USS Freedom : The coolest thing you'll see today

[Etienne]

USS Freedom just passed us going down the St-Lawrence river. Doing 39 kts to our 13... I still managed to get some pictures. I'll post them in a minute; they're downloading right now.

That thing is awesome. Seriously, just watching it go by, everybody got excited... She was doing 48 kts on Lake Erie the other day; the pilots say they saw her at 50+ on Lac St-Pierre earlier.

The wake on that thing is enough to rock the boat I'm on. We're displacing 35 thousand tons or so right now. Container ships don't usually rock us.

[FIREWALL]

Hi :sunny: That must have been a site. :yep:



http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/1166/homeheader3nd2.jpg

[Etienne]

Here she is, five miles or so away. We had her at 38.9 kts on the AIS:

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x197/Deckgull/Freedom-1.jpg

Approaching

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x197/Deckgull/Freedom-2.jpg

This makes me wanna sing the theme to Team America. Or soil my pants. Notice the exhaust plume.

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x197/Deckgull/Freedom-4.jpg

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x197/Deckgull/Freedom-3.jpg

Here we go with the PURE AWESOME

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x197/Deckgull/Freedom-5.jpg

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x197/Deckgull/Freedom-6.jpg

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x197/Deckgull/Freedom-9.jpg

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x197/Deckgull/Freedom-7.jpg

[Task Force]

Thats a nice looking ship. Fast too, must have been a big wake.:lol:

[Etienne]

Some close ups:

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x197/Deckgull/Freedom-13.jpg

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x197/Deckgull/Freedom-14.jpg

I think these are some sort of exhaust ports. There are two on the starboard side, I didn't see the port side very well.

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x197/Deckgull/Freedom-10.jpg



Superstructure:

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x197/Deckgull/Freedom-15.jpg

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x197/Deckgull/Freedom-16.jpg

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x197/Deckgull/Freedom-17.jpg

Is that some sort of drop bay on the stern? Or float-free whatchamacallit, like Landing Ships have? What's the big plate on the stern?

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x197/Deckgull/Freedom-18.jpg

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x197/Deckgull/Freedom-8.jpg

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x197/Deckgull/Freedom-24.jpg

[Etienne]

Thats a nice looking ship. Fast too, must have been a big wake.:lol:

Ah, yeah... Check this out.



It's hard to see in that picture, but she actually rocked us.

And then another, smaller boat started calling for them to slow down (They would have been SWAMPED) so she went down to 12 kts in like... 200 meters. Seriously, she just died.

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x197/Deckgull/Freedom-22.jpg

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x197/Deckgull/Freedom-23.jpg

And here she goes again. Like somebody threw a switch.

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x197/Deckgull/Freedom-24.jpg

[jpm1]

Wow , nice shots

[Etienne]

And a last one :

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x197/Deckgull/Freedom-20.jpg

Seriously, that thing looks awesome.

[FIREWALL]

Now THAT would be fun to drive, or better yet water ski behind. :p :rotfl: :rotfl:

[SteamWake]

Nice shots, is it just me or does she seem a bit down by the bow?

If she is doing 39+ knots in the bay, wonder what she is really capable of :hmm:

[Etienne]

Nice shots, is it just me or does she seem a bit down by the bow?

If she is doing 39+ knots in the bay, wonder what she is really capable of :hmm:

Co-worker said she was showing 48 on the AIS the other night; the pilots says she went up to 50+ on Lac St-Pierre - Numbers like 60 and 70 are being bandied about, but we're just talking out of the wrong hole, really.

I'm betting 65.

[Task Force]

One fast ship, amasing how fast they can go.:yep: It would be one H*** of a speed boat.:D

[MothBalls]

Thanks for posting those great pics.

Q. How loud was it and what did it sound like?

[RickC Sniper]

GREAT pictures!
:rock:

[Etienne]

Thanks for posting those great pics.

Q. How loud was it and what did it sound like?

I didn't notice any noise, but then I was on a rather noisy boat about three cables away. I don't recall ever hearing the machinery noise of freighters going by, either.

[AVGWarhawk]

Very cool!

[MothBalls]

I wonder if they tested the weapons yet?

I hear there's a target rich environment off of the coast of Somalia. I'm sure the plankowner's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plank_owner) would love to squeeze off a few rounds.

[Deamon]

That thing is awesome. Seriously, just watching it go by, everybody got excited... She was doing 48 kts on Lake Erie the other day; the pilots say they saw her at 50+ on Lac St-Pierre earlier.
50+ kts ? :o What is that thing ? It must have one hell of a propulsion system.

[Etienne]

That thing is awesome. Seriously, just watching it go by, everybody got excited... She was doing 48 kts on Lake Erie the other day; the pilots say they saw her at 50+ on Lac St-Pierre earlier.
50+ kts ? :o What is that thing ? It must have one hell of a propulsion system.

Diesel / Gas turbine combo. Check out the exhaust plume... That's hot.

I heard the figure of 96 000 HP bandied about on the VHF today.

[fatty]

The panel on the starboard side is the door to the RO/RO cargo deck. The panel on the back I assume is a door to the well deck for launching RHIBs.

[Neptunus Rex]

Four stars and an anchor on blue field. Is that the flag for SECNAV flying from the main mast?

[Deamon]

I heard the figure of 96 000 HP bandied about on the VHF today. Add to this 17.160 HP of the Diesels. Now that is one hell of a thrust for a 3000t ship, when you comapare this to the total of 62070 HP of the new frigate Bayern(4700t) but with its turbines alone which makes 51680 HP in total it eaches supposedly 30 kn and with Diesels 21 kts. But adding both together it can perhaps go close to the 40 kts.

But the USS Freedome must be a hack of a ship. which is much smaller than the bayern. I am wondering how much room is taken away by the engines alone. There must be also a huge leap in performance of the turbines I presume.

[Deamon]

And then another, smaller boat started calling for them to slow down (They would have been SWAMPED) so she went down to 12 kts in like... 200 meters. Seriously, she just died.
Could you see whether she hit reverse in that process ?

[Etienne]

And then another, smaller boat started calling for them to slow down (They would have been SWAMPED) so she went down to 12 kts in like... 200 meters. Seriously, she just died.
Could you see whether she hit reverse in that process ?

I couldn't say, sorry. I wasn't looking at that precise moment.

If she has traditionnal waterjets, they don't really reverse : A bucket drops behind the jet and redirects the waterflow. I don't know if you can do that at 38 kts.

But then, I don't pretend to have a clue as to how the ship's propelled.

[SandyCaesar]

3000-ton stealth corvette, SF transport, and jetski combination...

USS Freedom: one seriously awesome ship.:rock: Great shots, Etienne!

[PeriscopeDepth]

Thanks for posting these Etienne. One of the best GT threads this week. :up:

Are you a professional sailor, if you don't mind me asking? And I don't mean in a Village People kinda way. :D

Edit: Doh, reading your profile answered that question.

PD

[PeriscopeDepth]

I know I am a whore for this blog way too often, but my favorite naval blogger somehow got himself a ticket on Freedom for this trip and has been writing about it/posting a few pictures.

http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/search/label/LCS

Four stars and an anchor on blue field. Is that the flag for SECNAV flying from the main mast?
You're right, according to the above link he's along for part of the trip.

PD

[Onkel Neal]

So cool, linked to the main SUBSIM News page. :up:

[TarJak]

Nice shots! Awesome looking machine. The kind of thing we should be building for our navy.

[Skybird]

If you want to really demoralise your enemy at sea, overtake him while doing water-skiing. :D

[Rilder]

I'l be honest she doesn't look like a good looking ship to me :|

Add in a set of 16" Guns then she might look ok.

[fatty]

I'l be honest she doesn't look like a good looking ship to me :|

Add in a set of 16" Guns then she might look ok.

Hmm, could it be the sound of $400 million beyond the original baseline delivery price being crammed into the shipbuilding budgetary vacuum?

[ekempey]

Nice shots, is it just me or does she seem a bit down by the bow?


She probably isn't fully loaded with ordinance or the Multi-Mission-Modules yet.

[August]

I'l be honest she doesn't look like a good looking ship to me :|

Add in a set of 16" Guns then she might look ok.
Hmm, could it be the sound of $400 million beyond the original baseline delivery price being crammed into the shipbuilding budgetary vacuum?

A large, rather useless, but hugely expensive target is what my sources tell me...

[CDR Resser]

Thanks for the pictures. Must have been interesting to see in person.

[Molon Labe]

I'l be honest she doesn't look like a good looking ship to me :|

Add in a set of 16" Guns then she might look ok.
Hmm, could it be the sound of $400 million beyond the original baseline delivery price being crammed into the shipbuilding budgetary vacuum?
A large, rather useless, but hugely expensive target is what my sources tell me...

Like everything else these days, we tried to do too much with a single platform. We would have been better off making a frigate/corvette with mission modules and a large mothership instead of trying to do everything with this one hull.

The reason it's so fast, I think, is because they sacrificed durability. Although it's meant to operate like a combattant, it's has the survivability rating of a rear-echelon ship.

[Sailor Steve]

It's fast because it's not a ship, it's a great great GREAT big boat!

I wonder how it handles in rough weather?

[Rilder]

I supose it could be retro fitted into a fishing vessel.

[August]

It'd make a great Coast Guard cutter.

[Orion2012]

Nice pics!

[Sonarman]

They should send her into action against the pirate speedboats of Somalia ASAP.

[fatty]

I'l be honest she doesn't look like a good looking ship to me :|

Add in a set of 16" Guns then she might look ok.
Hmm, could it be the sound of $400 million beyond the original baseline delivery price being crammed into the shipbuilding budgetary vacuum?

A large, rather useless, but hugely expensive target is what my sources tell me...

Something we agree on :up: An excellent idea on paper, and a void in the fleet structure that needs filling. The modularity concept is a good one as well, and one that has been pioneered in similar application to some success by the Danes. But I am told that the LCS classes were simply overengineered; like Molon said, they attempted to throw in everything but the kitchen sink, and the designs were constantly being altered during the build phase. The product is a coastal patrol ship that is almost as long as a FFG-7 and in fact two metres wider!

[August]

Something we agree on :up: An excellent idea on paper, and a void in the fleet structure that needs filling. The modularity concept is a good one as well, and one that has been pioneered in similar application to some success by the Danes. But I am told that the LCS classes were simply overengineered; like Molon said, they attempted to throw in everything but the kitchen sink, and the designs were constantly being altered during the build phase. The product is a coastal patrol ship that is almost as long as a FFG-7 and in fact two metres wider!

Not to mention highly vulnerable to land based artillery and missiles. An anti-tank platoon would put that thing in a world of hurt. Too big, not fast enough.

[Molon Labe]

I'm at a loss to understand how a ship supposedly designed to fight in the littorals can have practically zero air/missile defense capability. Coastal areas are kind of known for being in range of land based aircraft (Stark) and coastal missile batteries (Hanit). I think the lack of ESSM on this thing is just inexcusable.

[fatty]

I'm at a loss to understand how a ship supposedly designed to fight in the littorals can have practically zero air/missile defense capability. Coastal areas are kind of known for being in range of land based aircraft (Stark) and coastal missile batteries (Hanit). I think the lack of ESSM on this thing is just inexcusable.

Yup. As a matter of fact a commander once told me that the 'reach' of the littorals - that is to say, how far water can be from the shore for it to be considered littoral - is in part defined by the reach of shore-based weapons. Through the Age of Sail the narrow effective range of cannons in forts meant the littoral was defined in terms of hundreds of metres. By the World Wars coastal artillery extended that to thousands of metres. Now, the littorals are essentially defined by shore-based missiles and aircraft. It is foolish to ignore them.

[Orion2012]

http://www.navy.mil/view_photos_top.asp

The third link from the top has some pics taken onboard the Freedom with SECNAV.

[kurtz]

Sorry to go off topic but Molon Labe's Sig :up:

[Rockin Robbins]

Sorry to go off topic but Molon Labe's Sig :up:

Ditto! The most awesome aspect of an already impressive thread.:up::up:

[XabbaRus]

I thought it was supposed to have IR signature reduction. From the pictures that looks like one hell of a heat plume. Would love to see that through an IIR camera.

[swifty]

The panel on the starboard side is the door to the RO/RO cargo deck. The panel on the back I assume is a door to the well deck for launching RHIBs.

I worked and this project at Lockheed. RHIBs are launched/recovered from the stern hatch. the Remote Mine Hunting Vehicle and Sea Talon Vehicle are launched from the STB AFT hatch.

[fatty]

The panel on the starboard side is the door to the RO/RO cargo deck. The panel on the back I assume is a door to the well deck for launching RHIBs.

I worked and this project at Lockheed. RHIBs are launched/recovered from the stern hatch. the Remote Mine Hunting Vehicle and Sea Talon Vehicle are launched from the STB AFT hatch.

Ah, okay, I stand corrected. Thank you :up: It's the LCS-2 Independence that has the side door access to a RO/RO cargo deck. They're supposed to be able to stick a couple of Strykers and Humvees in there.

[AntEater]

To me, both LCSs always seem like a civilian high speed ferry with a small gun and a RAM launcher.
The modular stuff sounds fine, but most of the systems are not yet ready. I doubt all of the planned packages will be completed.
NETFIRE (sounds like one of those dotcom bubble companies) is still a project, for example.
Something I never understood about the USN is its casual approach to mine warfare.
I have no doubt the minehunting crews of the USN are as expert as the rest of NATO, but it seems to me they hardly get the support they need.
Especially now that minehunting is basically to be done as a side job with destroyers and LCSs, this doesn't seems to me like an increase in capabilities.
I mean if you ran an LCS as a full time minehunter, it would be a great platform, but also a bit oversized.
Sometimes I think the "sleek fast grey hulls" navy simply doesn't have time for such an inglorious, time-consuming thinking man's game as mine warfare.
Also, what do they need the Ro/Ro capabilities for?
I mean you can hardly expect the future enemy to be so nice to open a port where the LCS can dock and unload its Strykers. They can't do anything amphibious, so the land warfare docking space seems a bit wasted to me.
All in all, if the thing works and is affordable, it is a great platform, but I don't think it is out of the woods yet.

Btw, with such glorious names, how do they want to name the rest of the 50 LCSs?
After basic democratic rights?
Anyway, since the Bush administration is on the way out and reading the "assault weapons ban" thread, I don't think there will be a
USS Fifth Ammendment
:rotfl::rotfl:

[Blacklight]

Now that we have such good pics, lets get this thing modeled into Dangerous Waters !

[August]

Sometimes I think the "sleek fast grey hulls" navy simply doesn't have time for such an inglorious, time-consuming thinking man's game as mine warfare

That reminds me a lot of the arguments over the continued use of the A-10 Warthog. Not sexy enough for your average jet jocky who prefers a much faster and sleeker bird, even if they are less suited for the mud moving role and have a much shorter time on target.

[Etienne]

We caught up with the Freedom at the end of the day - Because she'd tied up for the week-end at the Québec city cruise terminal. That is an awesome dock to go to - bar accross the street, five minutes from the old town and fifteen minutes from the big party bars.

Oh, there's history and stuff, too.

Here she is, with Chateau Frontenac in the background.

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x197/Deckgull/_MG_1550-1.jpg

The colors came out a bit weird - the light was bad and there was a lot of humidity. I think I over corrected.

[Molon Labe]

Sorry to go off topic but Molon Labe's Sig :up:

Thanks. Coincidentally enough, I think I may have pulled it off Information Dissemination a few weeks ago (the blog was plugged earlier in this thread). If not there, it was Small Wars Journal.

[Molon Labe]

Also, what do they need the Ro/Ro capabilities for?
I mean you can hardly expect the future enemy to be so nice to open a port where the LCS can dock and unload its Strykers. They can't do anything amphibious, so the land warfare docking space seems a bit wasted to me.

I thought the doors were for deploying UUVs and USVs. Maybe smaller manned craft as well. It's sort of a mini-mothership.

[SeaQueen]

The panel on the starboard side is the door to the RO/RO cargo deck. The panel on the back I assume is a door to the well deck for launching RHIBs.

The panel in the back is for launching and recovering boats. The side door is to provide a second launch and recovery point for boats. It also facilitates UNREP, although I can't help but wonder how constrained they are by sea state.

I think RO/RO is unique to the General Dynamics version. Even though they don't really market it AS a JHSV alternative, they threw enough amphib-like features on it to get people wondering about what kinds of creative things they might be able to pull off with it.

[fatty]

The panel on the starboard side is the door to the RO/RO cargo deck. The panel on the back I assume is a door to the well deck for launching RHIBs.

The panel in the back is for launching and recovering boats. The side door is to provide a second launch and recovery point for boats. It also facilitates UNREP, although I can't help but wonder how constrained they are by sea state.

I think RO/RO is unique to the General Dynamics version. Even though they don't really market it AS a JHSV alternative, they threw enough amphib-like features on it to get people wondering about what kinds of creative things they might be able to pull off with it.

Yes, see my posts above, I was referring to the General Dynamics competitor.

[Bort]

I was lucky enough to get invited to the commisioning of Freedom in Milwaukee. Boy what a cold day! I can say having been aboard the thing that it is very impressive, but perhaps badly muddled in concept. In addition to being lightly armed and minimally crewed, the modules may cause all sorts of integration and practical use havoc when it gets to the fleet. I'm not really sure why we couldn't have just ordered them with full sensor/weapons suites.:hmm: I'm also not really sure why they didn't have the Coast Guard buy a bunch as well! It seems perfect as a medium endurance cutter, the drug runners wouldn't have a chance! Plus we'd save money in parts and design between the services.

[AntEater]

I think the LCS concept is the result of buzzword bingo!
What are its key features:
- network centricity
- COTS - Commercial off the Shelf : both LCS designs are based on foreign commercial ferry designs (LM is italian, GD australian)
- outsourcing: they basically bypassed the traditional shipping industry
- modularity: why make it simple when you can make it complicated?
- innovation: a new solution for an old well known problem

IMHO the best thing would be to implement certain ideas from LCS like waterjet propulsion or UAV/UUV integration into a single mission ship designed to military standards by military shipyards.
And give it a decent armament, for christ's sake... ;)

[SandyCaesar]

Right! I can't believe that the LCS's were designed not to have any AAW weapons at all, except the 57mm and the RAM. We can only hope that they will be decent for stopping some SSMs, or that someone will up with the idea of fitting ESSMs in those "mission modules". I can't see an LCS stopping more than a few vampires inbound. Considering that this was a deficiency in the FFGs as well...

I suppose reduced manpower is something to be happy about (though it reduces the repair crew, which is not good), but someone in the Navy is out of their mind not to have fitted any useful missile weapons. And, how exactly is an LCS supposed to kill littoral subs when it doesn't come with any sonar suite at all? UUV miracles?

[baggygreen]

you guys have all got your heads int he sand.

Its not PC to build a ship with weapons anymore! Even if the weapons are just built to scare people, thats not PC either, because it might hurt their mental well-being.

The navy needs to build peaceful ships now.:smug:

[AntEater]

I wonder why the GD design has a SeaRAM launcher instead of the normal one like the LM design.
SeaRAM is basically a Phalanx CIWS with a 11 cell RAM launcher replacing the 20mm Gatling gun.
It it totally autonomous, contrary to normal RAM launchers which rely on the ship's radars for targeting.
But "lack of sensors" was sofar not one of the critiques of the LCS.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

I wonder why the GD design has a SeaRAM launcher instead of the normal one like the LM design.
SeaRAM is basically a Phalanx CIWS with a 11 cell RAM launcher replacing the 20mm Gatling gun.
It it totally autonomous, contrary to normal RAM launchers which rely on the ship's radars for targeting.
But "lack of sensors" was sofar not one of the critiques of the LCS.

In theory, an integral radar is supposed to provide more accurate, faster tracking than linking to a radar placed off-axis. It is one of the criticisms of the AK-630 system (external "Bass Tilt") vs Phalanx (integral).

[Tchocky]

Seems like a sitting duck for a Lada-type submarine.

Of course, they can fit it out with sonar.
But then they'd have to sacrifice the assault capability.
So you can kill subs if you're expecting them, but that's the whole point of littoral subs.



Reminds me of the emphasis placed on the gun armament for the Zumwalt class. Seemed a little strange to focus on shore bombardment so much, especially when you don't want to risk a big ship like that so close in.
And wouldnt the Army be doing most of it's fighting inland?

[AntEater]

I suppose the idea is to have more than one working together, maybe with a DDG 51 farther off to provide air defense.

Regarding the RAM vs Sea RAM, I suppose back in the 80s this argument was valid, but modern phased array radars and central battle management systems should compensate for the disadvantage of a non local radar.
The LCS has a Sea Giraffe radar (Swedish/French) which is specialized in detection of small, fast moving air and sea contacts.
It should be able to cue RAM.
The 20+ year old 143 missile boats of the german navy use their original radar (optimized for surface search) to control the RAM launcher.
With a decent radar, RAM today can engage aircraft and boats as well. Early versions were limited to missiles, and the first versions to active radar guided missiles as targets.
With SeaRAM, you have a missile CIWS and nothing more.
Surprisingly much non US technology in both LCSs. Freedom has italian diesels, the main radar is from THALES (but developed in Sweden) the main gun is swedish, the missile defense is german (officially RAM is a joint project but Diehl/BGT developed both warhead and missile based on existing US technology).

[skacer54303]

Nice job on the pics. I heard a report of top speed at 57 MPH. I have not translated that but 48-50 knots is probably about right.

[SeaQueen]

I suppose the idea is to have more than one working together, maybe with a DDG 51 farther off to provide air defense.

You're right. You probably wouldn't use an LCS all by itself. There'd usually be a CRUDES someplace close.

[JALU3]

Why couldn't they take a success hull like the Perry, Up its armor, give it a small VLS pack (12 tubes), Sea RAM, a bofor , and give it a larger engine? Or is this asking to much of the small hull?

If the Liberty is only slightly smaller than a Perry-Long than what was the point besides the faster hull? I mean theoretically it is less capable in duration and system capability.

[SeaQueen]

The Perry wasn't really a success. In order to conserve costs, they were built without enough space aboard to take upgrades as time passed, so very quickly they became obsolete and the single screw design meant that if you had engine problems, you needed to be towed back to port.

There was actually some talk of giving FFGs a RAM. I don't think it's a bad idea necessarily and since they took the missile launcher out, the missile control room underneath the bridge is basically just unused space. Lord knows, a lot of countries have been happy to buy them and replace the old stuff with new stuff.

I think there's something to be said for the LCS being the triumph of buzzwords over good design, although there are some good things about it. The original concept (Streetfighter) was a good idea. Unfortunately, if history is any guide then almost every good idea for a ship design is unrecognizable by the time the Navy is done with it. Look at how destroyers in World War II were relentlessly designed, redesigned and modified. Sometimes I think the best way to look at a ship is exactly how the LCS is designed; a platform on which to stick modular packages of weapons and sensors.

If they put the surface warfare package aboard, LCS will have seriously big teeth with all the precision attack missiles, the gun, the 0.50cals, plus the Seahawk with Hellfires and a Firescout UAV. That's more than enough for a coastal duel with a group of missile boats.

I'm skeptical of the ASW package, because there's serious limitations on a lot of the offboard sensors they say will take the place of a hull mounted sonar. I predict that eventually they'll decide to accept a little deeper draft in favor of a hull mounted active sonar and a towed array if they can. Otherwise, it's just going to be a glorified helicopter carrier, although one can argue (not necessarily incorrectly) that the FFG7 was essentially that in an ASW role too. The truth is that ASW is hard for surface ships.

The mine warfare package will be nice too because compared to existing minehunters, the LCS will have much better self defense capability. This isn't to say that it's good enough to go without an AEGIS ship or even another LCS nearby, but I'd rather be on an LCS than an Osprey.

I'm also skeptical that speed is going to really buy them that much. The truth is that they'll probably rarely get to take advantage of it tactically and strategically they lack the endurance to make use of it. It might make a good escort for a JHSV which will be equivilently fast, but that's all I see them using it for. Warships often operate in small groups to take advantage of each other's complimentary capabilities, so you're always limited by the slowest ship in the group. That means in practice, they'll frequently not operate much faster than the AEGIS ships that they're going to need to keep nearby in order to stand a chance of surviving a cruise missile raid.

The rear boat ramp is a good idea, because it means they can maybe use them sometimes like PCs, which the Navy could DEFINITELY use some more of. Honestly, I don't know why more people interested in naval matters don't talk more about PCs. They've actually seen combat in Iraq, which one can't claim for AEGIS ships aside from shooting cruise missiles. Unfortunately, the Navy's promotion system favors CRUDES, aviation and submarine officers, so small surface combatants like PCs, amphibs and minehunters, which are probably more relevant to the present day don't get the attention they deserve.

Why couldn't they take a success hull like the Perry, Up its armor, give it a small VLS pack (12 tubes), Sea RAM, a bofor , and give it a larger engine? Or is this asking to much of the small hull?

If the Liberty is only slightly smaller than a Perry-Long than what was the point besides the faster hull? I mean theoretically it is less capable in duration and system capability.

[Overboard]

The Perry wasn't really a success. In order to conserve costs, they were built without enough space aboard to take upgrades as time passed, so very quickly they became obsolete and the single screw design meant that if you had engine problems, you needed to be towed back to port.

There was actually some talk of giving FFGs a RAM. I don't think it's a bad idea necessarily and since they took the missile launcher out, the missile control room underneath the bridge is basically just unused space. Lord knows, a lot of countries have been happy to buy them and replace the old stuff with new stuff.

I think there's something to be said for the LCS being the triumph of buzzwords over good design, although there are some good things about it. The original concept (Streetfighter) was a good idea. Unfortunately, if history is any guide then almost every good idea for a ship design is unrecognizable by the time the Navy is done with it. Look at how destroyers in World War II were relentlessly designed, redesigned and modified. Sometimes I think the best way to look at a ship is exactly how the LCS is designed; a platform on which to stick modular packages of weapons and sensors.

If they put the surface warfare package aboard, LCS will have seriously big teeth with all the precision attack missiles, the gun, the 0.50cals, plus the Seahawk with Hellfires and a Firescout UAV. That's more than enough for a coastal duel with a group of missile boats.

I'm skeptical of the ASW package, because there's serious limitations on a lot of the offboard sensors they say will take the place of a hull mounted sonar. I predict that eventually they'll decide to accept a little deeper draft in favor of a hull mounted active sonar and a towed array if they can. Otherwise, it's just going to be a glorified helicopter carrier, although one can argue (not necessarily incorrectly) that the FFG7 was essentially that in an ASW role too. The truth is that ASW is hard for surface ships.

The mine warfare package will be nice too because compared to existing minehunters, the LCS will have much better self defense capability. This isn't to say that it's good enough to go without an AEGIS ship or even another LCS nearby, but I'd rather be on an LCS than an Osprey.

I'm also skeptical that speed is going to really buy them that much. The truth is that they'll probably rarely get to take advantage of it tactically and strategically they lack the endurance to make use of it. It might make a good escort for a JHSV which will be equivilently fast, but that's all I see them using it for. Warships often operate in small groups to take advantage of each other's complimentary capabilities, so you're always limited by the slowest ship in the group. That means in practice, they'll frequently not operate much faster than the AEGIS ships that they're going to need to keep nearby in order to stand a chance of surviving a cruise missile raid.

The rear boat ramp is a good idea, because it means they can maybe use them sometimes like PCs, which the Navy could DEFINITELY use some more of. Honestly, I don't know why more people interested in naval matters don't talk more about PCs. They've actually seen combat in Iraq, which one can't claim for AEGIS ships aside from shooting cruise missiles. Unfortunately, the Navy's promotion system favors CRUDES, aviation and submarine officers, so small surface combatants like PCs, amphibs and minehunters, which are probably more relevant to the present day don't get the attention they deserve.

Why couldn't they take a success hull like the Perry, Up its armor, give it a small VLS pack (12 tubes), Sea RAM, a bofor , and give it a larger engine? Or is this asking to much of the small hull?

If the Liberty is only slightly smaller than a Perry-Long than what was the point besides the faster hull? I mean theoretically it is less capable in duration and system capability.


WOW!!.. Good Post :up:

[JALU3]

So the biggest reason for the enormous raise in cost/hull has been the fact that the Navy did not have a solid non-changing plan before they finished the two hulls. So that means the navy has to come up with a concrete design which is large enough to be high endurance for a small crew, have more than one screw, can handle two V-22s/MH-60s, have ASW/AAW/ASuW/AMineW, small inflatable boat launch capability, can take a good sized hit, and can possibly support smaller attached PCs.
Can a ship under 4500 ton displacement, have a 155mm artillery gun (like that on the Crusader (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM2001_Crusader) or FCS-NLOS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Line-of-Sight_Cannon)), SeaRAM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SeaRAM)/VLS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_Launching_System), CIWS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS), Mounted Sonar systems, a boat launch ramp and docking stations for ships that are about 100 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USCG_coastal_patrol_boat)-300 tons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclone_class_Patrol_ship), and can maintain 33 knots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_LM2500).

[JALU3]

I was just reading up on something. You know I thought of a solution from old. Bring back the Monitors. Littoral, heavily gunned, patrol ships, with some ocean capability.

Fit them with a helicopter landing area, and some self-defense AAW capability and we might be in business.
I mean the British had some decent success in this area (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberts_class_monitor), right?

[AntEater]

Problem is, aside from fighting the CSS Virginia, a monitor has only one purpose, that is to support troops on shore. A monitor is not a ship to control littorial waters. The monitors of old needed whole fleets of escorts, minesweepers and picket boats if they wanted to operate. In WW2, "monitor warfare" was not so common, but off the Flanders coast in WW1, monitors were quite threatened by destroyers, mines, shore artillery, the first MTBs and remote controlled boats. A LCS is not a shore bombardement vessel (though it is supposed to have that capability), but rather a means for controlling the coastal waters so that other ships can operate there.

[SandyCaesar]

I was just reading up on something. You know I thought of a solution from old. Bring back the Monitors. Littoral, heavily gunned, patrol ships, with some ocean capability.

Fit them with a helicopter landing area, and some self-defense AAW capability and we might be in business.
I mean the British had some decent success in this area (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberts_class_monitor), right?

The thing is, monitors tend to be slow, short-ranged ships with terrible sea-handling problems. Plus, as AntEater pointed out, they're good for shore bombardment--that's it. For ASW or ASuW, they're not very suitable.

[A Very Super Market]

Hell, just read the article on the HMS Furious. A battleship's guns on a light cruiser, a monitor is smaller than a DD and use 18 inchers. Clearly, they can't control coastal areas, a speedboat could probably destroy one.

[AntEater]

The three "large light cruisers" (Courageous, Glorious, Furious) were probably the WW1 counterpart to the littorial combat ship in terms of failure
:D

They were good carriers, though.

[A Very Super Market]

Counter-part? More like predecessor... Battlecruisers themselves weren't a bad idea. Putting them against battleships was. To add 15 inch guns to a light cruiser is just silly. Likewise, making what is basically an oversized PT boat is just as silly. In terms of sillyness, both are the absolute worst.

I just used the word silly three times in an argument.

Discretion: Poster may be high

[JALU3]

Than again, I post the question can the USN make a solid design, that they wont change, under 4500 ton displacement, have a 155mm artillery gun (like that on the Crusader (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM2001_Crusader) or FCS-NLOS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Line-of-Sight_Cannon)), SeaRAM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SeaRAM)/VLS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_Launching_System), CIWS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS), Mounted Sonar systems, a boat launch ramp and docking stations for ships that are about 100 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USCG_coastal_patrol_boat)-300 tons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclone_class_Patrol_ship), and can maintain 33 knots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_LM2500).
I can't imagine that it would be too difficult to design. I mean this is the same navy that designed the new Gerald Ford Class, and the old Iowa Class.

I mean, it shouldn't be that difficult. It's not rocket science.

But then agian, there is that blasted FCS thing, that doesn't really take into account feed back from the realities in the field. Smaller, faster, more mobile, more leathal, more aware all sound nice. But when rounds are coming down range, that "Legacy" armor/protection sure comes in handy.
I mean really, Look at the Canadian's lesson when it comes to the tank. They thought they could do without one, and were going to get the Stryker MGS, but lessons in Afghanistan showed that when it comes down to it a MBT, is still a good choice, and damn well needed.

[Drifter80]

Wow, great thread. I wanted to see this ship go through lake st. clair but I missed it.:cry: I was interested in seeing how it looked on my Gradys radar:ping: . Etienne, if you were on the bridge of a laker while she passed by did you happen to see how large of contact she was on radar? I've always wondered how much smaller the RCS is on a stealthy ship. I know the LCS isn't as radical as a Visby class or those Norwegian Skjold class boats but I would think its stealthy enough to be a little smaller on radar.
I like the LCS idea. I think it will be better than the current OHPs at mucking it up with 3rd world threats but I don't know how good it will be against Chinese, Russian, or Indian threats. I think the LCS-2 might be a better platform just because it has more space to add modules.
Does anyone know where the non-line of sight missiles are housed and fired from? Is there a VLS on the roof somewhere? Also, wiki says it has ASW torps, does anyone know if they are fired from the ship or are they only deployed by the UAVs and helis? Is the ship really undercrewed for damage control? 40-50 core plus another 70 or so with a mission package sounds like a decent complement for a ship that size and on par with at least some of the modern ships around the same size.
JALU3, I agree, you would THINK the Future Combat Systems of the US army would have gone through a massive "rethink" about all the lightly armored, more mobile tanks after Iraq. If a drum filled with explosives hidden in a pile of garbage can harm heavy armor what good is a light tank with a quick kill anti-missile system?
Are there any sites with info on the equipment for each of the LCS mission mods? Weapons, sensors, so on

[A Very Super Market]

....Did you just say that you think Russia, China, and India will attack?

[Drifter80]

I said I don't know how well the LCS would fare against threats from China, Russia, or India.

[JALU3]

It's doubtful in the current geopolitical climate that a war would occur between the major powers, however, at the same time, you have to see possible threats, and design against them.
Plus think of who supplies weapons. China & Russia are major suppliers.