What-If LCS Flight II: Littoral Combat Ship Improvement

A place for "Never Weres" and "Might Have Beens"

Moderators: BB62vet, MartinJQuinn, Timmy C, Gernot, Olaf Held, Dan K, HMAS, ModelMonkey

Post Reply
Busto963
Posts: 372
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 6:18 pm

Re: LCS Flight II: Littoral Combat Ship Improvement

Post by Busto963 »

SumGui wrote:I think the LCS platforms BOTH are fundamental failures, as they cannot take any significant form of shock or other damage, put far too much stock in going fast, and are far to expensive to produce for what they provide.

I could get behind a lengthened Perry, but that was a design already at the limits of stability, my preference would be a Frigate based on dimensions like the Murasame/Takanami/Akizuki class platform, and moving all the other capabilities to specialized platforms.
All of the capability in LCS resides in the yet to be fielded mission modules. If the Navy can still find capability in those, particularly the MCM and ASW packages, then I do not think the program is a complete failure.

The hulls are, however not particularly useful.

I really like the Murasame/Takanami, but note that they are proper destroyers.
User avatar
SumGui
Posts: 484
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm

Re: LCS Flight II: Littoral Combat Ship Improvement

Post by SumGui »

Busto963 wrote: I really like the Murasame/Takanami, but note that they are proper destroyers.
Carrying the label of Frigate or Destroyer really does not have a whole lot of bearing anymore.

I could understand a concern for cost growth that sometimes comes with size growth, but the Takanami is nominally crewed by the same 175-ish crew and has quite broad capabilities in comparison to what the remaining Perry's have left. the Takanami hull would be shorter than a Perry with a 20 plug (Perry+20m = 518ft, Takanami = 495ft)

I'd change to a two-helo hangar setup and use Mursame's amidships VLS in addition to Takanami's 32 cell mk 41 forward.

But this isn't a Frigate thread, and I've said it before (parts on my new model desk for this whiff....)so I'll stop now.
Sciquest2525
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2013 1:35 pm

Re: LCS Flight II: Littoral Combat Ship Improvement

Post by Sciquest2525 »

I am wedded to the 150 meter variant because it better carry needed fuel, supplies, crew, weapons and sensors. I added the deck in the hull and superstructure along with a 25% beam increase with the hope of more space for everything and not compromising the draft too much, while retaining and not increaisng the propulsion system so that space is maximized.
As much as I like the Mk71, it appears more practical to have the AGS Lite with 180 round magazine..
User avatar
navydavesof
Posts: 3127
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm

Re: LCS Flight II: Littoral Combat Ship Improvement

Post by navydavesof »

Back off deployment and back on the model!
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance
User avatar
navydavesof
Posts: 3127
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm

Re: LCS Flight II: Littoral Combat Ship Improvement

Post by navydavesof »

I was goign ot ask what kit I should use for this project, but I don't think it will be that hard to modify the CyberHobby kit I already have. It's out and on the work bench!
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance
User avatar
navydavesof
Posts: 3127
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm

Re: LCS Flight II: Littoral Combat Ship Improvement

Post by navydavesof »

We have seen that the LCS program is in such trouble that it is being cut heavily. There is a new directive out to move toward a "frigate" design. Who knows if they will pursue the FFG designs Gibbs&Cox has already produced, explore foreign designs, or to redesign the LCS ships in order meet the original requirements. What I would like to do with this project is to take the existing LCS-1 platform and turn it into what is should have been in the first place.

Things like shifting weight away from the propulsion plant and to the strength of the hull and increasing berthing, head, and messing facilities to accommodate an appropriately sized crew would be internal and unnoticeable in a model.

The most important thing to me is to strip a new, strengthened LCS-1 hull down and build the armament and sensors to accomplish the original mission requirements as feasibly as possible. The following is nearly a repost of an earlier post that best illustrates the original requirements of the LCS, and the following is how I would meet those.

From the article written by Captain Robert Powers, the JMAG games that produced the "need" for the ASuW mission in an LCS produced the following points:

- Speed was a desirable characteristic, but not at the expense of a complete warfighting suite.
- Stealth: The ship had to have a minimum radar signature to survive in littoral waters overseen by coastal and airborne radar systems.
- A Flight deck and hangar facilities were essential. Two helos per LCS would be preferable. The Helicopters and unmanned vehicles should also be capable of carrying weapons for stand-off attack.
- There was a general agreement it should have a gun in the 57 to 76mm range.
- It should have a medium-range air defense missile and medium-range anti-ship missile.
- It should have some kind of counter-battery capability to respond in real time to a shore-based missile attack.
- CIC should be incorporated for quick communication and rapid decision making.
- The ship should not be built out of aluminum.
- Manning should be low, but not so low it inhibits combat capability or maintenance. Maintenance must not suffer from low manning.

In order to accomplish this, I have chosen the following weapons and arrangement to accomplish these missions:

- A Flight deck and hangar facilities were essential. Two helos per LCS would be preferable. The Helicopters and unmanned vehicles should also be capable of carrying weapons for stand-off attack.
  • Facilities for 2 H-60 helicopters and 3 assembled and 5 disassembled Shadow UAVs or 5 disassembled Shadow UAVs and 2 AH-1W/Z Super Cobra
- There was a general agreement it should have a gun in the 57 to 76mm range.
  • For the anti-boat/swarm mission, the 76mm SR gun with the far superior range and radar guided munitions fits the bill far better than the enormous and under performing Mk110 57mm gun.
- It should have a medium-range air defense missile and medium-range anti-ship missile.
  • AAW: ESSM fitted in Mk41 VLS and 21-cell RAM launcher, ASuW: Harpoon would accomplish these requirements. The VLS modules could be fit on either side of the helicopter hangar up against the structure. While this would reduce the size of the helo hangar hatch, it would still allow for a good compliment of birds. The Harpoons could be put in the super structure's mission module bays.

- It should have some kind of counter-battery capability to respond in real time to a shore-based missile attack.
  • Precision and volume of fire are essential in counter battery fire per mission, but we must also plan on more than one engagement per mission. This moves us away from utilizing missiles such as TLAM or Harpoon for counter battery and moves to a gunnery capability. The best gun for this size of ship would be the Mk45 Mod4 utilizing standard HE rounds fitted with the Course Corrective Fuse and the upcoming GPS/SAL projectile. To properly detect the threat for a counter battery solution, the combination of the SPQ-9B and TRS-3D into the Mk160 GFCS is necessary.

- As stated earlier, the Harpoons should be in the mission module bays in the upper super structure.
- NULKA and Chaff should be incorporated into the structure.
- SLQ-32 should ray from the super structure, perhaps in the DDG-51 style.

Comments are welcome! Next topic will be fleshing out the Surface Warfare (ASuW) capability of this LCS-1 Flight II.
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance
jasonfreeland
Posts: 114
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 12:18 pm

Re: LCS Flight II: Littoral Combat Ship Improvement

Post by jasonfreeland »

Can you link the article Dave?
User avatar
navydavesof
Posts: 3127
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm

Re: LCS Flight II: Littoral Combat Ship Improvement

Post by navydavesof »

jasonfreeland wrote:Can you link the article Dave?
Unfortunately, no. However, if you can look it up, it's in Proceedings September 2012, Page 42-47.
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance
jasonfreeland
Posts: 114
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 12:18 pm

Re: LCS Flight II: Littoral Combat Ship Improvement

Post by jasonfreeland »

navydavesof wrote:
jasonfreeland wrote:Can you link the article Dave?
Unfortunately, no. However, if you can look it up, it's in Proceedings September 2012, Page 42-47.

Thanks
User avatar
navydavesof
Posts: 3127
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm

Re: LCS Flight II: Littoral Combat Ship Improvement

Post by navydavesof »

jasonfreeland wrote:Can you link the article Dave?
Unfortunately, no. However, if you can look it up, it's in Proceedings September 2012, Page 42-47.[/quote]


Fo'shizzle!!! :big_grin:
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance
proditor
Posts: 47
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 6:39 pm

Re: LCS Flight II: Littoral Combat Ship Improvement

Post by proditor »

Is there enough room on LCS-2 to theoretically replace the Mk 110 with an OTO 76 SR?
User avatar
navydavesof
Posts: 3127
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm

Re: LCS Flight II: Littoral Combat Ship Improvement

Post by navydavesof »

proditor wrote:Is there enough room on LCS-2 to theoretically replace the Mk 110 with an OTO 76 SR?
Yes. The Mk110 requires more deck space and internal volume than the Oto76. The Mk110's internal mechanics, loading mechanism and ready service rounds (stored on mount) makes it almost as large as a 5" gun. The 76mm SR gun is arranged differently, making it significantly smaller.
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance
jasonfreeland
Posts: 114
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 12:18 pm

Re: LCS Flight II: Littoral Combat Ship Improvement

Post by jasonfreeland »

David out of curiosity, did you see that the Hagel 2015 defense budget capped LCS production at 32 hulls? It also mentioned the Frigate need.
User avatar
navydavesof
Posts: 3127
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm

Re: LCS Flight II: Littoral Combat Ship Improvement

Post by navydavesof »

jasonfreeland wrote:David out of curiosity, did you see that the Hagel 2015 defense budget capped LCS production at 32 hulls? It also mentioned the Frigate need.
I saw that. It was pretty well quoted around the net too. Carr made a good point that there is a significant chance that they will just shift to the international version of the LCS. Also known as the Surface Combat Ship.

My version, however will shift the weight margins from the 93,000+shp propulsion plant to the hull strength and weapons. Even with 75,000shp, the ship can still exceed 30 knots.

I know there are a lot of reports that the LCS-1 is over-weight because of its construction, and that is what I attempt to change with my WIF model. The dimensions of the ship should support a LOT of stability as opposed to what they can actually support.

I hope my modifications really do a good job at accomplishing the missions placed forward by the original war games. If beefed up like an FFG is, the LCS should be significantly more survivable than a Perry FFG. With that kind of hull, 32 VLS, a 5" gun, 2 76mm guns, and a reduced module capacity should be very feasible. That's what I have in mind.
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance
User avatar
navydavesof
Posts: 3127
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm

Re: LCS Flight II: Littoral Combat Ship Improvement

Post by navydavesof »

Also, something I must press is that the design that followed that wargame and combat unit board are totally different. I would really like to someday know how that happened. The missions set forward and the desired capabilities described to the contractors (Lockheed in particular) were just super, super wrong. This combined with the Navy's terrible culture of risk aversion and least-common-denominator capability leads to curious ends.

So, Lockheed designed another version for international sales. I don't know all of the differences, such as speed, hull strength, etc, but at least we can see their weapons and electronics intent.

Credit for the below pictures goes to Bill Liebold:
SCS-07small.jpg
SCS-05.jpg
With my personal design, I won't involve Aegis at all. I will have the SPQ-9B and the TRS-3D. This will cut a HUGE amount off the cost and only slightly reduce the radar coverage and acquisition of the LCS. I will be modifying what is built, but I will indeed modify the forward battery, apply the Mantis CIWS/C-RAM, etc as described before.

That's why I am focusing on the LCS-1 hull to make it what it should have been in the first place.
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance
User avatar
SumGui
Posts: 484
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm

Re: LCS Flight II: Littoral Combat Ship Improvement

Post by SumGui »

Good depiction of the MLP as an AFSB, which would be a good support for Mine warfare, local Sea Control, and perhaps a tender station for the LCS:

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... ew&id=1731

Image
User avatar
navydavesof
Posts: 3127
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm

Re: LCS Flight II: Littoral Combat Ship Improvement

Post by navydavesof »

SumGui wrote:Good depiction of the MLP as an AFSB, which would be a good support for Mine warfare, local Sea Control, and perhaps a tender station for the LCS:

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... ew&id=1731

Image
That is pretty fascinating! I will have some progress on LCS-1/3 Flight II this weekend. I have the super structure cut up, and now it's time for some styrene sheet.
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance
User avatar
SumGui
Posts: 484
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm

Re: LCS Flight II: Littoral Combat Ship Improvement

Post by SumGui »

The LCS does not have the self deploy capability the size implies (lack of crew for extended deployments, spares and tools limited), so I though sending them to a forward deployed tender for assistance along side. Yes they can carry themselves from port to port, but deployability requires more than that, and so far the LCS deployment has shown they lack the ability to stay ready forward.

Keep the specialty skills for heavier maint on the tender, more manpower to perform larger tasks, more spares and a shop or two if needed for part manipulation/fabrication. This is not dissimilar to the MST (Maintenance and Support Team) concept used while I was on the PCs, although they worked out of 20' vans on the shore. This allows the specialty rating onboard the ship to concentrate on operations, and the specialty rating onboard the tender to master the support roles. While one LCS is away, another is at the tender using the services so we get a rolling workload on the tender and more uptime for a given flight of LCS in the area.

With the heavier support, it should be more reasonable to expect a mission module change on the LCS if needed in theater.

This should give more available mission hours on the LCS.

Not a groundbreaking concept, it has been used before, but it is a way for us to offset some of the weaknesses of the LCS (lack of durability, insufficient crew size)
Busto963
Posts: 372
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 6:18 pm

Re: LCS Flight II: Littoral Combat Ship Improvement

Post by Busto963 »

SumGui wrote:The LCS does not have the self deploy capability the size implies (lack of crew for extended deployments, spares and tools limited), so I though sending them to a forward deployed tender for assistance along side.
Another option is a Berlin-Class Replenishment Ship like the newly built Bonn:
BONN_A1413.jpg
Note: the large flight deck, 20-knot speed, and two active heave compensated cranes for loading ammunition, installing gas turbines, and of course the mission modules.

The Canadians are apparently going to buy two or three.

And unlike our auxiliaries and MSC ships, the Germans actually arm theirs.
User avatar
Timmy C
Posts: 12437
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:00 pm
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: LCS Flight II: Littoral Combat Ship Improvement

Post by Timmy C »

Yes, we're buying the design and building them in Vancouver.

...once the money comes through.
De quoi s'agit-il?
Post Reply

Return to “What-If”