Littoral Combat Ships

**Gun Grape** · 20 Feb 10,, 17:58

Yes that is bothersome.

But what bothers me the most is the buoyancy tanks.

This isn't an addition 10 years into the designs lifespan, after new gear has been gradually added. This is the lead ship of the class. And she is already overweight

There is no room for further growth. WTF were they thinking when they decided to continue with this thing?

I like the idea of the LCS. This is ridiculous. Cancel this hull type.

**ArtyEngineer** · 20 Feb 10,, 19:35

I wouldnt be too concerned about the low exhaust ports, im sure they have some sort of "Non return valve" integral to them......at least I hope they do. Once again however this whole program seems to have suffered teh curse of continual "Requirements Creep" meaning the design team are totally reactionary to a continuously evolving set of requirements and the desire to integrate the newest emerging technologies.

I think that the Littoral Combat Ship concept is good and is a very needed capability. But is this vessel whats needed? Not so sure. Was any consideration given to a licence build of Visby Class? The Swedes know littoral combat ops inside out. Its what they do!!!! Now I know the Visby is a significantly smaller vessel at just under 700 tonnes displacement, but they sure do pack a lot of capabilities into that small hull.

Here is a nice Visby Vid, not quite sure about teh music though

Regards

Arty

**ArmchairGeneral** · 20 Feb 10,, 20:16

Originally Posted by ArtyEngineer

I think that the Littoral Combat Ship concept is good and is a very needed capability. But is this vessel whats needed? Not so sure. Was any consideration given to a licence build of Visby Class? The Swedes know littoral combat ops inside out. Its what they do!!!! Now I know the Visby is a significantly smaller vessel at just under 700 tonnes displacement, but they sure do pack a lot of capabilities into that small hull.

No hangar, no minesweeping capability, no endurance. Probably can't get much smaller than LCS and keep the capabilities the USN is looking for in one package. Of course you could try Galrahn's idea of amphib type motherships with several smaller patrol craft + helicopters.

**LGB** · 20 Feb 10,, 20:27

The entire rationale of the the LCS is problematic. The speed is nice but it's not worth the cost in a class of 50+ frigates. A 3,400 ton ship with a 57mm and a RAM launcher that costs $400+ million is criminally ridiculous. The USN can not figure out if it needs a patrol corvette or a frigate that can operate inshore.

A 1,000 to 1,500 ton minesweeper will not only be more cost effective in the mine warfare role but will be more effective as that ship not only will train full time for mine warfare but support the mine warfare community. The notion that we are going to replace full time mine warfare ships with part time modules and crews that operate them occasionally is illogical given the threat.

The notion that only when the ship has the Surface Warfare Module aboard that there are any anti ship missiles is also problematic. Ditto for the ASW module.

Moreover, the modules are very expensive with the costs increasing. Not only is this a hidden cost of the class but when the focus is on personnel costs we now have the crew of non embarked modules and possibly two such crews to worry about.

A 3,400 ton ship able to operate inshore without a significant ability for gunfire support is also problematic- especially how well this ship can operate up river.

The speed issue aside the class should have been oriented toward anti surface warfare and gunfire support with minimal ASW. The ship has no hull mounted sonar and giving it one is a problem given the shallow draft and it's not clear towed sensors are compatible with high speed operations. The mine warfare role should be left to specialized, smaller, and far more cost effective vessels.

It is a tad ridiculous buying half billion dollar (with the module which is expensive) 3,400 ton minesweepers in a ship that goes 60 mph when mine warfare is a slow and deliberate process.

A single class of frigates doing many different jobs sounds fine but it's not cost effective given many of the ships it replaces are less than half the size and cost much less than half. Moreover, it's not like it helps exports either- Israel based on the cost growth is now looking at Germany for a Meko 100/140. Not to worry of course given we destroyed our ship building base long ago.

**gf0012-aust** · 20 Feb 10,, 21:17

Originally Posted by surfgun

Talking about tugboat captains, imagine what they will do to the aluminum skinned LCS-2 Indy?
But back to LCS-1, those stern pods look like an excellent location for a diving board!

We had a briefing from one of the drivers of LCS-2 at PACNAV a few weeks back.

He was quite enthusiastic at how driveable she was and how much easier they were to manouvre in port.

Interesting to note that Austal had designs out for an even smaller version for review. (80m and 400tonnes, 402sqm flight deck and able to handle and home 1 x NRH-90 sized helo)

I have the handouts avail, but they're much too big to post. However search on MRV-80 and the publicly released material will come up (I assume - or look within Austals site)

**Stitch** · 21 Feb 10,, 01:27

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

Yes that is bothersome.

But what bothers me the most is the buoyancy tanks.

This isn't an addition 10 years into the designs lifespan, after new gear has been gradually added. This is the lead ship of the class. And she is already overweight

There is no room for further growth. WTF were they thinking when they decided to continue with this thing?

I like the idea of the LCS. This is ridiculous. Cancel this hull type.

Just to set your mind at ease, the planned hull-type for the next two type-class LCS ships WILL be the AUSTAL trimaran-type hull (LCS-2, USS Independence), NOT the semi-planing mono-hull of the USS Freedom. I never understood why they went with the mono-hull, when the trimaran type was clearly superior. Both the LCS-3 (USS Fort Worth) and the LCS-4 (UCC Coronado) will be AUSTAL-built trimaran hulls.

**surfgun** · 21 Feb 10,, 03:22

Originally Posted by Stitch

Just to set your mind at ease, the planned hull-type for the next two type-class LCS ships WILL be the AUSTAL trimaran-type hull (LCS-2, USS Independence), NOT the semi-planing mono-hull of the USS Freedom. I never understood why they went with the mono-hull, when the trimaran type was clearly superior. Both the LCS-3 (USS Fort Worth) and the LCS-4 (UCC Coronado) will be AUSTAL-built trimaran hulls.

All the sources that I have seen have LCS-3 as a Freedom class that is currently under construction in Wisconsin. The keel was laid July 2009 in Wisconsin (per Lockheed/Martin). Have you actually heard otherwise?

**Dreadnought** · 21 Feb 10,, 20:03

Originally Posted by surfgun

Talking about tugboat captains, imagine what they will do to the aluminum skinned LCS-2 Indy?
But back to LCS-1, those stern pods look like an excellent location for a diving board!

IMO, she'll be just fine, The NAVY wont let someone with no experiece nudge their new hotrod along especially with aluminum hulls. Kind of like the back hoe operator that can part your hair without cutting your scalp. Some of them are that good.

**Rumrunner** · 22 Feb 10,, 15:09

Originally Posted by Stitch

Just to set your mind at ease, the planned hull-type for the next two type-class LCS ships WILL be the AUSTAL trimaran-type hull (LCS-2, USS Independence), NOT the semi-planing mono-hull of the USS Freedom. I never understood why they went with the mono-hull, when the trimaran type was clearly superior. Both the LCS-3 (USS Fort Worth) and the LCS-4 (UCC Coronado) will be AUSTAL-built trimaran hulls.

I havent heard that either - do you have a link or report on that? I know as of 10/09 that after LCS 3 was going to be built by Lockheed Martin at Marinette Marine to the original 'Freedom' Class specs. LCS-4 had her keel-laying ceremony on December 17, 09 at Austal and will be built to 'Independance' Class specs.

After these two are completed, it's winner take all for the next 10 hulls.

**Stitch** · 22 Feb 10,, 18:08

Originally Posted by Rumrunner

I havent heard that either - do you have a link or report on that? I know as of 10/09 that after LCS 3 was going to be built by Lockheed Martin at Marinette Marine to the original 'Freedom' Class specs. LCS-4 had her keel-laying ceremony on December 17, 09 at Austal and will be built to 'Independance' Class specs.

After these two are completed, it's winner take all for the next 10 hulls.

I stand corrected; I don't know where I got the idea that the LCS-3 was going to be a trimaran. Wishful thinking, maybe?

You guys are right; the LCS-3 will be of the semi-planing monohull type, the LCS-4 will be the trimaran-type.

**JCT** · 23 Feb 10,, 01:35

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

Yes that is bothersome.

But what bothers me the most is the buoyancy tanks.

This isn't an addition 10 years into the designs lifespan, after new gear has been gradually added. This is the lead ship of the class. And she is already overweight

There is no room for further growth. WTF were they thinking when they decided to continue with this thing?

I like the idea of the LCS. This is ridiculous. Cancel this hull type.

Military Times has some additional information on LCS3 and their plans to incorporate a fix, removing the need for the 'water wings'. Also a cool photo of LCS-3 being built.

**gunnut** · 23 Feb 10,, 19:01

Originally Posted by JCT

Military Times has some additional information on LCS3 and their plans to incorporate a fix, removing the need for the 'water wings'. Also a cool photo of LCS-3 being built.

So the tank will be incorporated into the design?

**Dreadnought** · 23 Feb 10,, 19:11

Originally Posted by gunnut

So the tank will be incorporated into the design?

*Lengthen the hull slightly and you could do exactly that given the rest of the parameters are met.

**JCT** · 24 Feb 10,, 03:34

Originally Posted by gunnut

So the tank will be incorporated into the design?

It didn't look like it from the construction. The text made it sound like they were going to make some internal changes. There was also some backhanded blame targetted at the Navy for getting some of their requirements/calculations wrong.

**Stitch** · 24 Feb 10,, 20:53

Well, whatever happens, this does make the Austal design look better and, IMO, it IS a better design. However, just like everything else, I'm betting the Navy goes with the "inferior" design, and decides to build the next 6 hulls of the semi-planing monohull type (though I hope not!).