Littoral Combat Ships (LCS)

Brumby said:

@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leadership held onto an untenable position (in my view) far too long when it was obvious it was quickly outgunned and outdated by Chinese Navy development.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.

Click to expand...

Jura said:

well, I've been following the LCS Project for something like one year and a half now, so I think

• it was actually the US Navy which had to be "pushed" to prepare alternatives to LCS in 2014 (so called Hagel's memo):
  
  Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
  
  but
• I think the USN then actually tried to change LCSs as LITTLE as possible, under the circumstances:
  
  Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
• and I think this "backfired" on the USN in the end of 2015:
  
  Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and as a big fan of the USN, I'm saddened by this, because in the next forty or so years, at any moment, about one fourth of the USN surface combatants will be LCS/FFs (assuming roughly 300-ships USN, about 100 of which deployed, and "3-2-1" manning concept of LCS/FFs), which are obviously under-armed, and I'm not that sure if it's going to change (I've been following the pace at which the Mission Modules are being developed); in the meantime, Navies like ... so that I stay on topic since it's
Plan Type 056 Class Opv/corvette
Thread: Malayan with the Gowinds and Indonesian with SIGMAs, will become better armed!

as Jeff knows I blamed the concepts of "concurrency" and "modularity":
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/littoral-combat-ships-lcs.t3993/page-83#post-353949
for what the LCS become, and suggested "an evolution of the OHP-class":
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/littoral-combat-ships-lcs.t3993/page-104#post-368035
instead; Jeff called me "repetitive" in the LCS Thread and oops, I did it again

Click to expand...

dtulsa said:

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

Click to expand...

Brumby said:

@dtulsa and @Jura

The current LCS program is set. Eventually there will be at least 38 LCS in the production configuration before the program migrates to the FFG(X).

My original question was an attempt to understand whether the current production configuration has the space and/or weight allowance to accommodate VLS. Past design considerations are no longer relevant as they can no longer affect the outcome. The die is cast. I was thinking whether it is feasible to retro fit VLS should funding become available.

Click to expand...

Brumby said:

@dtulsa and @Jura

The current LCS program is set. Eventually there will be at least 38 LCS in the production configuration before the program migrates to the FFG(X).

My original question was an attempt to understand whether the current production configuration has the space and/or weight allowance to accommodate VLS. Past design considerations are no longer relevant as they can no longer affect the outcome. The die is cast. I was thinking whether it is feasible to retro fit VLS should funding become available.

Click to expand...

Jura said:

if I were you, I'd ask if those vessels can sail under their own power

Click to expand...

Brumby said:

I am surprise you did not suggest retrofitting them with sail.

Click to expand...