Home Portal News Links
Go Back   Military Forum > Military Forums: General Discussion > Armed Forces Discussions > Navy Forums > Surface Warfare

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-12-2006, 07:13 AM   #1 (permalink)
Marine
MSgt USMC Ret

 
USMCRET6391's Avatar
 
Group:
Lieutenant General

USMCRET6391Marine is USMCRET6391 is offline
AKA: Top
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: San Diego
Posts: 9,528
Threads: 3535
UserID: 69
User Info
United_States  marine_corps  male  taurus  

My current mood: Happy
Reputation +/-Power: 20
Points: 276
USMCRET6391 is a jewel in the roughUSMCRET6391 is a jewel in the roughUSMCRET6391 is a jewel in the rough
USMCRET6391Marine is USMCRET6391 is offline  

Navy Developing Smaller, Faster Warships

Associated Press | June 12, 2006

BATH, Maine - Sailor, these are not your father's warships.

The first of a new breed of Navy ship - faster and easier to maneuver - is expected to launch later this year to meet threats including modern-day pirates and terrorists who turn speedboats into suicide weapons.

The Littoral Combat Ship is powered by steerable waterjets, so it doesn't need propellers or rudders. It's designed to go more than 50 mph; traditional destroyers have had the same top speed - about 35 mph - since World War II.

The LCS has a shallow draft and its waterjets let the ship zoom close to shore without getting stuck and to turn on a dime, allowing it to chase smaller boats. The name itself is taken from the coastal "littoral" waters in which the ship will operate.

The LCS will be more lightly armored than bigger ships, but its speed will give it a tactical advantage in combat, said Rear Adm. Charles Hamilton, program executive officer for ships, who's overseeing the project from Washington.

The Navy envisions several of the ships working together on missions using unmanned vehicles, helicopters and other weapons, he said. An LCS will have a core crew of only 40 sailors, and berthing for up to 75, compared to 330 sailors aboard a destroyer.

The new warship was conceived six years ago and fast-tracked after the USS Cole bombing and the Sept. 11 attacks. The first of the new ships will be delivered in roughly half the 10 to 15 years it takes under traditional shipbuilding programs.

"That's a miracle in Navy terms," said Jay Korman, naval analyst at Washington-based consultants DFI Corporate Services.

Two versions are under construction. Lockheed Martin Corp. is leading the team building LCS-1, with partners Marinette Marine Corp. in Wisconsin and Bollinger Shipyards Inc. in Louisiana.

The Freedom ship due to launch this fall in Marinette, Wis., resembles a traditional frigate or destroyer but features a sleek, semi-planing hull, meaning the bow lifts at top speed, reducing resistance and making it faster.

The other LCS version by team leader Bath Iron Works, a subsidiary of General Dynamics Corp., resembles a futuristic catamaran. The aluminum "trimaran" Independence being built by Austal USA in Mobile, Ala., is loosely based on fast ferries developed in Australia.

Lockheed Martin's LCS is 378 feet long, while General Dynamics' trimaran is 418 feet. By comparison, the typical Arleigh Burke-class destroyer is 510 feet long and the Zumwalt "stealth" destroyer being developed will be about 600 feet.

The Navy plans to build 55 of one or both models of the LCS to beef up a fleet that critics say was neglected even before the Iraq war. From nearly 600 ships in the 1980s, the fleet has dwindled to 289, a number the Navy wants to raise soon to 313.

Instead of lengthy research and development, the Navy encouraged contractors to utilize off-the-shelf technologies from the private sector, much like the Army did as it rushed its Stryker vehicles into service in urban warfare in Iraq.

The Navy also asked for ships that can be easily reconfigured for different missions.

The resulting designs feature removable "mission packages" that allow the ships to operate either for anti-submarine missions, mine removal or traditional surface warfare, said Lt. Tamara D. Lawrence, a Navy spokeswoman at the Pentagon.

Tests show the mission packages can be swapped out in 24 hours. And when those mission modules become outdated, the Navy can replace them instead of building new ships, Hamilton said.

At about $350 million, an LCS cost roughly a third as much as a destroyer, he said.

While there's support for LCS, shipbuilders don't want the Navy to neglect bigger, multimission ships that project U.S. seapower around the world, according to Cynthia Brown, president of the American Shipbuilding Association in Washington.

The six shipyards that build the Navy's largest ships - aircraft carriers, amphibious assault ships, cruisers, destroyers and submarines - have lost 24,000 jobs since 1991, she said.

Hamilton said the small shipyards were able to respond quickly to the Navy's needs on the LCS, and the new warships could have a positive effect of bringing pressure to bear on the bigger, traditional shipyards like Bath Iron Works.

Though Bath traditionally has built larger ships for the Navy, there's a lot of excitement about the LCS, said Mike Keenan, president of the local machinists union in Bath. Bath Iron Works could eventually build some of the ships.

"All in all, this could be a lucrative program where there could be a lot of work for a lot of shipbuilders," Keenan said.

-Top
USMCRET6391 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links

» Support the Site!

Military Clothing - Military Gear - Military Ltd Gear - Infantrymen Gear - Ranger Gear - Single Servicemen
Reply

Tags
developing, faster, navy, smaller, warships


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Navy Terms and Trivia Navy6064 Navy General Discussion 2 09-18-2006 04:20 PM
Navy Terms and Trivia Navy6064 Lest We Forget 3 06-07-2005 01:22 PM
The U.S. Navy in the Cold War Era Navy6064 Navy General Discussion 0 12-19-2004 06:16 AM
The U.S. Navy in the Cold War Era, 1945-1991 Navy6064 Navy General Discussion 0 11-06-2004 05:09 PM
Navy Terms and Trivia Navy6064 Navy General Discussion 3 10-06-2004 06:31 PM


New To The Site? Need Information?

 

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., SEO by vBSEO
Designed by MilitaryLtd.Com
MilitaryLtd.com, GoInfantry.Com, Infantrymen.Net, Infantrymen's Military Forum are Copyright ©2000 - , MilitaryLtd.Com. All Rights Reserved.
Any copying, redistribution or retransmission of any of the contents or images without express written consent is expressly prohibited.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245