Originally posted by gf0012-aust
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Littoral Combat Ships
Collapse
X
-
If you are emotionally invested in 'believing' something is true you have lost the ability to tell if it is true.
-
Originally posted by Monash View PostSo 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.
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 nicheLast edited by gf0012-aust; 02 Jun 14,, 12:46.
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 PostHere 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.
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 PostAny idea on their top speed?
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
-
Originally posted by Monash View PostSo 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.
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 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
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 combatantLast edited by gf0012-aust; 16 Jun 14,, 13:50.
Comment
-
Originally posted by gf0012-aust View Postand any vessel with a docking bay.
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 Postaggressive ports and harbour patrolling
Comment
-
Originally posted by kato View PostA 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.
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 PostI 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.
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
Comment