Littoral Combat Ships

**ArmchairGeneral** · 02 Oct 09,, 02:02

Originally Posted by FOG3

I don't see a problem with the number in defense of the concept of why we need at least as many ships as we have now.

I don't think anybody's questioning the number of big ships we've got. We could probably use some more, especially with the expansion of naval BMD. The questions are on the low end- are 55 LCS enough, and are they right for the job?

Part of me is mildly entertained by the concept a LSD full of Riverine types in a similar role to LCS.

Sounds like you've been smoking Galrahn's kool-aid.

Not that that's a bad thing, he may be on to something.

The need for speed, seems dubious to me given boats you'd need to worry about would tend to be able to be shot up by a helicopter they could never outrun, to me anyway. Could be wrong.

My understanding is that the speed requirement is a higher level tactical requirement- not outrunning other vessels, but covering more ground, getting to where you need to be when you need to be there. Never fully made sense to me, but I can see where it's coming from. The fustest with the mostest is still a good rule of thumb.

**BenRoethig** · 02 Oct 09,, 04:43

Originally Posted by gunnut

LCS is not really a stupid concept. The implementation is.

I agree. They need a small, fast ship for littoral ops and mine hunting and a frigate replacement. They combined them into one and god a vessel that's not very going at being either.

**Silent Hunter** · 02 Oct 09,, 10:38

Originally Posted by FOG3

I could be wrong. I remember Mail Call fielding it as 2 CG, 4 DDG basically and looking at wiki just for quick reference says basically the same. Broken down as 2 Guided Missile, 2 Antiair, and 2 antisub. Notably absent from Wikis breakdown is BMD, which they're going to be doing.

What about the Perrys?

**JA Boomer** · 02 Oct 09,, 17:20

Originally Posted by Silent Hunter

What about the Perrys?

The de-clawed Perry's don't really contribute much to the Carrier Strike Groups anymore, besides what their Seahawks bring to the fight. From what I understand the Perry's are sometimes deployed with Flight I Burkes because they have no helicopters.

**Rumrunner** · 02 Oct 09,, 18:20

^^I think they also still fill an ASW role in CSG's

**AK Fan** · 02 Oct 09,, 19:16

The U.S. Navy's moves last week to build only one LCS design and impose a new competitive structure on the program...
See more at Will LCS Changes Fix Problems? - Defense News

**FOG3** · 02 Oct 09,, 20:43

Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral

I don't think anybody's questioning the number of big ships we've got.

Not in this thread maybe, but there are people that don't get these things don't autorepair, teleport where there needed, and just magically kit themselves out. So you occasionally find the rhetoric about how excessively large the fleet is, when in reality it's actually stretched pretty damn thin for the obligations it is meant to fulfill.

Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral

Sounds like you've been smoking Galrahn's kool-aid.

Not that that's a bad thing, he may be on to something.

Not familiar with him to be honest. If you want to lock down a big harbor I expect the problem is very similar to locking down an area of land. You need boots on the "ground" or in this case VBSS (Visit, Board, Search, and Seizure) teams patrolling. Riverines and their equipment could basically do that and project up through the rivers, and neither they nor a hull to transport them and their gear are _that_ expensive.

Obviously not something you want to use to deal with actual warships, but that's why you have big ships providing escort, and maybe a SSN lurking around. Maybe I don't understand what the mission is, but it seems like a LSD full of Riverines would be extremely useful for controlling Littorals. Doubly so because a LSD can carry 4 helicopters.

**ArmchairGeneral** · 03 Oct 09,, 05:53

Originally Posted by FOG3

Not familiar with him to be honest.

Founder of Information Dissemination. One of the better places on the net for naval information and analysis. Used to post some around here, hasn't been on for a while.

**gunnut** · 03 Oct 09,, 10:12

I hope the Independence design gets adopted by the navy, just because it looks so cool.

Acually I think the Independence's bigger flight deck and the VLS, which I don't see on Freedom, make it more valuable than Freedom's design.

**ArmchairGeneral** · 03 Oct 09,, 17:34

Originally Posted by gunnut

Acually I think the Independence's bigger flight deck and the VLS, which I don't see on Freedom, make it more valuable than Freedom's design.

What VLS? They're both supposed to be able to mount NLOS missiles, but I don't think either one has been fitted for it yet. If you're talking about the two rectangles behind the 57 mm, I think those are the sites for the 30 mm chain guns.

**JA Boomer** · 05 Oct 09,, 06:44

Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral

What VLS? They're both supposed to be able to mount NLOS missiles, but I don't think either one has been fitted for it yet.

With the US Army having now cancelled the Future Combat System program. Will the USN continue the development of the NLOS missile system on its own, with the goal of integrating them onto the winning LCS design?

**gunnut** · 05 Oct 09,, 18:48

Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral

What VLS? They're both supposed to be able to mount NLOS missiles, but I don't think either one has been fitted for it yet. If you're talking about the two rectangles behind the 57 mm, I think those are the sites for the 30 mm chain guns.

Hmmm...that block sure looks like VLS cells to me. It would be cool if the Independence carried 16 cells at least for ESSMs.

**JA Boomer** · 05 Oct 09,, 19:43

Originally Posted by gunnut

Hmmm...that block sure looks like VLS cells to me. It would be cool if the Independence carried 16 cells at least for ESSMs.

http://www.navy.mil/management/photo...-0000G-007.jpg

Check out this pic, it's large enough that you can clearly see that space isn't used for anything right now. But I am positive that it's not for a Mk 41 launcher. That has always been my biggest peeve with these designs. There the size of frigates yet all they have are 20mm, 30mm, and 57mm guns. A 16-cell Mk 41 completely changes this, giving them credable air defense capability with ESSM, and the ability to perhaps carry other missile types in the future.

**MatthewS3522** · 06 Oct 09,, 02:31

Originally Posted by gunnut

I hope the Independence design gets adopted by the navy, just because it looks so cool.

Acually I think the Independence's bigger flight deck and the VLS, which I don't see on Freedom, make it more valuable than Freedom's design.

What VLS? There was no requirement whatsoever for VLS. Remember they are trying to get away with an affordable multi-role ship to replace three different types of ships. Of course it will end up way over cost and unable to any of the three roles very well. RAM is the only air defense weapon aboard and who knows if will even have reloads.

**Dreadnought** · 06 Oct 09,, 13:32

The new 127 meter long Independence Class LCS will provide a platform for intelligence gathering, employ surface (anti-ship) and land attacks precision weapons, and operate manned and unmanned aerial and surface vehicles (UAV/USV). To further adapt for specific missions, LCS will incorporate a modular and interchangeable approach, enabling it to be reconfigured to specific missions such as antisubmarine warfare, mine warfare, or surface warfare missions on an as-needed basis. The LCS will be able to swap out mission packages pier-side in a matter of hours, adapting as the tactical situation demands. These ships will also feature advanced networking capability to share tactical information with other Navy aircraft, ships, submarines and joint units.