.jpg)
People choose to forget what capability was lost with the retirement of the Perry Class Frigates.
* 4200 tons.
* Single arm launcher for anti-aircraft missiles (SM-1) and Harpoons (total of 41 carried).
* Torpedo tubes (2) capable of launching Mk 46 and Mk 50 torpedoes.
* Carriage of two SH-60 helicopters.
* One 76mm gun (unusual position but doable I guess)
* One CIWS (20mm phalanx)
And we're replacing this old warhorse with a ship that has a 57mm gun. Two 30mm cannons. Maybe two helicopters....and that's it so far. Hopefully more to come but that's all we see right now.
What is the main difference between the Perry Class and the LCS?
Operating concepts.
When the Perry Class was put into service we expected to sail into harms way alone...without support of any allied Navy.... we expected to fight....and we expected to win.
The LCS is designed with partnership missions in mind. Cooperation and joint exercises are its reason for being. Think about that. Navy leadership has emphasized partnership missions over war fighting.
The LCS is as flawed as the leadership that came up with the concept.
One of the dumbest argument in favor of LCS is it's higher speed which is of no tactical advantage in modern combat (others being modularity, low crew requirement and the speed boat bogey man). Incidentally the same people say that F-35's lack of kinematic performance is of low significance in net-centric warfare. What pains me more is that for the past 30 or so years every ship built in the corvette or frigate class (at least in the West) outshines the "Low Combat utility/life expectancy Ship".
ReplyDeleteWith regards to partnership missions, no country is ever going to buy one maybe what the Navy had in mind all along was "we-need-a-hi-tech-solution-for-this-threat-to-world-peace" off shore patrolling anti-piracy missions and the all important mission of flag showing in Allied ports.
i can't even go with the anti-piracy mission profile. people have used amphibs to conduct that mission (well with helicopters)....
Deletethe Navy is just plain confused and poorly led. something it has in common with the rest of the services.
Well then, with the whole leadership assumed to be failing across the board, it seems that we are all permanently doomed. Oh, well...
Deletei didn't say doomed. i said failed.
DeleteIt's really sad when the US navy gave the Perrys FFG and Kidd DDG to Taiwan. Just look at what Taiwan has done to the Kidd class DDG and Perry class FFG's. They added ASCM missiles such as Hsiung Feng II and Hsiung Feng III ASCM. It's what we should have added to the Spruance class DD's and Perry class FFG's.
ReplyDeleteWe should invite the Admirals and beancounters responsible for retiring the OHPs and sinking the Spru-cans out onto an LCS....and sink it for "fleet training purposes".
ReplyDeleteThe issue is that we decided to replace a general purpose frigate with a corvette primarily designed to fight speedboats. One irony is that LCS isn't even properly armed to combat speedboats given it's short ranged missiles, which don't yet work, are out ranged by it's 57mm gun. This is less ironic than the small matter of entirely over reacting to the threat of speedboats in the first place at the expense of aerial, sub surface, and actual surface threats.
ReplyDeleteRetiring the ASW oriented Spruance class destroyers in favor of later flight DDG's with helicopters is far less of an issue other than leaving the fleet with an all AEGIS surface combatant force which might not be the most cost effective solution.
The major decision point with LCS was looking at the original Streetfighter concept of a 500 ton boat, to fight speedboats, and deciding to go with a corvette which was the wrong ship for the wrong overstated mission. As an aside the 30mm guns on LCS are supposedly only to be mounted for the mine warfare module given that's where the missiles go.