Reply With QuoteThe module concept was retarded from the get-go.
LCS: Quick Swap Concept Dead
Article continued @ Defense NewsLCS: Quick Swap Concept Dead
U.S. Navy Revising Ships’ Operational Plans
Jul. 14, 2012 - 12:50PM | By CHRISTOPHER P. CAVAS
The original idea for the littoral combat ship (LCS) envisioned modular mission packages that could be rapidly swapped, so one ship could change missions easily from mine warfare, for example, to anti-submarine warfare over the course of a single deployment.
But instead of taking just days to make the switch, it’s now apparent it could take weeks. An LCS assigned to a particular operation will likely operate in a single “come-as-you-are” configuration, requiring additional ships equipped with other mission modules to provide the flexibility the concept once promised.
The module concept was retarded from the get-go.
It was deemed the best solution for future deployments, I guess, but it seems this swap concept needs to be refined. I wonder how they will proceed from now on. Saying that the LCS can't get the job done of current frigates, minesweepers and patrol boats is quite heavy artillery.. Moreover, it's interesting to see that they are considering replacing the 57mm for the 76mm. Why haven't they thought about this earlier? The armament problems are giving me the creeps, to be honest.
Just IMHO but I don't think I'd feel super confident riding either of the LCS types ships into any situation where an opponant has a half decent navy.
Under armed/equipped....hell the Finnish Hamina class missile boats at 1/10 the displacement are pretty close if not better in some ways kit wise.
Yeah, the modular concept for highly sophisticated systems sounds much simpler on paper than it is in real life to implement. What they should do with the class, IMO, is specialize it in aspects of Littoral Warfare that the other larger ships can't cover; these shps should cover the gap. Specialize it in Anti-Submarine, Mine-hunting, plus support for SPECWAR. Then, if there is room, some ESSM configured for self-defense and anti-surface. ESSM provides great weapons' density/footprint. Some of the cargo bay would have to be sacrificed but, half of it is already useless overhead space
Kill the program. The LPD-17 Class is almost completed, the next class the USN should focus on is a dedicated frigate type class that is heavly armed with proven systems.
The program has been a cluster fook from the start.
Very interesting, thank you for the post, sir.Originally Posted by Steak-Sauce
Very much agree.
In my mind something more similar to a mini-Burke might be better, but who knows.
Build in VLS (possibly even a navalized ATACM) and I might not be as critical.
I would favor a clean-sheet design for each task build upon a common hull, e.g. the Freedom-class. They wouldn't much differ in their outside appearance, but don't allow for the internal modularity. I'd rather have three dedicated ships working as advertised than a single LCS that is supposed to be the jack of all trades, but the master of none.
Btw, I wonder if other companies offering modular LCS designs face the same problems.
I could maybe agree with that. My thinking, an updated version of the OHP frigates. Stealthy, better radar, and power systems.
Although clean sheet designs make me quite nervous these days.
The LCS was inspired by a ship type operated by someone else. I can't remember what country it was. Maybe they had problems as well?Btw, I wonder if other companies offering modular LCS designs face the same problems.
I do not think the module system is entirely retarded. Having mission modules in a bay for specops, or to operate ROVs, or for electronic surveillance missions makes good sense. But trying to modularize and swap out entire weapons systems seems to take the whole idea too far.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StanFlex
I honestly think the export versions of the LCS aren't a bad starting point. As they are now, and as I've stated elsewhere, I think a mission module module makes any particular ship too specialized.
http://defensetech.org/2010/09/01/lc...g-as-intended/
Also, from what I've read, I don't think there's any room for growth, and the crewing of the ships seem to be an issue.
I think you could have one hull form, and make it generic enough to allow for a few equipment substitutions if absolutely necessary.
Many thanks, sir!
The modules are a good idea for a navy with limited assets and with central operating locations, just like the Danish Navy with their StanFlex boats. It helps to get the most use out of the few hulls you have. Why tote around quad packs of Harpoons in peacetime when you could be using the ships for pollution control in the Baltic - that kind of scenario. It makes more sense for the USN to have LCS configured for specific roles but still with some ability to swap modules to replace losses.
AFAIK the Staflex concept never really took off as well.
They usually kept a few ships in each configuration but hardly ever exchanged modules.
Posting Permissions
