Littoral Combat Ships

[db2646]

I'm just wondering if the LCS (Freedom and Independence) configured ships are able to handle an 76mm cannon without much engineering changes to the hulls and structures. If indeed changes must be made, would there be space for this larger cannon than the 57mm?

[surfgun]

Freedom Class can, there are some doubts about the aluminum Independence Class (as some have said no).

[db2646]

Thank you for the quick response. However, I remember that the General Dynamics Vice President had stated that if the Navy wants a larger canon, i.e., the 76mm that they are able to do it. Also he added that they can also put VLS on the ship without problems?

[TopHatter]

Thank you for the quick response. However, I remember that the General Dynamics Vice President had stated that if the Navy wants a larger canon, i.e., the 76mm that they are able to do it. Also he added that they can also put VLS on the ship without problems?

That's likely because both export variants can do so:

There are 2 interesting aspects to LCS export bids. One is their equipment, which is radically different from the US Navy’s set.

Lockheed Martin’s international Multi-Mission Combat Ship (MMCS) version, which attracted some interest from Israel before cost issues intervened, has a variety of configurations from OPV/corvette to large frigate size. In addition to their upgraded radars, torpedo tubes, and 8 Harpoon missiles, these ships offer between 4-48 VLS cells, some of which are full strike-length size.

General Dynamics’ trimaran adds torpedo tubes, plus 16 tactical-length vertical launch (VLS) cells for VL-ASROC anti-submarine launchers or up to 64 quad-packed RIM-162 ESSM anti-air missiles."There are 2 interesting aspects to LCS export bids. One is their equipment, which is radically different from the US Navy’s set. Lockheed Martin’s international Multi-Mission Combat Ship (MMCS) version, which attracted some interest from Israel before cost issues intervened, has a variety of configurations from OPV/corvette to large frigate size. In addition to their upgraded radars, torpedo tubes, and 8 Harpoon missiles, these ships offer between 4-48 VLS cells, some of which are full strike-length size. General Dynamics’ trimaran adds torpedo tubes, plus 16 tactical-length vertical launch (VLS) cells for VL-ASROC anti-submarine launchers or up to 64 quad-packed RIM-162 ESSM anti-air missiles." Link

[gf0012-aust]

Thank you for the quick response. However, I remember that the General Dynamics Vice President had stated that if the Navy wants a larger canon, i.e., the 76mm that they are able to do it. Also he added that they can also put VLS on the ship without problems?

It's naval gun - not a canon

The issue of what capacity and calibre weapon is one that hinges on the design reqs as determined by the user requirements

outside of that its an engineering issue based on a number of other issues

you just can't add a bigger calibre naval gun.

issues like ROF tests against the superstructure are not linear tests, the force and stress is exponential and unless your intent is to overengineer in advance, then you will be cognisant of weight, space and hull dynamics. That is built into the initial design elements

to whit - where in the design requirements (rhetorical q) is there reference to upgunning to 75/76mm? was it defined in the original CONOPs - and more to the point, in any of the spiral development reqs, where has the service asked for a change in weapons system scope to go to the larger calibre weapons system? - that is always determined by service requirements - so if there is a need for 75/76mm then that would indicate that the initial mission sets and vignettes used for hull and capability definition were deficient in the first place.

If you're going from 57mm to 75/76mm then what mission set is articulating the benefit as the engineering requirement to develop and test the change would be hard to defend,

[chanjyj]

This her in the background?

[TopHatter]

This her in the background?

Yes indeed. That "dazzle" camouflage is a dead giveaway.

[db2646]

It's naval gun - not a canon

The issue of what capacity and calibre weapon is one that hinges on the design reqs as determined by the user requirements

outside of that its an engineering issue based on a number of other issues

you just can't add a bigger calibre naval gun.

issues like ROF tests against the superstructure are not linear tests, the force and stress is exponential and unless your intent is to overengineer in advance, then you will be cognisant of weight, space and hull dynamics. That is built into the initial design elements

to whit - where in the design requirements (rhetorical q) is there reference to upgunning to 75/76mm? was it defined in the original CONOPs - and more to the point, in any of the spiral development reqs, where has the service asked for a change in weapons system scope to go to the larger calibre weapons system? - that is always determined by service requirements - so if there is a need for 75/76mm then that would indicate that the initial mission sets and vignettes used for hull and capability definition were deficient in the first place.

If you're going from 57mm to 75/76mm then what mission set is articulating the benefit as the engineering requirement to develop and test the change would be hard to defend,

Ok GF, it is an Naval Gun. Just thinking of Rear Admiral Perez's report on the LCS that it is lightly armed and unable to defend itself. It is not currently defined at the moment, I suppose, on the CONOPS for the 76mm Naval Gun and VLS, etc., but that could change very rapidly?

[USSWisconsin]

I was thinking a howitzer module would be interesting. Perhaps 105 or 120mm? To be used in NGFS, it would probably need to be a new design.

As far as Self Defense, which potential adversary is going to shrug off rapid fire 57mm hits? I'm all for a 76mm mount on the LCS, but I don't see a critical need to include it for SD, though it would be more versatile for light NGFS use. If they want the LCS to be able to threaten an enemy frigate, harpoons or torpedoes make more sense to me.

[gf0012-aust]

Ok GF, it is an Naval Gun. Just thinking of Rear Admiral Perez's report on the LCS that it is lightly armed and unable to defend itself. It is not currently defined at the moment, I suppose, on the CONOPS for the 76mm Naval Gun and VLS, etc., but that could change very rapidly?

It's a pretty fundamental question

If a vessel has been designed around the CONOPS as determined and accepted by the Service and its community - then if its been accepted along the way then the weapons system has been deemed to be suitable for the task

If its not, and if a bigger calibre weapon is then identified as needed for the job - then that brings into question the entire requirements determination process - and that means that at every step, along the way, everyone involved in determining those requirements didn't understand the type of vessel designed for the mission sets that were used to develop build intent and to cover off the CONOPs

A comment about a platform being "lightly armed" made without context and/or in isolation of understanding what mission set(s) he was referring to becomes meaningless

you determine the combat systems and weapons systems from day 1 of design definition - and the Service, has active and visible contributions back into those design reqs. They sign off on the requirements before anyone commits money to building it.

You cannot just go and change a smaller calibre weapon for a larger one without impacting on the overall platforms engineering baseline

ROF impact on structure, deck real estate, hull integrity, handlng, acoustic management issues, bunkerage, hull intrusion, armoured storage changes, displacement, time on station due to weight,displacement, bunkerage changes, internal redesign issues such as crew quarters all get impacted by what some might think is just a 18mm change in calibre.

its not that simple - and becomes more complex the smaller the vessel as inherent build flexibility changes and reduces as the class/type becomes smaller

[db2646]

I guess GF what you're saying is Rear Admiral Perez was wrong in his assessments of the LCS. Quotes: "A comment about a platform being "lightly armed" made without context and/or in isolation of understanding what mission set(s) he was referring to becomes meaningless." My comments were based on his report. Also, Vice Admiral Hunt also stated that some of Rear Admiral Perez' some findings are currently being corrected.

Actually based on articles that I have read, too many, that the LCS was ill designed and doesn't fit the role of a frigate, minesweeper, etc. The USN is looking for some type of role these LCS will fit into that is why the rushed the fielding of the Freedom?

Mistakes happen although everyone signed-off on the original designs of the ship based on contrators' information and high up in the decision making process bought the hype presented to them. Original CONOPS can change. It is not etched in stone.

I suppose it is not too late to re-design these ships since the projected number of these LCS is 52. Not sure if there are engineering changes already being implemented on LCS 3 and 4?

[gf0012-aust]

Ok GF, it is an Naval Gun. Just thinking of Rear Admiral Perez's report on the LCS that it is lightly armed and unable to defend itself.

Before you post again, I suggest that you make a serious effort to read and understand exactly what I said.

Let me give you fair warning - if you start posting and engaging like you have elsewhere, you'll have a very short posting cycle on here as well

It is not currently defined at the moment, I suppose, on the CONOPS for the 76mm Naval Gun and VLS, etc., but that could change very rapidly?

engineering is engineering - what bit have you not understood from my 2 previous responses?

there is no CONOPs for the weapons system, the CONOPs is about the platform. Weapon system selection is a legacy issue post CONOPs

[gf0012-aust]

Actually based on articles that I have read, too many, that the LCS was ill designed and doesn't fit the role of a frigate, minesweeper, etc. The USN is looking for some type of role these LCS will fit into that is why the rushed the fielding of the Freedom?

There's no shortage of reports on the internet - the relevance of them is determined by context and whether they're balanced. for or against- basic principles apply

Mistakes happen although everyone signed-off on the original designs of the ship based on contrators' information and high up in the decision making process bought the hype presented to them. Original CONOPS can change. It is not etched in stone.

The contractors build to the requirements

What hype? Many of us have done this or do this kind of work for a job - some of us (like me) have worked on all sides of the fence and so seeing someone dumb down the debate to these kinds on platitudes becomes a tad irritating. You don't seem to have any awareness of how many people throughout the chain get involved. Making comments about "buying hype" is not something that leads me to believe to you have a clue about what is actually involved.

The Admirals view is one of many which will be diverse in any church of opinion, his rank does not generate any credibility over and above anyone else who can defend the platform intent. eg I know skimmer drivers of flag rank who believe that subs are "dirty warfare" - hardly a yardstick of credibility from a warfighting perspective

As for the CONOPs change? You're confusing force development, threat change and platform intent.

I suppose it is not too late to re-design these ships since the projected number of these LCS is 52. Not sure if there are engineering changes already being implemented on LCS 3 and 4?

If you make major changes to platform then you have a different class of vessel - iterative changes to design happen all the time - look at CVN's post the Big E for how thats done. All the current CVN's are basically legacy generation assets and yet there are probably 3 distinct platforms of class.

[db2646]

Why all these threatening remarks? It is a difference in opinion. I knew I have been in a different forum and I also expressed my opinions there. Thus I was banned for expressing what I believed in? I think I'm still in the USA and covered by the First Amendment to the Constitution?

If you really know what the USN and US Congress is planning to do with the LCS, why don't you tell us exactly? I believe it is NOT Status Quo!

There are always changes to any weapon system, be a ship, tank, howitzer, airplane, etc. The only constant is change. Why not change an weapon system that is not meeting its intended purpose? I would think the USN hasn't decided yet what to do with the LCS?

[gf0012-aust]

Why all these threatening remarks? It is a difference in opinion. I knew I have been in a different forum and I also expressed my opinions there. Thus I was banned for expressing what I believed in? I think I'm still in the USA and covered by the First Amendment to the Constitution?

Private forum sport - private rules. Constitutional rights aren't up for discussion in a private forum.

You were banned elsewhere because you were combative, disruptive and trolling. Plus you ignored Mod directions. Same rules apply here. Take note of it.

If you really know what the USN and US Congress is planning to do with the LCS, why don't you tell us exactly? I believe it is NOT Status Quo!

Make the effort to understand what I wrote previously. The above comment has zero to do with what I've posted prev?

There are always changes to any weapon system, be a ship, tank, howitzer, airplane, etc. The only constant is change. Why not change an weapon system that is not meeting its intended purpose? I would think the USN hasn't decided yet what to do with the LCS?

CREF prev. what bit do you not understand about the definition and engineering process that has been laboriously explained

and to reinforce my prev

any nonsense on here as you displayed elsewhere will be dealt with just as swiftly

any backchat about Mod direction will start to gather you frequent non flying points....