Thread: Super V Subsonic Anti-Ship Missiles

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

SM-4 LASM could not be dual packed, it takes a whole cell up. You were really right about the Standard missile....it's probably just too big for a ship of LCS size. Even if Mk41 was installed there just wouldn't be enough cells for LASMs.

It was my understanding that the LASM's were meant to be twin packed if the program would have went forward?



Link - http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../mk-41-vls.htm

Actually, the Tactical variant of the MK-41, as opposed to the "Strike" variants found on Burkes etc etc, may be able to fit on a LCS type platform. Which is somewhat 7 feet shorter then the strike variant and can accommodate missiles of up to 18 feet, including both LASM/ESSM.

Fact Sheet Tactical MK-41 - http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...1-tactical.pdf

Requirments -

Power Required by Single Module Variant (8 cells)
60 Hz, 440 Vac, 3 phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 kW
60 Hz, 115 Vac, 1 phase (Lightning) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 kW
60 Hz, 115 Vac, 3 phase (Backup power for 440 Vac) . . . . . . . . 4 kW
60 Hz, 115 Vac, 1 phase (Launch control unit) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 kW
400 Hz, 440 Vac , 3 phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 kW

Ship Services Required by Single Module Variant (8 cells)
Low-pressure air . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 psi
Freshwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 gallons (tank and lines)
Sal****er:
Deluge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320 gal/min at 105 psi
Sprinkling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280 gal/min at 65 psi
Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 600 gal/min
Cooling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17,000 btu/hour
Heating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,000 btuU/hour
Fresh air replenishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 ft3/min

System Weights–Single Module Pounds Long Ton
Launcher empty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32,000 14
Loaded with 8 SM-2 Blk II missiles . . . . . . . . 56,400 25
Loaded with 8 VLA ASROC missiles . . . . . . 57,800 26
Loaded with 8 SEASPARROW missiles . . . . 53,700 24
Blow-out air exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 min

Somewhat skeptical if you would be able to get such a complex system, even the tactical, onto a existing LCS platform without major modifications resulting in completely different mission requirments. The 8-cell launcher alone weighs 32,000 Ib's and around 53,000 with single packed Sparrows. Which would put it somewhere of the range of 115,000 Ib's of Quad Packed ESSM's (32).

Quite alot of weight. Not to mention power requirments.


Also, cost estimates from CBO.

Production Cost of the Littoral Combat Ship

CBO estimates that building 56 littoral combat ships would cost a total of about $20 billion, or about $350 million per ship (assuming that the Navy buys the LCS with the characteristics described in Table 1 and on the schedule shown in Table A-1). To estimate the cost of the first LCS, CBO used the actual costs of buying Oliver Hazard Perry class (FFG-7) frigates as an analogy and adjusted those costs for technical differences between the two ships. That approach produced an estimate of about $700 million for the initial LCS, including about $200 million for nonrecurring detail design efforts. The basis for that $700 million estimate is outlined below.

DoD reports actual budgeted costs for weapon systems in its Selected Acquisition Reports (SARs). CBO analyzed the final SAR for the FFG-7 program and determined that the cost to build the first FFG-7 totaled about $600 million (in 2003 dollars). CBO increased that amount by about $100 million to account for differences between the existing FFG-7 frigates and the planned LCS in three areas.

First, CBO decreased the estimate by about $150 million to reflect the difference in weight between the LCS (3,000 tons) and the FFG-7 (4,100 tons).

Second, CBO increased the estimate by about $50 million to cover the cost of the additional equipment (called mission modules) that is likely to be required for each littoral combat ship. Although the Navy has provided few details about the LCS program, it has stated that it wants a ship that will be able to quickly swap out mission equipment to tackle rapidly changing jobs. CBO assumes that the Navy would need to purchase 70 mission modules for the force of 56 LCSs. The extra 14 modules (beyond the one included in the cost of each LCS) would cost about $2.5 billion in all, CBO estimates, or about $50 million per LCS when amortized across the 56 ships.

Third, CBO increased the estimate by about $200 million to account for the cost of detail design. In the 1970s, when the FFG-7 was being built, the Navy did not pay for detail design work with production funds, as it does now. All of the expenses of that work for the FFG-7 program were included in research and development funds, which totaled about $100 million in today's dollars. CBO assumes that the $200 million for the LCS is appropriate because it falls within the range of the detail design costs for the FFG-7 and the equivalent costs for the DD(X). The Navy has not indicated what the cost would be for detail design work for the LCS.

CBO estimated the costs of the succeeding 55 littoral combat ships using statistical analyses of the costs of the FFG-7s bought during the 1970s. Those analyses show that costs decline as production rates increase. The unit cost for the FFG-7 fell by 20 percent when the annual purchase rate doubled. On the basis of that relationship, CBO estimated that the remaining LCSs would cost an average of $350 million apiece.

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=4130&sequence=5

You probably would struggle to get Mk41 onto the existing hull, although if you hover your mouse over the gun on the Lockheed LCS - it does say "flexible weapon zone" so possibly something like the Mk41 (or a lighter derivative) is possible.

Have said that, the solution is to make the LCS closer in size to a conventional frigate - it might cost a bit (ok, a lot more) but I suspect much of the cost of the LCS is coming from research into new techs, rather than from the cost of the hull/conventional weapons systems. You could trim the cost by reducing the speed reqs, for example (which seem unnecessary to me, unless the navy expects to be chasing Crockett and Tubbs in a boat, rather than in a helo...).

Originally Posted by PubFather

You probably would struggle to get Mk41 onto the existing hull, although if you hover your mouse over the gun on the Lockheed LCS - it does say "flexible weapon zone" so possibly something like the Mk41 (or a lighter derivative) is possible.

Have said that, the solution is to make the LCS closer in size to a conventional frigate - it might cost a bit (ok, a lot more) but I suspect much of the cost of the LCS is coming from research into new techs, rather than from the cost of the hull/conventional weapons systems. You could trim the cost by reducing the speed reqs, for example (which seem unnecessary to me, unless the navy expects to be chasing Crockett and Tubbs in a boat, rather than in a helo...).

Propulsion is the source of the vast majority of expense for LCS.