LCS 3 mods may preclude need for water wings
February 19th, 2010 | Science and technology Ships | Posted by Phil Ewing
The littoral combat ship Fort Worth, now under construction in Marinette, Wis., could be modified in the yard to preclude its need for external "buoyancy tanks." // Lockheed Martin
Remember those boxy structures — the “buoyancy tanks,” or as we called them, water wings — the Navy attached to the stern of the littoral combat ship Freedom? They may just be a one-ship answer to insufficient LCS floatiness, Scoop Deck has learned.
Kim Martinez, a spokeswoman for Freedom-class LCS builder Lockheed Martin, said Friday that LockMart’s next ship, the Fort Worth, “is being assessed to preclude the same tank design,” and depending on that study, could get some modification while it’s being built to obviate the need for its own pair of water wings.
Neither LockMart nor the Navy will say the original LCS 1 design included too little reserve buoyancy, but Martinez stressed that Freedom “meets all the Navy’s requirements, including for reserve buoyancy.” So does that mean the Navy discovered problems with its own requirements after accepting delivery of the Freedom?
“That’s a question best answered by the Navy,” Martinez said.
Comments
-
Michael Squires Says:
February 19th, 2010 at 4:30 pmWhy does the Navy keep building the ‘Freedom class’ ships. The Indie class LCS 2 is so much more interesting and seems faster. What is the story?
-
Michael Says:
February 19th, 2010 at 7:51 pmIf they haven’t already done so, lowering the top speed to something more useful might also be a good idea (smaller engine).
-
Bobby Ferguson Says:
February 20th, 2010 at 1:32 pmMichael Squires, The answer to your question is about $100 million. Glad our Navy is not about to pay such a premium for “more interesting and seems faster”. BTW, I doubt the latter.
-
Michael Squires Says:
February 20th, 2010 at 2:23 pmBobby – thanks for the response. I did not check the cost or performance numbers. Since I am in the layman’s gallery, I went with appearance.
-
doc75 Says:
February 20th, 2010 at 4:19 pm“Michael Squires, The answer to your question is about $100 million.”
Not true. If you look at LCS 3 and LCS 4 costs, they were separated by only $1 million — and that was in favor of the Independence class ships.
See here:
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/12/navy_lcs_ship_costs_120309w/
Of course, we are all guessing the exact costs at this point until the bids are submitted and the Navy selects, but it is certainly not a $100 million per ship difference.
Michael Squires, if you want a side-by-side comparison of the ship’s capabilities, then check this out:
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2010/March/Pages/LittoralCombatShip.aspx
-
jim Says:
February 20th, 2010 at 5:23 pmLCS will save 100 million in fuel over five years.
-
Tim Says:
February 21st, 2010 at 11:27 amI concur with doc75, you can never use first of a class price as an estimate of how expensive a ship will be in production.
For those that read the national defense magazine article: Does anyone else read Lockheed’s design as having to shut off the only two steerable jets to use the aft launch and recovery system? Doesn’t that seem a bit shortsighted?
And as far as fuel use is concerned, could we estimate that at speeds less than planing the fuel use for the freedom class would be astronomical? I mean if the ship is designed for riding up and over it’s bow wave, it probably doesn’t have a fuel saving bulbous bow. Watching the video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fHn45mgCVA you can clearly see the massive amount of water being displaced and thrown around. That equals a lot of power required and fuel being used. In contrast watching the independence here and I apologize, it seems GD isn’t as video-savvy as Lockheed, http://www.gdlcs.com/media-center/videos/lcs2-independence but look at the wake.. It’s like watching a gold winning Olympic diver enter the water compared to a belly flop or cannonball.
Time will tell if the Navy can make a good decision. Lets note that even with the ~30ft of extra hull and now flight deck it is still smaller than the USS Independence.
-
Michael Squires Says:
February 21st, 2010 at 4:37 pmdoc 75 – Thanks; very impressive comparison document. It will take time to digest. Article dated March 2010, glad you passed it along – all questions answered except which the Navy will pick.
-
Michael Squires Says:
February 22nd, 2010 at 8:16 amI see LCS 4′s keel was laid December 2009.
-
Littoral Combat Ships - Page 8 Says:
February 22nd, 2010 at 8:31 pm[...] with this thing? I like the idea of the LCS. This is ridiculous. Cancel this hull type. Military Times has some additional information on LCS3 and their plans to incorporate a fix, removing the need for [...]
-
LCS Alternative Weekly « New Wars Says:
February 24th, 2010 at 6:02 am[...] since the extra reserve buoyancy will likely be built into follow-up vessels. Here from a separate Scoop Deck post: Kim Martinez, a spokeswoman for Freedom-class LCS builder Lockheed Martin, said Friday that [...]
-
The USA’s New Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) Says:
March 9th, 2010 at 10:17 am[...] Feb 19/10: Lockheed Martin spokeswoman Kim Martinez says that the Fort Worth [LCS 3] “is being assessed to preclude the same tank design,” and may be modified to avoid the need for USS Freedom’s bolt-on rear “water wings.” Gannett’s Navy Times blog Scoop Deck adds: [...]
-
The Scoop Deck – Freedom is just as stable with water wings, CO says Says:
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:58 am[...] neither the Navy nor Freedom-builder Lockheed Martin will talk much about the buoyancy tanks, they were probably installed as an insurance policy just in case Freedom started to sink. Garner [...]