Thread: LCS christened

Originally Posted by Galrahn

According to the Congressional Research Office, what you are saying is not true.

Galhran, i am a trained auto technician(non practicing, lol) and a long time hot-rodder who's built owned several world class performance machines(including a few of my old mans cigarette boats, a Porsche, a Maserati, and all manner of Detroit Iron).

I am telling you right now that speed is EXTREMELY expensive to achieve, whether GAO agrees or not.

Horsepower is neither cheap nor easy to come by. You want it, you have to pay for it, and you have to make other sacrifices as well to get it.

Just how much do you think those oversized ROLLS ROYCE gas turbines in LCS cost? Just how much extra engineering do you think had to be done to get the hull 'slippery enough' for such high speeds? Just how much extra stressing of parts do you think it took to make sure that LCS could operated at 40kts without rattling itself to pieces? Just how much extra cash in operating costs do you think running with double the horsepower of what you should really have will cost over the long run?

Tell ya what, go buy an Accord, and drop a supercharged big block chevy motor in it. When you are done REBUILDING the ENTIRE CAR so that it can survive the stresses of that kind of horsepower(cause that power will destroy EVERYTHING on the car since none of it is engineered to the level required to survive that harsh duty), and have spent close to $50,000 dollars in the process, you will see exactly what i'm talking about.

At 30kts LCS would've cost significantly LESS money and had signifcantly LOWER operating costs.

LCS is- if nothing else- a real hotrod of the seas. Like ALL high performance machines, it certainly appears to be priced accordingly.

If you dont believe that speed drives up the unit cost of anything(be it a plane or a boat or a ship or a car), simply ask Rusty Battleship, as he is certainly qualified to give you an expert answer wrt naval vessels.

You can also mosey over to the aviation forum and ask Highseas or Jgetti(both in the airplane building business) if i know what im talking about with regard to this issue, and i am 100% confident both of them will completely back my assertions in this post.

Or you could simply go down to the Chevy dealer and look at the price difference of a regular Corvette and a ZO6(400 vs 500hp), or the price difference between a Porsche 911 and a Porsche 911 turbo(320 vs 450hp). Or the price difference between a Subaru WRX and a Subaru STI(220 vs 300hp). Or the price difference between a six cylinder and eight cylinder mustang(200 vs 300hp), and so on down the line.

There's also a hell of a lot more at play than just buying much more powerful engines(which are HUGELY expensive), you also have to build your vehicle with the kind of low drag and STRENGTH required to operate at such high speeds.

If you want to go fast, it's going to cost you a LOT of money, and, well, the LCS is EXTREMELY fast for a naval vessel, and that cost them a LOT of money to achieve.

Originally Posted by Galrahn

I'm not a big supporter of the low endurance of the LCS, but I am curious Sniper, have you ever even looked at sources that discuss speed in Naval Tactics? Have you ever read a book on littoral warfare? I'm willing to bet that answer is no, because if you would do research, something you rejected as Koolaid earlier in this thread, you'd find you don't make as much sense as you think you do.

When i wrote the version 16.8 superpatch for NWS/Janes fleet command(never released due to game engine stability isssues) i had an "advisory board" of various former USN types to draw upon(submariners, a SWO, a former Hawkeye mission specialist, and a few others) to ensure it was as accurate as possible(sensors, weapons, speeds/performance/tactics, etc).

Now that in no way makes me an expert, but i certainly am familiar with the basic mechanics of modern naval combat, which in reality, are not much different than those of modern mechanized forces, of which i was at one time intimately familiar.

Finally, if any of your sailors dont think that the speed requirement was what that ship was essentially built upon, they really have no clue about the most basic facets of engineering. You have to make real sacrifices for speed, and it is EXTREMELY expensive to attain. ESPECIALLY if you want it to LAST.

Seriously, have you never wondered why a Porsche 911 turbo costs $125,000?

Or for that matter why even though it's as fast a Vette costs 1/2 as much(though still very expensive). A vette costs 1/2 what a Porsche does because it will NOT LAST like a Porsche does, because a Porsche is engineered to last a 'lifetime' at the power levels it achieves, whereas a typical high HP American or Japanese car will basically self-destruct over time due to the immense stresses tha their High HP motors and agressive high performance driving.

Ever wonder why most race cars(and boats) are rebuilt after every race? Because they tear themselves to pieces just in normal operation. If you were to climb under my Porsche 928SV8 and compare it to a 'normal' car, you will see SUPER heavy duty components made of superlightweight($$$$$) exotic materials.

A fuccking lug nut for my car costs $35.00 bucks and weighs about 1/10 the weight of the lug nuts on your typical american car. The entire body of my car is made out of high strength lightweight aluminum alloy, as is the engine.

Expensive lightweight materials are used throughout to generate a favorable power to weight ratio that will allow the vehicle to achieve it's target performance parameters.

You dont think that costs a LOT to achieve? You're wrong.
Really man, this is very basic stuff.

You can talk motorcycles, boats, ships, planes, helos, cars, whatever. The faster it is, the more it's going to cost. A LOT more.

OK so let me get this straight.

My arguments regarding the cost and operational role of the LCS, arguments I make by citing credible sources both inside and outside the USN, are trumped by the knowledge you gathered patching programming bugs of a naval video game never released from the late 80s or early 90s, and your cost analysis based on the relationship between warship propulsion systems and high performance sports cars?

And this is validation of the wild speculation you have made, and you have expectations your points should be accepted as credible research for intelligent debate?

You have made wild statements inaccurately, either intentionally or in ignorance accidently mischaractorizing the various issues surrounding the LCS that are legitimate for debate. I have pointed out your inaccurate statements, and in hubris you refuse to cite any credible source to back up your claims, and refuse to retract your incorrect statements.

Sniper, your opinion regarding the LCS is valid and you have asked legitimate questions, your problem is the points you have made reaching your conclusion are inaccurately presented. The engines represent an endurance issue, not a cost issue. The firepower argument represents a legitimate force protection issue, and it is weighed directly against costs.

When trying to come up with a LCS replacement, an AAW warship in no way solves the littoral MIW for amphibious ops, littoral ASW to prosecute littoral SSKs, small boat ASuW against swarming attacks, C4ISR to free up submarines for other missions, nor high speed SOF insertion and retrival capability. Both independent and internal naval analysist cite these parameters as the need for a low mix of surface ships, but none of your ideas even address this original mission statement, and all of your complaints are against the aspects of the LCS that specifically address the mission statement.

When you made the AAW suggestion, you changed the debate from a platform discussion to a mission statement debate, which is a debate you lose because you'd be the only person advocating the mission statement is wrong.

I believe this debate is over. I'll allow readers to form their own opinions from the sources I have cited and arguments I have made regarding the facts, compared to the blatent fiction you refuse to admit you forwarded in this thread.

Originally Posted by galhran

The engines represent an endurance issue, not a cost issue.

Do you REALLY think that -for instance- 50,000shp engines cost the same money as 30,000shp engines? Hell no, the more powerful engines are probably 3x the money(and to drive the same ship 25% faster from 30 to 40 kts probably requires close to double the horsepower). And do you really think that reduced fuel economy from higher operating speeds will not affect operating costs? And do you really think that you don't have to build a ship differently for it to survive 40kt ops than you do for 30kt ops? Especially over time? And do you really think that you dont have to implement various weight savings measures using exotic materials to get to your target power to weight ratio(or even more powerful engines still)? And do you really think that extra wind tunnel testing/drag lessening measures don't have to be implemented to achieve what are for a major warship EXTREMELY high speeds?

And do you REALLY think all that is FREE??????????????????????????

Also, if you deny that higher design/operating speeds do not greatly increase FUEL costs AND endurance, then yes, this debate is over.

Because they do, clearly, in all manner of machines. It is an engineering truism.

And i gave you three experts here on this very board to ask who will verify that claim.

Rusty Battleship
Highseas
JGetti

Anyone with the first shred of commonsense can see the engineering truths i've just laid out for you, yet all you can manage to do is insult me in return.

You really should run this specific issue by any of the three experts i listed above, because you are completely wrong my friend. And any engineer or anyone in any way affiliated with motorsports will tell you so.

Going fast costs a LOT of money.

Tell ya what cuz. You like your hard data and research. You do the math to figure out what a 30kt max speed for LCS would've requried in the way of horsepower, and then you look and see which Gas Turbines come closest to that figure. Then you email the manufacturer and get prices.

Then you do the SAME thing for the same vessel with a target 40kt max speed, and figure out how much HP you'd need for that, and then you call the manufacturer of the most closely sized engine and you get prices.

And you will quickly see that the more powerful engines are VASTLY more expensive.

And that doesnt even get into fuel economy reductions or the additional strengthening/weight savings /drag reduction needed for higher speed operations vs lower speed operations. Just the engine mounts themselves would have to be MUCH stronger on a 40kt ship vs an identical 30kt ship, and if you dont want them much heavier to boot then you'll have to use exotic materials, and that's yet more cost. And the shafts, and all the hardware, and so on down the line all have to be more robust, at least, if you want them to last and not be constantly breaking due to over-stressing.

I mean seriously man, you sound like an total idiot.

Remember what i said... i said that if LCS had been designed with a top target speed of 30kts it wouldve been a much cheaper warship(oh, and had much better endurance for the same fuel load assuming equal drag) and that the freed up money couldve then been used to instead install a credible weapons fit for the same overall cost as the EXISTING 40kt LCS.

Just as my porsche 928S would cost a hell of a lot less if it only did 120mph instead of 160+.(that represents the same 25% difference in max speed that we are talking about with LCS). And not just because the needed engine would have to be far less powerful(and therefore far less $$$$) either, but also because the car would not have to be built to the same standards of strength, aerodynamics, and precision as well(all of which costs a LOT of money). And on top of it, it would also get better fuel economy.

That applies to a plane, a car, a motorcycle, a boat, a ship, a rocket, ANYTHING with an engine. Going fast is NOT cheap.

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

Do you REALLY think that -for instance- 50,000shp engines cost the same money as 30,000shp engines? Hell no..

First of all, nowhere did I imply that. The engine cost for 40+ knots was included in the original 180 million hull cost, and has never been a cost factor. The savings for lesser engine isn't much, and since the Navy could work within the established parameter of 1/3 a DDG cost for platform + modules they went with high hp engines.

What you said was:

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

My point is, VLS does not make LCS anything but better. And a hell of a lot more survivable, and useful.

You could do all the things you want to do with it, AND all the traditional roles of independent missile armed escorts. And if you'd have specified 30kts top speed, it would've cost about the same amount of money.

And I am saying that is not true.

The total electric propulsion cost (including both gas and diesels) and the power distribution equipment is an estimated average 60 million between the two classes. How much more would you say the extra hull design would cost?

Assuming you are going to put some other engine in the ship to go 30 knots, your cost savings will only be maybe 20 million, if that, but based on traditional averages for ships greater than 4000 tons the savings would be more like 12 million.

Do you actually believe you can turn a Naval Truck into a AAW frigate for only 20 million? You know better.

You have been advocating the USN should build a Naval Truck with 8-32 VLS cells that can only go 30 knots, and I disagree, because at that cost the project now becomes a big waste because your spending about half the amount for a Flight IIA, for about a quarter of the weaponry.

Surely if you know as much as your claim you realize your estimates are way off, and you are grossly exaggerating the engine costs, as you have basically butchered the cost of the whole LCS throughout this thread. Both the Saudi's and Israeli's have looked at VLS options for the current 2 LCS hulls, and both proposals carry an estimated cost of an estimated 500+ million, and more if they want AEGIS.

It sortof ticks me off that you have put me in a position to defend the little crappy ship with your long posts of completely inaccurate information. If you would have stuck to the facts, you would have had good points and I wouldn't of felt compelled to straighten you out. Surely you think it is important WAB is a forum for honest debate and not FUD, so why do you promote so much unsourced FUD and treat it as fact, then argue with people citing the premier experts in the Navy?

Your hubris makes no sense to me.