LCS to get firepower boost with Longbow Hellfires

[Khand-e]

Even more stoopid question: Is there any reason you couldn't mount AGS to one of the two LCS classes?

 

Let's just say there's a reason the Zumwalts are 15,000 tonnes.

 

Their massive armament is part of this.

[Sturgeon]

Yeah basically, however the increase in Anti-ship missiles (which some don't even have at all, oddly enough, the LCS doesn't have dedicated anti ship missiles), and Anti-Aircraft armament being a big one, many Corvettes also don't have dedicated CIWS systems (or have it optional like the Type 056A, Modularity!) and as you called, what they generally do share a Corvette will generally have less of, or at least less capable weapons to make up for the reduced amount if more advanced weapons can't be carried.

 

There's also the difference in the capabilities of the systems and facilities, one nice thing the LCS does have going for it compared to a Corvette is, unlike many Corvettes, the LCS has a full size hanger for it's helos like a larger war ship which makes operating a helo on one about a thousand times easier and lessens the chance any aircraft will be damaged or swept overboard in rough weather.

 

So LCS is sort of like a corvette for armament, but it's still more capable because it can field big helos and stuff? H-60s alone would give LCS much more capability than most of the smaller surface ships.

 

Let's just say there's a reason the Zumwalts are 15,000 tonnes.

 

Their massive armament is part of this.

 

Continuing the stoopid questions: I thought AGS was just a 155mm gun with programmable munitions? Any reason you couldn't put a 155mm howitzer on LCS? Keep in mind, I like, really, really don't understand the problems facing surface vessel designers.

[Khand-e]

So LCS is sort of like a corvette for armament, but it's still more capable because it can field big helos and stuff? H-60s alone would give LCS much more capability than most of the smaller surface ships.

 

Corvettes for the most part can still carry small-medium sized helos, the hanger just gives them much better operational capability and shielding.

 

Continuing the stoopid questions: I thought AGS was just a 155mm gun with programmable munitions? Any reason you couldn't put a 155mm howitzer on LCS? Keep in mind, I like, really, really don't understand the problems facing surface vessel designers.

 

It is a 155mm L/62 gun with programmable munitions.... And a massive water cooling system, autoloader allowing for 10 rounds a minute rate of fire, and a 300+ round magazine that extends well below deck which would increase the draft and hinder that whole "littoral combat" ability. You don't gauge a ship's gun armament just by how big the gun itself is, but how big the entire system is.

 

Honestly, it wouldn't really need a massive gun, simply giving it something like the Oto-Melara 76mm which countless vessels in the Corvette-Frigate size range have used for years (for very, very good reason) would suffice if you wanted a better dual purpose gun, maybe a 100mm gun like Eastern navies or even a 115mm/4.5" gun which the british already have a design for would also be worth looking at.

[Belesarius]

Yeah, I'm not sure why the 57mm has grown so popular lately over the 76mm.  The OTO system is a pretty beast and compact system.  I didn't like it when they picked the 57mm for the CPF fleet here either.

[Zinegata]

At the risk of channeling Daigensui, typically, what do frigates have for armament compared to corvettes?

Googling some corvettes and frigates makes it seem like both are similarly armed with the latter just having more of it.

 

I would be wary of proposing that corvettes have "typical" armaments to begin with. It's more of a weight class that is capable of operating in specific environments, rather than a designation of purpose.

 

And honestly, if it were up to me the optimal "weapon" loadout for any corvette would be one heavy or two light multi-role helicopters.

[Sturgeon]

I would be wary of proposing that corvettes have "typical" armaments to begin with. It's more of a weight class that is capable of operating in specific environments, rather than a designation of purpose.

 

And honestly, if it were up to me the optimal "weapon" loadout for any corvette would be one heavy or two light multi-role helicopters.

 

Totally fair criticism. I really don't know much about the subject, so anyone reading should take that into account.

[Zinegata]

Totally fair criticism. I really don't know much about the subject, so anyone reading should take that into account.

 

It's not so much as a criticism but a reminder that it's not a simple question to answer. Wiki for instance defines the corvette primarily by weight - 500 to 2000 tons in weight - which doesn't really tell us what the ship is supposed to do.

 

The Soviet Tarantul-class for instance are well within the "corvette" weight definition, but they aren't coastal or "littoral" craft. Instead they were meant to shadow and tail NATO battlegroups and then launch missile attacks ala PT boats in case of war. This is why the Soviet designation was "Rocket Cutter" - meaning it was a missile-armed small oceangoing craft, and deemed highly expendable.

 

The Swedish Visby by contrast is a "stealth" ship armed as a general-purpose vessel - with torpedo tubes and helicopter pad for ASW, plus anti-ship missiles. The Israeli Sa'ar meanwhile packs so many armaments that it outguns some full-sized frigates, but I have serious doubts that it could operate properly outside of the Med. The WW2-era "Destroyer Escorts" of the US NAvy by contrast were ocean-capable but more sparsely armed even with refits.

 

Part of the reason is because the general public has a very hard time grasping ship classification by "role" rather than by size. They want battleship>cruiser>destroyer because that's what Battleship taught them along with every Sci Fi fleet. Prior to 1975 for instance US Navy ships tended to be designated based on purpose rather than size, hence some "frigates" being larger than destroyers or even cruisers. Congress panicked because of this misunderstanding, so the USN started just designating stuff based on size so they could close the so-called "Cruiser Gap".

 

For my part, if the USN creates a vessel that can operate in most littoral waters, can carry its designed armament based on expected threat levels, and have lower operating costs (which is the bulk of a ship's lifetime cost) than a full carrier escort, even if it weighs much heavier than the wiki definition of a corvette, then the USN can rightfully claim to have made a "littoral combat ship". I still have no clue what the 44 knot speed is for though.

[Sturgeon]

I still have no clue what the 44 knot speed is for though.

 

ZOOMZOOM

[Taerkar]

Part of the reason is because the general public has a very hard time grasping ship classification by "role" rather than by size. They want battleship>cruiser>destroyer because that's what Battleship taught them along with every Sci Fi fleet. Prior to 1975 for instance US Navy ships tended to be designated based on purpose rather than size, hence some "frigates" being larger than destroyers or even cruisers. Congress panicked because of this misunderstanding, so the USN started just designating stuff based on size so they could close the so-called "Cruiser Gap".

 

 

 

 

Well, save for what those silly Sci Fi settings that claim that Destroyers are the biggest vessels may claim. And of course there's the general size increase of seafaring ships overall to complicate matters further.

 

For my part, if the USN creates a vessel that can operate in most littoral waters, can carry its designed armament based on expected threat levels, and have lower operating costs (which is the bulk of a ship's lifetime cost) than a full carrier escort, even if it weighs much heavier than the wiki definition of a corvette, then the USN can rightfully claim to have made a "littoral combat ship". I still have no clue what the 44 knot speed is for though.

 

 

The operating costs vs building costs are probably one of those things people (and the intellectually lazy members of congress) completely fail to understand. Something that costs 1B to build with 200M of yearly upkeep is actually more expensive than 1.5B/100M. That doesn't get into the potential bloat of each, but that's an entirely different topic anyways.

[Zinegata]

Well, save for what those silly Sci Fi settings that claim that Destroyers are the biggest vessels may claim. And of course there's the general size increase of seafaring ships overall to complicate matters further.

 

 

I was always under the impression that in Babylon 5, they originally used the cruiser-dreadnought classification (which seems to conform to the Centauri classification system as well - whose battlecruiser fit neatly in size between the Hyperion cruiser and Nova Dreadnought) until they designed an entirely new class of ship - at which point they started using the term "destroyer" to describe any "modern" post-Minbari War vessel.

 

On the other hand that may be assuming Hollywood had any sense to begin with.

[Taerkar]

Technically I suppose that's kinda true with the Star Wars universe too as they're "Star Destroyers", not just "Destroyers"

 

I think the Freespace games did the Destroyers > Cruisers approach