Skip to comments.Littoral Combat Ship Competition Rife With Rumors
Posted on 10/21/2010 10:39:33 PM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld
The U.S. Navy's close-lipped effort to pick a winning design for the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program is generating more rumors than Lindsay Lohan's love-life. Maybe it's the approaching mid-term elections or maybe it's the lack of official information about how the selection process is progressing, but interested parties seem to be working overtime to formulate fanciful conspiracy theories about what's going on.
The competition pits two second-tier shipyards teamed with giant defense contractors against each other for the right to produce dozens of unconventional warships that are the only new class of surface combatants to survive recent course changes by the Navy's leadership. Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead has strongly endorsed the small, fast vessel designed for combating shallow-water threats, while curtailing the bigger Zumwalt class of next-generation destroyers and killing a future missile-defense cruiser outright.
(Excerpt) Read more at defpro.com ...
I thoght the Falklands cured most navies of the idea of aluminium warships. ( great big sparklers)
The Navy should cancel both of them. They’re glorified Coast Guard cutters... and armed like them... at the price of high end frigates. In fact, the Navy should give the four that have been built or are finishing to the USCG, and either license the Spanish Armada’s F100 class design, or simply buy more Burke’s and live with fewer fleet numbers. But regardless, they should NOT be spending almost $700 million apiece for aluminum patrol boats.
These boats can be outfitted with AEGIS/SM-3 missiles
Had a look at the F100 class. Good looking ships-and you’re right, probably better value than the LCS.
LCS-1 is approximately 800 tons overweight in her current configuration due to the switch by L-M from aluminum to steel in the construction of the hull and superstrucure. LCS-2 is underweight and has growth potential.
Neither of these ships can take the SM-2/SM-3 Standard missile systems because the Mk 41 VLS is too large and heavy.
Both LCS-1 and LCS-2 were supposed to mount the NLOS-LS (Non-Line Of Sight Launch System) missiles being developed by the US Army. NLOS-LS is a collection of vertical launch modules that fire the 117-pound missile. Range is 40 km and designed to attack targets afloat or ashore. Guidance is by GPS, semi-active laser, or imaging infrared. Warheads have three different fuzing modes for attacking structure, soft, or armored targets.
The problems with the LCS designs are too numerous to describe here. But, the LCS really needs more and longer range anti-air warfare missiles such as the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) in the light weight bolt-down Mk 56 vertical launch modules.
The current Mk 49 launcher for 19 RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missiles is too bulky and heavy. It should be removed and replaced with one each of the Mk 15 Mod 0 Block 1B 20mm Phalanx CIWS (Close-In Weapon System) and the SeaRAM (replaces the CIWS 20mm gun with an 11-round RIM-116 missile cell). Both CIWS and SeaRAM are bolt-down applications and don't require major alterations to the ship.
See post #9
I thought they had abandoned the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) concept, I guess not.
My thoughts as well. The HMS Sheffield essentially “melted” after being struck by an Exocet missile. Burned for 6 days, then sank. Aluminum is fine for bass boats, not so war vessels...
Nope. Damage was from internal fire of flammable fittings.
Sheffield was a steel ship anyway
Note damage below. Paint is blistered off the hull, and fibreglass stack and radar dome are cooked, but structure and above deck fittings are intact (even the aluminium boat).
NB this is a offside picture of the side not hit.
My understanding is that although the Exocet missile itself did not explode on impact, nor did the delay mechanism work, the rocket motor caught fuel on fire and knocked out the water equipment used to fight the fire?
.There are many articles out there stating aluminum was used in construction of Sheffield. Thanx for correcting me!