The use of multiple undersea and surface robotic sensor platforms controlled by a LCS from a safe distance seems to be a valid approach to satisfying the MCM mission. A lot of the cost of the LCS is translated into its versatility to morph configurations to suit the need at hand.in general, the more multirole a platform is, the greater its usefulness and chances of securing funding support. Niche platforms optimized for specialized roles are having a difficult time of it.
Corvette or DE for the USN?
- Thread starter Belesari
- Start date
Exactly to the point. Frigates are under armed destroyers in the mind of the US Navy, the administration, and Congress. While there is support for anti-mine warfare, there is no support for niche mine countermeasures ships. Congress sees in a MCM ship a size which should be capable of mid-ocean ASW escorting duties.
There is no US political support for short legged corvettes in the navy. Port security and EEZ patrol enforcement are done by the patrol boats in the USCG. Other navies of other nations may have corvettes, OPVs, and patrol boats, but many of those nations don't have a coast guard.
Todjaeger, the crewing issues you raised is a valid concern so it's going to be interesting to see how the Navy approaches the issue. The actual experiences of the LCS crews should provide valuable input to see how big a concern it really is. I've read that the there is a parallel to the type of command environment found on PT boats during WWII where officers and crew had a less rigid relationship. IIIRC one LCS skipper actually set the example by doing his share of housekeeping duties One wonders how the crews on the ZUMWALTS will cope with less than half the complement of a smaller Burke.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #24
I still think the approch used in the absolon was best. Basicly a moderatly sized vessel with good performance for a vessel its size but with the flex deck feature. The Absolon is litteraly the vessel the navy wants and needs but it wont admit it.
I think we should take what we have learned in the LCS project and just build a shup much like the absolon. In the end i think you would find a cheaper alternative and a much better vessel all around.
They want to say that manning is a issue but if you look at the specs on the vessel its great for whats needed.
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absalon_class_support_ship"]Absalon class support ship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
Plus much cheaper however there isn't really a need for it to carry a command staff and such so that could be done away with.
I think if you built a large amount of such a vessel even with a crew of a hundred you would have less problems over all and much greater firepower and effectivness.
Basicly a vessel like that could take up the destroyer and frigate roles as well as the MCM role as the navy has planned Just build a mass of them.
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivar_Huitfeldt_class_frigate"]Iver Huitfeldt class frigate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
They've also planned to use the same hull to build the above class which works because of the stanflex built in i guess.
Over all a drop in size from the burkes but over all a net increase in firepower flexability and survivability while keeping the same amount of men and the same if not more firepower but spread out over 3 different vessels.
If the choice had been an Absalon or a new class of mine hunters, the mine hunters would have won. Keep in mind we buy ships for missions, not because a person likes a ship. The navy would have preferred to buy more Burkes than buy an Absalon. I repeat, frigates are seen by the brass as under armed destroyers.
While an Absalon is of good size, some 6,600 tons displacement, and carries a considerable armaments package with good range, but its a slow ship for the mid ocean ASW escorting role. Flank speed of less than 24 knots isn't good enough. She would slow a task force down or be left behind. I prefer a warship with a flank speed approaching 30 knots, not less than 24 knots. Simply put, an Absalon isn't an ASW escort ship.
My cousin was aboard one of the Adams class destroyers which followed the Nimitz around the continent of Africa during the first Iranian hostage crisis during the 1980s. The Adams were fast destroyers, they could do more than 30 knots, but they had to refuel enroute whereas the Nimitz and her nuclear propelled escorting cruisers didn't. As I recall, the Adams showed up in the Persian Gulf a few days after the Nimitz.
Furthermore, while the Iver Hulfeldt is a nice, faster ship than an Absalon, I would still rather have a Burke with the Aegis fire control weapons system. Please don't imply a Hulfeldt as a replacement ship for mine countermeasures vessels or as mid ocean ASW escorts.
Last edited:
With the price of fuel going up every day there has to be personnel reductions to be able to sustain a warship financially in the future. Similar to Steve Jobs announcing the new iPod Nano, "Why build it smaller, its small enough as is? Because we can! The technology is here to do so." The same applies to the size of ship crews.
Thinking_ExUSAF
New Member
Snippage. . .
The USN and other navies for that matter need to look at countries that do operate in this type of high risk enviroment; you can't find a better example than the Baltic.
Is range an issue? The USN operated short range PT boats before....I know the blue water navies look down on such craft....until they need them.
A combination of a modern Type 143a, something like a CB90h working with a naval attack helicopter.
>> A CB90H would be a great little boat to pound around in restricted waters and "take care of business" against most of the threats that you might find there, but not quite big enough to operate a helo (A CB-90 is only about 50 ft long!).
A great armament would be couple of Mk 110 & a 21 round RAM launcher, surely the ideally package to work with helicopter's canon/missiles in dealing with a swarm attack.
>> Again thinking of the boat, yes a RAM launcher could at least in principle be added on (it can carry an AMOS turret, so. . . .), but even if you work out a way for a RAM to guide successfully against a surface target, its still a very non-optimum warhead.. Why not just take the Swedes up on their armament solution as well as their very capable boat, i.e. use the Hellfire missile! The Norwegians have already "proven" the installation.
The USN and other navies for that matter need to look at countries that do operate in this type of high risk enviroment; you can't find a better example than the Baltic.
Is range an issue? The USN operated short range PT boats before....I know the blue water navies look down on such craft....until they need them.
A combination of a modern Type 143a, something like a CB90h working with a naval attack helicopter.
>> A CB90H would be a great little boat to pound around in restricted waters and "take care of business" against most of the threats that you might find there, but not quite big enough to operate a helo (A CB-90 is only about 50 ft long!).
A great armament would be couple of Mk 110 & a 21 round RAM launcher, surely the ideally package to work with helicopter's canon/missiles in dealing with a swarm attack.
>> Again thinking of the boat, yes a RAM launcher could at least in principle be added on (it can carry an AMOS turret, so. . . .), but even if you work out a way for a RAM to guide successfully against a surface target, its still a very non-optimum warhead.. Why not just take the Swedes up on their armament solution as well as their very capable boat, i.e. use the Hellfire missile! The Norwegians have already "proven" the installation.
In the first 3 posts, there is no mention of MCM. Just of range in relation to type & tonnage. Smaller vessels do have the range, just not at the speeds that an AB can afford (due to its greater bunkerage). Then again, of the USN, there mid Ocean bases in the Pacific and UNREP.
Adding the MCM in the equation is a new factor. I suppose the Rasmussen class could work with remotely operated boats that it could transport on its flight deck and be usefull in MCM role.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #29
I'm not implying the Iver can replace the burkes OR that the absolon is a perfect fit. Its not but it does show where we can go and i think should go.
Neither the freedom nor the independence has the legs to do ASW at the speed the nimitz will go. Whats more there have been structural problems with both vessels because the weight requirments have pushed both vessels terribly. Both designs have been made larger to increase the range meaning the top speed requirment is noiw basicly worthless.
The absolon it built as a command vessel. We dont need that we also dont need the ability to transport 7 MBT which would also cut down on the tonage.
I think the Navy is really going to need two different vessels........its even stated so with its choice of keeping both.
Independence is Huge and Very stable which helps in the ASW role as it can launch 2 helcopters and has alot of room below decks.
Freedom has less draft and is better at retreiving small boats and such.
Really thats its problem. Its Large top heavy and has such a shallow draft it will never perform well in any but the calmest weather.
The Navy needs to just accept that the LCS is just a unrealistic idea in its present form. Less ambitous speed requirments, 2 different vessels designed for their perspective strengths, etc...
We no longer have a 600 or 700 ship fleet, its more like 300, if that. The US needs ships which can are multi-functional to overcome the low number of ships. LCS is our first attempt. I fully back the undertaking. We can and will do better in the future. But at the moment there are 100 frigates and mine hunters which need replacement soon. There is no support in the Congress for twice as many ships, there is barely enough to buy the multi-functional LCS. I am not willing to forgo one Burke ship for any new class of under armed frigate.
I suggest we make the most with both versions of the LCS. Their speed is not what is making them expensive. Its coordinating and engineering the new weapons with the modules which are making them expensive.
Builders of the Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship Pull Out All the Stops
The linked article deals with some of the concerns expressed in the previous posts re stability of the LCS in rough seas and the ability to launch and recover smaller boats up to 40-ft. In length.
Re the unspecified structural issues, I can only surmise this has to do with the corrosion problem discovered on LCS-2 which the navy has informed Congress will no longer be a problem on succeeding builds. The first 2 LCS were expected to highlight any deficiencies or areas requiring changes and apply these lessons to their future siblings.
Re the range of the LCS, both ships actually have more than adequate cruising ranges using their diesels for their envisioned operations from forward-deployed bases and operations in the littorals. It should be noted that the LCS has already demnstrated the ability to take on fuel at sea from other ships, including a carrier. Another useful capability if ever called upon.
The high speed provided by the turbines is there as a fallback for when the situation demands and naturally you pay a price in fuel. But it is primarily for sprinting and not for a marathon and it allows for a faster response to emergency situations within the LCS' area of operations. In tactical situations, speed could be a big advantage, either in a defensive or offensive scenario. No, it's not intended to allow it to outrun a missile, it has other defenses to cope with that threat. Of course, prudence being the better part of valor, departing the scene at high speed could also be a valid option. OTOH, under the philosophy of "no ship fights alone" one can reasonably expect a big hrother AEGIS ship to be in attendance if the neighborhood is deemed to be a troublesome one.
The linked article deals with some of the concerns expressed in the previous posts re stability of the LCS in rough seas and the ability to launch and recover smaller boats up to 40-ft. In length.
Re the unspecified structural issues, I can only surmise this has to do with the corrosion problem discovered on LCS-2 which the navy has informed Congress will no longer be a problem on succeeding builds. The first 2 LCS were expected to highlight any deficiencies or areas requiring changes and apply these lessons to their future siblings.
Re the range of the LCS, both ships actually have more than adequate cruising ranges using their diesels for their envisioned operations from forward-deployed bases and operations in the littorals. It should be noted that the LCS has already demnstrated the ability to take on fuel at sea from other ships, including a carrier. Another useful capability if ever called upon.
The high speed provided by the turbines is there as a fallback for when the situation demands and naturally you pay a price in fuel. But it is primarily for sprinting and not for a marathon and it allows for a faster response to emergency situations within the LCS' area of operations. In tactical situations, speed could be a big advantage, either in a defensive or offensive scenario. No, it's not intended to allow it to outrun a missile, it has other defenses to cope with that threat. Of course, prudence being the better part of valor, departing the scene at high speed could also be a valid option. OTOH, under the philosophy of "no ship fights alone" one can reasonably expect a big hrother AEGIS ship to be in attendance if the neighborhood is deemed to be a troublesome one.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #32
And that is the problem. The most important Arm of the services IS the Navy. The Navy needs to be increased in size and stay at atleast 330 combat ships as was planned earlier. The Navy can support airstrikes inland with either Tomahawks or strike aircraft. It can provide BMD, humaniterian aid, and protect the Massive amount of shipping comingto and leaving the US without which we would not be able to support operations overseas and our economy would halt.
If your gona cut services cut back some on the airforce, army, and maybe slightly the marines. Hell i've heard army guys, ground pounders even admit that.
No the speed becomes expensive in its demands on an already overstressed design. The reason the LCS-2 went to see without cathodic protection was to save weight......now their adding it. Also remember earlier each ship was supposed to be able to maintain a 55+ kt speed at sprint now neither reach that its been "revised" down to 45+. And sense Neither 55kts nor 45kts will allow you to outrun a missile or a torpedo the speed is basicly for running really fast from things...........but not fast enough to help.......or reduce travel time.
I dont want to revise the number of burkes we shouldn't. However wtf is the point of a 1.8b dollar burke when it gets broken on a $50,000 mine because we wouldn't invest in enough craft capable of hunting for mines.
so you pretty much want to double the number of combatants in the US navy?
@Belesari:
From Defense Industry Daily:
Aug 2/11: Prospective Deputy SecDef Ashton Carter sends a written response to the bipartisan Senate letter of July 13/11. It says that USS Independence’s galvanic corrosion problem was a design flaw, which is being changed at a cost of $3.2 million, plus about $250,000 for each future ship of class. An Impressed Current Cathodic Protection System and “additional sacrificial protection design” will be applied to USS Independence during its Post Shakedown Availability, and on future ships of class prior to delivery. With respect to the damage:
”...the complex geometry of the water jet assemblies and tunnels made sufficient insulation of the aluminum hull from the steel water jet assembly difficult… corrosion on LCS 2 is concentrated in small areas in the water jet tunnels and water jet cone assemblies… transition area between the two.”
That doesn’t sound like “aggressive” corrosion, which raises questions. The original design approach apparently did include cathodic protection in the waterjets, alongside coatings and insulation, but it wasn’t enough, and some of the insulation wasn’t installed properly. The system was also designed to commercial principles, which emphasize regular repair of corrosion, but the Navy is looking for a more permanent fix.
,....................................................................................
It looks more like a design flaw and has nothing to do with trying to save weight. Also the issue is no longer relevant to succeeding builds and even the Independence has been retrofitted with the fix.
Also, is the 55nmi sprint speed the official requirment specified by the Navy in the contracts to the builders? What's important is how the actual ships live up to the key design parameters, top speed included. Note that the official US navy website attributes a "40+ knot" top speed for both variants. Everyone is free to speculate what the "+" actually means but realize those will be guesses in the absence of official confirmation, nothing more. I haven't read of any complaints from the Navy about the LCS' speed, only compliments so far.
From Defense Industry Daily:
Aug 2/11: Prospective Deputy SecDef Ashton Carter sends a written response to the bipartisan Senate letter of July 13/11. It says that USS Independence’s galvanic corrosion problem was a design flaw, which is being changed at a cost of $3.2 million, plus about $250,000 for each future ship of class. An Impressed Current Cathodic Protection System and “additional sacrificial protection design” will be applied to USS Independence during its Post Shakedown Availability, and on future ships of class prior to delivery. With respect to the damage:
”...the complex geometry of the water jet assemblies and tunnels made sufficient insulation of the aluminum hull from the steel water jet assembly difficult… corrosion on LCS 2 is concentrated in small areas in the water jet tunnels and water jet cone assemblies… transition area between the two.”
That doesn’t sound like “aggressive” corrosion, which raises questions. The original design approach apparently did include cathodic protection in the waterjets, alongside coatings and insulation, but it wasn’t enough, and some of the insulation wasn’t installed properly. The system was also designed to commercial principles, which emphasize regular repair of corrosion, but the Navy is looking for a more permanent fix.
,....................................................................................
It looks more like a design flaw and has nothing to do with trying to save weight. Also the issue is no longer relevant to succeeding builds and even the Independence has been retrofitted with the fix.
Also, is the 55nmi sprint speed the official requirment specified by the Navy in the contracts to the builders? What's important is how the actual ships live up to the key design parameters, top speed included. Note that the official US navy website attributes a "40+ knot" top speed for both variants. Everyone is free to speculate what the "+" actually means but realize those will be guesses in the absence of official confirmation, nothing more. I haven't read of any complaints from the Navy about the LCS' speed, only compliments so far.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #35
Maybe but if we continue on our present path i have a feeling by 2025 or 2045 we will have a navy that operate 50-75 combatants. With maybe 3 of those carriers.
But like i said it would be better to have a overly large navy than to small of a navy.
There is no way the US Congress will allow Newport News Shipbuidlng to close, as it is the only shipyard capable of building and refueling nuclear propelled aircraft carriers. Slow down orders with the increased price, yes, close no. Well, not as long as we have nuclear propelled aircraft carriers in our fleet.
While we can easily go further into debt to pay for a larger fleet, I wouldn't wish to live in a bankrupt US alike the situation in Greece. There has to be fiscal sanity.
Frankly, if the LCS were the dogs you claim them to be, the GAO, the administration, and Congress would have pulled the plug several years ago. The LCS aren't defenseless, they do have a medium caliber gun, RAM or Searam SAMs, and at the moment will get Griffin SSMs. They are not intended to do shore bombardment with their medium caliber gun which is sufficient for surface warfare against the smaller fast attack craft and patrol boats, and they do carry helicopters with their weaponry.
We have cruisers and destroyers to escort task forces and battle groups for the front line.The US Navy does not want under armed destroyers which frigates are.
I may have overlooked someone else’s comments but has anyone noticed the Cyclone Class patrol boats used by the US Navy. Although their small ships (330 tons), they can do 35kts and are armed with 2x 25mm autocannons, 5x .50 HMG's, 2x 40mm grenade launchers, 2x GPMG's and 6x Stinger SAM's. The where built primarily for coastal patrol and to support special operations forces such as the navy SEALs. I believe the navy currently has five ships in the Gulf based at Bahrain.
Yes, the US built 12 Cyclones , but gave one to the Philippines for their SEALs which earned her in the Persian Gulf. It was more in US interests to give them one so they can sustain their SEALs than to keep a 12th boat. The US has a strong defense relationship with the Philippines.
I thought the US Navy built 14 Cyclones. They did sell one to the Philippines and loaned some out to the US Coast Guard. I believe 10 ships are currently in US Navy service and are rotated between the US and Bahrain.
Warships IFR ran an article on the Cyclones and they looked like pretty effective patrol craft - they can launch and recover boats while doing 10 knots, and get a RIB inboard and stowed much more quickly than many larger craft.
Pretty good for stop and check stuff and they work well in crowded waterways and narrow inlets I'd imagine. For their size, hefty punch,
Ian
Pretty good for stop and check stuff and they work well in crowded waterways and narrow inlets I'd imagine. For their size, hefty punch,
Ian