The LCS ships will always have the 57 mm gun and either RAM or SeaRAM. The LCS will be capable of carrying more than one, yes two mission system module/containers at any time. One assumes the LCS will most of, if not all of the time carry the ASW package. Most likely the selection of modules/containers will be between the mine hunting and surface warfare packages...
I've asked this before and I'll ask this again - but I only expect the characteristic silence when someone asks you pointed questions - do you have sources for this? Many of us here have read not only the official CONOPS (as of early 2009 which is the most publicly available IIRC) but also the competing think-tank CONOPS from the like of Vega and Martin. None of them have stated that multiple mission modules will be carried. So where is that coming from?
The LCS has a 57mm gun and SeaRAM. What does that have to do with the missing Medium Range SSM component? Neither one is an adequate substitute. The Bofors cannot engage long-range targets or put up a rate of fire such that it can effectively designate and engage multiple targets. Nor can it replace the land bombardment/attack role that PAMs was originally designed for. RAM/SeaRAM is a point-defense system, period. It cannot replace a dedicated or dual-role SAM system and it does NOT contribute to the SuW or Strike capability of the vessel. Your responses don't really jive with the question at hand. That's like saying, yeah, it's a sports car - it's missing the hot engine and the performance that comes with it, but it's got wheels and a chassis.
Let me also add that there has been indicators that the excess space in the mission bays will get eaten up by growth in equipment/personnel for each type of module as they mature. In CONOPS as well, there is the expectation that the excess space will be occupied by secondary mission assets - think an MCM module embarked but the extra space is also filled by an SOF team and their attached equipment - they got dropped off on the way while LCS hunts for mines.
In practice its most likely every time they are used for mine hunting in an exercise or during a conflict, the mine hunting package will be flown to a forward base for installation... probably with the removal of the surface or ASW package... your choice.... The US Navy gains capability in the long run by not investing heavily into new mine hunting vessels by using mine hunting mission modules with these ships...[
Again, you seem to not be up on the CONOPS. Nothing is flown anywhere on a demand basis. Mission Modules are pre-deployed to Mission Package Support Facilities where the swap-outs occur. The problem, of course, is that in the real world, there are only two MPSFs built, none of them in the current regional hotspots. Until that changes, LCS is stuck operating near an MPSF or taking a chance of having a CASREP in some part of the world that can't fix them.
Let's put that in perspective with some of the latest findings from the May 2010 Mission Module Program report. The manufacturers were under pressure to build modules so rapidly that no time was spent in standardizing the support equipment. So now, GD and to a smaller extent, LMW are both back-tracking to create standards in handling, maintenance and diagnosis equipment so they can be built in larger and easily recreated volumes. Until that happens, each Module is a custom build and so are the items to help support it. Anyone see a problem with this?
How many of the current mine hunting vessel fleet has RAM or SeaRAM or for that matter are useful in the ASW escorting role for merchant ships and replenishment ships? The answer is none...
The reason there is none is that the MCMs don't have the capacity or volume to carry point defense equipment. In any case, how is having a point-defense a winning feature? If you're sending in minehunters into a contested environment where no clear air superiority is provided, it doesn't matter if they're Ospreys or LCS in it's current state. They'll be damaged or sunk by anything more lethal than a gun-equipped helo. Period. Given the fact that LCS CONOPS states they're supposed to operate under the protective umbrella of a Burke or Tico or enjoy air superiority, the point defense is simply that, a last-ditch weapon. You shouldn't be sending them in without proper support, point-defenses or not. This seems to be an emotional response, not a supporting fact.
Stop chasing red herrings... The LCSs will make good ASW escorts whenever we need ASW escorts.... They will make good mine hunting vessels whenever we need them for that role, although at a price of being a good ASW escort... All of the LCSs will have a good self protective AAW missile capability...
At the moment the surface warfare mission module is suspect. Even if the Navy slaps four harpoon racks and missiles aboard, the navy does not lose for the Perrys don't carry any harpoons at the moment, their missile launcher having been removed...
Okay - I really have to call you on this one. You were the one that was defending NLOS even after all reports had it with both feet in the grave. Where exactly did the PAM Round or the NLOS fire control system state "anti-air capability?" It was designed for surface-to-surface engagements only. There hasn't been a selection made YET on the alternative, so why are you suddenly so optimistic that it will have an AAW ability when it never had it before? You seem to be flip-flopping on this issue.
I'll say it again; if the air threat is anything greater than a gun-equipped helo, LCS needs to be operating under the protection of an AAW asset or air superiority. That's what CONOPS says. Which contradicts the ISR role that CONOPS states is *also* part of the core mission portfolio. You can't scout and report intelligence if you can't survive a reasonable threat profile that's expected near hostile littoral shores. Just think of the proliferation of coastal SSM batteries or even short-range missile-equipped helos. To survive and live to report, LCS needs some sort of SAM capability, which hopefully will now be addressed in light of the FBO requisition with a dual-role missile. But that solution has NOT BEEN SELECTED YET.
I never said put the Harpoons back on the Perrys. I'm simply pointing out - again - that from an SuW perspective, there is NO DIFFERENCE from a TTP viewpoint. They both have a gun, they both have point-defense systems. Both can carry helos and UAVs. One cost almost $850 million dollars, the other has been amortized to death and is a proven but aging platform. We spent $850 million per copy and all we have to show for it is a GUNBOAT. Granted - a little bit extreme, but how else to describe the program from a totality perspective? None of the supporting equipment, including the remote systems, is proven. That much money spent on two hulls each was supposed to buy us a lot of capability, but all we get is functional parity with a thirty-year old design. That's what's really crazy. In all the previous threads about this, you seem to lack a coherent response to that.
