No need to apologise. It will be interesting to see what Alexas says if he sees this thread. Having worked with a number of maritime engineers (subs and frigates), I've yet to see any of them synchronise their dance steps...
No offence intended.
Littoral Combat Ships are they useful?
- Thread starter USNlover
- Start date
No offence intended.
How many countries buy USN off the peg? Not many, most are heavily customised and built locally? How often is the USN the cheap design? There will be varients based off the LCS, its a parent in a new family.
Going from a patrol boat/corvette that cannot operate any aircraft to a OCV/LCS type vessel that can operate multiple large air rotary units is a huge capability change.
There are many possibilities, look at what the french are going with multi hull landing craft.
well, I didn't. I haven't seen enough of your posts yet so I erred on the side of maybe making my comment literal. I certainly wasn't being precious.
Hence why both Austal and INCAT set up US yards. 1) to comply with getting contracts, and 2) to t/f skills and capability into that sector.
I do recall a US Dept of Commerce Strategic/Executive report being presented (to the USG and ABCA aka "4 Eyes" community) approx 3 years ago where the report emphasised the need for US yards to accelerate new technology development and to embrace partnerships in those tech developments. I don't have the report handy, but as I understand it was done in the period where all the western navies and their respective industry bodies were looking at ways to save their industry from the encroachment made by Sth Korea (and at a merchant level) China.
I did meet the US Dept Commerce contact when he came out for the annual DARPA visit (they attend with Service reps as well as State Dept and sometimes NAVSEA)
as far as Austal are concerned they are working from the legacy platform design (nicknamed the Beluga Express after the lead hull built some years before)
I wouldn't have thought that the skillset and capability of the US builders for these kinds of vessels is that parlous. The reason for building in the US was stated as above, and certainly had the support of the US Executive and USN. The yard might be doing a USN design, but they're also out their successfully competing and building multi's for the private sector as well. Its hardly a literal greenfields capability.
AFAIK, the US was keen to get the capability in place. They've been looking at multi's for a long time - ever since they had observors attached to HMAS Jervis Bay during East Timor in 99, and as a result of their own assessment of the ex DERA trimaran (which funnily enough has ended up as a lease for our Navy for maritime patrol work in our north western waters
It would be interesting to see what Alexas says if he is lurking or reading this. But, I would add that when NAVSEA were here, they were well aware that the Russians had some substantial designs (which were deemed technically viable) for large carrier, Tico sized combat vessels. DERA (at that time) had a number of designs available to Aust/UK/US which showed the viability of these platforms in various sea states. NAVSEA certainly thought the jury was out rather than in.
Last edited:
well, I didn't. I haven't seen enough of your posts yet so I erred on the side of maybe making my comment literal. I certainly wasn't being precious.
Excuse me. That was rude of me and I apologize.
That report sounds interesting, and I wouldn't mind reading it if you stumble across it again.gf0012-aust said:
But let me preface this by saying I wish US shipyards were more independent. In my opinion, the ship building industry in this country is woefully inadequate and if we have to consult with foreign buisnesses to build our navy, then we're adding a layer of complexity (and cost) that doesn't need to be there.
I have nothing against Austal, INCAT or Australia in general - I just have a desire to keep the industry more independent. A lot of our problems are domestic, and I'm not blaming foreign companies or countries - I just wanna make that clear. But I don't really consider foreign consultation as a solution to the problem I presented.
My conclusion was based on some work for a class. I don't have that data with me, but I'll look at it again soon to refresh my memory.gf0012-aust said:
U
Excuse me. That was rude of me and I apologize.
That report sounds interesting, and I wouldn't mind reading it if you stumble across it again.
But let me preface this by saying I wish US shipyards were more independent. In my opinion, the ship building industry in this country is woefully inadequate and if we have to consult with foreign buisnesses to build our navy, then we're adding a layer of complexity (and cost) that doesn't need to be there.
I have nothing against Austal, INCAT or Australia in general - I just have a desire to keep the industry more independent. A lot of our problems are domestic, and I'm not blaming foreign companies or countries - I just wanna make that clear. But I don't really consider foreign consultation as a solution to the problem I presented.
My conclusion was based on some work for a class. I don't have that data with me, but I'll look at it again soon to refresh my memory.
I will agree the US could have built a smaller, cheaper, similar OPV. Unfortunately, the US Navy wished to consider newer designed hulls with more speed in mind. The US Navy also has with most of its ships designs a requirement for more range as well. To carry more fuel for more range, the US has to have larger ships. Alaska and Hawaii, the two states not directly connected to the other forty-eight states, and a number of US territories too, are the link for a need for ships with more range than many other navies.
Americans will never build ships as cheaply as other nations. For starters, our shipbuilders union wages have had an effect. We also need newer modernized shipbuilding facilities and wherewithal. While Ingalls built most of the NCL Pride of America cruise ship, America had lost the skill of building cruise ships. Ingalls can build sophisticated warships without a problem, and weld a cruise ship together easily, fitting out the vessel was another experience. The Pride of America had to be towed to Germany for a proper fit out.
But you are correct in claiming other navies are building more flexible modular ships, especially for the smaller minor warships. It appears all of the major navies are building more flexible modular ships, alike the LCS. I believe most of the navies are looking for affordable solutions to mine hunting using patrol ships which can double when needed to be mine hunting vessels, among other duties. Aa an American, I say why not experiment with what other navies have learned? The Danish led, the others are following....
LCS actually has a pretty short range, compared to European frigate designs at least. LCS-2 comes within European requirements, the range of LCS-1 is only comparable to that of e.g. the German K130 or a number of current OPV designs (which displace roundabout 40% less across the board).
For comparison as a frigate, the Dutch M-Class which isn't really all that much larger than LCS-1 (10% more displacement) has 50% more range. The endurance of 21 days is also standard for this ship size (and exceeded by the M-Class at 30 days).
Also, most OPV designs in the 1500-2000 ton range match or surpass the range and endurance data of the LCS designs, smaller designs usually fall short by only 10-20%. The one thing that isn't matched by anyone - because they don't see it as necessary - is the speed.
...and the flight deck, at least as far as LCS-2 is concerned. I dont think, the LockMart-design is a convincing one for the package it offers, but the GD one really grows on me. Range is not too bad either, even though it certainly could be better. The speed-requirement did never sound too convincing to me, however.
Whats the exact flight deck-size of LCS-1 by the way? Seems like I cant find hard data on that, at least not right away.
It will be interesting to see where they are going decision-wise. At least as far as the hull is concerned they will have to make a fundamental decision. Cant see how they would "integrate" the different approaches taken by Freedom and Independence.
The flight decks on LCS-1 and 2 were both built to the same spec and can handle the same weight so the extra visible deck space on LCS-2 isn't really that much of a advantage.
Here is a few clippings from an interview with Read Adm Bill Landay, PEO for NAVSEA.
Rear Adm. Bill Landay - Defense News
as far as I know the Ford class will Displace 100,000 tons only 1000 tons lighter than the Nimitz
Commander Eagle
New Member
I heard that the Congress proposed that all new Naval Warship are to be Nuclear Powered uncless they are of not National Importance to avoid the skyroketting oil prices. Anyone heard of proposal of the LCS power plant being switched to Nuclear power?
Admin: If you are stating and making claims then its good form to provide a source - otherwise we end up with tall stories and conspiracy theories trotted out as fact
Admin: If you are stating and making claims then its good form to provide a source - otherwise we end up with tall stories and conspiracy theories trotted out as fact
Last edited by a moderator:
Nuclear power for submarines and aircraft carriers, yes. But nuclear power for other ships I doubt. Mainly due to manpower requirements. What makes a nuclear power plant expensive is the number of redundant systems which requires more operators to run. Plus there is an increased security presence. Whatever you save in fuel costs will be overwhelmed with personnel costs.
While the rest of us should move away from oil with alternative energies, naval warships and ships in general won't be able to do so as easily... And this is from a man who owns some land with oil wells pumping and windmills spinning in Texas....
A few things bother me about the LCS concept and execution.
The LCS set out to be cheap, small, modular littoral ships. Typical Pentagon feature-creep did away with the first two adjectives, and as for the littoral bit, there's a very good critique on USNI criticising the LCS approach to littoral warfare.
Concept-wise, they are dead between the sort of craft they set out to imitate- the true littoral craft such as the Skjold, the Visby and that Chinese catamaran they're building like hot-cakes on the one hand and true multi-mission containerised ships such as the Danish Absalon class ship on the other. The LCS in either its basic or modular configurations doesn't appear to possess particularly strong capabilities in area compared either to a dedicated smaller craft or to the Absolon. When the Israelis,for example, were considering buying the Freedom class, their concept was armed about five times more heavily in every dimension than the Americans have ever considered. And they have a point. Neither the basic ships nor any of the modules I've heard discussed is armed worth a damn in any dimension of conflict. What the US has bought are some very expensive, stealthy, glorified minesweepers, ASW platforms and special forces boats- all roles that could be filled much better by dedicated vessels. This does not a littoral warfare platform make, especially when so many countries are getting back in the missile boat business.
For effectiveness and fiscal responsibility, the US has two realistic options. First, a series of smaller, one-or-two-role designs- an HSV thing for special ops and troop transport, a Skjold thing for anti-surface and anti-air, something else for ASW and minesweeping, all much cheaper than the LCS. Second, if you're going to pay for a frigate, why not build one? The Absalon class is far better armed in basic configuration and far more widely capable in terms of missions it can be containerised for than the LCS.
The LCS set out to be cheap, small, modular littoral ships. Typical Pentagon feature-creep did away with the first two adjectives, and as for the littoral bit, there's a very good critique on USNI criticising the LCS approach to littoral warfare.
Concept-wise, they are dead between the sort of craft they set out to imitate- the true littoral craft such as the Skjold, the Visby and that Chinese catamaran they're building like hot-cakes on the one hand and true multi-mission containerised ships such as the Danish Absalon class ship on the other. The LCS in either its basic or modular configurations doesn't appear to possess particularly strong capabilities in area compared either to a dedicated smaller craft or to the Absolon. When the Israelis,for example, were considering buying the Freedom class, their concept was armed about five times more heavily in every dimension than the Americans have ever considered. And they have a point. Neither the basic ships nor any of the modules I've heard discussed is armed worth a damn in any dimension of conflict. What the US has bought are some very expensive, stealthy, glorified minesweepers, ASW platforms and special forces boats- all roles that could be filled much better by dedicated vessels. This does not a littoral warfare platform make, especially when so many countries are getting back in the missile boat business.
For effectiveness and fiscal responsibility, the US has two realistic options. First, a series of smaller, one-or-two-role designs- an HSV thing for special ops and troop transport, a Skjold thing for anti-surface and anti-air, something else for ASW and minesweeping, all much cheaper than the LCS. Second, if you're going to pay for a frigate, why not build one? The Absalon class is far better armed in basic configuration and far more widely capable in terms of missions it can be containerised for than the LCS.
Completely agree, a ship slightly larger than the Saar 5 would be much better suited for working in confined coastal waters like th Gulf. I not sure it needs a helicopter hanger, maybe a 57mm gun and RAM. Sadly I think the RN is about to follow the LCS with an equally ill thought through concept.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #75
The littoral combat ship is a good concept-I f we are fighting in Vietnam or the American civil war. The truth is that the US Navy is sorely blue water with some brown water supplied by the coast guard or specially made craft. If the US Navy wanted a littoral combat ship get a PT boat but some missiles on it and but in on the carrier ships (but it still wouldn't work) The littoral combat ship is a good export and a good coast guard vessel but doesn't quite fit in the blue water ops of the USN.
meat_helmet
New Member
The Royal Australian Navy are looking at a similar class of ship for their Offshore Combat Vessel, although a bit smaller and probably slower, with less advanced systems. More in the lower 2000t range for the 20 ships, but it could easily use a similar design. I believe it is already being suggested in the RAN use the Austral design as a base. Given that Austral USA's parent company is Australian, however, it would not be much of an export for the USA - possibly just the systems would be exported at a guess.
Apparently the UK is in talks with Australia about a future corvett/LCS along the same lines, so obviously the RN are also looking for mulirole ships like these.
I think the design base is a very good export option which could suit alot of navies willing to have the same hull but with less advanced systems, propulsion. Its still a very immature class so there might be navies waiting to see how the program matures before expressing any interest.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
It would be more likely we'd use one of their smaller, cheaper and slower MRV designs
Not even that, they'd probably get CEAFAR, the radar system being fitted to the ANZAC's, with a Saab (an Australian company by that name, not the swedish one) combat system, also as fitted to the ANZAC's.
Like Australia, the UK wont spend as much as the US is per ship.
I don't see what advantage they have over the potentially cheaper and more mainstream (ie, able to be built at the majority of shipyards unlike LCS-2) frigates such as the Meko series, Sigma Series, FREMM and Type 23 derived frigates.
Saab Systems Pty Ltd is a part of Saab Group. As in the Swedish one. And the CEROS-200 fitted to the ANZACs is the same as fitted by Saab to Swedish and Finnish FACs.
Sea Toby it was more than a fit out. Pride of America was a complete disaster, even with huge federal subsidies it still couldn't be completed, the second hull was never laid down. When she was sold to NCL they towed her to Bremen where Lloyd Werft cut her in half and added a 70ft plug, they fixed all the shoddy work Ingalls did on her, from what I've been told Lloyd Werft practically rebuilt the entire ship, there isn't much of Ingalls work left.
I would also bet good money on it that the wages in Italy, France, Germany and Finland are probably just as high or higher than the US shipyards, Ingalls just didn't have the competence to do the job efficiently.
Last edited: