Proposal for an alternate LCS design for the US Navy

bigstick61 said:

I actually think that the 3-inch gun is a good one for this type of vessel. While the 57mm gun puts out more rounds, each round is less effective, and larger projectiles tend to be more versatile. I've been on BAE's site and seen the specs on the 57mm gun, and I must say that for this type, I prefer the 3-incher. The 57mm gun is better suited for CG vessels, patrol combatants, auxiliaries, and as a secondary gun in larger units, in my opinion.

Click to expand...

The 57mm gun is better for AA duties. It is smaller, and is more easily fitted to ships due to the lower recoil and smaller deck penetration. Better for ships that may be more prone to top-heaviness and have limited hull space.

This looks to be an excellent design concept that I imagine would suit many smaller navies. I think it would be ideal for countries like Singapore and Malaysia for example.

It is a very powerful ship for its displacement, regardless of whether a 76mm or 57mm gun is fitted. For example, it has as many VLS cells as the newly ordered Australian F100 frigates (or destroyers as they are being called in Australia) and it is only the lack of the full AEGIS system and a 5" gun where they offer less firepower than the 6,000 ton F100.

A range of 4,500nm at 20 knots looks reasonable for a ship of this size and the crew of 75 would suit navies having manpower problems.

I am thinking along similar lines to Bigstick61 that perhaps a frigate would be a better OHP replacement for the USN. Traditionally the USN has built comparatively large ships with good habitability and long range compared with European designs and I think this reflects the fact that the USN generally deploys and fights a long way from home. I guess I would like to see an enlarged version with similar armament, except perhaps for a bigger main gun, and longer range but with personnel still kept to a minimum.

In summary I think this looks to be an excellent design for a corvette but I am not sure that a corvette is the right concept for the USN. Then again, I am not a fan of the LCS concept for the USN either!

Re the debate about the main gun I am a fan of larger guns but for this ship I would opt for the 57mm for the reasons given by Jeff and Pointblank.

Cheers

I do also think that for the tasks Jeff want this vessel to perform - clearing littorals from small threats like FACs, mines, small subs, mobile land based AShM, the 57mm gun is effective and enough while the 76mm is not really needed here.
Though the OHPs need to be replaced and that new littoral capability added to the USN, I don't think two different designs were worth it.
If the Corvettes (or even light frigates) were to retain some of the flexibility the LCS is to have, I think they could pretty well do both roles.
At some points you have to make compromises and cannot fill every niche with a seperate class.

Scratch said:

I do also think that for the tasks Jeff want this vessel to perform - clearing littorals from small threats like FACs, mines, small subs, mobile land based AShM, the 57mm gun is effective and enough while the 76mm is not really needed here.
Though the OHPs need to be replaced and that new littoral capability added to the USN, I don't think two different designs were worth it.
If the Corvettes (or even light frigates) were to retain some of the flexibility the LCS is to have, I think they could pretty well do both roles.
At some points you have to make compromises and cannot fill every niche with a seperate class.

Click to expand...

Exactly. These trade offs, unfortunately sometimes, have to be made because we can't get everything.

For example, with the 57mm gun already being ordered for the Coast Guard National Defense Cutters, and for however many LCS craft that are built, and for however few DDX get built, there is already significant momentum behind them...and for the littoral task, they will perform the function admirably I believe and provide a secondary AAW role For the blue water, with the Harpoon IIIs, these vessels will also be able to handl;e significant Anit-surface missions if necessary.

Tranlsating it into your language...

Da hast Du recht...ganz genau!

Jeff Head said:

Da hast Du recht...ganz genau!

Click to expand...

Danke

Now after looking at your proposal a little more closely, I somehow wonder if it isn't overpowered (weapons wise). Both for what you intend it to do and for the size of it.
The LCS designs are even slightly bigger. Still they seem to be much less armed. (That part is somewhat mysterious to me anyway.) The only solid armament info I get is the 57mm gun, 50cal gunmounts and that NLOS missile system. Plus the mission modules. I never found that these contain a VLS or some kind of heavier weapons.
And those ships already have a small manning. With your ship offering rather less than more space to crew members, I fear you might not have enough space for even one boarding team.
Then come SM-3 and TLAM. Since these are really long things, I also fear that might affact the ships shallow draft. Plus I don't think these kind of weapons are needed for that kind of ships. That's even a much heavier punch than the OHPs. I'd say at max SM-6 in certain operations. But BMD and heavy far in-land attacks should be performed by other assets.
Can Harpoon IIIs also be used for land attack roles? That should also be the upper end, IMO.
I would say for the tasks you propose, SeaRAM, the 57mm gun and the NLOS-LS (former NetFires) should be the standart weapons fit. This would allow you to abandon the VLS, saving space for additional crew. Because in some cases, I can see such a ship being the better option to bring personal to land/into theater than an LPD/LHD.
Maybe in some vessels you could trade that additional crew space for a VLS that can hold ESSM/HarpoonIII but not more. To perform more "traditional" patrol duties.

Just a few thoughts.

Scratch said:

Danke

Now after looking at your proposal a little more closely, I somehow wonder if it isn't overpowered (weapons wise). Both for what you intend it to do and for the size of it.
The LCS designs are even slightly bigger. Still they seem to be much less armed. (That part is somewhat mysterious to me anyway.) The only solid armament info I get is the 57mm gun, 50cal gunmounts and that NLOS missile system. Plus the mission modules. I never found that these contain a VLS or some kind of heavier weapons.
And those ships already have a small manning. With your ship offering rather less than more space to crew members, I fear you might not have enough space for even one boarding team.
Then come SM-3 and TLAM. Since these are really long things, I also fear that might affact the ships shallow draft. Plus I don't think these kind of weapons are needed for that kind of ships. That's even a much heavier punch than the OHPs. I'd say at max SM-6 in certain operations. But BMD and heavy far in-land attacks should be performed by other assets.
Can Harpoon IIIs also be used for land attack roles? That should also be the upper end, IMO.
I would say for the tasks you propose, SeaRAM, the 57mm gun and the NLOS-LS (former NetFires) should be the standart weapons fit. This would allow you to abandon the VLS, saving space for additional crew. Because in some cases, I can see such a ship being the better option to bring personal to land/into theater than an LPD/LHD.
Maybe in some vessels you could trade that additional crew space for a VLS that can hold ESSM/HarpoonIII but not more. To perform more "traditional" patrol duties.

Just a few thoughts.

Click to expand...

I believe the US still needs, in addtion to a couple of Burkes, smaller, frigate size vessels to augment the escort of its carriers and amphib groups. These vessels need to by well armed multi-role vessels and this design would provide that.

The US also needs effective littoral combat vessels, with a strong "punch" and these vessels provide that, in a muti-role package so you do not sacrifice too much when you outfit for one role or another. They do give up on any strong littoral ability to provide men and material to the beach...but, as I said, I believe that for small numbers, the subs can do that better anyway, and for larger numbers there are several other options including the LPDs and the new LSX class under development now...or small craft coming off of the LPD, LHA, or LHD classes.

I do not believe, at this stage that the US is going to procure two seperate classes in any kind of numbers, but they will build one. This design allows both roles to be very adequately covered and at a crew of 75, I believe there will be good room for the crew. I would not do awayt with the VLS at all, because in essence, it provides the best way to vary the "mission" while maintaining strong capabilities in the other areas.

Anyhow, thanks again for the excellent input.

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:

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

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.

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.