LCS 2 gets wet.
Interesting design.
|
|||||
Hot Mic
Bloggers in Arms
BlogrollContinuous WavePaid to BlogReciprocating EnginesSmarter'n MeWingmen
OmakaseAmazon Search |
48 comments to Builder’s Trials |
Targets of Opportunityblog advertising is good for you Credo"Sign on, young man, and sail with me. The stature of our homeland is no more than the measure of ourselves. Our job is to keep her free. Our will is to keep the torch of freedom burning for all. To this solemn purpose we call on the young, the brave, the strong, and the free. Heed my call, Come to the sea. Come Sail with me." -- John Paul Jones "Pardon him, Theodotus; he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature" --George Bernard Shaw, "Caesar and Cleopatra" "And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music."--Friedrich Nietzsche "A kind Providence has placed in our breasts a hatred of the unjust and cruel, in order that we may preserve ourselves from cruelty and injustice. They who bear cruelty, are accomplices in it. The pretended gentleness which excludes that charitable rancour, produces an indifference which is half an approbation. They never will love where they ought to love, who do not hate where they ought to hate."--Edmund Burke “You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.”--General Sir Charles Napier "Μολὼν λαβέ" -- Leonidas "Blogito Ergo Sum" -- Neptunus Lex Amazon AssociateFor the Effort!Winnar! Subscribe CategoriesPagesTagsacademy
afghanistan
Araby
Blogging
buffoonery
culture
Defense Industry
economy
Flying
Friday Musings
geopol
Gratuitous slap
GWOT
Headlines
health care
History
iran
iraq
issues
libya
Media
Memory Lane
Military
Navy
norks
Oz
pakistan
piracy
politicians
politics
Politics and Culture
prc
pundits
science
sea stories
silliness
Small Stuff
SoCal
Tech Lust
technology
UAVs
UK
usaf
usmc
weapons
|
|||
|
Copyright © 2012 Neptunus Lex - All Rights Reserved |
|||||
O.K., I’ll show my ignorance. What is that and what’s it for? IIRC “littoral” means close to shore or in rivers/bays?
It’s designed as a coastal assault vessel, going into the shallows and supporting operations there.
So, typically of the US Navy, they build a ship the size of a WW2 cruiser to operate in river deltas and narrow bays.
And only one puny gun too, useless for serious coastal bombardment. Another example of the oft-disproved idea that ‘missiles can do it all’ I guess.
The broad stern no doubt was needed because the landing deck seems designed to operate Ospreys and those need a lot more space than do Seahawks.
When was the last time a class (other than something like a PT boat) had TWO lead ships?
When two milcorpses had enough Congress-critters locked up…And neither design is a real warship. Do some looking over at CDR Salamanders, but make sure you have a strong stomach first.
Trimaran, 50knots. Both sound cool. Still not convinced that the mission configurable modules are going to actually improve ‘flexibility’ of the platform.
Thirty-one years in the Navy… ugliest ship I ever saw.
“Give me a fast ship, for I intend to sail in harm’s way”- John Paul Jones
Somehow, I don’t think this is what JPJ would have envisioned as a man o’war.
Bad lookin’ ride.
Well, I have ranted about this over at Cmdr. Salamander’s, now it’s your turn.
We need to start building Norwegian Fritijof Nansen class DDGs under licence as the new JOHN C BUTLER class DEG, the actually cost less than a littoral combat ship, if you buy them in quantity, ( right now, they cost about the same ). Buying 90 of the would allow us to have 5 Destroyer Escort sqadrons on each coast, the classic organization of a CORTRON being one 4 ship, and one 5 ship CortDiv. This would allow us 4 active squadrons, and one refitting/training. The Burkes could then run with the Carriers, where DDGs belong.
Marinette Marine, the Lockheed shipyard in WI, that made the FREEDOM, could then be put to work making real LCSs, Landing Craft Support, like the WW11 ones, that were the Alpha males of close inshore work.
Perhaps, in order to get everyone in support, while DEG 1 would be the USS JOHN C BUTLER, DEG 2 could be the USS LA FON ( spelling ), and DEG2 the USS XENOPHON. You don’t have to die to get a DD, or DE named after you, rendering great service to the USN works, too, see USS MAHON, USS HOPPER, and USS ERICSSON. That would take care of Lex’s ship, and Virg gets his to bring the Illinois / Southern/ ex AF vote on board.
I want to see the sea trials in open ocean with 40-ft+ waves. It may be designed to operate in shallow water, but it has to get there through the unforgiving deep blue. I always think of Halsey’s typhoon, mid-December of 1944.
And can it absorb sufficient punishment to stay alive?
As a former deck ape, I was just think on how I’d tie it up to a dock with that pointy bow much narrower than the stern.
From what I can tell, it looks fairly difficult to get to the bow from the stern via a weather deck. I’m not a big fan of that when something bad happens and you need to get up there right quick.
Maybe they’ll just Med moor all the time.
Still looks too much like a basketball court on the back.
Umm … Why does the front end have to be so pointy, gentlemen?
Marianne
Marianne/
I don’t think Bill K quite caught the subtle import of your gentle musing…but then he’s a science guy and not a luuver!
Sorry Marianne, VX is right. I’m a doofus with dames. I can’t even match wits with my wife – 30,000 words a day, with gusts up to 60!
What’s with the basketball court on the back?
Any swabbies here sailed an oceanic catamaran / trimaran? My experience (in lakes mind you, not oceans), is that they are faster and more stable in high winds than a comparable single-hulled vessel. So could the Navy be shooting for short oceanic transit times? Marianne, if you look at the link Lex provided, which shows a more head-on view, you can see how the pointy end is the middle of the 3 hulls. The other 2, lateral & aft, are for stability, and to a certain extent, the smaller size boosts stability /drag benefits. Note how the lateral bows begin in relation to the center-wake pattern. Any hydraulic engineers, feel free to call BS if I’m wrong. But IIRC, in America’s Cup races, catamarans have been quite successful.
BK-omit
Just don’t name one after me. I’ve never served, and don’t deserve that honor. I’d be happy just to see LCS killed at one each and start building real warships instead of Buck Rogers wannabe’s.
In the meantime, SLEP the Figs!
Here’s a civilian design, for use as a ferry, from a firm that claims to have inspired the LCS2 design:
http://gcaptain.com/maritime/blog/interesting-ship-austals-auto/#more-9341
They didn’t inspire it George, they designed it. Austal USA was set up to satisfy the ‘American Made’ criteria.
They’re also building a bunch of HSVs for the Army and Navy, the first lot of which will be called Fortitude (JHSV 1), Vigilant (JHSV 2) and Spearhead (JHSV3). In time honoured tradition rather than being joint Fortitude and Spearhead will be Army, while the Navy takes Vigilant, and each service will be responsible for crewing and maintaining its own ships, probably in duplicate facilities and commands.
Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.
What I’m wondering is if there’s anything with a bigger wake? J,M,&J! Isn’t that what the flyee guys look for? And if it’s under the sea; isn’t that a helluva lot of noise? Any sub should here it miles away.
Tom,
There weren’t any enemies in the initial PowerPoint slides so the design did not take them into account.
Now that’s a keeper of a comment!
*That* is supposed to get up close and personal with a beach or river?
I think I’d rather have a bass boat full of rednecks, rifles, and a case of Pabst. At least we’d get closer to the beach, have greater outgoing fire support, and as in all things after the proper amount of beer the future always seems bright.
Besides, I don’t play basketball so the recreation deck really doesn’t appeal to me.
– Max
Oh Max,
A perfect PBR reference….
Yeah, just CAN’T have too much PBR….priorities, priorities…
“Red Necks, White Socks, and Blue Ribbon Beer”…..
The stuff legendary adventures are made of.
Got half a red neck brief case of the stuff sitting in the fridge.
Ahh, PBR. Brings back memories, what I can remember of them.
Damn thing is 100% aluminum. NOT battleworthy.
Falklands. Bad. USN has had a number of fires where the aluminum ladders into the affected space turn into semimolten aluminum taffy. Decks sag, flash fires from heat conducted in adjacent spaces. Very bad.
Totally agree Grandpa….was there even ANY adult supervision
associated with this program? I’m an AF guy and don’t have any direct knowledge with USN accident experience, etc., but all one has to do is read Max Hasting’s book on the Falklands to know aluminum is a total non-starter.
Several alternative viewpointa about ‘aluminium in Falklands War scenario’:”Section F.7: Aluminum in warship construction
There are many misconceptions and incorrect stories regarding the use of aluminum in warship construction.
One common story is that HMS Sheffield, a destroyer sunk during the 1982 Falkland War, was lost because her alleged aluminum superstructure made her more vulnerable to damage. This story is completely untrue, because Sheffield’s superstructure was not aluminum. Like all ships of her class, her hull and superstructure were entirely steel. Aluminum played no role in her loss.
Two Royal Navy warships lost during the Falklands War did have aluminum superstructures, and their loss is incorrectly attributed to this feature. Ardent was hit by seven 500- and 1000-pound bombs, plus at least two more bombs which failed to detonate, and sank some six hours after the attack. Any warship of her size, regardless of aluminum or steel construction, would likely be sunk by this many bombs, so aluminum cannot be blamed here. Antelope, another aluminum-superstructure ship, was struck by two bombs, which lodged in the ship but failed to explode. Later, while one of the bombs was being defused, it exploded, blowing a major hole in the hull and starting a large fire. The fire eventually reached the magazines, causing these to explode. Again, an aluminum superstructure appears to have little connection to the ship’s loss, which was caused by the explosion of the bomb and the magazines.
A related story claims the US Navy and Royal Navy abanonded aluminum superstructures, in favor of steel, as a result of the Falklands war. Since aluminum superstructures played little or no role in the Falkands losses, this story is obviously untrue. The Royal Navy’s switch to steel appears to be a result of a 1977 fire in the frigate Amazon. In the US Navy, the switch from aluminum to steel superstructures was a result of the 1975 collision between the carrier John F. Kennedy and the cruiser Belknap. The collision caused major fires aboard the cruiser, and her aluminum superstructure essentially melted; she was reduced to a badly burnt hulk. This incident lead to a decision to adopt steel superstructures in the next new warship class, the Arleigh Burke (DDG 51) class destroyers. This decision had been made prior to the Falkands War.”
http://www.btinternet.com/~a.c.walton/navy/smn-faq/smn6.htm#F7
&
“During the Falklands War, SHEFFIELD was hit by an Argentine Exocet missile which among other things disabled the fire fighting mains, and although the fires were put out she sank under tow several days later. COVENTRY was sunk by Argentine bombs during the same campaign. The oft repeated story about the loss of these ships due to the use of aluminum in their superstructures is a myth. As a result of these two losses, the remaining ships of the class were fitted with additional guns and countermeasures and a Phalanx CIWS.” http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/rn/destroyers/type42/
Absolutely correct. Let’s not leave out ships like Tatnall and Starke which also had fires and because of the low melting point of aluminum caused extensive damage. Main point is the stuff cracks so easily once it’s been flexed a few thousand times (which happens simply by heating of the sun every day), much quicker than does steel. It erodes like crazy, also, especially in those hard to get out spots like vent plenums.
As a shipfitter, I like working aluminum. As someone interested in a first rate Navy, I hate the stuff.
Spaz,
Spent a LOT of time reading the findings on the loss of Sheffield. The two things that stood out were that a good portion of her loss could be laid directly to the feet of the Labour party and their cost-cutting measures.
Sheffield had only one fire main, as you indicate, and it was severed by the Exocet impact. The warhead failed to detonate and fire started from residual duel in the missile. The lack of a redundant system was a result of cost-saving measures enacted by Parliament.
A large portion of her casualties were a result of the toxic black smoke from the vinyl insulation and interior bulkhead/deck coverings that were used as a cost-saving measure.
As you mention, she was lost due to flooding in heavy weather while being towed clear of the area. Had the weather been better, it possible that she might have survived the tow and been brought back to England.
Respects,
So, to sum up this little colloquy between Spaz, Byron and AW1Tim, while I was dead wrong about the Sheffield (not uncommon when jr birdmen talk about things naval) nevertheless, aluminum is STILL not a good idea, right? (Of course I would have thought that intuitively obvious if anyone had ever watched the corrosion on aluminum window frames, etc. on civilian bldgs, had to care for an aluminum skiff/fishing boat of some sort and otherwise mentally pictured 5” shells going thru aluminum plating like a hot knife thru butter. But what do I know?)
Looking at the Wiki page (not prepared to do serious wading tonight) and from a total n00b perspective, this design seems to place great faith on perfect mission planning, and the ability to stay beyond knife-fighting range: there seems to be something of a paucity of visual-range armament. The deck gun, while no doubt quick-firing to an impressive degree, seems unable to provide solid protection aft – what’s the maximum traverse on one of those? Limited only by the superstructure? Surprised at the lack of Phalanx or similar, too.
On a tangent, if you’re looking for cheap in-shore support, what about some sort of monitor? Surely a dumb-shell launching gun platform would be overall less pricey, even figuring in an UAV or two for forward observation, than a missile-armed craft, and of similar effectiveness, if the objective is to make things go boom in the, err, littoral combat zone.
Why bother with a crew at all? Make it a sea-going UAV monitor with it’s own real UAVs carried on board–ALL controlled from far away? Ain’t that what the hi-tech, no casualties crowd wants?
Software in warfare. It just breathes success.
We still have the USS North Carolina down here in Wilmington. Nice little ship that can provide support and take care of itself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVyYmQkARl8&NR=1
Amazing ship to walk through, and the sailors manning the ship are damned proud of it.
I guess “USS Lawn Dart” would not have seemed sufficiently intimidating.
Tim
I went on a tour of a military museum in London in 1987. They were just opening their section on the Falklands War at the time. There was a guy delivering a paper on the subject and I was asked if I wanted to sit in. I’m not sure if this was to be a historical paper or a political statement, but he claimed that the Sheffield was lost on purpose, because one of the Admirals wanted to raise the issues that you point out to the British people and his exibit 1 was going to be the Sheffield.
Byron would probably know more about this than me, but how many photographs have you seen of the damage done to the USS Stark? I remember seeing her tied up in Mayport, when I was on the Forrestal, before she was sent for repairs. All we saw was a bunch of black tarps and we were told not to take pictures of those.
I was at a brief this week on LCS by a former SURFLANT. Guy next to me leans over and says, “This POS is the real cost of Tailhook.” I asked what he meant. He said, “If we’d had an aviator CNO since this thing started, they would have killed it dead.”
I was stunned by the lunacy factor. Guess I hadn’t been paying attention. You have one class of ships, with two different everything – propulsion system for starters. So different, that qualification (under Train to Qualify, a new concept for shoes) on one is meaningless on the second. No CAT II syllabus, I guess, huh?
On the way out, noticing the RAM launcher, with 11 shots, was the totality of the AAW suite. I asked the retired ***, “What do you do if you don’t have local air superiority?” He looks at me with a grin and says, “Pray?”
Thanks, Vern.
Scott/
IIRC back in the 70s when you guys were first mounting the Phalanx on ships, the planning documents I read indicated that the Navy determined it’s ship-board gun AA Air Defense needs and the configuration and number of mounts needed based on–get this–an attack by a TWO-SHIP formation ONLY! When I read that at the time I thought it HAD to be a mis-print as such thinking/planning was/is total insanity! Tell me, PLEASE tell me I was/am in TOTAL error!
VX,
Back then we used to build “realistic” damage control scenarios based around Regiment sized Backfire Raids that launched a single AS-4 at us. When I recall those “grand illusions” I can almost accept the madness that went into paying for two completely different LCS and claiming them as a single “class”. It almost makes one miss the designers that brought us Terrier-BTN and ASROC.
Virgil, back in the late 70′s and early 80′s, the Phalanx had a very low Pk percentage, far below the 90% advertised. The sailors back then called it the “Hail Mary” gun. It took a few years to work the bugs out of the software. Latest model has IR and a telescope so the operator in CIC can manually target something…like a pirate boat
Byron/
But the Ruskis were way ahead of us there too. Their Phalanx equivalents had the IR/visual sights even back then in the 70s.
And you should read up on their anti-swimmer systems too! Those guys were light years ahead of us.