Sounds about right, I vaguely recall reading somewhere that when heading down south, it required a squadron of 6 helos to have a pair constantly dipping ahead of the task force 24/7
US Navy News and updates
- Thread starter AegisFC
- Start date
I don't think that the Ospreys cavitation would be significant as they would spend most of their time in fixed wing mode at altitude if they were employed in a similar way to the S2's and 3's. In a standard escort search an area of between 10,000 to 20,000 square miles can be covered by these aircraft. The procedure is to lay the buoys and get to height to monitor the them and only come down to classify and prosecute.seems eminently sensible - so unlikely to happen
It would be interesting to know what impact Osprey cavitation and assoc acoustics would have on onboard ASW gear
I imagine that LM would be avidly watching with interest how the SouK Vikings go, and it wouldn't surprise me if a future solution is sitting in their Catia library files somewhere.....
I have no idea how the modern helo sonar buoy systems work but it seems that if they are dipping the buoy search is compromised.
As for Volk's query, Melbourne, CVS 21 standard Air Group was 4 x A4, 6 x S2 and 8 - 10 Seakings. With this compliment we could carry out effective extended searches (1 or 2 S2's) and maintain 2 x helos in the screen in an operational mode with standby aircraft to prosecute.
The decision to ditch the S3's by the USN was to effectively neuter the ASW defence of any operation. The Romeo's give some integrity back to the surface units but until the volume search is taken over by UAV's or (Ospreys) we have lost capability in ASW
Chris
Double post mods please delete
Last edited:
from what I remember from LHD ops in Iraqi Freedom was that they had seriously limited bunkarage for bombs and other items which meant that their resupply was far more frequent compared with with a CVS with a similar air group(along with issues of load by not having a ski jump to maximise MTOW)
t68
Well-Known Member
Yes I would imagine that would be the case in reference to EO storage and fuel restrictions on the older WASP platforms. Newer platforms such as USS Makin Island (LHD-8) & USS America (LHA-6) would have improved EO and more fuel available for flight operations as they both use the same fuel as the aircraft.
I was not aware of Harrier not being able to take of at WTOW as they used all the deck available, I guess if V-22 does make the transition to an AAR. I wonder if they put more EO on and down load the fuel then top up once in the air would that solve the problem, certainly be a game changer for the RN if they can budget for the V-22.
t68
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the clarification; I had read somewhere (cannot find the link now) that LHA-6 bunkerage was increased from 600 thousand gallons to 1.3 million gallons to make bunkerage logistics easier for both the ship and aircraft so it can reduce the amount of different fuels to store. I may have miss interpreted this to mean that when the ship was operating with the gas turbine engine fuel would be drawn from the same tanks.
I think that increase was just part of the transformation to a full carrier role. But the LHA-6 would make a much better pure carrier than a Wasp.
The F-35 are very thirsty aircraft, ships designed around Harrier levels of fuel consumption will struggle with F-35 operations. F-35 is a much heavier aircraft which carries much more fuel and will burn more fuel than a harrier. F-35 takes on something like 8.3t, while a harrier would have 3.5t (AV-8B) with earlier ones being a lot less.
The amphibs are not really for dropping mega tons of dumb iron onto land targets, its more about anti air (and maybe anti ship) and some light duty close air support. For most of those missions you're not generally going to be loaded to the gills as a bomb truck.
Amphibs are best left as amphibs. Even with USS America, its mission is not the same as a CVN.
justsomeaussie
Member
Pentagon Said to Order Cutting Littoral Ships by 20 - Bloomberg
While this is presented as a negative noting the slight SP bump for both LM and Austal I wouldn't be surprised if people are happy that the LCS is going ahead at all.
While this is presented as a negative noting the slight SP bump for both LM and Austal I wouldn't be surprised if people are happy that the LCS is going ahead at all.
^^ this. Any amphibious flat deck will be limited in carrier operations in areas like those stated (fuel & munitions bunkerage) and presumably in other areas like deck operations, how often (or ever) do those crews practice operating 15+ jets aboard?
America is still amphibious, it's meant to shift 1,500+ Marines ashore through her vertical lift component (until they get a dock that is) and in a conventional aircraft carrier that space would be valuable used elsewhere. Can't just plug'n'play with the aircraft.
In a pinch it could do the job, however that'd be about it. Operations where you need to get as much sea based air power as possible.
It remains to be seen what the future holds for LCS. If indeed the program is truncated, what then? Has Navy found a more cost-effective approach to doing the littoral missions associated with LCS? Given the increasing trend toward modularity of mission payloads and flexibility to mix and match to a variety of hulls, maybe a larger, configurable platform with more volume such as previously mentioned Cereberus concept is a possibility? Presumably this would be in addition to the Cruiser-sized Future Surface Combatant.
Littoral Combat Ship Cut Plan Reopens Navy Riff: Build ‘Em Fast Or Rugged « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary
IIRC there are plans to forward base LCS in Bahrain.,They would be ideal for use in the Gulf.
IMO basing or lack thereof won't decide the eventual decision on LCS' fate. It will boil down more to relevance vs. changing operational requirements and doctrine and affordability.
I get the impression that irrespective of what happens with the LCS program we will see the mission modules continue and be employed on other platforms as well, for example an evolved DDG1000 comes to mind.
People seem to forget that the LCS is not a replacement for major surface combatants but rather for mine hunters, patrol vessels, and other specialised brown and green water craft.
People seem to forget that the LCS is not a replacement for major surface combatants but rather for mine hunters, patrol vessels, and other specialised brown and green water craft.
justsomeaussie
Member
I am continually confused how so many people (people who should know better) don't seem to understand this. It's continually compared against the Aleigh Burke as if it's some replacement.
protoplasm
Active Member
The comparison I see a lot is to the OHP frigates, with many forgetting that the capability that the OHP was designed to deliver is very different to that of the LCS.
^^^^ THIS
People see it as a direct replacement of the OHP and automatically assume that it's a blue water ship. Never mind the fact that right now, if you add up the current number of AB's to the remaining elements of the OHP fleet you get roughly (difference of around 2-3 IIRC out of a 70+ pool) the same number of hulls as what the current production run of AB's is meant to reach
They talk about the relative survivability of a LCS with respect to surface combatants like an AB or Tico and say how unsuitable it is. If you put current MCMVs in the same scenario I highly expect they would come out far worse than a LCS, not to mention not being able to create an aggressive defence of the ship.
Hi colay, thanks, I better understand how to look at the LCS procurement issues. To me, the LCS is a ship that is full of potential, so I was surprised to hear about the reduced order.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Part of the issue is just the sheer size of the LCS, and to a lesser degree, the cost. While the intent is/was to use the LCS to replace vessels like the Cyclone-class patrol craft, and the Avenger-class MCM, the LCS has grown into a ~127m vessel displacing 3,500 tons.
That does make the LCS quite similar in both size and displacement to an OHP, even though the vessels' roles and capabilities are quite different.
I think cost is a mayor point because of which the LCS received so much criticism.
For money in roughly the same ballpark other navys put full sized and modern frigates/destroyers into the water which serve as multirole combatants.
I think the question is not if the LCS designs can do what they are supposed to do. I bet that with enough money thrown at the mission modules this will be the case. The big question is if they are worth the huge amounts of money poured into the project...
For money in roughly the same ballpark other navys put full sized and modern frigates/destroyers into the water which serve as multirole combatants.
I think the question is not if the LCS designs can do what they are supposed to do. I bet that with enough money thrown at the mission modules this will be the case. The big question is if they are worth the huge amounts of money poured into the project...