Shipbucket

Here you go:

https://sites.google.com/site/timothyci ... 15_001.pdf

Thanks TimothyC ... I have not seen that one before, but it does provide the necessary details that I was looking for ... PF4921 updated.

Thiel ... Valid points and the reason why naval construction is so damn expensive. The whole premise for the LCS was to be cheap and expendable. The missions envisioned for the LCS was to combat diesel electric submarines in a coastal environment, mine warfare and combat swarm attacks by small craft. Of these three missions and billions of tax dollars spent, the LCS is currently capable of none. As the talk of the beltway at that time (2009/2010) was that as the missions envisioned were no different than high end Coast Guard missions, why not go for a cheaper and more conventional platform. Coast Guard cutters and Navy ships are different in some aspects, but similar in others and as they are required to be interoperable in times of national emergencies, it wouldn't be much of stretch to adapt a Coast Guard cutter for naval use. As the Legend class was considered a cheaper and proven platform, the navy should cut it's losses and adopt the Coast Guard design (much to there chagrin if they were forced to).

Attached a little background surrounding this proposal: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/55269464/07-17- ... atants.pdf

As in all things, all defense procurement projects suffer mission creep and I can see the navy bloat this as well ....

The sad part - we knew this was going to happen as far back as the mid-90's.

One of my favorite TSSE projects (that dates from before the obsession with speed that took over the TSSE program in the late 90s), CPCX (or Combined Patrol Corvette) tried to address these issues with a single unified hull.

sailor82 wrote:Thiel ... Valid points and the reason why naval construction is so damn expensive. The whole premise for the LCS was to be cheap and expendable.

Actually it wasn't. It was intended to be cheaper than the units currently operated by the USN. Which they are. And unit cost is expected to fall quite a bit now that proper serial construction has begun. Just like the Burkes did back in the early nineties.

sailor82 wrote:The missions envisioned for the LCS was to combat diesel electric submarines in a coastal environment, mine warfare and combat swarm attacks by small craft. Of these three missions and billions of tax dollars spent, the LCS is currently capable of none.

Actually, it is. True, there has been issues with the various modules. However, you're forgetting one thing. The reason why they decided to go ahead and built them despite nearly none of the weapons systems were anywhere near complete, they carry helicopters, and lots of them. Specifically, the minimum load for both of them is two SeaHawks and a UAV. The SeaHawk is proven and a lot more capable than the Dolphins the Legend class carries and most importantly, the USN already have the equipment for them to clear mines, kill small craft and hunt submarines.

sailor82 wrote:As the talk of the beltway at that time (2009/2010) was that as the missions envisioned were no different than high end Coast Guard missions, why not go for a cheaper and more conventional platform.

Because their missions aren't the same and their requirements are vastly different. Like you said, the LCS is designed to hunt submarines, small craft and mines. The Legend class is designed to hunt drug runners and be able to stay out in the open sea in the harshest of weather. (Hence why it's draft is more than twice that of both LCS classes.)

sailor82 wrote:Coast Guard cutters and Navy ships are different in some aspects, but similar in others and as they are required to be interoperable in times of national emergencies, it wouldn't be much of stretch to adapt a Coast Guard cutter for naval use.

True to a degree, if the USN was looking for an OPV. Which they're not, because that's what the Coast Guard is there for.

sailor82 wrote:As the Legend class was considered a cheaper and proven platform, the navy should cut it's losses and adopt the Coast Guard design (much to there chagrin if they were forced to).

But the Bertholf class can't perform the LCSs mission, nor will any derivative design be able to do so without a major redesign (Major as in an entirely new ship) and neither can the LCS perform the Bertholfs mission.

Don't get me wrong, the LCS program deserves a lot of criticism, but as someone whose navy has been operating in the same manner and environment as the LCS is intended to for the last 45 years I can tell you the concept does work. Whether the specific designs will work out is something else, but again there's nothing wrong with the concept.
Additionally it should be noted that the goal of the LCS program isn't just to develop the ships, but a whole new range of weapons and sensor systems and that's where a major part of the cost comes from. However, these systems aren't just applicable to to the LCS but can, and are, be implemented on other platforms.

Something else to chew on: The LCS: Much more than a "truck"

"As some conceived it, the LSC was a capability carrier – a platform to respond to the requirement to develop means for moving materials and personnel around a theater between the less expensively than airlift speed and far faster than traditional sealift."

"the truck concept is that the basic ship hull, mechanics, and engineering (HM&E) package is nothing more than a vehicle on which to throw varying packages, whether cargo (vehicle or containers), personnel, or combat weapons suites."

My opinions are skewed by actual experience and at the risk of being labeled "old school", there is a difference between what a platform is designed to do, and how they are actually employed.

I think the LCS issue might be best addressed in it's own thread, which I see no issue with - and would be happy to contribute to once I get my thoughts on screen. One thing that I think should be said is that the LCSes are built to lower standards for things like shock and damage control than the rest of the USN active fleet. It is also my understanding that these standards are matched by the Bertholfs, and presumably by any NSC derived frigate hull.

Hmmmmm the hull the same as the Bertholf class good. Is their a Berthold already with full hull as have only found a waterline version.

rifleman wrote:Hmmmmm the hull the same as the Bertholf class good. Is their a Bertholf already with full hull as have only found a waterline version.

Did you look in the archive on the main site?*

Did you look upthread?

*Yes, it's missing a rudder - It was a layering mistake that I made prior to the last upload session that I intend to fix at the next session - but if you searched the forums you would find a version with the rudder but the wrong screws and a version with the right screws but no rudder. It's an easy fix.