Did the U.S. Navy Just Admit The Littoral Combat Ship Is a Failure?

>>34548066
>National Interest
Why should I listen to a word those hobgoblins have to say?

>>34548066
no. it did not. it's looking for a perspective ship to fill rolls that the LCS cannot currently. that is all.

>>34548080
>Roles the LCS cannot fill
Fighting anything larger than a speedboat?

>>34548096
to be fair, until its modular units are completed all it's gonna be is a good drone launch platform/anti-piracy vessel, so that's not too far off the mark, but as I understand it the USN is looking for dedicated AAW/ASW assets that can operate well in shallow waters and act as a stand-in for destroyers and cruisers if one of those ships needs to leave a strike group for some reason.

This is as close to a "yes" the Navy will ever give.

>>34548142
They probably won't be. They couldn't successfully copy the Stanflex concept at all with LCS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StanFlex

>>34548143
we'll see after the first modules actually get installed. if it's still a resounding failure you can basically guarantee that the navy will just give up on them.

>Mission modules are overweight
>Cracks appearing in aluminium hull
>Order cut from 50 to 30
>2015 price increases to 550mil a pop
>No Ashm
>No VLS
>Crew rotation canned
>Mission module rotation canned
>Navy is already planning a successor
Has there ever been such a JUST of a ship?

>>34548155
>They couldn't successfully copy the Stanflex concept at all with LCS.

that's true, but as i'm reading their just going to leave single modules installed for the time being. essentially limiting down the LCS to either MCM, ASW, ASUW, or SW ops, sort of dependent how they're built.

so yeah, they navy is just requesting a ship for a roll the LCS can't cover.

File: image_0.png (1MB, 700x394px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 700x394px

>configurable role ships
God I hate this meme. Would you rather have a ship that can do air defend OR anti-ship OR anti-submarine work but you need to head back to port and "reconfigure" to switch between the role

Or would you rather have a frigate that can do an alright job at all three, at the same time, like the Perry?

>>34548066
>Did I just start this article with a question instead of a title?
Yes you did you clickbaiting faggot, so I'm going to assume you don't know shit.

Fuck do I what internet journalism is becoming.

>>34548577
Fuck do I hate*

I'm tired and have worked two weeks straight.

>>34548577
Would you prefer USNI? They have the exact same article

File: quality.jpg (349KB, 1807x1384px) Image search: [Google]

349KB, 1807x1384px

>>34548215
The Russian Baltic Fleet in 1904 still has the JUST record at sea I believe.

File: 3LZDp27-WL8.jpg (141KB, 1280x850px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 1280x850px

>>34548321
What about you put those 'modules' inside a civilian container and make the ship capable of switching those 'modules' by only using civilian cranes at any port. Say you go Air denial, one of the containers has air search radar while another contains anti air missiles. Or if you want anti ship, both containers have anti ship cruise missiles. If you need land attack then just replace the containers with land attack.Antisub then one container has towed sonar that is released by the ship while another has ASROC plus the helicopter that uses dipping sonar. Something like that has never been done before.

>>34551062
You still have to head back to port to switch mission. What if you suddenly find yourself at war in a "modular" ship, you're configured for anti-submarine and anti-piracy patrols, and a Dumbfuckistani Su-22 comes over the horizon lobbing cruise missiles at you?

Contrast that to a real multirole frigate. Let's say you're armed with a 3" gun, SM2 missiles, ESSM, a scaled down AEGIS set, and a double hangar.

Surface threats? Gunfire and SM2 missiles in surface mode.

Air threats? SM2 and ESSM are a flexible and powerful combo for short-medium range air defense.

Submarine threats? You've got a helicopter on patrol as well as some self defense torpedo tubes on deck.

>>34548073

their print edition is AAA tier writing

their website is awful blogshit reposts

>>34551149
What if you include those as critical/vital parts that every ship has AND include 'modules' like containers for rubber boats/small boats and containers that can just be cargo to be delivered to a port.

Shouldn't have wasted half the deck on a basketball court.
I bet this was Obama's idea.

File: 4904102975_01cc7aee15_o.jpg (182KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 1600x1200px

>>34551149
You are either Danish,Dutch or German

File: USCG_National_Security_Cutter_BERTHOLF_(WMSL-750).jpg (52KB, 800x475px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 800x475px

>>34548066
On the bright side at least the Coast Guard will be able to upgrade

Why the fuck are we even building warships?

Time to Set up a Space Corps and colonize the fucking solar system

United Planets of America. The UK can have Pluto

>>34551768
>Why the fuck are we even building warships?
Because 90% of our trade is done by sea. In other words 70 trillion is at stake.

>>34551782

Fuck that, people love moon rocks. We'll make 140 Trillion in moon rocks.

>>34551794
They also love their flatscreens, plastic shit, and we love our cheap Russian ammo. Or did love our cheap Russian ammo.

If we don't control the seas, China will.

>>34551768
>The UK can have Pluto
>America distributing territories
>....

Admit it, you just want to shoot buffalo and murder natives. Home and abroad, I dunno why we ever taught you to do that.

>>34550179
I mean, most Russian surface ships of the past century have been clusterfucks. Russians inherently suck at the whole "naval" thing.

>>34550179
What does this have to do with lcs?

>>34551803
Then it is China who is already controlling the seas, since said flatscreens are made in China and China won't raid their own trading.
Seriously, if you knew about economics, you would realize that the vast majority of the shipping through the south China Sea is actually China's own. Why would they ever block their own trade route?
Don't believe the Jews and their lies. They want the US to fight China for the most unconvincing reasons.

File: 20386 project1.jpg (81KB, 800x490px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 800x490px

>>34551149
What ship size you are talking about here? Frigates are sure big enough to house potent mix of attack and defence weaponry. With corvettes you have to chose between the two and this is where modular designs really shine.

File: 9859330.jpg (298KB, 3496x4024px) Image search: [Google]

298KB, 3496x4024px

>China is rolling out 12K ''''''destroyers'''''' like nothing while we're knee deep in problems with a quasi corvette

>>34548066
How does the LCS fit into the Navy's new approach of Distributed Lethality?

They need to make a compact version of the littoral, which we can then call the clittoral.

Then we would all share a hearty chuckle.

>>34552857
All new ships carry Kaliber anti ship missiles.

File: Coronado_Harpoon_RIMPAC.jpg (176KB, 1280x839px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 1280x839px

>>34548096
Pretending to be stupid is not an argument.

>>34552767
>China finally builds a 10k ton destroyer
>America has over 80 destroyers that are 9k-10k tons, two more of which enter service this month

>>34553311
>In 2017 the LCS is testing an Ashm from the 70s
>On a slant launcher to boot
Wow it's fucking nothing

>>34548066
>They built a ship that dissolves in water
fuck yeah

>>34553342
>ASHM DO NOT COUNT!!!

>>34550179
Oh my

>>34551149
Sucks to have a navy that is so small your handful of ships have to be capable of doing everything, even if not that well.

File: DDeMAa3V0AAA5-g.jpg (44KB, 680x485px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 680x485px

>>34553322
13k tons fully loaded, actually.

>they fell for the multirole meme

>>34554348
>2017
>gun destroyer

kek

>>34548215
Oliver-Hazard-Perry-Class was also complete crap, but at least it was cheap crap unlike LCS.

>>34551782
there hasn't been a significant naval conflict since ww2.

blue water navies exist to do 2 things. put aircraft carriers next to countries. nuclear missile submarines.

>>34554348
You mean 10k tons, per Chinese media.

>>34554514
OHP's were more expensive than LCS.

>>34554379
you'll be crying when they are bombarding our shores

>>34552192
You can squeeze everything into a corvette if you're willing to use standard missile in anti-surface mode as your main AShM.

>>34552005

Retard

>>34554348
The 30's called, they want their turrets back

good fo sinking philipino fishing boats and shelling vietnam I guess

>>34554379
>>34555129

That image is fake, BTW.

>>34552767

chinese media doesn't report on bejing's procurement issues, because that's illegal in china

File: spidey.jpg (110KB, 600x448px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 600x448px

>>34553322
>America has over 80 destroyers that are 9k-10k tons, two more of which enter service this month

USN can't into AESA.
Seriously why keep building 30 year old designs.

>>34552857

They distribute the lethality of one OHP-class ship over 3-4 LCSes.

>>34555450

Have you seen what happens when we try to make new designs? That's like...the entire point of this thread.

>>34555450
>Burkes under construction now are identical to the first ship

>>34555852
Depending on what it is configured to do, an LCS has more firepower than an OHP.

File: 1490184840568.jpg (96KB, 1602x1000px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 1602x1000px

>>34555852

>OHP
>Lethal

>>34556339
Learn basic naval terminology.

>>34556339

Which would you rather have, an original spec OHP or an LCS?

guys, guys I just had a thought...

Okay, just hear me out here...

What if this is all a big ruse? Look, we know China is stealing our shit, and so is Russia. What if the Navy KNOWS LCSs are a fucking stupid idea and a waste of time and money, but we're going forward with this in hopes that China and Russia do the same thing?

It's sort of like trolling, in essence. We waste a lot of our money to get China and Russia to waste much more (proportionally) of their money trying to build and launch LCSs. Then when they've done it, we sell ours and go back to conventional ships? Then China and Russia are fucked and are stuck with these overpriced shitheaps that they blew billions on and can't afford to upgrade.

What do you guys think?

>>34556939
>We're just pretending to be retarded
Fuck off idiot

>>34556360
Not him, but for the ASW role that OHP's served the LCS is a better ship.

>>34548321
The Perry can't do air defense however, not even for itself.

>>34558532
kys

OG OHPs
>One single-arm Mk 13 Missile Launcher with a 40-missile magazine that contains SM-1MR anti-aircraft guided missiles and Harpoon anti-ship missiles
>20mm Phalanx

Australian variants
>Mk 13 missile launcher (40-missile magazine, Harpoon and SM-2 (MR) missiles)
> An 8-cell Mark 41 Vertical Launch System for Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile has also been installed forward of the Mark 13 launcher.
>Block 1B Phalanx

>>34552767
What shitposters about how Russia/China/Whatever are outdoing us don't realise (or intentionally ignore) is the fact that the only reason Western procurement issues get discussed at all is because we actually have civil rights. The same shit being said about the LCS, F-35, Type-45, Zumwalts today were being said about the F-111, F-15, Tornado, and OHP's in the 1970s (fortunately they hadn't invented the internet yet so it was harder for mouthbreathing morons to get their hands on misinformation and parrot it endlessly on Taiwanese wig-making message boards, whereas in dictatorships or quasi dictatorships such as China and Russia respectively these procurement issues either can't be reported on at all, or are reported on only in journals/periodicals with tiny readership, so the information rarely gets out. We already know that the PAK-FA's procurement is fucked and I'd bet my left gonad that the Armata series, the J-20, and the Type-055 are all suffering under the weight of hundreds of teething problems, of which many won't be revealed until some poor sod gets killed or maimed because of it. We have rigorous media scrutiny of EVERY aspect of government in the West for a reason. What'll probably happen (and is already happening), is that our supposed 'lemons' and 'turkeys' will come out with the goods. The F-35 is already looking like a success in Red Flag (that's another thing, Russia and China can only dream of hosting training as realistic as us - their military command structures simply aren't compatible with it). Either way, the F-15, F-111, et al proved their worth in the Gulf War despite literal decades of near-constant criticism, whereas Russian and Chinese systems have repeatedly proven to be mediocre or insufficient in actual combat.

>>34561743
>1711 characters of assmad

Anyone here actually in the Navy? IT here...

>>34548096
>LCS
>being capable of engaging a small, fast moving target
>entire ship is disarmed thanks to that stupid Jew senator

>>34559539
The swing arm launcher was removed from OG Perry's.

>>34561743
MERIKAAAAAAAA


KEK

Stop posting go back to sleep.

>>34563051
>>34562093
Look at all this REEEEE.

So what are we to expect from the new Frigate in armament?

1x 57mm gun
8-16x Mk41 silos
2x 25mm or 30mm guns
1x SeaRAM
1x Helo
1x Firescout

That's all it sounds like they're interested in.

>>34563110
box launcher for NSM, potential for some of the mk41's to be strike length

>>34563110

>57mm

Why does the Navy have such an odd relationship with this gun? They seem oddly insistent on using it despite the fact that they dropped it from the Zumwalt for not being good enough.

>>34563110
essentially just a midget burke.

close enough that it can fill all the rolls that a Tico or Burke fills for short periods, and can be rolled off the line relatively quickly.

>>34562093
>vatniks still don't understand the fact that their poorshit country will never be able to produce decent technology again until they swallow their pride and ditch daddy Putka

>>34563308
>they dropped it from the Zumwalt for not being good enough.

The F-35 cannot turn either right?

>>34562093
>vantiks in full damage control

>>34555450
>USN can't into AESA.

we can and have been able to for years, but if we're gonna replace our primary radar for destroyers, we're gonna do it with something that's actually significantly better, not just similar enough just because it's AESA instead of a PESA.

>>34563409

Okay, why did the 57mm get dropped then? The Navy said that 30mm was more effective!

>>34563722
No, the navy said the 30mm met more overall performance points without specifying what those were. It didn't matter if the 57mm had a longer range and more punch if the 30mm met the minimum requirement.

File: 1280px-IVER_001.jpg (173KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 1280x853px

>>34551724
objectively superior class of ships

>>34564039

I can easily imagine 30mm is plenty for taking on small surface vessels (which would be its niche on the Zumwalt) while not weighing much or having much deck penetration. The; 155mm, VLS, and helicopter would provide plenty of capability against other surface/land targets.

>>34564160
>commercial specs
>reusing equipment from other ships
>guise this thing only cost $350 mil a pop

>>34564214
Costs less than a 550 mil LCS senpai

>>34564846
>it costs less because of xyz
>w-well it still costs less!

That reading comprehension.

>>34564846

Don't be fooled. They were build at cost by the ship builder.

>>34548066
The LCS's major problems are, 1. No near peer combat capable radar and no way to fit one on her to make her worthy of facing a near peer, 2. Not enough room and displacement to fit anti-air missiles or long range anti-ship/land attack missiles, 3. Broadly, LCS does not fit in a carrier task force well.

The goal of the FFG(X) is to fix these problems.

In defense of the LCS, the supposedly intended roll was a general purpose low-intensity conflict ship acting under the umbrella of air superiority and air-defense provided by other ships or land forces if necessary. They were not really designed to work in a carrier task force.

The NAVY for much of the last 30 years has been focused on land support and low intensity conflicts. The change in number of LCS and the new FFG(X) is a response to the change in predicted threat profile where combat with near peers is now actually a threat where it mostly wasn't for much of the last 30 years.

Also the OP article seems confused about if it is talking about frigates or cruisers.

>>34553366
>ASHM DO NOT COUNT!!!
ASHMs with notoriously bad range, small payloads, and well known attack profiles don't count.

>>34564160
>6,7k t
>only one helo

>>34548142
So like a better armed coastguard cutter with a helo pad? I'm legit asking I know fuck all about naval procurement but this just doesn't seem difficult from my perspective of complete ignorance.

>>34554348
>Triple turrets
Oh wow a floating bomb.

Also stop posting this shop.

>>34565178
>So like a better armed coastguard cutter with a helo pad?

Larger cutters actually do carry aircraft.

In terms of armament there's actually not all that much difference between the Legend cutters and the LCSs. Which isn't surprising since the Legends actually outweigh them by 1000+ tons.

File: 363.png (342KB, 509x463px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 509x463px

>>34561743
>yfw the armata's hull is taller than anabrams
>A FUCKING ABRAMS
That thing is going to get rained on by TOWs all day long, I don't care how good its active protection is.

>>34558532
t. learned about CIWS from wargame:RD

File: IverHuitfeldt2.jpg (33KB, 600x203px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 600x203px

>>34565137
>>34564214
it's a cheap anti-air frigate made for a small nation, what did you expect. The reason i like it is because you get so much more bang for your buck

>>34548215
That Swedish boat that sank on launch.

File: 1499995050020.jpg (143KB, 432x810px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 432x810px

>>34552767

File: 1499469648588.jpg (96KB, 938x1132px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 938x1132px

>>34548215
The Tirpitz.
>Never got sent on any missions
>Cost Germany percentage points of GDP to build
>Turrets only held two guns
>Awful overweight armoring
>Slow
>No AA capability
>Was taken out by subs with bombs on them in a Norwegian harbor it hid from the Royal Navy in
>All it ever did was hide in that bay
>Wasn't even effective as a propaganda tool.

File: HNLMS_Tromp_(F803).jpg (371KB, 1920x1371px) Image search: [Google]

371KB, 1920x1371px

>>34565279
I wish there were pictures of all different APAR & SMART-L classes sailing together

>>34551745
This, for how important the coast guard is they sure get shafted on funding and ships.

>>34565468
Hey, the money needed to make The Wall orange and solar-cell plated has to come from somewhere

>>34565326
We used its steel to make parts of our roads after the war, so it was good for something

>>34565273
The irony of this post is quite deafening.

>>34565080
>Broadly, LCS does not fit in a carrier task force well.

You didn't really make an argument for this.

>>34565531
>t. libcuck

>>34565261
Abrams are a lot shorter than people think, and the T-14's APS will likely have a hard time with steep diving missiles like Javelin or Spike.

>>34548066
Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no

File: euVLA4q.png (94KB, 500x306px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 500x306px

>>34565675

>>34566050
>this is what libcucks really believe

>>34565279
Plus the fact that they actually succeded in implementing flexible mission-modules like the USN tried with the LCS

>>34566130
In practice Stanflex isn't modular either.

>>34548066
>realising conventional ships are better than memeroles
The Burke is a fucking multirole. Do you wish to anger the Burkeswarm?

>>34566050
That fire was probably started by liberal riots as well.

>>34566206
>Burke
>Multirole
>With SPY-1
Haha no

>>34548066
>nationalinterest

>>34565080
None of that is the point of the LCS, its not meant to be a small burke, its meant to be a support ship doing ASW & Anti-Mine & shooting pirates.

>>34568609
Yet it regularly gets confronted by fully armed Chinese ships

>>34570741
Can you give an example of such a meeting? Especially since the US and China are not shooting at each other.

>>34552019
>the vast majority of the shipping through the south China Sea is actually China's own. Why would they ever block their own trade route?

They wouldn't block their own ships, but India's and Indonesia's ships you 50cent chink shill.

>>34554370
Worse, they fell for the role switcher meme

>>34557171
Ship based ASW is a meme now anyways. We have enough attack submarines to kill off the enemy subs before they are capable of reaching our surface fleets.

>>34561743
The thing is I expect the ruskies and chinks to have issues because the former went almost twenty years withering away and the later are brand new to the game. America does not have those excuses.

>>34568609
>& shooting pirates.

Why did we think it was a good idea to waste money on this instead of just getting a civilian cargo ship and launching helo patrols from it? You don't even need weapons to defeat most pirates, just the downdraft from the helo will drown them.

>>34565531
>implying 7 billion would even be a drop in the bucket for fixing the USCG

moron

i still wonder why battleships havent come back for shore bombardment, even if with cruise missiles and junk

surely a crusie missile bb would be more cost effective than a carrier and air wing

>>34548066
If one of the catamaran things breaks off the littoral combat shit will fall over and sink

>>34571419
Pretending to be retarded is not an argument, I suggest you give it a rest.

I'm interested to see what sort of manpower requirement there will be for this new design given advances in the automation and personell space since the Perrys and Burkes were designed.

>>34548066
Probably the least menacing looking warship ever created. I've seen fishing boats with more imposing presence.

>>34566195
As far as I can read the modules can be switched out with a crane in a very short time, and the modules have universal power and data plugs. How is that not modular?

>>34563722
>>34564039
>>34564202
The 57mm was supposed to double as a CIWS, using basically shrapnel rounds with timed fuses.

I don't believe that it is capable of doing that on LCS, though; last I heard, the 57mm STILL could only be aimed manually via joystick using a day/night camera, and that it could not engage targets (such as ASCMs) by radar.

>>34562112
Ex STG here
Out in 2012

>>34572164
Because it isn't actually done, so like the LCS it isn't modular in practice.

>>34571461
Because you can build 10 destroyers or submarines for the cost of 1 bb

When the Gabrielle Giffords dock in Singapore, China will know fear.

>>34548080
It's "role", you idiot. Back to 3rd grade with you!
It doesn't matter if the USN admits it or not, the LCS is a waste of money and resources.

>>34573332
Your opinion is duly noted.

File: 8YpW2j7.png (694KB, 830x912px) Image search: [Google]

694KB, 830x912px

>>34566050

>>34554514
FFG7s kicked ass. Decently capable, and the USS Stark survived a missile (remember Exocets?) which had one-shotted other, larger warships.

>>34571388
America is also pushing full scale productions on new designs and things that havent really been done before.

The LCS isnt just another frigate, it was an attempt to make a frigate that could easily switch roles with quick turn around. turns out that wasnt easy.

F-35 was a stealth fighter designed to have some of the best sensors ever, with more integration and networking than before, while having a longer than normal fuel range and flexible deployment options, all while keeping the cost down to ensure all our NATO friends could potentially enjoy a massive upgrade.

Thats a LOT of tasks. it isnt just "an F-4 slathered in stealth paint".

>>34573424

>which had one-shotted other, larger warships.

Not quite one shotted. HMS Sheffield survived the missile in much the same way that the USS Stark did. The damage control kept her afloat.

The difference was USS Stark wasn't immediately caught in a storm in the days after the impact while being towed in the middle of nowhere, thousands of miles from any useable port.

It was the storm that sunk the damaged ship, not the missile in and of itself.

File: US Military before and after 2001.jpg (114KB, 960x310px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 960x310px

>>34548066

The entire US Military for the past 20 years has been nothing but failure

>>34554683
Operating cost for LCS 79 million dollar per year compared to 54 million dollar per year for the larger frigate. So all in all they will be more expensive.

>>34565662
The LCS doesn't have the range to function as a carrier escort. Furthermore, it doesn't have any assets which help a carrier task force (except be compatibly expendable) that a DDG does an order of magnitude better.

How is that for an argument?

>>34568609
>None of that is the point of the LCS, its not meant to be a small burke, its meant to be a support ship doing ASW & Anti-Mine & shooting pirates.

The problem is the Navy figured out it needs a small Burke more than it needs more than thirtyish LCS.

>>34571419
>
Why did we think it was a good idea to waste money on this instead of just getting a civilian cargo ship and launching helo patrols from it? You don't even need weapons to defeat most pirates, just the downdraft from the helo will drown them.

To name one problem with the idea: A civilian cargo ship would be outrun by everyone and everything.

>>34577464
>The LCS doesn't have the range to function as a carrier escort.

It is not supposed to be a 'carrier escort'.

>Furthermore, it doesn't have any assets which help a carrier task force (except be compatibly expendable) that a DDG does an order of magnitude better.

Burkes are notably inferior in ASW and MCM.

>>34578173
Majority of ASW is done by LAMPS III, of which burkes can hold two and have better facilities for support. It has has toroedos the LCS doesn't have.

Burke wins in ASW.

>>34579755

The LCS is better equipped to avoid a torpedo attack because of its comparatively high speed.

>>34579755
Torpedo tubes on a ship actually aren't that useful. Sub torpedoes significantly outrange any carried by surface vessels.

>>34579755
>Majority of ASW is done by LAMPS III, of which burkes can hold two

So do LCS.

>and have better facilities for support

On par at best.

>It has has toroedos the LCS doesn't have.

You don't hunt subs with short ranged torpedoes unless you want to eat a ship cracker.

Meanwhile LCS are significantly faster and have high end variable depth sonars and towed arrays.

>>34565326
At least the Bismark was able to go out in a blaze of glory.

>>34579907
>towed arrays and depth sonars
Literally any ship can carry these and burkes have their own towed array, try again

>>34579783
Speed also allows better sprint and drift tactics.

>>34579947
>>34579947

>Still ignoring the speed difference

>>34579947
Yea literally any ship can carry them
And the LCS is the cheapest ship in the US Navy

Heli patrols are a joke though, a stupidly expensive way to do anything. 2 of these helicopters will cost like half the price of the ship.
The US needs dirigibles for UNREP/ASW

File: OP.png (231KB, 350x463px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 350x463px

>>34580001
>slow ass dirigible for ASW

>>34579947
>Literally any ship can carry these

I thought you were comparing Burkes to LCS.

>and burkes have their own towed array, try again

A towed array and variable depth sonar are separate things.

>>34580022
dirigibles do not need to be slow, nor are helicopters particularly fast.

>>34580367
Well, if you want your dirigible to carry any reasonable amount of supplies for UNREP, or carry the equipment for ASW, it will have to be big, necessitating large engines to go fast, necessitating more fuel, making the dirigible larger.

On the other hand, the helo will be smaller, anywhere from 50 to 150 knots faster, and carry a larger payload.

>>34580539
Helicopters can't carry anywhere near as much as dirigibles.

>>34581522
For the same size landing area they will not only carry more but more by many times.

>>34581672
Of course the dirigible will be bigger... thats how lighter than air vehicles work

In terms of payload, well you can scale a dirigible as much as you want. Plenty of things the military does at sea is not particularly dependent on max payload.

>>34579843
>Torpedo tubes on a ship actually aren't that useful.
There are different tactical situations especially in the tight paths of brown waters. Submarines no always want engage all contacts at maximum range.

Also modern torpedoes pave way fro active torpedo defenses been interceptor torpedoes. But you need tubes to launch them.

>>34581914
>well you can scale a dirigible as much as you want.
Bad weather. Scaled up dirigible will not fit in hangar and need to fly away from storm. Redeploying it from thousand miles away will take much more time than heli from hangar.

>>34581971
What makes you think they can't handle storms?

>>34581995
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airship_Italia

>>34582013
>severe Arctic climate
>Another factor is the decision to let the airship rise above the cloud layer, causing heating and then expansion of the hydrogen, which triggered automatic valving of the gas. Once the engines were restarted, the ship dived through the cloud into freezing air again and, either because the automatic valves were jammed open, or because the ship had already lost too much gas above the clouds, it could no longer stay aloft.

Nothing to do with a storm

>>34582027
Heading directly south on a heading for Kings Bay, after 24 hours of increasing head winds and thick mist the Italia was only halfway back to base. The airship struggled to gain ground and break through to the zone of calmer winds which expedition meteorologist Finn Malmgren predicted was just ahead. Ice formed on the propellers and shot off into the envelope, necessitating running repairs. Engine speed was increased but with little effect, except for a doubling of fuel consumption. Dr Běhounek, in charge of the compass, started reporting variations in course of up to 30 degrees, and the elevator man Cecioni had similar problems maintaining control. By 07:30 on 25 May, Nobile, who had been awake for over 48 hours, knew that the situation was critical and Giuseppe Biagi, the wireless operator, sent out the message: "If I don't answer, I have good reason". By dead reckoning, Nobile estimated his position as 250 miles (400 km) northeast from Moffen Island. This estimate was 350 miles (560 km) off.[1]

At 9:25am on 25 May the first critical incident occurred, when the elevator control jammed in the downward position while the ship was travelling at less than 1000 feet (300 metres) altitude. All engines were stopped and the airship began to rise again after it had dropped to within 300 feet (90 metres) of the jagged ice pack.


>head winds
>icing
>Nothing to do with a weather

>>34582047
Headwind didn't cause it to crash
Just meant it didn't get to its destination

Nowadays you would put the airship on autopilot then go to sleep

The Type 26 wouldn't be a bad option for the USN.

>>34581914
Nice goalposts yard, of course dirigibles are larger