The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Thu Oct 22, 2020 2:42 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 8:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3099
If the Navy were to be serious about littoral operations much less littoral dominance, it would have to fill a large number of different roles and thus different platforms. The great thing is that most of those platforms already exist, and only one would need to be newly contracted. Those are:

ASB(I)

LCS

PC(R)

MkVI

RCB/RAB

This will be an on going project with debate and different platforms uploaded. The theater involved will be the First Island Chain of the Pacific.

:woo_hoo:

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Last edited by navydavesof on Sun Feb 05, 2017 8:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2017 11:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
I don't see a home for the LCS, but I am standing by to be amazed.

ASB + PC(R) = Littoral area control (probably assisted by a Burke for AAW if threat level demands it)

MK VI + Mother = Local security patrol

I still like the well deck transportability of the Mk VI combined with its capabilities. LSD-41 +8 Mk VI or LSD-49/LPD-17 +4 Mk VI is a nice local security force.

Maybe even a mod Flight II LPD-17 with ESSM for its own local area defense, but the LPD-17 hulls do not have a history of affordability.


I can easily see a return to the Tender style support concept for presence over an area

(Including, perhaps, some Type 212-like submarines and tender for local area work, especially in shallower areas where they can exploit undersea topography)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2017 3:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 11266
Location: Calgary, AB/Surrey, B.C., Canada
LCS best serves as distributed tenders for unmanned systems (aerial, surface, underwater) carrying out MCM missions. You want to avoid a single-point-of-failure that would happen if you used an AFSB/LHX for this, but have enough space to carry both reusable and disposable MCM systems.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2017 4:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
an Alta/Oksoy combination would be a much better (and far more cost-effective) MCM surface element


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2017 9:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3099
SumGui wrote:
I don't see a home for the LCS, but I am standing by to be amazed.
The idea with an LCS as part of the group would be to be a UAV carrier and C2 relay. In the standard poorly configuration, they could still launch, recover, and operate UAVs from the shorter range Puma and Scan Eagle to the long-range Shadow UAVs and then channel what they see to the other craft. If needed, the single HH-60 could be launched to respond however.

If it were an LCS FlightII like I have proposed in the past with a 16-32 cell VLS suite, it would be able to perform area AAW with ESSM and group wide counter battery with 5". Theoretically, the Mk45 5"62 could perform precision fire with Excalibur GPS/SALG or 54/38caliber rounds with a Course Correction Fuse (CCF) providing GPS guidance. The 54 caliber rounds would reach 19 nm while the 38 caliber rounds would approach 30nm.

SumGui wrote:
ASB + PC(R) = Littoral area control (probably assisted by a Burke for AAW if threat level demands it)
I agree 100%. The ASB is an awesome extension of assets. Unfortunately the Ponce cannot house the Mk6. I can only hope the LSDs can, but I am not sure at this time. I believe the LPD-17s can but a challenge there is that all of those assets are currently obligated to Marine transport. Either the Marine transport would have to be foregone or dedicated hulls would have to be made. I vote for the dedicated hulls.

The PC(R), I am debating whether to replace the CIWS and 21-cell RAM with a single SeaRAM mount. The second consideration is to keep the 21-cell RAM mount and replace the CIWS with a SeaRAM providing the craft with 33 RAM. This would begin to lend the ship to be a small AAW escort. The third consideration is to replace the CIWS with SeaRAM and replace the 21-cell RAM with a Millennium Gun. Either NSM or Harpoons would be retained.

SumGui wrote:
MK VI + Mother = Local security patrol
The Mk6 is an interesting craft. Like DDG-1000 and LCS, the Mk6 is an "in between" capability. It is over gunned to counter a small gun boat and under gunned to counter a missile craft. It is added to the list of the "Most Unfortunate Navy Assets" being the poorly armed Cyclone-class PCs, the unforgivably under armed LCS, and the very confused DDG-1000. The Mk6 has capabilities but not ones matched to its counterparts.

Sum, I am not sure what you mean by "local security" with a craft as large as the Mk6. We will have to see what the Mk6 can really do.

SumGui wrote:
I still like the well deck transportability of the Mk VI combined with its capabilities. LSD-41 +8 Mk VI or LSD-49/LPD-17 +4 Mk VI is a nice local security force.
Again, there are questions of if these ships can actually transport the Mk6.

SumGui wrote:
I can easily see a return to the Tender style support concept for presence over an area
I agree 100%!!! USS Simon Lake AS-33 and USS McKee AS-41 are perfect candidates to tender all Riverine forces. They could easily be modernized (2 CIWS and 2 21-cell RAM) and fitted with equipment to transport and maintain these craft.

SumGui wrote:
(Including, perhaps, some Type 212-like submarines and tender for local area work, especially in shallower areas where they can exploit undersea topography)
[/quote]I would rather have Americanized S-100 torpedo boats fitted with variable depth sonar, 4 Mk48 and 6 Mk46/54 torpedoes instead.

There is great potential all around here. The idea to build up the Navy to 355 ships begs the production of PC(R)s which would provide the sea-control needed without gutting out billions of dollars for more Burke DDGs for simple show-of-force operations.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jan 28, 2017 12:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 2683
would not this be in reverse in that the 54 caliber rounds would reach 30nm & the 38 caliber rounds reach 19 nm? "The 54 caliber rounds would reach 19 nm while the 38 caliber rounds would approach 30nm."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jan 28, 2017 10:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3099
DavidP wrote:
would not this be in reverse in that the 54 caliber rounds would reach 30nm & the 38 caliber rounds reach 19 nm? "The 54 caliber rounds would reach 19 nm while the 38 caliber rounds would approach 30nm."
No, the 38 caliber round weighs almost 20% less so it will go further with the same propellant charge.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2017 2:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
As far as ASB, I was more envisioning the T-ESB (formally MLP, formally AFSB, formally....). Manned helo aviation support comes from there, as well as heavy UAV.

On the PC(R), I'd go with the SeaRAM in the CIWS position, and the fantail (FlexTail) one of three items:
1 - platform for local UAVs (such as Fire Scout) or even a light attack helo (AH-6) which can lillipad back and forth from the ESB when needed.
2 - USVs with hadling equipment
3 - Bolt-on weapons, such as additional ASMs when needed.

As the PC(R)s will probably operate in groups, they can either be diverse in what this fitting is or concentrate on one appropriate for the area and mission. I think the possibility of being able to change the FlexTail at the ESB is pretty high.

So, naturally in this vision the LCS as a UAV/UUV role seems redundant.



On to the Mk VI: (Built near me...)

In a well deck (USS Nassau):

http://www.snafu-solomon.com/2016/05/mk ... n.html?m=1

(images too large to post)

Estimated well deck capacities:

Image
Source: http://cimsec.org/an-influence-squadron ... making/858


For a bit, I was thinking an LSD slated for decom would be a good fit, however it seems the Whidbey's are slated to go on for some time.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2017 3:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3099
SumGui wrote:
On the PC(R), I'd go with the SeaRAM in the CIWS position, and the fantail (FlexTail) one of three items:
1 - platform for local UAVs (such as Fire Scout) or even a light attack helo (AH-6) which can lillipad back and forth from the ESB when needed.
2 - USVs with hadling equipment
3 - Bolt-on weapons, such as additional ASMs when needed.
...So, naturally in this vision the LCS as a UAV/UUV role seems redundant.
I agree with the exception of the rotor aircraft. I do not believe a PC type vessel would have any room for aviation fuel. Carrying enough fuel for itself and its boats is hard enough much less for something as hungry (and hungry for a different kind of fuel) as rotory aircraft. Rotary aviation facilities (even simply landing) add so much more burden to a boat/craft/ship that I do not think it's worth it for a PC type ship. I would suggest that anything in the area of the PC(R) that a Cobra would be needed for could be attacked by the 76mm gun. Rotary aircraft are far better left aboard either the AFSB or LCS/FF. If that support is needed, then they could be launched from the AFSB or LCS/FF and report on station pretty quickly.

Small fixed wing UAVs such as ScanEagle and Puma, on the other hand, are very valuable and would be greatly used aboard the PC(R) for over the horizon (OTH) situational awareness, monitoring debarked personnel, scouting out ships that will need to be boarded and vetted, etc.

Puma
Attachment:
Puma1.jpg
Puma1.jpg [ 37.25 KiB | Viewed 3151 times ]

Attachment:
Puma-unmanned-craft-tested-on-USS-Gonzalez.jpg
Puma-unmanned-craft-tested-on-USS-Gonzalez.jpg [ 33.32 KiB | Viewed 3151 times ]


The great thing about Puma is that it is very transportable. Puma-in-a-box!
Attachment:
PumaPackedUp.jpg
PumaPackedUp.jpg [ 34.55 KiB | Viewed 3151 times ]

Attachment:
PumaPackedUp1.jpg
PumaPackedUp1.jpg [ 50.82 KiB | Viewed 3151 times ]


ScanEagle
Attachment:
ScanEagleinsight_launch11.jpg
ScanEagleinsight_launch11.jpg [ 100.99 KiB | Viewed 3151 times ]

Attachment:
16082367620_c4e141dbf2.jpg
16082367620_c4e141dbf2.jpg [ 84.99 KiB | Viewed 3151 times ]


SumGui wrote:
As the PC(R)s will probably operate in groups, they can either be diverse in what this fitting is or concentrate on one appropriate for the area and mission. I think the possibility of being able to change the FlexTail at the ESB is pretty high.
I disagree on a number of points.
-During peace-time (the vast, vast majority of the time) they would likely be independent steamers doing their independent jobs. They would be snatched up by the theater commanders and sent to replace DDGs in "presence" operations. By operating in groups, you take those 2-3 ships that can cover 2-3 different areas and make them cover only 1 area. Plus, a number of these rolling around together would pose an extremely dangerous group operating in pretty sensitive areas. It's like if a group of 3 PRC Houbi-class PGs started operating around our ships in the ECS and SCS. I would strongly suggest operating in groups would be a no-go.

-I am working on arranging the modular areas, or "FlexTail" as you put it, to be very simple. The amidships would be a plate that the Mk141 launchers would be affixed to, and the stern where the boat ramp is would be a slot where the ramp could be removed and replaced with something else (ASW/MCM). In place of the Mk141 launcher plate (ASuW fit) would be a small deck house with a small sonar operation suite and perhaps a pair of Mk32 SVTT with Mk46/54 torpedoes (ASW fit). I am still working on the additional stern features for ASW and MCM. While an ESB may have other FlexDecks stored on board, I believe swapping them would be a real chore if not impossible especially the ASuW deck. First the launcher deck would have to be put into position, and then the missiles racked up. Re-arming the ASCMs while underway would be nearly impossible. Harpoons are reloaded individually by crane.
Attachment:
HarpoonLoad.jpg
HarpoonLoad.jpg [ 97.22 KiB | Viewed 3151 times ]

Attachment:
HarpoonLoad1small.jpg
HarpoonLoad1small.jpg [ 139.74 KiB | Viewed 3151 times ]

I believe the Flex components would have to be craned in a similar fashion which would require a LOT of stability between the two ships. Both vessels would have to be dead in the water, and none of that is a quick turn-around in even the best environments. I would suggest that flex swaps at sea would not be feasible.

I am however writing a CONOP for this group of ships. Like I have touched on in other threads, this grouping of ships and capabilities I call a Regional Influence Squadron. They would be based somewhere, perhaps Guam, and then pick up and move where we already have an established port and operate out of there for perhaps 6-9 months. If roving operations are called for, the AFSB could move with a few PC(R)s with it in one area and the LCS/FF with a few PC(R)s in another influencing the f*uck out of the region.

SumGui wrote:
On to the Mk VI: (Built near me...) In a well deck (USS Nassau):
Not all well decks are created the same. This creates a problem that will have to be addressed. An LHA can clearly fit one length width and height.
SumGui wrote:
Estimated well deck capacities:

Image
Source: http://cimsec.org/an-influence-squadron ... making/858
I know of one ship that was supposed to embark a Mk6 force, and there were severe problems. I do not know all of the conditions, but I do know it was a pretty big deal, almost a deal breaker. Proofing LSDs and LPD-17s is yet to be seen.

SumGui wrote:
As far as ASB, I was more envisioning the T-ESB (formally MLP, formally AFSB, formally....). Manned helo aviation support comes from there, as well as heavy UAV...For a bit, I was thinking an LSD slated for decom would be a good fit, however it seems the Whidbey's are slated to go on for some time.
I agree. While I have not been aboard any of the ESBs as of now, I don't like the idea of using them as an operating base unless they are armed up a LOT better, ie an LSD self defense system. Otherwise I would pull one of the Whidbey Island LSDs and reconfigure it to specifically support the Mk6, RCBs, RABs, and tender facilities for PC(R)s. The Marine berthing would be reallocated to the embarked CRF crews with excess berthing converted into mission planning spaces. This may be a one-off ship with the specialized spaces and facilities, but overall maintenance would still fall right in line with the rest of the Whidbey Island-class.

Back to the UAVs, like you suggested, the AFSB (and I include LCS/FF) would be the launching point for the larger UAVs. My choice is the Shadow. The Shadow would provide long range OTH surveillance and situational awareness without the high cost of helos that could then be beamed out to the PC(R)s. It's also reasonable to recover. It could be recovered in a method similar to how the Pioneers were recovered on the battleships, just with less risk of damaging the craft.
Attachment:
RQ7B Shadow200_krblog.jpg
RQ7B Shadow200_krblog.jpg [ 24.64 KiB | Viewed 3151 times ]

Attachment:
ShadowTarmac.jpg
ShadowTarmac.jpg [ 112.99 KiB | Viewed 3151 times ]

:big_grin:

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2017 4:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
All great info.

The small UAVs are an absolute no-brainer to maximize the sensor area of the vessels, nice added info.

I don't see T-ESB's as underway very often when acting in a tender type role like this - move from point to point, sure, but they'd need to be stationary for support to the PC(R)'s tied up along side.

When in higher threat areas, the T-ESB would only be one of other ships assigned to the area - a Flt I Burke is a nice addition to the T-ESB/PC(R) group.

Also you don't need differing fuel types - JP-5/F-44/AVCAT does it all. We ran DFM/F-76 on my PC's because it was cheaper, and the JP-5 option would cause more wear (difference in lubricating qualities for the diesel engine in JP-5 vs F-76), but it could, would, and did happen.

AH-6 could act as organic sensor in an area (such as the 160th SOAR did in 1987-88 from ). They would be an overmatch for open boats (Boghammar/Suicide swarm and the like), if you had a target with a 76mm, you'd service that threat with NSM/Harpoon, not an attack Helo.

For an idea of the operations I am envisioning for the small helo,sSee page 222 of Electronic Greyhounds for some of the ship based AH-6/OH-58 exploits in the gulf, also chapter 7 - 'Death Waits in the Dark' of Inside the Danger Zone (Wise, Naval Institute Press, 2007)
https://www.amazon.com/Inside-Danger-Zo ... anger+zone

For the AH-6, with a max weight of only 3100lb and a rotor diameter of 27'4" (PC(R) base candidate Ambassador Mk III beam is 32'10"), I am a little excited about the idea of Lilly-padding one of these forward from the T-ESB (or other mother) to grab fuel (same fuel you can run your diesels on, JP-5)...fun times. to say nothing of the ability to move Operators to and from the PC(R) quickly.

AH-6 and MQ-8B have a very similar footprint, so ability for one could get you capability for both (notable exception of the MQ-8B control footprint onboard the PC(R)).


Edit to add: Also - Love the boat ramp idea, much more efficient boat ops (even though that would conflict with the pad possibility)- what do you intend to put there, and are we talking one ramp for a ready boat or two?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2017 9:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3099
SumGui wrote:
When in higher threat areas, the T-ESB would only be one of other ships assigned to the area - a Flt I Burke is a nice addition to the T-ESB/PC(R) group.
I can see that for sure. If my LCS-3 FlightIII (heavily modified to be a real warship, perhaps a real FF/FFG) 16-32 VLS loaded with a mix including ESSM) is on scene, it could provide a limited AAW capability if in a low to medium threat environment or if a DDG cannot be allocated in high threat areas.

SumGui wrote:
AH-6 could act as organic sensor in an area (such as the 160th SOAR did in 1987-88 from ). They would be an overmatch for open boats (Boghammar/Suicide swarm and the like), if you had a target with a 76mm, you'd service that threat with NSM/Harpoon, not an attack Helo.
I think I'll have to make a stern plug configured as a helo deck.

SumGui wrote:
For an idea of the operations I am envisioning for the small helo,sSee page 222 of Electronic Greyhounds for some of the ship based AH-6/OH-58 exploits in the gulf, also chapter 7 - 'Death Waits in the Dark' of Inside the Danger Zone (Wise, Naval Institute Press, 2007)
https://www.amazon.com/Inside-Danger-Zo ... anger+zone
I have both of those books, and I LOVE them, especially Electronic Greyhounds. I am on a lengthy training right now, so I don't have access to my books at the moment. However, I get the gist. :big_grin:

SumGui wrote:
...to say nothing of the ability to move Operators to and from the PC(R) quickly.
I assume that is being able to land H60s?

SumGui wrote:
Edit to add: Also - Love the boat ramp idea, much more efficient boat ops (even though that would conflict with the pad possibility)- what do you intend to put there, and are we talking one ramp for a ready boat or two?
Yes, the boat idea is the exact same as the PCs able to accommodate an 11m RHIB. However the difference would be that the rectangle cut out of the hull for the ramp would be a modular system. The boat ramp could be removed and replaced with a small, shallow water towed sonar (I have no idea which or even if there is one) or a flat ramp to store, launch, and recover the UUVs similar to how the Mk6 does it with sleds and CRRC rubber boats. In any configuration, I would also have 2 CRRC boats stored topside on the main deck. To your point, there could be another modular plug that slides in there and adds a flight deck to the back of the ship complete with padeye tie-downs.

I have no idea how much spare time I will have during my trip, but I am going to work on a PC(R) while I am here. Maybe after a few years I can actually finish a project!!! :woo_hoo:

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2017 10:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
navydavesof wrote:
SumGui wrote:
...to say nothing of the ability to move Operators to and from the PC(R) quickly.
I assume that is being able to land H60s?


I was concerned that a deck to handle 11 tons worth of helo with a rotor diameter 20' wider than the beam, and an overall length of almost 1/3 the vessel, would be a little unrealistic for a vessel the size of the Ambassador III hull.

The open space would allow fast rope or 'other' extraction (STABO), as well as HIFR for SH-60s.

(That being said, I have seen more than one wholly unnatural act performed by bad ass helo drivers in order to get things where they logically shouldn't ever be....)

http://www.boeing.com/defense/ah-6-ligh ... elicopter/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Feb 07, 2017 10:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3099
I am still skeptical of operating anything beyond fixed with UAVs from a PC type ship. We will see. I imagined the FlexTail flight deck insert would be comprised of 2 parts, one the stern insert itself with an AFFF tank and nozzles attached to fire-main type hoses that could automatically spray down the stern.
Attachment:
RampPlug.jpg
RampPlug.jpg [ 60.93 KiB | Viewed 3079 times ]

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2017 10:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
Skepticism is a healthy thing.

Do keep in mind the hull for the PC(R) is much larger than the Cyclone class.

Ambassador MK III
Length 206'8"
Beam 32'10"
Draft 6'7"
Disp 600 tons

Visby
Length 239'
Beam 34'
Draft 7'9"
Disp 640 tons

Difference
Length 33'
Beam 1'
Draft 1'
Disp 40 tons


Visby does land a helo (and one can see where 30' extra Visby length may not be needed in this pic)

Image

Helo pictured is probably the Maritime version of the AW-109, which has a larger footprint than AH-6/MQ-8B and is much heavier.

Light helo pad not impossible in this size range, but for SH-60/AH-1Z ops, you need the LCS size.

You are trying to work the LCS in, I am trying to work the LCS out.

LCS-2 has epic space for aviation on great flex deck space, and I am looking forward to seeing your version of the LCS-1 so maybe I can think of it as anything other than a waste.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2017 9:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3099
SumGui wrote:
Do keep in mind the hull for the PC(R) is much larger than the Cyclone class...Ambassador IV and Visby...
Indeed those PGs are larger than the Cyclone, but neither of them will be the PC(R). Like in my PC(R) thread, it's pretty much a lengthened Cyclone class.
Attachment:
13096077_10208461813879694_2433115011366254900_n.jpg
13096077_10208461813879694_2433115011366254900_n.jpg [ 103.89 KiB | Viewed 3029 times ]


PC(R) topic: viewtopic.php?f=59&t=161632
Attachment:
13020523_10208384928037596_906643540_n.jpg
13020523_10208384928037596_906643540_n.jpg [ 95.78 KiB | Viewed 3029 times ]


SumGui wrote:
You are trying to work the LCS in, I am trying to work the LCS out.
I understand, but the current LCS needs a job, and being a UAV carrier and NSM shooter is an excellent role for it.
And
My version of the LCS Flight II is in its own thread as well, and it will be able to contribute far more. Here is the general run down:

My proposal is in addition to the foreign equipment which includes:
- 1 x Mk45 Mod4 5"/62-caliber gun for counter-battery, naval gun strike, and NGFS.
- 2 x Oto 76mm rapid-fire gun positioned in "hip" spots on the rear of the helo hangar along the rail.
- 8 x Harpoon/NSM anti-ship missiles
- 16-32 x Mk41 Mod12-15 Vertical Launch Tubes loaded with Evolved Sea Sparrow and/or ASROC missiles...and maaaaaybe SM-2s, but not likely.
- Millennium Gun in place of both Mk46 30mm guns
- SeaRAM launcher in place of the 21-cell RAM. The SeaRAM would have control over the Millennium Guns, using them as both CIWS and C-RAM.
- Reduced Helo hangar to accommodate only 1 HH-60 and 2 Fire Scouts, 1 HH-60 and 2 AH-1Z Cobra, and a large UAV workshop servicing Puma, ScanEagle, and Shadow UAVs.

This would be made possible by turning the uber shallow water, uber fast, uber fragile LCS into a ship built like a warship instead of speed boat. We would do this by lowering the ship's center of gravity, increasing her draft, having a standard propulsion plant instead of the stacked CODAG system, strengthening her hull, and filling in a LOT of her hull's mission bay with berthing, facilities, and other spaces needed to make her a real warship.

My configuration has her arranged to fill almost ALL of the original mission requirements of LCS instead of just the one of "very high speed". In the end, it's a ship that would make a FRAMII Gearing skipper give a thumbs up.

SumGui wrote:
LCS-2 has epic space for aviation on great flex deck space, and I am looking forward to seeing your version of the LCS-1 so maybe I can think of it as anything other than a waste.
I think LCS-2 can benefit a lot from the above modifications as well and take all of if not more of the up-gunning other than the 5" gun. Instead of having 2 76mm and 1 5", I think she would be best off with 3 76mm guns.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Feb 12, 2017 12:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3099
With the PC(R), in the Regional Influence Squadron, I see a good use for both the Visby and the lengthened Hayabusa [HG(L) for now].

The HGL can act as little as a lengthened Cyclone with Harpoons and a SeaRAM and as much as a light AAW escort with an 11-cell SeaRAM directing a 21-cell RAM against air targets out to 13nm with up to 32 RAM missiles. This could be used as a light escort with a rapid AAW response. Because of this, it would be a more conventional craft with little radar cross section but still less than other craft.

The Visby will be the stealth strike craft with overall RCS and the ability to launch NSM and strike with 76mm (yes, I would upgrade it from 57mm to 76mm).

The models will come soon!

:woo_hoo:

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 07, 2017 5:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3099
To be considered as well are reactivated ships to be AFSBs and "mother ships". This includes:

LPD:
USS Denver (LPD-9)
USS Shreveport (LPD-12)
USS Nashville (LPD-13)

or support ships. For instance we have Destroyer Tenders. The ADs would support the Mk6 great. The only issue would be to load the Mk6s on the main deck as opposed to inside a well-deck. That's alright, because the ADs have badass cranes and LOTs of deck space.

AD:
USS Yellowstone (AD-41)
USS Shenandoah (AD-44)

The Mk6...man, what a challenge. The LPDs should be reactivated and modernized into AFSB ships USN manned (no USNS) and modified to accommodate the Mk6 craft. They should then be decommissioned on a 1 for 1 as new AFSB (new build San Antonio derivative LSDs) are commissioned.

If they are not feasible, then use the ADs that can FULLY service the Mk6 and all littoral forces. Fit them with an LSD Mk2 SSDS so it can defend itself well and arrange the main deck to take the Mk6.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 9:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
Many of the candidates you mention have many years on their hulls/machinery/equipment and high crew requirements due to age.

I wonder if MARAD Crane ships would make good Mk6 tenders, with Mk6's as deck cargo for transit and container space used for shops, storage, and accommodation for the maint crews.

They could be returned to reserve crane ship status (if material condition allows - many are not terribly new...) once replaced by purpose built AFSB/tender vessels, we then retain a surge capability of being able to re"tenderize" a MARAD crane ship for emergency/surge use if needed.

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_displ ... d=100&ct=4
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Gopher_State_(T-ACS-4)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 8:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 9:09 am
Posts: 764
Location: Adelaide,SouthOZ
navydavesof wrote:
To be considered as well are reactivated ships to be AFSBs and "mother ships". This includes:

LPD:
USS Denver (LPD-9)
USS Shreveport (LPD-12)
USS Nashville (LPD-13)

or support ships. For instance we have Destroyer Tenders. The ADs would support the Mk6 great. The only issue would be to load the Mk6s on the main deck as opposed to inside a well-deck. That's alright, because the ADs have badass cranes and LOTs of deck space.

AD:
USS Yellowstone (AD-41)
USS Shenandoah (AD-44)

The Mk6...man, what a challenge. The LPDs should be reactivated and modernized into AFSB ships USN manned (no USNS) and modified to accommodate the Mk6 craft. They should then be decommissioned on a 1 for 1 as new AFSB (new build San Antonio derivative LSDs) are commissioned.

If they are not feasible, then use the ADs that can FULLY service the Mk6 and all littoral forces. Fit them with an LSD Mk2 SSDS so it can defend itself well and arrange the main deck to take the Mk6.


Dave!

What about a refitted LHA as the mothership? Its got epic flightdeck,C3, welldeck, can refuel its escorts, massive storage capability,etc....

Bruce

_________________
building:
1/72 RC USS LONG BEACH CGN9
1/72 RC USS CALIFORNIA CGN36
1/72 RC USS SAIPAN LHA2
1/72 RC USS JOHN PAUL JONES DDG53
1/72 RC USS SHARK SSN591
1/72 RC USS SEAWOLF SSN21
1/72 RC USS ALBANY CG10


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 3:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
The structural support in the middle of the Tarawa class' well deck would be a non-issue as a MkVI mother ship.

Vehicle space could easily become workshops.

If you were to invest the large operational and refit costs, you'd have a pretty broad asset with the other facilities aboard - Helo hangar, large flight deck, ect.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 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

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