Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Littoral Combat Ships

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

  • Originally posted by Xtvpry View Post
    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.
    The LCS is way better armed than the current MCM ships. The US Navy isn't going to send a ship in to sweep mines until they have cleared the sea of enemy ships. There also isn't going to be any minesweeping done without air on station.

    And that corvette was sunk weeks before while still tied up pierside. Ask the Iraqi's what happened to their navy back in 91
    Last edited by Gun Grape; 18 Jan 11,, 03:19.

    Comment


    • I see! Oh, it makes perfect sense now. Silly me! The LCS is a heavily armed 47kt minesweeper which will only go into action only when other forces have made sure that there is no chance of it actually having to do any fighting. Is that it?

      Surely the LCS is all about access to the coastal areas. Access that might be denied to larger forces including merchant vessels though minelaying, stealthy air-independent submarines, shore batteries of anti-ship missiles, Pirates, suicide speedboats or whatever including Corvettes that might hide in Island passages. This is a messy kind of naval warfare. It is not clear-cut like the blue water operations which involve the big fleets. Littoral warfare is definitely different from blue-water operations but it would be wrong to assume that it would always be low-tech and it would be wrong to suppose that an friendly aircraftcarrier will always be there just over the horizon should things get nasty.
      Last edited by Xtvpry; 19 Jan 11,, 00:22.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Xtvpry View Post
        Surely the LCS is all about access to the coastal areas. Access that might be denied to larger forces including merchant vessels though minelaying, stealthy air-independent submarines, shore batteries of anti-ship missiles, Pirates, suicide speedboats or whatever including Corvettes that might hide in Island passages. This is a messy kind of naval warfare. It is not clear-cut like the blue water operations which involve the big fleets. Littoral warfare is definitely different from blue-water operations but it would be wrong to assume that it would always be low-tech and it would be wrong to suppose that an friendly aircraftcarrier will always be there just over the horizon should things get nasty.
        Im wondering what kind of scenario you are picturing. Are you expecting a scenario where the USN sends a LCS ship alone and unprotected while the rest of the fleet sits in port to the coast of a nation that is mined, has AIP subs, AShM shore batteries, and missile Corvettes? In that scenario, yes, LCS is in a world of pain. ...and some Admiral is going to lose his job for incompetence.

        Comment


        • The LCS will have to be a swiss-army knife sort of ship. Support from larger ships will be available to some extent. An Arleigh Burke will be able to give area area protection for example but the LCS will have to deal with all immediate threats itself and that includes all the threats mentioned above.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by HKDan View Post
            Im wondering what kind of scenario you are picturing. Are you expecting a scenario where the USN sends a LCS ship alone and unprotected while the rest of the fleet sits in port to the coast of a nation that is mined, has AIP subs, AShM shore batteries, and missile Corvettes? In that scenario, yes, LCS is in a world of pain. ...and some Admiral is going to lose his job for incompetence.
            Either an LCS needs massive support to stay alive, which means it won't need that much in terms of weapons, or it can work almost alone, which means it does need a lot of weapons. In the 1st case, what's the need for a 400milion+ ship, in the 2nd, the current LCS can't do it...

            Edit: just for comparison, look at what Denmark got in it's Absalon-class ships:
            Absalon class

            Heavy copters, space for troops, space for mine warfare, ASW, ASM, SAMs... all for 570million for the FULL 2-ship program...
            Last edited by jlvfr; 19 Jan 11,, 10:38.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by jlvfr View Post
              Either an LCS needs massive support to stay alive, which means it won't need that much in terms of weapons, or it can work almost alone, which means it does need a lot of weapons. In the 1st case, what's the need for a 400milion+ ship, in the 2nd, the current LCS can't do it...

              Edit: just for comparison, look at what Denmark got in it's Absalon-class ships:
              Absalon class

              Heavy copters, space for troops, space for mine warfare, ASW, ASM, SAMs... all for 570million for the FULL 2-ship program...
              Yeah, the Absalon Class are very nice. I agree with that. The Danes have shown themselves able to produce a very capable ship at a decent price. Good for them. If I was in charge of a smaller navy and was looking to buy something new, I might take an Absalon over LCS for a whole variety of reasons.

              But that doesn't mean that the first part of your statement has any merit. In a full scale conflict with an opponent who has access to advanced weapons, yes, LCS needs support. Good thing that the USN has more support than anyone else to give LCS in the event that happens. But in the meantime, the LCS is going to be earning its keep doing bread and butter operations that other USN ships are ill suited for. Over the past few year the USN has realized that its silly and not cost effective to chase pirates with Arleigh Burke Class destroyers. That sometimes you might need something a bit smaller than a tomahawk cruise missile. That they want more ships than they have so that they can be in more places at the same time. They have realized that there is a wide spectrum between full scale conflict and peace, and that the USN will spend a lot more of its time in that spectrum than it will at war with another fleet. LCS is versatile. We will probably see them doing things that nobody has even thought of yet. I think the interest shown by the USMC in LCS is particularly interesting. They look at it and think mini-MEU. Criticize the program if you want, but the Navy is likely to get a lot of value out of these ships before they are retired.

              Comment


              • Most classes of warship require some support, some more than most. An aircraftcarrier for example always sails in the company of a whole battlegroup of destroyers and submarines. Only the nuclear submarine either SSN or SSBN does not require and escort. The LCS will be no exception. It will need the area air defense protection from an Arleigh Burke. As I said before, the Russian doll design philosophy for warships is wrong - i.e. to build a destroyer that will do everything a cruiser can on a much smaller hull and then a frigate to do everything which the cruiser and destroyer can except on a smaller hull again and so on down to the Corvette which too would be conceived as a mini-cruiser. There has to be a division of labour and specialisation. Depending on the mission, some of those highly specialised warships will naturally compliment each other. Thus a destroyer will escort many warships for example. However, if we were to design a new destroyer which needed to be escorted by another destroyer or an aircraftcarrier which needed to be escorted by another aircraftcarrier then I think we would be right in suspecting the the new design was deficient in some way. It is the same with the LCS. The coastal zone is its supreme habitat within which it should be the alpha predator. The likely threats it may encounter in this environment may be high as well as low tech. In terms of surface warfare and land attack, the LCS will only be equipped to deal with low end threats and I think that is wrong. When I pointed this out, the response from the Board was - Oh well but the LCS would be supported by other warships etc, etc, etc. Well, there is support and there is support. The LCS is not big enough to carry VL41 and Aegis so an AB destroyer can provide complimentary support for area air defense. But if we say that the littorals may be too dangerous because of the likely presence of shore batteries or FAC and it would be better to use a destroyer etc, then the other warships would have displaced the LCS. They would have usurped its purpose.

                Comment


                • Xtvpry,

                  Please start a thread in the introduction forum and tell us about yourself, we would like to have a chance to formally welcome you to the WAB. We ask this of all our new members.


                  As I said before, the Russian doll design philosophy for warships is wrong - i.e. to build a destroyer that will do everything a cruiser can on a much smaller hull and then a frigate to do everything which the cruiser and destroyer can except on a smaller hull again and so on down to the Corvette which too would be conceived as a mini-cruiser. There has to be a division of labour and specialisation. Depending on the mission, some of those highly specialised warships will naturally compliment each other.
                  While other navies have different solutions for the Corvette sized ship, they also have different investments in naval assets. You mention a mini-cruiser resulting from the "jack of all trades" approach, but wouldn't arming the LCS to be able to handle corvettes would amount to something along these lines? The USN already has an investment in destroyers and carriers, so the LCS is not attempting to be redundant and cover the work these assests do better. IMO, a division of labour (using less assets when appropriate) and mission specialisation is what the USN is planning on doing with the LCS.
                  Last edited by USSWisconsin; 19 Jan 11,, 23:12.
                  sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
                  If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by jlvfr View Post
                    Either an LCS needs massive support to stay alive, which means it won't need that much in terms of weapons, or it can work almost alone, which means it does need a lot of weapons. In the 1st case, what's the need for a 400milion+ ship, in the 2nd, the current LCS can't do it...

                    Edit: just for comparison, look at what Denmark got in it's Absalon-class ships:
                    Absalon class

                    Heavy copters, space for troops, space for mine warfare, ASW, ASM, SAMs... all for 570million for the FULL 2-ship program...
                    Absalon class draft: 6.3m
                    Freedom class draft: 3.9m
                    Independence class draft: 3.96m
                    Perry class draft: 6.7m
                    Burke class draft: 9.3m

                    I don't know much about the ocean, but an extra 2 meters of draft just might restrict you to much farther offshore.

                    Absalon class speed: less than 24 kt
                    Freedom class speed: 47 kt
                    Independence class speed: 44 kt
                    Burke class speed: >30 kt
                    Last edited by gunnut; 19 Jan 11,, 23:36.
                    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Xtvpry View Post
                      I see! Oh, it makes perfect sense now. Silly me! The LCS is a heavily armed 47kt minesweeper which will only go into action only when other forces have made sure that there is no chance of it actually having to do any fighting. Is that it?
                      name one minesweeping operation that the US Navy undertook without attaining dominance over the threat area.

                      Surely the LCS is all about access to the coastal areas. Access that might be denied to larger forces including merchant vessels though minelaying,
                      hence the minesweeping module for LCS

                      stealthy air-independent submarines,
                      Antisubmarine module for LCS

                      shore batteries of anti-ship missiles, Pirates, suicide speedboats or whatever including Corvettes that might hide in Island passages. This is a messy kind of naval warfare. It is not clear-cut like the blue water operations which involve the big fleets.

                      If we have sent a LCS package into an environment that have corvettes and intact antiship missle batteries still functioning then the TF Commander needs to be relieved.

                      We wouldn't send the current MCM ships into that environment. Why do you think we would change?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Xtvpry
                        stealthy air-independent submarines,

                        in actual fact, the austal version of the LCS is ideal for that role (as experienced in practical terms off the west coast of africa and the Nork Romeos)

                        HSV2 was able to offload gear, take on approp kit and hunt those subs in the green because of her draft.

                        at the technology potential level, it would not be difficult to migrate the smarts and libraries from the Mk48ADCAP and shunt them into the MK54.

                        all of a sudden you have a green water AIP killer thats helo portable... - and launching off of a vessel that can go brown/estuarine as well as green and blue water.

                        HSV1, HSV2, TSV all demonstrate in real world scenarios that you can get big ships into waters than conventional hulls cannot.

                        its about fighting smarter with the tech, not sticking to warfighting models that can be safely changed.

                        ASW and Minesweeping and hunting are 3 of them. One of the key lessons learned from GW1 and GW2 for the USN was the lack of organic mine warfare. we (navies) no longer need to have dedicated sweepers and hunters. 6 years ago I witnessed autonomous ROV's and USV's that could undertake these roles as dismounts and gave amazing extra flexibility to the local commander. putting these dismounts onto vessels with low draught and mission flexibility is working smarter - not harder
                        Last edited by gf0012-aust; 23 Jan 11,, 07:29. Reason: fix detail
                        Linkeden:
                        http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
                        http://cofda.wordpress.com/

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by gf0012-aust View Post
                          in actual fact, the austal version of the LCS is ideal for that role (as experienced in practical terms off the west coast of africa and the Nork Romeos)
                          I'm glad to hear that, as I am of the opinion that the LCS-2 (USS Independence) hullform is the way to go in terms of the entire LCS class; I know the Navy was hedging their bets by sponsoring two different hullforms in the event that one of them proved impracticable, but now that the LCS-2 hullform has proven itself, I think the remainder of the hullforms should be of the LCS-2 variety.
                          "There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge

                          Comment


                          • I would like to borrow this comment from another discussion board since it expresses things very well and is a useful antedote to the complacency of some who write about LCS here.

                            LCS was conceived as a 500 ton FAC for brown water operations and has become a 3,000 ton Frigate substitute. The present design does not fulfill any role well. It is not a proper Frigate. Nor is it a Corvette. Nor is it a Minesweeper. It is not mine resistent, nor is it stealthy. It is undergunned as a shallow-draft naval gunfire support ship. It is too expensive to be afforded in large numbers. It is not good at ASW. But it is sexy, which is why it will be built.



                            Surface Forces : Another Tiny Weapon For the LCS

                            The original concept for the LCS grew out of the Streetfighter concept. Back then LCS was a 500 ton very fast boat perfect for brown water operations. It was also seen as cheap and to be bought in large numbers.
                            Somehow it grew into a 3,000 ton frigate with two helicopters. Paying to carry around two helicopters at 45 knots is simply ridiculous. Designing a ship to operate inshore and up river without the weapons to exploit that capability is beyond ridiculous.
                            The USN requires a fast patrol boat and they design a frigate. They also require an actual frigate, where sending a DDG might be too risky or overkill, and they design one lacking in asw and anti air. A small draft gunfire support ship has also been needed for decades and instead of a mine resistant monitor with a 5 inch or 155mm they design a ship with a 57mm with a few missiles.
                            LCS does not do asw (according to USN reports) very well. It's too big, too vulnerable, and too expensive for mine warfare- leaving aside the entire notion of the community only operating part time. It's main mission seems to be dealing with small boats where it's both total overkill in terms of cost and lacking in weapons reach if dealing with a ship equipped with anti ship missiles.
                            The one thing it has going for it is that it's sexy. Small cost effective mine warfare, patrol, and gunfire support ships are not. Sexy sells.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post

                              Whats the range of the Griffin? Being a laser guided projectile/missile it is guaranteed first round hit. What range that a M-107 HE round can shoot that can be guaranteed first round accuracy?

                              How many non guided rounds would you have to store and fire to equal one Griffin missile?
                              Gun Grape,
                              Cdr Salamander has a source on this here.

                              Originally designed as an air-surface weapon with a range of 12.5km, but when surface fired, the range falls to 5.5km. Not a whole lot of range when you're talking surface combat! It's also a laser beam rider, so only one missile per laser designator which won't be a whole lot of help against those Iranian Boghammer swarming tactics. He also makes a good point about trying to keep a laser lock on a small target at 4km while the boat is bouncing around at 40kts.

                              Comment


                              • IMO, The LCS has not seen anywhere near the Mods they will go through during their life span. They are brand new ships with brand new concepts. There is little doubt they will be modified in years to come just as every other USN ships has been to equal the jobs set before them. Also IMO, this "sexy" comments above dont mean anything. Its just an opinion and a cop out for lack of inside operational knowledge. The USN isint going to waste their budgets on something they dont think will work, especially with Gates removing programs due to budget constraints and axing others all together. By the time they actaully field LCS for real conflict she will have well been modified numerous times and tailor fitted for their missions.

                                And I am in total agreement with GG. Ask Iraq what happened to their navy early on in conflict. It got destroyed in most part at their moorings without being able to escape and then was ramdomly picked over with 16" gunfire from the Missouri afterwards. The USN does their homework after dilligent inquiry about an enemies defences and capabilities. Also the USN is not like many nations we would deem a threat. They dont show their cards over their effectivness nor their capabilities as many countries advertise this for home crowd consumption. Most here that ever sailed for the USN know that to be true and thats what boosts their sucess rates. A layered, well thought out approach after pouring over intelligence from both aerial and ground levels. The USN has many capable platforms in the area to carry that out to say the least. And you will notice that airpower and seapower played major roles even when confronted with mines, SAM's etc.

                                What will the critics say when LCS is deployed and sucessful in the way that it was meant to be? I bet the critics wont even address it and will move on to something else to support their view. Much speculation over ships that havent even been given a chance to do their jobs as of yet and all this criticism. Whats that tell you?;)

                                http://es.rice.edu/projects/Poli378/...ml#Destruction of the Iraqi Navy
                                An idea of the operations by the USN and coalition forces.
                                Last edited by Dreadnought; 22 Jan 11,, 17:39.
                                Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X