The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Thu Oct 22, 2020 2:27 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 478 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Nov 12, 2014 6:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3099
carr wrote:
Measure 22 with a false bow painted on the flight deck and pointing towards the stern.
Interesting! I think it will have to be a modified Ms 22 for sure, because the exhaust on the side of the ship still has to be masked. I will take the Ms 22 suggestion onboard for sure. Thanks, carr!!!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 12, 2014 4:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
well, now we have the Navy's opinion on flight II of the LCS:

http://news.usni.org/2014/12/11/gunned- ... -combatant


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 12, 2014 9:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 12:18 pm
Posts: 114
SumGui wrote:
well, now we have the Navy's opinion on flight II of the LCS:

http://news.usni.org/2014/12/11/gunned- ... -combatant



Still a near sitting duck for air threats, but Austal and Lockheed are happy.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Dec 13, 2014 8:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3099
jasonfreeland wrote:
SumGui wrote:
well, now we have the Navy's opinion on flight II of the LCS:

http://news.usni.org/2014/12/11/gunned- ... -combatant



Still a near sitting duck for air threats, but Austal and Lockheed are happy.

Big, fat, turds.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Dec 13, 2014 4:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
navydavesof wrote:
jasonfreeland wrote:
Still a near sitting duck for air threats, but Austal and Lockheed are happy.

Big, fat, turds.


Still won't pass shock testing.

They should have also added ESSM capability, but I am sure they are 'saving money' without it.

Wrong platform choice, and a choice intentionally made to save face, in my opinion.

Many other platforms exist that would probably be superior - I'll stick with Takanami as a better base platform for my WHIF. An Americanized Type 23 would be tempting too, but there are not affordable 1/700 type 23 kits for me to play with.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Dec 14, 2014 9:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 12:18 pm
Posts: 114
Quote:
Many other platforms exist that would probably be superior - I'll stick with Takanami as a better base platform for my WHIF. An Americanized Type 23 would be tempting too, but there are not affordable 1/700 type 23 kits for me to play with.


Agreed, the batch 2 Incheon class frigates are also pretty interesting.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 15, 2014 10:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
jasonfreeland wrote:
Agreed, the batch 2 Incheon class frigates are also pretty interesting.


Nice add - I had not looked at those yet.

South Korea and Italy put out some rather nice ships which tend to get overlooked quite often.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Dec 18, 2014 8:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 12:18 pm
Posts: 114
SumGui wrote:
jasonfreeland wrote:
Agreed, the batch 2 Incheon class frigates are also pretty interesting.


Nice add - I had not looked at those yet.

South Korea and Italy put out some rather nice ships which tend to get overlooked quite often.



I haven't seen a huge amount of modeling options available for them, but we can always hope.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Dec 21, 2014 7:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3099
I am still looking at the original LCS one sea frame but with a mission bay filled with birthing focused and the laundry facilities for a functionall sized crew. The ship will have have a 5 inch gun forward and 2X76 mm guns aft. The helicopter hanger would be narrowed to accommodate 16-32 VLS tubes, Harpoons and Millennium Guns on top of the structure.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2015 10:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 12:01 pm
Posts: 254
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
(22pg sorry if I repeat) My biggest beef with the new ships is that the Marines (& Army) have been begging for bigger guns/longer range/heavier hitters, so the Navies response is: "oh you want a gun bigger than the 5" pop guns, here, a 57mm slingshot" :Oops_1: "wasn't that bigger" :wacko: if the ships are going to operate as littoral support ships then give them a proper gun, ok the 57mm might have some use if an Osa or La Combattante comes racing round the headland, but as a secondary gun. The main gun should be at-least 6" if not larger (bigger is better). That should have been requirement #1, a Mk71 or 155mm/AGS. The modular system able to specialize in one thing but the same hull used for multiple missions, reminds me of the WWII landing craft &Water Buffalos, various mods being produced including some carrying Tank turrets, 40mm Bofors, Mk30 5"/38s and even bombardment rockets (bobtail cruisers).


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Mar 14, 2015 7:17 pm 
Offline

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


Last edited by carr on Wed Jul 18, 2018 10:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
So, Small Diameter Bomb strapped to M26 MLRS rockets, called Ground Launched Small Diameter Bomb (GLSDB) I had mentioned before in previous posts.

Here is an updated launch video, and while it is from the manufacturer (always take manufacturer claims with a grain of salt), this still strikes me as a great idea to put at sea to support operations ashore.

http://www.boeing.com/boeing/Features/2015/03/bds_small_diameter_bomb_03_09_15.page

Granted, it would need to be marinized, and that would probably mean new-build rather than refurb M26 motors, but this capability on LCS, with the ability to get closer inshore, could somewhat offset the lack of large caliber gun for the NGFS mission.

150km/80nm of range is a nice reach, and the speed imparted by the MLRS motor delivers the effect in a timely manner

Alt link for the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdM0Ci13eJA


Last edited by SumGui on Thu Mar 19, 2015 5:31 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Mar 19, 2015 9:08 am 
Offline

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


Last edited by carr on Wed Jul 18, 2018 10:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Mar 19, 2015 5:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
carr wrote:
For some reason, I was unable to view the link. Probably my 1920's era computer! Still, I've long favored a navalized MLRS so this seems like a reasonable extension of that. Good thought!


Updated post with alternate link to youtube for the video


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Mar 21, 2015 11:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 12:18 pm
Posts: 114
I remember us playing around with using ASROC MK 112 launcher for these, but can't remember if anyone looked at the fit of the round?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Mar 22, 2015 5:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3099
GMG4RWF wrote:
(22pg sorry if I repeat) My biggest beef with the new ships is that the Marines (& Army) have been begging for bigger guns/longer range/heavier hitters, so the Navies response is: "oh you want a gun bigger than the 5" pop guns, here, a 57mm slingshot" :Oops_1: "wasn't that bigger"...The main gun should be at-least 6" if not larger (bigger is better). That should have been requirement #1, a Mk71 or 155mm/AGS.
Been away for a while. Sorry, guys! Work has been remarkable.

So, no, the LCS does not require the NGFS/NSFS capability, thus such a role should not be forced upon it. Literally, a 155mm or 8" would break the ship, so. You need another hull type for that gun.

On that note, the DDG-51 FlightIII could accommodate a 155mm version of the Mk71 with around 500 rounds, but far fewer with the 8". If you want a real NGFS capability (which we all do) we need to design and build a dedicated class. For instance, I think the smallest that could fit 3 Mk71 8" guns would be a Belknap/Leahy-class hull with 2 forward, 1 aft with a flush deck, a small helo/UAV hangar and flight deck, 32 Mk41 VLS, and 6 Point Defense systems. Those 3 mounts would likely be able to embark over 1000 rounds of 8" ballistic, Excalibur, and long range projos.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Mar 22, 2015 8:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
jasonfreeland wrote:
I remember us playing around with using ASROC MK 112 launcher for these, but can't remember if anyone looked at the fit of the round?


That was probably me, and using estimates it seemed possible to add a 6 round MLRS module in an ASROC cell, but I think it may be more plausible to have a 4 round module in each round, with the extra space representing marinzation in a sealed box, or 'wooden round' design.

Now back to your regularly scheduled LCS improvement thread....


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Apr 25, 2015 11:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 6:18 pm
Posts: 372
carr wrote:
I'm not sure that a single manned helo is all that useful. What about hypothesizing several smaller UAVs (maybe a couple Fire Scouts and some Scan Eagles??) in place of a manned helo? A narrower hangar could still accomodate them and you'd lose little capability due to the reduction in hangar size. Just thinking out loud.

Also, if you go the UAV route, you don't need anywhere near as big a flight deck. You could use some the deck space for some other function (25 mm RWS, anti-sub torpedo tubes, boat storage, RAM (ala the Sprucans in the aft corner), something else?).

Whatever you do, it will be better than what the Navy has chosen to do!


I also vote for drones: but I would look to quad copter, perhaps going to six or eight rotors.

I also note that if the navy had gone with something along the lines of the catamaran street fighter test bed instead of the LCS fiascos, that ship could have supported a dozen Fire Scout sized quadcopters. In fact, a JHSV could support many many drones.

GAB


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Apr 26, 2015 5:26 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: Sun Apr 26, 2015 10:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
carr wrote:
Quote:
In fact, a JHSV could support many many drones.

This gets back to the Navy's lack of a CONOPS for the LCS prior to design. What specific missions is/was it supposed to perform and how? A JHSV might be able to completely fill the needs - or not. No one knows since we don't have a CONOPS. Building 50+ ships so we can get them into the fleet and see what the sailors will figure out to do with them, as CNO Greenert stated, is not the way to design and build a new class.


"Ding Ding Ding - winner!"

Ever seen the movie "The Pentagon Wars"? sums up LCS.

'Started' as a good idea (Streetfighter), then everyone wanted their items added (self-deployability, Helo hangar - Frigate/escort items) which drove up size, cost, and complexity - then went looking for more program support and money ("hey we can have it hunt mines!"), so added missions it is directly incapable of performing (lack of ability to take shock - where does a 45+ knot minesweeper make sense to anyone?)... the list goes on.

To me, the only mission the over priced and vulnerable platform they built may be able to perform well is a coastal raider role - zipping in, zipping out, delivering effects on a short timeframe basis, then running back away before the threat can fully react.

There are numerous ways this money and these personnel could have been better used to provide more diverse, more effective, and better suited capabilities to the US Navy - I've added my opinions on that before, so I won't re-hash here.

I love What-ifs - and I look forward to what comes of this - but to me, this is just too far gone to be of any future utility. If I had a stock that performs this badly I would have sold it, taken the loss, and moved on long ago. Maybe shift the platforms over to the Coast Guard (where I think LCS-2's large aviation space and fast speed would be an incredible asset for responding to emergencies and life saving operations) or sell to other Navies.

The proposals to slow it down, increase fixed capabilities, and add more defensive measures on the future hulls should only be backfitted to the hulls we are already on the hook for and stuck with - no new purchases.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 478 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 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