Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Littoral Combat Ships

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

  • jlvfr
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • kato
    replied
    Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    I agree the NIH syndrome hit hard...a lot of our NATO Allies have a ton of shallow water experience and hulls we should have plugged into.
    To be fair it's not like programmes of the time went any better over here.

    The German K130 corvettes are basically our version of the LCS ASuW package - built for the same purpose, designed originally with much the same equipment. Much like with LCS, the first thing laid down was just "how many", then the trade-off wars between different groups started on "what do we want it to be capable of" and "we want this and that fancy new thing on it". Oh, and all with the caveat that it had to be cheap and small and please not that big a crew. Oh, and since the industry knows how to build a ship we can pretty much let them do that without any oversight too. And it'll create jobs. Especially since all our allies will want to buy them too.
    The end result was that we had a ship class that was aborted after the first batch (one-third of planning), didn't carry any of that fancy stuff proposed at all (although these subprojects were timely aborted, unlike with LCS), had long-time problems with cheap components bought in Eastern Europe (gearboxes) or wrong installations (air conditioning), and factually took about 9 years after first deliveries until the class was declared really fully usable.

    By now we're buying a second batch.

    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    KAto,

    You nailed it. My thought's exactly. Tried to get too fancy and not do what American shipyards have done...designed and built multimission platforms which were good at a lot of things and very good in one thing. I agree the NIH syndrome hit hard...a lot of our NATO Allies have a ton of shallow water experience and hulls we should have plugged into.

    As to what to do with them....I was only partially kidding about the give to the Coast Guard idea. The LCS are pretty stable platforms and could host aircraft and boarding parties for drug interdiction, etc. High speed pays off there.

    Leave a comment:


  • kato
    replied
    Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    The USN should have just stuck with frigates....didn't have to be a straight OHP deep water replacement but we don't need a Burke DD Mini-Me either.
    The real question is what the USN would do with the ships. Realistically, the carrier escort role is fulfilled entirely with Burkes (incl. Flight III replacing Ticos). The USN - offhand from memory - has a grand total of three squadrons that operate for other purposes: One for the Mediterranean at Rota, one rotationally forward-deployed for the South China Sea at Singapore and one for the Carribean at Mayport. And realistically those squadrons and theaters are basically where LCS were planned for.

    The problem for LCS design in my opinion was the capability creep that resulted from the USN having about zero idea about modern warfare in confined and shallow waters and throwing their sole (mid-80s) experience at the problem. And a whole lot of NIH syndrome preventing early cancellation or non-inclusion of technological cul-de-sacs long aborted in other places.

    Leave a comment:


  • jlvfr
    replied
    40knots would make for a nice high speed target...

    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    Originally posted by kato View Post
    The Legend-class Cutters were designed a generation ago ship-wise, carry a variety of systems not even remotely relevant to their role (but relevant in their role as "auxiliary frigates"), and have been pretty much as much an engineering disaster as LCS itself.

    German Potsdam class OPVs, 25% smaller than a LCS, have the same primary 57mm gun armament and both boat and helicopter facilities. With a crew of 14. The low-automation variant of the same hull that we've sold to various South American countries over the last ten years are run with crews of 30. French POM or Australian Arafura OCV for current models in procurement also run crews of 30 or less.
    For concurrent OPVs by generation with LCS, Spanish Meteoro OPV run crews of 46 incl. helo detachment, Dutch Hollands 50, British Rivers 60 max with aviation (34 ship only).
    Kato, you are missing my point.

    I was making a not so subtle allusion that the Navy should just dump the vessels.

    Five them to the Coast Guard for repurposing, give them to the Taiwanese, Filipinos, Vietnamese, use them for a SINKEX.

    It is a poor idea badly executed.

    The USN should have just stuck with frigates....didn't have to be a straight OHP deep water replacement but we don't need a Burke DD Mini-Me either.

    The F-35 program finally seemed to get its act together.

    LCS not so much.

    Leave a comment:


  • kato
    replied
    Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    Both LCS classes have half the crew of a USCG Legend class Cutter. And the armament suites are almost identical.
    The Legend-class Cutters were designed a generation ago ship-wise, carry a variety of systems not even remotely relevant to their role (but relevant in their role as "auxiliary frigates"), and have been pretty much as much an engineering disaster as LCS itself.

    German Potsdam class OPVs, 25% smaller than a LCS, have the same primary 57mm gun armament and both boat and helicopter facilities. With a crew of 14. The low-automation variant of the same hull that we've sold to various South American countries over the last ten years are run with crews of 30. French POM or Australian Arafura OCV for current models in procurement also run crews of 30 or less.
    For concurrent OPVs by generation with LCS, Spanish Meteoro OPV run crews of 46 incl. helo detachment, Dutch Hollands 50, British Rivers 60 max with aviation (34 ship only).
    Last edited by kato; 11 Aug 20,, 17:16.

    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    Originally posted by kato View Post
    For most Western coastguards by modern standards LCS would be considerably overmanned, including for its carried equipment and weapons. You can easily get ships with that size and capability set (maybe not the unnecessary oversized propulsion) with between half and one-third the crew.
    Both LCS classes have half the crew of a USCG Legend class Cutter.

    And the armament suites are almost identical.

    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    Originally posted by jlvfr View Post
    Who would want nearly unarmed hulls with tiny crews? Specially with their history of reliability issues...
    The Philippines for one....but it was kind of a smartass comment on my part.

    Leave a comment:


  • thebard
    replied
    Admittedly, I haven't really been keeping track of this so much, but I thought the reliability issues had finally been mostly resolved. I Also thought the 'mission module' concept had been largely abandoned, with various ships semi-permanently equipped for a particular mission. Yes/no?

    A side note, USS St. Louis commissioned Saturday-
    https://news.usni.org/2020/08/11/vid...oning-ceremony

    Leave a comment:


  • jlvfr
    replied
    Originally posted by kato View Post
    For most Western coastguards by modern standards LCS would be considerably overmanned, including for its carried equipment and weapons. You can easily get ships with that size and capability set (maybe not the unnecessary oversized propulsion) with between half and one-third the crew.
    But what are the maintenance costs of that hull, not to mention it's grossly oversized "must do 40knots!!!" machinery?

    Leave a comment:


  • kato
    replied
    Originally posted by jlvfr View Post
    Who would want nearly unarmed hulls with tiny crews?
    For most Western coastguards by modern standards LCS would be considerably overmanned, including for its carried equipment and weapons. You can easily get ships with that size and capability set (maybe not the unnecessary oversized propulsion) with between half and one-third the crew.

    Leave a comment:


  • jlvfr
    replied
    Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    I'd say turn them over to the Coast Guard and smaller allies and get on with the new frigates.
    Who would want nearly unarmed hulls with tiny crews? Specially with their history of reliability issues...

    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    I'd say turn them over to the Coast Guard and smaller allies and get on with the new frigates.

    Leave a comment:


  • looking4NSFS
    replied
    CNO gets focused on the LCS.
    Two issues noted are the "complicated drive chain" and "long delayed mission packages." Neither a surprise. With 35 hulls some useful function must be found.

    “There are things in the near term that I have to deliver, that I’m putting heat on now, and one of them is LCS,” Gilday said. “One part is sustainability and reliability. We know enough about that platform and the problems that we have that plague us with regard to reliability and sustainability, and I need them resolved. That requires a campaign plan to get after it and have it reviewed by me frequently enough so that I can be sighted on it. Those platforms have been around since 2008 — we need to get on with it."

    Link:
    https://www.defensenews.com/naval/20...x-the-program/

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X