Lockheed Martin at SNA 2025: LCS with MK 70 launcher

[@J33Nelson]

The only thing good about the LCS is the helicopter platform and aviation facilities and this system has successfully removed that capability.

[@mikethompson2650]

was thinking the same thing

[@matthewschuchardt684]

Do both the LCS classes have elevators that are capable of moving containers between the flight deck and the mission modules?

[@Terryray123]

​@matthewschuchardt684 is not big enough. There's hatch but you need a crane.

[@matthewschuchardt684]

@ so I guess that means in reality is one or two if you were going to maintain the aviation facilities? Unless, I don’t suppose there’s enough room to land the helicopter drones is there?

[@joãoAlberto-k9x]

O.K.

[@vda6402]

Woah, pleasantly surprised to see Aaaron now also hosting in Naval News. I enjoy reading your defense articles and analysis with a focus on the Indo-Pacific region, congratulations on the new assignment!

[@cavediver74]

Interim solution only. In some other article I read about SNA talks the navy is looking at either the mark 70 or a ISR suite for unmanned vessels. Apparently, they will scrap the idea of medium and large and focus on medium unmanned surface combatants only. Anyway, these systems can be purchased and later used on those I suspect. An LCS with 3 Mk70 is not really better than a 200ft unmanned or minimally manned vessel with the same 3 MK 70s. The 57mm gun and 2 dozen hellfire missiles does not do that much to improve survivability but does put more in harms way. In the mean time, seems like navy needs every hull it can get its hands on the be useful in a Pacific fight.

[@Senbonzakura776]

LCS program was/is a total waste of money for the USN

[@deltasource56]

exactly this

[@glxeagle]

USS Constellation class is next

[@TrugginsOFFICIAL]

Thanks genius we had no idea. Glad you’re here to tell us

[@COLT6940]

​@@glxeagle your existence is a waste of oxygen lol.

[@jm2453]

Or is the USN the waste?

[@qtdcanada]

Despite demonstrable shortcomings in the design (glaringly weak Anti-Surface and Anti-Air (even in point-defense role) weapons, unreliable propulsion system, etc. the Independence-class LCS program has had a very charmed life. Instead of being cancelled after clear failures, US Navy and Congress have continued to fund them, and now more fund is being spent to find a way to get some 'minimal' use out of them (installing SSM launchers at the expense of the only functional feature: flight deck for ASW helicopter). LM must have very powerful sway over US Navy brass and congress.

[@jm2453]

LCS has no current ASW mission. Its Anti surface and mine countermeasures. LCS-2 class (Indy) only propulsion problem was the anti-corrosion system on LCS-2 which has been resolved. These launchers are modular. They can add and remove them as needed restoring helo ops. Reality is LCS-2 is the smallest combatant to field 2 helo let alone 2 MH-60 and it ahs 2 landing spots to boot. Most ships this size sport 12-16 VL MICA and have one air search radar. we have 11 heavier throw weight RAM with the air search on the mount and main air search on the ship. We also can now use the 24 Hellfire for AAW when fitted. LCS-2 is not a Lockheed Martin ship. The ship in the video is LCS-1 class.

[@TheNotoriousENG]

It is the Freedom class, not the Independence class, that suffered the large majority of propulsion system faults. Indy gets the bad press because of the trimaran haters and dishonest journalists who criticize the weaker entry on the class (Freedom) while showing pictures of the sexier and more capable entry, Independence.

[@whydnot]

It's a neat idea, since the world's supply chain is already designed to move 40-foot containers.

[@jm2453]

Bingo!

[@jacksonlee3771]

Some Pentagon officials got rich off the LSC boondoggle.

[@DunedinMultimedia2]

what is LSC?

[@sergeantblue6115]

@@DunedinMultimedia2 I think he meant LCS, it's basically another label for corvette in the US navy. Contrary to what people thinl(it's just ass), I think it ain't half bad. It's just that it looks underpowered compared to the main line ships like the destroyers and cruisers which are straight up unfair comparisons in my opinion.

[@Nordy941]

Helicopter likely the most valuable asset on these ships. Wonder how that works.

[@jonny-b4954]

Depends what the mission is. Do you need to go in and launch on a land target? Chopper isn't useful for that. Or for an amphibious invasion and you need as much missiles as you can pack on your fleet's decks? Might work decent for that. Add more missiles than enemy is expecting. Or maybe you're off ASW duty and focusing on air defense. Pack these with AA missiles to protect a convoy when you only have 2 ships, or something. I don't know. Very niche product. Seems useful for the Army though. Can tow them like any container and set up a fairly discrete battery.

[@johnd.5601]

Wow, That's awesome! These can be anywhere and nobody would know. Good job 👏.

[@Nainara32]

Seems like you lose the aviation capability by mounting the containerized mk70 on the LCS. It makes one wonder how hard it would be to retrofit a civilian vessel like a panamax to host strike capability.

[@IanGarris]

Trivial, really. Many systems already come packed in cargo containers.

[@aaronrey2658]

Put 200 on a panamax 😂🎉

[@Fulcrum205]

@Nainara32 the USN and RN did some studies back in the 1980s. At the time they were looking at ways to increase convoy air defenses. IIRC, bear with me it was 40 years ago, the plan was to have several containers full of ready to fire SM-2s on deck and a control container that could connect via datalink to an AEGIS equipped Ticonderoga or Arleigh Burke. I don't think it went very far beyond a conceptual paper study. To me the idea has some merit. I would look at the concept for amphibious land fire support. Load up a cheap merchant ship with containerized MLRS and ATACMs. Anchor it within a few miles of the beach and use it to support the Marines. Put a bunch of containers full of something buoyant in the hold and shore defenses would have a hell of a time sinking it. If it does get shot up, haul the ordinance ashore as reloads and pump the fuel into the LCACs and other landing craft

[@jm2453]

@@aaronrey2658 4 on an FSV. Feed the FSV with a container feeder that has a crane. Hide your eggs.

[@jm2453]

@@Fulcrum205 Or just use FSVs and have numbers and don't expose your eggs in one target.

[@paulantony4598]

That LCS with those strike containers taking away the aviation facility is ludicrous..

[@vincentrivera743]

In higher sea states and strong winds, the containerized missile magazine may become unstable to operate. It is a bad idea to have a missile system that can be operated only under good weather conditions.

[@TheNotoriousENG]

I wouldn’t worry about the deck fastening aspect; those are standard container tie-downs that are tried and tested in all kinds of commercial service. (In fact in one photo they added diagonal tie-downs from the container top as well.) Whether the erected launch tube can hold up to heavy motions is another story, but I am not aware of any evidence to indicate that it is unable to do so.

[@lorentzcoffin4957]

Most ship launched munitions or platforms for the US and its adversaries are reliant on the weather being cooperative.

[@750cruzerpilot]

I think this is an option to add more VLSs for a high end fight.

[@scottnj2503]

Its an intriguing thought. VLS is a relatively inexpensive force multiplier, deployable on a wide variety of platforms, at sea and ashore. LCS has its struggles in the USN. So export both. 🤔

[@spookedjunglist]

The tomahawk missile battery on the Iowa class battleships were container size and basically modular. the design was more elegant in my opinion. This seems like same tech different year.

[@HYNKZL]

How about just making a system for that forward hole in the Indie class. I mean the Army dropped the ball on the launcher that was supposed to go there.

[@jm2453]

They have a 24 cells Hellfire module for that hole. Hellfire is surface and AAW now too.

[@Fulcrum205]

450 million dollars per ship that couldnt outfight a WW2 destroyer

[@paulbarclay4114]

this is what happens when the banks control the gvt

[@COLT6940]

T. Midwit armchair wannabe lol

[@jm2453]

Except it can outfight a WWII destroyer.

[@Fulcrum205]

@jm2453 how is that exactly? A Fletcher class was more heavily armed and armored. The 5"/38s outrange every weapon on the LCS and put a much heavier weight of fire. In addition, the LCS is built out of large amounts of flammable composites and aluminum while the DD is built out of steel. The torpedo launchers on the Fletcher also give it the ability to 1 shot kill the LCS as 800lbs of explosive detonating below the waterline is probably going to snap the hull in half. The Fletcher actually has some HTS steel armor protecting its vitals while the LCS is made of things that burn.

[@COLT6940]

@@Fulcrum205 muh steel hull still get rekt by NSM anyway lol.

[@texasranger24]

So now we've taken the aluminium hull ships that are breaking apart and are overpriced yet underarmed and we have taken away their last redeeming quality, helicopters, and replaced it with 1 to 3 VLS cells that should've been there in the dozens from the beginning anyways. There is no saving this ship. Best case you can use them for the coast guard or as US shore protection against submarines. Worst case they are too expensive for that, break too much and have to be scrapped. But we can't always hang on to garbage because of the sunken cost fallacy. We can't keep throwing good money at bad designs.

[@jm2453]

The cracking issue ahs been resolved. They are among the most heavily armed MCM and patrol ships in the world. They are at best corvettes or light frigates (FF), not frigates (FFG). Mk 70 has 4 cells each so on the Freedom displayed that's 12 cells that can be added or removed as needed. They can keep the helos the rest of the time. The commercial version of LCS-2 spends most of the year at sea, ours can and do too. Presently they don't do MCM, but that mission might come back. These aren't the super endurance, cheap, great seakeeping ships the Coast Guard needs. That hardly makes them worthless.

[@spilledfeed]

That is cool

[@damongraham1398]

The Freedom class LCS could fit two on the stern and MH-60s could land on the flight deck. The same SSMM could be used on the CUSVs. 4 to 6 CUSVs could use the Freedom class as a mothership and be used radar picket lines. Yes, they would be useless in ballistic missile defense. Cruise missiles could be within their reach.

[@jm2453]

I think you are getting the 2 classes mixed up, although I doubt either ship does flight ops with a Mk 70 on deck. How do you figure 4-6 CUSVs on either ship class?

[@damongraham1398]

@@jm2453 the two mission bays can hold CUSV. Maybe not 6 but two in each two rear bays can definitely fit. I'm talking about the Freedom class LCS

[@1aapmens]

is there a role for these ships already, besides providing pork for LM??

[@jm2453]

MCM and ASuW

[@dopepopeurban6129]

Literally just bolt a second SeaRam on the hangar. Why does this thing need a strike length VLS to begin with? It ain’t gonna carry SM-3 or SM-6 anyways

[@delmarlewis8897]

Been wondering that for years Just put some Essm Launchers and The NSm and call it a day that makes it a half reasonable light Frigate and somewhat useful

[@jm2453]

These launchers are specifically for Tomahawk and SM-6. They want to increase the number of strike nodes. Improves out ability to hit targets our sensor network finds, makes it harder for them to decide what targets they need to prioritize. We can do better than this, but its a start.

[@kevinbryer2425]

The Spearhead class hull is a better platform for containerized systems. They need to containerize all the missiles, and house self defense length VLS cells into a 20ft container.

[@jm2453]

They stopped building self defense length. But Spearhead with these would really grow our number of shooters quickly. I like the thinking.

[@scottnj2503]

Interesting idea, but Spearhead class is USNS, and in its case designed to have medical facilities, so weapons. I believe there are rules about such things.

[@jm2453]

@ Med facilities don't matter unless its designated a medical ship. It would likely mean the ships need moved over to active commissioned USS.

[@scottnj2503]

@ I'm not schooled in maritime law or rules of engagement. Spearhead, best I can find is registered as a fast transport. Alls fair in love and war... it is an interesting academic issue. During my time in USN there were USNS ships that towed very long sonar arrays. My guess is those ships would have been legit targets during hostilities. Even if the sonar was oceanographic research and not intended to look for subs. Fine line. Akin to having roll on/roll off med facilities. Fun to contemplate.

[@kevinjordan6242]

Wasn’t the VLS developed so as to be able to use the flight deck? Hmmm LM thinking outside the box

[@romell06]

Arsenal ships of the future will probably have this system for easy reload instead of built-in Mark41 modules

[@jm2453]

Bingo

[@Kelebora]

The only issue is that would severely limit the amount of missile per ship, and the whole point of an arsenal ship is to pack as much firepower as possible into a single ship, since by the looks of it you could fit 3 normal cells into the same amount of space 1 of these containerized cells takes up.

[@jm2453]

@ This is DMO not an arsenal ship. Totally different.

[@lorentzcoffin4957]

It’s so plain looking but a huge development. At sea vls replenishment.

[@RafaelAlves-vd7et]

Should focus more on the model of the ships …

[@JillZeeee]

This eliminates flight ops, also it does not take into account weight and moment - makes the ship top heavy. You are not allowed to fire missiles pier side which is where these ships spend most of their time.

[@MultiCconway]

When I see the Mk70 launchers on the LCS it makes me sad. The most capable, long reaching, and deadly part of the LCS weaponry is carried by its helicopters, and the Mk70 installation removes flight operations as an option from shipboard activity for a vessel so equipped.

[@jm2453]

But Mk 70 is an option. They can swap out for the helo. I would prefer seeing MH-60s with NSMs.

[@apollo4619]

Close Enough: Welcome back Tomahawk Armored Box Launchers, it’s been awhile.

[@Aikibiker1]

As I understand it the space beneath the flight deck is an empty "multi-mission bay". Why not place the MK70 launchers inside the bay, flush to the flight deck and reinforce the top so that you keep the aviation assets when the missile launch cells are not up and ready to fire? Edit: Didn't the Soviets have VLS cells under the flight deck of one of their carriers? The hatches for the cells were part of the flight deck.

[@jm2453]

The Russians actually plan to do what you are talking about on their new arctic patrol ship. If we did that to LCS it would cost a lot as you'd be breaking up the frames that hold the ship together.. Plus the flight deck is wider than the mission deck below it. You might not get 3 containers. You would also then also lose the boat launch.

[@chomuandthebuns]

USN should give the entire LCS to USCG. LCS are still decent enough to be cutters. USN should not spending money on LCS anymore. Also Typhoon missile system should be integrated with air defense radar both in ground or ship, so the SM6 can still perform as anti air missile instead of limited to surface strike missile.

[@jm2453]

There is nothing stopping SM-6 from shooting in AAW mode for this application. LCS can be good patrol ships, but that isn't the same profile as a Coast Guard cutter with a big SAR role and need for seakeeping in the absolute worst conditions.

[@chrisspulis1599]

Was the person who made the model launchers given his lunch break to complete the task?

[@schlirf]

Looks cool, except for the landing space its taken up and there are a few question about reloading logistics.

[@Wick9876]

Oddly, the reloading logistics might not be a problem. Pick up the empty container and replace with a loaded one. It's not nearly as sensitive as lowering a long, skinny, unprotected missile into a long skinny cell.

[@thecoffeemaker7444]

that’s basically the typhon on an lcs lol

[@POSTSINGULAR1TY]

nice

[@BlueRice]

this is type of weapon could be equip on shipping ship or something that doesnt take up space for heli pad. cheap ship with these weapon. but then again, it might need the ship control hub to used these system and shipping ship may not able to integrated that quickly if needed. required future planning

[@lightspeedvictory]

My question is, can the Mk 70 be integrated into land based air defense batteries like Patriot or THAAD? If you ask me, the Army isn’t taking full advantage of it

[@JohnyRodriguez-n3p]

Typhon weapons system. Task & purpose did a video about it

[@lightspeedvictory]

@ so the Army can use the SM-6 for air defense and not just surface attack?

[@1337flite]

Imagine the firepower of Emma Maersk, with the top layer stacked with MK70s. You stack the bottom layers with logisitics, containerise the systems required to launch the rounds from the MK70 and stack those on and you have a way to carry the logisitcs for an invasion force and the means to defend the ARG or log group your container ship s sailing with.

[@jm2453]

This is way more complicated than you are making it. If I am using the Emma Maersk for anything I am sticking a make shift flight deck on it. And that isn't as simple as I am making it out to be either.

[@1337flite]

@@jm2453 Yes the implementation of any idea is generally way more complex than the basic idea.But that doesn't mean it can't be done.

[@westpearson6759]

So, a 40’ ISO container? Then it could be put on a trailer behind any commercial truck? There you go!

[@gregking7926]

So they could put quite a number of them on say a container ship and use it as a land attack ship.

[@jm2453]

Easy to sink many eggs with the one basket. Make fast supply vessels the shooters for other sensors in UAVs, UUVs, ships etc. Reload them via feeder container ships with their own cranes or at any container port we can access.

[@chasejohnson6453]

This was the whole story point of call of duty Modern warfare 2 2022: The bad guys stole 3of these launchers and because they are indistinguishable from others they had them hidden in a container grave

[@Spessforce]

Looks like they can get two inside each hanger

[@dulio12385]

Put those on a containership and you essentially have cruise missile armed freighters.

[@yeepmeeep1735]

STL?

[@adrianmasa9659]

those vls in a container van looks like the philippines wants..

[@LD-lv7pi]

The MK 70 is something that should have come to pass long ago. Good concept for land based units. As for the LCS? That is a big no, at least on the flight deck. Now, maybe look at some of the older ships in the mothball fleet to see which ones can be refitted and then basically fit with as many of those that can be used. Make them missile launch platforms for fleet or anti-ballistic missile defense. Yeah I know, some of those hulks in the mothball fleet are just plain worn out. However, might be some that are not. The US record for "new" ships is not very good at the moment (i.e the new frigate program).

[@jm2453]

These launchers are perfect for cargo on offshore fast supply vessels like the one selected for Overlord USV and MUSV.

[@タコの王]

Should have built the Independence frigate version instead of the Constellation, would already have a bunch of them. Larger aviation for asw helicopters, fast enough to avoid Chinese fishing boat ram tactics, same vls and sensors, plus the capacity to embark a large number of special forces…..the real question is why did the navy go back to the company that built the failed Freedom class? They thought the same people would produce a different outcome second time?

[@jm2453]

Freedom LCS was Lockheed. They teamed with Fincantieri because they know how to build ships and run a shipyard. Common factor on both ships aside from Fincantieri is Gibbs & Cox. They might be a problem. The Navy is the common denominator for all. We should consider what hot lines might still be able to crank ships out sooner while we wait on delayed programs. Aside from survivability upgrades, I'd find a way to swap the forward weapon model on LCS-2 for a tactical or strike length Mk 41. I'd clean the other weapon modules out to provide space and weight for a better radar, larger SEWIP, decoys etc. Swap the keep out guns to Mk 38 mod IV and move them down to the main deck. Clean up the berthing and the magazine. I'd also pick a different genset.

[@coreydark8795]

Doesn't offer much fire power... a general purpose frigate such as a Arrowhead 140 can have a 48 cell VLS with 60-100 crew...

[@jm2453]

Pretty sure they are to get 32 and weigh close to twice as much. The Arrowhead 140 hull and game plan do look to be a winner though. Seems like they may get to the fleet before Type 26.

[@Buconoir]

So, you reinvented ABLs? Big deal. Had these back in the 80s

[@jm2453]

Those were deck mounted. These are plug and play, swap and go.

[@lukeallison3713]

There has to be a minimum standard of organic firepower or these ships should be scrapped. That has to include the 21 cell ram on the independence (with upgrades to the sensor fit) ESSM on both whether from a fixed arm launcher like a mk 29, mk 48 or 56 standalone vls or finding topweight for MK 41 cells. Heck i'd even remove the main gun for mk 41 cells- can put one above the hangar instead, even if it has to be a 40mm or phalanx

[@jm2453]

They are all standardizing around 11 cell SEARAM and Freedom had the 21 cells to start, not Indy. Keep in mind they were first designed for MCM and ASuW to replace Avenger MCMs and Cyclone PCs. They just added the ability to use the Hellfires for AAW too so in ASuW form these ships are sporting 35 ready rounds. More than most ships this size. And no other ships this size can run a MH-60 detachment.

[@lukeallison3713]

@jm2453 The 11 cell ram on independence is their because shd cannot support the larger variant which doesn't have self contained sensors. The reality is that the LCS was primarily designed as an OHP replacement, is always going to be more of a target than a mcm with it's size, displacement and extent of current armament. ESSM is a no brainer given its footprint and the risk of cruise missile attack. You can get away with removing RAM if essm is fitted tbf. Hellfire isn't useful for anything other than counter uas. As for your point about being well armed for it's size,.he 054a has the same displacement as the freedom class

[@jm2453]

@ SEARAM 11 cell weighs much more than 21 cell RAM as does Phalanx. LCS was envisioned as a smaller combatant than what was produced and at no time was it planned as an ASW or AAW escort. Our 25000 ton LPDs don't have ESSM either yet some how sail the oceans unmolested. Hellfire can and has engaged helicopters in addition to UAS. Type 54A weighs about 15-20% more than LCS and was designed for AAW and ASW escort.

[@jebise1126]

2:34 that trailer does not look all that mobile

[@whydnot]

Put these on a cargo ship.

[@natopeacekeeper97]

There's a reason people call the LCS class "Little Crappy Ships." Russia unveiled their containerized "Klub K" system back in 2010. Four 3M-54 Club cruise missiles are used in the land attack version, while the anti-ship version uses the SSN-27 Sizzler cruise missile. There is also a target search and acquisition module, and one video showed a version of the Fire Scout unmanned helicopter going out to sea to find naval targets. China has also produced their version. They can be fired from a ship, the back of a truck, on top of a railroad car, or even sitting on the ground. Since they are for sale to anyone with the cash to pay for them, maybe all the land China has bought around our military installations is starting to make sense-FYI

[@earljames7478]

The area of operation of this ship is near the shore which is a striking distance of land based missiles so what is the purpose of putting those missiles in that ship

[@jm2453]

If these missiles are on that ship its current mission won't likely be that close to an enemy shore. It won't be doing MCM and it won't be doing anti swarm boat ops.

[@cyrusjalali1571]

SM6 is a mediocre interim solution to the Navy's lack of surface-surface capability. Don't get me wrong, it's a great air defense weapon, however it's small warhead makes it useless for surface to surface engagement. If the navy wants to make use of the LCS they need to address the fact that the LCS lacks adequate air defense. Don't see why they can't fit an 8 cell mk41 VLS on the bow and give it 32 ESSM block 2 missiles. The Australians put an 8 Cell VLS on their Oliver Hazard Perry didn't they?

[@jm2453]

Perry are over 25% heavier than LCS-2. They just cleared the 24 cell Hellfire launcher for AAW. Adds to the point defense which is what it needs to do its patrol and MCM core missions. SM-6 kenetic energy alone is a day ender. The 140lb warhead helps. We ended a Turkish destroyer by accident with just 2 Sea Sparrow. We are a navy playing an away game and need flexibility. Same reason the 5" gun lives on. Dual use. I'd love an 8 cell Mk 41. If we learned to quad pack Hellfires even that would give us more ready rounds. I'm not going to bend over backwards for it as things now stand. We can get a USV that can carry 4 launchers for less than it would cost to rebuild an existing ship with a Mk 41.

[@derrickholzhey9685]

Where would the helicopter land 😮

[@SWOBIZ]

In service since 2008 and still no mission packages. I guess this is better than nothing.

[@jm2453]

We have the helos, the hellfire, the mk 46, the rhibs, the CUSVs. Off module we have NMS and now Mk 70 and 3 ships get the survivability upgrades this year.

[@Soulessdeeds]

Just bring back Battleships but instead of big guns they are just loaded with missile tube's.

[@jm2453]

Worst plan.

[@richardmeo2503]

If things get ugly, LCS should be used in Gulf of US and around Florida to protect shipping and oil platforms. If we need hulls, there are dozens we could use.

[@kingkea3451]

"Gulf of US" lmao

[@1aapmens]

also, who's the threat? Greenland, Panama or Mexico?

[@BullGator-kd6ge]

That’s what the Coast Guard is for.

[@richardmeo2503]

@@1aapmens CCP is. They have multiple bases in Latin America, and have run Canal since traitor Clinton let them in in 1998. As shown in Ukraine/Russia war, oil is a target

[@DamplyDoo]

Ace combat predicted shipping container launched fighter drones

[@pauljensen5699]

Probably stole the idea from that game.

[@jagodiving]

with MLK70 launcher will be a new solution for many emerging countries, even a vast tanker can be transform in to.the beast AAW ship😂,

[@francescoboselli6033]

So... they are removing from a ship which has in convoy escort and ASW its primary mission... the landing deck for helicopters... 😅🤔

[@jm2453]

This ship has no ASW mission and absolutely has no escort mission.

[@francescoboselli6033]

@jm2453 then what is/was the main missions type conceived for this class in case of a peer to peer war? 😂

[@rungfang27]

It was designed to work in the coastal areas and provide fire support and mission support. It is a pretty shifty ship that only made it through because the shipyard was in a congress persons state. They should all be given to the coast guard after the navy unf**** its yard problem!

[@dpf1971]

So, one of the very few upsides of the LCS class was the size of their flight decks. Now, to make them even remotely combat-worthy, they are going to stick large (metal) containers there - negating its use for only a moderate upgrade to the ship's terrible level of fire power. Not only that, sticking those nice big, flat-sided metal containers on the flight deck will only add to the ship's radar footprint - making a weak target and even bigger, easier-to-see weak target. In the end, I think LCS crews will end up acting like WWII Sherman tank crews and ball-turret gunners from B-17's .... twitchy as hell and useless in a short period of time due to monster levels of anxiety and stress.

[@hjalmar4565]

I really don't understand this solution. Can't they make room for those VLS by reducing the size of the hangar, which is useless with these containers anyway.

[@jm2453]

@@hjalmar4565 Then you do lose your full helo option. These can be added or removed as needed keeping the helos for ASuW and MCM. Plus this is way faster and cheaper.

[@jm2453]

They can still maintain their LO profile from the front aspect, not that it likely matters in this scenario. We are talking about carrying 200-900nm missiles. Keep in mind these ships are for MCM and ASuW replacing Avenger and Cyclone classes.

[@hjalmar4565]

@ I know it isn't ideal, but having a few VLS means you can operate a helo and have VLS, but the option in this video means you can't have both at all.

[@jm2453]

@ Yeah, its a trade, but even with them you should be able to get a class 3 UAV like VBAT launched and recovered.

[@likourgos13]

So basically get rid of the helicopter that gives this expensive fishing boat a punch and put containers that are guided by who?

[@jm2453]

Any off board sensor including UAV you could still launch from the ship.

[@nietkees6906]

Getting just 12 VLS cells is not worth sacrificing the flight deck.

[@codedlogic]

These can be slaved to a Arleigh Burke's Aegis Combat System allowing a fleet to increase the size of its air defense bubble. I think in a near peer conflict it could be a great trade off.

[@898792]

Especially when you could just build a new constellation class frigate, have more than twice the VLS and keep your flight deck.

[@jm2453]

Permanently, no, temporarily, maybe.

[@jm2453]

@@898792 For over twice the money and in 10 years not now.

[@hubbali666]

ABL anyone !!!

[@willberry6434]

This entire ship class is a disgrace

[@codedlogic]

The LCS is a great ship. You've just been brainwashed by too many KZbin videos complaining that its not a Destroyer.

[@willberry6434]

@ you mean the fact they shake themselves apart when going to designed speed? Or the fact they are comically under armed to deal with virtually any modern threat? Useless ships

[@codedlogic]

@@willberry6434 Neither of those statements are true. I invite you to stop regurgitating things you've seen KZbinrs state and listen to what actual Naval Commanders say about the platform.

[@johngrimm1103]

@@codedlogic Dude these ships are 3500T, there are 2000T ships that are better armed than them. FFS there are 500T missile boats that have more punch then these vessels. This program was so badly mismanaged its a disgrace to project managers. And it looks like the Constellation is heading for this same fate, how can the Navy get a platform like FREMM that both France and Italy have different equipment/armaments on and fuck it up, its a great indicator the LCS program was the fault of the Navy and not the fucking contractors(i'm talking design here not the shodi execution on build and technicals).

[@codedlogic]

@@johngrimm1103 None of what you said is true

[@Naylamp21]

US Navy must be desperate if they use this kind of solutions !!! 😪

[@stevensonDonnie]

Mount Tomahawks on there, this way, since the ship will not be able to leave port, no real capability is being left behind.

[@adamhodgson8851]

I know it may not be practical in some ways but I’ve always wished American companies would keep their technologies as close to the chest as possible and make it as hard on adversaries as it could possibly be. Obviously not everything can be kept perfectly secret but at least make them work for it by expending their money/resources to figure them out and having to come up with some concepts themselves.

[@stuka101]

The Class stuff is kept secret. dont worry

[@tonymanero5544]

Both the government and manufacturer want to sell, and market before Russia, Israel, China get to potential buyers for similar systems or spending budget $ on something else, like drones. Lockheed spent hundreds of millions in bribes to sell the Starfighter that was ill-suited for buyers needs; Lockheed bribe scandal is not a Trump Wall lie, but Lockheed admitted to bribing. Eve the UK bribed to sell Eurofighter. Bottom line, all countries sell to earn hard cash.

[@Flightman453]

What's so special about this? It's just a VLS system in a container, it's nothing new or special lmao. Other countries have had containerized missile designs for years now.

[@johnjenkins1589]

China is copying everything we do… look at the Fuijan, their new aircraft carrier, full of the same technology as our carriers apparently? All I can say is God Bless the United States of America, God Bless all of our military members and their families, we would not be a nation without you and your sacrifices, thank you for everything. It’s a rough ride sometimes but those that serve know the cost of freedom and I thank each one from the bottom of my heart. I’m a former Army 11Bravo, infantryman, Iraq 08-09 , combat wounded, I love our Country and would fight for it again in a heartbeat if needed Keep building us new ships! We need more. Thank you and God Bless every American and watch over us as we deliver peace to the world, through our strength 🇺🇸

[@Flightman453]

@@johnjenkins1589 Keep coping. Facts don't care about your feelings. "Same technologies", yet their EMALS works completely differently. Cope.

[@comxion]

install that on a container ship ;)

[@jm2453]

FSVs like Overlord USVs ranger, Mariner, and Vanguard.

[@Carnutz-d8t]

The LCS is a failed program. Blocking the helipad eliminates one of the key capabilities they still had, but could still serve US coastal security. Otherwise, might as well eliminate the hanger, reduce the related crew and facilities, extend the range, box the entire stern with VLS cells (more efficient) and use them as task force protection / multipliers with communications to allow destroyers, cruisers, and aircraft to share targeting. With longer range strike capabilities, the weak aluminum hulls (possibly) wouldn't matter as much. Or, to really piss off China, sell / give them to Philippines as "reef bases with helipads" better crew facilities, and more guns than the rusted hulk they already use? (Attempts at thinking outside the box, lol.)

[@jm2453]

Keep in mind this new function is modular. it can be out doing patrol and if we need to, roll up next to a container feeder or into a container port and add the missiles. Not my first preference, but it adds options.

[@memonk11]

Terrible idea. Make the LCS’s mini-drone carriers, anti-drone specialists, or specialized anti-submarine ships. They will NEVER be a destroyer, or even a corvette. Make them specializesd and good for SOMETHING, or decommission these colossal failures.

[@BullGator-kd6ge]

The ASW modules were cancelled for both LCS classes. Surface Warfare and Mine Countermeasures are the two active ones. Drones were tested on the USS Indianapolis but I think I read the drones need a line of sight to the ship so they can’t go far away. Anti drone capabilities are also being installed by essentially turning Longbow Hellfires as SAM missiles.

[@jm2453]

They just cleared the Hellfire launcher for AAW.

[@usmc24thmeu36]

The freedom and independence class of ships was a boondockle and a total waste of money.

[@jm2453]

I'd take Freedom against any similar displacement warship.... If you let me decide what to equip it with. I don't need to change the ship, just their gear selection from the existing tool box.

[@1BigBen]

this would speed up delivery to counties like Ukraine, as your production wouldn't be limited by the new trucks parts production, also as you are using standard shipping container dimensions, this would cut cost as you can use like 300 teu container ship with/without cranes, keeping MK 70 launcher in the hull and with a few container on top with built in sam, SEE-wiz and few jarheads, using ship, trains and using the used civilian trucks markets to source lowboys and trailers in neighbouring countries head of time.

[@NeoDerGrose]

You think the truck parts are the hard part of producing weapons systems? Think harder.

[@deltasource56]

lol no just no.

[@iamscoutstfu]

Hmmmm a missile launcher that looks juuuust like a shipping container.... How interesting for Taiwan...

[@Rob_F8F]

I'm certainly no fan of the LCS. That said, this provides some options for use of the LCS. That said, the LCS's should be transferred to the Coast Guard and the Navy should get the National Security Cutters in exchange.

[@jm2453]

No

[@Rob_F8F]

@@jm2453 k

[@Domo6768]

Call of duty all over again 😂😂

[@drksideofthewal]

Sometimes you have to laugh at how jank these multi-million dollar weapons systems are. Just put the missile launchers right on the flight deck.

[@georgedoolittle9015]

I think these systems The LCS are absolutely deadly but of course not made for sustained high speed operation more like the ultimate in a "loitering munition" be the entire Ship very creative use of this platform as the Baltic and Black Sea and the Med...and the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea actually and given what has played out with the entire Russian conventional Army being destroyed upon in against Ukraine not exclusively of course but very so by #drone_war having a space where Naval Drones can be "garaged away" #v_bat_drone invaluable piece of deck space now as the only defense against a drone is still another drone. Expect drone capabilities therefore to soar 😊😊

[@MrWlbblw]

This is so silly. It takes away the ship's best feature (helo deck) & replaces it with a missile it can't guide on it's own. I don't get it. And the system looks completely fragile, ponderous, & difficult to move around & set up on deck in anything but flat calm seas.

[@jm2453]

Once they are secured they are good to go. Not sure on the sea state limit, but you can see Ranger pitched quite a bit when they did the test firing of the SM-6.

[@John.S.Patton]

I dislike this because it take up landing space. Maybe this could be a fast deployment to land base's.

[@NWguy83]

Stop trying to make a bad idea (LCS) work! 🙄

[@tonymanero5544]

Oh no, these are seagoing platforms with potential new or purpose combat value. When Reagan Lehman wanted the 600 ship fleet, the Iowas were brought back for like 6 years for $ billions and considered Oriskany until the Navy said no to Oriskany. The fleet is shrinking for variety of mistakes while China is building more of unknown capability.

[@jm2453]

There is nothing worng with LCS-2 aside from lack of applied imagination by the USN. The head of the LCS mission modules now is the former skipper on Gabriel Giffords which really lead the turn around deployment for the program. I'm not saying its a panacea, but much of what ails this ship is the navy itself. Quit blaming the ship.

[@NWguy83]

@jm2453 "not combat survivable" and the mission modules never actually ending up being a thing. Now let's block the landing deck with weapons that should have just been designed into the ships layout way back in the planning phase.

[@jm2453]

@@NWguy83 ASuW and MCM are a thing. You can watch the CUSVs training with the LCS off San Clemente on Marine traffic during the week. They just used the Hellfire module in the Red Sea.

[@NWguy83]

@@jm2453 "As the program moved forward, Navy decision-makers chose to build these vessels to the lowest combatant standard-below the standard of any other Navy ship. The Department of Defense Director of Operational Test and Evaluation found that the LCS design requirements “accept the risk that the crew would have to abandon ship under circumstances where service members in other vessels would not.” The saga of the LCS continues to unfold, and the Navy is already decommissioning LCSs even as it builds new ones." - US Naval Institute

[@gerardigoe9765]

Let it go. Bad design . You can put those launchers on cargo ships and have the same impact. Sell them off or turn them into training vessels.

[@RealJeep]

The Puddle Pirates would love these ships. Paint them all white and give them away.

[@jm2453]

Put them on the MUSV/Overlord USVs. Let the LCS play support ship to them.

[@ThePTBRULES]

Why are these Coast Guard cutters still in the navy?

[@jm2453]

Not remotely the same needs being addressed.

[@slimeydon]

Who got paid?

[@danielbeard2656]

That looks stupid And it removes the ability to utilise a helo for over the horizon targetting or ASW.

[@jm2453]

Agreed, but they could still launch a VBAT and do the same thing. Plus they can get their targeting from someone else entirely.

[@MatthewDesantis-c9e]

No amount of upgrades will change a very poorly designed ship

[@jm2453]

That depends. LCS-2 could easily field a 2 MH-60 detachment for any of its missions rather than 1 helo and 1 or no UAVs. They could even do 2 MH-60 and stow a class III UAV system on the mission deck. Consolidate around variants of the CUSV and plan on detachments of 3 boats. Why not put the MH-60R dipping sonar on the USVs? Bring back littoral ASW per their original CONOPS.

[@terenfro1975]

This is like a Ford salesman starting off trying to sell an ecoboost F-150 while standing in front of a P40. The LCS is garbage. Everyone knows it and every one hates it. Take that model out to the parking lot and simulate an airstrike a 22. This is the question he should be answering. How are they going to take a fast production platform and introduce modular systems to compete with the Chinese when war breaks out? That's the only question he should be thinking about right now or maybe he needs to go on the unemployment line. Putting boxes on the deck isn't the correct answer either.

[@76Starship]

LCS is still hot garbage.

[@jtpenman]

Stop building LCS. Waste of money. Terrible scandal.

[@wayneyd2]

Having the launchers on the helipad will disable helicopters operation.

[@MM22966]

Navy, in case you reading this, the collective taxpayer reply to LCS is still: It sucks and you should have never built it.

[@Sapper201D]

This is garbage. It's an ABL x10 in size. Obselete by over thirty years.

[@jm2453]

Not remotely the same. These are built to the box size that makes the entire world run. Our box. Keep it our world.

[@stephenhoward6829]

Hmmm, put a trailer full of missiles on the flight-deck,...so much for flight-deck capability, so much for ASW, or anything else a Helo detachment could add. Someone is getting their palm crossed with silver if this BS is being authorized.

[@arjayhome916]

The worst upgrade for a ship

[@pvp64]

Get rid of LCS, waste of money.

[@Xiao_PP]

admission LCS is dogshit

[@XaraVelli]

What a dumpster of a ship

[@DeerShit01]

LCSの打撃力・防空力の弱さを補うにはこうするしかないって意図は理解するけど、これじゃあランチャー載せてる間はヘリの運用能力が失われるでしょ。 もともとUSSコール被弾事件をきっかけにチープキル問題に対応するために損失が出ても痛くない安いフネで沿岸域で気兼ねなく殴り合えるようにしようって話だったのに、あれもこれもと要求を盛り込みすぎた結果費用が跳ね上がったものになってしまった時点でLCSは構想の筋が悪すぎた。 これ以上LCSに手間と費用をかけるより、諦めて損切りしたほうがいい。