...what ship in the US Navy is expected to be totally survivable in a combat environments? The LCS will normally operate in foreign waters close to shore which tends to increase the probability of taking damage from hostile fire. The totally new hybrid will be capable of doing the following:
* the capabilities of a small assault transport,
* a flight deck and hangar large enough to base two SH-60 Seahawk helicopters,
* the capability to recover and launch small boats from a stern ramp,
* enough cargo volume and payload to deliver a small assault force with armoured fighting vehicles to a roll-on/roll-off port facility,
* standard armament for the LCS are Mk 110 57 mm guns and Rolling Airframe Missiles
* ability to launch autonomous air, surface, and underwater vehicles.
Although the LCS design offers less air defense and surface-to-surface capabilities than comparable destroyers, the LCS concept emphasizes speed, flexible mission module space and a shallow draft for operating very close to shore.
Additionally, the comment about "the faster the ship goes, the less accurate its guns become" has been true for as long as ships have carried weapons capable of long-range fire.
Sounds like someone is trying to offer up the LCS program as part of the Defense Department cuts. Why didn't Gilmore simply say that instead of whining about what normally happens to all new US ships in their first 5-10 years in the fleet? There have been far worse problems for several new ship models entering the fleet over the last 50 years.
I can actually see the need for a small, fast, multi-mission ship like the LCS instead of some of the slower bigger targets we currently have in the fleet. Just my opinion.
= new reply since forum marked as read
