Both the LH and GD/Austal designs are suitable in my opinion. RSN may not need the flexibilty and the same weapon fit as the USN's version, but I see them as great platforms for a local specific fitout. Imagine having 6 Formidable and 6 LCS in RSN!

(require link for your topic)

A squadron of LCS would be nice.. Perhaps let's see what ST Marine have to showcase during SA2010..

cost. manpower. benefit.

the LCS-I was to have been built with partial funding coming from US military aid to israel ? how much without the aid ? do we have the necessary manpower to man the different crew loadouts ? even if we dont need the modular plug and play mission loadouts, how appropriate is a fast mover, low draft (high fuel consumption) on patrolling/securing SLOC given that we dont have a fleet replenishment vessel ?

what substantial benefit can the LCS provide us over existing platform designs ?

money better spent on a flat top with choppers for ASW/ mine clearing imho. suits the larger picture and US naval power deficiencies

this is not exactly true..was informed that we do have a means of replenishment...

High fuel consumption? Where did you get that? All indication is that it is low fuel consumption given that they have the best and modern diesel engines. Yes they do have gas turbine. The gas turbine is only engaged when they need to drive the boat to 45 knots. Yes, a whopping 45 knots.

If the RSN has a requirement for a Littoral Craft capable of high-speed, blue water transit ... than sure, the LCS will make a good platform to replace the MCVs.

If not, then it's just gold-plating that is not needed.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/lcs.htm

fuel consumption here is a loaded term. in the sense fuel consumption will depend on more than one variable.

1) high speed = heavy engines
2) heavy engines = greater weight penalty, affect speed and fuel capacity and consequently, range
3) time on station/deployability ?

which is why i raised the point, what does the LCS provide that existing platform designs cant provide

another factor that apparently affects fuel consumption is wave height. the study cited in the analysis observed that increased wave height affects fuel consumption and LCS time on station. also affects crew comfort and endurance.

http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord...ifier=ADA415144

i would suggest reading pages 46-62. interesting conclusions. (article page number, not the PDF page number displayed at the top of the window)

juicy bits here:

@callsign

im curious, mind elaborating more on that ? is that the ship to ship refuelling thing ? or is it civil requisition of the bunker fuel tankers ?

welcome back uncle kotay. its been awhile since you posted. how are things :) ?

Just a reminder of the arguments stated in the thread below.

http://militarynuts.com/index.php?showtopic=2561

To recap (not my arguments)

(a) Draft of Sea fighter at 11.5ft was deemed insufficient for SG littoral waters. I would highlight that the 2 LCS models have a 12.8 ft and 14.1 ft draft.

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display....0&tid=1650&ct=4

(b ) Catamaran designs have poor ocean going stability/buoyancy.
(c ) Light tonnage to draft ratio. Although mission capability was ignored, the argument was that a heavier tonnage will result in a proportionally higher draft which cannot be used for SG waters (see (a)).
(d) High cost of the LCS (as stated by YF which I happen to agree). LCS offered to Israel = $475m each. LCS Independence cost of construction = US$704m

http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2008/Israel_08-63.pdf

The sea fighter being a far cheaper option, already has so much anti-"support". It is surprising how the LCS can now be supported without contradiction.

IINM, one of the rationale behind the LCS was that there are no, current, ships in the US Navy capable of a rapid blue water transit at CSG/SAG speeds and on arriving at the destination, access undredged, littoral ports.

By last estimate, there are >5,000 ports inaccesible to current USN surface combatants for replenishment thereby requiring the deployment of Fleet supply assets and escorts or in absence of that - restricting the deployment capabilities of the USN to some parts of the world altogether.

The LCS was never meant to be a brown water knife fighter ala Stiletto or Visby. It is meant to transit quickly across blue water, patrol in green water and project power into green/brown water regime.

So the question becomes does the RSN require such a ship?

What current design best suits the MCV replacement program is best left unanswered until someone can tell us what is the expected role and capabailities of the replacement platform ... which we most probably will never get an answer to.

Therefore, any platform being suggested is fair game provided one qualifies the rationale behind it's suitability.

I'd daresay we do not need the LCS as we do not harbour aspirations of Blue Water power projection but what may be useful will be the mission modularity and network-centric design specified in the LCS program.

The LCS design, verbatim, is far too expensive givien the gold plating required for the high speed blue water transit ... IMO

As to whether the draught of any replacement vessel is sufficiently shallow is a question best left alone until someone can factually state what is the expected role and mission capabilities of the RSN's MCV replacment platform.

- Is it expected to be a Brown Water knife fighter like the Stiletto or Visby?
- Is it meant to be a LCS analogue?

Other questions no one's mentioned
- Is it meant for off-shore power projection?
- Is it meant to be a combatant or patrol vessel?
- Is it meant to be a short/medium/long endurance vessel?
- blah ... blah ...blah ...

stars ... thanks.

Things are .... like that lor :)

oh, just wondering why you never post for so long. kaypo lah :ph43r:

Well, alot of A star posters from the past years had stop posting reguarly. Probably because of babies and transition into working life from uni.

as per Iowa sez ... Real Life™ happened ;)

New kid middle of the year, followed by organising an International Tournament (plus participating) ... took up all my time for pretty much 2009.

Will try to contribute where possible this year ...

Anyways back on topic ...

What about other candidates besides the LCS?

Howzabout the Visby? The other USN "LCS" analogues like Sea Fighter or Stiletto?

What about the designs that ST Marine exhibited a couple of years back ... some stealth deriviative of the Formidable?

This one right??

Yeah, that's the one.

And again IIRC, there were 3 models displayed. 1 bigger (?) and 2 smaller than the current Formidable class.

that sure has strong hints of a LCS-type ship, with its stealthy nature and a helipad for versatility...

for LCS buffs

http://defensenews.com/story.php?i=4446438&c=AME&s=SEA

has a 6 minute video showing the insides of the LCS trimaran design. interesting

Israel thinks LCS too expensive (US$500m each). Considers Meko CSL design. If adopted = 1st AAW corvette.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/sto...channel=defense

LCS-I based on Lockheed LCS 1 would definitely be expensive as they essentially merge current USN requirements with Israeli's needs (eg. electronics warfare and weapon systems).

However, if we strip off all the USN specific needs and just get the hull and the the fitout done locally, I think it may be a viable option to consider. Israel should have gone with "just build us the hull and we'll do the rest"!

What if the MCVs are upgraded as LCS?....

Something to discuss during the RSN Open House excursion. :)

Might want to read this first.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2007/RAND_MG528.pdf

Just seaframe cost = US$220m in 2004 dollars (potentially up to 60% of total cost before mission packages) but possibly cos that also includes standard USN equipment fits.

What's interesting in the Rand report is that SG is considered as one of the mission packages + homeport basing location. There could be cost savings from using US mission packages but high cost of sea frames may still make it prohibitive.

Some of the mission packages are interesting though eg GDRS's ASW USVs which Navatek is also seeking to export pending US govt approval.

Do you mean the upgrade is done via modification or new acquisition? If it is done through modification, is that possible?

I may not be able to turn out for this Sat gathering due to work commitment... :(

More data:

Unit cost incl R&D: US$730m per ship
Procurement cost: US$397m per ship
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10388sp.pdf

Shipyard construction cost alone >$350m
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=AD...oc=GetTRDoc.pdf

Life cycle cost = US$1-1.1b per ship (US$680m for procurement)
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/114xx/doc11431/...sionsLetter.pdf

Operating cost + mission modules
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10257.pdf

I think it is misleading just to take the rand report about the cost of the sea frame at face value. Even on the actually hull themselves, Lockheed and GD were reporting that USN was changing specs and their requirements. Scope creeps in defence projects are just norms.

I believe when the LCS goes into full production, the cost of each sea frames will drop dramatically. The engineering cost of these hulls, I would image, shouldnt be that much more than an equivalent sized vessel say a Meko 100.... and of course, unless they are gold plating everything. :)

Really curious is why does it seems that LCS has got to be the choice replacement for our MCV? While the exorbitant cost of the vessel is already well known, which everyone hopes will go down drastically once in full production, I'm rather skeptical.
the reason I suspect is largely due to the requirements dictated by the US navy, which calls for a dash or top speed of 45kts. In order to meet his requirement, I believe the USS Freedom was fitted with 2 MT30 gas turbines coupled to diesels. This powerplant config is, IMHO, unnecessary and very costly, not only for the machinery costs but fuel cost as well. Bear in mind that not even our Formidables are fitted with gas turbines,gives u an idea that cost could have deter RSN to equip them with it, as they do have some advantages for gas turbines, especially in terms of ASW operations.

while a less demanding version can easily be acquired, one also has to consider the extensive re-design ofthe powerplant systems, which will need additional development costs. Thus, I personally don't think this is a good replacement.

I too don't see the LCS per unit price dropping significantly. Now I think that the LCS simply costs way too much for the limited capability it brings to the table. Congress wanted a cost cap of $450 mil on the next LCS but GD and LM stated that they might not be able to bid for the contract with the cost cap that low, IIRC. THis kind of money is what many countries pay for their capital warships, but all it gets the USN is just a truck, not counting the modules which is what's supposed to make them effective. Furthermore, trials seem to show that the USN has gone too far on lean manning. Also, the concept of distributed sensors seem to be slightly premature with the RMV facing reliability issues, and the ADS being outright cancelled. Now they're thinking of putting VDS or towed arrays on the LCS itself. So, no. I hardly see the LCS as viable replacements for the MCVs, we might as well get more Formidables for that kind of money.

The Israeli Navy is looking at Meko CSL Corvettes. I just learned that this corvette is a further development of MEKO and VISBY Classes of corvettes.







Oops! Didn't read that weasel1962 had posted this article earlier. My apology for the double post.

Interesting read on Naval Shipbuilding - Current Developmental Trends with Combatants and Combat Support Ships

Woohoo!! This caught my eyes.. B)

--> MHD 200

Sorry to side track.. ;)

Yeah, the PowerPoint for this design was put up on this forum before, need to search for it though...

The Meko CSL Corvette looks really good huh.... However, other than the MCMV, all the RSN boats are unique to just Singapore. I doubt the RSN will replace the MCVs with either the Meko CSL Corvetts nor the LCS.