Littoral Combat Ships (LCS)

asif iqbal said:

At the end of the day I think you need to have diversity in a fleet you can't just add VLS to every freggin ship which is commissioned I mean it's good but it's not like USN lacks VLS capability

LCS can do good mine clearing and under searches which are advantageous in many areas of the world where mines are a issue

Also LCS is really good at stopping multi axis attacks from fast boats like pirates it's actually part of the commissioning process to engage multiple targets from different directions LCS is not commissioned until it has proven it can do this

Click to expand...

I believe the best option for the US Navy would be to add an 8 cell Mk-41 to each ship, which could then be loaded up with 16 ESSM and 4 ASMs. Then use the other mission modules for MCM, or augment the surface warfare for swarming attacks. Quite frankly, with the two MH-60Rs they would already be good for ASW as they stand. But that one thing (the eight cell Mk-41 VLS) would give these vessels more healthy intrinsic AAW defense and ASM capabilities for them to defend themselves in the Littorals against larger corvettes or light frigates that they may meet there.

That is their most glaring weakness right now, and one 8 cell Mk-41 would solve it.

Then build all 32 of them to that standard, retrofitting those already built at their 1stt major maintenance period.

How much will it cost to put somthing like type 022s missile launcher on the Independence-class "shoulders" and will it affect stealth considerably. If china can afford that on a cheap boat why can't/won't USN get that on LCS.


OT:
Are the specs of verified?
Can it be launched from helicopter and does US have anything like it. (140km Penguin)

The USN does not operate missile tubes like that, that's first second where you intend to place your missiles is actually over a set of crew Hatches for defensive MG stations. the most likely locations are those already seen in the Knogsberg model

I think the knogsberg model showing missile launchers in the deckhouse of the independence class LCS is very unlikely.

The other positions may work, but that depends if they are able to be easily modified to hold such payloads.

The cheapest way would be to mount a couple of slant launchers on one side of the helipad. It will restrict movement of landed helicopters a little, but they should still be able to land and launch helicopters.

Bltizo said:

I think the knogsberg model showing missile launchers in the deckhouse of the independence class LCS is very unlikely.

The other positions may work, but that depends if they are able to be easily modified to hold such payloads.

The cheapest way would be to mount a couple of slant launchers on one side of the helipad. It will restrict movement of landed helicopters a little, but they should still be able to land and launch helicopters.

Click to expand...

the locations on the Deck house is actually already cut for a missile launcher set so it's just the act of filling that spot.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

the locations on the Deck house is actually already cut for a missile launcher set so it's just the act of filling that spot.

Click to expand...

It isn't only about having the space for it, but also whether it is a good idea having a dozen ASHMs on either side of the deckhouse, that close to the bridge. I'm not only talking about the danger of detonation resulting from damage, but even simply firing the missiles would produce a hell of a lot of hot, smokey exhaust that needs to be vented out, and it is going to be hellishly loud too.

And in none of the models do I see a decent venting system. Other ships with "internal" slant missile launchers, have a dedicated opening hole for exhaust to escape, such as the case of Visby class.


But if you have a source that says LCS has those spaces available and able to fit ASHMs (and accounting for the issues I mentioned), I'd love to see it.

Perhaps not the ASHM's but that was the intended locations for the NLOS-M

The link isn't working for me, but I'll take your word for it.

However, I think it is fair to be prudent and recognize NSM is a fully fledged anti ship cruise missile. And all it takes is for one to look at how little exhaust nlos-ls produces compared to NSM, to realize that any venting facilities they had for NLOS-LS would be likely be completely inadequate

You are correct the NLOS-M was designed around a missile system that was a eighth of weight and there for necessary thrust. Because Kongsberg designed the missile system I have to wonder if they have not designed a counter to that worry like a smaller booster charge. the Charge would work to propel the missile form the Launcher and then once in Open Air the main engine would engage. the smaller charge would be smaller and less powerful. but that's opinion with no basis.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Perhaps not the ASHM's but that was the intended locations for the NLOS-M

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

TE, Bltizo:

I hope this shows the locations you were talking about. Does it?