People on /k/ are capable and willing of defending the F-35 program, but could they do the same for the LCS?
The LCS is a completely fine ship
It's just that its main weapon was canceled, the NLOS missile
And the modularity meme has resulted in ships that don't have any working mission components yet
>>28656380
The LCS would have been fine if they hadn't cancelled all its weapons. Modularity means it might be possible to unfuck it, but the Navy buying a dick load of the things in hope of being allowed to unfuck them later is bad policy.
>>28656380
LCS is way more fucked up program to begin with.
While F-35 represents fairly well proven multi-role fighter concept. LCS is supposed to be combination mine sweeper, coastal corvette and frigate. Way less tested concept with way more conflicting requirements for same machine than fighter-bomber could ever have.
In case of LCS they could have gone for separate minesweeper and frigate with some common systems. Really high speed requirement ruins everything other than littoral operations for that ship. It's kinda like if airforce would try to combine fighter with long range strategic bomber and tanker. Not just apples and oranges, but add banana and possibly kiwi into the mix.
>>28656462
>fairly well proven
>is a fucking money pit that has failed to meet previous requirements
OK.
>>28656462
I don't see how these things necessarily conflict
Though I also don't see how an unarmored ship is expected to operate in the litorals
>>28656380
Yes.
>>28656524
>The LCS would have been fine if they hadn't cancelled all its weapons.
Things that never happened?
>>28657231
Was supposed to be in response to >>28656448
>>28656411
>>28656493
Before we had multi-role fighters we had obsolete fighters re-tasked with attack missions, becoming bomb trucks. After while and the fact that they couldn't afford to develop better tactical bombers and fighters they started to apply both requirements on same airframe.
>>28656524
>I don't see how these things necessarily conflict
50 kt speed requirement doesn't mix well with frigate requirements for range or minesweeper requirement for being quiet.
Difference between those missions is bigger than turning fighter into bomb truck. IMHO USN should have bought pure littoral combatants for shit like Hormuz as there is enough friendly bases or anti-piracy missions. Those are minor bullshit, something less important as escorting carrier groups or merchant shipping, the stuff frigates are built for.
>>28657298
>IMHO
>>28656493
The implementation doesn't totally work, but at least the concept behind it is sound. The Little Crappy Ship can't even say that.
>>28656380
Noooot really. The F35 is a good idea that made compromises and went overbudget, but it's still a much better plane than any competition.
The LCS on the other hand is a thoroughly mediocre idea that turned into shit and is outclassed by a number of off-the-shelf European frigate.
>>28657298
>50 kt speed requirement doesn't mix well with frigate requirements for range
What is an LCS's range compared to an OHP?
>>28657345
>outclassed by ships with twice the tonnage and price
ok
Its capabilities for its cost and size are pathetic
>>28657368
A trireme has less tonnage than an aircraft carrier, but that doesn't mean it will perform better on any given mission.
>>28657385
Let me guess, you think it only has a 57mm gun and costs $700+ million per ship?
>>28657411
How about making a relevant analogy.
>>28657413
No, it has a 57mm gun, two barely functional 30mm cannons and a RAM.
No area SAM's, no torpedoes, no anti-ship missiles.
>>28657298
The only thing 50 kt means is that they have a big engine
I don't really see much point to it either, but I think its fine, they just cruise at 15-20 knots for range, like every other ship.
>>28657368
Steel is cheap and fiberglass..isn't that expensive either. The Visby class costs 180 million. The La Fayette costs 380. The Type 054A costs 340.
>>28657368
>Iver Huitfeldt-class frigate
Cost: $325m
Armaments: Mk 41 VLS, Mk 56 VLS, 8-16 Harpoons, 2x 35mm CIWS, 1x 76mm cannon, 2x Torpedo tubes
>LCS
Cost: $360-$400m
Armaments: 57mm cannon, 2x 30mm cannons, 1x RIM
No excuses.
>>28657436
>No area SAM's
Correct, the USN has 80 other ships who all carry these.
>no torpedoes
That's what MH-60S are for.
>no anti-ship missiles
Being fitted with this year you mean.
>>28657492
>Armaments: 57mm cannon, 2x 30mm cannons, 8 Harpoons or NSMs, 24x Hellfires, 1x RIM
You also left out that Iver Huitfeldt carry either VLS cells or Harpoons
>>28656380
Knew the guy in charge of GSA oversight of one of the contractors working on the software for the LCS. He didn't have the security clearance to know what they were doing, as in he couldn't get documentation to show they were on track and going to deliver a good product and had to just take them at their word.
This somehow counted as oversight.
>>28657480
>Visby class
5 times less displacement
1000nmi less range
12 knots slower
single 57mm gun
4 harpoon clones
4 torpedoes
No SAM systems, not even a CIWS
>La Fayette
22 knots slower
Barely any better armed than the LCS with a 100mm gun, basic CIWS, and 8 exocets
Half the aviation capacity
>Type 054A
Around 500 tons more displacement
20 knots slower
Half the aviation capacity
And this is not even including the comprehensive electronic suite the LCS has to allow to datalink with the rest of the USN.
>>28657492
I believe the cost of the Danish frigate was not including the weapon systems. Plus, they already had the hull design from their support ships.
It's better to compare the LCS to some of the ships DCNS built, like the La Fayette-class and Gowind-class
>>28657645
Did your friend work at Nintendo too?
>>28657492
And you seem to forget the Iver is twice the displacement of the LCS and has less aviation capacity.
What does "litorals" mean?
Does the navy intend to go into visual range of shore with the LCS?
>>28657740
Kind of depends, since no one nation has the same definition of how far a "littoral" zone extends. For the USN's purposes, they apparently define the littoral zone as anywhere the water is a depth of 200ft or less.
>>28657740
close to shore like the Persian gulf
there seems to be a miss perception it means close like a river monitor
>>28657520
>>No area SAM's
>Correct, the USN has 80 other ships who all carry these.
The whole point of the LCS is detached deployment to handle small tasks that otherwise devour the tasking of our guided missile destroyers.
Not having AA besides the knife fight RIM hampers it's ability to work near coasts of even shit states.
Anyone with a SU-24 and a KH-29 can strike at a LCS with impunity.
Do you have any idea how much off the world's littoral waters are denied to the LCS unless the captain decides to let his ship be bait or the real navy detaches a destroyer to babysit a ship that was literally built to reduce destroyer taskings?
>>28657814
Adding ESSM's to an LCS would not change that.
>>28657814
Hell if you are going that close to shore, you'll be in range of land based artillery
Every shitty third world country in the world has that
If it needs to hide over the horizon to do its mission, whats the fking point of the LCS, instead of looking into what could be cut from burkes to reduce crew/costs.
LCS is a national embarrassment
>>28657868
Yeah, it would, because it would improve the denial envelope from 10 km radius to 50.
That's a 2500% increase in denied battlespace, and more importantly it increases the denial radius far enough to eliminate as a threat the whole class of ATGMs of which the KH-29 was merely an example.
>>28657917
It's a lot harder to hit a 60kph boat with artillery than with a fighter launched ATGM.
Further a fighter can launch his attack out of artillery range from the shore.
>>28657814
>>28657917
I think the biggest thing is that people keep expecting to LCS to be a full blown combat ship when it's not. It's a support ship through and through. Look at its mission roles: ASW, mine clearing, asymmetric threat counter. The LCS is NOT meant to slug it out with other full size ships or be able to do everything by itself like a Burke can. You know why? Because the USN has fucking 62 Burkes. We can afford to specialize the LCS. Other navies have do everything frigates because that's practically all the navy they have.
>>28658087
>Other navies have do everything frigates
No, other navies often have separate ship-classes for ASW, mine hunting and patrol duties. The LCS is good at none of them
>>28658087
They literally call it a Litoral Combat Ship
Why call it a "Combat Ship" and then design it around not actually being capable of combat or even entering the litorals?
And the high speed requirement turns everything into a shitshow as suddenly weight has to be cut everywhere, at outrageous cost, rather than just building a bigger ship...
>>28657932
>50km SAM range is enough to deny airstrikes
>10 to 50 is a 2500% increase
>>28658175
>if I keep saying its no good, eventually it will become true
>>28658278
Can you actually evidence the high speed harms its ability to do other things?
>>28658296
It's the reason none of the modules work yet
>>28658087
I'm not asking it to survive a multivector strike from half a dozen AShM armed fighter bombers, I'd like it to be able to survive a revenge slap from General President Koni after it heli-recovers a CAG group that black bagged a war criminal being harbored by his rapeocracy.
>>28658284
Then tell us how it is even remotely fit for mine hunting with a steel hull
Then tell us how it is even remotely fit for ASW without carrying torps
Then tell us how it is supposed to work independently of other ships in the USN without proper air-defense capabilities
>>28656411
NLOS-LM was going to be some badass shit :(
Why did they cancel the whole thing instead of just axing the loitering missile that was the problem?
>>28658284
In terms of square kilometers? Yeah, that's how area works.
And while it won't stop dedicated naval strike, it will allow the ship to protect itself from aircraft before they get into the engagement range of cheap threats like short range heavy anti armor PGMs, fire example the KH-29.
>>28658347
>Then tell us how it is even remotely fit for mine hunting with a steel hull
The majority of anti-mine ops are done by drone or helicopter now, of which the LCS can carry both.
>Then tell us how it is even remotely fit for ASW without carrying torps
Again, the majority of ASW is done by helos now, which the LCS can carry.
>Then tell us how it is supposed to work independently of other ships in the USN without proper air-defense capabilities
I don't think anybody ever said the LCSes were supposed to operate independently, only that they were meant to conduct shallow water ops existing ships weren't ideal for.
>>28658278
Yes, just read off the project name rather than its actual stated mission roles.
>>28658347
>Then tell us how it is even remotely fit for mine hunting with a steel hull
Have you never heard of degaussing? Steel hulled ships have been doing minehunting since WWI
>>28658421
If you look at it like that, you could buy an OPV off the shelf for a quarter of the price and let it do the same tasks
>>28658175
>No, other navies often have separate ship-classes for ASW, mine hunting and patrol duties.
Oh yeah, typically old, slow as fuck and unarmed ships that can't defend themselves. How does this make them any better to use in a combat environment than an LCS?
>>28658497
Except most patrol boats don't have the space for aviation facilities.
>>28658347
>Then tell us how it is even remotely fit for mine hunting with a steel hull
It uses a mine-hunting concept wherein helicopter-towed devices and unmanned ROVs clear areas long before the ship actually enters them. Additionally, LCS-2 class is Aluminum.
>Then tell us how it is even remotely fit for ASW without carrying torps
Helicopters with torpedoes, active and passive sonobuoys, and towed arrays, plus the towed array of the ship itself.
>Then tell us how it is supposed to work independently of other ships in the USN without proper air-defense capabilities
It will not work independently without cover unless operating in a low threat environment. Keep in mind some of that low threat stuff is what LCS is intended for, ie supporting SOF operating inland, conducting various kinds of reconnaissance, and ASW and mine hunting in lower-threat environments. In any place where an LCS would be under significant missile threat, it would have to operate under the protection of Aegis ships and/or aviation.
>>28658536
Every OPV has a helicopter deck
>>28658439
Literally 90% of complaints about the LCS come from the fact it won't fit it's name or mission roles.
11 missiles for the SeaRam is pathetic.
Using helicopters to do its core missions is a fatal flaw against any country with anti-air assets, it's also a hell of a lot more expensive to fire torpedos from a helicopter than just adding torpedo launchers.
>>28657711
>This somehow makes up all the differences
The guy before didn't even go into that the Iver also has an APAR and SMART-L, two very very good radars more commonly seen on first rate anti-air destroyers. Anbd it does have standard aviation facilities, you're making it sound like it carries nothing.
Simple as that. the Iver is a formidable ship in any situation, with some incredibly advanced systems, for a good cost. It exceeds the LCS in every single major capability area as a warship.
There are no fucking excuses for why it costs so much, only in the minds of those who can't admit that maybe just maybe the US didn't get everything perfect on some things.
>>28658613
>than just adding torpedo launchers.
Nobody uses torpedo launchers, everything is ASROC now if you're serious about fish.
>>28658087
>I think the biggest thing is that people keep expecting to LCS to be a full blown combat ship when it's not. It's a support ship through and through.
Thats missing the point of the complaints.
The point is that if it's meant to be some second rate support ship, why does it cost so fucking much?
it is patently, irrevocably overpriced and has let its budget go way out of hand. Whether the ship does its own little job or not is irrelevant. Even if it did it perfectly, it's hilariously, comically overpriced.
>>28658613
>it's also a hell of a lot more expensive to fire torpedos from a helicopter than just adding torpedo launchers
Using ship-mounted torpedoes requires closing to torpedo range. Do you not see the flaw in that? Helicopters can reach out to a detected sub in minutes, and then plop down a torpedo within a small fraction of its no-escape zone while the ASW ship sits miles away.
>>28658631
Thats of course, what I meant.
>>28658659
A Torpedo sitting in a VLS could do the same thing, faster & better.
What happens when enemies start fielding anti-helicopter missiles on board subs or light boats? The LCS becomes useless?
>>28658603
Not necessarily. Again, depends on the design, and the fact that every navy has different definitions on what constitutes a patrol boat.
>>28658617
You're also ignoring the fact that the Iver is fucking gigantic, almost the size of a Burke, and its hull isn't purpose built. They just took the hull of an existing support ship and they crammed VLS tubes onto it.
And the Iver doesn't even fulfill the same roles as the LCS. It's a pure Air-defense ship.
>>28658645
>The point is that if it's meant to be some second rate support ship, why does it cost so fucking much?
Because it's a second rate support ship that's also expected to be able to defend itself and attack targets Burkes aren't necessarily suited for. And again, it's similar size and armament to number of other frigates and corvettes for similar cost and which don't have the expanded mission roles or modular capability the LCS does.
>>28658706
>What happens when enemies start fielding anti-helicopter missiles on board subs or light boats? The LCS becomes useless?
By this logic the helicopters on literally every ship on every navy become useless. Also:
>AA missiles on subs
We're going into full retard territory here.
>>28656411
>fine ship
>no working mission components
Do you read what you write?
>>28658744
How is the LCS able to defend itself? It literally can't operate without being escorted by a Burke
>it's similar size and armament to number of other frigates
Which ones? The LCS is similar in price to the FREMM which is superior in AAW, ASW, ASuW and AShW
>>28658768
>We're going into full retard territory here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDAS_%28missile%29
And the french are working on one as well.
No doubt other countries have sub launched SAM's under development.
To think you can conduct ASW work from helicopters with impunity is a thing of the past.
>>28658613
Freedom's use the launcher with 21 missiles.
>>28658811
>if I keep saying they don't work it will eventually become true
>>28658876
>a ship cannot operate unless it has a heavy anti aircraft defense
>>28658706
>Thats of course, what I meant.
Except it wasn't :^)
>>28659148
No not in the Persian Gulf
>>28656380
tech demonstrator
>>28658876
>How is the LCS able to defend itself? It literally can't operate without being escorted by a Burke
Yes, because a Burke, with long range SM-6s, always has to be physically right next to a LCS to protect it. And a US Navy ship is totally going to operate in waters without proper air cover from a nearby base or carrier group.
>Which ones? The LCS is similar in price to the FREMM which is superior in AAW, ASW, ASuW and AShW
Wrong. FREMMs are twice the displacement and twice the cost of the LCS.
>>28658884
Well, first they actually have to know where the helicopter is, which they can't really do if they're submerged and trying to stay quiet, and even if they do shoot down the helo, they've already basically given away their position.
>>28659360
I asked you to give me examples of similar ships like the LCS. I brought up the FREMM to show what other countries do with that kind of money. It is not twice the price of an LCS, it's even cheaper
>>28659440
>470 million Euros is cheaper than 360 million USD
>>28659440
Try the La Fayette-class frigate
>>28659584
The 470M Euro number is actually the price tag for the Moroccan export version. The one France themselves shelled out for is actually 670M Euros.
>>28659584
That 360 million figure does not include military equipment, weapons or development costs.
Look at the price they offered SA for 8 of those suckers, although that includes a better sensor suite
>>28656493
>failed to meet previous requirements
F-35A replaces F-16. Outperforms F-16.
F-35B replaces AV-8B. Outperforms AV-8B.
F-35C replaces F/A-18. Outperforms F/A-18.
I don't see the problem, anon. Please tell me you're not one of those idiots who's buttmad the F-35B doesn't perform as well as the F-16.
>>28657740
Probably means, the region between the shore and the CSG proper. So quite a broad expanse, depending on the scenario.
>>28659691
The ships KSA is negotiating for are not Freedom/Independence LCS.
>>28657231
>>28657249
I'd just like to note that the choice of the NSM isn't guaranteed yet. However, they did just announce they wanted an LCS with missiles by the end of this year. So get your hopes up.
But yeah, the NLOS was supposed to be its anti-swarm missile of choice. Without it, it'll be rather in a pickle.
>>28657492
Don't forget the lack of range. Range is a big one.
>>28658603
A helicopter deck isn't the same thing as hangar space for two.
>>28659360
>Well, first they actually have to know where the helicopter is, which they can't really do if they're submerged and trying to stay quiet, and even if they do shoot down the helo, they've already basically given away their position.
They'd only really be using it if the helicopter is prosecuting them. In which case, they probably have a fairly good idea of where it is, what with a dipping sonar being right underneath it. If the dipping sonar is down there, then they're probably seen. Launch it and clear datum, except in this case with one less threat to worry about. More significantly, it gets rid of the biggest threat.
Everything American can be defended.
>>28656380
If they had picked ONE class, then it would have been fine. Instead, they are wasting shitloads of money for two classes, despite the fact that the only reason seems to be "we're not sure which is better".
But the idea is solid. Remember that these things have basically replaced frigates considering what frigates had become used for.
>>28666266
two different ships was to keep two shipyards alive
>>28666448
That's even worse.
Well, I don't know shit about ships, but I do know that it looks cool.
So there's that.
>>28666475
Are you a retard?
>>28666266
Good news for you: They're downselecting to one class.
I liked the two classes, for >>28666448 that reason. It's necessary to keep the institutional knowledge of how to build warships around, and also important to keep shipyards with the capacity to build them in the first place.
