Thoughts on the military and military activities of a diverse nature. Free-ranging and eclectic.

Friday, June 01, 2007


This is coolbert: From a recent comment to the blog:

Regarding the littoral combat ship [LCS].

"Why not a 155mm gun? A 57mm seems a bit weak for fire support, at least to me."

Well, this was my exact initial reaction also. I know that recent American naval destroyers were equipped with the 76 mm gun. A rapid fire gun, but a smaller caliber weapon than what was carried on a World War Two [WW2] vintage destroyer [5"/127 mm]. Now an even smaller caliber gun [57 mm] is being adopted as the standard??

If the 57 mm used in a fire support role against land targets it will do no good if the enemy has emulated the Japanese style log and earth bunker as used in WW2. Those log and earth bunkers were more or less impervious to naval gun fire of calibers far exceeding the 57 mm variety.

"I can't seem to find any reference to the armor of these ships either."

These LCS do not possess ANY armor at all??!! I cannot find anything that says what material these ships are made of. Steel or aluminum? If the latter, subject to burning red-hot when ignited by say an Exocet type missile. Such as happened to the British frigates in the Falkland Islands War. I think the entire "concept" of the LCS is to use speed and stealth to accomplish the mission. TO BUILD AN ARMORED SHIP OF THE WW2 VARIETY WOULD BE COST PROHIBITIVE!!?? These LCS seem to be CHEAP compared to even a modern destroyer.

"the LCS (3,000 ton, $250 million Littoral Combat Ship) and the LSC look a lot more attractive. New destroyers will cost $2.5 billion each."

The LCS will be required to perform a lot of different missions. The U.S. Navy is counting on the LCS in a big way?? THIS MUST WORK!!




Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home