Littoral Combat Ships

**Gun Grape** · 17 Jan 11,, 07:38

So what role do you envision Griffin to be used for? Or for LCS for that matter?

And what would you have in its place if you think it won't work?

Kinetic energy doesn't sink boats or bust bunkers. Neither does shrapnel

**Xtvpry** · 17 Jan 11,, 07:54

I said at the start of this thread and I will say again, the LCS is not capable of dealing with other corvettes and FAC. The threat of pirates, drug-runners and Iranian speedboats is not sufficiently serious to warrant the building of 20 x $500 warships. There is an absurd over-duplication of weapons all directed at responding to a largely non-existent and trivial threat. The 30mm guns, the 57mm gun, the 50 Cal guns, Griffin - those weapon systems are no good for anything other than speedboat plinking. A Koronet anti-tank missile would do a lot of damage to LCS let alone something even larger.

What LCS needs to be is; -

A stealthy, land-attack ship with adequate self-defense.

What the LCS is just now;-

An ultra-fast ocean-going, coast-guard cutter.

**cr9527** · 17 Jan 11,, 08:37

I have a question, why exactly is the NLOS-LS replaced by the Griffin? The NLOS missiles seem to be superior in just about every task, including range, something a warship desperately needs.

**HKDan** · 17 Jan 11,, 09:50

Originally Posted by cr9527

I have a question, why exactly is the NLOS-LS replaced by the Griffin? The NLOS missiles seem to be superior in just about every task, including range, something a warship desperately needs.

Expensive isn't a strong enough word to describe the NLOS debacle. It was dropped by the Army and the Navy, neither of which was in the market for a $500,000 light missile.

**HKDan** · 17 Jan 11,, 10:16

Originally Posted by Xtvpry

I said at the start of this thread and I will say again, the LCS is not capable of dealing with other corvettes and FAC. The threat of pirates, drug-runners and Iranian speedboats is not sufficiently serious to warrant the building of 20 x $500 warships. There is an absurd over-duplication of weapons all directed at responding to a largely non-existent and trivial threat. The 30mm guns, the 57mm gun, the 50 Cal guns, Griffin - those weapon systems are no good for anything other than speedboat plinking. A Koronet anti-tank missile would do a lot of damage to LCS let alone something even larger.

What LCS needs to be is; -

A stealthy, land-attack ship with adequate self-defense.

What the LCS is just now;-

An ultra-fast ocean-going, coast-guard cutter.

I'm not really sure where to begin here. Perhaps the best place is to suggest that you do a quick Google to find out actually what it is that the Navy wants from LCS. I think you are probably confused as to the intended role. The Navy wants LCS to be a fast ship that can be reconfigured for a number of roles in the littoral. The primary roles envisioned for LCS are: Mine Warfare, anti-submarine, and surface warfare. For surface warfare the primary threat to LCS was seen to be small craft such as the ones operated by Somali Pirates, MEND, and Iranian Revolutionary Guards. LCS is meant to take on the threats that are not well addressed by the current fleet and it is designed on purpose to have lots of empty space aboard so that it can operate as a mothership of sorts.

The U.S. Navy currently has no shortage of very capable high-end surface ships like the Burke class destroyers, Ticonderoga class destroyers, and the DDG-1000 Zumwalts that are under construction to take on the situations that require a traditional naval ship. They are very well armed and advanced ships, and they are totally unsuited for some of the roles that the Navy finds itself in today or imagines that it may find itself in tomorrow. Hence, the LCS. If you want to criticise it as a flawed program, go ahead, it has its faults. But be mad at it for not doing what it is supposed to do well. Plenty of people will agree with you. Don't be mad at it for not filling a role that it wasn't intended to fill.

**jlvfr** · 17 Jan 11,, 10:30

Originally Posted by HKDan

Perhaps the best place is to suggest that you do a quick Google to find out actually what it is that the Navy wants from LCS. I think you are probably confused as to the intended role. The Navy wants LCS to be a fast ship that can be reconfigured for a number of roles in the littoral. The primary roles envisioned for LCS are: Mine Warfare, anti-submarine, and surface warfare.

Why do I get the feeling that the USN doesn't really know what it wants?...

**HKDan** · 17 Jan 11,, 11:08

Originally Posted by jlvfr

Why do I get the feeling that the USN doesn't really know what it wants?...

I think they have a decent idea of what they want. Its the execution of those ideas that I have concerns about.

**USSWisconsin** · 17 Jan 11,, 14:57

I think there is a tendency to compare a work in progress to a finished work (LCS to AB or Tico). The USN hasn't completed the development of the LCS design yet.

**Xtvpry** · 17 Jan 11,, 21:16

The Navy want a ship to operate in the littorals. Fine. Who's to say that the threats it may encounter will only be asymetric threats though? Indeed if it is to have ASW and MCM modules then that suggests that it may encounter high tech weapons. Why should the surface threat be confined to speedboats? LCS would easily have to face another Corvette. What then? The weapons fit seems to be predicated on the assumption that it will only have to fight speedboats.

**USSWisconsin** · 17 Jan 11,, 21:44

Originally Posted by Xtvpry

The Navy want a ship to operate in the littorals. Fine. Who's to say that the threats it may encounter will only be asymetric threats though? Indeed if it is to have ASW and MCM modules then that suggests that it may encounter high tech weapons. Why should the surface threat be confined to speedboats? LCS would easily have to face another Corvette. What then? The weapons fit seems to be predicated on the assumption that it will only have to fight speedboats.

Fitted with a VLS, it would have Harpoons. The USN relies on high situational awareness, if symetrical threats exist, the USN would use aircover or a DDG to counter the situation in support of the LCS.

**JA Boomer** · 17 Jan 11,, 22:15

Originally Posted by USSWisconsin

Fitted with a VLS, it would have Harpoons. The USN relies on high situational awareness, if symetrical threats exist, the USN would use aircover or a DDG to counter the situation in support of the LCS.

The scraped the Mk41 VLS Harpoon didn't they, and withdrew the TASM from service. Only way to get a dedicated anti-surface missile now adays is with the Mk141 launcher.

**gunnut** · 17 Jan 11,, 22:40

Originally Posted by JA Boomer

The scraped the Mk41 VLS Harpoon didn't they, and withdrew the TASM from service. Only way to get a dedicated anti-surface missile now adays is with the Mk141 launcher.

Why would the USN need surface launched Harpoons? Any potential target that's worth a Harpoon will be dealth with by aviation from beyond the horizon. Anything within the horizon could be hit by SM-2 at supersonic speed rather than subsonic speed.

Notice all the navies in the world that employ AShM are navies without their own carriers. The French has a carrier, but come on, it's the French.

**Dago** · 17 Jan 11,, 22:51

We'll, if they had Ashm capability, then they wouldn't need CVBG's cover, right? I know, in any engagment CVGB's will be there. However, if they did in fact have an Ashm emplacement than that would free up the CVBG's for other tasks and mission.

I mean a dozen or so MK141's, quad packed SM-2's, could take out an entire suraface ship and her escorts. Under optimal conditions.

That is just as deadly as F/A18's or JSF's.

Of course, the CVBG is superior package in every aspect.

But the capability we have, and could employ, could still be as deadly too the enemy. We could do ir from the surface or the air. MK141 is to be reckon with, though.

**USSWisconsin** · 17 Jan 11,, 23:08

Originally Posted by JA Boomer

The scraped the Mk41 VLS Harpoon didn't they, and withdrew the TASM from service. Only way to get a dedicated anti-surface missile now adays is with the Mk141 launcher.

They may have, but that would still leave a SM-2 in AShM mode available as an alternative, but as gunnut mentioned, aircraft would be the most likely way to take out corvettes threatening an LCS mission. The LCS is taylored to combat asymetric threats in an efficient manor, we have good coverage for symetric threats already.

The LCS doesn't need to fight Covettes, the USN has 51 AB destroyers, it can combat higher value targets like Covettes with an overwelming advantage in surface, sub-surface and air supremacy. The LCS gives the USN flexibility with low end threats, allowing a scaled response, unlike the threat which has probably scaled up as far as it can go with its Covettes, the USN has carrier aviation, subs and DDG's available to step in. The USN isn't going to fight hypothetical evenly matched one ship vs one ship engagements with a real eanemy.

**HKDan** · 18 Jan 11,, 00:37

Originally Posted by Xtvpry

Why should the surface threat be confined to speedboats? LCS would easily have to face another Corvette. What then? The weapons fit seems to be predicated on the assumption that it will only have to fight speedboats.

I think its a pretty safe assumption that LCS would not be caught off guard by an enemy naval force. (although there is always the chance of a sneak attack similar to Cheonan or USS Cole) Why? Because with the most basic tools like an internet connection, one is able to get an often very accurate picture of regional naval forces. It is exceedingly difficult to keep something as large as a naval ship a secret. In parts of the world where LCS could possibly run into a hostile naval threat of any consequence, it is difficult to imagine it operating without the protection of some of the higher end assets of the USN. The USN welcomes the complete moron who would send his Corvettes out against them. At the high end, American dominance of the seas is unquestioned.

As for the common criticism of LCS that it doesn't even have VLS, lets take a closer look. The USN currently has an enormous amount of VLS tubes in the fleet. The 22 Ticonderoga Class Cruisers each have 122 VLS tubes, the 61(61st launched last June) Arleigh Burke Class Destroyers have 96, the 4 Ohio Class SSGNs up to 154, 7 (soon to be 8)Virginia class submarines have 12, the final 31 of the older LA class also have 12. All in, the USN has close to 10,000 VLS tubes in the fleet already providing massive dominance over any other naval force on the planet. The problem? Right now, submarines and surface ships often leave port with less than full VLS magazines. The Navy has a missile shortage. Why the hell would LCS need more tubes to make that problem worse?