Ive been doing some research about them and I just wanted to know what you thought about them. Here are the web sites www.naval-technology.com/projects/littoral/littoral10.html
Littoral Combat Ships are they useful?
- Thread starter USNlover
- Start date
I think there is some merit behind the LCS concept, given today's threats. The biggest issues I have with the LCS design is the lack of range, excessive top speed and its cost (choke sputter).
While the rest of the world's navies concentrate their operations in their nearby waters, the US Navy requires ships to be forwardly deployed across the seas. The problem with the US minehunting fleet is that over half of them are designed for US coastal operations, and the other half don't have the speed to keep up with the replenishment fleet. In the recent past the US has leased ships to carry our minehunting ships to the front which aren't any quicker. And as for ASW operations, newer submarines have gained speed as well as a reduction in noise.
Since there aren't any navies with a hundred submarines prowling the oceans, a smaller and less expensive ASW ocean escort would be welcomed. On the other hand a larger minehunter would be welcomed. On top of these two operations, a coastal warship with lesser draft and more speed would be welcomed. Why not combine all three functions into one ship? LCS!
While the LCS may not be the preferred option for many European nations, or for that matter any of the world's nations, they are the preferred option for the US Navy.....
As for the cost, the LCS is more expensive than a frigate. But the LCS is cheaper than building a frigate, a minehunter, and a coastal patrol ship. Three capabilities for the price of one ship.....
Since there aren't any navies with a hundred submarines prowling the oceans, a smaller and less expensive ASW ocean escort would be welcomed. On the other hand a larger minehunter would be welcomed. On top of these two operations, a coastal warship with lesser draft and more speed would be welcomed. Why not combine all three functions into one ship? LCS!
While the LCS may not be the preferred option for many European nations, or for that matter any of the world's nations, they are the preferred option for the US Navy.....
As for the cost, the LCS is more expensive than a frigate. But the LCS is cheaper than building a frigate, a minehunter, and a coastal patrol ship. Three capabilities for the price of one ship.....
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
But nowhere near as good at any of the three roles as a ship purpose built for that role would be.
There are many videos on the web. Here are three Lockheed Martin LCS videos.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvhvndjTmzo]YouTube - Littoral Combat Ship (LCS)[/ame]
lcs - Google Videos
Lockheed Martin Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Team
For self defense the LCS is better armed than the current FFG-7s frigates they are designed to replace in anti-air/missile and anti-submarine. With eventually the new rocket assisted gunnery, their guns have more range than the 75-mm gun mount of the FFG-7s. The rolling airframe missiles are better for self defense. They carry more aircraft. For mine countermeasures they have newer and better ASW equipment. The LCS has a better hull as well, with more speed.
Frankly everything about the LCS is better than a FFG-7. The LCS will be deployed throughout the world, our current minehunters are mostly stationed in America. Their ASW module can be shipped via a Hercules aircraft, if not a C-17 quickly around the world, not take a month to get there. Plus they will make better SEALs vessels as well, carrying more of them and more of their equipment with less draft than the Cyclone class boats that were built for the SEALs.
The FFG-7 may have been a good frigate design for the early 1980s or late 1970s, but technology has gone a long way since then. Their air defense systems are at least one generation older, their gun mount is as adaptable with the new 57-mm gun mount.
The US Navy has never considered frigates a front line warship, therefore the reason to build so many cruisers and destroyers. Frigates were built for ASW ocean escorting. The LCS will have a newer generation of sonars and sonar arrays, along with carrying more aircraft.
While the price has been high for the first few ships, the ships are of an entirely new generation of engineering and armaments. Later ships will cost much less than the first ships built. While an FFG-7 may have run around $250 million during the late 1970s, the LCS will eventually run around $400 million. Cheaper when considering inflation. Not to mention not having to buy Cyclone class boats and mine countermeasure vessels.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvhvndjTmzo]YouTube - Littoral Combat Ship (LCS)[/ame]
lcs - Google Videos
Lockheed Martin Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Team
For self defense the LCS is better armed than the current FFG-7s frigates they are designed to replace in anti-air/missile and anti-submarine. With eventually the new rocket assisted gunnery, their guns have more range than the 75-mm gun mount of the FFG-7s. The rolling airframe missiles are better for self defense. They carry more aircraft. For mine countermeasures they have newer and better ASW equipment. The LCS has a better hull as well, with more speed.
Frankly everything about the LCS is better than a FFG-7. The LCS will be deployed throughout the world, our current minehunters are mostly stationed in America. Their ASW module can be shipped via a Hercules aircraft, if not a C-17 quickly around the world, not take a month to get there. Plus they will make better SEALs vessels as well, carrying more of them and more of their equipment with less draft than the Cyclone class boats that were built for the SEALs.
The FFG-7 may have been a good frigate design for the early 1980s or late 1970s, but technology has gone a long way since then. Their air defense systems are at least one generation older, their gun mount is as adaptable with the new 57-mm gun mount.
The US Navy has never considered frigates a front line warship, therefore the reason to build so many cruisers and destroyers. Frigates were built for ASW ocean escorting. The LCS will have a newer generation of sonars and sonar arrays, along with carrying more aircraft.
While the price has been high for the first few ships, the ships are of an entirely new generation of engineering and armaments. Later ships will cost much less than the first ships built. While an FFG-7 may have run around $250 million during the late 1970s, the LCS will eventually run around $400 million. Cheaper when considering inflation. Not to mention not having to buy Cyclone class boats and mine countermeasure vessels.
Excellent points brought up by Sea Toby. I would like to complement those with emphasis on LCS draft and speed. LCS max draft (Independence class) is 4.5 M whilst the FFG-7 has 7 M and DDG-51 10 M respectively. LCS top speed is 40+ knots. This means the LCS not only can access a wider range of ports and littoral areas, it will get there quite a bit faster than the larger DDG/CG. As an example, there are very few ports in South America where even the older DD-963 could enter/dock due to draft constraints (including the Mar del Plata) only the FFG-7s could dock most of the time.The adds flexibility and options for the task group commander.
I like the concept, but I don't like the execution and several of the requirements leaves me confused.
I just don't see how the over ridding emphasis on speed is a good thing it just seems like an expensive gimmick. At low speed it is not very fuel efficient, at low speed it is not very maneuverable, and those water jets are going to be maintenance hogs that have to be worked on in dry dock.
The ultra-low crewing also seems like a mistake, at least from a damage control and crew workload and duty section perspective.
I just don't see how the over ridding emphasis on speed is a good thing it just seems like an expensive gimmick. At low speed it is not very fuel efficient, at low speed it is not very maneuverable, and those water jets are going to be maintenance hogs that have to be worked on in dry dock.
The ultra-low crewing also seems like a mistake, at least from a damage control and crew workload and duty section perspective.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Plus remember that they can't travel any faster then their supporting tanker anyway since their range at high speed is only something like 1,500 miles.
The best one placed to know is AMTP10....
Last edited:
battlensign
New Member
Last edited by a moderator:
The US Navy expects the opposite, that the waterjets will have less maintenance, not more.
Why New Warships Will be Powered by Waterjets
Again, I repeat the LCS has newer technology for anti-submarine, anti-air/missile, surface, and mine countermeasures than a FFG-7. It has the same range at slower speeds for long distances, and very fast speeds for short operations over shorter distances. From the hull to the propulsion system to the sensors and weapon systems.
Already sailors in Virginia are talking about how the LCS blew by a destroyers and frigates easily.
for some unholdy reason I keep on suffering from digital dyslexia with his "nom de g"
after a few years I should have got it right considering that its significant
I like the LCS idea. I hope they influence the Australian OCV in a simular way (but these are not likely to be 45 kt monsters), but the mission module concept I like and has merit, I think being small to crew also has merit depending how its done, and I think the LCS is a bit of experiment in that area for the USN.
I think the speed gives them the ability to be the first on the scene, or quickly respond to an incident. It also makes it difficult to attack while in transit or out run if they are chasing you (Pirate/patrol work). Depending on the situation you might be able to avoid out run some helicopters if given enough warning. Certainly for seal insertion/extraction they could be very useful.
I wouldn't be replacing destroyers or frigates with them, but replacing patrol boats etc they seem to have the right stuff.
I think the speed gives them the ability to be the first on the scene, or quickly respond to an incident. It also makes it difficult to attack while in transit or out run if they are chasing you (Pirate/patrol work). Depending on the situation you might be able to avoid out run some helicopters if given enough warning. Certainly for seal insertion/extraction they could be very useful.
I wouldn't be replacing destroyers or frigates with them, but replacing patrol boats etc they seem to have the right stuff.
I think there will be a lot of designs based around simular concepts.
Australia seems to be following in simular footsteps (with 20 modular OCV ships) to the USN.
I don't know if all compromise is bad. I think they will make better patrol boats. They are bigger which means more suitable for blue water missions. With more space to hold captives or refugees and able to use a helicopter etc.
Mine hunting/sub hunting might mostly be done in the future with dismounted UUV's which means the traditional mine hunter was on the way out anyway, a bigger ship can carry and operate more UUV's. Or UAV's which they can operate some types.
If you upsize your frigates to Destroyer (USN and RAN seem to be doing this with Australia going to 7,000t "frigates" built off a destroyer hull and capable of BMD, then you turn your patrol and mine hunters into light frigates/corvettes, for not much money. I would imagine half a dozen harpoons, searam, 35-76mm gun, short of a frigate but much better than a patrol boat. Frigates seem to be way overkill for much of what they do anyway (ECC protection, rescues, blue water patrols, pirates etc).
Then they will also be useful for other missions, emergency relief, Spec op insertion/extraction, hospital ship, etc that aren't really filled by any particular vessel at all these days.
Jack of all trades master of none? Not really, pretty good at two and good enough at the rest.
Australia seems to be following in simular footsteps (with 20 modular OCV ships) to the USN.
I don't know if all compromise is bad. I think they will make better patrol boats. They are bigger which means more suitable for blue water missions. With more space to hold captives or refugees and able to use a helicopter etc.
Mine hunting/sub hunting might mostly be done in the future with dismounted UUV's which means the traditional mine hunter was on the way out anyway, a bigger ship can carry and operate more UUV's. Or UAV's which they can operate some types.
If you upsize your frigates to Destroyer (USN and RAN seem to be doing this with Australia going to 7,000t "frigates" built off a destroyer hull and capable of BMD, then you turn your patrol and mine hunters into light frigates/corvettes, for not much money. I would imagine half a dozen harpoons, searam, 35-76mm gun, short of a frigate but much better than a patrol boat. Frigates seem to be way overkill for much of what they do anyway (ECC protection, rescues, blue water patrols, pirates etc).
Then they will also be useful for other missions, emergency relief, Spec op insertion/extraction, hospital ship, etc that aren't really filled by any particular vessel at all these days.
Jack of all trades master of none? Not really, pretty good at two and good enough at the rest.
UUV will be in combination with UAV will play a very large role in MCM and likely also in ASW warfare. The question here is how large and capable the platform has to be to allow an efficient employment of such unmanned systems.
The autonomous UUV/USV/UDT technology is not currently focussed on mine countermeasures. there's a way to go before its reached.
nearly all of the future sub designs I've seen over the last few years have been utilising dismounted weapons solutions.
prior to that everything revolved around "Tango Bravo" type concepts - or the buck rogers type "riders" that were coming out of the UK.
The German MJ2010 concept - 10 years ago, before it was trashed for cost reasons - planned the use of semi-autonomous "Sea Horse" USVs as combination minesweeper and minehunting drone carriers, with two or three of these USVs led and serviced by a manned platform, and these three or four ships sweeping and hunting as a pack similar to the Troika concept.
As for current development, the heavy "Sea Otter" UUV drone is envisaged to go in that direction with future payloads (sidescan sonar, possibly carrying destruction charges).
The "Sea Horse" would have certainly been a great addition for mine infested seas. I have already taken a look on the "Sea Otter" and it seems to me that things are moving into the right direction. UUV should be perhaps the most universal MCM vessels, given that they potentially Detect, Classificate and Locate any type of sea mine.
Any way isn't the Visby already using and MCM UUV - IIRC Sea Fox or something like that. Ah it is Seafox.
Visby a well made prospect with some neat photos.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHJFqwmFnkI&feature=related"]Visby[/ame],
A nice video but not without flaws, for example the passive radar detection r(which is key in the concept of the Visby, btw) is not included in this neat little ship-vs-ship animations.
Anyway a Visby + could be a nice LCS if it fits the doctrine and the structure of the specific navy.