Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence

johnpjones1775 said:
Targets may have guided weapons, but many of them have minimum engagement ranges, and a clever commander can get nice and close, launch, and have their missiles within the minimum engagement range of the longest ranged missiles. Again though, a dozen missile boats each launching 8 missiles is 96 threats to deal with. If they’re as slow as .7 Mach, launched from 30 miles away (slightly beyond the longest real world combat missile launch from a surface vessel) a ship would have less than 3.3 minutes to detect, classify, and engage 96 missiles before taking hits.

From what I know and can find most if not all of the SM missile family wouldn’t even be able to engage that close, meaning you’re relying on ESSM, 5” gun, and which ever CIWS the ship has installed, and maybe someone randomly shooting mk38 in the air in their general direction, along with chaff.

While chaff has a 100% success rate in combat I don’t believe it would decoy anywhere near 96 missiles.

As for sensors, missile boat has the advantage imho, you don’t need a super powerful sensor to detect a formation of ships moving at the same speed in the same direction, meanwhile those larger ships need to be able to pick out the threats from regular maritime traffic. The missile boats will most likely identify the larger ships before the larger ships even know they’re there.
Click to expand...
The system you advocate for gets all the benefit of any doubt, the system it is prospectively engaging gets none. You want FACs to be grouped into a system to increase their firepower. Doing that takes away their flexibility. Flexibility is one of the benefits of smaller cheaper systems like FACs. Grouping FACS into a less flexible but higher firepower system suggests just getting a larger more expensive less flexible system in the first place. Of course, grouping small cheap stuff flexibly is what swarming is about so there is that. I've been on fora like these for 20+ years and know better than to try and argue with the "What the Navy really needs is (insert my pet system here)" types. This post is for others to learn from.
 
Airbus A340 said:
The system you advocate for gets all the benefit of any doubt, the system it is prospectively engaging gets none. You want FACs to be grouped into a system to increase their firepower. Doing that takes away their flexibility. Flexibility is one of the benefits of smaller cheaper systems like FACs. Grouping FACS into a less flexible but higher firepower system suggests just getting a larger more expensive less flexible system in the first place. Of course, grouping small cheap stuff flexibly is what swarming is about so there is that. I've been on fora like these for 20+ years and know better than to try and argue with the "What the Navy really needs is (insert my pet system here)" types. This post is for others to learn from.
Click to expand...
Navies don’t just launch offensive missiles without having the target clearly identified for multiple reasons, including but not limited to, preserving their combat capabilities and not wasting missiles on non-threats, preventing international condemnation and potential more adversaries joining the fight.

The missile boats could be spread over a fairly wide area of 20-30 miles, and sailing to imitate the patterns of fishing vessels, so they wouldn’t be moving in formation at the same speed or heading like the enemy group likely would.

Depending on the location of hostilities AWACS deep inland or ashore radar could also be feeding the boats data, or even other larger warships that the targets are particularly focused on.

There are so many very practical ways for the USN, RFN, or PLAN to utilize missile boats in both offensive and defensive roles.

Glad you’ve learned not to argue with people like yourself.
 
Remind me how swarming FACs tie in with LCS Freedom/Independence.
 
Arjen said:
Remind me how swarming FACs tie in with LCS Freedom/Independence.
Click to expand...
Things got a bit off topic, but the program the preceded the LCS program/transformed into it, was the street fighter program, which was basically a glorified missile boat program.

Part of the discussion is if it was right or wrong for the navy to have moved away from that.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
Targets may have guided weapons, but many of them have minimum engagement ranges, and a clever commander can get nice and close, launch, and have their missiles within the minimum engagement range of the longest ranged missiles. Again though, a dozen missile boats each launching 8 missiles is 96 threats to deal with. If they’re as slow as .7 Mach, launched from 30 miles away (slightly beyond the longest real world combat missile launch from a surface vessel) a ship would have less than 3.3 minutes to detect, classify, and engage 96 missiles before taking hits.
Click to expand...
You mean the exact reason Aegis was designed?

Side note, that's about twice the range you can see a carrier from, so you're launching blind visually or using a very blatant radar. And you've been under Hawkeye and Seahawk surveillance for the last 100 miles or more of your approach.


johnpjones1775 said:
As for sensors, missile boat has the advantage imho, you don’t need a super powerful sensor to detect a formation of ships moving at the same speed in the same direction, meanwhile those larger ships need to be able to pick out the threats from regular maritime traffic. The missile boats will most likely identify the larger ships before the larger ships even know they’re there.
Click to expand...
Not unless they're submarines.

Surface FACs are easy for things like a Hawkeye to see. Yes, Hawkeye radars are also surface-search, not just air search. Plus whatever Tritons and Reaper/Mojaves/Sea Guardians are flying around with surface search radar. Plus the surface search radars on the SH-60s. And on the P-8s. And the EOTS balls on all of the above (think E-2Ds got a FLIR ball, everything else does).

I'll be nice and assume that your FACs are not operating radars other than civilian nav radars, so as to not give away the fact that there are military craft lurking around. Too bad your targets have freshly installed DAS-type 360 staring EOTS, which will show the huge plumes of gas turbine engines (which civilians generally do not use because the maintenance is expensive) and the very distinctive outline of your FAC superstructures.

As soon as you launch missiles, those EOTS will see it and direct some hate your direction, like a couple of Standards. In addition to throwing a couple of standards and ESSMs at the missiles you're launching.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
a clever commander can get nice and close, launch, and have their missiles within the minimum engagement range of the longest ranged missiles. Again though, a dozen missile boats each launching 8 missiles is 96 threats to deal with. If they’re as slow as .7 Mach, launched from 30 miles away (slightly beyond the longest real world combat missile launch from a surface vessel) a ship would have less than 3.3 minutes to detect, classify, and engage 96 missiles before taking hits.
Click to expand...
What do you think the minimum engagement range of a Standard is?
 
Scott Kenny said:
You mean the exact reason Aegis was designed?

Side note, that's about twice the range you can see a carrier from, so you're launching blind visually or using a very blatant radar. And you've been under Hawkeye and Seahawk surveillance for the last 100 miles or more of your approach.



Not unless they're submarines.

Surface FACs are easy for things like a Hawkeye to see. Yes, Hawkeye radars are also surface-search, not just air search. Plus whatever Tritons and Reaper/Mojaves/Sea Guardians are flying around with surface search radar. Plus the surface search radars on the SH-60s. And on the P-8s. And the EOTS balls on all of the above (think E-2Ds got a FLIR ball, everything else does).

I'll be nice and assume that your FACs are not operating radars other than civilian nav radars, so as to not give away the fact that there are military craft lurking around. Too bad your targets have freshly installed DAS-type 360 staring EOTS, which will show the huge plumes of gas turbine engines (which civilians generally do not use because the maintenance is expensive) and the very distinctive outline of your FAC superstructures.

As soon as you launch missiles, those EOTS will see it and direct some hate your direction, like a couple of Standards. In addition to throwing a couple of standards and ESSMs at the missiles you're launching.
Click to expand...
Have you ever looked at a real radar screen?
You can track a CSG with a navigational radar.
You can have 1000 different radar systems going and seeing every single ship and boat underway, it makes no difference if you can’t identify the difference between a group of missile boats or a group of fishing boats.
So sure the CSG might know you’re there as far as seeing a contact on a radar screen, but that doesn’t mean they’ll know what you are.

I love how you claim the missile boats can’t see their targets but you think the targets will somehow be able to see them…once the missiles are launched it doesn’t really matter if the boats are seen.
 
Last edited:
that_person said:
What do you think the minimum engagement range of a Standard is?
Click to expand...
What do you think it is?
Publicly SM2 is listed at 40-92miles.
But again, even if it was a minimum range of 25 miles, by the time the launch is detected, and the SM2 launched the missile would likely be within its minimum range.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
Have you ever looked at a real radar screen?
You can track a CSG with a navigational radar.
You can have 1000 different radar systems going and seeing every single ship and boat underway, it makes no difference if you can’t identify the difference between a group of missile boats or a group of fishing boats.
So sure the CSG might know you’re there as far as seeing a contact on a radar screen, but that doesn’t mean they’ll know what you are.
Click to expand...
If you emit one whiff of a known military radar, they will know what you are.
If you launch without such, the IR bloom will reveal you and get you deleted.
And if you think that the airborne radars will not see a group of a dozen ships all moving towards the carrier in any approximation of a formation, well, you need to think again.


johnpjones1775 said:
What do you think it is?
Publicly SM2 is listed at 40-92miles.
But again, even if it was a minimum range of 25 miles, by the time the launch is detected, and the SM2 launched the missile would likely be within its minimum range.
Click to expand...
Booster burns out after about 5 seconds. Let's be rude and assume it takes 3 more seconds for an SM2 to get turned over and pointed at the incoming, this is after about 2 seconds of sustainer burn. 8 seconds total time from "Vampire, Vampire, missile launch detected." SM2 still has something like 38 seconds of burn time on the sustainer, and hasn't reached max speed yet.

How fast is your incoming missile? Let's be evil and assume it's coming in at 1km/s, Mach 2.9. A launch at 25mi is ~40km, so your missile is 40 seconds out. 10 seconds from detection of your SSM launch to SM2 launch because Aegis was not in Full Auto, but required manual launch command. Your missile is now 30km out. SM2 launches and takes ~8 sec from launch to point at the incoming. Your missile is now 22km out, and I'll be generous to your assumptions and say that the SM2 is still directly over the ship. It won't be, but it makes for the longest "minimum range" calculation. The first SM2 will impact your first AShM in ~10 seconds, at a range of about 10km. (In all likelihood, that impact will be in ~5 seconds at about the same range due to the booster shoving the missile towards the incoming for several km as it accelerates past Mach 1 and has a top speed of well over M2.9)

And this is assuming 1) that the Aegis system isn't in full auto, so requires a human's slow reaction times before the first SM2 flies; and 2) that the booster needs to pretty much burn out before it points the SM2 at the target and cannot start maneuvering as soon as the stack clears the launch cell.

So, if you're lucky, you will have to get within 30km of a carrier group that is unaware of you in order to launch current top-end AShMs like SS-N-27 Kalibr.

If your AShMs are subsonic, well, the range at which the booster burns out on an SM2 is about 2km. And I think the closest anyone wants to be to a 500kg blast-frag warhead going off is about 2km. So you might have to get within 5km of the Aegis ships to get that missile within the minimum range of SM2s if Aegis is in full auto.
 
Scott Kenny said:
If you emit one whiff of a known military radar, they will know what you are.
If you launch without such, the IR bloom will reveal you and get you deleted.
And if you think that the airborne radars will not see a group of a dozen ships all moving towards the carrier in any approximation of a formation, well, you need to think again.



Booster burns out after about 5 seconds. Let's be rude and assume it takes 3 more seconds for an SM2 to get turned over and pointed at the incoming, this is after about 2 seconds of sustainer burn. 8 seconds total time from "Vampire, Vampire, missile launch detected." SM2 still has something like 38 seconds of burn time on the sustainer, and hasn't reached max speed yet.

How fast is your incoming missile? Let's be evil and assume it's coming in at 1km/s, Mach 2.9. A launch at 25mi is ~40km, so your missile is 40 seconds out. 10 seconds from detection of your SSM launch to SM2 launch because Aegis was not in Full Auto, but required manual launch command. Your missile is now 30km out. SM2 launches and takes ~8 sec from launch to point at the incoming. Your missile is now 22km out, and I'll be generous to your assumptions and say that the SM2 is still directly over the ship. It won't be, but it makes for the longest "minimum range" calculation. The first SM2 will impact your first AShM in ~10 seconds, at a range of about 10km. (In all likelihood, that impact will be in ~5 seconds at about the same range due to the booster shoving the missile towards the incoming for several km as it accelerates past Mach 1 and has a top speed of well over M2.9)

And this is assuming 1) that the Aegis system isn't in full auto, so requires a human's slow reaction times before the first SM2 flies; and 2) that the booster needs to pretty much burn out before it points the SM2 at the target and cannot start maneuvering as soon as the stack clears the launch cell.

So, if you're lucky, you will have to get within 30km of a carrier group that is unaware of you in order to launch current top-end AShMs like SS-N-27 Kalibr.

If your AShMs are subsonic, well, the range at which the booster burns out on an SM2 is about 2km. And I think the closest anyone wants to be to a 500kg blast-frag warhead going off is about 2km. So you might have to get within 5km of the Aegis ships to get that missile within the minimum range of SM2s if Aegis is in full auto.
Click to expand...
The point of missile boats isn’t to survive, it’s to launch missiles.
The boats just need to position themselves in the way, and again they can travel in the shipping lanes to get to the launch point.
You’ve exposed you really don’t know what you’re talking about.
 
Can your missile boat flush all its AShMs before an SM2 or SM6 shatters it? When either travels at something at or above 1.5km/s? Launch all missiles within 20sec of the first missiles firing (rough flight time of an SM2 at 30km range, assuming Aegis in Full Auto)?

My comments about how close you need to get before an SM2 is incapable of intercepting are still quite solid.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Can your missile boat flush all its AShMs before an SM2 or SM6 shatters it? When either travels at something at or above 1.5km/s? Launch all missiles within 20sec of the first missiles firing (rough flight time of an SM2 at 30km range, assuming Aegis in Full Auto)?

My comments about how close you need to get before an SM2 is incapable of intercepting are still quite solid.
Click to expand...
Lmao, yes, and they’re not launching any SMs against a surface target with missiles inbound.
But even if each boat only got half their missiles off, 48 missiles is still more than enough to overwhelm the 3 ship escort carriers currently deploy with.

Also while I’m not taking them into account for the missiles I’m theoretically using you were wrong about the fast anti ship missile. The tsirkon/zircon is definitely faster.

You literally made numbers and times up, that are wholly inconsistent with the publicly available information.

You are wrong on several counts.

Have fun thinking you know what you’re talking about though, I’m done with this off topic tangent.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
Lmao, yes, and they’re not launching any SMs against a surface target with missiles inbound.
But even if each boat only got half their missiles off, 48 missiles is still more than enough to overwhelm the 3 ship escort carriers currently deploy with.

Also while I’m not taking them into account for the missiles I’m theoretically using you were wrong about the fast anti ship missile. The tsirkon/zircon is definitely faster.

You literally made numbers and times up, that are wholly inconsistent with the publicly available information.

You are wrong on several counts.

Have fun thinking you know what you’re talking about though, I’m done with this off topic tangent.
Click to expand...
How fast is an SS-N-27? Mach 2.9 in sprint stage. 1km/second.

How fucking much do I need to spell out for you?
 
I feel the need to point out that the SM2 predecessor the Tarter was good for targets as close as a Mile and 50 feet down. While the Terrier was consider good for targets as close as 10 miles.

And was tested as such against low flying mach 3 drones like the Vandel.


So we know that the SM2 and the SM6 can do that, and likely better.

And the Aegis was design to multi task with at least 16 AIR targets and several ground targets using all weapons systems, MK26/VLS 5 inch guns and deck mounted Harpoons at the same time. With the CIC having like 12 different weapons stations to control everything with each having their own job and area of responsibility. And the MK41 VLS is able to fire one missile from a 8 count cell block every 8 seconds, with a single second between block in a module.

So a Burke can fire off 12 missiles in as many seconds and can control all at the same time. But dont need to cause the missiles have their own autopilot and can fly 95 percent of the distance with the Burke only needing to designate the target at the very end. So can have multiple flights, say 4 in the air at once each pre aimed at an target. All done with minimum operator input.

So yeah, a SINGLE modern Destroyer can kill at least 48 air targets from a detection range of 100 miles out.

And at the same time guide another flight of missile at launchers at the same time.

So consider that Burkes often work in Pairs, or triplets with air cover and long-range airborne radar support.

That a protenial of 96-144 missiles ON THE LOW END able to be smack down with duty cycles left to murder the launchers.

While the less capable Patriot, which is widely seen as inferoir to the Aegis, been shown in Ukraine to be able to handily fend off over 30 High end missiles ranging from the high subsonic Kalibers to the Kintiz at the same time despite being a near perfect time on target saturation attack meant to destroy the system.

Eyeah, modern high end SAM systems are fucking scary and should be treated with all due respect. Cause they been in development lock fucking step with attacking weapons and tech been favoring the defense for the last 4 decades.
 
Scott, don't waste your time. Mods should make a FAC effectiveness thread or a "My pet weapons system will beat yours because I like it more than you like yours" thread.
 
Funny that folks are arguing about Standards, ESSMs, and (fully integrated) anti-shipping missiles…three things LCS’s don’t carry…
 
Maskoki said:
Funny that folks are arguing about Standards, ESSMs, and (fully integrated) anti-shipping missiles…three things LCS’s don’t carry…
Click to expand...
This was talking about FACs being better than LCS, or something like that. In any case, the LCS would be in the attacker's position in the debated engagement.
 
And I don't understand on why stuck with SM-2? If it went beyond the minimum range of SM-2 then use ESSM
 
that_person said:
If it’s within SM-2s minimum range (a few miles at most), you’re kind of already dead. ESSM won’t save you.
Click to expand...
Yeah, anything within about 10km is RAM food, not anything bigger.

I worked it out from some Kalibr or equivalent missiles screaming in at Mach 2.9 a while back.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
I haven’t seen that.
Wiki says in excess of 26, and for FREMMs the french version says in excess of 27, and Italy in excess of 30.

So it’s pretty likely they’ll be doing around 30.
Click to expand...
Hi,

Here are links to a USNI article that references a GAO report that states;

"The “unplanned weight growth” of ten percent or more from June 2020 to October of 2023 on the Constellation-class frigate may require the Navy to shed propulsion capability and in turn reduce the ship’s top speed to allow the warships to have the margin the service needs for future upgrades, according to the Government Accountability Office’s report on the program."



 
PFJN said:
Hi,

Here are links to a USNI article that references a GAO report that states;

"The “unplanned weight growth” of ten percent or more from June 2020 to October of 2023 on the Constellation-class frigate may require the Navy to shed propulsion capability and in turn reduce the ship’s top speed to allow the warships to have the margin the service needs for future upgrades, according to the Government Accountability Office’s report on the program."



Click to expand...

I wonder if the FFG-62 will remain in the fleet long enough to get hardware upgrades…

Hopefully DDG-51 Flight IIa 2.0 modernization goes well, but CG-47 modernization didn’t, and the Spruance (which did receive upgrades) & FFG-07s (which downgraded the Mk.13 & SM-1s before end-of-life) left the fleet early. One success in four recent surface combatant ship programs (when considering full-use-to-projected-life and/or upgrades) isn’t a great ratio, and that is completely ignoring DDG-1000 & LCS soup-sammiches.

So, given the apparent mismanagement of the FFG-62 redesign, and poor residual options, is it not better to build the ship we need now without extra SWPC, and gain future FFG-62 SWPC by tossing something later (when upgrading / modernizing, if that happens), that we install on the ship now?

Example: When it is time to upgrade, we remove a couple NSM launchers (of the four sets we currently plan to mount initially)?
 
Maskoki said:
the Spruance (which did receive upgrades) & FFG-07s (which downgraded the Mk.13 & SM-1s before end-of-life) left the fleet early.
Click to expand...
Um... They didnt leave the fleet early.

The one of the First Spruance retire wasthe Ingersoll in 1998, and had a launch date of 1980, with over 18 years of service. That was cause by her refit to have VLS get cancelled due to cost and foreseen lack of need. She was the youngest to get retire, with most breaking 25 on retirement. Which was their Design active lives without a major keel deep overhaul which was made all the more expansive due to operational choices made in service and design comprises as well. They were suffering from corrosion hard due to their dual metal design using alinumin superstucture on a steel hull which by their twenties was doubling the operational costs.

While the Perrys all served over twenty years besides a handful of the short hull versions that had issues getting upgraded to take the UH60 size copters. The long hulls all serve nearly 30 years as well, which was slightly better then their design life and did recieve upgrades where possible but was hubbled by their astute nature. They where ment to be cheap short term design, and such had no room for upgrades.

The Ticos as well did get upgrades, MULTIPLE in their lives, but again was design for 30 years of Active service, had the same double metal issues as the Spruance's, and was commissioned in 1994, with only 3 others being in 1993 and most in the 1980s. Plus the design was near maxed out from day one so was always limited for what they could have done. The Cost of the refits is literally pushing new ship costs and dont gain you much but 10 more years of kicking the can down the road.

While the Burkes was a newer design, already ment for long lasting, and all made of the same metal through out the hull with the F3 being a near new design due to needing to replace multiple parts. They were a better design from the get go using the issues of the Spruances and Ticos as lesson learnt in their design process.
 
Firefinder said:
Um... They didnt leave the fleet early.

The one of the First Spruance retire wasthe Ingersoll in 1998, and had a launch date of 1980, with over 18 years of service. That was cause by her refit to have VLS get cancelled due to cost and foreseen lack of need. She was the youngest to get retire, with most breaking 25 on retirement. Which was their Design active lives without a major keel deep overhaul which was made all the more expansive due to operational choices made in service and design comprises as well. They were suffering from corrosion hard due to their dual metal design using alinumin superstucture on a steel hull which by their twenties was doubling the operational costs.

While the Perrys all served over twenty years besides a handful of the short hull versions that had issues getting upgraded to take the UH60 size copters. The long hulls all serve nearly 30 years as well, which was slightly better then their design life and did recieve upgrades where possible but was hubbled by their astute nature. They where ment to be cheap short term design, and such had no room for upgrades.

The Ticos as well did get upgrades, MULTIPLE in their lives, but again was design for 30 years of Active service, had the same double metal issues as the Spruance's, and was commissioned in 1994, with only 3 others being in 1993 and most in the 1980s. Plus the design was near maxed out from day one so was always limited for what they could have done. The Cost of the refits is literally pushing new ship costs and dont gain you much but 10 more years of kicking the can down the road.

While the Burkes was a newer design, already ment for long lasting, and all made of the same metal through out the hull with the F3 being a near new design due to needing to replace multiple parts. They were a better design from the get go using the issues of the Spruances and Ticos as lesson learnt in their design process.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the info.

Many lamented (& still lament) the Spruances not being refit & kept around. Many also lamented (& still lament) the Perrys exit while other navies have upgraded theirs. I get the upgrade expense, dual-metal construction, original design, & other reasons for not keeping them, & the Ticos, longer.

Regardless of the decision drivers for each class, the point in considering recent class management and decision history when evaluating new frigate design constraints PFJN links & reasons through, is: Is it wise to bias toward limiting the frigate’s propulsion in the final design, in favor of growth margin, when use of the growth margin isn’t guaranteed due to mid-life or end-of-life decisions?
 
Maskoki said:
I wonder if the FFG-62 will remain in the fleet long enough to get hardware upgrades…
Click to expand...
They almost certainly get incremental upgrades to their EW and surface search sets, but nothing major. SSC hulls are only designed for a 25 year life span, SPY-6 will still be the norm them. There’s not much to actually change.

Maskoki said:
CG-47 modernization didn’t [work well]
Click to expand...
Yes, color me shocked that modernizing ships with no growth potential, and which had already been ran into the ground, didn’t work very well. There’s a reason only Congress pushed it.

Maskoki said:
Spruance (which did receive upgrades) & FFG-07s (which downgraded the Mk.13 & SM-1s before end-of-life) left the fleet early
Click to expand...
All the Perrys served to the end of their 25 year lifespans.

The question regarding the Spruances is very much a budgetary issue. They were all retired during Peace Dividend, when the Navy was trying to fund two wars in the Middle East, develop DD(X), LCS, CVN(X), and NSSN. It didn’t make sense to keep something the expensive Spruance fleet, when it could only perform one mission.
 
TomS said:
can't see this being a desirable long-term solution. It seems to blank the helicopter capability completely, for starters.
Click to expand...
Going to go out on a limb here and suggest the VLS module they proposed a few years back is the only way to add VLS cells while retaining aviation capabilities. Realistically you don't need more than 4-8 cells for quadpacked ESSMs, so I think it's a feasible solution. 1734057463077.png
 
that_person said:
Going to go out on a limb here and suggest the VLS module they proposed a few years back is the only way to add VLS cells while retaining aviation capabilities. Realistically you don't need more than 4-8 cells for quadpacked ESSMs, so I think it's a feasible solution. View attachment 752173
Click to expand...

That particular install is Tactical Length, which is fine for self-defense, but comes up short for the strike missiles they are talking about in the MK 70.

View: https://youtu.be/vPftdH2ZWAw?si=_F9Dp4ZC5yTgD8Uv&t=252
 
that_person said:
Going to go out on a limb here and suggest the VLS module they proposed a few years back is the only way to add VLS cells while retaining aviation capabilities. Realistically you don't need more than 4-8 cells for quadpacked ESSMs, so I think it's a feasible solution. View attachment 752173
Click to expand...
That is a lot of weight up high in the ship, holy crap! Tac or Strike length Mk41s on top of the hangar!

Can't believe there's no space to stick those into the NSM bays...
 
TomS said:
I can't see this being a desirable long-term solution. It seems to blank the helicopter capability completely, for starters.
Click to expand...
Just to cause Chinese planners to always account for the idea of any ship is a ship with long range missiles if conflict break out but I doubt there's any serious plan to keep these containers on there operationally speaking
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom