How did the task forces transit the large expanses of the Pacific? Was there a major sub threat enroute? Have you looked at a map lately? the island locations where the battles took place have not changed? Was Midway fought in littoral? Coral Sea? How did the USN transit the Pacific from the west coast and Hawaii to the Solomon Sea? ???????…..etc.

So you are repeating what I said in different language?. The Pacific was a series of set piece battles initally that led to protracted littoral warfare. Can I assume that your unwillingness to answer a direct and very simple question is deliberate?.

They successfully conducted ASW with far less sophisticated weapons and sensors when needed just as a much larger ship (LCS) with better sensors, weapons, and helos would be able to conduct ASW as necessary now.

You are still seriously trying to make this connection?. Please, as you have been asked by others, look at the capabilities of the ASW vehicles deployed on LCS. Its chokepoint and shallows stuff. The most ASW support that an LCS will give a deployig group is to sanitise chokepoints in preparation for the group transit. Still vital work and not to be undervalued…..but not blue water ASW by any stretch.

Your ignorance is showing again. the SH-60/LCS combination steaming in the van of the main body is a superb system for providing AAW screening and early warning. Why, here is a hint….. radar can be detected at far greater ranges than the radar itself can detect and track a target. Maybe you don’t want to give away the location of something more valuable?

So now LCS is a valid FFG replacement, and an AAW one at that, because it carries an ESM fit???.

Naval architect you aren’t. Top weight is proportional to weight below the water line. Sure they had a lot of weight topside but they had even more at or below the water line so in effect that counters any weight topside.

You put weight up high on a ship, armoured directors or heavy radar fits and the suchlike, you will decrease its stability. That stability is restored, in some measure, by increasing the beam/displacement but you always have the tradeoff that beam/displacement brings extra overheads impacting propulsion/range. So its not always possible that the topweight is fully offset. Indeed designers will have a criteria set for ‘operational seastates’ where roll and pitch values will remain within parameters set for retaining capability to fight the ship. The top weight, whilst designed in, isn’t often completely balanced out as many designs ‘accept’ the relaxed stability in the more unpleasant sea states to trade off against the performance advantages of narrower beam and lesser displacement.

….and no I’m not a Naval Architect.

The point I am making here is that while they are designed to excel in the littoral, they also have considerable capability and bring considerable value to the CSG or ESG in blue water. They are in fact probably more capable than a Perry in most sea conditions for ASW. they are certainly more flexible and they have a better AAW self defense than the how the Perrys are currently equipped. they are in fact the new small general purpose escort that the Perry’s and Knoxs once where.

Which is a view thats unsupportable in any logical sense. Certainly the GD Trimaran has the potential to be equipped in the manner you describe and, doubtless, be a valuable, if pricey, asset.

As planned currently though neither LCS is equipped for the task. It cant be a successful blue water ASW asset without an organic ASW sensor or weapon. You might as well say that an auxilliary is a blue water ASW platform because it can operate an ASW chopper or two and can mount a SeaRAM!