Corvette or DE for the USN?

[Belesari]

Watching the tensions in the gulf between the US and the Iranians i was struck again by how in certain situations the USN is confronted with problems in doctrine.

The straits are a place where the Big ocean going Burkes, Tico's, and Nimitz are faced with a bad problem. LOTS of fast agile enemies who are alrady into the carriers inner layers of defense. Add to that the large amount of Missiles capable of being fired with the threat of fighters capable of supporting the Naval forces along with shore artillery it gets nasty.

There are also places in the pacific where it gets close in and down right deadly. Where for all its Blue water prowess the US lies at a disadvantage. Now i understand the LCS was to fill this role as the Littoral combatant. However due to the severe restrictions in weight and canceled items looks to be very under armed compared to its size.

So basicly im wondering would something like a Large corrvette be better? Say around 1,000-2,000 tons smaller crew ment more for patrol and combat duties in the small constrained straights and water ways of the world. Cheaper than the LCS try to keep it around 100-200mil or so. Prioritize for specific mission types while retaining much the same hull and such. Moderate range of 2,500mi-3,000mi. Good armament for their sizes.

BTW: I understand this may be better in the USN news tab but i didnt want to clutter it up with a long debate that was off topic. I'll understand if you move it or whatever though.

 

[Sea Toby]

Watching the tensions in the gulf between the US and the Iranians i was struck again by how in certain situations the USN is confronted with problems in doctrine.

The straits are a place where the Big ocean going Burkes, Tico's, and Nimitz are faced with a bad problem. LOTS of fast agile enemies who are alrady into the carriers inner layers of defense. Add to that the large amount of Missiles capable of being fired with the threat of fighters capable of supporting the Naval forces along with shore artillery it gets nasty.

There are also places in the pacific where it gets close in and down right deadly. Where for all its Blue water prowess the US lies at a disadvantage. Now i understand the LCS was to fill this role as the Littoral combatant. However due to the severe restrictions in weight and canceled items looks to be very under armed compared to its size.

So basicly im wondering would something like a Large corrvette be better? Say around 1,000-2,000 tons smaller crew ment more for patrol and combat duties in the small constrained straights and water ways of the world. Cheaper than the LCS try to keep it around 100-200mil or so. Prioritize for specific mission types while retaining much the same hull and such. Moderate range of 2,500mi-3,000mi. Good armament for their sizes.

BTW: I understand this may be better in the USN news tab but i didnt want to clutter it up with a long debate that was off topic. I'll understand if you move it or whatever though.

The Australian look for range with their ships, the US desire range even more. It is a long way to the Persian Gulf from the east or west coast of the US. Heck, its a long way through the Panama Canal from Norfolk to San Diego, the east and west major naval ports. Not only does a US warship have to sail around the tip of Florida and Baja California, they have to sail completely around Mexico. London is almost as close, if not closer, and we haven't even considered Alaska, Hawaii, or Guam.

Simply put, range more or less cancels any US buy of corvettes.

 

[kato]

Moderate range of 2,500mi-3,000mi.

That wouldn't be moderate range, that would be darn short-legged. You might want to double those numbers to make it realistic for a corvette that size.

And then double it again to meet US requirements. Meeting these requirements is perfectly doable on a 2,000-ton frame of course (see USCG WMEC classes for examples), they just won't be fast. Or heavily armed.

how in certain situations the USN is confronted with problems in doctrine.

Such "problems in doctrine" would stem from the USN having given up the littoral entirely. And no, the LCS isn't "littoral" either. At least not if you don't use the USN definition for "littoral" that includes about half the planet's water surface.

 

[Sea Toby]

Keep in mind that range is usually done sailing at a economical speed of 12 knots. A 210 foot 1100 tons displacement Reliance class cutter has a range of 8,000 nautical miles at 12 knots. A 270 foot 1800 tons displacement Famous class cutter has a range of 9,900 nautical miles at 12 knots. It is ten days one way to sail to Unalaska, a major fishing port, from Alameda at 12 knots.

 

[1805]

I agree with the focus of the post, but I think the solution suggested is just a dumbed down LCS, which does not seem to a very economically way to meet the original requirement of an LCS at all.

The USN and other navies for that matter need to look at countries that do operate in this type of high risk enviroment; you can't find a better example than the Baltic.

Is range an issue? The USN operated short range PT boats before....I know the blue water navies look down on such craft....until they need them.

A combination of a modern Type 143a, something like a CB90h working with a naval attack helicopter.

A great armament would be couple of Mk 110 & a 21 round RAM launcher, surely the ideally package to work with helicopter's canon/missiles in dealing with a swarm attack.

The 57mm would cut the small boats up at a greater range than they can engage and any larger FAC can be handed by the SSM capability of the RAM (which I think they now have?). No need to fit heavy SSMs, overkill for a FAC, a RAM or 2 will do?

If they make it shallow enough draft, it could operate from and be supported by a LPD/LHD, solving the range/support issue?

You could get much cheaper options than this, probably as effective; a single Mk 110, & SeaRAM on 150t, you could probably merge with the insertion capability of a CB90h?

 

[kato]

The 57mm would cut the small boats up at a greater range than they can engage

A 57mm will not outdo a torpedo or a small missile like a C-701 or Kowsar. And that's the kind of armament the OPFOR would be armed with.

any larger FAC can be handed by the SSM capability of the RAM (which I think they now have?)

RAM has a rather tiny HE warhead. Not efficient against any larger FAC, at most a stopgap measure to deter it from attacking.

 

[1805]

A 57mm will not outdo a torpedo or a small missile like a C-701 or Kowsar. And that's the kind of armament the OPFOR would be armed with.


RAM has a rather tiny HE warhead. Not efficient against any larger FAC, at most a stopgap measure to deter it from attacking.

Agree it would have to be an amazing gun to stop a torpedo, but it might stop the boat firing it! How effective is a torpedo against a FAC?

A combination of 57mm & RAM should have a good chance of stopping a missile? I think the best way to deal with this threat is a combined operation with helicopters, currently the focus seems to be just helicopters.

I'm not sure I agree about RAM, yes the warhead is only 24lb (the HE content of a 127mm shell is only c18lbs), but when you take into account the unspent fuel and rest for the missile the impact of 1-2 is likely to disable the craft up to 500t. The warhead on the Exocet that hit HMS Sheffield didn't explode, ok the missile was a lot larger, but so was a Type 42. Again the USS Worden incident in 1968 (dated example but there are so few examples) Shrike has a bigger warhead but a c8k crusier.

 

[colay]

SeaRAM can also defend against small boats.The range is classified though Wiki cites an unattributed range figure of 9Km for the Block 1. Block 2 missiles feature an increased range over previous versions. Not a bad capability to have.

RAM (Rolling Airframe Missile) Systems: Contracts & Events

System improvements continue. New MK-44 Guided Missile Round Packs and ORDALT kits are designed to upgrade current systems to RAM Block 1 missile configuration (RIM-116B) or above. Block 1 systems feature an image scanning infrared seeker that allows the missile to more easily counter helicopters and advanced anti-ship threats that do not employ active radar guidance. Another new feature is called IRDM (IR Dual Mode Enable). In that mode, the RAM missile is launched with IR guidance enabled, but can switch to passive radar homing when the target’s radiation becomes adequate to guide on. It also incorporates HAS (Helicopter, Aircraft, Surface) software that lets it prosecute a wider array of targets, including targets like speedboats that move at slower speeds in radar/IR clutter...

RIM-116 Block 2 missiles, and Block 1 upgrades to the MK31 system, will both be incorporated into the new SeaRAM variant, also known as the “MK 15 MOD 31 PHALANX SeaRAM Close-In Weapon System.” .... SeaRAM becomes a complete, self-cueing system that can work alone, or complement the Phalanx gun by providing a layered defense to the horizon against aircraft, cruise missiles, and even small boats.

 

[kato]

Agree it would have to be an amazing gun to stop a torpedo, but it might stop the boat firing it!

Said boat will drop its torpedoes into the water at a range outside that of the Mk110. And then stay out of it.

 

[Belesari]

I agree with pretty much everything ya'll said. The problem seems to be that the Navy's LCS program just mutated into something that isn't really cost effective or as good as first thought. The LCS are now almost the exact size andclose in tonage of a Perry class frigate. However they bring only a fraction of the firepower.

It seems the Navy NEEDS to build a frigate but for reason wont admit this. I think the main reason is the Sprint ability the ask for. It just seems to be a huge waste.

55kts wont outrun a torpedo or a missile or anything like that.....so whats the point. I think accepting a normal speed and range and consentrating more on firepower would be better. I've also heard reports that the LCS-1 can't even attain top speed that was required and the LCS-2 just barely. And its very rough on the ships. I think the Navy would be better served in using the technology and ideas explored in the program and settling on one design and less extreme ending goals.

AND one class. The Independence trimmaran hull design just seems to be better for what its doing. Though i think a standard steel hull would be better. That HUGE flight deck would make it a outstanding ASW platform with 2 helicopters.

I understand about the range believe me. However the Navy plans on forward basing the LCS anyways.

 

[T.C.P]

The corvette will need to be armed with SSM with similar or greater range than the likes of C-702s and C-705s, which the Iranian boats will be armed with.

 

[1805]

Said boat will drop its torpedoes into the water at a range outside that of the Mk110. And then stay out of it.

I think helicopters are the best way to deal with larger FAC, but for swarm tactic such a Mk 110 & DP missile looks a good option. They could fit countermeasures:

1, SAAB Dynamics ASW-601 antisubmarine grenade launcher, also appears to do countermeasure chaff, this look nice, not sure how effective though.

2, Fit torpedos to counter?

At the end of the day small boats have always been designed to be used where larger more costly ships can't be risked.

 

[Sea Toby]

I agree with pretty much everything ya'll said. The problem seems to be that the Navy's LCS program just mutated into something that isn't really cost effective or as good as first thought. The LCS are now almost the exact size andclose in tonage of a Perry class frigate. However they bring only a fraction of the firepower.

It seems the Navy NEEDS to build a frigate but for reason wont admit this. I think the main reason is the Sprint ability the ask for. It just seems to be a huge waste.

55kts wont outrun a torpedo or a missile or anything like that.....so whats the point. I think accepting a normal speed and range and consentrating more on firepower would be better. I've also heard reports that the LCS-1 can't even attain top speed that was required and the LCS-2 just barely. And its very rough on the ships. I think the Navy would be better served in using the technology and ideas explored in the program and settling on one design and less extreme ending goals.

AND one class. The Independence trimmaran hull design just seems to be better for what its doing. Though i think a standard steel hull would be better. That HUGE flight deck would make it a outstanding ASW platform with 2 helicopters.

I understand about the range believe me. However the Navy plans on forward basing the LCS anyways.

The LCS was also designed to do mid ocean ASW escorting duties of merchant convoys too, something a short range corvette or mine hunter can't do. Well, not across the Pacific. In the littorial the US Navy desires a mine hunter or ASW ship which can get out of there fast when the opponents FAC show up, and have the ability to defend itself against incoming missiles. A lumbering slow mine hunter which can't defend itself is a sitting duck versus FAC and their missiles.

Almost all of the FAC are useless against submarines, many don't have much missile defense either. Unfortunately the LCS cynics see all of its shortcomings as a frigate or corvette, but none of the advantages it has over other mine hunters. The LCS is more a souped up mine hunter than a ASW corvette with the ability to engage FAC.

When the US feels it doesn't have enough mid ocean ASW escorts and frigates which they don't consider front line warships, they will buy and build more. But at the moment concerning all of the other allied nations number of frigates, the US will continue to build destroyers.

 

[tatra]

@ KATO & Sea Toby

A-69 Aviso. (d'Estienne d'Orves)
Type: aviso (sloop)
Displacement: 1100 t tonnes (1250 tonnes full load)
Range:
at 15 knots (28 km/h): 4500 nautical miles (8000 km)
at 18 knots (33 km/h) : 3000 nautical miles (5500 km)
Speed: 24 knots

Minerva class
Type: corvette
Displacement: 1285 tonnes
Range: 3,500 nm at 18 knots
Speed: 25 knots

StanFlex (Rasmussen class)
Type: Ocean patrol crafts
Displacement: 1,720 tons
Range: 3,000 nautical miles (5,600 km)
Speed: Less than 17 kn (31 km/h)

Braunschweig class
Type: Corvette
Displacement: 1,840 tonnes (1,810 long tons)
Range: at 15 kn (28 km/h; 17 mph ): 4,000 nmi (7,400 km)
Speed: 26 knots (48 km/h; 30 mph)

Floreal class
Type: light frigate (aviso)
Displacement: 2,600 tons standard, 2,950 tons full load
Range:
at 12 knots (22 km/h): 13000 nautical miles (24,000 km)
at 15 knots (28 km/h): 10000 nautical miles (19,000 km)
Speed: 20 knots (37 km/h)

Holland class
Type: Offshore patrol vessel
Displacement: approx. 3,750 tons full load
Range: 5000 nm @ 15 kts
Speed: 21.5 kts

StanFlex 3000 (Thetis class)
Type: Ocean patrol vessel
Displacement: 3,500 tons full load
Range: 8.700 nmi (16.112 km) at 15 kn (28 km/h)
Speed: 21.8 kn (40.4 km/h)

 

[Sea Toby]

@ KATO & Sea Toby

Are any of these ships considered mine hunters? A Lerici class mine hunter has a range of 1,500 nautical miles (2,800 km; 1,700 mi) at 6 knots (11 km/h; 6.9 mph).

Arleigh Burke Flight III destroyers:
Displacement: 10,000 tons
Range: 4,400 nautical miles at 20 knots, 8,100km at 37km/h
Speed: 30+ knots

Cutters and OPVs have significant range, but don't have the armaments of a destroyer. Corvettes may have the armament of a destroyer but don't have the range.

Avenger class ocean going mine countermeasures ship:
Displacement: 1,312 tons
Range: not available on the web*
Speed: 14 knots
* to deploy to the Persian Gulf the Avengers were shipped, they didn't sail there from the US. Keep in mind its 8,505 flying miles from Corpus Christi, TX to Dubai, UAE. Shipping distances will be longer.

While the US Coast Guard may be happy with short range patrol boats, even their medium and long endurance cutters, OPVs, have long range of 8,000+ nautical miles at a economical speed of 12 knots or so. 3,000 or 4,000 nautical miles range at 12 knots is insufficient for US warships just to transfer from Norfolk to San Diego through the Panama Canal without refueling. It may be around 3,000 miles from Norfolk to San Diego by air or land, but its twice that distance by sea through the Panama Canal.

I wished I knew how to link a Google Earth satellite image of Dutch Harbor. Currently on Google Earth there is a Hamilton class cutter at Dutch Harbor. Dutch Harbor, Unalaska is 2,000 nautical miles in a straight line from Alameda, California, at Coast Guard Island where the west coast Hamiltons are home based.

 

[Todjaeger]

The LCS was also designed to do mid ocean ASW escorting duties of merchant convoys too, something a short range corvette or mine hunter can't do. Well, not across the Pacific. In the littorial the US Navy desires a mine hunter or ASW ship which can get out of there fast when the opponents FAC show up, and have the ability to defend itself against incoming missiles. A lumbering slow mine hunter which can't defend itself is a sitting duck versus FAC and their missiles.

Almost all of the FAC are useless against submarines, many don't have much missile defense either. Unfortunately the LCS cynics see all of its shortcomings as a frigate or corvette, but none of the advantages it has over other mine hunters. The LCS is more a souped up mine hunter than a ASW corvette with the ability to engage FAC.

When the US feels it doesn't have enough mid ocean ASW escorts and frigates which they don't consider front line warships, they will buy and build more. But at the moment concerning all of the other allied nations number of frigates, the US will continue to build destroyers.

I have to disagree here in a number of areas. While yes, the idea had been that the LCS could be multi-role, with various swappable modules being fitted depending on which particular role is required. Calling a LCS something like a 'souped up' MH/MC vessel is too much of a stretch IMO.

When looking at the various MCM designs which are out there, or have been in use, there are a number of things which they tend to have in common. One of them is a rather low speed. This is for a number of reasons, but chief amongst them is the amount of slow, painstaking work to survey and ensure a particular shipping channel is clear of mines. It is not a quick process, so operationally the vessel does not derive great advantage once on station from high speeds. Secondly, in order to achieve higher speeds, the design of a vessel can end up with an acoustic signature which it does not want/need for mine clearance.

It is not as if a MHO could not be designed with a higher transit speed, they just have not been since the primary focus was on proper mine clearance. Now with the potential use of ROV's away from the MCM vessel, the individual performance of the MCM vessel is less important.

As for the LCS having a high speed to escape/evade FAC... That IMO is really nonsense. An LCS could potentially escape from being boarded by a FAC, but 55 kts is no where near fast enough to escape from hostile gunfire and certainly not from inbound missle or rocket fire.

AFAIK one of the main reasons behind the LCS concept having such high speed, was to allow the vessels to be rapidly dispatched to different areas where they would need to perform operationally. The idea being that with a speed 2x-3x that of conventionally designed USN vessels, an LCS could be sent from the US to the Med, or from the Med to the Gulf when needed. This would then cut down on the numbers of vessels needed to be kept in service, as well as the numbers serving in US fleets based overseas.

The reality is that in order to achieve the high speeds required, as well as the range, so much of the vessel's design had to be compromised that while it can do a bit of everything it was supposed to, it cannot do any of it especially well and certainly not in a cost effective manner.

Had the LCS concept been one where a modular steel monohull of 80 m - 100 m in length been chosen to have a top speed of ~30 kts, decent range and seakeeping, all while being able to employ mission specific modules as required, then the LCS concept might prove workable.

In threatening or potentially threatening operating environs, such a vessel could mount a 76 mm/62 cal. cannon as well as ESSM if needed, and still have room to spare for ASW kit, or MCM ROV's and divers. Or, if designers and/or the navy had some foresight, there might be some sort of docking well or heavy duty crane which would allow the vessel to act as a mothership to its own swarm of FAC.

As should be plain to see, the characteristics of vessels required to operate in shallow and congested waters is quite different from those which must be able to transit long distances over open ocean. Trying to have a vessel meet both sets of requirements and then deliver an operationally useful capability is setting the vessel up for failure.

-Cheers

 

[Sea Toby]

I have to disagree here in a number of areas. While yes, the idea had been that the LCS could be multi-role, with various swappable modules being fitted depending on which particular role is required. Calling a LCS something like a 'souped up' MH/MC vessel is too much of a stretch IMO.

When looking at the various MCM designs which are out there, or have been in use, there are a number of things which they tend to have in common. One of them is a rather low speed. This is for a number of reasons, but chief amongst them is the amount of slow, painstaking work to survey and ensure a particular shipping channel is clear of mines. It is not a quick process, so operationally the vessel does not derive great advantage once on station from high speeds. Secondly, in order to achieve higher speeds, the design of a vessel can end up with an acoustic signature which it does not want/need for mine clearance.

It is not as if a MHO could not be designed with a higher transit speed, they just have not been since the primary focus was on proper mine clearance. Now with the potential use of ROV's away from the MCM vessel, the individual performance of the MCM vessel is less important.

As for the LCS having a high speed to escape/evade FAC... That IMO is really nonsense. An LCS could potentially escape from being boarded by a FAC, but 55 kts is no where near fast enough to escape from hostile gunfire and certainly not from inbound missle or rocket fire.

AFAIK one of the main reasons behind the LCS concept having such high speed, was to allow the vessels to be rapidly dispatched to different areas where they would need to perform operationally. The idea being that with a speed 2x-3x that of conventionally designed USN vessels, an LCS could be sent from the US to the Med, or from the Med to the Gulf when needed. This would then cut down on the numbers of vessels needed to be kept in service, as well as the numbers serving in US fleets based overseas.

The reality is that in order to achieve the high speeds required, as well as the range, so much of the vessel's design had to be compromised that while it can do a bit of everything it was supposed to, it cannot do any of it especially well and certainly not in a cost effective manner.

Had the LCS concept been one where a modular steel monohull of 80 m - 100 m in length been chosen to have a top speed of ~30 kts, decent range and seakeeping, all while being able to employ mission specific modules as required, then the LCS concept might prove workable.

In threatening or potentially threatening operating environs, such a vessel could mount a 76 mm/62 cal. cannon as well as ESSM if needed, and still have room to spare for ASW kit, or MCM ROV's and divers. Or, if designers and/or the navy had some foresight, there might be some sort of docking well or heavy duty crane which would allow the vessel to act as a mothership to its own swarm of FAC.

As should be plain to see, the characteristics of vessels required to operate in shallow and congested waters is quite different from those which must be able to transit long distances over open ocean. Trying to have a vessel meet both sets of requirements and then deliver an operationally useful capability is setting the vessel up for failure.

-Cheers

I agree with everything you said except the importance of range for the US. But the LCS were also designed to replace our mine countermeasures fleet as well as our frigate fleet. And as I noted before, while they may be a bit short as a frigate, they are a huge improvement as a mine hunter. A Lerici class mine hunter's very short range at a very slow speed of 6 knots isn't sufficient for world wide deployment.

LCS isn't for everyone. Neither are corvettes.

Considering the recent budget cuts, it does not appear all of the LCS ships will be built as planned. We are not even getting enough of them to replace our mine countermeasures fleet one per one, much less our frigate fleet.

 

[colay]

The Navy is very pleased with the performace of the 2 LSC prototypes in the short time they've been deployed. The 3 mission packages for ASW, Counter-Mine Warfare and ASuW are under development. Bugs and shortcomings are being identified and remedied. Such is the nature of complex systems, they take time to get it right. The strength of the LCS is its modularity. The spiral development of mission modules means the ships don't have to be pulled from active duty and tied up at dockside while retrofits are made.

There is a more potent altenative to the Griffin missile under consideration to enhance its ASuW capability. There's talk of other MMs for AAW and support for Special Forces. I expect the LCS will continue to evolve and thus remain relevant and responsive to the Navy's needs.

The Navy attaches a high priority to the LCS program. It is a key player in the Air-Sea Battle model the Navy is putting in place to address the aggressive A2/AD challenges it faces. A reading of the DoD's JOAC document will provide perspective. It's a vital cog that impacts on multiple areas of operations and comparing it with this frigate or that DE is myopic misses the point completely on how the USN intends to conduct warfare in the 21st century.

 

[Todjaeger]

I agree with everything you said. But the LCS were also designed to replace our mine countermeasures fleet as well as our frigate fleet. And as I noted before, while they may be a bit short as a frigate, they are a huge improvement as a mine hunter. A Lerici class mine hunter's very short range at a very slow speed of 6 knots isn't sufficient for world wide deployment.

Again, an LCS can perform some of the MCM functions of something like an Avenger-class, but if the USN wanted/needed a MCM vessel capable of crossing the open ocean at speeds better than the 10 - 14 kts which the Osprey-class MHC and Avenger-class MHO, the US is certainly capable of designing and building such a vessel. Also, the normal armament aboard both classes of USN MCM is/was normally a pair of 12.7 mm machine guns.

All this (and the fact that the hulls were either wood or fibreglass) seems to suggest the LCS design was something which a MCM role was added onto, with the appropriate module.

The one potential improvement over existing MCM vessels is that the LCS might (emphasis might) be able to transit on its own from whatever naval base it operated out of to the required area of operations on its own without being carried aboard a lift ship and that it might arrive at the designation faster. What remains to be seen is whether or not an LCS can perform MCM functions as effectively as purpose built MCM vessels.

On the very negative side from my perspective, is the cost, both in terms of acquisition and operations. An Osprey-class MHC cost ~$143 mil. per vessel back in the 90's, and it was fitted out for MCM roles and the annual operating cost was ~$3 - 5 mil. p.a.

The 'basic' construction costs for LCS-1 and LCS-2 is between $440 mil. - $470 mil. and this does not include things like modules, fitout changes, etc. In short, the LCS is not ready for operations, nevermind MCM operations. That would require the modules, which have an estimated cost of ~$100 mil. Given just how often the USN needs to perform MCM and where the USN does this, is there justification in spending a significant amount of funding to build a MCM vessel which can get to the area of operations so much faster than before?

While the idea behind the LCS may have been good, some of the competing objectives left the end result overly expensive and less than capable.

After all, who is going to risk a 3,500 ton 127 m vessel costing $600+ mil. with a very limited ability to protect itself relative to its size and cost.

 

[Todjaeger]

The Navy attaches a high priority to the LCS program. It is a key player in the Air-Sea Battle model the Navy is putting in place to address the aggressive A2/AD challenges it faces. A reading of the DoD's JOAC document will provide perspective. It's a vital cog that impacts on multiple areas of operations and comparing it with this frigate or that DE is myopic misses the point completely on how the USN intends to conduct warfare in the 21st century.

I am not certain just how 'vital' the LCS programme is or will be to the USN. While the modularity aspect to LCS is certainly go, the impression I have gotten is that the actual vessels themselves are not what the USN wishes to end up with, or at least the USN has re-thought that.

From what I recall, the small size of the LCS crew relative to the size and complexity of the vessel, means that much of the normal ship maintenance has to be done while the vessel is docked and contractors and/or personnel not part of the crew are available to perform the maintenance. Basically there is too much which needs doing to for the crew to keep up. This is not much of an issue if a vessel can dock regularly so that the appropriate personnel can work on the ship. If the vessel is away on an extended deployment, and/or the ports available do not have the appropriate personnel or facilities to work on the LCS, that quickly becomes an issue.

Again, as a result of the small crew relative to the systems and functions, regular naval functions like VERTEP is an all hands function. I could be mistaken but having that sort of workload for any duration could be very taxing on a crew.

What I suspect will occur, is that as time goes on, the USN will continue having Arleigh Burke-class DDG's constructed, and will start a new programme to replace some of the existing vessels which the LCS were intended to replace. This new programme I suspect would make use of the modularity developed for the LCS, but otherwise keep the nature of the design a bit more conventional and end up with a monohull which can make ~30 kits.

-Cheers