NickC wrote:now 6,000+t ship whereas LCS had a naval achitectual displacement limit of 3,550t
This is a good (fun) story as in the original Streetfighter Conceptual USN study the Swedish Visby was considered as one of the best alternatives for a forward-based littoral ship. Though the thinking then switched to the rqrmnt for not only ocean-crossing capable, but for a fast-intercept anywhere in the ocean in most weathers. Before that change stepped in, I believe Visby+ was in the frame (and Visby++ was the one that lost out to the Formidables in Singapore)
"The Visby Plus has been programmed to reduce production costs, even as it will have full stealth technology. Its design takes a modular approach to simplify customization, including weight and volume reserved for future modifications.
The initial Visby Plus carbon-fibre cored composite model is
88 meters LOA, with 1 500 tonnes displacement. Its prime functions will be anti-submarine warfare, surface attack, air defence, training, and patrol. According to preliminary calculations, when compared to a conventional propeller-driven steel vessel, with an aluminium superstructure, funnel exhausts, and non-stealth weapons and sensors, the new design will have the following considerable gains:
A lower profile for a reduced visual signature
A lighter, more shock-resistant structure
A lower displacement and draft, requiring less engine power
Reduced fuel consumption, hull maintenance, and operating costs
Lower hydro-acoustic, magnetic, infrared, and radar signatures.
The new corvette will have
berths for 71 crew, a helipad and hangar, two universal cranes and two ship’s boats. The propulsion will be four diesel engines of about 7 400 kW driving four waterjets. The engine room will be set aft, to leave appreciable volume amidships for operations."
Going back to the quote, every step seems to double the displacement. Our "to be forward based" ship is also quite big
- is it for future roles (flexibility of config/ refit)?
- endurance as an OPV+
- or, close to the above point, is it that it has to be "globally deployable" as well as being - some of them at any given time - forward based... and is that actually a bad compromise?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)