LCS Mission Modules Not Working As Intended

A recent Pentagon war game that ran the Navy’s new Littoral Combat Ship through simulated combat in the Gulf didn’t unfold quite as expected, according to participants. The LCS is custom built with the Gulf combat environment in mind: narrow and congested waters, a wide range of low-end threats from sea mines and swarms of fast attack craft to higher-end air-breathing submarines.

The key to the LCS performing as the Swiss Army knife of the battle fleet is the ship’s interchangeable mission modules. While the “plug-and-fight” mission modules sound like a good idea by providing a range of flexibility within a single hull, the simulated Gulf exercises revealed some real-world shortcomings with the LCS concept.

The war game featured the trouble-making Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps navy sending out swarms of fast-attack craft to muck it up with a half dozen LCSs. The LCSs, equipped with the surface warfare mission module which includes the ship’s integral 57mm cannon, a pair of 30mm rapid fire cannons, vertically launched missiles and armed helicopters, were able to beat back the Iranian small boat attack.

Seeing their small boat swarm shot-up, the Iranians dispatched a bunch of small, air-breathing submarines to attack the LCS flotilla. The LCSs were forced to steam down to Diego Garcia to switch out the surface warfare modules with the anti-submarine warfare packages. That scenario repeated itself every time the Iranians changed up their attack and wrong-footed the LCS flotilla.

Read more: http://defensetech.org/2010/09/01/lcs-mission-modules-not-working-as-intended/#more-8853#ixzz0yJAZ0Hca
Defense.org

More after the link
http://defensetech.org/2010/09/01/lcs-mission-modules-not-working-as-intended/#more-8853

Weren’t mission modules supposed to airtransportable? I.e. fly them in from Diego Garcia to locallly, rather than ships going the other way?

I never said the Mig-29 wasn’t a good dogfighter and never discussed the Su-27 at all. My point was of course the Mig-29 as a total package hasn’t lived up to the hype and it record supports that……

Off course.

Does that record include any instances where the Mig29 operated iin conditions resembling air superiority (like an F16 has typically enjoyed)? Or forces not trained by Soviet standards and not using standard soviet tactics?

Lebanon War 1982-2000 (Syria)
Gulf War (Iraq)
Transnistra War (Moldova, Russia)
Brothers in Rescue incident (Cuba)
Slovenian War (Yugoslavia)
Croatian War (Yugoslavia)
Bosnia (Serbia)
Kosovo (Serbia)
Kargil War (India)
Ethiopian-Eritrean War (Eritrea)
Georgian border violation 2008 (Russia)
Darfur War (Sudan)

Sorry, that is from one pilot. Yet, we have case after case of Western Types (Vipers, Hornets, and Mirage 2000’s) ending up on top vs the Mig-29. Also, I like the example of the Mig-29 vs the F-16 in the article. The advantage was the HOBS/IR Combo at a time before they were widely available in the West. Which, is not the case today. So, at best the Mig-29 mite equal a Western Contemporary in the WVR. (along with almost anything equipped with HOBS) Nothing being said of course in BVR. Were most air to air kills occur.

Inconvenient, isn’t it that you can’t just look at one on one combat results without having to take into account other things besides the plane itself. Like differences in:
– pilot skill (e.g. annual flying hours)
– nature of the pilot training (e.g. Red Flag type of stuff)
– general air force / air defence doctrine
– support (AEW etc)
– command structure (centralized, decentralized)
– on board weapons and sensors

It is general acknowledge that both Su-27 and Mig-29 airframes are very good dogfighting platforms. Unfortunately, that doesn’t necessarily make for a winning combat scenario. Any opponent would leverage whatever advantage they could find, including many that are unrelated to the airplane itself..

Just keep hearing this unbelieve range quoted time and time again.

Nothing personal just got under my skin for a minute.:(

… the LCA itself is often quoted as having a combat range of 850 km.
e.g. http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/lca.htm

… and the N-LCA probably carries less rather than more fuel than the conventional LCA
e.g. http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_418.shtml

… so, likely for N-LCA combat range is under 850 km

Meanwhile, the combat radius of MiG-29K is said to be 850 km (531 mi)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-29

Hence:

Speaking to members of “Team Tejas” after the flight, Capt JA Maolankar who is the Chief Test pilot of the National Flight Test Centre said “For a project that has so ambitiously pushed the envelope of indigenous technology, the results have been world class in many key areas. The aircraft is a pleasure to fly and has demonstrated enviably long range legs for an aircraft so small. The induction of most of the major new technologies has been remarkably smooth and the programme boasts of an enviable safety record. Great challenges lie ahead, especially when we take this aircraft to sea in the form of the LCA (Navy)”.

http://frontierindia.net/lca-tejas-crosses-1000-sorties-landmark

firing a Harpoon at a dhow lol!:p

If it’s worth killing, it is worth killing good 😀

Orange domes

Communications gear, maybe some ESM/ECM too

A range for both of 3,000 km (1840 Miles plus)………PLEASE, I think somebody is drinking to much coolade??? 😮

It’s more like 850 km with external tanks for the LCA.

Probably ferry range. Just quoting a source. Same source for both: wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_Tejas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-29K

I don’t drink coolade, no need to get personal.

Dune!