The Ship Model Forum

..

RPGs are not a fatal threat to LCS. They can do damage, but they cannot kill the ship. The worst case scenarios are that if aimed at point blank range they can wreck something on the mast. They can blow a hole in the bridge and kill the bridge crew and destroy its equipment. An RPG could destroy one of the helos on the aft deck or maybe take out the 57mm gun. However, that's all.

Concerning the out-rigger sponson RPGs do not penetrate water so if one detonated against the sponson it would blow a hole above the water line. Would it fill with water? I bet it would in heavy seas. The standard RPG-7s only reach out to about 500 yards so they have to be close, really close to make any accurate hits. This is NOT to say a Dhow cannot make a good hit, but it will just have to be very close to the ship, and even then, it's a Rocket Propelled Grenade, not an anti-tank or anti-ship missile. People survive RPG impacts that are 20' away. RPGs are serious stuff when some cock-holster across the way has an RPG and you don't, but a CG or DDG will probably suffer more consequential damage if a SPY panel, the Harpoons, 5" gun, or bridge is hit than LCS would, mainly because LCS has so little to lose if hit. Everything not hidden behind a steel plate is vulnerable, and that's all the radars and most of the weapons systems. The issue is keeping the bad guys away from your ship. It's easy enough to keep people 500 yards away from a ship. It's just a question of if the ship's captain will have the balls to actually enforce a security zone around his ship or not.

Just food for thought.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

..

..

I will be rejoining the active model building community soon with this project. I look forward to getting the plastic, glue, and airbrush out again!


Talk to you all soon.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

I try to avoid politics if I can but it seems to me that both LCS's designs are exactly why the USN whinged so much about the Perry class FFG's (Except the LCS's could actually keep up with a CBG...as long as the water is flat) They are under armed and not much good for anything apart from maybe Pirate hunting (assumin they actually got Permission to squeeze a few rds of 57mm off...)

The FFG's (or a proper replacement..) could do same job plus local AAW, ASW(Via SH60) and ASM (well our RAN ones could the USN FFG's are limited to 76mm and a 25mm Bushmaster sized pop gun and ASW if they have a chopper).
A proper warship is likely to be faster than most commercial vessels (apart from speed boats and some of the top end Mega Yachts...) and more heavily armed than anything a Littoral combatant is capable of pitting against it.

And if the enemy has a couple of old OSA type boats or similar toys then an LCS is so screwed!!

Bruce

Sorry Dave I have had a few Brews...........!!!!

_________________
building:
1/72 RC USS LONG BEACH CGN9
1/72 RC USS CALIFORNIA CGN36
1/72 RC USS SAIPAN LHA2
1/72 RC USS JOHN PAUL JONES DDG53
1/72 RC USS SHARK SSN591
1/72 RC USS SEAWOLF SSN21
1/72 RC USS ALBANY CG10

I agree. However, I am going to be modifying both seaframes to accomplish different missions. I will be utilizing the LCS-1+ hull for ASuW/self defense AAW and the LCS-2+ for MCM/ASW with self defense AAW.

Oh, indeed. There will be more of a brief later on this week. I already have a Cyberhobby LCS-1 mocked up with the additional pieces.


I understand! Let's have a few together

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

I am still very new to this forum and have made my share of mistakes and have little time because I use public computers so I haven't read all five pages here and I apologize for any redundant posts I may inadvertanantly make but here is my take.
Lockheed Martin has made the following variants for foreign customers:

85meters with ASW TTs, keel sonar, posible helo but cannot tell from illustration if there is a helo hangar, 57mm gun, eight Harpoons, small active or passive electronically scanned array and what appears to be a three or four cell VLS, helo flight deck, RAM 21 cell launcher and two Typhoon mounts for guns/missiles, possible towed array but cannot tell from the illustration

118.6 meters with 8-16 VLS cells forward, eight Harpoons, helo hangar ASW TTs, keel sonar, radar as above, possible to accept mission modules? 76 mm gun, RAM 21 cell launcher and two Typhoon gun/missile mounts and presumably, towed arrays/VDS, enlarged deckhouse, forcastle and helo flight deck

150 meters with 16 cell VLS on either side of hangar, 16 cell VLS forward, Mk 45 five inch gun, RAM launcher, keel sonar, ASW TTs, helo hangar,further enlarged deckhouse, forecastle and flight deck over the 118 metre variant, no Typhoon mounts in evidence, towed arrays likely, SPY-1F mini Aegis and two illuminators , enlarged helo hangar (?), ect.

What might be the price/combat capability for these variants if offered for USN?
They appear to be capable in these variants but I don't know if they are able to accept Level II damage.

I have been thinking about what I call a LCS as a LGAF or Littoral Guided Missile Helicopter Frigate when the hull size is greatly increased to accomodate additional systems but retains the modular mission capability primary for modernization/refit and secondary to allow changeover of roles that needed for force structure optimization of SOF/MCM/AAW/ASW/ASUW hulls.
I have scaled the hull to 180 meters length and 18 meters beam for a waterline beam to length ratio of 10:1.
The mini aegis combat system with SPY-1F
Mk 41 strike length with 24 cells flanking the helo hangar or 48 cells total
Bow mounted modernized Mk 71 Mod X eight inch/sixty calibre gun for long ranging fire support
Triple 12.75 inch ASW TTs
One Sideshooter 5/64 calibre Oto Melara LW mount with 21 cell RAM launchers flanking gunhouse and mechanically connected to the trunnion so gun and RAM lauchers elevate and train together mounted atop the deckhouse ala the Mk 75 mounted 76 mm of the Perry class.
One 76 mm Super Rapid on the deckhouse for CIWS
Two Typhoon gun/missile mounts for ASUW/swarm boats defense
Retain propulsion plant but 20 knot 4000 nmi cruise and 1500 nmi sprint
ECM/ESM/decoys/Nulka
Torpedo defense via towed decoys and hard countermeasure system
Level II/III construction standard

Alright, let's separate these items for clarity.

This is one of the biggest problems with LCS. LCS was meant as a small, cheap, expendable ship that can defend itself while performing a mission. Even blowing this ship up to 180 meters...590 feet (over 20' longer than a cruiser) gives you very little combat capability and offers a lot of problems.

What you just described is a ship larger than a modernized Kidd-class DDG with less capability. With your stats, let me suggest that it would in all likelihood be better to take the original DD-963 design the way it was intended (Mk71 forward, Mk45 aft, and a B-sized weapons module between the super structure and the Mk71), and modernize it. If you wanted to put the SPY-1F on it, you could. You could fit a keel mounted sonar. It would be built a lot stronger than LCS is built now, and it would have far superior combat capabilities. You could even put the anti-ship missile, anti-mine blisters on the side of the design as was planned for the CG-47s to make it that much more survivable.

To me, there is not a lot of reason to try to make an LCS hull work that does not work when you have a Spruance-class that already works.

This is also the inherant problem with having these "swapable" mission capabilities. It sounds attractive, but it's actually a liability. We have to keep in mind that unless every ship has every mission module stored, the ships can actually only perform the missions for which you have modules. If you need to chang the mission modules, the ship must leave the fight to go where the modules and spend a week getting re-equipped.

The problem is that a ship cannot shift from one mission to another. They are doing whatever they're fitted to do.

So, in a reality, in a combat scenario you would still need to have 2 ships with 2 different capabilities in the same area of operation, say one performing MCM and one performing ASuW. If you lose one of these ships, you don't just lose that ship, you lose the 3 capabilities that ship could perform. You have a ship that can accomplish only 1/3 of the capabilities you're paying for (perform 1 at a time), but if you lose that ship, you are losing 3x the capability of that ship. Those modules will sit at the re-arming point un-used and un-usable, because its ship is lost.

The light DDG would be able to perform the type of mission like you're talking about, and that would be a WONDERFUL project. Afterall, as Norman Friedman put it, "...we could have built a bunch of empty Spruance-class hulls, and we would probably have gotten a beter deal out of it." So for this project, I think it would be better to keep these LCS ships a little more LCS and a lot less what you suggest, a light DDG.

However, with that being said. DD(X) was originally supposed to be a Spruance replacement, but it turned into DDG-1000, a ship that cannot accomplish that. Maybe, just maybe a DD(X) could be your project? What do you think about that? I have already described that in another one of my threads, and I think it would be a great modeling project Maybe you would like to take that one and run with it?

Talk to you guys soon!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Even though many don't know the roots of the LCS program, they still realize something is wrong. After talking with Navy officials about LCS and after taking to Lockheed's LCS project engineers, it is clear that all of the blame for the myriad of errors in the LCS program lays solely at the feet of the Navy.

For the original roots of the LCS program, I refer you to a Proceedings article from September 2012 written by CAPT Robert Powers called "Birth of the Littoral Combat Ship".

What the article boiled down to was:
- CIC should be incorporated for quick communication and rapid decision making
- The ship should not be built out of aluminum.
- Manning should be low, but not so low it inhibits combat capability or maintenance. Maintenance must not suffer from low manning.
- New hull designs such as tri-hull should be explored
- Flight deck is important. UAVs and helos should be a large part of the ship's armament
- Perform counter battery fire against sites firing artillery or ASCMs

With these points in mind, we can see how things went bad with the two LCS models we have. With this project, we can compromise these missions with the ships types we have.

What makes sense is that we utilize the two hull types we have, and we specialize their missions them based on their size and capabilities/facilities.

- The LCS-1/3 monohull can best accommodate the ASuW mission. It can perform counter battery fire and anti-boat warfare with 76mm, 5", and a smaller caliber (25mm, 30mm, or 35mm).

- The LCS-2 has a HUGE helo deck and enough room to expand the hangar to accommodate MH-53 mine-hunting helicopters and the UUVs below the main deck for the MCM and ASW missions.

Also for your opinions, with the recent camo paint scheme applied to LCS-1, what kind of paint scheme should either the LCS-1/3 or the LCS-2 ship be painted?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Precisely!

The mission module concept appears to be an attempt to get around the fact that nobody nailed down a set of hard mission, threat, or environmental requirements for these ships, as well as the eleventh hour realization that the navy was going to lose the FFGs and also needed a replacement for that ship. That opened the door for unimaginable mission creep because it allowed one to turn an LCS into a minesweeper, Coast Guard cutter, or a gunboat, with the click of the mouse on a powerpoint slide.

I remained puzzled by the requirement for a comparatively shallow draft, high speed ship with a helicopter to operate in the costal environment. Allied destroyers got as close as 2000 yards from the beach during the Normandy invasion in order to knock out pill boxes on Omaha Beach and draft was not an issue; must we now have a LCS that can operate in the surf zone??? Needless to say, littoral/costal warfare in the fiords of Northern Europe is an entirely different proposition in the waters off Korea, or in the Persian Gulf, even when performing the same mission (e.g. ASW). Environment alone will drive you to different hull forms (SES, SWATH, displacement hull) and propulsion options. The USCG appears to be doing a much better job of this as they consider the next generation OPC.

I also am shocked that given the real threat in coastal regions are AIP submarines and mines: no one demanded a VDS and or mine hunting sonar as standard equipment. And torpedo tubes? This would seem to be a core requirement of the ship. And finally, given the displacement, these ships should have had a 5” gun (better a lightweight 155mm gun-howitzer and yes this is a notional weapon) or 160mm rocket launcher (Israel) for shore bombardment.

My sense is that Hughes and Cerebowski were willing to trade sensor capability and the associated high costs in traditional hulls (e.g. AEGIS) by leveraging data networks, but were not looking to give up weapons capability (punch). They also wanted these ships to operate in flotilla strength. Something along the lines of a Skjold class, Hamina Class, or armed version of the Street fighter hull would have probably fit the bill for a LCS far better than what we got. If the Navy were looking for an FFG, an ship configured along the lines of an OHP or Krivak III would have been a better fill.

Doing so would go completely against the direction of modern minehunting - taking the sailor out of the danger zone. If you're close enough to use a permanent hull-mounted (presumably) sonar for searching mines, you're more than likely already within the minefield - a place the Navy is desperately trying to avoid, given the advent of self-propelled and tethered-torpedo mines. All MCM technologies are going towards UUVs, USVs, and airborne: there is no place for a hull-mounted sonar in MCM in anything but a backup role - certainly not a "core" element of the vessel.

As for using other ships like the Skjold or Haminas, they're obviously way too small to have an organic air detachment for, if nothing else, minehunting. I am of the opinion that LCS is in its most important combat role as a MCM vessel, given that mines have been responsible for 70% of all USN ship casualties since WWII: mines are the greatest power balancer available to a weaker power against an enemy dependent (strategically or operationally) on freedom of navigation. A MCM vessel is the only thing that gets in the way of a smaller power from causing havoc in the fleet of a greater naval power - a smart smaller power would aim its weapons against MCM assets. It stands to reason, then, that MCM assets must be given a modicum of self-defence capability while operating under the protective umbrella of fleet units with greater ranged sensors and weapons.

Of course, given this context, I agree that the speed requirement is not particularly useful - ten knots are unlikely to make much of a difference in the operational or tactical levels.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

What I said was:

You immediately discarded the entire subset of threat from diesel electric or AIP submarines: arguable the significant A2/AD weapon system with your edit. Towed array sonars are generally not viable in shallow or restricted waters situations, ergo hull mounted or VDS sonar is indeed a requirement if you have to transit or fight in costal waters.


I am well aware of the trends in current mine hunting, nonetheless the reality is that the first indication that you are in a minefield may very well be when your ship hits one. Having high resolution hull mounted or VDS sonar systems to detect submarines and mines in shallow waters is not a “backup” but should part of an integrated network of sensors and a requirement for a combatant that is expected to operate constricted or shallow waters.

This is the nasty reality of combat: intelligence is far from perfect, the enemy gets a vote, and you may have to fight under conditions that you never imagined. The Iranians were certainly able to slip mines into the Straits of Hormuz during the tanker war of the 1980’s, even in channels that were previous “swept”, and it is entirely possible that they may do this again. From 2003 – 2010 insurgents in Iraq were repeatedly ably to emplace mines and EFPs along Route Irish – the road to Baghdad International Airport in spite of the most intense 24/7 observation efforts in history including satellites, UAVs, aircraft, agents, and military check points. No other area of the earth was ever under such intense scrutiny.

I am incredulous given our experiences during Ernest Will that anyone does not believe that the USN ships may not have to pull escort duty in the Persian Gulf again, and the right answer is to have mine warfare asset(s) that can do the job 24/7 including during “no fly” conditions which occur due to sand storms, dew point, and a host of other real world conditions. During Ernest Will FFG-7s were forced to operate when mine sweepers did not, in part due to the threat of small boat attacks. I guarantee that given the alternatives of assigning an Aegis combatant or an LCS to this mission, LCS will draw the job, and those crews will wish it had a sonar system with some mine detection capability.


The fleet has no shortage of flight decks for helicopters, but certainly has a dearth of MW and VDS sonar systems.

Every design is a compromise, and clearly the neither the Skjold, nor the Hamina was designed to support aircraft, which is how they have very small crews. Nor did Admiral Cerebowski or Captain Hughes demand helicopter support when formulating the concept that became LCS. Embarking helicopter(s) has major implications on costs, and crew size: putting upward pressures that in part end up taking you from the realm of inexpensive, capable 250-300 ton corvettes into the realm of an expensive 3000 ton frigate/LCS with no significant combat capability. There are smaller combatants that have helicopters, but I question of how often these ships are able to support flight operations in bad weather, and if they can actually man a flight deck crew to support continuous 24/7 flight operations while manning wartime watch stations.

I note that both the Skjold and the Hamina have high resolution sonars options very suitable for the ASW and potentially MCM conditions prevalent in Northern European waters (their intended operational environment. They are also both built primarily of GRP or CRP materials, in part due to a concern for reducing their signature to mines, and in the case of the Skjold, giving her class some resistance to mines (not a direct hit of course). In fact the Skjold was designed with experience from the Alta and Oksoy class MW vessels.


I agree that MW (not just MCM) should have been a critical role for LCS: that capability has not been delivered.

I would argue that the Skjold class, and Hamina class have far more robust and balanced self defense capability than the LCS in any of its configuration. In fact, without a sonar, LCS is completely vulnerable to submarines of all types.

Carr and I have been talking about this a lot off line, and he has continued to develop the ideas over in his blog: http://navy-matters.blogspot.com/

He and I have come to the thought and semi-conclusion that the basis for the mine warfare techniques needs to remain the MH-53. The anti-mine package/module/thingie for the H-60 has fallen through. After a ton of development, it turns out the towed sonar is too heavy for the H-60 to use. The 53 already has proven technology, and if this other thing that the H-60 was supposed to use winds up working, then the MH-53 can use it instead. This also leads to a repurposing of San Antonio-class LPDs or building modified San Antonio-class LPDs specifically designed to embark 4 or more MH-53s and UUVs to sweep for mines well away from the ship. Currently, however, the UUVs, however, are still overwhelmingly unimpressive. Most of them lose their connectivity and get lost forever. While the models will represent them, they will still remain inoperable for the foreseeable future.

Since this is an LCS discussion, this leads me to the idea that indeed the LCS that needs to be utilized for the Mine Warfare mission is one that can support the MH-53. We are also rebalancing these LCSs in order to actually be useful. The LCS-3+ does not appear to have enough room to support the MH-53, but the LCS-2 does. A problem with the LCS-2 is that its flight deck cannot handle the weight of an MH-53. That is another thing that will change with this rebalance. The LCS-2 style ship will be equipped to accommodate two MH-53s. and maybe one H-60.

More in a bit!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

As we established a few posts earlier, the idea is to utilize these two versions of the ship for the differing missions. For instance one ship would focus on ASuW as a primary mission and SOF insertion and support as a secondary mission and the other would focus on MW and ASW. In fact, it was established last post that the Mine Warfare (MW) ship needs to be able to support MH-53s. It really seems that the LCS-3 platform is the best to perform the ASuW and NSW needs and the LCS-2 would be best for MW and ASW.

As I referenced a few posts ago, for the original roots of the LCS program, I refer you to a Proceedings article from September 2012 written by CAPT Robert Powers called "Birth of the Littoral Combat Ship".

What the article boiled down to was:
- CIC should be incorporated for quick communication and rapid decision making
- The ship should not be built out of aluminum.
- Manning should be low, but not so low it inhibits combat capability or maintenance. Maintenance must not suffer from low manning.
- New hull designs such as tri-hull should be explored
- Flight deck is important. UAVs and helos should be a large part of the ship's armament
- Perform counter battery fire against sites firing artillery or ASCMs

This post we will discuss the augmentation of the LCS-3 hull to accommodate the ASuW and SOF support (NSW) capability. Lockheed Martin, funnily also known as LockMart, has established that the LCS-1/LCS-3 design is scaleable. It can get as small as 85 meters and as big as a 150 meters. One hundred and fifty meters only a little short of a DDG-51!!! Can you imagine an LCS nearly the size of a Burke?!

Goodness...but the principle is that the customer can chose any dimension in between. Since scalability is the case, and I am the customer, I would chose a dimension between the 118m and 150m ships to accommodate our missions of ASuW and SOF support.

Let's break down the ASuW and the SOF requirements in addition to the original requirements of performing counter battery fire against sites firing artillery or ASCMs.

ASuW::
Anti-surface warfare. That ranges from fighting other ships to warding off small boat attacks. After a lot of figuring I think that 8 or 16 Harpoons would engage larger combatants pretty well with the number probably resting at 8 due to the ship's arrangement. Even with re-enforcement, a 5" gun is probably about as big as this hull can take. A 76mm gun is more likely.

Fighting small boats: This one requires a lot more effort. Small boats are notoriously hard to kill. Phalanx CIWS can't kill them, 5" has a terrible time at long range, even ESSM can't kill them. Even if everyone aboard is dead from 5" shrapnel blasts or a few 20mm rounds from CIWS, if a suicide boat's engine is still functioning, it will still impact the ship, detonate, and accomplish its mission. This leads me to think that multiple layers need to be involved here. With existing technology, the 76mm will do the job and can also bombard a shore. The 57mm cannot do both. A second layer could be to use the existing Mk46 30mm gun currently on the LCS-1 ships. I have heard stories from a Mk46 operator, and the gun is garbage. On to the next one...

There is also Phalanx Block 1B CIWS. However, Phalanx is only okay at this at short range. I would also hate to use up my Phalanx on a suicide boat when it can take down artillery rounds and missiles. What about Phalanx for the C-RAM and CIWS duty with the Mk38 Mod2 25mm gun as the anti-small boat capability? Well, we can, but the 25mm is relatively slow firing and still does not have a good record, even with the Mod 2 package. Is there another CIWS type of gun that can carry LOTS of large caliber ammunition that can destroy suicide boats? Yes, the 35mm Millennium Gun.

Millennium Gun:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ogwfPrV1fk

This weapon can take small craft, CIWS, and C-RAM duties with a large, quickly reloadable magazine. While I will have to put the system's radar somewhere on the super structure, I think this provides the best utility for close in anti-boat, CIWS, and C-RAM missions.

Swarm tactics:
This is a problem the Navy has been pussy footing around with for a LONG time. I believe the solution to this is to engage them as far away as effectively feasible. The 5" has so much trouble, because it is used at long ranges. The maneuvering boats are way out of the impact area by the time the 5" round arrives, reducing the 5" round's effectiveness to around 2-3 miles instead of its 11 mile max. A laser guided round (explained later) could cure this by engaging in a one-hot-one-kill engagement.

This brings me down to the idea of utilizing the 76mm Super Rapid-fire Oto gun. While narrated by Steven Hawking, this video gets the message across. It can go after air targets to a certain degree, engage small surface targets, and engage the coast if close enough.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfqqsv7oinU

SOF Support:
This one requires the ability to deliver timely and effective gunfire support. For over 60 years the 5" gun has only been relied upon as a harassment weapon, never a weapon meant for destructive fire. The Course Corrective Fuse has been around for a long time, but only recently has the Navy been testing it on the 5" projectile. Now that it has been proven on the 5" HE round, the 5" gun can now effectively engage a specific target coordinate at maximum ranges. This finally gives the 5" gun a chance to be effective against specific forces and troops. With as light as LCS is and that the 5" gun is about the heaviest weapon it can employ, this gives the LCS the best possible chance to perform NGFS/NSFS and to perform counter battery fire.

It is also possible to produce a laser guided projectile using the guidance control group used by the 155mm Excalibur GPS guided round. A laser seeker head could be put in the nose of the round, and the 5" gun could have a laser guided 5" round capable of engaging targets designated by troops at a rate of fire of 20 rounds per minute. If the navy wanted to produce the Deadeye 5" laser guided round that was proven in the 1980s, the gun would have an extended range laser guided 5" round that could fire at 10 rounds per minute.

The 76mm gun can also engage in NSFS if within range.

Counter Battery:
Previously mentioned with the Course Corrective Fuse and a notional laser guided round.

Helicopter capability:
Since this ship is fitted for ASuW, it would be able to fit medium sized helicopters, specifically the AH-1s and H-60s. In an ASuW mission, it would carry 2 or more AH-1 Sea Cobras and a number of fixed wing Hunter or ScanEagle UAVs. Fire Scout is not needed. The Sea Cobras would be able to engage in anti-boat/anti-swarm engagements. With this in mind I would fit the ship with 2-3 Cobras and maybe 1 H-60. Otherwise on a SOF mission I would have 2 H-60s and 1 Cobra.

Self Defense from ASCMs:
This one deals with the ship's VLS. Since we are dealing with the future here, we should keep in mind what is coming down the pike. LockMart is going to be finishing its new Mk41 capable super-sonic ASCM pretty soon. That will be the length of the Tomahawk (the longest VLS stick the US has). Despite other reports, the ESSM is also in a long stick (long VLS container). So, this ship needs to have the long (strike length) VLS tubes if possible. We would need to be able to accommodate at least 8 of these ASCMs and at least 8 ESSM canisters. How much and what else should be considered here?

Sensors
This one is tough. The LockMart pictures advertize SPY-1F being controlled by the Aegis WDS. That's cool, but that's super expensive...I am FAR more inclined to go with a reduced WDS utilizing the TRS-3D the ships already have and adding the SPQ-9B. That could be washed through the SSDS system the CVN/LHD/LHA/LPD/LSDs have. Those two radars provide a very, very nearly constant 360 degree radar coverage. Super expensive Aegis is probably not necessary here. The SLQ-32 would be a good idea, too. Honestly I am surprised they don't have them as default.

The vessel itself would be built to better construction standards (stronger hull) and the propulsion plant would be reduced to only produce a maximum of 30-33 knots. This 40 knot business requires 100,000 horsepower, and that's just stupid for a ship like this. There is no need for that kind of speed. I imagine we would be looking at a LockMart LCS 125 - 128 meters long.

In the end I think that this ASuW/SOF support ship needs to be equipped as follows:

1 x Mk45 Mod 4 5"/62caliber gun on the bow (or a 76mm gun in its place)
2 x 76mm SR guns on the forward most part of the flight deck (a 3rd if the 5" is replaced by a 76mm)
32 - 48 x Mk41 VLS (16 missiles on either side of the helicopter hangar and the possibility of 8-16 between the 5" gun and the super structure
2 x AH-1 Sea Cobras
8 x Scan Eagle short range UAVs
4 x Hunter long range UAVs
3 - 4 11 meter RHIBs
TRS-3D and SPQ-9B
SLQ-32

Here is how I have it basically blocked out as my first draft:





As a basic outline, what do you think about this ASuW/SOF support version of the LCS?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

..

The LCS might also be of value in an amphib group as an afloat FARP for helicopters, particularly for attack helicopters. The gators might launch an amphibious assualt from over the horizon, and the LCS might close the coast and help to reduce the "iron mountain" of supplies ashore by serving as a fueling and arming platform for helicopters.

The advantage of this is that it would not require a huge redesign or massive investment in unproven "modules."

. Interesting idea! Very interesting!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

The models on this board are terrific.
I like having guns port/starboard and in the bow.
The posters have well thought out the roles/missions and armament packages for each mission area.
I scaled the hull to increase hull depth and deckhouse by a level for each so the deckhouse hangar could accommadate MH-53E/K helos for MCM or SOF support. I particularly wanted to have four helos plus four VTUAVs.
Sideshooter Mk 45 five inch gun would have 21 cell RAM launchers on either side of the gunhouse and marry five gun AAA and RAM SAM with decoy launchers in one neat package that would save deck space and was patented in 1992.
The 8 inch/60 calibre gun would have a long range and harder hitting with optional precision guided rocket/ramjet assist projectiles able to match and exceed ranges of AGS/AGS Lite.
Hull was scaled to allow internal changeover of mission modules ala GD trimaran design which has one active and stowed mission package that did not need port visit to swap out as much as monohull LM design.