Whats happening with FSF-1?

Thanks for those Steve, this article is very through and also talks about the other designs and their limitations, the mono hull one onbeing able to carry one Seahawk sized helo or two VTUAV’s. It says only the Austral design can operate two Seahawk sized helos at one time or one CH-53 or six VTUAV’s (VTUAV’s are Vertical Take-off UAV’s)

It also goes on ton talk about the weapons involved for both Australia and America and how America is focussing on “In close” combat where as Australia doesn’t need the same restrictions and is freer to look at more conventional armourments

Steve, mate thought you and anyone else here who have an interest in the LCS program might like to know, the RAN are looking into a study of these designs in an eventual aim to buying upto four of them.

Nothing has been formally announced as yet but the confidence in Austral has grown since the design was chosen by the USN for their purpose. If the USN has chosen it then it must be ok for someone like Australia to have them surely.

Good news, the GD/Austal design is my favourite but I suspect it’s more expensive than the LM design. Here are some more LCS websites and pics 🙂
http://www.austal.com/go/product-information/defence-products/littoral-combat-ship-(lcs))
http://www.gdlcs.com/
LM LCS artwork (MILITARY section) http://www.patrickturner.com/main.html

What has really caught my eye is the Rafael Protector system USV. If the LCS has four of these systems whilest on deployment it could virtually run a self protection screen around it out to about four kilomenters. Incciednts like the “Cole” would never happen again and that is a comfort in any book.

I always think of the ED-209 robot out of the film Robocop when I see the Protector, I would certainly keep clear of someones warship if a Protector came alongside and said ”Please leave the area, you have 20 seconds to comply!” 😀

Steve, mate thought you and anyone else here who have an interest in the LCS program might like to know, the RAN are looking into a study of these designs in an eventual aim to buying upto four of them.

Nothing has been formally announced as yet but the confidence in Austral has grown since the design was chosen by the USN for their purpose. If the USN has chosen it then it must be ok for someone like Australia to have them surely.

What has really caught my eye is the Rafael Protector system USV. If the LCS has four of these systems whilest on deployment it could virtually run a self protection screen around it out to about four kilomenters. Incciednts like the “Cole” would never happen again and that is a comfort in any book.

Thanks for this Steve. It is an interesting concept and one that I do hope becomes a more familiar sight in the waters of the world

I agree, Sea Fighter and LCS seem like ideal platforms for many future roles. Their flexible hangars and modular equipment would make them excellent motherships for future unmanned mine warfare systems.

I just hope they will turn out to be as affordable as promised and that navy chiefs can accept a high/low mix of warships.

Thanks for this Steve. It is an interesting concept and one that I do hope becomes a more familiar sight in the waters of the world

Sea Fighter (FSF-1) news and pics can be found here (use the search function for more results)
http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=30646
http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=31626
http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=26551
Concept artwork
http://www.onr.navy.mil/media/view_gallerysingle_display.asp?ID=239
http://www.onr.navy.mil/media/view_gallerysingle_display.asp?ID=228
http://www.onr.navy.mil/media/view_gallerysingle_display.asp?ID=236
http://www.onr.navy.mil/media/view_gallerysingle_display.asp?ID=237
http://www.onr.navy.mil/media/view_gallerysingle_display.asp?ID=238

Littoral Combat Ship website http://peoships.crane.navy.mil/lcs/default.htm