The LCS ‘snowball’ may now be unstoppable

The LCS ‘snowball’ may now be unstoppable

Millions of Americans learned about the Navy’s littoral combat ship program for the first time Friday, when the New York Times featured it in its occasional toe-dip into the defense game, “The Next War.”

These moments are always bittersweet for trade hacks and others inside the defense bubble, who feel a combination of joy that something from their arcane world has escaped into the wider consciousness, but also frustration that there isn’t more depth, more detail or more context.

Still, the Times has magical powers. Back in the day, even though others had reported before on the problems with the Coast Guard’s “Deepwater” modernization program, the Times’ coverage suddenly brought an avalanche of attention and oversight. The same lawmakers who had been nodding sleepily at whatever the Coast Guard wanted suddenly went into full “Clear and Present Danger,” pounding their fists and demanding ANSWERS, admiral!


It’s too soon to tell whether Friday’s story will have that same effect, but even if it does, the report itself makes clear that LCS is probably here to stay. (Much as the Coast Guard wound up keeping much of its modernization portfolio.) As we’ve observed before, the Navy’s parallel ship strategy guarantees two semi-overlapping constituencies in Congress that keep half an eye on each other’s back as they also defend their own turf. But for as much as the LCS Caucus cares about the ships, it apparently isn’t nearly as interested in the mission modules, and they are the next big hurdle for the Navy realizing its onetime vision.

The Times’ Elisabeth Bumiller writes that the littoral combat ship USS Independence has been testing mine-hunting equipment that sometimes mistakes flashes of light on the surface for mines underwater. And although she mentions the USS Freedom is supposed to “deploy” next year to Singapore, she does not mention that that Navy wanted it to take a “demonstration module,” because its actual equipment isn’t ready. The Navy may not be able to field actual mission equipment — and thus may not be able to do an actual LCS deployment — until 2017.

That is approximately when the Avenger-class minesweepers are slated to leave the fleet, theoretically making it all the more important that LCS be ready to assume the surface force’s mine countermeasures role. What will actually happen, however, is probably up in the air, as the dates for operational capability and deployments in numbers remain fuzzy.

(Bumiller writes that the Independence “could be ready by 2014,” even though it was commissioned in January 2010 and has been on “trials” of various kinds since before that.)

The bottom line is that despite all the delays and overruns and griping, LCS is happening. The Navy believes in its ship 110 percent and it is going to persevere. It’s a critical piece of the fleet’s goal to reach 313 300 ships, which is important because Quantity Has A Quality All Its Own.

Wrote Bumiller:

“It’s one of those things that once the snowball goes down the hill, it just keeps rolling,” said Representative Duncan Hunter, a California Republican who has been one of the ship’s biggest critics but said he was bowing to the inevitable. “The Navy likes it. There’s no way I’m going to stop it.”

That’s in spite of opponents’ objections, as she partly describes here:

As for the ship’s ability to survive in a combat environment, missiles could more easily penetrate its hull and do more damage than to a larger, more powerful ship. It also has fewer and far less sophisticated defenses. Still, the Navy argues that it will be heavily armed with guns and missiles and will operate in hostile waters, like the Persian Gulf, only with larger ships nearby.

“If you use smart tactics, techniques and procedures, we believe the ship is survivable,” [Undersecretary of the Navy Robert] Work said, making an argument that Mr. Hunter, the congressman, finds specious.

If seven Iranian attack boats should come at the new ship, Mr. Hunter said, “it backs away, it can’t take any major hits.” In short, he said, “it’s not going to stand there and trade punches with anybody.”

The absurdity in this exchange is delicious: Hunter has said he wants to replace LCS with M-Ship’s M80 Stiletto, a much smaller carbon fiber vessel the Navy has experimented with. It’s 60 tons, as compared to LCS’ roughly 3,000 tons. Hunter’s argument is that Stiletto is “stealthier,” but in terms of the combat power he says he values here, the Stiletto makes LCS look like the battleship Yamato by comparison.

Moreover, did you notice how Work said that if an LCS commander followed the right TTPs, her ship would be “survivable?” Not “successful;” not “victorious” — just that it might remain afloat.  He’s certainly right, as far as it goes, and there’s a case to be made that it’s unfair to put an LCS into theoretical combat scenarios for which it wasn’t designed — no one argues an Air Force C-17 should be able to out-duel a MiG 29. The Navy, however, has only itself to blame: It persists with “combat” in the name, and long said it would be an antidote to the small boat threat. As of now, that only applies to small boats that can’t fight back.

LCS has an F-35-style perception problem: It needs to do something — anything — to show it can succeed as a naval warship and move past being a bad acquisitions story. The problem is that even though the Navy’s LCS crews comprise some of the smartest, best-qualified and most senior sailors in the surface force, they may have to languish for many more years before they can answer all the talk about their ships with action.

Join the Conversation

The Navy is acquiring three Zumwalts DDGs which could easily be configured for BMD. Zumwalts will have electric power to spare, the physical space, and the weight margin, but would need need S-band radar, a software patch for the combat system, and suitable canistered missiles to fit Zumwalts larger Mk57 VLS cells.

A Nunn-McCurdy breach (announced in June 2010) brought on a program restructuring that cancelled the SPY-4 S-band portion of DBR for the Zumwalts, but they are continuing development of SPY-4 for use on the Ford CVN-78. The Navy chose to not include BMD capability in the Zumwalts, and have since called a lot of attention to that deficiency, while glossing over the fact that they intentionally created that deficiency. Why are they playing this game of Three Card Monte?

Could it be that they might be planning to use the three Zumwalts DDGs with sqadrons of LCS in the littorals? Thats my guess. They restarted the A-Bs primarily for blue water use, where the unusual tumblehome wave piercing hull of the Zumwalt class DDGs remains unproven.

The Zumwalt DDGs are the land attack destroyers, warships with radar guns and missiles intended to fight in the littorals. Regardless what is said, the Navy is not replacing FFGs with LCS, rather they are replacing FFGs with DDGs, Arleigh Burkes and Zumwalts.

LCS might be useful against gofasts, weaponized sport fishing boats. But LCS will never bring the bigger 155mm AGS and MK57 VLS into the littorals like a Zumwalt.

What LCS does bring into the shallows is a large flight deck, large mission bay, and hangar. LCS is optimized for deploying offboard systems, manned and unmanned (helos, RIBs, UUVs, etc.), while also capable of providing lily pad FARP service for combat helos operating off larger amphibs, and they can be quickly repositioned in distributed operations.

This is why Congress should haul the US Navy in for a Hearing on the LCS debacle. Congress should cut the funding legs from it and force the US Navy to kill the LCS money pit and go with a sensible frigate with STANFLEX technology. US Navy could have gone with the US Coast Guard’s National Security Cutter. You have the US Coast Guard’s National Security Cutter that looks like Patrol frigate who can take on the Danish STANFLEX Technology if they are willing to incorporate it. Heck ‘m all for killing the LCS debacle and transfer all the funding and procurement to the US Coast Guard’s National Security Cutter program. The US navy can pay for upgrading the hull to Frigate standards and Frigate Weapons and Frigate systems. The US Coast Guard and US Navy can jointly manage the program with congressional oversight.

NSC is not an FFG and never will be. You cannot make NSC into an FFG by bolting on weapons systems. An FFG is a warship lacking some capability relative to a DDG.

HI’s proposed NSC conversion is merely an upgunned small patrol ship built to commercial standards, with a small flight deck, not capable of getting into a real fight as an FFG or DDG is, and not nearly as well optimized to deploy offbard systems as LCS is.

The Navy wants DDgs rather than FFGs. Thats why they are building Arleigh Burkes and Zumwalts.

If the Navy changes course and decides to procure some FFGs, a strong argument could be made in favor of procuring decontented Arleigh Burkes configured as FFGs, leaving significant margins for later upgrades.

There may be a case to look for a replacement for the small Cyclone class (PC-1) coastal patrol ships, but I don’t see the argument in favor of a pseudo PF patrol frigate converted from an NSC.

Dude, the LCS will never be a Frigate. The closest thing to a Frigate that this country has is the US Coast Guard’s National Security Cutter. You can make the NSC into a Frigate by upgrading it based on the Hull and design. Also using the STANFLEX technology that the Royal Danish Navy uses.

The LCS as it is now, is nothing more than a glorified Gun boat without teeth. It almost looks like the US Coast Guards 210’s and 270’s Medium Endurance cutters. If the US Navy looked at the Danish STANFLEX instead of their pipe dream modules, they would have a credible ship, but instead it has nothing more than a glorified US Coast Guard Medium Endurance Cutter.

What HI proposed is something the US Navy should have considered when the LCS price tag started to skyrocket. Who in their right mind in this tight economy would want to pay $700 Million per LCS when we can get something more economical like the $400 Million per National security cutter. The National Security cutter is the next best thing to a Frigate. She may not be a heavy frigate, but maybe a Light frigate. The only other ship that was built to Commercial standards is the French Navy’s Floréal class frigate. Which was built to commercial standards in sections and completed on time.

The Navy is too much into the LCS pipedream and needs to get away from it and go with a sensible Frigate with Littoral capability and not some Gas guzzling LCS that eats up more gas than the most expensive SUV on the road.

The US Navy is going to have to sooner or later have to realize the LCS is very expensive like the F-35 Program and take a hard serious look at the National security cutter as a patrol Frigate. With the tight budget climate we are in, I think eventually the US Navy is going to have no choice but to take on the National security Cutter as a patrol frigate.

I see their is a case for the LCS being replaced with the NSC and using the proven Danish STANFLEX system.

We’re out of the frigate business, period, end of story. The smallest “real” warship we’ll be buying is a DDG-51. The LCS has its role, and its a role that completely wastes the time of a DDG or a CG, and it has capabilities the NSC doesn’t.

Were never going to be out of the Frigate business. The LCS is a huge Gas hog and would not survive a trip through the Bearing Sea. So tell me what Role and mission would LCS play with it’s aluminum skin hull.

I do think the Navy is doing a lousy PR campaign about its modernization priorities. The LCS id do admit shouldn’t be the priority compared to the DD-1000 which altogether a Blue Water combat ship and is more powerful than the LCS can ever be. I think the Navy needs a new admiral for its PR though. A new Fleet Defense fighter is needed for the Navy and there neglecting that al together.

Who said LCS is a frigate?

What I pointed out is that LCS is optimized for deploying offboard systems, manned and unmanned (helos, RIBs, UUVs, etc.), while also capable of providing lily pad FARP service for combat helos operating off larger amphibs, and they can be quickly repositioned in distributed operations.

More DD-1000 less LCS.

The Navy should have built a modified NSC in place of the LCS for a number of reasons. Every ship class has some problems but after a few builds those problems tend to be worked out. The NSC had some structural problems but those have since been corrected– it’s now a proven design. Additionally the NSC has several design features that are far far better than what’s on the LCS. It uses diesel engines under 15 knots for fuel efficiency and only turns on the gas turbines for speeds above 15 knots. Since most naval ships rarely travel that fast during normal steaming so you get the best of both worlds. The NSC also has a stern boat ramp to recover/launch small boats in rough weather or when travelling at higher speeds. (Freedom variant does have a psuedo boat ramp but not as effective/safe at higher speeds, Independence does not). the list could go on and on…

The Navy made a huge mistake with this ship and the people who will suffer are going be the sailors onboard if it’s ever attacked. Don’t worry though we’re only building 50 of them.

When it comes to actual combat, I’d really prefer the Navy have a better armed and equipped frigate. Yet there are many “secondary” tasks the LCS is slated to do and these alone have made the LCS a needed item.

Actually the NSC will do 22 knots on diesels alone. LCSs also have diesels, but their cruise speed at least for the Lookeed version is very slow.

That’s why I believe the US Navy made a huge mistake that is going to come back decades later and bite in the big way. The US Navy should have gone with the NSC and modify it as a Light frigate. The people who are going to pay for it and suffer are those who are going to sail on board it. I’d hate to be a sailor on the LCS in a combat situation. I would rather be a sailor on a NSC that is armed to Frigate standards. Heck, the French have a light frigate called the Floréal class frigate that was built to Commercial standards and it still runs very well.

See related surface warship discussion in April 2012 Naval Institute (USNI) Proceedings. Short article titled “Shooting for the Middle” discusses USN’s need for a new surface ship class between high end (Burkes) and low end (LCS). Proposes a design for a frigate (FFG-X) roughly equivalent to the Norwegian “Fridtjof Nansen” class in size and capability. Ties in well with ongoing discussions.

At 3000 tons and $500 million a copy the LCS is an awfully large and expensive “mine countermeasure ship” or “patrol boat”. The organic offensive and defensive capabilities of these vessels are limited and survivability in all but the lowest threat level environments is highly questionable.

Do we need 3000 ton 40+ knot mine countermeasure (mother) ships or patrol ships? Utility of the design assumes that the needed mission module is aboard (or readily available) when it is discovered that it is needed. Beyond that, is the USN actually going to try to justify buying these expensive ships to chase pirates and drug smugglers?

Understand the idea of a Sea Frame with interchangeable capabilities but maybe the evolving threats around the world dictate move to general purpose frigates (3″ or 5″ gun, ESSM, SeaRAM or CIWS, ASW torpedoes, 1 helo, RIBs, and basic electronics to support these) with capability to add limited additional capabilities as needed (when situation allows).

USN has lost the ability (desire) to procure lower end vessels (frigates and corvettes) that could perform many missions performed by FFG’s and Burkes (LCS in future?). Political considerations, tight budgets, and Navy’s “gold-plated” mentality prevent procurement of vessels such as Absalon/Ivar Huitfeldt (Denmark), Aquitaine/Carlo Bergamini (France/Italy), Fridtjof Nansen (Norway), Alvaro de Bazan /Hobart (Spain/Australia), and Sachsen (Germany).

The US Navy seems to disagree with you. Times, roles and requirements change and the US Navy doesn’t need frigates anymore just as the Army doesn’t need or want a WWII styled jeep. A Hummer is really a truck, its not a small runabout. The frigate role has been consumed by DDGs. Times change, get over it.

Gas hog, sure when run flat out, cruising at 20k, not so bad. It won’t survive a trip through the Bering, so? My car can’t drive across the Sahara, horses for courses. If you want to design a ship that will handle everything, fine, I present to you a DDG. But expect to have a small fleet as a result and less ability to respond to crisis because you wanted all capabilities in all ships.

They US Navy may disagree with me, but not with Congress who hold all the checks to the LCS. The Frigate still has a role and mission that the LCS can never fulfill. Also, can we know what would happen if an Exocet went right through the LCS. It would not survive a hit from an Exocet missile

The LCS is a huge Gas hog that would rival the most expensive SUV on the road. That’s why the US Navy should have killed the LCS money pit and go with the NSC.

The Congress doesn’t seem to be complaining, strike two. The only people complaining are those who can’t see that frigates don’t have a role in high-end warfare (of H.I. employees). The only nations buying frigates are those that can’t afford more capable destroyers. So the frigate becomes their de facto high-end combatant even though its combat utility and survivability is equal to an LCS. If you think an LCS is any less tough than the typical frigate, go ask the British. They lost two, and were it not for faulty fuses, would have lost two more during the Falklands. A CG would become combat ineffective if struck by an Exocet too, and if memory serves, the UK lost a destroyer to an Exocet as well. The Stark, crippled and combat ineffective due to being hit by an Exocet. So what is your point?

No one needs the LCS and I believe what now one including the Navy knows for what the LCS is good for. The LCS is one of the freaks of the War on Terror possession/mania how has now already a think of the past. And as consequence the LCs is a Weapon how can only be used in Conflicts how are no longer relevant or better said it is a think how was created for a sphere how no longer exists them if it has ever exists. Face under military points the LCS is the most useless weapon in the US Arsenal and in the same time one of the most expensive. As example the LCS is incapable to beat an enemy surface warships how are better armed them a speed boat with a small caliber gun. It is incapable to hunt an enemy Submarines because what this option was canceled from the ASW Module as consequence it has become a pure mine hunter what cannot also hunt modern Russian Mines how are also used by Iran because of his to large magnetic signature. But this is not all the LCS is also incapable to operate on High See because why he is only safe by a wave level of 6 and she can also not be used as escort for larger Ships like Carriers because of is to low endurance and operational range.

So the real question is for what the LCs is good for and the answer is simple for nothing but the LCS is now a Program with thousands of employees and this people are also the electoral for some Congressman and they should also not forget the Billions of dollars how are in this Program and how benefited from this Money.

My conclusion is what the only rational decision is to kill the LCS immediately and buy as alternative a better armed National Security Cutter for is replace. The USA should to buy ships for a real existing threats and environments and this are in the pacific and the Persian Gulf with his already well-armed adversary like Red China, Iran and in the future also Pakistan and other states how can become enemy’s. And for this environment you will need modern Submarines, Carriers and Big Surface Warships how can face peer enemies.

Battleships and Aircraft carriers have been sunk by a single torpedo, while destroyers have survived ( just) a torpedo hit. An LCS is an order of magnitude more maneuverable than an Aegis of DDG when that torpedo is heading for you.

Exactly whose frigates are you implying
(“…combat utility and survivability is equal to an LCS…”) ?

As far as frigates are concerned, Spain sets the standard with their SPY/Aegis-equipped F100 class.
http://​www​.naval​-technology​.com/​p​r​o​j​e​c​t​s​/​f​1​00/

A DDG’s capabilities in all but name.
Barely twice the displacement of an LCS, but a phenomenal leap in firepower, sensors, and correspondingly, survivability.

And surprisingly, no more expensive than any LCS and its suite of (make believe) Mission Modules.

So it can’t run away at 40knots.
With that firepower, who needs to?

Not very green for the green nuts on fuel burn. Overly complicated for the simplicity of the mission. In the LM videos… commanded by .… an O-5 .… LOL. And, original manning assumptions were poor. That, and the paper-tiger approach to combat for something so freakin big. Gold-plated price.…:::check:::

Yeah, I can see why the current Navy leadership is willing to declare LCS a victory. That kind of delusion fits them like a glove.

And the USS Stark was able to limp back to port. Now, let’s see if the LCS can survive an Iranian small boat swarm or a Exocet Missile swarm shot from an aircraft, ship & Submarine. I doubt the LCS can survive either and would be a sitting duck no matter what. Also on top of that the LCS is a Gas hog and we don’t have oilers to accompany them. On top of that, an NSC can go from Pascagoula to San Francisco on one tank of gas. The LCS can’t and has to stop often for gas Often. Also the LCS with it’s aluminum hull, is prone to fires and can we say the USS Belknap CG-26 fire on 22 November 1975. Also, can the LCS survive a trip to the Bearing Sea. We know the NSC can and has been to the Bearing sea and back.

The LCS is like the F-35 of the Sea.

I’m looking at combat performance of frigates versus Exocets. The Stark was combat ineffective and a near loss. The British lost a destroyer to an Exocet and lost two frigates to 500lbs bombs in the Falklands. Frigates are too small for high-end warfare. Sure if your the Spanish and can only afford a small major combatant, it’ll have to do.

The USN doesn’t need frigates anymore. We do need DDG’s and CG’s for the high end work. The LCS’s is what is needed and called for on the low end. Times change, get over it.

DanS, how soon we forget the lessons of war and the need for “escorts” i.e. Frigates. What the biggest threat to oilers, supply transports and troop ship? That’s right, it the submarine. And without Frigates, escorts, they are sitting ducks.

Modern Frigate were designed for ASW escort work (with big sonars, tails, and ASW helos), they they had a measure of self defense AAW (SM-1 or Sparrow) and ASuW capability (Harpoon).

Only Flight 1 Burkes have tails, but they don’t have a helo, Flight II and IIA have helos but they don’t have a tail. so our current ASW capacity is on the wane with the coming retirement of all of the Perry class. Pretty soon the only way well find a sub is to hit it

This is not true, you are not completely wrong with your compare but the F35 is in many points different. So the F35 is useful in the entire spectrum of combat mission you can fight with hear Real Wars and also Asymmetric Wars. You are right what the F35 is very expensive and not so good in Air to Air combat in compare with the F22 or possible also with the PAK FA but the F35 still superior to the entire US Legacy Fleet (F15, F16, F18) what he should to replace and he is also enable to beat all actual (J10, J11, Su30MKI, Su27SM, SU35) and also the next generation of enemy fighters like the PAK FA and J20 and this is a big difference in compare with the LCS Program the F35 is necessary the LCS is it not.

And to make it clear I’m not a fan of the F35 but the F22 line is now because of idiots like Mr. War on Terror (Robert Gates) dead and the F35 is now the only Program how can deliver an absolutely necessary replace for the more than 25 Years old US tactical fighter fleet.

Sorry but what combat value has the LCS? So for example a DDG51 can fire theoretical 90 Tomahawk Missiles against Land and See Targets or 90 SM2/SM6 or 360 ESSM Missiles against enemy Fighters or Anti-ship Missiles and also hunt enemy Submarines and kill them with his oven Torpedo’s or with is ASW Helicopters and can also be used as ABM ship (SM3). With other Words a single DDG51 has more combat value them a fleet of 50 LCS! The entire Comparison is idiotic because the LCS would not cost about 700 Million per Ship and give one the combat value of a Harbor Patrol Boat for this money and also nearly all actual enemy Patrol Boats are better armed them the LCS. For the cost of joust one LCS the Russian build a Borei class SSBN including is 16 SLBM and this is not joke it is the shocking reality!

LCS is poorly executed program. You need stupid modules to be able make these empty chassis to be able perform the missions! All your getting is the hulls with no modules, equals wasted billions. The should been working on the modules before they accepted the designs in the first place.

Both Classes are disaster, both have its problems. Freedom is unstable, while Independence ships are vulnerable to ship fires. They should gone with conventional shallow hull Monitor like ship with majority of its equipment delivered with design with spare space to plug in future modules when they become available.

The tumble home wave piercing hull of the Zumwalt class HAS been proven! Check out the hulls of most of the pre-Dreadnaught battleships and heavy cruisers built in the 1870s, 1880s and 1890s! It was proven to be very wet in just about any kind of seas and generally a poor sea keeping design! LOL!

By the 1920s, the familiar flared clipper bow and traditional hull (like an Arleigh Burke if you will!) had come back into favor.

That’s why I am all for killing the LCS and bringing back Frigates like the National Security Cutter. At least with frigates, you can do Escorts and traditional Frigate missions in both deep water and the littoral environments. At least with the National security Cutter, it is a proven design that is in service right now and can be modified to US Navy Frigate Standards. With the addition of the Danish STANFLEX system if the US Navy chooses to go with the Danish system.

The F-35 and the LCS are two Overpriced products that the US should either put on hold or never buy until they fix all the BUGS in them.

I just checked that ELP your right the USS Freedom

blue crew
CO 0–5
XO 0–5

gold crew
CO 0–5
XO 0–5

this is fr i k en hilarious, it takes FOUR 3 stripe commanders to command a measly little LCS-no wonder this this cost so d a m n much!

so the TRUE crew is 80+ total with four commander (0–5).

I bet those commanders are real PROUD, after spending 15+ years toiling away at perfection to gain command of a warship with the awesome firepower of the LCS and what they bring to the fight, fight? What fight? I have no fight, We have no fight, we don’t need any stinking fighting, we just run away, hehehe.

Hopefully, the U.S. Navy’s submarine forces will remain in good standing while the surface navy becomes a joke.

What are most US Coast Guard Cutters are commanded by

I like the design. But it need to fix the cost in the low, periodic check on ship design material and performance; waterproofing; periodic maintenance check and numbers in production say 1000 units? It needs to have firepower like rolling missiles, rolling torpedo launchers, modern radar and networking to survive future combat against enemy/ rogue warships. And does it run on nuclear or electric for long distance at sea?

“An LCS is an order of magnitude more maneuverable than an Aegis of DDG when that torpedo is heading for you…”

Sorry, fact check.
There is no hydrophone array nor dome built into the LCS hull that can detect the noise of a torpedo when the ship is cruising on its waterjets.
So neither LCS will even hear any torpedoes.

Many current heavy torps (21″ and up) can attack at over 50 knots, FYI.
Some circles have suggested may even exceed 60knots: no LCS at 40 will outrun them, and at 40knots, won’t hear them, either.

A 20–30 knot frigate, or anything else equipped with hull-mounted sonar systems, can track an inbound torpedo and utilize a number of countermeasures systems.
The LCS’ sonar and decoy systems may work when the waterjets aren’t running, but good luck tracking, or even hearing, inbound torpedoes with those jets pumping.

It may also need Harpoon missile launchers, CWIS for its defense.

I toured the USS Alabama last week. The minimum armor thickness is 12 inches of steel. It has 9 16″, 20 5″, 48 40mm, and 52 20mm guns. I remember when the Mighty Mo was headed to the Gulf. They interviewed the captain to get his feelings about being so near the coast of Iran knowing they had Exocet anti-ship missiles. He said he was concerned because they’d definitely have to repaint that portion of the hull if one of those missiles actually hit the ship. When Regan was in office our 600 ship Navy designed its own ships. Now we spend more to keep fewer than 300 pussy ships afloat. You can thank defense contractors for that. We used to make going to the Moon look routine when NASA designed their own rockets. Now you can thank NASA and their contractors for keeping us from repeating that feat for the last 30 years. But, hell, lets keep doing exactly what we are doing, never looking back, because it is working so damn well.

Coast Guard command structure has always been top heavy and different. Plus, they don’t have that many commands (ships) so they tend to be commanded by much more senior officers then in the Navy

but think about it, leading a group of 40 doesn’t take two O-5, a group of 40 for be a department tour onboard most ships i.e. a O-3 command. Heck, even in the Corp or the Army a platoon is about the same size and it’s commanded by a O-1 or O-2

It no wonder we have more Admirals then we have ships!

That’s why most US Coast Guard Cutters that are size and similar to the LCS is commanded by a Commander or a Captain with a Lt-commander as their XO.

By the way, you could buy 7 Iowa class battleships for what one Little Crappy Ship costs. Oh wait, you could buy 7 of them, except we don’t have any shipyards capable of building even 1 battleship now, and I can’t imagine what one of our precious “defense contractors” would charge to design one of those now. More government jobs outsourced to “private industry” with brilliant consequences.

amen to that, here’s our future Navy

50 LCS-capabilities, short range defensive weapons only, limited engagement ability
Flght I Burke, full ASW suite, ASuW, AAW and strike, no aviation assets
Flight II and IIA Burke, limited ASW, AAW and two helos
Tico, full capability in all areas, ASW, ASuW, AAW, Strike, aviation, full electronic suite, but all will be retired over the next ten years

So our future is made up of
–LCS
–and various flights of Burkes with varying capabilities, no single Burke as all warfare capabilities covered, they need to be paired up for survivability

I don’t mean to rag on the Burkes here, they are great ships, but we make a huge tactical error by removing ASW and ASuW capabilities off of the flight II and IIA. So the flight II and IIA end up being AAW ships only, Maybe he flight III is fix that, we can only hope

the future is indeed grime

isn’t it amazing what we were capable of way way back then. We couldn’t even build a battleship today-we’re not smart enough, and even if we tried, it would take 20 years and the entire budge of GSA’s Vegas trip.

I think it is not privatized on those times and GM were helping on the plant production. Now we have the design of these two LCS ships. perhaps the best thing the government can do is imitate the Regan days era and we could be doing the same today and the economy could be as better.

Wow. Amazing how much the Navy resists reactivation of the IOWAs, the ultimate littoral warfare vessel. Of course there are challenges (manpower, powerplant etc). But when it comes to offense punch and survivability, nothing’s close. And they have enormoust capacity for upgrades. And, they’re PROVEN. Ready to rock. And, unlike the LCS, they can intimidate. In ’88, when the Iranian dirtbags were shooting up the oil tankers, the IOWA steamed into the gulf. And EVERYTHING stopped.

But the Luddites out there say “they’re old, therefore not useful.” Huh? Put cost, capability and limitations into a spreadsheet and let the chips fall…

No American battleship or aircraft carrier has ever been sunk by a single torpedo. To the contrary, the combat performance of American BBs and CVs has demonstrated extraordinary survivability.

Last I’ve heard they’ve all been deactivated and turned into museum ships.

The Iowas gave great service back when our Navy was at its peak in the 1980s. But look at the state of the Navy today. Could we even get the crews for them? Do we even have enough escorts for operations that close to shore now?

But regardless of *if* they could be reactivated, comparing them to the LCS is comparing apples to oranges. Even with the Iowas we’d still need frigates and ships like what the LCS is supposed to be.

Agree. We need escorts.

However, the IOWAs are absolutely “reactivat-able.” Unlike all other museum ships, they must uniquely (and by law) be maintained in such a manner they could be reactivated.

Crews and training are legitimate challenges. But far less so than the difficulties of bringing the LCS and San Antonio classes to the fleet.

There are plusses and minuses to every ship building program or strategy. Like I say. Judge the merits of the IOWAs on cost vs capability…

I loved the Iowa class BBs, but this comparison is absurd. Yeah in 1942 for $100 million you could get an Iowa class battleship. But factor in 70 years of inflation, all of the necessary electronics, sensors, and weapon systems needed to be survivable, and how much do you think it would cost? Indeed the decreased capability of American shipyards would factor into costs, but how can you blame contractors and not our leadership which puts us in these tough positions? It’s the continued failure of government which necessitates these contractors.

And without the the proper escorts the (modernized) Iowa class ships were and still would be far too vulnerable.

The LCS is far from perfect and needs more crew, heavier weapons, and the modules it was supposed to get. I think it would be wise to pair the LCS with a class of better-armed frigates, enabling the LCS to focus on performing in something of a supporting role, deploying helicopters, unmanned craft, doing minesweeping, etc.

You blame Austal/GD and LM, but who do you think had the idea for LCS? Them? No, it was some Navy officials who took the “Streetfighter” concept and turned it into a much larger ship with the desire of making it do everything.

Are you under the impression that government workers are somehow more motivated? That the blue collar workers on the factory floor somewhere are somehow lazier than government workers?

Oh sure you get all of the corporate BS in private industry, but you get a lot of red tape and “do-nothing” jobs in government.

I’d agree with you on the cost vs. capability part the rest of the Navy wasn’t also in such a bad spot. The LCS and San Antonio designs have their flaws, but the roles those ships are supposed to fill are critical. Something has got to do those jobs.

I’d happily trade 10 LCS for a reactivation of an Iowa, it would be more than worth it

One Iowa parked 12.-2 miles off of any coast will go very very far in deterring bad things from starting and even put bad things to rest very quickly

Imagine 5 years down the road, China is sabber ratting and is getting prepped to invade Taiwan, we park the Iowa 12.2 miles off of Hong Kong (with proper ASW and AAW screens, E-2s overhead, and two battle groups 50 miles away) and say we will open fire if you start anything. They WILL back down-guaranteed!

I think that the “for profit” government contractors are motivated by the contract that guarantees them $1.10 for every $1.00 they spend. If someone gave you a contract like that, what would you be motivated to do, design the best ship possible on-time and on-budget, or drag things out for as long as possible, screw as many things up as possible, and jack the price as high as possible? It’s pretty damn obvious what the defense contractor’s motivation is, don’t you think? I mean, hell, the Navy is a government agency. Are you saying the Navy can’t work because it isn’t “capitalist”? Let’s face it, if you think capitalism is anything but pure crap you couldn’t possibly advocate for a system of procurement that pays a for-profit company a profit incentive to screw the US taxpayer.

Assuming they promise not to use any ASBMs. In the real world, it’s more likely that the Iowa will look like the guy with the knife against the guy with the gun in Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Well your argument assumes a lot beyond the scope of this discussion. Suffice to say, against ANY conceivable anti ship weapon, an IOWA has a greater statistical likelihood to survive and fight than any other ship afloat or on the drawing boards. IOWAs were designed with the expectation they would be hit… As for your particular example, you give the Chinese far more credit and the US military far less credit than I.

Agreed…

We should review the hall history leaks, other problems and make any adjustments to the designs and material used on LCS when needed to make sure it will withstand the sea and combat.

Just because a design had issues in the past, doesn’t mean the technological hurdles can’t be overcome to produce a viable design that overcomes the hinderances while taking advantage of innate qualities. Like the flying wing in aviation which was considered to too be aerodynamically unstable without developements in computer controls and better computational aerodnyamics, this is atleast an attempt to apply moderns science and engineering to a 100 year old problem.

there are problems on both sides of contracts. No doubt greed is a factor but so too is the messed up way GS folks are promoted. When I was active duty I witnessed how much work GS folks will put forth so they aren’t forced to make a decision. Typical (obviously not all) GS folks will avoid making decisions like their lives depend on it which takes a terrible toll on getting anything done efficiently, whether it’s being done by active duty, other GS, or contractors. We got to get out of the habit of promoting those who never do anything wrong because that mentality rewards the GS folks who never make a decision. I’d rather see them rewarded for the # of correct decisions.

Wouldn’t the targeting systems for the weapons need to be upgraded? Yes 16″ guns are impressive but in the modern world where there’s a front page story for every stray shell that kills civilians we can’t just lob a multitude of shells in the general direction of the enemy. Is there a way to add GPS guidance to the shells like they did for the dumb bombs the Air Force used to use?

The Liscombe Bay (a 10,000 ton escort carrier) was the only US carrier sunk by a single torpedo which detonated a magazine. The Japanes lost the 60,000 ton Shinano from a single torpedo. But the only reason it sank was because the Japanese started large fans to help to evacuate fuel from ruptured fuel tanks containing volatile diesel fuel form Borneo and aircraft gasoline. I spark ignited the vapors and sent her down. The Battleship Kongo was I believe sunk by a single torpedo or maybe two which started fires that touched off a magazine. Otherwise carriers and battleships have been quite resilient untill hit by numerous torpedos and bombs.

I would like to see every small ship done away with and build more DDGs. I have worked NSCs and it is not the best thing next to a Frigate

NSCs are no where near a FFG.…I have worked NSCs, DDGs, CG and LCSs.

In a capitalist economy, greed is not considered a “problem”. It is a given. People are motivated by their own best interests. Any psychologist specializing in behavior can verify this is a trait of most living things. Only an idiot provides a monetary incentive for behavior they don’t want. Thus either our armed services are chock full of idiots, or they actually want contractors to screw over the US taxpayer. I suppose it could be a combination of both. We, as taxpayers, do not have to continue to put up with this crap. Armed with knowledge of both what is going on now and how similar weapons development programs were handled in the past, we can and should change things. If we want these changes to have a significant effect, these changes will be more comprehensive than how a GS whatever is promoted.

I’m not a battleship sailor (are there some out there), but from what I’ve read, her old targeting systems were very good. The Iowa were rated above all other battleships in this category, If you can hit a fast moving target 12 miles away then you know your system are good

During her last deployment, the old analog systems were still being used, if that tells us anything.

Some good points for both veiws here but one more to possibly consider is over the years ship hulls have gotten lighter and thinner to save money — make ships faster and more fuel efficient — and because no one forsees us getting hit (by mines or missiles), they feel our current designs are sufficient per current historical reviews (sice WWII). Thing is they thought the same for vehicles and armor until a threat pose itself in the sand box then all heck broke loose. It would not supprise me in our next conflict after two ships get hit/destroyed by mines or missiles that everyone statrts clamoring that we need to up armor all of our combat ships and bring them into the yards for extra metal and positive bouyancy to counter the added weight. Korea — china — iran and others have already used mines and we were pretty darn lucky as some were not located until later after we had passed through the mined area. This should had been a wake up call to build more survivable ships but because no one was killed it continues to be over looked and developing ROV’s are not the only answer.

There’s an interesting read here from a guy names “Rob” http://​warships1discussionboards​.yuku​.com/​t​o​p​i​c/8

bottom line, it would take quite a few well placed (i.e. lucky) heavy missile hits to mission kill the BB, torpedoes would not hurt here much.

As in any war scenario, you can’t assume that you will not get hit, but the main point here about he BB is that of all of the ships out there, she is the toughest to mission kill, and that fact alone make the task of defeating her so difficult. So yes, the BB in a modern scenario would be a threat level to the enemy which can’t be effectively countered. The ‘threat’ alone of a BB sitting a few miles off of Hong Kong and the threat of leveling the city in short period of time would cause the Chinese to s h i t in their pants because they know they couldn’t stop it before the damage was done. Just looked at history, the BB scenario worked perfectly against Sadamn. It forced him to commit a fatal error which opened the door wide open for our flanking manuever

Again I say — LCS stands for Little Crappy Ship. Question can they even cross the Pacific alone?

As far as I know, the Iowa class battleship cost $100 million in today’s dollars. It certainly didn’t cost that much in 1940’s dollars. You think the Mighty Mo needs an escort or it becomes vulnerable? Vulnerable to what, exactly? An H-bomb? The f’ing ship has 13 inches of armor. What are you going to blow it up with? The top deck is 6 inches thick. The deck above the magazine is 12 inches thick. It’s not a weapon. It’s a f’ing nightmare. You don’t wake up one day and see a ship like that floating off your coast and think, “oh, the Americans are here to do nation building.” You think, “holy s, we f’ed up this time.”

Yeah, in the museum next to the Alabama there is an SR-71. I’m looking at it thinking, what the hell has happened to this country when our best weapons sit in museums collecting dust? The Air Force and Navy can’t wait to retire every vehicle they have that can actually take a fight to our enemies. This certainly isn’t the America of the 21st Century I thought I’d be living in when I was a kid.

If you tour the Alabama, you can go below decks and see the old analog computers and gyros that controlled the guns. It looked to me like most of the work required on that ship was in the turrets themselves. They are very rusty, but still serviceable due to their very robust construction.

Damn straight! The f’ing turrets for the 16 inch guns are 18 inches thick steel on the front side. On the back where the counterbalance weight is, it’s about 4 feet thick. The deck above the magazine is at least 12 inches thick. One Iowa class in the straights would force China to go nuclear or go home. Not that they couldn’t develop a weapon to sink one, but they sure as hell don’t have that weapon now.

So where is all that money the Navy has saved us? You can buy 7 WW2 battleships for what an LCS cost, so where is the savings? Oh, you mean all that money the defense contractors have in their savings accounts? Yeah, I’m so damn happy they can get rich on my back, on the money my government took from me at the point of a gun.

hey Dfen, I do believe that only the 4 IOWA BB are kept in return to service condition by law

I don’t believe that the older BB are required to be in that condition-they are strickly museam ships now. The IOWA has been reactivated (several times) so they would be the logical one to use any way.

Here’s a theory to think about, what would happen if you take all the current Burke Technology and turn it into a Burke like Frigate. Take an existing Burke Flight I & II, Which could be the original Burkes and make modifications to Frigate standard including adding a helo hanger for Helo’s and adding ASW and ASUW. You keep the Burke line going, but make the original Burkes a Frigate

Look at missiles like the AS-4 Kitchen or AS-6 Kingfish. Both have shaped-charge warheads with nearly 2,000 lbs of high explosive. A hit on any ship by such a missile would be devastating. 13 inches of steel sounds like a lot but modern anti-tank missiles can defeat twice that thickness, certainly an AS-20 Harpoon-ski could do the same with a 300+ lb shaped charge warhead.

There are certainly benefits to having armor but it won’t protect you from modern anti-ship missiles, that’s the very reason we saw the shift away from such levels of armor. You need escorts, DDGs and FFGs.

Anti-tank missiles will defeat 2 feet of steel armor? Right. Because there are so many tanks with 2 feet of steel armor rolling around. 13 inches of steel armor doesn’t just sound like a lot, ok.

Yes, that’s true. On the up side, that makes the tour of the Alabama more comprehensive. On the down side, the turrets could probably be made to work again, but it would take a lot of elbow grease in some very tight quarters. I can only hope the Iowa class ships are being better taken care of. Oh, and speaking of the better access allowed on the Alabama, did you know that’s where much of the Steven Segal movie, Under Siege was filmed? Wasn’t he supposed to be the cook on the Missouri as it was sailing to be decommissioned in that one?

nah Nicky, the real motto of the LCS is

“Chicken of the Sea”

“Burke technology” in a frigate-sized hull with ASW capability and helo support gets you
a Spanish Alvaro de Bazan class ship.

Given that it’s an Aegis system with those SPY-1 series phased array radars,
ABM capability might not be difficult to add in.
The USN’s biggest gripe might be that it can only accomodate 1 helo.

Would you think the Spanish Alvaro de Bazan class ship be perfect for the US to try on a Burke Flight I and II. All we would copy the format that the is being done on the Spanish Alvaro de Bazan class ship to the Burke Flight I & II being that they are essentially Frigates without Helo’s

Its true they can they simply burn throught it. However a modern battleship or heavy cruiser like the Des Moines would have numerous CIWS emplacments. And im also of the opinion the navy could figure out a material to up ships resisteance to such weapons.

However remember. What made a battleship so damn tough wasnt simply its armor it was its size and design. MANY, MANY, compartments. Multiple redundances etc..

The Iowa’s actucally lack the armor of their cousins and other defenses in return for speed and endurance.

The USN could just lisence to build 50–70 absolon class vessels. Everything the Navy wants but the speed plus far more survivability, twice the range, 5x the weapons power, stanflex, etc.

Same to fewer crew actucally.

Oh its cheaper also.

So yea the speed which doesnt help at all. Does 40kts (neither ship can realisticly make 45kts in a combat situation) outrun a FAC? Nope. A ASM? Nope. Torp? Nope. Shell fire? Nope.

Infact its useless. And when used the LCS range becomes pathetic. Sure LCS 2 has better range than LCS-1 but still all the weaknesses.

We need to buy type 45s from the Britt.s ‚and also invest more into Sub.s . The Ocean is like a great big desert, where anything that is seen can be killed. The best platform for not being seen is a SUB , plus they pack a hell of an offensive punch to both land and sea targets. Surface ships are way to vulnerable in modern warfare .

Erm, what exactly is there that an Iowa class battleship can do that a carrier air wing couldn’t? Even during WWII they were used mostly as floating AA batteries. Sure, you might bring up shore bombardment, but for that you could use an old Colorado-class ship. For the cost of the four Iowas, we probably could’ve had a lot more destroyers and ended the U-boat threat sooner, or more submarines to shut down Japan’s supply lines. A battleship would be even less relevant today considering that precision munitions allow aircraft to expend less ordnance per target and thereby kill more stuff per sortie.

hey William, I’m not an expert on Russian missiles tech but I would bet you a dollar that they weren’t designed with attacking battleships in mind, there were designed to take out normal warships and carriers.

I’m not saying that a hit by one of these wouldn’t do some damage, of course it would, it would be like getting hit by an armor piercing 18in shell from the Yamamoto. But it would take many of these hits before the IOWA would be unable to fight. Look at any historical battle that involved battleships and how much damage it took to kill or cripple them. A single AS-4 might sink a cruiser or destroyer or mission kill it, and it would probably sink a frigate right away. But then again, a Perry frigate took two Exocets missiles in the same general spot and they saved that ship.

The real question is how long would it take to level a major city with a Iowa verses how long would it for the enemy to neutralize the Iowa threat? I’m guessing that you could level the financial district of a major city in about 15 minutes or less with all guns blazing. Heck, even the 5 in guns would do major damage.

What we need are more Virginia class subs made from US of A . It creates jobs and secured the country and others.

Yeah, instead of the 12 inch armor they went all the way down to 13. I’m sure they’d be a lot better if they were a materials science project.

Hey, I know, we could call their 2000 lb, 16 inch shells, UAV’s. Then suddenly they’d be cutting edge again. Because everyone knows perception is way more important than reality.

There were only 4 Iowa class BBs ever built. The South Dakota class was similar so sometimes they get lumped in with the Iowas.

I can’t believe an analog computer was anywhere nearly as accurate as GPS guidance. And now we’re using smaller bombs to reduce collateral damage. What’s the difference in collateral damage between a 250 lbs GPS guided bomb and a 16″ shell? I bet it is HUGE!

What I found is that they are not very accurate if this source is correct: http://​www​.navweaps​.com/​W​e​a​p​o​n​s​/​W​N​U​S​_​1​6​-​5​0​_​m​k​7​.ht

“test shoots off Crete in 1987, fifteen shells were fired from 34,000 yards (31,900 m), five from the right gun of each turret. The pattern size was 220 yards (200 m), 0.64% of the total range. 14 out of the 15 landed within 250 yards (230 m) of the center of the pattern and 8 were within 150 yards (140 m). Shell-to-shell dispersion was 123 yards (112 m), 0.36% of total range.”

Again see related surface warship discussion in April 2012 Naval Institute (USNI) Proceedings. Short article titled “Shooting for the Middle” discusses USN’s need for a new surface ship class between high end (Burkes) and low end (LCS). Proposes a design for a frigate (FFG-X) roughly equivalent to the Norwegian “Fridtjof Nansen” class in size and capability. Ties in well with ongoing discussions.

There are also several European designs that could meet the needs of the USN for a ship in the “Middle”. These include vessels such as Absalon/Ivar Huitfeldt (Denmark), Aquitaine/Carlo Bergamini (France/Italy), Fridtjof Nansen (Norway), Alvaro de Bazan /Hobart (Spain/Australia), and Sachsen (Germany).

From past record it shows LCS had incured cracks and leaks on its hall. Perhaps a thicker steel or other metals are needed to be research for the used of future Lithorial design and productions. Probably we should experiment with spider web silk for ship, boat and jet building. They say spider web are stronger than steal when wet.
http://​bostinno​.com/​2​0​1​2​/​0​2​/​0​6​/​c​o​u​l​d​-​s​p​i​d​e​r​-​s​ilk–

The analog computers weren’t for guidance exactly. The analog system stabilized the guns for pitch and roll of the boat (not for yaw, though, which would be very small anyway). You could do the same thing digitally, but designing the computer and program to fit into the existing system would not be trivial. In fact, if the math done on the original system is not available, basically you’d have to redo the whole model with the constraint of using the current motors and mechanical gains. It would be a challenge.

I sure the Type 45 are good ships, but they have several limitations

–small missile loadout 48 cells
–no ASW weapons on the ship ASROC or torpedoes (torpedoes are only on the helo)
–no strike weapons
–no ASuW weapons

The trimaran version is going to be a maintenance nightmare for the Navy. Those cost are NOT factored into the acquisition decision, otherwise, the Aussies wouldl have been sent home years ago.

Modern tanks use composite armor or reactive armor in order to be able to stand up to modern AT weapons. Pure steel doesn’t cut it anymore. An AShM with a shaped charge warhead weighting several hundred pounds will do some damage. It would certainly take multiple missiles to sink or cripple an Iowa class, but they’re going to be trying to swarm you with missiles anyway to overwhelm the close-in weapon systems.

The modernized Iowas were very useful and still could be providing the Navy has the funds, manpower, and could get their shipbuilding plans and strategies in order. But due to a number of reasons the Navy isn’t in that position.

Regardless escorts are still needed. Ships with the radar, networking capabilities, and missile systems to engage enemy AShMs and aircraft at long range. Ships that can also do ASW work. Just as carrier battle groups work as a team, so would any group centered around an Iowa class battleship. And that’s exactly how they deployed them in “surface action groups” back in the 1980s.

No, you’ve missed the boat completely. The way GS folks are promoted is the core problem and making more rules for them to avoid won’t solve the problem. When GS folks are promoted for avoiding decision making accountability is lost and that is what is missing. The contractors are held accountable because the GS folks who are doing their best to avoid being accountable don’t hold the contractors accountable.

The bottom line is that it’s the GS folks who are in the drivers seat on contracts and they need to own up to their decsions (or lack thereof).

let’s be READY

LCS — the joke of the Surface Navy. Pretty interesting when all of us career Surface Warfare Officers are joking that LCS stands for Littoral Cargo Ship.

My standard comment to anything printed in the New York Times is: My comrades and I from the Nickel-Deuce are still waiting for a written apology from the New York Times for printing our obituary on the front page in 1967 and still refusing to print a retraction because their source was “impecable” — Radio Hanoi, rebroadcast by Radio Peking.

What do you mean by “unstable”?

I thought it stood for “Little Crappy Ship”

Let the Coast Guard go ahead with their NCS and deploy with the fleet as they do now.
Let the big gun and war fighting capable Navy do what they do best.
How many Coasties have there sandbox ribbons from the foray of the last 10 year fiasco.

I believe he is referring to the hull design. The “Tumblehome” hull design has had, shall we say, a mixed reception. Excellent design for sea-worthy performance and certain combat conditions, but any significant damage (i.e. breached hull at or below the water-line) can result in severe stability issues.

The controversy is seemingly rooted in the poor combat effectiveness of the design from conflicts that occurred over a century ago. With modern improvements in internal structural/compartment design, the hull may not perform in such an unsatisfactory manner as its predecessors, but there is no new empirical data to support this.

Has anyone compared the LCS-1 class with the WWII Fletcher class destroyer? LCS: 3000 tons/ Fletcher: 2500 tons; LCS: one 57mm gun/ Fletcher: 5 — double 5 inch 38’s (at least put a lightweight 5/54 on the thing); LCS: crew 75 (not even enough for full watch standing)/ Fletcher: crew 300+; LCS: 47 knots/ Fletcher: 30 knots.

Ah yes.… Dont worry, Boss, we will just fix it with software! ROTFLMSAO! (“S” = silly!)

IF you had differential stabilization fins, forward and aft, you might be able to keep the hull stable fore and aft, but without the flare on the bow you will be taking spray all over the foredeck as well as that BIG TALL deckhouse! Now… make it a nice winter storm with the wind blowing off of the Greenland ice cap and all of that spray turns to ice! TONS and TONS of ice, and not even a decent handrail to grab for all of those sailors who have to go on deck to try to break off the ice and keep the ship from turning turtle! LOL! Yep, you are gonna fix that one with software and high tech… right?

And the ship does not even have those hypothetical fore/aft differential fins! LOL!

Its good design but I think they need to rethink the material used on it. Steel rust and corrode on water easily, thus can cause leaks on metals on halls of LCS.

Alluminum has alot of problems also. No flex means alot of TLC.

A modern Fletcher is probably the thing we need.

And add 4 MTHEL on it per unit for defense. one on front 2 and sides and one at back.

i have worked lcs, ddg, cg, and nsc also. also served aboard a perry class ffg. the nsc is far superior to the lcs and i believe wholeheartedly the nsc could be a viable replacement for the ffg.

keep in mind, only half of the lcs are aluminum.

LCS 2 IS UNPAINTED ALUMINUM. DO YOU NOT THINK THERE WILL BE CORROSION ISSUES?

Just a nit, but the waterjets are always pumping when the ship is underway making way. They are the only means of propulsion, discounting the APUs used for docking.

Kill both

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | Like us on , follow us on and join us on Google+
© 2014 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.