And one more thing to consider the nsm/jsm missile systems. I have seen are not vls so they would not need a vls sys. So maybe then add a mark 29 launcher for essm. In other words they may not need a vls system at all but that's for the professionals to figure out and hope they don't screw it up to badly. Just something to think about isn't it.
Littoral Combat Ships (LCS)
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Jura The idiot
General
I think so ... now I watched again the cool video
[video=youtube;deFNmWmr-Yc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=deFNmWmr-Yc[/video]
and the Skjold-class is so tiny the launcher stays like just under the deck, is lifted up (since 00:30 on the vid) to shoot ... the Fridtjof Nansen-class has canisters put on the deck though
"Fitted for but not with." is admittedly not a good statement for the actual condition. That implies a lot of wiring and provisions that simply are not in place for the LCS...I retract that.
Best to say that there are indeed space provisions...and that is all.
The LCS does have a decent 3-D air search radar that could be used for acquisition, but terminal illuminators would have to be added...which could be done.
As it is, my own hope/wish for the overall LCS program has morphed into the following given the decision to stop the program at 32 vessels.
Jeff Head's Proposal for the LCS Program:
1) Cap it at no more than 28 vessels consisting of the following:
a) 12 Freedom class, all of which get a Mk-41 and sensor upgrade to make them multi-role in capability. All of them also get "up armored" to get them from their current Combat 1+ to the Combat 2 classification that the Perry's were designed for.
b) 16 Independence Class. All of those would get an Mk-41 with necessary sensors, but not the "up armor." All of them would also get a decent TAS and also carry the CMM module. They would be used for Counter Mine measures, ASW duties as needed, and SPecOps command missions. While conducting those missions, they are much more capable of defending themselves as well.
2) Build 28 of the new frigate-like combatant. Either an upgraded Freedom class as proposed by Lockheed, or, IMHO perhaps even better, the upgraded, frigate version of the National Defense cutter proposed by Huntington Ingalls. All of these would be designed and built from the outset to be multi-role and be the replacement for the Perry Class which is still needed.
Anyhow, that's my current hope for the program.
Last edited:
I imagine adding terminal illuminators won't exactly be an easy install, especially if they want multi target engagement capability and 360 degree coverage. That would require two illuminators minimum. The modifications necessary for that will probably be as great if not more for installing AShMs.
Perhaps.
The Mk-41 is not cheap itself...but that would be a shared cost.
The ESSM will be cheaper itself than an LRASM. They will have to add significant upgrades to the Surface Radar itself in order to be able to reach much further out, and then the data link and other necessaruy comms to be able to share the even further out target acquisition from other assetts.
Time will tell. I believe they can do both to the existing platforms...they will just have to be willing to spend the money.
The FFG vessel will be designed that way and the cost will be a part of the multi-role vessel.
I still believe upgrading the survivability of the vessels to Combat II may prove even more prohibitively expensive since they did not build it into the hull and structure to begin with.
Jura The idiot
General
dtulsa, since I see you're logged on right now:
older, but interesting, read
Is there a system out there that has a decent range [20] plus k that doesn't use SARH homing may be SM 6 without the booster. I don't of any @ the present time of course I am talking about US only because I don't believe the navy will ever use a foreign design for AAW but I could be wrong. Personally I don't care as long as it works.