carr wrote:
The aspect of your Spruance WIF that made it so interesting and appealing for me was the fact that you began with a specific mission (a role) and then designed to meet that role. Everything flowed logically from that.
I understand perfectly. You're right; this is trying to justify the existence of the program. With the lower-end technology (SPY-1F) we are looking at the "high-low mix" the Navy has pursued before, but still rather capable. I was thinking along the lines of making the ship actually do what they said it was supposed to do: replace the Perry-class FFs. If LCS had all this extra equipment, it would no longer be an LCS. It would be a Corvette, an FFG, or DEG.
Quote:
Similarly, what is the role for the LCS? You laid out a vague requirement that it be a sort of mini-Burke (my interpretation, not your words). Beware... packing equipment onto the hull first and trying to define a role after the fact is exactly what went wrong with the LCS to begin with.
This is a very good point. Again, trying to justify the work that's been put into it by giving it the capabilities to do what the biggest job it was supposed to do: take the place of the Perry FF/FFGs.
Quote:
Is there really a need for a mini-Burke when there are real Burkes around?
When we're talking about hull numbers, absolutely, yes. The US has too few ships, minimum 30 too few ships. While some like to say that a few ships do more these days that you don't need more, they ignore the truth that when you lose one you a whole lot more capability, and you have fewer ships to lose.
Quote:
I mentioned in the other thread that the LCS is Level I (non-combat) rated. It is not designed to take a hit and continue to fight. How does that affect the anticipated role?
That really is pitiful for a warship. The ship can be compartmentalized and provided frap protection with layered Kevlar and Aluminum if not steel.
Quote:
Or, would the ship be redesigned for Level II or III? Remember that the hangar and mission wells are cavernously large, uncompartmented (reduced stability due to damage/flooding) open spaces.
I would imagine the hanger is going to be a hanger like any other ship. It's not going to flood unless the ship is sinking badly. The mission module compartments I would need to be converted into work space compartments like other ships.
Quote:
If that [speed] requirement were dropped, a great deal of volume and weight would become available for new equipment.
I agree. There is no reason to burn around so fast you use up all your fuel in 3 days (a report sited on the other LCS thread). 33-35 knots is about as good as you need it anyway. 48 knots required probably TWICE the SHP than 33knots, so the benefit in the loss of power is likely greatly preferred.
Quote:
So, what is the role for LCS II? What should it do well? Not just do, but do well? Answer that and we can zero in on equipment.
Seasick says we don’t need a capable ship, we just need one to chase pirates and taxi SEALs. Well, the SEALs don't care about this ship. They care about a RHIB that's going to pick them up off the coast. Unless that ship can give them gunfire support, they would rather it be a high speed yacht with crew-served weapons on it. Anything else is just another ship.
Like stated before, the Perry-class FF/FFGs did a lot but they did a lot poorly. I believe these two hull designs have the potential to perform the jobs that the Perry-class FF/FFGs performed very well. In EVERY category that the Perrys performed, the LCS hulls could perform the job well.
As an extension of that, the two hulls could specialize a little more in what their hulls can accommodate.
The missions of the ship would be similar to a "mini-Burke" yes. One must keep in mind also that a Burke is a "mini-Tico". The distinction of our surface combatants has blurred over the last 30 years. The Burke was supposed to be a cheap alternative to the Ticos. So, yes, I would say "LCS II" could resemble a little Burke in its capabilities.
I am satisfied in saying we should match LCS II’s missions with all the missions the Perry-class FF/FFGs have taken on over their careers (more than for what they were originally designed). So, unless that’s going to be the mission,
the realistic mission for LCS needs to be a challenge for this thread as well. The limitations are "the best of the technology we can fit on the ships." The inherent size of the ships would keep the purchase price lower than a DDG.
- AAW
- ASW
- Anti small boat (pirate and speed boat)
- Gunnery both defensive and offensive
- Strategic and Tactical Land Attack
- Anti-ship capability
- Recon/Intel gathering of events blue and brown water
- SOF support
- Interdiction (small boat and flexible helo capability)
- Intimidation factor (physical presence)
- Picket Security (such as sector security of large high valued assets like ABOT and KAAOT oil terminals the the PCs watch)
Quote:
I'm not trying to be difficult or critical, just trying to help pin down a realistic WIF.
Good save. Thanks! I mean, it really sucks. I believe part of this exercise is to find a group of missions that a ship of this size can perform with a decent capability. We don't want to have to fall into the "it does a lot but it does a lot poorly" trap. The Modernized Spurance platform provided literally the best capabilities in all the categories of concern and second in AAW only to Aegis, because of the size and incredible design of the ship.
With these systems, it would be a good anti-surface ship, anti-air ship, decent anti-submarine ship, great helo ship, great SOF ship, great anti-pirate ship, and good presence ship.
Here, we are more limited, but it feels like there is more we can do with the design to make it a formidable ship in the "little ship" category. I certainly think what we are looking for is a conventional classification like Corvette, Guided missile Frigate, Guided missile Destroyer Escort, etc.
I don't feel I hit the nail on the head, but does that help solidify it?