Not sure what you're implying here, the LCS besides potentially providing screening, special ops insertion, and MAYBE light shore bombardment don't have much to do with amphibious operations.
-Greg
Littoral Combat Ships (LCS)
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Not sure what you're implying here, the LCS besides potentially providing screening, special ops insertion, and MAYBE light shore bombardment don't have much to do with amphibious operations.
-Greg
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
I suggest you do some back ground reading before posting
Read up
No reason to be defensive, I understand the survivability concerns with LCS.
I was wanting clarification on your implied link between the USMC amphibious requirements and the LCS program restructuring?
Greg
Jura The idiot
General
Jura The idiot
General
navyreco, I'm sorry I did it :-( but I have to tell you navyreco has one of the most interesting Facebook profiles I know!
(I read today about the Royal Brunei Navy recently firing Exocets at Sinkex etc. etc.) For those who don't know, it's:
For swarming fast boats, the Hellfire will work fine.
But for surface engagements beyond that it is wholly inadequate.
It has a range of only 8,000 meters, or 5 miles.
Even for the swarming vessels I would rather have seen the brimstone missile, which has a far greater range...particularly the Brimstone II.
But for larger surface engagementss against corvette or frigate sized vessels, the LCS needs to either have Harpoon or the upcoming LRASM. In the Littorals, the LCS is going to potentially face corvettes and frigates armed with long range SSMs...which will be at least 30-50 miles, and could easily be up to 150+ miles. If the LCS does not have an ability to counter such threats, it will be in a very bad position...wholly depending on its AAW capabilities and stealth without being able to offer any counter fire.
Last edited:
The US Navy's (USN's) decision to include its first Independence class Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) in the Rim of the Pacific ('RIMPAC') exercise in Hawaii has helped prove the programme's modularity concept, the ship's commanding officer told IHS Jane's on 18 July.
Commander Joseph A Gagliano, who is leading the USS Independence (LCS 2) Blue Crew, explained that the conversion process that the vessel went through in order to join the 48 other ships participating in the biennial exercise is testimony to the LCS concept.
LCS represents the USN's newest class of small surface ship, designed with the ability to swap out containerised mission packages that enable the vessels to conduct one of three missions: surface warfare (SuW), anti-submarine warfare (ASW), and mine countermeasures (MCM).
"Just six weeks ago, we were a mine countermeasure ship operating off the coast of California," Cdr Gagliano said. "We got the call that we needed to be here in a surface warfare role, so within a matter of a week, we had switched out our mission package from mine countermeasures to surface warfare, checked out the gear, and came over. We've become a surface warfare configured ship operating in the middle of the Pacific and really could do the same thing again. Just imagine that four weeks from now, we could be an ASW configured ship operating in the Western Pacific."
Since commissioning in 2010, Independence has largely been involved in testing and evaluating the MCM mission package, which includes unmanned underwater vehicles and helicopter tethered vehicles that prosecute and destroy mines.
About 20-25 sailors specialise in operating each mission package, and when new packages are embarked, the associated operators come on board the host vessel as a detachment. In the case of the SUW mission package currently embarked on Independence, the detachment spent about a week working up with the ship to integrate with the crew.
"They came from a Freedom class ship," said Cdr Gagliano: the Freedom class is the steel monohull variant of LCS built by the Lockheed Martin- ed team. "They had worked on that class of ship, came over here, and [it was] a nearly seamless integration from one ship class to the other."
Well, I will give kudos for going from MCM to AsuW...but not in 4-6 weeks. The original concept was to do it in a day or two.
Also, going from ASuW to ASW in another 4 weeks is actually abysmal. At over 3,000 tons, they are large enough where their ASW capabilities should be strong even when they are working the ASuW module. They are big enough to be a multi-mission FFG, which is what IMHO we need to make them. And with their cost, plus the cost of the various modules, we are spending more than what a multi-mission FFG would cost with a similar sensor suite.
IMHO...
For ASuW, add Hapoon now to all vessels and then replace with an eight-cell Mk-41 VLS with four LRASM later. Make it standard. not a module. Bring on the Hellfires for Swarming high speed boats for a module if they must.
For ASW, all vessels should always have an ASW helo aboard, and be fitted with the necessary ordinance and towed arrays. Make that standard.
Then, have an honest to goodness, major MCM module that they can convert to in three days at a forward staging base.
Also have a module for SpecOps.
In this arrangement the vessels would be ASuW and ASW capable at all times. They could enhance their ASuW with a minimal module, and then change to MCM with a major MCM module and a SpecOps module.
32 vessels (16 Freedom class and 16 Independence Class) which were outfitted like this would be a strong, and very flexible force.
Back that up with 24 stronger, purpose built multi-mission frigates and the US Navy's capbailities for escort duties, show the flag, ASW screening, SAGs, MCM, etc. would be greatly enhanced.
Last edited:
Jura The idiot
General
Jeff, in the time you quote that Navy Officer included the time to move from one part of the Pacific to another ... seems to me