Littoral Combat Ships

[USSWisconsin]

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.

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.

Swedish submarine incidents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. It carries an even bigger anti-ship missile with a 200kg warhead.

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

The Visby is, of course, supremely stealthy.

YouTube - Kockums AB - Visby Class Stealth Corvette [480p]

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.

The idea is to have a bunch of LCS's so if there are multiple threats, a number of ships would be sent, some with ASuW, some with AShW packages, they would support each other. They wouldn't use one ship trundling back and forth for modifications, they would build a balanced fleet with the different modules. The USN is not using the one size fits all ship, like smaller navies need to use, because they are smaller navies. I suspect the LCS system of modules will become standard on many other nation's ships in the future, like Visby, the Skjolds are probably too small for this. Note that the Visby has a 2" gun" too. I'd hate to run into heavy seas in the 3" gun Skjold.

In WWII how would the admiralty like to have had a stealthy fast platform with turbine powered helicopters armed with precision guided Hellfire missiles, and advanced torpedoes? I suppose the 2" gun would have worried them a little (the high rate of fire, accuracy, and proximity fused ammo would have reduced these worries), until they appreciated what the missiles could do.

[Xtvpry]

Skjold and Visby do not need to select amongst a variety of modules, nor do they need to be escorted by other Visbys/Skjolds with specialist equipment since those ships are already equipped for multi-purpose operations. In WWII there weren't many anti-submarine homing torpedos so I suppose the equivalent would have been depth-charges. I doubt is the Griffin missile would have impressed them much set against a battery of 6" guns which out-range Griffin or Hellfire. The LCS is not particularly stealthy compared to the Skjold or the Visby. There were no helicopters in WWII so, again, the equivalent would have been float-planes.

[USSWisconsin]

Skjold and Visby do not need to select amongst a variety of modules, nor do they need to be escorted by other Visbys/Skjolds with specialist equipment since those ships are already equipped for multi-purpose operations. In WWII there weren't many anti-submarine homing torpedos so I suppose the equivalent would have been depth-charges. I doubt is the Griffin missile would have impressed them much set against a battery of 6" guns which out-range Griffin or Hellfire. The LCS is not particularly stealthy compared to the Skjold or the Visby. There were no helicopters in WWII so, again, the equivalent would have been float-planes.

For your WWII comparison; if you strip the LCS of its technology, including its engines, helicopters and weapons, you wouldn't be building it in WWII or any other time. Of course you would build state of the art WWII cruisers or destroyers. So there probably be would be no floatplane, rocket and 2" gun - WWII LCS.

[Xtvpry]

I wasn't stripping it of its technology since in my comparison I allowed for 47 kts top speed. Helicopters would have been even easier to shoot down with WWII Flack than would float planes. A WWII Cruiser with 6" guns would easily defeat the LCS even with its helicopters unless the LCS used its speed to run away.

[HKDan]

"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."

Would the scaled up Visby include a hangar like the one on LCS? Because unless it could be modified to handle the same aviation as LCS it would be a nonstarter. No ship will be as effective at hunting AIP subs unless it can carry an equivalent aviation detachment to LCS. How much empty space do you envision being on the 1,000-1,500 ton Visby? Will it have room to incorporate new tech or carry cargo?

The Skjold doesn't work at all for USN purposes for the simple reason of NO HELICOPTER.

"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."

I still don't understand why this redundant capability is so essential to you. There are already ships in the USN to do these roles. As for terrorist bases, being able to embark a platoon of Marines for raids gives LCS a huge advantage when compared to the two designs you mention. There is alread talk of using a squadron of LCS, each with an embarked marine platoon to not only interdict Somali pirates at sea, but to be able to raid them on land as well. Take 4 LCS with a company of Marines split among them and cover a wide area of Somalit coast with the ability to conduct operations ashore. Skjold or Visby lack this capability in any way.

[USSWisconsin]

I wasn't stripping it of its technology since in my comparison I allowed for 47 kts top speed. Helicopters would have been even easier to shoot down with WWII Flack than would float planes. A WWII Cruiser with 6" guns would easily defeat the LCS even with its helicopters unless the LCS used its speed to run away.

Leaving its engines and taking away the weapons it was designed around invalidates its design, and creates an imaginary vessel which is inadequate for the needs of the time. We could design imaginary ships that make no sense all we want it would prove nothing, the LCS is not a WWII ship, and was never intended to be retro fitted with WWII weapons and compared to a WWII cruiser.

What the LCS is is the USN's current solution to its needs in littoral situations, in the context of the evolving USN. The Visby and Skjold are good examples of fine ships designed for different rolls, and different navies. They aren't bad ships, but they aren't replacements for the LCS either. They are well suited to coastal protection and short range patrol duties, not overseas deployments. If we don't agree that is alright, but I don't believe the LCS has been given a chance to demonstrate its abilities yet, and see no reason why it won't turn out to be a good design. Missile systems can change, and the missile they put aboard today - or plan to put aboard, may change tomorrow. If a longer range missile is needed, I'm sure they will put one on them.

[gf0012-aust]

Skjold and Visby do not need to select amongst a variety of modules, nor do they need to be escorted by other Visbys/Skjolds with specialist equipment since those ships are already equipped for multi-purpose operations. In WWII there weren't many anti-submarine homing torpedos so I suppose the equivalent would have been depth-charges. I doubt is the Griffin missile would have impressed them much set against a battery of 6" guns which out-range Griffin or Hellfire. The LCS is not particularly stealthy compared to the Skjold or the Visby. There were no helicopters in WWII so, again, the equivalent would have been float-planes.

But LCS is not an "either or" fitout - all can be carried, and the ships don't operate on their own. As someone who had some contracting involvement with Visby when I worked for PN&V, then I think you're swallowing a fair bit of the marketing on that class. They are capable, but they have their limits - and as much as the Swedes tout their sig management advantages, they are not "stealthy" in an absolute sense. compared to a OHP - yes, compared to contemp designed ships (even larger ones such as LCS1 or LCS2 - the delta is not as big as generally assumed

[gf0012-aust]

"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.".

the problem is that you cannot scale ships up and get the same outcomes. a classic example of this is Collins. Collins is a "phattened" version of the Gotlands (also referred to in RAN as "mini-me"). The Swedes discovered very quickly that you cannot just resize a small asset and make it bigger and better.

as an example for a skimmer, hull cavitation issues just magnify disproportionately. On a small vessel you can get away without having to measure the length and counter the hull cavitation with the bow dome. On a larger blue water asset, that means fixing it by getting the right hull length and then by calculating the right bow shape below the waterline. one cancels out the other so that hull cavitation become neutral by the time you have water exiting the stern. Adding a mod bow section though changes handling dynamics.

in the case of subs, the swedes buggered up hull cavitation due to "upsizing" - the problem was fixed by DSTO (Aust) and NAVSEA (US) - but the swedes blithely built the boats (no water tank tests done) and almost buggered up the core integrity of the boat.

upscaling causes more problems than its worth.

[Dreadnought]

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...

Well, lets just take a look at such a comment;

Adoptable ideas throughout time:
IMO, Since we are stating this above then how would you explain the Aircraft Carrier in concept since it was the US that first flew off of and then later landed aboard ship 1910-1913. You could say the rest of the worlds naval forces copied that idea. How about arrestor cables? Yes, they were copied from the US as well. And for your information the US was indeed the first to incorporate the angle deck idea into their carriers. No, they didnt invent it, but they were the first to implement the idea into service aboard USS Antietam in 1952, The RN didnt employ the idea until later in 1953 aboard the Centaur class of carriers although it was tested aboard the American carrier first with the RN. Design of protection, displacement and several other features were and are clearly different then any British design or any other countries designs as well.

Now, flash forward to 2010 where the USN develops the EMALS system for their new class of carriers. It will be standard for the Gerald R Ford class of carrier and those that come after. The Brits have expressed an interest for the retrofit of the system for the new Prince of Wales carrier in case it is needed but certainly are not the inventors of it and will adopt it. The US did and have even tested it already weeks ago.

The Brits didnt invent the "Balloon Carrier" either (Austria first failed & US later used them in the Civil War) nor the first "Seaplane Carrier" either (France first, Brits second and US months later).

Just goes to show you that the Brits didnt develop everything for the carrier programs and that the USN took several ideas further in their carrier designs then anyone else ever has. The EMALS system alone will revolutionize carrier landing and launching and will also prolong the life of the airframes of those aircraft where as standard steam catapults contribute greatly to airframe stress. It will also remove much machinery in those spaces as well. An added bonus.

In conclusion and response to your comment, Yes the US and the RN have shared ideas throughout time but, the idea to carbon copy ships designs for the LCS is a huge waste of money. They are not designed for the same purpose as many of the comments above reflect and the USN also requires a blue water capability for these ships where as the others are not designed for it.

[jlvfr]

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...

IMO, Since we are stating this above then how would you explain the Air Craft Carrier in concept since it was the US that first flew off of and then later landed aboard ship.

My point was that the USN shoudn't avoid getting ideas from other nations just "because it's not ours and we know best!!!11". It's a waste of time and money. Everyone copies from everyone, and then alters/improves it as needed. Saying "they got something nice but it's not ours so I'll ignore it" is just not very smart (to say the least). The carriers are just an example. You can choose any other technology since the stone age...

[Dreadnought]

My point was that the USN shoudn't avoid getting ideas from other nations just "because it's not ours and we know best!!!11". It's a waste of time and money. Everyone copies from everyone, and then alters/improves it as needed. Saying "they got something nice but it's not ours so I'll ignore it" is just not very smart (to say the least). The carriers are just an example. You can choose any other technology since the stone age...

*Where the "We know best" comment came from I dont know. I didnt write it and its "flaming" so it really dont apply here or to my posts.

What it implies is that the US with the greater Def budget can explore such ideas or ways to employ them in a blue water sense and upgrade as needed. All navy's upgrade their ships. The US will as well but all navies dont design them for the same Ops the USN does either intentional or unintentional.

[jlvfr]

*Where the "We know best" comment came from I dont know. I didnt write it and its "flaming" so it really dont apply here or to my posts.

Sorry, didn't mean you in particular, just anyone who claims anything similar to this.

What it implies is that the US with the greater Def budget can explore such ideas

Well... can you? Let's face it, even the US is having to control it's no-longer-near-bottomless pockets. Taking a good look at what others are doing and adapting would seem like a good, fast, cheaper way of doing this...

[USSWisconsin]

Sorry, didn't mean you in particular, just anyone who claims anything similar to this.


Well... can you? Let's face it, even the US is having to control it's no-longer-near-bottomless pockets. Taking a good look at what others are doing and adapting would seem like a good, fast, cheaper way of doing this...

What the Visby and Skjold are doing is defending their own Littorals - not projecting power into littorals on the other side of the world. They are built for a different purpose, it isn't as simple as; buy these, enlarge them, and there you have a cheap solution...

[jlvfr]

What the Visby and Skjold are doing is defending their own Littorals - not projecting power into littorals on the other side of the world. They are built for a different purpose, it isn't as simple as; buy these, enlarge them, and there you have a cheap solution...

I fully agree, those are far too small to serve as an example, which is why I chose the Dane's ship, Absalon-class (which might be a bit too big...)

[USSWisconsin]

I fully agree, those are far too small to serve as an example, which is why I chose the Dane's ship, Absalon-class (which might be a bit too big...)

An interesting and capable design, but she draws 20' and is sort of like a destroyer, we have the AB class, which can do her job quite well already.