Littoral Combat Ships (LCS)

Jura said:

just found an update on the Griffin:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

The Griffin as is has about a four mile range when launched from a surface vessel, or about 12 miles when launched at altitude from an aircraft.

For the LCS purposes, the surface launch is the consideration.

So...now it will have what? 12-15 mile range?

Great for swarming speed boats armed with RPGs or something, but still woefully inadequate for any confrontation with an OPFOR corvette or frigate in the littorals.

This is Griffin trying to catch up with the Hellfire choice.

But that is not the issue as far as I am concerned. The LCS simply has to be able to contend with OPFOR surface combatants (Corvettes and Frigates) in the Littorals. If they cannot, then they are never going to be an effectoive littoral combatant where it will really counts.

IMHO, they need Harpoon now, and the LRASM whenit becomes available. That means a quad launcher now, and the sensors to go with it, and an Mk-41 of at least 8 cells later, using four for LRASM.

dtulsa, maybe actually phrase your posts in sentences to make it easier to read?

Anyway, your suggestions would definitely make LCS into a formidable ship but most of the modifications would be too costly.

ESSM -- that would need Mk-41 VLS (which might be a little too costly), or Mk48 GMVLS, which may be less costly but I'm not sure where they'd put it. They'll probably still need deck penetration. Then there's fire control for ESSM to think about, which means more money.

76mm gun -- the current 57mm gun is good enough for its job, there really isn't need to overhaul the ship on that account

SSM -- dedicated slant launchers in front of the bridge are the cheapest way to do this, unless you want to install Mk-41 VLS which will add to costs. I'd say 8 AShMs or even 4 AShMs will be enough for LCS.

ASROC -- again, they'll need Mk-41 VLS for this


If we are talking about a dramatic modified LCS to fill the USN's new frigate project, then who knows. We don't even know what their requirements are.

dtulsa said:

... so I am not thinking or talking about the current version of this ship if you want to call it that

Click to expand...

there's one more important thing you might consider, dtulsa, which is a small crew (the plan has been to save operating cost this way, of course; interesting link: ) so if you added the weaponry you mentioned, you'd need a bigger crew ... anyway, what was intended to be a (relatively) cheap $220m corvette, might cost like a half of the price of ... details:

As answer to you question the nsm missile is already scheduled for trials this month from Lcs4. Essm is the only sam that I know of that may work.Asroc most likely never be considered for installation
and according to Mr North spokesman for the Freedom class provisions have already been made for the MK 48 Anyway this is my thought for the future small surface combatant as to cost it may be possible to use a refurbished VLS from a recently decommissioned vessel to offset some of the cost. But there again I ask what price are we willing to pay for the crews of these ships when they actually have to be in harms way? As for the current versions looks like they might be good mine sweepers or for US coastal patrol ie. drug smugglers human traffickers etc. Maybe we could use them around south America to in other words very friendly waters.

dtulsa said:

... Maybe we could use them around south America to in other words very friendly waters.

Click to expand...

yeah but
cost just about $20m according to
but an LCS ...

I know kind of sad that the ships as currently designed and outfitted are not up to the task at hand what a waste isn't it . And this is coming from somebody who was a vehicle mechanic in the USAF.

dtulsa said:

I know kind of sad that the ships as currently designed and outfitted are not up to the task at hand what a waste isn't it . And this is coming from somebody who was a vehicle mechanic in the USAF.

Click to expand...

cheer up, dtulsa, many ships are needed for the World's Oceans patrol duty, port visits

Jura said:

cheer up, dtulsa, many ships are needed for the World's Oceans patrol duty, port visits

Click to expand...

I never give up hope that some designer will stumble onto something that may work. Also it may be possible to install an old box launcher for essm some where like the old knox class had. And if I remember the OHP class had a single arm launcher with a mixture of missiles in a magazine from which to select from it may be possible to adapt some thing like these to this thing @ least hears hoping so

And I have a further question just how is the lcs suppose to kill a sub it detects without the helicopter tell me that. Nothing Iv read can answer that, it is one thing to detect them quite another to kill them

Jeff Head said:

IMHO, they need Harpoon now, and the LRASM whenit becomes available. That means a quad launcher now, and the sensors to go with it, and an Mk-41 of at least 8 cells later, using four for LRASM.

Click to expand...

That is effectively an enhanced Perry. I think the development of the LCS is an interesting story in that the concept meant different things to different people and somehow along the way the gap between mandated specs and reality became further apart. The original concept in my view was driven by the need to operate in the Persian Gulf (shallow waters) and the threat of swarm boats post USS Stark and Coles incidents. The same issues are still there as it was when considering the supposedly new design for a multi mission small combatant. The USN wants a Burke lite that can operate in the littorals but how do you spin the gap between what they have today i.e. LCS and a new vessel going forward.