The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Thu Oct 22, 2020 2:28 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  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Apr 26, 2015 6:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 12:18 pm
Posts: 114
Quote:
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.


Yes please!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 6:18 pm
Posts: 372
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.

True.

But the more I think of the LCS fiasco, the more I have come to believe that the real problem is that the Navy never really bought into the "modular concept", and absent specific definition, the bureaucracy attempted to force the LCS to look like a warship, albeit a "futuristic - looking" warship, rather than the generic cargo platform required. Recall that the purpose, and 80% functionality, of LCS is to deliver and support mission modules; this calls for the largest, most unrestricted mission deck possible on a given hull, along with appropriate deck handling equipment and launch ramps. This of course allowed Navy ego to over-specialize the LCS design with the attendant cost and performance issues. A $80M offshore support/construction vessel should have been the basis for the LCS design, not a frigate or corvette.[Note I omit specialized flight deck requirements as the USN has no shortage of flight decks and aviation specialized ships.]

I note similar deficits in the design of the amphibious fleet: specifically the MLP and LPDs. The principle benefit of semi-submersible ships being the huge open floodable mission deck; the Navy at USMC insistence, filed in this massively useful area in with permanent structures - unforgivable! Surely a large floating barge with LCAC ramps, a container crane, and flight deck would have preserved the floodable deck capability of the MLP. The LPD is arguably worse, costing nearly $2billion for what is essentially a massively undersized RO/PAX to move ~a reinforced battalion. Someone will of course decry the loss of well decks, but by the end of WWII, even large LCTs were launched without well decks simply by ballasting down the ships to create a list and then pushing the LCT(s) over the side! It makes little sense to compromise an entire ship design for a well deck - landing craft are expendable! In the Navy seriously considered ramps instead of well decks: they are faster and safer for the assault (what the ship exists to do), but inconvenient for recovery.

Our fathers and grandfathers fought WWII on the cheap (relatively) by knowing when to specialize, and when to call it quits and paint civilian equipment green. We will never win a major conflict from this point forward by depending solely upon military designed equipment. We will never build the numbers necessary to prevail, and the costs will wreck our economy as it did the English in 1918.


Last edited by Busto963 on Tue Apr 28, 2015 9:02 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3099
What do the followers of this thread think about the FF the Navy is trying to pass off on us? The LCS "...is not a frigate, nor will it ever be..." but now it is, "let's call it what it is....a frigate,"?

How should it be armed to meet the "frigate" designation?

After a long respite, I am getting back to the modeling table with the LCS-1 FlightII. I look forward to hearing what some may say!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2015 10:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 2683
with at least a 3" gun not the 57mm as used on our(Canadian) frigates.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2015 7:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3099
DavidP wrote:
with at least a 3" gun not the 57mm as used on our(Canadian) frigates.


I understand that for sure. For some unknown reason, the Navy is staying with the 57mm mount....

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2015 6:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
it is, of course, the worst kind of joke that will cost lives.

There are may options internationally that would form the basis for a proper Frigate to perform escort and low intensity operations at reduced cost with 200 or less crew.

The "LCS", if it is a 'Littoral Combat Ship", should have been built:

a) for the Littorals (small size, minimum draft - not a self deployable helicopter equipped large target)
b) for Combat (weapons to actually engage and destroy the enemy - be that another vessel, a shore weapon, or helicopter/aircraft - and the ability to take shock and resist light weapons from small boats enough to keep fighting or exit the area)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jun 22, 2015 2:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3099
SumGui wrote:
it is, of course, the worst kind of joke that will cost lives.
Yeah, I have been running into that a lot lately.

SumGui wrote:
There are may options internationally that would form the basis for a proper Frigate to perform escort and low intensity operations at reduced cost with 200 or less crew.
One good idea is to go with the FFG-ed Bertholf Cutter. It's American, and we're already building them. Sure it's limited to 28knots, but rarely is it every necessary to, especially with how the Perry FFs have been used for the last 15 years, exceed 38knots.

SumGui wrote:
The "LCS", if it is a 'Littoral Combat Ship", should have been built:

a) for the Littorals (small size, minimum draft - not a self deployable helicopter equipped large target)
b) for Combat (weapons to actually engage and destroy the enemy - be that another vessel, a shore weapon, or helicopter/aircraft - and the ability to take shock and resist light weapons from small boats enough to keep fighting or exit the area)
It seems that a modern DASH-ed Gearing-class DD would be the best "LCS". That type of ship should be able to mount 2 Mk75 76mm super-rapid fire and one Mk45 Mod4 guns; the 76mm guns for anti-small craft and the 5" for counter battery fire. The ClWS would be three SeaRAM paired with and driving three 35mm Millennium Guns. Then, fitted up with SPQ-9B and TRS-3D, 16cells Mk41 VLS, a single-side hangar and single-side boat deck, we would be able to meet the original (non-mission creep) mission demands.

More about this later!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jun 22, 2015 10:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
navydavesof wrote:
One good idea is to go with the FFG-ed Bertholf Cutter. It's American, and we're already building them. Sure it's limited to 28knots, but rarely is it every necessary to, especially with how the Perry FFs have been used for the last 15 years, exceed 38knots.


The NSC could be a basis, and is more likely to be built as it is a US design, but I feel it needs to be lengthened 40 or 50' to accommodate weapons and systems. This would make the hull very close to the Perry class in length.

The Patrol Frigate 4921 concept lost the fantail boat handling for Harpoon and SVTT. I would place the SVTT amidships, just ahead of the hangar so the torpedo magazine serves either the helos or the SVTT, and I'd place NSM amidships as well. Some of the 'new length' would be here. Also, consideration should be given to adding a second Gas Turbine, making two complete units for engineering DC purposes (and to acknowledge the fact the everything seem to be taking more and more power to run). Yes, lengthening and adding a second turbine would increase speed, but that is not my primary driver for adding them.

I'd add a CIWS position elevated forward of the bridge (similar to DDG 51s) and 32 or 48 cells of Mk 41 ahead of it, with a larger gun (probably Mk 45 mod 4) replacing the 57mm. This is where the lion's share of the extra length would be.

The helo hangars would need to be slightly enlarged to operate two SH-60 size platforms, even though she should normally only operate one. Smaller caliber guns (30-35mm) on the forward edges of the hangar roof.

Why the second hangar, more cells, and retention of boat handling capability? Each one allows differing load-outs as the mission requires - another SH-60 if needed, or UAVs+the SH-60, boat operations still easily sustainable in a blockade/inspection situation, and the VLS cells can be loaded any of a number of ways - more ESSM (I'd normally have 8 cells - 32 ESSM - dedicated), our new Anti-ship missile will be VLS, she may need VLASROC for convoy escort, or weapons to contribute to the task group if that applies, etc.

Each one of these is an expansion of an existing capability, so should not significantly drive cost (the engineering behind the lengthening would do that...as well as the military systems). You simply don't load and man the extra capabilities when they are not needed.

This still adds VLS (ESSM), SVTT, SLQ-32 (or newer equivalent), and close in guns (30-35mm) to the NSC crew - so we'd have to expect a 150+ complement. HH-65 for SH-60 and 57mm for Mk 45 should be almost a wash on crew numbers.

good read:
http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedin ... ol-frigate


Comparison of Legend class, LCS-2, Perry Class and Murasame class all in 1/1250 scale

Image

Note lengths

Image

So, of course this post is about a Frigate, not an LCS, but since they have decided the LCS is going to be a Frigate, that's not really off-topic anymore, right?

As my old Philosophy Professor used to say - "If you are not confused, you are missing the point!"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2015 7:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3099
SumGui,

Excellent post!!!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2015 11:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
Another good LCS read, the LCS Report to Congress from June 12, 2015:

http://news.usni.org/2015/06/19/documen ... more-13432


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2015 5:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

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

http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2 ... 014lcs.pdf

"At the request of the Secretary of Defense, DOT&E prepared
in October 2014 an independent assessment of the combat
capabilities and survivability of the alternative concepts
for a new small surface combatant (SSC) developed by the
Navy’s SSC Task Force. Using the Task Force’s results,
that assessment found that only major modifications to the
existing LCS design, or a new ship design, could provide the
multi‑mission combat capabilities and survivability features
found in a modern frigate."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jun 25, 2015 6:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3099
SumGui wrote:
more.

http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2 ... 014lcs.pdf

"At the request of the Secretary of Defense, DOT&E prepared
in October 2014 an independent assessment of the combat
capabilities and survivability of the alternative concepts
for a new small surface combatant (SSC) developed by the
Navy’s SSC Task Force. Using the Task Force’s results,
that assessment found that only major modifications to the
existing LCS design, or a new ship design, could provide the
multi‑mission combat capabilities and survivability features
found in a modern frigate."
That is really damning.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jun 25, 2015 9:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
navydavesof wrote:
That is really damning.


Yes - I just wanted to point out that my concerns about the viability of the platform are not just my opinion.

I've served on 13 ships, CV, CGN, CG, DDG, PC, T-AGOS, WHEC...both US and RN, and my opinion this dog is a liability - you do not send people close inshore to harms way without the ability to resist the very aggression you are trying to provoke:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Pueblo_%28AGER-2%29

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident

As a CT, naturally those two events kit home for me.

I see nothing but an entire parade of horribles with the flight 0 LCS.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 12:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3099
SumGui wrote:
I see nothing but an entire parade of horribles with the flight 0 LCS.
I feel you. I am writing a short story about a PRC strike inside the First Island Chain and against Japan and its first, second, and third order effects are. The story revolves around a battleship. I am writing 2 versions: one with my modernized Iowa and one with a modernized 31.5knot Montana, the USS New Hampshire. Through three years of analysis and the weapons equivalencies of NAVSEA, I am writing how the BBs would be effected by modern weapons.

The other 2 elements I touch on are the USS John Paul Jones experimenting with the Mk71 Mod2 8"/60caliber gun and the Philippines when this event breaks out. The LCS Flight 0 will be present, and so will one of my LCS-1 Flight IIs. Both would be the centers of "Regional Influence Squadron"s that exercise with 1 LCS and 6 Up-armed PCs. I exercise the capabilities of both the Flight 0 and Flight II to contrast.

Anyway...good fun!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jul 02, 2015 3:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3099
MCPON Stevens visited us recently, and he threw out a lot of messages. One of those was heavy on LCS. A plank owner of LCS-1 asked a deep question about the lack of real mission modules and how the prototypes are failing very, very badly, leaving the ship with a very inadequate self defense capability. The MCPON could only respond with an excuse.

He said something along the lines of...The modules are coming along. They will be ready. They will work. The LCS is here to stay. The modules will work. They don't right now. There will be 6 stationed in the PI. The modules will work."

Thanks, MCPON...thanks.

The real "LCS" still needs to be a modern Gearing-class DD with 3 deck gun mounts (3xMk45 Mod4 5"/62caliber or 2x76mmSR and 1x Mk45 Mod4 5"/62), a small helo hangar for UAVs and 1 HH-60, 16-cells Mk41 VLS, SPQ-9B and TRS-4D medium radars, chaff, NULKA, SLQ, NIXIE and other torp decoys, and 8-16 Harpoons with 1x11m and 1x9mm RHIB; if possible 2x11mRHIBs.

And yes, there are 2 models coming. One Gearing sized and 1 Perry sized. The Perry will be thicker and more survivable.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jul 02, 2015 3:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 6:18 pm
Posts: 372
navydavesof wrote:
That is really damning.

Yes, but Secretary Hagel is gone and the "key players" from the LCS Program office were put in charge of the new small combatant program.

What a surprize (Scottish spelling) that they decided that LCS could be modified to meet the new requirement. :roll_eyes:

Tar and feather the lot!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jul 03, 2015 5:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3099
Busto963 wrote:
Tar and feather the lot!

Indeed! I still like the idea of a modern FRAMII Gearing DD to do this job armed with 3 modular main battery mounts, 16x Mk41VLS, 2x SeaRAM paired with Millennium Gun, and a 21-cell RAM aft, a narrow hangar for 2 H-60s, 2x 11m RHIBs, SPQ-9B, TRS3D, SRBOC, NULKA, etc

Resulting in 2x 76mm SR guns and 1x Mk45 Mod4 5"/62caliber guns.

Or if they wanted to sack up and make the LCS a NGFS ship, they could have 3x Mk45 Mod4 5"/62caliber guns to lay low some acceptable naval gunnery.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Oct 20, 2015 1:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
Upgraded LCS to Saudi Arabia:

http://dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/kingdo ... mmsc-ships

16 Mk 41 VLS cells (ESSM)
Oto Melara 76mm/62
SeaRAM
Harpoon


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Oct 21, 2015 1:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 12:18 pm
Posts: 114
Interesting, TRS-4D does it's own designating.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 14, 2015 11:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2013 1:35 pm
Posts: 75
I'll put my two cents in.

Armaments would be 1xOto Melara 127mm/64 caliber DP gun with Volcano extended range/IR antiship homing/GPS guided land attack with SAL terminal homing, 2X76mm SR STRALES( on mount radar guided AAA shells), 2X35mm Milleniem guns associated with 2XSEARAM, 2Xtriple ASW TTs,two MH-60 helos or naval version of V-280 if built and 2 UAV from hangar. Sixteen Mk. 41 VLS on either hangar door side with hangar lengthened to recover space lost to VLS and 16 cell VLS forward for a total of 48 VLS.

Ship is the 6000 ton 150 Meters long FFG of Lockheed Freedom class basic hull design with SPY-1F or scaled down 'basic' AMDR with nine RMAs for six by six feet active arrays matching SPY-1D performance, CEC, NIFC-CA links, VDS, towed array, hull mounted and mine hunting sonars.

SEWIP III EW, Nulka/SRBOC-36, two 11 meter RHIB each side of deckhouse, extended deckhouse/flight deck/forward deck by 11 meters each(153meters overall length), lengthened mission bay, Nixie torpedo decoy/lightweight torpedo detection array, accommodations for 100 or more crew plus helo/UAV detachment(enough to run the ship, fight the ship, man damage control and repair), watertight compartmentation and fire automatic fire fighting systems.

Missiles would be fired from 48 strike length cells with ESSM, SM-2,SM-6, LRASM, Tomahawk, VLASROC as needed by the mission.

Hopefully, cost would be reasonable.


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  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