Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

U.S. Defense Secretary: Future US Navy Small Surface Combatant SSC to be based on LCS

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> U.S. Defense Secretary: Future US Navy Small Surface Combatant SSC to be based on LCS Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
U.S. Defense Secretary: Future US Navy Small Surface Co... - 12/12/2014 8:27:51 AM   
xavierv


Posts: 517
Joined: 7/10/2013
Status: offline 		U.S. Defense Secretary: Future US Navy Small Surface Combatant SSC to be based on LCS

quote:

According to a statement by U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel released on December 11th, the future Small Surface Combatant (SSC), a more lethal and survivable ship being considered as a follow-on to the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), will be based on the two existing LCS: The Freedom class designed by Lockheed Martin and the Independence class designed by Austal.

U.S. Defense Secretary: Future US Navy Small Surface Combatant SSC to be based on LCS

_____________________________

www.navalnews.com
Post #: 1
RE: U.S. Defense Secretary: Future US Navy Small Surfac... - 12/12/2014 10:56:33 AM   
Rudd

 

Posts: 1501
Joined: 7/10/2013
Status: offline 		I hope it is closer to http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/multi-mission-combat-ship.html , look at product brochure, than what USNI is showing http://news.usni.org/2014/12/11/gunned-lcs-hulls-picked-navys-next-small-surface-combatant

(in reply to xavierv)
Post #: 2
RE: U.S. Defense Secretary: Future US Navy Small Surfac... - 12/12/2014 2:50:16 PM   
hellfish6


Posts: 843
Joined: 6/15/2008
Status: offline 		So I'm not seeing a whole lotta improvements here... the biggest one is basically the provision of a notional OTH anti-ship missile? The rest of the improvements basically look like what you'd expect from long-term upgrades for the entire LCS program already.

No mention of getting rid of the ridiculous propulsion system.

< Message edited by hellfish6 -- 12/12/2014 3:51:33 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Rudd)
Post #: 3
RE: U.S. Defense Secretary: Future US Navy Small Surfac... - 12/12/2014 3:18:15 PM   
ExNusquam

 

Posts: 513
Joined: 3/4/2014
From: Washington, D.C.
Status: offline
quote:

The rest of the improvements basically look like what you'd expect from long-term upgrades for the entire LCS program already.

Although, on one of the models it looks like it's got an SPY-1k on it, with a couple of VLS tubes to pack with ESSMs. The ship's well on it's way to becoming a great replacement for the Perry-Class. It's just several years to late...

(in reply to hellfish6)
Post #: 4
RE: U.S. Defense Secretary: Future US Navy Small Surfac... - 12/12/2014 3:43:58 PM   
hellfish6


Posts: 843
Joined: 6/15/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ExNusquam

quote:

The rest of the improvements basically look like what you'd expect from long-term upgrades for the entire LCS program already.

Although, on one of the models it looks like it's got an SPY-1k on it, with a couple of VLS tubes to pack with ESSMs. The ship's well on it's way to becoming a great replacement for the Perry-Class. It's just several years to late...


Those models are not what the Navy is proposing. Those are manufacturer's "hey look what we can do with a billion dollars per hull!"

_____________________________


(in reply to ExNusquam)
Post #: 5
RE: U.S. Defense Secretary: Future US Navy Small Surfac... - 12/12/2014 8:44:32 PM   
orca

 

Posts: 501
Joined: 11/6/2013
Status: offline 		Any other speculation on upgraded radar? Maybe CEAFOR?

< Message edited by orca -- 12/12/2014 9:45:29 PM >

(in reply to hellfish6)
Post #: 6
RE: U.S. Defense Secretary: Future US Navy Small Surfac... - 12/12/2014 9:25:18 PM   
NickD

 

Posts: 163
Joined: 2/14/2014
Status: offline 		https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-u-s-navys-new-warship-is-the-u-s-navys-old-warship-with-more-weapons-7cc0f5f4e41a has some interesting details (and what are apparently US Navy graphics showing the changes which will be made to the LCS designs).

The omission of point defence missiles (ESSM or similar) is a surprise given that these are standard for other small frigates, but I guess that these ships are meant to be protected by other assets when (and if ever) operating in high threat environments?

(in reply to orca)
Post #: 7
RE: U.S. Defense Secretary: Future US Navy Small Surfac... - 12/13/2014 2:19:38 AM   
Vici Supreme

 

Posts: 558
Joined: 12/4/2013
From: Southern Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: orca

Any other speculation on upgraded radar? Maybe CEAFOR?


SPY-1F (V)

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/ms2/documents/MCS_Bifold.pdf

Supreme

_____________________________


(in reply to orca)
Post #: 8
RE: U.S. Defense Secretary: Future US Navy Small Surfac... - 12/13/2014 3:47:23 AM   
hellfish6


Posts: 843
Joined: 6/15/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NickD

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-u-s-navys-new-warship-is-the-u-s-navys-old-warship-with-more-weapons-7cc0f5f4e41a has some interesting details (and what are apparently US Navy graphics showing the changes which will be made to the LCS designs).

The omission of point defence missiles (ESSM or similar) is a surprise given that these are standard for other small frigates, but I guess that these ships are meant to be protected by other assets when (and if ever) operating in high threat environments?


The SeaRAM is point defense - at 30nm range (as per the CMNAO DB) ESSMs are really practically area air defense. I suspect the expectation is that the SSC will fight near Aegis ships. Or at least near friendly fighters.

_____________________________


(in reply to NickD)
Post #: 9
RE: U.S. Defense Secretary: Future US Navy Small Surfac... - 12/15/2014 2:53:27 AM   
Vulcan101

 

Posts: 26
Joined: 2/27/2014
Status: offline 		The USN probably is worried that if the SSC is adopted with Mk 41 VLS cells then Congress may pressure them to buy more SSC's whilst reducing the number of Arleigh Burkes.

Still dumb - why build a ship with a long range anti-ship missiles if they can get whacked by an aircraft/ship/submarine with a stand-off AShM. Another target looking to be killed.

(in reply to hellfish6)
Post #: 10
RE: U.S. Defense Secretary: Future US Navy Small Surfac... - 12/15/2014 3:47:07 PM   
poaw

 

Posts: 107
Joined: 12/17/2001
From: Houston, Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Vulcan101

The USN probably is worried that if the SSC is adopted with Mk 41 VLS cells then Congress may pressure them to buy more SSC's whilst reducing the number of Arleigh Burkes.

Still dumb - why build a ship with a long range anti-ship missiles if they can get whacked by an aircraft/ship/submarine with a stand-off AShM. Another target looking to be killed.



All ships are vulnerable to AShM though.

I mean no one cared that the OHPs were in largely the same boat vis a vis sea-skimming missiles (reliant on their point defense weapons and softkill measures to mitigate the threat) and we were fine with using those for ASW work in conjunction with the Ticos to provide AAW coverage.

(in reply to Vulcan101)
Post #: 11
RE: U.S. Defense Secretary: Future US Navy Small Surfac... - 12/15/2014 4:40:53 PM   
hellfish6


Posts: 843
Joined: 6/15/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Vulcan101

The USN probably is worried that if the SSC is adopted with Mk 41 VLS cells then Congress may pressure them to buy more SSC's whilst reducing the number of Arleigh Burkes.



That's a valid point. Hadn't thought of that, which is why I would never be a good fit for the Pentagon.


_____________________________


(in reply to Vulcan101)
Post #: 12
RE: U.S. Defense Secretary: Future US Navy Small Surfac... - 12/15/2014 10:11:31 PM   
orca

 

Posts: 501
Joined: 11/6/2013
Status: offline 		What about torpedo tubes? Seems lack of this would really limit it in asw by having to completely relying on helos to engage any subs that are detected. If this was deemed needed by navy, is there space and where?

(in reply to hellfish6)
Post #: 13
RE: U.S. Defense Secretary: Future US Navy Small Surfac... - 12/16/2014 4:22:36 AM   
hellfish6


Posts: 843
Joined: 6/15/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: orca

What about torpedo tubes? Seems lack of this would really limit it in asw by having to completely relying on helos to engage any subs that are detected. If this was deemed needed by navy, is there space and where?


Ship-carried ASW torpedoes are kinda super-short ranged already. Even the ASROC always struck me as being very short ranged. At the ranges you'd use them at, I always got the impression that the sub would have shot at you already.

I'm curious to know how VTUAVs would help with ASW. Can/do they carry sonobouys or MAD?

_____________________________


(in reply to orca)
Post #: 14
RE: U.S. Defense Secretary: Future US Navy Small Surfac... - 12/16/2014 1:27:49 PM   
batek688

 

Posts: 92
Joined: 10/16/2014
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: hellfish6


quote:

ORIGINAL: orca

What about torpedo tubes? Seems lack of this would really limit it in asw by having to completely relying on helos to engage any subs that are detected. If this was deemed needed by navy, is there space and where?


Ship-carried ASW torpedoes are kinda super-short ranged already. Even the ASROC always struck me as being very short ranged. At the ranges you'd use them at, I always got the impression that the sub would have shot at you already.

I'm curious to know how VTUAVs would help with ASW. Can/do they carry sonobouys or MAD?


Agreed. Ship-borne torpedoes have limited use except for aid in scuttling =) If a sub gets close enough to need those, it has already shot at you -- or is crippled and you overtook it.

UAVs or even the swarming unmanned small boats would be an interesting take on ASW. Your remarks seem to imply a swap UAV for LAMPS but why? Why not have a cheap UAV set to simply deploy sonobouys and a larger, orbiting UAV with Mk50s for target engagement? If they would stop trying to build a "1 to do all" and look at specialized they might find things a lot cheaper and smaller.

I wonder if anyone is thinking of combining the tech so that the next generation of sonobouy is actually the RV boats so that they are deployed into an area and then can move them/recover them. Heh, wouldn't that be annoying to the SSN commander who found the "sonobouy" on top of them and then following them around!

(in reply to hellfish6)
Post #: 15
RE: U.S. Defense Secretary: Future US Navy Small Surfac... - 12/16/2014 3:21:44 PM   
Vulcan101

 

Posts: 26
Joined: 2/27/2014
Status: offline 		The OHP class were originally deployed with Standard SM1 which in the 70's was a reasonably effective weapon. They were largely intended to provide ASW screen or convoy escorts in the North Atlantic in a war. Either way they would have been working with dedicated AAW ships or carriers.

Today the USN has a lot of ground to cover and AShM are much more widespread today and modern AShM are a lot longer ranged, faster and lethal than before. It seems that in that sort of environment, there is a need for much greater defensive depth than SeaRam is able to provide.

(in reply to batek688)
Post #: 16
RE: U.S. Defense Secretary: Future US Navy Small Surfac... - 12/16/2014 4:35:10 PM   
hellfish6


Posts: 843
Joined: 6/15/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: batek688


quote:

ORIGINAL: hellfish6


quote:

ORIGINAL: orca

What about torpedo tubes? Seems lack of this would really limit it in asw by having to completely relying on helos to engage any subs that are detected. If this was deemed needed by navy, is there space and where?


Ship-carried ASW torpedoes are kinda super-short ranged already. Even the ASROC always struck me as being very short ranged. At the ranges you'd use them at, I always got the impression that the sub would have shot at you already.

I'm curious to know how VTUAVs would help with ASW. Can/do they carry sonobouys or MAD?



Your remarks seem to imply a swap UAV for LAMPS but why? Why not have a cheap UAV set to simply deploy sonobouys and a larger, orbiting UAV with Mk50s for target engagement?


I have no idea if that Navy (or any navy) has looking into this. I don't think I've heard anything suggesting there's work being done towards an ASW-capable UAV. Everything I recall reading lately is about the boat swarms and mine hunting, yet UAVs are included in the ASW module.

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2100&tid=412&ct=2

I'm just curious to know why - communications relay? Because they're cheaper than another MH-60R?


_____________________________


(in reply to batek688)
Post #: 17
RE: U.S. Defense Secretary: Future US Navy Small Surfac... - 12/17/2014 1:26:16 AM   
poaw

 

Posts: 107
Joined: 12/17/2001
From: Houston, Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Vulcan101

The OHP class were originally deployed with Standard SM1 which in the 70's was a reasonably effective weapon. They were largely intended to provide ASW screen or convoy escorts in the North Atlantic in a war. Either way they would have been working with dedicated AAW ships or carriers.

Today the USN has a lot of ground to cover and AShM are much more widespread today and modern AShM are a lot longer ranged, faster and lethal than before. It seems that in that sort of environment, there is a need for much greater defensive depth than SeaRam is able to provide.


The SM-1 couldn't engage sea-skimming missiles that were the percentage threat at the time. The ship's armed with them expected to use their CIWS to protect the ship from low-flying missiles. Even back in the 70s and 80s almost every navy of note was fielding as Exocet or one of its equivalents. No one cared back then, and I see no reason why it should suddenly become a serious point of concern now that we aren't aren't talking about OHPs anymore. Especially given that they'll be performing the same mission as the OHPs, ASW.

(in reply to Vulcan101)
Post #: 18
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> U.S. Defense Secretary: Future US Navy Small Surface Combatant SSC to be based on LCS Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.813