U.S. Navy "Sea Fighter" FSF-1

[Dr Mordrid]

"This ship is 100 times more powerful than a battleship when loaded with cruise missiles with 1/100th of the crew members. This is the wave of the future."

Length: 262 feet (79.86 meters)
Width: 72 feet (22 meters)
Weight: 950 tons
Engines: 2 GE LM2500 gas turbine engines; 2 MTU 16V 595 TE90 propulsion diesel engines; 4 Rolls-Royce Kamewa 125SII waterjets
Operating crew: 26
Top speed: 50 knots (57.5 mph, 92.6 kph)
Cost of experimental ship: $80 million

The U.S. Navy officially took possession of the first of a new class of ships; a Littoral Surface Craft (LSC) called “Sea Fighter” (FSF-1). This ship was originally intended as an experimental ship, to test out a number of new technologies. But the sea trials were so successful, that pressure is building to put this class into mass production.

What’s so hot about the LSC? It’s a 1,600 ton (full load) catamaran that is 262 feet long, 72 feet wide and can operate in as little as 12 feet of water. Top speed is about 90 kilometers an hour, which is a unique capability for U.S. navy ships and a major advantage in coastal operations. Even in rough seas, the ship can do about 70 kilometers an hour. This is partly the result of using a T shaped hydrofoil.

The Sea Fighter has a crew of only 26, and room below and on the deck for twelve "mission modules". Mission modules can hold weapons, electronics or robotic air, surface or undersea vehicles for jobs like mine clearing, anti-submarine warfare, destroying surface ships or delivering commandoes. The deck is broad enough to handle two helicopters. There is a dock in the rear for launching boats.

And with that profile it's very likely to be the first truely "Stealth" Navy vessel....

Dr. Mordrid

[Nowhere]

I wonder what they mean by "rought seas". Ergo: I wonder if US Navy will at last have a ship that during heavy storm (on NATO manoeuvres) will cope with it best/will be the fastest of both fleets, even though normally it isn't - French didn't want to give desired engines so the ship ended up with some underpowered ones. Yep, I have one paricular ship in mind . Sorry, couldn't resist . Seriously, it's only that way because it was in preproduction stage for 20 years, with sligthly new hull revisions every week for first 10...

[Gurm]

I read the title and said "they built the SDF-1?"

Ahh... Macross...

[Nowhere]

Can't...resist...posting.

I also wonder how stealthier it will be from two Los Angeles class subs, that were sunk in Norway Sea by our puny little Kilo (I wonder if as factual as the event itself is the rumour about one of the dead captains saying something about compromitation... )


But...those are the only two succeses of our Navy I can think of

[DGhost]

the Navy just wants more money... kinda like their wanting to start up an Infantry...

[Dr Mordrid]

This is a littoral class ship, meaning for use in "brown water" (shallow) locations, and not a ship meant for deep water action. The recent actions have shown that the US Navy is lacking in the capability to perform littoral missions, so here comes Sea Fighter to fill the gap.

As such it's geared to off shore missions such as bombardment (cruise and other missiles), launching covert missions by the SEALS and launching robotic attack craft; UCAV's, robotic submarines and other such goodies.

Added bonus: it's got the firepower of a battleship in a small package that costs about 5% of what an Aegis crusier costs.

ALSO:

I also wonder how stealthier it will be from two Los Angeles class subs, that were sunk in Norway Sea by our puny little Kilo (I wonder if as factual as the event itself is the rumour about one of the dead captains saying something about compromitation... )

But...those are the only two succeses of our Navy I can think of

Hmmmmm....indeed.

The only two US nuclear subs ever sunk were the Thresher and the Scorpion, both back in the 1960's. The Thresher was lost 350 miles east of Cape Cod and the Scorpioin was lost southwest of the Azores, both in deep water.

Neither were Los Angeles class. The Thresher was the lead boat of the Thresher class (later renamed the Permit class for Threshers sucessor) and the Scorpion was a Skipjack class. Neither was anywhere near the Norway Sea.

Dr. Mordrid

[Nowhere]

Oh c'mon, you can't be serious?
"one of the dead captains saying something" isn't obvious enough in EN or something? Those were manoeuvres


btw, interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_212_submarine

Could we/them (not sure what's more politically correct ) be on top of predator submarine design again?

[GT98]

The Kilo class is a very good deisel sub..very quite

The link you posted is also interesting...the Norwegans have different system where they can run the deisels underwater.

http://www.thyssen-nordseewerke.de/e/prod/fe_aip_ccd.html

[Nowhere]

I almost said that neue U-boot is more interesting because fuel cells have much less moving parts than turbines or diesels, so potentially more quiet (or at least easier to make that way), but...from the graphs on the site it looks like this diesel is OK...I guess there's something like "quiet enough"?

[GT98]

Nowhere,

Diesel-electric subs normally run on battery power underwater. I'm assuming the AIP systems that the Norwegeins and Germans are working on is a system that lets them recharge the batteries while running the desiel engines underwater without a snorkel. Its great for a short range sub, but its still hard to beat a nuclear boat in the open ocean long range protrols or sustaned high speeds, which are normally a no no anyways when it comes to a sub.
.

[Nowhere]

Yeah...and when they turn on diesels thay become louder, that's my point/question (only difference with the Norwegian one that it can operate diesels while submerged...). But think about das neue U-boot .
Weeks without need to turn on diesels...without the need for the turbines or reactor cooling systems...without producing heat...

[SpiralDragon]

arg.... nice toy... but personaly i think the US should be spending more money on new alternatives to the space shutel.... like they need to be replaced sometime soon....

[Dr Mordrid]

It's already in an accelerated budgetary loop and called the CEV: Crew Exploration Vehicle.

NASA as upped the schedule and will likely select between the Lockheed and Boeing designs in 2006 (accelerated from the original 2008 date).

Lockheeds is a ifting body while Boeing is a modular large capsule design more suited to adaptation for lunar and planetary missions. My bet is on Boeing because of its modularity and safety features (escape tower etc.).

Part of the plan involves using parts of the existing shuttle launch hardware to create a new heavy lift launcher. One of these designs is nearly as large as the Saturn V.

Dr. Mordrid