• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Sea Control Ship (SCS) and VSTOL Support Ship (VSS)

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,175
Reaction score
101
Thanks for your reply JCF Fuller!

I hear what you're say re "SCS was a US Navy design so there wasn't a winner as such, to my knowledge the construction contract was never competed as Congress refused to fund the programme.", and I should have probably have worded my question better.

Found the Budgeting of the SCS interesting!

I've been scouring the web since I posted my question, and think it might have been 'Ingalls shipbuilding' (or was it Litton-Ingalls?) design that was favoured (if I can use the term) by the USN. But I'm still keen to have this verified.

Regards
Pioneer
There were no competing industry designs here. The SCS preliminary design was prepared by NAVSEA personnel at the Naval Ship Engineering Center with some assistance from Gibbs and Cox. When Spain decided to build one, it was G&C who prepared the detailed design drawings for the shipyard.

I think SCS/VSS may have been the last or nearly the last designs where the Navy actually did the design work with expectation that a shipyard would simply build to the Navy design.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
8,969
Reaction score
172
I think SCS/VSS may have been the last or nearly the last designs where the Navy actually did the design work with expectation that a shipyard would simply build to the Navy design.
I believe the CL:O family of ships are currently the last known in-house Navy designs known to have fully reached the detailed blueprint stage between the early 1990s and the present day. The MEU of the late 1980s (which also came close to being built) was a cousin to this family of designs, all part of the 'Revolution At Sea' concept.
 
Last edited:

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,175
Reaction score
101
I think SCS/VSS may have been the last or nearly the last designs where the Navy actually did the design work with expectation that a shipyard would simply build to the Navy design.
I believe the CL:O family of ships are currently the last known in-house Navy designs known to have fully reached the detailed blueprint stage between the early 1990s and the present day. The MEU of the late 1980s (which also came close to being built) was a cousin to this family of designs, all part of the 'Revolution At Sea' concept.
I don't know whether CL:O ever got to as advanced a state of design as the SCS. The most detailed I've seen were sort of general arrangement drawings, while SCS got to more detailed design. And CL:O wasn't really associated with a procurement program, was it? AFAIK, it was never part of the SCN program of record. I know there were other studies in NAVSEA that produced designs about as detailed as CL:O. The SC-21 COEA for example, did arrangement drawings for its notional designs, as did CVX. There were also several "Spring Style" efforts for future combatants at similar levels of details in the early 1990s. They were just efforts to explore the design space and determine possible approaches to suggest to industry, and were not expected to be directly adopted as buildable designs.

I think PF/FFG-7 is likely the last warship design that was actually prepared by the Navy and given to industry for production. Sort of tragic, really, because the lack of this activity inside the Navy explains why it can't seem to get a handle on newer designs (DD-21, LCS, etc.) The Navy outsourced all the capacity to determine what requirements were actually feasible to build and at what cost.
 
Last edited:

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
8,969
Reaction score
172
I could be wrong about how far along the CL:O designs got. On the other hand though, that family of designs were an important part of the 'Revolution at Sea', which in turn was a cornerstone of the Navy's future shipbuilding strategy from the late '80s to the early 1990s (it survived briefly into the Clinton era). The proponents of the Revolution at Sea believed, among other things, that a single basic hull could replace existing frigates, destroyers and cruisers in a cost effective manner. A number of promising designs and concepts, such as FFX, DDGY, & the Strike Cruiser program, were sidelined in favour of this hull concept, the 'Battle Force Combatant', yet another 'cousin' of the C:LO family. Like the MEU, the BFC had reached the detailed design around 1988/89.
 
Top