2 comments on “The Littoral Combat Ship: A Brewster Buffalo for the Twenty-First Century?

  1. It’s well-written. Just keep in mind that the LCS was actually designed to full the roles you describe in your last paragraph. It could also function as a specialized single-mission combatant in the following areas: Undersea Warfare (anti-submarine and mine counter measures) and a specialized type of anti-surface warfare.

    The original emphasis of the anti-surface warfare role was against FAIC and FMC (fast inshore attack craft and fast missile craft–ships with displacements usually under 500 tons). The PAMS missile, with a 25 pound warhead, was satisfactory for dealing with these threats. That missile was cancelled, and they’re using hellfire (or will soon) now. Hellfire is too short-ranged, and they are going to build a longer-range type. 57mm and 30mm is satisfactory against FAIC.

    Now I understand they will add heavy-weight anti-ship missile of some sort, probably Norweigan anti-ship missile (check that out). It’s a good ‘sea frame’ for the roles for which it was originally designed.

    They’re not going to build a frigate b/c the costs-to-do-so make building more burkes more cost-effective. The Spanish aegis frigate (forget the name of it) was about $1 billion. A burke is about $1.7B. The Burke however is far more effective at its role.

    • This is Mike. Thanks for the comment. I agree with you and will forward your comment to Lee, since he wrote the article 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s