This is a discussion on Which would you go with for the LCS. within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Simple like the topic. Which design would you prefer and why.
LCS Freedom, monohulled and more traditional design.
Or LCS ...
With the US Navy I want as many ASW escorting ships as possible. I am convinced that the Freedom design will be the cheapest design of the two overall. The Independence design in my opinion uses to much aluminum. I am willing to agree the Independence design may have some advantages. While much has been made of these ships littoral capabilities, I am more concerned with their basic ASW ocean escorting capabilities.
I fear a 50 ship order will end up being 30 ships. The US Navy does not have its heart into this program from what I have seen, nor the Congress. Its been the same with previous frigate classes in the past.
With the US Navy I want as many ASW escorting ships as possible. I am convinced that the Freedom design will be the cheapest design of the two overall. The Independence design in my opinion uses to much aluminum. I am willing to agree the Independence design may have some advantages. While much has been made of these ships littoral capabilities, I am more concerned with their basic ASW ocean escorting capabilities.
I fear a 50 ship order will end up being 30 ships. The US Navy does not have its heart into this program from what I have seen, nor the Congress. Its been the same with previous frigate classes in the past.
Just curious; Why do want to see as many ASW ships as possible Toby? Actually, I'm curious about the whole post.
Cost: Why is cost the driving factor and not capability?
Aluminum: Why is the use of Aluminum a bad thing? For example: LM have been struggling with weight issues on the Freedom, so why not utilize more Aluminum?
Navy: Why doesn't it have its heart in the program? You don't think the program makes Navy more relevant to existing conflicts and threats?
Heard alot of pople comment on how they like the deck size on the independence. I think the LCS 2 is in the lead so far. The biggest problem in my veiw isnt the ships themselves but the mission creap incorperated into the designs. The navy simply wants to much.
As far as my veiw i pick LCS 2 also. It just has more to offer. The Trimaran hull is more stable, more efficent, and offers as said before more deck room. I think the aluminum hull can be delt with. Steel designs are cheaper to build anyways. What ever the design i doubt it will be just like the present design on either ship.
@Sea Toby,
" ......fear a 50 ship order will end up being 30 ships. The US Navy does not have its heart into this program from what I have seen, nor the Congress. Its been the same with previous frigate classes in the past"
Same here, our navy currently is severly lacking in the ability to counter subs. Which ironicly enough are the hot item on every despots and jihadi governments wish list.
Aluminum: Why is the use of Aluminum a bad thing? For example: LM have been struggling with weight issues on the Freedom, so why not utilize more Aluminum?
cheers
w
From memory i think it has something to do with the aluminium superstructure HMS Sheffield had melting from the Exocet missile strike in the Falklands war, with the US learning from lessons from the past.
From memory i think it has something to do with the aluminium superstructure HMS Sheffield had melting from the Exocet missile strike in the Falklands war, with the US learning from lessons from the past.
HMS Sheffield did not have an aluminium superstructure, this is just an urban myth.
HMS Sheffield did not have an aluminium superstructure, this is just an urban myth.
Correct ,just did some checking,
The sinking of the Sheffield is sometimes blamed on a superstructure made wholly or partially from aluminium, the melting point and ignition temperature of which are significantly lower than those of steel. However, this is incorrect as the Sheffield's superstructure was made entirely of steel. The confusion is related to the US and British Navies abandoning aluminium after several fires in the 1970s involving ships that had aluminium superstructures. The sinking of the Type 21 frigates HMS Antelope and Ardent, both of which had aluminium superstructures, probably also had an effect on this belief though these cases are again incorrect and the presence of aluminium had nothing to do with their loss. In both cases, it is likely the ships would have been lost in any event, due to amount of explosives involved in such small ships, though aluminium fires did break out. Ardent in particular took a severe pounding, suffering eleven bomb hits, five of which exploded; no ship of her type of any era would have been able to survive such an attack. The fires on these ships did result in one clear change, which was the shift away from the nylon and synthetic fabrics then worn by British sailors. The synthetics had a tendency to melt on to the skin causing more severe burns than if the crew had been wearing non-synthetic clothing. The official report into the sinking of Sheffield, recently disclosed under UK Freedom of Information laws after an extensive campaign by ex-RN personnel, severely criticised the ship's fire-fighting equipment, training and procedures and certain members of the crew
Neither. Make 2 of each and use them as research and demonstration ships to test various LCS concepts before settling on a final set of requirements. I'm still not buying the speed requirement nor the ultra-low manning requirement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by t68
Correct ,just did some checking,
The sinking of the Sheffield is sometimes blamed on a superstructure made wholly or partially from aluminium, the melting point and ignition temperature of which are significantly lower than those of steel. However, this is incorrect as the Sheffield's superstructure was made entirely of steel. The confusion is related to the US and British Navies abandoning aluminium after several fires in the 1970s involving ships that had aluminium superstructures.
The major incident for the USN was the Belknap collision.
The fires on these ships did result in one clear change, which was the shift away from the nylon and synthetic fabrics then worn by British sailors. The synthetics had a tendency to melt on to the skin causing more severe burns than if the crew had been wearing non-synthetic clothing.
The stark had similar problems. Corfam boots were popular at the time and several crew had them melt to their feet requiring the boots to be surgically cut off.
________________
"The beatings will continue until morale improves." Forum rules, read them!
Really interesting comparisons, I like the graphics, where did they come from?
Sorry mate no idea what was the corresponding reference on those. Run a search of comparative discussion on LCS designs and I assume they will come up again. I am away for a few days but will have another look when I return (if you havent already found what you want).
________________
People who think the world has changed have not read history.
I like the independance. I think it has some advantages over the monohull as well that make it worthwhile. I think it pushes forward more than freedom.
Australia is looking at simular vessels, without the speed requirement. They look very impressive.
