Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Littoral Combat Ships

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

  • PS: And knowing the USN, that "AB hull" proposal would end up buying a full San Antonio at 2 billion, and then welding the well deck shut because it doesn't need it for the role.

    Comment


    • You want more cutters? That's easier said than done considering our service has been operating on a shoestring budget since forever. Getting the NSC's and OPC's funded and started has been a nightmare which is why we still have 7-8 of the original 12 378's still in service after 45+ years of service. The 378's have been great ships but they're only being held together by some great hard working crews. Some of our 210's are already over 50 years old and some of the 270's will be pushing 50 years by the time the first OPC's start entering service. The U.S. Coast Guard has been neglected for a long time. I think moving us under Homeland Security has really hurt our service. Around the time that the 378's were going through FRAM there should have already been a plan for their replacements instead our budget kept getting smaller, the 378's lost their auxiliary ASW mission due to lack of funding for upgrades and training, the Sonar Tech rating was disestablished and after the move to DHS we gained a bunch of new missions without increasing our resources. That's why you're seeing Arleigh Burke DDG's with Coast Guard LEDET's embarked doing drug patrols. Our cutter fleet is shrinking and even after the NSC's, FRC's and OPC's have all entered the fleet in 10-15 years or so we'll still have fewer ships than we have now. All that being said I loved my time on USCGC Boutwell, she rides like a Cadillac, not so much on USCGC Forward, those 270's rock and roll pretty bad in heavy weather.
      Last edited by Tom24; 21 Jan 15,, 06:34.

      Comment


      • Upon cursory inspection, one must ask:

        Name: Legend-class National Security Cutter
        Cost: $684m(average), $735m(FY13 ship)

        Name: Freedom class littoral combat ship
        Cost: $670.4 million

        Name: Independence class littoral combat ship
        Cost: $704 million First Ship; Future Ships $360 million

        Name: Valour class Guided Missile Frigate
        Cost: R9.65 billion (final cost for all 4 ships of the class in 2007 currency) which comes out to be roughly $210 million per ship

        Valour is a MEKO ship from Germany. It's the only modern frigate with cost listed on Wiki.

        1. Why is the NSC the same cost as an LCS?
        2. Why is the NSC the size of a modern frigate?
        3. What does it do?
        "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by gunnut View Post
          1. Why is the NSC the same cost as an LCS?
          2. Why is the NSC the size of a modern frigate?
          3. What does it do?
          I'm guessing the main reason might be "cause it carries 2 helis". Which makes me ask: what for?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by gunnut View Post
            Upon cursory inspection, one must ask:

            Name: Legend-class National Security Cutter
            Cost: $684m(average), $735m(FY13 ship)

            Name: Freedom class littoral combat ship
            Cost: $670.4 million

            Name: Independence class littoral combat ship
            Cost: $704 million First Ship; Future Ships $360 million

            Name: Valour class Guided Missile Frigate
            Cost: R9.65 billion (final cost for all 4 ships of the class in 2007 currency) which comes out to be roughly $210 million per ship

            Valour is a MEKO ship from Germany. It's the only modern frigate with cost listed on Wiki.

            1. Why is the NSC the same cost as an LCS?
            2. Why is the NSC the size of a modern frigate?
            3. What does it do?
            I've never served on or even been aboard a 418' (NSC) so I'm not an expert on it's capabilities although a good friend and former shipmate is currently serving on USCGC Bertolf. I know that they have been built to a higher level of survivability than the LCS, I believe they also are equipped with the same electronic warfare suite as the AB DDG's and have the ability to function as command and control ships in fleet actions as was demonstrated in RIMPAC 2014. They are obviously larger ships than the LCS and they have 3-4 times the cruising range (CODAG propulsion) of the LCS since our cutters normally operate independently and don't UNREP unless operating with the Navy. 28-29 knots top speed vs. LCS 40+ knots. Larger crew, and space and weight is reserved for additional weapon systems. The NSC program has had it's own issues with acquisition and cost over runs. I think the biggest reason for higher cost per unit is that the Coast Guard is only trying to get 8 funded and built to replace the 12 378' class cutters as opposed to the 30-40 LCS that the Navy wants.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by jlvfr View Post
              I'm guessing the main reason might be "cause it carries 2 helis". Which makes me ask: what for?
              In practice only one helo is embarked. But the NSC's like previous high endurance cutters are designed for long range and endurance patrols. Armed MH-65C Dolphin helos are embarked for airborne use of force (HITRON) with snipers as well as dedicated SAR helos with rescue swimmers. The hangers are designed to be large enough to to take Jayhawk or in wartime Seahawks. The NSC's like previous high endurance cutters still make periodic deployments into warzones.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Tom24 View Post
                I've never served on or even been aboard a 418' (NSC) so I'm not an expert on it's capabilities although a good friend and former shipmate is currently serving on USCGC Bertolf. I know that they have been built to a higher level of survivability than the LCS, I believe they also are equipped with the same electronic warfare suite as the AB DDG's and have the ability to function as command and control ships in fleet actions as was demonstrated in RIMPAC 2014. They are obviously larger ships than the LCS and they have 3-4 times the cruising range (CODAG propulsion) of the LCS since our cutters normally operate independently and don't UNREP unless operating with the Navy. 28-29 knots top speed vs. LCS 40+ knots. Larger crew, and space and weight is reserved for additional weapon systems. The NSC program has had it's own issues with acquisition and cost over runs. I think the biggest reason for higher cost per unit is that the Coast Guard is only trying to get 8 funded and built to replace the 12 378' class cutters as opposed to the 30-40 LCS that the Navy wants.
                All those capabilities, on a coast guard cutter, why?

                We have (or will) 8 of these NSCs that are armed like a corvette but has the function of a command ship. Again, one would ask, why? Pretty soon the CG will ask for subs and helicopter carriers to perform "sea control and denial" missions.

                It seems we have plenty of money to throw around. Are we getting the right capabilities to the right branch? Do we really need to have a command and control capable NSC to perform drug interdiction roles? If the NSC is to serve as the command ship of a task force with surface combatants, why is she under CG banner? Why not use a proper ship from the Navy to perform a task for a naval task group?

                Upon further thought, it seems to me that the navy junked the frigates, went with the LCS with high speed and low endurance, but then realized there still is a need for a small ocean going ship to hangout with friendlies in lower intensity situations. CG is volunteered by the Navy for this work.
                Last edited by gunnut; 21 Jan 15,, 23:46.
                "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                Comment


                • Last mission for storied class of warships. Seven pictures with one showing steel cables holding USS Samuel Roberts together.

                  By the way what are the odds of an LCS surviving a mine or couple of Exocets?

                  Last mission for storied class of warships - CNN.com

                  (CNN)When the USS Kauffman steamed out of Norfolk Naval Station earlier this month, it marked the beginning of the end for an entire class of vessels in the U.S. Navy.

                  The Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigate will be the last of more than four dozen such ships to put itself in harm's way.

                  "I am honored and humbled to have this opportunity to lead such a capable and proud group of sailors on this, the final deployment of an FFG-7 class ship, and to be the last in a great line of frigate commanding officers," the Kauffman's skipper, Cmdr. Michael Concannon, said in a Navy statement.

                  The final mission for the Kauffman and its crew of 250 will be to combat drug trafficking in the U.S. Southern Command's area of responsibility, the waters of the Caribbean and off the coasts of Central and South America.

                  "What a fitting mission for this great ship and crew to leave as its final legacy, keeping drugs off the streets of America by stopping them at the source," Concannon said.

                  After it returns from the drug trafficking mission, the Kauffman will have spent more than 28 years in the U.S. Navy. It will be decommissioned in September and possibly put up for sale to an allied navy.

                  The first of the Perry class, the USS Oliver Hazard Perry, was launched in 1976. The Navy once had 51 of the Perry-class ships, which were up to 453 feet long and displaced as much as 4,300 tons. They enjoyed a reputation for toughness, especially after two suffered battle damage in the Persian Gulf in the late 1980s.

                  Perhaps the most famous of the Perry-class ships was the USS Stark, which survived a deadly attack in the Persian Gulf. Thirty-seven U.S. sailors were killed on May 17, 1987, when an Iraqi jet fired two Exocet missiles into the ship while it was on patrol during the Iran-Iraq war.

                  Less than a year later, another Perry-class frigate, the USS Samuel B. Roberts, was struck by an Iranian mine, wounding 10 of its crew, blowing a 15-foot hole in its hull and breaking the frigate's keel, damage that almost always sends a ship to the bottom. The crew of the Roberts, however, was able to save the vessel, in part by using heavy steel cables to tie cracked portions of the ship's superstructure together. The Roberts was then loaded onto another ship, the Mighty Servant 2, in Dubai and transported back to the U.S., ship on ship.

                  Both the Stark and the Roberts were eventually fully repaired and returned to the fleet. The Stark was scrapped in 2006. The Roberts completed what is expected to be its final mission in December, with its decommissioning planned for this year.

                  The Navy defines the primary missions of frigates as protecting shipping and anti-submarine warfare. Those duties will be taken up by the service's new littoral combat ships, 20 of which are either in the fleet, under construction or under contract.

                  Navy Secretary Ray Mabus announced last week that the LCS will succeed the Perry-class frigates in more than mission.

                  "Somehow, in the 21st century, we started naming ships with strange acronyms ... instead of from our naval traditions ... so we are going to change the hull designation of the ‪#‎LCS‬‬ class ships to FF (frigate) ... appropriate and traditional name," Mabus said in a speech to the Surface Navy Association's annual symposium.

                  Those newly designated frigates will join the world's oldest active warship in the U.S. Navy's frigate fleet, the USS Constitution. Nicknamed "Old Ironsides," the Navy's historic tall-masted showpiece was commissioned in 1797 and sails from Boston Harbor to promote the service.
                  Last edited by tbm3fan; 22 Jan 15,, 01:44.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by gunnut View Post
                    All those capabilities, on a coast guard cutter, why?

                    We have (or will) 8 of these NSCs that are armed like a corvette but has the function of a command ship. Again, one would ask, why? Pretty soon the CG will ask for subs and helicopter carriers to perform "sea control and denial" missions.

                    It seems we have plenty of money to throw around. Are we getting the right capabilities to the right branch? Do we really need to have a command and control capable NSC to perform drug interdiction roles? If the NSC is to serve as the command ship of a task force with surface combatants, why is she under CG banner? Why not use a proper ship from the Navy to perform a task for a naval task group?

                    Upon further thought, it seems to me that the navy junked the frigates, went with the LCS with high speed and low endurance, but then realized there still is a need for a small ocean going ship to hangout with friendlies in lower intensity situations. CG is volunteered by the Navy for this work.
                    OK before I comment any further in this thread, this isn't going to devolve into one of these tired " the Coast Guard isn't military thread" is it?? Seriously, you do realize that the U.S. Coast Guard is one of the 5 Armed Forces of the United States don't you? Despite the fact that Coast Guard cutters have dual maritime law enforcement capability that our cutters are surface combatants don't you, and that during time of war we act as ocean going escorts, amphibious, and littoral warfare operations, armed boarding, search and seizures in international waters and in war zones? These aren't new missions, these are all legacy Coast Guard missions performed since the creation of the Coast Guard as a military service, performed in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Desert Storm and our current wars. Our cutters deploy to war zones because the U.S. Navy asks for them because of their dual LE authority. Since the beginning of Iraqi Freedom we've had 6 110' (Island class) cutters permanently forward deployed to the Persian Gulf, they are still there and we're very involved in the initial invasion of Iraq. USCGC Monomoy captured the first Iraqi maritime prisoners of war during the initial invasion operating upriver. If our cutters are going to deploy to war zones to conduct patrols they need to be armed should they not? The NSC's can act as flagships in amphibious operations if needed just like the 378's did and the 327's before them during WWII. Even our 225' black hulled bouy tenders take part in naval exercises. The OPC's that will replace our 270' and 210's will be close to the same size as the LCS and armed similarly to the NSC. We deploy to war zones because of our dual LE capability and expertize in armed boardings. Even Navy ships engaged in LE missions need Coasties embarked. We have participated in every armed conflict in U.S. history, that's why our cutters are equipped with these capabilities. Combat is not the primary mission of the Coast Guard, maritime law enforcement and SAR is our bread and butter, but support of military and combat operations is one of our mission sets. There are even Coast Guard members deployed in land locked Afghanistan. The US. Navy can't be everywhere, and I don't think DDG's should be doing those missions. I've tried to answer your questions as best as I can and you just aren't getting it for some reason, so I'm going to bow out of this thread. Carry on and have a nice day.
                    Last edited by Tom24; 22 Jan 15,, 02:26.

                    Comment


                    • We had to fly a Coast Guard flag during boardings or when firing on suspected drug boats when we did drug interdiction duty and the ship was under the nominal control of the Coast Guard ledet senior officer onboard during those evolutions.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by gunnut View Post
                        Name: Valour class Guided Missile Frigate
                        Valour is a MEKO ship from Germany. It's the only modern frigate with cost listed on Wiki.
                        The Valour class is regarded a corvette by (user) South Africa and for the most part by (vendor) Germany, mostly due to the armament/equipment options exercised for its primary patrol scope. In symmetric warfare scenarios (Good Hope with Germany and Atlasur with Brazil - typically AAW- and ASW-centric respectively) they also tend to fill corvette roles.

                        Although those corvette roles put them roughly in line with LCS.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Tom24 View Post
                          OK before I comment any further in this thread, this isn't going to devolve into one of these tired " the Coast Guard isn't military thread" is it?? Seriously, you do realize that the U.S. Coast Guard is one of the 5 Armed Forces of the United States don't you? Despite the fact that Coast Guard cutters have dual maritime law enforcement capability that our cutters are surface combatants don't you, and that during time of war we act as ocean going escorts, amphibious, and littoral warfare operations, armed boarding, search and seizures in international waters and in war zones? These aren't new missions, these are all legacy Coast Guard missions performed since the creation of the Coast Guard as a military service, performed in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Desert Storm and our current wars. Our cutters deploy to war zones because the U.S. Navy asks for them because of their dual LE authority. Since the beginning of Iraqi Freedom we've had 6 110' (Island class) cutters permanently forward deployed to the Persian Gulf, they are still there and we're very involved in the initial invasion of Iraq. USCGC Monomoy captured the first Iraqi maritime prisoners of war during the initial invasion operating upriver. If our cutters are going to deploy to war zones to conduct patrols they need to be armed should they not? The NSC's can act as flagships in amphibious operations if needed just like the 378's did and the 327's before them during WWII. Even our 225' black hulled bouy tenders take part in naval exercises. The OPC's that will replace our 270' and 210's will be close to the same size as the LCS and armed similarly to the NSC. We deploy to war zones because of our dual LE capability and expertize in armed boardings. Even Navy ships engaged in LE missions need Coasties embarked. We have participated in every armed conflict in U.S. history, that's why our cutters are equipped with these capabilities. Combat is not the primary mission of the Coast Guard, maritime law enforcement and SAR is our bread and butter, but support of military and combat operations is one of our mission sets. There are even Coast Guard members deployed in land locked Afghanistan. The US. Navy can't be everywhere, and I don't think DDG's should be doing those missions. I've tried to answer your questions as best as I can and you just aren't getting it for some reason, so I'm going to bow out of this thread. Carry on and have a nice day.
                          $700m for an underarmed frigate. Something went wrong somewhere. Maybe it's time to rethink the coast guard's role.

                          I'm not attacking the coast guard. I'm questioning the wisdom of having 2 naval forces with one involved in both law enforcement and combat.

                          To support the combat role, coast guard buys dual use vessels like the NSC. They are built in smaller batches so less economy of scale. Would it be smarter to spend this money on more, smaller patrol vessels for LE role, and just buy the same navy ships for combat role, with less emphasis on LE?
                          Last edited by gunnut; 22 Jan 15,, 09:21.
                          "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                          Comment


                          • 247's ......

                            Originally posted by Tom24 View Post
                            OK before I comment any further in this thread, this isn't going to devolve into one of these tired " the Coast Guard isn't military thread" is it?? Seriously, you do realize that the U.S. Coast Guard is one of the 5 Armed Forces of the United States don't you? ........................................... The US. Navy can't be everywhere, and I don't think DDG's should be doing those missions. I've tried to answer your questions as best as I can and you just aren't getting it for some reason, so I'm going to bow out of this thread. Carry on and have a nice day.

                            On the chance that the wife and I get to visit La Push, Washington, on the Quileute Indian Reservation, we often dine and observe the local USCG Station @ Quillayute River. It is 1 of 21 Coast Guard Surf Stations. Their primary boats are 247ft Motor Life Boats, and I think they have a 25ft Response Boat and 16ft Jet Sled. Often on Friday they will drill and the show begins.

                            The Pacific Coast is suppose to be peaceful, but when the winds pick up, from Port Angeles, South to the Columbia River, dry ground looks very good to this fellow from the Great Plains. We have noted the 247 sortie in sea states that I considered challenging operating so close to shoreline.
                            Attached Files

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by gunnut View Post
                              $700m for an underarmed frigate. Something went wrong somewhere. Maybe it's time to rethink the coast guard's role.
                              I think the reasoning for the choice of armament on the NSC is that the 57mm gun is plenty for swatting boghammars. The aviation assets are where the real work gets done.

                              While the OHP could land a pair of helos, the NSC actually devotes much of its volume to having enough hangar space for all its aircraft. I actually think that makes quite a bit of sense since the NSC won't be able to directly intercept fleeing cigarette boats. SAR and drug interdiction are both going to be utilizing aviation assets heavily, and good aviation facilities allows it to work Helos and VUAVs hard and keep them in working condition.

                              When I think about what the USN might be lacking in wartime, direct firepower isn't at the top of the list. Additional command and control is always going to be in short supply, and generous aviation assets are a lot more flexible than a bigger gun.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by blidgepump View Post
                                On the chance that the wife and I get to visit La Push, Washington, on the Quileute Indian Reservation, we often dine and observe the local USCG Station @ Quillayute River. It is 1 of 21 Coast Guard Surf Stations. Their primary boats are 247ft Motor Life Boats, and I think they have a 25ft Response Boat and 16ft Jet Sled. Often on Friday they will drill and the show begins.

                                The Pacific Coast is suppose to be peaceful, but when the winds pick up, from Port Angeles, South to the Columbia River, dry ground looks very good to this fellow from the Great Plains. We have noted the 247 sortie in sea states that I considered challenging operating so close to shoreline.
                                I wasn't going to comment in this thread anymore, it's supposed to be about the LCS not trying justify the role of the U.S. Coast Guard. But anytime I see pictures of the 47' motor life boat I get smile on my face. I'm not active duty anymore, still in the Reserves, but my last AD duty station was Grande Haven MI. and we had 2 47' MLB's. I love those boats, they're self righting and are a blast to drive in a heavy surf. The Eastern shores of Lake Michigan require 47's here on the western shore of Lake Michigan we can get by with our 45's and 25's. We had one of the last 41's still in service when it was finally replaced with a brand new 45' 2 summers ago.

                                I served on a 378', USCGC Boutwell, made a Persian Gulf deployment, also on USCGC Forward which also operated overseas frequently with our European and U.S. Navy partners. We have always had 25-30 medium and high endurance cutters for long range and overseas deployment patrols, because we don't just protect U.S coasts. We conduct maritime law enforcement in the western and eastern Pacific enforcing fisheries and drug enforcement laws in international and U.S. territorial waters, Alaska which requires large cutters with good sea keeping and operating in close proximity to Russian naval and Coast Guard forces, and of course the Caribbean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean. The Navy doesn't have ice breakers, so we have to operate in the Arctic and Antarctic Oceans, so yes we need large ships to conduct our missions, we could not get away with just small patrol type vessels of which we have a decent sized fleet as well. The Navy is not authorized to conduct LE missions on it's own. Do you want DDG's conducting fisheries enforcement all over the Pacific Ocean sometimes having close" encounters with Chinese Naval units(had a few of those on Boutwell)? Plus the Navy requires us for our LE capabilities counter piracy and in war zones, conducting boardings and providing port and harbor security. If you want to do away with those Coast Guard missions you will not be saving money because those capabilities and vessels will have to be created within the Navy. The Coast Guard isn't funded under the DOD, we are funded under DHS and before that Department of Transportation. If U.S. law is changed to allow the Navy to take on all of our Law Enforcement responsibilities the Navy would have to cut it's funding in other missions. I don't think you want that do you? As long as we have to protect U.S. interests in U.S. territorial waters around the globe in close proximity to hostile nations are cutters need to have a self defense capability and the ability to operate with the Navy and Marines when required. Our large cutters conduct 3-6 month patrols sometimes longer, we don't run with Navy tankers, that requires larger ships with range and good sea keeping. And in my opinion funding only 8 NSC's is a mistake since they will be trying to replace the missions of 12 378'/Hamilton class cutters. Juggling filling those gaps will not be easy. The OPC's which have not yet started construction will be between 350-375 feet long will take on the missions of our medium endurance cutters and fill the gaps of our high endurance missions. There will be about 25 OPC's built. That may sound like a lot of large ocean going ships to you, but it's not. Remember at any given time some will be in the yards for maintenance and refit, and it's not enough ships for the missions and areas of responsibility that we are tasked with. The only funding we get from DOD is for the weapons on our cutters which comes from the Navy. The 378's had 5/38 guns and ASW before FRAM, after FRAM they were replaced with the 76mm OTO Melara gun, qualification to mount Harpoon( the BM's hated those during testing), CIWS and improved ASW capabilities. The fall of the USSR caused a big decrease in funding and by the mid to late 90's all ASW was removed and replaced with 2 MK38 25mm chain guns on each beam as secondary armament. The Navy chose the 57mm for the LCS, so that was what the NSC got and the OPC will also get. Our new Fast Response Cutters have the 25mm auto cannon. In my opinion the NSC's should have gotten the improved OTO Melara 76mm super rapid gun, but the Navy didn't choose that system for LCS. Yes our large cutters are under armed and I believe that is a mistake, caused by the Navy choosing to skimp on the LCS's weapons. So if you want to do away with the Coast Guard's military and Law Enforcement overseas missions you will need to drastically increase the Navy's funding and change U.S. law. Keep in mind that Coast Guard cutters are welcomed in places where U.S. Navy ships are not, which is just another reason we keep those missions.
                                Last edited by Tom24; 22 Jan 15,, 16:15.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X