• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Littoral and China

kanabco

Banned
Joined
May 10, 2016
Messages
350
Reaction score
97
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I subscribe to every Aerospace/Military mag there is. Actually I do not but as an emeritus my previous employer makes sure I get them in the mail.
I remember a great deal of wailing and gnashing of the teeth regarding the US Navy's need for the Littoral ships they wanted.

But before you read further it may be best to read this article:
(really.. please read this first)
https://www.quora.com/Which-country...of-military-strength-within-the-next-50-years

Now here is the key point from Holts article:

"Many analysts believe that China has developed sophisticated anti-access/area denial strategies (A2/AD) intended to prevent the U.S. Navy and other forces from operating close to China’s territorial waters Using a wide variety of approaches, from threat of long-range precision strike to mine warfare systems, China hopes to limit American freedom of action in the littorals and perhaps beyond the second island chain. If Chinese efforts are successful, American joint and combined military forces may not reach their full combat potential or incur great losses for trying."

So China knows they cannot battle us at sea therefore they have resorted to sea surface denial. In other words they want to mine the entire South China Sea with high tech pop-up mines and what not. Thus is the reason for building their sand islands. That is what they are for. Denial of access.

So one more time it is not like the Pentagon is full of stupids. I hate that description. They are so far ahead of what we know it would embarrass you to sit down and discuss your pet peeves with them.

So now to the heart of it all.
Littoral ships and why we need them

Start here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1PXcT0qOO8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLKDgtqjGLU

The Pentagon began this development LONG before China stated building their islands.

It is a very very necessary weapon in our shift to the west.

OK

Hope is got you to thinking
 
I subscribe to every Aerospace/Military mag there is. Actually I do not but as an emeritus my previous employer makes sure I get them in the mail.
I remember a great deal of wailing and gnashing of the teeth regarding the US Navy's need for the Littoral ships they wanted.

But before you read further it may be best to read this article:
(really.. please read this first)
https://www.quora.com/Which-country...of-military-strength-within-the-next-50-years

Now here is the key point from Holts article:

"Many analysts believe that China has developed sophisticated anti-access/area denial strategies (A2/AD) intended to prevent the U.S. Navy and other forces from operating close to China’s territorial waters Using a wide variety of approaches, from threat of long-range precision strike to mine warfare systems, China hopes to limit American freedom of action in the littorals and perhaps beyond the second island chain. If Chinese efforts are successful, American joint and combined military forces may not reach their full combat potential or incur great losses for trying."

So China knows they cannot battle us at sea therefore they have resorted to sea surface denial. In other words they want to mine the entire South China Sea with high tech pop-up mines and what not. Thus is the reason for building their sand islands. That is what they are for. Denial of access.

So one more time it is not like the Pentagon is full of stupids. I hate that description. They are so far ahead of what we know it would embarrass you to sit down and discuss your pet peeves with them.

So now to the heart of it all.
Littoral ships and why we need them

Start here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1PXcT0qOO8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLKDgtqjGLU

The Pentagon began this development LONG before China stated building their islands.

It is a very very necessary weapon in our shift to the west.

OK

Hope is got you to thinking
The LCS in its current form is under armed and under armored.

The navy has cut back on the order for the two types of LCS drastically for a reason, they are not very good. The proposed redesigns will probably fix most of the issues
 
The LCS in its current form is under armed and under armored.

The navy has cut back on the order for the two types of LCS drastically for a reason, they are not very good. The proposed redesigns will probably fix most of the issues

Do some more searching and note that the pentagon needed more money for the F35... that is where they got it.
 
The LCS in its current form is under armed and under armored.

The navy has cut back on the order for the two types of LCS drastically for a reason, they are not very good. The proposed redesigns will probably fix most of the issues

Please check out the Congressional research paper https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL33741.pdf
and this article Navy Wants LCS ‘Frigate’ Upgrade A Year Earlier: 2018, Not 2019 « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary

The LCS is not dead... it will move forward but new LCSs will have "built in" defenses the LCSs do not now have like medium-range “over the horizon” missile to sink enemy ships.

The drawback of the frigate is that it is not modular and cannot easily be reconfigured for mission. That was a prerequisite for the original design... to make it more flexible. The LCS frigate cannot be changed much or cheaply.

In any case we will have 40 to 50 LCSs in the oceans by 2024. We also have buyers among our allies. Most of this depends on congress approval of budget 2017
 
The Saudi's will buy as mostly part of a diplomacy act rather then the overall quality of the design (which will be changed for the Saudi's. Israel I believe has passed on it due to high cost. Western European countries all have their own designs, and the Swedish Visby Corvette from what I understand is a superior ship for the role of littoral combat. I do not know how stealthy it is in comparison


LCS: The USA?s Littoral Combat Ships
 
The Saudi's will buy as mostly part of a diplomacy act rather then the overall quality of the design (which will be changed for the Saudi's. Israel I believe has passed on it due to high cost. Western European countries all have their own designs, and the Swedish Visby Corvette from what I understand is a superior ship for the role of littoral combat. I do not know how stealthy it is in comparison


LCS: The USA?s Littoral Combat Ships

You are a bit behind the times with that link. The LCS is not going away. It got in trouble because it was supposed to be re-configurable somewhat like what the Danes and Swedes have. Once the US Navy got the designs they wanted they could not agree how to configure them, that's all. They still can't but all LCSs will be configured with OTH missiles which take away some of the modularity (reconfigurability) that they were striving for. Pick up a copy of May 2016 Janes 360.
Again.. the LCS is not going away as it must be built to answer the defenses China is developing in the South China Sea.
So the testing goes on with Harpoon (Boeing) and NSM(Konsberg) to satisfy the needs of the public and politicians. I'll guess the NM wins since it is very modern and only 1/3 the weight of a harpoon. Remember one of the original concepts was to keep the crew small.

If you happen to pick up on more recent news please post it here. I'll do the same. Aviation Week June 10th has an article similar to Janes 360 quoted.
 
The Saudi's will buy as mostly part of a diplomacy act rather then the overall quality of the design (which will be changed for the Saudi's. Israel I believe has passed on it due to high cost. Western European countries all have their own designs, and the Swedish Visby Corvette from what I understand is a superior ship for the role of littoral combat. I do not know how stealthy it is in comparison


LCS: The USA?s Littoral Combat Ships
Janes has a new Article on the LCSs now called frigates.
System integration testing is almost finished on the Raytheon/Kongsberg NSM.
Raytheon is tooling up
 
what i will say about the LCS program is that i wish they were more heavily armed. i know they're modular. i know they're designed to expand capability with new armaments in development. but, the fact is, they're more expensive and far less capable than the Perry class frigate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Hazard_Perry-class_frigate

i understand the need for smaller more versatile ships, but the LCS, both classes, seem like they don't pack the proper punch for their size in any of their proposed configurations.

now, i'm going to risk being attacked for using Wikipedia, but i think it's a valid use since we're simply comparing ships...

the independence class LCS has this as its basic armament;

"1 × BAE Systems Mk 110 57 mm gun[8]
1 × Raytheon SeaRAM CIWS[7]
4 × .50-cal guns (2 aft, 2 forward)"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Littoral_combat_ship

for a...3000 ton, 418x104 foot vessel.

the freedom is even worse...3500 tons and the same basic armament.

and yes, i know, again, they have 'modules'. but look at those modules

It?s All Package: Littoral Combat Ship?s Mission Modules

they're weak. they're very weak. no ASROC, no VLS tubes, nothing. these are base-line weapons systems; the LCS is going to go into battle for the foreseeable future as basically a giant patrol boat. it is armed, as of now, in the same general 'league' as a Swedish Visby class. which is...1/5th the tonnage (and massively cheaper, not to mention stealth) of an LCS.

the LCS program needs a massive firepower makeover. i just don't see how it can even defend itself against a credible threat, much less contribute to the fleet or project power. great idea, terrible execution, needs work.
 
I subscribe to every Aerospace/Military mag there is. Actually I do not but as an emeritus my previous employer makes sure I get them in the mail.
I remember a great deal of wailing and gnashing of the teeth regarding the US Navy's need for the Littoral ships they wanted.

But before you read further it may be best to read this article:
(really.. please read this first)
https://www.quora.com/Which-country...of-military-strength-within-the-next-50-years

Now here is the key point from Holts article:

"Many analysts believe that China has developed sophisticated anti-access/area denial strategies (A2/AD) intended to prevent the U.S. Navy and other forces from operating close to China’s territorial waters Using a wide variety of approaches, from threat of long-range precision strike to mine warfare systems, China hopes to limit American freedom of action in the littorals and perhaps beyond the second island chain. If Chinese efforts are successful, American joint and combined military forces may not reach their full combat potential or incur great losses for trying."

So China knows they cannot battle us at sea therefore they have resorted to sea surface denial. In other words they want to mine the entire South China Sea with high tech pop-up mines and what not. Thus is the reason for building their sand islands. That is what they are for. Denial of access.

So one more time it is not like the Pentagon is full of stupids. I hate that description. They are so far ahead of what we know it would embarrass you to sit down and discuss your pet peeves with them.

So now to the heart of it all.
Littoral ships and why we need them

Start here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1PXcT0qOO8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLKDgtqjGLU

The Pentagon began this development LONG before China stated building their islands.

It is a very very necessary weapon in our shift to the west.

OK

Hope is got you to thinking


I still recall mothers sending armor to Iraq for humvees and and soldiers.
 
what i will say about the LCS program is that i wish they were more heavily armed. i know they're modular. i know they're designed to expand capability with new armaments in development. but, the fact is, they're more expensive and far less capable than the Perry class frigate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Hazard_Perry-class_frigate

I will just respond to the Perry Class
Perry Class draws 22 foot of water. Independence draws 12 foot of water. This is the primary importance of the LCS as it can move into hundreds of shallow water ports to support our and our allie's navy.
Perry class top speed is 33 mph where the independence is almost twice that. If you can't fight you can run faster or farther than a torpedo.
Perry class has a crew of 170 and the Independence has just 50

can reconfigure in 24 hours for Anti Submarine warfare (ASW) in deep and shallow waters OR Mine Detection, Sweeping, Neutralization (MDSN) OR SUW for traditional but faster frigate rolls.

The modules are plug and play. Even the Helicopters get new hardware for each module too. This is the very heart and idea of the littorals. Cheaper to man, shallow water, quick turn around, very fast. Anti sub, anti mines, fast incursion fighting ship. In no way will it ever be a true frigate but in no way can a true frigate do all and LCS can do or any other of the so called substitutions.

BTW Raytheon is a third party contractor who's function it to design and implement the modules, control systems, and the networking.
 

No need to apologize for using wikipedia since all you need to do to check their veracity is to check the copious amount of verification links in their bibliography.

I will not however say the same for Defense Industry Daily which is very weak in that category and actually very very wrong on several points I read. Many of these sites are politically planted and I am pretty rigid about "sight your source without bias". I have no reason to believe that Janes 360 and Aviation Week are trumped by a blog without a biblio.... sorry. You may try getting away from the internet and subscribe to some military periodicals.
 
I subscribe to every Aerospace/Military mag there is. Actually I do not but as an emeritus my previous employer makes sure I get them in the mail.
I remember a great deal of wailing and gnashing of the teeth regarding the US Navy's need for the Littoral ships they wanted.

But before you read further it may be best to read this article:
(really.. please read this first)
https://www.quora.com/Which-country...of-military-strength-within-the-next-50-years

Now here is the key point from Holts article:

"Many analysts believe that China has developed sophisticated anti-access/area denial strategies (A2/AD) intended to prevent the U.S. Navy and other forces from operating close to China’s territorial waters Using a wide variety of approaches, from threat of long-range precision strike to mine warfare systems, China hopes to limit American freedom of action in the littorals and perhaps beyond the second island chain. If Chinese efforts are successful, American joint and combined military forces may not reach their full combat potential or incur great losses for trying."

So China knows they cannot battle us at sea therefore they have resorted to sea surface denial. In other words they want to mine the entire South China Sea with high tech pop-up mines and what not. Thus is the reason for building their sand islands. That is what they are for. Denial of access.

So one more time it is not like the Pentagon is full of stupids. I hate that description. They are so far ahead of what we know it would embarrass you to sit down and discuss your pet peeves with them.

So now to the heart of it all.
Littoral ships and why we need them

Start here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1PXcT0qOO8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLKDgtqjGLU

The Pentagon began this development LONG before China stated building their islands.

It is a very very necessary weapon in our shift to the west.

OK

Hope is got you to thinking

It seems to me that a key factor in area denial is not the LCS per se, but the fact that massively expensive systems can increasingly be countered and possibly defeated by extremely cheap (by historical standards) weapon systems. The US spends a half billion on a ship, and it is targeted by ballistic missiles, smart mines, UUVs, and mass produced cruise missiles. There is an imbalance here to truly cause strategists to feel that they are being denied.
 
It seems to me that a key factor in area denial is not the LCS per se, but the fact that massively expensive systems can increasingly be countered and possibly defeated by extremely cheap (by historical standards) weapon systems. The US spends a half billion on a ship, and it is targeted by ballistic missiles, smart mines, UUVs, and mass produced cruise missiles. There is an imbalance here to truly cause strategists to feel that they are being denied.

A cradle to grave sailor (pay, health care, and retirement) costs the Navy around $300,000 per year.
As mentioned a Frigate needs a crew of 175 which costs $52mil per year to man
A LCS carries 50 and costs $15mil per year to man

"massively" expensive is relative.

I find good data in Aviation Week and Janes and other weekly and monthly professional journals. The internet is very political and you can find any kind of confirmation bias you seek.
 
China is hammering out these things, for use in littoral waters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_056_corvette

They have already built 30+ and the final tally is estimated to be around 80 vessels

They are more heavily armed and operate under the umbrella of the Chinese airforce and land based missile forces. The Chinese can also draw on their fleet of over 100 missile boats.

The LCS is hopelessly outgunned and outnumbered ultimately.
 
Last edited:
China is hammering out these things, for use in littoral waters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_056_corvette

They have already built 30+ and the final tally is estimated to be around 80 vessels

They are more heavily armed and operate under the umbrella of the Chinese airforce and land based missile forces. The Chinese can also draw on their fleet of over 100 missile boats.

The LCS is hopelessly outgunned and outnumbered ultimately.

We will not agree. However if you took the time to dig into the naval and pentagon docs instead of internet blogs you will get a true picture.

This is an official Navy document http://www.navy.mil/local/maritime/150227-CS21R-Final.pdf and it explains the direction the navy is going in the future. They know what they are doing.
 
Nothing new in that document... the balance of power in the region will continue to swing toward China.

It's simply a numbers game, they can put more hulls in the water, they can be in more places at once.

The USA will have to rely on Japan, the Philippines, Vietnam and Australia to take up the slack... but how strongly they are willing to resist China's arm twisting is anyone's guess.
 
Back
Top Bottom