超级军网美军报告：洛克希德·马丁公司滨海战斗舰未通过测试
来源：百度文库 编辑：超级军网 时间：2024/05/02 16:25:39
更新日期:2010/01/21 13:36
（路透华盛顿20日电）五角大楼首席武器测试官员今天公布年度报告指出，洛克希德马丁公司（Lockheed Martin）生产的第一艘近岸战斗舰（LCS），未能在海军初步测试中符合稳定度标准，作战系统也出现问题。
五角大楼运作测试评估部门主管所撰写的报告指出，除了这艘单体钢铁制近岸战斗舰，通用动力公司（General Dynamics）的铝制三体战舰也无法如预期“在敌对战斗情况中存活”。
海军正准备公布一项价值数百亿美元的竞赛最后内容，以从洛克希德马丁与通用动力中选出一家，向他们购买超过50艘战舰。
今天公布的报告可能引发国会议员忧心，这项军购计画预算屡屡超支后，他们已设定每艘舰艇造价不得超过4.8亿美元的上限。
海军2008年底首次纳编洛克希德马丁的战舰，预料今年下水启用；通用动力战舰在上周纳编。
报告指出，对TRS-3D雷达的空中目标追踪能力初步测试显示，洛克希德马丁公司战舰的作战系统能力不足，而雷达电力系统屡次失效，也让重新测试计画告吹。
报告说，失效的原因尚不得而知。这艘战舰在全副武装后，可能面临稳定度问题，即“比预料还快下沉”。
-------------------------------------------------
近岸战斗舰测试未过 洛克希德：问题已解决
更新日期:2010/01/21 21:15
（路 透华盛顿20日电）针对五角大楼首席武器测试官员今天公布的年度报告指出，洛克希德马丁公司（Lockheed Martin）第一艘近岸战斗舰（LCS）未能符合海军初步测试的稳定度标准，通用动力公司（GeneralDynamics）的铝制三体战舰也未能在战 斗状况中存活，两家公司分别作出回应。
洛克希德马丁公司发言人艾伦（Jen Allen）表示，这艘战舰符合海军要求，拥有冲击强化推进系统，能够挺过损伤破坏，让船舰安全回港。
她说，任何新款首批战舰多少都有一些问题，但稳定度问题已经解决，洛克希德马丁公司有信心第一艘“自由号”（Freedom）LCS战舰已经没有这项问题。
五角大厦作战测试评估部门主管所撰写的报告指出，除了洛克希德马丁单体钢铁制近岸战斗舰，通用动力公司的铝制三体战舰也无法如预期，能“在敌对战斗情况中存活”。
报告也指出，通用动力这艘战舰“独立号”（Independence）因据报汽油涡轮轴封有外泄现象，加上更多的测试显示，主要柴油推进引擎缺陷不只一处，导致试航延误。
通用动力拒绝回应，表示尚未看到此份报告。更新日期:2010/01/21 13:36
（路透华盛顿20日电）五角大楼首席武器测试官员今天公布年度报告指出，洛克希德马丁公司（Lockheed Martin）生产的第一艘近岸战斗舰（LCS），未能在海军初步测试中符合稳定度标准，作战系统也出现问题。
五角大楼运作测试评估部门主管所撰写的报告指出，除了这艘单体钢铁制近岸战斗舰，通用动力公司（General Dynamics）的铝制三体战舰也无法如预期“在敌对战斗情况中存活”。
海军正准备公布一项价值数百亿美元的竞赛最后内容，以从洛克希德马丁与通用动力中选出一家，向他们购买超过50艘战舰。
今天公布的报告可能引发国会议员忧心，这项军购计画预算屡屡超支后，他们已设定每艘舰艇造价不得超过4.8亿美元的上限。
海军2008年底首次纳编洛克希德马丁的战舰，预料今年下水启用；通用动力战舰在上周纳编。
报告指出，对TRS-3D雷达的空中目标追踪能力初步测试显示，洛克希德马丁公司战舰的作战系统能力不足，而雷达电力系统屡次失效，也让重新测试计画告吹。
报告说，失效的原因尚不得而知。这艘战舰在全副武装后，可能面临稳定度问题，即“比预料还快下沉”。
-------------------------------------------------
近岸战斗舰测试未过 洛克希德：问题已解决
更新日期:2010/01/21 21:15
（路 透华盛顿20日电）针对五角大楼首席武器测试官员今天公布的年度报告指出，洛克希德马丁公司（Lockheed Martin）第一艘近岸战斗舰（LCS）未能符合海军初步测试的稳定度标准，通用动力公司（GeneralDynamics）的铝制三体战舰也未能在战 斗状况中存活，两家公司分别作出回应。
洛克希德马丁公司发言人艾伦（Jen Allen）表示，这艘战舰符合海军要求，拥有冲击强化推进系统，能够挺过损伤破坏，让船舰安全回港。
她说，任何新款首批战舰多少都有一些问题，但稳定度问题已经解决，洛克希德马丁公司有信心第一艘“自由号”（Freedom）LCS战舰已经没有这项问题。
五角大厦作战测试评估部门主管所撰写的报告指出，除了洛克希德马丁单体钢铁制近岸战斗舰，通用动力公司的铝制三体战舰也无法如预期，能“在敌对战斗情况中存活”。
报告也指出，通用动力这艘战舰“独立号”（Independence）因据报汽油涡轮轴封有外泄现象，加上更多的测试显示，主要柴油推进引擎缺陷不只一处，导致试航延误。
通用动力拒绝回应，表示尚未看到此份报告。
（路透华盛顿20日电）五角大楼首席武器测试官员今天公布年度报告指出，洛克希德马丁公司（Lockheed Martin）生产的第一艘近岸战斗舰（LCS），未能在海军初步测试中符合稳定度标准，作战系统也出现问题。
五角大楼运作测试评估部门主管所撰写的报告指出，除了这艘单体钢铁制近岸战斗舰，通用动力公司（General Dynamics）的铝制三体战舰也无法如预期“在敌对战斗情况中存活”。
海军正准备公布一项价值数百亿美元的竞赛最后内容，以从洛克希德马丁与通用动力中选出一家，向他们购买超过50艘战舰。
今天公布的报告可能引发国会议员忧心，这项军购计画预算屡屡超支后，他们已设定每艘舰艇造价不得超过4.8亿美元的上限。
海军2008年底首次纳编洛克希德马丁的战舰，预料今年下水启用；通用动力战舰在上周纳编。
报告指出，对TRS-3D雷达的空中目标追踪能力初步测试显示，洛克希德马丁公司战舰的作战系统能力不足，而雷达电力系统屡次失效，也让重新测试计画告吹。
报告说，失效的原因尚不得而知。这艘战舰在全副武装后，可能面临稳定度问题，即“比预料还快下沉”。
-------------------------------------------------
近岸战斗舰测试未过 洛克希德：问题已解决
更新日期:2010/01/21 21:15
（路 透华盛顿20日电）针对五角大楼首席武器测试官员今天公布的年度报告指出，洛克希德马丁公司（Lockheed Martin）第一艘近岸战斗舰（LCS）未能符合海军初步测试的稳定度标准，通用动力公司（GeneralDynamics）的铝制三体战舰也未能在战 斗状况中存活，两家公司分别作出回应。
洛克希德马丁公司发言人艾伦（Jen Allen）表示，这艘战舰符合海军要求，拥有冲击强化推进系统，能够挺过损伤破坏，让船舰安全回港。
她说，任何新款首批战舰多少都有一些问题，但稳定度问题已经解决，洛克希德马丁公司有信心第一艘“自由号”（Freedom）LCS战舰已经没有这项问题。
五角大厦作战测试评估部门主管所撰写的报告指出，除了洛克希德马丁单体钢铁制近岸战斗舰，通用动力公司的铝制三体战舰也无法如预期，能“在敌对战斗情况中存活”。
报告也指出，通用动力这艘战舰“独立号”（Independence）因据报汽油涡轮轴封有外泄现象，加上更多的测试显示，主要柴油推进引擎缺陷不只一处，导致试航延误。
通用动力拒绝回应，表示尚未看到此份报告。更新日期:2010/01/21 13:36
（路透华盛顿20日电）五角大楼首席武器测试官员今天公布年度报告指出，洛克希德马丁公司（Lockheed Martin）生产的第一艘近岸战斗舰（LCS），未能在海军初步测试中符合稳定度标准，作战系统也出现问题。
五角大楼运作测试评估部门主管所撰写的报告指出，除了这艘单体钢铁制近岸战斗舰，通用动力公司（General Dynamics）的铝制三体战舰也无法如预期“在敌对战斗情况中存活”。
海军正准备公布一项价值数百亿美元的竞赛最后内容，以从洛克希德马丁与通用动力中选出一家，向他们购买超过50艘战舰。
今天公布的报告可能引发国会议员忧心，这项军购计画预算屡屡超支后，他们已设定每艘舰艇造价不得超过4.8亿美元的上限。
海军2008年底首次纳编洛克希德马丁的战舰，预料今年下水启用；通用动力战舰在上周纳编。
报告指出，对TRS-3D雷达的空中目标追踪能力初步测试显示，洛克希德马丁公司战舰的作战系统能力不足，而雷达电力系统屡次失效，也让重新测试计画告吹。
报告说，失效的原因尚不得而知。这艘战舰在全副武装后，可能面临稳定度问题，即“比预料还快下沉”。
-------------------------------------------------
近岸战斗舰测试未过 洛克希德：问题已解决
更新日期:2010/01/21 21:15
（路 透华盛顿20日电）针对五角大楼首席武器测试官员今天公布的年度报告指出，洛克希德马丁公司（Lockheed Martin）第一艘近岸战斗舰（LCS）未能符合海军初步测试的稳定度标准，通用动力公司（GeneralDynamics）的铝制三体战舰也未能在战 斗状况中存活，两家公司分别作出回应。
洛克希德马丁公司发言人艾伦（Jen Allen）表示，这艘战舰符合海军要求，拥有冲击强化推进系统，能够挺过损伤破坏，让船舰安全回港。
她说，任何新款首批战舰多少都有一些问题，但稳定度问题已经解决，洛克希德马丁公司有信心第一艘“自由号”（Freedom）LCS战舰已经没有这项问题。
五角大厦作战测试评估部门主管所撰写的报告指出，除了洛克希德马丁单体钢铁制近岸战斗舰，通用动力公司的铝制三体战舰也无法如预期，能“在敌对战斗情况中存活”。
报告也指出，通用动力这艘战舰“独立号”（Independence）因据报汽油涡轮轴封有外泄现象，加上更多的测试显示，主要柴油推进引擎缺陷不只一处，导致试航延误。
通用动力拒绝回应，表示尚未看到此份报告。
有趣的新闻。
技术是很先进，也许美国海军要求太高。
技术是很先进，也许美国海军要求太高。
怕就是像DDG-1000那樣造幾艘驗證個概念，發現技術太超前，費用太貴，最後擱淺。
每艘舰艇造价不得超过4.8亿美元的上限——現有的幾艘成本根本控制不到這一水平，國會的大佬們開恩，也不能容忍低級別的“小艦”要10億美元1艘吧。
怕就是像DDG-1000那樣造幾艘驗證個概念，發現技術太超前，費用太貴，最後擱淺。
每艘舰艇造价不得超过4.8亿美元的上限——現有的幾艘成本根本控制不到這一水平，國會的大佬們開恩，也不能容忍低級別的“小艦”要10億美元1艘吧。
就我所知，LCS-1航速目前应该是不合格。
LCS-1原始设计要用铝制造上层，中途改成钢，所以超重；超重後果就是增加推进器的工作负荷，改变吃水，让推进器在不如原始预期的工况工作。水喷推进对大船的问题就是损耗，何况LCS-1超重，所以测试时就发现损耗问题，让美国海军被迫暂时将航速限制在30节。不清楚这个问题解决没，还是请美军勤换推进器零件。
LCS-2是新船型，铝制上层，速度表现应该优於LCS-1。但它的成本失控比LCS-1还厉害。LCS-1包含成军费用一共约6.5亿美元，LCS-2则是不包括成军那一段就已经7.4亿。LCS-2的非传统设计，控制成本肯定不乐观。当然，它的防火更有问题。
其他如电力系统丶主机瑕疵或战系集成都只是局部技术问题，在新船上很常见，改程序丶更换零件就好了；但攸关基本设计的（载台或速度）就很难改，都已经定型了。
就我所知，LCS-1航速目前应该是不合格。
LCS-1原始设计要用铝制造上层，中途改成钢，所以超重；超重後果就是增加推进器的工作负荷，改变吃水，让推进器在不如原始预期的工况工作。水喷推进对大船的问题就是损耗，何况LCS-1超重，所以测试时就发现损耗问题，让美国海军被迫暂时将航速限制在30节。不清楚这个问题解决没，还是请美军勤换推进器零件。
LCS-2是新船型，铝制上层，速度表现应该优於LCS-1。但它的成本失控比LCS-1还厉害。LCS-1包含成军费用一共约6.5亿美元，LCS-2则是不包括成军那一段就已经7.4亿。LCS-2的非传统设计，控制成本肯定不乐观。当然，它的防火更有问题。
其他如电力系统丶主机瑕疵或战系集成都只是局部技术问题，在新船上很常见，改程序丶更换零件就好了；但攸关基本设计的（载台或速度）就很难改，都已经定型了。
美帝不是接收了吗？
LCS那个BT的航速要求是一切问题的根源，用2000+吨的船去追逐自杀小艇真是蛋疼，直升机，UAV和UUV是干什么吃的？就算跑的再快，你能像人家那样半米吃水5米半径转向么
如果只要求35节上下的航速，LCS早就该成军量产了
如果只要求35节上下的航速，LCS早就该成军量产了
未通过？隔壁的帖子上不是说已经接收了么...
接收試驗艦啊，現在還處於競標階段。
我一直有个疑虑：铝制舰体的损管尤其是防火怎么办？如果TG和毛子把反舰弹的战斗部换成燃烧破坏形式的，会不会伤害加倍？
质量信不过产品。 这家公司不是国际知名品牌，国家免检产品吗？
回复 6# schliffen
LCS那个BT的航速要求是一切问题的根源，也是这种濒海舰存在的基础。它不是用2000+吨的船去追逐自杀小艇，而是用高航速摆脱敌方对舰导弹，鱼雷的攻击。濒海舰是假定在敌方近海。lcs2那个航速还真的是惊人，50节高速机动。这个要求和直升机，UAV和UUV都无关。
如果只要求35节上下的航速，LCS早就该成放弃，美军一向贪大，用那钱造更多的伯克好了。
另外解放军的022也同样思路，只不过022是防守在自家的近海罢了。
LCS那个BT的航速要求是一切问题的根源，也是这种濒海舰存在的基础。它不是用2000+吨的船去追逐自杀小艇，而是用高航速摆脱敌方对舰导弹，鱼雷的攻击。濒海舰是假定在敌方近海。lcs2那个航速还真的是惊人，50节高速机动。这个要求和直升机，UAV和UUV都无关。
如果只要求35节上下的航速，LCS早就该成放弃，美军一向贪大，用那钱造更多的伯克好了。
另外解放军的022也同样思路，只不过022是防守在自家的近海罢了。
回复 schliffen
LCS那个BT的航速要求是一切问题的根源，也是这种濒海舰存在的基础。它不是用2000+吨的 ...
rongzhili.au 发表于 2010-1-24 08:19
没有哪种常规动力水面舰艇会长时间保持在极速巡航，油耗和对推进设备的损耗都是无法接受的，LCS的加速能力还远远达不到摆脱导弹的要求。另外LCS2在试航中最高只跑到45节，持续最大航速44节，两个型号的生存能力目前都不合格，无法通过海军的相关测试
LCS的高速高机动和浅吃水主要是为了help engage fast attack craft 并增加 mission flexibility，这点有太多的资料支持，随便挑几个
The LCS will have the core capability to protect itself against small boat attacks, including the use of speed and maneuverability, and have the core capability to conduct warning and disabling fire.
Engage surface threats independently, as part of a LCS group, and in coordination with other friendly forces. This includes threats in the line-of-sight and over-thehorizon. In addition to hard kill capabilities, the LCS will use agility and speed, signature management and soft kill measures to disrupt the threat's detect-to-engage sequence and conduct offensive operations against surface threats.
对LCS高速要求的质疑也不是一天两天了
The technical problem is formidable, conceded Rear Adm. Eccles, the deputy commander for ship design, integration and engineering at Naval Sea Systems command. He cited the littoral combat ship, which was designed with a top speed of more than 40 knots, but which also uses a lot of fuel. Navy planners should have asked whether the ship needs to be so fast, he said, given the quantity of fuel that the planned fleet of 55 LCSs will consume.
According to Rear Admiral Thomas J. Eccles, “The value of the speed is high, because I need it to go places we couldn’t normally go as rapidly and flexibly, and there’s really some value in that, and maybe that’s the price we want to pay. But I don’t think that there was a fully informed decision process arrived at in the development of LCS, in which somebody answered the question the way we might go after it today,”
“Maybe the right answer is that I need to chase down pirates that I’m going to be going after with those high-speed ships. On the other hand, I could just send my helicopter, so I’m not sure I need to get to that 40-something knots when I’ve got a helo that’ll do better than that. A lot better. Or a missile,” he joked, “which tends to be even faster than a helo.”
回复 schliffen
LCS那个BT的航速要求是一切问题的根源，也是这种濒海舰存在的基础。它不是用2000+吨的 ...
rongzhili.au 发表于 2010-1-24 08:19
没有哪种常规动力水面舰艇会长时间保持在极速巡航，油耗和对推进设备的损耗都是无法接受的，LCS的加速能力还远远达不到摆脱导弹的要求。另外LCS2在试航中最高只跑到45节，持续最大航速44节，两个型号的生存能力目前都不合格，无法通过海军的相关测试
LCS的高速高机动和浅吃水主要是为了help engage fast attack craft 并增加 mission flexibility，这点有太多的资料支持，随便挑几个
The LCS will have the core capability to protect itself against small boat attacks, including the use of speed and maneuverability, and have the core capability to conduct warning and disabling fire.
Engage surface threats independently, as part of a LCS group, and in coordination with other friendly forces. This includes threats in the line-of-sight and over-thehorizon. In addition to hard kill capabilities, the LCS will use agility and speed, signature management and soft kill measures to disrupt the threat's detect-to-engage sequence and conduct offensive operations against surface threats.
对LCS高速要求的质疑也不是一天两天了
The technical problem is formidable, conceded Rear Adm. Eccles, the deputy commander for ship design, integration and engineering at Naval Sea Systems command. He cited the littoral combat ship, which was designed with a top speed of more than 40 knots, but which also uses a lot of fuel. Navy planners should have asked whether the ship needs to be so fast, he said, given the quantity of fuel that the planned fleet of 55 LCSs will consume.
According to Rear Admiral Thomas J. Eccles, “The value of the speed is high, because I need it to go places we couldn’t normally go as rapidly and flexibly, and there’s really some value in that, and maybe that’s the price we want to pay. But I don’t think that there was a fully informed decision process arrived at in the development of LCS, in which somebody answered the question the way we might go after it today,”
“Maybe the right answer is that I need to chase down pirates that I’m going to be going after with those high-speed ships. On the other hand, I could just send my helicopter, so I’m not sure I need to get to that 40-something knots when I’ve got a helo that’ll do better than that. A lot better. Or a missile,” he joked, “which tends to be even faster than a helo.”
链接都没一个 造谣有意思么
{:cha:}
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUKN2017353120100121
Early tests show Lockheed LCS problems-report
Wed Jan 20, 2010 9:27pm
By Andrea Shalal-Esa
WASHINGTON, Jan 20 (Reuters) - Early testing by the U.S. Navy showed that Lockheed Martin Corp's (LMT.N) first Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) did not meet Navy stability requirements and revealed problems with its combat system, according to a new annual report by the Pentagon's chief weapons tester.
Neither the Lockheed ship, a steel monohull design, nor a competing aluminum-hulled trimaran design built by General Dynamics Corp (GD.N), was expected to "be survivable in a hostile combat environment," said the report prepared by the Pentagon's director of Operational Test and Evaluation.
A copy of the report's section on the LCS program was obtained by Reuters.
The Navy is preparing to release the final terms for a multibillion-dollar competition between Lockheed and General Dynamics that will decide which of the two designs is used for the more than 50 additional ships the service plans to buy.
The report could raise concerns among lawmakers who have already imposed a $480-million-per-ship cost cap on the program after repeated cost overruns in the program's early years.
The Navy commissioned the Lockheed ship in late 2008 and plans to deploy it for the first time later this year. It commissioned the General Dynamics ship last week.
The Pentagon's chief tester cited concerns about the stability of the first Lockheed LCS ship and about its TRS-3D radar.
The report said early air target tracking tests revealed deficiencies with the performance of the Lockheed ship's combat system and could "seriously degrade the ship's air defense capability unless corrected."
Plans to repeat the tests were thwarted when the radar power system failed repeatedly and the cause of the failures had not yet been identified, said the report.
It said the Lockheed ship also could face stability problems when fully loaded, which meant it could "sink sooner than expected," the report said. The Navy plans to install external tanks to effectively lengthen the ship's stern and increase its buoyancy before it deploys for the first time.
Lockheed spokeswoman Jen Allen said the ship met the Navy's requirement to have a shock-hardened propulsion system that could survive damage and get the ship home safely.
She said there were always issues with the first ships of any new class, but any stability problems had been resolved, and the company was confident this was no longer an issue for its first ship, Freedom, or the LCS class.
The report said General Dynamics ship, Independence, had its builders trials delayed due to reported leaks at the gas turbine shaft seals, and more testing identified deficiencies in the main propulsion diesel engines.
General Dynamics declined comment, saying it had not yet seen the Pentagon report.
The report said the Navy intended LCS to be a Level I survivability combatant ship, but neither design was expected to achieve the degree of shock hardening required to meet those specifications.
Shock hardening, the ability to keep operating following an underwater explosive attack, is required for all mission-critical systems under the Navy's Level I requirements, but only a few selected subsystems will meet those, it said.
"Accordingly, the full traditional rigor of Navy-mandated ship shock trials is not achievable, due to the damage that would be sustained by the ship and its many non-shock hardened systems," said the report, which was submitted to Congress this week.
The report urged the Navy to continue its assessment of both ships to predict the degree of shock hardness and survivability that could be expected in a combat environment.
Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Gary Roughead on Saturday underscored the importance of the LCS program to his effort to expand the number of ships in the U.S. naval fleet, and said he was pushing for a contract award to one of the bidders by this summer at the latest.
(Reporting by Andrea Shalal-Esa; Editing by Tim Dobbyn, Richard Chang, Gary Hill)
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUKN2017353120100121
Early tests show Lockheed LCS problems-report
Wed Jan 20, 2010 9:27pm
By Andrea Shalal-Esa
WASHINGTON, Jan 20 (Reuters) - Early testing by the U.S. Navy showed that Lockheed Martin Corp's (LMT.N) first Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) did not meet Navy stability requirements and revealed problems with its combat system, according to a new annual report by the Pentagon's chief weapons tester.
Neither the Lockheed ship, a steel monohull design, nor a competing aluminum-hulled trimaran design built by General Dynamics Corp (GD.N), was expected to "be survivable in a hostile combat environment," said the report prepared by the Pentagon's director of Operational Test and Evaluation.
A copy of the report's section on the LCS program was obtained by Reuters.
The Navy is preparing to release the final terms for a multibillion-dollar competition between Lockheed and General Dynamics that will decide which of the two designs is used for the more than 50 additional ships the service plans to buy.
The report could raise concerns among lawmakers who have already imposed a $480-million-per-ship cost cap on the program after repeated cost overruns in the program's early years.
The Navy commissioned the Lockheed ship in late 2008 and plans to deploy it for the first time later this year. It commissioned the General Dynamics ship last week.
The Pentagon's chief tester cited concerns about the stability of the first Lockheed LCS ship and about its TRS-3D radar.
The report said early air target tracking tests revealed deficiencies with the performance of the Lockheed ship's combat system and could "seriously degrade the ship's air defense capability unless corrected."
Plans to repeat the tests were thwarted when the radar power system failed repeatedly and the cause of the failures had not yet been identified, said the report.
It said the Lockheed ship also could face stability problems when fully loaded, which meant it could "sink sooner than expected," the report said. The Navy plans to install external tanks to effectively lengthen the ship's stern and increase its buoyancy before it deploys for the first time.
Lockheed spokeswoman Jen Allen said the ship met the Navy's requirement to have a shock-hardened propulsion system that could survive damage and get the ship home safely.
She said there were always issues with the first ships of any new class, but any stability problems had been resolved, and the company was confident this was no longer an issue for its first ship, Freedom, or the LCS class.
The report said General Dynamics ship, Independence, had its builders trials delayed due to reported leaks at the gas turbine shaft seals, and more testing identified deficiencies in the main propulsion diesel engines.
General Dynamics declined comment, saying it had not yet seen the Pentagon report.
The report said the Navy intended LCS to be a Level I survivability combatant ship, but neither design was expected to achieve the degree of shock hardening required to meet those specifications.
Shock hardening, the ability to keep operating following an underwater explosive attack, is required for all mission-critical systems under the Navy's Level I requirements, but only a few selected subsystems will meet those, it said.
"Accordingly, the full traditional rigor of Navy-mandated ship shock trials is not achievable, due to the damage that would be sustained by the ship and its many non-shock hardened systems," said the report, which was submitted to Congress this week.
The report urged the Navy to continue its assessment of both ships to predict the degree of shock hardness and survivability that could be expected in a combat environment.
Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Gary Roughead on Saturday underscored the importance of the LCS program to his effort to expand the number of ships in the U.S. naval fleet, and said he was pushing for a contract award to one of the bidders by this summer at the latest.
(Reporting by Andrea Shalal-Esa; Editing by Tim Dobbyn, Richard Chang, Gary Hill)
真实杯具！看来MD也有“多快好省”
rongzhili.au 发表于 2010-1-24 08:19 
只听说过战斗机有高机动摆脱
请教下舰船对反舰导弹该如何高机动摆脱{:se:}
只听说过战斗机有高机动摆脱
请教下舰船对反舰导弹该如何高机动摆脱{:se:}
是不是又想追加费用了？
dywhite 发表于 2010-1-23 22:24
对哦,铝做的东西都耐不了高温......
不过反舰导弹打不打的到还是个问题....
对哦,铝做的东西都耐不了高温......
不过反舰导弹打不打的到还是个问题....
从反舰导弹中段目标数据更新到弹上制导头（雷达或者光电，红外）开机，有一段时间，如果目标数速度快，大幅度机动，弹上制导头找到并锁定的可能就小。已经锁定后，那速度就没有什么意思了。
没有哪种常规动力水面舰艇会长时间保持在极速巡航，油耗和对推进设备的损耗都是无法接受的，LCS的加速能 ...
schliffen 发表于 2010-1-24 09:16
LCS-2在测试中保持44节的速度巡航了4个多小时，我不知道4个多小时算不算长时间，另外LCS-2美军才刚刚接受，这份报告是怎么推断其无法通过美军的测试的？
没有哪种常规动力水面舰艇会长时间保持在极速巡航，油耗和对推进设备的损耗都是无法接受的，LCS的加速能 ...
schliffen 发表于 2010-1-24 09:16
LCS-2在测试中保持44节的速度巡航了4个多小时，我不知道4个多小时算不算长时间，另外LCS-2美军才刚刚接受，这份报告是怎么推断其无法通过美军的测试的？
尚未正式公布的报告被媒体拿到了吧
交到海军手里就是拿去做实际测试的
交到海军手里就是拿去做实际测试的
The report urged the Navy to continue its assessment of both ships to predict the degree of shock hardness and survivability that could be expected in a combat environment.
===========
两型船的抗毁伤似乎问题都很大
===========
两型船的抗毁伤似乎问题都很大
尚未正式公布的报告被媒体拿到了吧
交到海军手里就是拿去做实际测试的
oldwatch 发表于 2010-1-24 12:47
关键是海军还没有对LCS-2做正式的测试，前几天才刚刚服役，这份报告怎么样也写了好多天了吧！
尚未正式公布的报告被媒体拿到了吧
交到海军手里就是拿去做实际测试的
oldwatch 发表于 2010-1-24 12:47
关键是海军还没有对LCS-2做正式的测试，前几天才刚刚服役，这份报告怎么样也写了好多天了吧！
人家MD很严谨，我们要学习。
我估计LCS-1有问题，LCS-2是猜测有问题
从经济角度讲，主要是美国海军或政府杀价的招数，有意将一些不利于船厂的因素透露给媒体，本来应该是干脏活的船，造价必须押一押，不能给船厂好脸色。6-7亿一艘的价格把每年白拿几十亿美元军援的以色列都吓跑了，去买MEKO A-100。
稳定性方面，LCS-1上现在没有武器作为压舱物，海试的时候可以跑出较高速度，但肯定稳定性方面会差一些。所以洛马说可以解决这一问题——以后测试中加压舱物
然后海军测评人员继续数落，加上了沉的更快。{:wuyu:}
毁伤性，3000吨的船能多耐打，还硬要在近海活动，做成DDG-1000那样速度又上不去。
从经济角度讲，主要是美国海军或政府杀价的招数，有意将一些不利于船厂的因素透露给媒体，本来应该是干脏活的船，造价必须押一押，不能给船厂好脸色。6-7亿一艘的价格把每年白拿几十亿美元军援的以色列都吓跑了，去买MEKO A-100。
稳定性方面，LCS-1上现在没有武器作为压舱物，海试的时候可以跑出较高速度，但肯定稳定性方面会差一些。所以洛马说可以解决这一问题——以后测试中加压舱物
然后海军测评人员继续数落，加上了沉的更快。{:wuyu:}
毁伤性，3000吨的船能多耐打，还硬要在近海活动，做成DDG-1000那样速度又上不去。
我是看好LCS-2的，其速度较LCS-1有过之无不及，高海况下稳定性比LCS-1好得多，同时它的机库和停机坪也比LCS-1大的多
小小大星球 发表于 2010-1-24 13:21
LCS-2的造价和损管对美军来说可能会是恶梦。
LCS-2的造价和损管对美军来说可能会是恶梦。
好贵的LCS-2，那么贵的战舰执行这种任务是不是太浪费了
miaomiaodao 发表于 2010-1-24 11:55
即使中弹概率很低，损管也是很重要的啊~
毕竟中弹后能自行撤离和中弹后就必须弃舰差别还是很大的。
即使中弹概率很低，损管也是很重要的啊~
毕竟中弹后能自行撤离和中弹后就必须弃舰差别还是很大的。
LCS那个高速指标还有放宽的空间，不要紧。偶也看好LCS2。
LCS-2在测试中保持44节的速度巡航了4个多小时，我不知道4个多小时算不算长时间，另外LCS-2美军才刚刚接受 ...
小小大星球 发表于 2010-1-24 12:30
cruise speed（巡航速度）也分很多种并且各自有严格的定义，具体不看书我是记不清了，但4小时绝对沾不上任何一种‘巡航’的边，而是地道的冲刺速度——如果连三四个小时都维持不了，那这个极速就毫无实用价值。举个例子，M级驱逐舰极速36节，能够以31节航速持续航行19小时，这在当时已经算是非常可靠牛B的动力系统，但该级舰的设计巡航速度是20节，最优（油耗）巡航速度是15节
LCS-2在测试中保持44节的速度巡航了4个多小时，我不知道4个多小时算不算长时间，另外LCS-2美军才刚刚接受 ...
小小大星球 发表于 2010-1-24 12:30
cruise speed（巡航速度）也分很多种并且各自有严格的定义，具体不看书我是记不清了，但4小时绝对沾不上任何一种‘巡航’的边，而是地道的冲刺速度——如果连三四个小时都维持不了，那这个极速就毫无实用价值。举个例子，M级驱逐舰极速36节，能够以31节航速持续航行19小时，这在当时已经算是非常可靠牛B的动力系统，但该级舰的设计巡航速度是20节，最优（油耗）巡航速度是15节
主要还是太贵了吧，7亿刀，赶得上一条伯克了。美国军火商真狠哪。
介个，md处在顶峰时或许换个说法：很好，再砸点钱就ok了。银子啊
回复 16# 金神大赌场
反舰导弹的雷达自导头有一定的跟踪范围和跟踪速度的（雷达左右转也需要时间），而且由于反舰弹的重量和体积关系，机动性能也有限。所以只要目标的切向速度足够快，就能及时逃出雷达的扫描、跟踪范围，自然也就躲开导弹了
反舰导弹的雷达自导头有一定的跟踪范围和跟踪速度的（雷达左右转也需要时间），而且由于反舰弹的重量和体积关系，机动性能也有限。所以只要目标的切向速度足够快，就能及时逃出雷达的扫描、跟踪范围，自然也就躲开导弹了
说白了就是那两个王八蛋制造商要价太狠
觉得LCS-2比较顺眼，呵呵，要不是贵了点，选它是肯定的
我有两个问题：
1、铝制舰体的防火问题怎么解决？
2、就凭战舰那几十节的速度怎么摆脱反舰导弹的攻击？
新人，坐求科普
1、铝制舰体的防火问题怎么解决？
2、就凭战舰那几十节的速度怎么摆脱反舰导弹的攻击？
新人，坐求科普
rongzhili.au 发表于 2010-1-24 12:23
数学模型就是第一次目标出现点周边，速度v乘时间间隔t得到一个距离，以这个距离为半径画圆，就是第二次探测目标可能出现的区域。速度越大这个区域越大，再次探测到越加困难。
数学模型就是第一次目标出现点周边，速度v乘时间间隔t得到一个距离，以这个距离为半径画圆，就是第二次探测目标可能出现的区域。速度越大这个区域越大，再次探测到越加困难。
洛马公司好像什么都搞，不愧为第一战争贩子