They can still put tons of weapon systems within the 400-600 t or so deadweight allowance. In particular weatherdeck-mounted launchers such as Barak or Harpoon. At least twice as much as on a Sa'ar 5, if they'd go for pure concentrated firepower on a badly stabilized ship again.
Littoral Combat Ship
- Thread starter Jezza
- Start date
you know how the israles like over-arm their ships
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Ah, thank you. That should clear up the confusion wrt the decoy launchers. Good pics. Especially as one can see the Milleniums and the Smart S MK2, the first to be installed on a warship. (RDN is the launch customer of both.) Btw, more pics, this time on the official defence site.
http://forsvaret.dk/DANEX07/Iframe/
Sorry this is complete rubbish. A bulk carrier has vastly differnt characteristis to a high speed RO-PAX or Container ship as a function of structure, installed powers, machinger configuration, genration capacity, means of loading and discharge, speed, hull dynamics etc etc etc. just becuse they move through water does not mean they are the same, its like saying a Censna Skylark has similar characterisitics to an F-22.
If you have limtied options yes but where you have the abiliyt to give a vessel a priamry focus it si likel to be more effective. I suspect a 20000 tonne vesel carrying out MCM operations is likley to be a liability.
And they are nucleared powered whihc means they can sustain a higher speed wihtout running the riks of fuel exhaustion. Lets face it most warships ahve an economica cruising speed of about 18 knots. Speed is very important in providing tactical flexiblity but even a CBG transits at the economical speed of its escorts. The LCS (as this is the topic) seems to rely on it speed as part of is tactical approach.
Suggest you get a chart out and have a look at the choke points around the globe, many are draft restricted. There is a reason deep draft bulk carriers are referred to Capesize as they are very limited as to where they can go. Even ports suffer restrictsion and the very large container ships are also restricted as to which port they can access. The fact is drafts above 14m are going to cause signficant limitations on port access world wide which has operational implications.
I don't disagree that steel is relatively cheap and air is free but the operating and maintenace cost do increases markedly with size. This is particlarly true where you ahve a very small crew who cannot carry out the additional maintenace required without recourse to shore teams (don't hull maintenance). The issue is finding a balance between the optimal size that allows for all percieved growth growth potential and the imapct of the life of type operating costs. A 20000 tonne ship will not fit this for all Naval forces.
Nonsens ..... see below
And what does 25 knso in lieu of 21.5 knots give you. By the way what do you mean by twice as much propulsion? Do you mean twice the installed power (i.e bigger pods and more generators) or more pods (and more generators).
Sorry this is rot. Once the ship is in shore and tied to the shore by support operations it could not utilise an area AAW capability anywhere near as effective as an escort that remains mobile. Four f-35B willnot provide contious coverage and the helo-ASM options are al;ready provided for inthe AWD (and coudl also be carreid on the LHD) providing greater air assets than if the ship operated alone. In addition a single self escorted high value unit (HVU) in an ASW sitaution will be at a significant disadvantage ..... even with helecopters. Finally if the HVU is damaged to the point it has diminised operational capability who will protect it when it is trying to get home.
Finally sticking two 200 tonne vesel on the vessel as a localised load is going to have a signficant impact. Look at the LPH's and see how much space a 60 tonne LCM8 take up. If you are looking at a 200 tonne vessel (light) this will have serious implications on open deck area (goodbye flight deck as you will need a heavy lift crane) and structural configuration.
300 tonnes patrol boats now. how are you going to carry them and deploy them notng it will have to be perftectly smooth when you do it and in most cases the ship will need to be counter balanced before you do it. Finally these operations take hours as the vesel msut reballast as part of the process. Suggest you have a look at how heavy lift ships are configured before repeating this proposal.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/images/condock-line.gif
the other option sis LASH but the partiol boats will be too large (size as opposed to weight) for this and the best way to deploy vessels around 50m upwards is by semi submersible....... but they are relateively slow.
A few things.
HSV Swift has operated as a mine countermeasures vessel for the US Navy, so it isn't only possible to use the ferry design for littoral missions, it's been done.
Smitty that link is interesting, thanks for that.
Clearly the LHD is optimal in the littoral, but aviation is expensive. Low tech problems require low cost solutions, and the LPD is cheaper by a lot than a LHD.
I'd like to see the US Navy use the LSD's that are not assigned to ESGs to test mothership theories and ideas, and verify if they are as viable as people like me assume they would be. If the Navy and Marines streamlined the 9 ESGs, the LSDs in the US could be the 8 LSD-41s, and use 1 LSD 49 in the forward deployed ESG, which would leave the three LSD 49s the Navy intends to use for irregular warfare.
These would make excellent test platforms for motherships in my opinion, because not only do they have enormous well decks, but they can be fitted with mobile aviation facilities, and they have vehicle AND cargo space to support a variety of missions.
The LCS cost has basically killed the concept for me. I think the first 6-8 should be built, if anything to get the modules built and test modular concepts, but beyond that I see the ship as too expensive to continue to build long term.
HSV Swift has operated as a mine countermeasures vessel for the US Navy, so it isn't only possible to use the ferry design for littoral missions, it's been done.
Smitty that link is interesting, thanks for that.
Clearly the LHD is optimal in the littoral, but aviation is expensive. Low tech problems require low cost solutions, and the LPD is cheaper by a lot than a LHD.
I'd like to see the US Navy use the LSD's that are not assigned to ESGs to test mothership theories and ideas, and verify if they are as viable as people like me assume they would be. If the Navy and Marines streamlined the 9 ESGs, the LSDs in the US could be the 8 LSD-41s, and use 1 LSD 49 in the forward deployed ESG, which would leave the three LSD 49s the Navy intends to use for irregular warfare.
These would make excellent test platforms for motherships in my opinion, because not only do they have enormous well decks, but they can be fitted with mobile aviation facilities, and they have vehicle AND cargo space to support a variety of missions.
The LCS cost has basically killed the concept for me. I think the first 6-8 should be built, if anything to get the modules built and test modular concepts, but beyond that I see the ship as too expensive to continue to build long term.
Would an LHD based on the San Antonio hull really be that much more expensive than a San Antonio? It wouldn't be much larger, if any.
I'm not advocating using a Wasp here.
Helicopters and fixed wing aircraft are expensive, but the offer a tremendous amount of capability.
A Mistral can carry up to 35 Gazelles. One ship could keep numerous airborne simultaneously.
IMHO, large numbers of small helos like these would be invaluable when facing the Iranian small boat threat.
Or, it could carry numerous MH-60S and MH-53Es (or a CH-53K MCM variant) and serve as a replacement for the Inchon MCM command ship.
Or it could carry a mixture of F-35s/Harriers and helicopters in a sea control configuration.
Or maybe a fixed-wing STOL UAV or OV-10B replacement.
Or it could operate as part of an ESG, with hangar space used for stores and vehicles instead of aircraft.
OTOH, I do agree that the low tech problems posed by the GWOT and national outreach programs like GFS do require low cost solutions, which is why I suggested the RORO conversion.
It seems to bring a lot more to the table in these roles than an HSV, where "being there" on a persistent basis, and carrying a lot with you, is far more important than getting there fast.
I would like to see a study of likely GFS/GWOT "ports of interest" where Swift might visit. Do enough of them really have such shallow draft restrictions that a RORO 2700 at 5.7m-7.4m draft can't access them?
I agree that using LSDs as test platforms for mothership and GFS concepts is a good idea. We've already been using modified MPF(E)s as testbeds for special forces motherships. It would be instructive to see what an LSD can offer that a cargo ship can't.
For me, the argument for high tactical speed on a frigate-sized ship still needs additional justification.
Without that requirement, we can just navalize USCG cutters or build a new, lightly fitted corvette or frigate and get the same thing with greater endurance, sea-keeping and payload - and less risk.
There is an interesting idea out there...
Its nicknamed the combat barge. Basically its a medium HSV hybrid that can act as a tug, designed to tow multiple large barges (4 total) out to specific areas, spread them out, anchor them, and leave them for independent operations. Each barge has its own landing pad, a launch, and a 30 ton crane while armed to the teeth, and designed for small boat ops with limited unmanned vehicle support. Sustainment is 3 weeks with a crew of 60 (which includes boat crews).
The tug without anything in tow becomes a ferry with a limited payload for logistics delivery to its distributed barges, and can reposition them as required.
The idea probably won't go anywhere, but it is an interesting idea for establishing presence in areas where all you need are some persistant eyes and ears that can protect themselves.
Its nicknamed the combat barge. Basically its a medium HSV hybrid that can act as a tug, designed to tow multiple large barges (4 total) out to specific areas, spread them out, anchor them, and leave them for independent operations. Each barge has its own landing pad, a launch, and a 30 ton crane while armed to the teeth, and designed for small boat ops with limited unmanned vehicle support. Sustainment is 3 weeks with a crew of 60 (which includes boat crews).
The tug without anything in tow becomes a ferry with a limited payload for logistics delivery to its distributed barges, and can reposition them as required.
The idea probably won't go anywhere, but it is an interesting idea for establishing presence in areas where all you need are some persistant eyes and ears that can protect themselves.
I like the barge idea. As i said earlier, I think the number and variety of littoral missions out there will require a variety of solutions, not just one type of ship.
Tug-Barges are even cheaper per ton than ROROs, but most that I'm aware of top out at 12 kts or so. So they're suitable for real long term deployments where you want a numerous, persistent offshore presence, don't mind waiting for it to get there, and don't need it to move around a lot.
Combat Barges, ROROs and HSVs are complementary, IMHO.
ROROs can be used to replenish barges, access larger ports, or carry and deploy littoral craft that can use the barges for their sustainment.
HSVs can act in their primary capacity - as fast ferries - transporting men and material rapidly from one place to another. They can also take the place of LCSs as littoral combatants when the threat is lower. Or use their shallow draft capabilities to access ports that ROROs and larger vessels can't.
Tug-Barges are even cheaper per ton than ROROs, but most that I'm aware of top out at 12 kts or so. So they're suitable for real long term deployments where you want a numerous, persistent offshore presence, don't mind waiting for it to get there, and don't need it to move around a lot.
Combat Barges, ROROs and HSVs are complementary, IMHO.
ROROs can be used to replenish barges, access larger ports, or carry and deploy littoral craft that can use the barges for their sustainment.
HSVs can act in their primary capacity - as fast ferries - transporting men and material rapidly from one place to another. They can also take the place of LCSs as littoral combatants when the threat is lower. Or use their shallow draft capabilities to access ports that ROROs and larger vessels can't.
Considering our LHD's dont require state of the art equipment we should have just bought second hand.
The Australian Navy could buy the USS Saipan which was decommissioned last year. Its the same size as the new LHD's we want to buy and the Saipan would could pretty much be given to us.
The sister ship USS Nassau will also be decommissioned next year. They would make a great pair. USS Tarawa a third ship in the class will also be decommissioned soon which could make a good treo.
27,000 tone displacement, 35 helicopers AND 8 harriers.
With a streamlined crew they would make excellent LHD's, extremely cheap for what we need.
A new RORO would probably cost more than these second hand ships.
The Australian Navy could buy the USS Saipan which was decommissioned last year. Its the same size as the new LHD's we want to buy and the Saipan would could pretty much be given to us.
The sister ship USS Nassau will also be decommissioned next year. They would make a great pair. USS Tarawa a third ship in the class will also be decommissioned soon which could make a good treo.
27,000 tone displacement, 35 helicopers AND 8 harriers.
With a streamlined crew they would make excellent LHD's, extremely cheap for what we need.
A new RORO would probably cost more than these second hand ships.
With a complement of almost 1000 men apiece!
The RAN could not man even one of these vessels even with drastic crew reductions. For the same reason ships like the Tarawas and Wasps are out of reach of navies even as large as the RN, yet alone the Australian. Also these ships are already around 30 years old. They would cost a fortune to maintain, hence the USN decommissioning them.
Tas
Last edited:
Not as much more as you might think. Check what the Indians have had to pay to make Trenton fit for use again, & scale it up a bit, because Saipan et al are bigger. But a new ro-ro would need a fraction of the crew, burn much less fuel, & cost maybe 10% as much per year in maintenance.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
After being conned into buying second hand LST's off the US, which after $400m and numerous years work eventually became HMAS Manoora and Kanimbla I feel confident in stating that Australia will rarely if EVER buy second hand ships that have already been retired by someone else...
The Tarawa Class vessels could not possibly be manned by RAN. The Navantia BPE's will provide fantastic capability for RAN, greater than we've ever had before.
I don't see why we need anything else quite frankly. A third perhaps would be nice though...
Uhm, the total was 53 million US for the ship and all the repairs. If that is a bad deal for a 17,000 ton amphibious ship with 15 good years left, show me a bargain.
I didn't say it was a bad deal for India. But it isn't vastly different than what you could get a commercial ro-ro of the same size for, which was the point at issue. And no need to point out to me that it has capabilities that no ro-ro would have. I know that.
ive been trying to track down the price of the Point class i can't seem to find anything except the contract 1.8 billion for the 6 ships +25 year life cycle and all the other contractual PFI stuff. i haven't found a price for the individual ship? [i thought it was the same price as the upgraded Indian LPD but couldn't find any info on it]
Andy in West Oz
New Member
2007 is/was Trenton's 36th year in commission. A good effort for a USN ship that's not a carrier, I reckon, but then the Thomaston and Anchorage LSDs hung around for a similar amount of time and I think Austin put in more than 40 years. If she has got 15 years left, and you'd have to argue that she would as surely she wouldn't do USN-style extended deployments now, then it sounds like a bargain.
Harryriedl, I've seen $44 million but I can't remember where. I guess this was $US.
As an aside (Tarawa class LHAs), saw the 2006 pics of Belleau Wood being sunk yesterday. Have fond memories of that ship as she was a regular visitor to Fremantle. Will treasure her cap even more now!
Harryriedl, I've seen $44 million but I can't remember where. I guess this was $US.
As an aside (Tarawa class LHAs), saw the 2006 pics of Belleau Wood being sunk yesterday. Have fond memories of that ship as she was a regular visitor to Fremantle. Will treasure her cap even more now!
LCS is not the same as current HSVs
I just took some time reading the post in this thread. I will put my comments in two posts. Since I helped charter the HSV WestPac express for the Marines while at MSC, I will hit those points first.
This one concerns the possible use of an HSV to replace/supplant the LCS. They basically are vessels built for two different purposes and standards. The current HSVs are commercial designs that are meant as passenger & ro/ro ferries. The current HSVs are very capable ships suitable for speeds up to 40 kts or so and sea states up to force 5. WPE had a 1100 nmi range at 30 kts with 900+ troops and 300 tons cargo. They are strong up to a point. The only similarity between current HSVs and LCS is that they both have a large open cargo bays amidships.
The LCS on the other hand are being built to a much higher standard i.e. ABS High Speed Naval Craft Code (with the NVR thrown in to confuse the builders more). The have many more navalized systems onboard. Their interiors are partially taken up by accomodations and necessary components. The even bigger difference is that the LCS are meant to be "self-deployable" (a new army term which crept in). Most HSVs are not meant for trans-oceanic ranges. The LCS therefore and unfortunately require much higher speeds than would be necessary IF they were forward deployed. Those speeds mean more fuel load, thay means more tankage which means a bigger hull.
Now don't get me wrong, there are existing designs for HSVs which are smaller and more affordable than the LCS such as the Austal MRC concept goto their page and look at it under Defence Products (the editors wouldn't let me insert a url).
One more note the Incat designs are NOT the best when it comes to payload. Those pointy bows are good for speed not lift.
See my later post on where the LCS fits in the bigger scheme of things.
P.S. anybody who thinks an articulated tug-barge combo is suitable for open ocean sealift ops should have there head examined! Been there didn't do that!
I just took some time reading the post in this thread. I will put my comments in two posts. Since I helped charter the HSV WestPac express for the Marines while at MSC, I will hit those points first.
This one concerns the possible use of an HSV to replace/supplant the LCS. They basically are vessels built for two different purposes and standards. The current HSVs are commercial designs that are meant as passenger & ro/ro ferries. The current HSVs are very capable ships suitable for speeds up to 40 kts or so and sea states up to force 5. WPE had a 1100 nmi range at 30 kts with 900+ troops and 300 tons cargo. They are strong up to a point. The only similarity between current HSVs and LCS is that they both have a large open cargo bays amidships.
The LCS on the other hand are being built to a much higher standard i.e. ABS High Speed Naval Craft Code (with the NVR thrown in to confuse the builders more). The have many more navalized systems onboard. Their interiors are partially taken up by accomodations and necessary components. The even bigger difference is that the LCS are meant to be "self-deployable" (a new army term which crept in). Most HSVs are not meant for trans-oceanic ranges. The LCS therefore and unfortunately require much higher speeds than would be necessary IF they were forward deployed. Those speeds mean more fuel load, thay means more tankage which means a bigger hull.
Now don't get me wrong, there are existing designs for HSVs which are smaller and more affordable than the LCS such as the Austal MRC concept goto their page and look at it under Defence Products (the editors wouldn't let me insert a url).
One more note the Incat designs are NOT the best when it comes to payload. Those pointy bows are good for speed not lift.
See my later post on where the LCS fits in the bigger scheme of things.
P.S. anybody who thinks an articulated tug-barge combo is suitable for open ocean sealift ops should have there head examined! Been there didn't do that!
LSC and how it will fit in USN fleet
The following discussion is based an an article in ARMED FORCES JOURNAL - Jack-of-all-trades - September 2007.
I think the LCS concept is good and could have been the low end in the mix, BUT it has been very poorly executed. The acquisition strategy was faulty from the start. The size and cost of the "seaframe" has to be reviewed with an eye for descoping or outright decreasing specs. The baseline rqmts should include a more substantial weapons suite and much better sensors (the Navy has to be able to "fight their ships").
What many naval personnel seem to miss is that ships of these advanced hull forms CANNOT have high disposable load changes and still perform at the high end of the envelop. IF they want fast ships then the load must be kept in a range dictated by naval architecture not "program goals".
The mission modules have been overdone. The resulting total platform costs are that of a typically way over cost NAVSEA product. I could see two sets of rqmts - one for the lower end as Bob Work at CSBA suggests and one for the higher end as originally conceived.
I think the idea of having a high speed advanced marine vessel is good and the Navy should be pushed to support it. Which is part of the problem (just like the old line navy didn't know how to use the PHMs). That said the program needs to be significantly restructured. After sea trials, one design could be chosen as the "fast ship with open ocean mission modules", and one design needs to chosen as the not so fast littoral ship loaded with different mission modules. Maybe these will bring the design down to one maybe not?
The issue of combining USN/USCG rqmts is almost too tough to answer. IF there is going to be a super-PM at NAVSEA or a really gutsy surface ship "baron" who could make a such a decision, it might be accomplishable, but that is a very big assumption. The Navy needs many smaller surface combatants and the Coast Guard needs enough large cutters that is for sure!
It will be interesting to see what INSURV thinks of these two designs?
I think the LM/Bollinger monohull has more potential as the blue water hull.
I think the GD/Austal trimaran hull has greater potential as it has a large baseline deck area as well as good weight and space reserves. I worry that the main hull depth maybe not work in shallow waters? I can see it also as a APD for the Marines (that is IF we don't just buy the Austal MRC).
The following discussion is based an an article in ARMED FORCES JOURNAL - Jack-of-all-trades - September 2007.
I think the LCS concept is good and could have been the low end in the mix, BUT it has been very poorly executed. The acquisition strategy was faulty from the start. The size and cost of the "seaframe" has to be reviewed with an eye for descoping or outright decreasing specs. The baseline rqmts should include a more substantial weapons suite and much better sensors (the Navy has to be able to "fight their ships").
What many naval personnel seem to miss is that ships of these advanced hull forms CANNOT have high disposable load changes and still perform at the high end of the envelop. IF they want fast ships then the load must be kept in a range dictated by naval architecture not "program goals".
The mission modules have been overdone. The resulting total platform costs are that of a typically way over cost NAVSEA product. I could see two sets of rqmts - one for the lower end as Bob Work at CSBA suggests and one for the higher end as originally conceived.
I think the idea of having a high speed advanced marine vessel is good and the Navy should be pushed to support it. Which is part of the problem (just like the old line navy didn't know how to use the PHMs). That said the program needs to be significantly restructured. After sea trials, one design could be chosen as the "fast ship with open ocean mission modules", and one design needs to chosen as the not so fast littoral ship loaded with different mission modules. Maybe these will bring the design down to one maybe not?
The issue of combining USN/USCG rqmts is almost too tough to answer. IF there is going to be a super-PM at NAVSEA or a really gutsy surface ship "baron" who could make a such a decision, it might be accomplishable, but that is a very big assumption. The Navy needs many smaller surface combatants and the Coast Guard needs enough large cutters that is for sure!
It will be interesting to see what INSURV thinks of these two designs?
I think the LM/Bollinger monohull has more potential as the blue water hull.
I think the GD/Austal trimaran hull has greater potential as it has a large baseline deck area as well as good weight and space reserves. I worry that the main hull depth maybe not work in shallow waters? I can see it also as a APD for the Marines (that is IF we don't just buy the Austal MRC).