Littoral Combat Ships (LCS)

Jura The idiot · Apr 10, 2017

TerraN_EmpirE said:
... It's the Navy who is feuding.
...

the USN outsmarted itself with LCS Project: 'modularity'; '3-2-1 manning concept'; points 1, 2, and 3 I made Mar 30, 2017

now on a purely technical side: I've been aware of better armed options for LCS Project, as in

Jura said:
from 2011 brochure: Jan 30, 2016

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

EDIT I was posting much earlier on various proposals (at that time I had no idea why the USN just hadn't armed those things), but now I see (again)

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

is gone

TerraN_EmpirE said:
... finally Jura ...

I think we strongly disagree on:

TerraN_EmpirE said:
View attachment 37696

as what might make sense according to me would be to put a VLS on the bow (the delay in REALLY arming LCSs has become so huge that an LRASM could probably be used in said VLS, together with a mix of AAMs) and not dismantle the precious space for ASW assests! since you seem to like the opposite, I'm ready to leave it with: time will tell

dtulsa · Apr 10, 2017

Jura said:
the USN outsmarted itself with LCS Project: 'modularity'; '3-2-1 manning concept'; points 1, 2, and 3 I made Mar 30, 2017

now on a purely technical side: I've been aware of better armed options for LCS Project, as in
EDIT I was posting much earlier on various proposals (at that time I had no idea why the USN just hadn't armed those things), but now I see (again)

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

is gone

I think we strongly disagree on:
as what might make sense according to me would be to put a VLS on the bow (the delay in REALLY arming LCSs has become so huge that an LRASM could probably be used in said VLS, together with a mix of AAMs) and not dismantle the precious space for ASW assests! since you seem to like the opposite, I'm ready to leave it with: time will tell

Well here is my 2 cents worth not it matters a certain number of the current ships be dedicated mine sweepers seeing this already can't carry the OTH missile due to weight of the mine module looks like there will be quite a few available for such task with the rest to include all of the new features and for those that say But what about this and that remember if almost any ship strikes a mine it's curtains for said vessel unless damage control is excellent and even then it may not save them

FORBIN · Apr 10, 2017

A new LCS but well armed 4 replace eight Missile Boats

Squadron 2020 vessels

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

dtulsa · Apr 10, 2017

FORBIN said:
A new LCS but well armed 4 replace eight Missile Boats

Squadron 2020 vessels

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

View attachment 37709

Not bad just wish I could read it possible to translate to English?

TerraN_EmpirE · Apr 10, 2017

Jura said:
I think we strongly disagree on:

as what might make sense according to me would be to put a VLS on the bow (the delay in REALLY arming LCSs has become so huge that an LRASM could probably be used in said VLS, together with a mix of AAMs) and not dismantle the precious space for ASW assests! since you seem to like the opposite, I'm ready to leave it with: time will tell

"since you seem to like the opposite" No I like this new version of the Independence class. which gives up nothing.
The Austal Frigate based derived from the Independence class still have full ASW capacity for 2 helicopters or a ASW helicopter and Fire scout fully integrated sonar systems including a towed array.
What they are cutting out is the mission modules you like to complain about.
the vendors have offered to add VLS to the Independence class. it's not in the bow but 16 cells of VLS on the superstructure. in a space intended originally for the canceled FCS NLOS LS, That's plenty of space for ESSM and LRASM or even a few TLAMS.

Jura let me show you a configuration I am more worried about of Mk141 launchers on Absalon class frigates.

StanFlex Harpoon modules on Absalon frigate.jpg

The fantail launchers may look odd but it's not an issue.

This is the old Sparviero class hydrofoil, obviously it uses an older launcher and missile but it's much much closer to the water
This is the HDMS Sehested P 547 retired. She sported Harpoon canisters to and far closer to the sea then the Fantail.

The Fantail launchers on the Austal Frigate (independence class FF) is a non issue

dtulsa · Apr 11, 2017

Those are mk 56 launchers with ESSM along with The quad harpoon launchers the no 56 is the very one I have talked about replacing the 30 mm guns with that really would improve the defense and add 8 ASHMto the forward area is Exactly what I've wanted and preached about all this time that should be e tremely doable don't ya all think

dtulsa · Apr 11, 2017

dtulsa said:
Those are mk 56 launchers with ESSM along with The quad harpoon launchers the no 56 is the very one I have talked about replacing the 30 mm guns with that really would improve the defense and add 8 ASHMto the forward area is Exactly what I've wanted and preached about all this time that should be extremely doable don't ya all think

And yes it is removable when not required

dtulsa · Apr 11, 2017

TerraN_EmpirE said:
"since you seem to like the opposite" No I like this new version of the Independence class. which gives up nothing.
The Austal Frigate based derived from the Independence class still have full ASW capacity for 2 helicopters or a ASW helicopter and Fire scout fully integrated sonar systems including a towed array.
What they are cutting out is the mission modules you like to complain about.
the vendors have offered to add VLS to the Independence class. it's not in the bow but 16 cells of VLS on the superstructure. in a space intended originally for the canceled FCS NLOS LS, That's plenty of space for ESSM and LRASM or even a few TLAMS.

Jura let me show you a configuration I am more worried about of Mk141 launchers on Absalon class frigates.
View attachment 37713

The fantail launchers may look odd but it's not an issue.
View attachment 37714
This is the old Sparviero class hydrofoil, obviously it uses an older launcher and missile but it's much much closer to the water
This is the HDMS Sehested P 547 retired. She sported Harpoon canisters to and far closer to the sea then the Fantail. View attachment 37715 The Fantail launchers on the Austal Frigate (independence class FF) is a non issue

dtulsa · Apr 11, 2017

dtulsa said:
And yes it is removable when not required

The mk56 ESSM launchers are on the Absalon frigates

Jura The idiot · Apr 11, 2017

I know I said I was ready to leave it, but now you made this outlandish claim:

TerraN_EmpirE said:
"since you seem to like the opposite" No I like this new version of the Independence class. which gives up nothing.
...

while
"So what does Austal give up to fit VLS? Primarily flight deck and hangar space: Their frigate can only carry one Sea Hawk helicopter and one Fire Scout. That’s a significant trade-off, since the aircraft play a big role in everything from spotting subs to shooting fast attack boats, clearing mines, and even

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

incoming missiles away from the ship."
(quoting from the source you commented on in #1579 and #1580; 'give up parts' highlighted by me above, also in what you said)

and, as I also said Yesterday at 8:42 PM

Jura said:
...
as what might make sense according to me would be to put a VLS on the bow (the delay in REALLY arming LCSs has become so huge that an LRASM could probably be used in said VLS, together with a mix of AAMs) and not dismantle the precious space for ASW assests! since you seem to like the opposite, ...

I reiterate: I think a VLS should be placed completely differently than it's in the design you like (so that 'flight deck and hangar space' are kept as they're now)!
now I quickly did this "homework";
numbers first so it could be easily checked:
the width of the ship is known to be 32 m; using the PhotoShop ruler below (22.8 - 1.4)x, x is about 1.5, as 32/(22.8-1.4)=1.4953;
the length of the area I sloppily "cut" (26.6 - 18.2)x, so the length is about 8.4*1.5 = 12.6 meters;
the width of the area I sloppily "cut" (14.6 - 9.8)x, so the width is about 4.8*1.5 = 7.2 meters

("... the Tactical module is approximately 22 feet (6.7 meters) long ..."

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

but it's ANYWAY JUST PIPE DREAMS AND NO LCS IS GETTING VLS ... am saying this just to stay in touch with reality while discussing "your" modification and "my" modification!!)

now the chart:

my conclusion: the design you prefer
#1565 TerraN_EmpirE, Yesterday at 1:47 PM

TerraN_EmpirE said:
View attachment 37696

is in my opinion flawed, for reasons I repeatedly gave; you may have the last word here if you want

EDIT oh and since I won't post on the topic of this design until something official possibly appears, let me tell you I didn't like this part (at first I wanted to leave it, too) of
#1580 TerraN_EmpirE, Yesterday at 5:55 PM
" ...The Navy tested Firing Rockets from the Sea for a time and you know what? No problem. In fact the Harpoon's the launcher fires have a submarine launched version. The issue is back blast but there are navy ships with their launchers blast hitting the deck."

as this may be a complete misunderstanding or ... spin: submarine-launched AShMs sit inside a sub, until a torpedo tube is flooded, and a capsule is launched out of the water ... (I took issue with the placement of AShMs launchers where they would be in "frequent" contact with the sea

Thursday at 11:44 AM

Jura said:
is this:

a joke?
I would appreciate if somebody knowledgeable commented on the placement of AShM launchers so close to the waterline

you may have the last word also here

Littoral Combat Ships (LCS)

Jura The idiot

General

dtulsa

Junior Member

FORBIN

Lieutenant General

dtulsa

Junior Member

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King

dtulsa

Junior Member

dtulsa

Junior Member

dtulsa

Junior Member

dtulsa

Junior Member

Jura The idiot

General