Posted on 09/09/2016 5:32:33 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
Ahhh! You are thinking like a warrior. Not allowed anymore.
To me this looked like a poorly executed attempt to duplicate some of the same modular concepts as the MEKO and Stanflex designs, and making it over complicated. Your opinion on this?
What? You didnt think the bastards actually cared about creating an effective warship did you?
You broke the code. Bravo!
I’m going to the christening of the USS Montgomery tomorrow. I’ve never been to a ship christening before so really looking forward to it. And my date is a retired Coastie!
They should beg the contractors to let them convert the orders into Burke class DDs.
I think you're correct. I found several references to these projects in the early LCS briefings.
The more payloads they tried to implement, the more complex the whole thing became. Technology was advancing very quickly but the construction wasn't. The process made software and hardware obsolete before it ever finished testing. The Navy specified which computer processors had to be used when they designed the original ship and 15 years later the technology was so outdated that it was unworkable.
Is the USS Montgomery a LCS? Is the christening in Mobile tomorrow? I am 130 miles away and have never been to a christening .
On another look at this story, who decided the LCS is a flawed platform,? and are they the same Wise men who decided this ship type was the end all.?
Getting too close to shore these days is asking for a missile up the butt.
I'd be curious about the viability of a Dock Landing Ship hosting a few unmanned fast patrol boats and air drones. Let the drone ships go close to shore and shoot up pirates and such.
Sometimes the only way to find out if a system is feasible is to try it out. This one fell short, apparently.
Great episode. Heste.....Aretha....Gipple.... That made me laugh.
Well, they are finally having to come to grips with these vessels.
The vessels themselves, particularly with the upgrades and uparmaments now recommended, can be turned into decent frigates.
Now they have to work out the logistics See this article:
http://navaltoday.com/2016/09/09/us-navy-announces-new-changes-for-lcs-crews/
This is a little more detailed and objective view of what has been announced.
They are still going to build 28 of the up armed LCS, and then 24 of the new Fast Frigate designs that have even better armor and layout. 52 vessels altogether.
They just have to learn now how to practically use them...something old Navy slats have been hollering about since the onset.
Finally someone is listening.
For the first 28 vessels (of a planned 52) they will create six, four ship flotillas of vessels. Each flotilla will have four of the same type/class LCS. Freedom class on the East coast, Independence class on the West Coast.
This makes up 24 of the 28 vessels. They will then take the first four LCS (LCS-1 through LCS-4), two from each type, and form a testing flotilla that can be available at anytime for exercises or combat, but who will be focused on long term integration, policy, procedure, etc. as they continue to build out these vessels.
Going to a Gold Blue crewing configuration makes a lot more sense to me.
Also, dedicating each flotilla to either ASW, ASuW, or MCM as their primary mission will also make a lot of sense, even though the crews will be trained to be able to operate in other areas if needed.
All of this final starts to make sense of how they will man, train, operate, and deploy these ships.
It has just been a tortured and laborious path getting here.
Exactly, which is why we don't want to be sending big, expensive ships close to shore. But at the same time, we don't want to concede the coastal zone to the bad guys, and we want to sail those waters simply to reassert the right of navigation under international law, which quickly goes rusty if not exercised. So the question is, what kind of platform do we need to dominate that space?
Almost by definition, we are talking about gray area, short-of-war situations. If hostilities are in full flower, it's a different equation. We can shoot first, establish air supremacy, and come in hard and fast when and if we do commit ships or men to close engagement. But that's not where we are, most of the time.
Take just another ordinary summer day in the Persian Gulf. Nothing to see except swarms of small boats, apparently civilian, and in almost all cases, the bad guys will hit first, with complete operational surprise. What kind of ship are you prepared to risk in that environment? Or do we simply accept that the U.S. Navy no longer has freedom of navigation in international waters that happen to have uglies living nearby?
Sounds like a ship built by committee, always a failure. One substantial hit in combat and they will be a bbq pit for the crew with all that aluminum.
Arliegh Burke cans or a new design in size between a Burke and a Ticonderoga class cruiser perhaps.
Yeah, that’s the kind of decision I make for my 200 lb. dirt bike
Half of them will be built by an Australian company, Austal. How the relatively small foreign company got a multi-billion dollar contract baffles me. Well, not really, but the bribe process must have been very complicated.
I hope you are doing well.
Probably more sociably acceptable than the USS Taint
I never saw one that could fly or float.
Shoulda asked the Dutch to design it.
Doesn't have the LCS speed, cause it's weighed down with stuff the LCS doesn't have:bigger gun AAW and ASuWMissiles, sonar, more versitile flex deck and hanger.
But does a combatant really need all that?
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.