Replies

I've always thought of the LCS, correctly designed and configured, as probably a good platform in the Persian Gulf and pirate infested waters off Africa and in S.E. Asia. We're clearly concerned about the vulnerability of major blue water fleet assets to missile and swarm attacks in constricted waters. Something like the LCS -- much smaller, faster, maneuverable, much cheaper, and capable of outrunning and outgunning any other small craft in these areas -- would be a good thing to have. Adding too many missions is a fatal error.

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.

Getting too close to shore these days is asking for a missile up the butt.

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?