: Being modular, if different anti access
: weapons are used--specifically the ones you
: list--then different modules are developed.
: In the case of corvettes and land based
: missiles, this simply means a new missile,
: and they are both under development, and
: planned for testing on an LCS. Anti air
: would require a more extensive module to be
: made up. Along with ESSM, I agree some
: better radar is required. However, the
: "frigate" version of the LCS had a
: radar upgrade planned. As to other sensors,
: you will want to read about our Navy's ideas
: on networking our fleet together. LCS need
: not carry a huge electronics suite.
: The hull is useful in any littoral
: environment, including the many shallow
: areas of the China Seas, not just the
: Persian Gulf. It remains to be seen how
: inferior it is from a maintainability
: standpoint. Initial teething troubles
: should not be mistaken for the function of
: the mature system. The Perry class were
: prone to hull cracking, and other issues.
: Systemp exposed to the forces of the sea
: will need to be kept up.
: As to range, all I will say is that the LCS
: are CODAG, just like the "418s"
: cutters mentioned above (except LCS have two
: turbines where the 418's have one.) As also
: mentioned above, when those cutters were run
: with the Navy, they were refueling
: constantly. Whenever required to keep up
: with battle fleet assets, LCS will burn
: fuel. At other times they can also run on
: just diesels, and while they are not as long
: ranged as the cutters, or other hulls, that
: alone does not justify to the Navy the
: expense and bureauacracy of developing
: another whole ship program.
: --Previous Message--
: LCS are designed for a very specific
: 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.