USS Freedom at sea

Originally posted by Desert Dawg
Interesting stuff.

I'm wondering why the mid-ships superstructure goes flush with the hull?
A low radar cross-section to improve stealth?

Looks like you'd have to enter through a door at the front if you were going bow to stern instead of walking down the side.

Wouldn't that compromise safety in a storm?
For the ship as well as for the sailor.

What are the big double doors at the back for?

Am I understanding correctly that this is a destroyer?

The flush superstructure design is becoming commonplace as it aids in reducing radar signature.

The doors in the back are for embarking small boats or other mission packages. It's a free flooding ramp area.

This is NOT a destroyer. It's smaller, lighter, faster and has a smaller armament.

Was this the ship built out of scrap iron?

reply to post by orangetom1999


oreangetom, the LCS-1 is the steel hulled one. LCS-2 is aluminum. LCS-1 does, however, have an aluminum superstructure.

Originally posted by solo1
Was this the ship built out of scrap iron?

No. Material certification requirements for traceability to an individual melt at the steel mill would preclude that.

Originally posted by oxillini

Originally posted by solo1
Was this the ship built out of scrap iron?

No. Material certification requirements for traceability to an individual melt at the steel mill would preclude that.

I should of been more clear Was this the ship built out of scrap iron from the Twin Towers

reply to post by solo1


No. That's USS New York, LPD-21.

I can see these ships being useful in the littoral roles they were designed for - kind of a super-gator-gunboat role more than an escort frigate role - which is, I understand, the kind of thing they've been using the OHP's for lately anyway.

They are absurdly over budget, on the other hand, they're at least handsome-looking vessels - something you can't say about the Zumwalts. And I'm frustrated by the lack of clear information on the actual capabilities of the "mission modules" they are touting.

reply to post by oxillini




Thanks Oxillini.

I thought I read the article closely, but missed the coastal support bit.

reply to post by oxillini



DD 1000 is the size of the friggin Graf Spee!

reply to post by lpbman


Class and type: Zumwalt-class destroyer
Displacement: 14,564 LT
Length: 600 ft (180 m)
Beam: 80.7 ft (24.6 m)
Draft: 27.6 ft (8.4 m)
Propulsion: 78 MW, from 2 Rolls-Royce MT-30 gas turbines and emergency diesel generators.
Speed: 30.3 kt (56 km/h)
Complement: 142



and


Class and type: Deutschland class cruiser
Displacement: 12,100 t standard;
16,200 t full load
Length: 186 m (610 ft)[2]
Beam: 21.65 m (71.0 ft)[2]
Draught: 7.34 metres (24.1 ft)[2]
Propulsion: Eight 9-cylinder double-acting two-stroke MAN diesels
two screws, 52,050 hp
Speed: 28.5 knots (53 km/h)


The Graf Spee was actually called a `pocket battleship` - the size of a Heavy Cruiser , yet the firepower of a battleship (11inch guns at the time).

so , i really thing calling the Zumwelts ` destroyers is really stretching the imagination - they are full on Heavy Cruisers - or even `light battleships`

they are full on Heavy Cruisers - or even `light battleships`

How about 'absurdly expensive, odd looking, ill-conceived behemoths'?

Really I don't see how the Arleigh Burkes are flawed in any way, other than being powered by dead dinosaur rot instead of nice reliable, plentiful, carbon-neutral neutrons.

Considering the cost difference, I don't see how two of these beasts are worth five DDG-51's. And they look like first generation ironclads to boot. I know they are technology demonstrators and all, but cripes, $2.5B?!?

That's a lot of wampum

The military really needs to crack the whip on it's contractors a bit.
Of course their buddies in Congress would probably go berserk...

But pulling that kind of thing in the civilian business sector would land you in bankruptcy court so fast your head would spin.

[edit on 8/2/08 by xmotex]

Originally posted by xmotex
How about 'absurdly expensive, odd looking, ill-conceived behemoths'?

Really I don't see how the Arleigh Burkes are flawed in any way, other than being powered by dead dinosaur rot instead of nice reliable, plentiful, carbon-neutral neutrons.

Both DDG-51's and the DDG-1000 are fossil fueled. One drawback of the Burkes is that their electrical capacity is reaching its limit and every new addition wants more power.

Originally posted by xmotexConsidering the cost difference, I don't see how two of these beasts are worth five DDG-51's. And they look like first generation ironclads to boot. I know they are technology demonstrators and all, but cripes, $2.5B?!?

That's a lot of wampum

The military really needs to crack the whip on it's contractors a bit.
Of course their buddies in Congress would probably go berserk...

But pulling that kind of thing in the civilian business sector would land you in bankruptcy court so fast your head would spin.

[edit on 8/2/08 by xmotex]

The DDG-1000's are actually predicted to cost somewhere in the $3.1B to $5B range. Regarding the military cracking the whip on its contractors, that's only one facet. The Navy also has a hand in this cost creep. When you continue to change the design and requirements as engineering is going on, you incur massive cost increases. This is a given. These ships were undertaken with a lot of "we'll figure it out when we get there." Well, the design efforts are getting to the point that that info is now needed and guess what, it's either not ready or has changed significantly from what the designers were first given to work with. Cost ovverruns abound when that happens. Are the contractors to fault? Sure. Is the navy in a position to pin blame elsewhere? Probably not.

And why is the ABS involved? Can't the Navy build and inspect their own ships to a satisfactory level? Do they need another hand in the cookie jar?

I would have like them building a next generation class of the Ohio , Missouri battle ships with stealth characteristics, gps over the horizon capable automatic reload and firing railguns with the same or bigger diameter as the guns on the uss Missouri. Nuclear powered and integrated systems. So basically it is a new stealth Uss Missouri with a minimal use of personal needed for operating it because of new tech ect.
So we can fire long range high mach speed and high destructive shells with pinpoint accuracy from let say coast of Iran to allmost the other site of its capital city destroying a military complex with six shots fired at ones.

nice photos, where did you get them, daltaboy?

Link: peoships.crane.navy.mil...

LCS (Littoral Combat Ship) Fact Sheet

LCS-1: USS Freedom & LCS-2: USS Independance

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Description: LCS is a fast, agile, focused-mission platform designed for operation in near-shore environments yet capable of open-ocean operation. It is designed to defeat asymmetric “anti-access” threats such as mines, quiet diesel submarines and fast surface craft.

Features: The LCS 1 FREEDOM class consists of two different hullforms – a semiplaning monohull and an aluminum trimaran – designed and built by two industry teams, respectively led by Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics. These seaframes will be outfitted with reconfigurable payloads, called Mission Packages, which can be changed out quickly. Mission packages are supported by special detachments that will deploy manned and unmanned vehicles and sensors in support of mine, undersea and surface warfare missions.

Background: Initiated in February 2002, the LCS program represents a significant reduction in time to acquire, design and build ships in comparison to any previous ship class. LCS 1, USS FREEDOM, the first Lockheed Martin Flight 0 ship is under construction at Marinette Marine in Marinette, Wisconsin. LCS 2, USS INDEPENDENCE, the first General Dynamics Flight 0 ship is under construction at Austal Shipyard in Mobile, Alabama.

General Characteristics:

Variants: Lockheed Martin (LCS-1) | General Dynamics (LCS-2)
Displacement: (LCS-1) 3,089 tons, full load | (LCS-2) 2,790 tons, full load
Main machinery: (LCS-1) CODAG: 2 Rolls Royce MT-30 gas turbines; 96,550 hp (72 MW); 2 Fairbanks Morse Colt-Pielstick 16PA6B diesels; 17,160 hp (12.8 MW); 4 Rolls Royce Kamewa 153SII waterjets |
(LCS-2) CODAG: 2 gas turbines, 2 diesels; 4 steerable waterjets; 1 steerable thruster
Speed, knots: 45 (BOTH)
Range, n miles: (LCS-1) 3,500 at 18 kt | (LCS-2) 4,300 at 18 kt
Complement: : (LCS-1) 50 | (LCS-2) 40
Missiles: Raytheon RAM (BOTH)
Guns: 1 United Defence 57 mm/70 Mk 2; 220 rds/min to 17 km (9 n miles); weight of shell 2.4 kg. 4-12.7 mm MGs (BOTH)
Countermeasures: (LCS-1) 2 SKWS/SRBOC decoy launching systems. WBR 2000 ESM Decoys | (LCS-2) ESM/ECM EDO ES 3601 ESM
Combat data systems: (LCS-1) COMBATSS-21 | (LCS-2) Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems Integrated Combat Management System (ICMS)
Weapons control: (LCS-1) To be announced | (LCS-2) TACTICOS
Radars: Air/surface search: (LCS-1) EADS TRS-3D C-band | (LCS-2) Ericson Sea Giraffe; G/H-band
Navigation: (LCS-1) NAVSSI/GPS/WSN7V | (LCS-2)Sperry Bridgemaster
Fire control: (LCS-1) DORNA EOD EO/IR System | (LCS-2) SEASTAR SAFIRE III EO/IR
Sonars: None (BOTH)
Helicopters: (LCS-1) 2 MH-60 R/S helicopters or 1 MH-60 R/S and 3 Firescout VTUAVs 2 H-60 helicopters | (LCS-2) multiple UAVs/VTUAVs; large flight deck area can accommodate CH-53

Both of these ships cost alot because they are still in developmental stage. Once developmental stages have been complete these ships will be very cost effective (as compaired to other ships in the NAVY) to build in bulk.

Originally posted by xmotex
Really I don't see how the Arleigh Burkes are flawed in any way...

They are not flawed, hence why the Zumwalt class in not intended to replace the Burkes, merely add some complimentary capability.

Originally posted by xmotex
Considering the cost difference, I don't see how two of these beasts are worth five DDG-51's. And they look like first generation ironclads to boot. I know they are technology demonstrators and all, but cripes, $2.5B?!?

That's an unfair argument, an F-16 costs less than the F-22 but just like in this case it's comparing apples to oranges. Each system has its niche and offers a set of capabilities, comparing cost alone is fruitless. The amount of technology and capability that will be incorporated into the Zumwalt class and it's future block upgrades is tremendous. With the RCS of a fishing boat, the sound signature of a sub, the sensors of a small radar field backed with Navy standard firepower the Zumwalt will be a significant present on the battlefield of tomorrow. And personally I think it's a beautiful ship, I love clean lines.

Originally posted by xmotex
Of course their buddies in Congress would probably go berserk...

Congress is the main enemy of most US military systems these days. With their brilliant idea of cutting the production run of major world class systems what could go wrong? Maybe perhaps the Zumwalt being the first ship of its kind, in terms of incorporating such a wide array of technology on this scale, will see cost increases? Nah...

[edit on 11-9-2008 by WestPoint23]

There are a few issues with the LCS
Its a ship where everyone wanted it to do a little of everything. I remember when the LCS was for the "NEW" brown water Navy.

Then it became can we use it as command & control?
Can it deploy Units..
Can it hunt small subs..
Can it .. Can it.. the list of wants became out-landish!

So there is the issue with the constant re-work of the LCS class of ships.
There are a ton of high ranking Officers working for face time on builds like this too. Lots of Hey look lets add this feature to it. Im shocked its that there is no V/STOL pad for the F-35. ( jk ) but really if you look at the amount of people looking for face time on this ship. We are lucky that it didnt cost even more.

most people don't under stand how the gov does the cost of a ship.
1 a ruff drawing is done of the ship. day 1
2 this is sent to a contractor who plans what is put in what is wanted in the ship.
day 200.
3 then the navy goes around and asks companies the cost of the parts. day 400.
4 then the navy asks congress for the money to build the ship day 600
5 congress give them the money. day 800
6 then the navy put out a bid package for contractors to bid on. day 900
7 the contractors bid on the job.
8 a contract is awarded. day 1000 construction only not the cost of parts.
9 then the prime contractor put out bids for the parts day 1100
10 the bid for parts is awarded day 1200
11 the construction is started day 1300.
12 the ship is finished day 2000
Congress thinks that after 2000 days the ship is still going to cost what the cost were going to be on day 400

How much did a gal of milk cost in 2000
How much did a gal of gas cost.

What does a gal of gas or milk cost now.

Then you add in new systems the navy wants that were not around on day 1 and the cost to change the ship to fit the new systems to the ship.

Navy ships a a limited production run idem and few are build in large numbers so this cost more for tooling up to make the components.

This is not like WW2 when they built 1000s of liberty ships
or landing craft.

Just to change a missile launcher unit on a modern ship you might have to change over 5 miles if wiring.
Just to add a pump 2 miles of wiring.

There is more wiring in a DDG then in a 40 story office building. and each wire has to go through each bulkhead on the ship through a waterproof fitting. a carrier may have over 100,000 waterproof wire fitting for wire

The computers on a modern navy ship are obsolete before the first sailors go on-board. It take about 3 years from the time the computer are ordered for the ship and the new ship is turned over to the navy.

There have been cases where sailors have plugged in there own laptops in to keep a navy ship operational till a replacement could be sent.

[edit on 25-9-2008 by ANNED]

reply to post by Anonymous ATS


That is to some extent true, however we need this ship and in sufficient numbers. Our large ship replacement plans are getting built in smaller numbers every year. With mission modules, open software/hardware architecture, next generation sensors etc... The LCS fast becomes a brown water vessel first, and blue water support ship second, but still very capable one at that. In time as it's technology matures and new blocks are created I do not think it will be a such a bad "jack of all trades, master of none".

In a related note, the CNO, Adm. Gary Roughead, spoke out yesterday about the LCS and Zumwalt programs:

The CNO shed some light on his decision to ask permission to "truncate" the DDG 1000 advanced destroyer program from seven to three ships and continue to build DDG 51-class Aegis destroyers.

"DDG 1000 is a ship that had its genesis in the early 1990s," he said, "and I think all of us would agree the world has changed since the early 1990s. We've seen proliferation of threats that did not exist before."

The threats, Roughead said, include ballistic missiles - "I believe it will be a weapon of intimidation and blackmail" - and anti-ship missiles, particularly in the hands of groups such as Hezbollah, which fired such a weapon in July 2006 and hit an Israeli warship off Lebanon.

Anti-air capability also is a key factor in the DDG 1000 decision.

"Our ability to control the seas," he said, "really calls for us to go in and provide area air defense. And as I looked at DDG 1000, it did not give us that capability."

As I have said for a few years, the Chinese development of terminally guided anti-ship ballistic missiles is becoming apparent, and is having an effect on the USN's shipbuilding strategy.