US Navy facing shipbuilding crisis for new Destroyers

How do you counterflood a holed trimaran without making things worse.
No need. The flooded bit breaks off and sinks. The remainder sails off in catamaran mode.

Edited to add: That's why the trimaran concept was built with three wardrooms - one in each hull. Wouldn't want the ship's entire supply of Gordon's Gin and Angosturas bitters to sink below the waves.
 
Some time in the 90s (I think) the UK MoD was surprisingly forward thinking and clever, by letting DERA/Qinetiq design and build a third scale model (again - I think) trimaran, subsequently called Triton. From what I heard, the Elmers were VERY interested in a lot of aspects of this vessel.

Think it got sold/given away to AT&T or similar
Triton was the brainchild of some of the more senior Constructors, with a bit of help from the (at the time) USN exchange Naval Arch. The ship herself served her purpose - which was to validate the hydrodynamic and structural loading predictions of the numerical tools at the time. That was her sole purpose - she was NOT a prototype, or anything of that order. Anyone who has been aboard her would comment on the commercial elements of her construction. She was not a basis for LCS2 either.

Trouble with Trimarans is that they have a limited sweet spot where they offer a good solution - and it's at the smaller end of the scale. Once you get a bit bigger, monohulls are just as capable and much easier to arrange. One of the aspects never really pursued with Trimarans was how you get a good arrangement internally. Keeping continuous structure while providing usable compartments both in the centre-hull and outboard is a challenge. Getting sufficient power off the prime movers and into the 'oggin is another.

She ended up sold to Gardline, who leased her to the Australian Coastguard where she still serves.
 
LCS2 is just a grey painted and armed AUSTAL car ferry.
It's based on this one
Started off that way. Finished quite a bit different - but you're right in that it was the only thing in Austals box of tricks that they could throw at the project. BIW had a lot of involvement as well.
 
(...) Trouble with Trimarans is that they have a limited sweet spot where they offer a good solution - and it's at the smaller end of the scale. Once you get a bit bigger, monohulls are just as capable and much easier to arrange. One of the aspects never really pursued with Trimarans was how you get a good arrangement internally. Keeping continuous structure while providing usable compartments both in the centre-hull and outboard is a challenge. Getting sufficient power off the prime movers and into the 'oggin is another. (...)
My understanding of trimarans is that they provide more deck space for their displacement than a conventional hull. Catamarans are similar. They are useful when you want a large open deck like in some car ferries or with some sailboats. They're not very good when you want, as you said, a lot of usable internal space.

I think the trimaran versions of the LCS were designed that way in order to have a large helicopter flight deck and hanger on a corvette size ship with shallow draft. Here's a view that gets that point across.


I would really consider them to be a sort of highly specialised colonial gunboat. They're too weakly armed to be of much use against a capable opponent on their own. They can however accommodate a couple of helicopters to carry naval or marine landing parties for anti terrorist operations in relatively safe areas or to conduct anti-piracy operations at sea.

They would appear to be too highly specialised to be good value for money for most navies. I will be very surprised if the US navy gets their money's worth out of them either. I suspect that they and the Zumwalts will spend most of their time collecting barnacles at anchorages in the US.
 
think the trimaran versions of the LCS were designed that way in order to have a large helicopter flight deck and hanger on a corvette size ship with shallow draft. Here's a view that gets that point across.
That was precisely the intent on the LCS2 - and don't forget the aft mission / module bay. It's also a very different concept in philosophy and structural style from the original UK ideas, although a large part of that was the USN imperative to go fast (for no apparent reason), whereas the UK philosophy was to reduce installed power for a given max speed.

If memory serves the original LCS requirement was to achieve 45kts on a hull of no more than 2800 tons displacement, which was also capable of carrying big aviation payloads and (just to make things even more difficult) achieve TransLant range at a lower speed. Oh - and cost the same as a bag of chips - possibly with scraps.....

What could possibly go wrong.....
 

Yokel

LE
Along those lines. Possibly a bone question.

Will Zumwalt and its brethren actually be used operationally or will they, after some "world tours", just going to become test bed ships? Given the rumours of giving up with the fancy stuff and just using steel in construction of the latter ships and the massive "stop" order on construction past the first few ships but the apparent growth potential and power/thermal control they have it would seem to the untrained eye they are just destined to have various new tech strapped to them to trials until they wear out?
It? Brethren? Keel haul yourself.

Trying to be serious, the US Navy might have found a role for them. Because of their small radar cross section they could be used to deal with the fire control radars for shore based anti ship missiles - the so called A2/AD threat that the media pundits talk about as if it cannot be countered in any way.
 
From wiki:

Mike Fredenburg analyzed the program for National Review after Zumwalt broke down in the Panama Canal in November 2016, and he concluded that the ship's problems "are emblematic of a defense procurement system that is rapidly losing its ability to meet our national security needs."[13] Fredenburg went on to detail problems relating to the skyrocketing costs, lack of accountability, unrealistic goals, a flawed concept of operations, the perils of designing a warship around stealth, and the failure of the Advanced Gun System


My bold.

All sounds horribly familiar.

Was this procurement done by Abbey Wood?
 
Triton was the brainchild of some of the more senior Constructors, with a bit of help from the (at the time) USN exchange Naval Arch. The ship herself served her purpose - which was to validate the hydrodynamic and structural loading predictions of the numerical tools at the time. That was her sole purpose - she was NOT a prototype, or anything of that order. Anyone who has been aboard her would comment on the commercial elements of her construction. She was not a basis for LCS2 either.

Trouble with Trimarans is that they have a limited sweet spot where they offer a good solution - and it's at the smaller end of the scale. Once you get a bit bigger, monohulls are just as capable and much easier to arrange. One of the aspects never really pursued with Trimarans was how you get a good arrangement internally. Keeping continuous structure while providing usable compartments both in the centre-hull and outboard is a challenge. Getting sufficient power off the prime movers and into the 'oggin is another.

She ended up sold to Gardline, who leased her to the Australian Coastguard where she still serves.
Now returned, laid up in Great Yarmouth and for sale
RV Triton
 

Yokel

LE
Now returned, laid up in Great Yarmouth and for sale
RV Triton
Time for an ARRSE whipround? Maybe we could also buy the now former HMS Clyde?

@Not a Boffin is that why the SWATH ship concept sank without trace? I also remember that back in 2002/2003 certain contributors on PPRuNe seemed to be demanding the new carriers be multi hull.

Are the Russians still think of a catamaran based carrioer? Why?
 
It? Brethren? Keel haul yourself.

Trying to be serious, the US Navy might have found a role for them. Because of their small radar cross section they could be used to deal with the fire control radars for shore based anti ship missiles - the so called A2/AD threat that the media pundits talk about as if it cannot be countered in any way.
it’s ‘relatively‘ small. the funky stealth upper works got binned, but the visual mk 1 eyeball signature of a huge 15,000 tonne, 600ft ship didn’t.
 
Believe it or not, the US are
From wiki:

Mike Fredenburg analyzed the program for National Review after Zumwalt broke down in the Panama Canal in November 2016, and he concluded that the ship's problems "are emblematic of a defense procurement system that is rapidly losing its ability to meet our national security needs."[13] Fredenburg went on to detail problems relating to the skyrocketing costs, lack of accountability, unrealistic goals, a flawed concept of operations, the perils of designing a warship around stealth, and the failure of the Advanced Gun System

My bold.

All sounds horribly familiar.

Was this procurement done by Abbey Wood?
Believe it or not, the US system is even worse than ours.
 
Time for an ARRSE whipround? Maybe we could also buy the now former HMS Clyde?

@Not a Boffin is that why the SWATH ship concept sank without trace? I also remember that back in 2002/2003 certain contributors on PPRuNe seemed to be demanding the new carriers be multi hull.

Are the Russians still think of a catamaran based carrioer? Why?
Not sure why anyone would want a couple of twenty year old one off ships.

SWATHs haven't sunk without trace. Like all specialist hullforms they work in their niche applications. Google Abeking & Rasmussen if you want to know more.

Those who advocate multihull carriers tend not to have designed either.
 

Yokel

LE
it’s ‘relatively‘ small. the funky stealth upper works got binned, but the visual mk 1 eyeball signature of a huge 15,000 tonne, 600ft ship didn’t.
Eh? Surely it has a very small radar cross section?

Not sure why anyone would want a couple of twenty year old one off ships.

SWATHs haven't sunk without trace. Like all specialist hullforms they work in their niche applications. Google Abeking & Rasmussen if you want to know more.

Those who advocate multihull carriers tend not to have designed either.
I think the Americans use a couple of SWATH vessels, manned and operated as a USNS ship, to deploy towed array sonar in an ocean surveillance role.

Are Russian 'plans' for future catamaran carriers really part of trying to discredit Western technologies?
 
The US do indeed have a couple of SWATH T-AGOS. Right in the sweet spot for that hullform.

No idea what Ivan's "plans" are. Suspect interweb warrior halfwittery.
 

Latest Threads

Top