Is there anything actually wrong with these boats or is it memes?
You may find this enlightening: http://warontherocks.com/2016/01/why-choose-the-littoral-combat-ship-because-it-is-the-best-option/
>>29358413
They might flip over in if hit by a wave along the side. Other than that I'm sure they're fine.
>>29358413
Just teething issues, mostly.
>>29358413
Underarmed and overspecialized for general Navy use. However, within the narrow operational role they were developed to serve, they're pretty good. Better than sending a Burke after Somalis in a dinghy. It's kinda like how the ZumZum has 155s for shore bombardment instead of relying on Tomahawks. Sure, it's a weird choice, but it's more cost effective against pissant militia types.
From what I understand, the tightening of the USNs budget means that the LCS is having to take on more roles than it was originally designed for. For it's intended usage it was good, but the increased mandate (eg. distributed lethality/sensor escort or picket) means adding equipment that won't fit.
The upshot being redevelopment into the Small Surface Combatant.
There's been some other criticism as well, but I think most of that is related to a lack of understanding of procurement realities, or teething problems.
It'll be good for mine clearing but the navy wants that distributed lethality doctrine now and the LCS wasn't designed to be heavily armed and now people whine that it's underarmed.
the only issue is the word "combat" in the name, when in reality it's not supposed to be doing combat, just carrying drones/choppers to do shit
>>29359641
This. Ship is pretty much alright, at worst you can give them shit for the misleading name. It should be named something along the lines of Oceanic Auxiliary Ship, or something.
>>29359250
>means adding equipment that won't fit.
The whole point of the ship was building it big enough so there was space that future equipment COULD fit. The SSC will carry both SuW and ASW modules simultaneously. It has the space to carry sensors. It has the space to carry weapons.
>>29359250
Sticking on box launchers for AShM isn't an issue.
>>29358413
That version is okay. The Freedom-class is the one with issues. Sadly, they're buying both in equal numbers for some reason.
>>29358413
The one problem with the design that has some weight is that it's more fast than it needs to be, so the costs of achieving this speed may have been better placed elsewhere.
>>29359865
Secretary Carter wants to downselect to a single variant over the next few years.
>>29359250
>Small Surface Combatant.
Is this going to replace LCS?
>>29359901
It's the frigate version. It's going to be based off the LCS hull and carry the ASW and SuW modules simultaneously. Exactly how close to the base LCS and which version is yet to be seen.
>>29359901
No, it's basically going to be a larger version of the LCS to appease the people who keep complaining the LCS isn't a frigate.
>>29359865
>The Freedom-class is the one with issues
Really? But it seems like a much more conventional design.
>>29358684
Thanks, anon. I'm bookmarking that for later use.
>>29359923
I'll rephrase the question:
Is the SSC going to be introduced alongside the LCS or is the SSC going to take the place of future LCS?
>>29360163
From what I believe, the Navy will be converting the last few planned LCSes into SSCs.
>>29360178
How much longer is the SSC compared to the LCS?
>>29360178
Correct.
>>29360212
Nobody knows. The requirements haven't been hammered out yet. I believe I've mentioned this three times now.
>3 crews per cruise
It's shit.
>>29359250
Looks great but I would omit the OTH missile. That's an over-complication that doesn't fit with the original mission.
>>29360239
>>29360258
That's some mighty fine bait there.
>>29358730
>trimaran hull
>wide as shit
>fairly short
Any wave capable of flipping that would flip literally any other ship.
My only complaint is I think it's undergunned.
>>29360323
Despite what many insist, a 57mm gun and SeaRAM CIWS is not the only weaponry they have, especially given whats supposed to be mounted this year.
>>29358413
>Is there anything actually wrong with these boats
they cost way more than they are worth
there is nothing inherently wrong with having little crappy ships, but they need to be cheap
>>29360451
It has two 30mm and four 0.50 in machine guns right?
>>29360453
How much should they cost buckaroo?
>>29358413
This is the meme boat.
We should seriously scrap this 2bh
>>29360484
there is also the 8 Harpoon/NSM's and 24 VLS Hellfires that are supposed to be fit this year
>>29360521
Well shit. That's plenty.
>>29360453
>>29360490
They average $360 million, which is pretty fucking cheap when you consider a Perry cost $700 million and Burkes and Ticos cost well over $1 billion.
>>29360500
If anything, we should have a flight II block of zumwalts that starts commissioning in 2025 with steel deckhouses, aft laser CIWS and two railguns.
>>29360490
the original budget price
>>29360887
And what was that?
>>29360887
Adjusted for inflation, they do.
>>29358413
Is nobody going to talk about how fucking sexy the independence class is?
>>29359945
That's why it has issues. LCS is a novelty concept. It needs to be a novel design to have even a chance at fulfilling the concept.
A tiny frigate isn't really good for anything.
>>29359057
The real problem is that every time it goes though Congress people complain that it's not a battleship, and it's too expensive.
For when you just have to have a $360 mil. minesweeper.
>>29359057
couldnt you have an even smaller boat to go after somalis in a dinghy though?
The problem with these seem to be that they are trying to be more than just disposable little things, yet all you get is a disposable big thing that costs more.
These things weigh more than twice as much as early destroyers did, but we cant even classify them as a destroyer?
>>29361810
Destroyer is a role, not a size, and the US confuses things by calling things that could very reasonably be called cruisers destroyers (Burkes).
The LCS is a specialized platform with some weird shit about it's modular design. The huge modular area expands the size quite a bit.
A dedicated minesweeper, drone tender or green water combat ship could have been a lot smaller and somewhat cheaper, but the LCS will, in theory, allow for more versatility.
>>29358413
The ONLY problem with the Littoral Combat Ship is the name. They're not really for combat against anything but small speed boats. They're armed for self-defense against smaller vessels and that's it. People need to stop acting like this thing needs to be able to take on the Chinese Navy by itself. Not every ship the navy uses needs to be a heavy hitter.
>>29360297
It wasn't bait. I guess I'm just one of the few people who liked the original LCS concept. It shouldn't really need anti-ship missiles other than hellfires for crunching speed-boats.
>>29358413
>close to no weapon on board
>can't stealth because of SIZE
>have problem going through rough waters or even storms
you really expect this not to be meme OP?
>>29361866
The design of these (and the zumwalts) look like peacetime designs that are undergunned. If you look at the dds and armored cruisers of the early 20th century, they have the same 'feel' to them. Nice and clean, with a few guns.
They dont look practical or serious, and i do not believe its just because 'muh stealth'. I believe its because serious ship design does not happen when there is no serious naval threat.
>>29362034
The Zumwalt is absolutely PACKED with guns and missiles. WTF you talking about?
>>29362034
>Ignoring 80-cell Mk 57 VLS.
Zumwalt is rediculously powerful, anon. Soon it will field a new generation of weapons, including supersonic surface-to-surface missiles, rail guns be damned. There may not be many of them, but holy shot are those three what to get pumped about.
>>29360521
That's only going on certain ones.
What is this meme?
>>29360953
You're gonna have to average the cost of them all buddy boo.
>>29362090
The AShM are going on every ship.
>>29361893
That's the reason they changed the plan and now are being uparmed and half of them are being turned into "fast frigates" right?
>>29358413
They're just shitty corvettes.
>>29362108
Okay. The original claim is still inaccurate.
They change the plan so often that I can be outdated though.
>>29358413
>People demand cheaper systems
>Anytime the military actually tries to develope a cheaper system, the same people complain because "it's not as impressive as what it is replacing!"
The LCS is a cheaper alternative to frigates that can perform the same anti-submarine and minesweeping duties as frigates. I don't see the problem. It's not like the USA actually has a problem with not having enough firepower. Why not create a smaller ship that can handle the side missions?
>>29362128
You're obviously not educated on what the program's original goals were.
>>29362135
What were the program's original goals?
>>29358413
They could have just built the bigger Freedom class versions instead.
>>29361757
mine sweeper/sub hunter with AShM and weapons for dealing with swarm attacks
>>29362125
Tell us how many times they have changed 'the plan' in the last 5 years.
>>29362187
A single Super Hornet would do a much better job.
>>29360592
Perrys are not 700 mil, and Perry's are literally twice as big as the LCS.
If they could push the price below 250 or so then the LCS becomes fantastic ships. At over 300 they are pretty damn expensive for not all that much capability.
>>29362089
>>29362078
The point is they could be more powerful with their displacement, and their design looks like its depending on idealized things staying idealized.
I was saying they look like they arent trying to cram every single bit of effectiveness they can into the hull.
>>29362212
I suggest you find how much a OHP cost when they were built, and adjust for inflation.
>>29362230
You really have no idea what you are talking about.
Ironically its a similar mentality to people complaining that LCS are not just mini Burke/Tico's.
>>29362230
They could, but the Zumwalts are tech development and implementation tools. Once they've delivered everything they promise, development of a real Burke/Tico replacement can begin.
Until then, Zumwalt sits in the middle of it's own SAG to provide it's advanced capabilities in a fleet context.
>>29362078
>Less cells than Burkes from the 90s
>Less cells than Ticos from the 80s
>'''''''packed''''''''
>>29362262
>advanced capabilities
Like a balsawood deckhouse and compromised stealth from adding ISTAR antennas to said deckhouse?
>>29362271
>Bigger cells for new weapons.
>Your argument.
>>29362255
Not him, but there is literally zero benefit to them being under-armed relative to similarly sized ships.
>>29362271
It also has two 6.1 inch caliber guns anon. And special new ammuntion that lets them shoot across an entire continent.
>>29362286
That's not how stealth works. It's not an on/off switch.
>>29362271
>doesn't know the difference between a mk57 cell and mk41 cell
>>29362286
Like new weapons fired from Mk 57 VLS, more stealth than any other vessel we operate, and AGS/it's rail gun replacement. Extensive aviation facilities too, MQ-8s are nifty as fuck and can help counter small boat attacks with APKWS.
>>29362295
How are they under-armed?
>>29362255
I know that sleak futuristic designs always get replaced with shit bolted on where ever the fuck theres room when happenings are afoot. This is something that always happens, and has happened, throughout history.
>>29362309
>That's not how stealth works.
Stealth works 'not', desu senpai.
Stealth is a meme. You can brute force through it with gigantic low tech arrays if you have to.
>>29362286
>compromise stealth
>still has the RCS of a fishing boat
Its like you didn't even read the article you got that from.
>>29362320
There's not an enemy that could currently threaten us like that. Even China will not be that ready for at least a few more decades.
>>29362344
Is that why literally every nation is working on it?
>>29362201
At least three times in a significant way.
Here's from the start.
>The Navy committed to the $15 billion (2003) program in advance of rigorous analysis or clearly defined purpose, appearance, or survivability. Proponents typically pointed to its speed, asymmetric littoral threats, and impact on the American shipbuilding industry. The LCS suffered from requirements creep, adding more missions and equipment, potentially rendering it too complex and expensive to use. When it was decided the ship would not be expendable, the original concept of a small, cheap, simple coastal warship became bigger, more expensive, and more complicated; with a smaller crew due to automation. The task force assigned six different missions which had been previously performed by individual ships: submarine and mine hunting; combating small boats; intelligence gathering; transporting special forces; and counter-drug and piracy patrols. Each ship would be big enough to sail across the Pacific alone, embark a helicopter, have a minimum 40 knot top speed, and cost $220 million. The Navy was only willing to build one type of ship, the task force, realized it was virtually impossible for one vessel to fill all roles, advocated a large hull to cover the mission range through modularity, organic combat power, and unmanned systems. Empty space was left for weapon and sensor mission modules costing $150 million. When the first production contracts were awarded in 2004, no mission module worked outside of a laboratory. Fast, cheap construction was emphasized, solving problems with technology.[69]
>>29362344
Not really.
>>29362344
You can brute force it with high tech arrays too, that doesn't save you from the effort of having to do so, or the reduction in the range at which you can do so. L-band can't missile lock, IRST cannot BVR, etc etc.
>>29362241
Ships are easier and cheaper to produce nowadays.
>>29358413
The only thing that kind of baffles me about the LCS is the 57mm. Why not a 76mm OTO Melara?
>>29358413
Overpriced coast guard cutters without a mission, but that's OK because they don't have any mission modules to actually let them do anything. Perfect investment by the military.
>>29362367
>in the last 5 years
>>29362393
It's sufficient for the purpose. There are NSMs and Hellfires for anything too big for it.
>>29362262
Was that what they were in 2012?
>>29362393
Dual purpose.
>>29362318
Is that a serious fucking question? Compare it to any class of modern frigate or corvette of similar tonnage.
>>29362392
With the modern electronics, its the other way around.
Burkes are 'cheap' because we have built so many of them for so long.
>>29362406
I suppose you mean that the 57mm has more anti-air potential.
>>29362398
My apologies. Didn't realize it had to be within the last five years.
The whole program has been changed multiple times, modified, MM's have been added, and now the whole program has morphed into the new SSC.
I'm just saying it is hard to even know what is the "current" LCS requirements.
>>29362344
The laws of physics prove you wrong. Stealth reduces the range at which something can be reliably detected by radar NO MATTER WHAT.
>>29362417
This is where you do that intellectually dishonest thing and only count the 57mm gun as what LCS are armed with.
>>29362405
Did I say that was what they were in 2012? I don't think I did.
Tech was evidently not mature enough to go forward with the full fleet, so they decided to let it cook longer. If they'd gone ahead, you'd be complaining that new missiles for Mk 57 and rail gun aren't ready yet.
>>29362404
Isn't that only on certain MMs?
Like the SUW.
>>29362449
You didn't look into a single other class. Do the research before you speak again.
>>29362432
Correct.
>>29359901
>>Small Surface Combatant.
>Is this going to replace LCS?
It's a frigate and should be called a frigate.
And they Navy should never ever be allowed to name anything.
>>29362359
everyone was working on battleships at one point
also in between wars when nobody knew what the fuck they were doing.
Here is a picture of my prediction for the future.
Small destroyers with massive gigantic fucking antenas everywhere made out of nanotubes or something high tech.
Probably give the crew cancer or something
Later on tiny microdrones will be able to expand the effective size of the array by hovering in formation around the ship.
Multiple ships of this type will be able to triangulate targets which will be taken out via railgun from some sort of arsenal ship
>>29362469
Name a class that is of 3k tonnage that has more armament than what LCS will have by the end of the year.
Hard mode; it has the other capabilities of an LCS as well.
>>29362427
You realize LCS production costs on Wikipedia don't include a lot of the expensive add-ons, right?
So building ship hulls is far cheaper, but the add ons have become much more expensive (and powerful).
That's why comparing the OHP and LCS costs is inherently flawed.
>>29362456
This is true for LCS. SSC will carry SUW and ASW simultaneously.
>>29362417
The LCS has:
1 x 57 mm Bofors cannon
2 x 30 mm Bushmaster II
4 x 0.50 in caliber machine gun
1 x AGM-114 pack with 24 Hellfire missiles
1 x SeaRAM launcher with 21 RM-116 missiles
Also: it carries helicopters which will also have their own guns and missiles to add to the equation.
Why is that not good enough? Why do you demand more?
>>29362344
>gigantic low tech arrays
Hello gigantic low tech array, I'm Growler, and these are my friends JSOW and JASSM. It's nice to meet you.
>>29362453
>If they'd gone ahead, you'd be complaining that new missiles for Mk 57 and rail gun aren't ready yet.
Wow it's as if I demand proper use of my tax money.
>>29362510
How much did OHP's cost when they were built.
>>29362499
>everyone was working on battleships at one point
Because they were actually incredibly useful at one point.
>>29362531
Go complain about Afghanistan, Iraq 2, corporate welfare, regular old welfare, or the war on drugs.
Individual military projects are chump change compared to our nation's biggest fuckups.
>>29362449
Independence Class: ~3400 tons, 1x 57mm, 1x SeaRAM CIWS, 4x .50 cal, 2x 30mm. Everything else is a module, none of which has been integrated fully.
La Fayette Class: ~3500 tons, 1x 100mm, 2x 20mm, 1x CIWS, 8x Exocet
That's one of many, many comparisons immediately available.
>>29362522
Would prefer an OTO 76 super rapid.
Bushmasters and M2 weigh basically nothing in the grand scheme of things.
The Hellfires and RIM-116 weigh less than 20 tons altogether.
As a proportion of displacement, the LCS spends very little of it on armament. However it does use a lot for the aviation facilities.
>>29362101
You can't count the first in class, bub. Or even the second. They're always overbudget. The cost has stabilized at the prediction.
>>29362522
Because that's worse than pretty much any other frigate.
>>29362541
Around 200 million ish in 1980 dollars.
>>29362531
>Wow it's as if I demand proper use of my tax money.
Then the LCS should be the least of your concerns. There are far darker things going on than whatever you feel is wrong with the LCS.
>>29362501
>more armament than what LCS will have by the end of the year.
The LCS doesn't get to hold 8 MMs at the same time buddy.
So how about the LCS today? If you didn't notice, a lot of the things promised in military procurement don't always happen. Maybe we should use facts we know instead of some nebulous claim of what may happen.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_054A_frigate
>>29362557
Thank you for exemplifying the intellectual dishonesty by not counting MM weaponry or the AShM that are being mounted this year.
Also, Independence are ~3100 tons.
>>29362543
>Because they were actually incredibly useful at one point.
They were always a liability. Before carriers there was still the torpedo threat.
Coastal defense ships were the only kind of thing you could arguably compare to a BB that ever made sense.
Unless you usefull you mean diplomatically useful because you could muh great white fleet aorund the world, then sure. But they never made sense for combat.
>>29362568
Good thing LCS isn't a fucking frigate, it's a minesweeper that can do overtime hunting subs or surface targets.
Bitch about SSC, at least that actually fills the role of frigate in the doctrine.
>>29362587
No, they're 3100 metric tons faggot. LEarn to convert. And you're being dishonest by including weapons that aren't even fucking used on the ships yet because they haven't fucking been integrated. Die in a fire.
>>29362592
It was directly intended to replace the Perry class.
>>29362572
Which is over $700 million in 2016 dollars.
>>29362592
> Good thing LCS isn't a fucking frigate
It's trying really hard to be one. No idea why you would try to deny that blatantly obvious fact.
>>29362602
>Wahhhhh, these weapons are coming soon!
>B-b-but they're not being used yet! Faggot!
Gay, the both of ye.
>>29362565
So what was the cheapest OHP cost?
Gonna need a source as well. Hence proofster
>>29362630
Nigger, you're including things that LITERALLY DON'T EXIST. What the nigger fuck is wrong with you? It is under-armed right fucking now. None of your faggot whining changes that objective fact.
>>29362602
>compares short tons to metric tons
>calls someone else a faggot
La Fayette's are ~3600 metric tons by the way.
>>29362630
> these weapons aren't in use
> claims they are in use
That's you.
>>29362614
Priorities change, tech develops or doesn't, programs change with such. The reactionary media has convinced us that anything that isn't perfect now is shit. LCS is one of those things.
>>29362624
Wouldn't dream of it, what LCS was dreamed to be is very evidently impossible at present. SSC wouldn't exist if that weren't the case.
Maybe you have me confused with other posters?
>>29362647
>SO WHAT IF THEY ARE BEING MOUNTED SOON.JPG
>ITS "CURRENT YEAR", IT DOESN'T COUNT
I can hear the REEEE through my monitor.
>>29362647
>>29362658
I am not that fag.
>>29362568
>Would prefer an OTO 76 super rapid.
Honestly me too, but >>29362406 made a good point about the 57 mm increasing the ship's anti-air potential.
>>29362568
The LCS ain't a frigate. It's a multi-mission corvette that can be used for a variety of duties ranging from anti-submarine warfare to minesweeping to acting as a rapid mini cargo ship to spooky stuff like inserting a special operations team into a combat zone and then supporting them via helicopter launched from the helipad.
>>29362624
Okay. So let's say the LCS is a frigate. So what? Does every frigate need to be the same? The LCS is cheaper than a regular frigate but it can perform many of the same duties. I don't see the issue.
>>29362663
The LCS was compromised by the fact that they didn't add a small amount of weight to the design (at least in the Freedom class's case) to make it significantly better armed. Again, there was not a single substantive advantage to that decision.
>>29362658
I have repeatedly stated that the AShM are not mounted yet, as it is this fiscal year they are supposed to be mounted.
Thanks for continuing that intellectual dishonesty :^)
>>29362672
You are comparing current capabilities to future capabilities. That's retarded and you god damn well know it.
>>29362693
You mean like they are doing now?
>>29362693
Granted, but such is life paying taxes in the USA. At least when it comes to the military, the final product is good; LCS and SSC will dominate as part of the emerging doctrine. Maybe when those hulls get ancient, a sufficiently modular LCS-type vessel will be pursued.
>>29362696
see
>>29362706
You are literally the only one being dishonest here. And is anyone supposed to be fucking impressed by integrating decades old systems onto a ship class that is seriously behind the design curve timeline?
>>29362706
Unless you are suggesting that an LCS will see combat within the next year, your complaint is meaningless.
>>29362713
No, they aren't. Cite your source immediately where they are adding empty tonnage to the hull design. Spoiler: They aren't. The decided to forgo the slightly larger/heavier designs for whatever fucking reason.
Almost as capable as a coast guard cutter...
10x more expensive.
>>29362724
>NSM
>Decades old.
>>29362730
This thread is meaningless. Both classes got cut extremely short and aren't doing anything of serious note to act as tech demonstrators. At least shit like the Seawolf and eventually the Zumwalt acted as testbeds for new technologies for follow up classes.
>>29359057
>Burke
Old Hazard Perry class frigates did a pretty good job at going after Somalis.
>>29361616
Frigates are good at supporting roles and independent missions in anti-piracy/drug trafficking.
I really don't see why USN couldn't just completely overhaul the Perries instead of decoming them all. Compared to the LCS those things were solid as a rock.
>>29362754
Considering it's already being supplanted by the much more capable LRASM and offers little to nothing over the Harpoon, yes, I'd say it's outdated.
>>29362724
NSM are decades old missiles?
The reality is, you know they are going to be armed with them, and you know the USN is not in a war time rush, but your narrative requires only counting the least armed configuration of LCS.
>>29359057
I'd rather send a patrol boat like the Cyclone for that kind of work. Small crew, extremely cheap, lots of dakka, 35 knots. It wouldn't take much to design a patrol craft that would crush that role.
Sure, sending the LCS is better than using a Burke, but we'd probably be better off not trying to make a jack of all trades craft and instead combine roles better.
>>29362754
Where has the navy said it intends to fully integrate the Naval Strike Missile onto either LCS class? They did a couple of tests, that's it.
>>29362769
Except for JSM, the variant that fits in F-35 weapons bays. :^)
Any idiot can see the Navy is going to take NSM/JSM and LRASM, to replace and expand the capabilities of both Harpoon and Penguin.
>>29362757
>>29362787
So what, they're going to give these new ships Harpoons or Penguins? Don't be daft.
>>29362789
Cite your sources you shitposting cunt. I can't find a single goddamn thing claiming the Naval Strike Missile is going to be put into service on either class of LCS.
>>29362735
http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2015/12/28/lcs-anti-surface-missiles-2016-mayport-freedom-coronado/77308144/
>The littoral combat ship is going to grow teeth in 2016 when ships Freedom and Coronado are armed with over-the-horizon anti-ship missiles.
>Both ships will deploy next year with either the venerable Harpoon missile or the Naval Strike Missile, a Norwegian-developed missile with a greater range than 100 nautical miles.
Are you even trying?
>>29362802
That doesn't exist yet. You're just a moron for not seeing it coming already.
>>29362796
So you're admitting you have absolutely zero evidence to support your assertion. Glad you cleared that up for everyone.
>>29362786
>but we'd probably be better off not trying to make a jack of all trades craft
Literally what is wrong with trying to make a more versatile warship?
>>29358413
Not memes, nostalgia.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2H8VEEerZM
>>29362818
I didn't know that all my statements had to be assertions. This one is a prediction, in case you couldn't tell. Autism can be rough like that.
>>29362803
Oh look, it doesn't say that they've decided to use the NSM. Read your own damn article Jamal.
>>29362815
That doesn't make any fucking sense. First you said they were definitely using the NSM, but now you're backtracking because there's nothing to confirm your claims.
>>29362827
You made a factual claim, got called out, and couldn't back it up. Happens all the time here. You should get over it and move on.
>>29362829
I think we are done here.
>>29358413
That's for this shitposting thread, asshole. Not a single thing of any value was discussed here and I find it extremely likely you knew that would happen when you posted this.
>>29362829
>Definitely.
>>NSM. >Decades old.
:^) I guess three words across two sentence fragments is the new strongly affirmative statement.
>>29362843
Nothing has been moved. You're just yet another illiterate who doesn't understand the difference between basic tenses and sentence structures. You never said or implied that you were guessing. You made very matter of fact claims that were proven wrong, even by your own sources.
>>29362840
See >>29362855
Statement was never claimed to be factual. Keep going my dear autismo.
>>29362855
Nobody said the NSM was decades old. Maybe try reading next time. Or don't.
>>29362870
You claimed the NSM was going to be in service on LCSs. The navy has not confirmed that. That's literally what happened.
>>29358413
This thread is a meme and you should feel terrible for having posted it to begin with.
>>29362890
Considering that it's up for consideration, leaving it, or any other harpoon replacement, out and only considering harpoon would be, as they say, dishonest. :^)
Do you really think the Navy would equip new ships with ancient weapons, with no way to integrate the upcoming replacement for said weapons?
>>29362640
Why does that even matter?
>>29362904
Do you honestly expect the navy to not end up going with the significantly more capable LRASM?
>>29362894
No, I said:
>NSM
>Decades old.
Then I applied a cute meme. Then you went apeshit for me with literally zero effort applied
>>29362894
>The littoral combat ship is going to grow teeth in 2016 when ships Freedom and Coronado are armed with over-the-horizon anti-ship missiles.
>Both ships will deploy next year with either the venerable Harpoon missile or the Naval Strike Missile, a Norwegian-developed missile with a greater range than 100 nautical miles.
http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2015/12/28/lcs-anti-surface-missiles-2016-mayport-freedom-coronado/77308144/
So it could be the Harpoon or the NSM. I'm not sure why the distinction matters so much. They're both anti-ship missiles right?
>>29362919
Why would you admit to trolling your own troll thread?
That's the exact kind of shit that makes current k/k/ so many orders of magnitude worse than old /k/.
>>29362918
Only if LRASM can be made to fit in F-35 bays.
By taking both, F-35Cs on anti-ship missions could discharge LRASMs at range before moving to launch JSMs from a VLO flight profile. Did you honestly not think of that?
>>29362928
Because as I've said many times, I'm not that fag. It's not my thread.
>>29362934
The navy would never willingly choose to fire a short-range ship-based anti-ship missile over the same or a longer range anti-ship missile mounted on a helicopter or fighter if given the choice.
>>29362934
I don't think that's a needed capability.
>>29362941
Either way, you're trolling a troll thread. That makes you a huge piece of shit.
>>29362868
My matter of fact claim, that I stated repeatedly in this thread, is that an AShM was going to be mounted this year.
I gave a source, can give a second http://news.usni.org/2016/01/07/navy-aims-to-install-over-the-horizon-missile-on-littoral-combat-ship-by-end-of-2016, and a cursory google search can give you more.
At this point the ball in your hands to show you are not a fucking retard desperately grasping at straws to win an argument on a Chinese cartoon image board.
>>29362956
Correct, they'd only chose so if that missile could be integrated elsewhere, like on helicopters, in box launchers on LCS and SSC, and internally on F-35s. Something like Penguin, or did you forget that we had two AShMs, one big abd one small, last time as well?
>>29362959
>Needed, no, but you can't deny any sane man would look at the systems entering service and not want it.
>>29362966
K.
>>29362969
And I stated matter of factly that other corvette and frigate classes already have equally or more capable anti-ship missile already integrated and have for many years. The LCS is behind the curve and there's no two ways about it.
>>29362984
Rather, any sane man would look at the systems entering service, and want it.
That bit came put poorly.
>>29362988
Except the LCS has advantages in other areas that make up for this.
>>29362974
IIRC LRASM is too big to fit internally on an F-35.
>>29363015
No, not really. A lot of frigate and corvettes have multi-mission capabilities, including some combination of anti-ship, anti-sub, light anti-air, minesweeping, etc. There is nothing particularly special about the LCS.
>>29363047
It is. That's why NSM/JSM is even competitive. JSM can fit internally, and LRASM is also unsuitable for other platforms like choppers.
Otherwise, LRASM would be killing interest in NSM, which is evidently not the case.
>>29362988
You mean like the La Fayette mentioned earlier in the thread that does not have a towed sonar array?
Seems like it is behind the curve actually.
>>29363064
But do they have the same amount of storage space?
>>29363003
Not really? The JSM ain't really needed if they pick up the LRASM. Trying to time the arrivals to match would be a pain in the ass.
>>29363090
A pain in the ass, but why carry four missiles when you can carry four, plus two more that you can get much, much closer? F-35Cs launched alongside Super Hornets could re-attack after the results of the initial attack come in, only now they've expended external payloads and are much, much harder to spot.
Again, you and I seem to be confusing need and want.
>>29362826
My nigga
>>29363114
The range difference between JSM and LRASM.
>>29363175
Very legitimate concern, but you're still seeing this improperly. USN WILL adopt LRASM to replace Harpoon. Any remaining concessions for whatever new Tomahawk is being cooked up is lip service. I think we all see that at this point.
The question remains whether the US will replace Penguin, make more, or simply retire the weapons role. IF the US wants a littoral ASM that's smaller, lighter, and (maybe) less expensive than LRASM, while being better than ancient fucking Penguin, they're going to spring on NSM. That increases the likelihood they'll spring on JSM as AGM-???B. Doubly so if LCS/SCC get NSM as their Harpoon replacement.
>>29363228
>USN WILL adopt LRASM to replace Harpoon.
Then I hope they rebrand the LRASM as the Harpoon II or something. There are too many acronyms already.
>>29363259
Meh. Acronyms help keep the 12-year-olds quiet, they can't be assed to pay attention when remembering names gets hard.
>>29363114
I think you're confusing theoretical and actual capabilities.
>>29363274
No, I made it very clear I was speaking from pure conjecture. Try to read the thread before posting.
>>29363270
I've never thought of it like that.
>>29363228
>Any remaining concessions for whatever new Tomahawk is being cooked up is lip service
That is simply added capability for Tomahawks, which is complimentary to LRASM.
>>29363259
AGM-158C
>>29363284
It's not just pure conjecture, it's complete bullshit. Timing the strike to land together would be somewhat difficult. Now, the most important thing in defeating defenses is mass. The half salvos from JSM would be inefficient. It would be preferable to put something else inside the weapons bay. If you want to have something to finish off a hulled ship, grab a JDAM.
>>29363335
I'm not referring to Block IV. Raytheon claims that both its joint NSM with Kongsberg and an updated Tomahawk could compete with LRASM for OASuW2.
Why neither actually could is evident, LRASM blows both out of the water while being very economical for what it offers.
>>29363348
Sure. Though JSM would still be very useful for VLO penetration strikes. Could be rather useful, considering all the escorts China has been building.
>>29362522
> 57 mm
PT boat tier gun
>30 mm Bushmaster II
SUW module only and commonly has problems feeding
>0.50 in caliber machine gun
PT boat tier machine guns
>AGM-114
6km surface launch range is even smaller than 8km air launch range
>SeaRAM
SD only, staggered fire means only 5rpm when engaging.
>Helicopter
Penguins are obsolete CIWS b8. Illumination will be of no use to hellfires. They will not get anywhere close enough to use M60s.
Overall it's fucking nothing, chinese covettes are better armed, better FCS, same range, same aviation and cost far less.
>>29363386
>SUW module only and commonly has problems feeding
What does this mean? Because every picture that I've seen of the LCS (at least the LM version) the 30mm guns look very much integrated into the design as a permanent fixture.
>>29363410
The fact that he listed things he has no sbility to make comparisons with is another good clue.
>>29362162
to give all the money to the jews
>>29363410
>In addition to the ships' organic weapons systems, the surface warfare package includes two 30 mm gun systems
30mm is SUW only. Future OTH missiles are also SUW only.
>>29363477
>30mm is SUW only
But what does that mean? Does that mean that you need to remove the guns from the ship to make room for other stuff? If I want to clear mines using the minesweeper package then why in the world would I need to remove the 30 mm guns to do that?
Saw these docked in Mobile AL. Not sure if it was the factory or what. Pretty cool
>>29363477
The AShM will be a permanent weapon like the 57mm and SeaRAM.
>>29363509
A little thing called physics, more specifically weight. The ship only has x amount of space and crew so they need to be swapped out for different roles. A process which for the USS Coronado, took 17 days as opposed to the advertised 2 days.
>>29363386
the 57mm does the job well enough.
You need to look at these ships in the context of anti-piracy, then the armament will seem correct
>>29363555
This is where the 30 mm guns on the Freedom-class are. Why would I need to remove them in order to do minesweeping?
>>29363602
Weight.
>>29363602
Tip of the iceberg, the gun system extends down into the hull.
>>29363602
Weight. Crew.
>>29363631
Well, I guess I can understand the criticism then if two 30mm guns is enough to put the ship overweight.
>>29363647
It's not, the guns are likely permanent.
>>29363655
They're not.
>Each SUW mission package includes two 30mm guns, an MH-60 Romeo helicopter with forward looking infrared radar, laser rangefinder/designator, inverse synthetic aperture, airborne low frequency sonar, sonobuoys and MK54 lightweight hybrid torpedoes; the Fire Scout MQ-8B vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) unmanned aerial vehicle.
http://www.naval-technology.com/features/featurelittoral-combat-ship-still-relevant-4531801/
>>29363376
It'd be more useful to just come in at the deck. Or launch the LRASM from farther out and have it go in on the deck.
>>29363477
>Future OTH missiles are also SUW only.
Nowhere has this been said. In fact, this flies in the face of Distributed Lethality.
>>29363655
But the ship is supposed to also be a minesweeper. How can it do that if it needs to give up a big chunk of its armament just to do that?
>>29363677
>In addition to the 57mm main deck gun, the SuW package includes twin 30mm Bushmaster cannons, a planned surface-to-surface missile, and an MH-60R helicopter.
OTH missile is SUW module only.
>>29363692
It doesn't, they are intentionally presenting each mm as an all or nothing deal, as well as implying an LCS can only use one at a time.
>>29363707
>OTH missile is SUW module only.
The Surface to surface missile refers to the Hellfires. It used to be something else, but the army cancelled the project. THey aren't the OTH missiles, but rather small boat fighting missiles.
>>29363707
That refers to the VLS Hellfires.
The market for them is great. They're for export.
>>29363720
So the LCS can keep the 30 mm guns and still use the minesweeper module?
>>29363682
Sure, but isn't having the missiles hanging off the wings increasing your RCS? Not much of an issue now, but you know the Chinks are going to be trying something along the lines of Ulyanovsk once they get the hang of their Liaonings. We could see an enemy with organic fixed-wing AEWC in the near future.
Replacing Penguin is a very low priority issue, but the option currently available has the potential to be a standard missile used widely across the force. That's real fucking neto from a logistical perspective, which means it's real fucking neato for me as a taxpayer.
>>29363741
Yes, the only module that will likely have to be used on its own is the ASW, due to the huge weight of the towed array.
>Ship is designed for shallow waters
>most missile systems have way longer ranges than just coastal areas
So basically it's completely useless unless you're fighting against Somalis?
>>29363720
>an LCS can only use one at a time
That's because that's exactly what they do. Future proposed larger variants and the export variant for the Saudis can carry two at once but current LCS-1 and LCS-2 type designs can only deploy one per cruise.
>>29361945
Even the Hellfires were too short-ranged to do the job. Typically, even against boghammers, you want to be able to kill them from a standoff range greater than anything they might be carrying - like rockets and shit. Even the Hellfire doesn't reach far enough for that. First the army OTH missile in development fell through, then the Griffin did, too. It's kind of been shortchanged on that count.
I agree on the not needing a cruise missile thing. Hell, they're adding one, and it's just NSMs in box launchers they slap on the foredeck. Most of the work is just software integration with the ship's combat systems, nothing more and nothing less. That capacity would always be there, it wasn't something they needed to focus on in the original design.
>>29363784
>That's because that's exactly what they do
You don't have to lie.
>>29363771
So basically you are merely pretending?
>>29363741
No.
Only base weapons are carried on ASW and MCM packages. There is no 'bit of both' deployment. Each module has its own specialized crew and systems.
>>29363754
Yes, it's increasing your RCS. That's really not an issue. If there's Chinese AEW in the air, it's getting taken down by other F-35s who are carrying internal missiles. Or an SM-6. And besides, what did I say about mass? Further still, the LRASM is by all accounts somewhat stealthy. Hanging under the wing mitigates that slightly, however it still has the range to make the shots necessary.
>>29363771
It's not like it doesn't have a SeaRAM launcher with 21 RM-116 missiles. It can protect itself from missiles.
>>29363814
Wow that float chart is really helpful. Definitely saving that.
>>29363800
>"The overall requirement is modularity to deliver capability in certain form factors," said Neil King, director of business development for littoral ships and systems at Lockheed Martin. "The idea is you can install one mission module on a ship fairly quickly, go out and conduct a mission, come back into port, change out the mission capability and head out again.
Current LCS-1 and LCS-2 only carry one module per cruise.
>>29362367
>submarine and mine hunting;
i.e. "Carries helicopters and a towed array."
>combating small boats;
"Carries a few small guns."
>intelligence gathering; transporting special forces; and counter-drug and piracy patrols.
"It has a well deck."
People make a lot of noise about "omg all the missions" but this is what it boils down to - except for the minesweeping. That has completely fallen through because the anti-mine submersible drone has also completely fallen through. That is still a job that relies heavily on specialized equipment - short of a dedicated plexiglass-hull minesweeper (which are not expensive,) the best tool is helicopter-towed mine sweeps, and for that you need, at least, an amphibian assault carrier to get enough in the air to do anything.
Honestly, since the LCS is being made into a light warship in its own right, it can provide protection for the cheap little minesweepers, and we can call it good.
>>29362472
>anti-air potential
... against what? Attack choppers? For the original concept (not even a damn SEARAM on it) I suppose that'd be important.
>>29363818
I'd like to interject here that one of the classes has a launcher with only 11 of them. I would also like to point out that it still isn't enough against a determined missile strike. If the opponent wanted to use the missiles, they could quite easily hit an LCS quite badly. However, that's war. It has enough defensive firepower to hold up against most small to mid-size attacks. However, if the strike is sent on the LCS, it isn't used on more potent combatants. However, it is likely the LCS is under the coverage of a bigger surface ship.
I'd also like to remind again that the best defense is not the missiles. Those are the final gambit. The best defense is not to be seen. Next best is EW.
>>29362584
>32 air defense missiles
Bet you ten bucks the LCS is going to get an eight-cell VLS by the end of the year.
>>29362787
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/ships/2015/10/25/lcs-littoral-combat-ship-fanta-mission-module-surface-warfare-missile-harpoon-naval-strike-missile-kongsberg-norwegian-fort-worth-freedom-coronado-independence-navy/74477482/
>>29363739
>>29363738
>21nmi missile
>Hellfire
No AGM-114 variant comes anywhere near close to 39km range.
>>29358413
Why not forget about the bushmasters and put a single Goalkeeper CIWS right there? That would easily have enough firepower to exceed both bushmasters combined and it would have better anti-air potential? From there it would have a nice wide field of fire to do whatever speed-boat crunching it needs to do.
>>29363900
>It used to be something else, but the army cancelled the project.
Reading is hard for you.
>>29363971
JCM and JAGM also do not match a 39km range so you are again wrong.
