Galrahn - do you have a source that specifically discusses the ASW element of the LCS/USV combination? (Forgive me if I have missed it in anything that you have posted earlier). The idea of several USV's operating towed arrays sounds very intriging.Originally Posted by Galrahn
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit - Scottish Motto
"They that approve a private opinion, call it opinion; but they that dislike it, heresy; and yet heresy signifies no more than private opinion” Thomas Hobbes - Leviathan
Rolls Royce jet engines and gas turbines are a division of Rolls Royce. All the same company, just different divisions operating under the same umbrella. P&W and GE engines(both world class) are not exactly 'cheap' either for that matter(say compared to Tumanskiy).
When it comes to engines, you definitely get what you pay for.
It does deploy unmanned vehicles, but it also has to return to maintain them at various intervals.
So the LCS's degree of standoff will be driven by the endurance and speed of its unmanned vehicles. Smaller USV/UUVs will require more frequent visits and thus expose the LSC to a greater degree.
Seems to be a potentially exploitable vulnerability.
Might be another reason to go with a larger mothership carrying bigger, faster, more endurant USV/UUV/UAVs. This would permit the mothership to standoff at greater distances.
Of coarse I have sources Pubfather, hang on because your about to get more than bargained for...
That is what the Navy thinks too, which is why the unmanned programs are a big focus for this fiscal year, and there will be a lot of discussions.
For the unmanned surface vehicles, the two big ones that are likely to make the cut are the Protector USV as the 11 meter option and the Spartan USV as the 7 meter option, both of which are already in programs both in the USN and our allied partners. The Spartan, for example, deployed with the Singapore Navy to the Gulf on 2 tours to guard the Iraqi oil terminals. So far the USN is most practiced with it, and it has made tours on the USS Gettysburg, USS Trenton, USS Oak Hill, and is currently deployed with the USS Saipan. There are stories out there if you know where to look.
For the LCS, the intention is to carry multiple USVs to insure deployment rotations between a 2 ship group, with each LCS carrying 2 USVs. It should be noted the current USVs can operate in 10 hour rotations, and fuel cell programs are in the works to increase this to 24 hours. I have personally seen one such methane based fuel cell program which the Navy recently evaluated, and theirs can do 24 hours for an 11 meter RHIB/USV at 3800lbs. Contracts are expected this year.
The specific sonar programs I know of being evaluated are being designed for deployment from with USV, or H-60S helicopter to insure interoptablity. One of the systems being developed is the USV Towed Array system, known as UTAS. This system is being developed by Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center, San Diego (SSC San Diego). It is either a modified Thin Line Towed Array (designated TB29), (The TB29 is Program of Record but not part of this variant), or the Ultra-Lightweight Towed Array (ULITE)- not a Program of Record yet.
There are also USV Dipping Sonars (USV DS) being developed by Naval Underwater Weapons Center (NUWC) using either a THALES dipping sonar system or the present Navy helicopter dipper system. Both are Programs of Record.
While some of these sonar systems are not yet Programs of Record, it should be pointed out that the Unmanned Surface Vehicle is an Advanced Concept Technical Demo (ATCD) item, and is not yet part of the Program of Record either.
DID has covered many of these programs, and their updated LCS program list provides links to various sources. One thing I haven't seen covered much is the Advanced Surface Launcher (ASL) development, maybe because it too has yet to become a Program of Record. ASL presents torpedo systems for the USVs. If you are into doing research and like digging around, this is a really good place to start. It isn't online anywhere else but there, but since it says 'unclassified' I have no problems linking to it. There are some really good clues there.
Also, while not about the LCS so much, the PLUSNet program (which is also covered on DID if you look) for the modular deployment of USVs from the SSGNs has some really great USV data charts. That document is gold for taking a good look at where the USN is going with MIW and ASW with unmanned vehicles, and how modularity for the SSGNs and LCS are being utilized for future USN warships.
One last thing. If you get a chance, check out the FY2007 Defense Budget signed the other day. I found this part very interesting.
Now I have no idea what happened on September 6th, 2006, but I will laugh my ass off, if after the last two months of retired commanders ragging the USN on all these aviation commanders and thier poor shiphandling in Proceedings, the USN ran their only actually built Littoral Combat Ship aground. Man, can you imagine Sniper going off with ammo like that? I can.The House bill would authorize $25.7 million in PE 63123N for modifications to Sea Fighter to improve the ship's survivability, command and control, armament, and other ship systems to make Sea Fighter an operationally deployable asset.
The Senate amendment contained no similar funding.
The conferees agree to authorize $23.0 million in PE 63123N for Sea Fighter modifications.
Of the amount authorized, the conferees direct the Secretary of the Navy to utilize the additional funding to: (1) improve aviation capabilities; (2) improve damage control and firefighting capabilities; (3) improve the quality of and increase the capacity of berthing and messing facilities for 12 additional crew; (4) provide command and control upgrades; (5) add weapons (offensive and defensive); and (6) make topside changes to reduce radiation hazards. The conferees expect the Secretary to utilize Sea Fighter in support of Navy operations and to develop and validate operational concepts for littoral warfare.
The conferees are aware that on September 6, 2006, Sea Fighter sustained significant damage while operating off of the Pacific coast. The conferees expect the Secretary to make all repairs necessary to restore Sea Fighter to previous capability and make available for operational use.
Either way though, it looks like the Navy will be commissioning the Sea Fighter, which from one person I have spoken to, is a signal that there are not just 2, but 3 LCS models in play, and the USN is seriously considering making a push in Congress for the FY08 budget to build all 3 models, with the Sea Fighter at Tier 2 yards, which will allow them to maximize total number of hulls because the Sea Fighter is about 50% cheaper. The reason the USN appears to like the Sea Fighter, well, it has space and weight considerations to carry over 512 VLS cells, which would mean the weapons would cost 4x more than the ship itself if fully loaded to that configuration. Will it happen? I'll wait to see it to believe it, but that quote is in the FY2007 bill so make of it what you want.
While a contraversial program that I personally am not yet sold on, there is little doubt the LCS program certainly is keeping things interesting.
So much for a shallow draft...
And i dont know anything more about the program than what little you just related, but does it not sound like the "Sea Fighter" variant is awful similar in concept to Arsenal Ship?
And bejezuz me, how big will that sucker have to be to pack that many VLS tubes? That's a LOT of firepower.
Last edited by Bill; 20 Oct 06, at 02:08.
I was making the distinction between the Rolls-Royce auto brand, now a division of BMW, and the Rolls-Royce jet engine company.
Agreed.P&W and GE engines(both world class) are not exactly 'cheap' either for that matter(say compared to Tumanskiy).
When it comes to engines, you definitely get what you pay for.
I enjoy being wrong too much to change my mind.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/sea-fighter1.htmSo much for a shallow draft...
And i dont know anything more about the program than what little you just related, but does it not sound like the "Sea Fighter" variant is awful similar in concept to Arsenal Ship?
And bejezuz me, how big will that sucker have to be to pack that many VLS tubes? That's a LOT of firepower.
It's a 1000 ton catamaran with space for 12 20 foot mission modules. So I'm guessing that one of the possible modules is a VLS launcher, with a capacity of 42 missiles. So it's possible to configure the ship as a kind of Arsenal Ship, but it has many other possible configs as well. Seems pretty cool. Does seem awful small for that kind of weapons load, though.
I enjoy being wrong too much to change my mind.
Interesting. Kind of looks like the old Lockheed "Stealth Ship".
Yeah, made me think of that too. Now that was one weird lookin' ship.
I enjoy being wrong too much to change my mind.
When FSF-1 was first designed it was understood that one day it would become a real active ship. After they finished experementing with what will go on LCS. Wonder what the designation will be LCS,LSC or remain FSF?Now I have no idea what happened on September 6th, 2006, but I will laugh my ass off, if after the last two months of retired commanders ragging the USN on all these aviation commanders and thier poor shiphandling in Proceedings, the USN ran their only actually built Littoral Combat Ship aground. Man, can you imagine Sniper going off with ammo like that? I can.
Either way though, it looks like the Navy will be commissioning the Sea Fighter, which from one person I have spoken to, is a signal that there are not just 2, but 3 LCS models in play, and the USN is seriously considering making a push in Congress for the FY08 budget to build all 3 models, with the Sea Fighter at Tier 2 yards, which will allow them to maximize total number of hulls because the Sea Fighter is about 50% cheaper. The reason the USN appears to like the Sea Fighter, well, it has space and weight considerations to carry over 512 VLS cells, which would mean the weapons would cost 4x more than the ship itself if fully loaded to that configuration. Will it happen? I'll wait to see it to believe it, but that quote is in the FY2007 bill so make of it what you want.
While a contraversial program that I personally am not yet sold on, there is little doubt the LCS program certainly is keeping things interesting.
Alot of first have been tried on this thing. Paperless navigation, further smart ship crew reductions and combined diesel or gas turbine. Pairs a MTU 16V 595 diesel engine with a lm2500 to power waterjets.
Its called Tourist Season. So why can't we shoot them?
I was wrong, they aren't traditional VLS cells, rather an ISO container mission module that carries 20 of the L-3 Affordable Weapon System.
While the Affordable Weapon System had failed 4 tests early in the project, 2 recent tests were successful, and as a result L-3 was rewarded an additional contract in late September. Is the Navy interested or are they simply appeasing a few Congressman? I don't know.
According to Congress Daily earlier this year, the Navy didn't want the Sea Fighter. Have things changed though, I noticed in September the Navy awarded at $10 million modification to the Affordable Weapon System program to continue it through Jan 07.
Between reports the Navy doesn't want it, Congressional earmarks for L-3 Titan for more weapons, and mysterious damage to the ship in September it is hard to tell what is going on with Sea Fighter. It does appear that Congress wants more Sea Fighters though, and if the Affordable Weapon System becomes reliable, I'm in favor of too.
This USN semi-switch to smurf-sized warheads and miniature weapons is an interesting one.
Can that VLS 'like' module also fire some manner of SAM as well? Seems like those tubes should be big enough to handle ESSM.
There's a push towards smaller warheads and weapons in general, across the USAF/USN. SDB is the poster child.
If 60-80% of your target set can be killed with a 200lb warhead, it makes sense to design a mass-producable, price-optimized weapon to handle them, and keep your more expensive TLAMs for harder targets.
IIRC, Affordable Weapon containers aren't really VLS, they're just meant to be tilted to an optimal launch angle.
So ESSM might not work that well in them. It'd have a harder time looping around to hit targets on the opposite side from launch.
Just MHO.
Last edited by B.Smitty; 20 Oct 06, at 19:39.
A big part of the push toward smaller warheads is the new explosive filler that was developed for the SDB. It's called PBX-1080 or something like that. Supposed to be something like 250% more powerful lb for lb than Tritonal.
So a 200lb warhead of the new goo would be like a 500lb warhead of the old goo.
PS: Trainable lauchers do have some significant advantadges(and disadvantadges) vs VLS type systems, one of which is a shorter minimum engagement range and another of which is a somewhat longer range. The primary disadvantages are typically ROF and the expense of a munitions handling system to feed the launcher arms.
Trainable box launchers are really the 'best of both worlds'.
Last edited by Bill; 20 Oct 06, at 22:02.
Hmm, 10 hours seems awful small. If the LCS has to drop its USVs 2-3 hours away from their patrol area just to get enough standoff from likely SSK threats, the USVs aren't going to have much time on station.
24 hours sound better, but at what speed?
I guess I just wonder about this idea in general because you never REALLY know where the SSKs are going to be.
To have enough standoff to be sure it's out of the SSK's operating area, the LCS would probably have to be a hundred miles away or more.
Streetfighter worked because even if an SSK managed to bag one, there'd be a bunch of its friends nearby ready to dogpile on the SSK.
LCSs are going to operate in smaller numbers, and are larger and more expensive assets, so losing one hurts.
Why not go with significantly larger USVs? Ones that could operate independently for days or even a week at hundreds of miles from their mothership.
Maybe a larger boat that could be manned or unmanned depending on the mission and threat.
A larger USV might give you 90% of what Streetfighter promised, and get rid of the major objection to the concept - that expendable ships means expendable crews.
Last edited by B.Smitty; 20 Oct 06, at 22:32.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Share this thread with friends: