Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Littoral Combat Ships

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

  • Originally posted by db2646 View Post
    Why all these threatening remarks? It is a difference in opinion. I knew I have been in a different forum and I also expressed my opinions there. Thus I was banned for expressing what I believed in? I think I'm still in the USA and covered by the First Amendment to the Constitution?
    Besides what GF said, I suggest you actually read that First Amendment again. Especially the very first word.

    If you're planning on pulling any of the crap you did at the other board, I suggest you depart sooner rather than later.
    “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

    Comment


    • Originally posted by USSWisconsin View Post
      I was thinking a howitzer module would be interesting. Perhaps 105 or 120mm?
      Extremely hefty recoil forces there. That's what would probably nix it. Aside from the fact that one would easily weigh about 50% more than a 57mm or 76mm (which are pretty close in weight). A 120mm mortar turret such as AMOS might be doable within the confines LCS provides.
      Either way that would also rob the LCS of its forward arc air self-defense and high-velocity gun intercept possibilities.

      You could also just drop a manually fed 120mm mortar and its crew in the empty NETFIRES bay and keep the forward gun. Or, if you're adventurous, replace the Mk46 with a new development combining a lightweight 120mm along the lines of NEMO coaxial with a lighter 30mm gun.

      Originally posted by USSWisconsin View Post
      As far as Self Defense, which potential adversary is going to shrug off rapid fire 57mm hits?
      The ones that stay on the half of the horizon distance beyond the 57mm's range envelope?

      Comment


      • I think the LCS cost-for-the-bang might be begining to creep up on some people... half a bilion for a ship that appears half naked is hard to justify...

        Comment


        • I agree, in a gunfight, the 76mm is the better choice - but comparing the OTO 76mm Super Rapid Fire to the 57mm M110 is curious, the little one has half the effective range, but similar max range. Weights aren't that different - the 57mm is listed with ammo, the 76mm w/o here:


          OTO Melara 76 mm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

          Specifications
          Weight Empty: 7.5 tonnes (17,000 lb)
          Barrel length 62 caliber: 4,724.4 mm (186.00 in)
          Shell 76×900mmR (complete round)
          12.34 kilograms (27.2 lb)
          Caliber 76.2 mm (3.00 in)
          Elevation -15°/+85°
          speed:35°/s (acceleration: 72°/s˛)
          Traverse 360°
          speed: 60°/s (acceleration: 72°/s˛)
          Rate of fire Compact: 85 rounds/min
          Super Rapid: 120 rounds/min

          Muzzle velocity 905 m/s (2,970 ft/s)
          Maximum range HE-PFF 16.000 m

          Bofors 57 mm gun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

          Specifications
          Weight Mark 3: 14,000 kg (31,000 lb) (weight including 1,000 rounds onboard)
          6.5 kg (14 lb) (complete round)
          Barrel length
          Bore length: 3,990 mm (157.09 in)
          Shell 57 mm × 438 mm
          6.1 kg (13 lb) complete round
          2.4 kg (5.3 lb) pre-fragmented shell
          Caliber 57 mm/70 caliber
          Barrels Single barrel (progressive RH parabolic twist, 24 grooves)
          Elevation
          Mark 1: −10°/+78° (40°/s)
          Mark 2: -10°/+75° (40°/s)
          Mark 3: -10°/+77° (44°/s)
          Traverse Full 360°:
          Marks 1 & 2: 55°/s
          Mark 3: 57°/s
          Rate of fire
          Mark 1: 200 rounds/min
          Marks 2 & 3: 220 rounds/min

          Muzzle velocity 1,035 m/s (3,400 ft/s) (HE round)
          Effective range 8,500 m (9,300 yd) (HE round)
          Maximum range 17,000 m (19,000 yd) (HE round at 45°)


          Originally Posted by USSWisconsin
          I was thinking a howitzer module would be interesting. Perhaps 105 or 120mm?
          Originally Posted by Kato Either way that would also rob the LCS of its forward arc air self-defense and high-velocity gun intercept possibilities.
          Aft mounted NGFS

          I was considering a module with the howitzer or mortar, my idea would't replace the 57mm, but might require the aviation suite to be reduced or removed. Alternatively perhaps the LW 155mm AGS proposed for the Burke's could be mounted aft on a special, limited production NGFS variant w/o aviation? This version could carry some full length VLS tubes (for Tomahawks) in the aircraft hanger area?
          Last edited by USSWisconsin; 20 May 13,, 07:32.
          sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
          If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

          Comment


          • Originally posted by jlvfr View Post
            I think the LCS cost-for-the-bang might be begining to creep up on some people... half a bilion for a ship that appears half naked is hard to justify...
            I remember when the VLS cruisers came out, even before that, the Tico's with two 5" guns and the pair of twin missile launchers seemed very lightly armed, after the bristling WWII Fletchers and the Soviet cold war surface combatants.

            USN ships often seem lightly armed compared to their potential adversaries and even their own predecessors. Cost is staggering, everything is so expensive these days - its terrible... I hope we get reliable ships, that perform as designed, if they do that, they might be worth what they cost. It is a little strange that not using them may demonstrate their effectiveness better than combat (provided they deter the enemy from engaging in combat).

            In the late 19th Century, the Royal Navy built a bunch of strange ironclads, most never saw action, and for those that did see action, it was typically shore bombardment. In their time, they were considered to be expensive white elephants, BUT the Britannia ruled the waves, and no other nation opposed her at sea for many decades.
            Last edited by USSWisconsin; 19 May 13,, 20:42.
            sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
            If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

            Comment


            • Originally posted by USSWisconsin View Post
              I remember when the VLS cruisers came out, even before that, the Tico's with two 5" guns and the pair of twin missile launchers seemed very lightly armed, after the bristling WWII Fletchers and the Soviet cold war surface combatants.
              Yes, I remember that, specially one time when a Slava and a Spruance were docked in Malta :)

              But here we have a "coastal ship", "replacement for the Perrys" that's costing gazilion dollars and is "full of defects", and now there are talks of "undergunned"*... I doubt the controversy over the LCS will calm down anytime soon...








              *all this, justified or not...

              Comment


              • Originally posted by kato View Post
                Extremely hefty recoil forces there. That's what would probably nix it.
                I worked on a "large" ballistic project a few years back

                the 120mm howitzer we tested was exerting 15t of felt recoil on the baseplate/equiv contact area
                Linkeden:
                http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
                http://cofda.wordpress.com/

                Comment


                • Originally posted by gf0012-aust View Post
                  I worked on a "large" ballistic project a few years back



                  the 120mm howitzer we tested was exerting 15t of felt recoil on the baseplate/equiv contact area

                  How does this recoil force compare to a 57mm or a 76mm gun?

                  I'm looking at historical ships of this size and seeing 5" guns on vessels that performed well (like a DE).

                  I would appreciate your insights into how a ship like the LCS could be fitted to accept a more powerful gun.
                  Last edited by USSWisconsin; 20 May 13,, 07:28.
                  sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
                  If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

                  Comment


                  • 60 knots is pretty insane. the old Knox I was on looks like it was about to fall apart when we push 20 (granted, that's more a testimony of how old she is.)

                    I'm not sure though, isn't the modern naval warfare concept more or less that ships are just platform for the weapons and electronics? shouldn't you just try to stick with the Perry Class design of a simple and cheap platform then go crazy with what you stick on it?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by USSWisconsin View Post
                      How does this recoil force compare to a 57mm or a 76mm gun?

                      I'm looking at historical ships of this size and seeing 5" guns on vessels that performed well (like a DE).

                      I would appreciate you insights into how a ship like the LCS would be fitted to accept a more powerful gun.
                      Well, lets start off by making it abundantly clear that I'm not a maritime engineer. With respect to this issue, at the maritime level I've mainly been involved with subs and green/grey water vessels. I've also had some involvement with various ballistics projects, recoil management and acoustic detection/management systems. I've done some work on IFV and heavy armoured vehicle fitouts. All of the above provide an insight but by no means make me an SME.

                      My primary concerns are less about the gun and more about the support system. It's the iceberg issue. There's a whole pile of gear below the deck that is required to feed and fire a naval gun - and the first question is how much more intrusive is a 5"/5.5" gun than a smaller calibre weapoon? I'd suggest substantial and that means that you immediately have internal redesign issues to attend to. (Bunkerage, sleeping quarters, armoury, autoloader issues etc....)

                      the other aspect is the empirical testing issues. eg I know of a high mobility gun truck where it passed with flying colours on a high ROF with a 5.56 SMG. It was decided to upgun it as someone decided that 5.56 SMG was not that helpful against some targets and defensive bulwarks. The 7.62 was mounted and no one bothered to re-assess the specs to see whether the pintle was able to take the heavier calibre and its nominal (no change in volume) ROF. In subsequent test the pintle cracked and the ring finally collapsed. Although thats a small example, I've seen cause and effect of much larger weapons. eg Artyengineer and I used to exchange emails about the legion of problems that beset the original M-777. Cracked plates, shattered optics, fractured spades, shocking recoil management in the early days. Naval guns inherit the same problems but to a much larger scale

                      Ship handling can suffer considerably when the superstructure becomes a shopping centre for military and weapons system structures. There's no shortage of vessel classes which were almost killed off due to an over enthusiasm to upgun/up-missile them and then wonder why flank speed turns were blood draining events.

                      Force development and platform development go hand in hand IMO, its about balance and considered thought. If you start adding on and lose the coherency of the original design intent, then you end up with the maritime equiv of the ugly red headed step sister who no wants to be seen with in public. - ie eventually loved by none... :)
                      Last edited by gf0012-aust; 20 May 13,, 08:51.
                      Linkeden:
                      http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
                      http://cofda.wordpress.com/

                      Comment


                      • the first question that comes to mind.

                        Why do we want the LCS to perform NGFS?


                        The other question that I have is, why are we naming it a "LCS" when it should have the designation of FF or a PSMM.

                        We need to stop this crazy designating ships by their builders names. No LCS, No HSV, no JHSV, and no TSV. They could all fall under ship hull classifications already in use.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
                          the first question that comes to mind.

                          Why do we want the LCS to perform NGFS?


                          The other question that I have is, why are we naming it a "LCS" when it should have the designation of FF or a PSMM.

                          We need to stop this crazy designating ships by their builders names. No LCS, No HSV, no JHSV, and no TSV. They could all fall under ship hull classifications already in use.
                          it goes back to basics, whats the capability requirement to address conops and and against the nominal and identified threats.

                          whether its called LCS or "billy bunters navel" should ultimately be irrelevant.

                          they can either do the job or not, if not then someone is not mapping the capability and build definitions against the capability requirements
                          Linkeden:
                          http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
                          http://cofda.wordpress.com/

                          Comment


                          • From todays Marine Times.

                            New Missile Competition
                            The Navy also wants to fix one of the LCS program’s glaring deficiencies — the absence of an effective surface-to-surface missile (SSM), brought on by the Army’s 2009 cancellation of the non-line-of-sight (NLOS) missile. The Navy had expected the Army-developed NLOS would give the LCS a weapon to counter enemy fast attack craft.

                            A year ago, the service had planned to test the Griffin, a small missile developed for Special Operations Command, on Freedom. But the missile is considered too lightweight for the LCS, and it was not installed. Instead, data is being gathered from testing aboard the coastal patrol vessel Monsoon.

                            “We really want to do a competition and award for an SSM that has a little longer range than the Griffin,” Murdoch said. “Ideally, what I’d like to have is autonomy — an autonomous seeker that you don’t have to designate with a laser to guide the missile on target.

                            “That’s another area that’s budget-dependent,” Murdoch added. “We have money this year and next to do studies and get ready for [industry solicitations] in 2014.”

                            Barring funding complications, the Navy is hoping to field an SSM on the LCS in 2019.
                            Last edited by surfgun; 31 May 13,, 22:35.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by surfgun View Post
                              Barring funding complications, the Navy is hoping to field an SSM on the LCS in 2019.
                              What kills me is they were able to put 4 or even 8 Harpoons on the 133' long 225 ton Pegasus-class PHM's...and now they're wringing their hands trying to figure out how to arm the 378' long 3000 ton Freedom-class LCS with an SSM.
                              “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                              Comment


                              • IMO, Create a new mount for the ships. Something along the lines of the original Stinger missles but with increased range and fast reloading instead of fire and forget tech.

                                Just an idea.
                                Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X