Posted on 07/18/2015 3:11:00 PM PDT by george76
As far as I am concerned an LCS is a good concept. The key of course is not to make it a “do everything” vessel. It needs to be tailored to a specific role and used there almost exclusively.
In some ways the way the current navy views an LCS is much like the Navy of WWII viewed the battle cruiser. A battle cruiser carried Battleship guns but not the armor of a battleship. So what did the Admiral’s do? They tried to use it as a Battleship. And they got sunk because of that wrong usage of their capabilities.
The Battle cruiser was the ideal ship at the time for use in Merchant Marine raiding. Setting one free on the Japanese merchant fleet would have diverted combat ships from all over the pacific to hunt them down.
That in turn would have made the actual combat missions the Japanese needed those vessels for in dire straits indeed.
It’s all a matter of using your resources carefully and in most cases for the missions they were built for vs. those they weren’t really qualified for.
You really should read more about the Little Crappy Ship. Check out how many deployments they’ve made and how long the first two have been around. This ‘ship’, if we can call it that, would be a net negative for any Battle Group.
And heads for all 58 genders.
If I didn’t know what that was, I would think it was a ship focused on loving (dove) homosexual (rainbow) moslems (green base paint). Of course I do know what it is, as did the French DSGE.
“Please explain to me why we need this type of vessel?”
We need a ship that’s capable of getting close enough to take small arms fire, because otherwise it’s not fair.
You really should read more about the Little Crappy Ship. Check out how many deployments they’ve made and how long the first two have been around. This ‘ship’, if we can call it that, would be a net negative for any Battle Group.
The little Crappy Ship DOESN”T belong in a battle group. Wrong place, wrong task. I spent several years on a Little Crappy 378 foot Coast Guard ship in very similar circumstances, in the Littoral, brown waters; mainly off of Alaska in the Aleutians.
Yeah, yeah pile on with the six foot sailor jokes.
A littoral ship should NOT be in a battle group, it should be an independent command patrolling and working in the Littoral waters, ie. a ‘brown water navy’. That’s why I said what I said, design it for a role, use it in that role. A LCS should NOT be a ‘do everything’ ship. It’s not a destroyer, it’s not a cruiser, it’s not a ship of the train. It’s supposed to be close to shore where it’s capabilities were designed to be.
And if the LCS’s of the U.S. Navy are not what you think they should be, then perhaps they weren’t designed correctly or more perhaps... they are trying to make them fit a hole they weren’t meant to fit in.
Wisconsin’s Marinette Shipyard launches first new combat ship in US fleet.
FReep Mail me if you want on, or off, this Wisconsin interest ping list.
“Where’s the Caitlyn Jenner, the Chelsea Manning and the Harvey Milk?”
Aren’t the Ceaser Chavez and Gabrial Giffords enough?
I have wondered about the rationale behind having two classes of LCS. In the era of tight budgets, wouldn’t having just one class be more cost efficient? Are the missions of the two classes so different that both are needed?
Would make a mighty fine yacht. Wish I had the bucks.
for exactly the same reason as the “San Pablo” showed the flag in China in the movie Sand Pebbles.
It is amazing that all the armchair commanders know nothing of reason for littoral combat.
Just as the San Pablo sailed in Chinese waters so to will our LCSs be sailing in China seas and challenging China’s hegemony in the area.
The reasons for a littoral combat ship is because of the need for littoral combat.
Books have been written about naval strategy and my guess is that none of them were written by members of this forum.
The point is - our old FFG-7 was more capable, cheaper and could deploy without breaking down. The LCS can’t be left alone and would likely require a DDG to tow it from one overseas maintenance facility to the next. LCS-1 was commissioned seven years ago and we’re just now discovering ‘vulnerabilities’. Last time I checked, there weren’t a bunch of Revolutionary Guard types aiming to take out a Coast Guard cutter in the littorals near Alaska.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
