The Ship Model Forum

Ernest E Evans would be an outstanding class name.

FFG-62 might be as-on-the-nose as necessary for the project; ie it's not confusing LCS hull numbers with FFG numbers, instead it's picking up right where the Perry-class left off.

Most excellent, DavidP, I like it!

What about a name for the class that does not conflict with current naming conventions? I'm not opposed to continuing with names of cities like the LCSs currently are, afterall SSNs and CA/CLs did it, too.

I will be using elements of Tetra's DDG-89 PE kit (railings, ladders, vent in-takes, hatches, mast and surface details). n addition to the NSC itself printed from Shapeways, other parts included will be:
SPQ-9B
TRS-3D
Veteran SeaRAM
Veteran RAM
Veteran Harpoon
Veteran SH-60
Veteran 9mRHIB
Veteran Mk32 SVTT
Mk38Mod2 25mm (maybe)

[u]Custom[/u]:
11mRHIB
Mk41 VLS
76mmSR
Mk45Mod4 5"/62
SPQ-9B
TRS-3D
COMS domes
Millennium Gun (maybe)
Mk38Mod2 25mm (maybe)

[u]Shapeways[/u]:
BAE 155mm deck gun
As always, comments and suggestions are welcome :big_grin:

Standby to get some! :woo_hoo:

[quote="SumGui"]Sounds like a move up to FFG - not that that is bad, we need FFGs, but LCS should get smaller in my opinion - look to the Nordic nations or the Ambassador Mk III for a platform size/type.

Let Frigates escort, let LCS be closer to Streetfighter as originally envisioned, use the Puller ESB as a local support platform for the Patrol-craft sized LCS groups to exert sea control over the littorals.[/quote]
Indeed, the 155mm gun could provide great counter battery support and good NSFS.

Sounds like a move up to FFG - not that that is bad, we need FFGs, but LCS should get smaller in my opinion - look to the Nordic nations or the Ambassador Mk III for a platform size/type.

Let Frigates escort, let LCS be closer to Streetfighter as originally envisioned, use the Puller ESB as a local support platform for the Patrol-craft sized LCS groups to exert sea control over the littorals.

What if the LCS Flight II were to be based on the NSC? Not just the slightly modified version with 16 VLS and a 76mm Gun with one SeaRAM but instead 32-48cell VLS, either a Mod45 Mod4 5”/62 caliber gun or a 155mm/60caliber gun and 3 SeaRAM with 2 Millennium Guns?

Sounds like a surprisingly capable LCS/FFG!

Well,

Looks like one version finally has a sale:

https://news.usni.org/2017/05/19/saudi-arabia-set-6b-lockheed-martin-frigate-deals-part-massive-110b-u-s-arms-sale

which references:
https://news.usni.org/2016/05/18/new-saudi-frigate-design-details-emerge

[quote="SumGui"][quote="navydavesof"]I am still in favor of making the Independence-class ships the MCM vessels if not making a version of the PC replacement the MCM vessels. With the exception of helicopter support, a PC sized ship with appropriate equipment would be able to do that job very well.[/quote]

Yes - and as an "LHS" - Littoral helicopter Support vessel. Combined with a group of three to six Ambassador Fast Missile Craft. The Ambassadors go forward, they are supported via the aviation capabilities of the Independence class from a distance, and the Ambassadors come back to the Independence who is using the flex deck space to support MST (Maintenance and Support Teams - these were used to support the PCs while I was aboard - essentially extra personnel and parts in 20' containers). [/quote]

The Independence class has the speed to reposition to best support drones/helos to support the Ambassadors, and has the speed to deploy/re-deploy along with the Ambassadors themselves.

[quote]While something like the [i]Absalon [/i]would do that job very well, we already have and are on the hook for many of the Independence class, whose strengths are aviation and flex deck space - so this would be one way to utilize that sunk cost.
This is a great idea! I wonder how much deeper an LCS-2 would sink if built out of steel!
[/quote]
If built out of steel, an LCS-2 would be able to do what you describe! The hangar would be greatly expanded, the bow would accommodate a 76mm gun, a 32-cell VLS magazine, and a myriad of other weapons.

[quote="navydavesof"]I am still in favor of making the Independence-class ships the MCM vessels if not making a version of the PC replacement the MCM vessels. With the exception of helicopter support, a PC sized ship with appropriate equipment would be able to do that job very well.[/quote]

Yes - and as an "LHS" - Littoral helicopter Support vessel. Combined with a group of three to six Ambassador Fast Missile Craft. The Ambassadors go forward, they are supported via the aviation capabilities of the Independence class from a distance, and the Ambassadors come back to the Independence who is using the flex deck space to support MST (Maintenance and Support Teams - these were used to support the PCs while I was aboard - essentially extra personnel and parts in 20' containers).

The Independence class has the speed to reposition to best support drones/helos to support the Ambassadors, and has the speed to deploy/re-deploy along with the Ambassadors themselves.

While something like the Absalon would do that job very well, we already have and are on the hook for many of the Independence class, whose strengths are aviation and flex deck space - so this would be one way to utilize that sunk cost.

[quote="carr"]My apologies for poor terminology. I meant an aviation control booth like the Perrys and others had/have on their hangars.[/quote]Ah! Indeed. I would have it at the base of the portside 76mm mount on the flight deck, fashioned similar to those on the Flight I DDGs.

[quote="carr"][quote]... making a version of the PC replacement the MCM vessels. [/quote]
Very much in favor of that unless helos turn out to be the main MCM method. If so, a small helo carrier would be more appropriate.[/quote]Ah, I agree. If helicopters must be involved, my concept for the MCM LCS would be an appropriately re-built LCS-2. Strengthened to appropriate standards, I would embark her with 2 MH-53s to sweep mines and fit the ship with the appropriate sonars. That is a project for another thread! :heh:

[quote="carr"]Interesting that the Navy is struggling to settle on a MCM methodology. They seem to desperately want to use unmanned surface and subsurface vehicles but are finding the technology to be unachievable, as yet. That leaves helos but the Navy is only half-heartedly pursuing those. We'll have to wait and see what they settle on.[/quote]It seems that the consequences of disbanding the General Board are impacting the modern Navy more than any time in the past.

Is it time to reconvene the General Board?

..

[quote="carr"]It's been a while. I assume you're still sticking with what was outlined on page one of this thread?[/quote]I am following the following findings of the study:

The reference is a Proceedings article from September 2012 written by CAPT Robert Powers called "Birth of the Littoral Combat Ship".

What the article boiled down to was:
- CIC should be incorporated for quick communication and rapid decision making
- The ship should not be built out of aluminum.
- Manning should be low, but not so low it inhibits combat capability or maintenance. Maintenance must not suffer from low manning.
- New hull designs such as tri-hull should be explored
- Flight deck is important. UAVs and helos should be a large part of the ship's armament
- Perform counter battery fire against sites firing artillery or ASCMs

[quote]If so, you might consider adding SEWIP (Block III? It's a whatif, after all).[/quote]Indeed. That will be in the later fitting of the model.

[quote]I took a glance but couldn't see (might have missed it) whether you're sticking with the water jets or going conventional propulsion. [/quote]I will go with conventional propulsion of two Burke-style swept screws.

[quote]If you go conventional, presumably you can have a hull mounted sonar, as you indicated. You might consider Prairie/Masker, as well.[/quote] I am not sure yet about the sonar system. I imagine it would be a side scan type to detect mines. To your knowledge are there models that are both side scan and ASW sonars?

[quote]Dedicated UAV control "tower"?[/quote]Tower? I'm not quite sure, however, dedicated antennas, yes. I plan on two types of UAVs. One is the Shadow and the other is Scan Eagle.

[quote]Hedgehog/RBU -ish close in anti-sub, quick reaction weapon? Torpedo tubes?[/quote]I imagine the standard Mk32 SVTT.

[quote]If you move the RHIB ops to a more conventional amidships location that would free up the extreme aft end for a gun mount?[/quote]The stern will be covered by two 76mm SR guns positioned in hip mounts on the extreme forward part of the helicopter deck. They will be set in dishes to catch the spent casings so they don't FOD the deck.
[/quote]

I am still in favor of making the Independence-class ships the MCM vessels if not making a version of the PC replacement the MCM vessels. With the exception of helicopter support, a PC sized ship with appropriate equipment would be able to do that job very well.

We will see!

..

I am about to start a new thread with the build in progress. The model is back out. The parts are back out...the plan is ready. I would love to hear any ideas for making the badass LCS-1 Flight II FF to rock and role.

..

Lockheed version of the "frigate" LCS:

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3473

Saudi version:

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3458

NSM deployment mock-ups from vendor:
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3453


Pics from Surface Navy Association this month:
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3420

[quote="SumGui"]Just build a real combatant already.[/quote]I'm on it! :heh:

Sad days...

"The Navy also has not yet demonstrated that LCS will achieve its survivability
requirements, and does not plan to complete survivability assessments until
2018—after more than 24 ships are either in the fleet or under construction. The
Navy has identified unknowns related to the use of aluminum and the hull of the
Independence variant, and plans to conduct testing in these areas in 2015 and
2016. However, the Navy does not plan to fully determine how the Independence
variant will react to an underwater explosion. This variant also sustained some
damage in a trial in rough sea conditions, but the Navy is still assessing the
cause and severity of the damage and GAO has not been provided with a copy
of the test results. Results from air defense and cybersecurity testing also
indicate concerns, but specific details are classified.

In February 2014 the former Secretary of Defense directed the Navy to assess
options for a small surface combatant with more survivability and combat
capability than LCS. The Navy conducted a study and recommended modifying
the LCS to add additional survivability and lethality features. After approving the
Navy’s recommendation, the former Secretary of Defense directed the Navy to
submit a new acquisition strategy for a modified LCS for his approval. He also
directed the Navy to assess the cost and feasibility of backfitting lethality and
survivability enhancements on current LCS. Nevertheless, the Navy has
established a new frigate program office to manage this program, and the Navy
has requested $1.4 billion for three LCS in the fiscal year 2016 President’s
budget, even though it is clear that the current ships fall short of identified
survivability and lethality needs. GAO has an ongoing review of the Navy’s small
surface combatant study and future plans for the LCS program. "

http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/674367.pdf

Just build a real combatant already.

I'll put my two cents in.

Armaments would be 1xOto Melara 127mm/64 caliber DP gun with Volcano extended range/IR antiship homing/GPS guided land attack with SAL terminal homing, 2X76mm SR STRALES( on mount radar guided AAA shells), 2X35mm Milleniem guns associated with 2XSEARAM, 2Xtriple ASW TTs,two MH-60 helos or naval version of V-280 if built and 2 UAV from hangar. Sixteen Mk. 41 VLS on either hangar door side with hangar lengthened to recover space lost to VLS and 16 cell VLS forward for a total of 48 VLS.

Ship is the 6000 ton 150 Meters long FFG of Lockheed Freedom class basic hull design with SPY-1F or scaled down 'basic' AMDR with nine RMAs for six by six feet active arrays matching SPY-1D performance, CEC, NIFC-CA links, VDS, towed array, hull mounted and mine hunting sonars.

SEWIP III EW, Nulka/SRBOC-36, two 11 meter RHIB each side of deckhouse, extended deckhouse/flight deck/forward deck by 11 meters each(153meters overall length), lengthened mission bay, Nixie torpedo decoy/lightweight torpedo detection array, accommodations for 100 or more crew plus helo/UAV detachment(enough to run the ship, fight the ship, man damage control and repair), watertight compartmentation and fire automatic fire fighting systems.

Missiles would be fired from 48 strike length cells with ESSM, SM-2,SM-6, LRASM, Tomahawk, VLASROC as needed by the mission.

Hopefully, cost would be reasonable.

Interesting, TRS-4D does it's own designating.

Upgraded LCS to Saudi Arabia:

http://dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/kingdom-saudi-arabia-multi-mission-surface-combatant-mmsc-ships

16 Mk 41 VLS cells (ESSM)
Oto Melara 76mm/62
SeaRAM
Harpoon