LCS 3 to be Cancelled?

**HKDan** · 16 Mar 07,, 04:00

Those are legit concerns about China, however I still feel that you are focusing on a absolute worst case scenario. The USN is not standing still in the face of what China has done and is doing. The PLAAF is no more a threat than the PLAN is. Their thousands of aircraft are mostly obsolete and those modern types that they do have(SU-??, and J-10) are heavily outnumbered by what the US can bring to bear. In the air over the next decade I think we can look for the US to improve its position against a Chinese threat significantly with the introduction of the F-35 and hopefully a few more F-22s. There is little chance that China will be able to introduce a 5th generation aircraft in this timeframe and if they do it certainly wont be in numbers. The greatest danger that the US faces in this area is if they dont buy enough airframes(a very real concern).
The anti-satellite and ballistic missile capabilities that China might have at that time are serious though. What the USN is doing to improve its capabilities in the area of countering China's anti-sat capabilities is probably not info for the public domain, as for their ballistic missiles, the USN is doing a lot with the Aegis ships that we have now. The Navy is not the only branch working on that sort of thing. I can only imagine what they will be capable of in a decade. I think it makes far more sense to work on improving what we have now instead of betting the farm on very expensive and not yet mature systems like DDX and CGX.

**Galrahn** · 16 Mar 07,, 04:30

Instead of guessing about China's Navy, I recommend reading the the latest Intelligence report first.

**HKDan** · 16 Mar 07,, 05:09

So I guess its pretty clear at this point that they mean to stay the course with LCS.

**Dreadnought** · 16 Mar 07,, 12:44

They are one cool looking ship I give them that. The artists rendition is my favorite showing her in black camo.

**Galrahn** · 16 Mar 07,, 14:55

Originally Posted by HKDan

So I guess its pretty clear at this point that they mean to stay the course with LCS.

Not sure I agree with that. As best I can tell, they are going to build 1-4, they folded the money for 5 and 6 into 1-4, and have removed options for more for FY08, FY09, and won't buy more until FY10... the next presidential administration. The Navy intends to sustain until FY10 using existing platforms.

In other words, right now the Navy is committed to 2 DD(X) and 4 LCS and it looks like they will not get more in FY08, and no more LCS until Fy2010 which is 2009 budget of the new administration in 2009. Despite the fact it is presented as grim news, it is actually what a great deal of people have been recommending for awhile.

**B.Smitty** · 16 Mar 07,, 15:39

Originally Posted by JMH

The money to fund a new Navy that is able to win a Naval and air war against China in 2020 is not going to come from Congress, so it needs to come from the Navy. A new generation of kinetic energy and Laser weapons needs to be developed and deployed on CGX and DDX size warships if the Navy hopes to survive long enough to win in a confrontation with China in 2020. Forty DDX and CGX destroyers would more than make up for the loss nine Ticonderoga class cruisers, (which could be brought back into service if needed).

Hmm.. I don't really see a new generation of kinetic and laser weapons as being super high priorities for shipborne use.

Rail guns might make NGFS a more viable proposition someday, but i think there's a lot of R&D still ahead of them, especially in the area of projectile guidance survivability during launch.

Other than that, improvements in shipborne kinetic weapons seem to have reached a point of diminishing returns. AGS isn't THAT much better than the 5"/62, IMHO.

Lasers (non-blue-green) and water don't mix. Plus, they are LOS only. They're basically just super-fast reacting CIWS. They make more sense on aircraft, IMHO. Though i can see them on laser-based DIRCMS turrets for blinding IR guided AShMs.

Originally Posted by JMH

Because the Navy is not able to provide adequate Naval gunfire support, it would be rather foolish for the Marines to conduct a large scale amphibious assault. Consequently, the effects from the loss of Austin class LPDs and Tarawa class LHA's until they are replaced by more capable LHDX and San Antonio class LPD's would be rather insignificant.

The Navy will have somewhere around 100 5" mounts on the Burkes and Ticos, without even considering DDG-1000. That's a lot of potential NGFS.

Plus, those phibs can do a LOT more than just large scale amphibious assault.

You're talking about basically disbanding 4+ ARGs until someday, hopefully, the money rolls around to buy new LHA(R)s and LPDs.

That's a lot of capability lost in the interim.

Originally Posted by JMH

It is irresponsible to keep deploying the Oliver Hazard Perry class FFGs to high threat areas, when in effect they have been reduced to ASW patrol gunboats by the removal of all Standard and Harpoon missiles, which leaves them very vulnerable to air, anti-ship missile attack and surface attack. But than again, perhaps if a few FFG-7 class Frigates are sunk and or damaged by Iranian anti-ship missiles, Congress might actually increase funding for the US Navy, but that would be rather callous if the human cost is any consideration. Whatever the case, the Navy needs to get laser weapons and kinetic energy weapons deployed at sea on missile cruisers and destroyers by 2020 if the Navy expects to survive and win in an all out naval and air war with China in 2020.

Are FFGs deployed regularly to high threat areas? Where are these high threat areas?

FFGs today are far more cost-effective platforms than destroyers or cruisers for the types of GWOT roles the Navy finds itself performing all the time today.