LCS to be equiped with ejection seats?

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Henry J. Cobb

unread,
Feb 10, 2003, 6:27:37 PM2/10/03
to
http://www.pilotonline.com/military/ml0115sur.html

I guess you can save some space if the crew doesn't need room to walk
around as they'll be strapped to their seats.

-HJC

Terry Schanno

unread,
Feb 10, 2003, 6:51:41 PM2/10/03
to

<quote>
But the new ships also may be equipped with systems to facilitate a
quick and safe escape for the crew in the event of a serious hit, he
suggested, much as the Navy equips aircraft with ejection seats and
parachutes to allow pilots and airmen to get away when necessary.
<end quote>

...much as the navy...

That implies to me they will ahve an escape system, but not ejection
seats and parachutes. Maybe quickly launched motor boat with a .50cal
and some food and such...

Tom Schoene

unread,
Feb 10, 2003, 9:30:14 PM2/10/03
to
"Henry J. Cobb" <hc...@io.com> wrote in message
news:19c84c65.03021...@posting.google.com...

> http://www.pilotonline.com/military/ml0115sur.html
>
> I guess you can save some space if the crew doesn't need room to walk
> around as they'll be strapped to their seats.

Not ejection seats, just a protected citadel and assured egress if needed.
The best way to avoid having crew trapped below decks, for instance, is not
to have a manned space for them to be trapped in. At Condition 1, one
imagines the entire crew clustered in a few armored compartments. Since
they have discounted heroic DC efforts, the crew won't generally have to
leave this space except to abandon ship.

(If modern destroyers are eggshells with hammers, LCS could turn out to be a
soap bubble with a sewing needle.)

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

GLof815619

unread,
Feb 10, 2003, 11:35:22 PM2/10/03
to
"Tom Schoene" tasc...@earthlink.invalid in message
<19c84c65.03021...@posting.google.com>

>
>"Henry J. Cobb" <hc...@io.com> wrote in message
>news:19c84c65.03021...@posting.google.com...
>> http://www.pilotonline.com/military/ml0115sur.html
>>
>> I guess you can save some space if the crew doesn't need room to walk
>> around as they'll be strapped to their seats.
>
>Not ejection seats, just a protected citadel and assured egress if needed.
>The best way to avoid having crew trapped below decks, for instance, is not
>to have a manned space for them to be trapped in. At Condition 1, one
>imagines the entire crew clustered in a few armored compartments. Since
>they have discounted heroic DC efforts, the crew won't generally have to
>leave this space except to abandon ship.
>
>(If modern destroyers are eggshells with hammers, LCS could turn out to be a
>soap bubble with a sewing needle.)
>

I think we are missing a possiblity here. what if the ejection seats are not
for the crew, up for all those supercargoes. If one of them gets out of hand
and..........
G Lof
Engineer

sid

unread,
Feb 11, 2003, 11:59:20 AM2/11/03
to
"Tom Schoene" <tasc...@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message news:<WeZ1a.1651$PC1...@tornadotest1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...

>> Since they have discounted heroic DC efforts...


Just who is going to mount the SAR effort? More LCS's?

Tom Schoene

unread,
Feb 11, 2003, 4:41:39 PM2/11/03
to

"sid" <sidi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e22254a1.03021...@posting.google.com...

Hey, you're not supposed to ask awkward questions like that!

Eric Moore

unread,
Feb 11, 2003, 11:49:44 PM2/11/03
to
"Tom Schoene" <tasc...@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message news:<WeZ1a.1651$PC1...@tornadotest1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> "Henry J. Cobb" <hc...@io.com> wrote in message
> news:19c84c65.03021...@posting.google.com...
> > http://www.pilotonline.com/military/ml0115sur.html
> >
> > I guess you can save some space if the crew doesn't need room to walk
> > around as they'll be strapped to their seats.
>
> Not ejection seats, just a protected citadel and assured egress if needed.
> The best way to avoid having crew trapped below decks, for instance, is not
> to have a manned space for them to be trapped in. At Condition 1, one
> imagines the entire crew clustered in a few armored compartments. Since
> they have discounted heroic DC efforts, the crew won't generally have to
> leave this space except to abandon ship.
>
> (If modern destroyers are eggshells with hammers, LCS could turn out to be a
> soap bubble with a sewing needle.)

There's an article on Nor-Grumm's LCS design at:

http://aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_aerospacedaily_story.jsp?id=news/combat02113.xml


How practical does it sound?

sid

unread,
Feb 12, 2003, 9:04:40 AM2/12/03
to
"Tom Schoene" <tasc...@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message news:<n6e2a.1907$PC...@tornadotest1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...

> "sid" <sidi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:e22254a1.03021...@posting.google.com...
> > "Tom Schoene" <tasc...@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
> news:<WeZ1a.1651$PC1...@tornadotest1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> >
> > >> Since they have discounted heroic DC efforts...
> >
> >
> > Just who is going to mount the SAR effort? More LCS's?
>
> Hey, you're not supposed to ask awkward questions like that!

I guess that old movie "They Were Expendable" will be required viewing
for anyone entering the LCS community.

Alan Minyard

unread,
Feb 12, 2003, 3:11:22 PM2/12/03
to
On 11 Feb 2003 20:49:44 -0800, dump...@hotmail.com (Eric Moore)
wrote:

It is somewhat larger than I had imagined. Does anyone have any idea
what the proposed propulsion system is ? And is the 57mm an in
service item, or will it be a unique design?

Al Minyard

Andrew Toppan

unread,
Feb 12, 2003, 6:44:16 PM2/12/03
to
On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 14:11:22 -0600, Alan Minyard <aminy...@netdoor.com>
wrote:

> Does anyone have any idea what the proposed propulsion system is ?

Must be gas turbine. No other way to get that sort of power in that space.

> And is the 57mm an in service item, or will it be a unique design?

Considering the timeline, it must be an existing design. There's no way they
could develop a new weapon within 2 years.

--
Andrew Toppan --- acto...@gwi.net --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

Alan Minyard

unread,
Feb 13, 2003, 3:25:13 PM2/13/03
to
On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 18:44:16 -0500, Andrew Toppan <acto...@gwi.net>
wrote:

>On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 14:11:22 -0600, Alan Minyard <aminy...@netdoor.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Does anyone have any idea what the proposed propulsion system is ?
>
>Must be gas turbine. No other way to get that sort of power in that space.
>
>> And is the 57mm an in service item, or will it be a unique design?
>
>Considering the timeline, it must be an existing design. There's no way they
>could develop a new weapon within 2 years.

That is what I assumed as far as propulsion. Do you think it will be
LM-2500s? That would give logistic and training advantages, and I
know that they can be "up rated".

Al Minyard

Henry J. Cobb

unread,
Feb 13, 2003, 7:08:31 PM2/13/03
to
Alan Minyard <aminy...@netdoor.com> wrote in message news:<2gal4v4mhgko14tcb...@4ax.com>...

> It is somewhat larger than I had imagined. Does anyone have any idea
> what the proposed propulsion system is ? And is the 57mm an in
> service item, or will it be a unique design?
>
> Al Minyard

http://www.uniteddefense.com/prod/ngun_mk3.htm
"The fire control-linked 57mm Mk 3 Naval Gun fires automatic salvos at
220 rounds per minute, with servo-controlled electrohydraulic gun
laying subsystems providing robust endurance and extreme pointing
accuracy, even in high sea state conditions."

That's one possibility.

-HJC

Andrew Toppan

unread,
Feb 13, 2003, 7:48:25 PM2/13/03
to
On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 14:25:13 -0600, Alan Minyard <aminy...@netdoor.com>
wrote:

>That is what I assumed as far as propulsion. Do you think it will be


>LM-2500s? That would give logistic and training advantages, and I
>know that they can be "up rated".

Certainly seems the logical choice, and NGSS is certainly familiar with the
equipment. 3x30,000 hp would do the trick. There aren't really many other
options, unless you go foreign.

Thomas Schoene

unread,
Feb 13, 2003, 7:56:44 PM2/13/03
to

"Alan Minyard" <aminy...@netdoor.com> wrote in message
news:2gal4v4mhgko14tcb...@4ax.com...
> It is somewhat larger than I had imagined. Does anyone have any idea
> what the proposed propulsion system is ?

Must be gas turbines to get the requisite power density. Three LM2500+
turbines would reach at least this power level (GE quotes even higher
figures for this engine, but their numbers seem higher than the actual
in-service ratings). I'd expect direct drive waterjets. Jets of this size
have been pioneered in fast ferries over the past few years.

> And is the 57mm an in
> service item, or will it be a unique design?

The 57mm is the Bofors/United Defense Mk 3 that is already in service with
Sweden. It would be new to the USN, (but then so was the Mk 75 3-inch gun
when it was introduced on the FFGs). The 57mm is also the preferred option
for the new Coast Guard cutters, for which Northrop Grumman is design agent.
Taken together, this would imply a total US installation of around 60 to
100 mounts, which is probably enough for a reasonable support base.

The only other viable option is probably the OTO Melara Super Rapid 76mm
mount, which would also be new to the USN. It's externally similar to the
Mk 75, but not the same internally.

From an industrial standpoint, the 57mm Mk 3 is probably preferred. United
Defense has given up its Mk 75 license and is now marketing the Mk 3, so
that's the "domestic" choice. AFAIK, there's no domestic partner for the
OTO Melara gun.

GLof815619

unread,
Feb 14, 2003, 1:35:13 PM2/14/03
to
Andrew Toppan acto...@gwi.net in message:
<kbco4v8a7pudmba08...@4ax.com>

>On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 14:25:13 -0600, Alan Minyard <aminy...@netdoor.com>
>wrote:
>
>>That is what I assumed as far as propulsion. Do you think it will be
>>LM-2500s? That would give logistic and training advantages, and I
>>know that they can be "up rated".
>
>Certainly seems the logical choice, and NGSS is certainly familiar with the
>equipment. 3x30,000 hp would do the trick. There aren't really many other
>options, unless you go foreign.
>

Speaking of foreign possiblity Northrop Grumman has purchase a Rolls-Royce
will provide one 36 MW MT30 generator set to to drive the IPS EDM. A couple of
these would provide more than enough power to drive NGSS design at 50 knots.


G Lof
Engineer

Alan Minyard

unread,
Feb 14, 2003, 1:43:56 PM2/14/03
to

Thank you. That is certainly an impressive weapon :-)

Al Minyard

Thomas Schoene

unread,
Feb 15, 2003, 4:12:29 PM2/15/03
to

"GLof815619" <glof8...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030214133513...@mb-ff.aol.com...

> Speaking of foreign possiblity Northrop Grumman has purchase a
Rolls-Royce
> will provide one 36 MW MT30 generator set to to drive the IPS EDM. A
couple of
> these would provide more than enough power to drive NGSS design at 50
knots.

I was thinking the same thing. Two MT30s at 36MW would be comfortably close
to the 90,000 shp mentioned by Northrop Grumman for LCS. NG is pushing the
degree of commonality between DD(X) and LCS as a selling point for their
design, so perhaps they do plan something like that.

In digging around the Rolls-Royce website for info on the MT30, I found this
interesting image. Am I crazy to see some resemblance to the Visby?
(Possibly I am; I might be reaching too far here.)

http://www.rolls-royce.com/mt30/vapps/frigates.htm

PS: for the jargon impaired, the IPS EDM is the Engineering Development
Model of the Integrated Power System being designed for the DD(X) program.
The selection of the MT30 for this application would appear to indicate that
DD(X) will not use the familiar LM2500 turbines unless something goes badly
wrong with the MT30 in testing.

john

unread,
Feb 15, 2003, 7:53:12 PM2/15/03
to
You think that GE will be out of US Naval GT business in a few years
time? I don't think it will happen. BTW even 3 MT30s gives less than
90,000 shp. 3 x 36 MW is about 80,000 hp.

Thomas Schoene

unread,
Feb 15, 2003, 9:38:32 PM2/15/03
to

"john" <jo...@no.spam> wrote in message news:3E4EE0F8...@no.spam...

> You think that GE will be out of US Naval GT business in a few years
> time? I don't think it will happen.

Losing one or both of these contracts would not put GE out of the naval GT
business, even in the US. At very least, the installed base of over 350
LM2500s will remain in service for decades, and it's likely that new LM2500s
will be installed in other classes (amphibs, cargo ships, etc.) as well.
But I think GE definitely needs to avoid becoming complacent about their
position.

> BTW even 3 MT30s gives less than
> 90,000 shp. 3 x 36 MW is about 80,000 hp.

Nope, you did your match backwards. The formula is 1 kw = 1.34 hp, which
means 36MW = 48,000 shp. Two MT30s is actually about 96,000 shp.

sid

unread,
Feb 16, 2003, 5:29:42 AM2/16/03
to
"Tom Schoene" <tasc...@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message news:<WeZ1a.1651$PC1...@tornadotest1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> "Henry J. Cobb" <hc...@io.com> wrote in message
> news:19c84c65.03021...@posting.google.com...
> > http://www.pilotonline.com/military/ml0115sur.html
> >
> > I guess you can save some space if the crew doesn't need room to walk
> > around as they'll be strapped to their seats.
>
> Not ejection seats, just a protected citadel and assured egress if needed.
> The best way to avoid having crew trapped below decks, for instance, is not
> to have a manned space for them to be trapped in. At Condition 1, one
> imagines the entire crew clustered in a few armored compartments. Since
> they have discounted heroic DC efforts, the crew won't generally have to
> leave this space except to abandon ship.
>
> (If modern destroyers are eggshells with hammers, LCS could turn out to be a
> soap bubble with a sewing needle.)

What is the rationale for making these ships throwaway "craft"-other
than saving money?
I think you are right; the final rendition of the LCS will be too big
and too politically important to not have a robust DC capability.
This is the same road the FFG traveled down nearly 30 years ago.

sid

unread,
Feb 16, 2003, 7:52:47 AM2/16/03
to
"Thomas Schoene" <tasc...@starpower.net> wrote in message news:<IQC3a.3978$_c6.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...

> "john" <jo...@no.spam> wrote in message news:3E4EE0F8...@no.spam...
> > You think that GE will be out of US Naval GT business in a few years
> > time? I don't think it will happen.
>
> Losing one or both of these contracts would not put GE out of the naval GT
> business, even in the US. At very least, the installed base of over 350
> LM2500s will remain in service for decades, and it's likely that new LM2500s
> will be installed in other classes (amphibs, cargo ships, etc.) as well.
> But I think GE definitely needs to avoid becoming complacent about their
> position.

I don't understand why GE is not offering a marinized version of their
GE90 engine. The CF6 based core of the LM2500 is a 40 year old
design. A marinized GE90 would be a direct competitor to the MT30.

Thomas Schoene

unread,
Feb 16, 2003, 4:45:49 PM2/16/03
to

"sid" <sidi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e22254a1.03021...@posting.google.com...

> I don't understand why GE is not offering a marinized version of their


> GE90 engine. The CF6 based core of the LM2500 is a 40 year old
> design. A marinized GE90 would be a direct competitor to the MT30.

GE already has an offering in that size range -- the LM 6000. It's a CT6-80
derivative rather than GE90-based, but it would fit the same niche. I don't
know whether they offered it or not. If they offered the LM2500 for DD(X),
they probably were hoping for the benefits of commonality to drive the
selection.

Thomas Schoene

unread,
Feb 16, 2003, 5:03:22 PM2/16/03
to

"sid" <sidi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e22254a1.03021...@posting.google.com...
> "Tom Schoene" <tasc...@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
news:<WeZ1a.1651$PC1...@tornadotest1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> > "Henry J. Cobb" <hc...@io.com> wrote in message
> > news:19c84c65.03021...@posting.google.com...
> > > http://www.pilotonline.com/military/ml0115sur.html
> > >
> > > I guess you can save some space if the crew doesn't need room to walk
> > > around as they'll be strapped to their seats.
> >
> > Not ejection seats, just a protected citadel and assured egress if
needed.
> > The best way to avoid having crew trapped below decks, for instance, is
not
> > to have a manned space for them to be trapped in. At Condition 1, one
> > imagines the entire crew clustered in a few armored compartments.
Since
> > they have discounted heroic DC efforts, the crew won't generally have to
> > leave this space except to abandon ship.
> >
> > (If modern destroyers are eggshells with hammers, LCS could turn out to
be a
> > soap bubble with a sewing needle.)
>
> What is the rationale for making these ships throwaway "craft"-other
> than saving money?

None, really. The original concept comes from the need to create a low-mix
force, which menas low-cost. IT's the only way the Nayv is realsitically
going to get the hull numbers it says it needs..

> I think you are right; the final rendition of the LCS will be too big
> and too politically important to not have a robust DC capability.
> This is the same road the FFG traveled down nearly 30 years ago.

And that's not a bad thing, all in all. The FFGs are, IMO, remarkably good
ships. Thye're versatile and have shown they can take a pounding if need
be. We can hope that LCS turns out to be more resilient than the
requirement seems to suggest.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages