Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Littoral Combat Ships

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

  • TopHatter
    replied
    Originally posted by surfgun View Post
    I have a feeling that the LCS's will be keeping little old BAE in Jacksonville busy for the forseable future!
    I'm afraid you're right.

    But good for my photo collecting lol

    Leave a comment:


  • surfgun
    replied
    I have a feeling that the LCS's will be keeping little old BAE in Jacksonville busy for the forseable future!

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    Took a drive out a little further than I usually go on my way home from work...

    BAE Systems Jacksonville plays host to USS Jackson (LCS-6) and and the recently arrived USS Milwaukee (LCS-5)

    Click image for larger version

Name:	1.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	145.3 KB
ID:	1468347

    Click image for larger version

Name:	2.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	249.7 KB
ID:	1468348

    Click image for larger version

Name:	3.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	197.1 KB
ID:	1468349

    Leave a comment:


  • gunnut
    replied
    Originally posted by JA Boomer View Post
    You really got me thinking about this concept. A ship designed for lighter amphibious operations where a L-class ship is overkill.

    Going above and beyond the LCS designs is the Absalon-class. Where the flex deck allows a significant force to be embarked. Of course this is a larger more capable ship then the LCS, so you may not want to risk it in the littorals. Like the LCS, it's available space lend itself to be used in many other missions such as command and control or a limited hospital ship.

    I believe, like the Absalon-class, the LCS may still be too valuable to use as a troop insertion platform in the litorals. Which brought me to the FSF-1 Sea Fighter. Isn't this the true modern day version of the APD?

    With the addition of a few weapons it would seem the ideal troop insertion platform with smaller size, high speed, large flight deck, boat insertion capability, and RORO deck. Not bothered with other missions like the LCS it would be a true troop truck.
    Keep in mind the USN has a global reach and the LCS is that size for ocean going capability. They have to be able to self deploy half way around the world without using tenders. A 3000t hull is probably as small as it can go with these various constraints.

    Leave a comment:


  • SteveDaPirate
    replied
    Originally posted by JA Boomer View Post
    I believe, like the Absalon-class, the LCS may still be too valuable to use as a troop insertion platform in the litorals. Which brought me to the FSF-1 Sea Fighter. Isn't this the true modern day version of the APD?

    With the addition of a few weapons it would seem the ideal troop insertion platform with smaller size, high speed, large flight deck, boat insertion capability, and RORO deck. Not bothered with other missions like the LCS it would be a true troop truck.
    I bet the Coast Guard would love to get their hands on some FSF-1s.

    Leave a comment:


  • JA Boomer
    replied
    Originally posted by gunnut View Post
    I still believe this is a mini LPD or an APD on steroids.
    You really got me thinking about this concept. A ship designed for lighter amphibious operations where a L-class ship is overkill.

    Going above and beyond the LCS designs is the Absalon-class. Where the flex deck allows a significant force to be embarked. Of course this is a larger more capable ship then the LCS, so you may not want to risk it in the littorals. Like the LCS, it's available space lend itself to be used in many other missions such as command and control or a limited hospital ship.

    I believe, like the Absalon-class, the LCS may still be too valuable to use as a troop insertion platform in the litorals. Which brought me to the FSF-1 Sea Fighter. Isn't this the true modern day version of the APD?

    With the addition of a few weapons it would seem the ideal troop insertion platform with smaller size, high speed, large flight deck, boat insertion capability, and RORO deck. Not bothered with other missions like the LCS it would be a true troop truck.

    Leave a comment:


  • surfgun
    replied
    After two months pier side, USS Milwaukee (LCS-5) departed Virginia at reduced speed bound for Naval Station Mayport, Fla. and shock trials, USNI News has learned.

    The Navy would not confirm any details of the departure, but USNI News understands the ship is operating on under propulsion limitations and moving slowly down the East Coast on its diesel engines with restrictions placed on its Rolls Royce MT30 gas turbines engines. The ship suffered damage to its combining gears – the complex mechanism that links the output of the diesels and turbines — in mid-December that sidelined the ship for two months.

    An amateur photograph provided to USNI News shows the ship leaving Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek – Fort Story on Wednesday.

    Typically the transit for a Navy destroyer or cruiser – which the LCS are faster than — operating on all its engines would make the transit in about two days. Operating only on diesels, the transit could take stretch into next week or longer.

    Repairs to the ship are almost complete and will be finalized in Florida, sources told USNI News. In addition, Lockheed Martin and Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) are continuing to examine the ship’s control system software.

    Press reports point to a faulty fuel valve that prompted the emergency stop of the MT30s, triggering a chain reaction in hardware and software that resulted in the grinding of high-speed clutch plates and ultimately the propulsion systems failure.

    The failure of the control system software to disengage the clutch in time is thought to be the prime culprit for the resulting damage.

    Once in Mayport, Milwaukee will undergo shock trials to test how the ship’s systems will perform under combat conditions.
    http://news.usni.org/2016/02/18/litt...t-on-wednesday

    Leave a comment:


  • bfng3569
    replied
    Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    Looking at what the Navy is buying, they are probably thinking along similar lines. Here some of the relevant stats on the F-14 compared to the F-35, they actually aren't as different as I would have guessed. With the AIM-120D supposedly being able to achieve a similar range as the AIM-54, I think the Navy will have the ability to really reach out and touch hostile bombers once again.

    F-14D F-35C
    Empty Weight 43,735 lb 34,800 lb
    Max Takeoff Weight 74,350 lb ~70,000 lb
    Max Speed 1,544 mph 1,200 mph
    Combat Radius 500 nmi 615 nmi
    Hardpoint Capacity 10x External (6 heavy, 4 light) 14,500 lb total ordnance 6x External (4 heavy, 2 light) + 4x Internal (2 heavy, 2 light) 18,000 lb total ordnance

    It's clear that range is a priority again, and the announcement of the UCLASS as an unmanned refueling asset fits right in with that philosophy. Let's hope the F-35 turns out to be a little easier on the maintenance guys than the F-14 reportedly was!
    Interesting.... for some reason I still had a limited combat radius and (stealthy) loadout for the F-35C stuck in my head when I typed that for some reasons....

    Plus the Uclass tanker......

    Leave a comment:


  • Cruiser
    replied
    Originally posted by surfgun View Post
    LCS-5 USS Milwaukee is to get underway from Little Creek, this week (with restrictions).
    http://news.usni.org/2016/02/16/litt...n-as-wednesday
    Thanks for the link.

    Interesting read.

    Most in-depth explanation yet that I've read. A result of two failures, it says. A fuel valve failure during a full power run caused both gas turbines to shut down, and then the clutches in the combining gear failed to disengage due to a software error? Then, pieces from the damaged clutches contaminated the lube system. Four days later, lube oil pressure was lost.

    Now it's headed out for shock testing?

    I want to believe the Navy knows what it's doing, but they're really making it hard to keep the faith.

    Oh well, I suppose the fact that lube oil pressure hung in there for 4 days should be a good sign of toughness...

    Leave a comment:


  • surfgun
    replied
    LCS-5 USS Milwaukee is to get underway from Little Creek, this week (with restrictions).
    http://news.usni.org/2016/02/16/litt...n-as-wednesday
    Last edited by surfgun; 17 Feb 16,, 21:28.

    Leave a comment:


  • gunnut
    replied
    Originally posted by jlvfr View Post
    Doesn't matter if it carries them, but the influence on hull size and mass.
    Right. Extra space also makes them more flexible.

    Think about naval warfare for the next 30 years. What navy in the world is a threat to the USN? Anything that can be a threat will be destroyed by the carrier group. What remains will be small boats and possibly shore threats. Do you want to risk an amphibious group to deliver a small special ops team ashore, wherever that maybe?

    An APD delivering Marine raiders...I mean LCS delivering SEAL teams onto the shores of some 3rd world country to take out whatever they need to take out makes a lot more sense than having Burkes escorting an LPD to drop off the same team, but using much more resources.

    Leave a comment:


  • gunnut
    replied
    Originally posted by kato View Post
    Our four last warship designs* with procurement are 90m ("corvettes"), 143m ("frigates"), 150m ("frigates") and 150m (... probably "frigates") in length and 1900, 5600, 7200 and about 7500 tons in weight. They all have about the same draft as LCS and are intended to - also - operate in a similar "littoral" environment.

    A Burke is 154-155m and 8300-9800t depending on flight with twice the draft of a LCS.

    We've used 40+ knot boats on anti-piracy duty (Atalanta) and on surveillance/overwatch/intercept (UNIFIL) as well as chokepoint patrol (Gibraltar straits). Aside from the problem that they were not suitable to the environment around the equator, they never used that speed.

    * aside from auxiliaries and submarines.
    The difference is USN has a year round global reach/responsibility. All major warships need to keep up with the carriers. Most ships operate in blue water for extended periods. They need the space for machinery, fuel, and people, hence the deep draft.

    I'm not quite sure abut this but does deep draft help a ship in the ocean during rough sea states?

    Leave a comment:


  • jlvfr
    replied
    Originally posted by gunnut View Post
    Just because the ship was designed to carry 2 helos doesn't mean that she has to have 2 helos aboard at all times. It's a large open space inside and out. That makes the ship very flexible to carry other things. She could carry one helo with supplies or some modules that I haven't the faintest idea about.

    I still believe this is a mini LPD or an APD on steroids.
    Doesn't matter if it carries them, but the influence on hull size and mass.

    Leave a comment:


  • SteveDaPirate
    replied
    Originally posted by gunnut View Post
    I still believe this is a mini LPD or an APD on steroids.
    Agreed, I tend to think of them primarily as fast helicopter carriers.

    Leave a comment:


  • SteveDaPirate
    replied
    Originally posted by jlvfr View Post
    Modern guided weapons make such high-speed useless. You can't outrun a missile. Or indeed a shell.
    If there are a bunch of Boghammar's loaded with piles of explosives and some suicidal drivers, the higher your speed, the sooner you will be able to bring them to action, and the longer you can keep them there. Alternatively, if you are up against a bunch of missile boats, high speed will allow you to send your airborne assets to go attack them, while the ship itself is fast enough to play keep-away and prevent the missile boats from closing the distance to the point that they can achieve a firing solution for their missiles.

    Originally posted by jlvfr View Post
    As for the notion of "bring those speedboat packs into gun range", afaik, such packs would be attacking... no need to "chase" them, they'll come to the LCS.
    They may be attacking something, but that doesn't mean they will be headed towards the LCS itself. A destroyer for example is a much juicer target, and it would essentially have to empty its VLS magazines to engage such a threat despite the massive overkill against each boat. If a slower frigate isn't in position to intercept such an attack and isn't fast enough to get into position, it may as well sit the whole thing out.

    Originally posted by jlvfr View Post
    As for mine sweeping.... imho, the USN should buy a few dedicated light ships for that, something like the Sandown-class minehunter, which is still pretty well armed, for a 600ton hull. At 60 million USD per ship, a single LCS would pay 11 and leave change. Maybe make it big enough to load a drone, and raise the speed to 20knots?
    I was under the impression that the USN conducts much of their minesweeping with these.Click image for larger version

Name:	CH-53_minesweeping.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	873.0 KB
ID:	1468250

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X