Posted on 02/12/2020 4:34:09 AM PST by mowowie
It was something many of us saw as a near-certain eventuality, the Navy has formally announced that it wants to retire its first four Littoral Combat Ships. Split evenly across both the Freedom and Independence classes of the failed Littoral Combat Ship concept, the oldest of the vessels was commissioned just 12 years ago, the youngest a mere six years ago. Yes, you read that right—six years ago! The troublesome fleet within a fleet has been serving as a training and test force, a dubious role from the start that the Navy says isn't even needed anymore. Giving up on the vessels as front line ships began a few years ago as part of a restructuring plan that was initiated as the program became increasingly mired in technological and logistical turmoil.
(Excerpt) Read more at thedrive.com ...
These things are garbage as they are now. The Saudis bought better versions than what the Navy specced, they can’t be economically reconfigured (despite the “modular mission system”) to be more viable, they suck at seakeeping, they’re not reliable...
Most of this is due to massive mission creep and the Obama era Navy demanding the LCS be used to replace frigates.
The FFG-X can’t get here fast enough.
.....taxpayers’ dollars at work.....!!!! why am I not surprised... the defense contractors make out like the bandits that they are, while the American taxpayers get screwed.... yet again.....
Yeah blame Carter and Obama, but blame Bush and the neocons.
Hint: no one wants to be an asian landpower. It's forced on Russia because of dint of geography. We can choose and GWB and the neocons chose poorly.
Well, that was a waste of money.
You can’t. They are 100% aluminum. Not even good for razor blades.
Can Gronk ski behind the things? Might have “some” value?
I thought the Brits learned in the Falklands that making a combat vessel out of aluminum wasn’t a good idea.
Screen doors?
Reynold’s Wrap?
Using one for a SINKEX drill would be quite interesting as both types' survivability has long been in question, especially due to the widespread use of aluminum in their construction and their overall lower design standards than their more hardy dock mates. Seeing what real weaponry does to either of the designs could be beneficial
A very expensive experiment. There must be a balance between innovation and real world function.
Apparently we didn’t pick up on that.
Andy, naval warfare is won in the nation’s shipyards, foundries and factories. We are off shoring all three of those things and the technical know how that goes along with it - for a buck. We cannot replace ships in an all out naval war. It’s not how many ships you have at the beginning of a war but how many you have at the end.
No real surprise. These were always glorified coast guard vessels shoehorned into an ocean-going role. They make sense for Sweden. Maybe.
Who in Congress, the Defense Department, and in the Navy were the drivers for these pieces of aluminum junk?!?
An expensive experiment.
When your battle plan is “go like hell because we can’t survive the first hit”, you’ve had your first clue. I remember when I worked for the Army my job was to interact with the skippers and crews of these boats. They said they loved them, “they go fast”. When I reminded them of the Falklands experience they all said, “Yeah, well, there’s that.” It’s like even they at the time knew they would never have to fight that ship.
Just thank god we only bought 4. You know there was at least one congressman who wanted a thousand.
Very good post.
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.