How fast are those things supposed to be switch-out-able (asumming we are fighting on the far side of the world)?
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Proceedings - Buy Ford, not Ferrari
- Thread starter mmx1
- Start date
How fast are those things supposed to be switch-out-able (asumming we are fighting on the far side of the world)?
The point still remains, a ship that is very similarly equipped (I would say better equipped to deal with ASCM's) to the LCS's ended up with a hole in it and sailors killed from a single ASCM launched by a terrorist group. One that incorporated stealthy features and sophisticated defense systems. You have to keep in mind that intel is only a piece of the puzzle and is not an excuse for doing a poor job or failed systems. Your point about the Aegis is almost certainly inaccurate, at the very least it has much better radar to detect a threat like ASCM's even when not in a war zone.
You need to expand your thinking a bit, you are too focused on what you think the threat might be and not what it may be. Do you honestly think that our enemies are not working overtime to defeat stealth and actively developing weapons that can defeat signature reduction features? Stealth is a tool, not a panacea. The F-117 guys assumed what you do and ended up with one shot down by a 30 year-old SAM system and the rest put in the boneyard.
And you are also making the assumption that you will have blue water available. Where is the blue water in the Persian Gulf? Or Red Sea? Geography, operational consideration and just plain luck will constrain your operating abilities constantly, any experienced military officer would know that. You also have to account for Murphy too, he often rears his ugly head when you need him least.......
Operational realities, simple as that. With the very wide proliferation of ASCM's where exactly is the LCS going to operate that is 'low-threat'? Our interests lie, and as a result the Navy largely operates in, pretty high threat environments. With the exception of Somalia our operating areas are full of countries with a wide array of sophisticated weapons, from Flankers to Exocets. And yet we are going to build a class of ships whose weapons have an effective range not much further than the cannons on the deck of the USS Constitution.
So whenever an LCS goes into a 'high-threat' environment, pretty much every time it deploys, it will have to rely on a DDG or CG for protection against 'sophisticated' threats. That is completely unrealistic, especially with the numbers of LCS's we plan to build. The CG/DDG's have better things to do, like guard the carrier and conduct their own independent ops instead of making sure a ship with a pop-gun and shipborne equivalent of a Sidewinder isn't hit by whatever Iran/North Korea/Syria/Hezbollah/China decides to throw at it.
Comparing combat aircraft to ships is apples and oranges. You are going to limit the options of planners and commanders options by so lightly arming them and requiring an escort. That is already an accepted way of operating with aircraft, and taken into account. Plus, aircraft don't operate 24x7, they go back home where they are protected. You have to work on your math too, there are much fewer ships than aircraft, on the order of 10x less.
We are hobbling ourselves by building a class of ship that will make-up 1/3 of our surface combatant fleet and will have only the most basic weapons systems to take into the high threat environments that we most often operate. It is fundamentally flawed strategy that will come back and bite us in the ass sooner rather than later, and I fear it will cost lives.
phrogpilot73
Well-Known Member
What happens when a company turns out to be not big enough? How far away are other forces?
I'm gonna guess this guy's background has NOTHING to do with amphibious ops, because with the current ARG/ESG construct - you can have an LPD just offshore with a company, and a mix of aircraft. But if the shit hits the fan, the big deck amphib and all the other ships are just over the horizon and you can reinforce that company quickly.
Unless they can be reinforced quickly, a company size element is worthless.
So that is why CVNs and LHA/LHDs go out alone all the time? How much native ASW or ASCM capabilities do they posses?
LCS is a replacement for FFGs. FFGs' only weapons are a 76mm gun and CIWS. No missiles. Why does its replacement need SM-3? How good is SM-3 against ASCM coming in at 25' and M2.5? How far out can you detect the ASSM? The limiting factors are the heights of the missile (how high again?) and your antenna. SEARAM is a replacement for CIWS. The shoes are allowed to update their weapon systems from time to time too.
Not every ship we build needs to be a DDG/CG with AEGIS and TLAMs. There is a huge range of missions the navy does that DDG/CGs do not perform well. Besides ... have you guys seen the flight deck on LCS-2? It is over half the ship with room for 2 60s to land at once.
Frigates only have the 76 gun and CIWS now, but they carried SM-1 up until just a few years ago. Remember that they were originally designed to be a cheap convoy escort that we could build in big numbers against the day it finally went off against the Soviets, and air defense was a major part of their mission. Because for what they're mostly doing now (VBSS, inshore work) it wasn't considered worth the cost of continuing to build SM-1's or upgrading them to carry SM-2/3 and integrate them into AEGIS.
By the way, where did this "LCS" bullshit come from, anyway? They're frigates or destroyer escorts, if you want to be old-school about it. You can call it LCS for a developmental program, but not the actual designation. I thought Shoes were supposed to be all about tradition.
The children of the people who called cruisers "destroyer leaders" and "frigates," apparently. :icon_tong
Recommend looking at the Aussie FFG-7's. SM-2 retrofitted to the Mk13 launcher.
Put a decent radar on it and viola!
They used too. America and Kennedy had sonar domes.
It can be done and relatively cheaply. SSDS is badass against most ASCMs with outstanding growth prospects.
DBR is going to be cheaper and lighter than AEGIS, with similar fidelity including the littorals.
I disagree about the every ship needs to be a DDG. Every combatant needs to be at least an FFG.
With SSDS and CEC it's more important and cost effective than ever over the lifespan of a warship to incorporate those systems at the outset.
CVN's rarely go into combat zones alone, their escort is usually close by. And while LHA/LHD's might do so more of often if they were moving into a higher threat area they will more often than not get an escort. We can't forget their air wings either, providing a lot more firepower than a pair of UAV's and SH-60's ever can hope to do so.
I never said it needed SM-3's, which are actually optimized for BMD vice the regular SAM/SSM mission like the SM-2 anyways. There are several newer FFG/FFL's out there that are equipped with very capable weapons suites as well as having a lot of the flexibility of the LCS. They include the Danish Absalon class, the Norwegian Fridtjof Nansen class, the Dutch De Zeven Provincien Class and the German MEKO class ships that include the Turkish Milgem class and the South African Valour class. Again, each of the FFG/FFL's I cited have much of the flexibility that the LCS has but a more comprehensive and robust weapons suite. All of them have a VLS or can be equipped with one and many utilize everything from SM-2's to the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) that provide much better coverage and capability than a RAM or other last ditch weapon system.
And the CIWS is a last ditch weapon system for when all the other layers of your defense have failed to destroy a threat. Relying on a last-ditch weapon system as your sole defense is just plain stupid.
No, like I pointed out above their are planty of other options that are out there instead of the LCS that are better armed and equipped to handle a wide range of threats while being much cheaper and more flexible than a DDG or CG.
That big 'ol flight deck ain't going to do you much good underwater.
If we know it's operating in the littorals you don't even need mongo power radars. You need a system with good resolution that can distinguish from all the crap returns from clutter, low search times, set up a track QUICKLY, and run your DTE sequence quickly enough to engage before it does become a point defense situation.
Sonar domes on a carrier are about as practical as tits on a boar. Even IF you got past the ship's self noise, and assuming the sub is operating where it "doesn't want to be if it doesn't want you to hear it but wants to be stupid" what is the carrier going to engage it with?
If the carrier's sonar dome is hearing something an escort's towed array isn't, the carrier should have died a long time ago.
What's the difference between SSDS and AEGIS...and what leads you to believe LCS's point defense systems aren't optimized for rapid engagement as well?
DBR isn't lighter than "AEGIS," AEGIS is the entire combat systems suite, you mean it's lighter than SPY.
Also, DBR is the radar projected for the DDG 1000, which you just criticized as having poor littoral radar capability. So now I'm not sure if you're saying the DDG 1000 is a good thing, or a bad thing.
And what sort of FFG do you want? Please don't tell me a "Euro frigate" because those things are pretty much DDGs in all but name. What warfare capabilities do you want to assign it, and what systems do you plan to accomplish that goal?
They all screwed up, the SWO’s included. To point solely to intel is lazy and a cop out, especially on the part of the Israelis. You also need to learn a lot more about the engagement, your knowledges are incomplete.
Why build a ship that can only handle those missions? An FFG/FFL can do them just as good as well as fight a conventional battle. If you want a ship to utilize on just those missions why don’t we take A4’s suggestion and take the big gun DD’s of the past out of the boneyard, if there are any left.
I wouldn’t want to rely on someone over the rainbow to handle threats for me, no matter how capable. And don’t be too presumptuous, I know a lot more than you realize about the current threats out there to US forces, including the ones you SWO’s worry about, or at least should.
With the recent record of integration problems we have had on all kinds of weapons system that would be putting the cart before horse, not a very good idea at all.
A Euro FFG/FFL would be a heckuva lot better than an LCS, at least they would be a good start. You don’t need a revolutionary design, you just need something that works. So what if they are cheaper and less capable versions of CG/DDG? Isn’t that what an FFG is? How is that a bad thing? At least they bring something more significant to the fight. As for being more flexible, an excellent example would be the Absalon and its ‘flex’ deck that can carry anything from tanks, a hospital, SOF to a command center. It sounds an awful lot like the LCS but with a much bigger bite. What the heck is wrong with that?
