[Dragon]

Polish Navy is somewhat better, but only a bit. Two OHPs, of which one serves as a spare part magazine for the other. The rest are minelayers, dingies and post-Soviet junk. But at least there's plenty of it.
On the other hand, we have something worse than LCS. The Gawron. The only thing it exceeded at was being a bottomless well into which government could throw money. It doesn't even look cool. At least the LCS is afloat, though it's not that difficult to change that. The Gawron, on the other hand, will most likely soon find it's way to a certain salesman with flapping arms and plaid jacket...

[Thaeris]

Heh, well it seems the LCS's are much worse than I ever thought. But then, their description as corvettes seems to be accurate. At a glance, the Independence seems to be the better ship (over the Freedom-class) with respect to armament and capability, but the mission profile of the ships suggest that they are designed for counter-insurgency type operations rather than fleet engagements, or what have you. This isn't a bad thing, but the problem is... why do I need a stealthy ship to do what Coast Gaurd clippers usually do anyway?

As far as general warfare goes, I assume that the LCS would have a "module" for such a thing - at least the Independence looks like it has some infrastructure for missile engagements with its VLS. However, the lack of built-in AA capability, something you'd want in a ship like this, is quite far off and away. The RAM is quite short range indeed, and not a deterrant for a fighter that would simply avoid the ship if it can identify the threat via RWR. Slapping some Sea Harpoon tubes and Sea Sparrow (or, even better, an AIM-120 derivative) launchers on the ship would at least make the ship a credible thread, but I guess there's a module for that, right?

That adresses the long-range engagement characteristics of the ship, if you can call them that. Without Standard Missiles, it's really not too scary a boat. The best thing about its low RCS in warfare... actual warfare between competant powers... is that it might help the ship remain fairly well hidden from ships with actual weapons, while the sensor suite of the ships might help it detect those actual threats, and avoid them. Either way, it won't do much... without a module. So, I suppose being a littoral vessel, it might work well close to the shore. But, in a hostile engagement zone, the ship is made for speed, and given the status of modern ship armor, it won't do well if it can be engaged in visual rage against competant artillery. And a 57mm gun is not going to bombard shore targets particularly well, either... Maybe you could park a few 105's on the helipads? That could be a really swell module to boot! But your direct assault roles are still going to be limited, and probably a bad idea.

So then, it appears to be a special forces ship. Back in the 60's and early 70's, the US developed some horrifically competant spec ops forces... And then we fired them. Now we seem to realize that those were good things to have against irregular combatants, who are simply regular combatants without the means to conduct regular warfare. So, now it's a miniaturized assault platform... probably with a module for that, too... to deliver marauding black ops teams in dinghys or small barges with Humvees to the odd corners of the world. Actually, it sounds like GI Joe would love this thing. And, given the small package, would probably be economical enough to sell in an action playset. Unfortunately, reality indicates that is not the case.

So, it is a highly sophisticated boat to hunt down Somalian pirates invading the US. Because they would totally do that. And then, we can chase down their already radar-less bass boats, completely undetected! Finally, once we've chased those dirty dogs back to where they came from, we can invade them with small teams of elite operatives. This sounds like a completely good idea.

...Please, fire my government. I'm begging you.

[The E]

So what is actually required is a submersible Iowa-Class BB with a sizable VLS battery and a modern CIWS suite.

[BengalTiger]

If it could shoot down planes, missiles and nukes it won't need to be submersible.

In fact, IMHO, if the South Dakota was able to shoot down 26 planes in 1 day using cutting edge WW II tech (radar gun laying and proximity shells), a modern BB would be just as capable of defending itself.
It was the Yamato's (and all IJN ships in general) lack of a proper AA suite that gave battleships a bad name...

And one more thing- 9 railguns instead of the good old 16 inchers (which in fact could reach 70 km or so using 500 kg subcaliber ammo) would make a modern BB even more awesome.

[Dragon]

A modern dreadnought could be quite a good idea. A nuclear powered DN could boast fore and aft railgun batteries, a big VLS battery amidships and still have enough space to mount a large CIWS suite and a couple of long range SAM launchers. Perhaps it could even have a small flight deck for F-35s and helos squeezed somewhere around the stern. Also, with stealthy design, it could appear destroyer sized on most radars, while carrying as much firepower as a small CBG. Unfortunately, the cost of such a ship would most likely me somewhat high.

[NGTM-1R]

So, now it's a miniaturized assault platform... probably with a module for that, too...

Troo faxs: My father had friends in NavSea during the LCS design process and they wanted to do just this.

Except they couldn't.

SEALS don't go anywhere without high-quality encrypted comms that the crew size and ship layout and size won't support.

[General Battuta]

Guys, I don't think you quite, uh, get how naval warfare works.

What's the most important combat system aboard a warship?

[Thaeris]

So what is actually required is a submersible Iowa-Class BB with a sizable VLS battery and a modern CIWS suite.

In all seriousness, that's more like a submersible version of the Zumwalt. It's also French.

And, don't get me wrong, I've liked the Zumwalt from the moment I saw it, though I seem to keep getting reasons to like it less. The problem with many of the new and upcoming weapon systems is that they don't seem to fully replace their predecessors. So, although the LCS isn't a bad concept in many regards, it's a bad replacement for an actual frigate, and it's not a terribly cost-effective system to spend money on. The Zumwalt is an interesting study...

For instance, I read in a blog some time back that there was a prior ship offered for procurement consideration to the government and thus the Navy. This vessel was intended as a surface attack ship and it was brimming with VLS batteries. The project was also shut down and deactivated. The Zumwalt, by comparison, is also brimming with VLS batteries, and was designed from the onset to have such. It's also having those batteries arranged in a pattern that will allow any ordnance blow-out to be directed away from the central hull, very safe and novel indeed. And its superstructure is packed with advanced sensors, giving a new level of sensory awareness to the fleet. However, last time I checked, those VLS batteries weren't meshing too well with Standard Missiles... This problem might have been rectified by now, and it might not have been. But, from my last solid understanding of the ship, it means that the Zumwalt, whose sensors and huge missile array should make it the terror of the high seas for hostile aviators everywhere, won't actually be shooting the missiles. It will be directing older ships with Standard SAMs against those targets! So, it's effectively the surface attack ship reborn.

Currently, those aren't railguns, either. They're 155mm guns, which are an appreciable step-up from the 5-in (approx 127mm) guns on most ships. But, I'm not sure how well they act as ack, which 5-in guns with that nasty radar-guidance do pretty well at. Those are complimented by a pair of 40mm weapons, which I believe replace the CWIS found on most ships currently in service. I assume your small vessel targets also would rather not want to deal with those. So, again, the Zumwalt is a ground pounder that can point other ships at the aerial threats in the region. If the hull is being made weaker with respect to direct engagements (via composite materials), that might be a very bad thing, as in its current configuration it might very well be getting shot at from the shore.

At the end of the day, the Zumwalt isn't really a destroyer, either. It's more like the pocket battleships from WWII. And given the current threat environment, that's not a bad thing. But, it doesn't really replace anything, which is a bad thing, because the hardware won't take well to SAMs at the moment. So, it's a better ship than the LCS, which cannot decide what it is, but it too is a victim of lost direction. Unlike the LCS, I would say that you would benefit from having more than two.

[Dragon]

I think that Zumwalt could greatly benefit from an AIM-120 derivative which would fit it's VLS systems. It could be a good idea in general to replace Standards with this hypothetical derivative (AIM-120 being a very good missile), especially if it could use components from the Slammer.

[Mika]

I don't think it was only in Japan where battleships failed. Germany and UK had their share as well, and really, their effectiveness was never worth even close to the amount of money spent on building them. The same with Russian, Italian and French designs. The same with US as well.

Regarding the most important combat system, I think that would be the communications, detection systems and fire control. Not the actual weapons themselves.

LTC would seem useful for me if they hadn't built it that large. Zumwalt seems a little bit same sort of compromise, they would like to have it stealthy which compromises the armor by some amount, yet it should according to my understanding replace carrier escort destroyers which actually can be expected to come under fire - and since the carrier is relatively hard to make stealthy, the general location of the group is known as well when the carrier is detected. Unless they plan using naval guerrilla tactics with that ship, but then again, these tactics would work even better with a multitude of smaller ships or boats.

What it comes to materials, no, I still don't believe that in the case of ships, the armor mostly made of composites would be better than metallic plating in protection. There are definite advantages on metal compared to composites in a couple of fields. However, composites allow better stealth which reduces the possibility of the detection and getting shot in the first place.

If I had to go to war here, I prefer the un-armored personnel carrier (glass fiber) here over the armored one (steel). Weird, huh? Much greater mobility adds an element of surprise, which is what I like.

[NGTM-1R]

What's the most important combat system aboard a warship?

Sensor, arguably.

In all seriousness the LCS can tow an array and launch a helo as well as the Knox and Garcia could, and it's fast enough for evading torpedoes with some warning, so it's in theory a decent ASW platform. It can also replace the aging mine countermeasures fleet.

It still lacks the self-defense AAW capability it really needs to survive a modern environment and the anti-surface warfare package is a joke without the NLOS. There are perhaps a couple of places in the world such a ship is actually suited to operating, African and the Eastern Indian Ocean, and that's as long as the old soviet FACs stay away.

The Zumwalt on the other hand is a coherent strike ship design, meant to haul Tomahawks or Harpoons around in large numbers and thereby provide a decent base on which to build a Surface Action Group, something the USN has been lacking more or less since the gun stopped being a weapon of decision.

[General Battuta]

Yeah, it's shameful how dreadful battleships were at literally every role, including their intended purpose (shore bombardment). Over the course of the dreadnought/battleship evolutionary arc they proved themselves fundamentally excellent at only a few things- blowing themselves up, getting torpedoed and hitting mines high on the list.

In the actual combat role they proved to be pretty bad at hitting things with their guns, which is pretty much the punch line to the whole joke.

You can always spot an armchair admiral by the fact that they fantasize over the wrong systems. There's one capability which hits way above the rest and it's the one that makes the American navy so dangerous.

What's the most important combat system aboard a warship?

Sensor, arguably.

Exactly.

For some reason these things never turn up on fantasy battleship lists, even though they're far and away the most important combat system.

[Thaeris]

I think that Zumwalt could greatly benefit from an AIM-120 derivative which would fit it's VLS systems. It could be a good idea in general to replace Standards with this hypothetical derivative (AIM-120 being a very good missile), especially if it could use components from the Slammer.

That's a moronic statement, no offense.

The '120 is a medium range system that would act just as it does now in aircraft - replacement of the former medium-range system, the AIM-7. Not to mention that most ships have medium and short-range systems to begin with, so I'll grant you that some medium-range cabability would be nice...

...But the '120 is a waste of space in the VLS. Not to mention the loss of performance you get from not having the missile in a dedicated launcher, even if it has an additional booster (as most surface-launched variants of aerial weapons have). The Standard makes bomber pilots think about the consequences of getting too close to a fleet if they manage to elude the fighter compliment. Just look at the following figures:

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-174.html

Furthermore, the '120, sorry to say this, is not going to prove much of a threat to ballistic missiles. Not. Going. To. Happen. The Standard, however, is probably one of the best systems in the world for that purpose. The most ironic thing is that Raytheon, who designs the launcher systems on the DDG-1000, seems to have made it incompatible with their own weapons systems. Conspiracy theorists, begin your musings!

[NGTM-1R]

In the actual combat role they proved to be pretty bad at hitting things with their guns, which is pretty much the punch line to the whole joke.

Considering this was endemic to all weapons systems of the time, though, it's hardly fair to single them out for it.

[Dragon]

I think that Zumwalt could greatly benefit from an AIM-120 derivative which would fit it's VLS systems. It could be a good idea in general to replace Standards with this hypothetical derivative (AIM-120 being a very good missile), especially if it could use components from the Slammer.

That's a moronic statement, no offense.

The '120 is a medium range system that would act just as it does now in aircraft - replacement of the former medium-range system, the AIM-7. Not to mention that most ships have medium and short-range systems to begin with, so I'll grant you that some medium-range cabability would be nice...

...But the '120 is a waste of space in the VLS. Not to mention the loss of performance you get from not having the missile in a dedicated launcher, even if it has an additional booster (as most surface-launched variants of aerial weapons have). The Standard makes bomber pilots think about the consequences of getting too close to a fleet if they manage to elude the fighter compliment. Just look at the following figures:

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-174.html

Furthermore, the '120, sorry to say this, is not going to prove much of a threat to ballistic missiles. Not. Going. To. Happen. The Standard, however, is probably one of the best systems in the world for that purpose. The most ironic thing is that Raytheon, who designs the launcher systems on the DDG-1000, seems to have made it incompatible with their own weapons systems. Conspiracy theorists, begin your musings!

Not to self. Don't post in two threads, on two forums at once. 
I meant to mention that Zumwalt's launchers should be compatible with the recently introduced ERAM missile (which just has a seeker similar to AIM-120), while discussing SLAMRAAM on the different forum. While it'd be nice to have some form of the latter fitted on the Zumwalt, it's way too small for use in VLS and should have a dedicated launcher.
It'd be very strange if Raytheon made the Zumwalt's VLS incompatible with the missile they just introduced. Maybe they have another long-range SAM in the works, or an upgrade kit for RIM-174, and wanted to make sure US Navy buys it.

[BengalTiger]

West Virginia shot the IJN Yamashiro with the first salvo, fired from a range of nearly 21 km, using only radar for aiming.

SoDak shot down 26 planes in one day, but then there was the North Carolina, which destroyed 7-14 planes in 8 minutes.

I'd say the ships were accurate enough to get the job done, both against surface and air targets.

[Thaeris]

Well, it's very possible this article has been updated since I last saw it - refer to the "Controversy" section:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwalt_class_destroyer

According to Raytheon, the SM-2 (Standard Missile) issue is mostly a farce, though it does seem to be incompatible with the SM-3, which is what I meant to reference:

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-161.html

The SM-6, what I posted in my previous respone, is the exact same thing as the ERAM, or rather, it is the ERAM. However, not being able to launch the SM-3 is an issue, and I'm not sure why it's so.

[General Battuta]

West Virginia shot the IJN Yamashiro with the first salvo, fired from a range of nearly 21 km, using only radar for aiming.

And look how little she accomplished for it!

SoDak shot down 26 planes in one day, but then there was the North Carolina, which destroyed 7-14 planes in 8 minutes.

I'd say the ships were accurate enough to get the job done, both against surface and air targets.[/color]

If the 'job' is 'doing very little', then yes I suppose they were perfectly adequate. If the job is 'functioning as a warship', no, not nearly; they underperformed enormously compared to the expense of building and maintaining them, and compared to their competition.

Anyone who believes there exists a mission for a battleship analog in today's waters knows very little about the missions in demand or the means by which they are achieved. They were obsolete when they were built and they remain obsolete now.

[NGTM-1R]

However, not being able to launch the SM-3 is an issue, and I'm not sure why it's so.

I'm not really sure why anyone would think this, tbh, as the SM-2 is more than capable for interception of a ballistic inbound; SM-3's extra range is necessary for standing off the shore of North Korea and shooting down missiles as they launch, but...so what? It's not like there are many missions that will require that. We're not going to park off the Pletsk launch complex and pop missiles as they launch, nor the Chinese equivalent. Interception over the target may not be as safe or clean but it will do.

[Astronomiya]

They were obsolete when they were built

I wouldn't go that far.  They were rendered obsolete by the introduction of air power into naval warfare (so, yeah, the Iowas and similar were obsolete when built, but earlier battleship designs weren't).  If sensors are a warship's most important system, then its air wing if it has one is certainly the second.