German LCS (Blohm & Voss CSL) : details ??? in The European Navies Forum

RSS
Email

0 Points

German LCS (Blohm & Voss CSL) : details ???

Author	Comment
Per Nordenberg	Re: Help needed with translation from Swedish	#21	[-]
Posts: 860 Jul 5 07 12:50 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	With some reservations for translation, here's my attempt: "The vessels are like other Meko designs extremely modular. CSL has 21 different exchangeable modules (big as a 20 feet ISO container type 1C or 1D). TKMS has developed 13 different modules which can be used onboard for different "civilian" missions (for instance SAR, disaster readiness and humanitarian aid), and 18 different modules for military purposes (everything from ASW and air defence to NGS). Standard weapon outfit is represented by a 57 mm gun, 4 concealed RWS, 8 SSM, two 8-cell VLS for MICA and/or ESSM and 4 torpedo tubes. In addition there is room for a RHIB/USV and a 12 ton helicopter. Sensors include a phased array surveillance radar with 6 antennas, a phased array navigational radar with 4 antennas, a phased array illumination radar with 4 antennas (for ESSM), an electro optical sight for the gun, IFF and ESM. And both HMS (Hull Mounted Sonar) and VDS can be carried." MÖP = militärt överintresserad person (eng. military overly ínterested person) ;-) blaska = swedish for newspaper of lower quality Naval Forces is a bi-monthly periodical published by Mönch Publishing Group: Naval Forces Hope this was helpful Matt! Regards, Per
	Remove this ad
MattReloaded	Re: Help needed with translation from Swedish	#22	[-]
Posts: 3262 Jul 6 07 10:26 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	*Quote:* The vessels are like other Meko designs extremely modular. CSL has 21 different exchangeable modules (big as a 20 feet ISO container type 1C or 1D). TKMS has developed 13 different modules which can be used onboard for different "civilian" missions (for instance SAR, disaster readiness and humanitarian aid), and 18 different modules for military purposes (everything from ASW and air defence to NGS). Standard weapon outfit is represented by a 57 mm gun, 4 concealed RWS, 8 SSM, two 8-cell VLS for MICA and/or ESSM and 4 torpedo tubes. In addition there is room for a RHIB/USV and a 12 ton helicopter. Sensors include a phased array surveillance radar with 6 antennas, a phased array navigational radar with 4 antennas, a phased array illumination radar with 4 antennas (for ESSM), an electro optical sight for the gun, IFF and ESM. And both HMS (Hull Mounted Sonar) and VDS can be carried." Excellent work, Per !!! Thanks a bunch, Mate. Regards. Matt.
MattReloaded	Some more tidbits on Meko CSL	#23	[-]
Posts: 3262 Jul 6 07 12:12 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I found a couple more sources on the MEKO CSL and I thought I would pass it along : The first one is a short brief (in German) presumably prepared for the MECON 2006 conference. FWIW, here's my attempt at translating the paragraphs on the MEKO CSL into English : *Quote:* The Combat Ship for the Littorals, shortened to MEKO CSL, combines the tried and tested technologies from the MEKO A-200 frigate developed by TKMS and from the Visby-class developed by Kockums of Sweden (a subsidiary of TKMS). The MEKO CSL combines has a delta-shaped hull made of high tensile steel with a superstructure in composite sandwich made of carbon-reinforced fiberglass. Compared with a ship 100% made of steel, this combination results in significant weight savings allowing more weapons and equipements to be fitted on the CSL. The CODAG propulsion (Combined Diesel and Gas) consists in two diesel engines and one or wo gas turbines. The CSL is runned by four waterjet propuslors, the inner ones for the gas turbine(s) and the outer ones for the diesel engines. To reduce the infrared signature, the exhaust gases are cooled down with sea water and released at waterline level at the stern. Other stealth technologies in various domains ensure further reduction in the ship's signature, thereby increasing survivability. Thanks to its modularity, the MEKO CSL can be flexibly equipped to meet customer's requirements. In addition to the basic modules for weapons and sensors, 21 specific mission modules are available and can be swapped to fulfill various tasks. The hangar is designed to accommodate two helicopters in the 12-tonne class. Bottom line, the key features of the MEKO CSL are the multi-mission capabilities, reduced signature, high survivability, high speed, good maneuverability and affordable costs. Specifications * Length : 108.80 meters * Beam : 21.00 meters * Draft : 3.90 meters * Displacement : 2,750 tonnes * Propulsion : CODAG 52MW or 67MW * 52MW : 1 x Gas Turbine (40MW) + 2 x Diesels (6MW each) * 67MW : 2 x Gas Turbines (27.5MW each) + 2 x Diesels (6MW each) * Speed : > 40 knots * Complement : 75 * Endurance : 21 days * Range : 3,500 NM @ 15 knots The second one is a short article on the MEKO CSL on a Croatian website. From what I understand (I don't speak Hungarian), it doesn't seem to add to what's been said already, except perhaps in the area of speed vs power : * with the 52 MW CODAD configuration, max. speed is 35 knots * with the 67 MW CODAD configuration, max. speed is 45 knots * with diesel motors only (i.e. 12 MW), max. speed is 20 knots
MattReloaded	A couple of questions on Speed vs Power for CSL	#24	[-]
Posts: 3262 Jul 6 07 12:53 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Speed vs Power : Rule of Thumb * The rule of thumb is that speed varies as the cube of power (see this post). * As a result : * an increase in speed from 20 knots to 35 knots (i.e. x 1.75) should translate into an increase in power by a factor of 5.34 (i.e. 1.75^3). * an increase in speed from 20 knots to 45 knots (i.e. x 2.25) should translate into an increase in power by a factor of 11.39 (i.e. 2.25^3). *** an increase in speed from 35 knots to 45 knots (i.e. x 1.29) should translate into an increase in power by a factor of 2.13 (i.e. 1.29^3). * If we go by what's being said in a couple of sources, the CSL can do 20 knots @ 12 MW, 35 knots @ 52 MW and 45 kots @ 67 MW. In other words : * power is increased by a factor of 4.33 to increase speed from 20 knots to 35 knots. (vs a theoretical 5.34 based on the rule of thumb). * power is increased by a factor of 5.58 to increase speed from 20 knots to 45 knots. (vs a theoretical 11.39 based on the rule of thumb). *** power is increased by a factor of 1.29 to increase speed from 35 knots to 45 knots. (vs a theoretical 2.13 based on the rule of thumb). * The first question is then : does the rule of thumb cease to apply beyond a certain speed (somewhere around 30 knots in this case) because of the specific hull form of the CSL. Speed vs Power : comparison with LCS * It's also interesting (IMO) to compare CSL with the Lockheed Martin variant because they are both monohulls designs : * According to the Navy R&D website : * LM LCS needs a power of ~85 MW to reach a speed of 45 knots, versus 67 MW for Meko CSL. * the LM LCS is heavier than the Meko CSL (3,089 tons at full load, i.e. 3,138 metric tons for the former versus 2,750 metric tons for the latter). * The second question is then : could some differences in hull shape account for the more than proportional increase in power (vs displacement) needed for LM LCS to achieve 45 knots ? Look forward to reading your comments. Regards. Matt.
Unregistered(d)	Re: A couple of questions on Speed vs Power for CSL [Edit]	#25	[-]
Posts: 0 Jul 7 07 6:56 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Hi, I don't know if I can answer your specific questions directly, but here are some things to consider. With respect to comparing the CSL and LCS; - One thing to consider is the Length to Beam Ratios of each ship. Here you should be careful to use Length and Beam on the waterline. Unfortunately I don't have accurate data on either design, but if these values were significantly different for the two vessels it could account for some of the difference in power requirements. - Another issue may be whether the Germans and US define "Sprint" speed the same. The reason I say this is because I believe that for the LCS "Sprint" speed I believe is defined as the speed that can be attained @ full load displacement @ I think 80 or 85% MCR (I can't remeber which). Additionally, I believe that some European countries do their endurance calcs at part load and with less margins than typical in USN practice, so it may also be possible that "sprint" speed may similarly be defined a little differently as well. With respect to speed - power cube rule of thumb; - Here is some data for three conventional displacement hull USN vessels. I've plotted the data in terms of power vs speed, Power Ratio ^(1/3) vs Speed Ratio, and Power Ratio ^ (1/3) / Speed Ratio vs a semi-non-dimensional speed of the vessel (ie Speed in kts/sqrt(Length). Anyway what the second curve tries to show is that up to some point for the four conventional displacement ships (eg the FFG, DDG, DD, and CG) the increase in power is fairly close to the increase in speed cubed, but for the semi-displacement vessel (the WPB) the power doesn't seem to follow the trend. The third graph tries and puts the data into a form where speed has been kind of non-dimensionalized to see if there is a point above which the rule of thimb breaks down. Overall, based on this really limited data for the conventional type displacement vessels the rule of thumb appears to be OK up to a speed length ratio of about 1.0 for the shorter/fatter DDG type hullform or maybe about 1.2 for the longer/thinner FFG, DDG and CG type hullforms, with the rule of thumb under predicting power at higher speeds. I don't have a lot of data for planing or semi-planing hulls yet, but I have plotted up some limited data I have on the USCG's 110ft WPBs, though due to its short length the lowest speed is at a speed length ratio of about 1.0. Between a speed length ratio of 1.0 and about 1.5 the trend for this vessel is similar to that for the other vessels, but above a speed length ratio of about 1.5 the trend kind of reverses. As such, the cube power rule of thumb doesn't appear that well suited to this type of vessel. I suspect that this may be because of the hydrodynamic lift being developed by the hull in the semi-paning region is not correctly accounted for. From the data you provided for the CSL, I'm assuming its also a semi-planing type hull and as such this cube power rule of thumb may not be all that well suited to it, but that's just a guess. Anyway, hope this helps. Regards PF PS. I edited this post to add the WPB and DD-963 data, and clean up my final thoughts based on all the data.
Unregistered(d)	Re: A couple of questions on Speed vs Power for CSL	#26	[-]
Posts: 0 Jul 7 07 7:25 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Hi, I added some data on the SS United States to my graphs and also replotted the data logarithmically as well, to help better show the trends. The first plot shows Power (plotted logarithmically) vs Speed (plotted logarithmically). Here you can see that the conventional displacement hulls have a slope about the same as the cube rule over a large part of their curves. The second plot shows Power (plotted logarithmically) vs Speed Length Ratrio (plotted logarithmically), to try and see if you can better identify an upper semi-non-dimensional speed where the vessels' curves begin to diverge from the "cube rule" trend line. (As a side note I multiplied the "Cube Rule" line by 1000 just so it'll fall closer to the other curves, but this shouldn't effect what we are looking at because what's of interest here is the slope not the actual values). Overall I think the plots kind of show that for the data I have, the "Cube Rule" may not be too bad for conventional displacement hulls below a speed-length ratio of maybe 1.0 to 1.2, but for the one higher-speed semi-planing hull, at the speeds I have data on, the "Cube Rule" does not appear to be so good. I think I may have some additional data on the PC1 class somewhere, and if I can find it I'll try plotting it up later. Hope this helps. Regards PF
MattReloaded	Re: A couple of questions on Speed vs Power for CSL	#27	[-]
Posts: 3262 Jul 11 07 9:24 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	PFVA, Thanks for posting the interesting analysis and graphs. It would indeed be interesting if you could plot the additional data on the PC-1 class. It seems that a paper was published by SNAME in about 1993 on the subject of power and speed semi-planning hulls. It's apparently entitled "Marine Waterjet Propulsion" by John Allison. I haven't read that paper myself, but since you appear to have a comprehensive library on ship design, perhaps this is something you'll have in your archives. Regards. Matt.
	Remove this ad
Unregistered(d)	Re: A couple of questions on Speed vs Power for CSL	#28	[-]
Posts: 0 Jul 16 07 3:14 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Hi, Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. Below are three graphs with data for the 170ft PC (and a couple other small craft) added. The first graph shows power versus speed for all the vessels, whereas the second one focuses in more on the smaller craft. The third graph is a replot of the data showing power versus speed-length ratio, but plotted logrithmically. I think it kind of helps demonstrate that below a spee-length ratio of about 1.0 to 1.2 the cube rule seems OK, but at higher speeds (of say a speed-length ratio of 1.5 or greater) the required power appears to maybe follow not so steep a trend (perhaps coming close to a "square rule" or perhaps even a little less). Anyway, hope this helps. Regrads PF
MattReloaded	Re: A couple of questions on Speed vs Power for CSL	#29	[-]
Posts: 3262 Jul 17 07 11:10 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	PF, Thanks for posting these very interesting analyses. In the case of CSL, the information I posted earlier seems to indicate a linear relationship between power and speed beyond 35 knots, i.e. power is increased by a factor of 1.29 (52 MW to 67 MW) to achieve an increase in speed by a factor of 1.29 (35 knots to 45 knots). Does that sound plausible ? Regards. Matt.
MConrads	TKMS strikes again: MEKO Fusion	#30	[-]
Posts: 489 Jul 21 07 10:54 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Hi, info is scars though: "TKMS unveils new reconfigurable patrol ship ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (TKMS) has unveiled a second reconfigurable littoral combatant design, called the MEKO Fusion, following on from the MEKO Combatant Ship for the Littorals (CSL) concept. As with the CSL, the Fusion concept envisages the use of interchangeable mission modules housed in 20 ft ISO Type 1C containers [first posted to idr.janes.com - 13 July 2007]" Hope someone knows more. Regards.
LordArpad	Re: TKMS strikes again: MEKO Fusion	#31	[-]
Posts: 2054 Jul 21 07 11:11 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	does that sound like Meko going stanflex or is it just me?
San Mao An	Israel may be launch customer of MEKO CSL	#32	[-]
Posts: 3887 May 22 10 11:20 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Sons of Sa’ar? Israel’s Next Generation Frigates 21-Jan-2010 14:37 EST Advertisement Saar 5 Eilat Class (click to view larger) The 1,227t/ 1,350 ton Sa’ar 5 Eilat Class corvettes were built by Northrop Grumman in the 1990s for about $260 million each. It’s a decent performer in a number of roles, from air defense to anti-submarine work, to coastal patrol and special forces support – but a master of none. The Israelis are looking for a next-generation vessel with better high-end capabilities, and the USA is their logical supplier. Given Israel’s size and cost requirements, however, the only American option was their Littoral Combat Ship. Israel pursued that option for several years, conducting studies and trying to get a better sense of feasibility and costs. Their approach would have been very different from the American LCS ships, removing the swappable “mission modules” and replacing them with a fixed and fully capable set of air defense, anti-ship, and anti-submarine weapons. In the end, however, the project was deemed to be unaffordable. Instead, Israel is negotiating with Germany – whose surface shipbuilder is now partly owned by a United Arab Emirates consortium… LCS-I: Details and Rationale [updated] Contracts & Key Events [updated] Additional Readings & Sources Displaying 186 of 3,636 words (about 10 pages) A belated update. Last Edited By: San Mao An May 22 10 11:23 PM. Edited 1 times.
MattReloaded		#33	[-]
Posts: 3262 Jan 16 11 9:10 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	An interesting article from the Croatian DoD with plenty of information on Meko CSL : http://www.hrvatski-vojnik.hr/hrvatski-vojnik/2262009/meko.asp Translated by google : http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=hr&u=http://www.hrvatski-vojnik.hr/hrvatski-vojnik/2262009/meko.asp&ei=A0AzTdeeLM-U4gaFu7XHCg&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBgQ7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://www.hrvatski-vojnik.hr/hrvatski-vojnik/2262009/meko.asp%26hl%3Den%26prmd%3Divns
LordArpad		#34	[-]
Posts: 2054 Feb 11 13 1:13 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I've been kicking this design around in my head and I think I'd arm it like this if I was a 3rd world country that had the dosh (Nigeria?): 1 x A190E Russian 100mm gun (with a view to NGFS and AAA) - elsewise the OTO 127 LW 2 x 35 Millennium Gun 2 x 8 Umkhonto with growth potential for Umkhonto ER 8 x 1 NSM possibly 2 x 14.5mm Russian MG remote stations 4 x TT Helo: something like 2 * A109KN with LW torps and Marte and ideally also land attack like Mokopa and Ingwe and 70mm rockets and a chance to land my special forces. Radar not as fancy, but maybe an Ericsson Sea Giraffe? 35 kn configuration. Mission would be sea control and power projection on a limited scale. Anti-piracy work and a bit of seaborne intervention. Your Text Signature ...
	Remove this ad

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

German LCS (Blohm & Voss CSL) : details ???

Sons of Sa’ar? Israel’s Next Generation Frigates