What's up with LCS?

I am not necessarily talking about the Burke Class specifically. Just the general size of the ship……………The Japanese and South Koreans don’t have Aegis Crusiers. So, they don’t have the capability in there Aegis Destroyers????

At least for the Japanese destroyers, IIRC they don’t have the additional pair of projection screens for a group commander, which in turn means that the other parts of the group commander facilities would be lacking as well.

Enlarging the CIC will encroach on other spaces. That probably won’t be as trivial as you imagine it to be, considering its position.

I am not necessarily talking about the Burke Class specifically. Just the general size of the ship……………The Japanese and South Koreans don’t have Aegis Crusiers. So, they don’t have the capability in there Aegis Destroyers????

That is not the point and you know it. The point is the a Burke Class Destroyer is large enough in physical size to accomodate the neccessary equipment. As it stands right now Burke Class within the USN is not currently planned for the role. Yet, that is far from saying that its not large enough or capable of taking on the mission.

Enlarging the CIC will encroach on other spaces. That probably won’t be as trivial as you imagine it to be, considering its position.

As it is the CIC of the AB cannot accomodate the extra equipment needed.

That is not the point and you know it. The point is the a Burke Class Destroyer is large enough in physical size to accomodate the neccessary equipment. As it stands right now Burke Class within the USN is not currently planned for the role. Yet, that is far from saying that its not large enough or capable of taking on the mission. :rolleyes:

you don’t believe the ship the sized of a Aegis Destroyer (aka Burke) can’t accommodate such facilities…………..

As it is the CIC of the AB cannot accomodate the extra equipment needed.

Except only the USMC has any intention of doing such a thing, not so much the USN.

Sorry, the President of the United States directs the US Military. The ships are under the Command of the US Navy and its protection is there responsibility.

Please, you are way above this kind of debate…………On a personal note you’ve been off your game for a while. What’s up? I can see it in ever post???:(

No disrepect intented…….:o

Yes, LHA’s, LHD’s, LPD’s, LSD’s, LKA’s, and many other types of Cargo Ships that would needed to support any major amphibious assault. Which, are extremely vulnerable while operating within the littorals………:(

Except only the USMC has any intention of doing such a thing, not so much the USN.

USMC and Sea based transport.

Yes, LHA’s, LHD’s, LPD’s, LSD’s, LKA’s, and many other types of Cargo Ships that would needed to support any major amphibious assault. Which, are extremely vulnerable while operating within the littorals………:(

No, they aren’t. The cruisers have flag facilities, the destroyers don’t. This allows the cruisers to undertake the AAW command role for the carrier group, which the destroyers can’t do.

and you don’t believe the ship the sized of a Aegis Destroyer (aka Burke) can’t accommodate such facilities…………..:eek:

So, why does the USN operate a huge amphibious fleets thats main purpose is to operate within the littorals??? Sorry, with all do respect……….you lost me here???:o

USMC and Sea based transport.

cruiser burke
http://www.jeffhead.com/aegisvesselsoftheworld/newcg.htm
sejong
http://www.jeffhead.com/aegisvesselsoftheworld/sejong.htm

these are both based on burkes.
south korea could build them quicker and cheaper.

USN needs single hull for frigate to destroyer size
and tailor made vessels to suit.
similar to the fremms

Does it? Any evidence to support that? The destroyer/cruiser programme seems to be perfectly adequate as it is.

Which, is really the point…………the two classes are very close in size and capability.

No, they aren’t. The cruisers have flag facilities, the destroyers don’t. This allows the cruisers to undertake the AAW command role for the carrier group, which the destroyers can’t do.

cruiser burke
http://www.jeffhead.com/aegisvesselsoftheworld/newcg.htm
sejong
http://www.jeffhead.com/aegisvesselsoftheworld/sejong.htm

these are both based on burkes.
south korea could build them quicker and cheaper.

USN needs single hull for frigate to destroyer size
and tailor made vessels to suit.
similar to the fremms

Interesting concept…………..Yet, the USN isn’t going to let South Korean build its next fleet of Warships. Remember, the KDX-III’s are based mainly on US Technology.:D

cruiser burke
http://www.jeffhead.com/aegisvesselsoftheworld/newcg.htm
sejong
http://www.jeffhead.com/aegisvesselsoftheworld/sejong.htm

these are both based on burkes.
south korea could build them quicker and cheaper.

USN needs single hull for frigate to destroyer size
and tailor made vessels to suit.
similar to the fremms

Ditch the cruisers and just build a single class of destroyers. The Burkes are big enough as it is.

Which, is really the point…………the two classes are very close in size and capability. Clearly, you couldn’t say the same between Destroyers and Cruisers of the past……….So, instead of building up to a crusier size. Maybe the USN needs a Frigate sized ship?????

The Aegis Destroyers and Crusiers are no that far apart in size and/or capabilities. Wouldn’t are larger common class be far more economical? Of course two maybe three seperate ship yard could construct them………driving the price down even futher. Yet, giving everybody a share……….:D

Ditch the cruisers and just build a single class of destroyers. The Burkes are big enough as it is.

That is the point, the USN has no intention of going into the littorals

So, why does the USN operate a huge amphibious fleets thats main purpose is to operate within the littorals??? Sorry, with all do respect……….you lost me here???:o

I agree…………………Yet, the USN is very lacking in Anti-Mine and ASW within the Littorals. Which, I hoping the LCS could remedy??? Which, has often been over looked.:(

That is the point, the USN has no intention of going into the littorals

Its not any more highly priced than a littoral one if you have to project that littoral navy and that is basically what DDG-1000 and LCS have shown.

I can actually see the USN’s perspective (partially), their procurement programmes are the longest of all the services so they need to plan up to thirty years ahead. They see little desire for further interventionist foreign policy in the US in the coming decades and their paranoia has them seeing a vast Chinese armada being assembled across the pacific. The basis of US power is naval and it is its Global Oceanic Superiority that insures it, thus look after the priorities. In short the USN does not give a rats **** about failed states or invasions, it cares about maintaing relative US power in a statist world.

I agree…………………Yet, the USN is very lacking in Anti-Mine and ASW within the Littorals. Which, I hoping the LCS could remedy??? Which, has often been over looked.:(

Forget LCS and forget the 20,000t+ cruiser, what is needed is a follow on class of destroyers to replace the Tico’s and early burkes, and a class of 4,000t or 5,000t frigates to replace the FFG’s, these would be built rather then the LCS’s which are built in the case of LCS-2 to the design of a high speed ferry and in the case of LCS-1 to a fast yacht.

The Aegis Destroyers and Crusiers are no that far apart in size and/or capabilities. Wouldn’t are larger common class be far more economical? Of course two maybe three seperate ship yard could construct them………driving the price down even futher. Yet, giving everybody a share……….:D