Comments on: Debating the Pros and Cons of LCS

By: Dean

Dean — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 17:25:08 +0000

It seems to me that the Navy thinks ‘speed’ is a weapon system on LCS. Speed is not a weapon, there is no ship afloat that can outrun a missile, attacking aircraft or even a torpedo. And even if LCS is fast, it’s not fast for very long-it will soon run out of ‘gas.‘
We FIRST need to replace all of the Perry Frigate out here, but with self-defense and real offensive capabilities, then we can think about building some pretty boats lie the LCS.

By: Wildcard

Wildcard — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 17:52:19 +0000

Were any of the lessons from RV Triton used on the GD LCS 2?
Possibility to fit VLS system’ on the LCS 2? Behind the 57mm gun? I fear much of the talk is based around the LCS 1.

By: India1

India1 — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 23:59:10 +0000

The US Navy really needs to hire a few Russian ship designers for this one. No one knows how to stick things-that-go-bang on a ship like a Russian does. Just take a look at the Sovremenney class destroyer.
Or, alternatively, just give the drawings to a 10 year old boy and let him draw guns on it. Then actually go and fit guns there.
Slightly more seriously the Russian Kashtan combined gun and missile system would be a sweet marriage with the LCS, except that it’s Russian and so the US would never fit it. I mainly care about this because Australia tends to folow the US in naval matters and so we end up with seriously under gunned ships as well.

By: PolicyWonk

PolicyWonk — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 12:59:00 +0000

The PT boats were specifically designed for littoral operations, and were incredibly successful and super heavily armed for their size — a good model to follow.

Missiles are the big thing these days, and the defense industry loves them because they are highly profitible and very expensive. More guns (Bushmasters, etc) on a smaller platform with a few missiles just in case would probably provide a better platform for the littorals, along with a draft of maybe a max draft of 8 feet (that may be overdoing it). But the navy hated the MTBs when they came out, just as the ariforce hated the A-10s, until they became desparate enough to use them and found out how lethal they really were (which didn’t stop them from trying to kill ‘em off anyway).

By: Matthew S.

Matthew S. — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 15:06:53 +0000

“The US retired the ideal littoral combat ships–the IOWA class battleships. Their combination of multiple turrets of radar directed 5 inch, CIWS, 25mm mounts, Harpoon, in the most survivable hulls on the planet would overmatch any conceivable swarm of small, hostile combatants.”

Do we really have to have the obligatory battleship comment all the time? The Iowa class is just a huge sea skimming missile target at this point.

By: Brian

Brian — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 13:29:21 +0000

Sa they are saying mobile air power from helicopters are going to save the day against swarms of ships? Wait until someone gets the bright idea of putting MANPADS on those small boats and it will the Soviet Occupation of Afghanistan all over again except this time in “Literal Waters” and it will our people doing the dieing.

It they wanted a small helicopter carrier the should have designed such a ship and have it operate 50 clics off of shore, not this floating death trap. It seems primarily designed to go after lightly armed pirates and drug smugglers, not Nation States. You like modules, how about Guns and Armor are modules too, how about sending some of those into with our sailors into combat? The LCS is going to need an armed escort, just like carriers, because there is no way an competent commander is going to let operate alone anywhere near the coastal waters of iran. The LCS appears to be a support vessel, not a combat vessel which is strange because that’s how they are billing it.

By: @Earlydawn

@Earlydawn — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 04:08:35 +0000

I would like to see any conclusive data showing the LCS as too generalized to be effective.. particularly considering that there isn’t much data on mission modules yet, nor a service history to scrutinize.

By: @Earlydawn

@Earlydawn — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 00:12:03 +0000

Isn’t this the reason why the Navy went with a modular design? If it’s lacking swarm scenarios, build it a module for it. A couple CIWSs and an extra deck gun or two, plus the necessary radars and such. Draws added utility and flexibility out of the LCS, and I can’t imagine that it would cost more then a full squadron of even more ships.

By: Flapjack

Flapjack — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:47:13 +0000

Bring back the hydrofoils!

By: etrout

etrout — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 20:35:52 +0000

Yes that is unloaded weight. Looking at these maps of the Persian Gulf floor, it seems that these drafts are more than sufficient for most ops. The only problem might be getting in close enough to engage some land targets with the Mk 110 considering it's nine mile range. http://www.stratfor.com/files/mmf/6/0/608a4a7d1f0... http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_as...