2
2
0
Responses: 3
2
2
0
I think the program has met many needs simultaneously while saving money by being so versatile. However, I have heard the vessels struggle in open waters (though that is not their intended usage zone, they do have to cross open oceans to get to their operations). I think this is a case of the military doing multi-mission/modularity correctly as opposed to the US Army's modular brigade combat team which seeks to counter all missions with a single design.
(2)
(0)
Suspended Profile
I think it was irrelevant from its inception... no major weapon systems? It's little more than a weak sensor platform...
LCDR (Join to see)
LCDR Rabbi Jaron Matlow you really have to look at the Mission Modules to see the firepower
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/its-all-in-the-package-the-littoral-combat-ships-mission-modules-016450/
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/its-all-in-the-package-the-littoral-combat-ships-mission-modules-016450/
Its All in the Package: the Littoral Combat Ships Mission Modules
What makes the USA's Littoral Combat Ship designs truly different? They're built with minimal fixed equipment and large empty spaces for modular gear, instead of a set array of weapons and mission electronics. Otherwise, they're almost the size of Britain's Type
(0)
(0)
Suspended Profile
I know about the modules; but an inside module can't provide NGFS for instance. A 57 mm gun (roughly 2 inches) is not much in the way of fire power for anything other than self defense from incoming missiles/aircraft (if you can hit a Mach 2+ target with a gun)...
Even the 5"/54 wasn't optimal for NGFS.
I understand that the module concept allows for specialization, and allows for installing up to date (hopefully) equipment. But still, there are some basic needs that surface ships have to be able to fight. I just don't see that here.
It was a huge shock when the DDG 51 was built with just one 5"/54. Granted missiles are great for a huge number of things, and the VLS is incredibly flexible and has a huge number of rounds, but still, sometimes you need guns...
Even the 5"/54 wasn't optimal for NGFS.
I understand that the module concept allows for specialization, and allows for installing up to date (hopefully) equipment. But still, there are some basic needs that surface ships have to be able to fight. I just don't see that here.
It was a huge shock when the DDG 51 was built with just one 5"/54. Granted missiles are great for a huge number of things, and the VLS is incredibly flexible and has a huge number of rounds, but still, sometimes you need guns...
LCDR (Join to see)
NGFS is not one of the Mission Modules, the Navy has invested in the Electromagnetic Railgun and close air support (CAS) to support the landing force. As you state even the 5" currently outfitted on the DDG was not that great at that mission, although I have done a lot of NGFS with that gun. The DDG and its various flights will continue to be the mainline small combatant of the future. LCS is intended to be maneuverable and flexible in a low threat environment with fleet support not a standalone multimission system. For NGFS they are already looking at adapting the Army Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) as a mission module. That in my opinion is the beauty of the LCS as the treat/mission changes you can spend money developing the module and leverage off the hull that is already operational.
(0)
(0)
Suspended Profile
Bill, I defer to your wisdom and experience. I have never done anything with LCS - it was just a baby concept when I retired, and I left the military business when I retired...
Thanks for the education...
Thanks for the education...
1
1
0
I think we need this platform just for its ability to change missions in a matter of weeks. This flexibility is unmatched and should save $$$$$$ when this program is fully implemented.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google