Navy Buys Four More LCS for $1.4 Billion

Navy Buys Four More LCS for $1.4 Billion

The Navy on Tuesday committed nearly $1.4 billion to buy four more Littoral Combat Ships this year even as the viability of the program remains in question.

The Navy’s Program Executive Office for the LCS announced that $699 million would go to Lockheed Martin Corp. in Fiscal Year 2014 for two of the monohull LCS designs made at the Fincantieri Marinette Marine Corp. in Marinette, Wis.

Another $684 million will go to Austal USA for two of the trimaran LCS designs made at the Austal USA yard in Mobile, Ala.


The contract awards had been expected but they come as the LCS program increasingly has come under question within the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill.

Last month, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced that the $34 billion LCS program was being scaled back from 52 to 32 ships.

Critics of the LCS have focused on costs and the survivability of the aluminum-hulled LCS in combat. Hagel said the Defense Department was now seeking “a capable and lethal small surface combatant, generally consistent with the capabilities of a frigate.”

Hagel added that “I’ve directed the Navy to consider a completely new design, existing ship designs, and a modified LCS.”

“We need to closely examine whether the LCS has the protection and firepower to survive against a more advanced military adversary and emerging new technologies, especially in the Asia Pacific,” Hagel said.

On Monday, Adm. Jonathan Greenert, the chief of Naval Operations, said he would appoint a new task force to consider recommendations for a re-design of the LCS.

In the release announcing the contract awards, the Navy continued to promote the shallow-water LCS as vital to U.S. power projection.

“The LCS is needed to fill critical, urgent warfighting requirement gaps that exist today,” the Navy said. “LCS is required to establish and maintain U.S. Navy dominance in the littorals and sea lines of communication choke points around the world.”

Four of the ships have been delivered to the Navy thus far. The LCS Freedom (LCS11) concluded its first deployment in December 2013 and is currently at its home port in San Diego.

The Independence (LCS 2) is undergoing Mine Countermeasures developmental testing in San Diego. The Fort Worth (LCS 3) is scheduled to begin initial operational testing later this month, and the Coronado (LCS 4) is scheduled to be commissioned on April 5 in Coronado, Calif.

In remarks that were considered aimed at the LCS last month, Acting Deputy Defense Secretary Christine Fox said that in the current cost-cutting climate the Navy had to take a second look at “niche platforms that can conduct a certain mission in a permissive environment.”

Fox did not name the LCS in her remarks to a San Diego conference of the Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association and the Naval Institute, but she put a premium on survivability for future Navy ships.

“The threats to surface combatants continue to grow — not just from advanced military powers, but from the proliferation of more advanced, precise anti-ship munitions around the globe,” Fox said.

Earlier this month at a Bloomberg News defense forum, two senior members of the House Armed Services Committee said Congress was likely to go along with Hagel’s plan to cap the LCS program at 32 ships and also shelve any moves to kill the program entirely.

“You’ve got a lot of people who hate the LCS” in Congress, but “one of the things we want to do is give the Navy a fair shake” on the LCS, said Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va., chairman of the House Seapower Subcommittee.

Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, agreed with Forbes that many of their colleagues would like to kill the LCS program but “that is not the consensus opinion in Congress.”

Tags: ,

Join the Conversation

Affordable garbage is still garbage.

I’m sorry but these idiots want to retire a Navy Super carrier and have one less Battle Group as the entire World is Rearming Exactly like what happened in the 1930’s. Supposedly because money is so tight even though we will still spend a lot more than anyone else in the world on our Military. They have shrunk our standing Army. Men with combat experience. And INSTEAD DECIDE to build more ships that they don’t know what they are going to do with as they are under armed. Is the Military really making these decisions?

WWII vets must be laughing their asses off, I overhead one the other day say:

“a 3,000 ton aluminum foil with a little pimple on the bow, oh, you say that a weapon boy, son back in my day our weapons were addressed by their proper name-5 inch/38 caliber”

“LCS is required to establish and maintain U.S. Navy dominance in the littorals and sea lines of communication choke points around the world.”

They keep stressing a dominance mission, which by implication is a combat mission. Why the hell did we buy something modular if the Navy keeps thinking about sending these ships to fight?

Good grief.

The modular capability, while interesting, may not be appropriate for a littoral /combat/ ship.

The Pentagon never changes.

There are plenty of ships available now from other countries that could do the job we want. But for some stupid reason the Pentagon and Congress want to continue to waste taxpayer dollars developing a brand new ship that doesn’t even match the capabilities of ships serving in other countries.

The Navy is betting on drones augmenting the sea fight as much as UAVs have begun to change how we behave at air and land. To do so it looks like the new plan is to use LCS as a drone tender with self-defense capability.

I’m not sure what the C is supposed to stand for, but…

no, the Lockhead Martin boardroom is running the DoD

It should be a requirement that the congressman himself or herself needs to have had prior service or one of their family members needs to be on active duty in some service or else they are automatically dis-qualified from voting on defense matters. No skin in the game-no vote.

When you got a dog, STOP building more! These are NOT combat ships! Don’t have the legs to stay on station or battle it out with real frigates that can easily take it down. Hell, pirates can capture one these using swords and cigar boats. The Navy should have just bought some European designs (even if they used the same two American shipbuilders) instead of talking themselves into building these big, floating target ships. But then again, this is why insurgents usually beat the big guys.

The Absalon class is a bit larger and heavier than the size of ship we need, but that seems to do the modular capability right.

You do realize that Austal is building the other LCS design which is equally screwed up right? There is more than enough blame to go around here. When both designs you get are somewhat lacking (to put it kindly) and both are still bought anyway I’m guessing the USN can’t decide what the hell it wants.

Except they don’t beat us in combat, they just out-wait us. Making COIN warfare in 3rd world nations a very long-term and costly thing rarely worth the effort.

Even lacking in firepower as it is the LCS could deal with some pirates, but a warship is expected to do more than that.

Yep, exactly. If you’ve not read “Prophets of War” yet, you should — it shows just how deep the rot really is.

Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, agreed with Forbes that many of their colleagues would like to kill the LCS program but “that is not the consensus opinion in Congress.”
=============================================
Of course not. Representatives for anywhere in the nation where the parts of these known-to-be-inadequate ships are purchased from (or are being built) is going to be in favor of them *despite* the fact that EVERY single watchdog agency the US has (including the navy itself) and our formerly interested-in-LCS allies say they are not worth the money spent, or are otherwise incapable of performing the missions commanders are likely to send them on.

National security and/or seeing to it the taxpayers money is being well spent is obviously not the priority, while continuing an obvious/flagrant corporate welfare programs is.

If we’re just fighting pirates, then you buy more PC-1’s. You don’t need long range self-deploy just to fight pirates.

Modularity is the only way we’re going to be able to keep ships for expected life (30 years). The average age of surface combatants, excluding carriers of course, is 23.5 years. That’s awful! Modular does not mean less capable. Quite the opposite.

Down to $340 million a piece and you’re still complaining about the price. Tell me, exactly how much should the Navy be paying for these? Because that price is fantastic for 3000 ton ship no matter how you cut it.

The same watchdog agency’s that knocked the program’s cost per hull on the first 2 ships (prototypes!)? Clearly they had a firm grasp of ship construction. I’m sure their understanding of modularity and naval warfare will also prove to be equally proficient. True soothsayers.

Also, stop with the garbage about allies saying it’s not worth the money. Just because allies didn’t want to invest in an unproven design doesn’t mean they aren’t interested. They just needed to see how it performed on a deployment. http://​thediplomat​.com/​2​0​1​4​/​0​3​/​u​s​-​j​a​p​a​n​-​t​o​-​j​o​i​ntl

LPS Littoral Patrol Ship. Would this appease you?

“They don’t know what they’re going to do with”

You mean besides replace the Avengers and defend against FAC/FIAC (no current capability in the US Navy)? I’ll admit the ASW mission has been a moving target (no pun intended) since the onset, but the SUW and MCM missions are very well defined and understood.

If anyone was waiting to see hoe the LCS will performed before they bough one, they have seen enough and kept looking for a better alternative.

You act as all the allies navies, all US watchdog, and navy inspectors are idiots, and you are the only genius that really gets it.

And how the LCS functioned on deployment wasn’t anything to brag about.

I’ve read the article you reference, and maybe YOU should go and re-read the last few paragraphs. The Japanese are certainly looking to build a littoral-style warship — but are keenly aware of the problems with the current design of US models. They will be working with the US, but due to the unhappy reception LCS has received (from everyone, excluding the few LCS cheerleaders such as yourself), they will be looking to correct its deficiencies so that they don’t make the same tragic mistakes.

Cheers

As mentioned in previous postings on previous threads, calling it a “combat ship” when its ever so obviously not, represents either very poor marketing — or worse — a cynical attempt to defraud the taxpayers.

The Japanese are not the only ones. And the Independence Variant hasn’t even deployed.

I’m not saying they’re idiots but they’re ignoring, just as the cost estimators did in 2004, what impact modularity has. Where the cost estimator was originally one of the first to staunchly criticize the LCS, he’s now one of the loudest supporters of the program because of how much money it’s saved when compared to traditional ship acquisition programs. Armchair Admirals with no tolerance for change. Too bad, they’re getting them anyways. They’re better off supporting the program to ensure the deficiencies, existent on the first of class of EVERY class EVER built, get addressed quickly. History has shown that if you choke off funding you end up with a worse class of ship than if you would have put your foot on the accelerator early. The longer you wait the more it costs until you can’t afford it.

What do you call defending against FAC/FIAC? Afternoon tea?

Of course you do. The current trend of attacks has them occurring further east from the Gulf of Aden and into blue water. The PC’s don’t have the legs to stay out there long enough. Below is a great map showing how the trend is going. They’re starting to come from other countries including India.
http://​www​.mestrategicperspectives​.com/​w​p​-​c​o​n​t​ent

oh Tomcat can you actually back up what you say, or is this simply more Lockhead Martin talking points?

’”History has shown that if you choke off funding you end up with a worse class of ship than if you would have put your foot on the accelerator early. ”

Pirates achieved those ranges using tenders (which would be required if we used FAC’s with very little endurance and short range…however, all the Yellowstones are toast). If anything, that’s how they brought the problem under control: a combination of guards aboard ships and systematic elimination of tenders and dhows to bring them back out of blue water.

Straits of Malacca is always worrisome due to the absurd amount of traffic, a single very small chokepoint and a large number of islands to hide out in. However, it also means that the Singaporeans can intercept with fast attack craft.

FOUR YEARS AGO
The U.S. Department of Defense’s Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E), stated in 2010 that the ships are ‘capable of operating “in a benign environment,” but not effective, suitable and not survivable in a combat situation’.[5] The DOT&E found in 2011 that the class’s first ship, USS San Antonio, had several deficiencies which rendered it “not operationally effective, suitable, or survivable in a hostile environment”

TWO YEARS (and four hulls) LATER http://​www​.defenseindustrydaily​.com/​l​p​d​1​7​-​r​e​l​i​abi

I know what I’m talking about. How about yourself?

The curbing of piracy was done at a HUGE cost. Combined Task Forces 150 and 151 were reactionary forces done at a huge cost to the participating nations. Sending flat tops, CG, and DDGs is not only expensive, but it detracts from the readiness to perform more pertinent missions. Had LCS existed a decade ago it would have been perfect for the job.

Piracy will not be going away. You treat it for a while then it comes back somewhere else. East Asia, as you’ve noticed is already a hotbed again. While I agree that Singapore should handle their AOR, the reality is they’re already turning to the US for help in securing the maritime passageways. Navy Region Center Singapore was setup for this exact reason.

Many of LCS’ modules weren’t intended for the piracy mission at all. Its non-MCM, non-ASW modules are for blowing up small boats, which require that the LCS be on station to deliver firepower. But the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden are huge places, and a substitution vessel for vessel of frigates and the like with LCS’ is probably cheaper than a carrier, but not necessarily cheaper than a frigates and tenders combination.

The strength of the LCS is helicopters. If it can deploy something small and light and numerous quantities of them it will have considerable maritime patrol capability…without a single module. At which point, we are just shoehorning it into this niche because it’s the smallest boat we could spare. We converted freighters into helipad bases during the Tanker War, and conceivably a repat of this would work here as well. Using amphibs in this role would be helpful as well-and a full-sized amphib can be used to launch marine landing parties as required, or to serve as bases for special operations. I presume the plan is to use LCS for this as well.

You lost me a bit. The SUW mission package (Increment II) includes 2 X 30 MM guns, 1 X Surface Missile Module, 1 X Helo, 1 X VTUAV, and 2 X RHIBs. Besides the Missile Module everything else is great for Maritime Interdiction Operations.

“The strength of the LCS is helicopters…”

I much rather see it as its weakness. The USN has made the ship too dependent on its 2 Sea Hawk helicopters to predominantly be involved in every mission the ship conducts, and no SeaHawk variant has 100% readiness 100% of the time.
It wouldn’t be so bad if the LCS actually had 1/2 dozen helos carried, but even if they reduce the flight wing to unmanned Fire Scouts, you still aren’t deploying even 1/2 dozen of the smaller ones, or 1-for-1 for the Sea Hawks if it’s the newer Bell 407-based C-models.
The flight deck of the trimaran may offer more than adequate space for all the helo ops you could want; they’ve safely shown Stallions can operate from it, but the hangar capacity is the limiting factor.
The monohull doesn’t fare so well in helo ops.

A $370-400M (not counting any mission package) solution to fight off $25k-50k speedboats? Seriously? LCS? With what armament? The 2 x 30mm popguns that come with the surface warfare package? The 57mm that failed so miserably in Canadian testing? The Cyclones, for their size, are far more heavily armed and can go into shallower water than LCS, and cost vastly less.

We’d have been better off to start with the Cyclone class, improve on it, and work our way up from there. The better size for seriously dealing with littorals would be somewhere in between LCS and Cyclones (maybe around 2000 tons).

I’m failing to see the argument…do away with technological advancement and revert back to a mid-20th century military?

$340-$345, it says is right there in the article PW.

As for the armament on the LCS being able to successfully engage FAC/FIAC. Popguns?! A 30 mm HE round will neutralize a small GRP craft with no problem. And at less than $100 a shot that’s fantastic.

He has none. Big Dean likes his 16 inch guns, torpedo belts, and excessive tonnage. And yes that’s exactly his argument.

Wish they would kill LCS forever! Like GCV MMCV and JLTV on the land side this is a none problem that brass is making a problem for there own financial gain. We don’t need inferior boats and LCS should just be called a boat.

I keep saying More DDG-1000 a lot less LCS!

Answer this question truthfully, Tomcat. If you had to choose one or the other, and if you had a 19 year old son or daughter, would you rather see him/her serving on a Burke class destroyer, or one of the LCS designs?

I would prefer them serve on the ship that’s least likely to be attacked. An LCS. It’s well known that the order that ships are targeted are Carrier, Gators, CGs, DDGs, FFGs, and then everything else. A multimillion dollar Chinese ballistic Anti Ship Missile was designed to sink a carrier one of 11. They won’t waste them messing with a low threat LCS. The more critical the ships role is (Ballistic Missile Defense, AAW, etc.) the higher the value is.

One word…LOBBYISTS

Its massive overkill even at $340M. A reasonably large swarm would saturate an LCS and we’d be out $340M, plus the cost of whatever mission package is aboard. Some of the disposable shoulder-fired weapons we put in the field would do some major damage to what is called LCS (either variant).

LCS only looks cheap compared to a DDG, and ridiculously expensive compared to a Cyclone.

The point is that the LCS lacks firepower from its main gun. The 57mm failed miserably in Canadian testing (good thing that target wasn’t shooting back!).

A 76mm, similar to that mounted of the Skjold-class missile boats would be *much* better.

The modularity is icing on the cake. The LCS “seaframe” design was driven by competing needs to have large cargo, low draft, fast speed and long range.

Did you take a look at the otobreda 127/64 5in gun lately? With a vulcano round you get up to 100km range.

The problem is not its modular approach but how it have been implemented. But like you said it’s the icing on the cake as the seaframe is at first to blame. They make a ship to be modulable but there is limited flexibility when it come to firepower. The main gun can’t be directly upgraded with a bigger one like the 76mm because of lack of space and designing a variant defeat the concept of modularity.

But for less than 1%of the time I have to agree with xXTomcatXx, designing a ship to be upgraded in the future is critical, but in today’s world it should be more about interfaces, that doesn’t make the LCS’s approach any better than what it is right now. Something like the fremm would be way better. It’s not like you are going to strip the boat of its armament every 10 years because of technical improvement.

Someone owes Lockheed Martin a favor or gets a big piece of the pie for allowing this crap to be built for our sailors. Reminds me of Randal “Duke” Cunningham who was on the military appropriations committee former Navy Ace who took millions in bribes from defense contractors. Duke is in prison.

Fire these people. Something is going on.

I’ve heard about there not being enough room to upgrade the 57mm gun — especially on the Austal variant, but I’ve also read (in all fairness) that according to the builders (Lockmart and Austal) that simply isn’t true — which was also echoed by a navy investigator.

The sea-frames are the main problem (armament can usually be upgraded), because they are only built to the lowest navy standard there is — Level 1. That said, it is important to note that common fleet oilers are built to the Level 2 standard (as were the OHP Frigates), and they aren’t even combatants.

Hence — I consider up-gunning or adding weapons to LCS to be a dubious idea: its like adding a floor to a house with a weakly built foundation (no responsible architect or builder would recommend such a thing). When it comes to the mission packages — they represent a huge chunk of the expense — and one would think it would be reasonable to want to salvage a mission package if the LCS were damaged and had to retire from battle.

Instead, as the navy itself put it, LCS, if damaged in battle, would be sufficiently strong to allow the crew to abandon ship before it sinks (poor marketing at its best, and totally uninspiring IMO).

And LCS, by some, is considered “cheap”, at $340M, which is only true if you compare it to a DDG or CG. But its massive overkill for littoral operations: we should’ve started with the Cyclones, and built up from there to a ship of maybe up to 2000 tons. Cyclones are far better suited to killing off swarms of small boats ($25M, 372 tons, and armed to the teeth for its size) compared to an LCS (3000 tons, weakly armed, even with the surface warfare package). And when it comes to the mission of using LCS to support special operations: if the Cyclones were considered too big for supporting SoF’s, then that mission for LCS is DOA.

I like the modularity idea a lot — but the platform they opted to put it in is weak. If they weren’t sure — they could’ve bought more of the Sea-Fighters (high-speed catamarans) to experiment on before committing so much taxpayer money on these dubious platforms.

Can someone please explain to me exactly what these ships are supposed to do? Who are they supposed to intimidate?

AMEN Brother, More DDG’s.

Intimidate? LCS? LCS won’t intimidate *any* naval adversary: there are considerably smaller platforms that would clean its clock long before LCS even got into range to use its proven ineffective 57mm gun.

LCS *might* intimidate a pirate or other such non-naval adversary — or possibly a small swarm of cheap speedboats. But its weakly armed (even with its “surface warfare” mission package), by any measure (unless of course, the adversary is unarmed).

To answer the question how is responsible so it is a group of idiots of the “War on Terror clique” in the DOD and the USN for this madness and not Lockheed Martin. The original Lockheed Design for the Freedom class was armed with 8X Harpoon, 2X fix installed Triple Torpedo Launchers, 2X 30mm canons, 40X VLS-Cells for ESSM Missile’s, 1X RAM-CIW, 1X 76mm Canon, 2X ASW Helicopter. Hear all three LCS concepts proposed by Lockheed.
http://​cimsec​.org/​w​p​-​c​o​n​t​e​n​t​/​u​p​l​o​a​d​s​/​2​0​1​3​/​0​3​/​LCS–

The DOD/Navy instead dropped all three Concepts in favor of an unarmed hull with a 1X 57 canon and a RAM-CIW. One this time the entire US Military and Political class was in a War on Terror/Asymmetric Warfare Mania and everything what looked like a Symmetric Warfare Weapon was canceled. So the LCS was designed for an environment how only existing in the minds of the “War on Terror clique” a world in what the most advance enemy surface ships was a Iranian Boat for suicide attacks or a small Trawler with a Group of Terrorist on Board equipped with AK47 and RPG7 so the LCs was designed to deal with this kind of threat. The truth is what with such stupid/insane lawmakers and Military’s the USA didn’t need any additional enemy’s.

The good news are what the Asymmetric Warfare Mania look to be over and the USA has finally seen what Red China build a blue water fleet in order to beat the US Supremacy one Sea and they are even reedy to fight for uninhabited rocks as the so called “partner” Russia just started to invade is neighbors in order to rebuild is Soviet-empire.

I agree about testing. But based on the cyclones? They got a 15year service life, it’s way too short. I think they should use a frigate design instead.

I like how they fremm sacrificed space for easier maintenance and upgradibility, and how the design is flexible enough to provide more capable ship like the Italian did, or a cheaper version like the moracan, which is €122M cheaper than the french version.

So an approach like this adapted for the specific need will work, but it should have enough firepower to remain relevant in worsening condition, and to be a dissuasive force; two things the LCS lack.

That’s why I’d suggested using the Cyclones as a *starting point* (in other postings w/r/t this topic): they’re much smaller. much cheaper, and have far more firepower given their size.

For a littoral mission, I’m thinking smaller is better — maybe between 1500–2000 tons.

Cheers.

Why more DDG-1k? They are as unproven and broken in how they were built as the LCS is. The DDG just has actual combat capability thanks to its VLS.

The Gun is a joke, still jams all of the time and fires a “Round” that is 7ft long an can be fired by nothing else on the planet and can only reach 60mi not 100mi like it was supposed to. In short its a rocket launcher not a cannon. Its not even really a rocket assisted projectile.

Its main premise is that it’s a Stealth Destroyer.…a destroyer that happens to mass as much as a heavy cruiser and as large as a WW2 battleship. However it can blend in.…in the busiest shipping zones of the world and then fire missile after missile (none of which are stealthed) at a enemy who will then fire at it.

It has a rather large lack of CIWS as has been noted before. Oh and while the hull is rather well protected from the side the deck house for 2 of them is made of balsa wood. This is where the brain is and its the size of a apartment complex…nice target.

Oh and its hull is still a unknown for some. Past evidence however notes a problem with the tumblehome hull wanting to go under the waves not over it. So it may well sink itself in any but the calmest seas.

She has a lot of nice tech which we need but the ship it’s the best.

One word.…Politicians

Can’t argue PW; if I had my way we’d let them finish the one’s actually under construction and paid for and that would be IT. I’d use the one’s we have for drug enforcement or some such similar duty and, I’d relable the for what they are.…Patrol Boats (oversized I grant). Then again, I might take the tri-maran hulled class and have it run with the new Zumwalt class DDG’s, we could call it the “Ugly Early Squadron”

Someone is getting paid off well to build these ships. A lot of money to chase pirates around. Otherwise, the Chinese will shred these poorly armed ships.
What a joke our national military authorities are. Reduce the defense budget first by getting rid of useless admirals and generals.

Depending on how good adversary anti-ship cruise missiles are, it may take a missile boat or two, or even a larger FAC/corvette. An FAC bigger than the intended strawman speedboat might present problems.

Cyclone or ambassador class FAC. Probably something bigger than the ambassadors, especially if the Navy stubbornly insists on self-deploy.

The LCS might even live on as a fast minesweeper…or a fast minelayer, if necessary. And a drone tender, which will be nice to have.

It doesn’t much matter if it’s tumblehome. Buoyancy will always bring it back up. I agree that really it’s a ‘cruiser’, however ships are often under-classified to make them politically acceptable. Much like the British Type 22 Frigate and the Russian missile cruiser which was really a carrier.

The problem with the DDG is the cost. Roughly, you can get many LCS for the cost of one DDG.

Cost for an LCS: Around $400–500 million per unit
Cost for a DDG1000: Around $2–2.5 billion per unit after the first few of class
Cost for a later version DDG Arliegh Burke 3: Around $1.6 billion

You’re talking 4 or 5 LCS for one DDG1000.

Not exactly.

What a lot of people on this board never seem to mention is that these ‘little crappy ships’ are larger than WW II destroyers that bristled with guns and torpedoes. In fact they displace 500 tons more than a Fletcher class. In Vietnam a Fletcher class ship was often requested by the Army to serve as a divisional fire support asset.

The LCS was designed for the Admirals that don’t want a ship that might be called upon to provide gun fire support to forces on the shore. In their view, it is too dangerous for a ship to be that close to the enemy. Hence the popgun armament. Yes, it’s an oxymoron. ‘Shallow waters’ are pretty much always going to be found next to the bad guys you want to operate against, but hey no guns = no requests for fire support.

Excessive tonnage? Which class are you talking about? The LCS is about 20% larger than a WW II destroyer.

I read many of these comments and laugh… how many of you have ever served in the U.S. Navy? Some of you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Just like EVERY OTHER development hardware program, the LCS has its issues. And they WILL be fixed at some point. But I sit here and laugh because you so quickly forget about.… let’s see.… the M2-Bradley, the MH-22 Osprey, the M-16 a1 rifle, the Spruance Class Destroyer, the F-18c fighter, and so many more programs. ALL of those and more went through, if not the same level, then even MORE problematic growing pains than the LCS has.

AND to top it off, do you really think the classes of ships the LCS is replacing is better? I.E. Knox Class Reserve and Oliver Hazard Perry class Frigates which have ALL been completely and utterly disarmed and nutered.

While LCS still has a ways to go and still needs better fighting weapon capability, I see no major issues with the design overall — and I DID serve on Guided Missile Destroyers through the 1980’s

I think the tri-maran version needs to be killed off.. First, there is no reason to have two different hull designs in the class. And compared to the standard V hull design, it reduces deck space and requires a lot of specialized parts due to its odd shape and design.

People forget how and why Germany, Italy and Japan became the AXIS.…. Europe and the Pacific boiled into a war that was vicious and costly. We can’t muster a Battle Group that is strong and able to stand tall o its own. As a example .…. at the close of WWII we had an Amphibious force that numbered early 6000 commissioned ships or about 33% of all the ships in the USN .….. Today we could not even muster 40 ships to form a real Amphibious Assault force .….. Then we would need a covering force of BB’s, Cruisers.… destroyers and others needed to protect the landing force.…

Gone are the days of having a big stick ad have the guts to use it. .…..

For the money spend on a ship that cannot fight or survive we could have updated an an existing FFG.

*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.