1. Aft missile cells foul helo operations.
2. Gun too light weight for use. No anti-terrorist defense?
3. Why NLOS on a combatant this large and expensive?
4. What is the purpose of SSM Harpoon? Helo launched NAShM makes more sense. Same for ship mounted TTs. Helo llaunched weapons make more sense-especially if RBTs are included in the VLS loadout anyway.
5. Torpedo decoy and missile decoys seem to be sparse for such an expensive unit.
6. The hull itself is a nose diver meaning the hull will break in two just between the unnecessary NLOS and Mark 57 PVLS as it pounds itself to bits against the waves.

Blowing taps as it sinks...........

Herald

>   There is no anti-missile defense in the aft arc.  A RAM launcher (or 2) could both cover this arc and add some additional defensive capability.

Absalons are decent-want more open ocean capability than as-built into the design. Also SLOW.

Herald

1.  They foul helo ops and take up the best place to launch/recover deployable systems.
Agreed.
2.  Why do you think it's too light?  If this ship doesn't have NGFS tasking, then a 57mm is fine. Takes up a lot less space than a 5" and provides useful anti-missile and anti-small boat capability.
Insignificant in AAW. Anti-smallboat you might have an argument for secondary  gun, but auto cannon is  better. No ship can consider itself out of the NGFS mission. If called upon a speedboat with a 60mm mortar will have to supply NGFS. 
3.  There is talk of putting NLOS containers on Burkes, and LCS has space dedicated for them.  They take up a lot less space and weight than PVLS/MK41 cells, and the missiles themselves should be a lot cheaper than ESSM in surface to surface mode.
TOO SHORT RANGED and wastes perimeter space better dedicated to primary naval missions  Use the 5" instead.
4, 5 & 6 Agreed.

Like the F100, this looks like a ship that wants to be a Burke or DDG-1000.

And just like the Zumwalt, it is not fleet mission oriented to sea denial/sea control/sea USE.

For the low-end, I personally think the USN needs a ships that can perform tasks other than AAW and strike.  Littoral ASW is best done with offboard systems, not towed arrays and hull mounted sonars on frigates. 

Agreed.

Enhancing MIW capability is a major hot-button issue right now as well.  As is soft power projection capabilities aligned with the Global Fleet Station concept and the GWOT.

Agreed. The LCS is a badly though out in concept overglorified high speed mine warfare ship optimized for MIW.

I don't think a primarily AAW/strike stealth frigate helps much in any of these areas.

A general purpose frigate though, does.

ESSM provides 360 degree anti-missile defenses.  RAM might be nice, but not required.

DDG-1000 uses a similar aft VLS system, so they must've come up with a means to make this work.

ESSM is the 50km-ish missile that are used as general purpose missiles. RAM is close-in weapons system. These two function differently and have different engagement characteristics. For self-defense against supersonic sea-skimmers, RAM is a necessary, while ESSM may not do you much good then engaging 3 or 4 missiles before hit by 5th one. Herald had a good analysis a few days ago on this thread. Of course, having both is great, but these are not enough to protect, say, oil takers, against smart enemy. 8 cell (32xESSM) is great, though I prefer 24 cell (32xESSM + 4xVLASROC).

Let's face it, DDG-1000 is a heavy cruiser of 21th century. I don't know what CGX would become, but it seems that it will end up becoming a battles cruiser (absolutely so if powered by nuclear reactor). Frigates of the day are WW2 destroyers, and are in the process of becoming WW2 light cruisers. Although times has changed and mission also changed a lot, some principles didn't change much. You can't you 16" guns on WW2 destroyers, and you can't you that many VLS cells of the same length on a 3000t-ish modern or future frigate. Mk.41 cell is at least 7m long, and cooling system, electric system and other stuff require more space. PLVS won't change that much. A warship must have enough internal space to acoomodate for crew, toilet, kichen, food and water storage, toilet paper rolls and a lot other stuff.

Agreed. The LCS is a badly though out in concept overglorified high speed mine warfare ship optimized for MIW.

A general purpose frigate though, does.


Herald

LCS is actually not a ridiculous project. It is exactly what DD/DE/DM/APD of WW2 US navy are doing.

Actually, some Summer class DD was modified into DM to conduct minesweeping missions prior to amphibious assault. A lot of real navy jobs, some are tough, were done by those little ships while CVAs chace suicidal jap big ships. Some DDs were modified into high speed transfort during WW2 and re-designated as APD.

 

The problem is not that those kind of ships are not needed. The problem is that USN project managers screwed it up. I don't know what USN admirals are planning, but it is probably better if they scrap the project and restart it under a new name - general purpose FUBAR ship. Smaller crafts of the fleet always do the dirty jobs in harms way, and are expected to get blown up and sink, hence "disposable."

Actually, the with ESSMs embarked there is very little reason to have a RAM mounting. The reason is simple. The ESSM is effective right down to 1.5km (it's mininum effective range). It's is more effective against sea skimmers (higher PK) than the RAM. In otherwords, if you miss with an ESSM or SM-2 or whatever and the missile enters the 8km envelope of the RAM, you are just as well served taking an additional ESSM shot as you are taking a RAM shot. The illuminator issue is a non-issue with newer ships like the DDG-1000 or the German frigates because they carry an X-band multi-function AESA radar which can perform ICW illumination for a practically unlimited number of ESSMs in the air at any one time.

For this reason the DDG-1000 does not carry any RAM mountings or even Phalanx mountings. For engagement under 1.5km the DDG-1000 simply brings the 57mm guns to bear. The 57mm guns fire 3.7 pre-fragmented programmable proximity fused (3P) rounds a second throwing about 8,880 3mm tungsten pellets at a sea skimmer a second. Due to vastly increased kill radius of each round and the sear volume of fire the slower firing 57s just as effective as a 50 rounds per second 20mm gatling whose projectile must actually contact the target directly to kill it.

Whether install RAM or not depends on threat level and mission. If you're gonna operate in areas where enemies can lobe 10 C802 missiles at you simultaneously, you'd better have RAM installed. As for APAR or CEA-FAR type X-band radar, that's a must in the future.

Zumwalt is still a concept under development. The USN will test the concept one by one to see if they fit requirement. We'll see what's next. But for now, we should look at proven design and evaluate need from evolving threat and mission requirement to determine what can be done in near term, on budget.

 

It's too bad that new USCG cutters don't seem to have provision for sonars. They seem to be doing better job acquiring ships than the Navy.

Something I been thinking about:

The NLOS-LS is, in effect, doing little more than pitching over-glorified Hellfires (same basic dimensions/weight, 7-inch diameter, barely 6 feet long and roughly 50kg): sure, the multimode seekerhead is nice, and that 10kg (give or take) warhead is good for a number of battlefield targets, and the 40km range isn't bad either.

But as a fairly predominant armament for a naval vessel?

 

I understand the whole "littoral = coastal operations" rationale, and such a weapon would put a hurt on numerous shore targets, especially AFVs.

But unless the naval application is anything but OPVs, FACs, and other small surface craft, it'll take nothing less than a swarm of PAMs to do significant damage against larger vessels and targets.

The other issue, and perhaps more importantly, is range: 40km from the shore (although I'd assume we actually want the PAMs to hit stuff a bit farther inland) means you're in range of just about every coastal SSM/ASM and artillery piece (assuming 155mm).

Now your LCS may generally be a reduced-signature (stealthy) platform,..but only until you launch those SH-60s and Fire Scouts: they are not stealth platforms, and any coastal radars will pick them up with ease.

Problem here is, some innocent-looking fisherman could all the sudden pop up a MANPADS and splash your very limited air asset, even if a suicidal move on his part, he's still crippled the LCS's ability considerably by splashing part of its air component.

And seeing as there is no mention whatsoever anywhere to equip the LCS's NLOS array with any form of anti-radar PAM, or even an ESSM-ARM type, then unless you have carrier support to tame and tackle any radiating threats (coastal search radars), your LCS'es are going to be hurting in fairly short time.

 

Suggestion: unless you're using a very small OPV/FAC, I'm talking even less than half the size of LCS, use something bigger than the NLOS-LS system.

The PAM would be fine fired from something quite smaller and, yes, disposable (lower risk/less expensive).

But something LCS sized (frigates), here's where I'd say throw out the NLOS launchers, and replace them with more ESSM-capable VLS cells (preferrably the quad packers).

My reasoning: if it fits ESSM (10-inch diameter), it'll fit a G-MLRS rocket (9-inch diameter, 70km range), or better yet that P44 round (7-inch diameter) under development that can throw a Hellfire- or PAM- sized warhead (almost 30 pounds) to MLRS ranges (60+km), with a multimode seeker to boot.

 

Although I do like the notion of just how lethal the 57mm gun can prove against missiles, and aircraft who so stupidly flew in close the vessel,

the 5-inch gun gives us considerably more range and throw weight, with today's current PGMs having even greater ranges than the PAM fired from NLOS containers (Italy is aiming for 100km with its 127mm Volcano, and USN-developed ERGMs and BTERMs and ANSRs or whatever all outrange the PAM's 40km).

 

As for making the helo do all your ASW work: again, all fine and dandy until that MANPADS or other shore-launched SAM takes down your helos.

Seriously, how hard is it to install single (if triples are just too heavy and expensive) ASW torp tubes on the beams of the ship?

 

As for a comment elsewhere (here, or that new Flight Burke thread?) about deploying those newly-developed anti-torpedoes from a RAM launcher: that's a NO-GO. RAMs are something like 4-5 inches in diameter, with flip-out fins.

Those ATTs are something around 6&1/2 inches. Put them lower to the waterline, at least no more than deck height, maybe even like those old Russian RBU-type multiple round AWS rocket launchers.

But never sacrifice you anti-missile systems' rounds.

Hell, you could even arm the UUVs and USVs with them if Mk50s and Mk54s are too big.

Seems we don't have issues with maybe needing to swarm a target with PAMs, so why not swarm subsurface threats with a spread of mini torps?

 

As for ASW warfare itself: the LCS was designed in mind with a draught of about 10 feet. Even allowing for a safety margin of ten or more feet yet below the keel to the sea floor, the LCS obviously then is designed to operate in areas where even the smallest SSKs can't navigate safely underwater (even though, let's face it, most well-travelled coastal waterways have been engineered around deeper trenches and channels for commercial shipping to safely navigate: shipping which routinely may need 40+feet of water just so ships with 30-foot draughts can get into ports and the like).