Mine counter measures would be a very useful asset if the modules come good - as you say, fly 'em down to a nearby friendly port and effectively your mine hunters are almost immediately forward positioned instead of taking two weeks to get there (or longer)
US Navy News and updates
- Thread starter AegisFC
- Start date
No you misunderstand or i wasnt clear.
A new hull design. Optimized to run at 35kts top speed but with good range.
A couple slots for Mission moduals. But also the a 57mm (wasnt that what they were thinking to upgrade to?) a Sea Ram or Ram launcher. And some 50cals for close in work.
When ready drop in the right mission moduals (design the modual systems with some spare space and power so you can upgrade the systems as time and technology advance.) as needed for current worries/asignment. You can change if needs do without a major refit for the upgraded tech etc.
Design plenty of space in the hull for future upgrades.
One of the things about fleets and speed. You only go as fast as the slowest member....so i never understood the speed deal......i dont think anyone really did. It was more of a gimmick.
And also the ships could take over a week to return and fit out so its not that much of a time difference from a normal minehunter.
I think the trimaran hull form is better in many ways but we will see.
A new hull design. Optimized to run at 35kts top speed but with good range.
A couple slots for Mission moduals. But also the a 57mm (wasnt that what they were thinking to upgrade to?) a Sea Ram or Ram launcher. And some 50cals for close in work.
When ready drop in the right mission moduals (design the modual systems with some spare space and power so you can upgrade the systems as time and technology advance.) as needed for current worries/asignment. You can change if needs do without a major refit for the upgraded tech etc.
Design plenty of space in the hull for future upgrades.
One of the things about fleets and speed. You only go as fast as the slowest member....so i never understood the speed deal......i dont think anyone really did. It was more of a gimmick.
And also the ships could take over a week to return and fit out so its not that much of a time difference from a normal minehunter.
I think the trimaran hull form is better in many ways but we will see.
Yes but if it takes a week or more to ships the moduals, unfit the old ones, refit the new one and load out the moduals techs, test systems and get out to the AOP then that speed is entirely wasted. You could have shipped the minehunters by then.
And we are building ships much like the ones they use to transport them now for marine ops. Why couldnt we use those.
You don't want to give the US Coast Guard the LCS-1. In order for that to happen, the LCS-1 would need a MASSIVE overhaul and engine swap out to a more economical CODAG system. On top of that, it would have to meet US Coast Guard standards for a cutter.
You weren't clear - you said "I hate to say it but maybe its time to cancel the LCS program at 10 ships. And look into building a multi mission frigate series that uses the same hull but can be made to specialise in 1 or 2 things instead of everything."
Effectively you're talking about a new ship there.
If you want to be more clear, my suggestion would be to avoid saying the complete opposite of what you mean. Or changing your story as you go, or whatever you want to call it.
Barring the speed, you're basically describing an LCS anyway - both designs have space for modules, good aviation facilities and the ability to handle USV's etc. They're already carrying the 57mm which I think is an excellent weapon for their intended role, plus the 30mm Bushmasters from the ASuW modules will likely be permanently fitted on many if not all. They're already carrying 50 cals plus other stuff.
Right now, for trundling up and down doing stop and checks, counter piracy/drugs/embargo enforcement, they're fine and a much needed addition to the USN.
I don't think both designs should have been selected for production as that was about the opposite of useful in terms of cost reduction - LCS was meant to replace three key hulls with one and they are two totally different ships with different plant (both use different diesels, different GT's, different radar, CMS) - they were *never* meant to run alongside of one another.
However, that said, they're both capable ships, with a core of useful features, and with the proposed larger crews, they'll be better suited for operations.
The speed requirement by the way, was a hangover from the originally proposed CONOPS - they were meant to be smaller, and require transport to operational areas, coming in at about 2000 tons and had a fairly high dash speed to facilitate either rapid pursuit or getting the heck out of dodge if shot at. Somewhere along the way the weight crept up as CONOPS shifted to self deploy but the speed requirement stuck.
Summary, they could have been cheaper and arrived sooner if the requirements had been a bit less ambitious and changed less often, but they're here. Starting over again will cost *billions*.
Build 'em, use 'em...
An upgrade to 76mm Super Rapido could be interesting especially if the Davide anti-missile system is optioned. This would act to increase the ships weight of fire as well and its self defence capabilities.
If it'd fit LCS-2 then I'd be nodding vigorously - no substitute for cubes, and 76mm Vulcano would be a useful addition.
It's not a type in service however so that'd be more expense on buying in yet another weapon and ammunition. That'd definitely sort out the FACS as well as any skimmers etc. Oh yes...
Like i said i wasnt clear enough.
Build a multi mission frigate that USES THE SAME HULL. But is optimized for different missions.
Build a multi mission frigate that USES THE SAME HULL. But is optimized for different missions.
Like i said I wasnt clear. If you want to get bent out of shape about it go ahead. Dont see why ya would though.
Yes i tend to agree its to late and to much has been spent on them politicaly and financialy for them to fail.
I think the plan so far is for LCS-1 class to be used for basic patrol missions and mine hunting, etc where its light draft allows it to work closer.
LCS-2 class to be used for Sub hunting and work with the fleet.
Maybe I am missing something here so feel free to correct me if I am wrong here, but the navy doesn't want to build any frigates because they feel they are too limited in scope and can't be truly multi-mission unless you build a large frigate that starts approaching a Burke in cost. So here they are with something the size of a small frigate or corvette that is now going to be a single mission ship since the modules can't be swapped out in a reasonable amount of time. (modules that apparently still don't exist) The crew size has already gone up once, but they can't cancel these ships because of the large amount of money already spent on them and the cost to develop a new design?
My guess is the guys in Pascagoula are getting a good chuckle out of this right now.
It also explains their push for this ship to be built
Patrol Frigate
My guess is the guys in Pascagoula are getting a good chuckle out of this right now.
It also explains their push for this ship to be built
Patrol Frigate
I know their are some people are talking about taking all the Flight I & Flight II Burkes and converting them to oversized frigates that are similar to the Spanish Navy's Álvaro de Bazán class frigate. For that to happen they would have to remove the 64 aft VLS tubes and replace it with a Hangar that can carry 1 MH-60R, Firescout or UAV. It keep all the Burke Flight I and Flight II Systems. It would designate the Flight I and Flight II Burkes as Frigates that are similar to the Álvaro de Bazán class frigate.
I take exception to it because moderators expect users to think before they post. This is expected of you the same as anyone else. Suggesting another user misunderstood your point when you completely contradicted yourself is what gets me bent out of shape.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #396
Ummm... That is NOT going to happen. For one the USN doesn't have enough helos, for two that would require a lot of structural changes for very little gain.
Those who think the Flight I and II Burkes have some sort of flaw because they don't have hangars are not seeing them in the context which they were designed and ordered.
Slight problem being that the patrol frigate is largely based on the NSC and the last one delivered cost more than an LCS, and they're finding cracks on the first one delivered after less than a year.
On the other hand, if you ask the UK nicely, we'll let you in on the Type 26 as a partner
For Flight 1 & II Burkes You wouldn't necessary need a hangar for helios, You can use the hangar for Fire scout UAV or for Scan eagle UAV. That's why I think you can turn Flight 1 & II Burkes into an oversize frigate by removing the 64 aft VLS missiles and replacing it with a Hangar for helios and UAV's. You would make all Flight I & II Burkes into a version of the Álvaro de Bazán class frigate. It wouldn't cost the US navy billions of dollars in buying a brand new Frigate. You take all the existing Flight I & II burkes and convert them to Burke frigates and that is similar to Álvaro de Bazán class frigate
At least with the NSC, you have a platform to build a patrol frigate from. You can take the National Security Cutter design and build up to frigate standards. It's been done before with the spruance class destroyers and Ticonderoga cruisers. With the NSC, you can turn it into a Light Frigate or keep it as an OPV. The NSC dose not need to be a heavy Frigate, but you can build it up to a Light Frigate that can be sold to allies as well.Slight problem being that the patrol frigate is largely based on the NSC and the last one delivered cost more than an LCS, and they're finding cracks on the first one delivered after less than a year.
On the other hand, if you ask the UK nicely, we'll let you in on the Type 26 as a partner
For a Light frigate version of the NSC, it would need 8 to 12 VLS for ESSM, Spike NLOS 4, Harpoons in the stern, towed array sonar and Lightweight Torpedo. You can add stinger missile launchers and even hellfire missile for littoral areas. As for the main deck gun, I would upgrade to have capability for air and ground support. It would have the ability to stop a ship as well.
I don't think the NSC is a lot more expensive than the LCS and when they finally get a working module installed in the LCS it will be more expensive than the NSC. Now the navy says they need motherships to support the LCS, so call it one mothership for every 8-10 LCS', that adds another $100 million per ship for a ship that has an endurance of less than two weeks. The LCS has become a single mission ship, something the navy has said they don't want or need. That was the big argument against building more frigates, they they were too limited in scope. Now they are building 22 single mission ships.Slight problem being that the patrol frigate is largely based on the NSC and the last one delivered cost more than an LCS, and they're finding cracks on the first one delivered after less than a year.
On the other hand, if you ask the UK nicely, we'll let you in on the Type 26 as a partner
As to the cracks in the NSC, that seems to be a trend among new USN ships lately, how much re-welding have they had to do on LCS-1?
JMO but most of the reasons that were given for building the LCS no longer apply. About the only advantage it seems to have left over a small frigate seems to be speed. Speed that it can't use very often or it has to be replenished even more frequently.
It looks like by the time the modules are added and the cost of motherships is added in, the lcs is going to cost around $600 million for a limited endurance, single mission ship. What would the cost be for an NSC with ESSM, Sea Ram, Harpoon, and a sonar suite?