Navy Test-Launches First Vertical Missile From LCS

>>33243763
me on the left

>>33243393

I can't see Hellfires being effective against anything other than extremely small boats, which the ships 57mm gun should be able to take care of easily without help from missiles. What is the point of this weapon system?

>>33244029
Jews

>>33244029
Hellfire can kill small ships easily at 8 km.

57mm struggles to hit small boghammers at that range.

>Detroit

>>33244133
yup the class is made in michigan

>>33244190
or is it wisconsin?

>>33243393
the milwaukee was the one that ate itself on its maiden voyage to its christening

>>33244101

But can it kill anything besides very small ships?

File: 170212-N-WV703-923.jpg (620KB, 1600x963px) Image search: [Google]

620KB, 1600x963px

>>33244244
Hellfires or ASHM like Harpoons?

>>33244348

Harpoons can kill anything.

File: t3_5oqcgy.jpg (374KB, 1921x1499px) Image search: [Google]

374KB, 1921x1499px

>>33244244
a better question is:
can the mission modules be changed out at sea with support ships, or must the lcs return to port to change a mission module out

picture unrelated to post content

>>33244372
Since you appear to be working with out of date information, the mission modules are not going to be swapped often.

>>33244244
obviously you could replace the warhead on the Hellfire with something more suitable to unarmored small boats

File: 01-USSDetroit-10-14-16-kb.jpg (138KB, 1617x1080px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 1617x1080px

>>33244427
i get my info from /k/ so of course my info is out of date and wrong in the first place

>>33244519
Clearly you do not or you would already have known the answer to your question via past threads.

>>33243393
I guess something like this would be good for the Straight of Hormuz, off Yemen, Somalia or dealing with Chines fishing boats.

I really hope they work out something that gives them greater range. They already have a 57mm and two 30mm.

>>33244244
Isn't killing small ships the point of the lcs? If you want to kill big ships then use the carriers, cruisers, destroyers or subs.

>>33244244
Could it? Certainly. Is it going to be super effective at actually sinking the damn thing? Probably not. However, it will carry larger anti-ship missiles for that role.

Why not get a better cannon? 8 inch when?

>>33245122
>jumping from a 2.25" gun to an 8" gun
no, that couldn't possibly fit.

>>33244890
Wasting money is the point of the Little Crappy Ships.
>>33245122
Too heavy, would sink.

>>33244890
Killing small ships, hunting subs and clearing mines are the primary roles of LCS.

you know I think the times of the Battle of Jutland have passed, so maybe we should skip questions from morons who insist that all ordinance should be effective against large vessels.

>>33243393

I kinda like how these ships look like WW2 destroyers if you rebuilt them as modern warships.

>>33245358
its only pork when its not your district

>>33244519
They will make LCS that will no longer have to swap modules. The LCS that has to swap modules will only be able to swap modules on ports that has special tools for the job and specially trained individuals too. Compare this to the Chinese version of modular, where they put the missile in a container so that any ship that can move containers can swap missiles and modules easily. From Chinkalibers to AA missiles or even containerised Chinese Big Bird radar.

>>33246910
This is not quite right, so fuck off.

>>33244482
I'm sure they can put the N warhead in an L.

>>33244244
>Report says it's good for killing small boats
>Asking if it can do anything else
You're missing the point. Also >guns

>>33244244

It can hit shit that isn't within the line of sight. Fighting close to shore along a rugged coastline, or in an island archipelago.

>>33246999
You're just jealous that China can domodulat too without costing a trillion dollars.

>>33244029
Accuracy. Unless something has changed, the 57mm has no fire-control radar, and can only be aimed manually by joystick.

And against high-speed maneuvering targets, a guided weapon will almost always have a higher Pk to begin with.

This is a good thing, and begins to restore the capability (if not the promised 20NM range) lost with the failure of NETFIRES.

>>33244244
Mission-kill, sure. A few hits can give problems to anything we might face in the PG or non-first-world threats.

Against China, you don't want to let them get that close in the first place; that's where a pair of Mk41s would have been reaaaaally nice, considering TacTom and LRASM (as well as ASROC and ESSM). Instead, we'll have to wait for *maybe* some kind of Harpoon-like deck launcher for JSM.

>>33244732
They pulled the 2x30mm; the position of the mountings wasn't stable enough.

Or have they put them back?

>>33245122
There was a program to replace 5" mounts with 8" back in the '80s, but it never got past testing.

>>33247558
>Instead, we'll have to wait for *maybe* some kind of Harpoon-like deck launcher for JSM.
We already have Harpoons on LCS-4 in box launchers. And thus far, they're looking at the NSM, which the JSM is based off of. However, they haven't decided which missile they'll put on all of them eventually. For all we know, they might be LRASM in box launchers.

>>33247573
No they didn't. You can see them in the video itself.

This program is so fucked. It's beyond salvaging. They could have 80% of the capabilities using the civilian run T-EPFs, for a fraction of the cost. They should just cut our losses and admit this was the worst idea and worst execution of a new class ever.

At least the F-35 is turning out alright, these ships will only ever be half-assed money pits.

Will the LCS be able to fit the upcoming anti-ship missile and the Hellfires at the same time?

>>33248234
Yes. They're in completely different areas. If you look at pictures of LCS-4 with its Harpoons, you can see quite clearly where they're mounted.

>>33248061

You really couldn't.

File: 1359370944506.jpg (391KB, 1739x1446px) Image search: [Google]

391KB, 1739x1446px

>>33243393
>Navy Test-Launches First Vertical Missile From LCS
>It's a fucking Hellfire
The smallest dick these whores saw in their entire lives.

>>33245131
130 mm easily would tho.
http://concern-agat.ru/en/production/artillery-systems-fire-control-systems/a-192-5p-10e-naval-artillery-system

>>33248535
57 mm is patrol boat tier.
http://www.burevestnik.com/products_engl/1.html

>>33243393
>>33243746
>USS Detroit
God that ship looks like Detroit.

>>33248535
>>33248569

57mm is the best gun size for the LCS. It might be possible to fit a larger gun to the ship, but it wouldn't be able to carry enough rounds. The 57mm is the best option for fighting small boats within 10 km and the Hellfires eliminate the need for a gun that can reach out further than that. The only issue with the gun is the lack of RFC which is frankly a baffling omission.

>>33244200
Wisconsin.

>>33249392
RFC is only an omission if you wanted to do AA with it.

>>33247525
>the 57mm has no fire-control radar, and can only be aimed manually by joystick.
In which century are you guys in? That's third world tier tech.
>Hurr durr muh carriers
>can't even automatically aim a gun over horizon distance

>>33249504
I think you got the size of guns in use confused.

>>33249468

Right now, the LCS only has 1 RAM launcher for anti-air. Giving the 57mm Mk. 110 radar-fire control would give each ships a second anti-air weapon.

>>33243393
Hellfire is a really odd choice.

Why not use a maverick, or a RATO SDB to simplify logistics?

>>33250441
Maverick doesn't fit in boxes as well due to the width of the fins.

Hellfire has cropped fins by default, so it's easier to adapt to the launcher.

>>33250547
Are they just bog standard hellfires?

What's the range of those, surface to surface, 6km or so?

>>33249741
How much would it really achieve? EW and decoys are likely to be the most effective defenses the LCS has.

>>33244482
According to the DOT&E report, they put in a fragmentation warhead.

>>33250559
8 km is the number stated on wiki, but i'd bet some of that range is lost when you have a vertical ground launch. 6-7 km is probably a safe bet

>>33246002
none of which they can accomplish

>>33246049
Or when it doesn't work.

>>33246910
Yes, but the reason for that is tolerance control. Which translates to range and accuracy.

Sure the Chinese can reload very easily and quickly at much lower cost, but they can't shoot as accurately because they don't use the complex launch pads the US has.

Honestly it can matter for deep strikes on moving targets, like a tank or something hundreds of miles out. But I often wonder if those cases are common enough to warrant such things given other tools can handle them already. Drone airstikes with cheaper missiles work reasonably well already.

My guess is that the first strike out of enemy range is what they are betting big on with threats like China. Hit before you get hit, has worked well. But mostly favored for short engagements, long term it seems like putting too much one one platform.

>>33243393
>vertically-launched Hellfire
why.jpg

Question: why doesn't the LCS use Standards? Is it a matter of not having the facilities for the needed fire control?

>>33251591

Overkill for its role.

>>33247586
The testing showed the 8" gun was no better than a 5" for the desired purpose.

>>33251591
LCS are not air defense frigates. You have to remember they are not for a navy with less than 10 major surface combatants.

>>33251319
>Which translates to range and accuracy
Wut?

>>33251477
Because the original missile's project was killed by the Army (it was a joint project), so they scrambled around looking for something that would work. Hellfire wasn't their first choice, but it was one they could switch to cheaply when the other one fell through.

>>33249611
We even have that shit for our 27mm autocannons and I think the HMGs are also planned linked to that. Step up your game 'murrica

>>33243393

Honestly we should just literally give these things to the Coast Guard. A /k/ommando once said that they basically serve that function for other people's shores, and I think it's true. They could to the same work against huesubs in the Gulf of Mexico.

And I'm sure they'd appreciate it, seeing as Trump is talking about cutting their budget.

File: 1444477412247.jpg (25KB, 500x427px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 500x427px

>>33253151

>Any part of the military seeing budget cuts under a Republican congress

>>33253173

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/to-fund-border-wall-trump-administration-weighs-cuts-to-coast-guard-airport-security/2017/03/07/ba4a8e5c-036f-11e7-ad5b-d22680e18d10_story.html
You seem to have forgotten that there is a hard core of fiscal conservatives in the House and Senate who want to shrink the ENTIRE government, one of whom is now Trump's budget guy.

>>33252917
>We even have that shit for our

dedicated AAA units, get back to us when you have guided rounds.

>>33251477

Because the Navy wasn't allowed Brimstone because it didn't support anybody district.

>>33244029

With a missile magazine, the size of your actively engaged target set is only limited by the capabilities of your FCS.

You can only point a gun in one direction at a time.

>>33253358
Slightly larger guns do have guided rounds at the moment.

The Ship is designed to be able to engage in shallow waters close to enemy coastlines right?

If the enemy fires shore based AshMs at the fleet, what is the time to target of the Standard and Harpoon for counter battery?
What is the time to target for this Hellfire for it's 8km range?

Would that time differential allow for the launcher to lose contact?

>>33253424
What country that uses 23mm guns has self guided rounds in its larger guns.

>>33253541
Littoral doesn't mean in view of land, the whole Persian gulf is littoral.

>>33253602
Pedantics, The whole Persian gulf is Littoral: we still got carriers in there just in extremely limited locations

The purpose of the design was to enable near shore operations

The draft of open water ships in the fleet is 35ft or more, the LCS is 14 for 1 design and 12 1/2 for the other

>>33253718
The purpose of the design is to enable 45 knot speeds.

>>33253585
> that uses 23mm guns
That was never a part of the criteria. I'm really questioning why you arbitrarily put that in. All I'm saying is that guided rounds are a thing for some guns larger than it. And really, if a country that used 23mm guns wanted to, it could quite reasonably make guided shells for guns larger than that.

The LCS isn't a surface combatant, doesn't do ASW, can't do escort duties and can't perform land attacks. So...what exactly IS it? A cheaper way to shoot at motorboats and launch mine-hunting dolphins?

It would be one thing if the program developed new technology that could trickle down to other programs, like the Zumwalt -- but there isn't even that to show for it.

File: 1484885156863.png (123KB, 222x336px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 222x336px

>>33254073
But that's wrong on all counts.

>>33254073
The LCS is meant for three primary functions: anti-surface warfare against small targets, minesweeping, and ASW work. It already has the sonar and air assets to deal with subs and has the gun and missiles to defeat small boats. The only thing it really falls behind on is minesweeping, since the Navy hasn't finalized what's going to be put in the MCM, but it sure is a hell of a lot better than the shitty old Avengers they're using right now.

>>33253841
>That was never a part of the criteria.
>We even have that shit for our 27mm

You are right, I meant 27mm not 23mm.

>>33254073

>The LCS isn't a surface combatant

Yes it is.

>doesn't do ASW

That's what helicopters are for.

>can't do escort duties

Not for carriers, but for less important ships yeah.

>can't perform land attacks

Outside the CONOPS intended for the LCS.

>>33243393
>LCS

I thought they were all redesignated Frigates.

>>33254197

They should be designated as FFL so we can finally stop using the stupid LCS acronym.

>>33254197
SSC, small surface combatant

Modern militaries love their acronyms.

>>33254171
I think you missed the point entirely, friendo.

>>33254197
Nope. In just a little bit, an upgraded/redesigned LCS will be put out. Said rework will be the Frigate. The current ones are just LCSs.
>>33254274
No, SSC just denotes that it's a small surface combatant. FFs, LCSs, and even maybe fucking PGs all fall under that.

>>33249468
Well, AA/CIWS is kinda the big selling point of the 57mm in the first place... take that capability away, and you might as well go with a 3".

>>33254288
I think you need to not damage control after being asked to back up your position.

>>33254320
Apparently not based on how it didn't live up to advertising and was subsequently replaced with 30mm guns on the Zumwalts.

File: 600 ship navy.png (52KB, 482x489px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 482x489px

>>33254314

The current system does not count PG's as being combatants. In the past they were basically their own category called "Small Combatants" with frigates being their own separate category. The exact system used seems to change ever decade or so.

>>33250559
Longbow variant.

After NETFIRES was cancelled, the original fallback solution was the laser-guided, power-glider Griffin; however, this was a) too slow, b) too short-ranged, c) had a tiny warhead, and d) worst of all, was SALH when the intended targets were swarms of small boats. The MMW Longbow was the only already-available choice worth making.

Now, if JAGM or GL-SDB ever show up, they would be contenders, as well.

>>33254359

That's a paper-thin bullshit excuse they came up with to justify a cost-cutting measure. I pity anybody who actually believes that 30mm is going to out-perform 57mm as a defensive weapon for a ship.

>>33254509
I am not aware of any cavitating 57mm ammunition.

>>33254460
Idea: How much of a pain would it be to put in MLRS tubes to launch Ground (or Sea) Launched SDBs? Sure, you'd need to retrofit SDB-II into the system, but theoretically those would pretty much have no chance of missing targets due to the tri-mode seeker, while having a higher multi-mission capability and a serious range advantage.

>>33254342
Anon, can you tell me exactly what my position was? Hint: it's nothing you refuted.

>>33255000
You'd need to corrosion proof the entire system, replacing most casings with stainless steel, aluminium or titanium.
Retool production lines to manufacture in these materials etc etc

Where as the Longbow hellfire is already certified sea worthy due to the marnines and bongs

>>33255047
The part where said you had RFC for dedicated AAA guns, and when asked if you had guided ammunition for those guns made a vague handwave that guided ammunition exists for larger guns.

>>33255047

>>33252917
Claims 27mm auto cannons
>>33253424
Claims larger guns have guided rounds


>>33253585
Asks what country uses 23mm, and guided rounds.

He has assumed 23mm, ie Russian or Ex-Combloc as 27mm is a non standard round for anyone but Mauser

You still have not expanded and said what country you are talking about

This is a failure to explain on your part and a failure of assumption on his part

>>33255240
Yep, that'll do her in. Still, it'd be cool as fuck.

>>33255330
Ah, but I'm just >>33255330
I came in to insert that larger guns do indeed have guided rounds. See, the problem is that you made the assumption that I was the same guy and indeed that my argument had any deeper meaning than me stating that guided rounds exist for larger (than medium caliber autocannon) size. Try harder before trying to call someone out, kiddo.

>>33255330
>>33255890
Derp. I'm just >>33253424
Now this is embarrassing.

>>33251591
It's because the Navy decided to build a modular warship, but deliberately excluded from the design the single most modular weapons system it has ever created (outside of a carrier deck), the Mk 41.

>>33255890
>See, the problem is that you made the assumption that I was the same guy
You are also making the same assumption
>Try harder before trying to call someone out, kiddo.
I'm just explaining where he made his assumptions from hence why I put
>This is a failure to explain on your part
>and a failure of assumption on HIS part

>>33255000
Land: Boeing has proposed mounting their SDB-1 on top of old Mk26 MLRS rocket motors (since we're not allowed to use cluster warheads anymore). I haven't heard of any official interest, though, or anything from Raytheon (which makes SDB-2, which is more relevant to the situation).

Sea: There was a proposal over a decade ago to make a naval version of MLRS, called POLAR. It never went anywhere. Normal MLRS rocket exhaust, as I understand it, is too hot and caustic for Mk 41s, so there is no off-the-shelf solution.

The most currently-feasible solution would probably be to mount a SDB-2 on top of a SM-6 or ASROC booster. That would be expensive, though, and USN has shown no interest in it, preferring to stick with TLAM and LRASM.

>>33255890
>>33255904
What does that matter to begin with? I thought we were discussing the relative utility of 57mm as AAA.

There is no PoR for guided AAA ammo for larger guns; guidance options are limited to just SALH, which as we've already discussed, has drawbacks when used against multiple or maneuvering targets.

>>33243393
I'm in the Navy as an Electronics Technician. I'm currently on a destroyer but my LPO used to be on the USS Freedom and he hated it. Everything was breaking all the time and it wasn't a mission effective ship.

>>33256136
>That would be expensive, though, and USN has shown no interest in it, preferring to stick with TLAM and LRASM.
Can you blame them? A SDB II has 105 lb warhead. Contrast that with the TLAM and LRASM's 1000 lb warhead. If they're going to take up the same amount of VLS cells, might as well go big. Now, if you had them able to be quadpacked like ESSM, that'd be a start. It could probably be done, actually. The dimensions are sufficient. If you assume that a motor which requires less thrust (due to lessened speed and acceleration requirements) needs less space, either through the engine itself being smaller or less fuel being needed, or a combination of the two, it is quite reasonable you might be able to quadpack a SDB-II on a stick, as I'll call it, into a single cell.

When are they gonna put lasers on it

>>33256807
You're thinking of the Zumwalt, I don't think this one has that big of a power system.

>Hellfires
I don't understand.
Is the LCS supposed to be a frigate or a corvette or OPV?
Why the fuck are they worrying about dinky little anti tank missiles when they should be worried about where to put the harpoons?

>>33257634

The LCS is an FFL. The Navy won't call it that for some stupid reason, but in terms of function, the LCS is very clearly an FFL.

>>33257634
It is a big ship that goes after small ships. Harpoons does not sit with its purpose. Also Harpoons are old anyways, it won't hit anything modern like Chinese ships.

File: main_p1679425.jpg (71KB, 752x423px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 752x423px

>>33257688

The LCS can be fitted with both Hellfires and Harpoons. They aren't mutually exclusive.

>>33257688
You get what I mean. I mean actual AShM's. Doesn't have to be old ass Harpoon.
I don't have a problem with hellfires, in fact they'll probably be able to knock out corvettes, I just want them to have a few AShM's in case they go up against a proper frigate or destroyer, or god forbid China's new cruiser class

>>33256136
I don't know man. The entire SDB is basically a maverick warhead's weight, you shouldn't need too much rocket to get it up high.

>>33244029
iranian boats?

>>33257741
If they do that and are detected, they're dead, simple as that. They have one SeaRAM and no real space for VLS launched air defense, not to mention lacking the radar facilities to compete. They'll contend by running the fuck away at 45 knots.

>>33257634
>>33257741
They've already put Harpoons on LCS-4, they're not in the same location. You can have both. They plan on putting some sort of full size AShM on all LCSs. Hellfires to kill small fast boat attacks, like you'd see in the Straits of Hormuz, and Harpoons or whatever they decide to be the final choice for taking down full size warships.

>>33257833
Yes, but the issue is that there's only one strap-on booster rated for use with the Mk41 that has the range and throw weight for the situation.

>>33257741
LCSes aren't meant to be direct surface combatants or serve an air defense role. That's what Burkes and Ticos are for, which they focus more on since the LCS assumes the role of the fleet picket. If they're stuck going one on one against a frigate or cruiser, something has gone very, VERY wrong.

>>33243393
All I can think of is that if they make a "C" class if this ship, would it be called Clittoral? Or just the Clittoris

>>33258218
But there is no A and B class. There's the LCS-1 Class and the LCS-2 Class

File: maxresdefault (1).jpg (220KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 1920x1080px

>>33255330
>Claims 27mm auto cannons
hahaha