USS Freedom : The coolest thing you'll see today

[AntEater]

I think the LCS concept is the result of buzzword bingo!
What are its key features:
- network centricity
- COTS - Commercial off the Shelf : both LCS designs are based on foreign commercial ferry designs (LM is italian, GD australian)
- outsourcing: they basically bypassed the traditional shipping industry
- modularity: why make it simple when you can make it complicated?
- innovation: a new solution for an old well known problem

IMHO the best thing would be to implement certain ideas from LCS like waterjet propulsion or UAV/UUV integration into a single mission ship designed to military standards by military shipyards.
And give it a decent armament, for christ's sake...

[SandyCaesar]

Right! I can't believe that the LCS's were designed not to have any AAW weapons at all, except the 57mm and the RAM. We can only hope that they will be decent for stopping some SSMs, or that someone will up with the idea of fitting ESSMs in those "mission modules". I can't see an LCS stopping more than a few vampires inbound. Considering that this was a deficiency in the FFGs as well...

I suppose reduced manpower is something to be happy about (though it reduces the repair crew, which is not good), but someone in the Navy is out of their mind not to have fitted any useful missile weapons. And, how exactly is an LCS supposed to kill littoral subs when it doesn't come with any sonar suite at all? UUV miracles?

[baggygreen]

you guys have all got your heads int he sand.

Its not PC to build a ship with weapons anymore! Even if the weapons are just built to scare people, thats not PC either, because it might hurt their mental well-being.

The navy needs to build peaceful ships now.

[AntEater]

I wonder why the GD design has a SeaRAM launcher instead of the normal one like the LM design.
SeaRAM is basically a Phalanx CIWS with a 11 cell RAM launcher replacing the 20mm Gatling gun.
It it totally autonomous, contrary to normal RAM launchers which rely on the ship's radars for targeting.
But "lack of sensors" was sofar not one of the critiques of the LCS.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by AntEater

I wonder why the GD design has a SeaRAM launcher instead of the normal one like the LM design.
SeaRAM is basically a Phalanx CIWS with a 11 cell RAM launcher replacing the 20mm Gatling gun.
It it totally autonomous, contrary to normal RAM launchers which rely on the ship's radars for targeting.
But "lack of sensors" was sofar not one of the critiques of the LCS.

In theory, an integral radar is supposed to provide more accurate, faster tracking than linking to a radar placed off-axis. It is one of the criticisms of the AK-630 system (external "Bass Tilt") vs Phalanx (integral).

[Tchocky]

Seems like a sitting duck for a Lada-type submarine.

Of course, they can fit it out with sonar.
But then they'd have to sacrifice the assault capability.
So you can kill subs if you're expecting them, but that's the whole point of littoral subs.



Reminds me of the emphasis placed on the gun armament for the Zumwalt class. Seemed a little strange to focus on shore bombardment so much, especially when you don't want to risk a big ship like that so close in.
And wouldnt the Army be doing most of it's fighting inland?

[AntEater]

I suppose the idea is to have more than one working together, maybe with a DDG 51 farther off to provide air defense.

Regarding the RAM vs Sea RAM, I suppose back in the 80s this argument was valid, but modern phased array radars and central battle management systems should compensate for the disadvantage of a non local radar.
The LCS has a Sea Giraffe radar (Swedish/French) which is specialized in detection of small, fast moving air and sea contacts.
It should be able to cue RAM.
The 20+ year old 143 missile boats of the german navy use their original radar (optimized for surface search) to control the RAM launcher.
With a decent radar, RAM today can engage aircraft and boats as well. Early versions were limited to missiles, and the first versions to active radar guided missiles as targets.
With SeaRAM, you have a missile CIWS and nothing more.
Surprisingly much non US technology in both LCSs. Freedom has italian diesels, the main radar is from THALES (but developed in Sweden) the main gun is swedish, the missile defense is german (officially RAM is a joint project but Diehl/BGT developed both warhead and missile based on existing US technology).

[skacer54303]

Nice job on the pics. I heard a report of top speed at 57 MPH. I have not translated that but 48-50 knots is probably about right.

[SeaQueen]

Originally Posted by AntEater

I suppose the idea is to have more than one working together, maybe with a DDG 51 farther off to provide air defense.

You're right. You probably wouldn't use an LCS all by itself. There'd usually be a CRUDES someplace close.

[JALU3]

Why couldn't they take a success hull like the Perry, Up its armor, give it a small VLS pack (12 tubes), Sea RAM, a bofor , and give it a larger engine? Or is this asking to much of the small hull?

If the Liberty is only slightly smaller than a Perry-Long than what was the point besides the faster hull? I mean theoretically it is less capable in duration and system capability.

[SeaQueen]

The Perry wasn't really a success. In order to conserve costs, they were built without enough space aboard to take upgrades as time passed, so very quickly they became obsolete and the single screw design meant that if you had engine problems, you needed to be towed back to port.

There was actually some talk of giving FFGs a RAM. I don't think it's a bad idea necessarily and since they took the missile launcher out, the missile control room underneath the bridge is basically just unused space. Lord knows, a lot of countries have been happy to buy them and replace the old stuff with new stuff.

I think there's something to be said for the LCS being the triumph of buzzwords over good design, although there are some good things about it. The original concept (Streetfighter) was a good idea. Unfortunately, if history is any guide then almost every good idea for a ship design is unrecognizable by the time the Navy is done with it. Look at how destroyers in World War II were relentlessly designed, redesigned and modified. Sometimes I think the best way to look at a ship is exactly how the LCS is designed; a platform on which to stick modular packages of weapons and sensors.

If they put the surface warfare package aboard, LCS will have seriously big teeth with all the precision attack missiles, the gun, the 0.50cals, plus the Seahawk with Hellfires and a Firescout UAV. That's more than enough for a coastal duel with a group of missile boats.

I'm skeptical of the ASW package, because there's serious limitations on a lot of the offboard sensors they say will take the place of a hull mounted sonar. I predict that eventually they'll decide to accept a little deeper draft in favor of a hull mounted active sonar and a towed array if they can. Otherwise, it's just going to be a glorified helicopter carrier, although one can argue (not necessarily incorrectly) that the FFG7 was essentially that in an ASW role too. The truth is that ASW is hard for surface ships.

The mine warfare package will be nice too because compared to existing minehunters, the LCS will have much better self defense capability. This isn't to say that it's good enough to go without an AEGIS ship or even another LCS nearby, but I'd rather be on an LCS than an Osprey.

I'm also skeptical that speed is going to really buy them that much. The truth is that they'll probably rarely get to take advantage of it tactically and strategically they lack the endurance to make use of it. It might make a good escort for a JHSV which will be equivilently fast, but that's all I see them using it for. Warships often operate in small groups to take advantage of each other's complimentary capabilities, so you're always limited by the slowest ship in the group. That means in practice, they'll frequently not operate much faster than the AEGIS ships that they're going to need to keep nearby in order to stand a chance of surviving a cruise missile raid.

The rear boat ramp is a good idea, because it means they can maybe use them sometimes like PCs, which the Navy could DEFINITELY use some more of. Honestly, I don't know why more people interested in naval matters don't talk more about PCs. They've actually seen combat in Iraq, which one can't claim for AEGIS ships aside from shooting cruise missiles. Unfortunately, the Navy's promotion system favors CRUDES, aviation and submarine officers, so small surface combatants like PCs, amphibs and minehunters, which are probably more relevant to the present day don't get the attention they deserve.

Originally Posted by JALU3

Why couldn't they take a success hull like the Perry, Up its armor, give it a small VLS pack (12 tubes), Sea RAM, a bofor , and give it a larger engine? Or is this asking to much of the small hull?

If the Liberty is only slightly smaller than a Perry-Long than what was the point besides the faster hull? I mean theoretically it is less capable in duration and system capability.

[Overboard]

Originally Posted by SeaQueen

The Perry wasn't really a success. In order to conserve costs, they were built without enough space aboard to take upgrades as time passed, so very quickly they became obsolete and the single screw design meant that if you had engine problems, you needed to be towed back to port.

There was actually some talk of giving FFGs a RAM. I don't think it's a bad idea necessarily and since they took the missile launcher out, the missile control room underneath the bridge is basically just unused space. Lord knows, a lot of countries have been happy to buy them and replace the old stuff with new stuff.

I think there's something to be said for the LCS being the triumph of buzzwords over good design, although there are some good things about it. The original concept (Streetfighter) was a good idea. Unfortunately, if history is any guide then almost every good idea for a ship design is unrecognizable by the time the Navy is done with it. Look at how destroyers in World War II were relentlessly designed, redesigned and modified. Sometimes I think the best way to look at a ship is exactly how the LCS is designed; a platform on which to stick modular packages of weapons and sensors.

If they put the surface warfare package aboard, LCS will have seriously big teeth with all the precision attack missiles, the gun, the 0.50cals, plus the Seahawk with Hellfires and a Firescout UAV. That's more than enough for a coastal duel with a group of missile boats.

I'm skeptical of the ASW package, because there's serious limitations on a lot of the offboard sensors they say will take the place of a hull mounted sonar. I predict that eventually they'll decide to accept a little deeper draft in favor of a hull mounted active sonar and a towed array if they can. Otherwise, it's just going to be a glorified helicopter carrier, although one can argue (not necessarily incorrectly) that the FFG7 was essentially that in an ASW role too. The truth is that ASW is hard for surface ships.

The mine warfare package will be nice too because compared to existing minehunters, the LCS will have much better self defense capability. This isn't to say that it's good enough to go without an AEGIS ship or even another LCS nearby, but I'd rather be on an LCS than an Osprey.

I'm also skeptical that speed is going to really buy them that much. The truth is that they'll probably rarely get to take advantage of it tactically and strategically they lack the endurance to make use of it. It might make a good escort for a JHSV which will be equivilently fast, but that's all I see them using it for. Warships often operate in small groups to take advantage of each other's complimentary capabilities, so you're always limited by the slowest ship in the group. That means in practice, they'll frequently not operate much faster than the AEGIS ships that they're going to need to keep nearby in order to stand a chance of surviving a cruise missile raid.

The rear boat ramp is a good idea, because it means they can maybe use them sometimes like PCs, which the Navy could DEFINITELY use some more of. Honestly, I don't know why more people interested in naval matters don't talk more about PCs. They've actually seen combat in Iraq, which one can't claim for AEGIS ships aside from shooting cruise missiles. Unfortunately, the Navy's promotion system favors CRUDES, aviation and submarine officers, so small surface combatants like PCs, amphibs and minehunters, which are probably more relevant to the present day don't get the attention they deserve.

WOW!!.. Good Post

[JALU3]

So the biggest reason for the enormous raise in cost/hull has been the fact that the Navy did not have a solid non-changing plan before they finished the two hulls. So that means the navy has to come up with a concrete design which is large enough to be high endurance for a small crew, have more than one screw, can handle two V-22s/MH-60s, have ASW/AAW/ASuW/AMineW, small inflatable boat launch capability, can take a good sized hit, and can possibly support smaller attached PCs.
Can a ship under 4500 ton displacement, have a 155mm artillery gun (like that on the Crusader or FCS-NLOS), SeaRAM/VLS, CIWS, Mounted Sonar systems, a boat launch ramp and docking stations for ships that are about 100-300 tons, and can maintain 33 knots.

[JALU3]

I was just reading up on something. You know I thought of a solution from old. Bring back the Monitors. Littoral, heavily gunned, patrol ships, with some ocean capability.

Fit them with a helicopter landing area, and some self-defense AAW capability and we might be in business.
I mean the British had some decent success in this area, right?

[AntEater]

Problem is, aside from fighting the CSS Virginia, a monitor has only one purpose, that is to support troops on shore. A monitor is not a ship to control littorial waters. The monitors of old needed whole fleets of escorts, minesweepers and picket boats if they wanted to operate. In WW2, "monitor warfare" was not so common, but off the Flanders coast in WW1, monitors were quite threatened by destroyers, mines, shore artillery, the first MTBs and remote controlled boats. A LCS is not a shore bombardement vessel (though it is supposed to have that capability), but rather a means for controlling the coastal waters so that other ships can operate there.