Littoral Combat Ships (LCS); Which is best?
Ok, this is a typical armchair warrior stats and concepts comparison. Different ships are built to different requirements and some people will defend their favorite with diehard zealotry regardless of what anyone else says – so to that end I am not trying to convert nor bash anyone’s sensitivities. Especially when I say that the USN’s LCS designs aren’t best in class.
Strictly unqualified amateur effort. Illustrations by me. Feedback on illustrations and analysis welcome.
What is a Littoral Combat Ship anyway?
Damn good question. The best answer is that it’s just the current US Navy jargon for an Expeditionary frigate. Sure the USN’s LCS specifications are specific to their perceived needs and so on, but it’s not like the US Navy is the first or only navy to be building warships to operate in same basic operating environment fulfilling the same basic role. In fact the USN’s specifications are actually quite narrow (ironic since they emphasize flexibility and interchangeable mission modules) compared to the scope of some other navy’s takes on the subject. My preferred definition of an Expeditionary frigate is:
A frigate sized warship designed to operate off foreign shores in a light-amphibious or power projection role with a focus on close-to-shore operations.
In fact the wider trend in “expeditionary warfare” seems to be amphibious warfare ships with dock capabilities ranging from 6000 tons up to about 20,000 tons. This generic category has been in existence for many years, but current designs are intended to be more modular, stealthy, mission-flexible and generally have much better aircraft capabilities, often with a through-deck configuration. Variations between LSD (Landing Ship Dock), LPH (Landing Platform helicopter) and glorified RORO (Roll-On, Roll-Off) ferries abound. Where the Littoral combat ships in this essay differ from this category is that they are smaller and more closely resemble the Frigate category, but with an expeditionary fighting focus. Where they differ from missile boats and patrol craft is that they are designed to transverse oceans to fight in other people’s back yards, not just your own.
In all this the word “Littoral” is the greatest misnomer. It’s just a word the USN chose to use really, and reflects their doctrinal perspective and politically considered naming of a project. Littoral Combat Ships as Expeditionary frigates are inherently blue-water capable in order to get to someone else’s littoral back yard. Ok, enough of semantics, if you disagree with my classification of what is and isn’t a Littoral Combat Ship then stop reading now, the rest will be lost on you.
Ok, I’m not here to bash USN, but let’s let the cat out of the bag… after a very straightforward comparison of loosely equivalent designs, I suggest the following ranking of LCS vessels:
1. Absalon Class, Denmark
2. F-125 Class, Germany
3. LCS-2 Independence, USA
4. LCS-1 Freedom, USA
That is to say, all things being equal it’s better to have two Abaslon class vessels than two of any of the other types. So why doesn’t US just buy a load of Absalon Class boats? – We’ll come to that later.
Introducing the contenders
F-125 Frigate, Germany.. Yet to be built, these boats are designed primarily for support of light marine/SF forces and power projection in low/medium intensity situations like peacekeeping. They were originally emphasized shore bombardment/strike but this requirement seems to have been scaled back for financial reasons – their MRLS and 155mm guns removed from the specs. They are the largest and most expensive ships in this comparison.
F-125 Frigate
Absalon class, Denmark. The only contender actually in operational service, two of these serve in the Royal Danish Navy, with a follow-on class of four similar warships planned (although these will be more like GP Frigates than LCSs). These ships are about twice as heavy as the USN’s LCSs but are much more like a conventional frigate with logistics/special operations capability added. They don’t clearly out-do the others in every regard, but they are definitely the most versatile and survivable, and almost certainly the cheapest of the bunch. Very impressive boats, who’d have thought the Danes would have jumped ahead in Naval concepts for the first time since their heyday in the 1700s?
LCS-1 Freedom, USA. The Lockheed Martin LCS-1 design tends to get overshadowed by the comparatively futuristic LCS-2, but the design is in fact the best performer in some key areas. Having said that it is also the smallest, particularly in terms of logistics (“Mission specific”) volume.
LCS-2 Independence, USA.
The ones I forgot….
A few honorable mentions to other designs that sort of fit the bill. The first is the MEKO CLS (CLS = Combat Ship Littorals). This design is still on paper but is being actively marketed by Thyssen-Krupp, the same shipbuilders as the F-125. At 2800 tons and 108m length the CLS is approximately the same size as the LCS-1, and similarly armed. It also claims 45kt top speed and flexible mission modules.
MEKO CLS
Next up is the impressive but still paper-bound HSC N130 trimaran design from BGV in France. This design combines a high speed slender hull with impressive troop/logistics capabilities: 416 troops and/or mixes of up to 16 TEU units. Deck space and hanger for two medium helicopters.
HSC N130
The M-80 Stiletto, USA is a small multihull design with many conceptual similarities to the LCS designs. It is however experimental and lacks the global reach of a true LCS. An interesting design that could arguably be scaled up to meet an LCS type role. I’m not sure why the builder didn’t enter the LCS contest… or did they?
M-80 Stiletto
The FSC(X) Sea Fighter, USA is another USN experimental type, this time using a SWATH design which provides exceptional stability – but at the cost of comparatively deep draught.
Sea Fighter
And now the comparisons……
1. Defense against aerial threats
Operating close to an enemy shore invariably leaves you more accessible to their aircraft and missiles – as the Israeli and British navies can attest. Therefore the ability to intercept aerial threats including missiles is key to survivability.
Firstly all four designs have excellent quality of point air defense/CIWS, and countermeasures. But the clear advantage is with the Absalon class, with 36 medium ranged ESSM missiles. It’s a no-contest really.
1. Absalon Class
2. F-125 Class
3. Tie. LCS-1/LCS-2.
2. Offensive anti-surface warfare
The ability to engage medium/large surface targets other than self defense.
Another no-contest, with a whopping 16 Harpoon missiles, 36 ESSMs and a 127mm gun the Absalon out-guns all the others by some margin. The F-125 is also potent, but the LCS-1/2 designs are markedly impotent in their standard fit. All designs can carry helicopters which could be armed with anti-ship missiles. Again Absalon can carry larger helicopters (in sustained operation) which can generally carry longer ranged anti-ship missiles.
Both LCS craft can potentially mount up to 60 NETFIRE (aka NLOS-LS) missiles which have a modest anti-ship capability, similar in general regards the the ESSM’s, a far short of the Harpoon’s.
1. Absalon Class
2. F-125 Class
3. Tie. LCS-1/LCS-2
3. Defensive anti-surface warfare
A major threat to warships operating near an enemy coast is small craft (speed boats, jetskis etc) carrying mines which are laid immediately in front of the warship, ramming charges, small torpedoes or missiles. This is popularly called the asymmetric threat.
Although all four designs carry a formidable array of defensive weapons to meet this threat (unlike many other warships!), the most heavily defended is clearly the F-125 which is bristling with remotely operated HMGs and autocannons. The 35mm guns on the Absalon and the 57mm guns on the LCS-1/2 plus the RAM missiles can all be used with great effect also. This one is close, frankly they are all well defended.
1. F-125 Class
2. Tie. LCS-1/LCS-2
4. Absalon Class
4. Shore bombardment/power projection offensive strike
This is where the design concepts vary. The F-125 was initially designed to play a major role in offensive strike with MRLS, a 155mm gun and land-attack RBS-15 missiles. Whereas the US specifications do not call for this capability at all! – hardly fair, but hey everyone agrees that operating close to an enemy shore, bombardment and strike are key roles. Excludes helicopters (in which all are generally equal).
The Absalon and F-125 both sport advance d 127mm main guns capable of firing extended range (100km+) high accuracy/guided rounds. None of the warships have a land-attack-cruise missile capability (although it may still be planned for the F-125).
Something that I haven’t shown in the above illustration is the planned inclusion of four NETFIRE (aka NLOS-LS) modules each with 15 lightweight PAM/LAM missiles on the LCS craft. It’s not clear if these modules will ever be fitted to either LCS1 or 2 but they remain part of the program. The PAM has a range of 40km and LAM 70km plus 30 minutes loiter. These missiles are very potent but lack the range of the 127mm guns with extended range ammunition.
1. Tie. Absalon class, F-125 Class
3. Tie. LCS-1/LCS-2.
Anti-submarine warfare
This one is harder to gauge. All four designs can carry modern ASW helicopters and ASW orientated mission fits although the exact make-up of these is open to debate. However, the LCS-1/2 omit a bow/hull mounted sonar. What is more the Absalon can carry two EH-101 ASW helicopters, relative to the smaller helicopters on the other ships.
1. Tie. Absalon/F-125 (tough call)
3. Tie. LCS-1/LCS-2.
Sea keeping
Until we sail on any of these ships it’s hard to say, but sea-keeping is a key requirement to transverse oceans and maintaining station in storms. Some basic generalizations can be made: The Absalon and F-125 are large warships with deeper draught, they are likely to have good sea keeping. The LCS-2 design has a wave piecing bow and outriggers, apparently offering good sea-keeping. LCS-1 however is very shallow draught, light and not wave-piercing; it would have much poorer sea-keeping. My guess:
1. Tie. LCS-2, Absalon, F-125
4. LCS-1
[u]Littoral agility/accessibility[/u]
This is a combination of sprint speed and shallowness of draught. Turning circle etc would also play a part but aside from LCS-1 having an incredibly tight turning circle we don’t have figures for that. In simple terms the faster a boat can go, and the less it is inhibited by shallowness of the water, the more capable it is in this regard. In this category it is easy to rank them:
1. LCS-1
2. LCS-2
3. F-125
4. Absalon
[u]Helicopters (accommodation and landing)[/u]
All four designs are designed with airborne infiltration in mind. Also, Unmanned air vehicles (UAVs) are also likely to operate from all types, or at least equally potential for UAVs.
This is a tough one; LCS-2 has by far the best helipad, able to land two light/medium helicopters simultaneously, but Absalon has a much bigger hanger and can accommodate two large helicopters. I think the hanger is the winner, but in fairness I’m going to call it a draw.
1. Tie. LCS-2 and Absalon
3. F-125
4. LCS-1
Logistics support
The more troops and equipment an LCS can carry the better. The more equipment, landing craft (light) the better. The bigger hospital (sparse figures so excluded below), the more humanitarian aid…
Again LCS-2 and Absalon are in the running for the top spot. LCS-2 has slightly more space, but almost certainly fewer troops and only Absalon can embark MBTs. Given that I’d say Absalon is slightly more useful to have in the fleet from a logistics perspective:
1. Absalon
2. LCS-2
3. LCS-1
4. F-125
Missed…. [u]Sensors, communication, control and ESM…. and mine warfare[/u]
Hard to say. These are vital areas and all four designs claim to do all well. The standard of equipment in each is excellent. Sorry, no real data for a comparison. Consider out-of-scope or draw.
Tallying the points:
Ok, if we award four points for a 1st place in any category, 2 for second etc… and then add them up this is what we get:
1. Absalon (30 points)
2. F-125 (27 points)
3. LCS-2 (25 points)
4. LCS-1 (19 points)
So why doesn’t USA clone Absalon?
Well Denmark is a small country with international ambitions (mainly peace keeping, NATO commitments etc) with a modest navy. Deploying a force abroad, in a littoral environment, is not going to be a huge fleet so the ship needs to be capable of operating with minimal support. Denmark also only has two ships planned so each has to carry more than the USN’s planned fleets of LCS’ to deploy the same force. Also Denmark has a small fleet yet is strategically positioned at the mouth of the Baltic so secondary anti-surface warfare is also needed (hence the 16 SSMs). In short Denmark’s boats need to be more general purpose and more self-sufficient. Whereas America’s LCS program is designed to operate in the context of a much larger force with masses of land attack and under air superiority. So the USN’s LCS don’t need to be either as powerful or as self-sufficient. However, one-for-one the Absalon is still better, although not in every way (it’s big and slow).
By: kato - 13th September 2008 at 14:52
F125, in the latest concept, has been pushed to 7200 tons btw – at twice the displacement not even remotely comparable to LCS anymore.
By: Distiller - 12th September 2008 at 13:21
LCS-1 @ Marinette, early September 2008.
Didn’t have time/ambition to take a better shot.
By: Arabella-Cox - 29th June 2008 at 21:39
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1252327&postcount=54
Well, as always you bring up some good points. That said, the LCS may have to operate alone and away from the fleet. Remember, it can get hot very quickly and from a unexpected source. On the otherhand I do see your point and its a valid one at that……….Personally, I would still prefer a small number of ESSM’s to give the LCS a little longer reach with air threats. As for the 57 mm Cannon. I am not sure of its value??? Seems like the 20mm-30mm Gatling Gun would offer much more volume of fire. While, the 76mm OTO Mount would provide much more punch…………..I’ll have to think on that some more????
By: sealordlawrence - 29th June 2008 at 20:58
Well, I was late to this thread…………..That said, how is one 57mm bofors cannon and one Sea Ram as being adequate to defend any ship in such a high threat enviroment as the littorals???? With all do respect…………Regardless, I don’t appreciate the sarcasm.:p (Really, surprising as you are usually very knowledgeable and pleasant???)
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1252327&postcount=54
By: Arabella-Cox - 29th June 2008 at 20:42
Been through this before, they are actually well equipped for their intended role. It is very tiresome on this forum when people criticise things without understanding the context.
Well, I was late to this thread…………..That said, how is one 57mm bofors cannon and one Sea Ram as being adequate to defend any ship in such a high threat enviroment as the littorals???? With all do respect…………Regardless, I don’t appreciate the sarcasm.:p (Really, surprising as you are usually very knowledgeable and pleasant???)
By: sealordlawrence - 29th June 2008 at 19:39
I think you would have to agree the LCS are a little under gunned……Especially, in the high threat enviroment of the Littorals! :rolleyes:
Been through this before, they are actually well equipped for their intended role. It is very tiresome on this forum when people criticise things without understanding the context.
By: Distiller - 29th June 2008 at 07:40
Can’t say that I like any of these designs with heavy weaponry integrated into the superstructure. Very dangerous in case of secondary explosions when being hit. And a lot of these “hidden” systems are pretty exactly in the radar-return-CoG and close to the hottest IR spots. Also I wonder if all those openings and flaps were designed with heavy seas in mind, where their recesses are optimal wave catchers when opened to fire.
By: Arabella-Cox - 28th June 2008 at 23:57
It should not be that interesting to you as (with a spectacular level of irony) you have also continued a personal attack from another thread…………now your funny to.
I think you would have to agree the LCS are a little under gunned……Especially, in the high threat enviroment of the Littorals! :rolleyes:
By: Phelgan - 23rd June 2008 at 12:32
I think that part of the problem is that making some space for the slanted Harpoon-type launchers, whereas a VLS needs a lot more space, and also weighs a lot more than just a missile in a fairly simple tube. As it is, Boeing have designed a VLS-compatible version of Harpoon, but as far as I know, there hasn’t been much interest in adopting it. The US Navy seems to be perfectly happy using Standard as an anti-shipping missile, alongside smaller numbers of Harpoons. Basically, for a variety of reasons, the US Navy has placed a lower priority on the classical anti-shipping mission, especially given the lack of major surface threats (other than small ships).
I wouldn’t suggest putting the VLS launcher specifically for anti-surface missiles, but if you are carrying a common launcher anyway, then having the capability to swap out a few SAM for SSM would add useful flexibility, especially to the rather vaguely defined roles currently in circulation for the RN’s future fleet.
Its interesting that Boeing have done the devlopment work – I couldn’t find any mention on a previous (quick) search.
By: Dragut - 22nd June 2008 at 17:27
Here’s MILGEM, i.e. the Turkish LCS
A total of 12 MILGEM class ships will be built. Construction of the first MILGEM class corvette, TCG Heybeliada, began on 26 July 2005. TCG Heybeliada will be put to sea on 27 September 2008 and is scheduled to be completed by 25 October 2010, when it will start undergoing full sea trials before being officially commissioned. It is expected to enter service in 2011.
The first eight MILGEM class ships will be classified as corvettes, while the last four will be named the F-100 class and will be classified as frigates (the F-100 class will be slightly larger and will be equipped with the Mk.41 VLS and other additional weapon systems for improved multirole combat capabilities.)
It probably won’t be the best LCS in the world, but at least it’s a nice effort by Turkey 🙂
By: Jezza - 22nd June 2008 at 13:40
i like the Absolon the most
it would be the most versatile
By: orko_8 - 12th June 2008 at 06:08
Well Russia was planning a fleet (20) of 2000 ton vessels based on XXI design concept even plans for AAW version fitted with RIF but the plans were scaled back to just 4 2038.0 corvette.
Even with the economic recovery they have no plans to resurrect that, goes to show LCS is nice idea on paper but has its share of limitations.
Steregushcy orders reduced to four? No surprise if true. I remember reading an article that costs rocketed to 7b Ruble’s from estimated 1.7b. There were plans to get at least 12 or 20 of them, IIRC.
By: JonS - 12th June 2008 at 03:22
Nice drawing…looks a little like the HSC N130.
One question, any ideas why the NATO navies don’t use multi-use VLS in their ships that would fire SAM and SSM? The Russians seem to use this a lot more. It would help with the stealth and space since you don’t need a special boxed off area for the SSM launchers.
—–JT—–
Well Russia was planning a fleet (20) of 2000 ton vessels based on XXI design concept even plans for AAW version fitted with RIF but the plans were scaled back to just 4 2038.0 corvette.
Even with the economic recovery they have no plans to resurrect that, goes to show LCS is nice idea on paper but has its share of limitations.
By: Jonesy - 11th June 2008 at 17:17
The original essay is an good piece of work as far as it goes and, without doubt, extremely logical and well presented.
Unfortunately the most important and pertinent factor in the whole analysis piece is wrapped up in the first few lines of the third paragraph:
What is a Littoral Combat Ship anyway?
Damn good question.
Kato makes as good a fist of expanding on the problem of definition as anyone else here and he’s very correct in underscoring the difference between the old ‘colonial gunboat’ littoral presence ship, as pred points out now coyly termed a ‘stabilisation frigate’, and what the USN concept of littoral combattant is in terms of a vessel intended undertake active measures against asymmetric threats.
The two differing types have similarity only in where they would be expected to patrol and nowhere is this seen best than in the comparison between F125 and the US LCS boats. Absalon is neither of these and, as stated earlier in the thread by Tinwing, isnt a littoral optimised combattant in any regard. Absalon is an OPV with a modest amphibious component and most of a frigates combat systems. Unfortunately its not fast enough to actually be a frigate nor does it have space enough for an EMF, solely, to be of any real value as an amphib.
The answer to the original premise is quite simple then, though it does much to undermine Planeman’s obvious labours, that the best LCS out there is going to be decided between the two US designs and the best ‘colonial gunboat’, seeings as the French Floreals probably dont count anymore, will likely be the ship designed for the task – the F125.
By: EdLaw - 11th June 2008 at 16:45
I think that part of the problem is that making some space for the slanted Harpoon-type launchers, whereas a VLS needs a lot more space, and also weighs a lot more than just a missile in a fairly simple tube. As it is, Boeing have designed a VLS-compatible version of Harpoon, but as far as I know, there hasn’t been much interest in adopting it. The US Navy seems to be perfectly happy using Standard as an anti-shipping missile, alongside smaller numbers of Harpoons. Basically, for a variety of reasons, the US Navy has placed a lower priority on the classical anti-shipping mission, especially given the lack of major surface threats (other than small ships).
For the purposes of the British C-1/C-2, there are a lot of major questions, as were discussed in Sealord’s C-1/2/3 thread. The general consensus was that C-1 should either share the basic design of the T-45, or should have a common design with the C-2. The C-2 can be either a full spec warship, probably with land-attack capability; or it can be a cheaper large patrol ship. For the latter role, a modified Absalon could suffice, since the ability to carry a small special forces or boarding component would make some sense. Speed is not really as important as overall endurance for the extended patrol duty.
I would definitely, however, want a good size flex-deck onboard the C-1 and C-2 (and C-3 preferably), allowing them to embark similar packages to the American LCS. They should be able to carry MCM gear, ASW gear, or whatever is needed. All the ships should have enough internal space to carry at least two 11m RHIBs and two or more WLD-1 UUVs, or equivalent. Add in some extra berthing space, allowing up to around sixty troops to be carried, and you’ve got a reasonably good capability.
Tinwing: As for my point about the speed, as I have mentioned before, the best tool for use against small boats is the helicopter. I would contend, however, that the LCS should not rely on other ships for its own defence (beyond the single RAM and 57mm gun). The Brits learned the hard way in the Falklands that you cannot always rely on the umbrella protection of other ships. I would argue that at the very least, adding ESSM would make sense – heck, one possibility would be to have two different versions of LCS, the normal LCS, and a version of the multi-mission one discussed elsewhere. The multi mission versions would make a possible replacement for the old Perry class (pre SM-1 removal), allowing a slightly more balanced surface fleet. As it is, the fleet is heading for a very unbalanced fleet, with the huge, heavily armed Arleigh Burkes at one end, and the lightly armed but fast LCS at the other end.
By: Phelgan - 11th June 2008 at 15:12
Nice drawing…looks a little like the HSC N130.
One question, any ideas why the NATO navies don’t use multi-use VLS in their ships that would fire SAM and SSM? The Russians seem to use this a lot more. It would help with the stealth and space since you don’t need a special boxed off area for the SSM launchers.
—–JT—–
A point made before, Harpoon may not take masses of space, but it is still space that could be used for something else. A launcher that could combine Harpoon/Exocet/whatever with a SAM would have great potential for any future C1/2/3 for the RN.
I believe the latest version of Exocet is/will be “VLS-able”
By: vajt - 11th June 2008 at 14:45
A bit random but I am the sort of armchair general guy who says “what if?, why not?” and then draws a picture to illustrate what I mean. So, here is my line of thought as to the optimum expeditionary frigate/destroyer – somewhere between FREMM and Absalon, and actually with a RN weapons fit in mind.
Although BAE Sys would no doubt push for their products, I think that a OTO-Melara lightweight 127mm main gun with Volcano ammunition is the best choice. CIWS would be three 35mm Millennium guns (one forward, two aft).
Hangers would be on either side of the ship with an air-control room between them, and a medium sized Slyvr VLS capable of Aster-15/30 but mainly for Storm Shadow. SAM would be VL MICA.
Single integrated mast similar to Thales systems with multiple phased arrays including surface search. Single Sat uplink atop the mast (not Sampson).
Modest Ro-Ro/flex deck. Two 11m boats on flanks. Pop-up automatic 20mm guns forward of bridge.
On top there is a large flexible weapons deck similar to that on Absalon (but bigger). Whole range of weapons options and/or mission modules (removed via crane). Typical weapon here would be loiter attack drones (as per recent British test flight).
Powerplant as per Type-45 but exhaust between hulls to reduce IR sig and leave upper deck clear for max weapons/flex.
Obviously I’e never built a boat in my life so this is all guesswork 😉
Nice drawing…looks a little like the HSC N130.
One question, any ideas why the NATO navies don’t use multi-use VLS in their ships that would fire SAM and SSM? The Russians seem to use this a lot more. It would help with the stealth and space since you don’t need a special boxed off area for the SSM launchers.
—–JT—–
By: Merlock - 11th June 2008 at 12:36
You have now. Meet Fastwind.
A derivative of the Gowind 120 by the looks of it. I understand this project is now discontinued and efforts concentrate on the Gowind series, which can go 30+ kts with the CODAG twin diesels and triple 5000hp gas turbines.
Thanks for the picture. 🙂
I think that the discontinuation of the project is a good think: I’ve always been quite sceptikal with the hydrofoil technology. But in fact I’m dreaming of a Gowind corvette using some kind of wave-piercing hull’s technology… Would it be that hard for DCNS to make ?
________
Honda Fc50
By: pred - 11th June 2008 at 09:45
I have yet to see any illustration or details on Fastwind.
You have now. Meet Fastwind.
A derivative of the Gowind 120 by the looks of it. I understand this project is now discontinued and efforts concentrate on the Gowind series, which can go 30+ kts with the CODAG twin diesels and triple 5000hp gas turbines.
By: planeman6000 - 11th June 2008 at 06:18
A bit random but I am the sort of armchair general guy who says “what if?, why not?” and then draws a picture to illustrate what I mean. So, here is my line of thought as to the optimum expeditionary frigate/destroyer – somewhere between FREMM and Absalon, and actually with a RN weapons fit in mind.
Although BAE Sys would no doubt push for their products, I think that a OTO-Melara lightweight 127mm main gun with Volcano ammunition is the best choice. CIWS would be three 35mm Millennium guns (one forward, two aft).
Hangers would be on either side of the ship with an air-control room between them, and a medium sized Slyvr VLS capable of Aster-15/30 but mainly for Storm Shadow. SAM would be VL MICA.
Single integrated mast similar to Thales systems with multiple phased arrays including surface search. Single Sat uplink atop the mast (not Sampson).
Modest Ro-Ro/flex deck. Two 11m boats on flanks. Pop-up automatic 20mm guns forward of bridge.
On top there is a large flexible weapons deck similar to that on Absalon (but bigger). Whole range of weapons options and/or mission modules (removed via crane). Typical weapon here would be loiter attack drones (as per recent British test flight).
Powerplant as per Type-45 but exhaust between hulls to reduce IR sig and leave upper deck clear for max weapons/flex.
Obviously I’e never built a boat in my life so this is all guesswork 😉
Sign In
June 8, 2008 at 6:45 pm