American admirals have tested in practice the concept of high-speed and maneuverable warships
The Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation announced that it will hold a competition in September to develop a project for a new corvette for the needs of the Navy. We are talking about a ship that should replace Project 20380 (the lead ship is "Guarding"). It is assumed that five companies will take part in the competition, three of which are part of the United Shipbuilding Corporation. Other participants are likely to be a foreign company and a certain design bureau, which actually specializes in the design of civilian ships.
The Russian Navy would like to receive a mobile, high-speed, multifunctional ship with a helicopter hangar, with a modular arrangement of weapons and key components. Such a corvette is suitable for a wide range of tasks, including the protection of coastal waters and the convoy of ships, and can also be used as an anti-submarine ship and minesweeper.
Meanwhile, the US has already developed and passed the first tests of a new generation coastal zone ship. The experience of its creation must certainly be taken into account by Russian shipbuilders before a decision is made to develop a new corvette for the Russian Navy.
FATHER LBK
Recently, according to the results of the first long-range cruise of the Independence, the lead ship of the second type, created under the program of littoral combat ships (LBK; Littoral Combat Ship or LCS), the US Navy command requested an additional $ 5, 3 million to "eliminate the identified shortcomings ". According to the command of the American fleet, this will allow the Independence to be brought to full combat readiness faster and to more fully study its combat potential - all this is simply necessary for the transition to the next stage of the program.
The program for the construction of littoral warships is one of the main ones being implemented today by the US Navy. Its goal is the serial construction and commissioning of more than 50 high-speed and highly maneuverable warships, equipped with the most modern strike and defensive weapons systems, as well as radio-technical weapons. The main task of ships of this type is the fight against "non-traditional" for the American nuclear missile oceanic fleet forces and means of the enemy in the coastal waters, and not their own, but the enemy.
The program received a green light under the head of naval operations (in Russian terminology - commander) of the US Navy, Admiral Verne Clarke, who can even be called the "father of the LBC" with certain reservations. According to Verne Clarke, the LBK should occupy the zone of naval operations where the use of ships in the ocean zone is either too risky or too expensive.
It's about the so-called littoral zone. However, the use of the term "littoral warship" or "littoral warship" in Russian naval literature is not entirely consistent with Russian practice and represents a forced step - the so-called tracing translation. The fact is that in domestic science the term "littoral" is understood as "a zone of the seabed, flooded at high tide and drained at low tide" (you can see this at least in the Naval Dictionary) and located, thus, "between water levels at the lowest low tide and the highest high tide. "As you can see, this zone is not so important, from the point of view of naval strategy, significance in order to build a very large series of surface ships of the main class for operations in it.
If we take into account another - mainly foreign - interpretation of the term "littoral zone", then we get a zone of "interaction of the sea and land", consisting of the sea coast, coastline and coastal underwater slope and can reach a width of several meters to several kilometers. If we take into account this description, then in the domestic naval terminology it is possible to find the appropriate term for it - “coastal sea zone” (by the way, one of the meanings of the word “littoral” is just “coastal”). So the American ships of the LCS family (types "Freedom" and "Independence") we should call "warships of the near sea zone". Although - it's all a matter of taste, by and large.
CONCEPT
According to the plan of the Americans, the LBK should become an organic supplement to powerful strike forces, and their main "enemies" are low-noise non-nuclear submarines, surface ships of medium and small displacement, mines and mine complexes placed at mine positions, as well as objects of the enemy's coastal defense system.
As the former Minister of the Navy Gordon England emphasized, "our task is to create a small, fast, maneuverable and fairly inexpensive ship in the DD (X) family of warships", which would have the ability to quickly reconfigure depending on the specific combat mission, up to providing cruise missile launches and actions of special operations forces (SSO).
The main feature of the new ships is their modular construction principle: depending on the assigned mission and theater of operations, various combat complexes and auxiliary systems can be installed on board the LCS. In addition, the design was carried out using the "principle of open architecture", which will allow in the future to quickly and easily introduce new technical means and use the most modern technologies. As a result, the LBK fleet will be able to become a powerful and versatile force, distinguished by high combat potential, maneuverability and secrecy of actions.
During the design process, the developers were faced with the task of creating a ship that most fully meets the following requirements of the US Navy:
- operate in an autonomous mode and interact with the forces and means of the armed forces of the allied states;
- to solve the assigned tasks in conditions of intensive electronic countermeasures of the enemy;
- to ensure the operation (reception and lifting) of manned or unmanned aerial vehicles, remotely controlled surface and underwater vehicles (a separate condition is the possibility of integrating helicopters of the MH-60 / SN-60 family);
- be in the assigned patrolling area for a long period of time - either as part of a detachment of warships, or in autonomous navigation;
- availability of a system for automatic control of combat and other damage;
- automated, with elements of artificial intelligence, air defense / missile defense system of the ship, the main task of which is to combat anti-ship missiles and enemy attack aircraft;
- the maximum possible use of stealth technologies to reduce the ship's signature in various ranges;
- to achieve the effective speed of the economic movement of the ship during patrolling and distant ocean crossings;
- low level of intrinsic noise in various ranges;
- sufficiently shallow draft, allowing to operate safely in shallow coastal waters;
- high combat survivability of the ship and the required degree of crew protection;
- the ability to perform short-term maneuvers at maximum speed - in the process of detachment or, conversely, in pursuit of non-nuclear submarines or high-speed enemy watercraft (for example, torpedo or missile spacecraft);
- the possibility of over-the-horizon detection of targets and their destruction before entering the affected area of their onboard assets;
- connectivity with modern and promising control and communication systems of the Navy and other types of the Armed Forces, including allied states and friendly countries;
- the ability to receive fuel and cargo on the move at sea;
- duplication of all major ship systems and weapon systems;
- acceptable purchase price and after-sales service costs.
The tactical and technical assignment issued by the command of the US Navy to the developers provided for the possibility of installing modules on the ship with systems of various classes and types, which would most fully allow solving one of the following priority tasks:
- antiboat defense of single ships and vessels, detachments of warships and convoys of ships;
- fulfillment of duties of ships of the Coast Guard (border guard);
- reconnaissance and surveillance;
- anti-submarine defense in the coastal areas of the seas and oceans;
- mine action;
- support for the actions of the MTR;
- material and technical support in the process of transferring troops, equipment and cargo.
HARD TENDER
Initially, six companies showed interest in the tender announced by the command of the US Navy for the LCS program - in 2002 they received contracts for $ 500,000 each for pre-draft design. After evaluating the results of their work, the Navy in July 2003 identified three consortia, led by companies, to participate in the tender for the LBC:
- General Dynamics - the main contractor (the main work is entrusted to the Bath Iron Works Division), as well as Austal USA, BAE Systems, Boeing, CAE Marine Systems and Maritime Applied Physics Corp.;
- Lockheed Martin is the main contractor, as well as Bollinger Shipyards, Gibbs & Cox and Marinette Marine;
- Raytheon is the main contractor as well as the John J. Mullen Associates, Atlantic Marine, Goodrich and Umoe Mandal.
The consortia were awarded contracts for preliminary design - the first received a contract for $ 8.9 million, and the other two - for $ 10 million. The following year, they presented their draft designs to the fleet.
The first group developed a mid-class surface ship according to the trimaran scheme, which was selected by General Dynamics after analyzing the results of a study conducted by specialists from the shipbuilding company Bath Iron Works, and on the basis of the trial operation of trimaran previously built by Austal (in particular, the developments on the Australian trimaran were widely used Benchijing Express). Among other things, the ability of the trimaran to develop a full speed of more than 50 knots and the possibility of efficient operation of the ship by a crew of only 25-30 people were proved. One of the significant advantages of the LBK-trimaran is its high seaworthiness, especially stability, buoyancy, propulsion and controllability. On the other hand, this should be emphasized especially, unlike competitors, it was originally planned with a lesser degree of versatility than competitors, and, according to the developers, should solve the following tasks:
- counteraction to pirates and terrorists (today many foreign experts and experts in the fight against piracy see it as the LBC of the "Independence" type as the main potential means of combating the rampant "sea robbers");
- the fight against high-speed spacecraft, especially if they use the method of attack in a "dismembered" formation;
- search and destruction of non-nuclear submarines;
- implementation of mine action;
- the transfer of personnel and cargo in the interests of the MTR and the USMC, including the landing and acceptance of special forces on board.
The group of companies led by Lockheed Martin first unveiled their LBC project in April 2004 during the Aerospace and Naval Exhibition in Washington, DC. Its distinctive feature was the use of a semi-displacement type hull during the design process - in the West it is called the "Sea Blade". A similar hull shape was first used on high-speed civilian ships that won the speed record on transatlantic lines, and today it is used in an adapted form on larger high-speed military and civilian transport ships. In order to increase their chances of winning, the developers from this consortium took into account all the requirements of the US Navy as much as possible - especially in matters of versatility, modularity and interchangeability of individual blocks and modules of weapons and various equipment.
Finally, the last group, led by Raytheon, proposed a project based on the Norwegian Skjold-class small patrol ship. In doing so, the main contractor was responsible for the development of individual systems and the integration of all components on board the ship, while the John Mullen Association acted as the expert group for the design of the ship. It should be especially noted that this modification was designed as a "skeg-type hovercraft" (in Western terminology - "surface-effect-ship", or SES), which was used to design the Russian Project 1239 Bora missile hovercraft. However, the Raytheon project was ultimately rejected by the US Navy on May 27, 2004, although Rear Admiral Charles Hamilton, the head of the LCS program for the US Navy, noted that it has "a very interesting hull shape and a number of other promising solutions."
"SEA WARRIOR"
While the Pentagon, Congress and shipbuilders sorted out preliminary issues, gradually approaching the official start of the program, the admirals tried out the concept of high-speed and maneuverable warships, designed using unconventional schemes and a modular design principle. For this, under the auspices of the US Navy Research Directorate, the design and construction of, so to speak, an "experimental LBK" were carried out - the program received the designation "Littoral Surface Craft - Experimental or LSC (X)", and itself ship - the name "Sea Fighter" (Sea Fighter, translated from English - "Sea Warrior"). Moreover, the ship is often referred to as "X-craft" (X-craft) - by analogy with experimental aircraft created in the United States under the "X-planes" program.
The design was based on the “catamaran type ship with a small waterline area” (in the West, the term SWATH is used - Small Waterplane Area Twin Hull), which ensures high seaworthiness - in near and far sea areas, in simple and stormy conditions. At the same time, one of the main conditions that the developers had to provide was the modular principle of building the ship - depending on the assigned combat missions and the theater of military operations, the ship had to ensure the integration of certain specialized "replaceable combat modules". In addition, Sea Fighter was obliged to ensure the reception / release of helicopters and UAVs, as well as small boats, including uninhabited ones.
The design of the ship was carried out by the British company BMT Nigel Gee Ltd., and its construction was carried out at the Nichols Bros. Boat Builders (Freeland, Washington). The order for it was placed on February 15, 2003, the keel was laid on June 5, 2003, it was launched on February 5, 2005, and on May 31 of the same year it was accepted into the US Navy. The Sea Fighter's displacement is 950 tons, the maximum length is 79.9 m, the waterline length is 73.0 m, the maximum width is 21.9 m, and the draft is only 3.5 m. The ship is equipped with a combined diesel-gas turbine power plant as part of two diesel MTU 595 and two gas turbine LM2500 units: diesel engines are used at cruising speed, and turbines - for high travel speeds. As propellers, two rotary water-jet installations are used, located one by one in two catamaran hulls. The successful combination of the power plant and the propellers allows the ship to reach speeds of up to 50 knots. Cruising range - 4400 miles (8100 km), crew - 26 people. The ship is equipped with two runways, which ensure the reception and release of helicopters and UAVs at speeds up to full speed, at the disposal of the crew - a stern device that allows launching and taking on board boats or underwater sabotage or mine action devices up to 11 m long.
According to the US Navy command, the Sea Fighter was supposed to allow the Navy to solve two main tasks: to study the potential capabilities of ships of this scheme, and also to work out the modular principle of forming the ship's onboard weapons. In the latter case, it was possible to install various container-shaped modules in the ship's hull, allowing, depending on the type of module, to solve the tasks of anti-submarine warfare, anti-aircraft missile defense, combat against enemy surface ships, participate in amphibious operations and support the actions of the SSO, as well as solve tasks for the transfer of troops and military cargo by sea and launch sea-based cruise missiles. A distinctive feature of the Sea Fighter is the presence of a through cargo deck - like Ro-Ro vessels.
The very first tests brought very encouraging results, the data obtained were actively used by developers in the framework of the LBC program of both types. It is worth noting, however, that recently the command of the US Navy and the US Coast Guard has been more and more actively exploring the possibility of the preferential use of Sea Fighter ships not as warships of the fleet, but to ensure security and law and order in their internal waters, as well as for protecting national interests in the exclusive economic zone of the United States. If it is necessary to build up the forces and means of the fleet far from their own coast, ships of this type, due to their high speed and cruising range, can be quickly transferred to the designated area.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LBC PROGRAM
In February 2004, the Joint Supervisory Board for Compliance with the Design Requirements for Weapons and Military Equipment finally approved the document submitted by the US Navy command, which justified the need for the purchase of LBC, and on May 27, the US Navy announced that two groups of companies led by General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin received contracts worth 78.8 million and 46.5 million dollars, respectively, for the completion of design work, after which they will begin the construction of experimental ships (prototypes) of the zero series (Flight 0): Lockheed Martin - LCS 1 and LCS 3, and General Dynamics - LCS 2 and LCS 4. Moreover, it was announced that together with the costs of building LBC prototypes, the cost of contracts could increase to 536 million and 423 million dollars, respectively. This is the amount that the command of the Navy proposed to lay in the budgets of the 2005-2007 financial years (about 4 billion dollars were planned for the construction of nine LBC for the period up to 2009 inclusive). Lockheed Martin pledged to hand over the first ship, LCS 1, in 2007, and General Dynamics its LCS 2 in 2008. After the construction of the first 15 LBKs and the corresponding tests, the US Navy command had to choose the type of LBK for subsequent serial construction - the contract for the remaining 40 LBKs was supposed to be issued to one company. Moreover, the possibility of adaptation of individual, well-proven in the course of trial operation, structural or other elements from the "loser" type to the "winner" was not excluded.
Finally, on June 2, 2005, the lead LBK of the first type - LCS 1 Freedom - was laid down at the Marinette Marine shipyard in Marinette, Wisconsin, and on September 23, 2006 it was launched with fanfare (transferred to the Navy on November 8, 2008) … The consortium led by General Dynamics began construction of its Independence trimaran on January 19, 2006 - for this purpose the Austal USA Shipyards in Mobile, Alabama was selected (on April 30, 2008, it was launched, accepted into the fleet January 16, 2010).
DISAPPOINTMENT
The good-natured mood, however, soon came to an end. The reason, as is the case with many other Pentagon programs, was the uncontrolled rise in prices. As a result, on January 12, 2007, US Navy Secretary Donald Winter even ordered to suspend for a period of 90 days all work on the construction of the second Freedom-class ship - its cost from the estimated $ 220 million increased to $ 331-410 million. 86%, not to mention the fact that at the very beginning of the program, the cost per unit was generally estimated at $ 90 million, and the lead ship was supposed to be transferred to the fleet in 2007 - both remained only on paper.
The result was the cancellation on April 12, 2007 of the contract for LCS 3, and on November 1, for LCS 4. They were renewed only in March (on LCS 3 Fort Worth) and May 2009 (on LCS 4 Coronado), and 6 On April 2009, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced the financing of three LBKs in 2010 and the intention to acquire a total of 55 ships. It should also be noted that during the tests of both lead ships, a lot of shortcomings and serious technical omissions were revealed. So, in the process of acceptance tests of Freedom, the commission recorded 2,600 technical deficiencies, of which 21 were recognized as serious and subject to immediate elimination - before the ship was handed over to the fleet, only nine of these 21 were eliminated. Nevertheless, on February 15, 2010, Freedom - two years ahead of schedule - went on his first independent long voyage and even took part in the first combat operation, preventing an attempt to transport a large consignment of drugs in the Colombian coastal area.
However, after the announcement of the military budget for the 2010 fiscal year, it became clear that the total purchase cost of the lead ships of the two types of LBK - "Freedom" and "Independence" - was equal to 637 million and 704 million dollars, respectively! And on March 4, 2010, a sensation came from the side of the performers - the management of Austal USA, engaged in the construction of the Independence-class LBC of the American division of the Australian company, announced its withdrawal from the agreement with the Bath Iron Works shipyard and its intention to independently compete for subsequent contracts under the LBC program.
