What-If LCS Flight II: Littoral Combat Ship Improvement

[carr]

..

[carr]

..

[carr]

..

[navydavesof]

Mindful of my limitations, here are my answers to your questions.

OY! I see where you're coming from. When you have either Aegis or the SPQ-9B as the sensors, you don't need a dedicated tracking illuminator. As a result, the SPG-60 is not needed. The Mk160 is just the GFCS that calculates what the fire control solution needs to be. So, no SPG-60 is necessary.

I printed out info Oto Melara websites and checked Friendman's Naval Weapons for data on Oto Melara mountings:

The Oto 5" gun certainly sounds like it out performs the Mk45 in all ways. I am disappointed that the USN still uses the Mk45 at all. Honestly, if it were to depart from the Mk45 I would hope it would upgun to a 155mm version of the Mk45, the 155mm version of the Mk71 or the full bore 8".

With possible 8" ammunition, producing 8" Excalibur rounds is not a problem at all. With their base bleed and RAP techniques, an 8" Excalibur round could easily achieve 50nm, and that projectile length could be stacked inside the 88" (or 96" as you quoted) ready service loader cells. The longer rounds requiring double feed could have some serious RAP range to them for sure.

In use on board the LCS, I don't think there is a single hope at all that the Mk71 could or should be embarked. That is a weapon that needs to be on a DDG and larger platform. The LCS would not be able to reliable operate that kind of a weapon system from a weight, stability, hull strength, or ammunition capacity vantage point. Also, ammunition and projectiles cannot be stored in "store rooms". They have to be in a protected magazine for the bare reasons of safety.

[SumGui]

The Oto 5" gun certainly sounds like it out performs the Mk45 in all ways. I am disappointed that the USN still uses the Mk45 at all. Honestly, if it were to depart from the Mk45 I would hope it would upgun to a 155mm version of the Mk45, the 155mm version of the Mk71 or the full bore 8".

Do you know what this video shows?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGkOLFIfoag

The only time I have witnessed in person or seen on video a Mk45 not failing within 4 rounds.

USS California (CGN-36), failed. USS Kinkaid (DD-965) failed. USS Chancellorsville (CG-62) and USS Benfold (DDG-65) did not perform any PACFIRE while I was aboard.

USS Truxtun (CGN-35) and her Mk42 however, was 100% reliable, and they were shooting like mad - I was on her last cruise and anything out the barrel didn't have to be offloaded... 21 rounds out the barrel without failure was not impressive, it was such an easy fire table that it was a non-event. And they shot every three days unless in port.

HMS Manchester (D95) and HMS Sutherland (F81) had no issues the few times they fired their 4.5 Mk 8 while I was aboard (and the Mk8 is a contemporary to the Mk45 - their initial design is about the same timeframe), but our older USN weapons worked more reliably (the Mk42 on Tommy-T mentioned above - the last one in USN service I believe, and the Mk 30s onboard USS Long Beach (CGN-9) always functioned).

I have been on the OTO Melara 127mm bandwagon for some time.



I hope they have worked this into a serviceable weapon, but based on my experience the Mk45 is a rampant piece of crap.

[SumGui]

For example, merely being able to fit a Mk57 VLS module in the bow of LCS-2, assuming it will fit, is not enough. We have to have room for the module plus room for additional supporting structure and bulkheads. The module also needs room for the control unit and utility runs. In addition, we need sufficient room around it to access it, service it, service the control unit and utilities, conduct effective damage control (meaning room to fight fires and whatnot), or simply get past it to gain access to whatever is farther forward. Further, whatever space the module and its gear takes up was, presumably, filling a needed function. That function must be relocated somewhere else in the ship or deleted. Not many functions on a ship can be deleted. Ship's internal volume is a zero sum game. If you add something to the bow you have to take an equal amount of something away. The cargo/mission bays do, of course, offer some unused volume if we drop the modular requirement.

Regarding manning, remember that each additional crew member adds not only their weight but the weight and space of additional bunks, heads, showers, laundry, galley space, fresh water storage, food storage, cooks, and all the other things necessary to sustain a sailor. LCS currently only has a 14 day endurance due to stores limits. Adding additional crew without adding stores will further reduce the endurance but if you add storage space you lose another needed function and/or you cut into the volume and weight you need for weapons and sensors. You get the idea ...

Without detailed blueprints I can't offer specifics beyond the caution not to get carried away as many people do when it comes to ideas for improving the LCS.

After 13 USN, USCG, and RN ships in a 20+ year career I think I have a pretty good grip on the weapons systems footprint concept, but it is a 100% valid point for all hands who want to WHIF to be aware of. an example of the depth and breadth of modifications needed when altering major systems on a ship for a whif:
viewtopic.php?f=67&t=109165

This LCS-2 WHIF concept is the first time I am working a concept without direct knowledge of either the platform or the weapons system I am using, so all input there is appreciated.

In bouncing ideas back and forth with some naval architects I know, they tentatively agree with my SWAG that the mission modules may have a limit imposed on them by the LCS-1 design, or that the mission module number was a contract target that the LCS-1 team tried to meet, and the LCS-2 team probably well exceeded.

Nonetheless, it would seem the Mk57 and MG can be added under raw weight calculations, while adding Naval Archer (and a Naval version of the HIMARS system I'm also looking at) will begin to stress that load number. The Mk 57 PVLS gives an ability customize a mission load, and is already a system entering USN service onboard DDG-1000, so the logistic track is not a new item.

Better than what they have now.

[Sciquest2525]

Lockheed claims that the hull form for it's LCS can support lengths up to 150 meters and displacements of 6000 tons. Beam is unspecified but simply lengthening the hull to 150 meters with no beam increase would result a length to beam ratio around 11.75:1 and add displacement. Widening the wataerline beam from 42 feet to 53 feet and the extreme beam from 58 feet to 73 feet for a 25% beam increase also adds displacement but does it reach 6000 tons? I don't know. It is unclear what, if any beam increase is indicated. The 90 meter corvette has a 39 foot waterline beam and 1650 tons displacement and somehow manages to include sonar, triple 12.75 inch TTs, 76mm gun, 21 cell RAM launcher, 8 Mk 41 VLS cells, 8 Harpoons and 30 mm anti swarm boat guns but does sacrifice speed and range/endurance characteristics despite having all diesel drive. The 150 meter version adds two module stations, a five inch gun and has 48 VLS cells, 16 flanking each side of the hangar and one forward. Power plant is the same as in the baseline LCS. What is the rated power of LCS?

[carr]

..

[navydavesof]

Trying to turn the LCS into a mini-battleship is an enjoyable exercise in "cool factor" but has no basis in realism....The LCS is an inherently bad design. We can lengthen and widen the LCS but that just makes it a bigger bad design. There's a reason why not a single foreign buyer has given the LCS more than a cursory look before moving on to other options.

Trying to turn the LCS into a mini-battleship is an enjoyable exercise in "cool factor" but has no basis in realism.

Bob certainly does a very good job of destroying the WIF potential of the LCS-1 platform. It is not a good design by any stretch.

However, with my mods, I believe that we can make good use of the heavier international design. With the modest changes I have proposed, the 32-cell VLS, 5" gun, 76mm anti-small boat, MG modules, Harpoons, conventional propulsion plant, etc, I think this could produce a reasonable vessel in a "make what we have work" scheme. Adding a Mk71 gun would not work at all...

...I estimate that we can use my mods to make the hull platform a useful platform.

[carr]

..

[Cliffy B]

Bob certainly does a very good job of destroying the WIF potential of the ANY platform.

Fixed! Come on Bob, bring the rain!!

You want to really whiff the LCS? Start over and actually build a WARSHIP and not a pleasure yacht that's painted gray with weapons bolted to the deck. Allow for enough crew to properly maintain the ship and perform DAMAGE CONTROL. Fix those very glaring errors in the initial design and you'll make me happy! Like you guys care about that though...

[navydavesof]

Bob certainly does a very good job of destroying the WIF potential of the ANY platform.

Fixed! Come on Bob, bring the rain!!

You want to really whiff the LCS? Start over and actually build a WARSHIP and not a pleasure yacht that's painted gray with weapons bolted to the deck. Allow for enough crew to properly maintain the ship and perform DAMAGE CONTROL. Fix those very glaring errors in the initial design and you'll make me happy! Like you guys care about that though...

Well, this is a very good point for Cliffy and Bob. It appears that the real answer is to either examine the foreign designs or go after the FFG version of the National Security Cutter.

However, this thread is about trying to "polish a turd" per-se. In PMs, Bob and I Have discussed the possible source of the top-heavy/center-of-gravity issues, and he brought up a very good point. He illustrated that perhaps because the contact with the waterline is so much more narrow than the beam of the ship (it's angled outward from the waterline up to a fair height) that the overhanging weight probably destabilizes the overall center-of-gravity.

Interesting food for thought for sure.

[EJM]

Now, cut some plastic, spill some glue, and post some photos. The crowd is getting restless!

Amen! You guys can talk, talk, talk all you want about the engineering, armament, and other LCS good or bad aspects all you want till you're blue in the face, but for me, I don't care about that stuff. If you really want to talk/describe about LCS whiffery, I say, SHOW IT INSTEAD! Put your modeling skills to the test and show us what you've got. If this were a game of poker, here's my hand:
http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php ... 350.0.html

What does everybody else have? Granted, mine isn't finished yet nor does it fall within the realm of "technical believeability", but I don't care. I build models for FUN.







http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php ... 350.0.html

[navydavesof]

To all followers, I apologize for the excessive planning stage of this build. I am involved in so much revolutionary change at my current command that I find little time or motivation to get enough work done on this...or any build... to post any pictures.

I really thought about it during the weekend, and your motivation has motivated me to shift the thinking from planning to execution.

Thank you, and progress photos will come this week.

[carr]

..

[SumGui]

[oldnavyguy]

I served on the USS Truxtun during its last 3.5 years including decommissioning the beast. I slept under that infernal 5" gun and can attest that it did work reliably. Damn near nothing else did, but we could shoot. The Mk-10 was always acting up, the CIWS couldn't track, half the radar wouldn't work and the sonar dome was cracked by a whale strike yet that gun was always ready for a night shoot while us poor sods were trying to get some sleep. Once a light fixture broke off and fell on a guy trying to sleep. His freaked out yells woke anyone capable of sleeping through pac-fire. Ah, the Tommy T. What torrid tales yee've spun.

[navydavesof]

Good day one and all. My unit and I have been very busy over the last several months. The "shift to the Pacific" has caused a large number of time-consuming issues including training and organizing. That has consumed a very large amount of my time. I have not gotten to work on any projects very much recently, but this weekend promises time. I appreciate my follower's patience. It's time to get back to work on the LCS-1 Flight II and other projects!

Once LCS-1 Flight II is done, then I will move back into the PC-15, Iowa 2016, CGBL, and CGN-42.

I would like to place a request for suggestions on what kind of camouflage the LCS-1 should wear. I am very interested in what people think would be most effective for a ship like this operating in the "littorals".

Thanks everyone!

[Cliffy B]

Camo ideas huh? Where would you like your ship to operate specifically? Could always go back to the amphib greens if you want to REALLY be in close to shore. The old "range deception" schemes would also be equally as effective to defeat any optical fire control systems providing they don't have laser rangefinders.

[carr]

..