Jump to content

Latest Littoral Combat Ship News-- Navy Reconsidering


Recommended Posts

I've always wondered how fast the multimission packages can be swapped in the LCS. Back when it was still new, I imagined it was basically packages that have cables etc decoupled and then a crane slides it out, to be replaced with another package which is slid into place after the cables etc are connected, and all done in a matter of hours, with no welding etc.

Originally, that was the idea. However, as the program has gone on it's clear that isn't really feasible. The hardware can be swapped out and the crews brought on/off over a few days, but you still need to work the combined crew up to be effective. That takes time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 463
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

I've always wondered how fast the multimission packages can be swapped in the LCS. Back when it was still new, I imagined it was basically packages that have cables etc decoupled and then a crane slides it out, to be replaced with another package which is slid into place after the cables etc are connected, and all done in a matter of hours, with no welding etc.

Originally, that was the idea. However, as the program has gone on it's clear that isn't really feasible. The hardware can be swapped out and the crews brought on/off over a few days, but you still need to work the combined crew up to be effective. That takes time.

 

 

exactly. And keeping a spare crew for the other mission modules on land and trained sounds rather ineffective and wasteful.

 

I think the modules are mostly useful for easier repairs and improvements over time. Just pull the module and put a new one in to either repair the broken system on land utside the ship or drop a new system in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jane's reports:

 

Sea Platforms
USN re-examines foreign designs for Future Frigate

Anika Torruella, Washington, DC - IHS Jane's Navy International
05 May 2017
Key Points

USN said it would consider non-US based designs for the Future Frigate LCS follow-on
USN to seek "full and open competition" and weigh capabilities versus cost

The US Navy (USN) is taking another look at existing US and foreign designs as alternatives to current Future Frigate seaframes, according to USN leadership who spoke to the House Seapower and Projection Forces subcommittee on 3 May.

In 2014, a USN small surface combatant task force concluded that existing US and foreign designs did not meet the current minimum Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) survivability requirements and would require major structural improvements that would come at a greater cost than a new design.

Want to read more? For analysis on this article and access to all our insight content, please enquire about our subscription options: ihs.com/contact

 

 

http://www.janes.com/article/70110/usn-re-examines-foreign-designs-for-future-frigate

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Fortunately" for USN, they're not only ones to agonize over littoral warship designs. Germany's new MKS 180 light frigate class will cost €500M more than projected. This despite the massive saving of €300M due to dropping the flight deck de-icing system.

I'm sorry, I just broke my brain trying to figure out why a de-icing system costs €75 million per ship???

Link to post
Share on other sites

The LCS was supposed to cost 1/4 the Burke destroyers. That is without the sophisticated air defense. Enlarge the LCS to fulfill its Frigate mission, fit it with AA gizmo and weapons, and one is looking at a 1/3 to 1/2 cost of a Burke. Maybe it's better just to buy more Burke Destroyers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The LCS was supposed to cost 1/4 the Burke destroyers. That is without the sophisticated air defense. Enlarge the LCS to fulfill its Frigate mission, fit it with AA gizmo and weapons, and one is looking at a 1/3 to 1/2 cost of a Burke. Maybe it's better just to buy more Burke Destroyers.

This was the conclusion reached in the late 90s/early 80s: New-build escorts aren't going ro be cost-effective. Designing and building ships doesn't scale 1:1, total-program costs for smaller ships can end up making them a lot more expensive compared to their capabilities than is worth the trouble. So the idea was to lock into DDGs, get the production costs down with a long and stable run, and use those savings to build more than we had in the past. The idea was that we'd have so many Destroyers we wouldn't run low sending them on missions previously given to Frigates. In particular, older Destroyers nearer the end of their service lives would be dialed into less-demanding FFG missions.

 

To a degree, this has worked. There are more than 60 DDGs and we'll likely end with more than 90, an incredible number. However there are a couple of big problems. One is manning, a 20+ year old DDG still needs 300-ish crew, versus about half that for a classic FFG (and hopefully less than that with a new design). The second is that demand for DDGs in DDG roles has only risen, so putting them on less-demanding missions seems wasteful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The LCS was supposed to cost 1/4 the Burke destroyers. That is without the sophisticated air defense. Enlarge the LCS to fulfill its Frigate mission, fit it with AA gizmo and weapons, and one is looking at a 1/3 to 1/2 cost of a Burke. Maybe it's better just to buy more Burke Destroyers.

 

From Bob Works LCS whitewash:

 

Conversely, achieving the $250 million objective target for a missionized LCS would infer a 2,174-ton warship built to commercial standards, a 1,515-ton warship built to NSC standards, and a 1,275-ton warship built to frigate standards (again, all prices in FY 2005 dollars)/

 

To put this in perspective, that's roughly a SAAR V built to frigate standards or a Sigma 9113-class corvette to NSC standards. If you look at "what you could have for equivalent dollars" a mix of the same number of these platforms and a few more Burkes would be an interesting comparison to the actual LCS program.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Shopping for more conventional frigates

http://taskandpurpose.com/navy-just-admit-littoral-combat-ship-failure/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tp-today&utm_content=image

Did The Navy Just Admit The Littoral Combat Ship Is A Failure?

 

'The Navy posted formal requirements for a new frigate design on July 11 under the auspices of the Guided Missile Frigate Replacement Program or FFG(X). While the request doesn’t explicitly identify the FFG(X) as a successor to the LCS, meant to replace the its Cold-War era cruisers as small surface combatants, USNI News passive aggressively described the FFG(X) project as a ship “much like the Littoral Combat Ship that currently fills the small surface combatant role.” '

Edited by shep854
Link to post
Share on other sites

Jane's reports:

 

Sea Platforms

USN re-examines foreign designs for Future Frigate

Anika Torruella, Washington, DC - IHS Jane's Navy International

05 May 2017

Key Points

USN said it would consider non-US based designs for the Future Frigate LCS follow-on

USN to seek "full and open competition" and weigh capabilities versus costThe US Navy (USN) is taking another look at existing US and foreign designs as alternatives to current Future Frigate seaframes, according to USN leadership who spoke to the House Seapower and Projection Forces subcommittee on 3 May...

 

http://www.janes.com/article/70110/usn-re-examines-foreign-designs-for-future-frigate

Out of curiosity, how does it work if a foreign design is selected? Are they license produced here or built overseas?

 

Does any foreign design involve a transfer of technology allowing for 100% domestic construction and support? Or Does the foreign entity have to provide the support?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that all US Navy warships are required by law to be built domestically. Building a foreign design under license is OK (isn't one or both of the LCS designs of non-US origin?).

Yes, both teams used commercial high speed ferries as the starting point for their designs, LCS-1 are of Italian extraction and LCS-2 are Australian. And they're both built in US shipyards owned by parent companies from from whence the hull designs came.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 years later...

Necroposting, but I blame the absence of a proper search function,

 

The Navy is retiring the first four LCSes (OCIR = Out of Commission In Reserve). Has there ever been a USN ship class that has started retirement even before all the build orders are complete? The Coronado was only commissioned 6 years ago.

 

USS FREEDOM 31 Mar 2021 OCIR
(LCS 1)
USS INDEPENDENCE 31 Mar 2021 OCIR
(LCS 2)
USS FORT WORTH 31 Mar 2021 OCIR
(LCS 3)
USS CORONADO 31 Mar 2021 OCIR
(LCS 4)

https://www.public.navy.mil/bupers-npc/reference/messages/Documents/NAVADMINS/NAV2020/NAV20187.txt

Edited by Hellfish6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Id guess you would have to go back to WW1.Perhaps one of those mass produced ford ASW corvettes?

 

I cant believe they actually took the name of Independence, a pretty damn good aircraft carrier, and applied it to one of these grotty little Tubs. Its like applying the name Ark Royal to the Plymouth harbour tug.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Id guess you would have to go back to WW1.Perhaps one of those mass produced ford ASW corvettes?

 

I cant believe they actually took the name of Independence, a pretty damn good aircraft carrier, and applied it to one of these grotty little Tubs. Its like applying the name Ark Royal to the Plymouth harbour tug.

And the rest cruiser names (and politicians), while the cruisers get carrier names, the carriers are named for politicians (how Soviet of the US),

and the de facto cruisers of the Burke and Zumwalt classes, get destroyer names, the SSN's get battleship names (and politicians).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Id guess you would have to go back to WW1.Perhaps one of those mass produced ford ASW corvettes?

 

I cant believe they actually took the name of Independence, a pretty damn good aircraft carrier, and applied it to one of these grotty little Tubs. Its like applying the name Ark Royal to the Plymouth harbour tug.

Yeah disappointing they are taking out the ones with good names, and leaving those named after some shitty two-bit politicians...

I mean, it's not my business but it is hugely disappointing why a service with so glorious tradition whores itself out with political shipnaming. Even Soviet Navy had more tact.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They named one battleship after the nickname of a nineteenth century prime minister - HMS Iron Duke. HMS Iron Lady would be as cool a name. They might have had an HMS Pitt, but George V noted it would get a very rude nickname.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Id guess you would have to go back to WW1.Perhaps one of those mass produced ford ASW corvettes?

 

I cant believe they actually took the name of Independence, a pretty damn good aircraft carrier, and applied it to one of these grotty little Tubs. Its like applying the name Ark Royal to the Plymouth harbour tug.

And the rest cruiser names (and politicians), while the cruisers get carrier names, the carriers are named for politicians (how Soviet of the US),

and the de facto cruisers of the Burke and Zumwalt classes, get destroyer names, the SSN's get battleship names (and politicians).

 

Beginning with the Los Angeles class, SSN's got cruiser (city) names. With the exception of the Henry M. Jackson, SSBN's from the Ohio class onwards got battleship (state) names. Cruisers are supposed to be named after battles while DD's are named after naval heros. All of the above is subject to politics though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Iron lady knicknamed Iron Draws. Pitt would be called The Pitts. No problem with them naming them after Monarchs, KGV was a very good Battleship.

 

I like the RN's naming convention. For all the problems they have, at least they dont go out the way to make themselves sound like twats.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Iron lady knicknamed Iron Draws. Pitt would be called The Pitts. No problem with them naming them after Monarchs, KGV was a very good Battleship.

 

I like the RN's naming convention. For all the problems they have, at least they dont go out the way to make themselves sound like twats.

R.N. ship naming is inspiring. Well, except for the Flower class corvettes. In response to Allen's post above (aircraft carriers traditionally had battle names or names of famous ships, ie, Saratoga and Wasp) the U.S.N. needs to get back to traditional ship names. Eisenhower should be an Army post, not an aircraft carrier and naming a submarine after J. Carter is at best questionable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...