Out of touch

[ExNusquam]

ORIGINAL: magi
Chris……… The reason you are having difficulty in understanding how to apply these particular mix of surface assets..... I believe is the point the scenario designer trying to make…

ORIGINAL: Chris H
That brings me back to the reason for the post. I don't know how to use them.

They do have a good sensor array and do carry helios but in this scenario carry no weapons. As far as speed and maneuverability is concerned or their own weapons I never had need to test them, the DDG sorted out that out.

As magi says, the lack of firepower in the US's surface fleet is part of the challenge in this scenario. You have to play to your advantages (maneuverability, ISR and air power) while avoiding the arenas the PLAN will beat you (organic exchanges of ASMs). If you have questions about something, don't hesitate to put a post in the War Room subforum.

And you are correct, the LCSs aren't carrying armed helos - this is likely for balance in the scenario (an extra two MH-60Rs might give the US *too much* air cover). Based on the Navy's websites for the mission modules, the ships usually deploy with one MH-60.

ORIGINAL: Cheechako
If you add 8 NSMs to the LCS to mimic the new frigate, the ship becomes really quite effective. I still think they should have removed the 2X 30mm guns and replaced them with some VLS to shoot ESSMs. A 57mm, 8 NSMs, 32 (or even just 24) ESSMs, 24 Hellfires, a SEARAM, and multiple helos makes this a very potent mix. Sure, it's not doing large air coverage like a burke, but ESSMs give it a legitimate air picket as well as the ability to engage anti ship missiles further out, leaving the SEARAM for last resort shots.

Just to keep things in the realm of reality, if the Small Surface Combatant ever receives an AAW module (which it isn't slated to), the ESSMs would be in Mk56 launchers which would replace the Helfires. I've attached a scenario I built a while ago that shows the evolution of the LCSs, based on the best open source info I could find. Baseline is the ships as presently configured, Mod assumes the integration of some improvements in the 2017-2018 timeline, SSC is the 2019+ range.

[Cheechako]

ORIGINAL: ExNusquam

ORIGINAL: magi
Chris……… The reason you are having difficulty in understanding how to apply these particular mix of surface assets..... I believe is the point the scenario designer trying to make…

ORIGINAL: Chris H
That brings me back to the reason for the post. I don't know how to use them.

They do have a good sensor array and do carry helios but in this scenario carry no weapons. As far as speed and maneuverability is concerned or their own weapons I never had need to test them, the DDG sorted out that out.

As magi says, the lack of firepower in the US's surface fleet is part of the challenge in this scenario. You have to play to your advantages (maneuverability, ISR and air power) while avoiding the arenas the PLAN will beat you (organic exchanges of ASMs). If you have questions about something, don't hesitate to put a post in the War Room subforum.

And you are correct, the LCSs aren't carrying armed helos - this is likely for balance in the scenario (an extra two MH-60Rs might give the US *too much* air cover). Based on the Navy's websites for the mission modules, the ships usually deploy with one MH-60.

ORIGINAL: Cheechako
If you add 8 NSMs to the LCS to mimic the new frigate, the ship becomes really quite effective. I still think they should have removed the 2X 30mm guns and replaced them with some VLS to shoot ESSMs. A 57mm, 8 NSMs, 32 (or even just 24) ESSMs, 24 Hellfires, a SEARAM, and multiple helos makes this a very potent mix. Sure, it's not doing large air coverage like a burke, but ESSMs give it a legitimate air picket as well as the ability to engage anti ship missiles further out, leaving the SEARAM for last resort shots.

Just to keep things in the realm of reality, if the Small Surface Combatant ever receives an AAW module (which it isn't slated to), the ESSMs would be in Mk56 launchers which would replace the Helfires. I've attached a scenario I built a while ago that shows the evolution of the LCSs, based on the best open source info I could find. Baseline is the ships as presently configured, Mod assumes the integration of some improvements in the 2017-2018 timeline, SSC is the 2019+ range.

The below deck penetration looks to be 5-7 feet for the 30mm mount. 56 launchers are 15' high which would result in a superstructure change of no more than 10' and probably something more like 8'. That looks doable on both ships. Once the ESSM gets an active seeker in block 2, it seems like it would make sense to add this as an AAW package to the ships. I think the Brits are doing something similar for their Type 26 with the CAMM. While it would make sense to deploy 56 launchers to the SSM bay, I don't see why it be the only choice on both classes.

[ExNusquam]

ORIGINAL: Cheechako

The below deck penetration looks to be 5-7 feet for the 30mm mount. 56 launchers are 15' high which would result in a superstructure change of no more than 10' and probably something more like 8'. That looks doable on both ships. Once the ESSM gets an active seeker in block 2, it seems like it would make sense to add this as an AAW package to the ships. I think the Brits are doing something similar for their Type 26 with the CAMM. While it would make sense to deploy 56 launchers to the SSM bay, I don't see why it be the only choice on both classes.

Yeah, but remember that things are never that simple: http://news.usni.org/2014/12/15/navy-fl ... ts-not-air

The navy just didn't have the weight/design space available to include the missiles in the design. In the present LCS configuration, the mission modules only have 105 Tonnes available for all of their dedicated weapons/sensors. Considering that the SSC plans call to include both the 30mm Bushmasters and the MFTA on all hulls, I can't imagine they'd have weight available to include both Hellfires and ESSMs (even with the planned weight reduction).

We can talk hypotheticals all day, but the Navy has been very open about the future of the LCS hulls. It's also been very open about the limitations it faced in making those decisions, both physical and financial. The result is that the final SSC design will not be the mini-Burke that many observers had dreamed of, because that level of capability was never designed into the hulls. The SSC will never be an independent surface combatant. It's going to do ASW and Small-Boat SUW screens, be an extra shooter in organic ASM exchanges and a great ISR platform. By having a large number of smaller combatants to focus on these roles, the large surface combatants can focus on strike and air warfare. It's a high-low mix, and the LCSs are the "low" end.

It's extremely difficult to use Russia as an example of why the LCSs are undergunned for their weight class. Russia is in the situation where they are attempting to expand their naval power projection abilities, yet do not seem to have effectively restarted their large ship building abilities. Seriously, when was the last time the Russian navy laid down anything large than a Frigate? The last of the Udaloys were laid down in 1991 and scrapped and since then the Russians have built a whopping 4 destroyers, which went to the PLAN. Russia needs to put strike/offensive capability on their smaller combatants because their large combatants are aging and lack this capability. Given the amount of money that the Russians are pouring into the Yasen/Borei classes as well as their rapidly expanding fleet of Corvettes/Frigates, we can assume that Russia expects these vessels to carry the weight of it's power projection.

[Cheechako]

ORIGINAL: ExNusquam

ORIGINAL: Cheechako

The below deck penetration looks to be 5-7 feet for the 30mm mount. 56 launchers are 15' high which would result in a superstructure change of no more than 10' and probably something more like 8'. That looks doable on both ships. Once the ESSM gets an active seeker in block 2, it seems like it would make sense to add this as an AAW package to the ships. I think the Brits are doing something similar for their Type 26 with the CAMM. While it would make sense to deploy 56 launchers to the SSM bay, I don't see why it be the only choice on both classes.

Yeah, but remember that things are never that simple: http://news.usni.org/2014/12/15/navy-fl ... ts-not-air

The navy just didn't have the weight/design space available to include the missiles in the design. In the present LCS configuration, the mission modules only have 105 Tonnes available for all of their dedicated weapons/sensors. Considering that the SSC plans call to include both the 30mm Bushmasters and the MFTA on all hulls, I can't imagine they'd have weight available to include both Hellfires and ESSMs (even with the planned weight reduction).

We can talk hypotheticals all day, but the Navy has been very open about the future of the LCS hulls. It's also been very open about the limitations it faced in making those decisions, both physical and financial. The result is that the final SSC design will not be the mini-Burke that many observers had dreamed of, because that level of capability was never designed into the hulls. The SSC will never be an independent surface combatant. It's going to do ASW and Small-Boat SUW screens, be an extra shooter in organic ASM exchanges and a great ISR platform. By having a large number of smaller combatants to focus on these roles, the large surface combatants can focus on strike and air warfare. It's a high-low mix, and the LCSs are the "low" end.

It's extremely difficult to use Russia as an example of why the LCSs are undergunned for their weight class. Russia is in the situation where they are attempting to expand their naval power projection abilities, yet do not seem to have effectively restarted their large ship building abilities. Seriously, when was the last time the Russian navy laid down anything large than a Frigate? The last of the Udaloys were laid down in 1991 and scrapped and since then the Russians have built a whopping 4 destroyers, which went to the PLAN. Russia needs to put strike/offensive capability on their smaller combatants because their large combatants are aging and lack this capability. Given the amount of money that the Russians are pouring into the Yasen/Borei classes as well as their rapidly expanding fleet of Corvettes/Frigates, we can assume that Russia expects these vessels to carry the weight of it's power projection.

http://news.usni.org/2015/10/15/navys-f ... lcss-speed

Weight is an issue, and apparently they are dropping the speed requirement to fit everything on the SSC due to going over weight. 24 ESSMs weigh in around 23 tons and while heavy, seems like that could still be a viable option with block 2 ESSMs.

[DESRON420]

My thought is that the power requirements and EMCON impact of the search and fire control radars may not be worth it in the small LCS form factor. The USN already has lots of powerful all-rounder radar/AAW platforms in the fleet, and most of them need new software and more missiles. Other navies need every AAW platform they can get, and are probably more inclined to include marginal AAW systems in their designs, but for the US it doesn't make sense when the budget is needed elsewhere.

LCS are not a pure frigate design due to the huge emphasis on the helicopter. They are more like a stab at a small Sea Control Ship. I think the basic idea will end up making more sense as ISR drones enter the fleet in greater numbers and the USN acquires modern offensive anti-ship weapons.

[magi]

I do not know if this is realistic… But I wish the LCS class ships had 0ECM capability.... I find it would be a useful force multiplier.... I have read so much information about the future of this class of ships… Even talk of having them have frigate class capabilities… It will be interesting to see how they evolve over the next few years… I do believe we certainly need A capable frigate platform.... They are very useful…

[magi]

ORIGINAL: Cheechako

ORIGINAL: ExNusquam

ORIGINAL: Cheechako


http://news.usni.org/2015/10/15/navys-f ... lcss-speed

Weight is an issue, and apparently they are dropping the speed requirement to fit everything on the SSC due to going over weight. 24 ESSMs weigh in around 23 tons and while heavy, seems like that could still be a viable option with block 2 ESSMs.

Oh thank you Cheechako.... Just read this one.....

[ExNusquam]

Cheechako, thanks for the link. I didn't know they were dropping the speed requirement for the SSCs. It will be interesting to see where they take the hull (and how the LCS fiasco influences the next major ship class).

Magi, one of the slated upgrades for all LCSs is the improvement of the EW systems. The AN/SLQ-32(v)6 has been trialed on the LCS class and seems like a likely choice. This sensor group is in command but doesn't function, a problem that I believe is to be fixed in 1.10,