Report: Surface Forces CO Wants One LCS Design, Scrap DDG-51 Flight III

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,714
Reaction score
1,103
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
"Report: Surface Forces CO Wants One LCS Design, Scrap DDG-51 Flight III"
By: USNI News Editor
Monday, March 18, 2013

Source:
http://news.usni.org/2013/03/18/report-surface-forces-co-wants-one-lcs-design-scrap-ddg-51-flight-iii

The commander of U.S. Surface Forces wants to look at a move to one design of the controversial Littoral Combat Ship and recommends a new large surface combatant to succeed the Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers, according to a Sunday report from Defense News.

Vice Adm. Tom Copeman, commander of U.S. Surface Forces, submitted a classified memo late last year to Navy leadership recommending a second look at the Navy’s LCS strategy. “Vision for the 2025 Surface Fleet,” calls for an “up-gunned, multimission variant” or the current Freedom or Independence class LCS or a new type of ship, according to the report. The variants could resemble the Aegis-equipped variants of the LCS designs that were in consideration for a massive foreign military sales effort to Saudi Arabia.

When contacted by USNI News, Navy officials would not elaborate on the report.

The Navy is on track for a total of 12 of each variant for a total of 24. The Navy’s current plans calls for 52 of the ships.

In early March, the Navy exercised $1.5 billion in contract options to construct LCS-13 through 16.

Copeman’s memo also called for a reevaluation of the planned Flight III Arleigh Burke-class (DDG-51) Aegis-equipped destroyers.

Instead of Flight IIIs, “Copeman recommends creating a new, large surface combatant fitted with AMDR and designed with the power, weight and space to field ‘top-end energy weapons’ like the electromagnetic rail gun under development by the Navy,” according to Defense News.

The planned Flight III hulls would be built as the current Flight IIA models, according to Copeman’s recommendations.

In 2008 the service shelved a plan to construct an air warfare and ballistic missile defense cruiser with powerful radar that would replace the Ticonderoga-class Aegis missile cruisers. Estimated costs for the programmed ballooned to $6 billion a hull for a 20,000-ton combatant. The Navy deemed the ship unaffordable and instead elected to build a new iteration of the existing Arleigh Burke with the smaller Air and Missile Defense Radar. Still, the AMDR requires five times more power that the existing SPY-1D radars on the Burke and 10 time more cooling, according to a 2010 Naval Sea Systems study. The inclusion of the AMDR would limit the ability for the hull to accommodate future directed energy weapons or rail guns.

The report determined the radar would push the limits of the DDG-51s power and space requirements, pushing the cost to more than $3 billion.
 

Abraham Gubler

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,548
Reaction score
342
The 20,000 tonne cruiser was but with the tumblehome, LO, deck edge VLS design like DDG-1000. This looks like it increases displacement by a factor of at least 1.33 compared to a conventional but unstealthy hull.
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
11,405
Reaction score
3,037
Triton said:
"Report: Surface Forces CO Wants One LCS Design, Scrap DDG-51 Flight III"
By: USNI News Editor
Monday, March 18, 2013

Source:
http://news.usni.org/2013/03/18/report-surface-forces-co-wants-one-lcs-design-scrap-ddg-51-flight-iii

The commander of U.S. Surface Forces wants to look at a move to one design of the controversial Littoral Combat Ship and recommends a new large surface combatant to succeed the Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers, according to a Sunday report from Defense News.

Vice Adm. Tom Copeman, commander of U.S. Surface Forces, submitted a classified memo late last year to Navy leadership recommending a second look at the Navy’s LCS strategy. “Vision for the 2025 Surface Fleet,” calls for an “up-gunned, multimission variant” or the current Freedom or Independence class LCS or a new type of ship, according to the report. The variants could resemble the Aegis-equipped variants of the LCS designs that were in consideration for a massive foreign military sales effort to Saudi Arabia.

When contacted by USNI News, Navy officials would not elaborate on the report.

The Navy is on track for a total of 12 of each variant for a total of 24. The Navy’s current plans calls for 52 of the ships.

In early March, the Navy exercised $1.5 billion in contract options to construct LCS-13 through 16.

Copeman’s memo also called for a reevaluation of the planned Flight III Arleigh Burke-class (DDG-51) Aegis-equipped destroyers.

Instead of Flight IIIs, “Copeman recommends creating a new, large surface combatant fitted with AMDR and designed with the power, weight and space to field ‘top-end energy weapons’ like the electromagnetic rail gun under development by the Navy,” according to Defense News.

The planned Flight III hulls would be built as the current Flight IIA models, according to Copeman’s recommendations.

In 2008 the service shelved a plan to construct an air warfare and ballistic missile defense cruiser with powerful radar that would replace the Ticonderoga-class Aegis missile cruisers. Estimated costs for the programmed ballooned to $6 billion a hull for a 20,000-ton combatant. The Navy deemed the ship unaffordable and instead elected to build a new iteration of the existing Arleigh Burke with the smaller Air and Missile Defense Radar. Still, the AMDR requires five times more power that the existing SPY-1D radars on the Burke and 10 time more cooling, according to a 2010 Naval Sea Systems study. The inclusion of the AMDR would limit the ability for the hull to accommodate future directed energy weapons or rail guns.

The report determined the radar would push the limits of the DDG-51s power and space requirements, pushing the cost to more than $3 billion.

The new cruiser should have an air defense and land attack mission through maximum use of VLS some being a large enough diameter for a 2k to 3k mile range prompt strike missile. You could have one or two cover the huge swaths of territory able to defend against DF-41's and then strike back on far inland ground targets at hypersonic speed. Hopefully the future defense would include directed energy as well.
 

2IDSGT

Ah tale yew wut!
Joined
Nov 27, 2012
Messages
371
Reaction score
4
Triton said:
Could the United States Navy build new Ticonderoga-class cruisers for AMDR?
I always thought the Ticonderogas looked like a cludge... almost as if someone said "hey, is there anything in the pipeline that we can bodge this new AEGIS system onto?"
 

Abraham Gubler

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,548
Reaction score
342
2IDSGT said:
I always thought the Ticonderogas looked like a cludge... almost as if someone said "hey, is there anything in the pipeline that we can bodge this new AEGIS system onto?"

Well that is what they did…

There is the designed for AEGIS ship from the 70s the CSGN. But it was too expensive (nuclear power) and even the cheap version would cost one for two against Ticos.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,813.msg145920.html

There is the CG Baseline (CGBL) a sketch design of a CG-47 ship built with DDG-51 technology for cost analysis. But even it is 20 years old.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,6415.msg149206.html

During the SC-21 Cost and Operational Evaluation Analysis (COEA) a number of design concepts using advanced technology including electrical propulsion were explored. Unfortunately none of these ships were built and the far more expensive DDX/DDG-1000 design with LO capability were ordered. One of the COEA designs included a cruiser of 15,000 tonnes full load which had space and weight for 256 VLS cells. A version which also had a hangar for 12 Seahawks was included and is in the following thread. But even these concepts are 15 years old.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,7187.msg62220.html

The USN has plenty of great technology available to them now. If they build a ship with a conventional hull rather than the DDG-1000 LO design they could combine AMDR, loads of VLS and even a brace of AGS-Lite for an ideal destroyer for the 21st century.
 

JFC Fuller

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,366
Reaction score
1,154
Hull size is lesser important part of the problem, the real issue is electrical power- both for the AESA systems and the required AC as well as potential future energy hungry weapons systems. The Burke class use the same basic propulsion plant and generator arrangement as the Spruance class (though with modernised gearing and subsystems) which means that any Batch III ship has to have substantially more generating capacity. DDG1000 changes this and is theoretically well suited to AMDR and future development. Unfortunately DDG1000 got saddled with a pair of ridiculous guns that dominate the design and a new larger VLS system that now seems largely redundant- all of which contributed to its size and un-affordability.

Hull size is probably the second most important factor, originally the AMDR was to have a 22ft aperture but this had to be shrunk to 14ft to get it on a Burke though the Navy seemed to be willing to accept that, obviously a bigger hull would allow for the larger arrays and thus a much more capable ship. Fundamentally, 96 to 128 Mk41 VLS cells seem to be entirely adequate. Weapons numbers are not really a major driver, it is all about the aperture size, heat generation and power requirements of AMDR.

The Tico class would probably be even worse than the DDG51, it would have all the same problems with AC and power generation as the DDG51 but with the added problem that the high mounted Aegis arrays would make for a very difficult redesign, especially with the class already suffering from cracks in its superstructure. In the ideal world the USN would pursue a new hull using the DDG1000 technology (perhaps even a reduced size DDG1000) with the AGS and Mk57 replaced with Mk45 Mod 4 firing the 5inch LRLAP round, Mk41 VLS and 22ft AMDR-S arrays installed in the deckhouse alongside AN/SPY-3 as AMDR-X (currently this is only planned for later DDG51 Batch III ships, the earlier Batch III vessels will use SPQ-9b). Of course the world is not that simple and such a solution would be much more expensive from a procurement perspective and would require yet another change to the already stretched surface combatant procurement cycle.

Cards on the table, I would like to see the LCS programme cancelled in the cheapest possible way and all future LCS money put into the destroyer programme. I am not going to argue the merits or otherwise of that with anyone though.
 

2IDSGT

Ah tale yew wut!
Joined
Nov 27, 2012
Messages
371
Reaction score
4
JFC Fuller said:
Hull size is lesser important part of the problem, the real issue is electrical power- both for the AESA systems and the required AC as well as potential future energy hungry weapons systems. The Burke class use the same basic propulsion plant and generator arrangement as the Spruance class (though with modernised gearing and subsystems) which means that any Batch III ship has to have substantially more generating capacity. DDG1000 changes this and is theoretically well suited to AMDR and future development. Unfortunately DDG1000 got saddled with a pair of ridiculous guns that dominate the design and a new larger VLS system that now seems largely redundant which all contributed to its size and un-affordability.

Hull size is probably the second most important factor, originally the AMDR was to have a 22ft aperture but this had to be shrunk to 14ft to get it on a Burke though the Navy seemed to be willing to accept that, obviously a bigger hull would allow for the larger arrays and thus a much more capable ship. Fundamentally-96 to 128 Mk41 VLS cells seem to be entirely adequate. I understand the USN actually struggles to keep the current cells stocked as it is so weapons are not really a major driver, it is all about the aperture size, heat generation and power requirements of AMDR.

The Tico class would probably be even worse than the DDG51, it would have all the same problems with AC and power generation as the DDG51 but with the added problem that the high mounted Aegis arrays would make for a very difficult redesign, especially with the class already suffering from cracks in its superstructure. In the ideal world the USN would pursue a new hull using the DDG1000 technology (perhaps even a reduced size DDG1000) with the AGS and Mk57 replaced with Mk41 and 22ft AMDR-S arrays installed in the deckhouse alongside AN/SPY-3 as AMDR-X (currently this is only planned for later DDG51 Batch III ships, the earlier Batch III vessels will use SPQ-9b). Of course the world is not that simple and such a solution would be much more expensive from a procurement perspective and would require yet another change to the already stretched surface combatant procurement cycle.

Cards on the table, I would like to see the LCS programme cancelled in the cheapest possible way and all future LCS money put into the destroyer programme. I am not going to argue the merits or otherwise of that with anyone though.
No need to argue about LCS on my part. That program and the DDG-1000 are the last tattered shreds of the USN's late-90s-dotcom-bubble "transformation" plan. How those two programs survived while CGX (the one part of said plan that might be useful now) got cancelled is beyond me. Question is: what now? Would it be better to modify/revive the Zumwalts (which have the juice but were meant mostly for land attack), or should the USN start over with more conventional hull designed from the ground up with higher power demands in mind?
 

JFC Fuller

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,366
Reaction score
1,154
2IDSGT said:
No need to argue about LCS on my part. That program and the DDG-1000 are the last tattered shreds of the USN's late-90s-dotcom-bubble "transformation" plan. How those two programs survived while CGX (the one part of said plan that might be useful now) got cancelled is beyond me. Question is: what now? Would it be better to modify/revive the Zumwalts (which have the juice but were meant mostly for land attack), or should the USN start over with more conventional hull designed from the ground up with higher power demands in mind?

My humble opinion is that the DDG1000 hull and machinery concept, in terms power generation, AC, ability to carry large arrays and LO capabilities is almost perfectly suited to the 21st century-APAC pivot-China is the bad guy world. However, I have always thought the AGS was an expensive luxury, not just in terms of buying the system but also the weight and volume it takes up in the hull. a DDG1000 style ship with AMDR-X/S (22ft arrays for the S) with Mk41 VLS and an LO Mk45 mod 4 mount (AGS-Lite with an automatic loader in the magazine is interesting but would not help with cost) would seem to me to be the ideal solution. The problem is that it would cause a funding hump and that is the last thing the Navy wants to ask Congress for right now (though I would offer LCS up as the funding source) so they will probably be left with DDG52 Flight III as the AMDR vehicle for the time being.
 

Abraham Gubler

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,548
Reaction score
342
DDG-1000 may be a great capability and have the potential to be built as a powerful air defence unit but it is still a ship with a highly complex and expensive LO system. It needs to take onboard 2,000 tonnes of water to stabilise the hull so its roll can be controlled and be a true LO ship. As opposed to all those so-called “stealth” ships with angled decks that can be seen by radar a few hundred km away. The costs of this hull design is huge and in a ship with systems that are already expensive enough. Plus there are legitimate concerns for the survivability of a tumblehome hull in distress taking on water. It still amazes me that the USN in both the DDX and LCS programs (and CVNX) wanting low observable, survivable ships didn’t build them both with the SWATH hull form.
 

2IDSGT

Ah tale yew wut!
Joined
Nov 27, 2012
Messages
371
Reaction score
4
JFC Fuller said:
2IDSGT said:
No need to argue about LCS on my part. That program and the DDG-1000 are the last tattered shreds of the USN's late-90s-dotcom-bubble "transformation" plan. How those two programs survived while CGX (the one part of said plan that might be useful now) got cancelled is beyond me. Question is: what now? Would it be better to modify/revive the Zumwalts (which have the juice but were meant mostly for land attack), or should the USN start over with more conventional hull designed from the ground up with higher power demands in mind?
My humble opinion is that the DDG1000 hull and machinery concept, in terms power generation, AC, ability to carry large arrays and LO capabilities is almost perfectly suited to the 21st century-APAC pivot-China is the bad guy world. However, I have always thought the AGS was an expensive luxury, not just in terms of buying the system but also the weight and volume it takes up in the hull. a DDG1000 style ship with AMDR-X/S (22ft arrays for the S) with Mk41 VLS and an LO Mk45 mod 4 mount would seem to me to be the ideal solution. The problem is that it would cause a funding hump and that is the last thing the Navy wants to ask Congress for right now (though I would offer LCS up as the funding source) so they will probably be left with DDG52 Flight III as the AMDR vehicle for the time being.
That would work for me. The only problem is that no one in the USN seems to actually be in charge of shipbuilding. All I see is chaos in the procurement of surface combatants. One would almost think that Congress was making all the decisions. ;) What the USN really needs is a skimmer's equivalent of the "kindly old gentleman." Someone to get in everyone's face and say "look, we're gonna go out of business if you don't give me the cash/authority to sort this out." As it is, the Navy seems completely rudderless (pun intended), going with whatever fad-strategy is most popular in any given fiscal quarter. I suppose it's all inevitable; ships take a long time to build and the political picture changes 2-3 times over the period it takes to build one destroyer.

Of course, there's still some time to fix the problem. The Burkes are still the best multi-purpose ships afloat, and will be effective for a long while yet. Maybe it would be best to see how the Zumwalts perform before a decision is made.
 

Antonio

Moderator
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,665
Reaction score
564
Could we see drawings or art from that Aegis LCS variants for Saudi Arabia?

Thanks in advance

Antonio
 

JFC Fuller

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,366
Reaction score
1,154
Everything comes with a trade-off but the DDG1000 hull was extensively tested and evidently found acceptable. Far more interesting is that the Navy told the GAO that the additional survivability and LO capabilities of DDG1000 were not considered during the AMDR/Hull study because they would not have a significant impact on performance in Integrated Air and Missile Defence scenarios. Furthermore that study also only considered 14ft AMDR arrays (the DDG51 limit) despite the fact that it was believed that a modified DDG1000 deckhouse could take larger arrays. Interestingly the DDG51 Flight III also offers only a very small margin for future upgrades compared to DDG1000 platform.

The cost difference between a DDG-51 Flight III with 14ft AMDR-S, AN/SPY-3 and 96 VLS cells versus a DDG1000 with the same fit was $421 million in the lead ship whilst the O&M difference was negligible so one LCS would pay for the difference between one AMDR DDG51 and one AMDR DDG1000. The DDG1000 would have greater survivability and a higher margin for future upgrades. Personally, I feel that a DDG1000 variant can only be justified if it is modified to take the larger arrays. This is not a criticism of the USN, they have a very complex hull-numbers versus individual ship capability analysis to do, but it is clear that procurement cost specifically was the major driver in selecting the legacy DDG51 hull over the DDG1000 for the AMDR hull.
 

2IDSGT

Ah tale yew wut!
Joined
Nov 27, 2012
Messages
371
Reaction score
4
pometablava said:
Could we see drawings or art from that Aegis LCS variants for Saudi Arabia?

Thanks in advance

Antonio
Ask and ye shall receive. Sorry, one proposal seems to be for the Israelis.


SHIP_LCS_Israel_Industry_Participation_lg.gif


lockmart-international-lcs.jpg


lcs2bj3.png


WGFj3.jpg
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,714
Reaction score
1,103
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Thank you for your replies, JFC Fuller and Abraham Gubler. It is appreciated. B)

Abraham Gubler said:
It still amazes me that the USN in both the DDX and LCS programs (and CVNX) wanting low observable, survivable ships didn’t build them both with the SWATH hull form.

Why do you believe that? Because of the greater stability and higher speed in high sea states and larger deck space offered by SWATH compared to monohull? What of the greater draft, higher propulsion power requirements, and weight sensitivity of SWATH compared to monohull?
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,714
Reaction score
1,103
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
2IDSGT said:
pometablava said:
Could we see drawings or art from that Aegis LCS variants for Saudi Arabia?

Thanks in advance

Antonio
Ask and ye shall receive. Sorry, one proposal seems to be for the Israelis.

Is the article referring to the LCS-I proposals, which meant LCS-Israel and later LCS-International, or the Lockheed Martin Multi-Mission Combatant (MMC) unveiled at Euronaval 2012?:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,17179.msg164895.html#msg164895
 

2IDSGT

Ah tale yew wut!
Joined
Nov 27, 2012
Messages
371
Reaction score
4
Triton said:
Thank you for your replies, JFC Fuller and Abraham Gubler. It is appreciated. B)

Abraham Gubler said:
It still amazes me that the USN in both the DDX and LCS programs (and CVNX) wanting low observable, survivable ships didn’t build them both with the SWATH hull form.
Why do you believe that? Because of the greater stability and higher speed in high sea states and larger deck space offered by SWATH compared to monohull? What of the greater draft, higher propulsion power requirements, and weight sensitivity of SWATH compared to monohull?
That also threw me for a loop. Wouldn't "riding on a pair of submarines" (as it were) have it's own survivability issues?
 

2IDSGT

Ah tale yew wut!
Joined
Nov 27, 2012
Messages
371
Reaction score
4
Triton said:
2IDSGT said:
pometablava said:
Could we see drawings or art from that Aegis LCS variants for Saudi Arabia?

Thanks in advance

Antonio
Ask and ye shall receive. Sorry, one proposal seems to be for the Israelis.
Is the article referring to the LCS-I proposals, which meant LCS-Israel and later LCS-International, or the Lockheed Martin Multi-Mission Combatant (MMC) unveiled at Euronaval 2012?:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,17179.msg164895.html#msg164895
Hard to say. These are only marketing concepts, and as such they are difficult to nail down as one thing or another. The basic elements seem to be: (1) some degree of AEGIS capability, (2) a vertical launch system of some kind, (3) reduced hanger space to make room for VLS, and (4) reduced speed due to the extra power demands of AEGIS. LM and GD have a pretty wide range of options for anyone willing to pay; unfortunately, the market is already saturated with a number of European designs that are better suited for the frigate/corvette role (and cheaper).
 

JFC Fuller

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,366
Reaction score
1,154
2IDSGT said:
Triton said:
Thank you for your replies, JFC Fuller and Abraham Gubler. It is appreciated. B)

Abraham Gubler said:
It still amazes me that the USN in both the DDX and LCS programs (and CVNX) wanting low observable, survivable ships didn’t build them both with the SWATH hull form.
Why do you believe that? Because of the greater stability and higher speed in high sea states and larger deck space offered by SWATH compared to monohull? What of the greater draft, higher propulsion power requirements, and weight sensitivity of SWATH compared to monohull?
That also threw me for a loop. Wouldn't "riding on a pair of submarines" (as it were) have it's own survivability issues?

Not to mention the design complexities of having to build everything on a shallow platform above the water, I can't imagine how one would install AGS for instance...?
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,714
Reaction score
1,103
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
"A heavy duty LCS for foreign navies. Maybe."
By Philip Ewing Tuesday, May 24th, 2011 5:10 pm

Source:
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/05/24/a-heavy-duty-lcs-for-foreign-navies-maybe/

From the Navy’s standpoint, the LCS concept may not look so good anymore, given the murky prospects for the interchangeable mission equipment the sea service is counting on. But commanders at least seem satisfied that the ships work, and Lockheed officials would like to take that and translate it into a version for international navies. The ship that Lockheed could sell to the navy of Saudi Arabia or another foreign client might have many more features and weapons than the ones flying the Stars and Stripes.

Bob Riche, Lockheed’s vice president for seaframe sea-based missile defense, said the company has looked at designing an LCS like the Fort Worth equipped with the Aegis system, including a SPY-1F radar and sets of vertical launch tubes for SM-2, SM-3, Evolved Sea Sparrow or other missiles. (Neither version of the standard U.S. LCS has any of that stuff.) Riche acknowledged that the additional sensors and weapons would require a lot more power, which would probably mean the Aegis-equipped LCS couldn’t shred the ocean at 45 knots like its American counterpart. But a Saudi or other navy wanting a small air and missile defense frigate might not need the high sprint speed that U.S. Navy asked for. And the international LCS probably would not be able to accept the various mission modules built for the American one.

Is Vice Adm. Tom Copeman advocating that the LCS move away from the littorals and into "blue water" by becoming essentially a small air and missile defense frigate?
 

Abraham Gubler

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,548
Reaction score
342
Triton said:
What of the greater draft, higher propulsion power requirements, and weight sensitivity of SWATH compared to monohull?

It’s not SWATH vs monohull its SWATH versus ballasted down tumblehome monohull. In which case these issues are not excessive.

JFC Fuller said:
Not to mention the design complexities of having to build everything on a shallow platform above the water, I can't imagine how one would install AGS for instance...?

Fitting out the shallow platform is a lot easier than a deep hull. As to AGS its automated magazines are only two decks high so basically no problem considering the platform will have to be three decks high to fit strike length VLS. VLS which won’t need 180 degrees of blast deflection and so therefore at least halve their weight.

SWATH has its issues but so too does the ballasted down tumblehome design used by DDG-1000 but SWATH at least doesn’t need 2,000 tonnes of water to work. Since these are basically the only two ways we know how to build a surface ship with an actual stealth capability it a matter of pick your poison.
 

moonbeamsts

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Mar 5, 2010
Messages
44
Reaction score
7
Greetings all!
I commend the Usn officer who took a slug of midwatch coffee put out that stement that LCS needed a major rewrite and select one and cut program in half. It sounded like some one did a turn around reveresed the common problem of cranial rectal inversion in the USN for ship building.
J Moon
exsts/ss :eek: :eek:
 

JFC Fuller

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,366
Reaction score
1,154
Abraham Gubler said:
Fitting out the shallow platform is a lot easier than a deep hull. As to AGS its automated magazines are only two decks high so basically no problem considering the platform will have to be three decks high to fit strike length VLS. VLS which won’t need 180 degrees of blast deflection and so therefore at least halve their weight.

SWATH has its issues but so too does the ballasted down tumblehome design used by DDG-1000 but SWATH at least doesn’t need 2,000 tonnes of water to work. Since these are basically the only two ways we know how to build a surface ship with an actual stealth capability it a matter of pick your poison.

I don't really see what is particularly LO about a SWATH hull, if anything a ship with virtually its entire working spaces not just above the water line but above the water will be both a nightmare to design from a structural perspective and a difficult to achieve LO. Producing a ship that can put the engineering equipment, weapons and radars of DDAG1000 on a SWATH hull seems like a massive effort bordering on the impossible. DDG1000's water ballast is as useful for providing stabilisation for AGS firing as for its relatively simple RCS reduction effect and you can still fit it out like a regular warship hull. Also, DDG1000 does not "need" 2000 tonnes of water to work, the additional ballast just further enhances the RCS reduction and provides additional stability.
 

Abraham Gubler

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,548
Reaction score
342
In order for a ship to be low observable it needs to significantly reduce its roll and have tilt back from the waterline. Which is why the DDG-1000 has tumblehome and ballast and why the Sea Shadow was a SWATH hull. Without these measures RCS may be reduced compared to a conventional slab sided ship but not to the degrees of significance required to achieve an LO level reduction in radar detection range.

The cost to the ship of ballasted tumblehome or SWATH hull form are extreme. The SC-21 COEA conceived what was then called the “littoral combatant” and later became the DDG-1000. The original design conception had a similar load of weapons to DDG-1000, the multi-function radar, electric propulsion but with a more conventional DDG-51 type hull. It displaced just under 10,000 tonnes. Or 1.5 times less than the stealthy DDG-1000.

Like nuclear propulsion in the 1970s the cost of stealth per ship is extreme. It obviously has advantages, just like nuclear propulsion does, but when it comes down to one for two in hulls is it worth it?
 

2IDSGT

Ah tale yew wut!
Joined
Nov 27, 2012
Messages
371
Reaction score
4
Triton said:
Is Vice Adm. Tom Copeman advocating that the LCS move away from the littorals and into "blue water" by becoming essentially a small air and missile defense frigate?
Sort of, at least that's what I gathered from various articles on the report, though I don't think the words "frigate" or "blue-water" were used. I can see some use for LCS as currently designed, just not for 52 of 'em. The module thing isn't panning out, and the Adm. appears to have realized that it might be a better idea to cut production and rejigger one of the types with a more focused role and a heavier organic weapons suite (and probably a larger crew)... perhaps something that could escort the current littoral design into *er* the littorals. Think about it: the light LCS could handle the spec-ops/mines while the heavy takes care of air-defense, ASW, AShW, and supporting fire. As a bonus, LCS-heavy could also supplement the defenses of a carrier/amphib group when not otherwise occupied in the shallow water.
 

Abraham Gubler

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,548
Reaction score
342
2IDSGT said:
Think about it: the light LCS could handle the spec-ops/mines while the heavy takes care of air-defense, ASW, AShW, and supporting fire. As a bonus, LCS-heavy could also supplement the defenses of a carrier/amphib group when not otherwise occupied in the shallow water.

Ahh that’s what it’s always been planned to be. The worst thing about the LCS is its name. Leads people to believe all sorts of things about it that it isn’t. It’s really two things: a minehunter and a patrol boat (aka corvette). It’s very expensive because its designed to be a stand-off minehunter so therefore survivable in a high threat environment and also to be a patrol boat against lots of swarm boats. It’s never been planned to be a destroyer and would always rely on destroyers to provide it that protection against air and naval attack.

Further people need to understand how the USN uses its cruisers, destroyers and frigates in theatre. Typically about half (4-5 per carrier) are provided to escort the carrier battle groups and the other half (4-5 x the number of carriers deployed) are used in the traditional sea control missions. Units aren’t assigned permanently to one role or the other but rotate through them during the operational deployment so as to equal out the use of munitions, access to fleet trains, etc. Once the planned run of LCS is in the fleet there will also be about 4-5 of these units per carrier available for sea control.
 

2IDSGT

Ah tale yew wut!
Joined
Nov 27, 2012
Messages
371
Reaction score
4
Abraham Gubler said:
2IDSGT said:
Think about it: the light LCS could handle the spec-ops/mines while the heavy takes care of air-defense, ASW, AShW, and supporting fire. As a bonus, LCS-heavy could also supplement the defenses of a carrier/amphib group when not otherwise occupied in the shallow water.
It’s never been planned to be a destroyer and would always rely on destroyers to provide it that protection against air and naval attack.
That's one way to look at it, but DDGs can't go everywhere the LCS can; and as built right now, LCS doesn't have much to contribute for escort duties.
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,714
Reaction score
1,103
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
What about the Huntington Ingalls Patrol Frigate formerly known as the Northrop Grumman International Frigate?:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,10964.msg162653.html#msg162653
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,878
Reaction score
3,917
Didn't see this one yet so. . .
MMC-150m-118m-85m_zpscb0d7021.jpg


That top one looks like it might have some Mk57 VLS aft of Harpoon. (They don't look like Barak mentioned on the other one, but much larger).
 

JFC Fuller

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,366
Reaction score
1,154
I am not sure if they are Mk-57, they just look like the generic LCS mission module spaces with the corrugated covers to me.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,878
Reaction score
3,917
JFC Fuller said:
I am not sure if they are Mk-57, they just look like the generic LCS mission module spaces with the corrugated covers to me.

True. 16 Mk57 cells would add a ton of flexibility though (and top weight of course).
 

Similar threads

Top