Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Littoral Combat Ships

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

  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    JRT,

    I was being hyperbolic.

    My point is stop throwing money away, plow it into new FFGs and perhaps some PCs.

    If push comes to shove the LCS's will have to fight...but I don't hold out much hope for their crews surviving.

    The LCS for the Navy is like the idiocy we did in the Army under the Future Combat System...the Navy fielded it and we just sunk $32 Billion into no systems.

    Both should have been killed earlier in their lifecycles.

    The OHP replacements should have been a competent surface combatant and the LCS isn't.

    Leave a comment:


  • looking4NSFS
    replied
    Originally posted by JRT View Post
    [*]There is nothing filling the gap between LCS and DDGs, and DDG resources are already stretched too thin. LCS will offload at least some of that burden. Removing LCS leaves the DDGs at the precipice. Not everything requires the expensive capability set of a DDG.[/LIST]
    All practical points, especially viewed in a "some hull in the water if better than no hull in the water". The attached article would indicate the Navy agrees.

    Navy Sticks With LCS Despite Engine Troubles; Lockheed Races To Make Fix

    https://breakingdefense.com/2021/01/...to-make-fixes/

    "In practical terms, [the delay] has almost zero impact because the LCS has, for the most part, not been deployed," much in the past 15 years said Bryan Clark, an analyst at the Hudson Institute.

    Of course if the LCS is built but not deployed do the hulls count?

    Leave a comment:


  • JRT
    replied
    Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post

    Under armed, under armored, engineering nightmares....

    Sink them as reefs and go to no kidding frigates.
    I disagree.
    1. There is nothing filling the gap between LCS and DDGs, and DDG resources are already stretched too thin. LCS will offload at least some of that burden. Removing LCS leaves the DDGs at the precipice. Not everything requires the expensive capability set of a DDG.
    2. The USN currently has no FFGs in commission, or anywhere nearly ready for so. The last of the OHP FFG-7s, Simpson FFG-56, was decomissioned in 2015.
    3. Reportedly CNO's recent comments on 11 January 2021 stated that the first in class Constellation (FFG-62) class frigate, previously FFG(X), is projected to reach IOC (initial operating capability) sometime in 2025. If modern history is any guide, planning will be overly optimistic and they will be late to arrive at the party. IOC is not FOC (full operating capability). For example, DDG-1000 has not yet reached IOC, much less FOC (report).
    4. Also according to the same reporting of CNO's recent comments, the first few FFGs will be operated with one crew each like a DDG, not utilizing the blue and gold dual crew schema previously discussed. So likewise I suspect that the FFG will be operated in four cycle rotations like DDG, requiring four ships to keep one continuously deployed (one actively deployed, one returning, one working up to go out, and one in the shipyard between deployments receiving minor repairs and tech insertions, ship alterations). So, only guesstimating, maybe near 2030 to get the first four new FFGs at FOC with ability to keep one continuously deployed in a surface warfare group?
    5. According to 22 December 2020 revision of CRS report R44972, "Navy Constellation (FFG-62) Class Frigate (Previously FFG[X]) Program: Background and Issues for Congress", on page 3, under the heading "Number of SSCs in Service", the report states that, "Under the Navy’s proposed FY2020 budget, the Navy projected that it would have 30 SSCs in service at the end of FY2020, including no frigates, 19 LCSs, and 11 mine warfare ships. Under the Navy’s FY2020 30-year (FY2020-FY2049) shipbuilding plan, the SSC force is to grow to 52 ships (34 LCSs and 18 FFG[X]s) by FY2034." The preceding paragraph in that CRS report states that, "On October 6, 2020, in remarks made in Washington, DC, at an event held at a private think tank called the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA), Secretary of Defense Mark Esper provided some details on the Trump Administration’s new Navy force-level goal, which it calls Battle Force 2045. This new force-level goal, which appears generally consistent with the more distributed fleet architecture outlined above, calls for achieving a fleet of more than 500 manned and unmanned ships by 2045, including 355 manned ships prior to 2035. Esper stated that the Battle Force 2045 plan will include 60 to 70 SSCs—an increase of 8 to 18 ships over the 52-ship force-level goal in the current 355-ship plan." So maybe 18 FFG by 2035, and perhaps more by 2045. By then most of the LCS will be nearing end of useful life. Note that 18/4= 4.5 FFGs continuously deployed, which doesn't seem like much against the rapid buildup of the PLA(N).
    6. There is an ongoing push toward increased use of unmanned systems. Austal's trimaran LCS seems like a good platform for working with unmanned systems, having Linux workstations dedicated to that task, large mission bay, large flight deck (relative to other surface warfare ships), hangar, and a lift interconnecting the mission bay to the hanger, and a twin boom mission bay crane able to extend out over the water through large hatch doors in the stern.
    Last edited by JRT; 27 Jan 21,, 02:32.

    Leave a comment:


  • tbm3fan
    replied
    Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post

    Under armed, under armored, engineering nightmares....

    Sink them as reefs and go to no kidding frigates.
    This is what happens when you use the Mark 14 method of procuring

    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Vis-a-vi the Chinese man-made islands, I'll take the LCS any day of the week.
    Under armed, under armored, engineering nightmares....

    Sink them as reefs and go to no kidding frigates.

    Leave a comment:


  • thebard
    replied
    It's hard to even comprehend how far behind the development/testing/deployment curve these ships are. Even with the design deficiencies, it should have still been possible to find some value in them. 12 years later, it's decided that numerous propulsion failures are the result of a design flaw? It seems to me that even with the design flaw, those parts might not fail until the units are slated for sinkex. However, I'm certain that significant cuts are pending for military acquisition, so that would mean the navy will be using these for some time.

    Leave a comment:


  • Officer of Engineers
    replied
    Originally posted by looking4NSFS View Post
    Xi Jingping has to be laughing his behind off while watching the LCS story unfold
    Vis-a-vi the Chinese man-made islands, I'll take the LCS any day of the week.

    Leave a comment:


  • kato
    replied
    Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    [...]
    The modified combining gear will be tested at the RENK AG factory and on a new ship at sea before it is accepted, said Rear Adm. Casey Moton, the head of the unmanned and small combatants office at Naval Sea Systems Command.
    [...]
    One thing to mention here...

    The gearboxes for (Independence) LCS were built by MAAG, those for Freedom by RENK. RENK bought MAAG in 2009, however the technical documentation and IP rights for these LCS gearboxes was notably explicitly excluded from that deal. Renk then won the supplier deal from the US Navy in 2011 for all ships (Independence and Freedom) built from then on.

    MAAG effectively exited the market after the K130 debacle in Germany, where they didn't just need to completely replace the faulty gearboxes they'd bought in Eastern Europe and sold to the Navy with newbuilt, proper units, but had to throw in compensation in the form of free bow thrusters for all ships into the hat.

    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
    They can try all they want but there is no way they will make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Not ever, despite what the Vice Admiral thinks.
    A POS is still a POS....

    Leave a comment:


  • tbm3fan
    replied
    They can try all they want but there is no way they will make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Not ever, despite what the Vice Admiral thinks.

    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    Rant away, bro.

    I am with you.

    Leave a comment:


  • looking4NSFS
    replied
    Very frustrating reading, at least the parts about the LCS:

    https://news.usni.org/2021/01/18/nav...ating-concepts

    From the article:

    Commander of Naval Surface Forces Vice Adm. Roy Kitchener says things like:

    “I talk a lot with [U.S. 7th Fleet Commander Vice Adm. Bill Merz] out here, a big fan of LCS. If you look at the things we want to do in the 7th Fleet warfight, and you look at LOCE (Littoral Operations in a Contested Environment) and EABO and things like that, that’s what he wants to use them for,” Kitchener said.
    “And there’s a lot of capability there. Every LCS now is getting NSM, the (naval) strike missile, so that’s a capability that we’re really excited about. … In the fight out here, that’s exactly what we’re looking at, is integrating there in the littoral, bringing that strike capability.”

    and

    SOUTHCOM Commander Adm. Craig Faller said:

    "In the coming years, the LCSs will only grow more lethal and survivable to take on whatever mission fleet commanders ask of them.

    then:

    In a separate panel at the SNA symposium, Program Executive Officer for Unmanned and Small Combatants Rear Adm. Casey Moton said that a lethality and survivability package of upgrades would be coming to the LCSs soon."

    Navy leadership making these ships sound indispensable and cutting edge.

    These ships shouldn't even be used for FMS, because friends shouldn't let friends use the LCS.
    LCS 1 was introduced to the fleet 12 YEARS ago! They are not new platforms that are getting tested out to see all the whiz bang "stuff" they can do. 12 years and the mission modules they were supposed to be built to accommodate are....... where? Performing what missions???

    Xi Jingping has to be laughing his behind off while watching the LCS story unfold.
    I apologize for what became a rant....



    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied

    Little Crappy Ships keep on underperforming....

    https://www.defensenews.com/breaking...l-combat-ship/


    Breaking News

    US Navy halts deliveries of Freedom-class littoral combat ship


    By: David B. LarterThe Freedom-class LCS Detroit sails through the Caribbean Sea. Detroit suffered a casualty to its propulsion system in October 2020. (MC2 Anderson Branch/U.S. Navy)

    WASHINGTON — The U.S. Navy has halted deliveries of Lockheed Martin’s Freedom-class littoral combat ship, citing a design flaw with the ship’s transmission.

    In a statement to Defense News, the Navy pointed to “a material defect” with the ship’s combining gear, a complex transmission that transmits power generated by the ship’s engines to its waterjet propulsion system, and said it is working to design a fix for in-service littoral combat ships while holding off on taking delivery on new ships.

    The Freedom LCS was designed by Lockheed Martin and built by Fincantieri’s Marinette Marine shipyard. The combining gear with the defect was designed by the German firm RENK AG. The Navy, Lockheed and RENK AG have worked together on a fix, which will likely take months to install for each ship, according to a senior Navy official who spoke on condition of anonymity.

    The acknowledgement of the design flaw — early failure of the ship’s high-speed clutch bearings — confirms the Navy’s suspicions first reported by Defense News in December. Navy officials have expressed confidence, however, that the service is on a good path to fixing the defect and getting the ships to a useful place.


    It's the latest effort to help put the littoral combat ship's troubles to rest.

    By: David Larter
    In a statement, the Navy said it is working to ease the burden on commanders and enable them to still make use of the ship, even as the Navy works through the process of testing the proposed fix.




    “A design fix has been developed and is in production, to be followed by factory and sea-based testing,” a Navy statement read. “The Navy is determining the plan to install this fix on ships in the Fleet.

    “The fix will be installed and tested on new construction ships prior to the Navy taking deliveries of those ships. Measures have been implemented to mitigate risk to the in-service Freedom variant ships while the Navy moves swiftly to correct the deficiency and minimize operational impacts.”



    The modified combining gear will be tested at the RENK AG factory and on a new ship at sea before it is accepted, said Rear Adm. Casey Moton, the head of the unmanned and small combatants office at Naval Sea Systems Command.

    “The planned redesign of the defective bearings will be rigorously tested both on land at the manufacturing facility and at sea on a new construction ship before it is accepted and installed in-service,” Moton said in a statement.

    The Navy told Lockheed Martin it believes the combining gear issue was a “latent defect,” meaning the service expects the company will be responsible for the repairs, according to a senior Navy official. Lockheed has not yet responded to the the Navy and no agreement has yet been reached over how those repairs will be paid for.


    But just how much those repairs will cost is not yet know, said Capt. Danny Hernandez, spokesman for the assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development and acquisition.

    “The cost of the repair will be determine once a government-approved solution has been identified,” Hernandez said.

    Lockheed Martin said in a statement that it is committed to fixing the combining gear issue.

    “In partnership with the U.S. Navy, Lockheed Martin is aggressively pursuing a resolution to the gear issue the Freedom-variant Littoral Combat Ship is currently experiencing,” the statement read.

    The Navy has put out a class advisory on the Freedom variant, which restricts some operations of the ship. But a source familiar with the issue told Defense News that as designed, it can operate up to 34 knots even with restrictions in place in various configurations. The advisory restricts certain configurations that put stress on the failing clutch bearings, two sources confirmed to Defense News.

    The Freedom-class LCS has been bedeviled by issues with its combining gear, which is arguably an imperfect solution engineered to meet the 40-knot-plus speed requirement.


    The string of combining gear casualties dates back to at least late 2015, when the LCS Milwaukee broke down on its maiden voyage to its home port in Mayport, Florida, and had to be towed into the Little Creek base in Hampton Roads, Virginia. Early the next year, the LCS Fort Worth suffered a casualty to the combining gear in port when sailors accidentally ran the system without lube oil running through it.

    The early issues, however, are likely not the same as the clutch bearing failures that prompted the Navy to halt deliveries, however.

    Early in 2020, LCS-9 (USS Little Rock) suffered a breakdown of its combining gear, which was followed in October by the casualty to LCS-7 (USS Detroit). Detroit was forced to hobble back to port from a deployment to Latin America, but a power failure en route, forcing the Navy to have it towed to port.

    Leave a comment:


  • jlvfr
    replied
    Wow, forgot those...

    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    Calm down knuckleheads...I am talking about these

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclone-class_patrol_ship

    https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/90m-offshore-patrol-vessel-opv/
    Last edited by Albany Rifles; 21 Dec 20,, 16:16.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X