Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Littoral Combat Ships

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

  • jlvfr
    replied
    Originally posted by kato View Post
    I think the Romanian riverine flotilla would contest that notion, along with the stuff the Soviets had on the Amur in the Cold War or the Volga in the 40s.

    The current Brutar II river monitors on about 3.4 times the weight of a MGB bring a complete T-55 tank turret with its 100mm, two BTR70 turrets with coaxial 14.5mm and 7.62mm, two ZPU-4 quad 14.5mm HMG mounts, two 40-rail 122mm Grad launchers for artillery and a twin 30mm plus shoulder-launcherd Strelas for AA.
    Yeah, but those were river boats... MTBs and MGBs roamed in the Atlantic and Mediterraneum, Even if they hugged the coast, that's still a harsher environment that any river.

    Leave a comment:


  • kato
    replied
    Originally posted by jlvfr View Post
    Weight--for-weight, that must be of the most heavily armed ships in history...
    I think the Romanian riverine flotilla would contest that notion, along with the stuff the Soviets had on the Amur in the Cold War or the Volga in the 40s.

    The current Brutar II river monitors on about 3.4 times the weight of a MGB bring a complete T-55 tank turret with its 100mm, two BTR70 turrets with coaxial 14.5mm and 7.62mm, two ZPU-4 quad 14.5mm HMG mounts, two 40-rail 122mm Grad launchers for artillery and a twin 30mm plus shoulder-launcherd Strelas for AA.

    Leave a comment:


  • jlvfr
    replied
    Originally posted by TopHatter View Post

    Not storage, but several in museums and one that still tools around in the water. Thinking about a weekend pleasure craft? We could go halfsies
    Don't think any coast guard would like that... ;)

    And I think maybe some of the RN's MGBs would fit the LCS-bill better; some were crammed with guns in every corner. MGB 658, for example, carried 2 6pdrs, a twin-20mm, 2 single 20mm, 2 twin .303 MGs and depth charges. In under 100 tons. And had radar. Weight--for-weight, that must be of the most heavily armed ships in history...

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    Originally posted by jlvfr View Post

    Any WWII MTBs still in storage?...
    Not storage, but several in museums and one that still tools around in the water. Thinking about a weekend pleasure craft? We could go halfsies

    Leave a comment:


  • jlvfr
    replied
    Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post

    If you need a stop gap buy a bunch of off the shelf patrol boats and forward deploy with the Austin's yanked from mothballs until the new frigates come on line.

    These are good money after bad.
    Any WWII MTBs still in storage?...

    Leave a comment:


  • tbm3fan
    replied
    Freedom Class must have copied Ford's Power Shift automatic transmission which has been a dog for Ford and every car owner with one.

    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    Originally posted by looking4NSFS View Post
    And the hits keep on coming.......
    The propulsion train issues seem to be only on the Freedom Class, so at least we have that going for us.
    When the decision was made to go with both the Freedom and Independence class LCS I was skeptical, But perhaps, at least as it impacts propulsion issues, it was a good decision? Is it time to cut bait on the Freedom Class vs trying to fix the issue? Drop the high speed requirement and just fix them so they can at least make 30ish knots? (I'm just winging it on that last proposal) Focus all future building on the Independence class? (again realizing lead time for procurement may not make this necessarily a feasible COA)
    As an Acquisition Logistician whose entire job is to look at sustainability of a system.....

    Don't spend another dime.

    Send to FMS immediately....

    These things are money pits which provide no value to defense.

    If you need a stop gap buy a bunch of off the shelf patrol boats and forward deploy with the Austin's yanked from mothballs until the new frigates come on line.

    These are good money after bad.

    Leave a comment:


  • jlvfr
    replied
    The USN needs to get it's new frigates fast...

    Leave a comment:


  • looking4NSFS
    replied
    And the hits keep on coming.......
    The propulsion train issues seem to be only on the Freedom Class, so at least we have that going for us.
    When the decision was made to go with both the Freedom and Independence class LCS I was skeptical, But perhaps, at least as it impacts propulsion issues, it was a good decision? Is it time to cut bait on the Freedom Class vs trying to fix the issue? Drop the high speed requirement and just fix them so they can at least make 30ish knots? (I'm just winging it on that last proposal) Focus all future building on the Independence class? (again realizing lead time for procurement may not make this necessarily a feasible COA)


    WASHINGTON – Repeated failures in the propulsion train on the Freedom-class littoral combat ships Little Rock and Detroit have raised the specter of a class-wide design flaw that could trigger an expensive reworking of a crucial component on 17 of the Navy’s small surface combatants.

    The issue being investigated is whether there is a fundamental issue with the design of the Freedom-class’ combining gear — a complex transmission that connects power from two large gas turbine engines and two main propulsion diesel engines to the ship’s propulsion shafts, which propel the ship through the water with water jets.

    A potential class-wide issue with the propulsion train on 17 ships either in the fleet or under contract is the latest in a long string of issues with the littoral combat ship program. Senior Navy leaders have tried repeatedly to set the program aright only to be confronted with stubborn challenges ranging from unreliable engineering plants to glacial development progress on the sensor packages that would give the ships credible warfighting capabilities.
    Another littoral combat ship breaks down on deployment


    It's the latest in a string of reliability issues that have plagued the LCS since its introduction to the fleet.

    By: David Larter
    The combining gear issue came to a head with repeated failures in recent months on the littoral combat ships Little Rock and Detroit, issues linked to the “high speed clutch bearings failing prematurely,” according to a statement from Naval Sea Systems Command.

    Detroit’s combining gear suffered a casualty in October, forcing the ship to have to limp back to Florida. A subsequent power failure during the transit forced the ship to have to be towed into port.

    In a statement, Naval Sea Systems Command said it was conducing a “root cause analysis” of the repeated breakdowns.

    “The government is investigating a material defect with the combining gear of USS Detroit and USS Little Rock, both Freedom-variant littoral combat ships,” the statement reads. “A joint Navy and Lockheed Martin team with RENK AG, the original equipment manufacturer, are conducting a root cause analysis of this defect.”

    But it’s beginning to look like a bigger problem.

    The Navy is closing in on an assessment that the issue may need to be addressed across the class, the statement reads, an issue that experts have told Defense News would be difficult and costly. In the meantime, the in-service ships are limiting the use of its combining gear, which limits ships specifically designed for speed to operating at around 10 knots.

    “Based upon preliminary assessments, the defect appears to be a design issue that will need to be addressed across the Freedom class,” the statement reads. “The Navy is taking the final steps to verify this as part of the root cause analysis of the combining gear failures. While this is in progress, measures have been implemented to mitigate risk to all the in-service Freedom variant ships.”



    Link to the whole, sad, frustrating, entire........ article:
    https://www.defensenews.com/naval/20...e-design-flaw/

    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    Originally posted by jlvfr View Post
    They are so new I completely forgot about them... duh..

    Yeah, those fit the bill for a light jack-of-all-trades. And look, France is bacl to the thumblehome... :D
    Totally agree...

    Leave a comment:


  • jlvfr
    replied
    Originally posted by kato View Post
    If you want a light multipurpose ship with limited self-defense, ASW focus to replace the OHP and the capability to slot into a carrier group - look at the French Admiral Ronarc'h class aka FTI/FDI that they're building now.
    They are so new I completely forgot about them... duh..

    Yeah, those fit the bill for a light jack-of-all-trades. And look, France is bacl to the thumblehome... :D

    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    The Navy has been suffering from a bit of schizophrenia over what it needs. It has been whipsawed the new carriers, the new Columbia class SSBN, new amphibs and the cost of the F-35. The F-35 seems to be under control, same with the amphibs. LCS was seen as a way to go cheap to fill the gap with the loss of the OHPs...a gap long left unfilled or given to the Burke's....and a Burke is a big time overkill.

    Hopefully FFG(X) get's them there.

    Leave a comment:


  • kato
    replied
    Originally posted by jlvfr View Post
    beef up the design for 30-32 knots, and a hangar for a Blackhawk, add sime VLS for a couple dozen Sparrow SAMs and... voila.
    If you want a light multipurpose ship with limited self-defense, ASW focus to replace the OHP and the capability to slot into a carrier group - look at the French Admiral Ronarc'h class aka FTI/FDI that they're building now.

    France, with this new class, is now replacing those ships that were built intended for LCS-like deployments in the late 90s - and had similar problems, to the point where they're castrated comparably unarmed ships with lots of non-navy-standard equipment. The new ships are basically a FREMM shrunk in size and equipment to be a modern equivalent to a OHP. Primary intended operation is solo presence/cooperation missions (where you don't want to send something bigger/costlier), ocean escort for amphibious ships and other secondary large units, adhoc integration into the carrier group.

    In my opinion the hull would have been a much better fit for FFG(X) compared to the Burke-sized FREMMs. If you want a OHP replacement that can do the OHP's job.

    Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    Something between the Visby-class, Braunschweig class and Sa'ar 5 class.
    The Sa'ar 5 were pretty looked down upon as "not ocean-capable" and "overloaded with weapon systems of limited effectiveness" at their time by other navies.

    Turkish Ada-class corvettes might have been more suitable to US requirements as a small platform, even if they're a bit short-legged.

    Leave a comment:


  • jlvfr
    replied
    Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    Not sure you need a OHP replacement...which is kinda what you are saying.
    Was thinking of a proper multi-purpose/light escort ship, which is what most european frigates (and corvetes like the K130) are.

    Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    That said, bring on the FFG(X) ASAP.

    But I really do wish we had a 5"/54' mounted on them....but I will live with getting the 32 cell VLS!
    Indeed. And maybe then the USN can get decent numbers of usefull ships, without ripping it's wallet a new one...

    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    Originally posted by jlvfr View Post
    Tbf the K130 is a bit too small for the USN; it's hangar is only big enough for UAVs, while the USN needs to carry a Blackhawk. It also has a speed of (afaik) only 25-26knots, so it would never be able to operate with a CV group. So beef up the design for 30-32 knots, and a hangar for a Blackhawk, add sime VLS for a couple dozen Sparrow SAMs and... voila.
    Not sure you need a OHP replacement...which is kinda what you are saying.

    Something between the Visby-class, Braunschweig class and Sa'ar 5 class.

    And our recent history has shown the value that ship's company size is important for damage control....because in waters where they would operate damage is a mid-high risk.

    That said, bring on the FFG(X) ASAP.

    But I really do wish we had a 5"/54' mounted on them....but I will live with getting the 32 cell VLS!

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X