I'd have a guess and say LCS-1's hanger is longer (and probably taller) than LCS-2, but LCS-2 has the wider hanger due to the nature of the hull. But they do seem pretty big, the MH-60 is a big bird. Makes you appreciate the sheer size of the flight deck really.
There is more than enough room to move two SH-60's on LCS-1 around. I will agree you can't do simultanious ops, but you can do sequential ops.
I suppose the lack of CH-53 capability was a weight saving measure to get the maximum sprint speed possible I guess? I suppose the advantage would come from operating 2 of her regular helos concurrently, but chances are the financial savings - be it construction costs/fuel costs of a lighter ship outweighed any sort of bonus capability (but would it be particularly useful?) that the CH-53 offers.
It wasn't in the specs. I don't think a Burke's or a OHP flight deck can handle a CH-53 either.
According to Bob Work's paper LCS 1&2 are prototypes, 3 &4 are pre production units all flight 0. The next 6 units are all Flight 0+ and there are a host of changes to both types from LCS 3 onwards.
Last I heard the Freedom type LCS-3+ will have some design changes compared to LCS-1. Specifically some changes to the gun magazine that got modified when it was in drydock in Norfolk Virginia and some changes that removes the requirement for the "butt cheeks" that were added later for added stability.
Not much point if they can't. That would mean simply carrying a spare helicopter - bit like a spare tyre
for a car.
They can't operate the CH 53's, but why would they need to?
A pair of MH-60's is a formidable loadout.
Cheers
MB
No, it just means you do sequential launch and landing ops. Just like a Perry or Flight IIA Burke.
I find it interesting that people bang on about the LCS not being as capable as an OHP FFG when the truth is they are but one of the types that the LCS is meant to be replace. They are probably more akin to the WWII DE and DD conversions to APD (High Speed Transports), DMS (High Speed / Destroyer Mine Sweepers), as well as M/SGB, Sub Chasers etc.
They are definately more capable and survivable than the majority of craft, boats and minor warfare vessels they are intended to replace.
The way the US OHP's are armed these days the baseline 0 LCS are just as capable.
:
There is a "proud" tradition for armchair admrials to decry every new class the USN develops and to hold the previous class as the greatest thing ever. The Spruance was decried as being a big empty box and looked bare compared to Soviet designs (never mind that it had larger magazines than the Soviet ships, and it had electronics that...worked) and that it had lots of spare margin for upgrades and varients.
The Tico's were decried as being too complicated, Aegis would never work and the software would implode with a high track load.
If you really want to read something entertaining go look up some of the critism of the early Perry class. Scratch out OHP and scribble in LCS and the narritive is the same.
in reference to CH 53's, LCS 2 can lilypad them. Could be useful for the minewarfare versions if they're working together with the LCS's in that role.
I don't think they can.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/navy-maritime/littoral-combat-ships-they-useful-9186-5/#post180602
See post 69 in that thread. I posted an interview with Adm. Bill Landay PEO for NAVSEA (the article I linked to no longer exists, unfoutunately).
