Kind of just an amusing quick project based on the LCS-1 design and the Lockheed-Martin artwork although not an attempt to duplicate exactly.

Radar is the SPY-1K radar and has 4 8 cell VLS - assuming the shorter cells
Door covers torpedo tubes.
Single helo hanger which the V-22 likely will not actually fit.
Have to wonder if a RAM mount would not be better than the gun though





I do plan to work on some real life vessels . . .
Has anybody reserved the Tennessee class ACR? Cannot find the list of cruiser classes.

Still got the 57mm on there? I would seriously pick something bigger. On a Canadian show called 'Sinking a destroyer' you could see the Halifax infliction little to no damage in anti-ship role.

Since this was actually a real proposal shouldn't go in the Never Builds?

Who cares? A hulk can take quite a few 5" holes, for that matter. Either 5" or 57mm works for destroying electronics.

If you want to actually sink something of consequence, you throw a missile at it.

I have got seen it too! too bad there wasn't a Dutch ship! :P

The reason why LCS has a 57mm gun is for engaging small craft. People seem to forget that the LCS is not meant to fight other warships. Think of it as a mobile support base. That's why it's got a very large hangar and landing pad. Also the Mk110 requires much less maintenance than the OTO. Manpower is the most critical part of any warship, and whatever you can do to ease that requirement is a plus (of course there always is a balance, but plopping in a gun mount that doesn't need much maintenance is a very good way to start).

Plus a hull can take quite a few 8-inch holes too. There have been very few ships sunk by a single salvo or even two.

Too bad they are pretty much the size of a frigate with a corvettes armament but costs more than a frigate and corvette combined...

I am actually going to argue against this for two reasons.
One, my understanding is if you multiply the FFG-7 class cost, it comes out to about the LCS cost. As well, the latest USCG cutter is of a similar cost to the LCS.

From a quick round at google I found that a LCS costs around 460 million USD a piece, a Zeven Provincien class Frigate (more like a destroyer but don't tell our government) costs 400 million USD a piece.... So for 60 million less Dollars you get a much larger much more capable ship. The LCS are great ships, but very overpriced.

Due to inflation, I think we might be better comparing the three Hobart class to the LCS. According to Wiki, three vessels are suppose to cost at least 8 billion AU Dollars. That comes out to something like 2.23 Billion US Dollars each.

Not saying that a far more capable LCS derived vessel might not be a better idea.

I don't think that 8 years of inflation would get the Zeven Provincien class near 2.23 Billion USD. :blink:

As for the LCS, yes it's a capable ship (once it gets it's missiles sorted out, I mean missing a stationary truck by 30km??). It's just the target of a lot of mission creep, add a bit here and there and I see how they got so pricey. Lets hope they make up for the money in service. :)

What is it with defence projects overstepping their budgets so much, just look at the F-35 for example, it was supposed to be 50-60million a piece, now it's nearing 90 million. Is there a lack of oversight or something?

Well the reason that programs cost so much can be attributed to many things like "Cost Plus" funding, congress-critters extending program timelines, not fully funding projects, ect. Most of them can be traced back to McNamara, or Congress.

Feature-creep is also an issue, but you get that everywhere.

<Timothy goes off mumbling something about putting steel belts around the motor housings on AC compressors*>

*I had a co-op with Emerson Climate Technologies the better part of a decade ago. Best Job I ever had.

I think that each navy may do their finances so differently that it is hard to judge everything. For example, I read an article which pegged a new DDG-51 class as 1.75 billion each compared to 2.25 billion for the Hobard class which while it seems to be a pretty good vessel seems to be less capable than a DDG-51.

Mass Production plays a part there, I'm sure. Even though the Burke Class has been progressively upgraded in the 20 or so years since the original was built, we've still built a lot of them, and the Aussies don't plan to build NEARLY as many Hobarts as we have Burkes.

If you read Friedman, he talks about how one navy might include certain areas of armor as part of the structure while another navy may classify it as armor. Some navies may not budget certain components as part of the cost of a vessel in teh same respect.

Just for vossiej - 155 gun from PZH-2000



One with a 76 mm stealth mount as well

Lol thanks Kitsune, but a 76mm would be just fine ;)

Would the PZ 2000 mount actually be able to be mounted and would it be effective as an anti-ship weapon. It would make a every effective shore bombardment weapon although I think effectively useless against aircraft.

If it can lob shells it'll make an effective anti-ship weapon. The only problem is that when it was trialled it didn't hold up to sea conditions well.

Nothing about that on NavWeap

Wikipedia

Corrosion was not what I thought you meant.

Oh, sorry.

Wanted to add a quick question. . .
Is the NLOS missile any real use against other vessels?

It would, if it hadn't been canceled by now.

Being that the whole missile weighs 117 lbs, it sounds like the warhead would have been quite small. The warhead of the Maverick missile weighs more than the NLOS missile.