water ways. Even there some consider their capabilities to be more ephemeral than real in may circumstances.

One of the reasons I have come across is that in warfighting they have severe problems in targeting except in the most benign environments.

In the patrol role alook at CG parameters would be a better guide to their limitations than I can provide.

But one issue is that high speed costs considerably in range not to mention complexity of the designs.

Im not against them but am wary of turning them into some sort of panacea which they are decidedly not.

Originally Posted by Captain C

I like it!
As good as the Exocets are, I would prefer the Harpoon.

they were developed from an earlier class (same hull), which had a second 76mm instead of the RAM, and had a pair of 21-inch torpedo tubes instead of the minelaying capacity (those older FACs have all been sold now).
That's also why they don't carry Harpoon - the older Albatros class was designed in 1975, before the Harpoon was available (first unit commissioned in 1976). The Exocet MM38 was around since the late 60s. The newer Gepards carry Exocet mostly for commonality.

Originally Posted by Captain C

You could probably stow about a platoon below decks for a short trip to an insertion point, but certainly there isn't berthing room for that many people on board.

exactly the main problem with them in their current form, they're way too crowded (with a regular crew of 34, plus a boarding team of 6 in current deployments). second problem is that they can't really transfer under their own power to other theaters (well, they can, but it takes a lot of refueling stops).
Germany is getting rid of most of its FAC fleet in favour of a hi-lo mix of light frigates and patrol cutters converted from minehunters, mostly for those reasons.

Originally Posted by rickusn

In addition ships of this size are very limited in their range, endurance and capabilities.

which is why ships of this size usually operate in squadrons with a tender once in theater.

"which is why ships of this size usually operate in squadrons with a tender once in theater."

Another cost factor to consider.

Any info or docs on FACs squadrons operating in a distant theatre?

I would like to add any material to my unofficial library.

Thanks Rick

Originally Posted by rickusn

"which is why ships of this size usually operate in squadrons with a tender once in theater."

Another cost factor to consider.

Any info or docs on FACs squadrons operating in a distant theatre?

I would like to add any material to my unofficial library.

Thanks Rick

as FACs? doubt it. as patrol boats, well... Germany had a FAC squadron as part of NATO Combined Taskforce 150 off the coast of Somalia during the first year or so under Operation Enduring Freedom, and currently has one as part of UNIFIL.

For CTF-150, the FACs were transferred to Djibouti onboard a flo-flo transport ship. 3 months later, it was decided that the FACs weren't needed anymore, and they returned under their own power.
The squadron in that case consisted of five FACs (iirc mixed Type 143 with two 76mm, and Type 143A with one 76mm and RAM), along with a Type 404 tender. In the theater, they mostly filled a patrol role with boarding operations.

For the UNIFIL mission, a squadron of four Type 143A FACs, along with their Type 404 tender, were deployed, and have been in the area for about 4 months now. They perform the same patrol role as in Somalia.

They performed quite well in both cases, especially considering they weren't built for such operations in warm water, but for the Baltic and North Sea. Some problems with the ships being too crowded. I've seen some criticism leveled at the tenders though - mostly for being "too small" (at 3200 tons they're frigate-sized), and for the lack of a helicopter hangar (they had a flight deck fitted for a heavy helo in the 80s). Also, while they're good for supporting operations of a few weeks, for these longer operations they themselves had to frequently resupply from larger AORs.

The tenders in this case aren't really that much of a cost factor btw - they were constructed to civilian standards as small container ships (which in the end was cheaper than converting former East German ships!), and were constructed as a 6-ship series - all identical units which serve as FAC, submarine and minehunter squadron tenders and command ships (with some stuff, like the repair shop for FACs, or the battery packs for submarine support in modular containers btw).

Thanks for that info.