Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Littoral Combat Ships

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

  • Originally posted by gf0012-aust View Post
    the US has used the big cats for a variety of roles when evaluating - including mine warfare and SF insertion - but the big hulled cars (JHSV and TSV) are not a jack of all trades hull - for MW I would think that they're much too big ...... if you're doing brown/green MW then it tends to be clearance diver country, blue water still requires endurance and as the US found to their chagrine - transoceanic.

    they don't need multiple multi-role vessels close to class, they want a broad multi-role vessel within class
    So does this mean the LCS is also 'too big' for a mine clearing duties. Also re: mine clearance in shallow waters, I thought clearance diving was being phased out (to slow/labour intensive/dangerous) as the process was automated and reliable USVs came on line.
    If you are emotionally invested in 'believing' something is true you have lost the ability to tell if it is true.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Monash View Post
      So does this mean the LCS is also 'too big' for a mine clearing duties. Also re: mine clearance in shallow waters, I thought clearance diving was being phased out (to slow/labour intensive/dangerous) as the process was automated and reliable USVs came on line.
      I don't think LCS is too big at all - but the variables are the kinds of MW tech deployed and that one of the other advantages in selecting LCS was its core intent of being MR. Huon is regarded as one of if not the best vessel of type re minehunting, but its hull is designed from the outset and its not bluewater fleet friendly - so its not possible to build a vessel of Huons hull design into a frigate sized vessel - so that means a compromise as soon as you go from green to blue water capability

      Clearance divers are still in demand - esp in black water

      the use of USV/ROV/UUV is very much situation specific - and the tech is very very embryonic and niche
      Last edited by gf0012-aust; 02 Jun 14,, 12:46.
      Linkeden:
      http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
      http://cofda.wordpress.com/

      Comment


      • Here is a depiction of some Lockmart variants.
        http://www.lockheedmartin.com/conten...m-118m-85m.jpg

        These separate veriants include 57mm, 3" and 5" guns, torpedo tubes, VLS, 25mm guns, Harpoon and RAM launchers. Not to mention heavily revised sensor suites.

        The smallest version appears to get by on only diesel power.
        Last edited by surfgun; 03 Jun 14,, 23:58.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by surfgun View Post
          Here is a depiction of some Lockmart variants.
          http://www.lockheedmartin.com/conten...m-118m-85m.jpg

          These versions include 57mm, 3" and 5" guns, torpedo tubes, VLS, 25mm guns, Harpoon and RAM launchers. Not to mention heavily revised sensor suites.

          The smallest version appears to get by on only diesel power.
          Any idea on their top speed?

          Comment


          • They all should be slower. If one assumes the larger version has the same power-plant as the current LCS, I figure she would do slightly better than 40 knots. The mid sized unit looks as it displaces more so it should be a bit slower but still well over 40 knots. The smaller version is all diesel with most likely a power-plant of four diesels like the JHSV, most likely could do near 40 knots.
            Last edited by surfgun; 04 Jun 14,, 00:49.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by jlvfr View Post
              Any idea on their top speed?
              I can't comment on the pics shown, but I've seen the tech specs for similarly sized vessels from Austal and they were 55 knot capable
              Linkeden:
              http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
              http://cofda.wordpress.com/

              Comment


              • Lockheed Outlines Small Surface Combatant Option

                By OTTO KREISHER, Special Correspondent

                ARLINGTON, Va. — Lockheed Martin has told the Navy it can offer a low-risk, affordable option for a new small surface combatant by using already designed modifications to its Freedom-class littoral combat ship (LCS) that can be under construction by 2018, when the current multiyear buy of original LCSs ends, a Lockheed official said June 9.

                But Lockheed shipbuilding official Joe North warned that breaking the current multiyear contract for his company to build 10 of its LCS versions would cost the Navy more money.

                “We have a fixed-price contract for 10. If we only get nine… there are cost consequences,” North said. “They (the Navy) are well aware of it. And I believe the Hill is as well.”

                At Lockheed’s annual media day, North discussed the status of the current LCS program and the company’s proposals to fill the new requirement for a more lethal warship under the directive issued earlier this year by Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel.

                The LCS program, which has been controversial since it was started a decade ago, entered a new stage when Hagel ordered the Navy to stop at 32 ships, instead of the 52 previously planned, and present options for a more conventional small warship that could fight and survive in contested waters.

                LCS originally was intended to be a relatively small, low-cost basic “sea frame” that could be fitted for different missions, including anti-submarine warfare, countermine operations and some surface warfare roles, by putting on board modular packages of systems and sensors, plus the mission specialists. It has been criticized by Pentagon testers as having questionable survivability.

                In addition to the steel monohull version designed by Lockheed and built by Marinette Marine, Austal USA is building an all-aluminum trimaran in the Independence class.

                North said Lockheed provided its response to the Navy’s request for information on a possible small surface combatant in May, offering options derived from the designs it developed for potential international customers. Those adding include more powerful radars, a bigger gun and vertical launch systems — ranging from four to 32 — for a variety of offensive and defensive missiles.

                He disputed the operational testers’ criticism, saying the Freedom class was “more survivable than the Perry-class frigates [FFGs]” because it is built with high-strength steel that did not exist when the FFG 7s were built in the 1980s.
                SEAPOWER Magazine Online

                Comment


                • I hadn't noticed until now... The pic below showing LCS-2 and LCS-4 shows the bridge wings added LCS-2, but not added to LCS-4.

                  Originally posted by JRT View Post
                  Mouse-click on the picture for a much larger version.

                  [ATTACH=CONFIG]37126[/ATTACH]
                  Attached Files
                  Last edited by JRT; 11 Jun 14,, 20:59.
                  .
                  .
                  .

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Monash View Post
                    So does this mean the LCS is also 'too big' for a mine clearing duties. Also re: mine clearance in shallow waters, I thought clearance diving was being phased out (to slow/labour intensive/dangerous) as the process was automated and reliable USVs came on line.
                    The latest issue of Seapower has a good article on this:

                    Sea Power - May/June2014
                    "There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Stitch View Post
                      The latest issue of Seapower has a good article on this:

                      Sea Power - May/June2014
                      Tech such as RMS and whats deployed on the Huons has the advantage of being able to be rapidly deployed across the fleet - if they have to deploy a RHIB and have room for a controller and station then you can put it anywhere.

                      The issue is about what type of mine warfare is being conducted. eg look at the hulls for dedicated MW such as Huon - its specifically designed to go in close and can do the job in green, grey, brown, harbour etc... so the commander is less fearful of the hull triggering a mine - metal hulls automatically require remote systems

                      The US experience which triggered MW modules on LCS was due to the fact that they were not going to travel the path of having to "Blue Marlin" a small MW vessel into a theatre everytime the function was needed. Clearance divers are better in green, brown, harbour water or identified shallow depth mines in the blue. Even then RAMICs was supposed to take over the shallow depth mines "in the blue" role

                      AN LCS with RMS and RAMICS would be formidable. Unfort USN screwed RAMICs and bloated the original concept - as well as screwing the original inventor via beltway buddies
                      Linkeden:
                      http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
                      http://cofda.wordpress.com/

                      Comment


                      • to add further... there is a significant amount of development happening (mainly in europe) with autonomous mine warfare assets - funnily enough, all the major advances in autonomous mine warfare vessels are around those that would be delivered in what amounts to an LCS type platform - and any vessel with a docking bay.

                        These systems are way ahead of current thinking. The CONOPs includes deploying ahead of task forces, clearing lanes ahead of sub forces, green water clearing, aggressive ports and harbour patrolling. These systems are also modular, ie designed to be carried on multi mission/role platforms. ie an LCS construct as the basis of a principle skimmer combatant
                        Last edited by gf0012-aust; 16 Jun 14,, 13:50.
                        Linkeden:
                        http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
                        http://cofda.wordpress.com/

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by gf0012-aust View Post
                          and any vessel with a docking bay.
                          A decade ago, the German Navy was dreaming about completely autonomous very large USVs doing minehunting using further sub-drone systems, to the point that one such ship (a 26x13m SWATH cat) was actually tested for these purposes (the same class was later sold as patrol ships to Baltic navies; they carry a modular mission container btw). Intention was to effectively triplicate clearing areas for a manned minehunter which would be acting as a core ship for two such USVs.

                          Couple years ago, the same Navy was then dreaming about procuring small dock ships for the purpose of transporting these USVs to overseas deployments - with the Seepferd prototype name for the above class mentioned - with the mothership also acting - with modularized control equipment - as the core to control its autonomous USVs.

                          Originally posted by gf0012-aust View Post
                          aggressive ports and harbour patrolling
                          Germany is testing a modular ground C4I system based off the CMS for the F125 that is intended as a full solution for harbour protection - large UUVs doing large-scale patrolling of the inshore waters and constantly scanning the harbour floor with ground-penetrating radar and sidescan sonar; small UUVs inspecting ships beneath the waterline; networked posts at accesses to the site; managed road patrols; containerized phased-array radar controlling airspace and littoral sea surface out to 60 miles... and that's just the stuff it could do five years ago. They apparently started reworking the system last year to fully containerize it with all components including sensors in standard TEUs.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by kato View Post
                            A decade ago, the German Navy was dreaming about completely autonomous very large USVs doing minehunting using further sub-drone systems, to the point that one such ship (a 26x13m SWATH cat) was actually tested for these purposes (the same class was later sold as patrol ships to Baltic navies; they carry a modular mission container btw). Intention was to effectively triplicate clearing areas for a manned minehunter which would be acting as a core ship for two such USVs.

                            Couple years ago, the same Navy was then dreaming about procuring small dock ships for the purpose of transporting these USVs to overseas deployments - with the Seepferd prototype name for the above class mentioned - with the mothership also acting - with modularized control equipment - as the core to control its autonomous USVs.


                            Germany is testing a modular ground C4I system based off the CMS for the F125 that is intended as a full solution for harbour protection - large UUVs doing large-scale patrolling of the inshore waters and constantly scanning the harbour floor with ground-penetrating radar and sidescan sonar; small UUVs inspecting ships beneath the waterline; networked posts at accesses to the site; managed road patrols; containerized phased-array radar controlling airspace and littoral sea surface out to 60 miles... and that's just the stuff it could do five years ago. They apparently started reworking the system last year to fully containerize it with all components including sensors in standard TEUs.
                            I don't know if you are aware of this, but within NATO, mind clearance was sort of given to Germany as an area of subject matter expertise. It's not something that's necessarily advertised, but that was the understanding between member nations. The US Navy for instance hasn't invested that heavily in mine hunting and clearance ships because we were to rely upon other member nations to do that sort of heavy lifting while we took care of some other areas. I don't know that's the best idea ever, but I can tell you that Germany and as I recall, the Netherlands as well, are pretty good at that stuff relative to the USN.

                            Comment


                            • Eguermin is the expertise center both today and traditionally - nowadays the NATO Naval Mine Warfare CoE. ABNL, i.e. Netherlands/Belgium.

                              Germany got the NATO "Operations in Confined and Shallow Waters" (i.e. Littoral Warfare) CoE instead. Which is particularly funny because outside of the remaining ten minehunters, our smallest combat ships nowadays are 1900-ton light frigates. The USN, quite naturally, got the NATO "Combined Joint Operations from the Sea" CoE btw. Carrier and amphibious warfare expertise.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by desertswo View Post
                                I don't know if you are aware of this, but within NATO, mind clearance was sort of given to Germany as an area of subject matter expertise.
                                Mind clearance? I'm pretty sure the Germans took a dim view of L.Ron Hubbard and his Scientology methods in mind clearance...;)


                                As to these ships I'm beginning to wonder why the hell the Navy decided to go with them the more I read when everyone one else seems to favor well armed frigates today. God help an LCS if it meets up with one of those new frigates.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X