Proposal for an alternate LCS design for the US Navy

Tasman said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Jeff Head said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Tasman said:

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

Click to expand...

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.