Littoral Combat Ships (LCS)
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Yes, I posted that news a few days ago at post 693, HEREhttps://www.sinodefenceforum.com/littoral-combat-ships-lcs.t3993/page-35#post-323090
Well, the Independence class of 4,300 at 18 knots vs. the Perry at 4,000 at 20 knots is very comparable, and in terms of range is not really less durable. The Perry too would have less if it operated at higher speeds.
The biggest issue has been the armament.
When the Perry's came out, they had decent AAW and ASuW armament for their time and threat environment, with decent ranges and strong ASW.
The LCS has only close in self defense AAW, poor ASuW armament at any range, but also has the capability for very decent ASW. But the lack of any area coverage AAW at all, and the startling lack of ASuW capabilities (IMHO, even NLOS was severally inadequate) has made these vessels controversial and under-armed from the get go.
Many of us hoped that they would add eight Harpoons and even an eight cell Mk-421 for ESSM to address this.
It appears that they will get some decent ASuW missiles, but no area coverage AAW...which remains disappointing at this point...including plans for the SSC.
I still hold out hopes that in future congresses, that better armament will be forthcoming. I believe they have the space...but it willl add cost no matter how you dice it.
But, IMHO, when you are building 55 or 56 vessels, and calling them combat ships, they need to be able to engage peer vessels from potential OPFORs and have a strong prospect of winning.
Brumby
Major
The USN has already set the course at least in the foreseeable future the amount of upgrade that they are prepared to spend from current baseline in the face of sequestration. The dice in fact had already been cast from the onset of the LCS program when the emphasis was placed on program affordability. In 2003, Admiral Clark (the CNO then) set a targeted threshold of $250 million per ship based on the notion of five LCS per Burke. This figure we know is entirely unrealistic but unfortunately set in motion the design compromises that then limit the capabilities that the program can afford.
We know today a new Perry would cost northwards of $600 million as opposed to the approximate spending of $500 million per ship on the LCS. I would guess that if a basic VSL plus sensor needed is incorporated, the USN would need to spend at least $650 million per vessel and is not something that it has the funding to deliver nor it fits into the program objective of affordability. Unless and until there is a change in strategic emphasis and design in terms of force structure in the navy leadership, the upgrade that you were hoping for is not going to happen.
Pulled from the US military news thread:
OK, I'm on the verge of loosing track of the timeline here. Anyhow, I can't find that last quote you provided in the defensenews-article you linked, which is the same Forbin posted and I referred to. Did you accidentally insert a wrong link?
I wonder what would make a slightly up-rated LCS more capable than a "normal" frigate. The speed? I don't think so. There's not really going to be much mission module swopping left either. And sensor / effector wise a proper modern frigate will have more to offer.
My understanding is also that Mabus hints to it becoming a FF, while pretty much all other frigates of the modern past are FFGs.
the part you quote was already available in my original post
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/us-military-news-thread.t1547/page-175#post-323066
which Jeff commented upon (in the post starting with Jura, I think the quote is from the article FORBIN posted one day after me, but I'm not going to gloat about it LOL!
yes:
that's real good:
OK, I'm on the verge of loosing track of the timeline here. Anyhow, I can't find that last quote you provided in the defensenews-article you linked, which is the same Forbin posted and I referred to. Did you accidentally insert a wrong link?
I wonder what would make a slightly up-rated LCS more capable than a "normal" frigate. The speed? I don't think so. There's not really going to be much mission module swopping left either. And sensor / effector wise a proper modern frigate will have more to offer.
My understanding is also that Mabus hints to it becoming a FF, while pretty much all other frigates of the modern past are FFGs.
Jura The idiot
General
oops, you're right, I should've posted this link:
in which there's this quote:
etc.
I'm sorry for the mess.
(Fortunately to me, this quote is immediately available from google
by simply putting it into the search window.)
Brumby
Major
It adds confusion administratively when attempting to task such vessels to specific missions. It is originally designated as LCS because it was designed and build to operate in the littorals to address three specific threats : mines, swarm boats, and diesel submarines operating in that environment. A Frigate is meant to operate in a more expansive environment. It is questionable whether the uparmed LCS can operate effectively and efficiently in that more expansive ocean.
Pointblank
Senior Member
I doubt the change in designation will really change anything. When the USN introduced the OHP's to its order of battle, nobody really knew how to make tactical use of them. It took decades before they found their place in the order of battle, even though they were true frigates (i.e. close escort ships / independent scouts).
As such, because of their boxiness and lack of planned tactical employment, they were nicknamed the "square-pegs" because they were meant to fill a "round" hole usually filled by destroyers. Once a year every year while they served, the US Naval Institute had a "special" edition of its monthly Proceedings magazine dedicated to new and useful ways to employ them.
Funny enough, almost the same thing is happening with the LCS's.
As such, because of their boxiness and lack of planned tactical employment, they were nicknamed the "square-pegs" because they were meant to fill a "round" hole usually filled by destroyers. Once a year every year while they served, the US Naval Institute had a "special" edition of its monthly Proceedings magazine dedicated to new and useful ways to employ them.
Funny enough, almost the same thing is happening with the LCS's.
Jura The idiot
General
to me, the topic of the USN LCS designation as FF (useful link:
hope the information is correct there)
is very interesting and recently I went through modern (1995+) warships within a large range of displacements -- irrespective how the ship is formally classified, from half of a thousand tons of the Skjolds to some six and half thousands of the Huitfeldts -- so that the USN LCS was somewhere in the middle (by the way, I was surprised what some Navies were able to pack into less than 1500 tons) and I might've missed something, but the closest seems to be the Incheon-class; it doesn't have "over the horizon anti-aircraft missiles" either and is similar in size (some wikipedia numbers:
Length: 114 m (Incheon); 115 m (LCS-1)
Beam: 14 m (Incheon); 17.5 m (LCS-1)
Draft: 4 m (Incheon); 3.9 m (LCS-1)
Displacement, full load: 3251 t (Incheon); 3000 t (LCS-1)
Looking from the middle of Europe
the Incheons are better armed, while the LCS are faster, and the main difference is in:for an Incheon according to wiki
and
says
(that's without Mission Modules, and I don't know what else is "hidden")
Last edited: