Littoral Combat Ships (LCS)
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Jura The idiot
General
Key issue is how the NSM launcher is fitted; if it can be effectively fitted in a practical and relatively low cost way, say a couple of slant launchers in front of the superstructure, then there's no reason the USN shouldn't add that kind of much needed anti shipping capability to their LCS
Jura The idiot
General
in front of the superstructure ... but I remembered you, Bltizo, suggesting their installation somewhere else
http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/world-armed-forces/littoral-combat-ships-lcs-32-3993.html#post281807
That would definitely be the fastest and cheapest way, and practical on the basis that LCS has a large helopad to accommodate.
But I doubt USN would like to give up helopad space, given that was one of the main driver's of LCS design.
But I doubt USN would like to give up helopad space, given that was one of the main driver's of LCS design.
I realize that I may be new to this but hears a thought about the weapons load of these ships to include 12-16 nsm/jsm 16-24 essm a 76mm gun to replace the 57mm along with asroc-4-8 and torpedoes this would cover almost any threat and give considerable land attack capability jsm has a range 285 kilo if Wikipedia is to be believed it also has dual ssm land attack modes of course se are not talking cheap here as they would also need new radar fire control etc. but I may ask what price is a under armed ill conceived ship worth that can not out fight or even have a chance of protecting is crew in time of a crisis and remember those can arise @ anytime and any place so @ a minimum we are looking @ the largest choice of freedom class suggestions in reading all the post no one has mentioned a threat faced from shore based anti ship missiles and artillery
Last edited:
A few points from my perspecitve:
1st - welcome aboard SD! No worries about sharing your thoughts...even if new. We encourage people to do so.
2nd - The threat from a shore based SSM is something I view as similar to that from a SSM aboard ship. if the LCS gets within range, they are threatened, and since they are designed to operate in the littorals, they are at risk from that threat. The current armament fit on the vessels do not give them a way to respond to it, either from shore or from n OPFOR corvette or frigate.
3rd - These vessels are not meant to be uparmed to something on the order of a destroyer. I do not expect to see them ever have anything more than 8 SSMs. IMHO, an eight cell Mk-41 with four SSMs (ultimnately the LRASM) and the other four cells carrying 16 ESSMs would be adequate for their purposes and role.
Cheers!
Jura The idiot
General
dtulsa from Texas, how is it going down there?
in addition to what Jeff just posted, you may check the stringent requirements which are very sensitive to additional weight: http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/world-armed-forces/littoral-combat-ships-lcs-36-3993.html#post302506 (my point is you can't add more weaponry on an LCS just like that
unfortunately these are all valid points may I then suggest an alternate load of 6-8 nsm/jsm with 12-16 essm this weapon system may be all we actually see on this but if I remember essm does have a surface capacity and also the ram block 2 also has some what of anti surface capacity but they definitely need something better than what is being proposed and thanks for the invite its a good place to vent frustration and share ideas definitely need 76mm gun with asw weapons though and I remember seeing a proposal earlier from klonsberg for a slant launcher for nsm although I would opt for jsm due to increased rang with land attack ability then you could put an 8 cell mark 41 in front of the bridge should be able to do that also isn't the lrasm a pretty heavy missile and have seen props. ranging all the way up to sm 6 which is 3000 lb to be fitted so I am not thinking or talking about the current version of this ship if you want to call it that
Last edited: