Littoral Combat Ship versus HMS Hood
The following is a comparison which appeared in our weekly LCS Alternative article, that deserves its own post. Feel free to add your own comparisons in the comments!
A brief comparison of the two radical warship designs:
- Both very attractive ships.
- Touted as revolutions in warfare.
- Forced into different roles not envisioned by their designers, for lack of anything better.
- Suffered from cost-overruns.
- Sisterships were canceled while under development.
- Overweight issues.
- Considered at risk in combat situations.
- Comparatively light protection for their size.
- No better armed than smaller ships of the era.
- Had the need for high speed!
And they both Looked Cool offShore! You can read more on the battlecruiser HMS Hood, a magnificent but fatally flawed design at the HMS Hood Association.
D.E. Reddick writes–Courageous, Glorious, and Furious have more in common with the Littoral Combat Ship -concept- than just speed. Jackie Fisher envisaged them (the Courageous class) as shallow draft “large light cruisers” (i.e., semi-battlecruisers) which could enter the Baltic Sea and cause havoc to Imperial German operations. They were to have maneuvered through the Baltic Narrows with lighter warships and then conduct amphibious operations along the German Baltic coast. They certainly were extremely lightly built – their hulls flexed whenever they fired their main armament.
Because of mechanical faults and their light construction, Furious, Courageous, and Glorious were nicknamed ‘Spurious’, Outrageous’ and ‘Uproarious’ respectively. This precedes by many years our own LCS Acronyms!