Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence

Scott Kenny said:
So the Trimarans are doing MCM?

I guess that works, they have a helo deck big enough for an H53 if any of the Sea Dragons are still in service.

======================

It's really frustrating that the USN can't seem to get small ASW ships to work. We are down 100-120 Frigates compared to the end of the First Cold War, which meant that the USN could keep 30-40 Perry, Knox, Garcia, and Brooke-class ships AT SEA 24/7.

For what it's worth, using dual crewing would get us down to 40-60 ships needed to keep 30-40 at sea. Let's call it 50 frigates that the US desperately needs and that we cannot snag any LCS to help make up numbers.
Click to expand...
Hey I’ve been brainstorming ways to get cheap small ships for ASW. Don’t blame me
 
Scott Kenny said:
So the Trimarans are doing MCM?

I guess that works, they have a helo deck big enough for an H53 if any of the Sea Dragons are still in service.
Click to expand...
My understanding the Independence trimarans were so overweight that one measure to reduce the weight was to cut back the size of structural strength/size of the beams supporting the helo deck so not able to take the weight of the H53, though as you say don't think any are still in service .
 
CordyB said:
My understanding the Independence trimarans were so overweight that one measure to reduce the weight was to cut back the size of structural strength/size of the beams supporting the helo deck so not able to take the weight of the H53, though as you say don't think any are still in service .
Click to expand...
I just saw one fly by the Whiting Field area about two weeks ago. Visibility wasn't good enough to make out any identifiers.
 
Jimmo952 said:
That's the rumor. No official confirmation.
Click to expand...
I mean while it hasn’t been officially published, my source is extremely well situated to know for sure.

He said he didn’t know how many drones were launched so they might still launch more.

Also on a separate note, for what? 20 years detractors have said LCSes wouldn’t survive the opening hours or days of a conventional naval conflict, and after 4 days with no reports or claims of any LCSes being damaged let alone sunk I’d say that was all overblown.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
Also on a separate note, for what? 20 years detractors have said LCSes wouldn’t survive the opening hours or days of a conventional naval conflict, and after 4 days with no reports or claims of any LCSes being damaged let alone sunk I’d say that was all overblown.
Click to expand...

This isn't a naval conflict, at this point, conventional or otherwise. It doesn't sound like any Iranian naval forces (IRIN or IRGCN) have actually gotten out to sea or tried to threaten the USN forces in the Gulf. The IRIN appears to be more or less completely sunk. The IRGCN may be dead as well; if not they clearly have not come out to play, at least not yet. If a tanker convoy tries to run the
Strait, that might change. Maybe.

None of that reflects on the ability of LCS to survive in Westpac against the PLAN. (Hey, the pivot has to happen sometime...)
 
TomS said:
This isn't a naval conflict, at this point, conventional or otherwise. It doesn't sound like any Iranian naval forces (IRIN or IRGCN) have actually gotten out to sea or tried to threaten the USN forces in the Gulf. The IRIN appears to be more or less completely sunk. The IRGCN may be dead as well; if not they clearly have not come out to play, at least not yet. If a tanker convoy tries to run the
Strait, that might change. Maybe.

None of that reflects on the ability of LCS to survive in Westpac against the PLAN. (Hey, the pivot has to happen sometime...)
Click to expand...
Ships don’t need to get out to sea for it to be a naval conflict, or for LCS to be endangered/targeted.

If they got close enough to launch a shahed knock off, they were close enough to be targeted by shore batteries of ASM or drones.

Nice try though
 
johnpjones1775 said:
Ships don’t need to get out to sea for it to be a naval conflict, or for LCS to be endangered/targeted.

If they got close enough to launch a shahed knock off, they were close enough to be targeted by shore batteries of ASM or drones.

Nice try though
Click to expand...

Shahed-136 has a range of over 1500 miles.

Iran is hitting targets deep in the Arabian Peninsula with Shaheds and similar missiles launched from land in Iran. Hitting land targets in Iran with the same kind of missiles launched from LCS hardly even required leaving port.
 
TomS said:
Shahed-136 has a range of over 1500 miles.

Iran is hitting targets deep in the Arabian Peninsula with Shaheds and similar missiles launched from land in Iran. Hitting land targets in Iran with the same kind of missiles launched from LCS hardly even required leaving port.
Click to expand...
The LUCAS has a range of 444-500 miles which means if the targets were in or around Tehran, they’d be well within range of several of Iran’s shore batteries. Being 350 miles from the nearest gulf coastline.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
Also, we know the navy doesn’t launch weapons on deployment from ship classes that they haven’t tested them on previously, so it’s pretty much a guarantee they were launched from an independence.
Click to expand...

We'll find out down the road a ways. Eventually it will come to light.

I am surprised anybody would be sharing that kind of information with you so early in the game.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
The LUCAS has a range of 444-500 miles which means if the targets were in or around Tehran, they’d be well within range of several of Iran’s shore batteries. Being 350 miles from the nearest gulf coastline.
Click to expand...

But why should the targets have been that far inland. That's Tomahawk or bomber territory. I'd bet money those LUCAS drones have been beating up on Iranian coastal targets, not going deep inland.
 
Jimmo952 said:
We'll find out down the road a ways. Eventually it will come to light.

I am surprised anybody would be sharing that kind of information with you so early in the game.
Click to expand...
I mean the launches have been publicly released, and as I pointed out it only takes 2 seconds of pondering to figure it out.

Just because something isn’t released publicly also doesn’t mean it’s classified or sensitive.
 
TomS said:
But why should the targets have been that far inland. That's Tomahawk or bomber territory. I'd bet money those LUCAS drones have been beating up on Iranian coastal targets, not going deep inland.
Click to expand...
Whatever you say.

LCSes have now been in two conflict zones, and we now know that they engaged in offensive strikes in one of those zones.
0 loses, 0 damaged as of now.

They’re looking a lot more useful than their detractors have claimed they’d be.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
I mean the launches have been publicly released, and as I pointed out it only takes 2 seconds of pondering to figure it out.

Just because something isn’t released publicly also doesn’t mean it’s classified or sensitive.
Click to expand...

Test launches were published, not launches in the Gulf.

I hope it's true by the way. It would be great if we got some utility out of those things.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
The LUCAS has a range of 444-500 miles which means if the targets were in or around Tehran, they’d be well within range of several of Iran’s shore batteries. Being 350 miles from the nearest gulf coastline.
Click to expand...
Being tied up in port in Dubai means you're within range of Iran's shore batteries.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
Whatever you say.

LCSes have now been in two conflict zones, and we now know that they engaged in offensive strikes in one of those zones.
0 loses, 0 damaged as of now.

They’re looking a lot more useful than their detractors have claimed they’d be.
Click to expand...

I've never claimed they are worthless, just not worth what we paid for them or what we gave up.

An ESB could have launched those drone strikes, or pretty much any amphib with a flight deck. The fact that LCS was used is mostly a sign that they didn't have anything else more pressing to use them for. Note that they were not out fighting Iranian small boats, for example.
 
TomS said:
I've never claimed they are worthless, just not worth what we paid for them or what we gave up.

An ESB could have launched those drone strikes, or pretty much any amphib with a flight deck. The fact that LCS was used is mostly a sign that they didn't have anything else more pressing to use them for. Note that they were not out fighting Iranian small boats, for example.
Click to expand...
Sure any vessel with enough deck space could have done it, slow ships with massive RCSes would be a pretty stupid choice to put within a few hundred miles of a hostile coastline while shore batteries and the hostile navy is still a threat.

Ok? We’re not fighting FIACs, and? We’re also not seeing surface combatants of any size duking it out, what is your point exactly?
 
johnpjones1775 said:
Sure any vessel with enough deck space could have done it, slow ships with massive RCSes would be a pretty stupid choice to put within a few hundred miles of a hostile coastline while shore batteries and the hostile navy is still a threat.

Ok? We’re not fighting FIACs, and? We’re also not seeing surface combatants of any size duking it out, what is your point exactly?
Click to expand...

My point is that this combat does not tell us anything meaningful about the survivability of LCS is a peer conflict. Because they aren't being challenged at all. They haven't had to defend against a threat because there isn't one. But I don't think that would hold against China, for example.
 
TomS said:
My point is that this combat does not tell us anything meaningful about the survivability of LCS is a peer conflict. Because they aren't being challenged at all. They haven't had to defend against a threat because there isn't one. But I don't think that would hold against China, for example.
Click to expand...
We don’t know if they’ve had to defend themselves or not. Again my point is they’ve thus far survived the Red Sea conflict, and so far survived 4 days of high intensity near peer warfare.

However we maybe fighting FIACs very soon as trump said we’d begin escorting ships that wanted to transit the strait.
This war was going to remain very low threat to US ships and low casualties over all if we avoided 2 things. Boots on the ground, and sending ships through the strait itself.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
However we maybe fighting FIACs very soon as trump said we’d begin escorting ships that wanted to transit the strait.
This war was going to remain very low threat to US ships and low casualties over all if we avoided 2 things. Boots on the ground, and sending ships through the strait itself.
Click to expand...
Too much oil flows through the Straits of Hormuz to leave it blocked up. We really don't have a choice in the matter.
 
I
Scott Kenny said:
Too much oil flows through the Straits of Hormuz to leave it blocked up. We really don't have a choice in the matter.
Click to expand...
we do.
Don’t put American lives at risk so the rest of the world can get oil is an option.

We’ve been one of the top oil producers for a while now, it won’t hurt us much if we don’t want it to.

Hell with Russia and the strait blocked our exports could skyrocket in price, so from a shitty corporate perspective this is great.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
we do.
Don’t put American lives at risk so the rest of the world can get oil is an option.

We’ve been one of the top oil producers for a while now, it won’t hurt us much if we don’t want it to.
Click to expand...
Except that everyone else still needs oil and will buy it at massively raised prices. Which also means that the US supply gets reduced.



johnpjones1775 said:
Hell with Russia and the strait blocked our exports could skyrocket in price, so from a shitty corporate perspective this is great.
Click to expand...
Makes for great oil company profits and stock prices but also drives inflation up. Because the entire economy depends on just how high the cost of petroleum gets.
 
The US President wants the Navy to start escorting tankers through the Persian Gulf.

It's time for LCS to shine. It was designed for this mission.

Their conventional Navy is gone but there is still a threat from USVs, UAVs and guys on ski boats in bathrobes.
 
Jimmo952 said:
The US President wants the Navy to start escorting tankers through the Persian Gulf.

It's time for LCS to shine. It was designed for this mission.

Their conventional Navy is gone but there is still a threat from USVs, UAVs and guys on ski boats in bathrobes.
Click to expand...
Yep, and I’m sure they will.
The first gen LCS COs were hand picked for the roles and were focused on creating aggressive doctrine of their use, gen 2 were apparently trash, gen3(gen1’s DHs) have been good, with better expectations for gen4
With people from both gens 1&3 in positions to influence strategic decision.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
Yep, and I’m sure they will.
The first gen LCS COs were hand picked for the roles and were focused on creating aggressive doctrine of their use, gen 2 were apparently trash, gen3(gen1’s DHs) have been good, with better expectations for gen4
With people from both gens 1&3 in positions to influence strategic decision.
Click to expand...

I hope so because their number is going to get called.
 
Jimmo952 said:
I hope so because their number is going to get called.
Click to expand...
Assuming that there is actual follow through.

I wouldn’t expect it any time soon, at least assuming competent planning. They’d have to sweep the strait for mines. 8 days in there could easily be 100+ in there by now.

Sweeping while they’re still capable of launching missiles and drones, not to mention small boats manned or unmanned would be suicide, even if it was a Burke doing the sweep.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
Assuming that there is actual follow through.

I wouldn’t expect it any time soon, at least assuming competent planning. They’d have to sweep the strait for mines. 8 days in there could easily be 100+ in there by now.

Sweeping while they’re still capable of launching missiles and drones, not to mention small boats manned or unmanned would be suicide, even if it was a Burke doing the sweep.
Click to expand...

Believe it or not, there is still some commercial shipping transiting the straight.

If there were lots of mines, we'd know by now.

Using a Burke wouldn't make sense as it's not designed for the mission. We'd be putting a big, expensive ship at risk doing a mission it's not designed for.

LCS was designed for the mission. It's the better but not perfect tool for the job.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
Also on a separate note, for what? 20 years detractors have said LCSes wouldn’t survive the opening hours or days of a conventional naval conflict, and after 4 days with no reports or claims of any LCSes being damaged let alone sunk I’d say that was all overblown.
Click to expand...
It's way worse than what detractors have said.
USN outright rejected forcing Hormuz until air power somehow cleanses entire hostile side of it.

Which in a way is normal(it makes perfect mil sense), but after 2 full decades of supposed preparation for this exact scenario - due to chain of mistakes and bad decisions, most solutions designed for this exact thing are cancelled, not in place, or deployed in such a way, that they don't provide cap set they were meant to. LCS is in the last group.
Some other USN, which would have now a couple dozen sewip LCS, first Constellations with hellfire banks, etc etc would've been a killer option.
Instead it's Burkes. Burkes which still largely appear to prepare to fight, i don't know, Soviet navy perhaps?
 
Last edited:
Jimmo952 said:
Believe it or not, there is still some commercial shipping transiting the straight.

If there were lots of mines, we'd know by now.

Using a Burke wouldn't make sense as it's not designed for the mission. We'd be putting a big, expensive ship at risk doing a mission it's not designed for.

LCS was designed for the mission. It's the better but not perfect tool for the job.
Click to expand...
We did have a few set up for MCM, I was using that example to preempt the LCS haters who would undoubtedly come in to say “well if they can’t survive doing their job they shouldn’t have been built” or something.

I’ve not seen anyone transiting for the last week.
 
Ainen said:
It's way worse than what detractors have said.
USN can't even force Hormuz until air power somehow cleanses entire hostile side of it.
Click to expand...
I mean yeah…no one could force a choke point until the hostile shore batteries have been mostly cleared out…that’s been the case for over 100 years now.

The closest example of a navy traversing a choke point before destroying the defenses I can think of, and being successful was Spanish-American war sneaking up on Manila bay in the dark.
 
Last edited:
johnpjones1775 said:
I mean yeah…no one could force a choke point until the hostile shore batteries have been cleared out…that’s been the case for over 100 years now.
Click to expand...
I fully agree that it is not normal for generalist modern navy - but military is not ritualistic combat from pre-modern central america.
But heck, US was clearly trying to position intself to do that - and it was established as a geopolitical need. LCS were meant to be part of that. But part is just part - as a result, money were spent, no definitive capability was established.

Should USN have procured what they actually planned - with it as a core, POTUS could've mustered allied force from EU frigate forces(italians more than others perhaps) to do close protection/close blockade of Iranian coast. Could've.

As it is, Macron sends noices - but what's the point? His force doesn't match the task, he has no ammo depth to challenge IRCG batteries.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom