US Navy News and updates

[colay]

I wonder if a shallow draft for littoral operations will be a requirement? If so, a design similar to the LCS Multi Mission Combatant configurations may make sense to leverage existing investments.
General Dynamics Multi-Mission Combatant | LCS
Multi-Mission Combat Ship · Lockheed Martin

 

[Volkodav]

I wonder if a shallow draft for littoral operations will be a requirement? If so, a design similar to the LCS Multi Mission Combatant configurations may make sense to leverage existing investments.
General Dynamics Multi-Mission Combatant | LCS
Multi-Mission Combat Ship · Lockheed Martin

You will still have 32 LCS for the shallow water stuff so that would free the USNs hand in designing a new FFG. If the new FFG has a mission deck it could conceivably operate a variety of off board systems to handle the shallow stuff anyway.

 

[Volkodav]

I think usage of non-common systems (Rolls Royce turbines, sonar, radars) would be the biggest hurdle.

The OHP FFGs had a lot of common components with DDGs and CGs. So it would depend on how hard it would be to modify the design to streamline the logistics bit.

Although Zumwalt and Freedom Classes also use the RR MT30 removing that issue and other systems could / should be easily exchanged at design phase. Extra Mk 41 in place of Sea Ceptor, CEAFAR / CEAMOUNT (USN seems to like the set up on HMAS Perth) in place of Artisan, although I recall AegisFC mention that the US has been playing with Artisan already.

 

[StobieWan]

I think usage of non-common systems (Rolls Royce turbines, sonar, radars) would be the biggest hurdle.

The OHP FFGs had a lot of common components with DDGs and CGs. So it would depend on how hard it would be to modify the design to streamline the logistics bit.

Well, type 26 at the heart of it is a roomy box with a quiet hull and space to grow - and the hull is the cheap part. I've lost track of where we are with mission spaces/decks but believe there's room on one side of the hangar for a mission bay that has direct access out over the hull - not quite as spacious as LCS (which are Hooooooj..)

The common systems thing isn't going to be a major hurdle as they're already using MT30's and I'm sure the diesels could be specified to be one of the two sorts already in use on the LCS hulls. It could work.

However, I don't think it'd be a good idea for the USN right now - better to consolidate on the current LCS, get some common CMS agreed, standardise on *their* sensor fit (ideally, by ditching Sea Giraffe and TRS-3D in favour of a slightly more modern but still relatively cheap 3D AESA - TRD-4D, CEAFAR, whatever fits for the future)

Effectively, I'm of the opinion that the LCS is a bed that's made, best plump up the pillows and lie in it.

 

[RobWilliams]

Just thought it would be an interesting bone to throw into the mix, considering the 'new designs' caveat

AFAIK the mission space right now is on the same deck as the hangar but now occupies a large section the entire width of the hull and you can see straight through.

I'm quite a fan of the LCS MMC, seems like a regular LCS except on steriods

 

[t68]

For those that are interested in the Pacfic theatre of operations during WW2 here is a command summary from Admiral Nimitz from Dec 7 onwards.

Just reading the first PDF interesting stuff.

http://usnwc.edu/Academics/Library/Naval-Historical-Collection.aspx#items/show/849

 

[justsomeaussie]

I've been trying to find some analysis of the LCS ship designs but haven't found anything really covering the advantages and disadvantages of each hull. The trimaran is a pretty radical design change for any Navy, I would of expected there would have been some pretty strong qualitative analysis on it but most of the analysis seems to be on weapons systems and proposed modules.

Can anyone recommend any?

 

[alexsa]

I've been trying to find some analysis of the LCS ship designs but haven't found anything really covering the advantages and disadvantages of each hull. The trimaran is a pretty radical design change for any Navy, I would of expected there would have been some pretty strong qualitative analysis on it but most of the analysis seems to be on weapons systems and proposed modules.

Can anyone recommend any?

Austal provide glossy's on the seaframe that underpins LCS2, however, this has not been a hot seller in the commercial world. So far they have built just two RO-PAX Ferries based on this hull form. The original 127m on which the LCS hull is based and one second generation 105m vessel. This vessel was looking for a buyer for 4 years. They have produced a number of their catamaran design during the same period which is interesting from a preference veiw.

The commercial hull is optimised for short range high speed services and, as with any such design, are not cheap to run. For commercial vessels Austal have moved much of their operations to the Philippines. Given the world economic situation the stuffing has been knocked out of this segment but Austal appear to be struggling in all but the military world. Here they have the Cape Class PB and LCS..

Given vessel is based on a HSC design there will be compromises in operating limitations, maximum deadweight and weight growth. These things are likely to max out on weight well be for they use up available volume.

Suggest you look at back volumes of fast ferry journals with regard to the original 127m RO-PAX for detail on capabilities.

 

[justsomeaussie]

Suggest you look at back volumes of fast ferry journals with regard to the original 127m RO-PAX for detail on capabilities.

I'm more looking for a comparitive analysis between LCS1 and LCS2 in terms of hull. Given that both classes are *designed* to perform the same roles, it would be interesting to read about the pros and cons of each design. One aspect I've heard is that LCS1 might be used in more narrow and littoral areas where as the LCS2 would be more operating like an OCV (due to it's better stability). In theory the LCS2 would be the pacific vessel and LCS1 would be a gulf vessel.

It's a pretty radical move for the USN so I'm surprsied there isn't more comment on it.

With the Aussie dollar falling against the US this *should* make Austal Australia more competative in foreign markets.

 

[gf0012-aust]

With the Aussie dollar falling against the US this *should* make Austal Australia more competative in foreign markets.

won't do diddly in US market though as Austal US is a sep congressionally driven entity.

US prices on US factors

 

[justsomeaussie]

won't do diddly in US market though as Austal US is a sep congressionally driven entity.

US prices on US factors

It will since Austal Australia takes a profit margin from the US business so any increase in profitibility in the US will flow onto Australia.

Of course it will have an effect on the rest of Austal's business around the world, it's been part of the reason why Austal has been in so much pain the last couple of years.

 

[alexsa]

I'm more looking for a comparitive analysis between LCS1 and LCS2 in terms of hull. Given that both classes are *designed* to perform the same roles, it would be interesting to read about the pros and cons of each design. One aspect I've heard is that LCS1 might be used in more narrow and littoral areas where as the LCS2 would be more operating like an OCV (due to it's better stability). In theory the LCS2 would be the pacific vessel and LCS1 would be a gulf vessel.

.

Sorry this assumption does not add up. The Seaframe is certainly going to want to say upright and will be stiff, however, that fact alone does not make it a vessel more capable of surviving more difficult conditions. The vessel is limited to sea state 4 for commercial and lower sea state 5 for LCS as far as I am aware. In these conditions speed is reduced.

The vessel is built to the HSC Code which is used due to its light weight construction and in the commercial world these need a permit to operate which limits distance from a haven to 4 hours for PAX and 8 hours for cargo HSV.

In really difficult conditions events such as tunnel slam and uneven support on the hull are going to put quite a strain on the structure. This is actually accentuated by the beamy tail end and the outriggers combined with a long centre hull.

If the vessel dives that long monohull nose (noting this is actually a long stabilised monohull) the forward structure will take a hammering. Austal have a very good ride control system but it works:
1. At certain speeds
2. up to certain conditions

The LSC 1 design is a lightweight steel mono hull and it will not suffer the same bending, torsional or hogging (even sheer given the LCS2 design) load that the LCS2 will undergo de to the seaframe design of the latter. However, this is not to say LCS1 is more suitable in difficult conditions (hull structure and weight distribution will decide that) rather that the suggestion that a wider ship is more capable in this regards is quite wrong.

The Seaframe is a very large volume (low dead weight) vessel that is a very good and comfortable platform in easy conditions where its speed and ride control can be employed,.......... which is what it was designed for.

 

[justsomeaussie]

Thanks, that was very interesting. Pity there isn't more about the differences on the net.

 

[colay]

It looks like LRASM has made the successful leap from DARPA project to Harpoon replacement with the USN looking to begin procurement in FY2017. A similar decision to provide AF with a more capable maritime punch would make sense as they have already committed to JASSM/JASSM-ER.


New Budget Preserves Navy High End Combat Power | USNI News


Add edit:

It appears that LRASM will only be a stop-gap solution and for aircraft-launch only. An even more advanced AShM for use by the surface fleet,aircraft and, possibly, submarines will be developed under the OASuW Increment 2 program.

http://news.usni.org/2014/03/13/navy-hold-contest-new-anti-surface-missile#more-6821

 

[cdxbow]

Sorry this assumption does not add up. The Seaframe is certainly going to want to say upright and will be stiff, however, that fact alone does not make it a vessel more capable of surviving more difficult conditions. The vessel is limited to sea state 4 for commercial and lower sea state 5 for LCS as far as I am aware. In these conditions speed is reduced.

The vessel is built to the HSC Code which is used due to its light weight construction and in the commercial world these need a permit to operate which limits distance from a haven to 4 hours for PAX and 8 hours for cargo HSV.

In really difficult conditions events such as tunnel slam and uneven support on the hull are going to put quite a strain on the structure. This is actually accentuated by the beamy tail end and the outriggers combined with a long centre hull.

If the vessel dives that long monohull nose (noting this is actually a long stabilised monohull) the forward structure will take a hammering. Austal have a very good ride control system but it works:
1. At certain speeds
2. up to certain conditions

The LSC 1 design is a lightweight steel mono hull and it will not suffer the same bending, torsional or hogging (even sheer given the LCS2 design) load that the LCS2 will undergo de to the seaframe design of the latter. However, this is not to say LCS1 is more suitable in difficult conditions (hull structure and weight distribution will decide that) rather that the suggestion that a wider ship is more capable in this regards is quite wrong.

The Seaframe is a very large volume (low dead weight) vessel that is a very good and comfortable platform in easy conditions where its speed and ride control can be employed,.......... which is what it was designed for.

What sort of conditions does the austral trimaran design perform poorly in? Particularity compared to a similar sized monohull, I know the 'size thing' can be difficult, wether you compare tonnage, physical size etc.

Have the LCS 2 been in heavy seas? If so how have they performed?

Also has there been any problems with the torsional forces in LCS2 been evident yet?

 

[Volkodav]

Have the LCS 2 been in heavy seas? If so how have they performed?

Also has there been any problems with the torsional forces in LCS2 been evident yet?

Its an Austal product, probably not well.

They have a stack of experience and are very successful at designing commercial high speed vessels and inshore patrol craft but the only one of their designs that has been used in the rough stuff as a naval vessel and it has not performed well.

Basically the RANs ACPBs would have been fine stooging around coastal waters and transiting deeper stuff in fair weather, unfortunately navies dont work like that and design faults have adversely affected durability leaving the RAN short of hulls and the sustainment contractor over stretched doing structural work that should not be needed.

As much as I patriotically want to see the Australian designed LCS2 succeed I fear that unless the USN operates them a lot more gently than the RAN is forced to drive the ACPBs, their experience may mirror the RANs.

 

[alexsa]

What sort of conditions does the austral trimaran design perform poorly in? Particularity compared to a similar sized monohull, I know the 'size thing' can be difficult, wether you compare tonnage, physical size etc.

Have the LCS 2 been in heavy seas? If so how have they performed?

Also has there been any problems with the torsional forces in LCS2 been evident yet?

A few things go to this:

1. The vessel is based on a light weight commercial ferry built to the High Speed Craft Code. It is optimise for speed and comfort/ride quality in relatively fair conditions. The hull structure is not as robust as a similar length (we will get to layout next) steel monohull. The 'need for speed' necessitates weight reduction hence these ships have only a small deadweight but a lot of volume......... and a lot less strength than a 125m feeder container vessels or RO PAX steel hulled ferry.

2. The light weight hull consists of a very long thin centre hull with two outriggers. IN a large seaway the centre hull will be subject to hogging and sagging and the aft structure (including its connection to the centre hull) will be subject to torsional stresses as parts of the hull are subject to greater or reduced buoyancy in the seaway, basically it is being bent and twisted and the outrigger design and side beam increases the forces (think of a sea saw and the difference in movement from the centre out to the seat, the same number of degrees of heel results in a greater distance the further out you go, force is subject to the same mechanics);

3. The supported vehicle deck sits on structure under which two 'tunnels' run between the main hull and outriggers. Where the vessel is in a larger seaway and the ride control (which also exerts forces on the hull) cannot compensate then there is a risk that the wave action will 'slam' into the roof of the tunnel and can cause damage (look up tunnel slam in multihulls).

All these issues have an impact on the speed the vessel can do but also apply stresses to the hull. As noted in my response how a light weight multi-hull and light weight monohull compare depends on the structure and strength of the hulls in question, however, as a general rule a typical mild steel monohull freighter will be more capable in such conditions than a light weight hull. Mind you, builders can stuff this up and port stability management can also put vessels at risk.

 

[Blackshoe]

Quick update from the FY2015 budget proposal release, and (locally-focused) summary of how it affects USN warship levels.

Quicklook: The last 10 FFGs will be decommissioned, and 11 CGs will be placed in a temporarily decommissioned status until they can be modernized and returned to the fleet.

Also, LCS will be capped at 32 ships, and a "study" will be done to determine the feasibility and suitability of a new frigate class for the USN will be conducted.

I can definitely see the FF(Negative)Gs going away, since they would be attractive on the FMS market at the least.

 

[colay]

Let's assume the sequester forces the Navy to cut one carrier. Why not give the GW the CG treatment and put her on ice after removing her spent fuel rods? Once funds are available, refuel and modernize her systems and she's good to serve another 25 years. Seems a shame to otherwise scrap such a valuable asset.


Carriers, Cruisers, & LCS: CNO Speaks « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary

...September 2016, to be precise, is when the USS George Washington would come into the shipyard to start removing a quarter-century of spent nuclear reactor fuel. That is the first step in either refueling and refitting her for another 25 years of service or in taking her out of commission. “No matter what you do with it, you’ve got to get the fuel out,” Greenert said...

 

[colay]

There's a lot of interest in what type of ship will emerge out of the Small Surface Combatant deliberations. The article seems to imply that the ship may continue the Navy's focus on littoral warfare in lieu of a traditional blue water frigate. A modified LCS remains in the running. Dr.Bob Work assuming the no.2 post at the DoD can't hurt either.

Marine Official To Helm Navy