Littoral Combat Ships (LCS)

Re: Proposal for an alternate LCS design for the US Navy

I think Jeff's design would result in a very powerful but expensive light frigate.

I don't have pricing for EACS system, but assuming similiar to AN/SPY-1K for installation on a ship of this size, adding cost of Mk.41 VLS + munitions... the bill already comes to at least $200-$250+ million USD est., not counting rest of the ship.

How I'd picture a Corvette design, would be an inexpensive general-purpose littoral combatant ship (not a state-of-the-art/expensive OH Perry replacement). It'd look like a larger version of the Braunschweig K130 Korvette (or similar to Turkish Milgem class), with better helicopter facilities and ASW suite. The specs would look something like this:

Displacement: 1,800-2,000 tons
Sensors: 3D multifunction radar, navigation radar, etc.
Sonar: Bow-mounted + optional TAS
Armaments:
1 x 57mm or 76mm gun
2 x 21-cel RAM launcher
2 x 4-cel Harpoon SSM with land-attack option, if fitted for ASW, use ASROC's instead.
2 x 3 Light ASW torpedos
2-4 x MG's
Aviation:
1 x Medium Helicopter (SH-60/S-70B?)
1 x UAV

This ship would also be priced competitively in the international market for foreign navies, built with solid, proven technology that's not too sensitive for export. The land-attack function on the Harpoon SSM can be excluded for export variants.


An "international" version of this Corvette concept, would look something like this:

Displacement: 1,800-2,000 tons
Sensors: 3D multifunction radar, navigation radar, etc.
Sonar: Bow-mounted + optional TAS
Armaments:
1 x 57mm or 76mm gun
1 x Oerlikon Contraves 35mm ILDS/CIWS, or 2 x smaller caliber guns
2 x 8-cel Umkhonto or Barak VLS
2 x 4-cel SSM (RBS15, NSM, MM40 Exocet, etc.)
2 x Twin or Triple 324mm Lightweight ASW Torpedos (MU90?)
2-4 x MG's
Aviation:
1 x Medium helicopter (NH-90?)
Provisions for 1 x small UAV

=======

If you want something even smaller, try the Flyvefisken Class... it's small, modular design, and multi-mission capable:

Re: Proposal for an alternate LCS design for the US Navy

adeptitus said:

I think Jeff's design would result in a very powerful but expensive light frigate.

I don't have pricing for EACS system, but assuming similiar to AN/SPY-1K for installation on a ship of this size, adding cost of Mk.41 VLS + munitions... the bill already comes to at least $200-$250+ million USD est., not counting rest of the ship.

Click to expand...

EACS is supposed to be somewhat less than a noraml AEGIS AN/SPY installation.

This proposed design is actually a hybrid of two designs that are already out there.

The Lockheed fully armed version fo the LCS (where mission pack space is sacrificed for multi-role armament, including VLS) :



...and the fully navalized version of the Northrop US Coast Guard Bertholf design

Re: Proposal for an alternate LCS design for the US Navy

I simply don't think a corvette is the proper replacement for a frigate. A frigate is more suited to the bulk of missions to be performed due to larger size, ability to take more damage, greater range, better sea-keeping abilities on the open ocean, and the ability to have a larger weapons outfit and still have room for a landing or boarding party. There are only a couple of highly specialized roles where the LCS is superior due to its small size and configuration. I recall you saying that the troop/equipment carrying capability is gone in your design; this is a large part of the concept behind the LCS, which makes me question such a replacement for a frigate further. It would be nice for the USN to have both a corvette and a frigate, but if I had to choose just one, for a Navy like the USN, it would be the frigate.

As for the main gun, my main concern is its intended use to support troops ashore since operations in the littorals in close support of landing parties is part of the LCS mission. I think a 3" gun fits the bill there better than a 57mm gun, as it is much more capable in that regard, while still having decent AA capabilities. If it wasn't for some fo the core missions of the LCS, I would be perfectly fine with a 57mm gun for such a ship.

Re: Proposal for an alternate LCS design for the US Navy

bigstick61 said:

I simply don't think a corvette is the proper replacement for a frigate. A frigate is more suited to the bulk of missions to be performed due to larger size, ability to take more damage, greater range, better sea-keeping abilities on the open ocean, and the ability to have a larger weapons outfit and still have room for a landing or boarding party. There are only a couple of highly specialized roles where the LCS is superior due to its small size and configuration. I recall you saying that the troop/equipment carrying capability is gone in your design; this is a large part of the concept behind the LCS, which makes me question such a replacement for a frigate further. It would be nice for the USN to have both a corvette and a frigate, but if I had to choose just one, for a Navy like the USN, it would be the frigate.

As for the main gun, my main concern is its intended use to support troops ashore since operations in the littorals in close support of landing parties is part of the LCS mission. I think a 3" gun fits the bill there better than a 57mm gun, as it is much more capable in that regard, while still having decent AA capabilities. If it wasn't for some fo the core missions of the LCS, I would be perfectly fine with a 57mm gun for such a ship.

Click to expand...

All good points. I personally would prefer a frigate myself...but given the momentum already in place for an LCS type vessel, and given what I consider to be its deficiencies and poor program management to date...this is something that would work in both roles, and still come as close to what I consider to be a multi-role frigate role as possible in the current environment.

I fear, if a full fledged frigate was pushed, we would end up with nothing.

I believe the current LCS (which I refer to as the Lightly-armed Combat Ship) will be built in some numbers, but small unless the management is vastly improved. A full AEGIS, even the same as on the F-100 firgates, will be too heavy and costly for this design, that is why I believe the EACS is a good alternative.

Anyhow, based on some good input I have received from people close to the naval architects, I have worked on the design somewhat and the lines are now a little different.

Re: Proposal for an alternate LCS design for the US Navy

I like the ideas Jeff, and the argument is strong, but personaly I'd prefer seeing the USN buying a job lot of Americanised Absalon class from Denmark. Much bigger than the LCS, these are basically destroyer sized boats with frigate armaments and a roll-on-roll-off logistic deck - sort of the ultimate "expeditionary frigate".



Armament wise I'd like to see an 8 or 16 round ESSM VLS on the foredeck with a 57mm or 76mm main gun leaving room for 8-16 SSMs/LACMs amidship. CIWS would be a single Sea RAM launcher and AAA/CISD would be 20mm guns with grenade launchers.

Re: Proposal for an alternate LCS design for the US Navy

given the momentum already in place for an LCS type vessel

Click to expand...

I think LCS is already losing that momentum. Last I heard the program was going to be scaled back and also delayed pending further evaluation, and the Lockheed ships, excluding the one fitting out, were cancelled due to high unit cost. Most USN programs are losing momentum fast, although I can't say the USN is not to blame, same in regards to their program features.

Re: Proposal for an alternate LCS design for the US Navy

I like the ideas Jeff, and the argument is strong, but personaly I'd prefer seeing the USN buying a job lot of Americanised Absalon class from Denmark.

Click to expand...

That would be unprecidented. The US defense industry will not allow such a purchase. The Absalon class is a fine design.

Personally I hope the parties involved "get their stuff" together and get the present USN LCS program back on the right course.

Re: Proposal for an alternate LCS design for the US Navy

bd popeye said:

That would be unprecidented.

Click to expand...

And that my friend, is the hypocracy of US military policy.

Actually USN bought BAe Hawk and at least one VSV for SF evaluation. And the USMC bought the Harrier GR1 so not completely unprecidented but I know what you mean.

Even the multihull LCS is basically Australian technology - and and Austral sold (leased?) a fast ferry to USN.

Re: Proposal for an alternate LCS design for the US Navy

planeman said:

And that my friend, is the hypocracy of US military policy.

Actually USN bought BAe Hawk and at least one VSV for SF evaluation. And the USMC bought the Harrier GR1 so not completely unprecidented but I know what you mean.

Even the multihull LCS is basically Australian technology - and and Austral sold (leased?) a fast ferry to USN.

Click to expand...

They then licensed produced it with substantial modifications. This was for technology and designs that American defense contractors did not have at the time.

Re: Proposal for an alternate LCS design for the US Navy

And that my friend, is the hypocracy of US military policy.

Click to expand...

Sorry Planeman, That is how the US Defence industry keeps those big defense bucks rolling in$$$$. They lobby the US congress for all sorts of projects day in and day out..year after year. They will let very little slip through. Very little will be outsourced. Is it a perfect system?? No. But it works for those involved. Sorry that you see it as hyporacy.