Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

LCS to get firepower boost with Longbow Hellfires


Belesarius
 Share

Recommended Posts

Interesting.  How do hellfires stack up against griffons?

Griffon:

 

Manufacturer Raytheon Produced 2008–present Specifications Weight 45 pounds (20 kg) (w/ launch tube) Length 42 inches (110 cm) Diameter 5.5 inches (140 mm) Warhead Blast-fragmentation Warhead weight 13 lb (5.9 kg) Propellant Solid fuel rocket

Operational

range

5 mi (8.0 km) surface launch[1] 12.5 miles (20.1 km) at altitude[2]

Guidance

system

Laser, GPS or INS

 

 

 

 

Vs Hellfire

 

 

Specifications Weight 100–108 lb (45.4–49 kg)[1] Length 64 in (163 cm) Diameter 7 in (17.8 cm) Warhead High Explosive Anti-Tank (HEAT); 20 lb (9 kg) tandem anti-armor

Metal augmented charge (MAC); 18 lb (8 kg) shaped-charge

Blast Fragmentation Engine Solid-fuel rocket Wingspan 13 in (33 cm)

Operational

range

546 yd – 5 mi (500 m – 8 km) Speed Mach 1.3 (995 mph; 450 m/s; 1591 km/h)

 

 

 

Edit 1: Here's another article about the same test

 

http://defense-update.com/20150731_longbow.html#.Vb2tLvkufh0

 

Edit 2:  The other thing with the Hellfire is there are already a bunch of different warheads in service including thermobaric.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait, are you saying that things that are subject to a wide variety and diversity of hard threshold requirements end up being overweight, Mech?

 

Its possibly possible that it's a trend!

 

Only in this case it was designed to operate in more or less one capacity and still somehow ended up this way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait, are you saying that things that are subject to a wide variety and diversity of hard threshold requirements end up being overweight, Mech?

 

Honestly I think a lot of it is that sprint speed requirement, and that goes to having to have some checkbox feature that people can point to when called on to defend it as survivable.

 

In fairness I have heard an anecdote from an officer who thinks it would be fantastic to be able to go that fast so you could air dry your hair quickly, so the military utility is obvious (It's actually an argument about being able to sprint out of the radar horizon quickly that frankly seems pretty contrived and dependent on specific characteristics for the enemy systems).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly I think a lot of it is that sprint speed requirement, and that goes to having to have some checkbox feature that people can point to when called on to defend it as survivable.

 

In fairness I have heard an anecdote from an officer who thinks it would be fantastic to be able to go that fast so you could air dry your hair quickly, so the military utility is obvious (It's actually an argument about being able to sprint out of the radar horizon quickly that frankly seems pretty contrived and dependent on specific characteristics for the enemy systems).

Yeah, the speed reqs require an engine a certain size. That adds tons of weight. (Literally)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As in "double to even triple of weight of vessels designed to do the same tasks of coastal defense duties of other navies while only having equivalent or even less armament in some cases."

 

Also, the touted modularity isn't even anything special at this point either, that's becoming a thing with modern/future warships anyway, even corvette sized ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As in "double to even triple of weight of vessels designed to do the same tasks of coastal defense duties of other navies while only having equivalent or even less armament in some cases."

 

Also, the touted modularity isn't even anything special at this point either, that's becoming a thing with modern/future warships anyway, even corvette sized ones.

Oh I totally agree with you on that.  I mean, if you want to see size creep in action for armament, take a look at Canada's CPFs.  Same gun as the LCS, some Sea Sparrows and Harpoons and a CIWS.  But the CPFs have been popular ships due to the command and control abilities that it apparently has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"LCS" and "fire power" don't belong in the same sentence, or paragraph for that matter.

 

Yes they do, it's got a well-rounded suite of armament perfect for comparing to other ships in order to damn them with faint praise.

 

 

As in "double to even triple of weight of vessels designed to do the same tasks of coastal defense duties of other navies while only having equivalent or even less armament in some cases."

 

Also, the touted modularity isn't even anything special at this point either, that's becoming a thing with modern/future warships anyway, even corvette sized ones.

 

Exponential scaling is a hungry and cruel god.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly I think a lot of it is that sprint speed requirement, and that goes to having to have some checkbox feature that people can point to when called on to defend it as survivable.

 

In fairness I have heard an anecdote from an officer who thinks it would be fantastic to be able to go that fast so you could air dry your hair quickly, so the military utility is obvious (It's actually an argument about being able to sprint out of the radar horizon quickly that frankly seems pretty contrived and dependent on specific characteristics for the enemy systems).

 

Yep, the biggest point of idiocy of these ships is the 40+ knot speed requirement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it difficult to hate LCS. They seem like a reasonably appropriate type of ship for the conflicts we tend to get into these days.

I am not sure why they couldn't just call them 'frigates', though.

I think they are going to change the designation. They were talking about it anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it difficult to hate LCS. They seem like a reasonably appropriate type of ship for the conflicts we tend to get into these days.

I am not sure why they couldn't just call them 'frigates', though.

 

I don't really outright hate the program, but I do see some things they could at least try to shape up on without sounding like too much of a military reformer.

 

Also, these aren't really vessels intended for conflicts abroad but were literally centered around just staying near the US Coast as their primary focus.

 

There's alot of meaning that actually goes into the designation/classification of a vessel.

 

Also, any reason nobody's developed a 35mm Gatling for Naval use? Seems like five miles' worth of range with AHEAD munitions at 3,000 RPM would give you a pretty good swath of capability for only one weapons station.

 

Wouldn't be surprised if someone actually does that soon.

 

Also, while not rotary cannons unfortunately, Oerlikon does manufacture a 35mm revolver cannon CIWS called the Millennium, Denel Defense of South Africa (Toxn intensifies) also manufactures a double barred 35mm autocannon intended for ships simply called the "35mm Dual Purpose Gun".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really outright hate the program, but I do see some things they could at least try to shape up on without sounding like too much of a military reformer.

Also, these aren't really vessels intended for conflicts abroad but were literally centered around just staying near the US Coast as their primary focus.

There's alot of meaning that actually goes into the designation/classification of a vessel.

Wouldn't be surprised if someone actually does that soon.

Also, while not rotary cannons unfortunately, Oerlikon does manufacture a 35mm revolver cannon CIWS called the Millennium, Denel Defense of South Africa (Toxn intensifies) also manufactures a double barred 35mm autocannon intended for ships simply called the "35mm Dual Purpose Gun".

I thought LCS was designed to operate in any littoral waters?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought LCS was designed to operate in any littoral waters?

 

They are, I worded that poorly, while they're mostly coastal defense vessels, they can operate in any littoral zone, I wasn't really thinking totally through when I wrote it like that.

 

There was actually some confusion on that believe it or not when the programs was being designed, this is actually a big part of the reason they're being redesignated as Frigates. As the Navy feels like this clarifies this and actually makes more sense in the way they actually want to operate them (in any littoral waters, though Frigates often act as more then that.)

 

http://news.usni.org/2015/01/15/sna-modified-littoral-combat-ship-class-changed-fast-frigate

 

Their armament as said before would put them in Corvette range (just not their weight), but the USN has never used the term "Corvette", so we get this. (Destroyer Escort would be the closest which was used up until just a bit after WW2, but that could also be argued as a designation for the USN's version of "Frigate" as the USN wasn't using it back then either.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Similar Content

    • By Belesarius
      http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/saudi-arabia-is-buying-the-littoral-combat-ship-the-u-s-1737749488
       
       
      I don't disagree with the guy, and I think maybe I might be recommending that Canada buy a few to back up the new DD/FF design we go with.
       
       
×
×
  • Create New...