Littoral Combat Ships (LCS)

Jeff Head said:

While a TOW type anti-tank missile, or even a little larger, could most certainly damage an LCS...it is unlikely that one would be the type of "deadly threat," you imagine.

...

Click to expand...

maybe I overreacted (I was infuriated by the idea of three guys in a pickup truck hitting a warship and scooting, without a chance to hit them back as they could be behind a cliff in seconds -- but I'm not saying this is what actually happened! I'm just saying what I imagined)
... but I couldn't find anything official using google a moment ago, found pictures like this, though:

and different stories by journalists ...

Jura said:

maybe I overreacted (I was infuriated by the idea of three guys in a pickup truck hitting a warship and scooting, without a chance to hit them back as they could be behind a cliff in seconds -- but I'm not saying this is what actually happened! I'm just saying what I imagined)

Click to expand...

Yes, it is frustrating.

But from what I have discovered, the Egyptian Coast Guard Patrol boat had engaged the militants n shore, who then returned fire with the ATGM.

My guess is that they lured them into the fight so they could attack them with the missile.

This conversation is going on on Breaking News and on the Persian Gulf and ISIS threads (The Islamic State claims responsibility), and is really Off Topic here since it is not an LCS vessel.

Guys let's get one thing straight this is as much of a symbolic hit as it is a physical one

If Daeesh can show it can hit a ship it's a whole new propaganda game

Same way USS Cole was hit while in port, after that attack USN changed entirely it's port call procedures if not cancelling it altogether

To sink or kill dead in the water a warship is very difficult, there was no chance this ship would sink with a ATGM unless it hit the ammunition storage room

And another thing call Daesh by its proper name like other European country's do and stop calling it islamic state as it's not islamic and not a state

asif iqbal said:

And another thing call Daesh by its proper name like other European country's do and stop calling it islamic state as it's not islamic and not a state

Click to expand...

Sorry, Asif, but they refer to themselves by that name, their members are Islamic, and it is the name that the vast majority of mankind right now recognize them as.

I realize they only represent a small fraction of Muslims/Islamics around the world, and that many are offended at them adopting such a name. But throughout the west, with very, very few exceptions, they are being called that name...ISIS or ISIL.

I agree that the name does not represent the main stream or vast majority of Islamic peoples.

Having said that, I will personally continue to call them by the name which is the absolute most recognized way of knowing who we are talking about.

It's like certain fanatical Christian groups, for example the Christian Identity movement. They do not represent Christianity, and behave completely in opposition to what Christ himself taught...yet when that name is what we recognize them by and know who it is we are talking about.

I have no problem with pothers referring to them as Daesh or Daish either.

Arguments about it here on SD will not go on. There is no insult meant, or implied, by the us of that name for them and it would be a meaningless argument to try and force people here on SD to use one or the other of the names.

Thanks.

As it is...it completely off topic here on the LCS thread.

The Critical here is the mass. the Egyptian Patrol ship is much smaller then either of the USN LCS class ship. That size makes the impact of such a weapon much more deadly where the LCS sitting between a Corvette and a Frigate is much bigger with better protection and counter measures to attack.

That said I am now Wondering if now Russian and the Israelis and Europeans will start looking into adapting there Tank and armored vehicle Active defense systems to the naval Arena.

Jeff Head said:

Sorry, Asif, but they refer to themselves by that name, their members are Islamic, and it is the name that the vast majority of mankind right now recognize them as.

Click to expand...

Our Australian politicians refer them as Daesh rather than ISIS or ISIL. It is not simply a name but information warfare. ISIS do not represent Islam and to describe them as anything remotely connected to Islam is to give them credence to a platform that they do not represent. Collectively we can all do something and IMHO is to start referring them as Daesh rather than ISIS. We can all make a difference.

But Daesh is just ISIS or ISIL in Arabic. Don't they call themselves Daesh?

To quote Shakespeare. "Would a rose by any other name not smell as sweet?"
Daesh or IS makes no difference its just changing the language not the message.

Anyway as to hitting a ship sending a message, its not really that impressive a message or result all it does is confirm that
The Gaza "Provence" of the self proclaimed"Caliphate" have ATGMs and are happy to attack Egyptian government officials. The ability to attack shipping is already a known quality its just that until this point it was really done. Or when it was it was with older RPG7 from pirate ships.

Now that this has happened, I expect coast guard ships will be more careful in the region. I also think this might cause a unarmoring of patrol craft with light armor packages around the wheel houses and perhaps missile defenses.
Other then that the only other change might be more cooperation between the Egyptians and Israelis in operations against the newest terror group.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Naval Today said:

US Navy’s future USS Little Rock was officially launched into the Menominee River at the Marinette Marine Corporation (MMC) shipyard on July 18.

The Lockheed Martin-led industry team launched the nation’s ninth littoral combat ship (LCS). The ship’s sponsor, Mrs. Janee Bonner, christened Little Rock (LCS 9) with the traditional smashing of a champagne bottle across the ship’s bow just prior to the launch.

Following christening and launch, Little Rock will continue to undergo outfitting and testing before delivery to the Navy later this year.

Vice President of Littoral Ships & Systems, Joe North, said:

This future USS Little Rock will use interchangeable mission modules that empower her to face a variety of high-priority missions, from Anti-Surface Warfare to Anti-Submarine Warfare to Mine Countermeasures. She is ideally suited to navigate the reefs and shallows in the Asia-Pacific, as so well demonstrated by USS Fort Worth on her current deployment.

The Little Rock is one of seven littoral combat ships under construction at Marinette Marine.

Click to expand...

USS Gabrielle Giffords, LCS-10, was launched in February, so this is actually the tenth LCS to hit the water. The article indicates that it is the ninth and is incorrect in that regard.

After the third launchings, Austal got out in front of Marinette Marine in terms of launching.

USS Freedom, LCS-1, was launched by Marinette Marine in September 2006, a full seven months before USS Independence, LCS-2 was launched by Austal.

Now Austal is five months ahead in the cycle.

Jeff Head said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

...

Click to expand...

a short vid is here: