Littoral Combat Ships

[ArmchairGeneral]

...put back on the rack for later use when the Perrys run out of steam...

They better do that fast, I don't think they're planning on keeping the Perrys much longer at all. IIRC, they should all be retired by 2020 or so.

[ArmchairGeneral]

I think that was the whole point. The navy found out fewer, bigger hulls with more capability is actually cheaper than more intermediate hulls with less capability.

Of course I could be way wrong. But that was the impression I got.

Kind of. But they still need a bunch of low capability hulls. My beef ain't with the Burkes, they're great. It's just that they went a little too far to the other end with LCS. And I honestly do not understand the lack of endurance at all. Better a slow ship than no ship.

[gunnut]

Noooooo....they must make 50 knots dash speed to be useful...

[ArmchairGeneral]

Heh.

[JA Boomer]

The gap between LCS and the Burkes is just so huge. It would be nice to have something a little bit in between.

I've always thought this as well. The LCS designs were never even close to being a replacement for a patrol frigate or the original Perry-class. They are however, a great replacement for the current Perry-class capabilities and roles. I guess the USN decided that they no longer need frigates, which I think is a mistake.

I've got to say though, as a long time LCS hater, that the Freedom looks pretty damn good with those twin 30mm Bushmaster mounts.

[ArmchairGeneral]

...the Freedom looks pretty damn good with those twin 30mm Bushmaster mounts.

Yeah, no kidding. They look like turbolasers.

[JA Boomer]

Yeah, no kidding. They look like turbolasers.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHA, very true!

[JA Boomer]

I think that was the whole point. The navy found out fewer, bigger hulls with more capability is actually cheaper than more intermediate hulls with less capability.

I've always struggled with this concept. Building cheaper less capable vessels means you can build more of them for the same cost as fewer 'high-end' ships. However, the high-end ships can be deployed to any location, to do any mission and are more survivable. I don't know what the optimum solution is.

[Dreadnought]

Kind of. But they still need a bunch of low capability hulls. My beef ain't with the Burkes, they're great. It's just that they went a little too far to the other end with LCS. And I honestly do not understand the lack of endurance at all. Better a slow ship than no ship.

*An easy fix, when they come in for overhaul replace the two GE LM2500 gas turbines with the new GE LM2500+ gas turbines. They offer 10,000 shp more then what they currenty have aboard. That will speed them up nicely.

*Batteries not included some assembly required.:));)

[JA Boomer]

*An easy fix, when they come in for overhaul replace the two GE LM2500 gas turbines with the new GE LM2500+ gas turbines. They offer 10,000 shp more then what they currenty have aboard. That will speed them up nicely.

Dread, I think he was referring to the dismal range/endurance of the LCS ships, as no one that I know has complained about their lack of speed haha. If the LM2500+ increases fuel efficiency while giving that uprated power I would be surprised.

[Dreadnought]

Dread, I think he was referring to the dismal range/endurance of the LCS ships, as no one that I know has complained about their lack of speed haha. If the LM2500+ increases fuel efficiency while giving that uprated power I would be surprised.

*These engines power (hybrid) the new USS Makin Island. Much more tonnage and alot more ship then any Destroyer or LCS. More engine, less boat, it seems as though they should improve the range. Perhaps not drastically but still an improvement.

[Maxor]

I've always struggled with this concept. Building cheaper less capable vessels means you can build more of them for the same cost as fewer 'high-end' ships. However, the high-end ships can be deployed to any location, to do any mission and are more survivable. I don't know what the optimum solution is.

A few reasons you don't need top of the line supercapable expensive toys for everything. Somolia and afgahnistan are perfect examples of this. A top notch MBTisn't needed in afgahnistan, Super capable fighter bombers aren't needed. You do want to have a few armoured vechiles and some airsupport around though. The piracy issue is another case, its not like they are holding these ships hostage with kirovs that you would need a fully capable navy to take on, honestly a decent patrol craft from any navy would wipe up the pirates on encountering it. The problem is having a hull in the water where the problem is. Thats why budget hulls are made.

[FOG3]

My 0.02USD:

~1/3 of the fleet is deployed at any given time, and there's at least 3 CVBGs to cover the Atlantic, Pacific, and Persian Gulf.

At least 6 DDGs & 2 SSNs per CVBG means you need:
54 DDGs
18 SSNs

Just for the CVBGs. Add in SSNs doing their missions, Marine ships that need escort, that it's nice to have some slack and a few independent surface groups, and you can see why the Fleet is the size it is.

If your limited by hulls, and money to pay their crews, you naturally would prefer that the ships are capable of doing these jobs in an effective manner. Unused capability inherently being expensive, naturally encourages multi-mission capability.

FFGs as they are now classed are kind of like filler to get the extra capability for missions like convoy escort, beyond these other critical missions. To avoid having unused capability, and cover missions not handled by the other assets there's naturally a desire to make them multi-mission in their own way. I see the LCS as an attempt follow those incentives, but don't feel informed enough on particulars to say whether it's good or not.

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.

Nav weaps has only nice things to say about the 57mm mount verse the old 75mm mounts on the Perrys, and it's not exactly like they're that badly armed for their mission. You wouldn't leave one alone without a DDG against anything serious, but I'm not sure why you'd want to to invest in the sensor packages and otherwise to attempt to make it into a DDG-lite.

[ArmchairGeneral]

At least 6 DDGs & 2 SSNs per CVBG

Whoa. That seems a bit excessive. I thought 3 DDGs and a CG was normal. Plus an SSN or two, although they're pretty coy about what the subs are doing, seems.

[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.

You are basically stuck with the loadout you leave dock with for the VLS, so 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.

Given the class distinction with Ticos is a distinction without a difference when you really get down to it, I just filed their Spruance DD hulls as DDG for my back of the envelope calc.

Let's see actual fleet is 22 CG, 8 Flight IIA Burkes, 28 Flight I/II leading to a wopping grand total of 58. And people seriously say we have an excessive number of the things. :roll:

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