Littoral Combat Ship

[alexsa]

With that in mind, wouldn't a fleet consist of LCS and frigates make sense to RAN, both militarily and financially? Of course, you'll have to forgive me if I'm wrong since I am a complete noob in this matter.

LCS is designed to give the USN a high speed vessel adaptable platform tailored for the littorial operations. The standard fit is nothring to write home about but the use of modules allow it to be adapted to specific task (one not all) with the ability carry these out at high speed and this fits the USN concept.

High speed aluminium hulls are never going to be cheap as the materials cost more tha mild steel to start with. In addition a HSC hull has limitations on uplift so there seems to be little 'financial' benifit to this option for the RAN with only limited resourses and a range of environments in which they have to operate.

 

[Galrahn]

I would think people would want the LCS concept to be developed, deployed, and proven before advocating for it in their Navy.

I know that is a common theme among many US Navy analysts.

Remember, the LCS rewrites CONOP and doctrine on a number of traditional littoral mission profiles, I would say it should probably be proven effective before adopted.

 

[alexsa]

I would think people would want the LCS concept to be developed, deployed, and proven before advocating for it in their Navy.

I know that is a common theme among many US Navy analysts.

Remember, the LCS rewrites CONOP and doctrine on a number of traditional littoral mission profiles, I would say it should probably be proven effective before adopted.

No arguement. From what I have read the LCS concept does not get a ringing endorsement from all in the USN or some strategists (mind you the same can be said about DDG1000). That, and the costs of the project to date, have been the cause of negative comment.

 

[B.Smitty]

Cargo carrying capacity and fire power? The designs has a DWT in the order of 400 tonnes and mission package weight of just 180 tonnes for the GD design and 220 tonnes for Lockheed. Using the same hull any additional equipment has to be supported wihtin this DWT (or other gear is removed) as the vessels havelimited cpacity to accept a deeper draft if they are to perfor as expected and to avoid overstressing the lightweight structure. Lets not confuse length with displacement noting the LOA of 127m for the GD design means there are not small ships they are just lighter than contempory steel vessel of the same size.

Hey alexsa, for comparison, do you have an idea what the DWT & mission package weights are for some of the modern monohull warships out there like the ANZAC or newer Mekos, the new Hobart/F100 class, F125, and so on?

I'm trying to understand what the LCS is giving up in terms of payload fraction to these other designs.

 

[alexsa]

Hey alexsa, for comparison, do you have an idea what the DWT & mission package weights are for some of the modern monohull warships out there like the ANZAC or newer Mekos, the new Hobart/F100 class, F125, and so on?

I'm trying to understand what the LCS is giving up in terms of payload fraction to these other designs.

I have given a large numbmer of examples in previous posts but the issue here is the uplift as it relates to to size and structure. The Austal LCS is not a small vessel at an LOA of 127m and a beam at a massive 34m but has a maxium diplacment in the order of 2500 tonnes (yet to be confirmed as the displacment appears to be growing whcih may have an adverse impact).The ship in standard form has a basic weapons fit installed (57mm gun, HMG's, SeaRAM) and basic sensors. As far as I can tell all capability (including helecopters and their fuel and weapons) is added as mission packages with a max capacity that the desing can withstand of 185 tonnes. The austal desing has space to burn but will max out on mass pretty quickly

As a comparision the ANZAC displaces 3900 tonnes at 118m LOA.14.8m beam while the FFG7 in RAN service is 4100 tonnes at 136m/13.7m beam. Both these ship carry a much more comprehensvie suite of weapons as well as helecopters in a smaller footprint than the Austal LCS. This stemms mainly from the need to keep hull mass down to maximise speed. Loading beyond these limits has the potential to overstress the light weight hull both thought the applied load and interaction with the sea. Being a multi-hull there is alsway a risk of tunnel slam. In addition speed will suffer due to increase drag due to the increase immersed volume.

Warships are always a compromise between uplift capacity, range and speed. To get one you sacrifice another and wiht LCS much has been sacrificed because speed is considered important. As an example of the other end of the scale a smaller vessel than any of the hulls above will provide an effective carrying capacity of 6000 tonnes (over and above the light weight of the ship itself)

http://www.ship-technology.com/projects/fensfjord/

This vesel is 111m LOA with a beam of 13.4m, is ice class 1B and can carry 6000 tonnes of stores, crew and cargo. Total displacment is probably in the order of 8000 to 8500 tonnes but the speed is down to about 12 knots.

 

[B.Smitty]

I went back and looked through the thread but must've missed your posts on the subject.

I did find some information on the OHP class.

From here,

http://wetlands.simplyaquatics.com/d/14876-1/SEHV1.PDF

The FFG-56 has a lightship displacement of 3086.63 tons and a full load displacement of 3951.79 tons. This gives it a DWT of 865.16 tons, or a DWT fraction (of lightship displacement) of .28.

If the Austal/GD LCS has a lightship displacement of 2500 tons and a full load displacement of 2900 tons, with a DWT of 400 tons, its DWT fraction (of lightship) is .16.

A notional, frigate-like, monohull design with a similar DWT fraction to the FFG-56 and a lightship displacement of 2500 tons would have a DWT of 700 tons - or 75% more than the LCS!

Seems like we're getting robbed here to pay for sprint speed.

IMHO, we would've been better off making a monohulled frigate-like replacement for the FFGs.

 

[alexsa]

I went back and looked through the thread but must've missed your posts on the subject.

I did find some information on the OHP class.

From here,

http://wetlands.simplyaquatics.com/d/14876-1/SEHV1.PDF

The FFG-56 has a lightship displacement of 3086.63 tons and a full load displacement of 3951.79 tons. This gives it a DWT of 865.16 tons, or a DWT fraction (of lightship displacement) of .28.

If the Austal/GD LCS has a lightship displacement of 2500 tons and a full load displacement of 2900 tons, with a DWT of 400 tons, its DWT fraction (of lightship) is .16.

A notional, frigate-like, monohull design with a similar DWT fraction to the FFG-56 and a lightship displacement of 2500 tons would have a DWT of 700 tons - or 75% more than the LCS!

Seems like we're getting robbed here to pay for sprint speed.

IMHO, we would've been better off making a monohulled frigate-like replacement for the FFGs.

Absolutely but it hard to transfer the figures across so simply as hull form will also drive displacement and performance. Long thin ships tend to have less resistance but at the cost of transverse stability. The Austal design combines a long thin middle hull wiht outriggers aft to provide stability. Austal have been quite inovative in this regard.

However, any high speed craft will with performance in excess of 40 knots will cost you in true uplift capacity. For short haul transprot of a low density cargo like cars it works as the space required to carry the cargo is normally consumed before the DWT is exceeded. Passagers are likewise quite a low density cargo (based on an average of 75kg per passenger.... this needs review from my POV). The other issue is where built ot the HSC the scantlings are also reduced, hence the sea state restrictions.

If you need a long range multi role hull with good sea keeping this is not really compatable with a vesel based on a HSC code vessel.

 

[B.Smitty]

Absolutely but it hard to transfer the figures across so simply as hull form will also drive displacement and performance. Long thin ships tend to have less resistance but at the cost of transverse stability.

Understandable. I was just trying to get a rough comparison of payload capacity between a frigate-sized, traditional monohull and the GD LCS.

However, any high speed craft will with performance in excess of 40 knots will cost you in true uplift capacity. For short haul transprot of a low density cargo like cars it works as the space required to carry the cargo is normally consumed before the DWT is exceeded. Passagers are likewise quite a low density cargo (based on an average of 75kg per passenger.... this needs review from my POV). The other issue is where built ot the HSC the scantlings are also reduced, hence the sea state restrictions.

If you need a long range multi role hull with good sea keeping this is not really compatable with a vesel based on a HSC code vessel.

Am I right in saying that most warship components appear to max out DWT before volume? What about the LCS mission modules? It would appear that modularity might force less than optimal use of space to account for containers and spacing between them.

 

[alexsa]

Understandable. I was just trying to get a rough comparison of payload capacity between a frigate-sized, traditional monohull and the GD LCS. ....

Am I right in saying that most warship components appear to max out DWT before volume? What about the LCS mission modules? It would appear that modularity might force less than optimal use of space to account for containers and spacing between them.

Actually I forgot to mention on thing with your calculation that should put thing perspective. Lightship (if it has been calcualted by normal methods) is the mass of the vessel with out fuel , stores, crew and cargo (in this case ammunition, helecopters etc).... it what you put in drydock. So normally the lightship mass will include the gun mountings and launchers but without the weapons.

This puts the uplift capacity of LCS is a clearer light its full dispalcment has been quoted as under 3000 tonnes or 2500 tonnes with a DWT of about 400 tonnes, which after ships fuel, ammunition for the basic weapons fit, crew and stores are added leaves only 185 tonnes for the mission modules (including the adition weapons and helicopters). The 800 to 1000 tonnes DWT for the frigates onthe other hand does not have to cater for missions packages (helicopters exceted) to increase cpabability as all systems the vessel is to carry are already installed.

Gernerally warship designs tend to max out of weight before volume is used up but this has to be viewed as a factor of stability as well as hull area. War ships tend to ward long thin hulls with a very low block coefficient which means they have a small underwater area. This limits the space within the hull and reduces the mass you can place below the centre of gravity which will drive the amount of topweight you can safely put on the vessel. Many (not all) cargo ships on the other hand are like a flat iron with a much larger underwater volume to provide an effective hold capcity and allow a reasonable amount of top weight to be carried.

The Austal design does skirt around this problem to a degree with the trimaran hull (which was one of the reason Triton was built) which permits a much greater top hamper and provides a large area aft but it is still constrained by the fact it has to keep mass down to get the speed which means the ship has a lightweight structure. In addition this hull configuraion has a number of challenges in a stong sea through stress placed on the bridging arrangment (given the beam of the LCS the two ponttons could have more or less buoyant foces applied to them compared to each other and the centre hull at a given time) , issues such as tunnel slam and the fact they are not very tolerant of an increase in draft beyond the design draft. I have to admit I can only assum how LCS will behave in such situations as the information is not in the public domain but as I have said preivously I would have loved to have seen the LCS tank test.

 

[B.Smitty]

Actually I forgot to mention on thing with your calculation that should put thing perspective. Lightship (if it has been calcualted by normal methods) is the mass of the vessel with out fuel , stores, crew and cargo (in this case ammunition, helecopters etc).... it what you put in drydock. So normally the lightship mass will include the gun mountings and launchers but without the weapons.

Does it also include sensor fits, CICs, etc?

This puts the uplift capacity of LCS is a clearer light its full dispalcment has been quoted as under 3000 tonnes or 2500 tonnes with a DWT of about 400 tonnes, which after ships fuel, ammunition for the basic weapons fit, crew and stores are added leaves only 185 tonnes for the mission modules (including the adition weapons and helicopters). The 800 to 1000 tonnes DWT for the frigates onthe other hand does not have to cater for missions packages (helicopters exceted) to increase cpabability as all systems the vessel is to carry are already installed

One other interesting thing to note about these figures is that, apparently, the GD LCS carries no more than 200-ish tons of fuel.

The FFG, OTOH, carries over 500 tons.

 

[alexsa]

Does it also include sensor fits, CICs, etc?.

Should do. It is basically the docking condition.

One other interesting thing to note about these figures is that, apparently, the GD LCS carries no more than 200-ish tons of fuel.

The FFG, OTOH, carries over 500 tons.

This seems to fit as the DWT is only inthe order of 400 tonnes with 185 tonnes for mission packages.

 

[icelord]

The LCS is in the USN for a reason, no other navy can have certain ships for certain missions, most navies including the RAN give a multirole all in the one package, where as the LCS is mission dedicated and can interchange but is time intensive and its hard to predict the mission you may conduct when already underway.(thats something, can the TAK-E ships change a module while underway, i realise its not like a ships resupply, but could u transport a container in good conditions to a LCS while its underway? or would it require the USN to specially engineer a supplier for this.)

Its similar to the arguments here about having the F-22 or A-10 'wathog' in the RAAF. They are great in THEIR own dedicated missions, but do not provide the ADF with what it needs, this is the same with the LCS.

While all of us would like to see the LCS in the RAN, its abilities and modules are not what is required. We see a new ship deisgn, and think "wow that would be good for the us", especially since its in part Australian Designed, but when you bunker down in debate,especially with alexsa by the looks of it, you see the flaws in its use for the RAN, and perhaps the USN.

I still advocate the Austal corvette for use in what the ACV Triton is doing now, the "prison ship" as dubbed by our media friends, would be handy for the RAN Patrol fleet and in multirole in the pacific islands in another humanitarian/security role. Take Solomons, the RAN deployed 2 Armidales to patrol on top of the other surface ships in the area. A MRC would have provided patrol around the islands and transport supplies into the hard to reach places, with the added bonus of a Helo. Hmm,really should have shares in Austal if i'm going to talk them up.

 

[Galrahn]

icelord I agree.

The LCS is being built in the US Navy to test concepts like modularity, offboard deployable networks, unmanned technologies, and ForceNET knowledge networks for Strike Groups.

There might be 55 planned today, but that could change as soon as this year. The LCS is still a ship looking for a role, and with the current development of a new maritime strategy for the US Navy, the Navy is taking a hard look at its projects to determine what fits where, and why. It is unclear what role the LCS represents. Is it the right tool for the long war? Is it the right platform to represent the low end of a high - low fleet for the 21st century? Is it the right ship to expand navy concepts like the 1000 ship navy and Global Fleet Stations, which are phase 0 shaping operations for building international cooperation in troubled areas, or does the Navy need a different platform for those concepts?

The LCS is currently 3 ships, of a planned 4 to date, and of the three intended to be purchased this year, niether the House nor the Senate approved enough money for more than 2, meaning of the first 7 planned only 5 'may' actually be built. This is hardly a success story, and when evaluated within the context of maritime strategy the LCS is still a ship looking for a purpose.

I support building a few LCS platforms to develop not only the technologies but the concepts behind the LCS CONOP, but as far as advocating a position for the LCS within the context of the fleet, I think it is difficult at this point for even the US Navy to advocate that position, much less a foreign Navy.

 

[alexsa]

While all of us would like to see the LCS in the RAN, its abilities and modules are not what is required. We see a new ship deisgn, and think "wow that would be good for the us", especially since its in part Australian Designed, but when you bunker down in debate,especially with alexsa by the looks of it, you see the flaws in its use for the RAN, and perhaps the USN..

For all the reasons you raise, as well as Galrahn, and my own concerns I have agree this never really appeared suitable for the RAN even wiht the wow factor and despite the techincal innovation. For the cost it lacks capability. This does not say that I am not impressed by the 127m hull concept as applied to the fast ferry market.

I still advocate the Austal corvette for use in what the ACV Triton is doing now, the "prison ship" as dubbed by our media friends, would be handy for the RAN Patrol fleet and in multirole in the pacific islands in another humanitarian/security role. Take Solomons, the RAN deployed 2 Armidales to patrol on top of the other surface ships in the area. A MRC would have provided patrol around the islands and transport supplies into the hard to reach places, with the added bonus of a Helo. Hmm,really should have shares in Austal if i'm going to talk them up.

I disagree. This hull suffers all the shorcomings of LCS and the 127m ferry in that it is built as a light weight vessel and will be constrained by is structure and configuration. We already have 14 ACPB built to a similar standard and I for one believe if we are going to spend this sort of money (the Austal corvette is not cheap) we would be better off getting a decent helo capable OPV that has reasonable speed, good seakeeping, robust hull and long endurance. These would probably cost the same as the Austal.

Humanitarian aid and such like will be best handled by the LHD's (and the future amphibous support ship, if built) as they can put a great deal ont he ground in one hit and support it.

 

[icelord]

For all the reasons you raise, as well as Galrahn, and my own concerns I have agree this never really appeared suitable for the RAN even wiht the wow factor and despite the techincal innovation. For the cost it lacks capability. This does not say that I am not impressed by the 127m hull concept as applied to the fast ferry market.

For operations like Timor where speed is essential the Jervis was more capable of getting to the situation at speed, and this is where the USN is wanting to expand. I would not be surprised if they were looking more at the speed then the mission modules at times. They've watched the HSV and thought, what if it had a big gun and could do stuff?

I disagree. This hull suffers all the shorcomings of LCS and the 127m ferry in that it is built as a light weight vessel and will be constrained by is structure and configuration. We already have 14 ACPB built to a similar standard and I for one believe if we are going to spend this sort of money (the Austal corvette is not cheap) we would be better off getting a decent helo capable OPV that has reasonable speed, good seakeeping, robust hull and long endurance. These would probably cost the same as the Austal.

Humanitarian aid and such like will be best handled by the LHD's (and the future amphibous support ship, if built) as they can put a great deal ont he ground in one hit and support it

Fair enough. I would like to see an OPV up north for patrols, it could be on station for longer then the Armidales, and relieve them of their "passengers" and towing when needed.
As for AID, The LHDs are good and all, but one in transit elsewhere, another on the east coast, under way in less then 48hrs? We will still end up replacing 3 ships with 2 once the 2nd LPD is retired. my thinking is distance + location + availability = Complication.
If the West or Darwin had a replacement for the Tobruk to get on station faster this would be of use. Its the Prelim work that i'm speaking of, getting an on station to recon the situation, begin work on either repairs of ports to take cargo ro/ro, or a landing beach with clearing for incoming supplies all in a short time frame while the LHDs are being prep here.
As much as the RAAF thinks they can, they are not capable of getting places first if theres no where to land, so other options would be handy.

 

[metro]

To be fair, the export potential for LCS maybe too great an opportunity to pass up.

Granted, for the US Navy, LCS offers little.

But I know that the Royal Saudi Navy is very interested in GD's LCS design. The Persian Gulf would a perfect operating environment for such a platform. The rumours last year talked of a double-figure order, which would be unprecedented for a Mid East Navy. Europe's FREMM is also in the frame. But given the LCS's modular multi-role capability, other countries like the UAE, Oman, Bahrain, Egypt and Kuwait would possibly follow suite. Other Asian navies would also consider - Thailand, Singapore and Malaysia.

With further export potential in South America, Europe and maybe even Africa - LCS could be the 'F-16' of surface warships.

I just read Israel is interested in one (LCS) but I sort of question the utility that a single LCS would provide for Israel's needs? Unless some of the countries Izzy mentions above are willing to form a coalition of the endangered, or they want to donate any extra ships they buy and "can't use" to Israel, does any think its a good option? Perhaps off of Lebanon, but I can't imagine them playing with Russian Subs in/around Syria?? I'm not a naval expert, but I'm just wondering if there is any "good" rationale for this, vis-a-vis Israel?

-JPost
"Next in line is the Navy, which will be asking for a budget to purchase the next-generation Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) also under development by Lockheed Martin. Designed for speed, maneuverability and amphibious operations, the LCS was built according to US Naval specifications and as a "Brown Water" ship meant to operate in shallow waters along coasts and in depths where there are combined threats from land and sea.

OC Navy Admiral David Ben-Bashat plans to ask the General Staff to approve the procurement of two LCS-class ships at a cost of several hundred million dollars per vessel.

Defense sources said, however, that while the Navy was in need of new vessels, last year's closing of a $1.27b. deal to buy two new submarines from Germany might work against the Navy and prompt generals to vote against spending hundreds of millions again on sea-based platforms.

According to defense sources, the LCS, if acquired by the Navy, would enhance Israel's long-arm capabilities. The ship, capable of carrying Special Forces and larger infantry units, can also carry midsize vehicles, as well as two helicopters.

The ship would also be installed with the Barak anti-missile defense system and would be able to intercept incoming missiles.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1186557478610&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

 

[swerve]

.... I for one believe if we are going to spend this sort of money (the Austal corvette is not cheap) we would be better off getting a decent helo capable OPV that has reasonable speed, good seakeeping, robust hull and long endurance. ....

Are you thinking in terms of something like HMS Clyde?

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.5953

 

[alexsa]

Are you thinking in terms of something like HMS Clyde?

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.5953

Something of that nature. The RNZN OPV is not a bad vessel and an armed and hangered version of the UT527 would be very capable (and yes I have been on this band wagon before)

http://www.dexigner.com/product/news-g7003.html

If the West or Darwin had a replacement for the Tobruk to get on station faster this would be of use. Its the Prelim work that i'm speaking of, getting an on station to recon the situation, begin work on either repairs of ports to take cargo ro/ro, or a landing beach with clearing for incoming supplies all in a short time frame while the LHDs are being prep here.[/quote]

The deployment of HMAS Jervis Bay was not a raging success as far as I know and one of the issue was the ability of the vessel to discharge as it had to go alongside to achieve this. The same is true of the the US Austal theater support ship. The ships basically fulfill a ferry role and we could use STUFT (Ships taken up from trade) effectively in this area rather than pay the considerable cost of purchasing and maintaining these vessel in ORBAT. INCAT have a lot sitting in Tasmania up for sale or lease at the moment (and has for a number of years). The RAN simply does not have the funds for a vessel with a dedicated single capability.

Wiht two LHD's and the support vessel we would have a tremedous capability and spending money on niche capability will only detract from our ability to realize the procurement of these vessels.

 

[Jezza]

The deployment of HMAS Jervis Bay was not a raging success as far as I know and one of the issue was the ability of the vessel to discharge as it had to go alongside to achieve this. The same is true of the the US Austal theater support ship. The ships basically fulfill a ferry role and we could use STUFT (Ships taken up from trade) effectively in this area rather than pay the considerable cost of purchasing and maintaining these vessel in ORBAT. INCAT have a lot sitting in Tasmania up for sale or lease at the moment (and has for a number of years). The RAN simply does not have the funds for a vessel with a dedicated single capability.
With two LHD's and the support vessel we would have a tremedous capability and spending money on niche capability will only detract from our ability to realize the procurement of these vessels.

Maybe buy 2 Protector class OPVs for customs work being manned
by both navy and customs personell.(similar to NZ Navy)
At least they could be used most of the time up north and could
easily deployed if required in a small hotspot.
Put a squirrel or two on it, armed of course.
Just a suggestion

 

[Todjaeger]

Maybe buy 2 Protector class OPVs for customs work being manned
by both navy and customs personell.(similar to NZ Navy)
At least they could be used most of the time up north and could
easily deployed if required in a small hotspot.
Put a squirrel or two on it, armed of course.
Just a suggestion

At present, I don't see Australia/RAN having as pressing a need for OPVs, compared to NZ/RNZN. Current EEZ/fishery patrols are conducted by a combination of RAN, RAAF and civilian/governmental assets, much of which is concentrated on the Northwest shelf. These consist of 14 Armidale-class patrol boats which can operate away from port ~42 days IIRC (RAN), 8 Bay-class ACV patrol boats (Customs), AP-3C Orions (RAAF), plus fixed & rotary wing MPA (Coastwatch). In addition there are contracted towing/transport vessels.

The area where an OPV is needed as opposed to a patrol boat, is long range EEZ/fishery patrols in the Southern Ocean. Here, Australian Customs has the Oceanic Viking, a 105 m contracted vessel http://www.customs.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=5503 to cover this area. Additional patrol capacity might well be useful, but given the current arrangements, an additional contracted vessel might be preferable to purchse of a dedicated patrol vessel.

What I would be interested in finding out, is more information what the former HMS Triton is doing, how it is being used in Australian service. Also if there is additional information someone could post on the Ashmore Reef platform/patrol vessel and what it is used for and capable of, that would be interesting to see.

-Cheers