Littoral Combat Ship

[spsun100001]

... It's possible, if the LCS was configured to carry 3 helicopters, that a helicopter might have been available to intervene, unlike what happened with HMS Cornwall. As I remember it, HMS Cornwall's helicopter was returning or had just returned after getting the "all clear", if three helicopters were available, the ROE might have been different, where a heli stayed aloft as long a boarding boat & crew were away. It's also possible, given the max speed potentially available to a LCS that it might have been able to close or intercept the Iranian boats either before they reached the RN RHIBs, or before getting back to Iranian home waters. That would require going off station from the petroleum terminal, which might have placed that facility at an unacceptable risk.

-Cheers

I'm not sure that the issue in the Gulf had as much to do with the design of the ship (HMS Cornwall) as it had to do with poor operational practice. There are rumours that the helicopter was not kept aloft to save fuel costs. Whatever the truth of that though, proper planning could have made sure that the helicopter was available and overhead when boarding took place.

Secondly, had HMS Cornwall chosen to intervene she was more than capable of doing so. The Iranian vessels were well within range of her 4.5 inch gun and Harpoon missiles. She could certainly have warned the Iranians to stand clear and that any hostile action by them against the British boarding party would have resulted in her engaging them.

If the vessel had been an LCS rather than a conventional frigate surely the last thing to do would have been to close in to the Iranians, thus bringing yourself within range of the guns on their ships.

I'd argue that you don't have to be in the littoral to project power into the littoral. HMS Cornwall was more than capable of intervening had planning been better and had she chosen to do so.

 

[kato]

The Iranian vessels were well within range of her 4.5 inch gun and Harpoon missiles.

Harpoons are useless against ships smaller than about a 250-ton FAC, as the USN found out against Iran in 1988 (and even then it gets iffy). Not enough radar signature to guarantee a hit.
There was an incident in 1988 where a US surface group destroyed a Iranian FAC. It was first hit by multiple Standard missiles that blew away the superstructure; they then wanted to finish it off with a Harpoon, but the Harpoon missed due to the too small radar signature of the target vessel. They then moved in to sink it using 5-inch guns.

It would be debatable whether NETFIREs aboard a LCS would have been more useful in this situation (i'd guess so).

If the vessel had been an LCS rather than a conventional frigate surely the last thing to do would have been to close in to the Iranians, thus bringing yourself within range of the guns on their ships.

The Iranian ships involved here were at most 10- to 20-ton PBs with small-caliber guns, HMGs, maybe some grenade launchers and RPGs. At most a light mortar or a 20-25mm gun. Nothing that could have really threatened HMS Cornwall, at least if they kept outside 1-1.5 nm distance.

As i understood it, the problem with HMS Cornwall's non-intercept wasn't speed or reaction/awareness, but simple navigational problems - the area only offers set corridors for a ship with a frigate's safe operating depth (due to its draft). The LCS would have had more options (see also here).

 

[spsun100001]

Harpoons are useless against ships smaller than about a 250-ton FAC, as the USN found out against Iran in 1988 (and even then it gets iffy). Not enough radar signature to guarantee a hit.
There was an incident in 1988 where a US surface group destroyed a Iranian FAC. It was first hit by multiple Standard missiles that blew away the superstructure; they then wanted to finish it off with a Harpoon, but the Harpoon missed due to the too small radar signature of the target vessel. They then moved in to sink it using 5-inch guns.

It would be debatable whether NETFIREs aboard a LCS would have been more useful in this situation (i'd guess so).



The Iranian ships involved here were at most 10- to 20-ton PBs with small-caliber guns, HMGs, maybe some grenade launchers and RPGs. At most a light mortar or a 20-25mm gun. Nothing that could have really threatened HMS Cornwall, at least if they kept outside 1-1.5 nm distance.

As i understood it, the problem with HMS Cornwall's non-intercept wasn't speed or reaction/awareness, but simple navigational problems - the area only offers set corridors for a ship with a frigate's safe operating depth (due to its draft). The LCS would have had more options

Take your point about Harpoons. They were still well in range of the 4.5 inch gun though and the helicopter could have been present with better planning.

If I understood rightly the Iranians had at least two patrol vessels equipped with 76mm guns.

Whatever they were though Cornwall could have taken care of them with her helicopter and gun. It didn't been a $300m LCS to do the job.

 

[kato]

Take your point about Harpoons. They were still well in range of the 4.5 inch gun though and the helicopter could have been present with better planning.

Of course. And with even better planning, there would have been a land-based overhead air patrol out of some airfield on Al-Fao.

If I understood rightly the Iranians had at least two patrol vessels equipped with 76mm guns.

The only Iranian "light" vessels with such would have been one of their 5-7 remaining Combattante II FACs (Kaman, the same class i talked about above) armed with a 76mm, a 40mm and 4 C-802 SSM (originally Harpoon). If two of those had been operating anywhere in the area nearby HMS Cornwall beforehand, i'd believe the overall op level would have been raised quite a lot.

Whatever they were though Cornwall could have taken care of them with her helicopter and gun. It didn't been a $300m LCS to do the job.

*shrug*

If i had the choice, i'd take three or four 500-ton PBs along with a larger dedicated helo platform with 4-5 helos and some armoured light boats, for about the same money.

 

[Todjaeger]

But is that not also true of the GD LCS design?

I believe the GD design attempts to get around the issue by having the primary (centre-line) hull be a length of 127m and longer than the two outrigger hulls. In effect, attempting to reduce the beam relative to the overall length of the hull, yet retain some of the advantages a multi-hull design offers.

I'm not sure that the issue in the Gulf had as much to do with the design of the ship (HMS Cornwall) as it had to do with poor operational practice. There are rumours that the helicopter was not kept aloft to save fuel costs. Whatever the truth of that though, proper planning could have made sure that the helicopter was available and overhead when boarding took place.

Secondly, had HMS Cornwall chosen to intervene she was more than capable of doing so. The Iranian vessels were well within range of her 4.5 inch gun and Harpoon missiles. She could certainly have warned the Iranians to stand clear and that any hostile action by them against the British boarding party would have resulted in her engaging them.

If the vessel had been an LCS rather than a conventional frigate surely the last thing to do would have been to close in to the Iranians, thus bringing yourself within range of the guns on their ships.

I'd argue that you don't have to be in the littoral to project power into the littoral. HMS Cornwall was more than capable of intervening had planning been better and had she chosen to do so.

Not sure that the issue was just poor planning, though that may well have played a role or exacerbated issues that the Iranians were able to exploit.

More discussion of the incident can be found on this thread http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6065

As I recall, the 4.5 in gun couldn't be used safely because the Iranian boats were already too close to the British RHIBs, and any fire intended to drive off or disable the Iranian boats could damage the British boats.

As for not keeping the helicopter overhead, yes it would have been better had it been able to remain aloft while the RN & RM carried out their search. That might not have been an option though. I don't think the Lynx would have returned to HMS Cornwall just to conserve fuel as a economy measure. From what I've found Cornwall only has a single Lynx, and that would need to undergo routine maintenance. I don't know what the ratio of maintenance hours to flight hours for a Lynx is, but I believe it is enough so that a concern would be to conserve the available flight hours for future operations. That is part of why the LCS being able to potentially carry & support 3-4 helicopters could be an advantage, there should be enough so that one is always ready for a mission. If a ship only has 1 helicopter, and is requires 3 hrs maintenance for each flight hour, then at best the helicopter is only available 6 hours per day for sustained operations. The situation becomes even worse if the helicopter design is a high maintenance one, such as the now rather elderly Wessex Sea Kings in use by the RAN and Canada. Those I believe have require around 30 hours of maintenance per flight hour.

The Iranian ships involved here were at most 10- to 20-ton PBs with small-caliber guns, HMGs, maybe some grenade launchers and RPGs. At most a light mortar or a 20-25mm gun. Nothing that could have really threatened HMS Cornwall, at least if they kept outside 1-1.5 nm distance.

As i understood it, the problem with HMS Cornwall's non-intercept wasn't speed or reaction/awareness, but simple navigational problems - the area only offers set corridors for a ship with a frigate's safe operating depth (due to its draft). The LCS would have had more options

I'm not sure how much of a restriction the shipping channels were on HMS Cornwall responding. The vessel being boarded was suspected of smuggling cars, so I would imagine it was itself in a shipping channel, though potentially a different one from Cornwall. What I thought was the major reason HMS Cornwall remained on station was that it was tasked with protecting a major Iraqi offshore oil terminal, and if it had attempted to respond to the Iranian incursion, the terminal could have come under attack, either by Iran and/or various insurgents. I do agree though, what would seem to be a better solution to a situation like this would be a larger vessel operating a number of helicopters, with small armed and armoured patrol boats.

-Cheers

 

[kato]

If a ship only has 1 helicopter, and is requires 3 hrs maintenance for each flight hour, then at best the helicopter is only available 6 hours per day for sustained operations.

I think i remember reading somewhere (Warships1?) that HMS Cornwall operated her helicopter between 6 and 8 hours per day the previous days, with the helo maintenance crew doing "exceptionally fast work", or something like that.

This is really why most intended littoral warfare designs look at relatively high numbers of helos - 3-4 usually, 8-12 in LHD-derived designs - to maintain 24-hour patrol flights. In 1987, the USN chartered several large barges in the Persian Gulf and operated light helos (MH-6, OH-58) and light patrol boats from those (Operation Prime Chance).

Might actually be worth looking at a concept like that again, especially if you moor it somewhere close to relatively static targets like those two oil platforms or shipping corridors, for long-term patrol/surveillance roles such as here. Add in a LCS or two farther out to perform chase/pursuit, as well as ASW and ASuW support missions, and we'd be looking at an interesting concept.

 

[Tasman]

I think i remember reading somewhere (Warships1?) that HMS Cornwall operated her helicopter between 6 and 8 hours per day the previous days, with the helo maintenance crew doing "exceptionally fast work", or something like that.

This is really why most intended littoral warfare designs look at relatively high numbers of helos - 3-4 usually, 8-12 in LHD-derived designs - to maintain 24-hour patrol flights. In 1987, the USN chartered several large barges in the Persian Gulf and operated light helos (MH-6, OH-58) and light patrol boats from those (Operation Prime Chance).

Might actually be worth looking at a concept like that again, especially if you moor it somewhere close to relatively static targets like those two oil platforms or shipping corridors, for long-term patrol/surveillance roles such as here. Add in a LCS or two farther out to perform chase/pursuit, as well as ASW and ASuW support missions, and we'd be looking at an interesting concept.

The more I read about littoral warfare scenarios the more I can see the value of using LHDs as motherships. Embarking a suitable mix of helos (e.g. Seahawk, Hueycobra), armed boats (e.g. CB90), and troops (e.g. marines) to provide landing parties or armed response teams, these ships would enable 24/7 helo cover as well as supplementing frigates in providing armed landing parties. Troops embarked on an LHD could include a special operations unit (e.g. commandos or SAS) and/or a clearance diving team (e.g. USN Seals) to deal with any nasty situations or incidents that might arise.

I think that the LHD would also be ideal to act as command ship or flagship for a squadron of frigates or other patrol vessels operating in a littoral environment such as the Persian Gulf.

An LPH such as HMS Ocean could also operate in this role although the well deck of an LHD might make it easier to support CB90s or similar.

Tas

 

[B.Smitty]

The more I read about littoral warfare scenarios the more I can see the value of using LHDs as motherships. Embarking a suitable mix of helos (e.g. Seahawk, Hueycobra), armed boats (e.g. CB90), and troops (e.g. marines) to provide landing parties or armed response teams, these ships would enable 24/7 helo cover as well as supplementing frigates in providing armed landing parties. Troops embarked on an LHD could include a special operations unit (e.g. commandos or SAS) and/or a clearance diving team (e.g. USN Seals) to deal with any nasty situations or incidents that might arise.

It could also carry a number of Harriers or JSFs carrying Mavericks, LGBs or SDBs to provide a wide-ranging, fast response capability.

I imagine the mere sight and sound of a pair of Harriers might've defused the Iranian situation.

However deploying an LHD for this role would deprive an ESG of its primary aviation ship.

I think the aviation-capable barge idea is better here. Or convert a commercial container or RORO vessel to act as a littoral mothership.

Perhaps you could add a good-sized hangar to this type of ship,

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/ro-ro-26.htm

It can carry and offload 4 LCM-8s on deck, which should translate to a larger number of CB90s or other patrol craft.

 

[rjmaz1]

The mothership and patrol boat idea also has many advantages.

The mothership offers the deployment endurance and range and large load capacity for many helicopters. The patrol boats offer the speed and agility for littoral area's.

The mothership has the size and space to even operate Aegis and long range missiles for both air and sea defence. The patrol boats can then operate underneith this umbrella.

Another interesting thought, i dont see why our LHD's couldn't perform the role of the Air Warfare Ddestroyers. If they had AEGIS onboard it would be able to do the role well. The LHD can carry many helicopters and patrol boats to perform most roles.

The LHD would then pretty much be its own self reliant mini aircraft carrier. With its own patrol boats acting as escorts. It would work well with an Anzac firgate and collins class sub out front. The LHD would also be able to carry the fuel for the entire battle group.

Whats the biggest size boat the LHD will be able to carry?

Here are some concept drawings and specs from Bollinger/INCAT,

http://www.marad.dot.gov/nmrec/images/Bollinger-Savoye.pdf

Thats pretty interesting. I like the Seaframe Helo transport concept.

 

[Todjaeger]

It could also carry a number of Harriers or JSFs carrying Mavericks, LGBs or SDBs to provide a wide-ranging, fast response capability.

I imagine the mere sight and sound of a pair of Harriers might've defused the Iranian situation.

However deploying an LHD for this role would deprive an ESG of its primary aviation ship.

I think the aviation-capable barge idea is better here. Or convert a commercial container or RORO vessel to act as a littoral mothership.

Perhaps you could add a good-sized hangar to this type of ship,

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/ro-ro-26.htm

It can carry and offload 4 LCM-8s on deck, which should translate to a larger number of CB90s or other patrol craft.

I was thinking more along the lines of the a San Antonio LPD. It has hangar maintenance facilities sufficient to work on 3 Cobra-sized helicopters and has landing facilities for four. Not sure if that would allow the same number of MH-60R Seahawks to operate, but would still be better than can currently be achieved with a fridate. Also, the San Antonio should be able to transport around 9 CB90-sized boats in place of the two LCAC if my calculations are correct. Couple that with the ability to carry a Mk-41 VLS and ESSM to reduce the chance of an "accidental" AShM hit, a San Antonio might well be able to carryout the role of a mothership. I personally would prefer a slightly modified version that also had a Mk 45 Mod 4 5in/127mm with ERGM as well as additional hangar space, but otherwise it would seem fine.

Of course the barge idea works too, if one is looking to provide a "garrison" in an area. I don't think that solution would provide the mobility something like an LPD would have if/when it gets deployed elsewhere. On the other hand though, if the mission is likely to be a long term mission where the mothership is going to be on station for long periods (measured in years) and not otherwise moving way from a duty station much, then perhaps an LPD-type vessel to establish the initial presence, then a barge to take over once it arrives on station.

These, to me at least, sound like more effective, less risky and less expensive solutions than the LCS concept. Granted they might not be able to get on station quite as quickly (still have some doubts on long range cruising speed of LCS) but I feel that the speed advantage is likely outweighted by increased risks and cost.

-Cheers

 

[Todjaeger]

The mothership has the size and space to even operate Aegis and long range missiles for both air and sea defence. The patrol boats can then operate underneith this umbrella.

Another interesting thought, i dont see why our LHD's couldn't perform the role of the Air Warfare Ddestroyers. If they had AEGIS onboard it would be able to do the role well. The LHD can carry many helicopters and patrol boats to perform most roles.

The LHD would then pretty much be its own self reliant mini aircraft carrier. With its own patrol boats acting as escorts. It would work well with an Anzac firgate and collins class sub out front. The LHD would also be able to carry the fuel for the entire battle group.

Whats the biggest size boat the LHD will be able to carry?


Thats pretty interesting. I like the Seaframe Helo transport concept.

A number of ships over the ~1,000 ton mark are likely able to have Aegis-type systems and phased radar arrays like SPY-1F. The question would then become, would one want to? Given the costs of such systems, and what they are used for I think it unlikely. The "mothership" would be a naval vessel, but not one intended to actually engage in combat. Its role would be more a support and C4 mission. I think it likely if the situation were such where it would be likely a mothership would come under attack sufficient to require area air defences, then it is probably too soon for the mothership to deploy. Also, other areas where a mothership-type vessel could be used would be in disaster relief and policing operations, not unlike regular LPH or LHDs could. For these operations, Aegis systems and such are unneeded.

Lastly, a mothership is likely to not be as fast as a frigate or destroyer. If an air defence ship is needed someone urgently, it would seem to be better mounted aboard a faster vessel than somethine like a LPD or LHD.

-Cheers

 

[spsun100001]

The use of an LPD is an interesting concept. Does anyone have any idea how many of those vessels could be afforded as opposed to the planned investment in the LCS?

Obviously much of the price tag would depend on whether it was Aegis capable as the SPY1 system plus the Mk41 and the Standards and ESSM's would push up the unit price considerably.

I think there is an argument for that capability, particularly if those systems can be properly developed to give a TBMD capability. Perhaps some of the vessels could be fitted with it giving a hight threat area operating capability whereas others might only be armed with ESSM for self defence and operate in lower threat, policing roles.

Although the San Antonio was mentioned most LPD's would seem readily adaptable to carry the helicopters and small boates, perhaps the with exception of the British Albion class as they have no hanger.

 

[Todjaeger]

The use of an LPD is an interesting concept. Does anyone have any idea how many of those vessels could be afforded as opposed to the planned investment in the LCS?

Obviously much of the price tag would depend on whether it was Aegis capable as the SPY1 system plus the Mk41 and the Standards and ESSM's would push up the unit price considerably.

I think there is an argument for that capability, particularly if those systems can be properly developed to give a TBMD capability. Perhaps some of the vessels could be fitted with it giving a hight threat area operating capability whereas others might only be armed with ESSM for self defence and operate in lower threat, policing roles.

Although the San Antonio was mentioned most LPD's would seem readily adaptable to carry the helicopters and small boates, perhaps the with exception of the British Albion class as they have no hanger.

The San Antonio came to mind due to it having a hangar, provision to carry & deploy the LCAC, as well as a self-defence weapons suite, namely the ESSM. I don't think larger or more advanced combat systems (like Aegis) would be used, since such systems aren't for self-defence, they are for area defence of a task force, etc. In order to make reasonable use of such a system, there would need to be reasonably significant numbers of missiles carried. That in turn would not significantly increase the performance of an LPD-type vessel in performing a "mothership" function.

-Cheers

 

[Grand Danois]

Wrt this little discussion, I'd like to point out that the ESSM can be used in ASuW mode too. Guns, Harpoons, NetFires and helo/air support aren't the only options.

http://www.defencetalk.com/news/pub...SeaSparrow_Missile_At-Sea_Firing160012101.php

 

[B.Smitty]

The use of an LPD is an interesting concept. Does anyone have any idea how many of those vessels could be afforded as opposed to the planned investment in the LCS?

IIRC, the average price per ship for the San Antonios is around $1.2 billion.

The CBO estimates each LCS will cost around $450 million without mission modules.

So 2.67 LCSs per San Antonio.

 

[kato]

So 2.67 LCSs per San Antonio.

Less, if you account for operating costs (20 San Antonios would have twice the manning levels of 55 LCS). And a San Antonio is a kinda bad example, as it only supports 3-4 light helos either, meaning you're actually reducing helo spots overall by like 60%. If you calculate with $3 billion LHA(R), it looks all different of course.

A full-size LPH/LHA/LHD would be overkill of course. A dedicated design (focusing on helo support, maybe semi-commercial hull, with tender facilities for small boats) would probably run somewhere around $700 million to $900 million, in US yards.
And would look somewhat closer to France's Jeanne d'Arc, instead of a LPD. Just saying.
Give it support for 8 light/medium helos and maybe drones, handling facilities (davits or whatever too) for 4 boats in the 20-ton class plus twice that in large RIBs, and accomodation for a boarding company. Two RAM and some light guns for self-defence, maybe containerized NETFIRE or another longer-range surface-to-surface system, and you're set, on a 10-15,000 ton platform.

Of course you'd still need to build something to fill the other roles the LCS is supposed to take.

 

[Grand Danois]

Less, if you account for operating costs (20 San Antonios would have twice the manning levels of 55 LCS). And a San Antonio is a kinda bad example, as it only supports 3-4 light helos either, meaning you're actually reducing helo spots overall by like 60%. If you calculate with $3 billion LHA(R), it looks all different of course.

A full-size LPH/LHA/LHD would be overkill of course. A dedicated design (focusing on helo support, maybe semi-commercial hull, with tender facilities for small boats) would probably run somewhere around $700 million to $900 million, in US yards.
And would look somewhat closer to France's Jeanne d'Arc, instead of a LPD. Just saying.

That sounds an awfully lot like the Absalon Class (x2 EH101, x2 CB90). IIRC they come in cheaper than an LCS, including program costs. (The program cost of the entire Absalon class; project management, design, tooling up, construction, some weapons, sensors, fitting out, etc., is 437 million USD (B2.5DKR) for both ships. As far as I can figure.)

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/absalon/

Sidenote, the lead ship is now declared technically ready, as the fitting out was completed last week.

This site is in Danish, but if you expand the picture at the bottom of the article, there is a nice slide of pictures with all the recently installed systems. (Edit: Found out you'll have to exit the DT frame first for it to work...)

http://www.navalhistory.dk/Danish/SoevaernsNyt/2007/0818_EndeligTilSoes.htm

And has already made its first MU 90 shoot with a PDT. More Danish stuff, but pics.

http://forsvaret.dk/SOK/Nyt+og+Presse/2007-08-25torpedo.htm

 

[B.Smitty]

A full-size LPH/LHA/LHD would be overkill of course. A dedicated design (focusing on helo support, maybe semi-commercial hull, with tender facilities for small boats) would probably run somewhere around $700 million to $900 million, in US yards.
And would look somewhat closer to France's Jeanne d'Arc, instead of a LPD. Just saying.
Give it support for 8 light/medium helos and maybe drones, handling facilities (davits or whatever too) for 4 boats in the 20-ton class plus twice that in large RIBs, and accomodation for a boarding company. Two RAM and some light guns for self-defence, maybe containerized NETFIRE or another longer-range surface-to-surface system, and you're set, on a 10-15,000 ton platform.

Or perhaps build a flattop using either the LPD-17 or Burke/Tico hull (maybe like the new Japanese DDH).

Of course you'd still need to build something to fill the other roles the LCS is supposed to take.

There's the rub.

Patrol boats aren't going to be effective ASW or MIW platforms - though i suppose they could tow an AQS-20 or carry a helo-class dipping sonar.

Perhaps we could develop a patrol boat that operate unmanned when the situation warrants and have a modular payload. Basically give it an enhanced version of what we're planning for the 11m USVs. It could have significantly more payload capacity and range than a RHIB.

Or we might have to develop a corvette-sized warship that could self deploy with the helo-carrier. It wouldn't have to be large enough to hangar an H-60 - just large enough to act as a lily pad for one flying from the carrier.

 

[kato]

Patrol boats aren't going to be effective ASW or MIW platforms - though i suppose they could tow an AQS-20 or carry a helo-class dipping sonar.

There's also the rough method - like the bigger Troika, where the ROVs simply run into the minefield, simulate the magnetic and acoustic footprint of a larger ship, and are built to "ride out" the explosions then and continue on.
Denmark actually has a similar system, but modular with a StanFlex container.

For ASW, helos would really be enough. Maybe put a sonar on the mothership itself, but other than that, helos. The ASW Helo Carrier concept worked well enough in the Atlantic.

For other roles or to accompany the helo carrier, you might as well actually build the LCS. Just not 50+ of them. Say half of what's planned (25-30 then), and figure in 5-6 "motherships" including helos for the rest of the money.

That sounds an awfully lot like the Absalon Class (x2 EH101, x2 CB90). IIRC they come in cheaper than an LCS, including program costs. (The program cost of the entire Absalon class; project management, design, tooling up, construction, some weapons, sensors, fitting out, etc., is 437 million USD (B2.5DKR) for both ships. As far as I can figure.)

The price is low
- because they were built in a purely civilian shipyards (Odense Shipyards) to full commercial standards, after simply handing Odense some broad design specs (i.e. the ships aren't even designed to military standards).
- because electronics outfit is lacking in comparison to "real" naval ships (compare to the planned PS frigate follow-on, which will cost twice as much)
- because not all equipment/weapons is bought for all ships. The StanFlex concept allows to form (undersized) "pools" from which all active ships can draw equipment.

I'd also go with twice the size. Minimum. Absalon (and other multirole designs of its class) have severe size problems, including for carrying things.

 

[Grand Danois]

The price is low
- because they were built in a purely civilian shipyards (Odense Shipyards) to full commercial standards, after simply handing Odense some broad design specs (i.e. the ships aren't even designed to military standards).
- because electronics outfit is lacking in comparison to "real" naval ships (compare to the planned PS frigate follow-on, which will cost twice as much)
- because not all equipment/weapons is bought for all ships. The StanFlex concept allows to form (undersized) "pools" from which all active ships can draw equipment.

I'd also go with twice the size. Minimum. Absalon (and other multirole designs of its class) have severe size problems, including for carrying things.

• It is mostly a BAE design - built by Odense Yard.
• They are designed to commercial military standards - just as the Mistral Class and many of the ships being currently built. It doesn't mean it is a car ferry, it means the classification process is civilian, the process, not the design. But yes, the kitchen facilities are not to military standards. Read the link.
  
• Electronics - read the link - compare to most non-AAW frigates, compare to LCS - lacking?
  
• Any ship sent abroad will have full mission packages. Whats wrong with pooling kit? The USN is not going to make a one of each kind of mission module for every LCS it is going to build. LCS mission modules are going to be hellishly expensive, like more expensive than the hull, and can probably be fitted to other ships as well at the end of the day.
  
• Twice the size? perhaps you are right. I was thinking the HMS Cornwall incident, which means it has to have some ability to maneuver in the littorals, i.e. I am not thinking a classic sea control ship. I'd certainly want the CB90 or the USV it carries to be launched from davits on the sides instead of the stern, if it was a larger ship.
  
  Anyhow, the larger the ship, the more you rely on offboard assets protecting your offboard assets.

Edit: Alright, I may have come across as overly defensive. :´