Brumby
Major
You might be right. There were general SLA issues pertaining to the Freedom variant initially.
However can you provide specific source that VLS is ruled out due to weight issues?
Littoral Combat Ships (LCS)
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
You might be right. There were general SLA issues pertaining to the Freedom variant initially.
However can you provide specific source that VLS is ruled out due to weight issues?
That may have been what I was referring too its been a very long time ago at least 4 or 5 years and I have slept since then I was actually thinking about the initial FFGX versions back when Hagel was defense secretary I think it was mentioned as one of the reasons VLS wasnt included as a option in the upgunned Lcs designs
Lethe
Captain
Wow. I know LCS is terrible, but you'd think USN could find a better use for them than to soak up missile hits off the Chinese coast. They could at least send them to the Persian Gulf to rattle sabres at Iran while the real ships are in the Pacific...
Last edited:
It wouldn't take many missile's to sink the entire fleet of lcs they weren't designed to be survivable in a Peer war they were supposed to take a hit and hopefully make it back to port problem is they dont leave port anyway
Jura The idiot
General
I'm slightly disappointed you didn't quote my Feb 23, 2019
post in full, and I don't mean the first letter in headline, I mean my mockery
Brumby I was reading up on LCS in Wikimedia and low and behold I found the weight and VLS issue we were talking about you pretty much have to read the whole thing to find it though Hope that helps
Brumby
Major
It is the same GAO report I was initially referring to. However I am still unable to establish whether there are any articles out there referring to VLS adoption issue onto the variants. The one advocating the idea was actually Jeff Head.
Jura The idiot
General
well the USN Freedom LCSs could've had a VLS for a decade already, as I repeatedly posted
Jan 17, 2019
but the USN has been 'revolutionizing naval warfare' insteadJan 30, 2016
by now the brochure is gone,
the image hosting site I had used is gone, but found the picture on my external disc hahaha:
why bother?
it's the configuration the Pentagon could've ordered almost a decade ago, and now it looks like it's offered again:
. LCS with lethality and survivability upgrades
so? tell me why the Pentagon operates unarmed LCSs instead
I've been following this LCS circus for years, I've read most of texts on it available in Internet, chest-thumping, detractors, official, whatever,
and I just don't know
(reposting from 2011 brochure again:
the USN skipped "Area Air Defense" option (top-left) altogether)
Brumby
Major
@Jura
I think cost was the main driver. The USN wanted an affordable LCS and when VLS plus appropriate radar were added, it would no longer be affordable. The main problem in my view is the USN leadership held onto an untenable position (in my view) far too long when it was obvious it was quickly outgunned and outdated by Chinese Navy development. They had an opportunity to address it when then Defense secretary Chuck Hagel ordered a review and their comeback was a rather pathetic upgrade plan.
I think cost was the main driver. The USN wanted an affordable LCS and when VLS plus appropriate radar were added, it would no longer be affordable. The main problem in my view is the USN leadership held onto an untenable position (in my view) far too long when it was obvious it was quickly outgunned and outdated by Chinese Navy development. They had an opportunity to address it when then Defense secretary Chuck Hagel ordered a review and their comeback was a rather pathetic upgrade plan.