I believe that the LCS should become the FFG(X) and be in series production with the Lockheed or GD design built around the Israeli features of a scaled down Aegies, sixteen SSMs, a 32 cell VLS and H-60 helos because you need the firepower to withstand the missile threat in littoral waters. 

My missile loadout would consist of sixteen Harpoons on the LM version with sixteen VLS on either side of the hangar entrance and retain the ability to swap out mission modules below main deck with the stern and side launch/recovery of USVs, boats and UUVs for minesweeping and ASW and Special Forces.  The gun would be the Italian Oto Melara LW lightweight version of the 5 inch DP gun with 64 calibre barrel, stealth housing and ROF of 35rds/min/gun with the usual chaff/flare/Nulka decoys and EW warfare setup with jamming.  For close-in defense use the Israeli Barak or RAM system.

VLS loadout might be eight quad pak ESSM for 64 local area defense, eight VL-ASROC, eight SM-6 and eight Tac Toms.

These LCS already cost alot so perhaps fitting them out with substantial armaments might be the way to go to enhance survivability and flexibility(VLS can accomodate SM-2, SM-6, VL-ASROC and Tac Tom for strike)

 

Herald: The problem is the total lack of appropriate frigate replacement designs, so we make do with what we've got, design wise. The GD version would be pretty well suited to the role of replacing the old Perry class FFGs. Okay, I wouldn't put anything like that kind of armament on it, but you do need a decent loadout.

 

Go for the GD design, add an eight cell VLS, just the off the shelf Mk41, with quad-packed ESSMs, which would yield 32 missiles, which is pretty much the same as the old Perrys, and good enough. Add in a few Harpoons, or possibly just another few VLS cells for Standard missiles (for use in the anti-shipping role, as seems to be the habit these days, rather than the Harpoons). Keep the other armament, with the possible exception of the 57mm gun, which I might replace with the Oto Melara 76mm, with the newer Italian Davide ammunition, which gives precision strike capability out to about 35km. This would give the ships more than enough armament to do the job, i.e. commerce protection, drug interdiction, light ASW (using the modular fitout from the existing LCS designs), and so on.

 

At the moment, we've got Burkes off doing routine policing missions, where they are simply wasted - why use a billion dollar destroyer, to do the job of a ship one fifth their price! Also, if the USN actually want to go for their 300 ship force, then they really need a cheap 'bulk' frigate. It is the same way the Gipper intended to get his 600 ship Navy - lots of Perrys, keep the Knox and Garcias, etc...

The question is, why do you want a frigate?

 

The reasons are listed below with no particular order:

 

1. I can't afford to buy destroyers.

2. Enemy has too many subs, need cheap escorts.

3. I can't afford to operate destroyers.

4. Primary enemy are pirates armed with AK-47s and RPGs.

 

LCS itself is the rebirth of WW2 destroyer, destroyer escort (including APDs) and landing ship support. This role was largely taken by frigates after the war.

 

You want a air-surveilance scout ship for escort? No problem, install SPS-49 and you get yourself an air-surveilence scout.

 

You want shore bombardment? No problem, just strip some NLOS-LS to the helicopter deck and you get it done.

 

Littoral mine warfare and underwater screening? Are you kidding me? LCS IS designed for that in the beginning.

 

What the USN doesn't need is a 3000 tonne ship that can only shoot a few dozen ~50km multipurpose missile.

 

Israelis should operate more subs, at least 5 more, with indigenous 1500km/500kg stealth cruise missiles and evolving patrol ships/missile boats. That makes more sense than to operate big large targets with hundreds of sailors on board.

 

Things are different for people live besides rough seas. The minimum size of patrol craft in those places are  2000 tonne ships, and it's hard to resist the urge not to put some more things on them.

Just for informational purposes, the LCS, MMC varient is what Israel is looking at:
http://www.gdlcs.com/mmc/index.html

Note"" target="_blank">link href_cetemp=" link" target="_blank">link that it has 32 VLS tubes (more if you use the quad packs for the ESSM), 8 harpoons, ASW torpedoes and two CIWS-- it's far more capable in every way then the OHP class frigate.
OTH, I have heard some claims that the modifications would make the ship less seaworthy and harder to deploy as well as taking up a great deal of the modular deck.  That of course wouldn't be a problem for the Israeli's, but would be a deal killer for the USN.
  A bigger question is how much more would it cost?  GD says it's affordable, but I trust defense contractors about as much as I trust used car salesmen.

 

Herald