nhamptonAnd just where are getting this from? Everything I have seen/read/heard of a factual nature (not the BS of the anti- crowd) has indicated quite the opposite.
The F135 is in fact exceeding expectations.
For example…
The F135-600 of the F-35B has an official hover thrust rating of 39,400 lbs.
In the test program they were expecting 40,550 lbs.
It produced 41,100 lbs!Believe me, if anything about the F-35/F135 was not meeting or exceeding expectations it would be huge news.
Mush more likely it was just a slip-of-the-tongue thinking of the 41,100 lbs demonstrated by the F135-600 duing recent hover tests.
How does a test engine making two thousand pounds less thrust equate into the program not exceeding expectations. Just because the first supersonic flight did not exceed M1.2 does not mean that it’s performance does not meet expectations why just a test engine making 2K less than the production version of the engine be some sort of shortfall?
You are all reading far too much into this.
I happen to agree with you. The program is doing quite well and the egg is already starting to appear on the faces of people far more experienced and influential on these matters than that of some on this forum.
While, I am a big supporter of the F-35 Program. Yet, to say performance doesn’t matter is well naive…………
What are you having a bad day…………
Your much better than this! Have a cold one and come back tomarrow.
I never said it does not matter. It is secondary. It is but one (outdated) means to an end. As far back as Vietnam planes with lower top speed and climb performance where giving Phantoms a run for their money. That trend has accelerated. You can;t hit what you cannot see no matter how fast you are going. Don’t you think that with a 250 billion dollar development budget LM could have come out with eye watering performance if the specification called for it?
I am having a fine day though my patience for idiocy is rather thin today.
nhamptonP & W own site states 43,000 lbs…………of course like you said that is Static Thrust! Which, likely explains Mr. Beesley comment about the 41,000 lbs on the youtube video! That is installed thrust vs gross thrust (i.e. 43,000 lbs)………..Which, explains the difference. Yet, I don’t want to speculate. I’ve sent out a couple E-Mails hoping to clarify the issue.
P & W F135 Site
The early engines in the test aircraft do not make the full 43K thrust. Why is that so difficult to comprehend? Far better to de-rate the engines and get better wear out of them for the test aircraft not doing max performance testing.
The whole back end of this thread is so 1980s. Who really cares what it’s absolute performance is? What does it matter if a plane does M2 and pulls 10g turns. It still can’t out run a missile. What matters is giving your pilot the ability to put weapons on his adversary before it can be done to him. Situational awareness, LO, and good A2A missiles do that. Rate of climb, top speed, and other “turn and burn” parameters are nice to have but secondary.
nhamptonF-22 top speed is not published.
Besides, Mach 2 is more likely as painting and other expensive stuff start to come off at higher speed…
F-22 published (by the air force) max speed is M2 plus, but who really cares when you can supercruise at close to M2. That is the relevant tops speed.
More F-35 engine info for those who want to learn. Again, trolls need not reply.
http://www.f135engine.com/proven-tech/engine_chacter.shtml
I am not sure how much real difference there is between the production 43K and the de-rated 41K for the early test aircraft engines.
nhamptonLOL, Scooter.
Do you really think that Norway (or any other country) will buy F35, just because you go around forum(s?) and talk nonsense (I’m being VERY polite now)??? Wake up.
THE ONLY WAY for the F35 to get rid of its problems is if those problems get recognized and then solved in the most efficient manner, even if that means going back to the drawing board. So far LM didn’t do a good job and you obviously can’t (OR WON’T) see it.
You sound like just another clueless troll to me but I will give you the benefit of the doubt. What “problems” specifically are you talking about? Can you list them please?
For those interested in a more in depth conversation with Beasly take a look here. He says some interesting things last fall and unlike some other claims by other aircraft manufacturers he attaches his name and his reputation to those claims and unlike some claims by other aircraft manufacturers, they stick to those claims because they do not prove to be be false when the actual performance parameters are examined by various air forces the world over.
http://www.livescience.com/technology/081107-f-35-fighter-jets.html
Trolls need not reply.
nhamptonThe Pacific Campaign was a series of set piece surface engagements that became primarily a littoral island hop amphibious campaign.
How did the task forces transit the large expanses of the Pacific? Was there a major sub threat enroute? Have you looked at a map lately? the island locations where the battles took place have not changed? Was Midway fought in littoral? Coral Sea? How did the USN transit the Pacific from the west coast and Hawaii to the Solomon Sea? ???????…..etc.
What about them?. They were all horrific sea boats, significant percentages of the crew would be debilitated through seasickness routinely. They were never dry internally and in a seaway were generally terrible gun platforms. Do you think, for a single second, that their successes in the battle of the Atlantic translate to anything meaningful in today’s operations?.
They successfully conducted ASW with far less sophisticated weapons and sensors when needed just as a much larger ship (LCS) with better sensors, weapons, and helos would be able to conduct ASW as necessary now.
Not sensors though. There is still no utilisation offered by LCS-2 to a battlegroup, on transit, beyond its flight deck. It is still not an FFG replacement.
Your ignorance is showing again. the SH-60/LCS combination steaming in the van of the main body is a superb system for providing AAW screening and early warning. Why, here is a hint….. radar can be detected at far greater ranges than the radar itself can detect and track a target. Maybe you don’t want to give away the location of something more valuable?
As for the Iowa comment I didnt say anything about where most of the Iowa’s weight was?. I said it had a lot of topweight and therefore suffered for it – the Iowa’s like most BB’s had a lot of weight above the waterline. Simple statement.
Naval architect you aren’t. Top weight is proportional to weight below the water line. Sure they had a lot of weight topside but they had even more at or below the water line so in effect that counters any weight topside.
At any point have I or anyone else said that a semi-planing hull cant transit blue water?. I started on this stating that the LCS could self-deploy. What point do you think you are making here?. There is something of a difference between transit and operations.
The point I am making here is that while they are designed to excel in the littoral, they also have considerable capability and bring considerable value to the CSG or ESG in blue water. They are in fact probably more capable than a Perry in most sea conditions for ASW. they are certainly more flexible and they have a better AAW self defense than the how the Perrys are currently equipped. they are in fact the new small general purpose escort that the Perry’s and Knoxs once where.
Btw, it’s not below SS4, the 95% are below SS5. I’m sure these maps are somewhere on the net.
Not maps but almost as good. Probably more than 95% below SS5.
http://topex.ucsd.edu/sandwell/publications/9.pdf
nhampton….and the Fletchers were known as poor seaboats that stayed mainly in the calmer waters of the Pacific!. They, the Fletchers, did NOT do 35knts in SS4 and above any more than the LCS will!.
You really don’t know what you are talking about do you? The calmer waters of the Pacific? Are you serious? Oh I get it, they named it pacific because it was so calm. They certainly did do 35 knots in SS4. How do you think they screened the carriers? But, just to satisfy your stupidity what about ships like HMS Capel or USS O’Flaherty (DE 340). both drew 11 feet of water? They and literally hundred of other similar DEs successfully conducted ASW in the North Atlantic. None of them had particularly deep hulls in fact they all had, ready for this …… flat bottomed (what we call) semi planning hulls. Want to talk about the trimaran? As for the rest of your post, I can’t be bothered but the your comment on where most of the Iowa’s weight was shall we say a real knee slapper.
Seastates above 4 are not so common. I remember a presentation on the Seabase and connector and SS4 covers more than 95% of the year in the mainstream potential theatres.
Any idea what the LCS-1/-2 top speed on diesels alone actually is?
Shhhh, you stole my trump card. No kidding, really. Even in the big bad North Atlantic most of the time conditions don’t get worse than SS4.
I thought I read somewhere that the diesels on the LM design make about 17,000hp so I am guessing a speed of around 18-22 knots on diesels would not be out of the question.
ooh look.
The ships can carry out aircraft launch and recovery in conditions up to sea state 5, i.e. in winds up to 27kt and average wave heights between 6.4ft and 9.6ft. The ships will be capable of launching and recovering watercraft, for example 40ft high-speed boats, within 15 minutes in conditions of sea state 4, i.e. waves up to 5ft and winds up to 21kt.
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/littoral/
So it can employ its offboard water borne sensors in SS4 and it can operate it ASW helos in SS5. Lets see, can Perry employ its offboard autonomous sensors in SS4? Wait, what, OHP doesn’t have any! Can OHP operate its ASW helos above SS5? No.
But wait, there’s more! (as they say on TV).
Lockheed Martin’s advanced semi-planing seaframe is based on technologies introduced by Italian shipbuilder Fincantieri on the 1,000t Destrier commercial vessel, which holds the transatlantic speed record, and the 3,000t Jupiter class.
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/littoral/
You mean it broke the speed record going across the ferocious Atlantic Ocean? How on earth did it do that? The water must have been like glass those few days.
Has it not occurred to you that a class may be retired with no direct replacement? Its role may go away, or be performed in a different way, e.g. divided between other platforms.
Convoy escort duty may have gone away but there are still carriers and gators that need ASW. The need remains, LCS does perform it in a different way.
nhamptonPerrys didn’t have tails at first, which limited their blue water capabilities and is why the upgrade program was instituted to fit them with it. Even those that never got tails still had the SM-1 at least, which provided for a limited area protection capability to give them a blue water/convoy protection capability. And the Knoxes which didn’t have VDS still have the long(ish) ranged SQS-26 LF sonar, whereas the LCS only has a tiny HF mine-avoidance set. Essentially, whatever blue water capabilities the LCS has are minimal and pure happenstance. Just look at the ASW module and where the sensors are located. RMMV, USV and SH-60. Only the SH-60 is applicable in the blue water environment. Like it or not, the LCS was built to be able to transit the blue water envoronment, not fight in it.
The OHPs SM-1 was the short range version coupled with a marginal illuminator. The 40 round magazine of the Mk13 launcher carried harpoons as well as SM-1 MR missiles. While this gave the OHPs a robust AA self defense capability, no one I know would characterize it as anything more than rudimentary area air defense against the occasional “leaker” threat.
The LCS fitted with the ASW mission module has multiple towed arrays, dipping sonars, sonobouys and fixed sonars attached to semi autonomous vehicles. Depending on sea state and atmospheric conditions some or all sensors can be used effectively in blue water as well as brown. To say only the SH-60 is applicable in the blue water environment is preposterous.
Like the OHPs and the Knoxs LCS will be able to operate in blue water, with the fleet in varying degrees of effectiveness based on conditions. LCS-1 draws a bit over 12 feet of water and has a semi planning hull. Fletcher class destroyers that served for 40 years drew a little under 14 feet of water and had ….. a semi planning hull. They had no problems performing fleet ASW right up until the 70’s.
What does it matter is LCS is not immanently suitable for blue water ops? It is part of a group! I’m sure carrier and DDG51 can handle threats in the oceanic spectrum. SO long as it has a reasonable self defense capability and is not a burden on the group it is part of, who cares? Likewise LCS will be in its element in the littoral zone, where the rest of the group is rather helpless apparently (don’t hear anybody complaining about that).
Even if the ASW equipped LCS cannot deploy all of it’s off board sensors it still has two ASW helos, and a CIC optimized for ASW warfare. That is more than the Knoxs and early OHPs brought to the table. It will be a valuable asset that will augment the battle group’s ASW capability while in transit. The SAME mission the OHPs performed while attached to the fleet.
What AAW module? That’s (the radars and the VLS) going to displace the other modules, which are the whole purpose of the LCS in the first place. The ESSM should be an integral part of the LCS’s self defense suite since it’s what’s required to have the survivability to carry out it’s functions!
What is the RAM launcher and 57mm gun do on these ships? Take up weight? There is no need for ESSM since they have their own AAW self defence capability on the core ship. Ticos and DDG-51s provide area air defense. The Perrys never did.
Fleet capable designs. You think a semi-planing hull is going to beat 29knts anywhere above Sea State 4?.
Towed arrays can be trailed several hundred feet below the surface and modern arrays can be deployed and recovered even at SS6.
Displacement hull. Optimised for open ocean operations. Actual hull displacement and ‘size’ as you put it is largely irrelevent. Get yourself out into decent waves on a 20ft+ Bayliner or Sealine style sports boat and see how you enjoy the experience….then try and do 30knts and see what happens. It will be an instructive experience for you.
The crew of HNoMS Utvaer would seem to have missed that wisdom as they were sinking HMS Albion!.
Iowa’s were wet ships in a heavy sea, but, not unstable ships in a heavy sea. The magnitude of difference is such to make the purpose of the attempted comparison vague?.
LCS has over twice the installed horsepower as OHP. Even if it does not plane off it will plow through the ocean at over 29 knots. For comparison Fletcher class (also had a semi planning, flat bottom) made 35 knots on about 70,000HP. LCS similar size more power. The OHPs on the other hand where lucky to make 29 knots in any sea and the Knoxs where lucky to make 28 knots. But they both still escorted the battle groups.
How did all those flat bottomed Des and sub chasers fight the battle of the Atlantic? Maybe seas where calmer in WWII?
You can run a towed array hundreds of feet below the ocean surface and the sound made form large waves will still drown out the sound of a quiet submarine.
The picture proves nothing.
What makes you think the LCS will be unstable in heavy seas. Can you quote someone on that? Have you first hand experience with the ship? We have not even discussed the GD design which is a trimaran. I can’t wait for your “expert” critique of that one.
The Iowas where so unstable in heavy seas and high speed that mess often could not be served. The class was still effective because the fire computers took the ships movement into account.
Do me a favor Jonesy. Don’t bother replying. You are like a certain other chap from Reading. You are full of uninformed opinions. There is no sense debating you any further.
nhamptonYou guys are aware that Coast Guard cutters deploy with CSG/ESGs these days? Also can’t keep up with the CVNs. Then nobody really can since the CGNs are gone – or do you think a Burke or Ticonderoga has any meaningful endurance left after a longer high speed transit that a CVN is capable of?
I’m also not sure what is meant by “sprint and drift”. Sounds like a BAMS, P-8 (and EP-X) job. It’s not 1914 and this is not Deutsche Bucht.
Of course in absolute terms you are correct, but then again the Navy never had enough nuclear escorts for all of it’s nuclear carriers.
Sprint and drift is an ASW tactic that is practiced to this day.
It simply isn’t designed to do blue water tasks. It’s combat capability resides not in the ship itself, but in the UUVs, USVs, UAVs and helis it carries. And in the blue water environment, the only thing useful are the UAVs and helis it carries.
Aside from the tail which not all Perrys and very few Knoxs had where do you think their ASW capability came from. Hint, begins with an h and ends in an r. It has nothing to do with similar displacement and everything to do with how they accomplish the mission. In fact the LCS has less displacement than OHP.
Planing hull forms are not.
exhibit A: The Leander class, commonly described by VSOs and nautical books as ‘one of the finest seakeeping ships that the RN has ever operated’ but speak to anyone who has actually served on one and their opinion will differ somewhat
The LM design has a semi planning hull form and the GD design is a trimaran.
Funny you should bring up the Leanders. They are about the same size as the LCS and they performed ocean escort well enough to have survived for 35 years.
Lets face it no 2,500 ton ship is going to perform perfectly in a heavy sea. On the other hand no sub is going to be able to track a target in a heavy sea either. Too much ocean noise.
BTW the Iowa class BBs where extremely wet ships in a heavy sea. No one ever said they where unsuited for blue water operations.
From the LM website.
In regard to flight deck on LCS:
“size is over 1.5 times that of current surface combatants and uses universal Trigon traversing system”
In regard to hanger space:
“size is 2 times that of current surface combatants with space for 2 H-60 helos or 1 H-60 helo and 3 VTUAVs”
nhamptonWhat were they if not fleet units?. They are/were hulls optimised for blue water ASW in every operational sense. Even if they were intended to be cheap convoy escorts both had the potential for fleet tasking by nature of the fact that they were designed to handle the big waves. LCS doesnt have that inherent operational ability owing to its design.
They where not fleet units and never intended to be. The Spraunces where the fleet ASW units. OHPs and Knox where both hindered by thewir lack of speed. It’s tough to sprint and drift when the battle fleet is moving at 25 knots and you can only do 29 (less for Knox) max. Not much of a sprint.
The LCS can launch and recover helos in sea state 4/5, ten foot waves. Frankly no one is doing ASW in SS5 since you can’t hear your target over the noise of the ocean action in those conditions. As for handling big heavy waves the OHPs had problems with them as well in fact they had problems with deck cracks due to heavy seas. At any rate you keep getting fixated on heavy seas but you fail to realize that the frigates of yore had their own set of significant problems and compromises due to their size and lack of speed.
We’ll see how well the LM design operates choppers in SS5. If its rolling in modest conditions SS5 should be real fun. Planing hulls and big waves do not go well together!. Which tail are they rated to carry and deploy and under what towing conditions?. Usually if you are going to tow something you want a displacement hull. Not too many planing trawlers knocking about out there!.
The OHPs had a haul down system and I would be willing to bet the LCS has one as well. Not sure about the tail on the ships themselves I have to find the article.
So its chokepoints and ‘designated search areas’ then. Not blue water on transit with a battlegroup?. Which is whats been said all along. its a littoral combat vessel with little to no ability to do blue water.
It says
or operating (e.g., patrolling) in a designated search/surveillance area.
and
The LCS must defeat threat submarine attacks against units operating in company with CSGs, ESGs, or LCS squadrons. The LCS must achieve a mission abort or sink a threat submarine that poses a threat to any friendly units.
How you get not including blue water from that is beyond me. In fact it specifically says in company of CSGs, ESGs (those comprise fleet units) and pose a threat to any freindly units. Note, nothing about friendly units only sailing in littoral.
No long range radar. No tail that I am aware of?. Rolls in fairly benign chop and its sprint capability is on provided you are at SS3 or better?. Not an FFG replacement!.
No no long range radar. Data link to ships equipped with them instead. Nothing like a big powerful radar to give your position away, but you know that. Sprint capability is relative. ALL ships slow down as the seas get rougher. It is proportional. Again I am sure you know that as well.
But the Perry’s were going to cross the Atlantic back and forth and that little pond gets plenty rough. By the sounds of things LCS-1 isnt going to like the English Channel in winter or Biscay. SCS can get a bit lively too!. The ship is going to be okay on transit through those waters for a short interval, but, actually engaging in routine ops is not going to be practical. Nor is it meant to of course – thats what the Burkes and Tico’s are for.
Whatever makes you think that even the Burkes and Ticos would be operating in the channel or the Bay of Biscay these days? Did I miss something are we running convoys to europe through contested waters?
Thats not the issue. The issue is ‘sprint ahead’ and scout out. This boat sprints and it empties the tanks and you dont want that to happen too close to the oponents littoral without the rest of the fleet handy!.
Your replies are getting more and more inane as we go along. LCS sprints ahead and depending on distance covered may or may not have to refuel enroute. Maybe, just maybe you topped off your tanks before you sprinted ahead? At any rate so what there are oilers and there are ports. How long does a refueling evolution take at sea?
I’m sure it can deploy ahead of the main group. Why it would when thats largely an SSN’s job – to be there weeks in advance of a surface group, where possible, developing operational data – who knows but, for those circumstances where its not viable to send a sub, sure rotary UAV’s and the ASW UUV’s would be useful recce tools. IF the threat scenario is modest enough.
Maybe you don’t want to reveal the presence of your SSN. Maybe your SSN is elsewhere. Maybe (especially in the littoral) a couple of helos and off board sensors are better at finding and killing SSKs than an SSN. Just a few reasons I though of off the top of my head. I’m sure the Navy has a few more reasons to spend upwards of $30billion on these ships.
The illustration is the difference between Stanflex/Meko ‘drop a module in’ and 9 TEU’s of kit. It is one that is worth stressing.
To what end? Nine tractor trailers and a couple of C-5s is not much of a problem for the DOD. This is a non issue.
nhamptonhttp://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/lcs-specs.htm
Note threshold and objectives for LCC requirements.
LCS cannot perform blue water operations. Its not a Fleet unit – its a patrol unit just one that has a rather extravagant propulsion fit and is a bit bigger than most. You would not deploy it in circumstances where you would deploy a proper FFG. Outside of its specialist taskings in support of littoral ops you’d deploy it in scenarios where you might otherwise send a WHEC etc.
The OHPs and the Knoxs where not fleet units either but that never stopped the Navy from having them deploy with carrier battle groups. Both had approximately same range at 20 knots as the LCCs. Both LCCs can operate two H-60s in sea state 4/5, both LCCs can carry a tail. So they don’t have a hull mounted sonar, big deal. They can sprint and drift much better than either the OHP or DE-1052s, they carry one more helo than the DE-1052s could (they where limited to carrying Sea Sprites), and they have a degree of networking capability that an OHP skipper would envy. No they are not Spruance replacements, but they certainly are OHP replacements.
LCS may in fact form the basis of the next high endurance coast guard cutter, but I suspect it will be a much slower, austere version.
FFG-7 was developed for convoy duty across the Atlantic and as a cheap platform for carrying a pair of ASW choppers to bolster numbers in the battlegroup as adjunct to the Spru’s. That was a blue water hull designed to ride out Atlantic swells – deep-V hull with fin stabs IIRC. It had a blue water sensor fit to match – VLF passive tail, L-band LR air search set etc.
Design Requirements
The LCS will maneuver and maintain itself in all expected operational environments and situations with emphasis on the worldwide littoral operating environment. It will be self-deployable and operate with naval strike and expeditionary forces.
The LCS will:
* Provide the speed and endurance to deploy and operate with CSG, ESG, and LCS groups.
Conduct offensive ASW operations. The LCS must achieve a mission abort or sink a threat submarine, if the submarine target of interest is transiting through a designated key choke point or operating (e.g., patrolling) in a designated search/surveillance area.
Conduct defensive ASW operations. The LCS must defeat threat submarine attacks against units operating in company with CSGs, ESGs, or LCS squadrons. The LCS must achieve a mission abort or sink a threat submarine that poses a threat to any friendly units.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/lcs-design.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/lcs-mods.htm
CSG=Carrier Strike Group
ESG=Expeditionary Strike Group (gators)
Clearly blue water fleet stuff.
Look at the difference in hull design between the LCS-1 and the FFG-7. Even the link you posted stated that it was ‘flat-bottomed’ even though its actually a very shallow-V. The semi-planing hull design it uses is not one that is tremendous in a heavy sea. The design calls for aircraft recovery at Sea State 5 – I’d be much happier trying that with the GD hull than the LM one!.
I agree, the hull form on the LM unit is not ideal for blue water ops but its good enough to get the job done. They are not going to accompany the CSGs into the arctic ocean in winter to bomb the USSR, but neither where the Perrys. They are however able to deploy to the South China Sea, the Med, the Baltic, the Arabian sea, and the Indian Ocean and it’s approaches.
The sensors again come into the picture. LCS’s warfighting systems are anything but bluewater. The sensors are on robots that cannot keep pace with an underway fleet. They are optimised for perisistence in the shallows. Completely inappropriate for blue water.
Not according to the requirements. Are the helos only suitable for ASW in the littoral?
Would the Tender ‘sprint ahead’ with the LCS’s you wonder?!. If not where is the value as the sprinting is the LCS’s problem it would seem. A high persistence unit able to drain its bunkers in 1000nm if it uses its sprint speed?. The mind boggles on that one.
No, if a port is not available and refueling is necessary an oiler would meet enroute. The navy has a few of them you know. According to the LM presentation LCS can herald the arrival of the main body by 48 hours.
Once again we come back to the earler point on the MCMW module being 9 TEU’s worth of kit. A full TEU is limited, container included, to about 25tons if memory serves. 9 TEU’s worth of kit would therefore be a push even for a C-5!. The logistics of moving that from an airport to the port where the ship would link up with it could also be challenging. Certainly this is not the simple plug and play issue that its trying to be painted as!.
I don’t know why you keep getting hung up on this. You fly more than 1 C-5 in and you use tractor trailers to get the TEUs from airbase to port if necessary. They carry them all the time.
nhamptonSo, what’s the deal with FFG7 replacement then. They aren’t going to be around forever, most currently operating were built 1979-1989 and that coupled with a service life of 30 (35) years means retirement in the period 2009-2019 (2014-2024). No fewer than 9 FFG7s are scheduled to retire in the period 2009-2013 already.
The LCS is clearly the Perry replacement. Just because they can perform in the littoral does not mean that they cannot perform blue water operations as well. Lets remember that the primary mission of the OHPs was ASW in support of convoys with a secondary mission of supplementing the ASW screen of the carriers and gators, and a tertiary mission of independent patrol in low threat situations. OHP did/does it’s primary and tertiary missions extremely well but it is hampered somewhat as a carrier escort due to lack of sustained high speed capability. Obviously LCS remedies the speed problem. That said the OHPs primary mission has just about disappeared. I don’t think we will see the need for large convoys to transit an open submarine infested ocean anytime soon.
I thought the video “a month in the life of LCS” was informative if somewhat goofy. If LMs vision is accurate then:
*LCS will rarely operate alone and each LCS in the squadron may have a different package embarked.
*LCS often travel in company with the main battle force while in transit
*LCS squadron will detach from battle force and “sprint ahead” to scout/prepare the area of operations.
*Mission packages are air transportable and can be swapped out in a matter of hours not days.
*Just about any port with a crane will suffice for the module swap.
*LCS has a huge hanger and a robust organic self defense capability against small boats and aircraft independent of mission modules.
I now understand the logic of the high speed capability. It’s value for being able to sprint ahead of the battle force and drawing out the enemy, scouting and or preparing the area of operations cannot be underestimated.
The more I read about LCS the more I like the idea. Now if only they can get the cost down. The way they did it with the OHPs was to standardize on a design that many secondary shipyards could handle and they bid out the work. I doubt they will do that here. In fact I would be willing to bet that they use both designs and two shipyards. Couple that with a small build rate and you get a $500 million ship. Not exactly affordable.
On second thought maybe it does need a mother ship, or maybe a redesign.
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/05/navy_lcs_051809w/
nhamptonIf, you have one available…………Further, just because the current plan is for “X” amounts of Modules. Does not mean more could or would not be ordered…………..
BTW One Mothership which in far more capable and flexible. It would also be far cheaper than one AE. AO, or AOR……….
Man, you guys need to think out of the box some times. As most major advancements. Hardly, happen with such conservative attitudes…..
Respecfully:cool:
The plan is to have 55 of these ships. By the time you fit out your mothership for self defense (or area defense if you go that route), give it replenishment capabilities and the ability to swap out modules at sea, in potentially unfriendly waters you have spent much more than the cost of a Burke much less an oiler. This is not being conservative it is being realistic. A mother ship or tender brings nothing to the table. These are ocean going frigates and as such are designed to operate independently.
And more modules appear… along with the need to move seamlessly from ASW (to clear the area for the ARG), to MW (to clear the invasion beach/approaches), to NSFS (to support the actual landing), back to ASW (to keep the ARG safe during the rest of the op). Not to mention the ASuW to keep the “pesky gnats” away from the big gray floating things and the beachhead?
If the marines are going ashore in any significant numbers rest assured the LCS ships will play but a supporting role. There will be destroyers and cruisers there as well to provide the bulk of the ASW/gunfire support duties. There will even be a carrier or two in the neighborhood. Further the Navy would think the mission so important that they would have LCS with ASW, minewarfare and gunfire support modules on hand as well. None of those threats would go away for the duration of the operation and even if they did the Navy is not going to risk switching modules in a hostile environment.
Seriously to anyone that thinks the Navy needs a tender to swap out modules on LCS while at sea. Do you really think this is some simple task that takes but a few hours to crane modules back and forth? I would suggest the process takes days pier side and then more time testing out the installation. This is not a trivial task and suggesting that spending billions to build a few tenders accomplishes nothing.
nhamptonYip. With only 1.05 modules per ship there will never be any swaps. That’s barely enough to replace it should a module go FUBAR. And keeping module specialized crews on standby for possibly years is never gonna happen.
64 modules planned so far, 55 ships planned so far. 1.16 modules per ship. But that really is not the point. Ships will be in refit. Ships will be working up in local waters prior to deployment. The ratio, while not optimal also fails to bring in to account the possibility that the Navy will procure more than just the 3 types announced now. What about a fire support module for shore bombardment? Lastly, the modules make it far easier to modernize the ships since the modules are not an integral part of the ship.
Modules = Good. Excessive speed = Wasteful/Bad.
Sorry Scooter but your mother ship would be an unnecessary waste of resources. Like Jonesy says, if you need s ship with a different module you just send one in.
nhamptonI knew about the mission modules and have heard a few comments on the awkwardness of switching them out. What is new is that there is an expectation that someone wants to try this at sea?.
Seems far easier and a great deal safer to attempt such an evolution alongside with proper dock facilities and have the new mission crew fly in and meet the ship. ………………
No – doesnt make a lot of sense save for the situation where no friendly port facilities are available and you try for the module change in a sheltered anchorage?.
I agree. There is not going to be a whole lot of “spare” modules anyway. I don’t get the impression that swapping modules is going to be a spur of the moment thing either. further, by the time time NAVSEA gets through designing a mother ship the cost would be upwards of a billion dollars each easily. How many would you need and where would you base them.
Rather the motherships it probably makes more sense to “depot” spare modules at several bases around the world. They could be forward deployed in Diego Garcia, Guam, and Japan for instance. The ship would transit to one of those anchorages and meet up with mission crew and module.
Good stuff WANSHAN. I noticed that they only plan on procuring 16 ASW modules. I thinks that’s crazy. They probably should go 16 mine, 16 surface and 32 ASW. I would like to know what the Navy’s logic was on choosing to short change ASW.
Lastly, the more look at these ships the more I like them. I still have a hard time getting over their cost and I still don’t see why they need so much speed though.
nhamptonIt’s not that nhampton did not understand it. It just doesn’t fit his agenda.. 😉
Can’t wait next time when he speaks about *ignorance and bias of many here*, LOL.
I understood it very well troll who brings absolutely nothing to the conversation. The point is they conducted the study, experiment, analysis, call it whatever you like using data obtained in a controlled manner by both Saab and LM. They took the data points given and made conclusions based on that data’s input to models that reflects their real world operational conditions. If have not seen anything that suggests that their modeling is faulty. If you have some information to the contrary then by all means lets see it.
Now do you to say the Dutch lied or where incompetent or do you want to say this is really much to do about nothing and it is Swedish sour grapes as well as Saabs agenda and the desire by some to try and stick it to the Americans and buy something other than the F-35 even if it clearly is a very much inferior aircraft.
Contrary to what you assertion troll, if anything, the agenda is yours.
Sign In
