Well, no thread on this one so I'm starting one ! At first i didn't much like this design, but lately it has been growing on me somewhat. She's only ickle (16.5cm in 1/700) and I'm quickly finding a new appreciation for compact littoral ships, so I'd like to get some info together here. A quick google sweep has revealed no drawings yet , I'll have a good trawl this evening. But it would be great to have some close ups and walk arounds if there are any, there isn't much structural detail on this design, but there is still plenty of surface detail (my favourite!) So, join me in having LCS-1 grow on you, she isn't as much of an ugly duckling once you get to know her . More later...
The latest Navy budget figures put the costs for LCS-1 and LCS-2 at $637M and $704M respectively. This figure does not include the module costs which are wildly estimated to be on the plus side of $250M per module. Thus, the total for an LCS with its module is pushing $1 billion!
The original ASW module was found to be ineffective, was cancelled, and now a development of a future, replacement ASW module is underway and hoped to be deliverable before 2020. Yikes!!
The NLOS, under development by the Army and the major component of the ASuW module, has been cancelled due to technical failures. The Navy may, or may not, opt to try to continue development.
The Navy's FY2011 budget request has $1.2B for construction of 2 LCS's (one of each type). That's $600M per ship. How the Navy thinks these ships will be cheaper than the preceeding ones is a mystery since production line savings have not yet been implemented. Sounds like more hope than fact! Also, the Congressionally mandated cap on the LCS cost is $480M per ship. It's unknow how the Navy intends to reconcile their requested LCS funding with the cap.
I wish there was better news but this is one "challenged" program.
For you LCS fans, it appears that the Navy has now, finally, recognized that the LCS is not going to work as originally envisioned. The concept of the LCS as a mothership to a mini-fleet of offboard, unmanned, remote sensor platforms has been plagued by problems and, to date, few of the platforms exist, or ever will. As a result, the Navy has issued solicitations for bids to develop a variable depth sonar (deployed from the stern ramp) and a multi-function (active/passive) towed array for the LCS.
Remember that with the failure of the remote sensor concept, the LCS is now not only woefully underarmed, it is also blind since it was designed and built without any significant onboard sensors.
Of course, if sonars and towed arrays get installed, you can see that signals a movement away from the modular concept and towards a single purpose vessel. It may be that future LCS's (if the program isn't cancelled as the Navy has begun to hint at) will be purpose built to focus on shallow water ASW and small craft ASuW.
carr wrote:For you LCS fans, it appears that the Navy has now, finally, recognized that the LCS is not going to work as originally envisioned. The concept of the LCS as a mothership to a mini-fleet of offboard, unmanned, remote sensor platforms has been plagued by problems and, to date, few of the platforms exist, or ever will. As a result, the Navy has issued solicitations for bids to develop a variable depth sonar (deployed from the stern ramp) and a multi-function (active/passive) towed array for the LCS.
Remember that with the failure of the remote sensor concept, the LCS is now not only woefully underarmed, it is also blind since it was designed and built without any significant onboard sensors.
Of course, if sonars and towed arrays get installed, you can see that signals a movement away from the modular concept and towards a single purpose vessel. It may be that future LCS's (if the program isn't cancelled as the Navy has begun to hint at) will be purpose built to focus on shallow water ASW and small craft ASuW.
Psshhh! What are you talking about Carr? Eat a turd! LCS is awesome. It's better than a...well...a...um. Damn. PC? No. S#!t. Umm...what's effective but popular to beat on? Oh, yeah, battleships. Yeah! LCS is better than a battleship! Yeah! You're crazy, Carr. Multi-module-missionarian-alu-minium techonology demonstraitor that does not demonstrate any significant technology whatsoever master piece is unflawed. Get it right, pal, or suffer the consequences.
Given what I found yesterday, viewtopic.php?f=2&t=60920, it appears that there will be a two ship LCS-1 class and a two ship LCS-2 class.
Therefore, one has to wonder if the current production of LCS-2 models will have any longevity and whether a manufacturer will invest the money to produce LCS-1.
"Jan 24/11: Gannett�s Navy Times reports that the RAMICS supercavitating 30mm cannon for killing shallow mines may be next on the chopping block, after performing poorly in testing. "
As a reminder, this was going to be the LCS' means of dealing with mines.
The LCS can't catch a break! Unfortunately, this is what happens when you try to skip too far ahead on the technology curve; most of the attempts will fail, initially. When we've already got hulls in the water waiting for weapons, this becomes a serious problem resulting in ships that are missing their intended weapons and sensors. Without weapons and sensors, the LCS is just a large and expensive Coast Guard Cutter.
Here's a tidbit reported at defenseindustrydaily.com:
"March 18/11: Freedom, cracked. US NAVSEA reveals that Team Lockheed�s LCS-1 Freedom has already experienced a 6-inch outside/ 3-inch inside horizontal hull crack, located below the waterline in the steel hull, during a heavy weather ocean trial. It leaked 5 gallons an hour, and originated in a weld seam between steel plates. The ship returned to port in San Diego at 8 knots, avoiding rough seas, and the crack was patched with a cofferdam by March 12/11. NAVSEA is reviewing the class� design, construction drawings and welding procedures."
navydavesof wrote:Psshhh! What are you talking about Carr? Eat a turd! LCS is awesome. It's better than a...well...a...um. Damn. PC? No. S#!t. Umm...what's effective but popular to beat on? Oh, yeah, battleships. Yeah! LCS is better than a battleship! Yeah! You're crazy, Carr. Multi-module-missionarian-alu-minium techonology demonstraitor that does not demonstrate any significant technology whatsoever master piece is unflawed. Get it right, pal, or suffer the consequences.
Dave wrote this in response to a post of mine that implied some slight criticism of the LCS. He was having fun with me but it turns out that he was right on the money given that the Navy has ordered 10 more of each LCS design!
Well, I've seen the light. I'm a converted true believer, now! LCS forever!
carr wrote:Well, I've seen the light. I'm a converted true believer, now! LCS forever!
That's right, Bob. Never forget.
It seems that LCS is suffering some pretty incredible problems. Hmmm. Only if they made a variant of the Burke that did not cost so much and could do perform in the littorals and conduct ASW ops. Huh.
It's interesting to note that the foreign purchasers have requested highly modified versions of the LCS with much heavier weapons fits and, to the best of my knowledge, no modules. In other words, the export versions would wind up being single purpose and armed commensurate with their size.
Makes you wonder what these other countries see that the U.S. Navy doesn't as regards weapons fit.
Another interesting and highly significant development that has escaped attention is the module production plans. The original plan called for a ratio of around 2.5 to 3.1 modules per ship. This means that at any given moment there would be 1.5 to 2.1 (the previous numbers minus 1 for the currently installed module) spare modules available per ship. Thus, an LCS could pull in for a module change and be assured that the desired module would be in stock, so to speak.
However, in the latest budget plans, the module ratio has dropped to 1.2 which basically means that there are few or no spare modules (0.2 spare modules per ship). Thus, the whole idea of quick changes of modules to respond to rapidly changing tactical situations has been jepordized. The whole idea of the LCS hinged on the modules. Maybe the Navy is concentrating on just getting hulls in the water and will worry about modules later?
Whether you're a proponent of the LCS or not, you've just got to scratch your head about the constant stream of questionable decisions associated with this program!
! At first i didn't much like this design, but lately it has been growing on me somewhat. She's only ickle (16.5cm in 1/700) and I'm quickly finding a new appreciation for compact littoral ships, so I'd like to get some info together here. A quick google sweep has revealed no drawings yet 
, I'll have a good trawl this evening. But it would be great to have some close ups and walk arounds if there are any, there isn't much structural detail on this design, but there is still plenty of surface detail (my favourite!) So, join me in having LCS-1 grow on you, she isn't as much of an ugly duckling once you get to know her 
. More later...
Huh.
