Austral Designed LCS tops 50 MPH!

[Crusader2000]

Alabama-built warship tops out at more than 50 mph
(AP) – 12 hours ago

MOBILE, Ala. — The second of the Navy's new generation of speedy warships designed to operate close to shore topped 50 mph in builder trials completed this month.

Officials say the Independence, a 418-foot ship built in Alabama, traveled in excess of 45 knots, which equates to nearly 52 mph, and sustained 44 knots during a four-hour, full-speed sprint.

The so-called littoral combat ship is the second of two competing designs. The one built by Austal in Mobile, Ala., features a tri-hull design. The lead contractor is Maine's Bath Iron Works, a General Dynamics subsidiary.

The competing ship, Freedom, features a more traditional hull and was built by a team led by Lockheed Martin. It will go into service next year. Eventually, the Navy wants to build up to 55 of the ships.

[Sea Toby]

Alabama-built warship tops out at more than 50 mph
(AP) – 12 hours ago.
The competing ship, Freedom, features a more traditional hull and was built by a team led by Lockheed Martin. It will go into service next year. Eventually, the Navy wants to build up to 55 of the ships.

I knew both designs were going to be fast. The question remains after two ships are built of each design, which ship design will win the contract to build the rest. There is also the possibility that both or more shipyards will be used to build that one winning design. I believe bid with the cheapest design to build will win the contract.

[Crusader2000]

I knew both designs were going to be fast. The question remains after two ships are built of each design, which ship design will win the contract to build the rest. There is also the possibility that both or more shipyards will be used to build that one winning design. I believe bid with the cheapest design to build will win the contract.



The problem is cheapest design may not be the most capable!:(

[Sea Toby]

The two LCS designs appear to have very similar weapon systems and sensors. The largest difference I see is the vehicle deck and helicopter facilities/deck. I am sure the US Navy will prefer one over the other, but in the end Congress will choose the less expensive option. This program is going to have a very tight budget. We'll see....

Its going to be similar to Pakistan's F22P frigate program, whoever has the best financial package at the least cost will most likely win the contract as both ship designs meet specifications asked....

[stoker]

The two LCS designs appear to have very similar weapon systems and sensors. The largest difference I see is the vehicle deck and helicopter facilities/deck. I am sure the US Navy will prefer one over the other, but in the end Congress will choose the less expensive option. This program is going to have a very tight budget. We'll see....

Its going to be similar to Pakistan's F22P frigate program, whoever has the best financial package at the least cost will most likely win the contract as both ship designs meet specifications asked....

Does anyone have any idea on what were the costs so far of each of these two LSC designs?

I image that the cost of the modual fit-out will basically be the same for both ships.

So the 'costs' of each of the individual hulls/ machinery/electronics could be the final decider.

I have been trying to Goggle information on dimensions/ machinery fit-out for either of these LSC's, with no results. Does anyone have any information on these. Thanks in advance.

[Crusader2000]

Thursday, October 22, 2009
Information Dissemination

These Are Very Fast Ships
I'd be boasting this news too...


The Navy’s second littoral combat ship, the Independence, finished its builder’s trials Wednesday, more than three months after first sailing from its Mobile, Ala., shipyard for its tests at sea.

The aluminum trimaran hit a top speed of 45 knots and kept a sustained speed of 44 knots during its full power run in the Gulf of Mexico, shipbuilder General Dynamics said in an announcement. It kept a high speed and stability despite eight-foot waves and 25-knot winds.
The AP reports the ship "sustained 44 knots during a four-hour, full-speed sprint," which is 50 mph for 4 hours.

Last year when I was on USS Freedom the top speed while I was on the ship was 42.4 knots... on a sunny November morning that included almost no wind in the fresh, calm waters of Lake Ontario. I knew we were moving fast, but it really didn't feel like it. I imagine the GD version is very similar. If Independence is hitting 45 knots in builders trials with eight foot waves and 25-knot winds, even accounting this is salt water, it is still very impressive.

Speed is very sexy, and might turn out useful in some circumstances, but I'll be more interested to hear what the endurance of Independence is. In my book, speed is a wash over 40 knots, but endurance differences may be the deciding factor in the competition, and ironically, endurance was not a major point on the ship design requirements.

[Sea Toby]

Does anyone have any idea on what were the costs so far of each of these two LSC designs?

I image that the cost of the modual fit-out will basically be the same for both ships.

So the 'costs' of each of the individual hulls/ machinery/electronics could be the final decider.

I have been trying to Goggle information on dimensions/ machinery fit-out for either of these LSC's, with no results. Does anyone have any information on these. Thanks in advance.

2010 budget documents revealed that the total costs of the two lead ships had risen to $637 million for Freedom and $704 million for Independence.

I have had better luck with the Lockheed Martin LCS for machinery..
Lockheed Martin semi-planing monohull. Lockheed Martin's advanced semi-planing seaframe is based on technologies introduced by Italian shipbuilder Fincantieri on the 1,000t Destrier commercial vessel, which holds the transatlantic speed record, and the 3,000t Jupiter class.

The ship has a steel hull with aluminum superstructure and will be powered by two Rolls-Royce MT30 36MW gas turbines and two Fairbanks Morse Colt-Pielstick 16PA6B STC diesel engines driving four large, acoustically optimised Rolls-Royce waterjets.

Four Isotta Fraschini Model V1708 ship service diesel generator sets provide auxiliary power. Fincantieri Marine Systems North America Inc is supplying the ride control system.

"The Lockheed Martin design is a semi-planing monohull."
The ship's maximum speed is 45kt. The overall length is 115.5m. The maximum beam width is 13.1m and the draft is 3.7m.

The combat management system is the Lockheed Martin COMBATSS-21, based on open architecture. The ships will be equipped with EADS TRS-3D C-band radar for air and surface surveillance and weapon assignment and the soft-kill weapon system (SKWS) decoy launcher from Terma A/S of Denmark.

I shall continue to search and google for better Independence machinery specs....

All I have been able to discover is the Independence will have two GE LM2500 Gas Turbines, and two MTU M71 diesels or two MTU 20V 8000 diesels, along with four unknown generators and four Wartsila steerable waterjets.

[stoker]

2010 budget documents revealed that the total costs of the two lead ships had risen to $637 million for Freedom and $704 million for Independence.

I have had better luck with the Lockheed Martin LCS for machinery..
Lockheed Martin semi-planing monohull. Lockheed Martin's advanced semi-planing seaframe is based on technologies introduced by Italian shipbuilder Fincantieri on the 1,000t Destrier commercial vessel, which holds the transatlantic speed record, and the 3,000t Jupiter class.

The ship has a steel hull with aluminum superstructure and will be powered by two Rolls-Royce MT30 36MW gas turbines and two Fairbanks Morse Colt-Pielstick 16PA6B STC diesel engines driving four large, acoustically optimised Rolls-Royce waterjets.

Four Isotta Fraschini Model V1708 ship service diesel generator sets provide auxiliary power. Fincantieri Marine Systems North America Inc is supplying the ride control system.

"The Lockheed Martin design is a semi-planing monohull."
The ship's maximum speed is 45kt. The overall length is 115.5m. The maximum beam width is 13.1m and the draft is 3.7m.

The combat management system is the Lockheed Martin COMBATSS-21, based on open architecture. The ships will be equipped with EADS TRS-3D C-band radar for air and surface surveillance and weapon assignment and the soft-kill weapon system (SKWS) decoy launcher from Terma A/S of Denmark.

I shall continue to search and google for better Independence machinery specs....

All I have been able to discover is the Independence will have two GE LM2500 Gas Turbines, and two MTU M71 diesels or two MTU 20V 8000 diesels, along with four unknown generators and four Wartsila steerable waterjets.

Thank you very much Sea Toby, much appreciated.:)

[Sea Toby]

Thank you very much Sea Toby, much appreciated.:)

Us stokers/snipes think alike whether navy or coast guard, more impressed with engines than weapon systems. We would rather read tech manuals. :tasty

Appears the Lockheed ship has more powerful gas turbines whereas the Austal ship has more powerful diesels...

[Crusader2000]

Thank you very much Sea Toby, much appreciated.:)



I'll second that........:D

[Crusader2000]

Us stokers/snipes think alike whether navy or coast guard, more impressed with engines than weapon systems. We would rather read tech manuals. :tasty

Appears the Lockheed ship has more powerful gas turbines whereas the Austal ship has more powerful diesels...


Yet, I believe the Austal / General Dynamics Design in much more versatile and is clearly better in high sea states. Which, is very important for a ship of such small size.

[alexsa]

Cautionary note. This speed comes at a cost. The USN have a role for this vessel which is all wel and good but it is not a multi rolve vessel...... it is a convertabel vessel, meaning it must be configured for a role.

HSC hulls have little scope for weight compare to size but, in the case of LCS, have great volume. Mass, power and hull form is everyting at sea and there is a trade off between each. Al HSC are very light which but this results in operating restrictions over steel displacement hulls..

[tphuang]

makes me wonder if they actually lowered the speed requirements for these ships, would the cost of construction went down a lot. In certain configurations, I certainly don't see the need to sustain 44 knots for 4 hours.

[AegisFC]

makes me wonder if they actually lowered the speed requirements for these ships, would the cost of construction went down a lot. In certain configurations, I certainly don't see the need to sustain 44 knots for 4 hours.

Both hulls are optimized for high speed and are not very efficient at lower speed so if you drop the speed requirement then you might as well go for a simpler and more traditional propulsion setup and hull form.

[gf0012-aust]

makes me wonder if they actually lowered the speed requirements for these ships, would the cost of construction went down a lot. In certain configurations, I certainly don't see the need to sustain 44 knots for 4 hours.

Jervis Bay transited at "high speed" for longer than 4 days when enroute to East Timor. Like everything it depends on mission urgency and local conditions

[Crusader2000]

Well, in the case of fighting Pirates off Somalia. Such high speeds would be extremely useful.:ar15

[kato]

Actually, i don't see all that much use for being able to move 175 nm within 4 hours. At least within the LCS' mission spectrum.

Pretty much the only missions where that kind of speed would make sense is defensive ASuW in littoral quarters (and LCS doesn't field the armament for that) or landing operations over contested area.

For the four missions the LCS has, its speed is wasted; that is helo carrier within a group (no sense in overtaking the CVN...), ASW (offboard sensor AUV network won't do the 45 knots of course), MCM (no need to rush, that offending minefield is staying right where it is...) and MIO (in the time to move 100 nm, the helos can make it there and back).

[Crusader2000]

Actually, i don't see all that much use for being able to move 175 nm within 4 hours. At least within the LCS' mission spectrum.

Pretty much the only missions where that kind of speed would make sense is defensive ASuW in littoral quarters (and LCS doesn't field the armament for that) or landing operations over contested area.

For the four missions the LCS has, its speed is wasted; that is helo carrier within a group (no sense in overtaking the CVN...), ASW (offboard sensor AUV network won't do the 45 knots of course), MCM (no need to rush, that offending minefield is staying right where it is...) and MIO (in the time to move 100 nm, the helos can make it there and back).

The experts seems to disagree with your assessment. Otherwise, the USN would be looking for a small and simple (slower) Corvette Design.

[kato]

Nah.

The LCS speed is by the "experts" reasoned for with three main points:

- conducting warning and disabling fire in MIO situations
- conducting surface warfare against small boats
- rapid deployment of SOF and HLD personnel ("naval special warfare")

However, for the first point, there is absolutely no reason why a helicopter can't be used instead. The second? About every other navy includes that in general force protection and MIO. Not ASuW. See first point therefore. And the third? No special module planned for it, mission subsumed into other mission packages. Read: No longer considered an important point.

That's not to speak of the other point made for the speed: Other navies try to develop measures to defeat torpedos - the USN lets the LCS run away from them. Seriously, that has been stated as a reason for it.

[tphuang]

Actually, i don't see all that much use for being able to move 175 nm within 4 hours. At least within the LCS' mission spectrum.

Pretty much the only missions where that kind of speed would make sense is defensive ASuW in littoral quarters (and LCS doesn't field the armament for that) or landing operations over contested area.

For the four missions the LCS has, its speed is wasted; that is helo carrier within a group (no sense in overtaking the CVN...), ASW (offboard sensor AUV network won't do the 45 knots of course), MCM (no need to rush, that offending minefield is staying right where it is...) and MIO (in the time to move 100 nm, the helos can make it there and back).

yeah, I was thinking mostly about ASW/MCM missions, it just seems like the speed is an overkill, especially if it's not efficient for LCS to operate at lower speeds.

USN sometimes should just go for lower cost + good enough

[StingrayOZ]

The LCS would be able to out run most torpedos and underwater drones out there. Throw in a couple of decoys and counter measures and its not a bad way to avoid them.

To get a firing solution on it with a diesel sub would almost be impossible. Trying to get near it in a fast boat with a RPG/explosives is also not really an option either. Normal patrol boats arent going to get near it. It can outrun everything naval except maybe a SSN, which honestly who is going to send a SSN after a LCS..

Anything rotary air based may have a range issue when closing in on the LCS as well. It means the LCS can sit nearer the coast, operate closer to uncertain situations which could be the difference between getting your people out and leaving them behind to find their own way back. If it finds itself in a pickle it can't handle it can just run hard and fast to the nearest USN/USAF major asset coverage.

Sure its got weaknesses, but as a smaller, low draft, fast hull to cover the area most of the USN has difficulty operating in, its not a bad idea. Its got a party trick. I don't know if its good value but the cost mentioned so far means the USN is most likely going to get a functionally useful number of ships.

[kato]

To get a firing solution on it with a diesel sub would almost be impossible.
6-torpedo DM2A4 salvo from a Type 212A or Type 214 at 30 nm distance remotely moving the torps relatively silently into position till the 5-minute terminal runs at 55+ knots with active seeker from multiple vectors start concurrently from there...

And i doubt a LCS can just go 45 knots from a standstill btw.

Normal patrol boats arent going to get near it.
Most small navies have missile FACs. Which do 40+ knot speed runs too, and have the armament to sink a LCS from beyond the horizon.

As for helos, if the LCS operates near the coast, and we're not talking total flat country, any helo can get within 20 nm range of a LCS without it ever noticing the threat. That's not even to speak of "real" anti-ship helos armed with heavy missiles such as Exocets.

Lets consider also that littoral areas minimize the vectors towards which the LCS could run. Not much sense in running if 20 minutes later the surveyed clear route between the coast to your left and the islands to your right has a couple subchasers or something moving into position just as you get there. If we're talking the "real" littorals, things like underwater wrecks and rocks, sandbanks and similar issues may also arise, but the LCS isn't really shallow-draft enough to run in those conditions anyway.

LCS is built for asymmetric warfare quite simply, not for conventional warfare. Against a conventional enemy, a LCS operating without the cover of a DDG or CG is toast. This is all nice and fine considering the USN has enough larger units to spare some "protection" if it wanted to.
But with the way the USN talks about the LCS occasionally - forward missions alone or in groups without cover - seriously, that could get crappy, fast.

[Bonza]

Most small navies have missile FACs. Which do 40+ knot speed runs too, and have the armament to sink a LCS from beyond the horizon.

As for helos, if the LCS operates near the coast, and we're not talking total flat country, any helo can get within 20 nm range of a LCS without it ever noticing the threat. That's not even to speak of "real" anti-ship helos armed with heavy missiles such as Exocets.

Lets consider also that littoral areas minimize the vectors towards which the LCS could run. Not much sense in running if 20 minutes later the surveyed clear route between the coast to your left and the islands to your right has a couple subchasers or something moving into position just as you get there. If we're talking the "real" littorals, things like underwater wrecks and rocks, sandbanks and similar issues may also arise, but the LCS isn't really shallow-draft enough to run in those conditions anyway.

LCS is built for asymmetric warfare quite simply, not for conventional warfare. Against a conventional enemy, a LCS operating without the cover of a DDG or CG is toast. This is all nice and fine considering the USN has enough larger units to spare some "protection" if it wanted to.
But with the way the USN talks about the LCS occasionally - forward missions alone or in groups without cover - seriously, that could get crappy, fast.

What's your opinion on the modular design's viability to cope with threats such as anti-ship helicopters and fast attack craft? Given the ship has a large amount of space intended for mission-specific equipment, how do you think it would fare in the littorals, having deployed its own helos, and perhaps with a mission payload of, for example ESSM and something like Harpoon? Not sure if these weapons are planned for integration, if not fill in blanks as appropriate.

This is a total hypothetical of course, I realise what I'm describing is somewhat of a role mismatch for LCS and the US Navy has other ships far better suited for surface warfare. Not trying to sound like those people who scream for anti-ship missiles on everything larger than a speedboat, I'm just curious given the mention of forward deploying LCS without cover. But then, if robust surface opposition was expected I'm sure the LCS wouldn't be alone. :)

[StingrayOZ]

6-torpedo DM2A4 salvo from a Type 212A or Type 214 at 30 nm distance remotely moving the torps relatively silently into position till the 5-minute terminal runs at 55+ knots with active seeker from multiple vectors start concurrently from there...
Yes modern equipment like that would make it a whole different ball game. Im sure the LCS is not the tool you would want to take on the german navy with, sitting idle at the coast. However in crossing zones of danger travelling at 45 kt it does provide a greater degree of protection. Particularly if screened by other US UUV's and helicopters etc. These ships can sustain these speed for hours, infact they might be conciderably longer than that.

Even against a DM2A4 and a 212/214, a LCS moving at speed would proberly not be fired on because the sucker is moving too fast. If it was stationary sitting there or doing something slow then yes. Transversing at 45 kt hour after hour no..

Most small navies have missile FACs. Which do 40+ knot speed runs too, and have the armament to sink a LCS from beyond the horizon.
But for how long, if the LCS is at 45 kt transversing or escaping the area they won't be able to close on it, the LCS can do that speed for hours (days?). Again, it doesn't make it immune but great sustained speed combined with decent range still helps. F-111/Tu-160.

As for helos, if the LCS operates near the coast, and we're not talking total flat country, any helo can get within 20 nm range of a LCS without it ever noticing the threat. That's not even to speak of "real" anti-ship helos armed with heavy missiles such as Exocets.
I would assume the us wouldn't leave a LCS completely out of the loop. Sat, OTHR, AWAC etc would still be functioning. Any military helicopter flying out to intercept a hard charging LCS would have to stand out. The LCS may have to sit further than 20 nm off the coast if it can't be info fed from the network.

LCS is built for asymmetric warfare quite simply, not for conventional warfare. Against a conventional enemy, a LCS operating without the cover of a DDG or CG is toast. This is all nice and fine considering the USN has enough larger units to spare some "protection" if it wanted to.
But with the way the USN talks about the LCS occasionally - forward missions alone or in groups without cover - seriously, that could get crappy, fast.
I don't think they are talking about with out any cover. The US seems very effective at blowing the crap out of military things as soon as they appear, minutes if not seconds later. It is the more asymmetic threats that require eyeballs, decisions, loitering, personal on the ground or the water they struggle with. Pirates/terrorists. US is at greater risk of a fishing dingy with 150hp outboards and a rpg than some Hind flying out of the bushes or a 212 lurking underneath it. They have the firepower to deal with those.

Its not immune to sillyness. It will be interesting to see how the USN uses them.

[kato]

for example ESSM and something like Harpoon? Not sure if these weapons are planned for integration, if not fill in blanks as appropriate.

They aren't, and LCS doesn't have the necessary sensor outfit to support either anyway.

[Bonza]

They aren't, and LCS doesn't have the necessary sensor outfit to support either anyway.

Ahh right, does it lack the necessary fire control radar or something else? I had assumed most anti-ship missile shots would be cued from a deployed helicopter's sensors considering the ranges involved... sorry if I'm barking up the wrong tree, I'm very new to naval systems, so many of the in-depth capability discussions re the LCS are beyond me at this point. :)

[icelord]

Sure its got weaknesses, but as a smaller, low draft, fast hull to cover the area most of the USN has difficulty operating in, its not a bad idea. Its got a party trick. I don't know if its good value but the cost mentioned so far means the USN is most likely going to get a functionally useful number of ships.

The USN dont do Littoral Period. This is getting them somewhere they were to scared to take FFG,DDGs and even still its yet to be seen how much they will drive these ships. Having just come from our ship being used for Long N Navigators course, which involves an FFG doing 24Knots around the Whitsunday Islands while sitting on the bridge facing aft with only a stop watch and his measurements, i can tell you from evidence we like to smash our ships through some damn dangerous waters, some of which during an Excercise this year the USN 'officers of the deck' and our 'officers of the watch' consulted on ship handling, with most stunned we drive within 300Yds for boat transfers, and 'bolt' around the Great Barrier Reef at 20 knots with 10m depth and islands at 2-300 yards on each side of the ship. If these 'OoD' want to handle the LCS to the extreme, they should truely come over and play around in the Barrier Reef and see how far they can push it":rolleyes:

[stoker]

Us stokers/snipes think alike whether navy or coast guard, more impressed with engines than weapon systems. We would rather read tech manuals. :tasty

Appears the Lockheed ship has more powerful gas turbines whereas the Austal ship has more powerful diesels...

http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA415144

Sea Toby for this on an other forum, lots of info on Austal ship.

[Sea Toby]

They aren't, and LCS doesn't have the necessary sensor outfit to support either anyway.

All LCSs will have SeaRam air self defense misslle systems operating with destroyers that do have ESSM and SM-2 area air defense missile systems. They will be able to defend themselves against air or sea launched missiles. All LCSs will have a 57-mm gun mount as well, along with ASW torpedo tubes. They will be able to defend themselves against surface and submerged threats.

Some of the ships will have different mission packages for minehunting, ASW towed arrays, and surface strike missiles, but not all of the packages or modules at the same time. The whole purpose of these ships is to use them as a mid ocean ASW escort, or as a minehunter, or for surface warfare in the littorals. The new surface to surface missile capability will not have the long range of a harpoon with its mission package, but neither is its air defense range capability.

The LCS is a ship designed to operate with other ships. Its not a lone ranger.... These ships will be flexible enough to change mission modules at friendly ports throughout the world. Mission modules can be flown in Hercules and other cargo aircraft, including the C-17... A ASW LCS module can be switched at a friendly port with a minehunting module. It would take weeks for a minehunter today to arrive to the Persian Gulf. With LCS a minehunting module can be flown to the scene in a day or two. Flexibility.... How many minehunters today have a SeaRam missile system? How many minehunters today have a 57-mm gun mount? How many minehunters today have ASW torpedo tubes?

In other words the US Navy doesn't need small destroyers, frigates. The US Navy has plenty of destroyers and cruisers. What America needs is some mid ocean ASW escorts, minehunters, and littoral surface warships.... The Cyclone class of patrol boats and our minehunters don't have the range or sea keeping capabillities to sail half way around the world suitably. LCS will fix that problem. And we don't need a 4000 ton frigate for mid ocean ASW escorting when a ship of 3000 tons or less can do that job.

[alexsa]

All LCSs will have SeaRam air self defense misslle systems operating with destroyers that do have ESSM and SM-2 area air defense missile systems. They will be able to defend themselves against air or sea launched missiles. All LCSs will have a 57-mm gun mount as well, along with ASW torpedo tubes. They will be able to defend themselves against surface and submerged threats.

.

I understood the 'core' weapons were restricted to:

57mm gun
HMG (50 cal)
Sea RAM or RAM (depending on the vessel)

Have ASW Torpedoes tubes been added to the standard fit or are they part of the relevant mission package. This is relavant givne the limots on payload mass.

[kato]

Tubes are part of the ASW package...

Freedom also has two hardwired SRBOC (afaik), Independence has four. Not exactly the most modern self-defense system, obviously.

[Sea Toby]

You are correct, neither LCSs have ASW ship borne torpedo tubes. But their ASW helicopters carry ASW weapons. I mentioned before I am more of a snipe than weapon systems...

This is an old LCS mission package PDF document. I have read the ASW and minehunting mission packages have been delivered. I am not sure whether the surface package has been delivered, but I have not heard or seen of any major delays either. Lots of new technology being developed for LCS...

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2005expwarfare/landay.pdf

[Sea Toby]

Tubes are part of the ASW package...

Freedom also has two hardwired SRBOC (afaik), Independence has four. Not exactly the most modern self-defense system, obviously.

True, but its not as if these ships will be charging into conflict alone either. Most likely a carrier group or amphibious group will be along as well with their cruisers and destroyers. 62 Burkes are planned... and 57 have already entered service...

[alexsa]

You are correct, neither LCSs have ASW ship borne torpedo tubes. But their ASW helicopters carry ASW weapons. I mentioned before I am more of a snipe than weapon systems...

This is an old LCS mission package PDF document. I have read the ASW and minehunting mission packages have been delivered. I am not sure whether the surface package has been delivered, but I have not heard or seen of any major delays either. Lots of new technology being developed for LCS...

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2005expwarfare/landay.pdf

True but the helos are also part of the mission package and all this (including fuel and stores) must come within the 180 to 200 tonne paylod limit imposed by the nature of the hull form and the speed requirements.

It is effectively a single role ship depending on what package is installed. The USN have a need for such a specilised niche platform but it certainly has limitations. 50 knots is still quite impressive.