Blacktail
The LCS to me mostly evokes the design philosophies of the many attempts to build the "Fastest Destroyer EVER!!!" throughout history.
There are very strong parallels between these vessels and the LCS, the most striking of which are;
1- They began in the conceptual phase as vessels that were simply very fast versions of regular ships of their type (in this case, Destroyers; in the LCS' case, Corvettes), but rapidly lost most of their other capabilities and qualities in fanatical pursuit of speed.
2- The Cost-Size-Complexity Spiral was hard at work on all of these vessels. More speed than around 30kts required vastly larger machinery, forcing enlargement of the hull to fit the turbines, boilers, etc. inside, along with more oil; this cost much more money. This increased the beam and the draught, reducing speed and acceleration dramatically, forcing the inclusion of increasingly more risky and untested propulsion technology in order to restore the power/weight ratio; this cost even *more* money. The ship had to be lengthened to increase the length-to-beam ratio required for the required peed and stability, and fit-in even more engines to keep the power/weight ratio high enough, also forcing more fuel bunkerage into the hull.
3- The more you packed into the hull, the more crowded it got (no matter how large it was), and the result ended up being a gigantic vessel compared to it's contemporaries.
4- Because of the reckless pursuit of speed, armament suffered terribly. Navies often built "fringe" weaponry into these ships ( that had no business being on a Destroyer) to compensate, but this only ended up making the deign formula less useful, and further accelerated the The Cost-Size-Complexity Spiral. Thus, they ended up having either the wrong weapons on board, not enough weapons, or both.
1- They began in the conceptual phase as vessels that were simply very fast versions of regular ships of their type (in this case, Destroyers; in the LCS' case, Corvettes), but rapidly lost most of their other capabilities and qualities in fanatical pursuit of speed.
2- The Cost-Size-Complexity Spiral was hard at work on all of these vessels. More speed than around 30kts required vastly larger machinery, forcing enlargement of the hull to fit the turbines, boilers, etc. inside, along with more oil; this cost much more money. This increased the beam and the draught, reducing speed and acceleration dramatically, forcing the inclusion of increasingly more risky and untested propulsion technology in order to restore the power/weight ratio; this cost even *more* money. The ship had to be lengthened to increase the length-to-beam ratio required for the required peed and stability, and fit-in even more engines to keep the power/weight ratio high enough, also forcing more fuel bunkerage into the hull.
3- The more you packed into the hull, the more crowded it got (no matter how large it was), and the result ended up being a gigantic vessel compared to it's contemporaries.
4- Because of the reckless pursuit of speed, armament suffered terribly. Navies often built "fringe" weaponry into these ships ( that had no business being on a Destroyer) to compensate, but this only ended up making the deign formula less useful, and further accelerated the The Cost-Size-Complexity Spiral. Thus, they ended up having either the wrong weapons on board, not enough weapons, or both.
That said, here are are a few classic examples of how to build a Goldbrick that floats...
HMS Swift
Era: 1910
Unit Cost: £233,764 (the norm was £140,000)
Designed Speed: 37kts (the norm was 30kts)
Possible Speed: 35kts
Tonnage: 2200 tons (the norm was 1000 tons)Length: 354ft (the norm was 250ft)
Fringe Propulsion: 12 boilers and 4 turbines w/30000shp (the norm was 5 boilers and 2-3 turbines w/15000shp)
Reliability: Very Poor
Range: (the norm was)
Main Weaponry: 1x 6"/45, 2x 4"/40 (the norm was 4x 4"/40)
Secondary Weapons: 3x 40mm (the norm was 2x 40mm)
Torpedoes: 2x 18" (the norm was 2x 21")
Sonar: N/A
Remarks: Despite having 50% more horsepower than the HMS Dreadnought in a hull weighing ten times less, and going through 26 different propeller designs over the course of sea trials that lasted for almost 3 years, the Swift couldn't make her designed speed. She was a disaster in combat as well, thanks to Admiral Jackie Fisher's insane scheme for using giant, high-speed Destroyers as substitutes for Light Cruisers (guess how a battle between the Swift and a ship with armor and MANY 6" guns would have turned out?).
Era: 1910
Unit Cost: £233,764 (the norm was £140,000)
Designed Speed: 37kts (the norm was 30kts)
Possible Speed: 35kts
Tonnage: 2200 tons (the norm was 1000 tons)Length: 354ft (the norm was 250ft)
Fringe Propulsion: 12 boilers and 4 turbines w/30000shp (the norm was 5 boilers and 2-3 turbines w/15000shp)
Reliability: Very Poor
Range: (the norm was)
Main Weaponry: 1x 6"/45, 2x 4"/40 (the norm was 4x 4"/40)
Secondary Weapons: 3x 40mm (the norm was 2x 40mm)
Torpedoes: 2x 18" (the norm was 2x 21")
Sonar: N/A
Remarks: Despite having 50% more horsepower than the HMS Dreadnought in a hull weighing ten times less, and going through 26 different propeller designs over the course of sea trials that lasted for almost 3 years, the Swift couldn't make her designed speed. She was a disaster in combat as well, thanks to Admiral Jackie Fisher's insane scheme for using giant, high-speed Destroyers as substitutes for Light Cruisers (guess how a battle between the Swift and a ship with armor and MANY 6" guns would have turned out?).
Chacal class (also called the Jaguar class)
Era: 1920s
Unit Cost: ???
Designed Speed: 35kts (the norm was 30kts)
Possible Speed: 31kts
Tonnage: 3100 tons (the norm was 1500 tons)
Length: 417ft (the norm was)
Fringe Propulsion: 5 boilers and 2 turbines w/55000shp (the norm was 4 boilers and 2 turbines w/25000shp)
Reliability: Poor
Range: 2900nm (the norm was 3500nm)
Main Weaponry: 5x 130mm/40 (the norm was 4x 120mm/45)
Secondary Weapons: 2x 75mm/50
Torpedoes: 6x 550mm
Sonar: None
Remarks: Commonly (and incorrectly) assumed in the English-speaking world to have been Destroyer Leaders, the French "Contre-Torpilleurs" (the Chacals were the first of these) were basically a revival of the same operational concept as the Swift --- Contre-Torpilleur literally means "Counter-Destroyer" i n French. Consequently, the Chacals and all subsequent Contre-Torpilleur classes were total failures, to the tune of most being sunk in the first two years of World War 2. Also note that none of them had sonophones --- let alone sonar --- despite being tasked with ASW missions (the same mistake was repeated in the LCS!). The Chacal class' blistering 35-knot top speed disappeared when ther forward-most boiler was deleted, in an effort to correct dangerous issues with their handling and balance... an effort which failed.
Era: 1920s
Unit Cost: ???
Designed Speed: 35kts (the norm was 30kts)
Possible Speed: 31kts
Tonnage: 3100 tons (the norm was 1500 tons)
Length: 417ft (the norm was)
Fringe Propulsion: 5 boilers and 2 turbines w/55000shp (the norm was 4 boilers and 2 turbines w/25000shp)
Reliability: Poor
Range: 2900nm (the norm was 3500nm)
Main Weaponry: 5x 130mm/40 (the norm was 4x 120mm/45)
Secondary Weapons: 2x 75mm/50
Torpedoes: 6x 550mm
Sonar: None
Remarks: Commonly (and incorrectly) assumed in the English-speaking world to have been Destroyer Leaders, the French "Contre-Torpilleurs" (the Chacals were the first of these) were basically a revival of the same operational concept as the Swift --- Contre-Torpilleur literally means "Counter-Destroyer" i n French. Consequently, the Chacals and all subsequent Contre-Torpilleur classes were total failures, to the tune of most being sunk in the first two years of World War 2. Also note that none of them had sonophones --- let alone sonar --- despite being tasked with ASW missions (the same mistake was repeated in the LCS!). The Chacal class' blistering 35-knot top speed disappeared when ther forward-most boiler was deleted, in an effort to correct dangerous issues with their handling and balance... an effort which failed.
Mitscher class
Era: 1953
Unit Cost: ???
Designed Speed: 39kts (the norm was 32kts)
Possible Speed: 20kts
Tonnage: 4800 tons (the norm was 2500 tons)
Length: 490ft (the norm was 390ft)
Fringe Propulsion: 4 ultra-high- pressure boilers and 2 turbines w/80000shp (the norm was 4 regular boilers and 2 turbines w/65000shp)
Reliability: "Must sell quickly --- won't last!"
Range: 7500nm
Main Weaponry: 2x 5"/54 (the norm was 4x 5"/54)
Secondary Weapons: 4x 3"/50 (the norm was many 20mm and/or 40mm)
Torpedoes: 4x 21"
Sonar: Unusable
Remarks: What do you get when you combine an Atlanta class hull without any armor, fringe technology engines that should never have been used in a warship, a top speed that makes a Destroyer "Leader" too fast to lead regular Destroyers, and a crazy assortment of weapons and sensors that turn out to be useless? You get the Mitscher class of course --- four quasi-Cruiser "Destroyers" appropriately named after Admirals who died ignominiously in peacetime (which foreshadowed the fate of the class itself). The fringe technology of their machinery inescapably make it so delicate and temperamental, they almost always broke-down at speed; to compensate, the US Navy placed a mandatory speed cap of only 20kts on them, making the Mitschers the slowest Destroyers ever operated by the US. Their overpowered machinery was also so loud, their sonar couldn't detect Submarines. They were retired after only 20 years, at which point two were scrapped and the other two became Missile Destroyers; the converted ships served only 10 more years, and they were stricken and sold for scrap in rapid succession.
Era: 1953
Unit Cost: ???
Designed Speed: 39kts (the norm was 32kts)
Possible Speed: 20kts
Tonnage: 4800 tons (the norm was 2500 tons)
Length: 490ft (the norm was 390ft)
Fringe Propulsion: 4 ultra-high- pressure boilers and 2 turbines w/80000shp (the norm was 4 regular boilers and 2 turbines w/65000shp)
Reliability: "Must sell quickly --- won't last!"
Range: 7500nm
Main Weaponry: 2x 5"/54 (the norm was 4x 5"/54)
Secondary Weapons: 4x 3"/50 (the norm was many 20mm and/or 40mm)
Torpedoes: 4x 21"
Sonar: Unusable
Remarks: What do you get when you combine an Atlanta class hull without any armor, fringe technology engines that should never have been used in a warship, a top speed that makes a Destroyer "Leader" too fast to lead regular Destroyers, and a crazy assortment of weapons and sensors that turn out to be useless? You get the Mitscher class of course --- four quasi-Cruiser "Destroyers" appropriately named after Admirals who died ignominiously in peacetime (which foreshadowed the fate of the class itself). The fringe technology of their machinery inescapably make it so delicate and temperamental, they almost always broke-down at speed; to compensate, the US Navy placed a mandatory speed cap of only 20kts on them, making the Mitschers the slowest Destroyers ever operated by the US. Their overpowered machinery was also so loud, their sonar couldn't detect Submarines. They were retired after only 20 years, at which point two were scrapped and the other two became Missile Destroyers; the converted ships served only 10 more years, and they were stricken and sold for scrap in rapid succession.
Kynda class "Cruisers"
Era: 1962
Unit Cost: ???
Designed Speed: 35kts (the norm was 32kts)
Possible Speed: 32kts
Tonnage: 5400 tons (the norm was 3700 tons)
Length: 466ft (the norm was 414ft)
Fringe Propulsion: 4 boilers and 2 turbines w/100000shp (the norm was 4 boilers and 2 turbines w/72 000shp)
Reliability: Very poor
Range: 3600nm (the norm was 4300nm)
Main Weaponry: 8x SS-N-3 Shaddock SSM, 2x SA-N-1 Goa SAM (the norm was SSMs or SAMs, but not both)
Secondary Weapons: 2x 76mm/59 (the norm was 4x 76mm/59)
Torpedoes: 6x 21" (with no reloads)
Sonar: Weak
Remarks: Re-purposed as guided missile ships after being laid-down as Gun Destroyers, the Kyndas were also re-designated as "Cruisers", both for the same reason --- for political rather than functional purposes (shades of the Ticonderoga class deception). They tried to squeeze more power than was feasible out of a Destroyer hull, but didn't end up being faster than any of the preceding Soviet Destroyers, and their novel pyramidal masts and bristling sensors and antennae conspired to make them dangerously top-heavy; so much so that they hold the grim distinction of being the only Soviet Cruisers (in name *or* in Fact) never to operate with the Red Banner Fleet in the Arctic Ocean (the violent seas and rapid icing on the Kyndas' masts made them too likely to capsize). The quest to offset their top-heaviness without sacrificing their monolithic propulsion systems and sensor arrays led to excessively low freeboard, and an even lower aft quarterdeck (which has never worked out well on any vessel). And although the Kyndas were armed with a wide array of weapons, they carried no reloads for their torpedoes, ASW rocket launchers, or cruise missiles, few for their SAMs, and seldom went to sea with any ammo on board for their 76mm guns (another misguided attempt at combating their top-heaviness). Though 10 were ordered, only 4 Kyndas were actually completed, and the more sensible Kresta class Cruisers took the place of the unbuilt ships.
Era: 1962
Unit Cost: ???
Designed Speed: 35kts (the norm was 32kts)
Possible Speed: 32kts
Tonnage: 5400 tons (the norm was 3700 tons)
Length: 466ft (the norm was 414ft)
Fringe Propulsion: 4 boilers and 2 turbines w/100000shp (the norm was 4 boilers and 2 turbines w/72 000shp)
Reliability: Very poor
Range: 3600nm (the norm was 4300nm)
Main Weaponry: 8x SS-N-3 Shaddock SSM, 2x SA-N-1 Goa SAM (the norm was SSMs or SAMs, but not both)
Secondary Weapons: 2x 76mm/59 (the norm was 4x 76mm/59)
Torpedoes: 6x 21" (with no reloads)
Sonar: Weak
Remarks: Re-purposed as guided missile ships after being laid-down as Gun Destroyers, the Kyndas were also re-designated as "Cruisers", both for the same reason --- for political rather than functional purposes (shades of the Ticonderoga class deception). They tried to squeeze more power than was feasible out of a Destroyer hull, but didn't end up being faster than any of the preceding Soviet Destroyers, and their novel pyramidal masts and bristling sensors and antennae conspired to make them dangerously top-heavy; so much so that they hold the grim distinction of being the only Soviet Cruisers (in name *or* in Fact) never to operate with the Red Banner Fleet in the Arctic Ocean (the violent seas and rapid icing on the Kyndas' masts made them too likely to capsize). The quest to offset their top-heaviness without sacrificing their monolithic propulsion systems and sensor arrays led to excessively low freeboard, and an even lower aft quarterdeck (which has never worked out well on any vessel). And although the Kyndas were armed with a wide array of weapons, they carried no reloads for their torpedoes, ASW rocket launchers, or cruise missiles, few for their SAMs, and seldom went to sea with any ammo on board for their 76mm guns (another misguided attempt at combating their top-heaviness). Though 10 were ordered, only 4 Kyndas were actually completed, and the more sensible Kresta class Cruisers took the place of the unbuilt ships.
No comments:
Post a Comment