LCS are too specialised
Posted by Lars Scharff on August 7, 2017, 8:30:10, in reply to "Re: The failure of LCS to deliver as promised brought about the calls for a frigate"
LCS are designed for a very specific scenario, to fight cheap "anti-access weapons" in the "littoral" zone: mines, swarms of small lightly armed boats or submarines. If different "anti-access weapons" are used, e.g. aircraft, missile corvettes or land-based missiles, an LCS cannot be used, because it has not the necessary sensors or armament. The high speed and therefore lightly built hull appears to be specifically designed to fight swarms of lightly armed boats. There is one country, which appears to have developed such a suicidal approach to naval warfare: Iran. I think it is difficult to justify a type of ship, whose design is so massively influenced by a single mission in peace time. A mission, which can be even not realistic in case of war with Iran, i.e. if Iran uses in addition anti-ship missiles, aircraft and fast attack craft armed with anti-ship missiles.
The consequence of that quasi-single mission focus is unfortunate: low range, low resistance, likely high maintenance level needed because of the weekly built hull etc. In reality the LCS replace also the frigates of the OHP class - with capabilities, which are similar to the late fit OHP class ships (i.e. ships without a missile launcher), but with an inferior hull and engines for most operation, they will be used. Even a sophisticated, modular designed OPV design probably would have been a better solution compared to the LCS, especially more economical and probably also easier to adapt to other missions.