Posted on 01/10/2018 7:58:08 PM PST by sukhoi-30mki
Original layout for the angled “harpoon” launch tubes.
Get more bang for the buck bringing back naval frigates, and more ships too.
Since these are the main roles for the class why not discard the stern helipad and hangers and replace that space with additional VLS?
Lengthen it, make it thin and fast, and call it a light cruiser.
CLAAG (Cruiser Light Anti-Air Guided)
Less firepower than a WWII destroyer, and with a deeper draft. But they are awesome for defense contractors.
These ships are a tacit admission that the USN has decided to avoid surface warfare.
A modern frigate with 8 Harpoons would sink any ship of any navy in WW2.
They can still sink any ship of any navy.
“Lengthen it, make it thin and fast,”
The broader beamed Arleigh-Burks are faster in actual combat than the older very narrow designs in everything but glass smooth seas. They have much better sea keeping characteristics. They also have more room and use less fuel for ships of similar size.
They are also bigger than a WW2 cruiser
Lastly, the helicopter is one of the most important weapons on the ship for anti-submarine warfare. A helicopter is also a radar platform to help detect and identify other vessels. It is also used to rescue downed pilots and transfer supplies and personnel. You don’t want to remove a helicopter from the ship.
They lack the ability to penetrate battleship armor and only pack a 488lb warhead. But no ship today comes close to that kind of armor.
In any case, this LCS upgrade cannot survive a duel with a T-72 tank on the beach, or defend itself from the ubiquitous motorboat close in attack. It also has no ASW defense.
It’s a dog.
Its unlikely that Harpoons, with a 500 lb warhead, could have sunk a WWII capital ship. Many of these vessels took much worse hits from multiple equivalent weapons, many of which were even heavier armor-piercing shells, and underwater hits from torpedoes also.
Even destroyers are known to have survived multiple hits from equivalent weapons, such as kamikazes loaded with 500lb bombs or the like.
Granted the Harpoon warhead is higher tech than WWII weapons of similar weight, but it can’t be that much better.
Same junk, different day!!
Anyone know the specs on the forward gun?
This is another appalling example of crony capitalism based upon unrealistic requirements that do not meet the requirements to combat our enemies.
Likely a 3” or 5”.
Put Harpoon in VLS or get if off the ship
It would be a bit absurd for such a vessel to come in to within 3000 meters of enemy forces ashore (direct fire range of a T-72, more or less). Ordinary modern 155mm field artillery would be much more dangerous, going out to 20-30K or so. But that is true for any ship.
Such targets are best left to air attack.
yup - sucking on that big taxpayer tit
Putting Harpoon in VLS wastes VLS cells. Harpoon doesnt need VLS, and can be carried at no cost (little extra displacement, etc.).
It a tack-it-on sort of weapon.
Best to use VLS for munitions that need that.
Replace Harpoon with a better AS missile.
This seems an anti-air optimized configuration, which would be useful for that purpose I think, unlike the previous designs. If you need a ship to do everything then you need a bigger ship.
Understood about the anti-sub tactics. But a small class (4-6?) of CLAAGs could make sense as part of a carrier centered force. Relatively less expensive. Freeing up destroyers for other roles.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.