NA- Different looking Navy ship

Cap'n Jack

Cap'n Jack

Final Approach
PoA Supporter
Joined
Jun 25, 2006
Messages
8,982
Location
Nebraska
Display Name
Display name:
Cap'n Jack
capt.ae98b39bcc904ec6826f098b399ed750.speedy_warship_ny115.jpg
capt.75b52ec47102425a843042ef2f916080.speedy_warship_ny114.jpg


This is supposed to be the littoral combat ship Independence

Looks like a trimaran hull.
 
I heard they were the "new" high speed ships. Besides a Helo deck I wonder what its purpose is, I see one gun on the foredeck but thats it. Also looks like a trimarian but can't tell for sure.
 
AdamZ said:
I heard they were the "new" high speed ships. Besides a Helo deck I wonder what its purpose is, I see one gun on the foredeck but thats it. Also looks like a trimarian but can't tell for sure.
Click to expand...

FYI

Wiki said:
It is intended as a small assault transport with a variety of capabilities depending on the mission module installed. The ship is a trimaran design capable of over 40 knots (74 km/h; 46 mph), and will probably be delivered to the US Navy at the end of 2009.
Click to expand...

..
 
The latest I heard is this ship and the Freedom are being fast tracked. They'll be going to Somalia to fight the bad guys.

Oh how she turns...in the 2nd pic. No rudder and screw did that. That a water jet and thrusters. Probably gas turbine.
 
I'm sure Henning will chime in soon...probably put the televisions in it or something.
 
Richard said:
The latest I heard is this ship and the Freedom are being fast tracked.
Click to expand...
The Freedom and Independence are being fast tracked for deployment???!!! That almost sounds like a Bruce Willis movie. :D


Anyone know if it is to stop an asteroid from hitting the earth?
Richard said:
They'll be going to Somalia to fight the bad guys.
.
Click to expand...
Oh, well that is hardly as exciting :smile:;)
 
Cap'n Jack said:
I'm sure Henning will chime in soon...probably put the televisions in it or something.
Click to expand...

. . . and Henning will endorse that Bath Iron Works, as the lead contractor, designs the best ships in the world. Back here, however, BIW has strong concerns. This line of ships is slated to be build by one shipyard, rather than the customary splitting ships between two builders. The yard that doesn't get the contract will stand outside the door of many billion$ in contracts and, therefore, employment stability.

HR
 
Paging Captain Garrett....

Pity "USS Cunningham" is no longer a possibility.....

Ron Wanttaja
 
Typical modern DOD procurement program. Do lots of things, but do none of them well.

It has a modular weps design - offload minesweeping gear, onload the misslery package, etc. Designed for 50kt+top speed, which drives a lot of the design compromises.

KISS is not an acronym with which the DOD is familiar.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Looks like a floating basketball court. ;)
Click to expand...

That's exactly what it looks like. Good call!

While I'm sure it's still in trials, I'd think that a ship like that would be bristling (as it's apparently designed for close-in operations) with smaller guns - 50 caliber and up. The type of stuff that would shred, say, your average Somalian pirate's dinghy; or provide high volumes of close-in support fire during, say, a contested beach landing.

I obviously don't know jack about the ship, but if that's the type of operation it's meant for, it seems kind of a waste to equip as the latest/greatest technological superstar. As mentioned above, I suppose the keep-it-simple-stupid doctrine isn't applicable, though.

But, good idea making it a modular system. Flexibility is the key word in everything; not to mention increased efficiency, etc.
 
Too big, too expensive, too fast, too short-legged -- they'll have to leave the littoral station every day to run out to the blue-water tankers.


From: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/lcs.htm
A 2003 analysis by David D. Rudko noted that the Navy has stated the Littoral Combat Ship must incorporate endurance, speed, payload capacity, sea-keeping, shallow-draft and mission reconfigurability into a small ship design. However, constraints in current ship design technology make this desired combination of design characteristics in small ships difficult to realize at any cost. Speed, displacement, and significant wave height all result in considerable increases in fuel consumption, and as a result, severely limit Littoral Combat Ship endurance. When operating in a significant wave height of six feet, regardless of the amount of fuel carried, the maximum endurance achieved for a wave-piercing catamaran Littoral Combat Ship outfitted with all modular mission packages is less than seven days. Especially noteworthy is that when restricted to a fuel reserve of 50% and a fuel carrying capacity of Day tanks, the maximum achieved endurance is only 4.8 hours when operating at a maximum speed of 48 knots. The Littoral Combat Ship can achieve high speeds; however, this can only be accomplished at the expense of range and payload capacity. The requirement for the Littoral Combat Ship to go fast (forty-eight knots) requires a seaframe with heavy propulsion systems. The weight of the seaframe, required shipboard systems (weapons, sensors, command and control, and self-defense) and modular mission packages accounts for 84% of the full displacement, and as a result, substantially limits total fuel carrying capacity. Since initial mission profiles required the high-speed capability at most five percent of the time, the end result is a Littoral Combat Ship that has very little endurance and a high-speed capability it will rarely use. Refueling, and potentially rearming, will require the Littoral Combat Ship to leave littoral waters and transit to Combat Logistics Force ships operating outside the littorals for replenishment. Given the low endurance of the Littoral Combat Ship, its time on station is seriously compromised.
Click to expand...
 
Gas turbine powerplant of course. Can't dig up exact type offhand but I'm willing to bet a pair of GE LM2500s at the very least.
 
flyersfan31 said:
Too big, too expensive, too fast, too short-legged -- they'll have to leave the littoral station every day to run out to the blue-water tankers.


From: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/lcs.htm
Click to expand...

Proof of the old saying, "A camel is a horse designed by committee."

The development and construction of Independence as of June 2009 was running at 100% over-budget. The total projected cost for the ship is $704 million. The Navy had originally projected the cost at $220 million.[15]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Independence_(LCS-2)

No surprise there, I suppose.


Trapper John
 
I for one don't like it, or them--the whole littoral concept. You're right, they are gas turbines, and have to stop by the friendly neighborhood supply ship all too often. also, they are inefficient, and big fat targets.

I also don't like this idea that we don't need to worry about the sea lanes any more, since them thar Commies are our "friends"--even if that were indeed so, there are a whole lot of other deepwater "interests" we ought to be cognizant of.

That, and the degrading of the quality of USNA, and the whole Putting WINs (the sailors formerly known as WAVES) on the boats (submarines) is just another step in downgrading our readiness--not to mention training has gone out the window. Just like flying our little Cs and Gs and Ps helps us retain proficiency, so to does getting underway. But that costs money, and Defense is the only Federal entity that is actually reducing its budget.

And from reports I've gotten from folks in the fleet, underway time, flight time, maintenance--everything that pertains to readiness is suffering.

In the words of my former Chief Engineer aboard USS Bainbridge (CGN-25), "That's Unsat.":nono:
 
Let's see, I want to defeat small craft. I need something expensive? No, I need something fast, armed and armored. Or, fast and armed. Think, PT Boat or, more recently, SWIFT boat. But, that would be too easy, wouldn't it?

In the meantime, let the Air Force design one... :D
 

Attachments

  • Air Force Ship.jpg
    Air Force Ship.jpg
    53.4 KB · Views: 22
hmm... Looks like they tried to keep the deck clean for a lower RCS. But isn't the wake going to alert an attentive radar operator?
 
jshawley said:
I for one don't like it, or them--the whole littoral concept. You're right, they are gas turbines, and have to stop by the friendly neighborhood supply ship all too often. also, they are inefficient, and big fat targets.

I also don't like this idea that we don't need to worry about the sea lanes any more, since them thar Commies are our "friends"--even if that were indeed so, there are a whole lot of other deepwater "interests" we ought to be cognizant of.

That, and the degrading of the quality of USNA, and the whole Putting WINs (the sailors formerly known as WAVES) on the boats (submarines) is just another step in downgrading our readiness--not to mention training has gone out the window. Just like flying our little Cs and Gs and Ps helps us retain proficiency, so to does getting underway. But that costs money, and Defense is the only Federal entity that is actually reducing its budget.

And from reports I've gotten from folks in the fleet, underway time, flight time, maintenance--everything that pertains to readiness is suffering.

In the words of my former Chief Engineer aboard USS Bainbridge (CGN-25), "That's Unsat.":nono:
Click to expand...

So as an old destroyerman, you would NOT be in favor of the tight crewing (something like a ship's complement of 50-60 total)? I'm sure you would love running a damage control party with, maybe, one guy!!!

Good idea of the ship, horrible execution. And we the taxpayers are stuck.
 
Pi1otguy said:
hmm... Looks like they tried to keep the deck clean for a lower RCS. But isn't the wake going to alert an attentive radar operator?
Click to expand...
I thought the wake looked "flatter" than other ships, even when going fast. I imagine the ability to "see" the wake on radar is going to depend on the sea state...but I'm also sure there's a real Navy person here with real experience to give the real answer...I'll defer to him/her...
 
Cap'n Jack said:
I thought the wake looked "flatter" than other ships, even when going fast. I imagine the ability to "see" the wake on radar is going to depend on the sea state...but I'm also sure there's a real Navy person here with real experience to give the real answer...I'll defer to him/her...
Click to expand...
No navy or water experience, but on a similar note, doesn't the cavitation of the water jet self announce its position to a prepared defender? Presumably sonar buoys or attack subs would be in use.
 
Where are these built? I think Andrew's got it. Short legs will require slow tankers.
 
Pi1otguy said:
No navy or water experience, but on a similar note, doesn't the cavitation of the water jet self announce its position to a prepared defender? Presumably sonar buoys or attack subs would be in use.
Click to expand...
Acoustically...maybe. It depends.

To answer Anthony's Q, I doubt any agressor now and foreseable will 'see' the wake...even acoustically. 'Sea periority' like supremacy in the air....

I imagine this ship has all the bells and whistles to cloak as much as technology allows...meaning she runs silent.
 
I found 2 submarines by picking up the periscope and scope wake on radar (E-2C Hawkeye, APS-120 Radar, about 20 years and at least 4 major mods out of date by now)
 
In all reality, what is something like this actually going to be used for? I'm not talking some "the Russians might decide that we need to have Cold War Part Deaux" scenario; but, rather, realities.

With that in mind, what's the practical use for this thing?
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
In all reality, what is something like this actually going to be used for? I'm not talking some "the Russians might decide that we need to have Cold War Part Deaux" scenario; but, rather, realities.

With that in mind, what's the practical use for this thing?
Click to expand...

Keeping the Navy at the trough as it searches for a Post Cold War mission.
 
dmccormack said:
I participated in design meetings for the LCS (I don't work for that contractor anymore).

Here's the image that comes to mind when I think LCS:

7595piglets_feeding.jpg
Click to expand...

dmccormack said:
Keeping the Navy at the trough as it searches for a Post Cold War mission.
Click to expand...

Heh heh heh.

Didn't the Navy, 15-20 years ago, have some kind hydrofoil-based patrol craft that was something of a modern version of a PT boat? I vaguely remember seeing pictures of them as a kid and thinking, "those look like fun!" The name Pegasus comes to mind, for some reason.

At any rate, it seems to me that if something with some speed is necessary for everything ranging from harbor patrol to blasting pirates at some distance offshore, something along those lines - and armed to the teeth - would be a pretty good fit. Much cheaper (and thus could be far more plentiful), at least.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
At any rate, it seems to me that if something with some speed is necessary for everything ranging from harbor patrol to blasting pirates at some distance offshore, something along those lines - and armed to the teeth - would be a pretty good fit. Much cheaper (and thus could be far more plentiful), at least.
Click to expand...

The current destroyer class (DDG) can meet 95% of the LCS mission goals.

With an existing platform. And fleet. and sailors.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
Heh heh heh.Didn't the Navy, 15-20 years ago, have some kind hydrofoil-based patrol craft that was something of a modern version of a PT boat? I vaguely remember seeing pictures of them as a kid and thinking, "those look like fun!" The name Pegasus comes to mind, for some reason.

At any rate, it seems to me that if something with some speed is necessary for everything ranging from harbor patrol to blasting pirates at some distance offshore, something along those lines - and armed to the teeth - would be a pretty good fit. Much cheaper (and thus could be far more plentiful), at least.
Click to expand...

Yep.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegasus_class_hydrofoil

Typical Fed silliness and infighting.
 
Better view of the hull, looking under the ship, in this video (not a very good resolution, but still):

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top