Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: hedgetrimmer

Yes we are. My only real concern is that we are being told that 50+ of these vessels will be part of our 313 ship Navy of the future. I believe we need 50+ of these vessels for sure, but I also believe the other number is far too small. I personally think we need a good 450 other major surface combatants and support vessels to maintain our position of dominance on the high seas.


48 posted on 10/14/2006 5:48:54 PM PDT by Jeff Head (www.dragonsfuryseries.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]


To: Jeff Head

Our Navy is much too small at this time and our Merchant Marine is non-existant. This must change, or Gorbachev will be right. We will be forced to bow down to China and India.


49 posted on 10/14/2006 5:52:56 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies ]

To: Jeff Head
One additional capability of the LCS from the specs: Remote Minehunting System
50 posted on 10/14/2006 6:03:57 PM PDT by SauronOfMordor (A planned society is most appealing to those with the arrogance to think they will be the planners)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies ]

To: Jeff Head
I believe we need 50+ of these vessels for sure, but I also believe the other number is far too small.

GlobalSecurity.org has an interesting bit about the "StreetFighter" concept for the new Navy:

As of mid-2001 the Office of Naval Research was considering construction of a Littoral Combat Ship with a displacement of 500 to 600 tons. The LCS would have a draft of about three meters, an operational range of 4,000 nautical miles, and a maximum speed of 50-60 knots. The cost per ship might be at least $90 million.

The Streetfighter would be a smaller, very fast ship (part of the more general Streetfighter concept), that could compete successfully with the enemy for control of coasts and littoral waters. These ships are envisioned as costing less than 10% as much as current Battle Force ships, while comprising more than 25% of the total number of surface combatants [that is at least 25 but no more than 50 units].

The President of the Naval War College, Admiral Art Cebrowski, and others such as Capt. Wayne P. Hughes, have advocated the deployment of larger numbers of smaller ships to operate in “harm’s way” in littoral waters. Cebrowski and Hughes talk of “tactical instability,” where a navy is unwilling to risk its ships because the fleet is constituted principally of small numbers of expensive ships. They propose “re-balancing the fleet” by supplementing the currently planned large surface combatants with the procurement of smaller ships.

They want to make a ship cheap enough, and with few enough sailors manning it, that they can risk sending it to where it might actually be in danger. No admiral in 2006 wants to risk actual danger to a carrier
51 posted on 10/14/2006 6:13:31 PM PDT by SauronOfMordor (A planned society is most appealing to those with the arrogance to think they will be the planners)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson