The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Fri Jul 11, 2025 10:21 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 476 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Apr 17, 2014 9:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2013 1:35 pm
Posts: 75
Mk 71 Mod O weighs 173,000 lbs. with 8 inch bore and 60 calibre barrel, sans shells and charges.
It would be possible to have an additional magazine that feeds a ready magazine and the ready service loader.
Maximum length of the loader shell/charge combo is 96 inches with HE rds. @ 260 lbs and AP rds @ 335 rounds.
Potential payloads include bomblets, SADARM, laser guided or Millmeter Wave radar, rocket assist with terminal guidance and the use of saboted ammo with 8 inch sabot enciciling a 5 inch projectile and like rocket assist, increases range.
Developement of saboted, rocket assist and perhaps ramjet air breathing propulsion would all increase range, perhaps doubled in the case of saboted rounds.
Lot of room in dimensions for payloads, propulsion and guidance options.
One problem, need will (lacking) and money (really lacking)..


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 17, 2014 2:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 6:18 pm
Posts: 372
Timmy C wrote:
I think you missed my point. I'm not talking about the launcher, but rather the simultaneous multi-targeting capability of the Sea Giraffe+Longbow combination, which the Griffin cannot do since it's dependent on constant laser illumination...
Hi Tim,

My point is simple: it is unlikely that the Navy will be able to “buy” (reimburse) AGM-114L Longbow Hellfire missiles from the Army; Griffin, while hugely less capable, is available and therefore an option.
I understand that VLS Hellfire is a better option; it just isn't really a realistic option.
Timmy C wrote:
...given all the other Hellfire IIs in the stockpile, does the Army really feel like the traditional laser-guided variants are now obsolete and they have to use the radar-guided Longbow versions? I mean, sure, every service wants to keep "its" toys for itself rather than sharing, but speaking purely from a rational perspective here - is there a foreseeable situation in which an Apache armed with old Hellfires will be unable to do its job because the Army handed over all 13k of its Longbow Hellfires to the Navy?

I do not think that the Army would be unreasonable in holding on to its missiles; VLS Hellfire isn’t funded, it has not even been presented as a unfunded requirement, heck it isn’t even a program of record.

The Navy has no program and no money. Maybe they should have thought of this back when money was flush rather than taking a decade to figure all this out... :roll_eyes:

Congress authorized and appropriated funds for those missiles to be bought to give the 400 or so Longbow Apache helicopters a specific capability.

The Army was buying Hellfire II for all of the services, but the procurement picture has changed radically. The Army bought roughly 13,000 Longbow Hellfires since LRIP in 1998, and had plans to modernize and buy many more, but those plans have been scuppered for years. Numbers procured does not equate to inventory, as these weapons have been used in combat; the current figure being tossed around is ~10K. The only Hellfires the Army is bying now is out of Overseas Contingency Operations funding (OCO): basically these are one for one replacements for expended ordinance.

One look at the budget tells that procurement is dead, and the upgrade programs stopped in 2012:

    In FY2012 the Army asked for 907 AGM-114R (laser Hellfire II) missiles out of OCO (and none for the reserves or National Guard); and exactly zero (0) Longbow Hellfire missiles.

    The FY2013 the Army asked for 161 AGM-114R (laser Hellfire II) missiles out of OCO (and none for the reserves or National Guard); and exactly zero (0) Longbow Hellfire missiles.

    The FY2014 the Army asked for zero (0) AGM-114R (laser Hellfire II) missiles out of OCO (and none for the reserves or National Guard); and exactly zero (0) Longbow Hellfire missiles.
    http://www.asafm.army.mil/offices/BU/Bu ... eCode=1200

So the question is: why would the USA transfer any AGM-114Ls to the USN given that they are a critical component of its attack helicopter program and the Army cannot get any more? It seems likely that the Army will counter with a proposal to put Army gunships on Navy ships as it did to counter the Iranian boghammer threat of the 1980s.

And VLS Hellfire is not an off the shelf system – much development remains; why would the Navy buy a weapon with a major component that is out of production in the current budget environment? Why should the taxpayer fund this?


Last edited by Busto963 on Thu Apr 17, 2014 3:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 17, 2014 2:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 12331
Location: Ottawa, Canada
In turn, I have to ask why the Army did not procure more Longbows, if they see them as so crucial to their capability? If they are so important, why go with more Hellfire IIs over the last few years instead of the Longbows, unless they view the Longbows as an unnecessary capability? Or is it that, my not being at all familiar with how the US process goes, someone else told the Army to cut the Longbows?

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 17, 2014 3:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 6:18 pm
Posts: 372
Timmy C wrote:
In turn, I have to ask why the Army did not procure more Longbows, if they see them as so crucial to their capability? If they are so important, why go with more Hellfire IIs over the last few years instead of the Longbows, unless they view the Longbows as an unnecessary capability? Or is it that, my not being at all familiar with how the US process goes, someone else told the Army to cut the Longbows?

Good questions!

My take is that LB Hellfire is a "hot war" anti-armor weapon peculiar to Longbow Apache (remember the issues with Kosovo/Serbia. The Army built up a stockpile of LB Hellfire missiles, but has expended comparatively few in combat because Iraq and Afghanistan had little in the way of armor threats since the initial invasions.

The various laser versions of Hellfire are cheaper, weigh less, and have HE and thermobaric warhead options. They can also be fired off pretty much any aircraft, not just AH-64D/E helicopters.

The Army really had no need to ask for more funding given the size of its stockpile, and the expectation of JCM and later JAGM missiles as Hellfire replacements.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Apr 19, 2014 11:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3127
I don't know what the cost comparison is, but I am pretty sure the purchase and installation of the 76mm SR gun firing radar guided rounds is more expensive than Hellfires. However, the 76mm gun would be able to engage a multitude of targets at far longer ranges ranging from surface, air, and land attack. If close enough to the assaulting force, they could even perform high-volume/saturation counter battery fire.
The ship's dimensions demand the potential for great stability. It is really confusing why the ship is so top-heavy that it cannot support much more equipment such as my modifications much less a Mk71 gun.
Sciquest2525 wrote:
Mk 71 Mod O weighs 173,000 lbs. with 8 inch bore and 60 calibre barrel, sans shells and charges.
It would be possible to have an additional magazine that feeds a ready magazine and the ready service loader.
Interesting, but I have a few questions:
What kind of GFCS would you use?

What kind of radar would you use to track the rounds?

Where would your extra magazine go?

How many rounds would your magazine hold? Remember that even the massive magazine in a Spruance-class DD only held 500 rounds.

What kind of ammunition handling system would have inside the ship? 8" rounds are not like 76mm or 5" where Sailors can individually pick them up and move them. You need a major system to even move the ammunition.

Other than "they sound good to go, how hard could it be?" what is the feasibility of the projectiles you named?

I am interested to hear how you have overcome the above problems, especially the ammunition handling problem. :big_grin:

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2014 12:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 6:18 pm
Posts: 372
navydavesof wrote:
I don't know what the cost comparison is, but I am pretty sure the purchase and installation of the 76mm SR gun firing radar guided rounds is more expensive than Hellfires. However, the 76mm gun would be able to engage a multitude of targets at far longer ranges ranging from surface, air, and land attack. If close enough to the assaulting force, they could even perform high-volume/saturation counter battery fire.
The ship's dimensions demand the potential for great stability. It is really confusing why the ship is so top-heavy that it cannot support much more equipment such as my modifications much less a Mk71 gun.

Hellfire II and Longbow Hellfire were roughly equal in cost when we were buying both missiles in 2007: the FY15 unit cost is $135,000 for Hellfire II.

This does not include the cost of a VLS booster, nor the RDT&E costs required to make the missile do what the navy wants it to do.

The costs of of deploying VLS Hellfire will be considerable. Balancing that cost is the cost of failing to provide an adequate defense against SWARM attacks.

I still believe that a mix of 70mm missiles, griffin, 35mm and 76mm guns is the solution with something like a VLS Hellfire also being quite useful.

I saw a very interesting MK38 mod 2 gun that added a 70mm missile pod to the mount. This is a very compact and lethal combination.

I also believe it would be possible to take a MK15 CIWS, replace the gun and radars with a simple mount for 70mm and griffin rocket pods.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2014 5:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 12:18 pm
Posts: 114
Quote:
This does not include the cost of a VLS booster, nor the RDT&E costs required to make the missile do what the navy wants it to do


I'm not sure they need a VLS booster with the latest guidance mods. They are set up to be able to hit targets behind the drone carriers. I know this is for the laser guided version, but it should be able to retrofit to the longbows.

Quote:
I saw a very interesting MK38 mod 2 gun that added a 70mm missile pod to the mount. This is a very compact and lethal combination.


The laser guided 70mm rockets would be perfect for this if they had a designator on the mount.

Quote:
I still believe that a mix of 70mm missiles, griffin, 35mm and 76mm guns is the solution with something like a VLS Hellfire also being quite useful.


I tend to agree, but they really need the DART projectiles to go with the 76mm.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2014 10:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
Another thing that COULD potentially be used on the LCS:

http://defense-update.com/20140118_rayt ... 1Uz5vldUne

But still my opinion on what SHOULD be done with the LCS:

http://www.scrapregister.com/scrap-pric ... states/260


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2014 11:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 6:18 pm
Posts: 372
SumGui wrote:
Another thing that COULD potentially be used on the LCS:

http://defense-update.com/20140118_rayt ... 1Uz5vldUne

That launcher uses the ubiquitous 70mm (2.75") rocket I proposed...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2014 4:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
I also wonder what the difference in capability and price is between TALON and APKWS

http://www.baesystems.com/article/BAES_051867


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Apr 22, 2014 3:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3127
There's a lot of plastic cutting going on around here. I am working on a littoral control group ranging from LCS-1 Flight II to the PR Replacement program. I have all of the fittings I need to build what I have described in prior posts.

Pictures will come soon. :big_grin:

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Apr 22, 2014 9:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2013 1:35 pm
Posts: 75
As my ship has Aegies F or K variants, which have reduced size, weight,cost and range over the B and D versions used in USN, the Mk 160 fire control might be used but a dedicated radar such as Mk 60 which allows tracking for guns and missiles as well as illumination (for SM-2/ESSM) might be employed or we might use SPQ-9B with Mk 60. Laser rangefinding would be useful along with old fashioned optical sights for shore bombardment. A laser guided shell would need laser illumination either shipboard or shore based. I think a dedicated radar for Mk 71 and perhaps fire control is necessary unless something can be done with Aegies. Of course, I am speculating here.
With respect to 76mm Super Rapid with STRALES system on mount to radar beam riding guidance for the guided 76mm round. The current version allows selection of 20 different rounds from the 89 round ready loader.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Apr 23, 2014 4:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3127
Sciquest2525 wrote:
As my ship has Aegies F or K variants, which have reduced size, weight,cost and range over the B and D versions used in USN...
What is the increase in range?

Sciquest2525 wrote:
...the Mk 160 fire control might be used but a dedicated radar such as Mk 60 which allows tracking for guns and missiles as well as illumination (for SM-2/ESSM) might be employed or we might use SPQ-9B with Mk 60.
What Mk160 system uses a SPG-60 (what you referred to as a Mk60)?

Sciquest2525 wrote:
Laser rangefinding would be useful along with old fashioned optical sights for shore bombardment. A laser guided shell would need laser illumination either shipboard or shore based.
Don't forget about UAVs. With a laser guided round, you will likely be shooting well, well, well over the horizon.

Sciquest2525 wrote:
I think a dedicated radar for Mk 71 and perhaps fire control is necessary unless something can be done with Aegies. Of course, I am speculating here.
Just look at the DDG-51s. What do they do for their 5" guns?


Sciquest2525 wrote:
With respect to 76mm Super Rapid with STRALES system on mount to radar beam riding guidance for the guided 76mm round. The current version allows selection of 20 different rounds from the 89 round ready loader.
That is an awful lot. I would only be interested in a few different kinds. The radar guided and HE rounds are what I would be interested in procuring.

Pictures this week! :woo_hoo:

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 24, 2014 1:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
I am working a differing option, modifying the LCS-2 design for utility as we are going to be saddled with about 16 of them for awhile.

I have two working ideas, one involves stretching the deckhouse aft and sacrificing helo deck space (it is already 4 1/2 times the size of a DDG-51 deck...) to allow for armament modules, specifically Millennium guns and missiles. Initially I thought of a flexible Missile Deck like Absalon, but I am leaning back toward fixed Mk41 VLS cells, which are pretty flexible in their own right. Mk41 VLS cells or another containerized weapon could go forward into the space abaft the current 57mm (which itself could be 76mm or other, on the fence there), aka Bravo mount. I have mentioned something about this before somewhere...

But as of today, I'm working a second idea where the superstructure more or less stays as-is, and Mk57 PVLS is added down either side of the helo deck. The width on the LCS-2 is actually greater than the deck of the DDG-1000, and the space below is empty 'flex deck' space, so I'm not seeing a whole lot of reason this wouldn't work (just need to check depth). The Millennium guns still go on the superstructure, and Mk57 cells or a specific mission weapon module can go forward in Bravo mount.


A side item I am looking at is adding four navalized Archer gun systems essentially mounted to the helo deck edge aft, similar to the PVLS, which in most cases will not interfere with helo operations while stowed, but should give a great arc of potential fire. This would give a four gun battery with 30-40km normal range and 60km with Excalibur. Each Archer carries 21 projectiles ready, so this could in theory deliver and 84 projectile spread with MRSI capability to the any fixed target in range. Reloading would be manual, I imagine via a palatalized supply system stored in the hangar or on the mission deck and brought up via elevator. Yes, reload would be slow, but I think this is an acceptable cost of getting the capability in place (besides, you could have another vessel take the place on the gunline if really needed, and most arty targets don't need full fire forever)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3QoVvtPqXY

The ability to scoot in to 'shallow' water at 40+ knots, deliver up to 84 rounds of 155mm in roughly 120-150 seconds, and scoot out at 40+ knots sounds appealing to me.

Put some Operators in that mission space and have helos to move them, and you have a pretty effective Littoral Raiding Craft. (hey, Littoral Raiding Craft....I like that...maybe that's what I'll call it...)

(I also toy with the idea of a navalized Archer system mounted in containers for application almost anywhere..)

Once a better spread of light guns (adding Millennium guns) and VLS (for ESSM especially) are added to excellent an excellent helo capability and mission deck space (the strengths of the LCS-2 design) you get reasonable utility, and there seem to be a few anti-boat swarm solutions that may be easy adds as well (TALON/APKWS).


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 24, 2014 3:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2013 1:35 pm
Posts: 75
Mindful of my limitations, here are my answers to your questions.
I printed out info Oto Melara websites and checked Friendman's Naval Weapons for data on Oto Melara mountings:
The 127mm/64 is mainly for antishore and antiship with AA as a secondary role. The mount fires at 32 rpm max and is fed by four 14 round loaders and individual ammo can be selected by type in loader drum and individual round type in the drum. Oto Melara claims that it's magazine system is capable of unmanned operation to feed the loader drums automatically. They fire three kinds of Volcano sub calibre rounds: unguided HE to 60 km, guided He antiship (IR terminal homing) to 80(?)km and GPS/IMU with semiactive laser terminal homing as an option to 100 km. The range is achieved with longer 64 calibre barrel and use of saboted sub calibre finned rounds. They should be entering service by 2016, I think.

Oto Melara 76mm/62 uses a new 89 round multi feed loader with 20 types of rounds individually selectable from the loader. The STRALES export version of DAVIDE guided antiair rounds system which is availible in a kit, uses a sub calibre saboted round with rear facing antennas, fixed fins and steerable canards. The shipborne search and tracking radars acquire the target which is then handled off to the on mount radar that guides the projectiles to the target employing either beam riding or perhaps radar command guidance. Once acquired by the on mount radar with target and stabilization dara, the system tracks the target and guides the AA shells without need for further data from the ship's radar systems until the mount is freed by destruction of the target (reading between the lines a bit here) to engage the next target. Effective range is 8 km or over 8000 rounds. At maximum range the SSKP is 40% and increases as target range decreases to 80% according to Freidman in Naval Weapons, current edition. The mount is a low RCS design with right side containing an oval radar antenna that tracks in elevation (range?)while the mount rotation provides angular tracking. The antenna is normally covered by weather proofing door that exposes the antenna when needed for an engagement.

With respect to the MK 71, I assume that it would use the existing gunfire control systems such as the Aegies Mk 160 with the SPG-60 tracking/illumination radar or depend entirely on SPY data. I think the SPY-F and K systems may also be compatible with the Mk 71.
Rounds advertised info brochures that I printed out from a forum poster in Navweaps.com cited semiactive laser, DPICM and SADARM guided submunitios. I assumed that the dimensions of the projectile allowed additional types of rounds to be developed without increasing the national debt limits (hah!) and that millimetric radar autonomous terminal homing and rocket assisted terminally guided by laser or millimetric autonomous radar terminal homing with rocket or ramjet (possible?, requiring developement) assist. Ramjet assist was part of an Army project some years ago which would have used popout ram intakes on the body of the projectile to allow the nose to be of conventional design (?) for 155 mm shells. Ramjet assist would greatly increase the range achievable with rocket assist. Single unit projectiles assumed but a clamp together two stage projectile could also be developed like the aborted ERGM and like it, would require double ramming. The use of clips to contain the projectile/charge might complicate using a two stage projectile.
Rate of fire is 12 rds/mn. with single unit shells or 6 rds/mn. with two staged, double rammed projectiles.
The loader drum can accomodate six types of shells and like the Mk 45, the semifixed ammo sits atop the charge with the limit being 96 inches vs. the 61.25 inches of the Mk 45 gun. Twenty five removable clips of three complete rounds each makeup the loader drum and are loaded in turn by four men in the magazine.
I envisioned a seperate magazine behind the the main magazine and was inspired by the proposal to have a seperate store room in the DDG-1000 AGS system that would have been used to reload the magazine proper though it was not part of the magazine system itself.
I though that the reserve magazine could be further back from the forward location of the magazine/loader drum proper and use mechanical horizontal means to reload the main magazine when it was depleted. Seperate from the magazine/loader drum it might also be just a space for storing and transporting charges and shells to the main magazine. I was also inspired by the Bofors non deck penetrating Mk4 40 mm gun which had 30 ready rounds on the gun proper, an intermediate magazine of 70 rounds with access to the main magazine that reloaded from below deck magazine or store room. I guess store room would be more appropiate.
SPY-1F was proposed for the abortive NATO frigate project in the '90s and offer 54 percent of the range of SPY-1A/B/D with less weight, fewer elements (1800 vice 4300) on an 8 foot antenna face vs. the 12 foot antenna face and less cost. SPY-1K uses a still smaller 5.5 foot antenna face with 900 elements and further reduced range but I don't know how much reduced and less cost but both F and K are cited by the manufacturer as being fully SM-2 capable, at least within their system range limits.
And yes, UAVs could target rocket/ramjet assisted SAL projectiles over the horizon and provide OTH firing data for unguided and millimetric active radar homing projectiles or guided/unguided submunitions.
I think my fingers are suffering from too much typing!
Answer you questions?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 24, 2014 6:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:31 pm
Posts: 1780
..


Last edited by carr on Wed Jul 18, 2018 10:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 24, 2014 9:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
While I do not have specific information on the weights for LCS-2, one has to assume a payload capability in addition to the current state, as they do not carry any modules at this time.

Weight and simplicity is one of the main reasons I am leaning toward the Mk57 PVLS fit. VLS cells on edge of the flight deck should be pretty evenly distributed (I am currently envisioning 3 or 4 4 cell modules per side) and of course actual weight distribution will be finalized by actual loadout. The forward position seems able (by rough eyeball calculation...) to take 8 Mk57 (4×2). Even one 4 cell module would be an asset. Maybe a little trial and error with a model is in order, just not sure where to get 1/700 Mk57 right now. If not, we have a mounting point for something else.

This would mean the only addition of weight "high" on the ship would be the Millenum guns.

Clearly one does not want to run heavy all the time, so there is no requirement to carry a full load at all times, just once things get hot, thus saving stress over time.

If the Archers were added, of course loadout of all weapons, mission bay modules, and aircraft would need to be adjusted


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 25, 2014 6:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:31 pm
Posts: 1780
..


Last edited by carr on Wed Jul 18, 2018 10:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 25, 2014 7:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3127
carr wrote:
...Have fun with the modifications but be cautious if you're going for realism! :thumbs_up_1:

Harsh but realistic words to the idea for sure!!! I agree, the Mk71 is heavily over gunned, over weight, and under magazined for any use aboard LCS. Even if there was an additional deep-mag available, the LCS design seems totally unlikely to be able to accommodate the additional ammunition. I have been in the magazine of LCS-1, and it, being the "proper" magazine much less an auxiliary magazine, can't hold more than 50 8" rounds in any circumstance.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 25, 2014 12:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
carr wrote:
SumGui wrote:
Weight and simplicity is one of the main reasons I am leaning toward the Mk57 PVLS fit. VLS cells on edge of the flight deck should be pretty evenly distributed (I am currently envisioning 3 or 4 4 cell modules per side) and of course actual weight distribution will be finalized by actual loadout. The forward position seems able (by rough eyeball calculation...) to take 8 Mk57 (4×2).

The weight and stability issues on LCS-1 class are fairly well known. As you indicate, the weight and stability issue of LCS-2 class are less known although my understanding is that both classes have minimal weight margins. I'm guessing that the LCS-2 class does not have the same stability problem due to the trimaran design. The LCS payload capability is around 200 tons.

A single Mk57 4-cell module weighs 33,600 lb. With associated electronics, call it 35,000 lb. An SM-2 weighs 1558 lb.

So, for the max of 10 modules, as you describe, the Mk57 weight alone would be 350,000 lb or 175 tons. A loadout of SM-2's would add 62,320 lb or 31 tons.

So, 10 loaded Mk57 modules would add 206 tons.

Add in the various other weapons and whatnot plus, presumably, some extra crew to operate things and you've well exceeded the available payload capacity. The changes you're describing would undoubtedly require some structural reinforcement to physically support the cells plus lots of additional piping and wiring runs for extending the ships utilities to support the VLS - all adding significant weight. I'm guessing that additional bulkheads would be required between the cells and the ship's internal spaces, possibly armored - that's the whole point of the peripheral cells - to minimize internal damage in the even of a hit - yet more weight.

Can the LCS-2 class absorb that kind of weight increase? I don't know but at the very least it would be a challenge even if possible.

My point is that we need to be careful before we begin sprinkling additional weapons all over the ship if we're trying for realism. For a modelling "what if", hey, sprinkle away!

For example (to make up an absolutely silly change), adding a Mk71 8" gun to an LCS is an example of a totally unrealistic modification. The LCS is far too weak structurally to handle the weight and recoil. The first shot would probably rip the bow off. I would be foolish to think I could add an 8" gun just because the footprint was available on the deck. Even adding a 5" gun would require structural reinforcement and is probably not realistic.

Have fun with the modifications but be cautious if you're going for realism! :thumbs_up_1:


Thanks for the numbers, looks a lot like what I'd put in the Spruance thread for fun...

200 tons seems unreasonably low for the size and stability of the LCS-2 design, if true, it reenforces my desire to see these vessels recycled ASAP...One way or the other that number may need to be fudged upward to add utility (and I'm fine trading off some of the 44+ kt speed once they get weighed down). Do we know if that number is mission module payload, or total available on the platform? I'm going to go forward with the assumption that 200tons is the number the mission modules have to meet. I do not have as much concern about reduced stability on the trimaran due to overweight as I would on the monohull.

Getting 6 Mk57 modules (201,600-210,000 empty) by given weight estimates may be more plausible, a quad packed ESSM cell adds 2480lb (620lbs each RIM-162) each cell so loaded. So, assuming 8 cells quadpacked with ESSM, and using 2000lb/1 ton as a weight analogue for the other 16 cells, we get 261,840lbs (210,000 empty Mk57 + 19,840 for 32 ESSM + 32,000 reserve for the other 16 cells), or about 132 tons.

The existing 35mm version of the Millennium Gun in turret is 3300kg (probably empty of ammunition, but hey, it's what I've got...), or approx 7275lbs. Two of these will cost approx 15000lbs, or about 7.5 tons. lets up that to 9 tons just to account for ammo and spares.

So right now it sits at 141 tons added (of the estimated 200 tons available), clearly there will be some additional weight in structure to support the fit, and the added crew for operations of the weapons, all which I don't see as out of the realm of possibility.

As a separate item, the Archer Mobile Gun System sits at an estimated 66,000lbs - however that includes the truck chassis, and all of its weight as well. Assuming the truck chassis, engine, and armored cab are roughly equal to the weight support needed if mounted on the LCS-2 (marinization, mount to the vessel, ammunition - and i think this overestimates, but then, we do have to consider a couple of crew additions...) we would get about 264,000lb, or 132 tons. Yes, I know that is a SWAG. As I don't intend the Archer item to be a common or consistent fit, is it acceptable/plausible to have both of these items aboard? 141+132 puts us at 273tons, and with some slop room for support additions we sit within the realm of 300tons total for the whole shebang.

Accurate? No. Perfect? No. Plausible? Sure. Doable? Probably.

Especially the MGs+Mk57.

Thanks for the help.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 476 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group