The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Mon Oct 26, 2020 5:57 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 478 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 20, 21, 22, 23, 24
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2015 11:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2015 1:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3101
SumGui wrote:
Just build a real combatant already.
I'm on it! :heh:

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 20, 2016 5:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
Lockheed version of the "frigate" LCS:

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... ew&id=3473

Saudi version:

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... ew&id=3458

NSM deployment mock-ups from vendor:
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... ew&id=3453


Pics from Surface Navy Association this month:
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... ew&id=3420


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2016 9:05 am 
Offline

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


Last edited by carr on Wed Jul 18, 2018 10:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Feb 01, 2016 7:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3101
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.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Feb 01, 2016 7:43 pm 
Offline

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


Last edited by carr on Wed Jul 18, 2018 10:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 2016 4:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3101
carr wrote:
It's been a while. I assume you're still sticking with what was outlined on page one of this thread?
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).
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.
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.
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"?
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?
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?
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!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 2016 7:08 pm 
Offline

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


Last edited by carr on Wed Jul 18, 2018 10:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Feb 03, 2016 5:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3101
carr wrote:
My apologies for poor terminology. I meant an aviation control booth like the Perrys and others had/have on their hangars.
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.

carr wrote:
Quote:
... making a version of the PC replacement the MCM vessels.

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.
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:

carr wrote:
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.
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?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Feb 03, 2016 3:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
navydavesof wrote:
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.


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.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 7:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3101
SumGui wrote:
navydavesof wrote:
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.


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.

Quote:
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.
This is a great idea! I wonder how much deeper an LCS-2 would sink if built out of steel!

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.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon May 22, 2017 1:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
Well,

Looks like one version finally has a sale:

https://news.usni.org/2017/05/19/saudi- ... -arms-sale

which references:
https://news.usni.org/2016/05/18/new-sa ... ils-emerge


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 3:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3101
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!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2018 6:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2018 3:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3101
SumGui wrote:
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.

Indeed, the 155mm gun could provide great counter battery support and good NSFS.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 4:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3101
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)

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

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

Standby to get some! :woo_hoo:

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 10:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 2694
how about Mathew Perry class after Commodore Matthew Perry who opened Japan to the world in 1854?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 7:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
Ernest E Evans would be an outstanding class name.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 478 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 20, 21, 22, 23, 24

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 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