Simply staggering...the US Navee doubles down on a failed hand


#21

[QUOTE=exsubguy;152204]I still like G captains idea to buy up all the unwanted crew boats and supply boats. Then add paint, guns, missiles, marines, and an engine overhaul. You could have the nastiest mud boats on the planet ready to deploy within 6 months. [/QUOTE]

I say arm all them bayoo shrimpers and pirogues right to the teeth

then train the coonass crew to be suicide mariners and we’ll have nothing to fear either end


#22

Reality is our destroyers are primary missile launch platforms that do not take more than small arms fire. So it would be reasonable to build a ship for existing conditions: shallow draft, fast moving, stealthy.

I’m no fanboy of LCS but the USN doesn’t exactly need heavy armored launch platforms. Otherwise we’ll be building battleships at twice the cost.

Do we need LCS? I say no. But let’s build what we need and not build some overly armored behemoth at twice the cost.


#23

Norman Polmar wrote an interesting article about this called “Where are the Frigates” for Proceedings magazine a while back. One of his criticisms of the LCS was the lack of anti-air and anti-ship missiles. Hopefully the “small surface combatant” (SSC) idea will help close that gap…


#24

[QUOTE=rbc;152298]Norman Polmar wrote an interesting article about this called “Where are the Frigates” for Proceedings magazine a while back. One of his criticisms of the LCS was the lack of anti-air and anti-ship missiles. Hopefully the “small surface combatant” (SSC) idea will help close that gap…[/QUOTE]

in all honesty, were would surface vessels face armed conflict other that from the air or submarine? Look at the Falkland War so see what any future naval warfare might look like. Ship killer missiles fired from over the horizon and an LCS cannot survive the hit from one of these. Look at what happened to HMS SHEFFIELD for Christ’s sake and contrary to popular belief, SHEFFIELD’s superstructure was not built of combustible aluminum. For decades it has been known that aluminum burns readily and generally cannot be extinguished one alight. Just like with a battlecruiser, you cannot survive relying only one speed and no structural protection.


#25

Excellent point about the hard lessons learned by the Brits in the Falkland war. Aluminum ships did not fare very well on the receiving end of a Exocet. Anyone know or heard about the LCS seakeeping qualities?


#26

[QUOTE=salt’n steel;152304]Excellent point about the hard lessons learned by the Brits in the Falkland war. Aluminum ships did not fare very well on the receiving end of a Exocet. Anyone know or heard about the LCS seakeeping qualities?[/QUOTE]

Seakeeping and damage survivability have nothing to do with that obscenity, it only exists to keep the flow of campaign contributions and defense contractor welfare payments moving from the American taxpayer to the admirals and their handlers.


#27

[QUOTE=salt’n steel;152304]Excellent point about the hard lessons learned by the Brits in the Falkland war. Aluminum ships did not fare very well on the receiving end of a Exocet. Anyone know or heard about the LCS seakeeping qualities?[/QUOTE]

why do you think I am such a loud opponent of the whole idiotic LCS boondoggle? $350M each for ships that by their very construction cannot survive any significant battle damage so by any metric are an utterly useless warship.


#28

Yep- could not agree more. Just curious if the trimaran hull was meeting any seakeeping criteria since most of everything else used to convince congress this is what the Navy needed has been disappointing. I envision one well aimed RPG could take one of these out. Hope we don’t find out. Still trying to get over how the Navy is stuck with enhanced versions of the same thing.


#29

Interesting point about battlecruisers. Perhaps some of the shortcomings of the LCS program are comparable to that of HMS Hood? Very fancy, cool modern weapons, but after a few hits in the right place: no more Hood. Built for speed and power, but not able to take any punches. By comparison we have Bismarck. She took a lot more hits than Hood did before she went down because she was built for that. Odd how we don’t learn from the past…


#30

Fact is modern warfare weapons like a rail gun or the new laser can make Swiss cheese out of just about anything shy of a old battlewagon. You don’t have to destroy a vessel to make a mission kill. Look at foreign navies like Norway and China (type 053) see what their idea of a LCS looks like and construction. They look better armed to me.


#31

[QUOTE=PaddyWest2012;152313]Interesting point about battlecruisers. Perhaps some of the shortcomings of the LCS program are comparable to that of HMS Hood? Very fancy, cool modern weapons, but after a few hits in the right place: no more Hood. Built for speed and power, but not able to take any punches. By comparison we have Bismarck. She took a lot more hits than Hood did before she went down because she was built for that. Odd how we don’t learn from the past…[/QUOTE]

that is the thing about the two LCS classes, built for speed but not for power… at least a battlecruiser like HOOD had guns even if it couldn’t take a hit. LCSs are virtually naked of weapons. What the hell is the point of a warship that cannot throw a punch and certainly can’t take one? Also, the FFG-7 class frigates were designed to serve as merchant vessel force protection which is a critical role a small combatant needs to fill in war but how in the HELL can an LCS do this? They have no range or seakeeping capability. They are a hideously overpriced glorified patrolboat and it has been proven in many wars that patrolboats don’t turn battles.

.


#32

This will probably add fuel to the fire. The Navy is going to call the modified Littoral Combat Ships, well, Frigates:

http://news.usni.org/2015/01/15/sna-modified-littoral-combat-ship-class-changed-fast-frigate

Hopefully, Level II–survivable will be part of the modifications. The LCS is Level I–survivable.

      • Updated - - -

By the way, how much escort duty does the US Navy do? Are they using Destroyers and Cruisers for that kind of mission?


#33

[QUOTE=rbc;152324]By the way, how much escort duty does the US Navy do? Are they using Destroyers and Cruisers for that kind of mission?[/QUOTE]

likely none in any future fight but the Navy is supposed to prepare itself to be able to wage combat under all contingencies in all theaters. After WWI the Royal Navy never thought they would have to face a submarine menace to their trade lanes in another war and that they had all the technology they needed already in hand before WWII began and almost instantly were brought to realize how mistaken they were and how short they were of suitable escort vessels. It took the better part of three years before they could make the mistakes of the prewar years good which included the loss of at least 2000 good ships with their cargoes plus many tens of thousands of civilian mariners. I don’t want to just be another in the next war our Navee couldn’t fight their way out of despite hundreds of billions spent today.


#34

Currently an Officer onboard the LCS1 (questionable life decisions…), and there are some excellent points brought up by c.captain. However, I do believe the upgrades, making more equipment standard, and providing a long range missile (see link below) can make these ships more on the line of a battle cruiser of the past. I personally think the upgrades are a good idea for an otherwise completely boondoggled program. But what do you expect from the government? Having a heavy hitting littoral ship, similar to the Swedish Visby-Class corvette would be a valuable asset. (should have saved billions and bought that one from the beginning).

//youtu.be/UuMU-lc8DZw


#35

In reality though, I believe making a modern version of the tried and true Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates (much like the new Burkes being made) would have done everything and more than the LCS for a fraction of the cost.


#36

now there is this loonacy

GAO knocks Navy plans for tougher littoral combat ship

Tony Capaccio 5/18/2016

(Bloomberg) — Confronted with concerns that its lightweight littoral combat ship may not survive combat, the U.S. Navy promised a better-armed version that’s more like a frigate. It would still fall short, congressional auditors say.

“While the Navy’s proposed frigate will offer some improvements over LCS, it will not result in significant improvements in survivability” because it “will still be based on a hybrid of commercial and Navy shipbuilding specifications,” the Government Accountability Office said in a draft report obtained by Bloomberg News.

In the report labeled “For Official Use Only,” the GAO recommended that Congress consider not funding any littoral combat ships for fiscal 2017 “because of unresolved concerns with lethality and survivability, the Navy’s lack of requested funding to make needed improvements and the current schedule performance of the shipyards” where Lockheed Martin Corp. and Austal Ltd. build different versions of the vessel.

Adding a Ship

But congressional support for the ship, and the shipbuilding jobs it provides, remains strong. While the Pentagon requested funding for two ships in the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1, the House Armed Services Committee added a third in H.R. 4909, the defense policy bill that’s being debated on the House floor this week. The House Appropriations did the same in the defense spending measure it approved Tuesday.

Captain Thurraya Kent, a Navy spokeswoman, said in a statement that she wouldn’t comment on the GAO’s draft report because she didn’t “know what changes may or may not be made” in the final version and because the Navy’s views will be incorporated in a Pentagon response.

Critics have long questioned whether the LCS, built for operations such as mine-clearing and submarine-hunting in shallow coastal waters, would be able to survive in combat.

‘Considerable Reservations’

In 2014, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, expressing “considerable reservations,” cut the planned fleet to 32 of the original ships, followed by the purchase of 20 better-armed frigates. This year, Hagel’s successor, Ash Carter, cut the total to 40, with as many as 12 of them frigates.

The LCS program has been plagued by problems, leading the Navy to cite Lockheed for quality control issues earlier this month.

The Navy plans a competition between Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed and Henderson, Australia-based Austal to choose one design for the “small surface combatant” as soon as 2018, according to the GAO.

Planned improvements include an improved missile decoy system, reducing the vessel’s magnetic signature to mines, added armor, “shock hardening” to lessen the risk of munitions magazine detonations and a longer-distance “over-the-horizon” missile. The new vessels are estimated to cost $8 billion, in what’s now a $29 billion program.

‘It’s Affordable’

“We felt very good that we’ve given the fleet what they needed and what” regional combat commanders requested, then-Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jonathan Greenert told reporters when the plan was released in late 2014. “We believe it’s affordable. That was a critical tenet.”

But the GAO said the planned improvements recommended by a Navy task force put a priority on keeping expenses down and getting the ships into production as soon as possible “over higher levels of combat capability,” the GAO said.

Nor will they “fully address” all of Hagel’s concerns, such as “reducing the vulnerability of the ship to sustaining damage as compared to the current LCS,” it said.

The agency also said the Navy’s cost estimate “may overstate its affordability” compared with other options. The service plans to award a contract “before establishing a sound business base that sets forth realistic technical, cost and schedule parameters,” it said.


#37

Wash-up in Washington?: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/05/18/navy-chief-tells-fellow-admirals-to-rethink-integrity-and-behavior-in-aftermath-of-scandals/


#38

[QUOTE=ombugge;184821]Wash-up in Washington?: [/QUOTE]

Washington in general and the DoD in particular needs more than a “washup”, it needs a flush.

Every septic tank needs the sludge removed or it stops working and begins to stink.


#39

[QUOTE=Steamer;184822]Washington in general and the DoD in particular needs more than a “washup”, it needs a flush.
u
Every septic tank needs the sludge removed or it stops working and begins to stink.[/QUOTE]

if it was up to me, we’d have an Uncle Joe moment and round up all the brasshats then march them to some blackhole where their screams could never be heard.


#40

Round them up and make them take an LCS to China and engage the enemy. Be interested to see if all that talent could down an enemy combatant with an aluminum “warship”.