| 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?
|
||
blark18 |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 7 (13-Mar-2008 01:15:03) |
Mikes frigate is practically the Nansen class btw
|
||
blark18 |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 8 (13-Mar-2008 01:27:40) |
The ESSM were quadpacked sorry for that lack of info... thats also why the low number of sm-2
|
||
g lof2 |
Littorial Combat Ships | ||
|
Posts: 215 (13-Mar-2008 06:08:35) |
By the time you make all the changes necessary to turn the NSC back into a warship, (including removing all that hull stiffing they did), you might as well go
back yo a clean sheet or near clean ship design, The NCS is not a bad ship, and in fact is well designed for it's mission, even if the bureacrates gone
anal about it some of their own bad ideas. Yes, you can start your new design using components of the NCS to save time and money, but you still need to
rearrange the parts to meet the Navy's needs. This means adding a cargo deck for modules designed for the LCS and as well as adding the missile pit to
install those Mk41 you people want ( I personal think going to the Mk57 mounted in the side of the forward hull would be better since they are more modern.)
And all the electronic you want is going to raise the cost out of sight any way, so it most likely kill this project too.
As an alternative, why not go with an upgraded LCS that you can add the equipment necessary fo it to become a full frigate when needed. I have not heard of any techincal problemswith either LCS version, just managment problem cause by doing too much, too fast. All the upgrades needed in my not so humble opinion is space of 12 -16 Mk 57 mounts either in the forward hull or in the superstructure. Added to this would be a weight, space, and power for an intergrated radar/radio unit like those that BAE has developed for Denmark, which has all the commponents of the radar and communication electronics built into a mast like unit that was attach to the top of the superstructure already tested and ready to function. This will allow the navy to have the frigates they need when they needed them, but also allow the ship to serve other function that might necessary other time. Which was the idea behind the LCS design in the first place. |
||
westwords2020 |
|||
|
Posts: 225 (13-Mar-2008 06:55:00) |
To make the NSC an LCF or littoral combatant frigate and a small one at that you need resizing the hull to accept strike length Mk 41 VLS with 48 cells and
pair it with a littoral combatant corvette while retain shallow draft on both ships.
The small corvette or frigate Aegies system permits the best possible defense against supersonic sea skimmers as the radar is always staring at the horizon. This would go on the frigate LCS and conventional missile defense system on the littoral corvette. Armament for the LCF would be a five inch gun with firing rate increased as has been proposed and fitted with the Sideshooter RAM systems. A 35mm Millenium CIWS would be mounted on top of the helo hangars. Nixie torpedo decoy, ASW short torpedoes and twin wire guided MK 48 full size dual purpose torpedo tubes mounted in the stern (a program to arm USN ships with Mk 48 torpedoes died many years ago, pity). Main armament would be a 48 cell VLS for Tac Tom, SM-2, VL-ASROC, ESSM. Canister launchers for Harpoon. EW and ECM. Satcom and towed array sonar to complement hull array and with very long endurance with fleet speed of 30 knots on CODAG propulsion wit 20 knot fleet cruise speed. Various unmanned vehicles would be carried such as a USV, UUV and UAV along with one or two helos. The unmanned USV and UUV would be for force protection, ASW, mine detection resulting in a fairly large ship from the ship steel standpoint but steel is the cheapest cost component of a warship. The LCC would be around 1500 tons at the upper range in corvette size. Armament would be five inch gun (ads say it can be mounted in ships as small as 1200 tons), RAM launcher, self defense size eight cell VLS for quad paked ESSM, ASW torpedoes, two twin Mk 48 dual purpose torpedoes, PAM/LAM launcher with all diesel or diesel/gas turbine propulsion with transatlantic range at fleet cruising speed and fleet maximum speed. A hull sonar and if possible, a towed array. These ship types would be complementary to each other and not competive in this high, low end arrangement. |
||
blark18 |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 9 (13-Mar-2008 10:20:52) |
i think ur gonna be hard pressed to fit that into 1500 tons..id say 2500 should be the minium...anyway the idea of using the Legend/Berthoth class design is it
allocates space for future devlopments
|
||
westwords2020 |
|||
|
Posts: 227 (13-Mar-2008 20:01:15) |
My guess is that the LCF would be larger than the Perry class due to having adequate space for various unmanned surface and underwater vehicles to say nothing
of UAVs. The torpedo tubes provide greater range for ASW and can sink any warship from FAC through corvetes and up through frigates and destroyers and this is
done via two way wire guidance links. Of course manuevering would be restricted to avoid cutting the guidance wire accidentally. Maybeye we could have a
vertical launch Harpoon in the VLS. I haven't figured the loadout.
No configurable mission bay would be present but rather an unmanned vehicle storage and launch/recovery facilities. In sizing the superstructure there would be sufficent hangar height and length to accomodate SOF CV-22 or USMC MV-22 Osprey tiltrotors. Millenium is a good CIWS as established in trials sometime ago. If WLY-11 antitorpedo torpedo ever gets out of the lab and into the fleet, the submarine threat would be reduced effectiveness of torpedoes. The ATT is only 6.75 by 120 inches and weighs in at 200lbs. It is also being worked on as a ultralightweight ASW torpedo which would make possible carriage by VTUAVs and greater number of torpedoes for MH-60R. RAM is fire and forget system for AAW. PAM/LAM could be mounted and serve, along with the five inch gun, fire support duties. Tac Tom should be carried, albeit in limited numbers. SM-2, SM-6, ESSM are possible AAW weapons with an antisurface capability. I guess we are exceeding 4000 tons which hopefully not be a financial show stopper. Does anyone know the cost of the scaled down SPY-1F and SPY-1K. I'll have to check Combat Fleets and Naval Weapons to get more info on these systems and required ship sizes common to various sized ships. The low end LCC corvette would have to have adequate displacement for self defense eight cell ESSM VLS. The five inch gun is mounted on the smaller ships of the Italian Navy and they also have one light helicopter and hangar. The main offensive punch would come from Harpoon and operating the ESSM in an antisurface mode. ASW hull sonar and Mk 46/50/54 lightweight torpedoes and possibly fixed main deck mounted 21 inch tubes (say two twin P/S) for Mk 48. RAM would round out the armament by acting as a CIWS. I need to do some research here. |
||
BSmittyVA |
|||
|
Posts: 43 (14-Mar-2008 15:00:23) |
Again, instead of frigates, why not just buy more Burkes? We already know how to make them and they have the defensive and strike combat systems desired. If
you want to turn it into a deliverer of unmanned systems, just get rid of (or shrink) the aft VLS, and rearrange the flight deck and hangars to add module
space and boat/USV launch and recovery areas.
|
||
westwords2020 |
|||
|
Posts: 233 (15-Mar-2008 23:22:34) |
You have a good point. Unless a general purpose Aegies frigate could be shown to be signifiantly cheaper and more capable than more Arliegh Burkes, then we
should just build more of them with the rearrangments that you propose.
|
||
AegisFC |
|||
|
Posts: 206 (15-Mar-2008 23:51:37) |
Would it really hut you to spell AEGIS correctly?
I mean SERIOUSLY! |
||
Bunzov Steele |
so THAT'S what he's been going on about! | ||
|
Posts: 37 (16-Mar-2008 05:31:49) |
AegisFC wrote: HOLY CRAP, is that what he's been trying to say all along? I thought he was talking about some sort of "sophisti-mah-cated" radar from the
University of Texas football team - Aggie radar or something. And, yeah, the spelling is "Aegis." |
||