Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Littoral Combat Ships

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

  • The NSM seems like a good choice for the LCS. Small enough to carry in useful numbers but big enough to keep larger surface combatants honest. I also read that the NSM is going to be integrated on the F-35, which should be able to carry a pair internally. The new version will be able to perform ground attack and anti-shipping duties.

    May not be a bad idea for the US to get a license to produce them domestically if they measure up well in tests.

    Comment


    • Several people have commented challenging the idea of why high speed is necessary. Particularly: "It's too expensive" !

      As an ex US Navy Radarman, (60's) here is my 2 cents. I tend to think "submarines", but things that apply to subs may also apply to surface ships.

      When you design a world class sub, you are looking for 3 things. One, stealth, or quietness, two, the ability to dive DEEP, (if you are short on money, this is the one that is usually dropped). The third thing is SPEED, which comes in handy when you are running away from a 50 knot torpedo.

      OK, yes, fuel consumption increases with the square of the increase in speed. (I'm not talking specific design here) But all you have to do to extend range is slow down, (and or remove weight) I am encouraged by the fact that some of these new ships have turbines AND diesel engines. Why ? The answer is that, properly designed, if a ship can run on one diesel instead of 2 diesels and 2 huge turbines, it can operate reasonably economically like a world war II diesel submarine. You crank up the extra engines according to need only when you need it.

      If you are not "up to speed", World War II subs generally had 4 separate diesels that could operate in unison or singly. So when they wanted to get back to "Pearl Harbor" form Taiwan, they would surface and run 4 diesels to get back to shore leave as fast as possible (18 - 19 knots) . When they surfaced in a war zone, during patrol, they ran at least three engines initially to charge the depleted batteries as quickly as possible and travel. As the batteries came up to charge they only ran two diesels and finished up on one before they dived in the morning. When they were in an appropriate place (away from enemy threat) some designs had a SMALLER auxiliary diesel just large enough to keep batteries "topped off" and maneuver at 3 - 5 knots.

      It didn't hurt that they stored extra diesel on the way out to patrol areas in ballast tanks, increasing total range.

      SPEED is necessary or useful when you are attacking in surprise and it is also very helpful getting away.

      Now I am going to make this personal. When I served on the William M Wood DD-715 or other destroyers, in the 60's during the "cold war" we did antisubmarine warfare. We carried Mark 48's. On regular patrol we carried at least one nuclear weapon. Our primary antisubmarine system was ASROC (antisubmarine rocket system)

      Under presidential order and that ONLY, we could have been ordered to launch the nuclear option to "take out" a Russian boomer readying a nuclear launch against Miami, Atlanta, or Washington.

      Now remember, we tracked in real time these Russian boomers, coordinating closely with aircraft carriers, cruisers, missile frigates, airplanes, and helicopters, and frankly we were dam good ! Russian subs were slower then. If under a war scenario we launched a nuclear depth charge and dropped one on a sub 5 miles away, we would be heavily damaged by the shock wave. The problem was what if he was located 1/2 mile off your port bow ?

      We wouldn't have survived. So let me tell you how this works. If you launch a nuclear weapon you ready your weapons systems and head for the target at max speed, say 33 knots on a Fletcher class destroyer, as you are turning 180 degrees, more or less, you launch; basically the missile is going straight up and dropping straight down by parachute. Even though you are leaving at 33 + knots, you are in the blast area. Even if you are not close enough to be incinerated, your hull will be cracked into two or three pieces and that is not conducive to longevity.

      So there are scenarios that do not occur everyday. In the scenario I just described, I would prefer running away at 50 knots rather than 33 knots. Faster is always harder to hit especially by ships in the third world. A 15 knot increase over average speed, when evading, during egress, gives most torpedoes a harder time, because they can't run forever.

      I don't see many people talking about it, but it is very attractive for countries like China to use small powerful nuclear weapons to handle "nuisance enemies". It is quite frankly the weapon of choice if you fear an undersea launch against your interests.

      In standard Chinese war plans, they take out key bases in Japan or Guam or other places with nuclear weapons.

      So some of the small things matter during actual warfare.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by USSDD715~DD510~ View Post
        I don't see many people talking about it, but it is very attractive for countries like China to use small powerful nuclear weapons to handle "nuisance enemies". It is quite frankly the weapon of choice if you fear an undersea launch against your interests.

        In standard Chinese war plans, they take out key bases in Japan or Guam or other places with nuclear weapons.

        So some of the small things matter during actual warfare.
        Not any Chinese war plans that I am aware of. Their boomers go on patrol without nukes. Nukes are only assigned during crisis. Their national command authority, the Central Military Commission, is so anal with release codes that it took a direct Politburo intervention to have an exercise.

        As with all civilian military relationships, the rocketeers got so fed up with civie tight fistiness that they forgoe the nuke option and went with conventional HE (or currently thermobarics). Facing Taiwan alone is some 1500 SSMs, way more than their ~200 warhead inventory and that's not counting the SLBMs and ICBMs.

        Frankly after reading the history of Chinese nuclear strategy, I would be very surprised if the CMC eggheads would actually allow the 2nd Artillery rocketeers to use their nukes.
        Chimo

        Comment


        • Originally posted by USSDD715~DD510~ View Post
          Several people have commented challenging the idea of why high speed is necessary. Particularly: "It's too expensive" !

          As an ex US Navy Radarman, (60's) here is my 2 cents. I tend to think "submarines", but things that apply to subs may also apply to surface ships.

          When you design a world class sub, you are looking for 3 things. One, stealth, or quietness, two, the ability to dive DEEP, (if you are short on money, this is the one that is usually dropped). The third thing is SPEED, which comes in handy when you are running away from a 50 knot torpedo.
          Even modern 50 knot torpedoes have (relatively) short range, and their speed is only slightly higher than a sub. Looking for high speeds in a sub makes sense; even if your sub makes, say, 35 knots, it may still be enough to stay away from a torpedo long enough for it to run out of fuel.

          The LCS is not a sub, it's a surface ship. It's main enemies will be missiles and guns. Which you cannot outrun. Notice the top speed of most surface ships has declined since WWII. The USN seems to have caped at 30kt (more or less) because of the need to acompany the carriers, but the days of 40kt multi-mission destroyers or cruisers are gone. Even many single-mission missile boats have slowed down: the Saar 4, for example, seems to top at 35. A few others get closer to 40, but that's it. And these are all ships bellow 500 tons. The LCS tops 3000, hiting frigate size.

          Also... nukes? If anyone starts using nukes, I very much doubt any kind of speed will matter. For anyone.

          Comment


          • The need for speed .....

            Originally posted by jlvfr View Post
            Even modern 50 knot torpedoes have (relatively) short range, and their speed is only slightly higher than a sub. Looking for high speeds in a sub makes sense; even if your sub makes, say, 35 knots, it may still be enough to stay away from a torpedo long enough for it to run out of fuel.

            The LCS is not a sub, it's a surface ship. It's main enemies will be missiles and guns. Which you cannot outrun. Notice the top speed of most surface ships has declined since WWII. The USN seems to have caped at 30kt (more or less) because of the need to acompany the carriers, but the days of 40kt multi-mission destroyers or cruisers are gone. Even many single-mission missile boats have slowed down: the Saar 4, for example, seems to top at 35. A few others get closer to 40, but that's it. And these are all ships bellow 500 tons. The LCS tops 3000, hiting frigate size.

            Also... nukes? If anyone starts using nukes, I very much doubt any kind of speed will matter. For anyone.
            The fast Fletcher's, the log legged Gato's and the bank vaulted Iowa's had specific missions. Speed it s great asset for missions purpose events.... these old modes were outdone with a speedier missile be it a air borne or waterborne instrument.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
              Not any Chinese war plans that I am aware of. Their boomers go on patrol without nukes. Nukes are only assigned during crisis. Their national command authority, the Central Military Commission, is so anal with release codes that it took a direct Politburo intervention to have an exercise.

              As with all civilian military relationships, the rocketeers got so fed up with civie tight fistiness that they forgoe the nuke option and went with conventional HE (or currently thermobarics). Facing Taiwan alone is some 1500 SSMs, way more than their ~200 warhead inventory and that's not counting the SLBMs and ICBMs.

              Frankly after reading the history of Chinese nuclear strategy, I would be very surprised if the CMC eggheads would actually allow the 2nd Artillery rocketeers to use their nukes.
              =============
              I probably do not disagree with the gist what you have said.

              But while the Chinese are not loading nuclear weapons is a decision that is true in 2014, or 2017, 2035 could be an entirely different story.

              The Russian submarine Kursk that blew up in the North Sea some 8 or so years ago during a Russian exercise is said to have had conventional weapons (their Tomahawk) that were EQUAL in blast effect to the first atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. The Russians called their conventional cruise missile a "carrier killer" because it was capable of splitting a US Carrier into two pieces. (I'm glad they are still perfecting their imperfect weapons systems).

              Nonetheless, don't kid yourself, small nuclear weapons are being produced by the Chinese, and I do not doubt for an instant that that communist country is capable of using them. I am NOT saying that they will, tomorrow.

              It will depend on their national direction, will and purpose during coming years. Yet if I was a Chinese Admiral, I would realize that the fastest way to take out 4 B-52's on the ground or 6 stealth bombers on Guam would be with a small nuclear weapon. A US littoral ship could involved consciously or accidently in something like that.

              I have a friend who is a Filipino professor teaching statistics in a nearby university. He says to me, that if the US ever engages in war with China, that China would have to take over the Philippines in no more 9 days because China would be forced to deprive the US of any base to service or rearm their submarines. Jeeze, sort of reminds you of WWII. (I mean, my friend grew up there.)

              No major war plays out exactly the way the "war planners envisioned". The foreign powers the US are most likely to encounter are one, hostile Muslim countries, and the Chinese mainland. There is a discussion going on as to how heavily armed, new Chinese warships will be. It appears that the newest Chinese warships may be more heavily armed than we thought.

              If one accepts THAT argument, our littoral ships might be under-armed, in a challenge conflict, which means that unless you expect these newer ships to perform like WWII PT boats, they frankly need more slugging power in a showdown. Missiles are expensive to shoot, more or heavier guns mean total redesign of the ship, plus weight. Might be nice if we get the rail gun perfected.

              Imagine a conflict in the Spratley's. You are a long way from friendly shores. Here is what you face: problems being provisioned, no help or limited help if hit by the enemy, no way to repair damaged fire control or radar or a blown engine, and maybe being outnumbered and outgunned 3:1.

              So the question that needs to be asked is what kind of ship best survives a Chinese challenge in the Spratleys.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by USSDD715~DD510~ View Post

                So the question that needs to be asked is what kind of ship best survives a Chinese challenge in the Spratleys.
                Subs

                But that oversimplifies completely on what would be a prelude to the Spratlys going pear shaped

                Its a systems/combined capability response - not a platform response.
                Linkeden:
                http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
                http://cofda.wordpress.com/

                Comment


                • Originally posted by USSDD715~DD510~ View Post
                  But while the Chinese are not loading nuclear weapons is a decision that is true in 2014, or 2017, 2035 could be an entirely different story.
                  The Chinese are limited to a 600 warhead inventory. They are currently at around 200. We know this because since the Chinese signed the NPT, they opened their books to the IAEA and based upon the physics (one factory can only produce so much fissile materials), the 600 warhead is the absolute limit the Chinese can produce ... again based on physics.

                  Originally posted by USSDD715~DD510~ View Post
                  The Russian submarine Kursk that blew up in the North Sea some 8 or so years ago during a Russian exercise is said to have had conventional weapons (their Tomahawk) that were EQUAL in blast effect to the first atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. The Russians called their conventional cruise missile a "carrier killer" because it was capable of splitting a US Carrier into two pieces. (I'm glad they are still perfecting their imperfect weapons systems).
                  And your point is? Conventional weapons can replicate the effects of nukes since Alexander the Great. Just examine Tyre.

                  Originally posted by USSDD715~DD510~ View Post
                  Nonetheless, don't kid yourself, small nuclear weapons are being produced by the Chinese, and I do not doubt for an instant that that communist country is capable of using them. I am NOT saying that they will, tomorrow.
                  Not tac nukes ... and neither the Chinese nor us ever believed any nuke was tactical.

                  Originally posted by USSDD715~DD510~ View Post
                  It will depend on their national direction, will and purpose during coming years. Yet if I was a Chinese Admiral, I would realize that the fastest way to take out 4 B-52's on the ground or 6 stealth bombers on Guam would be with a small nuclear weapon. A US littoral ship could involved consciously or accidently in something like that.
                  And here's the point you're not understanding. That Chinese Admiral doesn't own the nuke. He has to ask an egghead for permission to launch the nuke ... and that civie egghead has NEVER been forthcoming with the nuke. He maybe tomorrow but that Chinese admiral has had enough frustration that he has chosen to go the conventional route

                  Originally posted by USSDD715~DD510~ View Post
                  I have a friend who is a Filipino professor teaching statistics in a nearby university. He says to me, that if the US ever engages in war with China, that China would have to take over the Philippines in no more 9 days because China would be forced to deprive the US of any base to service or rearm their submarines. Jeeze, sort of reminds you of WWII. (I mean, my friend grew up there.)
                  Your friend is wrong. For China to take the Phillipines, she will have to give up Taiwan ... forever.

                  Originally posted by USSDD715~DD510~ View Post
                  No major war plays out exactly the way the "war planners envisioned". The foreign powers the US are most likely to encounter are one, hostile Muslim countries, and the Chinese mainland. There is a discussion going on as to how heavily armed, new Chinese warships will be. It appears that the newest Chinese warships may be more heavily armed than we thought.
                  I have an advantage over you. The Chinese does not believe in war. They believe in deterrence. IE, the working materials of Field Marshall Nie Rongzhen.
                  Chimo

                  Comment


                  • ABOUT TIME... live fire on a moving target with the 57mm.


                    Posted: September 4, 2014 3:16 PM

                    USS Coronado Conducts Developmental Testing

                    PORT HUENEME, Calif. — The Independence-variant littoral combat ship USS Coronado (LCS 4) conducted firing exercises against representative fast attack craft using the Mk 110 57mm gun, as part of sea frame developmental testing in conjunction with Combat System Ship Qualification Trial (CSSQT) on Aug. 16, Naval Sea Systems Command announced in a Sept. 4 release.

                    The exercises marked the first time an Independence-variant ship fired its core weapon system (Mk 110 57mm gun) against a High-Speed Maneuvering Surface Target. The objective of the test was to measure the accuracy of the ship’s core weapon system against a fast attack craft.

                    “The Independence variant has the ability to enter and win the fight,” said CDR Peter Kim, Coronado’s commanding officer. “Our CSSQT performance demonstrates the ship can enter a contested area at high speed, defend herself against missile and surface threats, and execute missions with the embarked mission package plus an enormous array of force options that can be rapidly employed by a fleet commander on short notice.”

                    This developmental test is part of a larger series of post-delivery test and trial events that will culminate in a full Technical Evaluation and Initial Operational Testing and Evaluation of the surface warfare mission package and sea frame in 2015. Coronado was commissioned in April, and completed Final Contract Trials in June, through which the ship and its major systems were exercised.

                    Comment


                    • Response

                      Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                      The Chinese are limited to a 600 warhead inventory. They are currently at around 200. We know this because since the Chinese signed the NPT, they opened their books to the IAEA and based upon the physics (one factory can only produce so much fissile materials), the 600 warhead is the absolute limit the Chinese can produce ... again based on physics.

                      And your point is? Conventional weapons can replicate the effects of nukes since Alexander the Great. Just examine Tyre.

                      Not tac nukes ... and neither the Chinese nor us ever believed any nuke was tactical.

                      And here's the point you're not understanding. That Chinese Admiral doesn't own the nuke. He has to ask an egghead for permission to launch the nuke ... and that civie egghead has NEVER been forthcoming with the nuke. He maybe tomorrow but that Chinese admiral has had enough frustration that he has chosen to go the conventional route

                      Your friend is wrong. For China to take the Phillipines, she will have to give up Taiwan ... forever.

                      I have an advantage over you. The Chinese does not believe in war. They believe in deterrence. IE, the working materials of Field Marshall Nie Rongzhen.
                      ================

                      I would disagree with you in the following ways and for the following reasons.

                      One, Certain Chinese generals and admirals, carelessly, have (past tense) actually threatened the US Pacific coast with nuclear attack. Whether that was "pride" or "foolish boasting" or too much liquor one night, (My country's better than your country) I do not know.

                      Some of their (supposed) war plans (By the way, the US had similar plans in Berlin) plan and call for radiation clouds to drift from the west coast to the east to cause maximum devastation. And to be fair, all nuclear nations look at and discuss this stuff.

                      The point about modern conventional explosives vs nuclear simply means we all have more options than in the 50's and 60's. Conventional weapons are less criticized.

                      As for listening to my Filipino friend, I also listen to New Zealanders, and the French, and Britts, and Canadians, and many others because it keeps me from missing the whole point which is understanding the total global picture. I note that my friend spent most of his life in the Filippines. He is well familiar with the history of US using Filippines as a Naval Base. As I listened to him, I picked up a different perspective.

                      On this post I make no prediction has to how things will play out in Hong Kong or Taiwan.

                      Now as for how wars are launched, just think of our war with Japan. There wasn't full consensus in Japan on the declaration of war against the US. A DECISION, however, was made in their hierarchy, with a minority quietly dissenting.

                      The attack on Pearl Harbor was nonetheless the result. US involvement in a war in the Pacific followed.

                      Two, I live in North America. My wife hails from Montreal, Canada. We talk with the French Canadian extended family every year or so, (in French, of course). The Canadians at this moment (being helped by liberal government interests) are selling quite a bit of Northern Canada to the CHINESE.

                      Are you aware of that ?

                      My French Canadian father in law understands that the Chinese will use the land not only for growing food, but for SPYING AND KEEPING TABS ON CANADIANS AND AMERICANS. What I am talking about is Chinese physical presence on North American territory. Now the Chinese will tell you that it is to grow and supply food for a growing China. (Are they out of land in China ? ) The reality is that food growing gives them "plausible denial" . Why we don't spy ! We are just growing vegetables on this wonderful, rich, soil, (which by the way, it is !) In reality it is a half truth. And half truths are LIES.

                      Now, I'm not going to push this too far, because I AM NOT a reckless "conspiricist", but I have talked to a New Zealander (who I think IS in his right mind) who believes that the Chinese, living "peacefully", in the Canadian North, would also provide ongoing day by day intelligence that could or might be used to coordinate a devastating submarine nuclear attack against The United States from the north. My New Zealand friend believes that China is capable of launching an extremely quick, but devastating attack against the United States. (Think the Canadians could stop them ? )

                      According to his scenario, China then would roll over Canada into the chaos and aftermath of devastating nuclear destruction, and what opposition would they meet ?

                      Yes, the US could counterattack, but China is large. Their submarines and nuclear facilities are penned safely beneath HUGE MOUNTAIN AREAS, really, really, really hard to get to. We would have to use everything in the arsenal, and I personally am not sure (as of today) we could totally destroy and knock out a will to wage war.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by USSDD715~DD510~ View Post
                        According to his scenario, China then would roll over Canada into the chaos and aftermath of devastating nuclear destruction, and what opposition would they meet ?
                        I'nm sorry but... roll over into what? The kind of scenario you're describing would wreck the continent. Or do you think the massive quantities of dust, most of which radioactive, would sit quietly in their target areas? The entire North America (which, btw, includes Canada) would become a radiactive wasteland. Radiation, clouds and winds do not magically stop at the border.

                        And the US retaliation? "submarines and nuclear facilities are penned safely beneath HUGE MOUNTAIN AREAS"? Maybe, but their factories, cities, ports, power stations, damns, air bases, barracks, etc are most certainly not.

                        Btw, subs inside "mountain areas"? You sure you're not thinking of Sweden?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by USSDD715~DD510~ View Post
                          ================

                          I would disagree with you in the following ways and for the following reasons.

                          One, Certain Chinese generals and admirals, carelessly, have (past tense) actually threatened the US Pacific coast with nuclear attack. Whether that was "pride" or "foolish boasting" or too much liquor one night, (My country's better than your country) I do not know.

                          Some of their (supposed) war plans (By the way, the US had similar plans in Berlin) plan and call for radiation clouds to drift from the west coast to the east to cause maximum devastation. And to be fair, all nuclear nations look at and discuss this stuff.
                          Them damn Rockies, keeps all the good radiation from spreading that far.
                          The point about modern conventional explosives vs nuclear simply means we all have more options than in the 50's and 60's. Conventional weapons are less criticized.
                          No the modern family of conventional munitions (FAE/ICM/DPICM...) allows us to create the same effect as a tac nuke without starting a ICBM launch from the rest of the world.
                          No one ever thought that we could keep the show tactical.

                          As for listening to my Filipino friend, I also listen to New Zealanders, and the French, and Britts, and Canadians, and many others because it keeps me from missing the whole point which is understanding the total global picture. I note that my friend spent most of his life in the Filippines. He is well familiar with the history of US using Filippines as a Naval Base. As I listened to him, I picked up a different perspective.
                          Then your friend should be aware that the Philippine government kicked us off Subic Bay Navy base.Way back in 1992. When we left we took all our toys. At least the ones that didn't get ruined from Mt Pinatubo. There are no assets in place for us to rearm those subs at Subic Bay anymore. Guam is the new Subic Bay Naval Base.
                          Last edited by Gun Grape; 09 Sep 14,, 03:04.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by USSDD715~DD510~ View Post
                            Yes, the US could counterattack, but China is large. Their submarines and nuclear facilities are penned safely beneath HUGE MOUNTAIN AREAS, really, really, really hard to get to. We would have to use everything in the arsenal, and I personally am not sure (as of today) we could totally destroy and knock out a will to wage war.
                            The US and China are nearly identical in land area. Yet there is a significant difference in the distribution of their populations.



                            US population centers (while more concentrated on the coasts) are widely distributed throughout the country. In contrast, Chinese population centers are overwhelmingly concentrated in the eastern portion of China. This makes China far more vulnerable than the US to a debilitating nuclear first strike.

                            Additionally, Chinese ballistic missile submarines don't pack nearly the punch of their US counterparts. China has completed just 5 ballistic missile subs that each carry 12-16 missiles with a single warhead each. On the other hand, the US has 14 Ohio's that carry 24 missiles. Each of these can carry up to 12 warheads. That means a single US boomer can hit more than 2 times the number of targets as the entire Chinese fleet. If you want to compare the rest of each country's nuclear arsenal, it is just as imbalanced.

                            So yes, the Chinese could conduct a nuclear first strike against the US. But the idea that China could somehow survive the far more devastating retaliatory strike is laughable. China's nuclear strategy is to keep enough nukes on hand to extract a steep price from a potential attacker. They are not prepared to fight a nuclear war and win.
                            Attached Files
                            Last edited by SteveDaPirate; 08 Sep 14,, 21:03.

                            Comment


                            • The US had 18 Ohio Class SSBN's. 4 were converted to SSGN's. The last time I heard the SLBM carried 8 warheads.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by surfgun View Post
                                The US had 18 Ohio Class SSBN's. 4 were converted to SSGN's. The last time I heard the SLBM carried 8 warheads.
                                You are quite right about the SSGN conversion, I forgot about that and will edit my earlier post accordingly.

                                Wiki lists the Trident II as being capable of carrying 12 RVs, however that does not mean it is used that way in practice. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they opted to take out a few warheads in favor of decoys and such.

                                Thanks for the correction!
                                Last edited by SteveDaPirate; 08 Sep 14,, 21:04.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X