Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence

Here’s something of interest I think y’all will enjoy.
The bofors 40 and 57mm guns can penetrate more than 6” of armor…not sure when that capability will be necessary though lol
 

Attachments

  • IMG_7366.png
    IMG_7366.png
    329.8 KB · Views: 47
johnpjones1775 said:
Here’s something of interest I think y’all will enjoy.
The bofors 40 and 57mm guns can penetrate more than 6” of armor…not sure when that capability will be necessary though lol
Click to expand...

Naval 40mm Bofors guns don't use the APFSDS-T round cited here. That round was developed for antiarmor use in the CV9040 IFV.

It's not clear whether there even is an equivalent round for 57mm Bofors, since there are no current ground applications of that gun. There was apparently some sort of APDS or APFSDS for the German Begleitpanzer support tank (if War Thunder players are any guide) but it very likely is not available today.
 
Last edited:
TomS said:
Naval 40mm Bofors guns don't use the APFSDS-Tround cited here. That round was developed for antiarmor use in the CV9040 IFV.

It's not clear whether there even is an equivalent round for 57mm Bofors, since there are no current ground applications of that gun. There was apparently some sort of APDS or APFSDS for the German Begleitpanzer support tank (if War Thunder players are any guide) but it very likely is not available today.
Click to expand...
Well I can tell you that the 57mm does in fact have that capability. As per former Weps on a freedom.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
Well I can tell you that the 57mm does in fact have that capability. As per former Weps on a freedom.
Click to expand...

Your source is telling sea stories, I suspect. The Navy's budget docs talk about procurement of the 4G bolt guided round (ALaMO), prox-fuzed HE (the 3P round), an HE-PD (point-detonating) round, TP (training), and dummy rounds. No sabot.
 
TomS said:
Your source is telling sea stories, I suspect. The Navy's budget docs talk about procurement of the 4G bolt guided round (ALaMO), prox-fuzed HE (the 3P round), an HE-PD (point-detonating) round, TP (training), and dummy rounds. No sabot.
Click to expand...
3P has an armor penetration mode…it’s literally on BAE’s page for the 3P ammunition. The amount of penetration just isn’t listed
 

Attachments

  • IMG_7378.png
    IMG_7378.png
    845.3 KB · Views: 35
johnpjones1775 said:
3P has an armor penetration mode…it’s literally on BAE’s page for the 3P ammunition. The amount of penetration just isn’t listed
Click to expand...

The value in the slide you uploaded and called out is specifically for a tungsten AP sabot round. It has zero relevance to 3P penetration.

A 57mm 3P round isn't going to get through 6 inches of RHA, even in AP mode. The original 57mm SAP would penetrate about 2 cm; 3P maybe a bit more but absolutely not 15 cm.
 
TomS said:
The value in the slide you uploaded and called out is specifically for a tungsten AP sabot round. It has zero relevance to 3P penetration.

A 57mm 3P round isn't going to get through 6 inches of RHA, even in AP mode. The original 57mm SAP would penetrate about 2 cm; 3P maybe a bit more but absolutely not 15 cm.
Click to expand...
You can believe it or not, no skin off my back.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
You can believe it or not, no skin off my back.
Click to expand...

Not my fault you don't know what you're talking about about.

To reiterate, there is no US Navy 57mm round that will penetrate 150mm of armor plate. Which is fine because there is also no actual need for a naval round that can penetrate 150mm of armor.
 
Something I think many have overlooked, is what role china’s maritime militia could play in a hot war. Aside from ISR, merchant raiding is a realisitic possibility, and LCSes would be pretty well suited to countering such tactics.

A merchant cruiser will need, range, and deep magazines, camouflage as an innocent fishing vessel or merchant ship is a plus.
If they want to be able to pretend to be innocent vessels before and after their attacks, they won’t be able to have many if any, large ASMs. So that means they’ll be relying on small drones/loitering munitions that will have relatively short range, and be relatively slow.

Even if the raiders aren’t worried about appearing innocent and are loaded with ASMs, they’ll likely be older obsolete models of missiles from the 60s, 70s and 80s, which means slower, easy pickings for mk110, and SEARAM.

Allowing them to pulling to just about any port means they can be easily supplied without UNREP assets. Speed means they can respond to attacks, and chase down raiders, using their own ASMs, hellfire, or gun, and then send a boarding party over via helo once they’ve been pounded into submission.
Relatively cheap, means they can still be bought in large numbers to be spread around the seas.
 
I had always assumed the LCS small boat mission was primarily focused on the PRC militias and various maritime enforcement agencies (I believe all four of these have been unified into what is a Coast Guard equivalent now).
 
johnpjones1775 said:
Something I think many have overlooked, is what role china’s maritime militia could play in a hot war. Aside from ISR, merchant raiding is a realisitic possibility, and LCSes would be pretty well suited to countering such tactics.
Click to expand...

Never fear, the Marines have a plan for this.

Combining task-organized SIF elements, MPF-UBs, and the Javelin CCMS into a single platform will create a highly lethal capability to provide the maritime component the means to disrupt PRC operations across the spectrum of conflict. These new Marine light assault missile patrol (LAMP) boats will have the maneuverability and firepower needed to engage and neutralize intermediate adversary threats in coastal areas. Their speed will allow them to rapidly close with Houbei-class missile boats and then attack them with a volley of self-guided anti-tank missiles. Their ability to outmaneuver CCG cutters and other small craft will place them in a position to interdict maritime patrol operations or disrupt ISR-T activities inside the FIC. Marine crews armed with various small arms and crew-served weapons provide the flexibility needed to contact CMM vessels, discern their intent, and engage them if determined to be hostile. When effectively organized and widely employed within SCS, Marine LAMP Boats will be able to create opportunities for Navy warships to maneuver.
Click to expand...

Screenshot 2025-02-12 090914.png

Which, to be fair, is probably what our Navy will look like after the first year of war, once we are forced to sue for peace given our inability to produce ships and weapons of war.

archive.is

Lighting the Way: Marines, Missiles, MPF Boats, and the Path through …

archived 11 Feb 2025 15:18:09 UTC
archive.is archive.is
 
Last edited:
Josh_TN said:
I had always assumed the LCS small boat mission was primarily focused on the PRC militias and various maritime enforcement agencies (I believe all four of these have been unified into what is a Coast Guard equivalent now).
Click to expand...
Nope, it was aimed at Iran originally
 
joshjosh said:
The Marines have a p


Never fear, the Marines have a plan for this.



View attachment 774907

Which, to be fair, is probably what our Navy will look like after the first year of war, once we are forced to sue for peace given our inability to produce ships and weapons of war.

archive.is

Lighting the Way: Marines, Missiles, MPF Boats, and the Path through …

archived 11 Feb 2025 15:18:09 UTC
archive.is archive.is
Click to expand...
In coastal areas, commerce raiders likely wouldn’t be operating in coastal regions, this LAMP boat concept just seems like a worse version of the MK VI in every way, except for cost.
MK VIs combined with an ESB or even an amphib could base far at sea and cover wide ranging areas of patrol. Doesn’t look like these LAMP boats could do that.

Houthis may not have had the highest end equipment, but seems our defenses are excellent, and while I generally don’t underestimate potential enemies, I feel pretty confident saying to would take A LOT for our fleet to decimated let alone fully destroyed in a year or less.
 
Last edited:
I love they want these LAMP boats to fight missile corvettes…it would likely require several javelin hits to take out a Houbei even from a mission kill perspective, and to accomplish that the missiles need to make it past the ship’s defenses. I know it has a gun based CIWS, ak630 or something similar, 76mm gun, which will quickly be turned on the boat…this is one of the stupidest proposals I’ve seen USNI share
 
Agree. At that point go for semi submersible USVs, do not bother with anything manned or that you hope survives. There are a vast number of options on the market now up to craft with 1000 mile ranges and one ton payloads.
 
Josh_TN said:
Agree. At that point go for semi submersible USVs, do not bother with anything manned or that you hope survives. There are a vast number of options on the market now up to craft with 1000 mile ranges and one ton payloads.
Click to expand...
The mk vi does pretty much everything the LAMP concept does, but with more range/endurance, and the capability to carry actual missiles. They likely be limited in number but they’d be big enough to mount griffins, which might actually mission kill a corvette in a single shot reliably.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
The mk vi does pretty much everything the LAMP concept does, but with more range/endurance, and the capability to carry actual missiles. They likely be limited in number but they’d be big enough to mount griffins, which might actually mission kill a corvette in a single shot reliably.
Click to expand...

I think having a wet freeboard is a necessary survival trait. I would want something with a hybrid propulsion plant that could do slow electric infiltration and high speed diesel/gas sprints. And again, the market is flush with options for systems that can do this. I think something as small and simple as a dozen APKWS fired at the forward superstructure of a surface combatant could be effective. Another alternative might be a smaller, slower platform that operates as a one time maneuvering smart mine. Larger platforms might make use of Griffon sized weapons from further out. An MKRS pod might not be an unreasonable option either; survival of the launch platform would not be super important.
 
Josh_TN said:
I think having a wet freeboard is a necessary survival trait. I would want something with a hybrid propulsion plant that could do slow electric infiltration and high speed diesel/gas sprints. And again, the market is flush with options for systems that can do this. I think something as small and simple as a dozen APKWS fired at the forward superstructure of a surface combatant could be effective. Another alternative might be a smaller, slower platform that operates as a one time maneuvering smart mine. Larger platforms might make use of Griffon sized weapons from further out. An MKRS pod might not be an unreasonable option either; survival of the launch platform would not be super important.
Click to expand...
A dozen APKWS could mission kill most ships I agree, if they hit, but they’re slow small targets easy to intercept for phalanx/ak630 type guns, as well as larger AAW capable guns, so the question is, in salvo of a dozen how many hit? How many actually hit some where important? How many do you need to carry onboard and salvo at once to have a high probability of getting those hits, and keeping either gun system to busy to shoot at you before that mission kill occurs? Does this vessel need 2 pods? 3? 4? Do you only send them out with enough to reliably mission kill 1 vessel or magazines deep enough for multiple engagements?
 
Josh_TN said:
I had always assumed the LCS small boat mission was primarily focused on the PRC militias and various maritime enforcement agencies (I believe all four of these have been unified into what is a Coast Guard equivalent now).
Click to expand...

When they were being designed, Iran's swarming small boat force was much more of the stressing threat than China. Which is why the Netfires/NLOS Precision Attack Missile was the original weapon of choice.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
A dozen APKWS could mission kill most ships I agree, if they hit, but they’re slow small targets easy to intercept for phalanx/ak630 type guns, as well as larger AAW capable guns, so the question is, in salvo of a dozen how many hit? How many actually hit some where important? How many do you need to carry onboard and salvo at once to have a high probability of getting those hits, and keeping either gun system to busy to shoot at you before that mission kill occurs? Does this vessel need 2 pods? 3? 4? Do you only send them out with enough to reliably mission kill 1 vessel or magazines deep enough for multiple engagements?
Click to expand...

Ok. How about two dozen? Still costs practically nothing in volume, weight, or funding. I think they would have a much better chance of scoring hits than a half dozen griffins.
 
Josh_TN said:
Ok. How about two dozen? Still costs practically nothing in volume, weight, or funding. I think they would have a much better chance of scoring hits than a half dozen griffins.
Click to expand...
Weight isn’t necessarily the issue, but overall size/footprint. The boat they’re suggesting is only 41ft long and 14ft wide.
I can’t find a speed listed for griffins unfortunately, but I’d be willing to bet they’re faster than APKWS by a good margin.

But griffins have 2 more miles in range on APKWS, and a 30% heavier warhead.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
Saw this yesterday as well. It hides an interesting tidbit in it.

Seems to me like this administration had the war with iran planned for quite a while.
Click to expand...

The US relationship with Iran has been adversarial for 45 years.

Its not hard to believe the US has extensive plans for what to do if the situation turns hot.

What I find interesting is the LCS is being kept away from the very scenario for which it was designed.
 
Last edited:
Jimmo952 said:
The US relationship with Iran has been adversarial for 45 years.

Its not hard to believe the US has extensive plans for what to do if the situation turns hot.

What I find interesting is the LCS is being kept away from the very scenario for which it was designed.
Click to expand...
It’s just a coincidence that they ran drills including evacuations a few months before POTUS said his director of national intelligence was wrong, and Iran was close to getting nukes, issued evacuation orders, and got us into a conflict we have no business in?

With kegsbreath in charge is it surprising?
Especially after years of bad press.
Impressionable idiots make bad decisions. I’d bet most people on this thread have a better understanding of naval warfare than he does.
 
Last edited:
johnpjones1775 said:
It’s just a coincidence that they ran drills including evacuations a few months before POTUS said his director of national intelligence was wrong, and Iran was close to getting nukes…

With kegsbreath in charge is it surprising?
Especially after years of bad press.
Impressionable idiots make bad decisions. I’d bet most people on this thread have a better understanding of naval warfare than he does.
Click to expand...

The bad decision was building LCS.
 
Jimmo952 said:
The US relationship with Iran has been adversarial for 45 years.

Its not hard to believe the US has extensive plans for what to do if the situation turns hot.

What I find interesting is the LCS is being kept away from the very scenario for which it was designed.
Click to expand...

I think the article is misleading. What got cancelled was the scheduled Persian Gulf port call for LCS-32, which happened to coincide with inbound MRBMs. If Iran does proceed with trying to close the Strait of Hormuz at some point, we can expect that the MCM LCSs will be involved in clearance efforts at some point (likely once the covering missile threat has been largely suppressed.
 
Last edited:
Plus from a quick google search seems all the Avengers and Ospreys, which are even worse in a situation like this, are all in CONUS.

Its be over a few weeks to get them into position to open up a mined Strait since those have to be SHIPPED on another Ship to get into the AO.

While the LCS can be surge sortied there in half the time on their own.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
It’s just a coincidence that they ran drills including evacuations a few months before POTUS said his director of national intelligence was wrong, and Iran was close to getting nukes, issued evacuation orders, and got us into a conflict we have no business in?

With kegsbreath in charge is it surprising?
Especially after years of bad press.
Impressionable idiots make bad decisions. I’d bet most people on this thread have a better understanding of naval warfare than he does.
Click to expand...
Dude, you served.

You know as well as I do that drills may or may not reflect actual plans.

When I was still on subs, someone got a wild hair up their ass about training to individually buoyant escape from a sunk sub.

Ignoring that the 100-fathom curve is about 1 mile off the breakers in the Pacific. Everywhere else is "fight the casualty till you implode" deep water.
 
Firefinder said:
Plus from a quick google search seems all the Avengers and Ospreys, which are even worse in a situation like this, are all in CONUS.

Its be over a few weeks to get them into position to open up a mined Strait since those have to be SHIPPED on another Ship to get into the AO.

While the LCS can be surge sortied there in half the time on their own.
Click to expand...
What? The avengers are all forward deployed…
Anvengers don’t need to be shipped on another ship if they were CONUS…
 
Scott Kenny said:
Dude, you served.

You know as well as I do that drills may or may not reflect actual plans.

When I was still on subs, someone got a wild hair up their ass about training to individually buoyant escape from a sunk sub.

Ignoring that the 100-fathom curve is about 1 mile off the breakers in the Pacific. Everywhere else is "fight the casualty till you implode" deep water.
Click to expand...
I did, and we never did any evacuation drills while I was in Bahrain.

Got a pal who has been in Bahrain for about a decade now, also never seen or heard of an evacuation drill…so it’s pretty coincidental that the first one in a decade or more just happened to be a few months before an actual evacuation order and a mass bombing…
 
Firefinder said:
Plus from a quick google search seems all the Avengers and Ospreys, which are even worse in a situation like this, are all in CONUS.

Its be over a few weeks to get them into position to open up a mined Strait since those have to be SHIPPED on another Ship to get into the AO.

While the LCS can be surge sortied there in half the time on their own.
Click to expand...
As noted, the 8 surviving MCMs are all forward-deployed, four in Sasebo, Japan, and four in Manamah, Bahrain.

There are supposed to be three Indy-type LCS with MCM packages in Bahrain by the end of the year, at which point the MCMs there will probably decommission in place.

 
johnpjones1775 said:
I did, and we never did any evacuation drills while I was in Bahrain.

Got a pal who has been in Bahrain for about a decade now, also never seen or heard of an evacuation drill…so it’s pretty coincidental that the first one in a decade or more just happened to be a few months before an actual evacuation order and a mass bombing…
Click to expand...

Israel first hit targets in Iran in October 2024. After that, the possibility of strikes against US bases in the region escalated significantly. That's probably what triggered the exercise, rather than any foreknowledge of the June strikes.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom