Register here

Author Topic: Small Surface Combatant Task Force concepts  (Read 47718 times)

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: Small Surface Combatant Task Force concepts
« Reply #30 on: December 12, 2014, 07:41:11 am »
It could be really, really good but if you only have 8 of them on hand (if that) that's a problem.  I'd like to know why they couldn't put an 8-cell, SD length Mk41 with 32 ESSMs on board.  Seems like that would be a no-brainer.

The issue probably isn't the VLS istelf but fire control and the associated combat direction system.  Adding 3-D radar is a start, but adding illuminators and the necessary processing and control consoles in the CIC would mean a bunch more complexity (cost) and manning (also cost).  I'm sure that's what drove the omission.  It just strikes me as incredibly "penny wise, pound foolish."

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Small Surface Combatant Task Force concepts
« Reply #31 on: December 12, 2014, 08:24:42 am »
It just strikes me as incredibly "penny wise, pound foolish."

Especially given the cost of the ships.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Small Surface Combatant Task Force concepts
« Reply #32 on: December 12, 2014, 08:58:34 am »
I am still left wondering if the Navy would have been better off going with one of the Huntington Ingalls Patrol Frigate concepts instead of upgrading the LCS into a frigate. I agree with you gentleman that the plan does seem penny wise, and pound foolish.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2014, 09:01:52 am by Triton »

Offline Jemiba

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7924
Re: Small Surface Combatant Task Force concepts
« Reply #33 on: December 12, 2014, 09:06:18 am »
Maybe just triggered by wish to get it through the debates in the senate easier ?
So it's "just an upgrade", sounding better than "a completely new ship".
From what I've read about US Navy history, those tactics have really a long tradition there...
It takes a long time, before all mistakes are made ...

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Small Surface Combatant Task Force concepts
« Reply #34 on: December 12, 2014, 09:21:00 am »
Maybe just triggered by wish to get it through the debates in the senate easier ?
So it's "just an upgrade", sounding better than "a completely new ship".
From what I've read about US Navy history, those tactics have really a long tradition there...

F/A-18C -> F/A-18E
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Jemiba

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7924
Re: Small Surface Combatant Task Force concepts
« Reply #35 on: December 12, 2014, 09:33:37 am »
F/A-18C -> F/A-18E 

Ah, yes, although I had more in mind the monitors of the Amphitrite class back in the 1870s ...
As said, it's a long tradition, but, if at all, the "upgraded" LCS hopefully  won't take as long, as
the mentioned warships !
It takes a long time, before all mistakes are made ...

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: Small Surface Combatant Task Force concepts
« Reply #36 on: December 12, 2014, 09:34:13 am »
Not just Congress, the whole procurement process.
 
If they had decided to pursue a new hullform, they'd have had to compete the entire process, which would delay any procurement by several years.  They coudn't just pick the Ingalls frigate, they'd have to solicit alternative designs, give the various contenders time to complete them, and then take time to evaluate them in detail.  By simply "updating" an in-production design, they don't need to compete anything and can transition directly into the new version.  But that probably also contributes to the limited nature of the upgrades -- something extreme like adding SPY-1F would probably have triggered expensive and time-consuming competition as well. 
 
I am hoping that a good deal of the upgrade can be applied retroactively to at least some of the current LCS hulls.  It looks like the OTH antiship missile (probably NSM) can be done, as can the Hellfire fit.  The harder stuff is the ECM and sensor fit.  The armor and signature mods seem likely to be very hard to backfit.
 
I suspect that what we'll see eventually is the demise of the mission kits and various flights of LCS being permaently roled for specific missions like MCM.
 

Offline proditor

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 8
Re: Small Surface Combatant Task Force concepts
« Reply #37 on: December 12, 2014, 09:35:46 am »
It seems to me that you could get a half-way decent ASW frigate out of the LCS-2 platform, though it would involve pouring in a bunch more money.


Replace the 57mm with a 76mm SR


Add a 32 cell VLS w/ mixed ESSM, Whatever you replace Harpoon with, and ASROC.


From the proposal, the towed sonar array, the 25mm bushmasters.


Sensors to run all of the above.


Some nod towards increased survivability.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: Small Surface Combatant Task Force concepts
« Reply #38 on: December 12, 2014, 10:13:25 am »
It's not clear that there's really much choice between the 76mm and 57mm guns.  They end up with similar throw weights and effectiveness thanks to the difference in ROF.  No need to spend the money to swap them out.
 
A block of 32 VLS cells is probably too big for the LCS forward mission module bays.  More likely is around 16 cells (enough for 32 ESSM and 8 VLA).  The shorter tactical-length version would be great, though I don't think they are fully type-qualified for the USN (another cost).  Then add separate tubes for a few anti-ship missiles, most likely NSM.  There is a long-term plan for a really long-range AShM that will be VLS-compatible (likely with the strike-length version), but it's not ready yet and isn't really necessary for LCS.  NSM is basically off-the-shelf and I believe has some USN investment already (or maybe that's just Penguin?), so it might not need to be competed.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Small Surface Combatant Task Force concepts
« Reply #40 on: December 12, 2014, 03:51:33 pm »
Austal USA SSC concept based on Independence-class LCS.

Source:
http://intercepts.defensenews.com/2014/12/a-closer-look-at-the-modified-lcs/

Offline fightingirish

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2074
Re: Small Surface Combatant Task Force concepts
« Reply #41 on: December 12, 2014, 04:00:54 pm »

Edit:
Wrongly, this post was first posted in the topic Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence


Looks like, the Navy wants that the LCS is changed from a corvette to a frigate.


Links:
http://intercepts.defensenews.com/2014/12/a-closer-look-at-the-modified-lcs/
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20141211/DEFREG02/312110041/Split-Decision-New-US-Navy-Ship



Slán,
fightingirish

Slán ist an Irish Gaelic word for Goodbye.  :)

Avatar:
McDonnell Douglas Model 225 painting by "The Artist" Michael Burke (Tavush) 2018, found at deviantart.com and at Secret Projects Forum » Research Topics » User Artwork » McDonnell Douglas Model 225 Painting

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Small Surface Combatant Task Force concepts
« Reply #42 on: December 12, 2014, 04:11:14 pm »
I was really hoping that the task force was going to recommend a new frigate.

Offline Creative

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 241
Re: Small Surface Combatant Task Force concepts
« Reply #43 on: December 12, 2014, 04:41:09 pm »
I'm guessing Torpedo defense includes CAT? (Countermeasure Anti-Torpedo) http://news.usni.org/2013/06/20/navy-develops-torpedo-killing-torpedo

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2111
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Small Surface Combatant Task Force concepts
« Reply #44 on: December 12, 2014, 04:59:16 pm »
I don't think anyone seriously should have expected a new hull design out of SSC.  I'm a bit surprised they still aren't fitting VLS of any sort, though.  That is going to keep LCS from carrying antiaircraft missiles other than RAM.  I hope RAM Block 2 is really, really good. 
It could be really, really good but if you only have 8 of them on hand (if that) that's a problem.  I'd like to know why they couldn't put an 8-cell, SD length Mk41 with 32 ESSMs on board.  Seems like that would be a no-brainer.

Can't the RAM launcher be reloaded at sea?  I don't know what timeframe they are looking at for these upgrades but ESSM Block 2 wouldn't require the illuminators and would have some OTH Anti-surface capability.