Littoral Combat Ships: Are they THAT bad?

How about you make some legitimate points?

The fact that they constantly break down is what makes them bad.

Over budget, constant mechanical failures, unable to defend itself in any meaningful way.
It's a very expensive floating target

The need for a 45 knot ship has never been adequately justified or explained. None of the missions supposedly designated for the LCS requires a 45 knot ship. 45 knots for a ship of this size requires a very powerful, complex engine to achieve, which isn't necessarily a problem, except that it means the ship has much higher maintenance requirements than it otherwise would have if they chosen something more reasonable, like say 25 knots as the top speed.

Now factor in the fact that the LCS was supposed to have a minimalist crew, and you start to see the problem; high maintenance ship with a minimalist crew is a recipe for disaster.

How about making a criticism that is actually a real thing for me to argue against.

>Over budget

Congress slashing the budget for developing specific mission modules and then whining about the slow pace of developing said mission modules (which increases the overall cost).

>constant mechanical failures

Not constant, and caused by the USN trying to run too few crew.

>unable to defend itself in any meaningful way.

"Only a 57mm gun and a SeaRAM."

>if they chosen something more reasonable, like say 25 knots as the top speed.
>tfw your "fast" frigate gets dabbed on by fleet carriers and WWI era destroyers

Literally a single hit by any modern missile would sink an LCS.

They are worthless pieces of shit and you are a kike amerimutt for shilling them

The literally isn't any need for a "fast" frigate. The whole idea is a solution looking for a problem.

It was never intended to fight a massive war with a near peer navy, genius

>Literally a single hit by any modern missile would sink an LCS.
What ship isn't this true of?

Because we need Burkes chasing Somali pirates. I can see we're dealing with a bigbrain here

Thanks for letting your mask slip so early, it saved us time.

>Because we need Burkes chasing Somali pirates. I can see we're dealing with a bigbrain here
Not him but what kind of a brainlet thinks you need a 45 knot boat to chase somali pirates?

One surrendered to a foreign nation on its maiden voyage.

cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/us-war-ship-stuck-leaves-1.4601103

The LCS is a knee jerk reaction to Millennium Challenge 2002 where America notices it needs fast frigates to counteract asymmetric warfare against carrier groups. America got scared because China has been improving on asymmetric warfare against carriers so much that they rushed the development of LCS and they got a wasted product.

Except the Navy explicitly said that it was supposed to go into the littorals and fight wars. In other words, go into the littorals of the target nation and secure them. That means going up against missile boats and fast attack craft like these nasty little buggers. The LCS has no way of defending itself from this threat.

Attached: Chinese_Type_22_Stealth_Fast_Attack_Craft_.jpg (570x410, 61K)

>somali pirates going 40+ knots
must be some orky shit

Nice straw man faggot

>Because we need Burkes chasing Somali pirates. I can see we're dealing with a bigbrain here

So we need a fast frigate with high maintenance and carries minesweeping modules to chase Somali pirates now. Wow, its like using F-35 to bomb ISIS because stealth is very useful in bombing mudhuts.

A 25 knot frigate would be perfectly adequate for anti-piracy patrols. There is absolutely no operational need for a 3500-ton vessel to go 45 knots.

Attached: Offshore_Patrol_Vessel_1800_Sea_Axe.jpg (1300x767, 188K)

Stop getting caught up in the semantical "fast frigate" meme and you'll recognize we don't need heavy destroyers chasing down somalis in speed boats. Modularity is a selling point to Congress, where's the legitimate criticism here?

It'd also do well as a modern destroyer escort. The Navy has apparently told our merchant marine that in the event of a big war, they're on their fucking own. Which is suicidal.

>The cost went up because politics
And went over budget
>Too few crew caused prolems
Minimalist crew by design
>Only a 57mm gun and SeaRam
What's the production numbers on those missles? I forgot about the gun, so I'll give you that.

Where are it's weapons?

>Except the Navy explicitly said that it was supposed to go into the littorals and fight wars
Among other things. It was supposed to be the cheap and available counterpart to the Zumwalt. A light, all-purpose ship that could be reconfigured for asymmetric conflicts- not a bad idea.
>The LCS has no way of defending itself from this threat
Speed, superior sensors to detect it first, seaRAM...

no you fucking brain dead retard, lcs is taking over role what historically has been done by coast gaurd in murrican conflicts aka policing waters of conflicts usa is involved in with added benefits of modular multirole platfrom

>you'll recognize we don't need heavy destroyers chasing down somalis in speed boats.
We don't need "fast frigates" to do that either. Sure, purchase a lower-end ship to take care of lower-end tasks, but the LCS is a fucking horrible solution to that problem. There is no operational need for a 45-knot ship. A slower, less expensive vessel could do the same types of jobs, and do them with less maintenance costs, and fewer break-downs.

Attached: Offshore_Patrol_Vessel_3750_Holland.jpg (1300x767, 153K)

>lcs is taking over role what historically has been done by coast gaurd in murrican conflicts
The Navy said that the LCS would be a ship that would go into the littorals of the target nation and secure them. Also, why on earth would you want to replace the Coast guard with the LCS when the Coast Guard already has superior vessels?

Attached: USCG_National_Security_Cutter_BERTHOLF_(WMSL-750).jpg (800x475, 52K)

cos they got shit to do ? cos lcs while undergunned by video games logic are significantly better armed than CG cutter, cos they actually can do asw, mine warfare, minors logictics tasks, transport, escort when coasts are secure or yet to be secured ?
i am not here to argue if program failed or not i am here to tell that idea of lcs is incredibly useful

I'm still not seeing any legitimate criticism here.

Everyone is assuming greater speed = greater cost when there have been numerous congressional reports on greater fuel efficiency, to the tune of double digit savings, over previous propulsion systems. Over the boats' lifespans, this will be a monumental savings.

It's not like they're expected to go in alone and clear out everything without support. The Type 22s probably won't even be deployed unless they have air cover, and considering their small size, even the Hellfires mounted on a LCS would significantly damage one, much less the Harpoons they're planning on mounting on LCS.

The LCS cost up to $600mn each.
How is this NOT a colossal failure?

Having an expensive, unreliable ship to do what a cheaper, more reliable vessel could do just as well is a pretty damning criticism, especially if the idea is to save money.

>i am here to tell that idea of lcs is incredibly useful
So what is the operational reason for a 45-knot ship? There isn't one. It's a hoax.

>The LCS has no way of defending itself from this threat.

Besides its 57mm gun, SeaRAM or anything in a 8 cell VLS if equipped. And this is ignoring you pretending a single LCS will try to solo Iran.

If all LCS did was piracy patrols you would have an argument.

can cheaper wessel escort carrier and provide asw ellement for it ?
can it keep up with fast coastal enemy in asymetrical conflict ?
will it have endurance and range lcs has ?
how much money do you save by having mutiple platofrms do to diferent tasks compared to one multitasking ?

>And this is ignoring you pretending a single LCS will try to solo Iran.
That's more or less what the Navy said that it was supposed to do. If all they wanted was a patrol vessel, then why didn't they just say that in the first place? Moreover, if the LCS is to be regarded as a patrol vessel, it would still have to regarded as an abysmal failure, because there are plenty of better options within that category.

>If all LCS did was piracy patrols you would have an argument.
So again, what is the operational reason for having a 45-knot vessel? There isn't one. It's a hoax.

Attached: Holland_Class_Ocean_Going_Patrol_Vessel_3750_Zr_Ms_Zeeland.jpg (1300x767, 233K)

>That's more or less what the Navy said that it was supposed to do.
Please point us to where anyone in the navy said that the LCS fleet alone was going to win against Iran. I'm not sure why you think a 45-knot corvette with the kind of aviation facilities you'd normally see on a destroyer would be useless, even ignoring the many other things it could do.

>That's more or less what the Navy said that it was supposed to do.
link
>That's more or less what the Navy said that it was supposed to do.
thats not what happened
> it would still have to regarded as an abysmal failure
cos you said so
>because there are plenty of better options within that category.
what patroll vessel can provide carrier asw ellement ? oh and it has to sustain 30kn+

>So again, what is the operational reason for having a 45-knot vessel? There isn't one. It's a hoax.
good job on ignoring my post faggot

A ship that can't operate without breaking down is about as useless as any ship could ever be. Having a huge, complicated engine with heavy maintenance requirements and putting in a ship designed to carry only a minimalist crew is a recipe for disaster.

dont you have BB threads to make? fuck me you make armatard look reasonble

>what patroll vessel can provide carrier asw ellement
The LCS doesn't even have any torpedo launchers, so how is it going to sink a submarine? It is entirely dependent on the helicopters for ASW. If a submarine manages to go the drop the LCS before a helicopter can be launched, or while the helicopter is busy searching another area, the LCS will be helpless. It will be destroyed.

Attached: MK46_torpedo_launch.jpg (2253x1429, 829K)

>It is entirely dependent on the helicopters for ASW.

wellcome to asw 101, dont you have bb threads to make ?

ok lets make it simple then as basic stuuf seems to be beyond you
WHAT PATROL BOAT CAN KEEP UP WITH CARRIER
?

Yes, the tri-hull independance design is the biggest piece of shit I've ever worked on. I've had inspections where the hull had a literal 3ft long crack, the front gun had to have a "shim" welded in place to prevent the gun from shooting itself. The engines are kraut design and only krauts can work on them.

-ndt/welding inspector

>The engines are kraut design and only krauts can work on them.

>LM2500
just do yourself a favor and end your own life please

It has only one seahawk, which is pretty damn limiting.

There is no operational need for a patrol boat that can keep up with a carrier, just as there is no operational need for a 45-knot "fast frigate."

It still seems reasonable that a dedicated ASW vessel should at bare minimum have a torpedo launcher so it can actually sink submarines, you know? Cause right now, there could a submarine directly beneath the LCS and it would be unable to do anything about it.

>Seahawk
>limiting in ASW

Full retard.

Dedicated ASW vessels use helicopters as their primary sub killer.

The Chinese has better boats with modular shipping containers.

>The need for a 45 knot ship has never been adequately justified or explained
One of the mission modules is supposed to be ASW. 45 kts can turn an otherwise deadly torpedo into a kinematic defeat, while giving countermeasures more time to work. The latter point is also applicable in the MCM role against CAPTOR-type mines.

>bare minimum have a torpedo launcher so it can actually sink submarines
remember the good auld days when you used depth charges on submarines
now that was a war *sips*

>Only one seahawk

This was the limiting factor, its not possible to have one ready at all times if you only have one.

>So what is the operational reason for a 45-knot ship? There isn't one. It's a hoax.

So that it can keep pace with smaller missile boats and Corvettes that have speeds in the 30-40kt range.

A 25kt ship in this role would be worthless because it can't afford to be slow if it's in an environment with smaller, faster missile or torpedo boats. The risk is too great that it would be caught and overwhelmed.

Not only that, but a

clitoral combat ship

heh

The freedom class is fine. The other is absolute trash and needs to be scrapped. If the US needs a corvette speed ship, it should invest in a corvette and just have the Freedom Class as the LCS. 650 million a ship is more than top end frigates cost.

Undercrewed, severely undercrewed. Crew serving aboard them complain of being worked to death all the time.

>you are a kike amerimutt for shilling them
oh look, it's the resident bugman that keeps shilling for the PLA all the fucking time

>Crew serving aboard them complain of being worked to death all the time.
Isn't that true of every surface vessel in the USN right now?

THIS!!!
Only 4-10 IT's on the ship and only 2-3 of them ever know how to work the radios, not to mention every fucking thing has an IP now
>source: Sailor

>every fucking thing has an IP now
lmao i'm so sorry
just pull up a """blue screen""" and i'll fix it okay

top or bottom?

To an extent, but in the context of being rough these ships are particularly grueling.

Ugly as fuck.

Aluminum

>Not after the Navy spent tens of billions of dollars on it

so the amount of money spent equals if its bad or not?

oh boy LOL

Idk if u noticed or not, but it has a spot for a helo on the back of it.... And they have room to add torpedo launchers.

As we know, military power correlates to aesthetics. This is the single ugliest thing I've ever seen.

>Ill-matching concrete-colour. Is this a brutalist ship?
>World's tiniest turret with an incredibly steep slope
>Helipad is indescribably awful
>Random heap of leftover construction equipment on the top

There are literally no redeeming features. There is nothing. The Chinese will laugh. The Iranians will giggle. The Somalians will cry when they see this thing.

Actually, the optimal flank speed for a fast ship in the 2-10,000T range with a non-nuclear engine and anything resembling a displacement hull (i.e., no SES or foils) is ~35-36kts. Anything faster than that, and you run into serious compromises, just like LCS did; both designs were so heavily optimized to *try* to get to 45, that they had to sacrifice just about everything else.

This should have been obvious; the USN spent the entire Cold War trying out new technologies that would break the speed limits faced by existing designs. While certain hull designs *did* get up to insane speeds (60-80kts!), serious vibration problems, poor performance in high seas, and maintenance challenges from the experimental hull designs caused the USN to largely give up on them.

Ironically, the USN *did* find one way to push a ship over 40kts, while still using an old-fashioned displacement hull--but reactors have been restricted to CVNs and SS(B)Ns since the Cold War ended.

Based yeah poster

Attached: Agincourt_postcard.jpg (800x520, 52K)

It's kinda late, but I'll try to sum it up without leaving *too* much out...

LCS was conceived as a "cheap" ship that would solve all of USN's problems on the low end. The Perrys were getting old, SM-1MR was being retired, and the Peace Dividend had killed all plans for a replacement throughout the '90s.

There was a lot of debate over where the USN should go next. It wasn't just LCS; there was also the strategic mobility debate (the Army wanted a brigade anywhere on the planet in 4 days--and the rest of its division in 5), the traditional high-low debate, and a serious concern regarding the high cost of sailors (over a ship's lifetime, they can easily cost more than the ship did). One of the proposals that came out of the debate was called StreetFighter, and it called for a large number of small (500 tons), fast, heavily-armed boats, each fitted out to do only one task (SUW, ASW, MIW, etc.), that could swarm around, absorb casualties (at 500T, the focus was on rescuing crews, not surviving hits), and give the enemy fits. It had its pros and cons, but Big Navy *hated* it. So, when it sort of got forced on them, it wound up getting twisted into a mess. Big Navy insisted that it had to be capable of self-deploying to the theater, which threw the 500T designs right out the window (can't carry enough fuel to cross oceans). That alone increased the size to 3,000T (it would later balloon to 4,000). And the requirements were a mish-mash of StreetFighter plans and more conventional designs.

Requirements included:
*Replace the Cyclone class of PCs; only, with a frigate gun, advanced missiles, and the ability to run down a drug boat (with a multi-thousand-ton corvette!)
*Replace the Avenger class of minesweepers; only, with a steel hull that meant it had to use helos and UUVs from stand-off ranges
*Replace the Perry class of FFGs in the escort, patrol, and general-purpose roles

Oh, and it had to do it with only a handful of men, in order to save money.

Aren't powerful engines which can go to high speed, but don't like run at max capacity all the time supposed to be rather chill on maintenance... ?

Based

So, the StreetFighter plan of tiny, single-purpose ships that needed a tender to operate any theater larger than the PG, morphed into designs that were larger than the Perrys, but carried almost no weapons, relatively few sensors, less than half the men, and yet it was supposed to do everything all three of those classes did. How? By being "modular", the new (at the time) catch phrase.

So, LCS would be a cheap, empty hull (they called it a "sea frame", rather than a "ship"), into which modules would be loaded at a nearby friendly port(!) within a matter of hours. That never happened; the modules were never built as advertised. MIW is *still* nerfed and overweight; ASW is basically just a helo and a tail; and SUW's new DARPA missiles were cancelled after utterly failing trials.

And I'm too tired to even get into the stupid speed requirement, the fire control system that can only aim the main gun manually, with a joystick (yes, the same gun that's supposed to be the first line of defense against ASCMs), the weight issue, LCS-2's galvanic and cracking issues, the use of civilian damage control standards to save money (it's not about armor belts anymore; it's about running redundant lines in different places so that when one chunk of the ship blows up, the intact parts of the ship can still run all of the surviving gizmos), the minimal-manning fiasco that the USN tried to salvage with Blue-Gold, and then that failed, and on and on and on.

It's not fair to compare LCS to the F-35 anymore, if it ever was. A better comparison would be FCS, which had a lot of the same false promises (It'll be cheaper! It needs fewer men! It's light enough to fit in a C-130!). Even then, the Army finally saw reason, whereas the USN has stubbornly continued buying really expensive speedboat minesweepers that can't really do much else.

Not him, but it's not really the engines that are the problem; it's the stuff between the engines and the props.

The propulsion system is atrocious; it's hard to describe just how bad the reduction gearing is.

Fantastic summary.

It is a shame with the LCSs - as there are most certainly workable ideas and concepts mixed into the shit concoction, but they've been toxified by the programme.

Basically the idea is what China achieved with their recent Shipping crate systems but completely fucked up. As much as you have to hate the changs, it seems like their idea was a better solution to the rapid-equip systems than the LCS, tho we all know China's likely don't work properly either but at least their's are on platforms that don't cost 650 million a pop.

Thus

China created the container system and Russia copied it inferiorly.

>57mm and twin 37mm gun
>Harpoon ASM
>SeaRAM
light for a ship of its size but definitely there. Problem is they seem to have wanted a gunboat that could carry a helicopter, and ended up with a frigate that can only just defend itself

Hey guys what if we build a ship
-Thats modular and only needs to go to port to change modules
-But wait, in order to make sure the modules are ready in the ports, we need to build special warehouses on each port for each module and the specific engineers for maintenance of each and every module on every port that the ship can visit.
-We also need to train specialists that can operate the modules and make sure there is one available to be shuttled into the port when needed.

Captain, what if we just put every module on a shipping container so that you can store it in a normal warehouse and then do plug and play for every ship that needs the module.

Lol thats cheap and America is rich we dont need to be cheapskates

>Only 4-10 IT's on the ship and only 2-3 of them ever know how to work the radios, not to mention every fucking thing has an IP now
>Only 4-10 ITs
Who gives a fuck, ITs are useless. My ship has fucking 3

You seem to think a 3000 ton frigate should have the armament of a 6000 ton frigate.

It's unfortunate that you had to wrap lies like Blue Gold failing around nuggets of truth.

>things that were proposed but never implimented

Boomer subs have been doing blue-gold crews almost since the dawn of time. It works well enough for a nuclear-powered submarine, it should work fine for a clittoral combat ship with a tenth of the maintenance problems that come up

That's a smart way to think about it.

I thought those were destroyers.

Give them to the Coast guard, build real warships for the Navy. LCS is a worthless overpriced piece of shit, whoever approved spending taxpayers money to buy these fucking things should be hanged

No, they didn't.

Look up Stanflex. It's been around for decades, now.