Although the Skjolds are far better armed, they are even more logistically hamstrung, you couldnt possibly keep a crew embarked for any long period of time, a week tops would be my guess.
If you wanted them deployed with a MEB, they would have to be towed in to theater with the crews on a mothership. Thats not to say thats a problem of course, but its not a one for one swap.
No. Different beasty altogether than LCS. What the US wanted for LCS was a cheap frigate. What messed-up was the odd requirement for such high speed. And even that could have been achieved by a better route than the one taken.
TrT is correct, this is a fast attack craft, not a corvette or frigate.
It is worth noting, however, that this is the kind of thing you see from countries that have historically put a lot of emphasis on littoral combat: heavily armed and stealthy. An example more towards the LCS is the Visby class, one of the more interesting comparisons to the LCS.
Speaking of which, what the USN wanted out of the LCS depends on which LCS you are talking about: -- The original LCS concept was for small, cheap, heavily armed, stealthy ships. Very small ones looked like the Chinese Hobei class and were conceptually similar to the skjold. Larger designs, when they realized the original ships were over-optimistically small, edged up towards the Visby, but all were designed to fight in a very lethal environment with a new doctrine. -- The LCS as implemented combined a "we'll be all things to everybody", designed by committee, buzzword intensive but doctrine-free, "it's supposed to be small and cheap but it still has to deploy across the Pacfic and make 40 knots" approach with a fundamentally opposite tenet of the original streetfighter thinking i.e. that littorals are extraordinarily benign environments where the only possible threats are speedboats (and maybe a few mines). In other words it was a mindless grab bag of often conflicting requirements shaped by the need to get political support (both in the Navy and in Congress) not by any desire to field a cheap or effective combatant. -- The LCS never was a frigate program. If you want to see a USN frigate, look at the Oliver Hazard Perry class: it's mission, design and roles bear no resemblance to the LCS program.
Skjolds have been a long time coming into service and are good for Norway's littorals. As stated above Skjold is not comparable to LCS...BUT the Swedish Visby is certainly a corvette which some have said is better at several roles than the LCS.
Original USN LCS were NOT conceived to be like the Hobei FAC(M)at all. The Americans dreamed of one hull that could do several missions and still be very fast and shallow draft. Small was not in the equation. Cheap was another dream but the cost of the "seaframe" is coming down from astronomical now.
One of these years the USN will admit their dreams were wrong~
The LCS are now considered to be replacements for the Perrys for better or worse.
Amen.
ReplyDeleteHeck, the Skjold out-guns the LCS
Although the Skjolds are far better armed, they are even more logistically hamstrung, you couldnt possibly keep a crew embarked for any long period of time, a week tops would be my guess.
ReplyDeleteIf you wanted them deployed with a MEB, they would have to be towed in to theater with the crews on a mothership.
Thats not to say thats a problem of course, but its not a one for one swap.
No. Different beasty altogether than LCS. What the US wanted for LCS was a cheap frigate. What messed-up was the odd requirement for such high speed. And even that could have been achieved by a better route than the one taken.
ReplyDeleteNone of that is to say Skjolds ain't awesome.
TrT is correct, this is a fast attack craft, not a corvette or frigate.
ReplyDeleteIt is worth noting, however, that this is the kind of thing you see from countries that have historically put a lot of emphasis on littoral combat: heavily armed and stealthy. An example more towards the LCS is the Visby class, one of the more interesting comparisons to the LCS.
Speaking of which, what the USN wanted out of the LCS depends on which LCS you are talking about:
-- The original LCS concept was for small, cheap, heavily armed, stealthy ships. Very small ones looked like the Chinese Hobei class and were conceptually similar to the skjold. Larger designs, when they realized the original ships were over-optimistically small, edged up towards the Visby, but all were designed to fight in a very lethal environment with a new doctrine.
-- The LCS as implemented combined a "we'll be all things to everybody", designed by committee, buzzword intensive but doctrine-free, "it's supposed to be small and cheap but it still has to deploy across the Pacfic and make 40 knots" approach with a fundamentally opposite tenet of the original streetfighter thinking i.e. that littorals are extraordinarily benign environments where the only possible threats are speedboats (and maybe a few mines). In other words it was a mindless grab bag of often conflicting requirements shaped by the need to get political support (both in the Navy and in Congress) not by any desire to field a cheap or effective combatant.
-- The LCS never was a frigate program. If you want to see a USN frigate, look at the Oliver Hazard Perry class: it's mission, design and roles bear no resemblance to the LCS program.
Skjolds have been a long time coming into service and are good for Norway's littorals. As stated above Skjold is not comparable to LCS...BUT the Swedish Visby is certainly a corvette which some have said is better at several roles than the LCS.
ReplyDeleteOriginal USN LCS were NOT conceived to be like the Hobei FAC(M)at all. The Americans dreamed of one hull that could do several missions and still be very fast and shallow draft. Small was not in the equation. Cheap was another dream but the cost of the "seaframe" is coming down from astronomical now.
One of these years the USN will admit their dreams were wrong~
The LCS are now considered to be replacements for the Perrys for better or worse.
bottom photo is of ONR's T-Craft
ReplyDelete