And that one DDG packs more firepower than all 6 LCS combined. So it's still a better option to buy one DDG than it is to buy 6 LCS. Plus, lifetime costs are lower on the DDG since you're only maintaining one ship, not six.But with a crew of 300 odd that's 6 Littoral crews
And at $3 billion a pop (flight 4) you could buy 7 or 8 Littorials (about $360 million each beyond the initial pair)
Only when they all work. Which given the program track record, won't be that often. And as previously mentioned, they don't have the firepower (or survivability) for independent operations. So you'll probably end up having to send a DDG anyway.And of course they can be in several places at once.
So also no.
Such as? They don't carry Tomahawks, so they can't conduct land attacks. They don't carry ASMs so they can't conduct ASUW. They don't have sonar so they can't do ASW. And they don't have AAMs, so they can't escort a flattop. That leaves anti-piracy. And they don't have the reliability for that kind of deployment.There does seem to me to be a great deal of confusion as to the true role of the Littorials granted they cannot do all of the jobs a fully leaded Arleigh Burke DDG can do but I imagine a great deal of the job DDGs have done in the last 30 years could have been done by a Littoral FFG.
Or perhaps to buy 3 frigates that can perform the job of a DDG w/o having to send a DDG? I think it is agreed upon that he modern combat environment is far too dangerous for a over glorified OVP (LCS), yet some tasks may not be important or warrant enough to send a DDG. The USN really goofed up on not choosing a balanced frigate design to replace the OHP class.So it's still a better option to buy one DDG than it is to buy 6 LCS. Plus, lifetime costs are lower on the DDG since you're only maintaining one ship, not six.
I think that it's a shame that the rules of the FFG(X) precluded BAe's Type 26 design because I think that it would have been ideal. Though part of me thinks that was the point of the competition rules precluding it.Or perhaps to buy 3 frigates that can perform the job of a DDG w/o having to send a DDG? I think it is agreed upon that he modern combat environment is far too dangerous for a over glorified OVP (LCS), yet some tasks may not be important or warrant enough to send a DDG. The USN really goofed up on not choosing a balanced frigate design to replace the OHP class.
And, yet, because of the idiot design flaws of both LCS classes, the Navy has flatly stated that they will need to be protected by a DDG or CG because they can't protect themselves even in a medium threat environment. So now you are spending $350M a pop for a ship that can't protect itself, can't withstand the standard USN shock test, lacks many of the mission module that were supposed to make it useful, and STILL needs that $3B a pop DDG to make sure some fool with a WW II surplus Fletcher class DD doesn't blow it into the afterlife (which, BTW it could do to half a dozen LCS before they even got into range of their entirely ineffective against WW II destroyer hull 57mm gun (one per ship). God help them if the enemy has actually managed to add some sort of SAM, then their helos won't even be able to resuce any of the survivors from the "littoral waters". Good news is that the survivors will probably drift to shore, assuming the enemy is playing by the rules (just how often do enemies of the U.S. play by any rules, at all?).Yes.
But with a crew of 300 odd that's 6 Littoral crews
And at $3 billion a pop (flight 4) you could buy 7 or 8 Littorials (about $360 million each beyond the initial pair)
And of course they can be in several places at once.
So also no.
I guess the real question is what do you need them to do?
There does seem to me to be a great deal of confusion as to the true role of the Littorials granted they cannot do all of the jobs a fully leaded Arleigh Burke DDG can do but I imagine a great deal of the job DDGs have done in the last 30 years could have been done by a Littoral FFG.
How about going with a existing US design but update it. Nothing wrong with the Treasury class cutters.
A common issue across the board for US military procurement. The major contractors have mastered the art of getting sub-contractors in every key congressional district, so support is based on local economics more than national security.And yeah, pretty much every vessel the USN has built since the Arleigh Burke class seems to have been less of a warship and more of a profit-support-program for defense contractors.
The Legend Class is a contender in the FFG(X) Program iirc. Just slap a Mk41 VLS onto it and you got yourselves a well balanced frigate.If you're going that way start with the Legend-class cutters, two generations down from the Treasury class. You would have to figure out a way of expanding it to equip it with better weapons (it has no provisions to ASMs or air-defense weapons), but that's I'm sure a possibility.
That's what I was trying to describe up thread. Basically a cut down Burke serving as a multimission frigate.Or perhaps to buy 3 frigates that can perform the job of a DDG w/o having to send a DDG? I think it is agreed upon that he modern combat environment is far too dangerous for a over glorified OVP (LCS), yet some tasks may not be important or warrant enough to send a DDG. The USN really goofed up on not choosing a balanced frigate design to replace the OHP class.
The USN would probably prefer to have a well balanced ocean going vessel, although the thought of zerg rushing your opponents with Skjold class corvettes is undoubtedly hilarious.If the US decided it wanted a mean as hell coastal defence force and a 355+ ship navy, dropping four billion-ish on a hundred Skjold class corvettes could be fun. Eight "Wolfpacks" of four stealth corvettes armed with eight anti-ship missiles, a 76mm gun and capable of up to 60kts constantly patrolling both coasts might present a fairly formidable hurdle for surface ships.
Though you'd need a lot of oilers to keep them out there.