Littoral Combat Ships

[surfgun]

To those that continually harp that the LCS will be protected by Naval Air, is what happens when an LCS is operated on the Black Sea?

[Dreadnought]

To those that continually harp that the LCS will be protected by Naval Air, is what happens when an LCS is operated on the Black Sea?

Ask a better question...why would the USN operate the LCS in the Black Sea, The Black Sea was known throughout the 80's and early 90's as being a place where USN and Soviet ships would ram one another on a constant basis. The Soviets claiming it to be their territoy and the USN claiming it as International waters. If they did this with USN CG's and Soviet Udaloy DD's and Patrol Boats then why would you send a much smaller, less tonnage ship into areas known to be frequented by the Russian Navy as their Black Seas Fleet moores nearby. You wouldnt send one. You would send at minimum a DDG, or CG if you were going to enter the Black Sea. Or as in the case of "The Lair of the Bear" (Sea of "O") Then you send a Battleship force such as New Jersey in 1986. Right tools for the right job.

YouTube - 1988 soviet ramming USS Yorktown CG 48 in black sea

YouTube - 1988 2nd video of USS Yorktown CG 48 Black Sea

YouTube - 3rd Video of USS Yorktown CG 48 being ramed Part 2

YouTube - USS Caron getting rammed by the Russians in the Black Sea - Feb 1988

As you can see, it didnt work out to well for the Soviets at the time.;)

[surfgun]

The USA routinely sends the neutered OHP class ships and Hamilton class cutters to the Black Sea (comparable armament and sized ship to an LCS) to visit our ally Georgia. If good old Vlad wanted to flex his muscles, with the theoretical loss of "only" 40 sailors, would a weak President start an international incident?

[Xtvpry]

What a complacent lot you are!!


How boring! This guy seems to believe everything the government says.

LCS is right because;

1. Gates has been cancelling programs and he would not leave the LCS if it was not going to work, ie Gates knows best.
2. The LCS will be heavily modified before it enters Service (will it? How do you know?).
3. The USN always wins and can rely on its secret technology.
4. The Iraqi Navy was destroyed at it moorings from long range (so no need for LCS anyway)
5. The Navy knows best

I would take the Norwegian Skjold (270 tonnes) or the Swedish Visby (600 Tonnes) as my baseline design. Then I would set a limit of, say 1,000 tonnes. I would only use Firescouts not helicopers. That would give you a stealthy, fast, multi-purpose, affordable, brown-water patrol ships and shallow draft naval-gunfire support ship. Apart from being fast, the LCS is none of those things. In a one to one contest, a Skjold would wipe the floor with an LCS.

[Dreadnought]

The USA routinely sends the neutered OHP class ships and Hamilton class cutters to the Black Sea (comparable armament and sized ship to an LCS) to visit our ally Georgia. If good old Vlad wanted to flex his muscles, with the theoretical loss of "only" 40 sailors, would a weak President start an international incident?

Considering the fact that Russia doesnt posess a fraction in tonnage wise as the USN nor has them at sea on a constant basis. Bad move. Especially when both are in Nuclear Arms agreements for reduction and Russia would like to become somewhat of friends again. I very much so doubt Vlad is going to rock the boat while things are quiet. IMO, Obama's not a weak President. Lets keep in mind he is a hood ornament to the Congress and the Senate just like all other Presidents. Only Congress has the power to Declare War and funding. But Obama as President I believe can wage war for 90 days. I could be wrong but I believe he does indeed have that power.

[Dreadnought]

What a complacent lot you are!!


How boring! This guy seems to believe everything the government says.

LCS is right because;

1. Gates has been cancelling programs and he would not leave the LCS if it was not going to work, ie Gates knows best.
2. The LCS will be heavily modified before it enters Service (will it? How do you know?).
3. The USN always wins and can rely on its secret technology.
4. The Iraqi Navy was destroyed at it moorings from long range (so no need for LCS anyway)
5. The Navy knows best

I would take the Norwegian Skjold (270 tonnes) or the Swedish Visby (600 Tonnes) as my baseline design. Then I would set a limit of, say 1,000 tonnes. I would only use Firescouts not helicopers. That would give you a stealthy, fast, multi-purpose, affordable, brown-water patrol ships and shallow draft naval-gunfire support ship. Apart from being fast, the LCS is none of those things. In a one to one contest, a Skjold would wipe the floor with an LCS.

And to whome would you refer to as "This guy"?

[Xtvpry]

If the cap fits, wear it. And learn to spell!!!

[Dreadnought]

1. Gates has been cancelling programs and he would not leave the LCS if it was not going to work, ie Gates knows best.
2. The LCS will be heavily modified before it enters Service (will it? How do you know?).
3. The USN always wins and can rely on its secret technology.
4. The Iraqi Navy was destroyed at it moorings from long range (so no need for LCS anyway)
5. The Navy knows best

1) Gates has the ear of the top Admirals in the USN and given their track record as far as building the new class of CVN's their new EMALS systems and new ships in building along with sub programs etc I doubt they would like to see money diverted to projects that "have no use" or "will not work" when budgets seem to be getting tighter and tighter.

2) There is little doubt they will be modified to see what does perform and what dont perform as compared to is design parameters. The USN has only been doing this for decades and has modified more classes of ships then you can count.

3) Not worth a reply.

4) The Gulf War was over a decade ago. That was then, this is now. You dont become the top Navy in the world standing still and waiting for the right tools to go into war with. You go with what you have plain and simple.

5) When it comes to the Navy then who would know best? The Army? The Marines? You? Please do tell us all who?

And judging by the last paragraph..... A) The USN is confident enough of developing their own design without copying one and calling it their own. B) How many times has either nation conducted various blue water operations with these boats? LCS already has. C) Obviously means you dont understand completely why the LCS carries those helos instead of only UAV's. She carries both and can do a multitude of Ops.

When was the last time either of those two countries saw battle with those ships? And having only an 800 mile range means they are nowhere near on par with the LCS performance requirements of 4,300 nm. Which means they are not suited for the very same Ops as the LCS is and cannot carry out those Ops far from home. Big difference in design.

[Dreadnought]

If the cap fits, wear it. And learn to spell!!!

17 posts and already making friends huh? Yeah, I agree with you if the cap fits...assclown!

[gf0012-aust]

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.

I think a few of us know about LB's views on LCS and JSF (his other significant issue on Govt and Mil spending), and irrespective that he's a smart man and comes up with some worthwhile commentary, that doesn't mean that he's right

all platforms go through change. the streetfighter concept was relevant for its period but US requirements changed as political events changed - and as money became tighter. it wasn't viewed just as brownwater as that is primarily an estuarine role - it was always baselined against starting off as a greenwater and able to go blue capability, In current circumstances, esp the threat to SLOC through pirates, any number of navies are using their greenwater assets to go beyond their 200km EEZ boundary and effectively start going into the blue.

to reinforce, the minekeeping role became evident in the late 90's. I recall attending naval conferences where it was pointed out that less than $10m worth of mines had caused over $100m worth of damage - usually by contact mines of ww1 technology. the fact that the USN had very few specialised assets, that they were all in CONUS and could not get to the Gulf in a realistic timeframe, that the USN ended up calling on coalition partners to undertake the role and clear lanes and ports (all in the spirit of a coalition but not in the spirit of autonomous capability that the USN understandably sees a need to have to force independant and effective) - all of this hilighted a need to get localised minekeeping on a multirole vessel that could do the job and not jeopardise the fleet and task forces again. since that time there has been a heavy emphasis on developing the minekeeping capability. be that delivered by ROV/USV, dismounts, or killed by systems such as RAMICs. Again, the use of dismounts and capabilities such as RAMICs means a platform that can carry both parent sets.

I have covered off the issue of ASW, and quite frankly saying that they cannot do ASW is disingenuous and I suspect cherry picked out of context. I say that having seen USN reports which say the opposite and were post analysis of a real latent threat event. The USN made it pretty clear in discussions with other navies at how capable HSV2 was when the Task Force was stalked by a pair of North Korean Romeos. HSV2 was able to offload its dedicated package to other fleet assets, the main fleet including the Carrier was able to withdraw while the threat was in play, and the HSV2 went into greenwater to harass and poke the subs. The principle ASW assets in that fleet were not capability ready and the HSV2 due to locale was. Similarly hulled vessels such as HSV1/2, (Australia to CONUS) TSV (CONUS to Japan) and HMAS Jervis Bay when in East Timor (high speed sprint) showed the advantages of how large vessels could actually drive into brown water, traverse deep blue and deliver people in far better (less fatigued condition) than a standard hull vessel. The other LCS competitor may well have similar performance and transit flexibility, but I can only comment on the wave piercing/multi hulls as thats what I'm familiar with. IN fact the reason why USMC and US Army ended up travelling down the TSV path was a direct result of the observer reports from the Jervis Bay operations

The USN and USMC didn't just get seduced by "sexy" - they had observers on board HMAS Jervis Bay when it did its "nn" thousand mile sprint from australia to East Timor. They saw first hand how less troops were fatigued at journeys end, they saw how it could field organic air to assist in offloading and multiple mission sets, and they also saw first hand how a large 100m sized vessel could drive into harbours where prev only ferries could due to draught issues. in basic terms, the shallower the draught, the more flexibility in choosing where to discharge cargo (men and material) in port locations that bigger ships just cannot go near

these vessels have far greater flexibility than most people understand, they are an evolutionary capability and the USN is not the only navy that is seeking to bring back broad capability without going to specialised hulls.

[Gun Grape]

To those that continually harp that the LCS will be protected by Naval Air, is what happens when an LCS is operated on the Black Sea?

Don't know what reason you have LCS operating in the Black Sea. I went there in 96 on a LPD commissioned in 1971. Worked out pretty good. Varna was a great port. The Bulgarian Army were a great group of guys to train with.

LCS doesn't have to be protected by "Navy Air" Last time I checked there were a few NATO bases and allies that air cover/support could fly from.
We don't always do single service ops only. Its a team effort.


If its US Navy F-18Es, USAF F-22s/F-15s or Turkish AF F-16s we can get air cover. Or we don't send that asset in.

[Gun Grape]

I would take the Norwegian Skjold (270 tonnes) or the Swedish Visby (600 Tonnes) as my baseline design. Then I would set a limit of, say 1,000 tonnes. I would only use Firescouts not helicopers. That would give you a stealthy, fast, multi-purpose, affordable, brown-water patrol ships and shallow draft naval-gunfire support ship. Apart from being fast, the LCS is none of those things. In a one to one contest, a Skjold would wipe the floor with an LCS.

So what will you do Anti sub work with? The towed array and hull mounted sonar?

How about minesweeping?

Firescout only? Can it employ dipping sonar and ASW weapons?

How about ALMDS or RAMICS?

Can it transmit data quick enough to execute those missions as effectively as a MC-60?

And if you haven't heard, We don't fight 1 v 1. We practice Dominance not equality or superiority. A LCS isn't going 1 v 1 with either of those ships.

Do you happen to know the RCW of either class of LCS vs Visby or even a Burke?

[USSWisconsin]

What a complacent lot you are!!


How boring! This guy seems to believe everything the government says.

LCS is right because;

1. Gates has been canceling programs and he would not leave the LCS if it was not going to work, ie Gates knows best.
2. The LCS will be heavily modified before it enters Service (will it? How do you know?).
3. The USN always wins and can rely on its secret technology.
4. The Iraqi Navy was destroyed at it moorings from long range (so no need for LCS anyway)
5. The Navy knows best

I would take the Norwegian Skjold (270 tonnes) or the Swedish Visby (600 Tonnes) as my baseline design. Then I would set a limit of, say 1,000 tonnes. I would only use Firescouts not helicopters. That would give you a stealthy, fast, multi-purpose, affordable, brown-water patrol ships and shallow draft naval-gunfire support ship. Apart from being fast, the LCS is none of those things. In a one to one contest, a Skjold would wipe the floor with an LCS.

If it were a one on one contest (which the USN would never engage in anyway), why wouldn't the LCS send its helicopters to fire Hellfire missiles or Mk-54 torpedoes at the Skjold?

[jlvfr]

What I find flawed in the whole LCS concept is the "fit modules as the mission/stuation needs" idea. How does this work anyway? Imagina an ASW-LCS miving along the Gulf, when suddenly speedboats show up. Is it going to ask them to wait til it goes back to Guam (?) to switch to ASuW? Or an ASuW-LCS, prowling fpr pirates, gets a wiff of a sub. Again, run away to Guam to change? Unless the USN plans to operate the LCS in pairs, one fit for a mission, the other for the "opposite" (so to speak) mission. Why not simply build X ships set for one mission, X more for another? The ships would be cheaper that way, and I bet that the USN will always need more patrol ships than, say, minesweepers.

As for "The USN is confident enough of developing their own design without copying one and calling it their own": really? There isnt' an armed service in the world that hasn't done this, USN included. It's not like it was the USN that developed the mirror landing system or the angled deck, but you copied it asap...

[Xtvpry]

1. Someone said that Norway and Sweden have no recent combat experience. Wrong. Both countries have more experience to draw on than most experience in littoral combat than many nations. In WW2 the Free Norwegian Navy operated MTB's (Motor Torpedo Boats - similar to PT boats) out of Lerwick in the Shetland Isle (my home town). These would cross the North Sea and then hide under camouflage netting and wait to torpedo German troop transports of other ships. There were many blazing gun battles with E Boats in the fjords. As a boy I can remember seeing a flotilla of Norwegian MTB's sailing into Lerwick on a courtesy visit and a fine sight it was too. There were several post-war designs of which Skjold is the latest. I mentioned that in a one on one engagement that a Skjold would easily beat an LCS and I stand by that. Given that such a scenario would never be even remotely likely to occur, hypothetically speaking, if it did the Skjold would be the winner. Skjold is ten more than times smaller than LCS. It is stealthy which the LCS is not. Skjold could easily hide in the littorals and LCS would never find it, even with its helicopters which would easily be shot down anyway. Skjold carries the Naval Strike Missile which is designed for littoral warfare and is reputed to be a whole generation ahead of Harpoon with a range of over 150km and a 120kg fragmentation warhead, NSM could easily sink LCS or leave it dead in the water. Comparing that to Griffin would be like comparing a Barret Light 50 with a 9mm handgun. What's more NSM can be used for land attack as well as anti-ship.

http://wn.com/Skjold_(ship)

In the 1980's there were a number of incidents involving Russian submarines in Swedish waters. Several times the Swedish navy depth charged the Russian subs and had them trapped.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish...rine_incidents

LiveLeak.com - Russian nuclear submarine captured in Swedish waters (1981)

There is not a lot the Swedes do not know about ASW in the littorals!

The Visby is well equipped for ASW, MCM and other aspects of warfare

See details.
http://www.shipol.com.cn/document/20...0003430144.pdf

The Visby is, of course, supremely stealthy.

The problem with either the Skjold or the Visby from a US/UK point of view though is that both designs are too small. They do not have the endurance to self-deploy and then remain on station for extended periods across the Pacific ocean. They need to be larger for more endurance but not do large as to make them impossibly big for brown water operations. I think that 1,000 - 1,500 tonnes would be plenty big. Scale up a Visby or a Skjold and you have the perfect LCS. Such a ship would be a multi-purpose, stealthy patrol ship. It would be ideal for flying the flag missions, intercepting drug-runners or pirates as well as hunting for stealthy air-independent submarines or bottom-dwelling mines. It would be able to take on and defeat even quite large warships or to locate and destroy high-value targets along the coast such as anti-ship missile batteries or high tech SAM batteries (S300/400/500), terrorist bases. Instead of this what can we say of the LCS? It carries two helicopters and a Firescout or 1 helicopter and 3 Firescouts. It has a multitude of small weapons all designed to fight speedboats. It might be able to do ASW or MCM or anything else depending on which modules it is fitted with at the time.

Not much for a 3,000 tonne $500 Mil warship. In the second world war, a ship of that size would qualify as a Light Cruiser. Hmm. I wonder what the Admiralty would have thought of it - a 3,000 ton Cruiser with a top speed of 47 kts, equipped with one 2" gun, some rockets, two optional 30 mm guns and two float planes. I don't think they would have been impressed.