Which would you go with for the LCS.

Belesari

New Member
Simple like the topic. Which design would you prefer and why.

LCS Freedom, monohulled and more traditional design.

Or LCS Independence (which aside from looking far cooler) is of aluminum construction and Trimaran design.

Both have drawback and good points, which do you choose?
 

Sea Toby

New Member
Simple like the topic. Which design would you prefer and why.

LCS Freedom, monohulled and more traditional design.

Or LCS Independence (which aside from looking far cooler) is of aluminum construction and Trimaran design.

Both have drawback and good points, which do you choose?
Freedom.
 

Sea Toby

New Member
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.
 

Wooki

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
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?


cheers

w
 

Belesari

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #8
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.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
.


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.
 

kev 99

Member
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.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
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
 

AegisFC

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
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.

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.

File:USS Belknap collision damage.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
 

LancasterBomber

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
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).
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
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.
 

Lucasnz

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
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
It should be noted that the reason the Ardent and Antelope burned so brightly was because the had an Aluminium / Magnesum superstructure. They were built this way, if I remember my Damage Control training correctly, to save on weight. Their replacements were built with steel superstructures. The magazines weren't the issue in their burning, having said that I agree no ship that size could survive 5 bomb hits.

The shift from synthentic uniform, was just one of the changes that came of the Falklands war. Smoke was a major contributing factor to the lost of some ships, leading to the introduction of smoke curtians and lead to the introduction of things such as segerated ventilation systems etc.
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
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.
What is impressive about both designs if you take away the speed? In everything else they don't excell and there are better options available.
 

Belesari

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #18
What is impressive about both designs if you take away the speed? In everything else they don't excell and there are better options available.
Yes but the navy nowadays seems to think only in terms of speed and stealth.

Ok who started letting the Airforce zoomies in the navy :ban
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
What is impressive about both designs if you take away the speed? In everything else they don't excell and there are better options available.
Athestetics? Independance would appear to be quite radar stealthy as well (that is just speculation). They seem to be trying some new manufacturing techniques to make both types of ships. The USN is also trying a different tack in terms of ship strategy and design.

They certainly have issues but its an interesting project.
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Most other new ship designs also include signature reduction measures as well as new components and prduction technics.
And they are still cheaper and offer more bang for your bugs.

I bet that the speed requirement is going to result in the USN getting less ships than it needs/wants.
 
Top