Littoral Combat Ship... Can we have some, please?

Discussion in 'The Fleet' started by WhizzbangDai, Nov 20, 2008.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

?
  1. Yes

    100.0%
  2. No

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004160.html

    I'm not in the Navy (yet) but I follow procurement and suchlike, and I came across these - it looks a fantastic piece of kit, and I was wondering if RN was planning on getting anything like them?

    Modular, fast, cheap(ish), small yet heli capable, advanced? As i said, can we get in on the act, please

    (Maybe with that new 155mm gun their developing instead of the 57mm on the Septic's ones :thumright: )
     
  2. janner

    janner War Hero Book Reviewer

    Is this a follow on from the Triton trials?
     
  3. "Littoral Combat Ship" - Looks like a return to the old fashioned Gunboat to me. The RN could probably do with a few, just like the old says. Send a Gunboat then all those wogs and darkies had better mind their manners sharpish what?
     
  4. Jack77 I must agree gobby Colonials and Convicts need to be slapped down occassionally. Next they will want a Republic.

    Nutty
     
  5. silverfox

    silverfox War Hero Moderator Book Reviewer

    Capabilities are similar to those in the initial spec for the FSC.

    (Future Surface Combatant - T23 replacement)
     
  6. Oh no they're not. LCS is primarily to counter asymmetirc threats (FIACS, mines, SSC/SSK etc) but not all at the same time. There is little or no land attack / deepwater ASW involved. Nearest FSC related thing is the mooted C3 variant.

    The GD trimaran is a development of the Austal Benchiguela Express - an aluminium fast ferry design (Triton was steel) and is many things, including pig ugly. BTW sticking a 155mm gun on it would add 30% to its weight (when you add in structural re-inforcement, the mount, ammo and RATTAM) stopping it bieng fast.
     
  7. silverfox

    silverfox War Hero Moderator Book Reviewer

    so the FSC will have no littoral/MCM etc capablity? Different to what I have been briefed on.....
     
  8. Ah, thanks boffin.

    I saw in the reading though the modularity of the LCS meant that they could add on....er...modules, for whatever role they needed it to do? ie sub hunter, minesweeper, SF carrier....

    Just seems to me (albeit with between little and less strategic fleet usage knowledge) that having lots of these cheaper ships would be more useful than say half the number of super-powerful destroyers? Fly the flag and do most of the jobs the Navy is currently doing.

    Though i'm not saying abandon destroyers and such - keep them to protect the new carriers, for when a real shooty war breaks out, but let these do the work in the meantime?

    However, i'm sure someone will tell me whats wrong with that idea... :thumright:
     
  9. Depends how you define littoral and what you mean by capability. There isn't much out in public. Beedall as ever has some good sources

    http://frn.beedall.com/fsc.htm

    It may well have USVs for MCM etc, but the C1/C2 variants will not be small, fast, get in and mix it with the surface threat ships like LCS.
     
  10. silverfox

    silverfox War Hero Moderator Book Reviewer

    well the littoral region is defined as coastal sea areas and that portion of the land which is susceptible to influence or support from the sea.

    Now how long is a piece of string? If you consider TLAM an influence then the littoral becomes a mighty big place!

    I don't think we need to get excited about pictures just yet, but focus on capabilities. Which you mention. Current thinking - or rather it was current when I was briefed a few months ago, is along the lines of the LSC, but not using that as an example. Which is why I said 'similar' in my original post.
     
  11. Bad ship unless you have guaranteed overhead air support to keep the bad guys air and heavy hitter ship assets at bay.


    USN can buy ships that are glorified FPB's because they will always have a squadron or two of F-18's in the air in the area of interest, we won't, so will need a proper anti air and anti surface capability.
     
  12. Seaweed

    Seaweed War Hero Book Reviewer

    We've been down this hole looking for 'more, cheaper' ships so many times before. R-class battleships (built for the Baltic where they never went), Type 14s (started cracking up off Iceland), Tribals (open mounting not too cheerful in high NBC state), Type 21s (also started cracking up) .. limited role ships always produce problems when a navy with global reach has to do ops with them of a type deliberately excluded from the initial design to make them 'cheaper'. An all-singing, all-dancing, go-anywhere, any-weather navy needs all-singing, all-dancing, go-anywhere, any-weather ships. The only alternative is a political decision that we aren't going to do as much in the future. Hence for instance ruling out out-of-area ops and agreeing that the Crabs would protect us, turned out to be not a helpful decision in 1982.
     
  13. But surely all-singing al-dancing, go-anywhere, any-weather ships cost a lot, which kinda prevents you having the more numerous general role types - such as the corvettes above?

    Plus, ze Germans have been testing a lightweight 155mm gun based upon their Pz2000 Self propelled artillery gun's turret - so it weighs no more than that 57 Melera thats mounted on the LCS

    anyway I quite like the Trimeran shape - its not that ugly.
     
  14. Corvettes are not general purpose ships, they are very limited capability ships in which you have to trade off one of the essentials.
     
  15. Just returned from the far east and saw these ships that the singapore navy is operating. Looks pretty capable and would fit our lean manning profile. Needs a bigger gun though!

    Formidable class
     
  16. For a ship that size I think the gun's big enough. Anything bigger would be to heavy and would slow/ weigh the whole thing down. Also, the small caliber means they can carry more ammunition. Its got quite a decent rate of fire too Cliktey click!

    Instead of deploying two Type 22's to Somalia would a few of these jobs not do the trick? Do you need Quad Harpoon launchers and CIWIS when taking on 7.62 and RPG's?
     
  17. Johnny Frog has been doing a pretty good Maritime Defence Diplomacy job in Africa, Middle East and Asia for a good few years using smaller (and frankly) not very capable warships - Gunboat Diplomacy clearly alive and well but not being done by us.

    I don't like the idea of our giving up on being a "proper navy" but the way things are going that may be upon us sooner rather than later anyway and if we want to retain influence maybe the thinking needs to be reviewed.

    Stand by - Inbound!
     
  18. After some extensive googling it appears that we might have missed the boat when it come's to corvettes. The US is designing it's LCS, and Sweden, Germany, Denmark, Italy, South Africa, India, China, Israel, Poland, Turkey, Greece, and Russia and probably others use them in one way or another.

    This is a list including large, small, NATO and Non-NATO countries that all see the need for this type of Ship.

    The South African Valour class can carry Lynx, as can a few others. All are smaller, cheeper but still capable to defend themselves against all but the most advance Air / Naval assets.

    The biggest problem that I can see is the Logistics, with most of these Ships only being able to be at Sea for aprox 2 or 3 weeks before needing resuply.

    Thoughts?
     

Share This Page