The Navy ship of the Future?

[BlackCat]

no smoking

This isn't the only aluminum ship. Cruisers and frigates are aluminum above the main deck. And they allow smoking.

I mean seriously. WTF. Did they just pull this reason out of their ass? Smoking is normally only permissible on the sponson or fantail (depending on the ship). It's not like crews are lighting up inside (though some engineering types did smoke in the engine/fire rooms- shhh don't tell anyone).

Well, I think it's quite official

http://ussindependencelcs2.org/news_detail.php?detail=1&news_id=9

[Kontiki]

I'm assuming a 40 man crew doesn't allow for enough sexual variety during a normal cruise?

[BlackCat]

To get out of harm's way.(I'm serious)

That is actually a very valid point.

It's suppose to be a cheap(ish) way of providing sea control assets for the USN. The idea being that it swaps out "modules" and a "mission crew" for whatever the mission is at hand. If it's suppose to do ASW stuff, it goes into port and loads a ASW module and mission crew. If it's suppose to to anti-surface stuff, it loads that instead.

Really, the driving factor I think is that the USN decided we don't need $2bil Destroyers w/350+crew chasing pirates around.

Something like these ? :

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/fly/

http://www.navalhistory.dk/English/TheShips/A/Absalon%282004%29.htm

I admit they are a bit slower, but it seems that they can hit a bit harder.

[Kuciwalker]

It's suppose to be a cheap(ish) way of providing sea control assets for the USN. The idea being that it swaps out "modules" and a "mission crew" for whatever the mission is at hand. If it's suppose to do ASW stuff, it goes into port and loads a ASW module and mission crew. If it's suppose to to anti-surface stuff, it loads that instead.

Sounds like the USN is having compsci majors do their ship design.

Not sure if that's a good thing.

[Sirotnikov]

I've been very vagely following this in blogs. Sea is not my natural field.

I was under the impression the LCS is anything but cheap, and also anything but littoral.

[Lonestar]

That is actually a very valid point.



Something like these ? :

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/fly/

http://www.navalhistory.dk/English/TheShips/A/Absalon%282004%29.htm

I admit they are a bit slower, but it seems that they can hit a bit harder.

Oh yeah, the LCS is the Absalom class concept taken to an extreme. But with the appropriate modules the LCS will be able to hit harder than the Danish ships.

Siro,

Yeah, the two prototypes are certainly not cheap by any stretch of the imagination, but they are still cheaper(per thousand ton) than any USN vessel under construction. I haven't heard of any problems with regards to being Littoral(remember, LCS-1 did it's sea trials on a lake for chrissakes), the problems would arise from operating in an environment that no one other than Amphibs or 14,000 ton STEALTH DESTROYERS can on the USN side also operate in.

[BlackCat]

Oh yeah, the LCS is the Absalom class concept taken to an extreme. But with the appropriate modules the LCS will be able to hit harder than the Danish ships.

Absalon class ( http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absalon)

Well, considering the amount of minerals you guys can pour into such a ship, you certainly should come out with a better vessel.

[Patroklos]

The LCS-1 was in Charleston a month ago and I got a good look at her. Basically she is a gold plated POS. I am sure she can do the mission she is supposed to, the problem is that we could do that mission with a ship half the cost that is half as complex and with half the maintenance requirements.

For the crew thing, don't worry that won't last for long. The DDGs were supposed to have a crew of 150 and after all the wishful thinking and denial wore off they were properly crewed at 230. There are simply things that can not be automated. As Lonestar mentioned UNREPs are one, but it gets even more mundane than that. Who is cleaning the damn thing? With a crew of 40 what happens when five crew members get the flu? On top of that, this thing is pretty much on pertetual port and starboard watches, which for you land locked types means 12 on/12 off for months at a time. And if you just happened to have had to perform something like transiting the Suez/SOH/BAM/etc., performed an UNREP, done a sea and anchor detail or pretty much a dozen other evolutions that happen at least once a day you are talking about 24 hour days for most of the crew. Its ridiculous.

As for the concept, the idea is that these ships can operate inshore but still under the defensive weapon and sensor umbrella of DDGs and CGs. Remember that the anti-air umbrella for an Aegis vessel is 200nm+. You wouldn't put these where there is particularly potent air threat anyway. The speed is required for dealing with small boat and corvette type vessels (and yes, they can outmanuever a torpedoe easily at those speeds). Unfortunetly the draft is deeper than required.

I also can't understand the "LCS" name. The thing is a damn corvette/frigate, call it that you idiots. Why every manufacturer/Admiral/politician thinks we need to reinvent the nomenclature system so their idea gets a better marketing angle is beyond me. It has one buyer, and its bought.

[Lonestar]

The LCS-1 was in Charleston a month ago and I got a good look at her. Basically she is a gold plated POS. I am sure she can do the mission she is supposed to, the problem is that we could do that mission with a ship half the cost that is half as complex and with half the maintenance requirements.

Probably, we'll see. I certainly think it's an interesting concept and should be tried out(which is why I'm wondering why the hell we're ordering more of these types of ships without even one deployment for the prototypes under the belt for evaluation purposes).

For the crew thing, don't worry that won't last for long. The DDGs were supposed to have a crew of 150 and after all the wishful thinking and denial wore off they were properly crewed at 230. There are simply things that can not be automated. As Lonestar mentioned UNREPs are one, but it gets even more mundane than that. Who is cleaning the damn thing? With a crew of 40 what happens when five crew members get the flu? On top of that, this thing is pretty much on pertetual port and starboard watches, which for you land locked types means 12 on/12 off for months at a time. And if you just happened to have had to perform something like transiting the Suez/SOH/BAM/etc., performed an UNREP, done a sea and anchor detail or pretty much a dozen other evolutions that happen at least once a day you are talking about 24 hour days for most of the crew. Its ridiculous.

Yeah, I also imagine the Marines that can embark on the LCS-2 will also have to pitch in.

As for the concept, the idea is that these ships can operate inshore but still under the defensive weapon and sensor umbrella of DDGs and CGs. Remember that the anti-air umbrella for an Aegis vessel is 200nm+. You wouldn't put these where there is particularly potent air threat anyway. The speed is required for dealing with small boat and corvette type vessels (and yes, they can outmanuever a torpedoe easily at those speeds). Unfortunetly the draft is deeper than required.

I also can't understand the "LCS" name. The thing is a damn corvette/frigate, call it that you idiots. Why every manufacturer/Admiral/politician thinks we need to reinvent the nomenclature system so their idea gets a better marketing angle is beyond me. It has one buyer, and its bought.

Because "Corvette" and "Frigate" are hidebound traditionalists term and not TRANSFORMATIONAL enough.

[Kuciwalker]

As for the concept, the idea is that these ships can operate inshore but still under the defensive weapon and sensor umbrella of DDGs and CGs. Remember that the anti-air umbrella for an Aegis vessel is 200nm+.

Let's just pretend I made my usual unfunny nanometer joke this time.

[KrazyHorse]

I'd rather pretend you didn't.

[Kuciwalker]

The alternative was me actually making the joke.

[KrazyHorse]

Bull****. You passed it by reference.

[KrazyHorse]

CarrotTop *KuciJoke;

:angrypointer:

[Kuciwalker]

Pointer arguments are an example of call-by-value, not call-by-reference.