Posted on 01/09/2015 7:58:58 PM PST by sukhoi-30mki
The plans to upgrade the U.S. Navy's littoral combat ship will not improve the vessel's capability to sustain an attack, according to a Bloomberg News report. Last month, U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced a plan to upgrade both versions of the ships built by Austal USA and Lockheed Martin.
The report cites comments from Michael Gilmore, the military's director of operational, test and evaluation, saying "the minor modifications to the LCS will not yield a ship that is significantly more survivable."
The Navy's proposal to buy another 20 ships with the upgrades to the ship's surface warfare and anti-submarine warfare capabilities was approved by Hagel last month.
Nearly a year ago, he directed a small surface combatant task force to chart a new course for the vessel that has been criticized on Capitol Hill.
(Excerpt) Read more at al.com ...
This one for the ladies?
It may be able to deflect radar at a distance, with dubious results versus the previous generation of destroyers, but at what cost? Would the previous generation be able to survive combat without such marginal improvements in “stealthiness” versus what we are now proposing to field at such a significant increase in appropriation?
I am all for upgrading our equipment when it makes good sense, but this “advancement” in technology seems to me to be marginal and waste of significant resources.
Well, wait...
Modern day PT Boat?
Little Crappy Ships (LCS).
Oh! But it does have bullet proof glass!
Give ‘em to the Coast Guard, as that’s basically what they are: Cutters.
Start buying real frigates for the Navy again.
That's actually not a bad idea!! Rather expensive but good at intercepting drug smugglers with the ability of just blowing them out of the water!
No, a PT literally had FAR more firepower.
They really want to buy a lot of these sitting ducks?
exactly what they are good for, coastal defense
Have you been on one? I was on one of the more conventional Freedom Class with steel hull. Badass gun up front. But again. NO armor to speak of. Relying on speed is like flying a Zero.
What is the mission that we are spending tens of billions of dollars to perform? What is the timeline, how long will we be confronted with this mission and how long will these ships expected to perform before obsolescence? Obviously, coastal defense is not the mission for the ships, it seems they that it must be something akin to the Royal Navy's gunboat missions of the 19th century. Antisubmarine warfare by stealth vessels hardly seems an economical way to approach that task.
It seems to me that very expensive weapons systems produced by an economy that's running an $18 trillion debt means that future wars will be fought by a bankrupt economy unable to field first rate weapons and therefore obliged to trade the blood of its sons for weapons superiority. If we are in fact mindlessly building expensive systems not for defense but as pork, we are to a moral certainty condemning many American soldiers and sailors to die. Likewise and even to a greater degree, if we do not control domestic spending, especially entitlements, we are certainly condemning ourselves to choosing between losing wars or sacrificing our youth.
I have wondered if it might be time to go with a more muscular platform. The Des Moines cruisers were about 18,000 tons if I remember and had automatic 8 inch guns and a consistent 30 knot speed
If one started there and adjusted the power plant and the weaponry to today’s requirements and never mind the “stealth” could we wind up with a true “cruiser” in the traditional sense able to operate independently or in concert world wide?
Somebody help me out here
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.