Reply With QuoteI guess the present day reputation of the LCS pretty much precludes any interest by foreign countries.Originally Posted by JasonC
Israel is an exception as they don't have to pay for it but even they have second thoughts.
Whatever happened to the Global Combat Ship idea? It's basically a suped-up LCS.
I guess the present day reputation of the LCS pretty much precludes any interest by foreign countries.
Israel is an exception as they don't have to pay for it but even they have second thoughts.
You say it as though there's even the slightest chance that the USN has considered/would consider, procuring SIGMA.
No, they would never do that. It's just an example.
The US wants to design and build it's own vessels to it's own specifications.
I don't understand why they build a ship meant for littoral missions that are the size of a light frigate. If they wanted a multi-role ship, they should have just gone for the something along the lines of the danish absalon class or just bought and incorporated the stanflex system. If they wanted a ship for brown water operations and drug/pirate interdiction they should just have gone with a corvette or maybe a heavy corvette. Smaller hull, heavily armed, capable of a myrriad of missions and in comparison much cheaper. Having light frigates or corvettes would also enable the creation of light littoral taskforces formed around a heavy frigate/destoryer which provied C&C aswell as aircover beyond the capabilites of a AAA/Stinger/ESSM.
Because the ships are less than half the project. The ships are available, and ready to go (albeit with an eye watering cost).
What's missing is the truly innovative part - the modular mission suites.
The Absalon (and a handful of other designs) dipped their toes in the waters of this concept, whereas the LCS dived in.
Its been a mismanaged project, and over-ambitious in some respects, but I hope the story has a long way to run. As has happened so often in the history or warfare, there's been excessive focus on the snazzy front-line stuff and complete disregard for the logistics to make it work.
Modularisation is an inevitable future for naval warfare, and every top-flight navy is watching and learning from the LCS experience.
OK, My five cents; Does any of insurgents operate more than 14,5mm or RPG? Since not, 25 or 30mm cannon is quite sufficient. Littoral means near coast, so long endurance at sea or/and presence at all sea states (weather conditions) is not a requirement. So from my point of view CG cutters are already sufficient for littoral tasks even though some are OPV class. For anything else, call and use sledgehammers i.e. Ticos and Burkes. But it is true, succesors for them should be envisaged.
*Endurance is important because they have to get to the coast in question.
*Ships need to be able to operate in all weathers (more or less)
*INS probably do not have access to heavier stuff (except maybe hamas or hezbollah). However it would be dumb to invest in ships that should last atleast 30 years if you do not equip them to be able to handle a future conflict with another state.
Just how long do you expect those to remain around? The time will come when they are retired, leaving with only the Zumwalts and the LCSs.
Last I heard, they were scheduling procurement of Burkes through to the 2040's.
75 Planned, 61 in Service, 1 Launched, 4 with construction contracts.
Sorry, I had thought they stopped building Burkes years ago. My error.
Don't know about procurement, but one report (from 2010) mentioned the Navy's plan to build 24 Flight IIIs between FY 2016 and FY 2031. So they will remain around for quite some time. Even if the USS Michael Murphy should be the last of the DDG-51s, I expect it to remain in service for at least 20-30 years (based on the DDG-51 being still in active service).
Hm. A bit late.
There's a Flight IV being planned for afterwards, from 2032 to 2041.
I really hope they don't go ahead with a cycle of that length.
Re Endurance: That means, that coast in question is not in vicinity (ergo you are going expeditionary, possibly blue waters). If it is in vicinity, you do not need that amount of endurability.
Re Weather: Agree, with one remark: Ships, smaller and also less armed will not (usually) be in a possition to sail at the sea-states as bigger ship. If the ship is bigger and better armed-then it is a military ship. And Burke takes care.
Re capabilities: I do agree completely, but why than littoral? Does USA have any opponent in littoral belt? Is there any navy which would oppose US Navy in any littoral area, not being previously reduced to symbolic level? Unless real, strong adversary does not appear in US brown waters, so long I do not see reasonable need for that kind-better that naming-of the ship. It is reasonable to have low-tier construction, multifunctional aswell, but not to be created and dedicated for littoral tasks with capabilities which are far beyond those.
Posting Permissions
