The US has forward based ships now, as well as air bases and army barracks dotted around the globe. The whole LCS concept is based around the premise of being able to go into friendly ports to switch out mission modules, or eventually do that at sea (we’ll see how that goes). So where is the problem with forward basing subs and rotating crews? Call it the littoral combat submarine. Unlike nuclear boats there exists a whole lot of conventional submarine support capability around the globe already. Conventional boats are getting longer legs, faster, and more comfortable for crew at the same time.
At least let them look at the damn things and see if there would be missions and areas of operations where they would be a) well suited, and b) probably cheaper to build and run than nuclear boats.

Add me to the list of LCS sceptics. The countries who have experience with the rapid switch mission module concept are not really using it but I can still see some merit with it. Give it a go by all means, but the expectation that during a conflict an LCS could race to a nearby staging post, drop old module, insert new module, and be back in the fight within 24 hours (+transit) I something that I fear may never be realised. Too many logistics, too many personnel challenges. In a week? I can see that.

But all that could equally be achieved with a steel-hulled 3-4,000 ton hull that is more conventional and “only” does 30 kts. Given how career limiting groundings tend to be these days will there be an appetite among LCS drivers zooming about truly shallow (and possibly uncharted and unknown) waters at 40+ kts? For that you want something that is lower draft still (and some local knowledge). LCS could have been a system of systems, providing mission packages and the variety of host platforms that are best suited for blue water (a FFG(X) of sorts), littoral (something SES maybe, think T-Craft with guns), and even riverine warfare. Maybe throw in an OPV of sorts for persistent low threat scenarios and all that Partnership Stations activity in place of JHSV. And the supply chain tender/mothership.

That deck gun has a bit of everything in it. Could be the 76mm but not quite. Maybe it is the Oto Melara 127mm/64, same as the German F125 after they decided their navalised 155mm was not going to work. Or a new turret for the BAE 155mm version of the Mk8. But this is only the latest concept. Expect some changes here and there.

No 2 is Royal Netherlands Navy Hr.Ms. Pelikaan

Leave something for everyone else to play with will ya 🙂

Anixtu and Wanshan, well done.

No 1 is a RN Type 23. One that had been modified to take Merlin by 2005, so maybe Lancaster or Westminster.

No 2 is the Type 143A FAC FGS Zobel. Wooden boats originally built for the Baltic but have been serving well farther afield since then.

No 4 should be the French A 69 Aviso Premier Maitre L’Her (F 792).

No 5 is the SAN’s Spioenkoep (F 147) during a crash stop.

Which makes me wonder if I have made it too easy. But No 3 is still standing.

Right, No 3 and 5 had colourful markings and/or distintictive uniforms which suggested USN to me. Then it came down to hangar and stern arrangement.

No 2 had me stumped for a while. Possibly an amphib or auxiliary again, something that used to operate really small helos like Westland Wasp or Alouette, possibly RN/RFA working uniform. Likely transferred to another navy 🙂 , so was wondering if it could be ex-RFA Lyness/USNS Sirius. Once that was ruled out there was only left really.

Anyone mind if I set a few?

No 5 USNS Supply fast combat support ship

No 4 USNS Lewis and Clarke or sister ships