The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:47 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 295 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat May 19, 2018 2:19 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 2963
Fascinating follow on posts!

Does anyone else feel like the Navy is taking the easy but most expensive way of filling the "small-surface combatant" role with super expensive ships?

Why not go with the original concept for LCS called the "Street Fighter" and making that the interim between a Corvette and an FFG? It could even be delivered as a DD!

I imagine the Street Fighter being a DD the length of a Perry FFG.
- 3x 155x60caliber guns
- TRS4D
- SPQ-9BSLQ-32 SEAWIP
-8x NULKA
-SRBOC Chaff
- 8-16x Harpoonn or NSM
- 2x HH-60 or 12-24 UAV
- 3x SeaRAM mated with 35mm Millennium Guns, P/S and one aft
-

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat May 19, 2018 9:55 pm 
It also happens in the Air Force. It is generally referred to as "gold plating." The rational is that if a feature gives an edge to the pilot, then money should not be a consideration.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun May 20, 2018 11:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:23 am
Posts: 2253
Location: Copenhagen
Does that fit on a Perry hull?

A Perry had one 3 in, one SM-1 launcher, torpedo tubes, and two SH-60B. The Taiwanese managed to add additional anti-ship missiles, the Australians and Turks a small ESSM VLS launcher. But your list is much longer.

Alone the three 155 mm guns would not fit to a Perry hull if they should have enough ammunition. Only one such gun, two helicopters and two SeaRAM could be too much for a Perry hull. And I would add at least a medium AAW missile (ESSM), not only SeaRam.

I guess it is this kind of wish list, which causes ships to grow twice to its planned displacement ;) :D

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2018 12:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 7:06 am
Posts: 2059
Location: Vancouver, Canada
A hint that the Oliver Hazard Class frigates will be reactivated?

Military.com

Quote:
Bath Iron Works Lands $87.2M Contract to Upgrade Frigates, Destroyers

Bangor Daily News, Maine 1 Jun 2018 By Beth Brogan

BATH, Maine -- The Department of Defense on Wednesday awarded Bath Iron Works an $87.2 million follow-on contract for planning yard services for the Arleigh Burke class destroyers and Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates.
(...SNIPPED)

Older Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates are not currently part of the U.S. Navy fleet, although other countries such as Australia use them, BIW spokesman David Hench said.

As President Donald Trump pressed for a build-up of the Navy to 355 ships, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson said in June 2017 that the Navy would "take a hard look" at bringing "mothballed" Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates back into service, the U.S. Naval Institute reported.

But in December, USNI reported that reactivation would cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

The $87 million contract covers maintenance for DDG 51s and FFG 7s, Hench said.


(...SNIPPED)



_________________
"Haijun" means "navy" in Mandarin Chinese.

"You have enemies? Good. It means you stood up for something in your life."- Winston Churchill


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2018 3:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:23 am
Posts: 2253
Location: Copenhagen
They mention the Australian navy as operating OHP frigates... The Australian navy has already decommissioned four out of six ships of the Adelaide class and the remaining two will be probably not left long in service. Also the most modernised ships of the class are the Turkish ships, not mentioned by the spokesperson. Most navies having such ships in service are planing to replace them soon - perhaps except of those lacking the means to do so.

What would be the idea to bringing back those old OHP class ships back into service? The USN operated OHP class ships were essentially expensive to operate OPVs stripped of their main weapon system. It for sure does not make any sense to modernise more than 30 year old ships, which were designed as cheap, austere escort ships.

The contract is about 87 million $ - for sure not sufficient for activating any ship, especially, if also maintenance of Arleigh Burke class destroyer is included. What does the contract really include? Some maintenance of the decommissioned ships to prevent them falling apart? With the hope that some desperate, poor navy accepts these old ships?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2018 7:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 6:08 pm
Posts: 121
Location: Yorktown, Indiana, USA
"The $87 million contract covers maintenance for DDG 51s and FFG 7s, Hench said."

There are costs for keeping ships in mothballs, likely a small part of the $87 million was an add-on to cover the expenses for the nine OHPs still in reserve.

If the 355 ship fleet is going to become a reality in the near term there are several ships which will need the equivalent of a FRAM type program to keep the numbers up. The Tycos and early Burkes service lives would need to be extended. The LCS are expensive and bring very little to the table in terms of combat capability, the Navy really can't figure out what to do with them. Politics are keeping the shipyards building them now. The Perrys would be cheaper and more effective than the LCS if overhauled and fitted with VLS and Harpoon.

IMHO the way forward would look something like this:

Increase the build rate of the Burkes;
FRAM the Flight I Burkes;
FRAM the Tycos;
Overhaul and reactivate the nine Perrys;
Decommission all the existing LCSs, cease construction on them immediately;
Proceed with an FFG(X), provided they can be cost effective compared to the Burkes;
Design a corvette version of the FFG(X) but smaller.

My two cents.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2018 7:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:23 am
Posts: 2253
Location: Copenhagen
Why do you think that it would cheaper to activate old expensive ships and modernise them compared to using existing, much cheaper to operate LCS, which can be also be updated? Probably for a cheaper amount compared to the old OHPs?

I agree with you regarding the value of the existing LCS. But why favouring old, old-fashioned ships as the OHPs?

And for what do you want a corvette design? Smaller is not cheaper. It would be cheaper, if equipped with fewer sensors and weapons.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2018 9:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 6:08 pm
Posts: 121
Location: Yorktown, Indiana, USA
I don't think either LCS design is salvageable. At the most basic level a warship must be able to project power at sea, and in the modern world that means weapons systems and sensors. The Navy is struggling to find a mission for the LCS because the design lacks both. They are running $600 million per hull, and that is before the modular weapons packages are fitted. They are cheaper to operate compared to other surface combatants in part because of their ridiculously small crews. This is a huge liability for a combatant as the reserve manning, maintenance, and damage control capabilities just aren't there. The "savings" are also a bit of budgetary slight of hand, as the missing crew members are still there, just assigned to a shore based maintenance support command instead of the ships themselves. An LCS cannot perform any of the major surface warfare missions and has marginal capability in any of the warfare areas for basic self defense.

Approach the LCS vs OHP argument from the perspective of putting weapons systems to sea and then run the cost analysis. IMHO a baseline weapons package should have a VLS for ESSM, ASROC, and TLAM - 16 cells at the very minimum, 32 is better; 8 Harpoon, CIWS or RAM, OTS torpedoes, helos, and a gun system with some NGFS capability. You MAY be able to insert a plug to allow the Freedom-type hull to carry those weapons systems (I have my doubts), but the Independence hull is out. The Perry class design is already there, but old. Now run the analysis and see the costs per year to operate each version and see where the efficiencies take you. You may actually want to refit BOTH the Perrys and the Freedom LCS in order to get the fleet numbers up quickly.

For a corvette design the mission would be patrol / escort, with an eye towards freeing up the Burkes for fleet work and high threat missions. You don't need a cutting-edge ship for these missions, but the ship should be able to defend itself and possess a credible capability in the major surface warfare mission areas. Re-use systems salvaged from decommissioned ships where it makes sense. By that I mean 5"/54 guns and GFCS; radars, TASS & sonars from OHPs and Spruance DDs, etc. Those systems still capable even if not state of the art. You'd want a VLS, Harpoon, and CIWS/RAM again. Use RPVs instead of helos. You may wind up with a beefier LaCombattant-type design, or maybe the Freedom LCS could be stretched and armed enough to fill this role.

Just my speculations. Might be fun to model these.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2018 12:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:23 am
Posts: 2253
Location: Copenhagen
For me the main problem with the LCS are there raceboat-like hulls, which are not shockproof and not optimal for any role, especially not ASW and as minehunter. The strange speed-requirement resulted in a weak hull.

The sensors and weapons of the current LCS are very similar to the OHP in their last fit. The LCS are likely superior, because of their newer radars. Remember: the OHPs were nearly disarmed at the end of their service.

A short VLS can be added to an OHP (for ESSM), but I doubt that there is space for one, which can fire also ASROC and Tomahawk. Such VLS are until now only installed in much larger ships. The Turkish and Australian navy added an 8-cell VLS, I would guess 16-cell is the maximum for that small hull and would require larger changes at the place of the former SM-1 launcher.

I think that a LCS is cheaper to operate than an OHP, because the much more modern systems (today's vs. 40 year old designs) are much more automated resulting in a smaller crew requirement. For sure there is a lot of discussion, what the crew size for an LCS should be and there appear to be a consensus that the original crew size was too small.

For making up numbers, the re-using existing weapons from decommissioned ships could be a good idea (how much of that is stored?). But a small hull (fast attack craft style) is not a good idea, because it can have only limited sensors and weapons. Large ships are much easier to modernise and they can be made cheap by re-using existing weapons - or by adding now fewer weapons, but with space to add additional weapon modules latter. With modules I mean similar ones to those the MEKO or Standard Flex concept. I.e. weapons, which can be simply bolted and plugged on.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2018 12:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 6:08 pm
Posts: 121
Location: Yorktown, Indiana, USA
The hull compromises you mention are among the reasons I question whether the LCS designs are salvageable at all. Might be a better fit in the Coast Guard but even with that there are superior designs for their missions.

The 8-cell VLS systems added to the HMAS and Turkish OHPs were in addition to the Mk. 13 systems, which remained. Given that the Mk 13 magazine housed 40 rounds I would expect a 32 cell VLS would not be a problem with either space or weight, a 48 cell VLS should fit as well. If more space was needed a hull extension could be added forward, they certainly would not be the first ships to be so modified.

I agree that a fast attack boat is not an option. I think you get to 2 - 3,000 tons rather quickly looking at the desired weapon / sensor fit with range and habitability issues factored in.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2018 11:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:23 am
Posts: 2253
Location: Copenhagen
True, I also do not think that the hull issue can be fixed. But if there is an urgent need for numbers, I would use the LCS instead of recommissioning old ships, which are both expensive to operate and expensive to update. The OHP are at the end of their designed service lives, it will get more and more expensive to keep them running.

The question how big an VLS launcher can be, is an interesting one. Regarding weight you are for sure right that a 32 VLS should be possible and I measured the size of 32-cell VLS on an Arleigh Burke and an OHP class model, which showed that there is enough space on an OHP. Still there is the question, what kind of VLS can be installed. A long one, which can fire also Tomahawk or only a short one? I would still think that there is also space for a short one, i.e. no Tomahawks.

2000-3000 t is rather small. The Freedom class has nearly 4000 t displacement. As written, hull size is not important regarding costs. Sensors and weapons are expensive. Ok, steel can be more expensive after Trump's decision regarding steel tariffs, but still hull costs should be a minor part of total costs.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 8:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:31 pm
Posts: 1780
..


Last edited by carr on Wed Jul 11, 2018 12:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 9:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 6:08 pm
Posts: 121
Location: Yorktown, Indiana, USA
The VLS does not have to be flush with the deck. You can install any length required if you have the VLS box project above the deck line but I am not convinced that would be required. Likewise, the hull can be lengthened by installing a plug at the superstructure face similar to the British Type 42s so you could go to a 64-cell VLS if desired even if it wouldn't quite fit in the existing Mk 13 space. With a 5"/54 and a VLS on the fo'c'sle the QHPs would look mean. Make an interesting model anyway.

Like I said earlier in the thread, the intent would be to get capable weapons systems to sea quickly in a cost-effective manner. The costs to FRAM each individual OHP hull is very subjective and will vary, perhaps considerably. No way we armchair admirals can assess that accurately here.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 12:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:23 am
Posts: 2253
Location: Copenhagen
@ carr: thank you for making me aware of that study!

Unfortunately the "Average Life Cycle Cost Per Year" includes the purchase of the ships and its equipment. It is not the pure running costs (fuel, lubricants, maintenance, crew etc.). I had expected the LCS to be cheaper in that regard compared to the swimming equivalent of a vintage car (OHP class). I am for sure not surprised that the life cycle costs of the LCS are higher. There are plenty of indications that the LCS are overpriced, not capable ships based on weird requirements (e.g. the anti-swarm fighting requirement or the high speed requirement). If it turns out that also the pure running costs are higher than of old 1970s ships, the LCS program is even a bigger disaster than I had thought.

It is really the question what to do with all these LCS, which are existing, are built or already ordered. What happened to the plans to reconfigure them to FFs? (it is anyway correct that "LCS" is strange; that would be usually a type of amphibious ship, e.g. Landing Command Ship, not a ship for fighting submarines...)

@ InchHigh:
The question is the hull depth. What are the smallest ships with VLS capable of firing Tomahawks? It is difficult to find that information, because usually the type of VLS Mk 41 is not given (e.g. on Wikipedia) and many navies may have ships capable of firing Tomahawks, but have not bought any.

For sure a modernised OHP would be interesting. The different existing variants of the class are too similar to make it interesting to built models of them (perhaps with the exception of the Taiwanese ships with additional launchers and the Turkish ships with the VLS and new radar).

But I doubt that it would be cost effective to modernise more than 30 year old ships of the OHP class. The FRAM at the end of the 1950s were designed for ships, which were 20 year or less old - during the Cold War, where there was a massive demand for ships. Now the situation is still very different and the ships would be much older.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 12:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 6:08 pm
Posts: 121
Location: Yorktown, Indiana, USA
Mk 41 VLS Strike Module dimensions here: http://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Weapo ... ke_BAE.pdf

Depth is 303" = 25' 3" = 7,7m; you basically need three decks.

Anything which doesn't fit inside the hull can project above the weather deck.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 1:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:31 pm
Posts: 1780
..


Last edited by carr on Wed Jul 11, 2018 12:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 1:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:31 pm
Posts: 1780
..


Last edited by carr on Wed Jul 11, 2018 12:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 2:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 6:08 pm
Posts: 121
Location: Yorktown, Indiana, USA
The Freedom class LCS design was $537 million in FY2012 dollars.
The Independence class LCS design was $635 million in FY2011 dollars.

Those costs are before they are armed with mission package sets. The LCS can carry one package at a time.

Mine warfare packages cost $97.7 million each.
ASW packages cost $32.6 million each.
ASuW packages cost $20.9 million each.
The "mission package equipment set" needed to integrate any of the warfare packages adds another $14.8 million.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 5:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 472
carr wrote:
maxim wrote:
I think that a LCS is cheaper to operate than an OHP

In case you're interested in actual data rather than an opinion, here's some data. From the GAO-14-447 LCS operating cost report,

Average Life Cycle Cost Per Year:

LCS with module = $79M

OHP = $54M

DDG-51 = $88M


Thus, the LCS is significantly more expensive than the OHP and approaching the Burke class.


Shocking. No excuse for this higher cost for lower capability and higher risk to Sailors.

I know of a Naval Engineer who quit over the LCS - could not agree with the decisions made which will needlessly endanger Sailor's lives.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 6:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:31 pm
Posts: 1780
..


Last edited by carr on Wed Jul 11, 2018 12:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 295 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Admiral John Byng and 3 guests


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group