The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:09 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 5:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3101
This is fascinating...and the fact that a buddy of mine came up with this kind of design while ago is very gratifying.

This really does offer a lot of things. The aluminum hull sucks balls, no matter what. The modification of the hull shape and armament is an excellent "out of the box" thinking. If this were to be upgunned a bit, perhaps the LCS-2 class would be able to be the Surface Warfare type ship while the LCS-1 would be able to be the ASW type. This really is interesting, and I am very anxious to hear news.

On the ASuW note, it would be a very unlikely upgrade. The Navy has been against the 155mm or 8" for over 30 years. Strange as fudge. This ship, I believe could support a 155mm gun with a steel structure and perhaps the forward VLS space dedicated to 155mm gun space instead. I am really looking forward to building this ship in 1/350 scale!


Attachments:
IMG_2052.JPG
IMG_2052.JPG [ 116.53 KiB | Viewed 1427 times ]

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 7:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3101
HvyCgn9 wrote:
What about a refitted LHA as the mothership? Its got epic flightdeck,C3, welldeck, can refuel its escorts, massive storage capability,etc....

Bruce

Hey, man! For a dedicated vessel, an LHA is a lot of overkill just for these craft, however linking up with one temporarily would be interesting for sure! Many of the vehicles and other amphibious support could be left off with the airwing forming its own support and projection force as well. After all, with how the LHDs are occasionally being fitted more like CVs and less like amphibs, leaving he Marines behind and acting as an inbetween aircraft carrier is a possibility.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Apr 19, 2017 5:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3101
While I have heard a couple comments, what should the PC(R) form up to be? What kind of capabilities should it have?

Then, is that craft worth building in a model form?

Also, how should I build this craft? Are there any kits of 3D printed models out there I could use and run with?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue May 16, 2017 6:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3101
There has been a lot of discussion and question about what other ships should be considered for the LCS Replacement or the new FF/FFG. After a bit of research, I believe that while the FF variants of the LCS classes have potential, the National Security Cutter is actually the best US candidate to build new FF/FFGs.

This type of ship, while may not be the "best" but could be the "easiest" solution to a NSF ship mounting 155mm guns, helos, a SOF deploy and recover ability, ASuW, while rolling a very good self defense suite. While sporting a sweet paint scheme, it would likely have:

2xMk45Mod6 155/60caliber guns (one forward in place of the 57mm gun and one in place of the aft RHIB ramp)
2xSeaRAM
4x35mm Millennium Gun (2 slave option to each SeaRAM)
16xMk41 VLS forward and 16 between the stack and the hangar
2xMk32 SVTT

Sensors:
SPQ-9B
TRS-3D

Counter Measures:
SLQ-32(v)6 (SEAWIP)
NULKA
Chaff
Those balloons you see on a few DDGs

Air:
1-2xHH-60 Sea Hawk
6xShadow
6xScan Eagle

Illumination:
2xSTIR (modernized SPG-60s or Mk92 BugEyes)

Refueling abilities for the Coastal Riverine capabilities:
Mk6
RCB
RPB

Attachment:
NSC-1.jpg
NSC-1.jpg [ 109.41 KiB | Viewed 1251 times ]

Attachment:
NSC-2.jpg
NSC-2.jpg [ 140.06 KiB | Viewed 1251 times ]

Attachment:
NSC-5.jpg
NSC-5.jpg [ 147.31 KiB | Viewed 1251 times ]

Attachment:
NSC-3.jpg
NSC-3.jpg [ 135.26 KiB | Viewed 1251 times ]

Attachment:
NSC-4.jpg
NSC-4.jpg [ 109.41 KiB | Viewed 1251 times ]

Attachment:
NSC-6.jpg
NSC-6.jpg [ 128.64 KiB | Viewed 1251 times ]


The NSC hull in both FF/FFG and NGFS configuration would be great. I am really liking this ship!!!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu May 18, 2017 11:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
FF4923 is not a bad combination of capabilities on the existing hull,
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... navy-19020

But I believe the NSC needs extra length to get 32-48 Mk 41 cells, improved main gun, layered defense against small boats (secondary medium caliber guns), and deck space for Anti-ship Missiles (Harpoon or NSM).

The published Frigate options (4921/4923) seem to surrender endurance (one of the great features of this design) and not allow enough VLS cells to deal with a wide range of threats - in addition to 8 cells dedicated to 32 ESSM, the ship may need VLASROC, new LRASM, strike missiles, etc. Cells = versatility. You can leave them empty until needed, but when you need more cells because the threat changed or the environment got hotter, it is too late to add them.

There seems to be opportunity forward and aft of the forward superstructure within the hull to add length, and that length should allow SVTT amidships (forward of the hangar) so that the Helo's and SVTT can use a single magazine.

Image

I'd think one Millennium Gun forward and one on the hangar roof would do the trick.

The CIWS can be RAM instead, and ESSM gets carried in the VLS.

The first thought is a Mk45 127mm forward, especially with Vulcano or Excalibur N5 available.

The Helo hangar also needs to be sized for two SH-60 sized helos (NSC hangar is sized for Dauphins). Naturally, her two hangars gives you the ability to have one H-60 and UAVs, or any combination you may need.

A 9-cell rotating EASR should be considered as the primary radar (cost has to be considered, of course), keeping in mind this ship will not only take care of itself but probably escort others and be a node for the entire battle network of sensors in a given area.
http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/easr/

This could be a reasonable Fire Support platform in another version, placing a second gun mount on the fantail and perhaps upgrading both guns to a 155mm version of the Mk 45, but the dollar commitment to make that happen may not be available.

All of this I would compare on a cost/capability basis with the proposed FF4923 to see if the above added flexibility gets a return across the life of the vessel.

Considering the increasing threats and myriad of roles Frigates are called on to perform for the USN, I think it may pay off as long as modification does not break the bank. (The bank being total unit price under $1B each across production)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu May 18, 2017 2:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3101
SumGui wrote:
FF4923 is not a bad combination of capabilities on the existing hull...but I believe the NSC needs extra length to get 32-48 Mk 41 cells, improved main gun, layered defense against small boats (secondary medium caliber guns), and deck space for Anti-ship Missiles (Harpoon or NSM).
I have been talking with an HII engineer, and it is feasible to lengthen the helo hangar by "the length of 16 Mk41 VLS and buffer" to accommodate 16 VLS and extra length by consuming some of the helo landing pad.

SumGui wrote:
You can leave them empty until needed, but when you need more cells because the threat changed or the environment got hotter, it is too late to add them.
I agree. Thirty-two should be great. This can wash around ESSM, LRASM, and VLASROC. ESSM offers the equivalent of 4 SM-1s per cell. The rest are as they appear.

SumGui wrote:
I'd think one Millennium Gun forward and one on the hangar roof would do the trick.
I agree. If arranged in-line, there may be a crunch of space on the hangar to accommodate 16-cell VLS, SeaRAM, AND a Millennium Gun to the point where you might have to have 2 Millennium guns aft, one port and one starboard. Regardless, I would still slave the MG to the SeaRAM.

SumGui wrote:
The Helo hangar also needs to be sized for two SH-60 sized helos (NSC hangar is sized for Dauphins). Naturally, her two hangars gives you the ability to have one H-60 and UAVs, or any combination you may need.
The lengthening to accommodate the 16-cells would accommodate that as well. The forward most part of the hangar space would be slightly narrowed like on the DDG Flight IIAs. Easy day.

SumGui wrote:
A 9-cell rotating EASR should be considered as the primary radar (cost has to be considered, of course), keeping in mind this ship will not only take care of itself but probably escort others and be a node for the entire battle network of sensors in a given area.
http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/easr/
I really dig the combination of the TRS-3D/TRS-4 and the SPQ-9B is an awesome combination for air and surface search with FC.

SumGui wrote:
This could be a reasonable Fire Support platform in another version, placing a second gun mount on the fantail and perhaps upgrading both guns to a 155mm version of the Mk 45, but the dollar commitment to make that happen may not be available.
If we were serious about the 155mm question, we could do it inside of 2 years. Look at the process of the Mk71, and that was done at a casual pace.

SumGui wrote:
Considering the increasing threats and myriad of roles Frigates are called on to perform for the USN, I think it may pay off as long as modification does not break the bank. (The bank being total unit price under $1B each across production)
I agree 100%!!! Many would try to compare this to LCS and discredit it to what they believe LCS offers for $400 million a piece. As time has passed, we know the LCS itself rolls in at well over $450 for the delivered ship, then there are all kinds of "Navy supplied equipment" that boosts the costs, and then finally the non-existent mission modules still have to be proven, installed, and effectively used. Once the ship is ready to go do a mission, the cost is pushed well over double the original cost. The NSC type FFG would be delivered ready to accomplish the missions without screwing around with the ship...just like a frigate should.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu May 18, 2017 8:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:53 pm
Posts: 883
If only there was a 1/350 plastic NSC model available to whif all these changes to. ;) Resin is too expensive for my taste. And I'll assume those pics you posted navydave are of a Shapeways 1/700 NSC? Nice, but I'd rather stick to 1/350.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu May 18, 2017 9:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3101
EJM wrote:
And I'll assume those pics you posted navydave are of a Shapeways 1/700 NSC? Nice, but I'd rather stick to 1/350.
Nope! It's 1/350 :big_grin:

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun May 21, 2017 12:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2007 11:30 pm
Posts: 346
I was the one that asked Dutch Fleet Miniatures to scale up his 1/1800 NSC to 1/700 and 1/350 a couple of years ago. I bought it in 1/350 and 1/700, I finished the 1/700 as USCGC Bertholf using several 1/700 kits to fit it out, but I haven't done anything with the 1/350 yet. It came out kind of clunky as a 1/350 kit and will require some scratch building and a lot of donor parts to build, but nobody else will ever produce any Coast Guard kits other than JAG or ISW. I look forward to seeing what you do with it, maybe it'll motivate me to finally do something with mine.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun May 21, 2017 10:57 am 
Offline

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


Last edited by carr on Wed Jul 18, 2018 10:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue May 23, 2017 10:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3101
carr wrote:
I've sat out this thread, so far, because it's an appealing topic that possibly lacks an operational/tactical foundation.
Welcome to the fray! Indeed I have an idea but I've been reticent to share it for Navy reasons. I have to remain kind of vague about it, because it's going to be part of an official proposal.

carr wrote:
1. I assume this RIS is for war. In peacetime, it doesn't matter what ships/aircraft one chooses because we've made it clear that we won't take any actions. Trump may change that but it remains to be seen. So, the RIS must be built for war.
It's 2 fold: Peace Time and War Time. The reason why I named it "Regional Influence Squadron" was, because it would be influencing a region. That's mainly a non-combat role that carries the threat of a heavy punch if combat operations commenced. Most of the time, it would be a large number of vessels that would be an aggravating thorn in an adversary's side while providing aid, comfort, and confidence in allies' minds. For instance PC(R)s and Mk6s providing presence in and around the contested islands in the ECS and SCS. Indigenous to the group surveillance and air support in the form of H-60s or AH-1s and Shadow and Scan Eagle respectively would be available from the LSD/AFSB, FF/FFG, or LCS operating within a reasonable range. The threat there would be 76mm gun and ASCMs with the ability to chew up the island facilities and hit any ships within the respective weapons' ranges.

War Time:
The threat would then be realized with the employment of those weapons. The group would then need to be reinforced by or rendezvous with AAW and ASW combatants and rearm. They would likely have to rearm some where like Yokosuka if the facility was relatively undamaged in the attack.

A mix of the PC(R)s, likely as fitted when the attack happened or refitted in Japan or Guam, could then operate in ASuW, ASW, operations or PDS AAW escort. The description of the mixes of fits (ASCM, ASW dog-house with Mk32 SVTT and a yet-identified towed array, and swapping of the Phalanx CIWS with SeaRAM is described in the other PC(R) threads.

carr wrote:
2. I assume the premise behind the RIS is that it is a lower priority force, meaning no supercarriers.
Indeed. Most air power would come off the assigned LSD/AFSB, FF/FFG, or LCS.

carr wrote:
3. David stated that the relevant theater is the first island chain. This, in turn, limits the degree of surveillance that can be provided by the ships, themselves, and suggests the need for a heavy UAV presence to provide the wide-ranging surveillance that a "regional" force would need. Thus, a RIS requires a UAV-carrier with a large UAV inventory because the UAV attrition will be substantial.
This would be true in both peace and war time. UAVs are lost quite often. The group's elements would have access to other C4I assets as long as they were in the area as well.

As a brief wrap up, again this is not meant to be a Regional Fight and Win A War By Itself (RFWABI) force. Its main function and use would be to pose a threat (ASuW, ASW, and short to medium range AAW) to aggressive power. If it came time to snap-shot an assault, a large number of ASCMs could be fired from deck mounted launchers, Mk54 torpedoes could be fired at submerged targets that were being tracked, and RAM reinforced with SeaRAM could throw a great number of RAM at an incoming ASCM threat as the force consolidates and forms up with the more expensive and more capable combatants as a larger theater-wide strategy was initiated.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jun 01, 2017 7:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3101
My training cycle is over, and I am headed out for a deployment soon. Of all these projects I have, I can focus on one. I know what I would like to work on and hopefully complete before I leave, but I would like to know what you guys think I should work on and finish before I leave.
Let me know and I will begin work this coming week! :woo_hoo:

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jun 01, 2017 1:46 pm 
Offline

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


Last edited by carr on Wed Jul 18, 2018 10:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jun 01, 2017 5:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3101
carr wrote:
PC(R) :thumbs_up_1:

Vote heard! :heh:

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jun 05, 2017 1:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
The two items I'd most like to see are PC(R) and a FF version of the NSC.

PC(R) seems most germane to this thread, as the Future of Frigates is still up in the air.

Edit to add: the up-gunned LCS-1 design would also be high on my list, probably my first choice. After all, what do we do with all of those hulls we are on the hook for...?


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

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 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