Posted on 03/12/2011 9:35:51 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
Anyone think the destruction of our military capability may be the Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Liberal plan with the aid of Liberals in Congress? Hum?????
Rep. Jim Moron (D-Va.)
My concern isn’t so much the fleet.
With the repeal of DADT, when the call comes, I’m afraid all those sailors and Marines will be out SHOPPING.
Yes but it’s fabously diverse
I seriously doubt these ships would be heading into an area that hadn’t already been softened up. Yes, sure, our ships will see combat and some of them will be lost. Wow, another Einstein moment. NOT!
All of a sudden, every one of our new purchases are being criticized as being ill-designed, too costly, or just not up to the task it was designed to fulfill.
Doesn’t anyone else smell a democRAT?
In truth they’ve been pulling a variation of this for the last fifty years. Screw ‘em.
The LCS has been criticised by plenty of well meaning people, including several Freepers. The LCS is too expensive and lightly-armed to justify its role.
Thats what I read somewhere.
If that is the case, then I understand.
I remember when folks were ripping the F-22 to shreds too though. There are times when well-meaning people go postal when it isn’t really warranted.
We’re not going to have an armed services much longer, if we keep trashing every new program that comes along.
We have equipment that needs to be replaced. At some point we’re going to have to make a decisions and stick with it.
The LCS programme has too many issues. Most obvious one being the very concept itself. Since its too expensive and vulnerable, why build it when you can spend it on more versatile destroyers.
About criticism, I think one has to distinguish between qualitative assessment about a programme and of course the usual dissing that goes on. Pretty much every other US military programme-LCS,EFV, F-35 have all guzzled funds and experienced significant delays. All while offering questionable advantages over predecessors. You could say that the very nature of US military procurements is rather messed up at the moment. And the longer it continues to be so, the more ammo it gives for the bean counters.
Just crew them up with homosexuals and women and that will solve everything...
I agree with that. I also think that for the lay person, it’s very tough to know who is right. Are some projects actually too problematic, or are we being gamed? Is the current problem actually insurmountable, or are we again being gamed?
Where the rubber meets the road, we need to advocate for programs we think are necessary. And yet, it’s very difficult to know who is right.
Every program has it’s down-sides, it’s tough days. People could point to those and try to destroy them. Just about every ‘tool’ we have could have been criticized on some point. My take is that most of them were, by the hawk ‘challenged’.
So how do I know which horse to back? To my way of thinking Gates is a complete fool. To may people, he’s the guy they point to, to say that certain things need to be done.
You’re comment that procurement is messed up right now, is accurate. I cannot help but think that is planned chaos. All you have to do is find some bright skeptics, and they can do more harm to our military effort than China or Russia.
Thanks for the post
These craft seem to have the capability to operate solo which they may be called to do unless the Navy musclebounds itself in policy. Excepting for armor and armamment countering localized conditions which concerns me and wake from the tri hull they may well prove a welcome addition to the arising crisises around the globe.
That includes good will and assisting in natural disasters
How foolish an argument. Something I would expect Sheila Jackson Lee to come up with.
Given the state of weapons today, Survivability is something they might as well abandon as a goal. The real key is out shooting your enemy. Hot steel on target and as much as you can throw out there.
The term force multiplier is a fraud.
The Navy fails this test as it seems weapons are merely an afterthought. Take a look at the armaments slapped on a Russian ship and take a few notes.
Bring back the battleships.
A lot of Russian hardware is designed to be very deadly, for a very short period of time. The Russians accept that they are going to lose ships & aircraft at a very high rate.
I'm not sure that any western Navy or Airforce would ever publically admit the same.
What exactly is its role? To be a helicopter servicing ship? The band of it’s operation is so narrow, I have to wonder.
If the shore is not safe, the role will be filled by an aircraft carrier 200 miles away. If the shore and 200 miles inland is safe, the role will be filled by a temporary airbase about 40 miles inland. So I just don’t see it.
Now if the mission were to be a bunch of F-35B launching, UAV recovering, ultra small aircraft carriers, yeah I could see it. What I find on the web is that it is primarily meant to replace mine hunters.
Looking into it further....
At $500 million a pop, one GHWB Nimitz CVN is worth 12 LCS’s. Which would we rather have? 12 LCS’s sailing around or one Nimitz?
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.