LCS
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
What went wrong?
>>30265689
The invention of planes, which lead to carriers, which lead to guided weapons, which lead to absolutely disgusting modern warships
>>30265689
Mission creep. The LCS was supposed to fill a role that included nominal corvette work, minesweeping, deploying amphibious assault vehicles, ASW, AND be capable of traditional surface actions. The Navy bought the "mission module" idea and plunked it in a boat that was too small to do everything it tried. Like a Swiss army knife, it's great in concept but the execution was lackluster.
>>30266335
>it's great in concept but the execution was lackluster.
Considering the primary complaints involve whining that it not a 3000 ton Arleigh Burke, it seems to be doing fine.
>>30266335
>>30265689
Arguably, the biggest problem with LCS was the speed requirement. The requirement to have a top speed greater than 40 knots constrained the entire design. They had to sacrifice firepower and armor to keep weight down so that the ship would be able to exceed 40 knots. This requirement also increased cost dramatically because getting a ship of that size to go that fast requires a very powerful engine. Reduce the speed requirement to just 30 knots, add a few more guns, and you'll have a nice ship. Also, change the name. These ships are too big for littoral combat.
>>30266459
>Reduce the speed requirement to just 30 knots, add a few more guns, and you'll have a nice ship. Also, change the name. These ships are too big for littoral combat.
They're doing that. The next 20 being built aren't going to be "LCS's," they're going to be "SSC's." Upgunned, slower, with a more traditional sub hunter/escort role. Basically making it a really light frigate.
>>30266593
holy shit
both of ships got commercially available diesels, generic turbines and water jets there is nothing expensive or complex about that
in fact this setup is cheaper to run and maintain than your traditional shaft configuration
hi speed is by product of hull design, there was hardly any sacrifices in this regard
"sacrifices" came from mission modules and modular design in general
which is
the entire point of class and
perfectly adequate for all damn roles those are are designed to fill
>These ships are too big for littoral combat.
yo best be joking nigger
ability to operate in brown waters requires
shallow draft and good maneuverability in all speed ranges which both of ships has
>>30266660
Soooo... a modern destroyer escort? Cool.
>>30266726
>"sacrifices" came from mission modules and modular design in general which is the entire point of class and perfectly adequate for all damn roles those are are designed to fill
Yes, so adequate that the Navy has scrapped the concept and is redesigning them, leaving only marginal "modularity." The last flight of LCS's aren't even going to be LCS's, they're going to be FF's, *AND* the last 7 of the LCS's (LCS Block I's,) are going to be refitted as FF's.
The entire concept of "mission modularity" is being rejected because the class isn't particularly good at any of them. Like >>30266335 said, swiss army knife of the seas.
>>30266660
>The next 20
The plan of 32 LCS and 20 Frigates changed when the total dropped from 52 to 40.
>>30266914
The concept of modularity is being dropped for the last few ships because autists cannot stop screaming about LCS not being miniature Ticos/Burkes.
It is the same backwards thinking that is forcing the USAF to continue using obsolete A-10's.
>>30266335
>The Navy bought the "mission module" idea and plunked it in a boat that was too small to do everything it tried.
that's not correct, because the ship was only intended to do one job at a time.
they have had problems with the modules. this has caused issues with the program, which is otherwise going well. the mine warfare module needs a new rov.
since the time the program was conceived, the strategic landscape has changed again. this also happened to the a-10. because of this, there is now a need for a heavier fixed anti-surface armament and a better radar. another issue is providing trained personel for a ship that is designed to change mission, and therefore critical skills employed, at the drop of a hat. this is probably the most powerful argument against the concept. all of this has led to the last twenty vessels of the program being converted into frigates. how much of a size increase in the hull this will require remains to be seen. these things have enourmous internal space. the independence class can berth another 100 people for example.
>>30265689
It's the Navy's equivalent of Obama. It says its going to do so much, fails in execution, and then points the fingers of blame for said failures. Then special snowflakes will defend it because that's exactly what it is, a special snowflake of a fighting ship.
It's a corvette that's twice as expensive as China's frigates. Total PoS
Based upon the saudi frigate freedom varient, it will be a respectable, even pretty damn great frigate, with a very shallow draft and great speed.
The saudi varient has, on top of all the good things of thr freedom class...
>16 VLS cells, capable of holding ESSM or SM-2 (which means SM-6 for the USN)
>upgunned to 76mm cannon
>8 harpoon launchers (which would be replaced with the NSM)
>2 more remote 20mm guns
>torpedo tubes
>SEAram launcher(s)
All at the cost of the module mission bay.
Pretty fucking great.
>>30267512
>muh cheap chicom stuff
Yeah, but then you get asinine shit like inward opening deck doors. Grad school level mistakes that should have never made it past the fucking draft. Should not have even been in the draft. Fuck.
>D...DEY FIXED IT
Not the damn point
>>30267512
What does that say about Euro frigates that cost even more than an LCS.
>>30267702
What does it say that Euro Frigates are existent in such small numbers that it doesn't even matter?
>>30267702
That they have much smaller production runs.
De Zevens are more expensive because 4 have been built as opposed to the planned 40 LCS.
>>30268092
The Independence and Freedom price quotes are based on the 6 of each currently under construction.
I'm sure most of you have seen this.
https://youtu.be/QjG_dBUehAk
I find it interesting that the NAVY crews got their shit together better than the retarded civilian contractors on board.
>>30269885
>retard documentary pretending like a peacetime navy is hard shit
