>>28656380 The LCS would have been fine if they hadn't cancelled all its weapons. Modularity means it might be possible to unfuck it, but the Navy buying a dick load of the things in hope of being allowed to unfuck them later is bad policy.
While F-35 represents fairly well proven multi-role fighter concept. LCS is supposed to be combination mine sweeper, coastal corvette and frigate. Way less tested concept with way more conflicting requirements for same machine than fighter-bomber could ever have.
In case of LCS they could have gone for separate minesweeper and frigate with some common systems. Really high speed requirement ruins everything other than littoral operations for that ship. It's kinda like if airforce would try to combine fighter with long range strategic bomber and tanker. Not just apples and oranges, but add banana and possibly kiwi into the mix.
Before we had multi-role fighters we had obsolete fighters re-tasked with attack missions, becoming bomb trucks. After while and the fact that they couldn't afford to develop better tactical bombers and fighters they started to apply both requirements on same airframe.
>>28656524 >I don't see how these things necessarily conflict
50 kt speed requirement doesn't mix well with frigate requirements for range or minesweeper requirement for being quiet.
Difference between those missions is bigger than turning fighter into bomb truck. IMHO USN should have bought pure littoral combatants for shit like Hormuz as there is enough friendly bases or anti-piracy missions. Those are minor bullshit, something less important as escorting carrier groups or merchant shipping, the stuff frigates are built for.
>>28656380 Knew the guy in charge of GSA oversight of one of the contractors working on the software for the LCS. He didn't have the security clearance to know what they were doing, as in he couldn't get documentation to show they were on track and going to deliver a good product and had to just take them at their word.
>>28657740 Kind of depends, since no one nation has the same definition of how far a "littoral" zone extends. For the USN's purposes, they apparently define the littoral zone as anywhere the water is a depth of 200ft or less.
>>28657520 >>No area SAM's >Correct, the USN has 80 other ships who all carry these. The whole point of the LCS is detached deployment to handle small tasks that otherwise devour the tasking of our guided missile destroyers.
Not having AA besides the knife fight RIM hampers it's ability to work near coasts of even shit states.
Anyone with a SU-24 and a KH-29 can strike at a LCS with impunity.
Do you have any idea how much off the world's littoral waters are denied to the LCS unless the captain decides to let his ship be bait or the real navy detaches a destroyer to babysit a ship that was literally built to reduce destroyer taskings?
>>28657868 Yeah, it would, because it would improve the denial envelope from 10 km radius to 50.
That's a 2500% increase in denied battlespace, and more importantly it increases the denial radius far enough to eliminate as a threat the whole class of ATGMs of which the KH-29 was merely an example.
>>28657814 >>28657917 I think the biggest thing is that people keep expecting to LCS to be a full blown combat ship when it's not. It's a support ship through and through. Look at its mission roles: ASW, mine clearing, asymmetric threat counter. The LCS is NOT meant to slug it out with other full size ships or be able to do everything by itself like a Burke can. You know why? Because the USN has fucking 62 Burkes. We can afford to specialize the LCS. Other navies have do everything frigates because that's practically all the navy they have.
>>28658087 I'm not asking it to survive a multivector strike from half a dozen AShM armed fighter bombers, I'd like it to be able to survive a revenge slap from General President Koni after it heli-recovers a CAG group that black bagged a war criminal being harbored by his rapeocracy.
>>28658284 Then tell us how it is even remotely fit for mine hunting with a steel hull Then tell us how it is even remotely fit for ASW without carrying torps Then tell us how it is supposed to work independently of other ships in the USN without proper air-defense capabilities
>>28658284 In terms of square kilometers? Yeah, that's how area works.
And while it won't stop dedicated naval strike, it will allow the ship to protect itself from aircraft before they get into the engagement range of cheap threats like short range heavy anti armor PGMs, fire example the KH-29.
>>28658347 >Then tell us how it is even remotely fit for mine hunting with a steel hull It uses a mine-hunting concept wherein helicopter-towed devices and unmanned ROVs clear areas long before the ship actually enters them. Additionally, LCS-2 class is Aluminum. >Then tell us how it is even remotely fit for ASW without carrying torps Helicopters with torpedoes, active and passive sonobuoys, and towed arrays, plus the towed array of the ship itself. >Then tell us how it is supposed to work independently of other ships in the USN without proper air-defense capabilities It will not work independently without cover unless operating in a low threat environment. Keep in mind some of that low threat stuff is what LCS is intended for, ie supporting SOF operating inland, conducting various kinds of reconnaissance, and ASW and mine hunting in lower-threat environments. In any place where an LCS would be under significant missile threat, it would have to operate under the protection of Aegis ships and/or aviation.
>>28658439 Literally 90% of complaints about the LCS come from the fact it won't fit it's name or mission roles.
11 missiles for the SeaRam is pathetic. Using helicopters to do its core missions is a fatal flaw against any country with anti-air assets, it's also a hell of a lot more expensive to fire torpedos from a helicopter than just adding torpedo launchers.
The guy before didn't even go into that the Iver also has an APAR and SMART-L, two very very good radars more commonly seen on first rate anti-air destroyers. Anbd it does have standard aviation facilities, you're making it sound like it carries nothing.
Simple as that. the Iver is a formidable ship in any situation, with some incredibly advanced systems, for a good cost. It exceeds the LCS in every single major capability area as a warship.
There are no fucking excuses for why it costs so much, only in the minds of those who can't admit that maybe just maybe the US didn't get everything perfect on some things.
>I think the biggest thing is that people keep expecting to LCS to be a full blown combat ship when it's not. It's a support ship through and through.
Thats missing the point of the complaints.
The point is that if it's meant to be some second rate support ship, why does it cost so fucking much?
it is patently, irrevocably overpriced and has let its budget go way out of hand. Whether the ship does its own little job or not is irrelevant. Even if it did it perfectly, it's hilariously, comically overpriced.
>>28658613 >it's also a hell of a lot more expensive to fire torpedos from a helicopter than just adding torpedo launchers Using ship-mounted torpedoes requires closing to torpedo range. Do you not see the flaw in that? Helicopters can reach out to a detected sub in minutes, and then plop down a torpedo within a small fraction of its no-escape zone while the ASW ship sits miles away.
>>28658603 Not necessarily. Again, depends on the design, and the fact that every navy has different definitions on what constitutes a patrol boat.
>>28658617 You're also ignoring the fact that the Iver is fucking gigantic, almost the size of a Burke, and its hull isn't purpose built. They just took the hull of an existing support ship and they crammed VLS tubes onto it.
And the Iver doesn't even fulfill the same roles as the LCS. It's a pure Air-defense ship.
>>28658645 >The point is that if it's meant to be some second rate support ship, why does it cost so fucking much?
Because it's a second rate support ship that's also expected to be able to defend itself and attack targets Burkes aren't necessarily suited for. And again, it's similar size and armament to number of other frigates and corvettes for similar cost and which don't have the expanded mission roles or modular capability the LCS does.
>>28658876 >How is the LCS able to defend itself? It literally can't operate without being escorted by a Burke
Yes, because a Burke, with long range SM-6s, always has to be physically right next to a LCS to protect it. And a US Navy ship is totally going to operate in waters without proper air cover from a nearby base or carrier group.
>Which ones? The LCS is similar in price to the FREMM which is superior in AAW, ASW, ASuW and AShW
Wrong. FREMMs are twice the displacement and twice the cost of the LCS.
>>28658884 Well, first they actually have to know where the helicopter is, which they can't really do if they're submerged and trying to stay quiet, and even if they do shoot down the helo, they've already basically given away their position.
>>28659360 I asked you to give me examples of similar ships like the LCS. I brought up the FREMM to show what other countries do with that kind of money. It is not twice the price of an LCS, it's even cheaper
>>28659584 That 360 million figure does not include military equipment, weapons or development costs. Look at the price they offered SA for 8 of those suckers, although that includes a better sensor suite
>>28657231 >>28657249 I'd just like to note that the choice of the NSM isn't guaranteed yet. However, they did just announce they wanted an LCS with missiles by the end of this year. So get your hopes up.
But yeah, the NLOS was supposed to be its anti-swarm missile of choice. Without it, it'll be rather in a pickle.
>>28659360 >Well, first they actually have to know where the helicopter is, which they can't really do if they're submerged and trying to stay quiet, and even if they do shoot down the helo, they've already basically given away their position. They'd only really be using it if the helicopter is prosecuting them. In which case, they probably have a fairly good idea of where it is, what with a dipping sonar being right underneath it. If the dipping sonar is down there, then they're probably seen. Launch it and clear datum, except in this case with one less threat to worry about. More significantly, it gets rid of the biggest threat.
>>28656380 If they had picked ONE class, then it would have been fine. Instead, they are wasting shitloads of money for two classes, despite the fact that the only reason seems to be "we're not sure which is better".
But the idea is solid. Remember that these things have basically replaced frigates considering what frigates had become used for.
>>28666266 Good news for you: They're downselecting to one class.
I liked the two classes, for >>28666448 that reason. It's necessary to keep the institutional knowledge of how to build warships around, and also important to keep shipyards with the capacity to build them in the first place.
Thread replies: 95 Thread images: 11
Thread DB ID: 474802
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.