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 3 of 4
Author:  heuhen [ June 1st, 2014, 5:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: US Navy Small Surface Combatant
Quote:
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.
Here in Norway where we are selling of our special ship HNoMS Tyr has been sold, due those new large coast guard vessels we have got over the last years. can do the same work as HNoMS Tyr.
Quote:
M340 is Orskoy if I remember correctly?
I'm not going to check that up, but I think you are correct, or it is one of here sister ships. the interesting thing with these Norwegian ship there was two sub-class of them!
Author:  Vossiej [ June 11th, 2014, 6:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: US Navy Small Surface Combatant
As for a USN small surface combatant, if of course depends on what you define as ''small''.

I would definitely go for the LCS-2/Indepenence class ships, it amazes me no-one in this thread has mentioned it before. Why? Here's why:

- Modern, future-proof overall design,
- Light tonnage (for a frigate-type I would say about 3,500 tons),
- Excellent for littoral operations,
- Very stable platform, allowing excellent growth-potential,
- Capable of very high speeds,
- Little crew needed,
- Lots of deck space (imagine all the benefits of that).

Besides all that, because of the large multi-mission bay it can perform a whole arrange of other task besides combat.

In my opinion the trimaran design is the ultimate design for any future multi-mission plaform, especially as navies got fewer and fewer types of ships to chose from.

Just my part of the apple :roll:
Author:  Dmitri97 [ June 13th, 2014, 4:39 am ]
Post subject:  Re: US Navy Small Surface Combatant
So I'm new here but I have a couple of ideas on this too. A design similar to a nansen or a kdx-2a are pretty much our best bets. The LCS is just too limited of a design, it tries to be able to do everything, but due to that, it isn't good at one thing. Maybe an expanded LCS-2 with an actual vls capable of ESSM and a naval rocket system like POLAR could've worked it would have been capable of greater support abilities then it is now. But even then, it would still have issues. In a nutshell, the navy needs a hull carrying a strike length VLS with ESSM, asroc, and TLAMs. And this could be a 48 or 32 cell system. There should be hangar space for two SH-60s, room for future helicopters. An interchangeable gun mount, they could choose from an Otomelera 76mm like on tne OHPs, a 57mm Mk. 110, or a 127mm Mk. 45. Phalanx or RAM. A decent electronics suite. Maybe AEGIS? Idk. Some harpoon canister launchers set between the funnels.
Just a decent small warship, capable to defending a merchant convoy against submarines, a light air attack, carrier escort,and being able to fire of a TLAM if conveniently in the area. Almost like a smaller somewhat weaker cousin of a Burke.

And yeah, a new minesweeper, I agree that those norwegian designs are pretty good for their age. Or even one of the unmanned ones.

Just my take on this, its all opinions.
Author:  apdsmith [ June 13th, 2014, 9:17 am ]
Post subject:  Re: US Navy Small Surface Combatant
Hi Dmitri,

The thing is, that's pretty much a full-on destroyer (to the point where you wonder if it'd be cheaper to just buy more Burkes as you wouldn't have to do any design work). As I'd understood it, the point of the LCS was something where TLAMs, for instance, just aren't a part of the requirements.

It may be that this is a stupid idea, I am in no sense qualified to judge, but to my understanding the LCS is intended to be a fairly cheap, quick, generic hull where you plug in the mission modules you need for that specific job - it's not a first-line combatant, my worry is that anything with that kit list almost inevitably will turn into such - although I understand the LCS hasn't managed the "cheap" part particularly well.

I guess the question is "what do you want it to do" - the Danish Navy seems to have done pretty well with Stanflex for this, as they had a laundry list of ships they wanted to replace with a configurable ship (at least, I've not heard anybody mention that they're unhappy with these ships, so I'm assuming that's a pretty clear-cut win for the RDN there).

In contrast (and it may just be my limited exposure to the design \ spec stuff) I've not perceived the same solidity to the LCS requirements and I really don't know why that is. Were the USN using the LCS to replace existing assets like the Danes were or was this intended to fill a new role?

Ad
Author:  RP1 [ June 13th, 2014, 12:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: US Navy Small Surface Combatant
Quote:
I've not perceived the same solidity to the LCS requirements and I really don't know why that is. Were the USN using the LCS to replace existing assets like the Danes were or was this intended to fill a new role?
Well that depends upon who you ask and at what point in LCS' troubled history you ask them. There were ships approaching end of life (FFG-7, Minehunters) that were designed for (or de-facto undertaking) roles LCS could do, but one of the (IIRC Congressional level) criticisms of LCS was that it didn't have a clear justification or operational requirement. (The counterpoint was that neither did the first aircraft carriers, and they turned out OK)

RP1
Author:  Cybermax [ June 14th, 2014, 7:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: US Navy Small Surface Combatant
Looks like LockMart is pushing upgraded Freedom class ships. Thanks Triton!

http://news.usni.org/2014/06/10/8077
Author:  Vossiej [ June 17th, 2014, 6:17 am ]
Post subject:  Re: US Navy Small Surface Combatant
Thank god they went for the 76mm... I never understood why (for example) the Canadians fitted 57mm's to their Halifaxes. It barely does no damage to large surface vessels and it lacks serious range. The only real plus in my opinion is the higher rate of fire.

I remember seeing that show ''Sinking a destroyer'', in wich several US and Canadian air/surface units had to sink the old HMCS Huron. THe 57's did no damage whatsoever, and a salvo from a 76mm did the trick.

Or can someone point me out the use of a 57mm? I'm talking about large surface ships, I could figure why FAC's would carry one.
Author:  Dmitri97 [ June 25th, 2014, 12:33 am ]
Post subject:  Re: US Navy Small Surface Combatant
Quote:
The thing is, that's pretty much a full-on destroyer (to the point where you wonder if it'd be cheaper to just buy more Burkes as you wouldn't have to do any design work). As I'd understood it, the point of the LCS was something where TLAMs, for instance, just aren't a part of the requirements.
I disagree with your idea that the idea of a ship that I am talking about would be a full on destroyer. If the ship I am describing would be compared to destroyers internationaly, it wouldn't even stand up to them in terms of capability. My idea is even less capable then many of the modern european frigates that are currently at sea. This ship would have greater capability than an OHP, but wouldn't quite be a Zeven Provincien or the Sachsen. The initial design work may cause the ship to be more expensive, but only if it is a completely new design. The KDX-2A would fit many of the requirements I have stated, and would be much cheaper than a new build hull. Same goes for a Nansen derivative. And this ship is not meant to replace the LCS type ships, only to replace the OHPs in their small combatant roll. At this moment the OHPs can barely class as frigates any more. They're more like corvettes on steroids. Or the worlds smallest Helo carriers.
Author:  Oberon_706 [ June 25th, 2014, 2:08 am ]
Post subject:  Re: US Navy Small Surface Combatant
The USN had it close to perfect with the Knox class DDEs - which should have been perpetuated/developed instead of going for a bigger, AAW-biased ship in the Perry Class IMO.

What the USN Needs is the modern equivalent of a Knox class, Type 21 (post Falklands) or an Aussie Anzac Class (post-ASMD Upgrade). Something that can take to fight to the enemy as well as look after itself without going overboard. Batches of the class can then be biased towards Littoral/AsuW and ASW/Escort roles respectively. AAW and the majority of AsuW ops are covered by the Aegis ships, and as such you shouldn't need a boat over 3000/3500 Tonnes.
Author:  Dmitri97 [ June 25th, 2014, 9:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: US Navy Small Surface Combatant
Thats a good point, I forgot about the ANZACs. A ship patterned after them might be good too. Are they able to carry TLAM?
Page 3 of 4 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/