DCNS Go Wind Family of Ships. Below is the Go Wind OPV L'Adroit which was recently launched. It appears that the French have taken the Corvette Class (read LCS) in a pretty impressive new direction.
i think the navy should dump the LCS, if anything dedicate them to sub hunters (replacing oliver perry class frigates) and buy burkes and virginia subs, will make our fleet unstoppable.
lol, whats the LCS role, to sliphon money from other more proven systems while taking down drug runners? :) i do agree the combat version looks nice and well armed, even has VLS.
There's still life in the LCS - see MCM ops in Libya.
Current MCMVs are too slow to deploy quickly (from CONUS) and when in the AO they are vulnerable from coastal (littoral) fire - shore based MRLs etc.
Traditional MCMVs need escorts, the LCS is supposedly do it mostly by itself. Yes, it's still vulnerable, but better equipped than the 10kts GRP minehunters.
there would be some usefullness in an LCS for MIW IF!! the mission modules worked.
You should disabuse yourself of the USN LCS ability to defend itself in the dangerous green waters even IF they have a SUW mission module onboard AND the MIW USV works, and...
Marcase your points about MCMVs are well made. Especially about getting there, but I would say the LCS MUST be prepositioned along with a set of modules to really be a timely asset. Therefor there no need for very high speed.
All depends on where you pre-position them and how soon you need to get there. As an example, if you used Augusta Bay, Sicily as a base and decided that 96 hours was your required time on station, then you would need a 24-knot speed of advance to respond to Aden; Mombasa or Port Harcourt would require 44 knots. Using five bases (Augusta Bay, Diego Garcia, Guam, San Diego, Norfolk), a ship can get on station pretty much anywhere interesting in 96 hours with a 29 knot SOA, with follow-on forces from a second base a few days later. Pick the basing, the likely trouble spots, and the response time, and you can set an endurance speed requirement.
the LPD-17 class has demonstrated speeds in excess of 25 knots...i say more than because they've kept pace with Burke class destroyers (or so we're told)....are we overlooking something that does work in the mine counter measure field...the next gen aerial mine warfare set is said to work and is set for deployment.
ship based solutions to this problem might be passe'. which brings us back to the question.
should the Navy have simply gone with a frigate replacement instead of the LCS? especially considering what the French and other ship builders are starting to demonstrate.
well i am unsure the LCS has a niche for anything else but a frigate. it can use the national security cutter at much less cost to do fleet recon, anti-sub, anti-mine warfare. i dont doubt we need good small ships for duties like MCM, but i think the LCS is just WAY too expensive for what it can do now, and considering it has no mission modules worth discussing yet. they are hoping they get modules that work. there are ships like "sea fighter" that are a fraction of the price that can do the same thing, or JHSV that could do the anti-sub, MCM and things the oliver perrys did. Again for a fraction of the price.
"Development of the AN/AWS-2 Rapid Airborne Mine Clearance System (RAMICS) - part of the mine countermeasures (MCM) package for the US Navy's Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) programme - has been cancelled, a Department of Defense official told Jane's on 23 May."
i think the navy should dump the LCS, if anything dedicate them to sub hunters (replacing oliver perry class frigates) and buy burkes and virginia subs, will make our fleet unstoppable.
ReplyDeleteIt's far too well armed to fill the LCS role.
ReplyDeletelol, whats the LCS role, to sliphon money from other more proven systems while taking down drug runners? :) i do agree the combat version looks nice and well armed, even has VLS.
ReplyDeleteThere's still life in the LCS - see MCM ops in Libya.
ReplyDeleteCurrent MCMVs are too slow to deploy quickly (from CONUS) and when in the AO they are vulnerable from coastal (littoral) fire - shore based MRLs etc.
Traditional MCMVs need escorts, the LCS is supposedly do it mostly by itself. Yes, it's still vulnerable, but better equipped than the 10kts GRP minehunters.
there would be some usefullness in an LCS for MIW IF!! the mission modules worked.
ReplyDeleteYou should disabuse yourself of the USN LCS ability to defend itself in the dangerous green waters even IF they have a SUW mission module onboard AND the MIW USV works, and...
Well you get the picture? Sub-optimal platforms.
Marcase your points about MCMVs are well made. Especially about getting there, but I would say the LCS MUST be prepositioned along with a set of modules to really be a timely asset. Therefor there no need for very high speed.
ReplyDeleteAll depends on where you pre-position them and how soon you need to get there. As an example, if you used Augusta Bay, Sicily as a base and decided that 96 hours was your required time on station, then you would need a 24-knot speed of advance to respond to Aden; Mombasa or Port Harcourt would require 44 knots.
ReplyDeleteUsing five bases (Augusta Bay, Diego Garcia, Guam, San Diego, Norfolk), a ship can get on station pretty much anywhere interesting in 96 hours with a 29 knot SOA, with follow-on forces from a second base a few days later.
Pick the basing, the likely trouble spots, and the response time, and you can set an endurance speed requirement.
the LPD-17 class has demonstrated speeds in excess of 25 knots...i say more than because they've kept pace with Burke class destroyers (or so we're told)....are we overlooking something that does work in the mine counter measure field...the next gen aerial mine warfare set is said to work and is set for deployment.
ReplyDeleteship based solutions to this problem might be passe'. which brings us back to the question.
should the Navy have simply gone with a frigate replacement instead of the LCS? especially considering what the French and other ship builders are starting to demonstrate.
well i am unsure the LCS has a niche for anything else but a frigate. it can use the national security cutter at much less cost to do fleet recon, anti-sub, anti-mine warfare. i dont doubt we need good small ships for duties like MCM, but i think the LCS is just WAY too expensive for what it can do now, and considering it has no mission modules worth discussing yet. they are hoping they get modules that work. there are ships like "sea fighter" that are a fraction of the price that can do the same thing, or JHSV that could do the anti-sub, MCM and things the oliver perrys did. Again for a fraction of the price.
ReplyDeletei'm kinda amazed at how many people think that a pure logistics ship can suddenly be pushed into a warfighting role.
ReplyDeletein my mind its the same as using an oil tanker as an LHD...you might be able to do it but why?
"Development of the AN/AWS-2 Rapid Airborne Mine Clearance System (RAMICS) - part of the mine countermeasures (MCM) package for the US Navy's Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) programme - has been cancelled, a Department of Defense official told Jane's on 23 May."
ReplyDelete