CHINFO Uses the “F-word”


Old-Ironsides

Frigate.  Over at Information Dissemination.  He calls LCS a “light frigate, a corvette”, noting “I never understood why we didn’t just call it that in the first place”.  Neither did many of the rest of us.

In fact, stridently denying that LCS was to replace the FFG-7s at the lower end of the “hi-lo” mix when it was obvious to everyone that was almost certainly the role it would fill, didn’t do anything for the credibility of the US Navy nor those pushing LCS.

Admiral Kirby makes a number of historical references to unproven ship design, including the Six Frigates, and USS Monitor.  Whatever else those “experimental” vessels were, they were powerfully-armed and were well-protected.   Those are precisely the areas LCS is found most wanting.  Both designs are fragile and woefully under-armed.

Anyway, read Admiral Kirby’s assertions.  He makes some valid points, but you can be the judge of just how many, and just how valid.

About these ads

2 Comments

Filed under Around the web, Artillery, guns, history, navy, Uncategorized, war

2 responses to “CHINFO Uses the “F-word”

  1. scottthebadger

    I can see where a real LCS, ( Landing Craft Support ), could come in handy. 3″/50, 2 twin 40mm’s, rocket launchers, and 4 20mms. Modern hull so it could go faster than the 1940’s LCSes could, and it would rule the littorals. Maybe base it on an oil rig service boat. Then we could concentrate on making ABSALONs and NANSENs as DEGs to protect the Fleet Train, and the Gator Freighters.

    • Part of the strength of the LCS(L) was that it WAS based on the LCI hull, and could close with the shore. Any time you do that, you’ll sacrifice speed. Remember, it had a very specific job- suppressive fires at the moment of landing. Everything else it did was just stuff it was available to do when landings weren’t ongoing.

      As to converting OSVs, I can see a conversion serving as a tender for any number of small combatant types, and at ID and other places have long recommended that.