Shipbucket
http://67.205.157.234/forums/

US Navy Small Surface Combatant
http://67.205.157.234/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5212		 Page 2 of 4
Author:  heuhen [ May 16th, 2014, 2:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: US Navy Small Surface Combatant
bsmart wrote:
TimothyC wrote:
Ok, Minewarfare is a good mission. How are we going to do minesweeping?
With a purpose built ship, not shoehorning it into another ship where it doesn't make a lot of sense. A small purpose built minesweeper, minimal self defense capability, RAM launcher and perhaps a 30mm gun.
the Norwegian minewarfare vessels. (among the best of there type around, but getting old) the only armament they have is 2 12.7mm and a manpad for AA defense. An minevessel don't need more, they are not going to defend half the world by it'self, that is the work for an escort like a Frigate!
bsmart wrote:
Quote:
Also, what is the mission of a "small surface combatant" (I'm not knocking the idea, but it helps if everyone is on the same page as we discuss this).
ASW, local air defense, surface combat. Mostly I think the US has an issue right now where our options are to either send in a $2 billion dollar Arleigh Burke or a Carrier Battle Group. There's nothing below a Burke. Well you don't always need a platform armed with Standard missiles and Tomahawks. A ship with a 5" gun, maybe 32 tactical length VLS cells, 8 Harpoons on deck, and the ability to carry two helicopters. If you really, really want to have the flexibility maybe split things up, 16 tac and 16 strike length VLS cells so carrying Tomahawks isn't out of the question. A ship you can hopefully build for $750 million to a billion each.
almost similar to Norway, and the Nansen. When the Nansen is fully armed, it have Standard missiles and 127mm cannon.
Author:  bsmart [ May 16th, 2014, 2:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: US Navy Small Surface Combatant
heuhen wrote:
the Norwegian minewarfare vessels. (among the best of there type around, but getting old) the only armament they have is 2 12.7mm and a manpad for AA defense. An minevessel don't need more, they are not going to defend half the world by it'self, that is the work for an escort like a Frigate!
I wouldn't think a ship with a 30mm cannon and a RAM is going to defend half the world itself. I'm suggesting not making it utterly defenseless. Given the likely places it would have to operate having something to deal with small boats wouldn't be a bad thing.
bsmart wrote:
almost similar to Norway, and the Nansen. When the Nansen is fully armed, it have Standard missiles and 127mm cannon.
Similar to a lot of vessels. I'm not suggesting anything the rest of the world isn't already building. That's one of the reasons I think the LCS is so ridiculous. The rest of the world has been building Frigates and Corvettes for decades that are impressively capable and then we build... that.
Author:  heuhen [ May 16th, 2014, 3:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: US Navy Small Surface Combatant
bsmart wrote:
heuhen wrote:
the Norwegian minewarfare vessels. (among the best of there type around, but getting old) the only armament they have is 2 12.7mm and a manpad for AA defense. An minevessel don't need more, they are not going to defend half the world by it'self, that is the work for an escort like a Frigate!
I wouldn't think a ship with a 30mm cannon and a RAM is going to defend half the world itself. I'm suggesting not making it utterly defenseless. Given the likely places it would have to operate having something to deal with small boats wouldn't be a bad thing.

but 30mm and RAM is over the top, that is what I saying. a 12.7mm is more than enough for an minewarfar vessel to deal with any small boat. while an Manpad is also more than enough to deal with helicopters, but also small boats with it's rockets.

A RAM is used mostly to take down missiles. And if an minewarfar vessel is inside a zone where it's a danger to be attacked by missiles, she would have an escort with it. for just adding 30mm and RAM will make the minewarfar vessel way to expensive. two "12.7mm" HMG for stopping any small boats and one Manpad like the "Sadral", we have an modified version of these vessel, and they carry 20mm next to 12.7mm but that is due they are build to go in an hot-zone. but today they are escorted by other vessels, so they almost never have more than an 12.7mm with them.

[ img ]
Author:  bsmart [ May 30th, 2014, 4:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: US Navy Small Surface Combatant
I see your point about the RAM. I still think a manned, not automated, 25-30mm mount isn't a bad idea.
Author:  heuhen [ May 30th, 2014, 5:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: US Navy Small Surface Combatant
Just as I said max 20mm! Named, but you can use the "low cost" Kongsberg SeaProtector 12,7mm. It's just an 12,7 with some cameras and remote control... Nice to have.
Author:  apdsmith [ May 30th, 2014, 6:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: US Navy Small Surface Combatant
From what I understand, part of the reason is that the minewarfare boats are small - 750 tons or so is the figure I remember reading (is that due to cost \ complexity on larger GRP hulls?)

With that kind of draconian weight limit I can understand shipping the bare minimum self-defence capability.

Ad
Author:  heuhen [ May 30th, 2014, 6:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: US Navy Small Surface Combatant
Weight issue is not the big concern on this ships, but if you want it small...

for example that vessel above that I posted can easy handle 127mm, and two small tactcal VLS. But that is due to the hull design.
Author:  apdsmith [ May 31st, 2014, 12:56 am ]
Post subject:  Re: US Navy Small Surface Combatant
Hi Heuhen,

Yeah, that one looks a little Skjold-related from that picture - is it?

Ad
Author:  heuhen [ May 31st, 2014, 7:38 am ]
Post subject:  Re: US Navy Small Surface Combatant
That one is build many year before skjold.
Author:  RP1 [ June 1st, 2014, 4:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: US Navy Small Surface Combatant
A couple of comments;
Quote:
How are we going to do minesweeping?
With robots deployed from FF/DD, rather than special-purpose, special-design, special-build ships with limited broader utility.
Quote:
part of the reason is that the minewarfare boats are small
There are lots of reasons, such as the current limits on composite construction. One issue is that a smaller vessel has less pressure wake and is thus less likely to set off mines. The disadvantage is that they are very poor at deploying long distances - RN SRMH have a *very* low speed of advance at sea and the Captain of Visby straight up admitted to Jane's that although they are just fab in the littorals, they have great difficulty deploying to someone else's littorals...
Quote:
The rest of the world has been building Frigates and Corvettes for decades that are impressively capable and then we build... that.
How many of those FF/KK have a massive mission bay and flight deck bigger than LPD-17? Different courses, different horses.

M340 is Orskoy if I remember correctly?

RP1
Page 2 of 4 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/