RE: How much can you do with the LCS?

RE: How much can you do with the LCS? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series

Message

USSInchon -> RE: How much can you do with the LCS? (2/17/2014 7:22:20 PM)
If you really wanted to have some fun, if you made a mission prior to October 19, 2001 you could use the USS Inchon(MCS-12) along with the Avenger Class and Osprey Class minesweepers and the MH-53E to conduct mine sweeping operations in the littorals. I am unsure as to how she would have worked in a "combat" environment, being that the only armaments she had was 1 CIWS gun on the starboard side near the island.

dcpollay -> RE: How much can you do with the LCS? (2/17/2014 7:40:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Flankerk Is there any way to do a scenario with these along the lines of choose your modules based upon the supposed OPFOR, then try out different combinations? I can almost feel a need for module ready times! I hope its a long scenario. I would think the ready times would be measured in days, if not weeks (anybody know what the swap times are?). This was my primary objection in the first place. They were sold as "multimission" ships, but can really only do one thing at a time. To do more, they will spend more time in port than at sea, which makes them ineffective unless they have the module they need when the need arises. It's not a bad thing that they don't have combat persistence. That's the nature of smaller, specialized ships. It's just that the variety of missions they are supposed to carry out have always been done by specialized ships because those tasks require specialists. And I'm doubtful that LCS in its current form(s) will be ready for the right specialty at the right time.

Apocal -> RE: How much can you do with the LCS? (2/18/2014 9:45:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BB62squid Actually...the LCS WERE designed for direct combat. Their modular design was touted as being adaptable, and one of the interim steps the Navy envisioned to replace the Naval surface fire support role void left by the removal of the battleships. What are you talking about?

BB62squid -> RE: How much can you do with the LCS? (2/18/2014 10:25:06 AM)
At one point during the debate for reactivating the battleships the charge was made that while the battleships were incapable in present configuration of achieving the USMCs requirement for naval fire support (63nm in support of amphib forces), it was suggested that the LCS WOULD be able meet it. If memory serves was an article in Proceedings in 95 or that neighborhood. Regardless, the LCS has monumentally failed to live up to even the minimal expectations, especially for the unit price.

Mgellis -> RE: How much can you do with the LCS? (2/18/2014 1:51:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dandin384 With more then 2 dozen of these things running around I've been thinking a wolfpack type plan would be pretty effective. Divide them into 4 ship groups and give each ship in the group a different module. Ship 1 has an VLS module with ESSM's, ship 2 has anti-surface module, ship 3 is a combo ASW/Minehunter, and ship 4 can be a intelligence gathering ship, psuedo supply ship, or any other theater specific role. One of these, as everyone is so fond of pointing out, is not to effective on it's own. However a group of ships capable of 40 knots with varied mission purposes can be very effective plus they can mutually support one another. Wolfpacks could join up with each other or other USN assets for higher risk missions as well. The LCS has a lot of potential, but it's also got big shoes to fill. A wolfpack is also, effectively, a mini-carrier...it can operate 8 helicopters or 4 helicopters and 12 drones (and the MQ-8s can be armed). Coordinating flight operations might be complicated, but it opens up a lot of possibilities.

Mgellis -> RE: How much can you do with the LCS? (2/18/2014 1:56:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mgellis One question...and I really don't know the answer to this one...can power (like, a lot of power) be run from the big reconfigurable space in an LCS to the weapon station pods? If so, maybe those 30 mm. guns could be swapped out for COIL lasers? I'll bet the module bay is big enough for the power source, but can you get the power to the turrets? If so...well, a pair of those lasers would make an LCS a lot more impressive, I think. Just checking...anyone have any information about this?

Mgellis -> RE: How much can you do with the LCS? (2/18/2014 2:09:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IWS quote: ORIGINAL: jdkbph Well if that's true, and they could be armed with 32 ESSM's and 8 LRASMs, a potential adversary might start to take them seriously. JD Yes. I've played around with the LCS 2 that way in-game, though with harpoons instead of LRASM. The real LCS 2 class actually has space for 3 modules: one is just behind the 57mm (might not have enough below-deck space for Mk 48, but big enough for Griffins), and two are in the superstructure, port and starboard, just behind the radar mast. You could mount your Griffins (I used Spike NLOS instead) in the front one, with the ESSMs and LRASMs in the superstructure modules. Appropriate sensors and datalinks to support ESSM/LRASM would also need to be fitted. The Navy could certainly do something like that if they wanted to, but it would cost quite a lot. If the Australian Adelaide class is any guide, something like 200-300 million each. So instead of 500-600 million per ship, it would be more like 700-900 million. If price is no object, another more speculative possibility is using up a bit of the flight deck just aft of the hanger, and installing two Mk 48 sized modules, one port and one starboard. The mission bay is immediately under the flight deck, so there would be plenty of below-deck space, and access the hanger doors would still be clear. I like this idea, but can it be done? Can the modules be set up so part of them is below deck? It looks like the deck is solid at that point and you just load the module into place. Or can that part of the deck just be removed if necessary? And are the weapon pods directly above the mission bay so they could be used that way? Another option...does it matter if the VLS cells stick up in the air? Do they have to be flush with the deck? Would it make them unstable to be so tall--15 feet or so, it looks like, to have the full length missiles? If not, then it would probably not be hard to design a canister version of the VLS cells that simply gets loaded onto the weapon pod station like the 30 mm. gun pod, but somewhat taller. You would probably have to limit each one to a 4- or 8-cell VLS, but that would give you a lot of options. Would this work?

cwemyss -> RE: How much can you do with the LCS? (2/18/2014 6:32:43 PM)
There's different lengths of VLS cells too. If all you want is ESSM you don't have to have Tomahawk-capable strike-length VLS.

IWS -> RE: How much can you do with the LCS? (2/18/2014 11:04:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mgellis quote: ORIGINAL: IWS quote: ORIGINAL: jdkbph Well if that's true, and they could be armed with 32 ESSM's and 8 LRASMs, a potential adversary might start to take them seriously. JD Yes. I've played around with the LCS 2 that way in-game, though with harpoons instead of LRASM. The real LCS 2 class actually has space for 3 modules: one is just behind the 57mm (might not have enough below-deck space for Mk 48, but big enough for Griffins), and two are in the superstructure, port and starboard, just behind the radar mast. You could mount your Griffins (I used Spike NLOS instead) in the front one, with the ESSMs and LRASMs in the superstructure modules. Appropriate sensors and datalinks to support ESSM/LRASM would also need to be fitted. The Navy could certainly do something like that if they wanted to, but it would cost quite a lot. If the Australian Adelaide class is any guide, something like 200-300 million each. So instead of 500-600 million per ship, it would be more like 700-900 million. If price is no object, another more speculative possibility is using up a bit of the flight deck just aft of the hanger, and installing two Mk 48 sized modules, one port and one starboard. The mission bay is immediately under the flight deck, so there would be plenty of below-deck space, and access the hanger doors would still be clear. I like this idea, but can it be done? Can the modules be set up so part of them is below deck? It looks like the deck is solid at that point and you just load the module into place. Or can that part of the deck just be removed if necessary? And are the weapon pods directly above the mission bay so they could be used that way? Another option...does it matter if the VLS cells stick up in the air? Do they have to be flush with the deck? Would it make them unstable to be so tall--15 feet or so, it looks like, to have the full length missiles? If not, then it would probably not be hard to design a canister version of the VLS cells that simply gets loaded onto the weapon pod station like the 30 mm. gun pod, but somewhat taller. You would probably have to limit each one to a 4- or 8-cell VLS, but that would give you a lot of options. Would this work? Yes, that's how the weapons bays are designed. Most US surface weapons require below-decks space for the mount machinery, electronics, ammunition, etc. It isn't just a piece of deck, it goes one or more decks down into the hull. Anyone please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it: - The LCS weapon mounts are already set up with below-decks space allocated underneath them. I don't know if there's enough for room "strike length" VLS tubes (the kind that can take standards and cruise missiles instead of ESSM). I would like to know, but haven't found any info yet. In addition to the the 57mm and SeaRAM mounts, the LCS 2 has three weapons mounts, and the LCS 1 has two. I've read speculation that the third, "forward" mount on LCS 2 may have limited space underneath due to the hull configuration, but that's not confirmed. - The part of the deck over the weapons mounts is designed to be removed as necessary on the LCS 2. You can see the "patches" if you look at overhead pics. The LCS 1 has two "bathtubs" in the superstructure roof that already have the deck removed, similar to the Danish Absalon class and Iver Huitfeldt class. The weapons mounts are not directly over the mission bay, in either LCS 1 or LCS 2. They have their own below-decks space separate from that. - "Mission modules" are not the weapon mounts, nor are they the mission bay. A mission module is a set of equipment for a specific type of mission that may make use of the mounts, and/or the bay, and/or the hangar. For example, the antisurface mission module plans to include two 30mm autocannons (weapon mounts) a couple of unmanned surface vehicles and some RHBs (mission bay), a hellfire-equipped MH-60R and a couple of MQ-8 Fire Scouts (hangar). I'm not sure where they're planning on putting the Griffins. Probably in the third weapons mount for LCS 2, but dunno for LCS 1. As to how much it matters if the VLS cells stick up in the air, I'm not sure. But here are some thoughts: - Below-decks space is already allocated for the mounts, so they shouldn't stick up unless you're trying to use something too deep for the available space (i.e. strike length mounts if they don't already support those) or something that's designed to stick up (like harpoon launchers). - The Mk 56 VLS system (12 ESSM tubes) is designed to stick up into the air (a bit), like harpoon mounts. But in both cases there's a below-decks component too. Check out the two Danish ship classes mentioned above to see pics of the Mk 56. - I don't know whether you could install long VLS tubes at all, if there isn't enough below-decks space. "Strike length" VLS is about 26 feet tall, as opposed to 17 feet for the "Self Defense" ESSM version, so even if you could, the extra topside weight (in the superstructure no less) might hurt stability. Interestingly, Lockheed is marketing a modified (and up-gunned) LCS 1 as the "Multi-mission Combat Ship" which they claim "features the proven Aegis combat system with the SPY-1F (V) radar and the MK 41 Vertical Launching System." http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/littoral-combat-ship.html (Oops, fixed typo)

Blu3wolf -> RE: How much can you do with the LCS? (2/19/2014 10:09:43 PM)
I'm a little surprised to see we are planning to do something similar, with our planned Offshore Combatant Vessel intended to replace the huon class MCM ships, the leeuwin and paluma survey ships, and the armidale class patrol boats... I wonder if this modular mission thing will work or flop. I hope for the former but fear the latter...

IWS -> RE: How much can you do with the LCS? (2/20/2014 4:39:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Blu3wolf I'm a little surprised to see we are planning to do something similar, with our planned Offshore Combatant Vessel intended to replace the huon class MCM ships, the leeuwin and paluma survey ships, and the armidale class patrol boats... I wonder if this modular mission thing will work or flop. I hope for the former but fear the latter... The Danes have mixed those missions on their patrol ships for years using stanflex modules, so it should work out. Unless someone decides to reinvent the wheel, I mean. The fact that you'll only have a net loss of 6 hulls helps a lot. Given that you don't need minesweepers all the time, it's even close to a wash. And it sounds like the new vessels will be a lot more capable than Armidales, especially if they embark helos or UAVs.

AdmiralSteve -> RE: How much can you do with the LCS? (2/20/2014 2:12:34 PM)
Sorry guys for getting into the fray with the LCS a bit late. I don't see a lot of difference between the FFG (minus the launchers) and the LCS other than advantages. The LCS is much more maneuverable in terms of 1)shallow water (Littoral) and 2)she can turn on a dime. I think that NAVSEA and the builder Austa got it right even as the name can be misleading. This is what I feel is a concept ship, very much like the aircraft carrier was in the early 1900's and they are still finding ways to improve the carriers. Like a home builder doesn't use just a hammer to build a house, the LCS is a tool in the US Navy tool bag and like any other tool can be effective within its design parameters. I see it being a great ASW, small boat ASuW and anti-mining platform. With its upgraded air and surface radar it should out perform the Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates in terms of being a radar picket ship. (I'm not sure though if it would be used as that since the E-3's as I understand are a far superior air and surface search platform). I would not believe that it would be purposely put into a theater of war that had an imminent possibility of long range SSM's without a CG or DDG with far better capabilities to handle such a threat. Having said that, I understand that their is an uncertainty of situational awareness called Fog of War and not every intent and capability of ones adversary is always known. War planers in the Pentagon who far outrank you, me and everyone else are aware of that and would not put a ship and crew indiscriminately nor without cause into a situation where their would be a certain loss of a ship. I believe that the LCS has it's purpose and I believe that in the right hands it can be an effective tool but not for every situation. I believe in lightly armored combat scenario's such as drug interaction in the Florida Straits, mining patrol in the Suez Canal or anti-piracy operations in the Gulf of Aden, the LCS will serve well.

jdkbph -> RE: How much can you do with the LCS? (2/20/2014 9:48:46 PM)
All good points. OTOH, history shows us how much weight intentions carry when peace time budgets leave you unprepared for the exigencies of war time operations. For example, the Battle Cruiser was intended to be a super scout; designed to find the enemy battle fleet and frustrate enemy scouts and light forces. They were never intended to stand in the line of battle. I wonder whether future commanders will keep intended purpose in mind when a need arises and an LCS is at hand. I wonder whether or not that's even a realistic expectation. JD

Apocal -> RE: How much can you do with the LCS? (3/18/2014 2:07:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BB62squid At one point during the debate for reactivating the battleships the charge was made that while the battleships were incapable in present configuration of achieving the USMCs requirement for naval fire support (63nm in support of amphib forces), it was suggested that the LCS WOULD be able meet it. If memory serves was an article in Proceedings in 95 or that neighborhood. Regardless, the LCS has monumentally failed to live up to even the minimal expectations, especially for the unit price. LCS wasn't even being discussed in 1995 and it never had a land-attack or fire support mission. Are you referring to the arsenal ship concept that was floated back then?

Rudd -> RE: How much can you do with the LCS? (5/13/2014 10:55:14 AM)
quote: Potential systems envisioned to transform the Freedom from a baseline tailored/single-mission LCS into a multi-mission surface combatant include: 32-cell Mk 41 Vertical Launching System AN/SPY-1F (V) radar Baseline 9 version of Aegis combat system Evolved Sea Sparrow anti-air missile Standard SM-2 surface-to-air missile 76-mm OTA Melara rapid-fire gun (replacing the current Mark 110 57mm gun) MH-60R Seahawk helicopter and Fire Scout (or other) UAVs Longbow Hellfire anti-ship missile Passive and active electronic warfare systems Towed sonar array from http://news.usni.org/2014/05/12/opinion-frigate-future

thewood1 -> RE: How much can you do with the LCS? (5/13/2014 11:44:14 AM)
This is something I have always wondered about...is a frigate cost effective? Does it cost that much less to completely outfit a frigate with all the above weapons than an Aegis destroyer. I am not even sure of a cost comparison.

jamespellerano -> RE: How much can you do with the LCS? (5/13/2014 3:36:32 PM)
Zack Howitt says that we can buy ~14 "Sea Control" Frigates vs. 20 LCS and have the same time at sea since a frigate would be able to be out longer. The "Sea Control" Frigate he suggests is an up-armed USCG NSC. Me personally we should cap the LCS at 20, use them as forward deployed assets in the Pacific, Caribbean and Arabian Gulf where we need patrol boats. Up-arm them with surface to surface missiles such as the RB-15 MK IV or NSM (Naval Strike Missile). I cannot post links since I am new to the forums, checkout episode 33 of Sea Control on CIMSEC's website cimsec[dot]org.

Feltan -> RE: How much can you do with the LCS? (5/13/2014 6:55:50 PM)
They should have called the damn things Corvettes instead of the pretentious sounding LCS -- most of the problems associated with what they are supposed to actually do would have evaporated. People know what a Corvette is, an LCS -- not so much. Regards, Feltan

NickD -> RE: How much can you do with the LCS? (5/14/2014 10:04:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thewood1 This is something I have always wondered about...is a frigate cost effective? Does it cost that much less to completely outfit a frigate with all the above weapons than an Aegis destroyer. I am not even sure of a cost comparison. I imagine that part of the answer is what you want the ship to do. Using Burke class destroyers to chase speedboats off the coast of Somalia seems a poor use of taxpayers funds given that a frigate or corvette would be at least as effective in this role and much cheaper to purchase and operate. On the other hand, a Burke class ship is probably more useful in high-end warfare roles than a combination of frigates or corvettes of an equivalent value and crew size. Most mid-sized and larger navies have a mix of high and low end combatants, and the logic behind this seems sound.

cjstirn -> RE: How much can you do with the LCS? (5/15/2014 2:25:01 AM)
Trying using an LCS modded with Kongsberg Naval Strike Missiles, which they scaled modeled and can be mounted without too much modification to the existing structure and would be easy to include in future variants. Taking an LCS and steaming at flank speed all sensors off can destroy most ships out there with out being detected, 3 lcs's in a wolf pack being supported by a DDG/CG for air defense would be one of the most potent surface combatant groups on the sea. I would post the mock ups but this is my first post, google image search Naval strike missile lcs and its right there.

Juramentado -> RE: How much can you do with the LCS? (5/16/2014 1:47:09 AM)
The latest (classified) US Naval War College games broke several rules with LCS. We don't have all the details obviously, but a couple of things you can glean from Open Source: 1. They don't have the legs and were never intended to run with an Expeditionary Strike Group (the new name for Carrier Strike Groups), yet the games put them right at the perimeter, presumably sipping from the AORs a bit more than the rest. 2. They embarked a specific mission module only. In this case, the still-fledgling ASW. What was really effective (theoretically) was putting together a VDS equipped LCS with a TACTAS equipped Burke for serious hunter-killer combo. Between the two of them, they could have up to four MH-60s or three MH-60s and two MQ-8Bs, which really provided a LOT of versatile Aviation support. Most of the general public/peanut-gallery concern is with LCS as an independent steaming unit. In wartime, there is no independent steaming, unless the situation is absolute desperation. That being said, LCS in it's current Flight 0 configuration is already better armed and more capable of self-defense than the Cyclone-class PC and both current classes of Minesweepers, which were really the two ship-types LCS was intended to replace. Myself, having been on a PC and seeing an MIW sweep up close, I'll take LCS any day. Neither of them have enough firepower to hold off anything bigger than a fisheries patrol boat and they also couldn't launch fast-movers. Even PC armed with Griffin Missile is still nothing compared to the reach of an LCS with the current SuW package. And it's cheaper to send off on a Pirate Hunt, Show-the-flag and one of the Navy's pillars of Maritime Strategy: Interoperability with Allies. Let's face it - LCS is the equivalent of many other navies' major combatants/capital ships, and it's easier for them to learn US operations/US tactics and can relate to the size and capability of a ship that they likely have an equivalent of, versus an Aegis-equipped Arleigh Burke. [8D] However, that's no fun in gaming, is it? The Future Surface Combatant committee will decide the fate of LCS as an upgraded platform. SECDEF Hagel did not specifically tell DoD to not restart LCS in the future - it is entirely possible that a heavily-upgunned LCS will be the winning recommendation by the Study Committee, effectively reversing the 20-ship cut. That being said - realistic options: 1. Lockheed Martin had been flogging export versions of the LCS, including upgunned and larger tonnage variants. The largest one would have added another 500 to 1000t, SPY-1F and two 8-cell Mk.54 VLS, which would have given up to 32 ESSMs quad-packed to a cell. Tomahawk and LRASM would not be possible in the cell since it's not strike length, but it would be able to carry ASROC, which would give organic fire capability to the ASW mission. 2. As mentioned elsewhere, reducing the space in the mission bay area forward of the hangar space would allow for placement of quad-pack Anti-Ship Missiles. Harpoon is too long in the tooth, but LRASM and Kongsberg is a possibility. 3. Many options choose to reduce the amount of space continguously forward of the hangar bay, which reduces the number of MH-60s and/or MQ-8Bs aboard. That's a bit of a trade-off, an increase in organic fires, at the cost of what was one of the strengths of LCS; a larger than average aviation complement. 4. Railguns and the like aren't a possibility on LCS - the electrical power of even a DDG-1000 Zumwalt would be hard-pressed to fire one. Note that you need a LOT MORE space than even the vaunted Mission Bays of LCS. If the experiment goes off as planned, a railgun will go to sea aboard one of the Joint High Speed Vessels, which has at least 4x the volume space of an LCS. That's a lot of space that will likely be fully filled by the railgun's support equipment and powerplant. 5. Lasers - well, right now, they're going to sea aboard an LPD. Again, space and power constrained. DDG-1000 and Flight III Arleigh Burke are the direction posts for future combatants, with their hybrid electrical drives and the ability to generate massive amounts of surplus electrical power. Railguns and Lasers will make it to sea as standard weapons fits, but in the mid to late 2000s, possibly not even 2100 given the average life of a surface combatant is 50 years now. 6. What will change LCS is the ability to host MQ-8 Charlies, not Bravos. Charlie will be able to carry 300lbs more payload, more than double the flight-time (8 hours effective aloft) and will have on-board surface search radar AND electronic warfare. The principle that the first to detect is the first to kill applies now more than ever. Imagine TWO of those being available per LCS hull; that is a lot of capability extending your sensor sphere, especially in tough littoral environments. EW also gives the commander soft-kill options, fuzzing up the OPFOR's picture.

cjstirn -> RE: How much can you do with the LCS? (5/16/2014 3:14:26 AM)
The Kongsberg won't require any change to the mission bay as they would be mounted aft of the main battery (lcs 2) and within the "superstructure" (lcs 1 and 2). But you are right on the money Juramentado with what the intent was with this class of ships, low level conflict sea control, the LCS was never intended to be a capital ship and nor serve in the same function as one, I would rather the navy purchase 3 lcs's to perform low intensity missions instead of one ddg to free up the existing fleet of DDG/CG. Also with the LCS's well deck able to hold 2 11m NSW rhib's you could use them as a perfect nonstandard maritime platforms to conduct a range of missions from dedicated VBSS to seal delivery, much like the PC was intended for but lacked the speed, firepower, and range. Use the LCS to move close to a enemy shore undetected disembark the SWCC units who in turn deliver your SEAL elements, complete the mission and get back to the ship who would provide aviation support if things went wrong. [image]local://upfiles/48529/EC818DA6F4B948EAA68C3398E6BCC379.jpg[/image]

cjstirn -> RE: How much can you do with the LCS? (5/16/2014 3:27:40 AM)
here's LCS 2 [image]local://upfiles/48529/3B7BFA6DDB3A4CFDA08A0AA2C32D4278.jpg[/image]

BB62squid -> RE: How much can you do with the LCS? (4/7/2016 11:41:56 AM)
No. In 1995, the USMC stated that their requirements for fire support was 63nm. The arsenal ship trainwreck that preceeded the current LCS trainwreck was envisioned as a massive crusie missile platform. My point was that part of the marketing for the LCS modular design when it came about was that it could be tailored to support different warfare packages, including the USMC requirement. Things and times may have changed, but regardless the LCS is an operational failure (IIRC every ship has experienced catastrophic failures during simple transit ops) that provides no real benefit to the warfighter. Based on the cost of the venture and its overruns, it is unlikely the Navy could get the funding to significantly upgrade its combat power in peacetime. IMO, and that of others, it simply comes up in the red in the cost/benefit calculation.

Dysta -> RE: How much can you do with the LCS? (4/7/2016 12:08:46 PM)
I think, for speed, cost, firepower against sea and ground, and comes in numbers, the Pegasus (decommissioned), Hayabusa and the newest Hsun Hai could fulfill some general operations for near-shore patrol and fire supports. But if it comes with ASW and better seaworthiness, then USN needs a bigger ship to add these two features. Unfortunately, LCS is a wrong answer as we see that.

StellarRat -> RE: How much can you do with the LCS? (4/8/2016 9:25:32 PM)
I paid 1/2 billion dollars and all I got was a lousy tugboat.

Rhygin00 -> RE: How much can you do with the LCS? (4/11/2016 9:42:59 AM)
Where is the problem again? I don't understand the argument.

FTBSS -> RE: How much can you do with the LCS? (4/11/2016 5:37:51 PM)
The issue is for the size/cost of the LCS it's capabilities as a warship are very limited in relation to the frigates it is replacing as the workhorse of the fleet. Mostly in the self defense AAW role. It also has had extensive maintenance issues, I am a vendor for the diesel engine control system and aware of issues that I can't discuss any further than to say the project (LCS) in my eyes is a mess.

Sardaukar -> RE: How much can you do with the LCS? (4/12/2016 12:38:36 PM)
I have always said that USN should have bought this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absalon-class_support_ship Would have saved LOT of money.

Primarchx -> RE: How much can you do with the LCS? (4/12/2016 1:25:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sardaukar I have always said that USN should have bought this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absalon-class_support_ship Would have saved LOT of money. Agreed. That's a fantastic design.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.875