The Ship Model Forum

I am in the brown-water part of the US Navy, and I have worked with the PCs a lot. In addition to public reports, what I have noticed is that they are getting very, very worn out. While they are currently well beyond their designed service lives, they are performing the critical missions of patrol and interdiction. They are doing that job extremely well, and I don’t know if any other ship in the US Navy could do it as well or as cheaply.

So, I have been wondering lately about how they might be replaced, if they should be replaced, and if they are to be replaced what kind of capabilities the replacements should have.

Having seen them do the job, my answer is: Yes. We need them, but they need to be better equipped to accomplish their mission. They are terribly underarmed.

What PCs anyway? Why does the US Navy have them?

PCs are small ships. Many countries would call them corvettes. Typically corvettes are used to protect countries' shores against other small craft or ships and perform light duties larger ships don't need to do. The PC/Corvette-type ship was brought about in the USN because the Navy SPECWAR a needed a delivery capability that was heavy enough to deliver and support an element of SEALs and a Special Boat Team. However, when the ships came on line, the Navy had only armed them with 25mm and smaller guns. The Navy expected SPECWAR to man them, and they were not even armed heavily enough to do what SPECWAR needed. SPECWAR rejected the ships.

So, the Navy had to do something with these ships. The Navy gave some away to the Coast Guard and other nations Navies. However, because they only mounted 25mm and smaller guns when other countries corvettes carried 76mm deck guns and anti-ship cruise missiles, it was clear that the Cyclone-class PCs were woefully under armed and really could not compete. They didn't really classify as "corvettes", and at best they were large US Navy Cutters.

There were many years where they had little to do. The Coast Guard began acquiring them, but as the War on Terror developed, the USN found a use that fit their limited firepower and high speed and maneuverability. The USN was helping the Iraqis defend their ABOT and KAAOT oil platforms in the Persian Gulf. The PCs joined the US Coast Guard cutters in the area, and they worked beautifully in that role. In 2011 the USN relinquished that role to the Iraqis, and now the USN has sent the PCs to deal with pirates everywhere from the Persian Gulf and the Horn of Africa, and plans are to go to the Philippines. The Philippines are also concerned about Chinese agression. However, with only 25mm guns, the PCs don't pose much of a threat to anything but small boats. It seems that the PCs are still underarmed.

Since the need obviously still exists for a PC/Corvette-type craft, a PC can (and probably should) be replaced by another PC/Corvette class. The mistakes of the Cyclone-class have been learned. The missions that a PC/Corvette needs to be able to do are:

- Anti-surface warfare (ASuW) to engage large ships
- Gun cover-fire capability: a horizon ranged gun system to cover small boats
- Swarm busting: guns and possibly missiles capable of engaging multiple small craft
- CIWS capable of responding to anti-ship missile threats
- Small craft recovery
- Small UAV battle-space awareness capability

To best meet the above missions, I would propose:
- Anti-Surface Warfare: Harpoon anti-ship cruise missiles, 4 or 8. Otobreda 76mm super rapid fire gun. The 76mm gun can engage in gunfire support missions better than the 57mm because of its longer range and larger round. Similar munitions exist with both calibers so they can do the same thing. The 76mm carries more bang, and its mount is smaller and easier to support than the rather large 57mm mount.

- Gun cover-fire capability: a 76mm gun would also allow the ship to engage harbors and support friendly forces within its 13 nm range.

- CIWS capable of responding to anti-ship missile threats:
21-cell RAM launcher or 11-cell SeaRAM. The RAM technology is driven either by remote sensors such as a mast mounted radar and EO/IR sensor as with the 21-cell launcher or on board sensors such as the EO/IR on the 11-cell SeaRAM. With current and projected technology, we can assume for the sake of this argument that RAM will be able to reliably engage small craft in addition to missiles and aircraft.

- Swarm busting: guns and possibly missiles capable of engaging multiple small craft:
Otobreda 76mm super rapid fire gun fires super fragmenting charges (HE-ET) rounds that detonate at predetermined ranges, and it fires at a rather high rate. The smaller gun, Mk38 Mod2 25/30mm remotely controlled gun, Mk46 30mm, or Millennium Gun 35mm, can all engage targets that are closer to the ship. RAM can destroy high priority targets with a single missile.

- Small craft recovery:
Launch and recovery of at least one 11 meter RHIB via stern ramp

- Small UAV support:
ScanEagle

The interesting thing is that other nations have already contracted with US ship building companies to have ships like these made. The sad thing is that Naval Sea Systems Command is overseeing the design of those ships.



The ship before commissioning:


The Finnish have the Hamina-class, and they are sweet.


To me a Next Generation PC/corvette could and should replace the current PCs. It would be an easy, low-cost, low-end solution to a very high-risk threat (small boat swarm attack) that too much of the time is accomplished by high-cost, high end ships. Even the Navy’s new “low-end” ship (LCS) is costing $500-$700million per ship. Current Corvettes similar to the one I have described are on the order of $100 million.

A little later this year I will begin a model of this next generation PC craft that would be able to meet the mentioned threats and possibly more. The model will be based on a merger between hull forms. The inspirations are:

The Cyclone-class PCs:





The German/Soviet Project 1241.8 corvettes:



Visby-class corvette:



The Gepard-klasse missile craft:




Ultimately, the mesh may appear to be an uparmed version of the Hamina-class Finnish corvettes:


If the Cyclone PC replacements are armed like above, SPECWAR would most likely be very interested in these craft again. The RHIB capability would add space to embark SWCC RHIBs so SEALs could, launch, be supported with onboard UAVs for battle space awareness in addition to the gunnery. When called to, the PC replacement would be like a super SWCC craft.

Comments, ideas, and suggestions are welcome.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

You ever seen the PCs we built for the Saudi's in the 1970-80's? They're really heavily armed for their size. I know they're dated but the design is neat enough.


The Al Sadiq-class Patrol Boats
http://www.defenseimagery.mil/imagery.html#guid=9684bf1476bb0facb2b1015f521e826ccac2166c
Closest to the camera.
http://www.defenseimagery.mil/imagery.html#a=search&s=DN-SC-82-03990&guid=e8d00a1e63630a5118df72995b278e8863620a69

http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/081025-N-5681S-164.jpg


There's also the Badr-class corvettes that resemble the Al-Sadiqs but are bigger. Just some food for thought!

_________________
Drawing Board:
1/700 Whiff USS Leyte and escorts 1984
1/700 Whiff USN Modernized CAs 1984
1/700 Whiff ASW Showdown - FFs vs SSGN 1984

Slipway:
1/700 Whiff USN ASW Hunter Killer Group Dio 1984

I earned my ESWS on USS Squall (PC-7) while part of the test team for the Privateer system.

I also served on USS Whirlwind (PC-11).

When initially envisioned, the primary purpose was support, insertion and extraction of the teams. Once bureau-crazy got ahold of it, it became a 'ship' (exceeding 100' in length), and levying ship sized requirments upon it. These requirements also effected how we (in theory) we allowed to operate the ships.

Morons with no real grip on the intended mission bought the wrong vessel, so later along came the Mk V.

This is not to say the Cyclone class was a bad vessel, but it was initially a square peg for a round hole. Luckily, a square hole showed up later in the form of security and patrol missions.

What you propose is the ACTUAL streetfighter concept - not the bloated, expensive, and incapable mess that the LCS has become.

But then, I am opinionated.

But also right!

My $ 0.02:

1. Off the shelf, the Hamina is tough to beat, but if you want to recover 11m RHIBs, the hull will have to be stretched.

2. Weapons: I would add an AMOS 120mm automatic gun-mortar turret (it has been tested on the CB90/RHBS).

- Fires all NATO 120mm mortar rounds including PGM; a M933 HE Round: ~31 lbs; (roughly comprable to a 155mm howitzer round)
- 10 km range (farther than the MK 110)
- ROF: 16/12 (Max/sustained), but it can shoot 4-rounds in < 8-seconds, and has an MRSI of up to 8-rounds simulteous impact (!)

- 48 round magazine
- Fully automatic
Attachment:

cv90amos.jpg [ 51.44 KiB | Viewed 6500 times ]


- Pricey, but what else are you going to spend that MFP 11 money on?

3. SeaRam is also a must.

That is most interesting! The reason why I included the Ambassador-class missile craft as a primary in the group is that it has the 76mm, pretty much a 3-inch and two positions for CIWS mounts (Phalanx and RAM/SeaRAM). I will sacrifice the aft most mount for a RHIB recovery ramp. The OtoBreda 76mm super rapidfire has a range of 16.5nm. Not bad for a PC. That's naval gun cover fire material.

In the ASuW role the boat would have 76mm, 4-8 Harpoons, and a 21-cell RAM launcher with an EO/IR guidance. However the variables between the 21-cell RAM launcher with an independent EO/IR sensor and the SeaRAM are that the separate EO/IR could fail and render the 21-cell RAM launcher dependent only on the SPQ-9B. While the SeaRAM would be autonomous it would only have 1/2 the capacity.

The trade off is up to debate...but either way, the benefit of the RAM system is greater than the Phalanx.

Also worth looking into is how the Ambassadors are going to control their 21-cell RAM mount. They may utilize an EO/IR system like I described.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

My vote would be for the Ambassador class as the basis, in variants or modular. It has the range and speed needed for a multi-role vessel, and a little more size than the Hamina. The Hamina would probably be a better basis for a pure close-in fighter, though.

I do like the Hamina's waterjets, and I would see what I could do to incorporate them into the Ambassador design.

Forward would be the 76mm Super Rapid, aft of the mast RAM in the position currently occupied by Harpoon, and two Millennium Guns (P/S) in the position currently occupied by the Mk 15 CIWS.

The aft deck becomes the 'flex' area - Harpoons, UAV deck, or RHIB handling.

The weight should work out Harpoon and Mk49 RAM have about the same weight, and each Millennium gun mount is about 3300kg to Mk15s 6200kg - so only off about 400kg there.

I 'flexed' the Harpoons as hunting the larger ships may not always be needed by these platforms, but they will always want RAM and the utility of a CIWS/anti-Swarm gun system.

This would be a better LCS, then get a Frigate for between this and the Burke.

Out of curiosity, is there any particular reason that the SeaRam's fire control can't be mounted on the RAM? Not to eliminate the SPQ-9B but to provide redundancy of fire control, should the SPQ be taken out for any number of reasons. Or, why does the SeaRam have so many fewer missiles than RAM?
If redundancy of FC systems is no big concern, the Navy could have freed up a lot of manpower, back in the day by, eliminating the Pointer and the Trainer on 40mm mounts. Same thing for the 5", etc.

SeaRAM essentially gives up some rounds to mount the Fire Control as weight compensation in the same mount.

Mk 15 CIWS, Mk 49 and SeaRAM use the same mount.

SeaRAM is probably best thought of as a Mk 15 CIWS which traded the M61 Gatling for 11 rounds of RAM.

So basically its a weight consideration. Don't want to overload that mount.

I think it's a cost and effectiveness thing, too. The "on paper" rule for Phalanx is that it takes 200 rounds to take out a target within 3000 yards of the ship. That means that the mount can take out a maximum of 8 targets as they eat up that range very, very fast. RAM has had an extremely good kill rate at its range of 9000 meters, and its accuracy is supposedly increased even more with the radar and EO/IR addition. Unlike Phalanx that requires all kinds of maintenance on its gatling gun, there is almost no maintenance on the SeaRAM. That makes me think that SeaRAM is a an overall better choice than Phalanx...but who knows how well it really works.

I find it more attractive to go with the extra 10 rounds in the 21-cell RAM mount with the/an EO/IR (perhaps the Mk46 EO/IR on CGs and DDGs) mounted somewhere else on the ship.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

I like your ideas. I have always liked the lines and concept of the PC's but thought them woefully underarmed.
For the Specops mission the rhib capability would be a must, but for interdiction and coastal patrol it could be desirable as well. Having the ability to board another vessel and still maintain stand off seems important to me. The ability to carry at least two rhibs would seem a minimum. (One to recover the other once it breaks.)

I have heard the Navy is looking at a replacement for the aging Harpoon system. The down side of the new missile as far as this idea goes is that it will probably be designed for virticle launch which puts it out of the reach of a PC.
I believe any weapons mounted ought to either be set up as mission modules or be multi mission usefull. The 75mm Gun is a good example of a multi-role weapon. The Harpoon Slam variant is too.

Anothert idea, would it be possible to operate a UAV with a laser designator and fire MLRS style rockets using laser terminal guidance? If so that may also be a good force multiplyer to consider.

While that's true there are still hundreds of Harpoons left in the inventory, so there would be over a decade of Harpoons left for PCs like these. If a manitenance program were restarted on the Harpoons, they could be preserved indefinately.

I agree, but the PC is really, really small. The modules would be very limited in scope. While it was tested, the canistered SLAM was never procured by the USN. However, Block III Harpoons were produced, and they're nearly the same as a SLAM.

UAV, heck yeah!!! The Scan Eagle is a standard fit out for these ships. MLRS...I don't thinks so. Those missiles are a little too big for this kind of ship. The Harpoons, however can strike land targets, and they don't need a laser designator. On top of the 76mm super rapidfire gun, the Harpoons are a huge force multiplier.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Earlier, while I was working on CGN-42, something hit me about the PC replacement and the 11m RHIBs. The RHIBs on board USN ships are the standard USN 7m type. Then I realized there was a pretty big difference between the standard RHIBs and the 11m SWCC RHIBs. At 11m the SWCC RHIBs are about 1/5 the entire length of the PC. This struck a problem.

This is a standard USN 7m RHIB most US ships use:


After the PCs received their stern ramps, this is what they received:

They are the 30'/9meter RHIBs.

here is a picture of the sterns of the PCs




This explains my confusion. When I was aboard Sirocco, their RHIB was configured just like an 11m SWCC RHIB, but it wasn't as big as a SWCC boat. It turns out that the Cyclone PCs are fitted for the 30' (9m) RHIBs. Standard, when SOF embark, they have to use what the ship has: 9m RHIBs instead of 11m. No big deal. These RHIBs are very useful. VBSS Teams and SEALs use these RHIBs all the time. Eleven meter RHIBs are 6+ feet longer and about 3'+ wider. A ship as small as the PC replacement probably could not accommodate 2 of those. Even having two 7m or 9m RHIBs will take the aft super structure to be shifted to one side so there is enough room. The 9m RHIBs will work beautifully while allowing good margins aboard the ship.

Here is the stern open while performing operations:


Since the 9m RHIB works so well for SOF and other small boat operations, I really don't see the need to try to expand the ship's capacity to accommodate an 11m RHIB. I will try to accommodate a second 9m RHIB on the starboard side of the aft super structure. This will require the aft super structure to be staggered to port.

Here's a fun gif from the fas guys.


The Harpoons will have to be approximately 5/32" tube cut 35mm long. Should be great fun when I get to her. Here are some thin wall Harpoons:


and thick wall:


Here are fleetscale's 1/72 scale thick wall Harpoons:

I think I will wind up going with thick wall Harpoons for simplicity.

Now...back to the aft SPY-3 deckhouse on CGN-42!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

And such a big fan of this guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrUXDAhP ... page#t=26s

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

when we modified the PCs to have the stern ramp, we were limited by existing internal structure moving forward (specifically, the aft engine room bulkhead) as to what angle the ramp would have.

New construction should be able to avoid this, and I don't think adding a few very light feet (roller path) to the length of the vessel aft would change the engineering of the design much. Width is probably the biggest challenge to fitting two 9m RHIBs. You may end up with a 'beaver tail' to fit both.

Fascinating! I meant to emply in my last post that the stern ramp would still accommodate one boat, and if I decide it is necessary to have a second boat on board, the aft super structure would need to be shifted to the left to make room for the boat to be stored level on the deck. If there is a second boat, it might just be the much smaller 7m RHIB if the 9m is too big. When up on deck, the boat would have to be craned into the water...a challenging accommodation for a ship this size.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

So, how about this craft having a 200' length and a beam of 25.5', the ship will be able to accommodate the 76mm rapidfire gun forward, a GAU-19 .50caliber gatling gun port and starboard, a mission module accommodating 4-8 Harpoon anti-ship missiles amidships, a Mk38 Mod 2 25/30mm gun or Millennium gun and a 21-cell RAM launcher aft of the super structure. The stern will be able to accommodate a 9m RHIB or an ASuW module of another RAM/Phalanx Block 1B mount or an ASW module with a TACTAS towed sonar array.

So modeled will have the Harpoons and boat ramp.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Dave,
The term "Mission Module" immediately brings to mind the LNS class. Yes, the Literal Non-combat Ship and no I did not mis-spell because it is literally a non-combatant.
Therefore, I would suggest that the term "Mission Package" be used when speaking about portable integrated weapon and sensor packages that might be added to or removed from a vessal.

These are smaller than what you propose, but I believe may be relevant to understanding that the basic security and some other roles currently filled by the Cyclones can be done simpler:

http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2012/may/ ... ig-patrol/

These look like shedloads of fun!

Edit to add more:

http://cimsec.org/an-influence-squadron-in-the-making/

Love the concept. Not to hijack your thread - but an LSD-41 packing 8 of these dudes acting as mother ship and packing attack/spotting Helo support would be a great swarm/anti-swarm solution.

8 Mark VI, 600nm range each....

Great. Now I'm working on a permanent conversion of the LSD-41 class to Mk VI support ship.....

No wait - the conversion packs 6 Mk VI in the welldeck, a heavy repair facility in the forward end of the welldeck, with the vehicle storage turned into parts and munition storage to support your new modified Ambassador class PCs. The cranes can easily lift Harpoon reloads onboard, the PCs tie up to mexeflotes carried by the mother ship who is stationed near the threat area and the inner layer of defense is provided by her own Mk VI boats.

hmm...a mobile FOB for the Mk VI AND new PC...excellent...excellent....(Mr. Burns voice, naturally...)

I was not a fan of the AMOS for the larger platform due to lack of range, but using the Mk VI as a platform to get AMOS in close and up waterways would be a great fit.

AMOS was found to be too large for the CB90 (52'x12'6"), so the Sweeds are developing a larger vessel to carry it, measuring 79'1"x17'2" - slightly smaller than the Mk VI platform.

The other option is the Patria NEMO - a lighter single barrel version of AMOS. That might allow the Mk VI to pack a Mk 38 and a NEMO without losing too much space. Nice for close in work

The PC's can act as 'big brother' to the Mk VI when forcing a beach.