Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Littoral Combat Ships

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

  • surfgun
    replied
    Actually no! They down loaded the fuel amount aboard the Harpoon to target the old FFG Crommelin that was only twenty miles away. It missed or fell short.

    Leave a comment:


  • Squirrel
    replied
    Originally posted by surfgun View Post
    Video: Coronado fires a Harpoon at RIMPAC.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZWk031xh8o
    OMG! They still work!

    Leave a comment:


  • surfgun
    replied
    Video: Coronado fires a Harpoon at RIMPAC.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZWk031xh8o

    Leave a comment:


  • JRT
    replied
    Originally posted by kato View Post
    The usefulness of the shock tests as performed is typically considered limited as they only test for a uniform blast wave from abeam at various strengths that doesn't stress just single hull sections or shear forces like an actual live fire explosion would - but to a limited extent that simulates an impact wave from a distant nuclear explosion. The procedure has been performed identical since at least the 80s.
    While I do understand that you are much better informed about the subject matter...

    My understanding is that these tests provided simulations of blasts of mines, with levels of magnitude, depth and proximity designed to simulate examples of actual mine blasts (not in close contact). The effects from these would be unrepresentative of effects from distant nuclear explosions.
    Last edited by JRT; 20 Jul 16,, 23:57.

    Leave a comment:


  • JA Boomer
    replied
    Originally posted by kato View Post
    Nah, that's nothing new for the shock trials. By the time the Flight IIA DDGs were tested in 2001 four were in full commission, two had been launched and five were on construction. By the time the Flight I DDGs were tested in 1994 three were in full commission, three had been launched and six were under construction.
    No sh*t. Interesting.

    Leave a comment:


  • kato
    replied
    Originally posted by JA Boomer View Post
    Wow. Is it just me, or do programs these days (LCS, F-35, ect.) delay testing and evaluation way too long?
    Nah, that's nothing new for the shock trials. By the time the Flight IIA DDGs were tested in 2001 four were in full commission, two had been launched and five were on construction. By the time the Flight I DDGs were tested in 1994 three were in full commission, three had been launched and six were under construction.

    Leave a comment:


  • kato
    replied
    Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
    Just out of curiosity what are they using to create that explosion?
    For the DDG-81 shock trials - 15 years ago - they used a 10,000 lbs HBX-1 * charge in a steel container (5 ft diameter, 5.6 ft long) suspended at 200ft depth under a pontoon which itself would be towed 2,000 ft behind another ship.

    The usefulness of the shock tests as performed is typically considered limited as they only test for a uniform blast wave from abeam at various strengths that doesn't stress just single hull sections or shear forces like an actual live fire explosion would - but to a limited extent that simulates an impact wave from a distant nuclear explosion. The procedure has been performed identical since at least the 80s.

    * around 39% RDX, 38% TNT, 17% aluminium, 6% various fillers including wax.

    Leave a comment:


  • JA Boomer
    replied
    Originally posted by surfgun View Post
    Well it looks like damage was substantial to LCS Jackson.

    http://www.janes.com/article/61985/a...s-shock-trials
    Wow. Is it just me, or do programs these days (LCS, F-35, ect.) delay testing and evaluation way too long? Shock testing a navy class half way through it's production run seems to me to have limited benefit compared with shock testing the prototype or first production ship.

    Leave a comment:


  • surfgun
    replied
    Well it looks like damage was substantial to LCS Jackson.

    http://www.janes.com/article/61985/a...s-shock-trials

    Leave a comment:


  • tbm3fan
    replied
    Just out of curiosity what are they using to create that explosion?

    Leave a comment:


  • surfgun
    replied
    Good news, a blast test failed to sink LCS 6 Jackson!

    https://news.usni.org/2016/06/15/lcs...on_shock_trial

    Leave a comment:


  • surfgun
    replied
    LCS 5 Milwaukee left dry dock at Jacksonville in mid May 2016. So repairs took a little longer than anticipated (in December 2015, weeks of work was anticipated).
    Last edited by surfgun; 09 Jun 16,, 17:54.

    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    Thanks guys. As usual learning a lot.

    My thought was more towards engine plant, shafts and screws, etc. I did expect the mission packages to differ. But, as a novice, I never thought hullform.

    So how much commonality was there between the Sprucans and Ticos?

    Leave a comment:


  • Monash
    replied
    So, the last news I saw reported that the LCS MCM package had failed to meet spec and been sent back to the drawing board for re-development, the ASW package was more advanced but still not ready for deployment and the anti-surface warfare module was more or less being put together on the run - is it still hellfires for the initial package?

    Engineering issues with the two vessel designs aside I still get the impression the Navy has doesn't know what it wants to do with these hulls once it has them. God help the sailors who have to fight these ships in a literal combat environment against anyone more advanced than Somali pirates - unless of course a big brother sits of over the horizon on baby sitting duty. Which leads to the question why not just go with conventional frigates and mine sweepers.

    I just don't see any other Navy on the planet following suit and taking up this design/concept even if they are ric enough to afford it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stitch
    replied
    Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    That would be ideal, but I don't think it will happen. The kinds of things you would think they would be sharing already like radar/EWAR suites are totally different between the hulls. If anything I expect the LCS and SSC to diverge more as time goes on. LCS will continue to prioritize space for deploying boats, RO-RO for vehicles, and aviation assets. The SSC will cut into or give up these capabilities in favor of armor, over the horizon missiles, 3D radar, and additional electronic and torpedo countermeasures. The plan as it stands is for the SSC to be labeled as a Frigate and focus on surface and and anti-submarine warfare, while the LCS keeps the mine hunting, secret squirrel, and littoral mission set.

    The fact that navy hasn't downselected to a single hull yet surely means there is some intense political pressure to keep both Austal and Bollinger shipyards busy. I don't expect that political pressure to go away, but they could designate one hull for LCS and the other for SSC and let the designs diverge accordingly.

    Both Lockheed and Austal have submitted SSC designs, but the selection isn't due to occur until 2018.
    The Independence hullform (LCS-2) seems better adapted to the littorals, and the Freedom class hullform (LCS-1) seems like it would be more at home in deeper (i.e.: blue) waters.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X