Littoral Combat Ships

[Dreadnought]

"A high-speed gas turbine engine on board the U.S. Navy’s first Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) broke earlier this month and will need to be replaced, but officials don’t expect the mishap to affect the ship’s testing schedule.

The incident took place Sept. 12 while the USS Freedom was operating off southern California. The ship shut down its two Rolls-Royce MT30 gas turbines after “high vibration indications” were seen in the starboard engine, according to Cmdr. Jason Salata, a spokesman for the Naval Surface Forces command in San Diego. The ship returned to port using its diesel engines.

Subsequent examination of the broken engine showed that turbine blading had broken off and damaged the unit, Salata said.

The incident comes at an awkward time for Lockheed Martin, prime contractor for the USS Freedom, which is locked in a competition with Austal USA, the builder of LCS 2.

Later this year, the Navy is expected to choose one of the designs as the basis for 51 more LCS vessels and award a construction contract for a batch of 10 ships.


Lockheed chose the MT30 because it is more powerful than the LM2500, although it is also larger and heavier. The engines on the Freedom each have a nominal rating of 36,000 kilowatts, or 48,280 horsepower. Most versions of the LM2500 are rated at about 26,000 horsepower. The engine turns at about 3,300 revolutions per minute."


*Sounds more like a defect in the blading section and not operator error. So how can the USN or their design be blamed?

IMO, Rolls Royce would be answering those questions not the USN or their design.

Funny thing is not only is this turbine new to maritime use but it will also be used on the new British Aircraft Carriers.

If it failed during the British Carriers sea trials or Ops would you blame the design of the Carrier?

I wouldnt think so either.

The full article from Navy Times:
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/0...eedom-092310w/

[USSWisconsin]

"A high-speed gas turbine engine on board the U.S. Navy’s first Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) broke earlier this month and will need to be replaced, but officials don’t expect the mishap to affect the ship’s testing schedule.

The incident took place Sept. 12 while the USS Freedom was operating off southern California. The ship shut down its two Rolls-Royce MT30 gas turbines after “high vibration indications” were seen in the starboard engine, according to Cmdr. Jason Salata, a spokesman for the Naval Surface Forces command in San Diego. The ship returned to port using its diesel engines.

Subsequent examination of the broken engine showed that turbine blading had broken off and damaged the unit, Salata said.

The incident comes at an awkward time for Lockheed Martin, prime contractor for the USS Freedom, which is locked in a competition with Austal USA, the builder of LCS 2.

Later this year, the Navy is expected to choose one of the designs as the basis for 51 more LCS vessels and award a construction contract for a batch of 10 ships.


Lockheed chose the MT30 because it is more powerful than the LM2500, although it is also larger and heavier. The engines on the Freedom each have a nominal rating of 36,000 kilowatts, or 48,280 horsepower. Most versions of the LM2500 are rated at about 26,000 horsepower. The engine turns at about 3,300 revolutions per minute."

*Sounds more like a defect in the blading section and not operator error. So how can the USN or their design be blamed? IMO, Rolls Royce would be answering those questions not the USN or their design.

Rolls-Royce MT30 gas turbines
A very powerful and new British built engine, a few problems early in its life cycle are not unexpected with an engine like this
http://www.rolls-royce.com/Images/MT...tcm92-8654.pdf

Turbine failure like this would normally be due to a manufacturing defect, had the engine ingested something, the compressor would have failed. Since the engine has electronic controls, the fuel system is unlikely to have caused this, by lean conditions - the computer would have reduced power in time to save the turbine. The engine was shut down, it didn't seize or explode - so the lubrication system worked. Most likely a weld or blade failed in the engine, and led to the damage of turbine section. The electronic controls worked well to stop it in time, while it was still turning - older mechanically controlled engines would probably have seized or blown up.

[Bill]

LCS should be a 3000t, 35 knot, steel hulled, SPY-1K equipped conventional hulled frigate with an 8 cell with TACTOM/ESSM suite(32 missile quad pack), 76mm gun, a SeaRAM mount, and a flight deck/hanger for 2 SMALL ASW/ASuW helicopters.

Nothing fancy, but still credibly multimission mission capable.

As currently configured/envisioned, LCS is a totally retarded waste of money. The USN would have been better off just up-gunning the Cyclone patrol boats, to be honest.

[Dreadnought]

As currently configured/envisioned, LCS is a totally retarded waste of money. The USN would have been better off just up-gunning the Cyclone patrol boats, to be honest.

*With more then half of the realistic hull life expectancy gone on the Cyclones (launched 1992-1994) they only had a 15 year life expectancy to begin with and were recalled for fatigue damaged hulls in 2010 . They have not the range nor capability the LCS posses while the LCS is designed for 30 years hull life. The Cyclones will either be refitted or retired very shortly that decision will be made.

IMO, A total waste of money for these ships to be refitted. They are essentially worn out hulls equiped with old tech and several have even been loaned to the USCG and one to the Phillipine Navy for use.

[USSWisconsin]

LCS should be a 3000t, 35 knot, steel hulled, SPY-1K equipped conventional hulled frigate with an 8 cell with TACTOM/ESSM suite(32 missile quad pack), 76mm gun, a SeaRAM mount, and a flight deck/hanger for 2 SMALL ASW/ASuW helicopters.

Nothing fancy, but still credibly multimission mission capable.

As currently configured/envisioned, LCS is a totally retarded waste of money. The USN would have been better off just up-gunning the Cyclone patrol boats, to be honest.

Perhaps the USN will end up wanting a frigate, something like what you described. There is a pretty good gap between the LCS and the AB. The NSC Coast Guard cutter was considered, perhaps that will be developed into a frigate to fill the gap between the LCS and the Destroyer - if it turns out to be needed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Cutter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclone_class_patrol_ship

[Bill]

It took an awful long time for the Osprey, much criticisms, crashes and deaths and yet she pulled through and into active service.

Yeah, at "only" $130 million per aircraft.

That stupid program should have been cancelled 20 years ago.

Perhaps the USN will end up wanting a frigate, something like what you described. There is a pretty good gap between the LCS and the AB. The NSC Coast Guard cutter was considered, perhaps that will be developed into a frigate to fill the gap between the LCS and the Destroyer - if it turns out to be needed.

Repeat after me: There is no money for another class of ship, and there is no time to develop it before the Perry's are worn out.

The USN had one shot to get this right, and as usual, they totally screwed the pooch. LCS is a freakin' overpriced disaster. A 2800ton under gunned, over powered, under manned, $1bn a pop patrol boat.

*With half of of the realistic hull life expectancy gone on the Cyclones (launched 1992-1994) while the LCS is designed for 30 years hull life?

IMO, A total waste of money for ships that have less then 15 years left on the hull.

Upgunning the cyclones could have been accomplished for a tiny fraction of the cost that the USN sunk into the woefully underarmed and ridiculously overpowered LCS.

The ship is a symbol of everything that was wrong with Rumsfeld's "transformational" concepts.

[surfgun]

Yeah it happens. It's probably not the only thing that broke either. Your point outside of criticism?

That turbine was a R.R. is it the same type as A380 uses (that Australian's had an issue with)? No criticism was implied. Things break, just not so fast. What brand of turbine is the Independence class running? There was really no need to rehash the specifics of the turbine blow up, as it was previously discussed on this board, it was brought up by myself in that other thread. But if others that did not read that other thread, perhaps they found it informative.

[USSWisconsin]

Yeah, at "only" $130 million per aircraft.

That stupid program should have been cancelled 20 years ago.


Repeat after me: There is no money for another class of ship, and there is no time to develop it before the Perry's are worn out.

The USN had one shot to get this right, and as usual, they totally screwed the pooch. LCS is a freakin' overpriced disaster. A 2800ton under gunned, over powered, under manned, $1bn a pop patrol boat.


Upgunning the cyclones could have been accomplished for a tiny fraction of the cost that the USN sunk into the woefully underarmed and ridiculously overpowered LCS.

The ship is a symbol of everything that was wrong with Rumsfeld's "transformational" concepts.

How would you arm the Cyclones?

[Bill]

I'd put a gyro-stabilized FLIR/Radar aimed AAW dual mode 30x173mm chain gun in a bow mount, and if you wanted to get really fancy, some sort of a minimal VLS point defense missile system (adapted from a currently existing design) amidships.

Or perhaps even simpler, just put a SeaRAM or Block 1B Phalanx mount on the bow.

That could then be covered from a bit farther out to sea by the 3000t ESSM armed frigate that the USN -should- have built instead of the LCS.

[Dreadnought]

Yeah, at "only" $130 million per aircraft.

That stupid program should have been cancelled 20 years ago.


Repeat after me: There is no money for another class of ship, and there is no time to develop it before the Perry's are worn out.

The USN had one shot to get this right, and as usual, they totally screwed the pooch. LCS is a freakin' overpriced disaster. A 2800ton under gunned, over powered, under manned, $1bn a pop patrol boat.


Upgunning the cyclones could have been accomplished for a tiny fraction of the cost that the USN sunk into the woefully underarmed and ridiculously overpowered LCS.

The ship is a symbol of everything that was wrong with Rumsfeld's "transformational" concepts.

*And that may be your opinion Bill, not necessarily truth or gospel. Too many facts point to other.
But yet as it seems, Osprey was built, operational and serving in the ME with good success. LCS is built, will no doubt be modified to fit whatever needs the USN has for it and no doubt the Cyclones retired or given to USCG or to foreign navy's which ergo means no longer suitable for Ops with the USN if not upgraded hull wise among other features and dont provide the same platform as the LCS. It lacks numerous USN requirements beginning with its range alone.

*Not one Naval personel or article I know of has ever claimed the LCS would replace the aging OHP class of Frigates either. The USN will soon need to replace the aging Tico's and Arleigh Burkes as well. No one has ever claimed the LCS would do this either to my knowledge.

[Bill]

At $130 million per, Osprey can never be considered a success, by any standard.

The USN will never get even half the LCS hulls it has stated it "needs", and i doubt that even 10 of them will be built before the entire program is cancelled.

The US is on a crash course with insolvency, this is not the days of the Cold War. When the SSI crunch finally hits, we'll be lucky if we can field a navy of rowboats.

Go back and read my predictions before i left this forum, and you will see almost everything i predicted has come to pass.

JSF has more than doubled in cost (and it will continue to spiral in cost), The B model is never going to work, at any cost. FCS is gone, as i said it would be (and should be), PAM/LAM is cancelled, the stupid 6.8mm rifle and the ACR and all those other M-16 replacements are gone, DD-X/DD-21 is gone, years have passed, and there is still no credible NGFS replacement for the BB's in the fleet, ERGM is history, and there isn't anything even on the horizon...and i can go on and on and on.

It was my utter frustration at watching the US military utterly piss away my tax dollars that caused me to stop visiting all manner of defense forums for the last 4 years to begin with.

LCS is just more of the same- a total waste of money that doesn't deliver anything that the USN actually needs.

It is a perversion.

[surfgun]

I'd put a gyro-stabilized FLIR/Radar aimed AAW dual mode 30x173mm chain gun in a bow mount, and if you wanted to get really fancy, some sort of a minimal VLS point defense missile system (adapted from a currently existing design) amidships.

Or perhaps even simpler, just put a SeaRAM or Block 1B Phalanx mount on the bow.

That could then be covered from a bit farther out to sea by the 3000t ESSM armed frigate that the USN -should- have built instead of the LCS.

Wow, I think CWIS or SeaRam would be really overweight for the bow mount of a Cyclone.

[Bill]

The Cyclones could certainly be moderately stretched, but even if it was not possible to mount a Phalanx, a gyrostabilized 25mm or 30mm Bushmaster mount would be completely doable, would be a huge upgrade over the manually aimed 25mm mount currently installed, and would still be very economical to install.

Honestly building the Cyclones with such a mediocre primary armament to begin with was quite stupid as well.

LCS is about as well thought out and useful a ship as the old Pegasus PHM's were....at about a gillion times the cost.

[Dreadnought]

Wow, I think CWIS or SeaRam would be really overweight for the bow mount of a Cyclone.

IMO It would be, they were already worn out hull wise from stress fatigue.

[Dreadnought]

Stretching an already worn out hull is only going to last a few years if that. These are not on the same grade as DD's are. Their time has come, thats why the USCG and a Foreign navy now operates them. The USN must have deemed them not worthy of the cost for what they are going to get out of an outdated hull form that offers nothing for the future. Its prolonging the inevitable.