Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Littoral Combat Ships

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

  • Another interesting point will be which hull form will be for the Atlantic based group and which will be the Pacific based group. Two different oceans carrying two very different frequency of waves. Interesting how they will handle in each considering a 10 foot draft.
    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by jlvfr View Post
      Shouldn't these be fixed before paying a god-awfull amount of cash for more ships?! This kind of "let it go" "it's broken but ok" approach just encourages contractors (of any kind of product, really...) to slack in the future. LPD-17 comes to mind...
      The USN needs a lot of hulls, especially to replace minesweepers and frigates. That could be part of the rationale for this bout of risk taking and purchaser opitimism.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post
        Another interesting point will be which hull form will be for the Atlantic based group and which will be the Pacific based group. Two different oceans carrying two very different frequency of waves. Interesting how they will handle in each considering a 10 foot draft.
        Over at Information Dissemination, Galrahn is suggesting that it might end up being the LM hull at San Diego and the GD one at Mayport. I wonder what the reasoning behind that would be if it does eventually turn out that way. Do you have any thoughts on why the LM hull would be better suited for operations in the Pacific or the GD hull the Atlantic?

        Comment


        • Well, if we were to refer to their builders sea trials, LCS-1 Freedom performed her sea trials in Lake Michigan, also transiting Buffalo NY, Ontario Canada, Montreal, Boston Mass, Annapolis MD, Alexandria VA, Norfolk VA. Mayport FL, Columbia, Panama (Transited the canal also) refueled from the CVN Carl Vinson (CVN-70) and operated with the fourth Fleet for drug interdiction in the Pacific. Her homeport is said to be San Diego. Seems as though this decision has already been made so IMO, LM's ships will end up on the West coast.

          This pic from CVN-70's hangar of LCS-1 after refueling at sea.

          http://www.navsource.org/archives/15...1/15020161.jpg

          LCS-2 Independence was on sea trials from Mobile AL, Gulf of Mexico, Norfolk VA etc. There is not much yet on LCS-2 as far as her ports, refueling at sea or other. No doubt this has already taken place and Im sure they will announce other ports and tests in the future.
          It would seem though that GD's hull is for the East Coast although it has yet to be announced.
          Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

          Comment


          • The LCS-2 was also scheduled to go to San Diego with LCS-1. LCS-2 has made port out side it's state of manufacture at Key West, Mayport and Norfolk.

            Comment


            • A few days after the election and .....

              "The Navy's LCS acquisition strategy to down select to a single design resulted in a highly effective competition and an industry response that signals a significant potential savings in the LCS program," said Sean Stackley, assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development and acquisition. "These competitive bids, coupled with the Navy's desire to increase ship procurement rates to support operational requirements, create an opportunity to award each bidder a fixed-price, 10-ship block buy a total of 20 ships from fiscal year 2010 to fiscal year 2015."

              Maybe the need to hold elections more frequently is needed.

              Comment


              • Didn't know this, but they're already half-way done with LCS-4, the USS Coronado, which will be a GD seaframe. I'm assuming they'll incorporate improvements in the LCS-4 seaframe that they've learned from the LCS-2. Here's the GD website for the Austal seaframe: The Littoral Combat Ship | LCS

                I'm still convinced that the GD seaframe is the way to go; IMHO, the LM seaframe isn't advanced enough to accept major upgrades and improvements.
                "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


                • Originally posted by surfgun View Post
                  The LCS-2 was also scheduled to go to San Diego with LCS-1. LCS-2 has made port out side it's state of manufacture at Key West, Mayport and Norfolk.
                  And Port Everglades.

                  Comment


                  • USMC Expeditionary Forces & LCS

                    Nothing unexpected, but you might find interesting the suggesed topics of papers sought:

                    At the link: PA&E Thesis Topics

                    Naval Postgraduate School Thesis / Project Topics
                    for
                    Headquarters Marine Corps, Program Assessment and Evaluation (PA&E)

                    ...PA&E’s mission is to provide independent, resource informed, enterprise wide decision support to USMC senior leadership to align DOD and USMC strategic objectives with CMC Title 10 responsibilities. ...research topics are of high interest to PA&E and are should be suitable as Naval Postgraduate thesis topics...

                    Topic: USMC Expeditionary Forces Embarked in LCS

                    LCS will play an important role in the Naval Force structure and future naval operating constructs. To date, little work has been done addressing USMC force packages for this platform.
                    • What USMC force packages could be employed from the LCS and what missions could be tailored to LCS?
                    • How could these force packages best support COCOM and MARFOR Long War requirements?


                    <<< And what to do about the lack of big Naval guns ??? >>>
                    Topic: Importance of NSFS in OMFTS

                    With the decision to cancel ERGM and reduce the DDG-1000 buy, the Marines are looking for NSFS capability to support operations at over-the-horizon (OTH) ranges. The 5 inch capability on CG-52s and DDG-51s (Flights I/II/IIA) and the Long Range Land Attack Projectile (LRLAP) on the DDG-1000 are the current programs of record. Up to now, developing a NSFS capability to support ground operations at longer ranges has been ineffective.
                    • How important is NSFS in supporting OTH operations and other USMC CONOPS (what gaps in fire support can NSFS be expected to fill)?
                    • What is the reliability of NSFS vs. the alternatives (TACAIR + Ground + UAS)?
                    • What is the state of maturity of the C4ISR architecture requirements for NSFS?
                    • Are there more cost effective alternatives to NSFS?
                    Last edited by JRT; 22 Nov 10,, 09:35.
                    .
                    .
                    .

                    Comment


                    • similar...

                      You might also find interesting these suggesed topics of papers sought:
                      from this link: http://www.marines.mil/unit/tecom/mc...0Proposals.pdf

                      Marine Corps Research Topic Proposals
                      Marine Corps University, Quantico Virginia


                      <snip>

                      (topics related to) Marine Corps Warfighting Lab
                      topic 1. Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Modules to support future USMC
                      POC: Research Fellow, MCWL/CETO
                      Commercial: (703) 432-0755 DSN: 378-0755
                      Description: This proposal has application to several areas of study to include: future warfare, joint operations, and amphibious operations. As the Marine Corps looks to the future and how it will be able to use emerging technology and available naval platforms to conduct expeditionary operations, the potential role the Navy’s new Littoral Combat Ships could play in future operations needs to be examined. The Navy is currently planning to build 55 of this class of ship which will be designed to carry different/interchangeable modules depending on its current mission. The ship is being specifically designed to operate in the littorals and has the potential to support a wide variety of USMC related missions in support of distributed MAGTF operations.
                      Rational: The LCS is the only navy ship currently being designed to operate in relatively shallow water and with modules to support a variety of operations. As such this ship with the appropriately designed module(s) has the potential to support a myriad of evolving USMC concepts of operations including Distributed Operations, Sea Basing, etc.
                      Questions to be explored:
                      • How can currently planned LCS modules be used to support USMC warfighting functions and future operations?
                      • What new modules (such as a “manpower module” or “fire-support module”) should be developed to support specific missions?
                      • What is the best way to interface the LCS (and accompanying USMC modules) with other planned MAGTF support vessels (i.e., amphibious ships, MPS (F), etc.) of a Sea Base?

                      <snip>
                      topic 3. Unmanned Systems Required to Support Future USMC Operations
                      POC: Research Fellow, MCWL/CETO
                      Commercial: (703) 432-0755 DSN: 378-0755
                      Description: This proposal has application to several areas of study to include: future warfare, joint operations, and amphibious operations. As the Marine Corps looks to how it will conduct expeditionary operations in the future, the potential contributions to be made by various types of unmanned systems needs to be closely examined. The Marine Corps was instrumental in the development of unmanned aerial systems and their tactical/operational employment. However, to date there has been little effort given to examining the potential role that other types of unmanned systems might play in support of future MAGTF operations.
                      Rational: In recent years unmanned aerial vehicles have become widely accepted as a force multiplier and are employed in a myriad of operational and tactical warfighting applications. However, the potential enhancements that unmanned surface and unmanned subsurface systems might bring to the way Marines fight are still largely unexplored. As the Marine Corps looks ahead to the future treats it will likely face and the types of missions it will be called upon to execute, it will be increasingly concerned with minimizing loss of life. The future will likely find the Navy and Marine Corps increasingly conducting operations from a Sea Base and it will become more important for future systems to be compatible with Seabasing.
                      Questions to be explored:
                      • How can the capabilities of currently available unmanned aerial systems be better integrated into USMC warfighting functions and future operations?
                      • What types of unmanned surface and subsurface vessels/systems are currently under development that could be used (with or without modification) to support future MAGTF operations?
                      • What new types of unmanned systems/capabilities are needed to support future operational concepts?
                      • What unique opportunities/challenges are created by the need for unmanned systems to be compatible with Seabasing?

                      <snip>
                      5. Emphasizing the “O” in Distributed Operations
                      Commercial: 703-784-0451
                      Description: The Distributed Operations concept was originally a US Army maneuver construct that transitioned to the Chairman, JCS operating concept in the early part of the 21st century. Ultimately the USMC adopted elements of the concept to pursue excellent in small unit organization, equipment and training. The program and experimentation has been hugely successful, and is being extended further in a project known as Enhanced Company Operations.
                      This research paper should build on these constructs and historical examples to examine the potential for distributed operations at the operational level of war, preferably in an amphibious context.
                      The research question is:
                      How can the Distributed Operations concept be exploited at the operational level of war to reinvigorate conceptual thinking about amphibious warfare in the 21st century?
                      .
                      .
                      .

                      Comment


                      • Hi,

                        I'm new to this Board.

                        I have not read through all the contributions which make many excellent points.

                        I would however like to share with you my own view about what I see as the shortcomings of the LCS desgin and how it can be put right.

                        1. It is not stealthy enought. To operate close to an enemy shore and avoid contact with the otherside if need be, the ship needs to be as stealthy as a Visby.

                        2. The mission modules are unnecessarily complicated and should be simplified.

                        3. There is far too much duplication of function and purpose in the weapons designed for this ship.

                        4. There is no prospect of the LCS being able to defend itself against another Corvette-sized warship equipped with SS missiles.

                        5. The LCS is faster than it needs to be, thus wasting internal space for machinery.


                        Almost all weapon systems seem to have been selected with the aim of defeating small boat swarm attacks. The Netfires (now defunkt), the Mk 110 57 mm and the Mk 46 30 mm and the 50 Cal guns are all about shooting up speedboats. We are told that even the Firescouts and the Helo's and SeaRam could be used against speedboats. This is ridiculous! The speedboat threat is largely non existent - only the Iranians seem to have suicide speedboats and in any case, they would be easily countered in any number of ways. The real threat in the littorals comes from purpose built Corvettes like the ones built in Russia, China and Europe.

                        My solution is to replace the Mk110 with the 35 mm Millenium gun forward. The Millenium gun (single mount) weighs only 3,200 Kg and requires no deck penetration. Two more Millenium guns could be mounted Port and Starboard in place of the 50 Cal/30 mm Mk 46Bushmaster II. Together with SeaRam, and the Firescouts/helo's, this would be more than enough to despatch any speedboats should they get close or aircraft or approaching missiles. There is no need to destroy speedboats at 15 km range with the Mk 110.

                        I am glad that the Netfires were cancelled. These should be replaced with the Norwegian Naval Strike Missile (NSM). It is a generation ahead of Harpoon and has the additional benefit of being able to strike land targets as well as naval ones. It is almost 10 times more powerful than Netfire would have been and has been purpose built for littoral warfare. It should be possible to accommodate twenty or more NSM forward. I suggest that the ASW module be fitted as standard and that it would easily be replaced with the MCM module if needed.

                        Comment


                        • I'd like to proprose my own design to NAVSEA for consideration...just something I did up in about an hour.

                          HIGHLIGHTS:
                          EADS TRS-3D radar
                          CODAG, twin diesel w/single LM2500+
                          4 - 5"/54 mounts
                          16 PVLS cells for SM-2
                          16 PVLS Self Defence cells for quad-pack ESSM
                          1 21 cell RAM launcher
                          1 Goalkeeper CIWS

                          Comment


                          • 10 more of both classes have been approved.
                            Navy allowed dual LCS buy - Navy News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Navy Times
                            Last edited by surfgun; 22 Dec 10,, 02:35.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Hoss View Post
                              I'd like to proprose my own design to NAVSEA for consideration...just something I did up in about an hour.

                              HIGHLIGHTS:
                              EADS TRS-3D radar
                              CODAG, twin diesel w/single LM2500+
                              4 - 5"/54 mounts
                              16 PVLS cells for SM-2
                              16 PVLS Self Defence cells for quad-pack ESSM
                              1 21 cell RAM launcher
                              1 Goalkeeper CIWS

                              Now that is a gunboat!

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Hoss View Post
                                I'd like to proprose my own design to NAVSEA for consideration...just something I did up in about an hour.
                                101 missiles, 4 5" guns and 2 helis?... Me thinks you designed a heavy cruiser, not an LCS...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X