Littoral Combat Ships (LCS)

Re: Proposal for an alternate LCS design for the US Navy

I was actually thinking about this last night, and the design as you have it now is what I was envisioning, except that the Harpoons were launched from canister launchers, there were only 32 VLS cells, and there was also a 20mm CIWS gun, but there was no AEGIS. Since the LCS is supposed to be a corvette geared towards littoral operations including things like delivering personnel and equipment ashore, what is the capacity of this ship?

The LCS program right now is also running into troubles, although not as bad as DDG-1000 and CGX, and this seems to be a theme among current USN programs, although based on their current goals and some of their new doctrines, I'm not surprised, although it is a detriment to the USN. LCS is being cut back in terms of numbers, and I know that the contract for the Lockheed Martin design was cancelled, although they plan on trying again. I'm not sure how well this will all turn out. I think that in the end it will be little more than a one-for-one replacement for the OHP FFGs, except that the ships being corvettes, they will not be quite as capable; this is especially considering what can be done with the OHP hull, considering the upgrades other nations have undertaken which improve their capabilities significantly. While I find this style of corvette intriguing and perhaps valuable in certain numbers, I would still like to see the USN actually replace the frigates, rather than just do away with that vessel type. It should also not be too costly a ship, so that way the commanders won't be afrid to go into harm's way out of the fear of the replacement costs or repair costs.

Re: Proposal for an alternate LCS design for the US Navy

szbd said:

Yeah, it's very powerful, much more powerful than 054A, with only 70% of the latter's displacement. Is 2500 tons really enough?

Click to expand...

Yes...the existing LCS is 3000 tons and is 30 ft longer with a 3 ft wider beam.

I believe, all of this could be put into a 2500 ton vessel, and that the vessel would be very sea worthy and strong.

bd popeye said:

Jeff your ship has a very "Wordly" design. It would suit a pourpose.

However..ahem..the USN is not going to sink any more $$$$ into any type of LCS design until the whole LCS mess is corrected....

Click to expand...

I believe the program is languishing severely...and I believe if a good program manager could look at such a design as this (or something similar), he/she could make a strong economic (and performance) case for these vessels over the long haul, saving beaucoup dollars while providing superior combat capabilities IMHO.

bigstick61 said:

I was actually thinking about this last night, and the design as you have it now is what I was envisioning, except that the Harpoons were launched from canister launchers, there were only 32 VLS cells, and there was also a 20mm CIWS gun, but there was no AEGIS. Since the LCS is supposed to be a corvette geared towards littoral operations including things like delivering personnel and equipment ashore, what is the capacity of this ship?

The LCS program right now is also running into troubles, although not as bad as DDG-1000 and CGX, and this seems to be a theme among current USN programs, although based on their current goals and some of their new doctrines, I'm not surprised, although it is a detriment to the USN. LCS is being cut back in terms of numbers, and I know that the contract for the Lockheed Martin design was cancelled, although they plan on trying again. I'm not sure how well this will all turn out. I think that in the end it will be little more than a one-for-one replacement for the OHP FFGs, except that the ships being corvettes, they will not be quite as capable; this is especially considering what can be done with the OHP hull, considering the upgrades other nations have undertaken which improve their capabilities significantly. While I find this style of corvette intriguing and perhaps valuable in certain numbers, I would still like to see the USN actually replace the frigates, rather than just do away with that vessel type. It should also not be too costly a ship, so that way the commanders won't be afrid to go into harm's way out of the fear of the replacement costs or repair costs.

Click to expand...

I believe these vessels could be the replacement for the OH Perry class and also fulfill the littoral role.

I view the littoral role more as an ASW and sea fiighting role to clear the littorals of the smaller missile carrying or other combatants so other vessels can deliver men and material to shore. I have never been a proponent of this type of combatant filling that role. We can use other vessels to deliver men and material to shore much more effeciently...we just need to be sure that we have something to clear those waters for their safe passage IMHO.

...and if it is covert operations...then the subs, particularly the new Virginia class as well as the SSGNs and the one Sea Wolf, are much more and better suited for that IMHO.

This vessel is a strong multi-role vessel and can, with the 48 cells, be outfitted through the VLS system for more powerful air defense, more powerful fire support, or more powerful anti-shipping or ASW simply by varying the mix in the cells as opposed to wholly different mission packages. As shown in the pic, they can also be adequately outfitted to fulfill all three if necessary.

In addition, this is not the full AEGIS. This is the Evolved, Advanced Combat System that was an AEGIS-lite type system being proposed for the likes of the ROCN Perry class vessels as opposed to full AEGIS vessels. They ended up taking the KIDD class as a stop gap, but the basic idea of the EACS was a good one and one we could put to effective use ourselves.

I believe these vessels would be stronger than the Perry's or any of their variants by far, they would be as sea worthy...and have enough range to enable them to operate well in an escort role on the high seas, or in the littorals.

Anyhow, IMHO, such a 2500 ton vessel, with these fairly standard systems that we are already putting on other vessels will make them cheaper to build (economies of scale) as well.

szbd said:

Yeah, it's very powerful, much more powerful than 054A, with only 70% of the latter's displacement. Is 2500 tons really enough?

Click to expand...

Ok...I am back to the Mk 110 57mm gun. Why?

Several reasons. It's range is just under that of the 76mm gun but its rate of fire a lot higher, 220 rounds per minute vs. 80 rounds per minute for the 75mm Mk-75. In addition, it is much less "deck penetrating" than the 75mm, and it holds 120 ready rounds (which it can completely reload in two minutes) and has 1000 rounds in the housing.

It's also significantly lighter, and the ammo is so more avanced and capable against a wide variety of targets, particularly more effective against air and is almost a second CIWS in that regard...ranging to 24,000 ft.

So, I am reverting back to the 57mm Mk 110. But, of course, retaining the TLAM capability for the VLS.

Re: Proposal for an alternate LCS design for the US Navy

I actually think that the 3-inch gun is a good one for this type of vessel. While the 57mm gun puts out more rounds, each round is less effective, and larger projectiles tend to be more versatile. I've been on BAE's site and seen the specs on the 57mm gun, and I must say that for this type, I prefer the 3-incher. The 57mm gun is better suited for CG vessels, patrol combatants, auxiliaries, and as a secondary gun in larger units, in my opinion.

Re: Proposal for an alternate LCS design for the US Navy

bigstick61 said:

I actually think that the 3-inch gun is a good one for this type of vessel. While the 57mm gun puts out more rounds, each round is less effective, and larger projectiles tend to be more versatile. I've been on BAE's site and seen the specs on the 57mm gun, and I must say that for this type, I prefer the 3-incher. The 57mm gun is better suited for CG vessels, patrol combatants, auxiliaries, and as a secondary gun in larger units, in my opinion.

Click to expand...

The 57mm gun is better for AA duties. It is smaller, and is more easily fitted to ships due to the lower recoil and smaller deck penetration. Better for ships that may be more prone to top-heaviness and have limited hull space.

Re: Proposal for an alternate LCS design for the US Navy

This looks to be an excellent design concept that I imagine would suit many smaller navies. I think it would be ideal for countries like Singapore and Malaysia for example.

It is a very powerful ship for its displacement, regardless of whether a 76mm or 57mm gun is fitted. For example, it has as many VLS cells as the newly ordered Australian F100 frigates (or destroyers as they are being called in Australia) and it is only the lack of the full AEGIS system and a 5" gun where they offer less firepower than the 6,000 ton F100.

A range of 4,500nm at 20 knots looks reasonable for a ship of this size and the crew of 75 would suit navies having manpower problems.

I am thinking along similar lines to Bigstick61 that perhaps a frigate would be a better OHP replacement for the USN. Traditionally the USN has built comparatively large ships with good habitability and long range compared with European designs and I think this reflects the fact that the USN generally deploys and fights a long way from home. I guess I would like to see an enlarged version with similar armament, except perhaps for a bigger main gun, and longer range but with personnel still kept to a minimum.

In summary I think this looks to be an excellent design for a corvette but I am not sure that a corvette is the right concept for the USN. Then again, I am not a fan of the LCS concept for the USN either!

Re the debate about the main gun I am a fan of larger guns but for this ship I would opt for the 57mm for the reasons given by Jeff and Pointblank.

Cheers

Re: Proposal for an alternate LCS design for the US Navy

I do also think that for the tasks Jeff want this vessel to perform - clearing littorals from small threats like FACs, mines, small subs, mobile land based AShM, the 57mm gun is effective and enough while the 76mm is not really needed here.
Though the OHPs need to be replaced and that new littoral capability added to the USN, I don't think two different designs were worth it.
If the Corvettes (or even light frigates) were to retain some of the flexibility the LCS is to have, I think they could pretty well do both roles.
At some points you have to make compromises and cannot fill every niche with a seperate class.

Re: Proposal for an alternate LCS design for the US Navy

Scratch said:

I do also think that for the tasks Jeff want this vessel to perform - clearing littorals from small threats like FACs, mines, small subs, mobile land based AShM, the 57mm gun is effective and enough while the 76mm is not really needed here.
Though the OHPs need to be replaced and that new littoral capability added to the USN, I don't think two different designs were worth it.
If the Corvettes (or even light frigates) were to retain some of the flexibility the LCS is to have, I think they could pretty well do both roles.
At some points you have to make compromises and cannot fill every niche with a seperate class.

Click to expand...

Exactly. These trade offs, unfortunately sometimes, have to be made because we can't get everything.

For example, with the 57mm gun already being ordered for the Coast Guard National Defense Cutters, and for however many LCS craft that are built, and for however few DDX get built, there is already significant momentum behind them...and for the littoral task, they will perform the function admirably I believe and provide a secondary AAW role For the blue water, with the Harpoon IIIs, these vessels will also be able to handl;e significant Anit-surface missions if necessary.

Tranlsating it into your language...

Da hast Du recht...ganz genau!

Re: Proposal for an alternate LCS design for the US Navy

Jeff Head said:

Da hast Du recht...ganz genau!

Click to expand...

Danke

Now after looking at your proposal a little more closely, I somehow wonder if it isn't overpowered (weapons wise). Both for what you intend it to do and for the size of it.
The LCS designs are even slightly bigger. Still they seem to be much less armed. (That part is somewhat mysterious to me anyway.) The only solid armament info I get is the 57mm gun, 50cal gunmounts and that NLOS missile system. Plus the mission modules. I never found that these contain a VLS or some kind of heavier weapons.
And those ships already have a small manning. With your ship offering rather less than more space to crew members, I fear you might not have enough space for even one boarding team.
Then come SM-3 and TLAM. Since these are really long things, I also fear that might affact the ships shallow draft. Plus I don't think these kind of weapons are needed for that kind of ships. That's even a much heavier punch than the OHPs. I'd say at max SM-6 in certain operations. But BMD and heavy far in-land attacks should be performed by other assets.
Can Harpoon IIIs also be used for land attack roles? That should also be the upper end, IMO.
I would say for the tasks you propose, SeaRAM, the 57mm gun and the NLOS-LS (former NetFires) should be the standart weapons fit. This would allow you to abandon the VLS, saving space for additional crew. Because in some cases, I can see such a ship being the better option to bring personal to land/into theater than an LPD/LHD.
Maybe in some vessels you could trade that additional crew space for a VLS that can hold ESSM/HarpoonIII but not more. To perform more "traditional" patrol duties.

Just a few thoughts.

Re: Proposal for an alternate LCS design for the US Navy

Scratch said:

Danke

Now after looking at your proposal a little more closely, I somehow wonder if it isn't overpowered (weapons wise). Both for what you intend it to do and for the size of it.
The LCS designs are even slightly bigger. Still they seem to be much less armed. (That part is somewhat mysterious to me anyway.) The only solid armament info I get is the 57mm gun, 50cal gunmounts and that NLOS missile system. Plus the mission modules. I never found that these contain a VLS or some kind of heavier weapons.
And those ships already have a small manning. With your ship offering rather less than more space to crew members, I fear you might not have enough space for even one boarding team.
Then come SM-3 and TLAM. Since these are really long things, I also fear that might affact the ships shallow draft. Plus I don't think these kind of weapons are needed for that kind of ships. That's even a much heavier punch than the OHPs. I'd say at max SM-6 in certain operations. But BMD and heavy far in-land attacks should be performed by other assets.
Can Harpoon IIIs also be used for land attack roles? That should also be the upper end, IMO.
I would say for the tasks you propose, SeaRAM, the 57mm gun and the NLOS-LS (former NetFires) should be the standart weapons fit. This would allow you to abandon the VLS, saving space for additional crew. Because in some cases, I can see such a ship being the better option to bring personal to land/into theater than an LPD/LHD.
Maybe in some vessels you could trade that additional crew space for a VLS that can hold ESSM/HarpoonIII but not more. To perform more "traditional" patrol duties.

Just a few thoughts.

Click to expand...

I believe the US still needs, in addtion to a couple of Burkes, smaller, frigate size vessels to augment the escort of its carriers and amphib groups. These vessels need to by well armed multi-role vessels and this design would provide that.

The US also needs effective littoral combat vessels, with a strong "punch" and these vessels provide that, in a muti-role package so you do not sacrifice too much when you outfit for one role or another. They do give up on any strong littoral ability to provide men and material to the beach...but, as I said, I believe that for small numbers, the subs can do that better anyway, and for larger numbers there are several other options including the LPDs and the new LSX class under development now...or small craft coming off of the LPD, LHA, or LHD classes.

I do not believe, at this stage that the US is going to procure two seperate classes in any kind of numbers, but they will build one. This design allows both roles to be very adequately covered and at a crew of 75, I believe there will be good room for the crew. I would not do awayt with the VLS at all, because in essence, it provides the best way to vary the "mission" while maintaining strong capabilities in the other areas.

Anyhow, thanks again for the excellent input.