Littoral Combat Ships (LCS)

Jura said:

Brumby, I got more questions than answers ...

hold it right here: I've always thought the unusual hull-forms (trimaran and kinda yacht were chosen to efficiently operate the waterjets (as practically the only way to achieve the exorbitant speeds), but now you're suggesting what exactly? (unfortunately I haven't noticed the previous posts you mentioned above)
I'm heading to this: if you required just let's say 33 kn max and 13 kn cruising speed, wouldn't the traditional hull-form/propulsion be much more fuel-efficient? (but I don't know what you mean by "a downsized engine" so I hope I won't I create any confusion)

Click to expand...

The current design only achieved a sprint speed (from memory) of 47 knots with an even higher planned target. This is on the back of a engine sufficiently powerful to do so. The idea is if this sprint requirement is reduced, then the engine can be downsized thus saving weight, space and achieve greater fuel efficiency and correspondingly requiring less fuel on board.

Jura said:

I'm sorry but the acronym finder showed me 93 items for "SLA" so I ask you to tell me what it stands for here

Click to expand...

It stands for service life allowance. The issue of SLA and weight was extensively discussed in the July 2014 GAO report.

Jura said:

please post a link describing "AFP"

Click to expand...

I recently saw it in an article but I am having a hard time recalling which one as I don't archive them. Might take me some time to track down the link (if I can find it again).

Jura said:

... and I wonder about replenishment this way:

1. I've read somewhere in Internet there are supplies for 14 days on an LCS (60? Sailors)

if both 1. and 2. were true, how long deployments without replenishing would it mean?

Click to expand...

Clearly Burke's on station window is longer than the LCS. I read it in a Naval College article a few months ago. The actual station time seems to be classified but one can infer from it an approximate window.

dtulsa said:

... maybe convert some space that was used for module's to berths and supplies ...

Click to expand...

... I wonder what will be the official, but to me it's now like "two Mission Packages in the same ship"; for example:
"It will have a torpedo decoy, variable depth sonar and multi-function towed array permanently onboard, rather than included in a part-time mission package for LCS; will deploy two 7-meter rigid-hull inflatable boats rather than the 11-meter RHIBs on the LCS surface warfare package; and will retain the Mk 50 30mm guns rather converting to the more common 25mm gun. The ship will be upgunned with a SeaRAM anti-ship missile system, a ship-launched Hellfire missile system and an over-the-horizon surface-to-surface missile system that will be competitively contracted" (quote from inside of
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/littoral-combat-ships-lcs.t3993/page-107#post-369318

Brumby said:

... the engine can be downsized ...

Click to expand...

could you be more specific? (in a sense, there're several engines on an LCS)

P.S. I don't try to say you're wrong or nothing, I'm only curious.

Jura said:

could you be more specific? (in a sense, there're several engines on an LCS)

P.S. I don't try to say you're wrong or nothing, I'm only curious.

Click to expand...

My premise is simply that if the sprint requirement is reduced then the options for engine sizing is opened up with the prospect of alternatives being lighter, taking less space and consuming less fuel. As I said before, it is my basic understanding of a correlation between engine output and weight/fuel consumption. I do not have specific idea of what engine would be suitable.

Jura said:

... I wonder what will be the official, but to me it's now like "two Mission Packages in the same ship"; for example:
"It will have a torpedo decoy, variable depth sonar and multi-function towed array permanently onboard, rather than included in a part-time mission package for LCS; will deploy two 7-meter rigid-hull inflatable boats rather than the 11-meter RHIBs on the LCS surface warfare package; and will retain the Mk 50 30mm guns rather converting to the more common 25mm gun. The ship will be upgunned with a SeaRAM anti-ship missile system, a ship-launched Hellfire missile system and an over-the-horizon surface-to-surface missile system that will be competitively contracted" (quote from inside of
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/littoral-combat-ships-lcs.t3993/page-107#post-369318

Click to expand...

The final 20 units are basically small surface combatants and officially designated as FF. They are up-armed LCS without mission modules and configured for ASW and ASuW. The concept of modularity effectively ends with the first 32 units if you read the collective official disclosures to-date.

Not only this weapons normaly also a Mk-41 module for ESSM, 32 missiles a FFG Variant mainly usefull to fill the gap btw MSC USN have 84 very powerful combattants with a minimum of 96 missiles each ! and LCS which are under armed a Frigate for Size and a Corvette for her armament.
Actualy they are good only for ASW duty with 2 MH-60R but don' t have a hull sonar, a towed sonar disponible with ASW module fortunately, a ASW helo is more efficient with a ship which track the sub it is a team effort, hull sonar also is more powerful.

Jura said:

please post a link describing "AFP"

Click to expand...

In this regard, the DL Task Force will continue to mature how AFPs might provide combatant commanders “agile, tailorable combatant forces” that assure all-domain access, conventional deterrence, sea control, power projection, and maritime security across a range of threat environments. Cahill explains that the AFP, “capabilities match sensors, platforms and weapons to tasks, deepening the overall forces capability to execute missions across a wide geography.” Early analysis indicates the baseline AFP comprises a minimum of two surface warships with associated sensor and offensive weapons (either organic to the ship or off board).

Click to expand...

Jura said:

... is this:
Navy Launches Independent Review of Littoral Combat Ship Remote Minehunting System, New Look Could Cause More Testing Delays

source:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

This article seems to e clearer on the decision process and timing unlike the earlier article.

Kendall, responding on Oct. 8, agreed with the committee’s recommendations and pledged that the program would not move forward until the completion of an operational test readiness review in October and the independent panel’s report in November

Click to expand...

dtulsa said:

... never stopped our government from wasteful project's before.

... designed for an orderly (crew evacuation) in case of damage from battle I have never heard of such a procedure

Click to expand...

It's called abandon ship, every naval vessel has a plan for it.

Also try to lay off the purely negative comments, things like how Uncle Sam is wasteful and other purely biased oriented opinion comments.

This forum is not about that kind of stuff. EVERY government or large bureaucracy is wasteful to one extent or another. it's a given and we do not need to dwell on it in the general sense here. If you have documented specifics, fine, lay it out. But remember, here on SD, generally Wiki is not a considered a professional or good source for technical information per sey.. Go the their source footnotes when they have them, read them, and if applicable refer to them with links.

Just remember, for every link you can show inferring some kind of bias, another can b found inferring the opposite. That's why it is best to be much more empirical. On SD we are not going to get into link and post wars about such biases...they turn into what Popeye has always called useless arguments, which we as moderators will only let go on so far before shutting them down..

since Jeff's post is not marked as Moderation, I'll add this for dtulsa:
at previous page I asked Brumby for a link

please post a link describing "AFP"

Click to expand...

at first he said he couldn't provide it immediately
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/littoral-combat-ships-lcs.t3993/page-110#post-369680
but later:
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/littoral-combat-ships-lcs.t3993/page-110#post-369724
That's why I like it here, dtulsa! Your posts are also interesting, I read them, but since you don't provide links (to specialized web-sites) to back up your opinions, it's sometimes hard to figure out what you're saying

EDIT
dtulsa, the Syria Thread is re-opened; now the latest post there is ...
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/isis-isil-conflict-in-iraq-syria-thread.t6913/page-187#post-369686