| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
Mikey |
If LCS gets canned... |
Lead | |
|
Posts: 1421 (12-Mar-2008 00:24:06) |
How about a stretched NCS with an 8-cell Mk 41 for 32 ESSM, 8xHarpoon, torpedo tubes, upgraded sensors and lengthened hangar for 2x H60 (or 1 H60 + 2
Firescouts). Would appear to be a relatively low-risk, relatively cheap way of getting a reasonably capable FFG?
|
||
westwords2020 |
|||
|
Posts: 219 (12-Mar-2008 00:31:29) |
Interesting but how fast and how far on a mission profile that requires economical cruise to station and then a sprint at maximum speed or high speed run to
operation area?
|
||
BenRoethig |
|||
|
Posts: 1729 (12-Mar-2008 03:48:16) |
Its hanger is already sized for a H-60 and 2 firescouts.
|
||
blark18 |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 4 (12-Mar-2008 07:33:28) |
I was toying with this also...
same length and width but a little heavier.... a main battery built around a 32 cell mk. 41 VLS system and the mk. 110 57mm NGS, 2(port and starbord) 324mm dual (if intergrated into the hull like the FFG-7) or the turreted triple torpedo (on the DDG-51 and CG-52 type ships) tubes he ships would be optimezed for ASW and anti surface ships operations with a limited air defense role, also designed for patrol/reconnisance mission It would also be desgiend for limited support of special warfare units SEALS, MARSOC, MAR recon, Army/Air Force special forces assests..... there would also be an option for the inclusion of a 5 in main gun or a 76mm cannon if the navy deems it nessecary (this would come at the expense of muntions capacity in the ships magazines) standard load out would go at 16 ASROC 8 ESSM 8 SM-2 4 or 8 harpoon in external canistars in the dual or quad setups which are common today( more at the expense of the SM-2 or ASROC's depending on naval requirments... and if the Harpoon antiship missile can fit in a VLS im not sure) 15-40 torpedos magazine capacity for 2000 57mm rounds or 600 127mm (5in) rounds / 1000 76mm rounds |
||
blark18 |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 5 (12-Mar-2008 07:36:31) |
oops..a towed and hull mounted sonar system for redunandtcy
|
||
westwords2020 |
|||
|
Posts: 223 (12-Mar-2008 12:38:16) |
Good ideas blark18! The 32 cell VLS is great but I would increse the number of SM-2 loadout to twelve, so it would be eight quadpak ESSM, eight VLS Harpoon
(for which Boeing is trying to find a launch customer), four VL-AROC and eight Tac Tom for flexibility in the VLS or put Harpoon III, which is the current
model in regular quad mounts in which case loadout would be eight ESSM quad paks, sixteen SM-2 and eight Tac Tom for action against high value shore targets.
I would choose the five inch gun would be a licensed Oto Melara lightweight mount capable of firing at 35-40 rounds/minute a creditble AA capability and equip it with the proposed Sideshooter installation (which can be found at freepatentsonline) in which a twenty-one round RAM launcher is on either side of the gunhouse and connected to the elevation drives of the gun so that it elevates/trains with the gun mount. Besides having forty-two RAM launchers, other payloads such as chaff and Nulka could be carried and the proposed WLY-11 antitorpedo torpedo which is a small weapon at 6.75 by 120 inches. The fire control system would select the appropiate weapon which would be either gun, RAM or decoy or ATT for torpedoes. The RAM launcher does not have to face the target so it can be fired off boresight and the missile could engage targets in the 'blind' zone astern. This would be your point defense/CIWS. I would also consider some ships having an HFSWR OTH radar for surveillance over the horizon of ships and aircraft and to give warning of a missile attack out to 30nmi and twice that for fighters and double that for ship surveillance. HFSWR can also detect a TBM launch and provide initial early warning of such a launch and has been successfully tested on a land based installation. It needs funding for shipborne installations. Now we need bunkerage for several thousand miles and the ability to reach the thirty knot 'fleet maximum speed' of other USN ships. Perhaps I now have a different ship, yes but a powerful one. With respect to radar, the lightweight 'corvette' or 'frigate' lower cost version of SPY-F or SPY-1K could be installed and yes the costs go up but so does the utility. I hope it is good value for the costs of my proposed systems. |
||
BSmittyVA |
Mission of the LCS | ||
|
Posts: 41 (12-Mar-2008 14:21:31) |
Remember folks, the missions the LCS is intended to accomplish - MIW, littoral ASW, anti-small boat ASuW, and boost the number of deployable hulls for the
Navy. It also needs to have a shallow draft to operate in the littorals.
It is not an AAW frigate. Rather than make all the changes to the NSC proposed here, we might as well just keep buying Burkes. If something needs to replace the LCS, it has to be cheaper, not more expensive, IMHO.
Last Edited By: BSmittyVA
12-Mar-2008 14:50:43.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
Captain Cee J |
|||
|
Posts: 1304 (12-Mar-2008 14:27:03) |
The whole concept of not deciding on one design early on was a mistake IMHO. It raised costs and complexity.
|
||
Mikey |
|||
|
Posts: 1422 (12-Mar-2008 14:39:16) |
The ideas above go far beyond what I had in mind re Mk 41 - I'm thinking of a 8-cell 'self-defense length' VLS with 32 ESSM - that's it! I
doubt the design could take a 'strike length' VLS without major redesign, and the idea is to get something cheaply and quickly to replace LCS and boost
hull numbers. Also why Harpoon would be in external canisters.
|
||
BSmittyVA |
|||
|
Posts: 42 (12-Mar-2008 14:53:33) |
Captain Cee J wrote: I don't think picking one of the two designs early was as much a problem as ensuring maturity of design for both before they were built, and not
throwing in a ton of requirements changes during development.
|
||
blark18 |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 6 (13-Mar-2008 01:13:38) |
thats why the main battery is mainly ASROC's this ship is ship killer..which is why the large number of ASROCS and ASM...do the Harpoons fit tin the type
41 cell?
|
||