LCS was never intended as a replacement for the Cyclone class nor any other class of vessel, where did that idea come from? It’s armed like a patrol boat because it’s main threat will be coastal speed boats such as those operated by the Iranians.

Bingo. Thanks for pointing out the obvious. I fully understand what LCS will bring against the Iranians, and I agree it has niche value. But why buy 55 hulls then? LCS is useless in the Indian Ocean, and useless in the Pacific theater. OK, maybe useless is a strong word – how about “limited”, “dangerous”, “overpriced”.

As for the size, last time I was aboard an FFG (HMAS Sydney to be exact) it was more than 138 meters long (Freedom is 115 Meters long and Independance is 127 Meters long).

FFG-7 isn’t the only frigate out there. Singapore’s Formidable is 115m, Meko 200 is 118m, La Fayette/FM400 is 125m. I don’t see how LCS is any smaller (lighter displacement certainly, thanks to the misguided use of aluminum – hope that bright idea never gets combat tested).

The power is needed for the fast get aways involved with Special Forces especially when facing the previously mentioned High Speed power boats of Iran.

Huh? The USN needs a cruiser sized powerplant to run away from speedboats that don’t stand a chance against a modern ship armed with RAM, guns & helos? :confused: Do you seriously think there’s a material difference between 30kts and 45kts? Any situation where speed would be of the essence by definition implies the kind of high-threat environment that LCS is not designed to tackle.

I checked comparing current RAN equipment and there is well over a 2 meter difference in draught here (note English spelling not American). In littorals even 1 meter makes a difference- this was evident to me aboard various patrol boats in Australian service.

Most of that difference is due to the hull mounted sonar. Remove it to make a more apples to apples comparison and you’ll see that LCS has very little advantage – 50cm at most, and less in the case of the Formidables and Meko 200s of the world.

There is good reason for that power and I won’t restate my point but will point out to you that a French Carrier and an American LCS may have the same power but the thrust to weight ratio is the deciding factor here- more power on a vessel this size means quicker get away times.

Again, IMHO any situation where get away times matters means that you should be worried about a lot more than speedboats. Willing to agree that this is a difference of opinion though.

With this comment it is clear that you do not understand the principle behind a Mission Module when compared to a Modular building type- Mission modules are designed to slip in and out in a matter of hours, Modular construction requires days for change over and that is provided you have the right module available and the technicians to install it- then you need the staff to operate that module (we have MEKO 200’s down here, so Australia is fully aware of how to use this design principle, in fact we have done and currently are doing major module swaps on our MEKO’s as we speak). We previously operated a mission module pack aboard our Bay Class Mine hunters- we could change those in a matter of 2 hours to suit the need. These modules looked like Shipping containers on the backs of these vessels neatly parked between the two funnels. Mission Modules are designed for RAPID deployability- Modular construction means you have a layout that you can change when you want but requires a refit to accomplish, that’s the basic difference!

Apologies if my point wasn’t clear. What I’m saying is that mission modules aren’t exclusive to LCS. They can be implemented on any type of ship, especially frigates which are going to have more volume and weight margins than LCS due to the lower speed requirements. All the USN has to do is specify it. IMHO, Stanflex seems pretty close already in terms of allowing rapid changes. It’s a mistake to justify a poor platform simply because it has a great payload – the two are (mostly) independent.

I hope you have a better understanding now of what the LCS is about-
Small crew (56 only), quicker insertion/ extraction times, better support of forces in areas previously denied to an navy such as the USN. Weapons fit to achieve a mission not blow another nations navy out of existance. Quick turn around times between missions- Extract a seal team, get them back to a staging point then swap the module for a Sea denial mission in under 2 hours.

As I said, a worthwile but niche mission. By the way, for Seal team missions in the Persian Gulf, I do wonder what’s wrong with helicopters and the current high-speed craft?

I honestly think this will go nowhere! The design principles are messed with too much and a vessel having this “Add on” would find it suffering some serious performance issues! I know it’s supposed to help with performance and it’s supposedly designed by one of the best- but I expect serious problems initially. For starters, you are messing with the designed Center of Gravity, chuck this add on on a currently serving vessel in MN, then have that vessel put to sea in the torrid North Atlantic: watch as the ships center of gravity forced the wave piercing bow through the wave alright, in a slight 25* down pitch and see your frigate become a submarine- Why do you think Vosper Thornycroft killed off the Sea Wraith so quick- they tried it! This adaption would serve well in calmer seas such as the Agean, Northern Indian or even the Black Sea.

It’s an add-on to existing designs, not to existing ships. Bit of a nuance there. They must believe that the required changes to the design’s CoG are pretty straightforward, no more than minor tweaks that can be made prior to starting the build. Concerns about the ships acting like a “submarine” are real, but DCNS clearly state that according to their tank tests the wave piercing bow would be better for high seas in the Atlantic. Up to them to prove it now.