Posted on 05/07/2008 8:24:11 PM PDT by Toddsterpatriot
We’ve been hearing rumblings about the U.S. Navy’s triple-hulled ships, but here’s one that was launched last month, the U.S.S Independence. Built by General Dynamics, it’s called a “littoral combat ship” (LCS), and the trimaran can move huge weapons around faster than any ship in the Navy. Ironic that with all that high tech built in, the ship reminds us of the Merrimac ironclad from Civil War days.
Littoral means close to shore, and that’s where these fleet-hulled babies will operate, tailor-made for launching helicopters and armored vehicles, sweeping mines and firing all manner of torpedoes, missiles and machine guns.
These ships were designed to be relatively inexpensive — this one’s a bargain at $208 million — and the navy plans to build 55 of them. This trimaran is the first of the new fire-breathing breed, ready to scoot out of dry dock at a rumored 60 knots. It's like a speedy and heavily-armed aircraft carrier for helicopters.
Wow! Very cool!
BUMP to drool over later!
Usually between 5'4" and 6'2" tall, and between 140 and 200 pounds, give or take a bit...
Mark
60 knots !!!!
great post, thanks!
“Are they gas/turbine?”
That I Don’t Know. I’ve tried to find out much about them in years past as they fascinated me at the time. Sealand’s terminal was directly across the bay from the terminal I worked at in Long Beach, Calif. I saw some SL-7’s only a few times. Incredible ships!
From the scuttlebutt I’ve heard about them, their horrendous fuel consumption problem (which was the cause of their demise as commercial vessels), and the myths about their published speed versus their rumoured speed, I’d guess they were gas turbine. (I heard rumour to that effect, but never read confirming data.)
Most of the Containerships of the era were Steam Turbine, and quite fast (again as I stated in the original post, the theory at the time was speed was everything to compete in the trade), but soon (Mid ‘70’s) the costs to operate the vessels forced them all to slow down with more economical Diesel.
I was involved in shoreside vessel support and Containeryard management in those days. Never was involved in the actual vessel operations.
Sometimes I wish I’d been in the Navy instead of Army. I’d have been more alert, and questioning of details at the time, I’m certain.
Which is fine until you get hit, and you discover you don't have enough people to run the ship AND plug the leaks AND put out the fires AND replace the wounded on important posts
It is a bit low on the weapons i agree. This is a straight patrol ship, the only unique thing is the design. no more powerful that the new River Class of the Royal Navy.
Ouch, that starts to add up... Oh well. At least it looks cool.
This animal is far from being a sailing tri.
When a sailing tri turns turtle, there is no natural righting force as there is in a monohull. But this is not
a sail boat - the broaching or tipping moment, rather than being at the center of effort in the middle of the sail several feet off the deck, is much lower.
Also, the ama hulls are not of traditional design. The hulls between the main hull and the amas are much deeper to resist the tendency of wind to get underneath that is so problematical in a standard tri design. Looks to me like the portion between the main and the ama hulls is “wet” all the time - big departure from a sailing tri.
In addition, the amas may be a wave piercing design which resists the tendency to lift. I know that they were working on Navy prototypes of those in San Diego next to a yard where I had my boat hauled.
I'm confident the Navy did their homework in the test tank before committing funds to build this baby. I'm sure I saw prototypes of this design leaving San Diego bay when I had my boat down there. Sure miss seeing all the activity of the blue water Navy in San Diego - something interesting was going on all the time.
Interesting indded. Thank you for the information.
Why go tri hull at all?
They are still coastal ships, right?
They aren’t considering attaching these pups to and steaming with a carrier task force are they?
If so, then why are they designated as littoral?
Can’t have it both ways.
Exactly. somehow they are reminding me of very modern, very upgraded & expensive PT boats, albeit with far more capabilities.
but those really were cheap.
It's a light frigate, close to 3000 tons. Is the USN composed of girleymen?
Its not compromised of stupid men who do not respect the sea, either.
It is not a “littoral class” ship for nothing, you know.
look at the posters on their website - looks like four mounted high(?)
And, are you using just the cost of the ship or cost of ship with mission modules, munitions, etc?
(Not questioning your knowledge, just want to have it in perspective)
I thought I noted Phalanx and four .50s, another said no phalanx and two .50s.
This transition into new ship designs reminds me of the move from Monitor class to Dreadnoughts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.