Posted on 08/01/2015 9:12:31 AM PDT by Mariner
The Littoral Combat Ship, built by Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) and Austal USA, has been plagued with cost overruns, design flaws, and a number of failures. In fact, the LCS performed so poorly that then-Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel cut the Navy's LCS acquisition from 52 to 32 ships, and directed the Navy to appoint a Small Surface Combatant Task Force, or SSCTF, to "submit alternative proposals to procure a capable and lethal small surface combatant, consistent with the capabilities of a frigate."
The good news is Lockheed Martin addressed many of the issues plaguing the LCS, and now production is surging as the price has dropped. The bad news is the Navy has decided it wants a modified LCS -- which it's officially calling a frigate -- for ships 33-52. So, what does this mean for Lockheed Martin?
(Excerpt) Read more at fool.com ...
If they’re naming ships after Gabby Giffords then something has gone horribly wrong with the Navy.
In the olden days when I was in the Navy, we had a surface Battle Group on patrol 7x24x365 in the South China Sea.
Carriers only came in when it was convenient for THEM.
And, every time I see a Carrier transiting the Strait of Hormuz I wonder why and Admiral is not hanging from the highest mast.
They are, it has.
403 Forbidden
nginx
I’m getting the feeling that we no longer know how to build anything anymore.
I’ve been on the LCS-3 Fort Worth. It’s a damned death trap! No way I’d want to be on that in combat! It’s as safe as a PT boat!
A better comparison would be the San Pablo!
But it has a fundamental design flaw in that it can't shoot. No weapons of use beyond visible range.
With a minor redesign for the future platforms...and assuming they can fix the ships systems problems...it could work.
That redesign is to take 1/2 of the over-sized flight deck and put in at least 24tubes of VLS. And associated radars and fire control.
And the current gun is too small.
It is of proper size but just a tad bit expensive.
No way.
We still build the finest warships in the world.
How does it differ from other ships?
The rest of the world is really fortunate that the U.S. Navy is benevolent. But that’s not always a given, piracy in Somalia shows us of a world without US influence.
OOOPS! I forgot about the Arizona.
My post #29 refers to the LCS-1 Freedom class only.
No, the problem is the opposite - everything is being supersized. LCS are basically modern day cutters and PT boats, with bigger crews, more expense, but not any more fighting ability. Today's destroyers are the size of cruisers. Cleveland class Cruiser (1942) length 600 feet; displacement 14,131 tons. Zumwalt class destroyer (current) length 600 feet, displacement 14,500 tons.
Of course, some of the WWI battleships used in WWII were about the same length 573 feet, but about twice the displacement due to better armor and greater width - 34,000 tons.
When Naval Gunfire was no longer a principal requirement, we didn't need such tonnage.
The Burke Call DDG fills the role of those platforms for all other war at sea scenarios.
THEY ARE EXTRAORDINARILY CAPABLE and at nearly 10,000 tons very large for the modern era.
One of them could sink or disable 30 such older ships. And do so from over 100 miles away.
Yep, that's a major problem.
When I sailed on the USS Benjamin Stoddert (DDG-22, Adams Class), a Destroyer was typically around 4,000 tons.
Same problem with cars...the small ones keep getting bigger and more luxurious if they are successful, until they have to eventually introduce a NEW small car.
That's where we are at with the surface fleet today.
There isn’t a ship afloat or under the sea the fly boys can’t detect, target, and sink at will. Navies are useless creatures in a world war.
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.