Littoral Combat Ships (LCS)

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Re: Proposal for an alternate LCS design for the US Navy

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.
This is correct Popeye. The US lobby groups, reperesnting the Naval defense firms, knows how to work the US ppolitical system. They not only lobby the representatives (which is perfectly legal, and understandable given the nature of our free system), they also spend lots of advertising doallars, perfectly legally, to influence the public at large as well.

...and apparently they are very good at it.

BTW, getting back to the topic of the thread, after lots of discussion with various analysts, and naval architects, I am honing in on a more finalized design.

Here's the pic:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


The AEGIS-lite is gone (too heavy and too expensive). These vessels would be capable of data linking and cooperative engagement with any AEGIS vessel, but would themselves have more traditional acquisition and targeting systems. Advanced? Yes...but not AEGIS.

Also, it is scaled back to aa 32 cell VLS and taking out the TLAM capability, saving lots of weight between the missiles and the systems associated with the TLAM.

In exchange, the larger helo deck and hangar from the LCS design are there, plus the large well-bay under the helo deck for the capability to provide specops and material to shore, the Anti-mine, and specialized remote controlled ASW mission pack type capability if desired.

With the ESSM, the SM3, the Harpoon III, the VLA, the RAM, the MK 32 torpedo launchers, the helos, the 4 Mk 38 Mod 2s and the Mk 110 57mm gun as standard fair, these will really be a light frigate displacement, armed like a frigate.
 

Scratch

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

Though I see the need of an escort capability for bigger groups that you brought up, I still wonder if it needs to perform BMD.
That booster under the missile still adds mass and length in a shallow design.
Wouldn't SM-2 block IIIBs, or later SM-6, be enough here?
Well, in the end it won't change much of course. The versatality is nice to have.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Re: Proposal for an alternate LCS design for the US Navy

Though I see the need of an escort capability for bigger groups that you brought up, I still wonder if it needs to perform BMD.
That booster under the missile still adds mass and length in a shallow design.
Wouldn't SM-2 block IIIBs, or later SM-6, be enough here?
Well, in the end it won't change much of course. The versatality is nice to have.
My bad...that should be SM6...not SM3. No BMD capability. Will fix the pics. To begin with I believe I had both SM3 and SM6, but then went to just SM6...but edited the wrong one!
 

Tasman

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

My bad...that should be SM6...not SM3. No BMD capability. Will fix the pics. To begin with I believe I had both SM3 and SM6, but then went to just SM6...but edited the wrong one!

This now packs a real punch in a 2,300 ton light frigate/large corvette (or WW2 large destroyer!). I wonder how you can realistically get all of this weaponry plus 40 knots speed, 2 helos and a reasonable range in a ship of this size. It seems comparable or better than some much larger frigates such as the 6,000 ton F124. However, I am not a naval architect or engineer. Are you confident that the displacement and size of the ship is sufficient to accommodate all of this and maintain stability and that it can be crewed by just 75? If so this looks like an excellent warship that would be useful for the USN and would appeal to many other navies as well.

Cheers
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Re: Proposal for an alternate LCS design for the US Navy

This now packs a real punch in a 2,300 ton light frigate/large corvette (or WW2 large destroyer!). I wonder how you can realistically get all of this weaponry plus 40 knots speed, 2 helos and a reasonable range in a ship of this size. It seems comparable or better than some much larger frigates such as the 6,000 ton F124. However, I am not a naval architect or engineer. Are you confident that the displacement and size of the ship is sufficient to accommodate all of this and maintain stability and that it can be crewed by just 75? If so this looks like an excellent warship that would be useful for the USN and would appeal to many other navies as well.

Cheers
Actually, I think the F125 is actually more capable. It will have, as I understand it, a 48 cell VLS, and will have a full AEGIS-like system...in addition to a much larger bore main gun and a lot of other firepower.

This 2300 ton vessel will have a 32 cell VLS with no land attack cruise missile capability, no AEGIS system, and a much smaller main gun.

Just the same, this vessel would be very powerful. It is meant to be powered by the same powerplant as the Lockheed LCS, using the same monoplaning hull design...so yes, it will be capable of the speed. It is 25 ft shorter and has 3 ft less beam than the Lockheed LCS design, and sheds a lot of weight as a result.

Ultimately, because of the investment already made, I believe we will see more Lockheed vessels built, despite the current cancelation, and the GD design is yet to be canceled. That trimaren is still exotic and if it can hold costs, will probably be built in some numbers.

We shall see.
 

Tasman

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

Actually, I think the F125 is actually more capable. It will have, as I understand it, a 48 cell VLS, and will have a full AEGIS-like system...in addition to a much larger bore main gun and a lot of other firepower.

This 2300 ton vessel will have a 32 cell VLS with no land attack cruise missile capability, no AEGIS system, and a much smaller main gun.

Agreed that the F125 is more powerful but I was thinking of the F124 which, on a 5,900 ton displacement, has 32 VLS cells, a 76 mm main gun (which could arguably be fitted to your concept LCS) but has less range (to get 4000 nm it is limited to 18 knots) and a much lower speed. It also requires a crew of well over 200. It does have some advantages. For example it carries 8 Harpoon in quad launchers so none of the 32 VLS cells are needed for AShMs.

Overall I think that, compared with ships like the F124, your concept would provide tremendous fighting power and performance for its size.

Cheers
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Re: Proposal for an alternate LCS design for the US Navy

Agreed that the F125 is more powerful but I was thinking of the F124 which, on a 5,900 ton displacement, has 32 VLS cells, a 76 mm main gun (which could arguably be fitted to your concept LCS) but has less range (to get 4000 nm it is limited to 18 knots) and a much lower speed. It also requires a crew of well over 200. It does have some advantages. For example it carries 8 Harpoon in quad launchers so none of the 32 VLS cells are needed for AShMs.

Overall I think that, compared with ships like the F124, your concept would provide tremendous fighting power and performance for its size.

Cheers
Consulted more friends and made some minor adjustment to each design (the standard alternative added 100 tons and also added the option for the spec ops: 2400 tons total - the EACS alternative added an additional 10 crew and the spec ops, also standardized the smaller weaponry to the non-EACS design: this one is 2800 tons, but depending on the weight of the EACS which itself was not finalized, it could go to 3000 tons).

I believe I am fairly well honed in now on these designs and if it was ever really considered, the current US Navy ship design architects (both in the service and at the firms) would hone it further.

Thanks for all the great comments, suggestions, and questions.
 

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
Re: US Navy launches and christens first Littoral Combat Ship (LCS)

It appears that LCS is well underway..I have not seen any new pictures of LCS 1

MOBILE, Ala. (Aug. 7, 2007) - Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV), the Honorable Dr. Donald C. Winter, is guided onto the aluminum hull of the pre-commissioned ship Independence (LCS 2) during a tour of Austal Shipyards. Austal is one of three shipyards that has been contracted to build the littoral combat ship. The SECNAV toured the shipyard to further his understanding of the challenges facing the U.S. shipbuilding industry. U.S. Navy photo by Chief Mass Communication Specialist Shawn P. Eklund (RELEASED)

4un9xyc.jpg


5zgcc9g.jpg


5yb1un7.jpg
 

Scratch

Captain
Re: US Navy launches and christens first Littoral Combat Ship (LCS)

It seems that LCS-4 has now been canceled as well, due to cost overruns.
This will leave the USN with only one seaframe per design to test. Not good news at all. Since now all the tests would have to be done with half the number of hulls, will that mean further significant delays in the introduction of the LCS?
The Perrys are getting old and the USN isn't getting a capability it really needs.

Now I'm really curious how they will proceed. The LCS is becoming very expensive for it's class. With other designs being cheaper and also capable, I wonder if the navy will perhaps downscale the requirements.
Especiallly since the LCS has no capability for greater defence, it has to rely on the also very expensive and troubled DD(X) / CG(X) concepts in the future.
 

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
Re: US Navy launches and christens first Littoral Combat Ship (LCS)

It seems that LCS-4 has now been canceled as well, due to cost overruns.
This will leave the USN with only one seaframe per design to test. Not good news at all. Since now all the tests would have to be done with half the number of hulls, will that mean further significant delays in the introduction of the LCS?

This whole program may be in jeporday of being cancelled. It's a dang shame. But above all a real embarrasment for the USN...:eek::mad:

I never did like the two hull idea. The USN should have started with one and stuck with it....

We will have to wait and see what happens...
 
Top