Hmmm.
Everytime I think I have a role figured out for the LCS, the Navy leadership utters a few words that makes me think we have idiots in charge.
Check out these tidbits from an AOL story...
Even the LCS contingent soon to start operating out of Singapore will focus on exercises, port visits, humanitarian assistance, and counter-piracy operations with Southeast Asian partners -- taking that burden off the more war-worthy carrier, cruisers, and destroyers based in Japan.and...
So while the LCS will be the Navy's most numerous future class, it won't be much of a warfighter. No less an authority than the Pentagon's independent Department of Operational Test & Evaluation has officially warned that "LCS is not expected to be survivable in a hostile combat environment." That's despite the Navy having significantly toughened survivability standards in the middle of building the first two vessels, retrofitting improvements at a major cost in time and money. All that work simply brought the LCS up from commercial survivability standards to what the Navy calls "Level I," equivalent to existing minesweepers, patrol boats, and supply ships, which are expected to last long enough for their crew to get out alive if the ship is damaged but not to keep on fighting after they take a hit. Destroyers and carriers, by contrast, are Level III.I mean seriously?
How is a ship with a max crew of what...75? Going to properly respond to a humanitarian assistance crisis? HA's require manpower, heavy equipment and helicopters...plenty of all 3. The LCS is limited in everyone of those categories.
How is so small a ship with limited firepower and armor going to even handle the primitive pirates operating around the world...pirates that will have RPG's and Assault Rifles?
I seriously wonder if our current military and political leadership actually believe some of the nonsense they spout. And to think...I just gave them credit for knowing how to play the politics game.
Sol,
ReplyDeleteI don't think the LCS will have problems out-gunning any pirate vessel. It may have problems stopping a large pirated vessel like an oil tanker or container ship. But even then, a few rounds of 57mm through the bridge should do it.
i wasn't clear.
ReplyDeleteremember the USS Cole? that ship was class III and it got hit and almost sunk by a suicide boat.
that's my point. with strict rules of engagement, the ability for the enemy to get close to our ships and this boat being so lightly armored means that its vulnerable.
oh and yeah...a pirate might get killed in the process but they'll be able to get close enough to put a couple of RPG rounds into the sides of one of these ships. i could wargame it all day and guarantee i could come up with scenarios that would have you losing one of these ships during a sneak attack.
LCS-2 is harder to sink due to it's tri-hull design
ReplyDeleteremember that the LCS is "not a traditional warship" pls note that is a quote~
ReplyDeleteThe ama supported monohull which LCS-2 is design-wise probably has much better damaged stability since its compartments are not adjacent abutting. BUT it could well be an easier "mission kill"? Those who hate AL believe so, I think the jury is out and since there are improvements to be made.
The LCS like most USN ships are great first responders because they can get "there" quickly with personnel and helos, sort of like a ambulance. In fact HA/DR is considered one of the main ROCs of the JHSV. BUT warships do NOT have the payload or the time to hang around as do auxiliaries and sealift ships. Go look at what happened around Haiti specifically the timeline. Which came and which went.
Sol,
ReplyDeleteAt worst, RPG rounds might cause localized fires. They just aren't effective against large vessels.
Suicide boats would be more effective, but do we really think pirates are the suicide type? Maybe Al Qaeda in Africa, but not pirates.
rpg-29 can penetrate the armor on an M1 tank so it'll fly right throuh ship armor.
ReplyDeleteIt'll leave a pinhole through a ship's hull and do localized damage behind it. The behind-armor effects are dangerous for a small space like a tank, but on a 3000 ton ship, it's minimal.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if they have thought about APS systems like Trophy for use on ships?
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophy_%28countermeasure%29
RPGs and ATGMs aren't a large enough threat IMHO to warrant developing a ship-based APS. It would have to cover far too much area to be worthwhile.
ReplyDeleteOn second though, riverine patrol boats might benefit from an APS like this.
ReplyDeleteyeah i was thinking the same thing for LCAC's.
ReplyDeleteIsraelis are looking at an anti-missile suite for their Shaldag and Super Dvora patrol boats, partly because their near shore work puts them in the envelope of antitank missile fire, though it also puts the shore in Spike-ER range . . . .
ReplyDeletehttp://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2010/09/12/Israeli-navy-tests-new-defense-system/UPI-41501284297083/
why would they need another system for anti-tank missiles on boats that large? i would think that phallanx gun systems would make easy work of slow flying anti-tank missiles.
ReplyDeleteShaldag and Super Dvora III are in the 50-70 ton range so pretty small. Primary armament is usually the Typhoon remote weapon mount with a 20mm on it plus Spike ER lately.
ReplyDeleteThe bigger Israeli boats, the Saar series, do have Phalanx but I haven't heard they come nearly so close to shore. They're in the 400 to 1000 ton range depending on which version.