Littoral Combat Ships (LCS)

Brumby

Brumby

Major
dtulsa said:
I agree that seems to have been the idea kind of modeled after the European stan flex sys. unfortunately I think politics interfered with idea to a very large extent I do think they can be serviceable in some roles but they are just not up to the idea that they are frigs. in any shape or form what they are is the feel good idea of jobs for those employed and death traps for those who have to serve on them still have not heard anything at all about damage control have you? except they are supposed to survive and limp back to base some how real comforting to know.
Click to expand...

I think there are two different issues that you have raised i.e. what constitute a frigate and survivability. The LCS was meant to fill the role of a MCM and ASuW and in my view judgement should be made whether as a platform it is delivering against that expectation. I think the LCS from its conception in the late 80"s, the role and concept of frigates has evolved especially with the European design. Unfortunately the capabilities of the LCS is being matched against those far more capable and costly design and found wanting. I agree the environment has changed and the threats are more complex requiring a rethinking of defensive and offensive capabilities with the LCS. I think directionally, the USN envisage that the LCS will operate as part of a SAG and I suspect logically Burkes will provide AAW area defence in such a force structure. I believe a MK41 install is unlikely but some form of bolt on NSM (type) will be done as part of the move towards distributed lethality.
 
D

dtulsa

Junior Member
You raise valid points that's why I think a certain number should be optimized for minewarfare a certain number asw and another surface warfare with secondarily roles also just my two cents worth they never should have been sold as a be all end all design they just ain't no such a thing
 
D

dtulsa

Junior Member
And I may add that I think that there is a way to bolt on a mk 56 launcher or mk 29 for some additional essm/asroc capability mk29 is also able of launching asroc/essm as I recall
 
D

dtulsa

Junior Member
Will always wonder about its survival though as they are not made to the same standard as the FFG7s for example and yet are being task with many of the same missions kind of like the brits did with the battle cruiser theory after all in seafare speed does not mean increased survivability
 
D

dtulsa

Junior Member
Brumby said:
I think there are two different issues that you have raised i.e. what constitute a frigate and survivability. The LCS was meant to fill the role of a MCM and ASuW and in my view judgement should be made whether as a platform it is delivering against that expectation. I think the LCS from its conception in the late 80"s, the role and concept of frigates has evolved especially with the European design. Unfortunately the capabilities of the LCS is being matched against those far more capable and costly design and found wanting. I agree the environment has changed and the threats are more complex requiring a rethinking of defensive and offensive capabilities with the LCS. I think directionally, the USN envisage that the LCS will operate as part of a SAG and I suspect logically Burkes will provide AAW area defence in such a force structure. I believe a MK41 install is unlikely but some form of bolt on NSM (type) will be done as part of the move towards distributed lethality.
Click to expand...
And remember the navy and all armed forces for that matter have known to be wrong about how things are envisioned lots of times.
 
D

dtulsa

Junior Member
I here that the competition for the over the horizon missile will beheld in 2016-2017 currently the nsm/jsm and a version of harpoon are up for consideration at present I would prefer the nsm/jsm strictly for the land attack capability and longer range
 
FORBIN

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
I think for USN Harpoon is a better choice mainly because with budget constraint can recover those on CG/DDG replaced by LRASM but depends service life also.
 
D

dtulsa

Junior Member
Personally I don't care but it seems you get more bang for the buck from the nsm/jsm although Boeing is pitching a new version of harpoon for the lcs/ssc its supposed to have a lighter warhead in the 300 lb class new guidance etc, so it will probably be about the same price range also supposed to have increased range according to article from defense news, Raytheon is partnered with the Norwegian company for the nsm/jsm. As long as they get something reasonable for standoff capability doesn't really matter, also nsm has already been tested from the Coronado lcs4 last year. I also guess we have to refer to them as FF or FFG from now on.
 
D

dtulsa

Junior Member
The dark horse candidates are the Exocet or Gabriel tho neither is very likely all of these would be a good choice
 
Last edited:
D

dtulsa

Junior Member
I just cant see the LRASM due to its weight and I think it requires a mk 41 type launcher weight over 3000 lb according to wikipedia
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top