Littoral Combat Ships are they useful?
- Thread starter USNlover
- Start date
Juramentado
New Member
Good catch. Still - look at the majority of the missiles in active USN inventory - most of them are built and made in the US. There are sound political, economic, and military-industrial reasons for doing so. I'm simply pointing out that foreign made offerings have a bigger disadvantage in DoD RFPs/RFIs. Just look at the polarization behind EADs and Boeing over KC-X....
The modularity and reasoning behind it seems to get more and more irrelavent and unneeded. Just take the lessons learned and technology we have invested into the LCS program and either build frigates or FAC.
Dont see a Foreign buy for this or many US systems we have alot of reason but much of it is jobs and wanting to keep out defense industry in house. You never can tell when an allie will decide to call it quits so...
Also canceling american jobs for foreign jobs is a big no, no right now.
Dont see a Foreign buy for this or many US systems we have alot of reason but much of it is jobs and wanting to keep out defense industry in house. You never can tell when an allie will decide to call it quits so...
Also canceling american jobs for foreign jobs is a big no, no right now.
Last edited:
F-15 Eagle
New Member
I'm just curious is the LCS classified as a Frigate or a Corvette?
You sure bout that as it has a pennant number, and the commisioning pennant would be on any ship commisioned. The LCS is a new class for the USN, and differs from the Frigate/ destroyer concept with modulisation and high speeds.
US ships dont have a "F" before pennant numbers, much like RN, RAN and other nations. Euro nations are the main countries who place designation before hull number.
[ame]http://i706.photobucket.com/albums/ww69/elmuzzerino/LCS-1-1080.jpg[/ame]
Juramentado
New Member
Although the mainstream media has associated the label "Frigate" with LCS, it's more of a comparison point or a reference point for John/Jane Doe reader who isn't likely familiar with modern naval force structures.
Again, if we go back to the displacement arguement, it's close to being a typical US frigate if you use modern classes such as Knox and OHP. And before anyone says "cruiser gap," let's not go there. That's simply muddying the waters just because one can. Let's stick to the baseline scenario please.
I haven't seen any specific DoN reference shoehorning the class into one category or another. That's probably deliberate as the proponents want everyone to think of this as a new class of combatant type, and get away from the traditional ship classification model.
Question One
With the NLOS-LS being cancelled by the US Army due to technical difficulty leaving the Navy alone in the project with Lockheed Martin, is it possible/likely that the missile system will be scraped and what does this mean for the LCS?.
Question Two
What is the NLOS-LS capacity on the LCS? and Does the load out capacity differ between the two designs?. I ask this because LCS-1 has two "Bins/Silos" AFT of the bridge while LCS-2 has one big "Bin/Silo FWD of the bridge.
Question Three.
I have seen several photos of LCS-1 showing what I assume is two 35mm millennium mounts just FWD of the RAM Launcher. Does LCS-2 also mount a these guns? I'm not sure it does as I can't see where they could go.
If anybody cares about my "Two Cents" I hope the LCS-2 design wins out....Why you ask ? Because it looks so damn "SEXY!" :heart and because it is " Kind of" Australian. :australia
With the NLOS-LS being cancelled by the US Army due to technical difficulty leaving the Navy alone in the project with Lockheed Martin, is it possible/likely that the missile system will be scraped and what does this mean for the LCS?.
Question Two
What is the NLOS-LS capacity on the LCS? and Does the load out capacity differ between the two designs?. I ask this because LCS-1 has two "Bins/Silos" AFT of the bridge while LCS-2 has one big "Bin/Silo FWD of the bridge.
Question Three.
I have seen several photos of LCS-1 showing what I assume is two 35mm millennium mounts just FWD of the RAM Launcher. Does LCS-2 also mount a these guns? I'm not sure it does as I can't see where they could go.
If anybody cares about my "Two Cents" I hope the LCS-2 design wins out....Why you ask ? Because it looks so damn "SEXY!" :heart and because it is " Kind of" Australian. :australia
Juramentado
New Member
Replies in Blue.
Question One
With the NLOS-LS being cancelled by the US Army due to technical difficulty leaving the Navy alone in the project with Lockheed Martin, is it possible/likely that the missile system will be scraped and what does this mean for the LCS?.
Please check earlier in this thread. NetFires IS dead and has been since the remaining 76M USD was transferred from the Army to the Navy. A new bid was opened and closed this summer but the final sourcing (if any) has not been disclosed.
https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=e9e3442f1587c3ff68880844cbfd427d&_cview=0
Question Two
What is the NLOS-LS capacity on the LCS? and Does the load out capacity differ between the two designs?. I ask this because LCS-1 has two "Bins/Silos" AFT of the bridge while LCS-2 has one big "Bin/Silo FWD of the bridge.
Both vessels have the same missile bay specifically designed to take on the NetFires Container Launch Unit (CLU). Note that they are Engineering Design Models (i.e., finalized prototypes). The nominal capacity was stated to be forty-five (45) missiles for either seaframe. Based on the FBO bid above, there is little to no modifications available for any future replacements - the missile that will fill the NetFires "void" must use the same power, water, chill and volume that NLOS would have used/occupied. There is a little "wiggle" room; approximately three feet vertically, to allow for a slightly longer missile and launcher unit, but that definitely precludes SM-2 - it's still not long enough. ESSM could be an option if they squeezed it in right and got creative about the missle density packing. Any alternatives that are larger than the original PAM round will reduce overall missile capacity.
Question Three.
I have seen several photos of LCS-1 showing what I assume is two 35mm millennium mounts just FWD of the RAM Launcher. Does LCS-2 also mount a these guns? I'm not sure it does as I can't see where they could go.
No - these are Mk. 44 30mm Bushmaster housed in Mk. 46 turrets - the so called Gun Mission Modules. In keeping with the "modular" SuW Mission Package, they are interchangeable between the seaframes. On Indy, the turrets are also mounted on the superstructure, towards the aft, in the port and starboard weapons zones.
If anybody cares about my "Two Cents" I hope the LCS-2 design wins out....Why you ask ? Because it looks so damn "SEXY!" :heart and because it is " Kind of" Australian. :australia
No comment on the winner. Either one is well, everyone knows my opinion by now. I'm expecting Sea Toby to hop on to my reply at any moment. "Now hear this, now hear this. Away the LCS Rah-Rah Team. All hands not involved in the incident, stand fast!"
Juramentado
New Member
LCS-1 Freedom Suffers Engine Casualty
Looks like someone's going to have to rethink the MBTF (Mean Time Between Failures) for the RR Trent Engine...I don't think it's even been 10,000 hours for those units.
Engine Problem Strikes LCS 1 - Defense News
Looks like someone's going to have to rethink the MBTF (Mean Time Between Failures) for the RR Trent Engine...I don't think it's even been 10,000 hours for those units.
Engine Problem Strikes LCS 1 - Defense News
That doesn't bother me very much engine problems happen and this very well may be an isolated incident.
I found this part funny though.
Except the removal rails were removed from LCS-1 because of weight considerations (LCS-1 is very weight critical, at one point in addition to removing those rails they also did things like cut every other cable hangar and leave the decks painted rather than using the traditional PRC material).
GAH! You can change the LM-2500 in a Burke out in a couple of days. Ok, granted this is a new engine and they are going to test and write the procedures it just seems a bit silly to take that long.
Fundamental design flaw or something that will only affect first of class?
Supposedly first of class. However both ships will remain weight critical through their life due to the ultra high speed requirements just not as critical as LCS-1 is at the moment.