I am impressed with what the Danes have done with Absalom, very nice flexible design.
Blue, Green and expeditionary...
Blue, Green and expeditionary...
Littoral Combat Ships are they useful?
- Thread starter USNlover
- Start date
Yes, while they are not the be all to end all, they are a very versatile unit.
New Zealand would have been much better of obtaining an Absalom than the Canterbury.
In fact Australia could do far worse than building at least 3 Absaloms ( + CEFAR) to operate as a pidgeon pair with each AWD, that would give us Aegis, Cefar, 3 ASW/ASuW helicopters and 2 ~127mm guns.
That would put a smile on any RAN Captain's face.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Yes, it seems the Absalons have been what the Danish Navy expected from them. However much less was also "expected" from them compared to the LCS. And much more off-the-shelf systems could be used in the solution, i.e. Standard Flex, C-Flex, CB90, 5" mk45 mod 4 gun, etc. Add to that, the systems which they were launch customers for were also successfully implemented: Smart S Mk2 and the 35mm guns, though the latter had some minor trouble, iirc.
I consider the N-LOS a key component the LCS, without which the surface warfare package doesn't make much sense, imv.
Had a wild hope to see the N-LOS on the Absalons in due course as well.
I consider the N-LOS a key component the LCS, without which the surface warfare package doesn't make much sense, imv.
Had a wild hope to see the N-LOS on the Absalons in due course as well.
Not for the same value though. The Canterbury cost much less than an Absalon... And the Canterbury provides the minimum sea lift requirements one Absalon doesn't...
With the recent tsumani rellief operations the two 60 tonnes cranes aboard Canterbury were required for the mission.... The Absalon don't even have one....
Could a hovercraft make a good LCS, mine hunter come ASW vessel?
The hull and propulsion of a hovercraft does not penetrate the surface of the water as a conventional ship does, maybe making it harder to detect by submarine and also less likely to hit a mine.
If there is a need to land troops on the beach it can be done by hovercraft, so no need to launch more boats from a mothership.
I would think a hovercraft is plenty fast enough and much more manoeuvrable than a conventional ship. Could it be armed with adequate self defence weapons and land attack weapons? Or is it just a stupid idea, maybe too costly or just not doable or both.
The hull and propulsion of a hovercraft does not penetrate the surface of the water as a conventional ship does, maybe making it harder to detect by submarine and also less likely to hit a mine.
If there is a need to land troops on the beach it can be done by hovercraft, so no need to launch more boats from a mothership.
I would think a hovercraft is plenty fast enough and much more manoeuvrable than a conventional ship. Could it be armed with adequate self defence weapons and land attack weapons? Or is it just a stupid idea, maybe too costly or just not doable or both.
I maybe wrong, bur as I recall the Pegasus class guided missile patrol boats were hovercrafts. The crews didn't like them because the ships shook considerably and were uncomfortable. Its one thing to land troops from a LCAC for several miles, its another thing to sail constantly for thousands of miles with a hovercraft...
Nah, they were hydrofoils, i.e. they raised their keel out of the water at full speed. Was a joint NATO project pushed by US Admiral Zumwalt, and luckily everyone except the US and Italy jumped ship due to the high costs.
Juramentado
New Member
Hovercraft consume more fuel than most marine vessels - they're essentially low flying aircraft operating at high speed - the worst of fuel regimes. Even operating at idle, it's sucking gas at high rates. They are very sensitive to strong wind currents (think air hockey puck) and have poor braking characteristics.
Last edited:
Actually I would have throught 3 modified Absalons would have been a better bet for RNZN than the 2 Frigates & Canterbury, probably cheaper aswell. I am sure a reasonable crane could be installed on an Absalon I can't see it as big issue. The Absalon's are far more flexible then either types or both combined. There is much more than could be down along similar lines to the Absalons. For a small navy with limited budgets they have got to be some of the most innovative designs we have seen for years and certainly some of the most talked about .
True, three Absalons would have been better than two Anzacs. But the recent relief operations also included using the LCMs as well as the crane. Unlike the Danish islands, many of the islands in the South Pacific are atolls and have reefs preventing a ship to dock alongside...
The Absalons don't carry LCMs, only smaller LCUs. The vehicle deck is only 240 lane meters, not 403 lane meters... The NZ army requires 390 lane meters to sealift an enlarge company group. To accommodate 130 troops, containers are used which comsume the vehicle deck of an Absalon. In other words, it takes three Absalons to do the same sealift as one Canterbury...
The Absalons don't carry LCMs, only smaller LCUs. The vehicle deck is only 240 lane meters, not 403 lane meters... The NZ army requires 390 lane meters to sealift an enlarge company group. To accommodate 130 troops, containers are used which comsume the vehicle deck of an Absalon. In other words, it takes three Absalons to do the same sealift as one Canterbury...
Last edited:
It has helicopters, and SRC90 boats and I'm sure something larger could be designed in. I noticed on a photo the launch cranes can handle 9.4t. I think a work around could be achieved and the flexibility gained is huge.
huskerguy7
Member
I think that the LCSs will be very useful. First, they will really allow the US to expand its capabilities in littoral or "green waters." For example, LCSs would be more effective in counter piracy operations than some of the ships in 150 and 151 over there. Second, they are fast, and would seem like a good counter to Iran's weak, but large fleet of small craft.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Possibly, but they don't need 45 knots for that and it has to be remembered that they are the same size as a perry, in dimensions though not displacement (aluminium is much lighter then steel).
I don't see how. Though frankly an OPV carrying a light utility helicopter with a door mounted gun could do the job just as well as most of the excorts there at the moment.
No, the counter to Irans fleet of Missile Boats is called the Missile Armed Helicopter. This was proven during the First Gulf War when RN and USN helicopters decimated the Iraqi Missile Boat fleet.
huskerguy7
Member
So I assume that you don't support the LCS?
So far, I've only encountered praise for it, but would be interested in hearing the story from the other side.
A LCS would be more effective regarding operating costs for the job. More than the other stuff the USN is sending anyway, other countries have more suitable systems in place (such as OPVs or light frigates).
It's very, very expensive.
Juramentado
New Member
I'm not answering for the original poster, but his comment is not neccessarily anti-LCS. If you look at most of the live-fire engagements to date in CTF-15x and EUNAVFOR, none of them called for anything larger than machine guns or cannon fire. In that sense, if you replaced LCS with OHP, they would be pretty identical from an operational perspective - Perrys no longer have Mk.13 and LCS doesn't have NLOS.
A slight advantage would be granted to whichever platform had say, UAV integration. The recent FireScout drug bust was based off an fig-7 class (McInerney), so you don't need LCS to have organic UAV.
The balance of that would be that UAV gives you more a larger monitoring and endurance footprint, but at the cost of no armed response. The sprint speed of LCS is somewhat negated - it's more efficient and faster to send air assets to the contact point unless the action happens right around the corner. Heavy organic air is high on the list of useful capabilities to have down in Pirate Alley. Even higher up on the list would be a regional monitoring capability - Aerostats or other assets that can stay up for a long period of time and give a better surface traffic picture so you're not wearing down organic air on patrols.
Last edited:
F-15 Eagle
New Member
The LCS should be canceled to free up funds for the Ford class carriers, DDG-51 destroyers/cruisers, SSBN(X) and Virginia class submarines IMHO.
Or at least reduce the LCS buy from 60 down to 30...
I don't agree. The USN needs a low end ship, a FF replacement not more Burkes or carriers the Perries won't last much longer. The Perries are rode hard and put away wet, they need replacement and thanks to Rummy and Co. the LCS's are the only option.
I don't like certain aspects of both LCS's (mainly the speed) however every single class of surface combatant the USN has come out with in the last 40 or so years has all faced vicious criticism from almost all corners that lasted for years until the ships proved themselves.
For example, this is a CBO document from 1977 about US Sea Control Capabilities found on Appendix B page 75.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/101xx/doc10147/77doc581.pdf
Sounds familiar right? And yet the Perry is one of the most successful surface combatants in the last 50 years.
Looked at from a historical perspective, both LCS's are both over budget but not significantly more so that FFG-7 was (cost adjusted for inflation of course), first of class ships always are over budget. In this case you are building 2 first of class ships and the USN went in a couple times and changed their minds on what they wanted during construction.