Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Littoral Combat Ships

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • gunnut
    replied
    I thought LCS is a novel concept, worthy of exploring. My biggest doubt is the 45kts requirement. That's a lot of machinery space which could go to other things.

    I still think LCS is a miniature LPD, or an APD on steroids.

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    Originally posted by jlvfr View Post
    Don't Forget, you still have to pay for the "mission modules"...
    True, but a proper escort/light ship should be able to do more jobs without having to cost so much and needing extra gear... almost everyone else has multi-purpose frigates/corvets for a fraction of the cost...
    No argument from me that the LCS program is and has been something of a trainwreck.

    For starters, splitting the class between both designs was one of those moments where you wanted to bang your head against a wall

    Leave a comment:


  • jlvfr
    replied
    Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
    Still a savings of nearly a billion dollars.
    Don't Forget, you still have to pay for the "mission modules"...

    Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
    Well I don't think anybody is saying that the LCS is a Transformer that can instantly shape-shift on the fly.
    True, but a proper escort/light ship should be able to do more jobs without having to cost so much and needing extra gear... almost everyone else has multi-purpose frigates/corvets for a fraction of the cost...

    Leave a comment:


  • jlvfr
    replied
    Originally posted by kato View Post
    To me, the article mostly reminds me that the USN has an entirely different idea what "coastal" waters are.

    To them, "coastal" starts where the 10m draft of a CVN would let it run aground. To us, "coastal" starts when a submarine drags up a sand wave behind it pulled from the ground half a meter beneath (and yes, we still operate em in these coastal waters).
    I just think the USN doesn't know how to build small & cheap. It's against their nature. /grin

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    Originally posted by jlvfr View Post
    Ok... I won't discuss the "operate" part, but build? While an Arleight Burke does cost over 1.6 billion, that's for a fully equiped/armed 10.000 ton ship. The Independence (LCS-2) cost over 700 million, has fewer weapons built-in and has only 3.000 tons... so, cost-wise, not exactly very good...
    Still a savings of nearly a billion dollars.

    Originally posted by jlvfr View Post
    And the LCS has it?! It has to go home for every mission change! Where's the flexibility in that?...
    Well I don't think anybody is saying that the LCS is a Transformer that can instantly shape-shift on the fly.
    And "home" could very well be in the Middle East or Asia, at least as far as mission module changes go.

    I think the point is, nobody seems to want to talk about what's going right with the LCS (or the F-35, for that matter). It's all doom-and-gloom and nothing is going well.

    Leave a comment:


  • kato
    replied
    To me, the article mostly reminds me that the USN has an entirely different idea what "coastal" waters are.

    To them, "coastal" starts where the 10m draft of a CVN would let it run aground. To us, "coastal" starts when a submarine drags up a sand wave behind it pulled from the ground half a meter beneath (and yes, we still operate em in these coastal waters).

    Leave a comment:


  • jlvfr
    replied
    Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
    LCS costs much less than other warships to build ...
    Ok... I won't discuss the "operate" part, but build? While an Arleight Burke does cost over 1.6 billion, that's for a fully equiped/armed 10.000 ton ship. The Independence (LCS-2) cost over 700 million, has fewer weapons built-in and has only 3.000 tons... so, cost-wise, not exactly very good...

    Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
    In naval warfare, flexibility is essential to future relevance.
    And the LCS has it?! It has to go home for every mission change! Where's the flexibility in that?...

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    Size Matters: Five Reasons the Littoral Combat Ship Is Crucial To Future Naval Operations
    By Loren Thompson

    On November 1, 2001, the U.S. Navy disclosed a plan to develop three new classes of warship, each of which was intended to make a distinct break with past designs. Two of those classes were eventually terminated due to high cost. The third is still with us, thanks to its modest price-tag. Called the Littoral Combat Ship, it was conceived to go where other warships could not – into the shallow, contested waters along hostile coastlines.

    The Littoral Combat Ship was a good idea then and it is a good idea now. Its virtue resides not just in how the geopolitical and fiscal environments have changed since the Cold War ended, but in the way it allowed the Navy to experiment with new ideas aimed at transforming the construction and employment of warships. Everything about LCS was transformational: the way it was developed, the way it was deployed, the way it was manned and the way it was maintained.

    LCS was a bold attempt to think outside the box, and it predictably became a focus of controversy. Critics claimed it was deficient in both defensive protection and offensive punch because it couldn’t do everything a big surface combatant could do. This complaint was hardly surprising considering that the new warship only cost a quarter of what a destroyer did, but it overlooked the fact that LCS could do plenty of things the destroyer could not do while networking with other warships and aircraft to obtain whatever off-board support it needed.

    Like the F-35 fighter, another revolutionary combat system under constant attack in the political culture, the Littoral Combat Ship never gets a fair shake from the general media. Headlines complain about the most prosaic deficiencies that testers uncover — the kind of problems endemic to every new class of warship — while ignoring any good news.

    For instance, in 2015 the Pentagon’s director of operational testing reported that one version of LCS called the Freedom class was “well-suited” to maritime security operations and that its main gun system “performed reliably” during testing. His report went on to state that “the Freedom class LCS has sufficient aviation facilities and meets Navy requirements to safely launch, recover, and handle all appropriate aircraft” while operating in rough seas. Guess how many media outlets bothered to report these findings.

    The reason I decided to write about LCS today is that the Obama Administration’s final defense budget, submitted to Congress Tuesday, calls for cutting the planned buy of littoral warships from 52 to 40, so money can be freed up for other purposes such as enhancing the land-attack capabilities of attack submarines. There’s nothing wrong with where policymakers want to put the money, but this is just the latest example of how programs are being cannibalized by the Obama Administration’s chronic under-funding of military modernization.

    So maybe this is a good time to recall why the Littoral Combat Ship was conceived in the first place, and why further complicating its already baroque evolution is a disservice to our nation’s warfighters. Here are five reasons the Navy needs LCS to cope with emerging maritime challenges, and why any alternative is likely to be more costly. (I should mention that several companies involved in the program contribute to my think tank and/or are consulting clients; the same is true of contractors who would like to see the money go elsewhere.)

    Emerging maritime threats are mainly near coastlines. The U.S. Navy is postured primarily to cope with high-intensity threats in the open sea. Although there is considerable flexibility built into aircraft carriers, attack submarines and surface combatants, none of the warships in the fleet today is optimized for combat in areas close to hostile shores. However, that is where most of the new threats are emerging, from terrorist attacks to floating mines to diesel-electric submarines to freelance piracy. Having retired all of its Cold War frigates — the class of traditional warships best suited to shallow water operations — the Navy needs fast and agile vessels that can cope with emerging threats near coastlines.

    Other warships are ill-suited to littoral warfare. It doesn’t make much sense to send a billion-dollar destroyer in pursuit of pirates or small groups of terrorists. Even if they could negotiate the shallow waters and narrow passages found in places like Southeast Asia, warships designed to defend against threats like ballistic missiles and supersonic fighters won’t necessarily fare well if confronted with swarms of small, high-speed boats that dart out of nearby inlets. The agile LCS, which can sprint faster than the posted speed limit on many interstate highways, is a better option in such environments. Its 57 mm gun, which fires over 200 rounds per minute with high accuracy, is a good match for the kind of surface and airborne threats found near most coastlines.

    LCS delivers the right capabilities for coastal warfare. Relatively few navies around the world operate the kind of high-end warships America’s warfighters favor, and those that do are mostly U.S. allies. However, many potential adversaries like Iran know how to lay mines in maritime chokepoints and send swarms of speedboats into nearby sea lanes; a growing number also are acquiring very quiet diesel-electric submarines with an eye to denying U.S. military access in their regions. LCS is equipped with warfighting modules employing manned and unmanned systems for countering such threats. It is also well-suited to inserting special forces along coastlines, collecting reconnaissance, and performing other tasks that bigger warships would be too unwieldy to accomplish.

    LCS costs much less than other warships to build and operate. U.S. surface warships typically cost well over a billion dollars each, but LCS costs a fraction of that according to naval expert Ron O’Rourke. So it is feasible to buy enough vessels to cover troubled littoral regions around the world for far less money than if the Navy was only building traditional warships. And the savings don’t stop with construction costs: LCS will have a crew of less than 100 sailors, compared with several hundred on major surface combatants. Also, its crewing concept permits each vessel to be deployed more frequently than conventional warships. So the Littoral Combat Ship will have a lower price-tag and greater productivity across its life-cycle.

    In naval warfare, flexibility is essential to future relevance.
    If there is one thing military planners should have learned over the last two decades, it is that new threats arise with little warning. So being able to adapt fast will be critical to remaining relevant in future conflicts. The modular design of LCS, which allows the mix of on-board capabilities to be changed quickly, is a logical response to the constantly shifting operational environment. There are many options for modifying the ship’s features in the future. For instance, its automated gun, built by BAE Systems , could be armed with hyper-velocity smart rounds that provide pinpoint accuracy at three times greater range. The mix of unmanned vehicles, sensors and networking options can also be evolved as needed.

    Judging from the direction the Navy was given to cut the LCS buy in this year’s budget, such thinking is now out of favor as Pentagon policymakers fixate on the rising maritime challenge posed by China. But China is only one country, and the threat it poses is unique. In Africa, the Middle East, Southeast Asia and Latin America, it will usually be more cost effective to defend America’s interests using fast and flexible warships like the Littoral Combat Ship, rather than sending high-end vessels. With fewer than 100 major surface combatants in the current fleet and undersea-warfare assets stretched thin, the Navy needs an inexpensive way of dealing with all the dangers that might otherwise go unanswered in a chaotic world. Whether we call it a fast frigate or small surface combatant, LCS still looks like the right answer. Link

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    Originally posted by kato View Post
    Eh, given that i saw a mid-20s girl with a flower head wreath on the train today...
    Was she going to San Francisco?

    Leave a comment:


  • kato
    replied
    Eh, given that i saw a mid-20s girl with a flower head wreath on the train today...

    Leave a comment:


  • jlvfr
    replied
    Originally posted by gunnut View Post
    Let's bring back bell bottoms and platform shoes.
    Ok, now you've gone too far back... :(

    Leave a comment:


  • gunnut
    replied
    Originally posted by bfng3569 View Post
    does this mean my 80's ripped jeans and jean jacket are back in style too...

    amazing how everything comes back around eventually.....
    Let's bring back bell bottoms and platform shoes.

    Leave a comment:


  • bfng3569
    replied
    Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
    Right? Novel concept eh? :-)
    does this mean my 80's ripped jeans and jean jacket are back in style too...

    amazing how everything comes back around eventually.....

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    Originally posted by bfng3569 View Post
    And what's this talk of 'arsenal' planes...
    Right? Novel concept eh? :-)

    Leave a comment:


  • bfng3569
    replied
    Originally posted by gunnut View Post
    Let's bring back battleships, A-10, and F-14!!!
    Good thing the A-10 never left.... ;)

    You forgot the F-111 though....!


    Funny, but with the navy now looking at the longer range and faster anti ship missiles and the everyone paying more attention to the pacific.... seems like something with the range and ability (long range aam's) (modernized) of the F-14 is pretty attractive.....

    And what's this talk of 'arsenal' planes...

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X