Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Navy launches U.S.S. Independence, first of new class of weapons-bristling speedster trimarans
DVICE (SciFi) ^ | May 2008

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.



TOPICS: Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: littoral; navy; ships; trimarans; trimorans
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-95 next last
To: Toddsterpatriot

Wow! Very cool!


61 posted on 05/08/2008 3:06:08 AM PDT by Levante
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

BUMP to drool over later!


62 posted on 05/08/2008 3:28:09 AM PDT by Bender2 ("I've got a twisted sense of humor, and everything amuses me." RAH Beyond this Horizon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lajollasurfer
any info on size of the crew

Usually between 5'4" and 6'2" tall, and between 140 and 200 pounds, give or take a bit...

Mark

63 posted on 05/08/2008 3:28:13 AM PDT by MarkL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

60 knots !!!!


64 posted on 05/08/2008 3:32:42 AM PDT by Skooz (Any nation that would elect Hillary Clinton as its president has forfeited its right to exist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

great post, thanks!


65 posted on 05/08/2008 4:10:45 AM PDT by expat_panama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BIGLOOK

“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.


66 posted on 05/08/2008 4:20:56 AM PDT by rockinqsranch (Dems, Libs, Socialists...call 'em what you will...They ALL have fairies livin' in their trees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: lajollasurfer
Crewing of a traditional type ship usually consists of in excess of 250 men, but an MCDS unit can operate on a ships crew of 10 / 15 men plus the necessary weapons technicians-thus creating a vast saving in manpower and running costs.

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

67 posted on 05/08/2008 4:34:48 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 ("In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." — George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: rmlew

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.


68 posted on 05/08/2008 4:40:51 AM PDT by Mercia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

Ouch, that starts to add up... Oh well. At least it looks cool.


69 posted on 05/08/2008 5:55:14 AM PDT by farlander (Try not to wear milk bone underwear - it's a dog eat dog financial world)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: bill1952
If we were talking sailing vessels, I would agree with you.
That's the reason I owned a liveaboard monohull ketch for 14 years.

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.

70 posted on 05/08/2008 9:12:31 AM PDT by HardStarboard (Take No Prisoners - We're Out Of Qurans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: HardStarboard

Interesting indded. Thank you for the information.

Why go tri hull at all?


71 posted on 05/08/2008 9:27:57 AM PDT by bill1952 (I will vote for McCain if he resigns his Senate seat before this election.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: familyop

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.


72 posted on 05/08/2008 9:33:05 AM PDT by bill1952 (I will vote for McCain if he resigns his Senate seat before this election.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625
>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 ...

Exactly. somehow they are reminding me of very modern, very upgraded & expensive PT boats, albeit with far more capabilities.

but those really were cheap.

73 posted on 05/08/2008 9:37:15 AM PDT by bill1952 (I will vote for McCain if he resigns his Senate seat before this election.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Eye of Unk
Rail guns with anti-matter slugs.
74 posted on 05/08/2008 9:37:15 AM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Why are doom and gloomers, union members and liberals so bad at math?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: bill1952
They aren't thinking of steaming a tri-hull over the ocean to say, the Red Sea, are they?

It's a light frigate, close to 3000 tons. Is the USN composed of girleymen?

75 posted on 05/08/2008 9:48:39 AM PDT by Oztrich Boy (Holy State or Holy King - Or Holy People's Will - Have no truck with the senseless thing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy

Its not compromised of stupid men who do not respect the sea, either.

It is not a “littoral class” ship for nothing, you know.


76 posted on 05/08/2008 9:50:41 AM PDT by bill1952 (I will vote for McCain if he resigns his Senate seat before this election.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Westlander

look at the posters on their website - looks like four mounted high(?)


77 posted on 05/08/2008 9:58:44 AM PDT by norton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist
How does production quantity and rate work against the " in the vicinity of $700 million dollars number?

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)

78 posted on 05/08/2008 10:09:04 AM PDT by norton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: norton; Strategerist
Also - can you clarify armament?

I thought I noted Phalanx and four .50s, another said no phalanx and two .50s.

79 posted on 05/08/2008 10:11:57 AM PDT by norton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

This transition into new ship designs reminds me of the move from Monitor class to Dreadnoughts.


80 posted on 05/08/2008 10:21:04 AM PDT by Rebelbase (Carbon is the fifth most abundant element on the planet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-95 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson