Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Littoral Combat Ships

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by jlvfr View Post
    You can't have everything... you need "months of deployment time"? And I bet the LCS won't be alone? Put a support ship in the area, or a bigger ship that can stay there.

    The LCS is trying to be a "jack of all trades" AND "a master of all" AND "have long range". No wonder it's so over priced and riddled with problems.
    You're exactly right. We simply can't cram everything into the LCS, speed, endurance, low manning requirement, large cargo area, flexible mission capabilities, AND low cost. Something has to give, and it's usually the COST.

    The problem with the support ship concept is that we would return to the old destroyer/tender formation during pre-WW2 and WW2 era. That means another class of ship to service, escort, and man.

    Smaller ship also means very cramped quarters. It's not good for morale to deploy for 2 months at a time, maybe up to 4 months at a time, on a small ship, rocking in the ocean, with cramped quarters.

    I like the LCS concept, except for the unusual high speed dictated by the navy. The last few knots squeezed out by the designers will usually require disproportionate machinery space. We can probably save 25% of the engineering if the speed is dropped to below 40 knots. This extra room would be saved for growth, which invariably would be required for every single warship that has ever sailed the seas.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Stitch View Post
      Plus, IF aluminum-hull construction is where the future lies (and I think it does), then this is the perfect time for the other yards to get on-board with aluminum-hull construction.
      well, after the USS Belknap disaster, the US Navy realized that aluminum wasn't the way to go, which is why the Arleigh Burkes are built with a steel superstructure, even though it's a lot heaver..




      Belknap was severely damaged in a collision with John F. Kennedy on 22 November 1975 in heavy weather off the coast of Sicily. A fire broke out on Belknap following the collision, and during the fire her aluminum superstructure was melted, burned and gutted to the deck level. Seven personnel were killed on Belknap and one on Kennedy. The ammunition ship USS Mount Baker (AE-34) was involved in the rescue of the Belknap, escorting her to an ammunition depot and then providing electric and water services as the Mount Baker's Explosive Ordnance Disposal team retrieved all of the remaining ammunition from the Belknap. Mount Baker also assimilated most of the Belknap crew until they could be transferred to a way station for re-assignment. This fire and the resultant damage and deaths, which would have been preventable had Belknap's superstructure been made of steel, drove the US Navy's decision to pursue all-steel construction in its next major classes of surface combatants.Belknap was reconstructed by the Philadelphia Navy Yard from 30 January 1976 to 10 May 1980.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by gunnut View Post
        You're exactly right. We simply can't cram everything into the LCS, speed, endurance, low manning requirement, large cargo area, flexible mission capabilities, AND low cost. Something has to give, and it's usually the COST.
        Yes, but is it worth it? You got an overweight, expensive, underarmed 2k ton ship, who won't have that much of a range anyway, and who's main armament are 2 helis who take time to go up and "work". Close to shore, reaction times are far shorter than in open sea. If any enemy suddenly shows up, how will any LCS deal with it? Any modern FAC has SSMs that can be fired in far less time than it would take a Seahawk to takeof, search, aquire and launch (btw, launch what? do they still have Penguins?). Hence my comparison with Saar 5 (and similar). The RAMs may help keep him alive, but not for long...

        Originally posted by gunnut View Post
        The problem with the support ship concept is that we would return to the old destroyer/tender formation during pre-WW2 and WW2 era. That means another class of ship to service, escort, and man.
        But they will need to a support ship. Even if they have the range to deploy on their own, how long will that fuel last? They'll need either a friendly port, or a support ship. Right now, how many ships does the USN has supporting the Tychos and Burke's in the Gulf (who have much greater range than the LCS)?

        Comment


        • I remember reading an article, where there were 3 things a ship needed, range, speed and firepower.. in a ship under about 4000 tons, you could have 2 of the 3, but not all of them.. (I think this was during the "seafighter" type ships the US Navy was discussing back in the 90's)

          the LCS ships, which are around 4000 tons I think, just barely make that goal..

          Comment


          • Originally posted by dundonrl View Post

            the LCS ships, which are around 4000 tons I think, just barely make that goal..
            Less. If wikipedia is correct, the Freedom has 3k tons, the Independence 2.7k...

            Comment


            • Indy arrives at Norfolk Navy News Service - Eye on the Fleet

              ====

              NORFOLK, Va. (NNS) -- Littoral combat ship USS Independence (LCS 2) arrives at Naval Station Norfolk April 14, ending her maiden voyage.

              The Navy's newest littoral combat ship, Independence sailed away from the Austal USA shipyards in Mobile, Ala., March. 26.

              This milestone marks the completion of initial testing and evaluation of the innovative aluminum trimaran vessel, the first of its kind in the Naval Surface Force.

              "This transit will allow us to gain valuable operational experience and is another large step toward bringing our unique and versatile capabilities to the fleet," said Cmdr. Curt Renshaw, Independence Blue Crew commanding officer

              Independence's maiden voyage began with a port visit to Key West, Fla., where the crew gave tours to many local groups and was able to enjoy liberty for the first time outside of Mobile, Ala.

              Independence's next stop was Naval Station Mayport, Fla., which was the first time that the ship moored in the company of other naval vessels. During the ship's stay at Mayport, the Littoral Combat Ship Class Squadron led aviation training for both rotational crews in preparation for their final certification to embark aircraft due later this month. Practice rounds for the new SEARAM weapon system were also loaded aboard the ship. Independence is the first Navy ship to be armed with the SEARAM.

              Operations at sea during this maiden voyage have consisted of continued testing on the ship's capabilities and limitations, and the ship reached several milestones. Independence deployed and recovered its five-meter rigid-hull inflatable boat, as well as anchored at sea, for the first time outside of the shipyard. The crew also conducted extensive training with the SEARAM weapon system.

              Independence will depart Naval Station Norfolk April 17 for Port Everglades, Fla., to participate in Fleet Week.
              You know JJ, Him could do it....

              Comment


              • For those unfamiliar with SEARAM. SEARAM is a CIWS replacement. Instead of a 20mm 5 barrel gattling gun it features 11 missles in the mount that can be reloaded very quickly. It fits in the very same footprint as the CIWS and can engage multiple targets at once. Like CIWS, it only requires two things, electrical to the mount, and cooling water to the radars encased above RAM unit.

                Link
                http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities..._datasheet.pdf
                Last edited by Dreadnought; 15 Apr 10,, 17:51.
                Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post
                  For those unfamiliar with SEARAM. SEARAM is a CIWS replacement. Instead of a 20mm 5 barrel gattling gun it features 11 missles in the mount that can be reloaded very quickly. It fits in the very same footprint as the CIWS and can engage multiple targets at once. Like CIWS, it only requires two things, electrical to the mount, and cooling water to the radars encased above RAM unit.

                  Link
                  http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities..._datasheet.pdf
                  Thank you, I was wondering about that. So THAT'S what that is; I just assumed it was a normal Phalanx CIWS.

                  This is a little off-subject, but does anybody know what the large square area on the forward part of the ship, just behind the gun mount, is? It's got a railing around it, so I'm assuming they don't want sailors walking on it. At first I thought it was a Mk. 41 VLS, but none of the specs I've read about the Independence say anything about a VLS. The cynic in me says it IS a VLS, the Navy just isn't telling anyone about it.
                  Last edited by Stitch; 15 Apr 10,, 19:29.
                  "There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge

                  Comment


                  • It is for the NLOS-LS, for the Precision Attack Missile (viable against moving vessels and land targets with a range of 25 miles). The missile weight is 118 ponds.
                    Last edited by surfgun; 16 Apr 10,, 00:31.

                    Comment


                    • USS Freedom is scheduled to arrive at her new homeport in San Diego on April 23 after her maiden deployment and USS Independence has been busy escorting the USS Enterprise as she conducted sea trials over the last few weeks.


                      Attached Files
                      You know JJ, Him could do it....

                      Comment


                      • Thanks for the update, RR.

                        I know some of you old Navy guys really don't like the looks of the LCS-2 but, to me, she looks like the future; no, she certainly doesn't look like a "traditional" ship (like the LCS-1 does), but she does look like something from (and for) the future. And the bouyancy problems they've experienced with the LCS-1 (not to mention being 6% overweight) just reinforces my opinion that the LCS-2 construction material and hullform is the right way to go.
                        "There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge

                        Comment


                        • really like the ships,just seems we should have at least half a dozen or more of each or whichever one they pick ,with all there slow poke dawdling around on the designs,.o.k i vented.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by surfgun View Post
                            It is for the NLOS-LS, for the Precision Attack Missile (viable against moving vessels and land targets with a range of 25 miles). The missile weight is 118 ponds.
                            The Army has asked to cancel the NLOS-LS program. If this happens, who knows what will become of the missile module or what the replacement weapon may be?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Stitch View Post
                              Thanks for the update, RR.

                              I know some of you old Navy guys really don't like the looks of the LCS-2 but, to me, she looks like the future; no, she certainly doesn't look like a "traditional" ship (like the LCS-1 does), but she does look like something from (and for) the future. And the bouyancy problems they've experienced with the LCS-1 (not to mention being 6% overweight) just reinforces my opinion that the LCS-2 construction material and hullform is the right way to go.
                              I hear you on that. The LCS-2 design really does it for me, and the LCS-1 not so much. It will be interesting to read up on it as more information about its performance comes out.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by jlvfr View Post
                                Yes, but is it worth it?
                                But they will need to a support ship. Even if they have the range to deploy on their own, how long will that fuel last? They'll need either a friendly port, or a support ship. Right now, how many ships does the USN has supporting the Tychos and Burke's in the Gulf (who have much greater range than the LCS)?
                                Do you really want to have to deploy a Burke every time a window of opportunity opens in Columbia, Fiji, Phillipines, Timor, Haiti et al? One gains the impression that the ship should be armed for every eventuality instead of deploying it as it is intended. A Modular Mission systems/payload platform. Something DD's don't have & can't perform that well.

                                Who cares if it eventually needs a resupply ship? They aren't intended to fight WW3. Low on manpower, relatively low on cost compared to a DD, A good concept if your Big enough & want to expand your mission horizons and a good way to do it without having to send a DD, LPH, LPD when it isn't required.
                                Ego Numquam

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X