# البحرية السعودية ..... تخطط لشراء مدمرات #

[أبو جمان]

رد: # البحرية السعودية ..... تخطط لشراء مدمرات #

LCS-3

[ضيف]

رد: # البحرية السعودية ..... تخطط لشراء مدمرات #

[أبو جمان]

رد: # البحرية السعودية ..... تخطط لشراء مدمرات #

LCS-3 الأكبر

[alfaroq]

رد: # البحرية السعودية ..... تخطط لشراء مدمرات #

برنامج سفن القتال الساحلي الأمريكي
يواجه مشاكل عديدة واستمرار البرنامج من عدمه اصبح محل شك
هذا تحليل نشر هذا الأسبوع يتناول هذا الموضوع

http://www.defensenews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2014303020016

After 32 Ships, Future of LCS Program Unclear


WASHINGTON — Hardly anything is clear in Washington about
what’s happening with the US Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program. Details
are embryonic, discussions are just beginning, the whys and wherefores still
unclear, memos and specific directions yet to be issued, and sensitivities still
raw.

A memo issued Feb. 24 by Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to the Navy’s
leadership clarified his press conference remarks that day directing that “no
new contract negotiations beyond 32 ships will go forward.” Hagel’s
artfully-written dictum, however, has enough holes in every sentence to drive a
battleship through, allowing for plausible deniability about a host of
issues.

Navy officials, pressed for facts about a new “small surface combatant,” are
offering virtually no details. Many admit they are waiting for further
direction.

Out of the churn, however, several things are becoming clearer:

■- LCS is not being cancelled, despite the tenor and tone of Hagel’s press
conference, numerous statements by acting deputy defense secretary Christine
Fox, and dozens of media reports;

- The LCS program could continue beyond 32 ships, either with existing
designs or with modified versions of one or both designs;

- The Navy will continue to build some sort of small surface combatant,
whether or not it’s an LCS;

- There is no specific crisis driving these developments, other than Fox’s
insistence on instigating action before she’s replaced in the permanent job by
former Navy undersecretary Robert Work, a long-time champion of the LCS.

Hagel and Fox — who began the re-examination of the LCS program with a Jan. 6
classified memo to the services directing action on a number of Pentagon
programs — are, however, giving the Navy an opportunity to re-evaluate the LCS
program and fleet requirements roughly midway through the planned 52-ship buy.
Responding to multiple critics of the LCS concept, Hagel directed the Navy to
give him “alternative proposals to procure a capable and lethal small surface
combatant, generally consistent with the capabilities of a frigate.”

Options for the ship, Hagel said, “should include a completely new design,
existing ship designs (including the LCS), and a modified LCS.”

Hagel wants proposals relatively soon, “in time to inform 2016 budget
deliberations.” That points to sometime in the fall, probably not beyond
November at the latest, for options to be presented.

Hagel’s remarks sent a number of planning and design teams into action,
trying to divine what the Navy and the Pentagon want and come up with viable
options — no small task, given there is no official set of requirements for a
new ship. The new effort doesn’t yet have a formal name, although some are
calling it a “frigate study” or a “new small surface combatant study.”

It appears, however, that several assumptions might be made about the new
ship:

- It will have more installed weapons and sensors and less modularity than
current LCS designs;

- It may be bigger, to support better sea keeping and carry more fuel for
greater at-sea time;

- Unit cost should be something close to the current ships, plus mission
modules. That could come out to perhaps $530 million to $650 million — perhaps
up to $750 million for more capability. Anything beyond that would likely be
rejected. Lead ships will cost more.

The Navy is not starting completely from scratch. Vice Adm. Tom Copeman,
commander of naval surface forces, recommended in a November 2012 classified
memo that the Navy begin development of a new combatant between the capability
of an LCS and the much-larger DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyer. A small
surface combatant study group has been working within the staff of CNO Adm.
Jonathan Greenert to develop concepts of what might be needed.

The group, led by director of surface warfare Rear Adm. Tom Rowden, could
lead the new effort, with strong input from Copeman and other commands.

While nothing has yet publicly been spelled out, there have been growing
calls within the Navy for a ship able to handle escort duties, a role for which
the LCS is ill-suited. Such a ship would need an area air-defense missile system
- likely using the Standard missile that arms all US cruisers and destroyers —
and an effective anti-submarine warfare system, including sonars. The new ship
would also need more range than the littoral ships — which need refueling every
three or four days — to enable it to operate for extended periods at sea.

Hagel made no mention of providing funding to conduct a surface combatant
study, and has offered no commitment of money to develop a new ship. It is not
clear if the Navy would develop the new design or, as is more likely, depend on
industry to come up with ideas.

There is also no word on whether this would result in a design competition,
or what a specific time period would be needed to develop, approve, create
detail designs, and procure the new ships.

The development effort will certainly require millions of dollars, whether or
not it’s based on existing designs. Creating a new design would be far more
expensive and time-consuming, and while Hagel included consideration of such a
ship in his direction, there is no indication of what funding level he would
provide.

Each of the LCS program teams, however, have long been at work coming up with
variations of their designs, all with an eye on foreign sales. While no overseas
deals have been concluded, ironically the US Navy now is perhaps the most
interested to see what Lockheed Martin and Austal USA can offer.

“We’re definitely going to take a look at those,” Greenert said Feb. 25 about
the LCS export designs.

Some years ago, both teams prepared design variants fitted with lightweight
versions of Aegis, the Lockheed-produced combat system fitted on all US cruisers
and destroyers and on a growing number of allied ships. The Aegis LCSs, created
with Saudi customers in mind, largely dispensed with the modular concept that
distinguishes US LCSs, replaced by built-in missiles, sensors and guns.

It is highly doubtful that the US Navy would be interested in an LCS fitted
with Aegis, since it already operates more than 80 larger Aegis warships, and
the system could drive the cost over $1 billion per unit.

Minus the Aegis system, however, the export designs could prove quite
attractive. An added bonus would be that procuring even heavily-modified LCSs
would make use of the growing support network being created for the ships.

“I’m learning as I look at all of our platforms that sustainment is the big
cost,” Greenert said. “And we are building quite an infrastructure for the
32.”

Lockheed has done the most work on its export designs, under the
“International LCS” and “Surface Combat Ship” banners. Displays featuring a
family of Lockheed LCS-based designs are regular features of defense shows
around the world.

Austal USA worked up its “Multi-mission combatant” LCS variant but had slowed
its marketing campaign. Design work, however, may be revived after the Hagel and
Fox memos.

Other US designs could form the basis of a LCS follow-on. Some groups have
proposed new ships built to the Oliver Hazard Perry design, a 1970s effort that
produced the last US frigate class, now being retired. A repeat Perry, the
Congressional Budget Office has said, would cost about $700 million, although
improvements would likely run that up to $800 million. Lead ships could top $1.2
billion.

Other groups have suggested modifying the Coast Guard’s National Security
Cutter, but the Navy has shown no enthusiasm for that approach.

While the Navy may consider a multiplicity of designs, it is more likely the
new ships will be variants of the current LCSs.

“Building off existing designs solves a lot of political problems if they can
do that,” commented one naval analyst.

Also remaining to be seen will be the Navy’s acquisition strategy for buying
the new ships. The final four ships of the current block buy contracts – up to
LCS 24 - were to be requested in the 2015 budget, but a new scheme is likely to
appear, along with a plan to purchase the additional eight ships.

It is also not clear whether any decisions have been made about continuing
with both designs for the additional eight ships, and it would seem most likely
that only one design will be chosen for the follow-on ships. That could also
produce an intense competition for the new ship’s combat system, likely to be
derived from the Lockheed Martin COMBATSS-21 system on Freedom-class ships, or
the General Dynamics system installed in the Austal USA Independence-class.

“We owe the Secretary of Defense our best assessment on what the LCS can and
can’t do in accordance with the attributes in the design and in the requirements
in DOD testing to bring it into the fleet,” Greenert said.

“We have thirty-two ships and they have got to be delivered right and they
have got to do the best they can. And so that is where I am headed.”

[ضيف]

رد: # البحرية السعودية ..... تخطط لشراء مدمرات #

في جناح بوينغ بمهرجان الجنادرية
عرضوا نموذج لطائرة الدورية البحرية P-8A وعليها اسم وشعار (القوات البحرية الملكية السعودية)













وايضاً عرضوا نموذج لطائرة الانذار المبكر 737 AEW&C عليها اسم وشعار (القوات الجوية الملكية السعودية)

[ضيف]

رد: # البحرية السعودية ....حري. تخطط لشراء مدمرات #

رب ضارة نافعه ، بما أن المدمرات تحمل الايجبس ولها قدرات أعلى فلما الاتجاه للسفن الساحليه ؟!

[Abu DaLaL]

رد: # البحرية السعودية ..... تخطط لشراء مدمرات #

شرط السعودية يكون نظام ايجيس على السفينة وبحسب تصريحات الشركة المصنعة لـ lcs2 تقول ان البحرية السعودية معجبة في lcs2 وليس lcs1 للعلم (هناك نوعين من السفينة lcs وكل نوع تصنعة شركة) بس فيه مشكلة واجهتهم هي ان نظام الايجيس صعب يركب على السفينة lcs2 وسهل يركب على السفينة lcs1 , وتوجد الان منافسة بين الشركتين الشركة الي تصنع lcs2 تحاول تجد حل لنظام الايجيس , والشركة الي تصنع lcs1 تقدم عروض لاقناع السعودية في lcs1 .

lcs1




lcs2

lcs-1 من شركة Lockheed Martin
lcs-2 من شركة General Dynamics

البحرية السعودية تريد lcs-1 ببعض المواصفات

1- رادار SPY-1F
2- MK 41 لتحميل نظام Aegis


ويجب ان تفرق بين الايجبس و lcs-2


lcs-2 - General Dynamics

aegis system - Lockheed Martin

[Abu DaLaL]

رد: # البحرية السعودية ....حري. تخطط لشراء مدمرات #

رب ضارة نافعه ، بما أن المدمرات تحمل الايجبس ولها قدرات أعلى فلما الاتجاه للسفن الساحليه ؟!

تفضل هاذي lcs-3 تحمل نظام الايجبس



والسفن الساحلية لديها سرعة عالية في المياة الضاحلة

[ضيف]

رد: # البحرية السعودية ..... تخطط لشراء مدمرات #

هل توجد عيوب في البدن ؟

[Alrougi]

رد: # البحرية السعودية ....حري. تخطط لشراء مدمرات #

تفضل هاذي lcs-3 تحمل نظام الايجبس



والسفن الساحلية لديها سرعة عالية في المياة الضاحلة

هذة السرعه ستتضأل بلاشك عندما يتم تركيب تلك الانظمة ,,
ولاكن تعتبر سرعتها افضل بكثير من باقي القطع الاخرى

[Abu DaLaL]

رد: # البحرية السعودية ....حري. تخطط لشراء مدمرات #

هذة السرعه ستتضأل بلاشك عندما يتم تركيب تلك الانظمة ,,
ولاكن تعتبر سرعتها افضل بكثير من باقي القطع الاخرى

ستقل السرعة نسبيآ ولكن ستبقى اسرع من المدمرة

[Abu DaLaL]

رد: # البحرية السعودية ..... تخطط لشراء مدمرات #

في جناح بوينغ بمهرجان الجنادرية
عرضوا نموذج لطائرة الدورية البحرية P-8A وعليها اسم وشعار (القوات البحرية الملكية السعودية)

هل تحمل الجدام ؟؟؟

[F15SA]

رد: # البحرية السعودية ..... تخطط لشراء مدمرات #

الا تتوقعن ان نشتري مدمرات+سفن قتال ساحليlcs

[F15SA]

رد: # البحرية السعودية ..... تخطط لشراء مدمرات #

اخ HAWk 25 هل سألت عن سبب عرضه بشعار القوات الجويه

[ضيف]

رد: # البحرية السعودية ..... تخطط لشراء مدمرات #

هل تحمل الجدام ؟؟؟

بصراحة لا اعلم ,, اذا كان قصدك عن نموذج الجيدام خلف الطائرة فكانت عبارة عن عرض لجميع منتجات بوينغ ولا اعرف اذا الطائرة اصلاً تحمل الجيدام ولا لأ