Austral Designed LCS tops 50 MPH!

[Crusader2000]

Alabama-built warship tops out at more than 50 mph
(AP) – 12 hours ago

MOBILE, Ala. — The second of the Navy's new generation of speedy warships designed to operate close to shore topped 50 mph in builder trials completed this month.

Officials say the Independence, a 418-foot ship built in Alabama, traveled in excess of 45 knots, which equates to nearly 52 mph, and sustained 44 knots during a four-hour, full-speed sprint.

The so-called littoral combat ship is the second of two competing designs. The one built by Austal in Mobile, Ala., features a tri-hull design. The lead contractor is Maine's Bath Iron Works, a General Dynamics subsidiary.

The competing ship, Freedom, features a more traditional hull and was built by a team led by Lockheed Martin. It will go into service next year. Eventually, the Navy wants to build up to 55 of the ships.

 

[Sea Toby]

Alabama-built warship tops out at more than 50 mph
(AP) – 12 hours ago.
The competing ship, Freedom, features a more traditional hull and was built by a team led by Lockheed Martin. It will go into service next year. Eventually, the Navy wants to build up to 55 of the ships.

I knew both designs were going to be fast. The question remains after two ships are built of each design, which ship design will win the contract to build the rest. There is also the possibility that both or more shipyards will be used to build that one winning design. I believe bid with the cheapest design to build will win the contract.

 

[Crusader2000]

I knew both designs were going to be fast. The question remains after two ships are built of each design, which ship design will win the contract to build the rest. There is also the possibility that both or more shipyards will be used to build that one winning design. I believe bid with the cheapest design to build will win the contract.

The problem is cheapest design may not be the most capable!

 

[Sea Toby]

The two LCS designs appear to have very similar weapon systems and sensors. The largest difference I see is the vehicle deck and helicopter facilities/deck. I am sure the US Navy will prefer one over the other, but in the end Congress will choose the less expensive option. This program is going to have a very tight budget. We'll see....

Its going to be similar to Pakistan's F22P frigate program, whoever has the best financial package at the least cost will most likely win the contract as both ship designs meet specifications asked....

 

[stoker]

The two LCS designs appear to have very similar weapon systems and sensors. The largest difference I see is the vehicle deck and helicopter facilities/deck. I am sure the US Navy will prefer one over the other, but in the end Congress will choose the less expensive option. This program is going to have a very tight budget. We'll see....

Its going to be similar to Pakistan's F22P frigate program, whoever has the best financial package at the least cost will most likely win the contract as both ship designs meet specifications asked....

Does anyone have any idea on what were the costs so far of each of these two LSC designs?

I image that the cost of the modual fit-out will basically be the same for both ships.

So the 'costs' of each of the individual hulls/ machinery/electronics could be the final decider.

I have been trying to Goggle information on dimensions/ machinery fit-out for either of these LSC's, with no results. Does anyone have any information on these. Thanks in advance.

 

[Crusader2000]

Here's more!

Thursday, October 22, 2009
Information Dissemination

These Are Very Fast Ships
I'd be boasting this news too...


The Navy’s second littoral combat ship, the Independence, finished its builder’s trials Wednesday, more than three months after first sailing from its Mobile, Ala., shipyard for its tests at sea.

The aluminum trimaran hit a top speed of 45 knots and kept a sustained speed of 44 knots during its full power run in the Gulf of Mexico, shipbuilder General Dynamics said in an announcement. It kept a high speed and stability despite eight-foot waves and 25-knot winds.
The AP reports the ship "sustained 44 knots during a four-hour, full-speed sprint," which is 50 mph for 4 hours.

Last year when I was on USS Freedom the top speed while I was on the ship was 42.4 knots... on a sunny November morning that included almost no wind in the fresh, calm waters of Lake Ontario. I knew we were moving fast, but it really didn't feel like it. I imagine the GD version is very similar. If Independence is hitting 45 knots in builders trials with eight foot waves and 25-knot winds, even accounting this is salt water, it is still very impressive.

Speed is very sexy, and might turn out useful in some circumstances, but I'll be more interested to hear what the endurance of Independence is. In my book, speed is a wash over 40 knots, but endurance differences may be the deciding factor in the competition, and ironically, endurance was not a major point on the ship design requirements.

 

[Sea Toby]

Does anyone have any idea on what were the costs so far of each of these two LSC designs?

I image that the cost of the modual fit-out will basically be the same for both ships.

So the 'costs' of each of the individual hulls/ machinery/electronics could be the final decider.

I have been trying to Goggle information on dimensions/ machinery fit-out for either of these LSC's, with no results. Does anyone have any information on these. Thanks in advance.

2010 budget documents revealed that the total costs of the two lead ships had risen to $637 million for Freedom and $704 million for Independence.

I have had better luck with the Lockheed Martin LCS for machinery..
Lockheed Martin semi-planing monohull. Lockheed Martin's advanced semi-planing seaframe is based on technologies introduced by Italian shipbuilder Fincantieri on the 1,000t Destrier commercial vessel, which holds the transatlantic speed record, and the 3,000t Jupiter class.

The ship has a steel hull with aluminum superstructure and will be powered by two Rolls-Royce MT30 36MW gas turbines and two Fairbanks Morse Colt-Pielstick 16PA6B STC diesel engines driving four large, acoustically optimised Rolls-Royce waterjets.

Four Isotta Fraschini Model V1708 ship service diesel generator sets provide auxiliary power. Fincantieri Marine Systems North America Inc is supplying the ride control system.

"The Lockheed Martin design is a semi-planing monohull."
The ship's maximum speed is 45kt. The overall length is 115.5m. The maximum beam width is 13.1m and the draft is 3.7m.

The combat management system is the Lockheed Martin COMBATSS-21, based on open architecture. The ships will be equipped with EADS TRS-3D C-band radar for air and surface surveillance and weapon assignment and the soft-kill weapon system (SKWS) decoy launcher from Terma A/S of Denmark.

I shall continue to search and google for better Independence machinery specs....

All I have been able to discover is the Independence will have two GE LM2500 Gas Turbines, and two MTU M71 diesels or two MTU 20V 8000 diesels, along with four unknown generators and four Wartsila steerable waterjets.

 

[stoker]

2010 budget documents revealed that the total costs of the two lead ships had risen to $637 million for Freedom and $704 million for Independence.

I have had better luck with the Lockheed Martin LCS for machinery..
Lockheed Martin semi-planing monohull. Lockheed Martin's advanced semi-planing seaframe is based on technologies introduced by Italian shipbuilder Fincantieri on the 1,000t Destrier commercial vessel, which holds the transatlantic speed record, and the 3,000t Jupiter class.

The ship has a steel hull with aluminum superstructure and will be powered by two Rolls-Royce MT30 36MW gas turbines and two Fairbanks Morse Colt-Pielstick 16PA6B STC diesel engines driving four large, acoustically optimised Rolls-Royce waterjets.

Four Isotta Fraschini Model V1708 ship service diesel generator sets provide auxiliary power. Fincantieri Marine Systems North America Inc is supplying the ride control system.

"The Lockheed Martin design is a semi-planing monohull."
The ship's maximum speed is 45kt. The overall length is 115.5m. The maximum beam width is 13.1m and the draft is 3.7m.

The combat management system is the Lockheed Martin COMBATSS-21, based on open architecture. The ships will be equipped with EADS TRS-3D C-band radar for air and surface surveillance and weapon assignment and the soft-kill weapon system (SKWS) decoy launcher from Terma A/S of Denmark.

I shall continue to search and google for better Independence machinery specs....

All I have been able to discover is the Independence will have two GE LM2500 Gas Turbines, and two MTU M71 diesels or two MTU 20V 8000 diesels, along with four unknown generators and four Wartsila steerable waterjets.

Thank you very much Sea Toby, much appreciated.

 

[Sea Toby]

Thank you very much Sea Toby, much appreciated.

Us stokers/snipes think alike whether navy or coast guard, more impressed with engines than weapon systems. We would rather read tech manuals. :tasty

Appears the Lockheed ship has more powerful gas turbines whereas the Austal ship has more powerful diesels...

 

[Crusader2000]

Thank you very much Sea Toby, much appreciated.

I'll second that........

 

[Crusader2000]

Us stokers/snipes think alike whether navy or coast guard, more impressed with engines than weapon systems. We would rather read tech manuals. :tasty

Appears the Lockheed ship has more powerful gas turbines whereas the Austal ship has more powerful diesels...

Yet, I believe the Austal / General Dynamics Design in much more versatile and is clearly better in high sea states. Which, is very important for a ship of such small size.

 

[alexsa]

Cautionary note. This speed comes at a cost. The USN have a role for this vessel which is all wel and good but it is not a multi rolve vessel...... it is a convertabel vessel, meaning it must be configured for a role.

HSC hulls have little scope for weight compare to size but, in the case of LCS, have great volume. Mass, power and hull form is everyting at sea and there is a trade off between each. Al HSC are very light which but this results in operating restrictions over steel displacement hulls..

 

[tphuang]

makes me wonder if they actually lowered the speed requirements for these ships, would the cost of construction went down a lot. In certain configurations, I certainly don't see the need to sustain 44 knots for 4 hours.

 

[AegisFC]

makes me wonder if they actually lowered the speed requirements for these ships, would the cost of construction went down a lot. In certain configurations, I certainly don't see the need to sustain 44 knots for 4 hours.

Both hulls are optimized for high speed and are not very efficient at lower speed so if you drop the speed requirement then you might as well go for a simpler and more traditional propulsion setup and hull form.

 

[gf0012-aust]

makes me wonder if they actually lowered the speed requirements for these ships, would the cost of construction went down a lot. In certain configurations, I certainly don't see the need to sustain 44 knots for 4 hours.

Jervis Bay transited at "high speed" for longer than 4 days when enroute to East Timor. Like everything it depends on mission urgency and local conditions

 

[Crusader2000]

Well, in the case of fighting Pirates off Somalia. Such high speeds would be extremely useful.:ar15

 

[kato]

Actually, i don't see all that much use for being able to move 175 nm within 4 hours. At least within the LCS' mission spectrum.

Pretty much the only missions where that kind of speed would make sense is defensive ASuW in littoral quarters (and LCS doesn't field the armament for that) or landing operations over contested area.

For the four missions the LCS has, its speed is wasted; that is helo carrier within a group (no sense in overtaking the CVN...), ASW (offboard sensor AUV network won't do the 45 knots of course), MCM (no need to rush, that offending minefield is staying right where it is...) and MIO (in the time to move 100 nm, the helos can make it there and back).

 

[Crusader2000]

Actually, i don't see all that much use for being able to move 175 nm within 4 hours. At least within the LCS' mission spectrum.

Pretty much the only missions where that kind of speed would make sense is defensive ASuW in littoral quarters (and LCS doesn't field the armament for that) or landing operations over contested area.

For the four missions the LCS has, its speed is wasted; that is helo carrier within a group (no sense in overtaking the CVN...), ASW (offboard sensor AUV network won't do the 45 knots of course), MCM (no need to rush, that offending minefield is staying right where it is...) and MIO (in the time to move 100 nm, the helos can make it there and back).

The experts seems to disagree with your assessment. Otherwise, the USN would be looking for a small and simple (slower) Corvette Design.

 

[kato]

Nah.

The LCS speed is by the "experts" reasoned for with three main points:

- conducting warning and disabling fire in MIO situations
- conducting surface warfare against small boats
- rapid deployment of SOF and HLD personnel ("naval special warfare")

However, for the first point, there is absolutely no reason why a helicopter can't be used instead. The second? About every other navy includes that in general force protection and MIO. Not ASuW. See first point therefore. And the third? No special module planned for it, mission subsumed into other mission packages. Read: No longer considered an important point.

That's not to speak of the other point made for the speed: Other navies try to develop measures to defeat torpedos - the USN lets the LCS run away from them. Seriously, that has been stated as a reason for it.

 

[tphuang]

Actually, i don't see all that much use for being able to move 175 nm within 4 hours. At least within the LCS' mission spectrum.

Pretty much the only missions where that kind of speed would make sense is defensive ASuW in littoral quarters (and LCS doesn't field the armament for that) or landing operations over contested area.

For the four missions the LCS has, its speed is wasted; that is helo carrier within a group (no sense in overtaking the CVN...), ASW (offboard sensor AUV network won't do the 45 knots of course), MCM (no need to rush, that offending minefield is staying right where it is...) and MIO (in the time to move 100 nm, the helos can make it there and back).

yeah, I was thinking mostly about ASW/MCM missions, it just seems like the speed is an overkill, especially if it's not efficient for LCS to operate at lower speeds.

USN sometimes should just go for lower cost + good enough