Out of touch

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Out of touch

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

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

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Out of touch - 10/16/2015 7:25:02 AM

Chris21wen

Posts: 6249
Joined: 1/17/2002
From: Cottesmore, Rutland
Status: offline

Not the game, me.

I left the RN in 1979 so my practical knowledge of military stuff dates to that time, seaslug and seacat missiles as an example. In game terms I played the Harpoon extensively but not even that was 10-15 years ago.

How things have changes. Littoral Combat Ship to start with. What the heck is a LCS I asked. Then you've got the UAVs, the new types of missile, the different decoys (although the game deals with these).

There's Stealth ships but I've still got no idea how to use them correctly. I played the classic Norway series and won all of them but the last using stealth boats. Played it three time but got my head handed to me on a plate each time. Definitely don't understand how to use them.

Lot to learn it's like transporting someone from the dark ages into the WW2.

Post #: 1

RE: Out of touch - 10/16/2015 8:07:53 AM

Dysta

Posts: 1909
Joined: 8/8/2015
Status: offline

"Hey! More thinking, less shooting!"

Technological 'marvel' is suppose to be superior not just by stealth, precision and maximum firepower at minimum output, but also foolproof and easier to understand how it works. But so far we are failure to see how LCS could apply such demands.

No worry, we still try to prove LCS is a good platform in CMANO... Or maybe not.

(in reply to Chris21wen)

Post #: 2

RE: Out of touch - 10/16/2015 11:24:10 AM

Dimitris

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline

Paul?

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to Dysta)

Post #: 3

RE: Out of touch - 10/16/2015 11:52:23 AM

Airborne Rifles

Posts: 229
Joined: 2/17/2015
Status: offline

Being an Army guy I'm no expert on modern naval and air systems either. I play slowly and pause the game whenever I come across something I'm unfamiliar with so that I can do a little research here or on the web. I've found it is a really rewarding and educational way to play the sim.

(in reply to Dimitris)

Post #: 4

RE: Out of touch - 10/16/2015 12:02:58 PM

Dysta

Posts: 1909
Joined: 8/8/2015
Status: offline

x2

But for few 'realism' players, they prefer to search while still playing. Yet, the choice that you can pause and think calmly is still very important.

(in reply to Airborne Rifles)

Post #: 5

RE: Out of touch - 10/16/2015 1:44:25 PM

.Sirius

Posts: 1404
Joined: 1/18/2013
Status: offline

Hi Chris,
Nice to see ex RN here Im still serving myself done over 34 yrs and leave next year I'm an old school RP so now where your coming from,you have 2 databases to use I created the Cold War Database from 1946-1979 and Ragnar from 1980 to near future, the great thing about Command is that its a sandbox so you create anything you want, theres some great tutorials out there as well as some god stuff on youtube, if you have any problems pm me and Ill get you my email to you

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chris H

Not the game, me.

I left the RN in 1979 so my practical knowledge of military stuff dates to that time, seaslug and seacat missiles as an example. In game terms I played the Harpoon extensively but not even that was 10-15 years ago.

How things have changes. Littoral Combat Ship to start with. What the heck is a LCS I asked. Then you've got the UAVs, the new types of missile, the different decoys (although the game deals with these).

There's Stealth ships but I've still got no idea how to use them correctly. I played the classic Norway series and won all of them but the last using stealth boats. Played it three time but got my head handed to me on a plate each time. Definitely don't understand how to use them.

Lot to learn it's like transporting someone from the dark ages into the WW2.

_____________________________

Paul aka Sirius
Command Developer
Warfaresims
Cold War Data Base 1946-1979 Author

Old radar men never die - Their echoes fade away in accordance with the inverse fourth power law

(in reply to Chris21wen)

Post #: 6

RE: Out of touch - 10/16/2015 2:46:21 PM

SeaQueen

Posts: 1451
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline

quote:

How things have changes. Littoral Combat Ship to start with. What the heck is a LCS I asked.

For the longest time nobody could tell me either. Eventually I got pointed to a paper in "Proceedings" on the Street Fighter and Wayne Hughes' book. The thing is, I found myself saying, "Oh! You mean it's a frigate or corvette!" Immediately very smart people said, "No no no, it's not a frigate or corvette." Now... they've finally decided it IS a frigate.

Wow...

quote:

There's Stealth ships but I've still got no idea how to use them correctly. I played the classic Norway series and won all of them but the last using stealth boats. Played it three time but got my head handed to me on a plate each time. Definitely don't understand how to use them.

In my opinion, don't put too much faith in stealth. It's only so "stealthy" and unless you have a good feel for how stealthy being stealthy actually is, it's safest to assume the worst (i.e. that you're easy to detect).

(in reply to Chris21wen)

Post #: 7

RE: Out of touch - 10/16/2015 2:53:29 PM

Skjold

Posts: 240
Joined: 9/29/2015
Status: offline

I'm by no means no expert, but stealth ships have the RCS of like a small fishing boat, instead of a frigate size. A fishing boat is still quite easy to detect, just a bit harder.

If i am wrong, please feel free to correct me.

(in reply to SeaQueen)

Post #: 8

RE: Out of touch - 10/16/2015 3:31:03 PM

.Sirius

Posts: 1404
Joined: 1/18/2013
Status: offline

Hi yeah rule of thumb a Type 23 Frigate has an RCS of a fishing boat, although a Type 23 is late 1980's stealth ie no right angles on the exterior of the ship they still give a paint on radar

quote:

ORIGINAL: Skjold

I'm by no means no expert, but stealth ships have the RCS of like a small fishing boat, instead of a frigate size. A fishing boat is still quite easy to detect, just a bit harder.

If i am wrong, please feel free to correct me.

_____________________________

Paul aka Sirius
Command Developer
Warfaresims
Cold War Data Base 1946-1979 Author

Old radar men never die - Their echoes fade away in accordance with the inverse fourth power law

(in reply to Skjold)

Post #: 9

RE: Out of touch - 10/16/2015 4:24:57 PM

SeaQueen

Posts: 1451
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline

You're not necessarily wrong, but when ever people say, "object X has the radar cross section of a European (or Asian!) swallow (or some other object)," they aren't actually telling you anything. If you're seeing an RCS quoted as anything other than dB, you're most likely looking at something which is intended to obscure the truth. It doesn't tell anyone anything useful.

Radar cross sections are frequency dependent, they are also aspect dependent. That means that a given aircraft, ship or weapon might be completely invisible or easily visible depending on the band of the radar, and on the direction from which they are observed. Furthermore, in an era where multistatic sensors are a reality, you now have to worry about an object's multistatic radar cross section, which is usually some average related to the different angles from which the object is being sensed. I will be really surprised if anyone can find real radar cross section numbers on any modern aircraft. If they do, someone is most likely going to go to prison.

You also have to ask what you mean by "difficulty to detect?" What you're really talking about is signal excess versus range. Changing the radar cross section changes the distance at which a given sensor-target combination produces signal excess and therefore influences the median detection range. All of this, btw, depends on a lot of statistical assumptions about the nature of noise.

What does all this mean about "stealth" ships? A "stealth" ship being sensed by some radar, at some frequency, will have it's median detection range by that sensor reduced by some amount. How much is that? It all depends. What is it useful for? Once again, it all depends. Ships, weapons, aircraft, all tend to have very different sorts of radars. They're constrained by different restrictions on space, weight and power. When you put it in those terms what does "stealth" buy you on a ship? It's really hard to say. Apparently some countries think it's quite valuable because they invest money in it. Why? Without some pretty hard core computer modeling, it's hard to say exactly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Skjold

I'm by no means no expert, but stealth ships have the RCS of like a small fishing boat, instead of a frigate size. A fishing boat is still quite easy to detect, just a bit harder.

If i am wrong, please feel free to correct me.

< Message edited by SeaQueen -- 10/16/2015 9:12:17 PM >

(in reply to Skjold)

Post #: 10

RE: Out of touch - 10/16/2015 4:44:18 PM

NakedWeasel

Posts: 500
Joined: 1/14/2014
Status: offline

The main (there are others) drawback of the LCS is it's lack of firepower, which is further compounded by the fact that the US Navy has allowed itself to go too long without a credible anti-ship missile other than the aging Harpoon. The LCS's lack of dedicated VLS capacity to make room for aviation assets and mission modules makes them too lean, and basically paper tigers, IMO. I think there has been some recent common sense reapplied to the design, and the US Navy is addressing the ASM gap by assessing at least 3 separate weapon systems to replace the Harpoon, but it's going to be a while before anything is fielded, and no assurance that more extensive VLS facilities will ever be added to the basic ship classes.

< Message edited by NakedWeasel -- 10/16/2015 5:48:41 PM >

_____________________________

Though surrounded by a great number of enemies
View them as a single foe
And so fight on!

(in reply to SeaQueen)

Post #: 11

RE: Out of touch - 10/17/2015 2:42:30 AM

magi

Posts: 1529
Joined: 2/1/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Airborne Rifles

Being an Army guy I'm no expert on modern naval and air systems either. I play slowly and pause the game whenever I come across something I'm unfamiliar with so that I can do a little research here or on the web. I've found it is a really rewarding and educational way to play the sim.

Me too... One of the things I love about this game......

(in reply to Airborne Rifles)

Post #: 12

RE: Out of touch - 10/17/2015 7:48:28 AM

Chris21wen

Posts: 6249
Joined: 1/17/2002
From: Cottesmore, Rutland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NakedWeasel

The main (there are others) drawback of the LCS is it's lack of firepower, which is further compounded by the fact that the US Navy has allowed itself to go too long without a credible anti-ship missile other than the aging Harpoon. The LCS's lack of dedicated VLS capacity to make room for aviation assets and mission modules makes them too lean, and basically paper tigers, IMO. I think there has been some recent common sense reapplied to the design, and the US Navy is addressing the ASM gap by assessing at least 3 separate weapon systems to replace the Harpoon, but it's going to be a while before anything is fielded, and no assurance that more extensive VLS facilities will ever be added to the basic ship classes.

That's how it looks to me too.

I've just finished playing South China Sea Clash against the PLAN. This scenario prompted the post. In it the US has 2 x LCS and 1 x Arleigh Burke Flight IIA plus a number of land base air assets.

Almost from the off I noticed the US had no shipboard ASMs but loads of Tomahawks, sub and AAW weapons. I also noticed the LCS have almost nothing capable of taking on anything larger than a rowing boat. In the scenario neither did anything other than offer themselves as targets, they'd have been dead if it wasn't for the DDG defensive capabilities.

(in reply to NakedWeasel)

Post #: 13

RE: Out of touch - 10/17/2015 10:12:36 AM

AlGrant

Posts: 912
Joined: 8/18/2015
Status: offline

Hi Chris,

Also Ex-RN here (left in 2001). I do find that depending on the time period of the scenario.
Anything from mid 70's to about 2005 and I'm pretty much OK. Much earlier of later and I often find myself checking the database.

One thing I've recently started to do is to keep a log when playing a scenario. Almost a mini journal of main events and what I do or intend to do in response.
I find this makes me think far closer about what my plans are (they often change) and also is a huge help on longer scenarios when I open a saved game I've not played for a few days.
Of course the game log lists the events but having a note of how I was planning to deal with them often helps me pick up where I left off.

Al

(in reply to Chris21wen)

Post #: 14

RE: Out of touch - 10/17/2015 11:43:46 AM

ExNusquam

Posts: 513
Joined: 3/4/2014
From: Washington, D.C.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chris H
Almost from the off I noticed the US had no shipboard ASMs but loads of Tomahawks, sub and AAW weapons. I also noticed the LCS have almost nothing capable of taking on anything larger than a rowing boat. In the scenario neither did anything other than offer themselves as targets, they'd have been dead if it wasn't for the DDG defensive capabilities.

I say this every time someone brings up South China Sea Clash, but I think you're underestimating and misusing the LCS. The LCS has phenomenal ISR capability, from it's decent search radar and usual complement of 3 helicopters. The RAM isn't bad as a defensive weapon either. Furthermore, the LCS has insane maneuverability, and if you don't exploit that, you're not using them to their potential.

While the LCS might be a bit under-gunned, they do have very unique capabilities (They're a speedboat with 3 helicopters!) and bring quite a bit to any engagement. It's just about using them so you can maximize their advantages.

(in reply to Chris21wen)

Post #: 15

RE: Out of touch - 10/17/2015 12:46:50 PM

Chris21wen

Posts: 6249
Joined: 1/17/2002
From: Cottesmore, Rutland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ExNusquam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chris H
Almost from the off I noticed the US had no shipboard ASMs but loads of Tomahawks, sub and AAW weapons. I also noticed the LCS have almost nothing capable of taking on anything larger than a rowing boat. In the scenario neither did anything other than offer themselves as targets, they'd have been dead if it wasn't for the DDG defensive capabilities.

I say this every time someone brings up South China Sea Clash, but I think you're underestimating and misusing the LCS. The LCS has phenomenal ISR capability, from it's decent search radar and usual complement of 3 helicopters. The RAM isn't bad as a defensive weapon either. Furthermore, the LCS has insane maneuverability, and if you don't exploit that, you're not using them to their potential.

While the LCS might be a bit under-gunned, they do have very unique capabilities (They're a speedboat with 3 helicopters!) and bring quite a bit to any engagement. It's just about using them so you can maximize their advantages.

That brings me back to the reason for the post. I don't know how to use them.

They do have a good sensor array and do carry helios but in this scenario carry no weapons. As far as speed and maneuverability is concerned or their own weapons I never had need to test them, the DDG sorted out that out.

(in reply to ExNusquam)

Post #: 16

RE: Out of touch - 10/17/2015 5:36:56 PM

magi

Posts: 1529
Joined: 2/1/2014
Status: offline

Chris�� The reason you are having difficulty in understanding how to apply these particular mix of surface assets..... I believe is the point the scenario designer trying to make�

In the early 90s after the collapse of the Soviet Union� United States Navy went from being a Bluewater force� to a brown water force... With its alpha mission and doctrine being assault from the sea�. And that required different tactics and asset mix�
As there were no longer any serious surface threats.. they removed the ASMs from most of our service combatants ... with the belief that if and when they had to prosecute that type of target it would be done with air assets� The LCSs were designed as lower cost platforms that would operate in the literal environments with the mission focus of ASW, mine counter measure, patrol craft in lower threat environments.... In higher threat environments they would operate under the cover of more powerful platforms....

However�� With the rise of a capable Chinese navy with their current stated intents and the reemergence of a Russia's navy.... The dynamics have changed and we are at the beginning of seeing the United States Navy and it's allies evolve and adapt to this new reality� We live in a very interesting time indeed....

I believe that the scenario of the "South China Sea clash" is one of the best small scenarios in CMANO..... It well show our limitations in our current doctrine in these changing times..... It is one of my favorite scenarios in which I play an editor mode� as a sandbox scenario wherein I fool with the mix of assets and weapon systems�

I wish I knew who the author was� as I would like to tell him� Well done� That brings me to another point� I believe all scenario titles should have their author attributed .....

< Message edited by magi -- 10/17/2015 6:37:21 PM >

(in reply to Chris21wen)

Post #: 17

RE: Out of touch - 10/17/2015 6:39:21 PM

Cheechako

Posts: 33
Joined: 7/10/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ExNusquam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chris H
Almost from the off I noticed the US had no shipboard ASMs but loads of Tomahawks, sub and AAW weapons. I also noticed the LCS have almost nothing capable of taking on anything larger than a rowing boat. In the scenario neither did anything other than offer themselves as targets, they'd have been dead if it wasn't for the DDG defensive capabilities.

I say this every time someone brings up South China Sea Clash, but I think you're underestimating and misusing the LCS. The LCS has phenomenal ISR capability, from it's decent search radar and usual complement of 3 helicopters. The RAM isn't bad as a defensive weapon either. Furthermore, the LCS has insane maneuverability, and if you don't exploit that, you're not using them to their potential.

While the LCS might be a bit under-gunned, they do have very unique capabilities (They're a speedboat with 3 helicopters!) and bring quite a bit to any engagement. It's just about using them so you can maximize their advantages.

If you add 8 NSMs to the LCS to mimic the new frigate, the ship becomes really quite effective. I still think they should have removed the 2X 30mm guns and replaced them with some VLS to shoot ESSMs. A 57mm, 8 NSMs, 32 (or even just 24) ESSMs, 24 Hellfires, a SEARAM, and multiple helos makes this a very potent mix. Sure, it's not doing large air coverage like a burke, but ESSMs give it a legitimate air picket as well as the ability to engage anti ship missiles further out, leaving the SEARAM for last resort shots.

< Message edited by Cheechako -- 10/17/2015 7:41:24 PM >

(in reply to ExNusquam)

Post #: 18

RE: Out of touch - 10/17/2015 11:05:45 PM

DESRON420

Posts: 57
Joined: 9/30/2015
Status: offline

The ongoing MALABAR 2015 exercises involve both a Freedom-class LCS (Fort Worth) and the latest Japanese Akizuki-class destroyer (Fuyuzuki). The Akizuki class is somewhat akin to the "LCS with VLS" idea. It will be interesting to see what the USN small surface combatant program takes away from this year's MALABAR trials, both from the Akizuki class and ongoing work with the Indian Shivalik class.

< Message edited by DESRON420 -- 10/18/2015 12:12:56 AM >

(in reply to Cheechako)

Post #: 19

RE: Out of touch - 10/18/2015 1:23:44 AM

Dysta

Posts: 1909
Joined: 8/8/2015
Status: offline

As far as I saw those comments above, its weaponries worries most players with some and mostly same reasons. And it isn't even being treated as 'jack-of-all-trades' at all.

When a small corvette that can shoot missiles to change the Syrian history, the LCS is getting shadowed even more, maybe land-strike mission is suppose to be for air force or carrier pilots, but think again, not everywhere can be deploying luxurious air supports when conflict is happening so suddenly.

One day the US gunboat will shoot something like this, and we can talk about its effectiveness again:

(in reply to DESRON420)

Post #: 20

RE: Out of touch - 10/18/2015 2:26:37 AM

ExNusquam

Posts: 513
Joined: 3/4/2014
From: Washington, D.C.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: magi
Chris�� The reason you are having difficulty in understanding how to apply these particular mix of surface assets..... I believe is the point the scenario designer trying to make�

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chris H
That brings me back to the reason for the post. I don't know how to use them.

They do have a good sensor array and do carry helios but in this scenario carry no weapons. As far as speed and maneuverability is concerned or their own weapons I never had need to test them, the DDG sorted out that out.

As magi says, the lack of firepower in the US's surface fleet is part of the challenge in this scenario. You have to play to your advantages (maneuverability, ISR and air power) while avoiding the arenas the PLAN will beat you (organic exchanges of ASMs). If you have questions about something, don't hesitate to put a post in the War Room subforum.

And you are correct, the LCSs aren't carrying armed helos - this is likely for balance in the scenario (an extra two MH-60Rs might give the US *too much* air cover). Based on the Navy's websites for the mission modules, the ships usually deploy with one MH-60.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cheechako
If you add 8 NSMs to the LCS to mimic the new frigate, the ship becomes really quite effective. I still think they should have removed the 2X 30mm guns and replaced them with some VLS to shoot ESSMs. A 57mm, 8 NSMs, 32 (or even just 24) ESSMs, 24 Hellfires, a SEARAM, and multiple helos makes this a very potent mix. Sure, it's not doing large air coverage like a burke, but ESSMs give it a legitimate air picket as well as the ability to engage anti ship missiles further out, leaving the SEARAM for last resort shots.

Just to keep things in the realm of reality, if the Small Surface Combatant ever receives an AAW module (which it isn't slated to), the ESSMs would be in Mk56 launchers which would replace the Helfires. I've attached a scenario I built a while ago that shows the evolution of the LCSs, based on the best open source info I could find. Baseline is the ships as presently configured, Mod assumes the integration of some improvements in the 2017-2018 timeline, SSC is the 2019+ range.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Cheechako)

Post #: 21

RE: Out of touch - 10/18/2015 1:31:41 PM

Cheechako

Posts: 33
Joined: 7/10/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ExNusquam

quote:

ORIGINAL: magi
Chris�� The reason you are having difficulty in understanding how to apply these particular mix of surface assets..... I believe is the point the scenario designer trying to make�

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chris H
That brings me back to the reason for the post. I don't know how to use them.

They do have a good sensor array and do carry helios but in this scenario carry no weapons. As far as speed and maneuverability is concerned or their own weapons I never had need to test them, the DDG sorted out that out.

As magi says, the lack of firepower in the US's surface fleet is part of the challenge in this scenario. You have to play to your advantages (maneuverability, ISR and air power) while avoiding the arenas the PLAN will beat you (organic exchanges of ASMs). If you have questions about something, don't hesitate to put a post in the War Room subforum.

And you are correct, the LCSs aren't carrying armed helos - this is likely for balance in the scenario (an extra two MH-60Rs might give the US *too much* air cover). Based on the Navy's websites for the mission modules, the ships usually deploy with one MH-60.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cheechako
If you add 8 NSMs to the LCS to mimic the new frigate, the ship becomes really quite effective. I still think they should have removed the 2X 30mm guns and replaced them with some VLS to shoot ESSMs. A 57mm, 8 NSMs, 32 (or even just 24) ESSMs, 24 Hellfires, a SEARAM, and multiple helos makes this a very potent mix. Sure, it's not doing large air coverage like a burke, but ESSMs give it a legitimate air picket as well as the ability to engage anti ship missiles further out, leaving the SEARAM for last resort shots.

Just to keep things in the realm of reality, if the Small Surface Combatant ever receives an AAW module (which it isn't slated to), the ESSMs would be in Mk56 launchers which would replace the Helfires. I've attached a scenario I built a while ago that shows the evolution of the LCSs, based on the best open source info I could find. Baseline is the ships as presently configured, Mod assumes the integration of some improvements in the 2017-2018 timeline, SSC is the 2019+ range.

The below deck penetration looks to be 5-7 feet for the 30mm mount. 56 launchers are 15' high which would result in a superstructure change of no more than 10' and probably something more like 8'. That looks doable on both ships. Once the ESSM gets an active seeker in block 2, it seems like it would make sense to add this as an AAW package to the ships. I think the Brits are doing something similar for their Type 26 with the CAMM. While it would make sense to deploy 56 launchers to the SSM bay, I don't see why it be the only choice on both classes.

(in reply to ExNusquam)

Post #: 22

RE: Out of touch - 10/18/2015 2:58:37 PM

ExNusquam

Posts: 513
Joined: 3/4/2014
From: Washington, D.C.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cheechako

The below deck penetration looks to be 5-7 feet for the 30mm mount. 56 launchers are 15' high which would result in a superstructure change of no more than 10' and probably something more like 8'. That looks doable on both ships. Once the ESSM gets an active seeker in block 2, it seems like it would make sense to add this as an AAW package to the ships. I think the Brits are doing something similar for their Type 26 with the CAMM. While it would make sense to deploy 56 launchers to the SSM bay, I don't see why it be the only choice on both classes.

Yeah, but remember that things are never that simple: http://news.usni.org/2014/12/15/navy-fleet-put-lcs-follow-focus-surface-sub-threats-not-air

The navy just didn't have the weight/design space available to include the missiles in the design. In the present LCS configuration, the mission modules only have 105 Tonnes available for all of their dedicated weapons/sensors. Considering that the SSC plans call to include both the 30mm Bushmasters and the MFTA on all hulls, I can't imagine they'd have weight available to include both Hellfires and ESSMs (even with the planned weight reduction).

We can talk hypotheticals all day, but the Navy has been very open about the future of the LCS hulls. It's also been very open about the limitations it faced in making those decisions, both physical and financial. The result is that the final SSC design will not be the mini-Burke that many observers had dreamed of, because that level of capability was never designed into the hulls. The SSC will never be an independent surface combatant. It's going to do ASW and Small-Boat SUW screens, be an extra shooter in organic ASM exchanges and a great ISR platform. By having a large number of smaller combatants to focus on these roles, the large surface combatants can focus on strike and air warfare. It's a high-low mix, and the LCSs are the "low" end.

It's extremely difficult to use Russia as an example of why the LCSs are undergunned for their weight class. Russia is in the situation where they are attempting to expand their naval power projection abilities, yet do not seem to have effectively restarted their large ship building abilities. Seriously, when was the last time the Russian navy laid down anything large than a Frigate? The last of the Udaloys were laid down in 1991 and scrapped and since then the Russians have built a whopping 4 destroyers, which went to the PLAN. Russia needs to put strike/offensive capability on their smaller combatants because their large combatants are aging and lack this capability. Given the amount of money that the Russians are pouring into the Yasen/Borei classes as well as their rapidly expanding fleet of Corvettes/Frigates, we can assume that Russia expects these vessels to carry the weight of it's power projection.

(in reply to Cheechako)

Post #: 23

RE: Out of touch - 10/18/2015 3:23:05 PM

Cheechako

Posts: 33
Joined: 7/10/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ExNusquam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cheechako

The below deck penetration looks to be 5-7 feet for the 30mm mount. 56 launchers are 15' high which would result in a superstructure change of no more than 10' and probably something more like 8'. That looks doable on both ships. Once the ESSM gets an active seeker in block 2, it seems like it would make sense to add this as an AAW package to the ships. I think the Brits are doing something similar for their Type 26 with the CAMM. While it would make sense to deploy 56 launchers to the SSM bay, I don't see why it be the only choice on both classes.

Yeah, but remember that things are never that simple: http://news.usni.org/2014/12/15/navy-fleet-put-lcs-follow-focus-surface-sub-threats-not-air

The navy just didn't have the weight/design space available to include the missiles in the design. In the present LCS configuration, the mission modules only have 105 Tonnes available for all of their dedicated weapons/sensors. Considering that the SSC plans call to include both the 30mm Bushmasters and the MFTA on all hulls, I can't imagine they'd have weight available to include both Hellfires and ESSMs (even with the planned weight reduction).

We can talk hypotheticals all day, but the Navy has been very open about the future of the LCS hulls. It's also been very open about the limitations it faced in making those decisions, both physical and financial. The result is that the final SSC design will not be the mini-Burke that many observers had dreamed of, because that level of capability was never designed into the hulls. The SSC will never be an independent surface combatant. It's going to do ASW and Small-Boat SUW screens, be an extra shooter in organic ASM exchanges and a great ISR platform. By having a large number of smaller combatants to focus on these roles, the large surface combatants can focus on strike and air warfare. It's a high-low mix, and the LCSs are the "low" end.

It's extremely difficult to use Russia as an example of why the LCSs are undergunned for their weight class. Russia is in the situation where they are attempting to expand their naval power projection abilities, yet do not seem to have effectively restarted their large ship building abilities. Seriously, when was the last time the Russian navy laid down anything large than a Frigate? The last of the Udaloys were laid down in 1991 and scrapped and since then the Russians have built a whopping 4 destroyers, which went to the PLAN. Russia needs to put strike/offensive capability on their smaller combatants because their large combatants are aging and lack this capability. Given the amount of money that the Russians are pouring into the Yasen/Borei classes as well as their rapidly expanding fleet of Corvettes/Frigates, we can assume that Russia expects these vessels to carry the weight of it's power projection.

http://news.usni.org/2015/10/15/navys-future-frigate-will-be-optimized-for-lethality-survivability-will-not-retain-lcss-speed

Weight is an issue, and apparently they are dropping the speed requirement to fit everything on the SSC due to going over weight. 24 ESSMs weigh in around 23 tons and while heavy, seems like that could still be a viable option with block 2 ESSMs.

(in reply to ExNusquam)

Post #: 24

RE: Out of touch - 10/18/2015 9:11:21 PM

DESRON420

Posts: 57
Joined: 9/30/2015
Status: offline

My thought is that the power requirements and EMCON impact of the search and fire control radars may not be worth it in the small LCS form factor. The USN already has lots of powerful all-rounder radar/AAW platforms in the fleet, and most of them need new software and more missiles. Other navies need every AAW platform they can get, and are probably more inclined to include marginal AAW systems in their designs, but for the US it doesn't make sense when the budget is needed elsewhere.

LCS are not a pure frigate design due to the huge emphasis on the helicopter. They are more like a stab at a small Sea Control Ship. I think the basic idea will end up making more sense as ISR drones enter the fleet in greater numbers and the USN acquires modern offensive anti-ship weapons.

< Message edited by DESRON420 -- 10/18/2015 10:22:51 PM >

(in reply to Cheechako)

Post #: 25

RE: Out of touch - 10/19/2015 7:22:49 PM

magi

Posts: 1529
Joined: 2/1/2014
Status: offline

I do not know if this is realistic� But I wish the LCS class ships had 0ECM capability.... I find it would be a useful force multiplier.... I have read so much information about the future of this class of ships� Even talk of having them have frigate class capabilities� It will be interesting to see how they evolve over the next few years� I do believe we certainly need A capable frigate platform.... They are very useful�

(in reply to DESRON420)

Post #: 26

RE: Out of touch - 10/19/2015 7:33:26 PM

magi

Posts: 1529
Joined: 2/1/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cheechako

quote:

ORIGINAL: ExNusquam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cheechako

http://news.usni.org/2015/10/15/navys-future-frigate-will-be-optimized-for-lethality-survivability-will-not-retain-lcss-speed

Weight is an issue, and apparently they are dropping the speed requirement to fit everything on the SSC due to going over weight. 24 ESSMs weigh in around 23 tons and while heavy, seems like that could still be a viable option with block 2 ESSMs.

Oh thank you Cheechako.... Just read this one.....

(in reply to Cheechako)

Post #: 27

RE: Out of touch - 10/19/2015 9:39:18 PM

ExNusquam

Posts: 513
Joined: 3/4/2014
From: Washington, D.C.
Status: offline

Cheechako, thanks for the link. I didn't know they were dropping the speed requirement for the SSCs. It will be interesting to see where they take the hull (and how the LCS fiasco influences the next major ship class).

Magi, one of the slated upgrades for all LCSs is the improvement of the EW systems. The AN/SLQ-32(v)6 has been trialed on the LCS class and seems like a likely choice. This sensor group is in command but doesn't function, a problem that I believe is to be fixed in 1.10,

(in reply to magi)

Post #: 28