US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.


TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
11million difference is hardly the same. Besides that the USN already has a fast frigate guided missile program to take its place the Constellation class based off the FREMM.
Father although classed as a frigate it’s not the same mission set. LCS was designed for the mindset of the GWOT. Of the post Cold War thinking that great power competition was over. As such it’s mission design was tailored to green water operations. Patrols around asymmetrical conflict zones.
Parts of the Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean, Gulf of Oman, Horn of Africa, Mediterranean even a few places in the Pacific fall into this. Counter Piracy, Special operations insertion, and Counter Narcotics operations perfectly meet the mission sets of the LCS. It’s vs Conventional forces that the LCS comes up short.
 

voyager1

Senior Member
Registered Member
11million difference is hardly the same. Besides that the USN already has a fast frigate guided missile program to take its place the Constellation class based off the FREMM.
Father although classed as a frigate it’s not the same mission set. LCS was designed for the mindset of the GWOT. Of the post Cold War thinking that great power competition was over. As such it’s mission design was tailored to green water operations. Patrols around asymmetrical conflict zones.
Parts of the Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean, Gulf of Oman, Horn of Africa, Mediterranean even a few places in the Pacific fall into this. Counter Piracy, Special operations insertion, and Counter Narcotics operations perfectly meet the mission sets of the LCS. It’s vs Conventional forces that the LCS comes up short.
But doesn't that mean that on this period of near-peer competition the LCS doesnt fit on the US Navy's strategy?

I know that the Navy has tried to enchance its capability in order to adapt it to the China threat however it really doesn't seem to be very useful. Maybe for a minesweeper or ASW?

They are taking valuable on-land maintenance time which could be used on other more useful ships.

Now i am not trying to move the conversation to an anti-LCS rant however it seems there are fundamental issues with it other than the monetary maintenance costs.
I am not sure that it fits to the Navy's force structure for near-peer competition
 

gelgoog

Captain
Registered Member
ASW maybe. For minesweeper the LCS is useless. You don't need a ship with expensive turbines for peak speed in a minesweeper.
But I doubt they can add significant ASW features without building new hulls.
 

gelgoog

Captain
Registered Member
Just for context the newest Russian minesweeper ship, the Aleksandrit-class ships, have 620 tons displacement and travel at 16.5 knots.
The hull is single piece made of fiberglass.
 
Last edited:

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
But doesn't that mean that on this period of near-peer competition the LCS doesnt fit on the US Navy's strategy?

I know that the Navy has tried to enchance its capability in order to adapt it to the China threat however it really doesn't seem to be very useful. Maybe for a minesweeper or ASW?

They are taking valuable on-land maintenance time which could be used on other more useful ships.

Now i am not trying to move the conversation to an anti-LCS rant however it seems there are fundamental issues with it other than the monetary maintenance costs.
I am not sure that it fits to the Navy's force structure for near-peer competition
First, the USN has moved to upgun the LCS classes farther it seems to have elected to stop new orders on the Freedom class. This may also be caused by that yard being the primary source for the new Constellation class boats on order. Up gunning them helps but it’s still a make mend solution. Primarily to gap fill in the interim.
The issue is it takes time. To tool, qualify and manufacture a new class of frigate to move from cheaper aluminum hull to steel hull qualifying it takes time. The first of the new FFG(x) starts construction this year and delivers FY26. That’s fast for the first ship of a new class. Austral’s yard is working to get steel hull qualified as well in hopes of being able to build FFG(x) as well but as is the USN has 14 more LCS orders 21 active with 4 slated to deactivate and 20 FFG(x) orders. Scrapping and build in this case won’t work because it would mean not having the same number of hulls until mid 2030s. Besides that for the China threat is mostly isolated by factors of geography. The PLAN is a one Ocean navy. With only a singular military port outside its boarders its ability to support operations beyond western pacific region is limited. This means that LCS classes still have operational capabilities for the USN who’s global tempo requirement means that these ships can serve in other AOR well allowing the FFG(x) to build up numbers and focus on the two potential peer threats.
 

Top