Thanks for the links Nicky!
It really should be obvious to everyone by now.
The LCS is the wrong ship, at too great a cost, that delivers too little.
I'm not holding my breath but it would be refreshing to hear the Chief Of Naval Operations have the guts to say that we were wrong and we need to start over.
And then this light frigate thats another LCS killer....
Based on the proven design of the Blohm+Voss Class 124 frigate, the Blohm+Voss MEKO® 600 escort frigate incorporates all of the redundancy, survivability, stealth, sea-keeping and helicopter operability of the German Navy ships, but upgraded to incorporate enhanced state-of-the-art electronics and more powerful weapons. The Blohm+Voss MEKO® 600 has been designed to fulfil ASW, AAW, ASuW, sea control, power projection, escort and task force protection and commander task force missions. This vessel is particularly suited for blue water escort of high value assets and the defence of national offshore key points.
 |
Superiority by Flexibility
The Combat Ship for the Littorals (CSL) is a highly innovative design incorporating an ingenious fusion of technologies including MEKO® Mission Modularity, extreme high speeds, a combination of steel hull and composite superstructure, an integrated mast, total stealth characteristics, a 360° bridge concept completed by all advanced MEKO® features and thus presents the most advanced MEKO® design in the product range of ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems.
The MEKO® CSL is designed as a mono-hull with the hull constructed of higher tensile steel and the superstructure of FRP sandwich material. This choice was taken due to some advantages of this material combination, such as lower structural weight, which results in higher weight allowance for the Multi Mission payload, lower RCS due to similar electrical conductivity of both materials but higher flatness of the composite panels for the superstructure as well as a lower infra-red signature due to better thermal conductivity.
|
It really should be obvious to everyone by now.
The LCS is the wrong ship, at too great a cost, that delivers too little.
I'm not holding my breath but it would be refreshing to hear the Chief Of Naval Operations have the guts to say that we were wrong and we need to start over.
I think your navy is not allowed to buy foreign ships...it would be cheaper than start over again...
ReplyDeleteThe USN cannot buy warships built foreign. It can buy/use foreign designs and equipment - if the latter if not available in US industry
Deleteeveryone says that but the Austal is Australian and the Lockheed martin version is Ferancontti or something. both foreign designs.
ReplyDeleteThe MEKO 600 looks nice, but it's crew is at least 150....
DeleteAnd personnel costs gobble up 1/3 of the budget.
As of now, the Lockheed LCS has a crew of 100.
The corvette looks great, but both of these ships are just models right now. Plus, neither of them can go 40+ knots....
The Blohm+Voss MEKO® 600 Class Escort Frigate is what the LCS should have been, but instead it's a freak of Nature. That is neither a Frigate or a Corvette. At least with the Blohm+Voss MEKO® 600 Class Escort Frigate, it can do the Frigate and corvette missions such as ASW, AAW, ASuW, sea control, power projection, escort and task force protection and commander task force missions. Even work in the littorals of the Baltic Sea or the black seas as in the example of the German Navy's F-124 Frigate.
DeleteHere's the links to the Blohm+Voss MEKO® 600 Class Escort Frigate
Deletehttp://www.thyssenkrupp-marinesystems.com/en/blohmvoss-mekor-600-class-escort-frigate.html
Here's the Link to the Blohm+Voss Class 124 Frigate, which is the Sachsen-class frigate. Which the Blohm+Voss MEKO® 600 Class Escort Frigate is based off of. http://www.thyssenkrupp-marinesystems.com/en/blohmvoss-class-124-frigate.html
Ditch the F-35 and the MV-22 for the USMC and there is money in the budget for added personnel. Drop down a carrier and there is even more money.
DeleteBesides, the LCS each have two crews, Blue and Gold, which will switch off. The core cew of the ship is supposed to be 40 for the LCS but the Navy has discovered that it was too small of a crew. Once you added the mission packages and air detachment, the crews can be over 100 per LCS.
So, with Blue and Gold crew of ca. 40 men each, that's 80, plus up to 60 for air detachment or what have you and you are talking closer to 140+/- crew.
I'll take the 5800ton MEKO 600 frigate with its 150 crew plus 40 or so supernumeraries over LCS.
If that is still too much, the CSL has a crew of 95 or so and is 2750t, but has some teeth to it unlike LCS.
The MEKO 600 isn't what the US navy needs. We already have whole fleets worth of ships in the MEKO 600 class that are significantly more capable than the MEK0 600: Burkes. Everything that a MEKO 600 can do is already handled by the Burkes.
DeleteWe need a replacement for the OHPs. The OHPs are a 4Kt ship. And the OHPs really don't have anymore capability than the current LCS designs. The US Navy needs an actual frigate in the 3-4Kt range, not a lightweight destroyer masquerading as a frigate. also in current dollars, the last couple OHPs cost ~$800 mil full up. The MEKO 600 is going to be more expensive than that.
As far as crew, you are counting it wrong, we would be running a MEKO 600 with multiple crews as well, so that isn't 150+40 but 300+80.
The CSL is even more underdeveloped than the LCS. There are powerpoint of the LCS with 32 VLS cells as well...
The Difference between the LCS and the frigates such as the Blohm+Voss MEKO® 600 Class Escort Frigate,Blohm+Voss Class 124 Frigate & the Blohm+Voss MEKO® A-200 Class Frigate. Is that the LCS is a PowerPoint project with nothing to base the concept or proven design off of. Their is no proven design or concept that the LCS can base off of. Where as the Blohm+Voss MEKO® 600 Class Escort Frigate,Blohm+Voss Class 124 Frigate & the Blohm+Voss MEKO® A-200 Class Frigate, they are based off of proven designs and concepts. For example, the Blohm+Voss MEKO® 600 Class Escort Frigate, is actually based off the proven Blohm+Voss Class 124 Frigate design, which is the German Navies sachsen class frigate.
DeleteI would rather go for a proven design than to trust some PowerPoint presentation. We don't need a thin skinned, under armed pop gun. We need a frigate that can do all the ASW, ASUW, AAW, limited Land attack, sea control, power projection, escort and task force protection and commander task force missions.
@Solomon: though you might be interested with the Super Hercs capability
Deletehttp://www.livefistdefence.com/2013/08/new-record-iaf-puts-super-herc-down-on.html
there is a distinction between foreign Built and Designed which needs to be used here. In addition, the way around the Buy American act is IF the equipment or system is NOT Built in US, then a foreign purchase can be made.
DeleteIRT to the latter case, let's face it there are only so many say naval gun builders in the world.
Off topic ,from the Facebook of CA magazine:«
ReplyDeleteELLSWORTH AIR FORCE BASE, S.D. -- A B-1B Lancer with the 28th Bomb Wing here
crashed near Broadus, Mont., during a routine training mission Aug. 19.
A crew of two pilots and two weapon systems officers were on board. All four
members of the aircrew safely ejected with some injuries.
"We are actively working to ensure the safety of the crew members and have
sent first responders to secure the scene and work closely with local
authorities at the crash site," said Col. Kevin Kennedy, the 28th Bomb Wing
commander. "Right now, all of our thoughts and prayers are with the crews
and their families."
Air Force officials will conduct a thorough investigation to determine the
cause of the accident.»
It looks like a great ship, but since it can't go 40+ knots, the navy won't care.
ReplyDeleteSol,
ReplyDeleteI hate to say this but I'll agree with the first post. US forces can't buy a foreign-made ship. I'm no legal person but there are ways to get a foreign-designed product incorporated into the US Armed Forces.
Aside from legal and cost associated to purchasing a foreign-made product, it's also a political issue. What happens when employees at Bath start petitioning their state representative when they discover that US Navy will be, for example, purchasing a MEKO?
Austal was able to operate because they can claim the ship was built from US soil. Same goes with Lock-Mart. Lock-Mart, me thinks, paid for the "license" to build the ship.
The US has in the past brought Foreign made and designed products. Isn't the Martin B-57 Canberra an example of a foreign made design that the US brought. Which was originally the British English Electric Canberra. They brought them from the British in 1954. So if we did it with the Martin B-57 Canberra, why not do it with a frigate. We just have to buy the Design rights and have it built in US Shipyards.
DeleteAll Blohm+Voss has to do is grant Bath Iron works the license to build the Blohm+Voss Class 124 Frigate or the Blohm+Voss MEKO® 600 Class Escort Frigate for the US Navy. The US Navy can add what ever gear and technology to the Frigate they want.
The USAF/Navy T-6 Texan II trainer aircraft is just a licensed, US Built Pilatus PC-7.
DeleteWe can license foreign designs but will only accept them if they are basically completely built locally so there aren't any international issues in times of war with making more.
DeleteAnd Nicky, the US Navy simply don't need a small destroyer. They need actual frigates. The US Navy has more destroyers with better capabilities than the whole of the European navies combined has (light) destroyers they like to call frigates.
The only ship that B+V makes that could be a candidate for a US Frigate is the A-200 but that design is getting seriously long in the tooth.
Which is why We don't need the LCS. We need a frigate that can do up to a Light destroyer. A Burke is simply an Overkill for a frigate role and Mission.
DeleteHeck a Blohm+Voss MEKO® A-200 Class Frigate or the Blohm+Voss MEKO® 600 Class Escort Frigate would be far better than the LCS combined. The LCS is an unproven PowerPoint project where as the MEKO designs are a proven design that is being used right now.
In fact, the US Navy can even buy the license rights from the Foreign designs and have Bath Iron Works build it. We done it before with the USAF/Navy T-6 Texan II trainer aircraft and the Martin B-57 Canberra. We can do it with a Frigate and buy the license to build either a Blohm+Voss MEKO® A-200 Class Frigate or the Blohm+Voss MEKO® 600 Class Escort Frigate.
IMO, I would rather sail on a Blohm+Voss MEKO® A-200 Class Frigate or the Blohm+Voss MEKO® 600 Class Escort Frigate over the LCS any day of the week. The LCS is nothing more than a PowerPoint project gone wrong.
Please stop bringing the MEKO 600 into the discussion and for that matter the F-124. Neither are viable candidates for replacing the OHP-class frigates. The US Navy already has destroyers that fulfill the role that a MEKO 600 would. There is no benefit in getting MEKO 600s. The MEKO 600 is 50-100% bigger than what is needed and requires far too many crew members.
DeleteThe only classes up for any possible replacement are the OHP and LCS. Both are in the 3-4Kt range and in the 100 or under manning range for a full crew. If the US Navy needed or wanted a 6Kt destroyer, they would of specified and bought a 6Kt destroyer.
Why don't you stop bringing the LCS, because we all know the LCS is a miserable FAILURE from the Day it was drawn on the NAPKIN. It's thin skinned, under armed, under manned and basically one huge GAS hog contractors ship. One hit from an RPG or an ACSM would send the LCS to the bottom of the ocean. The LCS is a Navy SICK joke and a butt of all jokes in the wardroom. Even Corvette & frigate ship captains around the world are laughing at us for designing and building such a Freakish ship.
DeleteThe MEKO 600, the MEKO F-124 and the MEKO A-200 are all viable alternatives to the LCS. It is built to the level of a Naval frigate and not to some commercial shipping standards. The one thing you fail so miserably to see is that the Heck a Blohm+Voss MEKO® A-200 Class Frigate or the Blohm+Voss MEKO® 600 Class Escort Frigate is based on a proven design and proven concept. As oppose to the LCS, which is an unproven and untested design.
Your simply too stupid to see that the LCS is a Joke and the equivalent of F-35 of the Sea. Why would US taxpayers want to pay $700+Million per LCS, when it can't even do a simple JOB. I would rather pay for a Proven designed Frigate that can do the job, even if it was designed overseas. At least a foreign designed frigate get's the JOB done. Your just too retarded to see that our allies are building Frigates that can operate from the littorals to the open ocean. Have built better ships than the US Navy can come up with.
In reality, I would rather have Blohm+Voss design our Frigates or give Bath Iron works the License to build either the Blohm+Voss MEKO® A-200 Class Frigate or the Blohm+Voss MEKO® 600 Class Escort Frigate. I'd cancel all the remaining LCS and divert the remaining LCS funding to building either the Heck a Blohm+Voss MEKO® A-200 Class Frigate or the Blohm+Voss MEKO® 600 Class Escort Frigate.
The left over LCS would remain in the PC & MCM force as their Corvette ship. I would consult shipbuilders that have experience in building Corvette to help Properly ARM the LCS as a Corvette. I would ban them from sailing with the BIG navy unless they are protected by a Frigate, DD or DDG
One hit from an ASCM will send most ships in worldwide navy fleets to the bottom or close to it. We don't and no one has designed ships to survive being hit by modern skimming AShM. The LCS has its issues, certainly, but not being able to survive a direct hit by AShM isn't one of them. There currently isn't an active ship in the entire US Navy fleet that is expected to survive a direct AShM.
DeleteThe MEKO 600 design is not a viable alternative to the LCS. It is close to twice the size, significantly more expensive to build and operate. The A-200 is barely a passable replacement, notably falling short in aviation support. If the US Navy was going to select a foreign design, they would be much better selecting the RSN Formidable-class and replacing the Sylvester VLS with Mk41 VLS.
And your cost per LCS is several hundred million higher than the actual costs being paid. It doesn't help your arguments when you don't use the fact that are available. Nor is the LCS incapable of doing a "JOB". The current LCS is very much capable of doing almost everything the ships it is replacing do.
And it is important to realize that a large number of ships that foreign navies label as "frigates" are nothing close to frigates. They are merely called frigates for political reasons. The MEKO 600 is not a frigate. It is a destroyer and the US navy has plenty of those. It really doesn't need any more. The LCS is perfectly capable of being upgraded and in time the navy will do so, adding from 16-32 VLS cells for LRASM and ESSM.
The A-200 lacks the aviation centric capabilities that the USN relies on for many of the US frigates primary roles. The LCS is capable of supporting a significantly more robust aviation element. The MEKO 600 as already stated is much more expensive to buy, outfit, run, or maintain. Ships of its size are not and were not under consideration for the roles that the LCS will fill. It is simply a none starter.
The current US MCM force is non-viable outside of peace time duties. They are being completely replaced by the LCS. Many of the LCS design characteristics are specifically targeted at MCM work in future active conflicts, something that the current US MCM is ill designed to do. The reality is that besides a lot of first of design issues with the LCS, it is actually well positioned to do what the US Navy both wants and designed it to do.
Now if you want to argue that the US Navy force structure is incorrect, I'll listen, but the reality is that the specifications of the LCS fit the requirements of the US Navy force structure.
@ats
DeleteYour fucking asshole and a deluded LCS fanboy, who should be bitched slapped in the face. The LCS is a JOKE of a ship. It's not what the US Navy needs, but was shoved down the throats of the US Navy. Why do you want the Taxpayers to pay for a $34 billion dollar program when we can get cheaper ships that can do a far better job than the LCS. Your simply a deluded LCS kool-aid drinker who doesn't know what a REAL Frigate or a REAL Corvette looks like.
The fact is, the LCS money pit is a JOKE,and we keep throwing good money away on very bad projects. That don't produce the results the taxpayers asked for. It's why the LCS needs to be cut, canceled and terminated at all cost. The LCS is going to bankrupt the US Navy,and we won't be able to field a Carrier battle group or an Amphibious ready group. All because were sucking money away from other programs to fund a Money pit that won't give taxpayers more bang for the BUCK.
Why would Taxpayers want to pay for a $700+ million dollar ship that can't even do a single mission. Why are we being force to pay for unproven modules that are based on a PowerPoint. It's clear that the contractors are robbing the Taxpayers at gunpoint with the LCS debacle. Even in this tight fiscal economy, the LCS along with the F-34 should have been cut, canceled and canned along time ago.
Besides, their are way better alternatives to the LCS that are way cheaper and doesn't break the bank. Their are even frigate designs such as the Blohm+Voss MEKO® A-200 Class Frigate or the Blohm+Voss MEKO® 600 Class Escort Frigate, that are way better than the LCS and can go alot farther than the LCS.
As for the A-200, It is a viable alternative to the LCS, why do you think the Royal Australian Navy operates them and calls it the ANZAC class Frigate. Which is essentially an MEKO A-200 class Frigate. You say the A-200 is not aviation centric. Then how come the ANZAC class frigates carry 1 helicopter such as the Seahawk. You obviously don't know what your talking about. Even the A-200 is operated by Turkey, Greece, Portugal, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.
As for the LCS, it can never be upgraded because it would put more stress on the hull and because the ship is Aluminum. It would create more drag, thus consuming more fuel to carry more of the gear. On top of the Fact that the LCS is under armed, Thin skinned and one massive gas hog of a ship. No wonder why it spends more time tied to the pier than it does underway.
The sad fact is, Frigates such as the Blohm+Voss MEKO® A-200 Class Frigate, Blohm+Voss F-124 Frigate or the Blohm+Voss MEKO® 600 Class Escort Frigate make the LCS look very weak. The LCS is nothing more than a Feel good ship designed to make the US Navy look good to our allies and be on par with what our allies have. It's making use look very WEAK in the face of China, who is cranking out LCS killers by the month. Even China's Type 022 FAC or the Type 056 Corvette would surely sink and kill the LCS. I can't imagine what would happen if the LCS were to be attacked by a Chinese type 022 FAC or Type 056 corvette. It wouldn't be very pretty afterwards.
You want to bring the LCS into an argument about a Frigate, is laughable and frankly very retarded. You are simply an LCS fanboy who wants the LCS to act like a Frigate and a Corvette when in REALITY the LCS is neither a frigate or a Corvette. It's nothing more than a Glorified US Coast Guard Medium Endurance cutter, painted Haze Grey.
You wonder why people are starting to wise up to the LCS program and calling for the LCS to be canned and replaced with a REAL frigate. People such as CDR Salamander and his blog, talk about the LCS all the time and know the LCS is a sick joke. http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/search?q=LCS
You might want to be a bit more civilized...
DeleteThe LCS is an organic design and concept FROM the US NAVY. No one shoved it down their throats. Its what they specified that they wanted. It is what their plans said they required. Anything else is revisionism at best. No one shoved it down their throats, in fact the US Navy has been and continues to be staunch defender of the LCS and the LCS concept.
And it really doesn't matter what you believe a real corvette or frigate looks like. What matter is what the US Navy actually believes a corvette or frigate looks like.
First of all, as far as money, a new build OHPs will run somewhere in the range of 800-1000 million based on the cost of the last OHPs build in current value.
Many of the concepts and modules for the LCS are based on research and yes powerpoint because the proven methods won't work going forwards. Current design MCM are not viable in anything but peacetime conditions. Heck, most of the whole of the US Navy as it now stands isn't viable for an actual real world war with a peer or a near peer.
The range of the 200 is marginally better and the cost is significantly higher. Based on the ANZAC pricing, the current price for an outfitted MEKO 200 is close to a billion dollars. The US government already has signed contracts for future LCS at under 400 million. And while the MEKO 200 can carry and support 1 seahawk, the LCS can carry and support 2 SH-60s plus UAVs. The LCS has significantly increased aviation facilities compared to the MEKO 200 and in fact has the best aviation facilities in the US Navy outside of the small and big deck carriers. The LCS is an extremely aviation centric design.
The Type 022 FAC could probably sink just about any ship in the US Navy fleet. The US Navy fleet and for that matter most of the fleets of most nations are ill equiped to take on AShM FACs. Its one of the major issues with the US Navy as a whole and why new VLS capable allied AShM like the LRASM and NSM are such large priorities. So you are faulting the LCS for not being able to handle a FAC that the MEKO 600, nor the MEKO 200, nor the burke class can handle.
I'm far from an LCS fanboy but at least I understand the needs and requirements of the US Navy, what they project as future weaknesses and strengths, what they are doing to mitigate the weaknesses, what role an actual frigate type ship plays in the US Navy, and why the US Navy selected the LCS. I also understand and acknowledge the various issues and deficiencies of the LCS program so far and going forward. If something replaces the LCS its going to have to have the following characteristics:
Be able to support multiple helicopters(2 or more) plus UAVs for extended durations.
Be able to support, launch, recover USVs.
Be able to support, launch, recover USuVs.
Be able to get into and out of a mission zone in minimal time.
Be able to be reconfigured for different missions.
Be the same or lower cost than the current LCS design (which is harder than you think it is. An ANZAC in current dollars is close to 1B which is significantly more than an LCS).
Those are the primary requirements the US Navy had for the LCS. If you think you know of a design that fulfills it better than the LCS, suggest it, and no the MEKO 200 isn't.
As far as CDR Salamander, it is illustrative to point out that there were many people who though that carriers couldn't/wouldn't ever replace battleships. Remind me again when the last battleship was built...
@ats,
DeleteYour still an LCS fan boy asshole who should be bitch slapped across the bow. You know what, your still a fucking asshole and a dipsit. You can hear me rolling up that Newspaper and getting ready to beat the shit out of you. The fact that your defending the LCS shows, that you agree with ADM Grennert and must an Adm Greenert Fan boy. Glad to know that your willing to send kids to their deaths in a death trap, if we ever have to go to war with China.
The fact is, the LCS is a SICK joke and a Piece of Junk. It's nothing more than a little crappy shit that can do anything. All it can do is runaway from a Fight instead heading into a Fight. It's neither a Corvette or a frigate. It couldn't meet the standards of what a Corvette or a Frigate looks like. It's a sick joke, that should have been put down a long time ago.
Let's get the facts here for your deluded retarded brain. The LCS is costing the taxpayers $700+ billion dollars and still climbing. We can't afford the LCS in this tight fiscal climate and it seriously needs to canceled and replaced.
Their are frigate designs that are war cost effective and can do the JOB way better than the LCS. Even Foreign Designs are way better than the LCS. The last time the US navy built a great ship was Spruance class DD. Since then, the US navy has not had a great design since the Burkes.
let's talk about survivability here. We all know the LCS will never survive a shooting war. Even Fletcher, Sumner and Gearing class destroyer has more survivability than the LCS. Even the USS Laffy can take more hits than the LCS and still dish it out with the Enemy. If we ever had to go to war with China, the LCS would be at the bottom of the ocean after the first round.
The LCS is nothing more than a PowerPoint Project that should have never materialized. It's the reason why no naval ship should never be based on a PowerPoint project. That's why the LCS is nothing more than a PowerPoint ship. The LCS is an unproven, untested design and their is no other design to base the LCS off of.
Let's face it, the LCS will never survive an attack from a swarm boat to a Type 022 FAC to a Type 056 Corvette. It would shot up to piece and if it's luck, limp back to port in pieces. It's a ship that's only designed to be a feel good ship and make our allies feel they are on par with the US Navy.
As far as Viable alternatives to the little crappy shit, I would say the MEKO A-200 is a more viable alternative because it has the Sea legs to keep up with the ARG's, carrier battle groups and naval fleet auxiliary ship. At least with a MEKO A-200, it can keep up with the fleet and even provide protection for the Marines landing ashore.
This why LCS Fanboys can never come up with a viable argument because some of the LCS fanboys never served a Day in the Military or know what it's like to be at SEA. Some of these Fanboys have drank way too much LCS kool-aid.
The fact is, the LCS is a miserable failure and the US Navy is not willing to admit defeat. At least Blohm+Voss can come up with a better frigate called the Blohm+Voss MEKO® 600 escort frigate. Which is a variant of the German Navy's F-124 frigate that is in service right now. At least with the Germans, they know how to build a Frigate that can travel far from their home waters on top of staying in their home waters. I would rather take the Blohm+Voss Class 124 Frigate and the Blohm+Voss MEKO® 600 Class Escort Frigate over the LCS any day of the Week. If were stuck with the LCS, at least the LCS can be linked up to a Frigate such as the Blohm+Voss Class 124 Frigate or the Blohm+Voss MEKO® 600 Class Escort Frigate. At least the Frigate can act as a flag ship for the LCS squadrons.
ReplyDeleteExcept the MEKO 600 isn't a frigate. It is a small destroyer. It requires too much man power and doesn't do anything we don't have entire fleets of ships already that do it better.
DeleteThe US needs ships in the 3Kt-4Kt range to replace the OHPs. We don't need a bigger ship and cannot afford a bigger ship, neither in upfront capital costs nor long term manning costs.
Both the OHPs and the LCS have medium size cannons, neither currently has VLS, though there are LCS designs with up to 32 VLS cells. Like the OHPs, the LCS are very aviation centric designs, this isn't by coincidence. The vast majority if ASW is aviation based. The OHP/LCS largely acting as a mini-carrier for the aviation detachment. Neither the OHP nor the LCS are going to do anything but run away from FACs in their current configs, but the LCS can be updated to support a reasonably large number of LCS giving it both significant offensive power with LRASM and defense with ESSM.
Yes, there are many things wrong with the current LCS design, but replacing the LCS with a MEKO 600 or 200 isn't going to significantly change the number of things wrong for their intended role.
I would rather replace the LCS with either a Blohm+Voss MEKO® A-200 Class Frigate or the Blohm+Voss MEKO® 600 Class Escort Frigate. At least with an MEKO design, it has the Sea legs to keep up with a carrier battle group, Amphibious ready group, NFAF or a Merchant Marine convoy. AT least with a MEKO design, it's far proven and in service with other navies as oppose to the LCS, which is an unproven, untested design.
DeleteIt's times like this that one wishes one could slap the shit out of the assholes responsible for retiring (and SINKING for target practice) all 30 of the Spruance-class destroyers. While it is an entirely different class, when the Navy is struggling to find enough hulls, you have to wonder if it might have been worth it to take the hulls and re-work them for ASW work in the Pacific until the 2020's. The hulls were just shorter versions of the Ticonderoga and one wonders if a similar update might have been attempted to modernize them along similar lines as the Ticonderoga's will be.
ReplyDeleteStrictly speaking the Ticos are stretched Spurances......... ;)
DeleteBut you are so right. Great hull. Flexible. Reduce the manning through automation; it can be done. And they could have "soldiered on" for a while longer. They could have been driven into the ground (water?) and thrown away for the cost of just developing LCS.
It's times like this, I wish we can send all those who killed the Frigate into a US federal Prison. We wasted so much money on an unproven, unreliable ship that can't even do it's job. If they tried this in Soviet Russia, they would be shipped off to Siberia and the Gulags in seconds and never be heard from again.
DeleteIt's why we need a Frigate to be on station in places where a Carrier battle group or an Amphibious battle group is and be in places where they can't go. That's why a frigate is more cost effective than burning holes in an ocean with a CG or DDG. A Frigate makes much more sense for missions such as ASW, ASUW, AAW, limited Land attack, Naval gun fire support for Marines ashore, sea control, power projection, escort for Merchant Marines ships, Amphibious ready groups, Naval Fleet Auxiliary ships, task force protection and commander task force missions.
I think we all have theories on what the USN should have bought. Some of us want fast heavily armed corvettes and I understand their thinking. Me? I think they should have gone with something more conservative and bigger. I would have bought something like the Danish Iver Huitfeldt frigate.
Deletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iver_Huitfeldt-class_frigate
Skip the AAW and just fit RAM, Mk45 etc. Diesel so lots of range and simplicity.
Whether you prefer large or small we all have one thing in common, at least we know what the USN needs and a have a plan!
The Iver-Huitfeldt class "frigate" is almost the same size as a burke and would be almost twice the size of the ships it would be replacing. The only way something like the I-H class would be viable is if we were replacing the burkes.
DeleteIf is important to realize that the US navy already has over 60 ships in the fleet that fulfill the destroyer role and an additional 22 cruisers that also fulfill the same role for a total of 82. What the US Navy needs to smaller replacement ships in the 3-4Kt range with excellent aviation facilities for ASW, MCM, and patrol capability. Ideally it would also be viable against modern AShM FACs but that is a tall order as almost none of the frigates or destroyers out there are viable against modern AShM FACs (and esp not in someplace like the South China Sea). Even a mighty Burke would likely fall to 2-3 FACs (burkes currently lack any effective ASuW capabilities against a modern FAC) via attrition.
NGFS is best served by a purpose built NGFS corvette or frigate which the US navy doesn't have and likely won't ever have. And the only naval gun in design or service that can fulfill and actual NGFS role is the AGS. The 5" guns don't have any viable range for NGFS. The best option therefore for NGFS is the smallest, cheapest ship that can fit 1-2 AGS.
I think your too stupid to see that, what the US Navy really Needs is a frigate and not an LCS. The US Navy needs a real frigate that can do the job and not be bogged down with problems. Frigates such as the Blohm+Voss MEKO® A-200 Class Frigate, Blohm+Voss Frigate F-124 or the Blohm+Voss MEKO® 600 Class Escort Frigate are more viable than the LCS. They even have some degree of Automation as well. What the US Navy needs is a Frigate that can protect the Amphibious ready group and provide fire support for their Beach assault landings and when they are ashore.
DeleteThe F-124 and MEKO 600 are too expensive to build and too costly to run. They are simply too much ship for what the US Navy needs. If its near or over 5Kt then it isn't a viable alternative for an LCS. The LCS is an actual frigate sized vessel since it is in fact a real actual frigate!
DeleteIf you are focusing on AAW, then it isn't a viable alternative for the LCS.
ARGs are protected by Ticos and Burkes. The only time any gun outside of the AGS can provide viable NGFS is when the enemy is so backwards that they don't have any AShMs. If you want to talk about dedicated corvettes or frigates with 1-2 AGS that are dedicated and focused completely on NGFS, then we can but that means no AAW, ASW, ASuW, MCM, etc. NGFS and only NGFS. The costs will quickly spiral out of control otherwise if we start talking about multi-role + NGFS which we already have in the DDG-1K and you can look up the cost of those on your own.
And once again, a 5Kt plus ship isn't a frigate, it is a destroyer. The US navy has over 80 top of the line destroyers. It really doesn't need anymore.
Your still wrong again asshole. So your willing to justify spending $700+ Million for an unproven ship, when their are far better alternatives to the LCS that is more cost effective and can do the JOB far better than the LCS.
DeleteOnce again, you shown what an asshole you really are that you don't realize how much it cost to run a Burke and Tico vs running a Frigate. We burn more holes with a Burke and Tico than anyone in the world. A frigate is more cost effective because we don't need a Burke or Tico doing a frigate work and wasting valuable resource, ships and personnel. That's what a frigate is for ,presence and chasing after Drug runners, Pirates, showing the flag and conduct independent ASW, ASUW, AAW, limited land attack and NGFS. Even a Frigate is more suited to keep up and escort Fleet Naval Auxiliary ships, Merchant Marine convoys and commercial shipping.
Again, you really don't know what a Corvette or a frigate is all about. You seem to be living the LCS delusion and can't seem to wrap Reality around your head.
Once again, you seem to not realize a Burke IIA is at 9,200 tons. While a German F-124 Frigate is 5,690 tons. A Burke IIA is what Most Navy destroyers are based on. Even the German F-125 at 7,200 tons is on par with Spruance/Kidd class DD. Most high end Frigates today come in at 5,000 to 6,000 tons. While lower end frigates such as the Talwar class frigate comes in at 4,035 tons fully loaded. Even the formidable class FFG comes in at 3,200 tons. While the ANZAC's come in at 3,600 tons and the MEKO A-200 (Valour class frigate) comes in at 3,700 tons.
Which is why 5KT is normal for a High end frigate while 3 to 4KT is common for lower end frigates. The standard now for a destroyer is 8,000 tons and up.
@ ATS
DeleteThe throw away ship or maid of all work for the USN for last decade or so has been the OHP. This is what is needed, a cheap ship. When I speak of the IH I mean a ship of similar size and specification not the class specifically. Ships have been getting large in recent decades. A modern OHP would probably be 1500t heavier. Gas turbines are expensive and fuel hungry. Therefore it is conceivable that a replacement for the OHP would be a CODAD design. As you NGS is important, but so is keeping your main assets over the horizon so I imagine a OHP would have a 5in gun; remind me again what weapon sits at the A position on the LCS classes? For patrol work you need range which means big bunkers which oddly means a big ship. There is no reason why a ship the size of IH cannot accommodate up to 3 /4 Seahawk; look at the Absalon which share the same hull. The best defence against FAC is the helicopter launched AShM. Perhaps even Harpoon and the 5in gun as a back up. I assume that this ship under attack is actually able to manoeuvre? Or are you assuming it is a sitting duck? Modern powerful escorts are quite maneuverable and are able to go deep and out range lesser ships. I assume it won't be alone either. Helicopter numbers are important in ASW. MCM is best done by a specialised ship under 1000 tons, that is why we have Hunts and Sandownes, and not a ship that has a container slung onto its back. I am really struggling to see how either LCS is better.
Just in:
ReplyDeleteROC Navy unveils "High Efficiency Wave Piercing Catamaran" at TADTE 2013 show
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1200
Taiwan's own "LCS" in a way...
16x (!!!) anti-ship missiles, potentially supersonic (HF-III) now that's a deadly "LCS" that will keep Taiwan's strait secured
OT, while we are on the subject of procurement .... I found this on the morning news read.... http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2013/08/aviation-dystopia.html#disqus_thread
ReplyDeletegoddamn chairforce
LOL...
ReplyDeleteWhore Spam
Thanks for sharing this post. this post is very informative for me. we are searching london escorts related post...
ReplyDelete