 |
| USS Shenandoah |
What does the LCS class desperately need? Some are calling them motherships but the proper name for ships that would carry replacement crews, mission modules (if the tasking changes), extra munitions or even transport specialist or Special Operations troops to support the LCS mission are Tenders. This from Wikipedia...
A destroyer tender is a ship designed to provide maintenance support to a flotilla of destroyers or other small warships. The use of this class has faded from its peak in the first half of the 20th century as the roles of small combatants have evolved (in conjunction with technological advances in propulsion reliability and efficiency).Replace the word 'Destroyer' in the above paragraph with the word 'LCS' and you realize the need exists.
Due to the increased size and automation of modern destroyers, tenders are no longer as necessary as they once were.
My modest proposal. Build a stripped down LPD-17 class hull, place cranes on it and you have instant modern day LCS Tender.
*While looking up information on the Dash Drone, I ran across this site which provides more information on Destroyer Tenders of old. Check it out.
I like the idea, and it kinda links with Mike's [New Wars] idea on Motherships. However,
ReplyDelete+ Is it worthwhile for two dozen ships, a dozen of each class? My guess is that just about.
+ Why not something in the lines of a Lewis-Clark?
Take care. Ferran
heck Feran let me be honest here. you could probably get away with using a modified container ship...i'm just trying to sneak in a couple of more LPD-17 hulls so we can steal them from the Navy in a couple of years!
ReplyDeleteUseful and interesting history. Especially note the service of life of some of those ships - WW2 vintage to as late as 1995 - so 40 or even 50 years of use, of which some period may have been in storage.
ReplyDeleteNote that the Puget Sound is still available.
What are the purposes for such a class of ship?
- Fuel for fast-burning LCS; food for crew
- Module change outs and swaps
- Parts, maintenance, repair for sea-frame bits
- Missile and ammo reloads
- Rotational or spare crew(s)
- Housing for specialized teams of users: CG boarding teams, force recon beach teams, etc.
What would you add/delete from this list?
the only thing i could add to your list and its being nitpicky is a catchall...as Mission Commander deems necessary!
ReplyDeleteWhy not simply return the Yellowstone-class tenders to service? Hell, the OLDEST one was only 17 years old when it was decommissioned. One of these ships could probably service multiple LCS's, so bringing back 4 tenders for a fleet of two dozen ships would probably suffice.
ReplyDeletesounds like a winner to me.
ReplyDeleteI think what LCS needs more than anything is a fuel tanker.
ReplyDeletePlus dry stores, aviation support, accommodation and container space
Why would you need a specialised vessel, aren't these requirements covered by the hundreds of auxiliary support vessels already in service or new built?
The USN does NOT need a repeat of the big slow AS/AD designss. Last time I worked on tender project, NAVSEA wanted 7 years and $900 mil to get one to IOC.
ReplyDeleteThe T-AKEs are ok, but their design does not really help the LCS logistics shortcomings. Principally, the LCS are not fully equipped to do UNREPs. The T-AKE does not have a large POL capacity (which the LCS will certainly need). The LCS need a helo/UAV M&R support facility (more then what they got onboard). And worse of all the mission modules cannot be loaded at sea by ANY ship. Perhaps also adtl crew accomodations for relief crews and module dets?
I have said for some time the LCS mothership is logistic in nature and should be something more like a German Berlin class Type 702 or similar ship which has mulitple product capability. And is not a big as USN ships and costs less. There are several designs which could be bought and built in US yards.
I can't think of any existing auxilaries which fit the bill above?
Maybe you should post a photo of the Berlins?
Anon, you have a good list, but remember how does all of it get onboard eitehr LCS?
ReplyDelete- Fuel for fast-burning LCS; food for crew
one UNREP RAS only kingpost
- Module change outs and swaps
no heave compensatign cranes on USN ships
- Parts, maintenance, repair for sea-frame bits
will probably be done by VERTREP
- Missile and ammo reloads
VETREP is their enough MHE onbo with big elevator?
- Rotational or spare crew(s)
yes on the mothership no on the LCS (?)
- Housing for specialized teams of users: CG boarding teams, force recon beach teams, etc.
yes but can existing tender accomodation support both subs, surface and LCS needs?
Leesea,
ReplyDeleteI'm trying to propose something that doesn't cost far too much. It should be possible to enlarge liquid fuel storage for T-AKE, and dedicate some of the space for workshops / hangar. But if you think USN will agree to buy foreign, then I propose Patiño-class. Under 300M USD, according to Mike B. Hell, just for the publicity, you might get it well under that.
BTW, Berlin-class brochure:
http://www.fsg-ship.de/2product/pdf/702.pdf
The T-AKE are dry cargo ships not designed for significant POL capacity as are the fleet oiler which were built at tankships. Mixing apples and oranges. I did not say buy a foreign ship, I said buy a foreign design and build it in US shipyard. That has been done before and is the only path acceptable to the politicos.
ReplyDeleteMike Burleson's site says the Berlins cost $445 in then year money. As opposed to T-AKE $550 + mods. In additon, the Berlins are mulit-product ships to begin with and have much more flexibility than the T-AKE. The latter are specialized for support of US naval warships with UNREP gear.
About the cost, agreed.
ReplyDeleteAbout foreign supplies, I can guess. Still, my point stands: you can get the Patiño. Yes, I'm watering my own garden. So? ;)
And about POL, my bad. I'd have guessed a partial redesign would be easier, specially if we can agree on some space loss. Kind of putting a oil tank inside the dry cargo space, would be my idea; sorry I can't explain properly. Just trying to keep things cheap and "in-house". But, then, if an EU design is acceptable, my suggestion is moot.
Take care.
Ferran, BCN.