canoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2657 posts, RR: 12 Posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1153 times:
We were getting a bit off topic in the Surface Naval Engagements thread so I thought I'd respond to this over here.
Quoting sprout5199 (Reply 48): I can tell you have never been to sea for any length of time. Those "fast attack" boat can not operate at sea for that long. There is a big difference between operating 100 miles from you home port and being 5000 mile from your home port but operating 100 miles from a hostile shore.
That isn't a big deal, where there are US or allied ships there are tankers and LCSs won't be deployed to an area alone and unsupported.
Quoting sprout5199 (Reply 48): I can tell you have never been to sea for any length of time.
Whether I have or not, you're arguing against current US Navy strategy and the Secretary of Defense. As our wars become "smaller", support ships are needed to patrol nearby bodies of water, clear mines and hunt submarines. Ultimately, the US Navy is trying to replace 30 OHPs, 14 Avenger Class mine countermeasures vessels, and 12 MHC-51 Osprey Class coastal mine hunters, with about 55 Littoral Combat Ships.
Quoting sprout5199 (Reply 48): And you want to let them get into RPG range before engaging them? A 5" or even the 76mm on a Fig is a good stand-off weapon vs a small boat. The LCS ships dont have the range, can't operate by themselve for more than 20 days, and I wonder about their sea keeping abilities.
At a regular cruise speed, your still talking about intercontinental distances. After all they are Littoral combat ships. And, they would never get in range of a LCS.
Quoting sprout5199 (Reply 48): I would go on, but this is getting OT, if you want to start one about the LCS vs OHP, I would give you my opinon from someone who served on a OHP for 4 years.
For self defense the LCS is better armed than the current FFG-7s frigates they are designed to replace in anti-air/missile and anti-submarine. With eventually the new rocket assisted gunnery, their guns have more range than the 75-mm gun mount of the FFG-7s. The rolling airframe missiles are better for self defense. They carry more aircraft. For mine countermeasures they have newer and better ASW equipment. The LCS has a better hull as well, with more speed.
Frankly everything about the LCS is better than a FFG-7. The LCS will be deployed throughout the world, our current minehunters are mostly stationed in America. Their ASW module can be shipped via a Hercules aircraft, if not a C-17 quickly around the world, not take a month to get there. Plus they will make better SEALs vessels as well, carrying more of them and more of their equipment with less draft than the Cyclone class boats that were built for the SEALs.
The FFG-7 may have been a good frigate design for the early 1980s or late 1970s, but technology has gone a long way since then. Their air defense systems are at least one generation older, their gun mount is as adaptable with the new 57-mm gun mount.
The US Navy has never considered frigates a front line warship, therefore the reason to build so many cruisers and destroyers. Frigates were built for ASW ocean escorting. The LCS will have a newer generation of sonars and sonar arrays, along with carrying more aircraft.
I'm just picking the LCSs for an example but you could also argue that the planned Australian OCV or offshore combatant vessel would perform the same anti-piracy duties as well as the US class LCSs for far less cost.
WrenchBender From Canada, joined Feb 2004, 1779 posts, RR: 9 Reply 1, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1109 times:
Got to go with the Fig, but prefer what I sailed on to the FFG-7's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_class_frigate
Did time on FFH331 and 335. Very capable ships and excellent for the anti piracy and anti terror missions off the Horn of Africa and in the Persian Gulf.
The Littoral warfare concept still needs a "Base of Operations" somewhere in the vicinity of the AOR, whereas Figs just need to see a tanker/replenishment vessel once in a while.
canoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2657 posts, RR: 12 Reply 2, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1085 times:
Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating for an end to Frigates or that they can't perform an anti-piracy mission. They can. I'm saying that high tech destroyers and frigates should be used mainly to combat peer enemies. Yet, the bulk of naval operations in the 21st Century have been against low tech navies, pirates off Somalia, drug smugglers in the Caribbean, and speed-boat fleets of Iran.
"The Littoral warfare concept still needs a "Base of Operations" somewhere in the vicinity of the AOR, whereas Figs just need to see a tanker/replenishment vessel once in a while."
Attaching a combat logistics ship to CTF 151 to support LCS operations would not be a great undertaking, nor would it put any assets in danger since most are armed.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2657 posts, 
From Canada, joined Feb 2004, 1779 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
