Why does the LCS need high-speed sprints?

8 views
Skip to first unread message

Henry J. Cobb

unread,
Jan 29, 2004, 11:14:21 AM1/29/04
to
I've finally found a source that lists the sorts of missions where
speed can help the LCS.

http://peoships.crane.navy.mil/lcs/program.htm
The LCS must be capable of operating at low speeds for littoral
mission operations, transit at economical speeds, and high-speed
sprints, which may be necessary to avoid/prosecute a small boat or
submarine threat, conduct intercept operations over the horizon, or
for insertion or extraction missions.

OK, at 133 knots you get there three times faster than at 40 knots.

Helicopters can fire anti-ship missiles at the small boats, use LASH
pods or dipping sonar to find subs to drop torps on, intercept ships
over the horizon and carry special ops guys well inshore.

By reducing the LCS ship speed requirement to 30 knots you free up
enough space and weight to carry two helicopters instead of one.

If you want the LCS to be super stealthy then you put in one engine
that runs efficiently at 30 knots and use this to run a hybrid
electric drivetrain so you can shut the engine off for no added noise
or heat and travel around slowly on the hydrojets off the batteries.

By not carrying two engines you reduce the cost and crew requirement,
freeing up funds and personnel for the carried craft.

-HJC

Keith Willshaw

unread,
Jan 29, 2004, 12:06:00 PM1/29/04
to

"Henry J. Cobb" <hc...@io.com> wrote in message
news:19c84c65.04012...@posting.google.com...

> I've finally found a source that lists the sorts of missions where
> speed can help the LCS.
>
of one.
>
> If you want the LCS to be super stealthy then you put in one engine
> that runs efficiently at 30 knots and use this to run a hybrid
> electric drivetrain so you can shut the engine off for no added noise
> or heat and travel around slowly on the hydrojets off the batteries.
>
> By not carrying two engines you reduce the cost and crew requirement,
> freeing up funds and personnel for the carried craft.
>

And add a shitload of volume and weight for the batteries

Take a look at just how much the batteries sufficient even
for modest mobility adds to the weigh of a DE submarine

Gas turbine packages are a hell of a lot more compact and
lighter than the batteries you suggest. An approach such
as that adopted on the RN Type 23 frigates with electric
drive driven by diesel gennerators mounted above the waterline
for quiet operation and gas turbines for sprint would seem
a much better option.

Keith


Andrew Toppan

unread,
Jan 29, 2004, 7:51:24 PM1/29/04
to
On 29 Jan 2004 08:14:21 -0800, hc...@io.com (Henry J. Cobb) wrote:

>By not carrying two engines you reduce the cost and crew requirement,
>freeing up funds and personnel for the carried craft.

You do not possess enough information about LCS, nor enough engineering
knowledge, to make even approximate calculations about the trade-offs involved
here. In other words, you're making random guesses and spouting bullshit.

However, a lot of engineers with a lot of good information have been working
on these trade-offs for a couple years. Three proposals are, or soon will be,
in the Navy's hands for evaluation. About 120 days hence we will learn how
the trade-offs have been handled and which options the Navy prefers.

--
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/

Henry J. Cobb

unread,
Jan 30, 2004, 3:36:44 AM1/30/04
to
Andrew Toppan <acto...@gwi.net> wrote in message news:<70aj10h23vifl2e14...@4ax.com>...

> On 29 Jan 2004 08:14:21 -0800, hc...@io.com (Henry J. Cobb) wrote:
>
> >By not carrying two engines you reduce the cost and crew requirement,
> >freeing up funds and personnel for the carried craft.
>
> You do not possess enough information about LCS, nor enough engineering
> knowledge, to make even approximate calculations about the trade-offs involved
> here. In other words, you're making random guesses and spouting bullshit.
>
> However, a lot of engineers with a lot of good information have been working
> on these trade-offs for a couple years. Three proposals are, or soon will be,
> in the Navy's hands for evaluation. About 120 days hence we will learn how
> the trade-offs have been handled and which options the Navy prefers.

There's already quite a bit of information out in public already.

http://www.gdlcs.com/
The General Dynamics Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) team is seeking
sources for a proven gas turbine propulsion engine to drive waterjet
propulsors. Proposed solutions must (a) have a power rating in the
range of 18 to 45MW

I assume that they intend to install only one 45MW engine in each
ship.

The Perrys get by with only 41,000 hp or less than 31MW and carry 587
tons of fuel by http://globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/ffg-7-specs.htm
but they almost meet the objective range requirement for the LCS of
"4,300 nautical miles (20 knots) with payload" which the actual LCS
are unlikely to do.

The low speed engine option for the GD LCS is a 12MW diesel, assuming
they get 20 knots out of that to travel 3,500 nautical miles would
take 175 hours.

Assuming they can extract 16 kWh/gal, that's a total consumption of
750 gallons per hour or over 130,000 gallons.

At 6.8 pounds per gallon we get almost 450 short tons of fuel.

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/article.cfm?Id=1079
The size of the LCS is expected to be about 3,000 tons

So the fuel ratios are 14.3% for the Perrys vs 15% for the LCS and the
frigate goes further while carrying twice as many helicopters.

A FF(X) designed to take advantage of unmanned and manned carried
craft can be built for the $350 million pricetag of the LCS and do the
job better than the LCS by just carrying more.

The 40 knot requirement for the LCS makes it

Limited in what it can do,
Costly with big engines and exotic hull forms and it still leaves it
Slower than sending a helicopter out to do the job.

-HJC

Jörg Bihlmayr

unread,
Jan 30, 2004, 5:48:17 AM1/30/04
to

"Henry J. Cobb" schrieb:

> I've finally found a source that lists the sorts of missions where
> speed can help the LCS.
>
> http://peoships.crane.navy.mil/lcs/program.htm
> The LCS must be capable of operating at low speeds for littoral
> mission operations, transit at economical speeds, and high-speed
> sprints, which may be necessary to avoid/prosecute a small boat or
> submarine threat, conduct intercept operations over the horizon, or
> for insertion or extraction missions.
>
> OK, at 133 knots you get there three times faster than at 40 knots.
>
> Helicopters can fire anti-ship missiles at the small boats, use LASH
> pods or dipping sonar to find subs to drop torps on, intercept ships
> over the horizon and carry special ops guys well inshore.
>
> By reducing the LCS ship speed requirement to 30 knots you free up
> enough space and weight to carry two helicopters instead of one.

Really? Where is the helicopter located and where are the engines
located? This is a question of the metacentric height, not of weight and
space alone.

>
>
> If you want the LCS to be super stealthy then you put in one engine
> that runs efficiently at 30 knots and use this to run a hybrid
> electric drivetrain so you can shut the engine off for no added noise
> or heat and travel around slowly on the hydrojets off the batteries.

And how much weight do you want to add for the batteries? Batteries are
big and heavy, and you need a lot, to have enough power for a sufficient
range and speed. Besides, the noise-reduction system are pretty good
today, and in littorial waters the niose doesn't carry as far as on high
seas.

Jörg

>
>
> By not carrying two engines you reduce the cost and crew requirement,
> freeing up funds and personnel for the carried craft.
>
> -HJC

--
Das Leben ist unerträglich. Im Grunde weiss das auch jeder. Einige sind
bloß
vorübergehend geblendet von Liebe, Alkohol oder sonstigen Illusionen.
Aber ich bin gegen Selbstmord und Euthanasie. Es werden dann bewegende
Artikel in
den Zeitungen geschrieben, die den Mut des Verstorbenen betonen, sein
Elend nicht
bis zum Schluss hinausgezögert zu haben. Ich habe keine Eile. Ich werde
Tier sein,
ein Tier, das sein Leben bis zum Schluss erträgt und darum kämpft.


Jörg Bihlmayr

unread,
Jan 30, 2004, 5:54:10 AM1/30/04
to

"Henry J. Cobb" schrieb:

So the number of helicopters is everything that counts?
Besides, something like CODAG as propulsion system may reduce weight and will give you a sufficent range.
(For example: 2 cruise diesel with 19000 hp and one GT with 32 hp gives you 29 knots and 4500 sm with 20
knots with a 6000 ton ship.)

Jörg

Andrew Toppan

unread,
Jan 30, 2004, 4:22:38 PM1/30/04
to
On 30 Jan 2004 00:36:44 -0800, hc...@io.com (Henry J. Cobb) wrote:

>The General Dynamics Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) team is seeking

Let's be straightforward here: your information, assumptions, and math are
wrong.

Henry J. Cobb

unread,
Jan 30, 2004, 8:53:33 PM1/30/04
to
Andrew Toppan <acto...@gwi.net> wrote in message news:<ejil101ongdoqgo4a...@4ax.com>...

> On 30 Jan 2004 00:36:44 -0800, hc...@io.com (Henry J. Cobb) wrote:
>
> >The General Dynamics Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) team is seeking
>
> Let's be straightforward here: your information, assumptions, and math are
> wrong.

Does General Dynamics have no idea of what they need or are they lying about it?

-HJC

GLof815619

unread,
Jan 31, 2004, 3:30:11 AM1/31/04
to
hc...@io.com (Henry J. Cobb) in
message:<19c84c65.04013...@posting.google.com>

Henry, you can be sure the Andrew, all of BIW engineers, and the engineers of
all there partner companies know exactly what they need fo build they Flight 0
LSC. Whether they know what the Navy need is subject to debate (there are two
other competitors), but by now they know exactly what they need to make their
prototype work if they get chance to build it.

G Lof
Engineer

Henry J. Cobb

unread,
Jan 31, 2004, 11:36:42 AM1/31/04
to
glof8...@aol.com (GLof815619) wrote in message news:<20040131033011...@mb-m21.aol.com>...

OK, I'll wait and see.

But if the BIW design turns out to carry less than 450 tons of ship's
fuel then a round of drinks for the house is on me.

You name the pub in the SFBA and the date.

-HJC
Can the LCS, SLEP the frigates and build two subs a year by 2006!

Andrew Toppan

unread,
Feb 1, 2004, 5:22:23 PM2/1/04
to
On 30 Jan 2004 17:53:33 -0800, hc...@io.com (Henry J. Cobb) wrote:

>Does General Dynamics have no idea of what they need or are they lying about it?

General Dynamics didn't make your assumptions and do your math.

And it's always possible that an outdated public release website (from *prior*
to the design phase, it appears) might not have completely accurate
information. Actually....after looking through the site quickly, I don't see
any technical description of the ship at all.....nothing beyond the standard
missions and roles discussion.

Henry J. Cobb

unread,
Feb 1, 2004, 11:02:34 PM2/1/04
to
Andrew Toppan <acto...@gwi.net> wrote in message news:<3buq105vmr29c8kvl...@4ax.com>...

> On 30 Jan 2004 17:53:33 -0800, hc...@io.com (Henry J. Cobb) wrote:
>
> >Does General Dynamics have no idea of what they need or are they lying about it?
>
> General Dynamics didn't make your assumptions and do your math.
>
> And it's always possible that an outdated public release website (from *prior*
> to the design phase, it appears) might not have completely accurate
> information. Actually....after looking through the site quickly, I don't see
> any technical description of the ship at all.....nothing beyond the standard
> missions and roles discussion.

http://www.gdlcs.com/content/industry/hmne.htm


The General Dynamics Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) team is seeking

sources for a proven diesel propulsion engine to drive a waterjet
propulsor. Proposed solutions must (a) have a power rating in the
range of 7 to 12MW, and (b) have a documented certification history
with ABS (or another IACS authority).

The General Dynamics Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) team is seeking

sources for a proven gas turbine propulsion engine to drive waterjet
propulsors. Proposed solutions must (a) have a power rating in the

range of 18 to 45MW, and (b) have a documented certification history
with ABS (or another IACS authority).

The General Dynamics Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) team is seeking

solutions for Commercial-Off-The-Shelf waterjet propulsors. Waterjet
propulsors in the power range of 7 to 45MW will be considered.
Proposed solutions must (a) have a proven track record on U.S. or
foreign, commercial or military installations, (b) be designed and
proven to support integration into a total ship control system, (c)
have a documented certification history with ABS (or another IACS
authority).

Is a 12MW diesel too big? Is a 45MW gas turbine too big? Is a 45MW
waterjet too big?

If so, why are you asking for them?

You are using the same basic hull form as the ship studied in Rudko's
paper, but the estimates are that your ship will be twice as big.

That ship goes almost 2,000 miles at 20 knots while burning 225,000
liters of fuel. To make the minimal low speed requirement of 3,500
miles it would burn almost 400 long tons of fuel. I would just like
to know how I am fibbing when I suggest that your design of twice the
tonnage will require at least 450 tons of fuel or it won't cross that
finish line on time.

-HJC

GLof815619

unread,
Feb 2, 2004, 5:09:20 AM2/2/04
to
hc...@io.com (Henry J. Cobb) wrote in
message:<19c84c65.0402...@posting.google.com>

Henry, you are obviously not a design engineer or you would realize that you
can not predict a design from this list. All we have here basicly is advanced
request for catalogs and quote sheets from all marine engine manufactures, Such
requests are normally handle with a dog and pony show put on by the vendors
sales engineers, I have gone to hundreds of such presentation over the years,
have given dozen others when we triing to sell our products, and have hundreds
of catalogs cutsheet to prove it. I doubt if I use more that five percent of
the products shown me, but I still examine all the information presented
becuase you never know which five percesnt it will be..

Franky Henry, the only thing you can tell by this quote is that the ship will
use seajets for propulsion, something we all knew about already. Whether the
drive is configured CoGaG, CoDaG, or just plan multi diesels, you can not
deterimine from the list.

BTW, I would not be suprise if it was a pure diesel design, give the history of
high speed ferries around the world.



G Lof
Engineer

Henry J. Cobb

unread,
Feb 2, 2004, 10:03:59 AM2/2/04
to
glof8...@aol.com (GLof815619) wrote in message news:<20040202050920...@mb-m05.aol.com>...

> Franky Henry, the only thing you can tell by this quote is that the ship will
> use seajets for propulsion, something we all knew about already. Whether the
> drive is configured CoGaG, CoDaG, or just plan multi diesels, you can not
> determine from the list.
>
> BTW, I would not be surprise if it was a pure diesel design, give the history of

> high speed ferries around the world.
>
> G Lof
> Engineer

That would be interesting and would give a high speed design at very
little fuel usage, but the LCS has to hit both a 18-20 knot profile
and a 40+ knot profile.

So take as an example the case of a ship with 43 MW of hydrojets
powered by six Caterpillar 9655s

http://www.caterpillar.com/products/engines_n_power_systems/spec_sheet_library/marine/pdf/LEHM1875-01.pdf

Each engine has a dry weight of 37,500 kg and added equipment and
fluids of 4845 kg for a total engine weight of 254 metric tons.

Each engine burns 1447 kg/hr of fuel at top power.

Assuming that only two engines are sufficient to make 20 knots then
the fuel consumption to travel 3,500 nautical miles at 20 knots would
be over 500 mt.

That's about 750 mt on a 3,000 ton ship and the hydrojets themselves
are extra.

The high speed requirement, using 6 engines to travel 1,000 nautical
miles at 40 knots requires only 217 mt of fuel.

The RR MT30 delivers the same power as 5 of those diesels for only 22
mt direct drive and burns 7452 kg/hr of fuel at top power.

http://www.rolls-royce.com/mt30/overview/performance.htm

So a high speed mode that used one diesel and the MT30 for 40 knots
would burn 8899 kg/hr and take 222 mt of fuel.

So I'm afraid that the US Navy is putting a tighter requirement on the
low speed endurance rather than the high speed endurance. I guess
this means that they think it won't be used all that often. (0.40% to
4.17% of the time by
http://globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2003/030300-4523.pdf
)

Two Cat 9655s and one RR MT30 is only 107 mt of mounted engine weight,
saving 110 mt or 3.6 percent of the total ship weight on a 3,000 ton
ship.

So I don't think we'll be seeing an all diesel design from Andrew this
year.

What might be tempting is an all turbine design with say 33 mt of
engines and 525 mt of fuel for a total of 18.6% of the total ship
weight, compared to over 20% with combined diesel and turbine or 25%
for an all diesel design.

The LCS is just too limited in range and needy on logistics for an all
diesel design to make any sense.

-HJC

Keith Willshaw

unread,
Feb 2, 2004, 11:10:07 AM2/2/04
to

"Henry J. Cobb" <hc...@io.com> wrote in message
news:19c84c65.04020...@posting.google.com...

> glof8...@aol.com (GLof815619) wrote in message
news:<20040202050920...@mb-m05.aol.com>...

> What might be tempting is an all turbine design with say 33 mt of


> engines and 525 mt of fuel for a total of 18.6% of the total ship
> weight, compared to over 20% with combined diesel and turbine or 25%
> for an all diesel design.
>


I doubt it , turbines are a lot less efficient at lower power settings
than diesels , the newer engines are certainly better but if you
want something that can use a sonar system in difficult conditions
you need an engine fit thats quiet and economic at 5 knots

Keith


Jörg Bihlmayr

unread,
Feb 2, 2004, 4:10:41 PM2/2/04
to

"Henry J. Cobb" schrieb:
<snip>

>
> So I don't think we'll be seeing an all diesel design from Andrew this
> year.
>
> What might be tempting is an all turbine design with say 33 mt of
> engines and 525 mt of fuel for a total of 18.6% of the total ship
> weight, compared to over 20% with combined diesel and turbine or 25%
> for an all diesel design.

Diesel are much more fuel efficient than GT's at lower speed settings and they certainly don't need the same
amount of space like GT's. (GT's need a lot of space for their exhausts and for their air supply.)

Jörg

>
>
> The LCS is just too limited in range and needy on logistics for an all
> diesel design to make any sense.
>
> -HJC

--
Millionen PC's halten sich einen Menschen als Sklaven.
Wehrt Euch!
Lest Bücher!


Andrew Toppan

unread,
Feb 2, 2004, 8:46:52 PM2/2/04
to
On 1 Feb 2004 20:02:34 -0800, hc...@io.com (Henry J. Cobb) wrote:

>Is a 12MW diesel too big? Is a 45MW gas turbine too big? Is a 45MW
>waterjet too big? If so, why are you asking for them?

I see a very vague request there - 7 to 12MW diesels, 18 to 45MW turbines, 7
to 45MW waterjets. No quantities are indicated. You could have one of each,
or six of each.

No intelligent engineer will try to predict performance on this basis. It's
so vague as to be meaningless...it could cover anything from a small craft up
to a DDG!

Andrew Toppan

unread,
Feb 2, 2004, 8:46:53 PM2/2/04
to
On 2 Feb 2004 07:03:59 -0800, hc...@io.com (Henry J. Cobb) wrote:

>The LCS is just too limited in range and needy on logistics for an all
>diesel design to make any sense.

And once again I need to point out that you have no idea what the range and
logistics requirements of LCS might be. You're guessing, with a lot of
numbers to make it look good.

Henry J. Cobb

unread,
Feb 3, 2004, 2:26:10 AM2/3/04
to
Andrew Toppan <acto...@gwi.net> wrote in message news:<navt109i4n7v5qa2t...@4ax.com>...

> On 2 Feb 2004 07:03:59 -0800, hc...@io.com (Henry J. Cobb) wrote:
>
> >The LCS is just too limited in range and needy on logistics for an all
> >diesel design to make any sense.
>
> And once again I need to point out that you have no idea what the range and
> logistics requirements of LCS might be. You're guessing, with a lot of
> numbers to make it look good.

Actually, I get my numbers from Bath Iron Works.

http://www.gdlcs.com/content/about/events.htm
Threshold
Propulsion & Engineering
Sprint Speed @ FLD (kts) in SS3 40
Range @ Sprint Speed2 (nm) 1000
Range @ Economical Speed w / Payload (nm) 3500 @ >18
Aviation Support
Embark and Hangar (1) MH-60 R/S and VTUAVs

But I do admit that you are much better placed than I am to tell if
they are lying. ;-)

I will be VERY surprised if your design has less than 450 short tons
of ship's fuel and my best guess is a bit over 500 metric tons of fuel
with a combination of diesel and turbine plants powering waterjets.

What really scares me about your RFPs is the lack of any mention of
NBC protection, but I suppose that's just classified.

-HJC

Andrew Toppan

unread,
Feb 3, 2004, 7:07:36 PM2/3/04
to
On 2 Feb 2004 23:26:10 -0800, hc...@io.com (Henry J. Cobb) wrote:

>Actually, I get my numbers from Bath Iron Works.
>http://www.gdlcs.com/content/about/events.htm
>Threshold

[snip]


>But I do admit that you are much better placed than I am to tell if
>they are lying. ;-)

Note the heading above that table: "Navy LCS Critical Design Parameters".

The table is nothing but a re-statement of the design objectives that the Navy
has asked for. It says NOTHING about the design that any team is offering.
(aside from the obvious assumption that no team will offer a design that
*fails* to meet the thresholds.)

>I will be VERY surprised if your design has less than 450 short tons
>of ship's fuel and my best guess is a bit over 500 metric tons of fuel
>with a combination of diesel and turbine plants powering waterjets.

Why the obsession with the fuel tonnage figure? Is it the only number you can
understand?

>What really scares me about your RFPs is the lack of any mention of
>NBC protection, but I suppose that's just classified.

There's nothing classified about NBC protection as such (for example, every
reference book for the past 15 years has stated that DDG 51 class ships are
NBC protected). I have no idea what the Navy has asked for with respect to
NBC, but I'm sure all three designs will include whatever is requested.

Henry J. Cobb

unread,
Feb 4, 2004, 1:58:07 AM2/4/04
to
Andrew Toppan <acto...@gwi.net> wrote in message news:<1uc0209eds8nuth4m...@4ax.com>...

> >I will be VERY surprised if your design has less than 450 short tons
> >of ship's fuel and my best guess is a bit over 500 metric tons of fuel
> >with a combination of diesel and turbine plants powering waterjets.
>
> Why the obsession with the fuel tonnage figure? Is it the only number you
> can understand?

It is at the heart of the matter.

A small ship that is required to go fast for long distances must
dedicate a large fraction of its mass to engines and fuel.

When you combine this with the module requirement you're left arming
the boat with .50 cals because you don't have the weight available to
cover all angles with real firepower.

I don't think you have the armor to stop .50 cal AP over most of your
ship so I would much rather see the threat dealt with far outside of
.50 cal range, whatever angle it approaches from.

Now maybe my concern is misplaced and you're using vectored hydrojets
so you can spin that baby around quick enough to put a shell in a
suicide boat then unmask the RAM in time to intercept a sea skimmer.

But I would feel a lot better about it if you had both RAM and CIWS
and arranged them to cover the full circle.

Say move the RAM in front of the mast and put the CIWS behind. (If
you use SeaRAM then the RAM launcher would include the surveillance
capabilities of the EO mount that's currently in front.)

You could then put something into anything that popped over the
horizon close in to shore without taking time to turn the ship.

-HJC

Andrew Toppan

unread,
Feb 4, 2004, 7:40:55 PM2/4/04
to
On 3 Feb 2004 22:58:07 -0800, hc...@io.com (Henry J. Cobb) wrote:

>When you combine this with the module requirement you're left arming
>the boat with .50 cals because you don't have the weight available to
>cover all angles with real firepower.

I'll give you a hint, since you seem to be attacking the trimaran
proposal.....multihulls are considerably less sensitive to weight increases
than monohulls, or (especially) surface effect ships. Since you apparently
believe the proposal is a large(ish) trimaran, it is laughable to attack it
for insufficient weight margins.

Henry J. Cobb

unread,
Feb 19, 2004, 9:01:21 PM2/19/04
to
Naval Transformation and the Littoral Combat Ship by Robert O. Work
http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/Archive/R.20040218.LCS/R.20040218.LCS.pdf
Page 150, Remember the "iron triangle." The problem with pursuing
speeds in excess of 40 knots is that whether or not it is ever used
tactically, the power densities and design requirements needed to
achieve it require ship design approaches that normally have adverse
impacts on a ship's endurance and payload. If it is still true that a
ship design can only maximize two of these three key characteristics
for a reasonable cost, the foregoing discussion suggests that the LCS
should sacrifice high top-end speed to maximize its payload and
endurance. Indeed, since the LCS is an off-board sensor "truck," it
would seem more prudent to maximize its payload to enable it to carry
the maximum possible off-board system/sensor load. Similarly, since
the ship will most often operate independently during peacetime or
with larger battle networks during wartime, its endurance should be
maximized to give the ship a long station patrol time or to extend the
periods between required at-sea refuelings. As one naval officer has
written, "increased speed rarely compensates operationally for
constrained range and the need for frequent refueling.

He then goes on to suggest that the LCS should be built, but only
slowly in small numbers until the concept is proven and that FFG's
could be converted into a LCS configuration for testing.

-HJC

Andrew C. Toppan

unread,
Feb 19, 2004, 9:30:36 PM2/19/04
to
On 19 Feb 2004 18:01:21 -0800, hc...@io.com (Henry J. Cobb) wrote:

>He then goes on to suggest that the LCS should be built, but only
>slowly in small numbers until the concept is proven and that FFG's
>could be converted into a LCS configuration for testing.

The concept has been tested in the high speed cats.

FFGs cannot possibly be converted to an "LCS configuration", since
they lack any large space for mission modules.

Jörg Bihlmayr

unread,
Feb 20, 2004, 3:42:43 AM2/20/04
to

"Henry J. Cobb" schrieb:

> Naval Transformation and the Littoral Combat Ship by Robert O. Work
>

<snip>

> He then goes on to suggest that the LCS should be built, but only
> slowly in small numbers until the concept is proven and that FFG's
> could be converted into a LCS configuration for testing.

This would certainly mean a complete rebuild of the FFG's. They've got certainly no
space for the mission modules.

Jörg

Henry J. Cobb

unread,
Feb 20, 2004, 10:21:17 AM2/20/04
to
Andrew C. Toppan <acto...@gwi.net> wrote in message news:<37sa30dpgrt9mmaa9...@4ax.com>...

> On 19 Feb 2004 18:01:21 -0800, hc...@io.com (Henry J. Cobb) wrote:
>
> >He then goes on to suggest that the LCS should be built, but only
> >slowly in small numbers until the concept is proven and that FFG's
> >could be converted into a LCS configuration for testing.
>
> The concept has been tested in the high speed cats.
>
> FFGs cannot possibly be converted to an "LCS configuration", since
> they lack any large space for mission modules.

Anti-Sub Mission Module: Send a pair of Kighthawks to track it down.

Anti-Mine Mission Module: Send a pair of Knighthawks to sweep them.

Anti-Surface Mission Module: Send a pair of Knighthawks to shoot
missiles at the small craft. And use the 76mm gun if they get too
close.

Special Ops Mission Module: Send a pair of Knighthawks to drop the
Special Ops guys exactly where they're needed.

Total conversion needed: Replace the Mod 4 SML with a RAM and a
Harpoon launcher.

-HJC

Fred J. McCall

unread,
Feb 20, 2004, 10:37:24 AM2/20/04
to
hc...@io.com (Henry J. Cobb) wrote:

:Andrew C. Toppan <acto...@gwi.net> wrote in message news:<37sa30dpgrt9mmaa9...@4ax.com>...

You forgot the "do magic shit" unit, since that's what's needed to
fulfill your fantasy.

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

sid

unread,
Feb 20, 2004, 6:03:37 PM2/20/04
to
Andrew C. Toppan <acto...@gwi.net> wrote in message news:<37sa30dpgrt9mmaa9...@4ax.com>...
> On 19 Feb 2004 18:01:21 -0800, hc...@io.com (Henry J. Cobb) wrote:
>
> >He then goes on to suggest that the LCS should be built, but only
> >slowly in small numbers until the concept is proven and that FFG's
> >could be converted into a LCS configuration for testing.
>
> The concept has been tested in the high speed cats.
>
> FFGs cannot possibly be converted to an "LCS configuration", since
> they lack any large space for mission modules.

It appears Norman Polamr doesn't agree with you...Or do you know more
than him as well...
http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/Archive/R.20040218.LCS/R.20040218.LCS.pdf
"As opposed to buying or leasing LCS surrogates, the Navy could also
convert existing ships to serve the same role. Norman Polmar believes
that the Perry-class FFG could be easily converted into a LCS test
bed. In this regard, he recommends that the ship's Mk-13 Standard
missile launcher could be replaced by a Rolling Airframe Missile
launcher, modifications be made to allow handling of UUVs and USVs,
and that a UUV/USV recovery ramp be notched into the starboard side of
the stern. In Polmar's judgment, an FFG/LCS test bed would permit the
deployment of LCS surrogate ships and squadrons in relatively short
order.573"
"573 Polmar, "Getting the LCS to Sea, Quickly," pp. 106-107."

Andrew C. Toppan

unread,
Feb 20, 2004, 10:02:38 PM2/20/04
to
On 20 Feb 2004 15:03:37 -0800, sidi...@yahoo.com (sid) wrote:

>It appears Norman Polamr doesn't agree with you...Or do you know more
>than him as well...

Mr. Polmar's resume, while quite impressive in his field, does not
include any engineering degrees or experience in ship design. However
inconceivable it may be to you, it is possible that he is not the
ultimate authority in ship design matters.

>"As opposed to buying or leasing LCS surrogates, the Navy could also
>convert existing ships to serve the same role.

This raises the question of why we need more "LCS surrogates", when we
already have two (the HSVs), and real LCS are not far away. But I
digrees....

>that the Perry-class FFG could be easily converted into a LCS test
>bed. In this regard, he recommends that the ship's Mk-13 Standard
>missile launcher could be replaced by a Rolling Airframe Missile
>launcher,

A mod that is indeed quite feasible, and was designed years ago.

>modifications be made to allow handling of UUVs and USVs,

Modifications such as?

>and that a UUV/USV recovery ramp be notched into the starboard side of
>the stern.

Indeed this *could* be done (in theory at least; we would need serious
structural analysis before chopping holes in the structure of the
ship), on the starboard side, or the port side, or on the centerline.
But there's one little problem....the bloody flight deck is in the
way! If you chop a piece out of the flight deck, as certainly seems
to be implied here, you lose helicopter capabilty. Now you're missing
one of the most basic capabilities for any surface combatant.

Ooops. Maybe not such a good idea?

>In Polmar's judgment, an FFG/LCS test bed would permit the
>deployment of LCS surrogate ships and squadrons in relatively short

Even if the proposed mod works, you're missing several major pieces of
the LCS concept, so the test/demonstration/whatever is irrelevant.
You don't have:
-High speed...not even matching fleet units, much less exceeding their
speed
-Shallow draft for littoral operations
-Modular mission payload capability (aside from a single boat, which
is a tiny part of the planned LCS mission payload)
-Small crew (= low operating costs)
-Low signatures
-Modularity, adaptability, or flexibility of any sort
-Joint littoral mobility

So you've got a ship that can do one small part of what LCS is
intended to do, and it's an "LCS surrogate"? Huh?

Andrew C. Toppan

unread,
Feb 20, 2004, 10:02:38 PM2/20/04
to
On 20 Feb 2004 07:21:17 -0800, hc...@io.com (Henry J. Cobb) wrote:

>Anti-Sub Mission Module: Send a pair of Kighthawks to track it down.
>Anti-Mine Mission Module: Send a pair of Knighthawks to sweep them.
>Anti-Surface Mission Module: Send a pair of Knighthawks to shoot

>Special Ops Mission Module: Send a pair of Knighthawks to drop the

How about RMS, Spartan, MRIC, 40 ft HSB, RHIBs, UAVs?

You're just demonstrating that you have no clue what LCS is about or
what its equipment will be.

Henry J. Cobb

unread,
Feb 20, 2004, 10:25:54 PM2/20/04
to
Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<mcac301ovc9dmm716...@4ax.com>...

> hc...@io.com (Henry J. Cobb) wrote:
> :Anti-Sub Mission Module: Send a pair of Kighthawks to track it down.
> :
> :Anti-Mine Mission Module: Send a pair of Knighthawks to sweep them.
> :
> :Anti-Surface Mission Module: Send a pair of Knighthawks to shoot
> :missiles at the small craft. And use the 76mm gun if they get too
> :close.
> :
> :Special Ops Mission Module: Send a pair of Knighthawks to drop the
> :Special Ops guys exactly where they're needed.
>
> You forgot the "do magic shit" unit, since that's what's needed to
> fulfill your fantasy.

OK, do you mind explaining what parts of the above are a fantasy?

The Seahawks already handle most of these missions.

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/aircraft/air-sh60.html
The Seahawk is a twin-engine helicopter. It is used for anti-submarine
warfare, search and rescue, drug interdiction, anti-ship warfare,
cargo lift, and special operations.

And the minesweeping gets added next year.

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/article.cfm?Id=1320
The U.S. Navy intends to deploy the first MH-60S Knighthawk
helicopters equipped with organic airborne mine countermeasures with
carrier battle groups in 2005.

The entire mission profile of the LCS can be handled by any ship that
operates Knighthawks.

At 4,000 tons you can have two Knighthawks, two fast boats, a 76mm
gun, CIWS, RAM, decent sensors and some unmanned vehicles, if you
settle for a top ship speed of 30 knots.

What does 40 or 50 knots buy you that isn't provided by doubling the
number of small craft that will actually do all the work?

-HJC

Andrew C. Toppan

unread,
Feb 20, 2004, 10:44:04 PM2/20/04
to
On 20 Feb 2004 19:25:54 -0800, hc...@io.com (Henry J. Cobb) wrote:

>The entire mission profile of the LCS can be handled by any ship that
>operates Knighthawks.

This is plainly false, if one has a basic understanding of the LCS
mission profile.

Can you explain how helicopters can eliminate the need for RMS,
Spartan, 40 ft HSB, and RHIBs? And if helicopters can do all these
missions, why do these other systems exist in the first place?

Henry J. Cobb

unread,
Feb 21, 2004, 1:31:44 AM2/21/04
to
Andrew C. Toppan <acto...@gwi.net> wrote in message news:<elhd30d1eqil849lj...@4ax.com>...

> On 20 Feb 2004 07:21:17 -0800, hc...@io.com (Henry J. Cobb) wrote:
>
> >Anti-Sub Mission Module: Send a pair of Kighthawks to track it down.
> >Anti-Mine Mission Module: Send a pair of Knighthawks to sweep them.
> >Anti-Surface Mission Module: Send a pair of Knighthawks to shoot
> >Special Ops Mission Module: Send a pair of Knighthawks to drop the
>
> How about RMS, Spartan, MRIC, 40 ft HSB, RHIBs, UAVs?
>
> You're just demonstrating that you have no clue what LCS is about or
> what its equipment will be.

One 40 ft HSB is an Objective rather than a Threshold Level
requirement.

A 4,000 ton ship can deploy two boats as well as two helicopters.

If we are finally all agreed that the LCS is a lightly armed truck
that deploys manned and unmanned carried craft to do the actual
missions then doubling the carried craft at the cost of bringing the
top ship speed down to 30 knots is a huge win.

-HJC

Jörg Bihlmayr

unread,
Feb 21, 2004, 4:42:30 AM2/21/04
to

"Henry J. Cobb" schrieb:
<snip>

>


> > You forgot the "do magic shit" unit, since that's what's needed to
> > fulfill your fantasy.
>
> OK, do you mind explaining what parts of the above are a fantasy?
>
> The Seahawks already handle most of these missions.
>
> http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/aircraft/air-sh60.html
> The Seahawk is a twin-engine helicopter. It is used for anti-submarine
> warfare, search and rescue, drug interdiction, anti-ship warfare,
> cargo lift, and special operations.
>
> And the minesweeping gets added next year.
>
> http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/article.cfm?Id=1320
> The U.S. Navy intends to deploy the first MH-60S Knighthawk
> helicopters equipped with organic airborne mine countermeasures with
> carrier battle groups in 2005.
>
> The entire mission profile of the LCS can be handled by any ship that
> operates Knighthawks.

No. Certainly not. The LCS is more than 40 konts and a pair of choppers. Go and try to read the publication of
the USN about the mission profile of the LCS.

Jörg

>
>
> At 4,000 tons you can have two Knighthawks, two fast boats, a 76mm
> gun, CIWS, RAM, decent sensors and some unmanned vehicles, if you
> settle for a top ship speed of 30 knots.
>
> What does 40 or 50 knots buy you that isn't provided by doubling the
> number of small craft that will actually do all the work?
>
> -HJC

--

Jörg Bihlmayr

unread,
Feb 21, 2004, 4:43:28 AM2/21/04
to

"Henry J. Cobb" schrieb:

> Andrew C. Toppan <acto...@gwi.net> wrote in message news:<elhd30d1eqil849lj...@4ax.com>...
> > On 20 Feb 2004 07:21:17 -0800, hc...@io.com (Henry J. Cobb) wrote:
> >
> > >Anti-Sub Mission Module: Send a pair of Kighthawks to track it down.
> > >Anti-Mine Mission Module: Send a pair of Knighthawks to sweep them.
> > >Anti-Surface Mission Module: Send a pair of Knighthawks to shoot
> > >Special Ops Mission Module: Send a pair of Knighthawks to drop the
> >
> > How about RMS, Spartan, MRIC, 40 ft HSB, RHIBs, UAVs?
> >
> > You're just demonstrating that you have no clue what LCS is about or
> > what its equipment will be.
>
> One 40 ft HSB is an Objective rather than a Threshold Level
> requirement.
>
> A 4,000 ton ship can deploy two boats as well as two helicopters.
>
> If we are finally all agreed that the LCS is a lightly armed truck
> that deploys manned and unmanned carried craft to do the actual
> missions

That's plain wrong.

> then doubling the carried craft at the cost of bringing the
> top ship speed down to 30 knots is a huge win.
>
> -HJC

--

GLof815619

unread,
Feb 21, 2004, 5:31:55 AM2/21/04
to
I don't know why you feel that mainataining a convention hull is so important
Henry, I personally don't see any advantage in not explorong the tactical
possiblity of high speed hulls, Yes they may have some short coming in terms of
cost and survivalbity, but they have many advantages such as larger deck spaces
and versitility. What the LCS devopment program will do is test wheither these
abilities are worth the extra cost to the Navy. Beyond this it will allow the
navy to work in the tactic for you mor conventional ships to use when deal with
the fast craft the will surely arrive in the future.


I agree with you that a conventional hull LCS would be useful, but I don't see
any really need to running off too build one We really don't know what we need
for Littoral warfare yet for one thing. If we do chose to build fast LCSs in
addition to slow one, we will want to keep as many systems comment between both
designs. And final, there is no way we can get funds from the Lightweight Mafia
to build such a conventional ship.

As for the Normal Polmar's proposal about using a OHP as a test bed for
developing system for the LCS he wrote about in April, 2003, USNIP, there are
several shortcoming. First, the OHP could not provide a realistic simulation
for all the new system, it is unable to reach the speed were most of the
problem with the equipment will occure. Second, what system do you propose to
test, since all three competitors have different system, you would have to test
all three system, wastin a great deal of money. Final, why go to all this
effort whan the navy is converting a Spraunce class destory as a perment
testbed. won,t is be cheaper as easier just to use her instead of a OHP for
those test the OHP could profrom
G Lof
Engineer

Henry J. Cobb

unread,
Feb 21, 2004, 10:03:25 AM2/21/04
to
glof8...@aol.com (GLof815619) wrote in message news:<20040221053155...@mb-m25.aol.com>...

> I don't know why you feel that mainataining a convention hull is so important
> Henry, I personally don't see any advantage in not explorong the tactical
> possiblity of high speed hulls, Yes they may have some short coming in terms of
> cost and survivalbity, but they have many advantages such as larger deck spaces
> and versitility. What the LCS devopment program will do is test wheither these
> abilities are worth the extra cost to the Navy. Beyond this it will allow the
> navy to work in the tactic for you mor conventional ships to use when deal with
> the fast craft the will surely arrive in the future.

If it is just a test program then they won't need to build six of them
in 2009.

My fear is that come 2009 the budget crunch will kill the DD(X) and
the CG(X), leaving the US Navy with a fleet building program that's
just LCS.

And then if for any reason the LCS can't do the job and lacks
sufficent expandability on it's tiny hull the Navy will find itself in
quite a bind in the middle of this war.

-HJC

Ken Adams

unread,
Feb 21, 2004, 10:17:24 AM2/21/04
to
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away,
Henry J. Cobb <hc...@io.com> opposed the empire by writing:

Henry, here's a challenge for you.
1) Prove that your two helicopters can perform the complete mine
warfare mission faster than an LCS with 2 RMV, 1 Spartan, 3 REMUS, and
1 helicopter. In your proof, discuss the on station time requirements
for each system to search, localize, and neutralize the field to a 65%
confidence level. Also, discuss the impact to mission completion
timelines possible from substituting a second MH-60S for the 3 VTUAVs
carried by LCS. Finally, describe how your FFG will support changing
the MH-60S from a search/localization capability to a neutralization
capability.
2) Discuss the total combat payload available on your modified FFG for
the ASW mission. Explain how your FFG will meet the LCS requirement
to deploy ADS.
3) Explain the design changes necessary for FFG to handle 11m RHIBs --
the threshold requirement. Specifically, support your claim that the
ship can handle two. Discuss the weight and balance impact of your
design changes.

If you can't answer these kinds of questions about your proposed
solution for the littoral combat mission, then your proposal will be
deemed non-compliant with the Navy's stated requirements.

--
Ken
http://www.geocities.com/kmadams85
"Dream lofty dreams, and as you dream, so shall you become. Your
vision
is the promise of what you shll one day be; your ideal is the prophecy
of what you shall unveil." - James Allen

Henry J. Cobb

unread,
Feb 21, 2004, 2:14:38 PM2/21/04
to
"Ken Adams" <kmad...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<upudncfF8ao...@comcast.com>...

> A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away,
> Henry J. Cobb <hc...@io.com> opposed the empire by writing:

I said "a 4,000 ton ship", not the FFG.

For example, this one.

http://www.icgsdeepwater.com/objectives/cutters/nsc_cutters.php
Boat Facilities: Dual Stern Launch Ramp, Can Carry up to Two 11 M Long
Range Interceptor Boats
Aviation Facilities: Dual Helo Hangar Capability Combination of MCH,
HH-60, SH-60, CH-46, MH-60
Weapons: SeaRAM, 57 MM, .50 Caliber

This isn't the perfect configuration, but it does show that you can
build a 4,000 ton frigate that performs the LCS missions better than
the LCS.

For example in the anti-mine mission RAMICS both locates and
neutralizes mines near the surface.

And the safest way to deploy mine searching UUVs is from a helicopter.

With one helicopter running AN/AQS-20X and the other one using RAMICS
you can clear a path without needing to switch modules out all the
time, if you have two helicopters.

-HJC

Jörg Bihlmayr

unread,
Feb 21, 2004, 2:40:40 PM2/21/04
to

"Henry J. Cobb" schrieb:
<snip>

> > If you can't answer these kinds of questions about your proposed


> > solution for the littoral combat mission, then your proposal will be
> > deemed non-compliant with the Navy's stated requirements.

Maybe you really try to answer these question before you go on with your anti-LCS posts.

>
> I said "a 4,000 ton ship", not the FFG.
>
> For example, this one.
>
> http://www.icgsdeepwater.com/objectives/cutters/nsc_cutters.php
> Boat Facilities: Dual Stern Launch Ramp, Can Carry up to Two 11 M Long
> Range Interceptor Boats
> Aviation Facilities: Dual Helo Hangar Capability Combination of MCH,
> HH-60, SH-60, CH-46, MH-60
> Weapons: SeaRAM, 57 MM, .50 Caliber
>
> This isn't the perfect configuration, but it does show that you can
> build a 4,000 ton frigate that performs the LCS missions better than
> the LCS.

Wrong. Go and read what the requirements of the USN are for the LCS.

>
> For example in the anti-mine mission RAMICS both locates and
> neutralizes mines near the surface.
>
> And the safest way to deploy mine searching UUVs is from a helicopter.

Go on dreaming.

> With one helicopter running AN/AQS-20X and the other one using RAMICS
> you can clear a path without needing to switch modules out all the
> time, if you have two helicopters.
>
> -HJC

--

sid

unread,
Feb 21, 2004, 4:01:48 PM2/21/04
to
Andrew C. Toppan <acto...@gwi.net> wrote in message news:<mnhd30l42s46iaj3d...@4ax.com>...

> On 20 Feb 2004 15:03:37 -0800, sidi...@yahoo.com (sid) wrote:
>
> >It appears Norman Polamr doesn't agree with you...Or do you know more
> >than him as well...
>
> Mr. Polmar's resume, while quite impressive in his field, does not
> include any engineering degrees or experience in ship design. However
> inconceivable it may be to you, it is possible that he is not the
> ultimate authority in ship design matters.
>
The only thing inconceivable is your overweening arrogance. Why don't
you take the time to read his whole article in the Jan '03 Proceedings
before rejecting what he had to say out of hand.
Oh, I forgot. You, The Great Andrew, are The Knower Of All Thats
Knaval.

> >and that a UUV/USV recovery ramp be notched into the starboard side of
> >the stern.
>
> Indeed this *could* be done (in theory at least; we would need serious
> structural analysis before chopping holes in the structure of the
> ship),
Andrew, you are stating the obvious here, and I'm sure Mr. Polmar was
aware of the complexities.
Its interesting to note that each surviving LCS design has a full
flight deck, and provisions for launching UUVs/USVs. It *could* be
done, but it would be expensive.
If the current plan for the LCS falls apart, and its a good chance it
will, such a proposal may gain some momentum down the road.

sid

unread,
Feb 21, 2004, 4:48:02 PM2/21/04
to
"Ken Adams" <kmad...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<upudncfF8ao...@comcast.com>...
> 2) Discuss the total combat payload available on your modified FFG for
> the ASW mission. Explain how your FFG will meet the LCS requirement
> to deploy ADS.
Having lost many hairs in the process of laying down bottom arrays, I
still don't see how the LCS will be the right boat for this job. The
HSV makes a whole lot more sense.
http://www.spawar.navy.mil/sandiego/center_overview/jpg/iuss_sscsd_accomp.jpg
http://www.thsoa.org/pdf/h99/5_2.pdf
http://www.oidus.com/OBC%20Application%20Notes%2011-02.PDF

There are some other issues with the ADS as well. The main one being
how will the array be protected from the ravages of fishing activity
and still keep the whole enterprise covert? For that matter, how will
arrays get laid down with any amount of covertness in the first place?
This is no easy job and it takes a long time to do.
http://www.makai.com/cable_paper_abstracts.htm#Collaborative%20Submarine%20Cable%20Installation%20Planning
http://www.fbodaily.com/cbd/archive/2000/02(February)/14-Feb-2000/Csol004.htm

Andrew C. Toppan

unread,
Feb 21, 2004, 6:42:34 PM2/21/04
to
On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 10:17:24 -0500, "Ken Adams"
<kmad...@comcast.net> wrote:

>If you can't answer these kinds of questions about your proposed
>solution for the littoral combat mission, then your proposal will be
>deemed non-compliant with the Navy's stated requirements.

And submit your answer typed single spaced, times new roman 12 point
font, MS Word 2000 combatible, 1" margins on the sides and 1/2"
margins on the top and bottom, each 8 1/2" x 11" page or part thereof
counting towards the page limit.

Andrew C. Toppan

unread,
Feb 21, 2004, 6:42:35 PM2/21/04
to
On 21 Feb 2004 13:48:02 -0800, sidi...@yahoo.com (sid) wrote:

>Having lost many hairs in the process of laying down bottom arrays, I
>still don't see how the LCS will be the right boat for this job. The
>HSV makes a whole lot more sense.

How is a high-speed commercial catamaran such an improvement over a
high speed militarized trimaran? If HSV would be a good platform, at
least one of LCS offerings seems like an equally good choice.

And since the HSVs have been operating as LCS testbeds, it's a safe
guess the lessons learned from their operations have been built into
the LCS requirements.

Andrew C. Toppan

unread,
Feb 21, 2004, 6:42:37 PM2/21/04
to
On 21 Feb 2004 11:14:38 -0800, hc...@io.com (Henry J. Cobb) wrote:

>This isn't the perfect configuration, but it does show that you can
>build a 4,000 ton frigate that performs the LCS missions better than
>the LCS.

This is just utter fantasy. The #1 LCS mission requirement is high
speed, which this platform totally lacks. You're immediately
non-compliant with the Navy's requirements for LCS. And it's the
Navy's requirements that matter, not Henry Cobb's Personal Preferences
for Surface Combatants.

I can't understand why you are so blindly fixed on a conventional,
slow, monohull platform for this mission. If the Navy required a
conventional frigate, they would have asked for one!

Andrew C. Toppan

unread,
Feb 21, 2004, 6:42:35 PM2/21/04
to
On 20 Feb 2004 22:31:44 -0800, hc...@io.com (Henry J. Cobb) wrote:

>One 40 ft HSB is an Objective rather than a Threshold Level
>requirement.

So? If you're going to roughly double the size of the ship, wouldn't
it be nice to hit the objectives, not just the minimums?

>If we are finally all agreed that the LCS is a lightly armed truck
>that deploys manned and unmanned carried craft to do the actual

We are not agreed, as this statement is pure fiction.

>missions then doubling the carried craft at the cost of bringing the
>top ship speed down to 30 knots is a huge win.

So the ship takes a lot longer to get there, so your carried craft are
still a thousand miles away when they're needed.

Andrew C. Toppan

unread,
Feb 21, 2004, 6:42:36 PM2/21/04
to
On 21 Feb 2004 07:03:25 -0800, hc...@io.com (Henry J. Cobb) wrote:

>And then if for any reason the LCS can't do the job and lacks
>sufficent expandability on it's tiny hull the Navy will find itself in
>quite a bind in the middle of this war.

That's why we have 62 DDGs and 27 CGs and 20-odd FFGs.

Andrew C. Toppan

unread,
Feb 21, 2004, 6:42:37 PM2/21/04
to
On 21 Feb 2004 13:01:48 -0800, sidi...@yahoo.com (sid) wrote:

>The only thing inconceivable is your overweening arrogance. Why don't

Sorry if I refuse to automatically take as God's Word everything that
is published on glossy paper by someone with a nice suit and large
salary. I have the audacity to have my own opinion, based on my own
knowledge of the situation.

>Its interesting to note that each surviving LCS design has a full
>flight deck, and provisions for launching UUVs/USVs.

And they did it by designing the facilites into the ship from the
start, not by chopping holes into an existing, loaded-to-the-gills
platform.

>If the current plan for the LCS falls apart, and its a good chance it
>will,

Why? Because you don't like it?

sid

unread,
Feb 21, 2004, 10:00:55 PM2/21/04
to
Andrew C. Toppan <acto...@gwi.net> wrote in message news:<e1rf309op85gep011...@4ax.com>...

> On 21 Feb 2004 13:01:48 -0800, sidi...@yahoo.com (sid) wrote:
>
> >The only thing inconceivable is your overweening arrogance. Why don't
>
> Sorry if I refuse to automatically take as God's Word everything that
> is published on glossy paper by someone with a nice suit and large
> salary. I have the audacity to have my own opinion, based on my own
> knowledge of the situation.
>
Spoken in True Vintage Andrew. Its getting hard to keep count, but
your know more than the editors of Jane's and the Navy Times, more
than the naval analyst for Congress, more than a recognized world
authority on naval matters, and now more than God?
I'm not sure where you have gained this lofty status and the right to
act like a rude asshole on this group. Is it because you put together
a website full of statistics-and devoid of any meaningful analysis?
You are Truly, Truly, The Great Andrew.
If your knowledge of the situation is so great how come you don't
refute what O'Rourke and Work and Polmar have to say about the tenuous
nature of the LCS program in Congress?
The Navy Times, O'Rourke, Work, Polmar, et al, are certainly
concerned. But wait, I forgot, you know more than them...

> Why? Because you don't like it?

Here we go again. I've seen a need for a ship type to fill this niche
for some years now. And NO!! I'm not advocating a "samll craft" to
fill it. Please get that through your flatuous, fatuous big head.

Andrew C. Toppan

unread,
Feb 21, 2004, 10:15:47 PM2/21/04
to
On 21 Feb 2004 19:00:55 -0800, sidi...@yahoo.com (sid) wrote:

>Spoken in True Vintage Andrew. Its getting hard to keep count, but
>your know more than the editors of Jane's and the Navy Times, more
>than the naval analyst for Congress, more than a recognized world
>authority on naval matters, and now more than God?

God forbid I have an opinion on the matter...and even worse, my
opinion differs from the opinions you like! Horrors!

Might I ask who gave *you* the lofty status to declare that your views
on LCS are correct, while three design teams and the Navy program
managers are all wrong? That is exactly what *you* are claiming here.

>I'm not sure where you have gained this lofty status and the right to
>act like a rude asshole on this group. Is it because you put together

You're the one calling names here, not me. Who's rude?

(and by the way, I created the group. If you don't like me expressing
my opinions here, too bad.)

>Here we go again. I've seen a need for a ship type to fill this niche
>for some years now. And NO!! I'm not advocating a "samll craft" to
>fill it. Please get that through your flatuous, fatuous big head.

You continue to criticize all the LCS options, and criticize the LCS
concept, yet you claim the "niche" is valid, and still you offer no
alternatives to fill it. And no, name calling is not going to
produce a better ship design.

Henry J. Cobb

unread,
Feb 21, 2004, 10:43:26 PM2/21/04
to
Andrew C. Toppan <acto...@gwi.net> wrote in message news:<doqf30p4vc3lahloq...@4ax.com>...

> On 21 Feb 2004 07:03:25 -0800, hc...@io.com (Henry J. Cobb) wrote:
>
> >And then if for any reason the LCS can't do the job and lacks
> >sufficent expandability on it's tiny hull the Navy will find itself in
> >quite a bind in the middle of this war.
>
> That's why we have 62 DDGs and 27 CGs and 20-odd FFGs.

If the CBO is correct the FFGs are in freefall after 2012 and gone by
2017.

http://globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/cbo/tnscf_may03_chapter1.htm

The DDGs are testing some of the gear that will be used on the LCS
(RMS, etc), but with a 31 foot draft they do not play that close to
the shore.

As I've said before the best thing about the delays in moving to the
new classes is the continued production of DDGs through 2006.

Note that only the Flight IIA ships (DDG-79+) have hangars and RMS is
only being tried on a few.

-HJC

Andrew C. Toppan

unread,
Feb 21, 2004, 11:05:12 PM2/21/04
to
On 21 Feb 2004 19:43:26 -0800, hc...@io.com (Henry J. Cobb) wrote:

>The DDGs are testing some of the gear that will be used on the LCS
>(RMS, etc),

RMS is the only such item, and it was designed into DDGs years before
the LCS concept existed.

>but with a 31 foot draft they do not play that close to the shore.

You were talking about ships for missions *other than* LCS, such as
DD(X) and CG(X). DDG is certainly a key player in that arena.

>Note that only the Flight IIA ships (DDG-79+) have hangars and RMS is
>only being tried on a few.

I am *well* aware of which DDGs have helo hangars.

Ken Adams

unread,
Feb 22, 2004, 9:00:33 AM2/22/04
to
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away,
Andrew C. Toppan <acto...@gwi.net> opposed the empire by writing:

> On 21 Feb 2004 13:48:02 -0800, sidi...@yahoo.com (sid) wrote:
>
>> Having lost many hairs in the process of laying down bottom arrays,
I
>> still don't see how the LCS will be the right boat for this job.
The
>> HSV makes a whole lot more sense.
>
> How is a high-speed commercial catamaran such an improvement over a
> high speed militarized trimaran? If HSV would be a good platform,
at
> least one of LCS offerings seems like an equally good choice.
>
> And since the HSVs have been operating as LCS testbeds, it's a safe
> guess the lessons learned from their operations have been built into
> the LCS requirements.

I can confirm that the government provided HSV lessons learned to the
preliminary design teams. Can't speak to the level of incorporation,
or the LockMArt IP police will be after me.

--
Ken
http://www.geocities.com/kmadams85
Don't worry about ladders in your stockings.
-- Forty-two things to do as preparation for life as a mermaid.

Ken Adams

unread,
Feb 22, 2004, 9:01:16 AM2/22/04
to
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away,
Andrew C. Toppan <acto...@gwi.net> opposed the empire by writing:

> On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 10:17:24 -0500, "Ken Adams"
> <kmad...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> If you can't answer these kinds of questions about your proposed
>> solution for the littoral combat mission, then your proposal will
be
>> deemed non-compliant with the Navy's stated requirements.
>
> And submit your answer typed single spaced, times new roman 12 point
> font, MS Word 2000 combatible, 1" margins on the sides and 1/2"
> margins on the top and bottom, each 8 1/2" x 11" page or part
thereof
> counting towards the page limit.

I didn't specify a page limit. He can have as much as he needs.

--
Ken
http://www.geocities.com/kmadams85
"I believe in equality. Equality for everybody. No
matter how stupid they are or how superior I am to
them."
-- Steve Martin

Ken Adams

unread,
Feb 22, 2004, 9:20:06 AM2/22/04
to

Point granted.

> For example, this one.
>
> http://www.icgsdeepwater.com/objectives/cutters/nsc_cutters.php
> Boat Facilities: Dual Stern Launch Ramp, Can Carry up to Two 11 M
Long
> Range Interceptor Boats
> Aviation Facilities: Dual Helo Hangar Capability Combination of MCH,
> HH-60, SH-60, CH-46, MH-60
> Weapons: SeaRAM, 57 MM, .50 Caliber
>
> This isn't the perfect configuration, but it does show that you can
> build a 4,000 ton frigate that performs the LCS missions better than
> the LCS.

Assertion without proof. The NSC does not meet the requirements for
LCS, even if you exclude the speed requirement. Two RHIBs and two
helos do not make a mission package. Think about how much computing
and communication you would have to add to NSC to control SPARTAN or
RMS, for example.

> For example in the anti-mine mission RAMICS both locates and
> neutralizes mines near the surface.

And how do you do the moored and bottom mines that are certainly
intermingled with the near-surface mines?


> And the safest way to deploy mine searching UUVs is from a
helicopter.

Show me a helicopter that can deploy RMS and control it for 40 hours.

> With one helicopter running AN/AQS-20X and the other one using
RAMICS
> you can clear a path without needing to switch modules out all the
> time, if you have two helicopters.

Henry, you still haven't answered the question. What's your clearance
rate? Do you have any clue how many helicopters it would take to work
a minefield 24/7? Consider this little fact (from
http://www.amcm.org/hm12-1.html): "As part of Task Force Seventy-Eight
(TF-78), the squadron entered the waters of North Vietnam and flew its
first wartime operational minesweeping mission in Haiphong Harbor on
27 February 1973. The first live mine was detonated on 9 March and
marked another first for Naval Aviation history." It took them 11
days to detonate the first mine in a field that we had planted!


--
Ken
http://www.geocities.com/kmadams85
CHIP: One California hi-way patrolman.

Thomas Schoene

unread,
Feb 22, 2004, 10:14:06 AM2/22/04
to
Ken Adams wrote:
> A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away,
> Henry J. Cobb <hc...@io.com> opposed the empire by writing:

>> For example, this one.


>>
>> http://www.icgsdeepwater.com/objectives/cutters/nsc_cutters.php
>> Boat Facilities: Dual Stern Launch Ramp, Can Carry up to Two
>> 11 M Long Range Interceptor Boats
>> Aviation Facilities: Dual Helo Hangar Capability Combination of
>> MCH, HH-60, SH-60, CH-46, MH-60
>> Weapons: SeaRAM, 57 MM, .50 Caliber
>>
>> This isn't the perfect configuration, but it does show that you can
>> build a 4,000 ton frigate that performs the LCS missions better than
>> the LCS.
>
> Assertion without proof. The NSC does not meet the requirements for
> LCS, even if you exclude the speed requirement. Two RHIBs and two
> helos do not make a mission package. Think about how much computing
> and communication you would have to add to NSC to control SPARTAN or
> RMS, for example.

Just to amplify this, the CSBA paper on LCS (pp. 125-7) describes the
required payload stations for LCS in considerable detail, based on a NAVSEA
briefing. The NSC comes up well short of these requirements.

Two large "Sea Type 1 stations," each capable of holding an 11-m RHIB or
equivalent (NSC has a comparable stern ramp)

Two small "Sea Type 2 stations," each holding a 7-m RHIB, RMS, or
equivalent. (NSC has no equivalent.)

Two large "Aviation Type 1 stations," capable of holding one MH-60 or three
VTUAVs. (NSC has an equivalent hangar.)

One "sensor station," probably for the Advanced Deployable System or a large
towed array and/or VDS. (NSC has no equivalent.)

Three "onboard weapon stations" for Netfires or similar weapons. Note that
these stations are big enough to accomodate a pair of Mk 141 Harpoon quad
launchers if they are allowed to protrude above the top of the box, though
CSBA does not mention this. (NSC has a modular station forward that may be
comparable to one of these stations.)

Nine "Support Type 1 stations," basically pads and connections for 20-ft ISO
boxes to support the equipment in the other stations. (NSC may have room
for one or two such boxes, but this has not been stated explicitly.)

One small "Support Type 2 station," for a dipping sonar or other special
hardware. (NSC has no equivalent.)

This is really a remarkable amount of space required (probably near 500
square meters with the undefined sensor module), and it's going to be very
hard for a conventional hull to manage it. NSC has about half that area
(225 square meters)by my estimates.

--
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)


Henry J. Cobb

unread,
Feb 22, 2004, 2:06:22 PM2/22/04
to
"Thomas Schoene" <tasc...@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message news:<2H3_b.3531$yZ1....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...

> This is really a remarkable amount of space required (probably near 500
> square meters with the undefined sensor module), and it's going to be very
> hard for a conventional hull to manage it. NSC has about half that area
> (225 square meters)by my estimates.

You can make up a lot of area by stacking things.

I really like the General Dynamics layout, of the three LCS designs.
(Except for the lack of gun coverage to the rear and the lack of
anti-air defense in the front.)

http://www.gdlcs.com/

With all the module space in one big dock/cargo area in the back you
can drop the ramp, roll everything out, roll in the new stuff, then
setup and test on the way to the mission area.

But how do they launch NetFires? Perhaps they have hatches on the
corners of the landing pad that they can roll a NetFires box under?

-HJC

Ken Adams

unread,
Feb 22, 2004, 2:35:17 PM2/22/04
to
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away,
Henry J. Cobb <hc...@io.com> opposed the empire by writing:
> "Thomas Schoene" <tasc...@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
> news:<2H3_b.3531$yZ1....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
>> This is really a remarkable amount of space required (probably near
>> 500
>> square meters with the undefined sensor module), and it's going to
>> be very
>> hard for a conventional hull to manage it. NSC has about half that
>> area (225 square meters)by my estimates.
>
> You can make up a lot of area by stacking things.
>
> I really like the General Dynamics layout, of the three LCS designs.
> (Except for the lack of gun coverage to the rear and the lack of
> anti-air defense in the front.)
>
> http://www.gdlcs.com/
>
> With all the module space in one big dock/cargo area in the back you
> can drop the ramp, roll everything out, roll in the new stuff, then
> setup and test on the way to the mission area.

Problem with rolling these mission module elements on board is that
they don't typically have wheels.

> But how do they launch NetFires? Perhaps they have hatches on the
> corners of the landing pad that they can roll a NetFires box under?

That would be awfully complicated. And risky to certifying the flight
deck as well. Aviators don't like having extra stuff near the flight
deck.

--
Ken
http://www.geocities.com/kmadams85
"The purpose of life, after all, is to live it, to taste experience to
the utmost, to reach out eagerly and without fear for newer and richer
experience." - Eleanor Roosevelt

sid

unread,
Feb 22, 2004, 4:56:18 PM2/22/04
to
Andrew C. Toppan <acto...@gwi.net> wrote in message news:<n27g309odn25h4tln...@4ax.com>...

>
> God forbid I have an opinion on the matter...and even worse, my
> opinion differs from the opinions you like! Horrors!
>
God forbid anyone having an opinion counter to yours. One risks an
"Andrew smackdown". I've watched Henry get pilloried for weeks now
expressing some views that are not much different from those of the
high priced suits you dismiss(and their opinions certainly matter more
than yours). As a matter of fact Henry's ideas are quite similar to
those expressed by some of the more august contributors to this group
in the past.


> Might I ask who gave *you* the lofty status to declare that your views
> on LCS are correct, while three design teams and the Navy program
> managers are all wrong? That is exactly what *you* are claiming here.
>
Unlike *you* Andrew, I have a realistic understanding of my opinions.
That said, I have been gratified to note that some of the questions
and concerns I came up with a priori are some of the the same as those
of the high priced suits you dismiss. Guess those meds are working for
me...
When it comes to weld characteristics and such, I will defer to your
knowledge. When it c